Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: [Corpus-Paul] Word Frequency in the Paulines

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David @ Comcast" <davidinglis2 AT comcast.net>
  • To: <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: RE: [Corpus-Paul] Word Frequency in the Paulines
  • Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 10:28:13 -0700

Title: RE: [Corpus-Paul] Word Frequency in the Paulines

David Hindley wrote in reply to Peter Kirby:
>>Peter,
>>>>The reason for doing so was to look at an old problem, the lexical frequencies of the Pauline epistles, from a slightly new perspective ... First, one divides the material into maximally large chunks that will tell you something interesting about your data set ... Then one chooses a number of authors between which the chunks can be parceled out. ... The "max hapax" formula is this. For each word, the number of occurences per 500 words is calculated for each author. Then the highest rate of occurence is found. Then, one goes through the rest of the authors, and if that author does not have the word or has the word less than 1 time per 500 words, then, for each such author without the word, the value of the highest rate of occurence is added to the "hapax" score for that particular distribution of authors.

>>>>Thoughts, suggestions, criticisms, requests for source code?
>><< Nice to hear you again! So, this is what you have been up to, eh? I was not quite sure what you mean by "number of authors"? Could you explain? Also, how deeply have you looked into other attempts at analysis of style (I treat lexical analysis as a kind of stylistic analysis)? Most NT oriented lexical studies I've looked at do not seem terribly sophisticated (the results are seldom reduced to ratios and even when they are the ratios are usually not subjected to any sort of serious analysis).

Although I'm largely a list lurker, I'm very interested in stylometric analysis of the NT. Although I believe that this kind of analysis (done properly) is valid, the question is always: If differences are found, what does that tell us? Peter has (incorrectly, IMHO) started by assuming that different stylometric groups imply different authors. However, that is just an assumption. What Peter is doing is basically a form of principal component analysis, looking at how well blocks of text group on the basis of different characteristics. The problem comes when you interpret the differences.

Given the different circumstances under which (as far as we know) the Paulines were written, it would be odd if we did not find differences, e.g.: A significant time difference between the first and the last Pauline; Written in different locations; At least some written by an amanuensis; Some written while Paul was in prison, etc. Given these differences in circumstances, I find it very hard to see how anyone can say that any of the Paulines are pseudonymous on these (internal) stylistic grounds. I believe the best this kind of analysis can say is that some of the Paulines are undisputed, and that the rest are disputed (and perhaps split into more than one group), but some other form of analysis is then needed to determine why these differences exist.

David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, USA
davidinglis2 AT comcast.net




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page