In message <OF5B345ECB.8B135F12-ON86256B66.005A42C6@...
>Since with the new method I can't show that 200 correlates with "202+102",
>something like what you describe
>becomes at least a logical possibility. The way you have described it below
>sounds almost like a photo-negative hypothesis, an authors style is mostly
>determined by what he omits.
OK, but I don't think it matters how hypotheses are reached, but how
well the data fits.
> However, I still see this as rather unlikely.
>I suspect if we used concrete examples, what you describe would be very
>difficult in practice.
Would you like to suggest such an example?
That is, to date, you appear to have accepted it as a logical
possibility, but rejected without further argument or example.
Peter Wilson pp Brian Wilson
>I would suggest that 202-102 is the result of Mt and Lk depending on the
>documentary source (whatever that may have been). Luke heavily omits words
>are not his style to form 202 and 102. Matthew only lightly omits some
>produce the 102 words. The Lukan effect is stronger than the Matthean. So
>202-102 is the consequence.
>In the case of 002 and 102 Mt omits completely all the wording, whether in
>style, or not, but Mt only lightly omits wording to form 102. So there is
>For 201 and 102, we are comparing words that Luke omitted but Mt retained,
>words Lk retained by Mt omitted. So no 201-102 either.
>All the results can be accounted for similarly, without positing any
>synoptic documentary hypothesis.
>BRIAN WILSON -
>Brian E. Wilson
>Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
>List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
Brian E. Wilson
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...