Subject: Re: Comfort's book

From: "William L. Petersen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 18:39:59 -0400

At 10:25 AM 4/25/97 -0500, Jim West wrote:

>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]

You question is based on certain erroneous assumptions, which are addressed
in my review, which you have obviously read, since you quote the final
sentence, which I omitted from my post out of charity towards Baker Book House.

To your question:  no, the papyri are *no more* *or less* reliable than any
other MSS.  But that is not the issue.  As I point out in the review,
Comfort claims: "the early period of textual transmission...was not
completely marred by textual infidelity and scribal liberty"..."Certain NT
books, such as the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul's epistles were considered
inspired literature from the onset" (Comfort, p. 21--quoted in my review
which you have already read).

My comment in my review:  "Comfort's assertion that the Gospels were "copied
with reverential fidelity" because they "were considered inspired literature
from the onset" is contradicted by the liberties the Gospel writers took
with each other's works."  All you need do is compare the synoptics in a
synopsis:  we *know* someone is copying from someone, and changing the text
of his exemplar constantly--and it doesn't matter whether you are a
Griesbachian or a "four-sourcer":  the gospel being copied from is *not*
being copied with "reverential fidelity"--otherwise the Lord's Prayer, the
Beatitudes, etc., would agree exactly.  In the review I continue:  "This
freedom continued in the second century, as demonstrated by the text of
Justin Martyr, Tatian (who harmonized the Gsopels, and threw in a dash of
extracanonical material) and the *Gospel of Thomas.*  Still later, scribes
continued playing with the text, as shown by the "Western *non-*
interpolations....  Where is the evidence of Comfort's "reverential
fidelity"? Our earliest evidence betrays no shred of it.  Since the earliest
citations from the NT are "Western" in form, how, then, can Comfort conclude
that the Alexandrian form is the "original text"?"

As with the other excerpts from my review, here again it is simply a point
of *fact*:  we have *no* evidence that the Gospels or Acts were seen as
"inspired literature from the onset" and "copied with reverential fidelity."
Quite the contrary:  *all* of our *empirical* evidence indicates *exactly
the opposite*!!!  Once again, Comfort is making grand statements which are
directly contradicted by the empirical evidence.  That is a scholarly no-no.
Pastors can get away with it from their pulpits;  in publications,
university professors cannot.

I do not understand why I need to merely reproduce here (= retype) what is
already in print, and has been read...  Is my review not clear enough?  I
have neither the time nor the inclination to reproduce the entire review.
Read it.  Think about it.

I shall summarize one more point from the review, since it goes exactly to
the matter of the papyri you raised--and have, apparently, already read.

As to the papyri themselves, Comfort says: "Aside from some obvious scribal
errors, the testimony of P75 should be followed meticulously" (Comfort, p.
99).  Comfort never says what these "obvious scribal errors" are:  one would
presume they are the usual things we see:  a past tense for a present, an
innocuous change of spelling, an omission due to homoioteleuton, etc.

My comment in the review:  "P75 is unique in reading "the *shepherd*" for
"the *door*" at John 10:7.  In *A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT*
(1971), Metzger records the committee's view that P75's reading "is an early
alleviation of the text, *introduced by copyists* who found the expression
"the door of the sheep" *too difficult.*"

In short, there may be--indeed, probably is--textual corruption even in P75.
This substitution is *not* an "obvious scribal error," to use Comfort's
words.  Rather, it is an undetectable (unless you have other MSS against
which to compare P75) *improvement* in the text found in all other MSS.  The
bottom line is that P75 appears to have undergone theological/stylistic
redaction even at its "early" date.  Hence, the papyri deserve *no* special
privilege beyond any other MSS.

Two final comments:  (1) Comfort's great desire is to work with the earliest
sources possible--even to the point of claiming that Barbara Aland has
redated P75.  But the most curious fact in this is that he *completely*
ignores all the earliest evidence--namely the second and early third century
fathers and apocryphal works (Justin, Clement Al, Origen, Didache, the
Judaic-Christian gospels, etc., etc.).  This is a scholarly no-no, for if
you wish to ignore these works, you have to explain *why*--and simply saying
you don't have the languages, or they are too difficult to work with will
*not* do.  Look at Alfred Resch's *Agrapha* (1906) or Ennulat's *Die "Minor
Agreements"* (1994), or the many works in between and see the excellent work
which has *already* been done with these sources.  No *serious* scholar can
ignore the fathers in attempting to reconstruct the earliest strata of the
NT text.  Yet Comfort does--save for his claim that Clement and Origen agree
with the "best Alexandrian witnesses"--a claim which is simply, empirically,
wrong.  Where does this nonsense end???

(2) The query "if his logic is ok, then what's wrong"? has already been
dealt with adequately by N. Cramer and others.  Flawless logic won't get you
anywhere if (1) you begin with a flawed presupposition (that certain books
were accurately copied, because they were considered inspired from the
outset...), or if you ignore pertinent data (the fact that the Fathers show
a different text, in flux, from what we have in the "great" uncials...and
the Fathers are *earlier* than even the papyri!!!).

One more note:  I urge you to compare my review with the other two you cite.
Which has the more specific critique?  Do they pick up of the false claim
that Aland has "redated" P75?  Do they catch the error on the claim about
Clement and Origen agreeing with the Alexandrian text?  Hmmm...  I leave it
to you to judge who you would want as your lawyer critiquing a suit brought
against you. I *never* pay attention to "fluff" reviews ("interesting
thesis, worthy of investigation;  much here for further study"...etc.).  I
pay attention to how *concrete* the criticisms are, backed by fact, for in
the end, it is only the *facts* that matter--and no rhetoric can cover that:
cp. Galileo: eppur, si mouve ("nevertheless, it moves!").  And the facts may
not agree with what you like to believe.

--Petersen, Penn State Univ. (not proofed)

---

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 21:55:02 -0500 (EST)

William,

>--Petersen, Penn State Univ. (not proofed)

There is no doubt at all that your review is more thorough- I thank you for
your work.
"Almost thous convincest me to become....."

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West
[email-masked]

---

From: "Perry L. Stepp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 06:00:59 -0500

William L. Petersen <[email-masked]> wrote:

>			As I point out in the review,
> Beatitudes, etc., would agree exactly.  

It seems to me that you're treating two different forms of "copying"
differently.  In one, authoritative figures in the early church are using
sources to supplement their own preaching--or to build their own preaching
upon.  The results become codified after they have gone through the mill,
so to speak--after they've been "preached over" (and we all know how
painful that can be).

In the other, texts that are viewed as authoritative (in *some* sense,
which we've yet to perfectly define) are *transmitted* (which strikes me as
an important difference), sometimes in perfect reproduction, sometimes in
very imperfect reproduction, by authoritative figures within the community.
 It's a different situation.  This isn't Heraclides or somesuch epitomizing
earlier works, which seems to me to be more analogous (but not perfectly
analogous) to the writing of the gospels.  In this second scenario, it's
the copying of texts, not the writing of new texts *per se*.

> the opposite*!!!  

I intend no disrespect, but you've clearly spoken with Comfortian hyperbole
here.  You've built a platform on uneven legs--the two situations are not
analogous, as I state above.

> university professors cannot.

Some pastors don't get away with it.  But this isn't the forum for that
discussion, is it?

Perry L. Stepp

************************************************************
Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX
Ph.D. candidate in New Testament, Baylor University

"A system of morality which is based on relative 
emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar
conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing
true."
                    Phaedo 69b
************************************************************

---

From: "Perry L. Stepp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 08:01:27 -0500

Well, it made sense when I wrote it.

In my reply to Wm Petersen, I wrote:

> differently.  

What I meant (I think) to write is:

"It seems to me that you're treating two different forms of "copying" as if
they were the same, when they need to be treated differently."

All scribes, please emend your text accordingly <grin>.  (Sorry to have
introduced a variant into the text of the discussion.)

PLStepp

---

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 23:10:17 -0400

>the copying of texts, not the writing of new texts *per se*.

*In the context of Comfort's book,* and *given _his_ definition* of the
"published" text as the "original" text (the exact words are cited at the
beginning of my review;  I am now citing from memory, for I have neither his
book nor the review at hand), I fail to see the pertinence of the
distinction you draw.  I will be the first to agree that Patristic citations
(which is what I assume you mean by your obtuse reference to "authoritative
figures within the community") sometimes offer an "imperfect reproduction"
(again quoting your terminology).  But since *Comfort* views the "published"
text of a gospel (say, Mark) as the "original" text, which gets "copied with
reverential fidelity" because it is perceived of as "inspired literature
from the onset," then *he* should deal with the obvious "trashing" Mark
receives at the hands of Luke and Matthew (if you are a "four sourcer";
Griesbachians should make the necessary substitutions:  the trashing Matthew
gets at the hands of Mark and Luke...).  It is *Comfort* who has posited
that once Mark is "published," it is respected as "inspired literature from
the onset."  If so, then why is this "inspired" work so messed about with by
other "inspired" writers (e.g. Matt and Luke)?  Hence, *your* comparison to
Heraclides epitomizing earlier works is not applicable--because of
*Comfort's* definition.

As for your statement that "authoritative figures within the community"
sometimes offer a "very imperfect reproduction," indeed, this is so.  But
how can you tell where they are giving such an "imperfect reproduction" and
where they are *accurately* reproducing an early exemplar?  Three examples:
(1) Justin gives the "full" citation of Ps. 2.7 in his account of the
baptism of Jesus:  "You are my son, *this day I have begotten you.*"
Compared against either the Byzantine Text or the N-A/UBS text (=
essentially the Alexandrian text), I assume you would say this is one of
those places where an "authoritative figure within the community" (= "St."
Justin, the Martyr...) offers a "very imperfect reproduction."  (2) Also in
the context of the baptism, Justin speaks of a "great light" which shines in
the Jordan (Dial. 88) when Jesus emerges from the water.  Again, I presume
you would say this is a case where an "authoritative figure" offers an
"imperfect reproduction."  (3) In Clement of Al., *Quis dives salvetur,* 4,
he offers some odd variants in his citations from Mark 10.17-31.  Again, I
assume you would characterize these as "slips of the pen" or "homiletic
excesses" by an "authoritative figure."

However:

(1) The "full" citation of Ps. 2.7 at the baptism is *also* found in Clement
Al, Origen, etc., etc. (among the fathers), Codex Bezae, and vetus latina
MSS a b c d ff2 l r1 (in other words, by 7 of 11extant v.l. MSS--including
the oldest vetus lat. ms:  a [4th cent.]).  How do we *know* Justin is
giving us an "imperfect reproduction" (to use your phrase) here?  Might he
not be citing the same tradition found in the other fathers, D, and the
v.l.???  Regardless of how one answers that question, *someone* is not
reproducing with "reverential fidelity":  none of the papyri (all later than
Justin) offer Justin's reading.  Either Justin--*and* Clement, Origen,
Bezae, and a majority of the v.l. MSS--*or* the Alexandrian/Byzantine MSS
are *not* reproducing with "reverential fidelity."  Incidentally, Justin is
the *oldest* source of quotations about the baptism--far older than any MSS
of the gospels.

(2) The "great light" or "fire" in the Jordan is found not just in Justin,
but also in the Sibylline Oracles, Tatian, the Gospel acc. to the Hebrews
(as per Epiphanius), and in two "canonical" manuscripts of Matthew:  v.l.
mss a and g1. Again, recall that v.l. MS a is the oldest extant v.l. MS, and
Justin is the oldest extant source who reproduces the baptismal account.
Who, pray tell, is copying with "reverential fidelity"??  Justin, or the
papyri and the Alexandrian and Byzantine MSS?  How do you know?

(3) Clement's odd citations in QDS are *also* paralleled in the MS
tradition.  So it would apprear that he is *not* "inventing" these variants
for homiletical, paraenetic, or apologetical purposes.  But since--like
Justin's citations in #s 1 and 2 above--these are the *most ancient*
citations of these passages, and the *identical* readings are found *within*
the *earliest* MS tradition, *who* is copying with "reverential fidelity"?

In passing, I note you ignore the example I gave from P75--Comfort's "parade
horse," whose testimony *he* says we should follow "meticulously" (Comfort's
word)--an example which cannot by any stretch of language be termed an
"obvious scribal error," for it is an improvement to the text.  Again,
*where* is the "reverential fidelity"?  In P75 or in the rest of the tradition?

You continue, then, by quoting me again:

>> As with the other excerpts from my review, here again it is simply apoint

>analogous, as I state above.

I have often told the list how ignorant I am, and how limited my knowledge
is;  perhaps I have missed something here.  So I ask you:  tell me, please,
where, in the first or second century (for by 200, I am sure you would agree
that the "text" has been "published" [harkening back to Comfort's
definition]) there is evidence--*empirical textual evidence in citations or
manuscripts*--that the Gospels or Acts were  "copied with reverential
fidelity."  Obviously you must know of such instances, otherwise you would
not have written what you did...

I will give you a head start in assembling your list by saying that we have
already ruled out P75, as well as Justin, and Tatian (the heretic!), and
Clement of Alexandria, and Origen (the heretic!), and the Sibylline Oracles.
Perhaps you mean the Didache?  Or perhaps the Protevangelium Iacobi?  Or
maybe the Gospel of Thomas?  The Gospel according to the Hebrews?  Where?
WHERE???  Since you say I am wrong (which I may well be...), and engaging in
"Comfortian hyperbole," then you *must* have some specific cases in mind.
Please--share them with us!

--Petersen, Penn State Univ.

---

From: "Perry L. Stepp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 02:26:54 -0500

Sorry to have been so confusing.  Let me spell this out.

1.)  You obviously have me confused with someone who wants to defend Philip
Comfort and his views.  To quote the great biblical scholar Robert
Zimmerman (aka Dylan), "It ain't me."  (Or Saint Ronnie [Van Zandt], if you
wish: "I ain't the one.")

2.)  You quote me:

> From: William L. Petersen <[email-masked]>

> >It seems to me that you're treating two different forms of "copying"

  [should read: "It seems to me that you're treating two 
   different forms of "copying" as if they were the same, when 
     they need to be treated differently," as per my second message.]

> >              In one, authoritative figures in the early church are
using
> >sources to supplement their own preaching--or to build their own
> >preaching upon.  The results become codified after they have gone 
> >through the mill, so to speak--after they've been "preached over" 
> >(and we all know how painful that can be).

Here I speak of the evangelists, who were preachers handling sermonic
material before they were writers.  Some of that material was passed to
them by other preachers in the guise of sermonic material, some of it was
passed to them in texts.  Their central concerns were polemical, hortatory,
evangelistic, practical, etc.  They were *not* centrally concerned with
transmitting to others the texts they'd received.

> >which we've yet to perfectly define) are *transmitted* (which strikes 
> >me as an important difference), sometimes in perfect reproduction, 
> >sometimes in very imperfect reproduction, by authoritative figures 
> >within the community.

Here I in my obtuseness refer to *scribes* who copied texts--"authoritative
figures" was an infelicitous choice, I admit.  Their central concern was
taking the text they'd received and transmitting/preserving it
for the then and future needs of their community.  Other concerns entered
into their handling of the text--Epp, Ehrman, et. al., have shown that this
happened, although we can quibble about the extent and details of these
occurrences.  Whatever the case, their use of the text centered on
preservation/transmission.

You take me to be referring to the Fathers--which I'm not.  The Fathers'
purposes in presenting the text are more analogous to those of the
evangelists than to the scribes.  Their *central* concerns were polemical,
hortatory,
evangelistic, practical, etc.  They were not centrally concerned with the
transmission/preservation of the text.  Which is one reason the use of the
Fathers in NT textual criticism is so problematic, as you
know.

Here's the crux: you cannot take the way group A handled the text and
extrapolate from their attitude--assuming you've properly reconstructed
it--what group B believed about the inspiration of the text or what their
views 
must have been.  The situations are not analogous, because the purposes and
motivations of the "users" (for lack of a better term) of the text are
different.

3.)  You quote me quoting you:

> >> As with the other excerpts from my review, here again it is simply
> >>a point of *fact*:  we have *no* evidence that the Gospels or Acts 
> >>were seen as "inspired literature from the onset" and "copied with 
> >>reverential fidelity."  Quite the contrary:  *all* of our *empirical* 
> >>evidence indicates *exactly the opposite*!!!  

You quote my reply:

> >I intend no disrespect, but you've clearly spoken with Comfortian
> >hyperbole here.  You've built a platform on uneven legs--the two 
> >situations are not analogous, as I state above.

To which you reply:

> I have often told the list how ignorant I am, and how limited my
> knowledge is;  perhaps I have missed something here.  So I ask 
> you:  tell me, please, where, in the first or second century (for by 
> 200, I am sure you would agreethat the "text" has been "published" 
> [harkening back to Comfort's definition]) there is evidence--
> *empirical textual evidence in citations or manuscripts*--that the 
> Gospels or Acts were  "copied with reverential fidelity."  Obviously 
> you must know of such instances, otherwise you would not 
> have written what you did...
> 
> I will give you a head start in assembling your list by saying that we
> have already ruled out P75, as well as Justin, and Tatian (the heretic!),

> and Clement of Alexandria, and Origen (the heretic!), and the Sibylline
> Oracles.  Perhaps you mean the Didache?  Or perhaps the 
> Protevangelium Iacobi?  Or maybe the Gospel of Thomas?  The 
> Gospel according to the Hebrews?  Where?  WHERE???  Since you 
> say I am wrong (which I may well be...), and engaging in "Comfortian 
> hyperbole," then you *must* have some specific cases in mind.

Hey, caustic sarcasm!  Heat without light!  Allllllright!

Look, I enjoy a long-distance spitting contest as much as the next person. 
But sheathe that rapier wit, doc--you've got me mixed up with someone else.
 I haven't labeled anyone or anything "heretical."  Nor am I defending
Comfort.  

The hyperbole to which I refer is the absolute language of your statement
(and I quote):

> >> As with the other excerpts from my review, here again it is simply
> >> apoint of *fact*:  we have *no* evidence that the Gospels or Acts 
> >> were seen as "inspired literature from the onset" and "copied with 
> >> reverential fidelity."  Quite the contrary:  *all* of our *empirical* 
> >> evidence indicates *exactly the opposite*!!!  

The *facts* are: 

a-We have practically no New Testament material from the second century
that was not copied for primarily polemical purposes--the early papyri
(which you so casually dismiss) are *it*.  They are the only *empirical*
evidence of how early *scribes* understood the inspiration and authority of
the text.  They are the only *empirical* evidence--with a few patristic
exceptions--of how the practices attending the transmission of the text
intersected with the Church's view of inspiration.

b-We have a small group of early papyrii that are almost identical to one
another and almost identical to Vaticanus.  These mss are quite 
fragmentary, but they're there.  (Remember, I'm not the one who
claimed that it was a "point of fact" that "*all* of our *empirical*
evidence indicates *exactly the opposite*!!!")  Their uniformity is the
opposite of Byzantine uniformity: the latter is the result of recensional
activity, the former is the result of a very respectful, controlled,
careful attitude toward the copying of texts.

c-The imperfections in p75 do not change the fact that it presents a text
that is "virtually identical" to B, and gives evidence of a stream of very
precise scribal activity--admittedly not "perfectly faithful".  But it is
anachronistic to project a modern evangelical's understanding of
inspiration back into the first and second century--if that's what Comfort
does (and again, I didn't jump into this aiming to defend him), he's wrong.

The fact that some scribes in the stream felt free to add/alter material
to/in the
text doesn't change the overall character of the stream.

It's ludicrous to create two falsely exclusive alternatives, as you
seem to do: either early scribes and fathers (anachronistically) viewed
texts as authoritative and inspired according to a 20th century evangelical
model (a model which clearly sets your teeth on edge), or they didn't view
them as inspired and authoritative, or quote them with "reverential
fidelity."  

Scribes need not have signed the Chicago statement on inerrancy, or the
Evangelical Theological Society's statement of faith, or even to have
agreed with them verbatim, to have viewed the texts as authoritative and
inspired from the earliest periods.  The
evidence *pertaining to scribes* is too fragmentary to make a conclusive
case either way: "in point of fact," it suggests the opposite of what you
assert.

Perry L. Stepp