Subject: Re: tc-list Comfort's new book

From: Jean Valentin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mer, 5 Mai 99 23:23:34 +0200

>P. Comfort's new book, "The Complete Text of the Earliest NT Manuscripts"
>has arrived and it is really a tremendous thing!

Dear Jim,

Could you give complete references please? Especially publishing house...

Thanks a lot.

Jean V.

_______________________________________________________________
Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique
tel. 32-2-280.01.37
e-mail : [email-masked]
_______________________________________________________________
"Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop compliqué est inutilisable"
_______________________________________________________________

---

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 17:36:55 -0400

>Could you give complete references please? Especially publishing house...

The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts,
Comfort, Philip W., and David P. Barrett, eds.
ISBN: 0-8010-2136-7Price: $49.99cTrim Size: 6 x 9Pages: 656
Baker Book House

best,

Jim

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

Jim West, ThD
Petros Baptist Church- Pastor
Quartz Hill School of Theology- Adjunct Prof. of Bible

fax- 978-231-5986
email- [email-masked]
web page-  http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 16:36:34 -0500

Denny Diehl here

>>P. Comfort's new book, "The Complete Text of the Earliest NT 
>>Manuscripts" has arrived and it is really a tremendous thing!

>Could you give complete references please? Especially publishing 

The book can be obtained through CBD.  The price is $24.95, List 
$40 something.  There was a sale a month ago for $21.95.

The address is:  www.christianbook.com
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

---

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:10:13 -0400

At 09:49 AM 5/20/99 -0500, you wrote:
>On 5/20/99, Jim West wrote, in part:

>
>You're willing to certify the accuracy of the transcription based on
>checking six verses? No wonder there is controversy about the book's
>value. :-)
>

No- but I dont have the time or desire to list hundreds of passages where
the transcription is accurate to refute 12 examples of where it is not.  My
original comments about the book were simply intended to describe its value-
not to critique the whole bloody thing.

>This is simply not an acceptable sample; it's too small to tell
>us anything.

Then get the book and count them all yourself.

>
>Note that this is not a comment on the accuracy of the book; I haven't
>seen it and cannot comment. However, Robinson has supplied a significant
>list of mistakes. Given that this is a published book, not a manuscript,
>we have the right to expect accuracy. 

Given the fact that listers evidently have more free time than I, I suggest
they get the book themselves and do their own comparisons.

>
>Given the large number of errors already listed, we would need to
>see hundreds of verses tested before we could certify it as
>generally accurate. Saying that it is accurate here and there
>is simply anecdotal evidence.

Large number of errors?  Percentage wise what amount of errors have been listed?

>
>>Get Comfort's book.  Its a treasure in spite of a few mistakes.  Again, the
>>correct passages FAR outweigh any errors- just as the Alexandrian texts far
>>outweigh in value the Byzantine.
>
>This analogy simply doesn't hold water. The accuracy of a transcription
>can be proved: You compare the transcription with the original. The
>accuracy of a text-type can only be assumed -- particularly since that
>text-type does not exist in any extant manuscript.
>

Ok- then get the book- go thorugh it line by line with the mss you have at
hand, and make your own decision.  Why believe Robinson or me?  Do the work
yourself.

>Note that I am not disagreeing with the premise that the Alexandrian
>manuscripts are more accurate than the Byzantine (though Robinson
>would :-). I am simply stating that this is completely irrelevant.

Just as it is completely irrelevant to judge the value of a book by a few
errors rather than by the many correct passages.  You got my point.

>
>At this point, I cannot see that anything has been offered on this
>list to refute Robinson's criticisms.

Thats because my purpose isnt to refute Robinson.  The book does that
itself.  His few listed errors simply do not make the book useless.  So
again, get it and see for yourself.

Jim

---

From: "Wieland Willker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 10:35:49 +0200

I think generally speaking a book like this is outdated.
What we need is a transcription of the manuscripts in DIGITAL FORM.
On a website (preferred) or on a CD. Improvements and corrections can then
be made very easily.
I think that these transcriptions are only of value if they are EXTREMELY
accurate, otherwise you have to refer to the originals or photos.

Best wishes
    Wieland
--------------------
PS: I have transcriptions of the Egerton papyrus and the Secret Gospel of
Mark at:
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ww_tc.html

---

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 17:09:56 -0400

At 03:56 PM 5/22/99 -0500, you wrote:

>What we have gotten from Maurice is an informative look at the problems
>that make a purported "exact transcription" of some important mss useless
>if used by itself in an effort to establish the text. He, as always, cites
>exact evidence and has drawn a clear conclusion from it that cannot be
>ignored. As far as making a list of errata to make the book useful in all
>phases of TC, why should anyone do that? It falls to the authors and
>publishers to furnish such a list if they want us to use their book. If
>anyone were to go to that much trouble, they could more easily publish
>their own book without the weight of the problems in this one.
>
>Thanks again to Maurice for using his capabilities to inform us all.
>

Carlton has obviously chosen to ignore, for whatever reason, the evidence of
Comfort's competence that I have been offering for a bit now.  Why?  And be
sure, I am not impunging your motives or the like.  I am asking an honest
question.  So please answer.  What do you make of the places where Comfort
has accurately transcribed the text?  Why dont yo mention those examples?

Jim