7483[Synoptic-L] a new approach to the correlations
- Jan 7, 2002Brian Wilson wrote --
>Dave Inglis replied --
>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.
>Here's the proof that you have constructed your theory just to meetDave,
>the current results
As a matter of fact you are wrong. That is not what happened. I
know, because I was the one who formulated the hypothesis. It was
inspired by using my computer to move around columns and rows of entries
in my own table of correlations results. In one re-arrangement I was
surprised to find only three "squares" of entries. Most re-arrangements
were much more complicated. These three squares correspond to the three
cases I list. Even so, it does not matter two cents how a hypothesis is
produced. Any hypothesis necessarily goes beyond any data for which it
accounts. What matters is whether the hypothesis works. This one does.
>Yes. It is supposed to work only for Luke. In fact, it works very well
>because you are ignoring case (2) WRT Matthew and Mark. Case (2) above
>currently works only for Luke, and doesn't work for Matthew or Mark.
>If it works, which it does, then it is complete. There is no need to
>Unless you extend your theory to include Matthew and Mark here, then it
>is incomplete, i.e. "full of holes".
extend a hypothesis that works. To do so, in fact, would contravene
>Brian Wilson responded --
>I have problems with both Case (2) and Case (3), because they are not
>symmetrical with respect to the three synoptists.
>Dave Inglis now replies --
>The observed correlations are not symmetrical with respect to the three
>synoptists. So there is no basis for your expectation.
>Unless you extend your theory to include Matthew and Mark here,
>Here's the proof that you have constructed your theory just to meet the
>current results, because you are ignoring case (2) WRT Matthew and
>Mark. Case (2) above currently works only for Luke, and doesn't work
>for Matthew or Mark.
>then it is incomplete, i.e. "full of holes".--
>3538 O'Connor Drive
>Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
>List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
Brian E. Wilson
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>