Fri Feb 14 17:15:23 1997

From owner-tc-list  Fri Feb 14 17:15:23 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id RAA25857; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:15:23 -0500
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:15:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Epp, papyri, and professional scribes
In-Reply-To: <199702141748.MAA75540@r02n02.cac.psu.edu>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 8545



On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, 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.

Robinson only did this by way of comparative reference in regard to the
earlier comment by Petersen complaining about some of my own
argumentation _ex silentio_.  I of course was certain that there was no
undue influence or control imposed upon the individual contributors to
that volume which Petersen edited.  I merely suggested that Epp did very
much the same thing in his claim as I was earlier criticized for.

> 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.

None of these however deal with the NT documents themselves.  In a
parallel instance I could demonstrate great communication of Associated
Press articles or NY Times Book Reviews in our own day, but few if any of
them will ever quote the NT directly, let alone contain a significant
portion of such.

> 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.  

This however fails to take into account the nature of Christianity during
that period as a generally persecuted entity, whose life and documents
often had to function in a more covert manner.  I do not think that Epp's
_mutatis mutandis_ takes all the necessary circumstances into account in
his conclusion.

> 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.

This is certainly agreed, since no NT book had its origin in Egypt.  But
we are not talking specifically about the books, but about the texttypes
or mixed types found in such books, which well may reflect only the
local-text nature of the Egyptian region, and not necessarily or even
likely that which obtained elsewhere. The books themselves got there one
way or the other due to the mission-minded nature of the early Christians,
persecutions or no......

> 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).

Neither of which suppositions I think definitively warranted by the extant
evidence, although I do think the initial portion of (2) is quite the case
if taken alone and without making assumptions based upon (1).

> 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.

That varied texttypes and highly mixed texts happened to exist in Egypt
does not necessarily translate into the universal state of the text
elsewhere.  Had that assumption been correct, we then would find the text
having degenerated into virtual chaos everywhere in the Empire, and no
reasonable resolution of the difficulty would be in sight, short of a
formal revision such as W-H proposed in the manner of Jerome.

> 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 do not doubt that at least _readings_ migrated from place to place and
from copy to copy in varied fashion.  Whether complete MSS moved as
completely as did readings brought in by "uncontrolled popular expansion"
or by cross-comparison and correction, I know not (but neither does Epp).
The fact that those Egyptian papyri are generally so "mixed" in character
tends to indicate migration of readings more than MSS as entities in my
opinion.

> (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?)

After Constantine, I fully expect a wide degree of intercommunication
among the newly-legitimized churches of the Empire, and would therefore
not be surprised to find Byzantine MSS after the fourth century in any
locality within the Empire.

> (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.

I am not convinced that the Western-type citations in the Fathers are
necessarily MS based, any more than the readings in the MSS originally
derived from some Father's embellished sermon text.  Patristic readings
should certainly be considered, but also carefully evaluated when absent
manuscript support. 

> 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.

The process of combining the hard evidence of (1) and (2) leads to a
conclusion which still remains _ex silentio_ in my opinion.  I do not see
any inexorable or even culminative proof that the combined conclusion is
indeed accurate or that the NT MSS we possess from the early centuries
which were found in Egypt reflect anything more than the localized textual
situation in that region, in which mixture from "migrating readings" more
than anything else predominated within the text of NT MSS. 

> 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.

Cheerfully admitted by the way :-)  Now if only modern eclectics will
acknowledge the same in regard to the NA27 text as the supposedly Ur-text
or closest-to-it hypothesis, we can all get along. 

As for tabulation of the extant evidence, I suspect that my own tabulation
of the identical NT data in the papyri will end up quite different than
that of Epp. Although I will not attempt to claim any early papyrus from
Egypt as being thoroughly Byzantine, since the evidence is clearly opposed
to such a claim.  But I will maintain that the early papyri reflect little
more than the state of the text in pre-fourth century Egypt, and not
necessarily that which may have predominated in any other significant
local region, let alone the native Greek-speaking portion of the Roman
Empire as a whole.

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

Back