Subject: RE: Eph 5:9

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 97 19:50:56 +0100

On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia):

[quoting Schmid]
>> Here is Wisselink's final conclusion: "Assimilation is not restricted to a 
>> single group of manuscripts, neither to a single gospel; assimilation has not 
>> taken place to any one gospel to a strikingly high degree. So if an 
>>assimilation 
>> is signalized, nothing can be concluded from that regarding the age of any 
>> variant or the value of any text-type. The current thesis, that the Byzantine 
>> text-type is to be called inferior because of its harmonizing or assimilating 
>> character, is methodologically not based on sound foundations" (p. 92f).

>This, at least in part, accords with what I was saying. However, I still
>think that Wisselink examines certain alleged Byzantine harmonizations
>(which he terms "assimilations") and finds reasons to consider that
>certain of such more likely stem from the autograph or archetype than that
>they were subsequently introduced. I do not recall that he excuses any of
>the Alexandrian or Western harmonizations as possibly stemming from the
>autograph when the Byzantine MSS differ with a non-harmonizing reading. 

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).
Therefrom it may be concluded that Wisselink treats all of the witnesses he uses 
in his examination very much the same. I simply could not find conclusions drawn 
from his data where Wisselink "excuses" harmonizations from whatever witness he 
examined. With respect to his working definition the textus receptus and 
Hodges-Farstad, which he treated as single witnesses, contain proportionally 
more assimilations (_not_ "alleged" assimilations) than B. Adding "alleged" to 
Wisselink's data simply is a METABASIS EIS ALLO GENOS.

[snip]
 
>> We should not neglect another of Wisselink's conclusions: "D especially has 
>> been assimilated. The degree of assimilation in B and P45 is strikingly 
>> small. 33, Theta and the Byzantine text-type stand midway between the 
>> others" (p. 87).

>> Now this is interesting. Even a scholar so heavily devoted to unearth the 
>> crucial problem of assimilation, and at the same time to fight for the 
>> reputation of the Byzantine text-type had to concede the fact that B 
>> proportionally contains the smallest amount of assimilation (slightly less 
>>than 
>> P45). In contrast to D which after all contains most of the _big_ 
>>assimilations 
>> (including transpositions of more than one vers of Mark into Luke) it is no 
>> surprise that the rest is somewhere in between B and D. These are the facts 
>> drawn from Wisselink's data. 

>These judgements are made on the basis of their singular or subsingular
>readings in the individual MSS cited. I too acknowledge the careful and
>generally "conservative" nature of the scribe of B, as well as what
>Wisselink reports regarding the other individual MSS. The comparison with
>a texttype is a different matter however, and can only be used as a point
>of reference. Where Wisselink would put the texttype-specific
>assimilations which would be endemic to the Alexandrian text as a separate
>entity might be quite different from where he places B, for example. The
>Byzantine Textform stands at a certain point relative to those individual
>MSS with its possible or alleged harmonizations. Such placement does _not_
>admit nor declare that those possible harmonizations are in fact true
>harmonizations rather than reflections of the autograph; they are only
>there for comparative purposes.

Wisselink simply does not go further as to calculate the number of assimilations
found in various selected witnesses when compared to one another. Therefrom he 
drew the already mentioned overall conclusion. He used the papyri, S, A, B, D, 
Theta, Omega, W, min 33, and "the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad, as 
summary of many minuscules" (p. 64). When examining and comparing the mentioned 
witnesses, Wisselink treated them all the same, whether Hodges and Farstad as a 
MS, or all the MSS as text-types. Again, Maurice, any further speculations as to 
"where Wisselink would put the texttype-specific assimilations" is a METABASIS 
EIS ALLO GENOS and without any hint on Wisselink's printed results.

>> In itself the data simply do _not_ point to the "Byzantine Textform as 
>> being the most free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels". Maurice's 
>> conclusion only fits the data, if one judges the Byzantine Textform on 
>> other grounds as being original. 

>And certainly Wisselink's own perspective follows the same course. For the
>purposes of neutrality, Wisselink had to allow that any alleged
>assimilation is either a real assimilation or stems from the archetype of
>a texttype or from the autograph. I would expect no less from an impartial
>analysis. But the matter still comes up within Wisselink as to whether
>there are good grounds or valid criteria for determining whether an
>assimilation is "real" or whether such reflects the original text, and
>these all deal with theory. Wisselink does make suggestions regarding the
>lack of "real" assimilation in the Byzantine Textform, and his statement
>quoted at the head of this post seems to make the point fairly clear, at
>least to me: 

>"The current thesis, that the Byzantine text-type is to be called inferior
>because of its harmonizing or assimilating character, is methodologically
>not based on sound foundations" (p. 92f).

>One must recall that a key complaint made against the Byzantine Textform
>for the past century has been its "harmonizing" character. If I read
>Wisselink correctly, he is clearly saying that (a) the Byzantine Textform
>has fewer harmonizations alleged to itself than can be alleged to at least
>the combined Alexandrian and Western texttypes; (b) the Byzantine Textform
>has far fewer harmonizations than the Western texttype; (c) those
>harmonizations found in the Western texttype are clearly "true"
>harmonizations and decidedly secondary; (d) the Alexandrian texttype has a
>large number of harmonizations which can be alleged against it (whether
>these alone outnumber the Byzantine, I am not certain, and would have to
>tabulate Wisselink's data to be sure); (e) there are more "real" 
>harmonizations among the MSS of the non-Byzantine texttypes than can be
>proven to exist within the Byzantine Textform (and this might depend on
>both Wisselink's and my own textual theories, but this was basically
>Wisselink's position as I understood it from him). 

Broad and simple, Maurice, Wisselink "is saying" non of these, at least not in 
my reading of his work, and certainly not "clearly". He may hold a textual 
theory similar to your own, he may even argue the way you do (however, I have my 
doubts on that), but in his book he expresses nothing comparable to your above 
mentioned conclusions. IMHO, you should verify your conclusions in pointing to 
Wisselink's published work. Whatever you and Wisselink agreed upon when meeting 
in Kampen in 1989 we can not know. 

> 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. 
 
>I don't think assimilation/harmonization was as much of a "constant
>threat" as you imagine, Ulrich, since the evidence of the MSS show that
>harmonizing readings tended _not_ to be perpetuated beyond a few copying
>generations. 

Well, Maurice, dealing with assimilation/harmonization is a tricky business. I 
just wonder how you can be so sure with your overall conclusion. Maybe we should 
have a closer look at various examples. 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.
Then we have a second type of assimilation where more than the article is 
involved, e.g. the various forms of AFIENTAI SOU AI hAMARTIAI in Mat 9:2.5 parr. 
Here the examination with respect to assimilation might produce more solid 
results. However, the possibility can not be ruled out, that in this case some 
assimilations might have been produced independently. Thirdly, we find 
assimilations of a more complex type, i.e. the transposition of whole sentences 
from one story (or Logion) into another story (or Logion). For example, within 
the story of the cleansing of the ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19) at least two very 
prominent MSS fealt the need to add some sort of expressed healing: D added 
TEQERAPEUESQE in Luke 17:14 and in the margin of P75 you find QELW KAQARISQHTE 
KAI EUQEWS EKAQARISQHSAN, which is derieved from the story of the cleansing of 
the leper in Mat 8:3 parr. Both additions display the same tendency, and one of 
them is a very complex assimilation. One may say, since P75 is the only witness, 
that this is a perfect example of an assimilation not perpetuated within textual 
transmission. That's true. However, what about an even more complex 
transposition within a whole bunch of Byzantine MSS perpetuated from the 9th to 
the 14th centuries? 

Within the collations of 119 Byzantine MSS from three monasteries (Patmos, 
Jerusalem, Sinai), published by Lake, Blake and New (The Caesarean Text of the 
Gospel of Mark; in: HThR 4 [1928] pp. 338-357), we find after Mark 11:26 an 
addition of Mat 7,7-8 in 16 MSS from all three monasteries. Another MS adds 
these verses after Mark 11:24. That is to say, roughly 15 percent of exclusively 
Byzantine MSS from three monasteries perpetuate this addition. Some further 
(unfortunately incomplete) studies revealed another 21 Byzantine MSS with the 
same addition (including K 017 from the 9th century). After checking most of 
these MSS, I found at least five reasonably distinct textual forms of this 
addition (if itacisms and orthographicals are included even more). As far as I 
can see, it is very unlikely that the addition of Mat 7:7-8 at Mark 11:26 (or 
11:24) occured several times independently. It is almost totally restricted to 
Byzantine text MSS (exception 579) from the 9th century onwards. How many 
copying generations would you guess, Maurice? Remember, it's only 15 percent. So 
noone, I suspect, would defend this addition as belonging to the autograph. On 
the other hand, it is at least 15 percent of the Byzantine MSS from three 
geographically seperated monasteries. So noone should simply dismiss it's 
validity as an example of what can happen in NT TC.  

>From my eclectic viewpoint I may draw the following conclusions:
Even, or should I say especially, within the Byzantine text a minority of MSS 
not easy to neglect perpetuate an obvious and complex addition of two verses 
from Mat within Mark over a period of some 500 years not restricted to any 
particular locale. This assimilation was not wiped out through cross-correction, 
but coexisted in various subtypes over a considerable span of time. Moreover, I 
only found signs of adding the verses, not of extinguishing them in the MSS. 
Therefore, the possibility can not be ruled out, that some complex assimilations 
gained a majority status, especially when they happen to be at the right time at 
the right place, i.e. early in the history of the Byzantine text. 
 
[snip]
 
>> This is the way eclectics are supposed to act. Isn't it?

>Ulrich, I am pleased to say that you act very much like a typical
>eclectic. :-) 

>I suppose that is a left-handed compliment (and I am left-handed)....

I know. So I am still not taken over to the other side.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 18:57:59 -0500 (EST)

> examined. 

I will have to look again and see how Wisselink approaches different views
of transmissional history. Something should be there regarding how which
transmissional view one accepts will include or exclude various alleged
harmonizations/assimilations.

> more assimilations (_not_ "alleged" assimilations) than B. Adding "alleged" 
> to Wisselink's data simply is a METABASIS EIS ALLO GENOS.

I acknowledge that "alleged" is my term, not Wisselink's; however, I see
nothing more in the term than a degree of fairness in the use of such
term, since until a harmonization is proven to be such (which it may not
be if stemming from the autograph), it can only be an "alleged"
harmonization.

> Again, Maurice, any further speculations as to 

But again, Wisselink did determine a MS's propensity toward assimilation
from its singular or sub-singular readings. These would say nothing about
those cases where, say, an Alexandrian or Western reading happened NOT to
be singular or subsingular, but instead reflected the texttype as a whole. 
Only the Byzantine was considered under that category, and then only as a
"control" type of database. _No_ conclusion should be drawn from the use
and performance of Byz (H/F text or otherwise) taken as a whole texttype
in regard to the _real_ proportion or tendency of the MSS comprising that
texttype for assimilation.  Since Wisselink found that assimilation was
_not_ endemic to the MSS comprising the Byzantine Textform, and dismissed
the claims in that regard, the next step should be to examine selected
early Byzantine MSS in singular and sub-singular readings in a manner
similar to that utilized for the non-Byz individual MSS in order to
determine the likelihood of Byzantine assimilation per se.  If that
likelihood remains small, then most of the assimilations listed under Byz
or H/F should be ruled invalid. 

> in Kampen in 1989 we can not know. 

I think that what I am saying is a clear enough reflection of what I read
in Wisselink.  We obviously read his data and words differently and draw
different inferences.  I recognize that part of the problem is that he had
to work from a "neutral" and non-judgmental perspective in his research,
and this is reflected in his text. However, I still think the inferences
are very much there, and the perceptions of different readers may affect
how such inferences are understood.  I know that other items came up in
conversation, and I may be blending some of those recollections into my
discussion; in that regard I confess guilt.

> have a closer look at various examples. 

Rather than making this post exceedingly long, I will postpone discussion
of the examples to another posting, after I have had opportunity to
download and digest all you have written.

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