Drilling deep

Some experts think that there is a sort of “stratabound I” in Luke’s Gospel and Acts: a kind of more or less distorted fossil voice of the very same Jesus (and/or the first apostles). Most of these experts expect that from the Greek text.
But how about if we try to drill a small but deep borehole through a very ancient Syriac version? Let me remind you that Syriac is a brother language of Aramaic, the most probable mother tongue of Jesus, his mother, his family …
I have employed the kind help of DUKHRANA tool.
Only for your eyes, readers of this blog, here you have my English version from the Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest of Luke 20, verses 37 and 38:
About the dead ones who rise up, Moses had already taught, concerning the talk of God with him in the (burning, it must be supposed) bush that the Lord had said:

God is of Abraham, God is of Isaac, God is of Jacob.

Then, God is not of the dead ones but of the living ones! As all of them are living by means of Him.
And, please, do not let aside the following verse, the 39, that is remarkable although not included in the reading for this 32th Sunday on ordinary time:
The men of the Scriptures (safr, ethymological Semitic root, via Arabic first and then Latin, for the word “cypher”) said tho him: “Teacher! How beautifully (shapir, the root originating the name for a gemstone) you have spoken!”
The exclamation marks are from mine: There are never neither exclamation nor interrogative marks in ancient Syriac manuscripts. And the most of the times there are not even vowels!
But have you caught the game of sounds safr/shapir? That is completely lost in the Greek, Latin and the rest of versions. Perhaps it is even more captivating the meanings game:
Scriptures/beauty
And that is my personal view, that many biblical texts are wildly beautiful from a starting point; that is why they are able to catch minds and harts by its intrinsic “splendor”. After then, philosophy, reflection and so on come. Unfortunately, too many times, manipulation and illusion too.
Advertisements

Magnificat sive magnificata ?

The question came to my mind when remembering the first sentence of the Psalm of Mary in Luke’s Gospel -Luke 1, 46- while meditating the verse 2 (or 3, according to some editions) of the other Psalm 33 (34) that we have read on the 30th Sunday in ordinary time. In my last entry,

https://bibliababel2.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/take-your-prize-mr-dylan/

I have translated the first half of that verse this way:

IN (or with or by) the LORD my soul renews like the moon

Let us put aside for a minute the poetical evocation of the moon and pay attention to the fact that the semantical agent is “the Lord”. In the contrary, according to the Latin Vulgata and the Greek versions, the agent is our Lady -the Virgin Mary- in Luke 1,46. And so, for example, the old KJV translates:

And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

At a first glance it does not seem very humble from the part of the humblest servant of God. That didn´t matter to other translations which more freely say:

My soul praises the greatness of the Lord!” (International Standard Version)

That did not matter to some wise, old commentators either. Origen, the great theologian master from Alexandria in the Antiquity,  exposed brilliantly in his commentary to this verse of Luke, how spiritual greatness of the creature interacts heavily with the greatness of the Creator and contributes to make Him even greater.

But, anyway, this delicate reasoning does not match the Old Testament Psalm: It may be very possible that what Mary and/or the evangelist had in mind was Psalm 33(34). And this point of view does correspond with an alternative translation from a Semitic source, i.e. Peshitta.

As a matter of fact,ܡܘܪܒܐ  may be either an active or a passive participle and the preposition “lam” may also be used -as I think this is the case- to introduce the agent in a passive voice sentence, so my proposed version is:

And Mary said, My soul is magnified by the Lord,

The consequence for musicians and composers of sacred music would not be extremeley severe: Instead of “Magnificat anima mea Dominum”, please, sing “Magnificata anima mea Domino“.

Take your prize, Mr. Dylan

Please, don’t be shy. It is not only that you deserve it:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/bob-dylan-troubadour/

It is also because you represent the ensemble of songwriters-singers from other places and other times who have been able to make us taste the flavour of beauty and art and live unforgettable emotions: Homer, the anonymous medieval wandering singers, Joan Manuel Serrat, Víctor Jara …

For example, several millennia ago there were already talented songwriters-singers, psalmists, whose songs are still song but with a different melody and, sometimes, also with some changes in the original meaning of its lyrics. In order to recreate the emotions of those ancient creations -that are both past and ageless- I would like to do a little piece of restoration from a text to be read on this 30th Sunday in ordinary time: Psalm 33(or 34 in some traditions), verse 2 (or  3 according to editions that count the introduction itself as verse 1). My starting point are the consonants of the masoretic text and according to them, here it is my proposal:

IN (or with or by) the LORD my soul renews like the moon.

They listen humbly and rejoice.

Is this version more poetic than that one of your bibles? As a comparison, here it is KJV:

I will boast in the LORD; the humble will hear and be glad.

At least, my version is less “boasting”. But where on earth does the moon come from? I can see it into the Semitic root הלל which is related to the semantic field of the “new moon”. We can also find the verb  تهلل in modern Arabic today. It means “being very happy” and it has the very same Semitic root, linked to the concept of “new moon”.

Concerning the “humble“, the term is in the original Hebrew in plural masculine without article or any other mark that can make it a grammatical subject of the sentence. So, my option has been to consider that word with an adverbial function and to suppose an omitted subject, they, derived from the conjugation of the verb “to listen”.

By the way, what is not easy to translate is the phonetic parallelism between “to listen” שמע and “to rejoice”שמח .

The beginnig of the verse is marked by the preposition ב, simple and humble, which is also found just at the beginning of the Bible as a whole:

In the beginning”, or “for beginning”, or even “Let’s begin: God created”, bla, bla …

It is a very typical Semitic preposition and extremely employed in Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic and even in classical Ethyopic (Ge’ez):

http://classicalethiopic.blogspot.com.es/search?updated-min=2011-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2011-11-02T04:30:00-07:00&max-results=15&start=6&by-date=false

The word “b” is all over identic but the writing of the letter, of course, changes. For example, if you want to write it in Arabic, please, look at:

Questions about so many questions.

When looking at the translations of Peshitta by  John Wesley Etheridge and his illustrious colleagues I feel the deep respect that must be due to these pioneers but I sometimes ask myself: “Why on earth have they employed so many interrogation marks?”. These signs did not exist in ancient, original manuscripts. So, my personal translation politics is not to use the interrogative meaning but exceptionally , when there is a clear grammatical trace pointing to a manifest question.

For example, let us look at the last two verses of the gospel for this 29th Sunday in ordinary time. I can translate Luke 18, 7 and 8 without questions and find new nuances:

God satisfies -it is not strange- the demands of his chosen ones that are calling Him by day and night. God will be generous of spirit with them. I tell you: He will care for what they are asking for and quickly, but the Son of Man is coming and I wish that he could find over the earth (people that have) trust.

Some explanations about this translation of mine: “generous of spirit” is an attempt to keep something of the original Semitic idiom that actually means “to be patient“. On the other hand, I have supposed that the particle ܟܝ gives an optative mode to the verb “to find“.

Last but not least, I should remind that the expression related to “trust” is usually translated as “faith” but, as a matter of fact, it is a mixed concept that also contains hope, readiness and more things: Please look at one of the dictionaries of our favourite website: http://www.dukhrana.com/lexicon/Brockelmann/page.php?p=175

 ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐhas indeed the same root of this international word: AMEN!

From mules to aliens

There are biblical subjects that we can not understand because they became obsolete. For example, on technological grounds, animal means of transport are not usual nowadays and so we have not any more the same degree biodiversity  among domestic animals than in ancient times. I intend to show now an instance of misunderstandings that translators try to dissimulate with defective expressions that sometimes look like enigmatic but that, in fact, are no more than mistranslations.

Let us look at our first text to read on this 28th Sunday on ordinary time. In 2Kings 5,17 … What on earth does Na’aman want to do with the earth? Nothing! The translation should be:

Not a single load of two mules (mules for working the earth) has been delivered by your servant, so your servant will not now make offerings or sacrifices to other gods but to the Lord (YHWH)”

Some keys for this translation from the Hebrew masoretic text:

-the sequence of nouns “load-couple-mules-earth” indicate that “earth” is a semantic determinant for “mules”, the substantive which is just before and has not to do with “load”, which is rather far in the ordered sequence of nouns;

-Na’aman shows himself very humble: not only he speaks of himself as a “servant” of the “man of God” -i.e. the prophet Elisha- but he employs an expression in the passive voice where he is the agent.

This translation has also the virtue of underlining clearly both the generosity of the prophet (he does not accept any gift , “benediction” says verbatim the Hebrew text) and the firm purpose of the stranger in order to change his cultic habits.

Conversely, now let us go into the Luke gospel, a text to read also on this Sunday, where the other prophet, Jesus, is throwing us towards an ideal future world where we will see how foreigners are included into our same people. At least if we take Luke 17:18 of Syriac Peshitta as the departure text. My proposed translation would be:

No one of them came to praise God but this one of the people; he, a foreigner.”

So according to this other prophet, the “foreigner” is not completely a foreigner, as he is one of the “people”, of עם or of ܥܡ, if you prefer the Syriac typing, word that in every case means “the group of people that is related to YHWH” if we pay attention to the use of this term in the Pentateuch, specially in Exodus.

My proposed moral: the Bible may be seen also as a time machine; we can find in it either extinguished varieties of animals or utopic futures with better integration among varieties of human beings.

A complex cocktail

That is the text of our first reading for this 27th Sunday in ordinary time. The  Habakkuk’s  book has itself a high level of complexity linked to its antiquity. That implies also the existence of several traditions of translation: Neither the  Latin Vulgata, nor the Greek Septuaginta, nor the Hebrew Masoretic text, nor the Syriac Peshitta coincide among themselves for the meaning of verse 2,4, the last verse in the selected reading for today. Even if you take two English modern translations you will hardly find the common leitmotiv, specially in the first half of the verse.

If we retain the standard Masoretic text , one important reason for this divergence is that the subject of the sentence is omitted. That is why the verse 4,2 may be put in connection either with the preceding text, or with  what follows, or just be considered as an isolated proverb criticising some kinds of behaviour (this last option is the way that probably follows the Septuaginta).

My personal view is that the subject of the first half of the verse has to do with the previous vision or prophecy  or, more precisely, its recording on tabletts (of clay, I suppose, as the most frequent support for information in ancient Middle East). Consequently, dear readers of this blog, only for your eyes, here is my proposal:

It (the recording of the prophetic message) will excite and not please to the spirit

of a righteous person, but he (or she, the righteous man or woman) will live by virtue of the confidence on it (the message).

As you can see, pronouns in any language (either Hebrew or English) may be used as a sort of “wild card” and that lets us find new meanings in the sentence. In particular, this translation of mine has made me remember the concept about prophetic messages as usually having two “flavours” just like that story in Rev 10,9-10:

And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, “Give me the little book”. And he said unto me, “Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.” And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.  (KJV)

By the way, the concepts of “right”, “justice” and so on are not completely on the same signification level as the corresponding Semitic words with the root Sdq צדק

If you can read Spanish, please, look at this article for explanation

http://www.mercaba.org/SANLUIS/CUADERNOS_BIBLICOS/105%20La%20justicia%20en%20el%20antiguo%20testamento%20(GERAD%20WERKINDERE)

specially in page 17. But we will speak over that very same point here, in this blog… another day, if God  and/or nature wish(es) so.

Nobody takes care of Lazarus

Not even the very evangelist, as he describes Lazarus as a passive, dumb character: no feelings or thoughts has Lazarus but hunger and his empty stomach. He is just the model of the poor ones we have also today next to us;  we often do not know what they think or feel because they can not even type with a keyboard, as I’m doing now, and express themselves.

However, dogs do want him. Some believe that dogs come and compete against him for the crumbs. On the contrary, I think more positively on the base of the symbolic value of dogs in the ancient Mesopotamia and in the hellenistic world. For example: Professor Charpin tells us (in French), the dog was the typical pet of the goddess Gula, the doctor goddess. Please, look at the video from minute 6 on:

http://www.college-de-france.fr/site/dominique-charpin/course-2014-11-26-14h30.htm

No problem if you cannot understand French. Professor Charpin shows a quite pretty parade of ancient art describing the association between dog licking and skin therapies. Yes, these cute pets were a natural medicament against some dermatological diseases. So, Lazarus could enjoy a dogs love at least.

What is quite clear from the Evangelist is the forename of the poor one. It is a key name meaning “God (in Semitic, El, from this term is derived the Arabic Allah ) has helped.” Following those rules on evolution for phonetic sounds -so well known by philologists- El ‘azar became  Lazar in Syriac and then Lazarus, in Latin.

Perhaps that is why the rich man from the other world asks -without any success- for help from Lazarus: because the name  of the poor one implies “God’s help“.

So, what about looking after the poor without waiting for our underworld tour?

Very ancient traces

The epistle of this 25th Sunday in ordinary time cites-according to experts- the refrain of an old hymn or formula of faith in verses 5 to 6a of  1Ti 2. A kind of ride by the time machine towards the era of the first Jesus communities. As a matter of fact, verses 3 to 6a are very dense: it redirects to high-level theology .  But that is just not the subject of this blog. Let’s better embark on a little   tour  with words, a sort of handycraft with language.

Most known modern translations employ sensitive words: saviour, redemption … I would better suggest coming back to some of the very origins: for exemple,  to the standard version  of the Bible in Syriac, called Peshitta, offered to all us thanks to DUKHRANA tool http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/

It is worthy reminding that Syriac is an ancient Semitic language, very next to the possible mother tongue of Jesus, a kind of Aramaic dialect. In our selected fragment, we find a recurrent Syriac lexical root: ܚܝܐ which means LIFE.  By the way, this root is just the same also in Hebrew, Arabic, classical Ethiopic and so on -of course, changing the usual letters for  each one of every language-.

Obviously, the persistence of this root with meaning of “life” does not imply that soteriology (a theological branch that deals with the concept of “salvation”) could be minimized to the rank of a reflection about life. Nevertheless, (good) life is an aspect closely related to salvation. If we would stay among gourmets, it would be said  that rice is to paella (a Spanish receipt) what life means to salvation.

Here is my own versión-specially for your eyes- of 1Ti 2, 3-6a:

“This (prayers, thankgivings, etc, mentioned in previous verses)  is beautiful and acceptable to God, who gives life (it is employed a kind of active participle of a verb with a lexical content next to “giving life “). He wants all human beings to live (again, the same root) and to pay attention to the knowledge of the truth.

One is God,
one is the mediator of God and of the human beings:
Jesus, the man, the Messiah.
He is himself the one who gives ransom in favour to everybody.”

It remains a high density text but I think  that, somehow, we simplify the equation. If you desire so, classical translations to compare with may be also found in the mentioned website of DUKHRANA.

And a last comment: experts in liturgy cut the reading of the Biblical text just in verse 8. Personally, I find it better that way, because if not, then some specific advice for ladies comes next and, nowadays, perhaps this precise piece of advice may be considered not always politically correct. Although from a certain point of view, some of these recommendations can also be regarded as “unisex” as far as some gentlemen could exercise some more austerity too.

Have a nice Sunday-

OVS of the Bible

The aim of this blog is “ruminating” the Bible according to its original version in Semitic languages: Hebrew, Syriac, Aramaic …

New technological tools (hypertext, language learning methodologies, automatic grammatical analysis) help us to taste the flavour of  the biblical texts in original languages. In 15th century there was a change of paradigm in biblical readings. Something analogous is to come due to nowadays supports and software of information.

The result of that biblical tasting will bring happiness to the believer because she/he will find reasons to thank God for having received surprisingly undeserved gifts, but the unbeliever will bring too at any case the award of having enjoyed good literature. Remember, please, professor Frye: http://heritage.utoronto.ca/northropfryelectures

And as the movement is demonstrated by walking, let’s go into the first reading of this 25th Sunday in Ordinary Time: prophet Amos. As a matter of fact, in a certain way, Amos sounds like “Laudato sì”. However our experts in liturgy have cut, abruptly, in verse 7 just when a thrilling apocalypse begins.

I guess the reason for not including the verse 8 in our Sunday reading is that there are some “scars” suffered by the text of this verse during its long, ancient transmission to us. One of these “scars” is that one related with the appearance of a “light” on the standard Masoretic text which became a “river” in other authoritative versions (Greek LXX, Syriac Peshitta and others). Another possible scar is a verb that is not understandable because perhaps it was a very old copyist error, so old that the Jewish sages have not considered reverent to correct it. So, they inserted in the margin a MASORETIC note (Qere, reading) in order to keep the traditional -possibly wrong- way of writing, but indicating the understandable way to read the word.

However, the problem I find is related to modern translations of verse 7. This verse can be translated not like as we have in our bibles, but in a quite another way if the Hebrew connector  אִם is taken  like an “if” (conditional) or a “but”. It’s just the way followed by our old  medieval Castilian masters on translation. Please, take the pleasure of visiting the glorious internet pages of corpus “Biblia Medieval” http://corpus.bibliamedieval.es/

No problem if you are not fluent in old Castilian. Here you have my own version:

7 The Lord has sworn by the glory of Jacob:

“If I would forget forever all of their misdeeds …

And with the truncation, the sentence remains suspended. We should better continue

will the earth then not rise against that,

leaving in mourning all of its inhabitants? “.

The whole of it will rise like a lightning

becoming dragged and flooded

as if it were the Nile of Egypt!

9 In that day it shall come to happen the things that YHWH the Lord announced …

(And a series of God caused apocalyptic cataclysms follows with the narrative)

All of this makes me remind strongly this Jesus’ wording: “I tell you that if they remain silent, then the stones will cry” (Lk 19:40). I think that Amos’ text has a kind of rethoric in which, if God and / or humans would remain inactive against injustice, then the Creation itself could react. It looks like as if creatures, even without conscience or reason, would have its own code.

I hope you may have enjoyed this very first entry of my blog. Let me tell you that if you can read Spanish, the “brother” blog of this site is freely  offered to you in https://bibliababel.wordpress.com/

 I do wait for your corrections and comments. Have a happy autumn!