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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: PWRWSIS: piecemeal and cumulative solutions to the Synop...

Expand Messages
  • David Gentile
    ... Ah. Sorry about that. I was considering only A and B and which was first between them. If we have 4 documents, and no information, then the probability
    Message 1 of 24 , Apr 29 7:23 PM
      John writes:

      >
      > There is only one correct answer, which is very
      > obvious, each of the four Gospels has an equal chance
      > at being first, so that, Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn = 25% each.
      > If you discuss Mt & Mk in an isolated discussion it
      > still does not change the original 4.1 ratio, they
      > will still remain 25% each, not 50%.

      Ah. Sorry about that. I was considering only "A" and "B" and which was first
      between them. If we have 4 documents, and no information, then the
      probability is indeed 25%, as you say.

      >
      > {snip}
      >
      > I hope you do something with your research that will
      > make it public, namely, be able to be scrutinized.
      > Writing detailed narratives to explain design,
      > criteria , etc will be very useful to anyone who
      > wishes to study your research. I wholeheartedly
      > encourage you to do this. Until now, as you can tell,
      > it has been frustrating for anyone serious about NT
      > statistics to make much sense of it, but believe me
      > we're all interested.

      Thank you. Perhaps it would be best, if I try to stay out of debates about
      it until then, since it seems to be frustrating on both ends.

      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 Gentile
      Leonard writes: To place my own project in context, it is my suspicion that most Markan priorists are led to their conviction by what I call a macro impression
      Message 2 of 24 , Apr 29 7:41 PM
        Leonard writes:

        To place my own project in context, it is my suspicion that most Markan
        priorists are led to their conviction by what I call a macro impression or
        argument: the fact that Matt and Lk contain so much material that has no
        parallel in Mark, and that could well have come from somewhere else (Q,
        e.g.,
        or one evangelist copying from the other) and been added to a basic Markan
        narrative framework by later evangelist redactors (Matt and Lk). [I have
        even
        expressed a willingness to grant limited validity to this argument, taken in
        itself].

        ========

        In other words, something like this looks reasonable to you:
        X => M
        X + M => L
        X + M + L => K

        where X is structurally similiar to Mark.

        Is that correct?

        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@...
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 4/29/2002 10:37:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, GentDave@worldnet.att.net writes:
        Message 3 of 24 , Apr 30 8:36 AM
          In a message dated 4/29/2002 10:37:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
          GentDave@... writes:

          << In other words, something like this looks reasonable to you:>>

          I really hoped you would put it "in other words"; but no, you seem to be more
          comfortable -- in other symbols.

          <<
          X => M
          X + M => L
          X + M + L => K

          where X is structurally similar to Mark.>>


          Sorry, I need a "value" for M, for L and for K as well to know whether these
          symbolic equations bear the slightest resemblance to what I said above.

          Leonard Maluf

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • dgentil@sears.com
          Hello Leonard, K = Mark M = Matthew L = Luke Dave Gentile Riverside, Illinois In a message dated 4/29/2002 10:37:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
          Message 4 of 24 , Apr 30 8:54 AM
            Hello Leonard,

            K = Mark
            M = Matthew
            L = Luke

            Dave Gentile
            Riverside, Illinois





            In a message dated 4/29/2002 10:37:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
            GentDave@... writes:

            << In other words, something like this looks reasonable to you:>>

            I really hoped you would put it "in other words"; but no, you seem to be
            more
            comfortable -- in other symbols.

            <<
            X => M
            X + M => L
            X + M + L => K

            where X is structurally similar to Mark.>>


            Sorry, I need a "value" for M, for L and for K as well to know whether
            these
            symbolic equations bear the slightest resemblance to what I said above.

            Leonard Maluf




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