09-28-2003, 12:50 AM
Why hast thou forsaken me or why have you spared me? ??? Matthew 27:16 / Mark 15:34
The importance of this semi split word, dealing with God???s alleged forsaking of Jesus, especially to the field of Christian apologetics, hardly needs to be stressed.
The KJV says (Matthew 27:46): ???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????
The KJV says (Mark 15:34): ???And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me????
The first issue with this story, is that the Greek and English tell us that God allegedly forsook Jesus, resulting in the unfortunate twisting of Scripture by Christian apologists. The second issue, applies to Aramaic primacists. Greek primacists say, ???If Matthew and Mark were written in Aramaic, why do the Gospel-writers write the same thing twice (i.e. first the Aramaic words of Jesus, then the Greek translation)???, instead of just simply translating it?
Let us deal first with the first.
???Had Jesus in this last hour said that God had forsaken Him, the Jews would have used this saying against Him. They would have taken it as a confession that He was a blasphemer and therefore God had deserted Him in His darkest hour; because God never forsakes the righteous, but He may forsake the sinners.
This is not all. Had Jesus' cry meant forsaking, He not only would have destroyed the faith of his disciples and followers, but would have contradicted His own teaching, the very assurance which He had given to His disciples, and the very cause for which He was dying. On the other hand, judgement and death on the cross did not come upon Jesus suddenly. On many occasions He had told his disciples that He would die on the cross and rise again; they had heard him saying, "You will leave me alone; and yet I am never alone because the Father is with me." (John 16:32)
How is it that the European translators of the Bible in the 17th Century A.D. who were thousands of miles from Palestine, and who could not speak Aramaic, knew more about Jesus' cry on the cross than the Jews who spoke Aramaic and stood near the cross watching Him die? And how is it that Peter, John, and other disciples and follows of Jesus never commented on these ominous words? Indeed, if Jesus had meant desertion they would have commented on it, because such a statement, or even such a thought was contrary to all Jesus had preached and taught. The apostles did not comment on these last words simply because they knew what Jesus meant in their Galilean dialect, or northern Aramaic. Moreover, they knew had He meant forsaken, He would have used the
Aramaic word taa tani, which means forsaken.??? ??? Dr. George Mamishisho Lamsa
Another problem with this, is that apologists will often try to explain that at that moment, Jesus was sin, and that is why God forsook Him. Well, if God forsook His own Son for sin, what hope do we have?
The simple solution, from the Aramaic, is that Jesus did not imply that God forsook Him at all! The Aramaic ???sabachthani??? does not have to mean forsaken. It can mean many things, among them, ???spared???. Now ???lemana??? (written as ???lama??? in the Greek copies) denotes a question, so a fairly accurate translation would be:
???This is why I have translated this verse:
"My God, My God, Why have you spared me?" (i.e., let's finish this, let's get this over with!)??? ??? Paul Younan
Now, does this rendering make sense? For what reason/s did Jesus ask, ???Why have you spared me???? Well for one thing, Jesus was suffering horrendous pain for about SIX HOURS. Crucifixions can last even longer! This is a valid explanation, especially as soon after saying this, He finally died. Also, this is consistent with the fact that many in the crowd thought He cried for Elijah. Why would they think that? Perhaps, as He called out for ???Eli???, His exhaustion and heavy breathing caused Him to add an ???ah??? on the end. Try talking when you have gone for a long run (or been crucified for 6 hours) and you???ll see what I mean. ???Eli-ah??? sounds a lot like ???Eliyah??? does it not?
However, there are other possibilities too. It may have been Jesus??? eagerness to fulfill His destiny and to go to Paradise. It may also have been His wish to fulfill more Torah prophecy! It was prophesied that a bone of His would not be broken, and since He died, there was no need for the Roman soldiers to break His legs.
So basically we have two main possibilities. The ???forsaken??? rendering is not very possible, due to the word chosen, and the resulting contradictions. The ???spared??? rendering is very possible, doesn???t allow for contradictions, and just makes sense. And that???s what the Peshitta is all about.
Now let us deal with the second issue, the attack on Peshitta primacy, caused by the ???doubling up??? of the same message in the Peshitta (first Jesus??? Aramaic words, then a translation into the Aramaic Peshitta).
Well, to start with, the book of Matthew in the original Aramaic does not ???double up???. It does not have the translation of what ???Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani???? means. But this does indeed occur in Mark. Why?
Well, Mark was writing to people who spoke a different dialect of Aramaic than Jesus, and, many thought that Jesus was calling for Elijah. Evidently, Mark wanted to be very clear, and translated this into his audience???s dialect.
Acknowledgements: Thanks to Steve Caruso, "Coblentz", Dean Dana, Dr. George Mamishisho Lamsa, "Otto", Andrew Gabriel Roth, "Sieg", Stephen Silver and Paul Younan for the constant analysis of this critical Greek mistranslation.
The importance of this semi split word, dealing with God???s alleged forsaking of Jesus, especially to the field of Christian apologetics, hardly needs to be stressed.
The KJV says (Matthew 27:46): ???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????
The KJV says (Mark 15:34): ???And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me????
The first issue with this story, is that the Greek and English tell us that God allegedly forsook Jesus, resulting in the unfortunate twisting of Scripture by Christian apologists. The second issue, applies to Aramaic primacists. Greek primacists say, ???If Matthew and Mark were written in Aramaic, why do the Gospel-writers write the same thing twice (i.e. first the Aramaic words of Jesus, then the Greek translation)???, instead of just simply translating it?
Let us deal first with the first.
???Had Jesus in this last hour said that God had forsaken Him, the Jews would have used this saying against Him. They would have taken it as a confession that He was a blasphemer and therefore God had deserted Him in His darkest hour; because God never forsakes the righteous, but He may forsake the sinners.
This is not all. Had Jesus' cry meant forsaking, He not only would have destroyed the faith of his disciples and followers, but would have contradicted His own teaching, the very assurance which He had given to His disciples, and the very cause for which He was dying. On the other hand, judgement and death on the cross did not come upon Jesus suddenly. On many occasions He had told his disciples that He would die on the cross and rise again; they had heard him saying, "You will leave me alone; and yet I am never alone because the Father is with me." (John 16:32)
How is it that the European translators of the Bible in the 17th Century A.D. who were thousands of miles from Palestine, and who could not speak Aramaic, knew more about Jesus' cry on the cross than the Jews who spoke Aramaic and stood near the cross watching Him die? And how is it that Peter, John, and other disciples and follows of Jesus never commented on these ominous words? Indeed, if Jesus had meant desertion they would have commented on it, because such a statement, or even such a thought was contrary to all Jesus had preached and taught. The apostles did not comment on these last words simply because they knew what Jesus meant in their Galilean dialect, or northern Aramaic. Moreover, they knew had He meant forsaken, He would have used the
Aramaic word taa tani, which means forsaken.??? ??? Dr. George Mamishisho Lamsa
Another problem with this, is that apologists will often try to explain that at that moment, Jesus was sin, and that is why God forsook Him. Well, if God forsook His own Son for sin, what hope do we have?
The simple solution, from the Aramaic, is that Jesus did not imply that God forsook Him at all! The Aramaic ???sabachthani??? does not have to mean forsaken. It can mean many things, among them, ???spared???. Now ???lemana??? (written as ???lama??? in the Greek copies) denotes a question, so a fairly accurate translation would be:
???This is why I have translated this verse:
"My God, My God, Why have you spared me?" (i.e., let's finish this, let's get this over with!)??? ??? Paul Younan
Now, does this rendering make sense? For what reason/s did Jesus ask, ???Why have you spared me???? Well for one thing, Jesus was suffering horrendous pain for about SIX HOURS. Crucifixions can last even longer! This is a valid explanation, especially as soon after saying this, He finally died. Also, this is consistent with the fact that many in the crowd thought He cried for Elijah. Why would they think that? Perhaps, as He called out for ???Eli???, His exhaustion and heavy breathing caused Him to add an ???ah??? on the end. Try talking when you have gone for a long run (or been crucified for 6 hours) and you???ll see what I mean. ???Eli-ah??? sounds a lot like ???Eliyah??? does it not?
However, there are other possibilities too. It may have been Jesus??? eagerness to fulfill His destiny and to go to Paradise. It may also have been His wish to fulfill more Torah prophecy! It was prophesied that a bone of His would not be broken, and since He died, there was no need for the Roman soldiers to break His legs.
So basically we have two main possibilities. The ???forsaken??? rendering is not very possible, due to the word chosen, and the resulting contradictions. The ???spared??? rendering is very possible, doesn???t allow for contradictions, and just makes sense. And that???s what the Peshitta is all about.
Now let us deal with the second issue, the attack on Peshitta primacy, caused by the ???doubling up??? of the same message in the Peshitta (first Jesus??? Aramaic words, then a translation into the Aramaic Peshitta).
Well, to start with, the book of Matthew in the original Aramaic does not ???double up???. It does not have the translation of what ???Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani???? means. But this does indeed occur in Mark. Why?
Well, Mark was writing to people who spoke a different dialect of Aramaic than Jesus, and, many thought that Jesus was calling for Elijah. Evidently, Mark wanted to be very clear, and translated this into his audience???s dialect.
Acknowledgements: Thanks to Steve Caruso, "Coblentz", Dean Dana, Dr. George Mamishisho Lamsa, "Otto", Andrew Gabriel Roth, "Sieg", Stephen Silver and Paul Younan for the constant analysis of this critical Greek mistranslation.
