Re: On Q
- 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
trample it down
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.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 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?
--- 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 ÎÎ±Îºá½±ÏÎ¹Î¿Î¹ Î¿á¼± ÏÏÏÏÎ¿á½¶ á½ ÏÎ¹ Î±á½Ïá¿¶Î½ á¼ÏÏÎ¹Î½ á¼¡ Î²Î±ÏÎ¹Î»Îµá½·Î± Ïá¿¶Î½
> Î¿á½ÏÎ±Î½á¿¶Î½ "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
> 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
> 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
- --- 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.
> 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