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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 3 , Dec 1, 2001
    • 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.