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

directional non-indicator

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 25 , Jan 10, 1999
      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 2 of 25 , Jan 12, 1999
        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 3 of 25 , Jan 12, 1999
          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 4 of 25 , Jan 13, 1999
            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 5 of 25 , Jan 13, 1999
              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 6 of 25 , Jan 16, 1999
                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 7 of 25 , Jan 17, 1999
                  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 8 of 25 , Jan 17, 1999
                    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.