Guest guest Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 93 Shlama! :-) First of all, aramaic original of Gospels are lost. Contemporary versions of "aramaic N.T." are back translations from greek and latin. Thus it is not proper to rely on these. With Old Testament situation is slightly better - several "targums" (aramaic translations of it from hebrew, such as "P'shitta") are rather old and approved by rabbis. > The word "Alaha" is the name of the Divine, and means "Sacred > Unity. As far as i know this is wrong. "Alaha" (Eloh in hebrew) is exactly "God", same as Allah in arabic. "Unity" is Yichud, "One" is Echad (these are hebrew words, in aramaic "yichuda" and second i don't remember). Comparisons are drawn between "Alaha" and "Allah," > "Elohim,Elat" (Great Goddess, emphasizes the One that is > Embodied, Here and Now), and other variations on the theme of > Divinity. Elohim literally means "gods". Thus in kabbalah it is translated usually as "angels". And God's name is "YHVH Elohim", "Lord of angels" ("God of gods"). Elat as i remember is "goddess". In context of judaism it will be a pagan deity, nothing to do with Holy Spirit and Presence of Divine (Shekhinah). I may add that givem by Mary Ann versions of some verses seem to be even more incorrect than orthodox translation. However sometimes we may see greek and latin versions rather than english. For example, famous prayer of our Saviour says not "give us our daily bread", but "give us non-material (transcendental, spiritual) bread". God bless U! A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 Dear Arjuna! You would have to look into the book yourself before you can knowledgeably make claims that what is in it is incorrect! I was only willing to type a little bit, not go into the depths of it all. Comparisons are made between different words in different languages, connections are recognized, etc. It was just nice to see some of what I'm encountering in the book in your post. Namaste, Mary Ann , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > 93 Shlama! :-) > > First of all, aramaic original of Gospels are lost. Contemporary > versions of "aramaic N.T." are back translations from greek and > latin. Thus it is not proper to rely on these. > With Old Testament situation is slightly better - several "targums" > (aramaic translations of it from hebrew, such as "P'shitta") are > rather old and approved by rabbis. > > > The word "Alaha" is the name of the Divine, and means "Sacred > > Unity. > > As far as i know this is wrong. "Alaha" (Eloh in hebrew) is > exactly "God", same as Allah in arabic. "Unity" is Yichud, "One" is > Echad (these are hebrew words, in aramaic "yichuda" and second i > don't remember). > > Comparisons are drawn between "Alaha" and "Allah," > > "Elohim,Elat" (Great Goddess, emphasizes the One that is > > Embodied, Here and Now), and other variations on the theme of > > Divinity. > > Elohim literally means "gods". Thus in kabbalah it is translated > usually as "angels". And God's name is "YHVH Elohim", "Lord of > angels" ("God of gods"). > Elat as i remember is "goddess". In context of judaism it will be a > pagan deity, nothing to do with Holy Spirit and Presence of Divine > (Shekhinah). > > I may add that givem by Mary Ann versions of some verses seem to be > even more incorrect than orthodox translation. > However sometimes we may see greek and latin versions rather than > english. For example, famous prayer of our Saviour says not "give us > our daily bread", but "give us non-material (transcendental, > spiritual) bread". > > God bless U! > > A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 --- Arjuna Taradasa <bhagatirtha wrote: > 93 Shlama! :-) > > First of all, aramaic original of Gospels are lost. > Contemporary > versions of "aramaic N.T." are back translations > from greek and > latin. Beloved, Your statement above is pretty much correct, with one exception. There are NO "aramaic originals" of the gospels. The original gospels were written in Greek. The author's justification for trying to find the aramaic wording of the scripture is not because the scriptures themselves were ever written in Aramaic, but because Jesus would have spoken his sayings in Aramaic. Otherwise, everything you said in your post was correct, including the fact that the author of "the hidden gospel" ends up with less historically accurate phrases than what we find in the greek scripture. Its clear that his goal in this book was to try to present Jesus as a more modern, "new age" philosopher, and he has to make some huge leaps of translation and logic to accomplish that. Love Nisarg Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes./filing.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 Hi: It is true according to the author of The Hidden Gospel that he is attempting to reinterpret Jesus in order to show his messages as modern, and more in line with Middle Eastern spirituality than Western Christianity. Also,that Jesus spoke Aramaic, or Hebrew. But what do you mean "less historically accurate" if the language that was written (Greek) did not account for the different meanings inherent in Aramaic? What is more accurate about leaving out the possible nuanced meanings of the original language? Could there be more of a connection between "aramaic N.T." and Aramaic than Greek and Aramaic? Mary Ann , Swami Anand Nisarg <swamiji_nisarg> wrote: > > --- Arjuna Taradasa <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > 93 Shlama! :-) > > > > First of all, aramaic original of Gospels are lost. > > Contemporary > > versions of "aramaic N.T." are back translations > > from greek and > > latin. > > Beloved, > > Your statement above is pretty much correct, with one > exception. There are NO "aramaic originals" of the > gospels. The original gospels were written in Greek. > The author's justification for trying to find the > aramaic wording of the scripture is not because the > scriptures themselves were ever written in Aramaic, > but because Jesus would have spoken his sayings in > Aramaic. > > Otherwise, everything you said in your post was > correct, including the fact that the author of "the > hidden gospel" ends up with less historically accurate > phrases than what we find in the greek scripture. Its > clear that his goal in this book was to try to present > Jesus as a more modern, "new age" philosopher, and he > has to make some huge leaps of translation and logic > to accomplish that. > > Love > Nisarg > > > > Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. > http://taxes./filing.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 93 Greetings, brother! :-) , Swami Anand Nisarg <swamiji_nisarg> wrote: > Beloved, > > Your statement above is pretty much correct, with one > exception. There are NO "aramaic originals" of the > gospels. I heard from my teacher (who is quiet deep in chrystianity and kabbalah and knows some hebrew and greek) that some of 4 Gospels had aramaic original (not all 4). I'm not sure myself, 'coz i didn't study this matter. I guess that siriac churches must have had Gospels in their own language. Later those were destroyed by so called "orthodox" church after the case with patriarch Nestory. The original gospels were written in Greek. > The author's justification for trying to find the > aramaic wording of the scripture is not because the > scriptures themselves were ever written in Aramaic, > but because Jesus would have spoken his sayings in > Aramaic. This is understandable. Unfortunately, interpretation of that book is intentively incorrect. Meanings of words are twisted just due to author's desire to show Lord J.Ch. as "not more than a teacher of righteousness", that too of some odd new-age pattern LOL. U are right. > Otherwise, everything you said in your post was > correct, including the fact that the author of "the > hidden gospel" ends up with less historically accurate > phrases than what we find in the greek scripture. Interesting enough, english and other western translations of NT are sometimes different from greek original. One example i gave, another one is from Gospel of John: in it's beginning english correct words are "And the Word was TO God" (not "with God"). Its > clear that his goal in this book was to try to present > Jesus as a more modern, "new age" philosopher, and he > has to make some huge leaps of translation and logic > to accomplish that. :-(((. With love and prayer, A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 Beloved Mary Ann, What I mean by less historically accurate is that the author of this book deliberately uses the language to try to make logical leaps, eliminating things jesus said that don't sound "politically correct" to the modern world, and inferring language that it is not reasonable to assume people of that age intended. In short, he takes the language out of the historical context of the times. Further, the author just assumes that the writers of the gospels for some reason chose incorrect greek translations of things Jesus said in aramaic. The authors of these gospels were people who had either known jesus, or known his disciples (with the possible exception of Luke, who only knew Paul, who wasn't a disciple of jesus in the literal sense). It stands to reason that when they were writing in greek, they would have tried to use the best greek words possible to convey what jesus was trying to say. Does this mean they would have been infallibly right? no. Does this mean you can just ignore what they say? no. To understand what the author of the Hidden gospel is doing, imagine it like this: lets say someone in english said: "From Hell's heart, I stab at thee" Someone translates it into spanish as follows: "Desde el corazon del infierno, te meto cuchilladas!" then the author, with only the spanish translation tries to "translate it back" to english: "From an internal organ in a hot low place, i give you knife wounds" Each translation loses more of the original, it goes farther away, not closer! Love Swami --- Mary Ann <maryann wrote: > But what do you mean "less historically accurate" if > the language > that was written (Greek) did not account for the > different meanings > inherent in Aramaic? What is more accurate about > leaving out the > possible nuanced meanings of the original language? > Could there be > more of a connection between "aramaic N.T." and > Aramaic than Greek > and Aramaic? > > Mary Ann Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes./filing.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.