11-13-2012, 02:10 PM
Shlama Akhi Steve,
Let's get a bit more basic here as this conversation has strayed way off base. Back to the original question that Lawrence had.
Firstly, you have claimed (and I'm paraphrasing) that Jesus' "Galilean Aramaic" is attested to well enough in a vast corpus of text....so much so that you are able to definitively know that He could not have used the root "r-g-sh" as a nickname for dear friends, because no one would have understood it (despite the fact that is is a primitive Semitic root used both in the OT and widely in Aramaic texts.)
Your argument boils down to this: despite the fact that Moses, King David, Isaiah, Ezekiel all knew and frequently used both of these roots with the very meaning we are talking about...that Jesus couldn't have, despite the fact that even later Hebrew and Aramaic texts still use the words. You base this bold assumption on an argument from silence rooted in a handful of selected sources.
Then, when pressed on exactly what you meant by "Galilean Aramaic", you point as your primary sources such a wide variety as SA, CPA, JPA. I think we ruled out CPA and SA as preposterous, but please correct me if you still feel either of these two meet your criteria.
JPA - now you went on in the last post to suggest that "Galilean" is considered to be a subset of this dialect. But JPA sources are late and represent a wide spectrum of geography.
I'd like an exact list, please, of the corpi you are claiming to be representative of 1st-century "Galilean Aramaic" exactly as Jesus would have spoke.
I'm going to press you on this, not because I'm trying to be difficult, but because I strongly feel that your position exemplifies precisely what is wrong about modern day reconstructionalism.
Thanks!
+Shamasha
Let's get a bit more basic here as this conversation has strayed way off base. Back to the original question that Lawrence had.
Firstly, you have claimed (and I'm paraphrasing) that Jesus' "Galilean Aramaic" is attested to well enough in a vast corpus of text....so much so that you are able to definitively know that He could not have used the root "r-g-sh" as a nickname for dear friends, because no one would have understood it (despite the fact that is is a primitive Semitic root used both in the OT and widely in Aramaic texts.)
Your argument boils down to this: despite the fact that Moses, King David, Isaiah, Ezekiel all knew and frequently used both of these roots with the very meaning we are talking about...that Jesus couldn't have, despite the fact that even later Hebrew and Aramaic texts still use the words. You base this bold assumption on an argument from silence rooted in a handful of selected sources.
Then, when pressed on exactly what you meant by "Galilean Aramaic", you point as your primary sources such a wide variety as SA, CPA, JPA. I think we ruled out CPA and SA as preposterous, but please correct me if you still feel either of these two meet your criteria.
JPA - now you went on in the last post to suggest that "Galilean" is considered to be a subset of this dialect. But JPA sources are late and represent a wide spectrum of geography.
I'd like an exact list, please, of the corpi you are claiming to be representative of 1st-century "Galilean Aramaic" exactly as Jesus would have spoke.
I'm going to press you on this, not because I'm trying to be difficult, but because I strongly feel that your position exemplifies precisely what is wrong about modern day reconstructionalism.
Thanks!
+Shamasha