>> 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.
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?
Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm