« הקודםהמשך »
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 as Bu, Aramaic x... , v... ‘any . . . not' =none'; or, since Heb. 28, Aram. wx, wi,
lit. any plant of the field was ,כֹּל שִׁיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ *2
a man'is commonly used in the sense 'any one', 'none' may be expressed by this term with preceding negative. So in Heb.,
2 , ' not yet in the earth’ (i. e. no plant ... was yet, &c.'); Gen. 415 mg inşi-5ş ini-ning, lit. for the not-smiting him of all finding him' (i.e. 'that none finding him should smite him'); Ex. 1216 789-5 ngy-x), lit. ‘all work shall not be done' (i.e. 'no work shall be done'); Gen. 315o Jipy nix ???, lit. 'there is not a man with us' (i.e. ‘no one is with us '); Gen. 41" 179-mx vp D75 7'zyba 'independently of thee a man shall not lift up his hand' (i. e. 'none shall lift up, &c.'). In Aram., Dan. 235 pins nanun xsangka any place was not found for them' (i.e. 'no place was found'); Dan. 4917-52 75 DIp x?, lit. “every secret does not trouble thee' (i. e. “ no secret
. 210 ? nas, lit. “there is not a man on earth that can show the king's matter'(i. e. 'no one on earth can show, &c.').
We find the Semitism Tâs (râv)... uń='none', 'nothing', in Jn. in two passages: 630 ίνα παν και δέδωκέν μοι μη απολέσω εξ αυτού, 1216 ίνα πας και πιστεύων εις εμέ έν τη σκοτία μη μείνη. πας... ού (μή) is also found in Mt. 24? = Mk. 1320 ουκ αν εσώθη πάσα σάρξ, Lk. 17 ουκ αδυνατήσει trapà roll Ocoû tây Đñua, Rom. 32, Gal. 216 (both quotations of Ps. 143'), Eph. 4%), 5", 2 Pet. 1", 1 Jn. 2' (cf. 2", 36bis.9, 4, 5), where the renderings 'every one... not', 'no one' are equally legitimate), Apoc. 716, 18", 21", 22.
לָא־אִיתִי אֱנָשׁ עַל־יַבֶּשְׁתָּא דִי מִכַּת מַלְכָּא יוּכַל 20
“No one' is expressed by oύ ... άνθρωπος in Jn. 327 Ου δύναται άνθρωπος λαμβάνειν ουδέν εάν μή κτλ., 5' άνθρωπον ουκ έχω ένα ... βάλη με εις την κολυμβήθραν, 7 Ουδέποτε ελάλησεν ούτως άνθρωπος.* In Mk. II? we find εφ' ον ουδείς ούπω ανθρώπων εκάθισεν, 1214 ου γαρ βλέπεις είς πρόσωπον ανθρώπων (but here there is a sense of antithesis to την οδον του Θεού following), but elsewhere in the Synoptists there seems to be no case of oύ ... άνθρωπος.
'Never' is expressed in Heb. and Aram. ‘not ... for ever'; cf. in Heb. Ps. 30° obiy viloya I shall never be moved'; Ps. 312, 711 opsy) πρias- let me never be put to shame’; Ps. ΙΙ993 25iv> 771p9 Navn I will never forget Thy commandments'; Isa. 25? Agar S obix it shall never be rebuilt ’; in Aram., Dan. 2* "? Sannn x roy's 'which shall never be destroyed'; Acta Thomae (p. Δο) Jias y en » SS, J.aakis ooo and they shall be with Him in the kingdom which never passes away’; id. (p. 2) Jias!
J?o 'but this banquet shall never pass away'.
Similarly, ου μη. εις τον αιώνα occurs several times in Jn. in the Sense never’: 44 ου μη διψήσει εις τον αιώνα, 851 θάνατον ου μη θεωρήση εις τον αιώνα, 852 ου μή γεύσηται θανάτου εις τον αιώνα, το28 ου μη απόλωνται εις τον αιώνα, 1126 ου μη αποθάνη εις τον αιώνα, 13 ου μη νίψης μου τους πόδας εις τον αιώνα. Cf. also 92 εκ του αιώνος ουκ ήκούσθη. The phrase is only found elsewhere in Ν.Τ. in Mt. 219 Ου μηκέτι εκ σου καρπός γένηται εις τον αιώνα = Mk. II'4, Mk. 320 ουκ έχει άφεσιν εις τον αιώνα, I Cor. 818 ου μή φάγω κρέα εις τον αιώνα. Το express
«lest’ Hebrew has the single term P. To this in Aramaic corresponds the compound term XPS? (Syr. Ló), formed from ap} + "?, Targ. Np7 from p?+ ?, 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 ; ne? To Dan. 1", opsuj Song 1', are instances of the equivalent Heb. phrase in late style). This expression occurs once in Biblical Aram., Ezr. 73, and is the regular equivalent of Heb. ip in the Targg. X'? 'that ... not’ = “lest' in the Aram. of Dan. 218, 69.18 ; and in Pesh. V: 'that ... not'is used indifferently with led since why?' in the sense 'lest' as the equivalent of Heb.i?.
* άνθρωπος = tis, like indefinite WIX, is also found in Jn. 31.4, 723,51,
We have already remarked that in Jn. ίνα 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, 4", 5'4, 612.39.50, 723, ΙΙ7.50, 1126.96.36.199, 16', 1838.36, 19". These occurrences of that.. not’ do not all carry the sense 'lest'; but this force is clear in the following:
320 ουκ έρχεται προς το φως, ίνα μη ελεγχθη τα έργα αυτού. 54 μηκέτι αμάρτανε, ίνα μη χειρόν σοι τι γένηται.
728 εί περιτομήν λαμβάνει άνθρωπος εν σαββάτω ίνα μη λυθη ο νόμος Μωυσέως.
123) περιπατείτε ως το φως έχετε, ίνα μη σκοτία υμάς καταλάβη. 120 ίνα μη ίδωσιν τοις οφθαλμοίς.
1212 αλλά διά τους Φαρισαίους ουχ ώμολόγουν ίνα μη αποσυνάγωγοι γένωνται.
16' ταύτα λελάληκα υμίν ίνα μη σκανδαλισθήτε. 1828 αυτοί ουκ εισήλθον εις το πραιτώριον, ίνα μη μιανθώσιν. 1836 οι υπηρέται οι έμοί ηγωνίζοντο άν, ίνα μη παραδοθώ τους Ιουδαίοις. 1931 ίνα μη μείνη επί του σταυρού τα σώματα.
μήποτε, which never occurs in Jn., is found in Mt. 8 times, Mk. twice, Lk. 6 times.
A striking proof that Jn.'s iva uń = 'lest' represents the Aramaic 85 is to be seen in the quotation from Isa. 610 which occurs in Jn. 12". In this quotation the Heb. uses i lest', and this is represented in LXX by μήποτε, but in Pesh. by J, that ... not.
The quotation is given in Mt. 13: in the ipsissima verba of LXX; while Mk. 42, quoting more freely, yet has the μήποτε of LΧΧ, μήποτε επιστρέψωσιν και αφεθη αυτοίς (i.e. 5 N51... Β). Jn., however, rendering ίνα μη ίδωσιν τοις οφθαλμοίς, 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 ?
MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL ARAMAIC
OF THE GOSPEL
The most weighty furm of evidence in proof that a document is a translation from ano:her 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. The particle ? with a relative sense mistranslated by iva or őri.
iva for ? = 'who, which ', .1°, 57, 630.50, 99, 14(cf. p. 75).
(cf. p. 77). oti for'when', 9%, 12" (cf. p. 78). 7 = 'because, inasmuch as', mistranslated as a relative, 14.13 (cf. pp. 29. 34).
1', 1225. karadaußúvei = Sap'take, receive', a misunderstanding of Soaps darken’ (cf. p. 29).
1'. în = subst. verb , probably a misreading of 817 = ékeīvos (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.
1020. ο πατήρ μου και δέδωκέν μοι πάντων μειζόν έστιν. This reading has the support of B* l E (boh) G, 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. 1 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 unitywhich 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., matýp jou òs déowké μοι μείζων πάντων εστίν, which supplies the reason for the parallel clause which follows. Yet there can be little doubt that WH. 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
? Ş ? which
, ? to mean either os ... peitw or 8 ... ucitov. Possibly the first draft of the translation rendered only as a neuter (8... peífwv, Lv), 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, rýpnoov aŭtoùs èv tỘ óvópatí σου ώ δέδωκάς μοι, ίνα ώσιν εν καθώς ημείς, and similarly in 0.12, εγώ ετήρουν αυτούς εν τω ονόματί σου και 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
may be taken וּ... רַבָּא in whicii ,אָבִי דִיהַב לִי רַבָּא מִן־כֹּלָּא Aramaic