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:
    1:15. [οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι χαλκολιβάνῳ ὡς ἐν καμίνῳ πεπυρωμένης] Hoi podes autoû hómoioi khalkolibánōi hōs en kamínōi pepurōménēs (!) The meaning of the clause is unquestionably "His feet were like burnished brass, as if it had been refined in a furnace." The Greek does not say this, but presents a very strange reading which up to the present time has not been explained. The astonishing form of the participle with its genitive case and feminine gender, both quite impossible, has seemed to be the result of some curious accident, and substitute readings have been freely proposed. The text is right, however, as it stands. Charles, I, 29, concludes that the reading "can only be a slip for pepurōménōi on the part of the Seer, which he would have corrected in a revision of his text."

    The true explanation of the difficulty is readily suggested by the fact that in the Aramaic language the neuter gender is regularly expressed by the feminine. When the clause is written in its original form, everything is clear: [sorry, Torrey's transliteration of Aramaic is too recherché for me to copy]. "Gold refined by fire," khrusíon pepurōménon, is mentioned in 3:8, where the original was certainly [... ...], cf. Targ. Prov. 3:14. The word [...] (whatever compound may have been used here) is masculine. The translator, rendering word by word as usual, very naturally took the noun kūr, "furnace," to be in the construct state, wherefore it was necessary to render the following passive participle as feminine and in the genitive case: "as in a furnace of that which is refined." In fact, however, it was the masculine definite form: "like brass refined in a furnace." This is a characteristic and very instructive example of translation Greek. Any translator of the time would have been likely to render in just this way.

    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:
      1:20. The semitic construction of this verse is very obvious. Tò mustḗrion [τὸ μυστήριον] is not accusative, as it has generally been regarded; it is the independent nominative, especially common in Aramaic, familiar in Hebrew. See Dan. 2:42; 7:24; etc. "As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw on my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks: the seven stars are the angels," etc. The accusative in tàs heptà lukhnías tàs kurusâs [τὰς ἑπτὰ λυχνίας τὰς χρυσᾶς] is quite impossible in Greek, but regular in the original language, for the noun was designated by the preposition L as the second direct object of the verb "saw": [transliteration of Aramaic too recherché for me to copy -JR]. This is good Aramaic style, and the Greek rendering is quite correct. The evidence of translation is clear.

      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:
        2:22. [ἰδοὺ βάλλω αὐτὴν εἰς κλίνην] Idoù bállō autḕn eis klínēn, "I will bring her to her bier." The Aramaic rᵉmɔʾ [Torrey's transliteration of an Aramaic word], עַרסָא [a different word in Hebrew alphabet ― I cannot completely and accurately replicate Torrey's transliteration of this word, but I found it in the Peshitta] means "couch, bed, bier, sarcophagus." This is true also of the word as it is used in Hebrew and Syriac. That the deathbed is intended here seems evident in view of the first clause of verse 23. The "coffin" in Luke 7:14 is עַרסָא in the Peshitta, where the Greek has sorōs [σορός]. In 2 Sam. 3:31, David followed the bier of Abner [ἐπορεύετο ὀπίσω τῆς κλίνης] eporeúeto opísō tês klínes, Targ. בָתַר עַרסָא.

        In the case of bállein there is nothing significant, for it is the verb regularly employed to render Aramaic rᵉmɔʾ, which is commonly used in a wide range of meanings where "throw" or "cast" would not be a suitable rendering (see Our Translated Gospels, p. 3). In the story of the Shunammite woman and her son in Second Kings, the Hebrew of 4:21 says that "she laid him on the bed," and the Greek has [ἐκοίμισεν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὴν κλίνην] ekoímēsen autòn epì tḕn klínēn.. In the Syriac version, [.... ....] (ébalen autón) is the rendering.

        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:
          3:9. A very difficult passage, in which the text has met with an accident. Idoù didô ek tês sunagōgês toû Satanâ, tôn legóntōn heautoùs Ioudaíous eînai, kaì ouk eisìn allà pseúdontai, idoù poiḗsō autoùs hina hḗxousin kaì proskunḗsousin enṓpion tôn podôn sou [ἰδοὺ διδῶ ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς τοῦ σατανᾶ τῶν λεγόντων ἑαυτοὺς Ἰουδαίους εἶναι, καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν ἀλλὰ ψεύδονται. ἰδοὺ ποιήσω αὐτοὺς ἵνα ἥξουσιν καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιον τῶν ποδῶν σου].

          The didô [διδῶ] is impossible here. Charles, in his commentary, attempts to explain it but fails. In the three passages which he cites from the New Testament―Acts 2:27 (quoted from the LXX), 10:40, and 14:3―the verb means "grant, permit, suffer," and therefore could of course be synonymous with poiein used in this sense. It could not possibly serve to anticipate the poiḗsō [ποιήσω] of the present passage! Furthermore, the suspended construction of the sentence in its present form, awkward enough in any case, is made truly intolerable by the incongruity of the two verbs.

          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:
            3:9 (continued). The preposition ek seems out of place in the text as it now stands. "Some of" is too indefinite, for the clauses which follow indicate a class which is quite definite both to the author and to his readers. There is needed a noun, or a demonstrative pronoun, just before the ek. The word didô, already pronounced impossible, must be the result of some accident of reading or copying through which it has been substituted for the word originally written. The corruption is much more likely to have occurred in the Aramaic than in the Greek. It is worthy of notice that idoù dédōka occurs in verse 8, for the influence of this phrase may have been felt in the idoù didô of verse 9.

            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:
              3:9 (continued). There is no obvious explanation of the mistake made by the copyist or translator, but a conjecture, however precarious, may be ventured. The phrase in verses 8 was hɔʾ yɔhaḇet, and in verse 9 hɔʾ yɔheḇənɔʾ (see Dalman, Gramm., p. 289, and Dan. 2:23 cenɔʾ [בְעֵינָא], LXX ēxiōsa [ἠξίωσα]. I would suggest as the original reading hɔʾ rɔhaḇayyɔʾ, "Behold, the presumptuous ones." The Aramaic verb is commonly used in speaking of those who are arrogant and boastful. If the R had been made somewhat small, as is sometimes the case, confusion with Y would not be difficult; see examples in the Hebrew of Psa. 72:9, ṢYYM for ṢRYM; 2 Kings 9:7, HKYTH for HKRTH; and still other instances. And the reading just encountered in verse 8 would help to make the error easy.

              To be continued...
              Last edited by John Reece; 09-03-2014, 12:21 PM.

              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:
                3:9 (continued). The conjectured restoration is recommended not only by the fact that it gives a plausible explanation of the impossible didô, but also by the way in which it fills the gap, providing the very word which was needed. "Lo, the presumptuous ones, of the synagogue of Satan, those who say that they are Jews, though they are not, but speak falsely: I will make them come and prostrate themselves before your feet!"

                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:
                  4:2. The great majority of recent interpreters of Revelation find serious difficulty with the first clause of this verse (the words metà taûta, falsely connected in the W.&H. text, belong to verse 1). "After this," at the beginning of the chapter, does not indicate an interval of time, but (as elsewhere) a new scene in the vision. The connection with the preceding chapters is as close as any connection could be; the same voice heard in 1:10 is still speaking, and as the words come to John's ear he is already en pneúmati. Swete tries to avoid the difficulty by rendering: "At once I found myself in the Spirit," but this is hardly fair to egenómēn. Bousset would defend the text, suggesting that the book may not have been written "en einem Zuge," that its author may have forgotten what he had said at the beginning of 1:10, and that we may imagine a real interval of some sort between chapters 3 and 4. Numerous theories of literary composition have been thought to find support here.

                  Scott, Orig. Lang. of the Ap., p. 20, seeks the explanation of the difficulty in the parallel passages 17:1-3 and 21:9 f., and this suggestion seems to me more promising than any other thus far made. Each of the three passages introduces a new scene, in each case with the very same formula. A voice is heard, saying "Come, I will show you"; and thereupon the seer is brought "in spirit" to the place of the new vision.


                  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:
                    17:1 ff: kaì elálēsen met' emoû légōn Deûro, deixō soi tò krima . . . kaì apḗnenkén me eis érēmon en pneúmati. [καὶ ἐλάλησεν μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ λέγων· δεῦρο, δείξω σοι τὸ κρίμα . . . καὶ ἀπήνεγκέν με εἰς ἔρημον ἐν πνεύματι.]

                    21:9 f.: kaì elálēsen met' emoû légōn Deûro, deíxō soi tḕn númphēn . . . καὶ ἀπήνεγκέν με en pneúmati epì óros méga. [καὶ ἐλάλησεν μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ λέγων· δεῦρο, δείξω σοι τὴν νύμφην . . . καὶ ἀπήνεγκέν με ἐν πνεύματι ἐπὶ ὄρος μέγα.]

                    4:1 f.: kaì hē phōnḕ laloûsa met' emoû légōn Anába hôde, kaì deíxō soi hà deí genésthai metà taûta. euthéōs egenómēn en pneúmati kaì thrónos ékeito en tôi ouranôi.

                    It is plain that egenómēn is wrong, a false reading. In its place must have stood a verb meaning "I was brought," or the like. Scott thought of a corrupt Hebrew text, but could propose nothing plausible; nor does Aramaic offer any hope of a solution. The accident of transmission must have occurred in the Greek. I would suggest ḗgagón me, "I was brought," as the original meaning. This would be the rendering of Aramaic indefinite third person plural, the common substitute for the passive voice (literally, "they bore me away"), frequently used in Revelation and most naturally employed here, since no personal conductor has been named. A scribe who had recently written egenómēn en pneúmati might easily see the phrase repeated here.

                    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:
                      4:4. Kaì [eídon] epì toùs thrónous presbutérous kathēménous peribeblēménous en himatíois leukoís. This begins a new sentence, but it was so naturally connected with the preceding words that a scribe accidentally omitted the eídon in the Greek manuscript from which all our texts are derived.

                      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:
                        4:6. The text of the second half of the verse is obviously defective. It reads: "In the midst of the throne and around the throne were four living creatures (zôia)," etc., and much ingenuity has been expended on the attempt to make this comprehensible. But the "Zoa" were not in the midst of the throne; the numerous passages which mention them make this certain. The Greek text yields no acceptable sense, and its present meaning cannot be what the author of the book intended.

                        The plan in the author's mind is plainly indicated in chapter 5. In the center of the throne, One sitting upon it ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...n=SBLGNT]verse 7[/url]). Next to the throne and around it, at the four cardinal points, the four Zoa. Outside these, the circle of the twenty-four elders. This is the representation of verse 10, and the same order appears in verse 6 and again in 14:3. The Zoa are always mentioned before the elders, as also in verses 8 and [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev+5%3A14&version=SBLGNT]14[/urll] of chapter 5.

                        It is especially important to determine the meaning of en mésōi [ἐν μέσῳ], that is what Aramaic it renders. The phrase occurs seven times in Revelation, and I think it can hardly be doubted that in each and all of these instances it is the translation of the word bēn [בֵּין], "between, among."

                        To be continued...
                        Last edited by John Reece; 01-07-2015, 09:51 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:
                          4:6 continued. The first occurrence is in 1:13, where the Son of Man is seen standing "among candlesticks" (en mésōi tôn lukhníôn [ἐν μέσῳ τῶν λυχνιῶν]), the word bēn [בֵּין] being employed as in Ezek. 19:2; 31:3; Job 34:4, 37; Song of Songs 2:2; Dan. 7:8 (Aramaic); etc. (In general, the use of the word in Aramaic is precisely like that in Hebrew.) The phrase is repeated in 2:1, and in the subsequent occurrences it seems evident that the translator employed (en mésōi [ἐν μέσῳ]) as the standing equivalent of bēn [בֵּין].

                          To be continued...

                          Comment


                          • Continuation of excerpts from the CRITICAL NOTES section of The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                            4:6 continued. This appears with especial distinctness in 5:6, where the repetition of en mésōi [ἐν μέσῳ] shows the presence of the very common idiom bën-ūbën [בֵּין־וּבֵין], as many commentators have seen. When, however, Charles (I, 140) says that "the LXX constantly translate in this way the Hebrew preposition literally," he should have added that the O.T. rendering of bën [בֵּין] in this sense is uniformly anà méson [ἀνὰ μέσον]. The employment of en mésōi [ἐν μέσῳ] here is an example of the mechanical and labor saving method of this translator―holding fast to one rendering. As for the meaning of the passage (5:6a), Charles shows with finality (ibid.) that the Lamb is represented as standing between the circle of the Zoa and the wider circle of the elders.*
                            *The passage 7:17 makes great trouble here with its impossible phrase, "the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne" (the only occurrence in Revelation of anà méson). In all probability the original reading was simply "The Lamb will be their shepherd, and will guide them to the fountains of the water of life." A Greek interpolator, with the first words of 5:6 in mind, made the unnecessary but very natural insertion of anà méson toû thrónou.

                            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:
                              4:6 continued. In 6:6 a voice is heard from "among" (en mésōi [ἐν μέσῳ]) the four Zoa. This is the same use of bēn [בֵּין] as in 1:13 and 2:1.

                              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:
                                4:6 continued. The last occurrence of the phrase is in 22:2, where the division of the sentence has been a matter of controversy. Swete, p. 295, argues forcibly for the traditional punctuation, making verse 2 begin a new sentence. He also points to the important fact that the basis of the passage is to be found in Ezek. 47:7, 12, and finally renders: "Between the street of the City and the river, on this side and on that," etc. If en mésōi [ἐν μέσῳ] here again renders bēn [בֵּין], as I think must be the case, Swete's translation is assured as correct.
                                This is the bên―lᵉ (ūlᵉ) [בֵּין ... וּלְ / בֵּין ... לְ] construction., familiar alike in O.T. Hebrew and Rabbinical Aramaic, and regularly rendered in this way in Greek. See the note on 22:2.

                                To be continued...
                                Last edited by John Reece; 09-13-2014, 05:51 AM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by lee_merrill, 12-29-2020, 02:18 PM
                                4 responses
                                26 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post lee_merrill  
                                Working...
                                X