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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Ho hum

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.