From: yochanan bitan (ButhFam@compuserve.com)
Date: Tue May 18 1999 - 14:45:22 EDT
> > It would seem that the
> >explanation would have to lie in either (or, perhaps, both) 1) Luke's
> >conscious imitation of LXX Biblical style,
> > or 2) an Aramaic and/or Hebrew
> >Is the question insoluble? Does any one on the list have any
> >insights into this question?
1. ever notice that paul's hebrew speech [sic, not aramaic-syriake] in acts
22 is written in rather nice hellenistic greek with longish periodic
sentences and little "te" particles?
where is the artificial semitizing when it's fitting? raymond martin has
already shown that the uneveness in luke's style does not pattern according
to subtle, alleged literary techniques.
2. soluable. sources can be shown to be hebrew for luke with the occasional
"non-septuagintal" hebraism/semitism, and the non-aramaic narrative marker,
"strong semitisms with lack of 'tote' ".
unfortunately, time constrains the above cryptic responses.
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:27 EDT