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

RE: [Synoptic-L] On Synoptic Paragraphs

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    Jeffrey Gibson remarks, If you can t be bothered to find ways to format your posts so that they are readable, then we cannot be expected to bother to read
    Message 1 of 22 , Jul 6, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Jeffrey Gibson remarks, "If you can't be bothered to find ways to format
      your posts so that they are readable, then we cannot be expected to bother
      to read them." As several times noted, I have in fact taken considerable
      bother to find a way to get around the formatting problem, which appears not
      to be the same for all viewers; so far without conspicuous success. Maybe
      sometime. As for anyone not reading them, I have given my permission for
      that possibility in advance. That permission is here confirmed. / E Bruce
      Brooks, UMass Amherst
    • David Inglis
      The added line breaks mentioned by Bruce are due to Synoptic wrapping lines at around the 72 character mark. From my perspective this is a pain in the ****,
      Message 2 of 22 , Jul 6, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        The added line breaks mentioned by Bruce are due to Synoptic wrapping lines
        at around the 72 character mark. From my perspective this is a pain in the
        ****, but I can live with it. However, it does give rise to the problem that
        someone may write a paragraph that then gets re-formatted to double (or
        more) the number of lines, so it's hard to put breaks in places that are
        ideal. For example, when inputting emails the lines I type are over 210
        characters long before being wrapped by Outlook. This is due to a
        combination of screen size, font size, and window size. Everyone is likely
        to be different, both when sending and receiving emails. Also, it is quite
        possible for what you see in emails from Synoptic-L to look different from
        what you see in your browser when looking at the messages in the Yahoo
        group. The bottom line is that none us can guarantee that what we send looks
        the same when anyone (including ourselves) sees it later.

        [New paragraph, but no blank line] However, I am less concerned with seeing
        multiple blank lines in emails (including my own) from Synoptic-L than with
        seeing over-long paragraphs, so I do put in paragraph breaks where
        appropriate. Even where Synoptic-L adds blank lines (and for me it does), I
        find it much easier to remove the extras than try to work out where
        paragraph breaks 'ought' to occur, so please can I ask that, when in doubt,
        everyone should add line breaks at appropriate subject/thought boundaries,
        and let others remove them later if they find them to be a problem.



        [One blank line]David Inglis, Lafayette, A, 94549, USA



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Matson, Mark (Academic)
        Adam: How would you know how close Luke and Matthew are in provenance (or date)? Topic, yes, though they deal with it in quite different ways. I am not as
        Message 3 of 22 , Jul 7, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Adam:

          How would you know how close Luke and Matthew are in provenance (or date)?

          Topic, yes, though they deal with it in quite different ways.

          I am not as convinced that any bidirectionality "certainly took place."

          Mark A. Matson
          Academic Dean
          Milligan College
          423-461-8720
          http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm



          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
          > Of Adam Crumpton
          > Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 8:55 PM
          > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Luke A and Luke B
          >
          > considering how close MtG and LkG are in topic and provenance, and the
          > normal processes that cause textual accretion, the bidirectionality that
          > Brooks proposes (in some form) certainly took place. Anyone interested
          > enough in LkG to copy it and meddle with it, must have read MtG or at
          > least MkG. I also like Brooks explanation for the Great Omission - that
          > of aLk having a mutilated copy of MkG.
          >
          > So if there is LkA > Mt > LkB, which author (aLkA or aLkB) had the
          > mutilated copy MkG and why didn't the other author, having a good copy MkG
          > (or at least of MtG) not fix the non-intentional omission?
          >
          > Adam Crumpton
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          First of all I wish to add my thanks to Mark for providing us with a link to his very interesting article on Peter as rock and rocky ground in Matthew. I find
          Message 4 of 22 , Jul 7, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            First of all I wish to add my thanks to Mark for providing us with a
            link to his very interesting article on Peter as rock and rocky ground
            in Matthew. I find the basic thesis of the article intriguing, and
            almost convincing, but I would make the following couple of points in
            response:

            1. The first is merely to reference what appears to be a typo in
            footnote 30, p. 25: It seems that "convert' should read "convince", no?

            2. I would note that a large part of Mark's argument has to do with an
            insight regarding which I have common cause, though in my own way and
            for my own reasons: the fact that the reading of Matthew can suffer
            from seeing the Evangelist Matthew as merely an editor of Mark.

            3. For this reason, I agree with Mark G's balanced criticism of Tolbert
            regarding the issue in question. But I think he should have gone
            further than he does in one place: namely when discussing Matt 13. Mark
            G. took the trouble to visually exhibit the parallel Greek texts of
            Matt 13:20-21 and Mark 4:16-17, but never noticed (or never brought to
            the attention of the reader) that the text of Matthew in this case not
            only "reinforces" a Markan point, but actually may make a point that
            Mark's text makes much more weakly, if at all. Although the two texts
            are nearly identical in meaning, it is the form of expression (the
            singular hO DE EPI TA PETRWDH... and all the singular forms that
            follow) which could readily invite one to posit an intended allusion by
            the Evangelist Matthew to the individual Peter. By comparison, and
            although the substance of the text is extremely close, the plural
            phrasing in Mark's Greek does not readily suggest such a connection. To
            me at least.

            4. Finally, although I find this possible allusion in Matt 13:20-21 to
            the overall story of Peter very intriguing, and possibly correct, to be
            complete one would have to also look carefully at verse 23 (the seed
            that fell on good ground) in the context specifically of Matt 13, and
            especially of Matt 13:11-15. Certainly within the confines of the
            chapter this verse too alludes to the hearing and understanding of the
            disciples of Jesus that contrasts with the non-understanding of the
            people. Or should we be thinking of this as just another example,
            though perhaps in the wrong order, of the complex and bipolar
            dimensions of Peter himself that are illustrated throughout the text of
            Matthew?

            Leonard Maluf

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Mark Goodacre <Goodacre@...>
            To: Synoptic <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Wed, Jul 6, 2011 5:53 am
            Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Debate about Peter

            Thanks for those interesting links to the archives, Bob. It's funny to
            look back.  One of those posts of mine eventually morphed into an
            article, "The Rock on Rocky Ground: Matthew, Mark and Peter as
            Skandalon" in Philip McCosker (ed.), _What Is It That the Scripture
            Says?: Essays in Biblical Interpretation, Translation, And Reception
            in Honour of Henry Wansbrough Osb_ (Library of New Testament Studies;
            London & New York: Continuum, 2006): 61-73. It's reproduced in full
            in http://markgoodacre.org/peter.pdf . Cheers, 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


            ------------------------------------

            Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.