Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ethpathakh versus Ephphatha
SteveCaruso Wrote:At the same time, Jesus could have said `azabthani on the cross as he would have known it, and yet we have shabaqthani. :-)

Azabthani is Hebrew, not Aramaic. If the rest of the phrase was uttered in Hebrew, I would've expected the Azabthani as well.

SteveCaruso Wrote:I do not think he would have chosen a word outside of his mother dialect such as ragash (as "tumult/rage") to use as a nickname for some of his closest followers, especially given that in his own dialect it had a very different meaning (as in my "boot" example). It would be like a Syriac speaker using khesda in place of taibutha, in other words, very unlikely.

But again, it wasn't different in His mother dialect. The root is a primitive Semitic root (Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, etc.) with the attested meaning, in the Hebrew scripture. Again, see Psalm 2:1, or Isaiah 17:12. I don't understand why you think r-g-sh is a foreign root to "His mother dialect", when in fact it existed prior in Hebrew and Aramaic. Your presumption (again, drawn from a tiny corpus) is flawed.

SteveCaruso Wrote:I was merely looking at the appropriate Targums with my two examples as you had brought them up. Overall, ra`am is missing from the entirety of the Galilean and Samaritan corpi, which is quite sizable (as they include Talmud Yerushalemi, the various Rabbah commentaries and a plethora of other Rabbinic works which all have passages where such words would be readily used), and all uses of ragash fall under "to perceive" or "to be aware." It's simply an Eastern/Western split, and where all Eastern texts attest a very common word, and all Western texts do not mention it once even in the same contexts with ample opportunity, it's quite significant.

Firstly, The Jerusalem Talmud is written in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, not "Galilean" Aramaic. It is a reconstructionalist viewpoint again that is equating the two.

Secondly, again, ra'am is attested to in Hebrew in:

1 Chronicles 16:32
Ezekiel 27:35
Isaiah 29:6
Psalm 81:8
Psalm 77:19
Psalm 104:7
Job 26:14
Job 39:25

And plenty of other places in the Hebrew scripture and later, the Aramaic NT. To use the Talmud or other rabbinical writings from centuries after the fact to reconstruct what you view as "Galilean" Aramaic, is nothing more than an argument from silence..... a conclusion drawn based on the absence of evidence.

SteveCaruso Wrote:This is like what I mentioned about som; it just doesn't occur in Western dialects. Every occasion where (for example) Syriac or Jewish Babylonian Aramaic would use som (as in phrases like Abba, b-idaikh sa'em 'na rukhi) we find in the Galilean corpus either nathan or yahab. Som doesn't occur once in Galilean or Samaritan.

It's a different example, but again the text is late and that is also an argument from silence.

SteveCaruso Wrote:
Quote:The fact that Christ spoke to people from Galilee, Judea, Samaria and Syria shows that He spoke in several dialects, much like modern speakers of Neo-Aramaic do today.

All dialects of the day were certainly intelligible to some degree; however, Jesus and his early companions were very well known to be Galileans simply from their speech, which was markedly different. (Mark 14:70 et al.) Rabbis in Talmud Bavli even tease and deride Galileans for being "sloppy" with their speech to JBA standards (but, of course, was perfectly fine for JPA standards).

Of course, but that is my point. Differences with speech or an accent are one thing, the lack of a root heavily attested to in both classical Hebrew and Aramaic is another thing altogether.

SteveCaruso Wrote:Also, modern Neo-Aramaic dialects are far, far more fragmented than they were back in Jesus' time (and far, far more mutually unintelligible) which is what necessitates learning more than one. Someone who speaks Kfarze Turoyo cannot readily understand someone speaking Jub'addin Ma'loula, nor can someone who speaks Sandu Barzani understand Urmi Assyrian (which are even more closely related). Heck, both Lishana Deni speakers and Assyrian speakers can pretty much understand Chaldean speakers, but they have some difficulty understanding each other! :-)

How can you possibly know how fragmented they were back in Jesus' time? The conditions were the same (an occupation by a foreign force, religious and cultural differences, etc.)

SteveCaruso Wrote:In Jesus' day it wasn't nearly that disjoint, but each dialect did have it's very distinct quirks that left other dialects' speakers either laughing at the other's "poor form" or scratching their chin. The worst case scenario that I've found is that some early Rabbis forbade Galileans from reciting in the Synagogues for fear that they misspeak or mispronounce something and offend God, himself. So aye, there were (pardon the pun) pronounced differences that their speakers stuck to. :-)

Another presumption, but yes they were different enough so we can agree. The fact is demonstrated by Peter's speech, so there's no need to consult the later rabbis. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

SteveCaruso Wrote:
Quote:Finally, 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.

Indeed, it is a later dialect. I was merely using it as an illustration of how where ra`am was (for example) more common among other contemporary dialects, especially those with direct influence, and despite that CPA still opted for its own dialectical form rather than use the far more common (and at that point more universal) Eastern Aramaic word.

(And as a point of order, Syriac has plenty of Greek in it too... but then again, nearly every language that came in contact with Greek ended up with plenty of Greek in it, and fast. Rome may have conquered Greece... :-) )


It is NOT an eastern Aramaic word: it is a word in both Hebrew and Aramaic. See the above quotes from the Old Testament, which was not written in Eastern Aramaic.

It (ra'am) is a primitive Semitic root, predating both Hebrew and Aramaic.

Take care,

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)