Our Translated Gospels

[John Reece]

Continued from last post above ↑

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

The little Aramaic word dī easily leads the field as a maker of trouble . It is used as the relative pronoun, masculine, feminine, or neuter; it may include the demonstrative antecedent ("he who," "that which," etc.); it is constantly employed to indicate the genitive relation, where English "of" would be used; it serves as a conjunction, introducing final clauses, object clauses, etc. In cases of ambiguity, the Greek translator chose the meaning which first suggested itself, with an even chance (one is tempted to say) of getting the wrong one. This variety of mistranslation, a false rendering of dī, was admirably demonstrated by Burney in the Fourth Gospel. Of the many examples given in the following pages, those in Mark 10:6, 14:68!, Matt 8:9, Luke 7:47, and John 5:36 are among the more interesting.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

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

The Greek translator is likely to choose the most common meaning of a word, whether it suits the particular passage or not. There are also many "standing equivalents," a certain Semitic word being regularly rendered by the same Greek word, without regard to the context. Thus, Aramaic ǎbed is in the Greek always "bondservant, slave," though this is ridiculous in Mt. 18:23 ff.―Aramaic rĕmē, passive participle (literally "thrown") means "lying." Therefore in the Greek Mt. 8:6; the centurion's servant is "thrown down" in the house; verse 14, Peter's mother is "thrown down" and suffering from a fever; 9:2, the paralytic is "thrown" upon a pallet; Mk. 7:30, they found the child "thrown' upon the bed, etc., etc.―the numerous idiomatic uses of the Aramaic verb qĕrā ("call, cry") are covered by the single Greek verb φωνεῖν, whether it signifies the summoning of some one from a distance, the invitation to a feast, the outcry of men in excitement, the giving of a title (John 13:13; as constantly in Hebrew and Aramaic), or the crowing of a cock.―The Aramaic verb nĕfal is always rendered "fall" in the Greek, though its signification is sometimes active (as in Hebrew), not merely passive. The Greek mistranslated in Matt. 17:15; for the demoniac youth did not accidentally "fall" into the fire, or into the water, he threw himself in. Characteristic Semitic examples: Gen. 24:64, when Rebecca caught sight of Isaac in the field, she "fell" off the camel. Mt. 4:6 (Syriac), on the pinnacle of the temple the devil said to Jesus, If you are the Son of God, "fall down" from here. John 21:7 (Syriac), when Peter knew that it was Jesus, he girt his coat about him and "fell" into the lake. These two examples, from the Old Syriac, are especially interesting because the Greek from which they are translated did not contain the word "fall."*

*They also seem to illustrate a certain freedom of rendering, very noticeable throughout the old Syriac translation, which is characteristic of versions known by their authors to be secondary; such as the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the Aramaic which (as I believe) underlies the Bezan Greek. The author, or authors, of the Sinaitic Syriac must have known that the Gospels were originally Semitic, and the Greek a translation.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

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

Such examples as the preceding could be multiplied, from the Gospels, to an amount which would fill many pages. They illustrate the ever-present fact, familiar from the LXX, that the Greek translator's first duty was to render words. Sufficient illustration from each of the Gospels is given in the following pages. Notice also certain interesting examples of Luke's habit as a translator, mentioned in Exhibit XIV, A.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

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

The great freedom in the order of words of the Aramaic sentence, and especially the manner of emphasizing a word by putting it at the beginning or end of a clause, occasionally produced ambiguity, as the translator rendered word by word. In this way arose the strange reading in Mark 7:3, where the Jews are said to wash their hands "with the fist." Hence also the "already," which in the Aramaic of John 4 stood at the end of verse 35, was by the Greek translator made to stand at the beginning of verse 36. Argument for the date of the Gospel has been based on this translator's error―for such it certainly is. Another similar instance is the false position of the phrase "because of this" (ʿal dἔnā), which now forms the beginning of John 7:22, whereas it was intended to end the preceding verse. Ordinarily, indeed, it stands at the head of its entire sentence or clause.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

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

The frequently abrupt beginning of the Aramaic sentence, without introductory conjunction or adverb, sometimes misleads the Greek translator, where the context leaves room for doubt as to the connection intended. An example is Luke 21:12 f., where the parallels in Mark and Matthew make it certain that the true reading is: "Before kings and governors, for my name's sake, you will be brought for testimony." A more important instance is the passage Luke 24:9 ff., in with the honor of being the first to bring to the disciples the news of the resurrection is by the Greek translator taken away from Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James, and given to "the other women."

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

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

The incessant Semitic parataxis creates ambiguity in the Gospels, as in the LXX. Successive clauses in varied mutual relation are likely to be strung together by the ever-repeated conjunction waw; usually "and" in the Greek, even where it obviously means "while, when, but, for, although, since," etc. The circumstantial clause thus fails, now and then, to come to its rights. The first clause of Mark 3:32 in our Greek is incorrectly translated and given a false connection. As originally written, it forms the close of the preceding sentence, giving in express terms the reason why Jesus' mother and brothers stood outside and sent word to him, instead of coming in: "because a crowd was settled about him." In the parallel, Luke 8:19, this is plainly stated. Cf. Gen. 22:12, Hebrew and Greek, also Psa. 60:13―Luke 18:7: "Will not God give justice to his elect, . . . even if he is slow to anger in their behalf?"―John 2:13: "When the passover drew near, Jesus went up to Jerusalem."―An example of the parataxis without a conjunction: John 1:2 f., When he was in the beginning with God, all things were made by him."―Two other examples, Mark 5:21 and John 18:25, are described in Exhibit XX, A. F.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit I, A. (Mk. 3:5) Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text

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

Mark 3:5 according to the Greek: Looking around upon them with anger (בִרְגַז), etc.

True rendering: Looking around upon them in distress (same Aramaic), etc.

No sufficient ground for anger on the part of Jesus is shown, either in this passage in Mark or in the parallels in Matthew and Luke (Mt. 12:9-14; Lk. 6:6-11). He was grieved, Mark says, at the "dullness of comprehension" of those who could not see that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. Even modern teachers can meet stubborn callousness without anger, and in this case, the opponents of Jesus had the excuse of a deep-seated custom, however unreasonable.

The root rgz, both Hebrew and Aramaic, originally signifying strong agitation, had become more and more exclusively used for "anger," and it is thus consistently rendered in the Greek translators of the Gospels. The most conspicuous example of the resulting mistranslation is John 11:33, 38, which must be compared in any discussion of the present passage. The word signifies "distress, deep sorrow," in such passages as Targum Ps. and Job 17:7. The best single example of the older meaning, however, is 2 Sam. 19:1 (18:33). It was not "in anger" that David went up to his chamber weeping for Absalom.

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit I, B. (Mk. 4:4, and parallels)

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

Mark 4:4 (Matt. 13:4; Luke 8:5) according to Greek: As he sowed, some (seed) fell by the wayside (עַל אָרְחָא).

True rendering: As he sowed, some (seed) fell on the highway (same Aramaic).

One would suppose that seed falling "by the wayside," i.e., in the edge of the field through which the road runs, would be likely to take root and send up its growing plant; why not? Wellhausen, Evang. Marci, has this surprising comment (surprising, that is, as coming from one who had thought of Mark as a translation!): "One would expect 'on the road', not 'beside the road.'"

The Aramaic phrase corresponding to the Greek is, literally, "on the highway," the preposition in this and similar phrases normally meaning "beside"; as we say in English that a man lives "on" such and such a street, without implying that he lives in the middle of it; or, that his house is "on" the Hudson river, not meaning that he occupies a house boat. But the Aramaic phrase may, of course, have the far less common meaning, "on (the surface of) the road," and that is the sense which plainly is demanded here, since that is the one place where the seed could not sprout.

The Aramaic text rendered by Luke says this very distinctly: the useless seed is trodden by wayfarers, as well as picked up by birds. Luke's mechanical way of translating is excellently illustrated here, for he simply follows Mark and Matthew in their false (though most natural) rendering, "beside(!) the road." The Aramaic narrator who produced the Lucan version gave the parable concisely, but clearly and forcibly.

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit I, C. (Mk. 4:8, and parallels)

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

Mark 4:8 (and parallels) according to Greek: Other (portions of seed) fell on good ground and yielded fruit, coming up and increasing (אָזְלִִין וְרָבַיִן), and bore, one thirty (הַד תְּלָתִִין), etc.

True rendering: Other (portions of seed) fell on good ground, and yielded fruit in constant increase (same Aramaic), and bore thirtyfold (same Aramaic), etc.

The translator of Matthew missed two Aramaic idioms in this verse. He rendered according to the sense, "going up" instead of "going on," meaning "continually" or "more and more" (the idiom frequently used in Hebrew also), and failed to give―if he saw it―the true force of the numeral "one" before the "thirty, sixty, and a hundred." Luke renders correctly his "hundredfold" in 8:8. Wellhausen, Evang. Matt, p. 68, attempted to explain the Greek of Matt. 13:23 from that of Mark, but the attempt is clearly mistaken. It is on the contrary evident that Matthew's Aramaic original differed slightly here, as in verse 8, from that of Mark, though having the same meaning: "some (producing) thirty, some sixty, etc. Greek Matthew's ho men, with the neuter pronoun, is the usual (and excellent) rendering of the Aramaic īthai dī, "some," exactly as in Luke 8:5, where the pronoun has so puzzled the commentators.

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit I, D. (Mk. 4:12, and parallels)

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

Mark 4:12 (and parallels) according to Greek: (Jesus speaks in parables to the common people) in order that (דִי) they may see indeed, but not perceive; and hear indeed, but not understand.

True rendering: ( . . . to the common people) who (same word) "see indeed, but do not perceive; and hear indeed, but do not understand."

Jesus did not devise his parables in order to prevent the common people from understanding his teaching. Greek Matthew had nevertheless some excuse for his rendering, inasmuch as he thought especially of the famous, oft-quoted Is. 6:9 f. (instead of Jer. 5:21 and Ezek. 12:2). It is to be observed that Luke 8:20 has the same rendering, and this, if there were no other parallel, might be taken to indicate that a genuine "learned" interpretation of Jesus' use of parables had been recorded by the evangelists―an interpretation quite comprehensible. The fact, however, is quite otherwise. Luke merely follows his custom of adopting Mark's rendering where nothing prohibits, and in this case he follows a blind guide, for, as Matthew shows, Mark mistranslates. The Aramaic particle which he renders by "in order that" in the pronoun-conjunction dī, that very widely used and ambiguous little word which has occasioned such a number of false renderings in the Gospels, notably in John. Greek Matthew, in the parallel passage 13:13, renders it very suitably by the conjunction "because." It seems clearly best, however, to take it in its primary meaning, as the relative pronoun, which is the reading of the Targum―the accepted interpretation―in Isa. 6:9).

The long quotation in Matthew (13:14 f.) was not in the original text of this Gospel, but has been interpolated bodily from Acts 28:26 f. Similarly, the last clause in Mark 4:12, "lest they should repent and be forgiven," wanting in Matthew and Luke and incongruous with this context, seems to be secondary; but it probably was added in the original Semitic text, before the Greek translation was made. It does not agree at all with the LXX, but corresponds word for word with the Targum.

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit II, A. (Mk. 9:15)

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

Mark 9:15 according to Greek: When the crowd saw him, they were greatly amazed (תְּוַהוּ), and running to him saluted him.

True rendering: When the crowd saw him, they were much excited (same Aramaic word), etc.

The Aramaic word conjectured here expresses strong excitement. Whether the emotion is surprise, fear, joy, or grief can be learned only from the context in each case. It is this verb, beyond much doubt, that is uniformly rendered in Mark 1:17; 10:32; 14:33; and 16:5 as well as in the present passage. Its most common use is to express astonishment, and so it is rendered, by both LXX and Theodotion, in Dan. 3:24, of Nebuchadnezzar's emotion when he saw the four men walking about in the blazing furnace. Its use in Mark, however, is likely to revert to the original meaning; in only one of the five passages (1:27) is the emotion of surprise predominant, and in two of them (10:32 and 14:33) it is utterly out of place; see the note on 10:32.

In the present passage, no reason for surprise on the part of the bystanders is indicated; nor is any explanation of it obvious, or even plausible. The best parallel is to be found in the Old Syriac rendering of John 11:31 (the use of the verb in Syriac being in general the same as Western Aramaic), where Mary "sprang up in eager haste" (as the Greek says) to go to Jesus. Frequently a word is added to make plain the precise meaning of a verb; as in Targum Psalms 73:4 (fear), Mark 14:33 (distress), Acta Mart. et Sanct., ed. Bedjan, IV, 314: "I was beside myself with joy, etc. In the Marcan passage now before us, the onlookers were "thrown into eager excitement" (very naturally) by the sudden appearance of Jesus. The mistranslation in the Greek illustrates the danger of using a "standing equivalent" in rendering.

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit II, B. (Mk. 9:49)

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

Mark 9:49 according to Greek: every one (כֹּל) with fire (בָּאֵשׁ) will be salted (!).

True rendering: anything (same word) spoiling (same word) is salted.

The mistranslation in this verse is amusing, as well as remarkably interesting. It obviously is as impractical to salt a person with fire as it would be to fire him with salt.

The proceeding of the Greek translator is as instructive, and as certain, as anything in N.T. criticism. Verse 48 is a direct quotation from the O.T. (Isa. 66:24), and in the original text of Mark was therefore, of course, in Hebrew. The translator, having rendered hāʾēsh, "the fire," in this verse, and seeing bāʾēsh in verse 49, of course supposed that the Hebrew was continued; and in fact, the verse makes perfect Hebrew (such a case could only rarely occur). He gave the verse connection with the preceding, whereas it really was the beginning of a new section corresponding to Matthew 5:13.

The ancient editors of the Greek text saw that something must be done―and they did it. Searching the Greek O.T. scriptures, they found one other example of "shall be salted," and accordingly slipped Lev. 2:13a in, to cover the nakedness of the verse in Mark.

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit II, C. (Mk. 9:50)

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

Mark 9:50 according to Greek: Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace (אַשְּׁלִמוּ) one with another.

True rendering: Have salt in yourselves, and hand it on (same word) one to another.

The true rendering is obvious from the preceding verse, taken with the parallel, Matthew 5:13. These few men were the salt of the earth, but neither the sufficient nor the permanent supply. Being "at peace" has nothing to do with the matter. The Aramaic verb, in just this form, could have either meaning, but there can be no question which was intended. A capital example of the idiom in Hebrew, rendered "be at peace with," using this verb stem and the preposition l, may be seen in Job 5:23. The ellipsis of the direct object (perfectly regular, since the noun had just been given) made the mistranslation easy.

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit II, D. (Mk. 10:6 and parallel)

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

Mark 10:6 (and Mt. 19:4) according to Greek: from the beginning (םִלְּקַדְמִין) of creation (דִּי בְרָא) he made them male and female.

True rendering: in the beginning (same word) the creator (same Aramaic) made them male and female.

The establishment on earth of the human pair, male and female, was not "at the beginning of creation," but at the end of it. The Greek translator either did not know the Palestinian terminology, or else (more probably) he merely proceeded in the usual mechanical way. The preposition min, rendered from by all the translators whenever it occurs, in this phrase means "at"; and dī bʾrā is a standing term for "the Creator." The latter Aramaic word was taken as a verbal noun corresponding to the Hebrew infinitive in Gen. 5:1

It is important to notice that Matthew, with the same Aramaic words before him, rendered correctly (except for the inevitable (from the beginning); and comparison of the passage (19:4) shows immediately the nature of the mistake made by Greek Mark.

[John Reece]

Ambiguity of the Aramaic Text: Exhibit II, E. (Mk. 14:38; Mt. 26:41; Lk. 22:40, 46)

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

Mark 14:38 (Mt. 26:41; Luke 22:40, 46) according to Greek: watch (עוּרוּ) and pray, lest you enter into temptation (תַּעֲלוּן בְּנִסְיֹנָא).

True rendering: awake (same word), and pray not to fail the test! (same words).

The general injunction to the three disciples, to watch and pray, in order to be kept from temptation to sin, is not what would be expected at the climax of the scene in the garden. It is hardly strange that some commentators (Wellhausen, Klostermann-Gressmann) have thought it possible that words spoken on another occasion have (somehow!!) been inserted here. But the "watch" cannot be thus treated; it is the same "wake" which we read in verses 34 and 37, and which is all too painfully suited to the present situation. The repetition of the words in Luke, at the beginning and the end of the scene, is highly significant; this was no general injunction, but a warning of what was about to come. The supreme trial of the disciples' fidelity to their master was at hand; it was the time to keep awake and pray for strength!

The word rendered "temptation" meant originally, and commonly, "testing, trial," and this alone does justice to the situation. It follows of necessity, that "enter into" the test means "succumb to" it. No amount of praying could save the disciples from undergoing the ordeal, they could only pray not to fail. All interpreters make connection with the Lord's Prayer; and there, certainly, "let us not succumb to temptation" is the rendering which stands on a level with the other petitions.

There is an idiom of Palestinian Aramaic. Lagrange, Comm., refers to the conjecture of St. Jerome (on Mt. 26:41) that the figure is that of "entering" a snare or trap (instead of seeing and avoiding it). This might seem plausible in another context, but the figure is hardly definite enough, nor forcible enough, for the present passage. Now the Aramaic verb ʿal is regularly used of the setting of the sun, which "goes in" when it passes under the earth; and in a single late passage of the O.T. (Isa. 24:11) the Hebrew verb of sunset is tropically used: "all joy has gone under." i.e., has perished utterly, as LXX, Syriac, Targum all render.* This is a very natural figure of speech, familiar in other languages. With our knowledge of the existence of the idiom in late Hebrew, and in our certainty as to the virtual meaning of this verb in this Marcan passage and its parallels, I think we may safely take the literal meaning to be, "pray not to go under in the test!"

*The rendering of the English Bible, "is darkened," is decidedly inferior; too weak for the verse―note the parallel clause―and unsupported by other use of the verb.