Subject: Epp, papyri, and professional scribes

From: [email-masked] (William Petersen)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:48:31 -0500

Re Eldon Epp's article  "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, Maruice Robinson wrote
(of Epp's comments on 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). 
>

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.

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 correspondance, 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.

Given this *fact*, Epp then presumes--*mutatis mutandis*--that if secular
Greek literature moved around the Empire with such ease, and the epistulary
remains of private individuals *also* display evidence of their considerable
mobility (including the sending of documents by third parties), and the
religions (and their texts) spread rapidly throughout the ancient world,
then Christian texts should have, as well.  If that is so, then, suggests
Epp, we should not be so chary about viewing the papyri as "local texts,"
*just* from the area in Egypt in which they were found.  The papyri of Plato
are "well represented" (p. 82) in the hovels of Fayyum, whence did they
come?  Obviously from "elsewhere."  Ditto for Christian papyri.

Obviously--contrary to Robinson's assertion--Epp's argument is not "e
silentio".  Rather, Epp would have us cross two bridges of presumption, both
grounded upon the *empirical* discovery of papyri of literary works authored
throughout the ancient Empire, and the *empirical* discovery of documents
recording the movements of people with literature from point "a" to point "b".

The suppositions Epp wishes us to accept are (1) the *mutatis mutandis* that
Christian texts moved throughout the Empire with the same freedom as secular
texts;  and (2) the presumption that the preserved papyri are a good
cross-section of what was available in Egypt (which, because of his
supposition #1, would then be a reasonable representation of what was
available throughout the Empire).

Epp confirms (at least to his mind) his findings by presenting a table (p.
100) the the four major texts of the NT (the Byzantine/Koine group--which
Epp calls "A";  the "Alexandrian" or "neutral" group--B, P75, etc.--which
Epp calls "B";  the "C" group, which includes W, P45, fam.13, etc.; and the
"Western" text group--which Epp labels "D" [the classifications are on pp.
87-99]), to which he assigns the extant papyri.  The "A" group finds its
earliest representation in P84 (6th cent.);  P52 (2nd cent.) is the earliest
"B" group representative;  P45 (III cent.) is the earliest representative of
the "C" group;  and P5 (III cent.) is the earliest representative of the "D"
group.  Again, this is all empirical, based on the "arm's length" dating of
*extant* *Egyptian* papyri--there is no supposition here, only the facts (=
dating and provenance) as generally accepted.

Epp sees this as confirming his view because the "Western" text (Epp's "D"
group) is usually thought to have been of Syrian provenance, and is
obviously present in Rome in the writings of Justin;  the "C" group
corresponds with the so-called Caesarean text, at least in part.  Yet
neither the "C" or "D" text have Egyptian origins, yet they are found in the
early *Egyptian* papyri.  Obviously this empirical *fact* requires movement
of thier text from their point of origin (Antioch? Caesarea? Jerusalem?
Berytus? Rome?) to Egypt.  (I presume the "A" text --Byzantine/Koine--is
also presumed to have an origin outside Egyp-- yet it too is also found in
the *later* Eyptian papyri.  How did it get from its point of origin to Egypt?)

Personally, I find Epp's view as too conservative, for the "wild" citations
found in Justin, Tertullian, Clement of Al., the Diatessaron, the Didache,
and the Judaic-Christian gospel fragments, are not represented in the
papyri--but where we have multiple Patristic/apocryphal testimony for a
reading, we can be quite certain that it *did* circulate in the early
(second cent.) church.  Therefore, I do disagree with Epp--not because his
argument is based on an "e silentio," but becuase his reconstruction gives
short shrift to the *empirical* textual evidence of the second century
apocryphal and Patristic sources.

If there is one thing which Epp's argument is not, however, it is "ex
silentio."  One may disagree that Christian texts moved with the same
(demonstrated) freedom as did secular texts (his supposition #1, as I have
termed it), or one can disagree with his assumption that the preserved
papyri are a reasonable cross-sample of the texts available in Egypt at this
time (his supposition #2, in my synopsis of his arguments).  But neither of
these are based on an "ex silentio" argument.

I suspect that the real reason Dr. Robinson disapproves of Epp's work is
that he tabulates the extant evidence (= the papyri), and places it into
textual groups--which, of course, leaves the Byzantine text out in the cold
(6th cent. is earliest papyri evidence, as per Epp).  I understand
Robinson's claim that the Byzantine text is the Ur-text, but that, indeed,
is an "e silentio" argument.

--Petersen, Penn State Univ.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:55:00 -0700

On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, [email-masked] (William Petersen) wrote:

[ ... ]

>with my own point of view.

Understanding that, I'm going to continue hacking at the conclusions
anyway.

BTW -- Epp's article can also be found in the recent Epp & Fee volume
in studies and documents.

>and religions (Mythraism, Manicheeism) during the early period.

I concede that Epp's argument is not *entirely* from silence. Still,
the only Biblical evidence we have for this period is the handful
of early papyri and the handful of early citations.

And before someone points out that there are dozens of early papyri --
yes, there are. Almost all of which contain no more than two leaves,
and many contain only one or a fragment of one. Often the text is
so short that one cannot determine the text-type reliably.

>then Christian texts should have, as well.

There is, however, one slight difference. In general, literature was the
possession of the upper class. These people *did* move around freely.

Christianity, however, was at this time a persecuted religion, and
generally more "lower class." Ordinary people were not as mobile as
those of equestrian or senatorial rank.

This does not invalidate the conclusion, but it suggests caution.

>If that is so, then, suggests

Probably true. But how can we prove it?

[ ... ]
>dating and provenance) as generally accepted.

These results are rather questionable. I defy *anyone* to definitively
assign a text-type to p52; it's too small!

But let's try this the other way around; let's look at the substantial
early papyri (p13, p45, p46, p47, p66, p72, p75; p74 is substantial
but not early).

We find:

p13 (contents: Hebrews) -- Goes with p46/B
p45 -- Hurtado has shown that it is *not* "C" type, and Colwell showed
       that it was simply "wild."
p46 -- Goes with B (only, not Aleph etc. See Zuntz).
p47 -- Goes with Aleph (only, not A C vg).
p66 -- Goes loosely with p75/B
p72 -- Goes with B, but is not very close to the rest of the Alexandrian text
p75 -- Goes with B etc.

So let's try that list again, this time taking text-types and sections:
Gospels:
 A witnesses -- none
 B witnesses -- p66, p75
 C witnesses -- none
 D witnesses -- none
 Other -- p45

Acts
 (no early papyri except the "wild" p45)

Paul
 Byzantine witnesses -- none
 Alexandrian (Aleph/A/C/33) -- none
 p46/B -- p46, p13
 "Western" -- none
 family 1739 -- none

Catholics
 Byzantine -- none
 Alexandrian -- (p72)
 family 1739 -- none
 family 2138 -- none

Apocalypse
 Byzantine -- none
 Andreas -- none
 p47/Aleph -- p47
 Alexandrian (A/C/vg) -- none

The above list strikes me as pretty thin. Even if we try to include
the more fragmentary papyri, we find some early text-types not represented.
For example, family 1739 existed in the fifth century (since C is primarily
family 1739 in the Catholics). It is *probably* earlier, since Origen
is close to the family text. But there are no family 1739 papyri in
either Paul or the Catholics. (I haven't tested the matter in Acts.)

Similarly, family 2138 goes back at least to the sixth century, since it
is found in the Harklean Syriac. But, again, no papyri.

I am forced to conclude that Epp simply does not have the evidence to
support his claims. Again, they *may* be true. (Note that I do not
share Robinson's view of the history of the text; I consider Epp's
position to be quite possible.) But it cannot be proved.

[ remainder omitted ]

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

                            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: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:15:10 -0500 (EST)

> 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.

> and religions (Mythraism, Manicheeism) during the early period.

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.

> then Christian texts should have, as well.  

This however fails to take into account the nature of Christianity during
that period as a generally persecuted entity, whose life and documents
often had to function in a more covert manner.  I do not think that Epp's
_mutatis mutandis_ takes all the necessary circumstances into account in
his conclusion.

> come?  Obviously from "elsewhere."  Ditto for Christian papyri.

This is certainly agreed, since no NT book had its origin in Egypt.  But
we are not talking specifically about the books, but about the texttypes
or mixed types found in such books, which well may reflect only the
local-text nature of the Egyptian region, and not necessarily or even
likely that which obtained elsewhere. The books themselves got there one
way or the other due to the mission-minded nature of the early Christians,
persecutions or no......

> available throughout the Empire).

Neither of which suppositions I think definitively warranted by the extant
evidence, although I do think the initial portion of (2) is quite the case
if taken alone and without making assumptions based upon (1).

> dating and provenance) as generally accepted.

That varied texttypes and highly mixed texts happened to exist in Egypt
does not necessarily translate into the universal state of the text
elsewhere.  Had that assumption been correct, we then would find the text
having degenerated into virtual chaos everywhere in the Empire, and no
reasonable resolution of the difficulty would be in sight, short of a
formal revision such as W-H proposed in the manner of Jerome.

> Berytus? Rome?) to Egypt.  

I do not doubt that at least _readings_ migrated from place to place and
from copy to copy in varied fashion.  Whether complete MSS moved as
completely as did readings brought in by "uncontrolled popular expansion"
or by cross-comparison and correction, I know not (but neither does Epp).
The fact that those Egyptian papyri are generally so "mixed" in character
tends to indicate migration of readings more than MSS as entities in my
opinion.

> (I presume the "A" text --Byzantine/Koine--is

After Constantine, I fully expect a wide degree of intercommunication
among the newly-legitimized churches of the Empire, and would therefore
not be surprised to find Byzantine MSS after the fourth century in any
locality within the Empire.

> apocryphal and Patristic sources.

I am not convinced that the Western-type citations in the Fathers are
necessarily MS based, any more than the readings in the MSS originally
derived from some Father's embellished sermon text.  Patristic readings
should certainly be considered, but also carefully evaluated when absent
manuscript support. 

> these are based on an "ex silentio" argument.

The process of combining the hard evidence of (1) and (2) leads to a
conclusion which still remains _ex silentio_ in my opinion.  I do not see
any inexorable or even culminative proof that the combined conclusion is
indeed accurate or that the NT MSS we possess from the early centuries
which were found in Egypt reflect anything more than the localized textual
situation in that region, in which mixture from "migrating readings" more
than anything else predominated within the text of NT MSS. 

> is an "e silentio" argument.

Cheerfully admitted by the way :-)  Now if only modern eclectics will
acknowledge the same in regard to the NA27 text as the supposedly Ur-text
or closest-to-it hypothesis, we can all get along. 

As for tabulation of the extant evidence, I suspect that my own tabulation
of the identical NT data in the papyri will end up quite different than
that of Epp. Although I will not attempt to claim any early papyrus from
Egypt as being thoroughly Byzantine, since the evidence is clearly opposed
to such a claim.  But I will maintain that the early papyri reflect little
more than the state of the text in pre-fourth century Egypt, and not
necessarily that which may have predominated in any other significant
local region, let alone the native Greek-speaking portion of the Roman
Empire as a whole.

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