In an article published in the Harvard Theological Review in 19711 the authors suggested a method of word-counting (agreements among various parallel accounts) that might test certain literary relationships among the first three gospels. Two responses to it make further discussion necessary.2 Some preliminary observations: For the purposes of this original article and the present response to its critics, we have assumed that the so-called Theory best explains the synoptic problem. But the Two-Source theory presumed here is not the only option. Other perfectly competent scholars hold to a wide variety of viewpoints, which could be designated by tags such as Griesbach, protoMark, two editions of Matthew, Lukan priority, Luke's use of Matthew or vice versa, multiple source theories, and even a benign (resigned?) agnosticism toward the whole issue. Still, it should be noted that the Two-Source theory is far more commonly held than any other single view. Consequently, our method should not be considered a priori absurd, while those who hold different views have neither established those views nor seriously challenged the Two-Source theory by simply