Hebrew 2:9 Peshitta cf. Peshitto:

Akhi Paul:
What does the phrase mean "s'tar min Alaha" compared with the phrase"B'Taibushta" in the Western Peshitto. this is the only difference in this verse between the Western and Eastern Peshitta manuscripts. the Greek texts all agree with the Western reading which in Greek is "Chariti or Charis",meaning grace or by the grace of God. Is there any special significanc3e to this difference? Dr. George Lamsa uses the Peshitta and leaves the phrase " the grace of God" out, and reversing the Aramaic grammar he translates at the end "but God" , this is not literal and what does he apply, that Eashoa died for humanity ,except not for God. If so does this not force a anti-diety statement seperating Eashoa from God the Father denying His diety? That is blsphamas. But what does this phrace really mean and how does it stand on the Divinty of Mar Eashoa? Sam, Shlama W'Berkhata

In reply to message #0
 
� Last edited by Paul Younan on May-14-2001 at 11:37 AM (CT)

Shlama Akhi Shmuel,

The phrase, "S'tar (#14219) min Alaha" means "Apart from God", in other words, God did not die on the Cross, only His humanity (His human nature died, not his divine nature.)

The Eastern Peshitta is the only version which has preserved this original reading. This reading is more ancient, as witnessed to by Origen (185-232 A.D.)

Notice the Aramaic phrase Nm r=s "S'tar min" (apart from, besides) also occurs in Hebrews 4:15.

All other versions changed this reading because of theology, that's why no Greek or even the Western Peshitto reads this way.

The Church of the East has always held that Maran Eshoa's Divinity and Humanity, although united, were separate in their own Qnuma's (underlying substance, nature.)

God did not "die" on the Cross. A human cannot raise Lazarus from the grave. These properties, although in the same Son of God, were separate from each other. United in one Person, but distinct from each other.

So, what Hebrews 2:9 is saying is "Maran Eshoa, apart from his Godhead (in his Humanity), died for everyone."

The Greeks (and the Monophysite Western Aramaic church) changed this to "Maran Eshoa, by the Grace of God, died for everyone."

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #1
 
Akhi Paul:
That amkes sense, for if God died then all of creation would have ceased and this did not happen. For we know that apart from God "s'tar min Alaha" no thing can exist or would exist, and our very existence prooves God in His full divinity did not die on the cross, but only His humanity in Meshkhiah Eashoa the second part ot the Tri-unity of God.Lamsa's rendering of "but God", is less clear than apart from God, and causes difiiculty. The phrace by the grace of God "B'taibuta Alaha" is not doctrinally herasy, but does not do justice to the fact that god Himself never died or could die. The Peshitta alone shows the full accuracy of this fact. thanks for the clearification. The verse then should read of follows:
And him humbled less than angels him we see-Eashoa-because of the suffering of his death and glory and honor placed on his head: for he, apart from God,tasted death in the stead(place)of all humanity. Hebrews 2:9
Not as in the Peshitto repalceing the phrase"apart from God" with B'taibuta ,that is by the grace of (God)" ,which is incorrect.
Dr. Lamsa translkated simmilar but place the phrase at the end reversing Aramaic gramar and inproperly as "but God". Shlama W'Berkhata, Sam

In reply to message #2
 
Shlama Akhi Shmuel,

I have posted this Hymn by Mar Narsai (6th century) before, but it is particularly suited for this thread! It makes very clear the distinction between Mshikha's Godhead and Humanity.

While they were united in One Person, of One Sonship, nevertheless they were maintained as distinct natures.

This made the enemies of the Church of the East call it "Nestorian", but in reality, Nestorius did not deny that Mshikha is One, but that His two Natures (Godhead and Humanity) were separate. And Hebrews 2:9 verifies this, which is why it was changed later in the Greek (and, Syriac Peshitto.) Notice that Hebrews 4:15 also uses this phrase, "S'tar min" (apart from.)

Anyway, here is the Hymn:

He remained in the tomb three days, as Man;
and the watchers glorified Him with their praises, as God.
He said that He had received all authority, as Man;
and He promised to be with us for ever, as God.
He commanded Thomas to feel His side, as Man;
and He gave them the Spirit for an earnest, as God.
He ate and drank after His resurrection, as Man;
and He ascended to the height and sent the Spirit, as God.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #2
 
� Last edited by Paul Younan on May-14-2001 at 12:27 PM (CT)

Akhi Shmuel,

I agree with you that the change from "S'tar Min" to "B'Taibutha" in the Syriac version (Peshitto) is not heretical, but you have to ask yourself....

Why was the change made????

If you study the Christological implications of the council of Ephesus, then you will understand why the Monophysites changed this verse.

It was very hard on their ears.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #4
 
Sh'lama Akhi Paul:
Stephen Silver wrote:
It is understood, by the use of the phrase, hmwnqb 0yx in Yukhanan 5:26, that Yahshua "had the price of redemption", "Life in Himself", to redeem all that "call upon His Name". Moreover, it is evident, that this was, and is, the "Will of the Father".
Now, when we come to Hebrews 2:9, as in the Eastern Peshitta,
0hl0 Nm r=s it can be shown, that the "Life in Himself", represented both, Elohim as well as Yahshua's humanity", and it is His humanity, that He laid down, that He might take it again,(Yukhanan 10:17). This was the "will of the Father, made manifest in the Son", by His life, death and resurrection". If you will, there is a "remez", referring back to Genesis 44:30, "v'naf'sho k'shurah v'naf'sho", "and his soul is knot-tied in his soul".
The use of the word htwby=b in place of r=s Nm reflects the misunderstanding, that Torah was to be "replaced" by "grace". However, the "Life of Yahshua" manifests this "grace and truth" of Torah, eternally,(Yukhanan 1:17, Exodus 34:6). Torah, without Yahshua, is "dead letter". Yahshua, without Torah, is "sloppy agape".

Fkrbw 0ml4
Stephen Silver

In reply to message #5
 
Sh'lama Akhi Paul:
Stephen Silver wrote:
It appears, at first glance, that there is a common "root", between 0rys0 with the root rs0 and the Hebrew, "k'shurah", and it's root, "kesher",Genesis 44:30, I Samuel 18:1, I Kings 16:20, II Kings 15:15, 15:30.
The Aramaic root rs0 is the same for "bound" or "prisoner",(Matthew 5:25, Yukhanan 21:18 "Keepa's love-bonds").
I also think that Shaul used this word, (II Timothy 1:8, 2:9, Philemon 1:9), to describe the paradox, of
1)being "bound by love" to Mashiakh,
2)being "under the yoke, (Torah/correction)" of Mashiakh, (Proverbs 22:15), and
3)being the "prisoner" of Mashiakh.

Fkrwbw 0ml4
Stephen Silver

In reply to message #5
 
Sh'lama Akhi Paul:
Stephen Silver wrote:
To add to this theme, is the Hebrew word, "asar...Alef-Samekh-Resh", as in Judges 15:13. Also, there is another "remez". Samson killed 1000 Philistines, with the help of the Ruakh haKodesh, but nearly died, except for "Ein Hakorai",(Judges 15:19). We're goin' deep, here!!

Fkrwbw 0ml4
Stephen Silver

In reply to message #5
 
� Last edited by Paul Younan on May-14-2001 at 09:00 PM (CT)

Shlama Akhi Stephen,

Thank you for the wonderful insight.

I am reminded of a hymn in our liturgy:

It is, of necessity, a dual praise of both His Humanity and his Divinity.

In His Humanity, He gives life to our broken bodies Nyrgp , as the New Adam He has lifted the curse of the old Adam.

In His Divinity, He is the Saviour of our Souls Jt4pn .

The perfect 0nbrwq

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #1
 
Hi all!......I'm not sure if I've come back to the right thread here....but I seem to remember several posts here suggesting that no greek manuscript has the "without God" reading found in the eastern peshitta rendering of Hebrews 2.9.
I mentioned this to someone else and he suggested that according to Dr. Bruce Metzger this reading occurs in at least three Greek miniscules.(0121b, 424 where there is a copiers notation, and 1739 as well as also being mentioned by Ambrose)...can anyone shed any light on this?....all the best from the great southern land!

In reply to message #9
 
� Last edited by Paul Younan on May-17-2001 at 06:38 PM (CT)

Shlama Akhi Michael!

I would love to know more about these Greek miniscules! Especially important would be the "scribal gloss" or "copiers notation"!

One would think that, after the council of Ephesus, all the manuscripts would have been suppressed which had this reading (at least in the Byzantine Empire.) But it's not surprising that a few fragments may have survived, because no matter how hard the suppression, it is almost impossible to destroy everything.

We know that at one time, the Greek manuscripts must have had this reading (at least the ones in use in Alexandria during Origen's lifetime), but we know that this verse was "altered" after Ephesus because the manuscripts after that council all contain the "by the grace of God" reading.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #10
 
Paul;
I'm still chewing on this even after about a week. I can understand how this verse can be devisive. You are correct Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown do quote Origen as you stated. Adam Clarke's commentary also mentions (briefly) the "variant" reading. You will be probably interested to note that The Abingdon Bible Commentary also has an interesting comment about this verse.
They say "There is a curious reading found in some of the ancient Fathers which substitutes for the phrase 'by the grace of God' the words 'apart from God,' and the reference is supposed to be to the sense of dereliction which led Jesus to cry out as he was dying on the cross 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?'"
This is easier to understand than to try to hyper-dichotomize the body of Christ. My understanding of the dichotomy of the Messiah is that while He was fully man He was also fully God. However, on earth He subjugated his divinity to His humanity.
This is clear from Paul's letter to the Phillipians (2:6) "who, although He existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped"-NASB. The NIV says it better "Who, being in very nature God..." Jesus didn't consider His nature (His deity or divinity if you will) as something to be retained while here on earth. This doesn't mean He wasn't fully God and fully man at the same time, while here on earth, it's just that he subjugated it to His humanity.
I guess though your point that at His death His humanity died, not his deity (or divinity) is hard to refute. Is this truly what Nestorius believed? That sounds like orthodoxy to me and I'm sure that the COE agrees. The COE is NOT Nestorian is it?
The minuscules that probably mention the Peshitta's version of Hebrews 2:9 don't really shed much light on the subject since they were purportedly written during the 9th and 10th centuries.
Keith L. Fuller

In reply to message #11
 
Akhi Keith:
Nestorius was the patriarch of Constantople in the fifth century. His big dispute was with Cyril of Alexander concerning the phrase Theotokos(God bear) in which he rejected. he chose the phrase Christokos(bear of Christ) as a designated title for Jesus mother Mayam. The Greek church chose to pray to Maryam and venerate her as the bearer of god in both the flesh and the spirit, a obovious blasphamy of idotatry. In the Church of the East which agreed with Nestorius but there was never a Nestorian Chuch has refused to worship in ikons and statues and says no prayers exalting Maraym as the Queen of heaven or in any other form. We in the West especailly Roman Catholicsm have used the title Mother of God to refer to Maryam the Mother of Jesus. God was her creater she did not give birth to God. She gave birth to Jesus the Son of God and while he was fully man and God his divinty has neither begging or end. Maryam only bore Jesus in his human form not his eternal divinity. They used this doctrine in the West to justify the Trinity. Ho2wever the Trinity is justified with out such claims which are nonesense to begin with. Shalam W'Berkhata, Sam

In reply to message #11
 
Shlama Akhi Khabiba (beloved) Keith!

Thanks for your notes about this verse.

Akhi, you have to look at the history of Christology very closely in order to fully appreciate what happened with this verse.

Mar Nestorius, whom we call the "Bloodless Martyr" was excommunicated from the Church, removed from his Seat as Patriarch of Constantinople, and sent into exile in the desert of Egypt, where he died. Simply because he refused to call the Blessed Virgin "Mother of God."

Some years ago, a fantastic discovery was made of a manuscript entitled "The Bazaar of Heracleides." The title was misleading, however. It was actually Nestorius himself writing a defense of his Christological views.

From this writing, more and more historians are now convinced that he was wrongly judged, and that his theology was quite "orthodox."

The council of Ephesus was the most shameful in Church history, and even Catholic theologians have stated this fact. It was called the "Robber Council", because it was presided over by the accuser himself - Cyril of Alexandria. They did not even wait for the Patriarch of Antioch, nor even Nestorius himself, to convene the council. They left out half the Church, and 2 Patriarchates - with Nestorius' backers. The Bishop of Rome was not even present.

In the Bazaar, we find Nestorius himself explaining his theological stand on the two natures of Christ. From this, modern scholarship now maintains that Nestorius was not a "Nestorian."

Now we come to the Church of the East. Nestorius had nothing to do with the Church of the East. He was not our Patriarch, he did not even live within our realm (the Sassanid Persian Empire.) He was a Greek, and Patriarch of Byzantium.

By the time the Church in Persia heard of this council, nearly one hundred years had already passed. Nestorius and Cyril were both dead.

We were approached by ambassadors from the Western Church, who presented the results of the council of Ephesus to us to ratify and accept. After careful review of the evidence, the Church in Persia refused to ratify this council, as the deposed Patriarch held the same Christological views as we have always held.

This led to our being nicknamed "Nestorian." But, in reality, Nestorius was not one of us. The Church of the East began with the apostolic ministry of Peter in Babylon, Thomas & Thaddeus in Edessa. We existed long before this controversy.

Anyway, this is the most devastating and longest-lasting division in the Church.

A thorough understanding of the issues, and a very fruitful dialogue between West and East has resolved most of the issues which have separated us for 1,500 years.

In 1994, His Holiness Mar Khanan-Yah Dinkha and Pope John Paul II signed what is known as the "Common Christological Agreement." You can find that here:

https://www.cired.org/cat/declare.html

Mar Khanan-Yah decided to approach the Western Church at a crucial time, when the atmosphere concerning Nestorius has become more realistic.

The controversy appears to be behind us now, and let us pray that future dialogue will be just as fruitful.

Now, back to the issue around this verse.

Back when this controversy erupted, you had two sides:

• The Monophysites - those who believed that Christ had only one Nature - the Divine only, his Human nature having been "swallowed up" by the Divine during the Incarnation (actually, the moment of conception.)
  
• The Dyophysites - those who believed that Christ had 2 natures - Human and Divine, both preserved without confusion in one person of one Sonship. Yet both distinct, now and always.
  

For a short time after the council of Ephesus, the Church in the Byzantine realm was taken over by the Monophysites. The only Dyophysite Patriarchates were in Rome and Babylon.

So you see, the Church of Byzantium (Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch & Constantinople), for many centuries became "Monophysite." This began in 431 AD.

For a true "Monophysite", the original reading of Hebrews 2:9 was unthinkable. How could Christ, apart from His Godhead, die....if all that was left after the incarnation was His Godhead?

For a true Monophysite, God died that day on the Cross.

So now you can understand why, not only Hebrews 2:9, but also Acts 20:28 was changed in the Greek versions.

Obviously, Hebrews 2:9 had this reading in the Greek version of Alexandria (ironically, the Patriarchate of Cyril, and the birthplace of Monophysitism) during the lifetime of Origen. It had too.

We have a testimony from the lifetime of Origen (185-232) to prove this. After 431 (the council of Ephesus), this reading changed. Why?

I think it is obvious.

The Peshitto manuscripts (those of the Monophysite Western Aramaic Church) have a reading which agrees with the Greek. This is because the Syriac Church sided with Cyril, while the Church of Persia sided with Nestorius.

To end this post, I will quote from Nestorius' own words in the Bazaar:

For in that God is Creator, God is unchangeable, and works by an unchangeable nature. . . . In effect either God is what God is by nature, eternally God, and did not become another nature while remaining in the essence of God; or, not having the nature of God, was made and is not the Creator, which is absurd and impossible.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #13
 
Thanks Paul and Sam, your insights are valuable. Paul you have a gift and I wouldn't be surprised to see you do wonderful and great things for the Lord. Things which would far exceed your own expectations. I pray for you.
Keith

In reply to message #13
 
Shlama Akh Paul,

I did promise not to argue Greek primacy, so I will not. However I had to chime in here.

>So now you can understand why,
>not only Hebrews 2:9, but
>also Acts 20:28 was changed
>in the Greek versions.

These are scribal glosses although we do not completely agree as to the direction of the gloss considering the difficilior lectio potior standard.
>
>
>
>We have a testimony from the
>lifetime of Origen (185-232) to
>prove this. After 431
>(the council of Ephesus), this
>reading changed. Why?

P46 from AD 200 however does show 'khariti theou',"by the grace of God".
>
>I think it is obvious.
>
>The Peshitto manuscripts (those of the
>Monophysite Western Aramaic Church) have
>a reading which agrees with
>the Greek. This is
>because the Syriac Church sided
>with Cyril, while the Church
>of Persia sided with Nestorius.
>
No. P46 would not have showed 'khariti theou' in AD 200. P46 in addition to Hebrews contained Paul's writings.

However I do agree with the Christological importance. The singular nature of Christ held by some could have caused the gloss. There is another possibility. The spelling in Greek.
'Grace' is spelled khi,alpha,rho,iota,sigma.(Although the dative is present here and the sigma is replaced with tau, iota.)'Apart' is spelled khi,omega,rho,iota,sigma. Only one letter separates a world of Christology since the breath marks were absent. We are told the papyri were transcribed by non-professional scribes although they are dated very early. It is possible an error was made and the reading in P46 is wrong. But, it is also possible the reading is correct and subsequent MSS ('apart') are the gloss.

Profound mportance then is placed on Matt. 27:46. Since it cannot be glossed. Or can it?

Did the Father turn away from his Son? If I hold to the singular nature of Christ that would be unthinkable. If I hold to the dualistic nature of Christ its possible.

However context dictates we look further into the messianic background. The audience understood that Y'shua was calling for Elijah and his chariot to save him from the torture of the cross. Hebrew primacists tell us this could only be understood in Hebrew as Eli is the shortened form of Eliyahu. However the Aramaic words coming off the lips of Y'shua are quoted from the Psalm 22 Targum where 'shbq' translates the Heb. 'azv'. The Heb. 'azv' carries the idea of abandonment.

Was this simply a quote by Y'shua in Messianic fullfilment of prophecy? If so it is lacking the usual Matthean formula, 'this was done to fulfill that spoken by the prophet...'.

Was the exact meaning so obvious to Matthew's audience that they needed no explanation? Also keep in mind Papias said Matthew's original gospel was penned in Hebrew before being translated.

So the question is; Was Y'shua abandoned by the Father? What say you kulkon?

Shalom,
Iakov.

In reply to message #15
 
Shlama Akhi Iakov,

Thanks for your reply.

You said:
P46 from AD 200 however does show 'khariti theou',"by the grace of God".

I have no problem with that. As you know, the Christological controversy only erupted in 431 - it had been brewing for quite some time before that.

We can see even from the New Testament that heresies were beginning to spring up.

Usually by the time a council is called to resolve a dispute, it has been raging for quite some time.

So I would expect to see these variants readings well before Ephesus.

No. P46 would not have showed 'khariti theou' in AD 200. P46 in addition to Hebrews
contained Paul's writings.

We also know that P46, out of all the manuscripts, is known to contain the largest number of blunders on record!

See: https://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

However I do agree with the Christological importance. The singular nature of Christ held by some could have caused the gloss.

I agree. Especially in the case of the two "Peshitta" families of manuscripts ("Nestorian"/"Jacobite").

There is another possibility. The spelling in Greek. 'Grace' is spelled Khi, alpha, rho, iota, sigma. (Although the dative is present here and the sigma is replaced with tau,
iota.)'Apart' is spelled Khi, omega, rho, iota, sigma. Only one letter separates a world
of Christology since the breath marks were absent.

That could very well be.

Perhaps these variant reading existed in the Greek because the two Greek words were so similiar.

Assuming an Aramaic original, and assuming the "Apart from God" reading of the Eastern Peshitta and Origen was the original, the scenario could have been:

• The Greek versions originally agreed with the Eastern Peshitta/Origen
  
• Because of scribal error where the Greek word for "grace" looked like the Greek word for "apart", the "by the grace of God" variant arose
  
• During the time when the Chistological dispute arose, these two readings were championed by their respective school of thought
  

Now, that explains the variants in the Greek. But the two Peshitta families are a different story.

The book of Hebrews in the Peshitta NT is exactly the same between the two traditions (dyophysite/monophysite) except for this one verse.

And, the terms htwby=b (by the Grace of) and Nm r=s (Apart from) cannot be explained by a scribal error because they are completely different.

There is no other explanation here except that one side made a deliberate change which reflects their Christology.

Profound mportance then is placed on Matt. 27:46. Since it cannot be glossed. Or can it?

I agree with you. I don't think it's possible.

Did the Father turn away from his Son? If I hold to the singular nature of Christ that would be unthinkable. If I hold to the dualistic nature of Christ its possible.

Absolutely.

However context dictates we look further into the messianic background. The audience understood that Y'shua was calling for Elijah and his chariot to save him from the torture of the cross. Hebrew primacists tell us this could only be understood in Hebrew as Eli is the shortened form of Eliyahu. However the Aramaic words coming off the lips of Y'shua are quoted from the Psalm 22 Targum where 'shbq' translates the Heb. 'azv'. The Heb. 'azv' carries the idea of abandonment.

Was this simply a quote by Y'shua in Messianic fullfilment of prophecy? If so it is lacking the usual Matthean formula, 'this was done to fulfill
that spoken by the prophet...'.

Agreed. And personally, I don't think He was quoting Psalm 22.

Was the exact meaning so obvious to Matthew's audience that they needed no explanation? Also keep in mind Papias said Matthew's original gospel was penned in Hebrew before being translated.

Also keep in mind that many times no distinction was made between Hebrew and Aramaic, which were both written using the same script.

In fact, the loose term that Eusebius used "the Hebrew language", is vague. The "language of the Hebrews" at the time was Aramaic.

And, would Papias really be able to tell the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic, if they both were using the same (square) script?

So the question is; Was Y'shua abandoned by the Father? What say you kulkon?

I don't think so. I could be wrong, but the Aramaic root Qb4 has many meanings, only one of which is "forsake" or "abandon". Just look at the Lexicon using the 'Root' option.

It can mean:

• Allow
  
• Forgive (as used in the Lord's Prayer)
  
• Leave
  

Questions I have regarding the Choreece/Chareece Greek reading of Hebrews 2:9

• What is the significance of the Dative being present in the "grace of" reading?
  
• Why is the final Sigma replaced with Tau-Iota? If I'm thinking of it correctly, it is indicative of possession (of God "-ti Theo). Am I correct?
  
• If I am correct, how would the reading change if it was "Apart from?" In other words, is it truly only a character difference, or would the change of phrase necessitate a change in spelling as well? For instance, I don't think the "Tau-Iota" suffix would be present.
  
• Ultimately, how does Origen's Greek rendering read? IS there a way to find out?
  

These are crucial questions, because if the phrase really would change - then it's hard to believe it was only a scribal error in the Greek which gave rise to these variant readings.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #16
 
Shlama Akhi Iakov,

The reading of Origen is (xwris teou). The spelling does not include the Tau-Iota.

I truly believe this is the original reading. I think the variant arose in the Greek manuscripts of Egypt (known for their poor copying skills ), and then the variant reading was championed by the Monophysites, who then revised the Western Peshitto to be more palatable.

To me, the Eastern reading makes more sense. I mean, think about it.....the context is about how Mshikha lowered himself below the angels to share fully in blood and flesh, experience human sufferings, and die a human death.

To be sure, His death is known to bring salvation, but the passage says not a word about God's grace as manifest in Christ's work of atonement. It focuses instead on Christology, on Christ's condescension into the transitory realm of suffering and death.

It is as a full human that Maran Eshoa experienced His passion, apart from any succor that might have been His as God. The work He began at His condescension He completes in His death, a death that had to be, necessarily, "apart from God."

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #17
 
>
Shlama Akhi Paul, and welcome back to the forum, Akhi Iakov.

I would like to share a verse that hopefully both of you will appreciate. As far as I can tell, it reads pretty much the same in both Greek and Aramaic, so let me be nice here and simply offer the NIV reading knowing that the witnesses agree:

"I am the Good Shepherd; I know my sheep and they know me...The reason my Father loves me IS THAT I LAY DOWN MY LIFE, ONLY TO TAKE IT UP AGAIN. NO ONE TAKES IT FROM ME, BUT I LAY IT DOWN OF MY OWN ACCORD. I HAVE AUTHORITY TO LAY IT DOWN AND AUTHORITY TO TAKE IT UP AGAIN. THIS COMMAND I RECEIVED FROM MY FATHER."

Yukhanan 10:14,17-18

What I believe this verse establishes in precedent for the Hebrews 2:9 reading. It is clear that the Messiah is the Word made flesh (John 1:1-5, 14) and that He is God (1 Corinthians 12:3-MarYAH haw Eshoo), however a disconnect seems to happen at the next step.

The Messiah, not only according to Isaiah 53 and other prophecies (Arm of YHWH)but even to the most ancient Jewish mystical traditions and Talmud, MEETS WITH GOD IN THE BEGINNING AND VOLUNTEERS TO TAKE AWAY THE SINS OF THE WORLD. The Messiah must do this, as Y'shua clearly says, of his own accord.

Then BECAUSE he is willing to do this, God grants him dominion and power, resulting in the coronation ceremony in Daniel 7:1-13. When the Messiah, as the Word, is finally made flesh, HE STILL HAS FREE WILL TO SAY "NO THANKS"-- which is why even though God cannot be tempted by Satan, the Messiah can be, and he must pass this test. Now think about what Satan does there. What he, in essence, is asking is that Y'shua RETAKE UP HIS DIVINE MANTLE BUT DO SO IN SATAN'S SERVICE. He can turn stone to bread, he can fling himself off a cliff and not hit a stone and-- yes-- he can even rule the world by force. The answer, in each case because of his great love, is no, no, and no, respectively.

On the other hand, when his time comes, he will show the glory of God through miracles, but another curiosity emerges. He says, "Don't tell anyone I healed you." Why? Because the kingdom of God is the main message. But then, the ultimate price gets paid, and Messiah must decide, both in the garden and on the cross, that yes, I will lay down my life so I may take it up again. And, in order to do that, he must put that divine mantle of immortality down and ALLOW the scourges, the crown of thorns and the nails.

But, since this is again of his own accord and in concert with the command he received from his Father, THERE IS NO WAY HE CAN FEEL FORSAKEN!

Hope this helps!

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Shlama Akhi Iakov,
>
>The reading of Origen is (xwris
>teou). The spelling does
>not include the Tau-Iota.
>
>I truly believe this is the
>original reading. I think
>the variant arose in the
>Greek manuscripts of Egypt (known
>for their poor copying skills
>), and then the variant
>reading was championed by the
>Monophysites, who then revised the
>Western Peshitto to be more
>palatable.
>
>To me, the Eastern reading makes
>more sense. I mean,
>think about it.....the context is
>about how Mshikha lowered himself
>below the angels to share
>fully in blood and flesh,
>experience human sufferings, and die
>a human death.
>
>To be sure, His death is
>known to bring salvation, but
>the passage says not a
>word about God's grace as
>manifest in Christ's work of
>atonement. It focuses instead on
>Christology, on Christ's condescension into
>the transitory realm of suffering
>and death.
>
>It is as a full human
>that Maran Eshoa experienced His
>passion, apart from any succor
>that might have been His
>as God. The work He
>began at His condescension He
>completes in His death, a
>death that had to be,
>necessarily, "apart from God."
>
>
>Fk^rwbw 0ml4
>
> Peshitta.org

In reply to message #19
 
Shlama Kulkon,
>Shlama Akhi Paul, and welcome back
>to the forum, Akhi Iakov.
>
Thanks Andrew

>
>The Messiah, not only according to
>Isaiah 53 and other prophecies
>(Arm of YHWH)but even to
>the most ancient Jewish mystical
>traditions and Talmud, MEETS WITH
>GOD IN THE BEGINNING AND
>VOLUNTEERS TO TAKE AWAY THE
>SINS OF THE WORLD.
>The Messiah must do this,
>as Y'shua clearly says, of
>his own accord.
HE STILL HAS FREE
>WILL TO SAY "NO THANKS"--
>which is why even though
>God cannot be tempted by
>Satan, the Messiah can be,
>and he must pass this
>test.

Completely agree. The context in Hebrews again establishes precedent for this in 2:14-18.

Now think about
>what Satan does there.
>What he, in essence, is
>asking is that Y'shua RETAKE
>UP HIS DIVINE MANTLE BUT
>DO SO IN SATAN'S SERVICE.

Completely agree, it must have been pressing in 'gethsemane' as Satan left only to return at a more ooportune time.

>> But then, the ultimate
>price gets paid, and Messiah
>must decide, both in the
>garden and on the cross,
>that yes, I will lay
>down my life so I
>may take it up again.
>But, since this is again of
>his own accord and in
>concert with the command he
>received from his Father, THERE
>IS NO WAY HE CAN
>FEEL FORSAKEN!

So then Akh Andrew you are saying Y'shua was simply quoting the Targum of Psalm 22:1?

>>
>>The reading of Origen is (xwris
>>teou). The spelling does
>>not include the Tau-Iota.

Yes. Tau, iota would only work with the dative of a sigma noun. Origen we can date around 200 Ad also, right?
>>
>>I truly believe this is the
>>original reading.

Perhaps so and your hypothesis is correct.

I think the variant arose in the
>>Greek manuscripts of Egypt (known
>>for their poor copying skills,

Yes.I read the papyri were done by non-professional scribes.

>>), and then the variant
>>reading was championed by the
>>Monophysites, who then revised the
>>Western Peshitto to be more
>>palatable.

Or by the Biphysites/dualists to be so.
>>
>>To me, the Eastern reading makes
>>more sense.

It does to me also, since I agree with that doctrine. But, truly there are sayings in the NT that are uncomfortable to me, and are all too clear.

I mean,
>>think about it.....the context is
>>about how Mshikha lowered himself
>>below the angels to share
>>fully in blood and flesh,
>>experience human sufferings, and die
>>a human death.
>>
>>To be sure, His death is
>>known to bring salvation, but
>>the passage says not a
>>word about God's grace as
>>manifest in Christ's work of
>>atonement.
I thinks so read thru verse 18 about Meshiakh's work.

>>
>>It is as a full human
>>that Maran Eshoa experienced His
>>passion, apart from any succor
>>that might have been His
>>as God.
YES, AMEN, AMEN.

The work He
>>began at His condescension He
>>completes in His death, a
>>death that had to be,
>>necessarily, "apart from God."

Shlama,
Iakov.

In reply to message #19
 
Shlama Kulkon,
>Shlama Akhi Paul, and welcome back
>to the forum, Akhi Iakov.
>
Thanks Andrew

>
>The Messiah, not only according to
>Isaiah 53 and other prophecies
>(Arm of YHWH)but even to
>the most ancient Jewish mystical
>traditions and Talmud, MEETS WITH
>GOD IN THE BEGINNING AND
>VOLUNTEERS TO TAKE AWAY THE
>SINS OF THE WORLD.
>The Messiah must do this,
>as Y'shua clearly says, of
>his own accord.
HE STILL HAS FREE
>WILL TO SAY "NO THANKS"--
>which is why even though
>God cannot be tempted by
>Satan, the Messiah can be,
>and he must pass this
>test.

Completely agree. The context in Hebrews again establishes precedent for this in 2:14-18.

Now think about
>what Satan does there.
>What he, in essence, is
>asking is that Y'shua RETAKE
>UP HIS DIVINE MANTLE BUT
>DO SO IN SATAN'S SERVICE.

Completely agree, it must have been pressing in 'gethsemane' as Satan left only to return at a more ooportune time.

>> But then, the ultimate
>price gets paid, and Messiah
>must decide, both in the
>garden and on the cross,
>that yes, I will lay
>down my life so I
>may take it up again.
>But, since this is again of
>his own accord and in
>concert with the command he
>received from his Father, THERE
>IS NO WAY HE CAN
>FEEL FORSAKEN!

So then Akh Andrew you are saying Y'shua was simply quoting the Targum of Psalm 22:1?

>>
>>The reading of Origen is (xwris
>>teou). The spelling does
>>not include the Tau-Iota.

Yes. Tau, iota would only work with the dative of a sigma noun. Origen we can date around 200 Ad also, right?
>>
>>I truly believe this is the
>>original reading.

Perhaps so and your hypothesis is correct.

I think the variant arose in the
>>Greek manuscripts of Egypt (known
>>for their poor copying skills,

Yes.I read the papyri were done by non-professional scribes.

>>), and then the variant
>>reading was championed by the
>>Monophysites, who then revised the
>>Western Peshitto to be more
>>palatable.

Or by the Biphysites/dualists to be so.
>>
>>To me, the Eastern reading makes
>>more sense.

It does to me also, since I agree with that doctrine. But, truly there are sayings in the NT that are uncomfortable to me, and are all too clear.

I mean,
>>think about it.....the context is
>>about how Mshikha lowered himself
>>below the angels to share
>>fully in blood and flesh,
>>experience human sufferings, and die
>>a human death.
>>
>>To be sure, His death is
>>known to bring salvation, but
>>the passage says not a
>>word about God's grace as
>>manifest in Christ's work of
>>atonement.
I thinks so read thru verse 18 about Meshiakh's work.

>>
>>It is as a full human
>>that Maran Eshoa experienced His
>>passion, apart from any succor
>>that might have been His
>>as God.
YES, AMEN, AMEN.

The work He
>>began at His condescension He
>>completes in His death, a
>>death that had to be,
>>necessarily, "apart from God."

Shlama,
Iakov.

In reply to message #21
 
Shlama Akhi Iakov,

You said:
completely agree, it must have been pressing in 'gethsemane' as Satan left only to return at a more opportune time.

Nice pun.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #22
 
Shlama Akhi Iakov:

I like that pun too! )

To answer your question, yes, I believe that Y'shua is NOT QUOTING Psalm 22, but the whole incident on the cross is a MIDRASH ABOUT PSALM 22.

If you look at the Psalm in Hebrew, you will see that the accusations hurled at the writer are IDENTICAL to the phrases used by the people mocking Y'shua on the cross. The imagery is also relevant:

-- I can count my bones.

-- Enemies surround me hurling insults.

--My heart is dried out like wax.

--My strength is dried up like a potsherd.

--My tongue sticks to the root of my mouth.

--And most, significantly and unlike the MT but confirmed in the Dead Sea Scrolls and elsewhere, THEY HAVE PIERCED MY HANDS AND FEET!

The Psalm is being dramatized by every little detail of the Passion, which any Semitic reader would clearly understand, but there are powerful reasons why the quote is NOT Psalm 22.

First, the Messiah's accent plus his obvious fatigue has slurred his speech. he may have said "my God" (Eli) and then cried out in pain (ah), and people thought he was calling on EliYAH (Elijah), which he really was not doing.

Then, the Greek translators (my opinion) took two very similar sounding Aramaic phrases and confused them. One of these sounded very much like Psalm 22:1, and since that Psalm seemed to be alluded everywhere else, this was a natural conclusion. But these Greeks did not understand the Jewish tendency to Midrash and create allegory, and rigidly assumed a literal relationship.

I can get into this in a bit more detail if you need me to, but that is the gist of it.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

In reply to message #23
 
Shlama Kulkon,

So then everyone agrees an understanding of the semitic background lays the groundwork for understanding the text.

The Hebrew camp thinks the words came off Y'shua's lips in Heb. And since Eli is short for Eliyahu hence he's calling for Elijah. Mark however renders it in his explanation Elohi, and the audience still thought he was calling Elijah. This could never be understood by the Greek speaking readers of Matthai's translated gospel. Yet it is understandable even in Gr. that Elijah, never having tasted death, was the LORD'S forerunner. They do not even elude to the d'rashing of the pericope. Why? (Of course you know I'm referring to B&B.)

Akh Andrew raises a good point about this pericope being a midrash. I have long thought Matthai did draw a parallel to Psalm 22. Matthew was painting an all too clear picture for his audience.

Here's is what I am saying.

1. Why does Matthew's version diverge from Mark's in that Mark has Elohi in the explanation? Matthew's agenda to draw the parallel as Matthew's version follows the Targum of the Psalm.

2. In the extant Greek text, translation of Matthew's version follows the LXX whereas it does not in Mark. Perhaps because the readers of the translated Matthai were Jews in the Diaspora and therefor readers of the LXX knowing all too well Psalm 22.

3. If Y'shua did not feel abandoned why did he accuse God of doing so? This hearken's back to the Heb 2:9 discussion. Did the Father abandon the Son? Did God die or was it like Avraham & Itskhaq? How can God abandon God? Are some of our translations today reflecting our doctrine rather than a sound translation? Note the Parallel Edition variances. How does the Peshita T'nakh render Psalm 22?

4. Although I follow a doctrine of dualism also, I must respond to the Muslim disputing the death of God and the Trinity. They point to Matt 27:46 also saying, 'See he WAS a man. Besides, it was only someone who looked like him.'

5. This is not something we cannot always grasps by logic. No wonder Paul said, '...it is a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks...'This dualism completely God / completely man contained in one entity IS baffling.

7.There was no identity crisis on the part of Y'shua but since one suffocates on a cross idle words were avoided. Then isn't it likely He, '... who knew no sin was made TO BE SIN...', experiencing such weight in total identity with all humanity tearing at the nature of God within, that he cried out?

7.ISN'T IT ALWAYS HUMANITY'S CRY 'GOD WHY HAVE YOU ABANDONED US'? WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY WE WHO HAVE ABANDONED HIM, AS EVEN THE CLOSEST TALMIDIM DID THE PREVIOUS NIGHT.

Shlama,
Iakov.

In reply to message #24
 
>Shlama Kulkon,
>
>So then everyone agrees an understanding
>of the semitic background lays
>the groundwork for understanding the
>text.

SHLAMA AKHI IAKOV! YES, WE AGREE ON THE FACT THAT A SEMITIC BACKGROUND IS CRITICAL.
>
>The Hebrew camp thinks the words
>came off Y'shua's lips in
>Heb. And since Eli is
>short for Eliyahu hence he's
>calling for Elijah.

NOT SURE ABOUT THIS. EL (GOD) + I (MY). THIS IS THE SINGULAR FORM WITH A FIRST PERSON POSSESIVE ATTACHED. I STILL THINK THE "AH" PART WOULD HAVE BEEN SOME SORT OF EXHALATION OF PAIN AND COMES OUT "ELI-AH" INSTEAD OF "ELI-YAH".

Mark however
>renders it in his explanation
>Elohi, and the audience still
>thought he was calling Elijah.

WHILE MATTHEW IS AN APOSTLE AND MARK AN ASSOCIATE OF PETER'S, NEITHER ONE OF THEM IS PRESENT AT THE CRUCIFIXION. THE SOURCE FOR BOTH OF THEM THEN MUST BE TWO CLOSELY RELATED ORAL VARIANTS, WHICH MORE THAN ACCOUNT FOR THIS. BOTTOM LINE, THE CONCLUSION IS THE SAME.

>This could never be understood
>by the Greek speaking readers
>of Matthai's translated gospel. Yet
>it is understandable even in
>Gr. that Elijah, never having
>tasted death, was the LORD'S
>forerunner. They do not even
>elude to the d'rashing of
>the pericope. Why? (Of course
>you know I'm referring to
>B&B.)

AH, TRICKY. BUT YOU SEE ELIJAH IS THE ARCHETYPE FOR JOHN THE BAPTIST WHO WENT IN THE SPIRIT OF ELIJAH, NOT THE MESSIAH. I FIND DRAWING A DIRECT PARALLEL BETWEEN THE MESSIAH AND ELIJAH KIND OF SHAKY, IF YOU DON'T MIND MY SAYING SO.

>Akh Andrew raises a good point
>about this pericope being a
>midrash. I have long thought
>Matthai did draw a parallel
>to Psalm 22. Matthew was
>painting an all too clear
>picture for his audience.

THANK YOU. THIS IS MORE THAN MANY GREEKS PRIMACISTS ACKNOWLEDGE AND I AM GRATEFUL.
>
>Here's is what I am saying.
>
>
>1. Why does Matthew's version diverge
>from Mark's in that Mark
>has Elohi in the explanation?
>Matthew's agenda to draw the
>parallel as Matthew's version follows
>the Targum of the Psalm.
>
PROBABLY DUE TO ORAL SOURCES AGAIN.
>
>2. In the extant Greek text,
>translation of Matthew's version follows
>the LXX whereas it does
>not in Mark. Perhaps because
>the readers of the translated
>Matthai were Jews in the
>Diaspora and therefor readers of
>the LXX knowing all too
>well Psalm 22.

AND THE LXX IS WHAT? A TRANSLATION FROM HEBREW RIGHT? THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS, WHICH ARE IN HEBREW AND CIRCULATED IN ISRAEL ALSO HAVE A DIRECT ALLEGORY IN PSALM 22 OF "THEY HAVE PIERCED MY HANDS AND MY FEET" WHICH IS JUST LIKE THE LXX. THE FACT THAT VARIANT HEBREW READINGS WERE AROUND 2000 YEARS AGO IS WELL ESTABLISHED, AND THE FACT THAT A HEBREW FOREBEAR THAT IS NOW LOST GAVE THE LXX THIS READING DOES NOT PROVE LXX PRIMACY. RATHER THE LXX REFLECTS THE HEBREW OR TARGUMIC TRADITIONS THAT WERE AROUND THEN.
>
>3. If Y'shua did not feel
>abandoned why did he accuse
>God of doing so?

HE DIDN'T. HE LAYS DOWN HIS LIFE OF HIS OWN ACCORD AS YUKHANAN SAID.

This
>hearken's back to the Heb
>2:9 discussion. Did the Father
>abandon the Son?

NO. THE SON SET HIS DIVINITY ASIDE TO DIE AS A SACRIFICE. IN A SENSE, THE SON ABANDONED THE FATHER AS A DIVINITY TO SAVE HIM, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Did God
>die or was it like
>Avraham & Itskhaq? How can
>God abandon God?

NO GOD DID NOT DIE. GOD'S SACRIFICE DID.

Are some
>of our translations today reflecting
>our doctrine rather than a
>sound translation?

THE GREEK ONES? HMMMM, I THINK YOU KNOW MY VIEW. THE ARAMAIC SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR ON THE MATTER.

Note the Parallel
>Edition variances. How does the
>Peshita T'nakh render Psalm 22?
>
HAVE TO CHECK ON THAT. GREAT QUESTION THOUGH.
>
>4. Although I follow a doctrine
>of dualism also, I must
>respond to the Muslim disputing
>the death of God and
>the Trinity. They point to
>Matt 27:46 also saying, 'See
>he WAS a man.

OF COURSE MESSIAH WAS A MAN. BUT HE IS ALSO GOD IN THE FLESH. BY BECOMING FLESH, HE PUTS HIS DIVINITY ASIDE. BUT HE CAN TAKE THAT DIVINE MANTLE BACK UP WITH A WORD AND IN AN INSTANT. MESSIAH MUST SACRIFICE HIMSELF VOLUNTARILY, EVEN THOUGH HE HAS DIVINE POWER FROM GOD AS THE SON OF MAN, (DANIEL 7:1-13). IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM 1 CORINTHIANS 12:3 THAT ALTHOUGH THE "PART OF GOD" THAT IS IN THE FLESH OF THE MESSIAH ON EARTH IS SUBSERVIENT TO HIS HEAVENLY FATHER, THAT MARYAH HAW ESHOO NEVERTHELESS.

Besides,
>it was only someone who
>looked like him.'

IAKOV, YOU DON'T NEED US TO REFUTE THAT JUNK. THE GUY DID HAVE A BIT OF A FOLLOWING YOU KNOW FOR ABOUT 3 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!
>
>5. This is not something we
>cannot always grasps by logic.
>No wonder Paul said, '...it
>is a stumbling block to
>the Jews and foolishness to
>the Greeks...'This dualism completely God
>/ completely man contained in
>one entity IS baffling.

IT WOULD NOT BE A STUMBLING BLOCK TO ANYONE IF THEY UNDERSTOOD ISAIAH 53, WHICH EVEN PREDICTS THAT THE MESSIAH WILL BE REJECTED BY HIS PEOPLE. WHO WOULD HAVE BELIEVED OUR REPORT? TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF YHWH BEEN REVEALED? THERE IT IS FOR ALL TO SEE. HE IS THE ARM OF YHWH. ISAIAH 42 TELLS US THAT THERE IS NO SAVIOR OTHER THAN GOD. SO IF THE MESSIAH IS DOING THE SAVING AND INTERCEDING FOR US, HE MUST BE GOD, BECAUSE BESIDES GOD THERE IS NONE ELSE. NOR WILL ANY BE FORMED AFTER HIM. "I AM YHWH, THAT IS MY NAME, AND I WILL NOT GIVE MY GLORY TO ANOTHER." "I AM YOU REDEEMEER". "WHEN I ACT, WHO CAN REVERSE IT?" IT IS ALL THERE IN ISAIAH, CHAPTERS 42-45.

>7.There was no identity crisis on
>the part of Y'shua but
>since one suffocates on a
>cross idle words were avoided.
>Then isn't it likely He,
>'... who knew no sin
>was made TO BE SIN...',
> experiencing such weight in
>total identity with all humanity
>tearing at the nature of
>God within, that he cried
>out?

HE FELT THE PAIN OF CARRYING OUR DISEASES (MAKOV, CHOLI IN ISAIAH 53) BUT HE WAS NOT FORSAKEN, NOT FOR ONE INSTANT. HE DID CRY OUT, BUT NOT THE PSALM. IT WAS MORE LIKE A STATEMENT SAYING, "MY GOD, MY GOD, FOR THIS REASON I AM SPARED/SET ASIDE", OR PERHAPS, AS A QUESTION, "WHY ARE YOU SPARING ME?" AS IN SIX HOURS OF THIS GIG IS ENOUGH! CAN WE MOVE IT FORWARD? NOT, NEVER, NO WAY, FORSAKEN. SHBAK IS WAY TOO VAST A WORD TO SIMPLY USE IT THAT NARROWLY AND IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM THE CONTEXT OF MESSIAH'S PREVIOUS DECLARATIONS.
>
>7.ISN'T IT ALWAYS HUMANITY'S CRY 'GOD
>WHY HAVE YOU ABANDONED US'?
>WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY WE
>WHO HAVE ABANDONED HIM, AS
>EVEN THE CLOSEST TALMIDIM DID
>THE PREVIOUS NIGHT.
>
>Shlama,
>Iakov.

THAT IS HUMANITY'S PROBLEM, NOT THE MESSIAH'S, AND IT IS BECAUSE OF THAT PROBLEM THAT MESSIAH HAD TO DIE IN THE FIRST PLACE. HE AND NOT GOD. HE HAS LAID DOWN HIS LIFE OF HIS OWN ACCORD,ONLY TO PICK IT UP AGAIN. THIS HE DOES FROM THE COMMAND GIVEN TO HIM BY HIS FATHER. THAT'S HOW YUKHANAN WROTE IT DOWN, AND THAT IS WHAT I BELIEVE. THE ALTERNATIVE SIMPLY DISREGARDS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

HOPE THIS HELPS!

SHLAMA W'BURKATE
ANDREW GABRIEL ROTH

In reply to message #25
 
Akhi Andrew,
>AH, TRICKY. BUT YOU SEE
>ELIJAH IS THE ARCHETYPE FOR
>JOHN THE BAPTIST WHO WENT
>IN THE SPIRIT OF ELIJAH,
>NOT THE MESSIAH. I
>FIND DRAWING A DIRECT PARALLEL
>BETWEEN THE MESSIAH AND ELIJAH
>KIND OF SHAKY, IF YOU
>DON'T MIND MY SAYING SO.

You misunderstand, no parallel drawn. The audience's perception, those who refuted his identity as messiah, was perhaps that he was calling for the LORD'S deliverence in the person of the one who never died and would return prior to Messiah. Wasn't there teaching in Jewish communities that Elijah would perform miracles?

>>2. In the extant Greek text,
>>translation of Matthew's version follows
>>the LXX whereas it does
>>not in Mark. Perhaps because
>>the readers of the translated
>>Matthai were Jews in the
>>Diaspora and therefor readers of
>>the LXX knowing all too
>>well Psalm 22.
>
>AND THE LXX IS WHAT?
>A TRANSLATION FROM HEBREW RIGHT?
>THIS READING DOES NOT PROVE
>LXX PRIMACY. RATHER THE LXX
>REFLECTS THE HEBREW OR TARGUMIC
>TRADITIONS THAT WERE AROUND THEN.
>
You, misunderstand, as I promised not to debate Gr. primacy. I have always thought Papias' statement was correct about Matthai. If you reread my comments, I refer to Gr. Matthew as a translation. And yes I apparently support Targumaic tradition for Matthai 27:46 more than you Akhi and Akh Paul.
>
>NO. THE SON SET HIS DIVINITY
>ASIDE TO DIE AS A
>SACRIFICE. IN A SENSE, HE SON ABANDONED THE FATHER AS A DIVINITY TO SAVE HIM, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
>
Are you saying the Son saved the Father?
How can one set aside the substance of their being? Are you referring to Phil 2? I had always considered that Messiah never put aside his divinity in its nature but he divested himself of his divine attributes. Hence he did not cease to be God.

>Are some
>>of our translations today reflecting
>>our doctrine rather than a
>>sound translation?
>
>THE GREEK ONES? HMMMM, I THINK
>YOU KNOW MY VIEW. THE
>ARAMAIC SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR ON
>THE MATTER.

I was referring to the Peshita ones below as I am not arguing Gr. primacy.
>Note the Parallel
>>Edition variances. How does the
>>Peshita T'nakh render Psalm 22?
>>
>HAVE TO CHECK ON THAT.
>GREAT QUESTION THOUGH.

>
>Besides,
>>it was only someone who
>>looked like him.'
>
>IAKOV, YOU DON'T NEED US TO
>REFUTE THAT JUNK. THE GUY
>DID HAVE A BIT OF
>A FOLLOWING YOU KNOW FOR
>ABOUT 3 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!

Muslims believe someone who looked like Issa (peace be upon him) was crucified.
>>
>THAT IS HUMANITY'S PROBLEM, NOT THE
>MESSIAH'S, AND IT IS BECAUSE
>OF THAT PROBLEM THAT MESSIAH
>HAD TO DIE IN THE
>FIRST PLACE.
> THE ALTERNATIVE SIMPLY DISREGARDS
>CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

You get my point thten?

Shlama,
Iakov.

In reply to message #26
 
>Akhi Andrew,
>>AH, TRICKY. BUT YOU SEE
>>>
>You misunderstand, no parallel drawn. The
>audience's perception, those who refuted
>his identity as messiah, was
>perhaps that he was calling
>for the LORD'S deliverence in
>the person of the one
>who never died and would
>return prior to Messiah. Wasn't
>there teaching in Jewish communities
>that Elijah would perform miracles?
>

POINT TAKEN AKHI IAKOV. YES THERE WAS SUCH A TEACHING, BUT Y'SHUA ALSO DEALT WITH IT PUBLICLY MANY TIMES, SAYING "FOR I TELL YOU ELIJAH HAS COME AND NO ONE RECOGNIZED HIM". ELIJAH WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NEED TO SAVE THE MESSIAH THOUGH, BUT I GUESS I COULD SEE HOW HIS DETRACTORS WOULD NOT SEE IT THAT WAY.
>
>>>2. In the extant Greek text,
>>>>>
>>AND THE LXX IS WHAT?
>>A TRANSLATION FROM HEBREW RIGHT?
>>THIS READING DOES NOT PROVE
>>LXX PRIMACY. RATHER THE LXX
>>REFLECTS THE HEBREW OR TARGUMIC
>>TRADITIONS THAT WERE AROUND THEN.
>>
>You, misunderstand, as I promised not
>to debate Gr. primacy. I
>have always thought Papias' statement
>was correct about Matthai. If
>you reread my comments, I
>refer to Gr. Matthew as
>a translation. And yes I
>apparently support Targumaic tradition for
>Matthai 27:46 more than you
>Akhi and Akh Paul.

YOU'RE RIGHT HERE TOO. I DID NOT SEE THAT. I NEED TO LISTEN A BIT BETTER AND PUT DOWN MY LITERARY SWORD. BUT IAKOV, ALWAYS KNOW THAT WHEN I ERR PUBLICLY I WILL NEVER SHIRK FROM ADMITTING IT PUBLICLY. THAT'S ONLY FAIR.
>>
>>>>
>Are you saying the Son saved
>the Father?

NO. I AM SAYING HE LAYED DOWN HIS MANTLE OF DIVINITY SO HE COULD PERFORM THE SACRIFICE THAT HIS FATHER IN HEAVEN COMMANDED.

>How can one set aside the
>substance of their being? Are
>you referring to Phil 2?
>I had always considered that
>Messiah never put aside his
>divinity in its nature but
>he divested himself of his
>divine attributes. Hence he did
>not cease to be God.

TOUGH STUFF NO DOUBT. YES PHILLIPIANS 2:6-11 IS AN EXCELLENT DRASH TO HEBREWS 2:9, MATTI 27:46 AND YUKHANAN 10:14-18. YOU MAY WANT TO READ THEM ALL AGAIN TO SEE WHERE I AM COMING FROM. FOR ME, WHEN MESSIAH DECIDES TO VOLUNTARILY LAY DOWN HIS LIFE, HE IS "DIVESTING DIVINE ATTRIBUTES", BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT HE CAN LET IT DOWN, TAKE IT UP AND LET IT DOWN AGAIN AS MANY TIMES AND WHENEVER HE WANTS TO. IN THAT SENSE, YES, YOU ARE RIGHT AGAIN, HE DOES NOT CEASE TO BE GOD. HOWEVER, IN ORDER FOR GOD'S SAVING PURPOSE TO HAPPEN, HE HAD TO ALLOW HIS OWN DEATH.

YOU KNOW VERY WELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ROKHA AND NAPHSHA. IT WAS HIS NAPHSHA THAT WAS TROUBLED TO THE POINT OF DEATH AND THAT HAD TO DIE. BUT HIS ROKHA IS ETERNAL AND CAN'T DIE. NEVERTHELESS, MARAN ESHOO IS THE ONLY HUMAN WHO WAS ABLE TO RE-ANIMATE HIS NAPHSHA AFTER DEATH. THIS IS BECAUSE, AS EZEKIEL SAYS, THE NAPHSHA THAT SINS WILL DIE, BUT SINCE MESSIAH NEVER SINNED HIS NAPHSHA COULD NOT "STAY DEAD". DOES THIS MAKE MORE SENSE AKHI OR DO MY WORDS FAIL ME HERE?
>>
>I was referring to the Peshita
>ones below as I am
>not arguing Gr. primacy.

POINT TAKEN AGAIN.
>>>>
>>Besides,
>>>it was only someone who
>>>looked like him.'
>>
>>IAKOV, YOU DON'T NEED US TO
>>REFUTE THAT JUNK. THE GUY
>>DID HAVE A BIT OF
>>A FOLLOWING YOU KNOW FOR
>>ABOUT 3 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Muslims believe someone who looked like
>Issa (peace be upon him)
>was crucified.

WELL, IS IT OKAY IF I DISAGREE. ACTUALLY DR. TRIMM HAS STUDIED THIS SURAH IN QUESTION (#4) AND CAME UP WITH AN INTERESTING POSSIBILITY. NOW I KNOW VERY LITTLE ARABIC, SO I AM GOING WITH WHAT HE SAID. ACCORDING TO DR. TRIMM, THE STRUCTURE GRAMMATICALLY OF THE PHRASE, 'THEY SLEW HIM NOT, NOR CRUCIFIED HIM...BUT IT APPEARED TO THEM AS IF THEY DID', CAN MEAN THAT IT IS FALSE TO ACCUSE THE JEWS (THEY) OF CRUCIFYING THE MESSIAH AND NOT A DENIAL THAT HE WAS CRUCIFIED. AS I SAID THOUGH, THIS IS NOT MY FIELD OF EXPERTISE.
>>>
>>>
>You get my point then?

I THINK SO. THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
>
>Shlama,
>Iakov.

SHLAMA W'BURKATE
ANDREW GABRIEL ROTH

In reply to message #27
 
Akhi Andrew,

>POINT TAKEN AKHI IAKOV. YES THERE
>WAS SUCH A TEACHING, BUT
>Y'SHUA ALSO DEALT WITH IT
>PUBLICLY MANY TIMES, SAYING "FOR
>I TELL YOU ELIJAH HAS
>COME AND NO ONE RECOGNIZED
>HIM". ELIJAH WOULD NOT
>HAVE BEEN NEED TO SAVE
>THE MESSIAH THOUGH, BUT I
>GUESS I COULD SEE HOW
>HIS DETRACTORS WOULD NOT SEE
>IT THAT WAY.

I'm not even referring to detractors but straight out deny-ers. (Deny-ers. Is that a word?)
>
'THEY
>SLEW HIM NOT, NOR CRUCIFIED
>HIM...BUT IT APPEARED TO THEM
>AS IF THEY DID', CAN
>MEAN THAT IT IS FALSE
>TO ACCUSE THE JEWS (THEY)
>OF CRUCIFYING THE MESSIAH AND
>NOT A DENIAL THAT HE
>WAS CRUCIFIED. AS I
>SAID THOUGH, THIS IS NOT
>MY FIELD OF EXPERTISE.

Speaking to Muslims every day, as I do, that is in fact what they believe. A man having the appearance of Issa (Y'shua) was crucified. And no, I don't mind if you disagree with them. I do all the time.

Shlama,
Iakov.

In reply to message #16
 
>
Akh Paul,

>There is no other explanation here
>except that one side made
>a deliberate change which reflects
>their Christology.
>
I'm saying the Gr. 'khoris'-"apart" is the gloss as it occurred later in miniscules as P46 and uncials had 'khariti'-"by grace". Most miniscules dated from 800 AD.
However
>the Aramaic words coming off
>the lips of Y'shua are
>quoted from the Psalm 22
>Targum where 'shbq' translates the
>Heb. 'azv'. The Heb. 'azv'
>carries the idea of abandonment.
>
>
>Was this simply a quote by
>Y'shua in Messianic fullfilment of
>prophecy? If so it is
>lacking the usual Matthean formula,
>'this was done to fulfill
>
>that spoken by the prophet...'.
>
>
>Agreed. And personally, I don't
>think He was quoting Psalm
>22.

I DO think Matthai recorded the Targum and Mark recorded what was actually spoken. Matthai did not need to fill in the fulfillment scripture here as it was scripture known to his Jewish-Christian audience.
>Also keep in mind that many
>times no distinction was made
>between Hebrew and Aramaic, which
>were both written using the
>same script.
>
I have some thoughts on this too I'll share later.

>
>It can mean:
>
>

>
• Allow
  >
• Forgive (as used in the
  >Lord's Prayer)
  >
• Leave
  >

Yes. I looked at the Lexical Concordance first.
Also I consulted BDB, NIDOT, and TDOT. The word is used as a synonym for the Heb. 'azv',(a=ayin).
Since the phrase does seem to hearken Psalm 22 it seems to best fit that meaning here. Especially in Matt since it follows the Targum exactly.

>Questions I have regarding the Choreece/Chareece
>Greek reading of Hebrews 2:9
>
>
>

>
• What is the significance
  >of the Dative being present
  >in the "grace of" reading?
  >
  There are several kinds of datives. This would be termed an instrumental dative, meaning, 'BY (the) grace of God' (khariti theou).

  >

• Why is the final
  >Sigma replaced with Tau-Iota?
  >If I'm thinking of it
  >correctly, it is indicative of
  >possession (of God "-ti Theo).
  > Am I correct?

  That is just the dative construction. The genetive construction 'theou'(of God) shows possesion.

  >

• If I am correct,
  >how would the reading change
  >if it was "Apart from?"
  > In other words, is
  >it truly only a character
  >difference, or would the change
  >of phrase necessitate a change
  >in spelling as well?
  >For instance, I don't think
  >the "Tau-Iota" suffix would be
  >present.

  You are correct. The gloss would have been more than a spelling error. It would have also been a grammatical correction as well. The 'ti' would have replaced the sigma or vice versa if the gloss went the other way. I'm saying it may have been a simple error where the scribe just finished transcribing Paul's Roman Epistle where 'grace' is a repeated term.

  I don't think so. I think the gloss was 'apart from God' as it occurrs later.

  >

• Ultimately, how does Origen's
  >Greek rendering read? IS
  >there a way to find
  >out?
  >

Shlama,
Iakov.