Subject: Re: Life of papyrus MSS

From: "DC PARKER" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 09:55:01 GMT

Maurice Robinson ended his thoughts with
 
> So, even while there is no "standard" life for papyrus MSS, 
assumptions
> can at least be made based upon principles 1 through 3 to some 
degree, and
> I think one would not be too far afield from supposing...
 
 _Assumptions_ are precisely that, and these seem to me to be figures 
with no basis in scientific observation.  Where papyrology lacks 
evidence, we should admit ignorance rather than offer guesses.  Any 
offer of hard evidence would be very helpful.
 
DC PARKER
DEPT OF THEOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
TEL. 0121-414 3613
FAX  0121-414 6866
E-MAIL [email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 22:41:34 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, DC PARKER wrote:

> > assumptions can at least be made based upon principles 1 through 3 
> > to some degree, and I think one would not be too far afield from
> > supposing...
  
> offer of hard evidence would be very helpful.

Of course it should be obvious that all assumptions made are "guesses" --
educated guesses, I would hope, to some degree. But in point of fact,
virtually everything else presumed or assumed by modern eclectic scholars
regarding the transmission and development of the text for the pre-4th
century papyrus era reflects a similar degree of educated guessing based
upon extrapolation from the extant evidence.  I certainly see no reason
why suppositions regarding the average lifespan of a biblical papyrus MS
should not at least be hypothesized in a similar manner. 

I'm sure that anyone could reasonably postulate a reasonable terminus ad
quo and terminus ad quem for the life of a papyrus MS -- any MS might be
destroyed on the day it is copied, and most biblical papyrus MSS obviously
did not survive, regardless of lifespan, since we only have around 100
existing which "beat the odds" as it were. Anything therefore which
reasonably takes account of these two factors and which is based upon
logical assumptions should be able to stand as a valid hypothesis when
attempting to explain such a significant factor regarding early textual
transmission. Otherwise, we might as well simply admit we know little or
nothing about the history of transmission or the state of the text in any 
given era, and therefore Keith Elliott's "rigorous eclectic" procedure is 
in fact the _only_ one that any of us should follow.

I merely have attempted to offer _one_ reasonable hypothesis regarding the
average lifespan of a biblical papyrus MS.  Anyone else is of course free
to offer another, and its merits or demerits will depend upon the logical
and historical factors which might bear upon the question, just as in the
three-point scenario which I discussed. But I do not think that admission
of non-certainty regarding the matter should imply that only a declaration
of total ignorance is the only option which remains.

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