Subject: Re: Different dating systems

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 01:00:59 -0800

----------------------------- Begin Original Text
-----------------------------

My take on Comfort is that his goal is not to establish a 20-chapter
John but to support his Early Text theory.  If some of the early papyri
(e.g., P75) can be shown to come from the 20-chapter precursor that is
proposed by several Johannine scholars, then P75 would have a greater
claim to the readings of the autograph, thus strengthening his Early
Text theory.
----------------------------- End Original Text -----------------------------

In your opinion, does his theory hold water? I have noticed that while
Comfort quotes others NO ONE quotes him......

Kerry Gilliard
Director and Founder
W.I.T.N.E.S.S. Ministries
http://members.aol.com/blufunk195/witness.html

"God has a great sense of humor.....and I'm living proof of it!!"

---

From: "Stephen C Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 12:11:17 -0500 (EST)

>Comfort quotes others NO ONE quotes him......

Comfort's Early Text Theory seems to violate the maxim that the earliest
reading is not necessarily the best reading.  (This is because preservation
and text families are both dependent on geography.)  But, to be fair, he
only argues that the earliest text should be accorded the presumption of
being the best reading, which in individual instances may be rebutted by
the normal eclectic methods.  Some Majority Text proponents advocate a
similar approach, but with the majority reading being accorded the
presumption.

When the evidence is inconclusive as it often seems to be, the name of the
game becomes: Who's got the burden of proof?

Stephen Carlson
-- 
Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE
[email-masked]              : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs
http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/     : chant the words.  -- Shujing 2.35

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 23:53:29 -0500 (EST)

On Fri, 22 Mar 1996, Stephen C Carlson wrote:

> the normal eclectic methods.  

As I read Comfort, with his VERY dogmatic assertion that he is correct, 
bolstered by his listing of places where N26/27 should be altered to 
agree with his assertions, I think that he is going far beyond merely 
arguing "presumption".

> Some Majority Text proponents advocate a

I would note, however, that the presumption as to specifically _which_ 
texttype to follow is NOT an a priori, but derives only after attempting 
to develop a transmissional history of the text which accounts for all 
variation.  I should not have to repeat that my own position moved from a 
fairly rigorous pro-Alexandrian position in the late 1960s due to 
shifting my text-critical scope from electicism to transmissional 
history.  There was NO initial presumption in favor of the Byzantine 
Textform which underlay my own position.

> game becomes: Who's got the burden of proof?

Exactly.

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