Subject: Mark Goodacre's stats
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 17:17:17 -0400
From: "Stevan Davies" <miser17@epix.net>
To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com

Mark:
> Many thanks for the doing the hard sums!  It is interesting to see that this
> sequence might after all be more striking than I had thought.  And option 2 is
> impossible here because the three saying sequence is from three different
> strands of material:
>
> Thom. 63 // Luke 12.15-21 (Rich Fool, L)
> Thom. 64 // Luke 14.15-24 (Banquet, Q)
> Thom. 65 // Luke 20.9-19 (Vineyard, Mk)
> [Thom. 66 // Luke 20.17 (Stone, Mk).]

I don't think this is statistically meaningful at all.

After
// Luke 12.15-21 (Rich Fool, L)

we find Thomas 36. 76. 21b, 10, 16, 29, 96, 4, in Luke.

> Thom. 64 // Luke 14.15-24 (B anquet, Q)

and thereafter Thomas 55, 107//(15:4 lost sheep), (prodigal son,)
(unjust steward), 47b, etc. etc. in Luke. I thought you were pointing
out that Thomas had taken a sequence of form-critically defined
parables in sequence from Luke, but that's obviously not true.

> Thom. 65 // Luke 20.9-19 (Vineyard, Mk)
> [Thom. 66 // Luke 20.17 (Stone, Mk).]

So what is your point? Thomas doesn't have adjacent Luke sayings in
sequence. He doesn't even have sequential Luke parables in sequence.
He just has 3/4 Luke sayings in sequence separated by MANY other Luke
sayings. I doubt that even with his expertise Bob could caluculate
the odds of three sayings in sequence *yet separated by any
number of other sayings.* Bob's stats are for three ADJACENT sayings
and have no bearing on non-adjacent sayings. That would be a
different and immensely larger "random-chance" number if it could
be worked out at all.

>It is interesting to see that this
>sequence might after all be more striking than I had thought.

I'd be glad to hear why you think this is even the least bit
striking.

Steve