To retranslate a masterpiece of an eminent author from
a foreign version if he left other writings in his own language
would not be very difficult. For thus the translator could
study the mind, the technicalities, and the expressions in his
works, and do his best to retranslate the book into its original
language. But how far he would be successful is a question
which only able translators can decide and determine. Similarly, if there were at least a couple of epistles or writings of
St. Luke in the Hebrew, his Gospel could with comparatively
less difficulty be translated into that tongue than it can now
be done. But unfortunately even such is not the case. For
nothing is extant of the ancient writings in the language of
Jesus from which St. Luke translated the angelic hymn; nor
has he himself left us another book in a Semitic dialect.
To make myself better understood, and in order to make
the English readers better appreciate the extreme importance
of this point, I venture to challenge the best scholar in English
and French literature to retranslate from a French edition
the dramatic work of Shakespeare into English without seeing
the original English text, and to show the grace and the
elegance of the original as well.
The great Muslim philosopher Ibn Sina (Avicenna)
wrote in the Arabic, and some of his works were afterwards
retranslated from the Latin into the Arabic because the
originals were lost. Are these reproductions the exact texts
of that Muslim Aristotle? Certainly not!
In the previous article in this series, on "Eiriny," we
discussed this translational point to a certain extent; and we
had no difficulty in finding its equivalent Hebrew word
"Shalom," because both are identical in the Septuagint and
Hebrew texts. But the Greek compound word "Eudokia"
does not occur, to the best of my knowledge, in the Septuagint
Version, and it is extremely difficult to find out its equivalent
or synonymous term in the original. St. Barnabas does not
mention in his Gospel this angelic hymn and the story of the
Shepherds of Bethlehem; nor do the other Synoptics or the
Epistles in the New Testament.
The modern Greeks frequently adopt "Eudokia" and
"Eudoxia" for their feminine proper nouns; and both these
nouns are composed of two elements; "eu" and "dokeo,"
from the later being derived "doxa" which means "glory" or
"praise" and so on.
In order to discover the original Semitic word in the
song that the pious Shepherds heard and related, and which
the evangelist Luke has formulated into "Eudokia," we are
compelled to examine and trace it right from its Greek root
and derivation. But before doing so, it is necessary to criticize
and expose the erroneous versions which have eclipsed the
true meanings of Eudokia and concealed its prophetical bearing upon Ahmad or Muhammad.
There are two principal versions of the New Testament from the Greek text,
one being in the so-called "Syriac" language, and the other in the Latin. Both
bear the same significant title of "Simplex" or "Simple," which both the "Pshittha"
and the "Vulgate" signify. There is much new material of information about these
two famous ancient versions which must embarrass the most erudite Christian
historians and the most dogmatic theologians. But for the present it may suffice
to say that the Aramaic (1) Version, called the Pshittha, is older than the
Latin Vulgate. It is common knowledge that the Church of Rome for the first
four centuries had no Scriptures or Liturgy in the Latin but in the Greek. Before
the Nicene Council in 325 A.C., the Canon of the books of the New Testament
was not completed, or rather established. There were dozens of Gospels and Epistles
bearing the names of different Apostles and other companions of Jesus, which
were held by various Christian communities as sacred, but they were rejected
by the Nicene Council as spurious. As the seat or center of the Syriac language
and learning was Orhai, i.e. Edessa, and never Antioch, it was here that the
books of the New Testament were translated from the Greek, after the notorious
Assembly of Nicea.
------------Footnote (1). The Pshittha Version of the Old Testament never
uses the words "Syria" and "Syriac," but "Aram" and "Aramaic." -------------
end of footnote
A profound examination and study of the early Christian
literature and history will show that the first preachers of
the Gospel were Jews who spoke Aramaic or the old Syriac
language. Whether this "Gospel" was a written document,
or an unwritten doctrine or religion taught and propagated
orally, is a question for itself and lies outside the sphere of
our present subject. But one thing is certain and does really
fall within the periphery of our subject - namely, the early
Christians conducted their religious services in the Aramaic
language. That was the common language spoken by the
Jews, the Syrians, the Phoenicians, the Chaldeans, and the
Assyrians. Now it is but clear that the Christians belonging
to the Aramaic-speaking nationalities would certainly prefer
to read and pray in their own language, and consequently
various Gospels, Epistles, prayer-books, and liturgies were
written in the Syriac. Even the Armenians, before the invention of their alphabet in the fifth century, had adopted the
Syriac characters.
On the other hand, the proselytes from the non-Semitic
"Gentiles" to the "new way" read the Old Testament in its
Greek Version of the "Seventy." As a matter of course, the
scholars of the Greek philosophy and the ex-ministers of the
Greek mythology, once converted to the new faith and with
the Septuagint before them, could have no difficulty in the
production of a "New Testament" as a completion or a continuation of the old one.
How the simple Gospel of the Nazarene Messenger of
Allah became a source of two mighty currents of the Semitic
and the Hellenic thought; and how the Greek polytheistic
thought finally overpowered the monotheistic Semitic creed
under the most tyrannical Greco-Latin Emperors, and under
the most intolerant and superstitious Trinitarian Bishops of
Byzantium and Rome, are points of extreme moment for a
profound study by the Muslim savants.
Then there are the questions of the unity of faith, of
doctrine, and of the revealed text. For more than three centuries the Christian Church had no New Testament as we see
it in its present shape. None of the Semitic or Greek
Churches, nor did Antioch, Edessa, Byzantium, and Rome
possess all the books of the New Testament, nor even the
four Gospels before the Nicene Council. And I wonder
what was or could be the belief of those Christians who
were only in possession of the Gospel of St. Luke, or of
St. Mark, or of St. John, concerning the dogmas of the
Eucharist, Baptism, the Trinity, the miraculous conception
of Christ, and of dozens of other dogmas and doctrines! The
Syriac Version of the Pshittha does not contain the so-called
"Essential" or "Institutional Words," now extant in St. Luke
(xxii. 17, 18, 19). The last twelve verses of the sixteenth
chapter of the Second Gospel are not to be found in the old
Greek manuscripts. The so-called "Lord's prayer" (Matt.
vi. 9; Luke xi. 2) is unknown to the authors of the Second
and Fourth Gospels. In fact, many important teachings contained in one Gospel were unknown to the Churches which
did not possess it. Consequently there could possibly be no
uniformity of worship, discipline, authority, belief, commandments, and law in the Early Church, just as there is none
now. All that we can gather from the literature of the New
Testament is that the Christians in the Apostolical age had
the Jewish Scriptures for their Bible, with a Gospel containing
the true revelation made to Jesus, and that its substance was
precisely the same as announced in this Seraphic Canticle -
namely, ISLAM and AHMADIYEH. The special mission assigned
by Allah to His Prophet Jesus was to revert or convert
the Jews from their perversion and erroneous belief in
a Davidic Messiah, and to convince them that the Kingdom
of God upon earth which they were anticipating was not
to come through a Messiah of the Davidic dynasty, but of the
family of Ishmael whose name was AHMAD, the true
equivalent of which name the Greek Gospels have preserved
in the forms "Eudoxos" and "Periclytos" and not "Paraclete"
as the Churches have shaped it. It goes without saying that
the "Periclyte" will form one of the principal topics in this
series of articles. But whatever be the signification of the
"Paraclete" (John xiv. 16, 26; xv. 26, and xvi. 7) or its true
etymological orthography, there still remains the shining truth
that Jesus left behind him and unfinished religion to be completed and perfected by what John (ubi supra) and Luke
(xxiv. 49) describe as "Spirit." This "Spirit" is not a god,
a third of the three in a trinity of gods, but the holy Spirit
of Ahmad, which existed like the Spirits of other Prophets
in Paradise (cf. the Gospel of Barnabas). If the Spirit of
Jesus, on the testimony of an Apostle, John (xvii. 5, etc.),
existed before he became a man, the Muslim, too,
are perfectly justified in believing in the existence of the
Spirit of Prophet Muhammad on the testimony of another Apostle,
Barnabas! And why not? As this point will be discussed
in the course of the succeeding articles, for the present all I
want to ask the Christian Churches is this: Did all the
Christian Churches in Asia, Africa, and Europe possess the
Fourth Gospel before the Nicene Council? If the answer
is in the affirmative, pray, bring your proofs; if it is in the
negative, then it must be admitted that a large portion of the
Christians knew nothing about St. John's "Paraclete," a
corrupt word which does not mean either a "comforter" or
"mediator" or anything at all! These are certainly very
serious and grave charges against Christianity.
But to turn to the point. The Pshittha had translated
the Greek word "Eudokia" (the Greeks read the word
"Ivdokia," or rather pronounce it "Ivthokia") as "Sobhra
Tabha" (pronounced "Sovra Tava"), which signifies "good
hope," or "good anticipation;" whereas the Latin Vulgate, on
the other hand, renders "Eudokia" as "Bona Voluntas," or
"good will."
I fearlessly challenge all the Greek scholars, if they dare,
to contradict me when I declare that the translators of the
Syriac and Latin Versions have made a serious error in their
interpretation of "Eudokia." Nevertheless, I must confess
that I cannot conscientiously blame those translators of having
deliberately distorted the meaning of this Greek term; for I
admit that both the Versions have a slight foundation to justify
their respective translations. But even so, it must be remarked that they have thereby missed the prophetical sense
and the true meaning of the Semitic vocabulary when they
converted it into the Greek word "Eudokia."
The exact and literal equivalent of "good hope" in the
Greek language is not "eudokia," but "eu elpis, or rather
"euelpistia." This exposition of "evelpistia" (the proper
Greek pronunciation) is enough to silence the Pshittha. The
precise and the exact corresponding term to the Latin "bona
voluntas," or "good will," in the Greek tongue is certainly not
"eudokia," but "euthelyma." And this short but decisive
explanation again is a sufficient reprimand to the priests of
the Vatican, of Phanar (Constantinople), and of Canterbury, who chant the "Gloria in Excelsis" when they celebrate Mass or administer other sacraments.
1. THE ETYMOLOGY AND SIGNIFICATION OF "EUDOKIA"
Now let us proceed to give the true meaning of "Eudokia."
The adjectival prefix "eu" signifies "good, well, more,
and most," as in "eudokimeo" - "to be esteemed, approved,
loved," and "to acquire glory"; "eudokimos" - "very
esteemed, most renowned and glorious"; "eudoxos" -
"most celebrated and glorious"; "eudoxia" - "celebrity,
renown." The Greek substantive "doxa," used in the compound nouns "orthodox," "doxology," and so on, is derived
from the verb "dokeo." Every student of English literature
knows that "doxa" signifies "glory, honor, renown." There
are numerous phrases in the classical Greek authors where
"doxa" is used to signify "glory": "Peri doxis makheshai" -
"to fight for glory." The famous Athenian orator Demosthenes "preferred glory to a tranquil life," "glory equal to
that of the gods." I am cognizant of the fact that "doxa"
is, although seldom, used to signify (a) opinion, belief;
(b) dogma, principle, doctrine; and (c) anticipation or hope.
But all the same, its general and comprehensive sense is
"glory." In fact, the first portion of the Canticle begins with:
"Doxa [Glory] be to Allah in the highest."
In the Dictionnaire Grec-Francais (published in 1846
in Paris by R. C. Alexandre) the word "eudokia" is rendered
"bienveillence, tendresse, volunte, bon plaisir," etc.; and the
author gives "dokeo" as the root of "doxa," with its various
significations I have mentioned above.
The Greeks of Constantinople, among whose teachers I
have had several acquaintances, while unanimously understanding by "eudokia" the meaning of "delight, loveliness,
pleasantness, and desire," also admit that it does signify
"celebrity, renown, and honorability" in its original sense
as well.
2. THE ETYMOLOGY OF THE HEBREW FORMS OF MaHMaD AND HiMDaH, AND
THEIR SIGNIFICATIONS
I am convinced that the only way to understand the
sense and the spirit of the Bible is to study it from an Islamic
point of view. It is only then that the real nature of the
Divine Revelation can be understood, appreciated, and loved.
It is only then, too, that the spurious, the false, and the
heterogeneous elements interpolated in it can be discovered
in their blackest features and eliminated. And it is from
this point of view that I welcome this Greek word "eudokia,"
which in its true and literal signification admirably corresponds to the Hebrew "Mahmad, Mahamod, Himdah," and
"Hemed" so frequently used in the Old Testament.
(a) Hamad. This verb, which is constituted of three
essential consonants hmd, and common to all the Semitic
dialects, everywhere in the Sacred Writ of the Hebrews signifies: "to covet, fall in love, long for, take pleasure and
delight in," and "to desire ardently." Those who know
Arabic will naturally understand the comprehensive sense of
the word Shahwat, which is rendered in English as "lust,
cupidity, ardent desire, and appetite." Well, this is the
precise sense and signification of the verb "hamad" in the
Hebrew Scriptures. One of the commands in the famous
Decalogue of the Torah (Arabic "Taurat") or the Law contains this clause: "Lo tahmod ish reikha" - "Thou shalt not
covet the wife of thy neighbor" (Exod. xx. 17.)
(b) Hemed. The substantive in the masculine gender, and "Himdah" in the feminine, signifies: "lust, desire,
pleasantness, delight, object of longing and of desire, loveliness" (Hag. ii. 7; Jerem. xxv. 34, etc.).
(c) MaHMaD, MaHaMoD (Lam. i. 7, 10; ii. 4, etc.).
These participles forms are also derivatives from the verb
"hamad" and mean: "most covetable, delightful, pleasant,
delicious, charming, precious, beloved."
That the Arabic form MuHaMmaD and the Hebrew
MaHMaD and MaHaMoD are derived from one and the
same verb or root, and that they, notwithstanding the slight
orthographic difference between the forms, have one common origin and signification, there cannot be a jot or iota of
doubt. I have given the meanings of the Hebrew forms as
the Jews and the lexicographers have understood them.
(d) It will therefore be observed that the Greek word
"eudokia" must be a literal representation of the Hebrew substantive HiMDah, and that both signify: "delight, pleasantness, good pleasure (bon plaisir), desire, loveliness, preciousness," and some other synonymous words.
Now it would follow from the above that the corresponding equivalent to the Hebrew "Mahamod" can be none
other than "eudoxos" which was the object of desire and
longing, the most delightful, pleasant, and coveted, and the
most precious, approved, loved, and esteemed.
That among all the sons of Adam the name Muhammad should be
given for the first time alone to the son of 'Abdullah
and Amina in the town of Mecca, is a unique miracle in the
history of religions. There could be no artificial device,
attempt, or forgery in this respect. His parents and relatives
were people of "fitr" uprighteous but knew nothing of the
prohecies in the Hebrew or Christian Scriptures concerning
a great Prophet who was promised to come to restore and
establish the religion of Islam. Their choice of the name
Muhammad or Ahmad could not be explained away as a coincidence
or an accidental event. It was surely providential and inspired.
Whether the Arabian poets and men of letters had preserved the archaic signification of the Hebrew passive participle of the pi'el form of the verb hamad, or not, I have no
means to prove one way or another. But the Arabic passive
participle of the pi'el conjugation of the verb hammida is
Muhammad, and that of the Hebrew himmid Mahmad or
Mahamod. The affinity between the similarity and the identity of the two forms is unquestionable.
I have faithfully reproduced the significations of the
Hebrew forms as given by the lexicographers and translators.
But the intrinsical or spiritual sense of "Himdah" and
"Mahamod" is: "praise and praiseworthy, celebrity and celebrated, glory and glorious." For among the created beings
and things, what can be "more glorious, honorable, illustrious, and praised than that which is most coveted and
desired." It is in this practical sense that the Qur'an uses
the word hamdu from which Ahmad and Muhammad are
derivations, and hamdu is the same word as the Hebrew
hemed. The glory of Prophet Muhammad surpasses that of any
other creatures, as illustrated by Daniel (vii.), and in the
oracle of Allah: "Law la ka lama Khalaqna 'l-Aflaka" -
"Were it not for thee, were is not for thee (O beloved
Muhammad), We would not have created the worlds" (or
heavens ). But the highest honor and glory granted by
Allah to His most esteemed Messenger was that he was commissioned to establish and to perfect the true religion of
Allah, under the name of "Islam," which, like the name of
Prophet Muhammad, has so very many consolating and
salubrious significations; "peace, security, safety, tranquillity,
salvation," and "the Good" in opposition to "the Evil"; besides those of submission and resignation to the Will of Allah.
The vision by which the pious Shepherds were honored
on the occasion of the birth of Jesus Christ was timely and
opportune. For a great Missioner of Allah, a holy Evangelist
of Islam was born. As Jesus was the Herald of the Kingdom
of Allah, so was his Gospel an Introduction to the Qur'an.
The advent of Jesus was the beginning of a new era in the history
of religion and morals. He himself was not the "Mahamod" who was
to come afterwards to destroy the Evil One and his Kingdom
of Idolatry in the Promised Lands. The "Fourth Beast," the
mighty Roman Power, was still growing and expanding its conquests.
Jerusalem, with its gorgeous temple and priesthood, was to be
destroyed by that Beast. Jesus "came to his own people;
but that people received him not." And those among the
Jews who received him were made "children of the Kingdom," but the rest dispersed in the world. Then followed
the ten terrible persecutions under the pagan Roman
Emperors which were to crown thousands with the diadem
of martyrdom; and Constantine the Great and his successors
were allowed to trample upon the true believers in the Oneness
of Allah. And then it was that Prophet Muhammad - not a god or
son of a god, but "the glorious, the coveted, the most illustrious Son of Man, the perfect Bar nasha" - was to come and
destroy the Beast.
No Copyright:
Any
organisation or individual wishing to reprint or copy the contents of
this website
may do so as long as the information is kept in its original form,
names of
all authors and sources are kept intact and is used for non-malicious
purposes.
An acknowledgement would be HIGHLY appreciated.
