My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?

[NotBlinded]

As you noted, jesus would have likely spoke Aramaic (and the words are Aramaic). The funny thing is that the rest of the words supposedly spoken by jesus aren't in Aramaic and then translated for the reader as these are. These might well be, assuming jesus is more than myth, the ONLY words spoken by him that survive (if you think about it). But I doubt it.

 

I went on a search for a LXX version of the verse and found this:

 

22:1 O God, my God, attend to me: why hast thou forsaken me? the account of my transgressions is far from my salvation.

 

It's different than what's said by jesus and it's different than the Masoratic text. Perhaps it's just the translation into English I found? I'm not quite sure what to make of it. That's the problem when going in between all these languages.

 

Nonetheless, if jesus was the Word made flesh, then shouldn't he be able to quote from himself perfectly?

 

mwc

Thanks mwc, but I'm still confused. Maybe you can figure out what this person is talking about here:

 

One could say that Jesus remembered Psalm 22: 1or 2, or one might say that the schools of Mark and Matthew looked through their Jewish testament, probably in Greek, and found this suitable sentence and had Jesus say it. I am inclined to think the latter because Jesus could not have said such gibberish. The Psalm, in Hebrew reads: Eli, Eli, lama azavthani . No Jew, including Jesus, knew what sabach'thani was. I think that it is an indication that Mark and Matthew copied it from their Psalm source, error and all, and that it was not something Jesus said.

And a reply form someone else:

 

I think that if Mark and Matthew were copying from their book of Psalms, then the wording would have been correct. Obviously they were attempting to write it in Hebrew. So if they were copying it from any source, that source would have had to also been in Hebrew. And if that source was in Hebrew, then it should have been correct, unless there are some Hebrew Tanakhs out there in which the Hebrew is not correct.

 

the reply by the first person

 

I am not sure what you mean. My point about sabachthani versus the correct azavthani in Psalm 22 is that they were not using their Hebrew Psalms but their Greek Septuagint. They were attempting to leave the sentence in its original Hebrew in their Gospel, as one finds it today, but they screwed up the word in going from Greek to the Hebrew of Psalm 22. If their source were the Hebrew, they would have gotten the word right.

And here is another reply by the first person:

 

The only point of my longwinded mention of azavthani/sabachthani is that it was evidence that the evangelist was copying it from his Septuagint. Why he did is anybody’s guess. Was it because it is supposed to be David’s plea and the evangelist is trying to make the connection in the audience’s mind between David and Jesus, the descendant of David, the messiah? Remember, the gospel was not read as much as it was heard. If the line was famous from the Psalms, it might have triggered a connection between David and Jesus, which would be the evangelist’s intent.

 

 

From here

 

He seems to be saying that azavthani is a Hebrew word. He doesn't mention Aramic anywhere which is what is confusing me.

 

Ohh...I see. Only the sentence was supposed to be in Hebrew. Man...I missed that one little word and it screwed me up! If this person believes that the word used there is not a Hebrew word (where's the Aramaic?), then I now understand what he is saying.

[Kelli]

Thus demonstrating that the bible was written by men, not a perfect god, and therefore not infallible.

 

Bingo. In my view. Jesus is, in my view, the "Word of God," not the Bible.

 

-CC in MA

 

But the bible is the only source of information that tells us about Jesus. If the bible isn't trustworthy, then the entire foundation on which Jesus is built begins to crumble. Without the bible, Jesus is nothing. If the bible is in question, so is Jesus. This is why so many Christians vehemently defend the bible as being infallible. Unfortunately, most christians refuse to pull themselves out of the pit of biblical infallibility. If you've gotten that far, I commend you. Keep studying and keep your mind open.

[mwc]

"sabachthani" is a key word that I wrongfully assumed came from Aramaic. After reading what NBBTL had posted I did a little more digging and here's what I found (part of a much longer article on Psalm 22 at messiahtruth.com):

 

2. Comparing Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34 with Psalms 22:2

 

The transliterated phrases in the Gospels are, "… Eli/Eloi, Eli/Eloi, lama sabachthani …". The Hebrew text of the corresponding phrase in Psalms 22:2 reads, (Eli, Eli, lama azavtani). The question is: "Does sabachtani have the same meaning as (azavtani)?"

 

The conjugated verb (azavtani) derives from the root verb (azav), [to] abandon/forsake/leave. The word sabachtani exists neither in Hebrew nor in Aramaic. Two possibilities exist here:

 

§ The closest Hebrew/Aramaic term to sabachtani would be (zevahtani), a conjugated verb that derives from the root verb (zavah), [to] sacrifice/slaughter [a sacrificial animal], but which is never used in the Hebrew Bible. Making this association would render this phrase as "My G-d, My G-d, why have you slaughtered me?". Clearly, the two terms and, therefore, the phrases, are not equivalent. If this identification is correct then one could speculate that using sabachtani in the two Gospels was designed ostensibly to depict the scene of the Passion as a sacrificial offering.

 

§ The Targum Yonathan, an ancient interpretive translation of the Hebrew Bible into the Aramaic vernacular, has (Eli, Eli, metul mah shevaqtani). The phrase (metul mah) is interchangeable with the word (lama), why. The conjugated verb (shevaqtani) derives from the Aramaic root verb (shevaq), [to] leave/forsake. Because the Greek language does not have the "sh" sound, the letter (shin) is usually transliterated as an "s". Moreover, the use of "ch" for the letter (qof) is plausible, since the actual alphabetic cognate in the Greek language for the letter (qof) – the koppa, not the K (kappa) – had been lost centuries earlier, and the letter C (chi) was used here instead. Given these facts, one could conclude that, even though the way the term appears in the Greek text is not precise or consistent in its transliteration from Aramaic, the Aramaic (shevaqtani) could have become sabachtani in the process of transliteration.

 

The conclusion drawn from the former view does not necessarily survive under the latter perspective. However placing this verse into the mouth of a dying Jesus, creates more theological difficulties for the Christian paradigm than it solves. For example, King David makes the following statement:

 

Psalms 37:25(KJV) - I have been young, and [now] am old; yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.

 

This would imply that Jesus was not righteous, i.e., a sinner, since he complained to G-d about being forsaken.

The formatting didn't copy over properly so I removed most of it (so differences from the original are my fault). The article is quite good so heading over to the source site and reading it for yourself is highly recommended anyway.

 

Here's another Jewish site comparing Psalm 22 to jesus.

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

I'm glad each author highlighted different events. What would be the good of having four gospels if they were verbatim copies of each other? Each highlighted the aspect of the Jesus experience that they were most moved by. Sounds perfectly fine to me.

 

 

So you just decide to casually ignore my earlier post then? Like that's going to make what I said in it go away?

 

I guess you must ignore some posts if you are going to hold on to your sky daddy while hanging out here.

 

Hi white_raven23. Not intentionally avoiding your point. I thought I had addressed it. I went back and read your original post. I still think I have answered it. The fire was the crucifixion. All four gospels record it, clearly. The gospels agree that Jesus lived, that Jesus performed miracles, that Jesus was a great teacher, that Jesus was executed, and that Jesus overcame death. These are the points that make Jesus the Christ. In my view.

 

Please know that I am not in any way hoping to persuade anyone of such views. Frankly, I do not care what anyone believes about religion as this is a very personal issue.

 

-CC in MA

[white_raven23]

I still think I have answered it. The fire was the crucifixion. All four gospels record it, clearly. The gospels agree that Jesus lived, that Jesus performed miracles, that Jesus was a great teacher, that Jesus was executed, and that Jesus overcame death.

 

Perhaps I was not clear. For my analogy, the crucifixion was the car crash itself (as you point out....all four gospels mention it, and it is a major event in the overall story). That would make details like last words the fire.

[currentchristian]

I'm glad each author highlighted different events.

 

Well, it sounds nice. Like watching a parade, and every spectator notices a different aspect of the parade.

 

Same thing with the bible.

 

Take the gospel of Mark, for instance. The first gospel written (with the possible exception of Thomas)

But, if Mark was first, for a time, it was the ONLY gospel. The ONLY gospel.

 

So, what were a couple of the little bitty details that Mark didn't think worth mentioning?

 

Raising of Lazarus

Appearances of the re-animated Jesus

The ascension.

 

I suppose these experiences just weren't enough to get "moved by".

 

I'm sure you have an explanation, cc. Just not one that any truly thinking person will buy.

 

I'm sorry, but this didn't seem to need an answer, as I have already stated that it is perfectly fine by me that each gospel takes a different perspective.

 

There are a few things, though, I guess:

 

1. No one knows which gospel was written first. It's all a matter of speculation and circular reasoning. I would love if the authors had printed the date at the top of each gospel, but they did not. No big deal, as I see it.

2. I thank the heavens I don't have to read about Lazarus four times. Once is enough. Why must these stories be repeated four times for the gospels to be historical? If the same stories were told four times with the same details, the accusation would be, "Clearly, they were contrived and everyone wrote the same thing."

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Now, Mythra, that's not like YOU. Are you saying that I am not a "truly thinking person"?

 

Yes. But not meant to be an insult.

 

You're a thinking person. A thinking person who's reasoning process is greatly influenced by faith. Faith that affects the reasoning process. Faith - as in - believing something is true IN SPITE of the lack of evidence, or in the presence of contradictory evidence.

 

So, when I say "truly thinking person", I mean someone who, when the data does not add up, admits that the data does not add up. A truly thinking person is allowed to think about the evidence and make conclusions, without worrying about the implication or threat that they might be headed down some slippery slope of doubt.

 

I understand this. Completely. Because I was a thinking person who's thought process was clouded by faith for a very long time.

 

p.s. : I noticed you didn't address the question.

 

I have to admit, Mythra, that it is insulting, even if not meant to be. I would never accuse you of not being a "truly thinking person" because you do not have faith. I do not believe that your doubt clouds your ability to reason. To do so would be a terribly arrogant view. In my view.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

As you noted, jesus would have likely spoke Aramaic (and the words are Aramaic). The funny thing is that the rest of the words supposedly spoken by jesus aren't in Aramaic and then translated for the reader as these are. These might well be, assuming jesus is more than myth, the ONLY words spoken by him that survive (if you think about it). But I doubt it.

 

I went on a search for a LXX version of the verse and found this:

 

22:1 O God, my God, attend to me: why hast thou forsaken me? the account of my transgressions is far from my salvation.

 

It's different than what's said by jesus and it's different than the Masoratic text. Perhaps it's just the translation into English I found? I'm not quite sure what to make of it. That's the problem when going in between all these languages.

 

Nonetheless, if jesus was the Word made flesh, then shouldn't he be able to quote from himself perfectly?

 

mwc

 

Jesus was also the son of Adam, theologically speaking.

 

You are right that it is very hard to go between all these languages. Jesus spoke predominantly Aramaic. The gospels were written in Greek. We read them in English. Much could be lost in all of this language hopscotch.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Thus demonstrating that the bible was written by men, not a perfect god, and therefore not infallible.

 

Bingo. In my view. Jesus is, in my view, the "Word of God," not the Bible.

 

-CC in MA

But the bible is the only source of information that tells us about Jesus. If the bible isn't trustworthy, then the entire foundation on which Jesus is built begins to crumble. Without the bible, Jesus is nothing. If the bible is in question, so is Jesus. This is why so many Christians vehemently defend the bible as being infallible. Unfortunately, most christians refuse to pull themselves out of the pit of biblical infallibility. If you've gotten that far, I commend you. Keep studying and keep your mind open.

 

I didn't say the Bible is not trustworthy. Much is. The gospels are, in my view. But the Bible is not the "Word of God." It is not infallible, inerrent, etc. It is a record of the search for God and meaning among the early Israelites, the Jews, and the early Christians. It records the life of Jesus, well in my view. But it is not perfect. No way.

 

-CC in MA

[NotBlinded]

Thanks mwc...

 

This stuff is so indepth that I can't make heads or tales of it. I admire the hell out of your ability to grasp this stuff! You have an encyclopedia of knowledge in that head of yours, so I'll just continue to read and learn from your posts.

[mwc]

This stuff is so indepth that I can't make heads or tales of it. I admire the hell out of your ability to grasp this stuff! You have an encyclopedia of knowledge in that head of yours, so I'll just continue to read and learn from your posts.

:ohmy: I do believe you're probably the only person that has ever said anything close to that in my life.

 

I'm not sure I'm worthy of such a comment but I consider it high praise coming from you.

 

Anyhow, the link at the bottom of the same post was a little more my speed (the one that was a bit more on the humorous side that showed how the Psalm was really about David but if it were about jesus how ill-fitting it would be).

 

mwc

[Mythra]

I have to admit, Mythra, that it is insulting, even if not meant to be. I would never accuse you of not being a "truly thinking person" because you do not have faith. I do not believe that your doubt clouds your ability to reason. To do so would be a terribly arrogant view. In my view.

 

Okay - let me ask you. Do you see a hard-core bible literalist as someone who thinks as clearly as you do? If you answer yes, I'd love to hear how you come to that conclusion.

 

If you say no - then we think very much alike. We just draw the line in a different spot.

[currentchristian]

I have to admit, Mythra, that it is insulting, even if not meant to be. I would never accuse you of not being a "truly thinking person" because you do not have faith. I do not believe that your doubt clouds your ability to reason. To do so would be a terribly arrogant view. In my view.

 

Okay - let me ask you. Do you see a hard-core bible literalist as someone who thinks as clearly as you do? If you answer yes, I'd love to hear how you come to that conclusion.

 

If you say no - then we think very much alike. We just draw the line in a different spot.

 

I disagree with them. I understand things differently. I have a different worldview. I would not, however, set myself up as their intellectual superior. I really wouldn't.

 

-CC in MA

[Mythra]

I disagree with them. I understand things differently. I have a different worldview. I would not, however, set myself up as their intellectual superior. I really wouldn't.

 

Ahh. Okay - I see where we are having a gap in our understanding.

 

I don't consider myself intellectually superior. In fact, when it comes to you and a whole slew of other people on this site, I'm quite sure I'm intelectually infererior.

 

That's not at all what I was getting at, nor trying to infer.

 

My point is that a person who has a personal investment in faith is unable to process things in the same way that someone who has no such personal investment.

 

Let me give a brief example.

 

I am a person who is convinced that the gospel story is a fiction. The events therein never ever occurred, IMO. I'm aware of the vast majority of the arguments on both sides of the issue.

 

Let's say that you presented something that I didn't know about. Perhaps verified MSS of Justus of Tiberias that gave eyewitness accounts of - oh I don't know - maybe the cleansing of the temple and a sermon of jesus on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias.

 

The first thing I would do is make sure it's authentic. If I was comfortable that it was, I would immediately change my thinking. I wouldn't leap the conclusion that every event in the gospels was true, nor that Jesus was god in the flesh. But I would have no reservations about thinking about Jesus in a new light.

 

A person who leans on faith simply isn't able to do that. There's too much at stake.

[currentchristian]

My point is that a person who has a personal investment in faith is unable to process things in the same way that someone who has no such personal investment.

 

Let me think about this assertion a bit.

 

My initial response is that you are correct, somewhat. But I do not agree that a person of faith is "unable to process things" about faith. Rather, s/he will process things about his/her faith differently than one who is not a member of that faith. Processing differently is not the same, however, as not at all processing.

 

So there surely could and likely does exist a different processing technique for the theist and the atheist in regard to issues of religion. However, it seems to me that this is the case all around for all of us in whatever our little group might be. An American likely will not process information about American foreign policy in the same way a European will. On some issues, the European, able to look upon America as an outsider, might in fact possess a more correct view. On another issue, the European may never be able to fully comprehend the American way as an American might. It's a trade off.

 

Men and woman have some variation in cognitive processing protocols; but both do indeed process. The person who has no belief in gods, similarly, will process information about religion differently than a person who has a belief in a god. Different ways of processing, to be sure. But processing still. And I think both ways are equally legitimate means of arriving at a conclusion.

 

What do you think, Mythra?

 

-CC in MA

[Mythra]

Well, to avoid getting personal - I'll just speak for myself.

 

I found that, for myself, when I was involved in religion, there was a suspension of reason. I believed that people could live to be 950 years old, that two of every animal on earth fit on a boat, that a woman was turned into a pillar of salt, that a man walked on water, that he also flew up into the sky, and on and on. All because the Book of Answers said it was so.

 

Not only were my reasoning powers diminished, but in attempting to explain the bible, I would issue bullshit answers that I knew were bullshit. Anything was better than admitting that I was following a set of beliefs that included things that anyone with any sense at all knew were untrue.

 

I would even give the explanation that the bible must be true, because who would make up a story that was so unbelievable?

 

Most of us who have been there and escaped, see very clearly now that our ability to think rationally was sorely compromised during our sojourn into faith.

[Mythra]

I thank the heavens I don't have to read about Lazarus four times. Once is enough. Why must these stories be repeated four times for the gospels to be historical? If the same stories were told four times with the same details, the accusation would be, "Clearly, they were contrived and everyone wrote the same thing."

 

Okay - now I'll talk about this type of answer. This makes sense to you, in trying to explain the variance in the gospels. But, it doesn't really give a satisfactory answer.

 

It doesn't really explain the absence of very important or even essential parts of the story are absent from one gospel or another. It's not like the author of Matthew decided he would leave out the raising of Lazarus, because he knew John would write about it 20 years later. The raising of a dead, stinking corpse back to life is just not an item that anyone would have left out of the story. No one with any sense can imagine a writer not mentioning this event, had it actually happened. It's just too important to neglect. If we accept even a conservative dating of the authorship of GJohn, we have not a single mention ANYWHERE of the raising of Lazarus for at least 50 years after it supposedly happened. This doesn't add up. Something stinketh here besides Lazarus.

 

Your explanation also doesn't adequately address how the Jesus portrayal in GJohn is so radically disconnected from the Jesus in the synoptics - Matthew in particular. To the uninitiated, at first glance it doesn't even seem possible that they could both be speaking of the same person.

 

There are tons of other problems with the gospels also, that require coming up with explanations. Like explaining how Jesus uses a play on words several times when speaking to the Pharisees. Except the play on words only works if it's spoken in Greek. It doesn't make sense when said in Hebrew or Aramaic. Can we somehow envision Jesus speaking to the Pharisees in greek?