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 the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
    The commentators, with no idea that they have before them an Aramaic writing of the Jewish-Christian period, find the terminology peculiar. Charles is puzzled (e.g., I, 6, 266) by the words "prophets" and "prophecy." Bousset, on 1:3 (p. 183), speaks of "die der Apk. eigentümliche besondre Hochschätzung der prophēteia." It is the familiar technical term נְבוּאָה, divine revelation, and the fact is of no importance that we have here in plain words an example of the early Christian assertion that the day of verbal inspiration had returned. The claim that John is an inspired prophet and that this book is holy scripture is as clear and emphatic as any words can make it.

    To be continued...
    Last edited by John Reece; 07-31-2014, 07:19 AM.

    Comment


    • Continued from the last post above ↑

      Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
      This brings the date of the book within narrow limits. The absurdity of supposing that this Aramaic document claiming Jewish canonicity could have been put forth after its doctrine had been officially denounced damnable heresy is obvious. It certainly was published before the year 80. But this is not all; a date before the year 70 is plainly indicated. If the book had been written between 70 and 80, there certainly would have been in it some allusion to the great catastrophe, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Silence in regard to it, in view of the intense interest in the holy city, is simply inconceivable.

      To be continued...

      Comment


      • Continued from the last post above ↑

        Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
        In the present writer's Four Gospels (2nd ed., Harper and Brothers, 1947, p. xxiii) it is said:
        G. F. Moore, in his Judaism [I, 91], spoke of the powerful argument which was given into the hands of the Christians by the destruction of the temple in the year 70. The people had "denied the Holy One . . . and killed the prince of Life" (Acts 3:14 f.), so now wrath came upon them to the uttermost, as Paul had said even before this final chastisement (I Thess. 2:10). Those who aimed to show that Jesus was the Messiah could have had no more obvious and cogent argument than this crushing blow from heaven, coming at just the time when the authorities had finally rejected the claims of the Nazarenes.

        It is perhaps conceivable that one evangelist writing after the year 70 might fail to allude to the destruction of the temple by the Roman armies (every reader of the Hebrew Bible knew that the Prophets had definitely predicted that foreign armies would surround the city and destroy it), but that three (or four) should thus fail is quite incredible. On the contrary, what is shown is that all four Gospels were written before the year 70. And indeed, there is no evidence of any sort that will bear examination, tending to show that any of the Gospels were written later than about the middle of the century. The challenge to scholars to produce such evidence is hereby presented.

        To be continued...

        Comment


        • Continued from the last post above ↑

          Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
          The considerations which make it necessary to date the Gospels before the year 70 are seen to be equally valid for dating the Apocalypse of John.*
          *There are important corollaries, which must not be overlooked. The above conclusion necessitates dating the Gospel of Matthew in the middle of the century, where other evidence has already placed it securely. The argument presented in favor of the definite date, the year 40, for the Gospel of Mark has also received strong support.

          To be continued...

          Comment


          • Continued from the last post above ↑

            Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
            Moreover, the date cannot have been much before 70. The theology of the book has advanced some distance beyond that of our earliest Christian writings. As Swete remarks, pp. cliv f., "No one who comes to the Apocalypse fresh from the study of the Gospels and Epistles can fail to recognize that he has passed into another atmosphere. . . . The Christ of the Apocalypse is the Christ of the Gospels, but a change has passed over Him which is beyond words." The Church doctrine has progressed.

            To be continued...

            Comment


            • Continued from the last post above ↑

              Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
              It is to be observed how the result thus reached―a date shortly before the year 70―confirms the explicit statement of the author of Revelation that he wrote in the time of the sixth emperor, before the seventh had come to the throne; that is, the year 68.

              To be continued...

              Comment


              • Continued from the last post above ↑

                Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                The fact has already been emphasized that the terror of the Beast is over all the latter half of the book. The horrible scenes of the year 64 in Rome are fresh in mind. There was no need to conjecture what steadfast Christians would be called upon to face, on the return of the Beast. The farther away from Nero's reign the book is dated, the more incomprehensible is the amount of space given to this apprehension.

                To be continued...

                Comment


                • Continued from last post above ↑

                  Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                  A most important passage, truly decisive in view of all the other evidence, is the beginning (the first two verses) of chapter 11, where John is commanded to take a reed (Ezek. 40:3 ff.) and measure the temple and the alter; but not to measure the court of the Gentiles, symbolic of the tribulation still to be endured. Jerusalem and the temple are standing, the armies of Titus have not yet entered the city. This was written before the year 70, as all students of the book agree.

                  To be continued...

                  Comment


                  • Continued from last post above ↑

                    Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                    The history of the attempt to remove this passage [Rev. 11:1-2 -JR] from its context is familiar and need not be recounted here. The immediate and essential connection of verses 3 ff. with verse 2 has not always been understood, and thus there could be temptation to find evidence of composition of sources at this point. But on that hypothesis the "incorporated source" would necessarily be the section verses 3-13; the work of the Apocalyptist himself is unquestionably to be recognized in verses 1 f., for the imitation of Ezekiel is one of the most pervasive and essential characteristics of the book.*
                    * John is not merely one of the Israelite prophets, he is more specially one of those who were given visions like his own, who were conducted and instructed by angels. The material taken from Ezekiel includes many passages, varied in their wording so that they become the writer's own, and also characteristic visions, likewise sufficiently altered in the borrowing. The examples of the latter number more than a dozen; especially striking among them are the following: John sees four heavenly Zoia full of eyes, 4:6 f. (Ezek. 1:5, 18); he is given a scroll, with the command to eat it, 10:9 f. (Ezek. 3:1, 3); measures the temple and the alter, 11:1 f. (Ezek. 40:3 f.; 43:13 f.), is taken by the angel to a very high mountain, 21:10 (Ezek. 40:1 f.).

                    To be continued...

                    Comment


                    • Continued from last post above ↑

                      Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                      Verse 2 ends with the announcement that Jerusalem is to be prey of the nations for the forty-two months (3½ years) of the "great tribulation." The following verses thereupon depict a frightful scene, symbolic of the utter abandonment of the holy city to the powers of evil; it becomes the Egypt of captivity, the Sodom of all wickedness (verse 8). Moses and Elijah, appearing again on earth (the former appearance, on the Mount of Transfiguration, was narrated in Matt. 17:1-8), and take their stand in Jerusalem, now a pagan city, as witness to the true religion and to Jesus the Messiah, whom they and their fellow prophets had foreseen and foretold. The two Witnesses are slain by the Beast (11:7), and their dead bodies lie in the street of the great city for three and one-half days,* a spectacle for all the nations and peoples of the Roman world.
                      *The number 3½, both in Rev. and Dan., seems to symbolize the indefinite duration of a period of necessary trial which will not be long. This is merely one-half of the sacred number seven. It is the apocalyptist's way of saying "a few years" or "a few days."

                      To be continued...

                      Comment


                      • Continued from last post above ↑

                        Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                        How is it conceivable that the prophet of the New Israel could predict thus of the most sacred figures of Hebrew history? He gives the answer in the significant clause at the end of verse 8, the clause "generally admitted by critics to be a later addition" (!), Charles, I, 287: hópou kaì ho kúrios autôn estaurṓthē [ὅπου καὶ ὁ κύριος αὐτῶν ἐσταυρώθη]. If the Messiah, a far greater figure than Moses or Elijah, could be crucified (!) in the holy city, even this new horror could be predicted as symbolic of the coming tribulation "such as never was since there was a nation" (Dan. 12:1).

                        To be continued...

                        Comment


                        • Continued from last post above ↑

                          Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                          The sight of the resurrection and ascension of the two Witnesses at the end of the time of distress causes a great multitude of the Gentiles to turn to the God of Israel―one of the numerous ways in which they are to be converted before it is too late. This is merely a Jewish-Christian incident in the development of the old Hebrew doctrine, first definitely formulated by Second Isaiah in 45:1-25.

                          To be continued...

                          Comment


                          • Continued from last post above ↑

                            Conclusion of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                            The much-discussed passage in Rev. 11:1 f. thus repeats with especial emphasis the verdict already pronounced. The Apocalyptist told the truth. His statement in 17:10 is confirmed from every side, by evidence of every sort. He wrote his book under Galba, probably in the year 68; hardly as late as the first months of the year 69, before the news of Galba's assassination reached Asia Minor.

                            That is the end of Torrey's Introduction to The Apocalypse of John.

                            In the next post I will begin presenting excerpts from the section of the book titled CRITICAL NOTES.

                            To be continued...

                            Comment


                            • Continued from last post above ↑

                              This is the beginning of excerpts from the CRITICAL NOTES section of The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                              CRITICAL NOTES

                              The following are scattered notes on the Greek text, for the most part either explanatory of disturbing solecisms, showing their Aramaic origin, or offering new interpretation from the Aramaic side in passages which have been found troublesome in their present form. Especially important is the demonstration of numerous examples of mistranslation.

                              To be continued...

                              Comment


                              • Continued from last post above ↑

                                Continuation of excerpts from the CRITICAL NOTES section of The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                                It has already been remarked in the section on the language that the Greek text produced by the translator has been well preserved. It seems to be the case that most of those who copied the text represented by our best manuscripts were so impressed by its unique features that they were on the lookout for them and retained them; for there is no other book in the world, written in high style and with the diction of the literary artist, which defies grammar as this does.

                                To be continued...

                                Comment

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