If you're new here, you may want to get regular updates via如果你是新這裡，你可能想通過定期更新 RSS feed RSS提要 . 。 Thank you for visiting!感謝您訪問！

Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi 莫哈末Elfie Nieshaem Juferi

In two of the Synoptic Gospels,在兩個天氣福音， Jesus耶穌 (P) is depicted as crying out on the cross “my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” [1]. （P）是描繪成哭了在十字架上“我的上帝，我的神，為什麼離棄我？”[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.古蘭經明確假定耶穌（P）是永遠不會釘在十字架上，因此，穆斯林拒絕接受這個版本的故事中提到的該 synoptics。 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，穆斯林概念之間的關係的上帝和他的先知（P）是形成鮮明對比的任何概念的先知被遺棄的上帝。

In light of these facts, Muslims consider the cry to be unhistorically attributed to Jesus (P).鑑於這些事實，穆斯林認為哭是unhistorically歸功於耶穌（規劃）。 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，它是對象的這篇文章，以採取更客觀的看待這個事件的福音，並看看是否有一個客觀的理由，為穆斯林的立場。

“Embarrassment of Transmission” & The Midrashic “尷尬的輸電”及本聖經解釋 History 歷史

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.故事的立場，即耶穌的（P）的哭的“我的上帝，我的上帝”的十字架是虛構的，不是一個穆斯林只舉行。 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.事實上，即使是誠實的基督教學者將不得不承認，至少故事是一個 theologoumenon，這就是說，非教條神學 interpretation無法證實或駁斥了對基礎的歷史證據。

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，一些基督教學者採取更加頑固的立場，認為有點圓的歷史性事件的性質可以肯定的說，據稱記錄在福音。 As Max Wilcox puts it:正如馬克思威爾考克斯所說的：

The authenticity of the saying is surely supported by the sheer embarrassment of the words for the early church.[2]真實性的意思是肯定支持純粹尷尬的字眼，以早日教會 [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.該參數是一個流行的，它本質上是植根於有這樣的建議，是一個虛構的帳戶，福音作家一定會不包括從一個事件的生命耶穌（規劃），使他顯得很不像信使神。 The hidden premise is actually, much to the dismay of proponents of this sort of argumentation, quite unfounded.其實隱藏的前提是，這讓沮喪的支持者的這種論證，很沒有根據的。 It is wholly plausible that a person could fabricate this story for a myriad of reasons.這是完全可能的，一個人可以編造了這個故事，無數的理由。

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將被視為立即“尷尬”的第一人有關的。 It is a known fact that the legends of ancient peoples often have their deities in unflattering positions.這是一個眾所周知的事實是傳說中的古老民族往往有其神在直言不諱的立場。 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.威爾科克斯的邏輯和他的同夥，我們也必須結束，許多印度教的傳說和希臘神涉嫌參與盜竊，詐騙，強姦和謀殺，也記錄歷史事件。

One could continue with a plethora of other possibilities, but that is not necessary.人們可以繼續與眾多其它的可能性，但這是沒有必要的。 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.問題不在於簡單地植物的種子有疑問的其他方案中，提及一個特設的方式，而是唯一的問題是要證明這個論點，這個故事太好（或壞）是真實的，是根本錯誤的。 Commenting on historicity and possible negative interpretations, the great scholar David Strauss had the following to say:在談到歷史性和可能產生的消極的解釋，偉大的學者大衛斯特勞斯了以下的話：

[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. [我們]必須指出，一個誰，作為福音講述的耶穌，長期以來，包括痛苦和死亡在他的思想的彌賽亞，因此一直把他們當作神安排的一部分，幾乎無法抱怨他們時，他們實際上抵達作為一個被上帝遺棄，相反，在上述假設，我們應該導致認為耶穌已經發現自己被騙的期望，他曾珍惜，因而認為他拋棄了上帝在起訴他的計劃。 But we could only resort to such conjectures if the above exclamation of Jesus were shown to have an historical foundation.[3]但是，我們只能訴諸這種猜測，如果上述的感嘆耶穌被證明具有歷史基礎 [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.我們注意到懷著極大的興趣斯特勞斯承認，“但我們只能採取這樣的猜測，如果上述驚嘆號耶穌卻顯示出了有一個歷史的基礎”，這是肯定的心臟問題。 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.不管是認為這是證明了話語的歷史性，或採取流行的無神論立場，並引用它作為證據，證明耶穌（P）是一個騙局，這兩種立場都植根於預設，這個故事其實是記錄歷史事件。 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，通過一個隱藏的前提，是歷史的故事，以證明它是歷史的，是最難解決的問題。 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.這些誰僱用這些方法只是在談到可能的一致性，這無關函授一些事實的問題，因此該參數不僅是同義反复循環，但也。

There is, as has already been alluded to, another option.還有，正如已經提到，另一種選擇。 Strauss touches on it briefly when he calls the story an “adaptation,” and states that斯特勞斯觸及簡單地調用的時候，他的故事“改編”，並指出

…the relation of the words of Jesus to the 22nd Psalm does certainly render this particular suspicious.[4] ...的關係的話，耶穌的22詩篇也一定使這個特別可疑。[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:為了了解故事之間的關係和開放詩句第22章書的詩篇，讓我們考慮一下雷姆斯伯格不得不說在這個問題上：

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.該賬戶的十字架的福音是給予在很大程度上複製了22詩篇，甚至到了語言本身，詩意典故的詩人被改造成所謂的歷史事實。 The devout Christian who is familiar with this Passion Psalm sees in the Evangelists' account of the crucifixion a wonderful fulfillment of prophecy.在虔誠的基督徒誰是熟悉這種激情的詩篇看到了福音'帳戶的受難一個美妙的預言實現。 But the critic sees merely the borrowed embellishments of a legend.[5]但評論家認為只是借來的裝飾一則傳說。[5]

What is being touched on here is that the gospels may not be recording history as much as they are recording midrash[6].什麼是在這裡被提及的是，福音的歷史記錄可能不一樣，因為他們正在錄製米德拉士[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要定義這個詞，我們將調用的話偉大的當代猶太學者羅伯特 ALTER和狀態已創建每當米德拉士

…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] ...小塊文本成為基礎的精心homiletical結構只有一個間歇性與整體的故事告訴文本。[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，記錄的耶穌的故事（P）的原因已被喊著這句話，而在十字架上，是植根於傳統，紮根的故事，一個脫離了詩句的詩篇。 Drs.博士。 H. Oort and I. Hooykaas clarifies this point:奧爾特閣下和我Hooykaas澄清這一點：

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.在我們看來更可能是這些話的救世主的激情詩篇被放進口中的耶穌的傳統比他真的說了。 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?續集，也引發很大的懷疑上的報告;為猶太人不准接近十字架，什麼羅馬士兵知道以利亞？ 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，如果猶太人真的聽見他哭“禮”或“埃洛伊！”，他們將難有誤的話在第二十二屆詩篇一個哭泣的前兆彌賽亞王國 - 一個錯誤時，他們的玩笑是這個視。 We must, therefore, put aside these words, as in all probability unhistorical.[8]因此，我們必須放下這句話，因為在所有的概率非歷史。[8]

Once the tradition was among the public, the gospel writers could certainly have transmitted the story as faithfully and sincerely as they could.一旦傳統的大眾之間的福音作家卻肯定能夠傳送的故事忠實和真誠，因為它們可能。

Etymology and Text Criticism Analysis 詞源和文本批評分析

Many scholars of the New Testament believe that the author of the gospel attributed to Matthew relied in part on the gospel of Mark.許多學者的新約聖經的作者認為，由於馬太的福音，部分依靠馬克福音。 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，這種觀點是有點幼稚的意思，有證據表明，由於馬太福音的工作不是一個單一的頭腦還是單手。 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.它會顯示在這裡說，關於耶穌的呼喊在十字架上，筆者（S）為馬修並不依賴於福音馬克。 More importantly, it will be shown that both gospels are far from being eye-witness accounts.更重要的是，它會顯示這兩個福音遠未目擊者帳戶。

Even if we assume that this was an historical event, the two versions currently found in the English translation of the即使我們假設這是一個歷史事件，目前發現的兩個版本的英文譯本 Bible聖經 are quite far removed from what actually happened.相當遠離實際發生的。 The reality is that the story has gone through a number of translations and corruptions, moving away from the original tradition.現實情況是，故事經歷了一個數字的翻譯和腐敗，逐漸脫離原來的傳統。 The corruptions can be demonstrated via simple textual analysis.腐敗行為能夠證明通過簡單的文本分析。

First, let us consider the words put into Jesus'(P) mouth.首先，讓我們考慮的話投入耶穌的（P）的嘴。 The words recorded in the Bible today is a transliteration of a Greek transliteration of what was allegedly an Aramaic utterance.這些話記在聖經今天是希臘的音譯音譯什麼據稱一阿拉姆話語。 First, a transliteration of a transliteration (or “meta-transliteration”) already moves away from the actual utterance.首先，音譯的音譯（或“元音譯”）已脫離了原有的實際話語。 To avoid this problem, we will consult the Greek directly.為了避免這個問題，我們會諮詢希臘直接。 Unfortunately, the transliterations do not agree.不幸的是，譯音不同意。 Consider the differences:考慮不同之處：

Mark 15:34 馬克15時34

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

Matthew 27:46 馬修27:46

heli heli lama sabachthani 直升機直升機喇嘛sabachthani

The differences are small, but they are still there.差異雖小，但是他們仍然在那裡。 Note that Mark has “my God” as epsilon-lamda-omega-iota (elwi), while Matthew has eta-lamda-iota (hli).請注意，馬克“我的上帝”為ε-蘭達 -Ω-絲毫（elwi），而馬修埃塔-蘭達，絲毫（居所貸款利息）。 This rather important, as they lead us to utter drastically different pronunciations, thus these are variant transliterations.這很重要，因為它們使我們大大不同的發音完全，因此這些變異的譯音。 A smaller point is that Mark spells lama (lama) with one mu (m) while Mark has two ( lamma ).一個較小的一點是，馬克法術喇嘛（喇嘛）與1畝（米），而馬克2（ 南丫島 ）。

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，事實上，無論是從一個不同譯音發現一個最古老的現存古抄本以包含所有四個福音。 The Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis was written in the fourth century and reached its final redaction in the sixth. 食品Bezae Cantabrigiensis寫在第四世紀，並達成了最後編輯在第六位。 It is generally understood to be originated with an ancient school of Christian scholars in Beyrutus (Beirut).它通常被理解為是起源於一個古老的基督教學校學者 Beyrutus（貝魯特）。 It bares the name of Theodore Beza , who handed over the Codex to Cambridge University in the late 16th century.它bares 西奧多貝薩的名稱，誰移交食品劍橋大學在16世紀後期。

For both Mark and Matthew, the Bezae Codex gives the same transliteration of the Aramaic phrase:對於這兩個馬克和馬修，Bezae法典賦予相同的阿拉姆語譯音：

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.事實上，這個古老的手稿會如此不同的標準，是一個暗示，如何惡劣，腐敗是一方面，而無知的福音編纂阿拉姆在其他方面。 Hence it would be important here to consider the Hebrew and Aramaic.因此這裡將是重要的考慮希伯來文和阿拉姆。

As has already been stated, the utterance originates with the 22nd Psalm.正如已經指出的那樣，話語起源於 22詩篇。 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.在大多數的基督教翻譯的韻文詩篇22:1，在希伯來文版本的標準（諸如可發現在Qoren塔納赫 ）的韻文詩篇22時02分。 The Hebrew is pretty straight forward:希伯來文是相當平直向前：

Eli Eli, lamah azabtani? 禮禮，lamah azabtani？
My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?我的上帝，我的上帝，你為什麼離棄我？

Of course, Mark and Matthew are not quoting from the Hebrew.當然，馬克和馬太沒有引述希伯來文。 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 ).該Bezae法典，但是，可能是窮人的企圖調和希伯來文與阿拉姆語，從而找到一個詞，在沒有語言的創建（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.這可能源於部分從混亂的redactor可能有不同的感覺如何時，實現的是從希伯來文音譯文字福音。 Of course, this is merely speculative; we may never know how this bizarre transliteration came about.當然，這僅僅是投機性的，我們可能永遠不知道如何來對這個奇特的音譯。

Mark and Matthew are loosely drawing upon the Aramaic translation.馬克和馬修是鬆散的借鑒阿拉姆翻譯。 Unfortunately, their transliterations differ from one another, so what text are they drawing from?不幸的是，他們的譯音不同的，所以，他們是什麼文字畫的？ Wilcox seems to lean towards the Matthean version:威爾科克斯似乎偏向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]其實，如果我們的根，以詩篇徵詢我們發現它並沒有埃洛伊但禮 ，讓馬修的版本，正是的根。[9]

One gets the impression that Wilcox is being somewhat disingenuous.人們得到的印象是，威爾考克斯是有點虛偽。 First, there is not just one targum , rather there are several targumim [10].首先，不只是一個根 ，而有幾個targumim [10]。 Furthermore, the only targum that employs eli (actually ali此外，唯一的根，它採用伊萊 （其實阿里 ) would be the standard edition that comes with Rashi's commentary on the Psalms, most likely Targum Onqelos. ）將標準版附帶賴希的評注的詩篇，最有可能根Onqelos。

This clearly cannot be what Matthew is relying upon, as the Aramaic is actually different:這顯然不能依靠什麼馬修時，由於阿拉姆實際上是不同的：

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

The transliteration is clearly different from that of Matthew, or from Mark or from the Bezae Codex).的音譯，顯然不同於馬修，或從馬克或從 Bezae法典）。 Furthermore, we can discredit the Matthean version on the grounds of its absurd notion that either the Aramaic ali (此外，我們可以抹黑Matthean版本的理由的荒謬概念，即無論是阿拉姆阿里 （ ) could somehow be confused with the name Elijah ( ）可能有點混淆的名稱以利亞（ ) by Jews, or that the Romans would even make such a connection. ）由猶太人，羅馬人或者甚至作出這樣的連接。 This alone brings the historicity of the relevant verses into question, and Remsberg had commented on this.僅此一點帶來了歷史性的有關詩句成問題，雷姆斯伯格已就此發表評論。 Regarding the author of the story, he states that關於這個故事的作者，他指出，

He supposes a similarity of sound between the two words, whereas they were utterly unlike in pronunciation.他假設一個相似的兩個詞之間的音，而他們是完全不同的發音。 Eli was pronounced Ali (long a), while Elias was pronounced Eleeyahu.伊萊被宣告阿里（長的），而被宣判Eleeyahu埃利亞斯。 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，即使他們做了這麼多相似的聲音，一有可能被誤認為是其他，如馬修設，所指控的事件是否定的事實是，猶太人不准參加執行，而對羅馬人的話毫無意義的。[11]

The most probable Aramaic translation that the transliteration is drawing upon is probably as follows:最有可能的阿拉姆語翻譯的音譯，可能是借鑒如下：

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

One online targum actually has:實際上有一個在線根：

Alahi Alahi lamna shebaqtani Alahi Alahi 鼠鯊屬 shebaqtani

As has already been stated, there are multiple targumim available to us.正如已經指出，有多個targumim提供給我們。 A note should be made, however, regarding the proper pronunciation of the Aramaic alap/aleph ().阿應注意，但是，關於正確發音的阿拉姆奧洛普 /阿列夫（）。 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).有西方和東方的阿拉姆語方言，有時是'一'是明顯的，如'一'的人，因此要求它被一些基督徒音譯為'電子'（伊拉希）。 Most of the time, it is pronounced like the 'a' in “Abraham,” or “Allaah”.大多數時候，它的發音類似'一'在“亞伯拉罕”或“真主”。 Proof of this can even be seen in the aforementioned Targum Onqelos.這證明，甚至可以看到在上述根Onqelos。 The該 Hebrew希伯來語 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).詩篇22時03分（或22時02分在某些基督教翻譯）始於Elohai eqraa（） - “我的上帝，我喊”（或“我哭了，”或“我援引/背誦”，等等）。 Targum Onqelos renders this verse in the following way:根Onqelos這節經文中呈現以下方式：

Alahi anaa qarei Alahi阿納qarei

What is important is the niqud (vowels) that are provided in the Onqelos text.什麼是重要的是niqud（元音），它們提供了Onqelos文本。 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”).出現的變音標記 qamats同時根據阿列夫（）和殘廢啦（），這意味著這兩個字母的發音相同的方式：一個 - 拉（均與'一'是相似的是在“真主”）。

We should move away from the Aramaic and return to the Greek text of the Markan and Matthean versions.我們應該擺脫阿拉姆，回到希臘文的Markan和Matthean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.兩者都是詩篇 22，但讓我們比較的標準希臘文的馬修和馬克與 Bezae食品法典委員會和七十。 Both Mark and Matthew give us a garbled transliteration of an Aramaic phrase.馬克和馬修都給予我們一個亂碼的阿拉姆語的音譯。 How do they translate it?他們怎麼翻譯呢？

Matthew: 馬修：
thee mou thee mou inati me egkatelipes你畝畝 inati你我egkatelipes

Mark: 馬克：
o theos mou o theos mou eis ti me egkatelipes Ø Ø西奧斯西奧斯畝畝EIS的時光egkatelipes

Septuagint: 譯本：
o theos o theos mou ina ti me egkatelipes me Ø Ø西奧斯西奧斯畝伊納鈦我egkatelipes我

Bezan Matthew: Bezan馬修：
the mou the mou inati me enkatelipes 諒解備忘錄的諒解備忘錄inati我enkatelipes

Bezan Mark: Bezan馬克：
o ths mou o ths mou eis ti onidisas me Ø Ø性住戶統計調查性住戶統計調查謀謀體onidisas我電化學阻抗譜

The differences are there, and at times the differences are striking.有差異，有時差異是驚人的。 The Bezae Codex varies greatly from the others, and at times put forth what seem like blatant spelling errors.食品法典委員會的Bezae有很大不同的人，有時提出什麼看起來明顯的拼寫錯誤。 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.這是令人不安的輕的事實，否則我們會找到這樣一個老西亞手稿非常寶貴的斯帕喬輕時空因素。 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.事實上，食品法典委員會認定其原產地在貝魯特 4世紀，它在非常接近的地方的地理和時間順序接近的事件據稱它的記錄。 It is also fascinating that in certain parts Matthew agrees with the Septuagint where Mark does not, and vice-versa.這也是迷人的，在某些地區的七十馬修同意在馬克沒有，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.馬修使用inati（inati）基本上是相同的譯本的伊納鈦（伊納體），而馬克奇怪採用電化學阻抗譜鈦（EIV預側體），從字面上“為了什麼？”在另一邊，馬克 Ø西奧斯畝 Ø西奧斯畝（ Ø Ø qeoV qeoV畝畝）本質上是相同的譯本的Ø西奧斯，鄰西奧斯畝（海外qeoV Ø qeoV畝），而馬修呈現“我的上帝”只是你的諒解備忘錄（qee畝）的兩倍以上。

Conclusions 結論

This was an attempt to study the two verses in the Synoptic Gospels that allegedly record Jesus' last words on the cross.此舉是為了研究該兩項詩句在天氣福音據稱記錄耶穌在十字架上最後的話。 From the textual analysis it is quite plausible to argue the following, that從文本分析是很有道理的論點以下，這

• the author of Matthew did not rely on Mark for this verse, rather the two got it independently from another source.筆者的馬修，並不依賴於標記為這節經文，而是兩個獨立得到它從另一來源。
• 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.筆者既不實際記錄的目擊者的證詞，而他們轉錄一聖經解釋方法存在的詩篇在各自的圈子的原始基督教社區的形式口頭傳統。
• neither author had an Aramaic text or copy of the Septuagint handy when they attempted to transliterate and translate this phrase.沒有提交人一阿拉姆文本或副本七十方便當他們試圖音譯和翻譯這句話。

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.基於以上的證據，將是安全的結論是福音作家，這或許是為了真誠地傳遞他們的傳統信仰與社會一定程度的準確性。 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.然而這一事件最明顯的變化經歷了多少，因為它通過從一個源到下一個，它幾乎肯定不是植根於歷史事件。 Hence we are unable to find the justification for putting this cry into the mouth of the Messiah Jesus (P).因此，我們無法找到理由把這個哭到嘴的彌賽亞耶穌（規劃）。

And only God knows best.而且，只有上帝知道最好的。

References 參考資料

[1] cf. Mk. [1] 比照。馬可福音。 15:34; Mt. 15時 34分;噸。 27:46 27:46

[2] Wilcox, “Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani”, The Anchor Bible Dictionary , (Doubleday, 1992), Vol. [2]威爾考克斯，“禮，禮，喇嘛Sabachthani”，錨聖經辭典 （雙日，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]大衛弗里德里希施特勞斯， 耶穌的生命審慎研究 ，翻譯從德國版的第四施特勞斯的Leben慈悲的喬治埃利奧特（麥克米倫，1882年）第三部分，第三章，第132條，第 688 688

[4] ibid. [4] 同上。

[5] John Remsberg, The Christ , (Prometheus, 1994), pp. [5]約翰雷姆斯伯格， 基督 ，（普羅米修斯，1994），頁。 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]對於那些有興趣學習更多有關聖經解釋的意味在新約聖經，約翰謝爾比斯波考慮， 解放的福音：閱讀聖經與猶太眼睛 （哈珀柯林斯，1996年）

[7] Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative , (Basic, 1981), p. [7]羅伯特阿爾特， 聖經敘事的藝術 ，（基本，1981年），第 11 11

[8] H. Oort & I. Hooykaas, The Bible for Learners , Volume III, p. [8]閣下奧爾特與一Hooykaas， 對學習者的聖經 ，第三卷，第 454 454

[9] Wilcox, op. [9]威爾考克斯， 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“翻譯”，是一個普遍的參考阿拉姆語翻譯的聖經或一個特定的書從聖經。

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