The Liberal Catholic Church
A tri-annual magazine exploring the deeper aspects of religious thought,
experience and practice in the world today
|
|
|
Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani Remco Robinson , The Netherlands
Doubting the validity of her comments I researched the subject at the theological faculty of the University of Nijmegen, where I am reading theology. My New Testament professor, Prof. Dr. S. van Tilborg explained to me that the words "Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani" are a quotation from Psalm 22. In Hebrew it says: Eli, Eli, lama azaftani. A correct translation of these words is "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me." But the quotation in Matthew says sabachtani, not azaftani. Did Matthew make a mistake? The word sabachtani is a conjugation of a verb. Sabachtani comes from the infinitive sabach. Sabachta is the second person singular of the tense "qatal", which is something like our present perfect. In Semitic languages the object of a verb is attached to the end of the verb. To sabachta you would add the object: "-i", which means "me". In Semitic languages you can not connect two vowels to one another, so an extra "n" is required making it sabachta-n-i. With azaftani the same rule applies. Azaftani is Hebrew. The verb is azaf. Azaf means to forsake. The verb sabach, meaning to exalt, also exists in the Hebrew language. But there is one problem: the Hebrew sabach is conjugated differently. It would be sibachtani in stead of sabachtani.. So sabachtani is not Hebrew. What language is it then? When Matthew wrote his gospel, he used a lot of elements from the gospel of Mark. Mark 15;34 says "Eloļ, Eloļ, lama sabachtani". Eloļ isn’t Hebrew either, but Aramaic. It means my God. So perhaps the verb sabachtani is Aramaic as well. In the Targum, the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew bible, Psalm 22 reads "Eloļ, Eloļ, metoel mah sabachtani". This is the original translation of the Hebrew "Eli, Eli, lama azaftani", which means "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me". But why didn’t Mark use the whole Aramaic version instead of just the first two words and the last one? To explain this, we should realise that Mark probably did not speak Hebrew. In the first century AD very few Jews spoke Hebrew. In the synagogue the people, who read the scriptures for the community, read them in Hebrew and translated them directly into Aramaic, the main language of Palestine in that period. Mark had heard that verse when the reader translated it to the community. When he wrote his gospel, he did not have a written Hebrew or Aramaic bible with him to quote from. He quoted from what he knew by heart. The result is a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic. We should also realise that Hebrew and Aramaic are as closely related to each other as Dutch and German. It does not take much to make a mixture of these languages. The words "Eloļ, Eloļ, lama sabachtani" are therefore probably a mixture of Aramaic and Hebrew quotations. When Matthew used Mark’s gospel he also used his quotation. He only changed Eloļ into the Hebrew version Eli. It is assumed that he wanted to make it sound more like Eli, the prophet. This is why I am of the opinion that these words do not have a mystical, Egyptian origin, but are quoted from Psalm 22. There are more verses quoted from this psalm in the account of the crucifixion, e.g. Matt 27;35 and 27;39. The evangelist wanted the reader to think of this psalm when reading these verses. The beginning of Psalm 22 is an exclamation of despair. It starts with "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me". But the psalm ends with trust in God. Although the situation is desperate now, God will save us eventually. For Jesus the situation was desperate too, but He also puts His trust in God. Everything will be all right. Jesus might die now, but He will rise in glory. This is, I think, the message the evangelist wanted to give by using this quotation. There are also biblical scientists who think that these words are historical. According to professor Van Tilborg there are not enough arguments for or against this thesis. It does not seem strange that Jesus, who knew the Scriptures and was in despair, prayed this psalm. The verse has always raised the question: Why did the Son of God feel forsaken by His God. Is the Son not one with the Father? Mrs. Blavatsky proposed a solution for this problem, but I believe her translation to be incorrect. To me the understanding that it refers to the intention of Psalm 22 is a more reasonable explanation of this verse than the one given by her. Editor’s note:As was the case when H.P. Blavatsky made the commentary referred to above, modern day science is still not able to prove for 100% that the crucifixion actually took place, leave alone determine with accuracy the actual words that are said to have been spoken during this event. Many still believe that Jesus was stoned, not crucified and many hold as earlier, as much as 100 years earlier, the time of His death. For the Liberal Catholic searching for the hidden meaning in the scriptures, however, there remains the remarkable similarity between the account of the crucifixion and one of the ultimate initiatory rites of Egyptian times, inasmuch these are known to us. Again quoting HPB: "And if we are asked the reason why the early Church Fathers resorted to falsification, the answer is plain: Because the sacramental words belonged in their true rendering to Pagan temple rites. They were pronounced after the terrible trials of initiation, and were still in the memory of some of the ‘Fathers’ when the gospel of Matthew was edited into the Greek language. Because, finally, many of the Hierophants of the Mysteries, and many more of the Initiates were still living in those days, the sentence rendered in its true words would class Jesus directly with the simple Initiates. The words ‘My God, my Sun, thou hast poured thy radiance upon me!’ were the final words that concluded the thanksgiving prayer of the Initiate, ‘the Son and the glorified Elect of the Sun’." [quoted from H.J. Spierenburg‘s compilation: The New Testament Commentaries of H.P. Blavatsky] |
|