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

7463Re: [Synoptic-L] a new approach to the correlations

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    Jan 5, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Brian Wilson wrote:

      > (Statement 2) A correlation shows a significant negative only if either
      > (1) the two categories do not include the same gospel (for example,
      > 120/112), or (2) one category includes all three synoptists, and the
      > other only Luke, or (3) one category includes Matthew and Mark but not
      > Luke, and the other includes Mark and Luke but not Matthew.

      This statement is undeniably true, because it's been constructed that way.
      All current significant negatives meet one of the three conditions described
      here. However, there are many other pairings of two categories that meet
      one of these conditions that do not have negative results, so Statement (2)
      cannot be used to predict any results (It's like saying that all owls are
      birds. A true statement, but it doesn't help determine whether mice or
      salmon are birds). However, Brian then explains the 3 cases above as

      > Case (1) is accounted for by supposing that two different styles have
      > been imposed by two synoptists redacting differently, and case (2) by
      > supposing that the wording present in all three synoptists would be in
      > words significantly different from Luke's style since they would be
      > words common to the styles of all three and therefore lack many of the
      > distinguishing words in Luke, whereas the words in Luke only would have
      > retained the words of Luke's style, this having the same effect as one
      > category having been redacted by one synoptist, and the other having
      > been redacted by another, and case (3) by supposing that the difference
      > between the words of each category would have been the difference
      > between the style of Matthew and the style of Mark, and that this would
      > have had the same effect as one synoptist having redacted one category
      > of material, and another synoptist having redacted the other.

      I have problems with both Case (2) and Case (3), because they are not
      symmetrical with respect to the three synoptists. So, taking just case (2)
      for now I would expect to see the same effect for each of Matthew and Mark
      as well. In addition, based on just the reasoning given above I would also
      expect to see more negative Lukan categories than are currently found. For
      case (2) I would expect to see all the following being negative:

      222/112, 222/102, 222/012, 222/002,
      222/211, 222/210, 222/201, 222/200,
      222/121, 222/120, 222/021, 222/020

      Instead, what we currently have is (? marks values of extremely low

      222/112 = -0.45 (significant)
      222/102 = ?
      222/012 = ?
      222/002 = -0.33 (significant)

      222/211 = ?
      222/210 = -0.16 (at very low confidence)
      222/201 = ?
      222/200 = +0.17 (at low confidence)

      222/121 = ?
      222/120 = ?
      222/021 = ?
      222/020 = +0.27 (at low confidence)

      In other words only 2 cases out of 12 possible categories actually come up
      significantly negative at the moment. Even if we restrict ourselves to just
      Luke, only 2 out of the 4 cases matching Brian's description are negative.
      So, before case (2) can be seriously evaluated I think Brian needs to

      1 Why 222/102 and 222/012 do not behave like 222/112 and 222/002;
      2 Why case (2) can be applied to Luke but NOT to Matthew or Mark.

      Finally, the same considerations also apply to Brian's case (3), and so we
      also need an explanation of why case (3) should not be applied to all
      equivalent pairings of the synoptists.

      Without these explanations I find Brian's hypothesis full of holes. It is
      incapable of being falsified currently because it has been defined
      specifically to match just the current set of significant positive and
      negative results, and makes NO predications whatsoever regarding results
      that we are still awaiting. For example, if Brian expanded case (1) above
      to state that ALL correlations between two categories that do not include
      the same gospel will be negative when all the results are in then that would
      be a big step forward. However, at present Brian's approach has been
      constructed so loosely as to be able to accommodate ANY values in the
      results that currently have low confidence. For the approach to be
      considered seriously I think that these holes need to be plugged.

      Dave Inglis
      3538 O'Connor Drive
      Lafayette, CA, USA

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