The Apocalypse of John, by Charles C. Torrey

[John Reece]

Continued from last post above ↑

Continuation of Charles C. Torrey's Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958):

It would be ridiculous to conclude from 20:2 (above), and from 1:5 apὸ Iēsoû khristoû, ho mártus ho pistós [ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ μάρτυς, ὁ πιστός] ("from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness"), that the author of this Greek was imperfectly acquainted with the construction called apposition. The method he followed justified him in choosing the construction illustrated in the two passages; while in such instances (in his view not similar) as 3:12, 13:16, 17:7, 20:8, 21:2, and 21:9 (end), he treated the cases of apposition like any Greek author.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from last post above ↑

Continuation of Charles C. Torrey's Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958):

It must not be supposed that any theory of a badly preserved Greek text can help to explain these disturbances. There is too great a degree of uniformity in the solecisms to permit the supposition of mere scribal carelessness. The sins against Greek syntax fall into certain definite classes which are easily recognized. It is certain, and there is general agreement as to the fact, that the Greek text has been well preserved, on the whole. It is quite true that the extant manuscripts and versions show very considerable variation throughout the book, for the impulse to improve the barbarous style must have been strongly felt by both professional scribes and occasional editors. On the other hand, it is plain that the impression of a truly unique composition was very generally recognized from the first.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from last post above ↑

Continuation of Charles C. Torrey's Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958):

Where the reading is particularly bizarre, seemingly quite impossible, as in 1:15 (above), there are sure to be variants, raising the question whether we have before us one of the characteristic barbarisms or the result of a copyist's error. The answer can rarely be doubtful; though the impression of a corrupt text, inevitably produced by these monstrosities, did lead to some careless copying of the Greek and to free conjecture. See, for example, the textual confusion in 11:18, or in 14:14. In general, the Westcott and Hort text appears to be the most reliable.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from last post above ↑

Continuation of Charles C. Torrey's Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958):

The foregoing examples will suffice, at the outset, to show why the Greek of the Apocalypse is looked upon as unique. They are only a small part, however, of a great array of linguistic evidence pointing to a definite conclusion. It is to be remarked, moreover, that these barbarisms are "unique" only in degree, not in essential character. They are extreme examples of the same mixture of languages which is constantly present in the Four Gospels and the first half of Acts (to say nothing of the Old Testament). For the truth is that the Book of Revelation was written in a Semitic language, and the Greek translation which alone has been preserved is a remarkably close rendering of the original.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from last post above ↑

Continuation of Charles C. Torrey's Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958):

Reason for extraordinary faithfulness on the part of a translator is given in 22:18f.:

I testify to every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city.

Here is the warning to any interpreter. The last degree of exactness in reproducing both words and idioms is plainly prescribed, and this is what we see attempted in our curious Greek. In fact, underlying all of the amazing solecisms is seen the wording of the Semitic original. The grammatical monstrosities, recognized in their true nature, testify to the execution of a definite purpose carried through with remarkable consistency. When they are examined, they are found to show grammatical appreciation rather than the lack of it. But it is Aramaic grammar!

To be continued...

[One Bad Pig]

This is quite interesting, John. Thanks for sharing!

[John Reece]

This is quite interesting, John. Thanks for sharing!

It is my great pleasure to do so.

[John Reece]

Continued from post #20 above ↑

Continuation of Charles C. Torrey's Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958):

(Nevertheless, the ideal of a thoroughly accurate translation was incapable of realization, as we know to our sorrow. No Greek translator of an unpointed Semitic text of the extent of this apocalypse could possibly come through without his considerable sheath of mistranslations. We have no knowledge of any such faultless―or even nearly faultless―achievement.*)

What the Greek translator of Revelation does, in the effort to be exactly faithful, is merely an exaggeration of what is regularly and constantly done in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The translators rendered as they did because of the conception of their task. They were handing down works of high importance, and would assume no unnecessary responsibility. What they―each and all―aimed at was to produce a text which could be understood by the Greek reader and at the same should mirror faithfully every word and phrase of the sacred original. This, the original, was the all-important thing, and the fact was always kept in view. The style of the translation was of no consequence; it was not Greek, nor ever intended to be.

*See Our Translated Gospels [by Torrey], chapter 1; The Four Gospels [by Torrey], pages 265-74.

To be continued...

[One Bad Pig]

Here is [something related to] the referenced work.

[John Reece]

Our Translated Gospels

Here is [something related to] the referenced work.

One of the two referenced works.

Thanks for that.

[One Bad Pig]

One of the two referenced works.

Thanks for that.

Oh, right. I somehow associated the page range of the second work to the first (which doesn't have than many pages).

[John Reece]

Continued from post #23 above ↑

Continuation of Charles C. Torrey's Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958):

The "Greek" of the Four Gospels was written by four different men, each with his own background, literary habit, and immediate purpose; they are also commonly supposed to have done their work in places rather widely distant from one another. Yet each of the four writes the very same curious mixture, Greek words and omnipresent Semitic style: the phenomenon so familiar in every part of the Septuagint. Characteristically Greek idioms are not to be found, excepting such as have their Semitic equivalents; but the use of Greek words is uniformly perfect in each Gospel, as it is in the Apocalypse. Greek was the native tongue of each of the translators, as would be expected, and in both Old Testament and New Testament their method is essentially the same. Any solecism which in verbal form could represent the original text might be allowed, in spite of Greek usage. Thus Aquila renders Eccles. 12:9, éti* edidaxen gnôsin sùn (!) ánthrōpon, "He still taught the people knowledge." No barbarism in Revelation is worse than the kairôi in Luke 20:10. It is not Greek, but it reproduces exactly the Aramaic adverbial compound, liz^əman, and for that reason it was coined by Luke, who is the most slavishly literal of the Gospel translators. See Our Translated Gospels, p. 77, note.

*Our Greek has hóti, the same false reading which (as I believe) is found in John 8:25, as well as in several O.T. passages. The Four Gospels, p. 323.

Here is the comment on John 8:25 on page 323 of The Four Gospels referenced in the footnote above:

8:25. I think that the original reading of the Greek text was ἔτι instead of ὅτι. The two words are often confused; and in several O.T. passages the wrong word has maintained itself in the manuscript tradition; see Is. 56:8, Eccles. 12:9, and Sirach 51:24. Notice also Jer. 22:11 f. in Cod. Q.

Here is the footnote on page 77 of Our Translated Gospels, referenced at the end of the comment above:

Concerning the curious καιρῷ in 20:10, Wellhausen, Comm., remarks, that it "cannot mean, and yet must mean, 'at the the proper time'." How could Luke, who certainly knew how to write Greek, make such a blunder? It is no blunder (though it is not Greek at all), but is merely his usual proceeding. Like the many other specimens of hybrid and inelegant Greek written by him, it is the result of strictly accurate translation according to his norm. The explanation is perfect here, as it generally is. The above mentioned Greek word renders exactly the Aramaic adverbial compound, li-zman, which stood in his text. The same word, in a precisely similar context, occurs in Gen. 18:14, Targ. Onk.: "At the set time I will return."

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from last post above ↑

Continuation of Charles C. Torrey's Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958):

Greek readings which make nonsense, the result of mistranslation or of rendering a text which had become corrupt in the process of transmission, are a matter of course. They abound in the LXX, where as a rule their origin is easily seen. In the O.T. Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha they are often of great value as guides to the original Semitic text. Thus also in the Gospels; see the outstanding examples of nonsense, some two dozen in number, in The Four Gospels, pp. 272 f. [see below -JR]. In our Apocalypse the following may be mentioned: 4:8; 8:3 f., 12b; 11:1; 13:11; 14:19b; 15:2 (end); 16:10 f.; 19:16. The translator was bound to render what he saw before him, asking no questions.

From The Four Gospels, pages 272-274:

The following plainly unacceptable readings, due to mistranslation (which often is merely too literal translation), are from the Greek in the Gospels.

Unless they wash their hands with the fist, they eat not. Mk. 7:3.

Very early in the morning, after the sun had risen. Mk. 16:2

Be perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect. Mt 5:48.

There met him a man from the city; for a long time he had worn no clothes, and abode not in any house, but in the tombs. Lk. 8:27.

An uninhabited place, namely the city Bethsaida. Lk. 9:10, 12.

Every man enters violently into the kingdom of heaven. Lk. 16:16.

Henceforth you shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man. Jn. 1:51.

Hosanna to the son of David. Mt. 21:9.

Behold, your house is left to you. Mt. 23:38; Lk. 13:35.

Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. Jn 7:38.

They wished to receive Jesus into the boat (but did not thus receive him?). Jn. 6:21.

It was the day of Preparation, and the sabbath began to dawn. Lk. 23:54.

Late on the sabbath, at the dawning of the first day of the week. Mt. 28:1.

If it were not so, would I have told you? etc. Jn. 14:2

What has happened, that you will reveal yourself to us and not to the world? Jn. 14:22

I neither know, nor understand, what you are saying. Mk. 14:68.

You have no need that anyone should ask you. Jn. 16:30.

Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Jn. 20:17.

The master of that servant will cut him in two, and appoint him his portion with the unfaithful. Mt. 24:51; Lk. 12:46 (Slight corruption of the original Aramaic text.)

Every one shall be salted with fire. Mk. 9:49. Mk. 9:49.

No man, when he has lighted a lamp, puts it in a cellar. Lk. 11:33.

He who came down from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven. (Said by the Son of Man himself, to Nicodemus.)

This was he of whom I said, etc., although Jesus was still living. Jn. 1:15.

Salute no man on the way. Lk. 10:4.

His master commended the unfaithful steward, because he acted shrewdly (in continuing to defraud his master to his own advantage). Lk. 16:8.

And I say to you, gain friends by means of money, so that when it is gone they may receive you into heaven. Lk. 16:9.

Of these specimens of mere nonsense, or of incredible utterance, Lk. has the largest number, with Jn. a close second. In point of quality, Mt. comes off best. Other examples, equally striking, could be given. In all these cases the reason for the mistake in translation―usually a very good reason―can be plainly seen.

Each of the four translators has his own habits of rendering, which form an interesting study, but cannot be described here. The native tongue of each of them, as has been said, was Greek. They all were masters of Aramaic; and yet Mk. could be led astray, in 7:3, by the unusual position of an adverb. His translation is evidently somewhat hasty, occasionally rough and disjointed, as though a first draft which was not revised. Greek Mt. is a prince among Biblical translators, and his work is universally admirable. Probably no scholar of his time, holding to the principles then recognized as essential, could have produced a finer result, worthy of its original. Luke, who easily surpassed the others in his collection, arrangement, and scholarly treatment of the available material, is the one whose work is most readily recognized as a translation. His manner of rendering is meticulously faithful, and the result is very often a painfully literal phraseology. He shows remarkable skill and ingenuity in fitting the Greek to the Semitic original. His lack of acquaintance with usage peculiar to Palestinian Hebrew and Aramaic is very striking and instructive. The translator of the Fourth Gospel had the most difficult task. He probably was remote in place from the date of its composition; yet it is not in these circumstances that the main difficulty lay. The close, sometimes obscure, reasoning of its author, who deals not only in theological subtleties but also in verbal conceits, would make trouble for any translator. The Aramaic text, moreover, contained a few slight but troublesome faults. Nevertheless Jn. wrote his Greek with more freedom than Mk. or Lk., and his work is a masterpiece.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from last post above ↑

Continuation of Charles C. Torrey's Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958):

In the Journal of Biblical Literature, 48 (1929), 119, Professor Millar Burrows, in a brief article entitled "Mark's Transitions and the Translation Hypothesis," makes the acute observation that no one of the principle sections of the Gospel begins with any Greek idiom that could be called elegant, and he adds: "This is not surprising; we knew to begin with that the Gospel was not written by an academic rhetorician." Have we, in fact, this knowledge? The testimony of "Mark's" literary style has been misunderstood ever since the subapostolic age, and it has been felt necessary to apologize for the bad Greek. We have good evidence, nevertheless, that its author was a learned man and really a master of the language; and it has now been shown (The Four Gospels, 1933) that his uncouth idiom is the result of literal translation from Aramaic, the language in which the Gospel was composed. Beyond this, we are ignorant. He may or may not have been a zealous rhetorician. His being so would not in the least affect the style of the Gospel; this would be determined only by the conception of his task as a translator.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from last post above ↑

Continuation of Charles C. Torrey's Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958):

It is possible to illustrate this fact with an example from our own century. Professor F. C. Burkitt added to his edition of the Old Syriac Gospels (Evangelion da-Mepharesche; Cambridge University Press, 1904) an English version. Text and translation are printed on opposite pages so that facing each Syriac verse is its English rendering, the latter being as literal as possible. The purpose of this was to enable the student who is ignorant of Syriac to know just what it says in each verse. I will give here examples of this translation-English in sufficient number to form a true picture of the method and to include a sufficient variety of the foreign idioms.

Matt. 5:13. If salt lose its savor and become foolish, wherewith shall it be salted?

6:27. Which of you can add unto his stature one cubit, that about clothing you are anxious? (This, to be sure, is mistranslation of the Syriac, though verbally exact.)

8:14. He saw his mother-in-law lying down and a fever holding her.

8:23. He went up into a boat and his disciples were coming after him.

11:26. Yea, my Father, that so was the will before thee.

15:22. A certain woman ... was crying out and saith, Have compassion on me.

16:23. Jesus rebuked him, even Simon.

17:19. They drew near and say to him between themselves and him.

19:9. He that leaveth his wife without a word of adultery.

19:12. He that is capable in power to endure, let him endure.

19:19. Be loving to thy neighbor as thyself.

22:19. And they themselves brought near to him a denar.

23:14. Ye eat up the houses of widows in the pretext that ye are lengthening your prayers.

Mark 14:68. I am not acquainted with what thou sayest.

16:8. To no one aught said they, because they had been afraid.

Luke 9:51. He prepared his countenance to go to Jerusalem. Verse 53, "His countenance for Jerusalem was set to go.

13:13. And straightway her stature was stretched out.

15:3. He saith to them himself this similitude.

15:13. He scattered his property on foods which are not fitting.

20:23. And he himself perceived their ill-will.

John 5:35. Ye wished to make your boast for the hour in his light.

7:24. Do not be judging by faces and faces.

8:38. I, that which I have seen by my Father, I do.

9:11. Go, wash they face with a baptism of Shiloah.

10:24. Till when art thou taking up our breath?

14:13. If ye are loving to me, keep my commandments.

Now Professor Burkitt was not a half-trained writer of English, nor was he indifferent to the requirements of grammar and style. He "thought in Syriac," indeed, in the sense that he reproduced faithfully and skillfully the idioms of the original. The expert scholar can see the Syriac, word by word and phrase by phrase, underlying his version. The verbal form was the important thing: exactly as illustrated in the LXX, the Gospels, and the Apocalypse, translations of scripture believed to have been divinely inspired. The more barbarous the idiom and the more improbable the reading, the easier (of course) to discern exactly the original text that was rendered.

To be continued...