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

Re: [XTalk] Aramaic Q ?

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... As I have stated many times, I am convinced that this is true, and that Matthew used Greek Q and Luke translated his own Aramaic Q. Jack --
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 4, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Ron Price wrote:
      >
      > 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,

      > 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.

      As I have stated many times, I am convinced that this is true, and that
      Matthew used Greek Q and Luke translated his own Aramaic Q.

      Jack

      --
      ______________________________________________

      taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

      Jack Kilmon
      jkilmon@...

      http://www.historian.net

      sharing a meal for free.
      http://www.thehungersite.com/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.