7433[Synoptic-L] a new approach to the correlations
- Jan 1, 2002Some 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) --
Case (3) --
All significant positives and all significant negatives are therefore
explained on the basis of the assumption of the new "redaction
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.
>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@...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>