Re: [Synoptic-L] Mark and Aramaic
I want to revise my previous post. This is too complex a question for a one date answer. There are actually many dates we could talk about. When did the text cease to be private? (Full authorial control). When did it cease to be proprietary? (Partial authorial control). Then in the process of textual transmission we could ask "What was the date of the last common ancestor of all are surviving texts?" Or slightly differently, "Given that some copyist errors probably made it into all texts, what is the latest date when this occurred?" These dates probably are quite different from each other. So an easier question might be to ask the date of specific material such as the transfiguration. Here your 70 AD date sounds too late to me. Although 45 does strike me as too early as well. I have no very firm basis for my judgment here, but contemporary with Paul does sound right in general.
--- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Gentile" <gentile_dave@...> wrote:
> For my part, I still tend to think the text developed over a longer period of time (although willing to b econvinced of the contrary), starting early, and maybe finishing around 70, which would allow your dating of Mark 9.
> Dave Gentile
> Riverside, IL
- Jack Kilmon wrote:
> I am convinced that Matthew was neither Aramaic nor Hebrew competent andJack,
> used Mark and a Q document in translational Greek. Luke, however, was
> Aramaic competent and used Mark and an Aramaic Q which he translated
> himself. This is why Luke explains the Hoybyn/"debts"/"sins" idiom in his
> version of the LP and Matthew does not.
I can't comment on Matthew's knowledge of Hebrew, but Matthew's retention of
"debts" could have been for other reasons than his lack of understanding of
the Aramaic word. Both Matthew and Luke transliterate and thus retain the
Aramaic words "mammon" (Mt 6:24 // Lk 16:13) and "saton" (Mt 13:33 // Lk
Also, Matthew's gospel is widely thought to have been written in Antioch of
Syria. Wasn't the Syrian dialect of Aramaic the main language of that town?
Wouldn't it follow that Matthew probably had some understanding of Aramaic?