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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.