From: Randall Buth (ButhFam@compuserve.com)
Date: Tue Apr 16 2002 - 08:44:35 EDT
shalom Ty Daniel
>J. Munk in his commentary on Acts says that the so-called Semitisms in
>Luke-Acts are actually Septuagintalisms. For those of you who agree: How
>would one identify one from the other? Is it entirely intuitive? Can it
>be analyzed statistically? For those who disagree: Can you bring any
>evidnce to view that would support the simple Semitism claim?
You've asked a complicated question to which I only have time for a short
answer.
A Semitism claim generally refers to influence from some kind of Semitic
source in the resulting Greek text. These Semitisms would normally be
duplicated in the LXX since that text translates a large body of Hebrew
literature. However, a few non-LXX Semitisms would be a signal that
the Semitisms in general are not coming from an artificial imitiation of
LXXal
Greek. How many non-LXX-al Semitisms are needed to qualify? There
is no quantitative answer to that. They are sprinkled throughout Luke and
to a lesser extent in the first half of Acts.
Other answers in the past need to be sifted for their premises. E.g.,
Sparks
wrote a famous article in 1943, and between the lines it is easy to see
that
he "knew" the Semitisms were artifical because some were clearly Hebraic
and only Aramaic would "qualify" for live source texts. Needless to say,
the
research of Israeli scholars on Mishnaic Hebrew and the Dead Sea Scrolls
have changed the picture so much that Sparks' evaluation cannot be
accepted as is.
ERRWSO
Randall Buth
Director, Biblical Language Center
www.biblicalulpan.org
and Lecturer, Biblical Hebrew
Rothberg International School
Hebrew University
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:24 EDT