As we come to the end of this many-sided discussion, a big word of thanks to
you and to Jeffrey and Mahlon.
Here is my final question: I have not followed Q studies in detail, the SBL
Q Seminar, the International Q Project etc. But each time i have come across
some Q discussion it has always concerned some Greek entity.
This is fine for gospel experts, who are working back from Greek texts--and
whose Greek in most cases is probably far better than their Aramaic--but
how can Questers justify the great unbalance between, on the one hand, the
major investment of energy in Greek Q and on the other the
lack--comparative? total?--of attempts to bridge the
the chasm between Greek Q and Jesus' popular teaching, presumably in Aramaic
(or Hebrew, or a mix)?
For example what Aramaic lay behind the tou theou of he basileia
tou theou? Was it the equivalent i) of El or Elohim or of
ii) or YHWH (or one of its pious replacements)?
The questions would then arise of i) the possible implications of
Jesus' choice of one of these alternatives over the other, and ii)
of the fact that we probably cannot determine which he chose?
But this is simply an example and should not distract from the basic
question of why the lack of efforts to bridge the linguistic gap and
reconstitute Jesus' own words?
Brian McCarthy, Madison WI