Peshitta Forum
My God my God... - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Aramaic Primacy Forum (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: My God my God... (/showthread.php?tid=1646)

Pages: 1 2 3 4


Re: My God my God... - ScorpioSniper2 - 10-29-2013

Quote:Shlama Akhi Scorpio,

The blog assertion that a-z-b in Hebrew cannot mean "spared", "forgiven" or "reserved" is incorrect. It indeed does have those shades of meaning in Hebrew, Arabic and in the Akkadian root from which both are drawn.

+Shamasha


Thanks for the correction, Brother. I looked it up in my new Young's Concordance (superior to Strong's, dare I say) and Robert Young gave "help", as a definition (while stating that it wasn't an exact translation). Time to make an update!


Re: My God my God... - Thirdwoe - 10-29-2013

Quote: ?Behold the hour comes and now it has come, when you will be scattered everyone to his place and you will leave me alone, and I shall not be alone because The Father is with me.? John 16:32 -Bauscher

I don't want to be argumentative with this, Distazo, just to discuss it...and it looks to me that this is not an all or nothing statement there in the verse, because not all of them left Him completely alone during that time, as John the Apostle was at the Cross with Jesus until He died.

Again, I don't say that The Father "forsook" Him, as in "ditched" Him or "abandoned" Him, or "rejected" Him...NOT IN ANY WAY.

But, if we take Hebrews 2:9 into consideration, it could mean that The Father separated from Jesus in some way, right before He tasted death. The Father may very well have still been "with" Jesus, yet not united "with" or "In" Jesus at that moment just before He tasted death. We believe that His humanity and His Divinity are in a close union, the Greek term in English is "Hypostatic Union", of His Divine and Human natures/substances/essences... and if this union was broken at that moment, it could explain what took place.

But of course we won't know for certain either way, until He tells us what exactly happened there. Either way, I know it was not a rejection of His Son of any kind, for He was doing The Father's will the whole time.

In any case, Distazo, what do you say Hebrews 2:9 is speaking of then, when it says "...for, apart from Alaha, for every man, He tasted death."

--> "Apart from"

How so???

Blessings,
Chuck


Re: My God my God... - ScorpioSniper2 - 10-29-2013

The idea that God was not in Christ during the crucifixion seems to contradict II Corinthians 5:19. "For Aloha is in the Meshiha, who hath reconciled the world with his greatness; and he hath not reckoned unto them their sins, and hath put in us the word of reconciliation."


Re: My God my God... - Thirdwoe - 10-29-2013

Yea, Dylan, good point there. And I am not dogmatic about it...just so you understand. I am pondering it as I write these things. And I don't want to get too deep into the doctrines of Christology/Theology, as that is not the focus here, but rather, examining what The Aramaic Peshitta is saying here regarding what Jesus was saying and what it meant.

If that verse means though, that at no time during the process of the sacrifice of His Son, did The Father separate Himself from Jesus, from His humanity I mean, how do we explain Hebrews 2:9, which says that Jesus tasted death for every man, apart from God?

I don't believe that God separated from God, that is not what I am saying...but in The Son of God, both GOD and Man are united, in His one Person...though not a mixture of the two, but united in a close union.

The Lamb of God was slain, not The God of The Lamb.

If we say that The Father stayed fully united with His Son, the whole time, in that "Hypostatic Union", even when He died, in what sense do we say that He died or "tasted death", apart from God?

If God the Father had separated from Him right before He died, does this mean that the sacrifice of The Lamb of God, was not propitiatory, and that the reconciliation could not be made? If so, why not?

Based on what I read in Scripture, God (The Father) never died, nor can He. His Son did though, whom God, His Father, sent into the world to save mankind, Jesus, the Messiah of God, The Lamb of God, in His humanity, died on the Cross.

Unless I am mistaken, this seems to be the case. But, I am open to be corrected, if it is not so.

.


Re: My God my God... - Paul Younan - 10-29-2013

Shlama Akhi Chuck,

I read Hebrews 2:9 to simply mean that His Divinity did not taste death. That is the meaning of "apart from." Not apart in the sense of His Divinity had "left" Him at that moment, but apart in the sense of "excluded" from the experience of death, which His humanity suffered.

+Shamasha


Re: My God my God... - Stephen Silver - 10-30-2013

Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Chuck,

I read Hebrews 2:9 to simply mean that His Divinity did not taste death. That is the meaning of "apart from." Not apart in the sense of His Divinity had "left" Him at that moment, but apart in the sense of "excluded" from the experience of death, which His humanity suffered.

+Shamasha

Shlama akhi kabiba:
Well said.

Shlama,
Stephen


Re: My God my God... - Thirdwoe - 10-30-2013

All things considered, it seems to me then that "why have you spared me?" with the meaning of why am I still alive on this Cross? or perhaps "why have you left me?" with the meaning being, why have you left me here on the Cross this long?....and then could both may be valid options that works in translation... Or, is "why have you spared me?" the only one that will work?

I agree that the English word "forsaken" is a poor choice, and should not be used, but "left me" and "spared me", seems to be saying the same thing, if the meaning is understood to be saying, why is this taking so long, and not, why did you leave me here alone?.... Yet, "left me" could have another meaning in English, which would amount to asking why The Father had left Him or departed from Him, which doesn't seem likely, all things considered.

"Why have you spared me?" could be the best translation over all, then. Thanks for all your help...it has always bugged me, like so many others who have read the "forsaken" versions.

Matthew 27:46
Murdock: "why hast thou forsaken me?"
Ehteridge: "why hast thou forsaken me?"
Smith: "why hast thou forsaken me?" (Sinaiticus Aramaic text)
Burkitt: "Wherefore hast thou left me?" (Curetonian Aramaic text)
Lamsa: "for this I was kept!" (online version) "for this I was spared" with note saying "this was my destiny" (Printed version)
The Way: "for what purpose have you spared me?"
Younan: "why have you spared me?"
Jhan: "Why forsake you me?"
Magiera: "why have you left me?"
Alexander: "l'mana sh'wik-thani?" online version with note saying "wherefore have you left me?" "Wherefore" implies destiny. "Sh'wik-thani" is the only correct transliteration, and it means "left me" in the sense of the purpose for which Eashoa was left on the cross. It absolutely does not mean "forsaken" in this usage.
Pashka: "why have you left me?"
Bauscher "why have you forsaken me?"
Roth: "Why have you spared me?" 1st edition notes has these two readings: "why are you sparing me?" or "why can't we finish this" as to the meaning Roth thinks. His whole note is too long to show here, but is pretty good to chew on.
Martin: "why have you spared Me??
Werner: "why have you left me?"

Mark 15:34
Murdock: "why hast thou forsaken me?"
Ehteridge: "why hast thou forsaken me?"
Smith: "why hast thou forsaken me?" (Sinaiticus Aramaic text)
Burkitt: "wherefore hast thou left me?" (Curetonian Aramaic text)
Lamsa: "for this I was spared!" (printed version) "for this I was spared!" (online version)
The Way International: "for what purpose have you spared me?"
Younan: "why have you spared me?"

Jhan: "why forsake you me?"
Magiera: "why have you left me?"
Alexander: "wherefore did you destine me?"
Pashka: "why have you left me?"
Bauscher: "why have you forsaken me?"
Roth: "Why have you spared me?"
Martin: "why have you spared me?"
Werner: "why have you left me?"


.


Re: My God my God... - Paul Younan - 10-30-2013

Thirdwoe Wrote:All things considered, it seems to me then that "why have you spared me?" with the meaning of why am I still alive on this Cross? or perhaps "why have you left me?" with the meaning being, why have you left me here on the Cross this long?....and then could both may be valid options that works in translation... Or, is "why have you spared me?" the only one that will work?

I agree that the English word "forsaken" is a poor choice, and should not be used, but "left me" and "spared me", seems to be saying the same thing, if the meaning is understood to be saying, why is this taking so long, and not, why did you leave me here alone?.... Yet, "left me" could have another meaning in English, which would amount to asking why The Father had left Him or departed from Him, which doesn't seem likely, all things considered.

"Why have you spared me?" could be the best translation over all, then. Thanks for all your help...it has always bugged me, like so many others who have read the "forsaken" versions.

Shlama Akhi,

Yes, that is the reason why I chose to break rank with the majority and translate into the English "spared" - because it carries none of the excess baggage that the English "left" can. English "spare" is the shade of meaning of English "left" that I felt most closely mirrored the Aramaic contextually. "Why have You left Me [on this Cross]?" is a good understanding of it.

"Left" as in the "left" of Exodus 23:5, Leviticus 23:22, Ruth 2:16, Job 39:14, 1 Kings 21:21, Isaiah 18:6, etc.

Job 39:14 - "She lays her eggs on top of the earth, letting them be warmed in the dust."

These passages have the same root as Psalm 22.

+Shamasha


Re: My God my God... - distazo - 10-31-2013

Paul Younan Wrote:"Why have you spared me?" could be the best translation over all, then. Thanks for all your help...it has always bugged me, like so many others who have read the "forsaken" versions.


+Shamasha[/quote]

It bugged me because I never had read Psalms 22.
It bugged me, because it says something weird, 'the Son left by his Father?'

Now, it does not bug me anymore, because it is an exclamation of triumph. With the last breath He had, he quoted Psalms 22, just like here, Yeshu quoted Scripture, to indicate it to be fulfilled.

This is said as last of the 7 things, Yeshu said on the cross. Two of them where just to fulfill Psalms 22.

Just connect the dots:
John 19:28 "I am thirsty" This is to fulfill Psalms 22:15

Marc 15:34 "Why have you forsaken me? (Psalms 22:1)"
John 19:30 "It is fulfilled!"


And, last but not least, If Yeshu was disappointed that God --spared-- him, why would he not just call in a legion of angels, to serve him, to strengthen him, to struggle another few hours at the cross?

This new Aramaic translation (why have you spared me), simply does not solve things, but worsen.


Re: My God my God... - Thirdwoe - 10-31-2013

How does it make it worse, Egbert? I would like to hear why you think so, maybe there is more to learn. If Jesus was not left by the Father, and was not rejected or forsaken, then what was He really saying there in Aramaic, not in English?

Do you think that Jesus felt forsaken by His Father on the Cross? What do you think should be the right translation in English, if not "Spared" or "Left" as most of the others have it? "Forsaken"?

.


Re: My God my God... - distazo - 10-31-2013

Thirdwoe Wrote:How does it make it worse, Egbert? I would like to hear why you think so, maybe there is more to learn. If Jesus was not left by the Father, and was not rejected or forsaken, then what was He really saying there in Aramaic, not in English?

Do you think that Jesus felt forsaken by His Father on the Cross? What do you think should be the right translation in English, if not "Spared" or "Left" as most of the others have it? "Forsaken"?

.

Does it not ring a bell that Yeshu also fulfilled Psalms 22:15 by saying 'I am thursty'?

If you translate it 'spared' he does -not- quote Psalms 22 and he also does not fulfill scripture. That's why it makes worse, not more clear.

Most people also do not think about the original Hebrew in Psalms 22:1 and that it also could mean 'spared'.


Re: My God my God... - Paul Younan - 10-31-2013

distazo Wrote:Most people also do not think about the original Hebrew in Psalms 22:1 and that it also could mean 'spared'.

Why not? Why can't it be understood as "allowed?"

It certainly does not have to mean "forsaken", any more than the exact same Hebrew root as it's used in Leviticus 23:22 and other places. I didn't realize that the Israelites were being commanded to "forsake" the edges of their harvest for the poor and strangers, or that an ostrich was "forsaking" her egg by letting it warm in the sand.

If we believe that Christ felt "forsaken", after having anticipated and prophesied about this very moment for His entire ministry, then we have much more difficult theological questions to answer.

There is nothing "new" about this in the Aramaic - the understanding of those who have read from this text for centuries has been consistent. It is only "new" to those who have relied on the Indo-European language versions that portray a "rejected" and "forsaken" Messiah on the Cross.

Did Jesus utter His last words on the Cross, "Into Thy Hands I commit My Spirit", before taking His last breath, because He felt "forsaken" by God ? How does that make any sense, if at all, to you?

+Shamasha

Forsaken: From Middle English forsaken (?to reject, deny?), from Old English forsacan (?to dispute, quarrel, refuse, oppose?), from Proto-Germanic farsakana (?to renounce?). Akin to Dutch verzaken, Middle High German versachen (?to deny?)


Re: My God my God... - distazo - 10-31-2013

Paul Younan Wrote:
distazo Wrote:Most people also do not think about the original Hebrew in Psalms 22:1 and that it also could mean 'spared'.

Why not? Why can't it be understood as "allowed?"

Well, it can but still, that's not my point.
Paul Younan Wrote:It certainly does not have to mean "forsaken"

Thanks for the meanings, even in Dutch <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> but my point is -not- that Yeshu felt forsaken! Again, my point is, he quoted Psalms to notify it was fulfilled!

Since there is no popular Aramaic translation of Psalms, people would loose the quote from Psalms, EVEN if the transation of -forsaken- is wrong and spared would be best.


Re: My God my God... - Thirdwoe - 11-01-2013

Ok...interesting.

Are you saying you think that Jesus is only quoting a few verses of that passage in Psalm, to affirm that it is a prophecy about Him on the Cross, and showing that He is fulfilling it by quoting a few lines from it, while He was not actually feeling forsaken by God?

But, if that is true, then was Jesus lying when He said He was thirsty, when He really wasn't feeling thirsty at all, but only wanted to fulfill the prophecy in Psalm 22:15, which speaks about being thirsty? I think He may have really been thirsty on the Cross, do you?

Let's say that He didn't feel forsaken by God, as in being abandoned by Him, but was feeling in His humanity like He was being left on the Cross longer than needed, or that God was "letting" or "allowing" it to continue, and He wanted it to be over sooner, rather than later? As human beings, I think we can understand feelings like that. It is not a sin to ask a question and want to be delivered from a bad situation.

Look at the next verse in Psalm 22:2 "My God, I call you in the daytime, and you haven't answered me, and in the night, and you haven't looked for me."

Is this how Jesus also felt in His humanity? Is that a good translation in English? And maybe this is why the hours of darkness came on, to fulfill this verse which speaks of both the day-time and the night-time. I never thought of that before.

.


Re: My God my God... - Paul Younan - 11-01-2013

distazo Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:...but my point is -not- that Yeshu felt forsaken! Again, my point is, he quoted Psalms to notify it was fulfilled!

That's my point, too! Unfortunately, the belief that Yeshu felt "forsaken" is deeply engrained in Christian theology, primarily in the West. And all because the English translation of Psalm 22 imperfectly carries over a single shade of meaning from the original Hebrew word, and the word imagery is not a perfect cognate.

I continue with my point that anyone who would "lose" the reference to Psalm 22:1, may do themselves a favor and actually read it in Hebrew and do a word study on the root a-z-b, and perhaps they would understand Psalm 22 better, than to imagine that David felt "forsaken" by God. (with all that harsh word entails in English/Indo-European)

A person who is actually convinced that God has "forsaken" him, cannot be the author of that same Psalm that concludes with a much different outcome. And a person who is actually convinced that He is "forsaken" by God, does not commit His Spirit to Him at the last breath.

Is not God insulted by the mere accusation that He would "forsake" His annointed servant, let alone His own Son ? Did Job, even, in all his trials make such an accusation ? I am quite positive that no one, ever, has been "forsaken" by God. That is certainly not a pleasant thought, and not something I would wish upon anyone. Not even the worst sinner, counting myself, is "forsaken" by God. What a horribly contradicting thing that would have been to say, or even think, on the Cross. That instead of actually glorifying God at the moment of the Ultimate Triumph, doubt crept in ... as if it were Thomas hanging on the wood.

None of His enemies, when hearing of God "forsaking" Him, thought to say "Listen to His words! We told you He was an imposter!" ???

Language is important, and the meaning of original words as they were conveyed (in all their original imagery) is important. Things change so much in a translation, and so much damage is done. That is why the Jews study the Torah in the original Hebrew and Aramaic, and that's why all Muslims study the Koran in the original Arabic (even if they aren't Arab.)

In Christianity, we lost when Greek came along - and continued to lose each time something else was translated from the Greek (English or whatever.)

Words are important, and they must be understood in their own milieu. They must .... not in a foreign milieu .... their own! Especially because theologians take a word and create dogma from it, and more often than not it's wrong dogma.

Do you know how many times I've been told "well, that was the *precise* moment when *all* the sins of the entire world came upon Him, and God looked away from Him, and ...." ?

All this from what? Conjecture, that's what. Certainly not scripture.

+Shamasha