7451Re: [Synoptic-L] a new approach to the correlations
- Jan 3, 2002Brian Wilson writes:
>I am not at all sure that you are right. As I have written previously,
>These macro categories provide a clearer look at effects we want to
>single out than individual categories.
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.
In some cases there are two clear, and reasonable explanations for a
correlation in an individual category, and only one of those is a possible
explanation for the macro-category. Thus the macro-category isolates the
one effect better.
It is a superior experimental design, if you will.
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?
Dave: No, its not surprising, given the two subcategories. But your idea
would predict 102-200 should be negative.
102 and 202 are the artificially separated categories. 102 is some words in
passages of Luke, 201 is the rest of the words. 102+202 is the whole
passage, it is not an artificial combination.
There has been no explanation yet proposed that could explain this.
If you believe your method then can please explain how, in terms of full
sections of Matthew agreeing with different full sections of Luke, without
them reflecting the style of a common source.
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.
That is not correct. I am comparing Matthew to Luke, plain and simple. I am
not comparing Matthew's words to Matthew's words in and way. On the LTH,
for example. The words in 102+202 are either Luke's words, or LT words. 200
is either Matthew's words, or LT's words. If they completely destroy any
source evidence, as you claim, then one is all Luke, the other all Matthew.
There is no explanation for a significant positive.
Ph.D. Management Science candidate
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>