Thank you. Are you familiar with George M. Lamsa's translation of the Holy Bible from the original Aramaic of the Peshitta? I have multiple translations of the Bible, and they all provide valuable insights, but I've found this one to be particularly illuminating in many ways. There's a compelling—yet controversial—argument about "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" around how we interpret the Aramaic words themselves. Traditional version (Matthew 27:46): Greek: ηλι ηλι λαμα σαβαχθανι Transliteration: eli eli lama sabachthani "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" The Peshitta Aramaic text (used by both traditional translators AND Lamsa): ܐܝܠ ܐܝܠ ܠܡܢܐ ܫܒܩܬܢܝ Traditional interpretation of this Aramaic: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Lamsa's interpretation of the same Aramaic: "My God, my God, for this purpose I was spared!" The debate centers on two Aramaic words: ܠܡܢܐ (lemana) - Does this mean "why" or "for what purpose"? ܫܒܩܬܢܝ (shabaqtani) - The root word shabaq has multiple valid meanings: "to leave, to abandon, to forsake" AND "to allow, to permit, to spare, to keep for a purpose." Mainstream scholars translate it as "why have you forsaken me" because Jesus is quoting Psalm 22:1, where the context is abandonment. Lamsa and others argue that if Jesus meant total abandonment, he would have used taatani (forsaken because unwanted) or nashatani (forgotten). The choice of shabaq suggests "left for a purpose" rather than "carelessly abandoned." Both interpretations are linguistically valid... it's a question of context and theology. You're right... a mystic teacher crying out about abandonment at the moment of his purpose? That makes no sense theologically. "This is my destiny" is much more in alignment than "God abandoned me." I also recommend checking out Idioms in the Bible Explained and a Key to the Original Gospels by Lamsa.