Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Was Jesus Forsaken On The Cross? (Part 1)
#1
I brought this over to 'The Aramaic Peshitta Bible Repository' from here, and Praise MarYah, now I bring it BACK!! <!-- s:oha: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/oha.gif" alt=":oha:" title="Oha!" /><!-- s:oha: -->

Was Jesus Forsaken By God? (Part 1)
?? Thread Started on Sept 4, 2007, 12:39pm ??
Shlama Akhi All,

I copied this from 'Peshitta.org Forum'.

I hope that this is OK with everyone, because I CAN'T write there, but I have something to add to this thread, and I'd like to do it here.

Find my addition at the bottom of this thread.......


MATTHEW 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying,

Yntqb4 0nml Ly0 Ly0

"Eli, Eli, lemana shabak-thani."

[my] God [my] God why have you spared me

From this web site and forum I learned that this is translated as ,"My God, My God, why have you spared me?" or "My God, My God , why have you leaved me here?". These are apt words for a dying man in pain. Luke and John don't even mention these spoken words, and no book of the New Testament addresses them directly.

Apparently the Aramaic word "shabak" can mean to keep or spare. Aramaic scholars do not all agree on the shades of meaning but they all seem to agree that it does NOT mean "to forsake" in the American English sense, which according to the American Heritage Dictionary means, "to give up, renounce, reject, or leave altogether."

Dave Bauscher's excellent translations of Matthew and Mark both use the word "forsaken", which I think is unfortunate since this will tend to perpetuate an incorrect image of Jesus, although it follows the lead of Murdock and Etheridge. Lamsa has "kept" and Paul Younan has "spared".

I hope Dave will consider using "spared" in future editions of his fine work.

Otto

Back to top


Andrew Gabriel Roth



Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 144
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 5:00 pm Post subject: Matti 27:46

Shlama Akhi Otto,

Just so you know, I translate the line in Mari/PEACE as "My El, my El, why are you sparing me?"

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Back to top


rungold315



Joined: 24 May 2006
Posts: 54
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 9:05 pm Post subject:

sorry andrew that contradicts the Tanakh. and ive been told that trasnlation is very stressed and unnatural.

Back to top


ograabe



Joined: 08 Sep 2003
Posts: 209
Location: Davis, California Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 10:37 pm Post subject:

The only reason for referring to the Tenakh is the theory that Jesus was quoting Psalm 22, but COMPARISON OF TEXTS SHOW DIFFERENT WORDS USED!

PSALM 22:1 (For the choir director; upon Aijeleth Hashshahar. A Psalm of David.):

"Eli, Eli, lema azab-thani."
My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?

MATTHEW 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying,
"Eli, Eli, lemana shabak-thani."

[my] God, [my] God, why have you spared me.

It seems to me that it is far more likely that Jesus was crying out in anguish than reciting an Aramaic version of Psalm 22.

Otto

Back to top


gbausc



Joined: 20 Nov 2003
Posts: 696
Location: New York state Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:05 pm Post subject:

Shlama Akhay,

Come on guys, this kicking around our Lord's cry from the cross has gone on far too long. This is not rocket science. The Peshitta text of Psalm 22:1 is identical to the Aramaic of Mark 15:34 :
yntqb$ 0nml yhl0 yhl0

We know what the Hebrew of Psalm 22:1 says and what it means: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

The Aramaic Peshitta of that verse and of Mark and of Matthew are the same, so either the Peshitta OT got it wrong or got it right. Which is it? And how likely is it that the Peshitta OT and The Peshitta NT got it wrong?

That's right- not very likely !

Our Lord was crying out in anguish and in terror : "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Explain it if you can. I choose to put my hand upon my mouth and wonder at this mystery of God in the Messiah my Savior.

"It pleased The LORD to crush him(self) . You shall make His soul an offering for sin. He poured out His soul into death."- Isaiah 53:10-12

I call this cry the cry of the dying Godhead. I know that sounds crazy to some, but I do believe God completely offered up His Divine Life and Deity in His sacrifice for sin. Nothing less would have been sufficient to redeem all souls for all time and eternity. The offering had to be Divine and Spiritual as well as physical, no matter how perfect the flesh of Christ was, and it was absolutely perfect and sinless.

That cry was more than the cry of a Man. That cry was more than the cry of The man Yeshua. That cry was more than the cry of The Messiah Yeshua. That cry was more than the cry of the Son of God, Yeshua The Messiah.

But I will proceed no further.

Ponder this cry, for in it I believe is the secret and mystery of redemption contained. It shook Heaven and earth, when "once in the end of the world He appeared to destroy sin by offering up Himself in His sacrifice." (Hebrews 9:26).

"There is no greater love than this, that someone lay down his life (napsha) for his friends." Have a look at the difference between this verse in John 15:13 in the Peshitta and the Greek.

And ask yourself this question: Does God the Father have the greatest love possible?

Khuva b'Marya Meshikha ,
(Love in Jehovah The Messiah)

Dave

Back to top


Andrew Gabriel Roth



Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 144
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:10 am Post subject: We must agree to disagree





Shlama all--

First of all Akhi Rungold, there is no contradiction from Tanakh and I don't know how you feel you can dismiss what I say as "forced" without a single verse. You've been told? What have you SEEN Akhi? Do you think Paul Younan, a native speaker, is "forced" in his translation too? What about Lamsa who has the same reading? We are making it up I guess? Or is it just possible we see something in the text that makes it at least plausible?

You are not even doing justice to the Hebrew wordfor forsaken in Psalm 22:1, AZBATANI, which has a similar diversity of meaning even if Y'shua was quoting it, which I don't think he was. It could have been a statement that also might mean:

`azab TWOT - 1594,1595
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
aw-zab' Verb

Definition
to leave, loose, forsake
(Qal) to leave
to depart from, leave behind, leave, let alone
to LEAVE, abandon, forsake, neglect, apostatise
to let loose, set free, let go, free
(Niphal)
to be left to
to be forsaken
(Pual) to be deserted
to restore, repair
(Qal) to repair

Here are just three places where LEAVE is intended as RESERVE/KEEP/SPARE for the Hebrew word:

Le 19:10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt LEAVE/RESERVE/SPARE them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.

Le 23:22 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt LEAVE/RESERVE/SPARE them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God.

Le 26:43 The land also shall be LEFT/RESERVED/SPARED of them, and shall enjoy her sabbaths, while she lieth desolate without them: and they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity: because, even because they despised my judgments, and because their soul abhorred my statutes.

Furthermore, there is Psalm 22 imagery throughout Matthew 27--it's a midrash--but Y'shua is not quoting Psalm 22:1. If you would make statements like these, I ask that you at least try a little to back it up. Tanakh more than backs me up here, and I will show you even more reasons why.

Isaiah 11:1-2 says the spirit of YHWH is IN MESSIAH, as does Zechariah 12:10. It is against both Y'shua's own teachings and Tanakh to suggest that Y'shua's humanity was in any way divorced from an understanding of the separated divine qnoma inside him. Y'shua ALWAYS knew his mission was to offer up his life and that it was Father YHWH's will. Therefore to suggest that he could "forget" this fact, even for a second in pain, is ridiculous. He did NOT feel forsaken. He could NOT feel forsaken. He wanted to get the suffering over with, and his request was granted moments later. That is what the text says.

Akhi David, again we must agree to disagree. But I am surprised that you are not taking into account the other meanings of SHBAK/AZAB that more than allow for this possibility. I won't comment further than that my friend, except to say that the same holds true for the Markan reading. To me the other meanings of SHBAK, not the the words which I know very well, are the material issue.

When faced with two or more possible readings, the one that does NOT contradict Scripture elsewhere is what I go with. I saw nothing in your other Scripture quotes that disprove my position. Of course YHWH's love is the greatest of them all. That is EXACTLY WHY He did not forsake His Son. He ALLOWED His Son to sacrifice his life, but that is far different from "forsaking". Akhi David, IF YHWH NEVER FORSAKES US, WHY WOULD HE FORSAKE HIS SON? HE RESERVED HIS SON FOR OUR SAKES.

I will leave it at that.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Back to top


Link to Post - Back to Top Logged


charles
Associate

member is offline






Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 12 Re: Was Jesus Forsaken By God? (Part 1)
?? Reply #1 on Sept 4, 2007, 6:36pm ??
No, Jesus was not forsaken by God.

The "alternate translation", "My God, me God, for this I was spared", makes PERFECT sense, if you are willing to see a different story.

Let me try a different track. I owe this point to some heavy work done by David Christensen, who has stated that he did not think to apply Priestly Courses timetables to the Archelaus period.

He found that the Priestly Service - "Mishmarot" - for the Passover of 4 BCE, the date of the Temple Slaughter laid at the feet of Archelaus, was given to the group "Abijah". For quite a long time, I did not know how to verify whether or not there was a reason for the authorship of the stories in ~ 8 CE. I had Mishmarot but could not place the groups nor compute the rotations.

Mr. Christensen showed that the Abijah group does rotate in for Passover during the 2nd cycle and that the times match up. That is, it takes 6 years to complete a rotation of the 24 groups for Mishmarot such that the same group would be serving once again in the same week of the year (See Eisenman and Wise, _DSS Uncovered_, p. 108). It turns out that this group not only rotated back to Jerusalem during Passover after the 2nd cycle, but that the weekly times did also. Since there is no "Year Zero", this place the Abijah Mishmarot for the Passover during 9 CE.

It is this that gives an understanding of "My God, my God, for this I was spared?" Many of the stories are given time markers and these generally support a time of writing of around 8 CE. Why? Because these Priests, having come within literally moments of seizing the government from the Herodians and the Romans, are killed in the Temple and surrounding areas in 4 BCE. At least one - not John the Baptist - is "Miraculously Saved". He finds the "Narrow Way" and lives. John the Baptist does not. "Even the least in the Realm of Heaven is greater than John..." Why? Because John did not make it to the Realm of Heaven and he died.

This is the story of the Last Call to Glory. The Mishmarot Service is coming in a year and the Times match up. Only, Coponius is the Procurator from Caesarea and his 5 porticoes, 5 fasces (GJohn 5, "The Old Man by the Pool"), are the symbol of the rulership in a vastly changed world.

The Priest is betrayed and killed and he utters the phrase that now makes complete sense: "My God, my God, for this was I spared?"

It is ancient noir of unimaginable depth and it has been dismembered to what we see today.

BTW, look at the "Old Man by the Pool". He has been an invalid for 38 years. What happened ~ 38 years prior to this? Follow Herod's path from 30 BCE from the Battle of Actium and read what he did to the High Priest's Office and you will get an idea of what this Jesus was preaching.

CW
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged


peshittalover
Soldier

member is online






Joined: Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 84
Location: Northern Iowa Re: Was Jesus Forsaken By God? (Part 1)
?? Reply #2 on Sept 4, 2007, 7:40pm ??
Dear Charles,

You know, I'm like a scholar in the way that I think.

HOWEVER, most of Messiah's life can NOT be figured out with THE MIND.

It must be UNDERSTOOD by "the heart".

I'm literally fascinated by First Century things, especially things Jewish and Syriac (Assyrian).

But this will NEVER bring me any closer to that Living Relationship with Messiah that I want.

I tell you this not to throw disdain on your ideas here, but to point you in the Direction of Life.

Yours in Messiah, Albion
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged


charles
Associate

member is offline






Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 12 Re: Was Jesus Forsaken By God? (Part 1)
?? Reply #3 on Sept 5, 2007, 9:19pm ??
Hello all-
I'll say it again. I am not trying to challenge anyone's beliefs.
I'm trying to see a story that has been hidden. If this story is not there, I'll know that also - I hope.

What I am trying to do is see something that crosses cultures and especially languages. It is concerned with Greek and Aramic and I would accept Aramaic Primacy in the same way I would accept Markan Priority, if the evidence is overwhelming, and it might be. I am, however, looking at an entirely different set of priorities.

I know that this story of the Slaughter of 4 BCE stands or falls on a few phrases and "My God, my God, for this I was spared" is one of them. This is why I came to this group.

If I am not welcome, let me know and I will look for another group. I would want to believe that there are those who might offer something from the knowledge of the language that would isolate the story of these Priests a little more.

It is that important.

Thanx,

CW
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged


peshittalover
Soldier

member is online






Joined: Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 84
Location: Northern Iowa Re: Was Jesus Forsaken By God? (Part 1)
?? Reply #4 on Sept 5, 2007, 9:39pm ??
Shlama Charles,

Certainly you (and everyone else) are welcome here.

My priority is Messiah, and Him crucified, and Risen from the dead.

I'm very interested in the Aramaic Primacy of the New Testament, and to a lesser extent in the ancient Nazarenes, and the Assyrian Church of the East.

But those things cannot rescue one, like Messiah can.

I've tried it all, and only Alaha/YHWH and His Son have what I'm looking for.

And that's where I intend to devote my time and energy.

I hope that that's clear.

Shlama in Yeshua, Albion
Reply
#2
Shlama all,

It's good to see things up & running here again.

The cry of our Lord from the cross is not to be decided by theological doctrine, as some seem to think. It is to be decided by Aramaic and Hebrew linguistics. No one has addressed the OT Peshitta at Psalm 22:1 having wording identical to Peshitta Mark 15:34. The text in Mark is identical with the Peshitta translation of the Hebrew of Psalms 22:1. If Psalms 22:1 is supposed to mean "My God, my God, for this I was spared.", no translator of the Hebrew Tanakh ever saw it that way!

Even Lamsa did not translate The Peshitta of Psalms 22:1 that way!("My God, my God, why have you let me live?") Yet he translates the very same Aramaic words in Mark as "My God, my God, for this I was spared." I must confess, I am amazed that anyone can take Lamsa seriously anymore. He has repeatedly twisted plain scripture to fit his doctrinal beliefs (or shall I say, unbeliefs?). But I will stick to the matter at hand in pointing out his inconsistency. Lamsa seems to be the one who got this "Why have you spared me?" ball rolling.

The text in the Psalms (& in Mark) has no reference to "life" or "living", so "Why have you let me live?" is very loose, to say the least, and quite sloppy, to be candid. Notice also that he makes it a question, not a statement. That question makes no sense whatsoever for The Messiah to be asking when He was not "living", but dying.

Psalm 22 is plainly a prophecy of Messiah's crucifixion. If our Lord was not forsaken, He certainly believed He was. Read the rest of verse 1:
"Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?" The Peshitta has: "You have removed my salvation from me, because of the words of my folly." "Arkheq" means , "to depart afar, abandon, forsake, go to a distance, remove, put away, separate". Lamsa translates it "delayed". This was plain deceit on his part. He was clearly a man with a theological ax to grind, and grind he did. In fact, I believe he threw the Aramaic Lexicon into a shredder and made things up as he went, claiming his Aramaic fluency was authority enough to dispense with thousands of years of Aramaic word usage and etymology.
Read verse 2:
"O my God, I cry in the day???time, but thou answerest not; and in the night season, and am not silent." The Peshitta has:"Oh my God, I call you in the daytime, and you will not answer, and in the night, neither will you remain with me." And verses 3-6
3 But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.
4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.
5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not ashamed.
6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.

Our Lord was in despair. He believed He was unworthy of His Father's care.He certainly felt forsaken.

Was this not a prophecy of His crucifixion?

14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
15 My Strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of evil???doers have enclosed me; they pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I may count all my bones; they look and stare upon me:
18 They part my garments among them, and upon my vesture do they cast lots.
19 But be not thou far off, O LORD: O thou my succour, haste thee to help me.

If it was not, there is no such thing as prophecy.

Was He not allowed to feel forsaken on the cross? Was He not allowed to say so?

Damn our theology and pontifications about what is correct and incorrect for The Righteous & Holy One to say and do.

Then Lamsa goes to Mark 15:34 and makes the same sentence translated as a question in Psalms 22 into a statement in Mark:
"My God, my God, for this I was spared."
That makes lemana mean "for this", which it never can mean, and the active verb "Shebaqthani" into a passive (I was spared) which is simply incorrect, and it omits the subject "You", referring to God. Lemana means literally, "to what?, for what?, and is never a simple statement of fact, but a direct question, or at least an indirect question-("I will show to whom he is like." Luke 6:47).
This is a subtle deception, omitting God as the plain subject and Messiah as the object, so as to attempt to obviate the plain statement of Paul in Romans: "He spared not His Son, but delivered Him up for us all." -(Romans 8:32) "Khas" means, "to pity","to spare", "to refrain, forbear". If any Aramaic word means "spared", "Khas" does. No lexicon lists "spared" as a meaning for "Shabaq".Its basic meaning is "to leave".

Who are we to contradict plain scripture? Yeshua was not spared, certainly not by God! And why in the name of Sam Hill would He cry out that He was spared when He was not being spared but delivered over for us all?
The only sense in which He could have been spared is in an unconventional sense. "Spared" has four meanings:
1. to treat with mercy or leniency; refrain from killing, injuring, troubling or distressing; save.
2. to save or free a person from something [to spare someone trouble]
3. to refrain from, omit, avoid using, or use frugally [to spare no effort]
4. to give up the use or possession of; part with or give up conveniently [able to spare a cup of sugar]

Whatever translation is used in Mark should apply to Psalms 22:1 as well, and vice versa. If Psalms 22:1 is a question, so is Mark 15:34. I don't think our Lord was informing His Father of anything. God knows all things. "My God, My God.." indicates something traumatic, especially considering Yeshua always addressed His Father as Abba & Abbi (Father & My Father). Something is wrong, for Him to use this impersonal address.

Whatever the meaning of "Shabaq", the cry from the cross was a question, not a statement.That is certain.

To apply #1 to a statement from a dying crucified victim is an absurdity so great as to nullify the notion as a possibility here.Our Lord knew He had come to die, and that He would be protected until His hour would come.There would have been no surprise about that.
To apply #1 or # 2 would make the statement ironic and almost sarcastic: "So this is why you protected me!"
#3 simply does not work. Yeshua was not avoided or used frugally by His Father.
Which leaves #4 :to give up the use or possession of; part with or give up conveniently.

Which brings us back to "forsaken me" or "left me".

Psalm 22 in its entirety is an exposition on this matter. Everyone ought to read it and think about what it is saying about His suffering and death on the cross.

Thank God He was willing to suffer in His Soul and Spirit as well as in His body and offer them up for sin (Isa. 53:10,11,12).
Thank God He was restored in His Soul & Spirit to His Father : "Father, into thy hands I commend My Spirit."

His cry from the cross was a desperate one, and it was a question.
The Lion of the tribe of Judah roared from Jerusalem (Psalms 22:1, & Joe 3:15,16 15 (ERV) The sun and the moon are darkened, and the stars withdraw their shining.
The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem
; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel.
Am 1:2 And he said, The LORD will roar from Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the habitations of the shepherds shall mourn, and the top of Carmel shall wither.
Ho 11:10 They shall walk after the LORD: he shall roar like a lion: when he shall roar, then the children shall tremble from the west.

Many blessings,

Dave Bauscher
Reply
#3
When The Anointed One is Thrown out of The Tau or Cross, he WANTS to be thrown out/rejected, although it is frightening and lonely at that point. First reaching the cross and being immobilized and then!!! (imagine being born, before being scooped up). See the Tower image in Tarot. It is quite sudden.
This is the only way to Pass Over - but its a very narrow and painful passage. He is praying not to be kept anymore and to be released...

Oh and when he is "reborn" into the highest he says. "they can't touch me now!!!" <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: -->
Reply
#4
I like john 16-32 for this thread- 'for behold the hour is coming and it has now come, when you will be dispersed, every man to his own place. And you will leave me alone, yet I would not be alone because the father is with me.'
Jesus was our substitute on the cross, undefiled, holy without blemish so the father would not forsake him.
Like lamsa saids 'god will not forsake the rigtheous' and he has taken that from the word of god and scripture cannot be broken.
Reply
#5
Hello everyone-
I ran across my "old" question and decided to give an update of my research.

1. Most of what I stated is correct by intent. The Story is the story of a Service Group that has Temple Service for the Passovers of 4 BCE and 9 CE. What needs to be corrected is the name of the Service Group.
The Service Group is the group, "Immer", not "Abijah".

2. The Group name, "Immer", is close to "Immar", as we would spell it. "Immar" <=> "Lamb", as in, "The Blood of the _____".

3. These Stories are about the Primacy of the Hasmonaeans and the Primacy of the House of Eleazar. "Immer" is the 16th and last member of Eleazar's contribution. See 1 Chronicles 24.

4. As you look at the "Time Markers" of "Hannah the Prophetess" (Luke 2), "The Old Man by the Pool" (John), the Twin Stories of "The Woman with the 12 Year Issue of Blood" (Mark) and "Jairus' Daughter" (and others) and move backward from 8/9 CE to the given subtracted year, you will find references that parallel the story - Hannah is in the Temple for 84 years. 8 + (-84) = -76 <=> 76 BCE. What happened in 76 BCE? The WIDOW Salome survives Alexander Jannaeus. Jannaeus is a Legitimate Hasmonaean, a High Priest and King.

5. These Time Markers reference the Death of the Lineal Priestly Rulers through Antigonus. After these are killed, the remaining Priests an supporters gather for Passover in 4 BCE and are MASSACRED. See Josephus, _Antiquities..._ 17 and _War of the Jews_, Book 2 for the OTHER side of the Story.

Luke 13:

[23] And some one said to him, "Lord, will those who are saved be few?" And he said to them,
[24] "Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able...

This looks back from the 9 CE Passover (Possibly in 8, before the Passover). A few do survive to get to the 9 Passover but the Priest who survives the Slaughter in 4 BCE is killed.

6. Therefore, "My God, my God, for this I was SPARED!" OR "...for this was I KEPT!" OR ... is CORRECT. The Priest in 4 BCE performs the Perfect Sacrifices. As he expects God to stand by him and remove the Herodians, the Romans and especially - ESPECIALLY - the Pharisees, the soldiers roll in and Slaughter EVERYONE. Passover is cancelled! "How could this be?!??"
There is another Passover in 12 years that duplicates the Passover of 4 BCE. "Immer" is in Service for this Passover as well. The Priest, however, is intercepted. There is a Crucifixion for this episode, probably in Caesarea. The Priest, who survived by a miracle, is now killed. Hence, "My God, my God, for this I was Spared?".

It makes perfect sense and is seen where no intention of this translation was even dreamed.

The Story of the Hasmonaeans and the House of Eleazar gets dismembered and rewritten. The Promises of the Priesthood are transferred to the Romans - by the Romans.

Charles
Reply
#6
Hi Charles,

so, in fact, translators needed through the ages, to to calculations to get to those parallel stories, and to translate correctly? But, none of them did, right?
But in the 20th century, we suddenly know how to corretly render it?
I find your explanation intriguing, but I expect the spirit of God to help translators at essential parts of the NT.
Reply
#7
Thank you, Distazo.
I'm glad you considered what I stated.
To your comments:

I don't know if translators are "needed". If you are creating something out of whole cloth, maybe not.
Suppose, though, that you wish to do more. The Romans, for instance, were very superstitious, especially after the fact.
Read the histories of the Caesars - Dio, Suetonius, etc. - and you will find large numbers of statements concerning the "gods" giving signals and signs that such and such an emperor was "destined" to rule or to die. Galba roars into Rome and the story is told of a young woman who read a prophecy at an altar and that a paper was found under the altar that contained the very words that the young girl spoke and the paper was "supposedly" placed under the altar years earlier, having never been seen. "See? Galba was chosen to be emperor!"
Vespasian, as told by Josephus, used what Josephus himself provided, the "Star Prophecy". A World Ruler shall come from Judea and the Jews thought it would be a Jew. Josephus tells Vespasian that it would be Vespasian himself. Vespasian marches on Rome and displaces the Julio-Claudian Line and installs the Flavian Line.

Here is where it gets difficult to discern what you read and what is intended. Suppose there is a Story that already exists. It is a Noble Story of a Priesthood that is utterly killed and destroyed save for a very few. One of the key characters survives this first Death only to be killed years later. This character believes that there must be a reason why God did not stand by him and the other Priests the first time. The story continues to a very sad end.

Levticus 26:

[1]"You shall make for yourselves no idols and erect no graven image or pillar, and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land, to bow down to them; for I am the LORD your God.
[2] You shall keep my sabbaths and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD.
[3]"If you walk in my statutes and observe my commandments and do them,
[4] then I will give you your rains in their season, and the land shall yield its increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit...
...
[9] And I will have regard for you and make you fruitful and multiply you, and will confirm my covenant with you.

Herod erects a golden eagle over the Temple - "Isn't that the very abomination found in verse 1?!??" - and two teachers are immolated for cutting it down. Herod is dying in Jericho. If these Priests observe the perfect Passover, God will stand by them and eliminate the Herodians, the Romans and, as I emphasized, especially the Pharisees! Only, it doesn't happen that way. Herod is dead and Archelaus rules in Jerusalem!

It is Passover and the populace streams towards the Temple Grounds. They are expecting as least, a Coup d'Etat, at most, God's Divine Intervention as the Temple is Re-Dedicated and Re-Consecrated. The rulers feel that the "Mob" cannot be controlled. People are first sent in to try to calm those who are performing the sacrifices and these generals and others are stoned. If you think, "My God, my God, for this was I spared!" reads strangely, read this as if it came from the floor of the Temple, in front of the Altar, just before the Massacre of the Thousands:

Luke 19: 39 - 40:

39. But some of the Pharisees from among the crowds said, "Rabbi, rebuke your disciples."
40. He said to them, "I say to you, that if these should be silent, the rocks would cry out".

And the soldiers were then sent in and they murdered almost everyone. This Priest is of the Service Group "Immer" and this group will be at Temple in 12 years for another Passover...

Back to original question. Do you make up something or do gain the advantage of theft over honest toil?

I want to be very careful here with your question. If it is a matter of "Translators" setting up the parallel stories and not getting it right, I dunno. I can't answer and THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION I NEED ANSWERED.
Try this:

Verify that the Time Markers are as they appear. "Hannah the Prophetess" goes back to Queen Salome in 76 BCE. "The Old Man by the Pool" goes back to 30 BCE and the appointment of the High Priest by Herod and the death of Antigonus. The Hasmonaean Rulers and High Priests are now dead. "The Woman with the 12 Year Issue of Blood" and "Jairus' Daughter" go back 12 years to the 4 BCE Slaughter - The Nation and the Priesthood are now Ritually Unclean!
The "Woman Bent Over for 18 years" goes back to the finishing of the Cloisters by Herod and the dedication of the Temple AND celebration of Herod's ascension on the same day. The woman cannot worship God at the Temple without worshiping Herod! No wonder she's been bent over for 18 years!

All counted back from 8/9 CE. The Tribulation, Salome up through the deaths of Aristobulus 2 and his son can also be found but...maybe later.

Verify this first and then ask why a translator worked from "Gpiptha" to "Gabbatha". Why work on a "One Way" translation?

All of this is of greatest importance to me. Greek Primacy isn't the point. The Aramaic Translations are crucial to seeing what did take place. If a dead Caesar ordered the destruction of a great history for his vanity and some fragments of what he had hoped to destroy still survived, would that be important - no matter what year it was discovered?
I took up a lot of space here and I apologize - but there is a lot still left.

Charles
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)