Featured Revelation 16:5: Does KJV Add Words?

Not to continue to derail here...

But you are wrong, Van. The only reason I'm responding is to see if you will own it.

Rev 4:2 Byz:
καὶ εὐθέως ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι· καὶ ἰδοὺ θρόνος ἔκειτο ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον καθήμενος
Rev 4:2 TR:
και ευθεως εγενομην εν πνευματι και ιδου θρονος εκειτο εν τω ουρανω και επι του θρονου καθημενος

The difference is between the accusative (Byz) and the genitive (TR)

The other error is actually 22:15 not 14. Not sure who to blame on that one.

ἔξω οἱ κύνες καὶ οἱ φαρμακοὶ καὶ οἱ πόρνοι καὶ οἱ φονεῖς καὶ οἱ εἰδωλολάτραι καὶ πᾶς φιλῶν καὶ ποιῶν ψεῦδος.
εξω δε οι κυνες και οι φαρμακοι και οι πορνοι και οι φονεις και οι ειδωλολατραι και πας ο φιλων και ποιων ψευδος

 

I do not believe a difference in word form qualifies as a conjectural emendation (Rev 4:2). I do see a slight difference, with "one sat on the throne" verses "one sitting (or seated) on the throne."

But sure enough, at Rev. 22:15 I see where the TR has a conjunction (but, yet, for) which does not appear in the MT. While seemingly a nit pick, it still is an added word, a conjectural emendation.

 

I don't know where you get that the vocative is rare in the NT. A quick search has the vocative of "Lord" occurring 123 times in the TR (though of course not that often in the other texts).

Other than that, your post is on target.

 

Rare in comparison to the other 4 noun cases. I believe Wallace has it as less than 1%.

 

If we applied the same metric used to find "conjectural emendation" in the Revelation verses identified to the NIV, including changes in word form, close to a majority of verses could be considered corruptions (conjectural emendations.)

For example, Revelation 1:11 starts with "saying" but the NIV has "which said." Thus a change in word form.

If we find fault with others we should apply the same metric to ourselves, including our translations of choice.

 

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Note: The vocative would naturally be more rare than the other cases because it is only used in direct address.

 

And even more so since it was going out of style in NT times, being replaced by nominatives.

 

Seems like I heard from my son recently that modern Greek doesn't have a vocative but uses the nominative, like you say.

But about the vocative κύριε, a scholar friend wrote me that the vocative is not the least frequent form. Here are his stats:

KURIOS occurrences in NT = 717 (NA27); 747 (Byz)
Singular forms only = 703 (NA27); 733 (Byz)

Of the singular forms:

KURIOU genitive = 240 (NA27, 34%); 254 (Byz, 34%)
KURIOS nominative = 177 (NA27, 25%); 181 (Byz, 25%)
KURIOS vocative = 119 (NA27, 17%); 125 (Byz, 17%)
KURIW dative = 99 (NA27, 14%); 104 (Byz, 14%)
KURION accusative = 68 (NA27, 10%); 69 (Byz, 9%)

So for this word (singulars only) the vocative beats out both the dative and accusative.