Urdu Bible

We are working on the Urdu Textus Receptus Version, which is a version based upon the 1525 Hebrew Masoretic Text and Beza's 1598 Greek Textus Receptus with respect to the King James Version.

We appreciate any feedback - textusreceptusbibles@gmail.com 

• Gospel of Matthew 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

• Gospel of Mark 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

• Gospel of Luke 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

• Gospel of John 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

• Acts of the Apostles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

• Romans 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

• 1 Corinthians 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

• 2 Corinthians 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

• Galatians 1 2 3 4 5 6

• Ephesians 1 2 3 4 5 6

• Philippians 1 2 3 4

• Colossians 1 2 3 4

• 1 Thessalonians 1 2 3 4 5

• 2 Thessalonians 1 2 3

• 1 Timothy 1 2 3 4 5 6

• 2 Timothy 1 2 3 4

• Titus 1 2 3

• Philemon 1

• Hebrews 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

• James 1 2 3 4 5

• 1 Peter 1 2 3 4 5

• 2 Peter 1 2 3

• 1 John 1 2 3 4 5

• 2 John 1

• 3 John 1

• Jude 1

• Revelation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

The Urdu Bible is copyright 2016, only to protect it from being stolen and resold for profit. All Rights reserved.
The above is a draft.

Donate here

Early attestation to "shalt be / ο εσομενος"

ὁ ἐσόμενος was inserted into the the main body of text in printed editions of the Textus Receptus by Theodore Beza in his 1582 edition. There are about 200 Greek manuscripts in existence containing Revelation 16:5, but ὁ ἐσόμενος is lacking in all of them and the reading ὁ ὅσιος prevails. But only 4 Greek manuscripts of Revelation 16:5 exist from before the 10th century and the 3 earliest witnesses of Revelation 16:5 do not even agree.

We can see early Greek corruption

The earliest witnesses to Revelation 16:5 read:

ο ων και ος ην και οσιος (Papyrus 47 3rd Century) 

ο ων και ο ην ο οσιος (Sinaiticus fourth century*) 

ο ων και ο ην οσιος (Alexandrinus fifth-century)

*  (Although this date has been hotly contested Sinaiticus.net)

It seems the phrase got shorter with the passage of time. We can see from these three early witnesses that corruption set in early. “Lord” is also missing in some mss, yet is present in many Reformation Bibles. This is reflected in modern versions, but none seem to follow the “and” of Papyrus 47.

και οσιος in Papyrus 47

The oldest Greek text of Revelation, P47 is from the 3rd century and contains this passage, but it has a textual variant. It contains the “καὶ” (and) in Beza’s phrase “καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος”. One must ask, “and…” what? What was P47 going on to read? Beza has pointed out that in the manuscript for the Latin Vulgate, the text was “foolish and divisional” because of the “and” but the same issue occurs here in P47, but modern critics reject the early Papyrus reading of “καὶ” here as it caused the sentence to be foolish and divisional. 

James White feels that because those who defend the Ecclesiastical Text, or hold to a Textus Receptus position, can easily provide a mountain of textual evidence to prove Textus Receptus readings have a vast majority, that when on the rare occasion this is not the case, we are being inconsistent. But why then does the NA28 text reject the “καὶ” here? Why doesn't White follow the older Papyrus like he tells us to?

δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, (omitted καὶ) ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας, 

(NA28 online)

Certain Critical Text advocates believe in a mythical Lucianic Recension in which almost all traces of a manuscript family can disappear, so why is it hard for them to concede that one word, which was probably preserved as a rare nomina sacra, became corrupted or missing entirely? 

The methodology of modern textual critics is to follow the “oldest and best” manuscripts. But they followed the “and” in P47 here they would end up with reading like this:

“Righteous art Thou, the Being One, and the One who was, and the Holy One.”

Papyrus 47 is slightly worn, the Greek text which Beza used was greatly worn. This is so noted by Beza himself in his footnote on Revelation 16:5.

We can see early Latin corruption

Jerome confirmed that there were a number of various Latin editions of the New Testament which differed in both translation and content before and around 405 AD (when Jerome finished his Vulgate). Most of these we do not have today. 

John Wordsworth revealed (who edited and footnoted a three volume critical edition of the New Testament in Latin) the like phrase in Revelation 1:4 “which is, and which was, and which is to come;” sometimes is rendered in Latin as “qui est et qui fuisti et futurus es” instead of the Vulgate “qui est et qui erat et qui uenturus est.” (John Wordsworth, Nouum Testamentum Latine, vol.3, 422 and 424.)

So we can see there have been different Latin translations of the verses involved. Primasius, Bishop of Hadrumetum, wrote a commentary on Revelation around 552 AD and used the Latin word “pius” instead of “sanctus.”

Many manuscripts were destroyed

Very few readings in finalized Textus Receptus editions, contrary to normally having a vast majority, have very little Greek manuscript support, likely reflecting an inability of believers to renew and preserve true manuscripts due to widespread persecution & martyrdom in early centuries; persecution occurred in the 3rd century, under Roman emperor Decius, and destruction of scripture copies was a major goal of vicious empire-wide persecution in the early 4th century by Diocletian & Galerius, who sent out Roman soldiers to destroy all text copies; this persecution was concentrated in the eastern empire where the Traditional Text, the ancestor of the Textus Receptus, was the standard.

So keep in mind that only 4 manuscripts of Revelation 16:5 exist from before the 10th century and the 3 earliest Greek witnesses of Revelation 16:5 do not even agree.

So is there other evidence for shalt be / ο εσομενος?

The phrase ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος is directly related to the eternal name of God. Beza himself stated in his footnote on Revelation 16:5:

“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?”

The phrase in the Revelation is John’s expansion of 'ehyeh asher 'ehyeh ('I am who I am’) from Exodus 3:14. In Exodus 3 God identified Himself to Moses as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and gave Moses His name:

'ehyeh asher 'ehyeh (אהיה אשר אהיה)

This is usually translated as something like ‘I AM THAT I AM' (KJV) literally 'I am who I am', though some arguments have been made for 'I will be who I will be'. 

Later writers would expand or adjust God’s self-declaration when bringing it into another language. The Aramaic Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 3.14 translates it into a present-future state of being:

I am he who is and who will be

In Deuteronomy 32:29 of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan later has a present-past-future state of being:

I am he who is and who was, and I am who I will be.

So experts in Hebrew are revealing to us that 'I AM THAT I AM' has the meaning that most commentators agree is alluded to in Rev 1:4 is a reference from John, 1:8 from Jesus, 4:8 the four living creatures, and 11:17 from the 24 elders of v.16. Beza and others knew their languages. One of Beza’s friends Immanuel Tremellius, who lke Elias Hutter, was an expert in Hebrew, Syriac and many other middle eastern languages, co authored books with Beza. In the 1639 Biblia Sacra of Immanuel Tremellius, he has the reading:

& Qui eris

Translated as

and shalt be

Although this is from a 1639 edition and Tremellius died in 1580, and I am yet to confirm it as a pre 1580 reading, it still shows that those scholars working on these editions agreed with Beza. We see an ever growing list of experts who agreed with Beza. 

Calvin, whom Beza succeeded in Geneva, summarized on this in his Commentary on Genesis - At the first mention of Jehovah is Genesis 2:

Consequently, it is to be traced to “a Hebrew etymology.” We need not follow him into the discussion on the right pronunciation of the word, and the use of the vowel points belonging to, (Adonai); it may suffice to state, that he deduces the name (Jehovah,) from the future of the verb or , to be. Hence the meaning of the appellation may be expressed in the words, “He who is to be (for ever).” This derivation of the name Jehovah he regards as being confirmed “by all the passages of Scripture, in which a derivation of the name is either expressly given or simply hinted.” And, beginning with the Book of Revelation, at the title ὁ ὡν καὶ ὁ ἤν καὶ ὁ ερχόμενος, “who is, and was, and is to come,” he goes upward through the sacred volume, quoting the passages which bear upon the question, till he comes to the important passage in Exodus in. 13-16, in which God declares his name to be, “I am that I am.” “Everything created,” he adds, “remains not like itself, but is continually changing under circumstances, God only, because he is the being, is always the same; and because he is always the same, is the being.”

Hebrew experts like Immanuel Tremellius, Elias Hutter, and others were contemporaries of Beza. Earlier men knew of the link to Jehovah’s name. Clement of Alexandria, while writing about the Tetragrammaton in the 3rd century, referred to God as “ο εσομενος” in The Stromata, Book V, 6:

ἀτὰρ καὶ τὸ τετράγραμμον ὄνομα τὸ μυστικόν, ὃ περιέκειντο οἷς μόνοις τὸ ἄδυτον βάσιμον ἦν· λέγεται δὲ Ἰαού, ὃ μεθερμηνεύεται ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος.

Translated as:

Further, the mystic name of four letters which was affixed to those alone to whom the adytum was accessible, is called Jave, which is interpreted, “Who is and shall be.”  

(Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

Both the Septuagint and Philo (Life of Moses 1.75, written early-first century) translate the phrase in Exodus 3.14 into Greek as:

egō eimi ho ōn (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν)

This may be translated as either 'I am the one', or 'I am he who is'. The phrasing 'ο ων' is identical to the first part of the phrase found in the Revelation.

With this information above, it is highly probable John’s phrase common phrase 'ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος/ἐσόμενος' was intended to be a translation or expansion on God’s self-identification in Exodus 3.14 as Beza pointed out.
Between the original Hebrew phrase, and the Aramaic and Greek translations, the focus is on God’s state of 'being': he is, he was, he will be. In the original narrative of Exodus 3, this leads into the revelation of God’s own name, Jehovah, which has been suggested by scholars to come from the Hebrew verb 'to be'.

Most of the verses containing the Trinitarian formula in Revelation do not say God is, was, and will be, it says that God is, was, and is to come. The third verb isn’t about God’s state of being, but is an action in itself. Revelation 16:5 is the purest form of the formula.

This phrase ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος (one who is, was, and is to come) is used to create a unique identification, along with the other phrases of Alpha/Omega, first/last, beginning/end, each as identity names for the “oneness” of the Father and the Son who is the express image of God the Father (Heb 1:3). So God the Father through the Son is also ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, just as the Son is also Jehovah.

So is shalt be / ο εσομενος an early reading?

Tyconius’ commentary of Revelation in 380 AD was translated by Beatus of Liebana (786 AD) in his commentary of Revelation which uses the Latin phrase: 
qui fuisti et futures es. 

Justus es, qui fuisti, & futurus es Sanctus

Translated:

Just are you, which hast been and wilt be the Holy One

Beatus of Liebana (from KJV Today site)

So in 380 & 786 AD. shalt be / ο εσομενος was known to exist. This reading is not exactly the same as Beza’s, but as in Beza’s reading the future aspect is included in the address to God.

Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th century referred to Christ as “ο εσομενος” in On the Baptism of Christ:

Κοσμήτωρ δὲ πάντως τῆς νύμφης ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν καὶ πρόων καὶ ἐσόμενος͵ εὐλογητὸς νῦν καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων͵ ἀμήν.

Translated:

And verily the Adorner of the bride is Christ, Who is, and was, and shall be, blessed now and for evermore. Amen. 

(Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

It is unknown to us whether Beza knew of any of these reference, or that there were other such references that he simply did not mention. In the age of Beza, the Reformation Bible scholars were very deep readers of the early church writers. If Beza did know of it, then it would be wrong to simply call this a conjectural emendation, since that reference would source as one of the oldest extant on Revelation 16:5. On the other hand, if the Beatus/Tyconius reference was discovered later, and was unknown to Theodore Beza, then this later discovery can be seen as a truly remarkable confirmation of the strength of his textual thinking on Revelation 16:5.

Wordsworth confirms to us that Beatus of Liebana (who compiled a commentary on the book of Revelation) uses the Latin phrase “qui fuisti et futures es.” This gives some additional evidence for the Greek reading by Beza. Beatus compiled his commentary in 786 AD. Furthermore, Beatus was not writing his own commentary. Instead he was making a compilation and thus preserving the work of Tyconius, who wrote his commentary on Revelation around 380 AD (Aland and Aland, 211 and 216. Altaner, 437. Wordsword, 533.). So, it would seem that as early as 786, and possibly even as early as 380, there was an old Latin text which reads as Beza’s Greek text does.

Although Daniel Wallace is flawed many levels concerning his understanding of textual criticism, he provides this excellent example that fits here:

“Imagine we came across an early manuscript copy of the Constitution of the United States, and the preamble said, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect onion …” If we were to see that line, we would know that “union” was the original word, not “onion”.”

Is the Original New Testament Lost? Ehrman vs Wallace (Debate Transcript)

A great resource for information concerning another quote by Haimo Halberstadensis and issues of Nomina Sacra in Revelation 16:5 is KJV Today. 

Donate here

Other scholars who reject ὅσιος

In 2002, on the Ankerberg show James White said:

“But to Dr. Strouse, what about places where those King James translators followed conjectural emendations? Theodore Beza, for example, in Revelation 16:5 looked at the Greek text and all the Greek texts say the same thing, but he didn’t like the way it went. And so he changed the word “holy” to the future form of the verb “to be,” sort of, to make it nice and poetic and rhythmic. And your King James this day reads that way, even though there’s not a question about it on anyone’s part as to what that passage actually reads. Why should I take Theodore Beza’s conjectural emendation where he decides a reading on the basis of what he likes and say that the mass of Christians believe this when nobody before Theodore Beza ever had the idea that Revelation 16:5 read that way? Why should I believe that?”

(The King James Controversy Revisited - 2002, on the Ankerberg show, with Dr. Kenneth Barker, Dr. Don Wilkins, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Dr. James White, Dr. Samuel Gipp, Dr. Thomas Strouse, Dr. Joseph Chambers.)

James White said that Theodore Beza had “changed the word...to make it nice and poetic and rhythmic” and “there’s not a question about it on anyone’s part as to what that passage actually reads”. Obviously this verse is one of the rare verses in Beza and the KJV where the majority reading in the manuscripts is at odds with what was printed (which is rare for KJV/TR readings, but not for CT readings). But is it true that nobody before Theodore Beza ever had the idea that Revelation 16:5 read that way?

Besides the Ethiopic mentioned in the previous blog, if we go back, it seems the seeds sown for Beza’s intervention against ὅσιος and for ἐσόμενος also included the scholarship of Erasmus. Erasmus said concerning Revelation 16:5 in his 1535 Annotations:

Qui es, & qui eras.) Quanquam interpres mutauit perfonam, tamen to tidem syllabis dictu est, quibus superius, qui est, qui erat, qui uenturus est, ὁ ὢν, ὁ ἦν ὁ ἐρχόμενος.

Translated as:

Thou, who art, and who wast.) Although the interpreter changed form, however to flow with the list mentioned above, who is, who was, who is to come, ὁ ὢν, ὁ ἦν ὁ ἐρχόμενος.

Erasmus’ 1535 Annotations

Although Erasmus used ἐρχόμενος and not ἐσόμενος, the meaning is very similar, and both usurp the awkward reading of ὅσιος. This is challenging and discursive to those who have claimed Beza grabbed his “conjectural emendation” out of thin air. 

Isaac Newton in 1693 saw that Erasmus had ἐρχόμενος in his notes on Revelation 16:5:

καὶ ὁ ἦν, καὶ ὁ ὅσιος Erasm. \Syr. Primas/ At in Notis Erasmus pro ὅσιος legit ἐρχόμενος 

καὶ ὁ ἦν, καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος Bezæ codex antiquus.

The underlined translates as:

“At the Notes Erasmus for ὅσιος read ἐρχόμενος”

('Variantes Lectiones Apocalypticae' [version 1])

The very learned King James translators disagree with White on this issue. They left no note or italic as they did on other verses revealing their certainty of this reading. But many other notable scholars and translators of the reformation also nominated the reading. The fact remains that White is not simply attacking the scholarship of the 57 - 60 KJV translators, or Beza, but an entire generation of scholarship.

Theodore Beza was a world class expert in the Greek language. Having provided so much material on the bible, from translating the French bible, Geneva Bible, Geneva French, including many Greek editions, commentaries, dictionaries, and so much literature on the Greek and Hebrew biblical text for so many years, I would suggest that Beza’s familiarity with the text and with similar issues, demonstrated to him that this was an error and to reject his reading one should firstly show that they are on the same level of scholarship as Beza, or the KJV translators to provide an adequate refutation.

The 1637 Dutch Statenvertaling which is renown to be an equivalent of the King James Version in the Dutch language, has the same reading of Beza and the KJV in Revelation 16:5:

En ik hoorde den engel der wateren zeggen: Gij zijt rechtvaardig, Heere! Die is, en Die was, en Die zijn zal, dat Gij dit geoordeeld hebt;

Translated to read:

And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord! Who is and who was and who will be, because thou hast judged;

Renown linguist Elias Hutter's also used ἐρχόμενος in Revelation 16:5. The Nuremberg Polyglot a New Testament Polyglot in twelve languages of 1599, which has a similar reading to Beza & Erasmus in the Greek, which differs from Beza in many other places:

Kαὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος, δίκαιος, κύριε, εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας· 

 καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος in Hutter's 1599 Nuremberg Polyglot. 

Hutter has ἐρχόμενος while Beza has ἐσόμενος. Hutter’s ἐρχόμενος translates as is to come (see Revelation 1:4) while ἐσόμενος means shalt be, or will be. 

(Novum Testamentum Domini: nostri: Iesu. Christi. Syriacè, Ebraicè, Graecè, Latinè, Germanicè, Bohemicè, Italicè, Hispanicè, Gallicè, Anglicè, Danicè, Polonicè. 2 vols. Edited by Elias Hutter and Jacob Coler.)

So we can see that Beza is certainly not alone in rejecting the awkward reading “and holy one”. It seems that the top echelon of biblical scholarship agree with Beza. Esrasmus, the translators of the 1549 Ethiopic bible, the King James Version translators, the Dutch Statenvertaling translators, Elias Hutter, the list is rather impressive. Even the Elzevir family in their 1633 Textus Receptus has ἐσόμενος.  So James White’s claim that “there’s not a question about it on anyone’s part as to what that passage actually reads” is historically wrong. There were, and are, many very credible people who question such places where grammatical errors and awkward readings exist in biblical mss. 

For more information see the Textus Receptus website on Revelation 16:5.


Donate here

Beza Vindicated

James White said in his book The King James Only Controversy:

“Beza did introduce... “conjectural emendations,” that is, changes made to the text without any evidence from the manuscripts. A few of these changes made it into the KJV, the most famous being Revelation 16:5, “O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be” rather than the actual reading, “who art and who wast, O Holy one.”

Well Mr James White, it looks like Theodore Beza wasn't the first to have “and shalt be” (G. ἐσόμενος; L. eris) at Revelation 16:5!

Revelation 16:5 in the 1549 Ethiopic (Geez) Bible

Brian Walton (1600 – 1661) was an English priest, divine and scholar. He published a massive polyglot between 1654 and 1657 in nine languages: Hebrew, Chaldee, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic, Persian, Ethiopic, Greek and Latin. Among his collaborators were James Ussher, John Lightfoot and Edward Pococke, Edmund Castell, Abraham Wheelocke and Patrick Young, Thomas Hyde and Thomas Greaves. It has been considered as the last and most scholarly ever printed.

Walton's Polyglot

In Revelation 16:5 his 1549 Ethiopian (Known today as Amharic, and formerly as Ge'ez) version has a Latin translation with the words:

Justus es Domine, et rectus qui fuisti et eris,..

Eris is a Latin Verb that is the second-person singular future active indicative of sum "you will be"

The Latin translation in the Polyglot says et eris - shalt be!

Herman Hoskier also noted this. So in addition to the early commentaries on the book of Revelation in Latin, the reading found in Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be" is also that of the Ethiopian Version. The early 20th century textual critic Herman Hoskier cited the Ethiopic version as containing the phrase "and shalt be" in Revelation 16:5. This information is found in Hoskier's 'Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse: Collation of All Existing Available Greek Documents with the Standard Text of Stephen's Third Edition Together with the Testimony of the Versions, Commentaries and Fathers', 2 volumes, London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929.

Hoskier mentions Justus es, Domine, et Rectus qui fuisti et eris

The Ethiopic version as cited by Herman Hoskier in Latin:

• "...Justus es, Domine, et Rectus qui fuisti et eris".

Translation of Ethiopic from Latin =

• "Just thou art, and Righteous that was and will be".:

King James Version

• "Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be..."

For more information see the Textus Receptus website on Revelation 16:5.

Donate here