THE APOCALYPSE THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE ROBERT BALGARNIE YOUNG SCOTT, M.A., CIRCULATE AS MONOGRAPH. The Reverend

Transcription

1 '^""^ CIRCULATE AS MONOGRAPH THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE APOCALYPSE BY The Reverend ROBERT BALGARNIE YOUNG SCOTT, M.A., B.D. A Thesis submitted in Conformity with the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of Toronto THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS 192S

2

3 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE APOCALYPSE BY The Reverend ROBERT BALGARNIE YOUNG SCOTT, M.A., B.D. A Thesis submitted in Conformity with the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of Toronto THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS 1928

4

5 ABBREVIATIONS Ap The Apocalypse of John. BDB Brown, Driver and Briggs: Hebrew Lexicon. Charles R. H. Charles: Revelation, in ICC. GK Gesenius-Kautzsch: Hebrew Grammar: tr. Cowley. ILNT Introduction to the Literature of the N.T. AV The Authorised Version. RV The (American) Revised V^ersion. NOTE It has been found necessary, in order to save expense in printing, to reduce to a minimum the use of Greek and Hebrew script. Consequently, in many instances only references are given, and it will be necessary to make frequent use of a Hebrew Bible and a Greek New Testament, if the weight of the argument is to be felt. For the Apocalypse itself, the use of the text in Charles' Commentary, with its very full textual apparatus, is suggested.

6

7 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE APOCALYPSE I INTRODUCTORY The Greek of the Apocalypse is notoriously difficult. As early as the third century, Dionysius of Alexandria says of the author that "his dialect and language are not correct Greek; he makes use of barbarous constructions and sometimes of actual solecisms". "The solecisms are patent. the Hebraistic colouring is evident" comments Moffatt in.. ILNT, p. 50L A. T. Robertson^ says that the great number of violations of concord cannot be explained by exceptional parallels elsewhere. After twenty-five years study of the book, Charles comes to the conclusion^ that the author has "created a Greek that is absolutely his own". This phenomenon may be explained, in whole or in part, in one or more of the following six ways: 1. Translation from Aramaic. 2. Translation from Hebrew. 3. Reminiscence of the LXX, conscious or unconscious. 4. Deliberate use of O.T. and apocalyptic phraseology. 5. Parallels from current kolvtj Greek. 6. The author was writing in Greek, but thinking in Aramaic or Hebrew. Of these, nos. 3 and 4 may operate to some extent, but they cannot begin to explain grammatical peculiarities which run throughout the book. No. 5 reduces the number of passages where the use of a Semitic idiom can be claimed with certainty, but the parallels are exceptional, and no literary work can be pointed out in which such apparent idioms are as frequent, extensive and characteristic as in the Apocalypse. Charles' own explanation is that the author writes in Greek but thinks in Hebrew.' This may be questioned from the following stand-points. 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 'Grammar of the Greek NT. *" Revelation" in ICC, p. xi. *op. cit., p. cxliii.

8 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 translation from Semitic sources, as, for example, in cap. 12. But the idioms of cap. 12 are found elsewhere in places where the use of sources is not suggested. Finally, the transliterations and mistranslations later to be noted are inexplicable on the "^ theory that the Apocalypse was composed in Greek. 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 than 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. A number of the constructions found are common to both languages, but while there are none which are exclusively Aramaic, there are a number which are exclusively Hebrew. The book is evidently a Hebrew apocalypse translated into Greek to secure its admittance to the New Testament. This conclusion, which is based partly on the frequency of Hebrew idioms found, but ultimately on the occurrence of mistranslations which are not capable of any other explanation, receives support also from the general probabilities of the case. At the end of the first century, when this book seems to have been written, Hebrew was the normal medium for the composition of apocalyptic. Indeed G. H. Box says:"* "apocalyptic exists mainly in translations". Charles says of I Enoch (date 1st and 2nd centuries) "It was written originally partly in Aramaic and partly in Hebrew". He concludes that "The Testaments of the Twelve 'cf. G. F. Moore: Judaism, vol. i, p ^e.g., circumstantial clauses 12: 1, 3, cf. 9: 8, 9; 10: 1; 13: 1; 17: 5; 19: 12; 21: 12, etc.; wrong rendering of verb tenses 12: 1-4, cf. 2: 2, 3; 4: 9, 10; 5: 9; 7: 10, 15; 9: G; 10: 8-11; 11: 3-11; 16; 17, 21; 22: 5, 9, etc.; ptc. as finite verb 12:2. cf. 4:5; G: 5; 7:4, 5; 19: 11, 12, 13, etc.; i8ov for Hiin 1^: 3, cf. 4: 1; 6:2; 7:0; 14: 1; 19: 11; 21:3, etc., apposition as in Heb. 12: 5, cf. 11: 13 13:17; 21:15, etc.; /cat representing special use of Heb. copula ^ 12: 5, cf. 2:21 13: 8; 16: 6, etc.; mistranslations 12: 7, 8, 12, etc., cf. 1: 6; 2: 1; 3: 3; 4: 2 8: 3; 14: 13; 15: 6; 18: 6, 7; 21: 25, etc., etc. The evidence submitted later shows that the constructions of cap. 12 can be paralleled throughout the book, cf. also p. 25 below. *op. cil., vol. I, p. cxliv. Expos., vol

9 Patriarchs" ( B.C.) was written in Hebrew, and that of "The Testament of Moses" and "The Assumption of Moses (7-29 A D ) the former was written in Hebrew and possibly also the latter" 2nd Baruch ( A.D.) "was written originally in Hebrew" and Box says of ly Ezra "the most recent investigators of the textual problems of our book are agreed in postulating a Hebrew text as the original form in which IV Ezra was composed. Wellhausen also argued for a Hebrew origin of I\ Ezra. As Burnev savs:' "These instances are surely sufficient to establish the fact that during the first century A.D.. there existed writers of apocalyptic literature who were accustomed to employ the Hebrew language as their medium of thought and e.xpression^ Another piece of evidence favouring the theory that the book was composed in Hebrew is the fact that the quotations from the O.T. seem, as a rule, to go back to the Masoretic text rather than to the LXX. If the author prefers to read Hebrew, there can be little question that he would prefer to write it.^ In the evidence which follows, it will be found that ma very few cases the present writer's results differ from those of Charles in ICC, in a number of cases they coincide, and in a still greater number the evidence submitted is new. The observation of the Hebraic character of the Greek has been carried, by fuller investigation, to the logical conclusion that the Apocalypse is actually a translation. No other hypothesis seem adequate to explain all the phenomena. The strongest evidence is that of transliterations and mistranslations, and if one of these be admitted, the probability in favour of the others is enormously increased. While it must be admitted that, in the nature of the case the demonstration comes short of certainty, it is t^^behef of the present writer that this explanation covers the facts of the case more satisfactorily than any other. II HEBREW IDIOMS FOUND IN THE APOCALYPSE 1. A Noun or Participle in the Nominative, in Apposition to a Noun in an Oblique Case. This usage of Ap is too frequent and too characteristic to be explained from the exceptional occurrences in the papyri. U arises from the fact that failure in concord is most likely to occur in p ^cr^cha rles, 'lcc.''p! Ixvi; and Swete: Introduction to the O.T. in Greek, 7

10 translation from a language without case-endings into a language in which they are used. Examples are: 1: 5, airb 'ItjctoD XptaroD 6 naprvs, 6 Trtcrroj, and 2: 13, 20; 3: 12; 8: 9; 9: 14; 14: 12; 20: 2; and perhaps 16: Failure in Concord, where a word apparently is attracted into the case of another word nearer than that with which it should agree. Examples are: 1:10 ijkovaa... <t)(jovr]v... cos o'dx7rt77os \^yovar)%. and 4: 1; 6: 7; 19: 1, 6; with which cf. the frequent similar phenomena in the LXX in rendering "saying". The use is found with other words in Ap in 1: 20; 11: 3 (text of ^A, etc.); 17: 8; and perhaps 14: Other Examples of Failure in Concord. 4: 4; 5: 6 (bis); 5: 12, 13; 7: 9; 9: 14; 11: 15, 18; 14: 6; 14: 19 (text of A, etc.); 17: 3 (text of A, etc.); 21: Two Nouns in Apposition, indicating a Thing and its Class, Material, Attribute, etc. (GK 1316). Examples are: 21: 15 ijlerpou KoXafxou; 6: 11 "their fellowservants, their brethren", (the fourth Kal is explicative); 11: 13; "names, men". The genitive may represent a construct in apposition (GK 130e), or a nominative which would not differ from a cstr. here in an unpointed Hebrew text; 12: 5 "a child, a male"; 13: 17 "the mark, the name"; 17: 5 "a name, a mystery". 5. An Anarthrous Noun or Participle, representing a Hebrew Construct determined by a following Determinate Genitive. Examples are: 2; 9 awayo^yri rod Zarava. That this should be understood as "the synagogue of Satan" is confirmed by a comparison of 3: 9. Note also 6:7; 7:2; 8:4; 11:11; 14: 7 "the fountains of waters" as in 16:4; and 8: 10; 15:2; 18: 24; 21: 14 "the twelve names"; 22: 2, 17. Perhaps, also, 22:1 should be read "the river of water of life". 6. An Infinitive or Participle, continued by a Finite \'erb. For this construction, cf. GK 114/-, 116ai:; and long note in Charles, "Revelation", vol. I, pp. cxliv ff. Examples are: 1: 5, 6 tw ayairupn vixas Kal \vaavti rjfias... /cat ttioi-qaev rjjj.as... i.e., " unto him who loved us, and loosed us... and made us.".. AV "unto him that loved us, and washed us... and hath made us.".. 8

11 " RV ". unto him that loveth us, and loosed us... and he made us. also2:2, 9, 20; 3:9; 5: 8,9; 7:2,9, 10, 14; 13: 15; ; 15: 2, 3; and 17: 8. Perhaps 2: 23 should be added with Charles, but l': 18 and 20: 4, which Charles claims as instances of this idiom are disallowed properly by Burney (JTS 22), because not in sequence Nouns in the Singular, corresponding to Hebrew Collectives: TO TTTCJ/ia avtcjv wi' = Dn^IlJ (cf- Isa. 5:25). 8 TO 'ovona avtov (var. lec. avtqjp) =}'0^ 14 5 kv TO atoixari aurwi' = DrT'CD- Possibly 22:2 ^v\ov fco^s should be added. The context shows that there were trees "on this side of the river and on that, and this is supported by the source of the material in Ezek. 47: Participles used as Finite Verbs. This idiom is commoner in Aramaic than in Hebrew, but it occurs in classical Hebrew (e.g., Ex. 20: 18), and with growing frequency in late and Mishnaic Hebrew, doubtless under the influence of Aramaic. It thus consents to, rather than compels the theory of a Hebrew original of the Ap, and has value when taken in conjunction with other evidence (cf. GK 116m, n, o, p; Charles "Revelation" I, p. 316). Examples are: 1: 16; 4: 5; 6: 5; 7: 4, 5; 10: 2, 8 (bis); 12: 2 (reading Kai with ^C, etc.); 19: 11, 12, 13. A number of cases must be noted also, which seem to represent Possessive Lamedh in Hebrew, but have in the Greek of Ap the form of ptcs. of ex", as above. Examples are 4: 7, 8; 6: 2; 19: 12; 21: 12 (bis); and 21: Comparative Relative Clauses with Finite Verb. Hebrew idiom provides examples of a peculiar structure in which a finite verb is used with a noun that has the particle of comparison, where in Greek a particle would be used. (GK 155g). Examples are: 1 : 16 ws 6 tjxios c^atvei. 10: 3 cio-trep Xewj/ /xu/carat. 10 l8ov used with great frequency, for Hebrew H^H or Aramaic ^n- The use of i8ov is found in Greek, but its frequency is peculiarly Semitic. A-with Noun, 4:1: 6:2,5,8; 7:9; 12:3; 14:1,14; 19:11; 21:3. B_with Finite Verb, for Hebrew Ptc, 1:7; 2: 10, 22; 3: 8, 9, 20; 22: 7. 9

12 11. Cognate Noun or Adverb, for Hebrew Infinitive Absolute. One case of each is found, viz.: 2: 23 airoktepc) h davari^. 3: 12 e^w ov firi e^ex^p en. 12. Casus Pendens with Retrospective Suffix. Burney ("Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel", p. 6), effectively counters Moulton's plea that "this is one of the easiest of anacoloutha" by remarking that what is true of conversation is not true of literature, and that if the whole N.T. be taken as a fair specimen of kolvt], only very occasional instances of the usage are found. Only in the Fourth Gospel and in Ap is it at all frequent. Examples are: 2; 26 6 vlkcjv... Suffw aiitw. And 2: 7, 17; 3: 12, 21; 6: 4, 8; 21: 6 (text of 046, etc.); 21: 8. Possibly the two last are examples of the use of the dative for 7 introducing a new subject. Cf. also Nominative Pendens in 1: 20; 7: 13; 17: Pleonastic Pronoun, Adjective or Adverb in a Relative Clause, owing to the fact that these are contained in the Relative itself in Greek but not in Hebrew. This is a notable feature of the translation Greek of the LXX. Examples are: 7:2... a.-yyk\ol%, o^s tbodr) aurots.... And 3:8; 7:9; 9: 11 (text of {<) ; 12: 6,14; 13:8, 12; 15:1; 16: 18; 17:9; 20: Periphrasis for Hebrew \'erbs in Causative Stem. Owing to the fact that the great majority of Hebrew verbs have causative stems, whereas in Greek separate verbs must be used, and these are comparatively rare, one would expect to find in a translation some clumsy phrases with ttoicco or otow/zt to express the causative idea. The following appear in Ap: 13: TrDp TTOiTj... KaTa^aiueLV. And 3:9; 13: 12, 13, 15, 16; 16: 6. The last, SeSoj/cas ivlelv, is seen to be a causative when one compares 14: 8; 18: 3. The clumsy phrases in 12: 15 and 17: 16 are possible Greek, but if the other examples of the use of the causative given above be granted, these will probably be best explained in the same way. 15. Sufiix of Noun in Cstr. attached to following Noun in Gen., which expresses Material or Attribute of Nomen Regens. (GK 135n). Examples are: 13: 3 = 13: irxrjyi] tov davarov ai'tov, "his mortal wound". 22: 19 TOV /3if3Xioi/ rrjs Trpo^jjreias ravtr^s, "this prophetic book". 10

13 16. Noun in Construct for Adjective. (GK 128/m). 3: 18 = 7? aicrxi'vri tt^s yvuvorritos aov, "thy shameful nakedness". 18: 3 Trjs 6uuaij. (j}s Tov atprjvovs avtrjs, "her great wantonness". Possibly 18: 10, 15 may well be interpreted thus. There is no reason why the merchants should be "afraid of her torment", but if the phrase be taken with what follows instead of with what precedes, it makes excellent sense; e.^., v. 15,... dro /lakpodev (TTrjaovraL 5td tov 4)6(3ov tov ^aaavtanov avt-qs KKaiovTes... i.e., the merchants shall stand afar off, "because of her fearful torment weeping and mourning". Similarly v Kai Representing Waw Consecutive, introducing an Apodosis. "The perfect consecutive is very frequently employed with a certain emphasis to introduce the apodosis after sentences (or their equivalents) which contain a condition, a reason, or a statement of time." (cf. GK 112 ff, mm, nn, oo.) All three varieties are exemplified in Ap. (a) a condition 3: 20 "If any man hear my voice, and open the door, /cat etcexeiao/xat...". Charles (Ap I, p. 101) has "with some hesitation followed ^Q, a considerable body of cursives, s' and Prim, in retaining the Kal before the apodosis". The hesitation is unnecessary, for it is a clear case of a Hebrew idiom. With this cf. 14: 9, 10 "If any man worship..., Kal avtos -metal. (b) a reason 16: 6 "because they have shed the blood of samts... Kal ai/xa avtols 5eocoKas TrteTv. AV R\' wrongly ''arrd thou hast given". (c) a statement of time- 6: 12 " I saw when he opened the seal, there was a great earthquake". RY "and (AV 'and lo') there was a great earthquake". Similarly 10: Coordination of Complementary \'erbs. The principal idea is introduced by the second verb (GK 1206?). Examples are: 5: 7; 8: 3; 15: 4; 17: 1; 21: 9. This is common in Hebrew wuth imperatives, used as interjections (GK120g) ; so in Ap 4: 1; 10:8,9; 11 : 1; 16: 1 ; 17: 1 ; 19: 17; and 21: Circumstantial Clauses. This characteristic of Hebrew style (GK156) is found in Ap: 2: 17 " I will give him a white stone, and upon the stone a new name written''. So also 2: 18; 9: 7, 8, 9, 17; 10: 1; 12: 1, 3; 13: 1; 17: o, 14; 19: 12; and 21:

14 20. An Object Sentence, with the Logical Subject attracted into the Governing Clause. (GK ll7h). This is found in Ap 21: 23 "The city has no need of the sun, nor of the moon, that they should shine on it". Probably 16: 13, 14 is another example "I saw... three unclean spirits that they were going forth..''. Cf. also 18: Passive expressed by use of Indefinite Third Plural Active. (GK 144g). This is another construction which is commoner in Aramaic than in Hebrew, but which is sufficiently common in Hebrew to have its value, when it is seen that the weight of evidence points rather to Hebrew than to Aramaic. Examples are: 10: 11; 12: 6; and 16: Prepositions used as in Hebrew. It is admitted that a number of the following uses can be paralleled in the papyri. Whereas they are there, for the most part, exceptional, it is remarkable that in Ap they follow, almost invariably, the use of the corresponding Hebrew prepositions. (a) uses of Hebrew Q. In 14: 20 and 12: 6 this is represented by tttto, elsewhere by e/c. causative 8: 11, 13; and 16: 21. partitive 5: 5, 9; 7: 13; 11: 9; 13: 3; 15: 7; 17: 1; 18: 4; and 21: 9. comparative 14: 20; 15: 2; and perhaps 17: 11. of means 3: 18; 9: 2; 17: 2; 18: 19. of agent 12: 6. of material 8:5; 18: 1. (b) uses of Hebrew 7^, represented by one possible translation of it, cttt with accusative. This preposition appears frequently with the accusative in Ap. but hardly ever will it bear the normal Greek sense of (motion) "over, towards, against". On the other hand, with two exceptions (5: 1; 17: 8), it bears one or other of the meanings of ^^. "at, beside" 3: 20; and 8: 3 (ace. in text of A. 025, 1, etc.). "on, upon" (of rest) 6: 5; 13: 1; 14: 1, 14; 19: 11, 16 (bis); and 20: 4 (ter). "concerning" 14: 6. 12

15 . 23. Incorrect Rendering of V^erbal Tenses. Just as translation from an uninfiected language to an inflected one will leave its mark on concord, so the contrast of the two tenses of the Hebrew verb with the numerous tenses and moods of the Greek will be seen in a wrong use of Greek tenses. What theorv but that of translation can bear the weight of such astonishing phenomena as the following? (verbs in subordmate clauses are not taken into account). 2: 2, 3 aor. pres. aor. perf. (perf. e.xpected). 4:9, 10 fut. fut. fut (pres. expected). 5: 9 pres. (impf. or aor. expected). 7: 10 pres. (impf. expected). 7:15 pres. pres. fut. (fut. expected). 9-6 pres. (fut. expected). Alford explams this by calling it "the pres. of habitual avoidance", but it would be difficult to find some such explanation for every case in the Ap where the pres. seems to stand for the fut. 10: 8-11 ptc. ptc. aor. pres. aor. aor. impf. aor. pres. (impf. or aor. cxocctcd ) 11: 3-11 fut. fut. (pres. ptc.) pres. pres. pres. pres. pres. fut. fut. fut. (om.) pres. pres. pres. pres. fut. aor. aor. aor. (tut. expected throughout).. 12: 1-4 aor. ptc. pres. aor. l5ov pres. aor. perf. (aor. or impt. expected). Cf. also 5: 5, 10; 6: 16; 13: 12-16; 16: 21; 18: 11; 19: 3, 10; 20:9; 21: 24; 22: 5, 9. Two things are to be noticed ; first, that the difficulty often arises from the various meanings of the Hebrew Impf. (impf., pres., and fut ) and, where that does not operate, it may be traced to the misunderstanding, in an unpointed text, of a Waw Consecutive tor Simple Waw and vice versa. Examples of the latter are o : 9 iu y, ;. 11; and perhaps 2: 3; 5: 10; and 12: 4. Present participles are found where aor. or perf. participles are expected in 7: 14; 15: 2; 22: 14 (?). 24, StSojjui in W'ider Senses than "Give". Like ]n^ in Hebrew, 6I5wiui in Ap has the meanings "put, set, appoint, allow, requite", e.g., 3: 8; 7: 2; 8: 3; 9: 5; 11: 3; 13: 7, 14; 16: 8; and 19: Tras with ov or ov fxi], for Hebrew 7^ 5<7- ovseis is expected. The other is barbarous Greek. Examples are: 18: 22; 21: 27; and 22: 3. 13

16 . 26. Infinitive used with special uses of Hebrew Infinitive Construct. (a) adverbial (gerund) 13: 6 "he opened his mouth... hjaspheming..." 16: 9 "they did not repent... in giving him glory". 16: 19 "Babylon was remembered... in the giving to her of the cup..." 22: 12 "my reward is with me, in giving to each.. {b) gerundive 12: 7 M... ToD TToXen^aat, Michael "had to fight". (other possible explanations of this infinitive are given in the section on "Mistranslations", in loc.) 13: 10 (text of A) "if any one is to be slain (iliroktavoyjpat) with the sword, he must be slain {&TroKTav9fjvaL) with the sword." See note in Charles "Revelation", vol. 1, p " 27. KaL with uses of Hebrew Copula. (a) Adversative "but" 2: 21; 3:1. (b) Purpose "so that" 2: 23; 13: 8; and perhaps 11: 15. (c) Causative "because, for" 12:11; 19:3; and perhaps 18* 3 (d) Explicative "even" 1: 6; 2: 13, 19; 12: 5; 14: 10; 19: 5 ' (text of A. 046, etc.) ; : 9, and perhaps 1 : 19 ; 3 : 1 : ; (e) Introducing an Apodosis 1: 18; 3: 17, 20; 6: 12; 10: 7; 14: 10; 16: Miscellaneous Idioms of Less Frequent Occurrence. 2: 5 (pxoiial or cognate verb in present tense as "futurum instans", possible in Greek but commoner in Hebrew. Found in Ap here and in 1:4, 7, 8; 2:16; 3:11; 4: 8; 9: 12; 11: 7, 14; 16: 15; 17: 11; 22: 7, 12, 20. 2: 21 niravorjaai U for ^ '2)\Ij- So Charles in loc. 2: 22 2D^C7 /DJ is idiomatic for "to take to one's bed", so that the phrase here means "behold, I cast her upon a bed of illness". So Charles, cf. 1 Mace. 1: 5. 2: 23 "search the reins and hearts". a Hebrew phrase, cf. Jer. 11:20. 3: 9 hu^ttiov TU)v Tro8C}i> is Hebrew, cf. Esth. 8: 3; 2 Ki. 4: 37, cf. enttpoadfv Tuv ttosuv in 22: 8. 3: 17 "the wretched and the (text of A. 046, etc.) miserable." Use of the article to determine the class, (GK 126/, n). 4:8 iv Kad' iv Distributive use of "IPIJ^- 5:6 1' /ifcro)... h ^ii(rv = V'^..... ^2 and.".. 14 "between.

17 6: 1 Mici»' = "in^ used as ordinal "first". So also 9: ^i-oma autw^l';) Cti^. a common phrase. So also 9: 11. 6:16 (i7r6 7rpocTa;7roi; = ^:=:r:d "for fear of". So also 12:1 4and 20: 11., 7: 9 kv6:wiou. Usual in LXX for i^cy Thirty times in Ap. 8: 7 The normal Greek construction after ^llyvv^il is ace. and dat. The kv here suggests 3 after 3"]^; cf. Psalm 106: 35. 8: 11 TO bvoyia \ky^tal = ^\2^ \^1\^l cf. Deut. 25: 10. 8: 13 Three-fold repetition as superlative, cf. GK 133: k, I. 11: 6 I'eros jspexi? may be '.'extraordinary", as has been said; but in Hebrew the cognate noun and verb are used; e.g., Isa. 5:6. 11: 6 atpk4>tlv eis ai/ia = D"l7 "jcn E^- 7: : 5 -Koikoi is for r\z^]^ i" ^he sense "act with effect"; cf. BDB, p. 794a. 13: 12 Tras placed after and in apposition to the word it qualihes, as ^2 in Hebrew; cf. BDB, p ^, 620, 1918, 2019 read aivara, the idiomatic Hebrew plur. Similarly 046, 051, etc., in 18: : 17 esa'kcv ts Tas»cap5ias. cf. Neh. 7: 5 in Heb. 19: 2 6 e5ur?(rev... kk x^^p^^ <^^rfis. cf. 2 K^. 9: 7, in Heb., also Rev. 6: : 5 alvkui with dat. for ^^r\ with ^, cf. 1 Chr. 16: 4, etc. 19 : 9 fiakclplol with ptc. for n^x with ptc. So also 22 : 7, 14, etc. 19: 21 kxopracd-qcav kk for p ^3^- cf. BDB, p : 2 6 Mtff^os y^ov yitr k^iov. cf. Heb. of Isa. 40: : 5 Charles sees that (po^tlaet. kir' (reading of A^, etc.) is for -)^5<^ with ^; cf. Psalm 118: 27. TRANSLITERATIONS AND APPARENT MISTRANSLATIONS FROM HEBREW FOUND IN TEXT OF THE APOCALYPSE HI THE The evidence submitted heretofore, in the judgment of the writer makes the hypothesis of a Hebrew original of the Ap not only tenable but probable. On general grounds it is likely; it is more so when the overwhelming evidence of the idiom is considered. But it is still open to the objector to claim that the case is "not 15

18 proven!', unless we can bring conclusive evidence of mistranslation Such will, I suggest, be found in this section. It may possibly remain a question what is to be considered conclusive proof, as in an investigation of this kind, it is impossible to attain the absolute certainty of a mathematical demonstration. The evidence, however, approximates to certainty as nearly as is possible in the circumstances. The cases which are examined in the following pages are sometimes capable of another explanation than that of mistranslation, but when the preponderance of Hebrew idiom is duly considered, such an explanation becomes the more likely. On the other hand, there are some other cases where the recognition of a Hebrew original supplies the only sufficient elucidation of the text. Transliterations are grouped with mistranslations in this section, because they are proofs of translation of a somewhat similar kind. Apart from proper names, and words where the Hebrew form is purposely retained (like 'A\\r]\ovLa), they indicate doubt or misunderstanding on the part of a translator, and increase in the inverse ratio of his ability. The evidence follows: Transliterations 3: 14 6 iinriv This phrase is meaningless if given the usual connotation of 0^^; "I am the 'so be it'". A somewhat similar phrase in Isa. 65: 16 p^ 'Tl/'i^ sheds some light on it. Here some scholars read p^ ^H^^ "the God of faithfulness", following the LXX. Here it may be the noun (supposing the Hebrew to have been unpointed), "the Truth", or, better, an adj. of the same form as the adv. jq^, just as in Syr., the same word, 'amtn, means "so be it" and (as adj.), "true, eternal". "Thussaith the Eternal", makes sense of the passage at any rate, though whether such an explanation is correct may remain a question. It is as good as any other that has been put forward, in the writer's view. But the point which is certain is that it was a difficulty which a translator dealt with by transliteration. An author writing in Greek would not have written down what is meaningless. 9: 11 'AI3a88u)P Charles (II, p. 291) rightly regards Kai h rrj 'EWrjviKrj bvotia txet 'AnoWvoiv... as a gloss, observing how the Lat. Vss. add in their turn "et latine habet nomen Exterminans". 16

19 Doubtless 'E0pai(TTl is also a gloss put in by the translator. It is precisely in proper names that we expect transliteration, and here jn^i^ is personified. Further, ]n3^ does not mean "destroyer" but "destruction", and with one exception is rendered in LXX by ATrojXeia. The same hand could hardly have written 'A/3a55wv and 'AttoXXuwv in this passage, in which case an unexplained Hebrew word, used as a proper name, appears in the text. The best way is to take it as an example of transliteration. 12: 10 6 KaTTjTwp. The form is unknown to Greek writers, and has been recognized by commentators as a transcription of the Rabbinic word 1i:i''C0p. which in turn is equivalent to Kar-hyopos. It can hardly be maintained that a writer composing in Greek, would go out of his way to use the Hebrew equivalent of a common Greek word. For a translator to retain a quasi-proper-name of his source, is much more likely. 16: 16 "Ap Maye86iv. Whether this be understood as "the mountain of Megiddo" or "his fruitful mountain" (with Cheyne), the meaning is uncertain. What more likely than that the uncertainty goes back to the translator, and is the reason for the transliteration? We now come to deal with Mistranslations Various causes may operate to produce these, such as corruption of the text before the translator; the fact that words in the one language have no exact equivalent in the other, so that primary and secondary meanings are confused; and misunderstanding ot the grammatical construction used. The last named have been dealt with, to some extent, in the previous section. No classification will be attempted, but the text of the Ap will be exaniined in order Any grammatical evidence which may come Jo light, and which has not previously been dealt with, will be included in this section where it occurs. 1 : 5 Perhaps Charles is right here in giving to Trpwroro/cos the secondary sense of the Hebrew lod. "sovereign". 1-6 The best text here (that of A^C, etc.) is very awkward Its meaning is clear, however, and the text has been emended The origin of the phrase is widely to isacixeiav Kal... Iepe2s. 17

20 found in Ex. 19: 6, Qi^HD r\^bl2td> which the LXX renders ^aaixetov Updrevida, Aquila ^aacktla Upecov, Symm., Theod. ^aaikeia Upus. But nr*^l^r^ ^^y be either absolute or construct. The text fiaaixeiav, Upels, i.e., equals D'^^nZ' (or, 111^/10) HrT'DD which in turn equals "a kingdom of priests". Or it may be a case of nominal opposition. 1: 7 Possibly Kal o'lrlves represents "^ti^^, and the line should be read "every eye shall see him whom they have pierced". 1:9 vtvopovrj "patience" is not of a kind with "tribulation" and "kingdom", and suggests a secondary meaning. In the LXX vttofxovr] stands for nlpn which means rather "hope" ti: than "patience". It seems better to read "in the tribulation and in the kingdom, and in hope in Jesus". 1: 11 N.B., dat of rats ekkxr^aials carried on by els with ace. Both are for 7. 1: 16 ekttopevofjlkvr], not "going out" but "projecting", a use of ^1J\ TT 1 : 18 The phrase 6 ^ojv Kal kyevonrjv vekpos cannot be explained as the resolution of a participle into a finite verb because, for, as Burney points out, it is not in sequence. Charles goes astray because he does not realize that 6 ^cou stands for the Hebrew ptc. " n which may also be an adj. Consequently RV is right in reading "I am the first and the last, and the Living one; and (better, "though") I was dead, and (introducing apodosis) behold I am alive for evermore". 2:1 Tw ayytxca rw (reading of AC) kv 'E</>t(raj kkk\r}aias. This extraordinary construction, repeated in 2: 12, 18, defies explanation except as Hebrew in GK dress. The art. tw does not stand for rrjs, but is to betaken with the whole phrase h 'E^eacj K«X7jata$, which is then seen to consist of an apposition of nouns like Dan. 8: 2 ntdh JC^lCi^D- {]l^w may very well be a cstr.) cf. the common phrase in the Elephantine papyri, "in Yeb 18

21 the fortress". The words may be in apposition whether or not the first represents a cstr., as the Hebrew behind our Greek was taken to do by the translator. 2: 2 /SacTTafo) the sense "endure" is rare in the papyri, and is only once found in cl. Gk. But it is fairly common for {<?^J (cf. BDB, p. 671a). 2: 4 a(f)rjkas "leave", a meaning common in Jn., but not found in pap. It probably stands for n?2^. cf. Syr. here. 2: 10 Frequent use of fikwoj in Ap may represent "TTiy- 2: 14 6\Lya = ^}^l2 (a) "a few"; (b) "a little". Here (b). 2:23 nj (BDB, p. 6796) "requite", cf. 1 Ki. 8: 39. In the rest of the NT this is atrosidco/jli. 2: 27 TTOijjLavel reading Dy"in foi" Di^^n. as in Ps. 2: 9, or, giving ni^t the sense "devastate, destroy", cf. BDB, p. 945a. So Charles in loc. 2: 27 For to. (TKebr] to. Kepa/jiLKa we expect (akevos) KepoLfxews, as in Ps. 2:9. In an unpointed text the two might be exactly the same, viz., 1^1 ^^^ and Hlj'i ^^3, cf. Isa. 29: 18. 3:3 xwj RV "how", MofTatt "what". HO means both. T 3:3 rr/peco does not seem to be the right word. Possibly it is equivalent, here, to 4>v\acracjj, which in the LXX often ="ini which, in turn means in the Niph. "to be warned, admonished". This is exactly what is wanted here. 3: 9 In some way, irofqao} avrois 'iva rj^ovaiv resumes 5i5a) e/c rrjj avvayoiyris... tcov \eybutoiv.... It is hard to see how this can be, until one recognizes that is a clumsy periphrasis for the Hiph, of 5<l2, and that 5t5co/xi, also may translate the Hiph. of ^12, as in Dan. 9: 24; Prov. 23: 12; and Ps. 78: 29. The verse now flows smoothly:. ]^^r\ Sip p ^^^3^: ' J^n... Di<''D^ 'JJH 19

22 3: 14 apxv in LXX C^f^^-^ or ]i2^{«<"]. With this v. cf. Col. 1: 15, irpcctotokos Tracrris Kricrecos and read "the head of the creation". 3: 17 OTL \ey(ls "'when', 'though' thou sayest", rather than "because": all are meanings of "'3. 4:2 In a long note (p. 109, ff., vol. I), Charles deals with the difficulty created by the words ewkws kyevo^mrjv h wvtvjj.ati.. Very properly, he urges that the Seer is already in the ecstatic state (cf. 1: 10; 4: 1), and that it is a mistake to maintain that a higher degree of exaltation is here necessary, as De Wette, B. Weiss, Swete, and others have done. Charles himself explains the text by resorting to the hypothesis that the Seer is here combining visions received on different occasions. But a much better solution arises from the theory of a Hebrew original. The tendency of Apocalyptic writers to cast their material into a framework has been noted before. If with 4: 1, 2 we compare 17: 1-3 and 21: 9-10 we shall find an instructive parallel: 4:1, 2 a Summons kydko^s kyivbplrjv h irvtviiajl a Vision. 17: 1-3 a Summons Kal airrjueyke p. h TTvevixaTL a Vision. 21: 9, 10 a Summons KaL air-qveyke /xe ev wvev/jlatl a X'^ision. It would appear that the puzzling opening words of 4: 2 are a corruption of /cat airriveyke ne. The familiar tvdvs of Mark is often interchanged with the adverbial form ewews which we have here (vide Thayer: Lexicon), yet ewvs is properly an adj. and is found in the LXX for 12^"'. This is the key to our problem. T T viz., cu^ecos tykvoixr]v tv tt is ni^d ''J^^ "It!^^ and Kal airrfveyke fie kv ir is m~)3 ''J^^^^l The Waw consecutive has been filled in above the line, and later inserted after the ^ and read as a 1. 4:11 Perhaps the last line should read ^51^3 T "]J"11>"1D ^"i'^1-5:2, 3 d tos (v. 2) =e8vvato (v. 3). Both are for ^^'^ which connotes both moral and physical ability. 5:5 kvurjaev' In Ps. 51: 6 vi/caco is for H^] which in Pi. means "to be justified" and so "to be worthy". This gives a much better sense in this verse. 6: 2 If Kal 'iva be taken as T purp., we might render "and 20

23 victoriously he went forth to conquer", rather than the tautologous "he went forth conquering and to conquer". 7:1 -nav (reading of i<5, 625, etc.) is used for n here and in 9: 4 (bis); this must be for 72* which means both. 7: 10 ni^l^'^ means "salvation". It also means "victory", which suits the context better here so also 12: 10; 19: 1. 7: 15 "shall dwell among them" for (XK-qydcaiL kr avrovs, as AV, is impossible. RV recognizes this, and gives "shall spread his tabernacle over them". ok-qvooi, as noted elsewhere, is chosen for its assonance with p5^. It is used of the ntn'' "1133 "resting upon" or "overshadowing" Mount Sinai, in Ex. 24: 16. "Overshadow" suits this verse. 7: 17 cttt fwtjs 7rr?7ds vdarcov is awkward. The phrase is from Jer. 2: 13 Q^^fi 0"*^^ mpd. in LXX Trriyijv vdaros fwvros. could be trans- It is hardly accidental that Q^^H D^D """lipd lated (1) "fountains of living waters" (2) "living fountains of waters" (3) "fountains of waters life". The coincidence of the noun "life" with the masc. plur. of the adj. "living", is responsible for more than one difficulty in Ap. 8: 3 Charles (vol. I, p. 226) desiderates eu for awos. He does not note that the exchange is possible on the basis of a Hebrew text; e.g., Dan. 8: 13, where LXX has eapov instead of hos, i.e., ^^^fl for-in^- cf. 8: 13. T V 8:3 SuaeL Tats irpoaevxah. Here duaet is "offer" (BDB, p. 679a). The dat. following it may the nota accusativi H^ (or, 7) taken as the prep. "with". Or, it may be 7 (BDB, p. 512a) "for, as 8: 5 The omission of the pronominal obj. after e/3axev is possible but strange. It may not be without significance that, while XtjSavcoTos is masc, its Hebrew equivalent ncohd is fem., so that the verb, being Lamedh He and unpointed, could be taken as with or without the 3rd sing. fem. sfx., viz., n"l1n or nilh- 21

24 10: 1 TToSes should be given the secondary meaning of 73I1 "legs". So Charles in loc. 10: 7 An alternative explanation to that of Charles, of the difficult otav /iexxp aaxtrifeti' is that orav stands for the rel. *12L^5^, and should be translated "who". newjj then retains the sense "is about to". 10: 7 Tovs 8ov\ovs ace. 7 for 7 of agent after "^i^^s. 10: 11 cf. Dan. 7: 17, where "kings" is used for "kingdoms". 11: 8 The omission of the verb in the clause to Trroj/ia avrcjv kirl TTjs 7rXar tas... may ptc. fem. of rov> ^^"s: H 7^ D be due to the dropping out of the Hoph. 11: 15 Probably for ^^^"1^5 7 possessive lamedh. 12: 7 Three possibilities are open for the understanding of tov TToXtfirjcraL. (a) as gerundive "^Michael... had to fight.. (b) as inf. abs. continuing the narrative. (c) Niph. perf. QH 7^ read as Niph. inf. DH^J-.'' (so Charles). 12: 8 With Charles read OH 7 for avrcbu. 12: 9 AtdiSoXos /cat 6 Zaravas... At first sight, the appearance together of a transliterated Hebrew word and its translation, might seem to tell against the theory of translation, for it is difficult to account for the appearance of both in the original. There are at least three possible explanations: (a) Aid/3oXos may be for the ptc. tpt^. '^^ > "the accuser and Satan", cf. v KaT-fjycop and 6 KaT-qyopuv. (b) )^i^ may be the original in both cases; first, without the article because a proper name, as in 1 Chr. 21: 1; second, with the article as in Job 1, 2; Zech. 3; the two being in apposition "Satan, even the Satan" (accuser). (c) Ai(ii3oXos /cat may be a gloss; eth. omits. 22

25 12: 12 Ace. after ouai because 7 dat. has been mistaken for the sign of the ace, or, because "^^^ is sometimes followed by imphcit ace. (BDB, p. 17a). 12: 8 laxvaiv in sense of "prevail" as 7^^ in Dan. 7: 21, or p^innin Dan. 11:7. 12: 17 atrfjxdeu is strange. It may well be the use of 'y\^ 'ike n''din (BDB, p. 998a) "to do again", i.e., ".he made war again". 13: 3 With Charles, take dwiao} as equal ^"inxi-. ^ corruption for nivx-ld. 13: 4 OTL for "^5!^^^, should here be rendered "who". 13: 10 Here and at 17: 9 wse may point to "iin for n^h- T 13: 10 The meaning of HJID^ "faithfulness" suits the context better than the more usual meaning of Trto-ns. 13: 11 For XdXei = "^2"in I would suggest the emendation 2Jn "and a tail" (cf. 12: 4), which seems better than either Gunkel's IJ^HI or Charles' 1Di<nV 13: 15 avrfi (reading of AC 025). Probably, as Charles suggests, because n^h is fern. 14: 13 tva for 13 ",for". This is at least as good as the jussive use suggested by J. O. F. Murray in Moulton: "Prolegomena", p : 15, 16 rk^xypov and e^axev are both possible renderings of n^5i^ used with '^JJiC. cf. Joel 4: : 6 Xldov may be a mistranslation of ^\^*, which means both "marble" and "fine linen". So Charles in loc. Possibly, however, it is a corruption in the Greek text. 16: 7 Tov dvcnaattjplou. The first ^ of D^TDii^ "one from the altar" may have dropped out. This relieves the difficulty simply and effectively. 17: 5 TTopvuv. Read HI^T for HUt, as Charles. 23

26 18: 6, 7 d7r65ore, SiTrXwaare, /cepacrarf, Sore; four imperatives which, if Hebrew, can be read as infinitives, dependent on knvrinovevaev. cf. 10: 19, B.... ejjlvtjadt]... dovvai. 18: 8 irevoos is not right. Charles suggests p'^t] "pangs", but a comparison of Jer. 24: 10; 29: 17; Ezek. 6:11, points rather to ISin "sword". 18: 21 The difficult opurjiian may have some light thrown on it by Psalm 73: 18 m^^lt^^d^ Dn^Cn "thou castest them down to destruction", when it is noted that opui] is the equivalent of ^\^!2 in Num. 11: 11, : 22 fiovfflku>i/ = D^"T'I1^ "songs" is corrupt for Q^lti^ "singers". So Charles. 19: 2 Read ^^^ "who" for second on. 20: 12 dxxo /3i/3Xiov TivoixOrj, 6 kari rrjs fw^j. cf. 1 Enoch 47: 3 "the books of the living were opened before Him"; Isa. 4: 3 "every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem"; and Psalm 69: 29 "the book of life" (or, "the living"). Having noted these passages, and the Hebraic order of the Greek, one is disposed to read here as a parenthesis L J> ID^TI^ "ICi-'i^ "in^ "ICto nnci "but another book was opened for the living" (who have already been judged, according to Charles, vol. H, p. 192 ff.). It is another case of the confusion of "'"'n "living" and "^Tl "life". 20: 13 Even if 17 daxaaaa is impossible in this context, Charles is hardly justified in concluding that it is the result of a deliberate change in the text. The Hebrew which would underlie our present Greek is DTlDH (H^^) D^D IH"^!- With this cf. 1 Enoch 62: 15, 10 "in those days shall the earth also give back... and Sheol... and Hell..",. and it will seem that our Greek is corrupt for D^nnn (n^^) nr:-iv^ ]nnv There may ultimately be a connection in the development of apocalyptic phraseology between the QTl here and the Q^llJli^n "treasuries" desiderated by Charles. Textual corruption plays its part in the growth of tradition, not only in phraseology but in ideas, and the following chain is by no means impossible 21: 25 vv^ yap ovk (rrat tke'i does not follow from the first part of the verse. Comparing Isa. 60: 11, one concludes that the text 24

27 ran n^^ nb^b) Dr2V n'^^vi^ n:[0'' ^b) and that the last word was read 1^ ^7, which gives our text. Certainly ','the gates shall not be shut day or night forever" is a happier sense. The present text may be a conflation with 22: 5. 22: 14 'Lva is for waw "for", misunderstood as waw of purpose; "who". or, more simply, for the relative particle "ICi'J^, IV CONCLUSION If one may be permitted to imitate the oft-quoted words of Driver on the date of Daniel in LOT, it might be fair to say that the mistranslations of the Apocalypse demand, the idioms support, and the general considerations permit the conclusion that in this book we have a Hebrew apocalypse translated into Greek. Charles himself has not been far from this conclusion, and one wonders how, in justice to the evidence he has adduced, he could stop short of it. Indeed he argues in one place that Cap. 12 is a translation, only to withdraw this later, apparently because he sees that it will involve the translation of the whole book. This is more than he is prepared to admit. As a matter of fact, both idioms and mistranslations are widely distributed, and occur in the chapters of Revelation in approximately the following numbers I, 16; II, 33; III, 25; IV, 7; V, 14; VI, 18; VII, 16; VIII, 15 IX, 14; X, 18; XI, 25; XII, 26; XIII, 27; XIV, 17; XV, 8 XVI, 16; XVII, 20; XVIII, 14; XIX, 22; XX, 9; XXI, 14 XXII, 10. This will not give an exact idea of the frequency of Hebraisms, owing to the variation in the length of chapters, but it will show that they are to be found elsewhere than where sources have been suspected on account of subject matter. While arguing that the whole book has been translated from Hebrew, the writer does not deny the probability that, in common with most apocalypses, it is composite in origin. There are undeniable distinctions of style and usage between different parts of the book, but the strata seem to be in the Hebrew and not in the Greek. Finally it must be said that the argument will not appeal with equal force to those who know Hebrew and those who do not. The one will dispute individual points and disprove thereby for himself the whole. The other, with a sense for Hebrew and translation Greek, will feel a force to the argument of which the first is not aware. It is like the argument for religion, which does not depend entirely on statistics. 25

28

29

30

31

32