01-15-2011, 12:10 AM
Hadn't really looked at Mark 15:34 before, so I guess I am new to this issue.
Objectively, it seems as though the Aramaic is questionable, in the sense that they are only "interpreting" the word Iyl, and superfluously duplicating, l:mo-no` sh:baq-to-ny a second time. It seems rather awkward for them to do that.
The Greek on the other hand, "interprets" the entire Aramaic phrase Iyl Iyl l:mo-no` sh:baq-to-ny back into Greek, which seems the natural thing to do. Is that the consensus of others looking at this verse?
Objectively, it seems as though the Aramaic is questionable, in the sense that they are only "interpreting" the word Iyl, and superfluously duplicating, l:mo-no` sh:baq-to-ny a second time. It seems rather awkward for them to do that.
The Greek on the other hand, "interprets" the entire Aramaic phrase Iyl Iyl l:mo-no` sh:baq-to-ny back into Greek, which seems the natural thing to do. Is that the consensus of others looking at this verse?