Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Bread of Truth
#1
I found something this evening, and thought I should share it here.

Looking at the Aramaic text for this verse below, and comparing what it says with what these English translations say, what did these translators get wrong?

Etheridge: John 6:32 - Jeshu saith to them, Amen, amen, I tell you, That Musha gave you not that bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven:

Murdock: John 6:32 - Jesus said to them: Verily, verily, I say to you, Moses gave you not the bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the real bread from heaven.

Lamsa: John 6:32 - Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, It was not Moses who gave you bread from heaven; but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.

Notice: "the true bread from heaven" "the real bread from heaven" and "the true bread from heaven" Which is the way it normally is presented in English translations of the Aramaic text.

But, that isn't what Jesus actually is recorded by Shlikha John there in John 6:32. It reads thus:

"Eshu said unto them, amiyn amiyn, I say unto you that Mushe hasn't given unto you bread from the Heavens, but, my Father gives unto you The Bread of Truth from the Heavens."

We know that Eshu was speaking about Himself, as in "The Bread of Alaha" vs 33, and "The Bread of Life" vs 35, and where in 1 Corinthians 11:27, Shlikha Paul calls The Eucharist, "The Bread of MarYa".

Eshu didn't say "The True Bread, or The Real bread", He said "The Bread of Truth".

I say this is an important distinction, found in the Aramaic text of the NT.

.
Reply
#2
The Aramaic says lakhma d' qushta, which is literally translated as "bread of truth". This, however, is a common style of idiom seen in the Peshitta. "Eternal life" in Aramaic is khaye d' alma (Literally: "lives of eternity"). It's still very beautiful to read!
Reply
#3
I'd like to know what you think an idiom is exactly. Because these are not idioms here in John chapter 6. "The Bread of Truth" is the correct translation, and all the English translations of the Peshitta that I've seen have got it wrong. Except one.
Reply
#4
I'm not saying it's incorrect, but it's simply a very literal translation of an Aramaic phrase that translates as "true bread" in idiomatic English. Another similar phrase found is in John 1:9, which refers to Jesus as Nohra d' Sharara. This is literally translated as "the Light of Truth", but "true Light" is also an acceptable translation.
Reply
#5
If we choose to ignore the word "of" in our translations of verse 32, which is present in the text there, then in vs 33 and in vs 35 it should read "God Bread" and "Life Bread". How is translating these two verses considered "very literal" if we go with "Bread of God" and "Bread of Life" instead, which is what is there in the text, just as in vs 32?

I say, "Bread of Truth" is what Shlikha John had in mind when he wrote down the words, and what Eshu meant when He said the words, just as in verses 33 and 35.

"Light of Truth" is correct, in John 1:9

But, maybe someone likes to have an English translation of the Aramaic NT, which matches the way it was translated in the Greek text in John 1:9 and John 6:32, and Heb 8:2, rather than how it actually was originally said and written in the Aramaic NT. Not me. I say the words are there for a reason, and how they are given is the way it should be shown. I'm not one who prefers a paraphrase over an actual translation.

We see a pattern in John 6, where verse 32, 33, and 35 respectively, all have it worded as "The Bread of Truth" "The Bread of Alaha" and "The Bread of Life".

These are titles, and should be shown as such, just as John 1:9 should be shown as "The Light of Truth".

A good translation should stick as close to the actual way it is said in the source text, or you can miss the real meaning. It can get rather crazy, as in this case I'm looking at in "The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible" by A Frances Werner. Where they have John 6:32 translated thus: Jesus said to them, "Amen, Amen I say to you: It was not Moses that granted the bread from heaven to you, but my Father granted bread, a rainbow-sign to you from heaven."

Or Victor Alexander's translation of the verse: "Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I am telling you, it was not Moses who gave you bread from heaven, except it was my Father who gave you the bread of blessing from heaven."

I say, it is very important to translate what is actually there in the Aramaic text, and let others come up with their personal interpretations of what they might think it means.

Also, if John would have wanted it to be given as "the True Bread" or "the True Light", rather than "the Bread of Truth" or "the Light of Truth" he would have written it that way, just as he did in John 4:23 where he gives, "the True Worshipers", rather than "the Worshipers of Truth". The Aramaic words there for "True" in John 4:23 and "Truth" in John 6:32 are distinct words, and shouldn't be confused with each other. Shariyre=true, while Quwstha=Truth.
Reply
#6
In Exodus 6:14, the Hebrew is lKhm mn Shmym (?bread from heaven?). And in John 6:32, the Aramaic is spelled a little differently lKhma mn Shmya (?bread from heaven?).

For the phrase in question in John 6:32, it is actually four parts ? lKhma dquShTha mn Shmya (?bread of truth from heaven?).

The next question is whether one-half of this 4-part phrase in John 6:32 lKhma dquShTha is an idiom. quShTha is masculine word that means ?truth?, ?right? or ?justice?; it can also mean ?aromatic plant?, and can even be interpreted as ?argument? or ?question?. lKhma too has many definitions but generally is ?eat? or ?bread?, or even ?cake?.

It is tempting to interpret some phrases including this word lKhma (?bread?) as potential idiom because the word is used so frequently in a symbolic sense (e.g., ?eating bread? was used symbolically to refer to marital relations of Moses and his wife; Genesis 39:6-9, Exodus 2:20-21, Proverbs 6:26, Proverbs 30:20).

To make an idiom, I think native speakers must understand the phrase as a culturally informed or historical expression distinct from the ordinary definition of the words themselves. But with lKhma dquShTha, the definitions are straight without need to resort to idiom. So I guess the question is -- do you have any independent evidence of idiom? Referring to this phrase as a title would make more sense, but also is not required.

Thought-provoking topic!

Incidentally, note the potential wordplay between lKhma (?bread?) and kma (?how much?) and mnna (?bread?) and mna (?count?). I also see a potential wordplay between dquShTha (?of truth?) and qduShTha (?holiness?), especially as 1 Samuel 2:16 refers to the bread of the temple as qdSh (?holy?). The messiah is the temple; he is the holy bread, the bread of presence standing right there before knSha.

Imagine seeing yourself in spirit as a slice in a loaf of bread baking in the oven of this earth. You are stuck in the loaf and so thirsty, and you just want to be free, but the word is given to you that you are not ready yet.
Reply
#7
I have no problem with translating this phrase as "Bread of Truth", but it's simply a literal translation. Take khaye d' alma for example, which is literally translated as "life of eternity" or "life that is eternal". Hebrew uses phraseology like this too, like in Isaiah 9:6 when Jesus is referred to as "the Father of Eternity", which is the Hebrew style way of saying "eternal Father". I would personally go for as literal of a translation as possible like this, especially when making an interlinear.
Reply
#8
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:I have no problem with translating this phrase as "Bread of Truth", but it's simply a literal translation. Take khaye d' alma for example, which is literally translated as "life of eternity" or "life that is eternal". Hebrew uses phraseology like this too, like in Isaiah 9:6 when Jesus is referred to as "the Father of Eternity", which is the Hebrew style way of saying "eternal Father". I would personally go for as literal of a translation as possible like this, especially when making an interlinear.

I?ve studied this topic extensively, and have found the preaching of 'eternal life' is a slippery slope to 'everlasting hell': <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3240#p20080">viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3240#p20080</a><!-- l -->

First, Ealm means Ealm. Translations are secondary and must not be elevated above the actual text, especially here with this Hebrew/Aramaic word that is of fundamental importance.

Second, the Aramaic root Ealm (ayin-lamed-mem) is the exact same root word in Hebrew Ealm. Without a single deviation throughout the entire Peshitta gospel, Ealm translates as ?age? or ?world?. Diligent study confirms the word ?forever? is a mistranslation that deceives the masses, even scholarly ones. There is not a single instance in the entire gospel where the word Ealm or any of its conjugations must literally be translated ?forever? or ?eternal?. In every single instance it literally means ?age/world?, and indeed, in 100+ occasions the mistranslation ?forever? or ?eternal? renders the passage completely nonsensical. You can try if you wish, but you cannot find a single instance where the literal translation ?age/world? is not a literal match...

Third, Ealm is the indefinite form of the word, ?a world/age?. Ealma is the definite form, ?this world/age?. These definite and indefinite articles are used flawlessly throughout the Peshitta gospel for the word Ealm. See e.g., Glaser charts tracking each usage in Matthew and John. See also, Article including old testament scripture citations. Sometimes people find it helps to interpret the indefinite form of the word Ealm as ?beyond the horizon? (see e.g. Jonah 2:6 where Jonah is inside the fish Eaulm, not forever, but rather 3-days and 3-nights that were ?beyond the horizon?, an ?age? or ?world? to his individual perspective).

Fourth, the plural expression Ealm Ealmyn translates as ?an age/world ages/worlds?. Never in regards to punishment, but only optimistically in reference to the Father and Yahshua is this phrase (Ealm Ealmyn) ever followed by the word amyn ("continuing" or "perpetual" or "amen"). And this is the hardest part of the analysis for religious thinkers to grasp - perpetual ages/worlds refers to cycles (wheels within wheels if you prefer) that create and collapse ages/worlds (like pulsing tori/worlds that keep regenerating in different patterns). These cycles are part of the character of the Father and those who live in the Father (most prominently Yahshua). So the spacetime mechanics of Ealm Ealmyn cycles are beyond the perspective of men on earth.

As long as you live in the Father, you live like He lives - from age to age, from world to world, and beyond (amyn). Ealm Ealmyn is like fractals that do not collapse on themselves but live in harmony. If you depart from His law/code, like many fallen angels did from previous ages/worlds, and you are not reconciled to the Father, then you receive punishment/consequence/reaction for a just amount of spacetime, whether that be years, an age, a world, or worlds/ages. But there is no amyn for the fallen ones - their punishment has an end, and indeed punishment is routinely described throughout the gospel as either being refined or being destroyed. The Father is just, not some kind of sadistic torturer.

John 5:39, ?Search the writings because in them you think that life dlEalm having to you. And they testify about me. And you do not desire coming toward me that life dlEalm will be to you. Praise from sons of men, I am not taking. But I know you, that His love, of Alha, not having in you.?

Fifth, mistranslation of this word Ealm (and the Greek equivalent aion) has allowed men to propagate the evil and hateful and false doctrine of everlasting hell. In many respects ?eternal hell? took root during the early Catholic church age, but even before that there were some powerful groups that preached it, including Egyptian sorcerers, Pharisees, and Greek mystics. By contrast, the Hebrew patriarchs like Abraham, Moses, and David left a legacy that always defined punishment in respect to fixed time periods: age, world, years, ages, worlds. And Yahshua also spoke in these terms of ages, worlds, and years. If the gospel was going to suggest the meaning ?eternal? (outside the time dimension), then why does it not say something like la Eadna (?no time?). Likewise, if the gospel was going to suggest ?everlasting?, why does it not say somelike like zbna lyTh KhrTha (?time without end?). Even if mThum was used in that manner there might be room for argument. But quite simply, religious people cannot find these words in the gospel to describe 'eternal life', so they mistranslate Ealm to fit their particular ideology. And the price of their mistranslation is that they are required to also preach 'eternal hell'.

Sixth, I think our Creator wants bible readers to be faced with mistranslations of ?olam? and ?alma? and ?gehenna? etc for several reasons, such as (1) so that we learn something about the nature of fear and love, (2) so that we will take grace seriously, (3) so that we learn something about ourselves and show our true colors, (4) to provide an extreme illustration of the harm that comes from false doctrines of men and the hierarchical church. What does your heart tell you?

In my experience, when a person is told that there is an everlasting hell, he or she may exhibit the following negative behaviors: (1) hope that Alha does not exist, (2) belief that Alha does not do justice, and (3) preaching the everlasting hell doctrine to others to help share the burden of their own psychological fear.

Truly, the fear of everlasting torture drains you of love. And if you preach it to others, and it actually takes root in that child, it will drain them eventually too. That is my personal experience. I think the false doctrine of eternal hell is evil, and those who preach it do not know the Father. The Father is love and justice.
Reply
#9
Oh, I know olam/alma means "age". It's the same for the Greek word aeon. Olam is used frequently in the Tanach to express eternity (Genesis 3:22; Psalm 30:12, 136:20 for examples), or simply an indefinite period of time. So while olam and alma literally translate as "age" (see how Robert Young translates olam and aeon in the YLT), sometimes it is best communicated into English as "eternity", "eternal", "forever", or "everlasting". And yes, in other times it is best translated as "world" or "age". If you want to talk theology when it comes to this word, you'll have to PM me, as we try to avoid theological discussions on here.
Reply
#10
Quote:I have no problem with translating this phrase as "Bread of Truth", but it's simply a literal translation.

Nor do I, and I think it's rightly translated as such, since it shows in vs 33 and vs 35 (and elsewhere in the passage) where it reads literally, "The Bread of Alaha" and "The Bread of Life" as in later verses. And If we don't go literal in vs 32 "The Bread of Truth" and have it say "The True Bread" or "The Real Bread" instead, then why not have vs 33 and 35 read "The Alaha Bread" or "The Life Bread"?

It makes sense in each case to translate it as it is worded in the Aramaic text, so it's not like it obscures the meaning or anything to give it as it reads in the text. M'shikha is The Truth, and His Body/Bread (as is discussed in the passage) is The Bread of Truth. And that very Body/Bread is given by M'shikha for our spiritual sustenance. The passage makes this clear.

I believe that the Greek version has translated it wrongly here and most other English translation of the Aramaic text has followed suit. Except Herb Jahn's translation, and the translation into English of the Diatessaron's text, and the two English translations by Mrs. Smith and Mr. Burkitt, of the Curetonian and Sinaitic Palimpsest version, where they have "The Bread of Truth".
Reply
#11
If I wasn't going for a literal translation, I would translate lakhma d' Alaha as "Alaha's bread". It might not be worded the exact same way but it carries the same meaning. Formally translations (like the NASB) are better for study, as they bring out nuances you might otherwise miss in a dynamically equivalent translation (like the NIV), while dynamic translations are better for reading. The question is whether you should focus on conveying the message or the exact words used in the original languages. Like you seem to, I prefer a literal translation. I would personally translate it as "Bread of Truth" but would state that it means "true bread" or "real bread". I'm not an Aramaic expert though, so I could be wrong. Just based on my reading in interlinears and seeing how the Aramaic phrases things makes me believe that it simply means "real bread". I love the truth, so I am perfectly willing to be corrected! Another meaning of this Aramaic phrase could be "Bread that is truth". The daleth proclitic can be translated as "of", "that", or "that is". Look in the Younan interlinear how Paul translates khaye d' alma ("Life that is eternal").
Reply
#12
Interesting thread here...So, have you all figured out what our Lord is talking about here yet?

What is "The Bread of Truth" exactly, which is "The True Bread"..."Alaha's Bread", or "The Bread of God", which is "The Bread of Life"...or "The Life Bread" or...."The Bread of Life" Eternal Life!

Are you eating this Bread?

Which Bread?

Some wont be able to accept it, but, It's the very same Bread that is spoken of in 1st Corinthians 11:23-32 "The Bread of MarYa"

See John 6:51-58 -Bauscher's version (Note: some caps are mine for infuses)

"I AM THE LIVING GOD, The Living Bread, who have come down from Heaven, and if a man will eat of this Bread, he will live for eternity, and The Bread that I shall give is My Body that I give for the sake of the life of the world.

But the Jews were arguing with one another and saying, "How can this man give us His Body to eat?

And Yeshua said to them, "Timeless truth I speak to you: Unless you eat The Body of The Son of Man and drink His Blood, you have no Life in yourselves.

But whoever eats of My Body and drinks of My Blood has Eternal Life, and I shall raise him in the last day.

For My Body truly is food, and My Blood truly is drink.

Whoever eats My Body and drinks My Blood abides in Me and I in him."

Just as The Living Father has sent Me, and I am living because of The Father, whoever will eat Me, he also will Live because of Me.

This is The Bread that came down from Heaven.

It is not as your forefathers who ate Manna and have died; whoever eats this Bread shall live for eternity."

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#13
Amen. I didn't consider the fact that "Lakhma d' Alaha could be translated as "the Bread that is God", and indeed, Yeshua Meshikha is the Bread that is MarYah. When we "eat the flesh and blood" of Christ, we partake of His holy nature, His glory, and in the eternal life that He brings with Him through giving us His Holy Spirit. We eat the Messiah's flesh and blood by serving Him and coming into unity with him, partaking in His suffering and His life and teachings. That's my interpretation of it at least <!-- sBlush --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/blush.gif" alt="Blush" title="Blush" /><!-- sBlush -->
Reply
#14
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:If I wasn't going for a literal translation, I would translate lakhma d' Alaha as "Alaha's bread". It might not be worded the exact same way but it carries the same meaning. Formally translations (like the NASB) are better for study, as they bring out nuances you might otherwise miss in a dynamically equivalent translation (like the NIV), while dynamic translations are better for reading. The question is whether you should focus on conveying the message or the exact words used in the original languages. Like you seem to, I prefer a literal translation. I would personally translate it as "Bread of Truth" but would state that it means "true bread" or "real bread". I'm not an Aramaic expert though, so I could be wrong. Just based on my reading in interlinears and seeing how the Aramaic phrases things makes me believe that it simply means "real bread". I love the truth, so I am perfectly willing to be corrected! Another meaning of this Aramaic phrase could be "Bread that is truth". The daleth proclitic can be translated as "of", "that", or "that is". Look in the Younan interlinear how Paul translates khaye d' alma ("Life that is eternal").

Shlama Akhi,

Be careful with the Daleth Proclitic. It is translated differently when in between two nouns, as opposed to in between a noun and an adjective.

lakhma d Alaha -> bread, God. two nouns. The translation of the Daleth Proclitic is "of"

khaye d l'alam -> life (pl), Eternal. Noun and Adjective. Translation is "that is".

These rules cannot be mixed or mingled. It can't be "life of eternity", nor can it be "bread that is God." That's not how the grammar works.

When it is between a noun and a verb, for another example, it is translated "who".

Nasha d QaTel -> man who kills

The translation of the Daleth Proclitic depends on the context of the primary and subordinate tokens around it.
+Shamasha
Reply
#15
Thanks, Brother Paul. I'm glad you got in this <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

I knew it had multiple translation possibilities but I didn't realize all of that. I need to start getting deeper into my Aramaic studies still <!-- sBlush --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/blush.gif" alt="Blush" title="Blush" /><!-- sBlush -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)