By comparing the above with the Common Version the reader will see the difference for himself. I have found no benefit in the labors of the “recent editors” who have undertaken to mend the Greek text. They seem to think nothing of “taking away from the words of the book of this prophecy;” and of “adding” thereto — Ch. 22:18,19. We have examples of this editorial recklessness in the chapter before us. The first occurs in a note upon to onoma, “the name” in verse 1. “All the recent editors for to onoma, have to onoma autou kai to onoma. I recommend”, says the revising editor of the Baptist New Version, “that this reading be followed and translated: his name and the name. ” But I have not followed the recommendation, because the proposed alteration is superfluous, and implies two names, the name of the Father and the name of the Lamb. But the name of the Father is also the name of the Lamb; and therefore the phrase, “the name,” is doubtless correct, and certainly all sufficient.
Again, in Verse 2, on the words, “l heard the voice of harpers, ” etc., a note runs thus, “instead of phonen ekousa, all the recent editions have he phone hen ekousa hos. I recommend that this reading be adopted and
translated: the voice which I heard (was) as. ” Now this would imply that the voice of the harpers was as “the sound of great thunder” — a noise not very creditable to their music! The recent editors err in supposing that phonen, used four times in the second verse, refers to the same voice or sound. This is not the fact. The sound of many waters, and the sound of loud thunder, are the sounds of acclamation and war; while the voice of harpers is the song of personal redemption, and future glory, when the war is over. I have therefore disregarded the decision of “the recent editors;” and maintained the distinction between the thundering and the harping, by dividing the second verse, and translating the phone of thunder “sound,” and the phone of the singing harpers, “voice,” in the sense of music and song.
Again, “the recent editors” do not like the word dolos, “guile”, in verse 5, but substitute the word pseuthos, “lie”. A man that is guileless does not lie; but a man may not lie, and yet be full of deceit. The change may be more favorable to their morality; but I doubt not altogether unnecessary.
Again, “all the recent editors” cancel the words, enopion tou thronou tou Theou. “I recommend,” says the reviser, “that this reading be adopted, and that the words, ‘before the throne of God,’ be omitted” from the fifth verse, so that with this editorial mutilation it would read, “and in their mouth was found no lie; for they are faultless.” But, where do they stand in this faultless condition? The recent editors have cancelled the answer; I therefore restore it, and insert it in my translation; as, before, or “in the presence of the throne of the Deity,” as represented in ch. 4:4.
In the sixth verse, I have left the word aionion untranslated. I have transferred it merely. The “aionian good news” will be the subject of exposition, when it will be seen that “everlasting” is not the word best suited to express its quality. We may find a better word when we see distinctly what the thing is; or “aionian” being understood in its true sense may be suffered to remain.
Again, in verse 15, it reads, hoti elthe soi he hora tou therisai “because for thee hath arrived the hour of the reaping.” The “recent editors” omit the word soi, for thee, though the order is addressed to a certain party. The hour of the reaping hath arrived. But by whom? Their recencies have struck out the answer in suppressing the words “for thee”. I have restored them; and the answer is “for thee, upon the cloud.” And here we may dismiss “all the recent editors” as more of a pest than a blessing to the original Greek text of the revealing Spirit.