[Synoptic-L] Gerasene Demoniac
- On 28 May, 2001, Emmanuel Fritsch wrote --
>* Lukan wording :
>v.9 : ONOMA SOI - ONOMA MOI is a hapax of Mark, but common in Luke
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.
>Just checking on this also. "send us" -- PEMYAS hHMAS -- is indeed a
>v.12 : "send us" is a hapax of Mark, but is common [in] Luke and John.
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.
>I think you have got the data right this time. Unfortunately, however,
>v.14 : "what had happened" is a hapax of Mark, but seven times in
>Luke/Act, and nowhere else in the NT.
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?
>But nowhere in Luke. Since Luke and Acts together are nearly four times
>v.16 : DIEGESANTO POS is found in Act 9,27 and 11,13
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!
>As I read the data, the particular grammatical form DAIMONISQEIS is not
>v.18 : DAIMONISVEIS with the synoptic Luke (8,36) is a hapax of NT.
hapax of the NT, but occurs twice -- Mk 5.18 and Lk 8.36.
>Why "in a sentence of Jesus", though? The gospel of Mark almost begins
>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.
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.
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@...