Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Synoptic-L] Magnificat was not LXX, not Lk

Expand Messages
  • yochanan bitan
    LM: Ok, I can accept what I think you are saying. For one thing, I presuppose ... The Lucan composition theory has been shown to be HIGHLY IMprobable,
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 15, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      LM:>Ok, I can accept what I think you are saying. For one thing, I
      presuppose
      >here that the Magnificat is Luke's own composition, which would not be
      >accepted by all.

      The Lucan composition theory has been shown to be HIGHLY IMprobable,
      impossible.
      *Randall Buth, "Hebrew Poetic Tenses and the Magnificat" JSNT 21 (1984)
      67-83. (reprinted in Porter and Evans, NT Text and Language, A Sheffield
      Reader, 1997.)

      The article details a relatively unknown, syntactic non-Septuagintalism
      that has been overlooked in assessing Luke's Semitisms. This should be
      added to the non-Septuagintal epoihsen kratos at 1.51 as conclusive for the
      non-Septuagintal, non-Greek and non-Aramaic (i.e. Hebraic) background for
      poem. Thus, non-Lucan origin, too.

      erroso
      Randall Buth
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.