ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 356
Sun, 13-Jan-08 16:25:14
Posts: 2024
Sun, 13-Jan-08 17:21:19
Quote:I was suggesting something similar to the second suggestion in Uri's paper starting "The Targum Yonathan...". I was looking this up in the response to the claim that sabachthani was not a valid word. I haven't studied this whole thread enough to know all of the nuances of Folah's claim. However, I would not have expected Uri to sit idly by while someone claims that a word is nonexistent while he has an essay available that discusses possible sources for the word.
Quote:Uri states in his essay that any admission of Jesus that God had forsaken him causes unresolvable theological issues. It does not, but this is not the time to get into that discussion. My point here is just because you think that Jesus is out of place saying this is not grounds to tell someone that sabachthani is nonexistent, when you know very well that it has at least two possible sources.
Quote:If I were to try to determine exactly what sounds Jesus spoke that day, I would guess that Jesus said Sh'vachthani. That would not be considered to be pure Hebrew by you perhaps, but it might be a dialectic variation similar to Shibboleth and Sibboleth. The fact that the Greek text used Xi instead of Kappa and Theta instead of Tau indicates that to me.
Quote:The next question would be why Jesus didn't say azavtani as per Psalm 22, which it is clear from the Greek text that he did not. I would suggest that this is again a dialectic variation that was "the way they said it" in Jesus' day. For a simple example from English, there was a time when people would have cried out, "Don't forsake me," while today they would say "Don't leave me all alone," and they mean exactly the same thing today.
Quote:So I haven't proved anything, nor answered all of the possible questions. No, but I think that I have found a very plausible solution. Often in the NT and in the Tanach, we have to be content with that, and it certainly isn't a reason in itself to throw out the one or the other. 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. I will leave it to folah to decide if she was mistreated in this discussion.
Sun, 13-Jan-08 18:31:38
Posts: 4492
Sun, 13-Jan-08 18:44:46
Administrator
Quote:Regarding Uri's questions, Jesus most assuredly did not say "sabachthani" just as the angel did not say "you shall call His name is Jesus" to Joseph in Matthew 1:21. The Greek is Iesus, which is the Greek style transliteration of Y'shua.
Sun, 13-Jan-08 19:07:52
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.
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.
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?
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?
Posts: 975
Sun, 13-Jan-08 23:12:13
Mon, 14-Jan-08 09:59:49
Mon, 14-Jan-08 12:03:37
Quote:If you want to suggest "z'vachtani" there remains the question of why the Greek letter Theta is used instead of Tau. Sh'vaqtani has the correct meaning in Aramaic, and the small difficulty of a variant pronunciation "sh'vachthani" is a preferred solution to me. In any case, this is not a "massive error".
Mon, 14-Jan-08 13:38:46
Wed, 16-Jan-08 17:06:43
Thu, 17-Jan-08 10:10:26
Thu, 17-Jan-08 11:56:01
Quote:I am simply SUGGESTING that evidently, according to the NT Greek transliteration, people who grew up in Nazareth 2000 years ago had modified the pronunciation of Aramaic to soften the Qoph and the Tav, in a similar kind of thing as the German example.
Quote:However, since I believe the NT for other reasons, I believe that this would not fit the Greek TRANSLATION given in the NT that Jesus said "forsaken me" and not "slaughtered me".
Thu, 17-Jan-08 13:56:50
Quote:Gideon, the claim that the NT was written 300 years after Jesus is a claim of unbelievers that is not sustainable. I have heard of this Yeshua ben Pantera claim , and I believe that it is also unsustainable. In answer to an earlier question by Uri, I passed on the suggestion that I heard from a scholar who believes the NT that the LXX was modified to match the NT interpretations (not quotes) of the Hebrew Bible. You call that a "xian forgery". Perhaps you are right.
Posts: 20720
Thu, 17-Jan-08 14:14:35
Moderator
Quote:"The evidence suggests that during the earliest period of its transmission the (GT) text was in a state of flux, that it came to be more or less standardized in some regions by the fourth century. . .. . .because scribes occasionally changed their texts in meaningful ways, it is possible to conceptualize their activities as a kind of hermeneutical process. Reproducing a text is in some ways analogous to interpreting it. . . .
Quote:The oldest manu*****s of the *****ures, including the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, do not have the present ending to Mark.
Thu, 17-Jan-08 16:30:50
Thu, 17-Jan-08 16:56:22
Thu, 17-Jan-08 17:16:25
Posts: 7963
Wed, 16-Apr-08 11:55:07
GIDEON MAGE wrote: .....The movie "the Life of Brian" although a comedy, is historically very accurate about the number of "messiahs" around that time.
Very funny movie - especially the following scene [you have to have suffered at the hands of a specific breed of highschool Latin teacher at to really appreciate this]:
[Brian is writing graffiti on the palace wall. The Centurion catches him in the act.] Centurion: What's this, then? "Romanes eunt domus"? People called Romanes, they go, the house? Brian: It says, "Romans go home." Centurion: No it doesn't ! What's the latin for "Roman"? Come on, come on ! Brian: Er, "Romanus"! Centurion: Vocative plural of "Romanus" is? Brian: Er, er, "Romani"! Centurion: [Writes "Romani" over Brian's graffiti] "Eunt"? What is "eunt"? Conjugate the verb, "to go" ! Brian: Er, "Ire". Er, "eo", "is", "it", "imus", "itis", "eunt". Centurion: So, "eunt" is...? Brian: Third person plural present indicative, "they go". Centurion: But, "Romans, go home" is an order. So you must use...? [He twists Brian's ear] Brian: Aaagh! The imperative! Centurion: Which is...? Brian: Aaaagh! Er, er, "i"! Centurion: How many Romans? Brian: Aaaaagh! Plural, plural, er, "ite"! Centurion: [Writes "ite"] "Domus"? Nominative? "Go home" is motion towards, isn't it? Brian: Dative! [the Centurion holds a sword to his throat] Brian: Aaagh! Not the dative, not the dative! Er, er, accusative, "Domum"! Centurion: But "Domus" takes the locative, which is...? Brian: Er, "Domum"! Centurion: [Writes "Domum"] Understand? Now, write it out a hundred times. Brian: Yes sir. Thank you, sir. Hail Caesar, sir. Centurion: Hail Caesar! And if it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off.
http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
Posts: 28
Wed, 16-Apr-08 14:50:14
Wed, 16-Apr-08 15:00:58
Of course WHO knew WHAT?
Share This