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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Another attempt at explanation

Expand Messages
  • John Lupia
    Dave Gentile wrote: 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
    Message 1 of 36 , May 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Dave Gentile wrote:
      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


      Dear Dave:

      First, I want you to know that I am trying to help you
      the best way I know how. I cannot believe that this
      thread has gone on so long without anyone picking up
      on the point I was trying to make. I guess having
      studied Logic with Rufus Effler, OFM, from Cologne,
      Germany in 1972 has made me into an analysist who
      scrutinizes every word of a proposition meticulously.
      The problems with the language to your above
      propositions are as follows:

      1) Words found in document A, without a direct
      parallel in document B

      The term "direct parallel" in this proposition is
      ambiguous since it implies a parallel does exist but
      that it is characterized as not "direct". The reader
      is left wondering what exactly is an indirect
      parallel? It could mean that the parallel between A
      and B has additional material in A not contained in B,
      or the other way round. It could also mean that some
      of the material is parallel based on a particular
      focus like theological sense, topic or subject. One
      look at Kurt Aland's SQE will provide many examples as
      well as the parallels cited in the Jerusalem Bible.
      Part of this problem has to do with defining
      parallels. With more than 100 Synopses in print few
      contain the same material in each parallel.
      Researchers view synopsis material differently making
      judgments based on their criteria. So using a phrase
      like "direct parallel" is not helpful to the reader.

      Another reading is that category 1 is the class of
      words contained in A that have no parallel whatsoever
      in B. This reading is based on the terms "without a
      direct parallel". In this case it can be concluded
      that none of these words found in A will be found in
      B. This is the reading that first caught my eye, so I
      brought it to your attention, but to no avail. I hope
      you see it now.

      The appropriate reading made only clear based on
      previous knowledge of your work is that category 1 is
      the class of words contained in A that are not
      contained in any parallel with document B.

      So, you have three possible readings based on the
      original formula.

      This same analysis would apply to category 3.
      3) Words found in document B with no direct parallel
      in document A


      If I may make a suggestion, I think it is clearer
      language to say:

      1) Words found in document A that are not contained in
      any parallel with document B.
      2) Words found in parallels between documents A and B
      3) Words found in document B that are not contained in
      any parallel with document A.

      Best regards,
      John


      =====
      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.