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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Testing the 3ST

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic In Response To: Ron On: xQ From: Bruce RON: Somewhere along the line I obviously didn t make myself clear enough. My proposal is that the xQ
    Message 1 of 24 , Dec 15, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      In Response To: Ron
      On: xQ
      From: Bruce

      RON: Somewhere along the line I obviously didn't make myself clear enough.
      My proposal is that the xQ material (xQ is shorthand for ex-Q, i.e. taken
      out of Q) does *not* come from the logia, but originates with Matthew.

      BRUCE: Still not clear, and to me, still enigmatic terminologically. If xQ
      means "out of Q" (rather than out of the "logia") then how exactly can it
      "originate with Matthew?" Do we have an equation xQ = xM?

      This most recent comment might be construed as meaning that there is a Q
      somewhere in the 3ST. But that is evidently not the case; the non-Synoptic
      source in the 3ST is apparently supposed to overlap with Q as conventionally
      understood, but to be smaller (and also to include material NOT usually
      assigned to Q). I have gone again to the web page, and there I read:

      "On the previous page I proposed that the early collection of Jesus' sayings
      was roughly a subset of Q as normally understood, and labelled it "sQ",
      meaning '(pure) sayings-Q'. In this theory the author of Matthew's gospel
      (hereafter "Au_Matt") used two written sources: sQ and Mark, and the author
      of Luke's gospel (hereafter "Au_Luke") used three written sources: sQ, Mark
      and Matthew. I argued that Au_Luke took from Matthew some of the material
      usually allocated to Q. This included the following pericopae: Mt 3:7-12;
      4:1-11; 8:5-13; 11:2-19; 20-23; 25-27; 12:22-29,31-32; 43-45; 22:1-10;
      23:37-39; 24:45-51; 25:14-28,30. [1] The remaining double tradition material
      is assigned to sQ. "

      One way to understand this is to assume that sQ (the revised, smaller Q) +
      xQ (material formerly, but not in the 3ST, allocated to Q) = Q. That is, the
      conventional Q is being divided into Matthean original material and stuff
      that really IS in an outside written source. We might then gloss

      sQ = "still in Q"
      xQ = "taken out of Q; not in an outside source used by aMt"

      If this is correct, then as earlier suggested, I think other labels would be
      better; say A and M. "Q" is a letter which, at this hour of the day, is very
      hard to control, at least with the wider readership. The phrase "out of"
      also seems to be a problem; it does not always seem to have the meaning
      which a horse breeder would assign to it. It seems to be doing duty for "in"
      as well as "not in," which is perhaps unlikely to advance understanding. Why
      not pick another?

      Bruce
    • Ron Price
      ... Dave, Down to pericope or saying level there are I think 73 such blocks. ... I count 18 sub-blocks in xQ and 57 in sQ (thus indicating that only 2 blocks
      Message 2 of 24 , Dec 15, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Dave Gentile wrote:

        > I was thinking of blocks that would need to be defined by being
        > contiguous in both Matthew and Luke. These blocks could be a
        > pericope, or a single saying found in both Matthew and Luke, but in
        > a different context.

        Dave,

        Down to pericope or saying level there are I think 73 such blocks.

        > Those blocks are then assigned to sQ or xQ in whole or in part. The
        > resulting number of blocks in each sQ and zQ are what we would wish
        > to count, I belive (as well as determine their length).

        I count 18 sub-blocks in xQ and 57 in sQ (thus indicating that only 2 blocks
        were split between xQ and sQ). As for counting the length of each block in
        both Matthew and Luke, I could do the counts if and when you actually want
        to make use of the information.

        Ron Price

        Derbyshire, UK

        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
      • Dave Gentile
        ... Replying to my own post - We would also need the length of the blocks in sQ and xQ that are not in A and B. i.e the blocks which do not contain identical
        Message 3 of 24 , Dec 15, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          >
          > Thanks for the inventory. That is helpful. If we had total word
          > length for for each of the As, A1-A7, and for each of the Bs, B1-
          > B13, then we'd be ready to crunch a few numbers.

          Replying to my own post -

          We would also need the length of the blocks in sQ and xQ that are not
          in A and B. i.e the blocks which do not contain identical strings of
          at least 10 words.

          Dave Gentile
          Riverside IL
        • Dave Gentile
          No need to do all the word counting yet. I think we have enough information for a hand-waving approximate calculation. I have to take the cat to the vet, but
          Message 4 of 24 , Dec 15, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            No need to do all the word counting yet. I think we have enough
            information for a hand-waving approximate calculation.

            I have to take the cat to the vet, but I'll come back to this soon.

            Dave Gentile
            Riverside, IL



            --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:
            >
            > Dave Gentile wrote:
            >
            > > I was thinking of blocks that would need to be defined by being
            > > contiguous in both Matthew and Luke. These blocks could be a
            > > pericope, or a single saying found in both Matthew and Luke, but
            in
            > > a different context.
            >
            > Dave,
            >
            > Down to pericope or saying level there are I think 73 such blocks.
            >
            > > Those blocks are then assigned to sQ or xQ in whole or in part.
            The
            > > resulting number of blocks in each sQ and zQ are what we would
            wish
            > > to count, I belive (as well as determine their length).
            >
            > I count 18 sub-blocks in xQ and 57 in sQ (thus indicating that
            only 2 blocks
            > were split between xQ and sQ). As for counting the length of each
            block in
            > both Matthew and Luke, I could do the counts if and when you
            actually want
            > to make use of the information.
            >
            > Ron Price
            >
            > Derbyshire, UK
            >
            > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
            >
          • Ron Price
            ... RON: O.K. I see why you re confused. The hypothetical document Q never existed. *I* took the xQ material out of Q, and assigned it where it really
            Message 5 of 24 , Dec 15, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              > BRUCE: Still not clear, and to me, still enigmatic terminologically. If xQ
              > means "out of Q" (rather than out of the "logia") then how exactly can it
              > "originate with Matthew?" Do we have an equation xQ = xM?

              RON: O.K. I see why you're confused. The hypothetical document Q never
              existed. *I* took the xQ material out of Q, and assigned it where it really
              belonged, i.e. to Matthew.

              > BRUCE: This most recent comment might be construed as meaning that there is a
              > Q somewhere in the 3ST. But that is evidently not the case;

              RON: Indeed. Q is a figment of the imagination resulting from a simplistic
              analysis of the Double Tradition.

              > BRUCE: ..... the
              > conventional Q is being divided into Matthean original material and stuff
              > that really IS in an outside written source. We might then gloss
              >
              > sQ = "still in Q"
              > xQ = "taken out of Q; not in an outside source used by aMt"

              RON: Phew. I think we may be nearly there.

              > BRUCE: Why not pick another [label for the sayings source]?

              RON: I have already back-tracked on my use of the label "sQ", which I now
              retain only for a certain subset of the Double Tradition. However I can see
              the advantage of not using the letter "Q" at all in labels relating to a
              theory which dispenses with the document widely known as "Q". The difficulty
              is that most folk know about Q. It seemed easier to start by relating what
              is new in my proposal to what is known and what it replaces.

              Ron Price

              Derbyshire, UK

              Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
            • Dave Gentile
              O.K. - a back of the envelop calculation (or really some quick cutting and pasting with a spreadsheet) - xQ: 18 blocks 1770 words average length 98 words 1602
              Message 6 of 24 , Dec 15, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                O.K. - a back of the envelop calculation (or really some quick
                cutting and pasting with a spreadsheet) -

                xQ:

                18 blocks
                1770 words
                average length 98 words
                1602 possible 10 word agrements
                23 actual agreements
                1.5% point extimate of frequency
                Low end of 95th percentile credibility range = 1.03%
                High end = 2.03%

                sQ:
                57 blocks
                2381 words
                average length 42 words
                1881 possible 10 word agrements
                12 actual agreements
                0.69% point extimate of frequency
                Low end of 95th percentile credibility range = 0.41%
                High end = 1.03%

                The edges of the credibility ranges just touch but do not overlap.
                So there is something like a 2.5% chance that this is finding is due
                to random chance.

                Doing the actual word counts would add very little information to
                this picture, since the average block length seems to be quite
                adaquate for these purposes.

                Thus - we seem to have a signficant result. And so far, two
                suggested explinations for it.

                Dave Gentile
                Riverside, IL
              • Dave Gentile
                ... A correction to the quick calculation - I had the spreadsheet set for a 90th percentile confidence range, not 95th. I also needed to double the number I
                Message 7 of 24 , Dec 15, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Gentile" <gentile_dave@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > O.K. - a back of the envelop calculation (or really some quick
                  > cutting and pasting with a spreadsheet) -
                  >

                  A correction to the quick calculation - I had the spreadsheet set for
                  a 90th percentile confidence range, not 95th. I also needed to double
                  the number I gave, for another reason. As a result, there is more like
                  a 10% chance these numbers are just random chance (not 2.5% as
                  previously stated). Appologies for the error.

                  So the result seems significant at the 90th percentile, but just
                  barely. However, this (combined with Ron's other observations) still
                  suggests to me that sQ and xQ, by in large, are the result of two
                  different processes.

                  Dave Gentile
                  Riverside, IL
                • Ron Price
                  ... Dave, Thanks for your efforts, but you may need to find another envelope - should be plenty around at this time of year :-) ... Or another spreadsheet.
                  Message 8 of 24 , Dec 16, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dave Gentile wrote:

                    > O.K. - a back of the envelop calculation

                    Dave,

                    Thanks for your efforts, but you may need to find another envelope - should
                    be plenty around at this time of year :-)

                    > (or really some quick cutting and pasting with a spreadsheet) -

                    Or another spreadsheet.

                    > xQ:
                    >
                    > 18 blocks
                    > 1770 words
                    > average length 98 words
                    > 1602 possible 10 word agrements
                    > .......
                    > sQ:
                    > 57 blocks
                    > 2381 words
                    > average length 42 words
                    > 1881 possible 10 word agrements
                    > 12 actual agreements

                    Firstly, what I found was the set of strings common to Matthew and Luke
                    having *more than* ten contiguous words, i.e. 11+
                    Thus 1602 should be replaced by 1584 and 1881 by 1824.

                    Secondly you appear to be comparing apples and pears in the agreements. The
                    numbers 1584 and 1824 represent counts of the number of possible 11-word
                    strings (some of which will be overlapping). What I had counted were the
                    numbers and lengths of all the strings having more than ten words (none of
                    which overlap with each other by definition). The total number of words in
                    the xQ and sQ strings were 364 and 205 respectively. Therefore my actual
                    numbers of 11-word strings (some of which will overlap) are 364 - 10*23 =
                    134 and 205 - 10*12 = 85 respectively. So in xQ there are 134 contiguous
                    11-word strings out of a possible 1584, and in sQ there are 85 contiguous
                    11-word strings out of a possible 1824. (All this neglects the fact that the
                    blocks have different lengths, but I agree that the approximation that they
                    have equal lengths is unlikely to make much difference to the results.)

                    Ron Price

                    Derbyshire, UK

                    Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                  • Dave Gentile
                    ... 23 actual agreement ... Luke ... Dave: O.K. I ll change the calculation from 10+ to 11+. I d expect this is a small effect. ... agreements. The ... 11-word
                    Message 9 of 24 , Dec 17, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >
                      > > xQ:
                      > >
                      > > 18 blocks
                      > > 1770 words
                      > > average length 98 words
                      > > 1602 possible 10 word agrements
                      23 actual agreement

                      > > .......
                      > > sQ:
                      > > 57 blocks
                      > > 2381 words
                      > > average length 42 words
                      > > 1881 possible 10 word agrements
                      > > 12 actual agreements

                      Ron:
                      >
                      > Firstly, what I found was the set of strings common to Matthew and
                      Luke
                      > having *more than* ten contiguous words, i.e. 11+
                      > Thus 1602 should be replaced by 1584 and 1881 by 1824.
                      >

                      Dave:
                      O.K. I'll change the calculation from 10+ to 11+. I'd expect this is
                      a small effect.

                      Ron:
                      > Secondly you appear to be comparing apples and pears in the
                      agreements. The
                      > numbers 1584 and 1824 represent counts of the number of possible
                      11-word
                      > strings (some of which will be overlapping). What I had counted
                      were the
                      > numbers and lengths of all the strings having more than ten words
                      (none of
                      > which overlap with each other by definition).

                      Dave:
                      I had given that some thought. Counting that way seems to greatly
                      inflate the significance, and I don't think it is correct, although
                      granted I did not formulate a precise argument as to why it is
                      correct or not. Done the way you suggest, you get something like
                      99.999 percentile significance, which does not seem to be the right
                      order of magnitude for the numbers we're dealing with. Plus,
                      considering a few extreme cases leads to absurd looking conclusions.
                      So, without precise argument, I conclude we should not count that
                      way.

                      Rather, I would put it this way - there are 1824 places a string
                      could start, and 12 places one actually does start.

                      Then using the revised numbers, the finding is significant at the
                      89th percentile, just short of one typical arbitrary cut-off.
                      Regardless, it still adds something when combined with your other
                      arguments.

                      Here I should also note that I used a Bayesian credibility interval,
                      rather that a traditional confidence interval. They give nearly the
                      same result, although they say something subtly different. But in
                      this case if we are looking for that last 1%, the other method might
                      give results more to our liking, or it might be slightly worse.

                      Finally, one other potential problem - How was the "11+" criteria
                      selected? Was that the first number you tried, or did you try other
                      string length cutoffs first?

                      Dave Gentile
                      Riverside, IL
                    • Ron Price
                      ... Dave, Thanks for carrying out this investigation. ... Good question. I first tried 18+ and realized there were so few strings that the result was going to
                      Message 10 of 24 , Dec 18, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dave Gentile wrote:

                        > Then using the revised numbers, the finding is significant at the
                        > 89th percentile, just short of one typical arbitrary cut-off.
                        > Regardless, it still adds something when combined with your other
                        > arguments.

                        Dave,

                        Thanks for carrying out this investigation.

                        > Finally, one other potential problem - How was the "11+" criteria
                        > selected? Was that the first number you tried, or did you try other
                        > string length cutoffs first?

                        Good question. I first tried 18+ and realized there were so few strings that
                        the result was going to be too sensitive to the choice of cut-off. I wanted
                        to choose a cut-off which was significantly lower than 18+, yet not so low
                        as to necessitate too much effort (my procedure being part computerized and
                        part manual). It also had to be not too near 14 as I had already observed an
                        apparently more-than-average number of strings of this length with known
                        assignment, and didn't want the result to be biased. I had also by this
                        stage determined to use a single computer run, for which (as it happens) an
                        odd number cut-off was more 'efficient'. Hence the 11+.

                        Ron Price

                        Derbyshire, UK

                        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.