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

7475[Synoptic-L] a new approach to the correlations

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Jan 6, 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.
      >
      Dave Inglis comments --
      >
      >This statement is undeniably true, because it's been constructed that
      >way.
      >
      Dave,
      On the contrary, the statement is falsifiable. I understand that
      the data for Pi - Omega has been collated, and the full results may be
      available soon. If these were to produce a negative correlation for,
      say, 220-202, then this would be against all three conditions given
      above. Dozens of other possible falsifications could be cited for
      Statement 2, and also for Statement 1.
      >
      >All current significant negatives meet one of the three conditions
      >described here.
      >
      I agree. That was what I intended.
      >
      >However, there are many other pairings of two categories that meet
      >one of these conditions that do not have negative results
      >
      which is precisely why I stated the three conditions. I try not to write
      nonsense.
      >
      >so Statement (2) cannot be used to predict any results
      >
      Your argument cannot be valid since I have already predicted that
      220-202 will not be a significant negative when the full results are
      available. Many other such predictions can be made.
      >
      >It's like saying that all owls are birds. A true statement, but it
      >doesn't help determine whether mice or salmon are birds.
      >
      Since your simile refers to a false statement, the statement is
      presumably nothing like saying that all owls are birds.
      >
      >However, Brian then explains the 3 cases above as follows:
      >>
      >> 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.
      >
      The observed correlations are not symmetrical with respect to the three
      synoptists. So there is no basis for your expectation.
      >
      >So, taking just case (2) for now I would expect to see the same effect
      >for each of Matthew and Mark as well.
      >
      Since the observed correlations are not symmetrical with respect to the
      three synoptists, there is no reason for you to expect any such thing,
      or any of the other things you go on to consider (on which I will not
      bother to comment further, since the same argument applies to every one
      of them).
      >
      >Without these explanations I find Brian's hypothesis full of holes.
      >
      The metaphorical holes would seem to have disappeared.
      >
      >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
      >
      On the contrary it is not unfalsifiable since, as I have already shown
      above, the new approach can be falsified in one fell swoop by the full
      results about to be released.
      >
      >and makes NO predications whatsoever regarding results that we are
      >still awaiting.
      >
      Not so, is it? I have shown the opposite to be true.

      Thanks, Dave, for doing me the honour of criticizing my approach.

      I am still of the view that it is very feasible that Matthew and Luke
      have edited their source material so heavily that it is impossible to
      discern the style of any source material they had in common. If we
      assume the 2DH, they both used Mk, and hypothetical Q. If we did not
      have Mk, however, we would not be able significantly to reconstruct the
      style of Mk from Mt and Lk. Moreover, assuming Q existed, all we have
      for certain that was in Q are the agreements of wording between Mt and
      Lk in "minimal Q" in the double tradition. Just as we cannot reconstruct
      the style of Mark from Matthew and Luke, so we cannot reconstruct the
      style of Q from Matthew and Luke. Some scholars who staunchly affirm the
      2DH, explicitly affirm that it is impossible to determine the style of
      Q, if it existed. I would suggest, therefore, we should definitely not
      be assuming that the observed correlations can be used to check the
      existence of documentary sources of the synoptic gospels. My view is
      that we should not be thinking in terms of using the observed
      correlations to determine the supposed effect of the styles of authors
      of sources of the synoptic gospels. Rather we should be using the
      observed correlations, together with a synoptic documentary hypothesis,
      to understand more fully how each synoptist has redacted the sources
      posited on that documentary hypothesis. For instance, if we advocate
      the 2DH, then the correlations should be used to understand more fully
      how Mt and Lk redacted Mk, and how they redacted Q. This should enable a
      deeper understanding, of course, of the approach of each synoptist to
      his source material, and therefore provide greater insights into the way
      of thinking of each synoptist. In a nut-shell, I see the observed
      correlations as a valuable tool for redaction critics, but of no use to
      source critics.

      Best wishes,
      BRIAN WILSON

      >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