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

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

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Emmanuel Fritsch replied -- ... Emmanuel, No. My Logia Translation Hypothesis posits that all three synoptists independently used a
    Message 1 of 19 , Sep 21, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Brian Wilson wrote --
      >
      >On my analysis, Mk 5.1-20 is an awkward combination of one written
      >story with parts of another written story (the Capernaum Demoniac),
      >this combination having been made by the writer of the common source
      >used by all three synoptists. There are two dozen pairs of stories in
      >the synoptic gospels of this kind. I call them "story dualities".
      >These are described and discussed on my homepage.
      >
      Emmanuel Fritsch replied --
      >
      >If I well undestand, according you, their his a multi-stage redaction
      >for this story :
      >
      >- a first stage of redaction with the markan capernaum story, and the
      >matthean swine story.
      >- a merge of both stories in the written source of all synoptic. Mark
      >keeps the form of this story.
      >- Matthew and Luke have modified the story to cancel all awkward
      >details
      >
      >Am I right ?
      >
      Emmanuel,
      No. My Logia Translation Hypothesis posits that all three
      synoptists independently used a common Greek documentary source, the
      Greek Logia, that contained the pairs of stories which when copied into
      the synoptic gospels are "story dualities". These story dualities were
      originally the result of the writer of the Greek Logia on a number of
      occasions deliberately repeating wording from one story he had already
      used earlier in his writing to expand a later story in the same
      document. Thus he had already written out the story of the Capernaum
      Demoniac but then later in the same document used wording from this
      already-used story to expand a story about a Demoniac in the Gerasene
      region. He did this awkwardly, however. The consequence is that if the
      wording in common between the two stories in Mark is omitted from the
      Capernaum Demoniac, the remaining wording does not contain a more
      coherent story, but, if the wording in common between the two stories in
      Mark is omitted from the Gerasene Demoniac, then the remaining wording
      does include a more coherent story. (The same also applies to the
      parallel stories in Luke which also form a story duality in Luke.) For
      examples in detail in Greek of story dualities you will have to see my
      homepage on this (the talk given in Finland). Story dualities cannot be
      set out in Greek in detail in a letter like this one to Synoptic-L.

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

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

      Best wishes,
      BRIAN WILSON

      >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

      Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
      > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
      > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
      _

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.