In the Easter 1999
issue of The Liberal Catholic, Mrs. Blavatskys comments on the words "Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani" (Mt 27;47) are quoted. These
are the words Jesus said just before He died, according to the gospel of Matthew. She
claims that these words have a mystical, Egyptian origin. A right interpretation of these
words would be: My God, my God, how hast Thou exalted me, instead of the original meaning:
My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me.
Doubting the validity of her comments I researched the subject at the
theological faculty of the University of Nijmegen, where I am reading theology. My New
Testament professor, Prof. Dr. S. van Tilborg explained to me that the words "Eli,
Eli, lama sabachtani" are a quotation from Psalm 22. In Hebrew it says: Eli, Eli,
lama azaftani. A correct translation of these words is "My God, my God, why hast Thou
forsaken me." But the quotation in Matthew says sabachtani, not azaftani. Did Matthew
make a mistake?
The word sabachtani is a conjugation of a verb. Sabachtani comes from
the infinitive sabach. Sabachta is the second person singular of the tense
"qatal", which is something like our present perfect. In Semitic languages the
object of a verb is attached to the end of the verb. To sabachta you would add the object:
"-i", which means "me". In Semitic languages you can not connect two
vowels to one another, so an extra "n" is required making it sabachta-n-i. With
azaftani the same rule applies. Azaftani is Hebrew. The verb is azaf. Azaf means to
forsake. The verb sabach, meaning to exalt, also exists in the Hebrew language. But there
is one problem: the Hebrew sabach is conjugated differently. It would be sibachtani in
stead of sabachtani. So sabachtani is not Hebrew. What language is it then?
When Matthew wrote his gospel, he used a lot of elements from the
gospel of Mark. Mark 15;34 says "Eloļ, Eloļ, lama sabachtani". Eloļ
isnt Hebrew either, but Aramaic. It means my God. So perhaps the verb sabachtani is
Aramaic as well. In the Targum, the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew bible, Psalm 22
reads "Eloļ, Eloļ, metoel mah sabachtani". This is the original translation of
the Hebrew "Eli, Eli, lama azaftani", which means "My God, my God, why hast
Thou forsaken me". But why didnt Mark use the whole Aramaic version instead of
just the first two words and the last one?
To explain this, we should realise that Mark probably did not speak
Hebrew. In the first century AD very few Jews spoke Hebrew. In the synagogue the people,
who read the scriptures for the community, read them in Hebrew and translated them
directly into Aramaic, the main language of Palestine in that period. Mark had heard that
verse when the reader translated it to the community. When he wrote his gospel, he did not
have a written Hebrew or Aramaic bible with him to quote from. He quoted from what he knew
by heart. The result is a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic. We should also realise that
Hebrew and Aramaic are as closely related to each other as Dutch and German. It does not
take much to make a mixture of these languages. The words "Eloļ, Eloļ, lama
sabachtani" are therefore probably a mixture of Aramaic and Hebrew quotations.
When Matthew used Marks gospel he also used his quotation. He
only changed Eloļ into the Hebrew version Eli. It is assumed that he wanted to make it
sound more like Eli, the prophet.
This is why I am of the opinion that these words do not have a
mystical, Egyptian origin, but are quoted from Psalm 22. There are more verses quoted from
this psalm in the account of the crucifixion, e.g. Matt 27;35 and 27;39. The evangelist
wanted the reader to think of this psalm when reading these verses. The beginning of Psalm
22 is an exclamation of despair. It starts with "My God, my God, why hast Thou
forsaken me". But the psalm ends with trust in God. Although the situation is
desperate now, God will save us eventually. For Jesus the situation was desperate too, but
He also puts His trust in God. Everything will be all right. Jesus might die now, but He
will rise in glory.
This is, I think, the message the evangelist wanted to give by using
this quotation. There are also biblical scientists who think that these words are
historical. According to professor Van Tilborg there are not enough arguments for or
against this thesis. It does not seem strange that Jesus, who knew the Scriptures and was
in despair, prayed this psalm.
The verse has always raised the question: Why did the Son of God feel
forsaken by His God. Is the Son not one with the Father? Mrs. Blavatsky proposed a
solution for this problem, but I believe her translation to be incorrect. To me the
understanding that it refers to the intention of Psalm 22 is a more reasonable explanation
of this verse than the one given by her.