CHAPTER VI NEGATIVES THE Semitic languages do not for the most part possess negative expressions such as none, never, but express them by using the corresponding positives coupled with the simple negative not. Thus e.g. Hebrew ... 55, Aramaic ... 55, μ... . . ,כֹּל 'any not' = 'none'; or, since Heb., Aram. , al, 'a man' is commonly used in the sense 'any one', 'none' may be expressed by this term with preceding negative. So in Heb., lit. any plant of the field was כֹּל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ 2 .Gen 15 not yet in the earth' (i.e. 'no plant... was yet, &c.'); Gen. 4 "bab inyb-by ins‐nion, lit. 'for the not-smiting him of all finding him' (i.e. 'that none finding him should smite him'); Ex. 126-ba , lit. all work shall not be done' (i.e. 'no work shall be done'); Gen. 31, lit. 'there is not a man with us' (i.e. 'no one is with us '); Gen. 41" TO WIN IS Tindependently of thee a man shall not lift up his hand' (i. e. 'none shall lift up, &c.'). In Aram, Dan. 2 in any place nɔnya was not found for them' (i.e. 'no place was found'); Dan. 4° 17DNN, lit. 'every secret does not trouble thee' (i.e. 'no secret לָא־אִיתַי אֱנָשׁ עַל־יַבֶּשְׁתָּא דִּי מִלַּת מַלְכָּא יוּכַל "2 .troubles thee'); Dan (:-:־זז , lit. 'there is not a man on earth that can show the king's matter' (i. e. 'no one on earth can show, &c.'). 22 46 We find the Semitism πâs (πâv). . . μý = 'none', ' nothing', in Jn. in two passages: 63 ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκέν μοι μὴ ἀπολέσω ἐξ αὐτοῦ, 12" ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ μὴ μείνῃ. πᾶς... οὐ (μή) is also found in Mt. 24 = Mk. 13 οὐκ ἂν ἐσώθη πᾶσα σάρξ, Lk. ι* οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει Tарà Tоû cû râv pμa, Rom. 320, Gal. 216 (both quotations of Ps. 143), Eph. 429, 55, 2 Pet. 1°, 1 Jn. 2o1 (cf. 223, 36bis.9, 43, 518, where the renderings 'every one. . . not', 'no one' are equally legitimate), Apoc. 716, 18, 21, 223. 'No one' is expressed by où... aveρwros in Jn. 32 Oi Súvaraι ἄνθρωπος δύναται ἄνθρωπος λαμβάνειν οὐδὲν ἐὰν μὴ κτλ., 5' ἄνθρωπον οὐκ ἔχω ἵνα . . . βάλῃ με εἰς τὴν κολυμβήθραν, 7* Οὐδέποτε ἐλάλησεν οὕτως ἄνθρωπος.* In Mk. II” we find ἐφ ̓ ὃν οὐδεὶς οὔπω ἀνθρώπων ἐκάθισεν, 12 οὐ γὰρ βλέπεις εἰς πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπων (but here there is a sense of antithesis to τὴν ódov TOû eoû following), but elsewhere in the Synoptists there seems to be no case of οὐ . . . ἄνθρωπος. 'Never' is expressed in Heb. and Aram. 'not... for ever'; cf. in Heb. Ps. 30 iba 'I shall never be moved'; Ps. 312, 71 לְעוֹלָם לֹא let me never be put to shame'; Ps. II93 אַל־אֵבוֹשָׁה לְעוֹלָם I will never forget Thy commandments'; Isa. 252 Siit shall never be rebuilt'; in Aram., Dan. 24 *? bannn by which shall never be destroyed'; Acta Thomae (p. eso) lissi ll prosedd paad? Khoades (oooo 'and they shall be with Him in the kingdom which never passes away'; id. (p. ?¿i) liɔsi ll plat Khobeso qu? I? 'but this banquet shall never pass away'. 26 14 28 Similarly, où un... eis Tòv aiova occurs several times in Jn. in the sense ‘never': 4 οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, 85' θάνατον οὐ μὴ θεωρήσῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, 8 οὐ μὴ γεύσηται θανάτου εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, 10 οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, 11 οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, 13 οὐ μὴ νίψῃς μου τοὺς πόδας εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. Cf. also 9 ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος οὐκ ἠκούσθη. The phrase is only found elsewhere in N.T. in Mt. 211 Ov μŋkétɩ èk σoû kapπòs γένηται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα = Mk. II, Mk. 3 οὐκ ἔχει ἄφεσιν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, I Cor. 81 οὐ μὴ φάγω κρέα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. 32 29 To express 'lest' Hebrew has the single term 1. To this in Aramaic corresponds the compound term No7 (Syr.), formed from +7, Targ. 1 from +7, i.e. lit. 'since why?' This properly introduces a rhetorical question deprecating the taking of a certain course (cf. Oxford Heb. Lex., p. 554 a; Dan. 1, Song 17, are instances of the equivalent Heb. phrase in late This expression occurs once in Biblical Aram., Ezr. 73, and is the regular equivalent of Heb. in the Targg. style). that since why?' in the . . . not' = 'lest' in the Aram. of Dan. 218, 69.18; and in Pesh. TIS, like indefinite VN, is also found in Jn. 314, 723.51. We have already remarked that in Jn. ἵνα μή is regularly employed to the exclusion of μήποτε. The occurrences, 18 in all (as against Mt. 8, Mk. 5, Lk. 8), are as follows : 316.20, 415, 51, 612.39.50, 73, 1137.50, 1235.40.42.46, 16', 18.86, 19". These occurrences of 'that... not' do not all carry the sense 'lest'; but this force is clear in the following: 20 3 οὐκ ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, ἵνα μὴ ἐλεγχθῇ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. 23 72 εἰ περιτομὴν λαμβάνει ἄνθρωπος ἐν σαββάτῳ ἵνα μὴ λυθῇ ὁ νόμος Μωυσέως. 123 περιπατεῖτε ὡς τὸ φῶς ἔχετε, ἵνα μὴ σκοτία ὑμᾶς καταλάβῃ. 42 12 ἀλλὰ διὰ τοὺς Φαρισαίους οὐχ ὡμολόγουν ἵνα μὴ ἀποσυνάγωγοι γένωνται. 16' ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑμῖν ἵνα μὴ σκανδαλισθῆτε. 28 18 αὐτοὶ οὐκ εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον, ἵνα μὴ μιανθῶσιν. 18 οἱ ὑπηρέται οἱ ἐμοὶ ἠγωνίζοντο ἄν, ἵνα μὴ παραδοθῶ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις. 1ο ἵνα μὴ μείνῃ ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ τὰ σώματα. μήποτε, which never occurs in Jn., is found in Mt. 8 times, Mk. twice, Lk. 6 times. μή A striking proof that Jn.'s iva μý = 'lest' represents the Aramaic Nh is to be seen in the quotation from Isa. 6* which occurs in Jn. 12. In this quotation the Heb. uses 'lest', and this is represented in LXX by μήποτε, but in Pesh. by lg that . . . not. שָׁב The quotation is given in Mt. 13" in the ipsissima verba of LXX; while Mk. 4, quoting more freely, yet has the μήποτε of LXX, μήποτε ἐπιστρέψωσιν καὶ ἀφεθῇ αὐτοῖς (ie. p. 13). Jn. however, rendering ἵνα μὴ ἴδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς, departs from the Heb. and LXX phrases in order to use an Aramaic phrase which is actually employed in the rendering of Pesh. What evidence could prove more cogently that his Greek translates an Aramaic original ? UNIV. OF CHAPTER VII MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPEL THE most weighty form of evidence in proof that a document is a translation from another language is the existence of difficulties or peculiarities of language which can be shown to find their solution in the theory of mistranslation from the assumed original language. There are a considerable number of such in the Fourth Gospel, and some of them have already been noticed in the preceding discussion. These may first be summarized. 16 The particle with a relative sense mistranslated by iva or ori. 'who, which', 1, 57, 630.50, 96, 141 (cf. p. 75). 'who', 8, 9'7; less certainly in 116 (cf. p. 76). iva for OT for = = iva for 'when' (properly 'which . . . in it'), 12, 13', 1622 (cf. p. 77). örɩ for? = 'when', 9, 12" (cf. p. 78). ?='because, inasmuch as', mistranslated as a relative, 14.13 (cf. pp. 29. 34). καταλαμβάνειν 13, 12. kaтaλaμßávei=> 'take, receive', a misunderstanding of a 'darken' (cf. p. 29). 1o. v = subst. verb N, probably a misreading of N = ¿keîvos (cf. p. 33). The ambiguity of the particle has, as we have seen in the cases noted above, caused difficulty to the translator. There are several other passages in which, though the relative force of the particle is clear, the fact that it lacks expression of gender and number has led to misapprehension. These may conveniently be taken together. 10. ὁ πατήρ μου ὃ δέδωκέν μοι πάντων μεῖζόν ἐστιν. This reading has the support of B* && (boh) 6, and is therefore adopted by WH. It can only be rendered, 'As for My Father, that which He hath given Me is greater than all'. This is explained by Westcott to mean that 'the faithful regarded in their unity, as a complete body, are stronger than every opposing power. This is their essential character, and "no one is able... Cf. I Jn. 5'.' The whole context cries out against the falsity of this exegesis. Stress has been laid in the parable upon the weakness of the sheep, their liability to be scattered and injured by the powers of evil, and their utter dependence upon the Good Shepherd. In the parallel clause their safeguard is stated to consist in the fact that no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand'. But, if Westcott is correct, this would seem to be merely supplementary to the thought of the power of the flock regarded as a unity— which is incredible. Again, the phrase 'greater than all' has, on this text, to be explained as 'stronger than every opposing power'; yet what authority is afforded by the context for thus limiting its scope? Clearly the expression, as it stands without limitation, is applicable to God alone. There can be no doubt that the sense intended is that which is given by the less authenticated reading, adopted by R. V., & пατýρ μov ôs dédwKév μοι μείζων πάντων ἐστίν, which supplies the reason for the parallel clause which follows. Yet there can be little doubt that WH. are correct in regarding the more difficult reading as original, and the more natural one as a correction of it; since, had the latter been original, it is inconceivable that the former could have arisen out of it. Its origin may be traced to an unintelligent rendering of the ... רַבָּא in which ,אָבִי דִיהַב לִי רַבָּא מִן־כּלָּא Aramaic ... may be taken to mean either ds . . . μeízwv or ò... μeîžov. Possibly the first draft of the translation rendered only as a neuter (ồ . . . μeí¿wv, & L ¥), and the other readings are corrections dictated by regard for grammar. This explanation of the anomaly offered by the Greek might be regarded as less than convincing if the passage stood alone. There are, however, other passages in which the text is similarly and obviously at fault. In 17" we read, rýpησov avtoùs év tô óvóμatí σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς, and similarly in v., ἐγὼ ἐτήρουν αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι. Is it possible to believe that the sense intended is, 'Thy name which Thou hast given Me'? Westcott may well observe on v.", "The phrase is very remark |