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

On the logia (was: On Q)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.