But even more, it simply shrugs off the rock-solid accounts we have which are (hel-lo?) in GREEK. And it makes no sense of the occasional notes of Aramaic in the records. Why interject these little Aramaic spurts, if that was His characteristic language? There's no deep significance to "Talitha kum" that couldn't have been communicated by korasion, egeire, or some other Greek phrase.
But if He didn't characteristically speak Aramaic in public, these rare little dabs make sense.
BECAUSE it was important to the gospel writer (and to God, in using the writer) to report the actual Divine utterances at those times. Aramaic had a separate Jewish theological significance. Certain angels traditionally held to communicate between man and God (no, Christians don't use that system, but I speak of Jewish tradition) could only speak Aramaic.
Fair point.
“But even more, it simply shrugs off the rock-solid accounts we have which are (hel-lo?) in GREEK. And it makes no sense of the occasional notes of Aramaic in the records. Why interject these little Aramaic spurts, if that was His characteristic language? There’s no deep significance to “Talitha kum” that couldn’t have been communicated by korasion, egeire, or some other Greek phrase.
But if He didn’t characteristically speak Aramaic in public, these rare little dabs make sense.”
Of course, the Dead Sea Scrolls provide for us one of the most dramatic and significant of the epigraphical evidences for Hebrew. The Dead Sea Scrolls include nearly 600 partial manuscripts, both biblical and non-biblical, indicated by some 40,000 fragments. The most telling evidence of the scrolls is found in the sectarian scrolls and the commentaries on the biblical scrolls. In the sectarian scrolls, the ratio of Hebrew to Aramaic is, again, nine to one, but all of the commentaries are in Hebrew. It is impossible to conclude that a commentary on the Scripture would be written in a language other than the popular language of the people.