“Abandon Me Not” (Exegesis of Matt. 27:46) by Adam T. Boguski II – Part #1

In the midst of my struggles I find myself closely clinging to the incarnation. This idea that God took on humanity, somehow links me closer to Him in a deep connection. He experienced what I experience, and He was tempted in all ways as I am Heb. 4:15, “For we have not an high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” He embraced humanity and at the same time died to redeem it. Through this He promises to, “never leave us nor forsake us.” Heb. 13:5. Yet I find it a struggle to believe this for so many times I constantly feel this distance and disconnection resonating with a painful ring in my soul. It is as if I feel this more times than not, this hunch that God is not keeping His promise. After all, how much can He understand me and my sinful humanity when He lived the perfect, non-sinful life?

It is common to approach the prayer of Jesus in Matthew 26:46 as He quotes Psalm 22:2, with an understanding of Christ’s abandonment as He dies and cries, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” Most see this phrase as a theological treatise on the dynamic of what God’s wrath was doing to the Trinitarian union which I will show does not have to be the case. This idea of God abandoning Christ so that He does not have to abandon us due to our sin is not only developed as a crucial doctrine to the faith from insufficient Biblical support, but is also I think a misrepresentation of the account. The text along with other supporting texts I think lend themselves to both an easier understanding of this as well as a more spiritually and emotionally meaningful one.

Matt. 27:26 says, “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’ That is, ‘My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”  When we look across the horizontal line of how each gospel writer records this passage we find some interesting facts. Mark and Matthew are the only two that record this quote among the synoptics, while Luke all together omits it. With the view of Markan priority and Matthew being written next, there has been some speculation as to why Luke would directly omit this seemingly important quote. Bultmann was first to make the argument that, “this embarrassing phrase lacked authenticity due to the omission from Luke.” However, this view was unlikely, seeing that it is recorded in both Matthew and Mark. John does not record it but he is doing something entirely different with his narrative gospel account so it would not be fair to rule his in. Also the fact that, “these are the only words Matthew and Mark record Jesus saying from the cross, must be taken as very significant for these Evangelists,” (there are six other sayings but they are all in Luke and John). The fact that Matthew only mentions this one saying on the cross with a direct quotation begs the question of what was so important from his gospel perspective that this phrase was to be all we get from Jesus on the cross? I think it is easily sufficient to say that both Mark and Matthew’s narration focus on this saying in a theological way that Luke simply does not.

Matthew makes a few slight alterations though to the text as he veers from Mark’s account. Mark sticks closely to his Aramaic translation with (eloi, eloi) while Matthew translates this section as (ali, ali) a transliteration of the actual Hebrew represented by the quotation in Psalm 22:2 and leaving the rest in Aramaic. Luz notes that the Matthean text is most likely a, “change to the Markan text in order to make more obvious how one could misunderstand it as a call to Elijah,” as seen in v.47. From the Matthean transliteration of the Hebrew to Aramaic “ali” it is simple to see how one could mistakenly hear “eli” an abbreviation for “eliyahu” or Elijah.

It is also extremely important to note that within Matthew’s gospel account this is the only time that he translates a quotation of Jesus in the Galilean Aramaic dialect. This alone helps this to stand out, as if to say to the reader, “This is so important that I actually want you to hear His exact words, as the sounds and syllables rolled off His lips, crying out to God in despair.” We find the same kind of attention drawn in Mark’s account on top of the fact that as we already noted, Matthew seems to place importance on this fact as he only records this saying and none of the other six found in Luke or John. So, already within the text there are many indicators going off that this utterance is of extreme importance.

(Adam writes) I remember having a conversation with a good friend who was going through a difficult time in their life. He was trying so hard to deepen his relationship with God and to overcome some weighty matters of sin that were crushing him. During this time as he sought and sought after God with what he perceived to be “all his heart” (Jer. 29:13) he felt only more distance and more guilt. Then a tragedy happened in his life that left him void of any answers at all. He looked me in the eyes, with tears streaming down his face and said, “I don’t understand, I feel as though God doesn’t care. I feel as though He has left me. After all, how can I believe that He would never leave me when He forsook His own Son. It is as if He doesn’t care, and if He does care, then there is no way He can really understand.”

We need to stop there, to move ant further would prove fruitless, as he goes into Psalm 22. You need to meditate on Psalm 22 until next time, “My God, My God why hast Thou forsaken Me? Why art Thou so far from helping Me, and from the words of My roaring?” Did you ever feel like Adam’s friend? Destitute, desperate, dejected, alone? After you have feasted on Psalm 22, spend some time on Psalm 42 and until next time, we’ll see you, “…Between The Lines…”

“Abandon Me Not” (Exegesis of Matt. 27:46) by Adaam T. Boguski II 1/12/13

“The Daniel Dilemma” by ‘Adam T. Boguski II’ (Part #3)

“The Daniel Dilemma by Adam Boguski – Part #3”

Summary: Now, if we have early Daniel manuscripts from the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ that virtually require a pre-Maccabean date for their previous text, under commonly accepted “literary diffusion” time requirements; and all the major pre-Maccabean literature utilizes elements from Daniel; and all the “possibly” to “quite probably” pre-Maccabean literature utilizes elements from Daniel; and all the Maccabean and post-Maccabean works of significance utilize Daniel; and all of the sources closest in time, expertise and eyewitnesses to the situation, (Qumran, New Testament, Josephus, Rabbinics, etc) describe Daniel’s writings as prophecies of the future; and all of the sectarian groups accept Daniel as canonical; and several of the documents discussed suggest a date for Daniel around the end of the 4th century and the start of the 3rd century B.C.E. and the most probable direction of borrowing in each case is from Daniel.  Then, it would be safe to say that Daniel, if not originally 6th century B.C.E. is at least pre-Maccabean and therefore his prophecies were true prophecies indeed!

Daniel also had membership in what is referred to as, “High Scripture” and was fully authoritative in a primary and non-derivitive sense. It was itself “interpreted” and translated in the (Midrash) a Jewish commentary and was “emulated” by many other works. It also enjoyed pan-Jewish acceptance as only the “High Scripture” books did, and this indicates pre-sectarian antiquity for its prophetic significance for the Qumran community as well as the rest of the nation of Israel. Therefore, acceptance of a ‘Late Date Jubilee Theory’ for the book of Daniel, created by the founding Teachers is absolutely absurd!

As we summarize what we have gleaned from the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ we see that the presence of the manuscripts of Daniel, when coupled with the “High View Theory” of Daniel as a prophet would indicate a pre-Maccabean date, by a methodology admitted to by the non-conservatives themselves. We see from the fact that Daniel having been written before the Qumran community was established places it minimally, pre-150 B.C.E. and in light of dual textual tradition, canonical prophetic status and pre-sectarian origins, this would support a date of origination much earlier than 165 B.C.E.  Finally we also see that the use of ‘Jubilees’ as authoritative interpretation at Qumran cannot be used successfully to determine the argument. Accordingly, it looks like the manuscript data is very supportive that Daniel is at least pre-Maccabean and therefore the prophetic sections of Daniel were written before the events were mentioned.

If we regard this conclusion to be true and we do, then all the historical and linguistic problems in the book of Daniel are irrelevant, to a discussion of this ‘Maccabean’ or ‘pre-Maccabean’ question. Historical and linguistic difficulties become interpretive issues, and the methods of dating or locating the text within the pre-Maccabean period and methods for assessing the accuracy of the writer become another mater altogether. This material therefore could be used to argue for a 3rd century B.C.E. date versus a 6th century B.C.E. date for an uninformed writer versus an eyewitness writer or for a fictional genre versus a historical genre, but never for a post-Maccabean dating, never! The predictive prophecy relative to Antiochus Epiphanes in Daniel will therefore stand, and stand firm!

However, as long as we have Daniel commentators, scholars, and skeptics starting out with their presuppositions such as: “We need to assume that the vision of Daniel chapter 8 as a whole is a prophecy after the fact. Why? Because human beings are unable to accurately predict the future events centuries in advance and to say that Daniel could do so, even on the basis of a symbolic revelation, vouchsafed to him by God and interpreted by an angel, is to fly in the face of the certainties of human nature. So what we have here is in fact not a road map of the future laid down in the 6th century B.C. but an interpretation of the events of the author’s own time, 167-164 B.C…” (Towner, Daniel, Interpreter’s Bible, John Knox: 1984, p.115) (An Introduction to the Old Testament, Dillard and Longman III, Zondervan: 1994).

“We’ll always battle the ignorance of the human mind and bias!” Adam Boguski See you next time,  “…Between The Lines…”

“The Daniel Dilemma” by ‘Adam T. Boguski II’  (Part #3) 10/28/12

“The Daniel Dilemma” by ‘Adam T. Boguski II’ – Part #2

“The Daniel Dilemma by Adam Boguski – Part #2”

The ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ give extensive evidence that would date Daniel not only pre-Maccabean, but much earlier than that as well. The claimed writing of Daniel by the Liberal view is approximately 165 B.C.E. The highly religious and separatist Essenes, a sect of priestly scribes of Judaism, established the ‘Qumran Community’ around 150 B.C.E. and because of their intense beliefs of separatism, their communication and relations with civilization outside of their desert community was scarce and pretty much non-existent. So, when they were established they would already have had, to have had several copies of the book of Daniel in their possession to copy it as extensively as they did. Which would have, according to the 165 B.C.E. date, given the book fifteen years to circulate and gain canonical acceptance. This is so highly improbable in and of itself, that it would have been the fastest book on record to have gained canonicity in Jewish history. To gain the reverence and credibility and to be able to be added to Jewish cannon of Scripture, “The Tenach,” the proof must be extensive and it must have years, decades of time to grow, to gain that kind of superior respect. Daniel also has more copies and commentaries on it found at Qumran than any other book of the Bible even exceeding the number of Jeremiah scrolls.

Manuscripts at Qumran that are dated 3rd century B.C.E. which is a century before the Qumran community came into existence, which is needed to make “generational” copies simply wouldn’t exist. The reason being that the original copies themselves would still have been available and in good shape. What the existence of two textual traditions before Qumran in 150 B.C.E. means, is that the origination date of the “original-original” would most likely be much earlier than a mere fifteen years. So, if an early copy of the text was found at Qumran and we are sure the content wasn’t written there, how far back could we safely reference its origination? What is strange here is that even non-conservative scholars will say the answer to this dating problem is that it must be, “Pre- Maccabean’ because of the time requirement for “literary diffusion.” However, they will not draw this conclusion for the book of Daniel, they will state the fact but refuse it for the mere credence given to ‘Biblical Prophecy.’ Dr. Bruce Waltke complains about this inconsistency: “The discovery of manuscripts of Daniel at Qumran dating from the Maccabean period renders it highly improbable that the book was composed during the time of the Maccabees.” (BibSac-V133 #532, Oct. 1976, p322).

We may conclude that the book of Daniel was regarded as Scripture in the Qumran community for two reasons: First, the large number of preserved copies is an indication of its importance; Second, the way in which it is given authoritative status in the writings as, “written in the book of Daniel, the Prophet:” (frgs. 1-3 ii 3-4a). This reference implies that the book of Daniel was regarded as Scripture and that it may have belonged among the “Prophets” in the Jewish canon.

The Liberals would have Daniel written very quickly, during or after the Maccabean revolt, after the Gentile powers were overthrown, which would put the writing around 165 B.C.E. This then derails the main argument as to why the book was “supposedly” written in the first place. The Liberals say it was written to encourage resistance not as a reaction to persecution and in spite of its unknown authorship it was somehow given authoritative and scriptural status and widely distributed within months. The Qumran community moved to the Dead Sea area around 150 B.C.E. only 15 years later and interaction with the religious community outside of itself at that point was very limited, if at all! As mentioned before this would have meant that Daniel would have had to have been accepted as fully inspired Scripture and not just “likable” by the event of separation of about 10-15 years after its alleged origin. An anonymous work, with co-operation of foreign powers, containing many predictions which were partially false under liberal interpretation, yet readily acceptable with the speed of Scripture. This would be highly improbable in fact it would be almost impossible even for the most liberal, liberals!

The Qumran community called Daniel a “Prophet!” They who were eyewitnesses of the occurring events considered his words prophetic of the times and happenings. They were there and they did not consider Daniel’s words to have been merely a description of the past. He was in fact describing their future, and this Qumran community was not a group removed in time from the Maccabean Revolt as a few liberals will try and dispute. Remember, this was not simply a matter of they “liked” Daniel, because they “liked” apocalyptic literature. There were lots of books and writings they “liked” but they never ascribed “prophetic status” to them. There were lots of works they considered “authoritative” but they never ascribed “prophetic status” to those either. However, to the book of Daniel, the people of this Maccabean time period ascribed “full prophetic status” to and reverenced Daniel’s text as “Canonical Scripture.”

Another thing that would help us disprove the “late date theory” is to find writings that are ‘Non-Biblical’ that reference the work of Daniel and are pre-165 B.C.E. There are too many to list but here are a few:  Psuedepigrapha: 1 Enoch (2nd B.C.E.); Sibylline Oracles (2nd B.C.E.); Apocalypse of Zephaniah (1st B.C.E.); Testaments of The Lost fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works (we have a reference to Daniel in) Ezekiel the Tragedian (2nd B.C.E.); Apocrypha: Sirach/Ecclesiasticus (Hebrew 189 B.C.E.); Greek Xlate (132 B.C.E.); I Baruch (200-60 B.C.E.); Susanna (3rd-1st B.C.E.); I Maccabees (late 2nd B.C.E.); II Maccabees (mid 2nd B.C.E.).

Join me next time for Adam’s conclusion and summary on the evidence gleaned from the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ and the Maccabean period on the “Late Date Theory” for the book of Daniel. Till then we’ll see you,  “…Between The Lines…”

“The Daniel Dilemma” by ‘Adam T. Boguski II’ – Part #2  10/24/2012