FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Ero sivun ”Käyttäjä:InProgress/Parallels” versioiden välillä
p |
(→Proposed Methodology and Criteria in Dealing with Grunder's Parallels) |
||
| (6 välissä olevaa versiota 2 käyttäjän tekeminä ei näytetä) | |||
| Rivi 3: | Rivi 3: | ||
{{nw}} | {{nw}} | ||
| − | + | == Comments on the Work as a Whole == | |
| + | |||
| + | == Proposed Methodology and Criteria in Dealing with Grunder's Parallels == | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Classification of Parallels === | ||
| + | |||
| + | Grunder's proposed parallels can be broken down into several basic categories. Some of them are more or less self-explanatory. Others require a bit more information. The proposed system (and this is a tentative proposal at this point) is to break them down in the following fashion. | ||
| + | |||
| + | A: Parallel texts which are offered as some kind of theme which is generally stated (i.e. Hebrew origins of the American Indians) without providing actual material for comparison. While it probably could be useful to discuss these issues, this is an approach to the parallels themselves, and where Grunder doesn't provide specific text for comparison, this study will generally exclude that example from consideration. | ||
| + | |||
| + | B: Parallels which seem to be merely accidental or coincidence. This category covers parallels which exist but which don't actually seem to be able to infer some kind of connection for a variety of reasons. In general, these parallels will fail at multiple criteria for identifying valid parallels. | ||
| + | |||
| + | C: Parallels which exist but which are pervasive in the environment. This category covers parallels that can reflect only a cultural or linguistic influence. In general, these are not specific enough to claim any kind of reliance or even common sources between texts because of pervasiveness in the environment or other concerns. No sense of direction of movement is discernible, and the texts themselves are unrelated except for the notion of coming from a common environment. | ||
| + | |||
| + | D: Parallels which exist and for which a common source or earlier tradition can be reasonably identified. For these parallels, the notion is that not only is there a valid parallel, but the parallel is such that a real tradition can be seen behind the texts. While a pedigree of the parallels may not be able to be determined, the relationship between the texts can be discussed in meaningful ways. | ||
| + | |||
| + | E: Parallels which exist and for which a pedigree of sorts can be determined. That is how the texts are related can be fairly closely identified (even if the one is not reliant on the other). | ||
| + | |||
| + | F: Parallels which exist in which one can be closely tied to the other in a deterministic fashion and the parallel is directional (i.e. one text relies on the other). | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Criteria for Evaluating Parallels === | ||
| + | |||
| + | in progress | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Commentary on Grunder's Introduction == | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Commentary on Grunder's Technical Introduction == | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Classification of Parallels == | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Discussion of Individual Parallels == | ||
Nykyinen versio 15. kesäkuuta 2010 kello 11.18
Notes and methodology for Ben McGuire's parallels project:
Sisällysluettelo
Comments on the Work as a Whole
Proposed Methodology and Criteria in Dealing with Grunder's Parallels
Classification of Parallels
Grunder's proposed parallels can be broken down into several basic categories. Some of them are more or less self-explanatory. Others require a bit more information. The proposed system (and this is a tentative proposal at this point) is to break them down in the following fashion.
A: Parallel texts which are offered as some kind of theme which is generally stated (i.e. Hebrew origins of the American Indians) without providing actual material for comparison. While it probably could be useful to discuss these issues, this is an approach to the parallels themselves, and where Grunder doesn't provide specific text for comparison, this study will generally exclude that example from consideration.
B: Parallels which seem to be merely accidental or coincidence. This category covers parallels which exist but which don't actually seem to be able to infer some kind of connection for a variety of reasons. In general, these parallels will fail at multiple criteria for identifying valid parallels.
C: Parallels which exist but which are pervasive in the environment. This category covers parallels that can reflect only a cultural or linguistic influence. In general, these are not specific enough to claim any kind of reliance or even common sources between texts because of pervasiveness in the environment or other concerns. No sense of direction of movement is discernible, and the texts themselves are unrelated except for the notion of coming from a common environment.
D: Parallels which exist and for which a common source or earlier tradition can be reasonably identified. For these parallels, the notion is that not only is there a valid parallel, but the parallel is such that a real tradition can be seen behind the texts. While a pedigree of the parallels may not be able to be determined, the relationship between the texts can be discussed in meaningful ways.
E: Parallels which exist and for which a pedigree of sorts can be determined. That is how the texts are related can be fairly closely identified (even if the one is not reliant on the other).
F: Parallels which exist in which one can be closely tied to the other in a deterministic fashion and the parallel is directional (i.e. one text relies on the other).
Criteria for Evaluating Parallels
in progress