Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Matthew and Aramaic (was: Mark and Aramaic)

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Jack, 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
    Message 1 of 35 , Nov 25, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Jack Kilmon wrote:

      > I am convinced that Matthew was neither Aramaic nor Hebrew competent and
      > 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.

      Jack,

      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
      13:21).

      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?

      Ron Price,

      Derbyshire, UK
    • Ron Price
      ... Jack, 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
      Message 35 of 35 , Nov 25, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Jack Kilmon wrote:

        > I am convinced that Matthew was neither Aramaic nor Hebrew competent and
        > 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.

        Jack,

        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
        13:21).

        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?

        Ron Price,

        Derbyshire, UK
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.