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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Ho hum

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    ... [snip] You understand this proposed model of synoptic transmission will have to be dealt with.
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.