|
We are not all aware that we are not reading the Bible in the
languages and words written by the original writers.
On researching the history of languages and the versions still
available it becomes obvious we are reading translations of late
versions. There are differences in the intermediary versions which
are significant enough to make one wonder what the originals really
said!
What happened to the originals- were they destroyed for doctrinal
reasons because they were not in line with Paul's Christianity,
and may, indeed have been written to counteract it?! It is odd
that we have nothing earlier than the time the church was establishing
the creeds and adopting Paul's teaching as the basis for doctrine.
The versions of the Gospels we have do not actually have Jesus
say he was a substitute sacrifice and came to make the law obsolete
- they have not been altered to put such words into his mouth,
but there are strange anomalies.
There are two genealogies that do not agree, either with each
other or with Chronicles, Matthew 2 v 5 is a reversal of Micah
5v2 in more ways than one! Why? To make him Messiah?
There are virtually no references to Isaiah 53 or the 70 weeks
prophecy at the end of Daniel 9. Why? Christians today talk about
them a great deal as proofs he was Messiah and what he did prophesied.
But there are examples of things Jesus is supposed to have said
that are very much out of line for a practising Jew - especially
a Rabbi! In John ch. 6 he is supposed to have said they must eat
his body and blood when blood is forbidden for Jews. And this after
having said in Matt. 5 and 23 that he did not come to change the
law but to fulfil it and to his disciples that he wanted them to
continue in the teaching of the Pharisees but not to add burdens
to the original as they did.
Jesus did not fulfil the prophecies of Mary, Zachariah and Simeon
quoted by Luke - he did not save Israel from her enemies and establish
the kingdom and sit on the throne of David as the Messiah was expected
to do: so who can blame the Jews for rejecting a man who did not
do what they saw from their scriptures the Messiah should do? But
why are those prophecies there in Luke then - have they been "spiritualised" away?
The early Christians such as the Ebionites only accepted the Gospel
of Matthew, and that without the first three chapters - it began
as Mark does with the ministry of John the Baptist with no explanation
of from where Jesus came.
The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, translated from Shem Tov (see link
for differences) and the Aramaic versions from the Syriac churches
(see below the other versions such as the Khaboris manuscript and
the version translated from the scriptures of the Church of the
East by Victor Alexander) give a different picture of Jesus. If
there are substantial differences in these versions treasured by
those who speak a language much closer to that spoken by Jesus
why have Christians put so much weight on the versions we have
as supposed to be the "word of God" that have been translated
from Greek manuscripts that are from centuries after the events?
Which, if any, resemble the originals?
Maybe Greek had overtaken Aramaic as the lingua franca of the
time, but WHO were these accounts written for - the Jews or the
Gentiles and what would they understand best that the writer would
use? Jesus insisted he came for the lost sheep of the house of
Israel, but Paul was for the gentiles and is said to have written
his letters earlier than the Gospels. So have the original accounts
of what Jesus said and did been changed to make them fit Paul's
teaching? When the Jewish followers of Jesus were seen as another
sect of Judaism why write in Greek for them?
What language did Moses write in and what did Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob speak?
Did the collection we call Genesis have to be translated into
Hebrew because it was not fully formed as a language until about
the time of David, having evolved from Phoenician which came from
the early Canaanite language?
Some say that the books known then were put together and rewritten
then and this explains things such as the mention of "Dan " in
Genesis ch.14 when it did not exist because Dan was not born then,
the addition being a scribes note to help the reader of the day
know the exact place better.
Aramaic also came from the proto-Canaanite, which had come from
Akkadian, which is probably what Abraham spoke. In the early days
the languages were more like dialects so it is likely that Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob and sons could understand ancient Egyptian (another
descendant from Akkadian) and Moses could understand the language
of the Midianites.
As time went on they diverged and evolved further to the extent
that on returning from the exile in Babylonia where a form of Aramaic
was spoken the people of Judah had to have the Hebrew scriptures
explained to them in Aramaic (these explanations were written down
as the Targums.) But some English people would want an interpreter
to understand a person speaking the broad accent of Glasgow in
Scotland!
It is an interesting point that Greek also descended from Phoenician.
The disconcerting thing is that the different versions from different
languages have more than variations in shades of meaning : there
are significance's that are doctrinal
You may find helpful to have your copy of the New testament
to hand from here on.
A trans lation from the Aramaic New Testament of the Assyrian
Church of the East which they claim to be handed down directly
from the Aramaic of the first churches there has been put on
the net by Victor Alexander. These are very similar to what we
have in our versions in the west, but I quote a few examples
where the difference is substantial. A notable change is where
we have " word" or "revelation" or "appearing" he
uses "manifestation" e.g. Luke chapter 1 v 2 "As
such, these doctrines were passed on to us from old by those
who had seen and served his manifestation" This version
also has Zechariah as high priest. In ch. 3 v2 "Under the
religious leadership of Hannah and Caiphas, the manifestation
of God came upon John, son of Zachariah in the wilderness." Luke
ch3 v 14b…"Do not exploit anyone and do not worship
any human being." In this version we have the very interesting
fact that Jesus is called "victorious" where we have "Nazarene" or
of Nazareth. This because in Aramaic "Nussrat" means "victorious" and
also in Hebrew "Yehoshua "(became Jesus in Greek) also
means "victorious "as well as "saviour." This
adds more to the argument that maybe he did not come from Nazareth,
and it may not have existed at that time at all, and there is
no prophecy that he should come from there - indeed it is never
mentioned in the Old testament at all. It is therefore a title,
but not" the branch "either(which is "netzar" in
Hebrew) which often said to be a fulfilment of Isaiah 11.
(The question has to be asked: if this is an original Aramaic
version WHY are the names in the Greek form?)
This version does have Jesus say in ch.23 v 31 "If they do
this to the living branch what will they do to a dead one?"
Another interesting verse is in ch.16 v16 " the law and the
prophets worked until John. From now on the kingdom of God is your
only hope and everyone must struggle to get in".
The differences in the Matthew from the Aramaic translated
by Victor Alexander also include the use of "manifestation" in
the same way as in Luke.
Also : ch. 5 v48 " Be therefore mature people like your Father
in heaven is mature."
In Matt. 17 v 5 and at the transfiguration and ch. 3 v17 "This
is my beloved son, by whom I am fulfilled.."
Matt. 4 v15 in the quote from Isaiah 9 it has ".. the revelation
of God to the nations"
Here Galilee is Galeela in the Aramaic and means a revelation.
We have the connection with Nazareth and victorious (nussrat in
Aramaic) in ch.2 v23 again. "he came and lived in a town called
Nazareth, so that what the prophets had said, came to be fulfilled,
that "victorious "he will be called. So now we have that
Jesus was the prophet of victorious revelation (Nazareth in Galilee)!
In Matt. 27 v 51 it has " And at once the front part of the
temple doors split in two from top to bottom….." not
the veil - in fact does this mean the outer doors not the doors
to the holy of holies? If so that is a blow to the notion that
the death of Christ gave access to the presence of God for all
believers.
In this gospel we have the idea of oblivion after death e.g. Matt.
7 v 13 " Enter through the narrow door for wide is the door
and broad the path that leads to oblivion,…." Also the
idea of some being thrown out into outer darkness is different
e.g. Matt.8 v12 " But the children of the kingdom will go
out gazing at darkness, and there will be crying and gnashing of
teeth."
And again in Matt.22 v13 " then the king said to his servants
tie his hands and feet and eject him out into the dark desert.
There will be crying and gnashing of teeth. Matt. 25 v 30 " And
the idle servant was cast into the dark desert, where there is
wailing and gnashing of teeth."
The versions we have in the west have given the idea that this
is a place of punishment like hell, but its not so in the Aramaic.
Matt. 24 v 5 in Aramaic is clearer than the texts we have and
confirm something I have thought for some time. " For many
will come in my name saying that I am the Messiah, and many will
be misled." Here it seems plain that Jesus is saying he is
not the Messiah and those who say he is will mislead people!
In the translation of John's gospel by Alexander are some
strange variations and differences. Again there is the use of " manifestation " for "word".
So John ch.1 v1-5 reads : "In the beginning of creation there
was the manifestation; and that manifestation was with God; and
God was the embodiment of that manifestation.
This was in the beginning with God. Everything was within his
power, otherwise nothing would ever exist.
Through him was life, and life became the spark of humanity and
that ensuing fire lights the darkness and darkness does not overshadow
it."
Ch. 3 v8 reads "The spirit moves you for the sake of its
own fulfilment and you listen to its voice, except, you do not
know from where it came and where it went. This is how it is with
every human being who is born of the spirit."
Ch.3 v15 "So that every human being that believes in him
does not go to oblivion, except that they might have life everlasting." (What
happened to the idea of hell for unbelievers - oblivion is not
hell. This term is used consistently in these Aramaic gospels.)
Ch. 4 v22. " You worship the things you do not know, we worship
what we know ourselves, that life came from the Jews". (We
have " salvation" instead of life.)
Ch.4 v42b…we have heard and understand, that here, truly,
stands the anointed life-giver of the universe."
Ch.5 v26 &27 " Because as for the Father there is life
through his trinity, so also He has given the son life through
his trinity; and his work is to be also to judge, since his son
was a human being." (There is no mention of "trinity" in
our versions in any gospel. What does this verse do to the understanding
Christians have to the trinity?)
John 6 v53 " And Jesus told them : Amen, amen, I am telling
you that if you do not eat the body of the son of man, and drink
his blood, you cannot receive the triune essences of the living
human being."
Ch. 8 v 58 " Jesus told them: Amen, amen, I am telling you
if Abraham had never been born, I am the one who comes the omnipresent
God!"
Ch.9 v7 " And he said to him: Go and bathe in the baptismal
of apostleship. And the man went and bathed and came back seeing "
Ch11 v11 " These things Jesus told them: Lazarus lies in
our care."
Ch. 11 v 15 "I am glad I was not there, since you will not
believe unless you went there yourselves." Ch 11 v 41 Jesus
addresses God as Creator.
Ch 12 v15 Part of the quote from Zechariah…" behold
your king coming, born carrier of burdens"
Ch13v 8b.."Jesus told him: if I do not wash you, you will
not be beholden to me."
Ch14 v2&3 " my father's abodes are great enough. And
if not I will make them so, whence I go to provide you a country.
And if I go to provide you a country, I will come back again to
settle you with me, that where I come, there too you can be."
Ch19v17 " And he took up his cross to the place called the
skull, but in the Hebrew dialect which is called "the arena
of truth-through-torture"…"
Ch19 v 19….". it was written thus - here is Jesus the
victorious, king of the Jews."
Ch21 end v15.."Jesus said to him: Shepherd my rams."
End of v16"Shepherd my sheep. End of 17 " Shepherd my
ewes."
One thing disconcerting is the use of "showered" for
bathe in ch.13 and putting in the days of the week in the account
of the death and resurrection. These two make this translation
loose some credibility. A foot note at the end of chapter 16 says
that days of the week are numbered up to Friday but Aramaic that
has another name meaning day of preparation, which accounts for
why Alexander has put Friday BUT in Hebrew the name for Friday
is Yom sheeshee, the sixth day. Also, for the Jews there was only
one day a year called " the day of preparation" which
was the day before Passover when all the leaven was removed. Unless
you know on what day of the week that fell in the year of Jesus'
death you cannot say that the day of preparation fell on a Friday.
The letters of John
These as translated by Victor Alexander from the ancient Aramaic
also show a few important differences. E.g. ch.2 v7 " beloved
I am writing no new commandment, except the old commandment, which
you possessed from the beginning of creation . The old commandment
became the manifestation that you heard"
The term antichrist is not used but false messiah instead. Ch.4
v3 says "And every spirit that does not profess that Jesus
came in the flesh is not from God, except this is of the false
messiah, whom you have heard will come, and now he is in the world
already."
Mark's Gospel. The differences are very much as in the
other gospels.
Other of note are:
Ch 9 v22 " And for long periods the spirit casts him in burning
fever and chills in order to destroy him completely…"
V41 " For whoever gives you a cup of water, you are Christians."
V49 " For everyone is seasoned by fire…"
Ch10 v 52 " And Jesus told him: Then see your faith has given
you life"
Ch 12 v 1 …A man planted a vineyard and put a waterway round
it."
Ch12 v 31 "…that you love your best friend as yourself,,"
Ch13 v 25.." and there will be shooting stars.."
Ch 14 v 54.." he sat with the clerics.."
Ch15 v 34 " At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud
voice and said : Eil, Eil, wherefore did you destine me?"
Ch 15 v 38 " The fronts of the temple doors unravelled in
two from top to bottom."
Revelation
Ch 1 v1…".as he sent through his angel his servant John
the Baptist."
V2" Who testified to the manifestation of God, and the testimony
of Jesus Christ, everything he saw."
V4. " May grace be upon you and peace from the One who is
and the One who becomes and the One who comes."
V6 " And makes us a righteous kingdom for God and his Creator,.."
V7b "… And all those who offended him, and they shall
writhe over him, all the generations of the earth."
V9 " I am the John, that brother and associate of yours in
tribulation and patient anticipation of the anointing by Jesus,….."
V12… "and I saw seven minarets of gold.." The use
of the word "minarets" is interesting as it shows a similarity
with the pleural of manorah (the Hebrew candlestick as would have
been in the temple) which is menorot. This would indicate Jewish
congregations are being spoken of and for which John was responsible.
V15 .."feet that resemble Lebanese copper.."
V18…"he who has the keys of death and the netherworld.."
Ch.2 v 1 …….." he who maintains the balance of
the seven minarets of gold."
V 6 " except who have in your favour that you hate the performing
of rituals, as I do."
V 11 " The victor shall not be defiled by the second death."
V17…".The victor shall be nourished by the hidden manna
and shall be given a white tablet and on the tablet a new name
written, that no one knows except the One that consecrates."
V26 " And the victor and protector of my works to the very
end shall have authority over the nations."
Ch.3 v 17 .." but you do not know that you a re confused,
demonic, blind and barren."
Ch 5 v6 " And I saw and behold in the balance of those priests,
a Lamb that stood as though divided….." (In patriarchal
times to cut a covenant was to divide the animal in half, representing
the two participants - see what Abraham did in Genesis)
V8…" his name is death and the netherworld clings to
him."
Ch 6 v6 Here an Aramaic idiom is used that throws some light on
the meaning of this verse which says that the oil and the wine
are not to be measured or treated in the same way as the wheat
and barley or " do not harm or touch them."
Ch 7 v 1 here as in other places in these Aramaic translations
the word wind is not used but "spirit". The Hebrew "ruach" means
the same i.e. both wind and spirit.
Interestingly where we have a list of tribes in this chapter it
is generations in this version.
Ch8
V 9 They are fruit laden palm branches.
V 11 the star is called "Absinthus".
V13 " And I saw an angel that flies in the centre of the
sky, that carries a bloody trail…"
Ch11 v 7 " And when they have concluded their testimony,
and the carnivorous creature that ascends out of the fiery abyss……."
V11 "And after these three and a half days the spirit of
life from God descended into them, and they stood on their legs,
and total paralysis fell over all those who saw them."
Ch 12 v 3 .. and behold a dragon of the great fire…"
Ch12 v 9..that is called the outcast maker and satan."
V14 An alternative in the idiomatic Aramaic which is interesting "She
would be taken care of the duration, except for half the time when
she would be exposed to the serpent."
Ch 13 v 1 …" a demon rising out of the sea…"
V2 " And the demon I saw resembled a tiger and his feet were
like gold, and its mouth like the mouth of lions…."
V3 And one of its heads, as though cut and dying, and from under
its own death it pulled through…"
Ch 14 v 3 " And glorifying the glory of the New Testament……."
V7…"Work for God and give Him glory…." This
again is interesting because in Hebrew " avodah" means
both work and worship.
Ch 16 v14 " For they are the signs of the demon of oblivion…"
Ch 17 v3 " And he took me back to the wilderness spiritually,
and I saw a woman as she sat on a red demon…."
Ch19 v 8 …" for those fine linens are the blessings
of the saints."
V 13 …" and who calls his name the God Manifest."
Ch20 v 6 " …..Over them the recurring death has no authority,
except they shall become high priests of God……"
V14 again where we have "second death" here we have "recurring
death".
Ch 21 v 2 " And I saw the Holy City as it came down from
God, as pleasing as a rightful wife for her husband."
Ch 22 end v2 .." and the leaves of the tree for the wisdom
of the nations."
V16…." And genesis of David, that immaculate star."
The Khaboris Manuscript
This is an ancient Aramaic text which is on the web courtesy of
the Yonan Codex Foundation which has been (as they put it) translated
from the ancient Aramaic with peculiar and pains taking fidelity
to the preservation of the thought patterns, images and concept
peculiar to Aramaic, the native language of Jesus of Nazareth,
and the language in which he delivered his teaching to the world.
Yet, again, the question is: why are the names in the Greek form?
The Hebrew form for Jesus would be Yehoshua, or Yeshua- surely
there must be an Aramaic equivalent?
This text has even greater differences from the one explored above,
both claim to be ancient - so why are they so at variance with
what we have? These are not just slight changes of words used,
as one might expect in another culture, but concepts that rock
the boat of doctrine!
Only selected chapters and verses are on the net whether because
the rest does not exist is not clear.
Note that in this version it comes out that the Aramaic for God
is "Alaha" which is so like "Allah" that it
would mean those who say Muslims do not worship the same God as
the Christians or Jews must be wrong!
Khaboris Matthew
Ch4 "Then Jesus was drawn from rukha d'khoodsha (the state
of being in or with the Holy Spirit) into an unprotected state
for what would be his stress from unrightness."
V3 " Then came his own temptations…"
V5 " Then unrightness carried him to a holy city…."
V8 " Again unrightness carried him…."
Ch5. In this passage where we have "blessed are they.." here
we have " a heavenly attitude is theirs.."
Ch 5 v3 " A heavenly attitude is theirs whose home is in
rukha theirs is a heavenly state"
V7……whose love is without condition, they will therefore
receive unconditional love"
V8…..those without fault in their minds, they will see God(Alaha)"
V9…."while serving the peace of God they will be called
the children of God(Alaha)"
V17"Think not that I came to release ties of the law or its
prophets; I came not to release ties but to add to them!."
V43 " You have heard it said to unconditionally love your
neighbour…"
V48 " Let your love be all inclusive, as that of your Father
in heaven is all inclusive."
Ch 6 v22 The lamp of earthly light is perception. Therefore if
your perception is without fault your whole life shall be enlightened."
V23 " if your perception be evil, your whole life shall be
darkened by it; if the light for you is darkness, how deep will
your darkness become?"
Ch 7 v 6"Do not throw what was divinely intended for man
to dogs, and do not cast your pearls to the swine."
Ch8 v 6 " My Lord, my little boy is in bed at the house.
He is paralysed and suffering grievously."
Ch11 v 30 " For the yoke upon me is pleasant and the burden
on me is light."
Ch17 v 15 "My lord, let your love act upon my son….."
Ch18 v22 " the master enacted love toward his servant…"
V30" in like manner will my Father, who is in heaven, do
unto you if each does not cancel from his mind the wrongs of his
fellow men."
Ch19v6"No longer are they two, but one life. Therefore that
which God has created by combination, man will not set aside."
V12 " For there are the faithful, who from their mothers
womb were born so, and there are the faithful who from men were
given fidelity, and there are the faithful that made themselves
faithful for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."
Ch 20 v5 ….."who can live a perfect life?"
Ch22 " You shall unconditionally love the Lord your God with
your entire mind and with your whole "naphsha" (pages
of teaching about the meaning of "naphsha" are on the
Khaboris Manuscript web site - it seems to encompass more than
the English word "self", but is the whole conscious,
understanding being that makes the person.)and in all your actions
and in all your thoughts."
Khaboris John
Chapter one of John is where the most striking differences occur
in all the Aramaic texts I have seen so far because "word" never
appears in it but "willed action" instead This is significant
because "word" gives the impression of a communication
only, but "willed action "gives the impression of a command
that demands action in response.
The same word in the Aramaic (milta) is used in the conversation
with the rich young ruler in the other gospels, where it means
a commandment.
So John chapter one reads:-
V1 "At the very beginning there was willed action and the
willed action then was by God, and God was that willed action."
V2 "This beginning was by God".
V3 " All was by Him and without Him not a single thing came
into being out of that which was."
V4 "From Him there came into being a perfect life, and this
perfect life became light to all men."
V5 "And this light out of darkness caused light, and darkness
did not overcome."
V6 " There was a man sent by God, and his name was John."
V7 "This one came as a witness who would testify about the
light which every man would believe through him."
V8 " he was not this light, but would testify about the light."
V9 For he was to be the light of complete truth and to cause light
for every man coming into the world." (I must say at this
point that the translator has used a capital H for "he" in
this verse - but as Hebrew and other ancient languages did not
have capitals for names -unless it is obvious as in God and proper
names I think it is best not to presume about the divinity of the
person referred to because has led to misunderstandings.)
V10 " In the world he was and the world was by his hand and
the world did not know him." (This verse seems to be saying
that the world was right next to him, but did not recognise him
- it does not have to mean was made by him.)
V11 " To his own he came and his own did not accept him."
V12. " To those that accepted him he gave power, they shall
be of the children of God, those that wholly trust in his teachings."
V13. "And unto them it came not from blood, not from the
will of the flesh, and not from the will of man, but from God it
came to them."
V14 " And willed action became flesh and dwelt amongst us,
and we saw glory as if begotten of the Father, completely filled
with heavenliness, and righteousness."
V15 " John testified of him, speaking about and saying, this
is the true one, he who, it was said, would come after me,, but
he is the same as was before me, because he was before me."
V16 " From his fullness we all partook, and heavenliness
stood for heavenliness."
V17 " While the law was given through Moses, absolute truth
and heavenliness came through Jesus the anointed."
V18 " Man did not understand God all the time: the begotten
of God, he who was in the embrace of his Father, he has explained
Him."
This version makes it more difficult to say that Jesus was God
and more than a man who came to live a perfect life and explain
the truth of God and the law of Moses in such a way, by words and
example, as to give new light upon it.
Ch 3 v 5 " Truly, truly, I say to you that if a man cannot
cause his birth of water and rukha(spirit), he cannot enter the
kingdom of God."
V13 " No man rises to heaven, except he who descends from
heaven. The son of man; he is part of heaven."
V17 "God did not send His son into the world to condemn people,
but so there would be a perfect life through him."
Ch 4 v 3 " You worship some thing you do not know, we worship
something we do know, that perfect life will come from the Jews." (Here
again we have "perfect life" not " salvation" used.)
Ch14.v 26 " Now that which breaks the effect of sin is rukha
d'koodsha (Holy Spirit), that which my Father will send through
me….."
Ch20 v 3 " After he said this, he inspirited them and said
to them : receive rukha d'koodsha."
We have been taught it is the blood of Jesus that breaks the effect
of sin.
next section : Other writings of interest
|
