Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 16:29:53 -0700
From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@historian.net>
To: M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk
Cc: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com
Subject: Re: Thomas/Q project (Kilmon)



Mark Goodacre wrote:

> Jack Kilmon wrote:
>
> >     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.
>
> I would have two reactions to this.  First, the minor agreements are
> only one  (minor!) element of the case against Q.  Second, I have
> often in the past given my reaction to your case from "debts" and I
> will not repeat it again here.

Yes, we have discussed this before and I use that only as oneexample.

> Let me simply add that (as I have
> also said before) I would have no problem with the notion that Luke
> is dependent on an extra-Matthean source for the Lord's Prayer.
> Indeed, it seems to me quite likely that he is doing so -- that is
> what liturgy is like -- old habits die hard.

> >    "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."
>
> In which case, how do you deal with the many, many non-Markan
> passages of verbatim agreement in Greek between Matthew and Luke?
>

Luke was the author/translator of Q from the Semiticsource.  Matthew used
Luke's Greek translation.  Howzat?

Jack
jkilmon@historian.net