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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Another attempt at explanation

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey Glen Jackson
    ... I m trying to understand the source of your confusion. Perhaps if I cast my understanding of the confusion into other terms than have been used to date,
    Message 1 of 36 , May 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > I stick with my original observation since if "dog" is
      > in A and not in B then your second proposition must be
      > false since "dog" is not in B and now you say it is.
      > Being common or uncommon in this case is irrelevant.
      > The fact is if "dog" is found in A common or not it
      > is still in A and not in B. Yet you contradict this
      > in your second proposition saying that "dog" is found
      > in B when at first you say it is not.

      I'm trying to understand the source of your confusion.
      Perhaps if I cast my understanding of the confusion
      into other terms than have been used to date, the confusion
      will clear up. Or maybe I'll just muddy the waters more.

      I think the problem is in the use of the word "word". We can
      use it to mean a specific instance of a semantic unit, or
      we can use the word in one or more generic senses.

      Take the following to sentences:
      (a) The fox jumps over the dog.
      (b) The dog jumps over the fox.

      The word "dog" appears in both sentences. This is a generic
      use of the word "dog". However there are two specific
      instances of the word dog here. Instance 1 occurs in (b),
      but not (a), and instance 2 occurs in (a), but not (b). In
      contrast the generic word "jumps" occurs in both, and
      there is only one instance of the word "jumps", which
      occurs in both.

      Does this help clear anything up.

      ><> Jeffrey Glen Jackson, son of Albert, son of George, son of <><
      ><> Henry, son of Miles, son of Randolph, son of Ephraim, son of <><
      ><> Thomas, son of John, son of Thomas, .... sonne of Jack. <><
      mailto:jeff@... http://www.jeff-jackson.com
      "The blithe 'reconstruction' not only of Q, not only of its different
      stages of composition, but even of complete communities whose
      beliefs are accurately reflected in these different stages, betokens
      a naive willingness to believe in anything as long as it is nothing
      like Mark (let alone Paul)." N. T. Wright




      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.