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

RE: [Synoptic-L] counts of word tokens

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 20 , May 8, 2013
      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 2 of 20 , May 8, 2013
        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 3 of 20 , May 8, 2013
          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 4 of 20 , May 8, 2013
            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 5 of 20 , May 8, 2013
              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 6 of 20 , May 8, 2013
                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 7 of 20 , May 9, 2013
                  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 8 of 20 , May 9, 2013
                    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 9 of 20 , May 9, 2013
                      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 10 of 20 , May 9, 2013
                        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 11 of 20 , May 9, 2013
                          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 12 of 20 , May 10, 2013
                            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 13 of 20 , May 10, 2013
                              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 14 of 20 , May 10, 2013
                                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 15 of 20 , May 10, 2013
                                  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 16 of 20 , May 12, 2013
                                    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.