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

Re: [Synoptic-L] More on V. Taylor on Mark's Priority.

Expand Messages
  • Tim Reynolds
    ... I saw this auditory piracy business over 20 years ago, starting from Clement. I had read it four times in Smith’s popular version: once years before,
    Message 1 of 10 , Dec 2, 2000
      Steven Craig Miller wrote:

      > To: Leonard Maluf,

      >
      >
      > I would concede that nothing is established as "certain." Fitzmyer wrote:
      >
      > << ... the history of Synoptic research reveals that the problem is
      > 'practically insoluble.' As I see the matter, we cannot hope for a
      > definitive and certain solution to it ... >> ("Jesus and Man's Hope," 132).
      >

      I saw this auditory piracy business over 20 years ago, starting from Clement.
      I had read it four times in Smith’s popular version: once years before, again
      for a book I was writing, again as I transcribed it, and once more as I
      proofread it, and the last time through I caught on:

      “Yow. Clement’s ‘even yet’. Mk wasn’t being transmitted. I read right over
      that, it was cubbyholed in Alexandria. Does that mean L and Mt also enslaved
      a guard? They didn’t have xerox machines. This is hot. Think.”
      Singularity?, p. 109.

      This is why I have great confidence in this model. It was only later that I
      realized what memory transcripts of written material would, common sense, have
      to be like. And only later still that I made the Bad Quarto [et al.]
      connection.

      Clement was really just a catalyst, his testimony is unnecessary. Greg and
      Streeter are chatting over port at the Bibliographical Society, turn of the
      century, Greg quotes “To be or not to be, aye that’s the point” to illustrate
      these Bad Quartos he’s involved in, and Streeter sees the resemblance to the
      synoptics. That’s all it would take to put forward, formally, a synoptic
      hypothesis. What Clement does is concretize the physical circumstances the
      aural piracy hypothesis predicts must have existed: Mk available exclusively
      in aural presentation.

      The Blessed but Goofy Mullah Nasr Edin goes into a grocery store and asks Do
      you have eggs? The clerk says We have free range eggs, we have ostrich eggs
      ... Nasr Edin says Do you have flour? The clerk says Do we have flour? Stone
      ground from ... Nasr Edin says Do you have sugar? The clerk says Sugar fit
      for a Padishah! Sugar ... Nasr Edin says Why don’t you bake a cake?

      Tim Reynolds
      Long Beach CA


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • John C. Poirier
      ... If ... All this begs the question of whether scholars were justified in applying Lachmann s principles to stemmas that were not Lachmannian. Lachmann
      Message 2 of 10 , Dec 3, 2000
        Steven Craig Miller:

        >
        > An example as to how these arguments must work together in combination is
        > that I don't believe that one can talk of Makan "primitivity," as is
        > normally done, unless one can (at least) establish that there is some
        > direct literary relationship between the gospels, since what is meant by
        > Markan "primitivity" is "primitivity" in comparison to Matthew and Luke.
        If
        > there is no direct literary relationship, the notion of "primitivity" is
        > simply not the same.
        >

        All this begs the question of whether scholars were justified in applying
        Lachmann's principles to stemmas that were not Lachmannian. Lachmann spoke
        of Markan "primitivity" (not his word, if I remember) "in comparison to
        Matthew and Luke," but without envisioning that any gospel was a descendent
        of another. His point was that Mark enjoyed "priority," not in the genetic
        sense in which "Markan priority" is meant today, but rather in the sense
        that Mark was more faithful to the wording of a common source. So, when you
        say that "the notion of 'primitivity' is simply not the same," it appears
        that you are simply begging the question that Brian Wilson is putting
        forward.


        John C. Poirier
        Middletown, Ohio




        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Steven Craig Miller
        To: John C. Poirier,
        Message 3 of 10 , Dec 3, 2000
          To: John C. Poirier,

          << So, when you say that "the notion of 'primitivity' is simply not the
          same," it appears that you are simply begging the question that Brian
          Wilson is putting forward. >>

          I'm unsure what you mean by "begging the question" here.

          I'm trying to distinguish between two notions of "primitivity," one where
          the source is known, and one where the source is unknown. In point five of
          Goodacre's paper, he claims the following to be a "fallacy":

          << (5) "Luke's occasional greater primitivity over against Matthew
          necessitates the existence of Q." >>

          I too have difficulties accepting this argument since the text of 'Q' is
          unknown. There will always be some doubt whether a so-called "primitivity"
          was really a part of Q or the result of redaction.

          The situation is different with the arguments for Markan priority. Once it
          has been established that (1) there is a direct literary relationship
          between the Synoptic Gospels within the (so called) Triple tradition; and
          (2) Mark is the "middle-term" for the Triple tradition; then (3) the
          "primitivity" proves Markan priority. What is meant by "primitivity"?
          Markan "primitivity" is shown (a) by the use of phrases likely to cause
          offence, which are omitted or toned down in the other Gospels, and (b) by
          Mark's roughness of style and grammar which the other Gospels alter
          resulting in stylistic or grammatical improvements. Unlike with Q, the text
          of Mark's Gospel is known to us.

          -Steven Craig Miller
          Alton, Illinois (USA)
          scmiller@...



          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • John C. Poirier
          ... text ... I did not say that I have difficulty with Goodacre s point about primitivity --I was questioning your response to Brian Wilson. Let me explain
          Message 4 of 10 , Dec 4, 2000
            Steven Craig Miller wrote:

            > I'm unsure what you mean by "begging the question" here.
            >
            > I'm trying to distinguish between two notions of "primitivity," one where
            > the source is known, and one where the source is unknown. In point five of
            > Goodacre's paper, he claims the following to be a "fallacy":
            >
            > << (5) "Luke's occasional greater primitivity over against Matthew
            > necessitates the existence of Q." >>
            >
            > I too have difficulties accepting this argument since the text of 'Q' is
            > unknown. There will always be some doubt whether a so-called "primitivity"
            > was really a part of Q or the result of redaction.
            >
            > The situation is different with the arguments for Markan priority. Once it
            > has been established that (1) there is a direct literary relationship
            > between the Synoptic Gospels within the (so called) Triple tradition; and
            > (2) Mark is the "middle-term" for the Triple tradition; then (3) the
            > "primitivity" proves Markan priority. What is meant by "primitivity"?
            > Markan "primitivity" is shown (a) by the use of phrases likely to cause
            > offence, which are omitted or toned down in the other Gospels, and (b) by
            > Mark's roughness of style and grammar which the other Gospels alter
            > resulting in stylistic or grammatical improvements. Unlike with Q, the
            text
            > of Mark's Gospel is known to us.

            I did not say that I have difficulty with Goodacre's point about
            "primitivity"--I was questioning your response to Brian Wilson.

            Let me explain what I mean by "begging the question": you have a three-part
            sequence of deductions which begins by establishing that a "direct literary
            relationship" exists between the synoptic gospels, yet your definition of
            "direct literary relationship" seems to rule out the type of literary
            relationship that Brian Wilson has in mind: independent use of a common
            source. My point is that Wilson's paradigm is also what Lachmann had in
            mind when he established that Mark is the "middle term," and he put *those*
            two deductions together in order to establish Mark's "priority" in the sense
            of Mark's greater fidelity to the common source, rather than in the sense of
            Mark's genetic or temporal priority to Matthew and Luke. In other words,
            your sequence of deductions reproduces the "great fallacy" created by
            Streeter's misreading of Lachmann, for, as Farmer has carefully explained,
            when scholars began dispensing with the idea of an Ur-gospel, they committed
            a fallacy in thinking that Lachmann's argument continues to be logically
            probative when applied to stemmas which placed the gospels in direct descent
            to one another.


            John C. Poirier
            Middletown, Ohio



            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.