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

RE: [XTalk] Paralleomania

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 3 , Jun 25, 2010
      To All:

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

      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
      ||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
      ||in bold type, the 3rd edition reserved bold type for explicit references.
      ||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
      ||three levels that it is useful to distinguish:
      ||1. echo. The wording of the outside text is used, but as background music,
      ||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
      ||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
      ||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
      ||It may be a convenience that letter codes only are used for these outside
      ||scriptural connections. If someone can typographically enclose them in a
      ||so much the more distinctive.
      ||(2) Another thing helpful to be able to annotate is relations between
      ||*within* the same text. If something refers ahead, or refers back, then we
      ||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
      ||rebuild the Temple in three days. It is instructive to see how the later
      ||(and especially Acts) manage this conundrum. In such cases, the passage in
      ||question points backward to precisely nothing. I might be tempted to mark
      ||a passage this
      ||# < (read, "referring back to no incident in the present text")
      ||There are also the Matthean and other doublets, where we don't necessarily
      ||least at the outset) want to say that one depends on the other, but simply
      ||to point to the recurrence. These parallels can probably use the
      ||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
      ||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
      ||(3) There are also parallels between Gospels (and between a Gospel and
      ||NT texts). For these, I don't see a problem with the above signs, since
      ||mention of the other text prevents any misunderstanding or ambiguity.
      ||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
      ||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
      ||Jn 21 || G Pet
      ||As to how exact these and other parallels may be, again, I think it is not
      ||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
      ||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
      ||sigla, except the last, "thematic parallel." For that, I would use the
      ||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
      ||Does anybody see a problem, whether analytical or typographical?
      ||E Bruce Brooks
      ||Warring States Project
      ||University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.