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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Lk 1.46-55, Yes-Why?

Expand Messages
  • Randall Buth
    Message text written by INTERNET:Maluflen@aol.com ... as ... LXX-like ... does ... which ... et ... in ... this ... Why didn t LUke do it all? Because 1.46-47
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 18 3:54 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Message text written by INTERNET:Maluflen@...
      >I'm not sure why you think this is so difficult. I don't know Greek nearly
      >well as Luke, but I bet even I could compose a poem in Greek, using
      >phrases, and Hebraisms not found in the LXX. Besides that, Luke clearly
      >betray his age and a unique poetic style, at least in the Benedictus,
      >is quite unlike any of the psalms in that it consists of just two long
      >sentences, coherently attached, with proper Greek subordination of clauses
      >al. -- unlike the normally disjointed, strictly parallelistic line-pairs
      >Hebrew poetry and LXX. Even LXX Ps 149:5-9 doesn't quite compare -- and
      >kind of writing is rare in the Psalms.

      Why didn't LUke do it all?
      Because 1.46-47 is not a lexical Hebraism but a non-Greek, good structural
      On benedictus, please compare the Hebrew poetry of Qumran, where long
      sentences enter the picture.
      And non-LXXisms have to count for something.
      On the one hand you propose an amazing ancient LXX scholar who can get
      things that most moderns don't understand like 1.46-47 and do not occur in
      the LXX at all, but then he gets some of the idioms 'wrong', "by the skin
      of his LIP", as it were.
      and where was this LXX scholar when he specifically claimed that language
      was an issue, at Acts 22?
      History deals with probabibilites. I propose that your Luke is far too

      Randall Buth

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.