| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 788.1 | The Gospel According to St. Luke | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | On loan from God | Sun Dec 12 1993 15:42 | 11 |
| I still have five (5) pocket-size copies of the gospel of Luke (TEV)
which I am willing to give away with no cost or obligation (other than
to consider reading it) to the first 5 respondents to this entry.
If you'd be interested, simply send me your U.S. postal address. Just
type SEND/AUTH <cr> at the Notes prompt to initiate Email.
Peace,
Richard
|
| 788.2 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Sun Dec 12 1993 20:59 | 11 |
|
>Scholars have reported with no small delight of Luke's correction
>of the less than flawless Greek grammar used by Mark in his gospel.
Such as?
|
| 788.3 | | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | On loan from God | Sun Dec 12 1993 22:02 | 6 |
| .2 Don't know Greek well enough to say. There's a point where
I have to trust the people who do. :-}
Peace,
Richard
|
| 788.4 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Mon Dec 13 1993 12:01 | 4 |
| > .2 Don't know Greek well enough to say. There's a point where
> I have to trust the people who do. :-}
Funny how the door swings but doesn't make any dents. ;-)
|
| 788.5 | So what?? | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | On loan from God | Mon Dec 13 1993 12:29 | 19 |
| Note 788.4
>Funny how the door swings but doesn't make any dents. ;-)
The truth of what I said is not negated:
>>Scholars have reported with no small delight of Luke's correction
>>of the less than flawless Greek grammar used by Mark in his gospel.
You're welcome to come up with your own scholars, of course. But
I've consistantly read and heard that Luke demonstrated a command
of the Greek language superior to Mark's. Such detail tends to become
less visible to the reader when translated to a different language.
That's all I intended the remark to be, an interesting detail. Gotta
problem with that??
Richard
|
| 788.6 | | TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON | DCU fees? NO!!! | Mon Dec 13 1993 14:42 | 19 |
| Luke uses much more complex Greek than Mark.
In terms of technical correctness in use of the language,
I have only heard of questioning of Rev 1:5 (I think it
was) and some believe that the problem is the lack of
knowledge of the scholars rather than a lack of knowledge
on John's part (the issue has to do with the appropriate
form of a noun when used as a title).
When trying to determine dates for Mark and Luke, I was
not aware of language "correctness" being a criteria. I
have read a very good argument that Mark was written
later than Matthew and Luke - using many of the same
reasons (with a slight twist) that are commonly used to
show Mark was written first. I tend to think Mark was
written later - but it makes very little difference to
those who accept God's hand in writing them all.
Collis
|
| 788.7 | | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | On loan from God | Mon Dec 13 1993 14:57 | 15 |
| .6,
>Luke uses much more complex Greek than Mark.
Yes, and the syntax is more polished in Luke. I have to confess
that most of what I've read is by scholars who base their remarks on
the premise that Mark predates both Luke and Matthew (and, of course,
John's gospel).
However, I'm aware that the dating of the gospels is a speculative art
and subject to re-examination with new insights.
Peace,
Richard
|