Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | "Eloi" or "Eli"? | Mark 15:34 | Makarios | 10301 | ||
Greetings Forum Friends! I realize that the "theology" of this verse has been well covered.. However, I have a "textual" question here.. Why is there a 'discrepancy' between Mark's: Mark 15:34 "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani" And Matthew's: Matthew 27:46 "Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani"? Is it "Eloi" or "Eli"? Could this explain the languages used for the original autographs for Matthew and Mark? |
||||||
2 | "Eloi" or "Eli"? | Mark 15:34 | Morant61 | 10315 | ||
Greetings Nolan! The two words used in Matthew and Mark are actually two different languages. Mark uses 'eloi', which is Aramaic for "My God". Matthew uses 'eli', which is Hebrew for "My God". Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani. The Hebrew form, as Elio, Elio, etc., is the Syro-Chaldaic (the common language in use by the Jews in the time of Christ) of the first words of the twenty second Psalm; they mean “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | "Eloi" or "Eli"? | Mark 15:34 | Makarios | 10317 | ||
Greetings Brother Tim! Does this, in turn, lead to the conclusion that Mark was originally written in Aramaic and Matthew in Hebrew? Could it be that the two were only later translated into Greek while the original autographs were written in Aramaic and Hebrew? Thank you for the response, dear Brother! Blessings, Nolan Keck |
||||||
4 | "Eloi" or "Eli"? | Mark 15:34 | Morant61 | 10318 | ||
Greetings Nolan! It is just a guess on my part, but there is some historical evidence that Matthew may have been written in Hebrew first. Aramaic was most likely what Jesus and the disciples spoke normally. So, the original spoken words were probably in Aramaic (which Mark records), while the original written form of Matthew may have been in Hebrew. As far as I know, there is no evidence that Mark was ever written in anything but Greek. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | "Eloi" or "Eli"? | Mark 15:34 | Makarios | 10352 | ||
Greetings again, Tim! There's a friend of mine who has some 'evidence' that Matthew was written in Hebrew.. He writes, "HISTORIC EVIDENCE The historic evidence that the Book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew is abundant. a.. Papias (150-170 AD) said "Matthew composed in the words of the Hebrew dialect" b.. Irenius (circa 170 AD) said "Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect." c.. Origin (circa 210 AD) "The first gospel is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Jesus the Messiah, who having published for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew." d.. Eusebius (circa 315 AD) who wrote the most authoritative compilation of the history of the believers during the first 250-300 years, also added his voice to the fact that Matthew was originally published in Hebrew and cited how it was found in different parts of the world in Hebrew, like India. e.. Gregory Of Nazianzus (A.D. 329) claimed Matthew was originally written in Hebrew f.. Epiphanius (circa 370 AD) spoke of the Nazarene believers as saying "They have the gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for the gospel is still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters." g.. Jerome (circa 382 AD), son of historian Eusebius and a skilled translated in several languages Latin and Greek, also said Matthew was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek later. He said the original Hebrew copy was available in a library in Caesarea in his day. Jerome testified that he got a copy of the Hebrew version from the believers in Syria and used it as his basis for his Latin translation. In Apology for Himself Against the Books of Rufinus, (Book I, verse 13, circa 402 AD) he said he obtained help from a Jew in this translation. h.. Ishodad (circa 850 AD) also acknowledged how the original Hebrew copy of Matthew had been preserved in a library in his days. In 1553, Pope Julius III signed a decree banning the Talmud in Rome, resulting in the confiscation of not only the Talmud, but "anything that looked like the Talmud". Thus many Hebrew copies of Matthew were burned along with the Talmud. Today, only about 3 manuscripts in the original Hebrew still survive." Please tell me your thoughts! Blessings! Nolan |
||||||
6 | "Eloi" or "Eli"? | Mark 15:34 | Morant61 | 10378 | ||
Greetings Nolan! I was familiar with the historical evidence, but I haven't not really done much reading on the textual evidence. Allow me to peruse it and I'll get back to you about that. The possibility that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew has some interesting ramifications for the source theories concerning the Gospels. Most modern scholars feel that Mark was written first, and that Matthew and Luke used Mark and an unknown Q as sources. I don't agree. I believe that Matthew was written first. If Matthew was written in Hebrew, as history says, it would have been the earliest Gospel, again as history says. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
7 | "Eloi" or "Eli"? | Mark 15:34 | Makarios | 10390 | ||
Greetings Tim! I agree, Matthew would be the earliest, and I'm not just saying that because Matthew happens to be my favorite.. :) My friend also states, "Various Versions There are three common versions of the Hebrew Matthew a.. Shem Tov (about 9 manuscripts in this family of texts) b.. DuTillet (like "Do tell it") c.. Munster The Munster is partly original Hebrew and partly a translation from the Greek. One could cite textual evidence such as I cited above comparing the Munster with the Greek and show where it only makes sense for that Hebrew word/phrase to have been written that way if it had been translated from the Greek. This is because Munster only had a partial text, and filled in the rest of it with a translation. But he didn't keep track of which section were from the original and which were translated "fill-ins". The Shem Tov and DuTillet do not have this problem. I think the duTillet is more likely the more authoritative version, though there's little discrepency between them, and not much more discrepency than the way the various Greek manuscripts vary from each other. In any case, where these agree and agree with the Peshitta, it should be taken as an authoritative reading. The gospel of Matthew was translated into Aramaic very early and Aramaic copies exist from the 2nd century even today. These manuscripts probably lose very little in translation since Aramaic is very close to Hebrew, sharing most of the same grammar and root vocabulary system, but differing in some points and in pronunciation. There is a plethoria of Greek texts that don't always agree with each other's readings, but the Textus Receptus is the one used in most translations. Other Notes The Hebrew version of Matthew 27:46 does not translate the phrase "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" Since Jesus was likely speaking to Israelis in their common tongue (Hebrew and/or Aramaic), some "loss of thought" will be unavoidable in reading the Greek manuscripts, whether they were originally written in Greek or not. Historic evidence favors the idea of Luke being drafted in Greek, but that's not the language the events he recorded originally happened in. Even the Hebrew Matthew has that problem, since it's likely that "The Lord's Prayer" was spoken in Aramaic. In Aramaic, this prayer follows an intricate rhyme scheme." I'm not sure if I quite agree with all of this, but it is rather interesting in light of our conversation.. :) Your Brother in Christ, Nolan |
||||||