Re: [Synoptic-L] Lk 1.46-55, Yes-Why?
- 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, usingLXX-like
>phrases, and Hebraisms not found in the LXX. Besides that, Luke clearlydoes
>betray his age and a unique poetic style, at least in the Benedictus,which
>is quite unlike any of the psalms in that it consists of just two longet
>sentences, coherently attached, with proper Greek subordination of clauses
>al. -- unlike the normally disjointed, strictly parallelistic line-pairsin
>Hebrew poetry and LXX. Even LXX Ps 149:5-9 doesn't quite compare -- andthis
>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
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...