Matthew 27:46 (KJV) “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?”
Mark 15:34 (KJV) “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?”
David Maas[1]
also seems to think this quote is further evidence that the NT was originally
written in Greek, yet this is a very troubling quote as ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’ is neither an entirely Hebraic nor Aramaic phrase.
In fact, the
whole narrative of this phrase and the reported reaction of some of the Judean
bystanders is presented to us in such a fragmented and distorted manner as to
bring into question the whole account. Rather than having any implied stamp of
authority, a close investigation suggests that it is a Greek construction, at
least in part. That is, it may be a made up story, composed by Greek rather
than Hebrew or Aramaic authors, and therefore another editorial ‘addition’ to
the original inspired writings.
The words ‘Eli’
(meaning ‘my God’) and ‘lama’ (why) could be legitimate transliterations of
Hebrew but the rest is questionable.
The Septuagint
translation (from Hebrew) of Judges 5:5 indentifies ‘Eloi’ as a Hebrew
transliteration:
“The mountains were
shaken before the face of the Lord Eloi, this Sina before the face of the Lord
God of Israel” (Judges 5:5’ THE SEPTUAGINT WITH APOCRYPHA: ENGLISH’ SIR LANCELOT C.L. - 1851).
This is
intriguing as ‘Eloi’ is not a legitimate transliteration of Hebrew. Greek does
not possess the letter H in its alphabet, but indicates the sound with a
diacritical mark[2], which is
usually at the beginning of a word.
Hebrew does have the letter H though.
In Judges 5:5
the term ‘Elohei’ is used toward the end of the verse in speaking of YHWH as
the God of Israel. Because there are no vowels indicated, the word appears as:
Elohi. This cannot be properly transliterated
due to the absence of H in Greek, so the Greek form is given thus: eloi.
The literal
translation of the verse, from Hebrew is,
‘The mountains quaked before YHWH, this Sinai, before YHWH Elohei of
Israel. ‘ Note in the LXX
translation by Lancelot that ‘Eloi’ is used.
Thus the term
‘eloi’ in the LXX clearly stands for God
- not ‘my God’ and yet it is used in Mark 15:34 as if it meant ‘my God’.
Returning to Matthew 27, Yeshua is believed to be quoting from Psalm 22:1
here. The Hebrew text of the corresponding
phrase in Psalms 22:1 reads (transliterated), ‘Eli, Eli, lama
azavtani’.
So while ‘Eli,
Eli’ is correct as a transliteration of ‘my God, my God’ and ‘lama’ is correct for
the word ‘why’, the question is, does ‘sabachthani’ have the
same meaning as ‘azavtani’?
‘Sabachtani’ is
not a Hebrew (or Aramiac) word, but ‘shavaqta’ is (meaning ‘to abandon, to
desert, to leave behind’). It
seems possible then that ‘sabachthani’
is merely a corruption of the word. In transliterations the Hebrew ‘s’ can become a ‘sh’ or the
other way around and the ‘b’ often becomes a ‘v’.
As the closest Hebrew/Aramaic term to ‘sabachtani’ is ‘zevahtani’, a conjugated verb
that derives from the root verb ‘zavah’, meaning [to]
sacrifice/slaughter [a sacrificial animal], another possibility is that this
word was intended. As this word is never used in the Hebrew Bible, it would
seem unlikely. Also it would render this phrase as "My God, My God, why
have you slaughtered me?", which seems most improbable.
The Targum Yonathan, an ancient interpretive translation (around
800 CE) of the Hebrew Bible into the Aramaic vernacular, has ‘Eli,
Eli, metul mah shevaqtani’ (essentially the
same as Stern’s Complete Jewish Bible). The phrase ‘metul mah’ is interchangeable with
the word ‘lama’. The conjugated verb ‘shevaqtani’ derives from the
Aramaic root verb ‘shevaq’, [to]
leave/forsake.
As mentioned above, It also seems possible then that the Aramaic ‘shevaqtani’ could have become ‘sabachtani’
in the process of transliteration. That is, the Greek comes to us via a Aramaic
translation of a Hebrew original.
Of course, it is challenging to
consider that Yeshua was quoting Psalm 22:1, as given his constant communion
with his ‘Father and our Father’[3],
we may not expect him to feel forsaken. On the other hand, King David wrote
these words in the Psalm and he too had a very close relationship with the
Almighty. In fact, King David is recalling here in Ps 22 that his God had
listened and intervened on behalf of his ancestors and so, when feeling
abandoned for a time, he cries out in pain.
A few years ago there was a shocking
terrorist attack at a Yeshiva (House of Torah Study) in Jerusalem where some
boys were murdered as they studied the Tanakh. The head of the Yeshiva was
quoted at the memorial service for the victims also calling out Ps 22:1.
Even the strongest and most devoted
and faithful of men can feel abandoned by their Father at the darkest moments
of their lives. Thus, I find it believable that even Yeshua could have quoted
these words.
Also problematic is the next verse: “And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, This man is
calling Elijah.”
In Hebrew, Elijah’s name when
transliterated becomes Eliyahu. The shortened form is Eli. This is not the case
for Aramaic or Greek. So this would seem to suggest that the phrase was in
Hebrew. Given Yeshua’s Galilean
dialect and his being in great pain and anguish, his words may not have been
very clear to the Judeans listening, and this may explain how they may have
misunderstood what he was saying. A bigger question, that still makes this
verse problematic though is: ‘Why would he say, ‘Elijah, why have you forsaken
me’?
So it appears we have considerable
confusion and possibly editorial “enhancement’s”,
and Greek constructions, etc. How does this confusion relate to the question of
a Greek or Hebrew original?
I would suggest that if the original
books of Mark and Matthew were in Hebrew, and the translators were not experts
in Hebrew and perhaps were even translating from Aramaic versions, then we
might expect such a confused state of affairs to exist.
So again, this passage offers no
support for a LXX original and worse it is another passage which suggests some
deliberate distortions and editorial reconstructions have occurred.
[1] The “Hebraic Roots”
Regression to Moses: The Peril of Rewriting Scripture’ by David Maas in the August 2011 edition of
‘Focus on the Kingdom’ – at http://www.focusonthekingdom.org/magazine.htm
[2] A mark that is placed on a letter to indicate
that it has a different pronunciation than it would otherwise, or to indicate
that the word has a different meaning than it would otherwise.
[3] John 20:17
No comments:
Post a Comment