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

[Synoptic-L] A Lukan expression in Mark?

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    Fitzmyer and others who reject the Two Gospel Hypothesis often use the argument that there are no Lukanisms in Mark, which one would expect if Mark wrote with
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 11, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Fitzmyer and others who reject the Two Gospel Hypothesis often use the argument that there are no Lukanisms in Mark, which one would expect if Mark wrote with a knowledge of and dependence on Luke. I would argue that the expression EP'ALHQEIAS is characteristically Lukan in the New Testament.

      1. The genitive ALHQEIAS occurs only three times in Luke and each time, in entirely different contexts, it occurs in the expression EP'ALHQEIAS (Lk 4:25; 20:21; 22:59). In Acts, ALHQEIAS also occurs three times, and in two of the three cases, again in the syntax EP'ALHQEIAS (4:27; 10:34; [cf. 26:25]). So, in five out of six occurrences of the genitive ALHQEIAS in the Lukan writings, the word is found in the expression EP'ALHQEIAS.

      2. This expression occurs in no other writing of the New Testament except Mark. It's first occurrence in Mark is at 12:14, where the expression is found in the parallel Lukan passage. On the Two Gospel Hypothesis Luke had here changed Matthew's text, which read: KAI THN hODON TOU QEOU EN  ALHQEIAi DIDASKEIS, to an expression more idiomatic to himself: ALL'EP'ALHQEIAS THN hODON TOU QEOU DIDASKEIS. Mark picks up this expression from Luke at 12:14, after having preferred the Matthean phrasing earlier in the verse (DIDASKALE, OIDAMEN hOTI ALHTQHS EI..). Mark then reuses the unusual (for the NT) Lukan expression again, perhaps as a literary inclusion, toward the end of this same group of controversy stories (12:32). Otherwise the expression does not occur in Mark. So both occurrences of the expression in Mark can be explained, directly or indirectly, by dependence on the only NT author who uses this expression regularly, or even at all, namely Luke.

      3. Although not really common in the LXX, the expression could count as a Septuagintalism in Luke's writing. It is found only once in the Torah (Deut 22:20), but occurs more frequently in the writings (Tobit 8:7; Job 7:2; 19:4; 36:4) and prophets (Is37:18; Jer 23:28; Dan 2:5, 5, 9, 47; 8:26). Arguably, Mark derived the expression from Luke, and Luke from the Septuagint or late Jewish usage.

      I don't know if this particular phenomenon has been noted before, but perhaps Stephen Carlson can provide information about this? My argument here is of course not demonstrative in the strictly logical sense of the term, but it is illustrative of the striking coherency of much linguistic data with the Two-Gospel Hypothesis.

      Leonard Maluf
      Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
      Weston, MA
    • R. Steven Notley
      Thanks Leonard for your posting. A couple of quick observations. First, please note that the expression does not occur in the second half of Acts. This could
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 11, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks Leonard for your posting.

        A couple of quick observations.

        First, please note that the expression does not occur in the second
        half of Acts. This could be a coincidence, but we have often noted
        that too little attention is given to the differences in style and
        vocabulary between Luke-Acts 1-15 and Acts 16-28. This change in style
        I would attribute to Luke's use of non-canonical sources in his gospel
        and Acts I. The distinctively more refined Greek style in Acts II is
        what we should identify as "Lukan style."

        In this instance, the use of EP'ALHQEIAS and its lack in Acts II may be
        an indication of Luke's use of a non-canonical source.

        Also, I would suggest that one needs to demonstrate that a particular
        word or expression is indeed "Septuagintal" and doesn't just happen
        appear there. This tendency to point to every (Hebraic) expression
        that happens to appear in the Septuagint as being the cause for its
        appearance in Luke is patent. But rarely (if ever) is there felt the
        need to actually demonstrate that Luke has borrowed the expression from
        the Septuagint. Most of the putative "Septuagintalisms" in Luke are
        nothing other than Hebraism stemming from his non-canonical source. On
        some occasions Luke is even more Hebraic than the Septuagint upon which
        he is supposed to be reliant.

        Since NT scholarship has no explanation for the presence of these
        Hebraisms in Luke (since he is supposedly reliant upon Mark or
        Matthew), "Septuagintalisms" have proven to be a convenient (yet
        unproven) explanation.

        But again, thanks for your Easter posting.

        Blessings,
        R. Steven Notley
        Nyack College NYC



        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 4/11/2004 6:16:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... I am not persuaded that Luke could not have had more than one style -- one that is dependent
        Message 3 of 10 , Apr 11, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 4/11/2004 6:16:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, notley@... writes:


          Thanks Leonard for your posting.

          A couple of quick observations.

          First, please note that the expression does not occur in the second
          half of Acts.  This could be a coincidence, but we have often noted
          that too little attention is given to the differences in style and
          vocabulary between Luke-Acts 1-15 and Acts 16-28.  This change in style
          I would attribute to Luke's use of non-canonical sources in his gospel
          and Acts I.  The distinctively more refined Greek style in Acts II is
          what we should identify as "Lukan style."


          I am not persuaded that Luke could not have had more than one style -- one that is dependent in a broad sense on Jewish sources and idiom, but not in the sense of copying existing sources, and the other, perhaps more native to him and more straightforwardly Hellenistic, adopted by Luke for obvious reasons in the second half of Acts.


          In this instance, the use of EP'ALHQEIAS and its lack in Acts II may be
          an indication of Luke's use of a non-canonical source.


          Yes, it may be, but I still profess agnosticism on sources for Luke that are not available for our scrutiny. What is remarkable is how closely related the two Acts instances of the expression EP'ALHQEIAS are to what is usually regarded as Lukan redaction in his Gospel (I realize that this is in a way the precise point at issue, but I simply wish to urge again the alternative explanation). Acts 4:27f is closely related in content to the particularly Lukan (redactional?) presentation of the trial of Jesus, in which both Herod and Pilate are involved. If this whole version of the story derives from pious reflection on the Psalm cited in Acts 4:25b-26, I don't see any reason why this traditional midrashic method could not have been applied to this topic by Luke himself for the first time, resulting both in Lk's version of events in the trial of Jesus in his Gospel and the passage in question in Acts.

          Acts 10:34 is also related to a passage usually regarded as highly influenced by Luke's own redactional intervention, Lk 4:16-30. Specifically, Peter is coming in Acts 10, through the use of the EP'ALHQEIAS expression, to the same point emphasized in the prophetic pronouncement of Jesus in Lk 4:25, highlighted by the same expression (EP'ALHQEIAS DE LEGW hUMIN..): namely that God is not one who "respects persons", such that he limits the message of salvation to Jews.


          Since NT scholarship has no explanation for the presence of these
          Hebraisms in Luke (since he is supposedly reliant upon Mark or
          Matthew), "Septuagintalisms" have proven to be a convenient (yet
          unproven) explanation.


          My own statement was slightly more cautious, though. I suggested that the expression came to Luke either "from the Septuagint or late Jewish usage."

          Leonard Maluf
          Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
          Weston, MA


        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... Although Mark 12:14 looks like one of the places where Griesbach s idea that Mark is a conflation of Matthew and Luke looks good, I don t think and EP
          Message 4 of 10 , Apr 11, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            At 08:44 AM 4/11/2004 -0400, Maluflen@... wrote:
            >Fitzmyer and others who reject the Two Gospel Hypothesis often use the argument that there are no Lukanisms in Mark, which one would expect if Mark wrote with a knowledge of and dependence on Luke. I would argue that the expression EP'ALHQEIAS is characteristically Lukan in the New Testament.
            >
            >1. The genitive ALHQEIAS occurs only three times in Luke and each time, in entirely different contexts, it occurs in the expression EP'ALHQEIAS (Lk 4:25; 20:21; 22:59). In Acts, ALHQEIAS also occurs three times, and in two of the three cases, again in the syntax EP'ALHQEIAS (4:27; 10:34; [cf. 26:25]). So, in five out of six occurrences of the genitive ALHQEIAS in the Lukan writings, the word is found in the expression EP'ALHQEIAS.
            >
            >2. This expression occurs in no other writing of the New Testament except Mark. It's first occurrence in Mark is at 12:14, where the expression is found in the parallel Lukan passage. On the Two Gospel Hypothesis Luke had here changed Matthew's text, which read: KAI THN hODON TOU QEOU EN ALHQEIAi DIDASKEIS, to an expression more idiomatic to himself: ALL'EP'ALHQEIAS THN hODON TOU QEOU DIDASKEIS. Mark picks up this expression from Luke at 12:14, after having preferred the Matthean phrasing earlier in the verse (DIDASKALE, OIDAMEN hOTI ALHTQHS EI..). Mark then reuses the unusual (for the NT) Lukan expression again, perhaps as a literary inclusion, toward the end of this same group of controversy stories (12:32). Otherwise the expression does not occur in Mark. So both occurrences of the expression in Mark can be explained, directly or indirectly, by dependence on the only NT author who uses this expression regularly, or even at all, namely Luke.
            >
            >3. Although not really common in the LXX, the expression could count as a Septuagintalism in Luke's writing. It is found only once in the Torah (Deut 22:20), but occurs more frequently in the writings (Tobit 8:7; Job 7:2; 19:4; 36:4) and prophets (Is37:18; Jer 23:28; Dan 2:5, 5, 9, 47; 8:26). Arguably, Mark derived the expression from Luke, and Luke from the Septuagint or late Jewish usage.
            >
            >I don't know if this particular phenomenon has been noted before, but perhaps Stephen Carlson can provide information about this? My argument here is of course not demonstrative in the strictly logical sense of the term, but it is illustrative of the striking coherency of much linguistic data with the Two-Gospel Hypothesis.

            Although Mark 12:14 looks like one of the places where Griesbach's idea that Mark is
            a conflation of Matthew and Luke looks good, I don't think and EP' ALHQEIAS qualifies
            as a Lukanism though. It is only found three times in Luke, which is too small to count
            (my investigation using the chi-squared statistic needed at least 5/1 instead of 3/1 here).
            Also, EP' ALHQEIAS shows up 257 times in the TLG database, mostly in Koine times,
            so I'd say that EP' ALHQEIAS is just an expression popular in Greek at the time. Luke's
            usage is not so frequent, as a compared to Mark, to make it a Lukanism.

            Stephen Carlson
            --
            Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
            Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
            "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35


            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Maluflen@aol.com
            In a message dated 4/11/2004 8:05:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... Thanks for the TLG database info, which is really helpful. My argument certainly
            Message 5 of 10 , Apr 11, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 4/11/2004 8:05:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, scarlson@... writes:


              Also, EP' ALHQEIAS shows up 257 times in the TLG database, mostly in Koine times, so I'd say that EP' ALHQEIAS is just an expression popular in Greek at the time.  Luke's usage is not so frequent, as a compared to Mark, to make it a Lukanism.



              Thanks for the TLG database info, which is really helpful. My argument certainly demonstrates a case where the evidence is compatible with the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, and is even illuminated by it, even if the expression is ruled out on technical grounds as being a "Lukanism". Apart from Mark, Luke is the only NT author who uses the expression EP'ALHQEIAS, and he uses it as many as five times all together. Mark only has the expression in a passage parallel to Luke, and in another passage in the same chapter, where he arguably was looking back to that passage as the beginning of a literary unit consisting of controversy stories. Recall that it is precisely an "unusual" word or expression that is usually regarded as most suitable material for a literary inclusion, and this has to rate as such, given the complete absence of the expression in the remainder of the NT, and in spite of the TLG data.

              Leonard Maluf
              Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
              Weston, MA
            • Tim Reynolds
              on 4/11/04 8:03 AM, Maluflen@aol.com at Maluflen@aol.com wrote: Since NT scholarship has no explanation for the presence of these Hebraisms in Luke (since he
              Message 6 of 10 , Apr 11, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Re: [Synoptic-L] A Lukan expression in Mark? on 4/11/04 8:03 AM, Maluflen@... at Maluflen@... wrote:

                Since NT scholarship has no explanation for the presence of these
                Hebraisms in Luke (since he is supposedly reliant upon Mark or
                Matthew), "Septuagintalisms" have proven to be a convenient (yet
                unproven) explanation.


                My own statement was slightly more cautious, though. I suggested that the expression came to Luke either "from the Septuagint or late Jewish usage."

                Or from a LXX-steeped informant.  I suggest Mary.

                tim
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                ... The problem is the relative lengths of the texts. Luke is already longer than Mark and adding Acts to the mix makes the Lukan corpus even longer. The
                Message 7 of 10 , Apr 11, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 11:46 AM 4/11/2004 -0400, Maluflen@... wrote:
                  >In a message dated 4/11/2004 8:05:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, scarlson@... writes:
                  >>Also, EP' ALHQEIAS shows up 257 times in the TLG database, mostly in Koine
                  >>times, so I'd say that EP' ALHQEIAS is just an expression popular in Greek
                  >>at the time. Luke's usage is not so frequent, as a compared to Mark, to
                  >>make it a Lukanism.
                  >
                  >Thanks for the TLG database info, which is really helpful. My argument
                  >certainly demonstrates a case where the evidence is compatible with the
                  >Two-Gospel Hypothesis, and is even illuminated by it, even if the expression
                  >is ruled out on technical grounds as being a "Lukanism". Apart from Mark,
                  >Luke is the only NT author who uses the expression EP'ALHQEIAS, and he uses
                  >it as many as five times all together.

                  The problem is the relative lengths of the texts. Luke is already
                  longer than Mark and adding Acts to the mix makes the Lukan corpus
                  even longer. The frequency that Luke-Acts uses the expression has
                  to be adjusted for the relative lengths of the corpora. According
                  to Morganthaler, Mark (inc. 16:9-20) has 11242 words, while Luke has
                  19428 and Acts 18382. Thus, Luke-Acts is almost 2.5 times longer
                  than Mark. Crudely, this makes the comparison in terms of lengths
                  of text, only one in Mark per 10,000 words to two per 10,0000 words
                  of Luke-Acts. Not impressive.

                  >Mark only has the expression in a
                  >passage parallel to Luke, and in another passage in the same chapter, where
                  >he arguably was looking back to that passage as the beginning of a literary
                  >unit consisting of controversy stories. Recall that it is precisely an
                  >"unusual" word or expression that is usually regarded as most suitable
                  >material for a literary inclusion, and this has to rate as such, given the
                  >complete absence of the expression in the remainder of the NT, and in spite
                  >of the TLG data.

                  I don't see anything "unusual" about the expression. It is not
                  uncommon in Koine, and restricting the corpus to the NT, though
                  easy to do, is artificial. There just isn't even data to justify
                  any conclusion. The paucity of evidence makes this case "compatible"
                  with any synoptic theory, including the Two-Gospel Hypothesis.

                  Here's a list of words I once analyzed that I would consider "Lukan":
                  <pre>
                  U(POSTRE/FW (0/0/21) Matt-100% Mark-100% Luke+151%
                  XA/RIS (0/0/8) Matt-100% Mark- Luke+151%
                  FI/LOS (1/0/15) Matt-083% Mark-100% Luke+135%
                  *)IEROUSALH/M (2/0/27) Matt-082% Mark-100% Luke+134%
                  *ZAXARI/AS (1/0/10) Matt- Mark- Luke+128%
                  EU)AGGELI/ZW (1/0/10) Matt- Mark- Luke+128%
                  DE/OMAI (1/0/8) Matt- Mark- Luke+123%
                  PI/MPLHMI (2/0/13) Matt- Mark-100% Luke+118%
                  E)PAI/RW (1/0/6) Matt- Mark- Luke+115%
                  NOMIKO/S (1/0/6) Matt- Mark- Luke+115%
                  SUNE/XW (1/0/6) Matt- Mark- Luke+115%
                  E)/TOS (1/2/15) Matt-085% Mark- Luke+109%
                  PARAXRH=MA (2/0/10) Matt- Mark- Luke+109%
                  U(PA/RXW (3/0/15) Matt- Mark-100% Luke+109%
                  PLH=QOS (0/2/8) Matt-100% Mark- Luke+101%
                  QOBE/OMAI (1/1/8) Matt- Mark- Luke+101%
                  *MARIA/M (4/0/13) Matt- Mark-100% Luke+092%
                  E(/TEROS (10/0/32) Matt- Mark-100% Luke+091%
                  TE/ (3/0/9) Matt- Mark- Luke+088%
                  EI)RH/NH (4/1/14) Matt- Mark- Luke+085%
                  DE/KA (3/1/11) Matt- Mark- Luke+084%
                  O(MOI/WS (3/1/11) Matt- Mark- Luke+084%
                  R(H=MA (5/2/19) Matt- Mark- Luke+084%
                  PLH/N (5/1/15) Matt- Mark-079% Luke+079%
                  SU/N (4/6/23) Matt-068% Mark- Luke+075%
                  A)NH/R (8/4/27) Matt-045% Mark- Luke+074%
                  LAO/S (14/2/36) Matt- Mark-083% Luke+074%
                  KLAI/W (2/3/11) Matt-067% Mark- Luke+073%
                  E)RWTA/W (4/3/15) Matt- Mark- Luke+071%
                  NU=N (4/3/14) Matt- Mark- Luke+067%
                  OU)XI/ (9/0/18) Matt- Mark-100% Luke+067%
                  *)ABRAA/M (7/1/15) Matt- Mark-081% Luke+064%
                  E)GGI/ZW (7/3/18) Matt- Mark- Luke+061%
                  POREU/OMAI (29/0/51) Matt- Mark-100% Luke+060%
                  A(MARTWLO/S (5/6/18) Matt-054% Mark- Luke+056%
                  </pre>

                  Stephen Carlson
                  --
                  Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                  Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
                  "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35


                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Joseph Weaks
                  ... No. Not at all. In fact, this represent a tremendous inadequacy in method. The point of the TLG data reveals that the phrase is common in koine (according
                  Message 8 of 10 , Apr 11, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Apr 11, 2004, at 10:46 AM, Maluflen@... wrote:
                    > Recall that it is precisely an "unusual" word or expression that is
                    > usually regarded as most suitable material for a literary inclusion,
                    > and this has to rate as such, given the complete absence of the
                    > expression in the remainder of the NT, and in spite of the TLG data.

                    No. Not at all. In fact, this represent a tremendous inadequacy in
                    method. The point of the TLG data reveals that the phrase is common in
                    koine (according to SC; I didn't run the search myself). I'm sure there
                    are a tremendous number of words or short phrases that only occur in
                    two, independent works.

                    Joe Weaks


                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                    For Stephen Carlson and Joseph Weaks, I am unable to respond properly to your posts, since I am without access to sources and good emailing capabilities where
                    Message 9 of 10 , Apr 13, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      For Stephen Carlson and Joseph Weaks, I am unable to respond properly to your posts, since I am without access to sources and good emailing capabilities where I am vacationing this week. I will pick up the discussion again when I return, if I have time and/or the inclination. In the meantime, thanks for your comments and contributions.

                      Leonard Maluf
                      Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                      Weston, MA

                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Emmanuel Fritsch
                      ... Did they once answer the list of lukanisms proposed by Boismard ? Do they address the special case of Egeneto ? a+ manu Synoptic-L Homepage:
                      Message 10 of 10 , Apr 14, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Maluflen@... wrote:

                        > Fitzmyer and others who reject the Two Gospel Hypothesis often use the
                        > argument that there are no Lukanisms in Mark,

                        Did they once answer the list of lukanisms proposed by Boismard ?

                        Do they address the special case of "Egeneto" ?

                        a+
                        manu



                        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.