Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Synoptic-L] Gerasene Demoniac (Mk 5,1-12) - Boisamrd's analysis

Expand Messages
  • Emmanuel Fritsch
    I correct my mail on Gerasene Demoniac (dated 16 May), turning closer to Boismard and improving the presentation. Many synoptic phenomena in Mk 5,1-12 should
    Message 1 of 5 , May 28, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I correct my mail on Gerasene Demoniac (dated 16 May),
      turning closer to Boismard and improving the presentation.


      Many synoptic phenomena in Mk 5,1-12 should retain our
      attention. Faced to discontinuity, discrepancies and
      strange concentration of Markan hapaces, Boismard
      proposes a single unifying explanation.


      I list the synoptic phenomena attested in this passage :

      * Inconsistencies :

      . Gerasene is not in the Galilean lake area. The location of
      the story in Mark is not consistent with the context.
      . The demon is single, and then he is multiple.
      . Are there other example in NT where a demon does not obey
      to Jesus at the first injonction ? (this is not Boismard,
      but personal question)
      . the man first "came from the tombs to meet him". And
      then "When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and
      fell on his knees in front of him". Twice the same
      action !

      All this inconsistencies are constituted by two terms, each one
      separated by the v.9 : if you consider the begining of the passage
      as indepedant to the end, all inconsistencies vanish.


      * stylistic discontinuity :

      - two different greek words for "tombs" (MNEMEION and MNEMASIN)
      (are they really so different ? This is a personal interrogation)

      - two different greek words for the poor guy, presented as "unclean
      spirit" in the begining (v2, and 8, but 13) and "demoniac" at the
      end (v.15, 16, 18).

      I mistakenly gave "demoniac" as matthean. Boismard only notes that
      "unclean spirit" may be marcian. I thank all of you that gave a
      count of "Demoniac" and "unclean spirit" in the synoptic. But
      what would be interesting and relevant to rebuke Boismard here
      is a detailed count of other passages where an "unclean spirit"
      changes into "demoniac".


      * Lukan wording :

      v.9 : ONOMA SOI - ONOMA MOI is a hapax of Mark, but common in Luke
      v.12 : "send us" is a hapax of Mark, but is common to Luke and John.
      (4,1,10,32,11)
      v.14 : "what had happened" is a hapax of Mark, but seven time in Luke/Act,
      and nowhere else in the NT.
      v.16 : DIEGESANTO MOS is found in Act 9,27 and 11,13
      v.18 : DIAMONISVEIS with the synoptic Luke (8,36) is a hapax of NT.
      v.19 : "the lord" , in a sentence of Jesus may only apply to God. Only
      one occurence in Mark (13,20) but common to Luke.
      v.19 : DIAGGELLEIN is once here, once in lk, once in Act.
      v.20 : "all (..) were amazed" is a hapax of Mark, but occures
      three times in Luke.

      This is the second part of the text, parallel to the Matthean
      version. For the first part, Boismard finds only one Lukanism :

      v.7 : "the Most High" is a hapax of Mark, and appears elsevhere
      in NT in Luke (5 occurences) Act (twice) and Heb (once)


      * comparison with Capernaum exorcism :

      If you cancel all Matthean details (those with lukanian
      vocabulary) you find a Capernaum-like exorcism, ie. a
      typical Markan story.


      Finally, Boismard proposition is : this passage is a conflation
      of Matthew version with a Markan Capernaum-like exorcism. Due to
      Luke style, Boismard calls "Marko-Lukanian redactor" the ultimate
      redactor of this text.

      If you may present another better explanation for all the strange
      details found in this passage, I would be happy to have your point
      of view.

      Thanks in advance

      a+
      manu

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Thanks to Emmanuel Fritsch for his detailed account in English of Boismard s analysis of the Gerasene Demoniac, Mk 5.1-20. I think that many of the points, for
      Message 2 of 5 , May 28, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks to Emmanuel Fritsch for his detailed account in English of
        Boismard's analysis of the Gerasene Demoniac, Mk 5.1-20.

        I think that many of the points, for instance the inconsistencies, can
        be explained in countless different ways, including on the basis of the
        Two Document Hypothesis, the Griesbach Hypothesis and the Farrer
        Hypothesis. It is surprising how easy it is to take any of these and
        produce a really convincing redaction-critical account of each pericope
        in the synoptic gospels. I do not see that Boismard is doing anything
        more than the advocate of another synoptic documentary hypothesis can
        achieve.

        For example, I find Michael Goulder's explanation of the Gerasene
        Demoniac absolutely brilliant as a redaction-critical application of the
        Farrer Hypothesis to "The Demoniac in the Tombs ("Luke: A New Paradigm"
        -- Sheffield 1989 -- pages 422-423), although I do not agree for one
        moment with the Farrer Hypothesis on the basis of which this explanation
        is produced.

        In my view, these redaction-critical explanations contribute nothing to
        solving the synoptic problem because they can proceed only by first
        assuming a synoptic documentary hypothesis to be true, when it may not
        be true at all.

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WILSON

        E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

        Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
        > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
        > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
        _

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 5/28/2001 2:56:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, brian@TwoNH.demon.co.uk writes:
        Message 3 of 5 , May 28, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 5/28/2001 2:56:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
          brian@... writes:

          << Thanks to Emmanuel Fritsch for his detailed account in English of
          Boismard's analysis of the Gerasene Demoniac, Mk 5.1-20.

          I think that many of the points, for instance the inconsistencies, can
          be explained in countless different ways, including on the basis of the
          Two Document Hypothesis, the Griesbach Hypothesis and the Farrer
          Hypothesis. It is surprising how easy it is to take any of these and
          produce a really convincing redaction-critical account of each pericope
          in the synoptic gospels. >>

          Brian, I have challenged you a number of times to produce a convincing
          redaction-critical account of Matt's text here as supposedly derived from
          Mark. There is no such thing, as you seem to know, since you have never
          attempted to respond to the challenge. This reduces by two the number of
          Synoptic hypotheses on the basis of which "a really convincing
          redaction-critical account" of this series of parallels can be given. Don't
          oversell the 2 DH and the Farrer Hypothesis! This particular set of parallels
          poses big time problems for both.

          Leonard Maluf

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Brian E. Wilson
          Leonard Maluf wrote -- ... Leonard, I find the 2DH explanation very convincing indeed in W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison s The Gospel According to Saint
          Message 4 of 5 , May 29, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Leonard Maluf wrote --
            >
            >Brian, I have challenged you a number of times to produce a convincing
            >redaction-critical account of Matt's text here as supposedly derived
            >from Mark. There is no such thing, as you seem to know, since you have
            >never attempted to respond to the challenge. This reduces by two the
            >number of Synoptic hypotheses on the basis of which "a really
            >convincing redaction-critical account" of this series of parallels can
            >be given.
            >
            Leonard,
            I find the 2DH explanation very convincing indeed in W. D.
            Davies and Dale C. Allison's "The Gospel According to Saint Matthew",
            (Edinburgh, 1991) 2:76-85, though, again, I do not accept the 2DH on
            which this redaction-critical account is based. Since both the 2DH and
            FH assume that Matthew used Mark without using Luke, I suppose the same
            explanation would do very well for the FH also, although this would not
            predispose me to accept the FH either.

            My experience is that it is easy to produce convincing redaction-
            critical explanations of this kind if you assume a synoptic documentary
            hypothesis and apply it to the material in the synoptic gospels. That is
            what Davies and Allison have done.
            >
            >Don't oversell the 2 DH and the Farrer Hypothesis!
            >
            This is where we disagree, Leonard. I am not selling either hypothesis.
            I am not showing that either is any good in any way. I am not justifying
            the 2DH or the FH. Redaction-critical accounts of material in a synoptic
            gospel are simply no test of the truth of a synoptic documentary
            hypothesis. You can go on producing your consistent redaction-critical
            explanations as long as you like, but in no way will that test the truth
            of your working source-critical synoptic documentary hypothesis -- that
            Matthew was written first, that Luke used Matthew, and that Mark used
            both Matthew and Luke. You are not selling the GH to me or anyone else
            when you produce your redaction-critical explanations of material in the
            synoptic gospels. You are simply assuming that your working hypothesis
            and applying it to the synoptic gospels, when in fact your working
            hypothesis may be false.
            >
            >This particular set of parallels poses big time problems for both.
            >
            I sincerely think they pose no redaction-critical problems for either
            hypothesis. Davies and Allison found no problems in accounting for
            Matthew's redaction of Mark, phrase by phrase, word by word, assuming
            the 2DH to be true.

            Best wishes,
            BRIAN WILSON

            E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

            Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
            > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
            > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
            _

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Brian E. Wilson
            On 28 May, 2001, Emmanuel Fritsch wrote -- ... Emmanuel, Just checking on this. You are right that this double usage -- ONOMA SOI...ONOMA MOI -- is a hapax of
            Message 5 of 5 , Jun 2, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              On 28 May, 2001, Emmanuel Fritsch wrote --
              >
              >* Lukan wording :
              >
              >v.9 : ONOMA SOI - ONOMA MOI is a hapax of Mark, but common in Luke
              >

              Emmanuel,
              Just checking on this. You are right that this double usage --
              ONOMA SOI...ONOMA MOI -- is a hapax of Mark. (The word ONOMA itself is
              not a hapax of course, but occurs 14 times in Mark.) However, far from
              this double usage -- ONOMA SOI...ONOMA MOI -- being "common in Luke" in
              fact it occurs nowhere at all in Luke. Neither is the double usage to be
              found in Acts.
              >
              >v.12 : "send us" is a hapax of Mark, but is common [in] Luke and John.
              >
              Just checking on this also. "send us" -- PEMYAS hHMAS -- is indeed a
              hapax in Mark. But again, far from this being "common [in] Luke" it is
              entirely absent from Luke. It is also completely absent from Acts.

              It seems the above two descriptions of the data are confused.
              >
              >v.14 : "what had happened" is a hapax of Mark, but seven times in
              >Luke/Act, and nowhere else in the NT.
              >
              I think you have got the data right this time. Unfortunately, however,
              the same word -- TO GEGONOS -- also occurs in the same context in the
              parallel Lukan version in verse 35. So it makes no sense to suggest that
              Mark's wording, the same as Luke's, has been redacted, does it?
              >
              >v.16 : DIEGESANTO POS is found in Act 9,27 and 11,13
              >
              But nowhere in Luke. Since Luke and Acts together are nearly four times
              the length of Mark, it would seem that this construction has more
              occurrences per thousand words in Mark than in Luke-Acts. This would
              seem to be evidence **against** the idea that Mark has been redacted by
              a Marco-Lukan redactor!
              >
              >v.18 : DAIMONISVEIS with the synoptic Luke (8,36) is a hapax of NT.
              >
              As I read the data, the particular grammatical form DAIMONISQEIS is not
              hapax of the NT, but occurs twice -- Mk 5.18 and Lk 8.36.
              >
              >v.19 : "the lord" , in a sentence of Jesus may only apply to God. Only
              > one occurrence in Mark (13,20) but common to Luke.
              >
              Why "in a sentence of Jesus", though? The gospel of Mark almost begins
              with "the lord" applying to God (Mk 1.3). This is weak.

              The other two items you list also seem weak.

              I am still not clear, however, how generally you are deciding what words
              are "Lukan". I think the confusion above indicates that you may not be
              clear either. If, however, we do not know what "Lukan wording" is, how
              can we test the idea that a "Marco-Lukan Redactor" has redacted Mark
              using "Lukan wording"?

              What we need to do is forget synoptic documentary hypotheses and state
              how, from a synopsis, we can obtain the data we need. How can someone
              who knows no synoptic documentary hypotheses at all, find "Lukan
              wording" in the synoptic gospels? We need clear instructions on how to
              spot "Lukan wording" using only a synopsis.

              Best wishes,
              BRIAN WILSON

              E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

              Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
              > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
              > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
              _

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.