Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
About George M. Lamsa and Rocco Errico
#16
Christina Wrote:I was of aware that the COE is reluctant to translate the Peshitta into other languages but I don't know the reason why. I haven't found an explanation in their own words, can you enlighten me on this matter? I always want to hear an explanation first to avoid jumping to conclusions.

I think the answer is probably two-fold. Firstly being Semites they are deathly afraid of altering anything that wasn't delivered exactly as it were, or adding or subtracting from the word of God. I can attest to you first hand that my translation keeps me up at night sometimes, it's full of errors I'm constantly catching. But at least the underlying interlinear will remain the same.

Secondly, the general feeling among the clergy and laity is that the only reason Aramaic has survived even in modern forms is because people were forced to keep the language going since it is the language of the scriptures. We would have switched over to Arabic or Persian or whatever a long time ago had versions of scripture been allowed in these tongues, the people would no longer be speaking any type of Aramaic. Examples of this abound, you can kind of see it with groups like the Maronites or the Chaldeans who had a much more liberal approach to translation of the scriptures. Almost everything is in Arabic now, especially as an everyday tongue.

You can see a perfect example of this approach working in India today, where the local language is Malayalam and the service/readings are "targummed" into the local language. But the priests and bishops over there are considered among the world experts in Aramaic. In fact, the only printing press we had for a long time for the entire church was based in India. All of our service books and bibles came from there. Imagine that.

Even today, in services in America or the middle east, portions are targummed into modern Aramaic, but it's never going to replace the original old language. So the same way in India they targum into Malayalam, we targum into neo-Aramaic. In my particular parish, we targum into English because we are a missionary parish.

I know that's not a satisfactory explanation from an evangelical standpoint, to be hard-headed about translating the scriptures - but it is what it is and it's served its limited purpose. Unfortunately it has had the unintended consequences you mentioned.

An interlinear solves parts of the overall situation, imperfect as it is.

Something, some part of the soul of a work, is always lost in translation. Even if it were possible to make a perfect translation (which it isn't), something is always lost. Always. No two languages, not even Hebrew and Aramaic, have the same "psyche". It's much better to allow the English (or Arabic, whatever) to guide you into the Aramaic rather than replace it. I don't want to turn into the next Lamsa.
Reply
#17
Paul Younan Wrote:
Christina Wrote:I was of aware that the COE is reluctant to translate the Peshitta into other languages but I don't know the reason why. I haven't found an explanation in their own words, can you enlighten me on this matter? I always want to hear an explanation first to avoid jumping to conclusions.

I think the answer is probably two-fold. Firstly being Semites they are deathly afraid of altering anything that wasn't delivered exactly as it were, or adding or subtracting from the word of God. I can attest to you first hand that my translation keeps me up at night sometimes, it's full of errors I'm constantly catching. But at least the underlying interlinear will remain the same.

That's perfectly understandable and I believe that is fearful attitude towards God's word is proper and right, which is unfortunately lacking in western Christianity.

Paul Younan Wrote:Secondly, the general feeling among the clergy and laity is that the only reason Aramaic has survived even in modern forms is because people were forced to keep the language going since it is the language of the scriptures. We would have switched over to Arabic or Persian or whatever a long time ago had versions of scripture been allowed in these tongues, the people would no longer be speaking any type of Aramaic. Examples of this abound, you can kind of see it with groups like the Maronites or the Chaldeans who had a much more liberal approach to translation of the scriptures. Almost everything is in Arabic now, especially as an everyday tongue.

You can see a perfect example of this approach working in India today, where the local language is Malayalam and the service/readings are "targummed" into the local language. But the priests and bishops over there are considered among the world experts in Aramaic. In fact, the only printing press we had for a long time for the entire church was based in India. All of our service books and bibles came from there. Imagine that.

That's a very valid point. I didn't expect the answer to my question to be unreasonable, so thank you for confirming my assumptions. It is an unfortunate reality that today Aramaic is an endangered language with very few people who are commited to keeping it alive. And translating the Scriptures into other languages has contributed to the problem. So I understand the COE's position regarding the matter of translating the Scriptures into other languages, and I believe it's a perfectly acceptable explanation.

And considering the case with Arab Christians in particular, what I cannot stand about the Arabic Bible it that it contains the word "Allah". I don't believe that "Allah" (the Islamic god) is the same God (YHWH/MRYH) we worship, and I think that "Allah" should be scrapped from the Arabic Bible (I know this is the case with the one translated from Hebrew & Greek, though I don't know how it's rendered in the Mosul/Peshitta Arabic Bible). This is my personal conviction, and I can't expect everyone to agree with me, but it's a classic case where a literal translation does not always convey the Spiritual intentions of the Holy text, indeed the meaning of just one word can affect (to a degree) the overall message of the Scriptures. And many former Muslims have complained about this feature of the Arabic Bible, including the Egyptian Christian author, Mark A. Gabriel, who declares in his book "Islam & the Jews: The Unfinished Battle":

Quote:I hate this feature of the Arabic Bible...I don't want to see "Allah" in my Bible.

Paul Younan Wrote:Even today, in services in America or the middle east, portions are targummed into modern Aramaic, but it's never going to replace the original old language. So the same way in India they targum into Malayalam, we targum into neo-Aramaic. In my particular parish, we targum into English because we are a missionary parish.

I know that's not a satisfactory explanation from an evangelical standpoint, to be hard-headed about translating the scriptures - but it is what it is and it's served its limited purpose. Unfortunately it has had the unintended consequences you mentioned.

An interlinear solves parts of the overall situation, imperfect as it is.

Something, some part of the soul of a work, is always lost in translation. Even if it were possible to make a perfect translation (which it isn't), something is always lost. Always. No two languages, not even Hebrew and Aramaic, have the same "psyche". It's much better to allow the English (or Arabic, whatever) to guide you into the Aramaic rather than replace it. I don't want to turn into the next Lamsa.

You're quite right concerning this, the original Aramaic should be protected and preserved not replaced. And yes some negative consequences have resulted from this approach yet of course this was unintentional. I don't think it's a case where the COE was wrong with what they're doing, but rather they may not have handled this delicate issue as best as they could. That said I believe that a "targum" or paraphrase is the best way to go here, and I think it's the best way to get the Peshitta out to the masses without compromising the original language. That way the COE wouldn't be translating the Peshitta but rather explaining it in the targeted language, be it English/Neo-Aramaic/Arabic, etc. in written form. I'm not trying to be bossy & dictate to the COE on how to handle the Scriptures, rather I'm making a suggestion for the COE to consider while continously praying for guidance at THE MASTER's feet.

So then my suggestion is this:

The original text with Aramaic transliteration & explanation in the modern languages. That way the original will continue to be protected and the meaning will be presented to the world, after all a literal translation of Aramaic, and Hebrew for that matter wouldn't really be an accurate one, as the full meaning would be diluted & misinterpreted (as what happen with the Greek Bible). The best English witness to these two languages would be an amplified paraphrase.

I'll leave you with these thoughts, and will pray for you about your interlinear & for the COE, as they continue to struggle with this issue. The Master, in His own good time, will reveal His will to them.

Blessings.
Reply
#18
Christina Wrote:So then my suggestion is this:

The original text with Aramaic transliteration & explanation in the modern languages. That way the original will continue to be protected and the meaning will be presented to the world, after all a literal translation of Aramaic, and Hebrew for that matter wouldn't really be an accurate one, as the full meaning would be diluted & misinterpreted (as what happen with the Greek Bible). The best English witness to these two languages would be an amplified paraphrase.

Those are excellent points. That's something that I think the CoE may one day sanction (maybe not in my lifetime, oh well.)

Christina - you may know that Arabic Christian literature, before Islam, used the word "Allah"? When the CoE was in places like Yemen before Islam arrived, they called God "Allah." Islam got the name from us, not the other way around. Muhammad, in fact, was tutored by a CoE monk (let's not go there for now).

Islam has distorted it into a personal name, rather than the title "God".

It's the cognate to the Aramaic "Alaha" and the Hebrew "Eloah", for that matter even further back into the Akkadian "Ilu".
Reply
#19
Paul Younan Wrote:Arabic Christian literature, before Islam, used the word "Allah"? When the CoE was in places like Yemen before Islam arrived, they called God "Allah." Islam got the name from us, not the other way around. ... Islam has distorted it into a personal name, rather than the title "God". It's the cognate to the Aramaic "Alaha" and the Hebrew "Eloah", for that matter even further back into the Akkadian "Ilu".

Many Sephardic Jews in Spain, Turkey and Syria use "Alaha" (a more pure form than "Dio" and "Dios") instead of Allah in translations of the Tanakh in Ladino, carried over from the Aramaic.
Reply
#20
Akhi Rafa, everything you said I agree with.

Only thing, linguistically speaking, is in Arabic to say "God" is "Allah." Even if that Arab is an atheist, Christian, Baptist, Hindu or whatever....in the Arabic language "Allah" just means the same thing as the English "God" or the Aramaic "Alaha" or the Hebrew "Eloah" - none of them are the proper NAME, of course, that's a corruption of Islam that claims it's the NAME.

But the word "Allah" predates Islam and actually Christians before Islam came in the Arabian Peninsula said "Allah" when they wanted to say "God."

In other words, I think we have an unnecessary aversion to the word "Allah" because Islam has sort of claimed it for itself, which is totally inaccurate historically and linguistically.

Even when they were pagans, they called many deities "Allah", just like in English when we're studying about Zeus or Jupiter we see the word "god" used.

You know in Akkadian the name for Babylon was "Bab-Ilu", meaning "Gate of the Gods" - Ilu being the Akkadian cognate of Alaha, Eloah, Allah, God.

BTW - The CoE monk's name was Bahira. Don't ask me where he went wrong in the tutoring. <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->
Reply
#21
Akhi Paul,

If "allah" was the pre-Islamic Arabic equivilent to the generic term "god/diety" then why does the Islamic creed read like this:

"There is no ilah but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet."

The way I understand this is that "ilah" is the Arabic equivilent of "god/diety" and "Allah" would then be the "unsacred name" of the Islamic god. If "allah" is a generitic term instead of a personal name, then wouldn't the creed read like this:

"There is no allah but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet."

I've also read before (in some Islamic sources) that the "name", "Allah" is derived from "al-ilah" (the god/the diety), which reveals Islam's polytheisic roots. I understand that as Muhammad chose one of the pre-Islamic gods (the moon god which was the chief god) and declared him to be "The God" (the only god). And thereby the "name" "Allah" seals this god's identity as the only god, thereby being a personal name and not a generic title.

Am I getting it right, or is this purely the Islamic perspective?
Reply
#22
Hi Christina,

Whether or not "Allah" is etymologically a contraction of "al-ilah" in Arabic (there is some speculation/controversy around that), but that fact remains that linguistically it's the cognate of the Aramaic Alaha or the Akkadian Ilu or the Hebrew Eloah.

The most important thing is that this title was used by Arabs when they were Christians and Jews (before Islam). See for instance the Zebed inscription from the church of Mar Sargis in Syria, where a trilingual inscription in Aramaic, Greek and Arabic is found above the altar area (the term "Allah" occurs there). This is from 512 AD, way before Islam. In that church and city there was a mixed population of Arameans, Greeks and Arabs. The Arabic script is the old Nabatean.

Also, in the Arabic writings of the CoE before Islam arrived, we had communities in Yemen and Arabia and elsewhere, and they used this name.

So there's nothing really "Islamic" about the name "Allah", it was a term used by Arab Christians to refer to the God of Israel. Islam has unfortunately claimed the name as its own, which is really a historic travesty.

Ultimately, all these terms (Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic) come from the ancient Akkadian "Il" or "El", after all every Semite came from the ancient Akkadian stock.
Reply
#23
Oh now I see, so then what does "ilah" mean? Is there any difference between "ilah" and "allah"? In light of Muslims "hijacking" the title "Allah" for their god, how then should the creed be understood today? No god but God, or no god but Allah?
Reply
#24
Hi Khati Christina,

Christina Wrote:Is there any difference between "ilah" and "allah"?

Well, it's not easy to try and explain but here's my attempt: (rather long-winded)

Semitic languages all share similar forms for nouns.

The most basic form for all nouns is the construct.

Here is a noun shared among Aramaic, Arabic and Hebrew - KTB ("book"). In the basic construct form, the three languages represent this word as:

Ktab (Aramaic)
Ktab (Hebrew)
Kitab (Arabic)

In the construct, or most very basic form, the word simply means "book."

Now, in Semitic languages there is also a state called the Emphatic. (Of the three languages, Aramaic makes this the standard form instead of the construct)

Here's how the words look in the Emphatic state: (I've highlighted the changes)

Ktaba (Aramaic)
Ha-Ktab (Hebrew)
Al-Kitab (Arabic)

Rather than simply "book" in the Construct, the Emphatic makes it "THE book".

This is a rather oversimplification of the subject matter because I want to explain with some sort of brevity here, but essentially in order to create the Emphatic:

Aramaic appends an "a" to the Construct
Hebrew prepends a "ha" to the Construct
Arabic prepends a "al" to the Construct(made famous today by "Al-Qaeda", "THE base")

So to answer your question, there is no difference in meaning between the Arabic 'illah and Allah, except that the latter is a contraction of "al-ilah", "THE God". The contraction results in the Emphatic "Allah".

In English, we utilize contraction all the time.

"How is your day going?"
"How's your day going?"

"I would like to explain this better!"
"I'd like to explain this better!"

For the record, in Aramaic the Construct for "god" is "Alah", and the Emphatic is "Alaha". Again, in Aramaic the Emphatic is the standard form, whereas in Hebrew and Arabic the preference is for the Construct to be the standard.

This is why so many words that are similar between Hebrew and Aramaic, are differentiated by only the -a appended to the Aramaic. "Beyth" ("house") in Hebrew becomes "Beytha" in Aramaic. "Seper" ("scroll") becomes "Sepra", etc. Hebrew prefers Construct, Aramaic prefers Emphatic.

Hope that answers your question.

Christina Wrote:In light of Muslims "hijacking" the title "Allah" for their god, how then should the creed be understood today? No god but God, or no god but Allah?

No god except THE God.

But again, none of these terms....not the Aramaic "Alaha", Hebrew "Eloah", Arabic "Allah", English "God" or Greek "Theos" means anything except for god with a lower-case g. God only has one real name, His personal name. And when in Aramaic we want to allude to it we say "Maryah", or "Lord Yah". The meaning of the symbol on this website. It's the Holy Name.

Islam has corrupted that concept by attributing a title to Him as a personal name, which of course is ridiculous.
Reply
#25
Rafa Wrote:I found out a bit about this Bahira:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahira">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahira</a><!-- m -->

Don't hold it against us.
Reply
#26
"When the caravan was passing by his cell, the monk invited the merchants to a feast......."

Probably called them on his "CELL PHONE" <!-- sConfusedtupid: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/withstupid.gif" alt="Confusedtupid:" title="Stupid" /><!-- sConfusedtupid: --> <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue --> <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: -->
Reply
#27
Rafa Wrote:
Quote:Both Ibn Sa'd and al-Tabari write that Bahira found the announcement of the coming of Muhammad in the original, unadulterated gospels, which he possessed; the standard Islamic view is that Christians corrupted the gospels, in part by erasing any references to Muhammad.

This is why I'm attempting to find this so called "Apocalypse of Bahira"- not even the wildest Apocrypha makes such a claim! I never ever read a piece of Apcorypha (even those horrible Gnostic texts claiming Y'shua was a secret agent for the mother Godess or something like that) such a claim.

I've no doubt that Bahira felt he had the original gospels, if he were referring to the Aramaic. I think the latter part of the claim, references to Mohammed, is probably a very exaggerated claim made by Muslim apologists. We have copies of the Peshitta that are at least 100 years older than Islam, and I've read them without noticing any reference to Mohammed. So that claim falls flat on its face.
Reply
#28
Paul Younan Wrote:No god except THE God.

But again, none of these terms....not the Aramaic "Alaha", Hebrew "Eloah", Arabic "Allah", English "God" or Greek "Theos" means anything except for god with a lower-case g. God only has one real name, His personal name. And when in Aramaic we want to allude to it we say "Maryah", or "Lord Yah". The meaning of the symbol on this website. It's the Holy Name.

Islam has corrupted that concept by attributing a title to Him as a personal name, which of course is ridiculous.

Thank you for your explanation, though I agree it's not as simple or as smooth to explain with exactness. So technically (liguistically/historically) "allah" shouldn't be taken as a personal name, I won't argue with this anymore.

But...

From a spiritual view, and taking your explanation into account this is the impression I get on what the shahada states:

"There is NO god but THE God and Muhammad is HIS prophet" <!-- s:angry: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/angry.gif" alt=":angry:" title="Angry" /><!-- s:angry: -->

It seems that the shahada's emphasis is on Muhammad rather than "Allah", that his (Muhammad's) god is "The God" (the only god). The implication is very clear, Muhammad's fingerprints are all over this, and that doesn't surprise me at all. <!-- s:mad: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/mad.gif" alt=":mad:" title="Mad" /><!-- s:mad: -->

Perhaps I'm making a bigger deal of this than I should, although "Allah" technically means "god" I can't help but feel that Christian Arabs shouldn't refer to God as "Allah" because the evil one has distorted it into a personal name. I agree that it is ridiculous (logically) as you said, but spiritually I highly doubt that it's coincidental considering what Rafa said about the Hebrew word "alah" (curse/oak tree). <!-- sConfusedtern: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/stern.gif" alt="Confusedtern:" title="Stern" /><!-- sConfusedtern: -->

Now I think it's time I get off my soapbox.

Shlama.
Reply
#29
Rafa Wrote:I can already see it now: the good generous monk invites the poor desert dwelling Mohammed for a meal in his humble cell. A little wine here, a little wine there, the monk says to Mohammed that he's a "Bright boy" perhaps he can be tutored and brought into the order away from the Meccan wasteland. They exchange a few Tanakh stories on the prophets... Mohammed mistakes and misunderstands everything, especially after the horrible cave episodes where HaSatan poses as Gabriel, and he declares himself the "Last Prophet"- bigger, better then them all put together. I don't blame the monk, I doubt he was a heretic.

I'm finding it it hard to get objective accounts of this Bahira guy. Are there only Islamic records of this monk (which as Paul said are exagerated) or does the CoE have their own sources regarding Bahira, akhi Paul?

This is what I found about Bahira & "Netoriansism" from a popular Christian apologetic site "Answering Islam":

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Index/B/bahira.html
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Index/N/nestorians.html

the Islamic version of Bahira:

http://www.amaana.org/ISWEB/bahira.html

I also read in Mark A. Gabriel's book "Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle" that this Bahira supposedly saw a mark on (the 12 yr old) Muhammad's shoulder and told his uncle Abu Talib, that the mark is the seal of prophethood, and that he must make sure that the Jews don't find out otherwise they'll kill the boy (Muhammad). Of course this is from the hadiths, which as I said before are at best subjective, and at worst purposefully deceitful & false.
Reply
#30
Paul Younan Wrote:I've no doubt that Bahira felt he had the original gospels, if he were referring to the Aramaic. I think the latter part of the claim, references to Mohammed, is probably a very exaggerated claim made by Muslim apologists. We have copies of the Peshitta that are at least 100 years older than Islam, and I've read them without noticing any reference to Mohammed. So that claim falls flat on its face.

Considering what you said here akhi Paul, can you help me with something? I came across this interesting article titled "Muhammad the Borrower" on the "Answering Islam" site, concerning the sources of al-Qur'an:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/borrowing.htm

Now what I'd like your help with is this portion of the article:

Author (Silas) is quoting Alfred Guillaume's English translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul:

Quote:The Gospel according to John.....

There is a very interesting passage on pages 103 - 104 of the Sirat. It deals with the Gospel of John. I will quote it in full because of its bearing:

Among the things which have reached me about what Jesus the Son of Mary states in the Gospel which he received from God for the followers of the Gospel, in applying a term to describe the apostle of God, is the following. It is extracted from what John the Apostle set down for them when he wrote the Gospel for them from the Testament of Jesus Son of Mary:

He that hateth me hath hated the Lord. And if I had not done in their presence works which none other before me did, they had not had sin: but from now they are puffed up with pride and think that they will overcome me and also the Lord. But the word that is in the law must be fulfilled, "They hated me without a cause" (i.e., without reason). But when the Comforter has come whom God will send to you from the Lord's presence, and the spirit of truth which will have gone froth from the Lord's presence he (shall bear) witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with me from the beginning. I have spoken to you about this that ye should not be in doubt."

The Munahhemana (God bless and preserve him!) in Syriac is Muhammad; in Greek he is the paraclete.


END OF QUOTE

Guillaume's note for this passage out of the Sirat says:

The passage quoted is John 15.23 ff. It is interesting to note that the citation comes from the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary and not from the ordinary Bible of the Syriac-speaking Churches. The text is corrupt in one or two places; e.g. the phrase "puffed up with pride and think that they will overcome me". Batiru is an obvious corruption of nazaru, which agrees with the Syriac and underlying Greek. Wazannu seems to be another attempt to make sense of the passage. The next word I am unable to explain. The most interesting word is that rendered "Comforter" which we find in the Palestinian Lectionary, but all other Syriac versions render "paraclete", following the Greek. This word was well established in the Hebrew - and Aramaic - speaking world. The menahhemana in Syriac means the life giver and especially one who raises from the dead. Obviously such a meaning is out of place here and what is meant is one who consoles and comforts people for the loss of one dear to them. This is the meaning in the Talmud and Targum. It ought to be pointed out that by the omission of the words "that is written" before "in the law" quite another meaning is given to the prophecy. The natural rendering would be "the word that concerns the Namus must be fulfilled". To Muslims the Namus was the angel Gabriel. Furthermore, the last words are translated as the ordinary Arab reader would understand tashukku; but in Syrian Arabic it could bear the meaning of the gospel text "stumble". See further my article in Al-Andalus, xv, faxc. 2 (1950) 289-96.

END OF QUOTE OF GUILLAUME'S NOTE

I'm battling to follow this. What's up with this "Munahhemana/menahhemana" (could be a typo)? Guillaume says that it's found in the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, Talmud & Targms. Which Aramaic writings (Peshitta NT, Peshitta Tanakh, Targums, Talmud, Palestinian Syriac lectionary) mention this word and what's the connection with this faulty Gospel quote? I'm sorry if I'm asking for much and if it goes beyond the scope of this forum but I really wanna get to the bottom this! Paul, Yaaqub, Andrew Gabrial Roth, Dave Bauscher, anyone?

Shlama.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)