Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ARAMAIC CLARIFICATION STATEMENTS IN NT
#3
carvston Wrote:Matt 27:33 "Golgotha, that is to say the place of a skull." AENT says "which is interpreted the Skull"
Mark 5:41 "Talitha cumi which is translated little girl I say to you arise" AENT says "Talitha cumi (young girl, arise)
Mark 7:34 "Ephphatha that is be opened" AENT "Ephphatha (be opened)"
Acts 1:19 "Akel dama that is field of blood" AENT "Khagel-Dema that is interpreted the field of blood"

Hi Brendon, welcome to the forum.

The Aramaic NT does not contain the glosses in Mark 5:41 (Talitha Qumi), or in Mark 7:34 (Ephphathakh). It does contain explanatory notes in Matt 27:33 and Acts 1:19, both referring to regional places where the Aramaic is not standardized (it's a local dialect that may not be understood by the broader Aramaic-speaking world.)

carvston Wrote:Furthermore, why is there a need to clarify the meaning of these words if the reading audience speaks Aramaic? Is seems a bit redundant. It kind of seems like me saying in English "I am going to the bakery, that is, the place they bake things"

Sometimes when something is written down in a specific dialect, it may differ from the broader ("koine") dialect, even in English. For instance, you may hear a Cockney say "I don't Adam and Eve it!", which would translate into the proper English "I don't believe it!" You may run into such a gloss in an English book, with the gloss explaining the localism to the broader English-speaking audience. Place-names, like "Khaql-Dama" and "Golgotha" are more susceptible to localisms in dialect.

+Shamasha
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: ARAMAIC CLARIFICATION STATEMENTS IN NT - by Paul Younan - 04-04-2011, 06:25 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)