Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator? 23 the focus of the story to v. 12. Bock recognises elements of both forms75 and Marshall describes it as “a healing story which ... culminates in a pronouncement”76. The problem of identification is complicated by the fact that the categories of form criticism (pronouncement, miracle, etc.) are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Luke did not confine himself to one form at a time but apparently felt free to combine and rework the traditions he received in accordance with his own purposes. For Luke the climactic point of this discourse seems to be the pronoun- cement in vv. 15-16. Although there is evidence of a miracle tradition behind this story, the miracles in Luke’s journey narrative (9,51 - 19,44) tend to be incidental rather than central. Bock has astutely observed that “each miracle emphasizes not the healing but the teaching that follows”by. In view of this, the healing of the crippled woman is probably to be taken as setting the scene for the subsequent pronouncement in vv. 15-16. Lon- gacre has observed that “rhetorical questions may be used with effect at the peak of a story”78, which certainly seems to be the case in this instan- ce. It is fitting that Jesus’ last appearance at a Synagogue is epitomized by “scandalous” rhetoric that puts his opponents to shame. Although this climactic pronouncement contains several present tense forms, it also contains several aorist tense forms. This is not dissimilar from the introductory details except that there we also find Porter’s frontground tense (ἀπολέλυσαι), but in a background context (v. 12). Furthermore, within the pronouncement, it is the practice of loosing (λύει) oxen and donkeys and giving them a drink (ποτίζει) that supports Jesus’ release (λυθῆναι) of the woman from her sickness (vv. 15-16). Thus, although this discourse provides some present tense verbs precisely where Porter’s proposal would anticipate, it also presents some examples that are not explainable on the basis of his hypothesis. Jesus’ destiny (13,31-33) Although Taylor considered the main point to be the narrative incident rather than the pronouncement79, given the significance of the journey to Jerusalem in this part of Luke’s gospel, the emphasis is more likely to lie with the pronouncement80. This is confirmed by the presence of the Bock, Luke, 2:1213. 75 Marshall, Luke, 556. 76 Bock, Luke, 2:1397. The only exception to this is the healing of the blind beggar 77 (18:35-43), which is a fairly typical miracle story (see above). Longacre, Grammar, 42. 78 Taylor, Formation, 75, 153, cited by Fitzmyer, Luke, 2:1028. 79 So Fitzmyer, Luke, 2:1028-29; Bultmann, History, 35; Nolland, Luke, 2:738-9. 80