show_no_mercy

Matthew 27:46 has the Aramaic phrase "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" What's the point of putting this in there if everything that Jesus said was supposed to be in Aramaic? Why single out this one phrase to write in Aramaic and then translate it?

No Robots

There is a great deal of Aramaic in the NT. See Aramaic of Jesus, which states with regard to the instance in question:

The lines seems to be quoting the first line of Psalm 22. However, he is not quoting the canonical Hebrew version (êlî êlî lâmâ `azabtânî), but is using an Hebraic midrash (Matthew) or Aramaic translation of it (Mark).

Ben C Smith

Speakers and writers who are describing in one language events that happened to people who speak another often like to retain some of the original language, perhaps for color.

There may be more to some of the NT Aramaic or Hebrew references than mere color, but some of them seem to me to be just that.

I am fluent in Spanish, and have often heard storytellers recounting things in English that happened in Latin America. They will sometimes keep the original Spanish wording of key parts of the story (almost always translating immediately thereafter), just as we sometimes imitate the body language, accent, or emotional expression of speakers we are quoting.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

The original Hebrew/Aramaic is required here in order to explain why people thought Jesus was talking about Elijah.

Andrew Criddle

show_no_mercy

That makes sense, since I had to look up what the word "Elijah" meant (My God [is Yah])

spin

What's interesting to me is that Matthew is based on Mark, the text written for a Latin speaking Greek audience has most of the Aramaisms, while Matthew, the text supposedly with a strong Semitic background, has tended to omit them.


spin

show_no_mercy

I always wondered if it were possible that there were two versions of "Q" - one in Greek and one in Aramaic/Hebrew that were region specific.