Geoffrey Riggs asks about Dave Gentile's
work on Synoptic agreement data.
For those who may not have looked closely at
Dave Gentile's work it is based on analysis
of the data contained in the HHB
(= Hoffmann, Hieke, & Bauer)
Synoptic Concordance which divides the evidence into
19 categories showing varying patterns of agreement
from full triple agreement to material found in
one gospel only, and differentiating full and
DG analyses 807 of the most frequent words (HHB
doesn't give data for some very frequent words
though). His analysis produces end results which
show which of the 19 types of material correlate
closely with which other ones.
His conclusion runs as follows:
> So, in conclusion, based on this study and other more traditional
> forms of evidence, not presented here, I believe the 3SH, or some
> variation of it is most likely the correct solution. The study also
> provides almost as much support for the FH, and I do not believe the
> 2SH can be eliminated by this study.
A cross check on his correlations using an
entirely different method suggests they are
well founded. However some caution
needs to be noted a) some of the 19 categories are very
large and some very small b) this makes it difficult to
partition the data to check within-group consistency
c) HHB omits details of the words of highest frequency
d) some allowance needs to be made for differences due
to genre and HHB does not encode for this. Despite
these words of caution I think this study makes very
good use of the data from HHB and I don't know of
anything else which does it better. Can anyone else
point to a comparable study based on HHB ?
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.