Textus Receptus - User contributions [en]

A (Cyrillic)

2011-02-16T11:47:55Z

Greek Textus Receptus: /* Code positions */

{{Cyrillic alphabet navbox|
Heading=Cyrillic letter A|
Image=[[File:Cyrillic letter A - uppercase and lowercase.svg|100px]]|
uuc=0410|ulc=0430|numeral=1}}
'''A''' (А, а; italics ''А, а'') is a letter of the [[Cyrillic alphabet]].

It commonly represents an [[open front unrounded vowel]] {{IPA|/a/}}.

In the romanization systems for the Russian, Bulgarian, and [[Ukrainian language|Ukrainian]] languages it is romanized using the [[A|Latin letter A]].

[[Image:Bem AzOK.jpg|thumb|left|Letter А in ABC by [[Elisabeth Bohm]] ]]
==History==
The Cyrillic letter A was derived directly from the [[Alpha (letter)|Greek letter Alpha]] (Α, α).

In the [[Early Cyrillic alphabet]] its name was азъ (''azǔ''), meaning 'I'.

In the [[Cyrillic numerals|Cyrillic numeral system]], the Cyrillic letter A had a value of 1.

==Form==
Through history the Cyrillic letter А has had various shapes, but today is standardised on one that looks exactly like the Latin letter A, including the [[Italic type|italic]] forms.

{{clearleft}}
==Usage==
In most languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet – such as [[Russian language|Russian]], [[Serbian language|Serbian]], [[Macedonian language|Macedonian]] and [[Bulgarian language|Bulgarian]] – the Cyrillic letter A represents an [[open front unrounded vowel]] {{IPA|/a/}}.

It is also used in the [[Ingush language|Ingush]] and [[Chechen language|Chechen]] languages to represent {{IPA|/ɑ/}} and {{IPA|/ə/}}.

== See also ==
*[[A|A, a (Latin)]]
*[[Alpha (letter)|Α, α - Alpha (Greek)]]

2 John

2011-02-16T11:47:24Z

Greek Textus Receptus:

{{Template:Books of the New Testament}}

* [[2 John:1|1]] The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

* [[2 John:2|2]] For the truth’s sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.

* [[2 John:3|3]] Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

* [[2 John:4|4]] I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.

* [[2 John:5|5]] And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.

* [[2 John:6|6]] And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

* [[2 John:7|7]] For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

* [[2 John:8|8]] Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.

* [[2 John:9|9]] Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

* [[2 John:10|10]] If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

* [[2 John:11|11]] For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

* [[2 John:12|12]] Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.

* [[2 John:13|13]] The children of thy elect sister greet thee. Amen.

''[[King James Version]]''

Novum Testamentum

2011-02-16T11:46:18Z

Greek Textus Receptus:

''Novum Testamentum is [[Latin]] for [[New Testament]].''

Revelation 16:5

2011-02-16T11:44:23Z

Greek Textus Receptus: /* John Wordsworth */

'''Revelation 16:5''' [[2532|And]] [[191|I heard]] [[3588|the]] [[32|angel]] [[3588|of the]] [[5204|waters]] [[3004|say]], [[1488|Thou art]] [[1342|righteous]], [[2962|O Lord]], [[3588|which]] [[5607|art]], [[2532|and]] [[2258|wast]], [[2532|and]] [[2071|shalt be]], [[3754|because]] [[2919|thou hast judged]] [[5023|thus]].

====Textus Receptus====
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 Complutensian Polyglot.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1514 AD|1514]] [[Complutensian Polyglot]]]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 Erasmus 1516.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1516 AD|1516]] Greek New Testament of Erasmus]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 Stephanus 1550.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1550 AD|1550]] Greek New Testament of Stephanus]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 Stephanus 1550 Margin.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] Margin in [[Greek]] in the [[1550 AD|1550]] Greek New Testament of Stephanus]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5Beza 1565.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1565 AD|1565]] Greek New Testament of Beza]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 Beza 1598.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1598 AD|1598]] New Testament of Beza]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 English Hexapla 1841.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1841 AD|1841]] English Hexapla]]

* [[1514 AD|1514]] καὶ ἤκουσα / τοῦ ἀγγέλου / τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος. Δίκαιος ευο ὢν, καὶ / ὁ ἦν / ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας, ([[Complutensian Polyglot]])
* [[1516 AD|1516]] (Erasmus 1st)
* [[1519 AD|1519]] (Erasmus 2nd)
* [[1522 AD|1522]] (Erasmus 3rd)
* [[1527 AD|1527]] (Erasmus 4th)
* [[1535 AD|1535]] (Erasmus 5th)
* [[1546 AD|1546]] (Stephanus 1st)
* [[1549 AD|1549]] (Stephanus 2nd)
* [[1550 AD|1550]] καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος Δίκαιος Κύριε, εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὅσιος ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας (Stephanus 3rd)
* [[1551 AD|1551]] (Stephanus 4th)
* [[1565 AD|1565]] (Beza 1st)
* [[1565 AD|1565]] (Beza Octavo 1st)
* [[1567 AD|1567]] (Beza Octavo 2nd)
* [[1580 AD|1580]] (Beza Octavo 3rd)
* [[1582 AD|1582]] (Beza 2nd)
* [[1588 AD|1588]] (Beza 3rd)
* [[1590 AD|1590]] (Beza Octavo 4th)
* [[1598 AD|1598]] καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος, Δίκαιος, Κύριε, εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας· [[Revelation 16:5 Beza 1598]] ([[Theodore Beza|Beza]])
* [[1604 AD|1604]] (Beza Octavo 5th)
* [[1624 AD|1624]] (Elzevir)
* [[1633 AD|1633]] (Elzevir)
* [[1641 AD|1641]] (Elzevir)
* [[1841 AD|1841]] [[Johann Martin Augustin Scholz|Scholz]])
* [[1894 AD|1894]] (Scrivener)
* [[2000 AD|2000]] (Byzantine/Majority Text)

P47 is slightly worn, the Greek text which Beza used was greatly worn. This is so noted by Beza himself in his footnote on Revelation 16:5 as he gives reason for his conjectural emendation. ([http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Revelation_16:5#Theodore_Beza See Below ] )

Erasmus 1522 and Stephanus 1550 also have "kai," and this was before P47 was known to scholars, so there was more than just "one manuscript standing out.

==Other Greek==
[[Image:Revelation 16.5 Sinaiticus.JPG|200px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in the Greek [[Codex Sinaiticus]]]]
* [[250 AD|250]] και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος ει ο ων και ος ην και οσιος̣ οτι ταυτα εκρινας ([[Papyrus 47]]) Papyrus 47 conatins "και"
* καί ἀκούω ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ ὕδωρ λέγω δίκαιος εἰμί ὁ εἰμί καί ὁ εἰμί ὁ ὅσιος ὅτι οὗτος κρίνω Tischendorf 8th Ed
* καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος, δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας Westcott / Hort, UBS4

==English Versions==

* [[1395 AD|1395]] [And the thridde aungel... seide,] Just art thou, Lord, that art, and that were hooli, that demest these thingis; (Wycliffe)

* [[1526 AD|1526]] And I herde an angell saye: lorde which arte and wast thou arte ryghteous and holy because thou hast geve soche iudgmentes (Tyndale)

* [[1535 AD|1535]] And I herde an angel saye: LORDE which art and wast, thou art righteous and holy, because thou hast geue soche iudgmentes, (Coverdale)

* [[1540 AD|1540]] And I herde an Angell saye: Lorde, whych arte and wast, thou arte ryghteous & holy, because thou hast geuen soche iudgementes, (Great Bible)(Coverdale)

* [[1549 AD|1549]] And I heard an angel say: Lord which art & wast, thou art rightuous & holy, because thou hast geuen such iudgementes, (Matthew's Bible by John Rogers)

* [[1557 AD|1557]] And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lord, thou art iust, Which art, and Which wast: and Holy, because thou hast iudged these things. (Geneva)

* [[1568 AD|1568]] And I hearde the angell of the waters say: Lorde, which art, and wast, thou art ryghteous & holy, because thou hast geuen such iudgementes: (Bishop’s)

* [[1833 AD|1833]] And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, who art, and wast, and wilt be, because thou hast judged thus. (Websters)

* [[1851 AD|1851]] And I heard the angel of the waters say: Righteous art thou, who art and who wast, and art holy; because thou hast done this judgment. (Murdock Translation by James Murdock)

* [[1898 AD|1898]] and I heard the messenger of the waters, saying, `righteous, O Lord, art Thou, who art, and who wast, and who shalt be, because these things Thou didst judge, (Young's Literal Translation)

* [[1982 AD|1982]] And I heard the angel of the waters saying: 'You are righteous, O Lord, The One who is and who was and who is to be, Because You have judged these things. ([[New King James Version]])

==Foreign Language Translations==

====Albanian====

* Dhe dëgjova engjëllin e ujërave duke thënë: ''Ti je i drejtë, o Zot, që je që ishe dhe që do të vish, i Shenjti që gjykoi këto gjëra.

====Armenian====

Լսեցի ջուրերուն հրեշտակը՝ որ կ՚ըսէր. «Արդա՛ր ես, դուն՝ որ ես եւ որ էիր, ու սո՛ւրբ ես՝ որ ա՛յսպէս դատեցիր,

====Arabic====

====Basque====

* Eta ençun neçan vretaco Aingueruä, cioela, Iusto aiz Iauna, Aicena eta Incena eta Saindua: ceren gauça hauc iugeatu baitituc: (Navarro-Labourdin)

====Bulgarian====

* И чух ангела на водите да казва: Праведен си Ти, Пресвети, Който си, и Който си бил, загдето си отсъдил така;

====Czech====

* [[1613 AD|1613]] Nebo tři jsou, kteříž svědectví vydávají na nebi: Otec, Slovo, a Duch Svatý, a ti tři jedno jsou. [[bible of Kralice]]

====Croatian====

* I začujem anđela voda gdje govori: Pravedan si, Ti koji jesi i koji bijaše, Sveti, što si tako dosudio!

====French====

* [[1744 AD|1744]] Et j'entendis l'ange des eaux, qui disait: Tu es juste, Seigneur, QUI ES, et QUI ÉTAIS, et QUI SERAS saint, parce que tu as exercé ces jugements. (Ostervald)

* [[1744 AD|1744]] Et j'entendis l'Ange des eaux, qui disait : Seigneur, QUI ES, QUI ÉTAIS, et QUI SERAS, tu es juste, parce que tu as fait un tel jugement. (Martin)

* Et j'entendis l'ange des eaux, disant: Tu es juste, toi qui es et qui étais, le Saint, parce que tu as ainsi jugé; (Darby)

* [[1864 AD|1864]] (Augustin Crampon)

* [[1910 AD|1910]] (Louis Segond)

====German====

* [[1545 AD|1545]] Und ich horte den Angel der Wasser sagen: herr, du bist gerecht, der da ist und der da war, und heilig, dab du solches geurteilt hast (Luther)

* [[1871]] Und ich hörte den Engel der Wasser sagen: Du bist gerecht, der da ist und der da war, der Heilige, (O. Fromme) daß du also gerichtet (O. geurteilt) hast. (Elberfelder)

====Italian====

* [[1927 AD|1927]] E udii l’angelo delle acque che diceva: Sei giusto, tu che sei e che eri, tu, il Santo, per aver così giudicato. (Riveduta Bible)

====Latin====

* et audivi angelum aquarum dicentem iustus es qui es et qui eras sanctus quia haec iudicasti ([[Vulgate]])

====Russian====

* [[1876 AD|1876]] И услышал я Ангела вод, который говорил: праведен Ты, Господи, Который еси и был, и свят, потому что так судил; (RUSV)

* Russian Transliteration of the Greek

* (Church Slavonic)

==[[Theodore Beza]]==

[[Theodore Beza|Beza]] himself comments on this change in a marginal note of his [[Greek]] [[New Testament]]:

:"''And shall be''": The usual publication is "''holy one''," which shows a division, contrary to the whole phrase which is foolish, distorting what is put forth in scripture. The [[Latin Vulgate|Vulgate]], however, whether it is articulately correct or not, is not proper in making the change to "''holy''," since a section (of the text) has worn away the part after "''and''," which would be absolutely necessary in connecting "''righteous''" and "''holy one''." But with [[St. John the Apostle|John]] there remains a completeness where the name of [[Jehovah]] (the Lord) is used, just as we have said before, [[Revelation 1:4|1:4]]; he always uses the three closely together, therefore it is certainly "''and shall be''," for why would he pass over it in this place? And so without doubting the genuine writing in this ancient manuscript, I faithfully restored in the good book what was certainly there, "''shall be''." So why not truthfully, with good reason, write "''which is to come''" as before in four other places, namely [[Revelation 1:4|1:4]] and [[Revelation 1:8|8]]; likewise in [[Revelation 4:3|4:3]] and [[Revelation 11:17|11:17]], because the point is the just Christ shall come away from there and bring them into being: in this way he will in fact appear setting in judgment and exercising his just and eternal decrees.

([[Theodore Beza]], Nouum Sive Nouum Foedus Iesu Christi, [[1589 AD|1589]]. Translated into [[English]] from the [[Latin]] footnote.)

Notice Beza said:

::"And so without doubting the genuine writing '''in this ancient manuscript''', I faithfully restored in the good book what was certainly there"

Jeffrey Khoo wrote the following [http://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol15_2c.htm]:

Besides the ancient Greek manuscript that Beza had, it ought to be noted that Beatus of Liebana in the eighth century, in his compilation of commentaries on the Book of Revelation has the Latin phrase, qui fuisti et futures es, for Revelation 16:5 which was found in the commentary of Tyconius which goes back to the fourth century.51 It is entirely possible that there were either early Greek manuscripts or Old Latin versions as early as the fourth century which contained the reading esomenos.

It is also significant to note that the reading hosios preferred by Combs is a harder reading. Robert L Thomas, Professor of New Testament at The Master’s Seminary, citing Swete commented, "Taking hosios as parallel with dikaios creates an intolerable harshness, however, and taking the adjective as a predicate adjective with ho on and ho en breaks the pattern of the Apocalypse in not assigning the expression a predicate nominative or adjective."52 We note that the reading ho esomenos, the future participle of eimi in its masculine, singular, nominative form with the definite article fits well the pattern of the Apocalypse and functions well as an adjectival participle to describe dikaios—the Righteous One who shall soon come to judge a most wicked world.

Although it is admitted that ho esomenos is not the reading found in the Majority Text, we are wont to agree with Hills that such minority readings "seem to have been placed in the Greek TR by the direction of God’s special providence and therefore are to be retained."53 It is also admitted that the reading of ho hosios in Stephen’s edition of the TR differs from Beza’s ho esomenos. So what do we do with the rare occasions when the several editions of the TR differ from one another? Hills replied,

The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith. Hence we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon which more than any other God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval, namely, the King James Version, or, more precisely the Greek text underlying the King James Version.

==[[D. A. Waite]]==

[[D. A. Waite]] says that modern English versions are theologically deficient at Revelation 16:5 for the removal of "and shalt be" (Defending the KJB, p. 170). Waite wrote: “The removal of ‘and shalt be’ puts in doubt the eternal future of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is certainly a matter of doctrine and theology” (p. 170).

==John Wordsworth==

Dr. John Wordsworth (who edited and footnoted a three volume critical edition of the [[New Testament]] in [[Latin]]) pointed out that the like phrase in [[Revelation 1:4]] "which is, and which was, and which is to come;" sometimes is rendered in Latin as "qui est et qui fuisti et futurus es" instead of the [[Vulgate]] "qui est et qui erat et qui uenturus est." (John Wordsworth, Nouum Testamentum Latine, vol.3, 422 and 424.)

Wordsworth also points out that in Revelation 16:5, Beatus of Liebana (who compiled a commentary on the book of Revelation) uses the Latin phrase "''qui fuisti et futures es''." This gives some additional evidence for the [[Greek]] reading by [[Theodore Beza|Beza]] (although he apparently drew his conclusion for other reasons). Beatus compiled his commentary in [[786 AD]]. Furthermore, Beatus was not writing his own commentary. Instead he was making a compilation and thus preserving the work of Tyconius, who wrote his commentary on Revelation around [[380 AD]] (Aland and Aland, 211 and 216. Altaner, 437. Wordsword, 533.). So, it would seem that as early as [[786 AD|786]], and possibly even as early as [[380 AD|380]], their was an Old [[Latin]] text which read as [[Theodore Beza|Beza]]'s [[Greek]] text does.

==[[Will Kinney]]==

* See Also ''[[Article: Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be" by Will Kinney|Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be"]] by [[Will Kinney]]''

:"The King James Bible translators did not slavishly follow Beza’s Greek text, but after much prayer, study and comparison, did include Beza’s reading of “and shalt be” in Revelation 16:5. We do not know what other Greek texts the KJB translators possessed at that time that may have helped them in their decisions. They then passed this reading on to future generations in the greatest Bible ever written. Since God has clearly placed His mark of divine approval upon the KJB throughout the last 400 years, I trust that He providentially guided the translators to give us His true words."

==[[Jack Moorman]]==

[[Jack Moorman]]:
:"The KJV reading is in harmony with the four other places in Revelation where this phrase is found…. Indeed Christ is the Holy One, but in the Scriptures of the Apostle John the title is found only once (1 John. 2:20), and there, a totally different Greek word is used. The Preface to the Authorised Version reads: “with the former translations diligently compared and revised”. The translators must have felt there was good reason to insert these words though it ran counter to much external evidence. They obviously did not believe the charge made today that Beza inserted it on the basis of conjectural emendation. They knew that they were translating the Word of God, and so do we. The logic of faith should lead us to see God’s guiding providence in a passage such as this." —
[[Jack Moorman]] in ''When the KJV Departs from the So-Called Majority Text'' ([[Bible for Today]]: [[1988 AD|1988]]), pg. 102.

==Edward F. Hills==

According to Edward F. Hills, this [[KJV]] rendering “shalt be” came from a conjectural emendation interjected into the Greek text by [[Theodore Beza|Beza]] (Believing Bible Study, pp. 205-206). Hills again acknowledged that [[Theodore Beza]] introduced a few conjectural emendations in his edition of the [[Textus Receptus]] with two of them kept in the KJV, one of them at Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy.

:''Like [[John Calvin|Calvin]], [[Theodore Beza|Beza]] introduced a few conjectural emendations into his [[New Testament]] text. In the providence of God, however, only two of these were perpetuated in the [[King James Version]], namely, [[Romans 7:6]] that being dead wherein instead of being dead to that wherein, and Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy. In the development of the Textus Receptus the influence of the common faith kept conjectural emendation down to a minimum.'' [1]

Edward Hills identified the [[KJV]] reading at Revelation 16:5 as “certainly erroneous” and as a “conjectural emendation by [[Theodore Beza|Beza]]” (Believing Bible Study, p. 83).

==William W. Combs==

William W. Combs maintained: “[[Theodore Beza|Beza]] simply speculated (guessed), without any evidence whatsoever, that the correct reading was ‘shall be’ instead of ‘holy one’” (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall, 1999, p. 156).

==J. I. Mombert==

J. I. Mombert listed Revelation 16:5 as one of the places where he maintained that “the reading of the [[AV|A. V.]] is supported by no known Greek manuscript whatever, but rests on an error of Erasmus or [[Theodore Beza|Beza]]” (Hand-book, p. 389).

==Bullinger==

Bullinger indicated that [[1624 AD|1624]] edition of the Elzevirs’ Greek text has “the holy one” at this verse (Lexicon, p. 689). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Walter Scott asserted that the KJV’s rendering “shalt be” was an unnecessary interpolation and that the KJV omitted the title “holy One” (p. 326).

==Bruce Metzger==

Bruce Metzger defines this term as,

:''The classical method of textual criticism . . . If the only reading, or each of several variant readings, which the documents of a text supply is impossible or incomprehensible, the editor's only remaining resource is to conjecture what the original reading must have been. A typical emendation involves the removal of an anomaly. It must not be overlooked, however, that though some anomalies are the result of corruption in the transmission of the text, other anomalies may have been either intended or tolerated by the author himself. Before resorting to conjectural emendation, therefore, the critic must be so thoroughly acquainted with the style and thought of his author that he cannot but judge a certain anomaly to be foreign to the author's intention.'' (Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, 182.)

From this, we learn the following.

:1). Conjectural emendation is a classical method of textual criticism often used in every translation or Greek text when there is question about the authenticity of a particular passage of scripture.

:2). There should be more than one variant in the passage in question.

:3). The variant in question contextually should fit and should be in agreement with the style of the writer.

==John Gill==

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible says;

:''The Alexandrian copy, and most others, and the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions, read "holy", instead of "shalt be"; for the purity and holiness of Christ will be seen in the judgments which he will exercise, as follows:

:because thou hast judged thus; or "these things"; or "them", as the Ethiopic version reads; that is, has brought these judgments upon the men signified by rivers and fountains, and made great havoc and slaughter of them, expressed by their becoming blood; the justice of which appears from the following reason.''

==See Also==

* [[Revelation 16:5 And Shalt Be]]
* [[Article: Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be" by Will Kinney|Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be"]] by [[Will Kinney]]
* [[Conjecture (textual criticism)]]

==References==
* 1. Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 208

==External Links==

===Supportive===

* [http://brandplucked.webs.com/rev165shaltbe5810us.htm Revelation 16:5] by [[Will Kinney]]

* [http://sites.google.com/site/kjvtoday/home/translation-issues/shalt-be-or-holy-one-in-revelation-165 Beza and Revelation 16:5] by [[KJV Today]]

===Critical===

* [http://www.bibleone.org/Article.aspx?channel=1&article=33 Revelation 16:5]

* [http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/testing-the-textus-receptus-rev-165/ Testing the Textus Receptus: Rev. 16:5]

* [http://www.lectionist.org/wwsb/Revelation/16/5.html Study Helps]

Revelation 16:5

2011-02-16T09:51:14Z

Greek Textus Receptus: /* Textus Receptus */

'''Revelation 16:5''' [[2532|And]] [[191|I heard]] [[3588|the]] [[32|angel]] [[3588|of the]] [[5204|waters]] [[3004|say]], [[1488|Thou art]] [[1342|righteous]], [[2962|O Lord]], [[3588|which]] [[5607|art]], [[2532|and]] [[2258|wast]], [[2532|and]] [[2071|shalt be]], [[3754|because]] [[2919|thou hast judged]] [[5023|thus]].

====Textus Receptus====
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 Complutensian Polyglot.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1514 AD|1514]] [[Complutensian Polyglot]]]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 Erasmus 1516.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1516 AD|1516]] Greek New Testament of Erasmus]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 Stephanus 1550.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1550 AD|1550]] Greek New Testament of Stephanus]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 Stephanus 1550 Margin.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] Margin in [[Greek]] in the [[1550 AD|1550]] Greek New Testament of Stephanus]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5Beza 1565.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1565 AD|1565]] Greek New Testament of Beza]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 Beza 1598.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1598 AD|1598]] New Testament of Beza]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 English Hexapla 1841.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1841 AD|1841]] English Hexapla]]

* [[1514 AD|1514]] καὶ ἤκουσα / τοῦ ἀγγέλου / τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος. Δίκαιος ευο ὢν, καὶ / ὁ ἦν / ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας, ([[Complutensian Polyglot]])
* [[1516 AD|1516]] (Erasmus 1st)
* [[1519 AD|1519]] (Erasmus 2nd)
* [[1522 AD|1522]] (Erasmus 3rd)
* [[1527 AD|1527]] (Erasmus 4th)
* [[1535 AD|1535]] (Erasmus 5th)
* [[1546 AD|1546]] (Stephanus 1st)
* [[1549 AD|1549]] (Stephanus 2nd)
* [[1550 AD|1550]] καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος Δίκαιος Κύριε, εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὅσιος ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας (Stephanus 3rd)
* [[1551 AD|1551]] (Stephanus 4th)
* [[1565 AD|1565]] (Beza 1st)
* [[1565 AD|1565]] (Beza Octavo 1st)
* [[1567 AD|1567]] (Beza Octavo 2nd)
* [[1580 AD|1580]] (Beza Octavo 3rd)
* [[1582 AD|1582]] (Beza 2nd)
* [[1588 AD|1588]] (Beza 3rd)
* [[1590 AD|1590]] (Beza Octavo 4th)
* [[1598 AD|1598]] καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος, Δίκαιος, Κύριε, εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας· [[Revelation 16:5 Beza 1598]] ([[Theodore Beza|Beza]])
* [[1604 AD|1604]] (Beza Octavo 5th)
* [[1624 AD|1624]] (Elzevir)
* [[1633 AD|1633]] (Elzevir)
* [[1641 AD|1641]] (Elzevir)
* [[1841 AD|1841]] [[Johann Martin Augustin Scholz|Scholz]])
* [[1894 AD|1894]] (Scrivener)
* [[2000 AD|2000]] (Byzantine/Majority Text)

P47 is slightly worn, the Greek text which Beza used was greatly worn. This is so noted by Beza himself in his footnote on Revelation 16:5 as he gives reason for his conjectural emendation. ([http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Revelation_16:5#Theodore_Beza See Below ] )

Erasmus 1522 and Stephanus 1550 also have "kai," and this was before P47 was known to scholars, so there was more than just "one manuscript standing out.

==Other Greek==
[[Image:Revelation 16.5 Sinaiticus.JPG|200px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in the Greek [[Codex Sinaiticus]]]]
* [[250 AD|250]] και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος ει ο ων και ος ην και οσιος̣ οτι ταυτα εκρινας ([[Papyrus 47]]) Papyrus 47 conatins "και"
* καί ἀκούω ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ ὕδωρ λέγω δίκαιος εἰμί ὁ εἰμί καί ὁ εἰμί ὁ ὅσιος ὅτι οὗτος κρίνω Tischendorf 8th Ed
* καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος, δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας Westcott / Hort, UBS4

==English Versions==

* [[1395 AD|1395]] [And the thridde aungel... seide,] Just art thou, Lord, that art, and that were hooli, that demest these thingis; (Wycliffe)

* [[1526 AD|1526]] And I herde an angell saye: lorde which arte and wast thou arte ryghteous and holy because thou hast geve soche iudgmentes (Tyndale)

* [[1535 AD|1535]] And I herde an angel saye: LORDE which art and wast, thou art righteous and holy, because thou hast geue soche iudgmentes, (Coverdale)

* [[1540 AD|1540]] And I herde an Angell saye: Lorde, whych arte and wast, thou arte ryghteous & holy, because thou hast geuen soche iudgementes, (Great Bible)(Coverdale)

* [[1549 AD|1549]] And I heard an angel say: Lord which art & wast, thou art rightuous & holy, because thou hast geuen such iudgementes, (Matthew's Bible by John Rogers)

* [[1557 AD|1557]] And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lord, thou art iust, Which art, and Which wast: and Holy, because thou hast iudged these things. (Geneva)

* [[1568 AD|1568]] And I hearde the angell of the waters say: Lorde, which art, and wast, thou art ryghteous & holy, because thou hast geuen such iudgementes: (Bishop’s)

* [[1833 AD|1833]] And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, who art, and wast, and wilt be, because thou hast judged thus. (Websters)

* [[1851 AD|1851]] And I heard the angel of the waters say: Righteous art thou, who art and who wast, and art holy; because thou hast done this judgment. (Murdock Translation by James Murdock)

* [[1898 AD|1898]] and I heard the messenger of the waters, saying, `righteous, O Lord, art Thou, who art, and who wast, and who shalt be, because these things Thou didst judge, (Young's Literal Translation)

* [[1982 AD|1982]] And I heard the angel of the waters saying: 'You are righteous, O Lord, The One who is and who was and who is to be, Because You have judged these things. ([[New King James Version]])

==Foreign Language Translations==

====Albanian====

* Dhe dëgjova engjëllin e ujërave duke thënë: ''Ti je i drejtë, o Zot, që je që ishe dhe që do të vish, i Shenjti që gjykoi këto gjëra.

====Armenian====

Լսեցի ջուրերուն հրեշտակը՝ որ կ՚ըսէր. «Արդա՛ր ես, դուն՝ որ ես եւ որ էիր, ու սո՛ւրբ ես՝ որ ա՛յսպէս դատեցիր,

====Arabic====

====Basque====

* Eta ençun neçan vretaco Aingueruä, cioela, Iusto aiz Iauna, Aicena eta Incena eta Saindua: ceren gauça hauc iugeatu baitituc: (Navarro-Labourdin)

====Bulgarian====

* И чух ангела на водите да казва: Праведен си Ти, Пресвети, Който си, и Който си бил, загдето си отсъдил така;

====Czech====

* [[1613 AD|1613]] Nebo tři jsou, kteříž svědectví vydávají na nebi: Otec, Slovo, a Duch Svatý, a ti tři jedno jsou. [[bible of Kralice]]

====Croatian====

* I začujem anđela voda gdje govori: Pravedan si, Ti koji jesi i koji bijaše, Sveti, što si tako dosudio!

====French====

* [[1744 AD|1744]] Et j'entendis l'ange des eaux, qui disait: Tu es juste, Seigneur, QUI ES, et QUI ÉTAIS, et QUI SERAS saint, parce que tu as exercé ces jugements. (Ostervald)

* [[1744 AD|1744]] Et j'entendis l'Ange des eaux, qui disait : Seigneur, QUI ES, QUI ÉTAIS, et QUI SERAS, tu es juste, parce que tu as fait un tel jugement. (Martin)

* Et j'entendis l'ange des eaux, disant: Tu es juste, toi qui es et qui étais, le Saint, parce que tu as ainsi jugé; (Darby)

* [[1864 AD|1864]] (Augustin Crampon)

* [[1910 AD|1910]] (Louis Segond)

====German====

* [[1545 AD|1545]] Und ich horte den Angel der Wasser sagen: herr, du bist gerecht, der da ist und der da war, und heilig, dab du solches geurteilt hast (Luther)

* [[1871]] Und ich hörte den Engel der Wasser sagen: Du bist gerecht, der da ist und der da war, der Heilige, (O. Fromme) daß du also gerichtet (O. geurteilt) hast. (Elberfelder)

====Italian====

* [[1927 AD|1927]] E udii l’angelo delle acque che diceva: Sei giusto, tu che sei e che eri, tu, il Santo, per aver così giudicato. (Riveduta Bible)

====Latin====

* et audivi angelum aquarum dicentem iustus es qui es et qui eras sanctus quia haec iudicasti ([[Vulgate]])

====Russian====

* [[1876 AD|1876]] И услышал я Ангела вод, который говорил: праведен Ты, Господи, Который еси и был, и свят, потому что так судил; (RUSV)

* Russian Transliteration of the Greek

* (Church Slavonic)

==[[Theodore Beza]]==

[[Theodore Beza|Beza]] himself comments on this change in a marginal note of his [[Greek]] [[New Testament]]:

:"''And shall be''": The usual publication is "''holy one''," which shows a division, contrary to the whole phrase which is foolish, distorting what is put forth in scripture. The [[Latin Vulgate|Vulgate]], however, whether it is articulately correct or not, is not proper in making the change to "''holy''," since a section (of the text) has worn away the part after "''and''," which would be absolutely necessary in connecting "''righteous''" and "''holy one''." But with [[St. John the Apostle|John]] there remains a completeness where the name of [[Jehovah]] (the Lord) is used, just as we have said before, [[Revelation 1:4|1:4]]; he always uses the three closely together, therefore it is certainly "''and shall be''," for why would he pass over it in this place? And so without doubting the genuine writing in this ancient manuscript, I faithfully restored in the good book what was certainly there, "''shall be''." So why not truthfully, with good reason, write "''which is to come''" as before in four other places, namely [[Revelation 1:4|1:4]] and [[Revelation 1:8|8]]; likewise in [[Revelation 4:3|4:3]] and [[Revelation 11:17|11:17]], because the point is the just Christ shall come away from there and bring them into being: in this way he will in fact appear setting in judgment and exercising his just and eternal decrees.

([[Theodore Beza]], Nouum Sive Nouum Foedus Iesu Christi, [[1589 AD|1589]]. Translated into [[English]] from the [[Latin]] footnote.)

Notice Beza said:

::"And so without doubting the genuine writing '''in this ancient manuscript''', I faithfully restored in the good book what was certainly there"

Jeffrey Khoo wrote the following [http://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol15_2c.htm]:

Besides the ancient Greek manuscript that Beza had, it ought to be noted that Beatus of Liebana in the eighth century, in his compilation of commentaries on the Book of Revelation has the Latin phrase, qui fuisti et futures es, for Revelation 16:5 which was found in the commentary of Tyconius which goes back to the fourth century.51 It is entirely possible that there were either early Greek manuscripts or Old Latin versions as early as the fourth century which contained the reading esomenos.

It is also significant to note that the reading hosios preferred by Combs is a harder reading. Robert L Thomas, Professor of New Testament at The Master’s Seminary, citing Swete commented, "Taking hosios as parallel with dikaios creates an intolerable harshness, however, and taking the adjective as a predicate adjective with ho on and ho en breaks the pattern of the Apocalypse in not assigning the expression a predicate nominative or adjective."52 We note that the reading ho esomenos, the future participle of eimi in its masculine, singular, nominative form with the definite article fits well the pattern of the Apocalypse and functions well as an adjectival participle to describe dikaios—the Righteous One who shall soon come to judge a most wicked world.

Although it is admitted that ho esomenos is not the reading found in the Majority Text, we are wont to agree with Hills that such minority readings "seem to have been placed in the Greek TR by the direction of God’s special providence and therefore are to be retained."53 It is also admitted that the reading of ho hosios in Stephen’s edition of the TR differs from Beza’s ho esomenos. So what do we do with the rare occasions when the several editions of the TR differ from one another? Hills replied,

The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith. Hence we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon which more than any other God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval, namely, the King James Version, or, more precisely the Greek text underlying the King James Version.

==[[D. A. Waite]]==

[[D. A. Waite]] says that modern English versions are theologically deficient at Revelation 16:5 for the removal of "and shalt be" (Defending the KJB, p. 170). Waite wrote: “The removal of ‘and shalt be’ puts in doubt the eternal future of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is certainly a matter of doctrine and theology” (p. 170).

==John Wordsworth==

Dr. John Wordsworth (who edited and footnoted a three volume critical edition of the New Testament in Latin) pointed out that the like phrase in Revelation 1:4 "which is, and which was, and which is to come;" sometimes is rendered in Latin as "qui est et qui fuisti et futurus es" instead of the Vulgate "qui est et qui erat et qui uenturus est." (John Wordsworth, Nouum Testamentum Latine, vol.3, 422 and 424.)

Wordsworth also points out that in Revelation 16:5, Beatus of Liebana (who compiled a commentary on the book of Revelation) uses the Latin phrase "qui fuisti et futures es." This gives some additional evidence for the Greek reading by Beza (although he apparently drew his conclusion for other reasons). Beatus compiled his commentary in 786 AD. Furthermore, Beatus was not writing his own commentary. Instead he was making a compilation and thus preserving the work of Tyconius, who wrote his commentary on Revelation around [[380 AD]] (Aland and Aland, 211 and 216. Altaner, 437. Wordsword, 533.). So, it would seem that as early as 786, and possibly even as early as 380, their was an Old Latin text which read as Beza's Greek text does.

==[[Will Kinney]]==

* See Also ''[[Article: Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be" by Will Kinney|Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be"]] by [[Will Kinney]]''

:"The King James Bible translators did not slavishly follow Beza’s Greek text, but after much prayer, study and comparison, did include Beza’s reading of “and shalt be” in Revelation 16:5. We do not know what other Greek texts the KJB translators possessed at that time that may have helped them in their decisions. They then passed this reading on to future generations in the greatest Bible ever written. Since God has clearly placed His mark of divine approval upon the KJB throughout the last 400 years, I trust that He providentially guided the translators to give us His true words."

==[[Jack Moorman]]==

[[Jack Moorman]]:
:"The KJV reading is in harmony with the four other places in Revelation where this phrase is found…. Indeed Christ is the Holy One, but in the Scriptures of the Apostle John the title is found only once (1 John. 2:20), and there, a totally different Greek word is used. The Preface to the Authorised Version reads: “with the former translations diligently compared and revised”. The translators must have felt there was good reason to insert these words though it ran counter to much external evidence. They obviously did not believe the charge made today that Beza inserted it on the basis of conjectural emendation. They knew that they were translating the Word of God, and so do we. The logic of faith should lead us to see God’s guiding providence in a passage such as this." —
[[Jack Moorman]] in ''When the KJV Departs from the So-Called Majority Text'' ([[Bible for Today]]: [[1988 AD|1988]]), pg. 102.

==Edward F. Hills==

According to Edward F. Hills, this [[KJV]] rendering “shalt be” came from a conjectural emendation interjected into the Greek text by [[Theodore Beza|Beza]] (Believing Bible Study, pp. 205-206). Hills again acknowledged that [[Theodore Beza]] introduced a few conjectural emendations in his edition of the [[Textus Receptus]] with two of them kept in the KJV, one of them at Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy.

:''Like [[John Calvin|Calvin]], [[Theodore Beza|Beza]] introduced a few conjectural emendations into his [[New Testament]] text. In the providence of God, however, only two of these were perpetuated in the [[King James Version]], namely, [[Romans 7:6]] that being dead wherein instead of being dead to that wherein, and Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy. In the development of the Textus Receptus the influence of the common faith kept conjectural emendation down to a minimum.'' [1]

Edward Hills identified the [[KJV]] reading at Revelation 16:5 as “certainly erroneous” and as a “conjectural emendation by [[Theodore Beza|Beza]]” (Believing Bible Study, p. 83).

==William W. Combs==

William W. Combs maintained: “[[Theodore Beza|Beza]] simply speculated (guessed), without any evidence whatsoever, that the correct reading was ‘shall be’ instead of ‘holy one’” (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall, 1999, p. 156).

==J. I. Mombert==

J. I. Mombert listed Revelation 16:5 as one of the places where he maintained that “the reading of the [[AV|A. V.]] is supported by no known Greek manuscript whatever, but rests on an error of Erasmus or [[Theodore Beza|Beza]]” (Hand-book, p. 389).

==Bullinger==

Bullinger indicated that [[1624 AD|1624]] edition of the Elzevirs’ Greek text has “the holy one” at this verse (Lexicon, p. 689). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Walter Scott asserted that the KJV’s rendering “shalt be” was an unnecessary interpolation and that the KJV omitted the title “holy One” (p. 326).

==Bruce Metzger==

Bruce Metzger defines this term as,

:''The classical method of textual criticism . . . If the only reading, or each of several variant readings, which the documents of a text supply is impossible or incomprehensible, the editor's only remaining resource is to conjecture what the original reading must have been. A typical emendation involves the removal of an anomaly. It must not be overlooked, however, that though some anomalies are the result of corruption in the transmission of the text, other anomalies may have been either intended or tolerated by the author himself. Before resorting to conjectural emendation, therefore, the critic must be so thoroughly acquainted with the style and thought of his author that he cannot but judge a certain anomaly to be foreign to the author's intention.'' (Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, 182.)

From this, we learn the following.

:1). Conjectural emendation is a classical method of textual criticism often used in every translation or Greek text when there is question about the authenticity of a particular passage of scripture.

:2). There should be more than one variant in the passage in question.

:3). The variant in question contextually should fit and should be in agreement with the style of the writer.

==John Gill==

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible says;

:''The Alexandrian copy, and most others, and the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions, read "holy", instead of "shalt be"; for the purity and holiness of Christ will be seen in the judgments which he will exercise, as follows:

:because thou hast judged thus; or "these things"; or "them", as the Ethiopic version reads; that is, has brought these judgments upon the men signified by rivers and fountains, and made great havoc and slaughter of them, expressed by their becoming blood; the justice of which appears from the following reason.''

==See Also==

* [[Revelation 16:5 And Shalt Be]]
* [[Article: Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be" by Will Kinney|Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be"]] by [[Will Kinney]]
* [[Conjecture (textual criticism)]]

==References==
* 1. Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 208

==External Links==

===Supportive===

* [http://brandplucked.webs.com/rev165shaltbe5810us.htm Revelation 16:5] by [[Will Kinney]]

* [http://sites.google.com/site/kjvtoday/home/translation-issues/shalt-be-or-holy-one-in-revelation-165 Beza and Revelation 16:5] by [[KJV Today]]

===Critical===

* [http://www.bibleone.org/Article.aspx?channel=1&article=33 Revelation 16:5]

* [http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/testing-the-textus-receptus-rev-165/ Testing the Textus Receptus: Rev. 16:5]

* [http://www.lectionist.org/wwsb/Revelation/16/5.html Study Helps]

Revelation 16:5

2011-02-16T09:45:06Z

Greek Textus Receptus: /* Theodore Beza */

'''Revelation 16:5''' [[2532|And]] [[191|I heard]] [[3588|the]] [[32|angel]] [[3588|of the]] [[5204|waters]] [[3004|say]], [[1488|Thou art]] [[1342|righteous]], [[2962|O Lord]], [[3588|which]] [[5607|art]], [[2532|and]] [[2258|wast]], [[2532|and]] [[2071|shalt be]], [[3754|because]] [[2919|thou hast judged]] [[5023|thus]].

====Textus Receptus====
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 Complutensian Polyglot.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1514 AD|1514]] [[Complutensian Polyglot]]]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 Erasmus 1516.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1516 AD|1516]] Greek New Testament of Erasmus]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 Stephanus 1550.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1550 AD|1550]] Greek New Testament of Stephanus]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 Stephanus 1550 Margin.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] Margin in [[Greek]] in the [[1550 AD|1550]] Greek New Testament of Stephanus]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5Beza 1565.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1565 AD|1565]] Greek New Testament of Beza]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 Beza 1598.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1598 AD|1598]] New Testament of Beza]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 English Hexapla 1841.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1841 AD|1841]] English Hexapla]]

* [[1514 AD|1514]] ([[Complutensian Polyglot]])
* [[1516 AD|1516]] (Erasmus 1st)
* [[1519 AD|1519]] (Erasmus 2nd)
* [[1522 AD|1522]] (Erasmus 3rd)
* [[1527 AD|1527]] (Erasmus 4th)
* [[1535 AD|1535]] (Erasmus 5th)
* [[1546 AD|1546]] (Stephanus 1st)
* [[1549 AD|1549]] (Stephanus 2nd)
* [[1550 AD|1550]] καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος Δίκαιος Κύριε, εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὅσιος ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας (Stephanus 3rd)
* [[1551 AD|1551]] (Stephanus 4th)
* [[1565 AD|1565]] (Beza 1st)
* [[1565 AD|1565]] (Beza Octavo 1st)
* [[1567 AD|1567]] (Beza Octavo 2nd)
* [[1580 AD|1580]] (Beza Octavo 3rd)
* [[1582 AD|1582]] (Beza 2nd)
* [[1588 AD|1588]] (Beza 3rd)
* [[1590 AD|1590]] (Beza Octavo 4th)
* [[1598 AD|1598]] καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος, Δίκαιος, Κύριε, εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας· [[Revelation 16:5 Beza 1598]] ([[Theodore Beza|Beza]])
* [[1604 AD|1604]] (Beza Octavo 5th)
* [[1624 AD|1624]] (Elzevir)
* [[1633 AD|1633]] (Elzevir)
* [[1641 AD|1641]] (Elzevir)
* [[1841 AD|1841]] [[Johann Martin Augustin Scholz|Scholz]])
* [[1894 AD|1894]] (Scrivener)
* [[2000 AD|2000]] (Byzantine/Majority Text)

P47 is slightly worn, the Greek text which Beza used was greatly worn. This is so noted by Beza himself in his footnote on Revelation 16:5 as he gives reason for his conjectural emendation. ([http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Revelation_16:5#Theodore_Beza See Below ] )

Erasmus 1522 and Stephanus 1550 also have "kai," and this was before P47 was known to scholars, so there was more than just "one manuscript standing out.

==Other Greek==
[[Image:Revelation 16.5 Sinaiticus.JPG|200px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in the Greek [[Codex Sinaiticus]]]]
* [[250 AD|250]] και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος ει ο ων και ος ην και οσιος̣ οτι ταυτα εκρινας ([[Papyrus 47]]) Papyrus 47 conatins "και"
* καί ἀκούω ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ ὕδωρ λέγω δίκαιος εἰμί ὁ εἰμί καί ὁ εἰμί ὁ ὅσιος ὅτι οὗτος κρίνω Tischendorf 8th Ed
* καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος, δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας Westcott / Hort, UBS4

==English Versions==

* [[1395 AD|1395]] [And the thridde aungel... seide,] Just art thou, Lord, that art, and that were hooli, that demest these thingis; (Wycliffe)

* [[1526 AD|1526]] And I herde an angell saye: lorde which arte and wast thou arte ryghteous and holy because thou hast geve soche iudgmentes (Tyndale)

* [[1535 AD|1535]] And I herde an angel saye: LORDE which art and wast, thou art righteous and holy, because thou hast geue soche iudgmentes, (Coverdale)

* [[1540 AD|1540]] And I herde an Angell saye: Lorde, whych arte and wast, thou arte ryghteous & holy, because thou hast geuen soche iudgementes, (Great Bible)(Coverdale)

* [[1549 AD|1549]] And I heard an angel say: Lord which art & wast, thou art rightuous & holy, because thou hast geuen such iudgementes, (Matthew's Bible by John Rogers)

* [[1557 AD|1557]] And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lord, thou art iust, Which art, and Which wast: and Holy, because thou hast iudged these things. (Geneva)

* [[1568 AD|1568]] And I hearde the angell of the waters say: Lorde, which art, and wast, thou art ryghteous & holy, because thou hast geuen such iudgementes: (Bishop’s)

* [[1833 AD|1833]] And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, who art, and wast, and wilt be, because thou hast judged thus. (Websters)

* [[1851 AD|1851]] And I heard the angel of the waters say: Righteous art thou, who art and who wast, and art holy; because thou hast done this judgment. (Murdock Translation by James Murdock)

* [[1898 AD|1898]] and I heard the messenger of the waters, saying, `righteous, O Lord, art Thou, who art, and who wast, and who shalt be, because these things Thou didst judge, (Young's Literal Translation)

* [[1982 AD|1982]] And I heard the angel of the waters saying: 'You are righteous, O Lord, The One who is and who was and who is to be, Because You have judged these things. ([[New King James Version]])

==Foreign Language Translations==

====Albanian====

* Dhe dëgjova engjëllin e ujërave duke thënë: ''Ti je i drejtë, o Zot, që je që ishe dhe që do të vish, i Shenjti që gjykoi këto gjëra.

====Armenian====

Լսեցի ջուրերուն հրեշտակը՝ որ կ՚ըսէր. «Արդա՛ր ես, դուն՝ որ ես եւ որ էիր, ու սո՛ւրբ ես՝ որ ա՛յսպէս դատեցիր,

====Arabic====

====Basque====

* Eta ençun neçan vretaco Aingueruä, cioela, Iusto aiz Iauna, Aicena eta Incena eta Saindua: ceren gauça hauc iugeatu baitituc: (Navarro-Labourdin)

====Bulgarian====

* И чух ангела на водите да казва: Праведен си Ти, Пресвети, Който си, и Който си бил, загдето си отсъдил така;

====Czech====

* [[1613 AD|1613]] Nebo tři jsou, kteříž svědectví vydávají na nebi: Otec, Slovo, a Duch Svatý, a ti tři jedno jsou. [[bible of Kralice]]

====Croatian====

* I začujem anđela voda gdje govori: Pravedan si, Ti koji jesi i koji bijaše, Sveti, što si tako dosudio!

====French====

* [[1744 AD|1744]] Et j'entendis l'ange des eaux, qui disait: Tu es juste, Seigneur, QUI ES, et QUI ÉTAIS, et QUI SERAS saint, parce que tu as exercé ces jugements. (Ostervald)

* [[1744 AD|1744]] Et j'entendis l'Ange des eaux, qui disait : Seigneur, QUI ES, QUI ÉTAIS, et QUI SERAS, tu es juste, parce que tu as fait un tel jugement. (Martin)

* Et j'entendis l'ange des eaux, disant: Tu es juste, toi qui es et qui étais, le Saint, parce que tu as ainsi jugé; (Darby)

* [[1864 AD|1864]] (Augustin Crampon)

* [[1910 AD|1910]] (Louis Segond)

====German====

* [[1545 AD|1545]] Und ich horte den Angel der Wasser sagen: herr, du bist gerecht, der da ist und der da war, und heilig, dab du solches geurteilt hast (Luther)

* [[1871]] Und ich hörte den Engel der Wasser sagen: Du bist gerecht, der da ist und der da war, der Heilige, (O. Fromme) daß du also gerichtet (O. geurteilt) hast. (Elberfelder)

====Italian====

* [[1927 AD|1927]] E udii l’angelo delle acque che diceva: Sei giusto, tu che sei e che eri, tu, il Santo, per aver così giudicato. (Riveduta Bible)

====Latin====

* et audivi angelum aquarum dicentem iustus es qui es et qui eras sanctus quia haec iudicasti ([[Vulgate]])

====Russian====

* [[1876 AD|1876]] И услышал я Ангела вод, который говорил: праведен Ты, Господи, Который еси и был, и свят, потому что так судил; (RUSV)

* Russian Transliteration of the Greek

* (Church Slavonic)

==[[Theodore Beza]]==

[[Theodore Beza|Beza]] himself comments on this change in a marginal note of his [[Greek]] [[New Testament]]:

:"''And shall be''": The usual publication is "''holy one''," which shows a division, contrary to the whole phrase which is foolish, distorting what is put forth in scripture. The [[Latin Vulgate|Vulgate]], however, whether it is articulately correct or not, is not proper in making the change to "''holy''," since a section (of the text) has worn away the part after "''and''," which would be absolutely necessary in connecting "''righteous''" and "''holy one''." But with [[St. John the Apostle|John]] there remains a completeness where the name of [[Jehovah]] (the Lord) is used, just as we have said before, [[Revelation 1:4|1:4]]; he always uses the three closely together, therefore it is certainly "''and shall be''," for why would he pass over it in this place? And so without doubting the genuine writing in this ancient manuscript, I faithfully restored in the good book what was certainly there, "''shall be''." So why not truthfully, with good reason, write "''which is to come''" as before in four other places, namely [[Revelation 1:4|1:4]] and [[Revelation 1:8|8]]; likewise in [[Revelation 4:3|4:3]] and [[Revelation 11:17|11:17]], because the point is the just Christ shall come away from there and bring them into being: in this way he will in fact appear setting in judgment and exercising his just and eternal decrees.

([[Theodore Beza]], Nouum Sive Nouum Foedus Iesu Christi, [[1589 AD|1589]]. Translated into [[English]] from the [[Latin]] footnote.)

Notice Beza said:

::"And so without doubting the genuine writing '''in this ancient manuscript''', I faithfully restored in the good book what was certainly there"

Jeffrey Khoo wrote the following [http://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol15_2c.htm]:

Besides the ancient Greek manuscript that Beza had, it ought to be noted that Beatus of Liebana in the eighth century, in his compilation of commentaries on the Book of Revelation has the Latin phrase, qui fuisti et futures es, for Revelation 16:5 which was found in the commentary of Tyconius which goes back to the fourth century.51 It is entirely possible that there were either early Greek manuscripts or Old Latin versions as early as the fourth century which contained the reading esomenos.

It is also significant to note that the reading hosios preferred by Combs is a harder reading. Robert L Thomas, Professor of New Testament at The Master’s Seminary, citing Swete commented, "Taking hosios as parallel with dikaios creates an intolerable harshness, however, and taking the adjective as a predicate adjective with ho on and ho en breaks the pattern of the Apocalypse in not assigning the expression a predicate nominative or adjective."52 We note that the reading ho esomenos, the future participle of eimi in its masculine, singular, nominative form with the definite article fits well the pattern of the Apocalypse and functions well as an adjectival participle to describe dikaios—the Righteous One who shall soon come to judge a most wicked world.

Although it is admitted that ho esomenos is not the reading found in the Majority Text, we are wont to agree with Hills that such minority readings "seem to have been placed in the Greek TR by the direction of God’s special providence and therefore are to be retained."53 It is also admitted that the reading of ho hosios in Stephen’s edition of the TR differs from Beza’s ho esomenos. So what do we do with the rare occasions when the several editions of the TR differ from one another? Hills replied,

The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith. Hence we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon which more than any other God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval, namely, the King James Version, or, more precisely the Greek text underlying the King James Version.

==[[D. A. Waite]]==

[[D. A. Waite]] says that modern English versions are theologically deficient at Revelation 16:5 for the removal of "and shalt be" (Defending the KJB, p. 170). Waite wrote: “The removal of ‘and shalt be’ puts in doubt the eternal future of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is certainly a matter of doctrine and theology” (p. 170).

==John Wordsworth==

Dr. John Wordsworth (who edited and footnoted a three volume critical edition of the New Testament in Latin) pointed out that the like phrase in Revelation 1:4 "which is, and which was, and which is to come;" sometimes is rendered in Latin as "qui est et qui fuisti et futurus es" instead of the Vulgate "qui est et qui erat et qui uenturus est." (John Wordsworth, Nouum Testamentum Latine, vol.3, 422 and 424.)

Wordsworth also points out that in Revelation 16:5, Beatus of Liebana (who compiled a commentary on the book of Revelation) uses the Latin phrase "qui fuisti et futures es." This gives some additional evidence for the Greek reading by Beza (although he apparently drew his conclusion for other reasons). Beatus compiled his commentary in 786 AD. Furthermore, Beatus was not writing his own commentary. Instead he was making a compilation and thus preserving the work of Tyconius, who wrote his commentary on Revelation around [[380 AD]] (Aland and Aland, 211 and 216. Altaner, 437. Wordsword, 533.). So, it would seem that as early as 786, and possibly even as early as 380, their was an Old Latin text which read as Beza's Greek text does.

==[[Will Kinney]]==

* See Also ''[[Article: Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be" by Will Kinney|Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be"]] by [[Will Kinney]]''

:"The King James Bible translators did not slavishly follow Beza’s Greek text, but after much prayer, study and comparison, did include Beza’s reading of “and shalt be” in Revelation 16:5. We do not know what other Greek texts the KJB translators possessed at that time that may have helped them in their decisions. They then passed this reading on to future generations in the greatest Bible ever written. Since God has clearly placed His mark of divine approval upon the KJB throughout the last 400 years, I trust that He providentially guided the translators to give us His true words."

==[[Jack Moorman]]==

[[Jack Moorman]]:
:"The KJV reading is in harmony with the four other places in Revelation where this phrase is found…. Indeed Christ is the Holy One, but in the Scriptures of the Apostle John the title is found only once (1 John. 2:20), and there, a totally different Greek word is used. The Preface to the Authorised Version reads: “with the former translations diligently compared and revised”. The translators must have felt there was good reason to insert these words though it ran counter to much external evidence. They obviously did not believe the charge made today that Beza inserted it on the basis of conjectural emendation. They knew that they were translating the Word of God, and so do we. The logic of faith should lead us to see God’s guiding providence in a passage such as this." —
[[Jack Moorman]] in ''When the KJV Departs from the So-Called Majority Text'' ([[Bible for Today]]: [[1988 AD|1988]]), pg. 102.

==Edward F. Hills==

According to Edward F. Hills, this [[KJV]] rendering “shalt be” came from a conjectural emendation interjected into the Greek text by [[Theodore Beza|Beza]] (Believing Bible Study, pp. 205-206). Hills again acknowledged that [[Theodore Beza]] introduced a few conjectural emendations in his edition of the [[Textus Receptus]] with two of them kept in the KJV, one of them at Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy.

:''Like [[John Calvin|Calvin]], [[Theodore Beza|Beza]] introduced a few conjectural emendations into his [[New Testament]] text. In the providence of God, however, only two of these were perpetuated in the [[King James Version]], namely, [[Romans 7:6]] that being dead wherein instead of being dead to that wherein, and Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy. In the development of the Textus Receptus the influence of the common faith kept conjectural emendation down to a minimum.'' [1]

Edward Hills identified the [[KJV]] reading at Revelation 16:5 as “certainly erroneous” and as a “conjectural emendation by [[Theodore Beza|Beza]]” (Believing Bible Study, p. 83).

==William W. Combs==

William W. Combs maintained: “[[Theodore Beza|Beza]] simply speculated (guessed), without any evidence whatsoever, that the correct reading was ‘shall be’ instead of ‘holy one’” (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall, 1999, p. 156).

==J. I. Mombert==

J. I. Mombert listed Revelation 16:5 as one of the places where he maintained that “the reading of the [[AV|A. V.]] is supported by no known Greek manuscript whatever, but rests on an error of Erasmus or [[Theodore Beza|Beza]]” (Hand-book, p. 389).

==Bullinger==

Bullinger indicated that [[1624 AD|1624]] edition of the Elzevirs’ Greek text has “the holy one” at this verse (Lexicon, p. 689). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Walter Scott asserted that the KJV’s rendering “shalt be” was an unnecessary interpolation and that the KJV omitted the title “holy One” (p. 326).

==Bruce Metzger==

Bruce Metzger defines this term as,

:''The classical method of textual criticism . . . If the only reading, or each of several variant readings, which the documents of a text supply is impossible or incomprehensible, the editor's only remaining resource is to conjecture what the original reading must have been. A typical emendation involves the removal of an anomaly. It must not be overlooked, however, that though some anomalies are the result of corruption in the transmission of the text, other anomalies may have been either intended or tolerated by the author himself. Before resorting to conjectural emendation, therefore, the critic must be so thoroughly acquainted with the style and thought of his author that he cannot but judge a certain anomaly to be foreign to the author's intention.'' (Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, 182.)

From this, we learn the following.

:1). Conjectural emendation is a classical method of textual criticism often used in every translation or Greek text when there is question about the authenticity of a particular passage of scripture.

:2). There should be more than one variant in the passage in question.

:3). The variant in question contextually should fit and should be in agreement with the style of the writer.

==John Gill==

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible says;

:''The Alexandrian copy, and most others, and the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions, read "holy", instead of "shalt be"; for the purity and holiness of Christ will be seen in the judgments which he will exercise, as follows:

:because thou hast judged thus; or "these things"; or "them", as the Ethiopic version reads; that is, has brought these judgments upon the men signified by rivers and fountains, and made great havoc and slaughter of them, expressed by their becoming blood; the justice of which appears from the following reason.''

==See Also==

* [[Revelation 16:5 And Shalt Be]]
* [[Article: Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be" by Will Kinney|Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be"]] by [[Will Kinney]]
* [[Conjecture (textual criticism)]]

==References==
* 1. Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 208

==External Links==

===Supportive===

* [http://brandplucked.webs.com/rev165shaltbe5810us.htm Revelation 16:5] by [[Will Kinney]]

* [http://sites.google.com/site/kjvtoday/home/translation-issues/shalt-be-or-holy-one-in-revelation-165 Beza and Revelation 16:5] by [[KJV Today]]

===Critical===

* [http://www.bibleone.org/Article.aspx?channel=1&article=33 Revelation 16:5]

* [http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/testing-the-textus-receptus-rev-165/ Testing the Textus Receptus: Rev. 16:5]

* [http://www.lectionist.org/wwsb/Revelation/16/5.html Study Helps]

Jack Moorman James White Debate

2011-02-16T09:31:27Z

Greek Textus Receptus: New page: ==External Links== * [http://greatbiblehoax.blogspot.com/2011/02/d-waite-comments-on-moorman-white.html D A Waite comments on the Moorman-White Debate]

==External Links==

* [http://greatbiblehoax.blogspot.com/2011/02/d-waite-comments-on-moorman-white.html D A Waite comments on the Moorman-White Debate]

Talk:Proverbs 26

2011-02-16T09:17:15Z

Greek Textus Receptus: Removing all content from page

2011-02-14T11:04:34Z

File:Esomenos Complutensian Polyglot.JPG

2011-02-14T10:38:42Z

Greek Textus Receptus:

Revelation 16:5 And Shalt Be

2011-02-14T10:38:32Z

Greek Textus Receptus:

[[Image:osios Complutensian Polyglot.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[ὅσιος]] in the [[Greek]] to [[Latin]] dictionary in the [[1514 AD|1514]] Complutensian Polyglot]]
[[Image:esomenos Complutensian Polyglot.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[ὅσιος]] in the [[Greek]] to [[Latin]] dictionary in the [[1514 AD|1514]] Complutensian Polyglot]]

Among foreign language Bibles that follow the same Greek texts:

KJV “and shalt be”
French Martin of 1744
French Ostervald 1996 “Seigneur, QUI ES, QUI ÉTAIS, et QUI SERAS”,
Spanish Reina Valera Gomez 2005 “Y oí al ángel de las aguas, que decía: Justo eres tú, oh Señor, que eres y que eras, Y SERAS, porque has juzgado así.”

==See Also==

* [[Revelation 16:5]]

Revelation 16:5

2011-02-14T10:35:23Z

Greek Textus Receptus: /* See Also */

'''Revelation 16:5''' [[2532|And]] [[191|I heard]] [[3588|the]] [[32|angel]] [[3588|of the]] [[5204|waters]] [[3004|say]], [[1488|Thou art]] [[1342|righteous]], [[2962|O Lord]], [[3588|which]] [[5607|art]], [[2532|and]] [[2258|wast]], [[2532|and]] [[2071|shalt be]], [[3754|because]] [[2919|thou hast judged]] [[5023|thus]].

====Textus Receptus====
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 Complutensian Polyglot.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1514 AD|1514]] [[Complutensian Polyglot]]]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 Erasmus 1516.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1516 AD|1516]] Greek New Testament of Erasmus]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 Stephanus 1550.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1550 AD|1550]] Greek New Testament of Stephanus]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 Stephanus 1550 Margin.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] Margin in [[Greek]] in the [[1550 AD|1550]] Greek New Testament of Stephanus]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5Beza 1565.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1565 AD|1565]] Greek New Testament of Beza]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 Beza 1598.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1598 AD|1598]] New Testament of Beza]]
[[Image:Revelation 16 5 English Hexapla 1841.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1841 AD|1841]] English Hexapla]]

* [[1514 AD|1514]] ([[Complutensian Polyglot]])
* [[1516 AD|1516]] (Erasmus 1st)
* [[1519 AD|1519]] (Erasmus 2nd)
* [[1522 AD|1522]] (Erasmus 3rd)
* [[1527 AD|1527]] (Erasmus 4th)
* [[1535 AD|1535]] (Erasmus 5th)
* [[1546 AD|1546]] (Stephanus 1st)
* [[1549 AD|1549]] (Stephanus 2nd)
* [[1550 AD|1550]] καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος Δίκαιος Κύριε, εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὅσιος ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας (Stephanus 3rd)
* [[1551 AD|1551]] (Stephanus 4th)
* [[1565 AD|1565]] (Beza 1st)
* [[1565 AD|1565]] (Beza Octavo 1st)
* [[1567 AD|1567]] (Beza Octavo 2nd)
* [[1580 AD|1580]] (Beza Octavo 3rd)
* [[1582 AD|1582]] (Beza 2nd)
* [[1588 AD|1588]] (Beza 3rd)
* [[1590 AD|1590]] (Beza Octavo 4th)
* [[1598 AD|1598]] καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος, Δίκαιος, Κύριε, εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας· [[Revelation 16:5 Beza 1598]] ([[Theodore Beza|Beza]])
* [[1604 AD|1604]] (Beza Octavo 5th)
* [[1624 AD|1624]] (Elzevir)
* [[1633 AD|1633]] (Elzevir)
* [[1641 AD|1641]] (Elzevir)
* [[1841 AD|1841]] [[Johann Martin Augustin Scholz|Scholz]])
* [[1894 AD|1894]] (Scrivener)
* [[2000 AD|2000]] (Byzantine/Majority Text)

P47 is slightly worn, the Greek text which Beza used was greatly worn. This is so noted by Beza himself in his footnote on Revelation 16:5 as he gives reason for his conjectural emendation. ([http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Revelation_16:5#Theodore_Beza See Below ] )

Erasmus 1522 and Stephanus 1550 also have "kai," and this was before P47 was known to scholars, so there was more than just "one manuscript standing out.

==Other Greek==
[[Image:Revelation 16.5 Sinaiticus.JPG|200px|thumb|right|[[Revelation 16:5]] in the Greek [[Codex Sinaiticus]]]]
* [[250 AD|250]] και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος ει ο ων και ος ην και οσιος̣ οτι ταυτα εκρινας ([[Papyrus 47]]) Papyrus 47 conatins "και"
* καί ἀκούω ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ ὕδωρ λέγω δίκαιος εἰμί ὁ εἰμί καί ὁ εἰμί ὁ ὅσιος ὅτι οὗτος κρίνω Tischendorf 8th Ed
* καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος, δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας Westcott / Hort, UBS4

==English Versions==

* [[1395 AD|1395]] [And the thridde aungel... seide,] Just art thou, Lord, that art, and that were hooli, that demest these thingis; (Wycliffe)

* [[1526 AD|1526]] And I herde an angell saye: lorde which arte and wast thou arte ryghteous and holy because thou hast geve soche iudgmentes (Tyndale)

* [[1535 AD|1535]] And I herde an angel saye: LORDE which art and wast, thou art righteous and holy, because thou hast geue soche iudgmentes, (Coverdale)

* [[1540 AD|1540]] And I herde an Angell saye: Lorde, whych arte and wast, thou arte ryghteous & holy, because thou hast geuen soche iudgementes, (Great Bible)(Coverdale)

* [[1549 AD|1549]] And I heard an angel say: Lord which art & wast, thou art rightuous & holy, because thou hast geuen such iudgementes, (Matthew's Bible by John Rogers)

* [[1557 AD|1557]] And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lord, thou art iust, Which art, and Which wast: and Holy, because thou hast iudged these things. (Geneva)

* [[1568 AD|1568]] And I hearde the angell of the waters say: Lorde, which art, and wast, thou art ryghteous & holy, because thou hast geuen such iudgementes: (Bishop’s)

* [[1833 AD|1833]] And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, who art, and wast, and wilt be, because thou hast judged thus. (Websters)

* [[1851 AD|1851]] And I heard the angel of the waters say: Righteous art thou, who art and who wast, and art holy; because thou hast done this judgment. (Murdock Translation by James Murdock)

* [[1898 AD|1898]] and I heard the messenger of the waters, saying, `righteous, O Lord, art Thou, who art, and who wast, and who shalt be, because these things Thou didst judge, (Young's Literal Translation)

* [[1982 AD|1982]] And I heard the angel of the waters saying: 'You are righteous, O Lord, The One who is and who was and who is to be, Because You have judged these things. ([[New King James Version]])

==Foreign Language Translations==

====Albanian====

* Dhe dëgjova engjëllin e ujërave duke thënë: ''Ti je i drejtë, o Zot, që je që ishe dhe që do të vish, i Shenjti që gjykoi këto gjëra.

====Armenian====

Լսեցի ջուրերուն հրեշտակը՝ որ կ՚ըսէր. «Արդա՛ր ես, դուն՝ որ ես եւ որ էիր, ու սո՛ւրբ ես՝ որ ա՛յսպէս դատեցիր,

====Arabic====

====Basque====

* Eta ençun neçan vretaco Aingueruä, cioela, Iusto aiz Iauna, Aicena eta Incena eta Saindua: ceren gauça hauc iugeatu baitituc: (Navarro-Labourdin)

====Bulgarian====

* И чух ангела на водите да казва: Праведен си Ти, Пресвети, Който си, и Който си бил, загдето си отсъдил така;

====Czech====

* [[1613 AD|1613]] Nebo tři jsou, kteříž svědectví vydávají na nebi: Otec, Slovo, a Duch Svatý, a ti tři jedno jsou. [[bible of Kralice]]

====Croatian====

* I začujem anđela voda gdje govori: Pravedan si, Ti koji jesi i koji bijaše, Sveti, što si tako dosudio!

====French====

* [[1744 AD|1744]] Et j'entendis l'ange des eaux, qui disait: Tu es juste, Seigneur, QUI ES, et QUI ÉTAIS, et QUI SERAS saint, parce que tu as exercé ces jugements. (Ostervald)

* [[1744 AD|1744]] Et j'entendis l'Ange des eaux, qui disait : Seigneur, QUI ES, QUI ÉTAIS, et QUI SERAS, tu es juste, parce que tu as fait un tel jugement. (Martin)

* Et j'entendis l'ange des eaux, disant: Tu es juste, toi qui es et qui étais, le Saint, parce que tu as ainsi jugé; (Darby)

* [[1864 AD|1864]] (Augustin Crampon)

* [[1910 AD|1910]] (Louis Segond)

====German====

* [[1545 AD|1545]] Und ich horte den Angel der Wasser sagen: herr, du bist gerecht, der da ist und der da war, und heilig, dab du solches geurteilt hast (Luther)

* [[1871]] Und ich hörte den Engel der Wasser sagen: Du bist gerecht, der da ist und der da war, der Heilige, (O. Fromme) daß du also gerichtet (O. geurteilt) hast. (Elberfelder)

====Italian====

* [[1927 AD|1927]] E udii l’angelo delle acque che diceva: Sei giusto, tu che sei e che eri, tu, il Santo, per aver così giudicato. (Riveduta Bible)

====Latin====

* et audivi angelum aquarum dicentem iustus es qui es et qui eras sanctus quia haec iudicasti ([[Vulgate]])

====Russian====

* [[1876 AD|1876]] И услышал я Ангела вод, который говорил: праведен Ты, Господи, Который еси и был, и свят, потому что так судил; (RUSV)

* Russian Transliteration of the Greek

* (Church Slavonic)

==[[Theodore Beza]]==

[[Theodore Beza|Beza]] himself comments on this change in a marginal note of his [[Greek]] [[New Testament]]:

:"''And shall be''": The usual publication is "''holy one''," which shows a division, contrary to the whole phrase which is foolish, distorting what is put forth in scripture. The [[Latin Vulgate|Vulgate]], however, whether it is articulately correct or not, is not proper in making the change to "''holy''," since a section (of the text) has worn away the part after "''and''," which would be absolutely necessary in connecting "''righteous''" and "''holy one''." But with [[St. John the Apostle|John]] there remains a completeness where the name of [[Jehovah]] (the Lord) is used, just as we have said before, [[Revelation 1:4|1:4]]; he always uses the three closely together, therefore it is certainly "''and shall be''," for why would he pass over it in this place? And so without doubting the genuine writing in this ancient manuscript, I faithfully restored in the good book what was certainly there, "''shall be''." So why not truthfully, with good reason, write "''which is to come''" as before in four other places, namely [[Revelation 1:4|1:4]] and [[Revelation 1:8|8]]; likewise in [[Revelation 4:3|4:3]] and [[Revelation 11:17|11:17]], because the point is the just Christ shall come away from there and bring them into being: in this way he will in fact appear setting in judgment and exercising his just and eternal decrees.

([[Theodore Beza]], Nouum Sive Nouum Foedus Iesu Christi, [[1589 AD|1589]]. Translated into [[English]] from the [[Latin]] footnote.)

==[[D. A. Waite]]==

[[D. A. Waite]] says that modern English versions are theologically deficient at Revelation 16:5 for the removal of "and shalt be" (Defending the KJB, p. 170). Waite wrote: “The removal of ‘and shalt be’ puts in doubt the eternal future of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is certainly a matter of doctrine and theology” (p. 170).

==John Wordsworth==

Dr. John Wordsworth (who edited and footnoted a three volume critical edition of the New Testament in Latin) pointed out that the like phrase in Revelation 1:4 "which is, and which was, and which is to come;" sometimes is rendered in Latin as "qui est et qui fuisti et futurus es" instead of the Vulgate "qui est et qui erat et qui uenturus est." (John Wordsworth, Nouum Testamentum Latine, vol.3, 422 and 424.)

Wordsworth also points out that in Revelation 16:5, Beatus of Liebana (who compiled a commentary on the book of Revelation) uses the Latin phrase "qui fuisti et futures es." This gives some additional evidence for the Greek reading by Beza (although he apparently drew his conclusion for other reasons). Beatus compiled his commentary in 786 AD. Furthermore, Beatus was not writing his own commentary. Instead he was making a compilation and thus preserving the work of Tyconius, who wrote his commentary on Revelation around [[380 AD]] (Aland and Aland, 211 and 216. Altaner, 437. Wordsword, 533.). So, it would seem that as early as 786, and possibly even as early as 380, their was an Old Latin text which read as Beza's Greek text does.

==[[Will Kinney]]==

* See Also ''[[Article: Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be" by Will Kinney|Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be"]] by [[Will Kinney]]''

:"The King James Bible translators did not slavishly follow Beza’s Greek text, but after much prayer, study and comparison, did include Beza’s reading of “and shalt be” in Revelation 16:5. We do not know what other Greek texts the KJB translators possessed at that time that may have helped them in their decisions. They then passed this reading on to future generations in the greatest Bible ever written. Since God has clearly placed His mark of divine approval upon the KJB throughout the last 400 years, I trust that He providentially guided the translators to give us His true words."

==[[Jack Moorman]]==

[[Jack Moorman]]:
:"The KJV reading is in harmony with the four other places in Revelation where this phrase is found…. Indeed Christ is the Holy One, but in the Scriptures of the Apostle John the title is found only once (1 John. 2:20), and there, a totally different Greek word is used. The Preface to the Authorised Version reads: “with the former translations diligently compared and revised”. The translators must have felt there was good reason to insert these words though it ran counter to much external evidence. They obviously did not believe the charge made today that Beza inserted it on the basis of conjectural emendation. They knew that they were translating the Word of God, and so do we. The logic of faith should lead us to see God’s guiding providence in a passage such as this." —
[[Jack Moorman]] in ''When the KJV Departs from the So-Called Majority Text'' ([[Bible for Today]]: [[1988 AD|1988]]), pg. 102.

==Edward F. Hills==

According to Edward F. Hills, this [[KJV]] rendering “shalt be” came from a conjectural emendation interjected into the Greek text by [[Theodore Beza|Beza]] (Believing Bible Study, pp. 205-206). Hills again acknowledged that [[Theodore Beza]] introduced a few conjectural emendations in his edition of the [[Textus Receptus]] with two of them kept in the KJV, one of them at Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy.

:''Like [[John Calvin|Calvin]], [[Theodore Beza|Beza]] introduced a few conjectural emendations into his [[New Testament]] text. In the providence of God, however, only two of these were perpetuated in the [[King James Version]], namely, [[Romans 7:6]] that being dead wherein instead of being dead to that wherein, and Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy. In the development of the Textus Receptus the influence of the common faith kept conjectural emendation down to a minimum.'' [1]

Edward Hills identified the [[KJV]] reading at Revelation 16:5 as “certainly erroneous” and as a “conjectural emendation by [[Theodore Beza|Beza]]” (Believing Bible Study, p. 83).

==William W. Combs==

William W. Combs maintained: “[[Theodore Beza|Beza]] simply speculated (guessed), without any evidence whatsoever, that the correct reading was ‘shall be’ instead of ‘holy one’” (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall, 1999, p. 156).

==J. I. Mombert==

J. I. Mombert listed Revelation 16:5 as one of the places where he maintained that “the reading of the [[AV|A. V.]] is supported by no known Greek manuscript whatever, but rests on an error of Erasmus or [[Theodore Beza|Beza]]” (Hand-book, p. 389).

==Bullinger==

Bullinger indicated that [[1624 AD|1624]] edition of the Elzevirs’ Greek text has “the holy one” at this verse (Lexicon, p. 689). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Walter Scott asserted that the KJV’s rendering “shalt be” was an unnecessary interpolation and that the KJV omitted the title “holy One” (p. 326).

==Bruce Metzger==

Bruce Metzger defines this term as,

:''The classical method of textual criticism . . . If the only reading, or each of several variant readings, which the documents of a text supply is impossible or incomprehensible, the editor's only remaining resource is to conjecture what the original reading must have been. A typical emendation involves the removal of an anomaly. It must not be overlooked, however, that though some anomalies are the result of corruption in the transmission of the text, other anomalies may have been either intended or tolerated by the author himself. Before resorting to conjectural emendation, therefore, the critic must be so thoroughly acquainted with the style and thought of his author that he cannot but judge a certain anomaly to be foreign to the author's intention.'' (Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, 182.)

From this, we learn the following.

:1). Conjectural emendation is a classical method of textual criticism often used in every translation or Greek text when there is question about the authenticity of a particular passage of scripture.

:2). There should be more than one variant in the passage in question.

:3). The variant in question contextually should fit and should be in agreement with the style of the writer.

==John Gill==

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible says;

:''The Alexandrian copy, and most others, and the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions, read "holy", instead of "shalt be"; for the purity and holiness of Christ will be seen in the judgments which he will exercise, as follows:

:because thou hast judged thus; or "these things"; or "them", as the Ethiopic version reads; that is, has brought these judgments upon the men signified by rivers and fountains, and made great havoc and slaughter of them, expressed by their becoming blood; the justice of which appears from the following reason.''

==See Also==

* [[Revelation 16:5 And Shalt Be]]
* [[Article: Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be" by Will Kinney|Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be"]] by [[Will Kinney]]
* [[Conjecture (textual criticism)]]

==References==
* 1. Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 208

==External Links==

===Supportive===

* [http://brandplucked.webs.com/rev165shaltbe5810us.htm Revelation 16:5] by [[Will Kinney]]

* [http://sites.google.com/site/kjvtoday/home/translation-issues/shalt-be-or-holy-one-in-revelation-165 Beza and Revelation 16:5] by [[KJV Today]]

===Critical===

* [http://www.bibleone.org/Article.aspx?channel=1&article=33 Revelation 16:5]

* [http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/testing-the-textus-receptus-rev-165/ Testing the Textus Receptus: Rev. 16:5]

* [http://www.lectionist.org/wwsb/Revelation/16/5.html Study Helps]

2011-02-14T10:00:42Z

Greek Textus Receptus: /* Foreign Language Bibles */

[[Image:1 John 5.7 KJV.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[1 John 5:7]] in the [[1611 AD|1611]] [[King James Version]]]]

'''1 John 5:7''' [[3754|For]] [[1526|there are]] [[5140|three]] [[3140|that bear record]] [[1722|in]] [[3772|heaven]], [[3962|the Father]], [[3056|the Word]], [[2532|and]] [[40|the Holy]] [[4151|Ghost]]: [[2532|and]] [[3778|these]] [[5140|three]] [[1526|are]] [[1520|one]].

==Textus Receptus==
[[Image:1 john 5 7 complutensian polyglot.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[1 John 5:7]] in [[Greek]] in the [[1514 AD|1514]] [[Complutensian Polyglot Bible]]]]
[[Image:1 john 5 7 complutensian polyglot Latin.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[1 John 5:7]] in [[Latin]] in the [[1514 AD|1514]] [[Complutensian Polyglot Bible]]]]

* [[1514 AD|1514]] ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν/οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν/τῷ οὐρανῷ,/ὁ πατήρ, καὶ/ὁ λόγος, καὶ/τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ/οἱ τρεῖς εῖς/τὸ ἕν εἰσι· [[Complutensian Polyglot Bible]]

* [[1550 AD|1550]] ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν (Stephanus)

* [[1894 AD|1894]] ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν (Scrivener)
[[Image:1 john 5 7 1550 stephanus.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[1 John 5:7]] in [[Greek]] in the [[Robert Estienne|Stephanus]]'s [[Editio Regia]]]]

==Other Greek==

* [[1859 AD|1859]] ὅτι τρεῖς εἰμί ὁ μαρτυρέω (Tischendorf 8th Ed)

* [[1881 AD|1881]] ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, (Westcott/Hort)

==Omissions==
[[Image:Codex Ottobonianus (1 John 5,7-8).PNG|thumb|left|280px|Comma in ''Codex Ottobonianus'' (629 Gregory-Aland)]]

1 John 5:7 is omitted from many modern versions of the bible. It is one of the finest scriptures to use to support the doctrine of the [[Trinity]]. 1 John 5:7 appears is the large majority of reformation bibles, but is lacking in most modern versions.

[[John Calvin]] - "However, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and as I see that IT IS FOUND IN THE BEST AND MOST APPROVED COPIES, I am inclined to receive it as the true reading."

[[John Gill]] - commenting on 1 John 5:7 - "As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerom[e], has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters."

The New King James Version does contain the verse, but contains the footnote:

::NU-Text and M-Text omit the words from in heaven (verse 7) through on earth (verse 8). Only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek.

==English Versions==

* For thre ben that seuen witnessynge in heuene, the fadir the sone the holi goost: and thes thre ben oon Wycliffe

* (For ther are thre which beare recorde in heaven, the father, the worde, and the wholy goost. And these thre are one). Tyndale

* For there are three which beare record in heaven, The Father, the Word, and the Holy ghost, and these three are one. Bishops' Bible

* For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Geneva Bible

* For there are three that bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. (Websters)

* [[1898 AD|1898]] because three are who are testifying in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one; ([[YLT]])

* [[1984 AD|1984]] For there are three that testify: ([[NIV]])

* [[1999 AD|1999]] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. ([[American King James Version]])

==Foreign Language Bibles==

Reina-Valera:
"Porque tres son los que dan testimonio en el cielo, el Padre, el Verbo, y el Espiritu Santo; y estos tres son uno." (1 Juan 5:7)

==Daniel Wallace==

[[Daniel Wallace]] said on the John Ankerberg Show:

:"..this is a verse that was added to the bible in [[1522 AD|1522]].."

Yet, [[1514 AD|1514]] the [[Complutensian Polyglot]], which was printed in Spain and written from many unknown Greek manuscripts, contains the verse. Wallace mentions a conspiracy theory about Erasmus and how he inserted the verse into the text due to "church pressure." His conspiracy fails when one breifly looks at the Complutensian manuscripts. In [[450 AD]], Jerome cites it in his epistle to Eustochium and wants to know why it was excluded. John Calvin said:

:"However, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies, I am inclined to receive it as the true reading.." [[John Calvin]] and [[Theodore Beza]] had access to numerous Waldensian bibles.

[[John Gill]] commenting on 1 John 5:7 said:

:"As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerom[e], has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters."

:"And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephen's, nine of them had it."

{{Template:Verses in 1 John 5}}

==See Also==

* [[Comma Johanneum]]
* [[1 John 5:8]]
* [[Article: And These Three Are One by Will Kinney|And These Three Are One]] Article by [[Will Kinney]]
* [[Article:And These Three Are One by Jesse Boyd|And These Three Are One]] Article by [[Jesse Boyd]]

==External Links==
* [http://sites.google.com/site/kjvtoday/home/translation-issues/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57 KJV Today: 1 John 5:7] A fuller picture of 1 John 5:6-7. (Includes photographs of manuscripts and other visual aids)
* [http://brandplucked.webs.com/1john57.htm And These Three Are One] by [[Will Kinney]]
* [http://www.1john57.com/1john57.htm A complete list of New Testament manuscripts that verify 1 John 5:7]
* [http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/shue_johannine_comma.htm Johannine Comma] by [[Martin Shue]]
* [http://www.avdefense.webs.com/wallace.html Response to Daniel Wallace Regarding 1 John 5:7]
* [http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/1john57.htm Anonymous Author on 1 John 5:7]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum Wikipedia Article on Comma Johanneum]

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JulqQ-cV8GQ YouTube Video of Daniel Wallace making false claims that Erasmus added 1 John 5:7 to the bible in 1522]

Here is all the links I have on the KJV/TR side (I don't endorse them all some are way "out there")..:

* http://sites.google.com/site/kjvtoday/home/translation-issues/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57
* http://www.1john57.com/1john57.htm
* http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Burgon/reports/Defence%20of%20the%20Johannine%20Comma.htm
* http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/1John57.html
* http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/1john57.htm
* http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/shue_johannine_comma.htm
* http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html
* http://kjv.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/1John5-7Henry.html
* http://www.logosresourcepages.org/Versions/johannine.htm
* http://www.scionofzion.com/1_john_5_78.htm
* http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1john57-exegesis.htm
* http://www.bibleprotector.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=383
* http://www.sovereignword.org/index.php/will-kinneys-king-james-bible-defense-articles/17-1-john-57-and-these-three-are-one
* http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=51117246433&topic=14446
* http://www.kjv-asia.com/authorized_version_defence_1_john_5_7_scams.htm
* http://www.kjv-asia.com/authorized_version_defense_the_johannine_comma__1_john_5_7___av1611_code.htm
* http://www.kjv-asia.com/authorized_version_defence_manuscripts_of_the_johannine_comma__1_john_5_7_.htm
* http://www.scionofzion.com/why_1_john_5_7_8.htm
* * http://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kjv-bible-corrections/1-John-5-7-Scams.html

[[Category: Omissions that effect the diety of Christ]]
[[Category:Trinitarianism]]

2011-02-14T06:38:54Z

Greek Textus Receptus: New page: '''Amanuensis''' ({{pron-en|əˌmænjuːˈɛnsɪs}}) is a Latin word adopted in various languages, including English, for certain persons performing a function by hand, either writing down...

'''Amanuensis''' ({{pron-en|əˌmænjuːˈɛnsɪs}}) is a Latin word adopted in various languages, including English, for certain persons performing a function by hand, either writing down the words of another or performing manual labour. The term is derived from a [[Latin]] expression which may be literally translated as "manual labourer".

==Origin and secretarial uses==
The word originated in ancient Rome, for a [[slave]] at his master's personal service 'within hand reach', performing any command; later it was specifically applied to an intimately trusted servant (often a [[freedman]]) acting as a personal secretary.

A similar semantic evolution occurred at the French royal court, where the ''secrétaire de la main du roi'', originally a lowly clerk specializing in producing, at royal command, the Sovereign's signature on more documents than he cared to put his pen to, developed into the ''secrétaires d'état'', the first permanent portfolio [[minister (government)|minister]]s, to which the British [[Secretaries of State]] would be the counterpart.

The term is often used interchangeably with ''[[secretary]]'' or ''[[scribe]]''.

==Academic uses==
It is also used in a specific sense in some [[academic]] contexts, for instance when an [[injury|injured]] or [[disability|disabled]] person is helped by an amanuensis at a written [[examination]]. A notable case in classical music was that of [[Eric Fenby]], who assisted the blind composer [[Frederick Delius]] in writing down the notes that Delius dictated.

In the Netherlands it refers to a (technically schooled) [[physics]] or [[chemistry]] laboratory assistant responsible for preparing and assisting with tests and maintaining the instruments. When employed as such in a school environment s/he will have the title of "TOA" ("technisch-onderwijsassistent", i.e. Technical Teaching Assistant).

In [[Norway]], ''amanuensis'' is an [[academic rank#Norway|academic rank]] of a lecturer without a doctorate, and this title is going out of use. ''Førsteamanuensis'' ([[Norwegian language|Norwegian]] for "first amanuensis") is the equivalent of [[associate professor]].

In [[Sweden]], ''amanuens'' is used to denote roughly a teaching assistant at university who continues with his own scientific work, or a civil servant at archives or museums.[1]

The term is also used to describe one who assists an organist during a performance, by drawing and retiring stops, and by turning pages.

==Job titles==
On the other hand, certain employers use the term for (generally unskilled) manual labourers at the bottom of the hierarchy, for example as [[factotum]]. During the 19th and early 20th century, an amanuensis was the job title for male secretaries who were employed by the railroad or ship to be available for travelers who required services on route.

==Notes==

* 1 [http://www.ne.se/ ''Nationalenkylopedin'', online encyclopedia]

==References==
''Non-English language sources'':
*Bokmålsordboken (official [[Norwegian language]] dictionary)
*Pauly-Wissowa (Encyclopaedia on classical antiquity, in German)
*Larousse (General Encyclopaedia in French)

''English language sources'':
*Aland, Kurt. “The Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Christian Literature of the First Two Centuries.” ''[[Journal of Theological Studies]]'' 12 (1961): 39–49.
*Bahr, Gordon J. “Paul and Letter Writing in the First Century.” ''[[Catholic Biblical Quarterly]]'' 28 (1966): 465–77. idem, “The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters.” ''[[Journal of Biblical Literature]]'' 2 (1968): 27–41.
*Bauckham, Richard J. “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters.” ''[[Journal of Biblical Literature]]'' 107 (1988): 469–94.
*Carson, D.A. “Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy.” ''Dictionary of New Testament Background''. Eds. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000. 857–64.
*Cousar, Charles B. ''The Letters of Paul''. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.
*[[Gustav Adolf Deissmann|Deissmann, G. Adolf]]. ''Bible Studies''. Trans. Alexander Grieve. 1901. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988.
*Doty, William G. ''Letters in Primitive Christianity''. Guides to Biblical Scholarship. New Testament. Ed. Dan O. Via, Jr. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
*Gamble, Harry Y. “Amanuensis.” ''Anchor Bible Dictionary''. Vol. 1. Ed. David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
*Haines-Eitzen, Kim. “‘Girls Trained in Beautiful Writing’: Female Scribes in Roman Antiquity and Early Christianity.” ''[[Journal of Early Christian Studies]]'' 6.4 (1998): 629–46.
*Longenecker, Richard N. “Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles.” ''New Dimensions in New Testament Study''. Eds. Richard N. Longenecker and [[Merrill C. Tenney]]. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. 281–97. idem, “On the Form, Function, and Authority of the New Testament Letters.” ''Scripture and Truth''. Eds. D.A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983. 101–14.
*Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. ''Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills''. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1995.
*Richards, E. Randolph. ''The Secretary in the Letters of Paul''. Tübingen: Mohr, 1991. idem, “The Codex and the Early Collection of Paul’s Letters.” ''Bulletin for Biblical Research'' 8 (1998): 151–66. idem, ''Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition, and Collection''. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.
*Robson, E. Iliff. “Composition and Dictation in New Testament Books.” ''[[Journal of Theological Studies]]'' 18 (1917): 288–301.
*Stowers, Stanley K. ''Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity''. Library of Early Christianity. Vol. 8. Ed. Wayne A. Meeks. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1989.
*Wall, Robert W. “Introduction to Epistolary Literature.” ''New Interpreter’s Bible''. Vol. 10. Ed. Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002. 369–91.

[[Category:Domestic work]]
[[Category:Office and administrative support occupations]]