>I might add that, if Luke, whom many consider to be the best prose stylist
>among NT writers of Greek, was following a standard of usage exemplified as
>early as four centuries previous by the historian Thucydides, that
>scintilla of evidence might add a tiny bit of weight to the theory that
>Luke in the proem of his gospel was also following a standard of
>historiographical practice conforming pretty much to that of Thucydides and
>his successors. Of course, I readily grant that there will be those who,
>not content that this argument is irrefutable, will proceed to rebut it. My
>thanks to Stephen Carlson for his indefatigable research in the archives of
>Greek grammar.
Another peace of evidence that Luke had at least read Thucydides (not
pronounced thu-key-DIDES as a friend of mine from Missippi used to
pronounce it), a position that I am convinced of, as well as parts of
Josephus (which puts Luke rather late in the 1st century.
But this discussion would set us aflame would it not?
Carlton