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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Ho hum

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Sep 6, 2003
      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

      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

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


      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.