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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Synoptic gospel comparison in colour

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    Ron, To what extent does this chart duplicate the data in the old Farmer Synopsis? Bruce E Bruce Brooks Warring States Project University of Massachusetts at
    Message 1 of 12 , Nov 9, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Ron,

      To what extent does this chart duplicate the data in the old Farmer
      Synopsis?

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Ronald Price
      ... Synopsis? Bruce, I have no idea, as I¹ve never set eyes on the Farmer Synopsis. Ron Price Derbyshire, UK [Non-text portions of this message have been
      Message 2 of 12 , Nov 9, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Bruce Brooks wrote:

        > To what extent does this chart duplicate the data in the old Farmer
        Synopsis?

        Bruce,

        I have no idea, as I¹ve never set eyes on the Farmer Synopsis.

        Ron Price

        Derbyshire, UK



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • David Mealand
        Many thanks and congratulations to the semi-anonymous creator of the map. Having done some stats on the Synoptics I know just how huge an amount of time it
        Message 3 of 12 , Nov 9, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Many thanks and congratulations to the semi-anonymous
          creator of the map. Having done some stats on the Synoptics
          I know just how huge an amount of time it can take to
          do this sort of thing.

          The general effect is very interesting and illuminating
          despite my first instinct which was to think that
          it is hard to substitute for what I had to
          do in my first week on NT study which was to buy a
          Greek synopsis and a set of coloured pencils and not
          come back to see my tutor the next week till it had been
          coloured in - each word or part word at a time. I probably
          learned more from that than from any other single item
          on the Synoptics, as it forces one to see just exactly what
          the differences are right down to inflected or conjugated
          form changes, or the switch of simple to compound verb.

          Some observations on the Synoptic Colour Map:
          1. The pixels=words show up better if the chart is cut and
          pasted into a programme such as Irfan and given a hefty
          enlargement.

          2. The map doesn't line up by matching content, and that
          would be very difficult, as most synopses have duplicate
          entries and dodge to and fro. It might help a bit to
          "stretch" Mark to a similar length to Mat & Lk so that like is
          a little more likely to be alongside like. Also (while emulating
          Procrustes) maybe a compensating move would make Mark
          thinner. These would only partially reduce this problem.

          3. Another thought for anyone doing a mark 2 version
          of the project would be to allow colour switches so that (e.g.)
          one could see in Mat and Lk the triple material in the same
          colour as the double shared with Mark. Then similar
          switches would visualize how different Synoptic theories
          "see" the evidence, and allow the viewer to compare different
          theories in this format.

          4. One way to cope with similar material in different
          places would be to have some arrows in extra columns
          between the existing three. Probably a separate
          display for different locations comparing Mat directly
          with Lk would then be needed as well.

          These are not suggestions which could be done
          easily or quickly, but the colour map does look as though it
          might have interesting longer term potential for development.
          Another thought would be running counts of the quantities
          of agreement in a parallel column.

          David M.


          ---------
          David Mealand, University of Edinburgh




          --------

          --
          The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
          Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
        • David Mealand
          Bruce asks how the display compares with Farmer s Synopsis. Unless that was used directly it is unlikely as people differ so much on what is identical. I
          Message 4 of 12 , Nov 9, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Bruce asks how the display compares
            with Farmer's Synopsis. Unless
            that was used directly it is unlikely
            as people differ so much on what is
            identical.

            I tried to capture the first 16 pixels
            =words of Mark which go something like
            GbbGGCCGCbbbbbGG (where b=black)
            and am slightly puzzled at not being
            able to match up the words.

            Of course there are very serious problems
            over what is, or is not, identical between
            texts as the discussion in Poirier's 2008
            article (CBR 7.1, 84-86) makes very clear
            in what is said there about how one
            decides if a set of words is Form und Folge
            identisch. Identity of form is one thing,
            sequence quite another.

            But it would be nice to have a sample of text
            and the pixel equivalent matched up, and this
            has eluded me so far.

            David M.




            ---------
            David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


            --
            The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
            Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
          • David Mealand
            The pixels should match the words. Luke weighs in at around 19482 words, and the Luke column of the Synoptic map shows 195 rows of 100 pixels each. So far so
            Message 5 of 12 , Nov 10, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              The pixels should match the words. Luke weighs in
              at around 19482 words, and the Luke column of the
              Synoptic map shows 195 rows of 100 pixels each.
              So far so good. Extracting the last two lines
              should have the last 182 words of Luke plus 18
              blank pixels. Most of these are deep blue which
              is fine. But there are several blobs of cyan
              (Luke=Mark) in the last 45-50 words of Luke.
              e.g. something like CBBCBBCC at the very end.

              Does anyone have a Synopsis to hand whether
              by Farmer or whoever which matches this?

              David M.



              ---------
              David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


              --
              The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
              Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
            • Joseph Weaks
              The chart is a great idea. I have made great and frequent use of Barr s Synoptic Diagram poster, which is the analogue version of this, in some respects.
              Message 6 of 12 , Nov 10, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                The chart is a great idea. I have made great and frequent use of Barr's Synoptic
                Diagram poster, which is the analogue version of this, in some respects.
                However, we need more details from the creator. Post the entire process and
                code. Without it, the result must be suspect.

                Joe Weaks

                Dr. Joseph A. Weaks
                Raytown Christian Church
                The Macintosh Biblioblog
                http://macbiblioblog.blogspot.com
              • David Inglis
                Barr s very useful diagram is available online as a PDF here http://www.revneal.org/Resources/biblestudyimagefiles/Synoptic%20Diagram%20P oster.pdf David
                Message 7 of 12 , Nov 10, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Barr's very useful diagram is available online as a PDF here
                  http://www.revneal.org/Resources/biblestudyimagefiles/Synoptic%20Diagram%20P
                  oster.pdf



                  David Inglis

                  Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



                  From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                  Of Joseph Weaks
                  Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:51 AM
                  To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: Synoptic gospel comparison in colour

                  The chart is a great idea. I have made great and frequent use of Barr's
                  Synoptic
                  Diagram poster, which is the analogue version of this, in some respects.
                  However, we need more details from the creator. Post the entire process and
                  code. Without it, the result must be suspect.

                  Joe Weaks

                  Dr. Joseph A. Weaks
                  Raytown Christian Church
                  The Macintosh Biblioblog
                  http://macbiblioblog.blogspot.com



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Mark Goodacre
                  ... Thanks for posting this, David.  It s useful to have it online.  I must admit that I have never really got on with Allan Barr s diagram. I was often told
                  Message 8 of 12 , Nov 12, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 10 November 2010 13:57, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...> wrote:

                    > Barr's very useful diagram is available online as a PDF here
                    > http://www.revneal.org/Resources/biblestudyimagefiles/Synoptic%20Diagram%20Poster.pdf

                    Thanks for posting this, David.  It's useful to have it online.  I
                    must admit that I have never really got on with Allan Barr's diagram.
                    I was often told in my undergraduate days in Oxford how great the
                    chart was and dons would bring it along to class to show us.  I bought
                    my own copy when it was re-issued and put it up on the wall of my
                    office for several years where the colours then faded and made it
                    unusable.  I have never quite been able to put my finger on what it is
                    that I don't like about it.  I think it may be in part to do with the
                    multiple lines and cfs. that screech around in such a way as to make
                    the problem feel more complicated than it is.  It may also have
                    something to do with the old-fashioned type-face, which I don't find
                    congenial.

                    But I think that more than anything, it is to do with the choice of
                    colours.  I have never been able to understand why others don't seem
                    to find primary colours intuitive in the colouring of the Synopsis,
                    and Barr's choices are to me counter-intuitive.  And there is one
                    major simplification of the data in his chart that seriously limits
                    its usefulness -- "Passages common to St. Mark and one or both of the
                    Other Gospels" are coloured in that pinky sort of colour.  This shades
                    over something really important -- Matthew // Mark but not Luke and
                    Mark // Luke but not Matthew. Lots of scholars, perhaps influenced by
                    Barr's chart, or by the thinking that goes into the chart, just call
                    this stuff "triple tradition", which is simply mis-description of the
                    data.  When I wrote my Way Through the Maze and surveyed the data in
                    Chapter 2, I was stuck as to what to call this material.  We tend just
                    to push it into "triple tradition", and I am not sure that that is the
                    right thing to do.

                    Does anyone else have qualms about the Barr diagram, or am I touching
                    the Ark of the Covenant?

                    Best wishes
                    Mark

                    --
                    Mark Goodacre
                    Duke University
                    Department of Religion
                    Gray Building / Box 90964
                    Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
                    Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

                    http://www.markgoodacre.org
                  • David Inglis
                    Mark Goodacre wrote: Does anyone else have qualms about the Barr diagram, or am I touching the Ark of the Covenant? Well, yes, and (perhaps) yes. I like the
                    Message 9 of 12 , Nov 12, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Mark Goodacre wrote: "Does anyone else have qualms about the Barr diagram,
                      or am I touching the Ark of the Covenant?"

                      Well, yes, and (perhaps) yes. I like the diagram because it makes it easier
                      (for me) to visualize Luke's structure in particular. At least, I find this
                      much easier than a pure text representation that states what the parallels
                      are. However, it doesn't do justice to Mark, because the only 'high level'
                      thing I get from the diagram is what portions of Mark do not appear in
                      either Matthew or Luke (Green). For me the black bars to the right of the
                      Mark column get lost. Basically, Barr is using the pink color and the black
                      bars to represent 3 different types of passage:

                      . Mark in common with both Matthew and Luke

                      . Mark in common with Matthew only

                      . Mark in common with Luke only

                      Because Barr only uses 2 indicators he loses information. Also, why not use
                      a different color instead of the black bars? Because he misses out a color,
                      AND he mixes up the visual representation (color vs. bars) it makes it much
                      harder (IMHO) to see what's going on. Finally, I suspect that if the outer
                      two columns were Mark, with Matthew and Luke between them (e.g. remove the
                      left column, and add another Mark column on the right), it might be easier
                      to see the relationships. Anyone (not me!) feel like giving it a try?



                      David Inglis

                      Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



                      From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                      Of Mark Goodacre
                      Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 7:35 AM
                      To: Synoptic
                      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Synoptic gospel comparison in colour





                      On 10 November 2010 13:57, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...
                      <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> > wrote:

                      > Barr's very useful diagram is available online as a PDF here
                      >
                      http://www.revneal.org/Resources/biblestudyimagefiles/Synoptic%20Diagram%20P
                      oster.pdf

                      Thanks for posting this, David. It's useful to have it online. I
                      must admit that I have never really got on with Allan Barr's diagram.
                      I was often told in my undergraduate days in Oxford how great the
                      chart was and dons would bring it along to class to show us. I bought
                      my own copy when it was re-issued and put it up on the wall of my
                      office for several years where the colours then faded and made it
                      unusable. I have never quite been able to put my finger on what it is
                      that I don't like about it. I think it may be in part to do with the
                      multiple lines and cfs. that screech around in such a way as to make
                      the problem feel more complicated than it is. It may also have
                      something to do with the old-fashioned type-face, which I don't find
                      congenial.

                      But I think that more than anything, it is to do with the choice of
                      colours. I have never been able to understand why others don't seem
                      to find primary colours intuitive in the colouring of the Synopsis,
                      and Barr's choices are to me counter-intuitive. And there is one
                      major simplification of the data in his chart that seriously limits
                      its usefulness -- "Passages common to St. Mark and one or both of the
                      Other Gospels" are coloured in that pinky sort of colour. This shades
                      over something really important -- Matthew // Mark but not Luke and
                      Mark // Luke but not Matthew. Lots of scholars, perhaps influenced by
                      Barr's chart, or by the thinking that goes into the chart, just call
                      this stuff "triple tradition", which is simply mis-description of the
                      data. When I wrote my Way Through the Maze and surveyed the data in
                      Chapter 2, I was stuck as to what to call this material. We tend just
                      to push it into "triple tradition", and I am not sure that that is the
                      right thing to do.

                      Does anyone else have qualms about the Barr diagram, or am I touching
                      the Ark of the Covenant?

                      Best wishes
                      Mark

                      --
                      Mark Goodacre
                      Duke University
                      Department of Religion
                      Gray Building / Box 90964
                      Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
                      Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

                      http://www.markgoodacre.org





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • David Mealand
                      With regard to colours surely yes, separate colours are needed for the triple tradition (proper) and for each of the three double traditions. What appeals
                      Message 10 of 12 , Nov 14, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        With regard to colours surely yes,
                        separate colours are needed for
                        the triple tradition (proper)
                        and for each of the three double
                        traditions. What appeals about
                        a computer display is that one _also_
                        wishes to see the totality of the
                        shared material between each pair
                        of Synoptists on some occasions.
                        That could be done by switching the
                        colour scheme to show all common
                        Mat//Mk, or Mark//Luke, or Mat//Luke
                        shared material in one colour either
                        by switching one display, or by having
                        alternative displays shown successively.

                        However before one can even dream of this,
                        some clarification is needed of the
                        existing online colour comparison scheme.
                        Are words assigned to the relevant colour
                        for one of the double traditions (or the triple)
                        if a) same word and inflection and sequence
                        or b) only two of these or c) only one of these?
                        Sequence is probably the most problematic
                        of these categories to implement.
                        But I can't yet make out which of a or b or c
                        has been chosen.

                        David M.



                        ---------
                        David Mealand, University of Edinburgh





                        ---

                        --
                        The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                        Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                      • Karel Hanhart
                        I wonder if the excellent diagram could be posted on the internet. I for one would nuch appreciate it cordially, Karel ... From: Mark Goodacre To: Synoptic
                        Message 11 of 12 , Nov 16, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I wonder if the excellent diagram could be posted on the internet.
                          I for one would nuch appreciate it

                          cordially,

                          Karel
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Mark Goodacre
                          To: Synoptic
                          Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 4:35 PM
                          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Synoptic gospel comparison in colour



                          On 10 November 2010 13:57, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...> wrote:

                          > Barr's very useful diagram is available online as a PDF here
                          > http://www.revneal.org/Resources/biblestudyimagefiles/Synoptic%20Diagram%20Poster.pdf

                          Thanks for posting this, David. It's useful to have it online. I
                          must admit that I have never really got on with Allan Barr's diagram.
                          I was often told in my undergraduate days in Oxford how great the
                          chart was and dons would bring it along to class to show us. I bought
                          my own copy when it was re-issued and put it up on the wall of my
                          office for several years where the colours then faded and made it
                          unusable. I have never quite been able to put my finger on what it is
                          that I don't like about it. I think it may be in part to do with the
                          multiple lines and cfs. that screech around in such a way as to make
                          the problem feel more complicated than it is. It may also have
                          something to do with the old-fashioned type-face, which I don't find
                          congenial.

                          But I think that more than anything, it is to do with the choice of
                          colours. I have never been able to understand why others don't seem
                          to find primary colours intuitive in the colouring of the Synopsis,
                          and Barr's choices are to me counter-intuitive. And there is one
                          major simplification of the data in his chart that seriously limits
                          its usefulness -- "Passages common to St. Mark and one or both of the
                          Other Gospels" are coloured in that pinky sort of colour. This shades
                          over something really important -- Matthew // Mark but not Luke and
                          Mark // Luke but not Matthew. Lots of scholars, perhaps influenced by
                          Barr's chart, or by the thinking that goes into the chart, just call
                          this stuff "triple tradition", which is simply mis-description of the
                          data. When I wrote my Way Through the Maze and surveyed the data in
                          Chapter 2, I was stuck as to what to call this material. We tend just
                          to push it into "triple tradition", and I am not sure that that is the
                          right thing to do.

                          Does anyone else have qualms about the Barr diagram, or am I touching
                          the Ark of the Covenant?

                          Best wishes
                          Mark

                          --
                          Mark Goodacre
                          Duke University
                          Department of Religion
                          Gray Building / Box 90964
                          Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
                          Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

                          http://www.markgoodacre.org




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