Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew Matthew (was Syriac)
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:47:04 -0500
--------------------------------------------------
From: "James Christian" <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 6:20 AM
To: "Randall Buth" <randallbuth AT gmail.com>
Cc: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew Matthew (was Syriac)
In any case, I'm interested. Why do you think Matthew was originally
composed in Greek?
If I may interject:
1) Compare it with actual Greek translation literature, the LXX. It simply
does not read like translation literature. I don't have time to quantify it
for you, but do the reading yourself.
2) Compare Matthew with Matthew and Mark. Matthew makes stylistic choices
which are in line with fresh composition of stock material (I am assuming
Marcan priority here), but nothing which indicates that he is translating
from a source language. Were he translating, I would expect the stylistic
choices to be more limited, especially considering the precedent of what we
would call formal equivalency translation during the period.
3) Matthew's syntax and stylistic markers are well within the parameters for
the non-literary Greek of the period.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Fecisti nos ad te et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te...
-- Augustine, Confessions 1:1