Rev 21.4d Syriac back-translated into Greek

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 927
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Rev 21.4d Syriac back-translated into Greek

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » March 5th, 2014, 7:37 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*
0 x


C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 927
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Rev 21.4d Syriac back-translated into Greek

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » March 5th, 2014, 8:13 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
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 927
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Rev 21.4d Syriac back-translated into Greek

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » March 5th, 2014, 8:54 pm

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?
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα from ετιταπρωτααπ...

Post by Stephen Hughes » March 5th, 2014, 11:41 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:SBLG (Rev 21.4d)
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.
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:UBSGNT apparatus has this: ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῆς] syr(ph)
It's just a misreading of ἐπί for ἔτι, and τὰ πρόσωπα for τα πρωτα απ..., isn't it?

I would think that following from the presumption of τὰ πρόσωπα, αὐτῶν would be supplied not αὐτῆς, taking after ἐξαλείψει πᾶν δάκρυον ἀπὸ / ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν.
Stirling Bartholemew wrote: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.
The Syriac behind the translation is the Peshita which you can see here, after you search a bit. Hover over the words to see how to pronounce them.

The other assumption in your reasoning is that the text that the translator was working from has whole, try this for an idea...

Perhaps the manuscript that Polycarp was working from was unclear and/or missing something at this point, and he was getting to the end and fudged it just to get it finished. BUT!!! Plausible is plausibe, not necessarily right. Then again my conjecture, although sounding plausible may not be right either.

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:According to J. Gwynn the verb απηλθον starts a new sentence.
What sentence could that have been? Do you think?
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2809
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Rev 21.4d Syriac back-translated into Greek

Post by Stephen Carlson » March 6th, 2014, 4:24 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܂
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 927
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Rev 21.4d Syriac back-translated into Greek

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » March 6th, 2014, 11:14 am

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?
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 927
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Rev 21.4d Syriac back-translated into Greek

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » March 6th, 2014, 5:44 pm

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)
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Rethinking and going into the Syriac text

Post by Stephen Hughes » March 7th, 2014, 6:31 am

Your recent posts have given new clarifications and added extra evidence that appear to shutter up a number of the windows out of which I had been looking out of for opportunity.

I would need peer review / input before I assert forcefully this view which I'm about to postulate:
  • With regards to whether ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα corresponds to ετι τα πρωτα or to οτι τα πρωτα, there only seems to be one occurance of ܡܟܿܝܠ "hereafter" (in the negative - "any longer") - with the first ܢܗܘܐ (here) "will be" and not with the second, which suggested to me that I should hold the view that the second ετι was taken as ἐπὶ, and that the οτι wasn't there in the text that was being translated from. But... since the ܬܿܘܼܒܼ "(ever) again" is there, then that is fine. That would suggest that ἔτι is taken here with two different sense - a continuous thing will not continue, and a number of recurrent things will not recur.
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:It looks like a nonsense reading but I don't totally understand how a pronominal suffix works in Syriac.
My Syriac is a bit all over the place, but as good as I have, I'm willing to share with you.
The wikionary entry for ܐܦܐ shows that ܐܦܝܗ could only be the feminine plural form.

The dirrect answer to your question is that no ܐܦܐ doesn't need to have the feminine pronoun suffixed, but here it does have it.
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:My previous suggestion that αὐτῆς refers back to the holy city has been dropped from consideration.
If it is not the city then perhaps it is the bride. In some marriage customs is considered good for a bride to cry for the loss of her mother and family.
Stephen Carlson wrote: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܂
It is way off Greek topic-wise. If anyone would like to understand the Syriac to be more than foreign-looking pencil scratching, they could bear with the following poor explanation of mine.

If someone didn't want to do that, they could feel free to leave it on the side of their plate along with the cauliflower and scroll down to the next reply.

Most basic to following the Syriac is that the direction of reading the text begins with the first thing you can see on the right hand side of the first line and then moves from right to left across the lines, so the last word is the left-most word on the bottom most line.

Going from easiest to hardest now.... The conjunction -ܘ /w/ "and" is on the front of words. I count 5 of them, so let's mark them in green.
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܂
The next easy thing to recognise is the negative particle ܠܐ. I count 4 of them, and let's mark them (red of course :lol: ):
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܂
Next, the prepositons ܡܢ = ἀπό, ἐκ "from" and ܥܠ ἐπί "on". They are like how one part of the sentence flows to the next, so let's mark those blue ;) .
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܂
Now, lets have a look at the indeclinable words ܟܿܠ /kul/ "all", ܡܟܿܝܠ (ἔτι) "hereafter" / "already" / "therefore" and ܬܿܘܼܒܼ /tūb/ (ἔτι) "again" which I'll colour a dreadful shade of light blue because they don't stand out, but they are important none-the-less.
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܂
Having done just those few things, we do already understand a lot of the language of this verse. Amazing! We've had an easy run till now. 7 words have given us 14 meanings, That has been because the defence is deep in their own territory and the run has been unchallenged. Let's take it over the halfway line by adding to our knowledge the masculine pronoun ܗܘܼ /hū/ "he". To know this we have probably had to memorise four forms, viz. ܗܘܼ /hū/ "he", ܗܢܘܢ /hɑnon/ "they", "those" (m.), ܗܝ /hī/ "she", and ܗܢܝܢ /hɑne(j)n/ "they", "those"(f.). We had to do a little bit of logical thinking to realise that ܗܘܼ was one of four and which one it was, so let's colour that mauve to show we've gotten it and underline it because we had to work for it.
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܂
So, now we have 10 words for 15 meanings, things are getting a little more difficult. We could work through all the rest of the words and at the end get 4 points (rugby), or we could take a shot at a field-goal 3 points. We are not really trying to learn Syriac here on B-Greek, so let's skip the rest and just look at the structure that we have so far, and line it up with the Greek that we are familiar with....
ܢܠܚܐ - ἐξαλείψει (wash away - suggesting that the Greek was understood to mean wipe with a damp cloth not a dry one)
ܕܿܡܥܐ̈ (plural) - δάκρυον
ܥܝܢܝܗܘܼܢ̈ - ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν Look in the inflection section of the wikionary entry for ܥܝܢܐ to identify the form with αὐτῶν
ܡܘܬܿܐ - ὁ θάνατος
ܢܗܘܐ - ἔσται
ܐܒܼܠܐ - πένθος (grief / mourning)
ܪܘܒܿܐ - κραυγή (tumult)
ܟܿܐܒܼܐ - πόνος (grief / pain)
ܐܦܿܝܗ̈ - Does this plural form have singular meaning in Syriac? I suspect that it equates to πρόσωπον in Greek even though it is plural in form in the Syriac. That does away with the non-sense translation that "she" (whoever she may be), has a number of faces.

Anyway, lets underline those words which we can easily interline from the Greek - to let zombies eat Barry's Syriac brain!
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܂
So, for non-Syriac scholars to make sense of this text, we would need 4 or 5 langauge words memorised, it would help to know all four forms of the pronoun, and be able to recognise a couple of adverbs. Other things can be gotten from the Greek (more or less).
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2809
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Rethinking and going into the Syriac text

Post by Stephen Carlson » March 7th, 2014, 7:42 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:It looks like a nonsense reading but I don't totally understand how a pronominal suffix works in Syriac.
My Syriac is a bit all over the place, but as good as I have, I'm willing to share with you.
The wikionary entry for ܐܦܐ shows that ܐܦܝܗ could only be the feminine plural form.
You mean that the noun is feminine plural but the suffix is feminine singular, right? The noun does not exist in the singular, and a feminine plural suffix would read ܐܦܝܗܝܢ.

Given that the noun is a plurale tantum, it should probably translated (or retroverted) into the singular: upon her face or as ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτῆς] syr(ph)
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Clarification of my main points about "her face".

Post by Stephen Hughes » March 7th, 2014, 10:04 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:It looks like a nonsense reading but I don't totally understand how a pronominal suffix works in Syriac.
...
The wikionary entry for ܐܦܐ shows that ܐܦܝܗ could only be the feminine {singular suffix on the} plural form {of the noun}.
You mean that the noun is feminine plural but the suffix is feminine singular, right? The noun does not exist in the singular, and a feminine plural suffix would read ܐܦܝܗܝܢ.

Given that the noun is a plurale tantum, it should probably translated (or retroverted) into the singular: upon her face or as ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτῆς] syr(ph)
Yes, you have made my point very succinctly and more clearly than I did. The Syriac word ends in an unambiguous feminine singular possesive pronoun "her".

Yes, my other main point was that πρόσωπον would be the idiomatic Greek rendering of ܐܦܝܢ
. I disagree with those reference books that Clay quoted and referred us to. Moreover, it seems that the apparatus criticus in the modern text (USBGNT) seems to have taken that πρόσωπα "mistake" (unidiomaticity) over from that chain of reference works uncritically.

The other other point is that ἔτι appears to be rendered by two different adverbs, so evidently there was a ὅτι in the Forlage - that was to suggest that Clay oughtn't have quoted the SLB text first off - but how could he have known at that stage of the discussion, so I didn't want to say it directly.

Sorry again about the unclear post, and thank you for your help with my expression.

If you want to type, not just cut and paste, you could use the Virtual Syriac Keyboard. The keyboard layout is not Latin, but...
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Post Reply