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

[Synoptic-L] Gerasene Demoniac

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    On 28 May, 2001, Emmanuel Fritsch wrote -- ... Emmanuel, Just checking on this. You are right that this double usage -- ONOMA SOI...ONOMA MOI -- is a hapax of
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      On 28 May, 2001, Emmanuel Fritsch wrote --
      >
      >* Lukan wording :
      >
      >v.9 : ONOMA SOI - ONOMA MOI is a hapax of Mark, but common in Luke
      >

      Emmanuel,
      Just checking on this. You are right that this double usage --
      ONOMA SOI...ONOMA MOI -- is a hapax of Mark. (The word ONOMA itself is
      not a hapax of course, but occurs 14 times in Mark.) However, far from
      this double usage -- ONOMA SOI...ONOMA MOI -- being "common in Luke" in
      fact it occurs nowhere at all in Luke. Neither is the double usage to be
      found in Acts.
      >
      >v.12 : "send us" is a hapax of Mark, but is common [in] Luke and John.
      >
      Just checking on this also. "send us" -- PEMYAS hHMAS -- is indeed a
      hapax in Mark. But again, far from this being "common [in] Luke" it is
      entirely absent from Luke. It is also completely absent from Acts.

      It seems the above two descriptions of the data are confused.
      >
      >v.14 : "what had happened" is a hapax of Mark, but seven times in
      >Luke/Act, and nowhere else in the NT.
      >
      I think you have got the data right this time. Unfortunately, however,
      the same word -- TO GEGONOS -- also occurs in the same context in the
      parallel Lukan version in verse 35. So it makes no sense to suggest that
      Mark's wording, the same as Luke's, has been redacted, does it?
      >
      >v.16 : DIEGESANTO POS is found in Act 9,27 and 11,13
      >
      But nowhere in Luke. Since Luke and Acts together are nearly four times
      the length of Mark, it would seem that this construction has more
      occurrences per thousand words in Mark than in Luke-Acts. This would
      seem to be evidence **against** the idea that Mark has been redacted by
      a Marco-Lukan redactor!
      >
      >v.18 : DAIMONISVEIS with the synoptic Luke (8,36) is a hapax of NT.
      >
      As I read the data, the particular grammatical form DAIMONISQEIS is not
      hapax of the NT, but occurs twice -- Mk 5.18 and Lk 8.36.
      >
      >v.19 : "the lord" , in a sentence of Jesus may only apply to God. Only
      > one occurrence in Mark (13,20) but common to Luke.
      >
      Why "in a sentence of Jesus", though? The gospel of Mark almost begins
      with "the lord" applying to God (Mk 1.3). This is weak.

      The other two items you list also seem weak.

      I am still not clear, however, how generally you are deciding what words
      are "Lukan". I think the confusion above indicates that you may not be
      clear either. If, however, we do not know what "Lukan wording" is, how
      can we test the idea that a "Marco-Lukan Redactor" has redacted Mark
      using "Lukan wording"?

      What we need to do is forget synoptic documentary hypotheses and state
      how, from a synopsis, we can obtain the data we need. How can someone
      who knows no synoptic documentary hypotheses at all, find "Lukan
      wording" in the synoptic gospels? We need clear instructions on how to
      spot "Lukan wording" using only a synopsis.

      Best wishes,
      BRIAN WILSON

      E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

      Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
      > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
      > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
      _

      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.