04-13-2013, 04:01 AM
Interesting theory, Akhi Paul.
I'm kind of hung up on this, though. Would it make sense to transliterate (not translate) the same words into three different scripts? If a Greek speaker (for example) saw the sign and couldn't read the Aramaic version, wouldn't the Greek letters just be gibberish to him?
Much like a sentence of Chinese, written in latin characters... I might be able to pronounce it, but would certainly have no idea what it meant.
I might be overlooking some important feature of the historical setting, but it makes more sense to me that it would have been actually translated for the benefit of any who might see the sign.
(That the Aramaic words may have been written in Hebrew letters still makes sense to me. Probably equally as much sense as if it were written in Aramaic and the author/translator of the gospel called it Hebrew.)
I'm kind of hung up on this, though. Would it make sense to transliterate (not translate) the same words into three different scripts? If a Greek speaker (for example) saw the sign and couldn't read the Aramaic version, wouldn't the Greek letters just be gibberish to him?
Much like a sentence of Chinese, written in latin characters... I might be able to pronounce it, but would certainly have no idea what it meant.
I might be overlooking some important feature of the historical setting, but it makes more sense to me that it would have been actually translated for the benefit of any who might see the sign.
(That the Aramaic words may have been written in Hebrew letters still makes sense to me. Probably equally as much sense as if it were written in Aramaic and the author/translator of the gospel called it Hebrew.)