Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 04-18-2010, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

egeirai and egeire (infinitive and imperative) mean the same here.

I wouldn't quite say that, Andrew.

But I would say that the former is a correction of the latter which may reflect a dialect difference. Under certain circumstances the latter may have been seen as an "error". egeire is the active form of the verb. Normally you raise something up. Here it would be reflexive, but there is nothing to indicate that fact, so I'd assume as it is used this way in all the gospels, that it was a "localized" dialect development. The latter egeirai being "(aorist) middle" is better suited to the reflexive needs of good Greek.

Thanks spin.

I was taking egeirai as the infinitive of indirect command, but you are right, it is the middle form of the imperative.

FWIW the widespread trplacement of egeire by egeirai in the Byzantine NT text tradition seems to be late Byzantine and appears to be mostly if not entirely absent from early Byzantine type texts.

Andrew Criddle

judge · 04-19-2010, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StarryNight

but Jesus (if he existed) could have known the bible and Jewish thinking through the targumim and the talmuds, both written in Aramaic? Or not?

He could have. Sometimes the words of Jesus reflect Aramaic targums that still exist today. There are probably targums which existed then which we no longer have today also.

Which Old Testament text did Jesus prefer and quote from?

judge · 04-19-2010, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Some people will argue that because there are a few snippets of Aramaic in the gospel of Mark and in a few other places, we can assume that Jesus spoke Aramaic.

Its a bit misleading to say that. I dont think anyone claims that Jesus spoke Aramaic just from looking at the gospels. That Jesus speaks Aramaic in the gospels, is just one pointer to the possible language of Jesus.
There are other things pointing to Aramaic being the language that would have been spoken.

show_no_mercy · 04-20-2010, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Some people will argue that because there are a few snippets of Aramaic in the gospel of Mark and in a few other places, we can assume that Jesus spoke Aramaic.

Its a bit misleading to say that. I dont think anyone claims that Jesus spoke Aramaic just from looking at the gospels. That Jesus speaks Aramaic in the gospels, is just one pointer to the possible language of Jesus.
There are other things pointing to Aramaic being the language that would have been spoken.

I think the argument might be that Mark was originally written in Aramaic due to the few Aramaisms in Mark. That is a crappy argument.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.