Rev 22:16 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]863
Ἐγὼ Ἰησοῦς ἔπεμψα τὸν ἄγγελόν μου μαρτυρῆσαι ὑμῖν ταῦτα ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ῥίζα καὶ τὸ γένος τοῦ Δαβίδ, ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς καὶ ὀρθρινός.
Critical Apparatus :
A Textual Commentary On Revelation 22:16
(a) Erasmus, in general, was free from this bias against almost the whole world besides, presuming even to censure the Vulgate whenever occasion offered ; from whence arose an adage against him, which does him more honour than his own collection from the antients, viz. Vult corrigere MAGNIFICAT*, applied to such as attempt to mend what the monks thought could not be altered for the better. But notwithstanding this, where his MSS. deserted him, being close pressed by his adversaries, he owns, in his Apology to Lee, he supplied, by a translation from the Vulgar Latin, one or two verses in the last chapter of the Revelations ; which Wetstein**, on examination, found to be no less than six ; faultily translated too, by leaving out the article (as an inattentive translator from the Latin easily might), against the genius of the Greek tongue . Thus ver. 16, ρίζα for η ριζα, λαμπρος for ο λαμπρος ; ver. 18, προφητειας βιβλιου for της προφητείας του βιβλιου, εν βιβλίω for εν τω βιβλίω twice ; ver. 19, βίβλου for του βιβλιου, ζωης for της ζωης, πόλεως αγίας for της πόλεως της αγίας. And from the Comment of Andreas, out of a faulty copy, c. v. 14 , after aporexúvrsav he added ζώνι εις τες αιώνας των αιώνων, for το ζαλι, from tlie Vulgate , which reads adoraverunt viventem in secula seculorum, against the most antient Latin copies . xvii. 4, for peolòv åxalç ? os he has printed, by a feigned word, peolòy dxcháşins, from the Vulgate, which has plenum abo minatione, instead of wliat the most antient copies read, plenum abominationum, & c. In short, he has been so unhappy in translating from the Latin as to make at least thirty variations from the Greek in so small a compass. Some of these errors he corrected in his second and third edi tions from the Complutensian, and partly made worse by joining the true reading to his own, which has occasioned a jumble of corrections and cor ruptions in the six last verses in most of the editions to this day. Thus ver. 16, Stephens from him retains ópôgivòs for apoivas. Ver. 17, 20 € twice for čexe , ei for êày twice, which in Erasmus was êày ei , corruptly from the Complutensian èày . Ver. 18, ourpagluçõeas for uapluçējas , be cause the Latin version renders it contestor, which yet is no other than the usual term for paglupõuas , as Acts xx. 26, Heb. vii. 8, 17, x. 15. Ver. 19, βίβλο twice for βιβλία, and αφαιρήσει for αφελεί. Μatt. ii. 11, he has admitted into his edition eucov for eldow, only from lighting on a faulty copy of Theophylact agreeing with the Vulgar Latin ; which reading, as Mill observes, is followed by most of the subsequent editions.
** Prolegomena, p. 126 ; and see Michaelis’s Introductory Lectures, sect. xxxi. p. 74 ; Simon’s Hist. Crit. des Vers, & des Comm. du Nov. Test
(William Bowyer, Critical Conjectures And Observations On The New Testament, 1812, pp. 3-4)