Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: style - lk 20.11, 12
- In a message dated 2/13/2000 6:42:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,
I would describe exapesteilan kenon in Lk 20:11 as a typical Lukanism
on the basis of Lk 1:53.
RB: << Again, Luke 1.53 is not the surest methodology. I accept exapostelai
a word Luke uses because of 2 Acts, 17.14, 22,21. However, it is also a
very common word in the LXX. (Looking at kenos alone doesn't help much
because it only occurs in Lk 1.53, 20.11,12 and a LXX quote at Acts 4.25.
This is CONSISTENT with Luke's using a SOURCE, but a better methodology
puts this in an 'irrelevant'/'unresoluble' box for testing theories, since
it could be accidental.>>
Ok, I can accept what I think you are saying. For one thing, I presuppose
here that the Magnificat is Luke's own composition, which would not be
accepted by all.
<< More important is to examine the Hebrew idiom 'to send away emptily'.
The idiom leshalaH reqam occurs four times in MT: gn 31.42, dt 15.13,
1S6.3, Job 22.9. All four, with probably different translators (!), are
kenon/kenan/kenas, where the Greek uses kenos/-h as an adjective, but the
Hebrew is an adverb, something that could have been potentially diagnostic
for 'fingerprints' (once in Ps 25.2 reqam is dia kenhs).
Luke 1.53 reflects a Hebrew idiom, most are agreed on that. The agreement
with an adjective, as opposed to an adverb, in Luke and throughout the LXX
shows an apparent Jewish-Greek practice. >>
OK. But could Lk 1:53 not be just Luke's composition based on familiarity
with, and intending to echo specific LXX texts? So, Hebrew influence, but
<< As for questions of source versus Luke himself, this item becomes
undiagnostic, since there is nothing in 2Acts to compare with. It certainly
fits a Hebrew source profile perfectly, but repeating what I just said,
without meaningful contrast from 2 Acts this specific item cannot be proven
on its own. Other idioms exist for that. >>
I'm not sure I grasp your meaning here. Are you saying that exapesteilen
kenous cannot be shown to be Luke imitating LXX style or echoing LXX texts
because (1) it could instead be a translation of a Hebrew source and (2) it
is not confirmed as a Lukanism by Lukan usage in the second part of Acts? If
so, I have a slight problem with the methodology here. I can accept that Lk
1:53 COULD (in se) result from a translation of a Hebrew original, but Lukan
free imitation of LXX style in 1:53 cannot, I think, be excluded on the basis
of Luke's language in the latter half of Acts. The reason for this is that
Luke is notably uninterested in imitating the LXX in the latter part of Acts
(partly because he is involved in imitating Homer, et al., there, as "the
word" moves into the Gentile world).
LM: >because Luke elsewhere uses the verb [pempsai-RB] with personal
>object.RB: << not in 2Acts with 'agents', which is the natural Greek meaning of
I think it is just as natural a Greek meaning of pempein, and the absence of
pempein with direct object of the agent sent in the last part of Acts should
probably not be taken as anything more than mere accident. I think you have
not fully appreciated the force of Jn 20:21 as exemplifying the equivalence
in meaning and usage between the two verbs.
RB: >> 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
LM>Not very convincing. Cf. Luke 16:24, 27; Acts 10:5; 15:25 (in addition
to our text).
RB:<< That missed the point. Your verses are not necessarily reflecting Luke
the author/editor. (And the triple pempsai is a monotonous 'stylistic
variation' to boot.) >>
It is true that my verses don't necessarily reflect Luke the author/editor,
in the sense that there could theoretically be Greek sources behind Lk 16:24,
27; Acts 10:5; 15:25 which Luke is simply copying. Is this what you mean
here? If so, I can agree with you in principle, I suppose, but I am
personally disinclined to think that there are in fact written Greek sources
from which Luke is copying in any of the cited texts. In any case, they would
certainly be hypothetical, rather than any that could be established with
probability. And what is the point of your remark in parentheses?
<< There are quite a number of vocabulary and syntactic features that
have suggestive patterns like LUke 20 xx, 1Acts 10xx, 2Acts 2xx or even
more starkly, Luke 20, 1Acts 10, 2Acts 0.
(e.g. kai egeneto [with a finite verb in the following main clause] does
not occur once in either 1Acts or 2Acts.[=Luke 33, 1Acts 0, 2Acts 0],
versus Luke's own 'egeneto with main-infinitive': Lk 5, 1Acts 7, 2Acts 9 )
With such phenomena one cannot quote one of the gospel's "20 examples" or
"33 examples" and say 'This is Luke'. That is a methodological flaw that is
endemic to gospel studies of the past century (including Hawkins, Howard,
Sparks, Turner and those who accept their LXX-Lucanisms). Only after
filtering through 2 Acts and seeing patterns can one appreciate what is
really going on. (One hint: look at the non-LXX-isms in Luke.)>>
This is all very interesting, but I do think it may be legitimate to
distinguish between "This is Luke, when he is writing LXX", and "this is
Luke, when he is writing regular Greek". In both cases it could be Luke
writing (i.e., ALk is not necessarily translating directly from Hebrew, or
copying from a Greek source based on a Hebrew text, when he is "writing
LXX".) Do you disagree with this last statement?