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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Another attempt at explanation

Expand Messages
  • John Lupia
    ... This explanation does not square with your previous example of the brown fox jumped . The three words unique to A were in category 1, not in category 2.
    Message 1 of 36 , Apr 30, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      David Gentile wrote:
      > >> "Word(s) found in A, without a direct
      > > > parallel in B"
      >
      > What this would mean that an *instance* of the word
      > "dog" is found in A,
      > and not in the parallel passage in B. The word "dog"
      > could still occur
      > somewhere
      > else in the document A, and have a parallel in
      > document B, at that second
      > location.


      This explanation does not square with your previous
      example of "the brown fox jumped". The three words
      unique to A were in category 1, not in category 2.
      Now you are saying that words from category 1 are in
      category 2.


      You are saying " What this would mean that an
      *instance* of the word "dog" is found in A,
      and not in the parallel passage in B. The word "dog"
      could still occur somewhere else in the document A".
      Dave, the location of "dog" in A is irrelevent. The
      fact is that "dog" is in A irrespective of location.
      But to be in category 1 by your definition it cannot
      be in B. Yet in category 2 you say otherwise. You
      cannot have both. Following your "the brown fox
      jumped" illustration even you agreed at that point how
      each category should look, which showed we were both
      agreeing in our respective understanding. This has
      become a very unproductive circular discussion with
      the dog and cat both chasing after their tails.



      =====
      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@...
    • 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, 2002
      • 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.