Diskeyezed ~
D: ... "I've looked at several major translations, and every single one of them translates it as "falling" (or another derivative of "fall"), most including "headlong.""
Goodspeed's translation, and Moffatt's, translates it as "swelling up" or something close to that. The RSV has "swelling up" as an alternate rendering in a footnote.
F.F. Bruce, in his commentary on Acts (New London Commentary series -- I think it's been republished under a different series-title), seems inclined to accept that "prenes genomenos" means "swelling up." Here's his comment (from p. 46 of his commentary) -- [I've used standard transliteration-methods for this citation; I think a transmogrification to the Symbol font will reveal the Greek letters.]
"Gk. /prhnhj genomenoj/. But there are grounds for translating the expression here by "swelling up" (so RSV margin), as though /prhnhj/ were connected with /prhqw/ or /pimprhmi/ (cf. Ch. 28:6, /pimprasqai/). In Wisdom 4:19 /prhneij/ is rendered "inflatos" in Vulgate (contrast the Douay-Challoner rendering "he shall burst them puffed up and speechless" with ERV "he shall dash them speechless to the ground"). Cf. F.H. Chase, "On /prhnhj genomenoj/ in Acts 1:18," JThS xiii (1912), pp. 278ff., 415.
(Acts 28:6 is the passage where the natives of Malta expect Paul to "swell up" or suddenly fall down dead.)
(Bruce's reference to "Wisdom" 4:19 is to the apocryphal book of "Wisdom of Solomon.")
Alas, I haven't been able to get my hands on a copy of the 1912 issue of the Journal of Theological Studies. But it seems to have convinced Bruce that "swelled up" is the correct definition; Bruce states on p. 49, in the main text of the commentary, "He [Judas] did not live, however, to enjoy the fruits of his shameful act, for he swelled up and sustained a fatal rupture." (to "swelled up" Bruce adds a footnote which refers the reader to the footnote I just cited, and he also mentions "The tradition that Judas swelled up to monstrous proportions" which I also mentioned; finally he refers the reader to an article by E.J. Goodspeed in "New Chapters in NT Study," p. 42, in which Goodspeed "concludes that Papias was acquainted with Acts because his account of Judas' death is based on this passage."
(Alas, I don't have a copy of that either -- but I speculate that Goodspeed was making a case that the Matthean "Logia" mentioned by Papias is not the Gospel of Matthew and that Papias was only able to compose his heavily embroidered tale of Judas' demise due to his non-encounter with the text of the Gospel of Matthew -- i.e., Papias was *only* acquainted with the account of Judas' demise found in Acts.)
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
D: ... "I've looked at several major translations, and every single one of them translates it as "falling" (or another derivative of "fall"), most including "headlong.""
Goodspeed's translation, and Moffatt's, translates it as "swelling up" or something close to that. The RSV has "swelling up" as an alternate rendering in a footnote.
F.F. Bruce, in his commentary on Acts (New London Commentary series -- I think it's been republished under a different series-title), seems inclined to accept that "prenes genomenos" means "swelling up." Here's his comment (from p. 46 of his commentary) -- [I've used standard transliteration-methods for this citation; I think a transmogrification to the Symbol font will reveal the Greek letters.]
"Gk. /prhnhj genomenoj/. But there are grounds for translating the expression here by "swelling up" (so RSV margin), as though /prhnhj/ were connected with /prhqw/ or /pimprhmi/ (cf. Ch. 28:6, /pimprasqai/). In Wisdom 4:19 /prhneij/ is rendered "inflatos" in Vulgate (contrast the Douay-Challoner rendering "he shall burst them puffed up and speechless" with ERV "he shall dash them speechless to the ground"). Cf. F.H. Chase, "On /prhnhj genomenoj/ in Acts 1:18," JThS xiii (1912), pp. 278ff., 415.
(Acts 28:6 is the passage where the natives of Malta expect Paul to "swell up" or suddenly fall down dead.)
(Bruce's reference to "Wisdom" 4:19 is to the apocryphal book of "Wisdom of Solomon.")
Alas, I haven't been able to get my hands on a copy of the 1912 issue of the Journal of Theological Studies. But it seems to have convinced Bruce that "swelled up" is the correct definition; Bruce states on p. 49, in the main text of the commentary, "He [Judas] did not live, however, to enjoy the fruits of his shameful act, for he swelled up and sustained a fatal rupture." (to "swelled up" Bruce adds a footnote which refers the reader to the footnote I just cited, and he also mentions "The tradition that Judas swelled up to monstrous proportions" which I also mentioned; finally he refers the reader to an article by E.J. Goodspeed in "New Chapters in NT Study," p. 42, in which Goodspeed "concludes that Papias was acquainted with Acts because his account of Judas' death is based on this passage."
(Alas, I don't have a copy of that either -- but I speculate that Goodspeed was making a case that the Matthean "Logia" mentioned by Papias is not the Gospel of Matthew and that Papias was only able to compose his heavily embroidered tale of Judas' demise due to his non-encounter with the text of the Gospel of Matthew -- i.e., Papias was *only* acquainted with the account of Judas' demise found in Acts.)
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
