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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.