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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.