Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The Greek phrase εἶπεν δὲ means "and/but he said" (δὲ can be translated either as "and" or as "but"). Amongst the synoptic gospels, its frequency is given by John S. Hawkins as 0-0-59+15, meaning that neither Matthew nor Mark use the term at all, while Luke uses it 59 times in the gospel and another 15 times in Acts. It is, in other words, a thoroughly Lucan expression. (The instance in Matthew 12.47 is not counted because the verse is textually suspect. Even if we counted it, however, that would be one Matthean instance against 59 Lucan.)

The Marcionite gospel is notoriously difficult to reconstruct, and there are many, many passages about which we cannot be sure, but when I searched the Roth version of it for this Greek expression, I found the following. Of the 59 instances in canonical Luke, only 2 are actually attested as having been present in the Marcionite text (12.20 and 16.25), 1 is attested as having been changed from εἶπεν δὲ to ὁ δὲ εἶπεν (16.31), 10 are attested as having been part of material that is totally absent from the Marcionite text (such as the infancy narratives), and the rest are not attested as either present or absent (a few of these fall in verses that are generally attested in concept, but with no hope of reconstructing the specific wording).

Naturally, nothing can be built upon this factoid alone, especially since so many of the Lucan instances simply go unattested either way, but I thought it might be interesting.

Ben.

very, very interesting

Ben C. Smith wrote:The Greek phrase εἶπεν δὲ means "and/but he said" (δὲ can be translated either as "and" or as "but"). Amongst the synoptic gospels, its frequency is given by John S. Hawkins as 0-0-59+15, meaning that neither Matthew nor Mark use the term at all, while Luke uses it 59 times in the gospel and another 15 times in Acts. It is, in other words, a thoroughly Lucan expression. (The instance in Matthew 12.47 is not counted because the verse is textually suspect. Even if we counted it, however, that would be one Matthean instance against 59 Lucan.)

To avoid a misunderstanding - I think Ben know that - it should be said, that the phrase δὲ ... εἶπεν (with δὲ in front) is very often used by the other synoptics.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:The Greek phrase εἶπεν δὲ means "and/but he said" (δὲ can be translated either as "and" or as "but"). Amongst the synoptic gospels, its frequency is given by John S. Hawkins as 0-0-59+15, meaning that neither Matthew nor Mark use the term at all, while Luke uses it 59 times in the gospel and another 15 times in Acts. It is, in other words, a thoroughly Lucan expression. (The instance in Matthew 12.47 is not counted because the verse is textually suspect. Even if we counted it, however, that would be one Matthean instance against 59 Lucan.)

To avoid a misunderstanding - I think Ben know that - it should be said, that the phrase δὲ ... εἶπεν (with δὲ in front) is very often used by the other synoptics.

Yes, that is true. Thanks for making sure nothing is misunderstood. The phrase I am discussing is very specific, with the εἶπεν leading the clause.

Ben.

Interesting. I'm trying to wrap my head around what this might mean.

toejam wrote:Interesting. I'm trying to wrap my head around what this might mean.

It may well mean absolutely nothing. Roth seems reluctant to commit to the wording both of conjunctions (like de) and of words of speaking (like eipen). BeDuhn is far less reluctant to include them in his reconstruction, but of course he is giving that reconstruction in English, as a general sense of the passage; so he, likewise, is only rarely committing to any particular wording.

Ben.

I looked at Luke 12:20, and actually Tertullian does not attest εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ θεός, which the Vulgate renders dixit autem illi Deus. In order to make his point in conversational style of writing he paraphrases it cui Deus dicit when we would expect dixit before Deus were it a direct quote. He is really quoting the rest of the verse, and just indicating that "God said" was present.

With verses 16:25 and 16:31 we have a problem with the veracity of the report. In Dialogue Adamantius, quotes from the Catholic champion Adamantius are unreliable at best. My own examination has led me to the conclusion that the author of DA did not actually have a Marcionite text in front of him, but ratehr worked from earlier Marcionite works in part 1 and 2 and possibly part 5. While the Marcionite Champions are usually quoting from the Marcionite text - including the antithesis (so you have to be careful, since the nature of the antithesis is paraphrase of both NT and OT), Adamantius is using a Catholic text. 1 Corinthians 5:3-5 is an example of where the Marcionite champion and Adamantius are quoting back and forth from different texts.

Tertullian is no better for parsing. He attests the story is present, but only quotes verse 16:29

"They have there Moses and the prophets, let them hear them."
Habent illic Moysen et prophetas, illos audiant

However we probably have the full text of 16:29-31 from Epiphanius

Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them, since neither will they hear him that is risen from the dead.'
Εἶπεν Ἀβραάμ, ἔχουσι Μωυσέα καὶ τοὺς προφήτας, ἀκουσάτωσαν αὐτῶν, ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ τοῦ ἐγειρομένου ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀκούσουσιν

The reason I say this may be the original text is Epiphanius is not known to paraphrase Marcion. While his quotes are both sparse and few and fare between, they tend to be complete. There are also subtle theological differences in the presentation from Epiphanius, where the message is "they wont listen to Christ (him that is risen from the dead) so let them have the Law (Moses) and Prophets." This is a classic Marcionite juxtaposition of the NT against the OT. The meaning is they reject the new God from Christ, so let them try to get out of Hades with the Creator.

The text from Adamantius, even though it has an otherwise unattested textual variant is Catholic. And the Marcionite conclusion of the story is changed giving equality to the Old Testament and the New. "If they wont listen to the Law (Moses) and the Prophets, then they wont listen to Christ (someone from the dead)."

Verse 16:25 is attested but only partly from Epiphanius, 'But now he is comforted' Νῦν δὲ ὅδε παρακαλεῖται. So we have nothing really to go on for Marcion.

But it is interesting that you noticed this εἶπεν δὲ as Lukan. There are maybe 300 instances in the gospels of δὲ εἶπεν. Anyway I will add this to τε and παραχρῆμα as Lukan words that are not found in Marcion, whcih have no theological impact, and are purely stylistic.

I just came across this reading Sturdy's Redrawing the Boundaries p50

There are a number of significant differences in linguistic usage between
Luke and Acts. These are listed in various works, classically perhaps by
Hawkins in his Horae Synopticae (1909). The similarities between the two
texts are certainly strong. Hawkins on p. 175 lists 58 words peculiar to
Luke and Acts, while on p. 176 he has, for comparison, 17 words peculiar to
Matthew and Acts, 14 words peculiar to Mark and Acts, 13 words peculiar
to John and Acts.4 These similarities, however, can only be considered in
the midst of very significant differences. Among the most striking of these
are the fact that Acts has dropped eipen de; en to with infinitive

Ben C. Smith wrote:The Marcionite gospel is notoriously difficult to reconstruct, and there are many, many passages about which we cannot be sure, but when I searched the Roth version of it for this Greek expression, I found the following. Of the 59 instances in canonical Luke, only 2 are actually attested as having been present in the Marcionite text (12.20 and 16.25), 1 is attested as having been changed from εἶπεν δὲ to ὁ δὲ εἶπεν (16.31), 10 are attested as having been part of material that is totally absent from the Marcionite text (such as the infancy narratives), and the rest are not attested as either present or absent (a few of these fall in verses that are generally attested in concept, but with no hope of reconstructing the specific wording).

It's a pity that only a few instances are attested. Otherwise it might be possible to make a decision about the priority of Marcion or Luke on a linguistic basis.

But no matter, it's an interesting observation, Ben

split from: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1787