All scholars agree that the Lukan Infancy Narrative has a very Hebraic (or Septuagintal or Old Testament) character (because of the language, the diction, the style, the ideas, etc.)
There are two theories about this: the “Translation Theory” says that Luke used a Greek translation of a text written in Hebrew, and the “Imitation Theory” says that Luke deliberately tried to imitate the Septuagint.
Can I ask all of you New Testament enthusiasts which of these theories you favor and why?
Thanks!
Omar6741 said
All scholars agree that the Lukan Infancy Narrative has a very Hebraic (or Septuagintal or Old Testament) character (because of the language, the diction, the style, the ideas, etc.)There are two theories about this: the “Translation Theory” says that Luke used a Greek translation of a text written in Hebrew, and the “Imitation Theory” says that Luke deliberately tried to imitate the Septuagint.
Can I ask all of you New Testament enthusiasts which of these theories you favor and why?
Thanks!
If the Lukan Infancy and boyhood narratives are Septuagint-like in their Greek style, it should point to a Greek linguistic origin. The early Christians presumably used Aramaic or Greek, if anything, and not Hebrew. Aramaic sources are not likely if the result has a style like the Septuagint. In that case the translator (Luke?) would have had to make it Septuagint-like because the Aramaic sources would hardly be so.
gavriel said
Omar6741 said
All scholars agree that the Lukan Infancy Narrative has a very Hebraic (or Septuagintal or Old Testament) character (because of the language, the diction, the style, the ideas, etc.)There are two theories about this: the “Translation Theory” says that Luke used a Greek translation of a text written in Hebrew, and the “Imitation Theory” says that Luke deliberately tried to imitate the Septuagint.
Can I ask all of you New Testament enthusiasts which of these theories you favor and why?
Thanks!If the Lukan Infancy and boyhood narratives are Septuagint-like in their Greek style, it should point to a Greek linguistic origin. The early Christians presumably used Aramaic or Greek, if anything, and not Hebrew. Aramaic sources are not likely if the result has a style like the Septuagint. In that case the translator (Luke?) would have had to make it Septuagint-like because the Aramaic sources would hardly be so.
Thanks! I have just one question, below.
How do we know the early Christians didn’t use Hebrew? Couldn’t the Jerusalem Church before the destruction of the temple have been writing in Hebrew?
I ask because the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew, so it likely wasn’t dead among people with religious interests at that time.
Thanks again!
Omar6741 said
gavriel said
Omar6741 said
All scholars agree that the Lukan Infancy Narrative has a very Hebraic (or Septuagintal or Old Testament) character (because of the language, the diction, the style, the ideas, etc.)There are two theories about this: the “Translation Theory” says that Luke used a Greek translation of a text written in Hebrew, and the “Imitation Theory” says that Luke deliberately tried to imitate the Septuagint.
Can I ask all of you New Testament enthusiasts which of these theories you favor and why?
Thanks!If the Lukan Infancy and boyhood narratives are Septuagint-like in their Greek style, it should point to a Greek linguistic origin. The early Christians presumably used Aramaic or Greek, if anything, and not Hebrew. Aramaic sources are not likely if the result has a style like the Septuagint. In that case the translator (Luke?) would have had to make it Septuagint-like because the Aramaic sources would hardly be so.
Thanks! I have just one question, below.
How do we know the early Christians didn’t use Hebrew? Couldn’t the Jerusalem Church before the destruction of the temple have been writing in Hebrew?
I ask because the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew, so it likely wasn’t dead among people with religious interests at that time.
Thanks again!
The experts say that Aramaic universally had replaced Hebrew around 200CE, and prior to that that it survived at least in small areas in southern Judea as a language spoken by “ordinary” people. However, early Christianity quickly moved to Greek-speaking communities, using the Septuagint as a reference. Everything points to a late origin for Luke’s childhood and boyhood narratives, which almost certainly rules out a Hebrew source.
gavriel said
The experts say that Aramaic universally had replaced Hebrew around 200CE, and prior to that that it survived at least in small areas in southern Judea as a language spoken by “ordinary” people. However, early Christianity quickly moved to Greek-speaking communities, using the Septuagint as a reference. Everything points to a late origin for Luke’s childhood and boyhood narratives, which almost certainly rules out a Hebrew source.
Did you mean BCE? BTW, have you seen Ehrman’s presentation on Luke? It’s somewhere on youtube at some seminary or something. Fascinating stuff!
I’m having a little trouble accepting the “all scholars agree” line or finding the the statement “a very Hebraic (or Septuagintal or Old Testament) character to be meaningful. What is “a very Hebraic character” what does that look like and are we saying the Infancy Narrative is distinct from the rest of the book, in that way?
spiker said
gavriel said
The experts say that Aramaic universally had replaced Hebrew around 200CE, and prior to that that it survived at least in small areas in southern Judea as a language spoken by “ordinary” people. However, early Christianity quickly moved to Greek-speaking communities, using the Septuagint as a reference. Everything points to a late origin for Luke’s childhood and boyhood narratives, which almost certainly rules out a Hebrew source.Did you mean BCE? BTW, have you seen Ehrman’s presentation on Luke? It’s somewhere on youtube at some seminary or something. Fascinating stuff!
I’m having a little trouble accepting the “all scholars agree” line or finding the the statement “a very Hebraic (or Septuagintal or Old Testament) character to be meaningful. What is “a very Hebraic character” what does that look like and are we saying the Infancy Narrative is distinct from the rest of the book, in that way?
The chronology and geographic distribution of the transition from Hebrew to Aramaic is debated. According to the Wikipedia article on Hebrew, it became nearly universally extinct as a spoken language during the third century CE (not BCE) , according to the view of most scholars. The older view was that it happened much earlier. It seems to me unlikely that any early Christian literary activities arose in the few surviving Hebrew areas.
I think the experts in general hold that the Greek literary style of the Lukan “preface” is Septuagint-like. It is beyond my competence. I asked Ehrman once on the blog, and I think he said that it was more Septuagint like in style than the remaining gospel.
gavriel said
The chronology and geographic distribution of the transition from Hebrew to Aramaic is debated. According to the Wikipedia article on Hebrew, it became nearly universally extinct as a spoken language during the third century CE (not BCE) , according to the view of most scholars. The older view was that it happened much earlier. It seems to me unlikely that any early Christian literary activities arose in the few surviving Hebrew areas.I think the experts in general hold that the Greek literary style of the Lukan “preface” is Septuagint-like. It is beyond my competence. I asked Ehrman once on the blog, and I think he said that it was more Septuagint like in style than the remaining gospel.
Is it, then fair to conclude that Luke may have come from an early Jewish Christian community?
Ehrman, in a discussion of Marcion, makes the interesting suggestion that Marcion’s copy of Luke, may not have contained the birth narratives which he may added later.
spiker said
gavriel said
The experts say that Aramaic universally had replaced Hebrew around 200CE, and prior to that that it survived at least in small areas in southern Judea as a language spoken by “ordinary” people. However, early Christianity quickly moved to Greek-speaking communities, using the Septuagint as a reference. Everything points to a late origin for Luke’s childhood and boyhood narratives, which almost certainly rules out a Hebrew source.Did you mean BCE? BTW, have you seen Ehrman’s presentation on Luke? It’s somewhere on youtube at some seminary or something. Fascinating stuff!
I’m having a little trouble accepting the “all scholars agree” line or finding the the statement “a very Hebraic (or Septuagintal or Old Testament) character to be meaningful. What is “a very Hebraic character” what does that look like and are we saying the Infancy Narrative is distinct from the rest of the book, in that way?
Yes, the Infancy Narrative in Luke 1:5-38 is very Hebraic in its linguistic style; I have yet to find a single scholar who disagrees with that. It is universally said to be very different from the rest of Luke.
I have seen lists of “Hebraisms” (i.e. Hebrew-like expressions) in Luke given verse by verse. The number of Hebraisms in Chapter 1 seems at least four or five times bigger than the number in any chapter in from Luke 3-24.
I have found articles from scholars who say that the first chapter of Luke is even more Hebraic than the Septuagint; in other words, there are Hebraisms in that first chapter of Luke that you can’t even find in the Septuagint.
Add to that the strangely detailed and familiar knowledge that Luke Chapter 1 shows of Jewish customs, along with the pre-Christian Jewish theology suffusing its pages with no hint of Christian theological development, and you have the makings of a major puzzle (at least for me).
The puzzle is that most scholars, like Ehrman, insist that this was an imitation of Hebrew or Septuagint style done by someone who was writing in a Greek-speaking community. But why would anyone do such a good imitation of Hebrew style in the opening passages and then go back to elegant and educated Greek for the rest of the book?
Omar6741 said
spiker said
gavriel said
The experts say that Aramaic universally had replaced Hebrew around 200CE, and prior to that that it survived at least in small areas in southern Judea as a language spoken by “ordinary” people. However, early Christianity quickly moved to Greek-speaking communities, using the Septuagint as a reference. Everything points to a late origin for Luke’s childhood and boyhood narratives, which almost certainly rules out a Hebrew source.Did you mean BCE? BTW, have you seen Ehrman’s presentation on Luke? It’s somewhere on youtube at some seminary or something. Fascinating stuff!
I’m having a little trouble accepting the “all scholars agree” line or finding the the statement “a very Hebraic (or Septuagintal or Old Testament) character to be meaningful. What is “a very Hebraic character” what does that look like and are we saying the Infancy Narrative is distinct from the rest of the book, in that way?
Yes, the Infancy Narrative in Luke 1:5-38 is very Hebraic in its linguistic style; I have yet to find a single scholar who disagrees with that. It is universally said to be very different from the rest of Luke.
I have seen lists of “Hebraisms” (i.e. Hebrew-like expressions) in Luke given verse by verse. The number of Hebraisms in Chapter 1 seems at least four or five times bigger than the number in any chapter in from Luke 3-24.
I have found articles from scholars who say that the first chapter of Luke is even more Hebraic than the Septuagint; in other words, there are Hebraisms in that first chapter of Luke that you can’t even find in the Septuagint.
Add to that the strangely detailed and familiar knowledge that Luke Chapter 1 shows of Jewish customs, along with the pre-Christian Jewish theology suffusing its pages with no hint of Christian theological development, and you have the makings of a major puzzle (at least for me).
The puzzle is that most scholars, like Ehrman, insist that this was an imitation of Hebrew or Septuagint style done by someone who was writing in a Greek-speaking community. But why would anyone do such a good imitation of Hebrew style in the opening passages and then go back to elegant and educated Greek for the rest of the book?
Hard to tell for a layman. Here’s maybe a good summing up of the debate:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
gavriel said
Omar6741 said
spiker said
gavriel said
The experts say that Aramaic universally had replaced Hebrew around 200CE, and prior to that that it survived at least in small areas in southern Judea as a language spoken by “ordinary” people. However, early Christianity quickly moved to Greek-speaking communities, using the Septuagint as a reference. Everything points to a late origin for Luke’s childhood and boyhood narratives, which almost certainly rules out a Hebrew source.Did you mean BCE? BTW, have you seen Ehrman’s presentation on Luke? It’s somewhere on youtube at some seminary or something. Fascinating stuff!
I’m having a little trouble accepting the “all scholars agree” line or finding the the statement “a very Hebraic (or Septuagintal or Old Testament) character to be meaningful. What is “a very Hebraic character” what does that look like and are we saying the Infancy Narrative is distinct from the rest of the book, in that way?
Yes, the Infancy Narrative in Luke 1:5-38 is very Hebraic in its linguistic style; I have yet to find a single scholar who disagrees with that. It is universally said to be very different from the rest of Luke.
I have seen lists of “Hebraisms” (i.e. Hebrew-like expressions) in Luke given verse by verse. The number of Hebraisms in Chapter 1 seems at least four or five times bigger than the number in any chapter in from Luke 3-24.
I have found articles from scholars who say that the first chapter of Luke is even more Hebraic than the Septuagint; in other words, there are Hebraisms in that first chapter of Luke that you can’t even find in the Septuagint.
Add to that the strangely detailed and familiar knowledge that Luke Chapter 1 shows of Jewish customs, along with the pre-Christian Jewish theology suffusing its pages with no hint of Christian theological development, and you have the makings of a major puzzle (at least for me).
The puzzle is that most scholars, like Ehrman, insist that this was an imitation of Hebrew or Septuagint style done by someone who was writing in a Greek-speaking community. But why would anyone do such a good imitation of Hebrew style in the opening passages and then go back to elegant and educated Greek for the rest of the book?
Hard to tell for a layman. Here’s maybe a good summing up of the debate:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As fascinated as I am by this topic, $190 is a bit much to pay for the book. 🙂
His solution is that Luke used a previous Greek text that had been written in imitation of the Septuagint, and adapted it to his own interests.
Omar6741 said
gavriel said
Omar6741 said
spiker said
gavriel said
The experts say that Aramaic universally had replaced Hebrew around 200CE, and prior to that that it survived at least in small areas in southern Judea as a language spoken by “ordinary” people. However, early Christianity quickly moved to Greek-speaking communities, using the Septuagint as a reference. Everything points to a late origin for Luke’s childhood and boyhood narratives, which almost certainly rules out a Hebrew source.Did you mean BCE? BTW, have you seen Ehrman’s presentation on Luke? It’s somewhere on youtube at some seminary or something. Fascinating stuff!
I’m having a little trouble accepting the “all scholars agree” line or finding the the statement “a very Hebraic (or Septuagintal or Old Testament) character to be meaningful. What is “a very Hebraic character” what does that look like and are we saying the Infancy Narrative is distinct from the rest of the book, in that way?
Yes, the Infancy Narrative in Luke 1:5-38 is very Hebraic in its linguistic style; I have yet to find a single scholar who disagrees with that. It is universally said to be very different from the rest of Luke.
I have seen lists of “Hebraisms” (i.e. Hebrew-like expressions) in Luke given verse by verse. The number of Hebraisms in Chapter 1 seems at least four or five times bigger than the number in any chapter in from Luke 3-24.
I have found articles from scholars who say that the first chapter of Luke is even more Hebraic than the Septuagint; in other words, there are Hebraisms in that first chapter of Luke that you can’t even find in the Septuagint.
Add to that the strangely detailed and familiar knowledge that Luke Chapter 1 shows of Jewish customs, along with the pre-Christian Jewish theology suffusing its pages with no hint of Christian theological development, and you have the makings of a major puzzle (at least for me).
The puzzle is that most scholars, like Ehrman, insist that this was an imitation of Hebrew or Septuagint style done by someone who was writing in a Greek-speaking community. But why would anyone do such a good imitation of Hebrew style in the opening passages and then go back to elegant and educated Greek for the rest of the book?
Hard to tell for a layman. Here’s maybe a good summing up of the debate:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As fascinated as I am by this topic, $190 is a bit much to pay for the book. 🙂
His solution is that Luke used a previous Greek text that had been written in imitation of the Septuagint, and adapted it to his own interests.
Well, I think the Lukan gospel introduction includes topics that are typical for the beginning of the second century. The highly illogical boyhood story where J. receives unrestricted admiration from his later worst enemies and where Mary has “forgotten” that J. is the physical son of God, cannot have had an early Semitic oral or written source. It must therefor be a legendary tradition or literary creation within a Greek-speaking community. Since it is so disconnected with the rest of the Gospel, it is hardly the invention of Luke.
Omar6741 said
The puzzle is that most scholars, like Ehrman, insist that this was an imitation of Hebrew or Septuagint style done by someone who was writing in a Greek-speaking community. But why would anyone do such a good imitation of Hebrew style in the opening passages and then go back to elegant and educated Greek for the rest of the book?
Imitation is not always intended or affected. But the point is well received about authorship. Consider that Luke publishes his gospel, as it were and, say begins hearing or thinking about the birth narrative and perhaps asks some source to contribute to his work? Since the texts are anonymous, there’s no issue of not giving credit and in reality assuming 1 author
Stephen said
Well the simplest explanation is that the Nativity passage was added to the pre-existing Luke by somebody else. Original Luke could have easily begun with chapter three.
Actually, that’s sort of the thesis Ehrman put forward in an interesting lecture on you tube. Can’t think of the name off hand, but the gist of it was that Marcion’s copy didn’t contain the birth narrative and (If I remember right-wink wink nudge nudge) he thought Luke
added the first three chapters later. None of that precludes having another author contribute. Bart has a gift for making it interesting and so the videos would be much better
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert