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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Another attempt at explanation

Expand Messages
  • John Lupia
    John C. Poirier wrote: [snip] ... Yes, John. I am aware of what he is doing. I was responding to Dave on a different level. I was trying to establish a
    Message 1 of 36 , May 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      "John C. Poirier" wrote:
      [snip]
      > Here�s why you�re confused: When Dave defines his
      > 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�), he is talking
      > about dividing up the pericopae shared by these two
      > documents into three
      > groups of words, according to whether they appear in
      > direct parallel.

      Yes, John. I am aware of what he is doing. I was
      responding to Dave on a different level. I was trying
      to establish a rapport with him about his writing and
      some of the pitfalls that can occur in how you write.
      My main interest here is to encourage him to write
      more scientifically to prepare his work for public
      review. I am not clear about what he has done. I can
      learn from direct study of the HHB, Synoptic
      Concordance 4 vols to grasp the gist of the data set
      Dave has borrowed from. I would carefully study the
      original German work checking every single entry to
      see if there were any errors in design and execution
      and for critical observations that went either
      unnoticed or unrecorded. Then I would go back to
      Dave's original postings fom the beginning and get a
      better gist on what he is doing. I have no clue on
      what his design is and what criteria he used to
      establish the deisgn? What is he doing that the three
      German authors did not do? What is he attempting to
      do? The best way to learn this is to encourage him to
      draft narratives that explain all of this. The
      hardest part is writing it clearly without ambiguity
      so that it becomes public, i.e., accessible for review
      and scrutiny. I'm not even completely clear on the
      design created by the three German authors since I
      haven not as yet studied their sample page adequately.


      My original approach was to get him to think about why
      I would say what am I saying and see if this reading
      were possible in what I had written. I'm sure he
      grasped what I was saying but I wanted him to see for
      himself *why* I was saying it.

      [snip]

      >Dave�s study, he looks at two different concepts
      > of word agreements.
      > First, he compiles verbatim-agreement data (to
      > create divisions within
      > the gospel texts, rather than within their
      > vocabulary lists), then he
      > passes a composite list of synoptic vocabulary
      > (*not* divided according
      > to gospel or any other category) through this data
      > to determine a
      > profile for each vocabulary item.

      Is this what Dave has done or is it what the three
      German authors did? I am not clear on this yet. It
      seems to me from what cursory review I made of the
      German work it is their design, not Dave's. This is
      my question: "What did Dave do that these German
      scholars did not do?" Could you, or, better yet, could
      Dave explain this?


      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.