Response to Billy Kitchens' Question on The Prayer Technique Edited Out of John 16: 23-24
I do not want Billy's answer to be hid in a comment section, so I post the question and answer here (from https://imagicworldview.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-prayer-technique-edited-out-of-john.html):
Asks Billy:
I love the message and have seen the Gregg Braden video. I also have the book Neil Douglas-Klotz which also mentions it. However, when I read all three major Aramaic versions of John 16: 23-24, those extra phrases are not there. Where is he getting this? I have read the versions: Murdock, Etheridge, and Lhamsa.
________________________________________
Billy,
Than you for such an excellent question. I am impressed that you have read these translations from the Aramaic. I am only familiar with that of Victor N. Alexander. I fortunately saved a number of his website articles, because at least for the time being his website is down. I think he is too involved in making his movie, The Story of Eashoa (Jesus). I cannot say for sure, as he has not answered e-mails for about a year.
Where is Gregg Braden getting his Aramaic text?
A) Only Mr. Braden can answer that. I do not think he would mind telling anyone if they asked. You will notice in Braden's video, though, that he has traveled to ancient monasteries and has gained access to off-limits libraries. Which brings up . . .
B) Why are these phrases not in the translations we commonly have access to? Here I have to weave together what I have gleaned from Vic Alexander, Neil Douglas-Klotz, a number of Jewish rabbis, my personal intercultural experience, etc..
First of all, the Western Church is quite convinced of the Greek primacy, that the New Testament was written originally in Greek. Western-trained missionaries to Mesopotamia a couple of centuries ago translated the Greek New Testament into Aramaic. This was problematic because the missionaries were predisposed to translating the Greek into Aramaic according to their Western theological prejudices and biases. Yes, they produced an Aramaic version, but it was an Aramaic version of their Western understanding. No wonder English translations from this "ancient language which Jesus spoke" sound eerily like the King James Version.
Second, it is apparent by even a cursory reading of the New Testament that the subjects of the stories spoke Aramaic, even though Greek was universally known to all. Regardless of whatever is the universal language, everyone speaks their mother tongue in their home. In our melting pot of the United States, everyone is expected to be able to get along in English, but among their family and native friends, all speak their home language. Aramaic was the language of the event, whether it was literal-historical or psychological and symbolic. I have reason to believe that the first iterations of the event were Aramaic, too. The Aramaic-speaking Church of the East supposedly had copies of those most ancient texts squirreled away somewhere, like the monastery Braden visited.
Third, as you see in Neil Douglas-Klotz (I only have The Hidden Gospel), there is a phenomenal range of possible expression of the meaning of the Aramaic. Saying in our language what the ancient author meant in his is interpretive: "It meant something like . . ." Can we even understand it? Even if we know a sentiment is there, how do we say it? Gregg Braden is expressing something in his "ask without hidden motive," but what that is in the ancient Aramaic, I do not know. Alexander does have in John 16:24, "Ask and be assured (note: and be satisfied) that your joy shall be complete." That is close enough to "be enveloped in" for me.
I vary from Vic Alexander in that I read the Bible largely without future tenses. In private correspondence Vic has explained the Aramaic does have a mark which indicates a word or phrase is definitely future, but I go along with Robert Young in his introduction to Young's Literal Translation of the Bible, that the ancient Hebrew had no future tense. It certainly could express future events, but did so using past or present tenses. I largely read the Bible this way, because everything I want in the future had to exist in the Beginning in the past. The Ineffable accounted for every potential of Its manifestation which I am now living BACK THEN. The house and family manifestation I will want to have in the future was the Ineffable's experience in the past before the beginning of time. I HAVE it. It EXISTS. I AM THAT STATE ON THE WAY TO BECOMING. So I read John 16:24 in Vic's translation from the ancient Aramaic, "Ask and be satisfied that your joy is complete."
Thank you for the excellent question.
See John 16:23-24 Without Ulerior Motives
Asks Billy:
I love the message and have seen the Gregg Braden video. I also have the book Neil Douglas-Klotz which also mentions it. However, when I read all three major Aramaic versions of John 16: 23-24, those extra phrases are not there. Where is he getting this? I have read the versions: Murdock, Etheridge, and Lhamsa.
________________________________________
Billy,
Than you for such an excellent question. I am impressed that you have read these translations from the Aramaic. I am only familiar with that of Victor N. Alexander. I fortunately saved a number of his website articles, because at least for the time being his website is down. I think he is too involved in making his movie, The Story of Eashoa (Jesus). I cannot say for sure, as he has not answered e-mails for about a year.
Where is Gregg Braden getting his Aramaic text?
A) Only Mr. Braden can answer that. I do not think he would mind telling anyone if they asked. You will notice in Braden's video, though, that he has traveled to ancient monasteries and has gained access to off-limits libraries. Which brings up . . .
B) Why are these phrases not in the translations we commonly have access to? Here I have to weave together what I have gleaned from Vic Alexander, Neil Douglas-Klotz, a number of Jewish rabbis, my personal intercultural experience, etc..
First of all, the Western Church is quite convinced of the Greek primacy, that the New Testament was written originally in Greek. Western-trained missionaries to Mesopotamia a couple of centuries ago translated the Greek New Testament into Aramaic. This was problematic because the missionaries were predisposed to translating the Greek into Aramaic according to their Western theological prejudices and biases. Yes, they produced an Aramaic version, but it was an Aramaic version of their Western understanding. No wonder English translations from this "ancient language which Jesus spoke" sound eerily like the King James Version.
Second, it is apparent by even a cursory reading of the New Testament that the subjects of the stories spoke Aramaic, even though Greek was universally known to all. Regardless of whatever is the universal language, everyone speaks their mother tongue in their home. In our melting pot of the United States, everyone is expected to be able to get along in English, but among their family and native friends, all speak their home language. Aramaic was the language of the event, whether it was literal-historical or psychological and symbolic. I have reason to believe that the first iterations of the event were Aramaic, too. The Aramaic-speaking Church of the East supposedly had copies of those most ancient texts squirreled away somewhere, like the monastery Braden visited.
Third, as you see in Neil Douglas-Klotz (I only have The Hidden Gospel), there is a phenomenal range of possible expression of the meaning of the Aramaic. Saying in our language what the ancient author meant in his is interpretive: "It meant something like . . ." Can we even understand it? Even if we know a sentiment is there, how do we say it? Gregg Braden is expressing something in his "ask without hidden motive," but what that is in the ancient Aramaic, I do not know. Alexander does have in John 16:24, "Ask and be assured (note: and be satisfied) that your joy shall be complete." That is close enough to "be enveloped in" for me.
I vary from Vic Alexander in that I read the Bible largely without future tenses. In private correspondence Vic has explained the Aramaic does have a mark which indicates a word or phrase is definitely future, but I go along with Robert Young in his introduction to Young's Literal Translation of the Bible, that the ancient Hebrew had no future tense. It certainly could express future events, but did so using past or present tenses. I largely read the Bible this way, because everything I want in the future had to exist in the Beginning in the past. The Ineffable accounted for every potential of Its manifestation which I am now living BACK THEN. The house and family manifestation I will want to have in the future was the Ineffable's experience in the past before the beginning of time. I HAVE it. It EXISTS. I AM THAT STATE ON THE WAY TO BECOMING. So I read John 16:24 in Vic's translation from the ancient Aramaic, "Ask and be satisfied that your joy is complete."
Thank you for the excellent question.
See John 16:23-24 Without Ulerior Motives
posted by Daniel C. Branham-Steele at
6:12 PM
3 Comments:
Thank you, this is so clarifying to me!
By
Anonymous, at 5:46 AM
I read through the page and comment section that this question was originally raised and followed the rabbit trail here. I recognize not everything I'll mention will be immediately available on the above post but is a response to the aggregate of multiple places.
To recap the claim:
You're saying that a couple of statements were taken out of the original writings which were in Greek, and there is evidence for this in an Aramaic text which is not available to be seen or reviewed and it's location and source is unknown, and in order to understand the text fully you must use an alternate application of the Hebrew term for name (Shem/Character/Nature) even though the original Greek would have separate terms for 'nature' that weren't used? This seems like a fair way to treat and understand the text to you?
Hebrew is not the only language which will mash up words so that other meanings can be derived, Japanese and German do the same for instance. If I take the text and then find alternate possible meanings in Japanese and German is that equally applicable?
For all of the manuscript evidence we have for the Bible there's a shocking amount of honesty and transparency for anything that we know to be edited or otherwise questionable. Nearly every Bible translation you pick up will have footnotes marking these sections where we aren't sure or where the evidence points to something being a later addition. The scenario which would seem much much more like someone was attempting to edit and willingly change what the Bible says wouldn't be on the side of thousands upon thousands of manuscripts agreeing and honesty were there has been found some level of disagreement, it would be on the side that claims a secret text found in an unknown monastery which cannot be examined but says something different and for no known reason should be considered more authoritative - that is almost certainly the side that is trying to edit and change thing wouldn't you think?
The only real argument I see here is that is supports a preconceived notion about the 'law of attraction.' But in the event that this secret monastery Aramaic text was against the law of attraction would it be accepted and upheld as the thing to be listened to? If not, the question is why.
It seems to me that finding ways to edit and reinterpret the Bible to support the law of attraction is the function of the law of attraction itself. You find what you want to find. But the rest of the world has a different term than 'law of attraction' for that case - they call it 'confirmation bias'
Nearly all claims like this start out with an idea that the Bible has been corrupted and can't be trusted, or was maliciously edited and all the like. It's a very common and frankly boring and worn out claim. Unfortunately, I've looked into the manuscript evidence and have personally known people who have investigated some of the oldest manuscript fragments. The translations and manuscripts we have are quite good. Any place we are unsure is marked in nearly every translation. That speaks to even greater honesty about anything being edited or corrupted. All of these claims of corruption are just preying on people who won't bother to research it themselves. Rest assured, if you can't trust the translations we have today, there's absolutely zero chance you can trust a mysterious Aramaic text hidden away in an unknown monastery which is not available to be examined.
By
ZJK, at 11:40 AM
I hope you listened to the argument in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-fYUKy_vRw
"Did the 4th Century Church Edit John 16:23–24?" I believe the matter is that Greek is much more exact, restrictive, and limited than Aramaic. The Aramaic is so much broader and allowing. Greek gives an exact color, Aramaic a more general flavor. Neil Douglas-Klotz extends the translation of Aramaic passages to bring out more of what they CAN say; kind of like the Amplified Version and translations by NATIVE SPEAKERS of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Native speakers of a language have many more associations and sense much more possibility of meaning. The Greek of John 16:23-24 and its strict translation seem truncated in comparison to what native Aramaic speakers would FEEL was meant by Jesus and John. The Greek keeps us from getting too carried away with "feely" translations and dreamed-up doctrines. But yes, the so-called Law of Attraction is an aberration meant to draw people away from belief in the Bible and from faith in God.
By
Daniel C. Branham-Steele, at 10:05 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home