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

Re: Markan Priority: Argument from Length

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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.