Corroborating Ancient Texts to Synthesize Ancient Meanings

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Aug 6, 2020 at 18:52

DNM;
This strikes deep into the heart of the matter for this observer, answering a decades old circumstance of trying so hard to understand: why has religion been so hard to understand? The undercurrent to this dilemma for this reader started in youth while under tutelage for things Biblical that did not make sense for the reason that the teachers barely understood what they appeared to be teaching. This was not made any easier when contemplating Marx's posit about theological things: 'religion is the opiate of the people.'
Long ago, when the question was posed about what language did the people of the Roman Empire speak, much was submitted to underscore the opinion of the individual who was making his assertion as the more likely reasonable answer; but opposing opinions were just as compelling, if not vehement in the contravening argument. Of such, apparently, was the scholarship of your expert Biblical linguist, George Lamsa. I am sure that my memory of those assertions that much of the New Testament writings were Greek, the single exception of the teaching in my youth that Matthew was in Aramaic, apparently since the tax-gatherer Levi was local to the region where he met the Nazarene and such a conclusion was not hard to take.
Your assistance in providing the comparative texts from Arabic to the Peshitta has solved several issues of contention for this reader, that the rivulet of truth which appeared for so long to be a problem in both the mortal and eternal realm is now in view; and the ambiguity of how translations issues are frustrating to the purpose of reaching into the heart can be comprehended.
Even the recollection of yours that Lamsa's work was controversial calls back the issues discussed in decades old attempts to intellectually discern how to embrace what the Scripture was trying to tell hapless religiosity; issues were diffused to logical processes of interpretation instead of getting to the meaning that reached the heart. It is in the heart where the Scriptures are to be written, not in the mind. This is where 'Western Civilization' and its culture misses the mark; why the current battles for control of society(ies) will not end well for the majority of mankind.
Now, when we read some of the contention in the validity of an Aramaic translation in taking the message of the Hebrew Holy Writ from its ancient times, and the attempt to say it is a preferred advancement of the Gospel as opposed to the koine Greek (supposed as the lingua franca) of the region, even this lent/lends to the issues of following the commandment of the Savior in Matthew 28 to proclaim His Gospel due to the opposition of virtually all other religious endeavors, including within the Christian community, which by the third century AD was showing intentions of phasing out the Semitic influences of the original Gospel.
But this issue is not isolated to the New Testament. For example, what language did the son of Hebrew's prophet Daniel speak when still living where he was born; then what did he learn when in captive exile? One contention is that paleo-Hebrew was native; that (western_Imperial Aramaic was taught in exile, which is supposed in the old Testament book of his name.
So, here is the question, how is the following translation found in the Peshitta, from Aramaic or Hebrew:
1فِي السَّنَةِ الثَّالِثَةِ مِنْ مُلْكِ يَهُويَاقِيمَ مَلِكِ يَهُوذَا، ذَهَبَ نَبُوخَذْنَاصَّرُ مَلِكُ بَابِلَ إِلَى أُورُشَلِيمَ وَحَاصَرَهَا. 2وَسَلَّمَ الرَّبُّ بِيَدِهِ يَهُويَاقِيمَ مَلِكَ يَهُوذَا مَعَ بَعْضِ آنِيَةِ بَيْتِ اللهِ، فَجَاءَ بِهَا إِلَى أَرْضِ شِنْعَارَ إِلَى بَيْتِ إِلهِهِ، وَأَدْخَلَ الآنِيَةَ إِلَى خِزَانَةِ بَيْتِ إِلهِهِ. 3وَأَمَرَ الْمَلِكُ أَشْفَنَزَ رَئِيسَ خِصْيَانِهِ بِأَنْ يُحْضِرَ مِنْ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ وَمِنْ نَسْلِ الْمُلْكِ وَمِنَ الشُّرَفَاءِ،
Or:
1مِنْ نَبُوخَذْنَصَّرَ الْمَلِكِ إِلَى كُلِّ الشُّعُوبِ وَالأُمَمِ وَالأَلْسِنَةِ السَّاكِنِينَ فِي الأَرْضِ كُلِّهَا: لِيَكْثُرْ سَلاَمُكُمْ. 2اَلآيَاتُ وَالْعَجَائِبُ الَّتِي صَنَعَهَا مَعِي اللهُ الْعَلِيُّ، حَسُنَ عِنْدِي أَنْ أُخْبِرَ بِهَا. 3آيَاتُهُ مَا أَعْظَمَهَا، وَعَجَائِبُهُ مَا أَقْوَاهَا! مَلَكُوتُهُ مَلَكُوتٌ أَبَدِيٌّ وَسُلْطَانُهُ إِلَى دَوْرٍ فَدَوْرٍ.

Since this lends to this observer's own contention that 'Western Civ' does not have it right, a discernment is required and, again, your insight on this would be greatly appreciated.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".