Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] Embarrassment and Mark 15.34

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... Yes, I am aware of the root meaning. But as LSJ also notes, when PARADIDWMI is used as it is in 1 Cor. with reference to a **person**, the verb more
    Message 1 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      William Arnal wrote:

      > Jeffrey asks:
      >
      > >Are you saying there was no betrayal tradition before Mark? If so, how do
      > >you
      > >handle 1 Cor. 11:23? Is PAREDIDETO **purely** theological = "delivered
      > >up (by
      > >God)", rather than "betrayed (by a betrayer)"?
      >
      > It needn't be one or the other -- the root meaning is to "hand over" as in
      > to hand over to the authorities, police, courts, etc. So LSJ and BAGD. No
      > idea of "betrayal" is required here, simply arrest. Cf. Mark 15:1.

      Yes, I am aware of the "root" meaning. But as LSJ also notes, when PARADIDWMI
      is used as it is in 1 Cor. with reference to a **person**, the verb more often
      than not meant "to betray".

      Yours,

      Jeffrey
      --

      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

      1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
      Chicago, IL 60626

      jgibson000@...
    • Theodore Weeden
      ... Jeffrey, the translation of PARADIDOMI as betrayal in I Cor. 11:23 (found in most translations) is unfortunately prejudiced by the story of Judas
      Message 2 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Jeffrey Gibson wrote:

        > Theodore Weeden wrote:
        >
        >> I agree with you, Mark. In fact, as soon as I can revise it, I have a
        >> book
        >> which Polebridge Press has offered to publish in which I argue that the
        >> entire passion narrative is a creation of Mark, from the Gethsemane
        >> episode
        >> through to the empty tomb story. The Gethsemane episode, Judas'
        >> betrayal
        >> and Peter's denial are based upon the Davidic saga of II Sam. 15-17 and
        >> 20.
        >
        > Are you saying there was no betrayal tradition before Mark? If so, how do
        > you
        > handle 1 Cor. 11:23? Is PAREDIDETO **purely** theological = "delivered
        > up (by
        > God)", rather than "betrayed (by a betrayer)"?

        Jeffrey, the translation of PARADIDOMI as "betrayal" in I Cor. 11:23 (found
        in most translations) is unfortunately prejudiced by the story of Judas'
        betrayal in the Synoptics, John and Acts. There is no reason why PARADIDOMI
        cannot be translated as "handed over or delivered up" (i.e. "arrested") in
        that passage. I find it striking that if Paul meant or interpreted
        PARADIDOMAI as a reference to the betrayal of Jesus that he does not make
        any reference to the betrayal anywhere in his letters. In fact, there is no
        explicit or implicit allusion to the disaffection of any one in the
        inner-circle of Jesus' followers prior to Mark. I cannot find any allusion
        in Q or Thomas.


        Moreover, it is surprising that if Paul was aware of the betrayal of Jesus
        by Judas that he does not use that information to attack the "false/super
        apostles" in II Cor. 10-13, particularly II Cor. 11:13-15. Had Paul known
        about Judas, how could he have passed up the opportunity to cite Judas as an
        excellent example (to paraphrase Paul only slightly) of a false disciple,
        deceitful worker.disguising himself as a disciple of Christ, behind whom was
        Satan in disguise, a false disciple whose end matched his deeds?



        Furthermore, I find it strange that Paul in citing the resurrection
        appearances to various early Christian leaders and their respective cohorts
        in I Cor. 15:5ff., that Paul cites "Peter and then to the Twelve." Not
        "Peter and then to the Eleven." I, as does Crossan, see the election held
        for Judas' replacement in Acts to be pure Lukan fiction to deal with the
        apostasy of Judas which he derived from Mark. Paul's citation, which must
        go back to the 50's or earlier, suggests that the Twelve are a coherent and
        faithful body of original disciples with its original integrity in tact.



        Ted Weeden
      • Mark Goodacre
        ... In fact I was stuck recently by just how major a theme PARADIDWMI is in Mark s Passion Narrative -- 15.1 Jesus is handed over to Pilate, 15.10 the chief
        Message 3 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 16:21:17 -0600, William Arnal <warnal@...> wrote:

          > It needn't be one or the other -- the root meaning is to "hand over" as in
          > to hand over to the authorities, police, courts, etc. So LSJ and BAGD. No
          > idea of "betrayal" is required here, simply arrest. Cf. Mark 15:1.

          In fact I was stuck recently by just how major a theme PARADIDWMI is
          in Mark's Passion Narrative -- 15.1 Jesus is handed over to Pilate,
          15.10 the chief priests are said to have handed Jesus over because of
          envy, 15.15 Pilate hands Jesus over to be scourged and crucified. Cf.
          Vernon Robbins's 1992 article in the Neirynck Festschrift reproduced
          at http://www.religion.emory.edu/faculty/robbins/Pdfs/ReversedPs22Mark15.pdf
          (1166).

          Mark
          --
          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
          Dept of Theology and Religion
          University of Birmingham
          Elmfield House, Selly Oak tel.+44 121 414 7512
          Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376

          http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
          http://NTGateway.com
        • Jeffrey B. Gibson
          ... Except that that seems to have been the meaning it bore when used with reference to a person, especially a person who shortly after the delivery suffers
          Message 4 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Theodore Weeden wrote:

            > Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
            >
            > > Theodore Weeden wrote:
            > >
            > >> I agree with you, Mark. In fact, as soon as I can revise it, I have a
            > >> book
            > >> which Polebridge Press has offered to publish in which I argue that the
            > >> entire passion narrative is a creation of Mark, from the Gethsemane
            > >> episode
            > >> through to the empty tomb story. The Gethsemane episode, Judas'
            > >> betrayal
            > >> and Peter's denial are based upon the Davidic saga of II Sam. 15-17 and
            > >> 20.
            > >
            > > Are you saying there was no betrayal tradition before Mark? If so, how do
            > > you
            > > handle 1 Cor. 11:23? Is PAREDIDETO **purely** theological = "delivered
            > > up (by
            > > God)", rather than "betrayed (by a betrayer)"?
            >
            > Jeffrey, the translation of PARADIDOMI as "betrayal" in I Cor. 11:23 (found
            > in most translations) is unfortunately prejudiced by the story of Judas'
            > betrayal in the Synoptics, John and Acts. There is no reason why PARADIDOMI
            > cannot be translated as "handed over or delivered up" (i.e. "arrested") in
            > that passage.

            Except that that seems to have been the meaning it bore when used with reference
            to a person, especially a person who shortly after the delivery suffers death..

            > I find it striking that if Paul meant or interpreted
            > PARADIDOMAI as a reference to the betrayal of Jesus that he does not make
            > any reference to the betrayal anywhere in his letters. In fact, there is no
            > explicit or implicit allusion to the disaffection of any one in the
            > inner-circle of Jesus' followers prior to Mark. I cannot find any allusion
            > in Q or Thomas.

            Well, he doesn't make any reference to the words of institution anywhere else
            either. Does that mean that Paul really has no knowledge the events of the "last
            supper"?

            >
            >
            > Moreover, it is surprising that if Paul was aware of the betrayal of Jesus
            > by Judas that he does not use that information to attack the "false/super
            > apostles" in II Cor. 10-13, particularly II Cor. 11:13-15. Had Paul known
            > about Judas, how could he have passed up the opportunity to cite Judas as an
            > excellent example (to paraphrase Paul only slightly) of a false disciple,
            > deceitful worker.disguising himself as a disciple of Christ, behind whom was
            > Satan in disguise, a false disciple whose end matched his deeds?

            Isn't this reading the Johannine vision of Judas into who Paul must have known
            Judas was if he knew him at all?

            > Furthermore, I find it strange that Paul in citing the resurrection
            > appearances to various early Christian leaders and their respective cohorts
            > in I Cor. 15:5ff., that Paul cites "Peter and then to the Twelve." Not
            > "Peter and then to the Eleven." I, as does Crossan, see the election held
            > for Judas' replacement in Acts to be pure Lukan fiction to deal with the
            > apostasy of Judas which he derived from Mark. Paul's citation, which must
            > go back to the 50's or earlier, suggests that the Twelve are a coherent and
            > faithful body of original disciples with its original integrity in tact.

            Or a symbol of the new Israel which does always depend upon being comprised of
            exactly 12 men to be what it is supposed to represent. I think the discrepancies
            in the Synoptic Lists who was among the 12 lends credence to this idea.

            Yours,

            Jeffrey
            --

            Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

            1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
            Chicago, IL 60626

            jgibson000@...
          • William Arnal
            ... And said something similar to me as well. In fact neither LSJ nor the text of Mark (cf. 15:1, as I noted earlier, as well as Mark Goodacre s [the *other*
            Message 5 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Jeffrey wrote, in response to Ted:


              > > Jeffrey, the translation of PARADIDOMI as "betrayal" in I Cor. 11:23
              >(found
              > > in most translations) is unfortunately prejudiced by the story of Judas'
              > > betrayal in the Synoptics, John and Acts. There is no reason why
              >PARADIDOMI
              > > cannot be translated as "handed over or delivered up" (i.e. "arrested")
              >in
              > > that passage.
              >
              >Except that that seems to have been the meaning it bore when used with
              >reference
              >to a person, especially a person who shortly after the delivery suffers
              >death..

              And said something similar to me as well. In fact neither LSJ nor the text
              of Mark (cf. 15:1, as I noted earlier, as well as Mark Goodacre's [the
              *other* Mark!] recent post on this thread) supports this quite rigid way of
              fixing the meaning. LSJ (confirmed by Mark's usage) gives "handed over (to
              justice, the authorities, etc.)" as the meaning with respect to persons as
              well as objects, "with collateral notion of treachery" *sometimes* implied.
              Again, see Mark 15:1, where "betrayal" is not at issue in any way: it is
              just a giving over (of a person) to an enemy.

              regards,
              Bill
            • Mark Goodacre
              Ted -- thanks for that and I look forward very much to the book. Just one comment at this stage: On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 18:00:15 -0500, Theodore Weeden ... You
              Message 6 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Ted -- thanks for that and I look forward very much to the book. Just
                one comment at this stage:

                On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 18:00:15 -0500, Theodore Weeden
                <tweeden@...> wrote:

                > Jeffrey, the translation of PARADIDOMI as "betrayal" in I Cor. 11:23 (found
                > in most translations) is unfortunately prejudiced by the story of Judas'
                > betrayal in the Synoptics, John and Acts. There is no reason why PARADIDOMI
                > cannot be translated as "handed over or delivered up" (i.e. "arrested") in
                > that passage. I find it striking that if Paul meant or interpreted
                > PARADIDOMAI as a reference to the betrayal of Jesus that he does not make
                > any reference to the betrayal anywhere in his letters. In fact, there is no
                > explicit or implicit allusion to the disaffection of any one in the
                > inner-circle of Jesus' followers prior to Mark. I cannot find any allusion
                > in Q or Thomas.

                You have used this kind of argument before, in relation to Peter's
                denial, if I remember correctly. My problem with this kind of
                argument from silence is that it needs to establish that, all things
                being equal, we would have expected Q or Thomas to feature a reference
                to this had they known of it. But given the lack of a Passion
                Narrative in either Q or Thomas, it's simply unsurprising that they do
                not feature a reference to it. At least in Thomas's case, and
                arguably in Q's too, the very genre of the book precludes reference to
                it. Crossan uses the same kind of argument and I find it baffling.
                There may be good arguments to be had on this topic, but appeal to the
                silence of Thomas and Q just can't be be persuasive, can it?

                Mark
                --
                Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                Dept of Theology and Religion
                University of Birmingham
                Elmfield House, Selly Oak tel.+44 121 414 7512
                Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376

                http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
                http://NTGateway.com
              • Theodore Weeden
                Jeffrey Gibson wrote: ... It is not clear to me what you are positing here. Are you suggesting that a person delivered up to death is understood to have been
                Message 7 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jeffrey Gibson wrote:

                  TJW wrote:

                  >> Jeffrey, the translation of PARADIDOMI as "betrayal" in I Cor. 11:23
                  >> (found
                  >> in most translations) is unfortunately prejudiced by the story of Judas'
                  >> betrayal in the Synoptics, John and Acts. There is no reason why
                  >> PARADIDOMI
                  >> cannot be translated as "handed over or delivered up" (i.e. "arrested")
                  >> in
                  >> that passage.
                  >
                  > Except that that seems to have been the meaning it bore when used with
                  > reference
                  > to a person, especially a person who shortly after the delivery suffers
                  > death..

                  It is not clear to me what you are positing here. Are you suggesting that a
                  person delivered up to death is understood to have been betrayed?
                  >
                  >> I find it striking that if Paul meant or interpreted
                  >> PARADIDOMAI as a reference to the betrayal of Jesus that he does not
                  >> make
                  >> any reference to the betrayal anywhere in his letters. In fact, there is
                  >> no
                  >> explicit or implicit allusion to the disaffection of any one in the
                  >> inner-circle of Jesus' followers prior to Mark. I cannot find any
                  >> allusion
                  >> in Q or Thomas.
                  >
                  > Well, he doesn't make any reference to the words of institution anywhere
                  > else
                  > either. Does that mean that Paul really has no knowledge the events of
                  > the "last
                  > supper"?

                  Paul gives no indication that he knows much at all about Jesus events or his
                  teaching. He does know that he was crucified and that he and others had
                  some experience, vision or otherwise, of Jesus being alive to them after his
                  death.
                  >
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Moreover, it is surprising that if Paul was aware of the betrayal of
                  >> Jesus
                  >> by Judas that he does not use that information to attack the "false/super
                  >> apostles" in II Cor. 10-13, particularly II Cor. 11:13-15. Had Paul
                  >> known
                  >> about Judas, how could he have passed up the opportunity to cite Judas as
                  >> an
                  >> excellent example (to paraphrase Paul only slightly) of a false disciple,
                  >> deceitful worker.disguising himself as a disciple of Christ, behind whom
                  >> was
                  >> Satan in disguise, a false disciple whose end matched his deeds?
                  >
                  > Isn't this reading the Johannine vision of Judas into who Paul must have
                  > known
                  > Judas was if he knew him at all?

                  No, I was not thinking of John at this point, only paraphrasing what Paul
                  was saying about his opponents, which he could have easily cited as
                  exemplified in Judas, if he had known of the betrayal.
                  >
                  >> Furthermore, I find it strange that Paul in citing the resurrection
                  >> appearances to various early Christian leaders and their respective
                  >> cohorts
                  >> in I Cor. 15:5ff., that Paul cites "Peter and then to the Twelve." Not
                  >> "Peter and then to the Eleven." I, as does Crossan, see the election held
                  >> for Judas' replacement in Acts to be pure Lukan fiction to deal with the
                  >> apostasy of Judas which he derived from Mark. Paul's citation, which
                  >> must
                  >> go back to the 50's or earlier, suggests that the Twelve are a coherent
                  >> and
                  >> faithful body of original disciples with its original integrity in tact.
                  >
                  > Or a symbol of the new Israel which does always depend upon being
                  > comprised of
                  > exactly 12 men to be what it is supposed to represent. I think the
                  > discrepancies
                  > in the Synoptic Lists who was among the 12 lends credence to this idea.

                  But the imagery or metaphor of the 12 representing the New Israel is
                  undermined if one of the disciples was known to have been a betrayer of the
                  Messiah of the new Israel. Luke resolves that difficulty by having Judas
                  replaced and restoring the integrity of the 12.

                  Ted
                • Mark Goodacre
                  On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:17:48 -0600, Jeffrey B. Gibson ... Prof. Campbell has now kindly given his permission for his article to be shared with Xtalk members
                  Message 8 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:17:48 -0600, Jeffrey B. Gibson
                    <jgibson000@...> wrote:

                    > > > An exploration of this theme is carried out in one of the papers to be discussed
                    > > > in the Mark Group at the upcoming SBL.
                    > > >
                    > > > I wonder if it would be out of line to make the paper available to XTalk members?
                    > >
                    > > It sounds interesting; who wrote it?
                    >
                    > A William Sanger Campbell at Columbia Theological Seminary in Georgia.

                    Prof. Campbell has now kindly given his permission for his article to
                    be shared with Xtalk members (but he asks that it not be distributed
                    more widely). I have uploaded it to the files area of the list --
                    click on campbell.pdf at
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/files/ .

                    Mark
                    --
                    Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                    Dept of Theology and Religion
                    University of Birmingham
                    Elmfield House, Selly Oak tel.+44 121 414 7512
                    Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376

                    http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
                    http://NTGateway.com
                  • Mike Grondin
                    ... Hi Bob, Your question caused me to do a little research. My reading of 2 Kings 20:1-11 (which I think is what Jeffrey was referring to) indicates it d be a
                    Message 9 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- Bob Schacht asked Jeffrey:
                      > The question I might ask, is why is Hezekiah's example so seldom
                      > alluded to, either in the first centuries, or in our own?

                      Hi Bob,
                      Your question caused me to do a little research. My reading of 2
                      Kings 20:1-11 (which I think is what Jeffrey was referring to)
                      indicates it'd be a pretty tough sell to make it out to be an
                      example of either testing or abandonment. Looks to me like the
                      author was simply saying that it was Hezekiah's time to go, but
                      that Yahweh responded to his prayers by adding fifteen years to his
                      life. There is the three-day thingy (Yahweh/Isaiah tells Hezekiah
                      on his sick bed that he'll be well enough in three days to go to
                      the Temple), but that seems to be the only point of analogy.

                      The other thing is, Hezekiah doesn't turn out to be entirely
                      admirable in the end. Although said to be the greatest of the Kings
                      of Judah, nevertheless he's blamed (at the end of 2 Kings 20) for
                      sowing the seeds of Babylonian captivity a century in the future,
                      by showing the King of Babylon what riches there were in Jerusalem.
                      Worse still, when Isaiah upbraids him for doing that, and tells him
                      what's going to happen in the future because of it, he's made to
                      respond (roughly) "That's OK - I won't be around."

                      These are probably two good reasons why Hezekiah isn't/wasn't used
                      as an example of abandonment.

                      Regards,
                      Mike Grondin
                    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                      ... You need to look at the LXX version of this! Jeffrey -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.) 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1 Chicago, IL 60626 jgibson000@comcast.net
                      Message 10 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Mike Grondin wrote:

                        > --- Bob Schacht asked Jeffrey:
                        > > The question I might ask, is why is Hezekiah's example so seldom
                        > > alluded to, either in the first centuries, or in our own?
                        >
                        > Hi Bob,
                        > Your question caused me to do a little research. My reading of 2
                        > Kings 20:1-11 (which I think is what Jeffrey was referring to)
                        > indicates it'd be a pretty tough sell to make it out to be an
                        > example of either testing or abandonment. Looks to me like the
                        > author was simply saying that it was Hezekiah's time to go, but
                        > that Yahweh responded to his prayers by adding fifteen years to his
                        > life. There is the three-day thingy (Yahweh/Isaiah tells Hezekiah
                        > on his sick bed that he'll be well enough in three days to go to
                        > the Temple), but that seems to be the only point of analogy.

                        You need to look at the LXX version of this!

                        Jeffrey
                        --

                        Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                        1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                        Chicago, IL 60626

                        jgibson000@...
                      • Mike Grondin
                        ... You mean IV Kings 20:1-11? Seems to read about the same. Mike
                        Message 11 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
                          > You need to look at the LXX version of this!

                          You mean IV Kings 20:1-11? Seems to read about the same.

                          Mike
                        • Jack Kilmon
                          ... From: Pawel Glowacki To: Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 1:12 AM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Embarrassment and
                          Message 12 of 22 , Nov 3, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "Pawel Glowacki" <paglo53@...>
                            To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 1:12 AM
                            Subject: Re: [XTalk] Embarrassment and Mark 15.34


                            >
                            >
                            > I have a question concerning Mk 15;34. An Israeli friend of mine with no
                            > knowledge of the Passion Story couldn't understand the words
                            > ELOI ELOI LAMA SABACHTHANI.
                            > Then we looked into The Book of Psalms in Hebrew and found that what is
                            > there is actually
                            > ELI ELI LAMA AZAVTANI,
                            > which made a perfect sense to her. Is the Hebrew part of Mk 15;34
                            > distorted? How is this explained?
                            > Pawel


                            The cry from the cross is in the language spoken at the time, Aramaic, not
                            distorted Hebrew. Mark attempts to transliterate it in Greek. The Aramaic
                            would be aLOho, aLOho, lama shevawkTAni. In Hebrew, it is as in Psalm 22.
                            The cry from the cross becomes a targumic one-liner.

                            Jack Kilmon
                            San Marcos, Texas
                          • sdavies0
                            Paul uses paradidomai in Romans 8:32 to mean that God delivered up Jesus. There is no reason to think that he thinks otherwise in 1 Cor. 11:23 where Jesus is
                            Message 13 of 22 , Nov 3, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Paul uses paradidomai in Romans 8:32 to mean that God delivered up
                              Jesus. There is no reason to think that he thinks otherwise in 1 Cor.
                              11:23 where Jesus is delivered up (paredideto).

                              Steve Davies
                            • Jack Kilmon
                              I don t think Lamsa s translation, which is a combination of modern Assyrian idiom and a theological bent, is credible. Lamsa s translation is of the Peshitta
                              Message 14 of 22 , Nov 3, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I don't think Lamsa's translation, which is a combination of modern Assyrian
                                idiom and a theological bent, is credible. Lamsa's translation is of the
                                Peshitta which is a Syriac translation of the Greek New Testament. Jesus
                                did not speak Syriac. Syriiac is a late Eastern dialect while Jesus spoke a
                                MIDDLE Western dialect. The Matthean scribe copied Mark but redacted the
                                line. I don't think he was that facile in Aramaic. Mark transliterated in
                                Greek, ELWI ELWI LEMA SABAXQANI.

                                sabaxqany is, in Aramaic, $bqtny, and it means "forsake/abandon-you-me"
                                Jesus would have read scripture in Hebrew but expounded on it, in sermons,
                                in his first language, Aramaic, or under great pain and stress. Mark 15:34
                                is Psalms 22:1 and the embarrassment over the cry for some will just have to
                                stand.

                                Jack



                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: "James Hammond" <jhammond@...>
                                To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 7:06 AM
                                Subject: RE: [XTalk] Embarrassment and Mark 15.34


                                >
                                >
                                > In The Holy Bible Aramaic translation by George M Lamsa, he translates it
                                > as
                                > ‘And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice and said, “Eli,
                                > Eli, lmana shabakthani! My God, My God, for this I was spared, this was my
                                > destiny”’ He therefore claims that Jesus is not quoting Psalm 22, stating
                                > that nashatani means ‘forsaken me’ whilst Sabachthani means ‘kept me’.
                                >
                                > The whole idea of God the Father 'turning his back' on Jesus seems
                                > impossible. Bob Passantino has an excellent article on this, titled "Did
                                > the
                                > Father Leave the Son on the Cross?" and James Oliver Buswell's Systematic
                                > Theology of the Christian Religion also goes into detail about this.
                                >
                                > I'm assuming I'm answering the right query in your posting!
                                >
                                > Regards
                                > James Hammond
                                > Pastor, Worldwide Church of God, Ramsey, United Kingdom
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > -----Original Message-----
                                > From: Pawel Glowacki [mailto:paglo53@...]
                                > Sent: 03 November 2004 07:13
                                > To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                                > Subject: Re: [XTalk] Embarrassment and Mark 15.34
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > I have a question concerning Mk 15;34. An Israeli friend of mine with no
                                > knowledge of the Passion Story couldn't understand the words ELOI ELOI
                                > LAMA
                                > SABACHTHANI.
                                > Then we looked into The Book of Psalms in Hebrew and found that what is
                                > there is actually ELI ELI LAMA AZAVTANI, which made a perfect sense to
                                > her.
                                > Is the Hebrew part of Mk 15;34 distorted? How is this explained?
                                > Pawel
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
                                > Make
                                > a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
                                > Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
                                > http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/wpWolB/TM
                                > --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
                                >
                                > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                                >
                                > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                                > crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                >
                                > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                >
                                > List managers may be contacted directly at:
                                > crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                                >
                                >
                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > ---
                                > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
                                > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
                                > Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 29/10/2004
                                >
                                >
                                > ---
                                > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
                                > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
                                > Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 29/10/2004
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                                >
                                > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                                > crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                >
                                > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                >
                                > List managers may be contacted directly at:
                                > crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                                >
                                >
                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.