Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

## 1704Re: directional non-indicator

Expand Messages
• Jan 13, 1999
• 0 Attachment
Tim Reynolds wrote -
>
>The Q1 version is significantly shorter. So we know that *if* AP is
>involved, the direction is from F to Q1.
>
Tim, sorry if I am labouring the point, but no, we do not know this at
all. I would suggest your statement should read -
>
>The Q1 version is significantly shorter. So we know that *if* AP is
>involved, the direction is NOT FROM Q1 TO F.
>
The conclusion that the direction is not from Q1 to F is consistent both
with AP in the direction from F to Q1, and also with *no* AP in the
direction from F to Q1. If AP is involved, what can be inferred is the
negative conclusion that the AP is not in a given direction. The
positive conclusion, that AP is in a given direction, cannot be inferred
from the data.

Q1 being significantly shorter than F is a directional NON-indicator.

Of course, if "F" is the original autograph, then the direction cannot
be from Q1 to F in any case. We would know this, however, without even
looking at Q1, and it would not follow from a comparison of F and Q1,
but would be true even if Q1 was significantly longer than F. The
special situation of "F" being an autograph manuscript is hypothetical,
however, since we do not have any autograph manuscripts of the works of
Shakespeare. Indeed, the whole point of arguing from the occurrence of
AP arises from the original autographs having been lost. If we had the
autographs, the non-original parts of the dependent scripts would be
obvious irrespective of arguments from the occurrence of AP.

In my view the distinction between a directional indicator and a
directional non-indicator is by no means trivial. It seems to me that a
great deal of synoptic criticism founders on this point. It is not at
all easy to show that the writer of document Y used document X. Very
often the data adduced shows *not* that the writer of document Y used X,
but that the writer of document X did not use Y. The crucial point is
that X not using Y is not the same as Y using X. Showing that Matthew
did not use Luke does not show that Luke used Matthew, and so on. I have
yet to see an argument that Luke used Matthew which does not attempt to
use a directional non-indicator as a directional indicator.

Best wishes,
BRIAN WILSON

E-MAIL: brian@... HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,
10 York Close, Godmanchester,
Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
• Show all 25 messages in this topic