Re: [Synoptic-L] Ho hum
- on 9/6/03 6:48 AM, Ken Olson at kaolson@... wrote:
> Hi Tim,I've written fuller treatments but publication is out of the question. And
> 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.
why? It all goes on one page.
>No existing theory explains the characteristic verbal relation of the
> 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.
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 dataI'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 distributionWe're not talking limited distribution, we're talking no distribution, at
> rather than one that was copied and circulated widely.
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@...