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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.