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

7438Re: [Synoptic-L] a new approach to the correlations

Expand Messages
  • dgentil@sears.com
    Jan 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Brian,

      I apologies for only responding to a small parts of your posts. I'm
      short on time at the moment. Ideally, I'd like to put off most debate until
      after the write up is complete. Hopefully that will lay out all points, and
      put everyone at the same starting point for discussion.

      I think this is the main point:


      If 200-202 had not been a significant positive, and if 200 and "102+202"
      had produced a significant positive, then your argument might be valid.
      In fact, however, 200-202 is observed to be a significant positive, so
      it seems to me that your argument collapses. In any case, "the double
      tradition exactly as it is found in Luke" is very unlikely indeed to be
      exactly the wording of whatever source Luke is supposed to have used
      here. In my view, it is very likely indeed that the 102 material has all
      been overlaid with the style of Luke himself.


      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.


      I don't doubt that a redactor can effect the material. I just argue that if
      the word was written by the source, and retained by a redactor it reflects
      the style of the source more clearly than the redactor. You are claiming
      only the redactor has any effect.

      But here is the key point:

      Relative to the frequency in the synoptics as a whole,
      the frequency of common Greek words in Sonndergut Matthew significantly
      correlates with the frequency of common Greek words found in the double
      tradition of Luke.
      We don't even need to talk about any other results, techniques, or HBB

      Other than a common source, what could explain this?

      I have no doubt that Matthew and/or Luke add their own influences, but they
      correlate anyway. Why?

      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, Illinois
      M.S. Physics
      Ph.D. Management Science candidate

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