From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 14:05:32 -0500

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 14:11:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Eph 5:9
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

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

They need to listen to Bob Dylan's "With God On Our Side" :-)

>>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.

>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.

Yet for the most part in the NT we are at the same loss. Certainly
favorite liturgical passages such as the Lord's Prayer or the
Magnificat would be well known in the early church, but would the
various catalogs of virtues all be linked together and called the
"fruit of the spirit" by the average person? I think this unlikely.
Similarly, while today's evangelical church majors on John 3:16 (as can
be seen from almost any sporting event), I suspect this key salvational
verse played a very small part in the early liturgical church. The key
to familiarity in the early era is more probably liturgy than anything
else, and thus the lectionaries and early liturgies are our best source
for determining popularity of various verses or phrases, "world without
end"....

>>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.

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

Certainly it can. Any hypothesis _must_ be tested by first assuming the
truth of the hypothesis under consideration and then evaluating its
claims and attempting to disprove such. If there is an initial refusal
to consider the hypothesis from within its own theoretical framework,
then the conclusion is predetermined and such a hypothesis cannot be
fairly evaluated.  Such a method in no way precludes testing the
component parts of the hypothesis by evaluating the data piece by
piece.

Were I to test the validity of the modern eclectic viewpoint, I would
have to allow as an initial working hypothesis their view of
transmissional history, the development of variants, and the secondary
nature of the Byzantine Textform. I then could test the hypothesis and
see whether the modern eclectic theory is self-consistent within its
own parameters by making a detailed examination of its presuppositions
and testing for a regular and fair application of its own internal and
external principles.  After such a theory has been tested from within
its own parameters, with weaknesses or inconsistencies noted, one can
then propose or move on to alternative hypotheses for similar
evaluation.  Following the scientific method, the hypothesis with the
_fewest_ perceived weaknesses should be given the preference (I think
this is the scientific method's equivalent to "God fights on the side
with the heaviest artillery").

>>_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.

>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.

I agree that any and all harmonizations, whether real or alleged, must
be investigated; however, following the method you just described
(which disregards the working hypotheses under consideration), I see no
way that you can come to any conclusion regarding _any_ alleged
harmonization without declaring it to be a true harmonization and
therefore secondary. Q.E.D., your suggestion _does_ advocate a
principle that "we must always accept the least harmonious reading", so
long as you approach the variant units with no theoretical concept from
any perspective concerning the nature of transmissional history
presupposed by the respective theorists.

>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.

I suspect that if that question were totally settled, we would not be
having any discussion. Were I convinced that the Byzantine Textform and
the transmissional theory which underlies a preference for it were
false or unsound, I would be the first to return to either modern
eclectic praxis or even to the Westcott-Hort theory.

Since, however, the determination of the age and value of the Byzantine
Textform as well as that of the other texttypes is bound up part and
parcel with the underlying presuppositions and various hypotheses, I
suspect no resolution of this problem will come quickly (although
apparently many from the opposing side thought the Byzantine Text
defense was long ago dead and buried, and liked the thought of keeping
it that way).

This is why I have maintained (with H.H.Oliver and others) that 
"textual criticism without a history of the text is impossible." Modern 
eclecticism proceeds without a real history of the text, and prefers to 
deal with the history of variants alone, taken from within the 
isolation of the respective variant units (whether one calls it the 
"local-genealogical method" or whatever).  The net result of such a 
practice leads (as has been critiqued by Colwell, Clark, Epp, and 
others from within the eclectic school) to a resultant printed text 
which has _no_ transmissional heritage nor existence in any known MS, 
version or texttype. Suffice it to say that a Byzantine-priority method 
does not share those particular weaknesses, nor do transmissionally- 
based pro-Alexandrian theories such as that of Westcott and Hort (who 
would have had a nearly pure Alexandrian text had they not gotten 
imbued with the "Western non-interpolations" issue); the problem noted
is endemic to modern eclecticism in particular.

>To put it another way, Robinson and I are operating at different levels.

Perhaps an understatement..... :-)

>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.

This of course is not expected nor demanded. It must be remembered that 
my own movement to a pro-Byzantine position was the result _only_ of 
first analyzing and critiquing the modern eclectic position, as well as
those of its predecessors, and only after did I seek a more reasonable
explanation to account for the data. Blame Kenneth W. Clark for setting
me on the road I have taken; it was his suggestion from the start.

>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.

Fully agreed. And no two MSS of _any_ texttype agree 100%, so far as I
know; but this does not affect texttype-specific readings, which are 
the primary data to be conservatively preserved in most MSS of any 
given texttype.

Regarding the creation of variants, however, I have suggested that
"new" sensible readings, whether accidentally or deliberately created
by scribes or revisers at any point subsequent to the autograph, would
always be unlikely to gain more than a small foothold within the
"primarily conservative" transmissional process, except among small
"local text" regions.

Most sensible readings so created were weeded out by cross-comparison
and correction from other exemplars within a few copying generations;
were this not the case, the NT MSS would have degenerated into
near-utter chaos among themselves, such as was the case with the Old
Latin, and we would not be talking of four major texttypes, but dozens
of competing minor texttypes at the very least.

The history of NT Greek MS transmission moves toward a final text
preserved in the mass of documents which has relatively very few
sub-variants among its member MSS. Order coming out of what should have
been chaos is a very problematic concept, and it is this very fact
which provoked either the Hortian "Syrian Recension" theory or the
Colwellian "process" theory to account for the rise and dominance of
the basically unified Byzantine Textform. Yet both the recensional and
process alternative hypotheses are beset by serious weaknesses, as
previously mentioned.

>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).

Still fully granted. If they essentially reproduced without change that
which had been bequeathed to them by scribes of each earlier
generation, I would not be surprised to find an essentially unified
Textform being preserved from the fourth or fifth century onward in 
the majority of MSS.

I also am willing to grant the relative non-conservative sloppiness of 
Egyptian scribes from the pre-4th century era in regard to most of the 
MSS which have been preserved to us from that region. I also grant the 
concept of the "uncontrolled popular text" existing before AD 200 which 
likely accounts for most known variant readings and especially the 
so-called "western" corruptions. 

My only additional assumption is that not all scribes nor even most 
scribes were necessarily like those we find in the papyri preserved 
from Egypt, and that it is a likely extrapolation from those known 
"conservative" Byzantine-type scribes from the 4th and 5th centuries 
and onward that similar earlier scribal conservatism also did prevail 
in the regions of the Empire where Greek had been the primary tongue 
(Southern Italy through modern Turkey) in the earlier centuries.  If 
this assumption is correct, then the groundwork for a Byzantine- 
priority theory has a legitimate basis.  Since such an assumption
cannot be proved one way or the other in view of current data, well,
that is why other hypotheses exist, equally unproven.

>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.

Also agreed.

>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.

That in itself is correct, and shows that there were "conservative" 
scribes within the other textual traditions as well. Since I presume 
the Alexandrian texttype to be basically the local text of Egypt, I 
have no problem with either P75 or B preserving that localized variant 
with relative accuracy.  The wonder is that so many other papyri from
the localized region of Egypt did _not_ conservatively copy the text,
but fell victim to the "uncontrolled popular text" syndrome.

>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.

Since P75 and B both preserve what Hort called "a very pure line of
very ancient text", I think we _have_ to presume that particular line
_was_ conservatively and basically carefully preserved over the
centuries, and also in any forerunner MSS in a line going back to the
archetype of the local Alexandrian texttype (unless one wanted to claim
that P75 was "the" original archetype of the Alexandrian text -- I'll
leave that one to Theide for his next book :-).

>Not my point. The point is that oral tradition and written tradition
>display *identical behaviors*.

I will differ on this point, since -- especially with a religious text 
which becomes regarded as sacred -- the written and oral tradition tend 
to become fixed and stabilized in a manner which folkloric or lyrical 
oral tradition does not; and the passage of time, even centuries, does 
little to alter the fixed written or oral tradition in such cases.

Remember that, even with all of the little sub-variant types among the 
Byzantine MSS, the basic text of _any_ Byzantine MS from the 15th 
century will look amazingly like _any_ Byzantine or proto-Byzantine 
text from the 4th, 5th, or 6th century. The analogy from oral tradition 
would expect to see continual corruption or alteration occurring and 
accruing over the centuries, but this simply is not the case with the 
Byzantine Textform as an entity, even though sub-Byzantine families or 
types might branch of in small particulars from the vast majority (Von 
Soden's Kx) which majority would continue to preserve the original and 
overarching Byzantine Textform in virtually any era.

>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."

I will defer to you on the folk song issue. I only play them and
attempt to sing them (and not very well).

>I did the only research I could on this last night: I looked up what
>Daniel Wallace had to say about 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.

I also grant this point, since obviously any single MS will have more
of virtually any type of error (deliberate or accidental) than the
members of its texttype.  However, I think Wisselink _only_ utilized
the frequency of harmonization in individual MSS of the Alexandrian
type in order to establish whether any of those individual MSS had a
"tendency" to harmonize. This would be no different than Colwell's
study of scribal habits in the early papyri.

Those Alexandrian witnesses found to have a tendency to harmonize would 
then become suspect or of somewhat less weight in places where the 
remainder of the Alexandrian texttype does not harmonize.  The real 
test, however, remains in those readings which are texttype-specific, 
wherein it can be presumed that the _archetype_ of the Alexandrian 
texttype must have harmonized -- this transcends the vagaries of the
individual MSS comprising such a texttype, and is a proper subject for 
evaluation.

>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.

This is interesting, since Fee and Wallace both have claimed that the 
task of the pro-Byzantine side was _not_ to deal in theory (even though 
that is what undergirds the entire perspective), but to deal in praxis 
with relatively isolated examples set forth as "challenge" cases. I 
have responded to two such test cases from Fee in an ETS paper which is 
currently available in our _Faith and Mission_ journal. However, praxis 
in individual variant units, without the consideration of the theory 
underlying such praxis, reflects nothing more than practical
eclecticism, and this in itself establishes and proves nothing.

Certainly I _do_ prefer far more the idea of looking at all variants 
within a single section of text, since this is compact and relatively 
easy to deal with. But I don't want this to become merely the "Pepsi 
Challenge" and continually have to move from pericope to pericope on 
the assumption that successful defense of Byzantine readings in one 
place says nothing about what might occur elsewhere. Just as Fee said 
with his two test passages from Mark, they were merely "two among 
hundreds," and whatever defense could be made for them could be 
repeated hundreds of times over (Fee of course meant a defense made by 
only the Alexandrian eclectics, and discounted the possibility of any 
such defense coming from the Byzantine supporters).

Suffice it to say that _if_ a reasonable defense can be made for the 
Byzantine readings appearing in a given pericope or segment of text, it 
should be granted that such a defense obviously _could_ be made 
elsewhere in a similar manner. Certainly some readings might require 
time and research effort, and cannot be defended by a simple shot from 
the hip; but that is only to be expected in the nature of the case.

>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."

Probably too simplistic in and of itself, but fitting in with a primary
internal criterion of textual criticism.

>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.

This of course is your subjective judgment. Others (whether eclectics 
or pro-Byzantine) might look at the same variant units and come to 
totally different conclusions, even using that single criterion.  I 
know that I would. Part of the reason of course will be that you 
applied a criterion taken in isolation apart from other internal or 
external data (a severe parallel to the Kilpatrick/Elliott method of 
"rigorous" eclecticism). I suspect that even Elliott would demur from
your method in such a case; but as a sample without definitive 
overtones, what you did was a fine experiment.

>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.*

Again a subjective judgment. Since I don't know the passages or 
readings, I might seem presumptuous, but since I have worked through 
all these readings previously and know where the most problematic 
happen to be, I would maintain that a reasonable case can be made for 
the Byzantine reading in almost all such places. The difficult cases 
especially need to be considered in view of the _entire transmissional 
history_, as even Westcott and Hort pointed out in their own model.  
The overriding theory, once established and settled, _must_ assume that
even the difficult places were transmitted as they were because of
autograph or archetype originality, else they would not be part and
parcel of a texttype/Textform reading so perpetuated.

>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.

I agree in regard to the subjectivity, but that comes with the varied 
approaches and the theories which underlie them. I suspect that _no_ 
rigid control procedure could ever come about which would bridge the 
gap between competing theories.  I _do_ think that a rigid control 
procedure _could_ be imposed within a _single_ theoretical perspective, 
and in fact my approach to the evaluative method of readings on 
internal grounds is quite controlled and "rigid" for the most part; it 
just does not happen to be the same controls or (lack of) rigidity that
one would find within modern eclectic praxis.

>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.

It is interesting that you did that experiment, since I have my own 
text-critical students do something similar: I give them a "blind" list 
of readings within a portion of text, with no external evidence support 
cited, and ask them to determine solely from internal criteria which 
readings are "best". The results when working "blind" in almost all 
cases is an equally-divided bag: some Byzantine readings being 
preferred, some Alexandrian, and even a few Western. The net result of 
such an approach is that we should expect from eclectic scholars a 
resultant text which is far more equally balanced among the texttypes 
than is present in the primarily-Alexandrian model found in the UBS or 
NA editions. This of course is _only_ if we proceed from internal 
criteria without theories regarding the "best" MSS or texttypes etc.

>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.

If it ever does resemble Von Soden or Sturz (which are quite disparate, 
by the way), let me know, since I have a strong critique regarding 
either theory, though admittedly Sturz ends up by his methodology with 
a text which is _very_ close to a Byzantine text (he published a 
fascicle containing Matthew to demonstrate his method). Sturz departed 
from the Byzantine Textform _only_ when the Alexandrian and Western
texttypes happened to unite apart from the Byzantine text -- and you
know how infrequently that would occur.

>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. :-)

Welcome to the club. :-)

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