Skip to content

Revelation 21:4

point taken. Just keeping the interface with prosopa clean. Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — March 10th, 2014, 2:40 am
I think I should remind people that B-Hebrew exists too. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — March 10th, 2014, 1:46 am
 
David Lim wrote:
RandallButh wrote:In Hebrew and Aramaic פנים and אפין are in the plural for both 'face' and 'surface'.
But it's grammatically singular even though morphologically plural (Gen 19:1), like water (Gen 18:4), right?
you mean like mayim is grammatically plural. gen 19.1 appaim is dual. Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — March 10th, 2014, 1:27 am
 
RandallButh wrote: In Hebrew and Aramaic פנים and אפין are in the plural for both 'face' and 'surface'.
But it's grammatically singular even though morphologically plural (Gen 19:1), like water (Gen 18:4), right? Statistics: Posted by David Lim — March 9th, 2014, 10:05 pm
 
RandallButh wrote: In Hebrew and Aramaic פנים and אפין are in the plural for both 'face' and 'surface'. While we don't know how the Syriac made a mess of things, they did.
Yes they did, but it seems that all we have of the Syriac for the Apocalypse of John is one six century MS and later revisions of it. So if we were looking only at on Greek MS e.g. Sinaiticus it would also be a mess. In fact reading Juan Hernandez[1] on Sinaiticus in the Apocalypse has been somewhat of eye opener. [1]Juan Hernández Jr., Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse: The Singular Readings of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi (WUNT 2 .218; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. 54.00. pp. xvii + 241. ISBN 3—16 —149112 —2) Thanks again Randall. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — March 9th, 2014, 3:29 pm
In Hebrew and Aramaic פנים and אפין are in the plural for both 'face' and 'surface'. While we don't know how the Syriac made a mess of things, they did. Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — March 9th, 2014, 12:35 pm
thank you for the links. I think that they clear things up. 'her face' is an idiom in Syriac that means 'her face' and also 'her surface' 'its surface'. In Syriac, this can mean 'on her/it', that is 'on the ground' 'on earth' 'on the streets of the new city', etc. Yes, the Syriac texts also have "I went" rather than 'former things departed.' It appears that a Syriac tradition read prota as prosopa at some stage and simply interpreted the 'non-Greek' as its own Aramaic idiom. prosopa doesn't make sense in Greek. Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — March 9th, 2014, 1:22 am
The links to J. Gwynn's work are not functional. I did some screen shots and loaded them in drop-box. https://www.dropbox.com/s/kt0w69zlpbp0t ... 1%20PM.png https://www.dropbox.com/s/s0hqxi0mg5pjg ... 2%20PM.png https://www.dropbox.com/s/ulaahcnkj4lgy ... 3%20PM.png Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — March 8th, 2014, 4:52 pm
I spent an hour or so reviewing this idiom in the Hebrew OT and LXX. Thanks to Randall, the exercise was worth the effort and payed off with a better understanding of the idiom. The idiom is extremely common in the Hebrew bible. Found only one place in the LXX where the plural πρόσωπα was followed by a singular pronoun[1]. My conclusion from this is J. Gwynn's back translation ἔτι ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῆς which is found in UBSGNT3 and TextComm 1st ed. is at best misleading and I wonder why it ever made it into the UBSGNT3 and TextComm 1st ed., but that is ancient history. J. Gwynn's back translation in context: https://archive.org/stream/apocalypseof ... 9/mode/2up [1] 2Kings 14:11 καὶ οὐκ ἤκουσεν Αμεσσιας. καὶ ἀνέβη ὁ βασιλεὺς Ισραηλ, καὶ ὤφθησαν προσώποις αὐτὸς καὶ Αμεσσιας βασιλεὺς Ιουδα ἐν Βαιθσαμυς τῇ τοῦ Ιουδα· This is NOT an example of the idiom under consideration. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — March 8th, 2014, 12:10 pm
clay, I would need to see the whole variant paragraph before commenting on the referent of "her". I only commented on the word to remove the 'mystery' that was building so that the word would be viewed as itself. Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — March 8th, 2014, 10:03 am
 
RandallButh wrote: The Aramaic and Syriac is straightforward and non-issue. But to answer in English, one might first ask whether βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν means 'kingdom of heaven' or kingdom of heaverns'? [[The idiom, of course, is based on the Hebrew idiom מלכות שמיים, please note that there is no article in the Hebrew idiom. Ever. (In antiquity it was a fixed idiom.) The phrase מלכות שמיים is one of the items that groups Jesus with the Pharisees against the Qumranians.]] Back to the Aramaic and Syriac, אפיה ܐܦܝܗ is even clearer than 'heaven/s'. The singular אף/אנף refers to the 'nose'. The plural אפין is the idiomatic and common way to refer to 'face' and is most commonly used with a possessive pronoun when definite. (The form ܐܦܝܗ BTW is plural 'her face'.)
Hello Randall, Thank you for dropping into this thread. How would you translate the whole variant in English? and there will be no longer any grief/pain on her face? Who his the referent of αὐτῆς? οὔτε πόνος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῆς. It sounds like Hoskier got it wrong. I am not surprised. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — March 8th, 2014, 9:35 am
The Aramaic and Syriac is straightforward and non-issue. But to answer in English, one might first ask whether βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν means 'kingdom of heaven' or kingdom of heaverns'? [[The idiom, of course, is based on the Hebrew idiom מלכות שמיים, please note that there is no article in the Hebrew idiom. Ever. (In antiquity it was a fixed idiom.) The phrase מלכות שמיים is one of the items that groups Jesus with the Pharisees against the Qumranians.]] Back to the Aramaic and Syriac, אפיה ܐܦܝܗ is even clearer than 'heaven/s'. The singular אף/אנף refers to the 'nose'. The plural אפין is the idiomatic and common way to refer to 'face' and is most commonly used with a possessive pronoun when definite. (The form ܐܦܝܗ BTW is plural 'her face'.) Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — March 8th, 2014, 9:04 am
Well I am clueless about the Peshitta, I though this was NOT the text from the Peshitta but a variant found only in one sixth manuscript syr(ph). I was enlightened by discovering that B. M. Metzger had a "source" or two (Gwynn, Hoskier). My current plan is to let what ever errors Gwynn, Hoskier may have made stand uncorrected. Could e-mail Sebastian Brock but I suspect he has other things to do. Make more sense to e-mail Peter J. Williams but I know he is busy. Thanks for the help. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — March 7th, 2014, 11:28 am
 
Stirling Bartholomew wrote: Perhaps I should refocus the question. What does this text mean? ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῆς] syr(ph) Reconstruction of J. Gwynn's text: Rev. 21:4 καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξαλείψει πᾶν δάκρυον ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν· καὶ ὁ θάνατος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι· οὔτε πένθος οὔτε κραυγὴ· οὔτε πόνος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῆς. see it in context here: https://archive.org/stream/apocalypseof ... 9/mode/2up At this point my problem is mostly about the genitive singular fem. pronominal suffix represented as αὐτῆς. It should be a genitive plural. It looks like a nonsense reading but I don't totally understand how a pronominal suffix works in Syriac. My previous suggestion that αὐτῆς refers back to the holy city has been dropped from consideration. The most obvious reading of οὔτε πόνος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῆς.: "nor will there be any longer pain on their faces" , right?
I found a translation in 1929 Text of the Apokalypse vol 1 and 2 p557, (indexed by Dirk Jongkind ,Tyndale House Cambridge)
(21:4d) [and not grief anymore will be] upon faces. And I went away (21:5a) and he said to me (syrS)
Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — March 6th, 2014, 5:44 pm
Perhaps I should refocus the question. What does this text mean? ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῆς] syr(ph) Reconstruction of J. Gwynn's text: Rev. 21:4 καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξαλείψει πᾶν δάκρυον ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν· καὶ ὁ θάνατος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι· οὔτε πένθος οὔτε κραυγὴ· οὔτε πόνος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῆς. see it in context here: https://archive.org/stream/apocalypseof ... 9/mode/2up At this point my problem is mostly about the genitive singular fem. pronominal suffix represented as αὐτῆς. It should be a genitive plural. It looks like a nonsense reading but I don't totally understand how a pronominal suffix works in Syriac. My previous suggestion that αὐτῆς refers back to the holy city has been dropped from consideration. The most obvious reading of οὔτε πόνος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῆς.: "nor will there be any longer pain on their faces" , right? Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — March 6th, 2014, 11:14 am
 
Stirling Bartholomew wrote: For the text highlighted above in Rev 21.4d the UBSGNT apparatus has this: ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῆς] syr(ph) My question: what does this back-translation represent in Syriac? For example, αὐτῆς looks like pronominal suffix which is obligatory, right?
If you want to know what the text of the Syriac is, you can look it up in the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon.
Peshitta Rev 21:4 wrote: ܘܗܘܼ ܢܠܚܐ ܟܿܠ ܕܿܡܥܐ̈ ܡܢ ܥܝܢܝܗܘܼܢ̈܂ ܘܡܘܬܿܐ ܠܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܡܟܿܝܠ܂ ܘܠܐ ܐܒܼܠܐ ܘܠܐ ܪܘܒܿܐ܂ ܘܠܐ ܟܿܐܒܼܐ ܬܿܘܼܒܼ ܢܗܘܐ ܥܠ ܐܦܿܝܗ̈܂
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — March 6th, 2014, 4:24 am
Rev 21.4d the UBSGNT apparatus has this: ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῆς] syr(ph) Looks to me like the referent of αὐτῆς is the holy city τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἁγίαν Ἰερουσαλὴμ καινὴν εἶδον καταβαίνουσαν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡτοιμασμένην ὡς νύμφην κεκοσμημένην τῷ ἀνδρὶ αὐτῆς According to J. Gwynn the verb απηλθον starts a new sentence. So are we getting close to having this figured out? Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — March 5th, 2014, 8:54 pm
I found a discussion of this in John Gwynn The Apocalypse of St. John in a Syriac version hitherto unknown, ed. from a MS. in the Library of the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres (1897) page 88-89 https://archive.org/stream/apocalypseof ... 9/mode/2up Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — March 5th, 2014, 8:13 pm
 
SBLG και εξαλειψει παν δακρυον εκ των οφθαλμων αυτων, και ο θανατος ουκ εσται ετι· ουτε πενθος ουτε κραυγη ουτε πονος ουκ εσται ετι. τα πρωτα απηλθαν. Byz R-P 2005 και εξαλειψει |εξαλειψει απ αυτων |παν δακρυον απο των οφθαλμων αυτων και ο θανατος ουκ εσται ετι ουτε πενθος ουτε κραυγη ουτε πονος ουκ εσται ετι οτι τα πρωτα |απηλθον NA27 Rev. 21:4 καὶ ἐξαλείψει πᾶν δάκρυον ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν, καὶ ὁ θάνατος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι οὔτε πένθος οὔτε κραυγὴ οὔτε πόνος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι, [ὅτι] τὰ πρῶτα ἀπῆλθαν.
For the text highlighted above in Rev 21.4d the UBSGNT apparatus has this: ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῆς] syr(ph) My question: what does this back-translation represent in Syriac? For example, αὐτῆς looks like pronominal suffix which is obligatory, right? Second question: do the english versions of the syriac (below) which look suspiciously like the AV or it's cousins actually represent what is going on here or did the translators just stick with what was familiar? (which often happens) I am assuming that the sixth cent. ms. Ph of the Apocalypse would be behind the text used in the english versions. Could of course be wrong about that.
(Murd) And every tear will be wiped from their eyes; and there will no more be death, nor mourning, nor wailing; nor shall pain be any more; because the former things are passed away. (Eth) And every tear shall be wiped away from their eyes, and death shall be no more; nor sorrow, nor clamour, nor pain, shall be any more; for the former things are passed away
full apparatus
[τὰ πρῶτα] 02, 025, 1006, 1841, 2053, 2062, WH, 1611, 051supp, 2030, 2065, 2073, 2329, 2377, 2432, al, Andrew,[ὅτι τὰ πρῶτα] 011, (94,) 1854, copsa, (copbo,) (NA,) 205, 209, arm, 2138, itar, itdem, (itgig,) itsin, vgcl, vgww, Augustine, Irenaeuslat, Tyconius, 046, 1859, 2020, (2042,) 2050, 2081, 2814, Byz, (pc,) syrh, (eth,) Arethas, Primasius, Quodvultdeus, ς, [ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῆς] syrph,[ὅτι ταῦτα] 2050,[quae prima] itc, itdiv, ithaf, vgst, Apringius, Beatus,[τὰ πρόβατα] 01*
Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — March 5th, 2014, 7:37 pm