Adelbert Denaux, «Style and Stylistcs, with Special Reference to Luke.», Vol. 19 (2006) 31-51
Taking Saussure’s distinction between language (langue) and speech
(parole) as a starting point, the present article describes a concept of ‘style’
with special reference to the use of a given language system by the author of
Luke-Acts. After discussing several style definitions, the question is raised
whether statistics are helpful for the study of style. Important in the case of
Luke is determining whether his use of Semitisms is a matter of style or of
language, and to what extent he was influenced by ancient rhetoric. Luke’s
stylistics should focus on his preferences (repetitions, omissions, innovations)
from the range of possibilities of his language system (“Hellenistic Greek”),
on different levels (words, clauses, sentences, rhetorical-narrative level and
socio-rhetorical level), within the limits of the given grammar, language
development and literary genre.
43
Style and Stylistcs, with Special Reference to Luke
In Lukan studies research on style is normally linked to one form or
another of literary criticism. So-called “Lukan characteristics†play i.a.
an important role in the textual criticism of Luke-Acts. The question
arises whether, besides the Alexandrian text (represented a.o. by codices
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), the quite divergent “Western†text (represented
a.o. by Codex Bezae) is also from Luke51. Lukan characteristics also play a
crucial role in the question of distinguishing tradition and redaction and
of the mutual interdependence of the gospels. The problem is that scholars
have a different approach: either their study is totally independent from
source-criticial theories (e.g. T. Vogel), or they start from the hypothesis
of Markan priority (e.g. J.C. Hawkins, H. Cadbury, F. Neirynck), or the
Griesbach-hypothesis (i.e. Mark as compilator of Mattew and Luke) (e.g.
F.J.G. Collison), or a Proto-Luke-theory (e.g. F. Rehkopf; H. Schürmann).
Here the danger arises of circular reasoning: one starts from what one
would like to prove. In other words: is it possible to analyse the style
of the Gospels independently from literary hypotheses concerning the
interdependence of the Gospels or, if that is impossible, is it possible
to develop an “objective†model that can function within every literary
hypothesis or whereby one can distinguish between an “objectiveâ€
description of linguistic data on the one hand, and an interpretation
within certain models of literary dependence on the other hand? The
question is even more complex in the Book of Acts. Within the New
Testament this writing is unique in its kind: a reconstruction of its
sources or the traditions that lie behind it is still more hypothetical than
in the case of the Gospels (which are comparable among each other).
4. Style and Semitisms
Although Luke has rightly been called the most hellenistic author of the
four Evangelists, his language is characterised by a remarkable number
of so-called “semitisms†(resp. Hebraïsms, Aramaïsms, Septuagintisms)52.
At least three questions may be raised in this respect. First, the question
of definition: what do we mean exactly by “semitismâ€; is it “an aberration
See the status quaestionis of J. Delobel, “The Text of Luke-Acts: A Confrontation of
51
Recent Theoriesâ€, in J. Verheyden (ed.), The Unity of Luke-Acts (BETL 142; Leuven 1999)
83-107.
K. Beyer, Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament. I/ I (SUNT 1; Göttingen 1962) 298,
52
gives the following statistical comparison of syntactic semitisms: Mt: 329 (4,84 per page);
Mk: 113 (2,69 per page); Lk: 422 (5,86 per page); John: 173 (3,2 per page); Acts: 74 (1,06
per page).
FOLLOW US