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:
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]:
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 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.
Comment