Re: [Synoptic-L] He fell and wept
- Mark M. wrote:
>Sure, there are multiple meanings--I wasn't questioning that.
> The meanings I have for epiballw were all taken from Liddell-Scott, and amply
> evidenced there. we could dig up more if we used TLG.
And epibalwn is simply
> the aorist participle, so the grammatical construction doesn't subsantiallyNo, of course it doesn't. I was questioning whether a participle is what you would expect there at all, given the kind of meaning and construction that you are positing.
> change the range of meanings of the lexical construction.
> So I would assertWhere's the evidence?
> again, with considerable evidence,
that "epibalwn" means quite comfortably
> "falling down" (you don't need to literally insert falling "upon" based onYes, and my dictionary (a Langenscheidt) does not include the "falling down" usage for "epiballw." There is a perfectly good verb for "to fall down": "piptw." But more to the point, do you have a supporting example to cite, or not? If not, I'll have to conclude that you are advancing a hypothetical construction that has not actually been seen in use, which was my point to begin with.
> "epi".... the range of meanings for a compound word is not simply the simple
> word stem + the simple meaning of the prepositional prefix; the meaning is based
> on usage).
> The Western (or better, Syro-Latin) text pretty universally has "and he began toOn the contrary, I advance no such idea, nor do I believe such a thing. Translators into Aramaic would have been aware of the r/d problem and would have spotted the error and corrected it. Or at least, they evidently did, because both the Sinaitic Syriac and the Peshitta have it right.
> weep" ("et coepit plorare/flere" etc.). Even the Greek of D has "KAI HRXATO
> KLAIEIN." It seems to me that the simplest solution is that the writer of Mark
> mistook the Aramaic word "$ry", meaning "he began" for "$d'" meaning "he threw."
> As you know, the chief difference is whether the resh/dalath dot is above or
> below the writing. (I don't know whether this is exactly how Casey explained
> it--I still haven't read his book.) In any case, this is a simpler and more
> elegant solution than invoking a Greek construction that seems to be nowhere
> else supported. The misreading of r/d is an easy mistake to make in several
> Semitic languages, and in the first century it's likely that there would not
> even have been a dot above or below to give guidance. It appears that the
> synopticists were as prone to this error as anyone else, and that implies
> written texts--even for Mark.
> This is a very different argument now. here you advance the idea that the
> western text, independently of Alexandrian text, goes back to an original
> Aramaic text.
So both independently knew and mistranslated the Aramaic version
> (and in most other senses did this identically?).That's your theory, Mark, not mine.
But you have now moved into
> text criticism, and I would suggest that explanations for Western variations (orThat's as may be, but it will keep coming up.
> alternatively if Western text is more original, Alexandrian variations) is
> complex but hard to fit into a "source/translation" issue.
Donald C. Traxler