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

What is the Auditory Piracy model? [was: Re: [Synoptic-L] Ho hum]

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    I m going to give this one more shot. I apologize for re-using so much of the earlier material from the thread, but I think it s of continuing importance to
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 9, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm going to give this one more shot. I apologize for re-using so much of
      the earlier material from the thread, but I think it's of continuing
      importance to understanding the conversation.

      Ken Olson:
      > > 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.

      Tim Reynolds:
      > I've written fuller treatments but publication is out of the question.
      And
      > why? It all goes on one page.

      KO:
      I think I could describe the model of Synoptic relationships I favor in a
      long sentence or a short paragraph. But I wouldn't expect anyone to drop
      his own favored theory and adopt mine based on that. Scholars like Farmer
      and Goulder have spent decades arguing for their theories in numerous
      publications despite the fact that their basic models can be stated very
      succinctly. What you've given us so far is an idea, not yet a theory or
      even a model. As I tried to suggest above, I don't think anyone else is
      going to take the relatively few hints you've dropped, realize you're
      right, and put the effort into working out a full explanation of how
      auditory piracy was used in the composition of the synoptics.

      KO:
      > > 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.

      TR:
      > 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.

      KO:
      Nearly every existing Synoptic theory, and all of the ones advocated by the
      regular contributors to this list, recognizes that the Synoptics are "too
      similar to be independent and too different to result from copying." The
      advocates of these theories think that these theories can explain that
      phenomenon quite well. Indeed, "too similar to be independent and too
      different to result from copying" would describe pretty well what scholars
      mean when they say that the author of a particular document used another as
      a "source." You haven't shown that there's somehting particular about, for
      example, Matthew or Luke's supposed use of Mark that is different from, for
      example, Livy's supposed use of Polybius, Josephus' supposed use of the Old
      Testament or First Maccabees, or the Chronicler's supposed use of
      Samuel-Kings that requires the theory of auditory piracy. There may be
      something in the particular pattern of Synoptic agreements and disagreements
      that requires the theory of auditory piracy, but you have yet to tell us
      what that is. If your theory is being ignored, it may be at least partly
      because you have not seriously engaged the theories that are already out
      there and shown them to be lacking in some way.

      As for the second part of your response, I suspect that most advocates of
      whatever theory think that the lack of consensus on the solution to the
      Synoptic Problem is due to the failure of others to perceive that their own
      theories are right. Maybe you are right, but the argument you put forward
      doesn't doesn't show that.

      KO:
      > > 2) What the 'auditory piracy' theory is and how it explains this data
      > > better.

      TR:
      > I've never seen this peculiarity addressed at all. The AP model has the
      > field to itself.

      KO:
      Your response doesn't answer the question I was asking. The first part of
      the question I was asking was: "What is the AP model?" I still don't
      really know. Are you saying that Matthew and Luke had texts of Mark that
      were the product of auditory piracy? Or that the texts of Matthew and Luke
      were attempts at recreating the text of Mark through auditory piracy? And
      how does the M, L and Q material fit in?

      The second part of the question is related to question 1 above. What are
      the distinctive characteristics of texts produced by auditory piracy and how
      can such texts be distinguished from other texts? The description you used
      above, "too similar to be independent and too different to result from
      copying" may be characteristic of auditory piracy, but is not distinctive of
      auditory piracy. It can equally well describe the relationship of a
      document to its source. How can we tell where auditory piracy is present?

      KO:
      > > 3) Why we should think that Mark was a document with limited
      distribution
      > > rather than one that was copied and circulated widely.

      TR:
      > 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.

      KO:
      OK, to rephrase the original question: why should we think that Mark was a
      document with no distribution until 150? And why, after 150, did people
      decide they should start making copies of it when it was a dead letter that
      had been gutted?

      TR:
      > 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.

      KO:
      You're right. I wouldn't be asking this question if I saw what you see as
      going on. It would indeed be a great help if you thought of a way to put it
      more clearly or at least more fully.

      TR:
      > [snip]
      > It good to know someone out there is thinking about this.

      KO:
      Well, that's really all the time and effort I'm willing to devote to it for
      the present.

      Best Wishes,

      Ken

      kaolson@...



      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Tim Reynolds
      on 9/9/03 4:21 PM, Ken Olson at kaolson@mindspring.com wrote: [snip] ... Clement, c. 200, describes the document he s discussing as kept under guard [!] and
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 11, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        on 9/9/03 4:21 PM, Ken Olson at kaolson@... wrote:

        [snip]

        > KO:
        >>> 3) Why we should think that Mark was a document with limited
        > distribution
        >>> rather than one that was copied and circulated widely.

        Clement, c. 200, describes the document he's discussing as kept under guard
        [!] and read annually to baptismal candidates. So *that* document, anyway,
        was not in first-century circulation. The question is, was that Markan
        document -- no one questions either the existence of this text or Mark's
        authorship -- our Mk?

        OK so far?

        I get testy, and I apologize. You deserve better.

        tim



        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Tim Reynolds
        ... I¹ll be darned. I had never realized that ³source² in synoptic lit was a term of art. Thank you for straightening me out. I still can¹t keep the
        Message 3 of 3 , Sep 11, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          on 9/9/03 4:21 PM, Ken Olson at kaolson@... wrote:

          > KO:
          > Nearly every existing Synoptic theory, and all of the ones advocated by the
          > regular contributors to this list, recognizes that the Synoptics are "too
          > similar to be independent and too different to result from copying." The
          > advocates of these theories think that these theories can explain that
          > phenomenon quite well. Indeed, "too similar to be independent and too
          > different to result from copying" would describe pretty well what scholars
          > mean when they say that the author of a particular document used another as
          > a "source."

          I¹ll be darned. I had never realized that ³source² in synoptic lit was a
          term of art. Thank you for straightening me out. I still can¹t keep the
          current descriptions of Griesbach vs. Markan Priority straight.

          So a ³source² would be a text bearing the relation to a descendant text that
          Polybius bears to Livy, Torah/Macc to Josephus, Samuel/Kings to Chronicles,
          and the synoptic gospels to one another, ³too similar to be independent and
          too different to result from copying². This handful of texts opposed to the
          remainder of pre-Guttenbergian literature in its entirety, those tens, maybe
          hundreds of thousands of texts, in which the descendant text differs from
          its progenitor only in minor and predictable scribal slippage.

          Your alleged parallels to the synoptic textual relation are pretty
          unconvincing anyhow. Livy and Josephus were both professional historians
          transmitting data. I would be surprised if Gibbon doesn¹t bear a similar
          relation to Tacitus and Suetonius when he had no other sources (in the
          normal sense).

          (Where you *will* (ho hum) find parallels to the synoptic relation of texts,
          ubiquitous trivial verbal disagreement, is in ³pirated² plays and sermons, a
          whole genre. Somewhere in the archives I¹ve done that rap.)

          > You haven't shown that there's somehting particular about, for
          > example, Matthew or Luke's supposed use of Mark that is different from, for
          > example, Livy's supposed use of Polybius, Josephus' supposed use of the Old
          > Testament or First Maccabees, or the Chronicler's supposed use of
          > Samuel-Kings that requires the theory of auditory piracy. There may be
          > something in the particular pattern of Synoptic agreements and disagreements
          > that requires the theory of auditory piracy, but you have yet to tell us
          > what that is. If your theory is being ignored, it may be at least partly
          > because you have not seriously engaged the theories that are already out
          > there and shown them to be lacking in some way.

          Parallel material in Mt and Lk is regularly shorter, pericope by pericope,
          than its (ex hype) original in Mk. Check it out. This and those pervasive
          trivial disagreements are the signatures of ³auditory piracy². Read a few
          newspaper paragraphs to a class tomorrow and ask them, as homework, to
          reproduce what they heard, as verbatim as possible. Abracadabra you're a
          Source.

          Some testiness leaked through, I am sorry. But it will be such a relief to
          turn this over to the pros.

          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.