If you're new here, you may want to get regular updates via如果你是新这里，你可能想通过定期更新 RSS feed RSS提要 . 。 Thank you for visiting!谢谢您的访问！

Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi 莫哈末Elfie Nieshaem Juferi

In two of the Synoptic Gospels,由于天气福音二， Jesus耶稣 (P) is depicted as crying out on the cross “my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” [1]. （P）是上帝为我哭泣描绘出在十字架上“，我的上帝，为什么离弃我？”[1]。 The Qur'an clearly postulates that Jesus (P) was never crucified, and therefore Muslims reject this version of the story mentioned in the Synoptics.古兰经明确假定耶稣（P）是永远不会钉在十字架上，因此，穆斯林反对这种在该synoptics提到的故事版本。 Furthermore, the Muslim conception of the relationship between God and His prophets (P) is in stark contradistinction to any notion of a prophet being abandoned by God.此外，穆斯林概念之间的关系，上帝和他的先知（规划）形成了鲜明的对比，是任何一个先知的概念被遗弃的上帝。

In light of these facts, Muslims consider the cry to be unhistorically attributed to Jesus (P).鉴于这些事实，穆斯林认为哭是unhistorically归功于耶稣（规划）。 It is therefore the object of this article to take a more objective look at this particular event in the gospels, and to see if there is an objective justification for the Muslim position.因此，这篇文章的对象采取在这个特定事件的福音更客观看，看看是否有一个穆斯林的立场客观理由。

“Embarrassment of Transmission” & The Midrashic “尴尬的输电”及本圣经解释 History 历史

The position that the story of Jesus'(P) cry of “my God, my God” on the cross is fictional is not one that is held by Muslims only.的立场是耶稣的（P）的“我的上帝，我的上帝”在十字架上的口号是虚构的故事，不是一个由穆斯林只举行。 Indeed, even the honest Christian scholars would have to at least admit that the story is a theologoumenon; that is to say, a non-doctrinal theological interpretation that cannot be verified or refuted on the basis of historical evidence.事实上，即使是诚实的基督教学者将不得不承认，至少在这个故事是一个theologoumenon，这就是说，非神学教义的解释无法核实或对历史证据的基础上反驳。

Unfortunately, some Christian scholars take a more obstinate position and argue somewhat circularly that the historicity of the event can affirmed by the nature of the saying allegedly recorded in the gospels.不幸的是，一些基督教学者采取更加顽固的立场，认为有些圆的是，可以通过自然的历史性事件的说法肯定据称在福音记录。 As Max Wilcox puts it:正如马克思威尔考克斯所说的：

The authenticity of the saying is surely supported by the sheer embarrassment of the words for the early church.[2]该说法肯定是由早期教会的尴尬的话绝对支持的真实性。[2]

The argument is a popular one and it is essentially rooted in the suggestion that had this been a fictional account, the gospel writers would surely have not included an event from the life of Jesus(P) that makes him seem so much unlike the messenger of God.该参数是一个流行的，它基本上是在，如果这一建议被一个虚构的帐户植根于福音的作家一定会不包括从耶稣的生命（规划），使他显得如此不同，许多事件的使者神。 The hidden premise is actually, much to the dismay of proponents of this sort of argumentation, quite unfounded.其实隐藏的前提是，这让本论证排序的支持者失望，很没有根据的。 It is wholly plausible that a person could fabricate this story for a myriad of reasons.这是完全可能的，一个人可以编造的原因有无数的故事。

First, it is not wholly convincing that the story would be considered immediately “embarrassing” to the first person to relate it.首先，它不是完全令人信服的故事将被视为立即“尴尬”的第一人有关的。 It is a known fact that the legends of ancient peoples often have their deities in unflattering positions.这是一个众所周知的事实是古代人民的传说常常在他们的神不敢恭维的立场。 By the logic of Wilcox and his cohorts, we would have to also conclude that many legends about the Hindu and Greek deities being involved in theft, deception, rape and murder are also recording historical events.到了威尔科克斯和他的同伙的逻辑，我们将不得不得出结论，也对印度和希腊神的传说不少正在参与盗窃，诈骗，强奸和谋杀，也记录历史事件。

One could continue with a plethora of other possibilities, but that is not necessary.人们可以继续进行过多的其他可能性，但这是没有必要的。 The point is not to simply plant the seeds of doubt by mentioning other scenarios in an ad-hoc fashion; rather the issue is only to demonstrate that this argument that the story is too good (or too bad) to be true is simply fallacious.问题的关键不是简单的植物提的一个特设的方式其他情景怀疑的种子，而是唯一的问题是要证明这个论点，这个故事太好（或坏）是真实的，是根本错误的。 Commenting on historicity and possible negative interpretations, the great scholar David Strauss had the following to say:在谈到历史性和可能产生的消极的解释，伟大的学者大卫斯特劳斯了以下的话：

[W]e must observe that one who, as the gospels narrate of Jesus, had long included suffering and death in his idea of the Messiah, and hence had regarded them as part of the divine arrangements, could scarcely complain of them when they actually arrived as an abandonment by God; rather, on the above supposition, we should be led to think that Jesus had found himself deceived in the expectations which he had previously cherished, and thus believed himself forsaken by God in the prosecution of his plan. [我们]必须指出，一个谁，作为福音的耶稣叙述，包括已久的痛苦和他对弥赛亚思想的死亡，因此一直把他们作为神安排的一部分，几乎无法抱怨他们时，他们实际上作为一个被上帝遗弃抵达，而是在上述假设，我们应该导致认为耶稣已经发现自己在这以前，他曾抱有期望，欺骗，从而相信：上帝在他的计划起诉抛弃自己。 But we could only resort to such conjectures if the above exclamation of Jesus were shown to have an historical foundation.[3]但是，我们只能诉诸这种猜测如果上述感叹耶稣被证明具有历史基础[3]。

We note with great interest that Strauss admits that “But we could only resort to such conjectures if the above exclamation of Jesus were shown to have an historical foundation”, which is certainly the heart of the matter.我们注意到怀着极大的兴趣斯特劳斯承认，“但我们只能采取这样的猜测如果上述感叹耶稣被证明具有历史基础”，这当然是问题的核心。 Whether one argues that this is proof of the utterance's historicity, or takes the popular atheist position and cite it as evidence that Jesus(P) was a fraud, both positions are rooted in the presupposition that the story is in fact recording an historical event.不管是说，这是话语的历史性证据，或采取流行的无神论立场，引用作为证据，耶稣（P）是一个骗局，这两个职位是在假定植根于这个故事其实是记录历史事件。 So, to presuppose, via a hidden premise that the story is historical, in order to prove that it is historical is to beg the question.因此，要前提，通过一个隐藏的前提，是历史的故事，以证明它是历史的，是最难解决的问题。 Those who employ such methodology are merely commenting on possible coherence, which has nothing to do with a correspondence with some fact of the matter, thus the argument is not only circular but tautological as well.这些谁雇用这些方法仅仅是可能的连贯性，这没有任何关系与一些事实上信件评论，因此该参数不仅是同义反复循环，但也。

There is, as has already been alluded to, another option.还有，正如已经提到，另一种选择。 Strauss touches on it briefly when he calls the story an “adaptation,” and states that斯特劳斯触及简单地调用的时候，他的故事“改编”，并指出

…the relation of the words of Jesus to the 22nd Psalm does certainly render this particular suspicious.[4] ...的关系耶稣的话22诗篇使这当然没有可疑。[4]

In order to understand the relationship between the story and the opening verse of the 22nd chapter of the book of Psalms, let us consider what Remsberg had to say on the issue:为了了解之间的故事和诗篇上的第22章开放诗句的关系，让我们考虑一下雷姆斯伯格不得不说在这个问题上：

The accounts of the crucifixion given by the Evangelists are to a large extent reproductions of the 22nd Psalm, even to the language itself, the poetical allusions of the psalmist being transformed into alleged historical facts.由福音给受难的帐目，以第22届诗篇很大程度上复制，甚至到了语言本身，对诗人的诗意典故被改造成所谓的历史事实。 The devout Christian who is familiar with this Passion Psalm sees in the Evangelists' account of the crucifixion a wonderful fulfillment of prophecy.在虔诚的基督徒谁是这个激情的诗篇中看到熟悉的福音对受难一个美妙的预言实现的帐户。 But the critic sees merely the borrowed embellishments of a legend.[5]但评论家认为仅仅是一个传说，借来的装饰。[5]

What is being touched on here is that the gospels may not be recording history as much as they are recording midrash[6].什么是在这里被感动的是，福音书可能没有记录的历史，因为他们正在录制米德拉士多[6]。 To define this term, we would invoke the words of the great contemporary Jewish scholar Robert Alter, and state that midrash has been created whenever要定义这个词，我们将援引当代伟大的犹太学者罗伯特改变的话，并且注明米德拉士已创建时

…small pieces of the text become the foundations of elaborate homiletical structures that have only an intermittent relation to the integral story told by the text.[7]文本...小件成为有详细说明只有一个间歇性与整体的故事的文字告诉homiletical结构的基础。[7]

Hence, the record of the story of Jesus(P) being attributed to have cried out this phrase while on the cross is rooted in a tradition that anchored the story to a verse lifted out of the Psalms.因此，耶稣的故事（P）的记录已被归因于这一哭，而在十字架上是一个根深蒂固的传统锚的故事，摆脱了一个诗的诗篇短语。 Drs.博士。 H. Oort and I. Hooykaas clarifies this point:奥尔特阁下和我Hooykaas澄清这一点：

It seems to us far more probable that these words of the Messianic passion Psalm were put into the mouth of Jesus by tradition than that he really uttered them.在我们看来更可能的救世主激情诗篇把这些话是耶稣所提出的传统，嘴比他真的说了。 The sequel, too, throws great suspicion on the report; for the Jews were not allowed to approach the cross, and what did the Roman soldiers know about Elijah?续集，也引发对报告重大嫌疑;为犹太人不准接近十字架，和什么有关的罗马士兵以利亚知道吗？ Besides, if the Jews had really heard him cry “Eli!” or “Eloi!” they would hardly have mistaken the words of the twenty-second Psalm for a cry to the precursor of the Messianic kingdom — a mistake upon which their raillery is made to depend.此外，如果犹太人真的听见他哭“礼”或“埃洛伊！”，他们将难有误，以期在弥赛亚王国前兆哭了第二十二届诗篇的话 - 一个错误时，他们的玩笑是这个视。 We must, therefore, put aside these words, as in all probability unhistorical.[8]因此，我们必须放下这句话，因为在所有的概率非历史。[8]

Once the tradition was among the public, the gospel writers could certainly have transmitted the story as faithfully and sincerely as they could.一旦公众之间的传统，福音作家当然可以作为忠实的传达了故事，由衷地为他们。

Etymology and Text Criticism Analysis 词源和文本批评分析

Many scholars of the New Testament believe that the author of the gospel attributed to Matthew relied in part on the gospel of Mark.新约不少学者认为，作者的福音归因于部分依靠马克福音马修。 However, this view is somewhat naive in the sense that there is evidence that gospel attributed to Matthew is not the work of a single mind or a single hand.然而，这种观点是有点在某种意义上，有证据表明，由于福音马太天真不是一个单一的头脑还是单手的工作。 It will be shown here that, with regard to Jesus' crying out on the cross, the author(s) of Matthew did not rely on the gospel of Mark.它会显示在这里，关于耶稣在十字架上哭了，作者（第马修）不依赖于马克福音。 More importantly, it will be shown that both gospels are far from being eye-witness accounts.更重要的是，它会显示这两个福音是从目击者帐户远。

Even if we assume that this was an historical event, the two versions currently found in the English translation of the即使我们假设这是一个历史性事件，这两个版本目前在英文翻译发现 Bible圣经 are quite far removed from what actually happened.相当远离实际发生的。 The reality is that the story has gone through a number of translations and corruptions, moving away from the original tradition.现实情况是，这个故事已经通过翻译和贪污的数目，正从原来的传统了。 The corruptions can be demonstrated via simple textual analysis.腐败行为能够证明通过简单的文本分析。

First, let us consider the words put into Jesus'(P) mouth.首先，让我们考虑投入的话耶稣的（P）的嘴。 The words recorded in the Bible today is a transliteration of a Greek transliteration of what was allegedly an Aramaic utterance.今天在圣经记载的文字是一个希腊音译音译据称一阿拉姆什么话语。 First, a transliteration of a transliteration (or “meta-transliteration”) already moves away from the actual utterance.首先，一个音译（或“元音译”的音译），已经脱离了原有的实际话语。 To avoid this problem, we will consult the Greek directly.为了避免这个问题，我们会谘询希腊直接。 Unfortunately, the transliterations do not agree.不幸的是，译音不同意。 Consider the differences:考虑不同之处：

Mark 15:34 马克15时34

Eloi Eloi lamma sabachthani 埃洛伊埃洛伊南丫岛sabachthani

Matthew 27:46 马修27:46

heli heli lama sabachthani 直升机直升机喇嘛sabachthani

The differences are small, but they are still there.差异虽小，但是他们仍然在那里。 Note that Mark has “my God” as epsilon-lamda-omega-iota (elwi), while Matthew has eta-lamda-iota (hli).请注意，马克“我的上帝”为ε-兰达-Ω-丝毫（elwi），而马修埃塔-兰达，丝毫（居所贷款利息）。 This rather important, as they lead us to utter drastically different pronunciations, thus these are variant transliterations.这很重要，因为它们使我们大大不同的发音完全，因此这些变异的译音。 A smaller point is that Mark spells lama (lama) with one mu (m) while Mark has two ( lamma ).一个较小的一点是，马克法术喇嘛（喇嘛）与1亩（米），而马克2（ 南丫岛 ）。

More interesting, however, is the fact that both transliterations differ from the one found in one of the oldest existing codices to contain all four gospels.更有趣的，但是，事实上，无论是从一个不同的译音中最古老的现存古抄本被发现含有4个福音。 The Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis was written in the fourth century and reached its final redaction in the sixth. 食品Bezae Cantabrigiensis写在第四世纪，达到了第六最后编辑研究。 It is generally understood to be originated with an ancient school of Christian scholars in Beyrutus (Beirut).它通常被理解为是具有古老的基督教学者Beyrutus学校（贝鲁特）起源。 It bares the name of Theodore Beza , who handed over the Codex to Cambridge University in the late 16th century.它bares世纪名称西奥多贝萨 ，谁交大学在16世纪晚期在剑桥法典。

For both Mark and Matthew, the Bezae Codex gives the same transliteration of the Aramaic phrase:对于这两个马克和马修，Bezae法典给出了相同的阿拉姆语译音：

helei helei lama zaphthanei helei helei喇嘛zaphthanei

The fact that this ancient manuscript would be so different from the standard to is a hint as to how bad the corruptions were on the one hand, and the ignorance of the gospel redactors regarding Aramaic on the other.事实上，这个古老的手稿会如此的标准，是一个以怎样恶劣，腐败，一方面是暗示不同，以及有关的其他福音阿拉姆编纂人的无知。 Hence it would be important here to consider the Hebrew and Aramaic.因此这里将是重要的考虑希伯来文和阿拉姆。

As has already been stated, the utterance originates with the 22nd Psalm.正如已经指出的那样，话语起源于22诗篇。 In most Christian translations the verse is Psalms 22:1; in the standard Hebrew editions (such as that which may be found in the Qoren TaNaKh ) the verse is Psalms 22:2.在大多数的基督教翻译的韵文诗篇22:1，在希伯来文版本的标准（如该发现可能塔纳赫在Qoren）的韵文诗篇22时02分。 The Hebrew is pretty straight forward:希伯来文是相当平直向前：

Eli Eli, lamah azabtani? 礼礼，lamah azabtani？
My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?我的上帝，我的上帝，你为什么离弃我？

Of course, Mark and Matthew are not quoting from the Hebrew.当然，马克和马太没有引述希伯来文。 The Bezae Codex, however, is probably a poor attempt to reconcile the Hebrew with the Aramaic, and thus a word that is found in neither language was created ( zaphthanei ).该Bezae法典，但是，可能是一个贫穷的企图调和阿拉姆希伯来文同，因此语言文字，无论是在发现被创建（zaphthanei）。 This may have stemmed in part from the confusion that the redactor may have felt when realizing how different the Hebrew was from the transliterated text in the gospel.这可能源于部分，是从修订者可能有不同的感觉如何时，实现了从希伯来语中的福音译音文本混乱。 Of course, this is merely speculative; we may never know how this bizarre transliteration came about.当然，这仅仅是投机性的，我们可能永远不知道如何来对这个奇特的音译。

Mark and Matthew are loosely drawing upon the Aramaic translation.马克和马修是松散的借鉴阿拉姆翻译。 Unfortunately, their transliterations differ from one another, so what text are they drawing from?不幸的是，他们的译音不同的，所以，他们是什么文字画的？ Wilcox seems to lean towards the Matthean version:威尔科克斯似乎偏向Matthean版本：

Actually, if we consult the Targum to Psalms we find that it has not eloi but eli , so that Matthew's version is precisely that of the Targum.[9]其实，如果我们的根，以诗篇征询我们发现它并没有埃洛伊但礼 ，让马修的版本，正是这根的。[9]

One gets the impression that Wilcox is being somewhat disingenuous.人们得到的印象是，威尔考克斯是有点虚伪。 First, there is not just one targum , rather there are several targumim [10].首先，不仅是一个根 ，而有几个targumim [10]。 Furthermore, the only targum that employs eli (actually ali此外，唯一的根，它采用伊莱 （其实阿里 ) would be the standard edition that comes with Rashi's commentary on the Psalms, most likely Targum Onqelos. ）将是标准版，与赖希对评论的诗篇，最有可能根Onqelos来。

This clearly cannot be what Matthew is relying upon, as the Aramaic is actually different:这显然不能依靠什么马修时，由于阿拉姆实际上是不同的：

Ali Ali, metul mah sh'beqtani? 阿里阿里metul麻将sh'beqtani？

The transliteration is clearly different from that of Matthew, or from Mark or from the Bezae Codex).的音译，是清楚的马修，或从马克或从Bezae食品法典委员会的不同）。 Furthermore, we can discredit the Matthean version on the grounds of its absurd notion that either the Aramaic ali (此外，我们可以抹黑的荒谬观念Matthean的版本，理由是无论是阿拉姆阿里 （ ) could somehow be confused with the name Elijah ( ）可能有点混淆的名称以利亚（ ) by Jews, or that the Romans would even make such a connection. ）由犹太人，罗马人或者甚至作出这样的连接。 This alone brings the historicity of the relevant verses into question, and Remsberg had commented on this.仅此一点质疑带来了历史性的有关章节，并雷姆斯伯格曾就此发表评论。 Regarding the author of the story, he states that关于这个故事的作者，他指出，

He supposes a similarity of sound between the two words, whereas they were utterly unlike in pronunciation.他假设一个健全的两个词之间的相似性，而他们是完全不同的发音。 Eli was pronounced Ali (long a), while Elias was pronounced Eleeyahu.伊莱被宣告阿里（长的），而被宣判Eleeyahu埃利亚斯。 But even had they been so much alike in sound that one might have been mistaken for the other, as Matthew supposes, the alleged incident is disproved by the fact that the Jews were not allowed to attend the execution, while to the Romans the words were meaningless.[11]但是，即使他们做了这么多的发音相同，一个可能已为其他，因为马修设，所指控的事件是由说，犹太人不准参加执行事实反驳错误的，而对罗马人的话毫无意义的。[11]

The most probable Aramaic translation that the transliteration is drawing upon is probably as follows:最有可能的阿拉姆语翻译的音译，可能是借鉴如下：

Alahi Alahi, lamah shebaqtani? Alahi Alahi，lamah shebaqtani？

One online targum actually has:实际上有一个在线根：

Alahi Alahi lamna shebaqtani Alahi Alahi 鼠鲨属 shebaqtani

As has already been stated, there are multiple targumim available to us.正如已经指出，有多个targumim提供给我们。 A note should be made, however, regarding the proper pronunciation of the Aramaic alap/aleph ().阿应注意，但是，关于阿拉姆奥洛普/阿列夫（）的正确发音。 There are Western and Eastern dialects of Aramaic, and sometimes the 'a' is pronounced like the 'a' in man, hence some Christians demanding it be transliterated as an 'e' (elahi).有西方和东欧的阿拉姆语方言，有时是'一'就像是'一'的人，因此要求它被一些基督徒音译为'电子'（伊拉希）明显。 Most of the time, it is pronounced like the 'a' in “Abraham,” or “Allaah”.在大多数情况下，它的发音类似'一'在“亚伯拉罕”或“真主”。 Proof of this can even be seen in the aforementioned Targum Onqelos.这证明，甚至可以在上述根Onqelos看到。 The该 Hebrew希伯来语 of Psalms 22:3 (or 22:2 in certain Christian translations) begins with Elohai eqraa () – “my God, I call out” (or “I cry out,” or “I invoke/recite”, et cetera).诗篇22时03分（或在某些基督教翻译22时02分）开始与Elohai eqraa（） - “我的上帝，我喊”（或“我哭了，”或“我援引/背诵”，等等）。 Targum Onqelos renders this verse in the following way:根Onqelos以下列方式呈现此诗句：

Alahi anaa qarei Alahi阿纳qarei

What is important is the niqud (vowels) that are provided in the Onqelos text.什么是重要的是niqud（元音），它们在Onqelos文本提供。 The diacritical mark qamats appears under both the aleph () and the lamed (), which means both letters are pronounced the same way: A – la (both with the 'a' that is similar to that which is in “Allaah”).出现的变音标记qamats同时根据阿列夫（）和残废啦（），这意味着这两个字母的发音相同的方式：A - 在拉都与（即'一'是类似表示，在“真主是”）。

We should move away from the Aramaic and return to the Greek text of the Markan and Matthean versions.我们应该摆脱阿拉姆并返回到Markan和Matthean希腊文版本。 Both are Psalms 22, but let us compare the standard Greek text of Matthew and Mark with the Bezae Codex and the Septuagint.两者都是诗篇22，但让我们比较标准的马修和马克的希腊文字与Bezae食品法典委员会和七十。 Both Mark and Matthew give us a garbled transliteration of an Aramaic phrase.马克和马修都给予我们一个乱码的阿拉姆语译音。 How do they translate it?他们怎么翻译呢？

Matthew: 马修：
thee mou thee mou inati me egkatelipes你亩亩inati你我egkatelipes

Mark: 马克：
o theos mou o theos mou eis ti me egkatelipes Ø Ø西奥斯西奥斯亩亩EIS的时光egkatelipes

Septuagint: 译本：
o theos o theos mou ina ti me egkatelipes me Ø Ø西奥斯西奥斯亩伊纳钛我egkatelipes我

Bezan Matthew: Bezan马修：
the mou the mou inati me enkatelipes 谅解备忘录的谅解备忘录inati我enkatelipes

Bezan Mark: Bezan马克：
o ths mou o ths mou eis ti onidisas me Ø Ø性住户统计调查性住户统计调查谋谋体onidisas我电化学阻抗谱

The differences are there, and at times the differences are striking.有差异，有时差异是惊人的。 The Bezae Codex varies greatly from the others, and at times put forth what seem like blatant spelling errors.食品法典委员会的Bezae有很大不同的人，有时甚至公然提出什么拼写错误看起来像。 This is troubling in light of the fact that we would otherwise find such an old West Asian manuscript highly valuable in light of the spacio-temporal factors.这是令人不安的是，我们会发现，否则在斯帕乔时空因素而这样的老西亚手稿非常宝贵光。 The fact that the Codex finds its origin in 4th century Beirut places it within very close geographic and chronological proximity to the events it allegedly records.事实上，在食品法典委员会认定其原产地贝鲁特4世纪在非常密切的地域和时间顺序接近的事件据称它记录它。 It is also fascinating that in certain parts Matthew agrees with the Septuagint where Mark does not, and vice-versa.这也是迷人的，在某些地方与马修七十马克不同意的地方，反之亦然。

Matthew uses inati (inati) which is essentially identical to the Septuagint's ina ti (ina ti), while Mark strangely employs eis ti (eiV ti), literally “for what?” On the other side, Mark's o theos mou o theos mou (o qeoV mou o qeoV mou) is essentially the same as the Septuagint's o theos, o theos mou (o qeoV o qeoV mou), while Matthew renders “my God” as simply thee mou (qee mou) twice over.马修使用inati（inati）基本上是相同的译本的伊纳钛（伊纳体），而马克奇怪采用电化学阻抗谱钛（EIV预侧体），从字面上“为了什么？”在另一边，马克Ø西奥斯亩Ø西奥斯亩（ Ø Ø qeoV qeoV亩亩）在本质上是七十的Ø西奥斯，邻西奥斯亩（海外qeoV Ø qeoV亩），而马修同样呈现“我的上帝”只是你的谅解备忘录（qee亩）的两倍以上。

Conclusions 结论

This was an attempt to study the two verses in the Synoptic Gospels that allegedly record Jesus' last words on the cross.这是一个试图研究在天气福音据称记录在十字架上的耶稣的最后一句话，这两个诗句。 From the textual analysis it is quite plausible to argue the following, that从文本分析是很有道理的论点以下，这

• the author of Matthew did not rely on Mark for this verse, rather the two got it independently from another source.笔者的马修并不依赖于标记为这节经文，而是两个独立得到它从另一来源。
• neither author actually recorded eye-witness testimony, rather they transcribed a midrashic approach to the Psalms that existed in their respective circles of the proto-Christian community in the form of an oral tradition.笔者既不实际记录的目击者的证词，而他们转录一圣经解释方法的诗篇，在对原始基督教社区各自的圈子中存在的口头传统形式。
• neither author had an Aramaic text or copy of the Septuagint handy when they attempted to transliterate and translate this phrase.没有提交人一阿拉姆文字的译本方便当他们试图音译和翻译这句话或复制。

Based on the evidence above it would be safe to conclude that the gospel writers were perhaps trying to sincerely transmit the traditions of their faith community with some degree of accuracy.根据上述证据，将是安全的结论是，福音作者们也许要真诚地传递一些准确度他们的信仰社区的传统。 Nonetheless this event has most obviously undergone a number of changes as it passed from one source to the next, and it is almost certainly not rooted in an historical event.然而这一事件最明显的经历了一些变化，因为它从一个源传送到下一个，它几乎肯定不是一个历史事件根源。 Hence we are unable to find the justification for putting this cry into the mouth of the Messiah Jesus (P).因此，我们无法找到理由放进耶稣的弥赛亚（P）的嘴这哭。

And only God knows best.而且，只有上帝知道最好的。

References 参考资料

[1] cf. Mk. [1] 比照。马可福音。 15:34; Mt. 15时34分;吨。 27:46 27:46

[2] Wilcox, “Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani”, The Anchor Bible Dictionary , (Doubleday, 1992), Vol. [2]威尔考克斯，“礼，礼，喇嘛Sabachthani”，锚圣经辞典 （双日，1992），第一卷。 2, p. 2，第 457 457

[3] David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined , translated from the fourth German edition of Strauss' Leben Jesu by George Elliot, (Macmillan, 1882) part III, chapter III, section 132, p. [3]大卫弗里德里希施特劳斯， 耶稣生命的严格审查 ， 慈悲的翻译从'Leben第四施特劳斯的德语版的乔治埃利奥特（麦克米伦，1882年）第三部分，第三章，第132条，第 688 688

[4] ibid. [4] 同上。

[5] John Remsberg, The Christ , (Prometheus, 1994), pp. [5]约翰雷姆斯伯格， 基督 ，（普罗米修斯，1994），页。 195-196 195-196

[6] For those interested in learning more about the midrashic undertones in the New Testament, consider John Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes (Harper Collins, 1996) [6]对于那些有兴趣在新约圣经学习的意味在有关圣经解释，认为约翰谢尔比斯波， 解放的福音：读，1996年，哈珀柯林斯圣经与犹太的眼睛 （）

[7] Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative , (Basic, 1981), p. [7]罗伯特阿尔特， 圣经的叙事艺术 ，（基本，1981年），第 11 11

[8] H. Oort & I. Hooykaas, The Bible for Learners , Volume III, p. [8]阁下奥尔特与一Hooykaas，学习者圣经 ，第三卷，第 454 454

[9] Wilcox, op. [9]威尔考克斯， 同前。 cit. , p. 同前。山口 457 457

[10] Targum literally means “translation,” and is generally a reference to an Aramaic translation of the Bible or a specific book from the Bible. [10] 根字面意思是“翻译”，是一本圣经参考一般从一阿拉姆语翻译的圣经或一个特定的书籍。

[11] Remsberg, op. [11]雷姆斯伯格， 同前。 cit , p. 同前 ，第 196 196