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

7449[Synoptic-L] a new approach to the correlations

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Jan 3, 2002
      Dave Gentile wrote --
      >By the "double tradition" in Luke I mean HBB 102+202 that is to say the
      >full text of Luke in these sections.
      Yes. So do I.
      >These macro categories provide a clearer look at effects we want to
      >single out than individual categories.
      I am not at all sure that you are right. As I have written previously,
      your arguments seem to me to be confused when you appeal to these macro-
      categories. So far you have not shown that they take us any further than
      considering correlations of non-macro categories.
      >This correlates with sondergut Matthew.
      202-200 is an observed significant positive, and, as I have shown, all
      observed significant positives can be easily accounted for by the new
      approach. Moreover 102-200 is observed to be a weak positive
      correlation. Since (102 + 202)-200 is formed by combining 102-200 and
      202-200, it is therefore hardly surprising that (102 + 202)-200 is also
      a positive correlation, is it? Your argument therefore collapses at this
      point. If neither 102-200 nor 202-200 had been an observed significant
      positive, and if you had found that the "macro-category" was a
      significant positive, then your argument would have had some force. As
      it is, what is observed can be easily accounted for by the new approach,
      that is, by supposing that if different types of material show a
      significant positive correlation, this is consistent with the same
      synoptist having been the redactor, whereas if two different types show
      a significant negative correlation, this is consistent with different
      synoptists having been the redactors. We therefore have no need
      whatsoever to appeal to any hypothesis concerning a common source to
      account for (102 + 202)-200 being a positive correlation.
      >There has not been anything presented by anyone, that would account for
      >this other than a common source style showing in both.
      I have just done so above. There is simply no need to appeal to any
      hypothesis of a the style of a common source to account for the observed
      >Again, forget HBB categories, these full sections of Luke, "the double
      >tradition" in Luke, not selected words of it that happen to agree with
      >Mt, correlates significantly with sondergut Matthew. We have full
      >pieces of text from Luke, correlating with different full pieces of
      >text in Matthew. Why?
      Because the correlation which you describe is a combination of the two
      correlations considered above, one between Matthew and sondergut
      Matthew, and the other between Matthew and the double tradition in
      Matthew, and because the words of the double tradition in Matthew are
      exactly the same as the words of the double tradition in Luke by
      definition of "double tradition". There is no need for any appeal to a
      hypothesis of a positive correlation being the result of the use of a
      common source. Even if Matthew completely destroys the style of his
      source material, and Luke also, the observed correlations can easily be
      explained on the new approach.

      Best wishes,

      >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