Subject: Re: Eph 5:9

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 97 19:35:14 +0100

Sorry folks, again I pushed the wrong button causing a resending of Maurice's 
post which I wanted to comment on. Hopefully, this was a telling lapsus, for I 
now stronly suspect my computer-mouse to be defective. 
Back to what I initially planned. 

On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote:

[quoting Schmid:]
>> I don't know exactly what Maurice's "four volumes of data" consisted of he 
>> reportedly saw in Kampen in 1989. The Muenster *Institut* holds a copy of 
>> Wisselink's published dissertation called *Assimilation as a criterion for 
>>the 
>> establishment of the text. A comparative study on the basis of passages from 
>> Matthew, Mark and Luke; Kampen 1989*. The *Institut* holds another 
>>unpublished 
> >(or privately published) copy of three volumes under the same header: 
> >*Assimilation as...Matthew, Mark and Luke; Annex 1: The collations, Kampen 
> >1987*, *Assimilation...; Annex 2: The tables, Kampen 1987*, 
>> *Assimilation...Annex 3: The comparison, Kampen 1987*.

>> Just as a guess: Maurice saw Wisselink's published dissertation and the three 
>> annexes in Kampen which makes up a total of four volumes.  

>You are probably correct, Ulrich, except that I probably saw the
>_unpublished_ form of what was also the published dissertation, which was
>bound similarly to the other three volumes of data so as to make four
>identical volumes.

We finally settled that case, I assume.

>> >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.
>> 
>> Maurice, could you please add the relevant quotation from Wisselink's 
>>published 
>> dissertation displaying THIS result?
> >I must confess, I couldn't find it, neither in one of Wisselink's annexes.

>I will have to search Wisselink's single published volume for what I
>confessedly remember from when I first read it some time ago. I was
>certain that he made a claim to the effect that the Byzantine Textform
>_may_ have as many _alleged_ harmonizations as have been claimed for it,
>but that upon examination the alleged harmonizations were generally
>invalid, and that the other major texttypes in contrast possessed valid
>harmonizations. This of course by default makes the Byzantine Textform
>"less harmonized" than the other texttypes. Were you not able to find
>something of that sort in the book?  I know that from talking with
>Wisselink while in Kampen (he is a Reformed Church pastor living about 2
>hours away from Kampen) that we specifically discussed that conclusion as
>a major result of his research. 

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).

Noone (at least noone familiar with some MSS) ever assumed that assimilation 
_only_ occured within the Byzantine text-type. Therefore, Wisselink's conclusion 
oversimplificates the whole issue. 

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. 
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. 

I prefer to approach Wisselink's data from a more inductive perspective:
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. This is not to say that I will follow them slavishly in every 
instance. They just attracted my interest and partly my confidence. 
This is the way eclectics are supposed to act. Isn't it?

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 14:49:51 -0500 (EST)

> now stronly suspect my computer-mouse to be defective. 

Are we starting to develop a new type of "scribal error" for the
electronic age? :-)

> 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. 

> oversimplificates the whole issue. 

Since even I do not deny assimilation in various MSS reflecting all
texttypes, this should be a given. What we are dealing with in particular
are assimilations (real or alleged) which transcend individual MSS and go
back to either the archetype of a texttype or the autograph itself (which
latter would then _not_ be "assimilation", except on a higher critical
level regarding the development of the canonical text in a
pre-transmissional era).
 
> 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).

> 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.

> 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). 

> 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. The real problem is to deal with alleged harmonizations which
are endemic to a texttype as a whole, and to determine whether these
reflect the autograph or not (they certainly reflect the archetype of the
texttype, whether that be the autograph is a matter for debate).

Merely to take the witnesses which in singular or sub-singular readings
have the fewest number of true assimilations still says nothing about the
other alleged assimilations in such MSS which are reflective of the
texttype to which such MSS belong.  There are a number of Byzantine MSS
which are, on the basis of singular and subsingular readings, also _not_
given to much assimilation; why cannot these be followed as well and a
"greater confidence" placed in them?

> This is not to say that I will follow them slavishly in every 

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)....

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