Re: [XTalk] Aramaic Q ?
- Ron Price wrote:
>As I have stated many times, I am convinced that this is true, and that
> 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.
> 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.
Matthew used Greek Q and Luke translated his own Aramaic Q.
taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon
sharing a meal for free.