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

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

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Thanks. ... They are sentences of Jesus in which he quotes the scriptures. It is not at all clear to me that Boismard is justified in ignoring them. ...
    Message 1 of 13 , Sep 7, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

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

      Thanks.

      >> (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

      They are sentences of Jesus in which he quotes the scriptures. It is
      not at all clear to me that Boismard is justified in ignoring them.

      > ..... The word used is APAGGELLW. A hapax in Mark,
      >if I am right now .....

      No. It occurs 3 times in Mark (5:14,19;6:30).

      >> 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 !

      But if "Luke-related object" is taken to mean 'associated with Luke
      more than Mark', then the greater length of Luke-Acts must be taken into
      account.
      Suppose we consider a linguistic feature to be "Luke-related" in this
      sense if it occurs proportionately at least twice as much in Luke-Acts
      as in Mark. On this definition we would require 7 occurrences in
      Luke-Acts for each Markan hapax.
      Out of the examples considered so far this leaves us with ONOMA+dative
      (as suggested by Leonard Maluf), PEMPW, TO GEGONOS, APAGGELLW (with at
      least 7 times more occurrences in Luke-Acts) and "Most High", which
      gives a ratio of 4:1 if the pericope is split into vv. 8-20 (which
      includes the first 4) and 1-7 (which includes the last example). This
      is suggestive, but hardly significant.
      What does it suggest? If I have understood it correctly, Boismard's
      conclusion is that Mark 5:8ff. is dependent on Luke or an early version
      thereof. But Luke has a very wide vocabulary. Could it not be that Mark,
      whose Greek was relatively unrefined, was in these verses using a source
      which had typically refined Greek rather than typically Lukan Greek?
      We could try using Matthew as a control. If we restrict ourselves to
      examples which are absent from Matthew, we are left with ONOMA+dative,
      TO GEGONOS and "Most High". These look distinctly Lukan from the
      perspective of the synoptics as a whole, but they hardly indicate
      anything significant about the difference between vv.1-7 and 8-20.

      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@...
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 9/7/2001 9:15:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ron.price@virgin.net writes:
      Message 2 of 13 , Sep 7, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 9/7/2001 9:15:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
        ron.price@... writes:

        << What does it suggest? If I have understood it correctly, Boismard's
        conclusion is that Mark 5:8ff. is dependent on Luke or an early version
        thereof. But Luke has a very wide vocabulary. >>

        I was under the impression that Boismard speaks rather of a late "Lukan
        redactor" of Mark. Emmanuel may correct me if I am wrong. An argument has
        been made by others, however, against the Two Gospel Hypothesis, that there
        are no "Lukanisms" in Mark. I think this is not true, for whatever reason,
        and that therefore the Two Gospel Hypothesis remains an open possibility from
        the point of view of this particular argument. Of course the argument
        depends, on either side, on what it takes to constitute a Lukanism.

        Leonard Maluf

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Emmanuel Fritsch
        Answer to Ron Price (with many questions). The Mail becomes quite long. There are now two levels : 1- first on the observation of the phenomenon 2- second on
        Message 3 of 13 , Sep 7, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Answer to Ron Price (with many questions).

          The Mail becomes quite long. There are now two levels :
          1- first on the observation of the phenomenon
          2- second on the explanation of the phenomenon.

          ===========================================================

          1- The observation of the phenomenon

          > >> (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
          >
          > They are sentences of Jesus in which he quotes the scriptures. It is
          > not at all clear to me that Boismard is justified in ignoring them.

          The fact that Mark knows through scriptures the use
          of "Lord" for God reinforce the strange fact that in
          original material of Mark, Lord is used just once.

          > > ..... The word used is APAGGELLW. A hapax in Mark,
          > >if I am right now .....
          >
          > No. It occurs 3 times in Mark (5:14,19;6:30).

          OK. An error for Boismard.

          > >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 !
          >
          > But if "Luke-related object" is taken to mean 'associated with Luke
          > more than Mark', then the greater length of Luke-Acts must be taken into
          > account.

          Absolutely not. (this is not scholarship, but statistic :
          I am confident here with what I say). Just look :

          > Suppose we consider a linguistic feature to be "Luke-related" in this
          > sense if it occurs proportionately at least twice as much in Luke-Acts
          > as in Mark. On this definition we would require 7 occurrences in
          > Luke-Acts for each Markan hapax.

          Suppose we consider a linguistic feature to be "Luke-related" if
          it occurs at least once in Luke. This is a Luke related object :
          We have defined a set of features that should occur randomly in
          Mark. No ?
          If you consider that Mark is absolutely independant to Luke, how
          do you answer my first question, ie how do you explain that such
          Luke-related objects appears preferentially in the second part of
          the story ?
          Where does it come, this attractive power of vv 8-20 on linguistic
          features that occurs once in Luke ?

          So whatever the size of a given XXXX document, whatever the
          definition of a XXXX-related feature, if XXXX is independent
          to Mark, then this feature should be randomly distributed in
          Mark.

          Replace XXXX with the work of Plato, and be sure that previous
          sentence is absolutely logic.

          For that reason, we may not accept your ejection of :
          (4) DIHGHSANTO POS
          (5) DAIMONISQEIS
          (6) "the lord"
          (8) PANTES + EQAUM
          But we reject APAGGELLW, that is not a hapax in Mark.

          ===========================================================

          2- The explanation of the phenomenon

          > What does it suggest? If I have understood it correctly, Boismard's
          > conclusion is that Mark 5:8ff. is dependent on Luke or an early version
          > thereof.

          Moreover : according Boismard, Mk 5:8-20 is an harmonisation
          of Proto-Mark on the matthean swine story. The author of this
          harmonisation had a Lukan-like style, and Boismard calls him
          "Marko-lukan" redactor.

          > But Luke has a very wide vocabulary. Could it not be that Mark,
          > whose Greek was relatively unrefined, was in these verses using a source
          > which had typically refined Greek rather than typically Lukan Greek?

          Really interesting alternative to Boismardian views.

          If I well understand, you accept Mk 1-7 to be really Markan,
          Mk 8-20 to come from somewhere else, and someone (the redactor
          of Mk 1-7 or a later redactor) has merged both.

          And all of this should give a good account of inconsistencies
          in the text of Mark. So I have some questions :

          - you do not accept the origin of Mk 8-20 to be the matthean swine story ?
          So you posit "another source". Usually, this is a reproach
          raised against Boismard to propose multiple hypothetical
          sources. Do you have some evidence for that source, and
          does it appear in a synoptic theory ?

          - how do you account the heterogeneity in vs 2-8 ?
          . the double reference to MNHMASIA-MNHMEION
          . the motion inconsistency (the demonic meets
          Jesus, and then he runs from far to meet him)
          This may seem a merge of the lukan and the mathean versions

          - Do you not feel that the precision the crowd was amazed when
          seeing the healed demoniac being dressed reinforces the
          probability that the redactor is refering to Luke, the only
          one that shows previously the demoniac without clothes ?


          > We could try using Matthew as a control. If we restrict ourselves to
          > examples which are absent from Matthew, we are left with ONOMA+dative,
          > TO GEGONOS and "Most High".

          I am sorry, but I do not understand what you are controlling
          by that way.

          At this step, you want to test your hypothesis, against the
          Boismardian idea that the final redactor had a Lukan style.

          Your own hypothesis is : the heterogeneous distribution is
          not due to Luke or a Lukan style, but to the good level of
          vocabulary of Luke. If your hypothesis is valid, the real
          test to check it would be to take other independant documents
          with good level of vocabulary, (for instance Plato or Paul),
          and check if you may find a heterogeneity in Plato- or
          Pauline-related feature distribution. If not, then you
          should admit that Luke is specifically concerned by the
          heterogeneity in Mk 1-20 as enlighted by Boismard.


          > These look distinctly Lukan from the
          > perspective of the synoptics as a whole, but they hardly indicate
          > anything significant about the difference between vv.1-7 and 8-20.

          Yes, but just before you agreed about the discontinuity, and
          you were just know arguing that it was not specifically Lukan,
          but possibly due to the high level of vocabulary in a source
          of Mark.

          a+
          manu

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Ron Price
          ... Emmanuel, O.K. I m glad that at last we can use a common definition (perhaps I missed this in an earlier posting). ... Yes. ... My statistics is somewhat
          Message 4 of 13 , Sep 7, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

            >Suppose we consider a linguistic feature to be "Luke-related" if
            >it occurs at least once in Luke. This is a Luke related object

            Emmanuel,
            O.K. I'm glad that at last we can use a common definition (perhaps I
            missed this in an earlier posting).

            >We have defined a set of features that should occur randomly in
            >Mark ... ?

            Yes.

            >If you consider that Mark is absolutely independant to Luke, how
            >do you answer my first question, ie how do you explain that such
            >Luke-related objects appears preferentially in the second part of
            >the story ?

            My statistics is somewhat rusty, to say the least, but surely if you
            really want to find out whether the distribution of Luke-related Markan
            hapaxes in Mark is random, you have to look at the *whole* of Mark,
            divide it up in some neutral manner, and apply some statistical formula.
            An apparent heterogeneity in a small section could be merely random when
            seen as part of the whole.
            I would also need to be convinced that the basis of Boismard's division
            into vv. 1-7 and 8-20 was entirely independent of style. Otherwise the
            heterogeneity could have been inherent in the selection. If it is based
            on statements like "the town does not fit the lake", which you quoted
            before, then I don't see it at all. For the region or country (not
            "town") is mentioned in v.1 and the boat in v.2 implies a lake. So the
            geographical ignorance, which you classed as a heterogeneity, apparently
            exists here *within* one of Boismard's divisions.

            > ..... according Boismard, Mk 5:8-20 is an harmonisation
            >of Proto-Mark on the matthean swine story. The author of this
            >harmonisation had a Lukan-like style, and Boismard calls him
            >"Marko-lukan" redactor.

            Thanks. But it does sound awfully complicated.

            >- you do not accept the origin of Mk 8-20 to be the matthean swine story ?

            Certainly not.

            > So you posit "another source". Usually, this is a reproach
            > raised against Boismard to propose multiple hypothetical
            > sources. Do you have some evidence for that source, and
            > does it appear in a synoptic theory ?

            Most synoptic theories, including mine, only define their *written*
            sources. Does Boismard's theory have evidence for the source of *every*
            synoptic pericope? I doubt it.
            I have no reason to suppose that a written source was involved here.

            >> We could try using Matthew as a control. If we restrict ourselves to
            >> examples which are absent from Matthew, we are left with ONOMA+dative,
            >> TO GEGONOS and "Most High".
            >
            >I am sorry, but I do not understand what you are controlling
            >by that way.

            If we rely on words which are absent from Matthew, it makes it less
            likely that Mark was simply taking words from some source in more
            refined Greek (as opposed to Luke in particular).

            >Your own hypothesis is : the heterogeneous distribution is
            >not due to Luke or a Lukan style, but to the good level of
            >vocabulary of Luke. If your hypothesis is valid, the real
            >test to check it would be to take other independant documents
            >with good level of vocabulary, (for instance Plato or Paul),
            >and check if you may find a heterogeneity in Plato- or
            >Pauline-related feature distribution. If not, then you
            >should admit that Luke is specifically concerned by the
            >heterogeneity in Mk 1-20 as enlighted by Boismard.

            I would first need to be really convinced of the statistical
            significance of the heterogeneity. Which brings me back to the question
            of why Boismard is (apparently) not looking at the *whole* 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
            There is a web site on Boismard s recent works, all in french : http://archeboc.free.fr This is not complete theory, but just reports and comments on some
            Message 5 of 13 , Sep 10, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              There is a web site on Boismard's recent works, all in french :
              http://archeboc.free.fr

              This is not complete theory, but just reports and comments on
              some books. The book on proto-Mark is adressed, but not in details.
              The book on birth narratives is presented with more details.

              Now, some answers and questions to Ron Price :

              # >If you consider that Mark is absolutely independant to Luke, how
              # >do you answer my first question, ie how do you explain that such
              # >Luke-related objects appears preferentially in the second part of
              # >the story ?
              #
              # My statistics is somewhat rusty, to say the least, but surely if you
              # really want to find out whether the distribution of Luke-related Markan
              # hapaxes in Mark is random, you have to look at the *whole* of Mark,
              # divide it up in some neutral manner, and apply some statistical formula.
              # An apparent heterogeneity in a small section could be merely random when
              # seen as part of the whole.

              Yes, but...
              If the intervention of Marko-Lukan concerns only a tenth of the
              gospel, your method would have a dilution effect, masking all
              evidencies with noise.


              # I would also need to be convinced that the basis of Boismard's division
              # into vv. 1-7 and 8-20 was entirely independent of style. Otherwise the

              I am sorry if I said "vv. 1-7 and 8-20". Please read : "vv. 1-8 and 9-20".

              Look, we have a logical gap between vv.8 and 9 :
              Jesus says : "Come out of this man", and thus logically, the reaction
              of the evil is expected, but the v.9 gives a question of Jesus. It does
              not look normal, does it ?
              [this comment is mine, not Boismard's]

              # heterogeneity could have been inherent in the selection. If it is based
              # on statements like "the town does not fit the lake", which you quoted
              # before, then I don't see it at all. For the region or country (not
              # "town") is mentioned in v.1 and the boat in v.2 implies a lake. So the
              # geographical ignorance, which you classed as a heterogeneity, apparently
              # exists here *within* one of Boismard's divisions.

              Some observation :

              - according Boislard, v.2-3a wear a redaction link harmonisated
              on Matthew. This is shown by the double motion of the demoniac,
              and by the double wording MNHMEION - MNHMASIA.

              - I mean there is no strict separation possible in a
              source merging process. If a marko-lukan redactor has
              edited a proto-Mark, completing him with Matthew, then
              it is nortmal to see cross pollination of one part on
              the other, is it not ? The heterogeneity remains statistical.

              For instance, you may say that you find the designation
              of unclean spirit until the v.13 (even if it is not here
              the demoniac, but the demon itself). The separation is not
              so strong that no matthean elements may have contaminated
              the first part, neither Markan elements may be present in
              the second part.

              - I understand that you may disagree with the logical gap
              I presented before, it looks quite subjective. But IMHO,
              there is like a trouble between vv 8 and 9. Difficult to
              "prove" it. But perhabs is it possible to lead a poll with
              students, asking them : "there are some heterogeneities on
              this text, and we are looking for a border line. According
              you, were is the break point". And compute the answer.

              - just a detail : according Boismard, Gerasa is a town,
              now Djerash. This is the town quoted in v.14.

              # > ..... according Boismard, Mk 5:8-20 is an harmonisation
              # >of Proto-Mark on the matthean swine story. The author of this
              # >harmonisation had a Lukan-like style, and Boismard calls him
              # >"Marko-lukan" redactor.
              #
              # Thanks. But it does sound awfully complicated.

              You think ? What I like in Boismard is the simplicity ;-)

              Look : he just says a guy who was very familiar with the style
              ofLuke has merged the proto-Mark with the matthean tradition.

              Are there unnecessary hypothesis ?
              - the proto-marc is not an unnecessary hypothesis. Many have
              postulated a proto-Mark, including defenders of Q theory.
              Boismard gives a reference to R Pesh.
              - a guy who was very familiar with the style of Luke is not
              an unnecessary hypothesis, its a fact. At least one guy
              was very familiar with the style of Luke : Luke.
              - the mathean version of the swine story is not a hypothesis.
              We got it.

              With just this idea, Boismard reinforces the markan character
              of the Gerasa exorcism, on a capernaum-like model, and gives
              an account for all the inconsistencies found in Mk 5:1-20.

              May you propose a better result with so economic hypotheses ?


              # > [since you do not accept the origin of Mk 8-20
              # > to be the matthean swine story : ]
              # >
              # > So you posit "another source". Usually, this is a reproach
              # > raised against Boismard to propose multiple hypothetical
              # > sources. Do you have some evidence for that source, and
              # > does it appear in a synoptic theory ?
              #
              # Most synoptic theories, including mine, only define their *written*
              # sources.

              But do they give an account for reallity ?
              I mean : how do they explain the heterogeneities in Mark 5:1-20 ?

              # Does Boismard's theory have evidence for the source of *every*
              # synoptic pericope? I doubt it.

              I am sure it has not. In many places, Boismard writes that the
              reconstruction is hasardous, and that he makes interpolation. But
              for Mk 5:1-20, he looks quite confident.

              Probably because the heterogeneities are so numerous in the
              text, and because the capernaum exorcism gives a good schema
              for the proto-Mark version.


              # I have no reason to suppose that a written source was involved here.

              But you said that Mark may have used for vv 8-20 a high-vocabulary source.
              Did I misunderstand ?

              # >> We could try using Matthew as a control. If we restrict ourselves to
              # >> examples which are absent from Matthew, we are left with ONOMA+dative,
              # >> TO GEGONOS and "Most High".
              # >
              # >I am sorry, but I do not understand what you are controlling
              # >by that way.
              #
              # If we rely on words which are absent from Matthew, it makes it less
              # likely that Mark was simply taking words from some source in more
              # refined Greek (as opposed to Luke in particular).

              Yes, but this is vocabulary, and not heterogeneity.


              # >Your own hypothesis is : the heterogeneous distribution is
              # >not due to Luke or a Lukan style, but to the good level of
              # >vocabulary of Luke. If your hypothesis is valid, the real
              # >test to check it would be to take other independant documents
              # >with good level of vocabulary, (for instance Plato or Paul),
              # >and check if you may find a heterogeneity in Plato- or
              # >Pauline-related feature distribution. If not, then you
              # >should admit that Luke is specifically concerned by the
              # >heterogeneity in Mk 1-20 as enlighted by Boismard.
              #
              # I would first need to be really convinced of the statistical
              # significance of the heterogeneity. Which brings me back to the question
              # of why Boismard is (apparently) not looking at the *whole* of Mark.

              He does, for some stylistic character.

              For instance, what is the use of "EGENETO" in the synoptic ?
              According Boismard, Matthew has his own particular way
              to use EGENETO, and Luke too, but Markan occurences of
              EGENETO are absolutely lukan.

              a+
              manu

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Ron Price
              ... Emmanuel, Then I think that you can claim only that the distribution of Luke-related Markan hapaxes is heterogeneous within Mk 5:1-20, and not that it is
              Message 6 of 13 , Sep 11, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                I wrote:

                >> An apparent heterogeneity in a small section could be merely random when
                >> seen as part of the whole.

                Emmanuel Fritsch replied:

                >Yes, but...
                >If the intervention of Marko-Lukan concerns only a tenth of the
                >gospel, your method would have a dilution effect, masking all
                >evidencies with noise.

                Emmanuel,
                Then I think that you can claim only that the distribution of
                Luke-related Markan hapaxes is heterogeneous within Mk 5:1-20, and not
                that it is heterogeneous within Mark as a whole. Thus the key question
                becomes: How significant is the fact that the heterogeneity within Mk
                5:1-20 appears to coincide roughly with a posited source division of the
                pericope? I don't know of any objective way of assessing this. The next
                step I guess would be to see if something similar occurs elsewhere in
                Mark.

                >Look, we have a logical gap between vv.8 and 9 :
                >Jesus says : "Come out of this man", and thus logically, the reaction
                >of the evil is expected, but the v.9 gives a question of Jesus. It does
                >not look normal, does it ?
                >[this comment is mine, not Boismard's]

                M.D.Hooker writes (_The Gospel According to St Mark_):
                "One possibility is that Mark has combined two accounts of the miracle,
                one of which included vv.1-2,7-8, and perhaps 15 ..... and the other
                vv.3-6 and 9ff. ....."
                This is different from Boismard's division as you have described it.
                All I conclude from this is that the story appears to be in a muddle,
                but scholars are not agreed on how the muddle can be explained.

                >- according Boislard, v.2-3a wear a redaction link harmonisated
                >on Matthew. This is shown by the double motion of the demoniac,
                >and by the double wording MNHMEION - MNHMASIA.

                Mk 15:46 also contains the same two words for "tomb". The mixed usage
                thus looks more like a Markan habit than evidence for use of a source.

                >there is like a trouble between vv 8 and 9. Difficult to
                >"prove" it. But perhabs is it possible to lead a poll with
                >students, asking them : "there are some heterogeneities on
                >this text, and we are looking for a border line. According
                >you, were is the break point". And compute the answer.

                I prefer M.D.Hooker's assessment that verse 8 "reads as a somewhat
                awkward parenthesis". However I note that parentheses are a feature of
                Mark's style (see e.g. Mk 7:11,19 RSV) so I don't think we should read
                too much into the awkwardness of Mk 5:8.

                >- just a detail : according Boismard, Gerasa is a town,
                >now Djerash. This is the town quoted in v.14.

                This may be right historically, though Mark describes it as a CWRA
                (region or country). Perhaps he got it wrong.

                >Are there unnecessary hypothesis [ in Boismard's theory ] ?
                >- the proto-marc is not an unnecessary hypothesis. Many have
                > postulated a proto-Mark, including defenders of Q theory.
                > Boismard gives a reference to R Pesh.
                >- a guy who was very familiar with the style of Luke is not
                > an unnecessary hypothesis, its a fact. At least one guy
                > was very familiar with the style of Luke : Luke.
                >- the mathean version of the swine story is not a hypothesis.
                > We got it.

                The question of whether these hypotheses are *unnecessary* is closely
                related to the question of whether Boismard's theory is true, which is
                what our whole discussion is about.
                However these hypotheses *do* represent additional complications as
                compared with the mainstream synoptic theories, in spite of your attempt
                to suggest otherwise.
                (1) Very few 2ST advocates believe in a proto-Mark. Nor do any 3ST or
                Farrer advocates as far as I know.
                (2) The idea that an early version of Luke influenced Mark implies the
                existence of a version of Luke which pre-dated Mark.
                (3) The idea that an early version of Matthew influenced Mark implies
                the existence of a version of Matthew which pre-dates Mark.
                Thus Boismard is hypothesizing *at least* three extra documents: early
                versions of each of the synoptics. This contrasts with the 2ST which
                posits one hypothetical document (Q), Farrer which posits none, and the
                3ST which posits one (though this merely fills in the details of a
                document mentioned long ago by Papias).

                >With just this idea, Boismard reinforces the markan character
                >of the Gerasa exorcism, on a capernaum-like model, and gives
                >an account for all the inconsistencies found in Mk 5:1-20.
                >
                >May you propose a better result with so economic hypotheses ?

                As argued above, Boismard's hypothesis is not "economic". Indeed
                according to U.Schnelle (_The History and Theology of the New Testament
                Writings_), Boismard postulates at least seven hypothetical versions of
                documents (proto-Mark, intermediate-Mark, etc., etc.)

                >> I have no reason to suppose that a written source was involved here.

                >But you said that Mark may have used for vv 8-20 a high-vocabulary source.
                >Did I misunderstand ?

                Perhaps he used a source in more refined Greek, but I didn't mean to
                imply that this was necessarily a written source.

                By the way, Anthony Kenny (_A Stylometric Study of the New Testament_,
                Oxford: Clarendon, 1986, p.120) briefly discusses the use or otherwise
                of quotations in stylistic analysis. He reckons that only verbatim
                quotes should be excluded "because the alteration of a quoted text may
                be a very vivid indicator of an author's style". "In the case of the New
                Testament this means in practice ..... only exact quotations from the
                Septuagint" I'm not sure what this would imply for Mk 12:29,30,36 as I
                don't have a copy of the LXX.

                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
                # Yes, but... # If the intervention of Marko-Lukan concerns only a tenth of the # gospel, your method would have a dilution effect, masking all #
                Message 7 of 13 , Sep 12, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  # >Yes, but...
                  # >If the intervention of Marko-Lukan concerns only a tenth of the
                  # >gospel, your method would have a dilution effect, masking all
                  # >evidencies with noise.
                  #
                  # Emmanuel,
                  # Then I think that you can claim only that the distribution of
                  # >Luke-related Markan hapaxes is heterogeneous within Mk 5:1-20,

                  Mk 5:1-20 being the topic of the discussion, yes, I focused
                  only on this. We may go to another example if you think the
                  discussion on this pericope is come to end.

                  # and not
                  # that it is heterogeneous within Mark as a whole. Thus the key question
                  # becomes: How significant is the fact that the heterogeneity within Mk
                  # 5:1-20 appears to coincide roughly with a posited source division of the
                  # pericope? I don't know of any objective way of assessing this. The next
                  # step I guess would be to see if something similar occurs elsewhere in
                  # Mark.

                  You will find at the end of this post the table of contents
                  of Boismard's Book on proto-Mark. Do you interest in checking
                  another Boismard key examples ?

                  # >Look, we have a logical gap between vv.8 and 9 :
                  # >Jesus says : "Come out of this man", and thus logically, the reaction
                  # >of the evil is expected, but the v.9 gives a question of Jesus. It does
                  # >not look normal, does it ?
                  # >[this comment is mine, not Boismard's]
                  #
                  # M.D.Hooker writes (_The Gospel According to St Mark_):
                  # "One possibility is that Mark has combined two accounts of the miracle,
                  # one of which included vv.1-2,7-8, and perhaps 15 ..... and the other
                  # vv.3-6 and 9ff. ....."
                  # This is different from Boismard's division as you have described it.
                  # All I conclude from this is that the story appears to be in a muddle,
                  # but scholars are not agreed on how the muddle can be explained.

                  * If I understand, they agree to find a gap between vv.8 and 9.
                  (you quote Hooker. According Boismard, R. Pesh agree also).
                  so there is an agreement to find here a separation between
                  two sources, and the choice of before and after the gap is
                  legitime in our check of heterogeneity.

                  * One may say that these vv 1-8 do not fit exactly the proto-Mark
                  as described by Boismard, neither as reconstituted by Hooker,
                  or Pesh. But this would be unfair, since it confused the
                  explanation of the phenomenon (the redaction process) and
                  the reality of the phenomenon (an aberration in an expected
                  random distribution).

                  * In order to solve the contradiction in vv. 2-3, each one proposes
                  its own solution. We may discuss each one, but only if at this
                  step,the existence of proto-Mark is accepted, or at least the
                  need of an explanation for all strange phenomena found in Mk 5:1-20.


                  # >- according Boislard, v.2-3a wear a redaction link harmonisated
                  # >on Matthew. This is shown by the double motion of the demoniac,
                  # >and by the double wording MNHMEION - MNHMASIA.
                  #
                  # Mk 15:46 also contains the same two words for "tomb". The mixed usage
                  # thus looks more like a Markan habit than evidence for use of a source.

                  But is there an incoherent double motion ?


                  # >there is like a trouble between vv 8 and 9. Difficult to
                  # >"prove" it. But perhabs is it possible to lead a poll with
                  # >students, asking them : "there are some heterogeneities on
                  # >this text, and we are looking for a border line. According
                  # >you, were is the break point". And compute the answer.
                  #
                  # I prefer M.D.Hooker's assessment that verse 8 "reads as a somewhat
                  # awkward parenthesis". However I note that parentheses are a feature of
                  # Mark's style (see e.g. Mk 7:11,19 RSV) so I don't think we should read
                  # too much into the awkwardness of Mk 5:8

                  With such argument, no inconsistency may hurt you.

                  Bad geography is due to Mark writing far away (but how
                  has he heard about Gerasa?), double motions are a proof
                  of his versatility, linguistic heterogeneity points out
                  his exotic style. And accumulations of such details in
                  some pericopes are certainly due to his sense of humor.

                  # >- just a detail : according Boismard, Gerasa is a town,
                  # >now Djerash. This is the town quoted in v.14.
                  #
                  # This may be right historically, though Mark describes
                  # it as a CWRA (region or country). Perhaps he got it wrong.

                  I think he is not wrong on this : Mark speaks about the "country
                  of Gerasenians", as we may speak about the "country of Athenians".
                  Is it not possible ?


                  # >Are there unnecessary hypothesis [ in Boismard's theory ] ?
                  # >- the proto-marc is not an unnecessary hypothesis. Many have
                  # > postulated a proto-Mark, including defenders of Q theory.
                  # > Boismard gives a reference to R Pesh.
                  # >- a guy who was very familiar with the style of Luke is not
                  # > an unnecessary hypothesis, its a fact. At least one guy
                  # > was very familiar with the style of Luke : Luke.
                  # >- the mathean version of the swine story is not a hypothesis.
                  # > We got it.
                  #
                  # The question of whether these hypotheses are *unnecessary* is closely
                  # related to the question of whether Boismard's theory is true, which is
                  # what our whole discussion is about.
                  # However these hypotheses *do* represent additional complications as
                  # compared with the mainstream synoptic theories, in spite of your attempt
                  # to suggest otherwise.
                  # (1) Very few 2ST advocates believe in a proto-Mark. Nor do any 3ST or
                  # Farrer advocates as far as I know.
                  # (2) The idea that an early version of Luke influenced Mark implies the
                  # existence of a version of Luke which pre-dated Mark.
                  # (3) The idea that an early version of Matthew influenced Mark implies
                  # the existence of a version of Matthew which pre-dates Mark.
                  #
                  # Thus Boismard is hypothesizing *at least* three extra documents: early
                  # versions of each of the synoptics. This contrasts with the 2ST which
                  # posits one hypothetical document (Q), Farrer which posits none, and the
                  # 3ST which posits one (though this merely fills in the details of a
                  # document mentioned long ago by Papias).

                  There is no proto-Luke, no proto-Matthew in the demonstration
                  of Boismard on Mark 5:1-20. Yes Boismard postulated a multi-
                  stage process, but this is not related to the current analysis
                  of Mark, which assumes only the existence of proto-Mark.

                  As I said before, the only "hypothesis" in the global
                  demonstration of this book is the existence of proto-Mark,
                  but many scholars, I think, accept the proto-Mark, and one
                  of their argument is the composite character of Mark, the
                  incoherences. And since Mk 5:1-20 is full of inconsistencies,
                  whatever you may think of the rest of Mark, the best
                  explanation for this case is a merging of two different
                  sources. If one of this source is Matthew, then only one
                  other source is needed here : the proto-Mark.

                  And for scholars that do not accept a proto-Mark, I still
                  wish to know how they account for these discrepancies we
                  find in Mark 5:1-20.

                  Another (technical) question : what is the tanslation in
                  english of the german "wiederaufnahme ? (in french : reprise)

                  # >With just this idea, Boismard reinforces the markan character
                  # >of the Gerasa exorcism, on a capernaum-like model, and gives
                  # >an account for all the inconsistencies found in Mk 5:1-20.
                  # >
                  # >May you propose a better result with so economic hypotheses ?
                  #
                  # As argued above, Boismard's hypothesis is not "economic". Indeed
                  # according to U.Schnelle (_The History and Theology of the New Testament
                  # Writings_), Boismard postulates at least seven hypothetical versions of
                  # documents (proto-Mark, intermediate-Mark, etc., etc.)

                  This was the Boismard of the sixties-seventies, as we find
                  it in his "synopse". But he revised many of his views. For
                  instance, there is no "intermediate-Mark" in the book about
                  proto-Mark (except when he refers, and critics, his previous
                  views).

                  # >> I have no reason to suppose that a written source was involved here.
                  #
                  # >But you said that Mark may have used for vv 8-20 a high-vocabulary source.
                  # >Did I misunderstand ?
                  #
                  # Perhaps he used a source in more refined Greek, but I didn't
                  # mean to imply that this was necessarily a written source.

                  You mean that Mark, writing a roughly greek from his own, has
                  preserved in Mk 5:1-20 an oral tradition, including its high
                  level vocabulary ?
                  This oral source operates as a written one.
                  There is difficulty to check if the source was oral. But if record
                  of the tradition was strong enough to preserve the vocabulary, is it
                  important to distinguish between oral and written ? How operative is
                  the difference between written source, and written-like oral source ?

                  a+
                  manu


                  Translated TOC of "L'Evangile de Mark, sa prehistoire",
                  M.E. Boismard, Gabalda, Paris, 1994.

                  I. the problem
                  A] Lucanism in Mk
                  1. The end of the gospel (Mk 16:19-20)
                  2. Jesus as a king (Mk 15:16-20)
                  3. A typic linguistic element of Luke (EGENETO)
                  4. Links of phrases (KAI and DE)
                  B] Lukanian story in Mk
                  BA] Predication of John the Baptist (Mk 1-4b)
                  BB] the gift of the widow (Mk 12:41:44)
                  1. Luke and the widows
                  2. rich vs poor in Luke
                  3. Lukanian wording
                  4. A quote of Epiphane
                  C] Matthean influences
                  CA] The demoniac of Gerasa (Mk 5:1-20)
                  1. The matthean story
                  2. The markan story
                  3. The proto-markan story
                  4. The reconstitution according R. Pesh
                  CB] the epileptic child (Mk 9:14-27
                  1. A composite story
                  2. the incapacity of disciples
                  3. Reconstitution of proto-Mk
                  D] A text for synthesis (Mk 3:7-12)
                  1. crowd movements
                  2. list of regions
                  3. a boat to escape the crowd
                  4. The silence recommandation
                  Conclusions

                  II. The proto-Mark
                  (reconstitution of proto-Mark, with a proposition
                  for a greek text and its french translation).

                  III The two documents
                  (a kind of conclusion)

                  + bibliograhy
                  + list of authors
                  + list of Pauline references.

                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Ron Price
                  ... Emmanuel, Not at the moment. What would interest me more is a diagram of the relationship between Boismard s synoptic source documents. ... I accept that
                  Message 8 of 13 , Sep 13, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

                    >You will find at the end of this post the table of contents
                    >of Boismard's Book on proto-Mark. Do you interest in checking
                    >another Boismard key examples ?

                    Emmanuel,
                    Not at the moment. What would interest me more is a diagram of the
                    relationship between Boismard's synoptic source documents.

                    >- according Boislard, v.2-3a wear a redaction link harmonisated
                    >on Matthew. This is shown by the double motion of the demoniac,
                    >and by the double wording MNHMEION - MNHMASIA.

                    I accept that v.6 appears to contradict v.2 in regard to the
                    demoniac's movements.

                    >> I prefer M.D.Hooker's assessment that verse 8 "reads as a somewhat
                    >> awkward parenthesis". However I note that parentheses are a feature of
                    >> Mark's style (see e.g. Mk 7:11,19 RSV) so I don't think we should read
                    >> too much into the awkwardness of Mk 5:8

                    >With such argument, no inconsistency may hurt you.

                    That's not quite fair. My statement only relates to awkward
                    parentheses.

                    >> Mark describes
                    >> it as a CWRA (region or country). Perhaps he got it wrong.

                    >I think he is not wrong on this : Mark speaks about the "country
                    >of Gerasenians", as we may speak about the "country of Athenians".
                    >Is it not possible ?

                    It sounds rather clumsy, but I suppose it's just possible.

                    > ..... since Mk 5:1-20 is full of inconsistencies,
                    >whatever you may think of the rest of Mark, the best
                    >explanation for this case is a merging of two different
                    >sources. If one of this source is Matthew, then only one
                    >other source is needed here : the proto-Mark.

                    But, Leonard notwithstanding ;-) there is abundant evidence that
                    Matthew is a development of Mark, so how can Matthew be a source for
                    Mark 5:1-20?

                    >Another (technical) question : what is the tanslation in
                    >english of the german "wiederaufnahme ? (in french : reprise)

                    According to one German/English dictionary, wiederaufnehmen is "to
                    resume", so the English noun would be "resumption". Another says
                    aufnehmen is to record, which suggests "a second record". My
                    French/English dictionary says reprise is "recovery, resumption,
                    revival". If this confuses you, you're not alone!

                    >You mean that Mark, writing a roughly greek from his own, has
                    >preserved in Mk 5:1-20 an oral tradition, including its high
                    >level vocabulary ?
                    >This oral source operates as a written one.

                    But surely an oral source can transmit some of the vocabulary of the
                    original author. In synoptic studies, as I understand them, the only
                    convincing evidence for a hypothetical written source is where two
                    different documents, believed to be independent, quote the same passage
                    in almost exactly the same words (to me, the arguments for a Johannine
                    signs source are wholly unconvincing).

                    >Translated TOC of "L'Evangile de Mark, sa prehistoire",
                    >M.E. Boismard, Gabalda, Paris, 1994.
                    >
                    >I. the problem
                    > A] Lucanism in Mk
                    > 1. The end of the gospel (Mk 16:19-20)
                    > 2. Jesus as a king (Mk 15:16-20)
                    > 3. A typic linguistic element of Luke (EGENETO)
                    > 4. Links of phrases (KAI and DE)
                    > B] Lukanian story in Mk
                    > BA] Predication of John the Baptist (Mk 1-4b)
                    > BB] the gift of the widow (Mk 12:41:44)
                    > 1. Luke and the widows
                    > 2. rich vs poor in Luke
                    > 3. Lukanian wording
                    > 4. A quote of Epiphane
                    > C] Matthean influences
                    > CA] The demoniac of Gerasa (Mk 5:1-20)
                    > 1. The matthean story
                    > 2. The markan story
                    > 3. The proto-markan story
                    > 4. The reconstitution according R. Pesh
                    > CB] the epileptic child (Mk 9:14-27
                    > 1. A composite story
                    > 2. the incapacity of disciples
                    > 3. Reconstitution of proto-Mk
                    > D] A text for synthesis (Mk 3:7-12)
                    > 1. crowd movements
                    > 2. list of regions
                    > 3. a boat to escape the crowd
                    > 4. The silence recommandation
                    > Conclusions
                    >
                    >II. The proto-Mark
                    >(reconstitution of proto-Mark, with a proposition
                    >for a greek text and its french translation).
                    >
                    >III The two documents
                    >(a kind of conclusion)
                    >
                    >+ bibliograhy
                    >+ list of authors
                    >+ list of Pauline references.

                    Thanks for this. Does Boismard explain why an editor would create the
                    'second edition' (i.e. the extant edition) 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
                    ... He gives no diagram. He is really cautious in his reconstructions, and in his hypothesis. For instance, in introduction, comparing his new position with
                    Message 9 of 13 , Sep 14, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > >You will find at the end of this post the table of contents
                      > >of Boismard's Book on proto-Mark. Do you interest in checking
                      > >another Boismard key examples ?
                      >
                      > Emmanuel,
                      > Not at the moment. What would interest me more is a diagram of the
                      > relationship between Boismard's synoptic source documents.

                      He gives no diagram. He is really cautious in his reconstructions,
                      and in his hypothesis. For instance, in introduction, comparing his
                      new position with the first one, he says : "the difference between
                      Mark and intermediate-Mark seems now more important, on the other
                      hand, the difference between intermediate-Mark and B [ie proto-Mk]
                      trend to smooth, so that we may ask if they should be distinguished".
                      And after the introduction, no word about intermediate-Mark, but a
                      direct reconstruction of proto-Mark.

                      I did not find any diagram wherever else, even on archeboc,
                      the web site on Boismard.


                      > >> I prefer M.D.Hooker's assessment that verse 8 "reads as a somewhat
                      > >> awkward parenthesis". However I note that parentheses are a feature of
                      > >> Mark's style (see e.g. Mk 7:11,19 RSV) so I don't think we should read
                      > >> too much into the awkwardness of Mk 5:8
                      >
                      > >With such argument, no inconsistency may hurt you.
                      >
                      > That's not quite fair. My statement only relates to awkward
                      > parentheses.

                      You are right. I apologize for this ironical paragraph.

                      But the problem remains unchanged : 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.


                      > > ..... since Mk 5:1-20 is full of inconsistencies,
                      > >whatever you may think of the rest of Mark, the best
                      > >explanation for this case is a merging of two different
                      > >sources. If one of this source is Matthew, then only one
                      > >other source is needed here : the proto-Mark.
                      >
                      > But, Leonard notwithstanding ;-) there is abundant evidence that
                      > Matthew is a development of Mark, so how can Matthew be a source for
                      > Mark 5:1-20?

                      But concerning Mark 5:1-20, does it not looks as an impossibility ?

                      > >Another (technical) question : what is the tanslation in
                      > >english of the german "wiederaufnahme" ? (in french : reprise)
                      >
                      > According to one German/English dictionary, [...]

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


                      > >You mean that Mark, writing a roughly greek from his own, has
                      > >preserved in Mk 5:1-20 an oral tradition, including its high
                      > >level vocabulary ?
                      > >This oral source operates as a written one.
                      >
                      > But surely an oral source can transmit some of the vocabulary of the
                      > original author. In synoptic studies, as I understand them, the only
                      > convincing evidence for a hypothetical written source is where two
                      > different documents, believed to be independent, quote the same passage
                      > in almost exactly the same words (to me, the arguments for a Johannine
                      > signs source are wholly unconvincing).

                      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 ?

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

                      > Thanks for this. Does Boismard explain why an editor would create the
                      > 'second edition' (i.e. the extant edition) of Mark?

                      He gives no global explanation, but on some pericope,
                      he 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 ?

                      a+
                      manu

                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Maluflen@aol.com
                      n a message dated 9/13/2001 3:26:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ron.price@virgin.net writes:
                      Message 10 of 13 , Sep 14, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        n a message dated 9/13/2001 3:26:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                        ron.price@... writes:

                        << But, Leonard notwithstanding ;-) there is abundant evidence that
                        Matthew is a development of Mark, so how can Matthew be a source for
                        Mark 5:1-20? >>

                        There is extremely little evidence that can be (probably wrongly)
                        interpreted as implying that Matthew is a development of Mark. So there is
                        very little problem with the idea that Matthew is a source for Mk 5:1-20. And
                        this certainly represents the more likely sequence in the present case, as
                        the reverse relationship is, in this case at least, extremely difficult to
                        make sense of.

                        That Matthew is a development of Mark is an hypothesis that one can work
                        with, making semi-coherent observations along the way regarding what Matthew
                        has done with Mark assuming this hypothesis. This is not, however, the same
                        thing as having "abundant evidence that Matthew is a development of Mark".
                        The distinction may appear to be subtle, but it is nonetheless valid and
                        important. I would argue too (though this would have to be demonstrated by a
                        lengthy argument) that there is more evidence that helps to establish Mark as
                        a development of Matthew than the reverse.

                        Leonard Maluf

                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • John Rutledge
                        [Emmanuel Fritsch] ... of contents ... in checking ... [Ron Price] ... is a diagram of the ... documents. [Emmanuel Fritsch] ... reconstructions, ...
                        Message 11 of 13 , Sep 14, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          [Emmanuel Fritsch]
                          > > >You will find at the end of this post the table
                          of contents
                          > > >of Boismard's Book on proto-Mark. Do you interest
                          in checking
                          > > >another Boismard key examples ?

                          [Ron Price]
                          > > Not at the moment. What would interest me more
                          is a diagram of the
                          > > relationship between Boismard's synoptic source
                          documents.

                          [Emmanuel Fritsch]
                          > He gives no diagram. He is really cautious in his
                          reconstructions,
                          > and in his hypothesis. For instance, in
                          introduction, comparing his
                          > new position with the first one, he says : "the
                          difference between
                          > Mark and intermediate-Mark seems now more important,
                          on the other
                          > hand, the difference between intermediate-Mark and B
                          [ie proto-Mk]
                          > trend to smooth, so that we may ask if they should
                          be distinguished".
                          > And after the introduction, no word about
                          intermediate-Mark, but a
                          > direct reconstruction of proto-Mark.
                          >
                          > I did not find any diagram wherever else, even on
                          archeboc,
                          > the web site on Boismard.

                          Diagrams illustrating Boismard's two different
                          positions can be found in Kloppenborg's _Excavating
                          Q_, p. 46-50.

                          > > >> I prefer M.D.Hooker's assessment that verse 8
                          "reads as a somewhat
                          > > >> awkward parenthesis". However I note that
                          parentheses are a feature of
                          > > >> Mark's style (see e.g. Mk 7:11,19 RSV) so I
                          don't think we should read
                          > > >> too much into the awkwardness of Mk 5:8
                          > >
                          > > >With such argument, no inconsistency may hurt
                          you.
                          > >
                          > > That's not quite fair. My statement only relates
                          to awkward
                          > > parentheses.
                          >
                          > You are right. I apologize for this ironical
                          paragraph.
                          >
                          > But the problem remains unchanged : you do not give
                          any account
                          > of all this discrepancies concentrated in this
                          pericope.

                          But you're ignoring the fairly straightforward
                          probability argument that was presented previously:

                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synoptic-l/message/6268

                          Perhaps you answered Brian's argument at some point,
                          but going through the messages around the date of 5/28
                          I can't find a reply.

                          The argument is fairly straightforward. He shows that
                          the expected average frequency distribution of Hapax
                          Legomena found in this pericope is not greater than
                          the average frequency distribution expected from a
                          random distribution.

                          > When not
                          > giving any account for this concentration, and in
                          absence of any
                          > other explanation, I must accept Boismard's views.

                          Although I understand where you are coming from, this
                          is still a logical fallacy.

                          > > > ..... since Mk 5:1-20 is full of
                          inconsistencies,
                          > > >whatever you may think of the rest of Mark, the
                          best
                          > > >explanation for this case is a merging of two
                          different
                          > > >sources. If one of this source is Matthew, then
                          only one
                          > > >other source is needed here : the proto-Mark.
                          > >
                          > > But, Leonard notwithstanding ;-) there is
                          abundant evidence that
                          > > Matthew is a development of Mark, so how can
                          Matthew be a source for
                          > > Mark 5:1-20?
                          >
                          > But concerning Mark 5:1-20, does it not looks as an
                          impossibility ?

                          No, I don't believe it is an impossibility. I still
                          thinks it's an open question concerning this pericope.
                          But surely Boismard's theory is dependent on much
                          stronger evidence than this. This argument over one
                          pericope seems rather marginal considering the
                          evidence needed to support his argument.

                          > > Thanks for this. Does Boismard explain why an
                          editor would create the
                          > > 'second edition' (i.e. the extant edition) of
                          Mark?
                          >
                          > He gives no global explanation, but on some
                          pericope,
                          > he 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 ?

                          But here is one of the major problems with Boismard's
                          theory -- where are all the other marko-lukan
                          pericopes that have been redacted? Perhaps there are
                          many more, but even the evidence for this kind of
                          specific redactional activity in Mark 5:1-20 is rather
                          tenuous.


                          =====
                          John Rutledge

                          __________________________________________________
                          Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
                          Donate cash, emergency relief information
                          http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/

                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • Karel Hanhart
                          ... I would like to be listed as being somewhat like an Farrer advocate who firmly believes in proto-Mark. Mark revised this pre-70 haggadah anno 72 in the
                          Message 12 of 13 , Sep 15, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

                            > # (1) Very few 2ST advocates believe in a proto-Mark. Nor do any 3ST or
                            > # Farrer advocates as far as I know.
                            > # (2) The idea that an early version of Luke influenced Mark implies the
                            > # existence of a version of Luke which pre-dated Mark.
                            > # (3) The idea that an early version of Matthew influenced Mark implies
                            > # the existence of a version of Matthew which pre-dates Mark.
                            >

                            I would like to be listed as being somewhat like an Farrer advocate who firmly
                            believes in proto-Mark. Mark revised this pre-70 haggadah anno 72 in the wake of
                            the devastating war. I believe Lukan material also dates from this pre-70
                            document.

                            Karel K.Hanhart@...




                            > #
                            > # Thus Boismard is hypothesizing *at least* three extra documents: early
                            > # versions of each of the synoptics. This contrasts with the 2ST which
                            > # posits one hypothetical document (Q), Farrer which posits none, and the
                            > # 3ST which posits one (though this merely fills in the details of a
                            > # document mentioned long ago by Papias).
                            >
                            > There is no proto-Luke, no proto-Matthew in the demonstration
                            > of Boismard on Mark 5:1-20. Yes Boismard postulated a multi-
                            > stage process, but this is not related to the current analysis
                            > of Mark, which assumes only the existence of proto-Mark.
                            >
                            > As I said before, the only "hypothesis" in the global
                            > demonstration of this book is the existence of proto-Mark,
                            > but many scholars, I think, accept the proto-Mark, and one
                            > of their argument is the composite character of Mark, the
                            > incoherences. And since Mk 5:1-20 is full of inconsistencies,
                            > whatever you may think of the rest of Mark, the best
                            > explanation for this case is a merging of two different
                            > sources. If one of this source is Matthew, then only one
                            > other source is needed here : the proto-Mark.
                            >
                            > And for scholars that do not accept a proto-Mark, I still
                            > wish to know how they account for these discrepancies we
                            > find in Mark 5:1-20.
                            >
                            > Another (technical) question : what is the tanslation in
                            > english of the german "wiederaufnahme ? (in french : reprise)
                            >
                            > # >With just this idea, Boismard reinforces the markan character
                            > # >of the Gerasa exorcism, on a capernaum-like model, and gives
                            > # >an account for all the inconsistencies found in Mk 5:1-20.
                            > # >
                            > # >May you propose a better result with so economic hypotheses ?
                            > #
                            > # As argued above, Boismard's hypothesis is not "economic". Indeed
                            > # according to U.Schnelle (_The History and Theology of the New Testament
                            > # Writings_), Boismard postulates at least seven hypothetical versions of
                            > # documents (proto-Mark, intermediate-Mark, etc., etc.)
                            >
                            > This was the Boismard of the sixties-seventies, as we find
                            > it in his "synopse". But he revised many of his views. For
                            > instance, there is no "intermediate-Mark" in the book about
                            > proto-Mark (except when he refers, and critics, his previous
                            > views).
                            >
                            > # >> I have no reason to suppose that a written source was involved here.
                            > #
                            > # >But you said that Mark may have used for vv 8-20 a high-vocabulary source.
                            > # >Did I misunderstand ?
                            > #
                            > # Perhaps he used a source in more refined Greek, but I didn't
                            > # mean to imply that this was necessarily a written source.
                            >
                            > You mean that Mark, writing a roughly greek from his own, has
                            > preserved in Mk 5:1-20 an oral tradition, including its high
                            > level vocabulary ?
                            > This oral source operates as a written one.
                            > There is difficulty to check if the source was oral. But if record
                            > of the tradition was strong enough to preserve the vocabulary, is it
                            > important to distinguish between oral and written ? How operative is
                            > the difference between written source, and written-like oral source ?
                            >
                            > a+
                            > manu
                            >
                            > Translated TOC of "L'Evangile de Mark, sa prehistoire",
                            > M.E. Boismard, Gabalda, Paris, 1994.
                            >
                            > I. the problem
                            > A] Lucanism in Mk
                            > 1. The end of the gospel (Mk 16:19-20)
                            > 2. Jesus as a king (Mk 15:16-20)
                            > 3. A typic linguistic element of Luke (EGENETO)
                            > 4. Links of phrases (KAI and DE)
                            > B] Lukanian story in Mk
                            > BA] Predication of John the Baptist (Mk 1-4b)
                            > BB] the gift of the widow (Mk 12:41:44)
                            > 1. Luke and the widows
                            > 2. rich vs poor in Luke
                            > 3. Lukanian wording
                            > 4. A quote of Epiphane
                            > C] Matthean influences
                            > CA] The demoniac of Gerasa (Mk 5:1-20)
                            > 1. The matthean story
                            > 2. The markan story
                            > 3. The proto-markan story
                            > 4. The reconstitution according R. Pesh
                            > CB] the epileptic child (Mk 9:14-27
                            > 1. A composite story
                            > 2. the incapacity of disciples
                            > 3. Reconstitution of proto-Mk
                            > D] A text for synthesis (Mk 3:7-12)
                            > 1. crowd movements
                            > 2. list of regions
                            > 3. a boat to escape the crowd
                            > 4. The silence recommandation
                            > Conclusions
                            >
                            > II. The proto-Mark
                            > (reconstitution of proto-Mark, with a proposition
                            > for a greek text and its french translation).
                            >
                            > III The two documents
                            > (a kind of conclusion)
                            >
                            > + bibliograhy
                            > + list of authors
                            > + list of Pauline references.
                            >
                            > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...


                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • Emmanuel Fritsch
                            I add some precision to the mail of John Rutledge, and ... I thank you for the diagram, but this one looks very close to the diagram in the synopse (dated
                            Message 13 of 13 , Sep 17, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I add some precision to the mail of John Rutledge, and
                              tell some questions :

                              > Diagrams illustrating Boismard's two different
                              > positions can be found in Kloppenborg's _Excavating
                              > Q_, p. 46-50.

                              I thank you for the diagram, but this one looks very
                              close to the diagram in the synopse (dated sixties and
                              seventies). You may find it also :
                              http://www.unpoissondansle.net/rr/9809/rolland.htm

                              As I said in a previous post, Mk-int is not present in
                              Boismard's recent work on proto-Mk. In fact, it looks as
                              if he considers Mk-int and document B as the same stage.

                              On other topics I think the present position of Boismard is
                              different. For instance : I am not sure he would still
                              consider an influence of C on the markan tradition (If I
                              well remember, C is just common to Luke and John). But
                              I am not sure.

                              > > But the problem remains unchanged : you do not give
                              > > any account of all this discrepancies concentrated
                              > > in this pericope.
                              >
                              > But you're ignoring the fairly straightforward
                              > probability argument that was presented previously:
                              >
                              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synoptic-l/message/6268
                              >
                              > Perhaps you answered Brian's argument at some point,
                              > but going through the messages around the date of 5/28
                              > I can't find a reply.
                              >
                              > The argument is fairly straightforward. He shows that
                              > the expected average frequency distribution of Hapax
                              > Legomena found in this pericope is not greater than
                              > the average frequency distribution expected from a
                              > random distribution.

                              I did not answer this message ? Bad for me.

                              Brian's argument is not relevant against Boismard.
                              Brian considers lukan word roots that are hapaxes in Mark
                              and for these, he shows that distribution is random in Mark.
                              But he does not take into account the stylistic elements, so
                              that he finds only one marko-lukan hapaxes in Mk 5:1-20.

                              With the same method, I may compare the letter distribution
                              of synoptist with John distribution, find that distribution
                              are equivalent, and conclude that there is no synoptic problem,
                              since you may find the same distribution of letters in John.

                              Similarly, you may want to define and check your own
                              phenomenon; all what you do when finding a random
                              distribution for this phenomenon is vanishing your
                              own hypothesis. If you do not check the phenomenon
                              described by Boismard, you do not adress his arguments.

                              > > When not giving any account for this concentration, and
                              > > in absence of any other explanation, I must accept
                              > > Boismard's views.
                              >
                              > Although I understand where you are coming from, this
                              > is still a logical fallacy.

                              May you say why ?

                              Reading Boismard, and wanting to check him for monthes,
                              I would like to have other explanation than Boismard's.
                              I still ask for this, on Mk 5:1-20 or on any other example
                              provided by Boismard.
                              as nobody gives better explanation, the strength of his
                              arguments looks stronger and stronger.

                              > > > But, Leonard notwithstanding ;-) there is abundant
                              > > > evidence that Matthew is a development of Mark,
                              > > > so how can Matthew be a source for Mark 5:1-20?
                              > >
                              > > But concerning Mark 5:1-20, does it not looks as an
                              > > impossibility ?
                              >
                              > No, I don't believe it is an impossibility. I still
                              > thinks it's an open question concerning this pericope.
                              > But surely Boismard's theory is dependent on much
                              > stronger evidence than this. This argument over one
                              > pericope seems rather marginal considering the
                              > evidence needed to support his argument.

                              But this is the evidence on a single pericope.
                              I gave the TOC of is book, detailing the first part
                              where he provides several examples prooving his views.

                              > But here is one of the major problems with Boismard's
                              > theory -- where are all the other marko-lukan
                              > pericopes that have been redacted? Perhaps there are
                              > many more, but even the evidence for this kind of
                              > specific redactional activity in Mark 5:1-20 is rather
                              > tenuous.

                              All what is not tenuous has yet be found, and is accepted
                              by the scholarship community. Yes, each characteristic
                              provided by Boismard is weak. But they all tend to the
                              same direction.

                              May we find a better direction ?
                              that means :
                              - do we have a theory that fit with fact
                              better than Boismard's theories
                              - do we know about facts that do not fit
                              with Boismard's theories ?

                              a+
                              manu

                              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.