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 last post above ↑

    Continuation of excerpts from the CRITICAL NOTES section of The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
    The question of how well the Aramaic text had been preserved when it came into the hands of the translator encounters this obvious difficulty: that most of the slips due to hasty reading of the Semitic characters might have been made either by a copyist of the original or by the author of the Greek version. To the latter are of course to be charged the cases of false vocalization, often very natural and sometimes practically inevitable. In general the errors, in both number and character, are just such as occur throughout the Four Gospels, and indeed in all the Greek renderings of Semitic sacred texts.

    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 seems unlikely that the Aramaic Apocalypse can have had many readers or have been copied more than a few times.

      There are some interesting cases of accidental transposition of the consonants of an Aramaic word, a type of accident that is common enough in the reading or copying of texts in any language. The eye takes in a group of letters in a single glance, and the mind of the reader distributes them; sometimes in topsy-turvy fashion, as when in Greek transcription anaseib is altered to sanabeis, thabur to brathu, etc.; pages could be filled with such examples. Where a group of unpointed Semitic consonants (usually from four to six) forms an anagram with two or more solutions, the reader or copyist is likely to see the most familiar word. In 2 Sam. 23:11 a certain field is full of lentils, עֲדָשִׁים ʿᵃḏāšı̂m; in 1 Chr. 11:13 the same field is full of barley, שְׂעוֹרִים śᵉʿôrı̂m; there are scores of similar examples in the Hebrew text.

      To be continued...
      Last edited by John Reece; 08-16-2014, 09:07 AM.

      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:
        Explanation of the Greek text seems necessary, or desirable as follows:

        3:9. The word didô is impossible here. The translator was led to write idoù didô under the influence of idoù dédōka in the preceding verse, but he rendered a word which he only thought he saw. Unless a conjecture (such as offered in the note in the verse) can be accepted, the didô should be omitted and a gap left in its place.

        4:2. In place of egenómēn read égagón me, following a suggestion made by Prof. R. B. Y. Scott.

        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:
          Explanation of the Greek text seems necessary, or desirable as follows:

          4:4. Read kaì eîdon epì toùs thrónous. The verb must have been omitted through carelessness; the original text certainly contained it.

          4:6. A block of seven words fell out of the Greek text through oversight, as will be shown.

          5:13. Omit kaì tà en autoîs pánta, as the addition of a very early scribe of the Greek who remembered Exod. 20:11 and Psa. 145:6.

          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:
            Explanation of the Greek text seems necessary, or desirable as follows:

            7:2. Read anatolôn (W. & H. margin). The Aramaic certainly had the plural; see, e.g., Targ. Exek. 1:1, and especially Dalman, Gramm., pp. 215 f.

            10:3. Omit the article hai. It is out of place (since this is the first mention of brontaí) and is very easily explained as derived from the phrase in the next line.

            11:5. Cancel the opening clause, which is out of true connection here but is perfectly in place in the latter part of the verse where it reappears. A scribe introduced it too soon.

            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:
              Explanation of the Greek text seems necessary, or desirable as follows:

              11:17 f. The traditional punctuation (and verse division) is wrong, as is shown both by the Aramaic meter and by the manifest allusion to Psa. 99:1a. There must be a pause after the word megálēn, and the following clause must read: kaì ebsíleusas kaì tà éthnē ōrgíthēsan. Here the verse should end.

              12:18. The last clause should be transferred (reading estáthēn) to the beginning of 13:1. See the note on 12:5, at the end.

              13:15. Read poiêsai, according to the note on this verse.

              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:
                Explanation of the Greek text seems necessary, or desirable as follows:

                14:15. Cancel állos, which is impossible here. The eye of the scribe happened to be caught by the beginning of verses 17 and 18, an error of the most common sort.

                16:7. The possibility may be suggested that seven words, constituting a single line, fell out of the text by accident; see the note on the verse below.

                16:13 f. The nominative bátrakhoi is not one of the translator's solecisms, but is the result of his false division of the Aramaic clauses; see the note. In the Greek of our improved text the accusative should be substituted.


                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:
                  Explanation of the Greek text seems necessary, or desirable as follows:

                  18:8. The only natural order in the Greek would be pénthos kaì limòs kaì thánatos, cf. verse 7. Possibly a copyist error?

                  18:13. Interpolated from the margin, probably, are the words kaì hippōn kaì rhedón, a gloss originally designed for verse 12a; and its insertion just before kaì sōmata caused the change of case in this word.

                  22:1 f. Verse 1 must end with the word arníou followed by a period, for en mésōi in Revelation invariable renders bēn "between," as is shown in the note on 4:6.

                  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:
                    The order of words in the Greek text, it is perhaps unnecessary to say, follows everywhere the order of the Aramaic original.

                    No Lacunae have been observed, other than the two (of a few words each) mentioned above, nor is there evidence of any disarrangement of the text. The many transpositions supposed in some commentaries seem in every case to result from misunderstanding 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:
                      1:2. The first of several instances of "the testimony to Jesus." See also 1:9; 12:17; 17:6; 19:10; and note on 22:6.

                      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:
                        1:7. An important verse. The quotation from Zechariah is from the Hebrew text, as is generally recognized; See Charles' comment. "They will look upon him whom they had pierced" (Zech. 12:10) is interpreted of the Messiah, as also is this case, independently, in John 19:37. ópsontai eis hòn exekéntēsan. This was most natural in view of the whole context in Zech., in which traces of speculation aroused by Isa. 53 may be seen.

                        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:
                          The relation of the passage in Revelation to Matthew 24:30 has not, I think, been correctly understood. Direct dependence of the one passage on the other is certain, for the clause "all the tribes of the earth shall mourn (for him)" is not found in the O.T., but is made up from two separate verses (10 and 12) in Zech. The phrase is manifestly out of place and disturbing in the Gospel, where the "mourning" has no such logical connection as it has in the Apocalypse and in the Hebrew prophecy. When it is further observed that the words ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν (עָלָיו), wanting in Matthew, are present in Zechariah, it is possible to say with certainty that in Matthew 24:30 the words κόψονται πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς καί are secondary, inserted by some scribe who (aided by the sound, ópsontai, kópsontai recalled the striking phrase in Revelation which there accompanied Daniel's prediction.

                          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:
                            1:9 (a). The phrase "tribulation and kingdom and patience" is awkward and disturbing, as many have remarked. Swete, p. 12, apologizes for the order of the words, but says that it "has the advantage of leaving on the reader's mind the thought of the struggle which still remains before the kingdom is attained." But is there really any such "advantage"? The thought of the struggle was present in the mind of every Christian; according to 2:2, 3, 19, and 3:10 the churches needed no especial exhortation to steadfastness; and if a word of encouragement was to be given, it is here put in the wrong place. The phrase as it stands is both unpleasing and ineffective. Bousset thinks that the seer shows here the mood (Stimmung) in which he is writing: "In trotzigem Mut stellt er die gegenwärtige Not und die künftige Herrlichkeit ale zwei zusammengehörige Pole hart neben einander." But there is no other sign of this "Stimmung"; and we should expect that the word between "tribulation and patience" would also refer to something actually present.

                            It may be conjectured that the word which stood in the original text at this point was milǝkǝṯɔʾ, "counsel." This would naturally have been supposed by the translator to be the same word as had just occurred in verse 6 malǝḵɔʾ, "kingdom"). The conjectured word is well suited to the present passage, in which the Greek rendering would have been: en têi thlipsei kaì sumboulíāi kaì hupomonêi. "I, John, your brother and partner in tribulation and counsel and steadfastness." The leaders of the early Church had great need to be partners in counsel. The three nouns are now, at least, in logical order.

                            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:
                              1:9 (b). The seer is thought of as receiving his revelation while in banishment on the island of Patmos "for the word of God and the testimony to Jesus." "For" here means "because of." Pliny the Elder, in his Naturalis Historia, attests to the fact that Patmos was used by the Romans as a penal settlement.

                              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:
                                1:13 and 14:14. The phrase hómoion huiòn anthrṓpon occurs in these two passages, while everywhere else in the book hómoios is followed by the dative, as usual. Charles, I, 27, gives what should suggest the reason for the impossible grammar: a supernatural being, one who "is not a man," is described and a Messianic term, Dan. 7:13, is employed; but he fails to understood the writer's device. The One whom the seer beheld was not "like a man," he was the "Man," the Messiah of the prophet's vision. Daniel's phrase כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ (kᵉḇar ʾᵉnāš), is reproduced literally, in a manner utterly characteristic of this meticulous version.

                                The "kᵉ- of cautious statement," hardly recognized as yet by the Hebrew lexicographers, is not to be directly translated as though it signified simple comparison. The "kaf veritatis" still appears (and is falsely explained) in our lexicons, with Neh. 7:2 as the outstanding example: Nehemiah appointed his own brother to a very important post, כִּי־הוּא כְּאִישׁ אֱמֶת (kı̂-hûʾ kᵉʾı̂š ʾᵉmeṯ); Greek hóti autòs anḗr alēthḗs. Did the brother resemble a trustworthy man? Jerome's quasi vir verax is not at all reassuring. Nehemiah says: "He is (if I may boast of my own brother) a trustworthy man"; and this same cautious or deprecating use of the participle is to be seen in all the cases where there is properly no comparison intended. It means "if one may say so," "so to speak," and the like. The same usage is found in Syriac. The Lagarde Greek in Neh. 7:2 has hóti autòs anḗr alēthḗs, and probably this was the best that could be done, but the participle has nevertheless it recognizable force.

                                The Messiah of Israelite faith was a divine being. The Greek translator of Revelation could not possibly fail to reproduce the kᵉ-, but he could make it harmless; and, as elsewhere, he disregards Greek grammar under compulsion. Charles, I, 36 f., thinks of this writer as completely equating (in these passages only) hómoios with hōs in grammatical construction (!) as well as meaning. The truth is, I think, that he would never have entertained the thought of using hōs.

                                He repeats in 14:14 the peculiar formula which he had devised in 1:13. As Bousset remarks, this is one of the most striking examples of his uniformity. The verb eîdon which governed the phrase in the former passage is made to do duty here. In the original text there was of course neither irregularity nor ambiguity: [Torrey's transliteration of conjectured Aramaic 14:14 is too recherché for me to copy.] The Greek rendering, word for word, and grammatically impossible, is one of the most instructive examples.

                                To be continued...
                                Last edited by John Reece; 08-28-2014, 03:24 PM.

                                Comment

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