Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Saturday 23 July 2005 06:40, Peter Kirk wrote:
> On 23/07/2005 07:06, Dave Washburn wrote:
> >On Friday 22 July 2005 18:57, Peter Kirk wrote:
> >>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.
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >Not necessarily.  ... It is also likely, as
> >I have said before, that Jesus' words were rather slurred, considering his
> >physical condition by the time he reached this point. ...
>
> Fair enough, Jesus could have said something rather slurred which can be
> understood as either Aramaic or Hebrew. The position I object to is the
> one which claimes that ELWI is Aramaic but not Hebrew. Perhaps it could
> be either, but it certainly could be Hebrew.

It could be, sure.  But if we accept that the last word is definitely 
Aramaic, 
as you said, then which is more likely, that ELWI is some form of an Aramaic 
word that was perhaps poorly rendered in Greek letters, or that Jesus was 
mixing two languages in this one short clause?  ISTM that the former makes 
more sense.

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Well, if I'd wanted a safe life, I guess I wouldn't have 
married a man who studies rocks." - Betty Armstrong (Fay Masterson)