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

Fwd: directional non-indicator

Expand Messages
  • Kumo997029@aol.com
    In a message dated 99-01-17 13:28:39 EST, scarlson@mindspring.com writes:
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 18, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      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.