Subject: Eph 5:9

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 17:56:16 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Robert B.. Waltz wrote:

>While I agree with Jim West that the Byzantine reading here is a
>harmonization and an error, I don't think we can make too much of
>this.  One example cannot make a rule! 

Since I believe I have provided a reasonable response to the example, I
would suggest that there is no "example", let alone "rule" in view.

>All text-types contain
>harmonizations, conflations, and expansions. The question is not "does
>text-type such-and-such contain harmonizations?" but rather "*how many*
>does it contain?"

I of course exempt the Byzantine Textform from this blanket allegation. 
Certainly _some_ MSS within the Byzantine MSS _did_ harmonize from time to
time, but I still maintain that wholesale harmonization, adopted and
perpetuated by virtually all MSS of the Byzantine Textform, simply did
_not_ occur. The reason is simple: if the Byzantine Textform indeed
reflects the overarching "original archetype", then it would not be
expected to hold harmonizations in common unless such apparent
harmonizations were the intent of the original authors. 

Also, if the Byzantine scribes had such a "harmonistic bent" (Fee's
words), then we should expect to find parallel passages among at least the
synoptic gospels in near-total harmony among the Byzantine MSS, since to
allow disharmony to remain would be contrary to their supposed "usual" 
practice; this of course is not the case, and in itself demonstrates that
there was no major tendency among Byzantine-era scribes to harmonize
parallel passages, but if any did so, the normal processes of comparison
and correction against other exemplars would weed out the harmonistic
corruptions within a relatively few copying generations. 

The archetypes of the various minority texttypes _can_ be shown to have
harmonized in many places in directions _away_ from the non-harmonizing
Byzantine text (why would the Byzantine Textform _ever_ choose to
"disharmonize" if the supposedly earlier Alexandrian or Western MSS
already had a harmonizing reading in place? yet this does occur in a
manner more frequently than one might suppose) and in such places the
Alexandrian or Western harmonization either points to accidental
alteration or deliberate recensional activity.

>Most of us, of course, think that the Byzantine text contains more
>harmonizations. Certainly that's my impression.

Most modern eclectics will do so because that has been the hypothesis
accepted ever since Westcott and Hort, and goes hand-in-hand with the
"conflation" and "Syrian Recension" hypotheses.  I would suggest that
Wisselink's volume on "Assimilation" in regard to the Byzantine text of
the Gospels strongly tends to discredit this overly-simplified
assumption.

>But -- in defense of Robinson and his ilk 

Should I _like_ the word "ilk"? Or does it have a certain degree of 
negative connotation like "brood"?

>And even if NA27, etc. had complete apparati, we cannot rely on
>impressions. What is needed is a precise study of the rate of
>harmonizations, etc. I don't think that has ever been done.

Wisselink once more is suggested, but not his published volume (which
contains only the text portion of his doctoral research in the
Netherlands), but the four large volumes of data which Wisselink also has
made available in photocopied form for sale, but at great expense. I don't
even have them myself, but was able to spend some time with them while in
Kampen in 1989, and was greatly impressed with his statistics on this
matter.

>I feel fairly sure I know the results. But they have not been
>proved.

Wisselink's data points to the Byzantine Textform as being the most 
free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels. I suspect that this 
is not the result you were expecting.

>(Is that an unbiased enough assessment, Maurice? :-)

You're getting better. :-)

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

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 18:02:08 -0700

>would suggest that there is no "example", let alone "rule" in view.

It's a strong point, too -- Colwell showed that harmonization to
immediate context is very common.

I think, to finally settle the matter, we would have to determine
how often the "fruits of the spirit" phrase in Galatians was quoted.
If it is frequently cited in ancient times, then harmonization could
have occurred. (I would point out that harmonization need not
even apply to parallels within scripture. Harmonization generally
applies to *the most familiar text,* scriptural or otherwise.)

>I of course exempt the Byzantine Textform from this blanket allegation.

Why? If you refuse to examine the matter, then we cannot take you
seriously. Of course, you can examine a list of examples, and say,
"No, this is not a harmonization." But if you refuse in advance to
consider the question, then your results *have no meaning.*

>harmonizations were the intent of the original authors. 

This is assuming the solution. You *may* be correct. But you are not
offering evidence.

>corruptions within a relatively few copying generations. 

This is false logic. For one thing, the *primary* characteristic of the
Byzantine scribes was conservatism; they did their best to preserve the
readings before them. Occasionally the urge to harmonization might
overwhelm them -- but certainly not always. Besides, nobody could
possibly remember all the texts to harmonize them. Even if they could,
they might harmonize in different directions.

This process has actually been observed in oral tradition. I can't
place my hands on the example at the moment, but I know it's there.
Two siblings had learned the same song from their father. They both
also knew a related song. Both "harmonized" the two slightly. One
harmonized it more than the other; neither harmonized completely.
But in neither instance did they produce a fully harmonized version.
"Lizie Wan" was still "Lizie Wan," not "Edward." (And don't ask
about those songs, folks. They're both about murder, and one of
them involves incest as well....)

[ ... ]

>negative connotation like "brood"?

I simply meant it to refer to those who accept Byzantine priority. Perhaps
it means something different to you, but in my Midwestern-influenced-
by-Medieval-English vocabulary, it implies "a typical but upstanding
example."

>Kampen in 1989, and was greatly impressed with his statistics on this

I'd need to see the results before I can accept them blindly. Frankly,
too much textual criticism is done by following the dogmatic results of
earlier scholars. (There, at least, Maurice Robinson and I agree fully.)
Is there any hope of commercial publication (read: Something a non-
professional in this field can afford)?

>is not the result you were expecting.

If true and verifiable, it is not the result I was expecting. And,
if true, I at least would have to significantly re-think my position.

With the footnote, of course, that the results must be broad spectrum.
Examples are *not* sufficient.

>You're getting better. :-)

Although I suspect I lost most of my credit in the points of logic above. :-)

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)