sophiaserpentia | (no subject)

"Eli, Eli, lmana sabachthani" are reported as words spoken by Jesus shortly before he died. This phrase apparently had great meaning to the early Christians, and was even used by some as a 'phrase of power' in Christian spellcasting (as demonstrated by several spell fragments presented in Meyer and Smith's Ancient Christian Magic).

The most common interpretation of this phrase is that it is a quote from Psalm 22. Noted scholar George Lamsa, an expert on the Aramaic language, has a different opinion.

On p. 103 of Idioms in the Bible Explained, and A Key to the Original Gospel, he writes,

It... seems probable that the later writers did not agree on its exact meaning when they translated [the sayings of Jesus] into Greek. This term even at present is only used by the Aramaic-speaking people in Assyria, the same language which the Galileans spoke at the time of our Lord. This phrase in Aramaic means, "My God, my God, for this I was kept" (this was my destiny -- I was born for this).

Jesus did not quote the Psalms. If He had He would have said these words in Hebrew instead of Aramaic, and if He had translated them from Hebrew He would have used the Aramaic word "nashatani," which means, "forsaken me," instead of the word "shabacktani," which in this case means, "kept me." ...

... These words... even today are used by Assyrians when they suffer and die unjustly. Instead of complaint and dissatisfaction, they leave everything to God. They believe that it is God's desire that they should pass through such experiences.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

That's really interesting. I wish I could find some good books on translations from the Aramaic language that Jesus spoke. It seems that so much of the Bible has been misinterpreted. Is George Lamsa a good author to check into?

I don't agree with everything George Lamsa wrote, but he seems like a knowledgeable source. He published a translation of the Bible from the Peshitta (Aramaic version) though I have not purchased this yet.

Another author who I want to look into more is Rocco Errico, who has written a few books with a similar approach.

I have personally found the works of Neil Douglas-Klotz to be very illuminating in the area of approaching the teachings of Jesus from the Aramaic -- especially The Hidden Gospel, which I've quoted from a few times in my journal:

http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=sophiaserpentia&itemid=340

http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=sophiaserpentia&itemid=14451

http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=sophiaserpentia&itemid=26967

http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=nonduality&itemid=49316

Fascinating - thank you!

You're welcome!

That is such a haunting cry of Jesus. It's hard to put into words how it makes me feel. I just want to hug him, hold him and take away the pain. Sometimes I feel the same way and feel like I'm crying the same cry.

The mention of particular sources in this thread, Lamsa and Douglas-Klotz, highlights something that I think is very important when going about studies like this .. that ist the effect of bias. Everyone has bias, anyone who denies this is lying, either to themselves or to you. Since we cannot eliminate bias, the best we can do is recognize it, and I think that one of the ways to spot the good scholars is by how honest they are about their bias, which is often little more than their background or primary area of study.

For example, my background is in architecture. I understand history, art and even philosophy in terms of where they connect to architecture. These connections are a big deal to me because of how important architecture is to me and simply because of how much I know about architecture and its history; however, while the connection and insight may be of great imortance to me, the real connection and impact is usually far less strong.

Even with good scholars, I expect the same. Look at Crossan and cross-cultural anthropology, or Borg and reinterpretation of normalcy. The same I also expect of Lamsa and Douglas-Klotz. The Peschitta is a 5th c. translation of the Septuagint into Aramaic, but not the Aramaic of Jesus's time, but rather Late Aramaic which supplanted it around the year 200. Our enthusiasm for the insights given by a closer look at the Peschitta must be tempered by the fact that it is similar, but not the same language as Jesus, that it is a redaction of the Greek that we already have by an area of Christendom known for Nestorianism, Monophysitism and Adoptionism. Likewise, the insights of Douglas-Klotz must be considered in light of his background in a gnostic-leaning tradition of Islam.

Though it may seems otherwise, this is not meant to discredit these sources, merely to offer an observation on perspective. There is an old saying, when all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. We rarely find what is actually there, but rather .. we find what we are looking for.

I agree that it is always a good idea to keep bias in mind -- in fact one cannot really think critically if one overlooks this. It might arguably be *more* important to seek for bias when examining the work of scholars, because they are more likely than laypeople to be radical, and are better versed in hiding their bias from easy detection -- except where they have a stated agenda.

For the record Douglas-Klotz never hides the fact that the Peshitta is a retranslation from the Greek into Aramaic. So I am not unaware of that. This presents a danger that has to be considered -- whether this fact alone is enough to completely discredit their work. I consider that an issue of conscience and cannot fault someone if they conclude that yes, that is an obstacle they cannot get past.

As it is the oldest complete copies we have of the gospels are from c. 200 AD (though we have fragments much older) so in the larger scheme any position we take involves a leap of faith in the accuracy of existing records.

I personally find the internal consistency and spiritual resonance of Lamsa's and Douglas-Klotz's work to be compelling enough to overcome this. A theory that is off-base, it seems to me, would demonstrate a fundamental lack of internal consistency, or would lack spiritual resonance.

It might arguably be *more* important to seek for bias when examining the work of scholars, because they are more likely than laypeople to be radical, and are better versed in hiding their bias from easy detection

This is an astute observation. Looking back on the way that I treat sources, I realize that I do seek first for how they are presenting their arguments, then what the arguments are, but I had not really consicously noticed the degree to which I was doing it.

This presents a danger that has to be considered -- whether this fact alone is enough to completely discredit their work.

I don't think it discredits. When looking at the Peschitta, I think we should simply apply the same examination of bias. The New Testament contains history, but it also largely apologetics. A group translating such a work would also produce an apologetic, somewhat unifying the varying apologetic viewpoints into one. This can be *very* clearly seen in the other translations we have of scripture, the Vulgate, the Septuagint, the KJV, the NIV, even the Scholars Version found in The Complete Gospels, which I am so enamored of, contains apologetic. Then of course, we are looking at another translation of that, so another layer of bias to examine.

I personally find the internal consistency and spiritual resonance of Lamsa's and Douglas-Klotz's work to be compelling enough to overcome this. A theory that is off-base, it seems to me, would demonstrate a fundamental lack of internal consistency, or would lack spiritual resonance.

With the above in mind, the unified, consistant character of the examination could be (partly) the result of that process of translation. In reality, considering the varied source nature of the material, I find an overly consistant representation to be a mark of an off-base, more biased approach, and overly neat explanations and theories suspect. Rather, one that reveals the seams and occasional fractures in perpsective and interpretation between books and even within books - whether canonical or extra-canonical - demonstrates a more accurate picture in my mind.

However, the spiritual resonance is another matter. This is perhaps more than I had intended to get into, but a interesting thought. The early Christians were typically not scribes, not scholars, not apologists, not exegesists. The experience of the ancient church is just that, experience and the works left by the scholars, by the scribes, by the apologists, by the exegesists, only give us a partial picture. Religion was more than just an exercise of the mind and beliefs, more than just and intellectual exercise, it was a way of life, as much, if not more, practice as praxis. I think this is in large part why we are able to see different theological positions co-existing as they did - why Nestorius was not considered a heretic, even though the Nestorians were. They all resonated with the same truth, but circumstances had shaped the sound differently. Different perspecitves of the same view, all inspired by that view, even Inspired by it, but in their finite nature unable to fully express such an infinite. The resonance will occur when the ideas, the praxis, find their places in our own experience, the practice.

Wow.
Wow.
And then some.
Having just recently accepted certain elements of my destiny, all I can say is that this hit me like a bolt to the back of the head and I will be meditating on it tonight and in all probability for many years to come.

This is from a dear soul-sister of mine who is well versed in Sanskrit. She shares: In Ancient Sanskrit what he said was: Now I Immerse Myself in the Glory of Your Oneness.

Either version give me goose bumps and resonate well in me.

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

bias

Re: bias

Re: bias

no subject

late to the thread...