Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Lamsa's different translations of "L'mana shabaqthani"
Why did Lamsa translate "l'mana shabaqthani" differently in Psalm 22.1 from how he translated it in the Gospels? How did he arrive at "why hast thou let me to live?" I presume he used the Psalm 22.1 reading in this book, and I know of no other Peshitta reading of this passage:

1. I cannot tell you why Lamsa wrote what he wrote except through the language he left. The problem is multiplied on a Lamsa site: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
Verse 34 reads "...Few this was I spared!".
a. The verse is SUPPOSED to read, "For this was I spared"
b. I E-Mailed the site and the response was that there were mistakes made in the scanning process. Talk about Scribal Errors! The acknowledged mistake has not been corrected on site.
c. Notice also that Lamsa has an exclamation mark at the end of the statement: "For this was I spared!". Very emphatic!

2. As always, my view is a...ummm...Minority View on this site. I am trying to always be on good behavior. This site is extremely interesting to me. It is an important site. Don't ever doubt that.

3. That said, let me state it this way:
Again, I do not know what Lamsa "presumed" when he used the words in verse 34 the way he did. From my research and "What I believe to be true" concerning the situation, Lamsa is precisely and exactly correct as far as he could go. "Why was my very LIFE spared years ago, only to come to an end here on this cross right now! For this was I spared!" might be a way of seeing it.

4. Paul Younan's translation is "My God my God why have you spared me". I appreciate this as well and have used it in my writings.

5. This will sound trivial to many here but I believe this verse is extremely profound in what it implies. The idea that God would "forsake" here must be either a complete misreading or an intentional redirection of meaning.

6. You may have to find your own moment where this person faced certain and "No Way Out" Death and survived, only to wind up on a cross surrounded by 2 robbers. Those who have translated the verse this way are working against strong headwinds to see the intention in this manner. I believe, even in my ignorance of the complete situation, that they are correct. I believe that it means what it says.

IMO, a proper interpretation of the verse mostly hinges on how one interprets Sh-B-Q. Sh-B-Q is used in a wide array of contexts varying from "divorce" to "forgiveness". It's hard to think a single word could fit both such contexts, but if we start trying words like "relinquish" or "let pass", we start getting pretty close. For example, we could use those words to describe someone who "relinquishes" or "lets pass" his wife (divorces her), while at the same time use them to describe one who is able to "let pass" or "relinquish" another person's sins (forgive them). In addition to those words, words like "give leave" or "dismiss" also seem to fit most contexts; maybe "release" as well.

It's interesting that Mark himself qualifies "Iyl Iyl" (Eil Eil) as being; "My-God, my-God, to-what-this thou-relinquish-me?" As I recall, Matthew did not do this.

IMO, it is mostly a rhetorical question being asked. Using the types of words that fit most contexts, I think the question takes on this form:

My God, my God; to what this thou relinquish me?
... to what this thou give me leave?
... to what this thou dismiss me?
... to what this thou let me pass?
... to what this thou release me?
Good Post.
You state:

"Using the types of words that fit most contexts..."

Therein lies the problem. What IS the "correct" context here?

Matthew 18: 3 (Moffatt):

3. and said, "I tell you truly, unless you turn and become like children, you will never get into the Realm of heaven at all...

Look in any number of translations and you will find:

1. "kingdom of heaven" rather than Moffatt's use of "Realm of heaven". Does this matter? I believe that it does, though in a minor fashion. It is not a "Critical" point.
2. Look at the phrase "...unless you TURN and become like children...".
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
Notice the number of "...unless you change..." or "...unless you be converted..." translations.
PY uses "...unless you change and become like children..."

Luke 13: 23 -24 (RSV):

[23] And some one said to him, "Lord, will those who are saved be few?" And he said to them,
[24] "Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

3. PY has "Strive to enter through the narrow door..." as well.

What is the "Correct Context" here? Please consider: What if the Matthew verse and the Luke verses are referring to the same event? Would the "context" change? I believe that it would. If there was a "Narrow Door" that was so small that you had to "...turn as a child..." in order to get through it, and in order to "Be Saved" and not be killed you simply HAD to get through it, you might be inclined to view "Contextual Meaning" in a different light. You might even ask if "The Realm of Heaven" might be a real place somewhere. After all:

Matthew 5: 20 (RSV and Moffatt):

[20] For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
[20] For I tell you, unless your goodness excels that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the Realm of heaven.

Again, I ask you to consider Lamsa and Paul Younan here: "My God, my God, for this was I spared?" For many, this makes absolutely NO SENSE at all!
Oh, yes it does!
Regardless of alternatives, this idea appears to be the most correct and even "most correct" may not be strong enough. I stated, "You may have to find your own moment where this person faced certain and "No Way Out" Death and survived...". This is the moment for me.

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

There is something else, another context here. This "other context" gives the meaning to the that moment on the Cross.
I invite you to look at this possibility..

Thanks for your thoughtful post Charles. I don't really have strong feelings on the context of this verse one way or another, so I do not wish to debate what appears to be your strong opinion on the matter. I would have to admit also that I don't quite follow the full gist of your argument, though I did take the time to read it through.

If your opinion of context is totally correct, and my analysis totally off-base; this is where I think our methods vary. As I see it, you come to a thoughtful conclusion as to what the proper context is, and then somewhat fashion the word (in this case Sh:B:Q) to fit that context. I on the other hand, first do a full concordant analysis of the word itself (Sh:B:Q), and then attempt to let the word itself define the various contexts in which it is used; assuming that is, that I have actually found an English word that can convey the full extent of the Aramaic root (never an easy task).

Either way though, it is interesting to hear your perspective on the matter.

1. You state:

"I do not wish to debate what appears to be your strong opinion on the matter."

I'm not debating anybody today. My back is hurting way too much. Please feel free to disagree with anything I Post. It's OK and it doesn't matter if my opinion is "strong" or not. For the record, you are quite correct in your view of what I have said: "As I see it, you come to a thoughtful conclusion as to what the proper context is, and then somewhat fashion the word (in this case Sh:B:Q) to fit that context.

I hope it is thoughtful, maybe even correct. A N Whitehead stated:
"Language is thoroughly indeterminate, by reason of the fact that every occurrence presupposes some systematic type of environment."

2. With this idea, I hope you see that I cannot say you are "Wrong!" here. Your analysis may be entirely correct in "Thou relinquish/dismiss/release me?" Jesus cannot under any circumstances repudiate God. How then does he face this Death? The Temple Priests in a previous era at one time faced Death while performing their sacrifices and they continued them, even as they were being murdered at the Altar. How does this happen?

3. Let me give one more example of what it is that I'm trying to accomplish here. Recently, I found one of those "Markers" that strikes me at times and makes me look to see if I can "Find Context":

Mark 9: 42 (RSV):

[42] "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.

The visual here is most remarkable. You can almost see someone with "the-millstone-of-a-donkey" being thrown into the sea. But wait! Did anyone ever throw a giant millstone in the sea? Yes! Herod did and see my Post on this one.

"One thing leads to another...": What then of Matthew's Story, "The Narrow Gate"? Isn't that just a rewrite of Luke's "The Narrow Door"? No, it's not. I believe it's a Deeper Version of "The Millstone of a Donkey". Greglasser, Poster Extraordinaire on this site, even had a small note about a word "Mublai", found in the passage of Matthew 7, which might have the notion of "Cargo" attached to it. When this happens, I usually stop for awhile. WOW!

BUT!: "If Matthew had Mark in front of him while writing his Book, how do you explain this?":

Matthew 18: 6 (RSV):

[6] but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Ooops! So Matthew had Mark open in front of him AND had another version of the Herod Story of the Narrow Gate and wrote both of them into his book? If he did, did he know that these 2 passages were referring to the same Story? The issue is complicated by Matthew writing that Jesus entered Jerusalem riding an ass and a horse so..."Gee, I dunno...What do the words tell us?" :-)

4. I DO feel strongly about a lot of this material and the strength of this belief is made apparent to me by what I find on this site. Arguments by the GP'ers can be so naive sometimes! It is so much deeper than it appears!

5. Let me then, close with a better introduction to my Post above.

"Papias", an early Church Father, supposedly someone who knew, wrote that Mark remembered everything but wrote the Stories sorta', kinda', outa' order like. OK, discount the metaphysics, what is he saying? There may be Stories that are recalling scenes that appear as separate scenes now but might have actually been scenes that tell of the same event. If even remotely true, even in an elliptical sense, can this "Other Order", "Original Order, "___________ Order" be reconstructed?

I followed a Path for almost a decade now and have seen a Thread to a different Ordering of the Stories.
So: Assume that the "Narrow Door" and "Turn as a Child" are telling you about the same event (Again, You don't HAVE to assume anything. I may feel strongly about this, but so what?...). What happens? "Well, Charlie starts trolling around and finds some Aramaic Sites and sees, "...for this was I spared?"


I stopped and contemplated this one for a LOOOOONG time! Does that make me "Right"? No. It certainly leads me to believe that I'm seeing something that's actually there. A translation, a sense of meaning, is proposed by Honest People who had no idea that this meaning that I give it might adhere. Does this make it correct? In all of this, I hope that the argument is about what is "True" and not "What some guy with a bad back and some background in Logic thought was true."

The Path that I see goes back to 1 Chronicles 24 and the "House of Eleazar", through Jannaeus and Salome and through the Mishmarot Group "Immer". To date, this leads me to a small settlement named "Jabnit", although I begin to see a next step, from a man named "Eleazar", who lives in Upper Galilee and travels, not to Jerusalem but in some "other direction". He converts one King Izates. "What language did Izates speak?" I dunno. It might be important, though. Maybe as important as "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel..."

"Sheep"? "Israel"? "Where are these people?" And on and on.
You're not wrong. I hope you find peace with your search.


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)