01-22-2014, 05:41 AM
judge Wrote:As for the suggestion that "Rabbouli" must be a later addition, ...
Quote:however, ?Rabbouli? is not a common word at all. The only possibility is that it is a later Syriac wordI think the evidence is being overstepped here. one can say it's not a known word from that time....but....that's hardly conclusive. How likely is it that we know every word (even slang, which this may be) spoken in Judea from that time?
Shlama Akhi Judge,
It's impossible that this is a "Syriac" word, firstly because of the gloss ("which means teacher"), and secondly because the text itself calls it "ebraith" (Hebraic).
Of course it could have been a slang Judean term for which we have no (other) extant witnesses. "Absence of evidence, is not necessarily evidence of absence." <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
+Shamasha