Donald Goodell wrote:
>I think you meant to write (in sentence) #6 below:
> "Consequently we would not expect a very high degree of agreement between
>the Matthean and Lukan versions of sQ material, for they involved separate
>translations FROM THE ARAMAIC" [or perhaps "INTO THE GREEK"] rather than
>"from the Greek" ??
Yes, indeed. My apologies for this error.
>Is there any wiggleroom (in explaining the overlap of material in "Luke" and
>in "Matthew") for an ORAL GREEK source AND an ORAL ARAMAIC source in your
>calculations as well as positing separate Greek and Aramaic written sources?
I think the double tradition can be explained entirely in terms of the
use of written sources, and therefore we don't need to resort to
hypotheses about additional oral sources.
>Is it possible to posit a third language possibility from the Aramaic BEFORE
>the Greek, e.g. Coptic, in view of the large cluster of diaspora-Jews in
>Alexandria that may have been open to a Messianic-Nazorean/Christian
It's theoretically possible, but I don't see it as at all likely. The
best known example of a Christian Coptic document is GTh, and that is a
translation of a Greek original.
Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...