Fwd: directional non-indicator
- 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)
At 12:34 PM 1/17/99 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
> I consider this point so important that I presume to come back onI think that it is a useful reminder that a so-called directional
>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.
indicator is really a directional non-indicator. But, what
methodology would you propose to advance from this point to a
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
1. Mk --> Lk
2. Mk <-- X --> Lk
By what method are we entitled to conclude 1 (direct dependence) or
2 (indirect dependence)?