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

How many verses in the Songerguts, Triple or Double Traditions, etc.

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    I m finding it surprisingly hard to get numbers for how much material: . is unique to only one of the synoptic gospels (all three); . is common
    Message 1 of 20 , May 7, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm finding it surprisingly hard to get numbers for how much material:

      . is unique to only one of the synoptic gospels (all three);

      . is common to only two out of three of the synoptics (all three combinations);

      . is common to all three synoptics.

      I realize that granularity affects the numbers (e.g. verses vs. phrases vs. words), but is there any level at which
      there is at least a reasonable degree of agreement?



      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Rick Hubbard
      Hi David Are you looking for verses or vocab counts for each of these. I can probably help with the latter, if that is what you need Rick Hubbard From:
      Message 2 of 20 , May 7, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi David



        Are you looking for verses or vocab counts for each of these. I can probably
        help with the latter, if that is what you need



        Rick Hubbard



        From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
        Of David Inglis
        Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 7:16 PM
        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [Synoptic-L] How many verses in the Songerguts, Triple or Double
        Traditions, etc.





        I'm finding it surprisingly hard to get numbers for how much material:

        . is unique to only one of the synoptic gospels (all three);

        . is common to only two out of three of the synoptics (all three
        combinations);

        . is common to all three synoptics.

        I realize that granularity affects the numbers (e.g. verses vs. phrases vs.
        words), but is there any level at which
        there is at least a reasonable degree of agreement?

        David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic / GPG In Response To: David Inglis On: Counting Verses From: Bruce David Inglis asks if there is a consensus on verse counts for single, double,
        Message 3 of 20 , May 7, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          To: Synoptic / GPG
          In Response To: David Inglis
          On: Counting Verses
          From: Bruce

          David Inglis asks if there is a consensus on verse counts for single,
          double, or triple tradition verses. I should suppose that the only real
          consensus in this area consists in the (Eusebian?) numbering of verses, and
          gets vaguer when one goes higher up. (And even that numbering is sometimes
          problematic). If Rick Hubbard can supply what David is looking for, David
          should grab it, and with my blessing. I wouldn't mind seeing that count
          myself, if it comes to that. Perhaps Rick will post it.

          But I would still object to the term "triple tradition," as coming from the
          time when the Gospels were regarded as independent witnesses, and thus as
          collectively confirmatory of the historical reality of that which they
          recount. Instead (and here, I should think, *is* something of a modern
          consensus), the Gospels are literarily interconnected, and any multiple
          attestation amounts, in the end, to single attestation. Consensus or no,
          that original meaning definitely survives in modern discourse; I might
          mention again the debate at Holy Cross between William Craig and Bart
          Ehrman:

          http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p96.htm

          Where the Deuteronomic sense of "three witnesses" not only occurs, it occurs
          unrefuted. But notwithstanding its durability, I find the concept
          pernicious, and not to be encouraged. At least in critical circles, it does
          not apply to matters for which the Gospels may be cited as evidence.

          ------------------

          As for "double tradition," are there not in fact, analytically speaking,
          three "double traditions?"

          a. Only in Mk/Mt, absent in Lk: the Ransom passage (Mk 10:45 || Mt 20:28)

          b. Only in Mk/Lk, absent in Mt: the Strange Exorcist (Mk 9:38-39 || Lk
          9:49-50)

          c. Only in Mt/Lk, absent in Mk: the Lord's Prayer (Mt 6:9-13 || Lk 11:1-4)

          And is it even that simple? Lk does not simply lack Mk 10:45, he rewrites it
          *without the ransom clause* as Lk 22:27, converting the concept "ransom,"
          which on other evidence Luke abhorred, into the concept "service," which on
          other evidence was basic to Luke's idea of Christlike behavior.

          And what weight is to be attached to Mt's lack of the Strange Exorcist? The
          more perceptive commentaries note that the idea of an independent Christian
          mission not under the control of the authorized Twelve (so in Mark) offended
          Matthew's "ecclesiastical" bent. This is likely enough. Then the story was
          known to all three, and all three did something with it, one of the three
          options being to suppress it, so that it would not remain embedded in the
          tradition as it was desired, by that particular Gospel author, to hand it on
          to future ages.

          As for the Lord's Prayer, as Kilpatrick and others saw long ago, we have
          only one Lord's Prayer, namely the Lukan, which Matthew in his usual
          ecclesiastical style has plumped up with extra OT sonority (OT sonority is
          Matthew's signature trait). We do not, historically speaking, have two
          Lord's Prayers.

          ------------

          An analogous problem infects the seeming Single Traditions. It is not easy
          to derive one of the Birth Narratives from the other, using only such
          devices as are known from the Canon of Scribal Errors, but it is
          nevertheless a fact of historical importance that Mt and Lk both HAVE a
          Birth Narrative, and Mk does not. That is, the progressive divinization of
          Jesus during early church history - see again my paper Gospel Trajectories

          http://www.umass.edu/wsp/journal/wsp1/index.html

          - is strongly shown in this distribution. For all the creative fervor of the
          Lukan version (he was determined, as I imagine, to outdo that upstart
          pipsqueak, the contemptible latecomer Matthew), I would thus be inclined to
          include the Birth Narratives in the category of "present in Mt/Lk, absent in
          Mk."

          Again, is the Prodigal Son really unique to Luke? Or is the Matthean Parable
          of the Two Sons its counterpart? Before answering, consider the impenetrable
          Markan Parable of the Seed Growing Secretly, and the Matthean Parable of the
          Tares, and notice that the supposedly unique Matthean Parable occupies at
          exactly the point in the Mk/Mt common sequence that is occupied by the
          supposedly unique Parable of the Seed in Mark. The situation, I would
          suggest, is exactly like that of the Mt/Mk Ransom passage, to which the
          Lukan equivalent occupies the corresponding position, only without the
          Ransom term. All told, I would be much inclined to include the Prodigal Son
          / Two Sons pieces as a single exhibit in the Second Tier Gospels display.

          Several commentators have noticed the resonance between Mt's Two Sons and
          Lk's Two Sons, though of them, I think only Gundry has the directionality
          right (it is Lk > Mt).

          The two instances of the Parable of the Feast (Mt/Lk) and of the Parable of
          the Talents/Minae (also Mt/Lk but opposite in directionality) are different
          enough that some, eg Snodgrass, refuse to consider them the same thing, and
          treat them as separate, thus getting four parables out of two, and 2 entries
          each in the canon of passages unique to Mt or Lk. I very much don't think
          so. For Lk's absurd messing up of Mt's Talents parable, one could ask no
          merrier guide than M Goulder, and for Mt's preposterous king version of
          Luke's perfectly OK Parable of the Feast, when the directionality runs the
          other way, see the witty F Beare, in his Matthew commentary ad loc. (Gundry,
          albeit with less levity, also has this directionality right).

          That is, the problem of bidirectionality in the Second Tier Gospels is in
          grain, and will not go away. It must be solved either by positing an
          otherwise unknown outside source (the "Q" family of solutions), or in some
          other way. What that other way may be I have sought to suggest several times
          in these pages, in several SBL presentations, and in an article forthcoming
          in v2 of the above journal. Theological libraries (or failing them,
          theological persons; cost only $40) should be suitably alerted.

          Such, in any case, are the difficulties of counting. I have not checked in
          the Farmer Synopticon to see what color, or lack of color, the above cases
          have in that very useful work (or, for that matter, in the also
          polychromatic Rushbrooke). But I submit that the final arbiter, in questions
          of sameness or difference, must be literary rather than, what shall I call
          it, manuscript-critical. There is more to the evolution of Christian
          tradition than scribal error.

          Or so it looks from here.

          Bruce
        • David Mealand
          Verses are too variable a commodity. There is reasonable agreement on word token counts for whole books so this is what is needed for estimating the sizes of
          Message 4 of 20 , May 8, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Verses are too variable a commodity. There is reasonable
            agreement on word token counts for whole books so this
            is what is needed for estimating the sizes of what is found
            only in one text or in any of the pairs in question.

            The slight variability in word counts is discussed in Kenny,
            Stylometric Study 14-15: the differences between the counts he
            cites are something like 26 in a text of c. 6800 words. They
            are due to factors such as a) text critical decisions b) word
            division decisions.

            There will be larger differences in estimating words shared by
            a pair of texts. Does one count only words identical in form,
            or include a word as present in both, even if it has one case
            ending in one text and a different one in the other? Ditto
            with verb tenses and endings, etc.

            There is an article by John Poirier which charts a long series
            of published items on Synoptic analysis which shows how people
            have wrestled with how to count what is shared between two or
            more texts containing similar material (in CBR 2008).
            You will find other recent items here on the Birkbeck Uni site
            http://www.ems.bbk.ac.uk/faculty/abakuks/synoptic

            David M.

            ---------
            David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


            --
            The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
            Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
          • Rick Hubbard
            I agree completely with all David M’s observations, especially his remarks about verses being “too variable a commodity”. Nevertheless, here are what I
            Message 5 of 20 , May 8, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              I agree completely with all David M’s observations, especially his remarks about verses being “too variable a commodity”.

              Nevertheless, here are what I believe to be accurate word counts based on Aland’s SQE. If this is in anyway useful, have at it,



              Single Attestation

              [ - ] [ - ] LK [ - ] [ - ] 9,859 (Total 9,859)

              [ - ] MK [ - ] [ - ] 507 [ - ] (Total 507)

              MT [ - ] [ - ] 5,808 [ - ] [ - ] (Total 5,808)



              Double Attestation

              [ - ] MK LK [ - ] 1,252 1,066 (Total 2,318)

              MT [ - ] LK 2,378 [ - ] 2,292 (Total 4,670)

              MT MK [ - ] 360 298 [ - ] (Total 658)



              Triple attestation

              MT MK LK 7,098 6,491 6,146 (Total 19,735)



              Addressing what David M. cites as problematic about what and how to count shared words, I agree that it is an undertaking of monumental proportions. FWIW, some time ago I launched a project to create an exhaustive inventory of all words used in the Synoptics (Based on SQE) analyzing them by variations in conjugation/inflection. The project is done but it is also more than 800 pages in length so something not too easy to share (and I would venture to say of questionable usefulness).



              Rick Hubbard





              From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Mealand
              Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 5:51 AM
              To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] counts of word tokens







              Verses are too variable a commodity. There is reasonable
              agreement on word token counts for whole books so this
              is what is needed for estimating the sizes of what is found
              only in one text or in any of the pairs in question.

              The slight variability in word counts is discussed in Kenny,
              Stylometric Study 14-15: the differences between the counts he
              cites are something like 26 in a text of c. 6800 words. They
              are due to factors such as a) text critical decisions b) word
              division decisions.

              There will be larger differences in estimating words shared by
              a pair of texts. Does one count only words identical in form,
              or include a word as present in both, even if it has one case
              ending in one text and a different one in the other? Ditto
              with verb tenses and endings, etc.

              There is an article by John Poirier which charts a long series
              of published items on Synoptic analysis which shows how people
              have wrestled with how to count what is shared between two or
              more texts containing similar material (in CBR 2008).
              You will find other recent items here on the Birkbeck Uni site
              http://www.ems.bbk.ac.uk/faculty/abakuks/synoptic

              David M.

              ---------
              David Mealand, University of Edinburgh

              --
              The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
              Scotland, with registration number SC005336.





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • David Inglis
              Rick, thank you for the counts, but I’m slightly mystified with the double and triple counts. Taking just the last one, if a word has triple attestation then
              Message 6 of 20 , May 8, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Rick, thank you for the counts, but I’m slightly mystified with the double and triple counts. Taking just the last one, if a word has triple attestation then surely it is in all three synoptics, and therefore the counts will be identical. Or am I missing something?



                David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549

                https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/



                From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rick Hubbard
                Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 3:16 AM
                To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] counts of word tokens

                I agree completely with all David M’s observations, especially his remarks about verses being “too variable a commodity”.

                Nevertheless, here are what I believe to be accurate word counts based on Aland’s SQE. If this is in anyway useful, have at it,

                Single Attestation

                [ - ] [ - ] LK [ - ] [ - ] 9,859 (Total 9,859)

                [ - ] MK [ - ] [ - ] 507 [ - ] (Total 507)

                MT [ - ] [ - ] 5,808 [ - ] [ - ] (Total 5,808)

                Double Attestation

                [ - ] MK LK [ - ] 1,252 1,066 (Total 2,318)

                MT [ - ] LK 2,378 [ - ] 2,292 (Total 4,670)

                MT MK [ - ] 360 298 [ - ] (Total 658)

                Triple attestation

                MT MK LK 7,098 6,491 6,146 (Total 19,735)

                Addressing what David M. cites as problematic about what and how to count shared words, I agree that it is an undertaking of monumental proportions. FWIW, some time ago I launched a project to create an exhaustive inventory of all words used in the Synoptics (Based on SQE) analyzing them by variations in conjugation/inflection. The project is done but it is also more than 800 pages in length so something not too easy to share (and I would venture to say of questionable usefulness).

                Rick Hubbard



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • David Mealand
                I may also be missing something, as I get the tally of the categories as rather less than the total word count for the 3 Synoptics. The totals involving Luke
                Message 7 of 20 , May 8, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  I may also be missing something, as I get the tally of
                  the categories as rather less than the total word count for
                  the 3 Synoptics. The totals involving Luke come closer
                  to the expected tally for Luke, but those for Matthew and
                  Mark seem too low. Perhaps I am missing a further category?

                  David M.


                  ---------
                  David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                  --
                  The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                  Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                • E Bruce Brooks
                  The numbers looked a little strange to me also. Rick, could you provide the total counts for each of the Synoptics, from that same database? Thanks, Bruce E
                  Message 8 of 20 , May 8, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The numbers looked a little strange to me also. Rick, could you provide the
                    total counts for each of the Synoptics, from that same database?

                    Thanks,

                    Bruce

                    E Bruce Brooks
                    University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                  • Rick Hubbard
                    Greetings Indeed there are problems with these counts; two problems in fact. The first problem is Yours Truly and the second is the baffling arrangement of
                    Message 9 of 20 , May 8, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Greetings



                      Indeed there are problems with these counts; two problems in fact. The first problem is Yours Truly and the second is the baffling arrangement of SQE.



                      If I do a “naked” (ignoring periscope assignments) word count of the Synoptics I arrive at this:



                      MT 18,346

                      MK 11,304

                      LK 19,482

                      Total 49,132



                      That leads me to believe the underlying database is correct since the results cohere to Kenny’s and with Frieberg’s.



                      But this is where the wheels start to come off (and leads me to recall why I stopped working on this a few months ago).



                      Now on the second culprit. SQE has an utterly confusing way (to my thinking) of aligning parallels. For example, Section 6 and 19 are both genealogies of Jesus but are listed as independent pericopae (i.e., 6 and 19). So is this to be understood as two distinct and unrelated units? There a multiple additional examples (e.g., Commissioning the 12 is listed as both 99 and 142, Jesus foretells his betrayal 310 and 312, Jesus’ true kindred 121 and 135, On Following Jesus 176 and 130 and on and on).



                      I had forgotten that I had not found a way to resolve these conflicts programmatically; hence the ill-advised counts. On the other hand, perhaps with a fresh mind I can have another go at it.



                      I’ll let you know how (or if) it gets worked out.



                      Rick Hubbard



















                      From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Mealand
                      Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 3:04 PM
                      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] counts of word tokens







                      I may also be missing something, as I get the tally of
                      the categories as rather less than the total word count for
                      the 3 Synoptics. The totals involving Luke come closer
                      to the expected tally for Luke, but those for Matthew and
                      Mark seem too low. Perhaps I am missing a further category?

                      David M.

                      ---------
                      David Mealand, University of Edinburgh

                      --
                      The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                      Scotland, with registration number SC005336.





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • David Mealand
                      Thanks, Rick, for the clarification. The curious thing is that the figures for Luke don t seem so far out, so there might yet be a way of extracting the
                      Message 10 of 20 , May 8, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thanks, Rick, for the clarification. The curious thing
                        is that the figures for Luke don't seem so far out, so
                        there might yet be a way of extracting the figures it would
                        be useful to have.

                        I include here some counts sent offlist earlier this evening.

                        Total word count for 3 Synoptics (from Kenny) 49132
                        Total of 7 totals from SQE 43555
                        Difference 5577

                        The difference for all Matthew is 2702
                        The difference for all Mark is 2756
                        The difference for all Luke is 119
                        The sum of these differences is 5577

                        The figures for Luke are quite close, as Kenny, following
                        the Fribergs, gives 19482, and Rick's totals sum to 19363.
                        I don't have the SQA but if someone can work out why the
                        result should show only a 0.6% error for Luke, but be seriously
                        adrift for Matthew and Mark then a fix might be possible.

                        David M.



                        ---------
                        David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                        --
                        The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                        Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                      • Ronald Price
                        ... Rick et al., It might be worth noting that the figure here for Mark includes both the longer and shorter endings, whose originality is denied even by the
                        Message 11 of 20 , May 9, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Rick Hubbard wrote:

                          > If I do a ³naked² (ignoring periscope assignments) word count of the Synoptics
                          > I arrive at this:
                          >
                          > MT 18,346
                          >
                          > MK 11,304
                          >
                          > LK 19,482
                          >
                          > Total 49,132
                          >
                          > That leads me to believe the underlying database is correct since the results
                          > cohere to Kenny¹s and with Frieberg¹s.

                          Rick et al.,

                          It might be worth noting that the figure here for Mark includes both the
                          longer and shorter endings, whose originality is denied even by the modern
                          text's editors.

                          Mark 1:1 to 16:8 in NA27/UBS3 has 11099 Greek words.

                          Ron Price,

                          Derbyshire, UK

                          http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm




                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Rick Hubbard
                          Hi Ron Yes, you are of course correct about the longer ending of MK (SQE section 353) but at this juncture what I am wrestling with is why I can’t generate
                          Message 12 of 20 , May 9, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Ron



                            Yes, you are of course correct about the longer ending of MK (SQE section
                            353) but at this juncture what I am wrestling with is why I can’t generate
                            accurate numbers when sub-totaling word counts by pericope. Clearly there is
                            something awry on MY end of this but I will get to the bottom of it if for
                            no other reason than that David Inglis asked a question to which there
                            should be an «easy» answer.



                            Rick Hubbard



                            From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                            Of Ronald Price
                            Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 6:29 AM
                            To: Synoptic-L
                            Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] counts of word tokens





                            Rick Hubbard wrote:

                            > If I do a ³naked² (ignoring periscope assignments) word count of the
                            Synoptics
                            > I arrive at this:
                            >
                            > MT 18,346
                            >
                            > MK 11,304
                            >
                            > LK 19,482
                            >
                            > Total 49,132
                            >
                            > That leads me to believe the underlying database is correct since the
                            results
                            > cohere to Kenny¹s and with Frieberg¹s.

                            Rick et al.,

                            It might be worth noting that the figure here for Mark includes both the
                            longer and shorter endings, whose originality is denied even by the modern
                            text's editors.

                            Mark 1:1 to 16:8 in NA27/UBS3 has 11099 Greek words.

                            Ron Price,

                            Derbyshire, UK

                            http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • David Mealand
                            ... It might be worth noting that the figure here for Mark includes both the longer and shorter endings, whose originality is denied even by the modern text s
                            Message 13 of 20 , May 9, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Ron rightly comments:
                              --------
                              It might be worth noting that the figure here for Mark includes
                              both the longer and shorter endings, whose originality is denied
                              even by the modern text's editors.
                              -------

                              The Fribergs' text which is one of the most useful for this
                              kind of thing does include these, and also other contested
                              items. If extras are there, they can be removed before doing
                              a specific count, but if they aren't there you couldn't count
                              them if you did need to do so. (For example there are also some 80
                              instances of words in square brackets.) When processing text for
                              counts one has to think about this sort of thing. Someone
                              looking at the rival endings of Mark would wish to have these
                              in the database before setting up specific files for counts.

                              With agreements between two or more texts the biggest cause of trouble
                              is probably the difference between exact and partial agreements.
                              Poirier's article definitely pays a lot of attention to those
                              who have wrestled with that, and the items by Abakuks should
                              also be noted.

                              David M.


                              ---------
                              David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                              --
                              The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                              Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                            • Rick Hubbard
                              OK, Thanks to the general embarrassment of releasing some bogus data yesterday, I resolved to find the glitch in the database and after an all-nighter
                              Message 14 of 20 , May 9, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                OK,



                                Thanks to the general embarrassment of releasing some bogus data yesterday,
                                I resolved to find the glitch in the database and after an "all-nighter"
                                (something I'm WAY too old for) I finally got to the bottom of the problem
                                and now can submit to legitimate numbers in partial answer to David's
                                initial questions:





                                GROUP MT MK LK TOTALS

                                MT [ - ] [ - ] 5,756 N/A N/A 5,756

                                [ - ] [ - ] LK N/A N/A 9,859 9,859

                                [ - ] MK [ - ] N/A 507 N/A 507

                                MT MK [ - ] 2,975 2,978 0 5,953

                                MT [ - ] LK 2,450 0 2,365 4,815

                                [ - ] MK LK N/A 1,187 1,041 2,228

                                MT MK LK 7,165 6,632 6,217 20,014



                                TOTALS

                                MT 18,346

                                MK 11,304

                                LK 19,482

                                All 49,132





                                Given the unpredictability of email software, I am hopeful the above is
                                legible



                                Rick Hubbard



                                From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                                Of E Bruce Brooks
                                Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 4:04 PM
                                To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] counts of word tokens





                                The numbers looked a little strange to me also. Rick, could you provide the
                                total counts for each of the Synoptics, from that same database?

                                Thanks,

                                Bruce

                                E Bruce Brooks
                                University of Massachusetts at Amherst





                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • David Mealand
                                Rick s revised figures do now indicate that all the words in the three Greek texts are included in the totals. That is a big hurdle now cleared. It sounds
                                Message 15 of 20 , May 9, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Rick's revised figures do now indicate that
                                  all the words in the three Greek texts are
                                  included in the totals. That is a big hurdle
                                  now cleared.

                                  It sounds ungrateful to press further questions
                                  but this is how progress is made. David Inglis
                                  quite rightly asked why the figures in each row
                                  differ between the columns.

                                  For example in the row for items present in
                                  Matthew // Mark we now have 2975 for Matthew
                                  but 2978 for Mark - a very minor difference.
                                  But in the row for Mark // Luke a greater difference:
                                  1187 vs 1041.
                                  Once again it is easy for me to ask a naive question
                                  but I am well aware that obtaining a good answer
                                  can take a lot of effort.

                                  Another way of pressing this kind of issue would be this.
                                  Andris Abakuks' table enumerates all Mark's words and
                                  in the next columns whether or not Matthew and Luke
                                  have an equivalent. If I read it correctly these total
                                  4716 and 3057 respectively. The equivalent figures
                                  from Rick's table would yield 9610 (Mk) 10140 (Mt)
                                  and 7819 (Mk) and 7258 (Lk).

                                  I may not have interpreted this correctly, but if
                                  that is any where near right, then AA's table is
                                  presumably using a very tight definition of an equivalent
                                  word, and Rick is perhaps accepting that two
                                  words are equivalent even if they are differently inflected
                                  or not in the same sequence.
                                  Is that possible? Or is the explanation quite different?

                                  David M.


                                  ---------
                                  David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                                  --
                                  The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                                  Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                                • David Mealand
                                  I think the lower figures for agreements in the table by Abakuks are due to paying more attention both to the sequence of words, and to exact equivalence. He
                                  Message 16 of 20 , May 10, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I think the lower figures for agreements in the table by Abakuks
                                    are due to paying more attention both to the sequence of words,
                                    and to exact equivalence. He gives details of his method in an
                                    article in JRSS 2012. (Also he concludes at Mark 16.8)

                                    David M.




                                    ---------
                                    David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                                    --
                                    The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                                    Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                                  • David Inglis
                                    So far, such replies as I have seen (thank you) concentrate on word counts. These will, of course, vary depending on which variants are or are not counted, and
                                    Message 17 of 20 , May 10, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      So far, such replies as I have seen (thank you) concentrate on word counts. These will, of course, vary depending on
                                      which variants are or are not counted, and so there really is no single answer. However, for my purposes word counts are
                                      (at the moment at least) taking me down into detail I don't need, and so for now I'm concentrating just on verses. If
                                      this proves unsatisfactory, I'm going to drop down to clauses (I think). Anyway, for now these are the verse counts
                                      (round numbers) I'm using for Luke, and if anyone cares to comment or suggest other numbers, I'm all ears (or eyes!):

                                      Total Luke: 1150

                                      Unique to Luke: 550

                                      Luke/Matthew only: 200

                                      Luke/Mark only: 70

                                      Luke/Matthew/Mark: 330

                                      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                                      https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/



                                      From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of E Bruce Brooks
                                      Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 9:35 PM
                                      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                      Cc: GPG
                                      Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] How many verses in the Songerguts, Triple or Double Traditions, etc.

                                      To: Synoptic / GPG
                                      In Response To: David Inglis
                                      On: Counting Verses
                                      From: Bruce

                                      David Inglis asks if there is a consensus on verse counts for single, double, or triple tradition verses. I should
                                      suppose that the only real consensus in this area consists in the (Eusebian?) numbering of verses, and gets vaguer when
                                      one goes higher up. (And even that numbering is sometimes problematic).



                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Rick Hubbard
                                      Just curious David, but what is it that verses relate to? Clauses (properly identified) seem to have more potential value. Just a thought.... Regards, Rick
                                      Message 18 of 20 , May 10, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Just curious David, but what is it that "verses" relate to?

                                        Clauses (properly identified) seem to have more potential value.
                                        Just a thought....

                                        Regards,

                                        Rick

                                        Sent from my iPhone

                                        On May 10, 2013, at 2:10 PM, "David Inglis" <davidinglis2@...> wrote:

                                        > So far, such replies as I have seen (thank you) concentrate on word counts. These will, of course, vary depending on
                                        > which variants are or are not counted, and so there really is no single answer. However, for my purposes word counts are
                                        > (at the moment at least) taking me down into detail I don't need, and so for now I'm concentrating just on verses. If
                                        > this proves unsatisfactory, I'm going to drop down to clauses (I think). Anyway, for now these are the verse counts
                                        > (round numbers) I'm using for Luke, and if anyone cares to comment or suggest other numbers, I'm all ears (or eyes!):
                                        >
                                        > Total Luke: 1150
                                        >
                                        > Unique to Luke: 550
                                        >
                                        > Luke/Matthew only: 200
                                        >
                                        > Luke/Mark only: 70
                                        >
                                        > Luke/Matthew/Mark: 330
                                        >
                                        > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
                                        >
                                        > https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/
                                        >
                                        > From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of E Bruce Brooks
                                        > Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 9:35 PM
                                        > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                        > Cc: GPG
                                        > Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] How many verses in the Songerguts, Triple or Double Traditions, etc.
                                        >
                                        > To: Synoptic / GPG
                                        > In Response To: David Inglis
                                        > On: Counting Verses
                                        > From: Bruce
                                        >
                                        > David Inglis asks if there is a consensus on verse counts for single, double, or triple tradition verses. I should
                                        > suppose that the only real consensus in this area consists in the (Eusebian?) numbering of verses, and gets vaguer when
                                        > one goes higher up. (And even that numbering is sometimes problematic).
                                        >
                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >
                                        >


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • David Inglis
                                        Rick, verses is just a (somewhat crude) measure of the size of the different ‘sections’ of the synoptics, that I can use to calculate the average number of
                                        Message 19 of 20 , May 10, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Rick, verses is just a (somewhat crude) measure of the size of the different ‘sections’ of the synoptics, that I can use to calculate the average number of verses per variant (or variation unit) in the verses unique to Lk, and, for example, compare that number to the average for the verses common to Mt/Mk/Lk. The absolute values don’t matter here, because what I’m looking for is differences. If I find approximately the same value for all the different sections then there’s likely to be no point in drilling down to get more accurate numbers, and I’ve saved myself some time and effort. However, if there are any significant differences then I need to get more accurate numbers for the ‘size,’ and do the comparisons again (I also want to look at the number of variants per variation unit in each of the sections). Then, supposing I find a greater frequency of variation units (and/or variants per variation unit) in the verses unique to Lk than in any of the other ‘sections,’ I’ve got a phenomenon that needs an explanation, and at that point I most likely need as much detail on all the variants as I can get. However, that’s still in the future, and at the moment I’m just trying to see if such a phenomenon even exists.



                                          David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                                          Tricky NT Textual Issues <https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/>



                                          From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rick Hubbard
                                          Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 3:57 PM
                                          To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] How many verses in the Songerguts, Triple or Double Traditions, etc.

                                          Just curious David, but what is it that "verses" relate to?

                                          Clauses (properly identified) seem to have more potential value.
                                          Just a thought....

                                          Regards,

                                          Rick

                                          Sent from my iPhone

                                          On May 10, 2013, at 2:10 PM, "David Inglis" <davidinglis2@... <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> > wrote:

                                          > So far, such replies as I have seen (thank you) concentrate on word counts. These will, of course, vary depending on
                                          > which variants are or are not counted, and so there really is no single answer. However, for my purposes word counts are
                                          > (at the moment at least) taking me down into detail I don't need, and so for now I'm concentrating just on verses. If
                                          > this proves unsatisfactory, I'm going to drop down to clauses (I think). Anyway, for now these are the verse counts
                                          > (round numbers) I'm using for Luke, and if anyone cares to comment or suggest other numbers, I'm all ears (or eyes!):
                                          >
                                          > Total Luke: 1150
                                          >
                                          > Unique to Luke: 550
                                          >
                                          > Luke/Matthew only: 200
                                          >
                                          > Luke/Mark only: 70
                                          >
                                          > Luke/Matthew/Mark: 330
                                          >
                                          > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA





                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • David Mealand
                                          The varying figures for words (or verses) to be allocated to different Synoptic categories are not easy to resolve. Poirier (CBR 2008, 101ff) has a good
                                          Message 20 of 20 , May 12, 2013
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            The varying figures for words (or verses) to be allocated
                                            to different Synoptic categories are not easy to resolve.
                                            Poirier (CBR 2008, 101ff) has a good discussion of Denaux’s
                                            criticisms of Bergemann on Q. Denaux himself (NovT 1995)
                                            gives a list of which pericopes in Luke would satisfy B’s
                                            requirement of c.70% or above agreement. The list is
                                            at least one place where one can find some sort of answer
                                            to which passages have very high Lk//Mt agreement, though
                                            D is critical of B’s reliance only on agreement in form. Also
                                            D points out that one can find very high and very low levels of
                                            agreement _both_ in Lk//Mt (only) pairings, and _also_ in sayings
                                            material involving Lk//Mk and Mt//Mk. Again D also rightly
                                            points out that comparing Lk//Mt where Mk is present would
                                            be better, and tends to yield lower levels of agreement. This
                                            tends to show that the two redactors sometimes follow their
                                            source(s) closely sometimes very much less closely. (Though
                                            some of us think of one, and some of two sources.)

                                            This is the list of high agreement pericopes
                                            --------------------------------------------
                                            Luke//Mt %agreement (sorted)

                                            16 13 (96%/100%)
                                            11 24-26 (95%),
                                            3 7-9 (94%/95%),
                                            13 34-35 (87%),
                                            10 12-15 (83%),
                                            3 16b-17 (81%),
                                            7 24-28 (80%),
                                            1134-35 (80%),
                                            12 39-40,42b-46 (80%),
                                            10 23b-24 (77%),
                                            7 6c-9 (76%/91%),
                                            1129-32 (76%),
                                            6 41-42 (74%/80%),
                                            10 21-22 (72%/78%),
                                            12 22b-31 (72%),
                                            11 9-13 (71%/72%),
                                            6 40 (71%),
                                            6 45 (69%),
                                            9 57-60 (66%/73%)?,
                                            (refs are to Lk, where two figures are given
                                            the second is the %agreement in Mt).

                                            (The list has tabs in it so there is no knowing
                                            what the internet will do to its format.)

                                            David M.


                                            ---------
                                            David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                                            --
                                            The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                                            Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.