[B-Greek] A foolish question

Randall Buth randallbuth at gmail.com
Fri Sep 8 05:08:22 EDT 2006


>I am not sure what to make of the word RAKA. Did Matthew use the Aramaic
term because it was considered impolite to use the equivalent Greek
term? Of all the words in this passage, why did Matthew preserve that
one in Aramaic?

Am I reading too much into this?>

It is not a foolish question but is linguistically complicated.
Emotive words are often borrowed across languages and used where one
might have predicted that they are logically unecessary.

For example, today in Israeli Hebrew it is common to hear the word
"sheet". They are referring, of course, to Spanish caca. (do I need to
be more explicit?) Before leaving this example, another is
enlightening. Israelis also say Hara alot. This refers to the same
"sheet" and caca mentioned above. Hara is assumed by the speakers to
be borrowed from Arabic, where it is also in use. However, it is also
Biblical Hebrew, occurring twice in the ktiv (but not to be read). A
3000 year old blue-word, preserved through two languages within a
family. Not bad.

Anyway, back to RAQA. It is both Aramaic and Hebrew and is attested in
rabbinic literature. Yes, it was considered offensive. It means
"empty, worthless" and may have been at about the same emotive level
as a**hole. It was hardly a way to cleanup a potential off-color
Greek.

the edifying element in this is to remember that others are all in the
image of God.
See James 3.9 warning:
EN AUTH KATARWMEQA TOUS ANQRWPOUS TOUS KATA OMOIWSIN QEOU GEGONOTAS.

ERRWSO
Randall Buth

-- 
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη
שלום לכם וברכות
ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il
randallbuth at gmail.com


More information about the B-Greek mailing list