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

Re: Fw: [Synoptic-L] Some numerical results

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    Thanks for the further clarifications and explanations. If I may come back with further perhaps misguided questions as I try to get my mind around this: ...
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 1, 2001
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for the further clarifications and explanations. If I may
      come back with further perhaps misguided questions as I try to get my
      mind around this:

      I wrote:

      > > 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?

      Dave replied:

      > > *****Well, remember that we are already adjusting for general
      > > frequency, so we're looking for different tendencies.

      Sure, I understand that, but what I am trying to get my head round is
      the fact that 221 and 222 (to stick to this example) by definition
      are very similar types of material and so, by definition, will end up
      producing similar results. We are talking here about words that are
      Matthew // Mark // Luke and words that are Matthew // Mark, diff.
      Luke. The common element in both is Matthew // Mark. Before we have
      even asked the question about authorship, traditions, etc., we would
      expect the similar profile of the section to produce a similar
      profile of results, wouldn't we? If not, can you explain to me why
      not?

      Dave wrote:

      > > Let's look at 121 221 and 211.
      > > Let's say we have 3 different hypotheses.
      > > A) Mark copied Matthew
      > > B) Matthew copied Mark
      > > C) They both copied a common source.
      > >
      > > What would we expect to see?
      > >
      > > If B is true then 121 and 221 are just different samples of the same
      > > original text. Both were written by Mark. They should look the same.
      > > but 211 represents words that Matthew choose, we would expect it to
      > > look different.

      This gets to my main concern with the project as you are currently
      expressing it. The move from correlations / anti-correlations
      between material to source-critical inferences is a bit too quick for
      me -- I'd like to see the assumptions behind the source critical
      inferences clearly spelled out. For example here, for the sake of
      argument, would we necessarily expect 121 and 221 to "look the same"?
      They are clearly not "just different samples of the same original
      text" in the sense of random samples. 221 is constituted by words
      that are Matthew // Mark, diff. Luke and 121 are words at are
      constituted by Matthew, diff. Mark, diff. Luke. The 221 words, on
      the assumption of Markan Priority, are the words Matthew finds
      congenial in Mark; the 121 words are the words both Matthew and Luke
      find uncongenial. In other words, it wouldn't necessarily be
      surprising to see a difference there. As it happens, they come out
      similarly, but I don't find that particularly striking because it's
      not necessarily what I would have expected. What I am interested to
      know is, how can you be so confident in your expectation of what
      Matthew's use of Mark would produce? I don't know that I would have
      the same expectation. [This example has the advantage of being
      uncontroversial to the extent that I accept Markan Priority so
      there's no worry I'm grinding an axe in disputing your expectation.]

      > > If A were true, we'd expect the opposite.

      Again, could you explain why we'd expect that?

      Dave had written:

      > > > 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 asked:

      > > 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.

      Dave replied:

      > > **** Doesn't that imply at least one source?
      > > That was my point.

      It comes down again to the question of expectations. The point I am
      trying to make is: how do we know what the expectation should be
      when comparing 211 (Matthew, diff. Mark, diff. Luke) to 200 (Matthean
      Sondergut)? Let's say they differ: would that necessarily mean that
      "Matthew was copying another source in one place, and creating on his
      own in another"? No, not at all: this is one possible explanation
      of the difference, but another would be that he treated different
      source material in different ways (e.g. one might assume that M was
      largely oral so was treated differently from Mark, or one might
      assume that he liked M more than Mark, vice versa, etc. etc.). Once
      again, I am struck by your confidence in inferring source-critical
      conclusions from results that might be explained in other ways.

      I had written:

      > > 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.

      Dave replied:

      > > **** I don't think this is directly related to the question.

      I was attempting again to draw attention to possible different
      explanations for anti-correlations in the different types of
      material. The anti-correlations will not necessarily be because of
      different authorship but may be because of different attitudes to
      source material depending on that material's origin, genre,
      theological and literary character etc.

      Dave had written:

      > > 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.

      I commented:

      > 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.

      Dave replied:

      > ****Let's say "hat" is a Luke-pleasing word. Luke would use it in text he
      > wrote himself. (002) He likes to use it 10% of the time.
      > But Mark's text only has "hat" 1% of the time.
      >
      > If he alters Mark's text he can make 112 look like 002.
      > He can't make 122 look like 002.

      On sentence one, without wanting to be pernickety, we don't know that
      002 are texts that Luke wrote himself; so in this hypothetical
      example, L might have liked the word "hat" very much and Luke's 10
      per cent usage might be because of Luke's conservative treatment of L
      (cf., for example Paffenroth's or Schurmann's views on L). But that
      aside, whenever Luke takes over a word from Mark, i.e. in 122 and 222
      material, Luke influences the way that the 122 and the 222 material
      is constituted. Thus Mark overall (122, 221, 222, 020, 121 etc.)
      might have "hat" one per cent of the time but when Luke takes over
      all those usages of "hat", it forms a much higher proportion of the
      122 and 222 material, perhaps 10 per cent of that material. And that
      proportion of Luke-pleasing references to "hat" might be similar to
      the proportion Luke actually introduces into other material he
      authored, 112, 002 and the like, especially if Luke felt that there
      were proportionally a good number of hats already present in 122 and
      222.

      As I say, some of these questions may be off the mark -- this
      statistical stuff
      is far from my area of expertise but it captures my interest so
      please forgive any dumbness here.

      Thanks
      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@...
    • David Gentile
      ... Would I have expected 222 and 221 to look a lot alike? Yes. That 222 looks nothing like expected is the one result I found very surprising. I sort of
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 1, 2001
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > Sure, I understand that, but what I am trying to get my head round is
        > the fact that 221 and 222 (to stick to this example) by definition
        > are very similar types of material and so, by definition, will end up
        > producing similar results. We are talking here about words that are
        > Matthew // Mark // Luke and words that are Matthew // Mark, diff.
        > Luke. The common element in both is Matthew // Mark. Before we have
        > even asked the question about authorship, traditions, etc., we would
        > expect the similar profile of the section to produce a similar
        > profile of results, wouldn't we? If not, can you explain to me why
        > not?
        >

        Would I have expected 222 and 221 to look a lot alike? Yes.
        That 222 looks nothing like expected is the one result I found very
        surprising.
        I sort of expected evidence of a proto-Mt and a proto-Mk/Lk, but I did not
        expect 222 to behave as it does. On a Markian or Matthian priority
        hypothesis
        222 and 221 should be almost the same. But if Luke wrote first, then 221
        could
        be text altered by Mark and the copied by Matthew from Mark. In that case
        I would probably see an anti-correlation between 222 and 221.
        112 would look like 222.

        I think the real structure must be more complicated, to produce the result
        seen.


        >
        > This gets to my main concern with the project as you are currently
        > expressing it. The move from correlations / anti-correlations
        > between material to source-critical inferences is a bit too quick for
        > me -- I'd like to see the assumptions behind the source critical
        > inferences clearly spelled out. For example here, for the sake of
        > argument, would we necessarily expect 121 and 221 to "look the same"?
        > They are clearly not "just different samples of the same original
        > text" in the sense of random samples. 221 is constituted by words
        > that are Matthew // Mark, diff. Luke and 121 are words at are
        > constituted by Matthew, diff. Mark, diff. Luke. The 221 words, on
        > the assumption of Markan Priority, are the words Matthew finds
        > congenial in Mark; the 121 words are the words both Matthew and Luke
        > find uncongenial. In other words, it wouldn't necessarily be
        > surprising to see a difference there. As it happens, they come out
        > similarly, but I don't find that particularly striking because it's
        > not necessarily what I would have expected. What I am interested to
        > know is, how can you be so confident in your expectation of what
        > Matthew's use of Mark would produce? I don't know that I would have
        > the same expectation. [This example has the advantage of being
        > uncontroversial to the extent that I accept Markan Priority so
        > there's no worry I'm grinding an axe in disputing your expectation.]

        Matthew could certainly cause 221 to move away from 121, by the method you
        describe. In fact, since 121 looks a lot more like 120 than 121 looks like
        221,
        I suspect something like what you describe. However, lets say Mark never
        uses the word "above" (he likes "over", "overhead", or something else),
        221 and 121 will never have the word "above", nothing Matthew can do
        can change that. If "above" is a common word, the lack of it in 221 an 121
        will make them tend to correlate, and Matthew can not change that.

        >
        > It comes down again to the question of expectations. The point I am
        > trying to make is: how do we know what the expectation should be
        > when comparing 211 (Matthew, diff. Mark, diff. Luke) to 200 (Matthean
        > Sondergut)? Let's say they differ: would that necessarily mean that
        > "Matthew was copying another source in one place, and creating on his
        > own in another"? No, not at all: this is one possible explanation
        > of the difference, but another would be that he treated different
        > source material in different ways (e.g. one might assume that M was
        > largely oral so was treated differently from Mark, or one might
        > assume that he liked M more than Mark, vice versa, etc. etc.). Once
        > again, I am struck by your confidence in inferring source-critical
        > conclusions from results that might be explained in other ways.

        Yes, 211 being the result of one Mathian source and 200 being the result of
        another is certainly possible. My only point here was that a Matthian
        priority
        hypothesis has a problem with this.


        > Dave had written:
        >
        > > > 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.
        >
        > I commented:
        >
        > > 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.
        >
        > Dave replied:
        >
        > > ****Let's say "hat" is a Luke-pleasing word. Luke would use it in text
        he
        > > wrote himself. (002) He likes to use it 10% of the time.
        > > But Mark's text only has "hat" 1% of the time.
        > >
        > > If he alters Mark's text he can make 112 look like 002.
        > > He can't make 122 look like 002.
        >
        > On sentence one, without wanting to be pernickety, we don't know that
        > 002 are texts that Luke wrote himself; so in this hypothetical
        > example, L might have liked the word "hat" very much and Luke's 10
        > per cent usage might be because of Luke's conservative treatment of L
        > (cf., for example Paffenroth's or Schurmann's views on L). But that
        > aside, whenever Luke takes over a word from Mark, i.e. in 122 and 222
        > material, Luke influences the way that the 122 and the 222 material
        > is constituted. Thus Mark overall (122, 221, 222, 020, 121 etc.)
        > might have "hat" one per cent of the time but when Luke takes over
        > all those usages of "hat", it forms a much higher proportion of the
        > 122 and 222 material, perhaps 10 per cent of that material. And that
        > proportion of Luke-pleasing references to "hat" might be similar to
        > the proportion Luke actually introduces into other material he
        > authored, 112, 002 and the like, especially if Luke felt that there
        > were proportionally a good number of hats already present in 122 and
        > 222.
        >

        If Luke uses Mark about half the time, and 122 and 121 have about
        the same number of words, then if Mark had 1% "hat", and Luke kept
        every "hat", then 122 will be 2% hat, and 121 will be 0% "hat".
        If Luke has 10% "hat", 122 still looks a lot more like 121, than 122 looks
        like 112 or 002.

        Let's go the other direction. Say Mark is 10% "cow". Luke hates cows. 122 is
        0% cow,
        002 is 0% cow, and 121 is now 20% cow. So, by removal of displeasing words,
        Luke
        seems to be able to make 122 more Luke-like.

        But these are not representative of the majority of words. Some words with a
        theological implication, we can understand Luke removing. But Luke is not
        going to be removing basic units of speech, with real determination.

        We know that Mark uses a smaller vocabulary. Luke can not make 122 look like
        it is sampled from a large vocabulary text.

        Still, you're right, Luke can exert influence. I just doubt it is enough to
        make
        122 look so very much like 112 and 002. It seems much simpler to think
        that 112 may sometimes reflect the same original source text 122 does.
        If 112 and 122 looking similiar does not indicate a common source,
        then it is hard to see what evidence could be used to indicate an
        older source.

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

        > As I say, some of these questions may be off the mark -- this
        > statistical stuff
        > is far from my area of expertise but it captures my interest so
        > please forgive any dumbness here.

        Well, I guess we're in the same boat, since we're both outside our area
        here. :o)
        But, these are good questions. All the study told us is that some things
        look alike
        and some look differant. It's now our job to figure out why.

        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@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.