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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Testing the 3ST

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 24 , Dec 15, 2007
      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 2 of 24 , Dec 15, 2007
        > 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 3 of 24 , Dec 15, 2007
          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 4 of 24 , Dec 15, 2007
            --- 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 5 of 24 , Dec 16, 2007
              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 6 of 24 , Dec 17, 2007
                >
                > > 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 7 of 24 , Dec 18, 2007
                  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.