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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.