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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Question on Acts 16-28

Expand Messages
  • Emmanuel Fritsch
    Just few words, about Acts I and II : I misunderstood this notation, because for all of you Act I & II are respectively Acts 1-15 and 16-28, when Boismard and
    Message 1 of 16 , Jan 21, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Just few words, about Acts I and II : I misunderstood this
      notation, because for all of you Act I & II are respectively
      Acts 1-15 and 16-28, when Boismard and Lamouille used the
      notation : Act I, II and III for the three steps of their
      proposed redaction process.

      > Acts II has the lowest
      > ratio of KAI/DE (appr. 426/265)-and as Buth has suggested the most refined
      > Greek style. [Thus the suggestion that true Lukan style "sans sources" is a
      > more refined Greek.] If we were to follow Boismard and attribute Lukan
      > influences on a revised version of Mark, one would assume that Mark would
      > consequently exhibit a more refined Greek style (i.e. lower KAI/DE ratio) like
      > we see in Acts II. As it is, his ratio of KAI/DE is considerably higher than
      > Luke (1481/542) and Acts I (705/289).

      In a Boismardian point of view, this heterogenous
      distribution in that case would be explaned by the
      diversity of sources used in Acts : a Petrine source
      for first part, and a Pauline one (we style) for the
      second. According Boismard & Lamouille, "we style" is
      not Luke.

      a+
      manu

      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.