Subject: Re: tc-list Comfort on P12

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 16:26:32 -0400

At 04:01 PM 5/22/99 -0400, you wrote:

>Having not yet seen the book, let me ask a question (that I've asked about
>three times before, but never recieved an answer):
>
>Using this specific example, how does C/B signify this problematic reading
>(i.e. gamma vs tau) in his transcription?

questionable letters or words are in brackets- unclear letters or words have
a dot under them-  in other words, the standard method of marking
questionable readings.  Their system of notation is no different than any
other I have seen utilized.

Best,

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
email- [email-masked]
web page-  http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

---

From: M A Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 21:50:36 EDT

>>three times before, but never received an answer):
>>

>questionable letters or words are in brackets- unclear letters or 
>words have a dot under them-  in other words, the standard method of
marking
>questionable readings.  Their system of notation is no different than 
>any other I have seen utilized.

WAIT A MINUTE JIM  -- Now I KNOW you must be just pulling everyone's
chain with all the absurdities.  Are you sure you even HAVE a copy of
Comfort and Barrett? If so, please cite even ONE case where C/B place a
dot under a disputed letter.

The facts are these: 1) Comfort and Barrett do NOT place dots under
"unclear letters or words"; (2) nor do they follow "the standard method"
and "system of notation" found in most other scholarly transcriptions. 
Read what they themselves say on pp.14-15 of their introduction (emphasis
mine!):

"Specialists will notice that we have NOT used underdots to indicate
fragmentary letters. Publishing constraints required their omission from
the outset. Those desiring to see a transcription with these notations
may consult the _editio princeps_ noted in the bibliography for each
manuscript."

Sounds to me like they do _not_ use underdots, Jim, and that their method
is in fact "different" from any other system normally utilized, since
those wanting to see "normal" transcriptions are directed elsewhere. 

Of course their suggestion that the "specialist" go to the _editio
princeps_ seems in itself to vitiate the entire intent in publishing
their book -- who else but "specialists" or those being trained to
perform _accurate_ text-critical collation, transcription, and analysis
would be the intended market for this volume?    

It seems like many points from my forthcoming review of C/B are becoming
displayed piecemeal during this interesting discussion....I certainly
hope someone out there from the publishers will pay attention to the
problems noted and not pretend that they don't exist or are somehow not
serious. The book has got problems -- and far too many of them -- for
scholarly use.

==============================================================
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D.
Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA

---

From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 23:11:35 -0400

>other I have seen utilized.

To answer your question, Nichael, there is nothing C/B's transcription
that this reading of tau vs. gamma is problematic.  Others have posted
that this is consistent with C/B's policy.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:[email-masked]
Synoptic Problem Home Page   http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

---

From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 09:18:28 -0400

>that this is consistent with C/B's policy.

Stephen

Thank you for your response.

Freely admitting that I've not yet seen the book, this would seem to point
to a rather serious problem with the book.  As I've suggested earlier, it
seems hard to understand what function the book could have other than as a
resource which could be consulted by those who do not have access to the
originals (or reliable facsimilies).

However, even if the transcriptions in the book were otherwise flawless,
the usefulness of such a book would seem to be seriously compromised by the
absence of any indication of problematic readings.  One could argue that to
implicitly suggest that a given reading is certain where it is not is to
introduce a whole new class of error, at least as troublesome as a merely
faulty transcription.

If, as others have written, the introduction to the book suggest the
specialist can turn to the _editio princeps_ to resolve these issues one
can only ask what could be the point in publishing the book in the first
place?  Why not rather, for example, a high quality set of facsimilies or
photocopies?

Nichael