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

Non-existence of the Argument from Length

Expand Messages
  • Kumo997029@aol.com
    Subj: Non-existence of the Argument from Length Date: 98-12-29 15:17:52 EST From: brian@TwoNH.demon.co.uk (Brian E. Wilson) To: Synoptic-L@bham.ac.uk ...
    Message 1 of 25 , Jan 2, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Subj: Non-existence of the Argument from Length
      Date: 98-12-29 15:17:52 EST
      From: brian@... (Brian E. Wilson)
      To: Synoptic-L@...

      >Tim Reynolds wrote -
      >
      >>So, if I may ask the list, how persuasive for Markan priority is and
      >>ought to be the arguments from length?

      Actually, I didn't write that, Carlson did, back in June. I was proposing an
      answer to his question.

      >Any observed "lengths" are consistent with Mark having been written
      >first, or second, or third.

      >To see this, you only have to consider the hypothesis that all three
      >synoptists independently copied from a common documentary source. Why
      >should the synoptist who wrote last not have retained the wording of the
      >common source more faithfully than each of the other two synoptists?

      But suppose your hypothesis is incorrect. Sanday presents it in fuller form:

      "It is very generally agreed that the 'most assured result' of the
      investigations which have been going on for the best part of a century [as of
      1910, ed], and with concentrated energy for the last fifty or sixty years, has
      been the proof of what is commonly called 'the priority of St. Mark'; in other
      words, the proof that our St. Mark actually lay before the authors of the
      First and Third Gospels and was used by them in the construction of their own
      works."

      There are two undistinguished hypotheses here: first, that Mt and Lk "used"
      Mk, and secondly, that they "copied" Mk. Sanday himself suggests that
      "copying" may be misleading:

      " . . . the ancient writer . . . would not have his copy before him, but would
      consult it from time to time. He would not follow it clause by clause and
      phrase by phrase, but would probably read through a whole paragraph at once,
      and trust to his memory to convey the substance of it safely from one book to
      the other.

      "We see here where the opening for looseness of reproduction comes in. There
      is a substantial interval between reading and writing. During that interval
      the copy is not before the eye, and in the meantime the brain is actively,
      though unconsciously, at work. Hence all those slight rearrangements and
      substitutions which are a marked feature in our texts as we have them. Hence,
      in a word, all those phenomena which simulate oral transmission. There is a
      real interval during which the paragraph of text is carried in the mind,
      though not a long one. The question may be not one of hours or days but only
      minutes."

      It would probably be a couple of hours anyway before Matthew or Luke could get
      off by himself and reproduce, as best he could, the text he had heard read.
      Still, Sanday has, in principle, solved the Synoptic Problem. He was lacking
      a convincing mechanism by which memory got involved in the transcription
      process. Morton Smith's Clement letter provides that mechanism.

      >Priority and primitivity are independent phenomena.<

      Uh, okay.

      >The argument from length does not exist.<

      Let me rephrase Carlson: Is the pericope-by-pericope brevity of Mt and Lk
      relative to Mk a clue to Synoptic provenance?

      Yes, it suggests that Mt and Lk are auditory bootlegs of Mk.

      Do other clues point in the same direction?

      Yes, the lack of early Mk papyri, the relative absence of Byzantine infection
      of the Mk texts, the "great lacuna" in Lk (of which discussion with Bruce
      Brooks is still hanging). Most decisively, the pervasive textual
      microvariants in the three texts point to the *existence* of piracy; relative
      brevity indicates the *direction* of piracy. Once more, the question is not
      whether this auditory piracy genre exists. The question is whether Lk and Mk
      are of it.

      Morton Smith asked me to stop writing him, he'd had a multiple bypass and I
      gave him a headache. It wasn't me. Those neoHeideggerean spectacles were
      never intended for looking at the real world.

      >Best wishes,
      >BRIAN WILSON

      Tertium datur,

      Tim Reynolds
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... I m interested in learning more about the concept of auditory bootlegs. Do you have a recommendation of a good source explaining what auditory bootlegs
      Message 2 of 25 , Jan 3, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        At 10:56 PM 1/2/99 EST, Kumo997029@... wrote:
        >Let me rephrase Carlson: Is the pericope-by-pericope brevity of Mt and Lk
        >relative to Mk a clue to Synoptic provenance?
        >
        >Yes, it suggests that Mt and Lk are auditory bootlegs of Mk.
        >
        >Do other clues point in the same direction?

        I'm interested in learning more about the concept of "auditory bootlegs."
        Do you have a recommendation of a good source explaining what auditory
        bootlegs are and whether relative brevity is a touchstone of auditory
        piracy?

        Stephen Carlson

        --
        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
        Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
      • Kumo997029@aol.com
        Dr. Carlson, There s no one source, no Encyclopedia Brit entry. The phenomenon has been under Shakespearean attention since Greg: A.S. Cairnross tells us
        Message 3 of 25 , Jan 9, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Dr. Carlson,

          There's no one source, no Encyclopedia Brit entry. The phenomenon has been
          under Shakespearean attention since Greg:

          "A.S. Cairnross tells us that Q1 [first quarto, ed] 'has all the recognized
          features of . . . a report -- abbreviation, transposition of material, the use
          of synonyms, recollections external and internal; with inferior metre, and
          verse wrongly divided as prose'."

          Cited from the most recent relevant study, Maguire, *Shakespearean Suspect
          Texts: the 'Bad' Quartos and their Contexts*. She isn't, for methodological
          reasons, comparing texts, which is how what you detect what she calls
          "omissions, so she's not much help. Background in Hart, *Stolne and
          Surreptitious Copies: a comparative study of Shakespeare's bad quartos*, and
          Pollard, *Shakespeare's Fight With the Pirates and the Problem of the
          Transmission of the Text*.

          This isn't what you requested. But you really don't need a "good source" at
          all:

          To be, or not to be, I there's the point,
          To Die, to sleepe, is that all? I all:
          No, to sleepe, to dreame, I mary there it goes,
          For in that dreame of death, when wee awake,
          And borne before an euerlasting Iudge,
          From whence no passenger euer retur'nd,
          The vndiscouered country, at whose sight
          The happy smile, and the accursed damn'd.
          But for this, the ioyfull hope of this,
          Whol'd beare the scornes and flattery of the world,
          Scorned by the right rich, the rich curssed of the poore?
          The widow being oppressed, the orphan wrong'd,
          The taste of hunger, or a tirants raigne,
          And thousand more calamities besides,
          To grunt and sweate vnder this weary life,
          When that he may his full Quietus make,
          With a bare bodkin, who would this indure,
          But for a hope of something after death?
          Which pusles the braine, and doth confound the sence,
          Which makes vs rather beare those euilles we haue,
          Than flie to others that we know not of.
          I that, O this conscience makes cowardes of vs all,
          Lady in thy orizons, be all my sinnes remembred.

          Compare this 22-line First Quarto version with the 35-line Folio version in
          your bookcase and I think you'll get the picture.

          SUNERGOS SOU,

          Tim Reynolds
        • Brian E. Wilson
          Tim Reynolds wrote - ... I can see that relative brevity might indicate the absence of piracy in one direction, but not the presence of piracy in the opposite
          Message 4 of 25 , Jan 10, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Tim Reynolds wrote -
            >
            >relative brevity indicates the *direction* of piracy.
            >
            I can see that relative brevity might indicate the absence of piracy in
            one direction, but not the presence of piracy in the opposite direction.
            For where one version is briefer than another, each could be briefer
            than a version prior to both of them. If one version of a Shakespearean
            speech is longer than another, it simply does not follow that the
            shorter version was formed by pirating the longer.

            The pericope-by-pericope brevity of Mt and Lk relative to Mk might
            indicate that Mark used neither Matthew nor Luke. It is a logical
            howler, however, to infer from this that therefore Matthew and Luke used
            Mark. It is perfectly consistent with the pericope-by-pericope brevity
            of Mt and Lk relative to Mk that no synoptic gospel was dependent on any
            other synoptic gospel.

            I think Tim's statement should read -

            >-- relative brevity indicates the *absence of piracy* in the direction
            >-- from the shorter to the longer version.
            >--

            Best wishes,
            BRIAN WILSON

            E-MAIL: brian@... HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
            SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,
            10 York Close, Godmanchester,
            Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
          • Kumo997029@aol.com
            In a message dated 99-01-10 11:26:35 EST, you write:
            Message 5 of 25 , Jan 12, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 99-01-10 11:26:35 EST, you write:

              <<
              Tim Reynolds wrote -
              >
              >relative brevity indicates the *direction* of piracy.
              >
              I can see that relative brevity might indicate the absence of piracy in
              one direction, but not the presence of piracy in the opposite direction.
              For where one version is briefer than another, each could be briefer
              than a version prior to both of them. If one version of a Shakespearean
              speech is longer than another, it simply does not follow that the
              shorter version was formed by pirating the longer.

              The pericope-by-pericope brevity of Mt and Lk relative to Mk might
              indicate that Mark used neither Matthew nor Luke. It is a logical
              howler, however, to infer from this that therefore Matthew and Luke used
              Mark. It is perfectly consistent with the pericope-by-pericope brevity
              of Mt and Lk relative to Mk that no synoptic gospel was dependent on any
              other synoptic gospel.

              I think Tim's statement should read -

              >-- relative brevity indicates the *absence of piracy* in the direction
              >-- from the shorter to the longer version.
              >--

              Best wishes,
              BRIAN WILSON
              >>
              Brian,

              You're right as far as you go, but you have only one piece of a three-piece
              problem.

              Consider, if you will, the First Quarto [Q1] chunk I sent to Dr. Carlson on a
              few days ago. We have:

              1. Textual scrambling, what I've been calling "pervasive textual
              microvariants". So we know the relation between the Q1 and Folio *may* be
              auditory piracy.

              2. The Q1 version is significantly shorter. So we know that *if* AP is
              involved, the direction is from F to Q1.

              3. Finally, we know the situation of the F text, locked in a trunk backstage
              at the Globe while tickets to Hamlet were scalped outside. The case for AP
              is, I believe, conclusive.

              Compare the synoptic situation. Minor textual infidelity is the most striking
              feature of the three texts, the Mt and Lk versions are regularly shorter than
              their Mk counterparts, and Clement tells us the Mk holograph was "very well
              guarded" and accessible only through inhouse readings. If this isn't QED, I
              believe it deserves consideration.

              A friend suggests I may have overlooked something:

              Subj: Re: Non-existence of the Argument from Length
              Date: 99-01-10 17:37:21 EST
              From: TTalley532
              To: Kumo997029

              Tim,
              Seems a good parallel to the argument from length. It does not explain
              "auditory piracy," though. Wasn't that what he was asking about?
              Tom

              "Auditory piracy" is appropriating a text available only in a public recital
              venue by listening as hard as you can to a performance and then reconstructing
              it as well as possible as soon as possible.

              Tertium datur,

              Tim
            • Bob Schacht
              ... recital ... reconstructing ... I am intrigued by the examples from Shakespeare, and the auditory piracy concept, but the label does not transport well.
              Message 6 of 25 , Jan 12, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                At 07:24 PM 1/12/99 -0500, Kumo997029@... wrote:
                >...
                >..."Auditory piracy" is appropriating a text available only in a public
                recital
                >venue by listening as hard as you can to a performance and then
                reconstructing
                >it as well as possible as soon as possible.
                >
                >Tertium datur,
                >
                >Tim
                >

                I am intrigued by the examples from Shakespeare, and the "auditory piracy"
                concept, but the label does not transport well. The purposes of the
                performances were different: Shakespeare had every reason to want to
                control his intellectual capital. The evangelists, however, were more
                interested in *spreading* the good news. They would be well pleased at the
                efforts of an auditor to hear the Word and spread the News. This makes the
                concept all the more interesting, although a different label is needed.
                Contrast the following: Imagine a member of the audience coming up to the
                actor who portrayed Hamlet and saying, "That was a great soliloquy you did
                there; I got the 'To be, or not to be, that is the question! Whether tis
                nobler..." etc etc. for several lines, and then saying "but I lost track
                after that. Could you repeat what you said after that?" Well, the actor
                might not be to eager to recite the same lines for the benefit of the
                memorizer. But now imagine the same scene with an evangelist: "That sermon
                on the plain was really great, but I can only remember the first three
                blessings. What were the other ones?" The reader in this case would
                probably be happy to supply the information-- orally. One might even say
                that among the evangelists, 'auditory piracy' would have been encouraged?
                So in the case of the Synoptics, back-checking might have been an
                acceptable practice, whereas in the case of auditory piracy, back-checking
                would have been difficult. On the other hand, the distance between
                performances might have been greater if a whole gospel were to be heard
                only from the bishop's copy as he toured his domain.

                Nevertheless, the statistics on the mechanics of similarity between
                Shakespearean copies might make interesting comparisons regarding the
                Synoptics-- but one should also include statistics on textual variants
                within a text tradition.

                Would one of the trademarks of auditory piracy be confusion of homonyms? Do
                we have any examples of that?

                Bob
                Robert Schacht
                Northern Arizona University
                Robert.Schacht@...

                "This success of my endeavors was due, I believe, to a rule of 'method':
                that we should always try to clarify and to strengthen our opponent's
                position as much as possible before criticizing him, if we wish our
                criticism to be worth while." [Sir Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific
                Discovery (1968), p. 260 n.*5]
              • Brian E. Wilson
                Tim Reynolds wrote - ... Tim, sorry if I am labouring the point, but no, we do not know this at all. I would suggest your statement should read - ... The
                Message 7 of 25 , Jan 13, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  Tim Reynolds wrote -
                  >
                  >The Q1 version is significantly shorter. So we know that *if* AP is
                  >involved, the direction is from F to Q1.
                  >
                  Tim, sorry if I am labouring the point, but no, we do not know this at
                  all. I would suggest your statement should read -
                  >
                  >The Q1 version is significantly shorter. So we know that *if* AP is
                  >involved, the direction is NOT FROM Q1 TO F.
                  >
                  The conclusion that the direction is not from Q1 to F is consistent both
                  with AP in the direction from F to Q1, and also with *no* AP in the
                  direction from F to Q1. If AP is involved, what can be inferred is the
                  negative conclusion that the AP is not in a given direction. The
                  positive conclusion, that AP is in a given direction, cannot be inferred
                  from the data.

                  Q1 being significantly shorter than F is a directional NON-indicator.

                  Of course, if "F" is the original autograph, then the direction cannot
                  be from Q1 to F in any case. We would know this, however, without even
                  looking at Q1, and it would not follow from a comparison of F and Q1,
                  but would be true even if Q1 was significantly longer than F. The
                  special situation of "F" being an autograph manuscript is hypothetical,
                  however, since we do not have any autograph manuscripts of the works of
                  Shakespeare. Indeed, the whole point of arguing from the occurrence of
                  AP arises from the original autographs having been lost. If we had the
                  autographs, the non-original parts of the dependent scripts would be
                  obvious irrespective of arguments from the occurrence of AP.

                  In my view the distinction between a directional indicator and a
                  directional non-indicator is by no means trivial. It seems to me that a
                  great deal of synoptic criticism founders on this point. It is not at
                  all easy to show that the writer of document Y used document X. Very
                  often the data adduced shows *not* that the writer of document Y used X,
                  but that the writer of document X did not use Y. The crucial point is
                  that X not using Y is not the same as Y using X. Showing that Matthew
                  did not use Luke does not show that Luke used Matthew, and so on. I have
                  yet to see an argument that Luke used Matthew which does not attempt to
                  use a directional non-indicator as a directional indicator.

                  Best wishes,
                  BRIAN WILSON

                  E-MAIL: brian@... HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                  SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,
                  10 York Close, Godmanchester,
                  Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
                • Mark Goodacre
                  Like Bob I am intrigued by the possibility that the first quarto of Hamlet (etc.) and its relationship to the folio version might shed light on the synoptic
                  Message 8 of 25 , Jan 13, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Like Bob I am intrigued by the possibility that the first quarto of Hamlet
                    (etc.) and its relationship to the folio version might shed light on the
                    synoptic problem and I am grateful to Tim for bringing it up. I once went to
                    see a performance of the first quarto of Hamlet, a real curiosity the most
                    memorable part of which was indeed "To be or not to be; aye, there's the
                    point". I seem to remember too that the line "O that this too too solid flesh
                    would melt" was rendered "O that this too too sullied flesh would melt" (or
                    vice versa?), which would be well explained by auditory piracy -- either word
                    would make good sense.

                    However in relation to the Synoptic Problem, and specifically the argument from
                    length, several qualifications need to be made:

                    (1) It is not the case that Matthew and Luke are consistently shorter than Mark
                    in indvidual pericopae as Sanders demonstrated in _Tendencies_ (see several
                    previous messasges on this).

                    (2) The first quarto of Hamlet is overall shorter than the folio version. I
                    remember this clearly because we had time to get a couple of rounds in before
                    closing time (often the most memorable part of the evening). Now this means
                    that the first quarto is shorter both in overall length and in individual
                    particulars like the famous soliloquy (22 lines vs. 35 by Tim's count). This,
                    then, is different from the situation in the Synoptics where Mark is overall
                    shorter but sometimes in indvidual percipae longer.

                    The following qualification from Bob is also right, I think, and all the more
                    so if one accepts the conclusions of the recent book by Bauckham (ed.) on
                    Gospel Audiences:

                    > I am intrigued by the examples from Shakespeare, and the "auditory piracy"
                    > concept, but the label does not transport well. The purposes of the
                    > performances were different: Shakespeare had every reason to want to control
                    > his intellectual capital. The evangelists, however, were more interested in
                    > *spreading* the good news. They would be well pleased at the efforts of an
                    > auditor to hear the Word and spread the News. This makes the concept all the
                    > more interesting, although a different label is needed.

                    But I for one would be interested to hear any more reflections on how this
                    analogy from Shakespeare might help us get our nose out of the Synopsis.

                    Mark
                    --------------------------------------
                    Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
                    Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham

                    Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                    --------------------------------------

                    Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l
                    Synoptic-L Owner: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Kumo997029@aol.com
                    In a message dated 99-01-12 23:47:05 EST, you write:
                    Message 9 of 25 , Jan 16, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 99-01-12 23:47:05 EST, you write:

                      << Subj: "auditory piracy"
                      Date: 99-01-12 23:47:05 EST
                      From: Robert.Schacht@... (Bob Schacht)
                      To: Synoptic-L@...

                      At 07:24 PM 1/12/99 -0500, Kumo997029@... wrote:
                      >...
                      >..."Auditory piracy" is appropriating a text available only in a public
                      recital
                      >venue by listening as hard as you can to a performance and then
                      reconstructing
                      >it as well as possible as soon as possible.
                      >
                      >Tertium datur,
                      >
                      >Tim
                      >

                      I am intrigued by the examples from Shakespeare, and the "auditory piracy"
                      concept, but the label does not transport well. The purposes of the
                      performances were different: Shakespeare had every reason to want to
                      control his intellectual capital. The evangelists, however, were more
                      interested in *spreading* the good news. They would be well pleased at the
                      efforts of an auditor to hear the Word and spread the News. This makes the
                      concept all the more interesting, although a different label is needed.
                      Contrast the following: Imagine a member of the audience coming up to the
                      actor who portrayed Hamlet and saying, "That was a great soliloquy you did
                      there; I got the 'To be, or not to be, that is the question! Whether tis
                      nobler..." etc etc. for several lines, and then saying "but I lost track
                      after that. Could you repeat what you said after that?" Well, the actor
                      might not be to eager to recite the same lines for the benefit of the
                      memorizer. But now imagine the same scene with an evangelist: "That sermon
                      on the plain was really great, but I can only remember the first three
                      blessings. What were the other ones?" The reader in this case would
                      probably be happy to supply the information-- orally. One might even say
                      that among the evangelists, 'auditory piracy' would have been encouraged?
                      So in the case of the Synoptics, back-checking might have been an
                      acceptable practice, whereas in the case of auditory piracy, back-checking
                      would have been difficult. On the other hand, the distance between
                      performances might have been greater if a whole gospel were to be heard
                      only from the bishop's copy as he toured his domain.

                      {I wish I could work the response business in the list.

                      {This just in (AP!):

                      {CHURCH REPORTS THEFT OF SACRED BONES

                      {CHANDLER, Ariz.--Centuries-old sacred bone fragments and the reliquary box in
                      which they were displayed have disappeared from a Greek Orthodox Church. The
                      pebble-sized fragments date from the 3rd and 4th centuries.

                      {"These are very highly venerated," said the Rev. Philip Armstrong, priest of
                      St. Katherine Greek Orthodox Church. "The relics of saints are considered to
                      be sources for healings, for answered prayers and for the blessing of
                      premises. It is really a grave loss spiritually to us."
                      --Associat
                      ed Press

                      {While the Church wanted Christians to share in these benefits, the idea was
                      that they'd do it in Chandler. Matthew had to steal Mark's text for the same
                      reason the Venetians had to steal his body. The only difference I can see is
                      that the Hamlet pirate did it for money and Mt did it to make this unique
                      recruitment tool available to Christendom at large, exhibiting that zeal you
                      posit of the evangelists, which difference doesn't affect the texts.}

                      Nevertheless, the statistics on the mechanics of similarity between
                      Shakespearean copies might make interesting comparisons regarding the
                      Synoptics-- but one should also include statistics on textual variants
                      within a text tradition.

                      {Let's not get over-involved with Shakespeare. It's more or less an accident
                      that AP scholarship is more or less confined to Shakespeare studies. Once
                      sensitized to the phenomenon one runs across it from time to time. In 1851
                      Paris "such eminent preachers as Lacordaire and De Ravignan" complained:

                      {"More than ever do we see the spread of enterprises aiming, as they
                      directly announce, to publish verbatim issues of sermons, lectures,
                      instructions, delivered in the churches of Paris by the most celebrated
                      preachers; and this against the express wish of these preachers, against
                      their incontestable rights, and to the prejudice of the dignity and
                      liberty of the sacred Word. Consequently, the priests undersigned, who
                      more than others have had to suffer from this lamentable industry, avow
                      that not only are they averse to these reproductions, but that the same
                      are generally inexact, marred, and even so deformed as to compromise, in
                      outward opinion, the purity of their orthodoxy ..."}

                      Would one of the trademarks of auditory piracy be confusion of homonyms? Do
                      we have any examples of that?

                      {Morton Smith suggested I go after itacisms. My snotty feeling (I was
                      younger) was that if he couldn't see what was going on a couple of itacisms
                      wouldn't enlighten him. But yes, homonyms would be "trademarks of auditory
                      piracy". I haven't looked. Thesis topic.}

                      Bob
                      Robert Schacht
                      Northern Arizona University
                      Robert.Schacht@... >>

                      {Tim}
                    • Maluflen@aol.com
                      Dear list, I don t know who started it, but I do hope we have seen the last for a while of discourse on auditory piracy. I think it is an extremely unpromising
                      Message 10 of 25 , Jan 17, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear list,

                        I don't know who started it, but I do hope we have seen the last for a
                        while of discourse on auditory piracy. I think it is an extremely unpromising
                        avenue to pursue, especially as an explanation for the gospels of Matthew and
                        Luke, understood as deriving from a presumed "heard" Mark. The authors of both
                        these Gospels are manifestly persons who had intimate, hands-on familiarity
                        with numerous books, and it is unlikely in the extreme that, even in the (also
                        unlikely) event that the Gospel of Mark already existed when they wrote, they
                        were reduced to the exigency of picking up what they could of it from random
                        auditory events. The theory simply doesn't merit the further exercise of our
                        collective mental resources, in my never-too-humble view. Requiescat in pace.
                        Amen.

                        By the way, happy New Year, everyone!

                        Leonard Maluf
                      • Antonio Jerez
                        ... AMEN to each and everyone of those words of wisdom! Best wishes Antonio Jerez
                        Message 11 of 25 , Jan 17, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Leonard Maluf wrote:

                          >Dear list,
                          >
                          > I don't know who started it, but I do hope we have seen the last for a
                          >while of discourse on auditory piracy. I think it is an extremely unpromising
                          >avenue to pursue, especially as an explanation for the gospels of Matthew and
                          >Luke, understood as deriving from a presumed "heard" Mark. The authors of both
                          >these Gospels are manifestly persons who had intimate, hands-on familiarity
                          >with numerous books, and it is unlikely in the extreme that, even in the (also
                          >unlikely) event that the Gospel of Mark already existed when they wrote, they
                          >were reduced to the exigency of picking up what they could of it from random
                          >auditory events. The theory simply doesn't merit the further exercise of our
                          >collective mental resources, in my never-too-humble view. Requiescat in pace.
                          >Amen.
                          >
                          >By the way, happy New Year, everyone!
                          >
                          >Leonard Maluf


                          AMEN to each and everyone of those words of wisdom!

                          Best wishes

                          Antonio Jerez
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.