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

Fwd: "auditory piracy"

Expand Messages
  • Kumo997029@aol.com
    In a message dated 99-01-13 05:01:43 EST, M.S.GOODACRE@bham.ac.uk writes:
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 16, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 99-01-13 05:01:43 EST, M.S.GOODACRE@... writes:

      << Subj: Re: "auditory piracy"
      Date: 99-01-13 05:01:43 EST
      From: M.S.GOODACRE@... (Mark Goodacre)
      Reply-to: M.S.Goodacre@...
      To: Synoptic-L@...

      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.

      {Itacism.}

      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).

      {Good. Some of this stuff (Mk1.12-13) can be dealt with on a case-by-case
      basis. I do believe that Sanders' overall thesis -- no Tendenze at all --
      doesn't hold up on this point. Mt and Lk are, as a rule, shorter.}

      (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.

      {Good again. The real distinction between Hamlet and Mk as targets for AP is
      that Hamlet is presented on one long chunk, Mk in course reading. The first
      act of Q1 is quite accurate; by Act V a whole scene has dropped out. Whether
      the units of Mk were long enough so Q1 would show degeneration with the
      pericopes I haven't thought about. Thesis topic.}

      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.

      {A friend of mine agrees:

      Tim my dear,
      I sit on the sidelines and quite enjoy the hum and buzz. I don't like,
      however, your definition of auditory piracy: too loose by far, as piracy
      includes intent, the lifting of text without permission or approval. Any
      writer or journalist such as myself knows that in certain cases,
      "adjustments" must be made to what is said (e.g., explanations of
      obscure terms or what the reader will not understand, corrections of
      imprecisions or ungrammaticisms by the speaker, amplifications by
      summing up long conversations by the "sense" of what was said, and
      outright inventions which are a better way of putting what the speaker
      said and which you are pretty sure he would approve of.)
      Schacht is right about the protectiveness of an artist relative to the
      zeal of the messianic.

      KB}

      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 >>

      {Tim}
    • Bob Schacht
      ... This is also an excellent observation. I wonder if Hamlet was ever performed one Act at a time, with a week between Acts? Or maybe even one week at a time?
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 16, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        At 08:27 PM 1/16/99 -0500, Kumo997029@... wrote:
        >{... The real distinction between Hamlet and Mk as targets for AP is
        >that Hamlet is presented on one long chunk, Mk in course reading. The first
        >act of Q1 is quite accurate; by Act V a whole scene has dropped out. Whether
        >the units of Mk were long enough so Q1 would show degeneration with the
        >pericopes I haven't thought about. Thesis topic.}
        >

        This is also an excellent observation. I wonder if Hamlet was ever
        performed one Act at a time, with a week between Acts? Or maybe even one
        week at a time? On the other hand, might not there be certain occasions
        (Easter?) when the whole of a short gospel such as Mark would be read from
        start to finish? In fact, I rather like this thought. It would make a good
        deal of sense if Mark was written to be read at an Easter vigil,
        culminating on Easter morning. This could explain the short ending of Mark.

        >...{A friend of mine agrees:
        >
        >Tim my dear,
        > I sit on the sidelines and quite enjoy the hum and buzz. I don't like,
        >however, your definition of auditory piracy: too loose by far, as piracy
        >includes intent, the lifting of text without permission or approval. Any
        >writer or journalist such as myself knows that in certain cases,
        >"adjustments" must be made to what is said (e.g., explanations of
        >obscure terms or what the reader will not understand, corrections of
        >imprecisions or ungrammaticisms by the speaker, amplifications by
        >summing up long conversations by the "sense" of what was said, and
        >outright inventions which are a better way of putting what the speaker
        >said and which you are pretty sure he would approve of.)

        Well said! The devil is in the "adjustments", and this summary of the need
        for "adjustments" is good. As Marcus Borg would say, each generation has to
        re-tell the gospel again [because of the need for such adjustments].

        > Schacht is right about the protectiveness of an artist relative to the
        >zeal of the messianic.
        >
        >KB}
        >

        Thank you. This has been a very interesting thread.

        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]
      • Kumo997029@aol.com
        In a message dated 99-01-17 14:08:56 EST, antonio.jerez@swipnet.se writes:
        Message 3 of 3 , Jan 18, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 99-01-17 14:08:56 EST, antonio.jerez@... writes:

          << Subj: Re: "auditory piracy"
          Date: 99-01-17 14:08:56 EST
          From: antonio.jerez@... (Antonio Jerez)
          To: Synoptic-L@...
          CC: Maluflen@...

          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
          >>

          Drs. Maluf and Jerez,

          The story goes that the young Planck went to Zurich to hear a presentation on
          Relativity, which he didn't understand. Local Nazis were demonstrating
          outside with signs about Jew cosmology. Planck says he thought My God,
          Einstein's right! This is the best their best physicists can do!

          If you don't buy Markan priority I suggest you fight this model to the death.

          RIP and Shanah tovah,

          Tim Reynolds
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.