Our Translated Gospels

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit III, A. (Mk 14:68)

Continuation of Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Mark 14:68 according to Greek: I neither know (יָדַע) nor understand (חָכֵס) that which (דִּי) you speak.

True rendering: I am neither a companion of (same word), nor do I know at all (same word), him of whom (same word) you speak.

Mark 14:68; cf. Matthew 26:70, Luke 22:57, 60. The reading of the Greek is pure nonsense, for if Peter did not know what the girl said, it is worse than useless to make him add, that he did not understand it, either! This is a sentence that no author could write; but when it is supposed to be the original text, of course all translators must translate it.

Are we not led by the narrative to expect Peter to deny Jesus at this point? He does not do so, according to our Greek. Littmann, Z.N.T.W., 34 (1935), p. 25), thinks that "I do not know what you mean" (he omits the preceding words, "I do not know what you say!) can be regarded as "Verleugnung." But even with this use of only the easier half of the text, the explanation will not do. Peter would be only temporizing, which is very a different thing from denying. It would be open to him at the next opportunity, after having gained this little respite, to confess that he did not do so, but that makes no difference. What the narrator intended is perfectly plain from verses 69 and 71 f., as well as from verse 30; and the conclusion is quite unavoidable, that something is seriously wrong with the Greek of verse 68.

It is strange that Wellhausen, who entertained the idea that Mark was translated from Aramaic, should have failed to see the obvious explanation; knowing, as he did, the ambiguity of the relative pronoun, and the idiomatic use of the two verbs meaning "to know." The former verb is regularly used in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac, to express personal intimacy, as is familiar to all students of these languages; the other Aramaic verb has the general meaning, "to know, recognize" a person or thing. The use of the two verbs here is calculated to give the utmost emphasis to Peter's denial.

As for the parallel passages, Matthew 26:70 and Luke 22:60, it is unnecessary to suppose that the two later translators were influenced (as of course they might have been) by Greek Mark's rendering, for in perhaps 95 cases out of 100 the phrase dī āmar ant would mean, "that which you say": while in the 5 remaining cases the verb could have the meaning, "name, designate," which is equally idiomatic. The three passages are capital examples of mistranslation.

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit III, B. Mt. 5:32 (Mk. 10:11; Lk. 16:18)

Continuation of Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Matthew 5:32 (Mk. 10:11; Lk. 16:18) according to Greek: Any man who divorces his wife on any other ground than that of fornication makes her an adulteress (מְגַיַּר לַהּ).

True rendering: Any one who divorces his wife on any other ground than that of fornication, [and marries another,] commits adultery with her (same words).

Matthew 5:32; 19:9, and parallels. The saying attributed to Jesus in the Greek of Matthew 5:32 is a very strange utterance indeed. The husband divorces his wife, without any flagrant infidelity on her part, and the result is that she commits adultery. Whether the husband incurs similar guilt is not stated. Hebrew law, and Jewish public opinion, in such cases gave the wife a clean slate, and in this decision the opinion of our own day would doubtless concur. Will Jesus now reverse this judgment, pronouncing the dissolved union adulterous, and with such emphasis that only the guilt of the woman is mentioned? This seems incredible, and it is not a view which interpreters of the passage have thought reasonable.

He "makes her commit adultery." In what way? Montefiore, Syn. Gospels, II, 66, gives the accepted explanation: "by marrying another man." But the woman was under no obligation to marry again―and she might well think that one trial was quite enough. However, she probably would marry, say the commentators, and the second marriage would be adulterous. But this is mere quibbling. The plain fact is, that the declaration attributed to Jesus, if made without qualification, is not true. The divorcing husband does not compel the divorced wife to commit adultery. If she chooses to marry again, it is not her former husband who makes her do so. It is hardly necessary to add, that the saying, "he puts her in the way of committing" the sin, would be a very weak conclusion after the impressive introduction.

This difficulty disappears as soon as the original language is called in to help. The translator saw before him the derived stem of the verb, and rendered it as causative, for the reason which will presently appear; but he was mistaken. In each of the several verbs, Hebrew and Aramaic, which have this signification, "commit adultery," the simple stem and the derived (intensive) stem are interchangeable, with no difference in meaning. Moreover, the noun or pronoun designating the person with whom the adultery is committed is very likely to be appended to the verb as (or in the manner of) the direct object. These facts are set forth in every lexicon, and may be illustrated in Jer. 29:23 (Hebrew and Targum), Lev. 20:10; Prov. 6:32, Targ. Hos. 4:13; and especially Targ. Job 36:20, an exact parallel to the phrase in Matthew. The true rendering here is, "he commits adultery with her," But with whom?

The real source of the difficulty with the passage is now brought plainly to light. The verse is defective, with two words missing. The phrase, "and marries another," which is found in 19:9, and in the parallels in Mark and Luke, is indispensable to the sense, and must have been omitted by accident from the Aramaic text of 5:32. The fact of the omission gave the Greek translator the best reasons for his rendering.

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit III, C (Mt 6:6, 18)

Continuation of Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Matthew 6:6, 18 according to Greek: Pray to your Father who is in secret (דִּי בְכַסְיָא), and your Father who sees in secret (בְכַסְיָא) will reward you.

True rendering: Pray to to your Father privately (same words), and your Father who sees what is hidden (same word) will reward you.

The phrase, "that which is in secret," is the subject (equivalent to a cognate object) of the two verbs, "pray" and "fast," the latter verb understood rather than being once more repeated. The use of the Aramaic preposition in "sees what is hidden" is noticeable. It is only for the rhetorical effect―always studied by Matthew―that it is employed in these two passages.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit III, D (Mt 19:17)

Continuation of Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Matthew 19:17 according to Greek: Why do you ask me about the "good thing" (טָבָא)? one there is who is good (חַד הוּא טָבָא).

True rendering: Why do you ask me about the "good thing"? the good is one (same words).

Matthew 19:17 (cf. Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). Matthew's Aramaic text was the original. The saying "The good one," was a bit too philosophical, however, for popular audiences, and the interpretation which appears in Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19 took the field at once. The Greek translator of Matthew had the Marcan rendering before him, and did his best to conform to it, with unfortunate result. He should have used the neuter gender, instead of the masculine, throughout the second clause.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit IV, A (Mt 21:9)

Continuation of Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Matthew 21:9 according to Greek: Hosanna to(!) the son (לְבָן) of David!

True rendering: Save the son (same word) of David!

Matthew 21:9 (Mark 11:9 f.). It is perhaps hardly fair to charge Greek Matthew with mistranslation here. He knew, of course, the meaning of "hosanna" (each one to the four translators of our Gospels was a master of the three languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, as is sufficiently shown), and he also knew that this verb invariably takes a direct object, with or without the use of ēth or lamedh. He had, nevertheless, two good reasons for his rendering. (1) In the original text of Matthew the Hebrew quotation, in three perfectly metric lines (characteristic of Matthew), contained the preposition (lamedh) before "son of David," as I shall try to show elsewhere. This the translator would reproduce. (2) Greek Matthew wished, as usual, to follow this lead. The Greek dative case was the solution, accomplishing both objects; a characteristic of the translation jargon. "Save the Messianic King!" is the meaning of the curious phrase, reminiscent especially of Psalm 20:7, 10 (where LXX has the true reading), while the next-following clause quotes from 118:26. Both psalms were originally Messianic, not merely thus interpreted in the time of Jesus. The last clause of Matthew 21:9 and Mark 11:10, strictly rendered, "Save him, (Thou) on high!," is strangely replaced in Luke 19:38 by a variation of the doxology in 2:14. The reason why Mark transliterated his "hosanna" is evident. In the text which he rendered the imperative stood alone, as in Psalm 118:25, without an expressed object. He would reproduce the shout of the people; no word of translation could give such a vivid touch.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit IV, B (Mt 21:43)

Continuation of Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Matthew 21:43 according to Greek: The kingdom, of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation (לְעַם) yielding its fruit.

True rendering: . . . to a people (same word) yielding its fruit.

Matthew 21:43. This is another example of false rendering by the use of a "standing equivalent." In this context, "nation" is absurd; for even if we could suppose the author of the Gospel to have forgotten what he wrote in verse 31, he must certainly have known what he was going to say in verse 45!

The Hebrew and Aramaic word ʿam, which commonly means "nation," and is thus rendered approximately one hundred times in the LXX, signified here, as often, simply "people" in the most general sense (German Leute). The translator, however, can hardly be blamed for his rendering.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit IV, C (Mt 23:38; Lk 13:35)

Continuation of Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Matthew 23:38 (Lk. 13:35) according to Greek: Behold, your house is left to you (כִשְׁתְּבִִק לְוׄן).

True rendering: . . . is to be abandoned by you (same words)

Matthew 23:38; Luke 13:35. The saying which in our Greek text is attributed to Jesus, "Your house is left to you," is meaningless. Hence the attempt to give some meaning to it by adding the word "desolate," found in numerous ancient manuscripts, but generally recognized as an interpolation. A similar modern attempt, made by Wellhausen in his commentary, gives a far-fetched and indefensible interpretation.

The Aramaic original of the phrase is certain, and its meaning perfectly obvious. The preposition denotes the agent, "by you," as usual with the verb or participle in the passive voice. The participle, regularly rendered by the Greek present tense, represents, as commonly, the impending future. Every Jew who had read or heard the Hebrew prophecies knew that shortly before the Messianic triumph Jerusalem was to be seized and held by the Gentiles, with accompanying slaughter and exile. See Zech. 14:2.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit IV, D (Mt 26:70)

Continuation of Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Matthew 26:70 according to Greek: He denied before them all, saying, I do not know what you say (see note of Mark 14:68).

True rendering: I do not know him of whom you speak.

Matthew 26:70. See note (above) on Mark 14:68.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit IV, E (Mt 27:62)

Continuation of Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Matthew 27:62 according to Greek: On the morrow, which is after the preparation (דִּי הוּא בָּתַר עֳרוּבְתָא), the chief priests and the Pharisees came together to Pilate, etc.

True rendering: On the morrow that is, after sunset (same words), the chief priests and the Pharisees came, etc.

Matthew 27:62. The reading of our Greek text, "On the morrow, which is after the Preparation," has naturally seemed strange to readers and communicators. It is as though one were to write in English: "on the morrow, which is after Friday"! Why did not the evangelist write, simply "On the morrow, which is after the sabbath," if he wished to specify the day at all?

The phrase, "which is" (not, was) indicates special interpretation; it is the Aramaic id est, "that is," and it calls attention to the precise meaning which the word "morrow" has here. There was an obvious need of interpretation, for the word, in Greek or Aramaic as in English, is ordinarily understood to mean the broad day―after the dawn―following this or that day, the events of which have been narrated; and this meaning would not do at all in the present case! If the chief priests and Pharisees had delayed presenting their request to Pilate until the morning of the sabbath, the disciples of Jesus would have had plenty of time to take the body from the tomb and carry it away (27:64; 28:13). The application for a guard was made immediately after the burial, as soon as the place of the interment was known, and the evangelist saw strong reason for making a clear and unequivocal statement of the fact.

Matthew's chronology of the Passion and Resurrection agrees in all respects with the dates and hours given in Mark, Luke, and John,* with the exception of the "sixth hour" in John 19:14, which obviously is the result of a mistake in the transmission of the text (confusion of the numeral letters signifying "three" and "six"? (see Chap. I, p. 7), since 18:28 says that Jesus was brought before Pilate early in the morning; cf. Mt. 27:1 and parallels. The four narratives agree in representing that the crucifixion took place on Friday, the day after the paschal supper, and that the burial was accomplished on the same day, just before sunset. Matthew alone narrates the incident of the application to Pilate for a guard of the tomb; and here, as has been shown, the Greek translation must be corrected.

The Aramaic word ʿarūbā, the standing term for the day of "preparation" for the sabbath, originally meant sunset (see Targ. Ps. 104:23). Then, in the familiar evolution of meaning, it came to signify, "evening," and "eve" (of a festival day). Thus resulted, in Jewish Aramaic, the ordinary employment of the word to designate the sixth day of the week, "sabbath eve" (like the German Sonnabend; and this meaning, so very common in use, soon took almost complete possession of the word. The Greek term used to translate it may be misleading in its ambiguity; thus, in John 19:14 the correct reading of παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα is "Friday of Passover week." In the verse of Matthew now before us the Aramaic word was used in its original sense, "sunset," as the context shows, and the example is important for the lexicon of Jewish Aramaic.

*See my article, "The Date of the Crucifixion according to the Fourth Gospel," Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 50 (1931), 227-241, where complete proof, from new evidence, is furnished.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit IV, F (Mt 28:1)

Continuation of Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Matthew 28:1 according to Greek: late on(!) the sabbath (בְּאַפֹּקֵי שַׁבְּתָא), as it dawned to (נָגְהֵי) the first day of the week, etc.

True rendering: after the sabbath (same words), and before the dawn of, (same word) the first day of the week, etc.

Matthew 28:1. This is a particularly fine example of translator's nonsense. The Greek renders admirably, according to the canons of that day; but the curious idiom of the original cannot be rendered closely, in any non-Semitic language, without losing its meaning and creating confusion. The familiar Aramaic phrase (translated also into Talmudic Hebrew) designates ordinarily the time between the close (sunset) of one day and the dawn of the next day, and may apply either to the entire time or to any part of it. In the present case, it happens to apply to the latter part of the night, before dawn. "Late on the sabbath" is a ridiculous rendering, though faithful to the Greek. It is also quite incorrect to suppose that "as it began to dawn" (German, "in der Dämmerung") gives the true meaning of the latter part of the phrase. The word "dawn" is there, it is true; but as it is employed in this idiom, the time intended could equally well be midnight, or any hour before or after it.

The same idiom precisely, using the same word (dawn!) is found in classical Syriac. In the Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite, ed. Wright, p. 22, line 9, it designates the whole "night before Friday and Saturday." in Bedjan's Acta Mart. et Sanct., IV, 579 f., the time is "at midnight"; ibid., 629, "at the eleventh hour of the night."

The facts in regard to the use of this particular phrase in Jewish Aramaic and Talmudic Hebrew were set forth fully, with abundant references, by George F. Moore in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 26 (1906), pp. 323-329. They seem to have been unknown to the N.T. commentators (including Wellhausen), who suppose Matthew to have misunderstood this and that in Mark, and in general to have made a bad mess of the account at this point. Matthew's Aramaic text differed indeed considerably from Mark's, but contradicted it in no respect. Allen, Comm., Klostermann-Gressmann, and probably others, have been misled by Dalman, Gramm., 2nd edition, p. 247, notes 2 and 4. The reference in the former note cannot apply to Matthew 28:1, and the phrase referred to in note 4 is only part of the idiom described there. Dalman's further remark, "Vom Morgengrauen ab ist die Bezeichnung unmöglich," is also incorrect, for, as Moore (p. 325) shows, the phrase quoted is sometimes made to include the whole of the following day. See, further, the note on Luke 23:45.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit V, A (Mt 28:17)

Continuation of Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Matthew 28:17 according to Greek: When they saw him, they prostrated themselves, but some doubted (וְאַף מִתְפַּלְּנִין).

True rendering: . . . they prostrated themselves even while doubting their senses (same words).

Matthew 28:17. The strange words, "but some (or, others) doubted," are a distressing blot on this thrilling scene. If there were no strong reason to suspect the reading, we could only accept it, with sorrow; but the fact is quite otherwise. Who were the "others"? What could they doubt? What value is there in the statement, and why is it expressed in such a peculiar Greek phrase? No commentator has been able to throw light on these things.

The phrase is explained when recourse is had to the Aramaic verb signifying "doubt." The eleven were divided (the root meaning) between two strong emotions. Similarly, the Jerusalem Targum of Gen. 45:26, when Jacob hears that Joseph is alive, his heart is "divided (this same verb) between fear and hope." So in the post-resurrection scene in Luke 24:41, the disciples were "unbelieving for joy"; and only a like expression could do justice to the moment. What the eleven saw was sure, and yet it was incredible. As they fell on their faces before their master, they were only half able to believe what they saw. The conjectured Aramaic (literally, "and also doubting") must have been the original reading, for it perfectly explains the Greek.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit V, B (Lk. 1:66)

Continuation of Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Luke 1:66: according to Greek: And all who heard gave heed, saying, "What will become of this child?" for indeed the hand of the Lord was with him (וְיַד אֲדֹנָי עִמּוֹ).

True rendering: "What will become of this child? for the hand of the Lord is with him" (same words).

Luke 1:66. The narrative of the nativity, comprising chapters 1 and 2, was composed in Hebrew, and by Luke was rendered from that language into Greek; as I demonstrated in 1912, in Studies in the History of Religions presented to C. H. Toy, pp. 290-295.

The words in verse 66, "for the hand of the Lord was with him," are commonly said to be a remark thrown in by Luke himself. If this were the case, it would do scant credit to his literary sense. The remark does not apply to subsequent events, the word "for" connects it unmistakably with the sentence just preceding, and it can only be called a weak and utterly superfluous appendage to the marvel recounted in verse 64 and the excited comment of the people of all that region.

Luke has mistranslated, and the nature of his error is evident. The words above quoted formed a "circumstantial clause," introduced by the conjunction waw, and (as usual) with no verb expressed, the clause forming the continuation of the people's outcry, where it is really needed. The evangelist, rendering mechanically, inserted the verb "was," whereas he should have written "is."

In several other passages in the Gospels, such circumstantial clauses are either misunderstood or given a false connection. See Mk. 3:32; 5:21; Lk. 18:7; Jn. 1:2(!), 2:13.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit V, C (Lk. 2:11)

Continuation of Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Luke 2:11: according to Greek: There is born . . . a Savior, who is anointed Lord (משׁיח אֲדֹנָי).

True rendering: . . . a Savior, who is the anointed of the Lord" (same words).

Luke 2:11. The Greek has a false reading here, but how it came about is uncertain. "Lord" without the article is strange, and "Christ" in the Gospels is never a proper name. The phrase is unexampled, and in this context quite incredible. B. S. Easton, The Gospel according to St. Luke (1926), asks: "Was the original perhaps 'the Lord's Anointed'?" and J. M. Creed (1930) raises the same question. The reading thus suggested, found also in verse 26 (and a very frequently occurring phrase), is undoubtedly what the author wrote.

It seems likely that Luke mistranslated. More probably one of the earliest copyists made the same alteration in the Greek text which was made in the Greek of Lam. 4:20 and Ps. Sol. 17:36.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit V, D (Lk. 8:14)

Continuation of Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Luke 8:14 (Mk. 4:19) according to Greek: By cares and wealth and the pleasures of life, as they go they are choked (אָזְלִן וּמִתְחַנְּקִין).

True rendering: By cares and wealth and the pleasures of life they are gradually choked (same words).

Luke 8:14; Mark 4:19. A well known Hebrew and Aramaic idiom is illustrated here. It is several times lost to sight, with more or less unfortunate result, in the literal Greek rendering of the Gospel translators. "Going and" doing, or experiencing, this or that, is a way of expressing constant increase of the action or experience; but it is not an idiom that would be rendered freely, with its true meaning, in either O.T. or N.T. In mark 4:8 (see above) the translator, missing the idiom completely, renders ad sensum, "going up." In 4:19, parallel to the present passage in Luke, it is almost certain that he did the same thing, representing the cares and pleasures of life as "going in and choking the word," instead of choking it increasingly. The same Aramaic word (plural participle) must have stood in all three passages. Some commentators (Klost.-Gressm., Creed) have recognized the Semitic idiom in Luke 8:14, comparing it with LXX 2 Sam. 3:1, but without drawing the only natural conclusion, that our Greek is translated.

The Fourth Gospel has two examples of this idiom, both mistranslated: 12:11, "many of the Jews went and believed on Jesus," instead of "Many of the Jews, in increasing number, believed." 15:16, "I appoint you to go and bear fruit," instead of "I appoint you to bear more and more fruit." If the fact of translation were not otherwise established beyond question, neither of the two passages could be claimed for the idiom, though the verb of "going" is at least superfluous, and commentators (Zahn, Bauer) on 15:16 remark that the word is ill suited to the phrase.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit V, E (Lk. 8:29)

Continuation of Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Luke 8:29 (Mk. 5:4) according to Greek: Often it had seized him (אֲחִיד בֵּהּ); and he was kept under guard, bound with chains, etc.

True rendering: Often he had been taken by force (same words) and kept under guard, bound with chains

Luke 8:29; Mark 5:4. "It (the demon) often seized him" is a strange thing for the narrator to say without further explanation, after having said that for a long time this man had been possessed, and was living the life of a wild beast among the tombs in the open field. According to Mark and Matthew he was all the time dangerous and untamable.

The verse Mark 5:4, telling how the attempt had often been made to bind the maniac securely, but without success, is inserted here in Luke's narrative, as though by afterthought. The two verses are so nearly parallel, after the first clause of Luke 29, the Luke's error in rendering is evident. The "often" of both narratives shows that the "seizing" in Luke was not by the demon, but by the officers of the law. The two phrases, "it seized him," and "hands were laid on him," are expressed in the same form and words. According to the meaning intended in both narratives, and preserved in Mark, the Aramaic passive participle was used impersonally; Luke on the other hand, rendered it in its active use, equally idiomatically, but wrong in this instance.

To be continued...