04-02-2011, 10:34 PM
Hi there, I am fairly new to this forum. I have been studying the Aramaic primacy position with great interest and am leaning favourably towards this position.
I have been a Sabbath keeping Christian (Seventh-day Adventist) my whole life and all of my Biblical study is done from English translations and language software tools.
I have stumbled across what I am finding a difficult question to resolve.
The Greek text of the New Testament along with the AENT have a number of places where Aramaic words are embedded within the text. What I struggle to understand is why the authors needed to provide clarification statements for these words if the Aramaic readers already new the words? I will give examples.
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"
What I am struggling to understand is the clarification statements for these particular words in the text. If the NT was authored in Aramaic then why is it only these words which are clarified and not many more?
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"
On the other hand if this text were written in Greek, it could be argued that Aramaic words were used to give the text a bit of 'flavour'. In which case it would be necessary to define the unknown words for the audience.
I want to resolve my conflicting understanding and have the Aramaic text standing as the prime language. Any assistance to clarify would be most welcomed.
YHWH's Blessings
brendon
I have been a Sabbath keeping Christian (Seventh-day Adventist) my whole life and all of my Biblical study is done from English translations and language software tools.
I have stumbled across what I am finding a difficult question to resolve.
The Greek text of the New Testament along with the AENT have a number of places where Aramaic words are embedded within the text. What I struggle to understand is why the authors needed to provide clarification statements for these words if the Aramaic readers already new the words? I will give examples.
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"
What I am struggling to understand is the clarification statements for these particular words in the text. If the NT was authored in Aramaic then why is it only these words which are clarified and not many more?
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"
On the other hand if this text were written in Greek, it could be argued that Aramaic words were used to give the text a bit of 'flavour'. In which case it would be necessary to define the unknown words for the audience.
I want to resolve my conflicting understanding and have the Aramaic text standing as the prime language. Any assistance to clarify would be most welcomed.
YHWH's Blessings
brendon