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

On Q

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic Cc: GPG On: Q From: Bruce Some recent questions addressed to Dave Gentile are probably best answered by him, since they are ultimately based on a
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 24, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      Cc: GPG
      On: Q
      From: Bruce

      Some recent questions addressed to Dave Gentile are probably best answered
      by him, since they are ultimately based on a statistical result of his. I
      contribute from the edge of the conversation, as it were, a few thoughts on
      the root Q matter. They do not have their beginning in Dave's recent
      contribution, but in the general Q question as it has been discussed in
      recent years. They might lead to a different formulation of some of the
      questions asked (or presumptively answered) by Dave, but we can see.

      1. Papias. A kook and a dimwit: nobody who had read his books would give him
      a second look; even the snippets in Eusebius are a warning. His comment on
      the Matthean Hebrew logia is prized by Eusebius (ever the historian, if a
      somewhat credulous one) as a hint about a question that also concerns us:
      the nature and relation of the Gospels. I note (with Allen, Bacon, and
      several since, now a century ago) that all the OT citations in Matthew are
      LXX based (that is, Greek-based) except ten or so, which apparently rest on
      a Hebrew OT source. These are separately identified by Matthew himself by a
      standard phrase, roughly "this was to fulfil the Scripture, which saith . .
      ." Then of all the OT in Mt, these are highlighted by Matthew himself as
      especially significant and predictive. The case for Jesus being foreseen in
      past ages, which in a way is the main thesis of Matthew as distinct from
      Mark, rests crucially on these passages. It rests on them not because I say
      to but because Matthew himself has twice signalled them as fundamental.
      Since the label is so different from anything else redactional in Mt, and
      since the content is so distinguishable from anything else in the implied
      Matthean sources, it is open to any reader to infer that Matthew's core
      source was a collection of what are called "proof texts" in Hebrew. I think
      that Papias was the first reader of record to draw that conclusion (to be
      noted is the difference between logia and logoi). And I think that this is
      the end of that particular bit of evidence for Q. If we look for a "Sayings
      source" behind Mt/Lk, it will not be because Papias has predicted one, but
      because some other evidence points that way. To take Papias as envisioning a
      Sayings Source is what I call the Papias Fallacy.

      2. Everything in text philology (to simplify slightly) is the detection of
      differences and the determination of directionality. The best argument for Q
      is that of Harnack: In the material common to Mt and Lk but without parallel
      in Mk, sometimes Mt seems to have the earlier version, and sometimes Lk.
      This precludes a simple argument that Mt > Lk or that Lk > Mt; the relation
      apparently goes both ways. Michael Goulder sought to dispute Harnack's
      statement by showing that all the common material can after all be seen as
      Mt > Lk. He came close, but in my opinion, his argument fails for certain
      passages, some of them highly visible ones. This has seemed to reinstate the
      Harnack argument: Mt > Lk will not quite cover it, but logically we cannot
      have Lk > Mt > Lk, hence Q (a prior common source, not necessarily a Sayings
      Source) must exist. But this conclusion overlooks the *nature* of the
      seeming exceptions to Mt > Lk, which is that they mostly look like
      established church prayers (eg the Lord's Prayer) or like much repeated and
      even formulaic teaching material (eg the Sermon on the Plain). For these, it
      is very unlikely that Luke would have needed a written source, brought to
      him at his table by the page at the British Museum. He could have known them
      through his personal experience as a Christian, in his home church. To
      forget that Luke was a Christian, and not take it into account in intuiting
      Luke's editorial procedures as a theorist of Christianity, is to commit what
      I call the British Museum fallacy. I can easily imagine Matthew taking the
      beatitudes of Luke's Sermon and multiplying them and spiritualizing them.
      But I can also easily imagine Luke seeing Matthew's inflated versions and
      being reminded to substitute the original form which he (perhaps like
      Matthew, whoever Matthew was) had known since childhood. Going through the
      two texts, and keeping Luke's psychology in mind (including his rabid
      proletarian sympathies), I find it easy to imagine him getting back from the
      comfortably wealthy Matthew (it has often been remarked that Matthew likes
      large numbers) to his own less wealthy experience of life and Christianity.
      If so, then Q is simply Jesus preaching as it was known to both Matthew and
      Luke (and hundreds of others) through their membership in one or another
      cell of the late first-generation Jesus movement. By late first generation,
      I mean people who were ten when Jesus was himself preaching, and whose
      parents were converted at that time, and who in their young manhood had
      become familiar with the sole existing account of Jesus himself, namely
      Mark, and by the time of the second two Gospels had reached the age of forty
      or so: the time of authorship and strong opinions.

      3. There is another possibility, and it arises through my demonstration
      (refuted neither on this list, where it was proposed, oh, getting on for a
      decade ago, nor at SBL, where it was presented in 2007) that some of the
      Lukan pericopes have been moved, not from their position in Mark, but from
      their original position in at early state of Luke. The Nazareth case is the
      clearest, but the Calling of Peter will also do in a pinch; all the
      relocations noted by Fitzmyer (though not explained by him in this way) are
      part of this process. If so, then there were in fact two textual states of
      Lk, and the seemingly impossible situation Lk > Mt > Lk does in fact arise,
      in the form

      Lk A > Mt > Lk B

      This puts the whole Harnack argument on a somewhat different basis. The new
      basis is to see how much remains unaccounted for by factoring in the two
      states of Lk. The possibility is that Goulder remains cogent for the Mk > Lk
      part of the material, but that my additional contribution is required to
      makes sense of the Lk A > Mt part. I mentioned this to Michael, but he
      declined to accept it as a friendly amendment to the FG hypothesis, so if it
      turns out to be a useful addition, that hypothesis is now the FGB
      hypothesis.

      4. As to which of these two sets of passage is which, it is sometimes easy
      to recognize material that Lk has added to his original text in furious
      reaction to Matthew, once he had seen Matthew. Chief among these is the
      Lukan birth story, which nobody has yet dared to add to Q (they are only
      situationally parallel; neither text can be derived as a scribal variant of
      the other; there will never be a Documenta Q volume on the birth naratives).
      Why is the Lukan version secondary? First, because it is bigger and better.
      Second because it is theologically later: in Luke, John the B acknowledges
      Jesus not at their meeting, as in Matthew, but in the womb (they being
      cousins, a fact conveniently forgotten in the rest of Luke). Third, because
      like Jn 21, which is obviously a second ending, patched on top of the
      original Jn 20 ending, the Lukan birth narrative is stuck on in front of a
      very satisfactory and indeed sonorous original beginning at Lk 3: the
      Synchronisms of Jesus. Here is a clear directionality, but one for which no
      theory recognizable as "Q" can account.

      5. Stylistics may or may not be computerizable. Mine partly are, see the
      handout included in my Leiden lecture of 2003:

      http://www.umass.edu/wsp/lectures/lord%20shang/lsr1.html

      But as I pointed out at the Acts session of SBL last month, an index of
      style is not at the same time an index of authorship. The variables which
      can affect style include many more things than authorship as such, including
      author indigestion or author awareness of a second text. The famous case of
      this (famous to those who know what they are talking about in this area) is
      one of the Madison set of Federalist papers, where Madison has in mind a
      still extant English political theory tract; this affects Madison's writing
      style almost to the point of unrecognizability. I have shown something
      similar in the anonymous editorials written by Jonathan Swift for the
      government newspaper, The Examiner. Instances might be multiplied, if the
      situation were not intuitively obvious from people's habit of falling into
      the diction of those they are speaking to, a fact well known to linguists or
      to any observant child. I personally hope for much from future stylistic
      analysis: not as providing direct answers, but as providing new and
      observer-independent material for thought.

      6. In sum, I think the Second Tier Gospel situation, as of the present
      research moment, is very roughly this:

      Luke A (based on Mark, sometimes expanded, but in Markan order)
      Matthew (based on Mark and Luke, plus his own vivid imagination)
      Luke B (a rewrite and expansion, partly in reaction to Matthew)

      There may be more stages, and I suspect there are, but I am inclined to
      proceed slowly, and see what remains not readily explicable on this basis.
      The residue of a theory is the best test of a theory, and also the best
      indication of what lies beyond the reach of that theory. If the residue
      after the application of a theory is more intelligible than the mass of
      material was before that theory, then that theory has done its work well.

      Or so it looks, prospectively, from here.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Ronald Price
      ... Bruce, On what basis? The only Œargument¹ that you¹ve given is that Papias was a dimwit, and you provided no supporting evidence for this. But even if
      Message 2 of 9 , Dec 24, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Bruce Brooks wrote:

        > To take Papias as envisioning a
        > Sayings Source is what I call the Papias Fallacy.
        >
        Bruce,

        On what basis? The only Œargument¹ that you¹ve given is that Papias was a
        dimwit, and you provided no supporting evidence for this. But even if he was
        sometimes rather less than rational, it doesn¹t prove that he always was so.

        Papias wrote: ³Matthew made an [orderly] arrangement of the logia ...². Some
        later commentators may have assumed that he was referring to the author of
        the first gospel in the canon. But this need not have been the case. If the
        apostle Matthew edited the logia, then on your terminology he produced the
        first ever Œalpha¹ document.

        Ron Price

        Derbyshire, UK

        http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Dave
        Some thoughts on Bruce s comments: I agree, in general with the proposal that there was (at least) a Luke-A and a Luke-B. I m not 100% sure the same author
        Message 3 of 9 , Dec 25, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Some thoughts on Bruce's comments:

          I agree, in general with the proposal that there was (at least) a Luke-A and a Luke-B. I'm not 100% sure the same author created both, and my working view is more like "heavy editing", but it also could well have been the same individual, working, say, a few years later. I agree the additions probably included the birth narrative, and some material was rearranged. I would also speculate that material from Matthew, like the special preaching of John made their way in to Luke at this point (or at some later point).

          The issue then (for me) is how to explain the formation of Luke-A and Matthew. Both had a version of Mark as a source. (My view is that Luke had an earlier version of Mark, missing among other things the "great omission"). Which works best? Lk-A => Matthew? Matthew => Lk-A? Or "S" => Luke-A and "S" => Matthew?

          I agree with Bruce that some things, like the Lord's prayer, Luke could simply have known from his own practice.

          We still have to deal with the issue that the text of the sayings are very much the same in both, while we have no indication of any common ordering between them. If Matthew used Luke-A we still have an author with this somewhat odd behavior, a behavior, that for me, is best explained by hypothesizing that they worked from a list of sayings with no intrinsic order. The strength of the argument is perhaps diminished, since Luke does not seem to have a strongly organized structure in his travel section, but it is still an issue.

          I think what I'd like is some examples. The salt and light sayings would be my first choice. Looking first at the salt sayings, the order Matthew => Luke-A seems somewhat unlikely. Luke would have to completely disassemble Matthew's structured text here, and not leave traces of where he borrowed the text from. I don't see any clear reason why Luke-A => Matthew would not work here, however. I'd be curious if "soil nor manure heap" might have alliteration in Aramaic. It just strikes me as a place to look for that.

          In general, my impression is that a saying list, in both Aramaic and Greek (and note the translation does not have to be all one way, some sayings that originated in Greek could also be translated into Aramaic on source a list) works very well as a hypothetical source for both Matthew and Luke-A. It would take a good deal of convincing for me to conclude that it is completely un-needed.

          Dave Gentile



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jack Kilmon
          ... From: Dave Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2010 10:37 AM To: ; Synoptic Subject:
          Message 4 of 9 , Dec 27, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            --------------------------------------------------
            From: "Dave" <GentDave@...>
            Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2010 10:37 AM
            To: <gpg@yahoogroups.com>; "Synoptic" <synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
            Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: On Q


            > I think what I'd like is some examples. The salt and light sayings would
            > be my first choice. Looking first at the salt sayings, the order Matthew
            > => Luke-A seems somewhat unlikely. Luke would have to completely
            > disassemble Matthew's structured text here, and not leave traces of where
            > he borrowed the text from. I don't see any clear reason why Luke-A =>
            > Matthew would not work here, however. I'd be curious if "soil nor manure
            > heap" might have alliteration in Aramaic. It just strikes me as a place to
            > look for that.

            Dave:

            Luke 14:35 οὔτε εἰς γῆν οὔτε εἰς κοπρίαν εὔθετόν ἐστιν ἔξω βάλλουσιν αὐτό ὁ
            ἔχων

            In Aramaic:
            לא לארעא ולא לזבלא אזלא לבר שׁדין לה

            I'll transliterate:

            la le'ar'a w'la l'zibla
            azla
            not for the ground and not for the dung pile it is fit

            l'bar shadeyn lah
            outside they throw it

            Talk about alliteration, rhyme and meter, signatures of primitive Jesus
            stuff. It has been suggested by Friedrich Perles that εἰς γῆν and εἰς
            κοπρίαν are mistranslations of L'thabbala (fit for seasoning) and w'la
            l'zabbala (nor for dunging). The paronomasia and idiom is extensively
            explained, with targumic parallels, in Matthew Black's An Aramaic Approach
            to the Gospels and Acts, pg 166-167.

            Matthew 5:13 ἔτι εἰ μὴ βληθῆναι ἔξω, καὶ καταπατεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων
            appears totally secondary to me but Matthew's "trample down" may also fit
            the original form.
            which may have been"

            Atton milkhah d'ar'a
            You are the salt of the earth
            in tafel milkha b'ma thabbelunneh
            If the salt goes flat what will it season?
            la le'thabbala w'la l'zabbala azla
            it is not fit for seasoning nor for dunging
            l'bar shadeyn lah
            throw it outside
            ra'ra'unneh
            trample it down

            The intensive verb ra'ra' (trample) is a word play with 'ar'a (ground).

            Regards,

            Jack

            Jack Kilmon
            San Antonio, TX
          • gentdave1
            Jack, thanks for this. I can t go with you as far as it being an early source, but I will gratefully accept it as supporting evidence that Luke s version of
            Message 5 of 9 , Dec 28, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Jack, thanks for this. I can't go with you as far as it being an early source, but I will gratefully accept it as supporting evidence that Luke's version of this saying was composed in Aramaic.

              Dave Gentile


              --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > --------------------------------------------------
              > From: "Dave" <GentDave@...>
              > Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2010 10:37 AM
              > To: <gpg@yahoogroups.com>; "Synoptic" <synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
              > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: On Q
              >
              >
              > > I think what I'd like is some examples. The salt and light sayings would
              > > be my first choice. Looking first at the salt sayings, the order Matthew
              > > => Luke-A seems somewhat unlikely. Luke would have to completely
              > > disassemble Matthew's structured text here, and not leave traces of where
              > > he borrowed the text from. I don't see any clear reason why Luke-A =>
              > > Matthew would not work here, however. I'd be curious if "soil nor manure
              > > heap" might have alliteration in Aramaic. It just strikes me as a place to
              > > look for that.
              >
              > Dave:
              >
              > Luke 14:35 οá½"τε εἰς γῆν οá½"τε εἰς κοπρίαν εá½"θετόν ἐστιν á¼"ξω βάλλουσιν αὐτό ὁ
              > á¼"χων
              >
              > In Aramaic:
              > לא לארעא ולא לז×`לא אזלא ל×`ר שׁ×"ין ל×"
              >
              > I'll transliterate:
              >
              > la le'ar'a w'la l'zibla
              > azla
              > not for the ground and not for the dung pile it is fit
              >
              > l'bar shadeyn lah
              > outside they throw it
              >
              > Talk about alliteration, rhyme and meter, signatures of primitive Jesus
              > stuff. It has been suggested by Friedrich Perles that εἰς γῆν and εἰς
              > κοπρίαν are mistranslations of L'thabbala (fit for seasoning) and w'la
              > l'zabbala (nor for dunging). The paronomasia and idiom is extensively
              > explained, with targumic parallels, in Matthew Black's An Aramaic Approach
              > to the Gospels and Acts, pg 166-167.
              >
              > Matthew 5:13 á¼"τι εἰ μὴ βληθῆναι á¼"ξω, καὶ καταπατεῖσθαι á½`πὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων
              > appears totally secondary to me but Matthew's "trample down" may also fit
              > the original form.
              > which may have been"
              >
              > Atton milkhah d'ar'a
              > You are the salt of the earth
              > in tafel milkha b'ma thabbelunneh
              > If the salt goes flat what will it season?
              > la le'thabbala w'la l'zabbala azla
              > it is not fit for seasoning nor for dunging
              > l'bar shadeyn lah
              > throw it outside
              > ra'ra'unneh
              > trample it down
              >
              > The intensive verb ra'ra' (trample) is a word play with 'ar'a (ground).
              >
              > Regards,
              >
              > Jack
              >
              > Jack Kilmon
              > San Antonio, TX
              >
            • Jack Kilmon
              ... From: gentdave1 Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 9:11 AM To: Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: On Q ... There is
              Message 6 of 9 , Dec 28, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                --------------------------------------------------
                From: "gentdave1" <GentDave@...>
                Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 9:11 AM
                To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: On Q

                > Jack, thanks for this. I can't go with you as far as it being an early
                > source, but I will gratefully accept it as supporting evidence that Luke's
                > version of this saying was composed in Aramaic.
                >
                > Dave Gentile
                >

                There is not a scintilla of a doubt in my pea brain, that Luke used and
                translated his own Aramaic source materials, he himself being an Aramaic
                speaker. I also think that the Matthean author sucked at both Aramaic and
                Hebrew. I think he used Greek translations of Aramaic sources. I think
                Luke, in his version of the LP, as much as testifies to its Aramaic origin.
                If you will indulge me:

                Try to step out of your 21st century literate society into a first century
                illiterate oral society and understand the structures and devices used in
                oral transmission in an oral society. Most of the sayings, parables and
                aphorisms of Jesus in the NT were eventually written down after decades of
                oral transmission, yet in most cases they retain their original oracular
                structure when back- translated to Aramaic. There is debate about how
                accurate oral transmission was but we should remember that in the ancient
                world no more than 5% of the population in cities and towns were literate,
                less to none in the countryside. Stories, sagas or news were transferred by
                minstrel types who sang them. Some languages became tonal like Attic Greek
                so even the lengthy epics like the Iliad and the Odyssey were sung and
                transmitted accurately.

                In the first century a preacher might say:

                Roses are red
                Violets are blue
                You better be good
                Or the devil will get you

                It is simple but it is an example of the 2-4 beat rhyming rhythm that Jesus
                used so his listeners would remember it and pass it on. Aramaic was an
                oracular language. When we, as English literates, read "Blessed are
                the poor for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven" it is because we have
                translated the Greek Μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν
                οὐρανῶν "makarioi oi ptwxoi oti
                autwn estin h basileia twn ouranwn" but Jesus didn't say it in
                English, Greek, German or Lithuanian, he said it in Aramaic as:

                "TOObyhon lamiskeNA,
                d'DILehon MALkutha dashmaYA"
                (kinda like "Roses are red...")

                His audience of illiterate anwe ha'aretz remembered it. Naomi went
                home and told her husband Shymeon the potter, "guess what Yeshua said
                today..."

                Paronomasia, Assonance, alliteration, meter and rhyme made SONGS that
                people remembered and passed on. 80% of the material in the gospels that
                are attributed to Jesus contains rhetorical
                and mnemonic devices that are features of Semitic poetry. I was taught songs
                in Sunday school when I was 5 that I still remember 65 years later.
                "Jesus loves me yes I know, for the Bible tells me soooo" SONG was the key
                to oral transmission and may have been the vehicle of human language back to
                the early Paleolithic.

                I back-translate all "Jesus stuff" to Aramaic. If it sings, its
                authentic. If not, the evangelist messed with it or made it up. Just like
                you can read Markan Greek and know its Mark or Hebrews and know
                its Philoesque and Alexandrian, hence probably Apollos, I recognize "Jesus
                stuff" as being that of an individual.

                At some point, and we cannot know when, Jesus' sayings were written down
                in Aramaic by the Jewish Nazarenes. I believe it was in the 40's. There
                were probably several collections as living ear witnesses related what they
                remembered. I think they were collected, collated and translated into Greek
                in Antioch for the growing Gentile Ekklesia, hence there was an Aramaic "Q"
                or "Logia" in Jerusalem or Galilee and a Greek "Q" in Antioch.

                Around 80-85 CE the author of Matthew whom I believe was NOT Aramaic
                competent used the Greek "Q" and Mark as well as orphan written and oral
                material to write his Gospel which was basically an expanded Mark. He used
                sayings from both the Greek "Q" and orphan material to set them in frames
                which he called the "Sermon on the Mount." Remember that Matthew was
                portraying Jesus as the "new Moses" and hence had him delivering these
                sayings on a mount. Matthew had no problem "tweaking" some of Jesus
                sayings.

                About 5 years later, around 85-90 CE, Luke also used Mark as a template and
                being Aramaic competent, uses the "Aramaic Q" as well as his own collection
                of orphan material and a copy of Matthew to compose his gospel and creates a
                different frame for some of the "Q" sayings on a plain rather than a mount.
                To demonstrate why I think Luke used an Aramaic Q we'll use the ultimate Q
                saying, the Lord's Prayer and follow Jeremias and Fitzmyer (and me):

                ABoonan d'beeshMAya

                The Beyts appear to have been very soft in the Galilee taking on a sound
                close to VEE like the Greek Beta (VEEta). The two words of this
                construction are ABba (father) and SHMAya (heaven/s) and from the Galilean
                lips of Yeshua, in my opinion, sounded like:

                AHvooNAN duh-veeSHMAya
                Father of us, in Heaven

                yethQADdash shmakh
                may be holy your name

                TEEthe MALkoothakh
                Let come your kingdom

                YEETHobed tsibeYONakh
                will be done his will

                KEN al-aR'A af duh-veeSHMAya
                Also on earth as in Heaven

                LAKHman d'sunQANan hab lan kul-YOM
                The bread that we need give us every day
                I follow Luke here because I believe he was using an Aramaic copy of the
                Saying Source and did not edit here.

                wa'SHVAWK lan HOYabaNA hekh dee anakhNA
                and forgive us our sins/debts as we also

                SHVAWKan li'duh-HOYaBEEN lan
                forgive those who sin against us

                wa LA thal inNAN l'neeseeYON
                And do not let us enter hard testing

                ELla paTSIN meen beeSHA
                But deliver us from the Evil one.

                To qualify the Aramaic background:

                Luke starts the Lord's Prayer simply with "Father" (Abba) and records a very
                short version of 5 petitions while Matthew expands "Father" with OUR (Abbun)
                and "who is in Heaven." This follows the Matthean tradition/redaction style
                of Jewish liturgy seen elsewhere throughout the Gospel. The phrase "Thy Will
                be Done" is only in Matthew's version and is used by the author to expand
                "Thy kingdom come" by telling WHEN the kingdom will come (when God's will is
                done). The "bread" petition more clearly reflects the differences in the two
                traditions. Where Matthew says dos emin semeron in the Aorist "Give us bread
                today" (the imminent coming), Luke uses the present imperative didou emin to
                kath `emeran "KEEP giving us today" (Sometime in the distant future).

                This difference, even between the two hagiographers, is the result of
                Matthew sucking at Aramaic and Luke being from Syria, an Aramaic speaker.
                "Bread" in 1st century Palestine meant the same as it does today in the
                Middle East...food. It was also an idiom for Teaching.

                Matthew's version asks God to "Forgive us our debts (opheilemata) as we
                forgive our debtors" (opheiletais) using the Aramaic howbyn....debts/debtors
                metaphor for sins/sinners which was familiar to Jews.
                Luke, on the other hand, writing for gentiles who were not familiar with the
                Aramaic double meaning for debts replaces "debts" with "sins" (amartias) in
                the first half and retain "debtors" (opheilouti) in its participial form in
                the second half. Some of the ancient copyists edited the short Lukan prayer
                to extend it like the Matthean Prayer, believing the longer Matthew version
                was the correct one. The desire of the copyists to "harmonize" the versions
                was strong and is even reflected in the Codex Sinaiticus. This is very
                important for it tells us that Luke knew Aramaic and felt it necessary to
                explain the Aramaic idiom to Gentiles. Luke, therefore, is a witness that
                the Lord's Prayer was originally rendered in Aramaic...hence, "Q" was
                originally an Aramaic source document.

                Jack Kilmon
              • Ronald Price
                Jack Kilmon wrote: ... the original form ... may have been ... Atton milkhah d ar a You are the salt of the earth in tafel milkha b ma thabbelunneh If the salt
                Message 7 of 9 , Dec 29, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jack Kilmon wrote:

                  ... the original form ... may have been ...

                  Atton milkhah d'ar'a
                  You are the salt of the earth
                  in tafel milkha b'ma thabbelunneh
                  If the salt goes flat what will it season?
                  la le'thabbala w'la l'zabbala azla
                  it is not fit for seasoning nor for dunging
                  l'bar shadeyn lah
                  throw it outside
                  ra'ra'unneh
                  trample it down

                  Jack,

                  I agree that this must be somewhere near the original. My main doubt
                  concerns the first line, which is similar in form to "You are the light of
                  the world" in the next verse in Matthew (5:14), and is thus probably
                  Matthean in origin. This may be why most commentators consider "Salt is
                  good" (Mark and Luke) to be the more original. If "the earth" (Lk 14:35)
                  also replaces "seasoning", this would avoid the need here for positing a
                  mistranslation, while retaining the word play.

                  Lastly a minor niggle: surely the poetry is better if the last two lines are
                  combined (with an intervening 'and') to make a four-line stanza. The rhyming
                  'unneh' ending then comes at the end of the second and fourth lines.

                  Ron Price,

                  Derbyshire, UK

                  http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • gentdave1
                  Jack (and Ron), Again, I can certainly go as far as agreeing that many of these sayings (let s call it core-Q ) have Aramaic origins. My primary disagreement
                  Message 8 of 9 , Dec 29, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jack (and Ron),

                    Again, I can certainly go as far as agreeing that many of these sayings (let's call it "core-Q") have Aramaic origins. My primary disagreement is that I think rather than being quotations from the historical Jesus, they are probably mostly sayings that accumulated in his name over time.

                    Here is an interesting thing to consider: Let's take Bruce's proposal that there is a Luke_A and a Luke_B and that Luke_A pre-dates Matthew. Let's also take your assertion that Luke(_A) translates an Aramaic source, and does a good job of it. Could we then suppose that Matthew's Q is based on Luke-A's Greek Q and the Aramaic source Q? It seems this would not be much different than you proposal. Do you see a problem with it?

                    Dave Gentile

                    --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --------------------------------------------------
                    > From: "gentdave1" <GentDave@...>
                    > Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 9:11 AM
                    > To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                    > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: On Q
                    >
                    > > Jack, thanks for this. I can't go with you as far as it being an early
                    > > source, but I will gratefully accept it as supporting evidence that Luke's
                    > > version of this saying was composed in Aramaic.
                    > >
                    > > Dave Gentile
                    > >
                    >
                    > There is not a scintilla of a doubt in my pea brain, that Luke used and
                    > translated his own Aramaic source materials, he himself being an Aramaic
                    > speaker. I also think that the Matthean author sucked at both Aramaic and
                    > Hebrew. I think he used Greek translations of Aramaic sources. I think
                    > Luke, in his version of the LP, as much as testifies to its Aramaic origin.
                    > If you will indulge me:
                    >
                    > Try to step out of your 21st century literate society into a first century
                    > illiterate oral society and understand the structures and devices used in
                    > oral transmission in an oral society. Most of the sayings, parables and
                    > aphorisms of Jesus in the NT were eventually written down after decades of
                    > oral transmission, yet in most cases they retain their original oracular
                    > structure when back- translated to Aramaic. There is debate about how
                    > accurate oral transmission was but we should remember that in the ancient
                    > world no more than 5% of the population in cities and towns were literate,
                    > less to none in the countryside. Stories, sagas or news were transferred by
                    > minstrel types who sang them. Some languages became tonal like Attic Greek
                    > so even the lengthy epics like the Iliad and the Odyssey were sung and
                    > transmitted accurately.
                    >
                    > In the first century a preacher might say:
                    >
                    > Roses are red
                    > Violets are blue
                    > You better be good
                    > Or the devil will get you
                    >
                    > It is simple but it is an example of the 2-4 beat rhyming rhythm that Jesus
                    > used so his listeners would remember it and pass it on. Aramaic was an
                    > oracular language. When we, as English literates, read "Blessed are
                    > the poor for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven" it is because we have
                    > translated the Greek Μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν
                    > οὐρανῶν "makarioi oi ptwxoi oti
                    > autwn estin h basileia twn ouranwn" but Jesus didn't say it in
                    > English, Greek, German or Lithuanian, he said it in Aramaic as:
                    >
                    > "TOObyhon lamiskeNA,
                    > d'DILehon MALkutha dashmaYA"
                    > (kinda like "Roses are red...")
                    >
                    > His audience of illiterate anwe ha'aretz remembered it. Naomi went
                    > home and told her husband Shymeon the potter, "guess what Yeshua said
                    > today..."
                    >
                    > Paronomasia, Assonance, alliteration, meter and rhyme made SONGS that
                    > people remembered and passed on. 80% of the material in the gospels that
                    > are attributed to Jesus contains rhetorical
                    > and mnemonic devices that are features of Semitic poetry. I was taught songs
                    > in Sunday school when I was 5 that I still remember 65 years later.
                    > "Jesus loves me yes I know, for the Bible tells me soooo" SONG was the key
                    > to oral transmission and may have been the vehicle of human language back to
                    > the early Paleolithic.
                    >
                    > I back-translate all "Jesus stuff" to Aramaic. If it sings, its
                    > authentic. If not, the evangelist messed with it or made it up. Just like
                    > you can read Markan Greek and know its Mark or Hebrews and know
                    > its Philoesque and Alexandrian, hence probably Apollos, I recognize "Jesus
                    > stuff" as being that of an individual.
                    >
                    > At some point, and we cannot know when, Jesus' sayings were written down
                    > in Aramaic by the Jewish Nazarenes. I believe it was in the 40's. There
                    > were probably several collections as living ear witnesses related what they
                    > remembered. I think they were collected, collated and translated into Greek
                    > in Antioch for the growing Gentile Ekklesia, hence there was an Aramaic "Q"
                    > or "Logia" in Jerusalem or Galilee and a Greek "Q" in Antioch.
                    >
                    > Around 80-85 CE the author of Matthew whom I believe was NOT Aramaic
                    > competent used the Greek "Q" and Mark as well as orphan written and oral
                    > material to write his Gospel which was basically an expanded Mark. He used
                    > sayings from both the Greek "Q" and orphan material to set them in frames
                    > which he called the "Sermon on the Mount." Remember that Matthew was
                    > portraying Jesus as the "new Moses" and hence had him delivering these
                    > sayings on a mount. Matthew had no problem "tweaking" some of Jesus
                    > sayings.
                    >
                    > About 5 years later, around 85-90 CE, Luke also used Mark as a template and
                    > being Aramaic competent, uses the "Aramaic Q" as well as his own collection
                    > of orphan material and a copy of Matthew to compose his gospel and creates a
                    > different frame for some of the "Q" sayings on a plain rather than a mount.
                    > To demonstrate why I think Luke used an Aramaic Q we'll use the ultimate Q
                    > saying, the Lord's Prayer and follow Jeremias and Fitzmyer (and me):
                    >
                    > ABoonan d'beeshMAya
                    >
                    > The Beyts appear to have been very soft in the Galilee taking on a sound
                    > close to VEE like the Greek Beta (VEEta). The two words of this
                    > construction are ABba (father) and SHMAya (heaven/s) and from the Galilean
                    > lips of Yeshua, in my opinion, sounded like:
                    >
                    > AHvooNAN duh-veeSHMAya
                    > Father of us, in Heaven
                    >
                    > yethQADdash shmakh
                    > may be holy your name
                    >
                    > TEEthe MALkoothakh
                    > Let come your kingdom
                    >
                    > YEETHobed tsibeYONakh
                    > will be done his will
                    >
                    > KEN al-aR'A af duh-veeSHMAya
                    > Also on earth as in Heaven
                    >
                    > LAKHman d'sunQANan hab lan kul-YOM
                    > The bread that we need give us every day
                    > I follow Luke here because I believe he was using an Aramaic copy of the
                    > Saying Source and did not edit here.
                    >
                    > wa'SHVAWK lan HOYabaNA hekh dee anakhNA
                    > and forgive us our sins/debts as we also
                    >
                    > SHVAWKan li'duh-HOYaBEEN lan
                    > forgive those who sin against us
                    >
                    > wa LA thal inNAN l'neeseeYON
                    > And do not let us enter hard testing
                    >
                    > ELla paTSIN meen beeSHA
                    > But deliver us from the Evil one.
                    >
                    > To qualify the Aramaic background:
                    >
                    > Luke starts the Lord's Prayer simply with "Father" (Abba) and records a very
                    > short version of 5 petitions while Matthew expands "Father" with OUR (Abbun)
                    > and "who is in Heaven." This follows the Matthean tradition/redaction style
                    > of Jewish liturgy seen elsewhere throughout the Gospel. The phrase "Thy Will
                    > be Done" is only in Matthew's version and is used by the author to expand
                    > "Thy kingdom come" by telling WHEN the kingdom will come (when God's will is
                    > done). The "bread" petition more clearly reflects the differences in the two
                    > traditions. Where Matthew says dos emin semeron in the Aorist "Give us bread
                    > today" (the imminent coming), Luke uses the present imperative didou emin to
                    > kath `emeran "KEEP giving us today" (Sometime in the distant future).
                    >
                    > This difference, even between the two hagiographers, is the result of
                    > Matthew sucking at Aramaic and Luke being from Syria, an Aramaic speaker.
                    > "Bread" in 1st century Palestine meant the same as it does today in the
                    > Middle East...food. It was also an idiom for Teaching.
                    >
                    > Matthew's version asks God to "Forgive us our debts (opheilemata) as we
                    > forgive our debtors" (opheiletais) using the Aramaic howbyn....debts/debtors
                    > metaphor for sins/sinners which was familiar to Jews.
                    > Luke, on the other hand, writing for gentiles who were not familiar with the
                    > Aramaic double meaning for debts replaces "debts" with "sins" (amartias) in
                    > the first half and retain "debtors" (opheilouti) in its participial form in
                    > the second half. Some of the ancient copyists edited the short Lukan prayer
                    > to extend it like the Matthean Prayer, believing the longer Matthew version
                    > was the correct one. The desire of the copyists to "harmonize" the versions
                    > was strong and is even reflected in the Codex Sinaiticus. This is very
                    > important for it tells us that Luke knew Aramaic and felt it necessary to
                    > explain the Aramaic idiom to Gentiles. Luke, therefore, is a witness that
                    > the Lord's Prayer was originally rendered in Aramaic...hence, "Q" was
                    > originally an Aramaic source document.
                    >
                    > Jack Kilmon
                    >
                  • gentdave1
                    ... Answering my own question (below) I find I have a problem with that senerio. The statistical analysis suggests that if there is an arrow in the Q section
                    Message 9 of 9 , Dec 29, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "gentdave1" <GentDave@...> wrote:
                      >
                      Answering my own question (below) I find I have a problem with that senerio. The statistical analysis suggests that if there is an arrow in the "Q" section it is Mt => Lk. So, while Luke may indeed have an Aramaic source, I think he probably aslo knew Matthew (which would mean, on Bruce's hypothesis, that these "Q" sayings were only added to Luke in the "B" stage.

                      Dave Gentile



                      >
                      > Jack (and Ron),
                      >
                      > Again, I can certainly go as far as agreeing that many of these sayings (let's call it "core-Q") have Aramaic origins. My primary disagreement is that I think rather than being quotations from the historical Jesus, they are probably mostly sayings that accumulated in his name over time.
                      >
                      > Here is an interesting thing to consider: Let's take Bruce's proposal that there is a Luke_A and a Luke_B and that Luke_A pre-dates Matthew. Let's also take your assertion that Luke(_A) translates an Aramaic source, and does a good job of it. Could we then suppose that Matthew's Q is based on Luke-A's Greek Q and the Aramaic source Q? It seems this would not be much different than you proposal. Do you see a problem with it?
                      >
                      > Dave Gentile
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.