The Relation of Luke i and ii to Hebraic Sources and to the Rest of Luke-Acts

Bibliographic Data

ID19294334
AuthorsNigel Turner (0000-0002-0119-9328), Nigel M Turner (corresponding author)
Year1955
Volume2
Issue2
Pages100-109
Publication date1955-11-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueNew Testament Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0028-6885 • E-ISSN: 1469-8145
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0028688500000448
OpenAlexW2145149890
LanguageEN
Citations received5

In his recent article, ‘The Birth and Infancy Stories of the Third Gospel’ ( New Testament Studies , Vol. i, No. 2, pp. 111–21) Dr Paul Winter adheres to the Semitic source hypothesis for Luke i, ii and one Hebrew document is apparently envisaged (‘a document written in Hebrew formed the basis of this part of the Third Gospel’ (p. 113)). Moreover, he maintains that ‘the theory that the editor...was the author of the first two chapters...and that he wrote these chapters in Greek whilst intentionally adopting a Hebraizing style is untenable’ (p. 121). The article does not allow the possibility that the use of Hebrew sources went hand in hand with consultation of the LXX, nor consider the question whether the evangelist himself translated the Hebrew or whether he found the document in its present Hebraized Greek form. Such questions are fundamental to the problem posed by the article, namely the reason for the ‘barbarous’ language. Thus, in a brief summary of this question, Professor Matthew Black gives due weight to the possibility of the evangelist's indebtedness to the LXX, and suggests that the LXX was an ‘aid’

Arabic · Art · Biblical studies · Gospel · Hebrew · Hebrew Bible · Linguistics · Literature · New Testament · Relation (database) · Rest (music) · Semitic languages · Style (visual arts) · Theology · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Classics · Computer Science · Historical and Linguistic Studies · History · Medicine · Philosophy

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub