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)
