7463Re: [Synoptic-L] a new approach to the correlations
- Jan 5, 2002Brian Wilson wrote:
> (Statement 2) A correlation shows a significant negative only if eitherThis statement is undeniably true, because it's been constructed that way.
> (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.
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 haveI have problems with both Case (2) and Case (3), because they are not
> 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.
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.
3538 O'Connor Drive
Lafayette, CA, USA
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>