Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 21:51:54 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon To: Jim West Cc: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com Subject: Re: Thomas/Q project Jim West wrote: > Thanks to Bob for collating the results. It seems that the original > contention, i.e., that Luke is more like Thomas than Matthew has in fact > been demonstrated. > > What does this mean? It has been my opinion, based on the readings of Luke againstMatthew, that Luke was Aramaic competent and used Aramaic sources which he translated to Greek, often clarifying Aramaic idioms not expressed normally in Greek. I do not think the Syrian Matthean scribe was Aramaic competent and hence used the LXX for his OT references and a Greek translation of the Aramaic "source" which may have been Kloppenberg's "Q1." This first generation Greek translation of Aramaic "source" must have used Greek transliterations of Aramaic words or phrases used by Jesus in certain intense points of the narrative, perhaps because the translator wanted to preserve the exact vorlage of a miracle event or the intensity of the "cry" from the cross. This would explain why the these words and phrases by Matthew, although clearly Aramaic, are somewhat "fractured." This also explains why Matthew goes with the Greek translation of "debts" for xwbyn where Luke sees fit to clarify the Aramaic idiom with AMARTIAS. > I would like to suggest that Q and Thomas were very similar, and that the > possibility exists that Thomas is simply a later copy of Q. What do I mean? > Simply put, Thomas is Q redacted by a proto-gnostic. I would suggest that Greek Q1 and Greek Thomas had a commonancestor in Aramaic "source." At this point Q and Thomas had different redactional trajectories, Greek Thomas becoming an ascetic work and eventually utilized by Gnostics. > The idea, then, that Q is hypothetical without substance because it has not > been found "in writing" is no longer viable. Q exists in written form in > Thomas! Now all we need do to recover "pure Q" is remove the redactional > layers of Thomas, and viola! Q! I still have trouble getting to the "Luke used Matthew" possibility since there are other explanations for minor agreements. I could be convinced if it could be shown that Luke's clarifications of Aramaic idiom not preserved in Matthew were "corrections" of Matthew if such "corrections" could not be explained by Luke's competence with his Aramaic "source" over Matthews struggle with a Greek translation. "Q," therefore is not a common non-Markan source between Luke and Matthew but a translational Greek document used by Matthew alone while Luke translated a first generation Aramaic "source" himself....a Lukan "Q." Jack jkilmon@historian.net http://www.historian.net