(The Greek text of Erasmus compared with more recent editions)

Critics of the Authorised Version and its underlying Greek text have quite often drawn attention to the comparatively small number of manuscripts available to Erasmus and the Complutensian editors, and to Stephens and Beza, and the impression is given that the discovery of many thousands of documents in more recent times makes it imperative to introduce a large number of changes in the Greek text. While it is true that many manuscripts have come to light, it must not be overlooked that the great majority of all these newly discovered copies confirm the reliability of the Greek text underlying the Authorised Version and are of a character very similar to the small number of copies upon which earlier editors had to rely.

Erasmus has sometimes been criticised for his treatment of the last six verses of Revelation. The state of the copies in his hands made it impossible for him to edit this part of the text directly from the Greek, and he completed this portion by translating the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. While it may be admitted that he had no alternative if his Greek edition was to be complete, the indirect method of arriving at the Greek text of these verses may cause some to wonder whether the resultant text can be relied on.

Although the Latin Vulgate is by no means free from error, there are many portions of it which agree very closely with the Greek text found in the majority of the manuscripts now available to modern scholars. In this respect Erasmus was referring to an authority more ancient than the incomplete Greek copy upon which he relied for most of Revelation. A detailed study of the reconstructed Greek of Erasmus, side by side with the Latin and the most recent editions of the Greek text, shows a very remarkable agreement, and in the case of the few significant variations in the recent critical editions, it is not to be assumed that they are unquestionably right and that Erasmus was unquestionably wrong.

The Greek text of Erasmus in this passage contains 135 words of which Nestlé (and Aland and Metzger) omit 17 words, add five, and alter 13, making a total of 35 words affected. Of these 35 words, 26 make no perceptible difference in an English translation, and most of the remaining 9 are of very small significance. They are as follows:-

1. Shall add to them - A.V. shall add unto these things (verse 18)
2. words of the scroll (or paper,- a diminutive) - A. V. words of the book (verse 19)
3. tree of life - A .V. book of life (verse 19)
4. omit “and” after “holy city” (verse 19)
5. omit “even so” (verse 20)
6. omit “our” before “Lord” (verse 20)
7. omit “Christ” (verse 21. A.V. “Our Lord Jesus Christ”)
8. omit “you” (verse 21. A.V. “be with you all”)
9. omit “Amen”.

The text of Erasmus confirmed by subsequently discovered evidence

With regard to the final “Amen”, the opinion of Erasmus has been upheld by fifty out of eight-three English versions examined for the present article. Moffatt, Berkeley, R.S.V., N.A.S.V., the New American Bible, New International Version, and the Jerusalem Bible are among the fifty versions standing with Erasmus on this one point. His opponents include the R.V., N.E.B., T.E.V., New Berkeley, and Jehovah's Witnesses (“New World Translation” and “Bible in Living English”). If a well-meaning friend of Erasmus had anticipated the labours of Tischendorf and had come from Sinai bearing in his hands the famous (but in many respects defective) Codex Sinaiticus of the 4th century, Erasmus would have observed that this ancient codex at least confirmed his judgment regarding the inclusion of the closing “Amen”. If others had brought to him the third century Syriac and Coptic versions, the 5th century Armenian and the 6th century Ethiopic, they would all have confirmed the wisdom of his decision.

On each of the disputed words Erasmus has been supported by some among the many more recent editors and translators. For instance, while 36 of the 83 English versions referred to have “Jesus” in verse 21, where Erasmus has “Jesus Christ”, the latter was adopted by 46 of the authorities as the original reading, including J. N. Darby, Twentieth Century, Moffatt, Goodspeed, Lamsa, Wade, Knox and Berkeley. If Erasmus had had at his disposal all the sources available to the scholars responsible for these 83 versions he would have found good reasons for arriving at the same conclusions as those which he incorporated in his text without the help of those authorities.

Deficiencies of some of the ancient documents

If Erasmus had consulted certain copies of the 5th century Armenian Version, we would now read, quite wrongly, in our English Bibles “the root and offspring of Adam” (for “David” in verse 16). In the following verse we would read, again quite wrongly, “The Spirit and the bridegroom say, Come” (for “bride”). Again, if Erasmus had been familiar with Codex Sinaiticus, it would not only have confirmed his final “Amen”; it would also have encouraged him to omit “Amen” from verse 20 (“Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus”). The same ancient authority would have misguided him in verse 19, where it adds “these” (A. V. “the words”, Codex Sinaiticus - “these words”). Codex Alexandrinus was not available to our scholars until after the Authorised Version was published. If Erasmus had been able to use it, his Greek would have EN in place of EP1 (“in the Churches” , verse 16); and if he had used the 5th century Codex C, he would have omitted the preposition altogether. The consensus of the manuscripts supports Erasmus in these instances against Aleph, A and C. Codex B of Revelation is not to be confused with Codex B (Vaticanus) of the main part of the New Testament, being considerably later in date. This document also is defective in some details and inferior to the text of Erasmus - e.g. in verse 18 Codex B of Revelation adds “seven” before “plagues” and reads, “the seven plagues that are written in this book”. A small group of documents present this reading, but the manuscript evidence against it is overwhelming, and the superiority of the text of Erasmus on this point is admitted by all modern scholars, and not only by those who have a high regard for the Authorised Version.

Antiquity no guarantee of accuracy

It is too often assumed that when consulting ancient manuscripts of the Bible, the nearer we approach to the date of the original writing, the nearer we get to the purest obtainable text. This is very far from being the case, as some of the oldest surviving copies contain some of the least defensible variations from the true text. Most of the significant variations first appeared at a very early date, and those later copies which corrected the mistakes were in these details superior to the earlier copies which contained them. A good late copy is to be preferred to a bad early copy, and an accurately rendered version in another language (Latin, Syriac, etc.), is a more useful guide than an inaccurately transcribed copy in the original language. This is also true in relation to individual passages. Codex Alexandrinus may be a reliable guide to a large portion of the New Testament text, but in those places where Codex A goes astray, the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and Ethiopic versions are sometimes more to be relied upon. This has been demonstrated with regard to the closing “Amen”. Codex Sinaiticus includes it. Codex Alexandrinus omits it. The Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and Ethiopic include it. The Latin copies used by Erasmus to complete this section were later than any of these, but they included the final “Amen”, and in this detail they are superior to the much earlier Codex Alexandrinus. Superior antiquity is by no means a guarantee of a superior text.

The text edited by Erasmus, and refined to some extent by Stephens and Beza, underlies the Authorised Version and other 16th and 17th century versions in the European languages. Much of the manuscript evidence discovered in more recent times confirms the reliability of this form of the Greek text. These last six verses of Revelation have been regarded by some as the weakest part of the “Received Text”, but even when all the manuscripts, versions and “fathers” have been assembled and consulted, and the most penetrating textual criticism of the last hundred years has been directed to this passage, the correctness of a very large proportion of the text of Erasmus is confirmed, and in the case of the few exceptions it cannot be shown with certainty that the modern critics are right and that Erasmus was wrong. To affirm with certainty is not the same as to demonstrate with certainty. Critics have affirmed that the final “Amen” is spurious. The great array of ancient manuscripts and versions demonstrates that it is genuine. We have good cause to thank God for the providential preservation of His Word.