Subject: RE: Cold Comfort [was: tc-list Comfort's book...]

From: "Bauer, Marc" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 00:24:28 -0600

ThD West:

Last comment?  Three posts or more ago, no?

Marc Bauer

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim West [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 1999 8:21 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Cold Comfort [was: tc-list Comfort's book...]

At 06:32 PM 5/22/99 -0400, you wrote:

>Speaking as essentially an by-stander here, then let me ask the obvious
>question, Jim.  Why do you seem to be so hell-bent on pushing Comfort's
book?

Im not- but I do believe in fair play.  Even in academia.

>
>The simply fact is that no one has simply "disparged" or "undermined"
>Comfort's book.  Rather several major scholars in the field have pointed to
>what are apparently very serious problems with the book.  Problems which,
>quite frankly, you have yet to seriously address.

Rubbish.  I have offered numerous evidences regarding Comfort's accuracy.
Why do you refuse it?

>
>Bart Ehrman pointed to several "egregious historical errors" in the

What were these errors?  Bart never made this claim explicit did he?  Yet
his broad statements have been accepted as fact by you and others, haven't
they.  In other words, many have rejected the book having never set eyes on
it.  Why?

>introduction to the book; this you dismissed as Prof Ehrman "not liking"
>the introduction.  A great many transcriptional errors have been pointed
>out.  Rather than addressing this point you have, amazingly enough, simply
>pointed to places where errors haven't been made!  ("No, I assure your
>Eminence, parts of it are excellent." ;-)

So make the same accusation against Bart.  Or is equality only granted to
those of superior standing?

>
>In short, no one has doubted that were this book what it purposes to be,
>then it would be an extremely valuable resource.  The only question is,
>_is_ this that book?

Have you seen it?

>
>The simple fact of the matter is this:  If a books such as this can serve
>_any_ purpose, it is that it represents a source which can be turned to by
>those who do not have access to the original manuscripts (or reliable
>facsimiles).

And it is trustworhty.  But instead of looking at it yourself yo have
evidently accepted the evaluation of Maurice and Bart without further ado.
So be it.  But I would submit that there is another side to the story.

>
>And given that, for a book such as this, anything less than darn near
>perfect simply is not, like it or not, good enough.

Good luck finding it.

>
>Jim, ol'-net-buddy, I'm sorry, but this is getting silly.

I agree.  It is ridiculous that people are willing to say something about a
book they have not laid eyes on.

>
>Your contributions to the various list have always been of great help to me
>and, I'm sure, others.  This sort of nonsense is, quite frankly, unworthy
>of you.

I apologize.  My ire is always raised when someone's work is dismissed out
of hand by virtue of one reviewer's comments.  

>Nichael

Best,

Jim

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