How do you think Jn 3:13 ought be rendered?
"3:13 No one has ascended into heaven,
but he who descended out of heaven,
the Son of Man, who is in heaven."
_Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence_ (1936), 172pp. by Charles Cutler Torrey. On 115-119
https://archive.org/details/OurTranslate...ey/page/n1
CONFUSION OF ... WITH ... [snipped Aramaic letters, and snipped same Aramaic letters pointed differently]
THE occasional interchange of these two graphically identical, but grammatically very different, little words is an amusing feature of the translation Grk. of the Gospels. As will appear, there are various ways in which the two may be confused, and when the several passages are brought together they form a very interesting group.
One result which the error may produce is a change of tense. The pronoun _hu(a)_ [- on top of 'u'], 3rd pers. masc. sing., much used as the copula in nominal clauses, denotes the _present_ tense, unless the contrary is made evident by the context, while the verb _hwa_ [- on top of 'a'] means "he _was_." The distinction between "he _is_ living" and "he _was_ living" may be important; and no one who is familiar with the LXX will be willing to pin his faith absolutely to the decision made by a translator. In the Gospels, it is in the (late?) translation of Jn.'s Aram. that nearly all of the mistakes of this nature occur. It is hardly necessary to remark upon the fact that they, wherever they are found, are the result of misreading a written text.
It is curious that an instance of this same confusion should be found in the textual tradition of the O.T. Heb., since here the corresponding form of the verb "to be" ends regularly in _he_ [- over 'e'], not in _aleph_. However, in Bibl. Aram. and in Aram. inscriptions both endings are used, while on the other hand in Bibl. Heb. numerous forms properly ending in _he_ [- over 'e'] are found written with _aleph_; and therefore it is not difficult to believe that there was a time when a copyist of the Heb. text could easily make the orthographic error. The verse 2 Sam. 17:10 begins: "And he (_we-hu_), even the valiant man," etc., which in its connection is poor Hebrew. The context demands: "And it will come to pass (_we-haya_) that even the valiant man," etc.; and this, precisely, was read by the Lagarde Grk. [curved upward '-' over the 'e's. " -' " over the 'u'. '-' over the 'a's.]
Another variation of the error is shown in Mk. 5:21 f. and Jn. 18:25; where the pronoun, preceded by "and," beginning a circumstantial clause: "While he was," etc., is mistaken for a part of the main narrative: "And (he) was," etc.
To show how inevitably the two little words are confused: Even in the few Aram. chapters of Daniel there are several instances. In 6:11 the Massor. tradition varies, some Mss. reading the one word, some the other. In 5:19 Theodotion substitutes the pronoun for the verb in four cases. In 2:32 the LXX and Peshitta versions suggest that the pronoun now beginning the verse was originally the verb, ending vs. 31.
Exhibit XX. Confusion of ... and ... .
....
D. Jn. 3:13 ac. to Grk.: No one has ascended to heaven but he who came down from heaven,
the Son of Man who IS (....[snip pointed Aramaic]....) in heaven.
True rendering: No one has ascended to heaven but he who came down from heaven,
the Son of Man who WAS (....[snip same Aramaic letters, but pointed differently....) in heaven.
....
Exhibit XX, D (Jn. 3:13). The last clause of this verse (omitted in Westcott and Hort's Grk. text) is a capital example of the same error. Jesus says to Nicodemus that he can tell him of "heavenly things" (vs. 12). No other being on earth can do this; only he who came down from heaven for the purpose, namely "the Son of Man _who is in heaven_."(!) This is such a glaring absurdity, that many texts and versions, ancient and modern, including a few of the oldest and best Mss., refuse to accept the clause, and simply expunge it. Jerome's Latin renders faithfully: _qui est in caelo_; and the English versions retain the difficult phrase. It is the original Grk. reading, as any critical examination shows; Zahn (Comm.) puts the case concisely. The texts and versions which (instead of omitting the offending clause) read "who _was_ in heaven" represent the natural attempt to make sense. As for the Grk. translator of the Gospel, he simply rendered what he thought he saw before him, without raising any questions-- just as the LXX translators did in thousands of similar cases.
///////////////////////////
Using https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en-us/...ear-search
to look up Joh 3:13 yields a Magiera dictionary number of 69. Looking that up in
_Aramaic Peshitta New Testament Word Study Concordance_ (2009) by Janet Magiera
https://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-Peshitta-...98200852X/
yields numerous renderings containing: is, are, were, was.
"3:13 No one has ascended into heaven,
but he who descended out of heaven,
the Son of Man, who is in heaven."
_Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence_ (1936), 172pp. by Charles Cutler Torrey. On 115-119
https://archive.org/details/OurTranslate...ey/page/n1
CONFUSION OF ... WITH ... [snipped Aramaic letters, and snipped same Aramaic letters pointed differently]
THE occasional interchange of these two graphically identical, but grammatically very different, little words is an amusing feature of the translation Grk. of the Gospels. As will appear, there are various ways in which the two may be confused, and when the several passages are brought together they form a very interesting group.
One result which the error may produce is a change of tense. The pronoun _hu(a)_ [- on top of 'u'], 3rd pers. masc. sing., much used as the copula in nominal clauses, denotes the _present_ tense, unless the contrary is made evident by the context, while the verb _hwa_ [- on top of 'a'] means "he _was_." The distinction between "he _is_ living" and "he _was_ living" may be important; and no one who is familiar with the LXX will be willing to pin his faith absolutely to the decision made by a translator. In the Gospels, it is in the (late?) translation of Jn.'s Aram. that nearly all of the mistakes of this nature occur. It is hardly necessary to remark upon the fact that they, wherever they are found, are the result of misreading a written text.
It is curious that an instance of this same confusion should be found in the textual tradition of the O.T. Heb., since here the corresponding form of the verb "to be" ends regularly in _he_ [- over 'e'], not in _aleph_. However, in Bibl. Aram. and in Aram. inscriptions both endings are used, while on the other hand in Bibl. Heb. numerous forms properly ending in _he_ [- over 'e'] are found written with _aleph_; and therefore it is not difficult to believe that there was a time when a copyist of the Heb. text could easily make the orthographic error. The verse 2 Sam. 17:10 begins: "And he (_we-hu_), even the valiant man," etc., which in its connection is poor Hebrew. The context demands: "And it will come to pass (_we-haya_) that even the valiant man," etc.; and this, precisely, was read by the Lagarde Grk. [curved upward '-' over the 'e's. " -' " over the 'u'. '-' over the 'a's.]
Another variation of the error is shown in Mk. 5:21 f. and Jn. 18:25; where the pronoun, preceded by "and," beginning a circumstantial clause: "While he was," etc., is mistaken for a part of the main narrative: "And (he) was," etc.
To show how inevitably the two little words are confused: Even in the few Aram. chapters of Daniel there are several instances. In 6:11 the Massor. tradition varies, some Mss. reading the one word, some the other. In 5:19 Theodotion substitutes the pronoun for the verb in four cases. In 2:32 the LXX and Peshitta versions suggest that the pronoun now beginning the verse was originally the verb, ending vs. 31.
Exhibit XX. Confusion of ... and ... .
....
D. Jn. 3:13 ac. to Grk.: No one has ascended to heaven but he who came down from heaven,
the Son of Man who IS (....[snip pointed Aramaic]....) in heaven.
True rendering: No one has ascended to heaven but he who came down from heaven,
the Son of Man who WAS (....[snip same Aramaic letters, but pointed differently....) in heaven.
....
Exhibit XX, D (Jn. 3:13). The last clause of this verse (omitted in Westcott and Hort's Grk. text) is a capital example of the same error. Jesus says to Nicodemus that he can tell him of "heavenly things" (vs. 12). No other being on earth can do this; only he who came down from heaven for the purpose, namely "the Son of Man _who is in heaven_."(!) This is such a glaring absurdity, that many texts and versions, ancient and modern, including a few of the oldest and best Mss., refuse to accept the clause, and simply expunge it. Jerome's Latin renders faithfully: _qui est in caelo_; and the English versions retain the difficult phrase. It is the original Grk. reading, as any critical examination shows; Zahn (Comm.) puts the case concisely. The texts and versions which (instead of omitting the offending clause) read "who _was_ in heaven" represent the natural attempt to make sense. As for the Grk. translator of the Gospel, he simply rendered what he thought he saw before him, without raising any questions-- just as the LXX translators did in thousands of similar cases.
///////////////////////////
Using https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en-us/...ear-search
to look up Joh 3:13 yields a Magiera dictionary number of 69. Looking that up in
_Aramaic Peshitta New Testament Word Study Concordance_ (2009) by Janet Magiera
https://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-Peshitta-...98200852X/
yields numerous renderings containing: is, are, were, was.