Subject: Re: Eph 5:9

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 00:49:12 -0500 (EST)

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

> >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.
> 
> 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.)

Which is why so many people are 100% certain that "God helps those who
help themselves" is in the Bible, even though they aren't sure where. :-) 

Neither NA26 nor Von Soden give any patristic writers on either side in
the case of Eph.5:9, so I suspect there are none of note. There is no
variant at Gal.5:22, so no data there either.

However, I would not claim that frequency of citation in patristic writers
would settle the issue, since scribes in and of themselves may not have
been devout readers of technical patristic theological treatises, but
would be more drawn to sermonic or devotional material (remember Codex
Ephraemi is "rescriptus" because a scribe deemed the _sermons_ of Ephraem
more important than the uncial biblical text, and who knows what scribes
may have thought about patristic treatises, except when they were directed
to copy such. I suspect we would not easily find a treatise of Tertullian
overwriting biblical documents or sermonic/devotional material).  Since
most sermons were not written down in antiquity, who knows how often such
a passage may have been cited beyond whatever appearance it may have had
in the annual lectionary cycle.

Scripture memorization among monks would have been primarily in the Psalms
and the Gospels (some monks of course did memorize the entire NT or even
the Bible). Familiarity with recurring passages in the lectionary cycle
_could_ make a passage or phrase more familiar.  Regarding lectionary
usage, I would have to check Gregory's or Scrivener's lists to see whether
the Galatians or Ephesians passages were read more than once during the
liturgical year; I suspect no more than one reading of either passage,
however, and, since no special mention was made in N26 of the lectionary
readings in Eph.5:9, I suspect it agrees with the Byzantine reading there.

As a parallel, it would also be interesting to see whether the peculiar
phrase "fruit of light" was ever quoted in any context by the lectionaries
or patristic writers or any extra-biblical source. From my limited
reading in the fathers and non-biblical sources, I confess that I have
_never_ encountered the phrase. My own inclination is that such a phrase
was never so quoted, but of course I could be wrong....

> >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.*

This is not a refusal to consider the question, but a matter of the entire
view of transmissional history which underlies a Byzantine-priority
theory. Should a parallel passage in Matthew and Mark happen to agree in
wording with _no_ variation in any texttype, that (as all scholars know) 
is _not_ something caused by the scribes, but by the original writers of
each respective gospel, and is a matter for higher critical investigation.

If (under a Byzantine-priority hypothesis) the Byzantine Textform = the
autograph, it then also = whatever "harmonized" common text might appear
in those autographs, just as in places where no units of variation exist.
Merely because in such situations the Byzantine Textform happens to read
identically between, say, Matthew and Mark where the Alexandrian may
happen to vary, does _not_ allow an automatic presumption of deliberate
harmonization by the scribes of the Byzantine MSS.

It is fully to be expected that the claim of Byzantine-priority would
_have_ to maintain that its text has _not_ been "harmonized" in any way,
especially not in a direction supposedly _away from_ a non-harmonistic
Alexandrian or Western alternative, since that would then obliterate any
Byzantine-priority claim and make something else the archetype reading,
and if the Byzantine text is not the archetype, the theory is dead and we
are back at square one.

In a similar manner, the places where the Alexandrian and Western
texttypes present a harmonizing text differing from the non-harmonizing
Byzantine Textform are considered (under the view of Byzantine priority)
to in fact be _real_ harmonizations which departed from the
non-harmonizing Byzantine original. All this goes part and parcel with
what a theory of Byzantine-priority implies, and is in no way intended to
be a refusal to examine the question.  On the contrary, _every_ alleged
harmonization within the Byzantine Textform is a reading which needs to be
examined and defended, just as with any other reading in any other unit of
variation. 
 
> >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. 
> 
> This is assuming the solution. You *may* be correct. But you are not
> offering evidence.

Certainly, the evidence can readily be offered on a case-by-case basis,
with the cumulative effect of the defense of the Byzantine reading leading
to the desired conclusion. However, there really is _no_ difference
between the claim made in regard to my own position and that of the modern
eclectics, who in almost all cases claim (from within their perspective) 
that the Byzantine text continually harmonizes, while all those places
where the Alexandrian text happens to agree with parallel passages in
other gospels and the Byzantine text differs are quietly ignored and their
"harmonizing" variant text remains _accepted and intact_ within their own
editions (one need only look at the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum to see
this very point illustrated repeatedly in parallel columns).

It of course would be absurd to suggest that a rule such as "prefer every
non-harmonizing reading, regardless of texttype" be imposed, else we take
the criterion of dissimilarity to a ridiculous level and end up with a
horrible text, regardless of theory or preference. Yet to suggest that the
need to remain consistent within one's theoretical perspective is somehow
a "refusal" to consider the evidence simply crosses the proper bounds of
logic and scientific method. _All_ theories have to function properly
within their own parameters, else they would already be invalid. Were I to
maintain that the Byzantine Text as established by a Byzantine-priority
method indeed _does_ have harmonizations within it, then I would be
admitting that my theory is no theory at all. I hope you see the point. 

We can look at any cases of alleged "Byzantine harmonization" all you
want, and evaluate the data on the basis of external and internal
criteria, just as with any variant unit; such examination in no way
refuses the fair and just examination of all the evidence. 

However, _if_ a Byzantine-priority model is correct, then it is only to be
expected that the conclusion drawn by its advocates from those external
and internal criteria, especially when viewed from within a solid
transmissional-historical theory, will _have_ to conclude that the
Byzantine reading is original and will need to successfully defend that
position on the basis of the evidence. This seems to me no different than
what any modern eclectic claim to originality would have to do. I am not
surprised that the interpretation of the data in such cases by modern
eclectics is designed precisely to support their own intended end; no one
should be surprised that my own Byzantine defense will similarly fall in
line with the complete overarching theory which underlies that case. 

> >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. 
> 
> 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. 

This is precisely my own point in defending the readings found in the
Byzantine Textform -- if they indeed _were_ so conservative, then they
would _not_ en masse have harmonized, would _not_ en masse have accepted
the "easier" readings, would _not_ en masse have conflated, etc., etc. 

If they in fact did precisely what you said, and _preserved_ the readings
before them at almost all times and places and in every copying
generation, then the _only_ result to be expected would be a near-total
uniformity of text in those Byzantine MSS -- a uniformity which would stem
from the autograph (Hort's "theoretical presumption once more). 

So with this statement regarding Byzantine "conservatism", I am in
wholehearted agreement. Thank you.  Now in light of this excellent
statement, _please_ explain how my preceding quoted statement in any way
is "false logic", since what I say in that preceding paragraph seems to
tally precisely with what you have just said.... 

> 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.

Fully agreed, especially if you are talking about the Byzantine Textform. 
Harmonization, whether in individual Byzantine MSS or in the Alexandrian
or Western MSS was _sporadic_, as I stated above.  Harmonizing readings
_did_ occur in individual MSS and even spread among localized texttypes to
various degrees (i.e. the Alexandrian, Western or Caesarean); but such
harmonizations did _not_ gain a dominant foothold among the vast majority
of MSS in any copying generation. Presuming a Byzantine-priority
hypothesis, passages in the Byzantine Textform which reflect identity of
reading in parallel places are no more harmonizations than similar
parallels between the gospels where _no_ variation otherwise occurs. 

> 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.

We of course are not dealing with oral tradition in the case of manuscript
transmission, though I will agree that oral tradition, especially in
regard to the sayings of Jesus, _did_ play a part in maintaining a certain
identity of reading among the synoptic gospels -- but again, this is a
matter of higher criticism, and not directly related to the actual
transmission of the written text per se.

> 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....)

And this obviously helps to explain Matthew, Mark, and Luke as (to some
degree) "theme and variations". To return to the song analogy, "Lizzie
Wan" never (so far as I suspect) had to deal with an "Edward" variant, so
it is no surprise that "Lizzie Wan" won out.  However, what if a song like
"De Camptown Races" gets established in oral and written tradition?  It
will be _exceedingly_ difficult to ever find anyone singing "Hoo Hah" 
instead of "Doo Dah" -- yet Alan Sherman did just that, for those who
remember "My Son the Folk Singer. But even though Sherman sang "Hoo Hah",
it did _not_ replace the original form of the text, since there is far too
much oral and written tradition opposing such a change. This is a similar
conservatism to what obtains in the transmission of the biblical
documents, so far as I can see.
 
> >Should I _like_ the word "ilk"? Or does it have a certain degree of 
> >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."

I guess that's the difference down here in the South (Doo Dah Doo Dah). We
usually use "ilk" in the sense of not liking someone of his ilk -- nothing
upstanding about such a fellow....Regional Semantics! 
 
> I'd need to see the results before I can accept them blindly. 

Most definitely Wisselink should be read, and his 4-volumes of data if
possible.

> 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)?

Commercial publication of _what_? Wisselink's 4 volumes of data?  Other
"new" material or reprints of older material?  Prices already are too high
for books for the non-professional (not to mention us "professionals"),
but electronic media do offer a less expensive method and might reflect
the wave of the future if commercialism and proprietariness don't get in
the way.

> >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.
> 
> 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.

I am certain someone else on this list has examined Wisselink and could
confirm some of my claims (e.g. Keith Elliott?). The problem once more is
that Wisselink's work has not been printed in quantity and few there are
that find it. I have his one-volume edition and could quote conclusions
from it if desired.
 
> With the footnote, of course, that the results must be broad spectrum.
> Examples are *not* sufficient.

I thought that the broad spectrum was what you were initially criticizing
in my approach at the beginning of this post. If examples are not
sufficient, then what is? -- the transmissional theory presumed?  Suffice
it to say that Wisselink's published volume deals with examples and
theory, but the full listing of all examples is only to be found in those
unpublished supplementary volumes (and Wisselink _does_ cover the synoptic
gospels in exceedingly minute detail). 

You're still getting better, Bob....agreeing with me ever so slightly more
often, and probably enjoying it less. :-) 

_________________________________________________________________________
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: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:20:47 -0700

>help themselves" is in the Bible, even though they aren't sure where. :-) 

I've even encountered someone (not a Christian) who thought "God
fights on the side with the heaviest artillery" was Biblical.

>variant at Gal.5:22, so no data there either.

But this is the fact we need: How often did people cite that passage?
Only by knowing how familiar it is can we determine whether people
would harmonize to it. I concede Robinson's argument (omitted) that
it is hard to tell how well-known a passage is. But it is a crucial
question here.

[ ... ]

>was never so quoted, but of course I could be wrong....

I agree, for whatever it's worth.

>each respective gospel, and is a matter for higher critical investigation.

Agreed.

>harmonization by the scribes of the Byzantine MSS.

Agreed again, but it's *still* assuming the solution. The matter cannot
be investigated from that standpoint.

[ ... ] 

>admitting that my theory is no theory at all. I hope you see the point. 

I see what you are saying. And I do not argue that we must always
accept the least harmonious reading. I am simply saying (and this
criticism applies just as much to blind followers of Hort as to
followers of the Byzantine text) that *wherever* there is a variant
involving one or more harmonized readings, and one or more disharmonized
readings, we must initially evaluate the readings without examining
the text-types they belong to.

Note that I am working at the very lowest level here. I am *not*
trying to determine the original text. I am trying to determine the
age and value of the Byzantine text (and the other text-types).
Only once that investigation is completed can we start on the
original text.

To put it another way, Robinson and I are operating at different levels.
He has reached a conclusion about the original text type. I had reached
a different conclusion about that text-type. I am now offering to go
back one level, and assume *ignorance* about the text-types. I am
not willing to go back and then blindly come over to his side.

[ ... ]

>tally precisely with what you have just said.... 

I said *primarily* conservative. They did not set out to create variants.
That doesn't mean they *never* did so. We all know that no copyist is
perfect.

Also, when I refer to the Byzantine copyists as "conservative," I refer
to them during the periods during which their actions are visible
(which starts in the fourth/fifth century for the gospels, and later in
the rest of the NT). We do not know the shape of the materials they
worked with prior to that time. Of course, the same statement applies,
with differences in date, to all text-types. We know, e.g., that the
copyist who produced B, and probably its immediate predecessors, were
conservative, because they kept its text close to p75. But we do not
know what happened prior to the creation of p75. Most scholars think
the forerunners of that manuscript were also conservative and careful.
But we *cannot* prove it.

[ ... ]

>transmission of the written text per se.

Not my point. The point is that oral tradition and written tradition
display *identical behaviors*. They are both phenomena of the written
memory. The difference is simply that in oral tradition the evolution
(or devolution) takes place faster, because it is harder to refer back
to the "original." But I would bet that I can find examples of *any*
textual phenomenon you care to name in Bronson's "Traditional Tunes
of the Child Ballads." (Or could, if I had all four volumes, which
I don't.) I could probably find all of them just in "Barbara Allen"
or "Lord Thomas and Fair Ellen."

>remember "My Son the Folk Singer.

You'd be amazed at what happens. A collector in Australia found
a text which consisted of equal parts of "Marching Through Georgia"
and "The Battle Cry of Freedom," using both textual and melodic
phrases from both. And yet *both* songs are still sung widely, and
*both* are still in print. Errors of the mind are infinite.

[ ... ]

>the wave of the future if commercialism and proprietariness don't get in

Anything. Everything. Electronic publication would be fine. :-)

>that find it.

The eternal problem of textual criticism. Something needs to be done
about this... even if it just means more electronic publication.

>I have his one-volume edition and could quote conclusions
>from it if desired.

I did the only research I could on this last night: I looked up what
Daniel Wallace had to say abour Wisselink. He did raise one *very*
strong point. He observes that Wisselink compares the Byzantine *text*
with individual Alexandrian *witnesses.*

Now it is true that the Byzantine text is fairly coherent, and the
Alexandrian text is not, so this is the easiest sort of comparison.
But it is also a *false* comparison. An individual manuscript will
almost certainly have more harmonizations than its text-type. We
must compare types against types.

>gospels in exceedingly minute detail). 

Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. My point is, one *cannot* quote isolated
examples. One must sit down with *some* section of continuous text and
examine every reading.

In fact, I made a small experiment of that sort last night. I started
from Hodges & Farstad (the only text with a reasonably relevant critical
apparatus). Taking two sample chapters (from Mark and John), I compared
the Byzantine and Alexandrian readings. My *sole* criterion was the
internal one, "Which reading best explains the others."

The majority of readings were ambiguous. In instances where one reading
seemed preferable to the others, it seemed about an even split as to
which was preferable, Byzantine or Alexandrian.

However, many of these readings were cases where one reading was only
slightly preferable. In the handful of cases where one was *clearly*
preferable (I think there were five that I noticed before I had to
stop), *all five of the preferable readings were Alexandrian.*

This is an interesting caution, in that it says that both sides have
some of the truth. It also says that we need to study the matter
further; I didn't check enough readings to be decisive. But it also
says that we need a rigid control procedure; what I think is certainly
original may not be what Wisselink thinks is certainly original. It's
a problem.

But I would recommend the exercise to others; it *was* educational.
The difference between Byzantine and Alexandrian is certainly not as
clearcut as I thought.

>often, and probably enjoying it less. :-) 

True on both counts. Although -- even if the process continues -- my
resultant theory is likely to resemble Von Soden's or Sturz's. I doubt
I will abandon non-Byzantine text-types entirely.

Just great... already half the people on this list don't listen to me.
Now I'm going to get the other half ignoring me. :-)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Vincent Broman <[email-masked]>
Date: 1 Apr 1997 17:24:40 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[email-masked] said:
>                                               ... I compared
> ...

I say Amen to that.  Quite educational.

Vincent Broman