Jack (and Ron),
Again, I can certainly go as far as agreeing that many of these sayings (let's call it "core-Q") have Aramaic origins. My primary disagreement is that I think rather than being quotations from the historical Jesus, they are probably mostly sayings that accumulated in his name over time.
Here is an interesting thing to consider: Let's take Bruce's proposal that there is a Luke_A and a Luke_B and that Luke_A pre-dates Matthew. Let's also take your assertion that Luke(_A) translates an Aramaic source, and does a good job of it. Could we then suppose that Matthew's Q is based on Luke-A's Greek Q and the Aramaic source Q? It seems this would not be much different than you proposal. Do you see a problem with it?
--- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...> wrote:
> From: "gentdave1" <GentDave@...>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 9:11 AM
> To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: On Q
> > Jack, thanks for this. I can't go with you as far as it being an early
> > source, but I will gratefully accept it as supporting evidence that Luke's
> > version of this saying was composed in Aramaic.
> > Dave Gentile
> There is not a scintilla of a doubt in my pea brain, that Luke used and
> translated his own Aramaic source materials, he himself being an Aramaic
> speaker. I also think that the Matthean author sucked at both Aramaic and
> Hebrew. I think he used Greek translations of Aramaic sources. I think
> Luke, in his version of the LP, as much as testifies to its Aramaic origin.
> If you will indulge me:
> Try to step out of your 21st century literate society into a first century
> illiterate oral society and understand the structures and devices used in
> oral transmission in an oral society. Most of the sayings, parables and
> aphorisms of Jesus in the NT were eventually written down after decades of
> oral transmission, yet in most cases they retain their original oracular
> structure when back- translated to Aramaic. There is debate about how
> accurate oral transmission was but we should remember that in the ancient
> world no more than 5% of the population in cities and towns were literate,
> less to none in the countryside. Stories, sagas or news were transferred by
> minstrel types who sang them. Some languages became tonal like Attic Greek
> so even the lengthy epics like the Iliad and the Odyssey were sung and
> transmitted accurately.
> In the first century a preacher might say:
> Roses are red
> Violets are blue
> You better be good
> Or the devil will get you
> It is simple but it is an example of the 2-4 beat rhyming rhythm that Jesus
> used so his listeners would remember it and pass it on. Aramaic was an
> oracular language. When we, as English literates, read "Blessed are
> the poor for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven" it is because we have
> translated the Greek ÎÎ±Îºá½±ÏÎ¹Î¿Î¹ Î¿á¼± ÏÏÏÏÎ¿á½¶ á½
ÏÎ¹ Î±á½Ïá¿¶Î½ á¼ÏÏÎ¹Î½ á¼¡ Î²Î±ÏÎ¹Î»Îµá½·Î± Ïá¿¶Î½
> Î¿á½ÏÎ±Î½á¿¶Î½ "makarioi oi ptwxoi oti
> autwn estin h basileia twn ouranwn" but Jesus didn't say it in
> English, Greek, German or Lithuanian, he said it in Aramaic as:
> "TOObyhon lamiskeNA,
> d'DILehon MALkutha dashmaYA"
> (kinda like "Roses are red...")
> His audience of illiterate anwe ha'aretz remembered it. Naomi went
> home and told her husband Shymeon the potter, "guess what Yeshua said
> Paronomasia, Assonance, alliteration, meter and rhyme made SONGS that
> people remembered and passed on. 80% of the material in the gospels that
> are attributed to Jesus contains rhetorical
> and mnemonic devices that are features of Semitic poetry. I was taught songs
> in Sunday school when I was 5 that I still remember 65 years later.
> "Jesus loves me yes I know, for the Bible tells me soooo" SONG was the key
> to oral transmission and may have been the vehicle of human language back to
> the early Paleolithic.
> I back-translate all "Jesus stuff" to Aramaic. If it sings, its
> authentic. If not, the evangelist messed with it or made it up. Just like
> you can read Markan Greek and know its Mark or Hebrews and know
> its Philoesque and Alexandrian, hence probably Apollos, I recognize "Jesus
> stuff" as being that of an individual.
> At some point, and we cannot know when, Jesus' sayings were written down
> in Aramaic by the Jewish Nazarenes. I believe it was in the 40's. There
> were probably several collections as living ear witnesses related what they
> remembered. I think they were collected, collated and translated into Greek
> in Antioch for the growing Gentile Ekklesia, hence there was an Aramaic "Q"
> or "Logia" in Jerusalem or Galilee and a Greek "Q" in Antioch.
> Around 80-85 CE the author of Matthew whom I believe was NOT Aramaic
> competent used the Greek "Q" and Mark as well as orphan written and oral
> material to write his Gospel which was basically an expanded Mark. He used
> sayings from both the Greek "Q" and orphan material to set them in frames
> which he called the "Sermon on the Mount." Remember that Matthew was
> portraying Jesus as the "new Moses" and hence had him delivering these
> sayings on a mount. Matthew had no problem "tweaking" some of Jesus
> About 5 years later, around 85-90 CE, Luke also used Mark as a template and
> being Aramaic competent, uses the "Aramaic Q" as well as his own collection
> of orphan material and a copy of Matthew to compose his gospel and creates a
> different frame for some of the "Q" sayings on a plain rather than a mount.
> To demonstrate why I think Luke used an Aramaic Q we'll use the ultimate Q
> saying, the Lord's Prayer and follow Jeremias and Fitzmyer (and me):
> ABoonan d'beeshMAya
> The Beyts appear to have been very soft in the Galilee taking on a sound
> close to VEE like the Greek Beta (VEEta). The two words of this
> construction are ABba (father) and SHMAya (heaven/s) and from the Galilean
> lips of Yeshua, in my opinion, sounded like:
> AHvooNAN duh-veeSHMAya
> Father of us, in Heaven
> yethQADdash shmakh
> may be holy your name
> TEEthe MALkoothakh
> Let come your kingdom
> YEETHobed tsibeYONakh
> will be done his will
> KEN al-aR'A af duh-veeSHMAya
> Also on earth as in Heaven
> LAKHman d'sunQANan hab lan kul-YOM
> The bread that we need give us every day
> I follow Luke here because I believe he was using an Aramaic copy of the
> Saying Source and did not edit here.
> wa'SHVAWK lan HOYabaNA hekh dee anakhNA
> and forgive us our sins/debts as we also
> SHVAWKan li'duh-HOYaBEEN lan
> forgive those who sin against us
> wa LA thal inNAN l'neeseeYON
> And do not let us enter hard testing
> ELla paTSIN meen beeSHA
> But deliver us from the Evil one.
> To qualify the Aramaic background:
> Luke starts the Lord's Prayer simply with "Father" (Abba) and records a very
> short version of 5 petitions while Matthew expands "Father" with OUR (Abbun)
> and "who is in Heaven." This follows the Matthean tradition/redaction style
> of Jewish liturgy seen elsewhere throughout the Gospel. The phrase "Thy Will
> be Done" is only in Matthew's version and is used by the author to expand
> "Thy kingdom come" by telling WHEN the kingdom will come (when God's will is
> done). The "bread" petition more clearly reflects the differences in the two
> traditions. Where Matthew says dos emin semeron in the Aorist "Give us bread
> today" (the imminent coming), Luke uses the present imperative didou emin to
> kath `emeran "KEEP giving us today" (Sometime in the distant future).
> This difference, even between the two hagiographers, is the result of
> Matthew sucking at Aramaic and Luke being from Syria, an Aramaic speaker.
> "Bread" in 1st century Palestine meant the same as it does today in the
> Middle East...food. It was also an idiom for Teaching.
> Matthew's version asks God to "Forgive us our debts (opheilemata) as we
> forgive our debtors" (opheiletais) using the Aramaic howbyn....debts/debtors
> metaphor for sins/sinners which was familiar to Jews.
> Luke, on the other hand, writing for gentiles who were not familiar with the
> Aramaic double meaning for debts replaces "debts" with "sins" (amartias) in
> the first half and retain "debtors" (opheilouti) in its participial form in
> the second half. Some of the ancient copyists edited the short Lukan prayer
> to extend it like the Matthean Prayer, believing the longer Matthew version
> was the correct one. The desire of the copyists to "harmonize" the versions
> was strong and is even reflected in the Codex Sinaiticus. This is very
> important for it tells us that Luke knew Aramaic and felt it necessary to
> explain the Aramaic idiom to Gentiles. Luke, therefore, is a witness that
> the Lord's Prayer was originally rendered in Aramaic...hence, "Q" was
> originally an Aramaic source document.
> Jack Kilmon