## RE: [Synoptic-L] counts of word tokens

Expand Messages
• 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 1 of 20 , May 9 3:17 PM
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.
• 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 2 of 20 , May 10 1:59 AM
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.
• 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 3 of 20 , May 10 11:10 AM
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

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]
• 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 4 of 20 , May 10 3:57 PM
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
>
>
> 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]
• 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 5 of 20 , May 10 5:14 PM
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

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]
• 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 6 of 20 , May 12 8:43 AM
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.