Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

## Re: [Synoptic-L] Another attempt at explanation

Expand Messages
• 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@...
• 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.

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.

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.