Twisting Translation to Fit an Agenda

The history of Biblical manuscripts and textual criticism is full of tales about monks messing with the manuscripts in an attempt to force the text be be more aligned to the church's idea of orthodoxy, and also tales of translators who used their knowledge for the same purpose. The Textus Receptus (Latin: received text) is probably the prime example of this. It was the Greek text of the New Testament that Dutch Catholic philosopher Desiderius Erasmus put together as the foundation to be used for translation to Latin (and later other languages). Most Reformation-era vernacular translations of the Bible relied on it - Martin Luther's German Bible, Tynedale's and King James' English translations, and even the Catholic English translation, Douay-Rheims.

But Textus Receptus is badly flawed. Whenever Erasmus couldn't find an existing early Greek manuscript, he translated St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate to Greek. He also included scribal marginal annotations as actual text. The most famous of these was the Johannine Comma, which occurs in two verses of the First Epistle of John, 5:7 - 8. Without the comma these verses read: "For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree." This apparently wasn't trinitarian enough for a Fourth Century monk, who added a more suitable addition in the margin. Erasmus added it to the text itself, so that the verses then read (here in the King James Version): "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." [The bolded portion is the added comma.] Later scholars who put together the Greek texts which all modern translators and scholars use recognized the nature of the addition and eliminated it as it deserved.

Why did Erasmus do such a thing? He was out of favor with the Vatican, not only because he was well-known as a humanist philosopher, but also because he acted as adviser to Martin Luther for a time. But without the Vatican's sponsorship Erasmus would cease to have a means of livelihood, so Textus Receptus was his bid to get back into Rome's good graces; he gave them the text that would best please them. But history hasn't treated him as well as the Curia did, and most now recognize his "received text" as anything but.

But this sort of finagling with the original text didn't end in the 16th Century. It still goes on today, which is what spurred me to compose this post. Let's take a look at what's commonly known as "The Lord's Prayer", the version in Matthew 6:9 - 13. Here's the original Greek (from the Nestle-Aland text, 27th edition):

9) ουτως ουν προσευχεσθε υμεις πατερ ημων ο εν τοις ουρανοις αγιασθητω το ονομα σου
10) ελθετω η βασιλεια σου γενηθητω το θελημα σου ως εν ουρανω και επι γης
11) τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον δος ημιν σημερον
12) και αφες ημιν τα οφειληματα ημων ως και ημεις αφηκαμεν τοις οφειλεταις ημων
13) και μη εισενεγκης ημας εις πειρασμον αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου

My translation of these verses is:

9) Instead, you should pray this way: Our father in heaven, your name be revered.
10) Bring down your kingdom, fulfill your will, as in heaven so upon earth.
11) Bestow upon us today whatever bread we need.
12) And forgive us our debts just as we ourselves have forgiven our debtors.
13) And do not force us to endure test after test, but rescue us from the evil one.

Now I need to establish some background. There are some old New Testament texts in Syriac, a variant of Aramaic. The earliest was put together by Tatian in the 2nd Century, called the Diatessaron, which was a book that harmonized the four canonical Gospels, i.e. didn't arrange them as four separate books but arranged them according to similar narrative threads. A later 4th Century text in Syriac eventually developed into the New Testament of the eastern monophysite churches, such as the Assyrian Orthodox and related denominations; it's called the Peshitta (Syriac "simple, common").

Why do I bring this up? Because there's a school of thought called Aramaic Primacy which considers the Syriac texts to be the real "original" text of the New Testament, rather than the Greek. They believe that because these texts are in a variant of the Aramaic spoken in Roman Palestine in Jesus' time, therefore these texts are more "authentic" than the Greek. There are serious problems with these claims.

Solid scholarship shows that these Syriac texts were actually translated from Greek to Syriac. Even Tatian never claimed his Diatessaron to be original. He split from Rome (he was a disciple of Justin Martyr and after Justin's death renounced Rome and moved back to Edessa) and considered his Gospel Harmony to be a way of casting the Gospel into the vernacular of his people. He considered Greek to be the "imperial tongue" and Syriac to be the language of the common people, and acted accordingly. The Peshitta was viewed in the same way, as a thumbing of the nose to the Byzantine and Roman powers who sought to control the Mediterranean world. This motive has much in common with Reformation-era vernacular translations of the Bible; Luther and the Protestant scholars of England who crafted their translations were thumbing their noses at Rome.

And the claim that these Syriac texts are more authentic because they share a language with Jesus is shaky at best. The Aramaic dialect of Syriac differs significantly from the seven Palestinian dialects extant at the time of Jesus; they were from different branches of the Aramaic family, the Palestinian being in the Western branch and the Syriac being in the Eastern. This would be like the difference between Gothic and Old Norse - both in the Germanic family of languages, but different branches (Old Norse in the Northern Branch and Gothic in the Eastern), and while they might be able to understand each other somewhat, it wouldn't be anywhere near complete understanding, due to differences that culture and environment (such as loanwords from neighboring non-Germanic languages). Add to that that Palestinian Aramaic was antique compared to 2nd Century (the Diatessaron) and 4th Century (the Peshitta) Syriac, and you end up looking at that "same language" claim with a large handfull of salt.

Still, the Peshitta is the Biblical translation of choice for the non-Byzantine derived Eastern churches, and in that function there can be no problem with that. The issue I'm addressing in this post comes from a particular translation of the Matthean "Lord's Prayer" passages by a particular person. First, let's look at the Syriac text (I have to use a graphic image version because apparently the Web doesn't recognize Estrangelo script):

My translation of this is:

9) Pray therefore like this: Our father in heaven, hallowed be your name.
10) Your kingdom come, your will be done, as in heaven so on earth.
11) Give us this day the bread we require.
12) And forgive us our offenses as we also have forgiven those who have offended us.
13) And do not bring us into trial, but deliver us from the evil one. [For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever and ever.]

[Note: that last bit in brackets at the end of verse 13 is one of my prime arguments against the Peshitta being more "authentic" than the Greek texts. It's actually a Greek doxology from the Greek liturgy, added to make sure everybody saying it knew it was a prayer. It's not a Syriac addition, it's a Greek one!]

Now that's pretty straightforward and except for the liturgical doxology tacked onto the end, it pretty much follows the Greek version. But just in case anybody distrusts my translation, here's the translation of the same verses (minus the introductory "Pray therefore like this...") by George Lamsa, Syriac scholar, Aramaic Primacist, and the man who first introduced the Peshitta to western audience:

Our Father in Heaven, hallowed be thy name.
Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.
Give us bread for our needs from day to day.
And forgive us our offenses, as we have forgiven our offenders.
And do not let us enter into temptation, But deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever and ever.

See? Basically the same words. But...

There's another Aramaic Primacist who has a version of the Lord's Prayer that sounds nothing like this. In fact, it's not really a "translation" at all, more a paraphrase, or even more accurately a commentary. This is by Dr. Neil Douglas-Klotz, who fancies himself a modern-day Sufi and who imposes a metaphysical New Age philosophy on his Syriac translations. Which is fine in and of itself, except that he bills his translations as "translated directly from the original Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus." Except that it's not, it's ostensibly translated from the 4th Century (and later) Syriac Peshitta and the words he uses in his translation have little or nothing to do with the Syriac words of the text. You be the judge:

O, Birther of the Cosmos, focus your light within us -- make it useful
Create your reign of unity now
Your one desire then acts with ours,
As in all light,
So in all forms,
Grant us what we need each day in bread and insight:
Loose the cords of mistakes binding us,
As we release the strands we hold of other's guilt.
Don't let surface things delude us,
But free us from what holds us back.
From you is born all ruling will,
The power and the life to do,
The song that beautifies all,
From age to age it renews.
I affirm this with my whole being.

Now do you see anything but a mere whiff of a nod towards the original Syriac text in this? No, me neither. This is pure, unadulterated New Age metaphysics, and this guy is using the Peshitta to push it. Whether I agree with his take on this is immaterial; as I said above, I probably would never have even noticed this if he had billed it as his own, personal commentary on the Lord's Prayer, which is what it is. But he had to bill it as "translated directly from the original Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus." And that it's not, as anyone can plainly see. It basically puts him in the same class as Erasmus, willing to twist Holy Writ to serve his own ideological purposes. And in the world of Biblical scholarship, that's a big no-no!

© 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger