Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

4

That there was a Greek word for Aramaic (Suristi) and Luke chooses to use the word for Hebrew in these places (tae Hebraidi dialectow) implies that he meant Hebrew instead of Aramaic. Paul, being a Pharisee and trained by Rabban1 Gamaliel the Elder, would certainly know Hebrew. My answer here shows from literature and archeology that Mishnaic Hebrew was ...


3

Because it is not the Same Key(s) Being Referenced The "key of the house of David" (Isaiah 22:22 LXX, Brenton) and "key of David" (Rev. 3:7, ESV) are referring to the same "key" (singular), the same concept. But "the keys to the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19, ESV) is not the key of David. To equate the two would probably be similar to (and this is from ...


2

The short answer: Most likely, Mark translated the Aramaic in 5:41, 15:22, and 7:34 for the benefit of his Roman readers, some or most of whom may not have read Aramaic. Many Roman citizens could speak Aramaic, particularly traders, shippers, bankers, vendors and the like, but not every Roman could speak it, let alone read and write it. Another answer ...


2

I think there could be many hypothesis: Aramaic was also a language of divine worship and the bible, so using that language could evoke that connection in a way that use of Greek couldn't. Mark evidently wants to preserve this. We know that translating parts of the bible into Aramaic predated Christianity (Philip Alexander Aramaic Bible 17A Canticles: ...


1

Many scholars think that Luke is referring to Aramaic or at the very least that it's ambiguous. For example, the NET Bible just translates it directly as "Aramaic," while the ESV translates it as "Hebrew" but has a note "Or the Hebrew dialect (probably Aramaic)." The issue here is less one of a "language family" as that "Hebrew" also refers to the Jewish ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible