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

Re: [XTalk] Re: Aramaic Q ?

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... The Aramaisms of mistranslation. There are a number of examples that appear (to me) to have been translated by a native Greek speaker (who also knew
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 5 10:08 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Ron Price wrote:
      >
      > 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?

      The Aramaisms of mistranslation. There are a number of examples
      that appear (to me) to have been translated by a native Greek
      speaker (who also knew Aramaic) rather than a native Aramaic
      speaker (who also knew Greek) by the rendering of the Aramaic
      idiom. This is what makes me believe that at least some material
      was an Aramaic written source. 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
      --
      ______________________________________________

      taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

      Jack Kilmon
      jkilmon@...

      http://www.historian.net

      sharing a meal for free.
      http://www.thehungersite.com/
    • Jack Kilmon
      ... I will sit down over the weekend and do a systematic study of the clear and identifiable Aramaisms in Matthew from a lexical and syntactic standpoint and
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 6 3:17 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron Price wrote:

        > 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?
        >

        I will sit down over the weekend and do a systematic study of the clear
        and identifiable Aramaisms in Matthew from a lexical and syntactic
        standpoint and see if we can get a handle on something that might
        suggest whether Matthew himself was responsible or if he just copied
        a readily translated source. I for one would like to determine whether
        the Matthean scribe was competent in either semitic language (Aramaic
        or Hebrew) or was solely Greek literate. I will sit down later tonight
        to work out a methodology to try to identify Aramaic interference as
        being either first or second hand. One thing that has always bothered me
        is the Matthean scribes semitic mixture in the cry from the cross...but we
        will revisit this next week...its going to be a busy time for me, Ron, so
        give me a reminder too. Perhaps some others on the list who may see
        this as a valuable thing to do, might be able to offer some methodological
        suggestions as well.

        I maintain, and have always maintained, that Synoptic and HJ research is not
        taking full
        advantage of the "follow the Aramaic" trail and there is a great deal of
        new information that could be forthcoming if some of these NT scholars could
        drop their Greek linguistic chauvinism just a tad.

        If the Aramaic "tracks" indicate Matthew used a Greek Q and Luke used a
        semitic Q, a whole new light is shed on Matthean relationship to Luke and
        on the "Q" issue.

        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.