Revelation 16:5

From Textus Receptus

Jump to: navigation, search
Revelation 16

New article available with irrefutable evidence for the reading in the TR and KJV. Free PDF download here:
Revelation 16:5 and the Triadic Declaration - A defense of the reading of “shalt be” in the Authorized Version




(Textus Receptus, Novum Testamentum, Theodore Beza, 4th folio edition. Geneva. 1598)

(King James Version, Pure Cambridge Edition 1900)

(King James Version 2016 Edition, 2016)

Contents

Interlinear

Strong's Greek Pronunciation KJV 1611 KJV 1900 KJV 2016 Parts of speech Case Tense Number Gender Person Voice Mood
2532 καὶ kahee and and and Conjunction - - - - - - -
191 ἤκουσα ak-oo'-sah I heard I heard I heard Verb - Aorist Singular - 1st Active Indicative
3588 τοῦ too the the the Article Genitive - Singular Masculine - - -
32 ἀγγέλου ang’-el-oo angel angel angel Noun - - Masculine - - - -
3588 τῶν toon of the of the of the - - - - - - - -
5204 ὑδάτων hoo’-da-toon waters waters waters Noun - - Neuter - - - -
3004 λέγοντος, leg’-on-tos say, say, say, Verb - - - - - - -
1342 Δίκαιος, dik’-ah-yos righteous, righteous, righteous, Adjective - - - - - - -
2962 Κύριε, koo’-ree-e O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, Noun - - Masculine - - - -
1510 εἶ ee art art is Verb - - - - - - -
3588 ho which which who Article Nominative - Singular Masculine - - -
1510 ὢν oon - - - Verb - - - - - - -
2532 καὶ kahee and and and Conjunction - - - - - - -
3588 ho the the the Article Nominative - Singular Masculine - - -
2258 ἦν ane wast wast was Verb - - - - - - -
2532 καὶ kahee and and and Conjunction - - - - - - -
3588 ho - - - Article Nominative - Singular Masculine - - -
2071 ἐσόμενος, es’-om-en-os shalt be, shalt be, will be, - - - - - - - -
3754 ὅτι hot’-ee because because because Conjunction - - - - - - -
5023 ταῦτα too’-ta thus thus these things - - - - - - - -
2919 ἔκρινας eh-kree’-nas thou hast iudged thou hast judged you have judged Verb - - - - - - -

Commentary

" ἐσόμενος" was inserted into the the main body of text in printed editions of the Textus Receptus by Theodore Beza in his 1582 edition. There are about 200 Greek manuscripts in existence containing Revelation 16:5, but " ἐσόμενος" is lacking in all of them and the reading "ὁ ὅσιος" prevails. But only 4 manuscripts of Revelation 16:5 exist from before the 10th century and the 3 earliest witnesses of Revelation 16:5 do not even agree.

Early Greek corruption

The earliest witnesses to Rev 16:5 read:

ο ων και ος ην και οσιος (Papyrus 47 3rd Century)
ο ων και ο ην ο οσιος (Sinaiticus fourth century Although this has been hotly contested Sinaiticus.net)
ο ων και ο ην οσιος (Alexandrinus fifth-century)

The phrase gets shorter with the passage of time. We can see from these three early witnesses that corruption set in early. “Lord” is also missing in some mss, yet is present in many Reformation Bibles. This is reflected in modern versions, but none seem to follow the "and" of Papyrus 47:

ESV: Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was
NIV: You are just in these judgments, you who are and who were, the Holy One

Many who support the Critical Text of the New Testament reject this reading, but accept readings which have no manuscript support in Acts 16:12 and 2 Peter 3:10. When it is claimed that the KJV corrupted the text, critics call it call it conjectural emendation, but when the NIV, ESV, or printed Greek text alters the message they call it functional non-equivalence. With the system of Westcott and Hort, you don't have to do much thinking. If B is the best manuscript, then you just go along with B as Westcott and Hort did. If Aleph goes along with B then it has to be right. After they had decided manuscript B was the best, they made their "canons of textual criticism" to corroborate B in every instance. They say the shortest is the best because B is the shortest. They say the most difficult reading is the best because B is the most difficult. They say the one that explains the rest is the best because B explains the rest. This reasoning also accounts for the difficult reading of "ὁ ὅσιος" accepted here as it is clearly the harder reading to have "the holy one" since it seems out of step with other places in Revelation. The addition of “Holy One” is awkward and is repetitive of the use of the phrase “Thou art righteous, O Lord.”

Early Latin corruption

Jerome confirmed that there were a number of various Latin editions of the New Testament which differed in both translation and content before and around 405 AD (when Jerome finished his Vulgate). Most of these we do not have. John Wordsworth revealed (who edited and footnoted a three volume critical edition of the New Testament in Latin) 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.) So we can see there have been different Latin translations of the verses involved. Primasius, Bishop of Hadrumetum, wrote a commentary on Revelation around 552 AD and used the Latin word "pius" instead of "sanctus."

Many manuscripts destroyed

A few readings in finalized Textus Receptus editions, contrary to normally having a vast majority, have very little Greek manuscript support, likely reflecting an inability of believers to renew and preserve true manuscripts due to widespread persecution & martyrdom in early centuries; persecution occurred in the 3rd century, under Roman emperor Decius, and destruction of scripture copies was a major goal of vicious empire-wide persecution in the early 4th century by Diocletian & Galerius, who sent out Roman soldiers to destroy all text copies; this persecution was concentrated in the eastern empire where the Traditional Text, the ancestor of the Textus Receptus, was the standard.

Zeus

A similar pattern of phrasing is used of the Greek god Zeus by Pausanias (2nd century AD) in his Description of Greece where it is:

"Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται."

The phrase is noted as "familiar to Hellenic readers ... in the song of doves at Dodona (Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἔστιν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται) or in the titles of Asclepius and Athene." However, the form in the NT is that of the nominative phrasing (a name designation of both the Father and Christ), as opposed to the assertion here. Also, the NT form emphasizes the "one who is coming."

Early Ethiopian Version

Brian Walton has the reading in his Polyglot Bible in Ethiopic
Brian Walton has the reading in his Polyglot Bible in Ethiopic
Brian Walton has the Ethiopic reading in his Polyglot Bible translated into Latin
Brian Walton has the Ethiopic reading in his Polyglot Bible translated into Latin
Brian Walton

Brian Walton (16001661) was an English priest, divine and scholar. He published a massive polyglot between 1654 and 1657 in nine languages: Hebrew, Chaldee, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic, Persian, Ethiopic, Greek and Latin. Among his collaborators were James Ussher, John Lightfoot and Edward Pococke, Edmund Castell, Abraham Wheelocke and Patrick Young, Thomas Hyde and Thomas Greaves. It has been considered as the last and most scholarly ever printed.

In Revelation 16:5 his Ethiopian (Known today as Amharic, and formerly as Ge'ez) version has a Latin translation with the words:

Justus es Domine, et rectus qui fuisti et eris,..

Eris is a Latin Verb that is the second-person singular future active indicative of sum "you will be"

Hoskier
Hoskier mentions the Ethiopic reading
Hoskier mentions the Ethiopic reading

In addition to the early commentaries on the book of Revelation in Latin, the reading found in Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be" is also that of the early Ethiopian Version. The early 20th century textual critic Herman Hoskier cited the Ethiopic version as containing the phrase "and shalt be" in Revelation 16:5. This information is found in Hoskier's 'Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse: Collation of All Existing Available Greek Documents with the Standard Text of Stephen's Third Edition Together with the Testimony of the Versions, Commentaries and Fathers', 2 volumes, London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929.

Ethiopic version as cited by Herman Hoskier in Latin:

"...Justus es, Domine, et Rectus qui fuisti et eris".

Translation of Ethiopic from Latin =

"Just thou art, and Righteous that was and will be".:

King James Version

"Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be...":
Justus es, - thou art righteous
Domine, - O Lord
et - and
Rectus qui - ruler of all that
fuisti - thou hast been
et - and
eris - thou shalt be

Arabic

Arabic bible in the 1657 London Polyglot of Walton at Revelation 16:5
Arabic bible in the 1657 London Polyglot of Walton at Revelation 16:5
Latin translation of the Arabic bible in the 1657 London Polyglot of Walton at Revelation 16:5
Latin translation of the Arabic bible in the 1657 London Polyglot of Walton at Revelation 16:5

The Arabic bible in the 1657 London Polyglot of Walton at Revelation 16:5 has an accompanying Latin translation which says:

Æterne

Which means the eternal. This was also the translation used in several French editions, and links to I AM, Jehovah, and is a summery of who wast, art, and shalt be.

Papyrus 47

Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 3rd century Manuscript Papyrus 47 which reads: "...KAI OC HN KAI OCIOC (...and which wast and holy one)"
Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 3rd century Manuscript Papyrus 47 which reads: "...KAI OC HN KAI OCIOC (...and which wast and holy one)"
A close up of the Kai Osios in Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 3rd century Manuscript Papyrus 47
A close up of the Kai Osios in Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 3rd century Manuscript Papyrus 47

The oldest Greek text of Revelation P 47 is from the 3rd century and contains this passage, has a textual variant. It contains the “and” in the verse. One must ask, “and…” what? What was P47 going on to read? Beza has pointed out that in the manuscript for the Latin Vulgate, the text was foolish and divisional because of the “and” but the same issue occurs in P47 but modern critics reject the early Papyrus reading here as it once again caused the sentence to be foolish and divisional.

The methodology of modern textual critics is to follow the "oldest and best" manuscripts. But if they followed the “and” in P47 here they would end up with reading like this:

“Righteous art Thou, the Being One, AND the One who was, AND the Holy One.

Papyrus 47 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.

Septuagint

The word ἐσόμενος appears in the LXX (most probably Origen's work):

Job 15:14 τίς γὰρ ὢν βροτός, ὅτι ἔσται ἄμεμπτος, ἢ ὡς ἐσόμενος δίκαιος γεννητὸς γυναικός;
Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Clement of Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria (3rd century) referred to God as "ο εσομενος" in The Stromata, Book V, 6:

"ἀτὰρ καὶ τὸ τετράγραμμον ὄνομα τὸ μυστικόν, ὃ περιέκειντο οἷς μόνοις τὸ ἄδυτον βάσιμον ἦν· λέγεται δὲ Ἰαού, ὃ μεθερμηνεύεται ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος."
"Further, the mystic name of four letters which was affixed to those alone to whom the adytum was accessible, is called Jave, which is interpreted, “Who is and shall be.”" (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

Gregory of Nyssa

Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th century referred to Christ as "ο εσομενος" in On the Baptism of Christ:

"Κοσμήτωρ δὲ πάντως τῆς νύμφης ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν καὶ πρόων καὶ ἐσόμενος͵ εὐλογητὸς νῦν καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων͵ ἀμήν."
"And verily the Adorner of the bride is Christ, Who is, and was, and shall be, blessed now and for evermore. Amen."

Jerome

Jerome confirmed that there were a number of various Latin editions of the New Testament which differed in both translation and content before and around 405 AD (when Jerome finished his Vulgate). Most of these we do not have today. John Wordsworth revealed (who edited and footnoted a three volume critical edition of the New Testament in Latin) 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 venturus est.” (John Wordsworth, Nouum Testamentum Latine, vol.3, 422 and 424.)

Note that Wordsworth assumed that the quote was from Revelation 1:4, but it reads just like Beatus whom we shall examine soon. Jerome said in Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi epistulae:

sic et mille annorum spatia apud te, qui semper es et futurus es et fuisti…

translated as

Even so, for a thousand year period, you were, and you are, and you shall be, …

Jerome has the exact reading of “shall be”.

Tyconius

The commentary of Revelation in 380 AD was translated by Beatus of Liebana (786 AD) in his commentary of Revelation which uses the Latin phrase: "qui fuisti et futures es" See #Beatus of Liebana

Primasius

Primasius, Bishop of Hadrumetum, wrote a commentary on Revelation around 552 AD and used the Latin word "pius" instead of "sanctus." They mean the same, but it does reveal yet another variance in the text.

Beatus of Liébana

Beatus of Liébana (786 AD) in a commentary of Revelation uses the Latin phrase: "qui fuisti et futures es" when he was making a compilation of the work of Tyconius, who wrote his commentary on Revelation around 380 AD.

It is unknown to us whether Beza knew of the Beatus/Tyconius reference, or that there were other such references that he simply did not mention. In the age of Beza, the Reformation Bible scholars were very deep readers of the early church writers. If Beza did know of it, then it would be wrong to call this a conjectural emendation, since that reference would source as one of the oldest extant on Revelation 16:5. On the other hand, if the Beatus/Tyconius reference was discovered later, and was unknown to Theodore Beza, then this later discovery can be seen as a truly remarkable confirmation of the strength of his textual thinking on Revelation 16:5.

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. 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.

Erasmus

ὁ ὢν, ὁ ἦν ὁ ἐρχόμενος at Revealtion 16:5 in Erasmus' 1535 Annotations
ὁ ὢν, ὁ ἦν ὁ ἐρχόμενος at Revealtion 16:5 in Erasmus' 1535 Annotations

The five editions of Erasmus in the Annotations have the reading of ὁ ἐρχόμενος.

Qui es, & qui eras.) Quanquam interpres mutauit perfonam, tamen to tidem syllabis dictu est, quibus superius, qui est, qui erat, qui venturus est, ὁ ὢν, ὁ ἦν ὁ ἐρχόμενος.

Translated as:

Thou, who art, and who wast, the.) Although interpreter changed from, however to flow with the list mentioned above, who is, who was, who is to come, ὁ ὢν, ὁ ἦν ὁ ἐρχόμενος.

Erasmus' 1535 Annotations

Early English Bibles

The earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision did not have “and shalt be“ at this verse. Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Whittingham's New Testament, and the Geneva Bible all have "holy" while the Bishops’ Bible has “holy one.”

Theodore Beza

Footnote at Revelation 16:5 in Latin in the 1598 New Testament of Beza
Footnote at Revelation 16:5 in Latin in the 1598 New Testament of Beza

See Also Revelation 16:5 Beza 1598

Beza was the first to place the reading into the main part of the text in 1582. Theodorus Beza, Novum D. N. Iesu Christi testamentum, sive Novum Foedus (Geneva: Henricus Stephanus, 31582)

In Beza’s hand copy (b305); p. 647), ὁ ὅσιος is underlined, and ὁ ἐσόμενος entered in the margin.

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

"Et Qui eris, και ο εσομενος": The usual publication is "και ο οσιος," which shows a division, contrary to the whole phrase which is foolish, distorting what is put forth in scripture. The Vulgate, however, whether it is articulately correct or not, is not proper in making the change to "οσιος, Sanctus," since a section (of the text) has worn away the part after "και," which would be absolutely necessary in connecting "δικαιος" and "οσιος." But with John there remains a completeness where the name of Jehovah (the Lord) is used, just as we have said before, 1:4; he always uses the three closely together, therefore it is certainly "και ο εσομενος," 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, "ο εσομενος." So why not truthfully, with good reason, write "ο ερχομενος" as before in four other places, namely 1:4 and 8; likewise in 4:3 and 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 sitting in judgment and exercising his just and eternal decrees.

(Theodore Beza, Nouum Sive Nouum Foedus Iesu Christi, 1588. Translated into English from the Latin footnote.)[1]

Although Daniel Wallace is flawed many levels concerning his understanding of textual criticism, he provides this excellent example that fits here:

“Imagine we came across an early manuscript copy of the Constitution of the United States, and the preamble said, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect onion …” If we were to see that line, we would know that “union” was the original word, not “onion”.”

Theodore Beza was a world class expert in the Greek language. Having provided so much material on the bible, from translating the French bible, Geneva Bible, Geneva French, including many Greek editions, commentaries, dictionaries, and so much literature on the biblical text for so many years, I would suggest that Beza's familiarity with the text and with similar issues, demonstrated to him that this was an error and to reject his reading one should firstly show that they are on the same level of scholarship as Beza, or the KJV translators to provide an adequate refutation.

A break up of Beza's comment
Beza Annotations of 1594 at Revelation 16:5 in Latin which is identical to the footnote at Revelation 16:5 in Latin in the 1598 New Testament of Beza
Beza Annotations of 1594 at Revelation 16:5 in Latin which is identical to the footnote at Revelation 16:5 in Latin in the 1598 New Testament of Beza

Beza noted that :

"Et Qui eris, και ο εσομενος": The usual publication is "και ο οσιος,"

So Beza was well aware of majority readings were "και ο οσιος," but he goes on to give several reasons as to why this reading caused grammatical problems. Although Beza is silent concerning sources, this does not mean that he was not influenced by any, such as the minority Latin textual variant, as there are two Latin commentaries with readings of Revelation 16:5 which agree with Beza in referring to the future aspect of God. He goes on:

which shows a division, contrary to the whole phrase which is foolish, distorting what is put forth in scripture.

Based on the style of the author, John, Beza saw that the correct reading was shalt be not Holy or Holy One John uses holy one only once in 1 John 2:20 and he used a different Greek word ἁγίου. With additional kai in Papyrus 47 it causes the sentence to be nonsensical without the change. The kai gives weight to Beza's correction.

Beza saw this erroneous pattern below:

.....ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος...Revelation 1:4
.....ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος...Revelation 1:8
.....ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος...Revelation 4:8
.....ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος·..Revelation 11:17
.....ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὅσιος...........Revelation 16:5

So he adapted his text to flow with the formula of John:

.....ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος...Revelation 1:4
.....ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος...Revelation 1:8
.....ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος...Revelation 4:8
.....ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος·..Revelation 11:17
.....ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος....Revelation 16:5
In Latin
.....Qui est & Qui.erat, & Qui venturus.........Revelation 1:4
.....Qui est, & Qui.erat, & Qui venturus est..Revelation 1:8
.....Erat, & Est, &.Venturus est....................Revelation 4:8
.....Qui es, & Qui.eras, & Qui eris,...............Revelation 16:5

Beza claims that the reading caused a division between the words and that it made the reading "foolish, distorting what is put forth in scripture."

The foolish and divisional reading is demonstrated in English versions:

  • 1395 [And the thridde aungel… seide,] Just art thou, Lord, that art, and that were hooli, that demest these thingis; (Wycliffe)
  • 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 And I herde an angel saye: LORDE which art and wast, thou art righteous and holy, because thou hast geue soche iudgmentes, (Coverdale)
  • 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 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)

So as we can see, early English versions were very perplexed as to how to translate και ο οσιος.

Beza replaces illogical language in all earlier Greek texts/manuscripts that read who art and who wast and the holy one (no verb); the holy one interrupts the continuity of reference to God's eternality, and omits a logical third verb. Beza’s rendering speaks of eternal God of the past, present & future, as expected of a true reading, and in accord with Rev.1:4, Rev.1:8, 1:18, 4:8, & 11:17. All 5 of the Revelation verses present the obvious expected future aspect of God's eternality.

The triadic declaration occurs five times in the Textus Receptus, all in Revelation as follows:

  • Revelation 1:4: ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος
Δʹ Ἰωάννης ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων ἃ ἐστιν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ
  • Revelation 1:8: ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος
Ηʹ Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος λέγει ὁ κύριος ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ὁ παντοκράτωρ
  • Revelation 4:8: ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος
Ηʹ καὶ τέσσαρα ζῷα ἓν καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ εἴχον ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμοντα ὀφθαλμῶν καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντα, Ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος
λέγοντες Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι κύριε ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὅτι εἴληφας τὴν δύναμίν σου τὴν μεγάλην καὶ ἐβασίλευσας

The phrase ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος is directly related to the eternal name of God.

Also noteworthy
  • Revelation 1:18: καὶ ὁ ζῶν καὶ ἐγενόμην νεκρὸς καὶ ἰδού, ζῶν εἰμι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων
καὶ ὁ ζῶν καὶ ἐγενόμην νεκρὸς καὶ ἰδού, ζῶν εἰμι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν· καὶ ἔχω τὰς κλεῖς τοῦ ᾅδου καὶ τοῦ θανάτου

This phrase ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος (one who is, was, and is to come) is used to create a unique identification, along with the other phrases of Alpha/Omega, first/last, beginning/end, each as identity names for the "oneness" of the Father and the Son who is the express image of God the Father (Heb 1:3). So God the Father through the Son is also ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, just as the Son is also Jehovah.

Rev 1:4 is a reference from John, 1:8 from Jesus, 4:8 the four living creatures, and 11:17 from the 24 elders of v.16).

I AM

Beza stated:

But with John there remains a completeness where the name of Jehovah (the Lord) is used, just as we have said before, 1:4; he always uses the three closely together, therefore it is certainly "και ο εσομενος," for why would he pass over it in this place?

The phrase in the Revelation is John's expansion of 'ehyeh asher 'ehyeh ('I am who I am') from Exodus 3:14. In Exodus 3 God identified Himself to Moses as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and gave Moses His name:

'ehyeh asher 'ehyeh (אהיה אשר אהיה)

This is usually translated as something like ' I AM THAT I AM' (KJV) literally 'I am who I am', though some arguments have been made for 'I will be who I will be'. Later writers would expand or adjust God's self-declaration when bringing it into another language.

The Aramaic Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 3.14 translates it into a present-future state of being:

I am he who is and who will be

In Deuteronomy 32:29 of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan later has a present-past-future state of being:

I am he who is and who was, and I am who I will be [1]

This latter paraphrase is identical in shape to what we see in the Revelation.

Both the Septuagint and Philo (Life of Moses 1.75, written early-first century) translate the phrase in Exodus 3.14 into Greek as:

egō eimi ho ōn (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν)

This may be translated as either 'I am the one', or 'I am he who is'. The phrasing 'ο ων' is identical to the first part of the phrase found in the Revelation.

With this information above, it's highly probable John's phrase common phrase 'ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος/ἐσόμενος' was intended to be a translation or expansion on God's self-identification in Exodus 3.14 as Beza pointed out.

Between the original Hebrew phrase, and the Aramaic and Greek translations, the focus is on God's state of 'being': he is, he was, he will be. In the original narrative of Exodus 3, this leads into the revelation of God's own name, Jehovah, which has been suggested by scholars to come from the Hebrew verb 'to be'.

Most of the verses containing the triadic declarations in Revelation do not say God is, was, and will be, it says that God is, was, and is to come. The third verb isn't about God's state of being, but is an action in itself. Revelation 16:5 is the purest form of the formula.

Revelation 4.8 has an order of past-present-future. John puts the past tense first, because this occurrence's context is the creation of the world in verse 11.

He no doubt has in mind those many Old Testament prophetic passages which announce God will 'come' to save and judge (e.g. Ps. 96:13; 98:9; Isa. 40:10; 66:15; Zech. 14:5), and which early Christians understood to refer to his eschatological coming to fulfill his final purpose for the world, a coming they identified with the parousia of Jesus Christ.

The future-tense verb in John's earlier phrasing is the verb 'to come', not 'to be'. Revelation 16:5 is a declaration that God exists present, past, and future. The earlier future tense of 'is to come' is mostly eschatological.

Jesus referred to Himself as "the I AM", which has the connotation of being: He always was, and is and always will be" or 'always IS' (John 8:56-59 KJV; Exodus 3:6,11; John 10:30), which is similar in meaning to He that "was and is and will be" also the Alpha and Omega etc.

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

Spanish Valera

The 1602 Spanish Valera bible reads like the 1598 and the KJV (the 1569 has el Santo):

1602 Y oí al ángel de las aguas, que decía: Justo eres tú, Oh Señor, que eres y que eras, y que serás, porque has juzgado estas cosas: (Valera)
1569 Y oí al ángel de las aguas, que decía: Señor, tú eres justo, que eres y que eras el Santo, porque has juzgado estas cosas; (Sagradas Escrituras)

John Calvin

Speaking in defense of the Hebrew etymology of Jehovah against a pagan one, Calvin also noted in his Commentary on Genesis:

Consequently, it is to be traced to “a Hebrew etymology.” We need not follow him into the discussion on the right pronunciation of the word, and the use of the vowel points belonging to , (Adonai); it may suffice to state, that he deduces the name (Jehovah,) from the future of the verb or , to be. Hence the meaning of the appellation may be expressed in the words, “He who is to be (for ever).” This derivation of the name Jehovah he regards as being confirmed “by all the passages of Scripture, in which a derivation of the name is either expressly given or simply hinted.” And, beginning with the Book of Revelation, at the title ὁ ὡν καὶ ὁ ἤν καὶ ὁ ερχόμενος, “who is, and was, and is to come,” he goes upward through the sacred volume, quoting the passages which bear upon the question, till he comes to the important passage in Exodus in. 13-16, in which God declares his name to be, “I am that I am.” “Everything created,” he adds, “remains not like itself, but is continually changing under circumstances, God only, because he is the being, is always the same; and because he is always the same, is the being.” Commentary on Genesis - At the first mention of Jehovah is Genesis 2

Elias Hutter

Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 1599 The Nuremberg Polyglot of Elias Hutter
Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 1599 The Nuremberg Polyglot of Elias Hutter

Renown linguist Elias Hutter who produced the The Nuremberg Polyglot a New Testament Polyglot in twelve languages of 1599, has a similar reading to Beza in Revelation 16:5:

Kαὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος, δίκαιος, κύριε, εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας· (Novum Testamentum Domini: nostri: Iesu. Christi. Syriacè, Ebraicè, Graecè, Latinè, Germanicè, Bohemicè, Italicè, Hispanicè, Gallicè, Anglicè, Danicè, Polonicè. 2 vols. Edited by Elias Hutter and Jacob Coler.)

Hutter has “ἐρχόμενος while Beza has “ἐσόμενος. Hutter’s ἐρχόμενος translates as “is to come” (see Revelation 1:4) while ἐσόμενος means “shalt be”, or “will be”.

The reading ἐρχόμενος is found in the Greek text. Hutter’s Hebrew and the French (“qui seras” instead of “qui est à venir”) rather reflect Beza’s 1582 reading of ἐσόμενος & “shalt be”.

Immanuel Tremellius

Revelation 16:5 in Latin in the 1639 Biblia Sacra of Immanuel Tremellius
Revelation 16:5 in Latin in the 1639 Biblia Sacra of Immanuel Tremellius

Immanuel Tremellius, who was an expert in Hebrew, Syriac and many other middle eastern languages, co authored books with Beza.

King James Translators

The Preface to the Authorized Version reads: “With the former translations diligently compared and revised.” This would have included the Ethiopic text of 1549 that contained the equivilent of esomenos.

The translators felt there was good reason to insert these words though it ran counter to certain external evidence. They left no marginal note, nor was the word in italics, showing the confidence they had in Beza's choice.

Johannes Piscator

In 1613 Johannes Piscator wrote:

Pro ὅσιος omnino legendum videtur ἐσόμενος, i. e. Futurus: si quis consideret rem ipsam, et descriptiones Dei similes supra cap. 1.v.4. et 8. item cap. 4.v.8. et cap. 11.v.17. ubi pro ἐσόμενος habetur ἐρχομένος. Cuius rei ratio probabilis affertur haec, quod illic sermo sit de Deo ut iudice venturo, hic autem ut de exsequente iudicia sua, idque in aeternum.

Johannes Piscator, Commentarii in omnes libros Novi Testamenti, antehac separatim editi: nunc vero in unum volumen collecti (Herborn: Corvinus, 11613)

Elzevirs

Bullinger indicated that 1624 edition of the Elzevirs’ Greek text has “the holy one” at this verse (Lexicon, p. 689). Scrivener mentions that the 1633 Elzevir has the Beza reading of “esomenos”, “shalt be”

xvi. 5. ἐσόμενος (for ὅσιος), a bold variation of Beza’s last three editions, is adopted in the Authorized Version and the Elzevir text of 1633. [2]

Dutch Version

Revelation 16:5 in Dutch in the 1637 Statenvertaling bible
Revelation 16:5 in Dutch in the 1637 Statenvertaling bible

The Dutch version of 1637 is renown to be the equivalent of the King James Version. It has the reading of Beza here:

En ik hoorde den engel der wateren zeggen: Gij zijt rechtvaardig, Heere! Die is, en Die was, en Die zijn zal, dat Gij dit geoordeeld hebt;

Translated to read:

And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord! Who is and who was and who will be, because thou hast judged;

It also contains a footnote:

Who is and that was, and who will be, Otherwise, read and the Saint. because thou hast judged;

Brian Walton

Brian Walton (1600 – 1661) was an English priest, divine and scholar. He published a massive polyglot between 1654 and 1657 in nine languages: Hebrew, Chaldee, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic, Persian, Ethiopic, Greek and Latin. Among his collaborators were James Ussher, John Lightfoot and Edward Pococke, Edmund Castell, Abraham Wheelocke and Patrick Young, Thomas Hyde and Thomas Greaves. It has been considered as the last and most scholarly ever printed.

In Revelation 16:5 his Ethiopian (Known today as Ahmaric, and formerly as Ge'ez) version has a Latin translation with the words:

Erasmus Schmidius

In 1658 Erasmus Schmidius wrote:

Verba haec, [καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος] hisce signis ( ) inclusa, non leguntur in omnibus Codicibus. Restituta autem sunt a Beza, ex vetusto bonae fidei manuscripto. Videturque haec restitutio necessaria, quandoquidem Iohannes reliquis omnibus locis, ubi Iehovae nomen periphrastice circumscribit, addere consuevit tertium, ὁ ἐρχόμενος: neque apparet causa, cur hic praetereundum fuisset. Causa vero, cur hic non scribatur, ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ut supra quater factum, nempe Apoc. 1.4.8, 4.8, 11.17, Sed ἐσόμενος: Bezae haec videtur. Quia ibi de Christo ut Iudice venturo agitur: In hac vero visione proponitur, ut iam in tribunali sedens, et iudicium exercens.

Erasmus Schmidius, Versio Novi Testamenti nova, ad Graecam veritatem emendata, et notae ac animadversiones in idem: quibus partim mutatae alicubi Versionis redditur ratio, partim alia necessaria monentur. Accedit sacer contextus Graecus, cum Versione veteri: nec non Index Rerum et Verborum locupletissimus (Nuremberg: Michael Endter, 1658)

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible

The 1685 Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible has:

Thou art righteous. O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus; acknowledging the Lord’s justice and righteousness in such destruction.

Isaac Newton

Isaac Newton in 1693 wrote that Erasmus has ἐρχόμενος in his notes:

ib καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ ὅσιος Compl. Areth. Steph 15. \Covil 2/ Lat. In \Covil 1. 2, deest ὁ ante ὅσιος, in/ Alex deest ὁ ἦν.
καὶ ὁ ἦν, καὶ ὁ ὅσιος Erasm. \Syr. Primas/ At in Notis Erasmus pro ὅσιος legit ἐρχόμενος
καὶ ὁ ἦν, καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος Bezæ codex antiquus.
καὶ ὃς ἦν ὄσις Covil 1.

The underlined translates as:

"At the Notes Erasmus for ὅσιος read ἐρχόμενος"

'Variantes Lectiones Apocalypticae' (version 1)

Johann Jakob Wettstein

Revelation 16:5 in Wettstein's Novi Testamenti Graeci
Revelation 16:5 in Wettstein's Novi Testamenti Graeci

In 1730 Johann Jakob Wettstein seems to think the reading goes back to Johannes Piscator, not Theodore Beza, which is false:

Johann Jakob Wettstein, Prolegomena ad Novi Testamenti Graeci editionem accuratissimam, e vetustissimis codd. MSS. denuo procurandam; in quibus agitur de codd. MSS. N. Testamenti, Scriptoribus Graecis qui N. Testamento usi sunt, versionibus veteribus, editionibus prioribus, et claris interpretibus; et proponuntur animadversiones et cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum N. T. necessariae (Amsterdam: Wettstein & Smith, 1730)

Johann Albrecht Bengel

In 1734 Johann Albrecht Bengel rejected Beza’s reading in his Η Καινη Διαθηκη

Johann Albrecht Bengel Η Καινη Διαθηκη. Novum Testamentum Graecum ita adornatum ut textus probatarum editionum medullam margo variantium lectionum in suas classes distributarum locorumque parallelorum delectum apparatus subiunctus criseos sacrae Millianae praesertim compendium, limam, supplementum ac fructum exhibeat inserviente Jo. Alberto Bengelio (Tübingen: Cotta, 1734)

Johann Christoph Wolf

In 1735 Johann Christoph Wolf traced the reading to Beza, but doubts Beza’s reference claims.

Johann Christoph Wolf, Curae philologicae et criticae in SS. Apostolorum Jacobi Petri Judae et Joannis epistolas huiusque Apocal. Accedunt in calce quaedam ex Photii Amphilochiis adhuc non editis cum interpretatione Latina et notis (Hamburg: Kisner, 11735)

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

The 1870 Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible says:

Which art, and wast, and shalt be - That is, who art eternal - existing now; who hast existed in all past time; and who will exist ever onward. See the notes on Revelation 1:8. The reason why this attribute of God is here referred to, seems to be that the mind of the angel adverts to it in the changes and desolations that were occurring around him. In such overturnings among people - such revolutions of kingdoms - such desolations of war - the mind naturally turns to one who is unchanging; to one whose throne is from everlasting to everlasting.

Willem Christiaan van Manen

In 1880 Willem Christiaan van Manen followed the error of Wettstein by attributing the reading to Piscator.

Willem Christiaan van Manen, Conjecturaal-kritiek toegepast op den tekst van de Schriften des Nieuwen Testaments (VRNGG n.s. 9.1; Haarlem: Bohn, 1880)

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

The 1871 Unabridged Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible says:

And shalt be. 'Aleph (') A B C, Vulgate, Andreas, for this clause, read, '(which art and wast) holy' [ hosios (Greek #3741) for ho (Greek #3588) esomenos]. The Lord is no longer He that shall be, for He is come in vengeance; therefore the third of the three clauses, Revelation 1:4; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:8, is here, and in Revelation 11:17, omitted.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges

The 1896 Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges says:

ὁ ὤν καὶ ὁ ἦν. Without ὁ ἐρχόμενος, as in Revelation 11:17. A. V[571] “Which art and wast and shalt be,” a noteworthy translator’s error.
ὁ ὄσιος, see on Revelation 15:4. If the article be inserted we have two Divine Names, the Eternal, the Holy; if it be omitted we have an interesting parallelism:
Righteous art Thou the Eternal,
Holy for this Thy judgement.
Perhaps the latter gives the preferable sense: it is certainly supported by the best MSS., though we have none good enough to decide whether a letter has been left out or doubled by mistake.

John Gill

John Gill's 1776 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. (p. 183)

John Gill says concerning Revelation 1:4:

But rather this is to be understood of the first Person, of God the Father; and the phrases are expressive both of his eternity, he being God from everlasting to everlasting; and of his immutability, he being now what he always was, and will be what he now is, and ever was, without any variableness, or shadow of turning: they are a periphrasis, and an explanation of the word "Jehovah", which includes all tenses, past, present, and to come.

Reginald Heber

Reginald Heber (1783-1826) wrote a famous hymn inspired by Revelation 16:5 in the KJV.

"Which wert and art, and evermore shalt be!"

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.[3]

Webster

The 1833 Webster version has:

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)

Scrivener

In his 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Scrivener mentions that the 1633 Elzevir has the Beza reading of “esomenos”, “shalt be”

xvi. 5. ἐσόμενος (for ὅσιος), a bold variation of Beza’s last three editions, is adopted in the Authorized Version and the Elzevir text of 1633. [4]

Although Scrivener was not a staunch KJV or TR defender, he shows respect for Beza's textual choice by his statement that it is a “bold variation” in a sense where Scrivener looked at the whole Beza quote, including the analyis of the Johannine usage throughout the book and the difficulties of the usual variations, and thought Beza's reasoning was excellent. Although Scrivener would not go so far as to comment as to which he directly preferred, the fact that he never modified the text here in Greek or English or in any of his own works as he did in other cases e.g. on Hebrews 10:23 or “strain out a gnat” shows respect for the reading.

3801

In Strong's concordance and most others that use the numbering system, 3801 is the number for "ὁ ὢν καί ὁ ἦν καί ὁ ἐρχόμενος"

3801

Strong's has:

A phrase combining G3588 with the present participle and imperfect of G1510 and the present participle of G2064 by means of G2532; the one being and the one that was and the one coming, that is, the Eternal, as a divine epithet of Christ. (Each "and" (G2532) was ommited from the phrase because of limited space.):—which art (is, was), and (which) wast (is, was), and art (is) to come (shalt be).

Strong's (Greek Dictionary of the New Testament)

Greek Word Study has:

3801 ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ho on kai ho en kai ho erchomenos
{ho own kahee ho ane kahee ho er-khom'-en-os}
a phrase combining G3588 with the present participle and imperfect of G1510 and the present participle of G2064 by means of G2532; TDNT - n/a; phrase

Greek Word Study (Transliteration-Pronunciation Etymology & Grammar)

Thayer has:

1) He who is, and was, and is coming

Thayer's (New Testament Greek-English Lexicon)

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

The 1878 Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible says:

O Lord — omitted by A, B, C, Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, and Andreas.
and shalt be — A, B, C, Vulgate, and Andreas for this clause read, “(which art and wast) holy.” The Lord is now no longer He that shall come, for He is come in vengeance and therefore the third of the three clauses found in Revelation 1:4, Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:8 is here and in Revelation 11:17 omitted.

Young's Literal Translation

The Young's Literal Translation retains "shalt be" with:

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,

Edward F. Hills

According to Edward F. Hills, this KJV rendering “shalt be” came from a conjectural emendation interjected into the Greek text by Beza (Believing Bible Study, pp. 205-206). Hills acknowledged that Theodore Beza introduced two 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. (KJV Defended, p. 208).

Like Calvin, 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. [3]

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

Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament

Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament:

Which art and which wast (ο ων και ο ην — ho ōn kai ho ēn). See this peculiar idiom for God‘s eternity with ο — ho as relative before ην — ēn in Revelation 1:4, Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:8, but without ο ερχομενος — ho erchomenos (the coming on, the one who is to be) there for the future as in Revelation 11:17.
Thou Holy One (ο οσιος — ho hosios). Nominative form, but vocative case, as often. Note both δικαιος — dikaios and οσιος — hosios applied to God as in Revelation 3:1; Revelation 15:3.

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).

Jack Moorman

Jack Moorman, in his, Hodges/Farstad “Majority” Text Refuted By Evidence (also titled, When the King James Departs from the “Majority Text”), says,

The King James reading is in harmony with the four other places in Revelation where this phrase is found.
1:4 “him which is, and which was, and which is to come”
1:8 “the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty”
4:8 “Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come”
11:17 “Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come”
"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), pg. 102.

[5]

William W. Combs

William W. Combs maintained: “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).

Thomas Holland

"Two things should be stated before continuing. One, as confirmed by Jerome, there were a number of various Latin editions of the New Testament which differed in both translation and content before and around 405 AD (when Jerome finished his Vulgate). Most of these we do not have. Two, as pointed out by Dr. John Wordsworth (who edited and footnoted a three volume critical edition of the New Testament in Latin) 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."
"It should be noted that none of the early English versions, nor the foreign translations, read as does the Authorized Version. However, they do not read as most modern versions do either. Instead they read somewhere in between using both the "and" with "holy." The New King James Version follows the reading of the Authorized Version." (wilderness-cry.net)

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."

Robert L Thomas

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.Apocalypse of St. John: the Greek text with introd., notes and indices – Henry Barclay Swete (1906 2nd edtion)

As another note, for completion, in page 194 Swete mentions the unusualness of “Holy” as a title for LORD in the NT. And the one place where it is used (Rev 15:5) it it far more simply part of an adjectival phrase, not as a title, which is easy for use to see.

In his commentary Thomas has:

Ὁ ω῍ν καὶ ὁ ἦν, καὶ ἐσόμενος [Ho ōn kai ho ēn, kai esomenos] , the one who is and the “he was,” and the one to be. This unusual construction is likely a Hebraism. For a discussion of a closely-related grammatical phrase, see commentary on Revelation 1:4. Here, the future tense participle is based on the verb ειμι [eimi] , “to be,” whereas in Revelation Rev. 1:4+ it is based on the verb ἐρχομαι [erchomai] , “to come.” There, the emphasis is on His impending arrival. Here, upon his eternality. Most other manuscripts, including the majority of those in the MT text family and the NU text, have ὁ ο῝σιος [ho hosios] , “the holy,” instead of ἐσόμενος [esomenos] , “the one to be.”

J. I. Mombert

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

Bullinger

Bullinger indicated that 1624 edition of the Elzevirs’ Greek text has “the holy one” at this verse (Lexicon, p. 689).

Walter Scott

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.

James White

James White said in his book:

“Beza did introduce…“conjectural emendations,” that is, changes made to the text without any evidence from the manuscripts. A few of these changes made it into the KJV, the most famous being Revelation 16:5, “O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be” rather than the actual reading, “who art and who wast, O Holy one.”

In a note on his criticism of Revelation 16:5 in the KJV, White states on p 86 that:

“The KJV Only advocate who asserts the verbal plenary inspiration of the King James Version has to believe that Theodore Beza, the successor of John Calvin, as strong a proponent of “Calvinism” as has ever lived (certain KJV Only advocates such as Peter Ruckman are strongly anti-Reformed), was divinely inspired to make the change without any manuscript support at all.”

In 2002, on the Ankerburg show White said:

“But to Dr. Strouse, what about places where those King James translators followed conjectural emendations?
Theodore Beza, for example, in Revelation 16:5 looked at the Greek text and all the Greek texts say the same thing, but he didn’t like the way it went. And so he changed the word “holy” to the future form of the verb “to be,” sort of, to make it nice and poetic and rhythmic. And your King James this day reads that way, even though there’s not a question about it on anyone’s part as to what that passage actually reads. Why should I take Theodore Beza’s conjectural emendation where he decides a reading on the basis of what he likes and say that the mass of Christians believe this when nobody before Theodore Beza ever had the idea that Revelation 16:5 read that way? Why should I believe that?” The King James Controversy Revisited - 2002, on the Ankerberg show, with Dr. Kenneth Barker, Dr. Don Wilkins, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Dr. James White, Dr. Samuel Gipp, Dr. Thomas Strouse, Dr. Joseph Chambers.

Peter Ruckman

Peter Ruckman commented in response to James White concerning Revelation 16:5:

“Since White wrote his book to justify the sins of the NIV and NASV committees, do you think he was actually worried about “shalt be” in Revelation 16:5? You see the “and” in the verse was found in an early papyrus (P 47): “and…” what? The NIV and the NASV and Nestle and Aland and Hort had to get rid of the earliest papyrus this time. It was an embarrassment because it messed up their sentence. If they had followed their profession (“the oldest and best, etc.) they would have had to give you this: “Righteous art Thou, the Being One, AND the One who was, AND the Holy One.” That is one awkward, cockeyed clause, so the “and” (“kai” in the papyrus) had to be dropped. Something originally followed that last “and,” and it certainly was not “the Holy One.” Undoubtedly, “in the original” (a famous, worn-out, Alexandrian cliché) it read “the One being, and the One who was, AND the One who shall be…
“Now, that is a conjecture, but it is a conjecture in the light of early Greek manuscript evidence that was discarded by Mr Nestle and Mr White. He and his buddies had to violate their own standards to get rid of the AV reading. Standard Operating Procedure in the Cult…
“They never waste their time on any text like they waste it on the English text of 1611. That is the one they hate…
“For those of you who think I am “overstepping” myself: Who inserted “nailed” into Acts 2:23 without being able to find one nail within one hundred verses of the verse (NASV)? There is not one Greek manuscript extant that says “nail” or “nails” or “nailing” or “nailed.” But it doesn’t bother any Alexandrian except in Revelation 16:5 in an AV. Remarkable, isn’t it?…
“We would judge White’s extant Greek texts on Revelation 16:5 to be defective, in regards to “shalt be,” and this is apparent from the rejected “kai” in Papyrus 47. Why trade in absolute truth for a defective Greek manuscript? The truth is the Lord (vs. 5) had THREE lives (confirmed in Revelation 1:8, 8:8) and the “kai” (and) is found in both those passages. Someone messed with Revelation 16:5 in the Greek texts. It wasn’t the AV translators…”

William W. Combs

William W. Combs maintained that “Beza simply speculated (guessed)” in introducing this reading (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 asserted ignorantly that “the reading of the A. V. is supported by no known Greek manuscript whatever, but rests on an error of Erasmus or Beza” (Hand-book, p. 389).

Samuel Tregelles

In 1844, Samuel Tregelles maintained that the reading adopted by Beza at Revelation 16:5 “is not found in any known MS” (Book of Revelation in Greek, p. xxxv)

Jonathan Stonis

Jonathan Stonis asserted that Theodore Beza “modified the Traditional Text against manuscript evidence by dropping the words, ’Holy One’ and replacing them with ’to be’” (Juror’s Verdict, p. 60).

F. C. Cook

In an edition of the KJV with commentary as edited by F. C. Cook and printed in 1881, William Lee in his introduction to the book of Revelation referred to “the conjectural reading of Beza’s last three editions” at Revelation 16:5 (Vol. IV, p. 463).

Walter Scott

In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Walter Scott said that the KJV’s rendering “shalt be” was an unnecessary interpolation and that the KJV omitted the title “holy One” (p. 326).

Jeffrey Khoo

Jeffrey Khoo wrote the following about the above words of Beza [6]:

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. 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."
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." 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.

New World Translation

  • 2013 I heard the angel over the waters say: “You, the One who is and who was, 'the loyal One', are righteous, for you have issued these judgments, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (2013 Revision)

Greek

Textus Receptus

Complutensian Polyglot

Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 1514 Complutensian Polyglot
Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 1514 Complutensian Polyglot

See Also Revelation 16:5 Complutensian Polyglot 1514

Aldine

Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 1518 Greek New Testament of Aldine

Cephaleus

  • 1524 (Wolf Cephaleus. Printed in Strassburg)

Desiderius Erasmus

Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 1516 Greek New Testament of Erasmus
Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 1516 Greek New Testament of Erasmus
Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 1519 Greek New Testament of Erasmus
Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 1519 Greek New Testament of Erasmus
Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 1522 Greek New Testament of Erasmus
Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 1522 Greek New Testament of Erasmus
Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 1550 Greek New Testament of Stephanus
Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 1550 Greek New Testament of Stephanus
Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 1565 Greek New Testament of Beza
Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 1565 Greek New Testament of Beza
Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 1589 New Testament of Beza
Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 1589 New Testament of Beza
Footnote at Revelation 16:5 in Latin in the 1589 New Testament of Beza
Footnote at Revelation 16:5 in Latin in the 1589 New Testament of Beza
Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 1598 New Testament of Beza
Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 1598 New Testament of Beza

Colinæus

Stephanus (Robert Estienne)

Theodore Beza

See Also Revelation 16:5 Beza 1598

  • 1604 (Beza Octavo 5th)

Elias Hutter

  • 1599 Kαὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος, δίκαιος, κύριε, εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας· (The Nuremberg Polyglot, by Elias Hutter published in Nuremberg).

Elzevir

Scholz

Scrivener

  • 1894 καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος, Δίκαιος, Κύριε, εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας· (F. H. A. Scrivener , The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorised Version - Cambridge University Press).

Other Greek

Revelation 16:5 in the Greek Codex Sinaiticus
Revelation 16:5 in the Greek Codex Sinaiticus

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.

16:5 txt ὁ ὅσιος א P 051 ƒ052 922 2053mg copsa RP NA28 ‖ ὅσιος A C 046 1611 Beat ‖ καὶ ὅσιος ⁴⁷ 1841 2040 2329 ‖ καὶ ὁ ὅσιος 1006 1828 2053txt 2062 (Prim) ‖ καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος 2037 TR ‖ omit copbo ‖ hiat 2050

  • καί ἀκούω ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ ὕδωρ λέγω δίκαιος εἰμί ὁ εἰμί καί ὁ εἰμί ὁ ὅσιος ὅτι οὗτος κρίνω Tischendorf 8th Edition
  • 1904 Καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος· Δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ ὅσιος ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας· Greek Orthodox Church
  • 2000 (Byzantine/Majority Text)

English Versions

Revelation 16:5 in the 1611 King James Version
Revelation 16:5 in the 1611 King James Version
Image:Revelation 16 5 English Hexapla 1841.JPG
Revelation 16:5 in Greek in the 1841 English Hexapla
  • 1395 [And the thridde aungel... seide,] Just art thou, Lord, that art, and that were hooli, that demest these thingis; (Wycliffe)
  • 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 And I herde an angel saye: LORDE which art and wast, thou art righteous and holy, because thou hast geue soche iudgmentes, (Coverdale)
  • 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 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)
Revelation 16:5 in the 1560 Geneva Bible
Revelation 16:5 in the 1560 Geneva Bible
  • 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 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)
  • 1611 And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast iudged thus: (King James Version)
  • 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 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 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 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

See also Bible translations into Afrikaans

Afrikaans

  • 1933 J. D. du Toit, E. E. van Rooyen, J. D. Kestell, H. C. M. Fourie, and BB Keet (Ta Biblia Ta Logia)
  • 1953
  • 1982 Paraphrase - Die Lewende Bybel, Christelike Uitgewersmaatskappy (CUM)
  • 1982 South African Bible Society - E. P. Groenewald, A. H. van Zyl, P. A. Verhoef, J. L. Helberg, and W. Kempen
  • 1983 © Bybelgenootskap van Suid Afrika
  • 2001 The Nuwe Wêreld-vertaling van die Heilige Skrif is an Afrikaans translation of the 1984 English translation of the Bible by the Watchtower Society.
  • 2002 Die Boodskap
  • 2002 DieBybel@Kinders.co.za - Gert Prinsloo, Phil Botha, Willem Boshoff, Hennie Stander, Dirk Human, Stephan Joubert, and Jan van der Watt.
  • 2006 The Nuwe Lewende Vertaling (literally "New Living Translation")
  • 2008 Bybel vir Almal - South African Bible Society, Bart Oberholzer, Bernard Combrink, Hermie van Zyl, Francois Tolmie, Christo van der Merwe, Rocco Hough en Elmine Roux.
  • 2014 Direct Translation, South African Bible Society
  • 2014 Afrikaans Standard Version, CUM Books

Akan

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.

Amharic

Amharic bible of 1988 at Revelation 16:5
Amharic bible of 1988 at Revelation 16:5

Amuzgo de Guerrero

  • 1973 Amuzgo de Guerrero (AMU) Copyright © 1973, 1999 by La Liga Biblica
  • 1999

Arabic

Arabic bible in the 1657 London Polyglot of Walton at Revelation 16:5
Arabic bible in the 1657 London Polyglot of Walton at Revelation 16:5
Latin translation of the Arabic bible in the 1657 London Polyglot of Walton at Revelation 16:5
Latin translation of the Arabic bible in the 1657 London Polyglot of Walton at Revelation 16:5
  • 1988
  • 1516
  • 1591
  • 1616
  • 1622
  • 1657 (Waltons Polyglot)
  • 1671 Biblia Arabica. de propaganda fide. Arabic and Latin Bible printed in Rome by Abraham Ecchellensis and Louis Maracci
  • وسمعت ملاك المياه يقول عادل انت ايها الكائن والذي كان والذي يكون لانك حكمت هكذا.(Arabic Smith & Van Dyke)
  • 1988 Arabic Life Application Bible (ALAB) Copyright © 1988 by Biblica
  • 2009 Arabic Bible: Easy-to-Read Version (ERV-AR) Copyright © 2009 by World Bible Translation Center

Aramaic/Syriac

  • (Aramaic Peshitta)

Armenian

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

Basque

  • 1571
  • Eta ençun neçan vretaco Aingueruä, cioela, Iusto aiz Iauna, Aicena eta Incena eta Saindua: ceren gauça hauc iugeatu baitituc: (Navarro-Labourdin)

Bulgarian

  • 1940 (1940 Bulgarian Bible)
  • И чух ангела на водите да казва: Праведен си Ти, Пресвети, Който си, и Който си бил, загдето си отсъдил така;

Cebuano

  • Ug nadungog ko ang manolunda sa katubigan nga nag-ingon, Husto ikaw niining imong mga paghukom, ikaw nga mao ang sa karon ug ang sa kagahapon, O Balaan.

Cherokee

  • 1860 Cherokee New Testament (CHR)

Chinese

  • 接着,我听见那位统管众水的天使说:“今在、昔在的圣者啊,你是公义的,因为你判定了这些事, (Chinese Union Version (Simplified))
  • 接著,我聽見那位統管眾水的天使說:「今在、昔在的聖者啊,你是公義的,因為你判定了這些事,(Chinese Union Version (Traditional))

Coptic

  • 2006 ⲀⲒⲤⲰⲦⲘ ⲈⲠⲀⲄⲄⲈⲖⲞⲤ ⲚⲘⲘⲞⲞⲨ ⲈϤϪⲰ ⲘⲘⲞⲤ ϪⲈ ⲚⲦⲔ ⲞⲨⲆⲒⲔⲀⲒⲞⲤ ⲠⲈⲦϢⲞⲞⲠ ⲀⲨⲰ ⲠⲈⲦⲈ ⲚⲈϤϢⲞⲞⲠ ⲠⲠⲈⲦⲞⲨⲀⲀⲂ ϪⲈ ⲀⲔⲔⲢⲒⲚⲈ ⲚⲚⲀⲒ Sahidic Coptic

Croatian

  • 1563 The Glagolitic New Testament 1562/1563
  • I začujem anđela voda gdje govori: Pravedan si, Ti koji jesi i koji bijaše, Sveti, što si tako dosudio!

Czech

  • 1613 I slyšel jsem anděla vod, řkoucího: Spravedlivý jsi, Pane, Kterýž jsi, a Kterýž jsi byl, a Svatý, žes to usoudil. bible of Kralice

Danish

  • Og jeg hørte Vandenes Engel sige: Retfærdig er du, som er, og som var, du hellige, fordi du har fældet denne Dom;

Dutch

  • 1528 Ende ic hebbe gehoort een engel der wateren, seggende. Ghi zijt rechtuerdicht Heer, die daer is, ende die daer was heylich. Want ghi dit geordeelt hebt
  • 1542 ende ic hoorde den engel, seggende. HERE, ghi sijt gerecht, die daer sijt, ende die daer was, ende heylich, dat ghi dat gheoordeelt hebt,
  • 1548 Ende ick heb ghehoort den enghel der wateren segghende, Ghy sijt rectuerdich Heere die sijt, ende die waert heylich, dat ghy dit gheordeelt hebt,
  • 1560 Ende ick hoorde den Enghel segghen: Heere, ghy zijt rechtueerdich, die daer is, ende die daer was, ende heylich, dat ghy sulcx gheordeelt hebt.
  • 1562 Ende ick hoorde den Engel der wateren segghen: Du bist rechtueerdich Heere, die Is, ende die Was, ende heylich, om dat du dit geoordeelt hebst.
  • 1637 En ik hoorde den engel der wateren zeggen: Gij zijt rechtvaardig, Heere! Die is, en Die was, en Die zijn zal, dat Gij dit geoordeeld hebt;

Esperanto

  • Kaj mi auxdis la angxelon de la akvoj dirantan:Justa estas Vi, la estanta kaj estinta, la Sanktulo, cxar Vi tiele jugxis;

Finnish

  • 1619
  • 1776 Ja minä kuulin vetten enkelin sanovan: Herra, sinä olet vanhurskas, joka olet, ja joka oli, ja pyhä, ettäs nämät tuomitsit;
  • 1938

French

Le Nouveau Testament, c'est à dire la nouvelle alliance de nostre Seigneur et seul Sauveur Jesus Christ, tant en latin qu'en francois : les deux translations [...]. [Genève] : [Simon Du Bosc & Guillaume Guéroult], 1555
Le Nouveau Testament, c'est à dire la nouvelle alliance de nostre Seigneur et seul Sauveur Jesus Christ, tant en latin qu'en francois : les deux translations [...]. [Genève] : [Simon Du Bosc & Guillaume Guéroult], 1555
(-1554)
  • 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 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 (Augustin Crampon)
  • 1910 Et j'entendis l'ange des eaux qui disait: Tu es juste, toi qui es, et qui étais; tu es saint, parce que tu as exercé ce jugement. (Louis Segond)
  • 2006 (King James Française)

German

  • 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 1545)
  • 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 1871)
  • 1899 Und ich hörte den Engel der Wasser sagen: gerecht bist du, der da ist und der da war, der Heilige, daß du so gerichtet;Textbibel
  • 1912 Und ich hörte den Engel der Wasser sagen: HERR, du bist gerecht, der da ist und der da war, und heilig, daß du solches geurteilt hast, (Luther 1912)

Greek

  • 1904 Καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος· Δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ ὅσιος ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας· (Greek Orthodox (B. Antoniades))
  • Modern Greek (Trinitarian Bible Society)

Hungarian

  • És hallám, hogy a vizek angyala ezt mondja vala: Igaz vagy Uram, a ki vagy és a ki valál, te Szent, hogy ezeket ítélted;

Indonesian

  • Lalu aku dengar malaekat segala air itu mengatakan, "Adillah Engkau, Yang ada, dan Yang sudah sedia ada, dan Yang kudus, oleh sebab Engkau sudah menjatuhkan hukum yang demikian,

Italian

  • 1649 Ed io udii l’angelo delle acque, che diceva: Tu sei giusto, o Signore, che sei, e che eri, che sei il Santo, d’aver fatti questi giudicii.
  • 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)
  • Allora udii l'angelo delle acque che diceva: tu, il Santo, poiché così hai giudicato.

Japanese

Kabyle

  • Sliɣ i lmelk iḥekkmen ɣef waman yeqqaṛ : Ay Imqeddes, a Bab n lḥeqq, kečč yellan si zik, yellan ass-a, tḥekkmeḍ s lḥeqq.

Khmer

Korean

  • 내가 들으니 물을 차지한 천사가 가로되 `전에도 계셨고 시방도 계신 거룩하신 이여 이렇게 심판하시니 의로우시도다

Latin

Revelation 16:5 in Latin in the 1516 New Testament of Erasmus
Revelation 16:5 in Latin in the 1516 New Testament of Erasmus
Revelation 16:5 in Latin in the 1522 New Testament of Erasmus
Revelation 16:5 in Latin in the 1522 New Testament of Erasmus
Revelation 16:5 in Latin in the 1565 New Testament of Beza
Revelation 16:5 in Latin in the 1565 New Testament of Beza
Revelation 16:5 in Latin in the 1589 New Testament of Beza
Revelation 16:5 in Latin in the 1589 New Testament of Beza
Revelation 16:5 in Latin in the 1598 New Testament of Beza
Revelation 16:5 in Latin in the 1598 New Testament of Beza
  • et audivi angelum aquarum dicentem iustus es qui es et qui eras sanctus quia haec iudicasti (Vulgate)
  • 1516 et audivi angelum dicentem iustus es domine, qui es, & qui eras sanctus, quia hoc iudicasti (Erasmus)
  • 1527 (Erasmus 1527)
  • 1527 (Erasmus Vulgate 1527)
  • 1565 (Beza)
  • 1565 (Beza Vulgate)
  • 1598 (Beza)
  • 1598 (Beza Vulgate)

Latvian

  • Un es dzirdēju ūdens eņģeli sakām: Taisnīgs Tu esi, Kungs, kas Tu esi un kas biji svēts, un kas tā tiesāji.

Lithuanian

  • Ir išgirdau vandenų angelą sakant: “Teisus Tu, o Viešpatie, kuris esi ir kuris buvai, šventas, kad taip teisi.

Maori

  • 1833
  • 1837
  • 1858
  • 1868 (Formal translation based on the Greek 'Received Text': Trinitarian Bible Society)
  • 1833
  • 1952
  • A ka rongo ahau i te anahera o nga wai e mea ana, Tika tonu koe, e te Ariki, tenei koe inaianei, i mua ano koe, ko te Mea Tapu hoki koe, nau hoki enei whakawa:

Norwegian

  • 1930 Og jeg hørte engelen over vannene si: Rettferdig er du som er og som var, du hellige, at du har dømt således; Det Norsk Bibelselskap (1930)

Pidgin

  • 1996 (Pidgin King Jems)

Portugese

  • E ouvi o anjo das águas dizer: Justo és tu, que és e que eras, o Santo; porque julgaste estas coisas;
  • 2012 Então, ouvi o anjo responsável pelas águas declarar: “Tu és Justo, Tu, o Santo, que és e que eras, porquanto julgaste estes crimes;Bíblia King James Atualizada Português

Romanian

Russian

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

Transliteration: I uslyshal ya Angela vod, kotoryy govoril: praveden Ty, Gospodi, Kotoryy yesi i byl, i svyat, potomu chto tak sudil;

  • Russian Transliteration of the Greek
Revelation 16:5 in the Ostrog Bible of 1581
Revelation 16:5 in the Ostrog Bible of 1581
Revelation 16:5 in the Ostrog Bible Reprint of 1663
Revelation 16:5 in the Ostrog Bible Reprint of 1663
  • 1757 И слышах Ангела воднаго глаголюща: праведен еси, Господи, сый и Иже бе, и преподобн, яко сия судил еси: 1757 Church Slavonic Elizabeth Bible
Revelation 16:5 in the Slavic Bible Elizabethan edition of 1900
Revelation 16:5 in the Slavic Bible Elizabethan edition of 1900
  • 1900 Slavic Bible Elizabethan edition 1900.

Sanskrit

Shuar

  • Nuyß suntar Entsß Wßinniua nuna chichamen antukmajai. "Uuntß, amek ti penker Yus asam J·tikiame. Yßunchusha tuke Puj· asam ti Shφiraitme.

Spanish

See Also Bible translations (Spanish)

  • 1543 (Francisco de Enzinas New Testament)
  • 1556 (Juan Perez de Pineda New Testament and book of Psalms)
  • 1569 Y oí al ángel de las aguas, que decía: Señor, tú eres justo, que eres y que eras el Santo, porque has juzgado estas cosas; (Sagradas Escrituras)
  • 1602 Y oí al ángel de las aguas, que decía: Justo eres tú, Oh Señor, que eres y que eras, y que serás, porque has juzgado estas cosas:
  • 1814 Valera Revision
  • 1817 Valera Revision
  • 1831 Valera Revision
  • 1862 Valera Revision
  • 1865 Valera Revision (American Bible Society Revisión)
  • 1869 Valera Revision
  • 1909 Y oí al ángel de las aguas, que decía: Justo eres tú, oh Señor, que eres y que eras, el Santo, porque has juzgado estas cosas: (Reina Valera)
  • 1960 (Eugene Nida )
  • 1987 Translation from English. Publisher: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.
  • 1994 Nuevo Testamento versión Recobro
  • 1997 Y oí al ángel de las aguas, que decía: Justo eres tú, el que eres, y el que eras, oh Santo, porque has juzgado estas cosas; (La Biblia de las Américas) (©1997)
  • 1999 Nueva Versión Internacional (NVI)
  • 2002 (1602 Purificada)
  • 2005 Oí al ángel de las aguas, que decía: "Justo eres Tú, el que eres, y el que eras, oh Santo, porque has juzgado estas cosas; Las citas bíblicas son tomadas Nueva Biblia de los Hispanos © 2005 by The Lockman Foundation, La Habra, Calif,
  • 2009 Santa Biblia: Reina-Valera
  • 2011 Y oí al ángel de las aguas, que decía: Justo eres tú, oh Señor, que eres y que eras, y serás, porque has juzgado así. (Reina Valera Gómez)

Swahili

  • Nikamsikia malaika msimamizi wa maji akisema, "Ewe mtakatifu, Uliyeko na uliyekuwako! Wewe ni mwenye haki katika hukumu hii uliyotoa.

Swedish

  • 1917 Och jag hörde vattnens ängel säga: »Rättfärdig är du, du som är och som var, du helige, som har dömt så.<snall>BIBELN eller DEN HELIGA SKRIFT -- innehållande -- NYA TESTAMENTETS KANONISKA BÖCKER -- i överensstämmelse med den av KONUNGEN ÅR 1917 -- This is release 3.7 from Projekt Runeberg (http://www.lysator.liu.se/runeberg/) of the Bible. That release was made 1999-04-09. It contains the full text of the Bible, and all of it has been spell-checked. -- gillade och stadfästa översättningen</small>

Syriac

Revelation 16:5 in the 1886 Syriac New Testament
Revelation 16:5 in the 1886 Syriac New Testament
  • 1555 Johann Albrecht Widmanstadt
  • 1645 G. Sionita (Paris Polyglot, 1645).
  • 1657 B. Walton (London Polyglot, 1657).
  • 1823 S. Lee (1823)
  • 1852 Urmia edition (1852)
  • 1913 Joseph de Qelayta/Trinitarian Bible Society (1913).
  • 1892 Mosul edition (1887–92)
  • 1851 Beirut (1951)

Tagalog

  • 1905 At narinig ko ang anghel ng tubig na nagsasabi, Matuwid ka, na ngayon at nang nakaraan, Oh Banal, sapagka't humatol ka na gayon; (Ang Dating Biblia 1905)

Thai

  • และข้าพเจ้าได้ยินทูตสวรรค์แห่งน้ำร้องว่า "ข้าแต่องค์พระผู้เป็นเจ้า ผู้ดำรงอยู่บัดนี้ และผู้ได้ทรงดำรงอยู่ในกาลก่อน และผู้จะทรงดำรงอยู่ในอนาคต พระองค์ทรงเป็นผู้ชอบธรรม เพราะพระองค์ทรงพิพากษาอย่างนั้น (Thai KJV)

Turkish

  • Sulardan sorumlu meleğin şöyle dediğini işittim: ‹‹Var olan, var olmuş olan kutsal Tanrı! Bu yargılarında adilsin.

Ukrainian

  • І почув я Ангола вод, який говорив: Ти праведний, що Ти є й що Ти був, і святий, що Ти це присудив! Translated by P. Kulish -- Published in 1871.

Uma

  • Oti toe, ku'epe mala'eka to mpokuasai ue mpo'uli': Oo Pue' Alata'ala to moroli', to ria ami' -moko ngkai lomo' -na pai' to bate ria-ko wae lau, Monoa' lia pehuku' -nu tetu-e. The New Testament in Uma. Central Sulawest, Indonesia. Copyright (c) 1996, Indonesian Bible Society

Urdu

Vietnamese

  • 1934 (Vietnamese Bible) (VIET)
  • Tôi nghe thiên sứ của nước nói rằng: Hỡi Đấng Hiện Có, Đã Có, tức là Đấng Thánh, Ngài là công bình, vì Ngài đã phán xét thể nầy;

Welsh

Commentaries

Commentaries

Verse specific

Range specific

Chapter specific



See Also

References

Marginal References

External Links

Esomenos

Supportive
Critical

Personal tools