Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
My God my God...
#1
I was just reading that according to Bart Ehrmans book, Lost Christianities there are some early greek mss that have the Aramaic cry of Jesus translated as "my God my God why do you mock me"?
He tries to argue, apparently that this shows that "mock" was a more original reading that was later edited to forsake.
To me this seesma rather strained argument, but perhaos one one would come up with when not considering that the greek (as in the whole text) might be a translation.
It seems yet again to be an example of greek translators getting things a bit wrong again.
Does anyone know which mss he refers to?
Reply
#2
I've been informed that ,Codex Bezae and some Old Latin have mock me instead of forsake me in Mark (not Matthew).
Reply
#3
Sign or another mistranslation into Greek?
Reply
#4
This is a continuing Thread. If need be, I'll find the references and earlier posts.

Younan: "...Eil eil lmana shawqthani That is "My God my God why have you spared me..."

Vic Alexander, with note: "34. And in the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a loud voice and said, "Eil, Eil, l'mana sh'wik-thani." That is, "My God, my God,* wherefore did you destine me?"* "

*15:34.3 Lit. Aramaic: "Eil, Eil, l'mana sh'wik-thani." This is the correct transliteration of the original words of Jesus Christ in Galilean Aramaic. Other transliterations indicate the second and third generation transliterations from Arabic and the Greek versions."

Lamsa's version is intriguing for the following: "...few this was I spared..."

Did Lamsa mean ''...for this was I spared..."?

You ask if "Mock" could be from a "strained argument".
Consider this from Bauscher concerning the transliteration of "Gabbatha", found in John:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=p6hTI1rTxhkC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=bauscher+gabbatha&source=bl&ots=jQ8JWh4Kye&sig=cz2EkYFSi3h9pv7r-0ShVdbz6f8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xV1oUrKFJ8uMkAept4GQAg&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=bauscher%20gabbatha&f=false">http://books.google.com/books?id=p6hTI1 ... ha&f=false</a><!-- m -->

For all of the high powered arguments about "Greek vs Aramaic" for this passage, this may be where the battle ends. I have advocated Paul Younan's translation in my work and Lamsa's may be the best fit (if "few" is replaced by "for". Somebody may be able to help me here). Many read the various Aramaics and scrunch up their noses at the sense of the passage but lemme tell ya', this is very close to a perfect fit. The "Transliterations" given - such as "Gabbatha" - appear to be leading certain readers (Hint: G-R-E-E-K) down the garden path.

"Mock" may be an indicator of a subcurrent of understanding. We've had 2000 years of "Did Jesus doubt God?" and it simply leads to a misunderstanding. The Romans certainly did "Mock". The Aramaic points to a different understanding. (BTW, thank you , PY)

CW
Reply
#5
That's probably a misprint in the copy you have. My three copies (two paperbacks and a hardcover), say "For this I was spared". I think it should be translated as "Why have you forsaken me?"
Reply
#6
Thank you, SS2!

From the Lamsa site:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.lamsabible.com/Lamsa/2_Mark/Mark15.htm">http://www.lamsabible.com/Lamsa/2_Mark/Mark15.htm</a><!-- m -->
Aramaic Bible Repository:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Lamsa/2_Mark/Mark15.htm">http://aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtoo ... Mark15.htm</a><!-- m -->

Don't know how the errors got there but I believe I understand how they got repeated on the 'Net. The Lamsa site surprised me.
Nonetheless, it is reassuring to find this and I thank you.

CW
Reply
#7
Anytime, Brother. I think Otto and I are some of the only Lamsa Bible fans on this forum.
Reply
#8
Once you actually check the Lamsa version against the actual readings as found in the Aramaic text, (you can do this at Dukhrana, even if you can't read the Estrangela script)...you won't be a fan of his work anymore. His English style might be smoother than some are, true...but it is one of the worst versions out there for accuracy.

I am now calling it The King James Lamsa Bible. In many places it is a straight King James Version reading, ignoring the actual Aramaic wording. It's weird. I don't know how much Lamsa had control over his translation after he sold it to the company...but it is NOT the Peshitta in many verses. It's a hybrid text of Aramaic and Greek sources, and just plain ole KJV plagiarism.

(Edit) And..."why have you departed from me?" or perhaps a better rendering is "for what did you leave me?" is what I believe Jesus, in His humanity said to His Father that day on the Cross, when he became a curse for our sake. "Forsaken" is not what it was, as if God had rejected His Son, but, it was a departing from, or, leaving him there, as He died on the Cross, apart from God, as the Aramaic text says in Hebrews 2:9. David Bauscher tried to tell me that The Father and The Holy Spirit also died on the Cross...and even before Jesus did...which is of course absurd.

Peace,
Chuck
Reply
#9
Yeshu said "My father will never leave me"

This statement would be awkward and a mistake if he cried this at last.

Instead, it is a glorious statement: "I fulfilled it!" And Yeshu quoted Psalms 22. Just enough to start reading Psalms 22. That psalm is a victory, not a complaint about being left.
Reply
#10
"My father will never leave me"

Where does Jesus say this?
Reply
#11
Thirdwoe stated:

"...you can do this at Dukhrana...".
Thank you. I checked out the Site and it appears that I'll be spending some more time there.

"And... "Why have you departed from me?" is what I believe Jesus, in His humanity said to His Father that day on the Cross..."

Which leads to Distazo, who stated:

"Yeshu said "My father will never leave me"
This statement would be awkward and a mistake if he cried this at last.
Instead, it is a glorious statement: "I fulfilled it!" "

Matthew 5: 17 ? 26: (RSV):
[17] "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
[18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
[19] Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Therefore, both ideas have merit, especially if Thirdwoe's idea of "...in his humanity..." softens the idea of "departing from".

Ecclesiastes 9: 12 (RSV):

[12] For man does not know his time. Like fish which are taken in an evil net, and like birds which are caught in a snare, so the sons of men are snared at an evil time, when it suddenly falls upon them.

Thirdwoe: I do not know the extent of the Lamsa Translation shortcomings, though I have reason to believe you are correct (BTW, I sent an E-Mail to the Lamsa Site "forwarded" E-Mail address. I'm still a bit surprised that the "Official Site" would have "Few" instead of "For" if the correct "For" is in the books. My misteakes I can understand. Lamsa's been around awhile...).

However, the focus is on this verse and the Younan text is very appropriate:

"My God, my god, why have you spared me?..."

If Jesus has escaped - been spared from - Death, then why was he spared FOR THIS?

Mark 14: 48 - 49 (RSV):

[48] And Jesus said to them, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me?
[49] Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled."

There is another echo of this in "The Squall":

Mark 6: 48 (in part) - 49 (Moffatt):

[48] ...He would have passed them by,
[49] but when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought it was a ghost and shrieked aloud.

Without too much interpretation here, those in "The Boat" think they are seeing a ghost, perhaps they believe it would have been the ghost of Jesus, though it is stated later that their minds were dull. If Jesus has survived death, then, at the End, it would make sense to say, "Why have you spared me?"
Thus, there is not even a question as to whether God would have forsaken.

CW
Reply
#12
Just received a reply from Dr. Lataster, PhD researcher at the University of Sydney.
He states that the word in the Lamsa Translation is indeed "for": "...FOR this was I spared..."
He also states that there were errors in the scanning process.

"Electronics ain't perfect yet neither..."

CW
Reply
#13
Brothers, lets try to settle this if we can.

We have some disagreement on this last part of the verse...as to what it says and what it means...so, I need to resolve this in my mind, maybe you do too...and if it can be, by examination of the Aramaic text, and the input of others who translate this verse from Aramaic into English, then I want to try.

I'm going to call on three Brothers here: Paul Yonan, Jeremy Springfield, and Steve Caruso, and ask them to please tell/show if Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34, as well as Psalms 22:1 should read "for this I was spared", or "for this I was kept!" or "why have you spared me?", or "why have you forsaken me?" or "wherefore did you destine me?" or "why have you left me?" or as I propose, "for what did you leave me?"

And, please tell us if you think that Jesus is or might be quoting Psalm 22:1 with this statement, and why or why not.

Here are most of the translators of the Peshitta text I know of, on this last part of the verse, and how they show it should read.

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?"

15 Translations Count:
"forsake" or "forsaken" =5
"spared" or "kept" =5
"left" =5

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?"

15 Translations Count:
"forsake" or "forsaken" =5
"spared" or "kept" =5
"left" =4
"destined" =1



.
Reply
#14
Shlama Akhi,

In the Aramaic root, Sh-b-Q, there are many shades of meaning not shared by the English "left/abandon/forsake." There is a shade of meaning of "leaving alone" as in the sense of "do not disturb/spare." There is also a shade of meaning of "permit/allow/admit". There is also a shade of meaning of "release." And even "divorce" from your spouse. And, "forgive."

When you recite the Lord's Prayer in Aramaic during the CoE service you attend, you also use this root. You say "wa'Sh-w-oq l'an khawbayn" (and "forgive" us our offenses) "aykana ap akhnan sh-wa-qan l'khayawayn" ( as we "forgive" those who have offended us).

The English "forsake" is a very poor cognate of only ONE shade of meaning in Sh-w-aq, as you can see from the Lord's Prayer alone.

The best translation of the words on the Cross contextually is, "spared." In the sense of "let's get this over with, why is this dragging on?"

+Shamasha
Reply
#15
Thanks for that Shamasha Paul. Do you think that what He said there has any relation to Psalm 22:1? And if so, was King David saying the same thing to God too? Also, what is Jesus saying to The Father then, if it is to be understood as "why have you spared me?" Is The Father keeping Jesus alive on the Cross? Is He asking for The Father to end it sooner by stopping His heart from beating?

Jesus did die before the others did, and when Pilate heard that he had died, he seemed shocked that it was so soon. If He hadn't died before the others, the soldiers would have certainly broken His legs too, to speed up the process, and that would have caused the Prophecy to not come to pass, which speaks of not one of His bones being broken. So maybe He was asking The Father to wrap it up. I've never thought of it along those lines before.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)