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

[Synoptic-L] Ho hum

Expand Messages
  • Tim Reynolds
    Auditory ³Piracy²: ³Because he disliked seeing people copying down his words, students and young rabbis would try to memorize his talks and re-create them
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Auditory ³Piracy²:

      ³Because he disliked seeing people copying down his words, students and
      young rabbis would try to memorize his talks and re-create them afterward,
      in group sessions, comparing notes to come up with the version they felt was
      closest to what the Rebbe really said.² Fishkoff, The Rebbe¹s Army

      You understand this proposed model of synoptic transmission will have to be
      dealt with. I¹ve watched this site die as the investigation ground to a
      halt. And yet the common or garden Marcan priority model, over a century
      old, isn¹t wrong, only incomplete.

      Tim Reynolds
      Long Beach CA


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Ken Olson
      ... [snip] You understand this proposed model of synoptic transmission will have to be dealt with.
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        On September 2, 2003 Tim Reynolds wrote:

        >>Auditory ³Piracy²:

        [snip]

        You understand this proposed model of synoptic transmission will have to be
        dealt with.<<

        You understand that this model of synoptic transmission might be dealt with,
        should someone ever clearly articulate what it is.

        Best Wishes,

        Ken

        kaolson@...


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Tim Reynolds
        ... Mk5.39, Funk: and says to them ³Why are you carrying on like this?² Mt9.24: he said, ³Go away ...² Lk8.53: but he said, ³Do not weep ...² legei
        Message 3 of 6 , Sep 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          on 9/2/03 3:59 PM, Ken Olson at kaolson@... wrote:

          > On September 2, 2003 Tim Reynolds wrote:
          >
          >>> Auditory ³Piracy²:
          >
          > [snip]
          >
          > You understand this proposed model of synoptic transmission will have to be
          > dealt with.<<
          >
          > You understand that this model of synoptic transmission might be dealt with,
          > should someone ever clearly articulate what it is.
          >
          > Best Wishes,
          >
          > Ken
          >
          > kaolson@...
          >
          >
          > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...


          Mk5.39, Funk: and says to them ³Why are you carrying on like this?²

          Mt9.24: he said, ³Go away ...²

          Lk8.53: but he said, ³Do not weep ...²


          legei autois ti thorubesthe kai klaiete

          elegen anakhoreite

          ho de eipen me klaiete


          Since 1998 I have been suggesting from time to time that these texts bear
          the same relation to one another as:


          To be or not to be, that is the question

          To be or not to be, aye, that¹s the point


          The above is of course from the ³Bad Quarto² of Hamlet, a specimen of what
          Shakespearean scholars call ³auditory piracy²: the target text is
          memorized and subsequently reproduced as well as can be expected from a text
          presented in an oral venue. There are a variety of examples of the genre
          extant, mostly sermons and plays. The originals and the ³pirated² versions
          show the endemic minor disagreements characterizing the Synoptic texts.

          Morton Smith¹s Clement letter describes an orally presented Markan
          manuscript in Alexandria:

          ³Thus, in sum, [Mark] prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously,
          in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in
          Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to
          those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.²

          Think about it.

          Tim Reynolds
          Long Beach CA USA


          Ken,

          I posted the above a couple of weeks ago. Of course there's more, I've had
          20 years to think about it, but this is all you need. I'd be happy, heck
          ecstatic, to supply any clarifications or expatiations you may need.

          Shalom,

          tim




          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • John C. Poirier
          Tim, If I understand you correctly, auditory piracy is nothing more than what scholars more commonly call re-oralization , a concept that helps with
          Message 4 of 6 , Sep 4, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Tim,

            If I understand you correctly, "auditory piracy" is nothing more than what
            scholars more commonly call "re-oralization", a concept that helps with puzzling
            out the relationship between the *Gospel of Thomas* and the Synoptics.

            Don't you think the verbal agreements among the Synoptics are too great for that
            sort of scheme? Or are you suggesting a combination of approaches?


            John C. Poirier
            Middletown, Ohio







            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Ken Olson
            Hi Tim, Yes, I ve been following the comments you ve made on the list over the past few years. However, I have to say they tend to be very short and their
            Message 5 of 6 , Sep 6, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Tim,

              Yes, I've been following the comments you've made on the list over the past
              few years. However, I have to say they tend to be very short and their tone
              suggests that you think everyone should have figured out for themselves that
              the 'auditory piracy' theory is the correct model for synoptic
              relationships. It looks like nobody else is going to take up the gauntlet
              you've thrown down and work out the theory themselves, so you'll have to put
              it forward yourself in greater length and detail if you want to it to be
              taken seriously. Maybe something on the order of Farrer's "On Dispensing
              with Q", or Brian Wilson's Greek Notes web page would do for a beginning.

              For starters, I'd be interested to know in greater detail:

              1) What data proves difficult to explain on existing theories that propose
              direct literary dependence and why.
              2) What the 'auditory piracy' theory is and how it explains this data
              better.
              3) Why we should think that Mark was a document with limited distribution
              rather than one that was copied and circulated widely.

              Best Wishes,

              Ken

              kaolson@...


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Tim Reynolds" <molad@...>
              To: "Ken Olson" <kaolson@...>; <Synoptic-L@...>
              Cc: "Ted" <tedrey@...>; "jessica" <lil.shaver@...>
              Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:57 PM
              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Ho hum

              [snip]

              I posted the above a couple of weeks ago. Of course there's more, I've had
              20 years to think about it, but this is all you need. I'd be happy, heck
              ecstatic, to supply any clarifications or expatiations you may need.

              Shalom,

              tim



              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Tim Reynolds
              ... I ve written fuller treatments but publication is out of the question. And why? It all goes on one page. ... No existing theory explains the
              Message 6 of 6 , Sep 6, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                on 9/6/03 6:48 AM, Ken Olson at kaolson@... wrote:

                > Hi Tim,
                >
                > Yes, I've been following the comments you've made on the list over the past
                > few years. However, I have to say they tend to be very short and their tone
                > suggests that you think everyone should have figured out for themselves that
                > the 'auditory piracy' theory is the correct model for synoptic
                > relationships. It looks like nobody else is going to take up the gauntlet
                > you've thrown down and work out the theory themselves, so you'll have to put
                > it forward yourself in greater length and detail if you want to it to be
                > taken seriously. Maybe something on the order of Farrer's "On Dispensing
                > with Q", or Brian Wilson's Greek Notes web page would do for a beginning.

                I've written fuller treatments but publication is out of the question. And
                why? It all goes on one page.
                >
                > For starters, I'd be interested to know in greater detail:
                >
                > 1) What data proves difficult to explain on existing theories that propose
                > direct literary dependence and why.

                No existing theory explains the characteristic verbal relation of the
                synoptics, too similar to be independent and too different to result from
                copying.

                It's worth pointing out that this model not only explains what happened but
                explains why some of the best minds in Europe and the US, back when synoptic
                studies were attracting the best and the brightest, failed to come up with a
                solution: because they kept tinkering with the order and direction of
                transmission, and the anomaly lay in the *mechanism* of transmission.

                > 2) What the 'auditory piracy' theory is and how it explains this data
                > better.

                I've never seen this peculiarity addressed at all. The AP model has the
                field to itself.

                > 3) Why we should think that Mark was a document with limited distribution
                > rather than one that was copied and circulated widely.

                We're not talking limited distribution, we're talking no distribution, at
                least until c. 150, bound with the other gospels. Once Mt and Lk were in
                circulation, of course, Mk was pretty much a dead letter. He'd been gutted.

                See, with respect, you wouldn't be asking this question if you'd seen what
                was going on. It's not your fault, nobody else has either. If I come up
                with a way to put it more clearly I assure you I will.



                Brian Wilson was a heartbreaker. I spent a lot of time trying to convince
                him that he was *right*, that the codex format, hiera grammata, ciphers, all
                that, did indeed stem from the same urbook, but that that urbook was not an
                imaginary Greek Notes but a rock-solid canonic Mk. He didn't get it either.
                Morton Smith didn't get it. I once told him he and I were the only people
                in the world who knew *for sure* that he hadn't forged that letter: he
                because he hadn't and I because the only reason to forge it would be in the
                service of an auditory piracy model, so the forger would be delighted when
                someone finally noticed the synoptic implications of his forgery, and Smith
                wasn't.

                It good to know someone out there is thinking about this.

                tim



                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.