Saturday, September 5, 2020

C.C. Torrey on Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 (dealing with divorce) and 2:23 (the "Nazarene" Prophecy)

 

C.C. Torrey (1863-1956), at the time of writing, Professor of Semitic Languages in Yale University, argued that the Gospels were originally written, not in Greek, but Aramaic (except for Luke 1-2, which he believed was written in Hebrew). While I believe the texts were written in Greek originally, I am sympathetic to such a view. Here are excerpts from his works which were interesting.

 

Matt 5:32, 19:9, and parallels

 

The saying attributed to Jesus in the Grk. of Mt. 5:32a is a very strange utterance indeed. The husband divorces his wife, without any flagrant infidelity on her part, and the result is, that she commits adultery. Whether the husband incurs similar guilt, is not stated. Hebrew law, and Jewish public opinion, in such cases gave one wife a clean slate, and in this decision, the opinion of our own day would doubtless concur. Will Jesus now reverse this judgment, pronouncing the dissolved union adulterous, and with such emphasis that only the guilt of the woman is mentioned? This seems incredible, and it is not a view which interpreters of the passage have thought reasonable.

 

He ”makes her commit adultery.” In what way? Montefiore, Syn. Gospels, II, 66, gives the accepted explanation: “by marrying another man.” But the woman was under no obligation to marry again—and she might well think that one trial was quite enough. However, she probably would marry, say the commentators, and the second marriage would be adulterous. But this is mere quibbling. The plain fact is, that the declaration attributed to Jesus, if made without qualification, is not true. The divorcing husband does not compel the divorced wife to commit adultery. If she chooses to marry again, it is her former husband who makes her do so. It is hardly necessary to add, that the saying, “he puts her in the way of committing” the sin, would be a very weak conclusion after the impressive introduction.

 

This difficulty disappears as soon as the original language is called in to help. The translator saw before him the derived stem of the verb, and rendered it as causative, for the reason which will presently appear; but he was mistaken. In each of the several verbs, Heb. and Aram., which have this signification, “commit adultery,” the simple stem and the derived (intensive) stem are interchangeable, with no difference in meaning. Moreover, the noun or pronoun designating the person with whom the adultery is committed is very likely to be appended to the verb as (or in the manner of) the direct object. These facts are set forth in every lexicon, and may be seen illustrated in Jer. 29;23 (Heb. and Targ.), Lev. 20:10, Prov. 6:32, Targ. Hos. 4:12, and especially Targ. Job 36:20, an exact parallel to the phrase in Mt. The true rendering here is, “he commits adultery with her.” But with whom?

 

The real source of the difficulty with the passage is now brought plainly to light. The verse is defective, with two words missing. The phrase, “and marries another,” which is found in 19:9, and in the parallels in Mk. and Lk., is indispensable to the sense, and must have been omitted by accident from the Aram. text of 5:32. The fact of the omission gave the Grk. translator the best of reasons for his rendering. (Charles Cutler Torrey, Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1936], 18-19)

 

On Matt 2:23

 

The alleged citation of “the prophets” has been the subject of endless discussion from the first Christian centuries onwards, but the riddle has remained unsolved. And indeed, it is perfectly insoluble on the supposition of a gospel composed in Greek. There is no such prediction on the O.T., nor anything that could justify the evangelist’s (apparent) assertion. Interpreters in a long succession, beginning with St. Jerome, have wished to find here some legitimate connection with the Neser, “Branch,” of Is. 11:1, but without success. This is, nevertheless, the scripture to which Mt. refers; and inasmuch as the Messiah is also styled “Branch” in Jer. 23:5 and 33:15 (though another Hebrew word is employed), the evangelist’s plural, “prophets,” has a fair excuse.

 

Just as soon as the phrase, “he shall be called Neser,” is written in Aramaic letters, the long-existing puzzle is explained. Because of the statement immediately preceding, that Jesus dwelt in Nazareth in fulfilment of scripture, the copyist or translator would be certain to regard the yodh following the name as the ending of the gentilic adjective, forming the word “Nazarene.” The scribe would write the letter twice, the reader would see it double, and certainly neither could be supposed to “look up” the reference in whatever scrolls of the Hebrew prophets it might be possible to acquire! (Ibid., 154)