02-23-2011, 06:57 PM
This boils down to a simple question:
Would the author write in author's native language (recording his thoughts with precision and finesse) or in the audience's language?
And this question can be expressed in more relevant terms as this: (in which I make an assumption here that Luqa's native language was a form of Aramaic/Hebrew)
Was Luqa writing this only for testimony to 'Theofila' (Friend of Elohim, the Greek equivalent of R`ueil [that is Reuel]) or for a wider audience? And if for a wider audience, would the large Parthian presence east of Euphrates simply have fled his mind? And if not, would he rather write in a form native to him and understood by them or write in Greek to be interpreted back to something resembling his mother tongue?
I give no answers here but questions to provoke thought. Keep in mind that it's possible that Luqa had a hand in both Aramaic and Greek formulations of the text.
Would the author write in author's native language (recording his thoughts with precision and finesse) or in the audience's language?
And this question can be expressed in more relevant terms as this: (in which I make an assumption here that Luqa's native language was a form of Aramaic/Hebrew)
Was Luqa writing this only for testimony to 'Theofila' (Friend of Elohim, the Greek equivalent of R`ueil [that is Reuel]) or for a wider audience? And if for a wider audience, would the large Parthian presence east of Euphrates simply have fled his mind? And if not, would he rather write in a form native to him and understood by them or write in Greek to be interpreted back to something resembling his mother tongue?
I give no answers here but questions to provoke thought. Keep in mind that it's possible that Luqa had a hand in both Aramaic and Greek formulations of the text.