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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: PWRWSIS: piecemeal and cumulative solutions to the Synop...

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 4/29/2002 1:47:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, david@colonialcommerce.com writes:
    Message 1 of 24 , Apr 29, 2002
      In a message dated 4/29/2002 1:47:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      david@... writes:

      << Now we get to the part that is most open to interpretation -- how to take
      the information gathered above regarding commonalities among the sections,
      and use that to determine direction of dependence. Note that *none* of this
      analysis is based on looking at individual words. Instead, all 807
      different words are considered every time. It is therefore pointless (for
      this kind of analysis) to try to reduce the argument to an individual word
      basis, as Dave Gentile has pointed out many times.

      Each of the 807 different words is used a different number of times in each
      of the synoptics (and in each of the 19 sections), and it is true that each
      of the 807 different words provides individual arguments in support of
      different synoptic positions. Looking at specific words in context does
      provide information that Dave Gentile's analysis does not, and vice versa.
      However, it is pointless to attack Dave for *not* considering individual
      words, as his analysis is specifically designed to take all words into
      consideration.>>


      Dave, I have simply been inviting Dave, or anyone else who holds Markan
      priority, to make a single-term-based analysis of parallel Synoptic texts,
      similar to mine centering on the term PWRWSIS, but which would be argued to
      weigh in favor of Markan priority. The idea would be to see if arguments
      could be made at this level with sufficient objectivity as to garner assent
      even from people who do not otherwise favor the overall source theory which
      the individual argument seems to support. I did get Dave to agree that my
      argument seemed, if only weakly, to support Markan posteriority in the
      limited context of Synoptic passages involving the term PWRWSIS and cognates.
      I am disappointed that I did not garner more general agreement on this point,
      but a good next step would be for someone who holds Markan priority to see if
      a similar argument in favor of that position could be made, centered on a
      different Greek term.

      Thank you for your efforts in trying to explain to me the contours of Dave's
      own project. Honestly, I still find it a bit hard to follow, though you
      certainly clarified some things for me. But I am trying to get him, or
      someone else (and I didn't mean to be so hard on him in particular,
      especially as he is the only one so far to have granted some validity to my
      argument) to adopt a different level of argumentation to see if it would go
      anywhere.

      To place my own project in context, it is my suspicion that most Markan
      priorists are led to their conviction by what I call a macro impression or
      argument: the fact that Matt and Lk contain so much material that has no
      parallel in Mark, and that could well have come from somewhere else (Q, e.g.,
      or one evangelist copying from the other) and been added to a basic Markan
      narrative framework by later evangelist redactors (Matt and Lk). [I have even
      expressed a willingness to grant limited validity to this argument, taken in
      itself]. Even though these same authors (Markan priorists) often give an
      additional series of standard arguments (other than the one just noted) in
      favor of their position, I don't think even they are really convinced by
      those standard arguments which have frequently been demonstrated to be
      invalid. What is more telling is that Markan priority (in my view) is not
      really supported strongly or consistently at a micro level of text analysis.
      The term-based analyses I am suggesting we attempt is simply one possible way
      of doing some disciplined micro analysis of Synoptic texts with a view to
      developing a source theory "empirically" as I say, rather than simply
      following an impression that is made by the macro-level evidence. I hope this
      clarifies the general contours of what I am attempting.

      Leonard Maluf

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • David Gentile
      ... Ah. Sorry about that. I was considering only A and B and which was first between them. If we have 4 documents, and no information, then the probability
      Message 2 of 24 , Apr 29, 2002
        John writes:

        >
        > There is only one correct answer, which is very
        > obvious, each of the four Gospels has an equal chance
        > at being first, so that, Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn = 25% each.
        > If you discuss Mt & Mk in an isolated discussion it
        > still does not change the original 4.1 ratio, they
        > will still remain 25% each, not 50%.

        Ah. Sorry about that. I was considering only "A" and "B" and which was first
        between them. If we have 4 documents, and no information, then the
        probability is indeed 25%, as you say.

        >
        > {snip}
        >
        > I hope you do something with your research that will
        > make it public, namely, be able to be scrutinized.
        > Writing detailed narratives to explain design,
        > criteria , etc will be very useful to anyone who
        > wishes to study your research. I wholeheartedly
        > encourage you to do this. Until now, as you can tell,
        > it has been frustrating for anyone serious about NT
        > statistics to make much sense of it, but believe me
        > we're all interested.

        Thank you. Perhaps it would be best, if I try to stay out of debates about
        it until then, since it seems to be frustrating on both ends.

        Dave Gentile
        Riverside, Illinois
        M.S. Physics
        Ph.D. Management Science candidate



        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • David Gentile
        Leonard writes: To place my own project in context, it is my suspicion that most Markan priorists are led to their conviction by what I call a macro impression
        Message 3 of 24 , Apr 29, 2002
          Leonard writes:

          To place my own project in context, it is my suspicion that most Markan
          priorists are led to their conviction by what I call a macro impression or
          argument: the fact that Matt and Lk contain so much material that has no
          parallel in Mark, and that could well have come from somewhere else (Q,
          e.g.,
          or one evangelist copying from the other) and been added to a basic Markan
          narrative framework by later evangelist redactors (Matt and Lk). [I have
          even
          expressed a willingness to grant limited validity to this argument, taken in
          itself].

          ========

          In other words, something like this looks reasonable to you:
          X => M
          X + M => L
          X + M + L => K

          where X is structurally similiar to Mark.

          Is that correct?

          Dave Gentile
          Riverside, Illinois
          M.S. Physics
          Ph.D. Management Science candidate


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 4/29/2002 10:37:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, GentDave@worldnet.att.net writes:
          Message 4 of 24 , Apr 30, 2002
            In a message dated 4/29/2002 10:37:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
            GentDave@... writes:

            << In other words, something like this looks reasonable to you:>>

            I really hoped you would put it "in other words"; but no, you seem to be more
            comfortable -- in other symbols.

            <<
            X => M
            X + M => L
            X + M + L => K

            where X is structurally similar to Mark.>>


            Sorry, I need a "value" for M, for L and for K as well to know whether these
            symbolic equations bear the slightest resemblance to what I said above.

            Leonard Maluf

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • dgentil@sears.com
            Hello Leonard, K = Mark M = Matthew L = Luke Dave Gentile Riverside, Illinois In a message dated 4/29/2002 10:37:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
            Message 5 of 24 , Apr 30, 2002
              Hello Leonard,

              K = Mark
              M = Matthew
              L = Luke

              Dave Gentile
              Riverside, Illinois





              In a message dated 4/29/2002 10:37:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
              GentDave@... writes:

              << In other words, something like this looks reasonable to you:>>

              I really hoped you would put it "in other words"; but no, you seem to be
              more
              comfortable -- in other symbols.

              <<
              X => M
              X + M => L
              X + M + L => K

              where X is structurally similar to Mark.>>


              Sorry, I need a "value" for M, for L and for K as well to know whether
              these
              symbolic equations bear the slightest resemblance to what I said above.

              Leonard Maluf




              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.