On 13 May 2001, at 0:46, Jack Kilmon wrote:
> Isn't the LP a good example of Matthew and Luke using separate
> source material? Where would Luke have gotten the Aramaic idiom
> xowbyn/ofeiletais/debt/hamartias/sin unless it was from either an
> Aramaic document or a more accurate translational Greek document
> than Matthew? The more I study Luke's version and Matthew's version
> against the Aramaic, I cannot envision Luke using Matthew or the
> same source.
Would Luke have understood that the forgiveness of OFEILHMATA
in Matthew or Q should be interpreted as the forgivness of
hAMARTIAS? I don't see why not. Already in Matthew there is a
comment on the debts petition (Matt. 6.14-15) in which the
synonym PARAPTWMATA is used. Further, the easy interchange
between forgiveness of debts and forgiveness of sins is evident in
Matt. 18.21-35 (Unmerciful Servant) -- a question about forgiveness
of sins (hAMARTANW) leads to a parable about forgiveness of debt
(OFEILW / OFEILETHS / OFEILH).
But furthermore, does not Luke 7.36-50, that most
characteristically Lucan episode about the forgiveness of sins,
show the same interplay between debting (OFEILW, 7.41) and sins
(hAMARTIA, 7.47, 48, 49)?
I think you may be right, Jack, to question the standard literary
paradigms as a means of interpreting the history of the Lord's
Prayer, but I am not yet convinced about this debt/sins example,
which seems to me to work just as well in our extant Greek texts
as it might in an hypothetical Aramaic exemplar.
Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
Birmingham B15 2TT
The New Testament Gateway