I think there's a flaw in your reasoning etc. But I'm not about to ferret it out at this hour or soon.
But say you're right. Fine. Get a bunch of commentaries by people fascinated with counting things in the Bible and noting such surface stuff.
Analyze those texts. They ought to have enough surface such stuff to satisfy you as it being more reasonably equal.
I think the study presented contended that the differences were so many orders of magnitude that any fantasies of comparison--regardless--were laughable.
You've misunderstood my point to xzins, which was one cannot do such comparisons (of the type discused herein) between the bible and non-biblical literature because the bible is unique in regards to finding God's signature.
It's like comparing the only apple to a world of other fruit. Regardless of how much other fruit you test, those tests tell you nothing valid about the one and only apple, other than they're obviously not apples and the apple isn't like them - but we knew that already.
I was arguing against extra-biblical comparision and arguing in favor of exclusively intra-biblical comparisons, like my example with John 1:1-17, which you didn't like because you already knew it wouldn't turn out the same - which was my earlier point.
When man artifically cherry-picks the 'signature' and does not consistently look for the same signature in other portions of the bible, not surprisingly, the 'test for a signature' stands up only in the one place it has been applied. (duh)