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

[Synoptic-L] Re: RAMartin (style - lk 20.11)

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 2/15/2000 11:34:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, ButhFam@compuserve.com writes: This is all very interesting, but I do think it may be
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 15, 2000
      In a message dated 2/15/2000 11:34:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
      ButhFam@... writes:

      << 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
      >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?>>

      << Yes, I disagree, not with the logic, but with the assumption of
      facts/data/conclusion.>>

      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
      itself.

      Leonard Maluf
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.