Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ethpathakh versus Ephphatha
#15
Shlama Akhi Steve,

OK, that post is a bit more reasonable. Speculation is fine, especially where the evidence is scanty (as you stated.) As long as it is understood that you are speculating.

Quote:What I've found is that the word for "to rage" or "to bellow" (like thunder) in Galilean and other Western dialects was r'gaz.

A common word from that root is ragoz (rest-gamal-waw-zain) or "wrath." What is interesting is that out of the 5 places it is found in Galilean texts, a majority of those times (3, perhaps 4 as once it is spelled defective) it is found as r'geyz (resh-gamal-yod-zai).

r-g-z is synonymous with r-g-sh (minority reading), and is not solely Galilean. It's use is also in Chaldean Aramaic (cf., the original Aramaic of Daniel 3:13) - a very eastern dialect, centuries before Galilean Aramaic formed.

Attempting to reconstitute the Galilean Aramaic of Jesus (one of many dialects He was no doubt fluent in) based on the Jerusalem Talmud, in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster. Firstly because there is serious doubt as to whether the language of the Talmud was a true vernacular tongue, or merely a literary language. Secondly, it is a late and dubious source for the topic at hand. Even worse is the evaluation of Targum Neofiti (I'm assuming that's what you meant by "Western Targum.") It exists in one manuscript dated by colophon to the 16th century.

Syriac could have been spoken in 1st-century Palestine for the same reasons it is spoken today in Israel, via emigration from populations in Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran. In fact, a contemporary of Jesus was Queen Helena of Adiabene, who is buried in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and whose sarcophagus bears Syriac inscription. Syriac was a living dialect in the 1st Century. Galilee and Samaria were more heavily Assyrian than Judea, which was Babylonian. The Samaritans themselves are ethnically Assyrian.

The important thing to me is that both the Peshitta and Greek agree on Mark 3:17, and most importantly it is a proof of Aramaic Primacy. There is a compelling reason why the gloss exists in the Aramaic text, for precisely the reasons you bring up. The author wanted to make sure the reader understood that the intended meaning of r-g-sh was the minority reading of "rage", as "ra'am" clearly shows. If this passage was originally written in Greek, the author could have easily translated the name into "Sons of Thunder" and have been done with it. Other names (like bar-Tulmay) aren't glossed in the Greek text, so there would have been no compelling reason for a Greek author to do this. The more simple explanation is an underlying Aramaic source.

+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)