Subject: Comfort's book

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 10:25:07 -0500 (EST)

William Petersen says of Comfort's book, "The Quest....",  "... the
unlearning of this volume's half-truths and outright untruths will be a
painful experience for the student and an unwarrented waste of time for the
professor.  The publisher and external reviewers are to be rebuked for
allowing such nonsense into print."

while I.H. Marshall says "... the case which is being put forward is
sufficiently important to demand serious attention by scholars, and it is to
be hoped that Dr. Comfort will find opportunity elsewhere to assess the
arguments of other scholars in detail and justify his approach over agains
theirs in greater detail".

and Jon Paulien concludes "... the book is readable enough and stimulating
enough to recommend it to anyone who is interested in the latest
developments in the text criticism of the New Testament."

All three of these text critics have in common that they criticize Comfort
for failing to present evidence for some of his statements.

My question- is there any evidence that the Papyri are less reliable than
the "great" texts like Aleph, B, or D?  If not, what is erroneous in
Comfort's logic?  (I agree, he fails to present evidence at points- but if
his logic is sound is that not evidence as well?)

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West
[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 10:08:57 -0700

>his logic is sound is that not evidence as well?)

*Less* reliable? No. (If one excepts p45, which Colwell has shown to be
edited.)

But the defect of Comfort, as I see it, is failing to put the papyri
in context. Papyri are manuscripts; they are therefore subject to
error. Some errors are obvious, but some are not. And, since the
text of a manuscript is always older than the manuscript itself,
we need to examine the manuscripts in light of their text-types.

When we know the relatives of a papyrus, we are in a better state
to assess its readings. For any given reading, we must ask, "Does it
agree with its relatives?" If so, then its age does add weight
(at least some) to the attestation for its reading. But if not, then
the weight of the papyrus is at least somewhat lessened.

In my experience, there are significant numbers of readings where
the text-types (the first line of defense) split. Very often in
such cases the internal evidence is also indecisive. (At least
by my standards; I don't like following internal evidence unless
it clearly favours one reading over another.) In that case I will
likely choose the reading supported by the oldest manuscript,
whatever that may be. But Comfort, to my mind, follows the
papyri uncritically, accepting their testimony whenever they have
any sort of support, whether it is relevant support or not.

(Yet another argument for classified agreements, sez I).

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

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: Nichael Cramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 11:55:13 -0400 (EDT)

Jim West wrote:
>     (I agree, he fails to present evidence at points- but if

????  Hardly.

While logical consistency is a minimal necessity for a theory or 
an explanatory model, it is hardly sufficient.  

The Ptolemaic model of the Solar System or the various "humor" models of
disease propogation were perfectly logically consistent. They simply
happened to be based on erroneous data. 

N