Codex Vaticanus Says What?!

Matt 27:49b contains an unusual textual variant that is found in manuscripts 01, 03, 04, 019, 67, 1780, 2586, 2680, 2766.  In at least two of these (1780 and 2766) a later corrector tried to remove the variant reading.  The variant reading is the addition of the following: "αλλος δε λαβων λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πλευραν και εξηλθεν υδωρ και αιμα"  (67, 1780, 2586, and 2680 have αιμα και υδωρ rather than the reverse). The literal meaning of the Greek is "another took a spear and pierced his side, and out came water and blood" (or blood and water, if you change the order of the words).

We know that Jesus' side was pierced with spear from John 19:34, which states:

ἀλλ᾽ εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἔνυξεν καὶ εὐθὺς ἐξῆλθεν αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ

But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

The issue that arises is that in John's account, this takes place after Jesus was already dead, whereas at Matthew 27:49b, the event appears to come right before Jesus dies.  This would create a synoptic problem.

Unfortunately, some King James Version advocates have started to make claims like this (link to start of quotation): "There are really hard readings in Vaticanus, where Jesus didn't die on the cross. He died from a spear in Vaticanus."

It's hard to take this kind of claim seriously.  Even assuming that the variant reading of Matthew 27:49b were original, the text would only seem to imply that Jesus was killed by the spear thrust while on the cross.  Moreover, the blood and water (or water and blood) was an indication that Jesus was already dead when he speared.

Moreover, each of 01, 03, 019, 2680, and 2766 (namely all of the manuscripts that have the variant at Matthew 27:49b and have John 19:34 transcribed in INTF in any form) have "αλλ εις των στρατιωτων λογχη αυτου την πλευραν ενυξεν και εξηλθεν ευθυς αιμα και υδωρ" (or something very similar) at John 19:34.

So, while Vaticanus (aka 01) has an unusual variant at Matthew 27:49b, Vaticanus in John 19:34 affirms that the spear thrust was after Jesus' death.  Indeed, none of the witnesses to this unusual variant alter John 19:34.  Manuscript 04 (Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus) lacks John 18:36–20:25.  Manuscript 67 lacks John 6:65 to 21:25).  I have not determined why 1780 and 2586 are not transcribed at John 19:34.  Both manuscripts are available online. 

Other KJV advocates have made similar claims.  Peter S. Ruckman, "The Scholarship Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Professional Liars?" p. 275 (endnote at p. 438 - caps and italics are Ruckman's): 

Who really "slew" Christ? Com'on? Never mind what some deceived dunce thinks is a "problem" in the AV  text. Who killed Jesus Christ? His death is attributed (by Stephen) to the Jews (Acts 7:52). Simon Peter blames it on the Jews (Acts 3:15). On some level they must have slain him, for Paul says the same thing in 1 Thessalonians 2:15; but fact it, I mean like a full-grown, adult male, the Romans tried Him, the Romans whipped Him, the Romans nailed him, and the Romans stuck the spear in his side after he was dead--INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT SINAITICUS (א) AND VATICANUS (B) have the Roman soldier piercing Christ's side WHILE HE IS STILL ALIVE?[EN12]

(There are those two "great" uncials that White says are "vilified." Go sit on a tack, kid).

[12. Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 33-34 and The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, p. 80.]

Rather than address Ruckman's assertions, better to go to his source for this particular matter, Burgon.

Burgon writes (The Revision Revised ..., pp. 33-34):

We shall perhaps be told that, scandalously corrupt as the text of א B C D hereabouts may be, no reason has been shown as yet for suspecting that heretical depravation ever had anything to do with such phenomena. That (we answer) is only because the writings of the early depravers and fabricators of Gospels have universally perished. From the slender relics of their iniquitous performances which have survived to our time, we are sometimes able to lay our finger on a foul blot and to say, 'This came from Tatian's Diatessaron ; and that from Marcion's mutilated recension of the Gospel according to S. Luke.' The piercing of our Saviour's side, transplanted by codices א B C from S. John xix. 34 into S. Matt, xxvii. 49, is an instance of the former, — which it may reasonably create astonishment to find that Drs. Westcott and Hort (alone among Editors) have nevertheless admitted into their text, as equally trustworthy with the last 12 verses of S. Mark's Gospel. But it occasions a stronger sentiment than surprise to discover that this, ' the gravest interpolation yet laid to the charge of B,' — this 'sentence which neither they nor any other competent scholar can possibly believe that the Evangelist ever wrote,' [fn1] — has been actually foisted into the margin of the Revised Version of S. Matthew xxvii. 49. Were not the Revisionists aware that such a disfigurement must prove fatal to their work ? For whose benefit is the information volunteered that ' many ancient authorities ' are thus grossly interpolated ?

[FN1 Scrivener, Plain Introd. p. 472.]

Burgon further writes (The Last Twelve Verses ..., p. 80:

2. To the foregoing must be added the many places where the text of B or of א, or of both, has clearly been interpolated. There does not exist in the whole compass of the New Testament a more monstrous instance of this than is furnished by the transfer of the incident of the piercing of our Redeemer’s side from S. John xix. 24 to S. Matth. xxvii., in Cod. B and Cod. א, where it is introduced at the end of  ver. 49,— in defiance of reason as well as of authority [fn t] “This interpolation” (remarks Mr. Scrivener) “which would represent the Saviour as pierced while yet living, is a good example of the fact that some of our highest authorities may combine in attesting a reading unquestionably false [fn u].”

[FN t "αλλος δε λαβων λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πλευραν, και εξηλθεν υδωρ και αιμα. Yet B, C, L and א contain this!]

[FN u Coll. of the Cod. Sin., p. xlvii.]

The characterization of the text appearing in Matthew being "transfer" or being "transplanted" is an erroneous characterization, when the same manuscripts maintain John's reading in John.  On the other hand, one can understand why Burgon, agreeing with Scrivener that the reading is "unquestionably false," would be upset that it would be listed in the margin.

Likewise, James Snapp, Jr. wrote:

When Snapp says, "In real life, if the Alexandrian variant in Matthew 27:49 were adopted, you can kiss the doctrine of inerrancy good-bye," one wonders what Snapp is thinking.  Even if it were original, one could easily resolve the apparent conflict without discarding the doctrine of inerrancy.  There are more challenging synoptic problems than this.  

Burgon goes on to write at length on the variant in The Last Twelve Verses... at Appendix (H)(p. 313-18).  I won't reproduce the entirety of the Appendix, but suffice to say that Burgon goes on to mention that Matthaei explains this as possibly an interpolation based on Lectionary practice (TLTV, p. 313). However, Burgon goes on to explain that based on finding a manuscript that has the variant reading in a marginal reading and ascribes it to Tatian, Burgon is convinced and suggests that Tatian's Diatessaron is the source of this parallel corruption.

If Burgon were correct in assigning this corruption to Tatian's harmony of the gospels, known as the Diatessaron, then this is a Syrian reading.  I'm not convinced it was Tatian's harmony that is the source of this issue, but it does seem to be a kind of parallel corruption caused by a lectionary, harmony, or similar source that combined Matthew and John's material and led an early scribe to insert the material, presumably from memory. Metzger's Textual Commentary, p. 59, concurs that it is likely an insertion from memory. On the other hand, Philip W. Comfort's NT Text and Translation Commentary p. 87 thinks the omission in later manuscripts is the result of tampering with the text and suggests that the text should be included, at most with single brackets rather than the double brackets proposed by WH.

It is certainly difficult to explain the reading as being a memory of John 19:34 for reasons that Comfort identifies.  However, that does not rule out the reading as a memory of a gospel harmony or summary for catechetical or liturgical purposes.

*** 

Updated January 19, 2025:

Nick Sayers was kind of enough to send comments regarding this blog post:

Nick wrote: 

I was mentioning that he did die on the cross but not from the effects of the cross but from a stab wound, but I didn't mention that in every place. 

Nick then provided a link to his recent video: (Final) Examining: Cultish - Part 2: Answering KJVO With Wes Huff‬ by Nick Sayers Are We Cultists? 

I offer the following cleaned-up transcription:

1:52:05-43

sometimes it's just these scribes were just bad: having Jesus die from being stabbed in Codex Vaticanus and not dying on the cross -- not dying from you know the crucifixion but dying from being stabbed -- is -- it's bizarre -- it's strange but I don't actually think that the devil was there behind the Scribe. I think the Scribe just made an error, inserted something in there that made that so, and then you're just left with this dumb manuscript that has this dumb reading in it. That's all.

While I appreciate the nuance that Nick is offering here, he's still wrong because Codex Vaticanus does not say that the spear thrust was the cause of death, nor that it was the cause of death to the exclusion of being crucified.  Moreover, even if something accelerated death on the cross, the person was still considered to have been crucified (recall that the thieves' legs were broken to hasten their death).  And we know that Jesus died unusually quickly for a crucified person, even if the variant reading is not original. 

Even if the variant were original, and even assuming that the variant were to be understood as recording an event chronologically in order, Jesus still cries and gives up the ghost in verse 50, thereby surviving for at least a short while.

Recall:

Matthew 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

Mark 15:37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Notice that there are some differences amongst these accounts, but they are not contradictions.

More specifically:

Matthew

• Co-crucified Thieves mock (vs. 44)
• Three hours of darkness (vs. 45)
• Jesus quotes Psalm 22 after the darkness (vss. 46-47)
• Vinegar given to Jesus (vs. 48)
• Jesus cries and gives up the ghost (vs. 50)
• Centurion sees Jesus die and the earthquake (vs. 54)
• Joseph requests Jesus' body from Pilate and Pilate commands it (vs. 58)
• (No test of death or request for confirmation of death)

Mark

• Co-crucified Thieves mock (vs. 32) 
• Three hours of darkness (vs. 33)
• Jesus quotes Psalm 22 after the darkness ( vs. 34)
• Vinegar given to Jesus (vs. 36)
• Jesus cries and gives up the ghost (vs. 37)
• Centurion sees Jesus die, no mention of earthquake (vs. 39)
• Joseph requests Jesus' body from Pilate (vs. 43)
• Pilate questions whether Jesus is dead so soon (vs. 44)
• Centurion confirms (vs. 45)

Luke

• Co-crucified malefactors mentioned (vs. 33)
• Vinegar given to Jesus (vs. 36)
• One malefactor mocks, the other believes (vss. 39-43)
• Three hours of darkness (vs. 44)
• Jesus cries "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" and gives up the ghost (vs. 46)
• Centurion sees Jesus die, no mention of earthquake (vs. 46)
• Joseph requests Jesus' body from Pilate (vs. 52) (Pilate's response is not provided, but impliedly request is granted)

John

• Malefactors mentioned (vs. 18)
• Vinegar given to Jesus (vs. 28-30)
• Jesus says "It is finished" and gives up the ghost (vs. 30)
• Pilate orders legs to be broken to make the crucifixion faster (vs. 31)
• Soldier sees Jesus is already dead (vs. 33)
• Soldier pierces Jesus' side (vs. 34)
• Joseph requests Jesus' body from Pilate and Pilate grants (vs. 38)

As you can see, these are not four photocopies of one another.  Was Jesus given/offered vinegar before the darkness or after the darkness?  Pilate's involvement is also differently described in each.  What was the last sound from Jesus' lips? 

I certainly concur with those who say that including the variant at Matthew 27:49b creates a synoptic challenge, but it is no greater than the challenge of the vinegar or of Pilate's involvement.  There are two resolutions:

• Matthew was not recording the spear thrust in chronological order of the overall narrative, but rather as a section on the soldiers' actions (i.e. one soldier offered Jesus vinegar, another speared him).
• John is not implying that spearing took place when the soldiers came to Jesus to break His legs, but instead that the effects of the previous spearing were visible, both water and blood having exuded from the wound.

Likewise, Matthew's account does not mention any posthumous test of death, just that the centurion saw it (link).  Mark mentions that Pilate asked the centurion whether Jesus was already dead and that the centurion confirmed it, but does not describe any further test (link). 

Nick also linked to a second point in the same video.  My cleaned-up transcript of that section reads:

3:06:06-22

If you've got a reading like in Vaticanus that says Jesus died from being stabbed, not that he died from the effects of being on the cross like all the other Bibles say, then that's just wrong.

I reiterate my points above.  Additionally, Vaticanus is not all alone in this reading, as also set forth above.

Nick also pointed to his first video in the response to Cultish:

16:20-43

Now for me, I see Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as just as bad as this. They're old documents but they're very corrupted. Say with Vaticanus, Jesus doesn't die on the cross. He dies by getting a spear in his side: that's how he dies. So - but they don't put that in the modern Bibles do they!

And a second place in the same video:

3:47:32-49

When Vaticanus says that Jesus didn't die on the cross, he died from a spear wound, or he didn't die from the cross, he died from a spear wound, couldn't that be someone putting some sort of bizarre weird thing into the text 

A couple of thoughts:

First, I think Nick is right that no major English translations have adopted the reading in this variant as the main text.  On the other hand, I believe the quotations above demonstrate that the RV mentioned the variant in the margin.  It was something that definitely angered Burgon.

Second, Vaticanus does not say that Jesus didn't die from the cross.

Third, the text itself of the variant is not some "bizarre weird thing" - it is quite similar to what is found in John's gospel.

Nick added: "Burgon would have been annoyed at the footnote because he was saying unnecessary marginal notes in the RV like 616 were causing doubt and not faith."  I think I've addressed this above. 

Nick also raised the good point that Codex Alexandrinus is Byzantine in the gospels, which has led me to remove a sentence from the post above. 

Thanks to Nick for his interaction with the post.

Seven Sages and Revelation 16:5

The Precepts of the Seven Sages (or "Sentences of the Seven Sages" or "Injunctions of the Seven Sages") is a collection of concise wisdom.  There are nearly 150 statements in list, and seems to cover various moral and ethical rules in the form of maxims or gnomic commands.  They are thought to originate around the 5th century before Christ (although the TLG suggests as early as the 6th or 7th century BC).  

Of particular interest to me are two of the rules: 

• Ὅσια κρῖνε. 
• Κρῖνε δίκαια.

These are of interest because of Revelation 16:5, which states:

• Καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος· δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας, 

You may notice that Revelation 16:5 mentions a form of the verb "judge" (κρίνω) in linked connection with both ὅσιος (traditionally translated "holy") and δίκαιος (traditionally translated "righteous").  The seven sages rules include commands to judge ὅσια and δίκαια.  

This serves to demonstrate, in a very minor way, the semantic propriety of the reading that is found in nearly all of the Greek manuscripts of Revelation, over against any naysayers, particularly those who are simply using the traditional English translations of the terms, without regard to the nuances of the Greek.

The text of the precepts with a very amateur and provisional translation is as follows (also see the links provided above for other translations)(this section may be in need of serious correction, which I will make if/when I identify the needed corrections):
 

Greek	English
ΣΩΣΙΑΔΟΥ	Sosiades
ΤΩΝ ΕΠΤΑ ΣΟΦΩΝ ΥΠΟΘΗΚΑΙ.	The Precepts of the Seven Sages
—Ἕπου θεῷ.	Follow God.
—Νόμῳ πείθου.	Obey the law.
—Θεοὺς σέβου.	Honor the gods.
—Γονεῖς αἰδοῦ.	Respect your parents.
—Ἡττῶ ὑπὲρ δικαίου.	Yield for justice.
—Γνῶθι μαθών.	Learn, then understand.
—Ἀκούσας νόει.	Understand after listening.
—Σαυτὸν ἴσθι.	Know yourself.
—Γαμεῖν μέλλων καιρὸν γνῶθι.	When about to marry, know the proper time.
—Φρόνει θνητά.	Think mortal thoughts.
—Ξένος ὢν ἴσθι.	When you are a stranger, act as one.
—Ἑστίαν τίμα.	Honor the hearth.
—Ἄρχε σαυτοῦ.	Govern yourself.
—Φίλοις βοήθει.	Help your friends.
—Θυμοῦ κράτει.	Master your temper.
—Φρόνησιν ἄσκει.	Cultivate wisdom.
—Πρόνοιαν τίμα.	Value foresight.
—Ὅρκῳ μὴ χρῶ.	Do not use oaths.
—Φιλίαν ἀγάπα.	Love friendship.
—Παιδείας ἀντέχου.	Hold fast to education.
—Δόξαν δίωκε.	Pursue glory.
—Σοφίαν ζήλου.	Strive for wisdom.
—Καλὸν εὖ λέγε.	Speak well of the good.
—Ψέγε μηδένα.	Blame no one.
—Ἐπαίνει ἀρετήν.	Praise virtue.
—Πρᾶττε δίκαια.	Practice justice.
—Φίλοις εὐνόει.	Be kind to your friends.
—Ἐχθροὺς ἀμύνου.	Defend yourself against enemies.
—Εὐγένειαν ἄσκει.	Cultivate nobility.
—Κακίας ἀπέχου.	Shun wickedness.
—Κοινὸς γίνου.	Be common to all.
—Ἴδια φύλασσε.	Guard what is yours.
—Ἀλλοτρίων ἀπέχου.	Avoid what belongs to others.
—Εὔφημος ἴσθι.	Be of good speech.
—Ἄκουε πάντα.	Listen to everything.
—Φίλῳ χαρίζου.	Be gracious to your friend.
—Μηδὲν ἄγαν.	Nothing in excess.
—Χρόνου φείδου.	Spare time.
—Ὅρα τὸ μέλλον.	Consider the future.
—Ὕβριν μίσει.	Hate hubris.
—Ἱκέτας αἰδοῦ.	Show respect to supplicants.
—Πᾶσιν ἅρμοζε.	Adapt to all.
—Υἱοὺς παίδευε.	Educate your sons.
—Ἔχων χαρίζου.	Be generous when you have.
—Δόλον φοβοῦ.	Fear deceit.
—Εὐλόγει πάντας.	Speak well of everyone.
—Φιλόσοφος γίνου.	Become a philosopher.
—Ὅσια κρῖνε.	Judge what is holy.
—Γνοὺς πρᾶττε.	Act after knowing.
—Φόνου ἀπέχου.	Avoid murder.
—Εὔχου δυνατά.	Pray for possible things.
—Σοφοῖς χρῶ.	Associate with the wise.
—Ἦθος δοκίμαζε.	Examine character.
—Λαβὼν ἀπόδος.	Repay what you receive.
—Ὑφορῶ μηδένα.	Look down on no one.
—Τέχνῃ χρῶ.	Use skill.
—Ὃ μέλλεις, δός.	Give what you intend to.
—Εὐεργεσίας τίμα.	Honor acts of kindness.
—Φθόνει μηδενί.	Envy no one.
—Φυλακῇ πρόσεχε.	Be mindful of guarding.
—Ἐλπίδα αἴνει.	Praise hope.
—Διαβολὴν μίσει.	Hate slander.
—Δικαίως κτῶ.	Acquire justly.
—Ἀγαθοὺς τίμα.	Honor the good.
—Κριτὴν γνῶθι.	Recognize a judge.
—Γάμους κράτει.	Control marriage.
—Τύχην νόμιζε.	Respect fortune.
—Ἐγγύην φεῦγε.	Avoid guarantees.
—Πᾶσι διαλέγου.	Converse with everyone.
—Ὁμοίοις χρῶ.	Use like-minded people.
—Δαπανῶν ἄρχου.	Manage your expenses.
—Κτώμενος ἥδου.	Rejoice in acquiring.
—Αἰσχύνην σέβου.	Respect modesty.
—Χάριν ἐκτέλει.	Fulfill gratitude.
—Εὐτυχίαν εὔχου.	Pray for success.
—Τύχην στέργε.	Embrace fortune.
—Ἀκούων ὅρα.	Be watchful while hearing.
—Ἐργάζου κτητά.	Work for what is attainable.
—Ἔριν μίσει.	Hate strife.
—Ὄνειδος ἔχθαιρε.	Detest disgrace.
—Γλῶσσαν ἴσχε.	Restrain your tongue.
—Ὕβριν ἀμύνου.	Defend against arrogance.
—Κρῖνε δίκαια.	Judge fairly.
—Χρῶ χρήμασιν.	Use your resources wisely.
—Ἀδωροδόκητος δοκίμαζε.	Test without bribes.
—Αἰτιῶ παρόντα.	Hold accountable the present.
—Λέγε εἰδώς.	Speak with knowledge.
—Βίας μὴ ἔχου.	Do not practice violence.
—Ἀλύπως βίου.	Live without pain.
—Ὁμίλει πρᾴως.	Associate gently.
—Πέρας ἐπιτέλει μὴ ἀποδειλιῶν.	Complete your tasks without hesitation.
—Φιλοφρόνει πᾶσιν.	Be kind to all.
—Υἱοῖς μὴ καταρῶ.	Do not curse your sons.
—Γλώττης ἄρχε.	Control your tongue.
—Σαυτὸν εὖ ποίει.	Take care of yourself.
—Εὐπροσήγορος γίνου.	Be approachable.
—Ἀποκρίνου ἐν καιρῷ.	Respond at the right time.
—Πόνει μετὰ δικαίου.	Labor with justice.
—Πρᾶττε ἀμετανοήτως.	Act without regret.
—Ἁμαρτάνων μετανόει.	Repent if you err.
—Ὀφθαλμοῦ κράτει.	Control your eyes.
—Βουλεύου χρόνῳ.	Deliberate with time.
—Ἐπιτέλει συντόμως.	Accomplish quickly.
—Φιλίαν φύλασσε.	Preserve friendship.
—Εὐγνώμων γίνου.	Be grateful.
—Ὁμόνοιαν δίωκε.	Strive for unity.
—Ἄῤῥητον μὴ λέγε.	Do not say the unspeakable.
—Τὸ κρατοῦν φοβοῦ.	Fear authority.
—Τὸ συμφέρον θηρῶ.	Seek what is beneficial.
—Καιρὸν προσδέχου.	Await the right time.
—Ἔχθρας διάλυε.	Dissolve hostilities.
—Γῆρας προσδέχου.	Welcome old age.
—Ἐπὶ ῥώμῃ μὴ καυχῶ.	Do not boast in strength.
—Εὐφημίαν ἄσκει.	Cultivate good reputation.
—Ἀπέχθειαν φεῦγε.	Avoid hatred.
—Πλούτει δικαίως.	Prosper justly.
—Δόξαν μὴ λεῖπε.	Do not forsake glory.
—Κακίαν μίσει.	Hate evil.
—Μανθάνων μὴ κάμνε.	Do not tire in learning.
—Κινδύνευε φρονίμως.	Risk wisely.
—Ἡδόμενος μὴ λεῖπε.	Do not cease enjoying.
—Χρησμοὺς θαύμαζε.	Marvel at prophecies.
—Οὓς τρέφεις, ἀγάπα.	Love those you nurture.
—Ἀπόντι μὴ μάχου.	Do not fight with the absent.
—Πρεσβύτερον αἰδοῦ.	Respect the elder.
—Νεώτερον δίδασκε.	Teach the younger.
—Πλούτῳ ἀπίστει.	Do not trust in wealth.
—Σαυτὸν αἰδοῦ.	Respect yourself.
—Μὴ ἄρχε ὑβρίζειν.	Do not begin with arrogance.
—Προγόνους στεφάνου.	Crown your ancestors.
—Θνῆσκε ὑπὲρ πατρίδος.	Die for your country.
—Τῷ βίῳ μὴ μάχου.	Do not oppose life.
—Ἐπὶ νεκρῷ μὴ γέλα.	Do not mock the dead.
—Ἀτυχοῦντι συνάχθου.	Join with the unfortunate.
—Χαρίζου ἀβλαβῶς.	Be gracious without harm.
—Μὴ ἐπὶ παντὶ λυποῦ.	Do not grieve over everything.
—Ἐξ εὐγενῶν γέννα.	Marry from noble stock.
—Ἐπαγγέλλου μηδενί.	Promise nothing at all.
—Φθιμένους μὴ ἀδίκει.	Do not wrong the deceased.
—Εὖ πάσχε ὡς θνητός.	Endure well as a mortal.
—Τύχῃ μὴ πίστευε.	Do not trust in fortune.
—Παῖς ὢν κόσμιος ἴσθι, ἡβῶν ἐγκρατής, μέσος δίκαιος, πρεσβύτερος εὔλογος.	As a child, be orderly; as a youth, temperate; as an adult, just; as an elder, wise.
—Τελεύτα ἀλύπως.	End life without pain.
—Πλήθει ἄρεσκε.	Please the majority.
—Μὴ λάλει πρὸς ἡδονήν.	Do not speak for pleasure.
—Ὁμολογίαις ἔμμενε.	Keep your agreements.
—Θυσίας πρόσφερε κατὰ δύναμιν.	Offer sacrifices according to your ability.
—Σαυτῷ μὴ μάχου.	Do not fight with yourself.
—Μὴ ἐπὶ παντὶ λυποῦ.	Do not grieve over everything.
—Τῷ βίῳ μὴ ἄχθου.	Do not burden yourself with life.
—Μὴ φιλαίτιος ἴσθι.	Do not be contentious.
—Ἐπαγγέλλου μηδενὶ τὸ παράπαν.	Promise nothing at all.
—Χρόνου φείδου.	Spare time.
—Ἐνδαπανώμενος καὶ ἐφ’ ἃ μὴ δεῖ, ὀλίγος ἔσῃ ἐφ’ ἃ δεῖ.	If you waste on unnecessary things, you will lack for necessary ones.

Eternal Fire and Sodom

John Gill in commenting on Jude 7, and the punishment of "πυρὸς αἰωνίου" (eternal fire) that came upon Sodom, mentioned Philo.  Philo, in his work, "On Abraham," comments on Sodom and its punishment, thus: 

XXVI(133) "The country of the Sodomites was a district of the land of Canaan, which the Syrians afterwards called Palestine, a country full of innumerable iniquities, and especially of gluttony and debauchery, and all the great and numerous pleasures of other kinds which have been built up by men as a fortress, on which account it had been already condemned by the Judge of the whole world. "

...

XXVII. (137) But God, having taken pity on mankind, as being a Saviour and full of love for mankind, increased, as far as possible, the natural desire of men and women for a connexion together, for the sake of producing children, and detesting the unnatural and unlawful commerce of the people of Sodom, he extinguished it, and destroyed those who were inclined to these things, and that not by any ordinary chastisement, but he inflicted on them an astonishing novelty, and unheard of rarity of vengeance; (138) for, on a sudden, he commanded the sky to become overclouded and to pour forth a mighty shower, not of rain but of fire; and as the flame poured down, with a resistless and unceasing violence, the fields were burnt up, and the meadows, and all the dense groves, and the thick marshes, and the impenetrable thickets; the plain too was consumed, and all the crop of wheat, and of everything else that was sown; and all the trees of the mountain district were burnt up, the trunks and the very roots being consumed. (139) And the folds for the cattle, and the houses of the men, and the walls, and all that was in any building, whether of private or public property, were all burnt. And in one day these populous cities became the tomb of their inhabitants, and the vast edifices of stone and timber became thin dust and ashes. (140) And when the flames had consumed everything that was visible and that existed on the face of the earth, they proceeded to burn even the earth itself, penetrating into its lowest recesses, and destroying all the vivifying powers which existed within it so as to produce a complete and everlasting barrenness, so that it should never again be able to bear fruit, or to put forth any verdure; and to this very day it is scorched up. For the fire of the lightning is what is most difficult to extinguish, and creeps on pervading everything, and smouldering. (141) And a most evident proof of this is to be found in what is seen to this day: for the smoke which is still emitted, and the sulphur which men dig up there, are a proof of the calamity which befell that country; while a most conspicuous proof of the ancient fertility of the land is left in one city, and in the land around it. For the city is very populous, and the land is fertile in grass and in corn, and in every kind of fruit, as a constant evidence of the punishment which was inflicted by the divine will on the rest of the country.

Even today, the "Ein Gedi hot springs" and "Ma'in Hot Springs" are near the Dead Sea.  I'm not sure whether Philo had in mind volcanic activity, or the steam of hot springs, or what exactly he had in mind, but his point is failure obvious: he believed that the fire that burned Sodom was still burning.  Given that Philo was roughly contemporaneous with Jude (probably 25 years older or so), it is not at all a stretch to assume that Jude was using the perceived endless burning of Sodom as an illustration of the punishment that awakes the wicked.

The Wrong Standard of Error - Continued

Listening to Steve Schwenke, I came across an argument that echoed Jack McElroy's claim (rebutted here) that the King James translators made choices, not errors. Specifically, in his January 5, 2023, video ("Response to Mark Ward's Avoiding Ruckmanism"), Steve Schwenke states:

45:40-50:00

Why should I acknowledge that there are errors if there are none? Why should I acknowledge that? This is again an attempt to bully and intimidate people: 'You don't want to be a Ruckmanite do you?' Well I don't know about you I don't want to be a Martiniite. I don't want to follow this guy, I'd rather follow Ruckman than that guy.  I'm just saying you know there's vile and then there's vile.  Strange choice of bedfellows. 'Publicly acknowledge that there are errors.' Okay. What is an error? What is an error? Now I've been discussing and debating this with people for for the last 30 years and the people who have said that there are errors in the King James Bible have not really shown an error.  An error would have to be one of three things: that there is absolutely no manuscript support for a particular reading whatsoever, that there is absolutely no precedent set for the way that it was translated, or that there's absolutely no possible way for any given passage or reading to be translated the way that it was.  That would constitute an error. The errors that have been shown to me - so-called errors - are a preferential choice of a different reading. Meaning, instead of taking the Texas receptus they took the critical text. That does not constitute an error, that constitutes a preferential choice. Another so-called error is that they didn't like the way the King James translators translated a passage. Even though there may have been maybe precedent for the way that they translated it, they didn't like the way it was translated - that's a preference, that's a choice, that is not an error. Or, they didn't like the way that they defined a term. In other words, as in English some words have multiple definitions, so it is in Greek and in Hebrew: many words have multiple different ways that they can be translated and many of these so-called errors are basically choosing a different option. Instead of definition one, they choose definition five. That's not an error, that's a preferential choice. So in my 30 years of discussing this with people, I have yet to find anyone who actually can give an error - an actual error.  Now many people would say that - for instance - "1 John 5:7 is an error. It was added to the text." And this is one place where there is not a lot of manuscript support for that reading: 1 John 5:7.  But there is sufficient - and there is sufficient historical evidence to suggest that it was part of the text. And I'm not going to delve into all of the nitty-gritty details of it. And again this comes back to Faith: are we going to use rationalism are we going to use faith? There is sufficient reason for us to believe that it that it had a good probability of being part of the text and the uh the arguments used against it -- there's sufficient reasoning -- there is not enough evidence for me to say 'oh, the King James Bible translators made an error.' There is sufficient evidence to support the reading. Not liking the wording or syntax does not constitute an error. Not choosing an alternative definition does not constitute an error. And choosing an alternative reading from a different source does not constitute error. So no, I do not publicly acknowledge that there are errors in the King James, other than what we would call scribal errors. Yes, printing errors where a word is misspelled or something of that nature. That is the human hand. But we're talking about the translation itself and the translation itself is without error. 

First, if Steve is going to use this standard of "error" he's going to have to say that there are no errors in any of the modern versions (aside from printers' errors or errors that the KJV itself makes).  They too are making preferential choices.

Second, Steve should realize that a preferential choice can still be an error.  Look at the examples in the histories recorded in the Bible where people made preferential choices and those choices were errors. 

Third, the KJV at Revelation 16:5 is an example of the first category of error that Steve identifies.  This is a case where there is not just slim manuscript support, but no manuscript support.   

Fourth, the KJV at Hebrews 10:23 translates ἐλπίδος as "faith" instead of "hope," which seems to meet the "unprecedented" standard.

Fifth, the KJV at 1 John 5:7 has extremely limited manuscript support. If the insertion of the three heavenly witnesses is not an "error" because the manuscript support is sufficient, than it should be acknowledged that the phrase "και εσμεν" (and so we are!) in 1 John 3:1 is not an error in those modern versions that include it.  More paradoxically, if the support for the insertion is sufficient, then the support for the omission of 1 John 5:7 must be even more sufficient!  So, both leaving out the heavenly witnesses is not an error and including the heavenly witnesses must not be an error, by this bizarre standard of what is an error.

My suspicion is that this mischaracterization of what constitutes an error comes from a common source, presumably a well known advocate for the King James translation.

Preparing for the Revelation 16:5 Debate - Responses to Howe, Jones, Daniels, and McElroy

In preparing for a planned debate on Revelation 16:5, I checked out the following KJV advocacy books:

"The KJV is for Me: Why I use the King James Bible," by Christopher E. Howe.  While this book from 2021 has a little structure to it, it reads much more like a manifesto than like a piece of persuasive prose, much less a work of pro-KJV scholarship.  Some of it engages in the kind of unintentional blasphemy one would expect to find, given the nature of the book.  For example, at p. 70: "If the Holy Ghost did not give us a Bible that was perfect one that we could not trust at face value, then he cannot be a HOLY Ghost as he would have given us something that has the very name of God on it and it was less than perfect." 

"Ripped out of the Bible," by Floyd Nolen Jones, twelfth edition, 2019.  I have no idea why this work was thought worthy of twelve editions.  It contains lists of words or passages that are "missing" from some versions other than KJV and a lengthy "Epilogue" (about a third of the total book). The Epilogue argues for the KJV along a variety of historical and evidential lines, with a focus on the KJV being linked to the Textus Receptus.  Dr. Jones notes the "omitted" "and art to come" in Revelation 11:17 (p. 12) and the "missing" "O Lord" in Revelation 16:5 (p. 28), but does not deal with Beza's substitution at Revelation 16:5, which was used by the KJV translators.

"Look What's Missing," by David W. Daniels, printed by Chick Publications, apparently originally published in 2009 but updated based on the 2011 NIV.  Even when making somewhat valid points, the book goes overboard into error, such as when claiming, "Roman Catholic leadership does not permit Catholics to read a book or Bible unless it has the Nihil Obstat and/or Imprimatur on its copyright page." (p. 72).  The book does not directly address Revelation 16:5, but mentions Revelation 11:17 in two places. First, Daniels writes: "It eliminates 'and art to come,' part of the future nature of Christ in Revelation 11:17." (pp. 97-98)  Second, Daniels shows Revelation 11:17 with the words "and art to come" struck through and writes, "When you remove 'and art to come,' you take away the eternal nature of the Lord Jesus Christ." (p. 182)  Daniels then lists a series of versions that are "missing" the phrase.

"Bible Version Secrets EXPOSED," by Jack McElroy (2020).  At pp. 443-44, McElroy tackles the question of Revelation 16:5 responding to Dr. White's book, The King James Only Controversy (KJVOC).  McElroy wrote:

I have blacked out the photo of the umpire that was provided in the meme, but otherwise, this is a licensed reproduction of the images provided digitally by the author.

The meme asks: "Did the King James Translators Drop a Routine Fly Ball on Revelation 16:5?" 

The meme then provides quotations from a KJV edition of Revelation 16:5 and an ESV edition of the same verse, showing that the KJV has "and shalt be," while the ESV has "O Holy One."

The meme then quotes Dr. White's comments from "pp. 236-241" of KJVOC.

Next, the meme provides the following seven-point argument:

1. Dr. White is right; there is currently no known Greek NT manuscript support for the reading “and shalt be,” and it doesn’t appear in a printed Greek New Testament until Beza’s 1598 edition. BUT…
2. There are only 4 Greek manuscripts of Revelation 16:5 dated before the 10th century but the 3 earliest witnesses of Revelation 16:5 don’t even agree with each other.
3. Some scholars [Robert B. Y. Scott (1899 –1987) and Charles C. Torrey (1863–1956)] believed the Book of Revelation was originally penned in Hebrew and only later translated into Greek.
4. If it’s true that the reading “shall be” was “unknown to the ancient church, unknown to all Christians,” then how come it appears in a Latin commentary on the Book of Revelation by Spanish theologian Beatus of Liebana in AD 786 which preserved the work of the Donatist writer Tyconius, written around AD 380?
5. If the original was written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek and Latin, then the original reading has just as much chance of showing up in Latin manuscripts as Greek.
6. There are an estimated 10,000 Latin manuscripts in existence. But no one’s got the money, time, or inclination to dope out their contents.
7. Early 20th century textual critic Herman Hoskier cited the Ethiopian version as containing the phrase “shall be.”

As to 1, Dr. White does not specify that it was Beza's 1598 edition that introduced this error, and Dr. White would have been error (as McElroy now is) to have said so, because Beza first printed this error in his 1582 edition.

As to 2, it seems that McElroy must have got his material from "KJV Today" or some site of similar quality, as there are at least five pre-10th century Greek Manuscripts that contain Revelation 16:5.  And while they may disagree about other things, they all have οσιος̣ not Beza's substitute word.

• P47 (3rd Century) has "και οσιος̣"
• Manuscript 01 aka Sinaiticus (4th century) has "ο οσιος"
• Manuscript 02 aka Alexandrinus (5th century) has "οσιος"
• Manuscript 04 aka Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th century) has "ο οσιος"
• Manuscript 025 aka Poryphrianus (9th century) has "ο οσιος"

As to 3, contemporary scholarship and Reformation-era scholarship agree that Revelation was written in Greek.  Considering that the text of Revelation includes the phrase "I am Alpha and Omega," it seems very unlikely that it was written in Hebrew or Aramaic, which end in Tav or Taw.  Nevertheless, even if it had originally been written in Hebrew or Aramaic, there is no ancient Hebrew or Aramaic manuscript of Revelation in existence.  Worse yet, there is no reason at all to think that Beza's substitution would be more likely if the book had originally been written in another language than Greek, but we will come to this more under 5.

As to 4, the Beatus commentary, and the reconstructed prior commentary by Tyconius, which is assumed to have served as the basis for Beatus' commentary here, have an Old Latin translation that includes a future tense verb.  However, "qui fuisti et futures es" is a paraphrastic translation of "εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν."  We can see that this understanding is correct from the fact that there are only two forms of the Latin equivalent of the verb "to be" in Beatus/Tyconius, just as in the Greek text. More importantly, Beatus/Tyconius have the Latin of equivalent of "holy."  Thus, they were not based on a text that had Beza's substitution.

As to 5, if the original were Hebrew and then translated from Hebrew to Latin, the reference to "Omega" in the Latin makes no sense.  However, the Beatus commentary at Revelation 1:8 states: "But why might it be that these elements from the alphabet, that is, 'the Alpha and the Omega," are recalled by Truth Himself? ... Omega is its completion in the Greek alphabet ...."  There would be no reason to insert reference to Greek into the text of Revelation (and therefore to provide commentary on it) if the work was not originally in Greek.

 Additionally, Beza's substitution does not show up in the Latin manuscripts.  Gryson's critical edition (from 2003, I believe) of the Vetus Latina has:

Specifically, the Old Latin translations have either "pius" or "sanctus" for οσιος.  There is a lot of variation amongst the Latin translations of the Greek, but there are two forms of the verb "to be" and a word that translates in English to Holy (namely either "pius" or "sanctus").  Jerome likewise, according to the most recent critical reconstruction of the Vulgate, has "qui es et qui eras sanctus" (two forms of "to be" plus "holy").  That critical edition likewise does not mention any Latin textual variant that would correspond to Beza's change. 

As to 6, it's simply not true that no one has interest in reviewing the Latin manuscripts.  Admittedly, it is a lower priority than the Greek for most New Testament scholars, but Roger Gryson and others have been dutifully looking at Latin manuscripts and reconstructing both the Old Latin translations and the Vulgate translation from those manuscripts.  Also, of course, there is no reason to think that we are likely to find some Latin manuscript that matches Beza, both because we haven't seen one yet, and because we haven't seen that in Greek or any other language.

As to 7, Ethiopic aka Ge'ez, like Beatus/Tyconius, is a witnesses to the Greek text with οσιος.  I've gone into it in much more detail in a previous post (link to post), but suffice for the moment to say that the Ge'ez employs two forms of the verb "to be" plus a word that corresponds to "holy."  Thus, like the Old Latin of Tyconius, the Ge'ez is simply a paraphrastic translation.

McElroy continued (numbering is now mine, not his):

1. How can you come to any conclusion until you’ve seen all the evidence?
2. The Lord can reveal as much manuscript evidence as he wants. But He has promised to preserve his words. His promises never fail. (See Psa. 12:6–7).
3. The King James translators not only had all seven earlier English Bibles and all the editions of the Greek New Testament sitting on their table but also had access to some manuscripts no longer available today.
4. Nobody knows what evidence they had when they made the decision to go with the “shall be” reading.
5. The King James translators made a CHOICE. They chose to go with Beza’s 1589 reading. James White calls their CHOICE “an error.” But a CHOICE based on evidence isn’t an error—it’s a CHOICE.
6. Did the CHOICE the translators made slip by the Lord?

As to 1, you can come to a conclusion based on the evidence that each side offers.  If one side offers nothing (or at least nothing of weight), and the other side offers hundreds of Greek manuscripts and multiple ancient versions, then you can conclude that the remaining evidence (if personally examined by you) would no more favor the empty-handed side than the evidence you've already seen.

As to 2, God's word "οσιος" was preserved and the word Beza substituted for it was not preserved. Therefore, by this reasoning, "οσιος" is correct.

As to 3, even assuming this were true (and I have reasons to doubt it), the King James translators did not leave evidence of any other manuscript (or other evidence) to support the conclusion that Beza was correct.  Essentially, the King James translators themselves are irrelevant to the question, except that they used Beza's printed text.

As to 4, we know that they had Beza's printed text, so it's reasonable to conclude that they based their decision on that.  Arguments from "well, we don't know if they may have had something else" are just - in effect - appeals to ignorance.

As to 5, McElroy surely means 1598, although 1582 would be better, while 1589 is plainly a typo.  More importantly, though, a choice can still be an error.  It's not an error in the same way that McElroy's typo is an error, but choosing to amend the Bishop's Bible to follow Beza was an erroneous choice by the KJV translators.

As to 6, of course the translator's error did not slip by the Lord.  However, is McElroy claiming that all the printers' errors in the 1611 KJV slipped by the Lord? This idea of treating the KJV translators choices as if they were the Lord's choices is as ridiculous as treating the printers' choices as if they were Lord's choices.

McElroy concludes this way (again, the numbering is mine):

1. If it’s an error and NOT the original reading, then is the Lord the village idiot by allowing a bogus reading (even of only 2 words) to be reproduced literally billions of times in King James Bibles over the years?
2. He could’ve easily moved the King James translators to stick with the old reading, but He didn’t.
3. Instead of rolling on the floor laughing and yelling “gotcha” because he thinks he found an “error” in the King James Bible, maybe Dr. White should try to figure out WHY the Lord and the translators PURPOSELY placed a reading with little Greek manuscript support in the Bible when they didn’t have to.
4. And besides ... Who's the official scorer, James White or the Lord?

As to 1, this borders on unintentional blasphemy.  Notice the same problem for all the printers' errors and the numbers of copies.  And what about all the copies of all the other versions before and after the KJV that the Lord allowed to be reproduced?  Of course the answer is not to call God names because your favorite version has a few flaws.

As to 2, again - the King James translators were not specially moved just as the KJ printers were not specially moved.  If they had been, we would not need to address anything else.  The fact that a defense of Revelation 16:5 in the KJV requires claiming that the translators were specially moved just demonstrates the virtual emptiness of the evidentiary scale on their side on this particular point. 

As to 3, it's not a reading with "little Greek manuscript support," it's a reading with no Greek manuscript support, and no support in any language before Beza made the change.  As to why the KJV translators did it, the answer is pretty simple: they went with the published text of Theodore Beza, because he had the most recent critical text of the New Testament at the time.  Why did the Lord permit it? Perhaps to remind us that even the best men are men at best. 

As to 4, this is just assuming that the Lord has "scored" the matter one way or another.  As that's not the case, one wonders why McElroy would imply the opposite of the truth.

On a semi-related note, I also came across an interesting book by Rick Norris, "Practically Identical Bibles: The Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV?" (Sixth Edition, 2019) Norris is not KJV-only, in case that might be the assumption by mentioning him in this post.  Norris comments on the difference between the KJV and the 1560 Geneva Bible thus: "KJV followed conjecture introduced by Beza in his Greek text." (book is unpaginated, but the page is around 90% through the book)

*** 

Update: Another book I encountered in the preparation for my debate with Nick Sayers is called, "The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures," by Lynn Lundquist (1998).  The book seems to be influenced by and targeted toward self-styled Jehovah's Witnesses, although Lundquist says he attends the meetings but has never been a Jehovah's Witness. Lundquist's analysis does not address the "which is, and was ..." passages, at least that I could find, and contains no meaningful discussion of Revelation 16:5.  I mention this work only for the sake of completeness.

*** 

Further Update: The "Scion of Zion" website has a page on Revelation 16:5.  

As you can see from the screenshot above, the bulk of the page is quotations from various versions, with an emphasis on the fact that the KJV follows Erasmus (and the Vulgate) in inserting "O Lord" into the text against the weight of the vast majority of, and the oldest of, the manuscripts.  There is a brief mention of the "Holy One" difference, but it seems to be treated as if it is a substitution of "Holy One" for "Lord," rather than correctly understanding the substitution that Beza made.

The post also suffers from English-gesis inasmuch as the author implies that everyone in heaven is Holy, and therefore it would not make much sense for the angel to refer to him in this way.  This overlooks that the angel says hosios, not hagios.  Everyone in heaven may be hagios, but according to Revelation 15:4 (about 10 verses before our text), only the Lamb is hosios.

*** 

Additional Update:

Dr. Ken Matto, "The Modern Version Incursion," p. 609, writes (after quoting KJV Revelation 16:5, in which the words "O Lord" are in italics):

"O Lord" is omitted.

Here is a case of the modern versions omitting the title of Lord for the Lord Jesus Christ. The term "Holy One" can be a generic term, even speaking of a believer as a holy one because of salvation in Christ. Jesus is called the Holy One of God in a few places in the New Testament. "Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God" (Luke 4:34). However, in Revelation 16:5, the word for "O Lord" in the Greek is kurie, which is from kurios, which means "lord, owner, or master." This is another attack on the Lord Jesus as Lord. The fact that an angel is speaking to Jesus in heaven shows that the angel was showing deference to the Lord Jesus by calling him Lord. The angel surely would have known that Jesus was the Holy One since they were both in heaven.

There are so many errors here. 

First, although modern versions that are not based on the same Greek underlying text as the KJV have "Holy" or "O Holy One" (or the like) and do not have "O Lord," Dr. Matto has his wires crossed as to two different textual variants.  These versions (1) omit "O Lord" entirely, and (2) use "O Holy One" rather than "and shalt be."

Second, the reason for omitting "O Lord," is that it is extremely poorly attested to among the Greek manuscripts.  In other words, it is not present in the "modern versions" for the same reason it is not in the ancient manuscripts: because it is not what John wrote.

Third, the reason for including "O Holy One," or "Holy" or the like is because the Greek word hosios (often translated as "holy") is present in nearly all the Greek manuscripts.  

In other words, Dr. Matto's theory for the differences falls flat.  The difference is not designed to erase the Lordship of Christ.

On the other hand, the Greek word hosios is only applied to God in Revelation.  Indeed, just about ten verses earlier, God is said to be the only hosios.  So, the Greek original (reflected in these modern versions) is a powerful testimony to Jesus' divinity, not a rejection of his lordship.

Luke 4:34 uses the Greek word hagios rather than hosios. 

Additionally, in Revelation 16, Jesus is described as the judge of the earth, meting out judgment.  That's the case in the "modern" versions just as in the other versions.  So, to suggest that Jesus' authority is being somehow minimized by the absence of the label "Lord," is a hollow charge.

Finally, of course, just as the angel would have known that Jesus was the Holy One, so also the angel would have known that Jesus is Lord.  That sentence of the critique, therefore, was lacking in merit like the rest of it.

*** 

Another update:

Edward Hendrie, "Hoax of Biblical Proportions," pp. 422-32, offers one of the longer attempted defenses of the King James and its reliance on Beza's change to the Scriptures.  Hendrie begins by conceding that "There is a passage in the Authorized (King James) Version of the Holy Bible that has no extant Greek text to support it."  

What follows is an odd adaptation of the work of Nick Sayers.  Following Sayers' lead, a significant thrust of the chapter is to attempt to criticize the work of Dr. James White.  These attacks generally fall short.  For example, Hendrie complains that it is misleading to say that all the manuscripts say, "O Holy One," because some say, "and holy."  There are, in fact, a number of minor textual variants including:

• o hosios 
• kai hosios 

 Nevertheless, kai hosios is not kai o esomenos as Beza printed, nor does it mean "and shalt be."

Hendrie says (p. 423), "If the word 'holy' is a nomina sacra for Jehovah, whose name means 'shalt be,' conveying that he is eternal, then P47 is a fly in the ointment for White's argument." The primary faults of this line of argument are (1) that the nomina sacra abbreviation system did not replace a word or phrase with another word and (2) there is no reason (aside from wishful thinking) to suspect that hosios is a substitute for something else.

Hendrie claims (p. 424), "If the word 'holy' is not a nomina sacra, the passage in P47 makes no sense."  Hendrie is wrong, of course.  If the original text is "and holy" rather than "O Holy One," then the text reads: "You are righteous (the Being One and Having-Been One) and holy ...." In other words, if the original text includes an "and," then it connects holy to righteous.  The Bishop's Bible (before the KJV) had this: "And I hearde the angell of the waters say: Lorde, which art, and wast, thou art ryghteous & holy, because thou hast geuen such iudgementes:"

Hendrie then goes on to claim (p. 424): "Thus, inspired by the Holy Spirit, Beza correctly rendered the Greek text as 'which art, and wast, and shalt be' because it is the very definition of Jehovah."  If you're reading this and seeing English rather than Greek, you are not alone.  Beza actually used the Greek phrase "kai o esomenos," which is literally "and the shall-being one."  Beza did, however, provide a Latin parallel version, which then literally translates from Latin into the KJV's English.

At p. 429, Hendrie relies on the same mistranslation of Beza's annotations found in Nick Sayers' book (which was not Nick's fault), and claims that "Beza explains why he decided on the 'and shalt be' reading in Revelations [sic] 16:5 in the absence of any Greek manuscript authority."  I will note that whether you read the mistranslation or a more correct translation, you will not find Beza claiming inspiration for himself.  

At p. 430, Hendrie seems to imply that Daniel Wallace agrees.  He states: "Daniel Wallace explains the concept of Beza's rendering of Revelation 16:5." That is very mistaken impression.  Nick Sayers had cited Wallace merely to explain how conjecture emendation can work, not (I believe) to suggest that Wallace agreed.

At p. 431, Hendrie pursues an even wilder idea: that Revelation was originally written in Hebrew or Aramic!  Of course, the use of "alpha and omega" in Revelation shows it was originally written in Greek, not another language.  

At p. 432, Hendrie repeats the inspiration claim: 

He was inspired by God to faithfully render the Textus Receptus. Beza was a gifted linguist, but his work on the Textus Receptus was more as a compiler and copyist. Beza was an inspired copyist who copied from the majority of Greek texts. His rendering of Revelations [sic] 16:5 proves that even the copyists are inspired by God. God inspired Beza to give the rendering of Revelation 16:5 as "which art, and wast, and shalt be," although it did not appear in any Greek manuscript he had before him. ... What the infidel scholars claim is evidence that the AV is a corrupt Bible with conjectural emendations added by men, instead, turns out to be proof that not only were the translators inspired by God but also the copyists.

If Hendrie thinks Beza was inspired in his edits of the Scriptures, then one wonders what Hendrie must do when the KJV departs from the text of Beza, as it does in a number of places?  Surely, Hendrie will not be so foolish as to suppose that God inspired a contradiction between Beza and the KJV translators.

I will note that these days it has become popular in certain KJV advocacy circles to note that Beza's annotations, when rightly translated, seem to be saying that Beza claimed that he was correcting the printed text on the basis of an old, reliable manuscript. The evidence suggests that Beza was wrong to claim such a thing, but that does not stop wishful thinkers.  One does wonder what it does to this supposed proof of "inspired copyist."

The sentence I omitted from the above block quotation was this: "The Ethiopic and Latin versions confirm that Beza was correct."  They do not. There are more detailed explanations elsewhere on this blog (including in this very post), but in a nutshell, the equivalent of "holy" is found in the Ethiopic and Latin versions.

The Woman of Revelation 12 cannot possibly be Mary

 People sometimes notice that the woman of Revelation 12 has a child who will rule the nation with a rod of iron, and from that they assume that the woman is Mary, since ruling the nations with a rod of iron is something ascribed to Christ.

However, the woman of Revelation 12 cannot possibly be Mary.  Revelation 12 is part of an extended vision that begins in Revelation 4.

Revelation 4:1-5 

1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door [was] opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard [was] as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. 2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and [one] sat on the throne. 3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and [there was] a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald. 4 And round about the throne [were] four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold. 5 And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and [there were] seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.

The things which must be hereafter means things that are still future to John when John was prophesying these things.  Whether or not that is still future is outside the scope of this post.  

This vision contains a number of units, such as: 

• the book with the seven seals (Revelation 5:1-8:1)
• the sealing of the 144,000 (Revelation 7)
• the seven trumpets (Revelation 8:2-Revelation 11:15)
• the little book (Revelation 10)
• the two witnesses (Revelation 11:1-13)
• the three woes (Revelation 8:13-Revelation 12)
• the battle with the red dragon (Revelation 12) 
• the beast from the sea (Revelation 13:1-8)
• the beast from the earth (Revelation 13:11-18)
• the seven angels and their judgment (Revelation 14-18)
• the seven bowls of wrath (Revelation 15:1-Revelation 16)
• etc. (there are more, but hopefully you get the idea)

The woman is introduced at Revelation 12:1 at the beginning of the (sub-)vision of the battle with the red dragon, which itself is part of the third of the three woes.

 Revelation 8:13 introduces the three woes:

Revelation 8:13 And I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!

Notice the connection between the three woes, and the three remaining trumpets of the three angels (out of the seven angels with seven trumpets), namely the fifth angel, the sixth angel, and the seventh angel.  

The Fifth angel sounds in Revelation 9:1.  Revelation 9:12 then says "One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter."  The Sixth angel sounds in Revelation 9:13. Revelation 11:14 then says "The second woe is past; and, behold the third woe cometh quickly."  That's when (in verse 15) the seventh angel sounds, and third woe begins.  In case you have any doubt that this is part of the same overall vision that began in Revelation 4, note the consistent imagery:

Revelation 11:15-16 

15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. 16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,

Notice that the twenty-four elders around the throne are still there, although now they are no longer sitting, but have fallen on their faces to worship God. 

Revelation 11 ends at verse 19.  Revelation 12:1, thus, comes only six verses after Revelation 11:14 and the woe that was described as coming quickly.  Within the midst of the vision of the battle with the dragon is the explicit mention of "woe":

Revelation 12:12 Therefore rejoice, [ye] heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

The scene changes at Revelation 13:1, where John is no longer in heaven, but now by the sea.  So, we can only conclude that Revelation 12 is part of the account of the third woe associated with the seventh trumpet of the seventh angel.

Jonathan Edwards (mis-?)quoting Revelation 16:5

One of my favorite Christian philosophers is Jonathan Edwards. In this instance, however, Edwards seems to have made a slight error that is significant primarily to someone like myself, with an intense interest in the text of Revelation 16:5.  The misquotation is found in one of Edwards' sermons, the short title of which is shown below:

(Sermon: Wicked Men Useful in their Destruction Only, Works, Vol. VIII, p. 146) 

Notice that in this sermon, Jonathan Edwards cites Revelation 16:5-6 but provides a wording that substitutes "art to come" for either "Holy" or "shalt be", depending on what his base text was.  I wanted to be sure that this was not the printer's error, so I tracked down the manuscript copy of this sermon, which sadly did not exculpate Edwards:

(Jonathan Edwards Collection. General Collection, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. https://archives.yale.edu/repositories/11/archival_objects/204574 Accessed December 30, 2024.)

The Yale archive dates this sermon to July 1734.  Although there was at least one printed edition before 1734 that used the Greek equivalent of the verb "to come" at Revelation 16:5, my suspicion is that Edwards wrote the quotation from memory and mentally conflated the text.  

My suspicion seems to be confirmed from Edwards' notes on the Apocalypse, where he seems to have copied out the KJV English text with the "shall be" reading:

(Jonathan Edwards Collection. General Collection, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. https://archives.yale.edu/repositories/11/archival_objects/205543 Accessed December 30, 2024.)

The edited transcript of Edwards' famous "Blank Bible" (source) does not itself address the issue, although the notes direct us to the portion provided above and few other places in Edwards' notes:

Revelation 16.] Concerning the seven vials, see "Revelation," no. 86.Ibid., 198–99. See ibid., "Extracts from Lowman," beginning with "The First Vial."This sentence and the following sentence are later additions. Works, 5, 232–50. Concerning the three first vials, see "Miscellanies," no. xx;Works, 13, 195–96. ["Revelation,"] no. 23.Ibid., 2, 134–35.

The digital image of the notes is this:

Jonathan Edwards Collection. General Collection, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. https://archives.yale.edu/repositories/11/archival_objects/205524 Accessed December 30, 2024. (image 1687)

And the image of the text itself is this:

Jonathan Edwards Collection. General Collection, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. https://archives.yale.edu/repositories/11/archival_objects/205524 Accessed December 30, 2024. (image 1686)

So, this seems to rule out that Edwards had some alternative printing of the English text from which he was working.  It cannot absolutely rule out the possibility of him having a Greek text, but considering that the quotation comes from Edwards' sermon on Ezekiel 15:1-2, it seems more probable that it is simply an error of memory.

We see similar errors after him in the late 1700s and early to mid-1800s. 

Specifically: 

(Sinclare Kelburn, The Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ Asserted and Proved ... in Five Sermons, Etc. United Kingdom, p. 24.)(1792)

(William Hale, Synopsis,  A synopsis of the signs of the times, past, present, and future, attempted to be traced from the chronological prophecies in the original Scriptures. Ireland, p. 32)(1817)

Two further examples come from a book published by the Brethren movement.  No individual author is identified (or at least, was identifiable to me):

The Time of the End Not Yet. (1850). United Kingdom: James Nisbet and Company. (p. 269)

The Time of the End Not Yet. (1850). United Kingdom: James Nisbet and Company. (p. 278)

Then there is this odd mashup:

Samuel Eyles Pierce, An Attempt on the Behalf of the Called and Believing People of the Most High God, to Set Before Them the Fountain of Everlasting Consolation in Christ Jesus, So that They May be Perfectly Relieved from All Fears Concerning Death and Dying. United Kingdom, p. 97 (1815)

I have no reason to suppose that any of these subsequent misquotations of Revelation 16:5 are influenced by Edwards or his sermon.  Instead, I would simply attribute these quotation errors to similar lapses in memory. 

This post, I hope, underscores the limitations of relying on patristic quotation alone as evidence of the text in front of a particular church father.  This limitation is heightened when the quotation is like the one provided by Edwards above, or even more so when an author does something similar to Pierce, in creating an amalgam from various texts, all at once.

This post should also serve as a reminder to be careful about putting any theologian on a pedestal.  Everyone, even a genius like Jonathan Edwards, makes mistakes.

Finally, I hope this post serves as an anecdote against the idea that the KJV's reading at Revelation 16:5 was somehow "received" by the church since 1611.  Even Edwards, who was a famously brilliant scholar with an intense personal interest in the book of Revelation, did not so receive the text as to accurately remember it on every occasion.  Likewise, other English-speaking folks made similar lapses in memory over the years.  It's true that Edwards probably did not consciously reject Beza's emendation of the text, but nevertheless it remains the case that there was not a careful, thoughtful decision to accept one reading of the text over another by Edwards and many others over the centuries.  These are simply folks who used what they had at hand.

N.B. This post was sparked by Pastor Matthew Everhard's fascinating brief documentary on Edwards' notetaking system (link to video).