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

Re: [Synoptic-L] boismard

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    ... From: Mark Goodacre To: Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] boismard ...
    Message 1 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 2 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.