1. 'E/taroy, x.r.X.) They are the same cxliv. thousands which are mentioned ch. vii., but now in a much more splendid condition ; wherefore they are mentioned without the article a) : just as in ch. xvii. 3, Qrip'iov, the beast , without the article to, is the same beast as that which is mentioned in ch. xiii. 1, but which afterwards became very unlike its former self. — rh ovopa avrov xai) This was granting to the Codex Reuchlinianus,1 although it does not seem
1 These words ( His name and ) are omitted by Rec. Text ; but ABCA Vulg. Orig. 4,2a, Cypr. 294 support them. Orig. 4,2 d has rov upviov for otinov. — E.
330
to have been wanting to the more ancient MS., from which it was copied. For, instead of the subsequent participle ygypa/x/xgi/ov, Erasmus, in his 1st, 2d, and 3d Editions, put xai6/u,evov. And this appears to have been inserted in an improper place from the margin, which in smaller [fainter] character, frequently used in margins, reminded [the reader] that the words xa/ o'yo/xa were to be supplied ; just as shortly afterwards, in ver. 6, at roog xadri/Avovg the same Codex Reuchlinianus introduced from other places the marginal gloss roiig xuromodvrag. It is more probable , in Wolf’s opinion, that xadfizvov ought to be attributed to a gloss. For it is well known , he says, that marks of this kind were accustomed to be burnt in either on the forehead or hand. And some one wishing to point out this custom , thought fit to explain the word •yeypu/jjfism by xa/o/xgvov. I reply : If a name, which is being burnt in , can be ex- pressed by Ttaiofisvovy that which has been burnt in cannot thus be expressed. It is a matter of little consequence : it is admitted to be a gloss on both sides ; the only question is as to its origin. My own view serves towards vindicating the reading respecting the name of the Lamb. Some one, relying on the reading of Erasmus, which does not contain the name of the Lamb , ventured to hope that the name of the Father , and not that of the Lamb , would here- after come into favour. That enemy of the Nicene faith, and of the glory of Christ, was deceived. Nay, indeed both the name of the Lamb and the name of His Father are written on the foreheads of the cxliv. thousands.
2. Ka; i] <puvri r\v ijxouoa ug') Thus Comp. Copt, and almost all the copies. But the reading of Erasmus , xa/ puvriv #xou<ra, without us (which particle is however found even in And. 1), is scarcely supported by one or two ancient authorities. I wish the reader to observe my Edition, connected by Wolf more distinctly than by the printer with the Complutensian, and not with the Grseco- Anglican. John by degrees more articulately describes the voice which he heard ; and the article rj has the force of a relative, by which the meaning is conveyed, that the same voice was heard first as of many waters and of great thundering , and next as of harpers .1 2
1 So ABCA Orig. ; but Rec. Text, (pavijv yikovou. Vulg. “ vocem quam audivi ” — E.
2 4. T&i ©g<5 — raj dpvla, to God — the Lamb ) Hence they sing a hymn before the throne of the Former , and they think it an honour to afford themselves as fol- lowers of the Latter. — Y. g.