Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ethpathakh versus Ephphatha
#9
Shlama Akhi Steve.

It's good to see you too.

I think you're missing my point. The meanings of the roots in question are attested to in both Hebrew and Aramaic texts (they are in fact primitive Semitic roots), from before Christ's time and after Christ's time. Certainly, any "Galilean" or "Samaritan" Aramaic speaking person would know what ra'am and ragesh meant, and would have used the words, especially if they also knew their Hebrew scripture.

The majority reading of r-g-sh in the Peshitta NT is also "perceive/feel", instead of "rage". It is because of this very ambiguity that the gloss exists in Mark 3:17. When a word can have an A/B reading, it becomes necessary for a clarification. Otherwise, the reader might be left with the incorrect impression that they were given the name "Sons of Feeling." The Greek translator chose to transliterate the name (as best he could) into Greek characters, and he retained the convenient gloss.

Your argument is that they are missing from a very small corpus you consider to be representative of the Aramaic of Jesus' time and locale. I don't agree with that assumption at all. I've heard it trumpeted way before you took interest in Aramaic, so this is not meant to be a criticism of your work. Prof. Fulco holds the same viewpoint, which is partly why the language of the movie "Passion of the Christ" is such a horrible patchwork of personal opinion, and would most definitively not be understood by anyone in the 1st century. It is the result of pure speculation on his part, based on scanty evidence and terrible presumption.

The main reason I reject it is because any absence you notice in a relatively small corpus (and the sampling we have of "Galilean" and "Samaritan" Aramaic is very, very tiny) is probably purely coincidental. I can tell you from living it that dialects vary wildly from village to village. The assumption is based on a highly reconstructionalist view.

I wouldn't be considering C.P.A. at all in this discussion, as that is a very late dialect and is very heavily influenced by Greek. ("Yeshua" is missing from that Corpus, replaced by "Yesus".)

+Shamasha
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Ethpathakh versus Ephphatha - by LawrenceRaymond - 11-10-2012, 10:35 PM
Re: Ethpathakh versus Ephphatha - by SteveCaruso - 11-11-2012, 01:29 AM
Re: Ethpathakh versus Ephphatha - by Paul Younan - 11-11-2012, 02:31 AM
Re: Ethpathakh versus Ephphatha - by SteveCaruso - 11-12-2012, 09:28 PM
Re: Ethpathakh versus Ephphatha - by Paul Younan - 11-12-2012, 10:31 PM
Re: Ethpathakh versus Ephphatha - by Paul Younan - 11-12-2012, 10:44 PM
Re: Ethpathakh versus Ephphatha - by SteveCaruso - 11-13-2012, 03:39 AM
Re: Ethpathakh versus Ephphatha - by Paul Younan - 11-13-2012, 05:35 AM
Re: Ethpathakh versus Ephphatha - by SteveCaruso - 11-13-2012, 06:40 AM
Re: Ethpathakh versus Ephphatha - by Paul Younan - 11-13-2012, 07:06 AM
Re: Ethpathakh versus Ephphatha - by SteveCaruso - 11-13-2012, 08:25 AM
Re: Ethpathakh versus Ephphatha - by Paul Younan - 11-13-2012, 02:10 PM
Re: Ethpathakh versus Ephphatha - by SteveCaruso - 11-13-2012, 05:34 PM
Re: Ethpathakh versus Ephphatha - by Paul Younan - 11-13-2012, 06:11 PM
Re: Ethpathakh versus Ephphatha - by Paul Younan - 11-19-2012, 10:13 PM
Re: Ethpathakh versus Ephphatha - by SteveCaruso - 11-20-2012, 01:09 AM
Re: Ethpathakh versus Ephphatha - by judge - 12-05-2012, 01:23 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)