![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
If you were stranded...
Sep. 11th, 2006 05:24 pmAmong the memes going around is one that asks, "If you were stranded on an island with only one book, what would it be?"
I have been contemplating that question for some time. I have mentioned recently that I am currently studying the Bhagavad Gita. I do not identify as a Krishna or any of the standard religions, by the way, so don't try to nail me down here. The Gita is a wonderful book. There are many parallels to Christianity in it, if I can say as much without being tarred and feathered. It is a lush book and worth of years of devoted study, and is itself a small excerpt of a larger work called The Mahabharata. So I considered choosing The Mahabharata.
The Mahabharata is not exactly concise. One translation is said to fill twelve volumes. So, in terms of our mental exercise, is it cheating to ask for The Mahabharata, or would I have to confine myself solely to the Gita?
Many people's answer is The Bible. You may be shocked to learn that I would not mind at all having a Bible as a companion because I do consider it a book worthy of years of study. I am, however, adamant that I be given a proper translation. Some of what passes for a Bible nowadays is scary. The College Student's Bible. The Housewife's Bible. The Middle Aged Man Who Drives a Dually Bible (free pine-scented Tree of Life air freshener)....
There was a time when it may have been appropriate to rely solely on prayer for a correct translation, but the study of linguistics has progressed and additional copies of early Bibles have been discovered. Gosh, folks, we can do better than the King James Version!
One of my favorites is a translation from The Peshitta - the Bible of the Church of the East, as translated by George Lamsa. The original Aramaic text of the Bible in the Assyrian Church was never translated into any other language and was never revised. Monks who copied the texts were instructed to destroy entire copies when they made one mistake. So the original Aramaic text was never altered from the time Jesus' disciples arrived in Northern Iraq and began preaching. The people of the area still speak a form of Aramaic.
Here's an example of the difference:
Psalm 144:7 KJV:
"Send thine hand from above; rid me, and deliver me out of great waters, from the hand of strange children;"
Pesitta:
"Stretch forth thy hand from above; deliver me out of great waters, from the hand of the ungodly,"
The KJV used the Aramaic word eweley - babies, rather than awaley - ungodly. The sole difference between the Aramaic words is that eweley has two dots beneath it. Fascinating.
Next question is whether The Bible falls into the same rules quandary. The chapters of the Bible are called "books", after all. Then there's the Old vs. New Testament question.
See what happens when you let me play an innocent little game? My brain hurts. Time for a nap.
I have been contemplating that question for some time. I have mentioned recently that I am currently studying the Bhagavad Gita. I do not identify as a Krishna or any of the standard religions, by the way, so don't try to nail me down here. The Gita is a wonderful book. There are many parallels to Christianity in it, if I can say as much without being tarred and feathered. It is a lush book and worth of years of devoted study, and is itself a small excerpt of a larger work called The Mahabharata. So I considered choosing The Mahabharata.
The Mahabharata is not exactly concise. One translation is said to fill twelve volumes. So, in terms of our mental exercise, is it cheating to ask for The Mahabharata, or would I have to confine myself solely to the Gita?
Many people's answer is The Bible. You may be shocked to learn that I would not mind at all having a Bible as a companion because I do consider it a book worthy of years of study. I am, however, adamant that I be given a proper translation. Some of what passes for a Bible nowadays is scary. The College Student's Bible. The Housewife's Bible. The Middle Aged Man Who Drives a Dually Bible (free pine-scented Tree of Life air freshener)....
There was a time when it may have been appropriate to rely solely on prayer for a correct translation, but the study of linguistics has progressed and additional copies of early Bibles have been discovered. Gosh, folks, we can do better than the King James Version!
One of my favorites is a translation from The Peshitta - the Bible of the Church of the East, as translated by George Lamsa. The original Aramaic text of the Bible in the Assyrian Church was never translated into any other language and was never revised. Monks who copied the texts were instructed to destroy entire copies when they made one mistake. So the original Aramaic text was never altered from the time Jesus' disciples arrived in Northern Iraq and began preaching. The people of the area still speak a form of Aramaic.
Here's an example of the difference:
Psalm 144:7 KJV:
"Send thine hand from above; rid me, and deliver me out of great waters, from the hand of strange children;"
Pesitta:
"Stretch forth thy hand from above; deliver me out of great waters, from the hand of the ungodly,"
The KJV used the Aramaic word eweley - babies, rather than awaley - ungodly. The sole difference between the Aramaic words is that eweley has two dots beneath it. Fascinating.
Next question is whether The Bible falls into the same rules quandary. The chapters of the Bible are called "books", after all. Then there's the Old vs. New Testament question.
See what happens when you let me play an innocent little game? My brain hurts. Time for a nap.
