Our Translated Gospels

[John Reece]

Exhibit XIII, F (John 20:17) The Redundant "and."

Continuation of Chapter III titled 'The Redundant "And"' in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Exhibit XIII, F (John 20:17). Jesus said to her, Touch me not; but before I ascend to my Father, [and] go to my brethren and say to them, etc.

John 20:17. The words of Jesus to Mary Magdalene, as they stand in our Greek, are mystifying enough: "Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father"! We could comprehend, if he has said: "Touch me for I have not yet ascended; I am still flesh and blood, as may be seen"; or on the other hand, if he had said: "Touch me not, for I am about to ascend, and may not be approached in the same way as before." (The Greek "for" is the translator's interpretation of the conjunction "and," as in countless other cases.) The cause of the mistranslation was the redundant "and" before the all-important words "go to my brethren, and say to them," etc. The very same Aramaic words would express either "before I have ascended" or "I have not yet ascended."

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XIII, G (Luke 2:21) The Redundant "and."

Continuation of Chapter III titled 'The Redundant "And"' in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Exhibit XIII, G (Luke 2:21). When the eight days were complete, for his circumcision, [and] he was given the name Jesus.

Luke 2:21. This example and the following illustrate the same redundant conjunction in Hebrew (for the first two chapters of Luke are translated from that language.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XIII, H (Luke 2:27 f.) The Redundant "and."

Continuation of Chapter III titled 'The Redundant "And"' in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Exhibit XIII, H (Luke 2:27 f.) When the parents brought in the child Jesus . . . [and] he took him in his arms, etc.

Luke 2:27 f. An example or two from one of the LXX translators may be added to those in Luke, by way of further illustration. Joshua 4:1: "And when all the people had crossed over the Jordan, [and] the Lord said to Joshua," etc. Joshua 4:6 f.: "When your children ask in time to come, saying, 'What mean you by these stones?' [and] you shall say to them, It is because the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark of the Lord." Observe that in verses 21 f., where this sentence recurs, the Greek translator omits the superfluous conjunction.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

The Redundant "And"

Continuation of Chapter III titled 'The Redundant "And"' in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Some of the cases listed above would ordinarily call forth no comment. The unnecessary particle is hardly noticed, especially in texts fairly bristling with "ands". In the majority of the passages cited here the reader, if disturbed at all, sees only a certain awkwardness of expression. Such cases could not be classed as mistranslations, nor are they quite "impossible" Greek. The use of this conjunction to introduce apodosis, after a temporal protasis, has its examples in Homer, for instance. Nevertheless the presence of a strange idiom in the Gospels is unmistakable in view of the evidence here presented, and in several passages its recognition clears away a serious difficulty. Here, obviously and beyond all question, is the explanation of the absurdity of Mark 16:2, now completely removed, and removable in no other way. The misunderstanding which resulted in putting into the mouth of Jesus an impossible saying in John 20:17 is fully explained. In each of the two passages the Greek is certainly the result of mistranslation of an Aramaic text. In John 1:19 f. perfect clearness is substituted for intolerable confusion. The other cases are chiefly important as examples of the idiom.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

The Reflexive Pronoun and Its Substitute

Introduction to 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 the Aramaic dialects, as in classical Hebrew, the personal pronoun in the oblique cases may serve as reflexive. This is unusual, however, except in the case of the "ethical dative" (see below). Ordinarily a noun which in English would be rendered "self" is employed. As a substitute for the pronoun in this sense the word nafs, nefesh, "life, soul" (less commonly rūăch) is widely used in Semitic. This is familiar in the Hebrew Bible, and its use seems to have been common in all the Aramaic dialects at the beginning of the present era. In the Palmyrene and Nabatean inscriptions, the writing of Palestine's nearest neighbors, the examples are numerous.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Introduction to Chapter IV, THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN AND ITS SUBSTITUTE in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

As was remarked in the preceding chapter, the later Jewish writings avoided the use of this Biblical term; and another was adopted in its place, the word "bone" (collective singular) being almost exclusively employed. If one wished to say, for instance, "Prepare yourself" (for this or that), the ordinary later phrase, in either Aramaic or Hebrew, would be, "Prepare your bones." Thus also in Palestinian Syriac, but not in the Old Syriac. In the original Aramaic of the Four Gospels, as would be expected (see the preceding chapter), the word nefesh is everywhere retained. This appears distinctly in such passages as Luke 9:25 (see below) and 14:26, where Wellhausen and Klosterm.-Gressm. correctly render "sich selbst." It is evident that Greek translators would occasionally write "soul" or "life" where "self" was originally intended, and vice-versa. Examples will be given in the sequel.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Introduction to Chapter IV, THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN AND ITS SUBSTITUTE in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Very frequent in Aramaic is the so-called "ethical dative," the idiom in which the modification of a verb by a reflexive (personal) pronoun attached to the preposition lĕ- is so slight as to be untranslatable. This is rather frequent in Biblical Hebrew, but it is especially the Aramaic language that constantly expands "he went away" into "he went away for himself"; "We know" into "we know for ourselves"; similarly, "they wondered for themselves" (or, "in themselves"); "they questioned for themselves," and so on, with almost any verb. The translator, of course familiar with the idiom, would be likely to leave it untranslated; it frequently happens, nevertheless, that from the wish to omit no intended emphasis, or (more often) simply because of the habit of rendering whatever stands in the text, the idiom reappears in the Greek.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XIV, A (Luke 9:25) The Reflexive Pronoun, etc.

Chapter IV, THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN AND ITS SUBSTITUTE in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Luke 9:25 according to Greek: What is a man profited, if he gains the whole world, but loses himself (נַפְשֵׁהּ)?

True rendering: . . . but loses his life (same word).

Exhibit XIV, A (Luke 9:25; Mark 8:36; Matthew 16:26). We have here a characteristic example of Luke's manner of translating, as well as of the ambiguity residing in the word which he renders. The passage has already been described as a mistranslation (Exhibit VI, A), and further consideration of it was reserved for this place. It was shown, from the parallel passages in Mark and Matthew and also from the context here in Luke, that "lose himself" is wrong; what the man is supposed to lose is his life. The regular use of Aramaic nefesh, "life," is a substitute for the reflexive pronoun (as just described) of course explains the false rendering, but there is also another factor to be taken into account. In the former treatment of the passage, Luke's remarkably mechanical and exact way of translating words was mentioned.* One interesting feature of his habit may be illustrated here.

*There are many examples, aside from those which happen to receive mention in The Four Gospels and in the present volume. One typical specimen may be added here. Concerning the curious καιρῷ in 20:10, Wellhausen, Comm., remarks that it "cannot mean and yet must mean, 'at the proper time'." How could Luke, who certainly knew how to write Greek, make such a blunder? It is no blunder (though it is not Greek at all), but is merely his usual procedure. Like the many other specimens of hybrid and inelegant Greek written by him, it is the result of strictly accurate translation according to his norm. The explanation is perfect here, as it generally is. The above mentioned Greek word renders exactly the Aramaic adverbial compound, li-zman, which stood in his text. The same word, in a precisely similar context, occurs in Gen. 18:14, Targum Onkelos: "At the set time I will return."

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XIV, A (Luke 9:25; Mark 8:36; Matthew 16:26), continued

Chapter IV, THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN AND ITS SUBSTITUTE in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Luke 9:25 according to Greek: What is a man profited, if he gains the whole world, but loses himself (נַפְשֵׁהּ)?

True rendering: . . . but loses his life (same word).

Exhibit XIV, A (Luke 9:25; Mark 8:36; Matthew 16:26).

In a passage which contains more than once a word capable of two different renderings, Luke's meticulous method sometimes leads him to include both. An example is the "forgive us our trespasses," etc., in the Lord's Prayer. On the first occurrence of the term, Luke renders "sins" (11:4), and then in the same verse, "debtor." In 13:2, 4, he does the same thing: the Galileans were "sinners," the men of Siloam were "debtors"(!); and thus both uses of the word are covered. In the present passage the proceeding is the same. "Life" had already been used, to render the Aramaic word; now the other possibility is included.

A mistake (wrong choice) in the other direction is to be seen in 14:26, where (as was remarked above) the rendering evidently should be "himself," instead of "his life." The particular mistranslation has its perfect parallels in the LXX; good examples are Deut. 4:15 (cf. Joshua 23:11!), Jer. 3:11, and Job 9:21. In these and other passages the sense is merely reflexive, but the Greek, too literal, brings in the "soul." Another instructive instance is Proverbs 15:31 (Greek 16:3).

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XIV, B (John 13:32)

Chapter IV, THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN AND ITS SUBSTITUTE in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

John 13:32 Already the Son of Man has been glorified, and God has been glorified in him; and soon he will glorify Him in himself (בְּנַפְשֵׁהּ)?

Probably intended: . . . and soon he will glorify Him with his life (same word).

Exhibit XIV, B (John 13:32). Our Greek text of this verse is overloaded and confusing. In The Four Gospels, p. 326, the explanation was offered, that because of an early and easy copyist's mistake the second half of the verse was made to read: ["and God will glorify him in himself,] and straightway he will glorify him in himself"; the clause in brackets being the result of an error, and therefore to be omitted.

I believe that we have here a capital example of the fourth evangelist's cryptic expression. The words of Jesus were intended as the announcement that now, very soon, he was to glorify the Father by the supreme act of yielding up his life. The idiom is precisely that which we see in 1 Kings 2:23, the preposition beth denoting the price, as so often elsewhere: "Adonijah said these things at the cost of his life (bĕ-nafshō)." No one who heard the words of Jesus at that time could have seen their true meaning (cf. Exhibit IX, A), nor would any translator be likely to render otherwise than "in himself."

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XIV, C (Mark 6:31).

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":

Mark 6:31 He said to them, Come [for yourselves, לְכוֹן] away to a desert place, and take a little rest.

Exhibit XIV, C (Mark 6:31). Jesus says to his disciples, "Come away for a little while, to a quiet place." The emphatic "you yourselves" in our Greek has no justification; the Latin, the Old Syriac, and Codex Bezae all omit these superfluous words, the translators recognizing the "ethical dative" construction, which the Peshitta actually restores. The Greek versions of the O.T. frequently show the attempt to reproduce the redundant pronoun, and students of this passage in Mark should compare the LXX readings in Deut. 1:7, 13; 2:13; 5:30 (Hebrew 5:27), which are perfectly parallel (come you; return you; etc. ). Other good examples are Josh. 18:4; Judg. 20:7; 2 Sam. 2:21; Isa. 2:22 (Aquila), and the Latin sibi at the end of Job 12:11. All the OT passages cited here are listed in Hebrew grammars as examples of the pronoun which should not be translated; and it is to be borne in mind that the construction is much more common in Aramaic than in Hebrew.

The proposed emendation of Mark 6:20―see a subsequent Exhibit―would furnish a characteristic specimen. Another is in John 7:8, as emended; see Exhibit XXII, D. More or less doubtful as examples, deserving mention especially in view of the great frequency of the idiom, are Mark 1:27; 9:10 (in spite of verse 14); 14:4 (see the Syriac versions and Codex Bezae).

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XIV, D (Matthew 23:9).

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]:

Matthew 23:9 And call [for yourselves] no man on earth Abba; for there is for you one Abba, he who is in heaven.

Exhibit XIV, D (Matthew 23:9). Jesus would keep the term, Abbā, "the father," for the Father in heaven; cf. Mark 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6; no other meaning of the verse in Matthew is possible. The Greek makes nonsense with its mistranslation. Old Syriac, Peshitta, Palestinian Syriac, and Codex Bezae all recognize the "ethical dative" [dative of reference]; the genitive "your" in the Greek is the usual attempt (described above) to reproduce the redundant pronoun.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XIV, E (Luke 7:30)

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]:

Luke 7:30 All the common people and the publicans who gave heed justified God, in receiving John's baptism; but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected [for themselves] the divine plan, not being baptized by him.

Exhibit XIV, E (Luke 7:30). The Aramaic idiom is here quite certain, the words "for themselves" being worse that useless in this context. Wellhausen's perplexed comment (Evang. Lucae, p. 30) is remarkable, the idiom is so obviously Semitic. But no Greek writer "thinking in Aramaic" would ever have produced the phrase.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XIV, F (Luke 8:11)

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]:

Luke 18:11 The Pharisee stood [for himself] and prayed thus: God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are.

Exhibit XIV, F (Luke 18:11). In this case, there seems to be a shade of humor, or irony, in the use of the idiom, the redundant pronoun making the action of the Pharisee, in taking the attitude, a little more conspicuous. It is not simply "he stood and prayed," but rather, "he took his stand, and prayed."

"He stood by himself" (as the most of the ancient versions render, in their attempt to do justice to the Greek) is weak and without obvious motive. The publican is the one who stood by himself.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XIV, G (John 11:33)

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]:

John 11:33 When Jesus saw her weeping, . . . he was deeply distressed and shaken [for himself, וְזָע לַהּ.

Exhibit XIV, G (John 11:33). The origin of the curious phrase in the Greek, "he distressed himself," is plain to see. There is strong probability that the Aramaic verb conjectured in the Exhibit is the one which was used by the evangelist. 1. In the Targums it often has this meaning of distressed agitation (The Four Gospels, p. 324). 2. It frequently corresponds in the Targums to the Greek verb (LXX) which is employed here in John. 3. The Peshitta renders with it here. 4. It is commonly used―also in Syriac―with an "ethical dative."

To be continued...