Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Matt 27:46
#1
This verse has been the subject of several posts, but as I am new to the forum it is with humility that I would like to pose a few questions concerning this verse. You folks are much more expert than I concerning the Aramaic so please be gentle...My KJV transliterates the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic as "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" I have read that there is no word in the Aramaic that corresponds to "lama." Using a Strong's concordance I see "la" (Aram. #3809) means "no, not, never," and "ma" (Aram. #4101) can be translated "why? or what? Putting these two words together it is easy to see that that they do not make sense in the verse. Now before you get too agravated at me, there is another word that may make sense if there is an equivalent Aramaic word that coresponds to the Hebrew word "laa" (Heb. #3811). Does such a word exist?

This brings up a whole other question concerning copying errors. If there is no word "lama" in the original language then there must have been a different word used here. We only have the manuscripts that are currently available to research, and of course the various translations from the original text, which is why I pose these questions to you. I have not seen any of the ancient texts or manuscripts and only have available what you have on this site as an example of the Peshitta. From other research in Greek and Hebrew I suspect that variant manuscripts probably exist. What was in the ms. did not make sense, else there would have been no reason that the Aramaic would have been preserved in the Greek, it would've just been translated like the rest of the text.

I have read that in cases where a translation was not clear or that they simply did not know what to make of the words used in the ms. for translation, it was common to retain what was written in Aramaic and gave it there best shot in Greek. They did not want to be responsible for the loss of the written Word, but also were constrained to present something that people would be able to understand.

Thanks for your help.
Reply
#2
Hi Scott

The word in question, l'mana, is indeed a proper and common Aramaic word.

It is composed of the Lamed Proclitic ( l' ) which means "for/to" and "mana" which you may recognize from the Hebrew cognate word for the food in the desert. It means "what?".

Together with the Lamed Proclitic, the phrase is "for what?" or "to what?"

"Shbaq" means means "leave" or "spare" (as in leave be).

The phrase is totally proper Aramaic. "Why have you left me be?", "For what have you spared me?" Or even the traditional "Why have you left me?"

+Shamasha
Reply
#3
Shlama akhay,

It's also true that "lama" is the equivalent Hebrew word to Aramaic "l'mana", which is found in Psalm 22 verse 1 or 2.

I'm not sure what to make of the quote in the Greek text of Matthew and Mark, since it seems to be a mixture of Hebrew ("Eli", "lama") and Aramaic ("sabaqthani").

bar Sinko
Reply
#4
bar Sinko Wrote:Shlama akhay,

It's also true that "lama" is the equivalent Hebrew word to Aramaic "l'mana", which is found in Psalm 22 verse 1 or 2.

I'm not sure what to make of the quote in the Greek text of Matthew and Mark, since it seems to be a mixture of Hebrew ("Eli", "lama") and Aramaic ("sabaqthani").

bar Sinko

Hi bar Sinko

In Matthew it's the Aramaic l'mana

+Shamasha
Reply
#5
Thanks, to both of you, for your response. Please bear with me and my novice type questions...

Because l'mana is a normal word, what do you consider as the reason behind the Greek text retaining Aramaic in the translation?

In searching the other usages for "Shbaq" in the OT, the references demonstrate that the word could equally be translated "to remain" as in Daniel 2:44. Because of this I considered the possibility that He was asking God "what 'remained' to be done?" before it was to end.

Basically the word "laa" in Hebrew means "to be weary." So my question is, would the sentence structure support the translation--"My God, My God, I am weary, what remains?" This would necessitate that the "laa" in Hebrew have an equivalent spelling/meaning in Aramaic and actually be the word used in the verse. In essence that is the same understanding as -Why am I still here? It is clear from the abundance of scripture that God did not, and would not, leave His Son to die alone, but was with Him unto the end.

John 19: 28, 30, Luke 23:46:??I thirst???It is finished!???Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.?

Thanks again for your patience.
Reply
#6
Scott,

The Father, God, separated Himself from His Son (in what manner, and to what extent, we are not told) But this had to happen, because Christ became a curse for us, while upon the Cross...when all our sin was placed upon Him. This was His work to do as the Son of Man.

Christ had to experience a total separation from God, as all who are cursed with sin experience. Christ died in our place on the Cross, for our sins. He took them as His own, and paid our debt and received the penalty for them, as the Son of Man, in His humanity. The Father and The Holy Spirit did not do this, as they did not experience death or the curse of sin, as Christ did in His humanity, for which He came, in the body/soul that God prepared for Him to make the sacrifice.

The Father departed from His Son, who had taken as His own, all our guilt and shame...receiving the penalty that we deserved. The Father knew that it was only for a moment that this must be. He resurrected His Son, and didn't leave His soul in Sheol...nor did He allow His physical body to decay while in the tomb.


Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#7
Chuck

The Father did depart from His Son, ...for three days and three nights.

This was absolutely required in order for our redemption to be secured as a matter of eternal justice and fulfilling the Word= Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man?s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. No one could meet the standard except for Christ, He alone was the "perfect" man whose blood was needed to pay the price of Adam's sin which lead to his spiritual death in the Garden. Only the second Adam was of necessary stature, yet, to meet the requirement to satisfy justice He had to be a man.

Many do not understand the legal demands, but suffice it to say that no other person who came from Adam was capable of providing our redemption. Adam was a "son of God", only "the" Son of God could pay the price for Adam's sin. Once Adam sinned he was no longer capable of paying the price to regain what he had lost, he was no longer perfect.

Christ knew this, but He asked "if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." -Matt 26:39
Christ also knew that all would depart from him, except for His Father. John 16:32 ?"I am not alone, because the Father is with me."

It is because of these and other verses that the KJV of Matt 27:46 is called into question. When we look at a version we must understand that it is not original, but it is in fact the result of a translation. The suitability of the translation is based on the mind of the individual doing the translating and the availability of manuscripts that they are using. We then have to deal with our own understanding of what is written. In this case we have two translations in one verse, the Greek and the English. If the English translation of the Greek is correct it brings into question the rest of the Bible. Christ knew that He was going to die on the Cross as our Passover, He also knew that He could walk right off of that Cross. He had the right to do so, but He chose to fulfill the Will of God.
Reply
#8
Hi Scott,

I can agree with most of what you say there, but could you comment further on this statement please -->"The Father did depart from His Son, ...for three days and three nights."

Also, I'm not looking at any translation of the text, just The Text itself. Indeed, The Father didn't "forsake" His Son, in the sense that "forsake" can mean in English, as in rejecting or abandoning Him...but He did leave/depart, at a certain moment, for a certain amount of time.

As you might know, M'shikha in His crying out unto His Father there, is re-stating the words that was written down in Psalm 22, which contains a number of other prophecies concerning what was to take place at the Cross and what was going to be said, by M'shikha and others present at the then future event. If we read this passage, we can see what was going on in our Master's soul in His anguish that afternoon.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#9
The point that I was making is that for three days and three nights the Son of God was separated from the Father because he died. He died fulfilling the will of God. Where would you be if your son was dieing, wouldn't you be with him if you could be? On what legal grounds would there be a requirement for God to leave His son alone while he was doing exactly what he was supposed to be doing? If there are no legal grounds, and there are no moral grounds, then I am going to stick with what Christ said that His Father was going to be with him during this greatest of trials of any person's trust in God. God did not leave him hanging and He will not leave you hanging, even though you are not perfectly doing all that He wants you to do. The Word is faithful.

The interpretation of Matthew 27:46, that it is a quotation of Psalms 22, leaves me with questions. Why, knowing that he was going to go through the whole ordeal of crucifixion, would he ask God that question?

If it is not a matter of translation alone, then I must look at my understanding

From a cultural standpoint, this type of lament was a common way to complain when God is not immediately providing salvation from a dilemma. This manner of speaking is an Eastern or Oriental way of crying out for help when dire circumstances come upon you. Horrible things happen and the Eastern custom or idiom is to cry aloud why God would keep you alive instead of just letting you die. An example of this from the Bible can be seen during the Exodus:

Exodus 16:3 And the children of Israel said unto them, ?Would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, and when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.?

Would it have been better to have died in Egypt? No, it was their way of expressing the direness of their situation, to complain and lament. But, I do not believe that this is what he was saying on the Cross.

According to Dr. George M. Lamsa, Psalm 22:1 reads as follows: ?My God, my God, why hast thou let me to live? and yet thou hast delayed my salvation from me, because of the words of my folly.?

Certainly there was no delay in Christ's salvation because of the words of his folly. I do not see Christ as complaining or lamenting, this is one of reasons why I question the interpretation. He knew of the torture that he was to endure well ahead of time.

Another reason I do not believe that this is a lament is because of its absence from the record in Luke. Each of the gospel records depict a different aspect of the Messiah. In John, according to 20:31, it was written that you might believe that he is/was the Son of God. In Matthew he is shown as royalty, the King of the kingdom of Heaven. In Mark, he is shown as the servant of God. In Luke he is shown as the son of man. A great deal of evidence supports this and worthy of extended study. But suffice it to say that if this is a lament of why God had departed or forsaken him, it would fit better in Luke. It would be a perfectly human thing to think that you are left alone.

From a book I read while doing research in college: A key element used when torturing people is to use pain to shrink down the person's world to consist of only them. Torture leaves the world very small, it becomes all about the person in pain and how to remedy the situation through revealing whatever the one who is inflicting the pain wants to know. Again, I do not believe that while he was hanging on the Cross that he felt that he was separated from God; God was his strength, his shield and buckler. However, I suspect that he was growing weary and needed to know what remained to be accomplished as in why he still remained alive. From that perspective I can understand the Psalm 22 reference as to "why thou has left me to live?" It is not a statement of why God departed from Him, but what remained for him to accomplish, both as the King of the kingdom and as the servant of God. (Matthew and Mark)
Reply
#10
Scott,

The Messiah did not cease to exist while His physical body had ceased to function. The Scriptures tell us what He was doing during the time His body lay in that tomb.

As to The Messiah's Divine Nature, as The Word, He can't be separated from The Father and The Holy Spirit...for they are ONE GOD.

But, as to His humanity, in His human nature/being, He was separated from His Father, when in His humanity, He became sin itself and became a curse for us...and He died, in His humanity, apart from His Father, who had departed from Him at that point. But His Father did not leave His Son's soul in Sheol, but raised it from the dead.

"...and because of the suffering of His death, Glory and Honor was placed upon His Head, for, apart from God, in the place of every Man, He tasted death." Heb 2:9c

"...And He died in the body, but lived in The Spirit,...and proclaimed unto the souls who were held in Sheol. 1 Pet 3:18c - 19

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#11
Scott from the great state of Tennessee:
A titllating point here involving Jesus as the Lamb of God: As I understand it, when a mother ewe dies, her lamb will starve to death unless a shepherd can find another ewe to suckle it. But a ewe will not accept a strange lamb, so the shepherd finds a ewe who has lost its lamb, skins that lamb, ties the skin from the dead lamb on the orphan lamb and puts it with the mother ewe in a dark lightless place for three days - after which the ewe accepts the new lamb as her own. This seems sort of like Yeshua 's three days in the tomb for our sins and we are adopted by the Father, foreshadowed by Jacob and Esau... or I could be dead wrong.
Richard

Scott from Tennessee Wrote:Chuck

The Father did depart from His Son, ...for three days and three nights.

This was absolutely required in order for our redemption to be secured as a matter of eternal justice and fulfilling the Word= Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man?s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. No one could meet the standard except for Christ, He alone was the "perfect" man whose blood was needed to pay the price of Adam's sin which lead to his spiritual death in the Garden. Only the second Adam was of necessary stature, yet, to meet the requirement to satisfy justice He had to be a man.

Many do not understand the legal demands, but suffice it to say that no other person who came from Adam was capable of providing our redemption. Adam was a "son of God", only "the" Son of God could pay the price for Adam's sin. Once Adam sinned he was no longer capable of paying the price to regain what he had lost, he was no longer perfect.

Christ knew this, but He asked "if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." -Matt 26:39
Christ also knew that all would depart from him, except for His Father. John 16:32 ?"I am not alone, because the Father is with me."

It is because of these and other verses that the KJV of Matt 27:46 is called into question. When we look at a version we must understand that it is not original, but it is in fact the result of a translation. The suitability of the translation is based on the mind of the individual doing the translating and the availability of manuscripts that they are using. We then have to deal with our own understanding of what is written. In this case we have two translations in one verse, the Greek and the English. If the English translation of the Greek is correct it brings into question the rest of the Bible. Christ knew that He was going to die on the Cross as our Passover, He also knew that He could walk right off of that Cross. He had the right to do so, but He chose to fulfill the Will of God.
Reply
#12
Scott from Tennessee Wrote:..
If it is not a matter of translation alone, then I must look at my understanding

..
Another reason I do not believe that this is a lament is because of its absence from the record in Luke. Each of the gospel records depict a different aspect of the Messiah. In John, according to 20:31, it was written that you might believe that he is/was the Son of God. In Matthew he is shown as royalty, the King of the kingdom of Heaven. In Mark, he is shown as the servant of God. In Luke he is shown as the son of man. A great deal of evidence supports this and worthy of extended study. But suffice it to say that if this is a lament of why God had departed or forsaken him, it would fit better in Luke. It would be a perfectly human thing to think that you are left alone.
...
Again, I do not believe that while he was hanging on the Cross that he felt that he was separated from God; God was his strength, his shield and buckler. However, I suspect that he was growing weary and needed to know what remained to be accomplished as in why he still remained alive. From that perspective I can understand the Psalm 22 reference as to "why thou has left me to live?" It is not a statement of why God departed from Him, but what remained for him to accomplish, both as the King of the kingdom and as the servant of God. (Matthew and Mark)

Scott,

Father has never ever left his beloved Son. It does not make any sense in the light of the rest of the Scripture. Would you (I mean the reader) leave your son in such a moment? So ... does it mean then that John and the three Marys standing at the cross were closer to Jesus than his Father ?

I have found Janet Magiera's explanation of this subject very helpful

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.sdbiblicalstudies.com/audio/elieli_jmagiera_2009.mp3">http://www.sdbiblicalstudies.com/audio/ ... a_2009.mp3</a><!-- m -->

I hope it helps.

It was mentioned on this forum in another place <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3195&p=19769">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3195&p=19769</a><!-- l -->

and there are more comments on (mis)translations of "My God, My God .." - <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1587">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1587</a><!-- l -->

I just realized recently how important this is. It is not of the same caliber as some other textual problems such as "Galilea or Judea" - who cares. It is about our FATHER in Heaven. If someone was saying something like that about my good parent who loves me, that he/she turned their face away from me when I was in agony, I would probably punch the face of such slanderer.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)