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

Re: Markan Priority: Argument from Length

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [Note the source critical implications! ;-)] ... I believe there are better arguments for Markan Priority. Having been taught that a good
    Message 1 of 25 , Jun 1, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      At 04:21 6/1/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
      >Stephen Carlson wrote (some omitted):
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      [Note the source critical implications! ;-)]

      >> Thus, I feel that the arguments
      >> from length offer little probative weight.
      >
      >I agree with Stephen on this one; for a good argument for Markan
      >Priority we need to look elsewhere.

      I believe there are better arguments for Markan Priority. Having
      been taught that a good advocate puts the strongest argument first,
      I am disappointed that this argument has the pride of place, being
      the very first argument mentioned in many treatments of Markan
      Priority. I can document Streeter (1924), Kuemmel (1965), Fitzmyer
      (1970), Stein (1987, 1992), Stanton (1989), Tuckett (ABD 1992), and
      the Jesus Seminar (1994) as those who present the argument from
      length first. To be fair, some of these scholars explicitly reassess
      Streeter's argument in light of recent criticism, thereby following
      Streeter's order of presentation.

      Stephen Carlson

      --
      Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
      scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
      http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
    • James R. Covey
      ... All right, you have my interest. I haven t read the Sanders text, I admit. So perhaps you could set out a short synopsis of your own -- a brief summary
      Message 2 of 25 , Jun 2, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        re missive of 01/06/98 11:14 PM signed -Stephen C. Carlson- :

        >My own view, being influenced by E.P.Sanders, THE TENDENCIES OF
        >THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION (Cambridge: U. Press, SNTSMS 9, 1969), is
        >that the arguments from length prove very little about the relative
        >priority of the Synoptics.

        All right, you have my interest. I haven't read the Sanders text,
        I admit. So perhaps you could set out a short synopsis of your
        own -- a brief summary of his argument. I'd love to know what he
        says. My own understanding of the argument from length is
        a fairly standard one... I'll append Daniel Wallace's version
        to the end of this email and perhaps you could skim it an comment
        as to whether that is what Sanders means by the "argument from
        length"? And perhaps mention briefly how he counters it?

        >If one wants to argue that either
        >Matthew and Luke compressed Mark's accounts, it seems that this
        >argument is more sustainable for Luke than for Matthew.

        Perhaps so, but I still would put Matthew clearly ahead of
        Mark on the grammatical-finesse scale, even if he doesn't
        quite reach the Lukan heights. And if he can be shown to
        be finessing Markan texts, some compression should be
        expected. (This is aside from other possible redactional
        interests.)

        James

        [ source: http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/synoptic.htm ]

        >Mark's Shortness: The Argument from Length
        >
        >Mark's brevity can be measured in terms of verses or words:
        >
        > VERSES WORDS
        > MATTHEW 1068 18,293
        > MARK 661 11,025
        > LUKE 1149 19,376
        >
        >When one compares the synoptic parallels, some startling results
        >are noticed. Of Mark's 11,025 words, only 132 have no parallel
        >in either Matthew or Luke. Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark's Gospel
        >is duplicated in Matthew; and 88% is found in Luke. On the other
        >hand, less than 60% of Matthew is duplicated in Mark, and only
        >47% of Luke is found in Mark.
        >
        >What is to account for the almost total absorption of Mark into
        >Matthew and Luke? The Griesbach hypothesis suggests that Mark
        >was the last gospel written and that the author used Matthew and
        >Luke. But if so, why did he omit so much material? What Mark
        >omits from his gospel cannot be considered insignificant: the
        >birth of Jesus, the birth of John the Baptist, the Sermon on the
        >Mount, the Lord's Prayer, the resurrection appearances by Jesus,
        >much teaching material, etc. Further, he has abbreviated
        >accounts of the Lord's temptation and baptism. There are two
        >reasons usually given as to why Mark would omit so much
        >material: (1) Mark wanted to provide an abridged gospel for use
        >in the churches; (2) Mark only wanted to record material that
        >was found in both Matthew and Luke, perhaps on the analogy of
        >Deut 17:6-7/19:15 (the voice of at least two witnesses confirmed
        >a truth). Both of these reasons seem inadequate however, for the
        >following reasons.
        >
        >(1) Mark's Gospel is not really an abridgment: "whereas Mark is
        >considerably shorter in total length than Matthew and Luke, when
        >we compare the individual pericopes that they have in common,
        >time and time again we find that Mark is the longest!" In other
        >words, Mark's Gospel, where it has parallels with Matthew and
        >Luke, is not an abridgment, but an expansion. Not only this, but
        >the very material he omits would have served a good purpose in
        >his gospel. For example, Mark attempts to emphasize Jesus' role
        >as teacher (cf. 2:13; 4:1-2; 6:2; 8:31; 12:35, 38, etc.), yet he
        >omits much of what he actually taught. The best explanation of
        >this would seem to be that he was unacquainted with some of
        >these sayings of Jesus, rather than that he intentionally
        >omitted so much‹in particular, the Sermon on the Mount. "An
        >abridged work becomes shorter by both eliminating various
        >materials and abbreviating the accounts retained." But the
        >material which Mark eliminates is quite inexplicable on the
        >assumption of Markan posteriority; and the accounts which he
        >retains are almost always longer than either Luke's or
        >Matthew's.
        >
        >(2) It is fallacious to argue that Mark only wanted to record
        >material found in both Matthew and Luke. Yet, W. R. Farmer comes
        >close to this view when he writes that Mark's Gospel was created
        >as:
        >
        > a new Gospel out of existing Gospels on an "exclusive"
        > principle. . . . [It was written for liturgical purposes
        > as] a new Gospel [composed] largely out of existing Gospels
        > concentrating on those materials where their texts bore
        > concurrent testimony to the same Gospel tradition. The
        > Gospel of Mark to a considerable extent could be understood
        > as just such a work . . .
        >
        >There is a threefold problem with this. First, it is rather
        >doubtful that Mark intended to write his gospel by way of
        >confirming what was found in both Matthew and Luke. There is
        >little evidence in his gospel that this was an important motif.
        >Rather, if any gospel writer employed this motif, it was Matthew
        >not Mark.
        >
        >Second, there is much material‹and very rich material‹found in
        >both Matthew and Luke that is absent in Mark. In particular, the
        >birth narrative, Sermon on the Mount, Lord's Prayer, and
        >resurrection appearances. If Mark only produced material found
        >in both Matthew and Luke, why did he omit such important
        >passages which are attested by these other two gospels?
        >
        >Third, it is quite an overstatement to say that Mark only
        >produced material found in the other two: much of his gospel
        >includes pericopes which are found in only one other gospel.
        >
        >For examples of exclusively Mark-Luke parallels, note the
        >following: the healing of the demoniac in the synagogue (Mark
        >1:23-28/Luke 4:33-37); the widow's mite (Mark 12:41-44/Luke
        >21:1-4).
        >
        >For examples of exclusively Mark-Matthew parallels, note the
        >following: the offending eye/hand (Matt. 5:29-30 and 18:8-9/Mark
        >9:43-47); the details about the death of John the Baptist (Matt.
        >14:3-12/Mark 6:17-29); Jesus walking on the water (Matt
        >14:22-33/Mark 6:45-52); Isaiah's prophecy about a hypocritical
        >people and Jesus' application (Matt 15:1-20/Mark 7:1-23); the
        >Syrophoenicean woman pericope (Matt 15:21-28/Mark 7:24-30); the
        >healing of the deaf-mute (Matt 15:29-31/Mark 7:31-37); the
        >feeding of the four thousand (Matt 15:32-39/Mark 8:1-10);
        >Elijah's coming (Matt 17:10-13/Mark 9:11-13); the withering of
        >the fig tree (Matt 21:20-22/Mark 11:20-26); the soldiers'
        >mockery of Jesus before Pilate (Matt 27:28-31/Mark 15:17-20).
        >
        >What these double-gospel parallels reveal is two things: (1)
        >Mark did not follow the principle of exclusivity, for he
        >includes quite a bit of material which is found only in one
        >other gospel; (2) Mark parallels Matthew far more often than he
        >does Luke (only two pericopes in Mark-Luke vs. ten in
        >Mark-Matthew), negating Farmer's claim that where Mark only
        >followed one gospel he did so in a balanced way, preferring
        >neither Matthew nor Luke.
        >
        >Against a theory of Matthean priority stands the supposition
        >that Luke and Matthew used additional source(s). If so, then the
        >reason they shortened the pericopes they shared with Mark was so
        >that they might include other materials within the length of
        >their scrolls.
        >
        >In sum, we could add the now famous statement of G. M. Styler:
        >"given Mk, it is easy to see why Matt. was written; given Matt.,
        >it is hard to see why Mk was needed."


        -------------------------
        James R. Covey
        WWW Systems Developer
        Cochran Interactive Inc.
        http://www.cochran.com
        direct ph. # 902.422.8915
        office fax # 902.425.8659
        jrcovey@...
      • Yuri Kuchinsky
        On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Stephen C. Carlson wrote: ... Dear Stephen, The proto-Mk theory explains all of this very nicely. You should look into this sometime. I ve
        Message 3 of 25 , Jun 2, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

          ...

          > If there is a tendency for the tradition to expand (a point virtually
          > presupposed by form criticism), then it is apparent that the evidence is
          > contradictory: Matthew and Luke expand the content of Mark, but Mark
          > expands the wording of Matthew and Luke. However, I've been convinced
          > by E.P.Sanders that there is no such tendency: the post-canonical
          > synoptic tradition exhibits both expansion and contraction.
          > Furthermore, asking what is likely for a first century Christian to do
          > is too subjective for my taste, especially since most of our
          > understanding of first-century Christianity over the past 135 years is
          > derived from the acceptance of the Two Source Hypothesis in one form or
          > another. Thus, I feel that the arguments from length offer little
          > probative weight. It is barely mentioned in Sander & Davies textbook,
          > for example. Yet, it seems to be often the first argument in the more
          > popularizing material, e.g. Tuckett's ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY article,
          > Stanton's THE GOSPELS & JESUS, Stein's article in DICTIONARY OF JESUS &
          > THE GOSPELS.
          >
          > So, if I may ask the list, how persuasive for Markan priority is and
          > ought to be the arguments from length?

          Dear Stephen,

          The proto-Mk theory explains all of this very nicely. You should look into
          this sometime. I've already talked about this before, but people holding
          on to their entrenched positions are so slow to note obvious answers to
          such problems.

          On the protoMk theory, many of the canonical Mk's passages are late
          expansions. But these valid arguments are so often neglected. So often
          commentators fall into the trap of assuming the "basic textual unity of NT
          texts". I said it before, and will say it again: There's little more than
          unreasoned faith on which to base our myth of the "basic textual unity of
          the gospels".

          Because of this, any wholesale comparison e.g. of "the unity of Mt"
          against the "unity of Mk" seems rather naive to me. In this sense, the
          "Synoptic Problem", as such, is a myth in so far as these questionable
          assumptions are adhered to.

          Best wishes,

          Yuri.

          Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

          http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

          The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
          equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
        • Mark Goodacre
          James Covey quoted Dan Wallace s article, which featured the ... This is not really correct in the light of Sanders. The figures from _Tendencies_ which I
          Message 4 of 25 , Jun 2, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            James Covey quoted Dan Wallace's article, which featured the
            following:

            > > But the
            > >material which Mark eliminates is quite inexplicable on the
            > >assumption of Markan posteriority; and the accounts which he
            > >retains are almost always longer than either Luke's or
            > >Matthew's.

            This is not really correct in the light of Sanders. The figures from
            _Tendencies_ which I quoted yesterday are:

            Triple tradition material: c. 83 pericopes

            Mark: c. 8598 words; Matt.: 8325

            Difference: 273 words.

            Of the 83 pericopes, Mark is longer than Matt. in 44; Matt is
            longer than Mark in 37.

            Of those 273 words, 190 (just over one third of them) are in the
            Gerasene Demoniac

            I believe strongly in Markan Priority, but this means that the
            importance of finding adequate arguments for it is all the stronger.
            Exposing weak arguments for Markan Priority has been one of the most
            important contributions made by neo-Griesbachians (among others,
            like Sanders) to synoptic study.

            I am happy with the two matters proposed by Jeff Peterson. The term
            "inconcinnities", by the way, is used in this context also by Davies
            and Allison in their ICC commentary on Matthew.

            Mark
            --------------------------------------
            Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
            Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham
            Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            ... Yuri s point is a good one to extent that hypothetical documents such as Loisy s protoMk (is it any different from Ur-Markus?) are not often considered at
            Message 5 of 25 , Jun 2, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              At 09:10 6/2/98 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
              >On the protoMk theory, many of the canonical Mk's passages are late
              >expansions. But these valid arguments are so often neglected. So often
              >commentators fall into the trap of assuming the "basic textual unity of NT
              >texts".

              Yuri's point is a good one to extent that hypothetical documents such
              as Loisy's protoMk (is it any different from Ur-Markus?) are not often
              considered at all when investigating the Triple Tradition. The most
              that happens is the consideration and subsequent dismissal of Ur-Markus
              as a possible explanation for the Minor Agreements. Failure to
              consider all possible explanations (and unfortunately there are many
              possible explanations) may prejudge the outcome. The only real
              difficulty I would have with an hypothetical document is a lack of any
              real controls that an attested text has.

              Stephen Carlson



              --
              Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
              scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
              http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
            • Stephen C. Carlson
              ... Dan Wallace is expressly dependent on Robert H. Stein, whom I ve been discussing in detail. Thus, Wallace does not add much over Stein except he pays more
              Message 6 of 25 , Jun 3, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                At 12:01 6/2/98 -0000, James R. Covey wrote:
                >re missive of 01/06/98 11:14 PM signed -Stephen C. Carlson- :
                >>My own view, being influenced by E.P.Sanders, THE TENDENCIES OF
                >>THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION (Cambridge: U. Press, SNTSMS 9, 1969), is
                >>that the arguments from length prove very little about the relative
                >>priority of the Synoptics.
                >
                >All right, you have my interest. I haven't read the Sanders text,
                >I admit. So perhaps you could set out a short synopsis of your
                >own -- a brief summary of his argument. I'd love to know what he
                >says. My own understanding of the argument from length is
                >a fairly standard one... I'll append Daniel Wallace's version
                >to the end of this email and perhaps you could skim it an comment
                >as to whether that is what Sanders means by the "argument from
                >length"? And perhaps mention briefly how he counters it?

                Dan Wallace is expressly dependent on Robert H. Stein, whom I've
                been discussing in detail. Thus, Wallace does not add much over
                Stein except he pays more attention to the Griesbach Hypothesis,
                for which see Longstaff's post.

                What Sanders did was that he actually looked at the evidence instead
                of relying on intuitive concerns. He proposed a variety of ways in
                which a text can be expanded or compressed (e.g. add/omit OT quotes,
                add/omit to/from speeches, add/omit speeches, add/omit dialogue,
                creation of new scenes, etc.). In other chapters, he did with detail
                (e.g. explicit subjects, objects, explanations, etc.) and with
                Semiticisms. Then he looked that the post-canonical Synoptic tradition
                (manuscript tradition, patristic quotations, and apocryphal gospels)
                and determined which of the phenomena is actually probative of
                secondary developments (not much). Finally, he examined how the
                synoptic gospels relate to one another under these criteria, and found
                that the indicators were largely contradictory. Therefore, his
                conclusion is mostly a negative conclusion, that the many of the
                standard proofs do not hold up.

                As for Streeter's argument that Mark cannot be an abbreviation because
                he expands the Triple Tradition, Sanders first denies the linkage
                between the two phenomena (p.85) because " Mark's 'purely verbal
                expansions' are in no way equivalent in bulk to Matthew's teaching
                material." Second, Sanders argues that Matthew did not compress
                Mark in order to add new teaching material, because Matthew is not
                consistently shorter than Mark (Luke is though), Matthew oftens adds
                narrative material, and in particular instances proposed examples of
                Matthew's abbreviation runs counter to his favortie themes: e.g., the
                worship of Jesus (Mk5:6) and the testimony of a healed man (Mk5:18-20).
                [p.86]

                In sum, for the category of length as an indicator for priority,
                Sanders concludes that it does not indicates Mark's priority to Matthew
                and that Mark's priority to Luke supportable if Luke is an abbreviator.
                [p.87]

                Stephen Carlson
                --
                Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
                scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
                http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
              • Yuri Kuchinsky
                ... I m glad you agree with me on this, Stephen. Loisy s pMk hypothesis is actully very close to what Koester has been proposing for at least 20 years or so. I
                Message 7 of 25 , Jun 5, 1998
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                  > At 09:10 6/2/98 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

                  > >On the protoMk theory, many of the canonical Mk's passages are late
                  > >expansions. But these valid arguments are so often neglected. So often
                  > >commentators fall into the trap of assuming the "basic textual unity of NT
                  > >texts".
                  >
                  > Yuri's point is a good one to extent that hypothetical documents such as
                  > Loisy's protoMk (is it any different from Ur-Markus?) are not often
                  > considered at all when investigating the Triple Tradition.

                  I'm glad you agree with me on this, Stephen.

                  Loisy's pMk hypothesis is actully very close to what Koester has been
                  proposing for at least 20 years or so. I have no idea to what extent if at
                  all Koester is aware of Loisy's research.

                  > The most that happens is the consideration and subsequent dismissal of
                  > Ur-Markus as a possible explanation for the Minor Agreements.

                  Ur-Markus hypothesis, I think, is something quiet different. In my
                  understanding, this hypothesis was seeking to identify some
                  Aramaic-language sources for Mk, supposing that the first version of Mk
                  was written in the Aramaic. Myself, I do not subscribe to this view.

                  > Failure to consider all possible explanations (and unfortunately there
                  > are many possible explanations) may prejudge the outcome. The only real
                  > difficulty I would have with an hypothetical document is a lack of any
                  > real controls that an attested text has.

                  Yes, there is the question whether or not there's enough controlling
                  evidence to establish that there was a pMk. Nevertheless, some good
                  evidence does exist, such as the Great Omission in Lk.

                  I think there is enough evidence to conlude with Loisy and Koester that
                  there was a pMk. But I would agree that we probably do not have enough
                  evidence to reconstruct the text of pMk in many places.

                  Best,

                  Yuri.

                  Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                  http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                  The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                  equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                • Tim Reynolds
                  ... Pericope-for-pericope brevity relative to the original is diagnostic of aurally pirated texts. The Bad Quartos of ]Shakespeare s most popular plays are
                  Message 8 of 25 , Jul 28, 1998
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In June I e-mailed Dr. Carlson a suggestion regarding his initial question:
                    >
                    > So, if I may ask the list, how persuasive for Markan priority is and
                    > ought to be the arguments from length?
                    >
                    Pericope-for-pericope brevity relative to the original is diagnostic of aurally pirated texts. The "Bad Quartos" of ]Shakespeare's most popular plays are the best known example. A second characteristic is pervasive minor verbal disagreement with the original. (Sanders, whom you mention, performed a service in demonstrating that the Synoptic microvariants serve no discernible function.)

                    Clement, in Morton Smith's letter, describes the situation normally generating such bootlegs, the original "under guard" and "read only to advanced catechumens". The Shakespeare originals were kept backstage in a locked trunk. ]You remember as well as you can and transcribe as soon as you can.

                    The aural piracy genre exists. It may be worth discussing whether Mt and Lk are of it.

                    Tim Reynolds
                    kumo997029

                    ***

                    The genre exists, there's a whole literature on the Shakespearean end of it. Thomas Heywood, in a preface to his Lucrece of 1608, speaks of early plays of his having "accidentally come into the printers hands and therefore so corrupt and mangled (coppied only by the eare) that I have been as vnable to know them, as ashamed to chalenge them". 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 ..."

                    Today's pirates use tape recorders.

                    There are other indications. Streeter, Four Gospels:

                    "A study of mixed texts belonging to other families than the Alexandrian shows that it is not the exception but the rule for the Gospel of Mark to have a much smaller proportion of Byzantine readings than the other Gospels."

                    It's our carbon dating: the older the text the greater the Byzantine infection. (This would seem, on the face of it, to tell against Marcan priority. Streeter perceives it as a difficulty. I'm surprised Farmer and all never picked up on it.) Unless the text was unavailable for redaction.

                    And if Mk is so prior, where are the papyri?

                    The Great Omission, mentioned by Dr. Kuchinsky, represents a reading, or two, or three (an interesting and investigatable question) which Luke missed ( "because he had the flew or something", Koester once wrote.) Luke was in Alexandria in 85 (App. Const.), which is about right.

                    There has been a failure to distinguish composition and publication of texts. Your own opera are normally published soon after completion, but not Newton's Principia or Gurdjieff's Life is Real Only Then When I Am, for example. Mark was indeed completed first (apud this model), but wasn't published until (to anticipate) c. 150. For all those years access to the text was only via inhouse readings to "advanced catechumens" (and, I presume, visiting Christian firemen), though after Mt was in circulation no one particularly cared. Hence the piracy(ies). Hence the inexact verbal transmission. Hence the relative pericope-by-pericope brevity of Mt and Lk.

                    If this hypothesis proves to be incorrect, I hope you will do me the courtesy of shooting it down.

                    Tertium datur,

                    Tim Reynolds
                    kumo997029


                    -----
                    Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/synoptic-l/?start=442
                    Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/
                  • Tim Reynolds
                    ... See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l/?start=717
                    Message 9 of 25 , Dec 28, 1998
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In June I e-mailed Dr. Carlson a suggestion regarding his initial question:
                      > >
                      > > So, if I may ask the list, how persuasive for Markan priority is and
                      > > ought to be the arguments from length?
                      > >
                      > Pericope-for-pericope brevity relative to the original is diagnostic of aurally pirated texts. The "Bad Quartos" of ]Shakespeare's most popular plays are the best known example. A second characteristic is pervasive minor verbal disagreement with the original. (Sanders, whom you mention, performed a service in demonstrating that the Synoptic microvariants serve no discernible function.)
                      >
                      > Clement, in Morton Smith's letter, describes the situation normally generating such bootlegs, the original "under guard" and "read only to advanced catechumens". The Shakespeare originals were kept backstage in a locked trunk. ]You remember as well as you can and transcribe as soon as you can.
                      >
                      > The aural piracy genre exists. It may be worth discussing whether Mt and Lk are of it.
                      >
                      > Tim Reynolds
                      > kumo997029
                      >
                      > ***
                      >
                      > The genre exists, there's a whole literature on the Shakespearean end of it. Thomas Heywood, in a preface to his Lucrece of 1608, speaks of early plays of his having "accidentally come into the printers hands and therefore so corrupt and mangled (coppied only by the eare) that I have been as vnable to know them, as ashamed to chalenge them". 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 ..."
                      >
                      > Today's pirates use tape recorders.
                      >
                      > There are other indications. Streeter, Four Gospels:
                      >
                      > "A study of mixed texts belonging to other families than the Alexandrian shows that it is not the exception but the rule for the Gospel of Mark to have a much smaller proportion of Byzantine readings than the other Gospels."
                      >
                      > It's our carbon dating: the older the text the greater the Byzantine infection. (This would seem, on the face of it, to tell against Marcan priority. Streeter perceives it as a difficulty. I'm surprised Farmer and all never picked up on it.) Unless the text was unavailable for redaction.
                      >
                      > And if Mk is so prior, where are the papyri?
                      >
                      > The Great Omission, mentioned by Dr. Kuchinsky, represents a reading, or two, or three (an interesting and investigatable question) which Luke missed ( "because he had the flew or something", Koester once wrote.) Luke was in Alexandria in 85 (App. Const.), which is about right.
                      >
                      > There has been a failure to distinguish composition and publication of texts. Your own opera are normally published soon after completion, but not Newton's Principia or Gurdjieff's Life is Real Only Then When I Am, for example. Mark was indeed completed first (apud this model), but wasn't published until (to anticipate) c. 150. For all those years access to the text was only via inhouse readings to "advanced catechumens" (and, I presume, visiting Christian firemen), though after Mt was in circulation no one particularly cared. Hence the piracy(ies). Hence the inexact verbal transmission. Hence the relative pericope-by-pericope brevity of Mt and Lk.
                      >
                      > If this hypothesis proves to be incorrect, I hope you will do me the courtesy of shooting it down.
                      >
                      > Tertium datur,
                      >
                      > Tim Reynolds
                      > kumo997029
                      >
                      >
                      > -----
                      > Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/synoptic-l/?start=442
                      > Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/
                      >
                      >



                      -----
                      See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l/?start=717
                    • Brian E. Wilson
                      Tim Reynolds wrote - ... Any observed lengths are consistent with Mark having been written first, or second, or third. To see this, you only have to consider
                      Message 10 of 25 , Dec 29, 1998
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Tim Reynolds wrote -
                        >
                        >So, if I may ask the list, how persuasive for Markan priority is and
                        >ought to be the arguments from length?
                        >

                        Any observed "lengths" are consistent with Mark having been written
                        first, or second, or third.

                        To see this, you only have to consider the hypothesis that all three
                        synoptists independently copied from a common documentary source. Why
                        should the synoptist who wrote last not have retained the wording of the
                        common source more faithfully than each of the other two synoptists?

                        Priority and primitivity are independent phenomena.

                        The argument from length does not exist.

                        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
                        Subj: Non-existence of the Argument from Length Date: 98-12-29 15:17:52 EST From: brian@TwoNH.demon.co.uk (Brian E. Wilson) To: Synoptic-L@bham.ac.uk ...
                        Message 11 of 25 , Jan 2, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Subj: Non-existence of the Argument from Length
                          Date: 98-12-29 15:17:52 EST
                          From: brian@... (Brian E. Wilson)
                          To: Synoptic-L@...

                          >Tim Reynolds wrote -
                          >
                          >>So, if I may ask the list, how persuasive for Markan priority is and
                          >>ought to be the arguments from length?

                          Actually, I didn't write that, Carlson did, back in June. I was proposing an
                          answer to his question.

                          >Any observed "lengths" are consistent with Mark having been written
                          >first, or second, or third.

                          >To see this, you only have to consider the hypothesis that all three
                          >synoptists independently copied from a common documentary source. Why
                          >should the synoptist who wrote last not have retained the wording of the
                          >common source more faithfully than each of the other two synoptists?

                          But suppose your hypothesis is incorrect. Sanday presents it in fuller form:

                          "It is very generally agreed that the 'most assured result' of the
                          investigations which have been going on for the best part of a century [as of
                          1910, ed], and with concentrated energy for the last fifty or sixty years, has
                          been the proof of what is commonly called 'the priority of St. Mark'; in other
                          words, the proof that our St. Mark actually lay before the authors of the
                          First and Third Gospels and was used by them in the construction of their own
                          works."

                          There are two undistinguished hypotheses here: first, that Mt and Lk "used"
                          Mk, and secondly, that they "copied" Mk. Sanday himself suggests that
                          "copying" may be misleading:

                          " . . . the ancient writer . . . would not have his copy before him, but would
                          consult it from time to time. He would not follow it clause by clause and
                          phrase by phrase, but would probably read through a whole paragraph at once,
                          and trust to his memory to convey the substance of it safely from one book to
                          the other.

                          "We see here where the opening for looseness of reproduction comes in. There
                          is a substantial interval between reading and writing. During that interval
                          the copy is not before the eye, and in the meantime the brain is actively,
                          though unconsciously, at work. Hence all those slight rearrangements and
                          substitutions which are a marked feature in our texts as we have them. Hence,
                          in a word, all those phenomena which simulate oral transmission. There is a
                          real interval during which the paragraph of text is carried in the mind,
                          though not a long one. The question may be not one of hours or days but only
                          minutes."

                          It would probably be a couple of hours anyway before Matthew or Luke could get
                          off by himself and reproduce, as best he could, the text he had heard read.
                          Still, Sanday has, in principle, solved the Synoptic Problem. He was lacking
                          a convincing mechanism by which memory got involved in the transcription
                          process. Morton Smith's Clement letter provides that mechanism.

                          >Priority and primitivity are independent phenomena.<

                          Uh, okay.

                          >The argument from length does not exist.<

                          Let me rephrase Carlson: Is the pericope-by-pericope brevity of Mt and Lk
                          relative to Mk a clue to Synoptic provenance?

                          Yes, it suggests that Mt and Lk are auditory bootlegs of Mk.

                          Do other clues point in the same direction?

                          Yes, the lack of early Mk papyri, the relative absence of Byzantine infection
                          of the Mk texts, the "great lacuna" in Lk (of which discussion with Bruce
                          Brooks is still hanging). Most decisively, the pervasive textual
                          microvariants in the three texts point to the *existence* of piracy; relative
                          brevity indicates the *direction* of piracy. Once more, the question is not
                          whether this auditory piracy genre exists. The question is whether Lk and Mk
                          are of it.

                          Morton Smith asked me to stop writing him, he'd had a multiple bypass and I
                          gave him a headache. It wasn't me. Those neoHeideggerean spectacles were
                          never intended for looking at the real world.

                          >Best wishes,
                          >BRIAN WILSON

                          Tertium datur,

                          Tim Reynolds
                        • Stephen C. Carlson
                          ... I m interested in learning more about the concept of auditory bootlegs. Do you have a recommendation of a good source explaining what auditory bootlegs
                          Message 12 of 25 , Jan 3, 1999
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 10:56 PM 1/2/99 EST, Kumo997029@... wrote:
                            >Let me rephrase Carlson: Is the pericope-by-pericope brevity of Mt and Lk
                            >relative to Mk a clue to Synoptic provenance?
                            >
                            >Yes, it suggests that Mt and Lk are auditory bootlegs of Mk.
                            >
                            >Do other clues point in the same direction?

                            I'm interested in learning more about the concept of "auditory bootlegs."
                            Do you have a recommendation of a good source explaining what auditory
                            bootlegs are and whether relative brevity is a touchstone of auditory
                            piracy?

                            Stephen Carlson

                            --
                            Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                            Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                            "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                          • Kumo997029@aol.com
                            Dr. Carlson, There s no one source, no Encyclopedia Brit entry. The phenomenon has been under Shakespearean attention since Greg: A.S. Cairnross tells us
                            Message 13 of 25 , Jan 9, 1999
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dr. Carlson,

                              There's no one source, no Encyclopedia Brit entry. The phenomenon has been
                              under Shakespearean attention since Greg:

                              "A.S. Cairnross tells us that Q1 [first quarto, ed] 'has all the recognized
                              features of . . . a report -- abbreviation, transposition of material, the use
                              of synonyms, recollections external and internal; with inferior metre, and
                              verse wrongly divided as prose'."

                              Cited from the most recent relevant study, Maguire, *Shakespearean Suspect
                              Texts: the 'Bad' Quartos and their Contexts*. She isn't, for methodological
                              reasons, comparing texts, which is how what you detect what she calls
                              "omissions, so she's not much help. Background in Hart, *Stolne and
                              Surreptitious Copies: a comparative study of Shakespeare's bad quartos*, and
                              Pollard, *Shakespeare's Fight With the Pirates and the Problem of the
                              Transmission of the Text*.

                              This isn't what you requested. But you really don't need a "good source" at
                              all:

                              To be, or not to be, I there's the point,
                              To Die, to sleepe, is that all? I all:
                              No, to sleepe, to dreame, I mary there it goes,
                              For in that dreame of death, when wee awake,
                              And borne before an euerlasting Iudge,
                              From whence no passenger euer retur'nd,
                              The vndiscouered country, at whose sight
                              The happy smile, and the accursed damn'd.
                              But for this, the ioyfull hope of this,
                              Whol'd beare the scornes and flattery of the world,
                              Scorned by the right rich, the rich curssed of the poore?
                              The widow being oppressed, the orphan wrong'd,
                              The taste of hunger, or a tirants raigne,
                              And thousand more calamities besides,
                              To grunt and sweate vnder this weary life,
                              When that he may his full Quietus make,
                              With a bare bodkin, who would this indure,
                              But for a hope of something after death?
                              Which pusles the braine, and doth confound the sence,
                              Which makes vs rather beare those euilles we haue,
                              Than flie to others that we know not of.
                              I that, O this conscience makes cowardes of vs all,
                              Lady in thy orizons, be all my sinnes remembred.

                              Compare this 22-line First Quarto version with the 35-line Folio version in
                              your bookcase and I think you'll get the picture.

                              SUNERGOS SOU,

                              Tim Reynolds
                            • 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 14 of 25 , Jan 10, 1999
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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 15 of 25 , Jan 12, 1999
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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 16 of 25 , Jan 12, 1999
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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.