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
  • 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 1 of 6 , Aug 14, 2009
      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 2 of 6 , Aug 17, 2009
        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.
      »
      «