Fri Feb 14 12:49:11 1997

From owner-tc-list  Fri Feb 14 12:49:11 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id MAA24985; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:49:10 -0500
Message-Id: <199702141748.MAA75540@r02n02.cac.psu.edu>
X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:48:31 -0500
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: wlp1@psu.edu (William Petersen)
Subject: Epp, papyri, and professional scribes
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 6664

Re Eldon Epp's article  "The Significance of the Papyri for Determining the
Nature of the New Testament Text in the Second Century: A Dynamic View of
Textual Transmission," in William L.Petersen, ed., _Gospel Traditions in the
Second Century: Origins,Recensions, Text, and Transmission_ (Notre Dame and
London: University of  Notre Dame Press, 1989)71-103, Maruice Robinson wrote
(of Epp's comments on p. 101):

>Let it be noted that some of us consider that Epp probably extrapolates
>far too much from the actual extant evidence in making that final
>statement. This again is the typical argument _ex silentio_ which normally
>gets railed against even by Dr. Petersen himself when presented in an
>opposing scenario. 
>
>I continue to suggest that the surviving papyri found in the sands of
>Egypt are much more likely by their very provenance, textual affiliations,
>and scribal/phonetic habits to reflect the state of the text _in Egypt_
>far more than the state of the text anywhere else in the Roman Empire
>(i.e. locations where we do _not_ have sufficient NT textual data by which
>to make comparison, and from where we should _not_ presume to presuppose a
>universally-applied commonalty merely on the basis of a limited regional
>sample). 
>

How Robinson drags me into this controversy is beyond me.  I have not
participated in the discussion, and only served as the editor of the
volume--and I do not require that contributors to the volumes I edit agree
with my own point of view.

If one reads Epp's article, however, one sees that his evidence is not as
slim as Robinson suggests (in his post, Robinson says it is "ex silentio").
See, e.g., pp. 71-84, where he provides specific examples of literary works
(Plato, Homer, Sophocles, Thycydides, Euripides), bills of lading, personal
and commercial correspondance, etc., which show that there was--as his title
suggests--a "Dynamic" interchange of literature as well as peoples, goods,
and religions (Mythraism, Manicheeism) during the early period.

Given this *fact*, Epp then presumes--*mutatis mutandis*--that if secular
Greek literature moved around the Empire with such ease, and the epistulary
remains of private individuals *also* display evidence of their considerable
mobility (including the sending of documents by third parties), and the
religions (and their texts) spread rapidly throughout the ancient world,
then Christian texts should have, as well.  If that is so, then, suggests
Epp, we should not be so chary about viewing the papyri as "local texts,"
*just* from the area in Egypt in which they were found.  The papyri of Plato
are "well represented" (p. 82) in the hovels of Fayyum, whence did they
come?  Obviously from "elsewhere."  Ditto for Christian papyri.

Obviously--contrary to Robinson's assertion--Epp's argument is not "e
silentio".  Rather, Epp would have us cross two bridges of presumption, both
grounded upon the *empirical* discovery of papyri of literary works authored
throughout the ancient Empire, and the *empirical* discovery of documents
recording the movements of people with literature from point "a" to point "b".

The suppositions Epp wishes us to accept are (1) the *mutatis mutandis* that
Christian texts moved throughout the Empire with the same freedom as secular
texts;  and (2) the presumption that the preserved papyri are a good
cross-section of what was available in Egypt (which, because of his
supposition #1, would then be a reasonable representation of what was
available throughout the Empire).

Epp confirms (at least to his mind) his findings by presenting a table (p.
100) the the four major texts of the NT (the Byzantine/Koine group--which
Epp calls "A";  the "Alexandrian" or "neutral" group--B, P75, etc.--which
Epp calls "B";  the "C" group, which includes W, P45, fam.13, etc.; and the
"Western" text group--which Epp labels "D" [the classifications are on pp.
87-99]), to which he assigns the extant papyri.  The "A" group finds its
earliest representation in P84 (6th cent.);  P52 (2nd cent.) is the earliest
"B" group representative;  P45 (III cent.) is the earliest representative of
the "C" group;  and P5 (III cent.) is the earliest representative of the "D"
group.  Again, this is all empirical, based on the "arm's length" dating of
*extant* *Egyptian* papyri--there is no supposition here, only the facts (=
dating and provenance) as generally accepted.

Epp sees this as confirming his view because the "Western" text (Epp's "D"
group) is usually thought to have been of Syrian provenance, and is
obviously present in Rome in the writings of Justin;  the "C" group
corresponds with the so-called Caesarean text, at least in part.  Yet
neither the "C" or "D" text have Egyptian origins, yet they are found in the
early *Egyptian* papyri.  Obviously this empirical *fact* requires movement
of thier text from their point of origin (Antioch? Caesarea? Jerusalem?
Berytus? Rome?) to Egypt.  (I presume the "A" text --Byzantine/Koine--is
also presumed to have an origin outside Egyp-- yet it too is also found in
the *later* Eyptian papyri.  How did it get from its point of origin to Egypt?)

Personally, I find Epp's view as too conservative, for the "wild" citations
found in Justin, Tertullian, Clement of Al., the Diatessaron, the Didache,
and the Judaic-Christian gospel fragments, are not represented in the
papyri--but where we have multiple Patristic/apocryphal testimony for a
reading, we can be quite certain that it *did* circulate in the early
(second cent.) church.  Therefore, I do disagree with Epp--not because his
argument is based on an "e silentio," but becuase his reconstruction gives
short shrift to the *empirical* textual evidence of the second century
apocryphal and Patristic sources.

If there is one thing which Epp's argument is not, however, it is "ex
silentio."  One may disagree that Christian texts moved with the same
(demonstrated) freedom as did secular texts (his supposition #1, as I have
termed it), or one can disagree with his assumption that the preserved
papyri are a reasonable cross-sample of the texts available in Egypt at this
time (his supposition #2, in my synopsis of his arguments).  But neither of
these are based on an "ex silentio" argument.

I suspect that the real reason Dr. Robinson disapproves of Epp's work is
that he tabulates the extant evidence (= the papyri), and places it into
textual groups--which, of course, leaves the Byzantine text out in the cold
(6th cent. is earliest papyri evidence, as per Epp).  I understand
Robinson's claim that the Byzantine text is the Ur-text, but that, indeed,
is an "e silentio" argument.

--Petersen, Penn State Univ.

Back