“Is this passage in Isaiah among the textual variants attested in cave 4?”
Nothing about cave 4 for DSS Isaiah 29:13 is mentioned in my DSS copy.

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: 1QIsa^a. _their fear of me_ MT.
527: 1QIsa^a. _a human commandment_ MT.

“look at the grammar of the sentence…. 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….
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”

_The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible_ (1999), 649pp., on 269-270
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Because Isaiah is a lengthy book virtually preserved in its entirety in 1QIsa^a, and since there are so many Isaiah scrolls, for the translation of this book and accompanying variants a somewhat different approach has been taken here than with other books in The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. The translation that follows is consistently from 1QIsa^a, with the readings from the other scrolls shown in the footnotes. Some of the insignificant variants (usually involving spelling) are not noted. Moreover, in this translation the Septuagint is sometimes, but not always, collated for variant readings. The main reason for this is that Isaiah is mainly poetry,^c and the Septuagint contains a rather free Greek translation of the unvocalized Hebrew poetry; it is thus often difficult to tell exactly which Hebrew form is being translated. However, most of the more significant Septuagint variants are recorded.
c: However, text was subsequently written down in prose format in the scrolls as well as in the Hebrew text used by the Septuagint translator(s).

“to go though each of those”
I looked up in my DSS copy each Isaiah passage Goodspeed mentioned, and saw 0 relevant mentions of the LXX in the DSS Isaiah footnotes.

“As a rule, when Matthew has Jesus quoting Scripture, the quotation follows the LXX”
For which instances in Matthew?

“when Mt is quoting Scripture in his own voice he sometimes seems to be rendering his own translation of the Hebrew. That seems to suggest that Mathew’s source for the words of Jesus was a Greek source, but that Matthew had at least some knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures in Hebrew”

Do you agree with this?:

_Edgar Johnson Goodspeed: Articulate Scholar_ (1981), 88pp., on 55

Black’s own study of syntax, grammar, vocabulary, Semitic poetic form in the Gospels and evidence of mistranslation and interpretation in Aramaic, yields only one conclusion which can be regarded as in any degree established: that an Aramaic sayings source or tradition lies behind the synoptic Gospels. Whether that source was written or oral, cannot be determined from the evidence.

“trivial and true”
Ditto that for this?:

_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!

“Not at all”
What if anything is erroneous in this?:

_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!

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.

Do you disagree with any of this Goodspeed?:

_A History of Early Christian Literature_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1942), 324pp., on 162
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Much more perplexing is Papias’ statement about Matthew:
“So then Matthew composed the Sayings in the Aramaic language, and each one translated them as best he could.”^5
The only possible meaning of this is that Matthew the apostle was believed to be the author of the _oral_ gospel.^6
4 Eusebius _Church History_ iii. 39. 15.
5 _Ibid_.
6 Goodspeed, _Introduction to the New Testament_ (Chicago, 1937), pp. 129-32.

On 1-5:
the Jewish world in which they lived was altogether averse to literary composition, being absorbed, in the first half of the first century, in the contemplation of its Hebrew heritage, which it held sacred and almost worshiped. 
….
It is improbable that primitive Palestinian Christianity produced any written records of Jesus’ life or teaching of even the most meager proportions. But, true to their Jewish habits, they do seem to have produced an oral gospel, comprising an account, in their vernacular Aramaic, of his doings and sayings. It would have been altogether natural for them to do this; the Jews were handing down by a similar oral tradition, but in Hebrew, the sayings of their great rabbis….

….the traditional oral gospel.
But have we any actual mention of such a work– if anything so nebulous can be called a “work”– on the part of any early Christian writer? Yes, what Papias (_ca_. A.D. 140) says of Matthew composing the “Sayings” in the Aramaic language, and each one translating them as best he could, sounds like an attempt to describe just such a work. If early Christians learned it by heart, in Aramaic, and then carried the Christian message into the Greek world, they would naturally have to translate this oral gospel into Greek for the use of their converts, each one doing it as well as he could.

….the primitive Christians had no thought at all of creating a literature. Their whole concern was for the inner life of the spirit, through which they came into communion with God. A full generation was to pass before Christians thought of writing gospels, and then they were to arise in Greek, not Aramaic, and in circles far removed from Jewish Palestine.

….literary phase of Christianity gradually gathered strength, until it became a great tide not only potent in itself but also influencing other literatures not definitely Christian. Its beginnings were in the Greek world, and for a century Greek was its sole vehicle; then it spread to Latin and Syriac and, in the third century, to Coptic, though at first Syriac and Coptic attempted no more than translations of works originally written in Greek.

////////////////////////////
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Among the Dead Sea Scrolls were a number of manuscripts of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, including ten manuscripts of the Book of Enoch in the original Aramaic (until then copies were extant only in an Ethiopic translation of a Greek translation of a Semitic original), which were vital to answering many questions about its origins. Dating of the manuscripts by their script shows that certain parts of Enoch are at least as old as the third century BCE.

_The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader: Texts Concerned With Religious Law, Exegetical Texts and Parabiblical Texts_

_The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Volume 2: Calendrical Texts and Sapiential Texts, Poetic and Liturgical Texts, Additional Genres and Unclassified Texts_, 2nd edition

_The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English_, 7th edition (2011), by Geza Vermes

_A Handbook of the Aramaic Scrolls from the Qumran Caves: Manuscripts, Language, and Scribal Practices_
free PDF available from
** you do not have permission to see this link **
hardcopy

This book provides the first comprehensive treatment of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls from the caves of Qumran. These nearly one hundred scrolls open a window onto a vibrant period of Jewish history for which we previously had few historical sources.

////////////////////////////
_A History of Early Christian Literature_ by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1942), 324pp., on 1-5
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Christianity began as a spiritual movement. Its founder wrote nothing. He sought to change men’s hearts. He struck at the sources of attitude and action. His early followers continued this course. They were further committed to it by their expectation of his early return in messianic triumph to judge the world. They had no thought of producing a literature; indeed, the Jewish world in which they lived was altogether averse to literary composition, being absorbed, in the first half of the first century, in the contemplation of its Hebrew heritage, which it held sacred and almost worshiped.

Palestinian aversion to original written composition in Hebrew in the first half of the first century is glaringly revealed by two facts. First, the Jews were making a Hebrew commentary on the Jewish Law, but they would not permit this to be written; to write it would seem to put it on a level with That Which Was Written the Scripture itself. So it was memorized and recited. It is repeatedly referred to in the Sermon on the Mount, where this interpretation of the Law is contrasted with Jesus’ teaching. More than a century was to elapse before this Mishnah, as it was called, was committed to writing.

And, second, the Jews in that half-century were engaged in translating their sacred scriptures from Hebrew into Aramaic, the vernacular language which everybody used and understood. But this, too, must not be written down; it must be committed to memory, and when about A.D. 50 Gamaliel I came across a written copy of the Aramaic translation of Job, he promptly destroyed it, for to write down such versions seemed to put them on a level with that which was written the Hebrew scripture itself. And, here again, it was years before these translations– the Targum– were committed to writing.

Everything, in short, was at first unfavorable to the production of a Christian literature: the Jewish environment of the first believers and the basic attitudes of the Christians themselves– their emphasis upon the inner life, the spirit, not the letter; and their messianic expectation.

It is improbable that primitive Palestinian Christianity produced any written records of Jesus’ life or teaching of even the most meager proportions. But, true to their Jewish habits, they do seem to have produced an oral gospel, comprising an account, in their vernacular Aramaic, of his doings and sayings. It would have been altogether natural for them to do this; the Jews were handing down by a similar oral tradition, but in Hebrew, the sayings of their great rabbis, and these now form part of the Mishnah– the _Pirke Aboth_, or “Chapters of the Fathers.” The evangelists often speak of Jesus as a rabbi, and it would be natural to preserve the memory of his life and teaching in this way.

Such an oral gospel was evidently known to Paul, who quotes it as something handed down to him, or, as we say, tradition (I Cor. 11:23; 15:3). Luke uses it once at least in the Acts: “Remembering the words of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 20:35). His contemporary, Clement of Rome, in his _Letter to the Corinthians_, seems clearly to be quoting it: “Remember the words of the Lord Jesus” (13:1; 46:7). Polycarp of Smyrna, twenty years later, in his _Letter to the Philippians_, quotes Jesus with the words, “Remembering what the Lord said” (2:3). Not only does the manner of quotation in all these instances suggest memorized material but the items quoted cannot be found in these forms in any written gospel. It is reasonable to suppose that they were derived from the traditional oral gospel.

But have we any actual mention of such a work– if anything so nebulous can be called a “work”– on the part of any early Christian writer? Yes, what Papias (_ca_. A.D. 140) says of Matthew composing the “Sayings” in the Aramaic language, and each one translating them as best he could, sounds like an attempt to describe just such a work. If early Christians learned it by heart, in Aramaic, and then carried the Christian message into the Greek world, they would naturally have to translate this oral gospel into Greek for the use of their converts, each one doing it as well as he could. This process of oral transmission is probably referred to in Luke’s opening sentence, “Just as the original eye-witnesses who became teachers of the message have handed it down to us” (1:2).

While this elusive primitive gospel must have had a great influence on Christian preaching, and through it indirectly upon the gospels that were later written, we cannot recover it, or even describe it, in any detail. It contained some characteristic pieces of Jesus’ teaching, with accounts of the Last Supper, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection experiences. We might expect relics of it to survive in Luke or in Matthew; but, if so, they cannot be identified.

It is true, the written gospels, when they appeared, sprang up under its shadow, and not so much to reproduce it as to supplement it. The earliest written gospels seem to have assumed its existence. And from the point of view of the story of Christian literature, this lost oral gospel is chiefly significant as conclusive evidence that the primitive Christians had no thought at all of creating a literature. Their whole concern was for the inner life of the spirit, through which they came into communion with God. A full generation was to pass before Christians thought of writing gospels, and then they were to arise in Greek, not Aramaic, and in circles far removed from Jewish Palestine.

With the letters of Paul and the earliest gospels a new and extraordinary force began to find written expression– a force destined powerfully to affect the spiritual life of mankind. From small and obscure beginnings– mere personal letters long left unpublished– this literary phase of Christianity gradually gathered strength, until it became a great tide not only potent in itself but also influencing other literatures not definitely Christian. Its beginnings were in the Greek world, and for a century Greek was its sole vehicle; then it spread to Latin and Syriac and, in the third century, to Coptic, though at first Syriac and Coptic attempted no more than translations of works originally written in Greek. It was in Greek and then in Latin that it was at first creative.

Do you disagree with any of this?:

“The Original Language of the Gospels” by Edgar J. Goodspeed (Oct 1934)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Also in
_Contemporary Thinking About Jesus: An Anthology_, compiled by Thomas S. Kepler (1944), 429pp., on 58-63, 58-59
** you do not have permission to see this link **;
But the greatest difficulty with the method was that there seemed to be no historical occasion likely to have called forth the Aramaic Gospel it assumed, especially at so early a date as it claimed– 50 or 52 A.D.

This is the core of the problem. How did such a Gospel come to be written? The Gospel is Christianity’s contribution to literature. It is the most potent type of religious literature ever devised. To credit such a creation to the most barren age of a never very productive tongue like Aramaic would seem the height of improbability.

For in the days of Jesus the Jews of Palestine were not engaged in writing books. It is not too much to say that a Jerusalem or Galilean Jew of the time of Christ would regard writing a book in his native tongue with positive horror. Even a century before, a Jew who wrote a book felt obliged to put it under the name of some ancient worthy like Enoch, the seventh from Adam, or to claim as its author some ancient Jew of what was called the Prophetic Period, which was understood to extend from Moses to Ezra, and from which it was believed all sound books on religion must come.

This aversion to writing books was not merely negative. It was positive. They had plenty of things to say and they said them, but they would not write them. Those were the days when the famous oral amplification of the Jewish Law was being developed by such masters as Hillel and Shammai. But the Jews would not write it; they memorized it. It seemed an act of impiety to write it, for then it might seem to rival the Scripture itself.

Those days also witnessed the translation of the Hebrew Law into the Aramaic vernacular. But this too remained unwritten for generations. Indeed, it is impossible to realize the fantastic unreality of the first-century Jewish attitude toward writing books.

There is a rabbinical story that about 50 A.D. Gamaliel the First, the grandson of Hillel, saw a written copy of an Aramaic translation of Job, and immediately had it destroyed. The story may not be true, but its intention is obvious: if anyone was wicked enough to write down the Targum on Job, it must be destroyed. This was the orthodox Jewish attitude toward writing books in Aramaic, in Jerusalem about the middle of the first century. If anything could heighten the picture, it is the behavior of Jews of that very period who escaped from these narrowing walls into the great Greek world of the day. Such men wrote books freely, but they wrote them principally in Greek. There is a peculiar irony in this, that gifted Jews should have to turn to Greek as a medium of literary expression. But Philo, Paul, and Josephus tell the story. They wrote, but they wrote in Greek.

Of the Jewish Apocrypha written within a century of the life of Jesus, the great majority were composed in Greek, not Aramaic, and it seems abundantly clear that in the times of Jesus the Jews were not writing books in Aramaic; indeed, they were actually resorting to the strangest devices to avoid doing so.

Even if the Jews had been given to Aramaic composition, and contemporary Aramaic literature had been a garden instead of a desert, the early Christians could hardly have contributed to it. They were constantly overshadowed by the sense of imminent catastrophe. The Messianic Advent overhung them like a huge wave of fate, threatening– or promising– to break at any moment. It was their urgent task to hasten about the ancient world warning men of what was at hand. Clearly it was no time for writing books.

II ….

Searching the Scriptures – Society of Biblical Literature, on 34-35
PDF: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
The 1934 meeting (seventieth) was a lively affair. Attention was focused on the well-known views of the Aramaic scholar Charles Cutler Torrey, remembered by a member as one who had “a Zeus-like appearance and spoke like an oracle.” Torrey had recently published his book _The Four Gospels, A New Translation_ (1933), which James A. Montgomery had made the subject of a sympathetic review essay.^8 [8: “Torrey’s Aramaic Gospels,” 53 (1934) 79-99.] Montgomery noted that the essay accompanying the “chaste and charming” rendition was the fruition of a number of scattered monographs and notes the Yale professor had produced over twenty years. He concluded that Torrey had proven his case for him.

Torrey’s arguments, linked with a combative style, forced NT scholars to deal seriously and competently with this revolutionary contribution to NT studies. And deal they did. At that meeting E. J. Goodspeed, H. J. Cadbury, and D. W. Riddle took up the challenge. For several years Torrey continued to enliven, if not polarize, the meetings: Hellenists and Hebraists of the primitive church _redivivi_. Some of the older members of the Society today can recall the supreme self-confidence of Torrey in debate:
“If there is any one here who is competent to challenge these conclusions, let him speak. But I am sure there are none such here.”

Goodspeed charged that the maverick translation was in defiance of the scholarly ideal and “at variance with our whole New Testament science– textual, grammatical, literary and historical.” As with the Paulinist’s treatment of the sects in the Pastorals, argumentation was often by denunciation, entertaining but not overly instructive. Montgomery’s plea for an unprejudiced discussion for the most part went unheeded.

“any sources that postdate World War II?”
_From the Stone Age to Christianity_ by William Foxwell Albright (1940; 2nd edition 1946; with minor changes and a new introduction 1957), 432pp., on 388. From the 1946 copy on 298-299 of
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The Book of John stands apart from the synoptic Gospels, as recognized since the time of Origen (third century A.D.). In view of the extremely late date to which it has often been assigned, Torrey’s demonstration that it rests on an Aramaic substratum has been peculiarly resented by many New Testament scholars, though it has been enthusiastically accepted in principle by men of the standing of J. de Zwaan (1938).

“John Wrote in Aramaic” by Johannes de Zwaan (1883-1957) of Leyden University _Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 57, No. 2 (Jun., 1938), pp. 155-171 (17 pages)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **

related:
“The Aramaic Origin of the Gospel of John” by Charles C. Torrey _The Harvard Theological Review_ Vol. 16, No. 4 (Oct., 1923), pp. 305-344
** you do not have permission to see this link **?

“The Original Language of the Gospel of John” by Millar Burrows _Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 49, No. 2 (1930), pp. 95-139
** you do not have permission to see this link **?

“The Original Language of the Gospels” by Samuel I. Feigin _Journal of Near Eastern Studies_ Vol. 2, No. 3 (Jul., 1943), pp. 187-197 (11 pages)
** you do not have permission to see this link **?

“Could an Aramaic Gospel Be Written?” by A.T. Olmstead _Journal of Near Eastern Studies_ Vol. 1, No. 1 (Jan., 1942), pp. 41-75
** you do not have permission to see this link **?

“The Aramaic of the Gospels” by Charles C. Torrey _Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 61, No. 2 (Jun., 1942), pp. 71-85
** you do not have permission to see this link **?

“The Possible Aramaic Gospel” by Edgar J. Goodspeed
_Journal of Near Eastern Studies_ Vol. 1, No. 3 (Jul., 1942), pp. 315-340
** you do not have permission to see this link **?

“The Aramaic Language and the Study of the New Testament” by Joseph A. Fitzmyer
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 99, No. 1 (Mar., 1980), pp. 5-21
** you do not have permission to see this link **?

“Arameans, Aramaic, and the Bible” by Raymond A. Bowman
_Journal of Near Eastern Studies_ Vol. 7, No. 2 (Apr., 1948), pp. 65-90
** you do not have permission to see this link **?

_From Burney to Black: The Fourth Gospel and the Aramaic Question_ by Schuyler Brown
_The Catholic Biblical Quarterly_ Vol. 26, No. 3 (JULY 1964), pp. 323-339
** you do not have permission to see this link **?

“Hebrew, Aramaic, and the Greek of the Gospels” by W. Leonard Grant
_Greece & Rome_ Vol. 20, No. 60 (Oct., 1951), pp. 115-122
** you do not have permission to see this link **?

“Notes on Torrey’s Translation of the Gospels” by Ralph Marcus
_The Harvard Theological Review_ Vol. 27, No. 4 (Oct., 1934), pp. 211-239
** you do not have permission to see this link **?

“Professor Marcus on the Aramaic Gospels” by Charles C. Torrey
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 54, No. 1 (Mar., 1935), pp. 17-28
** you do not have permission to see this link **?

“Is Acts I-XV. 35 a Literal Translation from an Aramaic Original?” by A. A. Vazakas, Charles C. Torrey
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 37, No. 1/2 (1918), pp. 105-110
** you do not have permission to see this link **?

_The Apocalypse of John_ by Charles C. Torrey
Review by: Ernst Haenchen
_Gnomon_, 32. Bd., H. 4 (1960), pp. 370-371
** you do not have permission to see this link **?

“Julius Wellhausen’s Approach to the Aramaic Gospels” by Charles C. Torrey
_Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft_ Vol. 101 (n.F. 26) (1951), pp. 125-137
** you do not have permission to see this link **?

“Fact and Fancy in Theories concerning Acts” by Charles C. Torrey
_The American Journal of Theology_ Vol. 23, No. 1 (Jan., 1919), pp. 61-86
** you do not have permission to see this link **?

“Semitisms in Codex Bezae” by James D. Yoder
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 78, No. 4 (Dec., 1959), pp. 317-321
** you do not have permission to see this link **?

“The Logic of the Theory of Translation Greek” by Donald W. Riddle
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 51, No. 1 (1932), pp. 13-30
** you do not have permission to see this link **

“The Aramaic Gospels and the Synoptic Problem” by Donald Wayne Riddle
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 54, No. 3 (Sep., 1935), pp. 127-138
** you do not have permission to see this link **?

“The Mechanics of Translation Greek” by J. Merle Rife
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 52, No. 4 (Dec., 1933), pp. 244-252
** you do not have permission to see this link **?

“Principles for Testing the Translation Hypothesis in the Gospels” by Millar Burrows
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 53, No. 1 (Apr., 1934), pp. 13-30
** you do not have permission to see this link **?

“The Septuagint as a Translation” by Elias J. Bickerman
_Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research_ Vol. 28 (1959), pp. 1-39
** you do not have permission to see this link **?

_The Impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls_ by Joseph A. Fitzmyer (2009), 148pp., on 45, 50
** you do not have permission to see this link **;
** you do not have permission to see this link **;

….there are now two copies of the targum of Job
(4QtgJob [4Q157] [“dated to the first century A.D.” – 50];
11QtgJob [11Q10]) [“dated to the last half of the first century B.C.” – 50],
and one of the targum of Leviticus
(4QtgLev [4Q156]) [“dated to the second century B.C.” – 50]
These texts are important because they show that targums were being written down already in pre-Christian times, whereas it was often thought that it was forbidden then to put them in writing.

=====================================================
_Syntactical Evidence of Semitic Sources in Greek Documents_ by Raymond A. Martin (1974, reprinted 2004), 165pp., on 108
** you do not have permission to see this link **;
** you do not have permission to see this link **; [if the page doesn’t load, have your browser show the desktop view]
….16 sections of Acts 1:1-15:35 were clearly seen to be translation Greek
(1:15-26; 2:1-4; 4:23–31; 5:17-26; 5:27–32: 5:33–42; 6:1-7; 6:8-15; 7:9-16; 7:17–22; 7:30–43; 9:10–19a; 11:1-18; 13:16b–25; 13:26–41; 14:8–20)
and 6 other passages in Acts 1:1-15:35 were seen to be probably translation Greek
(2:29-36; 2:37-42; 7:1-8; 7:44–50; 9:19b–22; 9:32–35).

=====================================================
google translate + light editing, hopefully without changing the meaning

Méhat André, book review in _Revue de l’histoire des religions_ [_Review of the history of religions_], vol 209, number 3 (1992), 304-308
** you do not have permission to see this link **

Raymond A. Martin, _Syntax Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels_, Lewiston (New York) / Queenstone (Ontario), The Edwin Mellen Press, 1987, 219 p. (“Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity”, 10), £69.95.
Id., _Syntax Criticism of Johannine Literature. The Catholic Epistle and the Gospel Passion Accounts_, Lewiston/ Lampeter/ Queenstone, The Edwin Mellen Press, 1989, 185 p. (“Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity”, 18), $59.95.

Raymond A. Martin currently teaches at Wartburg Seminary, in Dubuque (Iowa). It is an astonishing fact that the small audience obtained so far by his work on the Semitic substratum of the New Testament. In his last two books, he refers to his earlier publications, of which he summarizes the content. One of the oldest and more accessible was an article from 1964 providing “the syntactic proof of Semitic sources in Act I-XV”: ^1 [1: R.A. Martin, “Syntactical Evidence of Aramaic Sources in Acts I-XV”] which had been taken and developed in a small book in 1974^2 [2: R.A. Martin, _Syntactical Evidence of Semitic Sources in Greek Documents_, Scholars’ Press Cambridge (Mass.), 1974].

Unlike most authors who had studied one by one the Semitisms of the New Testament, he used a statistical method which is surprising afterwards that it had not been tried before him. He was looking for the frequency of a certain number of facts of language, on the one hand in Greek writers a priori devoid of Semitic influence such as Plutarch or Polybius, and on the other hand in Greek texts translated from Hebrew or Aramaic, mainly the translations of the Septuagint. He thus released criteria from the “original Greek” on the one hand, and from the “Greek of translation” on the other, independent of any literary, historical or doctrinal consideration. In 1974 he identified 17 criteria which, applied to the Acts of the Apostles, had made it possible to establish a clear difference between a first part (chap. I to XV, and not I to XII) and a second, written in “original Greek”. The first part presents case frequencies closer to the “Greek of translation”, an increase of more than 50% compared to the second, which places it halfway between the pure “original Greek” and the pure “translation Greek”. It is enough to rule out the reasons generally advanced to explain the Semitisms of the New Testament: the bilingualism of an author, which is certainly the same in two parts, or the imitation, conscious or unconscious, of the style of the Septuagint which would have produced the same effect in both cases.

The most plausible hypothesis is that the author follows in its first part one or more Semitic sources, which he freely paraphrases (assumption that R.A.M. moves away a little quickly [easily disposes of? doesn’t address well? -df]) or that he uses irregularly (_erratic_). Based on the number of verified criteria, the author thought he could isolate 16 unites (_units_) of the first part having, certainly or probably, Semitic sources. Once again, we are surprised that the commentators on Acts have so far ignored these results, even though by chance they cite R.A.M. in their bibliographies.

After a long interval, the author applies the same method to the Synoptic Gospels (1987), then to the Johannine Gospel and to various New Testament writings (1989). Overall the results are quite close to what had been established for the first part of Acts: the frequencies are intermediate between those of translations and those of writings written directly in Greek.

The Gospel of Mark is therefore not, as one might have thought, a pure and simple translation. However, some pericopes have frequencies close to the “original Greek”, at home and in the parallel passages of Matthew or Luke (the episode of the Gerasene demoniac, the first multiplication of the loaves, the call of the rich, etc.).

Others have frequencies close to “translation Greek”; the call of the first disciples (Mk 1, 16-20 par.), healing of a paralytic (Mk 2, 1-11 par.), accusation of operating by Beelzeboul (Mk 3, 20-30 par.) certain parables (Mk 4, 13-32), resurrection of the daughter of Jairus (Mk 5, 24-43 par.), second multiplication of the loaves (Mk 8, 1-10 par.), dispute over who is the greatest (Mk 9, 33-37 par.). The other units mostly show intermediate frequencies. These are important facts for history and interpretation of texts.

Adopting the hypothesis of the two sources, the author compares according to the same method the synoptic gospels between them. He gets the following results (“Syntax Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels”; p. 127-128):
a) Luke and Matthew attenuate the Semitic characteristics of parallel Markan accounts;
b) Luke and Matthew are more Semitic in the “Q” sections;
c) In its own sections, Luke is much more Semitic than all the rest of the Gospels.

In a new book, R.A.M. analyzes the Fourth Gospel, the four accounts of the Passion and the Resurrection, and the “catholic” epistles. On the Johannine Gospel, his conclusion (p. 80) joins that already formulated by C.F. Burney (_The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel_, 1922) : the Gospel of John in its present form dates back to a gospel written in Aramaic. It contains units written in “original Greek”. But most are close to the “Greek of translation”, some very close, for example the speeches after the Last Supper (chap. 14 to 17), but not the discourse on the Bread of Life (chap. 6). Analyses of the stories of the Passion and the Resurrection draw similar conclusions. Wherever the Fourth Gospel is distinguished from the other three, “it is very Semitic according to the syntactic criteria; the Palestinian Aramaic-speaking environment is very apparent”. As for the _Epistles of John_, the first two relate to translation Greek, the third from the original Greek. The _Letter of James_, with the exception of a few small “units” (interpolations?) are from Greek for translation; _I Peter_ as a whole belongs clearly in Greek originally, but three sections are in Greek from translation ; _II Peter_ is in Greek originally, but presents a particular style; the whole of _The Epistle of Jude_ is in Greek originally.

These data should in the future be taken into account by all works relating to the New Testament. However criticisms have been made, which R.A.M, does not entirely reject, insofar as they delimit the field on which the syntactic criticism can be exercised. We could add others, for example concerning the presentation: an enormous place is held by tables crammed with numbers, the off-putting character of which can have discouraged more than one reader; too rarely does the author isolate the significant facts to determine their significance. We can also blame him for the deficiencies of its bibliography. Only the 1989 book contains a summary and very incomplete bibliography. It only contains titles of works written or translated into English. The author seems to ignore for example the work of J. Jeremias on the Semitic background of the New Testament, and the little book by J. Carmignac, _Naissance des Evangiles synoptiques_ [_Birth of the Synoptic Gospels_] (Paris, 1984) and its precious notes method.

The very rigor of R.A.M.’s approach could have done it wrong. It would be a reverse error to consider it infallible. The author is the first to mark the limits of his method. (Cf. p. 163-181 of _S.C. of Joh. Lit._: “The Methodology of ‘Syntax Criticism’ and Criticisms of it”). We will note two here:

1 The statistical method is only fully valid for large numbers. The more short the sections, the more uncertain the results. With the shortest units (up to 4 lines!), we practically come back to ad hoc observations. The author overcomes the difficulty by making the count of the criteria verified among the 17 it uses. This would assume that they are independent of each other and of equal value. But the first eight for example (use of prepositions) are linked between them. And the proportion of the bonds in καί and in δέ is a fact of language that a good translator can be wary of: he can easily correct the effects, or on the contrary use them systematically to “Do Semitic”. On the other hand, the number of criteria is not limited ; we could add others.

2 The existence of Semitic sources is not necessarily detected by the “syntactic criticism”. The discernment that it operates is exercised only in a meaning. The Semitisms preserved in Greek prove the existence of a Semitic substrate. But their absence or their rarity is not incompatible with the use of an underlying Hebrew or Aramaic text. An example is given by R.A.M. himself: Flavius Josephus declares that he first wrote the _War of the Jews_ in “the language of his fathers”; however, according to the syntactic analysis, the work presents all the characteristics of “original Greek”. It could be the same with certain evangelical pericopes, and that, without reaching the perfection of Flavius Josephus and his collaborators, good translators considerably attenuated the Semitic features from their sources.

Either way, the R.A.M. counts establish as hardly contestable the existence of Semitic sources in the bulk of the Gospels and the first half of Acts. That is to say that these writings take us back to Palestinian origins, and therefore older than is usually admitted. A revision is needed of theories which exaggerate the Hellenic part in Christian origins. Is it because they force this revision that R.A.M.’s work has been given so little consideration so far? After his last two books, it is no longer possible to ignore them.

Finally, let us point out that his books and his method can make great service to all who have to deal with writings suspected to be translations of foreign texts, or recognized as such.
André Méhat.

Reviewed Work: Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax by Elliot C. Maloney
Review by: R. A. Martin
_The Jewish Quarterly Review_ New Series, Vol. 73, No. 3 (Jan., 1983), pp. 288-290
** you do not have permission to see this link **

Reviewed Work: Syntax Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 10) by Raymond Martin
Review by: Elliott C. Maloney
_The Catholic Biblical Quarterly_ Vol. 51, No. 2 (April, 1989), pp. 378-380
** you do not have permission to see this link **

“A Note on the Statistical Analysis of Septuagintal Syntax” by Benjamin G. Wright III
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 104, No. 1 (Mar., 1985), pp. 111-114
** you do not have permission to see this link **

Reviewed Work: _Syntax und Stil des Markusevangeliums im Licht der hellenistischen Volksliteratur_ by Marius Reiser
Review by: Robert L. Mowery
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 106, No. 1 (Mar., 1987), pp. 138-139
** you do not have permission to see this link **

===============================================
_Syntax Criticism of Johannine Literature, the Catholic Epistles, and the Gospel Passion Accounts_ (1989), 187pp., on 7-8 with light edits
amazon .com/Criticism-Johannine-Literature-Catholic-Epistles/dp/B004QB9GTU/
** you do not have permission to see this link **;
John’s gospel has a total of 1756 lines and a net translation Greek frequency according to Syntax Criticism of -3. As will be seen from Charts 1A and 1B below, this net frequency lies just at the edge of the range of translation Greek for documents of more than 50 lines in length (-4 to -14) and is radically different than the net frequencies of documents known to have been written originally in Greek (+9 to +17).
This indicates that the Fourth Gospel as a whole is most likely translated from a Semitic document, but may have a small number of subsections which were not, but were originally composed in Greek.
….of the 118 subunits in the Gospel, only 10 fall outside the area of translation Greek units of the same size….

On 95, 97:
As Charts XVI and XIX below show, while both 1 John and 2 John fall deeply into the translation Greek area, 3 John falls just as deeply into the original Greek area (Chart XIX).

On 104:
Chart XVI reveals that the net frequencies of the Letter of James fall nearly into the clear translation Greek area and are widely separated from the original Greek documents studied. This suggests that most of the subsections when analyzed will be found to have net translation Greek frequencies as well. This is the case, as can be seen from the classification in Chart XXI below, where only one subsection shows up with clear original Greek net frequencies (no. 9) [i.e. James 2.5-13].

On 109:
The net frequencies of 1 Peter as a whole fall into the clear original Greek area as Chart XVI shows. However, if the net frequencies of each chapter and of the subsections are considered, as can be seen in Chart XXIII below, a significant fact appears: the net frequencies of chapter 5 are more Semitic than any of the others and so are the net frequencies of 4:12-19, the end of chapter 4. When these are combined 4:12-5:14…, the net frequencies become clear translation Greek,
and those of the first part 1:1-4:11 remain clear original Greek (cf. Chart XXIII). One subsection of this larger unit (4:12-5:14) has, however, clear original Greek net frequencies– 5:1-5.

On 111:
When Jude is analyzed by the criteria of Syntax Criticism, the net frequencies of it as a whole are found to be in the area of clear original Greek (62 lines, +10) as can be seen in Chart XVI. When the individual subsections are studied, they are seen to be conformable to the pattern of such subsections in documents that are known to be original Greek as Charts XIX and XX show, and radically different from the pattern of such subsections in translated writings of the Greek Old Testament.

On 112:
….2 Peter
….from Chart XXIV which follows it will be seen that a number of subsections do show up clearly as original Greek (nos. 2, 6, 8, 9) but none show up clearly as translation Greek.
….thus it is most likely that 2 Peter is, in its entirety and in its subsections, original Greek.

===============================================
_Syntax Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels_ (1987), 220pp.
** you do not have permission to see this link **;
amazon .com/Syntax-Criticism-Synoptic-Gospels-Martin/dp/B004QBBCEC/
On 74, information from “Passages in Mark 1-10 Evidencing Translation Greek”:
passage; net frequency; verdict
Mark 1.16-20; -1; Translated from Semitic Sources
2.1-12 +1 translated
2.13-17 0 probably translated
2.23-28 0 probably translated
3.7-12 0 probably translated
3.13-19 0 probably translated
3.20-30 +1 translated
4.1-9 +2 probably translated
4.13-20 +2 probably translated
4.21-25 -1 translated
4.26-29 -2 translated
4.30-32 -2 translated
5.24b-34 0 translated
5.35-43 +1 translated
5.21-43 0 translated
6.1-6a 0 probably translated
6.14-29 0 translated
8.1-10 -1 translated
8.31-9.1 -1 translated
9.33-37 0 probably translated
10.35-45 -3 translated

On 95, information from “Q Passages Evidencing Translation Greek in Luke and/or Matthew”:
passage; net frequency; verdict
Luke 4.1-13; -1; Translated from Semitic Sources
Luke 6.27-31 +1 probably translated
Luke 6.32-36 -2 translated
Matthew 5.43-48 -5 translated
Luke 6.37-38, 41-42 -1 translated
Matthew 8.5-13 -2 translated
Luke 7.18-23 -1 translated
Luke 10.13-15 +1 probably translated
Luke 10.21-24 0 probably translated
Matthew 11.25-27; 13.16-17 -1 translated
Matthew 6.9-13 0 probably translated
Luke 11.9-13 0 probably translated
Matthew 7.7-11 -1 translated
Luke 11.29-32 0 probably translated
Matthew 12.39-42 -1 translated
Luke 11.33-35 +1 probably translated
Matthew 5.15; 6.22-23 -1 translated
Luke 11.39-44 -2 translated
Luke 11.45-51 +1 translated
Matthew 23.4, 29-36 -4 translated
Luke 12.2-9 -2 translated
Matthew 10.26-33 -4 translated
Luke 12.33-34 +1 probably translated
Matthew 6.19-21 -1 translated
Luke 12.42-46 -3 translated
Luke 14.15-24 -1 translated
Luke 14.26-27 +2 probably translated
Luke 15.4-7 +1 probably translated
Luke 19.11-27 +1 translated

=====================================================
Stephen C. Farris, “On Discerning Semitic Sources in Luke 1-2” in _Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels_, Volume 2 (1981), 375pp., on 207, 210, 213-214 with a little reformatting

** you do not have permission to see this link **;
a later version of which appears in
_The Hymns of Luke’s Infancy Narratives: Their Origin, Meaning and Significance_ by Stephen Farris
** you do not have permission to see this link **;
On 207:
Once more a table may be useful in summarizing the results of such a study.^17
The table shows the range of net results when the criteria are applied to the shorter units of original and translation Greek.
Unit Length ; Original Greek ; Translation Greek
31-50 lines ; +13 to +7 ; +1 to -8
16-30 lines ; +12 to +3 ; +4 to -9
4-15 lines ; +12 to 0 ; +7 to -6

On 210:
When we turn to the infancy narratives and apply Martin’s criteria, we find that Luke 1-2 as a whole and also in its various parts consistently displays translation Greek frequencies as the following chart makes clear.^27
Section ; Lines ; Net
Chapter 1 without hymns ; 107 ; -12
Hymns of Chapter 1 ; 30 ; -4
Chapter 2.1-40 without hymns ; 57 ; -5
Hymns of Chapter 2 ; 5 ; -2
2.41ff. ; 23 ; -2
Chapter 1 total ; 137 ; -14
Chapter 2 total ; 80 ; -5
Hymns total ; 35 ; -4
Grand total ; 217 ; -16

Every one of these units, even Luke 2.41ff.,^28 is safely within the translation Greek frequency range.

On 213-214:
….Romans and Galatians… From these books I have chosen a passage of doctrinal exposition, Romans 5, and a passage which contains biographical narrative, Galatians 1-2.5.^34 Finally, there are two texts of somewhat different character, Revelation 3 and 4-5.10. The former is the concluding section of the letter to the seven churches, while the latter forms the beginning of the apocalyptic vision itself. This latter section contains narrative, direct discourse, and hymnic materials, as do the infancy narratives of Luke. Of the author of Revelation R.H. Charles wrote, ‘while he writes in Greek, he thinks in Hebrew’.^35
Revelation, it appears, may serve as our example of ‘poor quality Greek influenced by Semitic idiom’.
The results of the analysis are as follows:

Text ; Lines ; Net Result
Luke 5.12-6.11 ; 91 ; 0
Mark 1.40-3.6 ; 89 ; +2
Luke 12.13-13.9 ; 109 ; -2
Lukan passages (total) ; 200 ; 0
Romans 5 ; 50.5 ; +2
Galatians 1-2.5 ; 56 ; +3
Paul (total) ; 106.5 ; +3
Revelation 3 ; 59 ; -2
Revelation 4-5.10 ; 61 ; -5
Revelation (total) ; 120 ; -5