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

Re: [XTalk] Paralleomania

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Crosstalk Cc: GPG In Response To: Bob Schacht On: Parallel Indications From; Bruce There have been several responses to Bob s question about analytical
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 15, 2010
      To: Crosstalk
      Cc: GPG
      In Response To: Bob Schacht
      On: Parallel Indications
      From; Bruce

      There have been several responses to Bob's question about analytical
      sigla, but none have listed precise alternatives, and the books
      referred to aren't immediately available to me. I will thus return to
      his original list, which is that of the Jesus Seminar. As an
      alternative, in my own work with these texts, I have found three
      classes of indications useful, but don't in practice require that all
      signs should be specific to only one class.

      (1) One is the use by a text of of material outside the text, which in
      (say) Mark is chiefly the use of the OT. Nestle/Aland 1 put all such
      connections in bold type, the 3rd edition reserved bold type for
      explicit references. The difference (esp in Revelation) is dramatic;
      nearly everything OT-ish in that text is implicit, and in the 3ed
      those pages turn up almost entirely unbold. I don't think we should be
      forced to choose between one or the other, and in fact I can see three
      levels that it is useful to distinguish:

      1. echo. The wording of the outside text is used, but as background
      music, to lend sonority or to guide reactivity. This is what
      Revelation does all the time; it is what the cinema critics call
      nondiegetic music (not actually part of the story, rather, part of the
      soundtrack).

      2. reference (but nonspecific). vague diegetic (inside the story)
      mentions, such as "as it is written" or "to fulfill the scripture."

      3. explicit quotation, as the Isaiah mention at the beginning of Mk.
      (In fact Malachi is also involved).

      I would code these respectively (where 00 replaces the exact chapter
      and verse) as

      1. e Psa 00:0
      2. r Deu 00:0
      3. q Isa 00:0 [Mal 00:0]

      Those who like may enclose M (Masoretic) or S (Septuagint) in
      parentheses following these identifications. In fact, I wish they
      routinely would.

      If the text in question is not OT, use its name instead (eg, T Mos). I
      don't see that a different siglum is necessary; the name alone conveys
      the difference.

      It may be a convenience that letter codes only are used for these
      outside scriptural connections. If someone can typographically enclose
      them in a circle, so much the more distinctive.

      (2) Another thing helpful to be able to annotate is relations between
      passages *within* the same text. If something refers ahead, or refers
      back, then we can use the appropriate arrows, thus the famous two
      Galilee sayings in Mark:

      14:28 > 16:7
      16:7 < 14:28

      There are things in Mk, especially, which point back to events not
      narrated in the earlier text, one being the accusation that Jesus had
      claimed that he could rebuild the Temple in three days. It is
      instructive to see how the later Gospels (and especially Acts) manage
      this conundrum. In such cases, the passage in question points backward
      to precisely nothing. I might be tempted to mark such a passage this
      way:

      # < (read, "referring back to no incident in the present text")

      There are also the Matthean and other doublets, where we don't
      necessarily (at least at the outset) want to say that one depends on
      the other, but simply want to point to the recurrence. These parallels
      can probably use the conventional parallel sign from highschool
      geometry (well established for this purpose; I don't see the advantage
      of the slant parallels the JS seems to recommend):

      Mt 13:12 || Mt 25:29 ("to him who has")

      If somebody wants to parenthesize a (Q), or as who should say an (M)
      after one of such pairs, that's their conclusion. The convention
      allows the conveyance of that information.

      How inexact the parallel is doesn't seem to me to call for a separate
      symbol; we would quickly get symbols for four or five levels. More
      confusing than helpful.

      (3) There are also parallels between Gospels (and between a Gospel and
      other NT texts). For these, I don't see a problem with the above
      signs, since the mention of the other text prevents any
      misunderstanding or ambiguity. Hence:

      Mk 9:38-41 || Lk 9:49-50 (The Strange Exorcist)

      Suppose we have determined that one of these is prior to the other, as
      seems not too difficult to do in this case. The above marks of
      inequality (here, directionality) would again seem to apply:

      Mk 9:38-41 > Lk 9:49-50, or equivalently
      Lk 9:49-50 < Mk 9:38-41

      And if the parallel or related text in question is non-NT, I see no
      problem in using the same marks; again the name itself identifies the
      difference:

      Jn 21 || G Pet

      As to how exact these and other parallels may be, again, I think it is
      not prudent to indicate degree. It is understood that all parallels
      are likely to be more or less inexact. The exception is the exact
      parallels, and for that, the established symbol is the equals sign
      (=). Instances are not numerous, and I leave the suggestion without an
      example.

      I think that these conventions will pretty much cover, and in a way to
      me simpler and better established in existing usage, what Bob reports
      of the JS sigla, except the last, "thematic parallel." For that, I
      would use the standard mathematical "more or less equal" mark, thus

      A ~ B (name the theme in parentheses if desired).

      Probably examples of almost all these usages can be found in the
      literature. Does anybody see a problem, whether analytical or
      typographical?

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Rick Hubbard
      To All: Evidently my query to the GThomas list has made it here, a bit to my surprise. First though, thanks to the folks who have responded off-list about my
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 25, 2010
        To All:

        Evidently my query to the GThomas list has made it here, a bit to my
        surprise.

        First though, thanks to the folks who have responded off-list about my
        questions, but also I appreciate Bob Webb's suggestion pointing me toward
        _Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible_. All this was helpful, as were Bruce's
        suggestions about revising conventional sigla in order to more accurately
        differentiate between "types" of parallels.

        Despite all the generous advice, I am not much further down the road toward
        solving the conundrum of how, empirically, one engages in the **process** of
        assigning correlated texts to one category or another. In other words, it is
        helpful to use distinctive sigla to distinguish one "kind" of parallel from
        another but the criteria used to establish this taxonomy often seems vague.

        Perhaps this is a bit of a quixotic exercise, but it nevertheless remains as
        a question. I'd welcome comments.

        Rick Hubbard


        ||-----Original Message-----
        ||From: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com] On
        ||Behalf Of E Bruce Brooks
        ||Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:35 PM
        ||To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
        ||Cc: GPG
        ||Subject: Re: [XTalk] Paralleomania
        ||
        ||
        ||
        ||To: Crosstalk
        ||Cc: GPG
        ||In Response To: Bob Schacht
        ||On: Parallel Indications
        ||From; Bruce
        ||
        ||There have been several responses to Bob's question about analytical
        sigla, but
        ||none have listed precise alternatives, and the books referred to aren't
        ||immediately available to me. I will thus return to his original list,
        which is that of
        ||the Jesus Seminar. As an alternative, in my own work with these texts, I
        have
        ||found three classes of indications useful, but don't in practice require
        that all
        ||signs should be specific to only one class.
        ||
        ||(1) One is the use by a text of of material outside the text, which in
        ||(say) Mark is chiefly the use of the OT. Nestle/Aland 1 put all such
        connections
        ||in bold type, the 3rd edition reserved bold type for explicit references.
        The
        ||difference (esp in Revelation) is dramatic; nearly everything OT-ish in
        that text is
        ||implicit, and in the 3ed those pages turn up almost entirely unbold. I
        don't think
        ||we should be forced to choose between one or the other, and in fact I can
        see
        ||three levels that it is useful to distinguish:
        ||
        ||1. echo. The wording of the outside text is used, but as background music,
        to
        ||lend sonority or to guide reactivity. This is what Revelation does all the
        time; it is
        ||what the cinema critics call nondiegetic music (not actually part of the
        story,
        ||rather, part of the soundtrack).
        ||
        ||2. reference (but nonspecific). vague diegetic (inside the story)
        mentions, such
        ||as "as it is written" or "to fulfill the scripture."
        ||
        ||3. explicit quotation, as the Isaiah mention at the beginning of Mk.
        ||(In fact Malachi is also involved).
        ||
        ||I would code these respectively (where 00 replaces the exact chapter and
        verse)
        ||as
        ||
        ||1. e Psa 00:0
        ||2. r Deu 00:0
        ||3. q Isa 00:0 [Mal 00:0]
        ||
        ||Those who like may enclose M (Masoretic) or S (Septuagint) in parentheses
        ||following these identifications. In fact, I wish they routinely would.
        ||
        ||If the text in question is not OT, use its name instead (eg, T Mos). I
        don't see
        ||that a different siglum is necessary; the name alone conveys the
        difference.
        ||
        ||It may be a convenience that letter codes only are used for these outside
        ||scriptural connections. If someone can typographically enclose them in a
        circle,
        ||so much the more distinctive.
        ||
        ||(2) Another thing helpful to be able to annotate is relations between
        passages
        ||*within* the same text. If something refers ahead, or refers back, then we
        can
        ||use the appropriate arrows, thus the famous two Galilee sayings in Mark:
        ||
        ||14:28 > 16:7
        ||16:7 < 14:28
        ||
        ||There are things in Mk, especially, which point back to events not
        narrated in
        ||the earlier text, one being the accusation that Jesus had claimed that he
        could
        ||rebuild the Temple in three days. It is instructive to see how the later
        Gospels
        ||(and especially Acts) manage this conundrum. In such cases, the passage in
        ||question points backward to precisely nothing. I might be tempted to mark
        such
        ||a passage this
        ||way:
        ||
        ||# < (read, "referring back to no incident in the present text")
        ||
        ||There are also the Matthean and other doublets, where we don't necessarily
        (at
        ||least at the outset) want to say that one depends on the other, but simply
        want
        ||to point to the recurrence. These parallels can probably use the
        conventional
        ||parallel sign from highschool geometry (well established for this purpose;
        I don't
        ||see the advantage of the slant parallels the JS seems to recommend):
        ||
        ||Mt 13:12 || Mt 25:29 ("to him who has")
        ||
        ||If somebody wants to parenthesize a (Q), or as who should say an (M) after
        one
        ||of such pairs, that's their conclusion. The convention allows the
        conveyance of
        ||that information.
        ||
        ||How inexact the parallel is doesn't seem to me to call for a separate
        symbol; we
        ||would quickly get symbols for four or five levels. More confusing than
        helpful.
        ||
        ||(3) There are also parallels between Gospels (and between a Gospel and
        other
        ||NT texts). For these, I don't see a problem with the above signs, since
        the
        ||mention of the other text prevents any misunderstanding or ambiguity.
        Hence:
        ||
        ||Mk 9:38-41 || Lk 9:49-50 (The Strange Exorcist)
        ||
        ||Suppose we have determined that one of these is prior to the other, as
        seems
        ||not too difficult to do in this case. The above marks of inequality (here,
        ||directionality) would again seem to apply:
        ||
        ||Mk 9:38-41 > Lk 9:49-50, or equivalently Lk 9:49-50 < Mk 9:38-41
        ||
        ||And if the parallel or related text in question is non-NT, I see no
        problem in
        ||using the same marks; again the name itself identifies the
        ||difference:
        ||
        ||Jn 21 || G Pet
        ||
        ||As to how exact these and other parallels may be, again, I think it is not
        prudent
        ||to indicate degree. It is understood that all parallels are likely to be
        more or less
        ||inexact. The exception is the exact parallels, and for that, the
        established symbol
        ||is the equals sign (=). Instances are not numerous, and I leave the
        suggestion
        ||without an example.
        ||
        ||I think that these conventions will pretty much cover, and in a way to me
        ||simpler and better established in existing usage, what Bob reports of the
        JS
        ||sigla, except the last, "thematic parallel." For that, I would use the
        standard
        ||mathematical "more or less equal" mark, thus
        ||
        ||A ~ B (name the theme in parentheses if desired).
        ||
        ||Probably examples of almost all these usages can be found in the
        literature.
        ||Does anybody see a problem, whether analytical or typographical?
        ||
        ||Bruce
        ||
        ||E Bruce Brooks
        ||Warring States Project
        ||University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        ||
        ||
        ||
        ||
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.