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

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

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 5/1/2002 6:43:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, david@colonialcommerce.com writes:
    Message 1 of 3 , May 1, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 5/1/2002 6:43:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      david@... writes:

      << 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. >>

      You don't seem to have your heart in this. Why couldn't a random sample of
      words be selected for testing along the lines I suggested, and see where the
      argument goes? If the results seemed inconclusive to anyone, another such
      limited random sampling could be tried. Then the opportunity could be
      afforded to each contending party to come up with strongest known cases.

      << 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.>>

      Of course it can, and undoubtedly will. I simply have sufficient confidence
      in our corporate intellects as to assume that they are capable of
      distinguishing between good arguments and bad (or, "not so good"). I am
      beginning to wonder, though.

      << Either the argument is directly reversible, or at the very least
      a strong case can be built that the argument is actually inconclusive.>>

      I don't think this can be affirmed a priori. You might be right, but maybe
      not.

      Leonard Maluf

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • David Inglis
      ... [snip] ... the ... You are right. My heart isn t in this, for the simple reason that everything I ve seen so far leads me to believe that the with the
      Message 2 of 3 , May 2, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In synoptic-l@y..., Maluflen@a... wrote:
        > In a message dated 5/1/2002 6:43:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
        > david@c... writes:
        [snip]
        > You don't seem to have your heart in this. Why couldn't a random sample of
        > words be selected for testing along the lines I suggested, and see where
        the
        > argument goes? If the results seemed inconclusive to anyone, another such
        > limited random sampling could be tried. Then the opportunity could be
        > afforded to each contending party to come up with strongest known cases.

        You are right. My heart isn't in this, for the simple reason that
        everything I've seen so far leads me to believe that the with the current
        evidence the problem may be insoluble. Given that so much time and effort
        has been expended on the synoptic problem so far, why has an agreed solution
        *not* been found? The fact the no-one has chosen to reply to my previous
        posts regarding what evidence would be accepted as proof that one particular
        theory is correct suggests that no-one knows. In other words, no-one knows
        where the finishing line is, so how can we agree when someone says they have
        won!

        Past posts re. Dave's analysis have shown that you would need to be very
        careful about the size of the sample. If the first sample is too small,
        then it doesn't matter in the slightest whether the results seem conclusive
        or not. Until you have a statistically significant sample any result will
        (rightly) be rejected as unreliable. I like the idea of the proponents
        choosing the strongest cases better, because I think it would get you more
        quickly to the point of deciding whether it was worth continuing or not.

        > << 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.>>
        >
        > Of course it can, and undoubtedly will. I simply have sufficient
        confidence
        > in our corporate intellects as to assume that they are capable of
        > distinguishing between good arguments and bad (or, "not so good"). I am
        > beginning to wonder, though.
        >
        > << Either the argument is directly reversible, or at the very least
        > a strong case can be built that the argument is actually inconclusive.>>
        >
        > I don't think this can be affirmed a priori. You might be right, but maybe
        > not.

        True. I meant: "In the cases I've seen, either the argument ..."

        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@...
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 5/2/2002 1:26:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, david@colonialcommerce.com writes:
        Message 3 of 3 , May 2, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 5/2/2002 1:26:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
          david@... writes:

          << You are right. My heart isn't in this, for the simple reason that
          everything I've seen so far leads me to believe that the with the current
          evidence the problem may be insoluble. Given that so much time and effort
          has been expended on the synoptic problem so far, why has an agreed solution
          *not* been found?>>

          Well, my suggestion is at least a new approach that has certainly not been
          tried systematically in spite of all the work that has been done on the
          problem. What I am saying is that not enough work has been done in the sense
          of carefully argued pieces dealing with specific items of evidence. Most work
          on the Synoptics simply adopts a source theory in advance (based, I would
          maintain, on reasonable macro considerations) and then proceeds to
          interpretation or comment based thereon. There is not enough real attempt to
          argue cases on the basis of specific evidence, and dialogue between different
          source advocates on the same evidence, etc.

          << The fact the no-one has chosen to reply to my previous
          posts regarding what evidence would be accepted as proof that one particular
          theory is correct suggests that no-one knows. In other words, no-one knows
          where the finishing line is, so how can we agree when someone says they have
          won!>>

          This is a good point, but could, I think, be easily combined with my idea.

          << I like the idea of the proponents choosing the strongest cases better,
          because I think it would get you more quickly to the point of deciding
          whether it was worth continuing or not. >>

          Do I get to start with EUAGGELION? One thing that will be interesting up
          front: how theologically significant, or not, are the words considered to be
          strong arguments for each position.

          Leonard Maluf

          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.