dently aware that historical accident, in large part reflected in the random and fragmen-
tary preservation of the sources, plays a significant role in the emergence of statistical
trends. Equally, we must recognise that, when dealing with historical evidence, the ap-
parent results of statistical analyses may be quickly overturned as new and contradictory
evidence comes to light at some future date. In the present endeavour, then, one must re-
main mindful of counsel against the application of statistical results to questions of his-
tory, as was so well expressed by G.E. Elton:
“Those determined to put their faith in ‘sophisticated’ mathematical methods and to apply
‘general laws’ to the pitifully meagre and very uncertain detail that historical evidence of-
ten provides for the answering of interesting and important questions, are either to be pit-
ied because they will be sinking in quicksand while believing themselves to be standing
on solid earth, or to be combated because they darken counsel with their errors.”^1319With these preliminary remarks in mind, we will proceed to outline some of the more
prominent features that are apparent from the presentation of the data, and to show
graphically how some of this data may be statistically interpreted. What follows is a se-
ries of bar graphs that give a horizontal representation of the total number of parallel SU
between all of the sources for a given text. Each bar is divided into colours that indicate
whether the parallel SU found in those sources is either in perfect agreement, or varies in
terms of orthography, linguistic perspective, style, or hermeneutic.
(^1319) G.R. Elton, The Practice of History (^) (Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1967) 34.