Revelation 16:5

From Textus Receptus

Current revision

• ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 16:5 Καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος, Δίκαιος, Κύριε, εἶ Ὁ ὢν, καὶ Ὁ ἦν, καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας.

(Textus Receptus, Novum Testamentum, Theodore Beza, 5th major edition. Geneva. 1598)

• Revelation 16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.

(King James Version, Pure Cambridge Edition 1900)

• Revelation 16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters saying: “You are righteous, O Lord, who is and was and will be, because You have judged these things.

(King James Version 2016 Edition, 2016) - buy the revised and updated printed 2023 Edition New Testament here

Interlinear

Commentary

O Lord

Manuscripts Underlying Lord

Book of Armagh

The Latin Book of Armagh of 807 AD has the reading Kurie (Lord) in Latin in Nomen Sacrum form.[1].

The Latin Book of Armagh (Codex Ardmachanus, Liber Ardmachanus, Canon of Patrick) of 807 AD has the reading Kurie (Lord) in Latin in Nomen Sacrum form, dne:

et audivi anguelum aq^uarum dicentem iustus es dne qui es et qui eras scs ꝗ ħ iudicasti

The Latin, ‘Domine (masculine singular vocative noun, from Dominus)’. Migne (Latin Writers Series) (1846 Paris Edition), PATROLOGIA, Vol. 29, p. 863 (B. Joannis Apostoli Apocalypse, Cap. XVI, D) (Latin).

(See Also Q with stroke and H with stroke.) The word LORD is found in the Latin Book of Armagh, Minuscule 2344, some other Latin copies, the Coptic Boharic and Ethiopic versions.

LORD is also the reading of Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 the Geneva Bible 1587, KJB, NKJV, Young's, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1998, Italian Diodati, Spanish Reina Valera, and Green's Literal KJV. It was also found in the previous Catholic translations like the Douay-Rheims and the Douay of 1950.

The NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV all omit the word LORD, along with the more modern Vatican versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985.

Uncial 051

The uncial manuscript 051 does not have Lord in the main text.

Uncial 051 is dated paleographically to the 10th century. It was formerly said to have Kurios in the main text, but on further examination, this is not correct. [10]

Minuscule 2344

Κύριε is the reading in the Textus Receptus editions. The Greek Minuscule 2344 (Coislin 18) from the 11th century has this reading. [11] & [12] Minuscule 2344 says:

και ηκουσα του αγγε

ου των υδατων λεγοντος· δικαιος ει

κε· ο ων και ο ην· ο οσιος· οτι ταυτα ε

κρινας·

Pre 1611 English Bibles

• 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)

Lord in Ethiopic

Brian Walton has the reading in his Polyglot Bible in Ethiopic

The 1549 Ethiopic has እግዚአ Lord here.

The Angel was quoting Psalm 119:137

Elijah Hutter Psalm 119:137 Hebrew and Greek

Elijah Hutter Psalm 119:137 Latin and German

Revelation 16:5 & 7 have similarities with Psalm 119:137. In Rev 16, verse 5 is echoed by verse 7.

Psalm 119

• ¹³⁷ TZADDI. Righteous art thou, O LORD, and upright are thy judgments.

Revelation 16

• ⁵ And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
• ⁶ For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
• ⁷ And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.

Similarities in Greek:

¹³⁷ Δίκαιος εἶ κύριε· καὶ εὐθὴς ἡ κρίσις σου· (Hutter)

⁵...Δίκαιος, κύριε, εἶ (^{LORD >}ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος^{< LORD}), ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας·

⁷...Ναί κύριε (^{LORD >}ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ^{< LORD}) ἀληθιναὶ καὶ δίκαιαι αἱ κρίσεις σου

Similarities in Latin:

¹³⁷ Iustus es Domine: & recta judicia tua. (Hutter)

⁵ ...Iustus es Domine, (^{LORD >}Qui es, & Qui eras Qui eris^{< LORD}), quod haec iudicaris (Beza 1598)

⁷ ...Etiam Domine (^{LORD >}Deus omnipotens^{< LORD}) vera sunt & iusta iudicia tua. (Beza 1598)

and shalt be

"ὁ ἐσόμενος" was inserted into the the main body of text in printed editions of the Textus Receptus by Theodore Beza in his 1582 edition. This replaced the usual reading of “ὁ ὅσιος” (holy). There are about 200 Greek manuscripts in existence containing Revelation 16:5, but “ὁ ἐσόμενος” (shalt be) is lacking in all of them and the reading “ὁ ὅσιος” (holy) 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. When one understands the nature of Nomina Sacra and the elucidated meaning of Jehovah and I AM in the triadic declaration of “which art, and wast, and shalt be”, being the most significant and Sacred Name of God in the New Testament, then one can clearly see the why “holy” (sacred) had been formerly placed into the text, being the purest form of the five triadic declarations in Revelation and why Beza saw “shalt be” as the original reading.

To understand the reasoning behind this, consider:

• Jesus, who “is to come/shalt be”, is Jehovah.
• I AM also means “who was, and is, and shall be”.
• I AM in English bible versions shows “shalt be” is a reasonable reading.
• Most commentaries concerning the Triadic Declaration relate it to Jehovah and I AM.
• The Triadic Declaration is the original Holy Name of God.
• The entire Triadic Declaration is nominative (a name) with its own Strong’s number 3801.
• The “holy” in the manuscripts is a form of Nomina Sacra (sacra meaning holy or sacred).
• The Ethiopic Bible of 1549 has “shalt be”.
• P47 has the “and” that Beza pointed to, which was going on to fulfill the Triad.
• In the 3rd century Clement of Alexandria speaking of Jehovah used “esomenos” knowing the correct NT reading of Revelation 16:5.
• In the 4th century Gregory of Nyssa calls Christ the “esomenos”.
• Jerome's Vulage had “shalt be” in the Triadic Declaration according to Wordsworth's Latin.
• In the 8th century Beatus of Liébana has “shalt be” in his text and his copy of a 4th century commentary.
• In the 9th century Haimo Halberstadensis has “shalt be” in his Latin commentary, exactly how Jerome has it.
• Desiderius Erasmus has the Triadic Declaration in Rev 16:5 as “ἐρχόμενος” (not ἐσόμενος) in his Annotations in all five editions.
• Luther, Coverdale, and Calvin had “will be” for “I AM” in Exodus 3:14.
• Hutter has “shalt be” in his Hebrew edition with “is to come” in his Greek.
• The NT Hebrew of Hutter in Revelation 16:5 is akin to Hava “to be/shalt be”.
• The 1560 Geneva notes at Exodus 3:14 has “shalbe” for I AM.
• John Calvin defined Jehovah and I AM as the Triadic Declaration.
• Theodore Beza explained in his 1582 footnote that the Triadic Declaration appears when Jehovah (Lord) appears in Revelation.
• The KJV translators did not slavishly follow Beza (see John 8:6; Acts 16:7) but chose to adopt “shalt be” knowing that Beza was correct.
• The KJV translators left no note or italic (in 1 John 2:23 they placed the reading in italics to show minority reading) showing they did not consider it a minority.
• The Dutch Statenvertaling also independently chose the reading and left no italic or footnote.

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; for example:

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 on the grounds that it has been claimed to be a conjectural emendation, but many of the same will accept readings which have no manuscript support in Acts 16:12 and 2 Peter 3:10 which appear in the NA/UBS 28 Edition. 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 supposedly 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 “and holy” or “the holy one”, since it seems out of step with other places in Revelation. The reading of “and holy” or “the holy one” is awkward and is also an necessary repeat 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." [13]

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."

Ethiopic Version

Ethiopic is also known as Aethiopic, Abyssinian, and at times, Indianic. It is a Sematic language like Hebrew, Syriac, or Arabic. The Ethiopic bible clearly has the reading equivalent to shalt be at Revelation 16:5. many have questioned about other aspects of 16:5 and the other Triadic Declarations also. Here they are below:

1548/49 Ethiopic Bible

Revelation 1.4 1548-49 Ethiopic Bible [2].

Revelation 1:4

Revelation 1.8 1548-49 Ethiopic Bible [3].

Revelation 1:8

Revelation 4.8 1548-49 Ethiopic Bible [4].

Revelation 4:8

Revelation 11.17 1548-49 Ethiopic Bible [5].

Revelation 11:17

Revelation 16.5 1548-49 Ethiopic Bible

Revelation 16:5

Brian Walton has the reading in his Polyglot Bible in Ethiopic

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

Richard Brett

King James Translator Richard Brett was well versed in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldaic (Aramaic), Arabic, and Ethiopian.

Brian Walton and Ethiopic

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 1549 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"

The five Triadic Declarations in Brian Walton's printing of the 1549 Ethiopic  :.....ዘሀሎ ወይሄሉ...Revelation 1:4 :.....ዘሀሎ ወይሄሉ...Revelation 1:8 :.....ዘሀሎ ወይሄሉ...Revelation 4:8 :.....ዘሀሎ ወይሄሉ..Revelation 11:17 :.....ዘሀሎከ ወትሄሉ....Revelation 16:5

.....ዘሀሎ ወይሄሉ...Revelation 1:4

.....ዘሀሎ ወይሄሉ...Revelation 1:8

.....ዘሀሎ ወይሄሉ...Revelation 4:8

.....ዘሀሎ ወይሄሉ..Revelation 11:17

.....ዘሀሎከ ወትሄሉ....Revelation 16:5

The final form has ዘሀሎከ not ዘሀሎ, and ወትሄሉ not ወይሄሉ. The ወትሄሉ is translated in 2 John here as "shall be" or "will be" in many bibles.

It is interesting that in a modern Ethiopic translation of Exodus 3:14 it uses ዘሀሎ (za-hallo) for I am.

14 ወይቤሎ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ አነ ፡ ውእቱ ፡ ዘሀሎ ፡ ወይቤሎ ፡ ከመዝ ፡ ትብሎሙ ፡ ለደቂቀ ፡ እስራኤል ፡ ዘሀሎ ፡ ፈነወኒ ፡ ኀቤክሙ ። [14]

At times ዘሀሎ (za-hallo) can be translated as "I was" (this translation can be seen here https://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s14173.pdf):

See also Garima Gospels

Arabic

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 Brian 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)"

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."

Priscillian of Avila

Priscillian of Avila in the 4th century wrote in Latin:

Ipse est enim qui fuit, est et futurus est et uisus a saeculis "verbum caro factus inhabitauit in nobis" (Jn 1:14)

He is that who was, is and shall be, and appeared as "the Word" from eternity, "was made flesh, dwelled in us," (Jn 1:14)

Context

[PAGE 32]

Tractatus I

Priscilliani Liber Apologeticus

Esti fides nostra nullis uitae offendiculis inpedita securum catholicae dispositionis iter tendens ad deum libera sit, tamen quia zabolica obtrectatione

pulsata in eo quod percutitur plus probatur, gloriosum nobis uidimus, beatissimi sacerdotes, ut non redarguente conscientia, quamuis frequentibus libellis locuti fidem nostram hereticorum omnium docmata damnauerimus et libello fratrum nostrorum Tiberiani, Asarbi et ceterorum, ,cum quibus nobis una fides et unus est sensus, cuncta docmata quae contra Christum uideantur esse damnata sint et probata quae pro Christo, tamen etiam nunc, quia id uultis, sicut scribtum est "parati semper ad confessionem omni poscenti no rationem de fide et spe quae est in nobis" (1 Pet 3:15) tacere noluimus, quod iubetis. Etenim confessione repetita licet in oculis uestris sit omne quod uiuimus et constituti in fidei luce nulla "tenebrosae conuersationis" (cf. Is 9:12) secreta sectemur, non abnuimus tamen, ut etiam ignorantibus nos satisfieret, ne quis in nos credens male alteris inueniabili edrrore peccaret, non ecusantes quin "ostenderemus ore quod credebamus in corde." (cf. Rom 10:10) Quamuis enim gloriari in his quae fuimus non oporteat, tamen non ita obscuro editi ad saeculum loco aut insipientes uocati sumus, ut fides Christi et eruditio credendi mortem nobis potius adferre potuerit quam salutem. Ad haec enim, ut ipsi nouistis, peractis omnibus humanae uitae experiementis et malorum nostrorum conuersationibus repudiatis tamquam in portum securae quietis intrauimus. Agnoscentes enim quoniam "nemo misi ex aqua et spiritu sancto renatus ascenderet in regna caelorum," (Jn 3:5) "castificauimus animas nostras ad obaudiendum fidei per spiritum" (1 Pet 1:22) "repudiatis prioris uitae desideriis," (1 Pet 1:14) "in quibus erubescebamus," (Rom 6:21) ad innouatae iter gratiae simbolum atolicae obseruationis acceptimus, quod tenemus, ut intrantes lauacrum, redemptionem corporis nostri, et "baptizati in Christo induti Christum" (Gal 3:27) inanem saeculi gloriam respuentes ipisi uni uitam nostram sicut dedimus dederemus, qui peccatorum remissione concessa passus ipse pro nobis et redemptionem animis nostris praestitit et salutem. Quis enim est qui legens scribturas et "unam fidem unum baptisma unum deum" (Eph 4:5-6) credens hereticorum dogmatat stulta non damnet, qui, dum uolunt humanis conparare diuina, diuidunt unitam in dei uirtute substantiam et magnitudinem Christi tripertito ecclesiae fonte uenerabilem Binionitarum scelere partiuntur, cum scribtum sit: "ego sum deus et non est alius praeter me iustus" (Is 45:21) et "saluator non est praeter me," (Hos 13:14) et: "eo primus et ego posthaec et praeter me non est deus," (Is 44:6) "quis sicut ego?" (Is 44:7) item alibi: "ego sum et ante me non fuit alius, et post me non erit similis mihi; ego deus et non est praeter me qui saluos faciat;" (Is 43:10-11) et iterum Moyse dicente: "dominus deus noster deus unus est," (Deut 6:4) Hieremias ait: "hic est deus noster nec reputabitur alius absque eum qui inuenit omnem uiam sapientiae et dedit eam Iacob puero suo et Istrahel dilecto suo; posthaec in terris uisus est et cum hominibus conuersatus est." (Baruch 3:36-38) Ipse est enim qui fuit, est et futurus est et uisus a saeculis "verbum caro factus inhabitauit in nobis" (Jn 1:14) et crucifixus deuicta morte uitae heres effectus est ac tertia die resurgens factus futuri forma spem nostrac resurrectionis ostendit et ascendens in caelos uenientibus ad se iter construit "totus in patre et pater in ipso," (cf. Jn 14:11) ut manifestaretur quod scribtum est: "gloria in excelsis deo et pax hominibus in terra bonae uoluntatis," (Lk 2:14) sicut Iohannes ait: "tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra: aqua, caro et sanguis et haec tria in unum sunt, et tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo: pater, uerbum et spiritus et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu." (I Jn 5:8,7)

Translation:

Tractate I

Priscillian's Apologetical Book (Priscilliani Liber Apologeticus)

Collated editions: Priscilliani quae supersunt,

ed. G. Schepss,

CSEL 18 (Vienna, 1889), 3-33

Even though our faith which is hindered by no obstacle and attains the safe route of catholic order leading to God is free, on the other hand, since it is

afflicted by the calumny of the devil and is more clearly proven to be worthy in fact that it is oppressed, we saw that it would have been glorious to us, most blessed priests - although we condemned the doctrines of all the heretics by declaring our faith in numerous writings, and by the book of our brothers Tiberianus, Asarbus, and all the others, with whom we share a single faith and a single opinion, all the doctrines which appeared to be against Christ were condemned, and those which appeared to be in support of Christ were praised, now too, nevertheless, since you want this, namely that, as is written, "we are always ready to confess to anyone who demands from us the principles concerning the faith and the hope, which is in us' (1 Pet 3:15) - to decide not to pass over what you command, as our conscience is irrepreshensible. Therefore, even though all that we lived and established in the light of faith is before your eyes, [and] we pursue no secret "of dark ways of life" (cf. Is 9:12), we did not say no to a repeated confession, so that we might satisfy the ignorant as well, lest someone, having malicious ideas about the others, might commit an unforgivable sin against us, as we do not refuse "to confirm with our mouth what we believed with our heart." (cf. Rom 10:10) Even though, in fact, it is not opportune to glory in what we have been, yet we were not taken to the world from such an obscure place or were called [so] foolish, that the faith in Christ and the awareness of believing might bring us death instead of salvation. Indeed into these things, as you yourselves know, after accomplishing all the experiences of life and rejecting any indulgence in our evils, we entered as into a harbour of safe quietness. Knowing that "nobody, if he has not been born again of water and Holy Spirit, will enter the kingdoms of the heavens," (Jn 3:5) "we have purified our souls to obey the faith through the Spirit," (1 Pet 1:22) and after rejecting "the former desires of life" (1 Pet 1:14) "of which we are ashamed," (Rom 6:21) we received the symbol of catholic observance leading to the path of renewed grace, which we follow so that, by entering the bath, redemption of our body, and "being baptized in Christ and clothed with Christ," (Gal 3:27) we may, after casting off the empty glory of the world, give our life, as we have already given it, to the one himself who suffered for us after conceding the remission of sins, and granted redemption and salvation to our souls. For who is that who, reading the Scriptures and believing "in one faith, one baptism, one God," (Eph 4:5-6) does not condemn the foolish doctrines of the heretics who, while they want to put divine things in the same class with the human, divide the substance united in the power of God and break up the venerable greatness of Christ in the tripartite foundation of the church with the crime of the Binionites, because it was written: "I am God and there is no other who is just but me," (Is 45:21) and "there is no savior besides me," (Hos 13:14) and "I am the first and I am after this and besides me there is no god;" (Is 44:6) [and] "who is like me?;" (Is 44:7) and likewise in another passage: "I am and before me there was no other and after me there shall be no similar to me; I am God and besides me there is nobody who may save;" (Is 43:10-11) and Moses says again: "The Lord is our God, the only God," (Deut 6:4) and Jeremiah declares: "this is our Lord and no other but him shall be considered, who found all the way of wisdom and gave it to Jacob his servant and to Israel his beloved; after this he was seen on earth and lived with men"? (Baruch 3:36-38) He is that who was, is and shall be, and appeared as "the Word" from eternity, "was made flesh, dwelled in us and," (Jn 1:14) after being crucified, since death had been conquered, was made heir of life; and by rising on the third day, as he was made the type of future, he showed the hope of our resurrection, and by scending to the heavens he built the path for those who came to him, while he was "all in the Fathers and the Father in him," (cf. Jn 14:11) so that what was written might be manifested: "Glory to God in the highest peace on earth to people of good will;" (Lk 2:14) [and] as John says: "There are three who testify on earth, the water, the flesh, and the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three who testify in heaven, the Fathers, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Jesus Christ." (1 Jn 5:8,7)

Priscillian and Marco Conti. Priscillian of Avila: The Complete Works. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print. Amazon [www.amazon.com/Priscillian-Avila-Complete-Oxford-Christian/dp/0199567379]

Gregory of Nazianzus

Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390 AD) has in his Oration 41 the allusion:

ἦν μὲν ἀεὶ, καὶ ἔστι, καὶ ἔσται

Translated as:

then, always existed, and exists, and always will exist.

In context:

Τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἦν μὲν ἀεὶ, καὶ ἔστι, καὶ ἔσται, οὔτε ἀρξάμενον , οὔτε παυσόμενον, ἀλλ' ἀεὶ Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συντεταγμένον, καὶ συναριθμού μενον· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔπρεπεν ἐλλείπειν ποτὲ, ἢ Υἱὸν Πα τρὶ, ἢ Πνεῦμα Υἱῷ.

Translated as:

The Holy Ghost, then, always existed, and exists, and always will exist. He neither had a beginning, nor will He have an end; but He was everlastingly ranged with and numbered with the Father and the Son.

This is clearly speaking of the eternality of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Ghost:

then, always existed, (wast)

and exists, (art)

and always will exist. (shalt be)

Translated by Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. >>www.newadvent.org/fathers/310241.htm

Migne Graeca PG 36, 441-442 [441B] >>books.google.com/books?id=7fMUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA411#v=onepage&q&f=false

Epiphanius of Salamis

Epiphanius of Salamis says He who was and is and always exists

Epiphanius of Salamis (Greek: Ἐπιφάνιος; c. 310–320 – 403) was bishop of Salamis, Cyprus, at the end of the 4th century.He was born in Palestine and spent a considerable part of his life there, gives Ἰά (Ia) and Ἰάβε (pronounced at that time /ja'vε/) and explains Ἰάβε as meaning He who was and is and always exists.

ὁ ὢν Κύριος Ἰάβε, ὅς ἦν καὶ ἔστι καὶ ἀει ὢν.

The LORD JEHOVAH He who was and is and always exists.

Latin: Adonai qui est Dominus: Jabe, qui erat, et est, et semper exsistit;

(https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ixcRAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=true) Epiphanius, Panarion, I, iii, 40, in P.G., XLI, col. 685

Basil of Caesarea

Basil of Caesarea (The Great) (329-379 AD) has a reference to the Triadic Declaration in Eunomium Book 5:

μὴ γὰρ ὅ τι οὐκ ἔστιν. Ὃ γάρ ἐστιν, ἦν, καὶ ἔστι, καὶ ἔσται ἀεί· καὶ τοῖς πᾶσι τὸ εἶναι δωρεῖται, ὡς φύσει ὢν Θεός.

For what it “is," it was, and it is, and it will always be, and it gives the being [existence] to everyone, because it is He Who Is by nature.

In context:

Εἰ γὰρ αὐτῷ τῷ παναγίῳ Θεῷ τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ ἀπιστοῦσι· πῶς τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἢ ἀποστόλων ἀκούσωσι, λεγόν των ἐν θείαις Γραφαῖς τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν εἰς αὐτὸν μελλόντων ἐλπίζειν; Πιστεῦσαι γὰρ δεῖ τὸν προσερχόμενον τῷ Θεῷ, ὅτι ἔστι. Πιστεῦσαι· μὴ γὰρ ἀπίστως περιεργάζεσθαι ὅ τί ἐστιν· μὴ γὰρ ὅ τι οὐκ ἔστιν. Ὃ γάρ ἐστιν, ἦν, καὶ ἔστι, καὶ ἔσται ἀεί· καὶ τοῖς πᾶσι τὸ εἶναι δωρεῖται, ὡς φύσει ὢν Θεός.

because if we refuse to to believe in the God three times holy himself, when he speaks of him, how could one then lend a docile ear to his prophets or his apostles, when, in the holy scriptures, they speak of him or of those who owe hope in him? "For he who comes to God must believe that he is" [Hebr., Xi, 6]. Pay attention to these words: they are as absolute as they are formal: it is necessary that the one who seeks God "believe that he is", and certainly not that he searches with an incredulous curiosity "what it is", for not not to say what it is not. For what it “is," it was, and it is, and it will always be, and it gives the being [existence] to everyone, because it is He Who Is by nature.

The latin in the text below has:

Quod enim est, erat, et est, et erit semper

That is, was and is and always will be

Migne Grace PG 29 751-752 PDF p. 70

Sahidic

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.

Alcuin

Alcuin of York (735 – 19 May 804 AD) was an English scholar, clergyman, poet and teacher from York, Northumbria. He was the student of Archbishop Ecgbert at York. At the invitation of Charlemagne, he became a leading scholar and teacher at the Carolingian court, where he remained a figure in the 780s and '90s. He wrote:[15]

Dominator Domine Deus omnipotens, qui es Trinitas una, Pater in Filio, Filius in Patre, cum Spiritu sancto: qui es semper in omnibus, et eras ante omnia, et eris super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula.

Translated as

Sovereign Lord God almighty, who art Trinity together, the Father in the Son, the Son in the Father, with the holy Spirit: who art always in all things, and wast before all things, and shalt be God over all things blessed forever.

This represented the exact formula of Revelation 16:5:

who art always in all things,

and wast before all things,

and shalt be God over all things blessed forever.

In the Latin:

Beza's Latin text reads

Qui es, & Qui eras, & Qui eris,

qui es semper in omnibus,

et eras ante omnia,

et eris super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula.

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. [16]

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.

Haymo of Halberstadt

(From KJV Today)

[6].

The text from "dicentem" to "eris" translated into English is:

"[Saying: Thou art just, who were holy.] In past times it is used here for three times, that is, for the past, present, and future. Who were holy, are and shall be just."

There are two interesting features of this commentary. First, the quotation from the biblical text, [dicentem: Justus es qui eras sanctus.] is not Beza's conjectured reading. However, it is neither the reading found in the existing manuscripts nor in the Vulgate. The reading, being translated, "You are just, who were holy" is missing the clause, "and who are" (Latin: "& qui es"). The Vulgate reads, "dicentem iustus es qui es et qui eras sanctus".

Second, the commentary includes the sentence, "Who were holy, are and shall be just", using the verbs, "eras", "es" and "eris". The association of "justice" with the past, present and future only occurs at Beza's Revelation 16:5. The previous triadic declarations at 1:4, 1:8, 4:8 and 11:17 do not associate the formula with God's "justice". Haimo's commentary text carries the sense of Beza's Latin translation of his 1598 Greek Textus Receptus, which reads, "Justus es, Domine, Qui es, & Qui eras, & Qui eris". Beza chose "eris" as the translation of "εσομενος" (shalt be), which is also the Latin word in Haimo's commentary. Haimo used "eris" (shalt be) for the future rather than "venturus est" (is to come) despite the previous occurrences of the formula in Revelation 1:4, 1:8 and 4:8 in the Vulgate having "venturus est" as the future.

It appears as though the original commentary included the biblical text as conjectured by Beza, and whoever compiled the present edition of the commentary took the commentary section from the original commentary and took the biblical text from a faulty version of the Vulgate.

Thomas Aquinas

In Commentary on the Book On the Divine Names of Blessed Denys In librum B. Dionysii De divinis nominibus expositio, it says in section 661:

Deinde, cum dicit: propter hoc etc., infert conclusionem ex dictis; et dicit quod, propter hoc quod Deus est principium omnibus, in sacra Scriptura ipse Deus qui vere praeexistit omnibus, multipliciter laudatur secundum omnem rationem existentium. Dicitur enim de eo, quod erat et est et futurus est, per quod intelligitur quod factum est, idest praeteritum et quod fit, idest praesens et quod fiet, idest futurum. (Marietti)

Translated as:

Then when he says, and on account of this, from the eloquences, he infers a conclusion from the things said; and he says that, on account of this: that God is the principle of all things, in Sacred Scripture God himself who truly preexists all things is praised in many ways according to every ratio of existing things. For there is said of him what was and is and shall be, through which there is understood what has been made, that is, the past; and what is made, that is, the present; and what shall be made, that is, the future. (Hannon)

[17]

Lorenzo Valla

Lorenzo Valla has:

Iustus es domine qui es & qui eras Sanctus: quia haec iudicasti. graece est: ut superius admonui: erat non eras: quasi dicatur tu domine, is qui est & qui erat qui sanctus, neque enim graece sanctus refertur ad erat ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν ὁ ἅγιος.

Translated as (Google Translate):

You are just, Lord, who are you and who were holy, because you have judged these things. it is in Greek: as I reminded above: it was not you were: as if it were said, Lord, he who is and who was who is holy, for in Greek the holy is not referred to erat ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν ὁ ἅγιος.

Erasmus

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