The Apocalypse of John, by Charles C. Torrey

[John Reece]

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:

Equally certain as a specimen of this mistranslation is 19:15 [καὶ ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ ἐκπορεύεται ῥομφαία ὀξεῖα, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῇ πατάξῃ τὰ ἔθνη], in which is illustrated the habit of the Greek translators to render dī by hina, if in any way possible, when it is followed by the imperfect tense. The sword is not proceeding from the mouth of the Messiah "in order that with it" he may smite the nations; the correct translation is: "From his mouth proceeds a sharp sword, with which (dī ḇah) he is to smite the nations." The writer is referring to the Hebrew scriptures, making up his quotation from Isa. 11:4 and 49:2.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

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:

In such cases as 6:11, second clause, the dī might of course have been rendered by [ὅτι] as well as [ἵνα]. There are many such cases in the translation Greek of the New Testament.

Still other examples of the false rendering of dī, in 18:19 and in 18:23, will be discussed below.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

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:

13:11(a). Of the second beast (see below) it is said that he "had two horns like (those of) a lamb": eichen kerata dyo homoia arniō̧ [εἶχεν κέρατα δύο ὅμοια ἀρνίῳ].

This is difficult enough; normally a "lamb" has no horns at all, and under no circumstances could this be considered a typical feature of an arnion. The horned animal whose might is proverbial in Hebrew literature is the wild ox, rᵉʾēm [ רְאֵם ] (also Aramaic). Deut. 33:17, "His horns are the horns of the wild ox: with them he shall push all the peoples, even to the ends of the earth." Here Jerusalem Targum II has qarᵉnē rᵉʾemɔʾ. See also Num. 23:22; 24:8. It therefore seems very probable indeed that the true reading of the Aramaic in the present passage was kirᵉʾemɔʾ (KRʾMʾ), "like (those of) a wild ox," rather than kᵉʾimmʾrɔʾ (KʾMRʾ), "like (those of) a lamb." Such transpositions, common in all places and times, are quite frequent in this translation.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

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:

13:11(b). There is an interesting bit of folklore in this passage, though the Greek text does not give quite the right idea of it. After the beast which came up out of the sea, whose authority was to continue for forty-two months (verse 5), there came up from the earth another beast, prepared to complete the work of his predecessor. This creature is very briefly described: he had two horns (see above), "and he spoke like a dragon" (kai elalei hōs drakōn [καὶ ἐλάλει ὡς δράκων], Aramaic wīmallel kᵉṯannīn). This comparison leaves us in some uncertainty. What is the speech of a dragon―in what manner or language do dragons talk?

Holtzman, Hand-commentar, p. 351, conjectures some corruption of the underlying "Hebrew." Charles confesses that he "can make nothing" of the phrase. Swete, who is likely to take critical problems rather easily, merely says that "his voice was the roar of a dragon." This, while on the right track, is purely arbitrary; lalein does not mean "roar."

To be continued...

[John Reece]

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:

13:11(b) continued. A hint as to the probable reading of the Aramaic text in its original form is afforded by certain passages which are cited and translated by Levy, , under the root YLL. Deut. 32:10 (Jerusalem Targum I): Deut. 32:10 mᵉzɔrᵉzē mōʾab mᵉyallᵉlīnWYMLL kᵉṯannīn, "and he talked like a dragon," but WMYLL kᵉṯannīn "and he roared, screamed, like a dragon," the participle employed as in the description of the beast in Daniel 7:7.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

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:

13:11(b) continued. In regard to the former of the two passages quoted from Levy, namely Targum Deut. 32:10, there are indeed two things to be said: (1) the yɔrōdīn are regularly "jackals," Hebrew tannīm. (2) The word yɔrōd, though widely used, is merely a miswriting of yɔrōr ("howler"), the root YRR being a variation of YLL. The confusion of tannīm with tannīn is very ancient, however; see especially Ezek. 29:3; 32:2; and it is not always easy to decide whether a Hebrew writer has in mind jackals or dragons. Thus in Lam. 4:3 the Greek () and the Targum stand in opposition to the accepted interpretation, and seem to have the better of the argument.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

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:

13:11(b) continued. It followed that the roaring of the dragon was as fixed a characteristic as the howling of the jackal; the more so as a popular etymology accounted for both names (see below). Thus in Mic. 1:8 the LXX rendering of ʾε^ceśε [with a horizontal bar on top of the last "ε"] misᵉped katannīm is .

Bochart's Hierozoicon in the interesting chapter "De Draconibus" (III, xiv), gives an amount of traditional material which includes this feature, the dragon's vocal delivery. Referring to two of the passages which speak of creatures howling in the desert, namely Mic. 1:8 and Job 30:29, he remarks (Frankfort ed., 1675, II, 437): "Fortasse etiam horrendos draconum sibilos respiciunt quibus deserta personant." He then quotes in extenso the testimony of Aelian: A dragon in India sent out such a voice that all were terrified and thrown into consternation; another, "of immense size," brought terror by its to the inhabitants of the Island of Chios, etc. Bochart (ibid.) derives the noun tannīm from the verb (infinitive) tannōt, "quod , plangere, explicant vetustissimi interpretes Jud. 11:40," and it can hardly be doubted that this etymology was current in Bible times.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

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:

13:11(b) continued. What showed the beast of Revelation 13:11 to be related to the dragon family was not articulate "speech" of any sort, but a terrifying howl. The exchange of the two almost identical Aramaic words may have been made either by a copyist of the original text or by the Greek translator.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

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:

13:15. This verse, as it stands, is a most distressing specimen of Greek. The seemingly impossible at the beginning is the original reading. It is thus edited in the W. & H. text on the authority of codd. A and C and some other witnesses, while other editions adopt the correction . The explanation of the feminine pronoun is simple and certain: the Aramaic ḥayṯɔʾ, "beast," is feminine and the translator had it in mind when he interpreted the pronoun in the word LH. A somewhat similar case is the in 19:20, as has been shown above.

The verb poiḗsēi is so misleading, so clearly productive of a false interpretation, that it is hard to believe the translator guilty of it. Charles, I, cxlvi and 2, 420, note, would explain this as a case of resolution of an infinitive () into a finite verb. Such resolution is common enough, but it is inadmissible here because of the hina lalḗsēi immediately preceding. To effect the resolution the Aramaic would infallibly have introduced the verb by the particle dī, which the translator would certainly have rendered by hina. This would have been a possible reading, though made awkward and ambiguous by the preceding clause. It seems most probable that in the Aramaic the infinitive construction was continued, that the Greek translator wrote poiḗsēi, and that an early copyist made the easy mistake of writing .

To be continued...

[John Reece]

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:

13:18. We are now told in so many words that "the beast" is not just a symbol but an epithet designating an actual human being, whose person has been given some description in the verses of the chapter.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

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:

13:18. The beast has conquered the world, and all nations and peoples worship him. This evidently shows that the beast is a Roman emperor. The description is more definite, however. Three times, and with impressive emphasis (verses 3, 12, 14), this beast (emperor) is characterized as one who had recovered from a sword-stroke which had seemed to deal a mortal wound. This designates with certainty the emperor Nero, as no one doubts who knows the history of the legendary Nero redivivus.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

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:

This identification is at once confirmed in another way. The name is not to be given directly, but its "number" is furnished, and he who has wisdom may "reckon" it.

Each letter of the alphabet (Greek, Roman, or Semitic) has its fixed numerical value, and numbers, great or small, are commonly expressed by letters or combination of letters. It was long ago seen to be probable, and is now certain, that the intended interpretation of the number 666 is found in the Semitic writing of the name Nerōn Qesar,[*] Nero Caesar; the numerical values being as follows: nun = 50; resh = 200; waw = 6; nun = 50; qoph = 100; samekh = 60; resh = 200.

[*NB: Only the consonants count: נרון קסר.]

To be continued...

[John Reece]

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:

14:6. The adjective aiṍnion [αἰώνιον], while almost inevitable as the rendering of Aramaic ^ᴄᴐlam, really mistranslates here, for the ^ᴄᴐlam to which it refers is not ho aiṍn but . The Semitic noun with the latter meaning is common in late Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac. A frequently occurring Talmudic phrase is ʾummōt hᴐ^ᴄōlᴐm, "the peoples of the world," meaning especially the Gentiles, and it is this usage, precisely, that is intended in the present passage. The proclaimed here is not an "eternal message," as it is ordinarily understood―the idea of duration of time is not present at all; it is a "universal message," as the verse goes on to declare, sent to the peoples of the earth, all nations, tribes, and tongues. Aramaic bᵉsōr, regularly rendered by , means simply "tidings," whether good or bad.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

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:

14:8. A verse of notorious difficulty. The English R.V. reads: "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, that hath made all the nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." The same phrase precisely occurs in 18:3, so the Greek is not to be altered; it is what the translator wrote. This "very extraordinary form of speech" (Charles) has long been regarded as a combination of two diverse ideas: "the wine of her fornication," as in 17:2, and "the wine of the wrath of God," as in 16:19 and 19:15. In what way the senseless combination can have been made is not explained. Charles would regard as an interpolation.

The key to this passage and to several others is found in the use of the Aramaic noun lᵉwɔṯ, which the author of this apocalypse seems fond of using. The original meaning of the word is "curse," but it is used in a variety of idioms where it merely imparts a sinister meaning and is paraphrased or left untranslated.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

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:

14:8 continued. The word really mistranslates here, though there is justification for its use. It renders Aramaic lᵉwɔṯ in the sense of "poisoning, intoxicating, stupefying," etc. This wine is the ḥamᵉrɔʾ dī lᵉwɔṯ of Targum Psalm 60:5, where Hebrew has yēn tarʾᵃ^сelͻ [with horizontal bar over final "ͻ"], LXX , Aquila karṓseōs (lᵉwɔṯɔʾ also renders hatarᵉ^сlͻ [with horizontal bar over final "ͻ"]) in Isa. 51:22, where LXX has ptṓseōs and Aquila, in verse 17, karṓseōs.) It is the ḥᵃmar lᵉwɔṯɔʾ of Targum Jer. 25:15, "the poisoning wine," Hebrew yēn haḥemͻ [with horizontal bar over final "ͻ"] (MT hayyayin is a scribal error, and the clause has been generally misunderstood). Compare also the "poison of serpents" of Deut. 32:33, where the Greek renders both and ḥemͻ [with horizontal bar over final "ͻ"] (not "wrath"!) by . This ḥᵃmar lᵉwɔṯɔʾ is a true compound, and the rendering of our passage in 18:3 should be "the intoxicating wine of her fornication"; compare especially the passage 17:2. Hos. 7:5 ḥᵃmat miyyayin, "intoxication from wine," is also to be compared. The word lᵉwɔṯ must have been used here in the original text of Revelation. The interpretation by was most unfortunate. See further the notes on 14:19 and 16:19. In verse 10 of this chapter, "wine of the wrath of God is evidently the intended meaning.

To be continued...