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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Are most NT 'analysts' just not very good at analysing data?

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    ... analysis world as I see it. Would anyone care to prove me wrong?
    Message 1 of 6 , Aug 14 1:32 PM
      >>>This is not meant to be a 'rant,' but simply a statement about the NT

      analysis world as I see it. Would anyone care to prove me wrong?<<

      David,

      I don't see how anyone could prove you wrong. Your post seems too vague to be falsified. Perhaps you could reformulate it in order to encourage meaningful engagement. Could you tell us which major synoptic theories have been falsified and by what data? People might be willing to engage you on that.

      It seems like you are asking for someone to try to prove that no NT scholars have ignored valid arguments or explained away evidence that did not fit their theory. I think everyone supposes the other guy does that. Or perhaps you want to be shown that someone has proposed a unified field theory of NT documents that answers all questions and presents no problems. That's kind of a tall order. I doubt that's what you're really asking, but it doesn't come out clearly what you are looking for.

      Best wishes,

      Ken

      ABD, New Testament
      Duke University








      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dennis Dean Carpenter
      David, perhaps you are confusing biblical studies with pure science. I ve really never heard of biblical studies courses found within a mathematics
      Message 2 of 6 , Aug 14 1:57 PM
        David, perhaps you are confusing biblical studies with "pure science." I've really never heard of biblical studies courses found within a mathematics department (though they might exist).

        Even in my applied statistics coursework and the actual work I implemented as an undergraduate and graduate, we always cautioned that data analysis was only an estimate of reliability.

        Dennis Dean Carpenter
        Dahlonega, Ga.


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: David @ Comcast
        To: gpg@yahoogroups.com ; Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 3:19 PM
        Subject: [Synoptic-L] Are most NT 'analysts' just not very good at analysing data?


        The longer I lurk on or contribute to online forums (all to do with the NT,
        as it happens), the more I get the impression that, however good the
        contributors are in their various specialties, for the most part (with
        notable exceptions) they're simply not very good at data analysis. In part I
        base this on the fact that the synoptic question still rages, despite what
        appears (to me at least) enough evidence to have eliminated most of the
        synoptic theories. Instead, we still have the situation where many people
        ignore valid arguments, push anomalies to one side, and explain away
        differences as either mistakes or deliberate changes without appearing to
        even attempt to look for other explanations. As a result, we end up with
        theory after theory regarding the creation of the NT (not just regarding the
        synoptics) that try to cram everything into very rigid, simplistic,
        frameworks and ignore whatever falls outside. Where are the attempts to
        provide a GUT (Grand Unified Theory) that tries to include things like:

        * The Western (B) text type
        * The ending of Mark
        * The multiple different endings of Romans
        * The variations in the ordering or the Paulines
        * Why we don't see any 'mini' Pauline collections centered on Paul's
        churches
        * Marcion, Thomas, etc.

        This is not meant to be a 'rant,' but simply a statement about the NT
        analysis world as I see it. Would anyone care to prove me wrong?

        David Inglis

        Lafayette, CA, 94549

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • David @ Comcast
        Dennis, I m not sure where the maths comes in. Data is a broad term that is not restricted to numbers. I m thinking much more of things like patterns (not
        Message 3 of 6 , Aug 14 5:58 PM
          Dennis, I'm not sure where the maths comes in. "Data" is a broad term that
          is not restricted to numbers. I'm thinking much more of things like patterns
          (not necessarily in a mathematical sense) within texts; manuscript
          locations, groups/families, and numbers; agreements and/or disagreements in
          patristic references; dates; indications of directionality; etc.



          Also, when I asked if anyone could prove me wrong, I was not in any way
          suggesting any kind of formal proof. I was just really asking for
          indications of people working 'outside their box,' e.g. synoptic specialists
          also looking a Paul, or Pauline specialists also looking at Peter, etc.,
          etc.



          David Inglis

          Lafayette, CA, 94549



          _____

          From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
          Of Dennis Dean Carpenter
          Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 1:58 PM
          To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Are most NT 'analysts' just not very good at
          analysing data?

          David, perhaps you are confusing biblical studies with "pure science." I've
          really never heard of biblical studies courses found within a mathematics
          department (though they might exist).

          Even in my applied statistics coursework and the actual work I implemented
          as an undergraduate and graduate, we always cautioned that data analysis was
          only an estimate of reliability.

          Dennis Dean Carpenter
          Dahlonega, Ga.

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: David @ Comcast
          To: gpg@yahoogroups. <mailto:gpg%40yahoogroups.com> com ;
          Synoptic@yahoogroup <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
          Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 3:19 PM
          Subject: [Synoptic-L] Are most NT 'analysts' just not very good at analysing
          data?

          The longer I lurk on or contribute to online forums (all to do with the NT,
          as it happens), the more I get the impression that, however good the
          contributors are in their various specialties, for the most part (with
          notable exceptions) they're simply not very good at data analysis. In part I
          base this on the fact that the synoptic question still rages, despite what
          appears (to me at least) enough evidence to have eliminated most of the
          synoptic theories. Instead, we still have the situation where many people
          ignore valid arguments, push anomalies to one side, and explain away
          differences as either mistakes or deliberate changes without appearing to
          even attempt to look for other explanations. As a result, we end up with
          theory after theory regarding the creation of the NT (not just regarding the
          synoptics) that try to cram everything into very rigid, simplistic,
          frameworks and ignore whatever falls outside. Where are the attempts to
          provide a GUT (Grand Unified Theory) that tries to include things like:

          * The Western (B) text type
          * The ending of Mark
          * The multiple different endings of Romans
          * The variations in the ordering or the Paulines
          * Why we don't see any 'mini' Pauline collections centered on Paul's
          churches
          * Marcion, Thomas, etc.

          This is not meant to be a 'rant,' but simply a statement about the NT
          analysis world as I see it. Would anyone care to prove me wrong?

          David Inglis

          Lafayette, CA, 94549

          No virus found in this incoming message.
          Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
          Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.56/2302 - Release Date: 08/14/09
          06:10:00




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Dennis Dean Carpenter
          David, I interpreted what you said as data as numbers. If one looks at data, however, as known information, there is a definite problem, for there is
          Message 4 of 6 , Aug 17 5:00 AM
            David,
            I interpreted what you said as data as numbers. If one looks at "data," however, as "known information," there is a definite problem, for there is actually very little (if anything) "known" with any certainty, in a modern historical sense, about the synoptics, "Paul," "Peter," and so on, whether the specialists are in a narrow area of expertise or have applied that to areas somewhat outside their area of expertise. To a great extent, it all seems to me to be "educated speculation," dependent upon what others have written, on what one's bias is, and how one, based on this, analyzes. It isn't a matter of lousy data analysis, but of application of what one knows to attempt to solve the unknown and probably the unknowable. That's what makes it so interesting to me. It's not the end, but the "getting there" that is fascinating.

            Dennis Dean Carpenter
            Dahlonega, Ga.




            ----- Original Message -----
            From: David @ Comcast
            To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:58 PM
            Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Are most NT 'analysts' just not very good at analysing data?


            Dennis, I'm not sure where the maths comes in. "Data" is a broad term that
            is not restricted to numbers. I'm thinking much more of things like patterns
            (not necessarily in a mathematical sense) within texts; manuscript
            locations, groups/families, and numbers; agreements and/or disagreements in
            patristic references; dates; indications of directionality; etc.

            Also, when I asked if anyone could prove me wrong, I was not in any way
            suggesting any kind of formal proof. I was just really asking for
            indications of people working 'outside their box,' e.g. synoptic specialists
            also looking a Paul, or Pauline specialists also looking at Peter, etc.,
            etc.

            David Inglis

            Lafayette, CA, 94549


            MARKETPLACE
            Mom Power: Discover the community of moms doing more for their families, for the world and for each other

            Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
            Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
            Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity
            a.. 1New Members
            Visit Your Group
            Ads on Yahoo!
            Learn more now.

            Reach customers

            searching for you.

            Yahoo! Groups
            Auto Enthusiast Zone

            Love cars? Check out the

            Auto Enthusiast Zone

            Yahoo! Groups
            Weight Management Challenge

            Join others who
            are losing pounds.
            .



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.