From: Carl W. Conrad (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Nov 09 2000 - 06:07:20 EST
At 4:42 AM -0500 11/9/00, yochanan bitan wrote:
>>(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.
I don't think I'd argue with Randall in any case, but in this one I
certainly do agree; I once characterized Luke as writing consistently
"better" (I know this is a loaded word, but I'm referring to 'educated'
style) Greek in the narrative parts of the NT, but I've come to realize
just how uneven the writing in Luke's narrative prose actually is, how
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:40 EDT