## Re: directional non-indicator

Expand Messages
• ... I think that it is a useful reminder that a so-called directional indicator is really a directional non-indicator. But, what methodology would you propose
Message 1 of 6 , Jan 17, 1999
At 12:34 PM 1/17/99 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
> I consider this point so important that I presume to come back on
>this yet again.
>[...]
>I do not know of any directional indicator which shows that Matthew
>copied from Mark. The arguments sometimes put forward for Matthew being
>dependent on Mark seem to me to confuse a directional non-indicator with
>a directional indicator.

I think that it is a useful reminder that a so-called directional
indicator is really a directional non-indicator. But, what
methodology would you propose to advance from this point to a
conclusion?

For example, let us assume that there is what people (improperly) call
directional indicators in favor of Mk --> Lk, that is, that Luke is
dependent on Mark.

As you ably point out, the direct evidence does not show Mk --> Lk,
only that Lk --> Mk is unlikely (or Lk -/-> Mk). This leaves one of
two possibilities:

1. Mk --> Lk
2. Mk <-- X --> Lk

By what method are we entitled to conclude 1 (direct dependence) or
2 (indirect dependence)?

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
• Stephen Carlson wrote - ... Stephen, I agree with your very clear analysis above. Your question at the end is the 64,000 dollar one, I would suggest. I think
Message 2 of 6 , Jan 18, 1999
Stephen Carlson wrote -
>
>I think that it is a useful reminder that a so-called directional
>indicator is really a directional non-indicator. But, what
>methodology would you propose to advance from this point to a
>conclusion?
>
>For example, let us assume that there is what people (improperly) call
>directional indicators in favor of Mk --> Lk, that is, that Luke is
>dependent on Mark.
>
>As you ably point out, the direct evidence does not show Mk --> Lk,
>only that Lk --> Mk is unlikely (or Lk -/-> Mk). This leaves one of
>two possibilities:
>
>1. Mk --> Lk
>2. Mk <-- X --> Lk
>
>By what method are we entitled to conclude 1 (direct dependence) or
>2 (indirect dependence)?
>
Stephen,
the end is the "64,000 dollar" one, I would suggest.

I think we should put forward and test one synoptic hypothesis at a
time. Suppose we posit the Farrer Hypothesis, in which Mk-->Lk. To test
this we should list all the patterns of similarity and difference of
wording and order of material in the synoptic gospels that we can find.
If the Farrer Hypothesis fits well each of these patterns, then it is to
be accepted. If it does not, then it is to be rejected. In other words,
the conclusion that Mk-->Lk is obtained only by testing a "complete"
hypothesis like the one put forward by Farrer which includes this
linkage. I see no way of showing Mk-->Lk without setting this within a
synoptic hypothesis which sets out the supposed links between the three
synoptic gospels and their sources, and then testing the hypothesis as a
whole.

If we put forward the Proto-Mark Hypothesis in which Mk-/->Lk, then
again we can test the "complete" hypothesis by listing all the synoptic
patterns we know and testing whether this hypothesis fits well all the
observed patterns. But again, the supposed non-linkage Mk-/->Lk has to
be incorporated in a "complete" synoptic hypothesis (especially as it is
the absence of a link!), and the hypothesis as a whole tested against
all the observed synoptic patterns.

I am working on a paper I hope to give at the International Meeting of
SBL in Finland in July, in the Gospels section. This paper is basically
about five patterns of duality which I think I can show are incompatible
with the Two Document, Farrer and Griesbach Hypotheses, but which my
Logia Translation Hypothesis fits well. I think these patterns are
directional non-indicators which show that X-/->Y where X and Y are any
two synoptic gospels. If I put the first draft of this paper on my
homepage in a few weeks time, maybe anyone interested might like to
write to me (either off-list or on Synoptic-L as preferred), and
criticize this.

Best wishes,
BRIAN WILSON

E-MAIL : brian@... *** HOMEPAGE RECENTLY UPDATED ***
SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
10 York Close, Godmanchester,
Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
• In a message dated 99-01-17 07:38:52 EST, brian@TwoNH.demon.co.uk writes: ... Tim, I consider this point so important that I presume to come back on this
Message 3 of 6 , Jan 18, 1999
In a message dated 99-01-17 07:38:52 EST, brian@... writes:

<< >
>*If AP is involved*, the direction is either Q1 to F or F to Q1.
>
Tim,
I consider this point so important that I presume to come back on
this yet again. What you say is simply not true. Even if AP is involved,
the direction is not necessarily either Q1 to F or F to Q1. The
direction might be neither from Q1 to F, nor from F to Q1. What might
have happened, for instance, is that F was produced by AP from X, and
that Q1 was produced by AP from X.

{Theoretical models of any desired degree of complexity can be built by
introducing hypothetical lost texts. One recalls Ewald's Nine-Document
Hypothesis. But if the situation can be satisfactorily derived using only the
texts at hand, parsimony favors that derivation.

{Occam's Razor is of course only a rule of thumb. Perhaps something *could*
have happened in a simple way but *actually* happened in a complicated way.
So I can agree with you in principle. Is that okay?}

After all, F was not the autograph
manuscript.

{What would the Folio editors have used but Shakespeare's manuscripts?}

AP is a directional NON-indicator. It indicates only that the direction
of flow of information was NOT in a certain direction between two
versions.

The same is true of many patterns adduced as evidence for some synoptic
hypotheses. It may be true (and I think it is) that there are parallel
passages of Mark and Matthew in which Mark has more original wording
than Matthew. What follows from this is the negative conclusion that
Mark did not copy from Matthew. What does not follow is the positive
conclusion that Matthew copied from Mark. The more original wording in
Mark in some passages is a directional NON-indicator only. Even though
the pattern is observed, it is perfectly possible that the direction of
flow of information was neither from Matthew to Mark nor from Mark to
Matthew. This is because the pattern observed does not rule out the
possibility that both Mark and Matthew copied from a common documentary
source.

I do not know of any directional indicator which shows that Matthew
copied from Mark. The arguments sometimes put forward for Matthew being
dependent on Mark seem to me to confuse a directional non-indicator with
a directional indicator.

Best wishes,
BRIAN WILSON

{Tim}
>>
• In a message dated 99-01-17 13:28:39 EST, scarlson@mindspring.com writes:
Message 4 of 6 , Jan 18, 1999
In a message dated 99-01-17 13:28:39 EST, scarlson@... writes:

<< Subj: Re: directional non-indicator
Date: 99-01-17 13:28:39 EST
From: scarlson@... (Stephen C. Carlson)
To: Synoptic-L@...

At 12:34 PM 1/17/99 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
> I consider this point so important that I presume to come back on
>this yet again.
>[...]
>I do not know of any directional indicator which shows that Matthew
>copied from Mark. The arguments sometimes put forward for Matthew being
>dependent on Mark seem to me to confuse a directional non-indicator with
>a directional indicator.

I think that it is a useful reminder that a so-called directional
indicator is really a directional non-indicator. But, what
methodology would you propose to advance from this point to a
conclusion?

For example, let us assume that there is what people (improperly) call
directional indicators in favor of Mk --> Lk, that is, that Luke is
dependent on Mark.

As you ably point out, the direct evidence does not show Mk --> Lk,
only that Lk --> Mk is unlikely (or Lk -/-> Mk). This leaves one of
two possibilities:

1. Mk --> Lk
2. Mk <-- X --> Lk

By what method are we entitled to conclude 1 (direct dependence) or
2 (indirect dependence)?

Stephen Carlson

{Parsimony?

Tim}

-- >>
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.