Subject: Re: Eph 5:9

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 15:38:41 -0500 (EST)

It seems to me that the assimilation to the immediate context argument won't
hold water.  Lots of evidence has been offered, but the explanations are so
complex that they disguise the real issue.

The real issue is that a common phrase "fruit of the Spirit" has replaced a
more unusual one "fruit of the light".  The reasons a scribe in the early
middle ages (or late dark ages; or however one wishes to denominate the 8th
century CE) would exchange a little known phrase for a well known one are
simple- and do not need convoluted argumentation.  Sometimes the simple
answer is the best one.

A scribe, copying happily (or not) along in a cold european monastary,
towards the end of the day, read a line which began with the words "fruit of
the..." and instead of looking back at his manuscript he simply filled in
the blank with the more common word- "spirit".

As far as historical probability goes, this seems more probable than that a
scribe would read "fruit of the spirit" and replace it with "fruit of the
light".  It is also more probable than suggesting that a scribe let his eye
slip, how many line up? and saw "light" in another section of the text and
bent back over to his page and put it in there.  (though I do admit the
possibility- of course, since it is evident that it happened a number of times).

Again, perhaps our fine logic and expertise causes us to overlook the simple
answers.

Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:21:22 -0500 (EST)

> complex that they disguise the real issue.

What exactly is complex about assimilation to the immediate context when
scribes are known to have done precisely that far more than harmonization
to remote parallels? It is hardly a complicated explanation to suggest
that the influence of various forms of "fws" in close context, and
especially "the identical form fwtos" immediately preceding influenced the
judgment of a small minority of scribes at various times. It is far more
complex to presume harmonization to a remote parallel than to the
immediate context.
 
> The real issue is that a common phrase "fruit of the Spirit" has 
> replaced a more unusual one "fruit of the light".  

Since "fruit of light" appears _nowhere_ else, it is likely not even less
common or unusual, but a plain and clear error. But (I have to repeat
myself and ask), _why_ is "fruit of the spirit", which itself appears
_only ONE other time_ in the biblical text, suddenly the "more common" 
phrase?  On what basis is such a judgment made?  The only thing that would
make it even slightly "more common" would be to have it also occur as
genuine in Eph.5:9, which then would become an argument even more against
the "fruit of light" phrase, which otherwise is totally undocumented as a
Christian expression. 

As Bob Waltz has pointed out, there needs to be some evidence (patristic
or otherwise) that _either_ phrase was even "common" in the early church,
and the silence of everything but the MSS seems to suggest that neither
was particularly used.  Certainly modern-day Christians might refer more
to the "fruit of the spirit" in various contexts, but that also may be
because there is more emphasis on the Holy Spirit in the present century. 
What is common today says nothing about what may or may not have been
common in the past. 

> The reasons a scribe
> in the early middle ages (or late dark ages; or however one wishes to
> denominate the 8th century CE) would exchange a little known phrase for
> a well known one are simple- and do not need convoluted argumentation.
> Sometimes the simple answer is the best one.

Precisely why I offered the simplest answer and claimed harmonization to
the immediate context as an explanation for the phenomenon found in a
minority of MSS. No convoluted arguments here.
 
> the blank with the more common word- "spirit".

This is assuming (a) the scribe was lazy or careless (and then you have to
include the vast majority of scribes and correctors who remained so
careless that except in a very few cases they never restored the original
reading); (b) the scribe had been familiar with "fruit of the spirit" as a
commonly used phrase (of which there is no proof); or (c) the scribe
remembered what he had just copied in Galatians perhaps a day or two
before and mentally made a connection; or (d) the scribe actually looked
up the phrase in Galatians and decided it would somehow fit the context
better in the Eph.5:9 passage. 

My scenario #2, on the other hand, is far less difficult: same scribe,
same cold European monastery (maybe a Greek one would be preferable), also
tired near the end of the day, read "fruit of the...." in his exemplar,
wrote that down, then either looked back erroneously at the exemplar and
picked up "fwtos" from the preceding verse, and never noticed a problem;
or (more likely) simply remembered the contrast of light and darkness and
the occcurence of "fwtos" in the expression "children of light" in the
verse immediately preceding, and wrote "light" in place of "spirit. The
scribe then continued copying the text without a clue that any error had
transpired. 

> light".  

Are you aware of how frequently scribes _did_ make precisely that type of
error and _did_ harmonize to the immediate context, whether accidentally
or deliberately? The weight of probability rests on that supposition far
more than on harmonization to a remote parallel, especially to a phrase
which occurs only _one_ time biblically (if Eph.5:9 is not original with
"spirit"). 

> It is also more probable than suggesting that a scribe let his eye
> slip, how many lines up? 

No more than two lines up, assuming normal line lengths in MSS. But the
eye does not necessarily have to slip -- the _mind_ can slip and recall
the phrase from the previous verse and write a key word from that phrase
into another pertinent place. A scribe easily could be impressed with the
concept of "children of light" and unconsciously write "fruit of light" 
so as to remain in harmony with the context of light vs. darkness which
prevails in that entire passage. 

> Again, perhaps our fine logic and expertise causes us to overlook the simple

Precisely my point. I opt for the simpler answer, and wonder that anyone
thinks that other possibilities could be simpler than that. This
again is another typical case where, had the external evidence been
reversed, virtually everyone would have been defending the "spirit"
reading over "light" on precisely the grounds which I have advocated.
Those Hortian blinders _do_ get in the way.....

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