Re: [Synoptic-L] Question on Acts 16-28
- 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 lowestIn a Boismardian point of view, this heterogenous
> 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).
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
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...