Word order in Lk. 4:18-19

[Stephen Hughes]

Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ’ ἐμέ, οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς· ἀπέσταλκέν με [ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τὴν καρδίαν Byz.RP2005]· κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν, καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν, ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει, 19 κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν.

Does the word order in this passage reflect the order of the Hebrew Vorlage? Is it in anyway strange Greek word-order? Is stringing a long list of purpose phrases together without conjunctions after ἀπέσταλκέν με okay Greek?

[George F Somsel]

Not really. It more or less follows the LXX with some omission and change of wording.

18 πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπʼ* ἐμὲ
οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με
εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς,*
ἀπέσταλκέν με,*⸆
κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν*
καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν,*
ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει,*
19 κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν.*

Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), Lk 4:18–19.

1 Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπʼ ἐμέ, οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέ με· εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς ἀπέσταλκέ με, ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τῇ καρδίᾳ, κηρῦξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν, 2 καλέσαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτὸν καὶ ἡμέραν ἀνταποδόσεως,

Joseph Ziegler, ed., Isaias, vol. XIV, Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), Is 61:1–2.

[Stephen Hughes]

Does the word order in this passage reflect the order of the Hebrew Vorlage?

Not really.

This is a reply in negative terms to the first of my three questions, right? I was assuming that I would get a yes/no (or some shades of grey answer for this first one).

[RandallButh]

In a sense you're both right.

The text is coming from Hebrew, but because of the Hebrew poetry the Hebrew is not prototypical.

And while it has been influenced by the LXX, Yeshuua` 's quotation is not coming from the LXX. The quotation(s) were formed and linked first in HEBREW.
Here is the breakdown:

Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ’ ἐμέ,
οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς·
ἀπέσταλκέν με [possibly: ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τὴν καρδίαν Byz]·
κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν,
καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν, [this is Septuagintal wording]
ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει, [this is from Isaiah 58 and based on a Hebrew rhetorical device called gzera shava. Luke's wording is accomodated to LXX]
κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν.
[This יום רצון יהוה ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν is the rhetorical link with Isaiah 58:5,
AND IT IS MISSING IN THE LXX to Is 58, so LXX could not have generated the rhetorical link between Is 61 and 58!]

[Stephen Hughes]

because of the Hebrew poetry the Hebrew is not prototypical

Is Hebrew poetry constructed without conjunctives?

[RandallButh]

because of the Hebrew poetry the Hebrew is not prototypical

Is Hebrew poetry constructed without conjunctives?

Often.

[Stephen Hughes]

This part Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ’ ἐμέ, οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με seems to be able to stand by itself?

Is it a dead-end question to wonder whether εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς· could go with words ἀπέσταλκέν με following it and then with the following list of similar infinitives of purpose? Would abandoning that question be based on Hebrew syntax or Greek?

My reason for bring it up is based on collocations:

The angel Gabriel's self-introduction and Christ's purposeful statement both collocate εὐαγγελίσασθαι with ἀπεστάλην

Ἐγώ εἰμι Γαβριὴλ ὁ παρεστηκὼς ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ· καὶ ἀπεστάλην λαλῆσαι πρός σε, καὶ εὐαγγελίσασθαί σοι ταῦτα.

Καὶ ταῖς ἑτέραις πόλεσιν εὐαγγελίσασθαί με δεῖ τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ· ὅτι εἰς τοῦτο ἀπεστάλμαι

If the expctation of motion is involved in involved in ἀποστεῖλαι, but no motion implied in the action of χρίω, within the development of ideas in Luke 4:18-19 then there is an implied collocation with ἀποστεῖλαι in passages like:

Ἐξερχόμενοι δὲ διήρχοντο κατὰ τὰς κώμας, εὐαγγελιζόμενοι καὶ θεραπεύοντες πανταχοῦ.

The construction in Acts 10:28 is a little less clear, but I take it the same as Luke 9:6, that from the observer's point of view, the verb διεξέρχεσθαι was the same non-intital meaning (assuming that the verb has two steps in its meaning) as ἀποστεῖλαι has from the sender and sent's points of view. That is to say that a person who got the command to ἀποστεῖλαι would be expected to διεξέρχεσθαι.

Ἰησοῦν τὸν ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ, ὡς ἔχρισεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεὸς πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ δυνάμει, ὃς διῆλθεν εὐεργετῶν καὶ ἰώμενος πάντας τοὺς καταδυναστευομένους ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἦν μετ’ αὐτοῦ.

[RandallButh]

Is it a dead-end question to wonder whether εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς· could go with words ἀπέσταλκέν με following it and then with the following list of similar infinitives of purpose? Would abandoning that question be based on Hebrew syntax or Greek?

What I gave was a line breakdown according to the Massoretic text. Here it is again:

Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ’ ἐμέ,
οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς·
ἀπέσταλκέν με [possibly: ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τὴν καρδίαν Byz]·
κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν,
καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν, [this is Septuagintal wording for a Hebrew phrase the was ambiguous]
ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει, [this is from Isaiah 58 and based on a Hebrew rhetorical device called gzera shava.
gzera shava are two conspicuous wordings that show up in different places in the Bible and are used to interpret each other.
Luke's wording is accomodated to LXX of Is 58, but the insertion of the line from Isaiah 58 was a Hebrew phenomenon done by Jesus]
κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν.
[This יום רצון יהוה ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν is the rhetorical link with Isaiah 58:5,
AND IT IS MISSING IN THE LXX to Is 58, so LXX could not have generated the rhetorical link between Is 61 and 58!]

The point is that Luke 4 records Jesus using a sophisticated rhetorical device of Hebrew that was based on the Hebrew text of Isaiah. Luke could not build that story in Greek because the texutal link didn't exist in the LXX and because such a practice was a Hebrew practice based on the Hebrew Bible, not a Greek practice.

So-
How many different ways could someone repunctuate Luke's Greek text of the event? Does it mattter?

[Stephen Hughes]

καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν, [this is Septuagintal wording for a Hebrew phrase the was ambiguous]

That is not an easy post for me to follow.

It seems that the ambiguity is that פְּקַח־קֹֽוחַ in the phrase; וְלַאֲסוּרִ֖ים פְּקַח־קֹֽוחַ׃ , "to those who are bound, the opening of prison" could be used literally of eyes. Keeping that part of the phrase literal and holding that it refers to eyes, leads to the need to ask who are the people whose eyes are bound - the blind. If however, the אֲסוּרִ֖ים is literal and referring to prisoners, the action of opening is something that must be situationally appropriate to that, and a metaphorical interpretation of פְּקַח־קֹֽוחַ as freedom (opening of a prison) can be made.

Luke's wording is accomodated to LXX of Is 58

The only way that can take this with a meaning is, "Luke's wording of καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν, accommodates the same interpretation of the Hebrew of the last phrase of Isaiah 61:1 as the LXX did in translation."

Now ... If I have understood you correctly, the Greek rendering of the Hebrew reading follows the same school interpretation (situational extended interpretation of אֲסוּרִ֖ים "those bound" -> "the blind") as the LXX did when they translated it into Greek. Then there is the insertion of ἀπόστελλε τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει from Isaiah 58:6, the gzera shava, a Jewish method given as the second of Rabbi Ishmael's thirteen rules. That far I can follow with confidence, but am I correct then in understanding that Jesus quoted / used the ἀπόστελλε τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει as a justification or explanation for the choice that was made in the interpretation of the passage as it was read in Hebrew, and you are saying that because Luke is using the Greek that follows that interpretation anyway, there was (a) no need to use the gzera shava in Greek, and (b) it shows that Jesus read from the Hebrew where he needed to make the interpretation of an ambiguous passage clear?

[This יום רצון יהוה ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν is the rhetorical link with Isaiah 58:5,
AND IT IS MISSING IN THE LXX to Is 58, so LXX could not have generated the rhetorical link between Is 61 and 58!]

Sorry, I am quite lost in regard to this part of your post. This what I guess you are getting at:

The phrase "[καλέσαι (LXX) / κηρύξαι (Luke)] ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν לִקְרֹ֤א שְׁנַת־רָצֹון֙ לַֽיהוָ֔ה is the first part of Isaiah 61:1. Is the close similarity in phraseology of the οὕτως καλέσετε νηστείαν δεκτήν וְיֹ֥ום רָצֹ֖ון לַיהוָֽה the basis for the interpretation based on parallelism of the ambiguous phrase near one of them, and the lucid phrase near the other one? Is it because the Hebrew has two words for periods of time שְׁנַת and יֹ֥ום that would allow for a gzera shava analogous interpretation, but having the LXX interpretation of יֹ֥ום as νηστεία to make it clear that it was referring to a day of fasting, just not obvious enough to build a gzera shava on in Greek.

... such a practice was a Hebrew practice based on the Hebrew Bible, not a Greek practice.

I'm sorry to say that perhaps I've misunderstood your tone here. It seems to not allow for other interpretations. There may be other right answers to the same problem. Being in Greek, doesn't necessarily change the way people do things. It is entirely probable there were not only Greeks, who were unaware of rabbinical modes of exposition, but also some Jews taking about and interpreting the Bible to other Jews in the synagogue. If it was read to / by Luke in Greek with the gzera shava included from habit (or now as a justification for the interpretation rather than as the interpretation by analogy itself), that may be evidence for a continuation of a reading tradition despite the change in language. Ways of doing things can sometimes stay the same even when languages change.

[RandallButh]

Now I'm a little confused from the questions.

Follow the chronology:

Jesus taught in synagogue, quoting Isaiah 61 in Hebrew and jumping to Isaiah 58 in Hebrew where he quoted one line before returning to Isaiah 61.

The story was repeated in the Jerusalem Church, probably in Hebrew and written down in Hebrew by Matthew (acc. to Papias).

The story was written/translated into Greek materials. Probably also in Jerusalem where Luke would have had access 60-62.

Luke heard/read the story and fit it into his gospel.

Either Luke or his source relied on some of the word choices of the LXX when quoting the biblical material.