Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Synoptic-L] Re: style "seams"-ml

Expand Messages
  • yochanan bitan
    RE: style and seams -maluf RB:
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 11, 2000
      RE: style and "seams"-maluf
      RB:<< As for prepositions on verb stems, that cuts both ways, (e.g. twice
      in the
      vineyard parable Luke uses pempsai when apostelai would be preferable).>>

      > I'm not sure what you mean by apostelai would be "preferable" here.
      > ...
      > When writing more or less independently of Matt he uses
      >pempsai here:
      > (1) Luke adds a third "sending" (20:12a, with pempsai) prior to the
      > of the son, and not found in Matt. Luke may be using 1 Sam19:18-24 as a
      > remote OT model here, and he seems to absorb the
      > prosetheto....triton from this text (1 Sam 19:21), though the term
      > remains his own.

      But Samuel LXX doesn't use triton. Samuel has a group like Matthew, not
      And Samuel doesn't use pempsai but apostelai, exactly my point.
      And Luke himiself likes apostelai as your own data for 2 Acts show below.
      Your only real point of contact is the idiom 'he added' for 'again,
      which is an empty construct, not a wordplay, allusion or contribution.
      In Hebrew we would say, lo dubbim velo ya`ar. 'there aren't any bears and
      there is no forest'.
      Luke 20 is not absorbing, modeling or septuagintalizing from 1 Sam 19.21.

      > (2) Then, Luke expands the Father's pensive monologue, already found
      >in Matt, to fit his own typically styled monologue "ti poieso, etc.".

      This is classic rabbinic. mTa`anit 3.8 (on Honi the circler), see also
      mSanh 3.8, mekhilta beshalaH vayisa 6, Sifre qoraH 117 and many others.
      People only call it Lucan because they find it in Luke's gospel.

      > So pempsai
      >occurs three times in all in this Lukan text, to apostellein once.
      > The question is: is pempsai more spontaneous Lukan vocabulary than
      >appostellein where the meaning of the two is roughly equivalent? It would
      >seem so from this text, on this source hypothesis, since Luke uses it in
      >preference to apostellein when not following his source, and once even
      >following it.

      RB: your conclusion about Luke's vocabulary
      'on this source analysis' stacks the deck.
      Look at the data: pempsai is not more spontaneous Lukan vocabulary,
      as your data below show when examined.

      >It is difficult, however, to confirm this by the criterion for
      >what is "Lucan" given by Randall, namely:
      << [Another hint: what is Lucan vocabulary? Not vocabulary measured against
      Mark, ala Hawkins and followers, but vocabulary measured against Acts

      >In this part of Acts, I believe the use of pempsai and apostellein by Luke

      >just about breaks even:

      RB: don't stop with a superficial glance, keep going.

      >for pempsai, Acts 19:31; 20:17; 25:25, 27 (see also
      >Lk 4:26; 7:10; 16:24, 27; Acts 10:5, 32; 15:22, 25). And for apostellein
      >Acts 16-28, with personal object: 16:35, 36; 19:22; 26:17.

      Yes, good, sound work. So add the following data:
      Ac 19.31 sent a message, pempsai
      Ac 20.17 sent a message, pempsai
      Ac 25.25 send (Paul, his case?), pempsai
      Ac 25.27 send prisoner with charges, pempsai.
      To those, you then add 4 examples of sending an agent,
      all with apostelai, as you've noted above. Luke's own style turns out to
      be pretty good.

      Sending an agent, of course, fits apostelai better.

      So in the parable, where 'agents' are in view, the thrice repeated pempsai
      is strange.
      It appears to be non-Lucan, and is not a Greek improvement.
      Impoverishment? OK. But, that ASSUMES that Luke is changing something,
      with the evidence actually leaning against its 'Lucanness'.
      It has all the look of Luke accepting his source.
      Plus it uses an idiom 'added to send' whose exact collocation is not in the
      another example of non-septuagintalism
      and not in 2 Acts.
      And if this is not Luke but his source,
      then neither Matthew nor Mark is Luke's source here.
      Interesting, no?

      randall buth
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.