Diogenes the Cynic

This is a bit of a non-sequitur with regards to your statement about whether Luke was searching for an Aramaic source. What difference does it make what LUKE wanted?

I would also add that if Luke knew Matthew it's fair to say it doesn't necessarily increase the probability that Matthew used an Aramaic source but it does decrease the improbability because Lukan knowledge of Matthew would remove the necessity for Q being a Greek source for Matthew (I'm not saying that makes it likely, I'm just saying it becomes less improbable). It is virtually impossible that two authors would have made the same verbatim translations from an Aramaic source into Greek. It is NOT impossible that one author could have translated and that the other could have copied his translations. I'm not saying it's probable that's what happened, I'm saying Lucan knowledge of Matthew would change the probability that Matthew had an Aramaic source for the Q material from "impossible" to "not impossible." Not probable, just not impossible.

Vinnie

That is what I was getting at. It increases the probability from which it now stands (where Q is said to be a Greek text). You want to call it a generic decrease in improbability. Fine with me. But if you start with Q then the probability that this occurs does increase since there is virtually little chance now since Q should probably be regarded as a Greek text.

Vinnie

Solo

Assuming we had evidence that Luke was looking for Aramaic material then the probability of the Sermon on the Mount (e.g.) being written originally in Aramaic would be increased. Any non-sequitur that you see in that ?

(Clue: not a non-sequitur but a silent assumption that Lucan Sermon on the Plain is the Sermon on the Mount reworked from Matthew).

.... and you are sure you are not confused

...would Luke's knowledge of Matthew remove the necessity of Greek source for Matthew - if necessity was postulated ? But necessity was not postulated, was it ? Probability was to be evaluated. So, why are you operating with necessity ?

Does "virtual impossibility" equal "necessity" ? It does not, does it ? When I say that something is "virtually impossible" it is still possible, whereas when I impute "necessity" to a consequence, no other outcomes are possible.

It is NOT impossible, but "virtually impossible" having just pondered "necessary".

Now we are back on "probable" from "possible". Hmmm, I see. What I don't see is a valid logical operation whereby the conclusion is arrived from the premise (i.e. Lukan knowledge of Matthew).

To someone who thinks logically, the proposition that Luke knowing Matthew, would bear on Matthew' sourcing (assumed made some time before, and without Luke), is transparent nonsense. There is nothing that flows directly from Luke knowing Matthew that can tell us whether the latter man's sources were Greek or Aramaic. So something else is needed beside Luke's "knowledge" that would make any difference in Matthew probable sourcing.

Jiri

Diogenes the Cynic

Yes. It is not necessary for Luke to have been seeking an Aramaic source in order to have used Matthew as a source. It has no bearing on Matthew's sources.
Yes, I'm sure. Lucan knowledge of Matthew does not provide positive evidence that Matthew used an Aramaic Q. It just removes a major point of evidence against it.
I don't understand this objection. Necessity relates to probability. If X is NECESSARY, then NOT X has a much lower probability than if X is NOT NECESSARY.
Practically speaking, yes.
If Luke and Matthew were independent then they NECESSARILY shared a common source for Q. Don't get too excited about my use of the phrase "virtually impossible." That does not imply any real world, practical possibility. It means the odds are so improbably low that the chance of coincidence may be regarded as impossible for all practical purposes. It is "virtually impossible" that I could guess your social security number on the first try. It's not absolutely impossible, but it is sufficiently improbable that it can be practically treated as "impossible."
I'll make it simple. It's impossible that Matthew and Luke translated independently from a common Aramaic source. If they didn't know each other, then a common Greek source was necessary. Full stop. If Luke knew Matthew then it is NOT impossible that Matthew used Aramaic and that Luke used Matthew's translations. "Not impossible" != "probable," though.
You're inferring something I'm trying to take pains not to imply. Let me try it this way. If Luke did not know Matthew, then Q has to be Greek. If Luke DID know Matthew, them Q could possibly NOT be Greek. It's not a positive argument for Aramaic, it just takes it from impossible to possible.

Chris Weimer

What would you call it? Perhaps I should have said "Levantine cultures, especially Jewish in nature, where the dominant languages are from the Semitic branch of the Hamo-Semitic (now mostly referred to as Afro-Asian) family of languages"? I just figured I would shorten it.

Indeed.

Chris Weimer

I know what you're saying, but to clarify, we wouldn't be able to reconstruct a single document out of Matthew, but that doesn't mean we can't speculate on his sources (plural, and always unknown), especially when there are so many parallels to other Jewish literature. The "blessed are ye poor in spirit" is that much more emphatic than Q's "blessed are ye poor" - we can find parallels to the former in numerous Jewish documents, but the latter is a striking characteristic of early Christianity.

Solo

I think I made my point clear. If probability was to be weighed then considering necessity is a diversion.

I am sure the reader of this will decide which one of us us "cooly" logical.

Well, let's just say I am not concerned with the practicality of the proposition but its glaring lack of disciplined thinking.

I am grateful. But then again, for someone who is sure he is not confused when he says that decreasing the improbability of something is not the same thing as increasing the the probability of same.....that's a hell of a promise to make.

Virtually ? or actually ? or practically ?

Does not follow the above but irrelevant to the query, in any case.

But that is a different argument. Remember the question ?

If Luke knew Matthew would this increase the possibility of Matthew using an Aramaic sayings source?

Nothing about Q.

Luke knowing Matthew, in and of itself, cannot test the proposition. Even if we agree that the source was Q, what was the guarantee there was not a Greek version of it before it got to Matthew ? How does Luke's knowledge of Matthew help us there ?

Any ideas ?

Jiri

Chris Weimer

Q = Quelle, German for "source".

Nazaroo

Luke knew Matthew.

See my latest post in the poll thread:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...1&postcount=12

Chris Weimer

Your post says nothing whether Luke knew Matthew, it's only some rant about how similar the documents are, only known for the past 1700 years. Glad you finally caught up on that fact. Now if only you could catch up on scholarship, or post some evidence, instead of yet again betraying your ignorance of Biblical studies. Go back to inventing things.