Thomas -

Quote:
I said, "So I haven't proved anything..."

Netanel said "Thomas, you are mistaken if you think it has been proven that sabachthani is a real world."

With this kind of interchange, no wonder we don't get anywhere.


My response which you quoted above was in response to:

Quote:
Uri has confirmed in his essay that sabachthani is not ridiculous nonsense, as was implied to folah, when she was challenged to show that it was a real word.


Uri did not confirm that sabachthani is not a nonsense word, he merely gave two examples of what could have been intended. Sabachthani itself is a nonsense word in either of the two languages, and it would seem also in the Greek language it appears.

Quote:
Since it was used in Ezra, I was assuming it was Hebrew, but I guess Ezra is Aramaic too. Fine. To me that is neither here nor there. If Jesus said "sh'vaqtani", and that is Aramaic, then he probably said "l'ma sh'vaqtani" or more likely "l'ma sh'vachthani". I claim that "lama sabachthani" is a Greek transliteration of that. That is all. A transliteration of this nature is thus not a real word in any language, until it becomes adopted. So what?


Sh'vaqtani does not appear in Ezra. Sh'vuqu, which comes from the same root, appears once in Ezra 6:7. It is Aramaic. Sh'vaqtani does not appear anywhere in the Tanach. Where it appears is in the Aramaic Targum Yonatan, and it appears with "ELI ELI M'TUL MAH SH'VAQTANI".

You claim lama sabachthani is a Greek transliteration, yet you say that Yeshu probably said l'ma sh'vachthani. If you believe sabachthani is a transliteration of the Aramaic sh'vaqtani, why do you then contradict that by claiming Yeshu "probably said sh'vachthani"? Qof is not a CH or KH sound in Aramaic. So was Yeshu speaking Aramaic, or "transliterated Greek" Aramaic?

You are assuming that he said l'ma instead of the lama that is recorded (which is Hebrew). You are also claiming that Yeshu pronounced the qof in sh'vaqtani as a ch and said sh'vachthani. Sh'vachtani is no more an accurate Aramaic or Hebrew way of saying sh'vaqtani than sabachthani is (unless you change the qof to a chet or a chaf, which certainly changes the meaning of the word, and would mean something entirely different out of the mouth of Yeshu). Did the Greeks transliterate it roughly, was Yeshu speaking Aramaic, or "transliterated Greek" Aramaic?

Quote:
All I am saying is that we have here a reasonable possibility to explain "lama sabachthani". Now, what are the further linguistic questions that you say are raised?


I already laid them out. For one, it could just as easily be assumed that it was meant to be z'vachtani (which is an actual Hebrew word, as the rest of the sentence is) as it could be assumed that it was meant to be sh'vaqtani. Phonetically z'vachtani is much closer than sh'vaqtani. Sabachthani is not a straight-across slam dunk of either the Hebrew word or the Aramaic.

On top of that, you are reconstructing the sentence to suit what you have now accepted, which is that it was meant to be the Aramaic word Uri cited. Now you are reconstructing the plain text Hebrew word (lama) into an intended Aramaic one (l'ma). Meaning the only word in the sentence not being retroactively explaind with apologetics is ELI.

Uri's article shows that the Aramaic would be ELI ELI M'TUL MAH SH'VAQTANI. The Hebrew is ELI ELI LAMA AZAVTANI.

Regardless of what you retroactively re-construct it to have been "intended", the fact is that as it actually appears it is a non-sensical sentence. It is a Hebrew sentence with - at best - what may have been intended to be, but isn't actually, an Aramaic word.

Either the authors of the gospels - who Christianity claims were Jews - or Yeshu - who Christians claims was a Jew and was G-d - made a mistake. It is neither a correct Hebrew nor Aramaic rendering of the Psalm.

Netanel