Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] He fell and wept

Expand Messages
  • Don T.
    ... Sure, there are multiple meanings--I wasn t questioning that. And epibalwn is simply ... No, of course it doesn t. I was questioning whether a participle
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 29, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark M. wrote:
      > 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.

      Sure, there are multiple meanings--I wasn't questioning that.

      And epibalwn is simply
      > the aorist participle, so the grammatical construction doesn't subsantially
      > change the range of meanings of the lexical construction.

      No, 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.

      > So I would assert
      > again, with considerable evidence,

      Where's the evidence?

      that "epibalwn" means quite comfortably
      > "falling down" (you don't need to literally insert falling "upon" based on
      > "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).

      Yes, 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.

      > The Western (or better, Syro-Latin) text pretty universally has "and he began to
      > 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.

      On 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.

      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 (or
      > alternatively if Western text is more original, Alexandrian variations) is
      > complex but hard to fit into a "source/translation" issue.

      That's as may be, but it will keep coming up.

      Donald C. Traxler
      Martinez, CA
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.