Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Dear Peter,

> Thank you for the correction, in fact I simply misread the N-A text. 
> But the textual evidence in Nestle-Aland is very uncertain, and in 
> fact several early MSS (B, D, theta) do have LAMA. Also, was the 
> Aramaic word really LEMA with a clear E vowel, or was the first 
> vowel a sheva? I ask because sheva as well as qamats was usually 
> transliterated as alpha in Greek, in NT, LXX etc. So the epsilon 
> here seems to be a corrupt form whether the original was Hebrew or 
> Aramaic.

HH: The fact that sheva was usually transliterated as alpha in Greek 
does not mean that it always was. Two text critical sources for "why" 
in Mark 15:34 give "lima" and "lema, " so the letter "i" or the 
letter "e" is how they would represent the sheva on the Aramaic word 
for "why." The Septuagint transliterates sheva as "i" in the word 
"Lebanon" at Josh 11:7. It transliterates sheva as "e" in the word 
Lebonah at Judges 21:19. So neither the iota nor the epsilon in 
lema/lima at Mark 15:34 has to be a corrupt form.

                                        Yours,
                                        Harold Holmyard