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

Expand Messages
• 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 1 of 13 , Sep 17, 2001
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.

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.