Mon Dec 9 15:22:10 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Dec  9 15:22:10 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id PAA18021; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 15:20:54 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961209194202.0069a3a4@mail.teleport.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 14:17:57 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Aland's article
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1187

On Mon, 09 Dec 1996, "Dale M. Wheeler"  wrote, in
part:

>One final question to the list members...
>
>What has been your response to the publications of Comfort on the idea
>that the autographs are best represented by the earliest Egyptian mss 
>at each point ??

I found both of Comfort's books to be utterly irritating. A case can be
made for using "the best manuscript," but does the mere fact that a
manuscript is early make it good? Take a manuscript like p52, or one
of the equally fragmentary papyri. It might prove, if we had the
whole thing, that it is incredibly corrupt. We can only work with
manuscripts that are substantial enough that we can assess their
texts.

That does not mean that the papyri are intrinsically bad; quite the
contrary. P75 is, to my mind, the best manuscript of the gospels,
and p46 and p72 are, in their respective areas, among the three or
four most important documents. But I say that based on knowing their
texts, not their ages!

Comfort's papyriolatreia (if I dare coin such a dreadful term) is
one of the most stupid ideas I've seen in recent years.

In my humble opinion, of course. :-)

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back