Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While I agree that belief in the authenticity of any Jesus quote suggests a good deal of gullibilty the quote itself is not at all unrealistic, simply because referencing pericope in the Tanakh by referencing an opening phrase would not have been all that atypical. To assert:
Psalm 22 had nothing to do with the crucifixion - until Christian authors decided to try to make it fit. Not very successfully.
strikes me as being more than a little silly. It simply counters a faith claim with a faith claim.
I don't think so. If you compare the Psalms entire with the crucifixion and see how the quotes are used. it is clear that only a section or less of the psalm really fits the crucifixion.
What we are getting is not clear prophecy that is fulfilled but an event which sends the evangelists scouring the OT for anything that looks like it relates to it.
Thus I suggest that believing it to be fulfillment of prophecy is not in accordance with the evidence and is a faith -claim, while saying that it, like all the of all the Jesus prophecy quotes (except perhaps one), not really supported by the evidence, is not a faith claim but is in accordance with the evidence.
The aramaic in Mark and Matthew is a doubtful thing to do in mid -crucifixion, it is not confirmed by Luke, which shows that it was original to the synoptics nor is it supported by John. It is rather taken out of the context of the Psalm and the reson to put it into Jesus' mouth is not hard to find.
That's more than a 'faith - claim'. That's evidence.
I don't think so. If you compare the Psalms entire with the crucifixion and see how the quotes are used. it is clear that only a section or less of the psalm really fits the crucifixion.
What we are getting is not clear prophecy that is fulfilled but an event which sends the evangelists scouring the OT for anything that looks like it relates to it.
I am quite familiar with Psalm 22, and I am in no way claiming it as prophesy, but I can not excluse the possibility of a sect leader perceiving himself to be fulfillment of that psalm an referencing it as validation - early Jewish dialogue and debate is peppered with biblical "prooftext" that sounds more than a little awkward to those unfamiliar with the form. Perhaps more likely would be that the story evolved as midrash to explicate what 'likely' happened.
My only point is that there is much that exists between the extremes of authentic quote and Christian fraud.
The fact that the Jewish people missed it is irrelevant.
How did the Jews miss the any part of any psalm considering it was conveyed to them in their native language without translation and as an integral part of Jewish faith? How is it that Christians, over a millennium after the fact gain such superior understanding?
I can not exclude the possibility of a sect leader perceiving himself to be fulfillment of that psalm.
Well, I would not question any number of self-proclaimed Jewish messiahs thinking that they were the fulfillment of prophecy. It sort of goes with the turf of self-proclaimed messiahs, don't you think?
This has been something I have wondered about for a very long time.
About the last words of Jesus(as) is Why were they in Aramaic and the NT Authors never quoted any other words in Aramaic.? It seems it would have been wonderful to have saved the "Sermon on the Mount" in the original Aramaic.
As has already been mentioned.
The explanation that makes sense to me is he really did call out to Elijah and the Greek speaking author had to change it to something plausible that sounded like Elijah and the Psalm looked like a good option.
Now that still leaves the question as to why no other words of Jesus(as) were saved in Aramaic. If Koin Greek was what he preached in, it would seem Koin Greek would have been his habitual language and his last words would have been in Greek.. If he preached in Aramaic why weren't his actual words saved?
I am quite familiar with Psalm 22, and I am in no way claiming it as prophesy, but I can not excluse the possibility of a sect leader perceiving himself to be fulfillment of that psalm an referencing it as validation - early Jewish dialogue and debate is peppered with biblical "prooftext" that sounds more than a little awkward to those unfamiliar with the form. Perhaps more likely would be that the story evolved as midrash to explicate what 'likely' happened.
My only point is that there is much that exists between the extremes of authentic quote and Christian fraud.
I could not exclude the possibility either, in the first instance, but because of the overall view of the situation, the other gospels not having it and particularly Luke, also a synoptic gospel argues against it being authentic.
It is a relevant question that Woodrow raises - that it was in aramaic. I checked it some years ago and it is very close. While it is surprising that greeks adding a bit of fakery to the synoptic gospel (as I suggested) would know aramaic, and that would be a point for it being true, it is odd that Jesus, who presumably knew his psalms in Hebrew would address his God in the popular Jewish tongue.
While I don't want to fall into a false dichotomy, there isn't a lot of wiggle room between Jesus having actually said it and Jesus not actually having said it. Chat about midrash only addresses the motives of the writers (expiring on the nails seems an odd time for a bit of midrash on the part of Jesus), not the accuracy of what they wrote.
I did look some time ago at the idea of calling on Elijah, but that doesn't work, nor even does someone standing nearby telling the bystanders that Jesus was calling on Elijah when he was quoting Psalms, which is nothing to do with Elijah. I keep coming back to neither Luke nor John having it. If they did, I would still think it an odd thing to do, but would have to give the crufiix - quoting some credence, but as it is, the omission from John and Luke argues against it being authentic, despite the aramaic.
Just as Luke and John disagreeing (and you have to bear in mind that there is so much contradiction in the gospels that the weaving together of these disparate utterances into a whole narrative is just fiddling the evidence) argues that their last words are the invention of Luke and John, Luke not having the aramaic, is evidence (whether we reject it or not) that this is one of the many episodes we find in Mark and Matthew but not in Luke, who follows the same text - not just the same story but the same text.
I think Paul's preference for Septuagint would be sliding off -topic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
