09-14-2014, 08:42 PM
When I wrote this topic, I had two thesis: 1) Eli Eli lama sabaktani and Eloi eloi lama sabaktani were both side by side in the original Gospels 2) according to the Peshitta only in Mark. I think the first one is well demonstrated (as eli means power too, the Apostles added elo? as a gloss) but the second needs more attention and ... it not exactly what I expected.
Almost all manuscripts read eli in Matthiew and eloi in Mark. According to the Peshitta, only Mark had the gloss. The logical distribution would have been in Matthew eli and in Mark both eli and eloi. But as I said, Mark has always eloi in our Bible. Let's imagine: the translator composes -from Aramaic- the Greek Gospel for the non-Aramaic speakers, and reading Mark 15 35 he chooses to translate eloi eloi lama sabachtani in Greek: the text will be copied and all the later texts will have eloi too. But now, a later copyist who knows that there existed an Eli reading too and that it is not found in the other copies, must write Eli. What we find now in our Bible isn't inconsistent with the Peshitta, but I want to have some examples that the ancient texts had eli and eloi in Mark.
And the trouble begin...
Few manuscripts read eli both in Mark and Matthew eli ( <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> ) and few manuscripts read ... eloi in both Gospels ( <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: --> ).
The Codex Vaticanus (4th century) and the Codex Sinaiticus (idem)- reading Eloi in Matthew belong to Category I ? Alexandrian text. As its name shows, its texts is Egyptian (the older one and the scholar's favorite one)
The Uncial 059 (400 AD) Uncial 0192 (lectionary, idem, I've not seen it) and later the Minuscules 565 (9th) and 131 (15th) - reading Eli in Mark belong to Category III - Cesarean (and mixed). Theses Texts give some lectio not found anywhere else. The Greek father Origen knew some of them.
Which category is right ? Does the Alexandrian text harmonize Matthew with Mark ? Does the cesarean text harmonize Mark with Matthew ?
The Codex Vaticanus (c. 340) has in Matthew Elo? Elo? lema sabaktanei. It transcribes Qof and Taw in purely Aramaic form with Kappa and Tau. Maybe the lema form is influenced by the later vowel reduction (a become ?). It doesn't show that the scribes didn't follow his text.
In Mark we have Elo? Elo? lama zabaphthanei(!) <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> . The non-understandable reading zabaphthanei looks to me like the union of the Aramaic sabachthani with the Hebrew (a)zabthani. Did the scribe had a text which read zaphtanei like the codex Bezae ? Or did he thought about it when he wrote this ? In this case, it give us a great argument in favor of the Bezae lectio.
The Sinaiticus (written 325 -360) has in Matthew elo? elo? lema sabakhthanei. In transcription of Aramaic nouns, it doesn't show tendencies to revise (example boanerges, talitha koum - where some manuscripts have boanerEges and Talitha koumI which are later revision), so it keeps the earlier Aramaic form. Maybe the lema form is influenced by the later vowel reduction (a become ?). In sabakhthani the Qof and Taw are transcribed with the spirants Chi and Theta instead of Kappa and Tau. It is not sufficient to prove that a scribe didn't follow his text and change Eli in Eloi.
In Mark we have elo? eloi lema sabaktanei. The sinaiticus has lema where Vaticanus has lama. It use k and t but a later hand put ch and th above them.
Now the Cesarean texts:
The Uncial 059 (c. 400) is a Gospel according Mark's fragment which read Elei Elei lama saba??ani. Saba??ani is lacunosa. Impossible to know if it was written sabaktani with kappa and tau.
The Uncial 192 (c. 400 ?) is a lectionary that I have not seen with ?lei ?lei.
The Minuscule 565 (9th century) have in Mark Eli Eli lama sabachthan?.
The Minuscule 131 (15th century) have in Mark Eli Eli lima ...
They give us the proof that eli was written in Mark back to the 4th century, but not because of a harmonization with Matthew.
Conclusion... The Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus agree on Matthew because they read elo? elo? lema sabak(h)t(h)anei) against every other early manuscripts (except some Bohairic and Ethiopian ones), but they don't agree on Mark. The difference lema/lama and (the well-formed Aramaic) sabaktanei vs zabaphthanei shows something interresting. Scholars say it's a misspelling sabaktani < zabaphtani but it probably shows the scribe was not sure of his texts because he was influenced by some Western Reading (i.e. like the Bezae): if this text had lama zaphtanei as the Codex Bezae reads, it is logical that Mark had also eli which prove that the cesarean text isn't a simply harmonization. In Vaticanus eli became eloi, and it wouldn't be impossible that it happened the same change in Matthew too.
I think it's clear now that ancient texts of Mark had Eli Eli lama sabachtani which was "translated" in Eli Eli lama zaphtani later. It is not the case in Matthew both Alexandrian texts agree that this Gospel had elo?. It is easy to claim that every other manuscripts have Eli but I'd prefer proof that the scribe changes Eli in Elo?.
To support the reading eli, there's the argument's above-mentioned (Eli both in Mark and Matthew in the Codex Bezae), and the reading of the Peter's Gospel which contradicts the Sinaiticus' lectio.
Edit + I hope the text is clear and understandable
Almost all manuscripts read eli in Matthiew and eloi in Mark. According to the Peshitta, only Mark had the gloss. The logical distribution would have been in Matthew eli and in Mark both eli and eloi. But as I said, Mark has always eloi in our Bible. Let's imagine: the translator composes -from Aramaic- the Greek Gospel for the non-Aramaic speakers, and reading Mark 15 35 he chooses to translate eloi eloi lama sabachtani in Greek: the text will be copied and all the later texts will have eloi too. But now, a later copyist who knows that there existed an Eli reading too and that it is not found in the other copies, must write Eli. What we find now in our Bible isn't inconsistent with the Peshitta, but I want to have some examples that the ancient texts had eli and eloi in Mark.
And the trouble begin...
Few manuscripts read eli both in Mark and Matthew eli ( <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> ) and few manuscripts read ... eloi in both Gospels ( <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: --> ).
The Codex Vaticanus (4th century) and the Codex Sinaiticus (idem)- reading Eloi in Matthew belong to Category I ? Alexandrian text. As its name shows, its texts is Egyptian (the older one and the scholar's favorite one)
The Uncial 059 (400 AD) Uncial 0192 (lectionary, idem, I've not seen it) and later the Minuscules 565 (9th) and 131 (15th) - reading Eli in Mark belong to Category III - Cesarean (and mixed). Theses Texts give some lectio not found anywhere else. The Greek father Origen knew some of them.
Which category is right ? Does the Alexandrian text harmonize Matthew with Mark ? Does the cesarean text harmonize Mark with Matthew ?
The Codex Vaticanus (c. 340) has in Matthew Elo? Elo? lema sabaktanei. It transcribes Qof and Taw in purely Aramaic form with Kappa and Tau. Maybe the lema form is influenced by the later vowel reduction (a become ?). It doesn't show that the scribes didn't follow his text.
In Mark we have Elo? Elo? lama zabaphthanei(!) <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> . The non-understandable reading zabaphthanei looks to me like the union of the Aramaic sabachthani with the Hebrew (a)zabthani. Did the scribe had a text which read zaphtanei like the codex Bezae ? Or did he thought about it when he wrote this ? In this case, it give us a great argument in favor of the Bezae lectio.
The Sinaiticus (written 325 -360) has in Matthew elo? elo? lema sabakhthanei. In transcription of Aramaic nouns, it doesn't show tendencies to revise (example boanerges, talitha koum - where some manuscripts have boanerEges and Talitha koumI which are later revision), so it keeps the earlier Aramaic form. Maybe the lema form is influenced by the later vowel reduction (a become ?). In sabakhthani the Qof and Taw are transcribed with the spirants Chi and Theta instead of Kappa and Tau. It is not sufficient to prove that a scribe didn't follow his text and change Eli in Eloi.
In Mark we have elo? eloi lema sabaktanei. The sinaiticus has lema where Vaticanus has lama. It use k and t but a later hand put ch and th above them.
Now the Cesarean texts:
The Uncial 059 (c. 400) is a Gospel according Mark's fragment which read Elei Elei lama saba??ani. Saba??ani is lacunosa. Impossible to know if it was written sabaktani with kappa and tau.
The Uncial 192 (c. 400 ?) is a lectionary that I have not seen with ?lei ?lei.
The Minuscule 565 (9th century) have in Mark Eli Eli lama sabachthan?.
The Minuscule 131 (15th century) have in Mark Eli Eli lima ...
They give us the proof that eli was written in Mark back to the 4th century, but not because of a harmonization with Matthew.
Conclusion... The Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus agree on Matthew because they read elo? elo? lema sabak(h)t(h)anei) against every other early manuscripts (except some Bohairic and Ethiopian ones), but they don't agree on Mark. The difference lema/lama and (the well-formed Aramaic) sabaktanei vs zabaphthanei shows something interresting. Scholars say it's a misspelling sabaktani < zabaphtani but it probably shows the scribe was not sure of his texts because he was influenced by some Western Reading (i.e. like the Bezae): if this text had lama zaphtanei as the Codex Bezae reads, it is logical that Mark had also eli which prove that the cesarean text isn't a simply harmonization. In Vaticanus eli became eloi, and it wouldn't be impossible that it happened the same change in Matthew too.
I think it's clear now that ancient texts of Mark had Eli Eli lama sabachtani which was "translated" in Eli Eli lama zaphtani later. It is not the case in Matthew both Alexandrian texts agree that this Gospel had elo?. It is easy to claim that every other manuscripts have Eli but I'd prefer proof that the scribe changes Eli in Elo?.
To support the reading eli, there's the argument's above-mentioned (Eli both in Mark and Matthew in the Codex Bezae), and the reading of the Peter's Gospel which contradicts the Sinaiticus' lectio.
Edit + I hope the text is clear and understandable