Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Negotiating the Clouds Around Statistics and "Q": a Rejoinder and Independent Analysis

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites

image of Novum Testamentum

In 1994, the author critiqued a 1971 statistical study of "Q" by Charles E. Carlston and Dennis Norlin. Their recent reply has necessitated both a further clarification of their study's most serious flaws and an independent statistical analysis using a method that avoids these flaws. Such an analysis demonstrates that Matthew and Luke do not preserve "Q" sayings any more faithfully than Markan sayings. This can still be interpreted in support of "Q" being a single written source, but it is important to recall that the degree of Matt-Luke verbatim agreement is much lower than Carlston & Norlin's figures imply.

Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/156853604323018212
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/156853604323018212
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/156853604323018212
2004-04-01
2016-08-30

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation