Leonard Maluf wrote:
> ..... if this IS an instance of "Luke's FULASSW", then you should
>be thinking of Luke as the author of the verses.
It's not quite so simple. I am positing an Aramaic source which Luke
would have had to translate. In this scenario Luke chose FULASSW to
represent some original Aramaic word. So the word can relate both to a
source and to Luke's usage.
>In fact, however, Luke is the only Synoptic evangelist who frequently uses
>FULASSW in a way entirely unconnected with the Law or special Deuteronomic
I can't see any relevance in those usages such as 'keeping watch over
(sheep)' which are "unconnected with the Law".
> It is simplistic ..... to speak of "Lukan use" as though this were,
>or need be monolithic.
The other similar uses (i.e. where it doesn't mean "guard") *are* in a
sense monolithic as I've already pointed out twice, but you have never
commented specifically on the texts to which I referred.
>Why on earth should there need to be "a direct quotation from Deuteronomy"
>for Luke to be allowing Deuteronomic language to influence his own?
There needn't be. But it would have helped your case that we should
interpret the word against its use in Deuteronomy rather than against
its use in Luke-Acts.
Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...