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

[Synoptic-L] a new approach to the correlations

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Dave Gentile wrote -- ... Dave, Yes. So do I. ... I am not at all sure that you are right. As I have written previously, your arguments seem to me to be
    Message 1 of 24 , Jan 3, 2002
      Dave Gentile wrote --
      >
      >By the "double tradition" in Luke I mean HBB 102+202 that is to say the
      >full text of Luke in these sections.
      >
      Dave,
      Yes. So do I.
      >
      >These macro categories provide a clearer look at effects we want to
      >single out than individual categories.
      >
      I am not at all sure that you are right. As I have written previously,
      your arguments seem to me to be confused when you appeal to these macro-
      categories. So far you have not shown that they take us any further than
      considering correlations of non-macro categories.
      >
      >This correlates with sondergut Matthew.
      >
      202-200 is an observed significant positive, and, as I have shown, all
      observed significant positives can be easily accounted for by the new
      approach. Moreover 102-200 is observed to be a weak positive
      correlation. Since (102 + 202)-200 is formed by combining 102-200 and
      202-200, it is therefore hardly surprising that (102 + 202)-200 is also
      a positive correlation, is it? Your argument therefore collapses at this
      point. If neither 102-200 nor 202-200 had been an observed significant
      positive, and if you had found that the "macro-category" was a
      significant positive, then your argument would have had some force. As
      it is, what is observed can be easily accounted for by the new approach,
      that is, by supposing that if different types of material show a
      significant positive correlation, this is consistent with the same
      synoptist having been the redactor, whereas if two different types show
      a significant negative correlation, this is consistent with different
      synoptists having been the redactors. We therefore have no need
      whatsoever to appeal to any hypothesis concerning a common source to
      account for (102 + 202)-200 being a positive correlation.
      >
      >There has not been anything presented by anyone, that would account for
      >this other than a common source style showing in both.
      >
      I have just done so above. There is simply no need to appeal to any
      hypothesis of a the style of a common source to account for the observed
      correlations.
      >
      >Again, forget HBB categories, these full sections of Luke, "the double
      >tradition" in Luke, not selected words of it that happen to agree with
      >Mt, correlates significantly with sondergut Matthew. We have full
      >pieces of text from Luke, correlating with different full pieces of
      >text in Matthew. Why?
      >
      Because the correlation which you describe is a combination of the two
      correlations considered above, one between Matthew and sondergut
      Matthew, and the other between Matthew and the double tradition in
      Matthew, and because the words of the double tradition in Matthew are
      exactly the same as the words of the double tradition in Luke by
      definition of "double tradition". There is no need for any appeal to a
      hypothesis of a positive correlation being the result of the use of a
      common source. Even if Matthew completely destroys the style of his
      source material, and Luke also, the observed correlations can easily be
      explained on the new approach.

      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@...
    • dgentil@sears.com
      ... I am not at all sure that you are right. As I have written previously, your arguments seem to me to be confused when you appeal to these macro- categories.
      Message 2 of 24 , Jan 3, 2002
        Brian Wilson writes:

        >
        >These macro categories provide a clearer look at effects we want to
        >single out than individual categories.
        >
        I am not at all sure that you are right. As I have written previously,
        your arguments seem to me to be confused when you appeal to these macro-
        categories. So far you have not shown that they take us any further than
        considering correlations of non-macro categories.


        Hello Brian,

        In some cases there are two clear, and reasonable explanations for a
        correlation in an individual category, and only one of those is a possible
        explanation for the macro-category. Thus the macro-category isolates the
        one effect better.

        It is a superior experimental design, if you will.


        Brian:

        202-200 is an observed significant positive, and, as I have shown, all
        observed significant positives can be easily accounted for by the new
        approach. Moreover 102-200 is observed to be a weak positive
        correlation. Since (102 + 202)-200 is formed by combining 102-200 and
        202-200, it is therefore hardly surprising that (102 + 202)-200 is also
        a positive correlation, is it?


        Dave: No, its not surprising, given the two subcategories. But your idea
        would predict 102-200 should be negative.
        102 and 202 are the artificially separated categories. 102 is some words in
        passages of Luke, 201 is the rest of the words. 102+202 is the whole
        passage, it is not an artificial combination.

        There has been no explanation yet proposed that could explain this.
        If you believe your method then can please explain how, in terms of full
        sections of Matthew agreeing with different full sections of Luke, without
        them reflecting the style of a common source.

        Brian:

        Because the correlation which you describe is a combination of the two
        correlations considered above, one between Matthew and sondergut
        Matthew, and the other between Matthew and the double tradition in
        Matthew, and because the words of the double tradition in Matthew are
        exactly the same as the words of the double tradition in Luke by
        definition of "double tradition". There is no need for any appeal to a
        hypothesis of a positive correlation being the result of the use of a
        common source. Even if Matthew completely destroys the style of his
        source material, and Luke also, the observed correlations can easily be
        explained on the new approach.

        Dave:

        That is not correct. I am comparing Matthew to Luke, plain and simple. I am
        not comparing Matthew's words to Matthew's words in and way. On the LTH,
        for example. The words in 102+202 are either Luke's words, or LT words. 200
        is either Matthew's words, or LT's words. If they completely destroy any
        source evidence, as you claim, then one is all Luke, the other all Matthew.
        There is no explanation for a significant positive.

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










        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Brian E. Wilson
        David Gentile wrote -- ... Brian Wilson replied -- ... Dave Gentile answered -- ... Absolutely not. My hypothesis does no such thing. My hypothesis is that IF
        Message 3 of 24 , Jan 4, 2002
          David Gentile wrote --
          >
          >Again, forget HBB categories, these are full sections of Luke, "the
          >double tradition" in Luke, not selected words of it that happen to
          >agree with Mt, correlates significantly with sondergut Matthew.
          >We have full pieces of text from Luke, correlating with different full
          >pieces of text in Matthew. Why?
          >
          Brian Wilson replied --
          >
          >202-200 is an observed significant positive, and, as I have shown, all
          >observed significant positives can be easily accounted for by the new
          >approach. Moreover 102-200 is observed to be a weak positive
          >correlation. Since (102 + 202)-200 is formed by combining 102-200 and
          >202-200, it is therefore hardly surprising that (102 + 202)-200 is also
          >a positive correlation, is it?
          >
          Dave Gentile answered --
          >
          >No, its not surprising, given the two subcategories. But your idea
          >would predict 102-200 should be negative.
          >
          Absolutely not. My hypothesis does no such thing. My hypothesis is that
          IF a significant positive or significant is observed, THEN this can
          easily be accounted for by supposing the same synoptist has redacted the
          categories, and that IF a significant negative is observed, THEN this
          can be easily accounted for by supposing that different synoptists have
          redacted the material. It is a gross mis-representation of my hypothesis
          to overlook the conditional "IF" here. I wrote in my statement of the
          hypothesis --
          >
          >The approach I am suggesting here is based on a different assumption --
          >that if two different types of material show a significant positive
          >correlation, then this is consistent with **the same synoptist having
          >redacted** the material concerned, and that if two different types show
          >a significant negative correlation, then this is consistent with
          >**different synoptists having redacted**.
          >
          Note the phrase "is consistent with". There is no suggestion that any
          correlation must necessarily be significant or not significant, positive
          or negative. There could be any number of reasons why an observed
          correlation is neither significant positive nor significant negative, on
          my approach. In the case of 102/200 being mildly positive, this might,
          for instance, be the consequence of Luke having supplied a significant
          proportion of the category 102 words in the double tradition passages in
          Luke. These would be in Luke's style, not Matthew's, and hence the
          resulting correlation will be a weaker, rather than a significant,
          positive. Another possibility is that a weaker correlation has been
          produced as a result of Matthew omitting words that Luke retained,
          thereby weakening the correlation between Matthew's words in the double
          tradition, and Matthew's 202 words.
          >
          >102 and 202 are the artificially separated categories. 102 is some
          >words in passages of Luke, 201 [202?] is the rest of the words. 102+202
          >is the whole passage, it is not an artificial combination.
          >
          I think you are confused here. If 102 and 202 are artificially
          separated, then we should throw away our HHB Concordance, surely. You
          seem to be suggesting that a passage with category 102 words is only in
          Luke. This is not true, is it? If the passage were not in Matthew also,
          then the words would have to be categorized as 002, not 102. The
          passages containing 102 and 202 are, by definition, necessarily all in
          Matthew as well as in Luke. Also, it is not the case that the passages
          in Luke contain only 102 and 202 words. Luke redacts his source
          material, and part of this redaction was frequently to supply phrases or
          whole sentences of his own within passages of material. It would seem
          that Luke frequently contains the odd phrase or sentence of his own in a
          double tradition passage. The words of these sentences or phrases are
          shown as 002 in the HHB Concordance. So passages in the double tradition
          in Luke are frequently 202, 102 and 002 material, just as passages in
          the double tradition in Matthew are frequently 202, 201 and 002
          material. It is not true, therefore, that a double tradition passage in
          Luke must be entirely 102 + 202.
          >
          >I am comparing Matthew to Luke, plain and simple. I am not comparing
          >Matthew's words to Matthew's words in any way.
          >
          I understand you to mean that correlating the (102 + 202) words with the
          200 words does not entail comparing Matthew's words with Matthew's
          words. For this to be true, however, none of the 202 words in (102 +
          202) can be Matthew's words. Yet, by definition of 202, all 202 words
          are the same words in Matthew and Luke, and therefore are Matthew's
          words. On some documentary hypotheses, (for instance the Farrer
          Hypothesis) Luke actually took these words from Matthew! I do not
          understand why you think that 202 words in Luke are not 202 words in
          Matthew. If they are, then you are comparing a combination of non-
          Matthean and Matthean words also in Luke, with words in Matthew only.
          >
          >On the LTH, for example, the words in 102+202 are either Luke's words,
          >or LT words.
          >
          It seems to me that you are still confused. They are either Luke's words
          or Matthew's words or LT words. 202 words are necessarily in Matthew, by
          definition of "202". Every single 202 word was in Matthew, according to
          the LTH.
          >
          >200 is either Matthew's words, or LT's words.
          >
          Agreed.
          >
          >If they completely destroy any source evidence, as you claim
          >
          I do not make such a claim. It is possible that either has done so,
          particularly Luke, but it is not necessarily the case. It is a
          possibility that is not ruled out by my approach. It is neither safe nor
          wise to assume that no synoptist has redacted his material sufficiently
          heavily to remove the style of the writer of any source he used. It is
          a very real possibility that Luke and Matthew have so heavily redacted
          their source material, that it is not possible to discern the style of
          any source they had in common. J. S. Hawkins wrote, "a renewed
          examination has failed to produce any expressions which I could
          definitely label as characteristic of Q" ("Horae Synopticae", p.113).
          Moreover, the recent article in the "Expository Times" by Dr Cyril Rodd,
          a staunch advocate of the 2DH, finds that it is impossible to determine
          the extent of Q. In this case, it is impossible to determine the style
          of Q, assuming that it existed. On the 2DH, Mark was the common source
          of Mt and Lk. I would suggest that if Mark had been lost, then, assuming
          we knew which passages Mt and Lk had obtained from "lost" Mark, it would
          not be possible to discern "lost" Mark's style. The point is that
          clearly the HHBC categories can be used to examine the style of the
          individual synoptist, but there is serious doubt that they can sensibly
          be used to identify the styles of any hypothetical source any synoptist
          may have used.
          >
          > - then one is all Luke, the other all Matthew.
          >
          This may be the truth and nothing but the truth, but it is not the whole
          truth, is it? The 102 words are Luke, the 202 words are both Matthew and
          Luke, and the 200 words are Matthew. Also, there are some 002 words in
          Lukan double tradition passages, and some 200 words in Matthean double
          tradition passages.
          >
          >There is no explanation for a significant positive.
          >
          I have already given an explanation on my approach of why the words of
          202 Matthew and Luke, together with the category 102 words of Luke, have
          a significant positive correlation with the category 200 words in
          Matthew (see above). My approach easily accounts for 202-200 being a
          significant positive correlation. It is easily shown to be consistent
          with 102-202 being a weak positive correlation. If (102 + 202)-200 is a
          significant positive, then, on the new approach, this is the consequence
          of 202-200 being significant positive and 102-200 being weakly positive,
          these two correlations combining to give a significant positive for (102
          + 202)-200.

          The basic assumption of my approach is that if different types of
          material show a significant positive correlation, then this is
          consistent with the same synoptist having been the redactor, whereas if
          two different types show a significant negative correlation, this is
          consistent with different synoptists having been the redactors. On this
          view, we have no need to appeal to any hypothesis concerning a common
          source to account for any of the observed significant positive or
          significant negative HHBC correlations. One reason for holding this
          approach is that I think it is unsafe and unwise to assume that no
          synoptist has redacted the style of his source material sufficiently to
          destroy any evidence of the style of any hypothetical source he may have
          used. In my view, if a synoptic documentary hypothesis is first assumed,
          then the HHBC correlations are an excellent tool for investigating the
          style of each synoptist, but probably useless for testing synoptic
          documentary hypotheses.

          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@...
        • dgentil@sears.com
          Hello Brian, Your reasoning does not make logical sense to me. Let s take a hypothesis where 202 was not written by Matthew, say LTH or 2ST. The only way
          Message 4 of 24 , Jan 4, 2002
            Hello Brian,

            Your reasoning does not make logical sense to me.
            Let's take a hypothesis where 202 was not written by Matthew, say LTH or
            2ST.
            The only way Matthew can "imprint his style" on 202 is by selecting words.
            Matthew can not have authored any of 202, but by favoring some words over
            others, he
            could leave his mark. In that case 102 would contain words Matthew
            disfavored, and some Luke additions.
            By adding 102+202 together, there is no possible means for Matthew to
            imprint a style on the joint category.
            Any hint of Matthew's favoritism is obliterated by including both
            categories.
            The joint category contains source words (Matthew favored or not), and Luke
            words, but there is no way for Matthew's favoritism of words to show up
            here.

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







            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • David Inglis
            ... This statement is undeniably true, because it s been constructed that way. All current significant negatives meet one of the three conditions described
            Message 5 of 24 , Jan 5, 2002
              Brian Wilson wrote:

              > (Statement 2) A correlation shows a significant negative only if either
              > (1) the two categories do not include the same gospel (for example,
              > 120/112), or (2) one category includes all three synoptists, and the
              > other only Luke, or (3) one category includes Matthew and Mark but not
              > Luke, and the other includes Mark and Luke but not Matthew.

              This statement is undeniably true, because it's been constructed that way.
              All current significant negatives meet one of the three conditions described
              here. However, there are many other pairings of two categories that meet
              one of these conditions that do not have negative results, so Statement (2)
              cannot be used to predict any results (It's like saying that all owls are
              birds. A true statement, but it doesn't help determine whether mice or
              salmon are birds). However, Brian then explains the 3 cases above as
              follows:

              > 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.

              I have problems with both Case (2) and Case (3), because they are not
              symmetrical with respect to the three synoptists. So, taking just case (2)
              for now I would expect to see the same effect for each of Matthew and Mark
              as well. In addition, based on just the reasoning given above I would also
              expect to see more negative Lukan categories than are currently found. For
              case (2) I would expect to see all the following being negative:

              222/112, 222/102, 222/012, 222/002,
              222/211, 222/210, 222/201, 222/200,
              222/121, 222/120, 222/021, 222/020

              Instead, what we currently have is (? marks values of extremely low
              confidence):

              222/112 = -0.45 (significant)
              222/102 = ?
              222/012 = ?
              222/002 = -0.33 (significant)

              222/211 = ?
              222/210 = -0.16 (at very low confidence)
              222/201 = ?
              222/200 = +0.17 (at low confidence)

              222/121 = ?
              222/120 = ?
              222/021 = ?
              222/020 = +0.27 (at low confidence)

              In other words only 2 cases out of 12 possible categories actually come up
              significantly negative at the moment. Even if we restrict ourselves to just
              Luke, only 2 out of the 4 cases matching Brian's description are negative.
              So, before case (2) can be seriously evaluated I think Brian needs to
              explain:

              1 Why 222/102 and 222/012 do not behave like 222/112 and 222/002;
              2 Why case (2) can be applied to Luke but NOT to Matthew or Mark.

              Finally, the same considerations also apply to Brian's case (3), and so we
              also need an explanation of why case (3) should not be applied to all
              equivalent pairings of the synoptists.

              Without these explanations I find Brian's hypothesis full of holes. It is
              incapable of being falsified currently because it has been defined
              specifically to match just the current set of significant positive and
              negative results, and makes NO predications whatsoever regarding results
              that we are still awaiting. For example, if Brian expanded case (1) above
              to state that ALL correlations between two categories that do not include
              the same gospel will be negative when all the results are in then that would
              be a big step forward. However, at present Brian's approach has been
              constructed so loosely as to be able to accommodate ANY values in the
              results that currently have low confidence. For the approach to be
              considered seriously I think that these holes need to be plugged.

              Dave Inglis
              david@...
              3538 O'Connor Drive
              Lafayette, CA, USA



              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • David Inglis
              ... Brian If 200 and 202 are alike because both have been redacted by Matthew, then according to your approach 201 and 202 are alike for exactly the same
              Message 6 of 24 , Jan 5, 2002
                Brian Wilson wrote:

                > On this view, "the same words" indicate the same synoptist as redactor,
                > and "different words" indicate different synoptists having redacted. If
                > your assumption is correct, then my approach should simply grind to a
                > halt if it is tried. It should fail to account easily for at least some
                > of the significant correlations. In fact, however, it easily accounts
                > for every single one of them, including those which have provided so
                > much difficulty under your approach. You write reams on "What IS going
                > on with 221 and 211?" On my approach this requires only one sentence --
                > that the correlation 221-211 is a significant positive because each type
                > of material has been redacted by the same synoptist, Matthew. On my
                > approach, every significant positive correlation can be explained on the
                > assumption that the two types of material concerned have been redacted
                > by the same synoptist. There are no exceptions.
                > >
                > >For example in 200-202, we could claim that 200 is written by Matthew,
                > >and 202 contains words that Matthew found in his source that were
                > >pleasing to Matthew. Therefore both might look like "Matthew". This is
                > >a concern that Mark Goodacre had.
                > >
                > Mark Goodacre's concern was basically the same as mine, I would suggest.
                > It was to question the basic assumption of your approach that "different
                > words" are the result of different authors of sources. In fact the
                > significant positive observed between 200 and 202 is, again, very easy
                > to explain on the new approach as the result of the same author,
                > Matthew, having correlated the material of both types.

                Brian

                If 200 and 202 are alike because both have been redacted by Matthew, then
                according to your approach 201 and 202 are alike for exactly the same
                reason. How then do you account for 102 and 202 being alike, when according
                to your approach 202 must have been redacted by Luke!

                Dave Inglis
                david@...
                3538 O'Connor drive
                Lafayette, CA, USA



                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • David Inglis
                ... This seems to be totally confusing to me. It is true that 202 words are the same in both Matthew s Gospel and Luke s Gospel (by definition), but that
                Message 7 of 24 , Jan 5, 2002
                  Brian Wilson wrote in reply to Dave Gentile:

                  > I understand you to mean that correlating the (102 + 202) words with the
                  > 200 words does not entail comparing Matthew's words with Matthew's
                  > words. For this to be true, however, none of the 202 words in (102 +
                  > 202) can be Matthew's words. Yet, by definition of 202, all 202 words
                  > are the same words in Matthew and Luke, and therefore are Matthew's
                  > words.

                  This seems to be totally confusing to me. It is true that 202 words are the
                  same in both Matthew's Gospel and Luke's Gospel (by definition), but that
                  doesn't mean they are therefore Matthew's words, since Matthew could have
                  got these words from any number of different places, including for example
                  the LT. It appears to me that you are confusing yourself and everybody else
                  by using terms such as "Matthew's words" when all you really mean is "words
                  in Matthew's Gospel".

                  > On some documentary hypotheses, (for instance the Farrer
                  > Hypothesis) Luke actually took these words from Matthew! I do not
                  > understand why you think that 202 words in Luke are not 202 words in
                  > Matthew.

                  I see no problem with this. Dave Gentile is fully aware that they are both
                  in Luke and Matthew. He's just confused by your use of terms such as
                  "Matthew's words" (see above).

                  > If they are, then you are comparing a combination of non-
                  > Matthean and Matthean words also in Luke, with words in Matthew only.

                  Let me here add a plea that in future no-one uses terms like "Matthean
                  words" or "Matthew's words" if what is actually meant is "words in Matthew"
                  or "words in Matthew's Gospel".
                  > >
                  > >On the LTH, for example, the words in 102+202 are either Luke's words,
                  > >or LT words.

                  Here I think Dave means "words added by Luke" or "words taken from the LT".
                  If so, then his meaning seems perfectly clear.

                  > >
                  > It seems to me that you are still confused. They are either Luke's words
                  > or Matthew's words or LT words. 202 words are necessarily in Matthew, by
                  > definition of "202". Every single 202 word was in Matthew, according to
                  > the LTH.

                  If the LTH assumes that Luke and Matthew did not use each others work in any
                  way, then either 202 contains words taken from the LT, or exactly the same
                  changes made independently by both Matthew and Luke (possible, but very
                  unlikely). However, it is impossible on the LTH for any words in 202 to be
                  either "Luke's words" or "Matthew's words" (meaning created by Luke and
                  Matthew) except for identical chance changes.

                  Finally, what do you mean by the last sentence? Not only WERE the 202 words
                  in Matthew, but they still ARE, and are so by definition, completely
                  independently of any hypothesis.

                  Dave Inglis
                  david@...
                  3538 O'Connor Drive
                  Lafayette, CA, USA





                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Brian E. Wilson
                  David Inglis wrote -- ... Dave, 201 and 202 being a significant correlation is consistent with Mt having redacted the wording of material found in the double
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jan 6, 2002
                    David Inglis wrote --
                    >
                    >If 200 and 202 are alike because both have been redacted by Matthew,
                    >then according to your approach 201 and 202 are alike for exactly the
                    >same reason.
                    >
                    Dave,

                    201 and 202 being a significant correlation is consistent with Mt having
                    redacted the wording of material found in the double tradition, whether
                    omitted by Luke (so producing 201 words) or included by Luke (so
                    producing 202 words).
                    >
                    >How then do you account for 102 and 202 being alike, when according to
                    >your approach 202 must have been redacted by Luke!
                    >
                    By exactly the same line of reasoning. "102" is simply "201" in reverse,
                    that is with Mt and Lk interchanged. Just interchange Mt and Lk
                    throughout my previous sentence above. The result is --

                    102 and 202 being a significant correlation is consistent with Lk having
                    redacted the wording of material found in the double tradition, whether
                    omitted by Matthew (so producing 102 words) or included by Matthew (so
                    producing 202 words).

                    The two statements are symmetrical in Mt and Lk. Where is the problem in
                    either of them? I really do not see any difficulty.

                    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@...
                  • Brian E. Wilson
                    Dave Gentile wrote -- ... Brian Wilson replied to Dave Gentile -- ... Dave Inglis comments on Brian Wilson s reply -- ... Dave, Thanks for pointing out what
                    Message 9 of 24 , Jan 6, 2002
                      Dave Gentile wrote --
                      >
                      >I am comparing Matthew to Luke, plain and simple. I am not comparing
                      >Matthew's words to Matthew's words in any way. On the LTH, for example,
                      >the words in 102+202 are either Luke's words, or LT words. 200 is
                      >either Matthew's words, or LT's words.
                      >
                      Brian Wilson replied to Dave Gentile --
                      >
                      >I understand you to mean that correlating the (102 + 202) words with
                      >the 200 words does not entail comparing Matthew's words with Matthew's
                      >words. For this to be true, however, none of the 202 words in (102 +
                      >202) can be Matthew's words. Yet, by definition of 202, all 202 words
                      >are the same words in Matthew and Luke, and therefore are Matthew's
                      >words. On some documentary hypotheses, (for instance the Farrer
                      >Hypothesis) Luke actually took these words from Matthew! I do not
                      >understand why you think that 202 words in Luke are not 202 words in
                      >Matthew. If they are, then you are comparing a combination of non-
                      >Matthean and Matthean words also in Luke, with words in Matthew only.
                      >
                      Dave Inglis comments on Brian Wilson's reply --
                      >
                      >It appears to me that you are confusing yourself and everybody else by
                      >using terms such as "Matthew's words" when all you really mean is
                      >words in Matthew's Gospel".
                      >
                      Dave,
                      Thanks for pointing out what now seems to me to have been my mis-
                      understanding. I understood Dave Gentile's phrase "Matthew's words"
                      (quoted above) to mean simply words in Matthew, and I used his phrase in
                      this sense in my reply to echo what I thought he meant. If, in fact, he
                      did not mean this, but meant rather "words supplied by Matthew in his
                      redaction of his source material" then I would suggest Dave Gentile
                      should have used a phrase such as "words supplied by Matthew" to make
                      his meaning clearer.

                      May I make a plea that anyone who wants to refer to words supplied by
                      Matthew as he redacted his source material should take care not to use
                      the ambiguous phrase "Matthew's words"? Something like "words supplied
                      by Matthew" would perhaps be appropriate.

                      Brian Wilson continued to Dave Gentile --
                      >
                      >Every single 202 word was in Matthew, according to the LTH.
                      >
                      Dave Inglis commented on this --
                      >
                      >Finally, what do you mean by the last sentence? Not only WERE the 202
                      >words in Matthew, but they still ARE, and are so by definition,
                      >completely independently of any hypothesis.
                      >
                      What I said is fully consistent with what you say. I meant that,
                      according to the LTH, at the moment in the past when both Mt and Lk had
                      both been written by having independently selected material from the LT,
                      then every single 202 word was in Matthew. If the 202 words ARE in
                      Matthew now, then they WERE in Matthew at that time.

                      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@...
                    • Brian E. Wilson
                      Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Dave Inglis comments -- ... Dave, On the contrary, the statement is falsifiable. I understand that the data for Pi - Omega has been
                      Message 10 of 24 , Jan 6, 2002
                        Brian Wilson wrote --
                        >
                        >(Statement 2) A correlation shows a significant negative only if either
                        >(1) the two categories do not include the same gospel (for example,
                        >120/112), or (2) one category includes all three synoptists, and the
                        >other only Luke, or (3) one category includes Matthew and Mark but not
                        >Luke, and the other includes Mark and Luke but not Matthew.
                        >
                        Dave Inglis comments --
                        >
                        >This statement is undeniably true, because it's been constructed that
                        >way.
                        >
                        Dave,
                        On the contrary, the statement is falsifiable. I understand that
                        the data for Pi - Omega has been collated, and the full results may be
                        available soon. If these were to produce a negative correlation for,
                        say, 220-202, then this would be against all three conditions given
                        above. Dozens of other possible falsifications could be cited for
                        Statement 2, and also for Statement 1.
                        >
                        >All current significant negatives meet one of the three conditions
                        >described here.
                        >
                        I agree. That was what I intended.
                        >
                        >However, there are many other pairings of two categories that meet
                        >one of these conditions that do not have negative results
                        >
                        which is precisely why I stated the three conditions. I try not to write
                        nonsense.
                        >
                        >so Statement (2) cannot be used to predict any results
                        >
                        Your argument cannot be valid since I have already predicted that
                        220-202 will not be a significant negative when the full results are
                        available. Many other such predictions can be made.
                        >
                        >It's like saying that all owls are birds. A true statement, but it
                        >doesn't help determine whether mice or salmon are birds.
                        >
                        Since your simile refers to a false statement, the statement is
                        presumably nothing like saying that all owls are birds.
                        >
                        >However, Brian then explains the 3 cases above as follows:
                        >>
                        >> 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.
                        >
                        >I have problems with both Case (2) and Case (3), because they are not
                        >symmetrical with respect to the three synoptists.
                        >
                        The observed correlations are not symmetrical with respect to the three
                        synoptists. So there is no basis for your expectation.
                        >
                        >So, taking just case (2) for now I would expect to see the same effect
                        >for each of Matthew and Mark as well.
                        >
                        Since the observed correlations are not symmetrical with respect to the
                        three synoptists, there is no reason for you to expect any such thing,
                        or any of the other things you go on to consider (on which I will not
                        bother to comment further, since the same argument applies to every one
                        of them).
                        >
                        >Without these explanations I find Brian's hypothesis full of holes.
                        >
                        The metaphorical holes would seem to have disappeared.
                        >
                        >It is incapable of being falsified currently because it has been
                        >defined specifically to match just the current set of significant
                        >positive and negative results
                        >
                        On the contrary it is not unfalsifiable since, as I have already shown
                        above, the new approach can be falsified in one fell swoop by the full
                        results about to be released.
                        >
                        >and makes NO predications whatsoever regarding results that we are
                        >still awaiting.
                        >
                        Not so, is it? I have shown the opposite to be true.

                        Thanks, Dave, for doing me the honour of criticizing my approach.

                        I am still of the view that it is very feasible that Matthew and Luke
                        have edited their source material so heavily that it is impossible to
                        discern the style of any source material they had in common. If we
                        assume the 2DH, they both used Mk, and hypothetical Q. If we did not
                        have Mk, however, we would not be able significantly to reconstruct the
                        style of Mk from Mt and Lk. Moreover, assuming Q existed, all we have
                        for certain that was in Q are the agreements of wording between Mt and
                        Lk in "minimal Q" in the double tradition. Just as we cannot reconstruct
                        the style of Mark from Matthew and Luke, so we cannot reconstruct the
                        style of Q from Matthew and Luke. Some scholars who staunchly affirm the
                        2DH, explicitly affirm that it is impossible to determine the style of
                        Q, if it existed. I would suggest, therefore, we should definitely not
                        be assuming that the observed correlations can be used to check the
                        existence of documentary sources of the synoptic gospels. My view is
                        that we should not be thinking in terms of using the observed
                        correlations to determine the supposed effect of the styles of authors
                        of sources of the synoptic gospels. Rather we should be using the
                        observed correlations, together with a synoptic documentary hypothesis,
                        to understand more fully how each synoptist has redacted the sources
                        posited on that documentary hypothesis. For instance, if we advocate
                        the 2DH, then the correlations should be used to understand more fully
                        how Mt and Lk redacted Mk, and how they redacted Q. This should enable a
                        deeper understanding, of course, of the approach of each synoptist to
                        his source material, and therefore provide greater insights into the way
                        of thinking of each synoptist. In a nut-shell, I see the observed
                        correlations as a valuable tool for redaction critics, but of no use to
                        source critics.

                        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@...
                      • David Inglis
                        ... Yes, the two statements are symmetrical, but they are mutually inconsistent. You have or included by Luke (so producing 202 words) and or included by
                        Message 11 of 24 , Jan 6, 2002
                          Brian Wilson wrote:


                          > David Inglis wrote --
                          > >
                          > >If 200 and 202 are alike because both have been redacted by Matthew,
                          > >then according to your approach 201 and 202 are alike for exactly the
                          > >same reason.
                          > >
                          > Dave,
                          >
                          > 201 and 202 being a significant correlation is consistent with Mt having
                          > redacted the wording of material found in the double tradition, whether
                          > omitted by Luke (so producing 201 words) or included by Luke (so
                          > producing 202 words).
                          > >
                          > >How then do you account for 102 and 202 being alike, when according to
                          > >your approach 202 must have been redacted by Luke!
                          > >
                          > By exactly the same line of reasoning. "102" is simply "201" in reverse,
                          > that is with Mt and Lk interchanged. Just interchange Mt and Lk
                          > throughout my previous sentence above. The result is --
                          >
                          > 102 and 202 being a significant correlation is consistent with Lk having
                          > redacted the wording of material found in the double tradition, whether
                          > omitted by Matthew (so producing 102 words) or included by Matthew (so
                          > producing 202 words).
                          >
                          > The two statements are symmetrical in Mt and Lk. Where is the problem in
                          > either of them? I really do not see any difficulty.
                          >
                          Yes, the two statements are symmetrical, but they are mutually inconsistent.
                          You have "or included by Luke (so producing 202 words)" and "or included by
                          Matthew (so producing 202 words)". This is impossible! Luke and Matthew
                          cannot together have created 202, and I have no clue as to why you think
                          that they can. Either 202 came from a different source (e.g. the LT), in
                          which case neither Luke nor Matthew redacted it, or it one created/redacted
                          it and the other copied that wording. Perhaps Dave Gentile or someone else
                          can point out a flaw in my reasoning, because I can't.

                          Dave Inglis
                          david@...
                          3538 O'Connor Drive
                          Lafayette, CA, USA





                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • David Inglis
                          ... Here s the proof that you have constructed your theory just to meet the current results, because you are ignoring case (2) WRT Matthew and Mark. Case (2)
                          Message 12 of 24 , Jan 6, 2002
                            Brian Wilson wrote:

                            > >>
                            > >> 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.
                            > >
                            > >I have problems with both Case (2) and Case (3), because they are not
                            > >symmetrical with respect to the three synoptists.
                            > >
                            > 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, 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. Unless you extend your theory to include Matthew and Mark here,
                            then it is incomplete, i.e. "full of holes".

                            Dave Inglis
                            david@...
                            3538 O'Connor Drive



                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • Brian E. Wilson
                            Dave Gentile wrote -- ... Dave, I understand you to mean that generally you do not find my new approach logical, although you give no reasons for this. ...
                            Message 13 of 24 , Jan 7, 2002
                              Dave Gentile wrote --
                              >
                              >Your reasoning does not make logical sense to me.
                              >
                              Dave,
                              I understand you to mean that generally you do not find my new
                              approach logical, although you give no reasons for this.
                              >
                              >Let's take a hypothesis where 202 was not written by Matthew, say LTH
                              >or 2ST.
                              >
                              Fine. Let us suppose the LTH -- that each synoptist independently used
                              the common source (call it "LT" for present purposes) to form his
                              gospel, redacting the wording of the LT material he used. 202 words are
                              defined as the same words appearing in Mt and Lk in double tradition
                              passages. On the LTH, all the passages containing these words were in
                              the LT. They are material that Mt and Lk independently chose to use from
                              the LT but which Mk chose to omit.
                              >
                              >The only way Matthew can "imprint his style" on 202 is by selecting
                              >words.
                              >
                              On the LTH, if Lk redacted more strongly than Mt, and Mt more strongly
                              than Mk, the 202 words would tend to be strongly in Luke's style and
                              fairly strongly in Matthew's style, and to some extent still in the
                              style of LT (and , to a lesser extent, in the style of Mark).
                              >
                              >Matthew can not have authored any of 202, but by favoring some words
                              >over others, he could leave his mark.
                              >
                              The fact that he retained them from LT suggests that the words may
                              indicate his style to some extent.
                              >
                              >In that case 102 would contain words Matthew disfavored.
                              >
                              No. The argument is not valid. I may not have a large new Mercedes-Benz
                              limousine on my drive, but that does not mean I would dis-favour having
                              one! If 102 are words of which a significant proportion were LT words
                              that Mt omitted but Lk retained, then they could still have been words
                              that Mt favoured. He may have omitted phrases containing these words
                              because of their meaning, irrespective of whether they consisted of
                              words that he would, or would not, have used when writing in his own
                              style. In other words, his intention may simply have been to abbreviate
                              LT material. Of course, other 102 words could have been supplied by
                              Luke. On the LTH, Luke redacted his LT source material more heavily than
                              Mt, and even more heavily than Mk. So it is likely that some 102 words
                              were supplied by Lk. Insofar as the 102 words are words omitted by Mt
                              but retained by Lk from LT, they may indicate something of the style of
                              the common source -- LT. Insofar, however, that 102 words were supplied
                              by Lk and therefore not taken from LT, they may indicate something of
                              the style of Luke. I think your argument above is therefore not valid.
                              For if Mt omitted a significant proportion of the 102 words from LT, it
                              does not follow at all that they were words he would not have used when
                              writing in his own style. A significant proportion of them, therefore,
                              may be words that Mt did not disfavour. Generally, the words of 102
                              would indicate to some extent the style of Luke, and to some extent the
                              style of LT, but they are not necessarily words that Mt disfavoured.
                              >
                              >and some Luke additions.
                              >
                              Yes. As I have suggested, Luke probably added some of the 102 words
                              which are therefore an indication of his style. Even those he took from
                              LT (words that Mt omitted), would be something of an indication of his
                              style.
                              >
                              >By adding 102+202 together, there is no possible means for Matthew to
                              >imprint a style on the joint category.
                              >
                              I understand you to mean two completely separate things -- (1) that the
                              style of Mt could not be indicated by 102 words, and (2) that the style
                              of Mt could not be indicated by 202 words. In the case of (1), I would
                              say that the 102 words can give no positive indication of the style of
                              Mt, but I would want to add that they are not necessarily words that Mt
                              would disfavour. I disagree with (2), however, since 202 words are LT
                              words fairly strongly redacted by Mt, and would therefore probably give
                              some indication of the style of Mt.
                              >
                              >Any hint of Matthew's favoritism is obliterated by including both
                              >categories.
                              >
                              No. This is wrong. The words of 202 would carry some indication of
                              "Matthew's favoritism" because they are the result of Mt having fairly
                              strongly redacted the wording of LT material.
                              >
                              >The joint category contains source words (Matthew favored or not), and
                              >Luke words
                              >
                              We should deal separately with each category. The 202 words were all
                              words from LT. Some 102 words were words that Mt omitted from LT and
                              that Lk retained, but other 102 words were supplied by Lk and were
                              therefore not LT words.
                              >
                              >but there is no way for Matthew's favoritism of words to show up here.
                              >
                              I disagree, because Mt fairly strong redacted the wording of LT material
                              he used, and therefore 202 words would indicate the style of Mt to some
                              extent.

                              My basic assumption is that if two different HHBC categories tend to
                              prefer the same words, there is a good chance that the material
                              containing them was redacted by the same synoptist. Conversely, if two
                              different categories tend to prefer different words, there is a good
                              chance that the material containing them was redacted by different
                              synoptists. I would suggest that this hypothesis is sufficient to
                              account easily for all the observed significant correlations between
                              HHBC categories, and makes very good sense of the results of the
                              Principle Component Analysis and the Average Linkage Cluster TREE
                              Analysis. I find this new approach fully consistent with the LTH.

                              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@...
                            • Brian E. Wilson
                              Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Dave Inglis replied -- ... Dave, As a matter of fact you are wrong. That is not what happened. I know, because I was the one who
                              Message 14 of 24 , Jan 7, 2002
                                Brian Wilson wrote --
                                >
                                >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.
                                >
                                Dave Inglis replied --


                                >Here's the proof that you have constructed your theory just to meet
                                >the current results
                                >
                                Dave,
                                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. These three squares correspond to the three
                                cases I list. Even so, it does not matter two cents how a hypothesis is
                                produced. Any hypothesis necessarily goes beyond any data for which it
                                accounts. What matters is whether the hypothesis works. This one does.
                                >
                                >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.
                                >
                                Yes. It is supposed to work only for Luke. In fact, it works very well
                                for Luke.
                                >
                                >Unless you extend your theory to include Matthew and Mark here, then it
                                >is incomplete, i.e. "full of holes".
                                >
                                If it works, which it does, then it is complete. There is no need to
                                extend a hypothesis that works. To do so, in fact, would contravene
                                Occam's Razor.



                                pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp

                                >
                                >I have problems with both Case (2) and Case (3), because they are not
                                >symmetrical with respect to the three synoptists.
                                >
                                Brian Wilson responded --
                                >
                                >The observed correlations are not symmetrical with respect to the three
                                >synoptists. So there is no basis for your expectation.
                                >
                                Dave Inglis now replies --
                                >
                                >Here's the proof that you have constructed your theory just to meet the
                                >current results, 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.
                                >


                                Unless you extend your theory to include Matthew and Mark here,
                                >then it is incomplete, i.e. "full of holes".
                                >
                                >Dave Inglis
                                >david@...
                                >3538 O'Connor Drive
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                >List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

                                --
                                Brian E. Wilson

                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                              • Brian E. Wilson
                                Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Dave Inglis responded -- ... Brian Wilson answered -- ... Dave Inglis now replies -- ... Dave, As a matter of fact you are wrong.
                                Message 15 of 24 , Jan 7, 2002
                                  Brian Wilson wrote --
                                  >
                                  >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.
                                  >
                                  Dave Inglis responded --
                                  >
                                  >I have problems with both Case (2) and Case (3), because they are not
                                  >symmetrical with respect to the three synoptists.
                                  >
                                  Brian Wilson answered --
                                  >
                                  >The observed correlations are not symmetrical with respect to the three
                                  >synoptists. So there is no basis for your expectation.
                                  >
                                  Dave Inglis now replies --
                                  >
                                  >Here's the proof that you have constructed your theory just to meet
                                  >the current results
                                  >
                                  Dave,
                                  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.
                                  >
                                  >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.
                                  >
                                  Yes. Case 2 is supposed to work only for Luke. In fact, it works very
                                  well for Luke. That's fine.
                                  >
                                  >Unless you extend your theory to include Matthew and Mark here, then it
                                  >is incomplete, i.e. "full of holes".
                                  >
                                  If it works, which it does, then it is complete. There is no need to
                                  extend a hypothesis that works. To do so, in fact, would contravene
                                  Occam's Razor.

                                  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.

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