[Synoptic-L] Boismard Fallacy -2
- Thank you Brian for taking the bull by the horns. Your last two posts
finally cite the actual verses and Greek words concretizing the argument,
i.e., making it a visible observable phenomenon, and in this process what
you have to say becomes not only clear but abundantly obvious.
Boismard assumes Lucan wording as either a word or word clusters also
observable in Mark that he fantasizes were retrofitted by a Luco-Marcan
redactor. The key question is why doesn't he argue that they are original
to Mark and Luke borrowed them?
Emmanuel Fritsch wrote (Synoptic-L archive No. 6234):
It is hard to imagine that Luke found some hapax in Mark and
decided to include it in his own vocabulary. Harder to imagine
that all this is coincidence. More certainly, according Boismard,
a Lucan redactor completed Mark to give him his final redaction.
Boismard realizes that Ur-Marcus has been put to rest. What are his
options? It seems to be that Boismard is cognizant that the evidence goes
the other way. Since it goes the other way and "if" Mark is prior to Luke
then a phantom-redactor is required.
M.-E. Boismard, The Two-Source Theory at an
Impasse, NTS 26 (1979): 1-17
"The Griesbach hypothesis explains features not accounted for by the
two-source theory, but the reverse is also true. There is a need to combine
the two theories by considering intermediate stages of redaction as well as
Unfortunately the entire concept of phantom-redactors is nonsense invented
by theorists who always fail to see the impossibility of the entire concept.
I quote from Synoptic-L archive No. 6269
"I refer you to the Synoptic-L postings in the archive Nrs. 6246, 6248,
6258, 6259 that discuss this same unfounded notion of "phantom redactors"
that somehow managed to gather every single copy, or better yet "the actual
author's original autograph" and changed it. I think Hollywood and fiction
writers have had more influence on this type of thinking than serious
What is the end result? Boismard has no way out. He's trapped. The
evidence goes the other way looking like Mark borrowed from Luke. It can't
be true according every member on this list (excluding me of course). Then
show me how it can't be. Nobody can give an answer. Boismard knew it. He
erroneously thought that the phantom redactor would explain it all. The
only problem is the whole notion is smoke and mirrors, intellectual
obfuscation or bovine scatology based on non-reality.
The arguments against Boismard are also found in the Synoptic-L archive Nos.
According to E. P. Sanders and M. Davies, "Studying the Synoptic
> Gospels" (London, 1989) --What Sanders and Davies failed to point out was a good bottle of Scotch
> >What counts against Boismard's theory is that it combines complication,
> >precision and hypothetical documents in a way that defies evidence. On
> >the one hand, relationships are complicated. There were sources, the
> >sources were shared by intermediate redactors, and the final redactors
> >drew on more than one intermediate redaction. On the other hand, we are
> >required to think that these steps can be precisely traced and that the
> >hypothetical documents Q, A, B, and C really existed and can be
> >reconstructed. In explaining everything, Boismard takes us into the
> >realm of conjecture, where everything is possible." (page 111)
(Glenlivit or Glenffidich) is also required. Ice and/or soda is optional.
Peace in Christ,
John N. Lupia
501 North Avenue B-1
Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
<>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><>
"during this important time, as the eve of the new millennium approaches . .
. unity among all Christians of the various confessions will increase until
they reach full communion." John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 16
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...