Please comment on "For this I was kept" mistransla

[oozeaddai]

Would you please comment on this

"MT27:46 KJV, And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me?

Peshitta, And about the nineth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice and said, Eli, Eli, Imana shabachtani! which means My God, my God, for this I was kept!"

I have read Lamsa's take on this but I would like to hear what the sages of this board have to say about it. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> I recently had a disagreement with a person over this verse and the proper interpretation of it, who obviously endorsed the Greek version. So I would like to hear, any literary comparisons between Greek and Aramaic and the other kinds of analysis you guys are famous for! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

[byrnesey]

Much discussion on this was done in these forums in the past. The basic gist was that the grammar shows Yeshua was asking a question so Lamsa's version was wrong. They think it is "why have you spared me?" And we believe it has to do with his long sufferring on the cross. e.g. Kill me now. Indeed, soon after, He died.

[oozeaddai]

They think it is "why have you spared me?" And we believe it has to do with his long sufferring on the cross. e.g. Kill me now. Indeed, soon after, He died.

Thanks for responding! Ok so the question is idiomatic as far as the right way to handle or interpret the phrase, but it looks like the word itself is defitely different. I think lamsa cited how it was used among the East Syrians/ Assyrians, as his rationale.


But from what I gather the Aramaic says kept or spared while "Zorba" as they say here <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> was fooled by a look a like word... is that the gist of it?

[byrnesey]

Actually by "lemana" the experts here deduced that it must have been a question.

And "sabachtani" has many meanings, one of which is forsaken, one of which is spared.

Since the forsaken reading seems to contradict much of the NT (the Father is with me, I am not alone etc), guess which meaning we like to take... <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

[oozeaddai]

By the way I wanted to say thank you for your online book, which I just book marked online. I tend to debate this sort of thing on one Christian web site. theooze.com which is where I get my name here from.

Anyway I have had one discussion thread on Lamsa work, and another lengthy on some material from this board. Both of them were received very well and prompted a lot of thought and discussion. I am however disheartened because the cultural/theological mindset always drifts back to Greek Primacy. And it seems like whatever I do or say, in 1 week to 1 month its like it totally forgotten and were back to square one. Where people never even think about the existence of Aramaic scriptures, and when they talk about "the original Text", speak about the Greek one.


Anyway I'm sure your book may provide me with some ammunition for a third pro-Aramaic discussion thread.

[byrnesey]

Sounds good, just give them the book <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> But be aware that so many attack it without even reading it. If people don't want to believe something, they won't.

Regards,

Rich

[oozeaddai]

well what I like to do is give the urls etc. of good aramaic web sites etc. so I would give the a url to your one too.


But yeah what I find, is that many people will ignore the link. The ideologues do so just out of hard headedness. But some people just don't have the time.

Anyway what I've noticed is that while a few die hards are really against this. Many people are very curious and want to learn more. The web site I'm on is "post modern", where many people are questioning "foundationalist thinking", so actually questioning the assumption of Greek primacy, actually plays well there; because many people are also are re-considering other aspects of western theology as well.

So anyway being able to voice so areas of Aramaic primacy and give some specific examples overall plays well there.


I just got done reading your book. And I like it very much. Most of it I was exposed to in reading the different forums here. It was however nice to finally have it all tied together in one area and not to have to jump around from thread to thread.

Also I liked how you developed out the support of a Hebrew original gospel,a nd I think the epistel hebrews as "Showing good greek", yet conforming to more semitic structure. And I liked, that you also quoted extensively church fathers, talking about the hebrew/Aramaic original. Lamsa and a few others mention that, but is was nice to see that laid out in greater detail.

Thanks again!

[Vsanzcm]

Shlama Akhi oozeaddai:
Please, see this:
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=197">viewtopic.php?t=197</a><!-- l -->

Ab. Valentin

[ValiantForTruth]

This link explains this passage better than any I've seen, and the most thoroughly, and how it relates to Psalms 22. If you want to understand this better, then you MUST READ THIS...

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cffm.org/teachings/eli.shtml">http://www.cffm.org/teachings/eli.shtml</a><!-- m -->

God Bless,
Don
ValiantForTruth

[gbausc]

Shlama Don,

Nice try, but I vehemently disagree with this clinical and tidy
theological armchair approach to the agony and death of The Christ of God.
Where does the word "Shabaq" ever indicate that God could have left , or "spared" His Son and remained with Him at the same time ? All the examples of the word usage
imply that what is "left" is no longer with the one leaving it.

If our Lord meant to teach what your linked article says he did at that moment, He certainly chose the wrong words to teach it. The Greek and Aramaic churches of two millenia have certainly not gotten the impression that He meant to say His Father was still with Him.
What a ridiculous notion that Jesus was asking rhetorical questions of His God on the cross. Do you really think this was an academic exercise for Him ?
I think we Christians are totally detached from the power and trauma of the crucifixion of Jesus, Who I believe is The Jehovah God of the Heavens and the universe.
Are you aware that His death was spiritual as well as physical ? Please read Isaiah 53 and note the words "his soul" are used three times in connection with His sacrifice for sin, in vss. 10,11 & 12.
Have you also considered that He said " It is finished" before He died physically ? Actually, that's very obvious, yet I think few understand the implications.

Why would He have said, "It is finished.", if the atonement
had not even begun ? How would it have begun if His bodily death was the payment He had to offer to pay for the sin of the world ?

If Jesus did become sin for us, when did that happen ? Would there have been no indication of such a horrible transformation ?

As I understand it, the Gospels teach that God The Word had to become human in order to suffer and die for the sins of mankind. His offering was a complete one- Spirit , Soul and Body. As we are required to love God with all the heart, soul and strength, so He loved us. He laid down His Life- All of it !
There was no life in Jesus on the cross that did not die that day in the darkness from noon to three. I believe even His Father died with Him, as this was a disintegration of the very Godhead in its Central Person of The Son, in Whom all
consists and in Whom all the fulness of the Godhead dwells
bodily-Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
The Son was never abandoned; His Father was with His beloved unto the end and then died with Him .

I know this sounds insane to many. I actually have much scriptural support to give for this, however. I will "spare you" that tedium for now. All I will say is that "The love of Christ surpasses all knowledge and understanding" and that "Now He has appeared at the end of the world to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."- which self was God. Heb. 9:26
2 But in these latter days, he hath conversed with us, by his Son; whom he hath constituted heir of all things, and by whom he made the worlds;
3 who is the splendor of his glory, and the image of himself, and upholdeth all by the energy of his word; and by himself he made a purgation of sins, and sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.Hebrews 1:2,3 Murdock

Verse 3 uses the Aramaic phrase- "b'Qnomah" -"in His essential Nature and Being", Who created all things and upheld all things, to define that it was "in His Deity" that He
purged the sins of the world.

God died for us ,my brother. He died for all of us.

And He lives again and forevermore, having ended the old creation and made all things new in His resurrection, which He also had accomplished on the cross before He bowed His head and gave up His Spirit. How do I know that ?
Because He said so : "It is finished."
All the Gospel work was done then: Death, burial and resurrection- "Father, into Thy hands I commend My Spirit."
That was the resurrection of The Christ from the dead. "Father" indicates the oneness again of the Godhead.
"My God, My God" indicates the death of the Godhead.
The living Christ never addressed His Father in prayer as "My God" , as far as scripture tells us.
That was His death as becoming Sin for us.

Isaiah 24 & 25 says that the world would end and be made new again, as do other OT scriptures. In every one , the sun is darkened. See also Joel 3:9-18 and Amos 1, where with Isa. 24, we find Jehovah roaring from Jerusalem; reigning from Jerusalem after earthquakes and darkened sun. Amos said it would be darkened at noon !

The cross was the gallows of the Godhead & the whole creation ; it was also The most glorious throne from which God reigned most gloriously over sin, death and the universe, in gathering all things in His mighty arms to His dying self and taking all with Him to death, that he might bring all back with Him from death into newness of Life and new creation .



Oh well, I felt led to write all this, because I believe He wants us to know what He has suffered for us and accomplished for all the universe for all eternity. I pray many will hear it and live.

14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead(lit. "with Him"-Aramaic):
15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.


Dave

[nashama]

Hi Don:
In response to your post, I'd like to present a shorter view from another perspective.

This link explains this passage better than any I've seen, and the most thoroughly, and how it relates to Psalms 22. If you want to understand this better, then you MUST READ THIS...

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cffm.org/teachings/eli.shtml">http://www.cffm.org/teachings/eli.shtml</a><!-- m -->

God Bless,
Don
ValiantForTruth

One of the doctrinal/theological overwrites between the Peshitto and the Peshitta is in Hebrews 2:9.

The Khaburis Manuscript reads, "s'tar min Eloah", "apart from/beside God",
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://whyagain.com/KhaburisKhaboris/sm_Kha_490.jpg">http://whyagain.com/KhaburisKhaboris/sm_Kha_490.jpg</a><!-- m -->
Page 490, line 13, 4th and 5th words.
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nm r+s[/font]

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]$n0 Lk Plx 0hl0 Nm r+s ryg wh h4rb[/font]

while a later Western reading is, "b'taybutah Eloah", "by the grace of God".

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]htwby+b[/font]

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]$nlk Plx 0hl0 htwby+b ryg wh h4rb[/font]


<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.com/aramaic/books/hebrews.html">http://www.peshitta.com/aramaic/books/hebrews.html</a><!-- m -->

Also, "sh'bakhtani" (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34) , in that it can mean "left me" can contextually mean the same as "forsaken me". In this normal context, it is a synonym of the Hebrew "azavtani" (Psalm 22:2).

In Romans 8:32, Paul affirms, "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered him up for us all".

In conclusion, the lengthy study that you have invoked, is in my opinion, an unfounded emotional response to the fact that the Messiah "became sin for us" (II Corinthians 5:21), and the Father could not look on sin (Habakkuk 1:13).

Warm Regards,
Stephen Silver

[byrnesey]

Interesting argument. If Jesus became sin and the Father cannot look upon sin, is it such a stretch that He really did abandon Him at that moment? What will the experts come up with to tackle that?!

And that would seem to go with Psalm 22 which does seem to be Messianic...

My only gripe would be then why Jesus would ask a question when He already knew the answer. So maybe it is 'spared'. Very tough issue!

[byrnesey]

And if it is "forsaken", would we not have many contradictions?

[gbausc]

Shlama Ahka,


Did not our Lord say "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." , and not "I am a way, a truth and a life?
It is the former, as the following words He spoke make plain. "No one comes to The Father but by Me."

Let us apply a bit of logic to that statement. If He is The Life, what other life is there ? If He is "The Life", that is absolute; there is no other Life to speak about. John 1:4 says :[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0$nynbd 0rhwn Nwhyty0 0yxw 0wh 0yx hb[/font] In him was lives; and the lives was the light of men. -My translation.
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0yx[/font] in the NT is a plural word, as shown by the sayeme marks above it. The OT Peshitta has it in accordance with the Hebrew text of Gen 2:7, to indicate the Divine Life (Lives) Elohim breathed into Adam ("breath of Lives")Hebrew-myyx tmSn.It is a word signifying the infinite Life of God . I call it a pregnant plural.

If Meshikha is "The Life" , then He is The Life of God as well as the Life of all living creatures. He never qualified Himself as the life of all living creatures, merely, but as "The Life", meaning, no other life exists which He is not.

Hence, when Alaha sent His Son, He was sending Himself, or shall we say, He went with His Son, as Yeshua said, "I am not alone, because the Father is with me." John 16:32


Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
The Life sacrificed for the sins of mankind was the life of God- all the Life of the fulness of Deity, which all resided in the Person of Maryah Meshikha Yeshua.
The companion verse to John 3:16 is 1 John 3:16:16 By this we know his love towards us, because he gave up his life for us: and we also ought to give up our lives for our brethren.

God is the implied Person or Being spoken of as giving His Life, since no other is mentioned in the context, other than God in verse 10.
This is why Paul wrote in 2 Cor. 5:14 that "If The One died for all, then everyone died with Him"
Everyone would include everyone ! All in Heaven and earth.

Hence, the cry of The Christ is the cry of Heaven and earth,
of every soul of every living being, whether man, beast or angel; nay the very cry of Jehovah Himself to His Father and of The Father to His Son, for the LIFE of all was dying;
THE LIGHT of Heaven and earth was going out.

Am I wrong ? Is The Life not THE LIFE ?

Was not God in Christ on the cross, reconciling the world to His majesty ? 2 Cor. 5:19.


Did not God give Himself when He gave His Son ? John 3:16;1 John 3:16
Is there a greater love than God's love ? There is if God's love was giving up the life of another. "Joh 15:13 There is no greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
No, my brothers, God's love was the greatest love possible.
He laid down His Divine Life for us when Jesus died.
Hear the words of Ruth's love to Naomi:16 And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:
17 Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.

Could The God and Father of our LORD Jesus Christ love His Son any less than this woman Ruth loved her Mother-in Law ?

Consider what I have written, prayerfully. I believe Heaven will answer the heart that seeks and hears the voice of The Truth.

,[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Fwby+w 0ml$[/font]
Dave

[Danie]

The translation is correct in saying "for this I was kept" - There were many instances where Jesus could have been killed by the religious leaders but He was kept by the power of God to fulfill His destiny and that was to die on the cross. If He said "why have you forsaken me" the word would have been "nashatani" - We can ask ourselves the question: why would God forsake his son on the cross and yet declare "I will never leave you nor forsake you" - David said :"even if I made my bed in hell, you are there" so it is fallacy to think that God would forsake Jesus on the cross while he was pre-destined to die that death for every man