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

Re: [Synoptic-L] demise of Synoptic-L?

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 9/13/2002 2:19:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... Thanks, Emmanuel, for doing the statistical analysis I failed to do (as often, you prove
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 13, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 9/13/2002 2:19:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time, emmanuel.fritsch@... writes:


      ** The decrease of the list may be dated from may-june.
      In april, the amount of messages was still in the average
      of previous years. How may we explain that decrease ?


      Thanks, Emmanuel, for doing the statistical analysis I failed to do (as often, you prove more professional than the "professionals"). You and Jeffery have certainly pointed to other factors that enter into explaining the recent lull on Synoptic-L. It looks as if summer vacationing was a major factor this year. But I think you also hinted at something else that is very true: many people prefer not to give away their best secrets or evidence on an Internet list, but to reserve them rather for more traditional avenues of writing and publication.

      I hope this can be the last of introspective posts, but that it will be followed, perhaps, by a rise in postings on topics more directly related to the Synoptic Problem.

      Leonard Maluf
    • Tim Reynolds
      ... Brian is the only list member who replied, offlist, to my questions and concerns. If he was as industrious and useful with other people, he was a great
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 13, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        on 9/13/02 1:25 AM, Emmanuel Fritsch at emmanuel.fritsch@... wrote:

        >
        > I answer to Leonard, jumping on HJH's answer :
        >
        >> I'd say that the frequency of postings rises and falls
        >> for various reasons, so I wouldn't pronounce this
        >> Synoptic Listserve dead yet.
        >
        > ** late rev. Brian Wilson disappeared in February. The number
        > of messages of march is 369, which is the high score of the
        > list, and the previous high score was 344, in last january.
        > Brian Wilson is gone at the climax of the list, and it may
        > be seen as a homage for his involvement
        >
        > ** The decrease of the list may be dated from may-june.
        > In april, the amount of messages was still in the average
        > of previous years. How may we explain that decrease ?
        >
        > - Perhabs some main contributors do not have the same
        > interest in synoptic problem. Rev. Wilson has disappeared.
        > Others have capitalized there experiences in books or revue
        > papers. They may have gone on other problems, perhabs they
        > think through their contribution they solved the synoptic
        > problem.
        >
        > - In many lists, a huge increase of messages induces a
        > saturation, followed by a fall. Many occasional contributors
        > stop to read the messages, deleting without giving them even
        > a blink. Perhabs the list has been saturated in march with
        > messages that do not interest the mass of occasional
        > contributors.
        >
        > - Another possible explanation is the increasing presence
        > of amateur like me. When amateur weigh is increasing, there
        > is a huge trend to not answer them when they propose some view,
        > or to answer with deceptive (but often legitime) arguments
        > ("I keep my argument for a futur publication" and "see my
        > recent book" belong to one kind of such deceptive arguments,
        > but there are others).
        >
        >
        > ** For that time being, the january-august amount of message
        > is still superior to the equivalent amount for 2001 and 2000.
        > As said HJH, Synoptic Listserve is still alive.
        >
        > ** A most worrying signal is the recent debating about the
        > history of synoptic problem, on Xtalk, which has not been
        > reported on synoptic-l. Good references are going away.
        > OK, I will do a summary in my next post.
        >
        > a+
        > manu
        >
        > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

        Brian is the only list member who replied, offlist, to my questions and
        concerns. If he was as industrious and useful with other people, he was a
        great loss to the list.

        He drove me nuts. Here he was hypothesizing a text in codex format, with
        "Greek ciphers" and Nomina Sacra, all knowledgeably and tightly argued, and
        I couldn't get him to see that what all this was pointing at was the
        holograph Mk, our Mk, canonic Mk, "under guard" in Alexandria, "read only to
        advanced catechumens" as per Morton Smith's Clement letter. Smith didn't
        get it either. I once told him there were only two people in the world who
        knew for sure he hadn't forged that thing: him because he hadn't and me
        because the only motive for forgery would be to misdirect synoptic scholars
        to Mk, so the forger would be delighted when someone caught on, and he
        wasn't delighted. He said I gave him a headache.

        Tim Reynolds
        Long Beach CA


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        ... Summer vacationing is typically the cause of lulls on academic lists, and it could well be a contributing factor. There may be other reasons, too. I know
        Message 3 of 8 , Sep 13, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          At 08:50 AM 9/13/02 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
          > Thanks, Emmanuel, for doing the statistical analysis I failed to do (as
          >often, you prove more professional than the "professionals"). You and
          >Jeffery have certainly pointed to other factors that enter into explaining
          >the recent lull on Synoptic-L. It looks as if summer vacationing was a
          >major factor this year.

          Summer vacationing is typically the cause of lulls on academic lists,
          and it could well be a contributing factor. There may be other reasons,
          too. I know that some of us, including myself, have been preoccupied
          with increased responsibilities at work. And one of us, in fact, has
          published two books on the synoptic problem in the past year, which I
          hoped would have been discussed more.

          >But I think you also hinted at something else that
          >is very true: many people prefer not to give away their best secrets or
          >evidence on an Internet list, but to reserve them rather for more
          >traditional avenues of writing and publication.

          I don't get the feeling that this is the case for Synoptic-L. In fact,
          the opposite is probably true. A discussion in 1999 directly led to a
          short study being published in NTS, and a discussion here has been cited
          in JBL twice. Last fall saw a flood of activity as David Gentile proposed
          a new statistical approach to the problem, one which I surely hopes gets
          written up and published. I know that Goodacre has floated many of his
          ideas on this and other lists to work out problems before submission for
          peer-review and publication, and that has work out well.

          > I hope this can be the last of introspective posts, but that it will be
          >followed, perhaps, by a rise in postings on topics more directly related to
          >the Synoptic Problem.

          Well, has anyone got a chance to read the recent book, RETHINKING THE
          SYNOPTIC PROBLEM? I am very disappointed. It's idea of "rethinking"
          is to ignore the very viable Farrer theory, reprint Farmer's 1964 write
          up in favor of the Griesbach hypothesis, and include a piece by Scot
          McKnight castigating the field for forgetting Streeter. I never thought
          that a book with the word "rethinking" in the title can be so reactionary.

          Stephen Carlson
          --
          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
          Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
          "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 9/13/2002 6:44:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ... I had the book out of a library about six months to a year ago and didn t remember that it
          Message 4 of 8 , Sep 13, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 9/13/2002 6:44:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time, scarlson@... writes:


            Well, has anyone got a chance to read the recent book, RETHINKING THE
            SYNOPTIC PROBLEM?  I am very disappointed.  It's idea of "rethinking"
            is to ignore the very viable Farrer theory, reprint Farmer's 1964 write
            up in favor of the Griesbach hypothesis, and include a piece by Scot
            McKnight castigating the field for forgetting Streeter.  I never thought
            that a book with the word "rethinking" in the title can be so reactionary.



            I had the book out of a library about six months to a year ago and didn't remember that it ignored the Farrer theory. It also didn't strike me as particularly reactionary, with the exception of the part of McKnight's article to which you refer. True, it could have benefited from a good article by a Farrer Hypothesis representative. Are you sure that the Farmer article is a reprint from 1964? I had the impression it was a much more recent, original piece by Farmer, with at least some new argumentation in it, possibly representing his final statement of the argument for the Two-Gospel Hypothesis prior to his death. Am I wrong here?

            Leonard Maluf
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            ... There is not a lot to this book, only five real chapters, and the introduction from David Alan Black apologizes for not including an article from the
            Message 5 of 8 , Sep 13, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              At 10:01 PM 9/13/02 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
              > I had the book out of a library about six months to a year ago and didn't
              >remember that it ignored the Farrer theory. It also didn't strike me as
              >particularly reactionary, with the exception of the part of McKnight's
              >article to which you refer. True, it could have benefited from a good
              >article by a Farrer Hypothesis representative. Are you sure that the Farmer
              >article is a reprint from 1964? I had the impression it was a much more
              >recent, original piece by Farmer, with at least some new argumentation in
              >it, possibly representing his final statement of the argument for the
              >Two-Gospel Hypothesis prior to his death. Am I wrong here?

              There is not a lot to this book, only five real chapters, and the
              introduction from David Alan Black apologizes for not including an
              article from the Farrer perspective or of Linnemann's independence
              view. This is apparently for not having American support.

              Blomberg's introductory chapter 1 fails to mention Farrer, Goulder,
              or Goodacre, even though his discussion of other theories includes
              Lindsey, Huggins (a modern Wilke), and Rist.

              Bock's chapter seems to think that the only alternative to Q is
              Matthean priority, which is not true.

              McKnight's chapter we agree on. In fact, it reproduced one of
              my biggest pet peeves of Streeter: quoting part of a sentence
              from Mark 6:5-6 out-of-context to manufacture a theological
              difficulty in Mark that Matthew presumably corrects. Remembering
              Streeter doesn't mean uncritically accepting all his mistakes.

              The substance of Farmer's piece is right out of his book (actually
              the corrected 1976 edition) with a few paragraphs before and after
              of reminiscences and summation of developments, which are always nice
              but don't advance the case any.

              Osborne's conclusion mainly responds to the previous chapters and
              is very conclusory. (Anyone can say that something is unpersuasive,
              but can they explain why?)

              Stephen Carlson
              --
              Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
              Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
              "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

              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.