Re: [XTalk] Q studies: the question of Aramaic
> Brian McCarthy wrote:I'll take a swing at this one. Some scholars, like Fitzmyer and
> A general info. question concerning Q studies.
> Given that many scholars outside the JS hold that Jesus' principal
> teaching language was Aramaic, the question suggests itself:
> Do Q scholars work simply with (actual and postulated) Greek texts, or
> do they also discuss the possible relationships of Greek texts to
> prior Aramaic texts or traditions?
Jeremias, examine the Aramaic interference in NT Greek syntax,
including Q material. It is a useful tool under-utilized by
the JS and NT scholarship.
Having said that, however, some cautions are necessary. It is a
valuable tool, IMO, *only* for the sayings material and even then
has certain dangers. Although retroversion to Aramaic does, in
a number of cases "light up" a saying or make "difficult" sayings
understandable, its best usage is best distilled for single
phrases or even single words. Although the vox Iesu most likely
was in Aramaic, any given saying of Jesus that comes to us
is most likely a paraphrase in Greek..in fact we see this often
in sayings parallels between the gospels, GoT and non-canonical
I am more comfortable retroverting one difficult Greek word
like MISEI at Luke 14:26 to <Aram>snh to discuss the possible
implications of "hate" being "set aside" in the Aramaic
idiom than retroverting the entire saying which may not
be ipsissima verba in toto.
There are no Aramaic texts that predate the Greek.
Sure is a shame that tape recorders were so expensive in
the 1st century <g>
taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon
sharing a meal for free.