Our Translated Gospels

[Juvenal]

I just received, via INTERLIBRARY LOAN, a copy of Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence (New York and London: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1936), by Charles Cutler Torrey, [then] Professor of Semitic Languages in Yale University.

Dear John,

I note the publication date, and also the reference to a talk he gave in 1934 in a later post. Can you give me a sense of how his thesis of an early, written Aramaic origin for the canonical gospels has endured over the past century? Is there current scholarship still following this argument?

As ever, Jesse


ps. Please accept my best wishes for a successful treatment.

[John Reece]

Dear John,

I note the publication date, and also the reference to a talk he gave in 1934 in a later post. Can you give me a sense of how his thesis of an early, written Aramaic origin for the canonical gospels has endured over the past century?

As best I can tell, Torrey's thesis was ignored by scholars during his day, and has continued to be ignored ever since.

Is there current scholarship still following this argument?

None that I am aware of in the world of scholarship that I would recognize as such. There are people who insist that the entire New Testament was written in Aramaic, but I do not regard that argument as valid, nor do I recognize those who insist on it as "scholars".

One reason I have been intrigued by Torrey's work is that the Professor of Semitic Languages at Duke who taught me to read Hebrew in the mid-twentieth century was the best teacher I ever had no matter what the subject, so his favorable opinion of Torrey (a fellow professor of Semitic languages at a major university ― the latter at Yale and the former at Duke) carries weight with me.

Beyond that, I long ago became fascinated by the phenomenon of presuppositions in the minds of men as a greater determinate of what people believe than is ― all too often ― actual/factual evidence.

So, it is with curiosity and an open mind that I ponder Torrey's presentation of evidence, and what he makes of said evidence, as a competent but rather radical Professor of Semitic Languages at Yale during his day.

[John Reece]

Continued from post #15 above ↑

Continuation of excerpts from the Introduction to Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

In the days of the Hebrew monarchies, the conception of a restored "house of David" in fulfillment of 2 Sam. 7:16 might have satisfied; though the Hebrew people eventually had more than their fill of kings, whether of their own race or of the foreign nations. Even the most acceptable of their legitimate rulers, men like Hezekiah and Josiah, were of relatively little consequence. Long before the beginning of the present era the conception of the coming Deliverer as a mere human being had been completely abandoned. He had now become the "mighty god" of Isaiah 9:5 (see Gray's Comm., p. 173!), the "prince of peace"; also destined "to smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips to slay the wicked" (11:4). Here the term "Son of God," for the Expected One, is definitely provided. The true Messianic doctrine made its appearance in the latter part of the Persian period, and it came into being full-fledged, or nearly so.

In The Beginnings of Christianity, by Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, I, p. 356, we read: "It cannot be too strongly emphasized that there was no generally accepted opinion, no organized and consistent teaching, above all no orderly Messianic doctrine possessing the faintest shadow of authority." The opinion thus expressed is rather widely held at present; I think the fact will eventually be recognized that it is utterly mistaken. Had the Jews no interest in the Prophets? They would have been unlike every other thoughtful people on earth―unlike the eager theologians we know them to have been―if they had not possessed a very full and well-defined body of belief in regard to their divine protagonist and prince of peace, who was destined to save them and the world. It is, I think, no exaggeration to say, that the fundamental teachings in regard to the person of the Anointed One, and the program, fully developed, of his coming, his conquest, and his world-wide rule, were clearly seen and taken for granted by all the Jewish writers of the last centuries B.C.

To be continued...

[Juvenal]

So, it is with curiosity and an open mind that I ponder Torrey's presentation of evidence, and what he makes of said evidence, as a competent but rather radical Professor of Semitic Languages at Yale during his day.

Dear John,

That sounds good to me, too, and I appreciate your efforts. Like Teal I suppose, I'll be looking at the evidence of Aramaicisms in the Greek texts as consequent to an oral tradition, which, I believe, is not at all controversial. I believe even Ehrman has supported that position.

As ever, Jesse

[John Reece]

Dear John,

That sounds good to me, too, and I appreciate your efforts. Like Teal I suppose, I'll be looking at the evidence of Aramaicisms in the Greek texts as consequent to an oral tradition, which, I believe, is not at all controversial. I believe even Ehrman has supported that position.

Do you think "an oral tradition" can account for all the extensive documentation presented in "The Aramaic Period of the Nascent Christian Church", such as, among much else, today's post (#12)?

It seems that you will be viewing Torrey's presentation of evidence through the prism of a presupposition: that is, that "the evidence of Aramaicisms in the Greek texts" is "consequent to an oral tradition".

That's the phenomenon that I had in mind in the penultimate paragraph of my post (#17) to which you have responded in the quote above.

ETA: I should say that I am not presenting this as a standalone thread; rather, I am presenting it as a supplement to "The Aramaic Period of the Nascent Christian Church", which in turn is being presented as a supplement to The Apocalypse of John; hence, evidence presented in any one of the three threads should be combined with the evidence presented in the other two, given the fact that they all are integrally related to a common thesis.

[Juvenal]

Do you think "an oral tradition" can account for all the extensive documentation presented in "The Aramaic Period of the Nascent Christian Church", such as, among much else, today's post (#12)

Dear John,

I have no competent opinions on these issues, and so rely on those who do.

It seems that you will be viewing Torrey's presentation of evidence through the prism of a presupposition: that is, that "the evidence of Aramaicisms in the Greek texts" is "consequent to an oral tradition".

That's hardly generous, I think. My intent was to find a way to preserve the value of his contribution even if his main thesis was incorrect.

That's the phenomenon that I had in mind in the penultimate paragraph of my post (#17) to which you have responded in the quote above.

Honestly, I thought that was a reference to Torrey, due to your immediately following description of him as a radical.

ETA: I should say that I am not presenting this as a standalone thread; rather, I am presenting it as a supplement to "The Aramaic Period of the Nascent Christian Church", which in turn is being presented as a supplement to The Apocalypse of John; hence, evidence presented in any one of the three threads should be combined with the evidence presented in the other two, given the fact that they all are integrally related to a common thesis.

Please carry on.

As ever, Jesse

[robrecht]

Dear John,

I note the publication date, and also the reference to a talk he gave in 1934 in a later post. Can you give me a sense of how his thesis of an early, written Aramaic origin for the canonical gospels has endured over the past century? Is there current scholarship still following this argument?

As ever, Jesse

ps. Please accept my best wishes for a successful treatment.

I am not John, but it is worth noting that a few prominent scholars have continued to carry on with this approach, most notably Joachim Jeremias in German (a great deal available in English translation) and Matthew Black in English (An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts). With respect to the current generation of scholars, Maurice Casey is the most well known scholar to pursue this avenue. He has taken advantage of Qumran Aramaic texts and has tried to apply a much more disciplined approach to reconstruct larger texts using only contemporary Aramaic. While he is well respected, his conclusions are certainly not accepted by mainstream critical scholars. He attempts to reconstruct some written Aramaic sources for the hypothetical Q document but this is a rather chaotic model and not a unified approach to a later single Greek recension of Q. The Aramaic parts of Q are generally considered to be very early. Likewise, he reconstructs larger portions of an Aramaic substratum of the gospel of Mark and dates the writing of the whole Greek gospel of Mark to around 40 CE (Matthew, 50-60 CE; Luke 80-90 CE). While his conclusions are not accepted by critical scholars, that is not because he is some kind of conservative Christian apologist. In fact, he is very much an agnostic, but he does consider much of the gospel material to rather faithfully represent impressions of Jesus' teaching dating to his contemporaries. His best known scholarly works are Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel, 1998, and An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, 2002. Another notable contemporary scholar working in the area of the semitic background to the New Testament is Roger David Aus. I haven't gotten around to reading him yet, but my impression is that he is working primarily with oral traditions and is not averse to using considerably later Rabbinic traditions, especially when there are multiple later witnesses to what are presumed to be earlier Jewish traditions of interpretation.

[John Reece]

Hi, Jessie.

My intent was to find a way to preserve the value of his contribution even if his main thesis was incorrect.

Presumably incorrect ― and in need preservation ... ― at the outset? Before "his contribution" is even presented?

Beyond that, I long ago became fascinated by the phenomenon of presuppositions in the minds of men as a greater determinate of what people believe than is ― all too often ― actual/factual evidence.

Honestly, I thought that was a reference to Torrey, due to your immediately following description of him as a radical.

If I thought Torrey's thesis was based on a presupposition, rather than being an objective conclusion arrived at as a result of expert analysis of evidence accumulated throughout decades of research, I would not have wasted any time reading his books or posting these threads.

My reference to Torrey as a radical professor of Semitic languages was not in this case a pejorative use of the term. If I were to define my use of the word with regard to Torrey, it would be "very different from the usual or traditional" ― to my mind, in a refreshing sense.

I do not know to what extent Torrey may be right or wrong in what he has written; I only know that I enjoy reading his writings ― immensely.

[John Reece]

I am not John, but it is worth noting that a few prominent scholars have continued to carry on with this approach, most notably Joachim Jeremias in German (a great deal available in English translation) and Matthew Black in English (An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts). With respect to the current generation of scholars, Maurice Casey is the most well known scholar to pursue this avenue. He has taken advantage of Qumran Aramaic texts and has tried to apply a much more disciplined approach to reconstruct larger texts using only contemporary Aramaic. While he is well respected, his conclusions are certainly not accepted by mainstream critical scholars. He attempts to reconstruct some written Aramaic sources for the hypothetical Q document but this is a rather chaotic model and not a unified approach to a later single Greek recension of Q. The Aramaic parts of Q are generally considered to be very early. Likewise, he reconstructs larger portions of an Aramaic substratum of the gospel of Mark and dates the writing of the whole Greek gospel of Mark to around 40 CE (Matthew, 50-60 CE; Luke 80-90 CE). While his conclusions are not accepted by critical scholars, that is not because he is some kind of conservative Christian apologist. In fact, he is very much an agnostic, but he does consider much of the gospel material to rather faithfully represent impressions of Jesus' teaching dating to his contemporaries. His best known scholarly works are Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel, 1998, and An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, 2002. Another notable contemporary scholar working in the area of the semitic background to the New Testament is Roger David Aus. I haven't gotten around to reading him yet, but my impression is that he is working primarily with oral traditions and is not averse to using considerably later Rabbinic traditions, especially when there are multiple later witnesses to what are presumed to be earlier Jewish traditions of interpretation.

Thanks for that, robrecht.

Not being a scholar, nor well read in terms of scholarship, the only one of the list above with which I was remotely familiar is Matthew Black, who was mentioned to me by a professor of NT at Union Theological Seminary in Virginia (my alma mater) whom I contacted, many years ago, to ask him what he thought of Torrey's thesis. That was so long ago, and my memory is so poor, that I had forgotten the exchange I had with him until you included Black in your post above.

[John Reece]

Continued from post #18 above ↑

Continuation of excerpts from the Introduction to Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

The rhapsodies in Isaiah 9 and 11 do not at all sound like new announcements; they summon their hearers to exult in a well-known assurance of coming glory. Contrast the impressive "Behold my Servant!" of 42:1, or "I make thee henceforth to hear new things" of 48:6. Others beside the writer of chapters 9 and 11 had given the Hebrew thinkers food for thought. I have elsewhere attempted to show that the passage in chapter 9 harks back to 66:7-9, 12 and 65:17, and to point out the evident fact that 11:6-8 is a literary expansion of 65:25 (as Gray, pp. 223 f. concludes). Verses 11:2-42 are plainly derived from 61:1-3, and 11:4b may well have been suggested by 49:22, a striking phrase in one of the most thought-provoking utterances in all Hebrew prophecy. 11:2a repeats the words of 56:8a.*

The eloquent author of the passages in Isaiah 9 and 11, with their description of the divine-human leader and his everlasting rule, derived his inspiration from Second Isaiah, that is certain. It is a very significant fact that the most of the "Messianic" descriptions in Hebrew-Jewish literature, and of the N.T. allusions and appeals to such scripture as definite prediction of the superhuman being who now at last had appeared on earth, have in mind the same great prophecy. To list and discuss such references would require a long chapter. A few of the most striking passages are briefly presented in "The Influences," pp. 29-34; others will occur to any student of the Bible.

*See The Second Isaiah, pp. 470 ff.; and "The Influence of Second Isaiah in the Gospels and Acts," journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 48 (1929), pp. 28 f., this essay referred to in the sequel as "The Influence." By "The Second Isaiah" I mean chapters 34-66, with the omission of 36-39.

To be continued...

[Truthseeker]

According to the ESV of the Bible, there was a theory (among other theories) that Isaiah had three authors. Hence, First Isaiah, Second Isaiah and Third Isaiah (author or the respective part of the Book of Isaiah). Whoever of the ESV staff wrote about that does not favor it.

[Truthseeker]

Continuation of excerpts from the Introduction to Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence, by Charles Cutler Torrey:

The rhapsodies in Isaiah 9 and 11 do not at all sound like new announcements; they summon their hearers to exult in a well-known assurance of coming glory. Contrast the impressive "Behold my Servant!" of 42:1, or "I make thee henceforth to hear new things" of 48:6. Others beside the writer of chapters 9 and 11 had given the Hebrew thinkers food for thought. I have elsewhere attempted to show that the passage in chapter 9 harks back to 66:7-9, 12 and 65:17, and to point out the evident fact that 11:6-8 is a literary expansion of 65:25 (as Gray, pp. 223 f. concludes). Verses 11:2-42 are plainly derived from 61:1-3, and 11:4b may well have been suggested by 49:22, a striking phrase in one of the most thought-provoking utterances in all Hebrew prophecy. 11:2a repeats the words of 56:8a.*

The eloquent author of the passages in Isaiah 9 and 11, with their description of the divine-human leader and his everlasting rule, derived his inspiration from Second Isaiah, that is certain. It is a very significant fact that the most of the "Messianic" descriptions in Hebrew-Jewish literature, and of the N.T. allusions and appeals to such scripture as definite prediction of the superhuman being who now at last had appeared on earth, have in mind the same great prophecy. To list and discuss such references would require a long chapter. A few of the most striking passages are briefly presented in "The Influences," pp. 29-34; others will occur to any student of the Bible.

*See The Second Isaiah, pp. 470 ff.; and "The Influence of Second Isaiah in the Gospels and Acts," journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 48 (1929), pp. 28 f., this essay referred to in the sequel as "The Influence." By "The Second Isaiah" I mean chapters 34-66, with the omission of 36-39.

To be continued...

I'm lost. For example, "harks back to 66:7-9 . . ." Oh, well, I will check back.

[DesertBerean]

He thought the Synoptics date no later then the middle of the first decade? Wow. That would make them contemporary with Paul's letters, right?

[John Reece]

According to the ESV of the Bible, there was a theory (among other theories) that Isaiah had three authors. Hence, First Isaiah, Second Isaiah and Third Isaiah (author or the respective part of the Book of Isaiah). Whoever of the ESV staff wrote about that does not favor it.

Neither do I; I agree wholeheartedly with John N. Oswalt who wrote on page 25 of volume I of his NICOT commentary on Isaiah saying: "it is my conviction that the essential content of the book has come to us through one human author, Isaiah the son of Amoz. It is he who received the revelations from God and who directed the shaping of the book."

[John Reece]

I'm lost. For example, "harks back to 66:7-9 . . ." Oh, well, I will check back.

That was likewise my reaction. Torrey gives references to some one of his contemporary scholars for that, but to my mind, Oswalt is a much better source for anything related to Isaiah. Oswalt sees Isaiah the son of Amoz writing the whole book beginning with chapter 1 and going through chapter 66.