-
Old Church Slavonic – Revelation 16:5
The OCS Apocalypse apparently goes back to Methodius’ translation in 885 (link to source), however the oldest manuscripts may only be from the 14th century (link to source). I was able to find a printed OCS text beautifully typeset, which had the following text: (p. 2683/2696) My own translation is this: And I heard the…
-
Armenian version at Revelation 16:5
The Armenian alphabet was apparently invented in AD 405 by Mesrop Mashtots and Isaac of Armenia for the purpose of having a written language into which to translate Scripture. The translation was apparently initially made from Syriac and then subsequently retranslated Greek. (The Heritage of Armenian Literature) (further thoughts on the Armenian version here) In…
-
Revelation 22:16-22 in the various editions of Erasmus
The last six verses of Revelation 22 have been the topic of criticism (or praise) of Erasmus’ work because apparently Erasmus’ only manuscript of Revelation (GA 2814) was missing the last six verses (see the discussion from Pastor Jeffrey Stivason, here). The usual explanation is that Erasmus, being knowledgeable in Greek, back translated the final six…
-
Joseph Exell on Revelation 16:5
The Pulpit Commentary is a series of commentaries, variously edited. The editor for the Revelation volume is Joseph Exell (1849-1910), evidently a pastor in addition to being an editor. I’m crediting him in the title of this post, though I am not sure whether he provided the thoughts quoted below. TPC, at Revelation 16:5, writes: Thou…
-
Ethelbert William Bullinger on Revelation 16:5
Ethelbert William Bullinger (1837-1913) is best known for his “Companion Bible,” or perhaps for his role in the development of dispensationalism, as such. Bullinger made my “most significant” list, because it dealt directly with the issue at hand, but not because it deals deeply with it. Bullinger’s “Companion Bible Notes” are the source of the…
-
Johann Albrecht Bengel on Revelation 16:5
Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752) is probably more famous today for his work in textual criticism. However, Bengel’s Gnomon of the New Testament (published in 1742, and the source of the following quotations) was what he was best known for during his lifetime. Bengel, at Revelation 16:5, writes: Revelation 16:5 . [178] Ὁ ὢ καὶ ὁ…
-
Survey of Revelation Commentaries
The “Study Light” website provides numerous commentary resources. There is a range of orthodoxy and quality amongst the resources. So, I provide the links below merely for reference for those interested, not by way of any kind of recommendation. Additionally, given that there are already over 80 works that in some way discuss Revelation 16…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…