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

[Synoptic-L] Piecemeal and cumulative solutions to the Synoptic Problem

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    ... [snip] ... each ... each ... versa. Leonard, I think we are simply diccussing macro and micro approaches. Dave Gentile s approach is macro, using word
    Message 1 of 1 , May 1, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Leonard Maluf wrote:
      > In a message dated 4/29/2002 1:47:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      > david@... writes:
      [snip]
      > 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.

      Leonard,

      I think we are simply diccussing macro and micro approaches. Dave Gentile's
      approach is macro, using word counts and ignoring context. There certainly
      is value in this approach, and (IMHO) can (and has) grouped the 19 HHBC
      'sections' according to the most likely pattern of authorship (whether from
      auMk, auMt, auLk, or other sources). However, extending the results past
      this is open to interpretation. I believe the results primarily support
      Markan priority (although with possibly some post-Matthew/Luke editing as
      well), but not everyone agrees.

      Your suggestion (individual terms in context) is a micro approach. It
      obviously includes contextual information the Dave's analysis does not, but
      unless it is extended to all the 807 different words used by Dave then there
      is always the danger that the *really* crucial term that provides proof one
      way or another has been omitted. Another problem is that it seems as though
      whatever word is suggested, and whatever contextual argument is presented,
      the information can always be used to support at least two different
      theories. Either the argument is directly reversible, or at the very least
      a strong case can be built that the argument is actually inconclusive.

      As far as I am aware, no-one has yet presented a term in the synoptics that
      is universally agreed to support just one theory (or even just one
      particular priority order). Also, I do not know of anyone who is keeping a
      'running total' of all the words that have been analysed so far (please let
      me know if this is actually being done). Finally, I do not know of anyone
      who has suggested how many words need to be analysed this way before a
      determination can be made, on balance, of which theory is most likely.

      Therefore, I am sceptical regarding whether your approach can produce useful
      results, instead of the usual "well I don't believe you, and here's evidence
      in the other direction" kind that we know so well from this list.

      Dave Inglis
      david@...
      3538 O'Connor Drive
      Lafayette, CA, USA




      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.