File talk:Relationship between synoptic gospels.png

The data represented in this graph are outdated. In B. Ward Powers' book, The Progressive Publication of Matthew (2010), chapter 4, "Fleshing Out the Facts and Figures," he gives an in-depth assessment of the data using de Solages (Greek Synopsis of the Gospels, 1959), A. M. Honor&eacute; ("A Statistical Study of the Synoptic Problem," 1968), W. Farmer (Synopticon, 1969), two sources by R. Morgenthaler (Synoptic Statistics, 1971; and Statistics of New Testament Words, 1958, 1972, 1982), and his own research. Pages 104-135 are filled with charts listing all the common and unique material in the Synoptics. On page 134 is a diagram giving a summary of the data, much like this graph. Here are his numbers: Mt in Mt only: 45.5% Mt in Triple Tradition: 24.5% Mt in Lk, not Mk: 12.5% Mt in Mk, not Lk: 17.5% Lk in Lk only: 60% Lk in Triple Tradition: 24% Lk in Mt, not Mk: 11.5% Lk in Mk, not Mt: 4.5% Mk in Mk only: 23.5% Mk in Triple Tradition: 41.5% Mk in Mt, not Lk: 26% Mk in Lk, not Mt: 9% The old numbers continue to be quoted even though they are in error. These numbers are much more accurate. Malkiyahu (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ward Powers' data at the reference you give are on the verse level (i.e. not very precise, however accurate he may have been). If the existing data are on the word level (I'm not sure how this is treating morphology), which looks plausible to me, they should be kept. In any event, the basis for the data should be specified. 𝐨𝐱𝐲𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐵𝑈𝑇𝐴𝑍𝑂𝑁𝐸 ⓊⓉ 16:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)