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

[Synoptic-L] More non-LXX in Luke (5.18)

Expand Messages
  • Randall Buth
    TOIS FILOIS HMWN XAIREIN There is an additional non-LXX indication in Luke 5.18. The paralyzed man is regularly missed by NT scholars. Mark and Matthew
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 16, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      TOIS FILOIS HMWN
      XAIREIN

      There is an additional non-LXX indication in Luke 5.18.
      The 'paralyzed man' is regularly missed by NT scholars.

      Mark and Matthew always use the nice Greek
      "paralytikos" while Luke refers to the man here as "anthropon
      os en paralelumenos" which is a nice rendering of the
      POST-biblical Hebrew "ish meshutaq."

      One might (wrongly) assume that this is also a
      "Lucanism" since it appears only in this pericope and I Acts (8:7; 9:33).
      However, its absence from II Acts (16-28) might be a clue that it is a
      "sourcism" and not Lucan—but its absence might also be an accident (i.e.
      no lame men in II Acts). However, knowing that the "nominal" form of
      Mark/Matthew is not possible in Hebrew and knowing that Luke couldn't have
      known this from the LXX, gives us additional reason to suspect that the
      participial form is not Lucan style but a "sourcism."

      This is linguistically similar to Luke's use of the verbal
      "evangelizomai" rather than the nominal "evangelion" of Mark/Matthew.
      Hoskyns and Davey ("Riddle of the New Testament") made the mistake that
      is repeated regularly in NT scholarship. They noted that the verbal
      form "evangelizomai" is Septuagintal (i.e. the nominal form never
      appears. It is a literal rendering of the Hebrew source
      language—which does not express this idea with a noun, only a verb.)
      Thus, they assumed that Luke was merely copying the LXX
      style. However, they never stopped to ask the next question: Given that
      most alleged LXXalisms are pointless, insipid: why does
      does Luke add so many smooth Greek features if he is trying to
      sound Septuagintal? (e.g. Luke has more DE per KAI than any of the three
      synoptics. And Luke will often use non-Hebrew, non-LXX word order, even
      while allegedly introducing 'Septugintal' material. Or he will choose
      non-Septuagintal vocabulary in a "Semitic" sounding sequence. Or, more
      damning, he will write good Greek [Acts 22] where Hebrew itself was the
      issue at hand!)
      A careful examination of Lucan style leads away from an artificial
      LXX-al style thesis. Luke, and others in the ancient world, were not
      playing such a deft game as to introduce a Semitic-LXXal style
      but to do it in such a way as to look inconsistent and 'to hide it' so
      that it can be discovered as part of a source.
      With Luke, what you see is what you get, including a small number of
      non-Septuagintal Hebraisms, like "ish meshutaq",
      as would be predicted by a source theory.

      ERRWSQE,
      Randall Buth and Steven Notley
      Jerusalem
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 4/16/2001 7:05:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ButhFam@compuserve.com writes:
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 21, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 4/16/2001 7:05:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
        ButhFam@... writes:

        << There is an additional non-LXX indication in Luke 5.18.
        The 'paralyzed man' is regularly missed by NT scholars.

        Mark and Matthew always use the nice Greek
        "paralytikos" while Luke refers to the man here as "anthropon
        os en paralelumenos" which is a nice rendering of the
        POST-biblical Hebrew "ish meshutaq."

        One might (wrongly) assume that this is also a
        "Lucanism" since it appears only in this pericope and I Acts (8:7; 9:33).
        However, its absence from II Acts (16-28) might be a clue that it is a
        "sourcism" and not Lucan—but its absence might also be an accident (i.e.
        no lame men in II Acts). However, knowing that the "nominal" form of
        Mark/Matthew is not possible in Hebrew and knowing that Luke couldn't have
        known this from the LXX, gives us additional reason to suspect that the
        participial form is not Lucan style but a "sourcism." >>

        Although I find Randy's argument here very interesting, as always, I am not
        persuaded that we have to do with a Hebraism at all in Lk 5:18. It seems to
        me that the expression is perfectly good Greek without any reference to a
        Semitic source. When introducing characters who are about to become
        beneficiaries of Jesus' saving actions, Luke tends to avoid expressions that
        totally identify the individual with his ailment ("leper", "palalytic",
        etc.). He prefers instead to speak of a "man" (aner, or anthropos) who has
        such or such an ailment. Christologically, this has the potential of
        highlighting the phil-anthropia of Jesus and his saving acts. From a
        Griesbach perspective, Luke has also made just such a change as recently as
        5:12, when introducing the leper, whom he describes, differently from Matt,
        as "a man full of leprosy". In 5:18, Luke has supplied an explicit subject
        for those bringing the paralytic to Jesus (andres), and he introduces the
        "man" brought in with the more generic anthropos, followed by a relative
        clause with a good Greek periphrasis terminating with the perf. pass. part.
        paralelumenos - a form which IS, by the way, found in the LXX (as opposed to
        Matt's paralutikos). In light of Lev 13:45, it is at least interesting to
        note that Luke readjusted the Matthean order of pericopes here to make the
        paralytic story follow immediately upon the leper healing. Furthermore, I do
        think that Acts 9:33 (at least) confirms the fact that the entire phrase in
        Lk 5:18 involves Lukan style.

        Note also the number of times Luke refers to the "demoniac" in Lk 8:26-39 as
        anthropos, with not a single basis for this in the parallel Matthean text.
        The use of aner (twice) in this pericope, applied to the same individual,
        seems to coincide to points in the narrative where the demoniac is active, as
        opposed to being presented specifically as the recipient of Jesus'
        compassionate action. The two cases of aner also strengthen an already strong
        literary inclusion that frames the narratives.

        Leonard Maluf

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.