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

Re: [Synoptic-L] average linkage cluster analysis

Expand Messages
  • dgentil@sears.com
    Hello Brian, Assuming you are looking at this graph linked below, then you re not reading it correctly. The height of the column between the categories
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Brian,

      Assuming you are looking at this graph linked below, then you're not
      reading it correctly.
      The height of the column between the categories indicates the "strength" of
      their linkage.

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synoptic-l/message/7127

      102 is linked more with the 201 group than the "Luke" group.

      The cluster history above the graph gives the order it connects the groups.

      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, Illinois
      M.S. Physics
      Ph.D. management Science candidate








      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Dave Gentile wrote -- ... Dave, Thanks for this. I was reading the graph in Escher reverse . I was seeing it as a black hand with fingers pointing downwards
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 4, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Dave Gentile wrote --
        >
        >Assuming you are looking at this graph linked below, then you're not
        >reading it correctly. 102 is linked more with the 201 group than the
        >"Luke" group.
        >
        Dave,
        Thanks for this. I was reading the graph in "Escher reverse". I was
        seeing it as a black hand with fingers pointing downwards from the axis
        at the top. It has now "flipped" Escher-style, so that I see instead a
        neat histogram with white bars pointing upwards towards the axis.

        Yes. I now agree. I see that 102 belongs to what I call cluster 4.
        However, I would suggest the cluster is not Lukan since it contains two
        non-Lukan Matthean but only one non-Matthean Lukan non-macro categories.
        My re-revised interpretation of this fascinating graph is --

        >
        >(1) 222 (also X22, 22X)
        >(2) 221, 220 (also X20, 2X0)
        >(3) 121. 120, 020 (also X21, 12X)
        >(4) 202, 201, 200, 102 (also X02, 20X)
        >(5) 122, 112, 002 (also X12)
        >(6) 211, 210 (also 21X)
        >
        These can be easily explained on the basis of the new approach, that is
        by assuming that the "same words" indicate that one synoptist has
        redacted the source material, and that "different words" indicate that
        different synoptists have redacted --

        (1) represents the wording that all three synoptists, Mk, Mt and Lk,
        retain after redacting the same source material.
        (2) represents what Mk and Mt retain but Luke does not retain, after
        redacting their common source material.
        (3) represents the wording Mk retains but Mt and Lk do not retain, after
        redacting their common source material.
        (4) represents the wording that either Mt or Lk (or both) retain, but Mk
        does not retain, after redacting their common source material.
        (5) represents the wording Lk retains, but Mt does not, after redacting
        their common source material.
        (6) represents the wording Mt retains, but neither Mk nor Lk retain,
        after they have redacted their common source material.

        Note that the remaining categories are 021, 022, 212, 012.

        Could (6) have also contained 212, so becoming 212, 211, 210 (it is
        designated as with 21X)? And could there have been a (7) consisting of
        022, 021, 012?

        Summarizing (where "W"" means "without 2") --
        (1) 222
        (2) 22W
        (3) W2W
        (4) 2WW + WW2
        (5) WW2
        (6) 2WW
        (7) (2W2 + WW2)??

        I would suggest that the TREE Procedure therefore produces results that
        make very good sense on the hypothesis that if different types of
        material show a significant positive correlation, this is consistent
        with the same synoptist having been the redactor, whereas if two
        different types show a significant negative correlation, this is
        consistent with different synoptists having been the redactors.

        Comments would be welcome.

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WILSON

        >HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

        Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
        > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
        > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
        _

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • David Inglis
        Brian Wilson wrote: [snip] ... [snip] ... Brian, I completely fail to follow your logic. Cluster (4) includes 202, which can only have been created in one of
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 6, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Brian Wilson wrote:

          [snip]
          > Yes. I now agree. I see that 102 belongs to what I call cluster 4.
          > However, I would suggest the cluster is not Lukan since it contains two
          > non-Lukan Matthean but only one non-Matthean Lukan non-macro categories.
          > My re-revised interpretation of this fascinating graph is --
          >
          > >
          > >(1) 222 (also X22, 22X)
          > >(2) 221, 220 (also X20, 2X0)
          > >(3) 121. 120, 020 (also X21, 12X)
          > >(4) 202, 201, 200, 102 (also X02, 20X)
          > >(5) 122, 112, 002 (also X12)
          > >(6) 211, 210 (also 21X)
          > >
          > These can be easily explained on the basis of the new approach, that is
          > by assuming that the "same words" indicate that one synoptist has
          > redacted the source material, and that "different words" indicate that
          > different synoptists have redacted --
          [snip]
          > (4) represents the wording that either Mt or Lk (or both) retain, but Mk
          > does not retain, after redacting their common source material.

          Brian,

          I completely fail to follow your logic. Cluster (4) includes 202, which can
          only have been created in one of the following ways:

          1 Matthew and Luke copied these identical portions of text from a common
          source (e.g. the LT)
          2 Matthew created the text, which Luke then copied from Matthew
          3 Luke created the text, which Matthew then copied from Luke

          Note that in my case (1) it is IMPOSSIBLE by definition for either Matthew
          or Luke to have 'redacted' this source, since if they did then the text
          would no longer be the same as the other copy, and hence it couldn't be in
          202. In other words, the bits that Matthew redacts become 201, and the bits
          Luke redacts become 102. Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for 202 to contain text
          redacted by both Matthew and Luke.

          So, if the 201-202 positive is explained by Matthew redacting 202, then your
          explanation of the 202-102 positive is false because Luke didn't redact 202.
          Conversely, if Luke redacted 202 then your explanation of the 202-201
          positive is false. In other words, your hypothesis cannot explain both the
          202-102 and 202-201 positives at the same time, and is therefore falsified
          as it stands.

          Dave Inglis
          david@...
          3538 O'Connor Drive
          Lafayette, CA, USA




          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Brian E. Wilson
          Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Dave Inglis replied -- ... Dave, Your argument cannot be valid, since the following shows that what you say is impossible could have
          Message 4 of 9 , Jan 6, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Brian Wilson wrote --
            >
            >[snip]
            >Yes. I now agree. I see that 102 belongs to what I call cluster 4.
            >However, I would suggest the cluster is not Lukan since it contains two
            >non-Lukan Matthean but only one non-Matthean Lukan non-macro
            >categories.
            >My re-revised interpretation of this fascinating graph is --
            >
            >(1) 222 (also X22, 22X)
            >(2) 221, 220 (also X20, 2X0)
            >(3) 121. 120, 020 (also X21, 12X)
            >(4) 202, 201, 200, 102 (also X02, 20X)
            >(5) 122, 112, 002 (also X12)
            >(6) 211, 210 (also 21X)
            >
            >These can be easily explained on the basis of the new approach, that is
            >by assuming that the "same words" indicate that one synoptist has
            >redacted the source material, and that "different words" indicate that
            >different synoptists have redacted --
            >[snip]
            >(4) represents the wording that either Mt or Lk (or both) retain, but
            >>Mk does not retain, after redacting their common source material.
            >
            Dave Inglis replied --
            >
            >I completely fail to follow your logic. Cluster (4) includes 202,
            >which can only have been created in one of the following ways:
            >
            >1 Matthew and Luke copied these identical portions of text from a
            >common source (e.g. the LT)
            >2 Matthew created the text, which Luke then copied from Matthew
            >3 Luke created the text, which Matthew then copied from Luke
            >
            >Note that in my case (1) it is IMPOSSIBLE by definition for either
            >Matthew or Luke to have 'redacted' this source, since if they did then
            >the text would no longer be the same as the other copy, and hence it
            >couldn't be in 202. In other words, the bits that Matthew redacts
            >become 201, and the bits Luke redacts become 102. Therefore it is
            >IMPOSSIBLE for 202 to contain text redacted by both Matthew and Luke.
            >
            Dave,
            Your argument cannot be valid, since the following shows that what
            you say is impossible could have happened --

            Matthew LT Luke


            HEY DIDDLE DIDDLE, HEY DIDDLE DIDDLE, HEY DIDDLE DIDDLE,
            THE CAT AND THE THE CAT AND THE THE CAT AND THE
            FIDDLE. AND THE FIDDLE. AND THE FIDDLE.
            THE COW JUMPED THE COW JUMPED THE COW JUMPED
            OVER THE MOON. OVER THE MOON. OVER THE MOON.
            And the little dog And the little dog And the dish ran
            laughed to see such laughed to see such away with the spoon.
            fun. fun,
            And the dish ran
            away with the spoon.


            Matthew has redacted LT, retaining some, but omitting other LT words.
            Luke has also redacted LT, also retaining some, but omitting other LT
            words. We see that 202 material (shown in upper case letters) is formed
            as a result of Mt and Lk having independently redacted LT. This shows
            that it is perfectly possible for LT wording to have been redacted
            independently by both Nt and Lk to produce 202 words that are the same
            in both Mt and Lk. I think the mistake in your argument is in the
            statement --
            >
            >1 Matthew and Luke copied these identical portions of text from a
            >common source (e.g. the LT)
            >
            What you should have written was that Matthew and Luke used the same
            piece of material from the common source (e.g. the LT) with the result
            that *some* of the words they each copied were the same so producing 202
            words in their gospels. On the LTH, each synoptist **edited** the
            wording of the material he selected from the LT. The agreements in
            wording between synoptists are where independently they retained the
            same words of the LT material they selected and edited.
            >
            >So, if the 201-202 positive is explained by Matthew redacting 202,
            >then your explanation of the 202-102 positive is false because Luke
            >didn't redact 202.
            >
            I have just shown that it is perfectly possible that Matthew and Luke
            did redact the same LT material to produce 202 passages so that this,
            and the rest of your argument, collapses.

            By the way, if your argument had been valid, then the Two Document
            Hypothesis would have been sunk without trace, since in your case 1, the
            common source could have been Q as posited by the 2DH!

            Best wishes,
            BRIAN WILSON

            >HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

            Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
            > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
            > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
            _

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • dgentil@sears.com
            Brian Wilson asked: ======== Could (6) have also contained 212, so becoming 212, 211, 210 (it is designated as with 21X)? And could there have been a (7)
            Message 5 of 9 , Jan 8, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Brian Wilson asked:
              ========
              Could (6) have also contained 212, so becoming 212, 211, 210 (it is
              designated as with 21X)? And could there have been a (7) consisting of
              022, 021, 012?
              =======

              Because of he low amount of data in these categories, they all form thier
              own cluster if they are included.
              These are called "outliers" in cluster analysis.

              Dave




              Sent by: owner-synoptic-l@...


              To: Synoptic-L@...
              cc:

              Subject: [Synoptic-L] average linkage cluster analysis


              Dave Gentile wrote --
              >
              >Assuming you are looking at this graph linked below, then you're not
              >reading it correctly. 102 is linked more with the 201 group than the
              >"Luke" group.
              >
              Dave,
              Thanks for this. I was reading the graph in "Escher reverse". I was
              seeing it as a black hand with fingers




              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • David Inglis
              ... In the full results 212 does now show some signs of clustering with 211 and 210, but only with low confidence. 022, 021, and 012 are all very clearly in
              Message 6 of 9 , Jan 9, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                > Brian Wilson asked:
                > ========
                > Could (6) have also contained 212, so becoming 212, 211, 210 (it is
                > designated as with 21X)? And could there have been a (7) consisting of
                > 022, 021, 012?
                > =======
                >
                In the full results 212 does now show some signs of clustering with 211 and
                210, but only with low confidence.
                022, 021, and 012 are all very clearly in seperate groupings (022-220-222,
                021-120-121-221, and 012-002-112)

                Dave Inglis
                david@...
                3538 O'Connor Drive
                Lafayette, CA, USA




                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.