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

RE: [Synoptic-L] More on Mark

Expand Messages
  • Gentile, David
    Thanks. I will take a more in depth look. I am interested in Bayesian probability, and I noticed you incorporated that. It is reassuring that, at a minimum,
    Message 1 of 9 , Feb 22, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks. I will take a more in depth look. I am interested in Bayesian
      probability, and I noticed you incorporated that.



      It is reassuring that, at a minimum, the results are not contradictory
      to mine.





      Dave Gentile

      Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician

      EMC Captiva

      EMC Corporation

      601 Oakmont Lane,

      Westmont, IL 60559

      P: 630-321-2985

      F: 630-654-1607

      E: Gentile_Dave@...

      ________________________________

      From: Andris Abakuks [mailto:a.abakuks@...]
      Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:08 AM
      To: Gentile, David
      Cc: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] More on Mark



      Dear Dave and anyone else who may be interested



      I have just had the following paper published:

      A statistical study of the triple-link model in the synoptic problem

      Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 169, 49-60 (2006).



      If anyone is interested, a pdf version is available from my web-page
      www.ems.bbk.ac.uk/faculty/abakuks





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dave
      Hello again, I took a closer look at what you did. In your conclution you say Consequently, when comparing the ratios, two issues are confounded: the extent
      Message 2 of 9 , Feb 22, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello again,

        I took a closer look at what you did.

        In your conclution you say

        "Consequently, when comparing the ratios,
        two issues are confounded: the extent to which any underlying
        synoptic model is valid and the
        extent to which the independence assumptions hold."

        And I agree that makes any interpretation of the first part
        problematic. Then you have two inequalities (8) and (9)

        x > y > z
        and
        x > Z > y

        and consider both of them. There too, I agree. The only thing I
        would expect a priori is that x would be the largest. I wouldn't
        hold that any other result was impossible, but I would expect x to
        dominate, all else being equal. Then I note that x does dominate in
        all three datasets for Mk-Mt-Lk, which to me at least, lends a
        degree of support to that conclution.

        In comparing our two approches, one thing was immediately clear - we
        were working with a very different sets of inputs. My study used
        15,333 pieces of raw data, so much more information was put into the
        model.

        Thank you for presenting this,

        Dave Gentile
        Riverside, IL

        --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, Andris Abakuks <a.abakuks@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Dear Dave and anyone else who may be interested
        >
        > I have just had the following paper published:
        > A statistical study of the triple-link model in the synoptic
        problem
        > Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 169, 49-60
        (2006).
        >
        > If anyone is interested, a pdf version is available from my web-
        page
        > www.ems.bbk.ac.uk/faculty/abakuks
        >
        > The approach is totally different from Dave's, whose work I have
        only
        > glanced at briefly. My own work is based upon aspects of the
        following
        > paper.
        >
        > Honore, A. M. (1968) A statistical study of the synoptic problem.
        Novum
        > Testamentum, 10, 95-147.
        >
        > Incidentally, it took me some time to discover who A. M. Honore
        was. It
        > turns out that he was Regius Professor of Civil Law in the
        University
        > of Oxford from 1971 to 1988. He is still actively doing academic
        work.
        > The following is a fragment of an email that I received from him.
        I
        > thought that it might be an inspiration to us all.
        >
        > From: Tony Honore <tony.honore@...>
        > Date: 28 January 2006 11:32:43 GMT
        > To: Andris Abakuks <a.abakuks@...>
        > Subject: Re: synoptic problem
        >
        > Dear Andris Abakuks,
        >
        > Thank you very much for your email and for the paper you attached.
        I am
        > amazed (and delighted) that attention should still be paid to what
        I
        > wrote
        > nearly forty yars ago, especially as my expertise is in legal
        history,
        > legal
        > philosphy and South African trust law rather than New Testament
        > studies. But
        > I am still actively teaching and (to a limited extent) writing
        at age
        > 84.
        >
        > Andris Abakuks
        > School of Economics, Mathematics and Statistics
        > Birkbeck College
        > tel 020 7631 6436
        >
        > On 22 Feb 2006, at 00:46, Dave wrote:
        >
        > > Hello,
        > >    I have a statistical study of the synoptic gospels here.
        > > http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/main.html
        > > For me at least, that study combined with other scholarship
        rules
        > > out anything other than Markian priority. (or something very
        close
        > > to Mark ).
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • John C. Poirier
        ... Andris, I read your paper with great interest, particularly because I have written a paper that critiques statistical studies of the synoptic problem
        Message 3 of 9 , Feb 22, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Andris Abakuks wrote:

          > I have just had the following paper published:
          > A statistical study of the triple-link model in the synoptic problem
          > Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 169, 49-60 (2006).

          Andris,

          I read your paper with great interest, particularly because I have written a
          paper that critiques statistical studies of the synoptic problem
          (specifically, those of Rosché; Carlston/Norlin; O'Rourke; Mattila; Honoré;
          de Solages; Morgenthaler; Tyson/Longstaff; Bergemann; Denaux; Kloppenborg
          Verbin; Tyson [II]; Ronning). My paper (which now runs to over 28,000
          words) is currently set to be the opening chapter in a book I have written
          on the synoptic verbal agreements, and which I am now trying to get
          published. As the book manuscript is very long, however, I might end up
          publishing the paper separately in order to meet the publisher's budget
          concerns.

          I would be happy to send my paper to you or to anyone interested in reading
          it. I would like to hear feedback, if at all possible. (It's a little out
          of date: it doesn't discuss McIver and Carroll [or my own response to them],
          and naturally I now need to add a discussion of your paper.)

          John C. Poirier
          Middletown, Ohio
        • Bob Schacht
          ... John, This is a Yahoo Group, and there is file space available-- no files are currently posted. With the list owner s permission, perhaps you could post
          Message 4 of 9 , Feb 22, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            At 11:10 AM 2/22/2006, John C. Poirier wrote:
            >Andris Abakuks wrote:
            >
            > > I have just had the following paper published:
            > > A statistical study of the triple-link model in the synoptic problem
            > > Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 169, 49-60 (2006).
            >
            >Andris,
            >
            >I read your paper with great interest, particularly because I have written a
            >paper that critiques statistical studies of the synoptic problem
            >(specifically, those of Rosché; Carlston/Norlin; O'Rourke; Mattila; Honoré;
            >de Solages; Morgenthaler; Tyson/Longstaff; Bergemann; Denaux; Kloppenborg
            >Verbin; Tyson [II]; Ronning). My paper (which now runs to over 28,000
            >words) is currently set to be the opening chapter in a book I have written
            >on the synoptic verbal agreements, and which I am now trying to get
            >published. As the book manuscript is very long, however, I might end up
            >publishing the paper separately in order to meet the publisher's budget
            >concerns.
            >
            >I would be happy to send my paper to you or to anyone interested in reading
            >it. I would like to hear feedback, if at all possible. (It's a little out
            >of date: it doesn't discuss McIver and Carroll [or my own response to them],
            >and naturally I now need to add a discussion of your paper.)

            John,
            This is a Yahoo Group, and there is file space available-- no files are
            currently posted. With the list owner's permission, perhaps you could post
            your paper in this list's filespace?

            Bob

            Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
            University of Hawaii
            Honolulu, HI

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Andris Abakuks
            Dear John Thank you very much for your interest and your reply. I should be very interested to have a copy of your paper either in electronic or paper form.
            Message 5 of 9 , Feb 23, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear John

              Thank you very much for your interest and your reply.

              I should be very interested to have a copy of your paper either in
              electronic or paper form. Apart from anything else, it clearly contains
              references to work that I was not aware of. Whether I would be able to
              offer helpful feedback is a different matter.

              By the way, I would not want to claim too much for statistical studies,
              though they may help to illuminate some aspects of the synoptic
              problem. My main concern in my own paper is that, if statistical
              studies are to be done at all, they should be done in ways that are
              methodologically sound.

              Andris Abakuks
              School of Economics, Mathematics and Statistics
              Birkbeck College
              tel 020 7631 6436

              On 22 Feb 2006, at 21:10, John C. Poirier wrote:

              > Andris Abakuks wrote:
              >
              > > I have just had the following paper published:
              > > A statistical study  of the triple-link model in the synoptic
              > problem
              > > Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,  Series A, 169, 49-60
              > (2006).
              >
              > Andris,
              >
              > I read your paper with great interest, particularly because I have
              > written a
              > paper that critiques statistical studies of the synoptic problem
              > (specifically, those of Rosché; Carlston/Norlin; O'Rourke; Mattila;
              > Honoré;
              > de Solages; Morgenthaler; Tyson/Longstaff; Bergemann; Denaux;
              > Kloppenborg
              > Verbin; Tyson [II]; Ronning).  My paper (which now runs to over 28,000
              > words) is currently set to be the opening chapter in a book I have
              > written
              > on the synoptic verbal agreements, and which I am now trying to get
              > published.  As the book manuscript is very long, however, I might end
              > up
              > publishing the paper separately in order to meet the publisher's
              > budget
              > concerns.
              >
              > I would be happy to send my paper to you or to anyone interested in
              > reading
              > it.  I would like to hear feedback, if at all possible.  (It's a
              > little out
              > of date: it doesn't discuss McIver and Carroll [or my own response to
              > them],
              > and naturally I now need to add a discussion of your paper.)
              >
              > John C. Poirier
              > Middletown, Ohio
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-l
              >
              >
              >
              > SPONSORED LINKS
              > Bible study library
              > Bible study
              > Bible study tool
              > Christian bible study
              > Online bible study
              > Bible study lesson
              >
              > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
              >
              > ▪  Visit your group "Synoptic" on the web.
              >  
              > ▪  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              >  Synoptic-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >  
              > ▪  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              > Service.
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.