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

1704Re: directional non-indicator

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    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,

      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