tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post8783082727771131810..comments2024-03-28T00:45:18.442+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Maurice Robinson Responds to T.B. Williams pt. 2P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-47481212275565317132010-10-21T09:51:31.634+01:002010-10-21T09:51:31.634+01:00Robinson: "5. Williams cites (410-11) as “ano...Robinson: "5. Williams cites (410-11) as “another oddity” in 16:9 “the combination of ἐκβάλλω and παρά,” and builds an entire case on the awkwardness of this collocation."<br /><br />As pointed out, this is a major oversight on Williams' part. It has been pointed out since the early 19th century that Mark would have been more apt to have used εκ in 16:9 (cf. 5:28, 30; 7:15, 29; 9:25, etc.) rather than απο, which is more characteristic of Luke's style (4:41; 8:2, 33, 38, 46; 11:24, etc.). But what if Mark was drawing on the same source material as Luke (8:2)? Regardless, it is an obvious oversight that Williams sought to choose the more weakly attested παρα to argue his case.jonathancborlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03436966120291169954noreply@blogger.com