Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forsake / Spare interesting alternate possibility
#1
Shlama,


most are probably familiar with the way the term [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]yntqb4[/font] is taken to mean "forsake" or "spare." there has been discussion on this here before, and my intent is not to necessarily take sides, but offer a different insight:

as i was looking at Codex Bezae's reading of Mark 15:34, i noticed the following variant that struck me as a possible evidence relating to the Peshitta:

the majority reading in the Greek is:

EGKATELIPES ME (forsaken me) -- or any various alternate spelling of the same term as found in scattered texts

Bezae reads:

ONEIDISAS ME (reproach / taunt me)

as we've seen that the Bezae appears to support the Peshitta in certain other instances, i was wondering if what we see here from this codex also lends support, but in a different way. since the Aramaic SH'WAQ can be taken in the sense of "forsake," but also in the sense of "spare," could the reading from Bezae be a dynamic equivalent reading of the Aramaic, ie, Messiah was in torment on the cross, and asking why Alaha "spared" Him would be like saying, "Why have you reviled / taunted Me (by not bring death yet)?

if this is a viable option, it creates an intriguing alternate possibility:

BOTH meanings of the Aramaic SH'WAQ were intended, and not merely "forsake" over "spare," or vice versa. if this works, it would show that the majority of translators understood His Aramaic word in the sense of "forsake," and Bezae and a few Old Latin versions saw it instead as "spare."


thoughts?


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#2
i guess you are well aware of it, but Jesus was quoting Psalms 22. In Aramaic, yes, but still it was Psalms 22. Psalms 22 was written in Hebrew, and i believe instead of focusing on the Greek, which is translation of translation, we should focus on the Hebrew, which is the original. Though i personally always like to see various interpretation, in this case, the Hebrew seems to support the "forsake" much more than the "spare". In fact, i did not find any OT reading that supports "spare" for azab (heb. for SH'WAQ).

Just my thoughts, so please don't throw stones at me all at once for bringing hebrew into the discussion.
Jesus is the one true God of the Bible.
Reply
#3
Andrej Wrote:i guess you are well aware of it, but Jesus was quoting Psalms 22. In Aramaic, yes, but still it was Psalms 22. Psalms 22 was written in Hebrew, and i believe instead of focusing on the Greek, which is translation of translation, we should focus on the Hebrew, which is the original. Though i personally always like to see various interpretation, in this case, the Hebrew seems to support the "forsake" much more than the "spare". In fact, i did not find any OT reading that supports "spare" for azab (heb. for SH'WAQ).

Just my thoughts, so please don't throw stones at me all at once for bringing hebrew into the discussion.


Shlama Andrej,


i've got no stones to throw here, so no worry! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

the possibility of "spare" with AZAB also exists in such places like Leviticus 19:10, or 23:22, so it really seems to work both ways, and context determines the best route of translation, although i would agree that "forsake" is definitely the preferred reading almost across the board on the Hebrew side. but my focus mainly exists in the Aramaic reading of Mark, so i am not even suggesting that the Hebrew originally intended it to be "spare," only focusing on the way the Aramaic is/can be understood, and the Greek variant readings as a possible sign that they were taken from the Aramaic.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#4
Burning one Wrote:the possibility of "spare" with AZAB also exists in such places like Leviticus 19:10, or 23:22, so it really seems to work both ways, and context determines the best route of translation, although i would agree that "forsake" is definitely the preferred reading almost across the board on the Hebrew side. but my focus mainly exists in the Aramaic reading of Mark, so i am not even suggesting that the Hebrew originally intended it to be "spare," only focusing on the way the Aramaic is/can be understood, and the Greek variant readings as a possible sign that they were taken from the Aramaic.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Wow, i totally missed those two, i wonder how many more there are. Though i still think those two were more likely meant as "forsaken" in the sense of the owner forsaking his property, it may clearly show how, among other uses, the word developed to its aramaic identity.

i did not mean to belittle the Aramaic reading, i just thought to point out that, if you are a Peshitta primacist, you may be more inclined to focus on the Hebrew, as it has validity and originality, over the Greek, which you consider to be mere translation, and as such, mere opinion. That the aramaic seems to support both readings seems unquestionned. But, if i was to look for help in clearing up the confusion, i'd just go to the Hebrew, because it clearly presents itself.

No hurt feelings, i guess if you see a lot of depth in "spare", it may very well be there, and it may very well me intended.
Jesus is the one true God of the Bible.
Reply
#5
Hadn't really looked at Mark 15:34 before, so I guess I am new to this issue.

Objectively, it seems as though the Aramaic is questionable, in the sense that they are only "interpreting" the word Iyl, and superfluously duplicating, l:mo-no` sh:baq-to-ny a second time. It seems rather awkward for them to do that.

The Greek on the other hand, "interprets" the entire Aramaic phrase Iyl Iyl l:mo-no` sh:baq-to-ny back into Greek, which seems the natural thing to do. Is that the consensus of others looking at this verse?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)