Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What Jesus did really say on the cross.
#1
Shalam lakon

Everybody knows Jesus' last words on the cross are "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me" or as Younan said "why have you spared me" (there?s a third possible translation as we will see later). But how did Jesus say that in Aramaic?

We can read in our Bible:"eli eli lema sabachtani" as well as "eloi eloi lama sabaktani". But it exists the reading of the Peshitta too " eil eil lmana shvaqtan" and even a Hebrew reading (D 05 Codex): "elei elei lama zaphtanei" (both in Matthew and Mark).

So what? What did he say on the cross ? Let's find it !

First the linguistic point. We must keep in mind that the language which Jesus spoke is not the Targumins' one nor the biblical one. Why is it important? Even if the consonantic structure is old, the traditions about the pronunciation date from 7 century AD. It's not because l-m-h (why) is written lema in massoretic Aramaic, that it was pronounced lema in first century AD. (We have some Aramaic transcription from 2nd century BC in Ugaritic script which give us the pronunciation of Aramaic). "Lama" isn't also necessarily Hebrew.

Then we can analyze our texts. The D05 (Codex Bezae) reads the sentence in Hebrew. It's not a possible "Ipsima Verbatim" . Everywhere in the NT, the Aramaic letter "b" is transcribed b, even if it was pronounced "v". Here, our spirant b is transcribed ph (with a phi), what I think, is not consistent with the gospel's manner of transcribing. So It was a latter scribe who created this sentence. But why ? Because he read "eli eli lama" which he thought to be Hebrew and "corrected" the "wrong" Aramaic sabachtani in correct Hebrew "zaphtani"

The D 05 has old features known by church father Irenaus, which means that its text is quite old. To support that its reading "eli eli lama" is old too (oldest than the D 05 Codex), I found a interesting lectio in an apocrypha Gospel : the Gospel of Peter. We read: " My power, my power, thou hast forsaken me".
How "my God" became "my power" ? Simply because 'el means God/god but also power as we can see it in Genesis. The scribe reading "eli" understood my power instead of my God.

So,

- "Eli" is Hebrew, but also Aramaic, as this word appears in the Qumran Aramaic text called the Genesis Apocriphon.
- "Lama" is Hebrew, but as the vowel reduction had not yet been completed in First Century the latter distinction with the Aramaic "lema" had not yet existed (= it was pronounced lama in Aramaic, as we see a parallel in a Greek transcription where "for whoever" is written "laman" instead of the well known leman)
- "Sabaktani" is Aramaic, (the s transcribes the "sh" sound and the b the bilabial "v" sound), there's no problem with that.

Jesus said on the cross: ELI ELI LAMA SHAVAQTANI !!!

But why do we have "eloi" in some gospel? The Peshitta gives us the answer: this sentence was "translated" in an other dialect: eil eil lmana shvaqtan (which means) alah alah lmana shvaqtan. There was confusion between the Jesus' words and its gloss in the greek text. Eloi is the retranscription of elohi which is a Hebraized form of elahi. For its part, the Peshitta kept in record of this gloss (unlike the old syriac following the greek texts) despite of having written in eastern dialect (which explains the difference of pronunciation).
This gloss was necessary, because of the polysemy of 'eli (As we saw in the Gospel of Peter).

Last thing, we've said that Jesus' last words on the cross "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me /have you spared me". There's a third possible translation:
Eli eli la-ma shavaqtani : "My God, my God, for that (with this purpose i.e. the crucifixion) you have left me". Instead of lama -( why ?), we can read la ma (l+ma) for that, and no longer have a question where God was asked why he did something, but the last testimony of Jesus about his mission.

I hope you will agree ^^

Salut

+Edit
Reply
#2
Shlama Memradya,

You show it as: Eli eli la-ma shavaqtani : "My God, my God, for that you left me".

What does it mean to you, when it says "for that you left me" ?

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#3
Shlama Thirdwoe

Unfortunately english is not my mother tongue, and there, I don't know how to say what I mean <!-- sConfusedtern: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/stern.gif" alt="Confusedtern:" title="Stern" /><!-- sConfusedtern: --> . but let's try

If I don't translate literally it would be something like "my God my God, to be crucified you hallow me/have leave me " (Shavaq menas to drop, to abandon to leave but also to allow)

The crowd thought that God dropped him and abandoned him. Jesus cried with a high voice toward God showing that God was still there. And if he was put to death it was because God allowed it, and because it was a part of Jesus' mission. It was like : Ok God have forsaken me, but he did it so that I can fullfil my mission and the Laws and the Prophet. It was written, so God have not foresaken me...

About that, lama shavaqtani ought not to be understood as a question (why have you...) but rather as a declarative sentence (with this purpose).


I hope it's more clear now.
Reply
#4
When I wrote this topic, I had two thesis: 1) Eli Eli lama sabaktani and Eloi eloi lama sabaktani were both side by side in the original Gospels 2) according to the Peshitta only in Mark. I think the first one is well demonstrated (as eli means power too, the Apostles added elo? as a gloss) but the second needs more attention and ... it not exactly what I expected.

Almost all manuscripts read eli in Matthiew and eloi in Mark. According to the Peshitta, only Mark had the gloss. The logical distribution would have been in Matthew eli and in Mark both eli and eloi. But as I said, Mark has always eloi in our Bible. Let's imagine: the translator composes -from Aramaic- the Greek Gospel for the non-Aramaic speakers, and reading Mark 15 35 he chooses to translate eloi eloi lama sabachtani in Greek: the text will be copied and all the later texts will have eloi too. But now, a later copyist who knows that there existed an Eli reading too and that it is not found in the other copies, must write Eli. What we find now in our Bible isn't inconsistent with the Peshitta, but I want to have some examples that the ancient texts had eli and eloi in Mark.

And the trouble begin...

Few manuscripts read eli both in Mark and Matthew eli ( <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> ) and few manuscripts read ... eloi in both Gospels ( <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: --> ).

The Codex Vaticanus (4th century) and the Codex Sinaiticus (idem)- reading Eloi in Matthew belong to Category I ? Alexandrian text. As its name shows, its texts is Egyptian (the older one and the scholar's favorite one)

The Uncial 059 (400 AD) Uncial 0192 (lectionary, idem, I've not seen it) and later the Minuscules 565 (9th) and 131 (15th) - reading Eli in Mark belong to Category III - Cesarean (and mixed). Theses Texts give some lectio not found anywhere else. The Greek father Origen knew some of them.

Which category is right ? Does the Alexandrian text harmonize Matthew with Mark ? Does the cesarean text harmonize Mark with Matthew ?

The Codex Vaticanus (c. 340) has in Matthew Elo? Elo? lema sabaktanei. It transcribes Qof and Taw in purely Aramaic form with Kappa and Tau. Maybe the lema form is influenced by the later vowel reduction (a become ?). It doesn't show that the scribes didn't follow his text.
In Mark we have Elo? Elo? lama zabaphthanei(!) <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> . The non-understandable reading zabaphthanei looks to me like the union of the Aramaic sabachthani with the Hebrew (a)zabthani. Did the scribe had a text which read zaphtanei like the codex Bezae ? Or did he thought about it when he wrote this ? In this case, it give us a great argument in favor of the Bezae lectio.

The Sinaiticus (written 325 -360) has in Matthew elo? elo? lema sabakhthanei. In transcription of Aramaic nouns, it doesn't show tendencies to revise (example boanerges, talitha koum - where some manuscripts have boanerEges and Talitha koumI which are later revision), so it keeps the earlier Aramaic form. Maybe the lema form is influenced by the later vowel reduction (a become ?). In sabakhthani the Qof and Taw are transcribed with the spirants Chi and Theta instead of Kappa and Tau. It is not sufficient to prove that a scribe didn't follow his text and change Eli in Eloi.

In Mark we have elo? eloi lema sabaktanei. The sinaiticus has lema where Vaticanus has lama. It use k and t but a later hand put ch and th above them.

Now the Cesarean texts:

The Uncial 059 (c. 400) is a Gospel according Mark's fragment which read Elei Elei lama saba??ani. Saba??ani is lacunosa. Impossible to know if it was written sabaktani with kappa and tau.

The Uncial 192 (c. 400 ?) is a lectionary that I have not seen with ?lei ?lei.

The Minuscule 565 (9th century) have in Mark Eli Eli lama sabachthan?.

The Minuscule 131 (15th century) have in Mark Eli Eli lima ...

They give us the proof that eli was written in Mark back to the 4th century, but not because of a harmonization with Matthew.

Conclusion... The Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus agree on Matthew because they read elo? elo? lema sabak(h)t(h)anei) against every other early manuscripts (except some Bohairic and Ethiopian ones), but they don't agree on Mark. The difference lema/lama and (the well-formed Aramaic) sabaktanei vs zabaphthanei shows something interresting. Scholars say it's a misspelling sabaktani < zabaphtani but it probably shows the scribe was not sure of his texts because he was influenced by some Western Reading (i.e. like the Bezae): if this text had lama zaphtanei as the Codex Bezae reads, it is logical that Mark had also eli which prove that the cesarean text isn't a simply harmonization. In Vaticanus eli became eloi, and it wouldn't be impossible that it happened the same change in Matthew too.

I think it's clear now that ancient texts of Mark had Eli Eli lama sabachtani which was "translated" in Eli Eli lama zaphtani later. It is not the case in Matthew both Alexandrian texts agree that this Gospel had elo?. It is easy to claim that every other manuscripts have Eli but I'd prefer proof that the scribe changes Eli in Elo?.

To support the reading eli, there's the argument's above-mentioned (Eli both in Mark and Matthew in the Codex Bezae), and the reading of the Peter's Gospel which contradicts the Sinaiticus' lectio.

Edit + I hope the text is clear and understandable
Reply
#5
I write a third post because there is still a question unresolved: Why The texts coming from Alexandria have Elo? in Matthew ? There isn't any text which have only Eloi in Matthew and Eli in Mark... I also suppose that it is not an accident. Jews (and Christians) of Alexandria don't understand Hebrew and I doubt they understand Aramaic neither, so it is very unlikely that someone harmonized Matthew with Mark. There's no philological reason to prefer Eloi to Eli and the scribe who reads Eli didn't replaced it because Elo? sounded better. Eli was not used by Gnostics (it would have been a good reason to prefer Eloi). The only explanation I have (it's the better I have found) is that Elo? is linked with Mark's Greek Gospel, and the Egyptians keep the word of their first Bishop.

The Coptic manuscripts read Eloi in Matthew. I'd really want to read the Codex Schoyen 2625 (one of the earliest Codex with Matthew amongst all manuscripts), but I can't find any facsimile.

The Ethiopian manuscripts too. Except one ! Two manuscripts found in the Abba Garima Monastery and thought to be medieval copies, were in fact (thank to Radiocarbon dating) 5-6th century Gospels. And the earliest of the two (Garima 2 aka Garima III) read Eli Eli lama sabaqatani. Isn't that great ? <!-- s:inlove: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/inlove.gif" alt=":inlove:" title="In Love" /><!-- s:inlove: --> But these two manuscripts seem to derive from a unique one, maybe written by Frumentius (died ca. 383, Ethiopia) who is credited with bringing Christianity to the Aksumite Kingdom. Frumentius became a slave there but he was freed, and the Queen wanted him to assist her in the education of the heir. Then, he leaves Ethiopia and go to Tyre (where he was born) before he goes to Alexandria before Athanasius. He requested to send a bishop and some priests as missionaries to Ethiopia and Athanasius chose him. (Source: Wikipedia)

So I'd say that the Gospel he made (I don't know if he did the translation from Greek to Geez himself) should have Eli in Matthew. After Athanasius sent him, the Ethiopians became friends with the Copts. I think it's a latter influence that explains the reading Eloi and it would mean during ca. 150 years the Eli reading was preferred.

Of course it's only supposition, it's why I write this third post.
Reply
#6
Especially interesting to consider the Hebrew possibilities... I found it quite relevant that the Aramaic-speaking people who heard Yahshua that day had a difficult time deciphering the meaning of his last words on the cross. See Matthew 27:47, ?This [man] to Elijah calls??

It seems possible therefore that Yahshua was not speaking Aramaic directly in this one instance, but rather EabryTh ("Hebrew", the language of ?crossing?). In that language, Yahshua?s last words (ayl ayl lmna ShbqThny) might be translated ?Strength, strength, to the appointed time be releasing me.?
  • Strong?s Concordance 352 (ayl) - strength
    Strong?s Concordance 4483 (mna) ? appointed time
    Strong?s Concordance 7662 (Shbq) ? release, forgive
A related verse also frequently debated in English is Matthew 26:39 (?My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me. Nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.?)

First, the English misses the wordplay between ?possible? (mShkKha) and ?messiah? (mShyKha).

Personally, I don?t think Yahshua was asking the Father to take the cup from him. For if he were, his words would be more direct (I mean, how many of his prayers in the gospel begin with ?if possible?? is there even one?). And remember John 11:42, ?I know that in all exchanges you hear me.? Rather, Yahshua was drawing a point here in Matthew 26:39 by saying an mShkKha (?if possible?), emphasizing the ?possibility? described: IF he is not the messiah, THEN take the cup from him. But IF he is the messiah, THEN let the Father?s will be done. To be mShyKha ("messiah") is to reveal mShykKha ("possibilities") - i think the study of this verse is supposed to teach us about the nature of 'doubt & faith' and 'fear & bravery' in the context of prayer.

Here is a very literal translation: ?My Father, if possible/able/found, this cup/secret will cross/pass me. Nevertheless, not as/like that I desire myself, but as/like that/of you.?

Yahshua bravely lifted up the ksa so that the Father?s will would be fulfilled in His mShyKha.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)