[b-hebrew] Aramaic - Abba

Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Fri Jul 22 22:42:16 EDT 2005

Dear Peter,

>On 22/07/2005 19:22, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:
>>... The Aramaic behind Matthew is êlî êlî lmâ 
>>"vaqtanî. Whereas Mark has elohî elohî.
>The former is Aramaic, but the latter is surely 
>Hebrew. The Aramaic, if not êlî, might be elahî, 
>but not elohî. So I think the author you quote 
>here is simply confused. And, although it would 
>be unusual, I will have to assume that the NET 
>Bible editors and the guy from Emory were 
>similarly confused - at least unless they can 
>offer more than a bare assertion of what seems 
>on the face of it to be an obvious untruth. Of 
>course their common confusion is not 
>coincidental, as sadly one untruth can very 
>easily be copied from person to person in this 
>field with no one bothering to think about the 
>truth of the matter.

HH: Peter, you weren't alive in the first 
century, and there may have been dialectical 
variations. The NIV Study Bible says that the 
words in Mark 15:34 are Aramaic "(but with some 
Hebrew characteristics)." Practically every 
source I've checked believes that the non-Greek 
words in Mark 15:34 are Aramaic, and that 
includes people with NT doctorates, Associated 
Press, CBS, and the Companion Bible. The last two 
words are clearly Aramaic, so why shouldn't the 
first word be? I'm looking at Frederick 
Greenspahn's An Introduction to Aramaic, at 
chapter 3 (p. 8), and he is confident that the 
non-Greek statements in both Matthew 27:46 and 
Mark 15:34 are Aramaic (although he transcribed 
Mark 15:34 incorrectly, actually spelling "why" 
in a more Hebrew way).

					Harold Holmyard

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list