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

Re: [Synoptic-L] the failure of color coding

Expand Messages
  • Tim Reynolds
    ... It fails because there is no possible coding for the crucial feature of the textual interrelation (ho exkhon ota akoueto v hos ekhei ota akouein akoueto v
    Message 1 of 19 , Jul 31, 2001
      "Brian E. Wilson" wrote:
      >
      > I think the interesting question arising from trying to color code
      > agreements between the synoptic gospels is why no attempt completely
      > succeeds.
      > >
      > I would suggest that accounting for the failure of color coding is
      > crucial to solving the synoptic problem.
      >
      >
      It fails because there is no possible coding for the crucial feature of
      the textual interrelation (ho exkhon ota akoueto v hos ekhei ota akouein
      akoueto v ho exkhon ota akouein akoueto). Any coding system now in use
      categorizes "pretty similar" as "identical" for coding purposes.

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • David B. Peabody
      ... Tim, Your concluding sentence seems to ignore some published material. Specifically, William R. Farmer s *Synopticon* (Cambridge University Press, 1969)
      Message 2 of 19 , Jul 31, 2001
        Quoting Tim Reynolds <molad@...>:

        >
        >
        > "Brian E. Wilson" wrote:
        > >
        > > I think the interesting question arising from trying to color code
        > > agreements between the synoptic gospels is why no attempt completely
        > > succeeds.
        > > >
        > > I would suggest that accounting for the failure of color coding is
        > > crucial to solving the synoptic problem.
        > >
        > >
        > It fails because there is no possible coding for the crucial feature of
        > the textual interrelation (ho exkhon ota akoueto v hos ekhei ota akouein
        > akoueto v ho exkhon ota akouein akoueto). Any coding system now in use
        > categorizes "pretty similar" as "identical" for coding purposes.

        Tim,

        Your concluding sentence seems to ignore some published material. Specifically,
        William R. Farmer's *Synopticon* (Cambridge University Press, 1969) utilized a
        color coding system that does distinguish between identical and similar wording.

        Specifically, verbatim agreements are overlined in color, as one might do in a
        book with a (often yellow or pink) highlighter. That is, the words appear in a
        block of color. Similar words (same lexeme, different grammatical construction)
        are not overlined, but underlined, as one might do with a pencil. If each of the
        three synoptic gospels has a different form of the same lexeme, that word in each
        gospel would be underlined in two colors, one underlining for each of the two
        parallels.

        If two are in verbatim agreement and the third uses the same lexeme, but a
        different grammatical form of it, then the two in verbatim agreement are
        overlined (in yellow, for instance, if the two in verbatim agreement happen to be
        Mt and Mk; in green, if the two in verbatim agreement are Mk and Lk; or in red,
        if the two in verbatim agreement are Mt and Lk. Then, there is also a different
        colored underlining on these same word(s). If the overlining is yellow in two
        gospels (Mt/Mk), then a single line in green would also appear under the same
        word in Mk (partial agreement with Lk) and a single line in red would also appear
        under the same word in Mt (partial agreement with Lk). In Lk, then, there would
        be double underlining under the word in partial agreement. One line would be
        green, for partial agreement with Mk and the other, red, for partial agreement
        with Mt.

        These are some of the most complex patterns for a set of only three gospel
        contexts in parallel, but I hope you get the idea of how this system works for
        less complex cases.

        Tom Longstaff and I have developed and utilized a similar color-coding pattern
        for our forthcoming Markan synopsis, but modifications of Farmer's system were
        necessary, given certain limits imposed upon electronic publishing (such as the
        impossibility of doing double underlining in two colors). First, we do always
        color the letters of identical and/or similar words, but we use full underlining
        for verbatim agreements and dashed/dotted underlining for partial agreements.

        Underlining between words indicates agreement in word order, as did Farmer's
        system of overlining or underlining between words.

        If you have not done so, you can get an idea of what we will be publishing on CD-
        ROM in November by browsing a now quite dated sampling of our work at

        http://www.colby.edu/rel/2gh/synopsis/synopsis3.html

        and other pericope synopses displayed in that area.

        Since we are publishing a new and improved version of this synopsis with Trinity
        Press International this fall, we are not allowed to display the newer version on
        the WEB. However, this new Markan Synopsis on CD-ROM is advertised in the fall
        2001 Trinity catalog to sell for $ 30.00. We, therefore, do not expect that this
        price will prohibit anyone from purchasing and utilizing this new software.

        Best,

        David Barrett Peabody





        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Brian E. Wilson
        Brian Wilson wrote -- ... David Peabody replied -- ... I was referring primarily to W. R. Farmer s account of his own failure to color code some passages in
        Message 3 of 19 , Aug 1, 2001
          Brian Wilson wrote --
          >
          >I would suggest that accounting for the failure of color coding is
          >crucial to solving the synoptic problem.
          >

          David Peabody replied --
          >
          >You could be more explicit about what you have in mind here about "the
          >failure of color coding."
          >

          I was referring primarily to W. R. Farmer's account of his own failure
          to color code some passages in the synoptic gospels, and the reason he
          gives for this. It seems to me that on Farmer's view, completing the
          process of color coding is impossible.

          The reason he seems to suggest is that there are occurrences in one
          synoptic gospel of a passage that is only weakly similar in wording to a
          passage in another. The consequent danger is of calling attention to
          "imaginary" (Farmer's word) agreements between two (or more) such weakly
          similar synoptic passages. In other words, it is not possible to define
          clearly the dividing line between what similarities of wording would
          constitute significant verbatim agreement of wording, and what would be
          merely insignificant or imaginary agreement of wording. There is no
          objective definition of *significant* "complete verbatim agreement"
          between any two synoptic gospels, on this view.

          To consider one instance. In the synopsis produced by H. F. D. Sparks,
          "The Anointing in Galilee" is set out in full (in English) as three
          parallel synoptic accounts in Mt 26.6-13, Mk 14.3-9 and Lk 7.36-50, the
          three passages being in long parallel columns and treated as variations
          of basically the same story. In Farmer's *Synopticon* however (pages
          165-166), this same "Anointing in Galilee" in Lk 7.36-50, is totally
          devoid of any words with coloured background!! Here Farmer has held back
          from showing in Luke the similarities with wording in the two Anointing
          passages in Matthew and Mark. Presumably he is here following his
          "general principle" that it is preferable to "leave some possibly
          significant agreements unmarked rather than to risk calling attention to
          imaginary ones". He does not have a definition of "complete verbatim
          agreement" between synoptic gospels that he can apply here, even though
          according to his Key to the Color Code the colors are supposed to
          indicate just such verbatim agreement. He does not know whether the
          agreements in the three synoptic accounts of the Anointing are
          significant or imaginary, and has no means of deciding the issue.

          David Peabody continued --
          >
          >On the other hand, given your own views on the Synoptic Problem, I
          >would suppose you are also or even more concerned that the *Synopticon*
          >and most other currently available synopses do not do a particularly
          >good job displaying verbal agreements, when more than three literary
          >contexts should be considered as relevant parallels.
          >

          On the contrary, David, I am quite happy to let color coding do as
          excellent a job as it can at mapping any kinds of agreements in wording
          between the synoptic gospels. Similarities of wording between passages
          in the synoptic gospels are no problem to my synoptic documentary
          hypothesis. However, I think that at the end of the day each color code
          brought into use will fail, because it will be seen that there is no
          clear dividing line between significant similarity of wording and
          insignificant ("imaginary") similarity of wording between synoptic
          gospels. In the last resort, the coding will be seen not to work fully,
          and will raise the question why this is so.

          My own view is that in order to solve the synoptic problem, there is no
          point in attempting to color code all the similarities of wording
          between the synoptic gospels, however many extra columns may be added,
          and however long the columns used. Such color coding indicates only
          agreements/disagreements of wording (including the similarities of order
          of such similar wording) between synoptic gospels.

          I think that to solve the synoptic problem requires accounting for
          similarities between the synoptic gospels other than similarities of
          wording between them. I would suggest that the really significant
          phenomena in the synoptic gospels are not agreements in wording (or in
          the order of such similar wording) between the synoptic gospels, but
          agreements of a different kind. On this view, ultimately any system of
          color coding will fail because it is precisely where agreements of
          wording between synoptic gospels shade into insignificance and being
          "imaginary" that the agreements of another kind between the synoptic
          gospels are to be observed.

          Best wishes,
          BRIAN WILSON

          >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

          Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
          > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
          > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
          _

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Emmanuel Fritsch
          ... And for more complex cas ? Is it possible for instance to visualise in this system the Lk-Jn agreements ? a+ manu Synoptic-L Homepage:
          Message 4 of 19 , Aug 1, 2001
            > These are some of the most complex patterns for a set of only three gospel
            > contexts in parallel, but I hope you get the idea of how this system works for
            > less complex cases.

            And for more complex cas ? Is it possible for instance
            to visualise in this system the Lk-Jn agreements ?

            a+
            manu

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Maluflen@aol.com
            In a message dated 8/1/2001 3:40:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, brian@TwoNH.demon.co.uk writes:
            Message 5 of 19 , Aug 1, 2001
              In a message dated 8/1/2001 3:40:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
              brian@... writes:

              << To consider one instance. In the synopsis produced by H. F. D. Sparks,
              "The Anointing in Galilee" is set out in full (in English) as three
              parallel synoptic accounts in Mt 26.6-13, Mk 14.3-9 and Lk 7.36-50, the
              three passages being in long parallel columns and treated as variations
              of basically the same story. In Farmer's *Synopticon* however (pages
              165-166), this same "Anointing in Galilee" in Lk 7.36-50, is totally
              devoid of any words with coloured background!! Here Farmer has held back
              from showing in Luke the similarities with wording in the two Anointing
              passages in Matthew and Mark. Presumably he is here following his
              "general principle" that it is preferable to "leave some possibly
              significant agreements unmarked rather than to risk calling attention to
              imaginary ones". He does not have a definition of "complete verbatim
              agreement" between synoptic gospels that he can apply here, even though
              according to his Key to the Color Code the colors are supposed to
              indicate just such verbatim agreement. He does not know whether the
              agreements in the three synoptic accounts of the Anointing are
              significant or imaginary, and has no means of deciding the issue.>>

              Interesting, Brian. If I could give just one more example of the above
              phenomenon, at a more micro-level, it might provide food for thought or
              discussion. In Matt 27:50, Matthew writes AFHKEN TO PNEUMA, to describe the
              death of Jesus. Now TO PNEUMA is left entirely without color in Farmer's
              Synopticon, even though, at the death of Jesus in Luke, Luke has Jesus utter
              the words: "Father, into your hands PARATIQEMAI TO PNEUMA MOU". Besides the
              fact that Luke's phrase here, taken as a whole, could well be an
              interpretation of Matt's phrase, taken as a whole (as well as being a
              biblical citation), the word TO PNEUMA occurs in both Gospels here and could
              certainly have been colored in red, except for the principle of Farmer's to
              which you refer. Instead, Farmer has merely underlined PNEUMA in red in Matt
              27:50, to indicate a partial verbal agreement between Matthew's [AFHKEN] TO
              PNEUMA and Luke's ECEPNEUSEN, which are also certainly "parallel". I would
              have judged the verbal agreement here differently than Farmer has (I would
              have BOTH colored in full red TO PNEUMA in the two Gospel passages, AND
              underlined ECEPNEUSEN in red in Lk, suggesting that Luke was developing
              different meaning potentials in the text of Matt), but the grounds for this
              difference, I guess, ultimately involve subjective judgment as to what
              constitutes a "parallel" passage.

              Leonard Maluf

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • David B. Peabody
              ... At the simplest level, of course, it is possible to illustrate Lk-Jn agreements. That is, if the parallel is between Lk and Jn alone, one just adds another
              Message 6 of 19 , Aug 1, 2001
                Quoting Emmanuel Fritsch <emmanuel.fritsch@...>:

                >
                > > These are some of the most complex patterns for a set of only three
                > gospel
                > > contexts in parallel, but I hope you get the idea of how this system
                > works for
                > > less complex cases.
                >
                > And for more complex cas ? Is it possible for instance
                > to visualise in this system the Lk-Jn agreements ?
                >
                > a+
                > manu
                >
                > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

                At the simplest level, of course, it is possible to illustrate Lk-Jn agreements.
                That is, if the parallel is between Lk and Jn alone, one just adds another color
                to the mix and maintains the distinction between full (verbatim agreements) and
                dotted underlining (verbal similarities; same lexeme, different grammatical
                form). I have done this, for instance, in Mk 16:9-20.

                If I would have had to indicate the verbal interrelationships among all four of
                the gospels, however, I am not sure how I would have dealt with that.

                Here is the note Tom Longstaff and I composed on the special color coding
                utilized only in Mk 16:9-20.

                -----------Quoting

                A more complex system of color coding has been adopted for this pericope.

                magenta identifies agreements between Mt and Jn;
                purple identifies agreements between Lk and Jn;
                cyan (agreements between Mt and Mk) is extended to agreements among Mt, Mk and
                Jn;
                blue (agreements among Mt, Mk and Lk) is extended to agreements among Mt, Mk, Lk
                and Jn
                green (agreements between Mk and Lk) is extended to agreements among Mk, Lk, and
                Jn;
                red (as always) identifies agreements beteen Mt and Lk.

                ---------End of Quotation.

                Given the results of our early experiments with colors on screen (see below), it
                will be interesting to find out what colleagues have to say about the color
                coding of this one pericope.

                Publishing in an electronic form has its limits. The color pallet in MS-WORD is
                rather limited and many of the colors, even in that pallet, are unsuitable for
                display on a screen with a white background. Of course, there would be
                comparable, but different, color-distinguishing problems on a dark background.

                In the color coding experiments we did, Tom and I had complaints from colleagues
                about not being able to distinguish magenta from red on screen. We, therefore,
                substituted cyan for magenta, but cyan appears rather light on screen and others
                had trouble reading it and/or distinguishing it from blue.

                Yellow is almost invisible and, therefore, unreadable against a white background.
                Many of the darker colors, on the other hand, are hardly distinguishable on
                screen from black.

                So, here we are. I believe Tom and I have done as well as can be done on a white
                background with the 256 "safe" colors available for good cross platform use, but
                even we are not completely satisfied. I wish we had a good alternative for cyan,
                for instance, but we don't, if magenta is not easily distinguishable from red.

                If screen resolutions improve and/or color pallets in major word processing
                programs expand in the future, we and/or others no doubt will be able to improve
                on our forthcoming work. For now, however, we offer to others what we believe to
                be the best of the possibilities we had available, given the current state of
                hardware and software development. Others will have to judge whether or not we
                have suceeded in this goal with this particular coding system.

                David Barrett Peabody






                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • David B. Peabody
                Leonard, You call attention to an excellent example of the hundreds, perhaps, thousands of judgment calls one has to make in composing a synopsis. It seems
                Message 7 of 19 , Aug 1, 2001
                  Leonard,

                  You call attention to an excellent example of the hundreds, perhaps, thousands of
                  "judgment calls" one has to make in composing a synopsis. It seems to me that
                  this clearly illustrates Dungan's affirmation that no synopsis can be entirely
                  "neutral" and/or "unbiased."

                  Brian,

                  The work of Tom and I differs here from that of my dissertation advisor. In our
                  forthcoming synopsis, all three of these pericopae are set out side by side with
                  the appropriate underlining and color codes presented.

                  However, the relatively few and relatively insignificant verbal agreements
                  between Mk and Lk alone, lead me to believe that Farmer's differing judgment on
                  this matter is defensible and, on the 2GH, it believe it unlikely that Mark
                  worked with Lk 7:36-50 in composing Mk 14:1-11. The best evidence for such a
                  link, in my view, is found in the partial agreement on the use of katakeimai in
                  Mk 14:3 and Lk 7:37.

                  On the other hand, there is sufficient evidence, again in my judgement, to
                  sustain a literary relationship not only between Mk 14:1-11 and Mt 26:1-16, but
                  also between Mk 14:1-11 and Lk 22:1-6.

                  In fact, I would judge that it is likely that Mark essentially utilized Lk 22:1-
                  2//Mk 14:1-2 and Lk 22:3-6//Mk 14:10-11 to frame his work with Mt 26:4-13//Mk
                  14:1end-9.

                  David Barrett Peabody

                  Quoting Maluflen@...:

                  > In a message dated 8/1/2001 3:40:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                  > brian@... writes:
                  >
                  > << To consider one instance. In the synopsis produced by H. F. D. Sparks,
                  > "The Anointing in Galilee" is set out in full (in English) as three
                  > parallel synoptic accounts in Mt 26.6-13, Mk 14.3-9 and Lk 7.36-50, the
                  > three passages being in long parallel columns and treated as variations
                  > of basically the same story. In Farmer's *Synopticon* however (pages
                  > 165-166), this same "Anointing in Galilee" in Lk 7.36-50, is totally
                  > devoid of any words with coloured background!! Here Farmer has held back
                  > from showing in Luke the similarities with wording in the two Anointing
                  > passages in Matthew and Mark. Presumably he is here following his
                  > "general principle" that it is preferable to "leave some possibly
                  > significant agreements unmarked rather than to risk calling attention to
                  > imaginary ones". He does not have a definition of "complete verbatim
                  > agreement" between synoptic gospels that he can apply here, even though
                  > according to his Key to the Color Code the colors are supposed to
                  > indicate just such verbatim agreement. He does not know whether the
                  > agreements in the three synoptic accounts of the Anointing are
                  > significant or imaginary, and has no means of deciding the issue.>>
                  >
                  > Interesting, Brian. If I could give just one more example of the above
                  > phenomenon, at a more micro-level, it might provide food for thought or
                  > discussion. In Matt 27:50, Matthew writes AFHKEN TO PNEUMA, to describe the
                  >
                  > death of Jesus. Now TO PNEUMA is left entirely without color in Farmer's
                  > Synopticon, even though, at the death of Jesus in Luke, Luke has Jesus
                  > utter
                  > the words: "Father, into your hands PARATIQEMAI TO PNEUMA MOU". Besides the
                  >
                  > fact that Luke's phrase here, taken as a whole, could well be an
                  > interpretation of Matt's phrase, taken as a whole (as well as being a
                  > biblical citation), the word TO PNEUMA occurs in both Gospels here and
                  > could
                  > certainly have been colored in red, except for the principle of Farmer's to
                  >
                  > which you refer. Instead, Farmer has merely underlined PNEUMA in red in
                  > Matt
                  > 27:50, to indicate a partial verbal agreement between Matthew's [AFHKEN] TO
                  >
                  > PNEUMA and Luke's ECEPNEUSEN, which are also certainly "parallel". I would
                  > have judged the verbal agreement here differently than Farmer has (I would
                  > have BOTH colored in full red TO PNEUMA in the two Gospel passages, AND
                  > underlined ECEPNEUSEN in red in Lk, suggesting that Luke was developing
                  > different meaning potentials in the text of Matt), but the grounds for this
                  >
                  > difference, I guess, ultimately involve subjective judgment as to what
                  > constitutes a "parallel" passage.
                  >
                  > Leonard Maluf
                  >
                  > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  >





                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Tim Reynolds
                  Awesome. tim ... Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@bham.ac.uk
                  Message 8 of 19 , Aug 1, 2001
                    Awesome.

                    tim

                    "David B. Peabody" wrote:
                    >
                    > Quoting Tim Reynolds <molad@...>:
                    >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > "Brian E. Wilson" wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > I think the interesting question arising from trying to color code
                    > > > agreements between the synoptic gospels is why no attempt completely
                    > > > succeeds.
                    > > > >
                    > > > I would suggest that accounting for the failure of color coding is
                    > > > crucial to solving the synoptic problem.
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > It fails because there is no possible coding for the crucial feature of
                    > > the textual interrelation (ho exkhon ota akoueto v hos ekhei ota akouein
                    > > akoueto v ho exkhon ota akouein akoueto). Any coding system now in use
                    > > categorizes "pretty similar" as "identical" for coding purposes.
                    >
                    > Tim,
                    >
                    > Your concluding sentence seems to ignore some published material. Specifically,
                    > William R. Farmer's *Synopticon* (Cambridge University Press, 1969) utilized a
                    > color coding system that does distinguish between identical and similar wording.
                    >
                    > Specifically, verbatim agreements are overlined in color, as one might do in a
                    > book with a (often yellow or pink) highlighter. That is, the words appear in a
                    > block of color. Similar words (same lexeme, different grammatical construction)
                    > are not overlined, but underlined, as one might do with a pencil. If each of the
                    > three synoptic gospels has a different form of the same lexeme, that word in each
                    > gospel would be underlined in two colors, one underlining for each of the two
                    > parallels.
                    >
                    > If two are in verbatim agreement and the third uses the same lexeme, but a
                    > different grammatical form of it, then the two in verbatim agreement are
                    > overlined (in yellow, for instance, if the two in verbatim agreement happen to be
                    > Mt and Mk; in green, if the two in verbatim agreement are Mk and Lk; or in red,
                    > if the two in verbatim agreement are Mt and Lk. Then, there is also a different
                    > colored underlining on these same word(s). If the overlining is yellow in two
                    > gospels (Mt/Mk), then a single line in green would also appear under the same
                    > word in Mk (partial agreement with Lk) and a single line in red would also appear
                    > under the same word in Mt (partial agreement with Lk). In Lk, then, there would
                    > be double underlining under the word in partial agreement. One line would be
                    > green, for partial agreement with Mk and the other, red, for partial agreement
                    > with Mt.
                    >
                    > These are some of the most complex patterns for a set of only three gospel
                    > contexts in parallel, but I hope you get the idea of how this system works for
                    > less complex cases.
                    >
                    > Tom Longstaff and I have developed and utilized a similar color-coding pattern
                    > for our forthcoming Markan synopsis, but modifications of Farmer's system were
                    > necessary, given certain limits imposed upon electronic publishing (such as the
                    > impossibility of doing double underlining in two colors). First, we do always
                    > color the letters of identical and/or similar words, but we use full underlining
                    > for verbatim agreements and dashed/dotted underlining for partial agreements.
                    >
                    > Underlining between words indicates agreement in word order, as did Farmer's
                    > system of overlining or underlining between words.
                    >
                    > If you have not done so, you can get an idea of what we will be publishing on CD-
                    > ROM in November by browsing a now quite dated sampling of our work at
                    >
                    > http://www.colby.edu/rel/2gh/synopsis/synopsis3.html
                    >
                    > and other pericope synopses displayed in that area.
                    >
                    > Since we are publishing a new and improved version of this synopsis with Trinity
                    > Press International this fall, we are not allowed to display the newer version on
                    > the WEB. However, this new Markan Synopsis on CD-ROM is advertised in the fall
                    > 2001 Trinity catalog to sell for $ 30.00. We, therefore, do not expect that this
                    > price will prohibit anyone from purchasing and utilizing this new software.
                    >
                    > Best,
                    >
                    > David Barrett Peabody

                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Brian E. Wilson
                    David Peabody wrote -- ... David, The question is whether any underlining is appropriate if you set out the three Anointing passages (Mt 26.6-12, Mk 14.3-9,
                    Message 9 of 19 , Aug 2, 2001
                      David Peabody wrote --
                      >
                      >The work of Tom and I differs here from that of my dissertation
                      >advisor. In our forthcoming synopsis, all three of these pericopae are
                      >set out side by side with the appropriate underlining and color codes
                      >presented.
                      >
                      David,
                      The question is whether any underlining is appropriate if you set
                      out the three "Anointing" passages (Mt 26.6-12, Mk 14.3-9, Lk 7.36-50)
                      side by side and compare them. On what criterion are the observable
                      agreements in wording between the Lukan and the Markan versions, for
                      instance, deemed not to be "imaginary", but significant? After all, we
                      can put virtually any two synoptic passages alongside each other and
                      observe at least some agreements in wording, such as KAI, or the
                      definite article. Where do we draw the line between, on the one hand,
                      similarities of wording that are objectively there and unlikely to be
                      the result of mere coincidence, and, on the other hand, similarities
                      that we may subjectively be reading into the situation, and that are
                      "imaginary", in Farmer's terminology?

                      It seems to me that in his *Synopticon* Farmer exercised caution in his
                      "general principle" stated in the brief Introduction, that is --
                      >
                      >"to leave some possibly significant agreements unmarked rather than to
                      >risk calling attention to imaginary ones".
                      >
                      It was on this basis that he decided that the observable similarities
                      between "Anointing" in Luke and the versions of that story in Matthew
                      and Mark should be not be considered significant, so that there are no
                      color coded words at all in the Lukan version of the Anointing, Lk
                      7.36-50, in his *Synopticon*.

                      In my view, ultimately any color coding fails whatever criteria are used
                      for determining the line between "imaginary" and significant verbal
                      agreements. This is because the vaguer similarities of wording that are
                      not sufficiently strong to meet the criteria being used, must be
                      accounted for just as much as those clear similarities that meet the
                      criteria. Color coding cannot point definitively to a solution to the
                      synoptic problem, therefore. It can provide limited data only.

                      A solution to the synoptic problem would, in fact, reveal the failure of
                      any color coding system to pin-point all similarities of wording
                      resulting from the documentary relationship between the synoptic gospels
                      it posits. I would suggest that identifying the failure of any color
                      coding to code all similarities of wording between synoptic gospels, is
                      crucial to solving the synoptic problem.

                      Best wishes,
                      BRIAN WILSON

                      >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

                      Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                      > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                      > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                      _

                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Stephen C. Carlson
                      After reading this thread, I have no idea, if any, what the failure of color coding is supposed to be. The purpose of color coding is to indicate the words
                      Message 10 of 19 , Aug 4, 2001
                        After reading this thread, I have no idea, if any, what the
                        failure of color coding is supposed to be. The purpose of
                        color coding is to indicate the words and lemmata that are
                        the same in two or more parallel traditions. Once there is
                        an agreement that two passages are to be color-coded with
                        respect to one another, then there is no difficulty and no
                        failure in color coding.

                        This necessarily presupposes some notion that the traditions
                        are indeed parallel. Since different people have different
                        standards for determining this, usually while being informed
                        by a particular source theory, it is not surprising that
                        different color coders will produce different results.

                        Back to Dungan's notion that synopses are biased, one of the
                        ways that synopses are biased is in the identification of
                        parallel traditions and the primacy one gives to which of
                        many possibles parallels and non-parallels. This problem
                        exists prior to the color coding exercise.

                        Stephen Carlson
                        --
                        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

                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • Brian E. Wilson
                        Stephen Carlson wrote -- ... Every color code system fails to code all significant similarities of wording between the synoptic gospels. W. R. Farmer saw the
                        Message 11 of 19 , Aug 5, 2001
                          Stephen Carlson wrote --
                          >
                          >After reading this thread, I have no idea, if any, what the failure of
                          >color coding is supposed to be.
                          >
                          Every color code system fails to code all significant similarities of
                          wording between the synoptic gospels.

                          W. R. Farmer saw the truth of this, and admitted that it applied to his
                          *Synopticon*.

                          Best wishes,
                          BRIAN WILSON

                          >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

                          Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                          > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                          > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                          _

                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • Stephen C. Carlson
                          ... You said this before. It didn t make sense then, and it still does not make sense now even after being repeated. It might be more helpful to explain what
                          Message 12 of 19 , Aug 5, 2001
                            At 02:45 PM 8/5/01 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                            >Stephen Carlson wrote --
                            >>After reading this thread, I have no idea, if any, what the failure of
                            >>color coding is supposed to be.
                            >>
                            >Every color code system fails to code all significant similarities of
                            >wording between the synoptic gospels.

                            You said this before. It didn't make sense then, and it still does
                            not make sense now even after being repeated. It might be more helpful
                            to explain what is meant and address the valid points others brought
                            up, rather than to repeat oneself in pretty much the identical words.

                            >W. R. Farmer saw the truth of this, and admitted that it applied to his
                            >*Synopticon*.

                            It does not seem valid to generalize Farmer's admission of
                            leaving "some POSSIBLY significant agreements unmarked"
                            (emphasis added) in his synopticon to "EVERY color code
                            system fails to code ALL SIGNIFICANT similarities"
                            (emphasis added) as asserted and reiterated in this thread.

                            Farmer's flaw, which was later discovered by Dungan, was
                            that his attempt to "determine the nature and extent of
                            the verbatim agreements among the Synoptic Gospels WITHOUT
                            ANY REFERENCE TO A PARTICULAR SOURCE THEORY" (emphasis
                            added) is impossible. That, I submit is the problem,
                            not the color coding.

                            Therefore, it seems that the imaginary failure of color
                            coding has no relevance to solving the synoptic problem.

                            Stephen Carlson
                            --
                            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

                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • Brian E. Wilson
                            David B. Peabody wrote -- ... Congratulations in advance to yourself and Tom Longstaff. What name is the work given in the catalog of Trinity Press
                            Message 13 of 19 , Aug 7, 2001
                              David B. Peabody wrote --
                              >
                              >Since we are publishing a new and improved version of this synopsis
                              >with Trinity Press International this fall, we are not allowed to
                              >display the newer version on the WEB. However, this new Markan Synopsis
                              >on CD-ROM is advertised in the fall 2001 Trinity catalog to sell for $
                              >30.00. We, therefore, do not expect that this price will prohibit
                              >anyone from purchasing and utilizing this new software.
                              >

                              Congratulations in advance to yourself and Tom Longstaff.

                              What name is the work given in the catalog of Trinity Press
                              International, please?

                              Would you be prepared to say in what sense you see the work as a "Markan
                              Synopsis"?

                              Am I right that in your country a printed synopsis with no colors would
                              cost more than $30? Printed synopses tend to be on the more expensive
                              side in the UK because of their large pages. The price of the CD is
                              surely very reasonable.

                              I find that I use different synopses for different purposes. Each seems
                              to have its own particular advantages. I would want to add your synopsis
                              to my collection. I anticipate that your new creation will have its own
                              special uses and be widely used and quoted.

                              Best wishes,
                              BRIAN WILSON

                              >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

                              Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                              > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                              > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                              _

                              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                            • Brian E. Wilson
                              Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Stephen Carlson replied -- ... Stephen, I think I may have covered this point in my posting to Michael Grondin, albeit with some
                              Message 14 of 19 , Aug 7, 2001
                                Brian Wilson wrote --
                                >
                                >Every color code system fails to code all significant similarities of
                                >wording between the synoptic gospels.
                                >
                                Stephen Carlson replied --
                                >
                                >You said this before. It didn't make sense then, and it still does
                                >not make sense now even after being repeated. It might be more helpful
                                >to explain what is meant and address the valid points others brought
                                >up, rather than to repeat oneself in pretty much the identical words.
                                >
                                Stephen,
                                I think I may have covered this point in my posting to Michael
                                Grondin, albeit with some repetition of what I had already said.

                                Brian Wilson continued --
                                >
                                >W. R. Farmer saw the truth of this, and admitted that it applied to his
                                >*Synopticon*.
                                >
                                Stephen Carlson responded --
                                >
                                >It does not seem valid to generalize Farmer's admission of leaving
                                >"some POSSIBLY significant agreements unmarked" (emphasis added) in his
                                >synopticon to "EVERY color code system fails to code ALL SIGNIFICANT
                                >similarities" (emphasis added) as asserted and reiterated in this
                                >thread.
                                >

                                I entirely agree. I am not sure why you pursue this line of thought. I
                                did not produce my statement by generalizing your quotation from Farmer.
                                Farmer argues that the inadequacy of his *Synopticon* is the result of
                                "cases where two or more passages in one gospel may be parallel to one
                                or more passages in another". His conclusion is that this entails that a
                                color coding of the text of Matthew, Mark and Luke is in danger of
                                either being incomplete or of calling attention to imaginary agreements
                                of wording between synoptic gospels.

                                Stephen continued --
                                >
                                >Farmer's flaw, which was later discovered by Dungan, was that his
                                >attempt to "determine the nature and extent of the verbatim agreements
                                >among the Synoptic Gospels WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO A PARTICULAR SOURCE
                                >THEORY" (emphasis added) is impossible. That, I submit is the problem,
                                >not the color coding.
                                >
                                I think you are very confused here. Farmer's *Synopticon* is not a
                                synopsis. It is a color mapping of the verbal agreement between the
                                texts of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Farmer explicitly states in the brief
                                Introduction that *Synopticon* can be used in conjunction with "those
                                several excellent modern synopses which facilitate comparison of
                                passages by arranging them in parallel columns after the manner of
                                Griesbach". He thus indicates that his book is not intended to do the
                                job they do. Constructing a color coding of the text of the synoptic
                                gospels does not require the existence of any synopsis at all. A color
                                coding of the verbal agreements between the synoptic gospels could be
                                produced by a computer processing the text of the synoptic gospels with
                                no reference to any synopsis.

                                Dungan's thesis is that it is not possible to construct a synopsis that
                                is unbiassed with respect to particular synoptic documentary hypotheses.
                                This has nothing whatsoever to do with color coding the text of the
                                three synoptic gospels to high-light verbal agreements between them. It
                                has rather to do with, for instance, the various pericope divisions that
                                can be followed by those constructing a synopsis.
                                >
                                >Therefore, it seems that the imaginary failure of color coding has no
                                >relevance to solving the synoptic problem.
                                >
                                Again, I think I may have covered this point in my posting to Michael
                                Grondin. In my view the synoptic problem is to put forward a hypothesis
                                that accounts well for the non-parallelism similarities, as well as for
                                the parallelism similarities, between the synoptic gospels.

                                Best wishes,
                                BRIAN WILSON

                                >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

                                Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                                > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                                > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                                _

                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                              • Thomas R. W. Longstaff
                                If I may respond .... ... In the Fall 2001 issue of the Trinity Press International catalog you will find the work referred to on page 6. At the top of the
                                Message 15 of 19 , Aug 7, 2001
                                  If I may respond ....

                                  > David B. Peabody wrote --
                                  > >
                                  > >Since we are publishing a new and improved version of this synopsis
                                  > >with Trinity Press International this fall, we are not allowed to
                                  > >display the newer version on the WEB. However, this new Markan Synopsis
                                  > >on CD-ROM is advertised in the fall 2001 Trinity catalog to sell for $
                                  > >30.00. We, therefore, do not expect that this price will prohibit
                                  > >anyone from purchasing and utilizing this new software.
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > Congratulations in advance to yourself and Tom Longstaff.
                                  >
                                  > What name is the work given in the catalog of Trinity Press
                                  > International, please?

                                  In the Fall 2001 issue of the Trinity Press International catalog you will
                                  find the
                                  work referred to on page 6. At the top of the page is the announcement of a
                                  book entitled ONE GOSPEL FROM TWO: MARK'S USE OF MATTHEW
                                  AND LUKE. This work follows-up the earlier volume, BEYOND THE Q
                                  IMPASSE. Each of these works is a commentary on the Gospel using the
                                  Two Gospel (or Griesbach) hypothesis. Thus it responds to those who have
                                  asked for such a fuller treatment of the gospels, rather than discussions of
                                  one (or only a few) pericopae.

                                  At the bottom of the page, under the heading "Also Available," you will find
                                  reference to A SYNOPSIS OF MARK. David Dungan's two essays on
                                  synoptic construction will also appear on this CD.

                                  > Would you be prepared to say in what sense you see the work as a "Markan
                                  > Synopsis"?

                                  That question is easily answered. The Synopsis of Mark that will be
                                  available
                                  later this year includes the complete text of Mark's gospel with the
                                  parallel
                                  texts in Matthew in Luke in adjacent columns. Those who look at this
                                  synopsis
                                  will see that we have taken a different approach than the standard synopses
                                  to those places where multiple parallels might be identified. The structure
                                  of
                                  this synopsis reflects the structure of the analysis of Mark in the book to
                                  which
                                  it is related. Material common to Matthew and Luke but not in Mark (which,
                                  on
                                  the Two Document Hypothesis would be identified as Q material) does not, of
                                  course, appear at all. Neither does material unique to Matthew or Luke. In
                                  that sense the synopsis is a limited one, a synopsis that highlights the
                                  parallels
                                  to Mark - and in that sense it is a "Markan synopsis."

                                  As we have noted, David Peabody and I intend to follow-up this synopsis of
                                  Mark (with the parallels in Matthew and Luke) with a more conventional and
                                  complete synopsis, including all of the material in Matthew, Mark and Luke.
                                  It will be necessary for us to use a different structure (following Mark's
                                  outline
                                  might not produce the best modern synopsis - although it works well for an
                                  analysis of Mark). The synopsis of the synoptic gospels, unlike the Markan
                                  synopsis, will include the material common to Matthew and Luke not found in
                                  Mark as well as the material unique to each of those gospels.

                                  Needless to say, David Peabody and I are following the current discussion
                                  with a good deal of interest and taking seriously many of the comments about
                                  color-coded synopses. Obviously, we are less pessimistic about their
                                  usefulness than some participants in the discussion - which does not mean
                                  that we do not consider the comments made by those contributors. We
                                  appreciate the discussion and are informed by it.

                                  > Am I right that in your country a printed synopsis with no colors would
                                  > cost more than $30? Printed synopses tend to be on the more expensive
                                  > side in the UK because of their large pages. The price of the CD is
                                  > surely very reasonable.

                                  This is probably correct although I acknowledge that my voice is not an
                                  authoritative one on this issue.

                                  > I find that I use different synopses for different purposes. Each seems
                                  > to have its own particular advantages. I would want to add your synopsis
                                  > to my collection. I anticipate that your new creation will have its own
                                  > special uses and be widely used and quoted.

                                  The synopsis coming out this fall will have special use in connection with
                                  the Gospel of Mark and parallels to that gospel in Matthew and Luke.
                                  While we acknowledge that we have made no attempt to create this
                                  synopsis free of a presumed solution to the synoptic problem, we are
                                  convinced that it will be useful to those working with the text of Mark,
                                  even if they are working with a different hypothesis. We think that we
                                  have created the most exhaustive (and exhausting) display of the parallels
                                  to Mark that has yet been produced.

                                  How widely it will be used or cited remains to be seen.

                                  With good wishes,

                                  Thomas R. W. Longstaff
                                  Crawford Family Professor
                                  Department of Religious Studies
                                  Colby College
                                  Waterville, ME 04901
                                  tlongst@...




                                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                • Stephen C. Carlson
                                  ... Yes, your response to Mike Grondin has clarified your point. Nevertheless, I still take umbrage at characterizing the lack of indicating non-verbatim
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Aug 7, 2001
                                    At 09:32 AM 8/7/01 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                                    >Brian Wilson wrote --
                                    >>Every color code system fails to code all significant similarities of
                                    >>wording between the synoptic gospels.
                                    >>
                                    >Stephen Carlson replied --
                                    >>You said this before. It didn't make sense then, and it still does
                                    >>not make sense now even after being repeated. It might be more helpful
                                    >>to explain what is meant and address the valid points others brought
                                    >>up, rather than to repeat oneself in pretty much the identical words.
                                    >>
                                    > I think I may have covered this point in my posting to Michael
                                    >Grondin, albeit with some repetition of what I had already said.

                                    Yes, your response to Mike Grondin has clarified your point.

                                    Nevertheless, I still take umbrage at characterizing the lack of
                                    indicating non-verbatim similarities by color coding as a "failure"
                                    of color coding. Color coding also does not give me your email
                                    address, but I would not call that a "failure" because it is
                                    outside of its intended purpose. Similarly, color coding's non-
                                    indication of certain similarities where there is no lexical
                                    agreement is not a "failure," because color is not intended to
                                    capture that information. That information is instead captured
                                    by the arrangement of the material in parallel columns, as Mike
                                    pointed out.

                                    >Brian Wilson continued --
                                    >>W. R. Farmer saw the truth of this, and admitted that it applied to his
                                    >>*Synopticon*.
                                    >>
                                    >Stephen Carlson responded --
                                    >>It does not seem valid to generalize Farmer's admission of leaving
                                    >>"some POSSIBLY significant agreements unmarked" (emphasis added) in his
                                    >>synopticon to "EVERY color code system fails to code ALL SIGNIFICANT
                                    >>similarities" (emphasis added) as asserted and reiterated in this
                                    >>thread.
                                    >
                                    >I entirely agree. I am not sure why you pursue this line of thought. I
                                    >did not produce my statement by generalizing your quotation from Farmer.

                                    Then why do you continue to cite Farmer in this connection?

                                    >Farmer argues that the inadequacy of his *Synopticon* is the result of
                                    >"cases where two or more passages in one gospel may be parallel to one
                                    >or more passages in another". His conclusion is that this entails that a
                                    >color coding of the text of Matthew, Mark and Luke is in danger of
                                    >either being incomplete or of calling attention to imaginary agreements
                                    >of wording between synoptic gospels.

                                    This illustrates the failure in choosing only one passage as the
                                    parallel. It is not a color-coding failure; it is a parallelism
                                    failure. Generally, as Dungan later discovered, it is impossible
                                    to choose which one passage to be "the" parallel, because different
                                    source theories may view different parallels as the primary parallel.

                                    >Stephen continued --
                                    >>Farmer's flaw, which was later discovered by Dungan, was that his
                                    >>attempt to "determine the nature and extent of the verbatim agreements
                                    >>among the Synoptic Gospels WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO A PARTICULAR SOURCE
                                    >>THEORY" (emphasis added) is impossible. That, I submit is the problem,
                                    >>not the color coding.
                                    >>
                                    >I think you are very confused here. Farmer's *Synopticon* is not a
                                    >synopsis. It is a color mapping of the verbal agreement between the
                                    >texts of Matthew, Mark and Luke. ***

                                    True, but irrelevant. Dungan's criticisms, although discussed in
                                    reference to synopses, are not limited to synopses but to any tool
                                    that purports to show the literary relationships between parallel
                                    synoptic texts. This is true whether Dungan realized it or not.

                                    >Dungan's thesis is that it is not possible to construct a synopsis that
                                    >is unbiassed with respect to particular synoptic documentary hypotheses.
                                    >This has nothing whatsoever to do with color coding the text of the
                                    >three synoptic gospels to high-light verbal agreements between them. It
                                    >has rather to do with, for instance, the various pericope divisions that
                                    >can be followed by those constructing a synopsis.

                                    Actually, Dungan makes three independent criticisms of biased synopses:
                                    text, arrangement, and pericope subdivision. Focusing only on the last
                                    criticism does not tell the full story, especially when my argument was
                                    directed to the second criticism.

                                    However, all three criticisms are applicable to Farmer's Synopticon.
                                    Farmer had to choose a text for his synopticon. That text, NA 25,
                                    was partly established under the assumption of Markan priority. Farmer
                                    had to decide which parallel passage is be the color coding reference.
                                    That decision presupposes a particular arrangement. Farmer's decision
                                    of whether to color code to another parallel in the same paragraph, e.g.
                                    Mark 1:2, presupposes a particular pericope decomposition. All of
                                    Dungan's criticisms are readily applicable to Farmer's Synopticon,
                                    even though Farmer's Synopticon is technically not a synopsis.

                                    >>Therefore, it seems that the imaginary failure of color coding has no
                                    >>relevance to solving the synoptic problem.
                                    >>
                                    >Again, I think I may have covered this point in my posting to Michael
                                    >Grondin. In my view the synoptic problem is to put forward a hypothesis
                                    >that accounts well for the non-parallelism similarities, as well as for
                                    >the parallelism similarities, between the synoptic gospels.

                                    Phrased in this manner (though the term "non-parallelism similarity"
                                    is a bit too infelicitous), the issue may have more relevance to
                                    the synoptic problem, but it is important to remember that the
                                    synoptic problem exists in the first place because of the so-called
                                    "parallelism similarities," without which the so-called "non-parallelism
                                    similarities" may be insufficient to establish that some literary
                                    relationship exists between and/or among the synoptics.

                                    Stephen Carlson
                                    --
                                    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

                                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                  • David B. Peabody
                                    Brian, I have interleaved some responses below. ... Thank you. Tom and I look forward to critical responses to this work, particularly from persons like
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Aug 7, 2001
                                      Brian,

                                      I have interleaved some responses below.

                                      Quoting "Brian E. Wilson" <brian@...>:

                                      > David B. Peabody wrote --
                                      > >
                                      > >Since we are publishing a new and improved version of this synopsis
                                      > >with Trinity Press International this fall, we are not allowed to
                                      > >display the newer version on the WEB. However, this new Markan Synopsis
                                      > >on CD-ROM is advertised in the fall 2001 Trinity catalog to sell for $
                                      > >30.00. We, therefore, do not expect that this price will prohibit
                                      > >anyone from purchasing and utilizing this new software.
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > Congratulations in advance to yourself and Tom Longstaff.

                                      Thank you. Tom and I look forward to critical responses to this work,
                                      particularly from persons like yourself who have done some serious thinking about
                                      the Synoptic Problem and the making of synopses. Certainly we would hope that the
                                      membership of Synoptic-L would have some interest in what Tom and I have
                                      composed.

                                      > What name is the work given in the catalog of Trinity Press
                                      > International, please?

                                      The title of this synopsis, as indicated on page 6 of the fall 2001 Trinity Press
                                      International catalog, is "A Synopsis of Mark. A Synopsis of the First Three
                                      Gospels Showing the Parallels to the Markan Text.

                                      > Would you be prepared to say in what sense you see the work as a "Markan
                                      > Synopsis"?

                                      This synopsis is Markan in the sense that we have utilized the running text of
                                      the whole of Mark as the "lead gospel," if you will. Hopefully, next to this
                                      running text of Mark, we have displayed all of the contextual parallels to Mark
                                      and quite a few, if not all, of the non-contextual, verbal parallels, as well.
                                      For instance, in one pericope, we utilized nine columns to display all of what we
                                      would consider to be the relevant evidence.

                                      This synopsis may, therefore, primarily be described as "Markan" because we have
                                      not yet included in it the complete texts of Matthew and Luke, only those
                                      passages in Mt and Lk that relate, sometimes even rather "loosely," to a parallel
                                      in Mark. As soon as we can complete the work, we will offer an "upgrade" to this
                                      synopsis in which the entirety of the texts of Matthew and Luke will be included.

                                      Nevertheless, even in its current form, we have already included a considerable
                                      amount of material common to Matthew and Luke that is not also found in Mark.
                                      Such material appears, or instance, in passages that some advocates of the Two
                                      Document Hypothesis would label "Mark-Q overlaps".

                                      This synopsis was also constructed for the primary purpose of illustrating the
                                      argumentation made in *One Gospel From Two. Mark's Use of Matthew and Luke.* This
                                      form of the synopsis is, therefore, also "Markan" because that book focuses on
                                      the composition of Mark.

                                      This forthcoming volume is also advertised on page 6 in the fall 2001 TPI
                                      catalog. In the book we say that our "ideal reader" will have our electronic
                                      color-coded synopsis open as he or she reads this book. Such, at least, are the
                                      hopes of this forthcoming volume's co-authors, Lamar Cope, editor, David L.
                                      Dungan, William R. Farmer+, Thomas R. W. Longstaff, Allan J. McNicol, editor,
                                      David B. Peabody, lead editor, and Philip L. Shuler.

                                      Unfortunately, this book will not now be published as soon as the synopsis, which
                                      should be available for purchase for the first time at the Annual Meeting of the
                                      SBL in Denver, November 2001 and from TPI, of course, anytime thereafter. The
                                      book will appear as soon as possible after that, now probably sometime in the
                                      spring or summer of 2002.

                                      > Am I right that in your country a printed synopsis with no colors would
                                      > cost more than $30?

                                      Yes. For instance, Aland's Greek synopsis is currently listed for sale at $ 69.99
                                      in the on-line catalog for the American Bible Society.

                                      Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. Greek Synopsis of the 4 Gospels - K. Aland,
                                      editor. The Nestle-Aland 26th edition text, with full critical apparatus and
                                      parallels from the apocryphal Gospels and Patristic sources. Key to sigla. GBS,
                                      Stuttgart, 1990 14th revised edition, 4th printing. Cloth, 27 x 22 cm., xxxii,
                                      590 p.

                                      Since the same volume is distributed world-wide, it has the same large pages you
                                      note as characterizing printed, black and white, synopses available in the UK
                                      (cf. Bernard Orchard's synopsis). Of course, Aland's synopsis also includes the
                                      Gospel of John, a rich collection of annotations relating to textual variants, a
                                      complete text of the Gospel of Thomas, excerpts in Greek from Patristic texts
                                      relating to the gospels, etc. It is certainly worth its price.

                                      However, I understand that all texts of the Bible distributed by the American
                                      Bible Society, including Aland's synopsis, are subsidized. That is, the buyer
                                      does not pay the total cost of the publication of text of the Bible or "portions"
                                      of it. Handbooks on the Bible or parts of it or commentaries on the Bible,
                                      however, even if extensive amounts of Biblical text are quoted, are not
                                      subsidized.

                                      > Printed synopses tend to be on the more expensive
                                      > side in the UK because of their large pages. The price of the CD is
                                      > surely very reasonable.

                                      As you have quoted me above, Tom and I would agree and hope that cost will not
                                      prohibit anyone from using this new synopsis.

                                      > I find that I use different synopses for different purposes. Each seems
                                      > to have its own particular advantages. I would want to add your synopsis
                                      > to my collection. I anticipate that your new creation will have its own
                                      > special uses and be widely used and quoted.
                                      >
                                      > Best wishes,
                                      > BRIAN WILSON

                                      I also use a variety of synopses for various purposes and, of course, hope that
                                      you and others will find a place for this new synopsis in whatever collection of
                                      tools or aids for the study of the gospels you may have.

                                      Best,

                                      David Barrett Peabody





                                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                    • Brian E. Wilson
                                      Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Stephen Carlson replied -- ... Stephen, I agree with what you say here, including the comment that non- parallelism similarity is a
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Aug 8, 2001
                                        Brian Wilson wrote --
                                        >
                                        >In my view the synoptic problem is to put forward a hypothesis that
                                        >accounts well for the non-parallelism similarities, as well as for
                                        >the parallelism similarities, between the synoptic gospels.
                                        >
                                        Stephen Carlson replied --
                                        >
                                        >Phrased in this manner (though the term "non-parallelism similarity"
                                        >is a bit too infelicitous), the issue may have more relevance to
                                        >the synoptic problem, but it is important to remember that the
                                        >synoptic problem exists in the first place because of the so-called
                                        >"parallelism similarities," without which the so-called "non-
                                        >parallelism similarities" may be insufficient to establish that some
                                        >literary relationship exists between and/or among the synoptics.
                                        >

                                        Stephen,
                                        I agree with what you say here, including the comment that "non-
                                        parallelism similarity" is a bit too infelicitous. I will try and do
                                        something about that.

                                        Best wishes,
                                        BRIAN WILSON

                                        >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

                                        Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                                        > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                                        > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                                        _

                                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.