Subject: Eph 5:9

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 13:46:42 -0500 (EST)

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?

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology
[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 13:47:21 -0700

>Byzantine), how could the Byzantine text be seen to preserve the original

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! 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?"

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

But -- in defense of Robinson and his ilk -- it should be said that
my impression is based on the critical apparati of Nestle, UBS, and
Merk (in that order). These apparati are all biased; they give the
Byzantine text short shrift, but also ignore, for instance, many
of the readings of the "Western" text. (And yes, this does include
NA27. Compare it with Tischendorf or the NT Auf Papyrus volumes from
Munster. You'll see what I mean.)

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.

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

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

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

                            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)