“constantly posting quotes from scholars… that do not actually agree with your position”
And I have no problem doing that.
Do you agree with Goodspeed that “the Peshitto Syriac version of the gospels” is “dated about A.D. 411”?
Are you aware of any instances of “interpolation and accretion” present in the Peshitta? (and if ‘yes,’ what are some of those instances?)
_New Chapters in New Testament Study_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1937), 223pp., on 161
** you do not have permission to see this link **
….the Peshitto Syriac version of the gospels, which modern learning under the leadership of Burkitt has dated about A.D. 411. They had previously been translated by J. W. Etheridge, London, 1846 (the rest of the New Testament following in 1849), and by J. Murdock, New York, 1851. Its text is far from primitive, being strongly characterized by conflation, that is, the combination of variant readings drawn from different earlier types of text. It is also rich in interpolation and accretion ; so that it is difficult to see how anyone can suppose it original.
“can’t name any critical scholars that agree with your position”
AFAIK, none of them has as of yet been persuaded by what I’ve presented.
“despise the work of scholars?”
Not that I know of.
You’ve studied Mark. What are the 2 strongest lines of evidence “that the gospel itself [i.e. Mark] was composed in Greek”?
_The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible_ by Henry Snyder Gehman (1888-1981) (1970), on 341-342 after using the search option for “aramaic”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Various scholars (e.g., C.F. Burney and J.A. Montgomery) have suggested an Aramaic origin of the Gospels, but the most complete presentation of this theory has been worked out by C.C. Torrey (_The Four Gospels, A New Translation_, 1933), who maintains that the Aramaisms in the Gospels and the first half of The Acts are not due to bilingual authors who thought in Aramaic and wrote barbarous Greek, but that they are due to translations from Aramaic documents no longer extant. He believes that accounts of the life, words, and works of Christ were put into writing almost immediately after the crucifixion (cf. Luke 1:1-2).
….
With the exception of Luke, chs. 1; 2, and John, ch. 21, the Aramaic idiom is everywhere present in the Gospels; various difficulties can be clarified by turning the Greek into Aramaic, and in many cases the interpretation of a word or passage is simplified by considering the meaning of the supposed Aramaic original. Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, and the Gospels reflect the atmosphere of Palestine.
To the literary critics this theory of the Aramaic origins was revolutionary. Yet it is a refreshing contribution to N.T. studies, because it is based on sound philology and does not lead into the involved study of interior sources or documents. While it definitely throws light upon difficult passages, it has a special merit in projecting the written sources to a period very close to the time of our Lord and thus supporting the impression of authenticity and, by inference, the trustworthiness of the records. Whatever may be thought of this theory, at any rate it can be employed to support a plausible hypothesis that the Greek sources behind the Gospels in Greek are based upon Aramaic documents and not merely on oral traditions in Aramaic.
Wouldn’t the fact that the Gospels generally follow the LXX rather than the MT (e.g., Mark 7:6–7 or Mt 1:23) go a long way in showing that they were originally Greek compositions?
On the other hand, there are passages where retro-translation to Aramaic does seem to solve problems. Bart has made that argument about Mk 2:23-38. But, insofar as that argument establishes something, it doesn’t establish that the work was originally Aramaic, just that there was some Aramaic source being used at the point: Everyone agrees that the earliest layer of Christianity (Jesus and his first followers) was Aramaic-speaking, so it shouldn’t be shocking that some sayings of Jesus end up making more sense in Aramaic.
“If scholars who’ve spent their whole lives studying these issues don’t find your arguments persuasive, why do you? …. Is it arrogance?”
Maybe so.
Do you see anything erroneous here?:
_The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels_ by Frank Zimmermann (1979), 244pp., on ix
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The relation between the Greek text and the underlying Aramaic is of crucial importance, if we wish to go back to the primacy and significance of the Gospel report. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and so did his disciples. The transmission of his sayings and the reports of his activities were in Aramaic. It is imperative to recover, as best one can, the original saying or episode in the Aramaic language wherein it was cast. The Greek Gospels abound in bizarre locutions and unintelligible happenings. This book presents some two hundred new readings as retroversions from Aramaic that clarify many Gospel problems.
The pioneer in this study of Aramaic and Greek relationships was Charles Cutler Torrey (1863-1956). Before and after him have been scholars who have dealt with these problems, either in an incomplete or fragmentized fashion (see the bibliography). His work however fell short of completeness; as a pioneering effort, in the nature of the case, some of his work has to be revised and supplemented. His main contention of translation, however, is undeniably correct.
on 4-5:
Another group of scholars, among whom C. C. Torrey was the most vocal and vigorous exponent, comes out flatly with the proposition that the Four Gospels (with the exception of Jn. 21,^3 Lk. 1-2,^4 and the Mk. ending 16.9-20), including Acts up to 15.35, are translated directly from Aramaic, and from a written Aramaic text. This group differs from the previous views which allow scant Aramaic influence, and only occasional evidence of Aramaic _logia_ in the background. But here there is an impressive group of scholars, among them Wellhausen, Nestle, Rendel Harris, Schlatter, A. Meyer, Burney, Montgomery, De Zwaan, Wensinck, [perhaps a loose association as they may differ from each other], who maintain that the Gospels are Aramaic documents. A further matter of importance which concerns these scholars is, in what dialect of the Aramaic were the Gospels composed. Was it Judean Aramaic, Galilean, or the so-called Christian Palestinian Aramaic, or was it Samaritan Aramaic, or perhaps the Syriac Aramaic? (There is a considerable number of Syriacisms considered valid by such scholars as Wellhausen, Burney, Torrey, and Black.) This question of the dialect will be considered in subsequent pages (pp. 22f.).
My own researches have led me to consider Torrey’s position valid and convincing that the Gospels as a whole were translated from the Aramaic into Greek. The following discussion supports and expands this thesis with new illustrations and examples. Some scholars have thrown stones at the building Torrey constructed, and have broken some windows (cf. Black, _Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts_ 8-9), but the structure stands firm. Torrey’s contributions principally, together with those of Wellhausen, Burney, Montgomery and Black, and some 200 new examples of my own, should make the hypothesis of the Aramaic substrate irrefutable. There are now some 500 pieces of evidence. In this connection, by curious contrast, it is remarkable that in many other instances, as in the books of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the evidence for the original language of a book may be a mere five or six examples, yet deemed sufficient for an editor to bring in a verdict.
on 7-8:
Torrey in his _Our Translated Gospels_ offered some 130 examples of evidence showing mistranslation of the Aramaic text on the part of the Greek translator, of which some 30 examples have a scribal error of some kind. He limited the number expressly, he says, for the understanding of the general reader, as the purpose was to show via repeated translation that good natural sense appeared where there was non-sense. While some scholars have cavilled at some of the examples, the main contention was brilliantly conceived, and his evidence for the most part holds. In all fairness, it cannot be cavalierly dismissed.
I first encountered it in one of his lectures for the Great Courses–Sorry I can’t remember much more context than that. I do remember him mentioning at the same time that he always tells his students, when they find a “therefore,” to ask, What’s the ‘therefore’ there for? But that’s not much use.
In context he is obviously thinking of a common interpretation of the Hebrew text, but the scribal tradition has inserted the LXX translation that disagrees with Justin’s interpretation derived from an alternative reading of the Hebrew.
That is strange and probably very confusing if you hadn’t figured out what was going on.
“the Gospels generally follow the LXX rather than the MT (e.g., Mark 7:6-7”
Mark 7:6-7 lacks the LXX Brenton’s and LXX Swete’s mention of ‘draw near with their mouth’– material that is distinct from the verbiage about ‘honor with their lips.’
(LXX NETS lacks a mention of mouths that’s in addition to ‘lips.’)
What elements are you looking at in saying Mark 7:6-7 “follow[s] the LXX”?
(merely the ‘in vain’? LXX Swete appears to lack that. OTOH, LXX Brenton and NETS have it. Young’s Literal suggests to me that the Masoretic is corrupted there. I wonder if Robert Alter has a footnote on the verse.)
Mark 7 (Berean Literal)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
6 And He said to them,
“Isaiah prophesied rightly concerning you hypocrites,
as it has been written:
‘This people honors Me with the lips,
but their heart is kept far away from Me;
7 and they worship Me in vain,
teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
Mark 7 (Bauscher)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
6 But he said to them,
“Isaiah the Prophet prophesied beautifully of you impostors,
just as it is written:
‘This people honors me with its lips,
but their heart is very far from Me.’
7 ‘And in vain they pay reverence to me
as they teach doctrines of commandments of the sons of men.’
Isaiah 29:13 (JPS Tanakh 1917)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And the Lord said:
Forasmuch as this people draw near,
And with their mouth and with their lips do honour Me,
But have removed their heart far from Me,
And their fear of Me is a commandment of men learned by rote;
Isaiah 29:13 (Robert Alter, searching for: lips heart
on
_The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary, Volume 3_
** you do not have permission to see this link **;
And the Master said,
Inasmuch as this people approached with its mouth
and with its lips honored Me
but kept its heart far from Me,
and their reverence for Me was a commandment of men learned by rote,
Isaiah 29:13 (Young’s Literal)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And the Lord saith:
Because drawn near hath this people, with its mouth,
And with its lips they have honoured Me,
And its heart it hath put far off from Me,
And their fear of Me is —
A precept of men is taught!
Isaiah 29:13 (based on interlinear)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Therefore said Yahweh,
Because inasmuch as draw near this people with their mouths
and with their lips honor Me
but their hearts have removed far from Me
and is their fear toward Me by the commandment of men taught
LXX Isaiah 29:13 (Brenton)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And the Lord has said,
This people draw nigh to me with their mouth,
and they honour me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me:
but in vain do they worship me,
teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.
LXX Isaiah 29:13
Oxford NETS – New English Translation of the Septuagint
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
PDF: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
The Lord said:
These people draw near me;
they honor me with their lips,
while their heart is far from me,
and in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts and teachings.
LXX Isaiah 29:13 (Swete)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
καὶ εἶπεν Κύριος Ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαὸς οὗτος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐν τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν με, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ· μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας.
google translate:
And the Lord said,
This people approaches me with their mouths,
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
but they respect the commandments of men and teaching with teachers.
DSS Isaiah 29:13
_The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible_ (1999), 649pp., on 313
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And the Lord said,
Inasmuch as this people draw near to honor me with their mouth
and with their lips,
but have removed their hearts far from me,
and _fear of me_^526 has been _like a human commandment_^527 that has been taught them;
526: lQIsaa. their fear of me MT.
527: lQIsaa. a human commandment MT.
Peshitta Isaiah 29:13
_The Peshitta Holy Bible Translated_ (2019) by Bauscher
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And LORD JEHOVAH said:
“Because this people approaches me with its mouth
and by its lips it honors me
and its heart is far from me,
and their worship of me was by the commandment and in the teaching of man
Targum Isaiah 29:13
_The Chaldee Paraphrase on the Prophet Isaiah [by Jonathan b. Uzziel]_ tr. by C.W.H. Pauli (1871), 226pp., on 94
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Wherefore the Lord hath said:
Because I am magnified by the mouth of this people,
and with their lips they do honour me,
but their heart is far from my fear,
and their fear towards me is as the commandment of men teaching _them_:
“I have very little patience for those who are arrogant without doing any of the difficult work required to intelligently discuss scholarship”
What’s your attitude toward individuals “who are arrogant” after having done “the difficult work required to intelligently discuss scholarship”?
review of
_The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary_ by Robert Alter
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Alter’s translation makes use of the Septuagint as well as the Masoretic text and he uses historical evidence outside of traditional Jewish sources to determine meaning…. his commentary is extremely informative regarding his choices and his reasoning, and was enlightening. He does consider himself to be *the* expert–there’s a touch of arrogance–but his opinions are interesting.
“_Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel_ by Maurice Casey…. Maybe you should read this book before asking me any additional questions”
LXX Isaiah 29:12
Oxford NETS – New English Translation of the Septuagint
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
PDF: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
And this book will be given into the hands of an unlearned man,
and one will say to him, “Read this,”
and he will say, “I am not learned.”
“_Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel_ by Maurice Casey…. He has the most disciplined approach to this question and he is very critical of Torrey, eg, on pp 19-26”
In looking over pages 19, 22-25 of
_Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel_ by Maurice Casey
** you do not have permission to see this link **;
I noticed Casey discussing a mere 4 of Torrey’s 20 alleged instances of “Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic” (specifically, Lk 7:45, Jn 7:38, Mk 7:3, and Lk 16:18/Mk 10:12).
Goodspeed was commended to me:
“Edgar Goodspeed, a linguist and specialist in Semitic languages without peer, extensively criticized Torrey and pointed out how Semiticists disagreed among themselves (DMI).” – ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Casey criticizes Goodspeed on 25-26.
Do you agree with this Goodspeed?:
_New Chapters in New Testament Study_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1937), 223pp., on 165
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The advocates of the Aramaic school…. give us no list of Aramaic works created in Palestine in the first half of the first century. There is no record of any written composition in Aramaic at that time.
What elements are you looking at in saying Mark 7:6-7 “follow[s] the LXX”?
The last two lines are completely different.
Isaiah 29:13 (JPS Tanakh 1917)
. . .
But have removed their heart far from Me,
And their fear of Me is a commandment of men learned by rote;
vs
LXX Isaiah 29:13
Oxford NETS . . .
while their heart is far from me,
and in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts and teachings.
And the latter is what we get in Mk.
merely the ‘in vain’? LXX Swete appears to lack that. OTOH, LXX Brenton and NETS have it.
It’s more than just the ‘in vain’.
LXX Swete appears to lack that. OTOH, LXX Brenton and NETS have it.
Swete does not lack it:
μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας.
It seems Google translate led you astray on that.
Young’s Literal suggests to me that the Masoretic is corrupted there.
First, why does Young’s suggest to you the MT is corrupted?
Second, we have the Dead Sea Scrolls now, and those show the MT (including of this passage) was pretty well preserved
“Goodspeed (1937)…. ‘The advocates of the Aramaic school…. give us no list of Aramaic works created in Palestine in the first half of the first century. There is no record of any written composition in Aramaic at that time.'”
“At the time, Goodspeed was right…. Goodspeed should have acknowledged hints of contemporary Aramaic literature. Instead his work on contemporary Greek sources was in fact dealing with the hard evidence available at the time. Subsequently, with the discovery of the Aramaic texts at Qumran, Casey and others are in a much better position to focus on contemporary Aramaic sources, rather than dictionaries compiled from much later sources such as the Talmud, Targums, and Syriac.”
Do you disagree with any of this?:
“The Possible Aramaic Gospel” by Edgar J. Goodspeed in _Journal of Near Eastern Studies_ (July 1942), 315-340, a paragraph on 339
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
For my own part, I long ago did what seemed to me full justice to the very just claims of the Aramaic gospel theory. I quite agree that there was an Aramaic gospel, and that it was the earliest of gospels. But it was an oral, not a written gospel, and that is what Papias was trying to convey in his somewhat baffling remarks on the subject, preserved in Eusebius, _Church History_ iii. 39.15. This is why Paul and Luke, Clement and Polycarp, quote from it with such words as “_Remember_ the words of the Lord Jesus.” It was a memorized gospel, handed down in that characteristic Jewish fashion, by word of mouth, like the Mishnah. Of course, such an impractical method did not long satisfy the Greek church, which had to have written gospels.
_Matthew: Apostle and Evangelist_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1959), 166pp., on 137-138
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Matthew doubtless took down many of Jesus’ sayings in Aramaic; though, in the strongly anti-literary atmosphere that prevailed among the Jews at that time, that he circulated them as an Aramaic book is hardly probable. We know of no other book composed in Aramaic!
“One doesn’t give a loaded gun to a child”
Are you aware of any mistakes in the Peshitta?
[Paul Younan]”point me to a mistake in the Aramaic Peshitta which arose from a grammatical error while translating from the Greek. In your model, there should be plenty that exist. ….point me to one error in the Peshitta which can only be explained by the Aramaic translator making a grammatical mistake that could have only happened if he had a Greek original in front of him.”
“The last two lines are completely different.
‘Isaiah 29:13 (JPS Tanakh 1917) . . .
But have removed their heart far from Me,
And their fear of Me is a commandment of men learned by rote;’
vs
‘LXX Isaiah 29:13 Oxford NETS . . .
while their heart is far from me,
and in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts and teachings.'”
“But have removed their heart far from Me” is similar to
“while their heart is far from me.”
“And their fear of Me” is similar to
“and… they worship me.”
“A commandment of men learned by rote” is similar to
“teaching human precepts and teachings.”
“Swete does not lack it:
‘*μάτην* δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας.’
It seems Google translate led you astray on that”
Indeed.
3155. matén
** you do not have permission to see this link **
matén: in vain, to no purpose
Original Word: μάτην
Part of Speech: Adverb
Transliteration: matén
Phonetic Spelling: (mat’-ane)
Definition: in vain, to no purpose
Usage: in vain, in an unreal way, to no purpose.
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 3155 mátēn (an adverb) – properly, “aimlessly”; pointless, without ground or any real purpose (fruitfulness). See 3152 (mataios).
“we have the Dead Sea Scrolls now, and those show the MT (including of this passage) was pretty well preserved”
Cave 4 showed there was another textual stream for certain books, whose renditions were captured in the LXX but absent from the Masoretic.
“why does Young’s suggest to you the MT is corrupted?”
It seems to me a word(s) is missing where the dash is. This doesn’t read well: “their fear of Me is —
A precept of men is taught!”
Isaiah 29:13 (Young’s Literal)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And the Lord saith:
Because drawn near hath this people, with its mouth,
And with its lips they have honoured Me,
And its heart it hath put far off from Me,
And their fear of Me is —
A precept of men is taught!
“But have removed their heart far from Me” is similar to
“while their heart is far from me.”
Yes, that is not problematic.
“And their fear of Me” is similar to
“and… they worship me.”
If you lift phrases out of context, you can find verbal similarities. But look at the grammar of the sentence.
“A commandment of men learned by rote” is similar to
“teaching human precepts and teachings.”
As above, look at what is actually being said. Pay attention to the syntax. Parse the sentence. What is the subject? what is the verb? What is modifying what?
If you look at the pair of sentences, “the wolf ate the child” and “the eating child petted the dog,” you can find a lot of verbal similarities (‘dog is similar to ‘wolf’; ‘eating’ is similar to ‘ate’; both sentences talk about a ‘child’, but they are two totally different sentences.
Cave 4 showed there was another textual stream for certain books, whose renditions were captured in the LXX but absent from the Masoretic.
Is this passage in Isaiah among the textual variants attested in cave 4?
“why does Young’s suggest to you the MT is corrupted?”
It seems to me a word(s) is missing where the dash is. This doesn’t read well: “their fear of Me is —
A precept of men is taught!”
One can’t do textual criticism by looking at translations. It could be a crappy translation. It could be capturing an Hebraism that is usually smoothed out in other translations and seems odd to people unfamiliar with Hebrew. Or it could reflect a corrupted text that can’t be translated because it just doesn’t make any sense. But to make any such judgement one has to look at the actual text. Just to give you a sense of what is going on here, and how far you are from the text reading this translation: neither of those ‘is’s is actually in the text–that’s normal for Hebrew. The translator decided to supply them.
Which Matthew quotes of Isaiah do you think came from the LXX?
_Matthew: Apostle and Evangelist_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1959), 166pp., on viii-ix
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Summary of the section “Isaiah in Matthew”:
Isaiah 7.14 = Matthew 1.23
Isaiah 40.3 = Matthew 3.3
Isaiah 9.1+ = Matthew 4.15-16
Isaiah 53.4 = Matthew 8.17
Isaiah 61.1 = Matthew 11.5
Isaiah 14.13-15 = Matthew 11.23
Isaiah 42.1-4; see also Isaiah 41.8-9 = Matthew 12.18-21
Isaiah 6.9-10 = Matthew 13.14-15
Isaiah 29.13 = Matthew 15.8-9
Isaiah 62.11 = Matthew 21.5
Isaiah 56.7 = Matthew 21.13
Isaiah 5.1+ = Matthew 21.33
Isaiah 19.2 = Matthew 24.7
Isaiah 13.10; compare Isaiah 34.4; = Matthew 24.29
Isaiah 27.13 compare Matthew 24.31– an allusion to Isaiah 27.13
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)