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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.