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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Testing the 3ST

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.