From: yochanan bitan (ButhFam@compuserve.com)
Date: Thu Nov 09 2000 - 04:42:20 EST
>(mark nichols egrapsen:)
>> What I mean is, I get the impression that Luke's Greek is quite formal
>>precise. Should an English translation attempt to capture this underlying
>(wayne lyman APEKRIQH:)
>Yes, translation from Greek to English should try to preserve stylistic
>differences among Biblical authors, within the stylistic resources of
>English (being sure not to use Greek style if it communicates the wrong
>meaning in English or does not have a formal equivalent in English style;
>instead, use the English style which is translationally equivalent to the
While Luke's introduction is a classic 'period' and he uses some pieces of
Greek more freely than other gospel writers I wouldn't agree with the above
Luke's style is very irregular, not formal or precise. It waivers in and
out of literal Hebraisms and Greek smoothing-outs.
The "real Lucan style" can probably be seen in Acts 16-28, including the
Hebrew speech of Acts 22, quite a bit different from the Gospel.
Tough on translators.
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@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 - 15:36:40 EDT