Subject: Re: Epp, papyri, and professional scribes

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:01:24 -0500

(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.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 00:01:52 -0500 (EST)

> 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.

> >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?

> 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
> 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.

> [of other newspapers]....

> 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.

> 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?

> 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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:40:18 -0700

>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. :-)

[ ... ]

>>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.

[ ... ]

>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.)
>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

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
                         [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: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:58:10 -0700

On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]> wrote:

>true in other rural areas of the US as well.

Tsk. This, as a Midwesterner, I can't let slip by. (Yes, I'm from
Minnesota, and tell Iowa jokes like any other Minnesotan, but it's
still biased.) Iowa's churches are primarily mainline Protestant.
It may be that there are more AVs in Iowa than any other version --
but the *combined* numbers of modern versions will vastly outnumber
copies of the AV.

If I were to point to a particular place as the hotbed of KJVs,
it seems to me that the (conservative, Baptist, rural) southern
Appalachians would be the logical place.

And, yes, I know this isn't really relevant to anything we're
talking about. :-)

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 19:33:22 -0500 (EST)

On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> Iowa's churches are primarily mainline Protestant.

No joke intended -- this precisely illustrates my point.  The KJV still
would appear to be the predominant text in Iowa or other rural areas, even
though all other translations combined might outnumber it.  So too with
the Byzantine Textform in the Roman Empire -- all local text MSS combined
might indeed outnumber it, but it nevertheless might remain dominant.

> Appalachians would be the logical place.

Granted readily from a North Carolina perspective. :-)

> And, yes, I know this isn't really relevant to anything we're

If you say so....