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

Re: [Synoptic-L] The 3ST: a simple linguistic test

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Donald, Yes, indeed. My apologies for this error. ... I think the double tradition can be explained entirely in terms of the use of written sources, and
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 9, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Donald Goodell wrote:

      >I think you meant to write (in sentence) #6 below:
      >
      > "Consequently we would not expect a very high degree of agreement between
      >the Matthean and Lukan versions of sQ material, for they involved separate
      >translations FROM THE ARAMAIC" [or perhaps "INTO THE GREEK"] rather than
      >"from the Greek" ??

      Donald,
      Yes, indeed. My apologies for this error.

      >Is there any wiggleroom (in explaining the overlap of material in "Luke" and
      >in "Matthew") for an ORAL GREEK source AND an ORAL ARAMAIC source in your
      >calculations as well as positing separate Greek and Aramaic written sources?

      I think the double tradition can be explained entirely in terms of the
      use of written sources, and therefore we don't need to resort to
      hypotheses about additional oral sources.

      >Is it possible to posit a third language possibility from the Aramaic BEFORE
      >the Greek, e.g. Coptic, in view of the large cluster of diaspora-Jews in
      >Alexandria that may have been open to a Messianic-Nazorean/Christian
      >message(AD 70-170)?

      It's theoretically possible, but I don't see it as at all likely. The
      best known example of a Christian Coptic document is GTh, and that is a
      translation of a Greek original.

      Ron Price

      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.