Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ethpathakh versus Ephphatha
Paul Younan Wrote: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.

Here's a nice "Syriac" song by a Jerusalem-born Israeli:

Quote:r-g-z is synonymous with r-g-sh (minority reading), and is not solely Galilean.

r-g-z is not synonymous with r-g-sh in Galilean. As I mentioned earlier, r-g-sh in Galilean means "to sense" and not "to rage."

Quote: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.

Yes r-g-z was used in Late Imperial Aramaic for "to rage."

However, in Late Imperial Aramaic r-g-sh meant "to assemble."

Different roots simply evolved differently in different dialects. :-)

Quote: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.

With how much critique we find in the Talmud about spoken, vernacular Aramaic, as well as the dialect shift within Rabbinic Judaism after the fall of the Temple, it's quite safe to say it was not simply a literary language. It was also not standardized like a literary language, such as Imperial Aramaic.

Quote: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.

The earliest portions of Yerushalemi, are contemporary to where most scholars date the Syriac Peshitta New Testament (I know that you disagree :-) ). Targum Neofiti is useful for orthography and grammar, as it was not egregiously "corrected" towards Eastern readings like a number of other documents. It is a piece in the greater puzzle.

Quote: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.

And yet, that's pretty much the only Syriac inscription of all of the "greater Jeruslalem area" from the period since she was an immigrant (I believe that there may have been one other, but I cannot bring it to mind), AND her sarcophagus was also inscribed in Palestinian Aramaic directly below it, apparently to make sure it could be understood.

Quote:[Image: V01p444005.jpg]
cd) mlkt)
cdh mlkth
(Argh Paul you need to upgrade your forum or database so it supports Unicode properly! :-) )

The script was very early and primitive for Syriac (then again, it is one of if not *the* earliest Syriac inscriptions on record, so it kinda is categorically). It does not differentiate between dalath and resh, and I'm still not sure what to make of that first alaf. Given the Palestinian Aramaic below it (which represents the final a with he), it should be an alaf.

As another note, this is the same kind of Palestinian orthography I'm working with with my reconstruction efforts. :-)

So, no doubt that Syriac was a "living dialect." It was just stronger in some places than others. Helena was notable as she was a pagan convert to Judaism outside of her native context.

Quote:Galilee and Samaria were more heavily Assyrian than Judea, which was Babylonian. The Samaritans themselves are ethnically Assyrian.

And all of their writings (the Galileans and Samaritans) were in Western Aramaic, not Eastern.

Quote: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.

I agree that it's a great example of an original Aramaic source, but perhaps not on the mechanisms behind its transmission. :-)

SteveCaruso Wrote:So, going back to the OP with some more detailed analysis about this particular epithet:

The Koine of the Greek NT has boanerges which likely represents buh-ney r'ges or buh-ney r'gez.
(It's well established by Greek scholars that sigma followed a similar voicing pattern to "s" in English [ex. "goes" "Jesus", etc.] where zeta was for geminate "z." How they figured this out, you'll have to ask them, but it's in all the literature.)
Hi Steve.
Whilst that seems to be usually the case, there were exceptions.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="">viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2804</a><!-- l -->
Or have I misunderstood?
Here is (not so ancient) attestation to "Ragash" as "thunder" from Franz Delitzsch.

V'eth Ya'akov ben Zavdai v'eth Yukhanan akhi Ya'akov v'yekhaneh atham b'shem Benei Ragosh hwa Benei Ra'am.- Mark 3:17, Delitzsch's Hebrew Translation

'Ya'akov ben Zavdai and Yochanan, the brother of Ya'akov-- and he called them by the name Benei Regosh, that is, "sons of thunder"...'- The Delitzsch Hebrew Gospels

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)