The Vulgate inserts a colon after 'illis' to mark direct discourse, while Greek uses a raised dot (·) and Peshitta employs no explicit punctuation marker. This represents Latin scribal convention rather than textual divergence.
EN He said to them, “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many.
ES Y les dice: Esto es mi sangre del nuevo pacto, que por muchos es derramada.
ZH-HANS 耶稣说:「这是我立约的血,为多人流出来的。
ZH-HANT 耶穌說:「這是我立約的血,為多人流出來的。
The Vulgate inserts a colon after 'illis' to mark direct discourse, while Greek uses a raised dot (·) and Peshitta employs no explicit punctuation marker. This represents Latin scribal convention rather than textual divergence.
Greek employs the articular construction τὸ αἷμά μου with neuter article governing the noun phrase, while Syriac uses the bound-state construct ܕܡܝ (demi, 'my blood') and Latin uses simple apposition (sanguis meus). All three express identical possessive semantics through language-specific morphosyntactic strategies.
Greek places the genitive phrase τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης after αἷμά μου with double articulation (τὸ... τὸ τῆς), creating an appositional structure. Syriac and Latin both employ attributive adjective-noun order (ܕܕܝܬܩܐ ܚܕܬܐ / novi testamenti) in construct/genitive relationship, reflecting their respective norms for attributive modification within genitive phrases.
Greek uses an articular present passive participle τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν ('which is being poured out for many') with neuter agreement. Vulgate employs a masculine relative clause 'qui pro multis effundetur' with future passive, while Syriac uses the participle ܡܬܐܫܕ ('being poured out') with prepositional phrase ܕܚܠܦ ܣܓܝܐܐ. The Latin future tense represents theological interpretation of the imminent sacrifice, whereas Greek and Syriac present tenses emphasize the ritual's present efficacy.