[Synoptic-L] Re: RAMartin (style - lk 20.11)
- In a message dated 2/15/2000 11:34:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
<< LM:>This is all very interesting, but I do think it may be legitimate to
>distinguish between "This is Luke, when he is writing LXX", and "this is<< Yes, I disagree, not with the logic, but with the assumption of
>Luke, when he is writing regular Greek". In both cases it could be Luke
>writing (i.e., ALk is not necessarily translating directly from Hebrew, or
>copying from a Greek source based on a Hebrew text, when he is "writing
>LXX".) Do you disagree with this last statement?>>
OK, so far.
<< My studies of Luke have revealed him to carefully preserve his sources,
and more importantly, to NOT be a Septuagintalizer or blatant Semitizer.
That leaves me with a different set of cards, different tools, when I play
the 'style game'. >>
This is of course extremely interesting to me (and I presume to other
list-participants as well). But I have particular difficulty with your
statement: "My studies of Luke have revealed him to carefully preserve his
sources". Usually this statement, or its equivalent, is based primarily on
the hypothesis of Markan priority and Luke's use of Mark. However, I have
been under the impression that you, like me, are not convinced of this
literary relationship. And therefore I am dying to know where or how you
think Luke's tendency to "carefully preserve his sources" can be
demonstrated. I of course do not come to a similar conclusion based on the
hypothesis that Luke is using (primarily) Matt. Lk has a wide range of
creativity in the way he uses Matt under this hypothesis, usually including
fidelity to substance, but differing greatly in terms of literal or
non-literal reproduction of a given Matthean text. I also am intrigued
greatly by your view that Lk does not septuagintalize. But I am as yet no
where near ready to accept this either. I continue this discussion on-line
really in order to learn, and also because I assume there would be great
interest in the issues you raise.
<< Interestingly, that is what R.A. Martin concludes with his syntax criticism
after examining the predictions of a 'Septugintalizing Luke' for 'Jewish'
contexts: 1995:4 "It is most probable, rather, that when these 17
syntactical criteria of syntax criticism appear with Semitic frequencies in
Lukan writings they are to be seen as evidence that Semitic traditional
materials are being used." >>
Again, a most interesting conclusion. But again I would want to know how much
of a factor Markan priority and Luke's presumed use of Mark is in this
judgment. Also, does he mean Semitic traditional materials in Greek, or in
Hebrew or Aramaic?
<< I would recommend that students learn this methodology.
My only complaint is that it needs to be expanded to 30 or 40 criteria and
applied more widely to some early Christian writings. >>
I, for one, am ready to learn a new methodology. But I think presuppositions
are important here as well, and I wonder how they impinge on the methodology