Wednesday, February 6, 2013
I Think I Have Discovered the Original Aramaic Word for Cross
It has become fashionable in some circles to deny the possibility that the gospel has an Aramaic underpinning. However I can't go along with that. It's not that I find the use of Aramaic words in Mark all that convincing. Nor can I deny that there is a strange obsession with Latin terminology in the existing narrative. Indeed the reason I believe that there was an original Aramaic gospel doesn't come down to a single argument or only one consideration. There are a multitude of factors, perhaps the strongest being that I can't make sense of Christianity from the existing Greek narratives.
Let me give the reader just one example. I don't understand the interest in the Cross. I can't get my head around that one at all. But I may have found my solution in the Aramaic term nir which has a surprising history. I think it means both fire and cross and it explains why the two terms are linked - i.e. the baptism of fire. More to follow. In the meantime here is the appropriate page from Jastrow.
Let me give the reader just one example. I don't understand the interest in the Cross. I can't get my head around that one at all. But I may have found my solution in the Aramaic term nir which has a surprising history. I think it means both fire and cross and it explains why the two terms are linked - i.e. the baptism of fire. More to follow. In the meantime here is the appropriate page from Jastrow.
Email stephan.h.huller@gmail.com with comments or questions.