05-24-2020, 03:52 PM
As you look at the Greek Lk 7:47, do you agree with Torrey that, "this passage is not merely 'difficult,' the trouble is incurable-- in the Grk."?
_Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence_ (1936), 172pp. by Charles Cutler Torrey. On 98, 100-101
https://archive.org/details/ourtranslate...1/mode/2up
Exhibit XVII. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic.
....
c. Lk. 7:47 ac. to Grk.: Therefore I say to you,
THAT HER many sins are forgiven (...[snipping Hebrew/Aramaic characters]...),
FOR SHE LOVED MUCH (...[snipping Hebrew/Aramaic characters]...),
but he to whom little is forgiven will love little.
True rendering: Therefore I say to you,
SHE WHOSE many sins are forgiven (same words)
WILL LOVE MUCH (same words),
but he to whom little is forgiven will love little.
....
Exhibit XVII, C (Lk. 7:47). This passage is not merely "difficult," the trouble is incurable-- in the Grk. Jesus indicates to Simon that he has a lesson for him, and the Pharisee listens politely, perhaps not eagerly. Jesus then shows, in a clear-cut little parable, what he wished to establish as his major premise: A debtor released from his debt is grateful in proportion to his feeling of relief from the burden. Simon assents, and waits for the application. When, however, Jesus proceeds to show how his parable applies to _the forgiveness of sins_, our Grk. version suddenly turns aside with an announcement (introduced by "therefore") out of keeping with what had preceded. The parable need not have been uttered. The argument is turned upside down, leaving Simon (and the rest of us) in bewilderment. The despair of interpreters, ancient and modern, is only too well known. Among recent commentators, Klostermann and Lagrange discuss the problem from all sides, but are obliged to leave it unsolved. Wellhausen tries to rewrite the Greek. Easton finds three distinct strata in the little section.
In the Aram., everything is clear; Jesus' lesson to Simon is really given, and the application of the parable is now perfect. As was remarked in _The Four Gospels_, the cause of the mistranslation was misunderstanding of the particle di [- over i], which here was the relative pronoun, not the conjunction. Any student of Aram. who looks at the restored text (above) will see at once how very natural Lk.'s mistake was, and how certainly the right interpretation of the ambiguous particle restores the original reading. Lk.'s manner of dealing with his circumstantial participle, which he properly renders "for she loved," hardly needs comment. The past tense of his translation was of course prescribed by the preceding Aram. participle.
This is not an instance of wrong vocalization, for no change of any sort is needed in the Aram. text. The passage is introduced here merely for the sake of juxtaposition with the preceding example.
_Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence_ (1936), 172pp. by Charles Cutler Torrey. On 98, 100-101
https://archive.org/details/ourtranslate...1/mode/2up
Exhibit XVII. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic.
....
c. Lk. 7:47 ac. to Grk.: Therefore I say to you,
THAT HER many sins are forgiven (...[snipping Hebrew/Aramaic characters]...),
FOR SHE LOVED MUCH (...[snipping Hebrew/Aramaic characters]...),
but he to whom little is forgiven will love little.
True rendering: Therefore I say to you,
SHE WHOSE many sins are forgiven (same words)
WILL LOVE MUCH (same words),
but he to whom little is forgiven will love little.
....
Exhibit XVII, C (Lk. 7:47). This passage is not merely "difficult," the trouble is incurable-- in the Grk. Jesus indicates to Simon that he has a lesson for him, and the Pharisee listens politely, perhaps not eagerly. Jesus then shows, in a clear-cut little parable, what he wished to establish as his major premise: A debtor released from his debt is grateful in proportion to his feeling of relief from the burden. Simon assents, and waits for the application. When, however, Jesus proceeds to show how his parable applies to _the forgiveness of sins_, our Grk. version suddenly turns aside with an announcement (introduced by "therefore") out of keeping with what had preceded. The parable need not have been uttered. The argument is turned upside down, leaving Simon (and the rest of us) in bewilderment. The despair of interpreters, ancient and modern, is only too well known. Among recent commentators, Klostermann and Lagrange discuss the problem from all sides, but are obliged to leave it unsolved. Wellhausen tries to rewrite the Greek. Easton finds three distinct strata in the little section.
In the Aram., everything is clear; Jesus' lesson to Simon is really given, and the application of the parable is now perfect. As was remarked in _The Four Gospels_, the cause of the mistranslation was misunderstanding of the particle di [- over i], which here was the relative pronoun, not the conjunction. Any student of Aram. who looks at the restored text (above) will see at once how very natural Lk.'s mistake was, and how certainly the right interpretation of the ambiguous particle restores the original reading. Lk.'s manner of dealing with his circumstantial participle, which he properly renders "for she loved," hardly needs comment. The past tense of his translation was of course prescribed by the preceding Aram. participle.
This is not an instance of wrong vocalization, for no change of any sort is needed in the Aram. text. The passage is introduced here merely for the sake of juxtaposition with the preceding example.