Subject: Eph 5:9

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 17:47:12 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Jim West <[email-masked]> wrote:

>In Eph 5:9 there is a variant which is worthy of note in light of our
>current discussion of the Byzantine text:

>P46, D (2nd corrector), the Harclean Syriac, and the Byzantine
>tradition read "pneumatos" while P49, Sinaiticus, A, B, D (original),
>F,G,P, 6, 33,81, 629, 1175, 1739, 1881 2464 etc read "fotos".

>It seems to me that the Byzantine text is simply a harmonization to
>Galatians 5:22.  Those who support Byzantine superiority are therefore
>asked how they see this text.  How could "fotos" arise if "pneumatos"
>was original?  Also, with the widespread attestation of "fotos" in all
>text types (but Byzantine), how could the Byzantine text be seen to
>preserve the original reading?

Although I expect modern eclectics to disagree with my assessment of
the data as usual, I happen to consider this variant unit far more
simple to respond to than some others which might have been adduced.

Why look for a harmonization to a remote parallel (Gal. 5:22), when a
harmonization to the close immediate context is right at hand?  Go up
merely one line in the printed Nestle text and see "fwtos" in Eph.5:8.

A minority of MSS as well as the archetypes of the Old Latin and Coptic
versions happened to perform close-context assimilation to an identical
word. This is (or should be, since it was declared more than a century
ago by Scrivener) a well known common type of error made by scribes.

Scrivener also pointed out that harmonization/assimilation to a word or
words in close-context is _far_ more common among MSS than
harmonization to more distant passages.  Further, such close-context
harmonization (which usually has an accidental cause) is far more
likely to repeat itself _independently_ among MSS or their sources in a
way which will transcend normal genealogical (family or texttype)
connections.

>From a Byzantine-priority perspective, in this variant unit a very
small minority of MSS from diverse sources happen to have harmonized to
the immediate context of the preceding verse.  Viewed from this
contextual and transcriptional perspective, the Byzantine Textform
(with the early support of P46) happens actually to preserve the
correct and contextually _non_-harmonizing reading against that
minority of MSS.

The close-context harmonization to "fwtos" of 5:8 could also have been 
dramatically influenced by the other forms of the same word in similar 
close contexts: 5:8a has "fws" in direct contrast with "skotos"; also 
5:11 brings up "skotous" once more, which is again answered by 
"fwtos" in 5:13 and "fws" in 5:14.  There simply is far too much
close-context influence here to suppose anything other than
assimilation to such on the part of a minority of MSS.

It is _far easier_ to presume _accidental_ contextual assimilation than
to suppose that P46, Psi and the mass of almost all other MSS (or their
archetypes) made a _deliberate_ decision to harmonize to a remote
parallel phrase in Gal.5:22 -- a parallel phrase which, though existing
in Galatians occurs _nowhere else_ in the entire Greek NT (unless this
passage in the Byzantine text of Ephesians also concurs).  One thing can
be said with certainty: on the basis of Gal.5:22, "fruit of the Spirit"
is _definitely_ a Pauline phrase; "fruit of light", however, is quite
un-Pauline, since it is otherwise unsupported by any NT book attributed to
him.

Within the NT a number of lists of virtues engendered by the Holy Spirit
are catalogued, and the marginal notes in Nestle at Eph.5:9 and Gal.5:22
refer the reader to these. Yet in _none_ of the other passages is any
attempt made by the Byzantine scribes to inject "fruit of the Spirit",
even though the context of those virtue lists supposedly would cry out for
such assimilative identification, since their contents are _far_ more
close to Gal.5:22 than is Eph.5:9.

The fact is that here in Eph.5:9, as elsewhere, the Byzantine scribes
merely performed their usual task, and preserved the original reading.
A minority of scribes, quite independently in some cases, made an
accidental harmonization to the immediate context, which actually
produced an "easier" reading: "children of light" commanded to "walk"
and produce the "fruit of light", i.e. those deeds befitting their
stated character as children of light.

The "fruit of the Spirit" in such a context is clearly more difficult, and
comes in almost as a non-sequitur. Why, if "fruit of the Spirit"  were not
original, would _anyone_ want to change "fruit of light" which apparently
fits the context into something which results in a contextually more
awkward expression and which would force one to recall the remote parallel
in order to comprehend it? 

Finally, the context and content of Gal.5:22 is _wholly dissimilar_ from
that of Eph.5:9. Harmonization to remote parallels usually does _not_
include the mere lifting of a short phrase to be placed in a wholly
different context, but rather a bringing closer of the _entire_ text of
both parallel passages. This most definitely did _not_ occur in Eph.5:9.

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~