Our Translated Gospels

[John Reece]

Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic

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

Forms containing long vowels, ū and ī, were often written "defectively," with occasional ambiguity as the result. This orthography was frequent in all ordinary writing; there were many cases, of every variety, in Biblical Aramaic; and the same thing appears even in the copies of official documents (Hebrew) written on ostraca, recently discovered at Lachish. Thus the active and passive of the first stem were sometimes confused, as in Mark 6:14 ("the miracles are wrought by him"); the disciple is exhorted (Matthew 5:48) to be "all-including" (gāmar) in his good will toward men, not to be "perfect" (gěmīr). In Luke 8:29, the phrase ăchīdh bēh did not mean (as in our Greek) "it (the demon) seized him," but rather, "he (the demoniac) was seized"; the word having either active or passive signification, according to the context; see J.B.L, vol. 54, p. 21, below.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic

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

Further ambiguity appears in words of very different meaning which are written in identical form. Especially clear examples of this confusion are to be seen in Luke 11:41 and 48 (Exhibit XVII, E, F). The translator's habit, constantly illustrated in the LXX, of choosing the word usually indicated by the group of letters before him is well shown in John 6:21: the disciples "wished" to receive Jesus into the boat, instead of "rejoiced" to receive him.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic

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

The mutual resemblance of certain letters, in either form of Aramaic script, has caused a few mistakes in the Gospels, as it has caused very many in the OT. The fact that daleth and resh were written exactly alike, combined with a somewhat unusual order of words in the Aramaic clause, led to the amusing mistranslation in Mark 7:3. The same fact, combined with "defective" writing of a long vowel, brought about the Greek rendering of Luke 24:32. In at least one instance there is confusion of daleth and waw, which could easily take place, under the right conditions, in either the square character or the cursive. The passage is John 5:34, here included (Exhibit XXII, C) among the cases of corruption of the consonant text. Quite probably, however, the error was merely the result of the Greek translator's misreading. The character in question might well be written in such a way that only the author of the sentence could tell which consonant was intended, in view of the "defective" writing of the final long vowel.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic

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

The most striking illustration of the mischief that can be wrought by a falsely placed vowel is afforded by John 7:38, where we are told that "the scripture hath said," etc. Now, at last, we know what was said. Jesus quotes a familiar prophecy, variously uttered in four different books of the Bible. The substance of the prophecy, given in the fewest possible words, is what we read in the corrected Johannine verse; and the change from mere nonsense is effected by a vowel point under a single letter. Moreover, the wording in John shows with certainty which of the four O.T. passages was especially in mind.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XVI. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic

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

Mark 7:3 according to Greek: The Jews do not eat without washing their hands with the fist ( לִגְמֹד ).

True rendering: The Jews do not eat at all ( לִגְמֹר ) without washing their hands.

Exhibit XVI, A (Mark 7:3). The amusing slip of the Greek translator has brought forth numerous curious conjectures and interpretations; see Swete's Gospel ac. to St. Mark. It is worthy of special notice that the Syriac translators knew that something was seriously wrong, and left out the impossible "fist" altogether. The Latin refused to translate the word, and substituted something else. The Aramaic word conjectured above corresponds exactly to the Greek, and is obviously the original reading. The emphatic position of the word: "at all do not eat" (like Latin omnino non), immediately after the word "hands," misled the translator. See further the note in the Four Gospels.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XVI. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic

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

Mark 10:12 (Luke 16:18) according to Greek: She who divorces her husband ( פָּטְרָא לְבַעֳלַהּ ).

True rendering: She who is divorced by her husband ( פְּטִרָא לְבַעֳלַהּ ).

Exhibit XVI, B (Mark 10:12; cf. Matthew 5:32, Luke 16:18). One of the clearest examples of mistaken Greek rendering, shown as such not only by the retroversion into Aramaic, but also by the perfect parallels in Matthew and Luke. Jesus is speaking of formal divorce (verses 2-5), not of desertion, and he uses the technical term. It is well known that the Jewish law of the time did not permit the wife to divorce her husband (Josephus, Antt. XV, 7, 10). The Greek text of Mark is certainly wrong, while that of the two parallel passages is correct. The translator quite naturally took the participle as active, as it had been in the preceding verse; but the passive written with the same consonants, was the true reading. There is abundant evidence that the scribes of the Aramaic Gospels were sparing in their use of the vowel letters; these were literary works, not business or legal documents. It could not have occurred to the author, or to his copyists, that any Palestinian reader would fail to read the phrase rightly. The preposition lᵉ would indicate the direct object after the active participle, but the agent after the passive. And finally, it must not be overlooked that Luke 16:18, last clause, gives an exact verbal rendering of the Aramaic here conjectured for Mark!

This saying of Jesus was so important (his only real contradiction of the Mosaic law), and so productive of controversy, the we should expect it to have been preserved with little or no variation; and this in fact is what we do find, see especially the note on Matthew 5:32 (Exhibit III, B).

Littmann, l.c., p. 26 f., is right in preferring baʿl to gěbar in this passage, even though the latter word is generally used for "husband" in the Targum to Deut. 24:1-5, the passage dealing with divorce. When the suffix ("her husband") is used, the word baʿl is the one employed. Littmann queries whether this Aramaic use of the word "man" to mean "husband" was derived from the Greek. The fact is, that it merely reproduces the Hebrew usage. Observe nevertheless the Targum to Gen. 3:6.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XVI. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic

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

Mark 14:3, Matthew 26:6 according to Greek: Simon the leper ( גַּרְבָּא ).

True rendering: Simon the jar merchant ( גָּרָבָא ).

Exhibit XVI, C (Mark 14:3; Matthew 26:6). Since "Simon the leper" and "Simon the jar merchant" are written with the same Aramaic consonants, the choice between the two seems easy, in view of the nature of leprosy, and the known Jewish laws and customs. The word gʾrāb, "jar," was in constant household use all through Palestine; there must have been enterprising tradesmen (not makers of jars) who bought at wholesale and supplied the ever-lively market; and the only way of forming the word "jar merchant" is the one presented here. Littmann, l.c. p. 32, thinks of the word "potter"; but that is a different occupation. Matthew of course adopts Mark's rendering.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XVI. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic

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

Matthew 5:48 according to Greek: Be therefore perfect ( גְמִרִין ), even as your heavenly Father is perfect ( גְּמִר )

True rendering: Be therefore all-including ( גָּמְרִין ) (in your goodwill), even as you heavenly Father includes all ( גָּמֵר ).

Exhibit XVI, D (Matthew 5:48). The trouble with this verse lies not only in the absurd command to equal divine perfection, but also ignores the way in which it ignores, in effect, the preceding context, while professing to be based on it. "Be therefore perfect"; whereas the foregoing verses had enjoined imitation of God in showing kindness and good will to all men, even to enemies. "Be perfect in kindness" would be a suitable conclusion; but the Greek adjective has its own definite meaning, and could not be interpreted in this way. The conjectured Aramaic particle satisfies the sense, and explains the Greek.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XVI. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic

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

Matthew 8:9, Luke 7:8 according to Greek: For I also am a man appointed ( מְפַקַּד ) under authority, who have under me ( דִּי אִתַי לִי ) soldiers; and I say to this one, etc.

True rendering: For I am a man appointing ( מְפַקַּד ) soldiers under the authority which I have (same words); and I say, etc.

Exhibit XVI, E (Matthew 8:9; Luke 7:8). The Greek is strangely awkward and ambiguous; see the comments of Blass (in Klostermann), Allen, Wellhausen (who suspects mistranslation!), Klostermann-Gressmann, and others. The first clause in the centurion's utterance in this verse is at least superfluous, for its bearing is neither indicated nor apparent. It seems to say: For I also, like you, am subject to authority―which cannot possibly have been intended. Attempts have been made to emend the Greek by conjecture.

The solution proposed in The Four Gospels is certainly possible; Littmann, l.c., 31 f., says a good word for it; but, though on the right track, it has not quite satisfied me. It fails to do justice to Luke's participle tassómenos, which can hardly have been his rendering of the colorless Aramaic word which I have conjectured; it looks rather like a technical term. (This participle was probably not originally present in Matthew's Greek, but it must have been in his Aramaic; see below.) Again, even after the improvement in the first clause, the sentence, with its loose construction and the repeated word, "under," remained unconvincing.

It now appears that the prime source of the confusion was the everlasting trouble-maker, the Aramaic particle dī. The phrase dī īthai lī [דִּי אִתַי לִי ], referred to the following word, would mean: "who have under me soldiers"; referred to the preceding word, it means: "the authority which I have," or "the command which I hold." Either construction is regular, and good style. It is obvious, from the order of the sentence, that the easier mode of rendering is the one which was employed. Since Luke's text was substantially, or exactly, like Matthew's, he adopted Matthew's throughout, as usual, except for the participle mentioned above. The translator of the First Gospel was one who might be expected to omit the superfluous word in the phrase "ordered under authority," while Luke, the meticulous translator, would be certain to render it.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XVI. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic

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

Matthew 10:2 according to Greek: These are the names of the twelve apostles: the first, simon ( שְׁלִחַיָא קַדְמָיָא שִׁמְעוֹן ), etc.

True rendering: These are the names of the first twelve apostles: Simon ( שְׁלִחַיָא קַדְמָיֵא שִׁמְעוֹן ), etc.

Exhibit XVI, F (Matthew 10:2). Peter was not the first apostle, his call did not precede that of Andrew. No evangelist would have given him the first rank, in view of Mark 10:44, Matthew 20:27; Luke 22:26; but a Greek translator might easily do so, deceived by the Aramaic, in which the adjective could be read as either singular or plural number. At the time when the Gospel was composed, the long-familiar list of the "twelve" contained the name Matthias (Acts 1:26); hence Matthew saw fit to use the adjective "the first twelve."

[John Reece]

Exhibit XVII. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic

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

Mark 6:14; Matthew 14:2 according to Greek: John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and therefore the powers(!) work in him ( חַיְלַיָא עָבְדִין בַּהּ ).

True rendering: . . . and therefore the wonders are wrought through him ( חַיְלַיָא עֲבִדִין בַּהּ ).

Exhibit XVII, A (Mark 6:14; Matthew 14:2). What "powers" worked in the resurrected John? the power (!) of God? If Herod and his companions believed that the Baptist had been raised from the dead, they of course believed that this had been done by the God of Israel; and "therefore," that his power was being manifested. The supposition of any other external agencies is absurd. Did the powers (!) of John himself "work in him"? This is equally absurd. The word rendered "powers" is the same which has just been used in this narrative (verses 2, 5 in Mark; 13:54, 58 in Matthew) to mean miracles, and the verb employed is one elsewhere used of "working" miracles; see Gal. 3:5.

There can be no doubt as to the equivalent Aramaic words, and they solve the problem. We see again the familiar proceeding: translation according to the easiest reading, without study of alternatives. In Matthew's Aramaic, the participle must have had the the same form as in Mark; and we may safely conclude that the ordinary way of writing such forms was with omission of the vowel-letter in the second syllable, as frequently in Hebrew orthography (Genesius, Heb. Gramm., p. 42) and in old Syriac Manuscripts.

[John Reece]

Exhibit XVII. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic

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

Luke 7:45 according to Greek: Since the time when I came in ( עַלֵּת ).

True rendering: Since the time when she came in ( עַלַּת ).

Exhibit XVII, B (Luke 7:45). An especially clear case of false rendering. The Greek translator had just written "I came in," in the preceding verse; and now, seeing a return of the same consonants, he rendered again as before; but this time he was wrong. The evangelist had said in verse 37 (that which was a matter of course) that the woman came into the guest room after Jesus had taken his place there. Observe that in the immediate sequel (verse 47) an equally certain example of mistranslation occurs; see below.

[John Reece]

Exhibit XVII. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic

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

Luke 7:47 according to Greek: Therefore I say to you that her many sins are forgiven ( דִּי מִשְׁתְּבַק לַהּ חֲטָיַהּ רַבָּא ), for she loved much ( רָחֲמָא שַׂגִּיא ), but he to whom little is forgiven will love little.

True rendering: Therefore I say to you, she whose many sins are forgiven (same words) will love much (same words), but he to whom little is forgiven will love little.

Exhibit XVII, C (Luke 7:47). This passage is not merely "difficult," the trouble is incurable―in the Greek. Jesus indicates to Simon that he has a lessen for him, and the Pharisee listens politely, perhaps not eagerly. Jesus then shows, in a clear-cut little parable, what he wished to establish as his major premise: A debtor released from his debt is grateful in proportion to his feeling of relief from the burden. Simon assents and waits for the application. When, however, Jesus proceeds to show how his parable applies to the forgiveness of sins, our Greek version suddenly turns aside with an announcement (introduced by "therefore") out of keeping with what preceded. The parable need not have been uttered. The argument is turned upside down, leaving Simon (and the rest of us) in bewilderment. The despair of interpreters, ancient and modern, is only too well known. Among recent commentators, Klostermann and Lagrange discuss the problem from all sides, but are obliged to leave it unsolved. Wellhausen tries to rewrite the Greek. Easton finds three distinct strata in the little section.

In the Aramaic, everything is clear; Jesus' lesson to Simon is really given, and the application of the parable is now perfect. As was remarked in The Four Gospels, the cause of the mistranslation was misunderstanding of the particle dī, which here was the relative pronoun, not the conjunction. Any student of Aramaic who looks at the restored text (above) will see at once how very natural Luke's mistake was, and how certainly the right interpretation of the ambiguous particle restores the original reading. Luke's manner of dealing with his circumstantial participle, which he properly renders "for she loved," hardly needs comment. The past tense of his translation was of course prescribed by the preceding Aramaic participle.

This is not an instance of wrong vocalization, for no change of any sort is needed in the Aramaic text. The passage is introduced here merely for the sake of juxtaposition with the preceding example.

[John Reece]

Exhibit XVII. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic

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

Luke 10:4 according to Greek: Salute ( 'שַׁלִּמוּ ל ) no man on the way.

True rendering: Join yourselves to ( 'שְׁלַמוּ ל ) no man on the way.

Exhibit XVII, D (Luke 10:4). The disciples are warned against that which might hinder them in their mission, or divert them from it. While traveling on foot, from city to city and from village to village, they inevitably would be tempted many times to join forces with other travelers; and it obviously was better, in view of the task before them, that they should not do this. To return no salutation would be merely uncivil. Littmann, l.c., p. 26, thinks of wasting time in salutations long drawn out, such as may often be heard in the orient at the present day; but delay of this sort in not necessary, and out text could easily have specified long salutations, if this had been intended. The case of Elisha's servant (2 Ki. 4:29), sent at top speed on a life-or-death errand, is clearly not parallel.

[John Reece]

Exhibit XVII. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic

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

Luke 11:41 according to Greek: give as alms ( עֲבֵדוּ צִדְקָא ) what is within, and you will have all clean.

True rendering: make right ( עֲבֵדוּ צַדִּקַא ) what is within, and you will have all clean.

Exhibit XVII, E (Luke 11:41). Comparison of verses 39-41with Matthew 23:25 f. shows that Matthew's version give the original sense, including the indispensable metaphor (very neatly indicated) in the last clause of verse 25. In Luke, the metaphor is made more prominent, with resulting awkwardness, and in verse 41 there is a surprising change of meaning. It has long been suspected that this text shows mistranslation from a Semitic original.

Luke's exhortation to these men who are "full of extortion and wickedness"; Give alms of what is within, and all will be clean, compared with the corresponding phrase in Matthew: Make clean the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may become clean, certainly suggests an error of transmission. Almsgiving was an ever-present duty, and the customary phrase (rendered in Matthew 6:1) was in every one's mouth. The translator evidently saw it before him; but in fact it is quite disturbing in this place, neither well suited to the figure of speech nor yielding sound doctrine.

Wellhausen seems to have been the first to make a definite conjecture of mistranslation, and since his proposals have been given such a prominent place in all recent discussions of the passage, it is necessary to consider them here. In an article dealing with the Old Syriac Gospels, in the Nachrichten der. K. Gesell. d. Wiss. zu Göttingen, 1895, p. 12, he proposed to solve the problem by the Aramaic word zakkū, plural imperative (really an Arabic form, not Aramaic), meaning either "make clean," as in Matthew, or "give alms," as in Luke. This conjecture he repeated in the Gött. gel. Anzeigen, 1896, p. 265, and it was widely quoted. The objection was soon raised, by experts in Jewish Aramaic, that this verb could not mean "make clean" in the sense here required. Accordingly, Wellhausen's Evang. Lucae (1904) and in his Einleitung (1905) the conjecture was given this form: dakkau, plural imperative, "make clean" (Matthew had the singular, dakkī, was read by Luke as zakkau, "give alms." (The correct forms are dakkō and zakkō; those given by Wellhausen are Syriac, not Palestinian Aramaic.) This new conjecture has two serious defects: (1) The initial consonants are not easily confused; and after "cleansing" had already been mentioned, the copyist or translator could scarcely fail to see the same word here. (2) As Siegmund Fraenkel and others have remarked, there is neither evidence nor probability that the verb which Wellhausen renders "give alms" ever had this meaning in Palestine; it is an Arabian coinage. I may refer also to my Jewish Foundation of Islam, pp. 48 and 141. Wellhausen's original conjecture would have "worked" perfectly in Arabic, but could not pass in Aramaic, and his later conjecture is by no means an improvement.

Concerning the reading "make right suggested in the Exhibit, it is important to bear in mind that in the text translated by Luke the first clause of verse 41 referred to the last clause of verse 39; it is the men who were intended, not the cups and platters. "That which is within" should have been rendered as in Matthew. The word saddīqā (feminine for neuter, as usual) is exactly the word needed in the Lucan text. Unfortunately, its juxtaposition with the preceding verb seemed to present the familiar phrase, "give alms."