Our Translated Gospels

[John Reece]

Exhibit XIV, H (John 20:10)

Chapter IV, THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN AND ITS SUBSTITUTE in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Examples of the "ethical dative" [dative of reference]:

John 20:20 (cf. Luke 24:12) So the disciples went away [for themselves] again.

Exhibit XIV, H (John 20:10; cf. Luke 24:12). No use of the superfluous reflexive pronoun is more common in Aramaic than this: ăzal lēh, "he went away"; ăzalū lĕhōn, "they went away." The Greek merely renders this idiom, too literally, in each of the above named passages.

As for Luke 24:12, so generally omitted by modern critics as a later addition, I find myself in full agreement with the excellent remarks of Lagrange, pp. 601 f. He argues forcibly, that Luke did not derive this verse from John, while on the other hand the correspondence in the Greek of the two accounts seems to show literary dependence, viz. that of John on Luke. Agreeing to this, I should nevertheless question whether the evangelist himself was acquainted with the Third Gospel.

The Galilean version, represented by Mark and Matthew, knew nothing of a visit of Peter to the tomb of Jesus. But the source of Luke's account of the Passion, as I have argued elsewhere (see the next chapter, and The Four Gospels, p. 263), was a Judean document, which Luke translated. The Fourth Gospel was also Judean. The story of Peter's visit to the tomb was current, I believe, in Judean Aramaic, in about the form given to Luke. We see in John a characteristic expansion, of which the details, first in the original language, and then in the Greek translation, need not be considered here.

[John Reece]

Our Translated Gospels

Chapter V, "LUKE AND THE PALESTINIAN DIALECT" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

It is generally taken for granted, and with very good reason, that the author of the third Gospel was a Gentile by birth, and that Palestine was not his native land. Interesting confirmation of the latter belief is given by the two works of translation which we have from his hand: the Gospel and Acts 1:1―15:35.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Our Translated Gospels

Continuation of Chapter V, "LUKE AND THE PALESTINIAN DIALECT" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

In our Greek text of the two documents, certain words are used in a manner that suggests misunderstanding of some sort. Taken in their usual meaning, they yield a sense which is either incongruous with their context or else inadmissible on general grounds. In Luke 2:1, a tax on "all the world" is mentioned; though it is evident, as commentators agree, that only Palestine is intended. Similarly, in Acts 11:28 a famine extending "over the whole world" is shown, by the account which follows, to have affected merely "all Palestine"; at least, the brethren in Syria were not affected by it, but could send relief to the community in Judea.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Our Translated Gospels

Continuation of Chapter V, "LUKE AND THE PALESTINIAN DIALECT" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

The Greek word for "city" appears several times in contexts where it is out of place. It stands for province, or district, in Luke 1:39, unquestionably; and in 8:39, judging from probability and from the close parallel in Mark. In 8:28 and 9:10, on the contrary, it is used where the context requires the meaning uninhabited region! In the foregoing examples, the fact that each peculiar use is repeated shows that it is deliberate, not the result of any accident. We seem to see, at these several points, an ill-fitting terminology; how account for it?

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Our Translated Gospels

Continuation of Chapter V, "LUKE AND THE PALESTINIAN DIALECT" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

In each of these cases it is immediately obvious, to any student of Aramaic who suspects the Greek of being the result of translation, that Luke's Greek renders exactly according to Gentile usage Aramaic words which in the usage peculiar to Palestine have precisely the meaning required by the sense of their several passages, but missed by Luke. Thus, Gentile Aramaic had two words regularly and constantly used for "city," namely medīnā (literally, "region under jurisdiction") and qiryā (originally, "place where hospitality may be found"). In the Palestinian usage, the former word had invariably the meaning "district, province." The latter word, while capable of signifying every degree of human population from capital city to isolated farmhouse, was in Palestine much used in very nearly its primitive sense, to designate the open country adjoining a city or town (exactly as in 8:28 and 9:10!).

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Our Translated Gospels

Continuation of Chapter V, "LUKE AND THE PALESTINIAN DIALECT" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

As for the confusion of Palestine with "the world," no one who is acquainted with Hebrew-Jewish usage can fail to see the explanation of Luke's Greek. The same word which means "the earth" and "the world" means also "the land. But no Gentle would ever render kol ʾarʿā

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Our Translated Gospels

Continuation of Chapter V, "LUKE AND THE PALESTINIAN DIALECT" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

The following "Exhibit" is very significant. Here are seven examples of mistranslation, some of them producing mere nonsense, which have one and the very same natural explanation: the fact of usage characteristic of Palestinian Aramaic, well known today to students of the language, but not belonging to the same native speech of Luke the Gentile. The examples of this kind represent all parts of the Gospel, from the two Hebrew chapters at the beginning to the account of the Passion. Luke is translating, in his characteristic manner, a succession of documents, that is certain, and his material is all Palestinian. There is also evidence that a part of it is specifically Judean, as will appear.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XV. Luke and the Palestinian Dialect

Continuation of Chapter V, "LUKE AND THE PALESTINIAN DIALECT" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Luke 1:39 according to Greek: In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to the city Judah ( מְדִינַת יְהוּדָה ).

True rendering: . . . to the province of Judea (same words).

Exhibit XV, A (Luke 1:39). The Greek of this verse has given much trouble to exegetes. It contains a riddle which is insoluble for all those who refuse to see that Luke's curious Greek (curious not only in this verse, but throughout the Gospel) is the result of translation. There was no "city Judah," and the rendering "a city of Judah" (English R.V.) is grammatically impossible; for in order to express this, the genitive case of the proper name must be shown, as in verse 65, John 4:5, etc. Luke regarded "Judah" as the name of a city, as is quite evident from his Greek in 2:4.

The obvious explanation of Luke's mistake was given by me first in 1909, and has been repeated several times since. The references are given most fully, and the whole subject is treated most completely, in the Harvard Theological Review, Vol. XVII (1924), pp. 83-89. The main facts there fully established and illustrated are (p. 84): "In Hebrew and Jewish-Aramaic writings, from the earliest attested use of the word down through the first few centuries after Christ, medīna has the meaning 'province', in the Gentile usage it always and everywhere means 'city'." Luke was a Gentile, and he rendered accordingly. He makes the same mistake again in 8:39, see below.

Mary, journeying from Galilee, went up through "the hill country" to the province of Judea; so the route is elsewhere described. Thus in Judith 4:6 f. the high priest in Jerusalem calls upon the people of Shechem and Samaria "to hold the passes into the hill country, because, through them was the entrance into Judea." When Mary's husband Joseph makes the same journey, a little later (2:4), he goes up from Nazareth "into Judea." It is perfectly evident that Luke mistranslated, and we know why he did so.

As to the nature of the evidence which this particular mistranslation affords, I may quote from a letter which I received many years ago from the late Professor F. C. Burkitt. The letter is dated at Westroad Corner, Cambridge, Dec. 30, 1912, and contains the following (referring to my "Translations made from the Original Aramaic Gospels"): "In some points indeed, you have made a convert of me; your argument on Luke i 39 εἰς πόλιν Ἰούδα does seem convincing. And further, a phrase like מדינת יהודה is a literary phrase; Luke must therefore have been using a document, not a tale told by the mouth." As is well known, Burkitt later rejected all theories of translation from Hebrew or Aramaic, whether of the first half of Acts or of the Gospel.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XV. Luke and the Palestinian Dialect

Continuation of Chapter V, "LUKE AND THE PALESTINIAN DIALECT" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Luke 8:39 (cf. Mark 5:20) according to Greek: He proclaimed through the whole city what Jesus had done for him.

True rendering: . . . the whole province (same Hebrew word).

Exhibit XV, B (Luke 8:39; cf. Mark 5:20). He went away through the whole city, proclaiming," etc. is less impressive than it sounds. "He proclaimed in the city" would say as much. The Parallel account in Mark says that the man "went away" through the whole district (the Decapolis). telling the marvelous story. It is plain―especially in view of the passage just discussed―that Luke's Aramaic contained the word medīna, which he rendered "city," as usual.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XV. Luke and the Palestinian Dialect

Continuation of Chapter V, "LUKE AND THE PALESTINIAN DIALECT" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Luke 2:1 according to Greek: In those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world ( כָּל הָאָרֶץ ) should be enrolled (cf. Acts 11:28).

True rendering: . . . all the land (of Israel).

Exhibit XV, C (Luke 2:1; cf. Acts 11:28). "The land," for any Jewish writer, was the standing designation of the land of Israel, Palestine; and that, unquestionably, was the meaning of Luke's Hebrew in this passage. The usage was of course utterly foreign to any Greek writer, to whom the phrase would always mean "the earth, the world." A most significant parallel to the present passage, adding testimony which should by no means be overlooked, is Acts 11:28, where Luke, translating this time from Aramaic, makes a Palestinian famine, which did not reach even to Antioch (verse 30), cover the whole inhabited earth. So any Gentile would have rendered.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XV. Luke and the Palestinian Dialect

Continuation of Chapter V, "LUKE AND THE PALESTINIAN DIALECT" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Luke 6:40 (Matthew 10:25) according to Greek: The disciple is not above his teacher; but every one when he is perfected ( תַּקִּין ) shall be as his teacher.

True rendering: . . . fitting (same word) it is that everyone should be as his teacher.

Exhibit XV, D (Luke 6:40; cf. Matthew 10:25). This is a noteworthy example of too-literal, awkward translation, mainly occasioned by unfamiliarity with the dialect of the original. In Matthew the clause reads: "It is enough for the disciple that he should be as his teacher." Luke's original said the same, using a different adjective. In Jewish Aramaic the word taqqīn is frequently used to mean "fitting, good, right," in such sentences as the following: "It is not good that the man should be alone" (Gen. 2:18); "Do to her what seems right to you" (16:16); "It is not meet to do so," etc.; these examples from the Targum. In the Gentile Aramaic usage, on the contrary, the word has only the meaning of the passive participle, "fitted, prepared, ordered," etc.; it is not used at all in the way just illustrated.

Luke's Aramaic read: taqqīn kol lehĕwē kĕ-mallĕfānēh, fittingfitted, every one shall be as his teacher"; which, viewed as Greek, is at least not pleasing, nor does it make acceptable sense.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XV. Luke and the Palestinian Dialect

Continuation of Chapter V, "LUKE AND THE PALESTINIAN DIALECT" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Luke 8:27 according to Greek: . . . a man from the city ( קִרְיְתָא ).

True rendering: . . . from the open country (same word).

Exhibit XV, E (Luke 8:27; cf. Mark 5:2 ff. Matthew 8:28). The maniac did not come "from the city," he came from the tombs in the outlying country. We know this not only from Mark 5:2 and Matthew 8:28 but also from Luke's own account. The man was wild and dangerous; he wore no clothes and dwelt in no house; the attempt had often been made to catch and secure him, but he always broke away and fled to his abode in the tombs (verse 27), in the uninhabited country (verse 29).*

Yet Luke could write, "a man from the city"(!), and the reason for his doing so is evident. He saw before him the word qiryěthā, and rendered it according to its principle meaning in all varieties of Aramaic. In Palestine, however, the word had a remarkable range of meaning in both popular and literary usage. It is "city, village, hamlet, farm, open country," as any lexicon will show. It would never be employed in speaking of the barren or mountainous desert, but only of regions where the land is generally under cultivation. It very frequently designates the uninhabited part of an inhabited district, or the "country" as opposed to the town. This fact at once explain's Luke's mistranslation here, as also the error in 9:10; see below.

*It seems very probable that the similarity of the ending of verse 29 to that of verse 27 accounts for the strange position of the long parenthesis (!), verse 29b, which, judging from the parallels, especially Mark 5:3b, 4, and also from literary considerations, would be expected to follow immediately after verse 27. It is not merely the case that each of the two verses ends with the abode of the demoniac; there was also in the Aramaic text such a graphic resemblance as has caused a multitude of similar transpositions. Verse 27 ended with qabraiyā, verse 29 with dabraiyā (or madbraiyā), plural. The eye of the copyist, who had just written verse 27, caught the latter word, and he went on with what originally had followed verse 29; but at once saw his mistake, and introduced the overlooked passage; the usual proceeding in such cases.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XV. Luke and the Palestinian Dialect

Continuation of Chapter V, "LUKE AND THE PALESTINIAN DIALECT" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Luke 9:10 according to Greek: . . . to the city (called) Bethsaida.

True rendering: . . . to the open country (same word).

Exhibit XV, F (Luke 9:10-12). There is an absurd contradiction here. Jesus invites his nearest disciples to come with him to a quiet place in the country (Mark 6:31 f., Matthew 14:13), for a brief rest. The do so, but the curious crowd follows them. The chosen place is indeed "desert," utterly uninhabited (Luke verse 12), but according to verse 10 it is "the city of Bethsaida"!

The explanation is the same which has just been given for the absurdity in 8:27; see above. Luke's Aramaic text had qiryěthā dī B., and he rendered: "the city which is (called) Bethsaida"; whereas the rendering should have been, "the open country belonging to Bethsaida."

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XV. Luke and the Palestinian Dialect

Ending of Chapter V, "LUKE AND THE PALESTINIAN DIALECT" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Luke 17:22 according to Greek: Days will come, when you will desire to see one of the days ( לַחְדָא מִן יוֹמַיָא ) of the Son of Man.

True rendering: . . . desire greatly to see of the days (same words), etc.

Exhibit XV, G (Luke 17:20). "One of the days" is not plausible, and the commentators all have their trouble with the phrase. Simply "the days" [יוֹמַיָא] is better, for that which the disciples will long to see is the second coming, the Messianic time, as the following context shows. Still more forcible is the phrase which the Aramaic original actually used: "You will greatly [לַחְדָא] desire" to see that time.

The word which Luke misunderstood belongs specifically to the dialect of Judea (Dalman, Gramm., p. 211), and thus gives evidence that Luke's account of the last days of Jesus in Jerusalem, and of his passion, came from a Judean document. The word, lachdā [לַחְדָא], is an adverb, made up from the preposition, the numeral "one," and the feminine ending, and the original meaning was "uniquely." It is very much used in Judean Aramaic. I discussed the word and its use at length in my Composition and Date of Acts, pp. 10-14, showing that Luke misunderstood it in Acts 2:47, at the end of the verse, where the rendering should be: "the Lord added greatly [לַחְדָאSyr. Gramm.min [מִן], "to see of the days," is like that in Isa. 53:11 (Hebrew) and in many other places, usage especially common in Aramaic.

[John Reece]

Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic

Beginning of Chapter VI, "WRONG VOCALIZATION OF THE ARAMAIC" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Because of the structure of Semitic words, built as they are on roots consisting of two or three consonants, the vowels, which chiefly indicate the various modifications of the root idea, are especially important. They are not indicated in the writing; the reader was supposed to recognize the right pronunciation, as he generally could. There was inevitable ambiguity, however, especially in any rapid reading, copying, or translating. Typical verb forms might easily be confused, if the context seemed to leave the choice open. Thus, in numerous instances, the question between past time (the perfect tense) and future time (the active participle, having exactly the same consonants), or between active and passive participles of derived items. Did the evangelist (John 17:14) say: "the world has hated the disciples"? or, "the world will hate them"? Was "every man brought violently into the kingdom of heaven" (Luke 16:16)? or did "every man treat it with violence"?

To be continued...