01-06-2009, 10:50 PM
Iasou Mike,
The importance of the narrative portion is that many times traditional scholarship will dismiss this type of evidence as irrelevant by pointing out that word plays are expected to present themselves in dialogue admitted to have been originally in Aramaic (for example, dialogue between Meshikha and Keepa). A word play in the narrative of Luke, rather than in dialogue he is recording that was originally in Aramaic, is more significant than word plays we find in the Beatitudes or the Sermon on the Mount. Simply because it shows that Luke himself, the author, was playing on the meaning of the paralyzed man's name.
The importance of the narrative portion is that many times traditional scholarship will dismiss this type of evidence as irrelevant by pointing out that word plays are expected to present themselves in dialogue admitted to have been originally in Aramaic (for example, dialogue between Meshikha and Keepa). A word play in the narrative of Luke, rather than in dialogue he is recording that was originally in Aramaic, is more significant than word plays we find in the Beatitudes or the Sermon on the Mount. Simply because it shows that Luke himself, the author, was playing on the meaning of the paralyzed man's name.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
![[Image: sig.jpg]](http://www.peshitta.org/images/sig.jpg)