Reading Matthew in Hebrew - VIII

We have seen evidence (and there is more) that the sayings portion of Matthew was originally written in a Semitic language (Hebrew or Aramaic). The evidence that we looked at suggests that this earliest layer of Matthew (Matthew I) was written in Hebrew, and probably Biblical Hebrew. Literary devices such as alliteration are more easily observable in Delitzsch's Hebrew translation of the New Testament than they are in the mixed Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew of Shaprut's Hebrew Matthew.

So what, then is Shaprut's Hebrew Matthew? It is not some kind of original Matthew or Ur Matthew. It is a translation into Hebrew from either the Old Syriac or the Old Latin. We can say this with near-certainty because it omits the same verses as some of the texts in these two (closely allied) textual streams. In other words, Shaprut's Hebrew Matthew is based on a text of the Western type. Within this textual type, it seems to be closest to the oldest Old Latin texts, such as Bobiensis (k). This much we can say, but we don't know when it was translated, or how much modification it may have undergone for polemical purposes. Readings that have no support in any modern critical apparatus must be viewed with suspicion, but it would be a mistake to reject them all out-of-hand without considering whether they commend themselves for some inherent reason.

As to the other translation I've used, that of Salkinson, it has the advantage of being based on a great Greek text, that of Codex Sinaiticus (א), but its more periphrastic style often obscures literary devices that were probably part of the original Matthew I.

In general, I find Delitzsch's Hebrew translation to be of the most use, and it is the one I always start with.

ᎩᎦᎨ ᎠᎵᏍᏇᏓᏬ

ᎩᎦᎨ ᎠᎵᏍᏇᏓᏬ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎤᏁᎬ ᏗᎬᎯᏓ. Ꮭ ᎠᏄᏬᏍᏚ ᎾᏍᎩᏁ, ᎠᎴ Ꮭ ᎠᏍᏓᏩᏛᏍᏚ ᎾᏍᎩᏁ.

The Layers of Matthew - I

There is no separate "Q Document."

The only sources we need to solve the "Synoptic Problem" are Matthew and Mark.

The substratum of the sayings portion of Matthew was in Hebrew (Matthew I).

At some point it became necessary to translate Matthew I into Greek (Matthew II).

This Mathew II, although in Greek, was still too "Jewish" for Paul's purposes, so editorial changes were made, giving us Luke I, still essentially a sayings gospel, but more acceptable to the Gentiles.

Peter's public speeches were recorded by Mark. They were probably not intended to be a separate gospel, but they provided the narrative portions of Matthew and Luke.

Along with the Markan narrative, further sayings material (e.g. the Beatitudes not included in the  Lukan list) was added to Matthew II, giving us Matthew III. The evangelist of the Gospel of Luke may never have seen this expanded Matthew.

The Markan narrative was also added to Luke I, giving us Luke II.

At this point, there was no longer a need for a separate Gospel of Mark, but it was included in the Canon because Peter was the leader of the apostles and an eyewitness.

This theory can explain everything that we observe, including the Minor Agreements.

Reading Matthew in Hebrew - VII

On a warm night in early 2015 I was trying to put myself to sleep by reading the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. as I read, I suddenly realized that the passage I had reached, Mt. 5:25, 26, was full of alliteration. This was very exciting, and made sleep even more impossible.

I was reading Franz Delitzsch's translation of the New Testament into Hebrew, which is written in pure and impeccable Biblical Hebrew. Here is the passage I was reading:

מַהֵר הִתְרַצֵּה לְאִישׁ רִיבְךָ בּעוֹדְךָ בַדֶּרֶךְ אִתּוֹ פֶּן־יַסְגִיר אֹתְךָ אִישׁ רִיבְךָ אֶל־הַשֹׁפֵט וְהַשֹׁפֵט יַסְגִּירְךָ לַשׁוֹטֵר וְהָשְׁלַכְתָּ אֶל־בֵּית הַכֶּלֶא ׃  אָמֵן אֹמֵר אֲנִי לָךְ לֹא תֵצֵא מִשָׁם עַד אֲשֶׁר שִׁלַּמְתָּ אֶת־הַפְּרוּטָה הָאַחֲרוֹנָה ׃

Here is an ad hoc phonetic version, so that those who do not read Hebrew may appreciate the alliteration:

maher hitratzeh l'ish riv'chaw b'od'chaw baderek ito pen-yasgir ot'chaw ish riv'chaw el-hashofet v'hashofet yasgir'chaw lashoter v'hawshlachtaw el-beyt hakele. awmen omer ani lawch lo tetze mishawm ad asher shilamtaw et-ha p'rutaw hawacharonaw. 

English:

Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

The alliteration in v.25: shofet/shofet/shoter. It is also visible in Salkinson.

The alliteration in v. 26: the common Matthaean formula "awmen omer ani" (amen I say to you). Salkinson expresses this somewhat differently, losing the alliteration.

In the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew we have the following:

אז אמר יש“ו לתלמידיו ראה שתמהר לרצות שונאך בלכתך עמו בדרך פנ ימסור אותך לשופט וזה השופט ימסורך לעבד לתת אותך לבית הסוהר ׃

באמת אני אומר לך לא תצא משם עד תנתן פרוטה אחרונה ׃

v. 25: shofet/shofet only (because Shaprut has "servant" instead of "officer")

v. 26: The alliteration of the common Matthaean formula is lost, because the Shaprut text reads "in truth" in place of "amen."

The implications of all this are many. Alliteration is a common feature of Semitic literature, but it is generally lost in translation. I am convinced that the alliteration in v. 25 is integral to the composition of the verse. This implies that the verse was originally written in a Semitic language. The alternatives are Hebrew and Aramaic. But I have checked Syr-s, Syr-c, and the Peshitta, and the alliteration is not visible in those texts. So we are left with Hebrew, but what type of Hebrew? The alliteration is only partial in the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew, but it is fully visible in Delitzsch's strict Biblical Hebrew.

When I first read Delitzsch's translation, I felt that the use of Biblical Hebrew was an anachronism. So it may have been, but there would have been no better way to give dignity and gravitas to the text. My vote, therefore, now goes to Biblical Hebrew as the substratum language in Matthew.

The alliteration of the common Matthaean formula is also interesting. It is no doubt original in the text of Matthew, and we find it in all the best Greek and Latin manuscripts. It disappears in Luke, where it is customarily replaced by "verily," or some such word. Even the KJV and the RSV say "verily," "truly," or some such, instead of the original (and alliterative in Hebrew) "amen."

This also has implications for the Synoptic problem. For years I was a partisan of Markan priority, the hypothesized "Q Document," and the Two-Source Theory. It falls apart, though, when one looks at the many Minor Agreements (more on this in a later blog post), and forces us to ignore the statements of the early Church historians. If we resort to a Two-Gospel Theory, as did Augustine, Griesbach (the father of New Testament textual criticism), and, more recently Farrar did, we are consistent with nearly eighteen centuries of Church opinion. Still, though, there is the question of  Matthaean or Lukan priority. The evidence of the Hebrew substratum in Matthew, with all its literary devices, argues for Matthaean priority. We have, then, a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, written for the Jews, and a little later a Gospel of Luke, written for the Gentiles. Thus we see the alliterative "amen I say to you" changed by Luke to "truly," "verily," or simply "I say to you," to make the Gospel sound less Jewish, and for the same reason less insistence upon the Law.

Rabbi Yeshua, called by us Jesus, was a Jew, and his original audience was made up of Jews. To argue that the more Gentile gospel of Luke was the first and the "Jewish" features of Matthew were added later would be to stand history on its head.

(to be continued)

ᏡᎬᏗ (translation)

ᏡᎬᏗ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎠᎦᏘᏯᎯ ᎠᏓᏅᏙᏗ
ᎡᏆ-ᎡᎶᎯ ᎥᎿᎢ.
ᎢᏳᏃ ᎢᏧᎳ ᎠᏓᏍᏕᎸᏙᏎ ᏡᎬᏗᏁ,
ᏡᎬᏗ ᎠᏓᏍᏕᎸᏙᏎ ᎢᏧᎸ.


Trees are the guardian spirits of the world.
If we will protect trees,
trees will protect us.

Reading Matthew in Hebrew - VI

For many years I have been interested in the "synoptic problem" and in the Semitic substratum for which there is evidence (mostly in the form of wordplay and translation variants). For a long time I believed that this substratum was probably Aramaic, but I am now favoring Hebrew. This note is intended to explain this shift in my thinking.

A good example is Matthew 5:46-48. When one reads these verses in the Delitzsch translation into Biblical Hebrew, one is impressed by the amount of wordplay present, of a kind that is typical of Semitic texts, but not of translations of any sort. For example, "ahava" (love) is echoed by "achim" (brothers), and "shalom" (peace, health) is echoed in "shalem" (perfect, complete). This last example works in Hebrew, but not in Aramaic, where the word used for "perfect" is "gamir."

Burt these verses are interesting for another reason. Verse 47 has come down to us in a form that either says "Do not the publicans (tax collectors) also do this?" (the so-called Received, or Byzantine Text) or says "Do not the ethnikoi (gentiles, goyim) also do this?" (the best and most ancient Greek texts). This verse 47 is absolutely central to the wordplay, so it clearly is original. But should the reference be to tax collectors (who have already been mentioned in verse 46), or to the gentiles? The latter is suggested by the better texts. The clincher, though, comes from the omission of verse 47 in the oldest Old Syriac that we have (the Sinaitic Syriac) and in our oldest Old Latin (Bobiensis, known as "k").

This omission of verse 47 cannot have been an accident, occurring as it does in both the Syriac and the Old Latin textual traditions. It is likely that it was at some time felt that the verse would be offensive to the gentiles, who had become the major audience for Christianity. But later texts, such as the Peshitta and the Byzantine Greek texts, found an easier solution: they simply changed "gentiles" to "publicans," who had already been mentioned in the preceding verse. St. Jerome, to his credit, kept the word "ethnici" in the Vulgate.

The verse, in its original form, shows that the original audience for the Sermon on the Mount was the Jews. Its omission at a certain point in time, in two different manuscript streams, shows that that situation had changed.

The omission of verse 47 in Syr-s and in k also interests me for another reason. I have a Hebrew translation of Matthew that also omits the verse. It was published in the late fourteenth century, but is clearly older. It is the Hebrew Matthew of Shem Tob ibn Saprut. Other evidence makes it likely that it was translated either from the Old Syriac or from the Old Latin.

The wordplay in verse 48, dependent on the choice of the word "shalem" for "perfect," fortunately came out in Delitzsch's Hebrew translation (ca. 1877, with many later editions), but it did not come out in that of Salkinson (ca. 1885), who used the other common Hebrew word for "perfect," which is "tamim." It did not come out in Syriac (late, eastern Aramaic), either.

The three translations I've mentioned of Matthew back into the language in which the Sayings were probably written are all somewhat different, and they are all interesting. That of Shem Tob was made by Jews for polemical purposes and supports a theology that is different, to be sure, from that of Pauline Christianity. Salkinson's translation (completed for Acts after his death, by C. D. Ginsburg) is intentionally periphrastic, so may sound more natural in places. It was based on the great Codex Sinaiticus, one of the best available. I also love the fact that he used the word "goyim" for "ethnikoi." But Delitzsch's translation is, by far, my favorite. It is written in impeccable Biblical Hebrew which, although it may be an anachronism, is reassuring and makes it quite clear and easy to understand. It's greatest weakness is that, after the first edition, the British and Foreign Bible Society forced him to modify it to agree with the so-called Received Text if he wanted them to publish and distribute it. Reading Matthew in any of these translations is highly rewarding, revealing things about the Sayings (which for me are the teachings of Rabbi Yeshua) that would not be apparent in any other language.

Shem Tob's Hebrew MatthewSalkinson & Ginsburg Hebrew New TestamentDelitzsch Hebrew New Testament

ᏡᎬᏗ

ᏡᎬᏗ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎠᎦᏘᏯᎯ ᎠᏓᏅᏙᏗ
ᎡᏆ-ᎡᎶᎯ ᎥᎿᎢ.
ᎢᏳᏃ ᎢᏧᎳ ᎠᏓᏍᏕᎸᏙᏎ ᏡᎬᏗᏁ,
ᏡᎬᏗ ᎠᏓᏍᏕᎸᏙᏎ ᎢᏧᎸ.

Reading Matthew in Hebrew - V

Recently I've been enjoying reading the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, the language in which at least the Sayings portion of it was probably originally written. The exercise has been very instructive. Consider, for example, Mt. 6:7-13. Here is verse 7 in the Revised Standard Version: "And in praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words." The word used in the Greek text for "Gentiles" is "ethnikoi." One of the very best texts though, Codex Vaticanus, has "hypocrites" instead of "Gentiles." Vaticanus, known as "B," is a fourth-century complete Bible in Greek, housed in the Vatican Library. The Old Syriac texts , also fourth-century, also have "hypocrites," as does the Peshitta, sometimes called the Syriac Vulgate, which is a fifth-century text.

The fourth century was a watershed year for textual changes. Something big had happened. Upon the conversion of Constantine, the fledgling Church had formed an alliance with its former oppressors, and no longer wished to offend them.

One of my texts of Hebrew Matthew, that of Shem Tob ibn Saprut, which may have been translated from either an Old Syriac text or an Old Latin one, uses instead the term "minim," a post-biblical word for heretical sectarians, which eventually came to be used for the Jewish Christians. If the latter is the meaning in the Shem Tob text, as it could be from the point of view of Jewish polemics, then it is a glaring anachronism. There is another possibility, though. It may have been used to refer to the Sadducees, who harshly enforced the Torah, but rejected the Prophets and the Writings. This would make sense from the point of view of the Pharisees, and the evidence that we have indicates that Rabbi Yeshua was a Pharisee, as was Saul/Paul. Paul was a student of Gamaliel, who was a student of Hillel.

But why would the people of Antioch, which was likely where the Syriac versions originated, have cared about offending the Gentiles? The answer is simple: the young church of Antioch was full of Gentiles, in addition to Jewish Christians. Rabbi Yeshua's original audience was composed of Jews, but by the fourth century this was no longer the case.

As I continued reading, I noticed that the Hebrew translation I was using, that of Delitzsch, had the longer, "Protestant" ending of the Lord's Prayer in Mt. 6:13. He wouldn't have wanted it that way, since it was not in accord with the best textual criticism of the time, but the British and Foreign Bible Society had forced him to use the "Received Text," which represents the Byzantine textual type. I checked the Salkinson translation, and found that, while the English on the facing page was exactly the same, the Hebrew reflected the shorter, "Catholic" ending. Shem Tob's text also had a short ending. All of this aroused my curiosity, so I did a little more digging.

I found that both the Curetonian Syriac (Syr-c) and the Peshitta (Syr-p) had the longer, Byzantine ending. Unfortunately, the older and better Sinaitic Syriac (Syr-s) is not a witness, due to a lacuna in the text. There are, however three very old texts that do have something resembling the Byzantine ending: Codex Bobiensis ("k"), the Sahidic Coptic version (SA), and the Didache (Did). Of these, "k" only mentions "the power" (virtus); the Sahidic says "the power and the glory," as does the Didache. But none of them mention "the kingdom." So we have a very interesting trajectory through time.

We have only two representatives of the Old Syriac textual type, both dating to the fourth century. This type of text was replaced by the fifth-century Peshitta, which aimed to more closely adhere to the Greek text, in the interest of Church unity. In fact, a serious effort was made to destroy all earlier texts, but as usual, they were not quite able to get them all.

Bobiensis ("k") is also a fourth-century manuscript, and its original provenance is thought to have been North Africa. It represents the earliest form of the Old Latin textual type. Thanks to quotations by Saint Cyprian and some others, we know that a text of this type existed at least as early as the third century. One theory is that the African type of Old Latin text originated in the same place as the Old Syriac, probably Antioch.

The Sahidic Coptic version is from the third century. The Didache is dated to either the first or the second century. The only copy we have of the original Greek, though, is a medieval one that was discovered in the late nineteenth century.

So the trajectory we are looking at in the development of the "longer ending" of the Pater Noster goes from terse in the early centuries of Christianity to verbose, adding "the kingdom" in the Alexandrian and Byzantine textual types. No part of the "longer ending" of the Pater Noster ever became official, however, in the Church of Rome. This is worth thinking about. In any case, the "longer ending" of the Pater Noster is only a loose echo of the matrix from which it sprang, which is Divrei HaYomim 1 (1 Chronicles 29:11): "Yours, Lord, are greatness, might, splendor, triumph and majesty--yes, all that is in heaven and on earth; to You, Lord, belong kingship and preeminence above all." [This English is from my JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh, and is based on the Masoretic text.]

By the late fourth century, the young church of Rome was stuck in a kind of Stockholm Syndrome, having fallen into an alliance with its former oppressors. No Roman emperor would have wanted to hear that the "kingdom" belonged to a foreign god. After all, the emperors themselves had claimed to be gods. It was, in any case, an unholy alliance.

It is to be presumed that the churches of the East had less circumspection about offending the Roman Emperor. Some may have been horrified by the "establishment" of the Roman church, and therefore of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Some, in the East, may have felt the need for a cautionary comment. It seems to me probable that this was the Sitz im Leben of the newly-expanded verse 13.

Some claim that the Pater Noster is taken from the third, fifth, sixth, ninth, and fifteenth blessings of the Amidah, or Shemoneh Esrei, the central prayer of the synagogue liturgy, which is recited by observant Jews three times a day. Certainly there are similarities. I have seen it claimed that Rabbi Yeshua was not the only itinerant Rabbi who taught a "boiled-down" version of the Amidah at that time. I'll take no position on these claims, since I haven't had time to research them. What I will say is that the Pater Noster (let's start calling it the Avinu) is very, very striking in Hebrew.

Avinu shebashamayim yitkadash shmecha

"Yitkadash shmecha." Let Your name be made holy. Because from this blessing all the others will flow. A world in which the Name is revered and respected, will be a world in which all Life is revered and respected, and in which we respect each other. It is a path to a better world.

Tavo malchutecha

May your kingdom come. (Replacing the rule of unethical imposters and usurpers who poison our existence because of their greed and lust for power.)

Yeaseh ritzoncha kmo bashamayim ken baaretz

May your will be done as in the heavens, so also on the earth.

Et-lechem chuqenu ten-lanu hayom

Give us this day our daily bread

Us'lach-lanu et-chovotenu kaasher salachnu gam-anachnu l'chayavenu

Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors

V'al-t'viyenu liydey nisayon kiy im-chaltzenu min-hara'

And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil,

[Kiy l'cha hamamlakhah v'hag'vurah v'hatipheret l'ol'mey olamiym] amen

[for Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever.] Amen.

That version, as I said above, agrees with the Received Text. Here is the Shaprut Hebrew Matthew version, which probably dates to the early centuries of the Common Era:

אבינו יתקדש שמך

ויתברך מלכותך רצונך יהיה עשוי בשמים ובארץ ׃

ותתן לחמנו תמידית ׃

ומחול לנו חטאתינו כאשר אנחנו מוחלים לחוטאים לנו

ואל תביאנו לידי נסיון ושמרינו מכל רע אמן ׃

Our father, may your name be sanctified;

may your kingdom be blessed; may your will be done in heaven and on earth.

Give our bread continually.

Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us,

and do not lead us into the power of temptation but keep us from all evil, amen.

This blog has now passed the milestone of 48,000 visits. Thank you all for your interest and encouragement.

Reading Matthew in Hebrew - IV

We now move to my favorite part of Matthew, the Sermon on the Mount. First we'll look at Mt 5:9-10, two of the Beatitudes. In the RSV, these verses read:

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

In this English translation, and in the Greek texts on which it is based, there is no particular connection between these two thoughts. Let's see how they read in Hebrew:

Salkinson

אַשְׁרֵי עֹשֵׂי שָׁלוֹם כִּי־הֵם יִקָּרְאוּ בְּנֵי־אֱלֹהִים ׃

אַשְׁרֵי הַנִרְדָּפִים עֵקֶב צִדְקָתָם כִּי לָהֶם מַלְכוּת הַשָׁמָיִם ׃

Shaprut

אשרי רודפי שלים שבני אלקים יקראו ׃

אשרי הנרדם לצדק שלהם מלכות שמים ׃

Delitzsch

אַשְׁרֵי רֹדְפֵי שָׁלוֹם כִּי־בְנֵי אֱלֹהִים יִקָּרֵאוּ ׃

אַשְׁרֵי הַנִרְדָּפִים עַל־דְּבַר הַצְּדָקָה כִּי לָהֶם מַלְכוּת הַשָׁמָיִם ׃

Salkinson has followed the "original" Greek, so in his Hebrew we still see no particular connection between the two thoughts. The situation changes, though, in Shaprut, where we see that these two Beatitudes are actually connected by the Hebrew verb "רדפ," which means both "pursue" and "persecute." Such connecting/linking words, or "catchwords" are a memory aid that is common in texts that go back to the oral tradition, especially collections of sayings. Most of the sayings in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, for example, are connected by such catchwords. In this case, and in quite a few others, the connection only works in Hebrew or Aramaic. This is one reason (not the only one) why many people believe that all or part of this Gospel was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

In Greek, "peacemakers" are literally "peace-doers." Salkinson calls them "makers of peace," which is similar to the Greek phrase. The Shaprut Hebrew calls them "pursuers of peace." "Peacemaker" does not occur anywhere in the Bible before or after this one verse. But the phrase in the Shaprut Hebrew echoes Ps.34.14, where it says "Seek peace and pursue it." The phrase in Shaprut's Hebrew seems likely to be more original 

It is interesting to note that, while we do not see the connection in the Hebrew of Salkinson, we do see it in that of Delitzsch, who uses the same phrase, "pursuers of peace," as in the Shaprut text. This may indicate that Delitzsch had, and was influenced by, a text of the Shaprut type. It is known that Delitzsch's translation originally had more variant readings. The British and Foreign Bible Society, though, refused to publish his translation unless he brought it into conformity with the Recieved Greek Text. This was, in effect, a rejection of all modern textual criticism. If he wanted his translation to be published by the BFBS, Delitzsch had no choice but to comply. It is interesting that he allowed this reading to stand, in spite of the instructions of the BFBS. It could, of course, have simply slipped through, but I believe that Delitzsch allowed it to stand because it gave such strong support to the theory of a Semitic substratum in Matthew.

(to be continued)

Reading Matthew in Hebrew - III

We can pick up the thread from this point:

But we can also consider the possibility that Shaprut's reading with "lands/cities" may be more original than the Greek textual tradition, just on the basis of the likelihood of the reading. Did the Samaritans have more than one city? No doubt. What is "the road" of the Gentiles? Is not "the lands" of the Gentiles more likely? Was there any historical, political, or social reason to suppress such a reading?

The answer, for me, is "yes, there was such a reason." While it is far from certain what "road of the Gentiles" means in this context, "Do not go to the lands of the Gentiles" sounds natural and is very clear. It is also exactly what Paul and his followers did, in spite of these words of Rabbi Yeshua. It may, therefore, be taken as an indictment of Pauline Christianity. If later generations read it that way, they would surely have suppressed it.

While I was studying this passage, I took a look at another passage that also talks about "the lost sheep of the house of Israel," namely Mt. 15:24, the episode of the Canaanite Woman. Here's how it reads in the RSV:

"Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon." But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

This passage has always presented a problem, because Jesus' answer is a non-answer. but the problem is resolved in Shaprut's Hebrew Matthew, which reads:

"Master, Son of David, have mercy on me because my daughter is possessed by demons." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples approached him and said to him, "Our master, why do you abandon this woman who is crying out after us?" Jesus answered them: "They did not send me except to the lost sheep from the house of Israel."

So, while all other texts are problematic in this passage, the old Hebrew Matthew presented by Shaprut resolves the problem and makes perfect sense. It certainly seems to me to be more original.

(to be continued)

Reading Matthew in Hebrew - II

Delitzsch:

אֶל־דֶּרֵךְ הַגּוֹיִם אַל־תֵּלֵכוּ וְאֶל־עִיר הַשֹׁמְוֹנִים אַל־תָּבֹאוּ ׃

כִּי אִם־לְכוּ אֶל־הַצֹּאן הָאֹבְדוֹת לבֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל ׃

Salkinson:

אַל־תָּשִׂימוּ לְדֶרֶךְ הַגּוֹיִם פַּעֲמֵיכֶם וְאֶל־עָרֵי הַשֹׁמְרֹנִים אַל־תָּבֹאוּ ׃

כִּי אִם־לְצֹאן אֹבְדוֹת מִבֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל תֵּלֵכוּ ׃‎

Shaprut:

בארצות הגוים אל תלכו ובערי השמרונים אל תבואו ׃

לכו לצעאן אשר נדחו מבית ישראל ׃

Please refer to my previous blog post for more background information.

We can pick up the thread here:

Shaprut [lived in Spain in the fourteenth century, but his text is of a type that is much older than that, pre-Vulgate (ca. 400) and pre-Peshitta (ca. 500), and probably even older]:

"Do not go to the lands of the Gentiles, and into the cities of the Samaritans do not enter. Go to the sheep that have strayed from the house of Israel."

First of all, outside of Hebrew Matthew, the verb "strayed" is found only in the Syriac texts (Old Syriac and Peshitta). Both Delitzsch and Salkinson followed the Greek texts in using "lost."

Secondly, it is worth noting that the combination "lands/cities" forms a parallelism, one of the most characteristic features of all Semitic literature. Such parallelisms, along with frequent puns and other wordplay that only work in a Semitic language, have led many to believe that there is a Semitic substratum in parts of the New Testament, notably the Gospel of Matthew, especially in the "sayings" portions. For a parallelism to be stylistically perfect, both of its members should have the same number (singular or plural). That is true here, and they are both plural: "lands/cities." Now "cities" (plural) is quite rare in this passage among all extant textual witnesses. Every Greek text has "road/city" (singular). But the plural "cities" is supported by the Old Syriac (only two manuscripts have survived), the Peshitta (the newer, standard Syriac version), some of the Old Latin manuscripts, and the Vulgate. No recent translation reads "cities," because they have all been made to agree with the Greek texts. As to "lands," I haven't yet found support for that reading, but the parallelism requires a plural.

What is the significance of this situation? In this case, at least, it opens up the possibility that Shaprut's Hebrew Matthew may be very old. If agreement with the Old Syriac and Old Latin is frequent (it is, and is in fact the most frequent among supported variant readings), then we have a text of a very old type.

But we can also consider the possibility that Shaprut's reading with "lands/cities" may be more original than the Greek textual tradition, just on the basis of the likelihood of the reading. Did the Samaritans have more than one city? No doubt. What is "the road" of the Gentiles? Is not "the lands" of the Gentiles more likely? Was there any historical, political, or social reason to suppress such a reading?

(to be continued)

Reading Matthew in Hebrew - I

Delitzsch:

אֶל־דֶּרֵךְ הַגּוֹיִם אַל־תֵּלֵכוּ וְאֶל־עִיר הַשֹׁמְוֹנִים אַל־תָּבֹאוּ ׃

כִּי אִם־לְכוּ אֶל־הַצֹּאן הָאֹבְדוֹת לבֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל ׃

Salkinson:

אַל־תָּשִׂימוּ לְדֶרֶךְ הַגּוֹיִם פַּעֲמֵיכֶם וְאֶל־עָרֵי הַשֹׁמְרֹנִים אַל־תָּבֹאוּ ׃

כִּי אִם־לְצֹאן אֹבְדוֹת מִבֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל תֵּלֵכוּ ׃‎

Shaprut:

בארצות הגוים אל תלכו ובערי השמרונים אל תבואו ׃

לכו לצעאן אשר נדחו מבית ישראל ׃

These are three Hebrew versions of Matthew 10:5-6, a passage that interests me very much. Here is how it reads in English, in the Revised Standard Version:

"Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

The literal translation of the Delitzsch Hebrew translation (done in the nineteenth century):

"To the road of the Gentiles do not go, and to the city of the Samaritans do not enter. But go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

This is quite close to the so-called Received (Byzantine) Text in Greek: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [The word "any" is italicized, because it does not actually appear in any of the Greek texts.]

The literal translation of Salkinson (also nineteenth century): "Do not place your feet on the road of the Gentiles, and into the cities of the Samaritans do not enter. But go to the lost sheep from the house of Israel."

Shaprut [lived in Spain in the fourteenth century, but his text is of a type that is much older than that, pre-Vulgate (ca. 400) and pre-Peshitta (ca. 500), and probably even older]:

"Do not go to the lands of the Gentiles, and into the cities of the Samaritans do not enter. Go to the sheep that have strayed from the house of Israel."


[to be continued]

My work with the Udugi language is complete. Those for whom it was intended may use it or not as they wish, and can develop it further. Other things are clamoring for my attention, and I need to focus on them. Thanks for your interest in the subject, and for your understanding.

ᎢᏧᎳ ᎧᏁᎬᎠᏎ (translation)

ᎢᏧᎳ ᎧᏁᎬᎠᏎ ᎠᏆᏤᎵ ᏧᏂᎦᏴᎵᎨ-ᎢᏳᎵᏍᏔᏅᏗ ᎾᏍᎩᎭᎢ, ᎢᏧᎳ ᎧᏁᎬᎠᏎ ᎣᎬᏌ ᎾᏍᎩᎭᎢ, ᎠᎴ ᎢᏧᎳ ᎧᏁᎬᎠᏎ ᎠᏆᏤᎵ ᎠᏲᏟᏗ ᎾᏍᎩᎭᎢ.

We speak for our ancestors, we speak for ourselves, and we speak for our children.

ᎢᏧᎳ ᎧᏁᎬᎠᏎ

ᎢᏧᎳ ᎧᏁᎬᎠᏎ ᎠᏆᏤᎵ ᏧᏂᎦᏴᎵᎨ-ᎢᏳᎵᏍᏔᏅᏗ ᎾᏍᎩᎭᎢ, ᎢᏧᎳ ᎧᏁᎬᎠᏎ ᎣᎬᏌ ᎾᏍᎩᎭᎢ, ᎠᎴ ᎢᏧᎳ ᎧᏁᎬᎠᏎ ᎠᏆᏤᎵ ᎠᏲᏟᏗ ᎾᏍᎩᎭᎢ.

ᎢᏧᎳ ᎠᏎ ᎠᏓᏍᏕᎸᏗ (translation)

ᎢᏧᎳ ᎠᏎ ᎠᏓᏍᏕᎸᏗ ᎡᏆ-ᎡᎶᎯᏁ ᎣᎬᏌ ᏂᏛᎴᏅᏓ.

We must protect the world from ourselves.

ᎢᏧᎳ ᎠᏎ ᎠᏓᏍᏕᎸᏗ

ᎢᏧᎳ ᎠᏎ ᎠᏓᏍᏕᎸᏗ ᎡᏆ-ᎡᎶᎯᏁ ᎣᎬᏌ ᏂᏛᎴᏅᏓ.

I Am Neither

I am neither Indian
nor Injun,
Irish
nor Jew,
yet I am,
somehow,
all of them.
How then
shall I show
myself
to you?
It seems best
to choose one
at a time.

ᎠᏓᎨᎵᏲᏤᏗ ᎠᏥᎸᏍᎩ (translation)

ᎠᏓᎨᎵᏲᏤᏗ ᎠᏥᎸᏍᎩ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎤᏕᎸᎳᏗ. ᎠᏛᏍᎬ ᏐᎢ ᎦᎪᏘ ᎾᎿ Ꮎ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎦᏲᎵᎨ ᎤᏬᏚᎯ.

Passion flower is a vine. It grows on other plants that are less beautiful.

ᎠᏓᎨᎵᏲᏤᏗ ᎠᏥᎸᏍᎩ

ᎠᏓᎨᎵᏲᏤᏗ ᎠᏥᎸᏍᎩ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎤᏕᎸᎳᏗ. ᎠᏛᏍᎬ ᏐᎢ ᎦᎪᏘ Ꮎ Ꮏ Ꮎ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎦᏲᎵᎨ ᎤᏬᏚᎯ.

The Sword

The sword did seem to speak to him,
unheard by other ears.
No other voice could be as loud,
or speak with so much power.

The scabbard was limned in ancient tongue,
no stranger to his eyes.
The guardian of the sword was there,
and kept it from all harm.

She brought to him the scabbard alone,
saying that it was his.
"We cannot be host to this," she said,
"it's in a foreign tongue."

"But no," he said, "this cannot be,
for sword and scabbard are one.
Both parts indeed are mine," he said,
"and no tongue is foreign to me."

Both sword and scabbard he did claim,
and both were given to him.
The sword became his other name,
and slowly grew in power.

The sword became his other name,
and was ever used for good.

Memories Are Made of This

The following link provides good background for some of the ideas in this blog post:

https://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake/interviews/quest-magazine-interview


And here is one of my blog posts from October 9 2018:

"Consciousness is either the greatest miracle in the universe, or the most commonplace thing in it. Perhaps the whole universe is made of consciousness."

I've been thinking about consciousness, telepathy, and "reincarnation" for much of my life, partly due to experiences I've had, and these ideas inform the body of my poetic work. A couple of days ago it occurred to me that Rupert Sheldrake's theory of Morphic Resonance and Morphogenetic Fields might provide some clues to these mysteries. Indeed I think it is so, although I have serious questions about his claims, which do not seem to me to be very testable. That, however, does not make his claims unimportant.

Sheldrake and I are the same age. Many of the authors that he mentions, I have also read. Some of his major influences are also mine, notably the French philosopher Henri Bergson, and Hinduism. Also, we have both experienced psychedelics.

I was particularly pleased to learn that Bergson had played a role in his thinking. Bergson, though, inspired us in different ways. Sheldrake was especially impressed by Bergson's claim (in MATTER AND MEMORY) that memories are stored somewhere outside the brain. There may, somehow, be such external storage, but it is clear to me that the brain also plays a decisive role.

As an illustration, I would give the case of a young man, eighteen years old, who suffered head trauma that caused him to lose, not his ability to speak, but only his ability to speak his native English. After the accident that caused the head injury, he could only speak the Chinese that he had learned in school as a second language. Deprived of English, his Chinese rapidly improved, and he became the co-host of a Chinese-language television program for young people. He eventually married the young Chinese woman who was the other host of the program. This strange story is explained by the fact that the learning of one's native language uses one part of the brain, while the learning of second languages uses another. Much of language-learning is dependent on memory, which is why Alzheimer's patients tend to lose secondary languages, while retaining greater proficiency in their native language. QED. This is not to say, though, that there may not also be some kind of external storage. The young man did, in fact, eventually slowly regain the ability to speak his native English. Perhaps he was using the "backup copy" of it.

I, though, was impressed by a different Bergson teaching: that reason by itself is not sufficient to make sense of the world: we also need intuition. This teaching was echoed by another Bergsonian, Maria de Naglowska, when she said that there are two ways of knowing, that of the brain and that of the heart, and of the two, that of the heart is the more important.

On the subject of "reincarnation," Sheldrake said (in the interview linked above): "I'm suggesting that it's possible to accept the evidence [presented by writers such as Ian Stephenson] and accept the phenomenon, but without jumping to the conclusion that it has to be reincarnation." (Because morphic resonance and morphic fields may make it possible to tune into others' memories.) This, it seems to me, is a kind of corollary of telepathy.

All of this is of great interest to me, because I have had, and still have, very strong "reincarnational" impressions, and have had (and am still having) amazing telepathic experiences. The great thing about Sheldrake's "morphic field" is that it could potentially fulfill the functions of a "soul," without requiring the persistence of an immortal principle. Exactly as I intuited a couple of days ago, which moved me to take another look at Sheldrake's claims.

I do not know whether I am accessing my own memories of past lives, or the memories of others. Perhaps it doesn't matter. I don't know the "how" of telepathy; I just know it works. One thing that I do know, for sure, is that the past lives on in the present, and we are all connected.

A Week Has Seven Days

A week has seven days,
and I love you seven ways.
If a week had only four,
I could not love you more.
If a week had nine or ten,
I'd come back again
to love you,
just to love you.

ᏑᎾᏙᏓᏆᏍᏗ ᎤᎭ ᎦᎵᏉᎩ ᎢᎦᏗᏁ

ᏑᎾᏙᏓᏆᏍᏗ ᎤᎭ ᎦᎵᏉᎩ ᎢᎦᏗᏁ
ᎠᎴ ᎠᏯ ᎨᏳᏓᏎ ᏂᎯᏁ ᎦᎵᏉᎩ ᎦᎶᎯᏍᏗᏗ.
ᎢᏳᏃ ᏑᎾᏙᏓᏆᏍᏗ ᎤᎯᏎ ᎤᏩᏌ ᏅᎩ,
ᎠᏯ Ꮭ ᏰᎵᏊᏎ ᎨᏳᏗ ᏂᎯᏁ ᎤᎪᏕᏍᏗ.
ᎢᏳᏃ ᏑᎾᏙᏓᏆᏍᏗ ᎤᎯᏎ ᏐᏁᎳ ᎠᎴ ᏍᎪᎯ,
ᎠᏯ ᎱᎷᏧᏎ ᎠᏏᏉ
ᎨᏳᏗ ᏂᎯᏁ,
ᎤᏩᏌ ᎨᏳᏗ ᏂᎯᏁ.

ᎠᏆ ᏗᎪᎵᏰᏍᎩᏗ (translation)

ᎠᏆ ᏗᎪᎵᏰᏍᎩᏗ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎩᏂᏠᏱ ᏧᎳᏍᎩᏗ. ᎠᏯ ᎠᏎ ᎠᏓᏁᏗ ᎾᏍᎩᏛ ᎢᏤᎢ ᎭᏫᏯᏁ ᏂᎦᏛ ᎢᎦ.

My readers are like alligators. I must give them fresh meat every day.

ᎠᏆ ᏗᎪᎵᏰᏍᎩᏗ

ᎠᏆ ᏗᎪᎵᏰᏍᎩᏗ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎩᏂᏠᏱ ᏧᎳᏍᎩᏗ. ᎠᏯ ᎠᏎ ᎠᏓᏁᏗ ᎾᏍᎩᏛ ᎢᏤᎢ ᎭᏫᏯᏁ ᏂᎦᏛ ᎢᎦ.

ᎯᎠ ᎦᏬᏂᎯᏍᎩ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎠᏓᏁᏙ (translation)

ᎯᎠ ᎦᏬᏂᎯᏍᎩ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎠᏓᏁᏙ. ᎢᏳᏃ ᏂᎯ ᎠᏚᎳᏓᏎ ᎬᏗᎯ ᎾᏍᎩᏁ, ᎣᏍᏛ. ᎢᏳᏃ ᏂᎯ Ꮭ ᎠᏚᎳᏓᏎ ᎬᏗᎯ ᎾᏍᎩᏁ, ᎾᏍᏋ ᎣᏍᏛ. ᎠᏯ ᎬᏗᎰᏎ ᎾᏍᎩᏁ.

This language is a gift. If you want to use it, good. If you don't want to use it, also good. I will use it.

Bioscope 1 - I Do Not Protect

I do not protect
my image,
because I
have no image
to protect,
or hundreds
of them.

ᎠᏯ Ꮭ ᎠᏓᏍᏕᎸᏓᏎ
ᎠᏆ ᎾᏍᎩᏯᎢᏁ
ᎢᎬᏂᏏᏍᎩ ᎠᏯ
Ꮭ ᎤᎭᏎ ᎾᏍᎩᏯᎢᏁ
ᎠᏓᏍᏕᎸᏗ,
ᎠᎴ ᏍᎪᎯᏧᏈᏗ
ᎾᏍᎩᏛ ᎥᎿᎢ.

मैं रक्षा नहीं करता हूँ
मेरी छवि,
क्योंकि मैं
कोई छवि नहीं है
बचने के लिए,
या सैकड़ों
उनमें से।

איך טאָן נישט באַשיצן
מיין בילד,
ווייל איך
האָבן קיין בילד
צו באשיצן,
אָדער הונדערטער
פון זיי.

ᎯᎠ ᎦᏬᏂᎯᏍᎩ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎠᏓᏁᏙ

ᎯᎠ ᎦᏬᏂᎯᏍᎩ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎠᏓᏁᏙ. ᎢᏳᏃ ᏂᎯ ᎠᏚᎳᏓᏎ ᎬᏗᎯ ᎾᏍᎩᏁ, ᎣᏍᏛ. ᎢᏳᏃ ᏂᎯ Ꮭ ᎠᏚᎳᏓᏎ ᎬᏗᎯ ᎾᏍᎩᏁ, ᎾᏍᏋ ᎣᏍᏛ. ᎠᏯ ᎬᏗᎰᏎ ᎾᏍᎩᏁ.

ᎤᏰᎸᎭ ᎠᎦᏙᎲᏍᏗ 31 - ᏂᎯᏗ ᏂᎦᏛ (translation)

ᏂᎯᏗ ᏂᎦᏛ ᎨᏒᎤ ᎠᏓᏙᎵᎩᏔ ᎡᏆ-ᎠᏓᏅᏙ ᏗᎬᏩᎶᏒ ᎦᏅᎯᏓ ᎠᎴ ᎤᎵᎮᎵᏍᏗ-ᎧᎵ ᎥᎴᏂᏙᎲ ᎬᏙᏗ, ᎠᎴ ᎠᎦᏙᎲᏍᏗ ᎨᏒᎤ ᏂᎪᎯᎸᎢ ᏂᎯ ᎠᎾᎵᎪᎲᏍᎩ.

May you all be blessed by the Great Spirit with long and joyful lives, and may wisdom always be your companion.

ᎤᏰᎸᎭ ᎠᎦᏙᎲᏍᏗ 31 - ᏂᎯᏗ ᏂᎦᏛ

ᏂᎯᏗ ᏂᎦᏛ ᎨᏒᎤ ᎠᏓᏙᎵᎩᏔ ᎡᏆ-ᎠᏓᏅᏙ ᏗᎬᏩᎶᏒ ᎦᏅᎯᏓ ᎠᎴ ᎤᎵᎮᎵᏍᏗ-ᎧᎵ ᎥᎴᏂᏙᎲ ᎬᏙᏗ, ᎠᎴ ᎠᎦᏙᎲᏍᏗ ᎨᏒᎤ ᏂᎪᎯᎸᎢ ᏂᎯ ᎠᎾᎵᎪᎲᏍᎩ.

"The time has come,' the Walrus said,

      To talk of many things:

Of shoes — and ships — and sealing-wax —

      Of cabbages — and kings —

And why the sea is boiling hot —

      And whether pigs have wings."

from: The Walrus and the Carpenter, by Lewis Carroll

I'd be happy to talk about several of those things, but will try to be more focused. Instead, we will talk of (wait for it) . . . phonologies.

A phonology, for the non-linguists, is the collection of sounds that occur in a given language. Udugi, for example, has a phonology that does not include bilabial stops (the "p" and "b" sounds). It does include a bilabial continuant ("m"), which is rather infrequent. There are only five natural languages known that have phonologies that do not include any bilabial stops: Wichita (Caddoan family), Aleut (Eskimo-Aleut), Cherokee (Southern Iroquoian), Eyak, and Hupa (the last two are Na-Dene). One of these languages, Wichita, is phonologically more extreme than Cherokee, in that it does not even include the "m" sound. All of these languages are indigenous to North America and the Aleutian Islands. Both Wichita and Cherokee are part of the Keresiouan macro stock, within the Almosan-Keresiouan super macro stock, so they are distantly related. Linguistically, at least, they are "Plains Indians."

All that I've said above regarding Cherokee is also true of Udugi, since its vocabulary comes from Cherokee.  But there is more. Both Cherokee and Udugi are, unlike English,  composed mostly of open syllables (consonant plus vowel). In both cases it is possible for a syllable to end in "s," if it is followed by another (open) syllable, This CV syllable structure gives both Cherokee and Udugi a pleasing sound. There are also no consonant clusters (except for "s" plus following consonant) in either Cherokee or Udugi, but they are very common in English.

I mention all this because it explains why the Sequoyah syllabary simply won't work for most of the languages in the world. You can't use it for English. It works just fine, though, for Cherokee and Udugi. The syllabary, representing whole syllables at a time, is also more efficient, which is why we use it.

ᎤᏰᎸᎭ ᎠᎦᏙᎲᏍᏗ 30 - ᏔᎵ-ᎦᏅᏍᎨᏂ (translation)

ᏔᎵ-ᎦᏅᏍᎨᏂ ᎠᎴ ᏅᎩ-ᎦᏅᏍᎨᏂ ᏰᎵᏆᏎ ᎨᏒᎢ ᎤᎾᎵᏗ. ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎤᏟ-ᎢᏲᏍᏛ ᎯᎠ-ᎢᏴ.

Two-leg and four-leg can be friends. It is better thus.

ᎤᏰᎸᎭ ᎠᎦᏙᎲᏍᏗ 30 - ᏔᎵ-ᎦᏅᏍᎨᏂ

ᏔᎵ-ᎦᏅᏍᎨᏂ ᎠᎴ ᏅᎩ-ᎦᏅᏍᎨᏂ ᏰᎵᏆᏎ ᎨᏒᎢ ᎤᎾᎵᏗ. ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎤᏟ-ᎢᏲᏍᏛ ᎯᎠ-ᎢᏴ.

ᎯᎠ ᎦᏬᏂᎯᏍᎩ Ꮭ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎤᏕᎵᏓ. ᎰᏩᏧ Ꮭ ᎬᏗᎱ ᎾᏍᎩᏁ Ꮎ-ᎦᎶᎯᏍᏗ ᎭᏫᎾ.

ᎡᎵᏌ, ᎢᏧᎳ ᎤᎵᎮᎵᏍᏓᏎ ᏂᎯᏁ (translation)

ᎡᎵᏌ, ᎢᏧᎳ ᎤᎵᎮᎵᏍᏓᏎ ᏂᎯᏁ. ᎢᏧᎳ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎤᏢᏉᏗ ᎤᎭ ᏂᎯᏁ ᎠᏆᏤᎵ ᎠᎾᏓᏗ ᏄᎾᏛᏅ.

Elisa, we welcome you. We are proud to have you among our relatives.

ᎡᎵᏌ, ᎢᏧᎳ ᎤᎵᎮᎵᏍᏓᏎ ᏂᎯᏁ

ᎡᎵᏌ, ᎢᏧᎳ ᎤᎵᎮᎵᏍᏓᏎ ᏂᎯᏁ. ᎢᏧᎳ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎤᏢᏉᏗ ᎤᎭ ᏂᎯᏁ ᎠᏆᏤᎵ ᎠᎾᏓᏗ ᏄᎾᏛᏅ.

ᎠᎦᏴᎵ ᎢᏳᏆᏗᏅᏓ ᏚᎸᏌᏛᎯ ᎠᏨᏍᏗᏗ

ᎠᎦᏴᎵ ᎢᏳᏆᏗᏅᏓ ᏚᎸᏌᏛᎯ ᎠᏨᏍᏗᏗ
ᎠᏡᏓ ᎬᎾᎨᏦ ᏒᏃᏱ ᎥᎿᎢ.
ᎤᎦᎾᏭᎢᏗᏢ ᎠᎺᏉᎯ ᎦᎸᎶᎢ.

A Billion Blazing Lights

A billion blazing lights
against the blackness of the night.
South Atlantic sky.

Either today or tomorrow we will pass the milestone of 47,000 visits to this poetry blog. If you think the growth is accelerating, you're right, it is. I have fans of my poetry, fans of naturism, fans of photography, and--big surprise--fans of my Udugi language.

My poetry means a great deal to me, but in a certain way the Udugi language means even more. If I leave any enduring legacy when I go, I think Udugi will be that legacy. There has always been great poetry, and naturism already has a long and inspiring history. There have been wonderful photographers, still my idols to this day, but no one else, to my knowledge, has rescued at least part of an indigenous language facing eventual extinction. The "rescue," of course, is still only potential, and will require adoption and use. In the meantime, I'll be using it and loving it, and I hope others will as well.

Here in Uruguay we're about a month into spring, Stormy and rainy days alternate with sunny and glorious ones. Wherever you are, I hope your days are filled with love and peace.

Thank you for your interest in and support of this blog.

ᎢᏳᏃ ᎢᎦᎯ-ᏅᏓ ᎤᏥᏍᏓᎷᎦᏎ (translation)

ᎢᏳᏃ ᎢᎦᎯ-ᏅᏓ ᎤᏥᏍᏓᎷᎦᏎ, ᎠᏯ ᎠᏤᎸᏓᏎ ᏘᏲᎭᎵᏁ, ᎠᎩᏍᏓᏁᏖ ᏄᎵᏂᎬᎬᏁ ᏅᏓ ᎥᎿᎢ.

When the sun is shining, I imitate Lizard, receiving the energy of the sun.

ᎢᏳᏃ ᎢᎦᎯ-ᏅᏓ ᎤᏥᏍᏓᎷᎦᏎ

ᎢᏳᏃ ᎢᎦᎯ-ᏅᏓ ᎤᏥᏍᏓᎷᎦᏎ, ᎠᏯ ᎠᏤᎸᏓᏎ ᏘᏲᎭᎵᏁ, ᎠᎩᏍᏓᏁᏖ ᏄᎵᏂᎬᎬᏁ ᏅᏓ ᎥᎿᎢ.

ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᏔᎵ ᎦᎶᎯᏍᏗᏗ

ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᏔᎵ ᎦᎶᎯᏍᏗᏗ ᎪᏪᎶᏗ ᎤᏚᎩ ᎦᏬᏂᎯᏍᎩᏁ, ᎠᏎᏃ ᏃᏊ ᏂᏛᎴᏅᏓ ᎢᏧᎳ ᎬᏗᎰᏎ ᏏᏉᏯ ᏗᎪᏪᎵᏁ.

ᎢᏧᎳ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎥᎴᏂᏙᎲ

ᎢᏧᎳ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎥᎴᏂᏙᎲ, ᎠᎴ ᎢᏧᎳ ᎠᏟᎰᏎ ᎥᎴᏂᏙᎲ ᎾᏍᎩᎭᎢ. Ꮭ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᏐᎢ ᏰᎵᏇᏦ.

Gymnosophia LXXII (sans illustration)

At seventy-six and counting,
this body
has far to go.
There will be sunrises,
fiery sunsets,
friends, feasts,
and journeys
before it's
laid to rest.
The soul will then
equip itself
for yet another
test.

Gymnosophia LXXII - At Seventy-six and Counting

At seventy-six and counting,
this body
has far to go.
There will be sunrises,
fiery sunsets,
friends, feasts,
and journeys
before it's
laid to rest.
The soul will then
equip itself
for yet another
test.

ᎢᏧᎳ Ꮭ ᎤᎾᏕᏘᏱᏍᎦᏎ ᎯᎠ ᎢᎦᏁ / We Do Not Celebrate This Day

ᎢᏧᎳ Ꮭ ᎤᎾᏕᏘᏱᏍᎦᏎ ᎯᎠ ᎢᎦᏁ. ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎠᏓᎯᏍᏙ ᎢᎦ, ᎠᏓᏐᏢᏙ ᎢᎦ, ᎦᏃᎩᏍᏙ ᎠᏆᏤᎵ ᎡᎶᎯ ᎥᎿᎢ ᎢᎦ. ᎢᏧᎸ ᎾᏍᎩᎭᎢ, ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎥᏝᎪᎱᏍᏗ ᎤᎾᏕᏘᏱᏍᎩ.


We do not celebrate this day. It's a day of murder, rape, and theft of our land. For us, there is nothing to celebrate.

ani-yulaqui adadvdodise itsulv (translation)

ani-yulaqui adadvdodise itsulv adadolisdodi nasgidv gvdodi. itsula hnadvgise nasgine. hilayvi itsula asduidise aquatseli agadolidine, itsula uhise unatseli tsugaheda-goweline, ale nasgidv uhise aquatseli elohine.

ᎠᏂ-ᏳᎳᏈ ᎠᏓᏛᏙᏗᏎ ᎢᏧᎸ ᎠᏓᏙᎵᏍᏙᏗ ᎾᏍᎩᏛ ᎬᏙᏗ. ᎢᏧᎳ ᎿᏛᎩᏎ ᎾᏍᎩᏁ. ᎯᎳᏴᎢ ᎢᏧᎳ ᎠᏍᏚᎢᏗᏎ ᎠᏆᏤᎵ ᎠᎦᏙᎵᏗᏁ, ᎢᏧᎳ ᎤᎯᏎ ᎤᎾᏤᎵ ᏧᎦᎮᏓ-ᎪᏪᎵᏁ, ᎠᎴ ᎾᏍᎩᏛ ᎤᎯᏎ ᎠᏆᏤᎵ ᎡᎶᎯᏁ.

The Europeans asked us to pray with them. We did it. When we opened our eyes, we had the Bible and they had our land.

ani-yulaqui adadvdodise itsulv / ᎠᏂ-ᏳᎳᏈ ᎠᏓᏛᏙᏗᏎ ᎢᏧᎸ

ani-yulaqui adadvdodise itsulv adadolisdodi nasgidv gvdodi. itsula hnadvgise nasgine. hilayvi itsula asduidise aquatseli agadolidine, itsula uhise unatseli tsugaheda-goweline, ale nasgidv uhise aquatseli elohine.

ᎠᏂ-ᏳᎳᏈ ᎠᏓᏛᏙᏗᏎ ᎢᏧᎸ ᎠᏓᏙᎵᏍᏙᏗ ᎾᏍᎩᏛ ᎬᏙᏗ. ᎢᏧᎳ ᎿᏛᎩᏎ ᎾᏍᎩᏁ. ᎯᎳᏴᎢ ᎢᏧᎳ ᎠᏍᏚᎢᏗᏎ ᎠᏆᏤᎵ ᎠᎦᏙᎵᏗᏁ, ᎢᏧᎳ ᎤᎯᏎ ᎤᎾᏤᎵ ᏧᎦᎮᏓ-ᎪᏪᎵᏁ, ᎠᎴ ᎾᏍᎩᏛ ᎤᎯᏎ ᎠᏆᏤᎵ ᎡᎶᎯᏁ.