7485[Synoptic-L] a new approach to the correlations
- Jan 7, 2002Brian Wilson wrote --
>Dave Inglis responded --
>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.
>Brian Wilson answered --
>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.
>Here's the proof that you have constructed your theory just to meet
>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. Also, I noticed, the three squares
corresponded to the first three groups in the Average Linkage Cluster
TREE Procedure results. The three Cases were inspired by these two
observations apparently pointing to a tri-partite division. Even so, it
does not matter two cents how a hypothesis is produced. Any hypothesis
necessarily goes beyond any data for which it accounts. The
psychological route by which it is reached is irrelevant. What matters
is whether the hypothesis works. This one does.
>Yes. Case 2 is supposed to work only for Luke. In fact, it works very
>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.
well for Luke. That's fine.
>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
I think you should take note of the asymmetry of the Average Linkage
Cluster TREE Procedure results, and also of the asymmetry of the
Principle Component Analysis results, as well as the obvious asymmetry
in the table of significant positive and significant negative results.
The prevalent asymmetry of the observed results corresponds, in my view,
to the idea that Lk redacted more heavily than Matthew, and Matthew more
heavily than Mark, which accounts for the three Cases described above.
>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@...
- << Previous post in topic