Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Apocalypse of John, by Charles C. Torrey

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Continued from the last post above ↑

    Continuation of excerpts from the CRITICAL NOTES section of The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
    10:7 continued. A predictive perfect is not likely. The participle pᵉʿal, which has the same form as the perfect and is very frequently used for the future, would hardly be employed in this context, in which only the future tense is really suitable. The case is not like that of etelésthē in 15:1; see the note. The καὶ is possible, but the sentence would be better without it. It seems probable that we have here the result of a copyist's error: the original was yiḡᵉar or yᵉšēṣē, and it was read as ūḡᵉmar or wᵉšēṣī. Such confusion of W and Y is very common indeed. "In the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he is destined (ʿᵃṯīḏ) to sound his trumpet, will be complete (or 'finished') the mystery of God."

    To be continued...

    Comment


    • Continued from the last post above ↑

      Continuation of excerpts from the CRITICAL NOTES section of The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
      10:8. The text of this verse has made great trouble. As the sentence now stands, the words lalousan [λαλοῦσαν] and legousan [λέγουσαν] are impossible; participles are out of place here, and so also is the accusative case. It is customary (and has been from the earliest times) to emend the text freely; thus the Latin has: et audivi vocem de caelo iterum loquentem mecum et dicentem, etc. The English A.V.: "And the voice . . . spake unto me again, and said," etc. The R.V. inserts a verb: "And the voice . . . I heard it again speaking to me." Charles recognizes that the Greek text has been faithfully transmitted and ascribes the solecism to the author of the book.

      To be continued...

      Comment


      • Continued from the last post above ↑

        Continuation of excerpts from the CRITICAL NOTES section of The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
        10:8 continued. The fact of an Aramaic original explains the Greek at once and with certainty. It is a case of exactly literal translation which in effect is mistranslation. The original of laloûsan kaì légousan was of course mᵉmallel wᵉʾɔmar, two participles with the (customary) meaning of the historical present tense. The translator rendered word by word, as usual, and probably did not notice that the sentence came out wrong. He should have written: kaì hē phōnḕ hḕn ḗkousa ek toû ouranoû pálin laleî metʾ emoû kaì légei Húpage lábe tò biblíon, etc.

        It is to be noticed that while this explanation perfectly fits the Aramaic idiom and accounts for the Greek, it would not be plausible in Hebrew, where the participle is by no means so freely used.

        To be continued...

        Comment


        • Continued from the last post above ↑

          Continuation of excerpts from the CRITICAL NOTES section of The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
          11:1 f. "There was given to me a reed like a staff, with the command: Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the alter and the worshippers within it; but omit the outer court and measure it not, for it has been given to the Gentiles."

          Measuring with a reed those who happen to worshipping (toùs proskunoûntas) in the temple is mere nonsense, for which the author of the book cannot be made responsible. The cause of the false reading is easy to see. Since the court of the Gentiles was to be "left out," it was of the first importance to measure the boundary of the inner sanctuary. This was the sᴐrɛg, the stone barrier which marked the limit beyond which no Gentile might pass. Outside this fence was hē aulḕ hē éxōthen toû naoû, which the seer was ordered not to measure. Aramaic D and R being identical in form, the original reading, SRGʾ, "the sᴐrɛg,"* was misread, either by the translator or by a scribe, who saw in it a far more common word, constantly used in connection with the temple, namely SGDʾ (participle, of course regarded as a collective), "the worshippers,"
          *The word itself presents several problems. If it is really Semitic and therefore to be connected with the root (SRG) meaning "to weave, plait," etc., it originally signified a fence of lattice work. On the other hand, it is difficult to believe it is related to Syriac sᵉrogᴐʾ, "portico, colonnade, gallery," etc., commonly believed to be a loanword from the Greek (sûrinx) súringa; see Nöldeke, Syriac Grammar, § 88. The description of the sᴐrɛg as a drúphaktos, in the famous inscription warning to the Gentiles, adds nothing to our knowledge.

          In modern treatises the word is vocalized in several different ways; the variations need not be given here. Sᴐrɛg seems to be the best reading (thus Aruch Completum, Alexander Kohut, ed., 1926; Chaldäisches Wörterbuch, Leipzig, 1867, and Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterbuch, Leipzig, 1885, Jacob Levy, ed.; E. Schürer, Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Cristi, Leipzig, 1901, I, 225, n. 6; and others). In Talmudic Hebrew the vocalization is usually that of the participle.

          To be continued...

          Comment


          • Continued from the last post above ↑

            Continuation of excerpts from the CRITICAL NOTES section of The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
            11:1 f. continued. The mistranslated word should have been rendered in Greek by tòn drúphakton, yielding the translation: "Measure the temple, and the altar and the barrier within it."

            The phrase ékbale éxōthen in verse 2 has often been misunderstood, with the Greek taken too literally. Thus Bousset, p. 317, renders "hinauswerfen," and declares the sense to be "hinaustun zur Vernichtung." This is also Charles' interpretation. But the idiom (rᵉmī lᵉmiḇᵉrɔʾ) means simply "omit," as in English "throw out" is often used. A.V. "leave out" is much better than R.V. "leave without." Weizäcker's excellent German translation has "lass aus."

            To be continued...

            Comment


            • Continued from the last post above ↑

              Continuation of excerpts from the CRITICAL NOTES section of The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
              11:3 The accusative peribeblēménous has been thought a "primitive error" for the dative; but it is correct as it stands. See the note on 7:9 [here and here], where the construction is explained.


              To be continued...

              Comment


              • Continued from the last post above ↑

                Continuation of excerpts from the CRITICAL NOTES section of The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                11:4. The allusion is to Zech. 4:14, where the two "anointed ones" are the Messiah ben David and the Messiah ben Ephraim; see the present writer's "The Messiah Son of Ephraim," JBL, 66, Part III (1947), 253-77. In the present passage, on the contrary, the two "witnesses" are Moses and Elijah.

                To be continued...

                Comment


                • Continued from the last post above ↑

                  Continuation of excerpts from the CRITICAL NOTES section of The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                  11:18. This accusative also, toùs mikroùs kaì toùs megálous, which has no explanation in Greek grammar, is quite possible in Semitic as the case of nearer designation. The reason it was employed here would seem to be that, while the preceding datives toîs doúlois . . . toîs phōbouménois rendered Aramaic words to which the preposition lᵉ was prefixed, the words zᵉcērayyɔʾ wᵉraḇᵉrᵉḇayyɔʾ, "the small and the great," stood alone (quite correctly) without the preposition. This difference our meticulous translator was bound to indicate.

                  To be continued...

                  Comment


                  • The Apocalypse of John

                    Continuation of excerpts from the CRITICAL NOTES section of The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                    12:5. The Greek phrase éteken huiòn ársen [ἔτεκεν υἱὸν ἄρσεν] is mentioned in the section dealing with the language of Revelation, and it is there shown that the allusion is to the fine passage in Second Isaiah, 66:6-9, predicting the birth of the Messiah and the ingathering of the Gentiles (the other "children"; cf. 45:10 f.). From that passage it would appear that the mother of the Male Child in Revelation, the woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head, is the Zion of God's eternal purpose. Even without the original passage in Isaiah this would be by far the most natural interpretation of the symbol. There is also a significant contrast between the glory of the woman (17:3 ff.) who is Rome. Tò spérma autes, verse [12:]17, designates the Christians, the true Israel.

                    The ascension of the Child leads to war in heaven, resulting in the expulsion of Satan and his angels, who are cast down to the earth. Thereupon follow the events, centering in Rome, which prepare the way for "the great tribulation" which is to occupy "3½" years, variously numbered in verses 6 and 14. While the earthly Jerusalem in the deadly period is trodden by pagans and is the abode of wickedness ("Sodom", 11:8, see above on the date of Revelation, near the end), the symbolic Zion is preserved in the wilderness of upper Egypt (Tob. 8:3), the preliminary statement in verse 6 further expanded in 14 ff. The river which would have made her potamophórēton (Aramaic šᵉqīlat nahᵃrɔʾ) is then the overflowing upper Nile. When the Apocalyptist created this fantastic picture he had in mind the symbol of the Egyptian captivity; possibly also the symbolic Flight from Egypt in Matthew 2:13 ff.

                    In 12:17, last clause, read estáthēn, "I stood upon the sand of the sea" (cf. Daniel 8:2 f.; 10:4 f.), and make this clause the beginning 13. The connection of chapter 11 with 12, and of 12 with 13, is both natural and close when the writer's conception is understood.

                    To be continued...

                    Comment


                    • The Apocalypse of John

                      Continuation of excerpts from the CRITICAL NOTES section of The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                      12:17. The Greek translator renders here without regard to the familiar idiom in which Aramaic ʾᵃzal is joined to another verb to indicate the action as continuing with increasing effect. See similar examples in Proverbs 4:18 and Jonah 1:11.

                      Comment


                      • The Apocalypse of John

                        Continuation of excerpts from the CRITICAL NOTES section of The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                        13:3. Kai ethaumasthē holē hē gē opisō tou thēriou [Καὶ ἐθαυμάσθη ὅλη ἡ γῆ ὀπίσω τοῦ θηρίου]. "And the whole earth wondered after the beast." The idiom is not Greek, nor English, and nothing equivalent to it has been found in Aramaic. It is hardly to be explained as an elliptical phrase: more probably there is a slight error of translation. Charles compares verses 3 and 8 with their parallel in 17:8 and concludes that the sense of the original must have been: "the whole earth wondered when it saw the beast"; proposing to find the solution in an altered (very much altered) Hebrew word. But the original was Aramaic.

                        Opísō [οπίσω] represents either bɔṯar or ʾaḥᵃrā. The verb "wonder" is regularly construed with the preposition ʿal [עַל], "about, concerning." Now it is well known that in the papyri from Elephantine the preposition ʿḤRY has in three different documents the meaning "concerning," employed as an exact synonym of ʿal [עַל] in this signification (see Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., 9. 4; 13. 7; 38. 10). It will hardly be doubted that in this use of the preposition is to be found the explanation of the phrase in the present passage; especially in view of the generally archaizing character of this "scriptural" Aramaic. The meaning was: "The whole earth was in amazement concerning the beast"; and the Greek translator rendered the preposition too literally.

                        Comment


                        • The Apocalypse of John

                          Continuation of excerpts from the CRITICAL NOTES section of The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                          13:4. "They worshipped the dragon, because he had given authority to the beast; and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is comparable to the beast? and who can make war with him"?

                          Here is a typical example of mistranslation of the Aramaic particle , which may be either relative pronoun or variously used conjunction. Wherever it is followed by a verb, whether perfect tense or imperfect, the translators of the Four Gospels as well as the translator of this Apocalypse regularly render by a Greek conjunction, unless forced by the context to recognize a relative clause. This very natural habit has resulted in a long list of false renderings, some of which in the Gospels have caused much perplexity.

                          The conjunction hóti [ὅτι], "because," makes nonsense in the present passage. The writer might conceivably have said that the whole world worshipped the dragon although he had delegated his authority to another; but it could not possibly have been said that he was worshipped because he had delegated it. The false use of hóti [ὅτι] here may show at once that the Greek renders an Aramaic text. The true rendering, obviously, is this: "They worshipped the dragon who had given his authority to the beast."

                          Comment


                          • The Apocalypse of John

                            Continuation of excerpts from the CRITICAL NOTES section of The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                            13:4 continued. Some other examples of false rendering of the Aramaic may be given here.

                            In 15:14 the first hóti [ὅτι] clause should certainly have been rendered "Who only art holy." In all probability the which introduced each of the two following clauses was also intended as the relative pronoun: "(Thou), before whom all the nations will come and bow down; whose righteousness acts have been made manifest."

                            To be continued...

                            Comment


                            • The Apocalypse of John

                              Continuation of excerpts from the CRITICAL NOTES section of The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                              13:4 continued. Similar is the case in 16:5: "Righteous art thou . . . who has given these judgments." It was not a matter of uncertainty, whether the God of Israel and of the world would render judgment in a given case.

                              Another example is 17:8 (last clause) , where the only logical meaning is given by the relative pronoun: All inhabitants of the earth will wonder, "as they behold the beast who was, and is not, and will reappear." More than one beast had been mentioned, and it was important to specify this particular one; see also verse 11.

                              To be continued...

                              Comment


                              • The Apocalypse of John

                                Continuation of excerpts from the CRITICAL NOTES section of The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                                Like the passages 15:4 and 16:5, above mentioned, is 19:2: "Salvation and glory and might belong to our God, whose judgments are true and righteous; who has judged the great harlot who had corrupted the earth," etc. In all these cases the Greek retains the order of the Aramaic words.

                                To be continued...

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X