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

[Synoptic-L] a new approach to the correlations

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 24 , Jan 4, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 24 , Jan 4, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 24 , Jan 5, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 24 , Jan 5, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 24 , Jan 5, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 24 , Jan 6, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 24 , Jan 6, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 24 , Jan 6, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 24 , Jan 6, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 24 , Jan 6, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 24 , Jan 7, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 24 , Jan 7, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 13 of 24 , Jan 7, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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.