Our Translated Gospels

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit IX, A (Jn 12:34)

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

John 12:34 according to Greek: The people answered him: We have learned from the law that the Messiah is to remain (with us) forever; how then do you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up (לְאִסְתַּלָּקָא)? Who is this "Son of Man"?

True rendering: . . . how then do you say that the Son of Man must go away (same word)? What (sort of) Son of Man is this?

John 12:34. This is a passage of especial interest and importance, in the present demonstration. Taken in connection with the unmistakable Semitic tinge of John's Greek, and in view of the fact that the whole adjoining context is characteristically Johannine, it is quite sufficient in itself, without the aid of any other evidence, to show that the Gospel is a translation. For it presents us with a riddle in the author's well-known manner, a mystifying play on words which is the only key to the meaning of an extended passage (verses 31-36), and which can be seen only in the Aramaic.

I discussed the passage at length in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 51 (1932), pp. 320-322; it will suffice here to give the essential facts.

The author of the Fourth Gospel puts into the mouth of Jesus, from time to time, words which have a hidden meaning, sayings which the people understand one way, while they are meant in another way. Conspicuous among these cryptic utterances are those in which Jesus, addressing the multitude, predicts his own death, in phrases necessarily equivocal. On three occasions he alludes to the manner of his approaching death, by crucifixion. In 3:24, the words spoken to Nicodemus seemed a figure of speech, an allegory; in 8:28, his hearers naturally supposed him to speak of "exalting" the Son of Man; in the present passage, 12:32, the meaning really intended by the phrase employed could be seen only by the disciples after his death; those who were listening at the time heard a saying of utterly different import, for the play on words was such as to turn them aside inevitably.

All those who are acquainted with Palestinian Aramaic know that the verb which may mean "to be lifted up" is ordinarily used in the middle-voice signification, "to take oneself off, depart." Examples in multitude could be given, if there were need of illustration. No one of Jesus' hearers could have supposed him to speak of being "lifted up from the earth" (the evangelist himself has to explain this curious phrase, for any reader of the Aramaic would have missed the intended sense!); the words which they heard were: "If I depart from the land,* I will draw all men unto me." They had heard something similar on a former occasion. In 7:33 ff. Jesus had said: "Yet a little while I am with you, . . . where I shall go you cannot come"; and they had reasoned: "Will he go to the Greek Dispersion, and teach the Gentiles?" Now therefore they retort (verse 34): "You claim to be the Messiah. We read in the scriptures that the Messiah is to remain here forever; how is it, then, that you say that you are to go away? What sort of 'Messiah' is this?" Jesus permits them their interpretation, saying, "Yet a little while is the light among you, walk while you have the light."

The evangelist's riddle is admirably conceived and presented, perfect in every detail, but the Greek misses it completely. This of necessity, for (aside from the fact that there could be no similar play on words) verse 33 had provided the translation of the Aramaic phrase.

*Palestine is always "the land"; hence the mistranslations in Luke 2:1 and Acts 11:28

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit IX, B (Jn 13:1 f.)

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

John 13:1 f. according to Greek: Now before the feast of the passover Jesus knowing (ידע) that his time had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. And when they were at supper, the devil having already made up his mind that (יְהַב לְלִבֵּהּ דִי) Judas the Traitor, son of Simon, should betray him, Jesus, knowing, etc.

True rendering: Now before the feast . . . Jesus had known (same word) that the time was at hand. . . . Having loved his own . . . he loved them to the end. And . . . at supper (the devil having already put it into the mind of [same words] Judas the Traitor . . . to betray him), he, knowing, etc.

John 13:1 f. A passage of notorious difficulty, in the Greek. The connection of clauses is obviously false, and throughout the two verses confusion reigns. (1) It is absurd to say, that before the Passover Jesus loved his disciples to the end; yet from the context it is plain enough that "to the end" is what the Evangelist meant. (2) By mistaking a past tense ("knew, had known") for a participle, the Greek translator managed to hide from sight the purpose of the evangelist to tell what happened at the Paschal supper.* When it is said that Jesus had already known that the fixed time was at hand, the reference is clearly to verses 23-31 of the preceding chapter. (3) The Greek translator was unable to decide, from the Aramaic, whether the devil "made up his mind" that Judas should betray Jesus, or whether he "put it into the mind" of Judas to do this. He accordingly "hedged" in a familiar way, producing a monstrosity which could be tortured into either sense.

In the original Aramaic there was just ambiguity enough to account for the bewildering Greek translation, though no real student of the Gospel could have been in doubt as to the sense. When an exact retroversion into Aramaic is made, every difficulty vanishes, and this is without the alteration of a single letter. What emerges is a smooth and idiomatic text, briefly but clearly introducing the account of the Last Supper, and completely explaining the translator's Greek. His choice of the participle at the beginning of verse 1 was doubtless determined by the fact that the same word (apparently) at the beginning of verse 3, necessarily the participle, seemed merely to resume the suspended construction. As for the clause describing Satan's part in the betrayal, the grammatical ambiguity was complete; first, because of the equivocal dī [דִי] (either "of" or the conjunction "that") before the name of Judas, and again, because of the omission (quite idiomatic) of this participle before the verb "betray." The solution of the mistranslation is perfect.

*Several passages have been supposed to show that the supper was not the Paschal meal. For a full discussion of these I would refer to my article, "The date of the Crucifixion according to the Fourth Gospel," in Journal of Biblical Literature, 50 (1931), pp. 227-241. To summarize: (1)Those who argue from 13:29 seem to be quite unaware that "the feast" lasted for a week. (2) Concerning 19:36: "As a mere matter of textual evidence, there can be no question that Ps. 34:21 is indicated as the source of the quotation." (3) 19:14. In the Palestinian Aramaic usage of the first centuries C.E. no such phrase as "day of preparation for the Passover" is known, or to be expected. The Greek word in verse 14 does not mean "preparation"; as usual in the Gospels, it means Friday. The entire festal week was "the Passover." (4) It is only through singular lack of acquaintance with, or of attention to, the Jewish feast that argument can be based on 18:28. The great day of the feast, the holiday of rejoicing, was the 15th of Nisan (Num. 28::17 f.). Since the Jewish householders, in that early morning, would have been debarred from joining in the festivity with their relatives and friends on that long-awaited day by the act of entering the Praetorium, it is no wonder that they remained outside the door! The Strack-Billerbeck Kommentar, II, 839 below, confirms this expressly. There is no particle of valid evidence that John's date of the crucifixion was other than the of the Synoptists.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit IX, C (Jn 14:7 f.)

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

John 14:7 f. according to Greek: If you had known (יְדַעְתּוּן) me, you would have known (same word) the Father also; now you know him, and have seen him.

True rendering: If you know (same word) me, you know (same word) the Father also; now you do know him, etc.

John 14:7 f. The Greek presents us here with an absurd self-contradiction, a typical instance of what we must expect when we pin our faith to a translator of the old school. After Jesus has told the eleven that they know neither him nor the Father (cf. 8:19, where the same thing is said, in the same words, to the unbelieving Jews!), he goes on in the next breath to assure them that they do know the Father; and in verse 9, as previously in verses 4 and 6, he declares in plain words that he himself is known to them! See also 15:15, 27; 17:6-8, 25 f.

This is an instructive example of the occasional ambiguity of the Aramaic text, and of the unthinking literal rendering. The conditional sentence, in the original, could not tell the interpreter how to translate. In both protasis and apodosis the verb could only be in the perfect tense; exactly as in 8:19, where the Greek rendering is correct; here, it was wrong. Another example of the same misunderstanding appears a few verses later, in verse 28:b; see below.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit X, A (Jn 14:28b)

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

John 14:28b according to Greek: If you loved me, you would have rejoiced (הֵן חַבֵּבְתֻּנַּנִי חֲדֵיתוּן), because I go to the Father.

True rendering: If you love me, you will rejoice (same words), because I go to the Father.

John 14:28b. Did not these chosen few, the eleven, love their master? Was he not aware that they did? Read 14:25, 21-23 and 16:27! Here again the false Greek rendering gives an intolerable sense; see the preceding note, on 14:7 f. In the present case also, the mistranslation consists in a too literal rendering of the Semitic tenses. In both members of this conditional sentence the verbs are those "denoting affections or conditions of the mind," used regularly in the past ("perfect") tense; while the conditional particle was ambiguous.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit X, B (Jn 14:17, 19)

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

John 14:17, 19 according to Greek: You know (יָדְעִין אַנְּתּוּן), it (the holy spirit), for it abides (קָיְמָא) with you, and is in you. . . . Yet a little while, and the world sees (חָזֵא) me no longer; but you see (קָזֵין) me.

True rendering: You will know (same words) it, for it will abide with you, and in you. . . . Yet a little while, and the world will see (same word) me no longer; but you shall see (same word) me.

John 14:17, 19. The disciples did not yet know "the spirit of truth," and it was not "abiding" in them; the gift of the spirit came later. The reading of the Greek at the end of the verse, "and (it) is in you," is so patently false that some of the oldest witnesses read the future tense―as in our English Bible. But there can be no question as to the original Greek reading.

The Aramaic present participle is regularly rendered (on almost every page of the Four Gospels) by the Greek present tense. Frequently, however, as in Hebrew, this participle denotes what is impending, soon to take place. This, unquestionably, is the explanation of the impossible saying of Jesus recorded in our Greek. The LXX mistranslates frequently in the same way.

Verse 19 presents another example of this false rendering of the participle. Jesus is not speaking of the present, but of the future, and the present tense in the second verb of the sentence is disturbing and misleading, for that which is promised is a new condition, not the continuation of one already existing. In this passage and in 16:16 Jesus says: Yet a little while, and (Semitic idiom!) neither the world nor you will see me; nevertheless you shall eventually see me. At the end of the verse, in both passages, the Aramaic interpreted the more or less ambiguous participles by employing an emphatic future tense―which the translator of course rendered. But in the Greek the transition from present tense to future is perplexing (see e.g. Zahn, Komm., p. 560). In order to give the translation the meaning intended by the evangelist, all the verbs (with perhaps the exception of the first person, "I live") should have been future tense.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit X, C (Jn 16:5)

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

John 16:5 according to Greek: No one of you asks me (יִשְׁאֲלִנַּנִי), Whither are you going?

True rendering: No one of you may ask me (same word), etc.

John 16:5. The reading of the Greek, "No one of you asks me, Whither are you going?" is absurdly wrong. The disciples had been asking this question eagerly, but Jesus could only answer them evasively. Peter had put the question directly, in 13:36, and Thomas indirectly in 14:5. Very evidently, the intention here is to tell the disciples that they must not continue to ask. This is immediately made certain by verses 17 ff., where the effect of the mild prohibition is seen. The disciples are burning with eagerness to know more, and are querying among themselves: What does he mean, when he says, "In a little while I am going to the Father"? but they know that they must not ask him. Jesus sees this, and replies to them with words of comfort, and in the figure of speech in verse 21; telling them also (verse 25) that the time will come when he can answer them plainly, not in figures.

The explanation of the absurdity in the Greek of verse 5 is as certain as could be desired. The Aramaic jussive, "let no one of you ask me," has here (third person singular imperfect) precisely the same form as the declarative present tense. No other explanation is needed or possible.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit X, D (Jn 16:30)

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

John 16:30 according to Greek: Now we know that you know all things, and you have no need that anyone should ask you (דִּי יִשְׁאֲלִנָּךְ גְּבַר לָא חָשַׁה).

True rendering: . . . And no one (of us) has need to ask you (same words), etc.

John 16:30. "You have no need that anyone should ask you" is quite meaningless here. The disciples are saying, in these verses, that they are reassured; that they have full confidence in their master's wisdom, and therefore feel that they need not question him further about matters beyond their comprehension. (They are a bewildered as ever, but are touched by what he has just said to them, and wish to meet him halfway.

In the original language, the clause illustrates the freedom of the Aramaic sentence, the emphasis given to a word by placing it at the end (as has been shown in several other examples in the Gospels). Our Greek translation, though wrong, is perfectly natural.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit X, E (Jn 19:35)

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

John 19:35 according to Greek: And that one(!) (הַהוּא גַבְרָא) knows that he [the evangelist] speaks the truth.

True rendering: And I (same words) know that he [the evangelist] speaks the truth.

John 19:35. This is perhaps the most important single verse in the Fourth Gospel, for here the real author of the work speaks momentarily, and modestly, in his own person. He says, in effect, that all this material from beginning to end, is derived from John the son of Zebedee, that it is really John's Gospel, and that he, the unknown disciple(?) of John, can testify to it from personal knowledge. The mysterious pronoun in the Greek has defied interpretation, as any commentary will show. The way in which it is at once explained from the usage of Palestinian Aramaic is sufficiently set forth, with illustrative examples, in my Four Gospels, pp. 329 f., [....]*

*19:35. It seems to me quite certain that in the mysterious ἐκεῖνος of this verse we are to see the personal testimony of the author of the Gospel. It is quite idiomatic, and there is no other way of explaining it. When, either through modesty or for some other reason, there is a wish to avoid the use of "I," the circumlocution hāhū gabrā [הַהוּא גַבְרָא], "that man," "that one," "a certain person," is used in Jewish Aramaic not infrequently. Margolis, Grammar of the Babylonian Talmud, p. 70 speaks of the use of this phrase "in a mysterious sense," and gives examples. Dalman, Gramm., p. 108 mentions this as a feature of "the Galilean popular speech"; and in his Wortu Jesu, pp. 204 f., he gives a rather long list of illustrative passages. Thus, "that one must go and find out for himself" (i.e., I must go), Dalman, Dialektproben, 18, line 9. "did not that woman (hāhī ittӗthā)) do right to commit adultery and bring you into the world? (i.e., "did not I do right?"), ibid., lines 12 f. Similarly in Arabic, the pronoun hādha, "this" (with a noun appended), is used occasionally as a modest subsitute for the first person singular. Gʾbar in the indefinite sense, "person," is ordinarily rendered in the Gospels (as Hebrew ʾīsh [אִישׁ] is rendered in the LXX) by τίς, and it is plain that the Aramaic phrase in this passage could only have been rendered by ἐκεῖνος.

The author of the Gospel here represents himself as holder of the tradition of John the son of Zebedee. A personal relation seems to be implied; and this claim, if it really is made, no one could find ground for denying. The very striking repetition of 19:35 in 21:24 seems to represent a later link (of some sort) in the chain of tradition; perhaps the same which is represented in the First Epistle of John.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Chapter II

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

Chapter II

QUESTIONS MISUNDERSTOOD AS DECLARATIONS

The lack of an Aramaic interrogative particle is likely to cause occasional misunderstanding, since there may be nothing in the form of the sentence to distinguish a question from a declaration. (Interrogative pronouns and adverbs are of course abundant in Aramaic, but with their use we are not now concerned.) In many languages, as in English, the order of words is decisive, "The man is honest" being thus distinguished from "Is the man honest?" The declaration, "His neighbors can believe anything that he says," gives the reader one distinct impression of the person described; while the question, "Can his neighbors believe anything that he says?" gives and equally distinct but quite different impression. The language which has no general "question mark" puts the interpreter at a disadvantage, when he is dealing with a written text, without the help of oral delivery.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Questions Misunderstood as Declarations

Continuation of "Questions Misunderstood as Declarations" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

The Hebrew particle of interrogation is borrowed in the Aramaic of Daniel, as well as throughout the Targums, but this is an artificial use; see Dalman Gramm., p. 224. In the Aramaic of the Palestinian Talmud and Midrashim the particle never occurs. In the Eastern Aramaic ("Syriac") there is the same lack, causing occasional perplexity; see Nöldeke, Syr. Gramm., §331. Relied upon and generally quite sufficient for the interpretation is the context, or else some general consideration. If the reader is really at a loss to know which is intended, assertion or query, the presumption is that the alternative is unimportant.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Continuation of the introduction to the chapter titled "Questions Misunderstood as Declarations" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

It sometimes happens in O.T. Hebrew that an interrogative sentence is not provided with any interrogative word or particle. In such cases the context is supposed to leave no room for doubt, but there are some instances of resulting misunderstanding and mistranslation, more or less disturbing. The Greek translator will ordinarily reproduce his original exactly, word for word, without undertaking to interpret; but in such passages as Isa. 1:18 and (more significant) 43:23a and 24a the decision between the two varieties of sentence carries much with it. the accidental omission of the particle in 2 Chron. 25:8b has led to a strange mixture of readings; the rendering should be: "Would God cast you down before the enemy?"

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Continuation of the introduction to the chapter titled "Questions Misunderstood as Declarations" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

In the Gospels there are a few minor examples of this ambiguity: question or declaration? such as might occur in any language. Luke 11:40, for instance, has been the subject of some discussion. According to Plummer, Comm., "this is almost certainly a question"; and in this decision he agrees with the Latin, as well as the English versions: "Ye foolish ones, did not he who made the outside make also the inside?" Others have rendered: "Ye foolish ones, he who has put the outside in order has not (thereby) put in order the inside also!" (so Klos.-Gressm.). Mark 9:11 is by some read as a question, by others as a statement of fact; the same is true of John 8:25; and there are other instances.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

This is the concluding paragraph of the introduction to the chapter titled "Questions Misunderstood as Declarations" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

The passages discussed in the following pages illustrate the above-mentioned defect of written Aramaic, the lack of an introductory particle of interrogation. The Greek rendering (as in the LXX) is generally noncommittal; in all such cases the interpreter, ancient or modern, makes the sentence declarative unless a question is obviously required by the context.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

This is the concluding paragraph of the introduction to the chapter titled "Questions Misunderstood as Declarations" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

The passages discussed in the following pages illustrate the above-mentioned defect of written Aramaic, the lack of an introductory particle of interrogation. The Greek rendering (as in the LXX) is generally noncommittal; in all such cases the interpreter, ancient or modern, makes the sentence declarative unless a question is obviously required by the context.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Questions Misunderstood as Declarations: Exhibit XI, A (Mk. 9:12; Mt. 17:11)

This is the beginning of the chapter titled "Questions Misunderstood as Declarations" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Mark. 9:12 (Matt. 17:11) according to Greek: Elijah, coming first, restores all things; and how is it written of the Son of Man, that he must suffer many things?

True rendering: Does Elijah, coming first, restore all things? How then is it written of the Son of Man, that he must suffer many things.

Mark 9:12 (Matthew 17:11). The first clause of Jesus' answer to the disciples shows, very obviously, what they had meant by their question. The scribes of course interpreted Mal. 3:24 to mean that Elijah, whenever he should come, would "set everything right"; that is, would prepare the mind and heart of the people of Israel for the coming great day. This was familiar doctrine, well known to the disciples. Jesus shows them that it is mistaken, pointing them to the past (the treatment of John) and to the future (the treatment of the Messiah). In spite of the great work that John, the forerunner, had done, the mind and the heart of the people had not been prepared (Mt. 21:32, Luke 7:29, etc.) The real preparation was to come later, through the work of the disciples; the scribes' interpretation of the prophecy is too sweeping.

Even so, it is perhaps conceivable, in the Marcan account, that Jesus could have been represented as at first stating the exaggerated doctrine in the form of a declaration, and then proceeding to refute it. This, however, would leave the reader or hearer in a more or less confused state of mind: did Jesus suffer the popular statement to stand, or did he not? In the form of the account given by Matthew, the declarative statement is decidedly unnatural and misleading. Wellhausen eventually recognized (Comm. on Matthew, p. 87) that the sentence in Mark must be understood as a question; it is perfectly evident, Matthew being also translated from Aramaic, that this is true in both Gospels.

It is altogether probable that the Greek particle, mēn [μήν, of which mén is a weakened form], in the Marcan text, was introduced, by the the memory of an early copyist, from the text of Matthew. Von Soden edits correctly.

To be continued...