Sources of the Synoptic GospelsPatton, Carl S. (Carl Safford)
Religion
Sources of the Synoptic Gospels
Patton, Carl S. (Carl Safford)
Bible. Gospels -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.
THE ANALYSIS OF Q
Q ORIGINALLY AN ARAMAIC DOCUMENT, USED IN GREEK TRANSLATIONS BY MATTHEW
AND LUKE
The starting-point of a further determination of the content of Q is the
fact that Matthew and Luke seem to have taken their duplicate matter from
a Greek document, but that this Greek document was a translation from the
Aramaic. If Matthew and Luke had been independently translating from an
Aramaic document, they could not have hit so generally upon the same order
of words, especially where many other arrangements would have done as well
(and occasionally better), nor would they have agreed in the translation
of an Aramaic word by the same unusual Greek word, as notably in the
ἐπιούσιον of the Lord's Prayer. The Q they used was a Greek document.
But Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek; and if Q is Palestinian, and as early
as 60-65 or 70, it would be strange for it to have been written in any
language except that which Jesus spoke. Mark had an Aramaic tradition; and
tho he probably wrote in Greek he preserved many Aramaic words and
expressions; Q as found in Matthew and Luke has no Aramaic words; this
seems to be explicable only upon the supposition that though the original
of it was in Aramaic, Matthew and Luke knew it only in its Greek form.
The hypothesis of an Aramaic original for Q is rendered practically
certain by some of the variations that occur between Matthew's and Luke's
versions of it. The clearest illustration of this is found in the speech
against the Pharisees. Matthew reads, καθάρισον πρῶτον τὸ ἐντὸς τοῦ
ποτηρίου. Luke reads, πλῆν τὰ ἐνόντα δότε ἐλεημοσύνην. One of these Greek
clauses would be as difficult to derive from the other, or both of them
from the same Greek original, as would be the English translation of the
words. The meaning of Luke's is far from clear. In an Aramaic original,
however, Matthew's verb might have read [Hebrew], while Luke's might have
read [Hebrew]. A mere stroke of the pen, if the saying originally stood in
Aramaic, explains a variation which cannot be explained at all if the
saying was originally in Greek. This statement, however, will apply only
if the Aramaic was written and not merely spoken; for the two letters so
alike in appearance are not particularly similar in sound.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account