Subject: Re: Assimilation and Mt.9:1

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 97 12:42:55 +0100

On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia):

>Continuing the discussion.....

Maybe I should have been waiting with my reply, but something in your post, 
Maurice, strikes me...

>On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Ulrich Schmid wrote (inter alia):

>>> Since assimilations are found in each and every MS of the Gospels
>>> (including P75), and since it is reasonable to infer that this was a
>>> constant threat on every level of textual transmission of the (united)
>>> Gospels, I simply have greater confidence in those witnesses who
>>> contain proportionally less assimilations.

>Again, how do you determine what constitutes "proportionally less"?  
>Certainly not by taking the Byz readings as a whole and assuming that 
>every _possible_ harmonization in such is a "true" harmonization. This 
>would be no more legitimate than to take every _possible_ harmonization 
>in the Alexandrian or Western texttypes as a whole and then broad-brush 
>paint all the individual witnesses to those texttypes as somehow guilty 
>of what allegedly _might_ occur on the wide scale within the
>archetypical level of that texttype.

Once for all: When I speak of assimilation in the context of our discussion on 
Wisselink (that's how it all started), I simply use HIS definition, for I wanted 
to infer from HIS results. 
Again, Wisselink's "working definition of assimilation and dissimilation" is the 
following: "If there is a case of variation within a text-passage and if there 
is another text-passage with which comparison is possible, we call the reading 
which reduces the difference with that other text-passage,(sic) an assimilation; 
the reading which increases the difference with that text-passage, we call a 
dissimilation" (p. 63).
Therefore, please stop fighting straw-men. 

>It simply is _not_ valid to take the Byzantine Textform as a whole, 
>(which reflects a reasonable "control" group), and then presume that 
>every "possible" assimilation in such a group is automatically a "true" 
>harmonization.  What needs to be done, plainly and simply, is to take 
>Byzantine witnesses individually and calculate from their singular and 
>subsingular readings what degree of or propensity toward harmonization 
>seems apparent in such MSS, compare these to the same Byztxt-as-a-whole 
>control group and from there consider how this might apply to the 
>transmission of harmonizations within the main Textform once such 
>harmonizations occur beyond a few copying generations.

Wisselink does not show a glimps of your distinction as far as I can see. He 
simply construes a kind of master-file with the mentioned MSS + Hodges and 
Farstad "as summary of many minuscules" (p. 64). He, therefore, treats the 
Byzantine Textform as a MS, ignoring all the singular or sub-singular 
assimilations of the "many minuscules" and yet comparing it to individual MSS. 
When he then concludes that the single MS B contains less assimilations 
(according to his working definition) than Byz, you might count proportionally 
even less assimilations in B, when ignoring its singular assimilations, than in 
Byz. My problem with that is somehow similar to your problem, but don't blame 
me. Wisselink is to be charged for that.

[snip]

>>Maybe we should have a closer look at various examples.

>Sounds fine to me.

>>First of all, I think there is a type of assimilation that is so
>>remote, that no real conclusions can be drawn therefrom.  For example,
>>at Mat 9:1 we have the addition/ommission of the article TO before
>>PLOION. Checking all the other instances where Jesus embarked a boat
>>may display preferences of some MSS (or text-types) for the article or
>>against it. However, I doubt that we should build theories on this type
>>of assimilation.

>In Mk(sic). 9:1, the article before PLOION is indeed the Byzantine reading,
>supported also by C* W 0233 (E F Delta 579 700 1424) al., with
>Alexandrian and Caesarean witnesses (Aleph B C3 L Theta f1 f13 33 565
>892 al sa mae) otherwise omitting the article.

>This article-inclusion, however, as SQE demonstrates, is _not_ a matter
>of parallel passage harmonization, as you basically stated. 

Sorry, Maurice, but this really brings me up. Where did I "basically state" this 
to be "a matter of PARALLEL passage harmonization" (emphasis added). If you are 
so familiar and "congenial" with the work of Wisselink, almost totally making 
him a spokesman of your own theories, you should have noted that 
assimilation/harmonization is indeed a tricky business. Wisselink seems to be 
more sensible towards the problem, than you: please take note that the 
article-inclusion in Mat 9:1 is the first reading Wisselink includes in his 
statistics in Appendix 2 (pp. 108-163). Fight him. But most of all, READ him and 
READ others CAREFULLY. 
 
Before going any further, it may be wise to stop, take a deep breath, switch off 
the PC, take a week off, not touching an on-line computer, and enjoy 
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and the Ostsee.
That's exactly, what I'm going to do now.
(Don't worry, Maurice, I planned this long before your recent post.)
Bye for now.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 13:33:48 -0500 (EST)

> Therefore, please stop fighting straw-men. 

As a neutral statement, Wisselink's working definition is satisfactory. 
However what you seem to make into a "straw man" has nothing to do with
that neutral definition, but with the decision to use Byz as an entity as
if it were a MS.  If it indeed is _counted_ as a MS, and not as merely a
control group for comparison, then the number of assimilations which can
be alleged to exist in Byz will definitely be proportionally higher than
those found in any of its individual components.  Reverse the situation
and use the WH text to = Alex and then compare that against the same
individual MSS -- you once more would have a _larger_ number of possible
or alleged assimilations in Alex than you would in any of the individual
MSS.  The point is simple, and not a "straw man" -- a texttype as a whole
cannot function as a single MS when making comparisons; its _only_
usefulness is in serving as a control group for comparison.  

> Wisselink does not show a glimps of your distinction as far as I can see. 

If Wisselink does not make that abundantly clear in his dissertation, that
is his problem, but such is the _only_ logical manner in which to evaluate
the data, and such _must_ underlie his methodology. Texttypes and
individual MSS are like apples and oranges, and cannot be directly
compared one to another with equally valid results, else why not simply
compare Alex with West, Caes, and with Byz, and forget the individual MSS
comparison?  He chose to compare individual MSS to get an idea regarding
their propensity toward assimilation, and therefrom to derive some idea of
the likelihood of assimilation extending into the texttype-as-a-whole
(which Alex or Caes or West was _not_ considered).  Had he simply included
individual Byzantine MSS  and evaluated their propensity toward
assimilation and made extrapolations therefrom, we would be on level
ground all the way around. That certainly is the way in which I would have
approached his dissertation research; but I was not his director, nor did
I offer any advice.  You later state:

>If you are so familiar and "congenial" with the work of Wisselink, almost
>totally making him a spokesman of your own theories...

But I am no more familiar with Wisselink than having read his material
once and having conversed with him once.  He most certainly is _not_ a
spokesman for my own theory, though he does assist that theory by his
conclusion regarding assimilation as _not_ a primary characteristic of the
Byzantine Textform any more than for other texttypes (which I would have
claimed in any case, but he provides hard evidence). As for Wisselink's
own theory, I really do not know it in detail, though I know he leans more
pro-Byzantine, as does Jakob Van Bruggen, his mentor, but I am not even
sure if he and Van Bruggen agree. I do know that other eclectics have
tried to make Wisselink's work also support a position against the
Byzantine Textform when he in fact does no such thing. This is why I think
Wisselink at some point should have simply stopped being so "neutral" and
declared his own interpretation of the conclusions.

> (according to his working definition) than Byz, you might count 
> proportionally even less assimilations in B, when ignoring its singular 
> assimilations, than in Byz. My problem with that is somehow similar to 
> your problem, but don't blame me. Wisselink is to be charged for that.

Agreed in this case. I would also suggest that what you mention would
change proportionally were he even to compare B against the WH Alexandrian
text with whatever possible proportions of alleged assimilation might be
present in that texttype taken as a whole.  My point has been that on the
texttype level there will _always_ be proportionally more assimilations
than on the individual MS basis, so long as the singular and subsingular
readings of individual MSS are being examined.  On the other hand, if the
singular and subsingular readings of individual MSS are included AND the
other possible alleged harmonizations of the texttype to which such a MS
belongs should be added, then of course _every_ MS will look even _more_
prone to harmonization than otherwise.  This is why MSS should be compared
with MSS and texttypes with texttypes, and never the twain should meet.

 
> to be "a matter of PARALLEL passage harmonization" (emphasis added). 

I will recant on that point: you only said "a type of assimilation" --
though I remain puzzled in light of Wisselink's definition why parallels
are somehow not in view if it is to be termed assimilation. He said:

 "If there is a case of variation within a text-passage and if there is
  another text-passage with which comparison is possible, we call the
  reading which reduces the difference with that other text-passage,(sic)
  an assimilation" 

..If comparison is possible between two text passages, then they must in
some way be "parallel".  However, I reject in the present case any
contention that the mere presence or absence of an article before PLOION
has something of "assimilation" to it, as I discussed the matter. 

> please take note that the 
> statistics in Appendix 2 (pp. 108-163). Fight him. But most of all, READ 
> him and READ others CAREFULLY. 

I indeed object to Wisselink's use of Mt.9:1 in that situation and would
not claim any such passages as assimilation or harmonization, for reasons
stated. Basically nothing in the first category of "remote" assimilations
which have no real parallel to harmonize with should be considered as
assimilations, plain and simple. These should be dealt with (as I did)
from other text-critical perspectives.  Wisselink is not perfect in this
matter, and neither am I; but I most definitely would have had certain
aspects of his research proceed differently were I to suspect the later
interpretative problems his published results would cause.

> Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and the Ostsee.

I would love to do the same.  I plan to head for the mountains this last
weekend before classes resume and talk to the hillbillies in Mecklenburg
county NC..... 

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