A fundamental vulnerability in Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) doctrine

Revelation 16:5 (King James Version)

And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.

Revelation 16:5 (New International Version)

Then I heard the angel in charge of the waters say: “You are just in these judgments, O Holy One, you who are and who were;

5 και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος κυριε ει ο ων και ο ην και ο εσομενος οτι ταυτα εκρινας Scrivener’s Textus Receptus (1894): With Morphology (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2002), Re 16:5.

5 και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος κυριε ει ο ων και ο ην και ο οσιος οτι ταυτα εκρινας 

Stephen’s 1550 Textus Receptus: With Morphology (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2002), Re 16:5.

5 καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος· Δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ⸀ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας,

Michael W. Holmes, The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Lexham Press; Society of Biblical Literature, 2011–2013), Re 16:5.

5 καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων, λέγοντος, Δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας·

Cambridge Greek Testament: Greek Text (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), Re 16:5.

5και ηκουσα του αγʼγελου

των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος ει ο ων

και ος ην και οσιος οτι ταυτα εκρινας

Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, “P47,” in The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2001), Re 16:5.

We have identified a textual problem that exposes a fundamental vulnerability in Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) doctrine—one that defenders struggle to address coherently.

The phrase “shalt be” in Revelation 16:5 should read “holy one,” a conjecture Beza introduced without any manuscript evidence whatsoever[1]. All earlier editions of the Textus Receptus (Erasmus and Stephanus) and all prior English Bibles (Wycliffe through the Bishops’ Bible) read “holy one”[1]. There is no manuscript evidence for the KJV’s “shalt be”[1].

The theological difficulty we have identified is acute. VPP doctrine typically operates within two frameworks: either God preserved the original autographs through manuscript transmission, or He preserved a particular textual tradition (usually the TR).

But Beza’s editorial choice presents a third category—an innovation with zero manuscript support on either side, Greek or Hebrew. This isn’t a dispute between competing manuscript families; it’s an invention during the printing era.

Defenders like Khoo and Waite extend divine providence to cover Beza’s editorial process itself, treating his conjecture as part of God’s preservation plan. But this reasoning becomes circular: the conclusion (God preserved the TR text) justifies the premise (Beza’s guesses count as preservation), rather than the other way around. If God’s providence encompasses unsupported editorial conjectures, the doctrine loses its empirical moorings—any text could theoretically be defended as “preserved” simply by asserting divine guidance over the editorial process.

The problem: no surviving Greek manuscript we now have actually contains ὁ ἐσόμενος in the main text. The one extant Greek manuscript with ἐσόμενος appearing at all is a late-1600s manuscript with it only in the margin — and it's presumably dependent on Beza's own printed edition rather than being independent evidence for it. So either Beza saw a manuscript that has since been lost, or he was mistaken/mistotranscribed something, or (the more skeptical view) he was retrofitting a decision to a theological pattern he'd already noticed elsewhere in Revelation.

Revelation 11:17 (King James Version) Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.

Revelation 11:17 (New International Version) saying: “We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, the One who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and have begun to reign.

17 λεγοντες ευχαριστουμεν σοι κυριε ο θεος ο παντοκρατωρ ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος οτι ειληφας την δυναμιν σου την μεγαλην και εβασιλευσας Maurice Robinson, Elzevir Textus Receptus (1624): With Morphology (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2002), Re 11:17.

17 λέγοντες, Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, Κύριε ὁ Θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, 30ὅτι εἴληφας τὴν δύναμίν σου τὴν μεγάλην, καὶ ἐβασίλευσας. 

30 om. καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος (and art to come)

F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1881), Re 11:17.

17 λεγοντες ευχαριστουμεν σοι κυριε ο θεος ο παντοκρατωρ ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος οτι ειληφας την δυναμιν σου την μεγαλην και εβασιλευσας Stephen’s 1550 Textus Receptus: With Morphology (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2002), Re 11:17.

17 λέγοντες· Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, κύριε, ὁ θεός, ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὅτι εἴληφας τὴν δύναμίν σου τὴν μεγάλην καὶ ἐβασίλευσας.

Michael W. Holmes, The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Lexham Press; Society of Biblical Literature, 2011–2013), Re 11:17.

17 λέγοντες, Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, κύριε ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὅτι εἴληφας τὴν δύναμίν σου τὴν μεγάλην, καὶ ἐβασίλευσας. Cambridge Greek Testament: Greek Text (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), Re 11:17.

17 λέγοντες, Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, κύριε ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν†, ὅτι εἴληφας τὴν δύναμίν σου τὴν μεγάλην, καὶ ἐβασίλευσας. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles and Dirk Jongkind, The Greek New Testament, as Edited by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (Samuel Bagster and Sons; C.J. Stewart; Tyndale House, 2009), Re 11:16–17.

A similar variation occurs at Revelation 11:17, where some witnesses have a threefold formula (“the one who is and the one who was and the one who is to come”) while most have only a twofold formula[2]: ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν. The triadic pattern Beza may have been attempting to complete does appear elsewhere in Revelation, but that aesthetic or theological preference cannot substitute for manuscript evidence.

This case reveals why many scholars have moved away from TR-based VPP toward a more modest doctrine of providential preservation operating through the multiplicity of manuscripts rather than through a single printed edition.

[1] William W. Combs, “Errors in the King James Version?,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Volume 4 (1999), 4:156.
[2] Rick Brannan and Israel Loken, The Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible, Lexham Bible Reference Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014). [See here.]