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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Ho hum

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.