Sun Feb 16 00:02:05 1997
From owner-tc-list Sun Feb 16 00:02:05 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id AAA27774; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 00:02:04 -0500
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 00:01:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Epp, papyri, and professional scribes
In-Reply-To: <199702152302.SAA61320@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: 8102
On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, William L. Petersen wrote:
> (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.
I still beg to differ, since the matter of arguing from silence rests
precisely at the point where the relevance of the distribution of
classical literature within the Empire (which is demonstrated by facts)
indicates the same level of distribution of NT MSS around the Empire
(which is _not_ supported by any hard data). The mere existence of 99
fragmentary papyri from the region of Egypt is also data which is known,
but which does not cross-link in any way with the matter of the
distribution of the classical literature. Solid data exist on both
questions, but to combine both and draw a definitive conclusion such as
Epp has done is in my opinion still an unwarranted argument based on
silence.
> 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.
I admitted my inferences regarding the extant papyri as more likely
representative of local conditions in Egypt were drawn from only that
segement of the evidence, and to that extent are based on hard data. As
soon as I proclaim (as I do in my own textual theory) that such was _not_
representative of the state of the tect in the Empire as a whole, I argue
from silence (and cheerfully admit it). Why does there seem to be a
problem in recognizing that Epp basically does the same thing?
> (2) What makes this entire exchange regrettable and absurd is Robinson's own
> description as to why he sought to draw me into it.
Petersen is correct. He is totally irrelevant to the discussion of Epp's
position. I have stated this already. My only point in that regard was in
reference to Petersen complaining strongly about my own claims in OTHER
unrelated areas regarding transmissional history which were similarly
based upon _ex silentio_ arguements, and merely suggesting that Petersen
should be as critical of Epp at this point as he was of me. But
basically, this entire discussion of Epp's position has _nothing_ to do
with Petersen, so if he chooses to ignore it, that is fine with me.
> >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.
Since that point is not granted by me, the comparison still might remain
apt. However, I will not dwell on the matter of Petersen vs myself
further.
> (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--
> 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 other newspapers]....
> 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.
There are differences which would have to be taken into consideration, but
the issue is NOT whether copies of the NT were in Egypt and obviously HAD
to come from elsewhere (this is granted); but the issue is where did their
specific READINGS come from, based upon whatever textual identity those NT
books had.
Following Petersen's illustration (which is good), but altering the locale
to the USA and to English Bible translations which might be found, what
will the future archaeologist make of the texts such as the KJV or NKJV
which reflect one type of NT text, as opposed to those other translations
which reflect a different type of NT text (and, being eclectic, those
other translations still differ in various places and (especially with the
dynamic equivalency translations) may even render passages totally
differently where the known underlying Greek text remains the same (I
would presume the Greek printed texts also would be preserved for those
archaeologists).
The analogy breaks down of course, due to the matter of the printing press
and identity of copies, but at least the textual variation issue still
remains. The question then would be whether all those NIV's from the
Zondervan scribes in the region of Grand Rapids, Michigan, are typical of
the state of the text in the entire US or whether those NKJV's from the
Nelson scribes in the "local" area of Nashville, Tennessee, are typical,
or whether those NASV's from the Lockman scribes out of California are
typical, etc. We know that in our own situation that local publishing
houses imply nothing about national distribution -- but as soon as one
reverts back to first century Egpyt and hand-copied MSS, that same
conclusion (which would be Epp's) might no longer apply. And that is my
point.
> 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.
New York is great -- think of those future archaeologists uncovering the
American Bible Society archive! :-) But look at the utter _diversity_ of
NT texts found in that archive -- what conclusions would you suggest
should be drawn regarding distribution of biblical texts in that case?
Remember the Zondervan archive in Grand Rapids would have been almost
exclusively NIV, and the Lockman archive in California would have been
almost exclusively NASV -- but the Bible Society archive would have
numerous English translations of widely varying type; so what can be said
of the distribution of the text nationwide based upon any of those "local"
finds?
> The same would go even for Iowa.
I'll bet in Iowa the KJV will probably be the most numerous find, with
only a relatively few translations of other types. This may also hold
true in other rural areas of the US as well. Would one then not do well to
conclude that the TR (or, horrors, a generally Byzantine type of text) was
the dominant type in the USA of the 20th century, even though localized
texts of major metropolitan regions and especially scholarly centers might
reflect something significantly different?
> (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.
I hope that I at least have not pilloried anyone in my discussions. My
intent is only to suggest that one be wary of any firm conclusions drawn
when it is at least _possible_ that the data does not support the
inference.
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back