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

7433[Synoptic-L] a new approach to the correlations

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Jan 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Some further thoughts on my suggested new approach to the correlations
      tables. I think I can reduce everything to the following two statements
      --

      (Statement 1) A correlation shows a significant positive only if both of
      its categories include words from the same gospel. (The number 2 is
      shown in the same position in both, for example 211/210). This is
      accounted for by supposing that the material of the two categories has
      been redacted by the same synoptist. The 18 significant positives
      observed so far are --
      222/220, 221/211, 221/121, 221/021, 220/120, 220/022,
      220/020, 211/210, 202/201, 202/200, 202/102, 201/200,
      121/120, 121/021, 120/021, 120/020, 112/012, 112/002

      (Statement 2) A correlation shows a significant negative only if either
      (1) the two categories do not include the same gospel (for example,
      120/112), or (2) one category includes all three synoptists, and the
      other only Luke, or (3) one category includes Matthew and Mark but not
      Luke, and the other includes Mark and Luke but not Matthew.

      Case (1) is accounted for by supposing that two different styles have
      been imposed by two synoptists redacting differently, and case (2) by
      supposing that the wording present in all three synoptists would be in
      words significantly different from Luke's style since they would be
      words common to the styles of all three and therefore lack many of the
      distinguishing words in Luke, whereas the words in Luke only would have
      retained the words of Luke's style, this having the same effect as one
      category having been redacted by one synoptist, and the other having
      been redacted by another, and case (3) by supposing that the difference
      between the words of each category would have been the difference
      between the style of Matthew and the style of Mark, and that this would
      have had the same effect as one synoptist having redacted one category
      of material, and another synoptist having redacted the other.

      The 25 significant negatives observed so far are --

      Case (1) --
      221/112, 221/102, 221/002, 220/112, 220/002, 211/102,
      211/002, 201/122, 201/002, 200/122, 200/112, 200/002,
      121/202, 121/112, 121/102, 121/002, 120/112, 120/002,
      112/020, 021/112, 021/002, 202/002

      Case (2) --
      222/112, 222/002

      Case (3) --
      202/122 --

      All significant positives and all significant negatives are therefore
      explained on the basis of the assumption of the new "redaction
      approach".

      Just a reminder of what that approach is. It assumes that if two
      different categories of material show a significant positive
      correlation, then this is consistent with the same synoptist having
      redacted the material concerned, and that if two different categories
      show a significant negative correlation, then this is consistent with
      different synoptists having redacted.

      What were difficult significant correlations on the old approach, are
      accounted for easily on the new. For instance 112/202 is consistent with
      a significant positive because both categories include words from Luke.
      The observed significant positive 202/200 is accounted for as the result
      of the same synoptist, Matthew, having redacted the material of both
      categories. The same applies to the infamous 221/211. Moreover, 202/122
      being observed to be negative belongs to case (3), since one category
      includes Matthew and Mark but not Luke, and the other includes Mark and
      Luke but not Matthew.

      Comments would be welcome.

      Best wishes,
      BRIAN WILSON

      >HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

      Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
      > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
      > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
      _

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Show all 24 messages in this topic