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
  • 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 1 of 20 , May 10 5:14 PM
    • 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 2 of 20 , May 12 8:43 AM
      • 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.