Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Eph 5:9

Expand Messages
  • Maurice Robinson
    ... 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
    Message 1 of 30 , Mar 31, 1997
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    • willrut@uni-muenster.de
      On Mon 31 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia): [quoting Waltz:] ... I don t know exactly what Maurice s four volumes of data consisted of he
      Message 2 of 30 , Apr 1, 1997
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon 31 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia):

        [quoting Waltz:]
        >>And even if NA27, etc. had complete apparati (sic), we cannot rely on
        >>impressions. What is needed is a precise study of the rate of
        >>harmonizations, etc. I don't think that has ever been done.

        >Wisselink once more is suggested, but not his published volume (which
        >contains only the text portion of his doctoral research in the
        >Netherlands), but the four large volumes of data which Wisselink also has
        >made available in photocopied form for sale, but at great expense. I don't
        >even have them myself, but was able to spend some time with them while in
        >Kampen in 1989, and was greatly impressed with his statistics on this
        >matter.

        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.

        [quoting Waltz:]
        >>I feel fairly sure I know the results. But they have not been
        >>proved.

        >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.

        Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
      • schmiul@uni-muenster.de
        Sorry, again I did not check the correct return address for my previous post. Please, IGNORE willrut@uni.muenster.de Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
        Message 3 of 30 , Apr 1, 1997
        • 0 Attachment
          Sorry, again I did not check the correct return address for my previous post.

          Please, IGNORE willrut@...

          Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
        • Maurice Robinson
          ... You are probably correct, Ulrich, except that I probably saw the _unpublished_ form of what was also the published dissertation, which was bound similarly
          Message 4 of 30 , Apr 1, 1997
          • 0 Attachment
            On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 willrut@... wrote:

            > 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.

            > >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.

            _________________________________________________________________________
            Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament
            Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          • Robert B. Waltz
            ... I ve even encountered someone (not a Christian) who thought God fights on the side with the heaviest artillery was Biblical. ... But this is the fact we
            Message 5 of 30 , Apr 1, 1997
            • 0 Attachment
              On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson <mrobinsn@...> wrote:

              >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. :-)

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

              >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.

              [ ... ]

              >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 agree, for whatever it's worth.

              >> >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.

              Agreed.

              >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.

              [ ... ]

              >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.

              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.

              [ ... ]

              >> >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....

              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.

              [ ... ]

              >> 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.

              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."

              >> 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.

              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.

              [ ... ]

              >> 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.

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

              >> >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.

              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.

              >> 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).

              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.

              >You're still getting better, Bob....agreeing with me ever so slightly more
              >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
              waltzmn@...
            • schmiul@uni-muenster.de
              ... You are probably correct, Ulrich, except that I probably saw the _unpublished_ form of what was also the published dissertation, which was bound similarly
              Message 6 of 30 , Apr 1, 1997
              • 0 Attachment
                > 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.

                > >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.
              • Vincent Broman
                ... I say Amen to that. Quite educational. Vincent Broman ... Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBM0FEuGCU4mTNq7IdAQFCeQP8DwaiRZZ/o87CsgErrEE3ElFlui9wn0mM
                Message 7 of 30 , Apr 1, 1997
                • 0 Attachment
                  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

                  waltzmn@... said:
                  > ... I compared
                  > the Byzantine and Alexandrian readings. My *sole* criterion was the
                  > internal one, "Which reading best explains the others."
                  > ...
                  > But I would recommend the exercise to others; it *was* educational.

                  I say Amen to that. Quite educational.

                  Vincent Broman

                  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
                  Version: 2.6.2

                  iQCVAwUBM0FEuGCU4mTNq7IdAQFCeQP8DwaiRZZ/o87CsgErrEE3ElFlui9wn0mM
                  gVqVizIVMdzvUOBXgSPa8fuAlwIkcF5T+rruHoXT9yCVwDS6wjUzvm+fVmHpBin5
                  VEVF2i03qNhCHh6mZFtRJuasb23IbGiuM0LoDLZicNWgzQL0e5DsHj3A2CF3eZrk
                  QUHwjJUMeAw=
                  =nQL3
                  -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
                • William L. Petersen
                  Just as a gloss on Ulrich Schmid s remark about Codex Bezae (D) and its high number of harmonizations/assimilations (as per Wisselink s research) relative to
                  Message 8 of 30 , Apr 1, 1997
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Just as a gloss on Ulrich Schmid's remark about Codex Bezae (D) and its high
                    number of harmonizations/assimilations (as per Wisselink's research)
                    relative to other (Greek) MSS: this high number is thought to be the result
                    of (1) Codex Bezae's having been influenced in some manner by the
                    Diatessaronic tradition (which is, of course, a gospel harmony...), or (2)
                    Codex Bezae's being related to the Vetus Syra, which has numerous
                    cross-gospel harmonizations because *it* was influenced by the Diatessaron,
                    or (3) both of the above (1 *and* 2). See, among others, the work of F.H. Chase.

                    It should be recalled that harmonization began in the *first* century, when
                    "Matthew" and "Luke" began weaving together portions of "Mark" and "Q"
                    (regardless of what theory of synoptic origins one may subscribe to, the
                    same applies: e.g., for Griesbachians: "Mark" harmonized material from
                    "Matthew" and "Luke"). In the *early-second* century we have Justin's
                    harmony, and the Judaic-Christian harmony quoted by Epiphanius in Pan.
                    30.13, etc., which Vielhauer labelled the "Gospel according to the
                    Ebionites"--although Epiphanius calls it "the Hebrew gospel" (= the "Gospel
                    according to the Hebrews" ?).

                    --Petersen, Penn State Univ.
                  • schmiul@uni-muenster.de
                    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
                    Message 9 of 30 , Apr 1, 1997
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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
                    • Maurice Robinson
                      ... Are we starting to develop a new type of scribal error for the electronic age? :-) ... This, at least in part, accords with what I was saying. However, I
                      Message 10 of 30 , Apr 1, 1997
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 schmiul@... wrote:

                        > 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.

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

                        > 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).

                        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.

                        > 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.

                        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).

                        > 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.

                        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).

                        > 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.

                        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
                        > instance. They just attracted my interest and partly my confidence.
                        > This is the way eclectics are supposed to act. Isn't it?

                        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
                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                      • Jim West
                        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
                        Message 11 of 30 , Apr 1, 1997
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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
                          jwest@...
                        • Maurice Robinson
                          ... What exactly is complex about assimilation to the immediate context when scribes are known to have done precisely that far more than harmonization to
                          Message 12 of 30 , Apr 1, 1997
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote:

                            > 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.

                            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.

                            > 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".

                            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.

                            > 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".

                            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
                            > answers.

                            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
                            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          • Jean VALENTIN
                            ... I understand this point, but in this you might also be conditioned by _western_ (and protestant) theological history. If it s true that there s a renewal
                            Message 13 of 30 , Apr 1, 1997
                            • 0 Attachment
                              >thing but the MSS seems to suggest that neither
                              Hello Maurice! You just wrote this :

                              >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.

                              I understand this point, but in this you might also be conditioned by
                              _western_ (and protestant) theological history. If it's true that there's
                              a renewal in interest for the Holy Spirit in our century, this
                              argumentation is pointless when we consider the eastern churches, of
                              which the Greek church is part. All that appears "new" in the west has
                              always been "normal" in the East, as monastic communities in the Greek
                              church have always been charismatic and prophetic, in an intense way that
                              has never been known in the West (remember : the (some very early) texts
                              that constitute the Philocalia, or palamism, or closer to us, the
                              "starets" movements of the Russian church). For example, the liturgy of
                              St John Chrysostom begins with an invocation to the Holy Spirit,
                              something quite extraordinary to western christians :

                              "Heavenly King, Consolator, Spirit of Truth, present everywhere and
                              filling everything, treasure of good things and giver of life, come and
                              abide in us, and purify us from all uncleanness, and save, o Good One,
                              our souls"

                              This is just to show you that the "emphasis" you discover in the present
                              century is just the rediscovery of something that has always existed in
                              the East. Remember also that in the eastern tradition, the consecration
                              of the body and blood of Christ is thought to take place at the
                              "epiclesis" (invocation of the Holy Spirit in the anaphora of the
                              liturgy). This is of course just a little contribution and I don't think
                              it will revolutionize your approach of this text and its variant :-) ,
                              but I just mention it for the sake of giving you a little insight as to
                              what the thological context of the scribes was. Very different from ours
                              indeed.

                              And, again, as I mentioned that point already, some familiarity with
                              liturgy can be interesting for working in the field of textual
                              criticism...

                              ________________________________________________________________
                              Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE
                              ________________________________________________________________
                              email : jgvalentin@... *** netmail : 2:291/780.103
                              ________________________________________________________________
                              Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est
                              inutilisable.
                              What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable.
                              Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar.
                              ________________________________________________________________
                            • Stephen C. Carlson
                              I ve noticed that the PNEUMATOS (Spirit) reading is found in P46, which is quite old. However, P49, also old, has FWTOS. Given the age of the variants, I m
                              Message 14 of 30 , Apr 1, 1997
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I've noticed that the PNEUMATOS (Spirit) reading is found in P46, which
                                is quite old. However, P49, also old, has FWTOS.

                                Given the age of the variants, I'm wondering if they could come from
                                misreading the handwriting of an uncial exemplar. If Spirit is written
                                as a nomen sacrum, it takes up about the same amount of space and the
                                cross bar of the tau may be confused with the horizontal line. I.e.,

                                ----
                                PNOC vs FWTOC

                                In which direction is a misreading of the examplar more likely?

                                Stephen Carlson
                                --
                                Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
                                scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
                                http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
                              • Ronald L. Minton
                                For those who may not have read about this, I noticed that Gannett News carried an article on papyri. It is from Umich and says in part six American papyrus
                                Message 15 of 30 , Apr 1, 1997
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  For those who may not have read about this,
                                  I noticed that Gannett News carried an article on papyri. It is from
                                  Umich and says in part "six American papyrus collections are being
                                  brought together on the WWW with a grant from the NEH...next fall the
                                  Advanced Papyrological Information System will feature about 30,000 items
                                  and include translations, bibliography and links to related texts.
                                  Portions of the Michigan collection are already on line and can be
                                  accessed at http://www.lib.umich.edu/pap/ "




                                  --
                                  Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@... W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
                                  Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
                                • Maurice Robinson
                                  ... Consider also that the nomen sacrum might have been the more usual PNC, though certainly the case is helped by the longer form as given above. Also, both P
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Apr 1, 1997
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                                    > I've noticed that the PNEUMATOS (Spirit) reading is found in P46, which
                                    > is quite old. However, P49, also old, has FWTOS.
                                    >
                                    > Given the age of the variants, I'm wondering if they could come from
                                    > misreading the handwriting of an uncial exemplar. If Spirit is written
                                    > as a nomen sacrum, it takes up about the same amount of space and the
                                    > cross bar of the tau may be confused with the horizontal line. I.e.,
                                    >
                                    > ----
                                    > PNOC vs FWTOC
                                    >
                                    > In which direction is a misreading of the examplar more likely?

                                    Consider also that the nomen sacrum might have been the more usual PNC,
                                    though certainly the case is helped by the longer form as given above.
                                    Also, both P and F are of the same phonetic class (Labials) which could
                                    also cause some confusion. However, I still prefer a simple influence
                                    from the close context to cause accidental error in writing FWTOS in this
                                    place as the more likely possibility rather than confusion of letters.

                                    Also, the age of the variants in a case like this should not be taken to
                                    imply that all subsequent readings of FWTOS derive from P49 or its
                                    archetype and that all readings of PNEUMATOS derive from P46 or its
                                    archetype (depending from which side one wishes to view the erroneous
                                    reading as having come). In a case of accidental error such as I have
                                    proposed, there are sufficient grounds to presuppose independent
                                    recurrences of the identical error in MSS of varied type rather than
                                    direct genealogical descent, save within normal texttype patterns.

                                    _________________________________________________________________________
                                    Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament
                                    Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
                                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                  • Maurice Robinson
                                    ... I did not mean to say that the Eastern Church has not had an emphasis on the Holy Spirit, and your point is well taken. The question is whether the phrase
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Apr 1, 1997
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Jean VALENTIN wrote:

                                      > which the Greek church is part. All that appears "new" in the west has
                                      > always been "normal" in the East, as monastic communities in the Greek
                                      > church have always been charismatic and prophetic, in an intense way that
                                      > has never been known in the West

                                      I did not mean to say that the Eastern Church has not had an emphasis on
                                      the Holy Spirit, and your point is well taken. The question is whether
                                      the phrase "fruit of the spirit" is one that was _common_ and _familiar_
                                      in that era, or whether it is western Protestantism of the current century
                                      which has popularized the phrase into the "more familiar" concept.

                                      > And, again, as I mentioned that point already, some familiarity with
                                      > liturgy can be interesting for working in the field of textual
                                      > criticism...

                                      Fully agreed. Now, if someone can find liturgical or other citations of
                                      either "fruit of the spirit" or "fruit of light" in early Orthodox liturgy
                                      or literature, this will be helpful.

                                      _________________________________________________________________________
                                      Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament
                                      Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                    • schmiul@uni-muenster.de
                                      On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia): [quoting Schmid] ... Wisselink s working definition of assimilation and dissimilation is the
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Apr 2, 1997
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia):

                                        [quoting Schmid]
                                        >> 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).

                                        >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.

                                        Wisselink's "working definition of assimilation and dissimilation" is the
                                        following: "If there is a case of variation within a text-passage and if there
                                        is another text-passage with which comparison is possible, we call the reading
                                        which reduces the difference with that other text-passage,(sic) an assimilation;
                                        the reading which increases the difference with that text-passage, we call a
                                        dissimilation" (p. 63).
                                        Therefrom it may be concluded that Wisselink treats all of the witnesses he uses
                                        in his examination very much the same. I simply could not find conclusions drawn
                                        from his data where Wisselink "excuses" harmonizations from whatever witness he
                                        examined. With respect to his working definition the textus receptus and
                                        Hodges-Farstad, which he treated as single witnesses, contain proportionally
                                        more assimilations (_not_ "alleged" assimilations) than B. Adding "alleged" to
                                        Wisselink's data simply is a METABASIS EIS ALLO GENOS.

                                        [snip]

                                        >> 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.

                                        >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.

                                        Wisselink simply does not go further as to calculate the number of assimilations
                                        found in various selected witnesses when compared to one another. Therefrom he
                                        drew the already mentioned overall conclusion. He used the papyri, S, A, B, D,
                                        Theta, Omega, W, min 33, and "the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad, as
                                        summary of many minuscules" (p. 64). When examining and comparing the mentioned
                                        witnesses, Wisselink treated them all the same, whether Hodges and Farstad as a
                                        MS, or all the MSS as text-types. Again, Maurice, any further speculations as to
                                        "where Wisselink would put the texttype-specific assimilations" is a METABASIS
                                        EIS ALLO GENOS and without any hint on Wisselink's printed results.

                                        >> 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).

                                        Broad and simple, Maurice, Wisselink "is saying" non of these, at least not in
                                        my reading of his work, and certainly not "clearly". He may hold a textual
                                        theory similar to your own, he may even argue the way you do (however, I have my
                                        doubts on that), but in his book he expresses nothing comparable to your above
                                        mentioned conclusions. IMHO, you should verify your conclusions in pointing to
                                        Wisselink's published work. Whatever you and Wisselink agreed upon when meeting
                                        in Kampen in 1989 we can not know.

                                        > 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.

                                        >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. Maybe we should
                                        have a closer look at various examples. 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.
                                        Then we have a second type of assimilation where more than the article is
                                        involved, e.g. the various forms of AFIENTAI SOU AI hAMARTIAI in Mat 9:2.5 parr.
                                        Here the examination with respect to assimilation might produce more solid
                                        results. However, the possibility can not be ruled out, that in this case some
                                        assimilations might have been produced independently. Thirdly, we find
                                        assimilations of a more complex type, i.e. the transposition of whole sentences
                                        from one story (or Logion) into another story (or Logion). For example, within
                                        the story of the cleansing of the ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19) at least two very
                                        prominent MSS fealt the need to add some sort of expressed healing: D added
                                        TEQERAPEUESQE in Luke 17:14 and in the margin of P75 you find QELW KAQARISQHTE
                                        KAI EUQEWS EKAQARISQHSAN, which is derieved from the story of the cleansing of
                                        the leper in Mat 8:3 parr. Both additions display the same tendency, and one of
                                        them is a very complex assimilation. One may say, since P75 is the only witness,
                                        that this is a perfect example of an assimilation not perpetuated within textual
                                        transmission. That's true. However, what about an even more complex
                                        transposition within a whole bunch of Byzantine MSS perpetuated from the 9th to
                                        the 14th centuries?

                                        Within the collations of 119 Byzantine MSS from three monasteries (Patmos,
                                        Jerusalem, Sinai), published by Lake, Blake and New (The Caesarean Text of the
                                        Gospel of Mark; in: HThR 4 [1928] pp. 338-357), we find after Mark 11:26 an
                                        addition of Mat 7,7-8 in 16 MSS from all three monasteries. Another MS adds
                                        these verses after Mark 11:24. That is to say, roughly 15 percent of exclusively
                                        Byzantine MSS from three monasteries perpetuate this addition. Some further
                                        (unfortunately incomplete) studies revealed another 21 Byzantine MSS with the
                                        same addition (including K 017 from the 9th century). After checking most of
                                        these MSS, I found at least five reasonably distinct textual forms of this
                                        addition (if itacisms and orthographicals are included even more). As far as I
                                        can see, it is very unlikely that the addition of Mat 7:7-8 at Mark 11:26 (or
                                        11:24) occured several times independently. It is almost totally restricted to
                                        Byzantine text MSS (exception 579) from the 9th century onwards. How many
                                        copying generations would you guess, Maurice? Remember, it's only 15 percent. So
                                        noone, I suspect, would defend this addition as belonging to the autograph. On
                                        the other hand, it is at least 15 percent of the Byzantine MSS from three
                                        geographically seperated monasteries. So noone should simply dismiss it's
                                        validity as an example of what can happen in NT TC.

                                        >From my eclectic viewpoint I may draw the following conclusions:
                                        Even, or should I say especially, within the Byzantine text a minority of MSS
                                        not easy to neglect perpetuate an obvious and complex addition of two verses
                                        from Mat within Mark over a period of some 500 years not restricted to any
                                        particular locale. This assimilation was not wiped out through cross-correction,
                                        but coexisted in various subtypes over a considerable span of time. Moreover, I
                                        only found signs of adding the verses, not of extinguishing them in the MSS.
                                        Therefore, the possibility can not be ruled out, that some complex assimilations
                                        gained a majority status, especially when they happen to be at the right time at
                                        the right place, i.e. early in the history of the Byzantine text.

                                        [snip]

                                        >> This is the way eclectics are supposed to act. Isn't it?

                                        >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)....

                                        I know. So I am still not taken over to the other side.

                                        Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
                                      • James R. Adair
                                        An interesting online exhibit entitled From Papyrus to King James: The Transmission of the English Bible is currently available on the University of Michigan
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Apr 2, 1997
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          An interesting online exhibit entitled "From Papyrus to King James: The
                                          Transmission of the English Bible" is currently available on the
                                          University of Michigan site at http://www.lib.umich.edu/pap/exhibits/
                                          from_papyri_to_king_james/king_james_review. This exhibit, which
                                          unfortunately includes fewer than ten images, includes images
                                          of pages from P46, the Tyndale Bible, and the Geneva Bible. There is a
                                          real need for high-quality color images of manuscripts to begin appearing
                                          on the Web.

                                          Jimmy Adair
                                          Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
                                          and
                                          Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
                                          ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------
                                        • Jean VALENTIN
                                          ... A first step would be to look at the lectionary of a byzantine-rite church. I don t have one here, but I have a vague remembrance of having heard that text
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Apr 2, 1997
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            >Fully agreed. Now, if someone can find liturgical or other citations of
                                            >either "fruit of the spirit" or "fruit of light" in early Orthodox liturgy
                                            >or literature, this will be helpful.
                                            >
                                            A first step would be to look at the lectionary of a byzantine-rite
                                            church. I don't have one here, but I have a vague remembrance of having
                                            heard that text (or the one in Galatians, rather) read one of the last
                                            times I visited the melkite parish of Brussels. Probably for the office
                                            of the christmas night (thus one of great affluence). Can somebody verify
                                            ?
                                            In the nestorian and chaldean churches (but then we are in the syriac
                                            world) the Ephesian text is read the last sunday of Advent.
                                            The Syrian Orthodox church reads the Galatian text on the third sunday of
                                            lent, and the Ephesian text, and the Ephesian text the 7th sunday after
                                            Epiphany. By the way, in the peshitto, they are not harmonized.
                                            But of course, this is the situation in the XXth century. Even though
                                            there have been less liturgical reforms in the East than in the West, we
                                            should check it on manuscripts...
                                            About the popularity of John 3.16 again : I already mentioned its
                                            presence at the heart of St John's Chrysostom' liturgy, and, though it's
                                            more anecdotic, I mention also this : it's on the title page of the
                                            Gospels in an edition of the georgian NT that was published by the
                                            Patriarchate (or more exactly catholicate) of the Georgian orthodox
                                            church (Tbilisi, 1963).


                                            ________________________________________________________________
                                            Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE
                                            ________________________________________________________________
                                            email : jgvalentin@... *** netmail : 2:291/780.103
                                            ________________________________________________________________
                                            Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est
                                            inutilisable.
                                            What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable.
                                            Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar.
                                          • Maurice Robinson
                                            ... I will have to look again and see how Wisselink approaches different views of transmissional history. Something should be there regarding how which
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Apr 2, 1997
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On Wed, 2 Apr 1997 schmiul@... wrote:

                                              > On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia):

                                              > Therefrom it may be concluded that Wisselink treats all of the witnesses he uses
                                              > in his examination very much the same. I simply could not find conclusions drawn
                                              > from his data where Wisselink "excuses" harmonizations from whatever witness he
                                              > examined.

                                              I will have to look again and see how Wisselink approaches different views
                                              of transmissional history. Something should be there regarding how which
                                              transmissional view one accepts will include or exclude various alleged
                                              harmonizations/assimilations.

                                              > more assimilations (_not_ "alleged" assimilations) than B. Adding "alleged"
                                              > to Wisselink's data simply is a METABASIS EIS ALLO GENOS.

                                              I acknowledge that "alleged" is my term, not Wisselink's; however, I see
                                              nothing more in the term than a degree of fairness in the use of such
                                              term, since until a harmonization is proven to be such (which it may not
                                              be if stemming from the autograph), it can only be an "alleged"
                                              harmonization.

                                              > Again, Maurice, any further speculations as to
                                              > "where Wisselink would put the texttype-specific assimilations" is a METABASIS
                                              > EIS ALLO GENOS and without any hint on Wisselink's printed results.

                                              But again, Wisselink did determine a MS's propensity toward assimilation
                                              from its singular or sub-singular readings. These would say nothing about
                                              those cases where, say, an Alexandrian or Western reading happened NOT to
                                              be singular or subsingular, but instead reflected the texttype as a whole.
                                              Only the Byzantine was considered under that category, and then only as a
                                              "control" type of database. _No_ conclusion should be drawn from the use
                                              and performance of Byz (H/F text or otherwise) taken as a whole texttype
                                              in regard to the _real_ proportion or tendency of the MSS comprising that
                                              texttype for assimilation. Since Wisselink found that assimilation was
                                              _not_ endemic to the MSS comprising the Byzantine Textform, and dismissed
                                              the claims in that regard, the next step should be to examine selected
                                              early Byzantine MSS in singular and sub-singular readings in a manner
                                              similar to that utilized for the non-Byz individual MSS in order to
                                              determine the likelihood of Byzantine assimilation per se. If that
                                              likelihood remains small, then most of the assimilations listed under Byz
                                              or H/F should be ruled invalid.

                                              > Broad and simple, Maurice, Wisselink "is saying" non of these, at least not in
                                              > my reading of his work, and certainly not "clearly". He may hold a textual
                                              > theory similar to your own, he may even argue the way you do (however, I have my
                                              > doubts on that), but in his book he expresses nothing comparable to your above
                                              > mentioned conclusions. IMHO, you should verify your conclusions in pointing to
                                              > Wisselink's published work. Whatever you and Wisselink agreed upon when meeting
                                              > in Kampen in 1989 we can not know.

                                              I think that what I am saying is a clear enough reflection of what I read
                                              in Wisselink. We obviously read his data and words differently and draw
                                              different inferences. I recognize that part of the problem is that he had
                                              to work from a "neutral" and non-judgmental perspective in his research,
                                              and this is reflected in his text. However, I still think the inferences
                                              are very much there, and the perceptions of different readers may affect
                                              how such inferences are understood. I know that other items came up in
                                              conversation, and I may be blending some of those recollections into my
                                              discussion; in that regard I confess guilt.

                                              > Well, Maurice, dealing with assimilation/harmonization is a tricky business. I
                                              > just wonder how you can be so sure with your overall conclusion. Maybe we should
                                              > have a closer look at various examples.

                                              Rather than making this post exceedingly long, I will postpone discussion
                                              of the examples to another posting, after I have had opportunity to
                                              download and digest all you have written.

                                              _________________________________________________________________________
                                              Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament
                                              Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
                                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                            • Maurice Robinson
                                              ... This is helpful; but I ll bet they didn t hold up signs with John 3:16 on them at the early Isthmian games......
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Apr 2, 1997
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Jean VALENTIN wrote:

                                                > About the popularity of John 3.16 again : I already mentioned its
                                                > presence at the heart of St John's Chrysostom' liturgy, and, though it's
                                                > more anecdotic, I mention also this : it's on the title page of the
                                                > Gospels in an edition of the georgian NT that was published by the
                                                > Patriarchate (or more exactly catholicate) of the Georgian orthodox
                                                > church (Tbilisi, 1963).

                                                This is helpful; but I'll bet they didn't hold up signs with John 3:16 on
                                                them at the early Isthmian games......

                                                _________________________________________________________________________
                                                Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament
                                                Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
                                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                              • schmiul@uni-muenster.de
                                                ... The harmonizations/assimilations in Codex Bezae (D) are especially interesting, not only because of the outstanding number of occurences, but also because
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Apr 3, 1997
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Bill Petersen wrote (inter alia):

                                                  >Just as a gloss on Ulrich Schmid's remark about Codex Bezae (D) and its high
                                                  >number of harmonizations/assimilations (as per Wisselink's research)
                                                  >relative to other (Greek) MSS: this high number is thought to be the result
                                                  >of (1) Codex Bezae's having been influenced in some manner by the
                                                  >Diatessaronic tradition (which is, of course, a gospel harmony...), or (2)
                                                  >Codex Bezae's being related to the Vetus Syra, which has numerous
                                                  >cross-gospel harmonizations because *it* was influenced by the Diatessaron,
                                                  >or (3) both of the above (1 *and* 2). See, among others, the work of F.H.
                                                  >Chase.

                                                  The harmonizations/assimilations in Codex Bezae (D) are especially interesting,
                                                  not only because of the outstanding number of occurences, but also because of
                                                  some rather peculiar features. However, up to now I do not feel the need to
                                                  account for them with reference to the Diatessaronic tradition. As far as I can
                                                  see every Gospel MS displays some (some even more) harmonistic tendencies.
                                                  Granted that even Marcions Gospel seems to display a few harmonistic readings,
                                                  we may infer that harmonizations demonstrably happened earlier in time than the
                                                  composition of the Diatessaron. Therefore, the sheer amount of harmonistic
                                                  readings in D in itself does not, in my view, somehow naturally point to contact
                                                  with the Diatessaronic tradition.

                                                  However, I am only a beginner in Diatessaronic studies. Being more familiar with
                                                  the evidence from that fascinating part of tradition might shift my point of
                                                  view. BTW -- Bill, apart from the work of Chase, which I did not study yet, what
                                                  else would you recommend? I read Vogels on that.

                                                  Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
                                                • William L. Petersen
                                                  ... interesting, ... can ... the ... contact ... You are quite correct in this: harmonization--in and of itself--is, of course, not proof of a link with the
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Apr 3, 1997
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    At 02:46 PM 4/3/97 +0100, Ulrich Schmid wrote:
                                                    >On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Bill Petersen wrote (inter alia):


                                                    >The harmonizations/assimilations in Codex Bezae (D) are especially
                                                    interesting,
                                                    >not only because of the outstanding number of occurences, but also because of
                                                    >some rather peculiar features. However, up to now I do not feel the need to
                                                    >account for them with reference to the Diatessaronic tradition. As far as I
                                                    can
                                                    >see every Gospel MS displays some (some even more) harmonistic tendencies.
                                                    >Granted that even Marcions Gospel seems to display a few harmonistic readings,
                                                    >we may infer that harmonizations demonstrably happened earlier in time than
                                                    the
                                                    >composition of the Diatessaron. Therefore, the sheer amount of harmonistic
                                                    >readings in D in itself does not, in my view, somehow naturally point to
                                                    contact
                                                    >with the Diatessaronic tradition.

                                                    You are quite correct in this: harmonization--in and of itself--is, of
                                                    course, not proof of a link with the Diatessaron; furthermore, as I pointed
                                                    out in that post (or an earlier one), and in an article in *NTS* in 1990,
                                                    harmonizations antedate the Diatessaron, most notably in the form of
                                                    whatever the harmonized gospel was which Justin used... The special
                                                    circumstances which apply to Codex Bezae are, however, more complex. A good
                                                    starting place is to look at the apparatus in Daniel Plooij's edition of
                                                    *The Liege Harmony* (Amsterdam 1929-70), which remains one of the more
                                                    impressive editions ever undertaken, with an exquisite apparatus. The
                                                    apparatus includes numerous Diatessaronic witnesses, both east and west, as
                                                    well as relevant Greek, Latin, Syriac, etc., gospel MSS. There seems to be
                                                    a high degree of agreement, throughout (not just in
                                                    harmonizations/assimilations, but also in variant readings), between Codex
                                                    Bezae and the Diatessaronic witnesses. That--not the willy-nilly presence
                                                    of harmonizations--is why a link between Bezae and the Diatessaron has been
                                                    proposed. What then follows, as a corollary, is that since the Diatessaron
                                                    was earlier and a harmony, then *some* of the harmonizations, and the
                                                    exceptionally high number of harmonizations/assimilations in Bezae, are
                                                    *probably* due to Diatessaronic influence.



                                                    >
                                                    >However, I am only a beginner in Diatessaronic studies. Being more familiar
                                                    with
                                                    >the evidence from that fascinating part of tradition might shift my point of
                                                    >view. BTW -- Bill, apart from the work of Chase, which I did not study yet,
                                                    what
                                                    >else would you recommend? I read Vogels on that.
                                                    >
                                                    >Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
                                                    >


                                                    In addition to Plooij's edition, his two monographs (*A Primitive Text of
                                                    the Diatessaron* [1923] and *A Further Study of the Liege Diatessaron*
                                                    [1925]; both rather slim volumes) are excellent introductions. Ulrich, you
                                                    are already familiar with Vogels (I assume you are referring to his *Die
                                                    Harmonistik im Evangelientext des Codex Cantabrigiensis* [1910]). This,
                                                    however, is only semi-useful for the Diatessaron connection. Vogels'
                                                    *Beitraege zur Geschichte des Diatessaron im Abendland* (1919) is much more
                                                    useful and mature. Chase's work is, however, probably the most direct
                                                    treatment of this problem (and, although about a century old, perhaps the
                                                    most incisive).

                                                    --Petersen, Penn State Univ.
                                                  • dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us
                                                    ... [snip] This assumes that the phrase was as common then as it is now. How certain are we that this was the case? As far as I know, Galatians is the only
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Apr 4, 1997
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Jim West wrote:
                                                      > 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.

                                                      [snip]
                                                      This assumes that the phrase was as "common" then as it is now. How
                                                      certain are we that this was the case? As far as I know, Galatians
                                                      is the only biblical place where the phrase occurs. In the 20th
                                                      century it has been propagated ad nauseam in self-help books and
                                                      such, but I'm not convinced that it was as well-worn or "common" in
                                                      the 8th century as it is in the 20th.

                                                      Dave Washburn
                                                      http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html
                                                      There will be times when we disagree, but that's
                                                      good because disagreement leads to thinking, and
                                                      when you think you'll realize I'm right. ;-)
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.