Apparently the "fox" example was too short, since it did not contain
multiple occurrences of words. Hopefully, my last post helped a bit more.

But a quick comment. Here you have written:

> Dave, the location of "dog" in A is irrelevant.

I disagree. The location is an important part of the definition of the
categories.
To qualify for category 2, the *instance* of the word must occur in A, with
an *instance* of the same word in B, so that they line up in a parallel
synopsis.

The word may occur more times in both document. These would either be in
category 1 or in category 3. In these locations the instance of the word has
no parallel in the other document.


Dave Gentile
Riverside, Illinois
M.S. Physics
Ph.D. Management Science candidate


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Oops. I omitted some words in this last post. Please, note the omission.
Karel.

Karel Hanhart wrote:

> Leonard wrote:
>
> Mark alone of the three Synoptic Evangelists uses the term PWRWSIS and
> its
> verbal cognate, and he uses them three times. The terms are not found in
> the
> LXX but are used by both Paul (Rom 11:7, 25; 2 Cor 3:14; Eph 4:18) and
> John
> (12:40) in the New Testament. Two of Mark's uses are found in double
> tradition passages (Mk 6:52; 8:17), and one in a triple tradition text
> (Mk
> 3:5). I would argue that this phenomenon is more consistent with Markan
> posteriority than with Markan priority. In other words, the use of these
> terms seems to argue for purposeful additions made by Mark to existing
> stories, rather than for removal of the term by Matthew and Luke, or by
> Matthew alone, from an original text that contained them.
>
> Sorry, Leonard, but I fail to see why "this phenomenon is more
> consistent with Markan posteriority than with Markan priority". In fact,
> to me it is an argument in favor of Mark's post-70 adoption of Paul's
> view of the 'musterion' re. the 'porosis' of Israël. And Mark's revision
> is the oldest gospel we have. This temporary 'hardening' of a 'part' of
> Israël served the purpose that all Israël will be saved. Mark used both
> terms in what IMO is his post-70 revision of his earlier pre-70 gospel.
> After the catastrophe of 70, Mark found in Paul's vision of the future
> an answer to the question that had become all the more desperate: "has
> God rejected his people?" (Rm 11,1). Mark took over   [from Paul]

> the term 'musterion'       [plus]      the citation of Isai 6,9.10 (Mc
> 4,11.12) and

>   [ the term 'posoris in ] (3,5 cmp v 6, 6,52 and 8,17).      John
> followed suit.
>        For these (and other even stronger reasons) I believe Mark was
> deeply influenced by Paul. His is a Roman Gospel and Paul's letter was
> written to the
> Romans. The predicament for the young ecclesia was severe and Paul's
> answer appeared to him relevant.
>         I join many others in the view that Matthew, (though following
> Mark's theme (8,31; 9, 31; 10,33f)) of his passover hagada, toned down
> Mark's emphasis on Paul's views as much as possible. So he removed this
> typical Pauline verdict 'porosis'- 'hardening'  of a part of Israël!
> After all, Mark wrote at first for his own community; but Matthew,
> adopting much of Mark and 'correcting' him at some points and improving
> his style at other points, wrote for a wider audience (e.g. those
> questioning Paul's dealing with Torah) and added much catechetical
> material including the sermon on the Mount.
>
>          cordially,
>
> Karel Hanhart
>
> Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
> List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

In the exchange between David Gentile and John Lupia, I feel like I've
been listening to "Who's on first?"  There's an obvious communication
problem.  Perhaps I can add something that will help clear things up.

Most statistical studies of the synoptic problem are based either on
verbatim agreement statistics, or on vocabulary statistics.  If I
understand Dave's method correctly, he has basically found a way of
combining these two--really, of using them as a way of polarizing the
synoptic data.  It really is ingenious.  (Thomas Bergemann had earlier
combined the two in *Q auf dem Prufstand*, but his method was less
holistic.)

If Dave's presentation of his method is still unclear, just keep in mind
that it is not about verbatim agreements only, or vocabulary statistics
only, but about using these two in tandem, in order to polarize the
data.  I think that John's confusion is coming from the fact that he is
confusing Dave's discussion of verbatim agreements (defined on a
passage-by-passage basis) with his discussion of vocabulary (defined on
the basis of the whole gospel).


John C. Poirier
Middletown, Ohio



Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

At 11:13 AM 4/30/02 -0700, John Lupia wrote:
>Zeba Crook wrote:
>You claim that Mk never has this word, which is true
>(the long version of Mark is not Mark's, John  Lupia;
>I think this is generally accepted)
>
>Technically, this is not a scientific approach to any
>serious study.  To prejudge and exclude verses and
>their vocabulary based on an opinion will only distort
>the study.  If verses are considered spurious they
>should be included with appropriate labels.  This is a
>methodical matter and one that would show a
>representation of the texts more fully without bias
>and noise than one that excluded them.

The appropriate labels are shown in the Nestle-Aland
Critical Text.  Mark 16:9-20 is enclosed in double
brackets [[ ]], which means "that the enclosed words,
generally of some length, are know not to be a part
of the original text."  On a scholarly list such as
Synoptic-L, we assume that all participants are
aware of the Critical Text.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
Synoptic Problem Home Page   http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

At 07:27 AM 5/1/02 -0700, John C. Poirier wrote:
>If Dave's presentation of his method is still unclear, just keep in mind
>that it is not about verbatim agreements only, or vocabulary statistics
>only, but about using these two in tandem, in order to polarize the
>data.  I think that John's confusion is coming from the fact that he is
>confusing Dave's discussion of verbatim agreements (defined on a
>passage-by-passage basis) with his discussion of vocabulary (defined on
>the basis of the whole gospel).

Dave is defining categories based on the distribution of instances
of a word.  Suppose a word is found in a total of 7 instances in
Mark, 3 of which are directly paralleled in Matthew and 4 are not.
Suppose furthermore that the same is found a total of 5 instances
in Matthew, 3 of which are directly paralleled in Mark and the
remaining two are not directly parallel in Mark.

Therefore we have:

a.  4 times (or instances) that the word is found in Mark and not
     directly paralleled in Matthew.
b.  3 instances of the word that are found in direct parallel in
     both Mark and Matthew.
c.  2 instances of the word that are found in Matthew but not in
     direct parallel in Mark.

This basic concept was already explored and explained (with some
refinements) in the introduction to the Hoffmann-Hieke-Bauer Synoptic
Concordance.  Dave Gentile's explanation made perfect sense to those
familiar with the HHB Synoptic Concordance, but I can see how more
precision in terminology may be helpful to those less familiar with
the Concordance.  In particular, the English word "word" is ambiguous
as to whether an instance or a term.

All the word count and categorization statistics have been tabulated
and presented by HHB.  What Dave Gentile did was find a way to analyze
these raw numbers in a new and useful manner.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
Synoptic Problem Home Page   http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

In a message dated 4/30/2002 10:58:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
zeba.crook@... writes:

<< On the Griesbach Hypothesis (GH), Matt used the word a lot in a variety of
  places, both in simple and compound form.  Lk came along and used the word
23x
  on his own.  He took it over from Matt 5x and used it 3x in the same pericope
  but in a different place. He also added it to Mt 21x, and omitted it from Mt
  15x.  Then Mark:  Mk never takes over the the simple verb from his courses.
But
  he does take over some compounds:  from Mt 7x and from Lk 1x.  He adds them
to
  Mt 12x, makes a compound of Mt's simple verb 3x.  With Lk, he changes 3
simples
  to compounds, and changes the preposition 1x, and adds the compound to Lk 8x.
  Only 3x did Mk find the word in both Mt and Lk, and yet not take it over.  As
  for redactional policies, here too there is nothing problematic with how the
GH
  might envision the evangelists working.>>


I haven't checked your statistics here, but if they are accurate I think they
make a slightly stronger case for the GH than your conclusion suggests. You
write:

"He [...Mark] makes a compound of Mt's simple verb 3x.  With Lk, he changes 3
simples to compounds..."

The symmetry here (the fact that Mark three times has a compound form of
POREUOMAI when a simple form occurs in Matt and three times when a simple
form occurs in Luke) requires a surprising conjunction of two independent
causes on the theory of Markan priority, but is what would be expected on the
theory of Markan posteriority, reflecting the consistency of a single
redactor in his use of sources. Note too that there is a consistency in the
statistics when seen from a GH perspective in that a later author (Luke /
Mark) never uses the simple form of the verb where a compound form occurs in
his source (if I have read your statistics correctly). Although the reverse
relationship is certainly a theoretical possibility, I wonder if this could
be shown to be a general rule or tendency with regard to the use of sources:
is there a general, verifiable tendency in the direction of a more widespread
use of compound verb forms by secondary authors with respect to their
sources? Of course, even if there were, this would hardly amount to
definitive proof of Markan posteriority because even if such a tendency could
be demonstrated I doubt very much that it would be an ironclad rule without
exceptions.

Leonard Maluf

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Maluflen@... wrote:

> I haven't checked your statistics here, but if they are accurate I think they
> make a slightly stronger case for the GH than your conclusion suggests. You
> write:
>
> "He [...Mark] makes a compound of Mt's simple verb 3x.  With Lk, he changes 3
> simples to compounds..."
>
> The symmetry here (the fact that Mark three times has a compound form of
> POREUOMAI when a simple form occurs in Matt and three times when a simple form
> occurs in Luke) requires a surprising conjunction of two independent causes on
> the theory of Markan priority, but is what would be expected on the theory of
> Markan posteriority, reflecting the consistency of a single redactor in his
use
> of sources.

But you make it sound as if Mk consistently makes compounds of simple forms.  He
does it three times in each case (Mk 2:23//Mt 12:1; 11:2//21:2; 13:1//24:1 and
Mk
1:21//Lk 4:30; 4:19//8:14; 10:1//9:51).  But he when he finds the compound
already
made in Mt, 19x, he only takes it over 7x, and only once in Lk when he finds it
9x.  It's hard to argue based on these numbers that Mk has a strong attraction
to
the compounds, but only that he has a strong aversion to the simple form, which
he
never uses or takes over.

> Note too that there is a consistency in the statistics when seen from a GH
> perspective in that a later author (Luke / Mark) never uses the simple form of
> the verb where a compound form occurs in his source (if I have read your
> statistics correctly). Although the reverse relationship is certainly a
> theoretical possibility, I wonder if this could be shown to be a general rule
or
> tendency with regard to the use of sources: is there a general, verifiable
> tendency in the direction of a more widespread use of compound verb forms by
> secondary authors with respect to their sources? Of course, even if there
were,
> this would hardly amount to definitive proof of Markan posteriority because
even
> if such a tendency could be demonstrated I doubt very much that it would be an
> ironclad rule without exceptions.

This is a good question.  On the one hand, E.P. Sanders showed, I think, with
respect to a large number of tests, that when it came to style it was not
possible
to argue that authors did things consistently, and thus to move from there to
direction arguments.  I don't know that this test was among them, but I'd be
surprised to find out that it worked and was unnoticed by Sanders.


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

John Lupia wrote:

> No. That's incorrect.  There is no confusion on my
> part.  I was pointing out the error in the logic of
> his three hypothetical categories.  It is illicit to
> say -B then B. This is what Categories 1 & 2 do in his
> faulty example of cat and dog.  If cat & dog are in A
> then they cannot be in B since he defined the category
> that way "Words in A but not in B".  If they are then
> you have the illicit major of -B then B.  I think the
> problem is that he does not mean to say this but he
> does.  He needs to rewrite and redefine what he is
> trying to say.

John:

You’re simply reading David Gentile wrong.  His opening post to this
thread (no. 8408 in the archives) is as clear and logical as anyone
could want it to be.

Here’s why you’re confused: When Dave defines his three categories (1.
“Words found in document A. without a direct parallel in document B”; 2.
“Words found in parallel in document A and document B”; 3. “Words found
in document B with no direct parallel in document A”), he is talking
about dividing up the pericopae shared by these two documents into three
groups of words, according to whether they appear in direct parallel.
Imagine if we went through a synopsis and color-coded every word
appearing in double-tradition pericopae: red for words in Matthew not
directly paralleled in Luke, yellow for words with a direct parallel,
and blue for words in Luke not directly paralleled in Matthew.  If we
did that, then every word in the double-tradition pericopae would be
colored.  Furthermore, the notion of seeing whether a particular item
from the synoptic *vocabulary list* appears in one or more of these
colors is *not* nonsensical: *kai* will appear sometimes in red,
sometimes in yellow, and sometimes in blue.

They way you seem to misunderstand Dave, you would be color-coding the
words not according to their patterns of verbatim agreement, but
according to the patterns of their vocabulary distribution (comparing
one vocabulary list with another), which has absolutely nothing to do
with Dave’s three categories.  You would then go through the vocabulary
list and find, tautologically, that each item appears only in one
color.  This is completely different from what Dave is doing.  Dave does
not turn to items of vocabulary agreement until after the three
categories have been compiled.  You say “If cat & dog are in A
then they cannot be in B,” that is only true for your way of coloring
the synopsis, not Dave's.

I think Stephen Carlson has touched on the source of confusion: the
ambiguity of the English word “word.”  In the two methodological lenses
of Dave’s study, he looks at two different concepts of word agreements.
First, he compiles verbatim-agreement data (to create divisions within
the gospel texts, rather than within their vocabulary lists), then he
passes a composite list of synoptic vocabulary (*not* divided according
to gospel or any other category) through this data to determine a
profile for each vocabulary item.

Hope this helps.


John C. Poirier
Middletown, Ohio




Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Thank you, Steven and John for your help in clarifying things.

Dave Gentile
Riverside, Illinois






Dave is defining categories based on the distribution of instances
of a word.  Suppose a word is found in a total of 7 instances in
Mark, 3 of which are directly paralleled in Matthew and 4 are not.
Suppose furthermore that the same is found a total of 5 instances
in Matthew, 3 of which are directly paralleled in Mark and the
remaining two are not directly parallel in Mark.

Therefore we have:

a.  4 times (or instances) that the word is found in Mark and not
    directly paralleled in Matthew.
b.  3 instances of the word that are found in direct parallel in
    both Mark and Matthew.
c.  2 instances of the word that are found in Matthew but not in
    direct parallel in Mark.

This basic concept was already explored and explained (with some
refinements) in the introduction to the Hoffmann-Hieke-Bauer Synoptic
Concordance.  Dave Gentile's explanation made perfect sense to those
familiar with the HHB Synoptic Concordance, but I can see how more
precision in terminology may be helpful to those less familiar with
the Concordance.  In particular, the English word "word" is ambiguous
as to whether an instance or a term.

All the word count and categorization statistics have been tabulated
and presented by HHB.  What Dave Gentile did was find a way to analyze
these raw numbers in a new and useful manner.






Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Hello John L,

You write:


> No. That's incorrect.  There is no confusion on my
> part.  I was pointing out the error in the logic of
> his three hypothetical categories.  It is illicit to
> say -B then B. This is what Categories 1 & 2 do in his
> faulty example of cat and dog.  If cat & dog are in A
> then they cannot be in B since he defined the category
> that way "Words in A but not in B".  If they are then
> you have the illicit major of -B then B.  I think the
> problem is that he does not mean to say this but he
> does.  He needs to rewrite and redefine what he is
> trying to say.

But, I did not say "Words in A but not in B".

I said  "Words in A without a direct parallel in B".

Or clarifying more:

"Instances of words in A without an instance of the same word in a direct
synoptic parallel passage in B"

John P. give a good example here, I think.


==================


Imagine if we went through a synopsis and color-coded every word
appearing in double-tradition pericopae: red for words in Matthew not
directly paralleled in Luke, yellow for words with a direct parallel,
and blue for words in Luke not directly paralleled in Matthew.  If we
did that, then every word in the double-tradition pericopae would be
colored.  Furthermore, the notion of seeing whether a particular item
from the synoptic *vocabulary list* appears in one or more of these
colors is *not* nonsensical: *kai* will appear sometimes in red,
sometimes in yellow, and sometimes in blue.

===================

He has definied 3 categories.
Red, Blue, and Yellow.

I could then say (for example):

(The vocabulary item) "dog" is uncommon in the red category.
(The vocabulary item) "dog" is uncommon in the yellow category.
(The vocabulary item) "dog" is common in the blue category.


Dave Gentile
Riverside, Illinois









Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

> I stick with my original observation since if "dog" is
> in A and not in B then your second proposition must be
> false since "dog" is not in B and now you say it is.
> Being common or uncommon in this case is irrelevant.
> The fact is if  "dog" is found in A common or not it
> is still in A and not in B.  Yet you contradict this
> in your second proposition saying that "dog" is found
> in B when at first you say it is not.

I'm trying to understand the source of your confusion.
Perhaps if I cast my understanding of the confusion
into other terms than have been used to date, the confusion
will clear up.  Or maybe I'll just muddy the waters more.

I think the problem is in the use of the word "word".  We can
use it to mean a specific instance of a semantic unit, or
we can use the word in one or more generic senses.

Take the following to sentences:
      (a) The fox jumps over the dog.
      (b) The dog jumps over the fox.

The word "dog" appears in both sentences.  This is a generic
use of the word "dog".  However there are two specific
instances of the word dog here.  Instance 1 occurs in (b),
but not (a), and instance 2 occurs in (a), but not (b).  In
contrast the generic word "jumps" occurs in both, and
there is only one instance of the word "jumps", which
occurs in both.

Does this help clear anything up.

><> Jeffrey Glen Jackson, son of Albert, son of George, son of    <><
><> Henry, son of Miles, son of Randolph, son of Ephraim, son of  <><
><> Thomas, son of John, son of Thomas, .... sonne of Jack.       <><
      mailto:jeff@...        http://www.jeff-jackson.com
"The blithe 'reconstruction' not only of Q, not only of its different
stages of composition, but even of complete communities whose
beliefs are accurately reflected in these different stages, betokens
a naive willingness to believe in anything as long as it is nothing
like Mark (let alone Paul)."  N. T. Wright




Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Jeffrey Glen Jackson wrote:
> Take the following to sentences:
>      (a) The fox jumps over the dog.
>      (b) The dog jumps over the fox.
>
> The word "dog" appears in both sentences.  This is a
> generic
> use of the word "dog".  However there are two
> specific
> instances of the word dog here.  Instance 1 occurs
> in (b),
> but not (a), and instance 2 occurs in (a), but not
> (b).  In
> contrast the generic word "jumps" occurs in both,
> and
> there is only one instance of the word "jumps",
> which
> occurs in both.
>
> Does this help clear anything up.

No. I find it rather curious that so many are running
to my aide to solve *my* confusion, which is false,
when the problem of confusion belongs to Mr. Gentile.
The fact that no one grasps the logic problem is
disturbing.  The terms need to be clarified in his
propositions.  That is all I was attempting to point
out all along.  As they stand they lend themselves to
various interpretations which has become evident just
reading the posts.  Besides this, your example does
not correspond with Dave's own example of "the brown
fox jumps".  Compare your take on it to his.

Best,


=====
John N. Lupia
501 North Avenue B-1
Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Leonard Maluf wrote:
> In a message dated 4/29/2002 1:47:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> david@... writes:
[snip]
>  Each of the 807 different words is used a different number of times in
each
>  of the synoptics (and in each of the 19 sections), and it is true that
each
>  of the 807 different words provides individual arguments in support of
>  different synoptic positions.  Looking at specific words in context does
>  provide information that Dave Gentile's analysis does not, and vice
versa.

Leonard,

I think we are simply diccussing macro and micro approaches.  Dave Gentile's
approach is macro, using word counts and ignoring context.  There certainly
is value in this approach, and (IMHO) can (and has) grouped the 19 HHBC
'sections' according to the most likely pattern of authorship (whether from
auMk, auMt, auLk, or other sources).  However, extending the results past
this is open to interpretation.  I believe the results primarily support
Markan priority (although with possibly some post-Matthew/Luke editing as
well), but not everyone agrees.

Your suggestion (individual terms in context) is a micro approach.  It
obviously includes contextual information the Dave's analysis does not, but
unless it is extended to all the 807 different words used by Dave then there
is always the danger that the *really* crucial term that provides proof one
way or another has been omitted.  Another problem is that it seems as though
whatever word is suggested, and whatever contextual argument is presented,
the information can always be used to support at least two different
theories.  Either the argument is directly reversible, or at the very least
a strong case can be built that the argument is actually inconclusive.

As far as I am aware, no-one has yet presented a term in the synoptics that
is universally agreed to support just one theory (or even just one
particular priority order).  Also, I do not know of anyone who is keeping a
'running total' of all the words that have been analysed so far (please let
me know if this is actually being done).  Finally, I do not know of anyone
who has suggested how many words need to be analysed this way before a
determination can be made, on balance, of which theory is most likely.

Therefore, I am sceptical regarding whether your approach can produce useful
results, instead of the usual "well I don't believe you, and here's evidence
in the other direction" kind that we know so well from this list.

Dave Inglis
david@...
3538 O'Connor Drive
Lafayette, CA, USA




Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Dave Gentile wrote:
Let's say we divide the words found in these documents
into three
categories.

1) Words found in document A, without a direct
parallel in document B
2) Words found in parallel in document A and document
B
3) Words found in document B with no direct parallel
in document A


Dear Dave:

First, I want you to know that I am trying to help you
the best way I know how.  I cannot believe that this
thread has gone on so long without anyone picking up
on the point I was trying to make. I guess having
studied Logic with Rufus Effler, OFM, from Cologne,
Germany in 1972 has made me into an analysist who
scrutinizes every word of a proposition meticulously.
The problems with the language to your above
propositions are as follows:

1) Words found in document A, without a direct
parallel in document B

The term "direct parallel" in this proposition is
ambiguous since it implies a parallel does exist but
that it is characterized as not "direct".  The reader
is left wondering what exactly is an indirect
parallel?  It could mean that the parallel between A
and B has additional material in A not contained in B,
or the other way round.  It could also mean that some
of the material is parallel based on a particular
focus like theological sense, topic or subject.  One
look at Kurt Aland's SQE will provide many examples as
well as the parallels cited in the Jerusalem Bible.
Part of this problem has to do with defining
parallels.  With more than 100 Synopses in print few
contain the same material in each parallel.
Researchers view synopsis material differently making
judgments based on their criteria. So using a phrase
like  "direct parallel" is not helpful to the reader.

Another reading is that category 1 is the class of
words contained in A that have no parallel whatsoever
in B.  This reading  is based on the terms "without a
direct parallel".  In this case it can be concluded
that none of these words found in A will be found in
B.  This is the reading that first caught my eye, so I
brought it to your attention, but to no avail.  I hope
you see it now.

The appropriate reading made only clear based on
previous knowledge of your work is that category 1 is
the class of words contained in A that are not
contained in any parallel with document B.

So, you have three possible readings based on the
original formula.

This same analysis would apply to category 3.
3) Words found in document B with no direct parallel
in document A


If I may make a suggestion, I think it is clearer
language to say:

1) Words found in document A that are not contained in
any parallel with document B.
2) Words found in parallels between documents A and B
3) Words found in document B that are not contained in
any parallel with document A.

Best regards,
John


=====
John N. Lupia
501 North Avenue B-1
Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

John,

Both the example below, and my previous one were correct, even though
they are differant examples.

My goal was for you to understand the experimental design. Is this
your goal as well? Or are you just playing at not understanding in
order to get an explination that satisfies your specific set of
criteria?

Do you now understand the design?
If you do understand the intent, but object to the wording, why not
express it in your own words? That would be contructive. It seems to
be clear to most here, but I'd be open to suggestions for clearer
terms.

Dave Gentile
Riverside, Illinois


--- In synoptic-l@y..., John Lupia <jlupia2@y...> wrote:
> Jeffrey Glen Jackson wrote:
> > Take the following to sentences:
> >      (a) The fox jumps over the dog.
> >      (b) The dog jumps over the fox.
> >
> > The word "dog" appears in both sentences.  This is a
> > generic
> > use of the word "dog".  However there are two
> > specific
> > instances of the word dog here.  Instance 1 occurs
> > in (b),
> > but not (a), and instance 2 occurs in (a), but not
> > (b).  In
> > contrast the generic word "jumps" occurs in both,
> > and
> > there is only one instance of the word "jumps",
> > which
> > occurs in both.
> >
> > Does this help clear anything up.
>
> No. I find it rather curious that so many are running
> to my aide to solve *my* confusion, which is false,
> when the problem of confusion belongs to Mr. Gentile.
> The fact that no one grasps the logic problem is
> disturbing.  The terms need to be clarified in his
> propositions.  That is all I was attempting to point
> out all along.  As they stand they lend themselves to
> various interpretations which has become evident just
> reading the posts.  Besides this, your example does
> not correspond with Dave's own example of "the brown
> fox jumps".  Compare your take on it to his.
>
> Best,
>
>
> =====
> John N. Lupia
> 501 North Avenue B-1
> Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
> http://health.yahoo.com
>
> Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
> List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@b...


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Dave Gentile originally described his categories as
follows:

1) Words found in document A, without a direct
parallel in document B
2) Words found in parallel in document A and document
B
3) Words found in document B with no direct parallel
in document A

John Lupia suggests that Dave reword these
descriptions as follows:

1) Words found in document A that are not contained in
any parallel with document B.
2) Words found in parallels between documents A and B
3) Words found in document B that are not contained in
any parallel with document A.

Perhaps this clarification could be taken a step
further:

1) Words occurring in passages in document A but not
occurring in parallel passages in document B.
2) Words occurring in passages in document A and also
occurring in parallel passages in document B.
3) Words occurring in passages in document B but not
occurring in parallel passages in document A.

Let me know if this is a correct understanding and a
further clarification.

Ambiguity of natural langauge is the bane of
scholarship -- even if a glory of poetry.

Jeffery Hodges

=====
Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
Yangsandong 411
South Korea

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

John Lupia wrote:
> I find it rather curious that so many are running
> to my aide to solve *my* confusion, which is false,
> when the problem of confusion belongs to Mr. Gentile.
> The fact that no one grasps the logic problem is
> disturbing.  The terms need to be clarified in his
> propositions.  That is all I was attempting to point
> out all along.  As they stand they lend themselves to
> various interpretations which has become evident just
> reading the posts.  Besides this, your example does
> not correspond with Dave's own example of "the brown
> fox jumps".  Compare your take on it to his.
>

John,

It's not that "no one grasps the logic problem."  Rather, it's that, once
you understand the correct referents of Dave's propositions, the so-called
logic problem is absolutely *not there*.

I understand the "logic problem," as you call it, which appears when one
mistakenly takes Dave's references to direct parallels as references to
shared vocabulary, undifferentiated by context.  But as several of us have
pointed out, that's not at all what he's saying.  Why do "the terms need to
be clarified" if everyone (but you) understands them perfectly well, and
sees no slippage whatsoever between what Dave said and what he means?


John Poirier
Middletown, Ohio




Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:
> Dave Gentile originally described his categories as
> follows:
>
> 1) Words found in document A, without a direct
> parallel in document B
> 2) Words found in parallel in document A and
> document
> B
> 3) Words found in document B with no direct parallel
> in document A
>
> John Lupia suggests that Dave reword these
> descriptions as follows:
>
> 1) Words found in document A that are not contained
> in
> any parallel with document B.
> 2) Words found in parallels between documents A and
> B
> 3) Words found in document B that are not contained
> in
> any parallel with document A.
>
> Perhaps this clarification could be taken a step
> further:
>
> 1) Words occurring in passages in document A but not
> occurring in parallel passages in document B.
> 2) Words occurring in passages in document A and
> also
> occurring in parallel passages in document B.
> 3) Words occurring in passages in document B but not
> occurring in parallel passages in document A.
>
> Let me know if this is a correct understanding and a
> further clarification.


Dear Jeffery:

I am glad to see someone making constructive efforts
like myself  to help Dave make his work public.
Careful writing is tough work since you must put on
the thinking cap to see how your words can be taken in
various ways by a broad audience coming from a diverse
array of educational and cultural backgrounds.

I found your suggestions not helpful for the following
reason.

1) Words occurring in passages in document A but not
> occurring in parallel passages in document B.

This could mean that the class of words of category 1
are contained in parallels with A & B but B does not
use these words either lacking them or perhaps
substituting another term in its place.  What creates
this reading is the term "passages" which seems to
imply that some of the words contained in some
passages  of A are in parallel passages with B who
lacks them since they are "not occurring in parallel
passages in document B".  If you placed two words "its
corresponding" between  "occurring in"  --- and
---"parallel passages" it would bring this out even
clearer.  Without these two words the meaning is still
possible and hence makes the formula ambiguous.

Best regards,
John


=====
John N. Lupia
501 North Avenue B-1
Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

"John C. Poirier" wrote:
[snip]
> Here’s why you’re confused: When Dave defines his
> three categories (1.
> “Words found in document A. without a direct
> parallel in document B”; 2.
> “Words found in parallel in document A and document
> B”; 3. “Words found
> in document B with no direct parallel in document
> A”), he is talking
> about dividing up the pericopae shared by these two
> documents into three
> groups of words, according to whether they appear in
> direct parallel.

Yes, John. I am aware of what he is doing.  I was
responding to Dave on a different level.  I was trying
to establish a rapport with him about his writing and
some of the pitfalls that can occur in how you write.
My main interest here is to encourage him to write
more scientifically to prepare his work for public
review.  I am not clear about what he has done.  I can
learn from direct study of the HHB, Synoptic
Concordance 4 vols to grasp the gist of the data set
Dave has borrowed from.  I would carefully study the
original German work checking every single entry to
see if there were any errors in design and execution
and for  critical observations that went either
unnoticed or unrecorded.  Then I would go back to
Dave's original postings fom the beginning and get a
better gist on what he is doing.  I have no clue on
what his design is and what criteria he used to
establish the deisgn?  What is he doing that the three
German authors did not do?  What is he attempting to
do?  The best way to learn this is to encourage him to
draft narratives that explain all of this.  The
hardest part is writing it clearly without ambiguity
so that it becomes public, i.e., accessible for review
and scrutiny.  I'm not even completely clear on the
design created by  the three German authors since I
haven not as yet studied their sample page adequately.


My original approach was to get him to think about why
I would say what am I saying and see if this reading
were possible in what I had written.  I'm sure he
grasped what I was saying but I wanted him to see for
himself *why* I was saying it.

[snip]

>Dave’s study, he looks at two different concepts
> of word agreements.
> First, he compiles verbatim-agreement data (to
> create divisions within
> the gospel texts, rather than within their
> vocabulary lists), then he
> passes a composite list of synoptic vocabulary
> (*not* divided according
> to gospel or any other category) through this data
> to determine a
> profile for each vocabulary item.

Is this what Dave has done or is it what the three
German authors did?  I am not clear on this yet.  It
seems to me from what cursory review I made of the
German work it is their design, not Dave's.  This is
my question: "What did Dave do that these German
scholars did not do?" Could you, or, better yet, could
Dave explain this?


Best regards,
John

=====
John N. Lupia
501 North Avenue B-1
Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

In a message dated 4/30/2002 10:13:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
scarlson@... writes:

<< >To argue that an angry Jesus is the "more difficult", and therefore the
  >earlier reading (employing a principle of text-criticism), requires the
  >assumption of a liberal Protestant view of Jesus, whose principal duty it
is
  >to be nice.

  Actually the assumption behind this argument is not about the
  nature of Jesus but the first century Christians's beliefs about
  his nature.>>

Two natures, to be exact; although it is somewhat anachronistic to use this
language for the first century. But this raises some interesting questions of
its own with reference to the topic of anger. I assume your argument would be
that there was an increasing tendency in the first century toward regarding
Jesus as divine, and that this would be accompanied by the tendency on the
part of later writers to remove such human features as anger from their
portraits of Jesus. On the other hand, anger might in fact be attributed to
Jesus in an antidocetic moment or move, to demonstrate the integrity of his
human nature. For the tradition going back to Aristotle, anger is first of
all one of the morally neutral (eleven) passions and part of the integral
equipment of a complete animal nature, which of course, in this tradition,
belongs generically to man as well.

  But the argument takes an even more interesting turn if anger is viewed from
a moral perspective. The fact is that although anger seems to be acknowledged
by NT writers as legitimate in some cases or to some degree (Eph 4:26; James
1:19), the usual assumption is that human anger is a vice to be avoided (Eph
4:31; Col 3:8;
1 Tim 2:8; James 1:19-20). This negative view of anger comes from the
tradition of the sayings of Jesus (Matt 5:22), but it is entirely possible
that in some instances the prohibition against anger has been influenced as
well by popular Stoic views current at the time of early Christianity. The
one place where NT authors seem to agree in using the terminology of anger
without the slightest negative moral connotation is when they apply it to God
(Matt 3:7; 18:34; Lk 3:7; 14:21; 21:23; Jn 3:36; Rom 1:18; 2:8 and passim;
Heb 3:11; 4:3; Rev 19:15, etc.). Since it is unlikely that Mark, in
portraying Jesus as angry, intends to present him as morally vicious or even
deficient, the alternative is to see anger attributed to Jesus as a way of
associating Jesus closely with God (cf. Rom 13:4; and especially compare Rev
6:16 and 19:15). This means that Mark may here be showing a developing sense
of Jesus' divinity, over and above the already high view of Jesus found in
his gospel sources -- which fits well with a late Mark.

  >The "lectio difficilior lectio potior" argument here is considerably
weakened
  >by the widely recognized fact that it is Mark's specific redactional
  >intention, for whatever reason, to denigrate the disciples. For this
reason,
  >I think the use of this text-critical principle to argue this particular
case
  >is especially inappropriate.


<>

There are no issues of circularity in coming to that conclusion. The
conclusion is reached quite firmly by a synchronic reading of Mark.

Leonard Maluf

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

In a message dated 5/1/2002 9:03:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jlupia2@... writes:

<< I would carefully study the
  original German work checking every single entry to
  see if there were any errors in design and execution
  and for  critical observations that went either
  unnoticed or unrecorded.  Then I would go back to
  Dave's original postings fom the beginning and get a
  better gist on what he is doing. >>

I can imagine being assigned, by a higher power, to do just this if I don't
make it to heaven when I die. Funny how different people are!

Leonard Maluf

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

In a message dated 5/1/2002 6:43:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
david@... writes:

<< Your suggestion (individual terms in context) is a micro approach.  It
  obviously includes contextual information the Dave's analysis does not, but
  unless it is extended to all the 807 different words used by Dave then there
  is always the danger that the *really* crucial term that provides proof one
  way or another has been omitted. >>

You don't seem to have your heart in this. Why couldn't a random sample of
words be selected for testing along the lines I suggested, and see where the
argument goes? If the results seemed inconclusive to anyone, another such
limited random sampling could be tried. Then the opportunity could be
afforded to each contending party to come up with strongest known cases.

<< Another problem is that it seems as though
  whatever word is suggested, and whatever contextual argument is presented,
  the information can always be used to support at least two different
  theories.>>

Of course it can, and undoubtedly will. I simply have sufficient confidence
in our corporate intellects as to assume that they are capable of
distinguishing between good arguments and bad (or, "not so good"). I am
beginning to wonder, though.

  << Either the argument is directly reversible, or at the very least
  a strong case can be built that the argument is actually inconclusive.>>

I don't think this can be affirmed a priori. You might be right, but maybe
not.

Leonard Maluf

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

I had suggested:

1) Words occurring in passages in document A but not
occurring in parallel passages in document B.
2) Words occurring in passages in document A and also
occurring in parallel passages in document B.
3) Words occurring in passages in document B but not
occurring in parallel passages in document A.

Let me know if this is a correct understanding and a
further clarification.

John Lupia replied:

-------------------------------------------------------
I found your suggestions not helpful for the following
reason.

> 1) Words occurring in passages in document A but not
> occurring in parallel passages in document B.

This could mean that the class of words of category 1
are contained in parallels with A & B but B does not
use these words either lacking them or perhaps
substituting another term in its place. What creates
this reading is the term "passages" which seems to
imply that some of the words contained in some
passages of A are in parallel passages with B who
lacks them since they are "not occurring in parallel
passages in document B". If you placed two words "its
corresponding" between "occurring in"  --- and ---
"parallel passages" it would bring this out even
clearer. Without these two words the meaning is still
possible and hence makes the formula ambiguous.
-------------------------------------------------------

John, I don't understand this paragraph. The first
sentence is particularly opaque to me. Perhaps you
could rewrite the paragraph and also explicitly state
the ambiguity so that I can be clear about your
meaning.

Jeffery Hodges

=====
Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
Yangsandong 411
South Korea

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

By the way, by "paragraph," I was referring to the
following:

-------------------------------------------------------
This could mean that the class of words of category 1
are contained in parallels with A & B but B does not
use these words either lacking them or perhaps
substituting another term in its place. What creates
this reading is the term "passages" which seems to
imply that some of the words contained in some
passages of A are in parallel passages with B who
lacks them since they are "not occurring in parallel
passages in document B". If you placed two words "its
corresponding" between "occurring in"  --- and ---
"parallel passages" it would bring this out even
clearer. Without these two words the meaning is still
possible and hence makes the formula ambiguous.
-------------------------------------------------------

Jeffery Hodges

=====
Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
Yangsandong 411
South Korea

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

John writes:

> 1) Words occurring in passages in document A but not
> occurring in parallel passages in document B.

This could mean that the class of words of category 1
are contained in parallels with A & B but B does not
use these words either lacking them or perhaps
substituting another term in its place. What creates
this reading is the term "passages" which seems to
imply that some of the words contained in some
passages of A are in parallel passages with B who
lacks them since they are "not occurring in parallel
passages in document B". If you placed two words "its
corresponding" between "occurring in"  --- and ---
"parallel passages" it would bring this out even
clearer. Without these two words the meaning is still
possible and hence makes the formula ambiguous.

-------------------------------------------------------

Earlier John also wrote:

> John Lupia suggests that Dave reword these
> descriptions as follows:
>
> 1) Words found in document A that are not contained
> in
> any parallel with document B.

John,
I believe the suggestion directly above conveys the wrong meaning.
However, if I follow your other suggestion we get:

1) Words occurring in passages in document A but not
> occurring in its corresponding parallel passage(s) in document B.

This seems to be what I've been trying to convey.

Dave Gentile
Riverside, Illinois
M.S. Physics
Ph.D. Management Science candidate


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

I've made use of some suggestions:

=============

For simplicity, let's say we have only two documents, document A and
document B. We then construct a synopsis of A and B. For the purposes of
this illustration, we will assume every passage in each document has a
corresponding parallel passage in the other document.

Now let's color code our synopsis and divide the words found in these
documents into three categories.

#1, Red: Words occurring in passages in document A but not occurring in its
corresponding parallel passage(s) in document B.

#2, Yellow: Words occurring in passages in document A and also occurring in
its corresponding parallel passage(s) in document B.

#3, Blue:  Words occurring in passages in document B but not occurring in
its corresponding parallel passage(s) in document A.

From the above definitions, we can see that by coloring category 1 and
category 2 we have colored all of document A. Also, by coloring category 2
and category 3 we have colored all of document B.

Now we study two vocabulary items: "cat" and "dog".

Suppose we find that there all many instances of the word "cat" in category
1.
There are also many instances of the word "cat" in category 2.
However, there are few instances of the word "cat" in category 3.

When we look at "dog", we find that there are few instances of the word
"dog" in category 1.
There are also few instances of the word "dog" in category 2.
However, there are many instances of the word "dog" in category 3.

So, the pattern we see is that category 1 and category 2  have similar
frequencies of the studied vocabulary items. However, category 3, has a
markedly different frequency.

Stated in another way, categories 1 and 2 form a homogeneous pair, while
category 3 is different.

Or stated yet another way, document A (made up of categories 1 and 2) is
more homogeneous.
Whereas, document B (made up of categories 2 and 3) is less homogeneous.

The claim then, is that the homogeneous document A is more likely prior to
the non-homogeneous document B.

Dave Gentile
Riverside, Illinois


Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

John writes:

>
> Is this what Dave has done or is it what the three
> German authors did?  I am not clear on this yet.  It
> seems to me from what cursory review I made of the
> German work it is their design, not Dave's.  This is
> my question: "What did Dave do that these German
> scholars did not do?" Could you, or, better yet, could
> Dave explain this?
>

Just briefly: They did the hard work. They counted all the words in
categories they defined. But their finished product is just data. I used
some mathematical techniques to analysis the data. But, let's not go into
that for now. I'd just like to establish the concept right now.

Dave Gentile
Riverside, Illinois
M.S. Physics
Ph.D. Management Science candidate




Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Jeffery Hodges wrote:
I had suggested:

1) Words occurring in passages in document A but not
occurring in parallel passages in document B.
2) Words occurring in passages in document A and also
occurring in parallel passages in document B.
3) Words occurring in passages in document B but not
occurring in parallel passages in document A.

Let me know if this is a correct understanding and a
further clarification.

John Lupia replied:

-------------------------------------------------------
I found your suggestions not helpful for the following
reason.

> 1) Words occurring in passages in document A but not
> occurring in parallel passages in document B.


  This could mean that the class of words of category 1
are contained in parallels with A & B but B does not
use these words either lacking them or perhaps
substituting another term in its place. What creates
this reading is the term "passages" which seems to
imply that some of the words contained in some
passages of A are in parallel passages with B who
lacks them since they are "not occurring in parallel
passages in document B". If you placed two words "its
corresponding" between "occurring in"  --- and ---
"parallel passages" it would bring this out even
clearer. Without these two words the meaning is still
possible and hence makes the formula ambiguous.
-------------------------------------------------------

John, I don't understand this paragraph. The first
sentence is particularly opaque to me. Perhaps you
could rewrite the paragraph and also explicitly state
the ambiguity so that I can be clear about your
meaning.

Dear Jeffery,

Thanks for your question.  It caused me to ponder this
further along.  I could see that the overall design
was lacking and in need of revision and modifications.
  Instead of three categories I found twelve.  These
modifications are discussed below.

Mk 3:4 is in a parallel Mt 12:9-14//Mk 3:1-6//Lk
6:6-11 "The Man with the Withered Hand."  In Mk 3:4 he
uses the term AGAQOS but it is not in either Mt or Lk.
  This is an example of a parallel where Mk uses a term
which the other Gospel parallels do not. Another
important aspect to this is the use of a word in a
phrase or verse that is not in the Gospel parallels
but which is paralleled in another Gospel as either
the model or the copy for a similiarly fashioned
phrase.  For example,  Mk 10:14 is in a parallel with
Mt 19:13-15//Mk 10:13-16//Lk 18:15-17//Jn 3:3-5.  Mk
10:14 uses AGANAKTEW in a phrase that paints a
portrait of Jesus rebuking the disciples for
preventing the people from bringing their children to
him.  Mt 26:8 has a very similar phrase but has the
disciples rebuking the woman in the anointing for such
a great waste.  Mk's use gives us spiritual insight as
well as insight into the psychological personality of
the historical Jesus who delighted in the innocence of
children and those who, though in maturity had
remained as innocent as children.  It also gives us
insight into how Jesus responded when those about him,
with whom he already shared an intimate knowledge and
friendship, opposed his will. He was indignant but
neither harsh nor so severe that any of the disciples
with whom he had established a relationship and whom
he had rebuked would feel threatened and put off.
Whereas Mt's use is in painting a portrait of the
narrative of the anointing highlighting the scene in
which the disciples who, unaware of the significance
of the event expressed human emotions toward
extravagance and waste, a social corruption and moral
terptitude of the upper class.  This stands out in
bold relief.  The disciples are depicted showing
social bias toward the upper class by criticizing the
woman.  She, apparently, was  a member of the upper
class and they considered her actions as mundane
extravagance, completely missing the point .  If they
had understood they would have remained silent and
would have thanked her for her devotion as a disciple
who showed sensitivity, kindness, generosity, and
compassion. These sort of parallel phrases, though not
included in a standard synopsis could be included in a
synopsis of similar phrases that are not contained in
parallels.

There are also the words that are in a parallel where
Mk uses a term which is not part of Gospel parallels
but is strictly a unique Markan verse.  Mann gives an
extensive and impressive list of unique phrases and
terms used by Mk exclusively. (See Mann, Mark (AB 27;
Doubleday, 1986):170-172.)

The problem here is that there are words in A not
contained in any parallel with B, but, which occur in
unique passages of A as well as words used in A having
a parallel with B which does not use it.  So, I think
this above wording is better suited than my original
suggestion.  However, this also shows a fourth and
fifth category that Dave never mentioned to the best
of my recollection.  The above proposition that I
wrote expands on my original suggestion but is a
compound proposition, not a singular one.  The first
branch reaches out to parallel phrases which A has a
word that is not used by B in the parallel with B.
This has another category inherent within it, namely,
that category of these exempla that have a very
similar and almost mirror-like use as either a model
or a copy. The second branch explores those verses
that contain words found in unique passages to Mk that
have no parallel with B.  Consequently, these two new
categories bring the total to seven since they are
mirrored between A and B (2 X 2 =4 + 3 =7).  However,
propositions nos. 2 & 6 are actually identical and
merely state the same propsotion alternating the main
subject between A & B while retaining the same
meaning.  So, in all actuality there are really five
distinct categories.  However category 4 might be
divided between two separate categories one showing
all parallels and the other showing those where the
case is that only some of the parallels share the same
word or words.  Hence we would have seven categories
once again. It might also be worthy of research to
determine if categories 3 and 6 should also be divided
into two separate categories where one shows unique
phrases ( or clauses) and the other shows unique
verses.  This would bring the total of categories to
eight. The revised propositions are in parentheses.
However, additional categories could be added that
analyze the context when the same word use or not
emerges.  The contexts could include parallel passages
having the same context, which is what we are doing
originally, but beyond this it could also include
contexts that have a similar theological sense between
A & B, but which are not parallel narratives, and
others that share between A & B having the same
subject, but which are not parallel narratives.  These
categories would include words shared between A & B
having a similar theological sense, but which are not
parallel narratives in A & B, and those words that are
different in A & B having a similar theological sense,
but which are not parallel narratives. Added to these
would be words that A & B share having the same
subject, but which are not parallel narratives, and
those words that are different between A & B having
the same subject, but which are not parallel
narratives. This would add four categories bring the
total to 12.

The twelve categories are:

1 Words in A not used by B in any parallel A has with
B.
2. Words in A used not in a parallel narrative with B,
but in a parallel phrase with B.
3. Words used in a unique phrase (or clause) or verse
in A exclusively.
(3). Words used in a unique phrase (or clause) in A
exclusively.
(4). Words used in a unique verse in A exclusively.
4.  Words used in all or some particular parallels
between A & B.
(5) Words used in all parallels between A & B.
(6) Words shared between A & B having a similar
theological sense, but which are not parallel
narratives in A & B
  (7) Words that are different in A & B having a
similar theological sense, but which are not parallel
narratives.
(8) Words used in some parallels between A & B.
(9) Words that A & B share having the same subject,
but which are not parallel narratives.
(10) Words that are different between A & B having the
same subject, but which are not parallel narratives.
5 Words in B not used by A in any parallel B has with
A.
(* repetitive with #2).Words in B used not in a
parallel narrative with A, but in a parallel phrase
with A
  6. Words used in a unique phrase (or clause) or verse
in B exclusively.
(11) Words used in a unique phrase (or clause) in B
exclusively.
(12) Words used in a unique verse in B exclusively.


=====
John N. Lupia
501 North Avenue B-1
Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Correction.

The following statement reads:
> There are also the words that are in a parallel
> where
> Mk uses a term which is not part of Gospel parallels
> but is strictly a unique Markan verse.  Mann gives
> an
> extensive and impressive list of unique phrases and
> terms used by Mk exclusively. (See Mann, Mark (AB
> 27;
> Doubleday, 1986):170-172.)

But should be corrected to read:
There are also the words that are in Mk, who uses a
term which is not part of Gospel parallels but is
strictly a unique Markan verse.  Mann gives an
extensive and impressive list of unique phrases and
terms used by Mk exclusively. (See Mann, Mark (AB 27;
Doubleday, 1986):170-172.)



=====
John N. Lupia
501 North Avenue B-1
Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Correction.

The following reads:
(5) Words used in all parallels between A & B.
(6) Words shared between A & B having a similar
theological sense, but which are not parallel
narratives in A & B
  (7) Words that are different in A & B having a
similar theological sense, but which are not parallel
narratives.
(8) Words used in some parallels between A & B.

But shoud have no. 8 be corrected to no. 6 while 7 is
corrected to be 8.  The remaining numbers 9-12 as
originally posted are already correct.  This error was
inadvertently made when I was laying out the propositions.

=====
John N. Lupia
501 North Avenue B-1
Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...