Second, the commentary includes the sentence, “Who were holy, are and shall be just”, using the verbs, “eras”, “es” and “eris”. The Vulgate reads, “dicentem iustus es qui es et qui eras sanctus”. The reading, being translated, “You are just, who were holy” is missing the clause, “and who are” (Latin: “& qui es”). However, it is neither the reading found in the existing manuscripts nor in the Vulgate. First, the quotation from the biblical text, is not Beza’s conjectured reading. There are two interesting features of this commentary. “ In past times it is used here for three times, that is, for the past, present, and future. The text from “dicentem” to “eris” translated into English is: 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. “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.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |