114 Andrew Wilson 3.- D substitutes αγαθον δομα for πνευμα αγιον 4.- Θ substitutes δοματα αγαθα for πνευμα αγιον Disharmonizations: 1.- 1247 substitutes ημεις for υμεις 2.- 489 substitutes υμας for υμεις 3.- 2487 transposes: πονηροι υμεις 4.- 1242* omits πονηροι υπαρχοντες οιδατε 5.- 2542 transposes δοματα διδοναι αγαθα 6.- L80 substitutes διδοντες for διδοναι 7.- 2643 omits υμων 8.- G substitutes ποσων for ποσω 9.- 2643* omits αυτον 10.- 472 substitutes αυτω for αυτον These results show scribes disharmonizing at more than double the rate they harmonized. As we shall see, this situation is typical in passages with close parallels. In this study, harmonizations were divided into three categories: (1) to the immediate context, (2) to general usage (e.g. “our father in heaven”, “scribes and Pharisees”) and (3) to parallel or remote influences. Harmonization Disharmonization Passage Immediate General Parallel Total Total HT, HA, Ditt. Net Context Usage Passages Matt 1-3, 6-7, 10- 16 5 58 79 137 (50) 87 12, 20-21, 26 Mark 1-3, 6 11 7 50 68 107 (23) 84 Luke 10, 11 54 24 5 28 57 167 (37) 130 Total 51 17 136 204 411 (110) 301 These raw numbers need to be qualified. When we also factor in the length of harmonizations and disharmonizations we get a clearer view of what is happening: Harmonizations Disharmonizations Word Parallel GU IC Total Total (HT, HA, Ditt.) Net Length 1 69 6 21 96 277 (55) 222 54 In Luke 11, all singular readings, additions, omissions, substitutions and transposi- tions, were examined in the first thirteen verses; thereafter only the additions and omis- sions were checked for harmonization and disharmonization.