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

[Synoptic-L] Boismard on Mk 5:1-20

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... the synoptic problem ]. This comment prompts me to reply rather belatedly to your posting dated 28 May 2001. If anyone at the time did challenge Emmanuel
    Message 1 of 19 , Sep 5, 2001
      Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

      > For instance I think that Boismard would propose the Lukanian
      > wording in Mark as an evidence for the list [ of evidence relating to
      the synoptic problem ].

      This comment prompts me to reply rather belatedly to your posting
      dated 28 May 2001.

      If anyone at the time did challenge Emmanuel on the details presented
      there, then please accept my apologies for any repetition.

      Emmanuel presented the following as evidence of Lukan wording in this
      Markan story:

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

      Emmanuel,

      (1) The phrase ONOMA SOI does not occur at all in Luke.
      (2) The mention of John is surely irrelevant to your case. I could only
      find one example of "send us" in Luke (7:20). It is true that PEMPW
      occurs only once here at Mark 5:12 and ten times in Luke, but Mark's use
      is in a rather unusual situation: on the lips of unclean spirits. Mark
      may have simply used an atypical word for an atypical situation.
      (3) "what had happened" occurs twice in Mark (5:14,16) and three or four
      times in Luke. So what?
      (4) DIHGHSANTO does not occur at all in Acts (check the spelling)!
      (5) DAIMONISQEIS occurs in the synoptics only in the Markan swine story
      and its Lukan parallel. So what? Luke could have copied it from Mark, as
      would probably be accepted by most commentators.
      (6) "the lord" in a sentence of Jesus also occurs at Mark
      12:29,29,30,36.
      (7) DIAGGELLEIN is absent from Mark!
      (8) PANTES in conjunction with EQAUM... occurs in Mark 5:20 and Luke
      1:63; 2:18; 4:22. But as two of these occurrences are in Luke's birth
      narratives which have no equivalent in Mark, this can hardly be counted
      as significant.
      (9) Again, 3 of the occurrences of "Most High" are in the Lukan birth
      narratives. Thus we are left with only one in Mark's story of the deeds
      of Jesus and two in Luke's. This is insignificant.

      In addition,the implied deductions from occurrences in Acts are
      questionable. There was no corresponding second volume of Mark. Even if
      there are in some cases many occurrences in Luke-Acts and few in Mark,
      to be fair we would have to take into account the relative sizes of
      these texts, roughly 7:2.

      Thus I contend that the presentation of evidence on these verses by
      Boismard, or at least your interpretation of it, is biased, inaccurate,
      and overall insignificant.

      Ron Price

      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 9/5/2001 9:48:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ron.price@virgin.net writes:
      Message 2 of 19 , Sep 5, 2001
        In a message dated 9/5/2001 9:48:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
        ron.price@... writes:

        <<
        Emmanuel,

        (1) The phrase ONOMA SOI does not occur at all in Luke. >>

        Ron, I haven't had time to fully check your other responses to Emmanuel, but
        this one is weak. The fact that the phrase ONOMA SOI does not occur as such
        in Luke misses what was obviously the point of Boismard's observation,
        namely, that the use of the dative of possession with ONOMA is typically
        Lukan in the Synoptics (Lk 1:26, 27; 2:25, 8:30 [SOI ONOMA!]; 8:41; 24:13;
        Acts 13:6), is found not at all in Matthew, and only here in Mark. This must
        then qualify as a Lukanism in Mark, even if not one on which much could be
        based, taken by itself. Elsewhere in the NT (with the exception of Jn and
        Rev, if I am not mistaken) a name is related possessively to a person through
        the personal pronoun in the genitive case, or [rarely] through the possessive
        adjective (as in Matt 18:20; cf. 1 Cor 1:15). Your point is thus technically
        accurate, but not decisive, and calls for greater accuracy of expression on
        the part of Emmanuel, but not a withdrawal of the point as part of a chain of
        evidence of Lukanisms in Mk 5:1-20.

        Leonard Maluf

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Emmanuel Fritsch
        ... You are quite hard with me. Yes, I know that contributing to an academic list, I must adopt an academic standard, and I thank you for your severity. I will
        Message 3 of 19 , Sep 6, 2001
          Ron Price answers an old mail of mine (28 May 2001) and concludes :

          > Thus I contend that the presentation of evidence on these verses by
          > Boismard, or at least your interpretation of it, is biased, inaccurate,
          > and overall insignificant.

          You are quite hard with me. Yes, I know that contributing
          to an academic list, I must adopt an academic standard, and
          I thank you for your severity. I will try to join your level.

          My presentation of Boismard was inacurate. I will try
          to make it clearer, and answer your position.

          First, I remember the context : there are some well-known
          heterogeneities in the swine story in Mark (the town does
          not fit with the lake, the designation of the demoniac swaps
          from "unclean spirit" toward "demoniac", after the v.8 the
          capernaum-like demon becomes matthean-like demons, etc.).

          Boismard says that these heterogeneities fit another
          heterogeneity, found in the distribution of markan
          hapaxes that are present in Lukan style.

          Now your answer :

          (1)
          > >v.9 : ONOMA SOI - ONOMA MOI is a hapax of Mark, but common in Luke
          >
          > (1) The phrase ONOMA SOI does not occur at all in Luke.

          I apologize for this inacurracy : As Leonard ackowledged just before,
          Boismard does not say the wording is lukan, but the verbal construction.

          I count this first element.

          (2)
          > >v.12 : "send us" is a hapax of Mark, but is common to Luke and John.
          > > (4,1,10,32,11)
          >
          > (2) The mention of John is surely irrelevant to your case. I could only
          > find one example of "send us" in Luke (7:20). It is true that PEMPW
          > occurs only once here at Mark 5:12 and ten times in Luke, but Mark's use
          > is in a rather unusual situation: on the lips of unclean spirits. Mark
          > may have simply used an atypical word for an atypical situation.

          May you give an example of such a phenomenon elsewhere ?

          For example, do you find such markan Hapax on the lips of
          the unclean spirit, in the first part of the swine story ?

          If not, your explanation looks as an "ad hoc" proposition.

          But whatever its validity, for that time being, we do not
          interpret the phenomenon, we just check the existence of the
          phenomenon.

          I count this element.


          (3)
          > >v.14 : "what had happened" is a hapax of Mark, but seven time in Luke/Act,
          > > and nowhere else in the NT.
          >
          > (3) "what had happened" occurs twice in Mark (5:14,16) and three or four
          > times in Luke. So what?

          "to gegonoV", according Boismard, is a Hapax of Mark, and occurs also
          in parallel Lk 8:35, and Lk 2:15, 8:34.56, 24:12, Act 4:21, 5:7, 13:12,

          So what ? This is a lucanian element, hapax in Mark. I count it.


          (4)
          > >v.16 : DIEGESANTO MOS is found in Act 9,27 and 11,13
          >
          > (4) DIHGHSANTO does not occur at all in Acts (check the spelling)!

          Sorry for this bad "MOS" ! read "POS" instead !
          I think the mind of Boismard would be that whatever the verb
          (DIHGHSANTO here, DIHGHSATO in Act 9,27 and APHGGEILEN in Act 11,13)
          you find a common construction with POS ("learn them how")

          Boismard does not say explicitly that this construction is a hapax of Mark.
          If you disagree, say it.

          In the other case, I count it.

          (5)
          > >v.18 : DIAMONISVEIS with the synoptic Luke (8,36) is a hapax of NT.
          >
          > (5) DAIMONISQEIS occurs in the synoptics only in the Markan swine story
          > and its Lukan parallel. So what? Luke could have copied it from Mark, as
          > would probably be accepted by most commentators.

          Luke could have copied it from Mark. Or the reverse.
          If the reverse is attested just before and just after,
          which solution looks better ?
          But again, this is in the explanation domain.

          Just count the case.

          (6)
          > >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.
          >
          > (6) "the lord" in a sentence of Jesus also occurs at Mark
          > 12:29,29,30,36.

          First, those are not sentences of Jesus, but direct and
          explicit quotes of Deut. 6:4,5 and Psalm 110:1 :

          29 "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
          30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and ...."

          36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
          `The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand...

          You find another example in the same chapter (12:11)

          In original material in the gospel, God is never
          said "the lord", except in Mk 5:19 and 13:20.
          Luke uses "Lord" for god, particularly in birth
          narratives.

          For 13:20, Boismard attributes it to the Marko-Lukanian
          redactor, but since this is not a hapax of Mark, we keep
          it in mind without counting it.


          (7)
          > >v.19 : DIAGGELLEIN is once here, once in lk, once in Act.
          >
          > (7) DIAGGELLEIN is absent from Mark!

          You are right. The word used is APAGGELLW. A hapax in Mark,
          if I am right now, and this word id used also twice by Luke,
          three times by Acts (Lk 7:22,13:1, Act 12:17, 15:27, 23:17-19).
          Just look at Act 12:17 for an occurrence of APAGGELLW in the
          proximity of DIHGHSATO POS. ;-)

          Correcting my errors, you are reinforcing Boismard's arguments.

          I count it.

          (8)
          > >v.20 : "all (..) were amazed" is a hapax of Mark, but occures
          > three times in Luke.
          >
          > (8) PANTES in conjunction with EQAUM... occurs in Mark 5:20 and Luke
          > 1:63; 2:18; 4:22. But as two of these occurrences are in Luke's birth
          > narratives which have no equivalent in Mark, this can hardly be counted
          > as significant.

          I think I understand what you mean : according you, it is
          normal "all were amazed" to be used in birth narratives
          rather than in other part of gospel and Acts.

          But in Mark, there is no reason for "all were amazed" to
          come rather in the second part, the lukan-like section of
          the text. And here lies the strange fact enlighted by Boismard.

          I count it.

          (Other : if you enlarge your search to PANTES + QAUM, instead of
          EQAUM, you add Lk 9:43 to the list. This is not in birth narratives)


          (9)
          > >v.7 : "the Most High" is a hapax of Mark, and appears elsevhere
          > > in NT in Luke (5 occurences) Act (twice) and Heb (once)
          >
          > (9) Again, 3 of the occurrences of "Most High" are in the Lukan birth
          > narratives. Thus we are left with only one in Mark's story of the deeds
          > of Jesus and two in Luke's. This is insignificant.

          Here, I absolutely do not see why "Most High" is attempted
          to be found preferentially in birth narratives. And even if
          it would be, then, the argument given in (8) would apply.

          But please, consider that this is a counter argument for me, since
          this sentence is in the first part of the story : it balances a few
          the heterogeneity.

          I count it, against the heterogeneity.

          > In addition,the implied deductions from occurrences in Acts are
          > questionable. There was no corresponding second volume of Mark. Even if
          > there are in some cases many occurrences in Luke-Acts and few in Mark,
          > to be fair we would have to take into account the relative sizes of
          > these texts, roughly 7:2.

          If Boismard asks :
          "why do we find many luke-related objects in the second
          part of this story, and so few in the first part ?"
          you can not answer :
          "because Luke-Act is longer than Mark."
          This is an answer for another question !

          As I said previously, the exact question is not to explain the occurence
          of Lukan style in Mark (and in that case the bias of relative sizes of
          text would be important) but the heterogeneity, in Mark, for the distribution
          of hapaxes that are found in Luke.

          If Mark is independant to Luke, as stated in many theories, then
          the occurence in Mark of Lukan phenomenon (whatever the phenomenon)
          should be distributed randomly. If it is not the case, then this
          heterogenous distribution may interfer with the synoptic problem,
          and whatever the case, has to be explained.

          Now count in both parts of the swine story (1-8 and 9-20)
          the occurences of markan hapaxes that we may find also in Luke :

          For Mk 5:1-8 : case (9) "the most high" is the single one.
          For Mk 5:9-20 : cases (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (7) and (8)
          case (6) is not counted (see above).

          The probability of such a distribution in random condition would
          be inferior to 0.12. Even if you rebuke (4), that Boismard does
          not explicitly present as a markan hapax, your propability
          remains inferior to 0.19. This is not an incontrovertible
          evidence, but a good incitation to go further.

          a+
          manu

          PS : here is a possible bias in Boismard work : perhabs has
          he not really checked the presence of markan hapaxes in the
          first part of the swine story, reinforcing the heterogeneity ?
          I would be glad to know if some one has checked this possibility.

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • John Rutledge
          Emmanuel, I also found problems similar to those raised by Ron. I am using the Logos version of the Nestle Aland 26th Edition of the Greek New Testament. I m
          Message 4 of 19 , Sep 6, 2001
            Emmanuel,

            I also found problems similar to those raised by Ron.
            I am using the Logos version of the Nestle Aland 26th
            Edition of the Greek New Testament. I'm not sure if
            some of these problems revolve around phrase searching
            in Greek texts, but there seem to be some significant
            issues.

            I haven't had a chance to carefully go through the
            entire argument concerning this pericope, but let me
            raise some issues for you to consider.

            What are the results applied to other Markan
            pericopes? Do you find consistently Markan word usage
            throughout, or perhaps word usage that is *not*
            specific to any one textual source of the New
            Testament?

            You've probably heard of the famous argument presented
            in a _Random Walk Down Wall Street_. We are all aware
            that some money managers do very well. However,
            instead of this being a result of "skill" it may only
            be the outcome of a typical random distribution
            applied across a large number of potential money
            managers. Applied to your argument, based on the usage
            of a shared language, Lukan word usage in a Markan
            pericope may just be the result of a typical random
            distribution. Unless the results are truly singular, I
            would think trying to estimate the probability for
            this to occur would be very difficult.

            In terms of word usage comparisons, should the exact
            word be used, or perhaps a more general Lexeme?


            =====
            John Rutledge

            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
            http://im.yahoo.com

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • John Rutledge
            ... present ... but ... How exactly did you calculate these numbers? I performed a random check on a number of words throughout Mark. Most are not nearly as
            Message 5 of 19 , Sep 6, 2001
              Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

              > The probability of such a distribution in random
              > condition would be inferior to 0.12. Even if you
              > rebuke (4), that Boismard does not explicitly
              present
              > as a markan hapax, your propability remains inferior

              > to 0.19. This is not an incontrovertible evidence,
              but
              > a good incitation to go further.

              How exactly did you calculate these numbers?

              I performed a random check on a number of words
              throughout Mark. Most are not nearly as non-Markan nor
              as Lukan as the examples in Mark 5:1-20. It's kind of
              interesting -- you may be on to something. If the
              criteria for determining "style" based on word usage
              could be refined a bit, it would be quite simple to
              write a program to calculate the relative style
              correspondence of pericopes throughout the New
              Testament.


              =====
              John Rutledge

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
              http://im.yahoo.com

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Ron Price
              ... Emmanuel, I find this very strange. ... Several of us, most recently John Rutledge, have tried to point out that the evidence on this pericope is not as
              Message 6 of 19 , Sep 16, 2001
                I wrote:

                >> What would interest me more is a diagram of the
                >> relationship between Boismard's synoptic source documents.

                Emmanuel Fritsch replied:

                >He gives no diagram .....
                >I did not find any diagram wherever else, even on archeboc,
                >the web site on Boismard.

                Emmanuel,
                I find this very strange.

                > ..... you do not give any account
                >of all this discrepancies concentrated in this pericope. When not
                >giving any account for this concentration, and in absence of any
                >other explanation, I must accept Boismard's views.

                Several of us, most recently John Rutledge, have tried to point out
                that the evidence on this pericope is not as clear as you make out.
                A major problem here is that you don't seem to be looking at the whole
                picture (which is difficult without a diagram!). At least Karel Hanhart
                has a plausible explanation for his proposed revision of Mark. If there
                is no plausible explanation for all the various proposed revisions,
                Boismard's theory must appear highly suspect.

                >But in scholarship, for text analysis,
                >do you use the german word "wiederaufnahme" ?

                I have not come across it, but you would have to ask an expert in the
                field.

                >But with your criteria, you will reject a huge amount of
                >written documents that have not been quoted totally with
                >the same wording. If only an half of the wording is common,
                >would you not accept the written document ?

                I would probably regard such evidence as insufficient to deduce that
                the source was written.

                >Another question : you say "in synoptic studies". Are there
                >other domains of scholarship where the criteria are less strict ?

                I did not mean to imply that. I only wrote "in synoptic studies"
                because this is the primary area where I've observed scholarly arguments
                on the topic of written vs. oral sources.

                > ..... on some pericope, [ Boismard ]
                >describes the work of marko-lukan redactor as an
                >harmonisation of proto-Mark on matthean and lukan text,
                >(rather on matthean text, and on lukan views and thema)
                >
                >This does not look silly, since harmonisation trends are
                >well attestd in the 2nd c. Why not before, at the end of
                >the redaction process ?

                The likelihood of attempted harmonisation must depend in part on the
                scribes' familiarity with other gospels. In the first century they would
                surely have been less familiar with other gospels, and therefore less
                likely to have attempted harmonisation.

                Ron Price

                Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                e-mail: ron.price@...

                Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm


                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Emmanuel Fritsch
                ... For that time being, only Karel Hanhart provided a possible explanation. If I well understand, according him, the link of dependency is from proto-Mark to
                Message 7 of 19 , Sep 17, 2001
                  I answer here the post of Ron Price :

                  > A major problem here is that you don't seem to be looking at the whole
                  > picture (which is difficult without a diagram!). At least Karel Hanhart
                  > has a plausible explanation for his proposed revision of Mark. If there
                  > is no plausible explanation for all the various proposed revisions,
                  > Boismard's theory must appear highly suspect.

                  For that time being, only Karel Hanhart provided a possible
                  explanation. If I well understand, according him, the link of
                  dependency is from proto-Mark to Luke.

                  * he assumes that Luke found in the proto-Mk some cool words,
                  that he decided to include in his own vocabulary. It is not
                  impossible, but looks quite difficult.

                  * For Mk 5:1-20, it looks strange that lukan style elements
                  appear rather in the matthean-like part of the story than in
                  the Capernaum-like. Should we understand that according Karel
                  Hanhart, the first part of the story has been added later than
                  the first one ? Here is the first difficulty : where does it
                  come from ? For Boismard, the second part of the story is
                  later, and is an harmonisation on Matthew. This looks simpler,
                  whatever we may think about the complexity of Boismardian
                  theories.

                  * If we check other examples given by Boismard, Karel's
                  explanation does not fit. For instance, Lukan style is
                  massively present in Mk 16:19-20, which does not seems
                  as belonging to a pre-70 haggadah.

                  In fact, lukan style looks related to the final stage
                  of markan redaction process.

                  > >But with your criteria, you will reject a huge amount of
                  > >written documents that have not been quoted totally with
                  > >the same wording. If only an half of the wording is common,
                  > >would you not accept the written document ?
                  >
                  > I would probably regard such evidence as insufficient to deduce that
                  > the source was written.

                  So you accept to neglect in your search a huge amount of written documents.

                  I may accept the existence of any 1.c human being only if I can
                  see him on a coin. This does not mean that imperial family was
                  living in an italian desert. My criteria is obviously too large,
                  and there has been a large amount of human being that never let
                  their image on a coin.

                  Do you not think your criteria for written documents
                  is too strong, as mine for human being in roman empire ?


                  > > ..... on some pericope, [ Boismard ]
                  > >describes the work of marko-lukan redactor as an
                  > >harmonisation of proto-Mark on matthean and lukan text,
                  > >(rather on matthean text, and on lukan views and thema)
                  > >
                  > >This does not look silly, since harmonisation trends are
                  > >well attestd in the 2nd c. Why not before, at the end of
                  > >the redaction process ?
                  >
                  > The likelihood of attempted harmonisation must depend in part on the
                  > scribes' familiarity with other gospels. In the first century they would
                  > surely have been less familiar with other gospels, and therefore less
                  > likely to have attempted harmonisation.

                  If we check this likelihood on the gospel we have, it looks hard
                  to believe : even with various geographic origins and different
                  theologic orientation, they present many common characters. How
                  to explain them without a circulation of gospels ?

                  The single fact there is a synoptic problem proves that gospels
                  circulated during the redaction process. Do we have a method
                  to evaluate the speed of circulation ?

                  a+
                  manu

                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Ron Price
                  ... Emmanuel Fritsch replied, ... Emmanuel, I was not defending Karel s theory as a whole, only the fact that he is aware of the need to explain the motivation
                  Message 8 of 19 , Sep 17, 2001
                    I wrote:

                    >> At least Karel Hanhart
                    >> has a plausible explanation for his proposed revision of Mark. If there
                    >> is no plausible explanation for all the various proposed revisions,
                    >> Boismard's theory must appear highly suspect.

                    Emmanuel Fritsch replied,

                    >For that time being, only Karel Hanhart provided a possible
                    >explanation. If I well understand, according him .....

                    Emmanuel,
                    I was not defending Karel's theory as a whole, only the fact that he
                    is aware of the need to explain the motivation for a proposed document
                    revision.

                    >Do you not think your criteria for written documents
                    >is too strong ..... ?

                    I don't think so. We should be very cautious when we propose
                    hypothetical documents simply to solve a literary problem. Most such
                    documents are eventually seen to have been pure imagination.

                    >The single fact there is a synoptic problem proves that gospels
                    >circulated during the redaction process.

                    Agreed. But harmonisation is a consequence of familiarity with another
                    document. All I am saying is that such familiarity would have been *less
                    common* (not "non-existent") in the first century.

                    John,
                    Thanks for sending the diagram. Unfortunately my iMac hasn't got the
                    software to read it.

                    Emmanuel,
                    I've had a look at the Boismard diagram in the Rolland article at the
                    Web address you mentioned. Even if Mc. int and B are merged and the C -
                    Mc. int link is removed as you suggested, it involves 6 hypothetical
                    documents or editions and at least 12 links. It is, in a word,
                    "incroyable".
                    The fact that synoptic differences can often be explained in more than
                    one way means that such an elaborate structure cannot have a secure
                    foundation.
                    In the end it comes down to a matter of judgement. In my judgement the
                    synoptic problem can be solved without positing any hypothetical
                    documents or editions. The quirks in Mk 5:1-20 probably arose from a
                    combination of Mark's peculiar style and an attempt to combine two
                    stories that he had heard from others.

                    Ron Price

                    Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                    e-mail: ron.price@...

                    Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                    In a message dated 9/17/2001 4:23:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ron.price@virgin.net writes:
                    Message 9 of 19 , Sep 17, 2001
                      In a message dated 9/17/2001 4:23:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                      ron.price@... writes:

                      << The quirks in Mk 5:1-20 probably arose from a
                      combination of Mark's peculiar style and an attempt to combine two
                      stories that he had heard from others. >>

                      OR: "stories that he heard from two others".
                      Except for the implication of aural origin, the above seems to me to be a
                      reasonable hypothesis regarding the composition of Mk 5:1-20.

                      Leonard Maluf

                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Emmanuel Fritsch
                      ... But do you have an estimation of this circulation ? It would be necessary to quantify this circulation with precision if you really think this is an
                      Message 10 of 19 , Sep 18, 2001
                        > >The single fact there is a synoptic problem proves that gospels
                        > >circulated during the redaction process.
                        >
                        > Agreed. But harmonisation is a consequence of familiarity with another
                        > document. All I am saying is that such familiarity would have been *less
                        > common* (not "non-existent") in the first century.

                        But do you have an estimation of this circulation ?
                        It would be necessary to quantify this circulation
                        with precision if you really think this is an
                        objection against a multi-stage process.

                        > Emmanuel,
                        > I've had a look at the Boismard diagram in the Rolland article at the
                        > Web address you mentioned. Even if Mc. int and B are merged and the C -
                        > Mc. int link is removed as you suggested, it involves 6 hypothetical
                        > documents or editions and at least 12 links. It is, in a word,
                        > "incroyable".

                        Yes. This system is really incredible, even if it may have been
                        simplified a little more.

                        My trouble is : when checking some little parts of Boismard works
                        (for instance the recent work on proto-Mark) arguments look impressive,
                        phenomena he revealed seem effective, and fit very well with his system.

                        When I ask scholars for an eventual fallacy, they do not consider
                        the germane phenomena and they do not answer on the arguments,
                        Their key argument is the complexity of the Boismardian system.
                        Yes, it looks hard to believe, but "hard to believe" does not
                        mean there is a historical impossibility, neither a historical
                        implausibility of this system.

                        What is hard to believe is : considering the few documents we have,
                        how is it possible to deduce such a complex system, and not another
                        one ? But since there is a reasonning path to go from fact to this
                        system (and not another one), I think the only method to rebuke it
                        is to address the arguments, or propose a simpler theory that fit
                        facts with an equivalent fidelity. Am I wrong ?


                        > The fact that synoptic differences can often be explained in more than
                        > one way means that such an elaborate structure cannot have a secure
                        > foundation.
                        > In the end it comes down to a matter of judgement. In my judgement the
                        > synoptic problem can be solved without positing any hypothetical
                        > documents or editions. The quirks in Mk 5:1-20 probably arose from a
                        > combination of Mark's peculiar style and an attempt to combine two
                        > stories that he had heard from others.

                        It is possible.
                        Boismard explanation fits better with :
                        - the lukan characters of the style.
                        - the existence of parallel Matthean story, when you posit
                        another unknown source for Mark (on this stage, Boismard
                        is more economic)
                        - the Lukan character of other passages in Mk, for instance
                        the end of the gospel.

                        a+
                        manu

                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • Ron Price
                        ... Emmanuel, No, I cannot quantify the circulation. All I can say is that the circulation and the familiarity must have tended to increase as the early
                        Message 11 of 19 , Sep 19, 2001
                          I wrote:

                          >> But harmonisation is a consequence of familiarity with another
                          >> document. All I am saying is that such familiarity would have been *less
                          >> common* (not "non-existent") in the first century.

                          Emmanuel Fritsch replied:

                          >But do you have an estimation of this circulation ?
                          >It would be necessary to quantify this circulation
                          >with precision if you really think this is an
                          >objection against a multi-stage process.

                          Emmanuel,
                          No, I cannot quantify the circulation. All I can say is that the
                          circulation and the familiarity must have tended to increase as the
                          early decades passed, for Christianity was growing. Also, for an
                          individual scribe the maximum length of time he could have been familiar
                          with another gospel was still increasing during the first century. (At
                          first the limit would have been how long the gospel had been published.
                          Later the limit would have been the working life of a scribe.)

                          >When I ask scholars for an eventual fallacy, they do not consider
                          >the germane phenomena and they do not answer on the arguments ...

                          Maybe they haven't got the time. Or maybe they don't feel qualified to
                          counter the statistical part of the argument.

                          >Their key argument is the complexity of the Boismardian system.
                          >Yes, it looks hard to believe, but "hard to believe" does not
                          >mean there is a historical impossibility, neither a historical
                          >implausibility of this system.

                          But you're wrong here. A theory with six hypothetical
                          documents/editions, of which every single manuscript has been lost, and
                          to most or all of which there is not a single historical reference, is
                          indeed implausible.

                          >What is hard to believe is : considering the few documents we have,
                          >how is it possible to deduce such a complex system, and not another
                          >one ?

                          It isn't. What about Boismard 1972, Boismard 1994 (?), or Rolland 19??
                          in the article which contained the Boismard diagram. That's three for a
                          start.

                          > I think the only method to rebuke it
                          >is to address the arguments, or propose a simpler theory that fit
                          >facts with an equivalent fidelity. Am I wrong ?

                          You're right. But it's a major task which few will be prepared to
                          undertake in detail because they consider the theory to be too fanciful.
                          This is Prof. Udo Schnelle's conclusion: "... there is no other literary
                          evidence for the preliminary forms of the Gospels that must be
                          presupposed, so that the high degree of complexity of the theory moves
                          it into the realm of pure postulation" (_The History and Theology of the
                          New Testament Writings_, ET, London: SCM, 1998, p.177)

                          Ron Price

                          Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                          e-mail: ron.price@...

                          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • Emmanuel Fritsch
                          ... You are right, and my words just before were far away from my thought. I just mean that the solution provided by Boismard remains possible. And if you
                          Message 12 of 19 , Sep 19, 2001
                            > >When I ask scholars for an eventual fallacy, they do not consider
                            > >the germane phenomena and they do not answer on the arguments ...
                            >
                            > Maybe they haven't got the time. Or maybe they don't feel qualified to
                            > counter the statistical part of the argument.

                            You are right, and my words just before were far away from my thought.
                            I just mean that the solution provided by Boismard remains possible.
                            And if you defend a theory that he rebukes, for instance with markan
                            priority, you are challenged to answer his arguments, since a part of
                            his arguments are against classical systems.


                            > >Their key argument is the complexity of the Boismardian system.
                            > >Yes, it looks hard to believe, but "hard to believe" does not
                            > >mean there is a historical impossibility, neither a historical
                            > >implausibility of this system.
                            >
                            > But you're wrong here. A theory with six hypothetical
                            > documents/editions, of which every single manuscript has been lost, and
                            > to most or all of which there is not a single historical reference, is
                            > indeed implausible.

                            Are you sure about the argument of lack of historical reference ?

                            1a- I heard that for scholars, gospels were written between 70 and 100,
                            although there are no references to the written gospels until the 2c.
                            Is it true ? If yes, the absence of historical reference does not
                            look in fact implausible. Or am I wrong on the dates of gospels ?

                            1b- If I well remember, the story of Alexander (pseudo-Callisthene)
                            is considered as deriving from hypothetical and quite unatested
                            documents. This does not look as a problem.

                            2- On an other hand, when arguing gospels being eyewitness and apostle
                            reports, the church fathers would have naturally hidden the composite
                            characters of gospels. So here is another potential explanation for
                            the lack of historical reference to first-stage gospels.

                            3- And as I said first, on proto-Mark demonstration, the single
                            hypothetical documents is proto-Mk.


                            > > I think the only method to rebuke it
                            > >is to address the arguments, or propose a simpler theory that fit
                            > >facts with an equivalent fidelity. Am I wrong ?
                            >
                            > You're right. But it's a major task which few will be prepared to
                            > undertake in detail because they consider the theory to be too fanciful.
                            > This is Prof. Udo Schnelle's conclusion: "... there is no other literary
                            > evidence for the preliminary forms of the Gospels that must be
                            > presupposed, so that the high degree of complexity of the theory moves
                            > it into the realm of pure postulation" (_The History and Theology of the
                            > New Testament Writings_, ET, London: SCM, 1998, p.177)

                            Hard to consider this conclusion, since we do not know what evidences
                            Udo Schnelle accounts just before. I hope he does not forget to address
                            the Marko-lukanian phenomenon, and I would like to know what he says
                            about.

                            a+
                            manu

                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • Ron Price
                            ... Emmanuel, Your date range is quite correct. But I think your deduction is wrong. I would expect *some* church father to have known about and commented on
                            Message 13 of 19 , Sep 19, 2001
                              I wrote:

                              >> A theory with six hypothetical
                              >> documents/editions, of which every single manuscript has been lost, and
                              >> to most or all of which there is not a single historical reference, is
                              >> indeed implausible.

                              Emmanuel Fritsch replied:

                              >Are you sure about the argument of lack of historical reference ?
                              >
                              >1a- I heard that for scholars, gospels were written between 70 and 100,
                              >although there are no references to the written gospels until the 2c.
                              >Is it true ? If yes, the absence of historical reference does not
                              >look in fact implausible. Or am I wrong on the dates of gospels ?

                              Emmanuel,
                              Your date range is quite correct. But I think your deduction is wrong.
                              I would expect *some* church father to have known about and commented on
                              such important first century Christian documents.

                              >1b- If I well remember, the story of Alexander (pseudo-Callisthene)
                              >is considered as deriving from hypothetical and quite unatested
                              >documents. This does not look as a problem.

                              I'm not familiar with this. Perhaps the evidence for the hypothetical
                              documents is stronger there.

                              >2- On an other hand, when arguing gospels being eyewitness and apostle
                              >reports, the church fathers would have naturally hidden the composite
                              >characters of gospels.

                              But they were not expert source critics. They would have known A,B,C
                              etc. as distinct documents without realizing the relationship between
                              them. They would not have known there was anything to hide.

                              >3- And as I said first, on proto-Mark demonstration, the single
                              >hypothetical documents is proto-Mk.

                              The extant Mark (apart from a few small interpolations) shows signs of
                              careful planning, which fits a first edition better than an updated
                              edition.

                              >> This is Prof. Udo Schnelle's conclusion: "... there is no other literary
                              >> evidence for the preliminary forms of the Gospels that must be
                              >> presupposed, so that the high degree of complexity of the theory moves
                              >> it into the realm of pure postulation" (_The History and Theology of the
                              >> New Testament Writings_, ET, London: SCM, 1998, p.177)

                              >Hard to consider this conclusion, since we do not know what evidences
                              >Udo Schnelle accounts just before. I hope he does not forget to address
                              >the Marko-lukanian phenomenon, and I would like to know what he says
                              >about.

                              He does not mention this alleged phenomenon in the above book. He does
                              allocate nearly a page to Boismard's theory, which is more than any
                              other NT Introduction book I know. I don't know what explanation he
                              would give for the peculiarities of Mark 5:1-20.

                              Ron Price

                              Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                              e-mail: ron.price@...

                              Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                            • Jeffrey Glen Jackson
                              ... I m not sure they would have known to hide it either so to speak. Note the tradition that regards Peter as the source for Mark s Gospel. The church
                              Message 14 of 19 , Sep 19, 2001
                                > But they were not expert source critics. They would have known A,B,C
                                > etc. as distinct documents without realizing the relationship between
                                > them. They would not have known there was anything to hide.

                                I'm not sure they would have known to hide it either so to speak.
                                Note the tradition that regards Peter as the source for Mark's
                                Gospel. The church fathers seem to have no embarrassment that
                                Mark wrote his Gospel without Peter's authorization or
                                approval. This would seem rather strange if the tradition was
                                an invention of the church to add authority to Mark's Gospel.
                                This is why I think the tradition, and Marcan Priority theories,
                                are most likely accurate.

                                ><> Jeffrey Glen Jackson, son of Albert, son of George, son of <><
                                ><> Henry, son of Miles, son of Randolph, son of Ephraim, son of <><
                                ><> Thomas, son of John, son of Thomas, .... sonne of Jack. <><
                                mailto:jeff@... http://www.jeff-jackson.com




                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                              • Brian E. Wilson
                                Ron Price wrote -- ... Leonard Maluf commented -- ... On my analysis, Mk 5.1-20 is an awkward combination of one written story with parts of another written
                                Message 15 of 19 , Sep 20, 2001
                                  Ron Price wrote --
                                  >
                                  >The quirks in Mk 5:1-20 probably arose from a combination of Mark's
                                  >peculiar style and an attempt to combine two stories that he had heard
                                  >from others.
                                  >
                                  Leonard Maluf commented --
                                  >
                                  >OR: "stories that he heard from two others".
                                  >Except for the implication of aural origin, the above seems to me to be
                                  >a reasonable hypothesis regarding the composition of Mk 5:1-20.
                                  >

                                  On my analysis, Mk 5.1-20 is an awkward combination of one written story
                                  with parts of another written story (the Capernaum Demoniac), this
                                  combination having been made by the writer of the common source used by
                                  all three synoptists. There are two dozen pairs of stories in the
                                  synoptic gospels of this kind. I call them "story dualities". These are
                                  described and discussed on my homepage.

                                  Best wishes,
                                  BRIAN WILSON

                                  >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://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@...
                                • Emmanuel Fritsch
                                  This is my last set of questions on this thread, since we are now far away from Mk 5:1-20. ... If Mk is just a development of pt-Mk, there is no reason to keep
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Sep 20, 2001
                                    This is my last set of questions on this thread,
                                    since we are now far away from Mk 5:1-20.

                                    > >1a- I heard that for scholars, gospels were written between 70 and 100,
                                    > >although there are no references to the written gospels until the 2c.
                                    > >Is it true ? If yes, the absence of historical reference does not
                                    > >look in fact implausible. Or am I wrong on the dates of gospels ?
                                    >
                                    > Emmanuel,
                                    > Your date range is quite correct. But I think your deduction is wrong.
                                    > I would expect *some* church father to have known about and commented on
                                    > such important first century Christian documents.

                                    If Mk is just a development of pt-Mk, there is no reason to keep
                                    pt-Mk : fivety years after his redaction, it may have disappeared,
                                    extant Mk being prefered every where. No mean for church father,
                                    a century after, to quote him.

                                    Due to the similarity of Mk and pt-Mk, they were probably both
                                    attributed to Mark. The same with Luke and Matthew. (the same
                                    with ps. Callisthene)

                                    And according Boismard, some church fathers quote pre-canonical
                                    gospels. I have two examples in mind : the reference to the
                                    "Korbona" when Epiphan comments the gift of the widow, and
                                    the parable of the sewer in Justin Martyr.


                                    > >2- On an other hand, when arguing gospels being eyewitness and apostle
                                    > >reports, the church fathers would have naturally hidden the composite
                                    > >characters of gospels.
                                    >
                                    > But they were not expert source critics. They would have known A,B,C
                                    > etc. as distinct documents without realizing the relationship between
                                    > them. They would not have known there was anything to hide.

                                    If the link from proto-Mk to Mk was evident, even a silly christian
                                    would have recognized it. And more over if the attribution was the
                                    same. If the difference was only that extant Mk was more complete
                                    than pt-Mk, then pt-Mk would have been forgotten very fast.


                                    > >3- And as I said first, on proto-Mark demonstration, the single
                                    > >hypothetical documents is proto-Mk.
                                    >
                                    > The extant Mark (apart from a few small interpolations) shows signs of
                                    > careful planning, which fits a first edition better than an updated
                                    > edition.

                                    How do you recognize this few interpolations ?
                                    Are you not hurt that Lukan style is found in some of this small
                                    interpolations ? (for instance Mk 16:19-20)

                                    Are there a concensus on the plan of Mark ?

                                    Thanks for all your answer.

                                    a+
                                    manu

                                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                  • Ron Price
                                    ... Emmanuel, This is almost a tautology. It s not clear why you think the link would have been evident. ... I was referring to interpolations prior to the
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Sep 20, 2001
                                      Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

                                      >If the link from proto-Mk to Mk was evident, even a silly christian
                                      >would have recognized it.

                                      Emmanuel,
                                      This is almost a tautology.
                                      It's not clear why you think the link would have been evident.

                                      >> The extant Mark (apart from a few small interpolations) shows signs of
                                      >> careful planning, which fits a first edition better than an updated
                                      >> edition.

                                      >How do you recognize this few interpolations ?

                                      This is the set of criteria I suggested to the GMark List last year:
                                      >>(1) There must be something inconsistent about the supposed added words
                                      >>in their current context.
                                      >>(2) Removal of the supposed added words must leave a text which makes
                                      >>better sense.
                                      >>(3) There must be a plausible reason why the scribe made the emendation.

                                      >Are you not hurt that Lukan style is found in some of this small
                                      >interpolations ? (for instance Mk 16:19-20)

                                      I was referring to interpolations prior to the establishment of what
                                      is now generally regarded as the standard text, i.e. NA27. This standard
                                      text correctly reflects the original in ending at 16:8. I'm not really
                                      interested in later additions such as 16:9-20, which is enclosed in
                                      brackets [[.....]] indicating that it was definitely not part of the
                                      original text.

                                      >Are there a concensus on the plan of Mark ?

                                      No. Though curiously the best treatment I have come across is in a
                                      book first published in French: E.Trocme, _La formation de l'Evangile
                                      selon Marc_, 1963 (ET, _The Formation of the Gospel according to Mark_,
                                      London, SPCK, 1975, pp.74-84). He points out several authors who posit
                                      similar structures. In my opinion he is close to identifying the major
                                      sections of Mark.

                                      Ron Price

                                      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                                      e-mail: ron.price@...

                                      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                    • Emmanuel Fritsch
                                      ... If I well undestand, according you, their his a multi-stage redaction for this story : - a first stage of redaction with the markan capernaum story, and
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Sep 21, 2001
                                        to Brian :

                                        > On my analysis, Mk 5.1-20 is an awkward combination of one written story
                                        > with parts of another written story (the Capernaum Demoniac), this
                                        > combination having been made by the writer of the common source used by
                                        > all three synoptists. There are two dozen pairs of stories in the
                                        > synoptic gospels of this kind. I call them "story dualities". These are
                                        > described and discussed on my homepage.

                                        If I well undestand, according you, their his a multi-stage
                                        redaction for this story :

                                        - a first stage of redaction with the markan capernaum story, and the
                                        matthean swine story.
                                        - a merge of both stories in the written source of all synoptic. Mark keeps
                                        the form of this story.
                                        - Matthew and Luke have modified the story to cancel all awkward details

                                        Am I right ?
                                        May you explain the advantage of your theory compared to Boismard ?

                                        a+
                                        manu

                                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                      • Brian E. Wilson
                                        Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Emmanuel Fritsch replied -- ... Emmanuel, No. My Logia Translation Hypothesis posits that all three synoptists independently used a
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Sep 21, 2001
                                          Brian Wilson wrote --
                                          >
                                          >On my analysis, Mk 5.1-20 is an awkward combination of one written
                                          >story with parts of another written story (the Capernaum Demoniac),
                                          >this combination having been made by the writer of the common source
                                          >used by all three synoptists. There are two dozen pairs of stories in
                                          >the synoptic gospels of this kind. I call them "story dualities".
                                          >These are described and discussed on my homepage.
                                          >
                                          Emmanuel Fritsch replied --
                                          >
                                          >If I well undestand, according you, their his a multi-stage redaction
                                          >for this story :
                                          >
                                          >- a first stage of redaction with the markan capernaum story, and the
                                          >matthean swine story.
                                          >- a merge of both stories in the written source of all synoptic. Mark
                                          >keeps the form of this story.
                                          >- Matthew and Luke have modified the story to cancel all awkward
                                          >details
                                          >
                                          >Am I right ?
                                          >
                                          Emmanuel,
                                          No. My Logia Translation Hypothesis posits that all three
                                          synoptists independently used a common Greek documentary source, the
                                          Greek Logia, that contained the pairs of stories which when copied into
                                          the synoptic gospels are "story dualities". These story dualities were
                                          originally the result of the writer of the Greek Logia on a number of
                                          occasions deliberately repeating wording from one story he had already
                                          used earlier in his writing to expand a later story in the same
                                          document. Thus he had already written out the story of the Capernaum
                                          Demoniac but then later in the same document used wording from this
                                          already-used story to expand a story about a Demoniac in the Gerasene
                                          region. He did this awkwardly, however. The consequence is that if the
                                          wording in common between the two stories in Mark is omitted from the
                                          Capernaum Demoniac, the remaining wording does not contain a more
                                          coherent story, but, if the wording in common between the two stories in
                                          Mark is omitted from the Gerasene Demoniac, then the remaining wording
                                          does include a more coherent story. (The same also applies to the
                                          parallel stories in Luke which also form a story duality in Luke.) For
                                          examples in detail in Greek of story dualities you will have to see my
                                          homepage on this (the talk given in Finland). Story dualities cannot be
                                          set out in Greek in detail in a letter like this one to Synoptic-L.

                                          >
                                          >May you explain the advantage of your theory compared to Boismard ?
                                          >

                                          Boismard's hypothesis is too complex to be checked against the data. As
                                          J. S. Kloppenborg Verbin has written, "Even if it were right it would be
                                          impossible to demonstrate its correctness." ("Excavating Q", page 51.)
                                          There are dozens of equivalent hypotheses of the same level of
                                          complexity as the hypothesis Boismard posits. There is no sensible means
                                          of deciding between these. The Logia Translation Hypothesis, on the
                                          other hand, posits that only one Greek documentary source was prior to
                                          the synoptic gospels. It can be checked against the data.

                                          Best wishes,
                                          BRIAN WILSON

                                          >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://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.