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

Aramaic Q ?

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Mark, I ve had a look at these pages and although I would not question Kloppenborg s analysis given Q as he understands it, there are a few points worth
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 4, 2000
      Mark Goodacre wrote:

      > ....... Q, if it existed and as it came to Matthew and Luke,
      > has to have been a document written in Greek. The extensive
      > verbatim agreement between them in Greek, the means by
      > which we reconstruct the wording of Q, makes this the only
      > possible conclusion. The best discussion I know of this is
      > John Kloppenborg, _The Formation of Q_, pp. 51-64.

      Mark,
      I've had a look at these pages and although I would not question
      Kloppenborg's analysis given Q as he understands it, there are a few
      points worth mentioning in connection with the Three Source Hypothesis.
      Firstly his conclusion is: "The balance of the linguistic evidence
      does not favor a translation hypothesis." The use of the word "balance"
      suggests a majority of the evidence, but not an overwhelming majority,
      confirming a Greek Q behind both Matt and Luke. This is consistent with
      his mention of *proportions* of features which occur in Q as compared
      with other translated or non-translated documents.
      Under the 3SH (as I've proposed it) about a third of the material
      traditionally assigned to Q is explained as Au_Luke copying Matthew.
      This reassigned material includes some of the most extensive Matt/Luke
      verbal parallels, and some of the examples of 'non-translation' features
      picked out by Kloppenborg.
      The most significant feature for the 3SH is "hyperbata", which
      Kloppenborg explains as the artificial displacement of sentence parts.
      He notes that the clearest cases are in Q 4:3,9 and Q 22:30. Neither of
      the pericopae concerned here are in my reconstruction of Q.
      Also one of the two cases of MEN ..... DE plus one of the two cases of
      ARA mentioned by Kloppenborg are not in my reconstruction of Q.
      I do not have the linguistic skills to be able to assess how much
      difference this makes, especially as the assessment requires judgement
      of which linguistic features are the more significant pointers.
      Nevertheless it seems to me that if and when Q scholars come to accept
      a reduced Q along the lines suggested in the 3SH, then Kloppenborg's
      analysis will have to be repeated and his conclusion reviewed. A reduced
      Q might tip the balance in favour of an Aramaic original.

      Ron Price

      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • Ron Price
      ... Jack, You seem to imply that the original Q was Aramaic, and I m convinced you re right. But if so, then the Aramaic had to be translated into Greek at
      Message 2 of 3 , Apr 5, 2000
        Jack Kilmon wrote:

        > I am convinced that .......
        >Matthew used Greek Q and Luke translated his own Aramaic Q.

        Jack,
        You seem to imply that the original Q was Aramaic, and I'm convinced
        you're right.
        But if so, then the Aramaic had to be translated into Greek at some
        stage before the publication of Matthew. What evidence points to
        translation by a previous unknown person rather than translation by the
        author of Matthew?

        Ron Price

        Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

        e-mail: ron.price@...

        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
      • Ron Price
        ... Jack, I presume you are referring to Matt 6:12 = Luke 11:4 and saying that the Lukan version correctly translates the supposed Aramaic as sins whereas
        Message 3 of 3 , Apr 6, 2000
          I wrote:

          >> What evidence points to
          >> translation by a previous unknown person rather than translation by the
          >> author of Matthew?

          Jack Kilmon replied:
          > ....... I dont believe the Matthean
          >scribe was Aramaic competent at all. There are cases where
          >the Lukan scribe properly transmits the Aramaic idiom that
          >Matthew's Greek did not. OFEILETAIS/hAMARTIAS, for example,
          >the Aramaic xowbyn.

          Jack,
          I presume you are referring to Matt 6:12 = Luke 11:4 and saying that
          the Lukan version correctly translates the supposed Aramaic as "sins"
          whereas the Matthean version incorrectly translates it as "debts".
          This may well be so, but I don't see how it answers my question.
          Let me rephrase it. On the basis of what you have just written, a
          translation error lies behind the Matthean text here. You had previously
          asserted that Matthew used a Greek Q. How do you know that the
          translation error was made by an anonymous translator of Q rather than
          by the author of Matthew himself attempting to translate an Aramaic Q?

          Ron Price

          Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

          e-mail: ron.price@...

          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.