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

Re: [Synoptic-L] boismard

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    Hi Jim. I m afraid I m ignorant about Boismard on Acts, but while the question is very welcome here (so quiet these days!), actually there is an Acts
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 13, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Jim. I'm afraid I'm ignorant about Boismard on Acts, but while
      the question is very welcome here (so quiet these days!), actually
      there is an Acts discussion list. See:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/acts-l/

      There's an old homepage at:

      http://www3.baylor.edu/ACTSL/

      But the information there is quite out of date. Or just see the E-
      Lists page on the NT Gateway (http://www.ntgateway.com/E-Lists.htm).

      Mark


      -----------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
      University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
      Birmingham B15 2TT UK

      http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
      http://NTGateway.com


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Ken Olson
      Jim, I haven t tried to tackle Boismard and Lamouille s _Les Actes des deux Apotres, (1990+) which has now grown to six volumes in French. There s a good
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 13, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Jim,

        I haven't tried to tackle Boismard and Lamouille's _Les Actes des deux
        Apotres, (1990+) which has now grown to six volumes in French. There's a
        good English summary of the first three volumes in Justin Taylor "The Making
        of Acts: a New Account" RB 97 (1990) 504-524. Taylor, a colleague of
        Boismard and Lamouille at the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, is the author of
        volume VI, an historical commentary on Acts 9.1-18.22.

        Excerpted from Taylor:

        Vol. I is a "general introduction [that] presents in advance the conclusions
        of the whole investigation, and is followed by a literal translation into
        French of both the Alexandrian and Western texts"

        Vol. II is a "detailed literary and theological synthesis of each of the
        documents which, it is held, have gone into the making of Acts."

        "Vol. III contains the literary critical analyses which support the
        attribution of this or that passage to a particular level of redaction"

        I don't know what volumes 4 and 5 are about.

        Boismard sees Acts as a product of three sources that were combined in three
        levels of redaction. The three sources used by redactor I were P (=Petrine
        source), J (=Johannite document about JBap) and Jv (=Journal de voyage; the
        travel diary that is the basic source of the We-passages). Redactor II had
        access to both to the work of redactor I and his sources and rewrote them
        heavily. Redactor III had access to the work of both I and II but made
        fewer alterations than II had. In general, II is best represented by the
        Western text. It is not the same as our Western text, but a reconstruction
        of Boismard's. III is the Alexandrian text of Acts.

        Best Wishes,

        Ken

        kaolson@...

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Jim West" <jwest@...>
        To: <Synoptic-L@...>
        Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 1:03 PM
        Subject: [Synoptic-L] boismard


        > I know this is slightly off topic--- but I dont know of an "Acts"
        discussion
        > list.
        >
        > Boismard suggests somewhere that the western text of Acts is "first editio
        n"
        > material. I have looked at Amazon.fr and found several things-- a mutli
        > volume commentary on acts from around 1990 and a one volume commentary
        from
        > 2000. So, before I buy something, which one has the fullest discussion of
        > his ideas about the western text?
        >
        > Thanks
        >
        > Jim
        >
        > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        >
        > Jim West



        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Karel Hanhart
        ... From: Mark Goodacre To: Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] boismard ...
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 14, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Mark Goodacre <M.S.Goodacre@...>
          To: <Synoptic-L@...>
          Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:48 PM
          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] boismard


          > Hi Jim. I'm afraid I'm ignorant about Boismard on Acts, but while
          > the question is very welcome here (so quiet these days!), actually
          > there is an Acts discussion list.

          Re. "so quiet these days". No doubt because of the holidays or the
          vacation. I wonder, however, whether "Farrerists" as they were called
          in a recent post, might not offer arguments in favor of their theory.
          Thus far many posts were dedicated to the pro's and cons of the Q
          source; what size it had, its redaction history, its relation to GThomas
          etc.
          But could we not approach the same subject from another angle:
          Mark was the first one who after 70 composed our present Gospel,
          using older material we no longer have. Matthew, Luke and John
          followed suit. What arguments can we offer favoring that scenario?
          Would that turn out to be a fruitful procedure? Scholars of the
          Q-line would no doubt try to expose the weaknesses in Farrer's
          armor. Or would such an approach be in contradiction of the stated
          purpose of the list?


          cordially,

          Karel





          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Tim Reynolds
          ... Mk5.39, Funk: and says to them ³Why are you carrying on like this?² Mt9.24: he said, ³Go away ...² Lk8.53: but he said, ³Do not weep ...² legei
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 17, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            on 8/14/03 1:02 PM, Karel Hanhart at k.hanhart@... wrote:

            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: Mark Goodacre <M.S.Goodacre@...>
            > To: <Synoptic-L@...>
            > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:48 PM
            > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] boismard
            >
            >
            >> Hi Jim. I'm afraid I'm ignorant about Boismard on Acts, but while
            >> the question is very welcome here (so quiet these days!), actually
            >> there is an Acts discussion list.
            >
            > Re. "so quiet these days". No doubt because of the holidays or the
            > vacation. I wonder, however, whether "Farrerists" as they were called
            > in a recent post, might not offer arguments in favor of their theory.
            > Thus far many posts were dedicated to the pro's and cons of the Q
            > source; what size it had, its redaction history, its relation to GThomas
            > etc.
            > But could we not approach the same subject from another angle:
            > Mark was the first one who after 70 composed our present Gospel,
            > using older material we no longer have. Matthew, Luke and John
            > followed suit. What arguments can we offer favoring that scenario?
            > Would that turn out to be a fruitful procedure? Scholars of the
            > Q-line would no doubt try to expose the weaknesses in Farrer's
            > armor. Or would such an approach be in contradiction of the stated
            > purpose of the list?
            >
            >
            > cordially,
            >
            > Karel
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...


            Mk5.39, Funk: and says to them ³Why are you carrying on like this?²

            Mt9.24: he said, ³Go away ...²

            Lk8.53: but he said, ³Do not weep ...²


            legei autois ti thorubesthe kai klaiete

            elegen anakhoreite

            ho de eipen me klaiete


            Since 1998 I have been suggesting from time to time that these texts bear
            the same relation to one another as:


            To be or not to be, that is the question

            To be or not to be, aye, that¹s the point


            The above is of course from the ³Bad Quarto² of Hamlet, a specimen of what
            Shakespearean scholars call ³auditory piracy²: the target text is
            memorized and subsequently reproduced as well as can be expected from a text
            presented in an oral venue. There are a variety of examples of the genre
            extant, mostly sermons and plays. The originals and the ³pirated² versions
            show the endemic minor disagreements characterizing the Synoptic texts.

            Morton Smith¹s Clement letter describes an orally presented Markan
            manuscript in Alexandria:

            ³Thus, in sum, [Mark] prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously,
            in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in
            Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to
            those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.²

            Think about it.

            Tim Reynolds
            Long Beach CA USA


            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.