Fri Feb 14 16:52:24 1997

From owner-tc-list  Fri Feb 14 16:52:24 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA25779; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 16:52:23 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <199702141748.MAA75540@r02n02.cac.psu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:55:00 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: 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: 5941

On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, wlp1@psu.edu (William Petersen) wrote:

[ ... ]

>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.

Understanding that, I'm going to continue hacking at the conclusions
anyway.

BTW -- Epp's article can also be found in the recent Epp & Fee volume
in studies and documents.

>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.

I concede that Epp's argument is not *entirely* from silence. Still,
the only Biblical evidence we have for this period is the handful
of early papyri and the handful of early citations.

And before someone points out that there are dozens of early papyri --
yes, there are. Almost all of which contain no more than two leaves,
and many contain only one or a fragment of one. Often the text is
so short that one cannot determine the text-type reliably.

>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.

There is, however, one slight difference. In general, literature was the
possession of the upper class. These people *did* move around freely.

Christianity, however, was at this time a persecuted religion, and
generally more "lower class." Ordinary people were not as mobile as
those of equestrian or senatorial rank.

This does not invalidate the conclusion, but it suggests caution.

>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.

Probably true. But how can we prove it?

[ ... ]
>
>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.

These results are rather questionable. I defy *anyone* to definitively
assign a text-type to p52; it's too small!

But let's try this the other way around; let's look at the substantial
early papyri (p13, p45, p46, p47, p66, p72, p75; p74 is substantial
but not early).

We find:

p13 (contents: Hebrews) -- Goes with p46/B
p45 -- Hurtado has shown that it is *not* "C" type, and Colwell showed
       that it was simply "wild."
p46 -- Goes with B (only, not Aleph etc. See Zuntz).
p47 -- Goes with Aleph (only, not A C vg).
p66 -- Goes loosely with p75/B
p72 -- Goes with B, but is not very close to the rest of the Alexandrian text
p75 -- Goes with B etc.

So let's try that list again, this time taking text-types and sections:
Gospels:
 A witnesses -- none
 B witnesses -- p66, p75
 C witnesses -- none
 D witnesses -- none
 Other -- p45

Acts
 (no early papyri except the "wild" p45)

Paul
 Byzantine witnesses -- none
 Alexandrian (Aleph/A/C/33) -- none
 p46/B -- p46, p13
 "Western" -- none
 family 1739 -- none

Catholics
 Byzantine -- none
 Alexandrian -- (p72)
 family 1739 -- none
 family 2138 -- none

Apocalypse
 Byzantine -- none
 Andreas -- none
 p47/Aleph -- p47
 Alexandrian (A/C/vg) -- none

The above list strikes me as pretty thin. Even if we try to include
the more fragmentary papyri, we find some early text-types not represented.
For example, family 1739 existed in the fifth century (since C is primarily
family 1739 in the Catholics). It is *probably* earlier, since Origen
is close to the family text. But there are no family 1739 papyri in
either Paul or the Catholics. (I haven't tested the matter in Acts.)

Similarly, family 2138 goes back at least to the sixth century, since it
is found in the Harklean Syriac. But, again, no papyri.

I am forced to conclude that Epp simply does not have the evidence to
support his claims. Again, they *may* be true. (Note that I do not
share Robinson's view of the history of the text; I consider Epp's
position to be quite possible.) But it cannot be proved.

[ remainder omitted ]

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         waltzmn@skypoint.com

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

Back