Sat Feb 15 18:02:59 1997
From owner-tc-list Sat Feb 15 18:02:59 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id SAA27462; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:02:58 -0500
Message-Id: <199702152302.SAA61320@r02n02.cac.psu.edu>
X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:01:24 -0500
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen)
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: 5153
(1) This matter is really not worth the time, for Robinson now admits that
Epp's piece is not an *e silentio* argument, as does Waltz.
Robinson (to Hurtado):
>Of course, if someone else can make an entirely different inference based
>upon precisely the same data plus perhaps other supporting considerations
>which were not taken into account by the first scholar, then which
>inference is necessarily better than the other? That is what was my point
>on this matter; I do not consider Epp's inference as proven beyond a
>reasonable doubt, [snip]
If Epp's piece actually were an *e silentio*, then there would *be* no
"data" to rearrange. As Hurtado pointed out:
>An inference isn't an argument from silence.
As for Waltz (in reply to me):
>I concede that Epp's argument is not *entirely* from silence.
(2) What makes this entire exchange regrettable and absurd is Robinson's own
description as to why he sought to draw me into it.
I begin with Robinson's quote of my post:
>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.
>
But now it is apparent to all that Epp's arguments are not *e silentio* and,
therefore, not comparable to Robinson's. *That* is why I have not
criticized Epp, although I have (verbally, when he delivered his paper
nearly a decade ago, and in my first post) stated the *empirical* textual
evidence which leads me to disagree with Epp.
(3) Finally, lest the point Epp makes so skillfully in his article (will
someone actually please read the thing, and deal with Epp's *evidence*?) be
entirely obscured by Robinson's following (mis)characterization of it--
>> (Petersen) 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 correspondence, 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.
>
>(Robinson) 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.
--allow me to give the correct analogy which--*pace* Robinson--has nothing
to do with "quot[ing] the NT directly" (!!!):
Imagine any state/province or, if you are a European, a European country.
Imagine that in 2,000 years archaeologists dig back and discover newspapers.
They find the NYTimes, the Chicago Trib, the SF Chronicle, as well as copies
of Le Figaro, the Times (of London), Le Soir, the NRC Handelsblat, Corriera
de la Serra, the Utrechese Dagblat, the Frankfurter Allegemeine,the Times
(of India), the Neuer Zuricher Zeitung, the Svenska Dagblat, etc., etc.
Additionally, they find copies of the Bible.
Given the diversity of the provenance of the *secular* literature (the
newspapers), which comes from all over the world, what should we presume
about the provenance of the copies of the Bible we find there? Do they also
represent a good cross-section of what was available in the world at that
time (so Epp, who sees their distribution as analogous to that of the
secular documents), or are they "local" texts (so Epp's critics)? I have no
answer, but know we are not dealing with an *e silentio* argument.
What is interesting is that, in contemporary life, Epp is demonstrably
correct: If even "pagan" Manhattan were "frozen in time" today, we would
find (1) newspapers from all over the world there, and (2) Bibles from all
over the world there. The same would go even for Iowa. Is Epp correct or
not? Only empirical evidence (such as the failure of the Egyptian papyri to
reflect the wide-spread 2nd cent. reading at Luke 3.22 [+ "this day I have
begotten you"], which is in Justin [Rome], Origen [Alexandria], Ev. Ebion
[Palestine]--and which is why I find Epp's inviting scenario ultimately
defective) will tip the balance.
(4) It is an easy thing to pillory one's interlocutors by mischaracterizing
their statements, or by imputing arguments to them which they do not make.
This is the last time I shall take my time to deal with such juvenilia.
--Petersen, Penn State Univ.
Back