Browse Groups

• ## [Synoptic-L] Some numerical results

(27)
• NextPrevious
• I tried a little data analysis with statistics drawn from the synoptic concordance. I started with only the words beginning with delta . I ve done a little
Message 1 of 27 , Nov 20, 2001
View Source
I tried a little data analysis with statistics drawn from the synoptic
concordance.
I started with only the words beginning with "delta". I've done a little
bit of comparison
with the "alpha-gamma" data, but the results so far reflect only "delta".

The synoptic concordance counts words in various categories. The notation
used is as follow:
222 - means the word is in all 3 gospels.
221 - would mean Luke had the tradition, but not the word.
220 - means Luke does not have a parallel.
The first position refers to Matthew, the second Mark, the third Luke.
"2" means the word is there. "1" means there is a parallel, but no word.
"0" means no parallel.

The calculation I did was as follows:
For each word beginning with D, I calculated what percentage of words
beginning with D it represented
in its section. Example: if "David" appeared 1 time in the triple
agreement, and there were 50 words beginning with D in the triple
agreement, the "David" would get a .02 score. (1/50).

Next I subtracted the frequency of the word in the synoptics as a whole, so
I would have a number that represented the change in frequency.

Finally, I did some correlations based on all "D" words, to see which sorts
of traditions might be correlated with each other, implying the same hand
may have written them.

I also tried some multiple regression, and principle component techniques,
to examine the data, but I'll just present the correlation results.

The results are promising. A lot of things that you would expect to
correlate do, and a lot of anti-correlations are predictable too. Many
things show no correlation, or are indeterminate. More data might help with
these.

The following correlations were significant, at the 95% confidence
interval:
220 with 210
210 with 211
200 with 201
202 with 102
121 with 221
020 with 120
112 with 012

There was too little data for 212, 021, and 022, to work with, so they are
not reported.

Of the anti-correlations, the only really interesting one was:
220 vs. 201. Anti-correlated at the 99.99% confidence level.

One thing to note is disagreement in the double tradition. (201, and 102)
When there is disagreement, Luke agrees with the double tradition. (102
correlates with 202)
Matthew agrees with special Matthew, (200 with 201).
This is in line with the 2SH, but a problem for a simple GH, or FH.

210 with 211 just means that where Matthew has changed Mark, it does not
matter if Luke is there.
012 with 112 just means that where Luke has changed Mark, it does not
matter if Matthew is there.

121 with 221 means that in the triple tradition Mark/Mt agreement, and Mark
alone, correlate.
This one is a problem for the GH.

020 with 120 means Mark alone or only against Matthew correlate. These do
NOT look
much like the general Mt/Mark agreements. The stats are a little shaky, but
they seem to be the hand of a revisor of the original.

The anti-correlations, 220 vs. 201, is a problem for the GH, since
Matthew the editor of Q, and copier of Mark, are quite dissimilar.

Finally, 220 with 210 implies that in Luke's omissions, Matthew seems more
original than Mark. This is a problem for all the major hypotheses, except
the GH.
To me it suggests 3 versions of Mark,
the first used by Luke (222, 122 (Luke preserves) against , 221 and 121
(Luke changes))
a later one by Matthew (220, 210), and the last one is cannon Mark (020,
120).
This correlation is only significant at the 95% confidence level, but not
higher,
so it would be interesting to see the result of more data.

Looking for support for a proto-Matthew/Q+ is hampered by the fact that
there are few MAs.
However, an anti-correlation between 121 and 202 is suggestive.
It suggests that the hand that wrote the double tradition, also produced
the MAs.

In general the correlations suggest the solution is not simple.

Dave Gentile
Riversie, Illinois

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• Dave Gentile wrote -- ... Dave, You have given us the result of comparing 121 / 221 . What is the result of comparing 121 / 122, and also 121 / 222, please?
Message 2 of 27 , Nov 25, 2001
View Source
Dave Gentile wrote --
>
>The following correlations were significant, at the 95% confidence
>interval:
>220 with 210
>210 with 211
>200 with 201
>202 with 102
>121 with 221
>020 with 120
>112 with 012
>
Dave,
You have given us the result of comparing 121 / 221 .

What is the result of comparing 121 / 122, and also 121 / 222, please?

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, Based on only the delta data, 121 and 222 show a non-significant negative correlation. 121 and 122 show zero correlation. However, based on the
Message 3 of 27 , Nov 25, 2001
View Source

> Dave,
> You have given us the result of comparing 121 / 221 .
>
> What is the result of comparing 121 / 122, and also 121 / 222, please?

Brian,

Based on only the "delta" data,
121 and 222 show a non-significant negative correlation.
121 and 122 show zero correlation.
However, based on the alpha-delta data, it looks like there might
be a 121- 122 correlation.
These are really non-results. A strong anti-correlation would indicate they
were different,
this just says we really can't tell for sure.

The only other significant result from the "delta" data about 121, was that
121 and 202 are negatively correlated at the 99% confidence level.
(and if anything this seems strengthened with the additional data)
To me this seems to suggest one hand adding the double tradition, and
causing the disagreement with Mark. This would be consistent with a
proto-Matthew.

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
- Sherlock Holmes,
in The Sign of Four, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

"Why sometimes I've believed as many as
six impossible things before breakfast."
- The Red Queen,
in Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• [David Gentile] ... David, Perhaps you could explain the significance of these calculations. Would the correlation calculations represent correlations among
Message 4 of 27 , Nov 29, 2001
View Source
[David Gentile]
> The following correlations were significant, at the
> 95% confidence
> interval:
> 220 with 210
> 210 with 211
> 200 with 201
> 202 with 102
> 121 with 221
> 020 with 120
> 112 with 012

David,

Perhaps you could explain the significance of these
calculations.

Would the correlation calculations represent
"correlations" among sets of words? In the calculation
given above the symbol 220 would represent a set of
words, for example. So the "correlation" would
represent the percentage of shared words among
differing sets?

If this is incorrect please clarify.

=====
John Rutledge

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just \$8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• ... Oops. I didn t get a chance to read your reply found in message http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synoptic-l/message/7047 Let me investigate this response
Message 5 of 27 , Nov 29, 2001
View Source
--- John Rutledge <logically_speaking_2001@...>
wrote:
> [David Gentile]
> > The following correlations were significant, at
> the
> > 95% confidence
> > interval:
> > 220 with 210
> > 210 with 211
> > 200 with 201
> > 202 with 102
> > 121 with 221
> > 020 with 120
> > 112 with 012
>
> David,
>
> Perhaps you could explain the significance of these
> calculations.
>
> Would the correlation calculations represent
> "correlations" among sets of words? In the
> calculation
> given above the symbol 220 would represent a set of
> words, for example. So the "correlation" would
> represent the percentage of shared words among
> differing sets?
>
> If this is incorrect please clarify.

in message
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synoptic-l/message/7047

Let me investigate this response before making any

=====
John Rutledge

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just \$8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• David, Perhaps you could clarify some points. [David Gentile] ... What exactly do you mean by tradition here? ... What exactly do you mean by parallel ? ...
Message 6 of 27 , Nov 29, 2001
View Source
David,

Perhaps you could clarify some points.

[David Gentile]
> The synoptic concordance counts words in various
> categories. The notation
> used is as follow:
> 222 - means the word is in all 3 gospels.
> 221 - would mean Luke had the tradition, but not the
> word.

What exactly do you mean by "tradition" here?

> 220 - means Luke does not have a parallel.

What exactly do you mean by "parallel"?

> The first position refers to Matthew, the second
> Mark, the third Luke.
> "2" means the word is there. "1" means there is a
> parallel, but no word.
> "0" means no parallel.

=====
John Rutledge

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just \$8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• Hello, I don t have the book here. As Brian Wilson pointed out, it is: P. Hoffmann, T. Hieke, U. Bauer Synoptic Concordance Vol I, A-D, (Berlin, 1999) The
Message 7 of 27 , Nov 29, 2001
View Source
Hello,
I don't have the book here. As Brian Wilson pointed out, it is:

P. Hoffmann, T. Hieke, U. Bauer "Synoptic
Concordance" Vol I, A-D, (Berlin, 1999)

The definitions are theirs, not mine.

I'm sure they do a better job of explaining their meaning, but I'll try.
If we are looking at the statistics for the word "David",
210 would be the count of occurrences of the word "David" in Matthew,
where Mark had a parallel text, but did not have the word "David",
and Luke had no parallel text at all.

222 would count the number of times the word "David" appears
in all three gospels in parallel.

Did I do any better?

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

David,

Perhaps you could clarify some points.

[David Gentile]
> The synoptic concordance counts words in various
> categories. The notation
> used is as follow:
> 222 - means the word is in all 3 gospels.
> 221 - would mean Luke had the tradition, but not the
> word.

What exactly do you mean by "tradition" here?

> 220 - means Luke does not have a parallel.

What exactly do you mean by "parallel"?

> The first position refers to Matthew, the second
> Mark, the third Luke.
> "2" means the word is there. "1" means there is a
> parallel, but no word.
> "0" means no parallel.

=====
John Rutledge

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• ... I think the use of the word count here is potentially misleading. Let me have a go at explaining this. Hoffmann, Hieke and Bauer use the statistical
Message 8 of 27 , Nov 29, 2001
View Source
On 29 Nov 2001 at 13:44, dgentil@... wrote:

> P. Hoffmann, T. Hieke, U. Bauer "Synoptic
> Concordance" Vol I, A-D, (Berlin, 1999)
>
> The definitions are theirs, not mine.
>
> I'm sure they do a better job of explaining their meaning, but I'll
> try. If we are looking at the statistics for the word "David", 210
> would be the count of occurrences of the word "David" in Matthew,
> where Mark had a parallel text, but did not have the word "David", and
> Luke had no parallel text at all.
>
> 222 would count the number of times the word "David" appears
> in all three gospels in parallel.

I think the use of the word "count" here is potentially misleading.
Let me have a go at explaining this. Hoffmann, Hieke and Bauer use
the "statistical code" 222, 221 etc. in order to convey additional
information about every word listed in their concordance. This is a
"Synoptic Concordance" so aims not only to list occurrences of words
like a normal concordance, but also to depict the occurrence of every
single word *synoptically*. Thus, to use the example above, when
listing "David" they depict all occurrences synoptically, showing for
each occurrence whether it occurs in triple tradition, double
tradition, Sondergut etc. And in addition to that -- and here we
come to the matter currently under discussion -- they show whether
the word itself occurs in the direct parallel concerned. Wherever
the word David occurs in Matthew in triple tradition but not in its
parallels in Mark and Luke, the code "211" is given. Wherever the
word David occurs in Matthew, Mark and Luke in triple tradition, the
code "222" is given. Wherever the word occurs in Matthew and in Luke
in double tradition, the code 202 is given; wherever it occurs in
Matthew but not Luke in double tradition, the code 201 is given. And
so on. The total number of 222 of "David" is then totted up, viz.
the total number of times David occurs in all three Synoptics in
direct parallel. And the total number of 211s, and so on and so on.
If you can't get access to the Synoptic Concordance (which is quite
expensive), have a look at a sample page on the web which may help to
clarify the procedure:

http://www.uni-bamberg.de/ktheo/nt/forschung/synconbe.htm

It's actually very straightforward, but it's tough to describe it
without seeing it graphically, so looking at the above may clarify
it.

Mark-----------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
Birmingham B15 2TT
United Kingdom

http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
Homepage
http://NTGateway.com
The New Testament Gateway

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• Dear Dave Thanks for your work on this, only some of which I understand. I d be grateful if you could clarify the experiment for us some more, ideally on the
Message 9 of 27 , Nov 29, 2001
View Source
Dear Dave

Thanks for your work on this, only some of which I understand. I'd
be grateful if you could clarify the experiment for us some more,
ideally on the "for dummies" level since my guess would be that I'm
not the only one who can't follow everything you're saying. In
particular, let me ask for you to explain carefully the procedure
laid out in the following:

> The calculation I did was as follows:
> For each word beginning with D, I calculated what percentage of words
> beginning with D it represented in its section. Example: if "David"
> appeared 1 time in the triple agreement, and there were 50 words
> beginning with D in the triple agreement, the "David" would get a .02
> score. (1/50).

When you say "its section", to what does this refer? Is it the piece
of context given for each word in the Synoptic Concordance? I'd be
grateful if you could clarify for me what you mean here by "in the
triple agreement". Is that the same thing as "its section"?

> Next I subtracted the frequency of the word in the synoptics as a
> whole, so I would have a number that represented the change in
> frequency.

I'd be grateful if you could unpack this a bit for me -- could you
explain the procedure and its rationale?

> Finally, I did some correlations based on all "D" words, to see which
> sorts of traditions might be correlated with each other, implying the
> same hand may have written them.

This is the part that at the moment puzzles me most. Assuming the
results are accurate and assuming that the whole alphabet will
produce results similar to those based on just delta, in what way do
the "correlations" you have listed "imply[ ] the same hand may have
written them"? We don't doubt, do we, that Matthew's triple
tradition passages (to take one example) come from "the same hand" as
Matthew's double tradition and and Matthew's Sondergut? What you are
presumably hinting at is whether these blocks of material show
different stylistic tendencies based on the possibilities of
different source material used in these separate blocks. Is that
right? Let me attempt to tease this point out by asking about
another statement:

> In general terms we're looking for word preference or choice. If two
> different types of material (say 121 and 120), tend to prefer the same
> words, then there is a good chance they had the same author. We are
> looking for correlations in "style" between "121" and "120". The
> frequency of each Greek word, is one data point in helping us
> determine if the styles were similar or different.

Again I'd like to see you unpack this question about inferring "the
same author" from your results. Can you explain why correlations
between results for 121 and 120 material are significant? I also
start to worry here that I really haven't grasped the basic project
at all. Aren't 121, 120 etc. just types of words in the Synoptic
Concordance, i.e. 121 are words occurring in Mark's triple tradition
which do not occurr in the Matthean // Lukan parallel? If so, what
does 121 "material" mean? It's at this stage that I suspect that I
am showing some real ignorance, and if so I'll put it down to it
being late at night after a long day!

Thanks in anticipation
Mark

-----------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
Birmingham B15 2TT
United Kingdom

http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
Homepage
http://NTGateway.com
The New Testament Gateway

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• Dear Mark, Thanks for helping to clarify the what the synoptic concordance symbols mean. I ll try to explain the procedure more. My responses are in line. ...
Message 10 of 27 , Nov 29, 2001
View Source
Dear Mark,

Thanks for helping to clarify the what the synoptic concordance symbols
mean. I'll try to explain the procedure more. My responses are in line.

> Dear Dave
>
> Thanks for your work on this, only some of which I understand. I'd
> be grateful if you could clarify the experiment for us some more,
> ideally on the "for dummies" level since my guess would be that I'm
> not the only one who can't follow everything you're saying. In
> particular, let me ask for you to explain carefully the procedure
> laid out in the following:
>
> > The calculation I did was as follows:
> > For each word beginning with D, I calculated what percentage of words
> > beginning with D it represented in its section. Example: if "David"
> > appeared 1 time in the triple agreement, and there were 50 words
> > beginning with D in the triple agreement, the "David" would get a .02
> > score. (1/50).
>
> When you say "its section", to what does this refer? Is it the piece
> of context given for each word in the Synoptic Concordance? I'd be
> grateful if you could clarify for me what you mean here by "in the
> triple agreement". Is that the same thing as "its section"?
>

By "its section" here, I meant "222" "221" etc.
By "triple agreement" I meant "222" specificly.
What I'm getting is how frequently the word is used in that category.
In the example "David" occurs once per 50 words, in the "222" category.
It's frequency is once every 50 words. Or a score of .02

> > Next I subtracted the frequency of the word in the synoptics as a
> > whole, so I would have a number that represented the change in
> > frequency.
>
> I'd be grateful if you could unpack this a bit for me -- could you
> explain the procedure and its rationale?

Maybe an example. "the" is a lot more common than "bottom".
If I tried to correlate 222 with 221 at this point there would be a strong
correlation.
All it would be saying is that both 222 and 221 seem to use "the" a lot more
than "bottom".
What we are really interested in knowing is if the "the" and "bottom" occur
more or less that expected.
Let's say "the" occurs once every 50 words in "222". The score is .02
Let's say "bottom" occurs once every 200 words in "222" The score is .005
Let's say "the" occurs once every 100 words in "221". The score is .01
Let's say "bottom" occurs once every 300 words in "221" The score is .0033
Let's say "the" occurs once every 40 words in all categories. The score is
.025
Let's say "bottom" occurs once every 250 words in all categories The score
is .004

So now we can compute the frequencies by category, relative to what we would
expect.
For "the" in category "222" we get .02 - .025 = -.005.
"the" occurs less frequently in "222" that it does in all categories.
For "bottom" in category "222" we get .005 - .004 = .001
"bottom" occurs more frequntly in "222" than in the synoptics as a whole.

For "the" in category "221" we get .01 - .025 = -.015.
"the" occurs less frequently in "221" that it does in all categories.
For "bottom" in category "221" we get .0033 - .004 = -.0007
"bottom" occurs less frequntly in "222" than in the synoptics as a whole.

Now, if we do this for every word, and we start to see that words that are
more frequent than expected in "222" are also more frequent than expected in
"221" then we are seeing that "222" and "221" have a similiar prefference
for words.

>
> > Finally, I did some correlations based on all "D" words, to see which
> > sorts of traditions might be correlated with each other, implying the
> > same hand may have written them.
>
> This is the part that at the moment puzzles me most. Assuming the
> results are accurate and assuming that the whole alphabet will
> produce results similar to those based on just delta, in what way do
> the "correlations" you have listed "imply[ ] the same hand may have
> written them"? We don't doubt, do we, that Matthew's triple
> tradition passages (to take one example) come from "the same hand" as
> Matthew's double tradition and and Matthew's Sondergut? What you are
> presumably hinting at is whether these blocks of material show
> different stylistic tendencies based on the possibilities of
> different source material used in these separate blocks. Is that
> right? Let me attempt to tease this point out by asking about
> another statement:

Now I'm using alpha-delta, so there is more data. I'll add more, with time.
I think you have my intent correct. If "200" has a similiar style as
"211" we can view Matthew as one authors style. If they look differant that
we suspect
Matthew was coping another source in once place, and creating on his own in
another.

>
> > In general terms we're looking for word preference or choice. If two
> > different types of material (say 121 and 120), tend to prefer the same
> > words, then there is a good chance they had the same author. We are
> > looking for correlations in "style" between "121" and "120". The
> > frequency of each Greek word, is one data point in helping us
> > determine if the styles were similar or different.
>
> Again I'd like to see you unpack this question about inferring "the
> same author" from your results. Can you explain why correlations
> between results for 121 and 120 material are significant? I also
> start to worry here that I really haven't grasped the basic project
> at all. Aren't 121, 120 etc. just types of words in the Synoptic
> Concordance, i.e. 121 are words occurring in Mark's triple tradition
> which do not occurr in the Matthean // Lukan parallel? If so, what
> does 121 "material" mean? It's at this stage that I suspect that I
> am showing some real ignorance, and if so I'll put it down to it
> being late at night after a long day!
>
>
121 and 120 we would expect to be correlated on almost any hypothesis.
For example, we might notice the word "immediately" appears in both
121 and 120 a lot more that in say "002" or in all categories in general.
121 and 120 seem to have a similar choice of words. They are likely both
written by the same author, who liked the word "immediately".
The fact that 121 and 120 correlate does not say anything surprising.
In just confirms that the procedure is working.
(If 121 and 120 did not look related, we might question the test)
But when 122 and 112 look similar, we are saying something
more significant. We are saying that Mark/Luke agreement has a style that
matches Luke alone to some extent. This could be explained by
Luke and Mark copying a source and Mark altering it sometimes. The fact that
122
looks like 112 and that 122 looks like 121, strongly suggests
that Mark and Luke independently copy and alters a source,
so that both look somewhat like the source.

Any better?

Dave Gentile
Riverside Illinois
M.S. Physics
PhD Management Science candidate

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• Dave Gentile wrote -- ... Dave, I am still concerned about the nature of the data. To what extent does the assumption of the 2DH by the compilers of the
Message 11 of 27 , Nov 30, 2001
View Source
Dave Gentile wrote --
>
>In general terms we're looking for word preference or choice.
>If two different types of material (say 121 and 120), tend to prefer
>the same words, then there is a good chance they had the same author.
>
Dave,
I am still concerned about the nature of the data.

To what extent does the assumption of the 2DH by the compilers of the
Concordance affect the results of the analysis of word preference or
choice? Also, can we definitely tell what material is in the triple

The Feeding of the Five Thousand, Mt 14.13-21, Mk 6.30-44, Lk 9.10-17,
is found in all three synoptic gospels. It would seem to be triple
tradition. On this basis, each word in the second verse of the story in
Mark (Mk 6.31) is 121, since none of its wording is found in the
parallel pericope in Mt or Lk. In the Concordance, however, each of
these words is categorized 020. The assumption by the compilers of the
Concordance is that the verse is not triple tradition even though it is
within a triple tradition pericope. On the other hand, in the same story
in Mk 6.37(b)-38(a), the following material is found in Mk but in
neither Mt nor Lk -- "And they said to him, 'Shall we go and buy two
hundred denarii worth of bread, and give it to them to eat?' And he said
to them, 'How many loves have you? Go and see.'" In this material,
"denarii" -- DHNARIWN, and all the other words, are categorized as
121. This seems inconsistent. How can we know that Mk 6.31 is not triple
pieces of material are in parallel pericopes in all three synoptic
gospels?

It seems to me that completely dividing every word of the synoptic
Mk//Lk not in Mt, and Sondergut material, must be carried out for the
Concordance to obtain its categories 222, 221, 220, and so on. Yet this
division is surely subjective. The difficulty is compounded by the
problem that, if the 2DH is assumed, it is hard, (if not impossible, as
Cyril Rodd has argued recently) to determine the extent of the wording
of Q. Determining what is Mk-Q overlap material therefore seems to be
subjective also.

It would appear that the categories in the Concordance are moveable
feasts and may reflect the decisions of the compilers, rather than
indicate the documentary relationship between the synoptic gospels. I
think a similar Concordance based on the Farrer Hypothesis, would differ
significantly from Hoffmann, Hicke, Bauer. I would suggest that, for
this reason, the nature of the data in the HHB Concordance should be
ferreted out, and that the conclusions of such an investigation should
be used to interpret any analysis of the HHB data.

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@...
• Many thanks for the clarifications and explanations, Dave -- I appreciate your taking the time to help me (and I hope others) understand this. Yes, I m
Message 12 of 27 , Nov 30, 2001
View Source
Many thanks for the clarifications and explanations, Dave -- I
appreciate your taking the time to help me (and I hope others)
understand this. Yes, I'm getting hold of this now and want to ask
some related questions, again at the risk of exposing my ignorance in
public:

> By "its section" here, I meant "222" "221" etc.
> By "triple agreement" I meant "222" specificly.
> What I'm getting is how frequently the word is used in that category.
> In the example "David" occurs once per 50 words, in the "222"
> category. It's frequency is once every 50 words. Or a score of .02

OK, I think I've got this. When you say "222", you are talking about
every single word that occurs in that general category, viz. every
single directly paralleled word in triple tradition. So occurrences
of "David" among all those words in Matthew, Mark and Luke amounts to
once every 50 words.

[example snipped]

> For "the" in category "221" we get .01 - .025 = -.015.
> "the" occurs less frequently in "221" that it does in all categories.
> For "bottom" in category "221" we get .0033 - .004 = -.0007 "bottom"
> occurs less frequntly in "222" than in the synoptics as a whole.

Thanks -- I've got this.

> Now, if we do this for every word, and we start to see that words that
> are more frequent than expected in "222" are also more frequent than
> expected in "221" then we are seeing that "222" and "221" have a
> similiar prefference for words.

If I am understanding the experiment correctly, I wonder here (and
elsewhere) about the problem of circularity. Surely by definition we
will expect 222 and 221 to have a similar preference for words? The
Matthew // Mark direct parallel common to both of these categories
will ensure that the results are at least pretty similar, won't they?
That's not necessarily because of common "authorship" or traditions;
it's just that the way the experiment is set up makes it inevitable
that 222 and 221 will come out similarly, as also 122 and 222. Or is
that not right?

> Now I'm using alpha-delta, so there is more data. I'll add more, with
> time. I think you have my intent correct. If "200" has a similiar
> style as "211" we can view Matthew as one authors style. If they look
> differant that we suspect Matthew was coping another source in once
> place, and creating on his own in another.

I don't know; would that be the only legitimate conclusion? If 200
and 211
look different, surely it might be that Matthew's attitude to to
triple tradition material differed from his atttitude to Sondergut.
And there are the questions Stephen raised about genre and the like.
Q theorists have long known, for example, that Matthew and Luke are
much closer together in Q material than they are in Markan material,
something that does not cause them to question their hypothesis.
Rather it suggests to them that Matthew's and Luke's mutual attitudes
to Q overall differed from their attitudes to Mark overall, perhaps
influenced further by the fact that the double tradition is
proportionally more sayings-rich than is the triple tradition.

> 121 and 120 we would expect to be correlated on almost any
> hypothesis.
> For example, we might notice the word "immediately" appears in both
> 121 and 120 a lot more that in say "002" or in all categories in
> general. 121 and 120 seem to have a similar choice of words. They are
> likely both written by the same author, who liked the word
> "immediately".

Does it necessarily imply that? Would one not simply expect a rough
correlation between 121 and 120 by definition, because of the common
12- element? Isn't this much the same as with 222 and 221 (etc.)
above? Likewise, we wouldn't expect 121 and 120 to show a rough
correlation with 002, again by definition, because the latter is
constituted by those words without direct or indirect parallel in
Mark and Matthew, the very thing that is key in 121 and 120.

> The fact that 121 and 120 correlate does not say
> anything surprising. In just confirms that the procedure is working.
> (If 121 and 120 did not look related, we might question the test) But
> when 122 and 112 look similar, we are saying something more
> significant. We are saying that Mark/Luke agreement has a style that
> matches Luke alone to some extent. This could be explained by Luke and
> Mark copying a source and Mark altering it sometimes. The fact that
> 122 looks like 112 and that 122 looks like 121, strongly suggests that
> Mark and Luke independently copy and alters a source, so that both
> look somewhat like the source.

Again, I'm not yet convinced of this. By definition, surely we would
expect 122 to show a rough correlation with 112, and 122 with 121,
and so on, because there is commonality in respective definitions of
these categories. But even if this were not the case, I don't think
your conclusion would follow from the data. It could be that when
Luke reads Mark, he tends to take over the most congenial ("Luke-
pleasing") words, the same words he tends to add himself where Mark
is not directly parallel, and in this way 112's correlation with 122
would be exactly what Luke's use of Mark would lead us to expect.

Thanks again
Mark-----------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
Birmingham B15 2TT
United Kingdom

http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
Homepage
http://NTGateway.com
The New Testament Gateway

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• In a message dated 11/30/2001 7:54:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk writes:
Message 13 of 27 , Nov 30, 2001
View Source
In a message dated 11/30/2001 7:54:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
M.S.Goodacre@... writes:

<< Rather it suggests to them that Matthew's and Luke's mutual attitudes
to Q overall differed from their attitudes to Mark overall, perhaps
influenced further by the fact that the double tradition is
proportionally more sayings-rich than is the triple tradition.>>

To state this relationship in GH terms, Luke is far more ready to copy when
he is citing words of Jesus given by Matt than when he is simply re-narrating
a story that Matthew has told -- this, in spite of the fact that he takes
care in every case to do something original, in terms of placement,
structure, or application, even with closely copied segments of Jesus
sayings. This policy of Luke's is strikingly confirmed by a comparison with
Luke's use of OT material in a lengthy passage such as the speech of Stephen
in Acts: close reproduction of his LXX source when he is quoting the words of
protagonists in the story, coupled with far greater freedom in rewriting the
narrative framework within which these words occur.

Leonard Maluf

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• Hello again Brian, I agree that the categorizing of the data is certainly something to think about. But it seems their choices should have well defined
Message 14 of 27 , Nov 30, 2001
View Source
Hello again Brian,

I agree that the categorizing of the data is certainly something to think
about. But it seems their choices should
have well defined effects, if they do have effects. Perhaps we could try to
apply this to specific claims the correlations make?

For example, it claims 202 looks like 200. Do you see a way that their
categories might cause this
artificially? How about 112 with 122?

Thanks,

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

"Brian E. Wilson" <brian@...>@... on 11/30/2001
05:37:14 AM

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

To: Synoptic-L@...
cc:

Subject: [Synoptic-L] the nature of the data

Dave Gentile wrote --
>
>In general terms we're looking for word preference or choice.
>If two different types of material (say 121 and 120), tend to prefer
>the same words, then there is a good chance they had the same author.
>
Dave,
I am still concerned about the nature of the data.

To what extent does the assumption of the 2DH by the compilers of the
Concordance affect the results of the analysis of word preference or
choice? Also, can we definitely tell what material is in the triple

The Feeding of the Five Thousand, Mt 14.13-21, Mk 6.30-44, Lk 9.10-17,
is found in all three synoptic gospels. It would seem to be triple
tradition. On this basis, each word in the second verse of the story in
Mark (Mk 6.31) is 121, since none of its wording is found in the
parallel pericope in Mt or Lk. In the Concordance, however, each of
these words is categorized 020. The assumption by the compilers of the
Concordance is that the verse is not triple tradition even though it is
within a triple tradition pericope. On the other hand, in the same story
in Mk 6.37(b)-38(a), the following material is found in Mk but in
neither Mt nor Lk -- "And they said to him, 'Shall we go and buy two
hundred denarii worth of bread, and give it to them to eat?' And he said
to them, 'How many loves have you? Go and see.'" In this material,
"denarii" -- DHNARIWN, and all the other words, are categorized as
121. This seems inconsistent. How can we know that Mk 6.31 is not triple
pieces of material are in parallel pericopes in all three synoptic
gospels?

It seems to me that completely dividing every word of the synoptic
Mk//Lk not in Mt, and Sondergut material, must be carried out for the
Concordance to obtain its categories 222, 221, 220, and so on. Yet this
division is surely subjective. The difficulty is compounded by the
problem that, if the 2DH is assumed, it is hard, (if not impossible, as
Cyril Rodd has argued recently) to determine the extent of the wording
of Q. Determining what is Mk-Q overlap material therefore seems to be
subjective also.

It would appear that the categories in the Concordance are moveable
feasts and may reflect the decisions of the compilers, rather than
indicate the documentary relationship between the synoptic gospels. I
think a similar Concordance based on the Farrer Hypothesis, would differ
significantly from Hoffmann, Hicke, Bauer. I would suggest that, for
this reason, the nature of the data in the HHB Concordance should be
ferreted out, and that the conclusions of such an investigation should
be used to interpret any analysis of the HHB data.

Best wishes,
BRIAN WILSON

>HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
> "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
> speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
_

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• A further thought on this. In the triple tradition pericope the Transfiguration, Mt 17.1-8, Mk 9.2-8, Lk 9.28-36, the material in Lk 9.34(b) -- and they were
Message 15 of 27 , Dec 1 12:31 AM
View Source
A further thought on this. In the triple tradition pericope the
Transfiguration, Mt 17.1-8, Mk 9.2-8, Lk 9.28-36, the material in Lk
9.34(b) -- "and they were afraid as they entered the cloud" -- is found
in neither Matthew nor Mark and yet each word is categorized 112 in the
HHB Concordance as though the material has parallel passages in Mt and
Mk. On the other hand, in the triple tradition pericope the Desolating
Sacrilege, Mt 24.15-22, Mk 13.14-20, Lk 21.20-24, the words of Lk 21.22
-- "for these are days of vengeance, to fulfil all that is written" --
are similarly found in neither Mt nor Mk and are entered as 002, as
though the material has no parallel passages in Mt or Mk. This seems to
be inconsistent. Surely such inconsistencies are going to provide false
pointers when categories such as 112 and 002 are used to try and
determine the relationship between the synoptic gospels.

The more I look at the HHB categorization the more I wonder whether
analysing the stats reveals the decisions of the editors of the
Concordance rather the relationship between the synoptic gospels.

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@...
• ... Of course, it reveals the decisions of the editors about the relationship between the synoptic gospels. The main question, however, is whether and to what
Message 16 of 27 , Dec 1 5:40 AM
View Source
At 08:31 AM 12/1/2001 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
>The more I look at the HHB categorization the more I wonder whether
>analysing the stats reveals the decisions of the editors of the
>Concordance rather the relationship between the synoptic gospels.

Of course, it reveals the decisions of the editors about the
relationship between the synoptic gospels. The main question,
however, is whether and to what extent the editors' judgment
is biased to a particular solution to the synoptic problem.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• I m sure they had to make some judgment calls. This difference between 112 and 002 is, after all, just a matter of degree. A paragraph by only Luke is 002, and
Message 17 of 27 , Dec 1 7:03 AM
View Source
I'm sure they had to make some judgment calls. This difference between 112
and 002 is, after all, just a matter of degree. A paragraph by only Luke is
002, and a word is 112. As you point out, a sentence may have been judged
differently. Assuming they were really different to begin with, this could
help to create a false positive. On the other hand, since almost everyone
thinks 002 and 112 reflect the same hand, this example does not concern me
that much.

To address the issue in general, dirty data plagues every area of data
analysis, its almost never, "clean". If needed, the first step is often,
"data cleaning". If this project is taken to another phase, that may indeed
be the first step.

However, even if the categories are "rough" around the edges, that is the
minority of examples, not the bulk of them. The roughness may nudge the
results one way or the other, but, I don't think it can make large impacts.
The exception, so far, might be the triple tradition - Mark/Q overlap cases
you first mentioned. I think that does cloud the picture there, to some
extent. Although I'm beginning to believe what the analysis is telling me
there.

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

> A further thought on this. In the triple tradition pericope the
> Transfiguration, Mt 17.1-8, Mk 9.2-8, Lk 9.28-36, the material in Lk
> 9.34(b) -- "and they were afraid as they entered the cloud" -- is found
> in neither Matthew nor Mark and yet each word is categorized 112 in the
> HHB Concordance as though the material has parallel passages in Mt and
> Mk. On the other hand, in the triple tradition pericope the Desolating
> Sacrilege, Mt 24.15-22, Mk 13.14-20, Lk 21.20-24, the words of Lk 21.22
> -- "for these are days of vengeance, to fulfil all that is written" --
> are similarly found in neither Mt nor Mk and are entered as 002, as
> though the material has no parallel passages in Mt or Mk. This seems to
> be inconsistent. Surely such inconsistencies are going to provide false
> pointers when categories such as 112 and 002 are used to try and
> determine the relationship between the synoptic gospels.
>
> The more I look at the HHB categorization the more I wonder whether
> analysing the stats reveals the decisions of the editors of the
> Concordance rather the relationship between the synoptic gospels.
>
> Best wishes,
> BRIAN WILSON

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• Dave, What surprises me about this whole discussion is that you have been trying to make sense of a set of results which represents a small proportion of the
Message 18 of 27 , Dec 2 2:43 AM
View Source
Dave,
trying to make sense of a set of results which represents a small
proportion of the published data, and apparently (unless I've missed
something) without any attempt to check for overall consistency.
Before attempting to explain individual positive and negative
correlations, I would like to see a consistency check along the
following lines.
Divide the words up into three or four groups by first letter, e.g.
A-D, E-K, L-P, R-W, then carry out the analysis on each group, then
compare the correlations. Any disagreements among the correlations might
suggest there is something wrong with the method or with our implicit
generalization from a subset of the data. If they were all in agreement,
then we really would feel obliged to try hard to explain them.
If the whole alphabet is too much to tackle, carry out this procedure
with a subset of the alphabet divided into groups.

Ron Price

Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

e-mail: ron.price@...

Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• Hello Ron, Thanks for the suggestion. I was planning to do exactly that, once I got the next batch of data entered. I m not sure how soon that will be. Dave
Message 19 of 27 , Dec 2 3:00 AM
View Source
Hello Ron,

Thanks for the suggestion. I was planning to do exactly that, once I got
the next
batch of data entered. I'm not sure how soon that will be.

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

> Dave,
> trying to make sense of a set of results which represents a small
> proportion of the published data, and apparently (unless I've missed
> something) without any attempt to check for overall consistency.
> Before attempting to explain individual positive and negative
> correlations, I would like to see a consistency check along the
> following lines.
> Divide the words up into three or four groups by first letter, e.g.
> A-D, E-K, L-P, R-W, then carry out the analysis on each group, then
> compare the correlations. Any disagreements among the correlations might
> suggest there is something wrong with the method or with our implicit
> generalization from a subset of the data. If they were all in agreement,
> then we really would feel obliged to try hard to explain them.
> If the whole alphabet is too much to tackle, carry out this procedure
> with a subset of the alphabet divided into groups.
>
> Ron Price
>

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• ... In this regard, it occurs to me that the 95% level of assessing significance is far too generous. 95% implies that one in twenty may be wrong, but in our
Message 20 of 27 , Dec 2 7:29 AM
View Source
At 10:43 AM 12/2/2001 +0000, Ron Price wrote:
>trying to make sense of a set of results which represents a small
>proportion of the published data, and apparently (unless I've missed
>something) without any attempt to check for overall consistency.

In this regard, it occurs to me that the 95% level of assessing
significance is far too generous. 95% implies that one in twenty
may be wrong, but in our data set we have 19 total sections (222
through 002) for a total of 171 different pair-wise comparisons
(19*18/2). If 1 in 20 is wrong (inherent in the 95% level), then
about 9 of the "significant" correlations are really just to due
to random chance.

This is why in such analyses textbooks recommend using P < 0.05/C,
which, in this case, works out to P < 0.0003. Thus, only those
correlations at that level should be considered significant. And
any attempts to build a theory should only be concerned with
those correlations.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• Hello again, I agree 95% is very generous. I used that in reporting Delta because there was little data. With Alpha-Delta I reported 99%. (And lost one
Message 21 of 27 , Dec 2 9:28 AM
View Source
Hello again,

I agree 95% is very generous. I used that in reporting "Delta" because there
was little data.
With "Alpha-Delta" I reported 99%. (And lost one correlation that showed up
in the "Delta-only" test.)

I think P < 0.0003 might be a bit too restrictive at the moment. If I'm not
mistaken, that would be what we want, if we want to be 95% sure that ALL of
them are real.

Actually, I'm looking at the confidence of each one in interpreting it. The
most information is gained by reporting each one with its confidence level,
then you know which ones to look at more closely. At 99% I expect 1 or 2 to
be false, but probably only 1 since a lot are well above 99%. My candidate
for that is 012 with 210.

Most of the controversial ones were at high levels.
222 - 202 > 99.99%
200 - 202 > 99.99%
122 - 112 > 99.9%

Again, I'm glad you understand the results.

Thanks,

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
- Sherlock Holmes,
in The Sign of Four, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

"Why sometimes I've believed as many as
six impossible things before breakfast."
- The Red Queen,
in Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>
To: "Synoptic-L" <Synoptic-L@...>
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Some numerical results

> At 10:43 AM 12/2/2001 +0000, Ron Price wrote:
> >trying to make sense of a set of results which represents a small
> >proportion of the published data, and apparently (unless I've missed
> >something) without any attempt to check for overall consistency.
>
> In this regard, it occurs to me that the 95% level of assessing
> significance is far too generous. 95% implies that one in twenty
> may be wrong, but in our data set we have 19 total sections (222
> through 002) for a total of 171 different pair-wise comparisons
> (19*18/2). If 1 in 20 is wrong (inherent in the 95% level), then
> about 9 of the "significant" correlations are really just to due
> to random chance.
>
> This is why in such analyses textbooks recommend using P < 0.05/C,
> which, in this case, works out to P < 0.0003. Thus, only those
> correlations at that level should be considered significant. And
> any attempts to build a theory should only be concerned with
> those correlations.
>
> Stephen Carlson
> --
> Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
> "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
>
>
> Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
> List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Stephen Carlson replied -- ... Stephen, But the aim of the game is to discover the relationship between the synoptic gospels, not the
Message 22 of 27 , Dec 2 10:07 AM
View Source
Brian Wilson wrote --
>
>The more I look at the HHB categorization the more I wonder whether
>analysing the stats reveals the decisions of the editors of the
>Concordance rather than the relationship between the synoptic gospels.
>
Stephen Carlson replied --
>
>Of course, it reveals the decisions of the editors about the
>relationship between the synoptic gospels.
>
Stephen,
But the aim of the game is to discover the relationship between
the synoptic gospels, not the editors' decisions.

I would suggest that a computer could be programmed to categorize every
word of the synoptic gospels into 222, 221, 220, and so on, without
assuming the Two Document Hypothesis (as do the editors of the HHB
Concordance), or any other supposed documentary relationship between the
synoptic gospels. The program might be designed first to search for
strings of words in one synoptic gospel containing at least a stated
number of words (or word-roots) in the same order as strings of words of
the same size in another synoptic gospel. This could be extended to find
similarities of wording in the same order in all three synoptic gospels
within stated parameters. The program would establish triple parallel,
double parallel, and Sondergut pieces of material. The size of each unit
of triple, double, or special, could be, say, at least 8 word-roots in
the same order, though of course a triple, double or special could be
longer than this minimum. Whatever minimum size is laid down would be
arbitrary, but at least the procedure using it would be independent of
any assumed documentary hypothesis. On this basis, the categorization
into 222, 221, 220 and so on could be carried out without making any
assumptions of the documentary relationship between the synoptic
gospels. 222 would represent a word-root present in each synoptic gospel
in a computer-generated triple parallel, and so on. This would give
"clean data", to use Dave Gentile's terminology. It would produce
results that would not be dependent on the decisions of the editors of
the HHB Concordance. I think that ideally this is where the analysis
might have started.
>
>The main question, however, is whether and to what extent the editors'
>judgment is biased to a particular solution to the synoptic problem.
>
I agree. That is one question I have been asking. The other question I
have been raising is to what extent the editors' have applied their
criteria inconsistently.

What is really needed is computer-produced data that is not dependent on
any synoptic documentary hypothesis and that applies criteria
consistently. The HHB Concordance does not provide such data.

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@...
• ... If you (or anyone else) could produce such a computer program, I d be very impressed. However, one cannot even identify a parallel without supposing some
Message 23 of 27 , Dec 2 11:21 AM
View Source
At 06:07 PM 12/2/2001 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
>I would suggest that a computer could be programmed to categorize every
>word of the synoptic gospels into 222, 221, 220, and so on, without
>assuming the Two Document Hypothesis (as do the editors of the HHB
>Concordance), or any other supposed documentary relationship between the
>synoptic gospels.

If you (or anyone else) could produce such a computer program,
I'd be very impressed. However, one cannot even identify a parallel
without supposing some documentary relationship between the synoptic
gospels. For example, the decision to identify Mark's healing of
the paralytic as a parallel to Matthew's healing of the paralytic --
but not to Matthew's genealogy -- supposes that there is a documentary
relationship with the former but not the latter. Of course, most
decisions about parallelization will not be controversial, but
they will be for not only for the so-called Mark-Q overlap texts and
for doublets in one gospel where there is only one instance in the
others (which of the two in the doublet is "the" parallel?). Even
in noncontroversial parallels, there is discretion in deciding which
of two KAIs in Mark correspond to the one KAI in Matthew. Frankly,
I doubt it can be done objectively, because the theories and hypotheses
we hold influence our perception of the data. This extends to the
programmer of the computer as well.

>>The main question, however, is whether and to what extent the editors'
>>judgment is biased to a particular solution to the synoptic problem.
>>
>I agree. That is one question I have been asking. The other question I
>have been raising is to what extent the editors' have applied their
>criteria inconsistently.

The editors admit their bias on the Mark-Q overlaps, but does that
bias extend to other portions? You've pointed out some inconsistencies,
but unless one can show they somehow favor the 2ST, it may be better
to attribute the inconsistencies to noise rather than bias.

>What is really needed is computer-produced data that is not dependent on
>any synoptic documentary hypothesis and that applies criteria
>consistently.

I'm not holding my breath. Perhaps a better approach is to ask
the proponents of the various solutions to produce their own
"partisan" synopses and concordances that sets forth the data
in such a manner that renders their solution in the most favorable
light. Then we can compare them to see how well they handle the
data. Maybe Dungan was right after all that there is no neutral
synopsis.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Stephen Carlson replied -- ... Stephen, I do not understand your argument here. The occurrence of parallels between Mark s healing of
Message 24 of 27 , Dec 3 3:10 AM
View Source
Brian Wilson wrote --
>
>I would suggest that a computer could be programmed to categorize every
>word of the synoptic gospels into 222, 221, 220, and so on, without
>assuming the Two Document Hypothesis (as do the editors of the HHB
>Concordance), or any other supposed documentary relationship between
>the synoptic gospels. The program might be designed first to search for
>strings of words in one synoptic gospel containing at least a stated
>number of words (or word-roots) in the same order as strings of words
>of the same size in another synoptic gospel. This could be extended to
>find similarities of wording in the same order in all three synoptic
>gospels within stated parameters. The program would establish triple
>parallel, double parallel, and Sondergut pieces of material. The size
>of each unit of triple, double, or special, could be, say, at least 8
>word-roots in the same order, though of course a triple, double or
>special could be longer than this minimum. Whatever minimum size is
>laid down would be arbitrary, but at least the procedure using it would
>be independent of any assumed documentary hypothesis. On this basis,
>the categorization into 222, 221, 220 and so on could be carried out
>without making any assumptions of the documentary relationship between
>the synoptic gospels. 222 would represent a word-root present in each
>synoptic gospel in a computer-generated triple parallel, and so on.
>
Stephen Carlson replied --
>
>If you (or anyone else) could produce such a computer program,
>I'd be very impressed. However, one cannot even identify a parallel
>without supposing some documentary relationship between the synoptic
>gospels. For example, the decision to identify Mark's healing of
>the paralytic as a parallel to Matthew's healing of the paralytic --
>but not to Matthew's genealogy -- supposes that there is a documentary
>relationship with the former but not the latter.
>
Stephen,
I do not understand your argument here. The occurrence of
parallels between Mark's healing of the paralytic and Matthew's healing
of the paralytic but not between Matthew's healing of the paralytic and
his Genealogy, is precisely the sort of result such a computer program
would produce without assuming a documentary hypothesis such as the 2DH,
FH or GH. There are many instances of strings of, say, no more than 20
words in the Markan healing that contain at least 8 word-roots the same,
and in the same order, in a string of no more than 20 words in the
Matthean healing. On the other hand, there is no string of no more than
20 words in the Matthaean healing that contains at least 8 word-roots
the same and in the same order in a corresponding string of no more than
20 words in the Genealogy in Matthew. The criterion would establish that
the two healing stories include parallels in the sense of having many
word roots the same and in the same order within strings of specified
lengths, but that the Matthaean healing and the Genealogy in Matthew do
not include parallels in this sense. It would be easy to set up a
computer program to show this.

Indeed, we could carry out such a check by hand, without using a
computer program to spot parallels. I have just done this. There are no
pairs of strings that meet the criteria above between the healing of the
paralytic in Mt and the Genealogy in Mt. However, the following string
of 20 words is found in the Matthaean healing of the paralytic --

KAI IDWN O IHSOUJ THN PISTIN AUTWN EIPEN TW PARALUTIKW QARSEI TEKNON
AFIENTAI SOU AI AMARTIAI KAI IDOU TINEJ TWN

And it has 17 word roots the same and in the same order as the string of
words in the Markan healing of the paralytic --

KAI IDWN O IHSOUJ THN PISTIN AUTWN LEGEI TW PARALUTIKW TEKNON AFI/ENTAI
SOU AI AMARTIAI HSAN DE TINEJ TWN

Similarly, in the same two passages, the following are pairs of strings,
one string from each passage, of no more than 20 words each such that in
each pair there are at least 8 word roots the same and in the same order
as in a string of no more than 20 words the same and in the same order
in the other member of the pair --

EN TAIJ KARDIAIJ UMWN TI GAR ESTIN EUKOPWTERON EIPEIN AFIENTAI SOU AI
AMARTIAI H EIPEIN EGEIRE KAI

EN TAIJ KARDIAIJ UMWN TI ESTIN EUKOPWTERON EIPEI=N TW PARALUTIKW
AFI/ENTAI SOU AI AMARTIAI H EIPEIN EGEIRE KAI

===

PERIPATEI INA DE EIDHTE OTI ECOUSIAN EXEI O UIOJ TOU ANQRWPOU EPI THJ
GHJ AFIENAI AMARTIAJ TOTE LEGEI TW PARALUTIKW

PERIPATEI INA DE EIDHTE OTI ECOUSIAN EXEI O UIOJ TOU ANQRWPOU AFIENAI
AMARTIAJ EPI THJ GHJ LEGEI TW PARALUTIKW

===

EGERQEIJ ARON SOU THN KLINHN KAI UPAGE EIJ TON OIKON SOU KAI EGERQEIJ

EGEIRE ARON TON KRABATTON SOU KAI UPAGE EIJ TON OIKON SOU KAI HGERQH

===

Each of these strings is a pair of parallels between Mt and Mk, and many
words within these strings (after doing the same sort of comparison with
Lk) could be categorized 220, 221, and so on. These are by no means all
the parallels of this type that can be listed. These parallels, and
others, between Mt and Mk could have been spotted by a computer
systematically comparing every string of 20 words in Mt with every
string of 20 words in Mk, and looking for at least 8 word-roots the same
and in the same order in each pair of strings compared.

The point is that it is totally unnecessary to assume a synoptic
documentary hypothesis such as the 2DH, FH or GH, to establish that two
pieces of material, one in Mt and the other in Mk, are parallels, or
that two pieces of material in Mt are not parallels.

You also wrote --
>
>Maybe Dungan was right after all that there is no neutral synopsis.
>
I am sure he was right. The HHB Concordance, however, is not a synopsis,
and the question is whether such a Concordance can be produced without
assuming a documentary hypothesis such as the 2DH, FH or GH. The answer
is that it can.

In the same way, a colour-coded text showing similarities of wording
between the synoptic gospels, like W. R. Farmer's SYNOPTICON, is not a
synopsis. Such a colour-coded text of the synoptic gospels can be
constructed without assuming any particular solution to the synoptic
problem, and without using any synopsis.

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@...
• ... I see some different biases in an automatic process : - Brian pointed out that a gospel may be selected, and the priority of this gospel (typicallly :
Message 25 of 27 , Dec 4 3:46 AM
View Source
"Stephen C. Carlson" wrote :
>
> Brian E. Wilson wrote:
> >I would suggest that a computer could be programmed to categorize every
> >word of the synoptic gospels into 222, 221, 220, and so on, without
> >assuming the Two Document Hypothesis (as do the editors of the HHB
> >Concordance), or any other supposed documentary relationship between the
> >synoptic gospels.
>
> If you (or anyone else) could produce such a computer program,
> I'd be very impressed. However, one cannot even identify a parallel
> without supposing some documentary relationship between the synoptic
> gospels. [...] Even
> in noncontroversial parallels, there is discretion in deciding which
> of two KAIs in Mark correspond to the one KAI in Matthew. Frankly,
> I doubt it can be done objectively, because the theories and hypotheses
> we hold influence our perception of the data. This extends to the
> programmer of the computer as well.

I see some different biases in an automatic process :
- Brian pointed out that a gospel may be selected, and the priority
of this gospel (typicallly : Mark) is assumed, biasing the result.
In fact, in the treatment, the input gospels should be processed
with equity.
- Even if synoptic gospels are processed in equity, some a priori
may influence the result. I mean particularly to the pattern
of redaction process that will be seen as most probable : a
first small document that is step by step increased, or a large
first document that as been cut toward our gospel. the balance
between deletion and completion in synoptic process is a global
a priori in synoptic study.
- Then, an automatic process would hardly integrate all the other
information, particularly the links between Luke and John.

> >What is really needed is computer-produced data that is not dependent on
> >any synoptic documentary hypothesis and that applies criteria
> >consistently.
>
> I'm not holding my breath. Perhaps a better approach is to ask
> the proponents of the various solutions to produce their own
> "partisan" synopses and concordances that sets forth the data
> in such a manner that renders their solution in the most favorable
> light. Then we can compare them to see how well they handle the
> data. Maybe Dungan was right after all that there is no neutral
> synopsis.

Are there any referenced biases in Boismard's Synopse ?
Do you know about a comparison of different existing synopses ?

a+
manu

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• ... Dave, did you actually mean: why does 221 look like both 121 and 211, but 122 look only like 121 and not 112 , or have I actually got the wrong data? In
Message 26 of 27 , Dec 19 10:54 PM
View Source
Way back on Dec 1 Dave Gentile wrote:

> But perhaps the real question is, why does
> 122 look like both 121 and 112, but 221 look only like 121 and not 211?

Dave, did you actually mean: "why does 221 look like both 121 and 211, but
122 look only like 121 and not 112", or have I actually got the wrong data?
In any case, have you decided why?

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@...
• Hi Dave, The case reversed itself with more data. It was 121 - 122 now its 121 - 221 . These appear to be redactor effects / chance , they vanish in the macro
Message 27 of 27 , Dec 20 3:37 AM
View Source
Hi Dave,

The case reversed itself with more data. It was 121 - 122 now its 121 - 221
. These appear to be redactor effects / chance , they vanish in the macro
categories.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Inglis" <david@...>
To: <Synoptic-L@...>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Some numerical results

> Way back on Dec 1 Dave Gentile wrote:
>
> > But perhaps the real question is, why does
> > 122 look like both 121 and 112, but 221 look only like 121 and not 211?
>
> Dave, did you actually mean: "why does 221 look like both 121 and 211, but
> 122 look only like 121 and not 112", or have I actually got the wrong
data?
> In any case, have you decided why?
>
> Dave Inglis

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.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.