Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Michael BG wrote:

outhouse wrote:

Michael BG wrote: the closer relationship to Aramaic Q traditions. .

Who actually states there is a Q Aramaic tradition. It was Hellenistic

Even before I read Maurice Casey – “An Aramaic Approach to Q …” I could see that sometimes Matthew and Luke copied an identical Greek source but sometimes they had widely different sources, and I had read other scholars who suggested this was because the Aramaic tradition was translated differently into Greek (they may well have been influenced by Casey).

Exactly right. I have the same opinion of "outhouse" as most of us here.

I used to think this issue was impossible to solve until I read Nehemia Gordon's Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus.

http://www.hilkiahpress.com/hebrew_yeshua_book.html

Gordon is a Karaite and the smartest person I've ever had the fortune to talk to and he had very satisfying answers to my questions about the OT when I used to observe Judaism, like the issue of wearing beards and sidelocks (which I'd previously only gotten the runaround from other scholars and commentaries):

http://www.nehemiaswall.com/shaving-beards-sidelocks

And his approach to Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew is similarly impressive and has made me reconsider its value (even granting that it's gone through harmonization with canonical Matthew over time).

Adam wrote: I have the same opinion of "outhouse" as most of us here.

Your out in your own little world adam.

But your not with anyone here as most here are left field, and your way out in right field.


My opinion tends to mirror the most educated people here that tend to be on the quiet side.


If you have some kind of evidence for an Aramaic Q, then post it, because your rhetoric is quite worthless.

outhouse wrote: He was pretty well refuted long ago.

I doubt you will find anyone who claims very many Aramaic transliterations, let alone an unsubstantiated origin for Q.

Q does not have evidence of an Aramaic tradition.

But I was convinced, not that there was an Aramaic source behind the whole of Q, but in places the Aramaic is translated differently in Matthew than in Luke - am I the last one in the world?

The book was only published in 2002. Do you have any links to internet articles that refute Casey? Or can you present the case against Casey.

Do they refuse the list of herbs (“mint and dill and cumin”) in the Woes to the Pharisees (Mt 23:23, Lk 11:42)?

Michael BG wrote: but in places the Aramaic is translated differently in Matthew than in Luke - am I the last one in the world?

That is a different argument, and one I have no issue with.

My personal explanation, is simply that the language was so prevalent we should expect to see the transliterations in any popular theme based on people going in and out of Israel on a regular basis.

outhouse wrote:

Adam wrote: I have the same opinion of "outhouse" as most of us here.

Your out in your own little world adam.
But your not with anyone here as most here are left field, and your way out in right field.
My opinion tends to mirror the most educated people here that tend to be on the quiet side.
If you have some kind of evidence for an Aramaic Q, then post it, because your rhetoric is quite worthless.

Gee, O,
Something worth replying to!
Thrice above you mistakenly use "your" when the correct spelling is "you're".
If you still live in Auburn we could meet some Sunday when I may visit the Our Savior Lutheran Church.

Adam wrote: I may visit the Our Savior Lutheran Church.

You will go right past my house on I80 .

"your" when the correct spelling is "you're".

I'm getting closer to mastering that one LOl

I take that as "Thanks (for the grammar lesson) but no thanks." (Do not "C'mon a my house"!)

Adam wrote:I take that as "Thanks (for the grammar lesson) but no thanks." (Do not "C'mon a my house"!)

Lets be very clear.

Thank you for the grammar lesson, I get it often on that exact word.

You would actually be welcome anytime at my house. I don't let different opinions in any biblical scholarship influence my personal life.

But I'm not sure what I'm doing Sunday morning except possibly sleeping in and having coffee as I stay up late with my multiple hobbies.

Church service starts at 9AM (making doubtful that I will ever actually get there from 70 miles away) and would probably be over by 10:30. I would probably go on the one Sunday a month the guest pastor is there (probably Nov. 8) and would probably talk to him (her?) and others there until noon. Do you get up Sundays by then?
Isn't Dirty Dingus McGee near you? Or some better place for lunch?