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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Lukan wording : methodology

Expand Messages
  • Emmanuel Fritsch
    # Emmanuel said : # In order to answer the question, imagine you find in Mark some passages # with a higher concentration of words and stylistic
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 7, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      # Emmanuel said :
      # >In order to answer the question, imagine you find in Mark some passages
      # >with a higher concentration of words and stylistic characteristics
      # >that appear once in Mark, and only once also in Luke+Act, and imagine
      # >that in rest of Mark, these characteristics are rare.
      # >
      # Brian answered :
      # If we "find in Mark some passages with higher concentration of words and
      # stylistic characteristics **that appear once in Mark**", then we have no
      # need to "imagine that in the rest of Mark, these characteristics are
      # rare". For if they appear once in Mark in such passages, then
      # necessarily they are totally absent from the rest of Mark.

      Sorry if your misundertanding comes from my bad english :
      - in Mk 5,9-20, there are several hapaxes that you find also in Luke.
      - in Mk 5,1-8, such elements are rare (only one)

      As I said before, a random repartition of these elements would
      give such a heterogenous repartition only with a probability
      inferior to 20%.
      And I think that taking the whole gospel into consideration
      will decrease this probabiity toward 1 or 0,1%.

      So the link between the vocabulary of Mark and Luke is an observable
      fact. There is a "Marko-Lukan" phenomenon, and this is not a theory
      nor an hypothesis.


      # >This would constitute an heterogeneity that you should explain : why
      # >would have the Markan redactor concentrated in some passages his
      # >hapaxes that are also hapaxes of Luke ?
      # >
      # Your question here assumes your hypothesis - that there was a redactor
      # of Mark who knew some form of Luke+Acts. We cannot observe what any
      # redactor has done in the synoptic gospels, as you have already agreed
      # with me in a previous posting to this List. Please do not ask such
      # questions. They are a waste of time. They are confused.

      I do not assume my hypothesis, but yours. There is a Markan
      redactor in your hypothesis, or do you mean that gospels were
      given by ET ? OK. I rewrite it without any "redactors" :

      If you find :
      - stylistic elements appearing in Luke
      - that appear also in Mark, but as hapaxes, and concentrated in some
      passages, so that their occurence may not be considered as randomly
      distributed,
      then this should constitute a synoptic phenomenon.

      In a second step only, if these elements are specific to Luke,
      i.e. they are more frequent in Luke than in Matthew, then you
      may qualify it as "Marko-Lukan" phenomenon. But if the term
      hurt you, please propose another one. The most important is
      the existence of the phenomenon, or the discussion about it.

      # I think you need to express your question without referring to any
      # redactor or any synoptic documentary hypothesis.

      There IS a redactor : I don't know who he is, if he was first
      or last, if he translated a previous document or composed
      directly in greek, etc. All this is hypothesis, I agree.

      But there is not an "hypothesis" to assume that Mark gospel were
      writen by at least one real human, with real brain. This is not an
      hypothesis. And so, there is no hypothesis presupposed when speaking
      about the redactor of a gospel. When I said "the redactor of Mark" it
      meant "the guy who wrote Mark, whatever he/she/they is/are.
      For that reason, I do not see why you say I can not speak about "the
      redactor" of a passage, and it looks as an attempt to avoid to address
      real problems. But your are the scholar, and if speaking about the
      redactor will hurt you, I forget it for the moment.

      So, coming back to your hypothetical example : the word KAI

      The word KAI occurs very often in Luke. And very often in Mark.
      What can we say with that ? Nothing. But imagine now that KAI
      would appear in Mark only in some passages, and elsewhere in
      Mark, KAI would not be used.

      May we not think that such a heterogeneity would be strange ?
      Would that not constitute a synoptic phenomenon ? Should you
      not feel challenged to explain it ?

      Thanks a lot for your answers.

      a+
      manu


      PS - this is off topic for that time being, but I would like
      to know what is exactly your reference when you speak about
      "Boismard 1994" ? Is it only the book on "prehistory of Mark" ?
      Or are there other more global references ?

      # >Boismard observes that some passages of Mark look heterogeneous since
      # >they contain an important number of words you do not find elsewhere
      # >in Mark, but you find in Luke. Is this fact significant ?
      # >
      # Emmanuel,
      # Not according to Boismard's 1994 Hypothesis!!
      #
      # Boismard assumes that no other writer or redactor used Luke. According
      # to Boismard, the "Marck-Lucan redactor" used a source of Luke, not Luke
      # itself. So if Boismard's 1994 Hypothesis is true, what we find in Luke
      # was not necessarily the source of Mark in any way, since anything we
      # find in Luke may have been wording supplied by Luke himself as he
      # redacted his source material.

      Are you sure ? When you write a scientific paper,
      are you the author you quote with predilection ?

      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.