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

RE: [Synoptic-L] counts of word tokens

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.