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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.