True, such as that some people when speaking Aramaic may have used the Hebrew word for God. But it is still the Hebrew word, not the Aramaic word, although I accept that the last word in the quotation is Aramaic.Well, there is the problem! People with NT doctorates don't tend to know more than basic Hebrew and Aramaic, and so tend to trust what they hear from others.
... 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. ...
But who are the others they are relying on? As for the journalists, you must be joking to cite them as authorities.
But the real point here is that you are never going to convince me on any argument by citing modern authorities, rather than giving actual evidence.
... The last two words are clearly Aramaic, ...
The last word is. LAMA looks to me like a perfectly good Hebrew word for "why", although I agree that it can also be Aramaic.
In fact LAMA is the very Hebrew word used in the original of Psalm 22:2 (v.1 in English), although to confuse matters the Hebrew is ELI not ELOHI.
... 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).
Well, I accept that Greenspahn knows his Aramaic. But does he actually explain how ELWI can be Aramaic? I suppose the Aramaic form could be ELAY and this just might have been pronounced something like ELOY. But this is the kind of argument I was expecting from you, rather than citing endless authorities who simply copy from one another.
And is the long A in ELAY became omega, why are none of the other long A's in this verse transcribed as omega?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.