Our Translated Gospels

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above↑

Chapter VIII, "SLIGHT CORRUPTION OF THE ARAMAIC TEXT" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Much more important is the conflation in Luke 22:17-20. The secondary element is verses 17 and 18. No evangelist mentions any of the regular features of the paschal supper; there would be no sense in doing so (the hymn after its close is mentioned, very naturally, by Mark and Luke). The Synoptists tell merely of a little special ceremony introduced by Jesus while he and the twelve were at table, a ceremony in which was symbolized the partaking of his body and blood. First the bread: "This is my body." Then the cup: "This is my blood of the new covenant, my blood shed for men." Each of the three evangelists gives these essential features, in this order.

Luke's account, which is more concise than the others, is in our Gospel preceded by a passage, verses 22:17-18, which supplies every portion of the text which is contained in Mark and Matthew but is wanting in Luke's compact version; namely, in the ceremony of the cup. Not merely the very striking words relating to the fruit of the vine and the kingdom of God, but also the exhortation, "drink if it, all of you," and the item "giving thanks" are included in it. It contains only what is in the two earlier Gospels; partly in different phraseology, but mainly with such verbal agreement as to ensure the identity. Though containing no allusion to the symbolism of body and blood, it is expressly made a part of the little ceremony, with very disturbing result.

The evident purpose of the passage is to gain completeness at this most important point. Whose purpose was this? Certainly not Luke's! He had before him the Greek texts of Matthew and Mark, and could only have appended the important words (now verse 18) to his verse 20, where they obviously belong. It was another who undertook the rectification. Why did this author (or reporter) of verses 17 f. omit, in his "authentic" text of the ceremony of the cup derived from Mark and Matthew, the sentence relating to "the blood of the covenant, shed for many"? Because it already stood in the account which he wished to supplement.

This is a clear case of interpolation, but it was not done in the Greek. The inflation had already taken place in Luke's source, as the evidence distinctly shows. As many commentators have observed, his hand is plainly to be seen in the Greek (rather awkward Greek) of verse 18.* He is translating here, as every where else, and could only reproduce his original, though it spoiled the following account. The variation in wording, between verses 17 f. and the corresponding sentences in Mark and Matthew, is just such as was usual in the multiform "gospel" material in Aramaic which was carried in memory from town to town and repeatedly written out. Before Luke found his Judean document, containing the story of Jesus' last days, it had received the troublesome insertion, the text of which was the following:

וְקַבֵּל כָּסָא וְאוֹדִי וְאָמַר סַבוּ דְנָה וּפַלֵּגוּ לְכוֹן אֲדֵי אָמַר אֲנָא לְכוֹן לָא אָשׁתֵּא מִכְּעַן מִן פֵּירָא דִי גֻפְנָא עַל דִי יֵאתַא מַלְכּוּת אֱלָהָא׃

It is clear, from the wording of the original document, that the insertion could have been made only as and where it now stands.

*The fact of Luke's own handiwork here, in the absence of any knowledge that he was simply rendering the Semitic text that lay before him, necessarily made impossible any recognition of the true character of these two verses.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above↑

Chapter VIII, "SLIGHT CORRUPTION OF THE ARAMAIC TEXT" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

It may be permissible in this connection to take account of a passage illustrating (if I am not mistaken) both conflation of the gospel text and a typical copyist's oversight, though the case has nothing to do with translation.

The conflation in the Greek of Matthew 16:2-4 and the subsequent loss of a portion of the text, probably occurred as follows. Some time after verse 4a had been interpolated from 12:39, a later copyist very naturally went on from "He answered and said to them" to the familiar conclusion―the severe rebuke of the Jews, never to be omitted!―"An evil and adulterous generation," etc., which met his eye just below, without noticing his omission of a portion of the text. The accident must have taken place very early, and in an otherwise excellent copy; hence the absence of this interesting passage in many of the oldest and best manuscripts.

The supposed insertion of verses 2b-3 is commonly explained as "a freely composed gloss based on Luke 12:54-56"; which, however, is utterly different material, similar only in the bare fact that it draws a lesson from the ability of men to predict some kinds of weather! This explanation supposes a proceeding which would be strange indeed, even if it were not a case of "freely composing" the words of Jesus and inserting them, supported by no parallel, in a finished work. As against the supposition of a very ordinary scribal oversight, it can hardly stand.

[John Reece]

Exhibit XXI, A (Mark 9:29).

Exhibit XXI. Slight Corruption of the Aramaic in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

A. Mark 9:29 according to Greek: Such (demons) as this cannot by any means be cast out, except ( אִן לָא ) by prayer.

True rendering: Such as this cannot by any means be cast out, not even ( אַף לָא ) by prayer.

Exhibit XXI, A (Mark 9:29). The reading of our Greek is impossible, as can easily be shown. Was the failure of the disciples the result of using false means? Recent commentators (Wellhausen, Klostermann-Gressman, Swete, Lagrange, and others) have sought refuge in the in the supposition that they had failed because they neglected divine help, and attempted to exorcise this demon by the use of magic. This strange hypothesis will not bear examination. The twelve had been given power to cast out demons (3:15, 6:7). If on this occasion the nine, with one accord, had abused the great trust reposed in them, resorting to magic(!), Jesus could not have failed to set them right. Is he rebuking them for not having had recourse to prayer? If that had been the case, he certainly must have expressed himself in more definite words than these. He does not admonish them; what he says sounds as though he took it for granted that the use of prayer, as a means of gaining help, would not have occurred to any of them. The "fasting" which is dragged in by so many ancient witnesses does not help matters―even if it could be accepted as belonging to the original text.

The disciples were conscious of having used every means known to them; and they ask, in good faith, "Why could not we cast it out?" It must not be forgotten that they had not only been "given power" to perform this species of cure, but also had exercised it; 6:13 says that they had "cast out many demons." Had they all forgotten―within a very brief space of time―what they had learned? When their efforts on this occasion were not successful, might it not have occurred to at least some one of the nine to try the means which had succeeded in so "many" cases?

Jesus, far from rebuking them, gives them some excuse by specifying "this kind" of evil spirit. This, along with the fact that he himself wrought the miracle without prayer, shows plainly enough that what he meant to declare was the unusual difficulty of this case, and the fact that the requirement for success was a full measure of faith; as had already been said to the boy's father in verse 23, and is said emphatically to the disciples in the parallel account, Matthew 17:20. According to either evangelist, Jesus tells the twelve that this was too formidable a task for them, a case beyond the power of any prayer of theirs; for back of the prayer, in order to drive out a demon of this power, there must be such a degree of faith as mere human beings might have (Mark 11:23; Matthew 17:20; Luke 17:6, but in fact at that time no human being did have.

This interpretation, so fully given by Matthew, and plainly declared in Mark (verse 23), is nevertheless forbidden by the final words of verse 29; words which, as shown above, have given much trouble. The source of the trouble was the misreading of a single Aramaic letter, Nūn and pē may be easily confused even in the "square letters" of this early time, and in the script of the Aramaic papyri there are cases of perfect graphic identity. It was natural for copyist or translator to read "except" in the immediate context, but "not even is plainly (and exactly) the reading required.

[John Reece]

Exhibit XXI, B. Mark 15:21 (Mt. 27:32; Lk. 23:26)

Exhibit XXI. Slight Corruption of the Aramaic in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

B. Mark 15:21 (Matthew 27:32; Luke 23:26) according to Greek: Simon of Cyrene ( קִרֵנָי ), coming from the field.

True rendering: Simon, a farmer ( קִרְוָי ) coming from the field.

Exhibit XXI, B (Mark 15:21 and parallels). In both words, "Cyrene" and "farmer, the first syllable of the Aramaic word may be written in more than one way; but it is immaterial which way it is conjectured, since in either case the graphic correspondence is perfect. As for the final syllable: waw and nun are very frequently confused, both in inscriptions from various periods and also in the Hebrew text of the O.T. There is no need to give examples, the fact is so well known.

Since this Simon is expressly identified in Mark, it was a matter of course that the Greek translators of Matthew and Luke would follow their predecessor (the only reason given) in rendering "Cyrenian." Moreover, the word qirwāi, "rustic," written with waw, is only Palestinian, and may not have been familiar to any one of the three translators. The only natural way of reading the adjective, for one who was not born Palestinian was with nun. The statement that the man was coming from the field seems to decide in favor of "farmer, farm-laborer," as the original reading.

[John Reece]

Exhibit XXI, C (Luke 13:32 f.)

Exhibit XXI. Slight Corruption of the Aramaic in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

C. Luke 13:32 f. according to Greek: I shall cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I shall be perfected. Nevertheless it must be that today and tomorrow and on the day following I go my way, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish elsewhere than in Jerusalem.

True rendering: I shall cast out demons . . . today and tomorrow, and on the third day I shall be delivered up. For indeed it must be that today and tomorrow I work ( לְמָעְבַּד ), and on the day following go my way ( לְמָעְבַּר ), for it cannot be that a prophet should perish elsewhere than Jerusalem.

Exhibit XXI, C (Luke 13:32 f.). The difficulty of verse 33 is notorious. It makes no acceptable sense, besides contradicting verse 32, and that very seriously. Did Jesus suddenly change his mind about continuing his work "today and tomorrow," as the Greek seems to say that he did? Moreover, the verb "go my way," however it may be understood, is ineffectual, and merely bewildering, in its present context. The Peshitta and Sahidic versions read: "It is necessary for me today and tomorrow to work"; an unwarranted doctoring of the text, for there could be no plausible way of accounting for the omission, from the Greek, of so important a verb. Wellhausen, seeing clearly the impossibility of the present text, devised an elaborate theory of interpolation; and a few other commentators―in their despair―have tried to make his conjecture seem plausible.

Verse 33 declares as necessity what verse 32 had merely predicted: "Indeed it is necessary for me today and tomorrow [to work] and on the third day to pass on, for" . . . etc. Certainly a verb has been accidentally omitted, and when the retroversion into Aramaic is made, the reason for the accident appears immediately. The two verbs, "work" [עבד] and "pass on [עבר]," are graphically identical. A copyist of the Aramaic corrected what he supposed to be a careless repetition.

"Going one's way" is a common Semitic euphemism in speaking of death. So this same verb is used in the O.T. Hebrew as well as in Aramaic. Observe that Jesus is represented as employing it, in predicting his own death, in 22:22 (which, with its two verbs, "goes his way" and "is delivered up," sounds like a reminiscence of the present passage!), John 8:21 f.. (Cf. also Matthew 26:24.) The restoration of this passage in Luke 13 is unusually interesting and important; verse 33, with the contrast in its paronomasia, is a fine bit of Aramaic eloquence.

[John Reece]

Exhibit XXI, D (Luke 21:5)

Exhibit XXI. Slight Corruption of the Aramaic in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

D. Luke 21:5 according to Greek: As some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive offerings ( וְקֻרְבָּנִין ), he said, etc.

True rendering: . . . adorned with beautiful and great ( וְרוֹרְבָנִין ) stones, etc.

Exhibit XXI, D (Luke 21:5). In the Aramaic document which Luke had in his hands, the interest of the writer had been so completely taken up with the great discourse that he gave no attention to the setting, but merely wrote a brief introduction. The scene, however, was also of great interest, and must from the very first have been in imagination before the eyes of each reader or hearer of the discourse. Luke's source omitted it as familiar to everybody.

Jesus, with the disciples and others, had left the temple, and they were already away from the crowd and outside the wall of the city (Mark 13:1 f.; Matthew 24:1 f.). As they looked back, they were thrilled (as beholders alway have been, and are to this day) by the sight of the enormous and beautifully fitted blocks at the southeast corner of the temple enclosure. The author of the Aramaic retroversion which lies back of the Bezae Greek (who knew the topography of Jerusalem, see Acts 12:10!) says in verse 6, "stone upon stone in this wall"; and there is every reason to believe that this was intended in the Lucan account.

The "votive offerings" are utterly impossible. They could not have been seen, even if the discourse had been delivered in the temple enclosure (and any author or editor of that day would have realized that it could not have been delivered there; it was not at all fit for public hearing). Since the noun "votive offering" and the adjective "great" (plural) look alike in Aramaic script, and since the size of the stones is especially mentioned in Mark, the emendation seems certain. Commentators remark that "adorned with votive offerings" is a frequently occurring phrase, especially in the descriptions of the temple at Jerusalem. Certainly; that is the reason, in all probability, why Luke saw the wrong Aramaic word and made his mistranslation.

[John Reece]

Exhibit XXII, A (Luke 19:20)

Exhibit XXI. Slight Corruption of the Aramaic in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

A. Luke 19:20 according to Greek: When the other(!) ( אָחֳרָנָא ) came, he said, Master, here is your mina, which I have kept, etc.

True rendering: When the last one ( אַחֲרָיָא ) came, he said, Master, here is your mina, etc.

Exhibit XXII, A. (Luke 19:20). In a series of ten, the enumeration, "the first, the second, and the other, with no previous identification of "the other," is impossible in any language. A few scholars have tried to smooth over the difficulty by altering the Greek, but with no sound basis for the proceeding. Lagrange, , holds (as usual) to the textual evidence, but suggests that between verse 13 and verse 20 the fact that there were ten servants had been forgotten. This is balm for the Greek, but a black eye for Luke. There is a blunder somewhere; this, at least can be said with certainty.

As in the multitude of other cases, the explanation of the difficulty is found in the underlying Semitic. The ease with which the Aramaic adjective meaning "other" and "last" might be confused can be seen by any one; they are actually confused in Daniel 4:5. That which is required here, in order to bring the parable to its conclusion is, unquestionably, "the last."

[John Reece]

Exhibit XXII, B (Luke 24:17)

Exhibit XXI. Slight Corruption of the Aramaic in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

B. Luke 24:17 according to Greek: What matters are these that you are discussing, as your walk? And they stood still, looking sad ( וַאֲפֵכוּ נְסִסִן ).

True rendering: What matters are these that you are discussing, as you walk with sad faces ( וְאַפֵּכוֹן נְסִסִין )?

Exhibit XXII, B. (Luke 24:17). In this case the false reading was brought about by the accidental omission of a letter which was repeated―a common error. The blame is not to be put upon Luke, the text before him was defective at this point. The resulting reading, perfectly attested, is quite unacceptable, not to say absurd. "They stood still," instead of walking on, would have been an abrupt and impolite―as apparently resentful―way of receiving Jesus' question (why should he take the liberty of asking the subject of their conversation?). The Greek adjective means "angry, sullen," quite as often as "sad"; were they vexed at the meddling of the stranger? Hence the omission, or alteration of the phrase, "and they stood still," in some of the best Greek texts and in the most important versions; this being the only way of giving Jesus a clear excuse for his question.

The Aramaic verb (a dialectical word), like its Hebrew equivalent, means normally "turn, turn about," but the Hebrew is frequently used of altering a plan or habit, and may also mean "stop short" (in one's course), as is shown by the LXX rendering in Judg. 20:39, where the Greek has the same verb as our passage. There certainly is strong reason to believe that the Aramaic text conjectured here is what the author of the narrative wrote, since the slip of the copyist was a very ordinary one, and the Greek translator could only render in the words which are before us.

[John Reece]

Exhibit XXII, C (John 5:34)

Exhibit XXI. Slight Corruption of the Aramaic in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

C. John 5:34 according to Greek: I myself do not receive ( אחד ) witness from man, but I say these things that you may be saved ( דִּי אַנְתּוּן תֵּיחוֹן )

True rendering: I myself do not receive witness from man, but I say that which you will receive ( דִּי אַנְתּוּן תֵּיחֲדֻן ).

Exhibit XXII, C. (John 5:34). The last clause of this verse seems incongruous with the tone of the discourse, see especially verses 42-47. It is moreover not clear how these obdurate opponents of Jesus could be saved by being reminded of John's testimony; the expression is is too strong to be plausible. And how account for the emphatic pronoun, "you," in the Greek, plainly contrasted with the emphatic "I" at the beginning of the verse.

In the original Aramaic, the mutual resemblance of the characters waw and daleth, coupled with the writing of the ending -ūn without the vowel-letter (as occasionally in O.T. Hebrew, see Ex. 21:18; Deut. 8:13; Ps. 36:9; etc.), led to a misreading. It is obvious that the reading here restored is the original; nothing else can satisfy the context, or account for the Greek.

[John Reece]

Exhibit XXII, D (John 7:8)

Exhibit XXI. Slight Corruption of the Aramaic in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

D. John 7:8 according to Greek: I will not go up to the feast, for ( לְעֵידָא דִּי ) my time is not yet fulfilled.

True rendering: I will not go up yet, for ( לִי עַד אֲרֵי ) my time is not yet fulfilled.

Exhibit XXII, D. (John 7:8). Many since Porphyry (3rd century) have jeered at the spectacle of the fickleness, if not conscious deception, shown here by the "divine Logos"; for the "not yet," introduced into some Greek texts, is plainly secondary, inserted in order to get rid of the very unpleasant conclusion.

Retroversion into the original language seems to show that a slight error of transcription resulted in a false reading. For three reasons the scribe would be likely to see the word "feast" in the second clause of the verse: the preposition after "go up" would naturally be taken to mean "to" (in fact, it signified the "ethical dative"); Jesus had just said in verse 6, and now repeats, that his (supreme) "time" had not come; and especially, the letters of the word "feast" are actually there, in the expected place, with only the the yodh transposed. In a text written (as all Semitic texts were) without any division of words the mistake was extremely easy.

[John Reece]

Exhibit XXII, E (John 14:31)

Exhibit XXII. Slight Corruption of the Aramaic in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

E. John 14:31 according to Greek: But that the world may know . . . that as the Father has given me commandment thus I do―arise, let us go hence(!) ( כֵן עָבֵד אֲנָא קוּמוּ נֵאזֵל מִכָּא ).

True rendering: But that the world may know . . . that as the Father has given me commandment, thus I do, I will arise and go hence ( כֵּן עָבֵד אֲנָא אֱקוּם וְאֵזֵל מִכָּא ).

Exhibit XXII, E. (John 14:31). This famous riddle of the Fourth Gospel is easily solved as a Semitic textual problem. Retroversion into Aramaic (the precise words, and their order, all certain) shows the cause of the trouble. The very common omission of one of two consecutive alephs resulted, necessarily, in the reading shown in our Greek, as any one familiar with either Aramaic or Hebrew can see. The case might therefore have been included in the following Exhibit (XXIII), see below.

It is obvious that our Greek does not say what the evangelist himself must have said. What was it that Jesus declared must be done "in order that the world may know," etc.? A sentence is begun, but (in our Greek text) is not finished. We will "arise and go away" could not possibly serve as the conclusion! Moreover, Jesus and the disciples do not arise and go out; and (an equally significant fact) the discourse in chapter 15 is the immediate and necessary continuation of chapter 14. Up to this point, the disciples have heard the distressing pronouncement of a coming separation from their master; now comes the all-important injunction: Nevertheless, abide in me. Unless the last three words of verse 31 contain the announcement for which impressive preparation has been made, we are left not only with a final clause hanging in the air, but also with an absurd interruption of a great discourse.

The progress of thought in the concluding verses, 25-31, of chapter 14 is not in the least obscure. Here it is declared again that which has been the burden of the whole chapter, introduced clearly in its opening verses: I must go from you, but I will return. The comforting spirit will be sent to you. The devil is now to have his seeming triumph, but the triumph will be brief. (These things are repeated in the passage 16:6-11, a close parallel which must not be overlooked.) With verses 30 f. comes the conclusion: The time is now very short; the "prince of this world" is already at the door; but neither the plan nor the power are his; of my own will, in order that the world may know the truth, I go my way. This very common euphemism, often used by Jesus in speaking of his approaching death, has already been discussed, in the treatment of Luke 13:32 f.; see Exhibit XXI, C.

The restored reading gives the chapter its natural ending, and the unfinished sentence its conclusion; while the supposed corruption of the original Aramaic text is very slight indeed and readily explained. The portion involved in the error read:

אנאאקומואזל

One of the two consecutive alephs was omitted (see the following Chapter, with its examples), as happened in 4:25 ("the Messiah", 5:27, and 8:56. This produced the reading qūmū, "arise!" (plural), and the mischief was done, for what followed could only be read as a cohortative plural, "let us go."

This is so typical an error, of either scribe or translator, and so perfect a restoration of the lost connection of the two chapters, that even if it stood quite alone in the Gospel, it might well be accepted as the solution of a grave difficulty which has no other explanation. When it is put side by side with longer passages―clear examples of mistranslation―as 1:13; 3:13; 5:44; 7:3; 7:38; 12:34!; 14:2; 19:35 (to mention no others), the conclusion is as certain as any result of literary criticism can be. The original language of this whole Palestinian* Gospel was Aramaic, and our Greek is a translation.

*For evidence of the Palestinian background and quality of this Gospel, see Bacon, The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, pp. 385 ff.; Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 126 f.; Lagrange, , pp. cxxi ff.; Montgomery, Origin of the Gospel according to St. John, pp. 5-11; Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, Lecture IV; Schlatter, Sprache u. Heimat des vierten Evangelisten; Streeter, The Four Gospels, pp. 418 f.; Zahn, Evang. des Johannes, pp. 27 ff. The curious suggestion, that the great array of evidence of this sort could be explained by supposing a mere pilgrim to the holy land, is well answered by Lagrange; see also Zahn, p. 29.

[John Reece]

Chapter IX, Aleph Inserted or Omitted

Chapter IX, "Aleph Inserted or Omitted" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Certain "formative letters," in Hebrew or Aramaic, will appear with especial frequency in any considerable list of false readings. Constantly employed with various signification at the beginning or end, or at both ends, of Semitic words, they are easily misinterpreted in any reading but the most careful. Where such a consonant occurs once as either final or initial letter, it may by mistake be made both the ending of one word and the first letter of the next following; either thus read by a translator, or actually written twice by the scribe who copies the text. On the other hand, where the letter was repeated in the original text, it is obvious that the accidental omission of one of the pair would be even easier than in the case of ordinary consonants.

In Hebrew, the character hē is one of the chief sufferers. Serving as definite article, feminine ending, verbal performative, ending of many verb forms, etc., it is sometimes wrongly doubled and very often accidentally omitted, in the O.T. text. In Aramaic, the character aleph serves in these various capacities, and accordingly is one of the principle victims of inaccurate reading. The frequency of the omission of the letter, as a weak consonant, in the Massoretic text of the Hebrew O.T. is noticeable. The partial list given in The Four Gospels, p. 320, add Deut. 31:29; Jer. 44:23; Ezek. 28:16; Lam. 1:21b (as in the Peshitta); and doubtless there are still other examples.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above↑

Chapter IX, "Aleph Inserted or Omitted" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

The theory has been propounded, that because of the continuous script, and as long as it continued in use, it was customary for the Jewish scribe to write only once the consonant that would properly stand at the end of one word and also at the beginning of the word next following. So F. Perles, Analekten zur Textkritik des A.T., p. 44 and note 2; Analekten, Neue Folge, 24 f., with references to Luzzatto and others. Friedrich Delitzsch, Die Lese- u. Schreibefehler im A.T., pp. 5, 7, 10 f., treats this as proven; adding also the corollary (p. 11), that because of knowledge of this rule it often happened that copyists repeated letters which should have been written but once!

The examples which seem to support this theory are indeed rather numerous, and it certainly cannot be pronounced impossible. As far as the present investigation is concerned, the theory would provide an easy explanation of the omissions and insertions which the following pages will attempt to demonstrate. Nevertheless, in view of the general average of inadvertence on the part of the scribe or translator, and the especial liability of oversight in cases of this particular nature, the evidence seems too slender to support belief in the conjectured rule. The analogy of ancient Latin paleography, to which Perles (quoting Wattenbach) appeals, is not perfect, inasmuch as the Latin script was provided with vowels, which would greatly diminish the chances of serious error.

To be continued (one more time)...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above↑

Chapter IX, "Aleph Inserted or Omitted" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

In the following examples of conjectured insertion or omission of aleph in the Aramaic text underlying Greek, the very easy possibility, in an Aramaic text, of confusing "not" with "except" is illustrated in Mark 6:8 f. and parallels. The most of the other passages show how the choice between the defined noun or adjective and the undefined is likely to be disturbed by a following initial aleph. Observe that the traditional reading in all the passages is absurd, with the single exception of the Marcan passage, where the reason for suspicion is threefold: (1) the fact that Matthew and Luke, in text very closely resembling that of Mark, agree among themselves; (2) the fact that their version is intrinsically the more probable; and (3) the added consideration that plain evidence elsewhere of haste on the part of Greek Mark makes it easier to attribute the error to him than the two others.

[John Reece]

Exhibit XXIII, Aleph Inserted of Omitted

Chapter IX, "Aleph Inserted or Omitted" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

A. Mark 6:8 f. (Matthew 10:30; Luke 9:3) according to Greek: Take nothing for the way except ( לְאָרְחָא [אִ]לָּא ) a staff, . . . nor money but ( כַּסְפָּא [אִ]לָּא ) wearing sandals, etc.

True rendering: Take nothing for the way, no staff, . . . nor money, nor sandals, etc. (same text, omitting in each case the aleph beginning at the second word.

Exhibit XXIII, A (Mark 6:8 f.; Matthew 10:10; Luke 9:3). Jesus prescription as to the equipment (or lack of equipment) of the twelve, as they go forth on their first mission, is given somewhat differently by the evangelists, though their agreement is more striking than their disagreement Mark's account orders sandals. Various attempts at harmonization have been made, but none has found general acceptance. Some (Swete, Comm.) have thought that the later evangelists may have increased the rigor of the command. Others (e.g. Plummer, Lagrange) suppose the original injunction to have been indefinite: "Make no special preparation, go as you are." Our three sources, however, agree that the command was not indefinite, but specific; and the wisdom of such instruction is evident.

Moreover, quite aside from the fact that the initial words in both Mark and Luke are "Take nothing for the way," the prescription in Matthew and Luke seem more likely to be the original than that in Mark. The "stuff" was quite unnecessary. Unpretentious travelers have always been more likely to dispense with it than to use it. As for the "sandals," the seventy, at least, went forth without them (Luke 10:4) and felt no lack (cf. 22:35). It is not easy to see why Jesus should have ordered this footgear for men who might well have preferred to go barefoot.

The suggestion of possible help from Aramaic has been made more than once, and in more than one way. Wellhausen, Evang. Marci, thought that the resemblance of lā, "not," to illā or ellā, "except," might explain the deviation of Matthew and Luke from Mark (the original) in the case of the staff. In my The Four Gospels I adopted this conjecture for the Lucan verse, but I am now convinced that another application of it much better, indeed the perfect solution. Professor C. H. Dodd, quoted in Streeter's The Four Gospels, p. 191, note, proposed to turn the evidence in the other direction, charging the error to the Marcan tradition. Dodd's conjecture would apply equally to both of the items in which there is disagreement. If the initial aleph which makes lā into illā came from the ending of the preceding word, as in so many other cases, the agreement of the three evangelists is complete. Additional support for this conclusion, from general probability, has been given; and the frequently occurring evidence of haste on the part of the Greek translator of Mark (Four Gospels, p. 274) may also be taken into account.