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

DATA (in-&-out) Re: the FH

Expand Messages
  • Beta David
    DATA (in-&-out) Re: the FH `Antonio Jerez - are you in the house` Dear List, I think Tim s (ie. Kumo s) comments re: `Formulation` are very valid. Where do
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 13, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      DATA (in-&-out) Re: the FH
      `Antonio Jerez - are you in the house`

      Dear List,

      I think Tim's (ie. Kumo's) comments re:
      `Formulation` are very valid.

      "Where do `these texts` come from..."

      THESE TEXTS is defined how: As only texts
      promoted to us?"

      ref: "The primary data...(*)...observed in
      a synopsis." --Brian Wilson.

      "...how are they related?" (Kumo)

      If THESE TEXTS are not defined as all evidence;
      rather `synoptic` evidence, ie. the canon, it seems
      we have 2 definitions:

      [a] for Bible-readers
      [b] for others, ie. "scripture"-readers, etc.

      The question is then - in terms of the inter-relation
      of all forms - what `level` of FH solution do we seek?

      PROOF?

      I assert, regarding the FH; as portrayed, (theologians
      copying from each other) that the FH should be
      dis/proved along purely theological lines, and, that
      "external" evidence be brought to bear...

      WHY

      ...bearing in mind that the FH actively undermines Q
      (it is saying): "No, we have a theological and canonized
      answer here."

      The "theological" classification however is misleading.
      It begs these questions:

      [1.] "theology of?"
      [2.] "canonization by?"
      [2a] "rejection of documents by?"

      "Whom" seems to be the answer. This is tricky because
      it has all sorts of strings attached however "whom" (and
      I think this) is `the church.`

      HOWEVER - IMPORTANT - HOWEVER

      I think the FH is a "churchy" theory; about "churchy"
      documents; thereby placing the synoptic problem
      `in the pews` - "however" - this has definite historical
      significance (review above).

      TO SUM UP: IMPERATIVE:

      Any theory that denies the importance of external
      theorizing must first fall or stand according to
      that characterization.

      I am very interested whether anyone agrees.

      NEARLY / REALLY

      If we choose to compare an `augmented portion of each
      document` (that has obviously been manipulated to
      NEARLY coincide), what are we to presume?

      Obviously that a conclusion is:

      [a] intended
      [b] to be drawn.

      This is a very conservative position.

      I think this is what the FH is `really` all about and I also
      think it has something to say - not about manuscripts - but
      something even more profound.

      --BetaDavid

      PS. The paper is available by request & the abstract is posted.
      The question then is: `Antonio Jerez - are you in the house`

      (*) for the Synoptic Problem are the patterns of
      similarities and differences

      ______________________________________________________
      Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
    • Antonio Jerez
      ... Yes, I suppose I m in the house. But I think you will have to reorder your data a bit if you want me to follow your logic. No comprendo. Best wishes
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 13, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Beta David wrote:


        >DATA (in-&-out) Re: the FH
        >`Antonio Jerez - are you in the house`


        Yes, I suppose I'm in the house. But I think you will
        have to reorder your data a bit if you want me to
        follow your logic. No comprendo.

        Best wishes

        Antonio Jerez
        >Dear List,
        >
        >I think Tim's (ie. Kumo's) comments re:
        >`Formulation` are very valid.
        >
        >"Where do `these texts` come from..."
        >
        >THESE TEXTS is defined how: As only texts
        >promoted to us?"
        >
        >ref: "The primary data...(*)...observed in
        >a synopsis." --Brian Wilson.
        >
        >"...how are they related?" (Kumo)
        >
        >If THESE TEXTS are not defined as all evidence;
        >rather `synoptic` evidence, ie. the canon, it seems
        >we have 2 definitions:
        >
        >[a] for Bible-readers
        >[b] for others, ie. "scripture"-readers, etc.
        >
        >The question is then - in terms of the inter-relation
        >of all forms - what `level` of FH solution do we seek?
        >
        >PROOF?
        >
        >I assert, regarding the FH; as portrayed, (theologians
        >copying from each other) that the FH should be
        >dis/proved along purely theological lines, and, that
        >"external" evidence be brought to bear...
        >
        >WHY
        >
        >...bearing in mind that the FH actively undermines Q
        >(it is saying): "No, we have a theological and canonized
        >answer here."
        >
        >The "theological" classification however is misleading.
        >It begs these questions:
        >
        >[1.] "theology of?"
        >[2.] "canonization by?"
        >[2a] "rejection of documents by?"
        >
        >"Whom" seems to be the answer. This is tricky because
        >it has all sorts of strings attached however "whom" (and
        >I think this) is `the church.`
        >
        >HOWEVER - IMPORTANT - HOWEVER
        >
        >I think the FH is a "churchy" theory; about "churchy"
        >documents; thereby placing the synoptic problem
        >`in the pews` - "however" - this has definite historical
        >significance (review above).
        >
        >TO SUM UP: IMPERATIVE:
        >
        >Any theory that denies the importance of external
        >theorizing must first fall or stand according to
        >that characterization.
        >
        >I am very interested whether anyone agrees.
        >
        >NEARLY / REALLY
        >
        >If we choose to compare an `augmented portion of each
        >document` (that has obviously been manipulated to
        >NEARLY coincide), what are we to presume?
        >
        >Obviously that a conclusion is:
        >
        >[a] intended
        >[b] to be drawn.
        >
        >This is a very conservative position.
        >
        >I think this is what the FH is `really` all about and I also
        >think it has something to say - not about manuscripts - but
        >something even more profound.
        >
        >--BetaDavid
        >
        >PS. The paper is available by request & the abstract is posted.
        >The question then is: `Antonio Jerez - are you in the house`
        >
        >(*) for the Synoptic Problem are the patterns of
        >similarities and differences
        >
        >______________________________________________________
        >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
      • Beta David
        ... Re: DATA (in-&-out) Re: the FH ~ANY THEORY MUST STAND SIMPLY~ Any theory that denies the importance of external theorizing must first fall or stand
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 14, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          >Yes, I suppose I'm in the house.
          >Antonio Jerez
          >
          Re: DATA (in-&-out) Re: the FH
          ~ANY THEORY MUST STAND SIMPLY~

          "Any theory that denies the importance of external
          theorizing must first fall or stand according to
          that characterization." BD

          Dear Antonio,

          Thank you for responding. Now: I have given you
          a golden opportunity. The keeper is down, and
          you have the ball in front of the goal.

          In simple storybook terms - Goldilocks and the
          three bears, or the Pied Piper and the rats, can
          you tell me why Farrer is "true."

          "IF" FARRER IS TRUE

          Someone - (and you are the big proponent of the FH)
          should be able to state in clear, simple, reason-why
          terms - why; exactly why - Farrer is true.

          Mark - why?
          Matthew - why?
          Luke - why?
          ?

          ANALOGY (PHYSICS*)

          I come from an obscure field called 'historical
          simulation' - similar to physics and a branch of
          something called "game theory."

          SO (*) IN SIMPLE TERMS:

          We shine a light at some light
          (which runs away every time we do)
          and, it runs away.

          --That is the uncertainty principle.
          (where is the light?)

          Our light causes the other light to change. WE SEE THE CHANGE;
          not the light. Hence, a model to predict this. We know
          the light does what it does, so we anticipate it.

          Good bye principle - enter, quantum physics.

          FARRER - A `CHURCHY` THEORY:

          If Farrer holds water; as I said,

          "FH actively undermines Q (it is saying): `No, we have a
          theological and canonized answer here`."

          IN THEOLOGICAL TERMS:

          So, what's the answer? Forget minutia for a moment. Take
          the (story) books, and show us.

          Farrer comes from the church. He's a churchman. His theory
          is theological - a simple story: Goldilocks, the bears...

          REACTION

          Farrer says, something happened, someone wrote it down, etc.
          Action, reaction. Reaction - another reaction.

          SUM IT UP

          In a paragraph, characterize EACH DOCUMENT and place John
          somewhere in the mix. The `church` you see, included John
          - separate of Farrer.

          Good luck, BetaDavid

          SEVEN WORDS:
          "The primary data (...) observed in a synopsis."
          --Brian Wilson.
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          PREVIOUS LETTER - TO SAVE YOU ENERGY
          ==
          >>Dear List,
          >>
          >>I think Tim's (ie. Kumo's) comments re:
          >>`Formulation` are very valid.
          >>
          >>"Where do `these texts` come from..."
          >>
          >>THESE TEXTS is defined how: As only texts
          >>promoted to us?"
          >>
          >>ref: "The primary data...(*)...observed in
          >>a synopsis." --Brian Wilson.
          >>
          >>"...how are they related?" (Kumo)
          >>
          >>If THESE TEXTS are not defined as all evidence;
          >>rather `synoptic` evidence, ie. the canon, it seems
          >>we have 2 definitions:
          >>
          >>[a] for Bible-readers
          >>[b] for others, ie. "scripture"-readers, etc.
          >>
          >>The question is then - in terms of the inter-relation
          >>of all forms - what `level` of FH solution do we seek?
          >>
          >>PROOF?
          >>
          >>I assert, regarding the FH; as portrayed, (theologians
          >>copying from each other) that the FH should be
          >>dis/proved along purely theological lines, and, that
          >>"external" evidence be brought to bear...
          >>
          >>WHY
          >>
          >>...bearing in mind that the FH actively undermines Q
          >>(it is saying): "No, we have a theological and canonized
          >>answer here."
          >>
          >>The "theological" classification however is misleading.
          >>It begs these questions:
          >>
          >>[1.] "theology of?"
          >>[2.] "canonization by?"
          >>[2a] "rejection of documents by?"
          >>
          >>"Whom" seems to be the answer. This is tricky because
          >>it has all sorts of strings attached however "whom" (and
          >>I think this) is `the church.`
          >>
          >>HOWEVER - IMPORTANT - HOWEVER
          >>
          >>I think the FH is a "churchy" theory; about "churchy"
          >>documents; thereby placing the synoptic problem
          >>`in the pews` - "however" - this has definite historical
          >>significance (review above).
          >>
          >>TO SUM UP: IMPERATIVE:
          >>
          >>Any theory that denies the importance of external
          >>theorizing must first fall or stand according to
          >>that characterization.
          >>
          >>I am very interested whether anyone agrees.
          >>
          >>NEARLY / REALLY
          >>
          >>If we choose to compare an `augmented portion of each
          >>document` (that has obviously been manipulated to
          >>NEARLY coincide), what are we to presume?
          >>
          >>Obviously that a conclusion is:
          >>
          >>[a] intended
          >>[b] to be drawn.
          >>
          ==
          ETCETERA


          ______________________________________________________
          Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          At 07:50 AM 4/13/99 PDT, Beta David wrote: [Article deleted, but signed] ... I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of the signature policy
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 14, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            At 07:50 AM 4/13/99 PDT, Beta David wrote:
            [Article deleted, but signed]
            >--BetaDavid

            I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of the signature
            policy in the List's protocols. Please remember to identify yourselves.
            For reference, I enclose a copy of the relevant portion of the List's
            protocols.

            >8. It is Synoptic-L policy to add a signature to your Email messages. The
            >signature should identify yourself, your address and, where appropriate,
            >your institutional affiliation and homepage. Those unfamiliar with
            >signatures might refer to the Ioudaios-L guide to Automating Your Signature,
            >with information on how to do this using Eudora, Pine, Netscape and Elm.
            >Those who use Pegasus Mail can use the University of Birmingham's
            >illustrated guide on adding signatures.

            Stephen Carlson, speaking for the Synoptic-L Coordinators
            --
            Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
            Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
            "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.