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

Re: "auditory piracy"

Expand Messages
  • Kumo997029@aol.com
    In a message dated 99-01-12 23:47:05 EST, you write:
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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.