When I wrote the post “Jesus - I and the father are one“, Yunis from the website Katib raised an interesting question concerning the use of the word “Father” in the text of the Gospels. He wanted to know the original Aramaic term which is translated as father. The ensuing discussion in turn led to other “technical” questions concerning translation of the Gospel texts. If anyone can shed some light on the issues raised below, please do leave a comment.
The Aramaic for father is Abba. This is said to be a common and familiar term for father, similar to the arabic “Abu” (equivalent to dad or Papa in english). For example, the Christian prayer “Our father which is in heaven” begins with the word “Abun” translated as “Our father”. The word “kingdom” in the same prayer is transliterated as Malkuta (very similar to the Arabic for kingdom or dominion).
There are several places in the New Testament where the Aramaic term Abba/Father is left intact (in Aramaic). In untranslated form “Abba” (referring to God) appears three times in the New Testament (although only one of those three is spoken by Jesus). Why was Abba left untranslated in some instances and not in others? The term “Father” (referring to God) appears many times in the New Testament. If the original Aramaic was Abba in all these instances then shouldn’t Abba have appeared many more times in the text? The question becomes what was the original Aramaic word used for those other occurrences of father (including in John 10:30 - “I and the father are one”) and if it was also “Abba” why was Abba retained in only three particular places but not in numerous other places? I suppose this relates to the question of what portions of the Aramaic words spoken by Jesus survived. If the Gospels were originally written in Greek (the Greek texts are the only surviving versions), then Greek would have been the first level of translation - later they were translated to Latin and the English translations were in turn based primarily on the Latin (with reference to the Greek) so I’m assuming the only remaining Aramaic text are the bits and pieces left intact in the Greek text?
Another interesting statement of Jesus is this: “Do not call anyone on earth “Father” for you have only one Father and He is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9) Here, Jesus is restricting use of the term “Father” (whatever the original Aramaic is) exclusively for God. Why would he do this if he was in fact using a common daily word by which people referred to their fathers? This would be equivalent to asking his followers not to refer to their own fathers as “dad” or “Papa” anymore. Is there any possibility that the original Aramaic word in these other passages (translated as father) suggested something far more serious than a common casual term like dad or papa, perhaps something more equivalent to the Arabic word Rabb (Lord).
Note: The Arabic term Rabb (Lord) is from the root Rabba and can be used, depending on context and derivative, to refer to God or, more infrequently, to a parent raising or caring for a child. It is used in both meanings, for example, in the well-known dua (supplication) for one’s parents: “Rabbir hamhumaa kamaa rabbayaaniy sagheera.” (O My Lord, have mercy on them both as they had mercy on me and nurtured me when I was small.) This example is given only to point out the multiple connotations that a word can convey in a language made up of root words and multiple derivatives arising from the roots.
{ 5 } Comments
Unfortunately, Muslims reject the doctrine of the Trinity, or God in three persons.
However, Jesus is most certainly God made flesh, as St. John mentions in John 1:1 and also verse 14
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
You should read Matthew Slcik’s information on Christianity for Muslims. I think it will be eye opening for you.
http://www.carm.org/islam.htm
Thanks for the good post.
wreck said “Unfortunately, Muslims reject the doctrine of the Trinity”
- Muslims consider such doctrine to be accidental and not essential to Jesus message; of love and peace. Muslims believe in Jesus message which should be the main focus of all disputing parties, Muslims, Christians, Jews and others.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
-It is important to figure out one concern here that is; who was first in existence; was it God or His Word. If we assume it is the Word of God was first in existence then this follows that “God” was caused by His word. But this is not possible for God is a Necessary Being who has no cause. Therefore there is only one other possibility left which is; God existed before His Word and He caused the existence of His word. So the Word of God is a manifestation of His actions and therefore it is added to His essence and not His essence. So God is the source of all things including His word, mercy, love, wrath, etc. so if we say “In the beginning was the Word” this dose not mean that the Word is God Himself rather it means that the “Word was with God” or related to His actions, as the same verse indicate. And if we say “and the Word was God” it dose not mean that the Word is the essence of God, for it is refuted by the second part of this verse “and the Word was with God” where clearly says that the Word was with God which means if something is with something else, then that something can not be itself; it means there are two separate entities; the Word and God in this case. Hence the Word of God is different from the essence of God. We can easily conclude that “Jesus” is another manifestation of the “Word of God”
This is only an opinion which is not meant to demean our Christian brothers rather it is only within the rights of our intellect to understand these concepts. In fact Irshaad’s post was very dignifying in content to Jesus more than many writings, about Jesus, offered by Christians today.
For further interest I will be posting the full version of this opinion regarding the “Father of Jesus from an Islamic perspective”
Thanks
Katib
alislam@sympatico.ca
To wreck: Thanks for your comment and the link
To Katib: Thanks - I don’t know that there’s anything left for me to add after your very clear explanation….so I won’t….
- Irshaad
For a very interesting elaboration of this subject and further commentary on the “Jesus: I and the father are one” post, see Katib’s recent post: “Who is Jesus’ father“
I find it interesting that the word “Abba” in my language also means “father.” And I suspect that the word means the same in several other west African languages. Mine is Bassa.
Post a Comment