Subject: Re: professional scribes

From: Michael Holmes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:46:46 -0600 (CST)

At 09:05 AM 2/13/97 -0800, Dale Wheeler wrote:

>You know, that sort of sounds like the same question I asked about whether
>we should assume that the state of the text in Egypt represents the state
>of the text everywhere for the NT ?! 

The question of whether the extant textual data from Egypt is representative
of circumstances elsewhere has been explored by E. J. Epp: "The Significance
of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the New Testament Text in the
Second Century: A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission," in William L.
Petersen, ed., _Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins,
Recensions, Text, and Transmission_ (Notre Dame and London: University of
Notre Dame Press, 1989)71-103.

Based on his investigation of the movement and transmission of secular
documents (including the documented rapid movement of literary documents
between Alexandria and Oxyrhynchus), he concludes:
"The dynamism of life in the Greco-Roman world--even in the outlying areas
of Egypt (where most of the New Testament papyri were discovered)--permitted
relatively easy travel and rather free transmission of letters and
documents, so that the earliest New Testament papyri--though they have
survived accidentally and randomly--are generally representative of the
earliest New Testament texts used by the Christianity of the time in all
parts of the Greco-Roman world." (p. 101)

Mike Holmes

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:54:15 -0500 (EST)

> parts of the Greco-Roman world." (p. 101)

Let it be noted that some of us consider that Epp probably extrapolates
far too much from the actual extant evidence in making that final
statement. This again is the typical argument _ex silentio_ which normally
gets railed against even by Dr. Petersen himself when presented in an
opposing scenario. 

I continue to suggest that the surviving papyri found in the sands of
Egypt are much more likely by their very provenance, textual affiliations,
and scribal/phonetic habits to reflect the state of the text _in Egypt_
far more than the state of the text anywhere else in the Roman Empire
(i.e. locations where we do _not_ have sufficient NT textual data by which
to make comparison, and from where we should _not_ presume to presuppose a
universally-applied commonalty merely on the basis of a limited regional
sample). 

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

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:58:13 -0700

>gets railed against even by Dr. Petersen himself when presented in an

I have to agree with Robinson on this. There just isn't enough evidence
to draw a conclusion.

Some will argue that there are Egyptian papyri which agree with all,
or almost all, second-century authors. (I've never liked calling them
"church fathers." Sounds too sexist for someone of my generation....)
But it should be pointed out that we have relatively few remains of
second century authors -- and in cases such as Irenaeus, much of what
we have is preserved only in translation.

Epp *may* be right. But I don't think we can, with out present knowledge,
consider the matter proved.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

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)

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:53:54 +000

> >statement. This again is the typical argument _ex silentio_  . . .

Reading Epp carefully shows that he offers an inference which is 
based on a number of supporting reasons and accompanying evidence.  
There isn't the evidence to falsify or verify empirically the 
inference, but it isn't offered in a vacuum.  An inference isn't an 
argument from silence.
 
> consider the matter proved.

Sure.  And Epp didn't present the matter as "proved", but as a 
reasonable inference, based on the considerations he offered.
 
L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:04:53 -0500 (EST)

> inference, but it isn't offered in a vacuum.  An inference isn't an 

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, and my own inference regarding the pre-fourth century
papyri as more likely reflecting the state of the text in Egypt at that
time still remains equally plausible.