on 9/9/03 4:21 PM, Ken Olson at kaolson@...
> Nearly every existing Synoptic theory, and all of the ones advocated by the
> regular contributors to this list, recognizes that the Synoptics are "too
> similar to be independent and too different to result from copying." The
> advocates of these theories think that these theories can explain that
> phenomenon quite well. Indeed, "too similar to be independent and too
> different to result from copying" would describe pretty well what scholars
> mean when they say that the author of a particular document used another as
> a "source."
I¹ll be darned. I had never realized that ³source² in synoptic lit was a
term of art. Thank you for straightening me out. I still can¹t keep the
current descriptions of Griesbach vs. Markan Priority straight.
So a ³source² would be a text bearing the relation to a descendant text that
Polybius bears to Livy, Torah/Macc to Josephus, Samuel/Kings to Chronicles,
and the synoptic gospels to one another, ³too similar to be independent and
too different to result from copying². This handful of texts opposed to the
remainder of pre-Guttenbergian literature in its entirety, those tens, maybe
hundreds of thousands of texts, in which the descendant text differs from
its progenitor only in minor and predictable scribal slippage.
Your alleged parallels to the synoptic textual relation are pretty
unconvincing anyhow. Livy and Josephus were both professional historians
transmitting data. I would be surprised if Gibbon doesn¹t bear a similar
relation to Tacitus and Suetonius when he had no other sources (in the
(Where you *will* (ho hum) find parallels to the synoptic relation of texts,
ubiquitous trivial verbal disagreement, is in ³pirated² plays and sermons, a
whole genre. Somewhere in the archives I¹ve done that rap.)
> You haven't shown that there's somehting particular about, for
> example, Matthew or Luke's supposed use of Mark that is different from, for
> example, Livy's supposed use of Polybius, Josephus' supposed use of the Old
> Testament or First Maccabees, or the Chronicler's supposed use of
> Samuel-Kings that requires the theory of auditory piracy. There may be
> something in the particular pattern of Synoptic agreements and disagreements
> that requires the theory of auditory piracy, but you have yet to tell us
> what that is. If your theory is being ignored, it may be at least partly
> because you have not seriously engaged the theories that are already out
> there and shown them to be lacking in some way.
Parallel material in Mt and Lk is regularly shorter, pericope by pericope,
than its (ex hype) original in Mk. Check it out. This and those pervasive
trivial disagreements are the signatures of ³auditory piracy². Read a few
newspaper paragraphs to a class tomorrow and ask them, as homework, to
reproduce what they heard, as verbatim as possible. Abracadabra you're a
Some testiness leaked through, I am sorry. But it will be such a relief to
turn this over to the pros.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...