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

Re: [gthomas] Re: Early christian Communities

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... From: To: Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 6:38 AM Subject: Re: [gthomas] Re: Early christian Communities ...
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 28, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: <tomragland@...>
      To: <gthomas@egroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 6:38 AM
      Subject: Re: [gthomas] Re: Early christian Communities

      > > Jack Kilmon writes:
      > >
      > > I think Luke was Aramaic competent and used
      > > my putative AA while Matthew used a Greek Q.>
      > >
      > > Robert Brenchley writes:
      > > Why do
      > > you think Luke used Aramaic while Matthew used Greek?
      > >
      > I just have to step into this conversation since I spent a great deal of
      > time analyzing the parallels. In 90% of the parallels between Luke and
      > Matthew, the version in Luke has an earlier "feel" and is missing the
      > redactionary editings that are found in Matthew's versions. Not only
      > but for the fully synoptic texts (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), the Luke
      > versions appear to be simplier, earlier, of a more original source.
      > Remember the intro to Luke states that the author intended to present the
      > whole story, reanalyzing the source materials and presenting what he/they
      > felt was a complete gospel story. Especially note where there are texts
      > that are Matthew only, omitted from Luke, these texts end in fire and
      > brimstone and present a much harsher teaching. Also the Sermon on the
      > in Matthew, if you look at the parts that are not represented by parallels
      > in Luke you will find a very legalistic debate ala Hililel (sic) that may
      > have been important to the early Christians but which Luke did not believe
      > was authentic. I have even had the thought that much of the Matthew-only
      > text comes from John the Baptist in the vacuum of having nearly nothing
      > attributed to him apart from the Mandaen Gnostics which is probably
      > speculative. So in conclusion (because I have to get to work now) Luke
      > obviously tapped into an earlier source of the traditions, but this does
      > demand that the source be Aramaic, especially in the light of the fact
      > the Greek syntax of the Gospel of Luke is superior to the rest of the New
      > Testament.

      You are correct that primitivity does not mean, prima fascia, an Aramaic
      source document and Luke's Greek is more refined than Matthew's.
      My position is based on the Aramaisms in Luke's Greek in the
      "Q" material and occasions when Luke accurately translates the
      Aramaic idiom. There are many examples of these Aramaisms in
      Luke for which I will refer you to Fitzmyer's "Semitic Background of
      the New Testament" and "The Gospel According to Luke" (2 vol)
      and Jeremias' "In Parables." One example that stands out in my
      mind is the "debt/debtors" petition of the LP as it occurs in Matthew
      as OFEILHMATA/OFEILETAIS. Luke, on the other hand, uses
      AMARTIAS in the first half of the petition and the participial
      OPHEILONTI in the second half, thereby explaining the Aramaic *only*
      idiom HOYBAYN (debt) which means "SIN."

      This is a strong indicator to me that Luke used an Aramaic document
      and was competent enough in the Aramaic idiom to more accurately
      explain it than Matthew who only uses the Greek equivalent for
      "debt" without the idiomatic sense for "sin."



      taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

      Jack Kilmon


      sharing a meal for free.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.