Our Translated Gospels

[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 11:48 according to Greek: Your fathers killed the prophets and you build them (the tombs) ( אַנְתּוּן בָּנֵין לְהוֹן ).

True rendering: Your fathers killed the prophets, and you are their children ( אָנְתּוּן בְּנִין לְהוֹן ).

Exhibit XVII, F (Luke 11:48). This example is like the preceding, in that a curious and disturbing mistranslation is explained by the parallel in Matthew. The trouble is in a single word, written in Matthew precisely as in Luke, but wrongly interpreted by the latter. Matthew 23:29-31 is to be compared with Luke 11:47 f. "You build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed," Jesus says, and by this pious act you mean to declare [as Matthew expressly says in verse 30] that you of the present day condemn the blind wickedness of your forefathers. Luke than proceeds: "But by your own witness you do share in the deeds of your fathers, for they killed the prophets and you build their tombs." This is a ludicrous conclusion, proving the very opposite of what it is declared to prove! It adds nothing (except confusion) to what was said in verse 47. In Matthew there is neither contradiction nor ambiguity: "So you bear witness against yourselves that you are the sons of those who slew the prophets."

The explanation of Luke's mistake is given immediately and certainly by the Aramaic, as any one can see who will look at the text printed above. He had just translated the very same word, "build," in the preceding verse, and, as often elsewhere (see e.g. the note on 7:45 above), repeated his rendering without looking further. He could not render the pronoun ("build them") at the end of the clause, for it would refer either to "fathers" or to "prophets"! So he left the verb without an object.

According to Littmann, l.c., p. 24, Professor Lietzmann does not believe that this is the true explanation of the difficulty. The author of the First Gospel, however, says in unequivocal terms that it is

[John Reece]

Exhibit XVIII. 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 13:32 according to Greek: I will cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will be perfected ( מְשַׁלַּם ).

True rendering: I shall cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I shall be delivered up ( מַשְׁלַם ).

Exhibit XVIII, A (Luke 13:32). It is not easy to think of Jesus as saying of himself at any time that he was about to be perfected, yet this is what the Greek means, in spite of desperate attempts to make it mean something else. It would be a very strange thing for him to say to Herod, in the circumstances described. The message which he sends to "that fox" is simply this: I shall continue to do my work until the time appointed for me to lay it down. In the following verse he adds, in words addressed to his companions, perhaps also to the Pharisees (cf. Matthew 23:37), that this indeed must be, in fulfillment of the divine plan; and that the betrayal is destined to be in Jerusalem, not in Herod's jurisdiction. (See the note on verse 33, Exhibit XXI, C.) The passage is closely parallel to 20:18 f., where he says again the he is to be delivered up in Jerusalem, in fulfillment of scripture. So also Mark 9:31 and parallels. Jesus constantly uses this term (see the Aramaic above) in speaking of the approaching end, and it gives the only reading which is suitable here. The familiar term "perfected" (by martyrdom) is written with the same consonants, but is manifestly out of place in the message to Herod.

[John Reece]

Exhibit XVIII. 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 16:16 (Matthew 11:12 f.) according to Greek: Until John, there were the law and the prophets; from that time onward the gospel of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and every man is brought into it by violence ( מְכַבַּשׁ לַהּ ).

True rendering: Until John, there were the law and the prophets; from that time onward the gospel of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, but every man treats it with violence ( מְכַבֵּשׁ לַהּ ).

Exhibit XVIII, B (Luke 16:16; Matthew 11:12 f.). Until John the Baptist appeared, men had, for their guidance, only the law and the prophets. Now, something new has come into the world; how is "the kingdom of God" treated? Matthew 11:12 answers. It encounters hostile force. Those who have the power to do so "lay violent hands" on its representatives. John was seized, imprisoned, and beheaded; and Jesus is to have similar treatment (Matthew 17:12).

Luke leaned on Greek Matthew, as usual, though the reading of his original was so widely different; and from Matthew's version he took over a mistaken interpretation, and with it the Greek verb, passive voice, which seemed to suit his own text. But men are not being driven in throngs into the kingdom of God; quite the contrary! Matthew goes on at once (verses 16 f.), in the words of children: "We have piped to you and you have not danced.

[John Reece]

Exhibit XVIII. 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 24:32 according to Greek: And they said one to another, Was not our heart burning ( לִבָּנָא יָקַד ) within us, while he spoke to us in the way?

True rendering: And they said one to another, Was not our mind obtuse ( לִבָּנָא יַקִּר ) within us, while he spoke to us in the way?

Exhibit XVIII, C (Luke 24:32). The two disciples reproached themselves for not having known who had walked and talked with them. The interpretation of the phrase used by them has been much discussed. It is of Greek origin, it means one thing; if Semitic, another thing. Did they mean to say that they almost knew who their companion was? or to tell why they did not know? It had been said at the beginning of the narrative (verse 16) that their eyes were tight shut ("held fast," Aramaic idiom), so that they could not recognize Jesus. The word "heart," in Hebrew and Aramaic, most commonly means mind, and the various mental activities. As for the participle, "burning," it is very significant that the three oldest Syriac versions, with the Greek before them, refused to read in this way, but (using the same consonants) pointed according to the true Aramaic idiom: "heavy, sluggish, obtuse."

It must not be overlooked that this same idiom had already been used in the preceding verses. In verse 25, where Jesus wonders at their failure to comprehend what the Hebrew prophets had said, he calls them "slow of understanding"; precisely the phrase, the very words, which the Syriac translators recognized in verse 32. Perhaps it was with this in mind that the two said, one to another: "Were we not, indeed, 'slow-witted,' while he was talking with us?" We might expect such a lively touch from this very skillful narrator.

[John Reece]

Exhibit XVIII. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic

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

John 6:21 according to Greek: (He said to them, It is I; fear not!) Thereupon they wished ( בְּעוֹ ) to receive him into the boat.

True rendering: Thereupon they rejoiced greatly ( בְּעוּ ) to receive him into the boat.

Exhibit XVIII, D (John 6:21). Why did not the disciples receive Jesus into the boat? The verb certainly implies that they did not. "They were willing, consented, to receive him" (see Zahn's parallels)―truly a magnanimous concession on their part!―only makes a bad matter worse. It is evident that the verb is wrong; the evangelist could not possibly have written it this way.

As soon as the three consonants of the equivalent Aramaic verb are written out, the difficulty disappears. In nine cases out of ten they would represent the very familiar verb, "they wished"; in the tenth case, with quite different pronunciation, they would mean "they exulted, rejoiced greatly," and this is what the evangelist wrote. The construction is perfectly regular, a verb signifying to "be glad, rejoice, exult" followed by an infinitive; see Hab. 3:14; Prov. 2:14; Deut. 28:63; Psa. 19:6. The verb here indicated would certainly not exaggerate the emotion of the disciples who were in the boat.

[John Reece]

Exhibit XIX. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic

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

John 7:37 according to Greek: Whoever thirsts, let him come to me and drink. He who believes on me, as the scripture says, out of his belly ( מִן גַּוֵּהּ ) out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

True rendering: Whoever thirsts, let him come to me, and let him drink who believes in me. As the scriptures says, out of the midst of her ( מִן גַּוַּהּ ) shall flow rivers of living water.

Exhibit XIX, A (John 7:37). This is as convincing an example as can be found anywhere in the history of translation, and the demonstration of the original reading is remarkably interesting. The way in which a fine utterance is now substituted for miserable nonsense, and a plain allusion to Hebrew scripture replaces a blind reference, while every feature of the translator's error is explained, is recommended to the attention of students of the Gospels. Here is evidence which for many-sided cogency and consistency in not easily surpassed.

Whoever thirsts, let him come to me,
And let him drink who believes on me!

By putting a full stop after "drink," the remainder of the passage is spoiled; not indeed for the translator, who could still "translate," but for every thoughtful hearer or reader. The supposed "scripture" is impossibly grotesque, and its connection with relief of thirst is not as direct as could be desired. The man of Jerusalem who heard such a description of the convert might well have been deterred from believing, and the mental picture of hundreds of believers in the condition described is not edifying.

Burney, Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 109 ff., not only recognized (with many other scholars) the allusion to familiar prophesies, but also insisted on preserving the parallelism above mentioned. He rightly saw that the absurd reading of our Greek version must have resulted from some misunderstanding or corruption of the Aramaic original, and offered a conjecture to explain the error. There is, however, no way in which the two Aramaic words suggested by him could have been confused in the present passage; and the text which he reconstructed (p. 110) is neither good Aramaic nor comes anywhere near accounting for our Greek. The point which he makes (ibid,) in regard to the interpretation of Joel 4:18 (3:18) in the Midrash Rabba on Ecclesiastes is important and should not be overlooked.

The scripture to which Jesus refers is definitely Messianic, the depiction of a favorite detail in the prophecies dealing with the Coming Age. A great stream of living water, with its source the temple, it to flow out from the holy city and bless the land. Joel (4[3]:18); Zechariah (14:8), and Ezekiel (47:1 ff.) describe it in varied fashion; and it has mention also in one of the favorite Hebrew psalms, in the eloquent passage 46:5-8 (4-7 in the English version). It is to the last named passage that Jesus refers, as is shown by two features of his free quotation: (1) this is the only case in which the stream is called a river; (2) the next-following verse of the psalm contains the phrase "in the midst of her (Jerusalem), and these words would naturally be in the mind of one who referred to this picture of the holy city.

The citation is for substance only, as often elsewhere, and accordingly was in Aramaic, not in Hebrew. In the Aramaic translation (Targum) of the psalm, "the midst of her" is gawwah, the noun gaw with the suffixed feminine pronoun. This noun is regularly used for the "midst" of a city (as in Ezra 4:15); it is also employed in speaking of human beings and animals, and in this use would most naturally be rendered "belly." See e.g. Targ. Lev. 1:13; 3:13; Prov. 20:30 (late Hebrew) Sir. 10:9. The Greek translator, having made his false beginning with "He who believes," had no choice but to read his Aramaic text (the very same consonants) with the masculine suffix, gawwēh, and to write "out of his belly"! Every step in his unfortunate proceeding is plain, and so also is the true reading which he so completely missed.

Such evidence as that which is afforded by this passage, taken in connection with the multitude of plain indications of an Aramaic original, is perfectly conclusive; and there are in this Gospel, as has already appeared, numerous other examples of the same quality.

[John Reece]

Exhibit XIX. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic

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

John 10:7 f. according to Greek: Verily, verily I say to you, I am the door of the sheep ( אֲנָא אִתַי תַּרְעֲהוֹן דִּי עָנָא ). All those who came before me are thieves and robbers.

True rendering: Verily, verily I say to you, I came as shepherd of the sheep ( אֲנָא אֲתֵית רִעֵהוֹן דִּי עָלָא ); all those who came before me are thieves and robbers.

Exhibit XIX, B (John 10:7 f.). The subject of this "chapter of the shepherd" is a familiar figure of speech, here admirably conceived, and in all its details consistently carried through―except in verses 7 and 9. How did the shepherd come to the sheepfold. He came by the door. Others, would-be shepherds, but really thieves, had climbed up some other way. The "good shepherd" was recognized and welcomed; the doorkeeper (John the Baptist) opened the door for him, in fulfillment of scripture, Mal. 3:23 (4:5). The thieves came to rob and kill; "I came to give life" (verse 10).

Verse 7 introduces trouble. Even its wording arouses suspicion, though this is relatively unimportant. The phrase, "door of the sheep" (instead of "door of the sheepfold," or "door for the sheep"). is at least awkward, and the commentators pause to explain it. Truly serious is the sudden obscuring, or abandonment, of the simile begun in verses 1-5; for the new picture is utterly incongruous with its predecessor. A writer or speaker may indeed finish using one figure of speech and jump to another; Jesus might with some reason have been represented, under other circumstances, as declaring himself the door, or the sheepfold, or the pasture; but in the present case there can be no such liberty, for the original figure has not been abandoned. The decisive evidence against the picture of the "door" is given by the subsequent context. Verses 8 and 10 continue the figure of the shepherd; so do verses 11-18, and 25 ff. The interruption made by verses 7 and 9Johannes-evang., p. 102) have drawn the conclusion that these verses were not in the original text of the Gospel. Bauer himself remarks, that verse 7 attaches itself to the relatively unimportant feature, door, whereas we should expect at this point to hear who the shepherd is. This, as shown above, is precisely what the original (Aramaic) text of the Gospel did contain. Without the alteration of a single letter, the true sense is restored. Observe how "I came" is plainly contrasted with "all who came before me" (verse 8), and "the thief comes" (verse 10). Restoring the verb adds distinctly to the force of the passage: "I came as the shepherd; the others, for their own unlawful profit. The wrong division of words made by the translator was an extremely easy and natural mistake. It may indeed have been made in the Aramaic before the time of the translator. As for verse 9, it was inserted to give support to the otherwise completely isolated verse 7; just as the equally lonesome verse, Mark 9:49, was given a supplementary interpretation in many ancient manuscripts and versions.

[John Reece]

Exhibit XIX. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic

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

John 14:2 according to Greek: In my Father's house are many dwellings; if not ( וְלָא ), I would have told you that I go to prepare a place for you.

True rendering: In my Father's house are many dwellings; it is necessary ( וָלֵא ), I tell you, that I go to prepare a place for you.

Exhibit XIX, C (John 14:2). What the Greek gives in the second half of the verse, whether the words are taken as a question or as a declaration, is mere nonsense. In this case also, corruption of the Greek and editorial alteration have been suspected; but here again, as in the preceding example and as usual, the reading of the original Aramaic was faultless. It was the translator who made the trouble. The solution of the difficulty is ridiculously simple, and is certain. That which Jesus says here he repeats, in almost the same words, in 16:7: "I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go away." The verb rendered "it is better" is presumably the same which was employed in the present passage, for it is regularly used in both meanings. The necessity is again emphasized at the end of the chapter, verse 31; but the time when the eleven most need to have this declared to them was at the beginning of the discourse, after Jesus had so disturbed them by announcing that he was soon to leave them.

The word wālē [ וָלֵא ], "it is fitting, expedient, necessary," is very likely to be mistaken for the omnipresent wӗlā [ וְלָא ], "and not." (I have seen this mistake made many times by students reading unpointed Syriac texts.) It was for this reason, evidently, that the word disappears from the beginning of the verse Targ. Prov. 24:26 in so many manuscripts and editions; see Levy's . For the reading "if not, otherwise," the best examples are 2 Sam. 13:6 and 2 Ki. 5:17. Another example, generally unrecognized, even by the learned Hebrew tradition, is 1 Sam. 20:12.

[John Reece]

Exhibit XIX. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic

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

John 17:14 according to Greek: I have given them thy word, and the world has hated them ( שְׂנָא לְהוֹן ).

True rendering: I have given them thy word, and the world will hate them ( שָׂנֵא לְהוֹן ).

Exhibit XIX, D (John 17:14). "The world" neither knew nor cared anything about the obscure disciples of the Nazarene at the time when he addressed them; but the time was soon coming when they would stir up "hatred" on every side! The prediction is like that in Mark 13:13 and parallels; cf. also Matthew 10:34 ff., Luke 12:51 ff.

This is another of the numerous cases in which the Greek translator interpreted the Aramaic word before him as perfect tense, where the participle was intended; or rendered as present tense as a participle which should have been been rendered as future. See Exhibit X, A, B. A very striking example is in 10:18, where the Greek reads: "No one has taken it (my life) from me, but I give it of myself," and the verb was very early and extensively emended to "takes," since the past tense is obviously wrong. The Aramaic text had the participle (identical form with the perfect tense), which might have been rendered either as present or future.

[John Reece]

Chapter VII

Chapter VII, "CONFUSION OF הוּא WITH הֲוָא" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Chapter VII

CONFUSION OF הוּא WITH הֲוָא

The occasional interchange of these two graphically identical, but grammatically very different, little words is an amusing feature of the translation Greek of the Gospels. As will appear, there are various ways in which the two may be confused, and when the several passages are brought together they form a very interesting group.

[John Reece]

Chapter VII, "CONFUSION OF הוּא WITH הֲוָא"

Continuation of introduction to Chapter VII, "CONFUSION OF הוּא WITH הֲוָא" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

One result which the error may produce is a change in tense. The pronoun hū(a), 3rd person, masculine, singular, much used as the copula in nominal clauses, denotes the present tense, unless the contrary is made evident by the context, while the verb hwa means "he was." The distinction between "he is living" and "he was living" may be important; and no one who is familiar with the LXX will be willing to pin his faith absolutely to the decision made by a translator. In the Gospels, it is in the (late?) translation of John's Aramaic that nearly all of the mistakes of this nature occur. It is hardly necessary to remark upon the fact that they, wherever they are found, are the result of misreading a written text.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Chapter VII, "CONFUSION OF הוּא WITH הֲוָא"

Continuation of introduction to Chapter VII, "CONFUSION OF הוּא WITH הֲוָא" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

It is curious that an instance of this same confusion should be found in the textual tradition of the O.T. Hebrew, since here the corresponding form of the verb "to be" ends regularly with hē [ה], not in aleph [א]. However, in Biblical Aramaic and in Aramaic inscriptions both endings are used, while on the other hand in Biblical Hebrew numerous forms properly ending in hē [ה] are found written with aleph [א]; and therefore it is not difficult to believe that there was a time when a copyist of the Hebrew text could easily make the orthographic error. The verse 2 Sam. 17:10 begins: "And he (wӗ-hūʾ [וְהוּא]). even the valiant man," etc., which in its connection is poor Hebrew. The context demands: "And it will come to pass (wӗ-hāyā [וְהָיָה) that even the valiant man," etc.; and this, precisely, was read by the Lagarde Greek.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Chapter VII, "CONFUSION OF הוּא WITH הֲוָא"

Continuation of introduction to Chapter VII, "CONFUSION OF הוּא WITH הֲוָא" in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

Another variation of the error is shown in Mark 5:21 f. and John 18:25; where the pronoun, preceded by "and," beginning a circumstantial clause: "While he was," etc., is mistaken for a part of the main narrative: "And (he) was," etc.

To show how inevitably the two little words are confused: Even in the few Aramaic chapters of Daniel there are several instances. In 6:11 the Massoretic tradition varies, some manuscripts reading the one word, some the other. In 5:9 Theodotion substitutes the pronoun for the verb in four cases. In 2:32 the LXX and Peshitta versions suggest that the pronoun now beginning the verse was originally the verb, ending verse 31.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XX. Confusion of הוּא and הֲוָא

Exhibit XX. Confusion of הוּא and הֲוָא in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

A. Mark 5:21 f. according to Greek: When Jesus had crossed to the other side, a crowd gathered about him; and he was by the sea ( וַהֲוָא עַל יַמָּא ). And there came one of the rulers, etc.

True rendering: . . . a crowd gathered about him. And while he was still by the lakeside ( וְהוּא עַל יַמָּא ), there came one of the rulers, etc.

Exhibit XX, A (Mark 5:21 f.). The ordinary reader would see in this passage nothing to object to. The clause of verse 21, however, is superfluous, for the first half of the verse had already told us that Jesus was on the shore by the lake. Accordingly, Codex D and its followers, and the Old Syriac version, omit the troublesome words, "he was," and Wellhausen, in his translation, follows these very untrustworthy guides. Klostermann (Comm.) sees that the clause must be connected with the following verse, but is prevented by the Greek from making an acceptable rendering.

The moment the clause is turned into unpointed Aramaic, the explanation appears. We have here the ever-present "circumstantial" clause, in its classical form, introduced by the personal pronoun. It gives an added touch of life to the narrative. Before Jesus had left the landing place, and while the crowd was still gathering about him there, Jairus came, with his urgent request. The translator's choice of the wrong word, affecting only the literary form, was not a serious matter.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Exhibit XX. Confusion of הוּא and הֲוָא

Exhibit XX. Confusion of הוּא and הֲוָא in Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

B. John 1:15 according to Greek: This was ( הֲוָא ) he of whom I said, etc.

True rendering: This is he ( הוּא ) of whom I said, etc.

Exhibit XX, B (John 1:15). As has already been said, the Greek translator of the Fourth Gospel was especially careless in his interpretation of this Aramaic word of three consonants. In this passage, the past tense ("was") disturbed the ancient interpreters, as is shown, for instance, by the variant reading in the Greek, and by the substitution of the present tense in the Syriac versions. The fact that the Greek translator of the Gospel erred here is placed beyond doubt by the subsequent examples of the same mistake.