Two issues:"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani"
This is a quote in Aramaic -- meaning "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me" -- attributed in the New Testament to Jesus as he was crucified. In English translation, these words also comprise the beginning of the Twenty-Second Psalm.
Matthew 27:46 - ηλι ηλι λαμα σαβαχθανι (/eli eli lama sabachthani/, later Aramaic "E-lee e-lee l-maa saa-baach-taa-nee?") Matthew 27:46 (Lamsa translation)- ηλι ηλι λαμανα σαβαχθανι (/eli eli lamana sabachthani/, later Aramaic "E-lee e-lee l-maa-naa saa-baach-taa-nee?") The late Aramaic Bible researcher George Lamsa claimed that the traditional "forsaken" interpretation is a mistake in the Aramaic scribing that was transferred to later transcriptions. Lamsa claimed that "the correct translation from Aramaic should be "Eli, Eli, lemana shabakthani" or "My God, my God, for this [purpose] I was spared!"
1) שבקתני/sabachthani means "you abandoned me". So apart from anything else, George Lamsa's conclusion based on his claim that lama should be lamana cannot even in theory be correct, as the word he's claiming was corrupted doesn't mean either "abandoned" or "spared" but is the "why"/question part of the clause.
2) The transliteration in Matthew is followed by a translation in Greek:
τοῦτ’ ἔστιν, Θεέ μου θεέ μου, ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες/tout' estin, "thee mou, thee mou, inati me egkatelipes"/ "which means [lit. "exists as" or "is"] for what reason [lit. "thing"] do you abandon me?"
In a less literal and better translation, "for what reason did you forsake me" or "why did..."
Mark is even more definitive here, as the author follows the transliteration with:
ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον Ὁ θεός μου ὁ θεός μου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με/ho estin methermeneuomenon ho theos mou ho theos mou, eis ti egkatelipes me/ "which, being translated, is "my god, my god, with respect to what thing do you forsake me?"
(or, again, "why have you forsaken me?"). So the authors actually tell us what the transliterated Aramaic actually means. Any alternative translation of the Aramaic, then, has to be followed by an explanation of the Greek which the authors supply as a translation in the text.
Rocco Errico writes about the Aramaic spoken in the recent The Passion of the Christ film: "The Aramaic text does not say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" [Jesus'] words were not a question but a declaration: "My God, my God, for this I was spared! [or "This was my destiny]"..."Interestingly, the recent TV movie Judas portrayed these words correctly."
And this is just incorrect. Modern English relies (at least in written form) on punctuation and word order to distinguish things like questions from declarations, or commands from requests. Greek and Hebrew, on the other hand, rely heavily on morphology. English has all but lost its case system (all that remains is the subject object distinction in things like personal pronouns, such as I vs. me), has merely a basic singular vs. plural for verbs, and the vanishing, barely recognized "subjunctive" in phrases such as "if I were you..." rather than the oft used and incorrect "if I was you..." In both Hebrew and Greek, verbs and nouns have multiple forms to indicate what English would with additional "helping" verbs (e.g, "would", "might", "should"), extra words, and word order.
A "declaration" has a grammatical and technical meaning in linguistics and grammar. So does a question. They are both usually called verbal moods, the former the "declarative mood" and the latter the "interrogative" mood. Distinctions between questions and declarations aren't simply about what words are in the text, but rather the form in which those words appear. If you look at the standard English reference grammar for classical Greek (Smyth-Messing), the section on verb morphology shows the "normal" inflection paradigm for Greek verbs (i.e., all the different forms) using the verb λύω/luo. It goes on for several pages, because there are over a hundred different forms in which this verb can appear (e.g., first person subjunctive aorist passive, or 2nd person plural optative future middle).
Biblical Hebrew is at least as morphologically complex (I'd say more), although it lacks the rather annoying degree of polysemy in Greek as well as what is probably the most intricate particle system of any language.
The point of going into this amount of detail (and believe me, this is nothing) is to impress upon you the difference between looking definitions of words in Strong's or something, and what the text actually says. When John the Baptist says he isn't worthy to "untie" Jesus' shoes in Luke, the Greek word translated as "untie" (or "unloose") is λύω/lou. In a different form, or used in combination with certain words, it can mean everything from "pay wages" to "destroy" or "kill".
Among most Christians the former interpretation is still believed to be correct, and the newer Lamsa interpretation, largely unknown to most Christians, and may be considered unusual and even heretical.
Modern linguistics grew out of biblical studies. The tools used to increase our understanding of biblical languages were borrowed by guys like Bopp and Grimm who founded comparative (and Indo-European) linguistics. Which means that the study of biblical languages from a scientific perspective (inasmuch as early modern science can be called science) predates linguistics and has continued for the past several centuries. Every years new monographs, edited volumes, and journal articles on things the use of a single word in one of Paul's letters or the relationship between the use of a particular verbal mood in some NT text should be considered in light of some findings in recently recovered papyri. Groups like the SBL or Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas are not only large, but have a much broader base of readers for the various monograph series and journals they publish.
So without even factoring in classicists and experts in similar fields (whose research frequently overlaps with that from biblical scholars), the chances that these thousands of doctorates from around the world have, for the last 300 years, continued to miss so basic an issue as the one you describe is nil.
Last edited: