Subject: EASE/Leisure/Freizeit

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 97 12:04:29 +0100

Thanks to all those reacting to my modern-times-real-life TC example for 
absolving at least my mother and various other suggestions.

Especially helpful to me was the reference to the different keyboard lay-outs 
existing throughout the world. I somehow *knew* that, but I simply failed to 
account for it when writing the story down. By implication it seems very 
important to know and to imagine as much as possible of the immediate (not only 
intellectual, but) *physical* context of a given text.

I enjoyed very much the various speculations of the "experts" to account for the 
reading "Freizeit", including conjectural emendation. Especially telling are 
suggestions like, e.g. heterodox corruption vs. orthodox emendation. The lesson 
I learned from our example is that with the "right" framework we are able to 
claim almost every reading as somehow deliberately, purposely produced. However, 
fact is that my URTEXT contained a simple typing-error. And apart from my 
hand-written notes, NO copy existed where what I was thinking of could be read 
plainly and unambiguously.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:46:29 -0500 (EST)

Continuing the discussion.....

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.

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.

>> 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.

The conclusion derives from the fact that it can be demonstrated merely 
from the critical apparatus of, say, _Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum_, 
[SQE] that harmonizations or assimilations _frequently_ occurred. It 
likewise can be demonstrated from their near total lack of perpetuation 
-- even among members of a single minority texttype -- that 
_non-perpetuation_ of harmonizations/assimilations was the rule rather 
than the exception.  There is no need or logic underlying the 
presumption of the selective perpetuation of _some_ harmonizations on 
the wide "majority" level to the exclusion of other quite reasonable 
harmonizations which were _not_ perpetuated, except by a very few MSS
in a very limited area or number of copying generations.

>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. 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. However,
from within a Byzantine-priority perspective, the use or non-use of the
article in such a case _is_ a matter of "normal" Matthean style which
appears to have been grammatically altered in a number of places by the
minority MSS.  Whether this was done due to consideration of the rule
of first mention (in which the article would be omitted on the first
mention of a term, but included on subsequent occasions), or whether
there may be some other stylistic considerations or even influence from
the use of the article in Coptic or its non-use in Latin would have to
be determined from a more complete evaluation of the data.

Examining the use of the article with PLOION (in various cases) in
Matthew alone, one finds that in the Byzantine Textform that there are
13 instances of PLOION, _all but one_ of which (14:13) have the article
present (Mt. 4:21,22; 8:23,24; 9:1; 13:2; 14:13,22,24,29,32,33; 15:39).
Out of these the article is absent in the NA26/27 text in only 8:23;
9:1; 13:2 (as well as 14:13 which did not have the article to begin
with).

Omitting the article:

8:23 - Aleph1 B C f1 f13 33 205 565 892 pc (omission follows "rule of 
       first mention" and also harmonizes with parallel lack of article
       in Lk.8:22, where itself article is added to harmonize with Byz
       in Mt only by H W f13 pc bo-mss)

9:1 -  Evidence cited above. Omission here also follows the "rule of
       first mention" even though there are no parallel passages to
       compare against.

13:2 - Included by D K Gamma Delta f13 28 565 1006 1342 1506 (E F G 209 
       579 2542) Maj; all other constant minority witnesses omit (this
       omission once again follows the "rule of first mention" and also
       harmonizes with parallel lack of article in among minority MSS
       in Mk.4:1, where article remains present in Maj, but _not_ in
       Aleph B* C L Theta 33 565 892 1342 1424 2427 pc).

Note also that WH text (but not NA26/27) chose also to omit the article 
in 14:22, following Aleph* C* 892* (ff1) sy-s sy-c. This also reflects
an omission of the article in the parallel passage Mk.6:45 by Aleph
Theta 1 33 565 1342 1582 2542 pc. and is again a case of certain MSS 
following the "rule of first mention".

My suggestion in such cases as Mt. 8:23; 9:1; 13:2; and 14:22 is that 
certain minority scribes happened to accommodate Matthean style (which 
by including the article is more Hebraic) to the proper "rule" 
regarding first mention. If so, this appears to be not so much 
harmonization or assimilation, but recensional activity for grammatical 
reasons.  Looking at it from another angle (the reading which best 
accounts for the rise of the others), there seems to be _no_ reason why
the mass of scribes would _add_ the article in such places on their own
initiative, but there are compelling reasons why the scribes might omit
the article on a selective basis for grammatical or harmonization 
reasons.

I will continue with the other examples in a later post...

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