Matthew 20:20-34, Mark 10:35-52

For the last five years or so, I've been studying Gothic via Joseph Wright's A Primer of the Gothic Language.  Part of the book contains fragments of the Gospels in Gothic, and as I was stumbling through Mark last year, I noticed a significant contrast in chapter 10.  In the second half of the chapter (verses 35-52), Jesus twice asks the question "What do you want me to do for you?" - first to James and John (in verse 36) and then to Bartimaeus (in verse 51).  The identical* form of this question highlights the different contexts in which it appears, specifically the opposite ways in which these two parties approach Jesus.  James and John come to Him as if they have authority over Him, expecting their demands to be met ("We want you to do for us whatever we ask of you"), but Bartimaeus begins with humility ("Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!").

About a week after I noticed this similarity, I ran across the parallel in Matthew 20:20-34.  In this account, it's James and John's mother who asks on behalf of her sons, and Jesus' questions aren't identical ("What do you want?" in verse 21, but "What do you want me to do for you?" in verse 32).  Because there are two blind men here, however, the account draws a sharper contrast between the two parties.  The two brothers who aspire to high positions are more evenly balanced against the two blind men who demonstrate humbleness.

---

*It's identical in English, but it differs slightly in other languages, principally depending on whether you is singular or plural.

Matthew 13:46

Near the end of April, the Daily Dose of Greek went over Matthew 13:46:

εὑρὼν δὲ ἕνα πολύτιμον μαργαρίτην, ἀπελθὼν πέπρακεν πάντα ὅσα εἶχεν καὶ ἠγόρασεν αὐτόν.

'who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it.'  [ESV]

I've been following along in my French New Testament, where this verse is:

Il a trouvé une perle de grand prix; et il est allé vendre tout ce qu'il avait et l'a achetée.

I noticed that (simply because of French syntax) there's a chiasm in the second half:

il est allé vendre (he went to sell)

tout ce qu'il avait (all that he had)

et l' (and it)

a achetée (bought)

This structure emphasizes the opposite nature of vendre (to sell) and a achetée (bought) and, in a way, even illustrates the exchange.  It also highlights the contrast between "all that he had" and the single pearl, here referred to with the pronoun la, which is further shortened by elision to just l'.

Matthew 13:30

When the Daily Dose of Greek went over Matthew 13:30 a few months ago, I noticed some significance in the structure.

The text I referenced from the STEP Bible (the Tyndale House Greek New Testament) is slightly different (μέχρι instead of ἕως):

ἄφετε συναυξάνεσθαι ἀμφότερα μέχρι τοῦ θερισμοῦ· καὶ ἐν καιρῷ τοῦ θερισμοῦ ἐρῶ τοῖς θερισταῖς· συλλέξατε πρῶτον τὰ ζιζάνια καὶ δήσατε αὐτὰ εἰς δεσμὰς πρὸς τὸ κατακαῦσαι αὐτά· τὸν δὲ σῖτον συναγάγετε εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην μου.

This is Jesus giving the dialogue of the master of the house in the Parable of the Weeds.  In the ESV, it's:

"'Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

The direct object follows the verb in the phrase συλλέξατε πρῶτον τὰ ζιζάνια, but it precedes the verb in the phrase τὸν δὲ σῖτον συναγάγετε, forming a sort of chiasm:

συλλέξατε ("gather")

τὰ ζιζάνια ("the weeds")

τὸν δὲ σῖτον ("but the wheat")

συναγάγετε ("gather")

Such a structure highlights the different values that the weeds and the wheat have for the master of the house.

This structure is also present in the Latin Vulgate:

sinite utraque crescere usque ad messem et in tempore messis dicam messoribus colligite primum zizania et alligate ea fasciculos ad conburendum triticum autem congregate in horreum meum

My German New Testament has this structure, too, but it translates the two verbs (συλλέξατε and συναγάγετε) as the same word ("sammelt"), like the ESV does with "gather."  That this element in the chiasm is exactly the same lends even more emphasis to the contrasting nature of the inner elements (the weeds and the wheat):

Laßt beides miteinander wachsen bis zur Ernte; und um die Erntezeit will ich zu den Schnittern sagen:  Sammelt zuerst das Unkraut und bindet es in Bündel, damit man es verbrenne; aber den Weizen sammelt mir in meine Scheune.

Matthew 13:20

Back in March, I watched the Daily Dose of Greek video on Matthew 13:20:

ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ πετρώδη σπαρείς, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὸν λόγον ἀκούων καὶ εὐθὺς μετὰ χαρᾶς λαμβάνων αὐτόν.

In the ESV, this is:

"As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy"

In both my German and French translations of the New Testament, the pronoun referring to the word is drawn forward in the clause:

Bei dem aber auf felsigen Boden gesät ist, das ist, der das Wort hört und es gleich mit Freuden aufnimmt

Celui qui a reçu la semence dans les endroits pierreux, c'est celui qui entend la parole et la reçoit aussitôt avec joie

As far as I can tell, this placement is just because of the syntax of each of these languages, not a sort of inversion to create some emphasis, but to some degree, it does indicate the eagerness with which the word is received.

Matthew 13:16

Months ago, the Daily Dose of Greek went over Matthew 13:16:

Ὑμῶν δὲ μακάριοι οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ὅτι βλέπουσιν καὶ τὰ ὦτα ὑμῶν ὅτι ἀκούουσιν.

In the ESV, this is:

"But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear."

I've been following along in my French New Testament and noticed a feature specific to that translation:

Mais heureux sont vos yeux, parce qu'ils voient, et vos oreilles, parce qu'elles entendent!

"Heureux" ("blessed") and "yeux" ("eyes") rhyme, and this resemblance highlights the relationship between the two words:  that they're being equated in this copulative sentence and therefore, as subject and predicate nominatives, are in the same case.

Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34

The divine vocatives in Daniel 9:19 that I wrote about last week got me thinking about Matthew 27:46:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Mark 15:34 is a parallel verse:

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

I think it may be significant that "My God" is repeated here.  Of course, this is a quotation of Psalm 22:1, where אֵלִי appears twice, but in this context, where Jesus is experiencing a separation from God as part of the punishment for sin, it's almost as if each "My God" is directed to an-other Person in the Trinity:  one to God the Father and one to the Holy Spirit.  The verbs here are singular, though.

Matthew 12:30

When the Daily Dose of Greek went over Matthew 12:30 a couple months ago, I noticed a small feature in the Latin Vulgate.

Ὁ μὴ ὢν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ σκορπίζει.

'Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.' [ESV]

qui non est mecum contra me est et qui non congregat mecum spargit

Because Latin inverts the prepositional phrase "cum me" ("with me") and combines the two words into one, there's a chiastic structure in the sequential prepositional phrases "with me" and "against me" ("mecum contra me").  This structure emphasizes these opposites.

In looking at the text more closely in order to write this post, I realized that there's also a chiasm in the Greek, just with different elements and on a broader scale:

Ὁ μὴ ὢν (the one not being)

μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ (with me)

κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ (against me)

ἐστιν (is)

With a slightly different form (a relative clause instead of a participle), this is also in the Latin:

qui non est (who is not)

mecum (with me)

contra me (against me)

est (is)

Matthew 11:30

I had a realization about Matthew 11:30 when the Daily Dose of Greek went over it a few months ago.

ὁ γὰρ ζυγός μου χρηστὸς καὶ τὸ φορτίον μου ἐλαφρόν ἐστιν.

'For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.' [ESV]

The verse contains two clauses with the same basic structure:  article, noun, possessive pronoun, adjective, copulative verb (implied in the first clause).  Partially because of the nature of copulative sentences, the grammatical elements in this verse are fairly simple (the only case here is the nominative, and the verb is in the present tense), and this simplicity matches the characteristics mentioned in the verse ("easy" and "light").

Matthew 6:30, Luke 12:28

A few weeks ago, I finally got back to my practice of reading the whole chapter of any Biblical citations I run across, after having neglected it for months.  In catching up, I read Matthew 6 because of a reference to it in a C.S. Lewis letter (writing to Owen Barfield in September 1945, Lewis alludes to verse 3).  Jesus' comment "'will he not much more clothe you'" (in verse 30) caught my attention, and I realized that it may have a wider scope than I'd originally thought (also the parallel in Luke 12:28).

In its immediate context, the comment refers merely to physical clothing.  I hadn't considered before that what God does for Adam and Eve at the end of Genesis 3 (verse 21:  "And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them") is a specific example of this, probably the epitome.  The phrase "'much more clothe you'" reminded me of 2 Corinthians 5:4, though, which seems to refer to clothing in a different way:  "For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened - not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life."  In light of that context, I think the clothing in Matthew 6:30 and Luke 12:28 can also be viewed more metaphorically, as it is in Isaiah 61:10:  "He has clothed me with the garments of salvation; he has covered me with the robe of righteousness."  God clothes us physically, as He does the lilies of the field, but He also clothes us metaphorically by giving us that salvation and righteousness.

Matthew 10:39

A couple weeks ago, the Daily Dose of Greek went over Matthew 10:39:

I noticed that there's a chiastic structure, and that this highlights the opposites "find" and "lose."

ὁ εὑρὼν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ

ἀπολέσει αὐτὴν

καὶ ὁ ἀπολέσας τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ

εὑρήσει αὐτήν.

Here's the ESV translation:

'Whoever finds his life

will lose it,

and whoever loses his life for my sake

will find it.'

This structure is also in the Latin Vulgate:

Qui invenit animam suam

perdet illam

et qui perdiderit animam suam propter me

inveniet eam

My German New Testament:

Wer sein Leben findet,

der wird's verlieren;

und wer sein Leben verliert um meinetwillen,

der wird's finden.

And my French New Testament:

Celui qui conservera sa vie

la perdre,

et celui qui perdra sa vie à cause de moi

la retrouvera.

Matthew 10:28

A couple weeks ago, the Daily Dose of Greek went over Matthew 10:28:

καὶ μὴ φοβεῖσθε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεννόντων τὸ σῶμα, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν μὴ δυναμένων ἀποκτεῖναι· φοβεῖσθε δὲ μᾶλλον τὸν δυνάμενον καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα ἀπολέσαι ἐν γεέννῃ.

'And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.  Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.'  [ESV]

I noticed that there's a chiastic structure between ἀποκτεννόντων τὸ σῶμα (in which the direct object comes last) and τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν μὴ δυναμένων ἀποκτεῖναι (in which the direct object comes first), and this inversion highlights the sort of opposite nature of "killing" and "not being able to kill."

This same structure is also in the Latin Vulgate:  "et nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus animam autem non possunt occidere sed potius eum timete qui potest et animam et corpus perdere in gehennam."

Matthew 6:21

A couple weeks ago, I happened to read Matthew 6:21 in Middle English:  "For where thi tresoure is, there also thin herte is."  In Greek, it's ὅπου γάρ ἐστιν ὁ θησαυρός σου, ἐκεῖ ἔσται καὶ ἡ καρδία σου, and in the ESV, it's "'For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.'"  In the Middle English version, ἔσται is translated in the present tense ("is") rather than the future ("will be"), but maybe it was because of this that I realized that structurally, the two clauses have much in common.  In the Greek, it's:

[form of "to be"] [article] [noun] [possessive pronoun]

ἐστιν ὁ θησαυρός σου ("is the treasure of you")

ἔσται... ἡ καρδία σου ("will be... the heart of you")

The sort of parallelism between ἐστιν and ἔσται isn't as clear in Modern English because the single word is doesn't correspond to the two-word phrase "will be" as neatly.

To some degree, this structural similarity mirrors the meaning; the treasure and heart are in the same place, and the clauses have a parity, too.

This feature is also present in the Latin Vulgate, perhaps even a bit more strongly, since the relative pronoun ubi ("where") is only one letter different from the adverb ibi ("there"):

Ubi enim est thesaurus tuus ibi est et cor tuum

And in my French New Testament:

Car là où est ton trésor, là aussi sera ton cœur.

Matthew 9:37

A couple weeks ago, I watched the Daily Dose of Greek video on Matthew 9:37:

Τότε λέγει τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ· ὁ μὲν θερισμὸς πολύς, οἱ δὲ ἐργάται ὀλίγοι·

Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few" [ESV]

I noticed that in my German New Testament, the word order is altered so that the structure is inverted between "the harvest is plentiful" ("die Ernte ist groß") and "the laborers are few" ("wenige sind der Arbeiter"), highlighting the opposite nature of "plentiful" ("groß") and "few" ("wenige"):

Da sprach er zu seinen Jüngern:  Die Ernte ist groß, aber wenige sind der Arbeiter.

Matthew 8:27, Mark 4:41

When I watched the Daily Dose of Greek video on Matthew 8:27 last month, I remembered my comments on Mark 4:41, which is a very similar verse, and I had a few more thoughts.

Οἱ δὲ ἄνθρωποι ἐθαύμασαν λέγοντες· ποταπός ἐστιν οὗτος ὅτι καὶ οἱ ἄνεμοι καὶ ἡ θάλασσα αὐτῷ ὑπακούουσιν;

And the men marveled, saying, "What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?" [ESV]

Because καὶ... καὶ... can also be the correlative "both... and..." (as in Matthew 10:28:  καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα, "both body and soul"), the last part of the verse could be translated as "What sort of man is this that both the winds and the sea obey him?" which provides a sense of the breadth of Jesus' command over nature.  (I'll reiterate what I said about Mark 4:41, though:  "Even the winds and the sea" is probably a better translation.)

This may be (and probably is) overanalyzing the text, but there's an additional sense of breadth because there's a variety in the grammatical gender and number of the direct objects:  ἄνεμοι is masculine plural, and θάλασσα is feminine singular.  Of course, there's also a range just because the sea is beneath and the winds are around and above.

Nearly all the same can be said for this text in the Latin Vulgate:  "porro homines mirati sunt dicentes qualis est hic quia et venti et mare oboediunt ei."  "Et... et..." can be the correlative "both... and..." or even and and individually; venti (winds) is masculine plural; but mare (sea) is neuter singular.

Of what features I noted, the German text has only different grammatical genders for wind (masculine Wind) and sea (neuter Meer):  "Die Menschen aber verwunderten sich und sprachen:  Was ist das für ein Mann, daß ihm Wind und Meer gehorsam sind?"

In French, there's something of a sense of breadth between masculine plural vents (winds) and feminine singular mer (sea):  "Ces hommes furent saisis d'étonnement:  Quel est celui-ci, disaient-ils, à qui obéissent même les vents et la mer?"

Matthew 7:29

I think it was even before the Daily Dose of Greek got to Matthew 7:29 that I noticed that it has the same feature that I noted in Mark 1:22 a few months ago.  (I'd lookt ahead after watching the Daily Dose video on verse 28.)

ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν.

In the ESV, this is translated as "For he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes," but ἔχων is a participle, so it's actually more like "he was teaching them as one having authority...."  Because participles are verbal adjectives, there's some of the dynamic element of a verb here, and it contrasts with the more static nature of the noun γραμματεῖς (scribes).

As with Mark 1:22, the participial ἐξουσίαν ἔχων is retained in the Vulgate ("potestatem habens") and my French New Testament ("ayant authorité"), but it's rendered as a prepositional phrase ("mit Vollmacht") in my German New Testament.

Matthew 7:25, 27

A few weeks ago, I watched the Daily Dose of Greek videos on Matthew 7:25 and Matthew 7:27:

καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι, καὶ προσέπεσαν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ οὐκ ἔπεσεν· τεθεμελίωτο γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν.

καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι, καὶ προσέκοψαν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ ἔπεσεν· καὶ ἦν ἡ πτῶσις αὐτῆς μεγάλη.

In the ESV, these verses are:

And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.

And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.

It wasn't until looking at the Vulgate that I realized that both of these verses exhibit polysyndeton (the repeated καὶ, translated as "and").  In my copy of the Vulgate, the first part of each of these verses is formatted as:

et descendit pluvia

et venerunt flumina

et flaverunt venti

et inruerunt in domum illam

which makes the polysyndeton obvious.  Here, it highlights the multitude of forces assaulting the houses.  In the Greek and the Latin, the verbs (the first three, at least) precede their respective nouns, and this structure may also heighten the sense of action.

Additionally, the formatting of the Latin suggests (to me, anyway) that "flaverunt" (ἔπνευσαν, blew) and "inruerunt" (προσέπεσαν/προσέκοψαν, beat) have different subjects (the explicit "venti," ἄνεμοι, "winds" and an inflected "they," respectively), resulting in a slightly different translation:  "And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they [all three forces!] beat on that house."  Like the polysyndeton and the inverted structure, this reading also highlights the intensity of the elements' assault on the houses.

[For what it's worth, I also wrote about this passage a few years ago.]

Matthew 7:17-19

A few weeks ago, I watched the Daily Dose of Greek videos on Matthew 7:17-19:

17 οὕτως πᾶν δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς καλοὺς ποιεῖ, τὸ δὲ σαπρὸν δένδρον καρποὺς πονηροὺς ποιεῖ.  18 οὐ δύναται δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς πονηροὺς ποιεῖν οὐδὲ δένδρον σαπρὸν καρποὺς καλοὺς ποιεῖν.  19 πᾶν δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται.

In the ESV, these verses are:

17 'So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.  18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.  19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.'

In each of these verses, the phrase "good fruit" alliterates and has a balanced number of syllables, even though it's plural in verses 17 and 18 (καρποὺς καλοὺς) but singular in verse 19 (καρπὸν καλὸν).  These features provide a euphony that matches the description "good."

Matthew 7:3

A couple weeks ago, I watched the Daily Dose of Greek video on Matthew 7:3:

"'Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?'" [ESV]

Even before Dr. Plummer mentioned it in the video, I noticed that the verse has a chiastic structure:

τί δὲ βλέπεις

τὸ κάρφος

τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου,

τὴν δὲ ἐν τῷ σῷ ὀφθαλμῷ

δοκὸν

οὐ κατανοεῖς;

Something like:

Why do you see

the speck

that is in your brother's eye,

but that is in your own eye

the log

you do not notice?

Since the words in the two clauses appear in an inverted order, this structure highlights the contrast between βλέπεις ("you do see") and οὐ κατανοεῖς ("you do not notice") and perhaps also between the sizes of τὸ κάρφος ("the speck") and τὴν δοκὸν ("the log").

Matthew 4:24-25

Last month, I watched the Daily Dose of Greek videos on Matthew 4:24-25:

24 Καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἡ ἀκοὴ αὐτοῦ εἰς ὅλην τὴν Συρίαν· καὶ προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ πάντας τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας, ποικίλαις νόσοις καὶ βασάνοις συνεχομένους, [καὶ] δαιμονιζομένους καὶ σεληνιαζομένους καὶ παραλυτικούς· καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτούς.

25 καὶ ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ ὄχλοι πολλοὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ Δεκαπόλεως καὶ Ἱεροσολύμων καὶ Ἰουδαίας καὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου.

24 So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, [and] those oppressed by demons, [and] epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them.

25 And great crowds followed him from Galilee and the Decapolis, and from Jerusalem and Judea, and from beyond the Jordan.

I noticed that both verses exhibit polysyndeton (the repeated καὶ), although one conjunction is in brackets in Dr. Plummer's Greek text and some are omitted in the ESV translation.  In these contexts, the polysyndeton provides a sense of abundance and variety.

This feature is also present in the Latin Vulgate:

24 et abiit opinio eius in totam Syriam et obtulerunt ei omnes male habentes variis languoribus et tormentis conprehensos et qui daemonia habebant et lunaticos et paralyticos et curavit eos

25 et secutae sunt eum turbae multae de Galilaea et Decapoli et Hierosolymis et Iudaea et de trans Iordanen

In my French translation, there's a repeated "de" ("from") instead of "and" in verse 25:

Une grande foule le suivit, de la Galilée, de la Décapole, de Jérusalem, de la Judée, et d'au delà du Jourdain.

This is anaphora rather than polysyndeton, but the resulting effect (a sense of abundance and variety) is the same.

Isaiah 29:13, Matthew 15:8, Mark 7:6

A few months ago, I watched the Concordia University Wisconsin chapel service from 28 August 2018:

The text was Isaiah 29:11-19.  I was following along in the Latin Vulgate and noticed part of verse 13:  "cor autem eius longe est a me."  In the ESV, this is "while their hearts are far from me."  In both of these, as it is in the Hebrew (although with far fewer words:  וְלִבּ֖וֹ רִחַ֣ק מִמֶּ֑נִּי), "heart" ("cor") is about as distant as possible from "me" ("me"), so the meaning of the clause is illustrated in its structure.  The conjunction in Latin ("autem") is post-positive, so "cor" and "me" are at completely opposite ends of the clause.

The next day, I watched the CUW chapel service from 29 August.  The reading then was Mark 7:1-8, in which Jesus quotes this passage from Isaiah.  Part of verse 6 exhibits the same feature:  "cor autem eorum longe est a me."  It's also present in the ESV ("but their heart is far from me") and in the Greek (ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ).  This clause is identical in Matthew 15:8.

I also referenced my German and French New Testaments.  This feature is present in both Matthew 15:8 and Mark 7:18, where the clauses are identical:  "aber ihr Herz ist fern von mir" and "mais son cœur est éloigné de moi."