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

  • #46
    Continued from last post above ↑

    Continuation of the posthumously published Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey (1863-1956), who taught Semitic languages at the Andover Theological Seminary (1892–1900), was the founding director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem (1900-1901), and was Professor of Semitic Languages at Yale University (1900–1932):
    What the little manuscript contains is a list of the Hebrew names of the Books of the Old Testament in Greek transcription. The eyes of many noted scholars must have seen it, but until now no one has found anything interesting in it This is due to Bryennios' faulty cataloguing at this point. He describes the manuscript as containing "names of the Books of the Old Testament in Hebrew and Greek." He should have included "and Aramaic"―which happens to make a very great difference!

    To be continued...

    Comment


    • #47
      Continued from last post above ↑

      Continuation of the posthumously published Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey (1863-1956), who taught Semitic languages at the Andover Theological Seminary (1892–1900), was the founding director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem (1900-1901), and was Professor of Semitic Languages at Yale University (1900–1932):
      The story is as follows. In the Journal of Theological Studies (New Series), I, Part 2 (October 1950), there appeared on pages 135-54 an article by M. Jean-Paul Audet entitled "A Hebrew-Aramaic List of Books of the Old Testament in Greek Transcription." This list, of course, is the very one which was mistakenly described by Bryennios. It was reserved here for M. Audet to see the true state of the case and to give the strange document a thorough examination. Even he, however, failed to understand what a treasure he had unearthed! He believed himself to be dealing with Jewish material, and the little catalogue seemed likely again to be lost to sight and soon forgotten.

      Lists of transliterated titles were a drug on the market. M. Audet kindly sent me an offprint of the article, but its title did not seem promising. It lay on my desk until December 5, 1951, when I looked into it for the first time. One look was enough to tell the whole story, however. Soon thereafter a letter announcing the discovery was sent to a few noted scholars, mainly German Semitists. The response was practically unanimous. There was no Aramphobia.

      To be continued...

      Comment


      • #48
        Continued from last post above ↑

        Continuation of the posthumously published Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey (1863-1956), who taught Semitic languages at the Andover Theological Seminary (1892–1900), was the founding director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem (1900-1901), and was Professor of Semitic Languages at Yale University (1900–1932):
        Catalogues outwardly resembling this one are well known; the resemblance, however, is merely superficial. The list now before us has several characteristic features which render it unique. This was also M. Audet's conclusion. The peculiarities are all concerned with the use of the Aramaic language: its amount, the manner of its use and the fact that it was unfamiliar to the readers of the list.

        As to the amount of Aramaic, the purpose is obvious to make this an Aramaic list. This is done for the most part superficially, by simply prefixing the Aramaic relative pronoun (originally ), the consonant with a helping vowel (normally a, but varied for phonetic reasons), to every one of the regular Hebrew titles with which the particle could properly be used. It is plain that it could not be used with any of the titles of the Pentateuch, nor with Psalms, nor Song of Songs, nor Chronicles. However, there are 27 titles titles in all, and to 18 of these the d is prefixed! Through this simple and wholesale mode of conversion a Hebrew catalogue becomes Aramaic.

        To be continued...

        Comment


        • #49
          Continued from last post above ↑

          Continuation of the posthumously published Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey (1863-1956), who taught Semitic languages at the Andover Theological Seminary (1892–1900), was the founding director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem (1900-1901), and was Professor of Semitic Languages at Yale University (1900–1932):
          Cui bono? And why the preference for the popular dialect in a catalogue of divine writings? Why, moreover, should such a peculiar document as this have been preserved in a collection of early Christian relics?

          Again, as to the way in which the Aramaic is substituted or superimposed: there is of necessity the constant impression of a mixture of languages. This is decidedly heightened when, as sometimes happens, a Hebrew word is given an Aramaic plural ending. A clear case seems to be the title of the books of Chronicles. Several other cases are interesting and important, but need not be discussed here.

          To be continued...

          Comment


          • #50
            Continued from last post above ↑

            Continuation of the posthumously published Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey (1863-1956), who taught Semitic languages at the Andover Theological Seminary (1892–1900), was the founding director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem (1900-1901), and was Professor of Semitic Languages at Yale University (1900–1932):
            The most significant circumstance by far in this preferring of the Aramaic language is the fact that the d has to be interpreted. The bulletin takes the opportunity to explain this peculiar Aramaic idiom through the titles of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and Job (see the tables in Journal of Theological Studies or the article "The Aramaic Period of the Nascent Christian Church," ZNW, 44 [1952/53], 205-23), thus: Diiēsoû, "of Joshua" (toû Iēsoû); Dásophtin, "of the Judges" (tôn kritôn); Daroúth, "of Ruth" (tês Rhoúth); Diṓb, "of Job" (toû Iṓb), etc. A Semitic idiom is explained in Greek; and the construction interpreted is purely and characteristically Aramaic.

            This gives us valuable information. The list cannot possibly have been intended for Jews, nor for Jewish Christians, nor for Aramaic-speaking Christians. The Greeks for whom it was intended were mainly in Gentile surroundings. They are given, at every point throughout the list, a reference to the corresponding title in the Greek Old Testament. A good example is the slightly abbreviated title of Qoheleth: "Dakoeleth, Ekklēsiastḗs (here the scribe forgot to give the d its due).

            The list is of Christian origin, and it is intended for Greek churches; these conclusions result plainly from evidence. Why, then, the strange insistence on the Aramaic language? There is only one possible answer, and that is self-evident: it is because at that time Aramaic was still the language of the Christian Church.

            To be continued...

            Comment


            • #51
              Continued from last post above ↑

              Continuation of the posthumously published Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey (1863-1956), who taught Semitic languages at the Andover Theological Seminary (1892–1900), was the founding director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem (1900-1901), and was Professor of Semitic Languages at Yale University (1900–1932):
              M. Audet discusses the document very ably and acutely. He assigns it to the second half of the first century, for reasons which he gives in detail. "As far as we can judge, the list is Greek and Christian as regards it range of diffusion" (p. 144). "There was a period of time and a milieu where the list was certainly known to a wide circle" (pp. 142 f.). "It must have historic significance, otherwise we cannot explain the wide diffusion which it certainly had originally. Only because the list had for a long time clear meaning and was commonly useful in a certain milieu, has it come down to us" (p. 148).

              M. Audet, however, is completely nonplussed by the little document. He has no plausible suggestion to offer as to its origin, or its use. Because of the transliterated names he feels compelled to think of a Jewish origin (p. 150); Aramaic titles, he thinks, could only be the titles of Targums (!).


              To be continued...

              Comment


              • #52
                Continued from last post above ↑

                Continuation of the posthumously published Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey (1863-1956), who taught Semitic languages at the Andover Theological Seminary (1892–1900), was the founding director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem (1900-1901), and was Professor of Semitic Languages at Yale University (1900–1932):
                He remarks, more than once, that this curious list of holy books could not hold its place among the "authentic" lists sure to be in circulation from the late second century onward. He conjectures, acutely, that confusion of this sort is suggested in a certain letter of Melito of Sardis (see pp. 143 f.). He remarks in concluding: "Does not all this suggest that at the time of Onesimus and Melito, in several churches of Asia Minor, lists were in circulation like that of our Jerusalem MS.?"

                It certainly does. M. Audet did not know what was fully demonstrated, completely proven, in 1941 and must soon become common knowledge: that the letters to the Seven Churches of Asia were written and published in Aramaic. That was in the year 68.

                To be continued...

                Comment


                • #53
                  Continued from last post above ↑

                  Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                  The conditions implied by our "Hebrew-Aramaic List" are concisely set forth in the present writer's Documents, pp. xi and xii; compare also pp. 149-56 and 239-42. During the greater part (at least) of the second half of the first century the language of the Christian Church continued to be Aramaic.

                  The unique little document which now has strangely come to light is worthy of its place in the the manuscript which gave us the Didakhē. It is "a document full of significant information about the state of affairs which gave it birth" (Audet, p. 141). Whoever rescued and preserved it was fully aware that he was preserving a significant relic of a chapter in early church history on which the door had been firmly closed.

                  As Audet shows at once from the varied evidence, this strange list is by no means a unicum, but must originally have been distributed in many copies over a rather wide territory. One other copy has been known, though not understood, for many years. It is in the works of Epiphanius, the learned bishop of Salamis in Cyprus (fourth century). It was given shelter in his treatise on Weights and Measures (De Mensuribus et Ponderibus Liber. Its origin was unknown, and there was nothing with which it could be compared, so it was merely allowed to stand as a curiosum. Audet's discovery (that Bryennios' cataloguing of this document was faulty) changed in a moment the whole situation.

                  To be continued...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Continued from last post above ↑

                    Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                    Examination showed at once that the two texts were originally identical, that both had suffered from the usual defects of manuscript transmission, and that the text of the Jerusalem codex was decidedly the better preserved of the two.

                    It is natural to think of this little document as a letter, but it is not a letter. The two copies which have survived are identical in form. We can only conclude that this was a pattern followed in all that were sent out at that time. Hence, the true designation of the document is a bulletin.

                    To be continued...

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Continued from last post above ↑

                      Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                      One more interesting trace of this Church bulletin has come to light. At some time in the third century the mighty Origin came in contact, direct or indirect, with a stray copy of our document, and he made convincing use of it, though he cannot have understood what it meant. See "The Aramaic Period . . . ," p. 221, note 28 [below↓ -JR].

                      Here is the note referenced above and highlighted in maroon color:
                      At this point mention must be made of an undoubted relationship of some sort, though of slight extent, existing between our Palestinian Church decree and the Hebrew Canon of Origin, reported by Eusebius, H. E., VI, 25. Origen's Greek transliterations of the Hebrew titles generally contain nothing new, and it is therefore with a shock that one sees the title of Proverbs given as μελώθ! Here is our document, even in its corrupt form! For Chronicles he has Δαβρηïαμείν, the reading discussed above. The Psalter is Book of Psalms, as in M and E. The Two books of Kings are styled "The Kingdom of David;" a Christian embellishment which has its counterpart in our list, if the conjectured reading is correct; see below. At all events, Origen, at some place and time in the third century, came in contact, direct or indirect, with one of the surviving copies of the Aramaic list.

                      To be continued...
                      Last edited by John Reece; 04-24-2014, 06:40 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Continued from last post above ↑

                        Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                        Of special importance as an appraisal of this churchly bulletin, and as a clear and concise account of the circumstances of its discovery, is a letter published by Professor Eissfeldt of the University of Halle in the Theologische Literaturzeitung, 77 (1952), Nr. 4, 249-54. The letter is based on one which I had written in English and which Eissfeldt rendered into German. The letter in the Theol. Litz. contains much more than this, however: the complete text of both forms of the document, with comments; recent literature dealing with this same subject; and a summary of the results.

                        There appeared in 1941 in Documents, at the top of page xi, the following paragraph:
                        Now that it has been shown that the original language of the book [the Apocalypse of John] was Aramaic, and that it was written in the year 68, it becomes in certain respects the most important single document for our knowledge of the atmosphere of the earliest period, the Aramaic period of the Christian Church.

                        To be continued...

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Continued from last post above ↑

                          Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                          It is indeed remarkable that less than a decade thereafter there should have been made in one of the libraries of Jerusalem this startling discovery which fully confirmed the testimony given by the Letters to the Seven Churches that the "official" language of the Nazarene Community was Aramaic. The fact that Aramaic is employed for the whole of the Apocalypse, including the Letters sent to the seven Greek churches of Asia, leads naturally to the conclusion that Aramaic was insisted on as the official language of the Christian Church.

                          We need to know how long this Aramaic period lasted. This subject has been treated at length in the article, "The Aramaic Period . . . ," cited above, where the dates suggested covered the years 30 to 80.

                          As for Aramaic as the original language of our Apocalypse, it would be decidedly the medium to expect, both because of its preponderance in the earliest Christian writings and also because it is the greatly preferred language of apocalyptic literature, Jewish or Christian. (See Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times, pp. 61, 74 ff.)

                          To be continued...

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Continued from last post above ↑

                            Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                            At least one other student of Revelation aside from the present writer saw clearly that Charles' demonstration of a Semitic idiom showed that the Greek of our Apocalypse is a translation. Professor R. B. Y. Scott of Princeton, at that time a graduate student at the University of Toronto, chose this subject for his Ph.D. thesis, published by the University of Toronto Press in 1928 under the title, The Original Language of the Apocalypse. It is a pamphlet of 25 pages and undertakes to show that the Greek of Revelation is not merely Hebraic in its idiom, but was actually translated from the original Hebrew in which the book was composed. I quote from Scott's Introduction:
                            Charles' own explanation is that the author writes in Greek but thinks in Hebrew. This may be questioned from the following standpoints. An author who is so imperfectly acquainted with Greek would be unlikely to choose it as a medium of literary expression. Again, if he were thinking in one language and writing in another, his thoughts would be expressed in the language of everyday speech, which at this period was not Hebrew but Aramaic. Moreover, Charles himself finds this hypothesis insufficient and is forced to postulate from Semitic sources, as, for example, in cap. 12. But the idioms in cap. 12 are found elsewhere in places where the use of sources is not suggested. . . . Charles unconsciously gives away his case when he says: "the chief Hebraisms in the Apocalypse are sufficient to prove that it is more Hebraic than the LXX itself." There is only one thing that is more Hebraic that a translation from Hebrew, and that is a translation that is more literal and not so well done. We come to the conclusion, therefore, that the Apocalypse as a whole is a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic, while leaving room for the possibility of minor editorial alterations after it was in a Greek form.


                            To be continued...

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Continued from last post above ↑

                              Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                              This is a clear and forcible statement of the case for translation, as against Charles' hypothesis. And the essay which follows presents, even in its undue brevity, a strong argument against the traditional view that Revelation was composed in Greek. Its plea for Hebrew as the original language does indeed "come short of certainty," as its author admits. Scott is as unable as Charles had been to point to an idiom which is exclusively Hebrew, or to demonstrate mistranslation from that language. He follows Charles at many points, differing from him rarely, but adds much material of his own and classifies the Semite idioms (8 pages) in a useful way. His work well illustrates the true nature of the difficult problem.

                              A feature of his argument which at first sight seems important concerns the Greek tenses that have been the despair of commentators. Charles had attempted to explain some of these as literal rendering of Hebrew "consecutive" tenses, and Scott carries the attempt considerably further. This hypothesis had formerly appealed as probable to the present writer, who chiefly for this reason had long held the opinion, based on insufficient examination, that the original language of Revelation was Hebrew, while waiting an opportunity to test the evidence more carefully. The hypothesis breaks down at important points when it is thoroughly examined, and the true explanation of the strange tenses is to be found elsewhere. Regular Aramaic usage on the one hand and the changing mental attitude of the Apocalyptist on the other―as the visions are seen now as completed, now as in the future―account for the Greek tenses, as will be shown presently.

                              To be continued...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Continued from last post above ↑

                                Continuation of the Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958) by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                                If the hypothesis of an Aramaic original of Revelation had been seriously considered and carefully tested by Scott, Charles, Wellhausen, or any other of the Semitists who have concerned themselves with the interpretation of this apocalypse, certain features pointing clearly to that language must at once have been recognized. Aramaic is a language remarkably easy of recognition. There is a notoriously troublesome pronoun, (abbreviated d'), which appears constantly in Aramaic writings in a variety of meanings. It is a particle signifying appurtenance, regularly used where Hebrew or another Semitic language would employ the "construct state"; it is the Aramaic relative pronoun. More important is its very frequent idiomatic use as a conjunction. It is so widely used and so often ambiguous that it is a frequent source of mistranslation. Wherever appears―and it is the characteristic feature of Aramaic writing―the nature of the language is shown with certainty.* This will be dealt with in detail in the Critical Notes.
                                *To be mentioned also is the very frequent use of the preposition li as a particle governing either the direct or indirect object. This same preposition appears in late Hebrew, probably borrowed from the Aramaic.

                                To be continued...

                                Comment

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