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

Re: directional non-indicator

Expand Messages
  • 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 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
      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 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@...
      • Kumo997029@aol.com
        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
          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 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
          • Antonio Jerez
            ... 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.