Ron Price wrote:
> I wrote:
> >> What evidence points to
> >> translation by a previous unknown person rather than translation by the
> >> author of Matthew?
> Jack Kilmon replied:
> > ....... I dont believe the Matthean
> >scribe was Aramaic competent at all. There are cases where
> >the Lukan scribe properly transmits the Aramaic idiom that
> >Matthew's Greek did not. OFEILETAIS/hAMARTIAS, for example,
> >the Aramaic xowbyn.
> I presume you are referring to Matt 6:12 = Luke 11:4 and saying that
> the Lukan version correctly translates the supposed Aramaic as "sins"
> whereas the Matthean version incorrectly translates it as "debts".
> This may well be so, but I don't see how it answers my question.
> Let me rephrase it. On the basis of what you have just written, a
> translation error lies behind the Matthean text here. You had previously
> asserted that Matthew used a Greek Q. How do you know that the
> translation error was made by an anonymous translator of Q rather than
> by the author of Matthew himself attempting to translate an Aramaic Q?
I will sit down over the weekend and do a systematic study of the clear
and identifiable Aramaisms in Matthew from a lexical and syntactic
standpoint and see if we can get a handle on something that might
suggest whether Matthew himself was responsible or if he just copied
a readily translated source. I for one would like to determine whether
the Matthean scribe was competent in either semitic language (Aramaic
or Hebrew) or was solely Greek literate. I will sit down later tonight
to work out a methodology to try to identify Aramaic interference as
being either first or second hand. One thing that has always bothered me
is the Matthean scribes semitic mixture in the cry from the cross...but we
will revisit this next week...its going to be a busy time for me, Ron, so
give me a reminder too. Perhaps some others on the list who may see
this as a valuable thing to do, might be able to offer some methodological
suggestions as well.
I maintain, and have always maintained, that Synoptic and HJ research is not
advantage of the "follow the Aramaic" trail and there is a great deal of
new information that could be forthcoming if some of these NT scholars could
drop their Greek linguistic chauvinism just a tad.
If the Aramaic "tracks" indicate Matthew used a Greek Q and Luke used a
semitic Q, a whole new light is shed on Matthean relationship to Luke and
on the "Q" issue.
taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon
sharing a meal for free.