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

[Synoptic-L] Another attempt at explanation

Expand Messages
  • dgentil@sears.com
    Let me try once more. This is just to try to explain the rational for the experiment. For simplicity, let s say we have only two documents, document A and
    Message 1 of 36 , Apr 30, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Let me try once more. This is just to try to explain the rational for the
      experiment.

      For simplicity, let's say we have only two documents, document A and
      document B.

      Let's say we divide the words found in these documents into three
      categories.

      1) Words found in document A, without a direct parallel in document B
      2) Words found in parallel in document A and document B
      3) Words found in document B with no direct parallel in document A

      From the above definitions, we can see that, together, category 1 and
      category 2 are all words found in document A.
      Also, category 2 and category 3 together are all words found in document B.

      Now we study two specific words: "cat" and "dog".

      Suppose we find that "cat" is common in category 1, "Words found in A,
      without a direct parallel in B".
      "Cat" is also common in category 2, "Words found in parallel in A and B".
      However "cat" is uncommon in category 3, "Words found in B with no direct
      parallel in A".

      When we look at "dog", we find "dog" is uncommon in category 1, "Words
      found in A, without a direct parallel in B".
      "Dog is also uncommon in category 2, "Words found in parallel in A and B".
      But, "dog" is common in category 3, "Words found in B with no direct
      parallel in A".

      So, the pattern we see is that category 1, and category 2, have similar
      frequencies of the studied words.
      However, category 3, has a markedly different frequency.

      Stated in another way, categories 1 and 2 form a homogeneous pair, while
      category 3 is different.

      Or stated yet another way, document A (made up of categories 1 and 2) is
      more homogeneous.
      Whereas, document B (made up of categories 2 and 3) is less homogeneous.

      The claim then, is that the homogeneous document A is more likely prior to
      the non-homogeneous document B.

      If that clarified anything for anyone, please let me know.

      Thank you,

      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, Illinois
















      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • John Lupia
      Correction. The following reads: 5 Words in B not used by A in any parallel B has with A. (* repetitive with #2).Words in B used not in a parallel narrative
      Message 36 of 36 , May 2 12:51 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Correction.

        The following reads:
        5 Words in B not used by A in any parallel B has with
        A.
        (* repetitive with #2).Words in B used not in a
        parallel narrative with A, but in a parallel phrase
        with A
        6. Words used in a unique phrase (or clause) or verse
        in B exclusively.
        (11) Words used in a unique phrase (or clause) in B
        exclusively.
        (12) Words used in a unique verse in B exclusively.


        But should be corrected as follows:
        (10) Words that are different between A & B having the
        same subject, but which are not parallel narratives.
        (11) Words in B not used by A in any parallel B has
        with A.
        (* repetitive with #2).Words in B used not in a
        parallel narrative with A, but in a parallel phrase
        with A
        6. Words used in a unique phrase (or clause) or verse
        in B exclusively.
        (12) Words used in a unique phrase (or clause) in B
        exclusively.
        (13) Words used in a unique verse in B exclusively.

        Additional note:

        Consequently, there are thirteen, not twelve
        categories.

        There are two classes of focus dictated by the design
        of the essentially required categories.

        Class 1 comprises a study of narrative parallels and
        non-parallels that show either possible redaction or
        author's style demonstrated in the following twelve
        categories:
        Categories 1, 2, (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
        (11), (12), (13).

        Class 2 comprises a study of narrative parallels and
        non-parallels that show overlap between Synoptic
        Gospels sharing words and material to escalating
        degrees of verisimilitude demonstrated in the
        following five categories:
        Categories 2, (5), (6), (7), (9).

        Four categories: 2, (6), (7), (9) have dual functions
        since they share words and material that overlap as
        well as demonstrate either possible redaction or
        author's style. Each should be assessed separately.


        =====
        John N. Lupia
        501 North Avenue B-1
        Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
        http://health.yahoo.com

        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.