## Re: directional non-indicator

Expand Messages
• 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 1 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
>
>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
• 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 2 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@...
• In a message dated 99-01-12 23:47:05 EST, you write:
Message 3 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

{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}
• 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 4 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
• ... AMEN to each and everyone of those words of wisdom! Best wishes Antonio Jerez
Message 5 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.