[Synoptic-L] Re: Jn 20 and Luke 20
- LM:>I think you have
>not fully appreciated the force of Jn 20:21 as exemplifying theequivalence
>in meaning and usage between the two verbs.I have no problem with a Greek writer pempsai 'agents'.
After all, pempsai is the generic Greek word for 'send'.
This thread got started by my noting this as an example of 'flow' from
specific/long to generic/short. LSJM will certainly have a list of good
examples of pempsai, as well as epistles in NT.
My problem is saying that Luke by his own hand does this. We don't have
such evidence. John is John. 2Acts is 2Acts. We need to be more careful
before attributing/assuming things that are so difficult to either prove or
Now it may be that the apostelai/pemspai distinction in 2Acts is
accidental, after all there are just a handful of examples of each. But
even so, assuming Luke to like using pempsai with agents, we would only
have a hypothetical, "Luke could have used pempsai at Lk 20.11." Not that
Luke actively did so, and made a change.
There is an methodological and emotional problem in NT research. Almost all
Hebraisms and Semitisms can be duplicated in the LXX.
NB: The same thing would happen if a DSS document were translated to
The frequent 'possibility' of Luke's being able to find something in the
LXX, after a chorus or rehearsals, becomes an assumption/conclusion that he
did just that. But some data has been missed or overlooked, (possibly
because NT scholarship assumed Hebraisms to be 'artificial by definition'
through most of the 19th and 20th centuries).
The tell-tale prediction is 'non-Septuagintalisms'. Finding a handful of
non-LXX-isms is the prediction of Semitic source theories. And that is what
we have in Luke. No one paid attention last month when I floated Luke 18.43
'give praise' as a non-LXX, probable Semitism. There are others, here and
there sprinkled in Luke's Gospel.
The collocation 'added to pempsai' is one of them
and it happens to fit an interesting statistical profile of 2Acts.
The statistical profile may be accidental, and may not be, but the
collocation prosqeinai pempsai remains non-LXX.
For another 'nearby' example of a non-LXXism, see *R. Buth, "Luke 19.31-34,
Mishnaic Hebrew and Bible Translation: Is KURIOI TOU POLOU Singular?" JBL
104 (1985) 680-685. Suggests a Hebraic source behind the pericope, based on
non-Septuagintal Hebraism and non-Aramaism. You will at least find the data