Yuri Kuchinsky

OK.

Sounds good to me...

Is there a chart on the Web for Boismard's hypohesis?

Well, Peter, as you well know, I wrote a whole book explaining my view of the Synoptic problem. And there's a chart there at the end of the book.

And here's a short summary, with the simplified chart,

Evolutionary View of the Gospels
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=53550

So if there are some things there that you don't understand, why don't you just ask me about some specifics?

Best,

Yuri

Peter Kirby

Eureka! I have found it.



My books are in boxes right now, and I don't know which box your book is in, so I wasn't able to refer to your book at this time.

I saw this chart:

----------L--------------
--------/----\-----------
-------M-----\----------
------/--\-----\----------
-----/----\-----\---------
----Mk---Mt---Luke-----

And it looks like it explains only the so-called triple tradition. What of the material in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark? If the chart above was complete, it would have to all have been omitted by the author of Mark.

I thus suggest a modified chart:

-----------L--------------
--------/-----\-----------
-------M-------\---------
------/--\-------\--------
-----/----\---Q---\-------
----/------\-/--\---\------
---Mk-----Mt----Luke-----

I also found this on your webpage:

1. pMk + Q = Mt .......2ST
2. pMk + Q = Lk ........2ST
3. Lk + Mt = Mk ........GH
4. pMk + Mt = Lk2 .....FGM
5. Mk + Mt + Lk = Jn ..late edition of Jn
6. Jn + Mt + Lk = Mk expansions of Mk
7. Jn + Mt = Lk2 .......expansions of Lk

Personally, I find this confusing because you have two formulae for Mk and two formulae for Lk2. It's also confusing because you omit to say that Lk contributed to Lk2, or that pMk contributed to Mk, etc. Also, Lk and Mt go into Mk two different times, and Mt goes into Lk2 two different times, but it's not clear why.

Here's my attempt to express your formulae based on your chart and the guess that you would include a double tradition "Q"-type document:

1. L -> M. (L source contributed to M source.)
2. M -> pMk. (M source contributed to proto-Mark.)
3. M + Q -> Mt. (M source and Q source contributed to 'approximately canonical' Matthew of a Western text type.)
4. L + Q -> Lk1. (L source and Q contributed to the first edition of Luke-Acts.)

I am guessing that L source is primarily or only Matthew // Mark // Luke material, and that M source is primarily or only Matthew // Mark material, while the Q source is primarily or only Matthew // Luke excluding the triple tradition.

The above four relationships give us versions of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. I'm really not sure how you see the Synoptic texts developing after these dependencies.

thanks,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Bumped for Yuri's attention.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

spin

I just wonder, with the Boismard chart, where the unique elements of Mt and Lk fit in. If we consider such sources as well, inserting them into the chart it becomes very complex indeed, although there are a few elements that make it preferable to some other theories flying around, eg it makes it easy for a Lucan writer to access specifically Matthean material -- before the Marcan stuff was incorporated into Mt. I've been totally unconvinced by theories that have Lk flyspeck picking Matthean material out of a work already including Mk.

But then, why does Lk not have any of the "kingdom of heaven" stuff? Why no Matthean Sadducee references? And various other similar Matthean elements? It would seem that this Matthean document is quite similar to a Q. (And I'm not a raving fan of a Q.)


spin

Yuri Kuchinsky

Thanks for posting this chart, Peter.

Some more explanation for it can be found here,

http://www.islam-guide.com/bqs/10sources.htm

But the problem with Boismard's chart is that we have 4 very early and quite mysterious documents, namely A, B, C, and Q, to start with. But who wrote them? Where? In what circumstances? For what purpose?

A lot of unanswered questions...

Whereas my own chart starts with only one document, the earliest proto-gospel "L".

Boismard was definitely one of the best and the most knowledgeable modern NT scholars. But IMHO he was not nearly as good as Loisy in his understanding of early Christian history.

Boismard is very good on a micro-level, in comparing early manuscripts verse-for-verse, and in tracing their relationships. He's very good in examining the relationships between the gospels on a micro-level, and in showing some specific cases of cross-pollination between them. But I don't think he's nearly as good as Loisy on a macro-level, on the Big Picture level.

Well, it's probably easier for you to find my book that you already have, than for me to send you another copy. But I can also email you my chart of gospel relationships...

No, the author of Mark didn't have to omit stuff. I'd say that some of the 'Q material' was added later to both Mt and Lk. OTOH it's also probable that some of the 'Q material' was already present in 'L' to start with.

Well, I don't think Q was ever a single unified document. So I wouldn't put it there in the chart, necessarily.

As I say, some of the 'Q material' was probably already present in 'L' to start with. Some more of it was probably added later to Lk and Mt. It doesn't make much sense to me to try and maintain the myth of Q as a single unified document... In my view, among the 'Q material' there's a lot of late stuff, but also some very early stuff, as well...

Actually these 7 classes of material belong to my early analysis from quite a few years ago. This is not in my book, actually...

Yes, that's right, there are problems there...

I would now try to generally minimise the role of Q. As I see it, there _may_ have been a small and rather late 'Q source', but it's hard to determine its exact extent.

I just see most of the 'Q material' as a generally late material...

Not necessarily. Some of the L source seems to be still embedded among the Lk special material. The Adultera Pericope could have been originally part of L, but it is now in Jn.

Primarily what is now Matthew // Mark material.

See what I said above about Q.

Well, it is clear that the Magdalene Gospel preserves the 'intermediate' text, in the sense in which Boismard is using this term. The main distinguishing feature of the Magdalene text is that it is very short. You can take just about any pericope in the Magdalene Gospel, and show that what you have in the canonical text is burdened with many later expansions. Especially this is clear with Jn, as there's little or no harmonisation with the other gospels to worry about.

Cheers,

Yuri

Peter Kirby

Drewjmore has dropped out of the synoptic problem discussion. This means that we have room for one more. Please declare your interest if you have any.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Peter,

I think in order to have a good debate one needs a clear-cut question on the table, around which the debate is structured.

So this is the problem I see with your debate proposal. What are you really trying to achieve with this debate? Do you really think you'll solve the Synoptic Problem as a result of it (assuming that the Synoptic Problem even exists)?

I suggest that you need a more specific focus. For example, you can ask, Did Q exist? Or, perhaps, Was Mark really the earliest gospel?

As I say, I think the idea that Mark (i.e. the latest Nestle/Aland version of it) was the earliest gospel is just plain absurd... Essentially, the latest Nestle/Aland version of Mark is still the 19th century Hortian Mark.

So, in order for Mk to be the earliest gospel -- the original text on which both Mt and Lk were based, the following assumptions need to be justified.

A) We have 'the original text of Mk'.

B) The 19th century textual scholars Westcott and Hort were great geniuses, and they never made any mistakes in their reconstruction of 'the original Mk'.

C) The Egyptian manuscripts, that Westcott and Hort were using, are the best.

D) 4th-5th century Egyptian manuscripts faithfully preserve the earliest text of Mk (in spite of the fact that they constantly disagree with each other).

Now, of course, there's no evidence whatsoever for any of this, and there's much evidence for the contrary.

-- Westcott and Hort completely lack credibility; they made hundreds if not thousands of purely arbitrary decisions.

-- The Egyptian Greek manuscripts deviate widely from all other manuscripts around the world, and often seem completely arbitrary in their rendering of the gospel text.

-- the idea that 4th-5th century manuscripts of Mk are somehow identical to 'the original Mk' is completely nonsensical, and is contradicted by just about all the evidence we have.

Thus, we have no original text of Mk. Modern Synoptic debate is completely misguided. For the last hundred years or so, they've been barking up the wrong tree.

So what's there left to debate?

I would like to remind one and all that I was expelled both from the Synoptic-List, and from TC-List for no reason at all... My expulsions were completely unjustified.

That's when I lost all respect for the Synoptic scholars, as well as for the textual scholars. These guys are really afraid of honest criticism, and they run from any honest debate as fast as they can run.

Regards,

Yuri.

Ted Hoffman

Yuri,
Take responsibility for your bannings and show us what you got. Once and for all.

Chris Weimer

Yuri, both Synoptic-L (which is no longer "active") and textualcriticism both have large archives. Maybe you could point out your banning point so we can decide for ourselves whether or not you deserved it. (Unfortunately, I wasn't subscribed to the list when you were...). But this is a chance for you to prove your side of the story, to peddle out the fine details and finally show what you have. (Or I could point out to other debates we've had in the past...your choice).

Chris

Yuri Kuchinsky

Sure, Chris!

Yes, it's actually very easy to verify my story.

In regard to the Synoptic-L (which is now called 'Synoptic'), here's my last message there, that was posted on Sep 16, 2000,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synoptic-l/message/4763

I was expelled because of it, as the Moderator indicated to me at the time.

You will find nothing inappropriate in this message. The Moderator, Dr. Mark Goodacre, never quite clarified to the public the reasons for my expulsion.

In regard to TC-List (at http://rosetta.reltech.org , which closed down some time ago), actually, I was expelled from that list for doubting. My last message was posted there on 5 Aug 2002.

Although the archives of TC-List are not available at this time, nevertheless, you will find the whole story discussed in Google Groups, in the thread "those dangerous Aramaic gospels". You can start from here,

(posted on Aug 13 2002)
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.me...9dcc69e9cdbc1b

Further on down in this thread, you'll find the message of the moderator, where he explains why he expelled me, as well as my reply to him. Needless to say, I don't consider that expulsion as legitimate.

Now there's a new textual criticism list, moderated by Mr. Wieland Willker,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/messages

I belonged to it for about a week, but as soon as I tried to post my first message there, I was expelled without any explanation whatsoever.

Regards,

Yuri.