Sun Feb 16 12:46:19 1997
From owner-tc-list Sun Feb 16 12:46:19 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id MAA28276; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 12:46:18 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <199702152302.SAA61320@r02n02.cac.psu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:40:18 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz"
Subject: What Epp was really talking about (Was: Epp, papyri....)
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 7060
On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, wlp1@psu.edu (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.
It's true that what we were discussing was not Epp's basic point.
Indeed, the whole argument was over something almost incidental to
Epp's argument.
Petersen reminded us that we should read Epp's article before commenting.
I should note that I *had* read it, but re-read it to make sure I wasn't
missing something. I *did* make some mistakes (e.g. Epp did not say that
the p45/W text is the Caesarean text; he just said they had common
characteristics).
But the crucial fact is that Epp was not talking about what texts
existed in Egypt, but *whether text-types existed at all prior to
the fourth century.*
Here Robinson and I -- and I think Petersen -- will agree: They did
exist. The only question is, Which text-types existed then. (And
here we would continue to disagree.)
In general I agree with Epp. In fact, I think Epp is one of the few
scholars who clearly perceives our current problem in textual criticism:
That we do not have a theory of the text.
Let's summarize the main points:
1. The papyri in Egypt *do* demonstrate the existence of text-types
in Egypt prior to the fourth century. The most obvious is the
p75/B/p66 type, which became the Alexandrian text. (Epp does not
note it, but the papyri also attest to the p46/B/sa/p13 text of
Paul. Their testimony regarding other text-types is more dubious.)
2. Not all text-types found in Egypt are *from* Egypt. (Assuredly true.)
Note that this does not imply that *all* foreign text-types will
occur in Egypt! We cannot infer from the absence of a type in
Egypt that it did not exist.
3. The text-types found in the early papyri generally survive in
latter manuscripts.
(As an attempt to get away from the problematic term "text-type,"
Epp refers to "trajectories" and "spectra" of witnesses. The former
analogy bothers me, but I think the latter is a good comparison.)
However, there are places where Epp's analysis strikes me as flawed.
These are generally on minor points -- e.g my objection to his
"trajectory" analysis. Also, I don't like his trajectory groupings;
33 and 1739 are *not* the same text-type. And p74 is Alexandrian,
not Byzantine.
Also, one reading does not identify a text-type! Ever! (See page
286 in Epp/Fee.) One may be able to determine, on the basis of
a handful of readings, that a manuscript *does not* belong to
a text-type. But four or five readings cannot determine if a
manuscript belongs to a known text-type; it might belong to
something undiscovered. Hence I would still maintain that we
cannot classify p52 by type.
Also, I agree with the Alands (for once!) that we cannot build text-
types around Bezae. If there are "Western" papyri of the Acts (though
I would note that, of the three so-called "Western" papyri of Acts --
p29, p38, and p48, only p38 shares text with D!), there are none of
the gospels. The only early Greek witness claimed to have a "Western"
text of the gospels is 0171 -- but based on the readings of the Nestle
apparatus, 0171 is nearly as close to B as to D; it has ten readings
with B against D and twelve with D against B (plus three which are
not found in either ms.).
Finally, I cannot accept the Colwell "70%" definition of a text-type.
(But let's not start on *that* again. Some will recall the earlier
discussion on this topic; those who don't can read my views in my
article on text-types, found in the encyclopedia site in my sig.)
Now to address certain points in Petersen's discussion. :-)
[ ... ]
>As for Waltz (in reply to me):
>
>>I concede that Epp's argument is not *entirely* from silence.
More to the point, the matter is not central to the argument of
his essay.
Still, I urge people to look at the evidence of the substantial
papyri listed in my earlier post.
[ ... ]
>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.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Let's take the example
of newspapers. In my hometown (the Twin Cities of Minnesota) there
would be many copies of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, and somewhat
fewer of the Saint Paul Pioneer Press. (These are our local "text-types.")
There would be a handful of copies of the Wall Street Journal and of the
New York Times (both available for home delivery here; these are foreign
text-types). Other "foreign" types such as the Chicago Tribune would
hardly be seen at all; they are available only by extarordinary methods.
But that is, in fact, exactly what we observe in Egypt: A dominant
text (the Alexandrian), a few copies of another text (the "Western"),
and none at all of other types (the Byzantine, family 2138, etc.)
>
>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.
I don't think this can be considered analogous. Iowa doesn't have any publishing
houses; it has to import books. Whereas any Christian with a copy of scripture
and enough money could make another copy.
>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.
Defective in which sense? Epp is only arguing that other text-types
*can be* found in Egypt, not that they *must be* there.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
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