andrewcriddle

That wasn't why I wrote my paper. I started to read Morton Smith's book believing that the letter was probably genuinely by Clement although the 'Secret Gospel' was probably mid 2nd century.

However the overkill of limguistic features supporting authenticity started alarm bells ringing. I wrote my paper trying to explain/justify that reaction.

Andrew Criddle

Yuri Kuchinsky

I'm afraid that my questions may have been somewhat confusing, so let me try to state my position more clearly.

My basic feeling is that, assuming that Andrew's data selection is all correct, and assuming that all his statistical calculations are valid, plus assuming that his methodology is entirely valid and relevant, the result of his study would be that there's about 10% chance that Clement's letter isn't really by Clement. So this is what I'd describe as the best case scenario.

But then again, as Brown argued, there may be problems with data selection, and also there are some questions about his basic methodology.

So that's my take on this whole debate.

Now, to say that, based on Criddle's study alone, we can conclude that Morton Smith is a liar and a swindler is pretty well equivalent to arguing that, since Mickey Mouse wears red pants, then Walt Disney must have surely been a Communist. It's the same kind of logic, I'm afraid...

All the best,

Yuri.

Ben C Smith

Which of these scenarios is statistically correct and why?

Ben.

andrewcriddle

Hi Ben

I'm not sure how Yuri is arriving at his figures and I think we are trying to measure somewhat different things.

My calculation is an attempt to measure (P(0) + P(1) + P(2) + P(3) + P(4) )where P(x) is the probability that for the total number of (new words plus words previously used once only) there will be X new words EG P(2) is the probablity that there will be 2 new words and 11 used once before.

But the probability that a given case of either a new word or a word used once before will be a new word is 8/13 and 5/13 that it will be a word used once before.

P(0) is the probability that all 13 cases will be words used once before which is (5/13)^13 similarly P(1) is (5/13)^12 * (8/13) *13 , P(2) is (5/13)^11 * (8/13)^2 *13 *12/2, P(3) is (5/13)^10 * (8/13)^3 *13*12*11/(2*3) , P(4) is (5/13)^9 * (8/13)^4 *13*12*11*10/(2*3*4) .

This is just the standard binomial expansion and sums to about 0.024 - 0.025

However I must emphasise that this is NOT the derived probability of genuiness. Using as illustrative figures only an initial situation in which the chances of genuiness and careful imitation are equal and the probability that the careful imitator will produce an equal or greater excess of words used once only is one in eight Then the resulting estimate of authenticity using Bayes theorem would be (1/40)/((1/8) + (1/40)) = 1/6 Hence there would be a 1/6 chance of the work being authentic and a 5/6 chance of it being an imitation.

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley

Andrew,

Please do not take my comment as an accusation that you let personal bias affect your reasoning, it was more of a generalization.

Back in the 90s when I first started to participate in Synoptic-l, I was struck by the large number of VERY opinionated amateurs who would post there. One Catholic monk spoke very disparagingly of my reference to an Orthodox graduate student as if he had no business being even mentioned.

I remember one gentleman saying something like "I have never been fooled by arguments that Mt & Lk copied from Mk and Q." The prevailing position was that Mk + Q = Mt/Lk is simply the "politically correct" answer and if you suggest anything different you can kiss your academic career good-bye. It was like the way Rush Limbaugh spoke (and still speaks) about "liberals."

Most all of them at the time were pushing a sequence where author of Mt wrote first, was pared down by author of Mk, and finally author of Lk drew from Mt and Mk (or similar arguments). For support they offered accounts about the gospel origins found in authors like Papias, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, in effect adopting the Church's tradition of the 2nd century and later. I can see how this would appeal to traditionalists, whether Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

Now when S. Carlson began to research the alleged forgery of Secret Mark, he got support from almost all regular participants in Synoptic-l (list owner Mark Goodacre, for his part, has remained neutral I believe), and it seems from a number of Orthodox graduate students who are also it seems inclined towards accepting the traditions passed down through the Greek fathers. Many of the agnostics and moderates engaged in discussion of the matter have been pretty straight laced folks from more or less mainline religious backgrounds, not inclined to radicalism. It seems to me that the real issue comes down to a severe reaction to the perception that acceptance of M. Smith's proposal is tantamount to "political correctness." Like Rush with liberals, it seems that the dominant action has been to shoot the messenger.

How do you feel about this issue of "political correctness" WRT M Smith's hypothesis?

DCH (lunch break is over, gotta go)

Toto

Do you mean "Orthodox" as in Eastern Orthodox or "orthodox" as in those who hew to the correct theological line of the party?

Yuri Kuchinsky

And then, there's also the question of methodology. The calculations may be fine but, if the basic methodology is problematic, the calculations become pretty meaningless.

Ronald Thisted and Bradley Efron, “Did Shakespeare Write a Newly-Discovered Poem?” Biometrika 74 (1987): 445–55.

Thisted and Efron concluded that tests based on words not previously used and words previously used once were unreliable and that “there is no consistent trend toward an excess or deficiency of new words” (451).

And so, Thisted and Efron examined the methodology used by Criddle, and concluded that it is worthless.

Regards,

Yuri.

Ben C Smith

Methodology is certainly of supreme importance. However, in this case, you have given us the following calculation:

How did you arrive at your approximate figure of 10%?

Ben.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, David, there seems to be a misunderstanding here. Criddle's study has been misinterpreted almost routinely by subsequent commentators, as Scott Brown explained in some detail (see above in the thread). And I think this misinterpretation still continues, alas... (Since it is apparently so easy to misinterpret, doesn't this already show the weakness of Criddle's study?)

So let me attempt a clarification. Criddle's study certainly does not demonstrate that "the letter too closely matches Clement's style". Because one simply cannot demonstrate from a study of Clement’s _least used_ words that the letter too closely matches Clement's style. In fact, the idea is just plainly absurd!

If you want my honest opinion, in effect, Criddle's study is just a smokescreen, behind which a lot of conservative Christians can safely badmouth 'heretic' Smith, while decorating themselves with statistical algorithms, computational models, and other such scientific-sounding lingo.

(This is not to say that Andrew was not sincere in what he was trying to do.)

Best regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Small sample size, lack of corroboration, too many unknowns, strong possibility of false positives, ad hoc nature of the study, etc. etc...

Yuri.