by Beans 14 Replies latest watchtower bible
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
=
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?
Does this make any sense?
The author of Matthew had a singular agenda to "uncover" OT "prophecy" for his Savior to fullfill. The writer utilized jewish midrashic license to stretch the meaning of a great many texts.
Well, Beans, have you tried doing some research on the subject? No, I don't mean in the WT Publications Index either! But some Bible commentaries.
Try ones a good deal more reliable than that influencing peacefulpete with his comment "Matthew had a singular agenda to "uncover" OT "prophecy" for his Savior to fullfill. The writer utilized jewish midrashic license to stretch the meaning of a great many texts". That comment overlooks the fact that Matthew's account parallels the account in Mark's Gospel.
So what was the reason for the words? My NIV Study Bible has this note on Mark 15:34 : "The words were spoken in Aramaic (but with some Hebrew characteristics), one of the languages commonly spoken in Palestine in Jesus' day. They reveal how deeply Jesus felt his abandonment by God as he bore the sins of mankind."
I might add to this that Jesus knew he would be "forsaken" in the sense of being separated from his Father for the three days and nights he was in the grave.
Cheers, Ozzie
So Ozzie you have references "a good deal more reliable than those influencing" me. You have no idea what you are saying. Which reference works am I using? And no, my comment does not overlook the (edited) Markan textural indebtedness to Matthew. Do you subscribe to traditional Markan primacy or the newer Matthean? Why?
It requires faith which ever source you believe in. Obviously, peacefulpete has more confidence in the writings of the higher critics and unbelievers. In contrast, ozziepost prefers the Bible Commentators and scholars who still believe in the Bible as "God's Word."
The higher critics seem to have certain goals in mind: To "debunk" the Bible and to destroy the faith of Christian believers. On the other hand, the Bible commentators want to build faith and to help explain some of the difficulties found in Scripture.
The author of the book of Matthew frequently quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures to show how Jesus fulfilled Bible prophecy. Jesus had to be "abandoned" by his father to suffer a sacrificial death for all mankind. Jesus must have known the rest of the Psalm that foretold: "For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help." Verse 24
MIZPAH...Actually I have no "faith" in any interprtation of history or the Bible. Rather I have honestly evaluated the evidence and had to conceed that my childish views of ancient history and religion were blinding me. Your typical mischaracterization of bibical scholarship as driven by negative goals and destructive aims makes you look ignorant. This very field of study (textual refinement/criticism of the 19th and 20th centuries) has produced the very Bible you cherish. Do you appreciate the work these hard working scholars did despite the pressure from religionists to allow the corruptions of the text they identified to remain? Do you not enjoy having textbooks with the most accurate and up-to-date descriptions of the ancient past? Why then do you now speak disparagingly about the results that honest research has produced? I know you are an intellegent person by your language skills, so why do you not live up to your potential and begin reading to understand what is being discussed and debated in real scholarly circles. BTW most Bible commentaries accept Markan primacy and the methods of textual criticism used to conclude this.
This very field of study (textual refinement/criticism of the 19th and 20th centuries) has produced the very Bible you cherish.
The textual refinement/critism that has produced the more recent Bible versions is that primarily of "lower critism." which deals with manuscript evidence, citations from early fathers, etc. in order to try to determine the most accurate translations of Biblical books. Wheras "higher critism" is much more speculative.
| The American Heritage ® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. |
| higher criticism |
| SYLLABICATION: | high·er criticism | ||||||||||
| PRONUNCIATION: | h   r | ||||||||||
| NOUN: | Critical study of biblical texts to ascertain their literary origins and history and the meaning and intention of the authors. | ||||||||||
| OTHER FORMS: | higher critic ? NOUN
|
Hooberus, your comment is in part correct. However, as often is the case with definitions and efforts to lable intellectual activity, the lines between lower and higher criticism are blurred. They are in fact only shades of the same color. Where as the magority of the NT master text is arrived at by comparing extent manuscripts (lower criticism) ,higher criticism is used to determine which likely represents a more original form when variation and interpolation is observed. Then the translater likewise uses his knowledge of the past and vision of early Christianity to inform his word choice.
I've often thought that Jesus' words had to do with the fact that he became "accursed" because of the manner of his death. If I'm not mistaken, up until his ressurection, the Law was still in effect so he really was forsaken at that particular time. If he wasn't then what it says in Galatians chapter 3 isn't true.
If you read the Psalm 22 in its entirety, it goes along with those same thoughts and seems to basically describe what Jesus may have been feeling...knowing that he represented a curse according to God's Law despite his intense faith in Him. I think he suffered more on a Spiritual level than he did physically because of his love for God.
Psalm 22 goes on to describe the hope that was in Jesus despite his predicament...that God did hear him and would use the situation to benefit mankind.
peacefulpete:
I believe that it does require faith regardless of the sources one quotes. As you know "scholarship" is always in flux. What might be considered gospel (excuse the expression) today can be rubbish tomorrow. Critics in the past have dismissed portions of the Bible as "myth" until archeology uncovered proof that certain kings and nations existed.
As an example: Several years ago I read an article that dismissed the Biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah as a "tale" and a "myth." It went on to list the lack of evidence as "proof" of the fallacy of the Bible. But in the last few months, several programs on TV were about the recent findings of some archeologists of ruined cities in the southern part of the Dead Sea that could very well fit the description of the twin cities. They have dated the destruction between 4 & 5 thousand years...about the same time as the Biblical account.
A person has a choice. If he has more faith in the "scholars" who have rejected the Bible based upon their own "scholarship" they will not accept any findings. It will be dismissed as "unproven." On the other hand, a person who has faith in the Bible will accept it as "evidence" of the validity of the Bible. Scholars on either side usually have an agenda even as do those who post on this site.
