09-10-2003, 01:53 AM
Angry-Merciful in Mk 1:41
Shlama Akhi Chris.
Good idea that of yours!
I don???t know if this fits your ???split words??? category (or Akhi Paul specification as ???polysemics???) but here it goes:
In some Greek mss. of this Mk text there???s a curious variance (it was the matter of my Thesis):
Bezae (D 05) and the latins: a 3 d ff2 and r1 original reading, besides Tatian???s Diatessaron, bring orgisqeiv , ANGRY, while the rest of mss bring splagcnisqeiv , MERCIFUL. Textual Criticism Scholars are divided in this, because the first reading is certainly less attested but, according to the rule of ???lectio difficilior potior??? (better the more difficult reading: it???s more likely changed later for a softer ???pious??? exegesis; Mt and Lk both omitted the ???feeling???, any: quite suspicious!), ???angry??? would be the ???original???. I won???t insist here in the subject of Greek reading preference, but notice that the Greek aorist participles are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in appearance. How can then the confusion be explained? In the Peshitta we read [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Mxrt0 [/font]. Hypotetically, the word corresponding to ???Angry??? could be [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]M9rt0 [/font]. The shape of the[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)] x [/font] (khet) and the[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)] 9[/font] (ayn) are very similar, so Zorba???s confusion could have its cause just here (NB: Assuming the Aramaic written in ESTRANGELO, in Hebrew letters the similarity is not so evident.
There???s more: among the meanings of [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]M9rt0 [/font] there???s also ???paradoxically??? ???to have pity???. During my researches I was really amazed in finding this in the Ferrer, J / Nogueras, M. A.: Breve Diccionario Siriaco, Barcelona 1999. This is a Syriac-Spanish-Catalanian Dict. In order to be sure, I personally called the co-author, Joan Ferrer, and he told me that that peculiar meaning was attested in the Payne Smith Compendious Dict. where they found it. Therefore, in addition to the textual criticism aspect, there???s also a matter of choice in translation, since, if he (wrongly?) saw [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]M9rt0 [/font], Zorba finally decided to translate it as MERCIFUL.
BTW, MAR EPHREM has an extraordinary comment of this text (where he obviously saw [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]M9rt0 [/font]), delightfully explaining this mixture of angry and mercy in Jesus (I have it in Syriac, transcript from: EPHREM DE NISIBE, Commentaire de l?????vangile Concordant. Texte syriaque (Manuscript Chester Beatty 709). Expanded and Revised Edition. L. L??loir, ed. Dublin 1990; A Syriac Professor of the Sorbonne Univ., Paris, sent it to me. I used it translated to Spanish and placed the Syriac text in the appendix, along with Greek and Latin texts of various Holy Fathers, at the end of my Thesis). Let???s remember that Mar Ephrem DIDN???T KNOW GREEK in spite of (:-)?) his incredible wisdom (I must confess that he became one of my personal favorite Saints, even if we venerate him as ???Doctor of the Church???).
Regardless the preference for which of the Greek variants, or even BECAUSE OF THEM, isn???t an clear evidence of the Aramaic Priority?
Shlama,
Ab. Valentin
Shlama Akhi Chris.
Good idea that of yours!
I don???t know if this fits your ???split words??? category (or Akhi Paul specification as ???polysemics???) but here it goes:
In some Greek mss. of this Mk text there???s a curious variance (it was the matter of my Thesis):
Bezae (D 05) and the latins: a 3 d ff2 and r1 original reading, besides Tatian???s Diatessaron, bring orgisqeiv , ANGRY, while the rest of mss bring splagcnisqeiv , MERCIFUL. Textual Criticism Scholars are divided in this, because the first reading is certainly less attested but, according to the rule of ???lectio difficilior potior??? (better the more difficult reading: it???s more likely changed later for a softer ???pious??? exegesis; Mt and Lk both omitted the ???feeling???, any: quite suspicious!), ???angry??? would be the ???original???. I won???t insist here in the subject of Greek reading preference, but notice that the Greek aorist participles are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in appearance. How can then the confusion be explained? In the Peshitta we read [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Mxrt0 [/font]. Hypotetically, the word corresponding to ???Angry??? could be [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]M9rt0 [/font]. The shape of the[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)] x [/font] (khet) and the[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)] 9[/font] (ayn) are very similar, so Zorba???s confusion could have its cause just here (NB: Assuming the Aramaic written in ESTRANGELO, in Hebrew letters the similarity is not so evident.
There???s more: among the meanings of [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]M9rt0 [/font] there???s also ???paradoxically??? ???to have pity???. During my researches I was really amazed in finding this in the Ferrer, J / Nogueras, M. A.: Breve Diccionario Siriaco, Barcelona 1999. This is a Syriac-Spanish-Catalanian Dict. In order to be sure, I personally called the co-author, Joan Ferrer, and he told me that that peculiar meaning was attested in the Payne Smith Compendious Dict. where they found it. Therefore, in addition to the textual criticism aspect, there???s also a matter of choice in translation, since, if he (wrongly?) saw [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]M9rt0 [/font], Zorba finally decided to translate it as MERCIFUL.
BTW, MAR EPHREM has an extraordinary comment of this text (where he obviously saw [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]M9rt0 [/font]), delightfully explaining this mixture of angry and mercy in Jesus (I have it in Syriac, transcript from: EPHREM DE NISIBE, Commentaire de l?????vangile Concordant. Texte syriaque (Manuscript Chester Beatty 709). Expanded and Revised Edition. L. L??loir, ed. Dublin 1990; A Syriac Professor of the Sorbonne Univ., Paris, sent it to me. I used it translated to Spanish and placed the Syriac text in the appendix, along with Greek and Latin texts of various Holy Fathers, at the end of my Thesis). Let???s remember that Mar Ephrem DIDN???T KNOW GREEK in spite of (:-)?) his incredible wisdom (I must confess that he became one of my personal favorite Saints, even if we venerate him as ???Doctor of the Church???).
Regardless the preference for which of the Greek variants, or even BECAUSE OF THEM, isn???t an clear evidence of the Aramaic Priority?
Shlama,
Ab. Valentin