It has been another interesting day in the world of Aramaic Studies. Hopping around Yahoo Answers, I came across a link to a webpage that had a number of really... 'interesting' translations of the Lord's Prayer from "the original Aramaic." This gave me so much of a headache that I had to come here and discuss it so that those who are fortunate enough to come across this blog know what to look out for and what not to trust.
The following is only for academic purposes. Let it be known up front I do not endorse these translations by any means as academic or true to any known Aramaic text. With that said... here is what I came across:
Exhibit 1: Spurious
The Prayer To Our Father
(in the original Aramaic)
Abwûn
"Oh Thou, from whom the breath of life comes,
d'bwaschmâja
who fills all realms of sound, light and vibration.
Nethkâdasch schmach
May Your light be experienced in my utmost holiest.
Têtê malkuthach.
Your Heavenly Domain approaches.
Nehwê tzevjânach aikâna d'bwaschmâja af b'arha.
Let Your will come true - in the universe (all that vibrates)
just as on earth (that is material and dense).
Hawvlân lachma d'sûnkanân jaomâna.
Give us wisdom (understanding, assistance) for our daily need,
Waschboklân chaubên wachtahên aikâna
daf chnân schwoken l'chaijabên.
detach the fetters of faults that bind us, (karma)
like we let go the guilt of others.
Wela tachlân l'nesjuna
Let us not be lost in superficial things (materialism, common temptations),
ela patzân min bischa.
but let us be freed from that what keeps us off from our true purpose.
Metol dilachie malkutha wahaila wateschbuchta l'ahlâm almîn.
From You comes the all-working will, the lively strength to act,
the song that beautifies all and renews itself from age to age.
Sealed in trust, faith and truth.
(I confirm with my entire being)
Exhibit 2: More Spurious
Lords Prayer Translated from Aramaic
A Translation of "Our Father" directly from Aramaic into English
O cosmic Birther of all radiance and vibration. Soften the ground of our being and carve out a space within us where your Presence can abide.
Fill us with your creativity so that we may be empowered to bear the fruit of your mission.
Let each of our actions bear fruit in accordance with our desire.
Endow us with the wisdom to produce and share what each being needs to grow and flourish.
Untie the tangled threads of destiny that bind us, as we release others from the entanglement of past mistakes.
Do not let us be seduced by that which would divert us from our true purpose, but illuminate the opportunities of the present moment.
For you are the ground and the fruitful vision, the birth, power and fulfillment, as all is gathered and made whole once again.
Exhibit 3: Neil-Douglas Klotz's "Translation"
Lords Prayer, from the original Aramaic
Translation by Neil Douglas-Klotz in Prayers of the CosmosO Birther! Father- Mother of the Cosmos
Focus your light within us - make it useful.
Create your reign of unity now-
through our fiery hearts and willing hands
Help us love beyond our ideals
and sprout acts of compassion for all creatures.
Animate the earth within us: we then
feel the Wisdom underneath supporting all.
Untangle the knots within
so that we can mend our hearts' simple ties to each other.
Don't let surface things delude us,
But free us from what holds us back from our true purpose.
Out of you, the astonishing fire,
Returning light and sound to the cosmos.
Amen.
Exhibit 4: G.J.R. Ouseley's "Translation"
Lords Prayer, from Aramaic into Old English
Translation by G.J.R. Ouseley from The Gospel of the Holy Twelve
Our Father-Mother Who art above and within:
Hallowed be Thy Name in twofold Trinity.
In Wisdom, Love and Equity Thy Kingdom come to all.
Thy will be done, As in Heaven so in Earth.
Give us day by day to partake of Thy holy Bread, and the fruit of the living Vine.
As Thou dost forgive us our trespasses, so may we forgive others who trespass against us.
Shew upon us Thy goodness, that to others we may shew the same.
In the hour of temptation, deliver us from evil.
Amun.
What do all of these "Translations" have in common? They exploit (whether intentionally or unintentionally) the unfortunate fact that the general public knows little to nothing about the language. From a scholarly standpoint, these translations have about as much in common as actual Svenska has to the cute and inane babblings of a certain loveable Muppet.
For the record, let it be known that I have absolutely no problem with mysticism and I find it a valid expression of religion. I do, however, have a problem with mistaken claims, regardless of their source. As such, I find these interpretations particularly upsetting but, if you take a step back, they are understandable from their authors' points of view.
The point of mysticism (as I've come to see it) is to actively seek out direct experience with the divine. As these interpretations are rendered, I believe that we can greatly understand their authors' religious experience and conceptions of God and the cosmos. However, when working with a language in translation, a translator must try their best to shed their undue biases and attempt to convey a plain meaning of the text in question rather than the meaning that they imply, impose or wish to interpret into.
This truly has made religious texts a can of worms for translators, from ancient times to present as religious texts are what people look into to find inspiration for daily life, help in times of need, a sense of identity, and (most importantly) the divine. There are so many expectations, emotions, and theological implications that things can get clouded, and at many times heated (think of the King James Version Only Movement or the New World Translation).
It's enough to give you a headache. :-)
What Does the Prayer Actually Say?
I suppose that it's the next logical thing to ask. :-) Before we can answer that question, however, we first need to ask, "Which 'Original' Aramaic Lord's Prayer are we talking about?"
There are, unfortunately, several Aramaic versions that exist historically. By far the most famous is the one found in the Syriac Peshitta. Generally when someone refers to the "Original Aramaic" they're talking about this one. A wonderful recording of it was done by SAVAE (the San Antonio Vocal Arts Ensemble) and it can be found here (it's #3 on the list and rather pretty; also notice that they've fallen to the interpretation by Neil Douglas-Klotz as shown above. I've contacted them about it over the past number of years since the Ancient Echoes CD came out, but they haven't done a thing about it after numerous conversations via email... ~sigh~).
Next is the version found in the Old Syriac Gospels (OS), a set of two manuscripts (the Sinaitic Palimpsest and the Curetonian texts) that are written in an older dialect of Syriac than the Peshitta and are generally believed to be what the Peshitta was redacted from at a later date (how much and in what manner is up to debate, but it is generally believed that the Peshitta came from the OS being edited to match the Greek tradition at the time). The Prayer as found in the OS is in a slightly different order and very slightly different wording (even between manuscripts); however, these differences are nothing much more than one would find between two modern Bible translations. They basically say the same thing.
The Translation
Below I've included a transliteration of the Lord's Prayer from the Syriac Peshitta with my own translation and notes. I've tried to break things down word by word to clear up any misconceptions, questions or naysaying. This isn't a perfect translation, as no translation is, but I believe that it does a better job outlining things in a more or less comprehensive fashion:
Notes on transliteration below:
- v = "v" made with both lips
- dh = "th" as in "this"
- kh = "ch" as in "Bach"
- q = a hard "k" in the back of the throat
- th = "th" as in "three"
- sh = "sh" as in "shoe"
- ` = a hard "uh" in the back of the throat
- ' = a glottal stop; separate the sounds
- - = just a separation between grammatical structures for understanding. It doesn't affect pronounciation.
- The vowels are only most-likely examples as they vary greatly between dialects, but will follow the general pattern I've outlined.
Abwun dvashmaya
(Our father who is in heaven.)
abwun = our Father
d-va-shmaya = of whom/which - in - heaven
Nethqadash shmakh
(May your name be holy.)
nethqadash = will be holy
shmakh = your name
Note: The imperfect or "future" tense can be used in some cases as an adjuration, i.e. "May so-and-so happen."
Tethe malkuthakh
(May your kingdom come.)
tethe = it will come
malkuthakh = your kingdom
Nehweh tsevyanakh
(May your will be [done])
nehweh = it will be
tsevyanakh = "your will" or "your desire"
Note: This literally means closest to "Your will will be" which is awkward in English at best.
Aykana dvashmaya
(As it is in heaven)
aykana = like, as
d-va-shmaya = of whom/which - in - heaven
Af bar`a
(Also [be] on the earth)
af = also
b-ar`a = in/on - the earth
Hav lan lakhma
(Give us bread)
hav = give
lan = to us
lakhma = bread
Dsoonqanan yomana
(That we need today)
d-soonqanan = of which - we lack/need
yomana = "today" or "daily"
Ushvuq lan khaubeyn
(And forgive our sins)
u-shvuq = and allow/forgive
lan = unto us
khaybeyn = our sins/debts/shortcommings
Aykana d'af khnan
(Also as we)
aykana = like
d-af = in the same manner - also
khnan = we
Shvaqan lkhaiveyn
(Have forgiven sinners)
shvaqan = we've forgiven
l-khaiveyn = unto - sinners/debtors/the guilty, etc.
U'la te`lan lnisyouna
(And don't lead us into danger.)
u-la = and - not
te`lan = "lead us" or "cause us to enter" (could be either due to verbal form ambiguity)
l-nisyouna = unto - danger/temptation
Ela patsan men bisha
(But deliver us from evil)
ela = but
patsan = deliver us
men = from
bisha = evil
Metul d'dheelakh hee malkootha
(Because the Kingdom is yours.)
metul = because
d-dheelakh = of which - "yours" (it's a grammatical construct signifying ownership which is a bit complicated to explain here)
hee = is
malkootha = kingdom
Ukhaila utheshbookhtha
(And the power, and the glory)
u-khaila = and - power
u-theshbooktha = and- glory
`Alam l`almeen
(Forever; To eternity)
`alam = forever
l-`almeen = unto - the ages (idiom. "eternity")
Ameyn
(Amen)
ameyn = "truly" or "it is truth!" traditional ending to prayer or an oath (e.g. "ameyn ameyn amarna lakh" = "truly, truly I'm telling you!" or "I swear!")
The Catch
Yes there's a catch. :-) About the Peshitta and Old Syriac versions: They are written in Syriac Aramaic, a dialect that truly crystalized after the lifetime of Jesus and in a different geographical location, so this would not be the exact language that Jesus would have used.
In essence, the catch is that even these (including my text above) would not be the "Original Aramaic" of the Lord's Prayer.
I know of several reconstructions of the Lord's Prayer in Aramaic that would be very similar to the dialect that Jesus would have used, given certain assumptions we make about him. However, those will come about on a later date.




24 comments:
This is a really nice summary of the issues, thanks. I've added it to my hall of fame on the subject at http://www.squidoo.com/abwun/
I'm glad that you've found it useful. Thanks for linking. :-)
Peace,
-Steve
Here's another one, Steve, which purports to be what initiated the Matthean version. It's a prayer to one's spirit, and comes from the Talmud Jmmanuel.
My spirit, you exist within omnipotence.
May your name be holy. May your kingdom incarnate itself within me, on Earth and in the heavens. Give me today my daily bread, that I may recognize my wrongdoings and the truth. And lead me not into temptation and confusion, but deliver me from error. For yours is the kingdom within me and the power and the knowledge forever. Amen.
Shlama Steve,
sunqânan comes from 'snq', to need, to be lacking. Sunqâna is the thing lacking, and sunqânan is that which we lack.
Check the Comprehensive Aramaic Dictionary for this ( http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/ )
Apparently the Greek term 'epiousion' dropt out of usage fairly early, or may have simply been an East Mediterranean usage. I have heard that confirmation of usage as 'daily' comes from the Oxyrhyncus papyri, and is recorded in 'Light From the Ancient East or The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco Roman World' by Adolph Deissmann.
The Sahidic Coptic has ETNHY 'which is coming' for 'epiousion'. I don't know what the Bohairic says.
The verb 'snq' is used in the Peshitta of the Gospel according to John, where it is written that Jesus 'had no need for anyone to witness to him regarding mankind'
La sniq wa leh d'nash nes'had leh 'al barnasha.
Push b shaina/Be Well,
Bob Griffin
Bob,
Absolutely correct and good eye!
It's also a bit ironic. I'm currently in the middle of rewriting this article to submit it to a number of publications and I just noticed it earlier today. What had happened was that I was interrupted with a phonecall at that point in going over it and I suppose that "constant" was stuck in my head.
This is one of the reasons I hate blogs: I don't edit off the cuff very well. For example, when I'm translating for a client I always take a break and double check my work in a few hours or go at it the next day when my mind is fresh and rested. On blogs, I've posted thoughts and have been interrupted, or words that I've been typing in the wee hours of the morning, sometimes half-asleep.
This is also one of the reasons I love blogs: Quick peer review. Make a goof, and you have comments. :-)
Peace,
-Steve
An interesting post.
I'm familiar with one difference between Syriac and Classical Aramaic --that a noun in the absolute state in the latter indicates the indefinite article, the emphatic state the definite article -- while in Syriac the emphatic covers both and the absolute state has withered down to a few special cases (quantity, etc).
But I was wondering what differences there are between Syriac and Palestinian Aramaic.
After all, so much is common between Syriac and Arabic, that someone who knows the former and none of the latter can travel around the Middle East and make himself understood. These are all related languages in the end.
Syriac did exist in the time of Christ, I think; the earliest Syriac inscriptions (all pagan, of course) are from the 2nd century BC if I recall correctly, written in Estrangelo.
But as far as I know no Syriac literature prior to the 2nd century AD now exists. The pagan literature was prized for its poetry and still existed in the 13th century, but the collapse of Syriac culture after the Mongol invasions ensured the near-extinction of Syriac and the loss of all pagan and much other literature. (I know that you probably know all this, but perhaps not all readers will).
I am glad my Blog posting led to your reply; thank you. I find your comments insightful; I've subcribed to your Blog and Bookmarked your sites for future reference.
Peace, Richard
Dear Steve,
Thank you for publishing your insights on the Lords Prayer. I am very new to the study of Aramaic and Hebrew and have just recently read a book on the Aramaic version of the Lord's Prayer by Rocco Errico. I found the book by chance in a second hand store, and am very glad I did so. It has really expanded and deepened my understanding of the Jesus' prayer. Here's Dr. Errico's version in English as posted on his website. I'm not sure what Aramaic version his translation is based on, but you can see the original text of it along with the below translation on his website at:
http://www.noohra.com/Index.pl?mm/Lords_Prayer
------------------------
An expanded translation by Dr. Rocco A. Errico:
Our Father who is everywhere
Your name is sacred.
Your kingdom is come.
Your will is throughout the earth
even as it is throughout the universe
You give us our needful bread from day to day,
And you forgive us our offenses
even as we forgive our offenders.
and you let us not enter into materialism.
But you separate us from error.
Because yours are the kingdom, the power and the song and praise.
From all ages, throughout all ages.
(Sealed) in faith, trust and truth.
Shalom,
-Raphael Cavalier
Yes, the text that is posted on the Noohra Foundation's website is verbatim from the Syriac Peshitta (the version that I've posted above). Dr. Errico's "expanded translation" does seem to go a bit beyond the actual language, itself, but is much closer than some of the other interpretations that are going around the internet.
Some comments:
- Our Father who is everywhere
- ...
- even as it is throughout the universe
"Shmaya" means "heavens" or "sky" not "everywhere" or "universe" as it appears above.
- and you let us not enter into materialism.
"Nisyouna" which he renders as "materialism" means "danger" "test" "experience" or "punishment" and in very rare cases can mean "loan" (although it's in the wrong form, perhaps this is where he got "materialism" from?).
- But you separate us from error.
"Bisha" simply means "evil." There are a number of Syriac words for "error," none of which appear here.
- (Sealed) in faith, trust and truth.
This is a bit flamboyant for "ameyn."
Overall, Errico adds in a number of flourishes that are not completely honest to the language, itself, but he does a fairly good job of rendering things otherwise.
Peace,
--
Steve Caruso
hi can you translate the english word "firend" to aramaic
Very interesting article, although as a complete layman I have to confess I was rather disappointed to find how well your final translation correlates with what Wikipedia calls the 1662 BCP version. One could be forgiven for wanting to find a bit more excitement and variety when digging back two thousand years! I'm sure that desire is part of what some of the more poetic translations are catering to.
One point in partial defense of some of those translations: they make more sense if you imagine that they're translating not into standard English, but into some more specific dialect, such as "New Age English" (which certainly seems to me to be a distinct and identifiable dialect, whether it's formally identified as such or not).
In that view, translations like "cosmos" for "heaven" make some sense. The same could be said about the rather clumsy "birther/father-mother" construction: if the language being translated into has a different attitude towards gender, "father" might reasonably be translated into something less specific.
Of course, this view raises questions about accuracy of translations, but those questions exist to some extent in any case: you have to map concepts to their closest equivalents, and the nature of those equivalents are determined to a large extent by the target language and by the understanding of that language possessed by the translator and his/her audience.
Note that I'm not actually arguing that these translations should go unchallenged - rather, I'm pointing out a context in which they could be considered more valid. That context should not be confused with standard English, though.
Hi Steve,
Thank you for these translation details!
I have seen sometimes an additionnal word at:
Ushvuq lan khaubeyn (ukhtaheyn) aykana...
Do you know what "ukhtaheyn" means?
I find it on the Chaldean Church website which still use aramaic.
http://www.mission-chaldeenne.org/prieres.php?priere_id=1
Secondly, what is the best translator for aramaic?!
Many Thanks
Borislav
"khtaheyn" is a Syriac Aramaic word which means "sins." That makes the version of the prayer on the page you posted read "Forgive us our debts and sins..."
Now as for the best translator, I'm not 100% sure what you mean. I am a bit partial for Aramaic Designs. But perhaps if you gave me more context I could better answer things. :-)
Peace,
-Steve
I am curious about the word "schmaya." My understanding is that Judaism of the period had not evolved the concept of our "Heaven and Hell," which would have been added after the introduction of Zoroastrian ideology.
Could you clarify this a bit, please?
hi steve... basically your translation is quite close to what's currently being taught by the church and not dissimilar...
so the church isn't conning us, then!
thanks for the clarification -- a bit disappointing, though!
cheers
All of this is well and good, but all I see is your critque of others' work, which disappoints and ranks you with most who criticize but don't create. You can mitigate this impression by providing *your* translation, corrected to *your* views, and submit it for review by the same type of mindset with which you approached the work of others. Until then, all I see here is someone who missed the point of the prayer so completely there's not even a hint of Jesus in his commentary.
I guess you know about the Emerald Tablet, then do you have any experience of Calligraphy?
"All of this is well and good, but all I see is your critque of others' work, which disappoints and ranks you with most who criticize but don't create."
If these others put out texts that falsely portray themselve to be translations, there is no need for creativity and criticism is called for.
These people could have used their creativity in a straightforward manner and stated that they wrote prayers of their own. But instead they lie about this. And why? Propably because no one would care about such modern-day prayers.
Jason D:
The concepts of heaven and hell were far from "standardized" within that period of Judaism's history. There were some groups that believed in a Heaven where others did not, some believed in a Resurrection where others did not, and some believed in oblivion (viewing "Sheol" or the Grave as non-existance) where others believed in a Hell as in a burning pit of fire. As to who believed what first, no one is 100% sure.
Michael Sigmond:
Ah, the Tabula Smaragdina. :-) The Aramaic Lord's Prayer "translations" do very closely mimic the linguistic and logical gap that exists between that Latin text and many of its supposed interpretations.
As for calligraphy, I do quite a bit in both English and Aramaic. :-)
Resident:
Exactly. If the authors of these "translations" would promote them AS meditations on the prayer (which is what they do seem to be), and not as academic translations that are faithful to the underlying text, there would be little problem.
However, because there is no such disclaimer, I find at least a half-dozen blog posts a month echoing these "authoritative" versions of the "original Aramaic."
Peace,
-Steve
Hi, Steve. You translated the line "U'la te`lan lnisyouna" as "And don't lead us into danger." I've read elsewhere the alternative translation is "And don't let us into temptation." I know from your blog that the word "nisyouna" can mean both danger or temptation, but how about the verb "te" (lead), can it also mean "let" as claimed by that alternative translation?
Also I'd like to ask about the line "Dsoonqanan yomana", you tranaslated "yomana" as "daily/everyday". I've seen others translated it as "today", how accurate is this? Thanks in advance and Merry Christmas :)
Ivano,
The verb in question in the phrase "U'la te`lan lnisyouna" is actually "`alal" (the "te-" is the 2nd person masculine singular imperfect prefix) whose Generic ("peal") form literally means "to enter" but when I originally wrote this article I seem to have interpreted it in the Causative ("aphel") form which bears the connotation of "to lead" "to introduce" or "to bring." Since both forms are consonantally identical, I do suppose it could be either "enter" or "lead/bring." "Let" might work, but only in a similar sense.
As for "yomana" the "-an(a)" suffix in Syriac is a little bit ambiguous. It could mean "daily" or "this day" (the latter a "contraction" of "yom hana"), and upon reconsideration the latter might be the better way to render it overall.
Since these are good points of note, I've gone ahead and integrated these alternate explainations into the body of the article. Thanks for bringing them up. :-)
Peace,
-Steve
Steve, thanks for your prompt reply. I still don't quite get the meaning of "U'la te`lan lnisyouna" clearly. The popular translation of this phrase as "don't lead us into danger/temptation" is quite problematic. This implies that God is the cause of our entering danger/temptation. I believe this sense of meaning is hard to swallow because tempting people or leading people into danger seems to be the job of the devil, rather than God.
The alternative translation that I mentioned before, "don't let us enter danger/temptation" has completely different meaning, it suggests that God is the cause of our NOT entering danger/temptation, and surely God, in this sense, is not the one who is tempting or leading us into danger/temptation, instead He's the one who's stopping us and pulling us away from it.
How come two contradicting interpretations can stem from the same aramaic phrase? The latter interpretation (with "let") is claimed to be what the aramaic phrase originally says. I'd like to know if the phrase in aramaic really suggests God as the tempter himself or rather as the one who saves us from temptation/the tempter?
I also would like to know if that phrase could reasonably interpreted as "don't lead us into punishment"? "Nisyouna" can mean "punishment", right? The phrase in the prayer before this one is a plea to God to forgive our sins, so it seems reasonable that the next plea would be for God not to punish us. God does punish people and by asking Him to not punish us but instead to deliver us from evil, we acknowledge our weakness against sins and temptation and we need His help to overcome it. So it goes like this: "Forgive our sins as we also forgive sinners, and don't lead us into punishment, but deliver us from evil." What do you think? :)
I love the info. on this blog about this prayer. I do not know Aramaic so, when I found the other translations I was shocked at the differences. The translations did reflect my personal spiritual insights but they were definitely revealing that the biblical version of the prayer was wrong, including the Greek which I can actually read. But clearly you are saying that the translation was not so wrong after all. I have to ponder on how to correct this on my personal blog postings as I do not want to mislead. Thanks, for pointing me to your blog. I may need to do another blog posting on this pointing to this blog. I hope you do not mind.
Peace!
Post a Comment