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

RE: [Synoptic-L] How many verses in the Songerguts, Triple or Double Traditions, etc.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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.