7437[Synoptic-L] a new approach to the correlations
- Jan 2, 2002Brian Wilson wrote --
>Dave Gentile replied --
>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.
>Do you mean 102/202 here?
Yes. 112/202 is a typo for 102/202. It is 102/202 that is given in
the accompanying list of significant positives in the posting.
>It *was* the problem one for the FH. It no longer is, on my approach.
>That's the problem one for the FH.
>Why does it work fine? If your assumption is true, it should grind to a
>The idea works fine, if we are only looking at the pairs.
halt, surely? If we **totally** ignore your assumption, and think only
in terms of the assumption that the "same words" are the result of the
same synoptist having redacted, and "different words" are the result of
different synoptists having redacted, then this accounts easily for all
the significant correlations. And it saves the Farrer Hypothesis and the
Two Document Hypothesis from disgrace under your approach. How can my
approach work in this way if your approach is valid?
>Only if one assumes that they are indicating styles of source documents,
>But it does not explain the whole picture. Again the mutli-variate
>overview methods point to a specific set of 4 documents.
and not styles resulting from redaction by each synoptist. I am writing
a separate posting on your interpretation of the results of "principle
component analysis", in order to do it justice. If we begin with the
assumption of the new approach, the principle component analysis results
can be interpreted very differently, and easily.
>We seem to be "crossing" in the post. In my previous posting I showed
>But, in terms of the correlations, 200 correlating with "102+202" can
>not be explained by similar redaction. One is pure Matthew, the other
>the exact text of the double tradition in Luke.
that these correlations can easily be accounted by my approach. My
reasoning is that 200 and 202 are observed to be a significant positive
anyway, explained by them being redacted by only one synoptist, Matthew.
And so on.
>I think your arguments are weak in your appeal to these combined
>Similarly, 102 correlating with "202+201" can not be explained by
>similar redaction. One is the exact text of the double tradition in
>Matthew, the other is words found only in Luke.
categories. In fact 202-102 is a significant positive, and 201-102 is a
(very) insignificant positive. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that
(202+201)-202 is a significant positive also. Your argument would have
been valid if 202-102 had not been a significant positive but
(202+201)/202 had been significant positive. But 202-102 is observed
significant positive any way. So your argument fails. Moreover, the idea
that "202+201" gives "the exact text of the double tradition in Matthew"
is true by definition, of course , but I would suggest it is very
unlikely indeed that it gives the exact text of any source that Matthew
may have used. Even the advocates of the Two Document Hypothesis would
agree that Matthew has impressed his style on the wording of the wording
of "Q", on the assumption that it existed.
>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 >>