Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Our Translated Gospels

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Exhibit XXIII, Aleph Inserted of Omitted

    Chapter IX, "Aleph Inserted or Omitted" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:
    B. John 3:33 according to Greek: He who receives his witness attests that God is ( אֱלָהָ[א] אִתוֹהִי ) true.

    True rendering: He who receives his witness attests that truly he is divine (same, omitting the final aleph.)

    Exhibit XXIII, B (John 3:33 ). This verse, as it stands in our present text, is not merely weak, it is worse than superfluous. It neither brings a conclusion derived from the preceding verses, as its opening words leads us to expect, nor does it give the ground for the following doctrine, which professes to rest on it. Yet the truth which it declares is introduced in impressive words: the lone believer (John the Baptist) who accepts the witness of him who came down from heaven has set his seal to it―that God is true. As though any man who believed in God at all could need to have this solemn assurance.

    The Baptist's testimony to Jesus culminated at this point, and it is perfectly evident, both from the preceding verses and even more from the following, what he must have said at the end of verse 33. He declares again, as in 1:34 (cf. also 1:1), that he who came from above, who is to take away the sin of the world, "is truly a divine being"; God gave* him in full measure (verse 34) the divine spirit. This, and this only, satisfies the whole context.

    Littmann, l.c., p. 33, would prefer bӗqushtā instead of the simple qushtā. The former is indeed usual, but the latter is unimpeachable Aramaic; and this very word, used thus as adverbial accusative, is to be seen in the Jerusalem Targum of Genesis 3:1. The use of Hebrew ӗmeth in Jeremiah 10:10 and Psalm 132:11 is exactly similar.
    *It may be conjectured that the Greek present tense furnishes yet another instance of wrong vocalization of the Aramaic words : yӗhab, "gave," not yāhēb, "gives," being the form intended.

    Comment


    • Exhibit XXIII, Aleph Inserted of Omitted

      Chapter IX, "Aleph Inserted or Omitted" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:
      C. John 5:44 according to Greek: You seek not the glory that comes from the only God ( יְחִידָ[א] אֳלָהָא ).

      True rendering: You seek not the glory . . . from the only Son of God (same, omitting the first aleph.)

      Exhibit XXIII, C (John 5:44 ). This passage was discussed in Exhibit VIII, B, and little need be added here. "The only God" is a phrase ill-suited to this context (Zahn, p. 310, note), and the early textual tradition had trouble with it. Verses 43 f. draw the contrast between the true Messiah, with credentials from heaven, and the merely human pretender, coming in his own name. The people are ready to receive the latter, while they reject the former; they will welcome the glory of a human king, but have no desire for the glory offered them by the only Son of God. This reading is plainly necessary; that given in our Greek makes no sense. Observe, moreover, the relation of this verse to 1:14, which deals with this same "glory," the glory of the only-begotten son!

      Comment


      • Exhibit XXIII, Aleph Inserted of Omitted

        Chapter IX, "Aleph Inserted or Omitted" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:
        D. John 5:27 according to Greek: Because he is a son of man ( בַּר אֳנָשׁ[א] אִתוֹהִי, omitting the second aleph).

        True rendering: Because he is the son of man (reading the aleph).

        Exhibit XXIII, D (John 5:27 ). According to our Greek, Jesus bases his appointment as judge of all the world at the final assize on the fact that he is a human being. As Zahn, p. 299, note 62, remarks, the reason given "would equally well, and equally ill, justify the appointment of any man to this office." There is no reasonable interpretation of the saying; as Zahn rightly insists, the ordinary explanation is ruled out by the undeniably close connection with verse 26, which is part of the same sentence. But the connection of verse 26 with the preceding verses is equally evident, and it is only by ignoring that that Zahn arrives at his own interpretation, p. 300 mid., which is essentially the same as that which he denies to his fellow exegetes.

        The claim made here by Jesus is the same which is made throughout these discourses, and it is perfectly understood by his hearers (5:17 f., 10:30, 33), namely, that his authority is that of a divine being. As verses 22 and 25 say in so many words, he received the appointment to judge as the Son of God; and verse 27 the other title, the Messiah. Cf. Enoch 69:27, "And all judgment was committed to him, the Son of Man." The reason why the latter title is added is plain to see. The evangelist represents Jesus as appealing here, as so often elsewhere, the Hebrew prophecy of the final judgment. The allusion in verses 25 and (especially) 28 f. to Daniel 12:2 is obvious, all his hearers would recognize it. Equally obvious is the reference of the Messianic title, Bar-ӗnāshā, "the Man," to its origin in the same prophecy, 7:13 f., where he who came in the clouds of heaven sat on a throne (verse 9) beside the Ancient of Days, in the judgment scene, and was appointed to reign forever. Cf. Acts 7:56; 10:42 f.

        Comment


        • Post repeated to supply overlooked footnote

          Chapter IX, "Aleph Inserted or Omitted" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:
          D. John 5:27 according to Greek: Because he is a son of man ( בַּר אֳנָשׁ[א] אִתוֹהִי, omitting the second aleph).

          True rendering: Because he is the son of man (reading the aleph).

          Exhibit XXIII, D (John 5:27 ). According to our Greek, Jesus bases his appointment as judge of all the world at the final assize on the fact that he is a human being. As Zahn, p. 299, note 62, remarks, the reason given "would equally well, and equally ill, justify the appointment of any man to this office." There is no reasonable interpretation of the saying; as Zahn rightly insists, the ordinary explanation is ruled out by the undeniably close connection with verse 26, which is part of the same sentence. But the connection of verse 26 with the preceding verses is equally evident, and it is only by ignoring that that Zahn arrives at his own interpretation, p. 300 mid., which is essentially the same as that which he denies to his fellow exegetes.

          The claim made here by Jesus is the same which is made throughout these discourses, and it is perfectly understood by his hearers (5:17 f., 10:30, 33), namely, that his authority is that of a divine being. As verses 22 and 25 say in so many words, he received the appointment to judge as the Son of God; and verse 27 the other title, the Messiah. Cf. Enoch 69:27, "And all judgment was committed to him, the Son of Man." The reason why the latter title is added is plain to see. The evangelist represents Jesus as appealing here, as so often elsewhere, the Hebrew prophecy of the final judgment. The allusion in verses 25 and (especially) 28 f. to Daniel 12:2 is obvious, all his hearers would recognize it. Equally obvious is the reference of the Messianic title, Bar-ӗnāshā, "the Man," to its origin in the same prophecy, 7:13 f., where he who came in the clouds of heaven sat on a throne (verse 9) beside the Ancient of Days, in the judgment scene, and was appointed to reign forever.* Cf. Acts 7:56; 10:42 f.
          *The prediction in Daniel 7:13 f. of the long-expected one, a divine being in human form, destined for an eternal reign in Jerusalem, is certainly definite enough (the passage Enoch 69:26-29, cited above, shows that it was perfectly understood); and this, exactly, with the added specification of Davidic lineage, had been the substance of the Jewish Messianic hope for centuries past. When the detailed historical interpretation of Daniel's vision reached this point, in verses 26 f., the author of the apocalypse had no need to repeat himself, and showed his wisdom, and his artistic sense, by using only vague terms. This was not the place to be definite. [See the comments by Adela and John Collins here ―JR]

          Comment


          • Exhibit XXIII, Aleph Inserted of Omitted

            Chapter IX, "Aleph Inserted or Omitted" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:
            E. John 8:56 according to Greek: Abraham rejoiced ( בָּע[א] אַבְֶרָהָם ) to see my day, and he saw it and rejoiced.

            True rendering: Abraham prayed (same, with the aleph).

            Exhibit XXIII, E (John 8:56 ). The two verbs which are confused in this passage (whether by a copyist of the Aramaic text or by the translator) are the same which caused similar trouble in 6:21; see Exhibit XVIII, D.. Burney, Aram. Origin, p. 111, saw that the tautology in the sentence could not be original, and suspected mistranslation, but made no plausible suggestion as to the text which was rendered. The verb which he conjectured is not known in Western Aramaic, and (if used as in Syriac) would not have been misunderstood, since its regular meaning, "desire," is the one which the passage plainly requires. The true explanation is to be found in the habitual carelessness with aleph.

            Comment


            • Exhibit XXIII, Aleph Inserted of Omitted

              Chapter IX, "Aleph Inserted or Omitted" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:
              F. John 11:2 according to Greek: . . . and her brother Lazarus was sick ( כְּרִיהּ[א] אִתוֹהִי הֲוָא, omitting the aleph).

              True rendering: (with aleph) . . . and Lazarus the sick man, was her brother.

              Exhibit XXIII, F (John 11:1 f. ). The intolerable awkwardness of this passage is well known. "A certain" sick man, Lazarus, is introduced, who lived in the same town with Martha and Mary; the reader would gladly know whether he was acquainted with the two sisters. The narrator, however, at once loses interest in the man, and hastens to tell us about Mary. Her story is already familiar in Christian circles: "It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother was sick. It is needless to say that the evangelist did not write this. Walter Bauer, Komm., gives a partial list of scholars who have pronounced the text corrupt.

              The corruption is extremely slight, however, merely the familiar result of the careless writing of a single aleph instead of two. Otherwise, the passage is in perfect shape, the desired information standing where it should stand, at the end, and the important word, "her brother," occupying the emphatic position at the beginning of the clause, in the Aramaic. The order of words here may have helped to mislead the translator―or the scribe who copied the original text.
              .

              Comment


              • Chapter X: Waw or Yodh Inserted or Omitted

                Chapter X, "WAW OR YODH Inserted or Omitted" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                Much of what was said in the preceding chapter in regard to aleph applies equally to the two "formative letters" which are now under consideration. The consonant waw, indeed, is more likely than any other letter to be given a false repetition; this chiefly because of the extravagant use of the conjunction, which in its various meanings may begin almost any sentence or clause. This particular form of textual corruption, now the work of the copyist, now of the translator, is very familiar in the O.T. There are in Biblical Hebrew many instances like those shown below in Mark 10:32 and John 1:12 f. where a verb originally singular number is made into a false plural by duplicating the waw of the following sentence or clause. Excellent examples of just this nature are Exek. 46:9 and 10(!); Ezra 2:62 (cf. Neh. 7:64); Psa. 22:32.

                To be continued...
                .

                Comment


                • Continued from the last post above ↑

                  Chapter X, "WAW OR YODH Inserted or Omitted" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                  See also such outstanding examples of the falsely doubled letter as 2 Kings 9:33; 11:1; and Jer. 4:5. In Gen 34:29 we read . . . "and their children and their wives they took captive and plundered, and all that was in the house." Here the Greek has preserved the true reading: "and their children and their wives they took captive, and they plundered all that was in the city," etc. In the very same way, perhaps, was introduced the unnecessary "and" ("also") in Acts 3:24: "And all the prophets, from Samuel and his successors onward, as many as spoke, (and) told of those days." The verb "spoke" ended with was, and the conjunction meaning "also" has a strange sound in this Semitizing Greek.

                  To be continued...
                  .

                  Comment


                  • Continued from the last post above ↑

                    Chapter X, "WAW OR YODH Inserted or Omitted" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                    As for the letter yodh, the cases of false doubling are of course less numerous, in the transmission of any Hebrew or Aramaic text. The only example which has been found in the Gospels is Matthew 2:23 (see below), a passage in which the antecedent probability of this misreading is very strong. Even if a scribe should copy the words correctly, the translator would be almost certain to "see double." In the Massoretic Hebrew the same mistake, in exactly this form, may be seen in Isaiah 26:19 and Hosea 9:16. Other examples of the doubling are 2 Chronicles 24:25; Isaiah 12:1; 41:14 (read rimmath); 62:5; Zechariah 12:5.
                    .

                    Comment


                    • Exhibit XXIV. Slight Corruption (repeated waw or yodh)

                      Chapter X, SLIGHT CORRUPTION (REPEATED WAW OR YODH)" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                      A. Mark 10:32 according to Greek: They were on the way, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was going before them, and they were amazed, and they who followed were afraid ( וּתְוַהוּ וְדִי אָזְלִין הֲווֹ בָּתְרֵחּ דְּחֵלוּ ).

                      True rendering: They were on the way, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was going before them, and he was in deep distress ( וּתְוַהּ ), and they who followed were afraid.

                      Exhibit XXIV, A (Mark 10:32). Since in the Semitic script there was no division of words, not even a space at the end of sentences, a mistake of the nature illustrated in the first two examples given here was very easy indeed. In the Hebrew text of the O.T. there are many cases of exactly this error, yielding occasionally readings which are absurd, as in Josh. 2:4 and Ezek. 46:9 f. (our translations of course rejecting the extra waw and rendering according to the necessary meaning). Similar receptions of yodh are also common in O.T. Hebrew, and we shall see how in Matthew 2:23 the little mistake has wrought great mischief.

                      In the Marcan passage now before us, we see chaos produced by this familiar slip of the copyist, the repetition of the little perpendicular mark which indicates both the plural verb and the conjunction. Our Greek text leaves us to guess why the Master's followers were "amazed," and why the members of the other(!) company were "afraid." Misunderstanding of the former Greek verb is partly responsible for this. In the less-common use illustrated here, it is not the idea of surprise that is expressed, but rather that of distress, or painful agitation. See especially Mark 14:33 (a most important parallel), also 1 Macc. 6:8; Wisdom 17:3; 1 Sam. 16:14 (Aquila!); etc. Jesus' distress, the cause of which is told in the verses which follow, was of course seen and felt by those who accompanied him as he set out on his last journey.

                      Comment


                      • Exhibit XXIV. Slight Corruption (repeated waw or yodh)

                        Chapter X, SLIGHT CORRUPTION (REPEATED WAW OR YODH)" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                        B. John 1:12 f. according to Greek: Those who received him he gave power to become children of God, to those believing on his name, who were born ( בִּשְׁמֵהּ דִּי אִתְיְלֵדוּ ) not of blood, nor of carnal desire, nor of the will of man, but of God.

                        True rendering: To those who received him he gave power to become children of God, to those believing on the name of him who was born ( בִּשְׁמֵהּ דִּי אִתְיְלֵד ), not of blood, nor of carnal desire, nor of the will of man, but of God.

                        Exhibit XXIV, B (John 1:12 f.). Our Greek contains a very serious blunder, of which the cause is obvious and the result of an impossible saying. The verb ("was born," "were born") is in the past tense, not the future; this is not a promise of being "born again" (3:3), Only one being could be described in the phrases used here. There was an only begotten Son, born not of the flesh nor of human will, but of God (1:18, 34; 3:16, etc.). The present passage has its perfect parallel in believing on the name of the only begotten Son of God―showing plainly enough that 1:13 is corrupt.

                        The Greek translator's mistake was an easy one, an error of which, as we have seen, there are very many examples. Burney, Aram. Origin, pp. 34 f., explains the present case fully. The verb "born" stood at the end of the sentence (as it does in the Syriac version), and the next verse began with the conjunction waw, "and." This waw was read as the last letter of the preceding verse, thus making the verb plural. It is precisely the same mistake which was made in Mark 10:32, resulting in the false plural; see above.

                        Comment


                        • Exhibit XXIV. Slight Corruption (repeated waw or yodh)

                          Chapter X, SLIGHT CORRUPTION (REPEATED WAW OR YODH)" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                          C. Matthew 2:23 according to Greek: He came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; in fulfillment of that which was said by the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene ( נָצְרָי יִתקְרֵא ).

                          True rendering: (The prophecy was fulfilled) that he should be called 'Branch' ( נֵצֶר יִתקְרֵא ).

                          Exhibit XXIV, C (Matthew 2:23). This passage, also, furnishes a very obvious specimen of mistranslation, or erroneous transcription, of a written Aramaic original.

                          The alleged citation of "the prophets" has been the subject of endless discussion from the first Christian centuries onward, but the riddle has remained unsolved. And indeed, it is perfectly insoluble on the supposition of a gospel composed in Greek. There is no such prediction in the O.T., nor anything that could justify the evangelist's (apparent) assertion. Interpreters in a long succession, beginning with St. Jerome, have wished to find here some legitimate connection with the Neser, "Branch," of Isa. 11:1, but without success. This is, nevertheless, the scripture to which Matthew refers; and inasmuch as the Messiah is also styled "Branch" in Jer. 23:5 (though another Hebrew word is employed), the evangelist's plural "prophets." has a fair excuse.

                          Just as soon as the phrase, "he shall be called a Neser," is written in Aramaic letters, the long-existing puzzle is explained. Because of the statement immediately preceding, that Jesus dwelt in Nazareth in fulfillment of scripture, the copyist or translator would be certain to regard the yodh following the name as the reading of the gentilic adjective, forming the word "Nazarene." The scribe would write the letter twice, the reader would see it double, and certainly neither could be supposed to "look up" the reference in whatever scrolls of the Hebrew prophets it might be possible to acquire! "Neser" and "Nazareth" belong to the same Semitic root, and I plan to show in another place, on the basis of well-known usage, why the Greek transcription of the gentilic adjective contains zeta omega.

                          Comment


                          • Exhibit XXV. Slight Corruption (waw inserted or omitted)

                            Exhibit XXV. SLIGHT CORRUPTION (waw inserted or omitted) in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                            A. Mark 6:20 according to Greek: Herod feared John, whom he knew to be a just and holy man; and he kept him, and many things which he heard from him he did, and he heard him gladly ( וְנָטַר הֲוָא לֵהּ [וְ]שַׂגִּאָן שְׁמַע מִנֵהּ [עֲבַד] וְשָׁמַע הֲוָא לֵהּ בִּנְעִימָא ).

                            True rendering: Herod feared John . . . and he kept (in memory) many things which he had heard from him, for he heard him gladly (same Aramaic text, with the bracketed portions omitted).

                            Exhibit XXV, A (Mark 6:20). In the three examples which here follow, the trouble begins in a phrase which might be understood in either of two ways; and the context eventually shows that it was misunderstood, the result being a false division of clauses. In such cases, it is usually impossible to decide whether the mistake was made by the copyist of the Aramaic, or by the Greek translator; either one might easily have misread. The resulting text may differ from the original only in the presence or absence of the conjunction "and"; but it frequently happens, when the mistake of this sort is made, that a word must be supplied to finish out the newly created clause.

                            In Mark 6:20 the Aramaic verb "he kept" was followed by a pronoun which might be either the direct object, or the "ethical dative" so characteristic of Aramaic and so constantly employed. Since Herod's imprisonment of John had just been narrated, the interpretation "he kept him (in prison)" was decidedly the more natural (though the wrong one); and the clause which then followed required an inserted word, supplied by the sense, to complete it. But the Aramaic verb (also Hebrew) is regularly used for "keeping in memory"; cf. Dan. 7:28; Luke 2:19; etc., and here the exact rendering would be "he kept for himself." As to the inserted word, the Greek testimony varies. I believe that "he did many things"―a very difficult reading, when once it is reflected upon―was the original, and that it was improved to "he was greatly perplexed," perhaps with the help of a suggestion from Luke 9:7.

                            The insertion of a word to complete a clause created by a wrongly inserted "and" is a thing very familiar to those who have worked long with Semitic manuscripts and their renderings. It would be easy to illustrate extensively, if space permitted. A typical instance from O.T. Hebrew is to be seen in Isa. 41:29 (my Second Isaiah, p. 321). A capital example in a Greek transliteration from Aramaic is afforded by the Lagarde Greek of 1 Esdras 4:39 (Ezra Studies, p. 25), where the copyist shied at the strange Aramaic idiom, faithfully rendered in the standard text.
                            Last edited by John Reece; 02-05-2015, 11:02 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Exhibit XXV. Slight Corruption (waw inserted or omitted)

                              Exhibit XXV. SLIGHT CORRUPTION (waw inserted or omitted) in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                              B. Matthew 24:51; Luke 12:46 according to Greek: (The master of that servant) will divide him, and, and his portion with the false ones will appoint ( [יְפַלְּגִנֵּהּ [וַ]חֲלָקֵהּ עִם שַׁקָּרַיָּא [יְשִׂם ).

                              True rendering: (The master of that servant) will divide him his portion with the false ones (same Aramaic text, with the bracketed portions omitted).

                              Exhibit XXV, B (Matthew 24:51; Luke12:46). Another case of the same nature; highly interesting in itself, and of added importance as one of the examples of the appearance of the same corrupt reading in more than one Aramaic document―as might have been expected.

                              The part of the verse which describes the fate of the unfaithful steward does not sound quite plausible. Is this an instance of ungovernable temper on the part of the householder? The steward's outrageous conduct was of a sort to which servants given free hand, in the absence of the master, have always and everywhere been especially prone. It does not appear that in this case the householder's property had suffered any considerable loss, or that anything had been done which could require the police to step in. The usual punishment of such mismanagement has been to dismiss the culprit in disgrace, branded as faithless and likely to have difficulty finding another place. Moreover, it is quite evident that after this particular sinner had been "cut in two" it could make no difference to him, or to any one else, where they should "appoint his portion."

                              The false reading came into being very naturally, and its occasion is very obvious. The idiom, "divide him his portion," is good Semitic; we see it used, with the same Aramaic verb conjectured here, in the Peshitta version of Isa. 53:12 and Jer. 37:12. The pronominal suffix attached to the verb (as in the passage in Isaiah, just mentioned) was taken by the scribe to be direct object (as ordinarily it would be), and the rest followed as a matter of course. The mistake was made as soon as the document began to be circulated, and we have evidence that at least two of the copies current in Palestine contained the error. The several variations between Luke's Greek and that of Matthew, in this paragraph of a half-dozen verses, are such as to indicate two Aramaic texts nearly identical in their wording, yet differing slightly. Observe also that just below, in verse 49, occurs one of the plainest examples of Luke's mistranslation; see Exhibit VI, E.

                              In the letter referred to in the note on Exhibit XV, A, Professor Burkitt accepted the emendation here proposed, saying: "And also [I agree] about διχοτομήσει, which indeed I had also thought of."

                              Comment


                              • Exhibit XXV. SLIGHT CORRUPTION (waw inserted or omitted)

                                Exhibit XXV. SLIGHT CORRUPTION (waw inserted or omitted) in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:
                                C. John 7:3 according to Greek: His brethren said to him, Go forth, get away to Judea, so that your disciples also may see your "works" which you perform ( יָחֳזוֹן תַּלְמִידַיִך עֲבָדַיִך דִּי עָבֵד אַנְתְּ ).

                                True rendering: . . . Go forth . . . to Judea, so that they may see your "disciples" (and) the "works" (literally, your* works) which you perform (same Aramaic text, except for the conjunction in ( וַעֲבָדַיִך ).
                                *The suffixed pronoun would be used here in the Aramaic, but its rendering in the Greek translation is decidedly unpleasing.

                                Exhibit XXV, C (John 7:3). The absurd reading of our Greek text hardly needs comment; notice however that the next verse bids Jesus show his wonders to the world (not simply the band of obscure and over-credulous Galileans)!

                                The reason of the mistake made by the translator (or copyist?) is as obvious as any error of translating can be: the subject of the verb, "that they may see," is the indefinite plural which is omnipresent in Aramaic; while its direct object, "your disciples," immediately following, holds the place ordinarily occupied by the subject. Any rapidly working scribe or translator of the Aramaic text would therefore have been likely to omit or overlook the following waw. Another of the many unquestionable proofs of a translated Fourth Gospel.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X