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

Re: [Synoptic-L] triple traditions categories

Expand Messages
  • dgentil@sears.com
    Hello Brian, The hypotheses that received 100% scores, did so with A-I results where 221-211 was not a significant positive. (See the results in the files
    Message 1 of 32 , Dec 27, 2001
      Hello Brian,

      The hypotheses that received 100% scores, did so with A-I results where
      221-211 was not a significant positive.
      (See the results in the files section, for A-I where zeros were set to
      missing values.)
      None of those would pass with the A-O results.
      I think you've missed a category of negatives in Stephen's tests.
      On the modified-FH, your hypothesis, or the WH:
      221-211 = K x (p-M or M) and should be negative, as Stephen's test was
      defined.

      The only hypotheses that would pass the 211-221 test now would be ones that
      had a common source for Matthew and Mark, or put Matthew first, although
      that latter would fail on other counts. A common Mark-Matthew source is
      certainly a possibility, but I don't think the results demand it.

      Brian: Moreover I think that if we are going to use a
      test, then we must stick to the rules. It could be said that this is not
      being blind, but being objective.

      Dave: I suppose that's a valid point, but then I'd have to say that
      Stephen's test, *exactly as stated* is not a valid test.
      Although, with reasonable allowances, it is quite useful. Most hypotheses
      would predict 221-211 should be negative, *bases on source effects*. But if
      we are not allowed to check for secondary effects, no hypothesis could make
      any predictions about the triple tradition categories, because any of them
      could be the opposite of expectations if secondary effects dominate, for
      some reason. This is actually one of the points Dave Ingles was making.
      (Although during the on-list part of our discussion there was another issue
      involved as well). He was saying the test was invalid. You're saying we
      need to follow it strictly. I think its useful, as long as certain
      allowances are made. (Like checking for secondary effects, by looking at
      macro-categories).

      Brian: I do think, however, that the macro-categories are useful. Would it
      be
      possible to do the symmetrically-corresponding macro-categories to 22X
      and 21X, please?

      Dave: Sure, I'll do one with all the macro-categories. :o)

      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, Illinois
      M.S. Physics
      Ph.D. Management Science candidate







      "Brian E. Wilson" <brian@...>@... on 12/27/2001
      09:14:56 AM

      Sent by: owner-synoptic-l@...


      To: Synoptic-L@...
      cc:

      Subject: [Synoptic-L] triple traditions categories


      Brian Wilson wrote --
      >
      >So noting that the Proto-Matthew-Luke Hypothesis has passed Stephen
      >Carlson's test, assuming this hypothesis to be true on that basis, I
      >would suggest that it is not at all hard to explain your observations
      >that 221-211 is a significant positive, and 22X-21X leans negative.
      >
      Dave Gentile replied --
      >
      >If the results are interpreted to mean only source relations in
      >every case, I think 211-221 would be a problem for your hypothesis too.
      >211 is where Matthew has replaced a Markian word with his own. One is
      >completely Mark, the other is completely words by Matthew. It should be
      >negative. All of the hypotheses we've talked about fail this test.
      >
      But I would suggest that some hypotheses have been tested and passed
      this test even with 221-211 being a significant positive. So I think
      there must be a flaw in your argument somewhere. I would suggest the
      fallacy is in "211 is where Matthew has replaced a Markian word with his
      own". They need not be replacements, need they? 221 could be Markan
      words that Matthew has moved into a Markan context elsewhere in the
      triple tradition. In other words, it is possible that Matthew conflates
      not only non-Markan and non-Markan, and non-Markan and Markan, but also
      Markan and Markan passages from p-Mt-Lk.

      For example, on the PMLH, Mt would seem to have conflated parts of the
      Capernaum Demoniac (Mk 1.24) with parts of the Gadarene Demoniac (Mk
      5.29) resulting in two demoniacs in Matthew's account and in agreements
      of wording of Mt 8.29 with Mk 1.24 against Mk 5.29 (HMIN, HLQES,
      HMAS). These words are categorized as 211 in HHBC. So these may well be
      words that Mt has moved from their Narkan context in p-Mt-Lk (Mk 1.24)
      into a different Markan context ( // Mk 5.29) within the triple
      tradition, so producing 211 words that are nonetheless words originally
      from Mark. After all, if, on the PMLH, Mt moves a lot of non-Markan
      material around, and conflates this with other non-Markan and with
      Markan material, it would be unlikely that he did not also move Markan
      material around and conflate this with other Markan material.

      So 211 words are not necessarily where Matthew has replaced a Markan
      word, but may be Markan words that Matthew has moved from one point to
      another within the triple tradition. It is not true, therefore, that 221
      is completely words by Mark, and 211 completely words by Matthew. At
      least to some extent, they are both words by Mark. The correlation
      should not necessarily be negative, therefore. This is why, on Stephen
      Carlson's test, 221/211 is an untestable correlation. It can go either
      way, depending on the redactional activity of Matthew.
      >
      >But my point is, you can't simply apply Stephen's tests blindly, a
      >closer look may be needed sometimes.
      >
      I think Stephen Carlson's test allows that correlations such as 221/211
      are untestable under certain hypotheses. These untestables can result in
      anything from a significant positive to a significant negative. 221/211
      happens to be a significant positive. It all depends on the redactional
      activity of Matthew. Moreover I think that if we are going to use a
      test, then we must stick to the rules. It could be said that this is not
      being blind, but being objective.
      >
      >In this case looking at the macro-categories tells us we are looking at
      >a secondary effects due to Luke.
      >
      I think we are told nothing about the activities of a synoptist by
      merely looking at any categories. We must first say what hypothesis we
      are positing. If we posit the Proto-Matthew-Luke Hypothesis, then in
      this case I would suggest we are looking at Matthew frequently having
      moved Markan phrases or words from one triple tradition Markan context
      in p-Mt-Lk to another triple tradition context, so conflating Markan
      material from different contexts. This results in 221/211 being
      significantly positive.

      I do think, however, that the macro-categories are useful. Would it be
      possible to do the symmetrically-corresponding macro-categories to 22X
      and 21X, please? That is, would you be able to do the A-O macro-
      categories for X22 and X12, if these have not already been done ? In my
      view, there would be no necessity for these to show the same results as
      22X and 21X, of course, since X22 and X12 would be independent of
      Matthew, and would, under the PMLH, indicate the redactional activities
      of Luke. It may well be, on the PMLH, that Luke's redactional procedures
      are very different from Matthew's.

      Best wishes,
      BRIAN WILSON

      >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@...




      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 1/7/2002 2:29:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, brian@TwoNH.demon.co.uk writes:
      Message 32 of 32 , Jan 7, 2002
        In a message dated 1/7/2002 2:29:41 AM Eastern Standard Time,
        brian@... writes:

        << When, some time ago, I wrote about the GH being "validly ruled
        out" by Stephen Carlson's test, I was assuming Dave Gentile's basic
        assumption on which Stephen's test is based. I have since rejected this
        basic assumption, and suggested another basic assumption should be used.
        My "new approach" therefore does not accept Stephen Carlson's test as of
        any use. I would leave it to others who still accept Dave Gentile's
        position to answer your request, therefore. From my viewpoint now, the
        GH is not affected by the HHBC correlations. As I see things now, the
        correlations are a useful tool for redaction criticism, but probably
        useless for source criticism. The GH has been re-instated, together with
        the FH and 2DH.>>


        Thanks, Stephen. Now I can breath again. I will re-read the post in which you
        changed your view on the relevance of Dave's data to the resolution of the
        source question. I read it yesterday, but need to re-read it for fuller
        comprehension.

        I am of course saddened by the perspective that FH and 2 DH had to be
        reinstated along with GH. I had cherished the fervent hope to see GH rise
        alone and glorious from the ashes of HHBC correlations discussions, yielding
        to the GH the attention of minds more brilliant than my own to develop the
        very interesting implications of an essentially Griesbachian sequence of
        gospel composition. I guess I must be content for the moment with a delayed
        parousia.

        Leonard Maluf

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.