Why the Literal versus the Idiomatic Controversy?

It all has to do with denying that Eashoa is the Milta of Allaha (the Manifestation of God -- that He is literally God in the Flesh.)

When I first started translating the Bible, I was trying to show that my translation was more accurate than all the others, so I began by adding footnotes, indicating the literal wordings of expressions, the literal translations of certain critical words (especially the ones that were not translated the same way by the different churches,) and I also added commentaries to explain my choices. All this effort did not help. Some people said that I was not providing a literal translation -- that it was an 'interpretive' translation! Others said that my translation was archaic -- in other words I was staying too close to the literal wordings of the Scriptures in the original Ancient Tongue (Leeshana Ateeqa) or the Ancient Aramaic.

I tried to make sense of all this criticism, because I wanted to do a good job of translation.

In regards to all this, only the Ancient Aramaic is literal. Greek cannot be literal, because Eashoa (Jesus) did not speak Greek and what He said literally cannot be recorded in the Greek language; it is going to be an interpretation of what He said -- even if the New Testament were originated in Greek!

Only the Ancient Aramaic -- what Eashoa said in His own native tongue -- can be literally what He said. In Greek, Latin, English, and all the other languages, the New Testament is always going to be idiomatic!

Therefore, my translations are also idiomatic -- even when I'm providing thousands of footnotes indicating the literal wordings. Even the literal wordings are translations, but I provide some explanation of what are the alternative meanings of these words, so the reader can discern what possible nuances may have been missed in translation.

All this did not help; therefore, this note.

Why do the Western Churches insist that the New Testament was originated in Greek? And why do the modern Hebrew theologians prefer translating their Scriptures from the Greek Septuagint?

It is to deny that Eashoa is the Milta of Allaha. That not only He was the Msheekha (Messiah) prophesied by the Scriptures, but that He was the personification of the Father and the Creator of the Universe -- the Creator who said 'let there be light' and there was Light, the Light of the Universe that shines on everything and reveals the existence of everything. Eashoa is the Light of the World. He is that Light that Maryah Allaha commanded that created the world and everything in it, and He gave it all to His Son -- Bara d'Allaha: 'bara' light; 'bara' son -- the same word in consonants (Ancient Aramaic is written in consonants only, with the vowels supplied on reading, and therefore the intended multiple pronunciations and meanings.)

When the Bible is interpreted from the Greek Original, the Latin Vulgate and their offshoots, it is possible to change the meaning of every word to suit the purpose of the interpreter. Therefore, the word 'son' could mean that Jesus was all human, half human and half God, or all God. All interpretations are possible in the Greek, Latin and English. All the other translations follow the modern English interpretations nowadays, with some exceptions.

These are the German language Bibles and their Lutheran branches in Scandinavia, some Eastern Churches and Orthodox Churches (ironically including the Greek Orthodox Church, which sided with the Church of the East on doctrine), and some of the other Churches, such as the Armenian, which uses its own language and has its own Apostolic Bible. Also, the Ethiopian and Coptic Churches have their own interpretations and some additional Books. As for the Chaldeans and the Maronites, they are aligned with the Roman Catholic Church, therefore they do not offer different interpretations, even though they still preserve the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures, but only as liturgical texts. There are other Eastern Churches, too many to mention, but all with their own interpretations.

All these different Churches and interpretations prevent the emergence of the authentic Scriptures in the original language: the language Eashoa Msheekha spoke and read the Scriptures from, the Leeshana Ateeqah (the Ancient Tongue,) the sacred, scribal language of the Scriptures: the Leeshana Supprayah (Scribal Language or the Ancient Aramaic.)

Eashoa said to the Samaritan Woman at the Well, "Innanah" or "It is I." According to my interpretation, He said, "I am that I am." He is the Milta of Allaha, (the Manifestation of God.) The only way to misinterpret that is to insist that the New Testament was originated in Greek. Then the interpretation of those words in John 4:26 can be altered to mean something less than who Eashoa is, namely the Milta of Allaha (God in the Flesh.) The interpretation that Jesus is God in the Flesh can also be made from the Greek, but it cannot be proven based on the actual Greek text or its derivatives. Only in the Ancient Aramaic the words of Eashoa Msheekha as the Milta of Allaha can be clearly discerned.

Why did Thomas Jefferson take the blade to the Bible and remove the story of Lazarus being raised from the dead?

For the same reason: so as to deny that Eashoa was the Milta of Allaha, that He was God in the Flesh, that He could raise the dead and impart life everlasting to whomever He pleased.

Moreover, Thomas Jefferson could now justify his 'separation of church and state mandate' -- which has been treated as law, even though it is nowhere in the US Constitution. (In the US, the Christian Faith cannot be protected by the state; only the right to worship or religious freedom can be protected.) This edict has helped the Christians in the US to come up with a myriad of interpretations of the Bible. When the State is not the 'protector of the faith,' then the various denominations can exercise their own freedom in the interpretation of the Bible. This is another reason why the Christians in the US have resorted to the claim that the New Testament was originated in Greek, and in this way they have been able to invent their own 'literal' interpretations of the Bible. American Christian preachers are often heard saying, 'in the literal Greek' this word and that expression means this!

There is no such thing as 'literal Greek' with respect to what Eashoa Msheekha said. There is no 'literal interpretation' except for the one that can be made from what Eashoa said and the Disciples recorded in the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures -- it is all 'idiomatic.'

July 15, 2014

AAC Index | Aramaic Bible Index