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

7437[Synoptic-L] a new approach to the correlations

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Jan 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Brian Wilson wrote --
      >
      >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.
      >
      Dave Gentile replied --
      >
      >Do you mean 102/202 here?
      >
      Dave,
      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.
      >
      >That's the problem one for the FH.
      >
      It *was* the problem one for the FH. It no longer is, on my approach.
      >
      >The idea works fine, if we are only looking at the pairs.
      >
      Why does it work fine? If your assumption is true, it should grind to a
      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?
      >
      >But it does not explain the whole picture. Again the mutli-variate
      >overview methods point to a specific set of 4 documents.
      >
      Only if one assumes that they are indicating styles of source 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.
      >
      >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.
      >
      We seem to be "crossing" in the post. In my previous posting I showed
      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.
      >
      >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.
      >
      I think your arguments are weak in your appeal to these combined
      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.

      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