[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: periphrastics

'Bearded Bill' wrote (some omitted):

> what would you make of instances in the synoptics, for example,
> where luke has hv didackwv 4,31 while mark has edidacke 1,21?
> couldn't one glean several more of these from the synoptics? don't
> they at least tend toward 'no distinction'?
> 
> granted that special problems can beset synoptic interchangeability,
> the method nonetheless calls in question a great many asserted but
> unsupported fine distinctions.

I find this most interesting and it has got me looking at the 
synopsis, my favourite activity.  In the example cited (Luke 4.31) it 
is interesting not just that Luke has HN DIDASKWN in parallel to 
Mark's EDIDASKE but also that Mark goes on with HN DIDASKWN too 
(1.22b) - are the two terms being used interchangeably here?  (1.22b 
also paralleled in Matt. 7.29).

On the general point I would broadly agree that synoptic comparisons 
like this can help to clarify things, but I would be a little wary 
too.  What I would really want to know, and find most interesting, is 
how does *Luke* use the periphrastic?  Is EDIDASKEN interchangeable 
for him with HN DIDASKWN, for example?  It looks to me, at first 
glance, that it is not interchangeable.  HN DIDASKWN (4.31, 5.17, 
13.10) seems, with the possible exception of 19.47, to be used for 
introducing pericopae - 'Jesus was teaching and then . . .'  On the 
other hand, EDIDASKEN (4.15, 5.3) seems to be used for summary 
statement - 'Jesus was teaching (full stop)'.

On the other hand, the fact that Mark in 1.21f uses *both* EDIDASKEN 
and HN DIDASKWN  in the same immediate context could suggest 
interchangeability.

This is a quick observation, not a big theory, so feel free to point 
out errors!

Kind wishes,

Mark   [P.S. Many thanks for the kind things you (Bearded Bill of 
Asheville) said about my contribution on Romans 7.1-6 the other day.  
After the discussion with Jim Beale and Andrew Goddard on that I 
am left wondering whether I made the mistake of going into too much 
detail on something that I think is very straightforward, at the risk 
of obscuring a simple exegesis]

------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre
Department of Theology
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham   B15 2TT

Tel.: 0121 414 7512         Email: M.S.Goodacre@Bham.ac.uk
Fax.: 0121 414 6866
References: