Maluflen@... wrote:

> Those members of Synoptic-L who were treated for years to his online
performances might be interested to know that Yuri Kuchinsky's magnum opus on
the Pepys manuscript Middle English Gospel Harmony is finally out.

Actually it's been out for over two years now. He "published" it  (it's a vanity
press job) in January of 2002.

> It is reviewed by Robert M. Price in the Journal of Higher Criticism, vol. 10,
1, Spring 2003, 153-160. It will not surprise that the reviewer finds
unconvincing the vast majority of Yuri's arguments for early, pre-canonical
readings supposedly retained in this Gospel.

May we have the URL please?

Yours,

Jeffrey
--

Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
Chicago, IL 60626

jgibson000@...



Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

THE ANCIENT GALILEE IN INTERACTION - RELIGION, ETHNICITY, AND IDENTITY
October 23-25, 2004, Yale University, New Haven CT

- Call for Papers -
The correlation between religion, ethnicity and identity in antiquity has
for many years been a main focus of several disciplines in the humanities.
The ancient Galilee is especially well suited as a site for analyzing
problems of cultural interaction and identity formation, as few other
regions of the ancient Mediterranean world attract so much interdisciplinary
research. The objective of the conference is to bring together scholars of
texts, religious studies, history, and archaeology to reflect on new
archaeological finds, new readings of ancient texts, and promising
methodologies that help understand the complex ways of interaction and
identity formation in ancient Galilee.

The three day conference, to be held at Yale University, is sponsored by
Yale University (with support from the Kempf Fund from the Office of the
Provost, Yale Divinity School, Judaic Studies, and the Department of
Religious Studies) and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Germany.

Presentations already scheduled include addresses by Professors Sean Freyne
(Trinity College, Dublin); Jodi Magness (University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill), and Seth Schwartz (Jewish Theological Seminary).

Proposals for papers (20-25 minutes, with additional time for questions and
discussion) are invited. Those interested in presenting papers are asked to
submit the following - title of paper - 100 word abstract - full name,
address, and instituitional affiliation of author - email address, telephone
number(s), postal address

Papers should not exceed 20-25 minutes with another 20 min. for discussion.
The deadline for proposals is April 30, 2004. Papers or paper proposals
should be sent via email to Jürgen Zangenberg (zangenberg@...).

Please note that the Conference Committee is unable to provide for
participant travel and lodging expenses. All prospective participants are
asked to seek funding from their own institutional and organizational
affiliations. For more information please contact : Dale Martin
(dale.martin@...), Harold Attridge (harold.attridge@...), or
Jürgen Zangenberg (zangenberg@...).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr Jim West
Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
http://biblical-studies.org -- Biblical Studies Resources
http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com -- Biblical Studies Resources Weblog


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Listers may be interested to know that Dom Crossan will be a guest on NPR's
Fresh Air today at noon (EST).  He will be discussing the method of
execution called crucifixion.  Should be good.

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr Jim West
Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
http://biblical-studies.org -- Biblical Studies Resources
http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com -- Biblical Studies Resources Weblog


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

"Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...>wrote:
>> Listers may be interested to know that Dom Crossan will be a guest on NPR's
>> Fresh Air today at noon (EST).  He will be discussing the method of
>> execution called crucifixion.  Should be good.
>
>Is there a URL to listen to NPR over the internet?

Go to Fresh Air on-line at http://freshair.npr.org/index.jhtml

Stephen

--
Stephen C. Carlson,
mailto:scarlson@...
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Jim West wrote:

> Listers may be interested to know that Dom Crossan will be a guest on NPR's
> Fresh Air today at noon (EST).  He will be discussing the method of
> execution called crucifixion.  Should be good.

Is there a URL to listen to NPR over the internet?

Jeffrey
--

Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
Chicago, IL 60626

jgibson000@...



Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

In a message dated 4/6/2004 12:49:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jtb1@... writes:

>> I am currently pursuing a couple of ideas in the GMark trying to determine
what sort of relationship(s) obtain between a number of key features of Mark:
the Sea-crossings, the similarities between the disciples and the Pharisees, the
spread of the kingdom in relation to Jew-Gentile issues, etc.>>

I am particularly interested in your detection of the final theme (the
Jew-Gentile issue) in these passages in Mark. Particularly because it is not
there in the parallel passages of Matthew. As usual, Matthew has an earlier
perspective -- a concern regarding Jesus' (Jewish) disciples' minds being
influenced by other Jewish teachers, the Pharisees and Sadducees (cf. Matt
16:11-12). Since this was no longer an issue by the time Mark was writing, Mark
attempted to re-use this material and apply it now to the theme of
Jewish-Gentile relationships as this had emerged for discussion in the Pauline
school (e.g., in Luke-Acts and the Pauline epistles). In point of fact, Mark
6:52 and 8:17 both look very much like later additions by a late Mark,
highlighting a theme that is very much his own. In contrast to Matthew, for whom
the disciples "understand" (cf. 13:10-17 and 51), and are contrasted with those
other Jews whose eyes are blinded (13:13-15), Mark is interested in a certain
"blindness" on the part of the Jerusalem disciples themselves, who, at a later
date in history, were slow to acknowledge the implications of the spread of the
Gospel of Jesus to Gentile lands. As with all the later gospels, Mark is reading
back into the time of Jesus perspectives from the time of the Church as narrated
in Acts and the Pauline letters. He does this with considerable sharpness in
8:14-21, where twice (vv. 17 and 21) he employs the term SUNIENAI, in negation,
to the very disciples whom Matthew presented as, indeed, "understanding"
(13:10-17, 51). In Mark 8:18, Jesus then also accuses the disciples of a
"blindness", through the use of Ezek 12:2, which pointedly reverses the blessing
by Jesus of their "eyes that see" in Matt 13:16.

<< When the disciples are described as having hardened hearts in 6:52 and 8:17,
it would seem that they are purposefully being compared to the Pharisees who are
the only other characters described in this way (3:5, 10:5, note the different
words for hardness), and the warning about the leaven of the Pharisees in 8:15
provides additional support for this connection between the disciples and the
Pharisees.>>

If I have understood you correctly, you are saying that in Mark the "leaven" of
Herod and that of the Pharisees, is not, as it clearly is in Matt (16:12), the
teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees, but rather the blindness, hardness of
heart and lack of understanding on the part of Herod and the Pharisees. This too
would make sense as a secondary adaptation of material that originally made
reference to an infectious teaching, which was no longer a threat to the
audience of Mark in its Gentile setting.


<< 8:17b PEPWRWMENHN ECETE THN KARDIAN hUMWN;
> For some reason, this seems like an odd construction to me. At first, I was
inclined to translate this as "Have you hardened your hearts?" as if PEPWRWMENHN
ECETE were functioning like a periphrastic construction.>>

The real problem with this translation is that it does not reflect the passive
character of the participle.

<< Basically, what I have been trying to determine is if it is (1) possible and
(2) probable from a grammatical standpoint to translate 6:52 and 8:17
respectively as "There hearts were becoming hardened" and "Have your hearts
become hardened?" These would seem to fit the overall progression of Mark's
narrative with respect to the disciples but I am wondering what level of
violence, if any, I would be doing to the syntax of each sentence.>>

I think you do some violence to the syntax of the sentences by these
translations. From a synchronic perspective, the real progression here in Mark
lies in the fact that JESUS CONFIRMS in 8:17-18 a blindness of the disciples'
"mind" that was first merely noted by the evangelist as an editorial comment in
6:52. I think one should be careful, however, not to exaggerate even the very
pointed criticism of the disciples' blindness in Mark. Jesus' final comment in
Mark 8:21: "do you not YET understand"? suggests that Mark was aware that the
disciples in fact eventually had their minds opened (as we learn from Acts 10)
to the full implications of the Gentile mission.

Leonard Maluf
Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
Weston, MA

Leonard,
     Thank you very much for your detailed response. I appreciate your
comments from the perspective of Matthean priority, for although I am not
convinced of Matthean priority (I just haven't sat down and done enough of
my own evaluation of the different positions to argue one way or another, I
have basically inherited Markan priority) I have wondered how what I seem to
be seeing in Mark contributes to the discussion of the synoptic problem. In
Mark, Jesus engages in a purposeful Gentile mission (7:31-8:11, 8:14-21)
following the disciples inability and/or refusal to engage in such a mission
(6:45-53), whereas Matthew makes it clear that Jesus was sent only to Israel
during his earthly ministry and the disciples were sent to Gentiles only
after the resurrection. So has Mark changed Matthew or Matthew changed Mark
on the Gentile question. I expect good arguments could be made from both
sides but I haven't sat down and thought through them and evaluated their
strengths and weaknesses. I can imagine the position you have argued for,
but I also see some possible arguments from the perspective of Markan
priority. For example, Matthew could be a conservative Jewish-Christian
response to Mark's position on Gentiles. But as I said, I haven't really
explored this.
     One of the things I found particularly helpful in your response was your
commment, "I think you do some violence to the syntax of the sentences by
these translations. From a synchronic perspective, the real progression here
in Mark lies in the fact that JESUS CONFIRMS in 8:17-18 a blindness of the
disciples' "mind" that was first merely noted by the evangelist as an
editorial comment in 6:52." The idea of Jesus confirming a previous
editorial comment supports my intuition about an increasing hardness on the
part of the disciples; they are getting closer and closer to the position of
the Pharisees and are in ever increasing danger of becoming those on the
outside who only get taught in parables.
       So what do you do with 8:17b? How do you translate it and understand
the syntax of PEPWRWMENHN ECETE THN KARDIAN hUMWN? Is it in any sense
periphrastic? Is the hUMWN simply redundant? I am still baffled, perhaps
unnecessarily, about how this sentence is constructed.
     I do think you are right to point out that my translation does not bring
out the passive sense of the participle, but it has sparked another thought
I hadn't considered before. Since the hardening is in the passive, might we
ask if there is an implied agent involved who is either doing the hardening
or who is allowing it to take place? Is there not some sense in this case of
implied agency of the hardening with the use of the passive, in which case
an active translation might be used to bring this out? One would then have
to consider who might be the agent (God, Satan, the disciples).
     Okay one final question and I will quit (this is getting somewhat stream
of consciousness here). It just occurred to me that PEPWRWMENHN could also
be a middle, couldn't it? If so, would my translation, "Have you hardened
your hearts?" be an appropriate reflection of the Greek. Not trying to push
this translation, but am simply trying to figure out at what points my
thinking is correct and were it is wrong. Thanks again for your response.

Sincerely,
Ted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
J. Ted Blakley

Ph.D. Candidate
St Mary's College
University of St Andrews

jtb1@...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

In a message dated 4/7/2004 3:30:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jgibson000@... writes:

<< The verb translated as "forget" (EPILANQANOMAI) means "to willfully
forget/neglect".  It has nothing to do with
inadvertence.>>

Jeffrey, I think you overstate the point here. The term occurs in the parallel
account of Matthew, apparently without this negative connotation. One could
argue, on the basis of context and overall interpretation of the pericope in
Mark, that the author of the second Gospel intended the meaning you suggest. But
this is a secondary and less frequent meaning of the Greek term in question. Cf.
Lk 12:6.

Leonard Maluf
Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
Weston, MA

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

 In a message dated 4/6/2004 12:51:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jtb1@... writes:

In particular, I have been looking at the issue of the disciples' hardness of heart (blindness, deafness, etc.) which crops up in 6:52 and 8:17, and pursuing a couple of theses about how their hardness of heart relates to the hardness of heart of the Pharisees (3:5, 10:5) and to Jesus' mission to Gentiles which the disciples seem to be having a hard time with (Note the first, failed trip to Bethsaida in 6:45-52 and the disciples refusal to take 'extra loaves' with them on the second, successful trip to Bethsaida 8:14-21

I don't usually post,  I'm using this site to keep abreast of current thought on the Synoptics. But I am a bit confused about the premises cited here. In the first instance you refer to Mark 6,45-52 as a 'failed trip'. I have checked several translations, and the Greek text and can not see how you have determined that it was a failed trip. In the second instnace, Mark 8,14-21, you characterize the disciples as "refusing" to take extra loaves with them. Every translation and the Greek text says they 'forgot'. How did you jump from forgetting to refusing -- two very different ideas?

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson
--

Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
Chicago, IL 60626

jgibson000@...
 

Maluflen@... wrote:

In a message dated 4/7/2004 3:30:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jgibson000@... writes:

<< The verb translated as "forget" (EPILANQANOMAI) means "to willfully forget/neglect".  It has nothing to do with
inadvertence.>>

Jeffrey, I think you overstate the point here. The term occurs in the parallel account of Matthew, apparently without this negative connotation. One could argue, on the basis of context and overall interpretation of the pericope in Mark, that the author of the second Gospel intended the meaning you suggest. But this is a secondary and less frequent meaning of the Greek term in question. Cf. Lk 12:6.

EPILANQANOMAI is one of Mark's 'Septuagintal hapax legomena', that is, one of the approximately 50 words which appear only once in Mark's Gospel but which are also found in the LXX  [ Cf Swete, Mark, p. xliv.] A distinctive feature of these words is that when they are used by Mark, they are always employed with their most basic Septuagintal sense.

Cf., for instance, AGREUEIN which in classical literature usually means 'to take or catch by hunting or fishing, 'to snatch something away' (Hdt. 2.95), but which at Mk 12.13 is used, as in the LXX in the metaphorical sense of 'to ensnare someone' (cf Prov. 5.22; 6.25f ; job 10.16); or also SUNQLIBEIN which in secular Greek is used in descriptions of the compression of an object (cf Arist. Rh. 1361 b17), but at Mk 5.24, as in Sir. 34.14 (= 31.17) as part of the description of a crowd pressing on a person.

In the LXX EPILANQANOMAI is sometimes used to convey the idea of inadvertence (cf Gen. 41.51; Deut. 21.31; Wis. 2.4; 16.23; 19.20; Eccl. 2.16; 9.5; Sir. 13.10). But in more than 100 of its 122 appearances there (including the Apocrypha) the verb is used to mean 'to overlook consciously', 'to neglect willfully'.

Cf Deut. 8.11: 'Beware lest you forget MH EPILAQH the Lord your God in not keeping his commandments, his judgments, his statutes which I commanded you this day. Deut. 26.13: 'And you shall say before the Lord ... I have not transgressed any of your commandments, neither have I forgotten them OUK EPELAQOMHN)". Ps. 78.7: 'That they might set their hope in God, and not forget MH EPILANQANOU) the works of God, but keep his commandments'. Prov. 3.1: 'Forget not MH EPILANQANOU my law, but let your heart keep my commandments'. Jer. 18.15: 'My people have forgotten me (EPELAQENTO MOU), they have burned incense to vanity . . . ' Ezek 23.35: "Therefore says the Lord, because you have forgotten me (EPELAQOU MOU), and cast me behind your back...'

It should be noted that in the majority of these cases EPILANQANOMAI does not mean any sort of disobedience. It is part of the special vocabulary of either exhortations to, and exclamations of, covenant
faithfulness, or condemnations of covenant unfaithfulness, employed consistently as a synonym for 'to apostasize'.

It would be strange, then, had Mark wanted to say in Mk 8.14a that the disciples simply forgot to take extra loaves, that he would have employed a verb which possessed so fixed and different a meaning and which was so full of other associations. A far less ambiguous and far more Marcan way of conveying this idea (given that Mark has his own word for 'to recall, cf Mk 11.21; 14.72), would have been OUK ANEMNHSQESAN TOU
LABEIN ARTOUS.

According to Mark, then, the disciples take no more than one loaf with them on their journey because they refuse to do otherwise.
 

Cf. D.H. Smith, 'An Exposition of Mk 8.14-21', ExpT 59 (1947-48), pp. 25-26

Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
Chicago, IL 60626

jgibson000@...
 

In a message dated 4/7/2004 5:57:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jtb1@... writes:

<< For example, Matthew could be a conservative Jewish-Christian response to
Mark's position on Gentiles.>>

I have argued elsewhere that this is a theoretical possiblity, but doesn't work
when one examines the actual evidence. Matthew is naively, not pointedly or
polemically, Jewish, or anti-Gentile. "Naively" translates into primitively, =
not as a reaction to an already exiting Gentile-oriented Gospel.

<< So what do you do with 8:17b? How do you translate it and understand the
syntax of PEPWRWMENHN ECETE THN KARDIAN hUMWN? Is it in any sense periphrastic?
Is the hUMWN simply redundant? >>

Mark's expression is slightly baffling to me as well. I'm not sure whether this
can be analyzed syntactically as a periphrasis. Perhaps so. And the hUMWN does
seem to be pleonastic. Perhaps it indirectly alludes to the hardened hearts of
the Pharisee opponents of Jesus (as in "are YOUR hearts [too] hardened"?).

As for this particular use of EXEIN, it does seem a bit strange, but it may be
idiomatic for Mark. I haven't done a complete study, but 3:2 is certainly a
close parallel (and note how Mark's expression here differs from the parallel
expression in Matt!). This may repay some further study. As for your suggestion
that the participle PEPWRWMENHN might be middle, I imagine this is possible --
but does a middle participle really work in conjunction with the main verb EXEIN
with second pers.subj.?

Leonard Maluf
Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
Weston, MA




Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

J. Ted Blakley wrote:
<< So what do you do with 8:17b? How do you translate it and understand the
syntax of PEPWRWMENHN ECETE THN KARDIAN hUMWN? Is it in any sense
periphrastic? Is the hUMWN simply redundant? >>

--------------------------
Leonard Maluf wrote:
<<Mark's expression is slightly baffling to me as well. I'm not sure whether
this can be analyzed syntactically as a periphrasis. Perhaps so. And the
hUMWN does seem to be pleonastic. Perhaps it indirectly alludes to the
hardened hearts of the Pharisee opponents of Jesus (as in "are YOUR hearts
[too] hardened"?).>>

Thank you for saying that you find Mark's expression slightly baffling. I
have sent this question to three lists and not received any responses on
this point and am comforted by the fact that at least one other person finds
it somewhat baffeling.

<<As for this particular use of EXEIN, it does seem a bit strange, but it
may be idiomatic for Mark. I haven't done a complete study, but 3:2 is
certainly a close parallel (and note how Mark's expression here differs from
the parallel expression in Matt!). This may repay some further study. As for
your suggestion that the participle PEPWRWMENHN might be middle, I imagine
this is possible -- but does a middle participle really work in conjunction
with the main verb EXEIN with second pers.subj.?>>

I noticed the close parall in 3:1 (I'm assuming you meant 3:1 and not 3:2)
but haven't come to a conclusion on it yet. But as for your question about
the middle voice of the participle. When I mentioned the middle voice I was
no longer thinking of a periphrastic construction. Instead I would see the
participle as the verbal component of an object clause. That is, in Greek
you often have whole clauses that function as the direct object of the main
verb. Sometimes infinitives are used in the object clause and on other
occasions accusative participles are used. So in this sentence I would see
something like this" Do you have ______" where the blank is the object
clause. The object clause itself in the middle voice would be something like
"you have hardened your hearts." Putting them together you get the rough "Do
you have (you have hardened your hearts)" which doesn't make good sense in
English and so my attempt at an idiomatic translation of this would be "Have
you hardened your hearts?" Or maybe "Do you have hearts that have been
hardened by you" or "Do you have hearts that you yourselves have hardened."

Sincerely
Ted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
J. Ted Blakley

Ph.D. Candidate
St Mary's College
University of St Andrews

jtb1@...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Thanks Leonard for your posting.

A couple of quick observations.

First, please note that the expression does not occur in the second
half of Acts.  This could be a coincidence, but we have often noted
that too little attention is given to the differences in style and
vocabulary between Luke-Acts 1-15 and Acts 16-28.  This change in style
I would attribute to Luke's use of non-canonical sources in his gospel
and Acts I.  The distinctively more refined Greek style in Acts II is
what we should identify as "Lukan style."

In this instance, the use of EP'ALHQEIAS and its lack in Acts II may be
an indication of Luke's use of a non-canonical source.

Also, I would suggest that one needs to demonstrate that a particular
word or expression is indeed "Septuagintal" and doesn't just happen
appear there.  This tendency to point to every (Hebraic) expression
that happens to appear in the Septuagint as being the cause for its
appearance in Luke is patent.  But rarely (if ever) is there felt the
need to actually demonstrate that Luke has borrowed the expression from
the Septuagint.  Most of the putative "Septuagintalisms" in Luke are
nothing other than Hebraism stemming from his non-canonical source.  On
some occasions Luke is even more Hebraic than the Septuagint upon which
he is supposed to be reliant.

Since NT scholarship has no explanation for the presence of these
Hebraisms in Luke (since he is supposedly reliant upon Mark or
Matthew), "Septuagintalisms" have proven to be a convenient (yet
unproven) explanation.

But again, thanks for your Easter posting.

Blessings,
R. Steven Notley
Nyack College NYC



Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

At 08:44 AM 4/11/2004 -0400, Maluflen@... wrote:
>Fitzmyer and others who reject the Two Gospel Hypothesis often use the argument
that there are no Lukanisms in Mark, which one would expect if Mark wrote with a
knowledge of and dependence on Luke. I would argue that the expression
EP'ALHQEIAS is characteristically Lukan in the New Testament.
>
>1. The genitive ALHQEIAS occurs only three times in Luke and each time, in
entirely different contexts, it occurs in the expression EP'ALHQEIAS (Lk 4:25;
20:21; 22:59). In Acts, ALHQEIAS also occurs three times, and in two of the
three cases, again in the syntax EP'ALHQEIAS (4:27; 10:34; [cf. 26:25]). So, in
five out of six occurrences of the genitive ALHQEIAS in the Lukan writings, the
word is found in the expression EP'ALHQEIAS.
>
>2. This expression occurs in no other writing of the New Testament except Mark.
It's first occurrence in Mark is at 12:14, where the expression is found in the
parallel Lukan passage. On the Two Gospel Hypothesis Luke had here changed
Matthew's text, which read: KAI THN hODON TOU QEOU EN  ALHQEIAi DIDASKEIS, to an
expression more idiomatic to himself: ALL'EP'ALHQEIAS THN hODON TOU QEOU
DIDASKEIS. Mark picks up this expression from Luke at 12:14, after having
preferred the Matthean phrasing earlier in the verse (DIDASKALE, OIDAMEN hOTI
ALHTQHS EI..). Mark then reuses the unusual (for the NT) Lukan expression again,
perhaps as a literary inclusion, toward the end of this same group of
controversy stories (12:32). Otherwise the expression does not occur in Mark. So
both occurrences of the expression in Mark can be explained, directly or
indirectly, by dependence on the only NT author who uses this expression
regularly, or even at all, namely Luke.
>
>3. Although not really common in the LXX, the expression could count as a
Septuagintalism in Luke's writing. It is found only once in the Torah (Deut
22:20), but occurs more frequently in the writings (Tobit 8:7; Job 7:2; 19:4;
36:4) and prophets (Is37:18; Jer 23:28; Dan 2:5, 5, 9, 47; 8:26). Arguably, Mark
derived the expression from Luke, and Luke from the Septuagint or late Jewish
usage.
>
>I don't know if this particular phenomenon has been noted before, but perhaps
Stephen Carlson can provide information about this? My argument here is of
course not demonstrative in the strictly logical sense of the term, but it is
illustrative of the striking coherency of much linguistic data with the
Two-Gospel Hypothesis.

Although Mark 12:14 looks like one of the places where Griesbach's idea that
Mark is
a conflation of Matthew and Luke looks good, I don't think and EP' ALHQEIAS
qualifies
as a Lukanism though.  It is only found three times in Luke, which is too small
to count
(my investigation using the chi-squared statistic needed at least 5/1 instead of
3/1 here).
Also, EP' ALHQEIAS shows up 257 times in the TLG database, mostly in Koine
times,
so I'd say that EP' ALHQEIAS is just an expression popular in Greek at the time.
Luke's
usage is not so frequent, as a compared to Mark, to make it a Lukanism.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
Weblog:    http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Since NT scholarship has no explanation for the presence of these
Hebraisms in Luke (since he is supposedly reliant upon Mark or
Matthew), "Septuagintalisms" have proven to be a convenient (yet
unproven) explanation.

At 11:46 AM 4/11/2004 -0400, Maluflen@... wrote:
>In a message dated 4/11/2004 8:05:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
scarlson@... writes:
>>Also, EP' ALHQEIAS shows up 257 times in the TLG database, mostly in Koine
>>times, so I'd say that EP' ALHQEIAS is just an expression popular in Greek
>>at the time.  Luke's usage is not so frequent, as a compared to Mark, to
>>make it a Lukanism.
>
>Thanks for the TLG database info, which is really helpful. My argument
>certainly demonstrates a case where the evidence is compatible with the
>Two-Gospel Hypothesis, and is even illuminated by it, even if the expression
>is ruled out on technical grounds as being a "Lukanism". Apart from Mark,
>Luke is the only NT author who uses the expression EP'ALHQEIAS, and he uses
>it as many as five times all together.

The problem is the relative lengths of the texts.  Luke is already
longer than Mark and adding Acts to the mix makes the Lukan corpus
even longer.  The frequency that Luke-Acts uses the expression has
to be adjusted for the relative lengths of the corpora.  According
to Morganthaler, Mark (inc. 16:9-20) has 11242 words, while Luke has
19428 and Acts 18382.  Thus, Luke-Acts is almost 2.5 times longer
than Mark.  Crudely, this makes the comparison in terms of lengths
of text, only one in Mark per 10,000 words to two per 10,0000 words
of Luke-Acts.  Not impressive.

>Mark only has the expression in a
>passage parallel to Luke, and in another passage in the same chapter, where
>he arguably was looking back to that passage as the beginning of a literary
>unit consisting of controversy stories. Recall that it is precisely an
>"unusual" word or expression that is usually regarded as most suitable
>material for a literary inclusion, and this has to rate as such, given the
>complete absence of the expression in the remainder of the NT, and in spite
>of the TLG data.

I don't see anything "unusual" about the expression.  It is not
uncommon in Koine, and restricting the corpus to the NT, though
easy to do, is artificial.  There just isn't even data to justify
any conclusion.  The paucity of evidence makes this case "compatible"
with any synoptic theory, including the Two-Gospel Hypothesis.

Here's a list of words I once analyzed that I would consider "Lukan":
<pre>
U(POSTRE/FW (0/0/21)     Matt-100%      Mark-100%      Luke+151%
XA/RIS (0/0/8)           Matt-100%      Mark-          Luke+151%
FI/LOS (1/0/15)          Matt-083%      Mark-100%      Luke+135%
*)IEROUSALH/M (2/0/27)   Matt-082%      Mark-100%      Luke+134%
*ZAXARI/AS (1/0/10)      Matt-          Mark-          Luke+128%
EU)AGGELI/ZW (1/0/10)    Matt-          Mark-          Luke+128%
DE/OMAI (1/0/8)          Matt-          Mark-          Luke+123%
PI/MPLHMI (2/0/13)       Matt-          Mark-100%      Luke+118%
E)PAI/RW (1/0/6)         Matt-          Mark-          Luke+115%
NOMIKO/S (1/0/6)         Matt-          Mark-          Luke+115%
SUNE/XW (1/0/6)          Matt-          Mark-          Luke+115%
E)/TOS (1/2/15)          Matt-085%      Mark-          Luke+109%
PARAXRH=MA (2/0/10)      Matt-          Mark-          Luke+109%
U(PA/RXW (3/0/15)        Matt-          Mark-100%      Luke+109%
PLH=QOS (0/2/8)          Matt-100%      Mark-          Luke+101%
QOBE/OMAI (1/1/8)        Matt-          Mark-          Luke+101%
*MARIA/M (4/0/13)        Matt-          Mark-100%      Luke+092%
E(/TEROS (10/0/32)       Matt-          Mark-100%      Luke+091%
TE/ (3/0/9)              Matt-          Mark-          Luke+088%
EI)RH/NH (4/1/14)        Matt-          Mark-          Luke+085%
DE/KA (3/1/11)           Matt-          Mark-          Luke+084%
O(MOI/WS (3/1/11)        Matt-          Mark-          Luke+084%
R(H=MA (5/2/19)          Matt-          Mark-          Luke+084%
PLH/N (5/1/15)           Matt-          Mark-079%      Luke+079%
SU/N (4/6/23)            Matt-068%      Mark-          Luke+075%
A)NH/R (8/4/27)          Matt-045%      Mark-          Luke+074%
LAO/S (14/2/36)          Matt-          Mark-083%      Luke+074%
KLAI/W (2/3/11)          Matt-067%      Mark-          Luke+073%
E)RWTA/W (4/3/15)        Matt-          Mark-          Luke+071%
NU=N (4/3/14)            Matt-          Mark-          Luke+067%
OU)XI/ (9/0/18)          Matt-          Mark-100%      Luke+067%
*)ABRAA/M (7/1/15)       Matt-          Mark-081%      Luke+064%
E)GGI/ZW (7/3/18)        Matt-          Mark-          Luke+061%
POREU/OMAI (29/0/51)     Matt-          Mark-100%      Luke+060%
A(MARTWLO/S (5/6/18)     Matt-054%      Mark-          Luke+056%
</pre>

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
Weblog:    http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

On Apr 11, 2004, at 10:46 AM, Maluflen@... wrote:
> Recall that it is precisely an "unusual" word or expression that is
> usually regarded as most suitable material for a literary inclusion,
> and this has to rate as such, given the complete absence of the
> expression in the remainder of the NT, and in spite of the TLG data.

No. Not at all. In fact, this represent a tremendous inadequacy in
method. The point of the TLG data reveals that the phrase is common in
koine (according to SC; I didn't run the search myself). I'm sure there
are a tremendous number of words or short phrases that only occur in
two, independent works.

Joe Weaks


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

For Stephen Carlson and Joseph Weaks, I am unable to respond properly to your
posts, since I am without access to sources and good emailing capabilities where
I am vacationing this week. I will pick up the discussion again when I return,
if I have time and/or the inclination. In the meantime, thanks for your comments
and contributions.

Leonard Maluf
Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
Weston, MA

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Maluflen@... wrote:

> Fitzmyer and others who reject the Two Gospel Hypothesis often use the
> argument that there are no Lukanisms in Mark,

Did they once answer the list of lukanisms proposed by Boismard ?

Do they address the special case of "Egeneto" ?

a+
   manu



Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Hey,


Please call me when you get into the office!

It's much appreciated.

Bill Bacon

Hey,


Please call me when you get into the office!

It's much appreciated.
 
Mitchel Middleton