PDA

View Full Version : OT quotes in the NT in Matthew



Precha1
04-01-2009, 05:42 PM
In Matthew 4:4 it seems to me that Matthew relies more on the LXX as a source than the WTT.

In Matthew 27:46 it seems to me that Matthew relies more on the WTT as a source than the LXX.

My first question: Has anyone done any work on the number of times Matthew follows the LXX as opposed to the WTT or vice versa?

My second question: In general, when Matthew quotes the OT, is there any significance, other than stylistic preference, to citing one source over the other?

My third question: As we approach Passion Week, does anyone have any musings about Matthew 27:46 they care to share?

Adelphos
04-01-2009, 07:00 PM
My third question: As we approach Passion Week, does anyone have any musings about Matthew 27:46 they care to share?

I won't go into the textual issues, but one quick observation here is how infinitely holy and pure Jesus was even in the flesh. Even when he was in the flesh he was as holy and as righteous as his Father. There has never been a moment, not in eternity nor in time, when Jesus Christ has not been as infinitely holy and as infinitely righteous as his Father, and thus even in his darkest moment of despair he resorted to quoting Scripture. And why?

Because as the Living Word, who in truth authored all Scripture HIMSELF by the Holy Spirit, in the most holy moment in the history of creation, he now quoted HIMSELF, for it is written again, "If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny HIMSELF." 2 Timothy 2:13

It is said that A.B. Simpson once preached a sermon solely on the text, "HIMSELF".

I can deeply identify with that exposition.

Greg Ward
04-01-2009, 11:10 PM
Resources that can help:
Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament by Gleason L. Archer and Gregory Chirichigno (In BW8 Resources/Miscellaneous or on your resource summary window for a given passage.)
Synopsis Window files (In BW8: Tools/Viewing the Text/Synopsis Window). There are several synopsis files that can be opened which may be of aid to your study: matthewot, ntot, and others. If I recall, the original leg work for these files was done by Jeff Jackson: http://www.jeff-jackson.com/

Jim Wert
04-02-2009, 12:43 PM
Actually, I think one of those synopsis files comes from Scott Jones (aka Adelphos).

I developed a module for the Synopsis Tool some years ago that BW now includes in its package called matthewotquotes.sdf, or something like that, which you can quickly navigate through to see where Deuteronomy is quoted in the book of Matthew.

Adelphos
04-02-2009, 10:46 PM
Actually, I think one of those synopsis files comes from Scott Jones (aka Adelphos).

Yes, and it's now called "otquotes.sdf" in BW8. I am working on the other three gospels as well, which I will make available when finished, assuming the Lord Jesus gives me the grace and time to finish it.

I might just add, the x-refs tab now makes this project INFINITELY more easy to accomplish.

DavidR
04-03-2009, 11:38 AM
Regarding the question about studies of Matthew's use of quotations from LXX or Hebrew, the classic work is The School of St. Matthew, and Its Use of the Old Testament, by Krister Stendahl, widely available in libraries and from used book sellers.

As regards Matt 27:46, note that (1) this is essentially identical to Mark, and manys scholars believe that Matthew is actually following Mark here; (2) however one considers the Matthew/Mark relationship, the main thing is that the quotation is neither from Hebrew nor LXX, but is in Aramaic, either from a Targum or a freely composed Aramaic translation of Psalm 22:1. (The TAR of Psalm 22:1 in BibleWorks has a slightly different wording for "why.")

Musings on Matt 27:46 -- too many for the time available! The deep mystery of the incarnation is that the Second Person of the Trinity became fully and utterly human. Thus, while from one perspective he was never separated from the Godhead, from another perspective Jesus knew the depths of our alienation from God, our sense of distance from our Maker, our grief when we feel abandoned even by God. There is no sugar-coating this. Psalm 22 expresses the grief of someone who knows that he is suffering innocently and unjustly, and it is not surprising that Jesus would take it on his lips (and that the church would subsequently read the psalm in light of his crucifixion). But if you read the entire psalm, the final 10 verses shout for joy at God's rescue of the sufferer from death. Thus, from the Christian viewpoint, we can see in Psalm 22 both the depths of human suffering and the height of human joy in God's care, and we can see how these would find their ultimate expression in Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, and in our commemoration of these events on Good Friday and Easter.

Just my thoughts -- with no intent to stir up controversy!

David Rensberger

Adelphos
04-03-2009, 01:26 PM
...the main thing is that the quotation is neither from Hebrew nor LXX, but is in Aramaic, either from a Targum or a freely composed Aramaic translation of Psalm 22:1. (The TAR of Psalm 22:1 in BibleWorks has a slightly different wording for "why.")

From the Greek of Matthew 27:46 it looks almost certainly like Jesus quoted directly from the Hebrew, not from some speculated text, nor is it likely that Jesus would ever have quoted anything but Hebrew.

Norman Golb, for one, in his discourse on the DSS, has demonstrated the fiction of Aramaic primacy --

"We may thus observe, as a notable example, how the Paean to Alexander Jannaeus-one of several Jewish historical personalities mentioned in the scrolls-emerges as the work of a Palestinian poet who took pride in that ruler's reign and had a conception of the overall unity of the Jewish nation, both in Palestine and in the widespread diaspora that already existed long before the destruction of the Second Temple. The hymn is ONE SMALL FRAGMENT AMONG MANY HEBREW POEMS FOUND IN THE CAVES that have no apparent sectarian bias. From it, as from others, WE MAY NOTE THE LYRICAL RICHNESS OF ANCIENT HEBREW up to the very destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70; AND WE OBSERVE THAT VIRTUALLY ALL OF THIS POETRY, AS WELL AS OVER THREE QUARTERS OF THE PROSE TEXTS, WAS COMPOSED IN HEBREW, DISPROVING THE VIEW THAT ARAMAIC HAD OVERTAKEN HEBREW AS THE MAIN LANGUAGE OF THE JEWS OF PALESTINE IN THE FIRST CENTURY A.D." Norman Golb, Who Wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls?, Scribner, p 361.

Once again it comes down to speculation versus actual evidence.

Link to Norman Golb -- http://humanities.uchicago.edu/depts/nelc/facultypages/golb/

Adelphos
04-04-2009, 10:26 PM
Well, I didn't intend to preach, but since I referenced A. B. Simpson above, I looked up the reference for myself, as it had been quite some time since I read it, and so I briefly present it here as a follow-up in the hope that one or two souls will perhaps find and receive the glory which it richly contains...

Taken from "A Treasury Of A. W. Tozer", Baker Book House, 1980, p 274-275 --

"Dr. Simpson was asked to go to England to preach in a Bible conference. He discovered that he was to preach the third of three messages on sanctification -- and that is a bad spot to be in. The first fellow said in his sermon that the way to be holy and victorious in the Christian life is to suppress the old man. His was the position of sanctification by suppression. The second man got up and took the position of eradication, deliverance from the old carnal life by eradication. "Get rid of the old man, pull him up, turn up the roots in the sun to die!" Doctor Simpson had to get in between there and he took just one word for his text: "HIMSELF". Then he gave his testimony of efforts and struggles to get the victory. He said, "Sometimes I would think I had gotten it, and then I would lose it. What a blessedness when I came to the knowledge that I had been looking in the wrong place, when I found that victory, sanctification, deliverance, purity, holiness -- ALL must be found in Jesus Christ HIMSELF, not in some formula. When I claimed Jesus just for HIMSELF, it became easy and the glory came to my life." Out of that knowledge and out of that blessing, Dr. Simpson wrote his famous hymn, "Once it was the blessing, now it is the Lord. Once His gift I wanted, now HIMSELF alone."

That, in a nutshell, is the Christian life. That is the basic Christian life, and that is the deeper Christian life. There is no other. That, in a nutshell, is the true Christian life -- HIMSELF!

BigJayOneill
04-05-2009, 01:19 PM
Hey Precha, (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/member.php?u=3054)

Good questions; stay encouraged in your studies!

I also think that Hebrew was the dominate language within STP Israel. Notably, I believe it was Papius who notes that Matthew's Gospel was composed as a Hebrew document. (I believe that all the Gospels/Acts were originaly Hebrew... However, I am not dogmatic about it!)

In answer to your second question: I believe that the NT authors utilized the particular OT "version/ edition" that was the most useful for the theological point(s) each author was attempting to make. (A notable practice within the hermeneutics of the Rabbis)

I would highly recommended the following book when learning about the complexities of the NT's usage of the OT: Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, by Richard Longenecker.

http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Exegesis-Apostolic-Richard-Longenecker/dp/0802843018/ref=pd_sim_b_5/189-3878862-8341157

Keep studying!

DavidR
04-10-2009, 01:32 PM
Sorry I forgot to come back to this! A couple of points to make in response to previous posts. I'd be inclined to agree with Jay that "the NT authors utilized the particular OT 'version/edition' that was the most useful for the theological point(s) each author was attempting to make." Some seem to prefer one and some another, but I don't know if any are perfectly consistent.

Also, it's important to remember that we don't have very complete knowledge about the Greek versions of the Jewish scriptures available to people writing in (or translating into) Greek. It's a complex subject, but it's always possible that one or another NT author knew a version that varies somewhat from our Septuagint manuscripts. Add to that the frequency of quotation from memory....

As to the predominance of Hebrew or Aramaic, I don't feel dogmatic on one side or the other. Clearly Hebrew could be used and was used, perhaps as a spoken language of daily life (maybe esp. in Judaea) but certainly as a literary and scholarly language. But we can hardly doubt the significance of Aramaic. WRT Jesus' quotation of Ps. 22:1 on the cross specifically, I don't see why one would think it unlikely that Jesus would have quoted anything but Hebrew. I said Aramaic because the Greek text uses the word sabacqani, representing yntqbv. And the verb qbv is Aramaic, not Hebrew (as seen in TAR Ps 22:1; the Hebrew text of Ps 22:1, of course, has yntbz[).

Finally -- and this is the only point I really care about on this Good Friday -- thank you, Scott, for the anecdote about A. B. Simpson. I'm not familiar with him. But I read a fair amount of Christian spiritual writers and one thing I have found is that they all, ancient or modern, Catholic or Protestant, etc., etc., all agree on precisely that point: the spiritual life ultimately consists in no formula, no set of words, no practices, but only in Jesus and in our utterly abandoning ourselves to reliance on him.

Peace, and a most blessed Easter to come,

David Rensberger

BigJayOneill
04-10-2009, 07:08 PM
WRT Jesus' quotation of Ps. 22:1 on the cross specifically, I don't see why one would think it unlikely that Jesus would have quoted anything but Hebrew. I said Aramaic because the Greek text uses the word sabacqani, representing yntqbv. And the verb qbv is Aramaic, not Hebrew (as seen in TAR Ps 22:1; the Hebrew text of Ps 22:1, of course, has yntbz[).

Yes- but I think, off the top of my head, that the "My God my God/ Eli Eli" part of the quote is from the Hebrew.:cool:

Let me know!

MGVH
04-11-2009, 11:47 AM
(File under the category of "Dangerous to ask someone who has written a dissertation on the topic")
I have been trying to update and rewrite my 1996 dissertation on Psalm 22 (LXX 21) and the Crucifixion of Jesus for T&T Clark. (Table of Contents and some snippets linked here (http://www.crossmarks.com/dissertation/titlepage.htm). I was supposed to have completed it last year, so I'm running behind...)

I'm omitting pages worth of footnotes, but some general comments:

In Mark 15:33-37 and Matthew 27.45-50, it is immediately striking that no acknowledgement is made that Jesus is citing Scripture. The citation of Ps 22:2a is attempted in Aramaic in Mark and in Aramaic/Hebrew in Matthew, but neither of their citations matches any known text of Ps 22:2a, and the ambiguities involved in transliterating resulted in the proliferation of textual variants. [I would surmise that Matthew's use of the Hebrew eli, eli (instead of Mark's Aramaic eloi, eloi) is an attempt to help make clear the connection to the confusion with Eli-jah.) Furthermore, neither of the Greek translations Mark or Matthew provide match any known Greek version of the Psalm. Most notably, neither include the additional phrase found in LXX Ps 21:2a, prosches moi. So far, therefore, we can conclude that though Ps 22:2a was undoubtedly in mind, Mark and Matthew were not concerned to identify Jesus’ cry as an explicit and exact quotation of any particular textual tradition. They certainly do not draw on the LXX.

Codex Bezae does provide a precise transliteration of the Hebrew in both Mt and Mk, but the Greek translations of the phrase wander off on their own path!

Adelphos
04-11-2009, 12:47 PM
I don't know if it's because anglo Greek scholars can't pronounce Greek properly, or what, but the fact is, the Greek of Matthew 27:46 is a perfect transliteration of the Hebrew of Psalm 22:1. The silent ayin is not carried over, which is perfectly acceptable. It's a perfect transliteration.

For anyone to assert that Matthew is not quoting the Hebrew directly flies in the face of all the actual evidence.

BigJayOneill
04-11-2009, 01:27 PM
In Mark 15:33-37 and Matthew 27.45-50, it is immediately striking that no acknowledgement is made that Jesus is citing Scripture. The citation of Ps 22:2a is attempted in Aramaic in Mark and in Aramaic/Hebrew in Matthew, but neither of their citations matches any known text of Ps 22:2a, and the ambiguities involved in transliterating resulted in the proliferation of textual variants. [I would surmise that Matthew's use of the Hebrew eli, eli (instead of Mark's Aramaic eloi, eloi) is an attempt to help make clear the connection to the confusion with Eli-jah.) Furthermore, neither of the Greek translations Mark or Matthew provide match any known Greek version of the Psalm. Most notably, neither include the additional phrase found in LXX Ps 21:2a, prosches moi. So far, therefore, we can conclude that though Ps 22:2a was undoubtedly in mind, Mark and Matthew were not concerned to identify Jesus’ cry as an explicit and exact quotation of any particular textual tradition. They certainly do not draw on the LXX.

Thanks for sharing! I agree.

BigJayOneill
04-11-2009, 01:53 PM
I don't know if it's because anglo Greek scholars can't pronounce Greek properly, or what, but the fact is, the Greek of Matthew 27:46 is a perfect transliteration of the Hebrew of Psalm 22:1. The silent ayin is not carried over, which is perfectly acceptable. It's a perfect transliteration.

For anyone to assert that Matthew is not quoting the Hebrew directly flies in the face of all the actual evidence.


Yes, but the verb "forsaken me", I believe, is Aramaic.;)

Adelphos
04-11-2009, 02:35 PM
Yes, but the verb "forsaken me", I believe, is Aramaic.;)

Look at Psalm 22:1. Is that verb Aramaic or Hebrew in Psalm 22:1?

Let me save you the trouble... The word in Psalm 22:1 is Hebrew, not Aramaic. The supposed etymology of the word doesn't change the fact that it's a Hebrew word in Psalm 22:1. Nor does it change the fact that the Greek of Matthew 27:46 is a perfect transliteration of the Hebrew of Psalm 22:1.

Michael Hanel
04-11-2009, 02:55 PM
Look at Psalm 22:1. Is that verb Aramaic or Hebrew in Psalm 22:1?

Let me save you the trouble... The word in Psalm 22:1 is Hebrew, not Aramaic. The supposed etymology of the word doesn't change the fact that it's a Hebrew word in Psalm 22:1. Nor does it change the fact that the Greek of Matthew 27:46 is a perfect transliteration of the Hebrew of Psalm 22:1.

Just for the sake of getting Apples to Apples, I'm not sure I'm reading you right Adelphos.

This is the text I'm reading of Matthew:
BGT Mat 27:46 ηλι ηλι λεμα σαβαχθανι;

This is the MT text of Psa 22:2
WTT Psa 22:2 אֵלִ֣י אֵ֭לִי לָמָ֣ה עֲזַבְתָּ֑נִי

Now clearly the last word of the Greek is NOT a transliteration of the last word in the Hebrew, right?? Or am I completely missing something. (This is to say nothing of the interpretation of these passages, I'm just not sure everyone is on the same page with this point.)

Adelphos
04-11-2009, 03:02 PM
Now clearly the last word of the Greek is NOT a transliteration of the last word in the Hebrew, right??

If you're talking about the word sabachthani, then yes, it is a perfect transliteration of the Hebrew.

As I said, the Ayin is silent and doesn't carry over, which is perfectly in accord with the rules of transliteration.

The Theta in the Greek mirrors the dagesh in the Tav. That Alpha after the Beta in the Greek mirrors the sheva under the Bet in the Hebrew. And so on.

The transliteration is perfect.

Michael Hanel
04-11-2009, 03:11 PM
If you're talking about the word sabachthani, then yes, it is a perfect transliteration of the Hebrew.

As I said, the Ayin is silent and doesn't carry over, which is perfectly in accord with the rules of transliteration.

The Theta in the Greek mirrors the dagesh in the Tav. That Alpha after the Beta in the Greek mirrors the sheva under the Bet in the Hebrew. And so on.

The transliteration is perfect.

Hmm, well I don't know the conventions of Hebrew transliteration into Greek, so this all seems a bit odd. Where did the CHI come from in the Greek transliteration? I.e. what sound is that transliterating?

Adelphos
04-11-2009, 03:17 PM
Hmm, well I don't know the conventions of Hebrew transliteration into Greek, so this all seems a bit odd. Where did the CHI come from in the Greek transliteration? I.e. what sound is that transliterating?

It's nothing more than a glottal or hard stop in the speech which would have naturally carried over into the Greek. There is no equivalent transliteration to account for the ach sounds that occur in certain Hebrew combinations.

So while the chi is not literally represented in the Hebrew, it can easily be accounted for phonetically. If someone spoke that word to me in Hebrew and asked me to transliterate it, I would come up with the same thing.

Adelphos
04-11-2009, 03:30 PM
I might also add with regard to the supposed etymologies of Hebrew/Aramaic, that not only are they speculative to the nth degree, but also R. D. Wilson, who was fluent in 45 ancient languages and dialects, disproved many of these so called Aramaic roots of various Hebrew words that had been propounded by S. R. Driver and his llkes back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

I have no confidence in the pronouncements of modern scholars on this issue.

Here's a brief into to R. D. Wilson --

http://www.lamblion.net/Quotations/rd_wilson.htm

DavidR
04-11-2009, 03:31 PM
It's nothing more than a glottal or hard stop in the speech which would have naturally carried over into the Greek. There is no equivalent transliteration to account for the ach sounds that occur in certain Hebrew combinations.

So while the chi is not literally represented in the Hebrew, it can easily be accounted for phonetically. If someone spoke that word to me in Hebrew and asked me to transliterate it, I would come up with the same thing.

Can you give any other examples where Greek chi represents a Hebrew "glottal or hard stop"? And can you show where that hard stop is in the Hebrew verb under discussion in Ps 22?

Frankly, and without meaning offense, this sounds like a rather complex way of turning a quite straightforward Greek transliteration of an Aramaic verb into an unlikely transliteration of a Hebrew verb, simply in order to prove that Jesus spoke in Hebrew and not Aramaic. What I'd really like to know is why that is so important as to be worth such linguistic gymnastics.

However, I don't want to mess up anyone's Easter with a debate over languages! I promise not to check this until after Easter, and I hope that you too will feel no obligation to reply until then either.

Blessings,

David

Adelphos
04-11-2009, 03:34 PM
Can you give any other examples where Greek chi represents a Hebrew "glottal or hard stop"? And can you show where that hard stop is in the Hebrew verb under discussion in Ps 22?

Can you show me anywhere else one might find this combination in the book of Matthew?

The speculative nature of your Aramaic assertions -- without a shred of evidence, I might add -- is infinitely more far-fetched than the simple fact that the transliteration sheme matches the Hebrew in accordance with any valid tranliteration scheme.

Adelphos
04-11-2009, 03:42 PM
I might also add, that if you have problem with chi, which, as I said, is perfectly accounted for phonetically, you must also explain how the Theta is reproduced in the Greek instead of Tau, as the Theta recognizes the dagesh in the Hebrew, which a Tau would not, as well as the Alpha recognizing the sheva, and so forth.

Adelphos
04-11-2009, 05:29 PM
One last point...

In modern transliteration schemes, such as from Hebrew to English, we make the EXACT SAME phonetic indictions as in our chi example. The only difference is that we do it with dots or circumflexes or what-have-you, usually below the word.

For example, the Hebrew Tet is usually transliterated as a T with a dot under it. With the Sin we put an S with a small slash above it; with the Shin we put an S with a circumflex above. Et cetera.

This recognition of the phonetic Hebrew is no different than the Greek adding the chi to recognize the phonetic Hebrew.

No different whatsoever.

MGVH
04-11-2009, 07:13 PM
Bezae does provide a very nice rendering of the Hebrew:

ηλει ηλει λαμα ζαφθανει

Adelphos
04-11-2009, 07:26 PM
Bezae does provide a very nice rendering of the Hebrew:

ηλει ηλει λαμα ζαφθανει

That's why Burgon, who collated all of these manuscripts meticuously, categorized Bezae as the most corrupt manuscript extant, followed immediately by Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Here is his quotation --

“Aleph B D are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant: exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with: have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God.” John Burgon, Revision Revised, p 16

And back to the transliteration, the last example I forgot to include is the fact that we, in English, add the letter H to the Hebrew Sin in order to account for the phonetic Hebrew, or we remove the letter H to account for the phonetic Hebrew. We do the same thing with numerous other letters.

Just as we add a letter in English to account for the phonetic Hebrew, so does the Greek. Why it would be permissible to add a letter in English to account for the phonetic Hebrew, but not in Greek, is simply absurd.

BigJayOneill
04-12-2009, 03:50 AM
On the other hand, has anyone noticed the Text within the Psalms Targum?

The Text states the following:
yntqbv hm lwjm yhla 2 yla 1 yhla 2 yla 1 (Psa 22:2 TAR)

It is apparent to me that the word utilized within the Gospels, sabacqani, is derived from the Aramaic yntqbv. Also, the word qbv (to leave or abandon) is found on only 3 occasions within the WTT (Ezr 6:7, Dan 4:12 and 20), which are Aramaic portions of the Scriptures. Notably, the term is common within the Targumim. In sum: sabacqani/ yntqbv is an Aramaic word. (The term could have become a common expression within Second Temple period Israel that was borrowed from Aramaic; nevertheless, it was not "originally" Hebrew.)

Interestingly, the DLZ Hebrew NT agrees with the above. In sum, the author notes that the Aramaic expression ynIT'q.b;v. means ("that is") ynIT'b.z:[, the Hebrew term found within Psalms 22 (Also, this might be a clue that Matthew's Gospel was originally a Hebrew document).


Adelphos... take it easy on me brother! ;)

Can these dry bones live? Rise Rabbi rise!

Adelphos
04-12-2009, 07:54 AM
Adelphos... take it easy on me brother!

Well, the problems here are manifold. First, it is strange that Rashi, who was notable for assigning certain words to the Aramaic, never did so here. Neither did RamBam, or any other Jewish source, that I'm aware of. It is certain that these fellows, Rashi especially, would have scrutinized this passage due to its doctrinal importance, yet none of them ever attributed this word to Aramaic.

Secondly, I have a presuppositional view that the MT Hebrew is older than the Targums. And this can easily be demonstrated. The following link is just one example --

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/veracity_of_the_old_testament.htm

This is much like the case of the LXX back translating Genesis quotations from the New Testament, which is also easily demonstrated. IOW, many of the so-called quotes of the LXX can be shown to have been back translated from the NT, not to have preceded it. And Wilson showed a number of cases where words that were supposed to be Aramaic or Babylonian or what-have-you were not, i.e., that they were even older than original appearance in another language.

I do agree with you that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew and that it was then translated into Greek. That fact only further supports that Jesus quoted directly from the Hebrew. You see, Matthew wrote his Gospel in HEBREW, not Aramaic, thus, his phraseology would have matched the HEBREW of Psalm 22:1(2), not the Aramaic of the Targums.

And finally, and once again, the Greek of Matthew 27:46 is a perfect transliteration of the Hebrew of Psalm 22:1(2), including the vocalization scheme of the sheva.

Conversely, the Aramaic does not occasion a Theta in its transliteration scheme. It produces a Tau when it should have produced a Theta. It also produces a Shin instead of a plain Zayin, and the Greek does not support this either. IOW, the Theta, in particular, in the Greek of Matthew 27:46, should have been a Tau if it was transliterated from the Aramaic, that is, unless one can appropriately assign a dagesh to the Tav in the Aramaic, which I don't know if one can or can't. The Shin is awkward.

Thus, the transliteration of the Hebrew is more accurate than the transliteration of the Aramaic.

To sum up, it is unthinkable to me that Rashi and the others would have missed this, or that Matthew would not have used the Hebrew word instead of the Aramaic, not to mention the problems with dating and methodologies of certain words. As I said before, I have no confidence in the supposed etymologies of Hebrew/Aramaic roots.

Also, the word in our MT Hebrew text is a Hebrew word, not an Aramaic word, and it is clear that this Hebrew word existed during the time of Jesus.

Adelphos
04-12-2009, 08:54 AM
You know, just so you all won't think I'm as thick-skinned as you might think, I will say this...

At the end of the day, all that really matters here is that Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1(2) at the most holy moment in the history of creation. It really doesn't matter what language he spake. All that matters is that he came, and that he did speak, and that he arose and ascended to the Father, and that he is still speaking, and that all who belong to him can hear his voice, as he stated in John 10.

At the end of the day, all that matters is a new creature?


"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." Galatians 6:15


Are you a new creature?


Only new creatures will enter heaven. Only the twice-born.


If you want to know how to be genuinely born again, go to my web page and scroll down to the last paragraph.


By the way, today is my spiritual birthday. I was born again on an Easter Sunday, in my room, all by myself. So can you be, if you're willing.

Adelphos
04-12-2009, 05:29 PM
One more thing here that I took for granted, but let me put it to rest now, and that is those who might think that the qof in the Aramaic supports an Aramaic transliteration. It doesn't. While a cursory glance at the gof may seem to support an Aramaic transliteration, the gof is in fact absolutely, utterly FATAL to an Aramaic transliteration.

The proper transliteration of the qof is KAPPA NOT CHI. The Chi compensates for the ach sound in the HEBREW, whereas there is NO ach sound in the Aramaic qof here. None whatsoever.

The Beta-Alpha-Chi-Theta is a PERFECT transliteration of the Bet-Sheva-Tav-dagesh in the HEBREW (properly compensating for the ach sound and the dagesh in the Tav), whereas a Beta-Alpha-Kappa-Tau (no ach sound and no dagesh in the Aramaic Tav) is the proper transliteration of the ARAMAIC.

Notice the difference. Again, the PROPER transliteration of the qof is KAPPA, NOT CHI.

When you couple this with the fact that the rest of the Aramaic has virtually no bearing to the Greek in Matthew 27:46 WHATSOEVER, the assertion that the Greek of Matthew 27:46 was transliterated from the Aramaic becomes absurd.

In a nutshell, the Greek of Matthew 27:46 is a PERFECT transliteration of the HEBREW of Psalm 22:2, whereas the Greek of Matthew 27:46 is a HORRENDOUS transliteration of the ARAMAIC. Absolutely, utterly HORRENDOUS.

Add all the other evidence to this, such as the fact that Hebrew was the main language of Palestine at the time, that Greek appears to be far and away the secondary language, with Aramaic running a distant third (if that), as well as numerous other categories that could be entertained, such as a demonstration of a Hebrew Matthew (although neither of these things is necessary to show the fatality of an Aramaic transliteration of Matthew 27:46, as just demonstrated), and so on, the SPECULATIONS with no actual evidence becomes nothing more than delusions.

As I said, it really doesn't matter what language Jesus spoke, but facts are facts, and no one should be afraid to present them.

There is not a SHRED of viable evidence that the Greek of Matthew 27:46 was transliterated from the Aramaic, whereas the absolute PREPONDERANCE of evidence points CLEARLY to the Greek of Matthew 27:46 being transliterated from the HEBREW.

BigJayOneill
04-12-2009, 08:45 PM
By the way, today is my spiritual birthday. I was born again on an Easter Sunday, in my room, all by myself. So can you be, if you're willing.

Adelphos,

Happy birthday!

;)

Adelphos
04-12-2009, 08:58 PM
Adelphos,

Happy birthday!;)

Toda Raba! Sas Eucharisto para poli, Kurie!

n4ndo1986
04-13-2009, 10:01 AM
HEY!! i was wondering if someone could help me with a english to hebrew translation, it would be of great great help: "Everything has its beauty but not everyone can see it" it's from CONFUCIUS. Thanks!!

BigJayOneill
04-14-2009, 12:21 AM
Toda Raba! Sas Eucharisto para poli, Kurie!

You're welcome.
:)

As for the Hebrew request:

I think Adelphos is a HUGE fan of Confucius. He might be able to help you.;)

Adelphos
04-14-2009, 12:34 AM
I think Adelphos is a HUGE fan of Confucius. He might be able to help you.;)

The Greek is easier to type, so let me do it in Greek. Here you go...

O Ihsouj Cristoj estin h odoj kai h alhqeia kai h zwh) oudeij ercetai proj ton patera ei mh dia autou) ;)

BigJayOneill
04-14-2009, 06:49 PM
The Greek is easier to type, so let me do it in Greek. Here you go...

O Ihsouj Cristoj estin h odoj kai h alhqeia kai h zwh) oudeij ercetai proj ton patera ei mh dia autou) ;)


:D!

I was expecting John 3:16 from you Adelphos... but I was close.

Just when I thought I had you figured out!

Adelphos
04-14-2009, 07:33 PM
I was expecting John 3:16 from you Adelphos... but I was close.

You mean instead of Isaiah 45:22? :cool: Incidentally, that's Spurgeon's saving verse, i.e., your Hebrew quotation. A brief account of Spurgeon's salvation can be found here -- http://www.lamblion.net/Quotations/Q_Testimonies/spurgeon_testimony.htm

BigJayOneill
04-15-2009, 12:30 AM
You mean instead of Isaiah 45:22? :cool: Incidentally, that's Spurgeon's saving verse, i.e., your Hebrew quotation. A brief account of Spurgeon's salvation can be found here -- http://www.lamblion.net/Quotations/Q_Testimonies/spurgeon_testimony.htm

Wow,

I did not know the Spurgeon connection. It is pretty impressive that you know this. It has been a long while since I read anything related to C.H.S. However, I did attend classes at a Spurgeon Baptist Bible college while working on my undergrad. On the other hand, I lasted only one semester there and finished working on my other degrees at a seminary in St. Petersburg, FLA. Thus, I have lost any claim of familiarity with the great preacher C.H. Spurgeon!

I have chosen the Isaiah verse because of its strong monotheistic proclamation and its gracious call of G-d's love to all the nations.

Also, I think the Text is Aramaic. (Ha Ha Ha :))

Be well Adelphos!

Adelphos
04-15-2009, 12:40 AM
Also, I think the Text is Aramaic.

That's because you went to bible college! :rolleyes:

BigJayOneill
04-15-2009, 01:10 AM
That's because you went to bible college! :rolleyes:

Ha! You could be right!

I once heard someone say that seminary should be called cemetery. They believed that to much learning "killed" the spirit.

However, while paraphrasing the great rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, I would suggest that study is vitally important: "When we pray, we speak to G-d; while we study, G-d speaks to us."

Adelphos
04-15-2009, 01:43 AM
However, while paraphrasing the great rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, I would suggest that study is vitally important: "When we pray, we speak to G-d; while we study, G-d speaks to us."

With all due respect, God speaks to me in prayer just as surely as I breathe air. Even more surely, actually.

There is no greater school, and no greater learning, than the school and the pedagogue of "pray without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17) ... assuming one is genuinely born again, of course, for until the Holy Spirit teaches one TO pray, and teaches one IN prayer, there is no genuinely fruitful learning.

Most will scoff at this word of Tozer, but every single person on this planet who is genuinely born again -- there are absolutely no exceptions whatsoever -- knows exactly what he's talking about...

"A revelation of the Holy Spirit in one glorious flash of inward illumination would teach you more of Jesus than five years in a theological seminary." A. W. Tozer, The Tozer Pulpit, Vol II

As Bunyan rightly said, there are multitudes who say "Our Father" in prayer every day who have absolutely no clue what those words mean.

Indeed, there are very FEW who truly know what those words really mean, which is why Jesus warned...

"Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and FEW there be that find it." Matthew 7:14

That's why every man and woman ought to examine themselves, and see whether they be in the faith. As Spurgeon said...

"Men are not born again when they are in bed and asleep, so that they do not know it. They FEEL it, they EXPERIENCE it. Galvinism, or the power of electricity, may be mysterious, but they produce a feeling, a sensation. So does the new birth." C. H. Spurgeon, MTC, Vol I, The Victory Of Faith

The world is going to be shocked on the day of judgment when it finds out that Jesus said exactly what he meant, and that he meant exactly what he said.

"It hath been the astonishing wonder of many a man, as well as me, to read in the holy Scripture, how FEW will be saved, and that the greatest part of even of those that are called will be everlastingly shut out of the kingdom of heaven, and tormented with the devils in eternal fire." Richard Baxter, A Call To The Unconverted

"When men have put in all the claim they can for heaven, but FEW will have it for their inheritance." John Bunyan, The Strait Gate

"Duty obliges us, and the holy Scriptures warrant us, to assure you that there are very FEW who shall be saved; that the whole world lieth in wickedness; and that it is a little flock to whom the Father will give the kingdom." Henry Scougal, There Are But A Small Number Saved

"Those who pretend a great difficulty at present, in reconciling the eternal perishing of the greatest part of mankind with those notions we have of the divine goodness, seem not to have sufficiently considered what was contained in our original apostasy from God, nor the righteousness of God in dealing with the angels that sinned... Wherefore, as we ought always to admire sovereign grace in the FEW that shall be saved, so we have no ground to reflect on divine goodness in the multitude that perish, especially considering that they all voluntarily continue in their sin and apostasy." John Owen, Christologia

So all the learning in the world will avail nothing if it doesn't begin and end in the New Birth.

"For many are called, but FEW are chosen." Jesus Christ, Matthew 22:14

BigJayOneill
04-15-2009, 02:17 AM
"A revelation of the Holy Spirit in one glorious flash of inward illumination would teach you more of Jesus than five years in a theological seminary." A. W. Tozer, The Tozer Pulpit, Vol II


How much better would one be if he/ she had both the "inward illumination" AND five years (or more!) of learning in a theological seminary? Would this be better? There is always more to learn.

Adelphos
04-15-2009, 12:36 PM
"A revelation of the Holy Spirit in one glorious flash of inward illumination would teach you more of Jesus than five years in a theological seminary." A. W. Tozer, The Tozer Pulpit, Vol II


How much better would one be if he/ she had both the "inward illumination" AND five years (or more!) of learning in a theological seminary? Would this be better? There is always more to learn.

Nothing wrong with learning if it ends and begins in the New Birth and has as its end the glorification of Jesus Christ.

DavidR
04-16-2009, 03:29 PM
One more thing here that I took for granted, but let me put it to rest now, and that is those who might think that the qof in the Aramaic supports an Aramaic transliteration. It doesn't. While a cursory glance at the gof may seem to support an Aramaic transliteration, the gof is in fact absolutely, utterly FATAL to an Aramaic transliteration.

The proper transliteration of the qof is KAPPA NOT CHI. The Chi compensates for the ach sound in the HEBREW, whereas there is NO ach sound in the Aramaic qof here. None whatsoever.

The Beta-Alpha-Chi-Theta is a PERFECT transliteration of the Bet-Sheva-Tav-dagesh in the HEBREW (properly compensating for the ach sound and the dagesh in the Tav), whereas a Beta-Alpha-Kappa-Tau (no ach sound and no dagesh in the Aramaic Tav) is the proper transliteration of the ARAMAIC.

Notice the difference. Again, the PROPER transliteration of the qof is KAPPA, NOT CHI.

When you couple this with the fact that the rest of the Aramaic has virtually no bearing to the Greek in Matthew 27:46 WHATSOEVER, the assertion that the Greek of Matthew 27:46 was transliterated from the Aramaic becomes absurd.

In a nutshell, the Greek of Matthew 27:46 is a PERFECT transliteration of the HEBREW of Psalm 22:2, whereas the Greek of Matthew 27:46 is a HORRENDOUS transliteration of the ARAMAIC. Absolutely, utterly HORRENDOUS.

I'm sorry I've been away from this so long. The celebration of Easter and the non-celebration (but mandatory filing) of U.S. income taxes have intervened. And a belated happy spiritual birthday to Adelphos!

I apologize too for the length of the quote above, but I thought it might help get back into the topic. I'm going to say what I have to say about this, and then leave it, since it seems clear that neither Adelphos nor I can persuade the other. I also want to avoid contentious words like "speculation," "horrendous," "absurd," and "delusion." I know a fair amount of both Aramaic and Hebrew, as well as something about linguistics, and I am not spectulating.

Let me start by simply getting the words in question in front of us, copying them from BW, and adding phonetic transliterations, using ch=Gk chi, th=Gk theta, (=Heb ayin, sh=Aram shin, bh=Heb and Aram beth without dagesh; the rest should be self-evident. I have not indicated vowel lengths in the transliteration; the Aramaic vowel lengths, at least, would be somewhat uncertain.

Matt 27:46: sabacqani = sabachthani
Ps 22:2 MT Hebrew: ynIT"b.z:[] = (azabhtani
Ps 22:2 Targum Aramaic: yntqbv = shabhaqtani

The obvious similarity of sabachthani and shabhaqtani pretty much jump out at one; but this in itself is not proof.

WRT ancient transliteration, Gk writers tried to use a one-letter-to-one-letter system; unlike us in English, they did not, say, use two letters to represent shin. Thus, taking it consonant by consonant in the Gk:

s, Gk sigma, was commonly used to represent shin, since it was as close as Gk could get; for example: Ierousalhm = ~ŘIl;v'Wry>. But sigma had to do double duty, since Heb has more sibilants than Gk: it also was used to represent tsadi: Siwn = !AYci. (See, e.g., Ps 51:18 [MT 51:20; LXX 50:20] for both words in the same verse.) However, sigma alone is not used to transliterate Heb zayin; note Dan 1:6: Ananiaj Misahl Azariaj = hy"r>z:[]w: laev'ymi hy"n>n:x]. Here sigma represents the shin in Mishael, while zeta is used for the zayin in (azaryah. That last name is esp. instructive: it begins with ayin-zayin, just like (azabhtani in Ps 22:2, and the Gk uses nothing to represent the ayin (a sound unavailable in Gk), but it does represent the vowel between ayin and zayin with an alpha. If the Gk of Matt 27:46 was based on the Heb of Ps 22:2, we would expect to see a word starting with az-, not s- (something like azabqani).

b, Gk beta, = Heb or Aram b, beth, on any consideration. Gk has no mechanism to represent whether the beth was spirantized (without dagesh) or not.

c, Gk chi, seems to be the main bone of contention. One would indeed rather see k, kappa, for Aramaic q, qof; so, for instance Judg 4:9: meta. tou/ Barak eivj Kedej = hv'd>q< qr"B'-~[i. There are two points to consider, however. (1) If sabacqani does represent yntqbv, we have a qof immediately preceding a tau, with no vowel (not even a vocal sheva) in between. This could have affected a transliteration into Gk. And in fact, I found one example of precisely this situation: Josh 15:38, where Iecqahl = laet.q.y". Here too a Gk transliterator is trying to represent qof-tau, and comes up with chi-theta, exactly as in Matt 27:46. (2) On the other hand, there simply is no "ach sound" in the Hebrew ynIT"b.z:[] = (azabhtani at all. You keep saying that there is one, but where is it? The sheva under the beth certainly is not it; that's a "silent" sheva, simply indicating the end of a syllable -- which is why there's a dagesh in the tau that follows it. (An actual "ach" sound, i.e., a cheth, would likely not be represented in Greek, which had no corresponding sound -- see the example of Ananiaj = hy"n>n:x] in Dan 1:6, quoted above.)

q, Gk theta, would represent exactly the same thing in a transliteration of either ynIT"b.z:[] or yntqbv: a tau with dagesh at the beginning of a syllable (i.e., following a "closed" syllable, marked by the preceding "silent" sheva). Theta is generally used to transliterate tau (with or without dagesh), e.g., Judg 10:1, Qwla = [l'AT; Judg 9:5, Iwaqam = ~t'Ay.

n, Gk nu, also represents n, Heb or Aram nun, in either case. In fact, the last two syllables, qani, would equate to either Heb or Aram ynIT".

The study of ancient Gk transliterations of Heb and Aram is pretty complex, since there was no fully consistent system, at least as I understand it. It's always possible to find exceptions. But I believe that what I've written above represents the most likely way of understanding what is behind sabacqani in Matt 27:46, backed up by actual examples (not speculations).

One last thought, on a topic that came up during the thread: I also believe that God speaks to us in prayer; but I don't believe that the Holy Spirit is at all afraid to enter the library and the study! Interpretation is a complex process, involving the mind (which is why we have BibleWorks!), the spirit, and the heart, and for myself, I try to listen for what God is saying with all three. (Sometimes I actually quit talking long enough to hear!)

This is really all the time I have to spare for this conversation, I'm afraid, so Adelphos, the last word is yours.

Adelphos
04-16-2009, 05:22 PM
One last thought, on a topic that came up during the thread: I also believe that God speaks to us in prayer; but I don't believe that the Holy Spirit is at all afraid to enter the library and the study! Interpretation is a complex process, involving the mind (which is why we have BibleWorks!), the spirit, and the heart, and for myself, I try to listen for what God is saying with all three. (Sometimes I actually quit talking long enough to hear!)

I'll be short.

The "one" example you gave in Joshua 15:38 only weakens your argument, not supports it, as an understanding of the dynamics of the LXX and confusion of the LXX (notable here as well as many other places) only reveals. Not only is the LXX notoriously and demonstrably corrupt in its Greek in countless -- and I mean countless places -- but the corruption of the Greek does not negate a valid transliteration scheme, which the scribe of Matthew clearly and demonstrably followed, nor does the Greek in the LXX here even agree. You may find it convenient to pick and choose which Greek form you want, but corruption and confusion doesn't affect the veracity of a valid transliteration scheme.

And as I said, the corruption of the Greek in the MSS of our current LXX is notorious. In the NT alone in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, there are grammatical and philological blunders in approximately every third verse (or slightly less) and this sort of corruption carries over into the LXX as well. And since I have personally collated these and other MSS in the NT, I know what I'm saying. Of course, my statement simply agrees with others who have likewise collated these depraved witnesses as well, such as Burgon and Hoskier, whose collations I have also studied. In short, the scribes of these manuscripts were utter ignoramuses in Greek. That is not debatable.

Nor can the rest of the quotation of the Greek of Matthew even remotely be made to fit the Aramaic, whereas, as I have stated before, the Greek of Matthew 47:46 is a PERFECT transliteration of the HEBREW of Psalm 22:2, including the vocal sheva. That is simply a fact in evidence whether you care to acknowledge it or not. Add all the other EVIDENCE (as opposed to SPECULATION) to that, such as the DSS, other historical facts, and so forth, and the case is conclusive.

To sum up, ALL you have in place of actual EVIDENCE is pure, unadulterated SPECULATION. You cannot provide a scintilla of actual evidence to back up your assertion about Aramaic primacy and Aramaic transliteration, whereas the ACTUAL EVIDENCE is overwhelmingly contrary to you. Of course, you can SPECULATE all you want, but don't ever try to mount a military operation on your SPECULATIONS because nobody will come back alive. This same amateurish and erroneous praxis is what produced the Critical Text and modern "bibles".

Lastly, with regard to your quotation above, it seems that you all want to infer a position to me that I have never stated, nor can you provide a quotation by me to substantiate such an inference, and that is simply this... I have never repudiated study. All I have ever said is that study has its place, and once again, the FACT is, like it or not, study that doesn't begin and end in the New Birth, and that doesn't have as its end the glorification of Jesus Christ, is not only utterly vain, but is an abomination in the eyes of God, and there is not a genuinely born again Christian on this planet who would disagree with that. Not one.

And finally, your very last statement above, again without entering into a dissertation, I would simply say in response that, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:20-21


Interpretation is not complex nor is it private. Interpretation is REVELATORY. That doesn't mean we don't pray and study, but it does mean that we do not rely on our own organs for the interpretation. Rather, we apply ourselves and rely on the Holy Spirit to REVEAL the matter to us. Any other method is vain. And that assumes a genuine New Birth, which very, very FEW who profess to be Christians can offer.


Of course, as I said before, there are multitudes who THINK they understand the Scriptures, but who are in fact clueless. That's why the Holy Spirit by the mouth of Paul stated that no one can understand the Scriptures but by the Holy Spirit. The multitudes who think they can understand the Scriptures will be confronted with their delusion soon enough.


At the end of the day, however, the born again Christian interprets Scripture the same way it was originally given, and any other method of interpretation is false, and is an arm of the flesh. Once again I quote Tozer, and be it known that Tozer wasn't speaking hyperbolically in the following quotation, nor is there a genuinely born again Christian on this planet who not only would not disagree with this statement of Tozer, but likewise there is not a genuinely born again Christian on this planet who hasn't experienced exactly what Tozer says...


"To understand a Bible text it takes an act of the Holy Spirit equal to the act that inspired the text in the first place. A revelation of the Holy Spirit in one glorious flash of inward illumination would teach you more of Jesus than five years in a theological seminary." The Tozer Pulpit, Vol II


If that isn't the very EXPERIENCE of anyone reading this post, then you need to be born again.


By the way, David R, I see you are in Atlanta. I'm in Marietta. Starbucks sometime?

Adelphos
04-16-2009, 06:46 PM
Since I wrote so briefly in the previous post and thus everything is so basic, let me add this and then I'm done with it...

The Greek of the Textus Receputs, SCR in BibleWorks, is altogether different than the Greek of the Critical Text based on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, GNT in BibleWorks. Thus, it's really like comparing apples and oranges.

The Greek of the TR shows supreme quality whereas the Greek of the CT is perverse, to say the least, and in the very manuscripts themselves the Greek is not even REMOTELY comparable, for the CT had to leave Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, et al, in multitudes upon multitudes of places in order to prevent complete nonesense. See the bottom of my article for an example. Scroll down to the words, "Here's how it shakes out..."

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/which_is_in_heaven1.htm

Thus, the transliteration scheme must be viewed accordingly.

Imagine asking someone who was a complete novice in Greek to compete with an expert in Greek in transliterating a portion of Greek to English, or Hebrew to Greek, or what-have-you.

That's what we're dealing with here. The scribes of the manuscripts of the TR knew Greek. The scribes of the manuscripts of the CT didn't.

While the Greek is the same in both texts in Matthew 27:46, nevertheless the scribes of the LXX that we possess today in Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus (i.e., in the very same manuscripts that the CT is based on in the NT) were novices in Greek, thus using them for ANY type of benchmark is bad science. Even though I can make a good case for my position from the LXX, it's bad science.

The actual evidence, taken in part or in whole, is utterly destructive of an Aramaic transliteration. The actual evidence, taken in part or in whole, is perfectly in line with a Hebrew transliteration.

I'm done with it.

BigJayOneill
04-16-2009, 07:32 PM
Adelphos,

My zealous friend, you are providing a lot of information. However, the solution seems simple. Which of the following Semitic words is most likely the source for the term sabacqani: ynIT'q.b;v or ynIT'b.z:[? CLEARLY, sabacqani looks more like ynIT'q.b;v than ynIT'b.z:[. Notably, while one must make some cleaver "clarifications" in order to achieve their transliteration theory, the first term is an exact transliteration.

I know of many scholars, who uphold the view that the Gospels have a Hebrew foundation/ original, that believe that Jesus is utilizing an Aramaic term for "forsaken me".

I appreciate your zeal for the faith. However, I have to be honest with you, to suggest that one is not "born again", while suggesting that you are one of the few who is truly saved, is totally out of line. Furthermore, justification for such a view comes from a desire to be superior, at some level, over another person. This behavior is not performed by a person who is motivated by love or G-dly concern for one's neighbor; rather, these actions come from the darker places of ones heart and the sinful inclination. Such actions are not edifying but destructive.

In addition, the BibleWorks community is a scholarly one. Thus, there are going to be theological perspectives and views that do not agree with one's personal view of orthodoxy. Thus, there needs to be a atmosphere of tolerance and respect.

Personally, I, as a "born-again" believer in Jesus, love worshiping, studying and spending time with my Jewish scholars/ friends. Also, I am working on a PhD in Judaism and value the divinely inspired Jewish theological perspective (s). Thus, I reject your view, as well as the self-educated A.W. Tozer, rejecting the validity or qualifications of the learned person who is a "non-born again".

BTW- much of the above are lessons that I have had to learn myself!

Adelphos
04-16-2009, 08:02 PM
My zealous friend, you are providing a lot of information. However, the solution seems simple. Which of the following Semitic words is most likely the source for the term sabacqani: ynIT'q.b;v or ynIT'b.z:[? CLEARLY, sabacqani looks more like ynIT'q.b;v than ynIT'b.z:[. Notably, while one must make some cleaver "clarifications" in order to achieve their transliteration theory, the first term is an exact transliteration.

You've added points to the Aramaic, and even then the Shin is not exact. I've explained the scheme previously. Also, the rest of the Aramaic would make an absurd transliteration. Thus, you are pulling one word and forcing your interpretation on that one word while turning a blind eye to the remainder of the text. The fact is, the Greek of Matthew 27:46 CLEARLY matches the HEBREW of Psalm 22:2 in its entirety, including this ONE word which is a perfectly acceptable transliteration. Conversely, you reject the entire scheme based on the POSSIBILITY that this ONE word doesn't fit your specs.



I know of many scholars, who uphold the view that the Gospels have a Hebrew foundation/ original, that believe that Jesus is utilizing an Aramaic term for "forsaken me".

Arguments from authority carry no weight whatsoever. Many scholars also believed Jesus Christ was a heretic. The vast majority of the scholars believed that, in fact. I'm not impressed, especially when I see how they've handled other areas of the text.



I appreciate your zeal for the faith. However, I have to be honest with you, to suggest that one is not "born again", while suggesting that you are one of the few who is truly saved, is totally out of line.... In addition, the BibleWorks community is a scholarly one. Thus, there are going to be theological perspectives and views that do not agree with one's personal view of orthodoxy. Thus, there needs to be a atmosphere of tolerance and respect.

Then why aren't you tolerant of my view on the New Birth?

Moreover, if I took your advice and didn't state that there are FEW saved, FEW born again, then I would have to contradict Jesus Christ and a whole host of Christians throughout the centuries, all of whom stated the exact same thing.


Furthermore, justification for such a view comes from a desire to be superior, at some level, over another person. This behavior is not performed by a person who is motivated by love or G-dly concern for one's neighbor; rather, these actions come from the darker places of ones heart and the sinful inclination. Such actions are not edifying but destructive.

Once again, to follow your view I would have to contradict Jesus Christ who warned of hell more than all the other Bible persons combined. Jesus had no desire to appear superior in his warnings and neither do I or others who have warned of the same thing. You have misinterpreted my warnings just as Jesus' warnings were misinterpreted by those of the flesh ("who makest thyself" said the Pharisees), and just as the warnings of Paul were misinterpreted by those of the flesh (a "troublemaker"), and just as the warnings of the people I quoted in the previous posts who said the same thing as me about the FEW that are born again were misinterpreted.

Are you greater than John Bunyan who stated that very, very FEW of those who professed to be born again were actually so? Or Whitefield? Or Baxter? Or Edwards? Ad Infinitum? Nor was Tozer "self-educated" as you assert. He was a seminary graduate.

You are more than welcome to reject my statements and to castigate me for them if you like, but your right to state your views is no greater than mine.

If you don't think the Holy Spirit operates in the manner that I and a whole host of others have described, then one of us is FATALLY deceived. It's really that simple.

You are welcome to present your views till the cows come home. I will continue to present mine, and all that's left is to see who the Holy Spirit bears witness to by effecting the MIRACLE of the New Birth as we testify of our respective positions, such as he did in Acts 10, for example, when he, the Holy Spirit, fell on people while Peter yet spake, as I have also witnessed the Holy Spirit fall on people as I yet spake, as have others, such as the men I've quoted above.

So I'll continue to warn people that Jesus meant what he said when he stated that FEW find the road to life, that FEW are chosen, and many other such like.

I have found Jesus Christ HIMSELF bearing witness to that doctrine by his Spirit, just as in Acts 10.

Adelphos
04-16-2009, 08:26 PM
Let me just add, so there's no misunderstanding on this point, at least, that I fully expect my statements to arouse the ire of the VAST, VAST, VAST majority of those who read these posts. I expect it now, and I expected it when I wrote them. I've been doing this for a LONG time.

That's why I also know that there are a FEW -- and ONLY a FEW -- who find eternal benefit in these statements of mine, and blessed are those who do.

BigJayOneill
04-16-2009, 10:37 PM
No problem; thanks for sharing.

May you be blessed in all that you do in your service for the King.

Adelphos
04-17-2009, 01:33 AM
I'm sure you're excited in the prospect of obtaining your PhD. Only you and the Lord Jesus know for what end you seek this, and even then, you don't know your own motives even remotely as well as Jesus Christ does. Nor do I. No man does.

Only know this...

This life is a wisp... Eternity is neverending, and the fruit that is of this world will be condemned by Jesus Christ in the end. Moreover, we live in unique times. I am very confident that you will have very little time to use your PhD once you receive it, for the return of Jesus Christ is imminent. Great tribulation is coming upon this world soon -- could be a few weeks, could be several years, even long enough to make people think it's not coming at all -- but it's coming soon, with the subsequent return of Jesus Christ in glory to follow.

I'm not claiming that you should give up your quest for the PhD, but the quest for your PhD is relatively unimportant compared to the overriding issue of regeneration.

Thus, every person who has not proof of the New Birth should take heed, because Jesus Christ doesn't come at the sinner's beck and call. Jesus Christ dictates the season of saving faith (supernatural faith), not the sinner.

The following will be the case of all who have a form of godliness but deny the POWER thereof in the New Birth, which is the very RESURRECTION POWER of Jesus Christ...

"Thus all you that never passed under a great change of heart, by the mighty power of the Spirit of God upon your souls; all you that were never born again, and made new creatures, and raised from being dead in sin, to a state of new, and before altogether unexperienced light and life, are in the hands of an angry God." Jonathan Edwards, Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God

If that is your case, whoever you are, (and being dishonest with yourself now will only harden you further, even though you don't know it, for being dishonest with yourself often causes God to visit you with judicial blindness, and then your case is more grievous than you can possibly conceive), so if this is your case, whoever you are, then your time is short, and you should follow this advice from John Bunyan...

"He that believeth the Scriptures to be the Word of God, believeth that men must be born again, and also be partakers of that faith which is of the operation of God, according as he hath read and believed, or else he must and shall be damned. And he that believeth this aright will not be contented until, according as it is written, he do partake of and enjoy the new birth, and until he do find, through grace, that faith that is wrought by the operation of God in his soul. For this is the cause why men do satisfy themselves with so slender a conceited hope that their state is good, when it is nothing so, namely, because they do not credit the Scripture; for did they, they would look into their own hearts, and examine seriously whether that faith, that hope, that grace which they think they have be of that nature, and wrought by that Spirit and power that the Scripture speaketh of. I speak this of an effectual believing, without which all other is nothing unto salvation." John Bunyan, A Few Sighs From Hell