Subject: tc-list A Caution regarding Comfort and Barrett

From: M A Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 20:48:50 EDT

Disclaimer: This is not a review; only a cautionary warning.

===============================================================

Don't Kill The Messenger: This Book Has Problems!

Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, eds.,  _The Complete Text of the
Earliest New Testament Manuscripts_ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999). 652pp.

Preliminary Observations by Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.

I recently received from Baker Book House a review copy of Comfort and
Barrett's _The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts_
(hereafter C/B).

I am in process of examining this volume in preparation for a brief
review which will appear in our seminary's _Faith and Mission_
journal.

Certain matters (for which I have little room within the page limits of
that review) appear so serious and disturbing, however, that they must
be reported to the tc-list. These problems virtually nullify any value
or service this volume might have rendered to those engaged in detailed
NT text-critical research or who may have desired to utilize it as a
classroom text or as a significant resource for text-critical
investigations in the absence of the original photographs or  _editio
princeps_ of a given MS.

Although I have numerous matters of concern, I will focus on that which
is
the most serious: the text of the early papyri and vellum fragments as
reproduced by Comfort and Barrett is significantly inaccurate,
containing far too many errors, whether typographical, caused by
misreading, or otherwise without explanation.

To offer a sampling of such examples:

EXAMPLE 1: MS 0189 (Ac 5:3-21)
==================

MS 0189 (C/B transcription versus reproduced photo of verso from
_ZNW_ 26 [1927] 113); one should consult the original photo if possible, 
since it is much brighter and clearer):

photo line 1: clearly shows Ac 5:12 reading PANTES EN TH STOA
C/B transcription reads PANTES TH STOA

photo line 2: clearly reads OUQEIS
C/B transcription reads OUDEIS

photo line 22: the Q of Q[URAS] is plainly and entirely visible, yet
C/B report [QURAS] as wholly unreadable.

photo line 24: line clearly ends LALEI with [TE] continuing next line
in lacuna; C/B report line ends LAL with [EITE] in reconstruction of
next line.

photo line 29: ARCIEREUS clearly has KAI following on same line, yet
C/B transcription shows ARCIEREUS ending the line, with [KAI] in lacuna
at beginning of next line.

For the recto portion of MS 0189 (where the photo was absent), I
compared C/B with the Salonius transcription in ZNW. Giving Salonius
the benefit of the doubt (confirmed at points by Nestle/Aland)
specifically because of the already-demonstrated errors in C/B, I find
the following problems on the recto of the same MS:

line 8: Salonius reads the nomen sacrum ANOIS without a lacuna; C/B
read ANQ[RWPOIS] _with_ a lacuna. Someone errs at this point.

line 12: Salonius reads ANASTANTES DE, but C/B omits the DE entirely.

line 17: Salonius reads [A]YTHN P[ETROS], clearly not having the
article before the proper name; this confirmed by Nestle/Aland. C/B
however, read AUTH[N PE]TROS which, if correct, would leave the
question of the presence or absence of the article in doubt; yet
Nestle-Aland states this reading with certainty and not as _vid_.

lines 17/18: C/B reconstruct as EITOS/OUTOU TO XWRION with no lacuna.
Salonius gives only EI]/TO XWRION, and comments in his note "TOSOUTOU
vor TO XWRION versehentlich weggelassen, weil in der Antwort
vorhanden." Even if TOSOUTOU were present, the line division given by
C/B seems impossible in light of Salonius' transcription.

line 23: Salonius reads the apparent scribal blunder EPESON, while C/B
read a partial lacuna EPE]SEN, not catching the blunder. Yet Salonius
specifically notes this in his apparatus: "EPESON (Schrieibf[ehler]
statt -SEN)."

line 24: instead of what Salonius reports as a correct EXE[YUXEN], C/B
have the blunder EKE[YUXEN] sic. There is no comment in Salonius'
apparatus, so the correct spelling is assumed to be original.

line 30: Salonius has DIA T[E TWN...], while C/B read DIA T[WN...],
leaving the line noticeably short. Salonius also has no note here
regarding
a short line, so the longer reconstruction seems more likely original..

line 31: C/B have two left brackets in a phrase ending a line:
 ...NONTO [SHMEIA KAI [TER, only one of which can be correct, since 
C/B do not include closing brackets at the end of a line unless the 
whole line is missing..

Beyond these problems, the matter of where to place brackets to
indicate lacunae differs in MS 0189 between the transcription of C/B 
and that of Salonius by my count in approximately 150 places [!] within
this short 18-verse segment . Also, the matter of where to break a line
in the
transcription (admittedly often within a lacuna) differs 7 times, with
no notes provided to explain any of these differences from the reading
of the original editor, and some of these bracket placements are
noticeably
wrong, as demonstrated in the examples above where the photograph can
be checked. The only clue to C/B's method is their comment in the
introduction 
(p. 14):

    "This book provides a fresh transcription of each manuscript. For
     the most part [?], this transcription accords with the _editio
     princeps_ produced by those editors who first published the work.
     However, we often [!] deviate from their transcription when we
     disagree with the editors on the reading of the text as we saw it
     --whether viewing the actual manuscript or the photographs."

In view of the plain and clear errors noted above when comparing the
photograph of MS 0189 against both the original Salonius transcript and
the C/B rendition of the same, it seems it would have been far better
had the editors simply reproduced _without change_ the transcription of
the _editio princeps_ in every case rather than make matters worse in
those cases where their own lack of accuracy can be clearly verified.

Were this MS 0189 the one and only example of blundering accuracy in
transcription found in the C/B volume, perhaps one could excuse or
mitigate the problem to some degree.  However, this is not the case,
but errors continue to show up throughout the volume.

The following examples are derived primarily from a cursory comparison
of the C/B transcriptions with the actual photographs reproduced in
that volume (usually poorly and much too darkly); thus, everything
noted below should be able to be verified by any interested observer
(with a good light and strong magnifying glass):

Note that I was not able to verify some of these examples against
either the _editio princeps_ or clearer photographs; in some cases
there _could_ be a misreading by the present writer (should this be 
the case, please send corrective comments), but in most cases the
photo versus text comparison is quite clear.:

EXAMPLE 2: MS 0162 (P.Oxy.847)  (Jn 2:11-22)
==============================

recto line 15 (Jn 2:15): photo apparently shows EXEBALETO quite 
clearly; C/B read EXEBALE[N E]K, with a lacuna as indicated.

lines 17/18: photo clearly shows EXE/CEEN TA while C/B read EXE/CEEN
TO (even though the neuter KERMATA follows).

EXAMPLE 3: Papyrus 90 (P.Oxy.3523)
=====================

verso line 1: STRATIWTE appears to be the reading in the
photo; C/B read the non-itacised STRATIWTAI in their transcription.

EXAMPLE 4: Papyrus 75
=====================

p.580, note d, is clearly in error versus the photograph given (p.492).
C/B state "A different scribe has written two lines of large letters
upside down in the lower margin, probably TONUON WS [K]URIO[N], APO
THS ST[RA]PEZ[HS]. But the photograph clearly reads APO THS T[ ]PEZ[ ],
and the missing word does _not_ begin with ST- as stated by C/B..

line 23 (Jn 8:15) photo clearly shows EGW DE OU KRINW, while C/B read
EGW OU KRINW, omitting DE. Nestle-Aland specifically state P75 here
includes the DE.

line 4 from bottom (Jn 8:21): C/B give the ungrammatical EN TH AMARTIAN
[sic], assuming a nu-suspension; the photo is clearly AMARTIA, and
whatever fiber looks to C/B like a nu-suspension is _less_ clear than
what
_could_ have been mistaken for nu-suspensions in lines 2 and 1 from
bottom (which would have produced ELEN/GON and APOKTEN/NEI had they
been so read by C/B).

EXAMPLE 5: Papyrus 66
=====================

Photo of Jn 6:64-71, line 2, C/B read -OUSIN, while photo clearly shows 
-OUSI followed by what appears to be a high point along a fiber of
papyrus 
(were this indeed the letter N, then the I would be missing!).

line 13: photo clearly shows PE  TROS (Jn 6:68) with a gap (the only
gap of any kind on the whole page), suggesting erasure by a corrector,
yet this was not noted in the transcription by C/B, even though
corrections, peculiar gaps, or erasures are normally noted, albeit in the
peculiar manner of reading the correction in the text and placing the
reading of (*) in the footnotes..

Photo of Jn 13:15-20, line 2 from bottom: AN of (*) is corrected to EAN 
by an insertion in the left margin just preceding AN.  C/B in a note 
have it totally wrong: "EM was changed to EME by adding E in the margin 
(c[orr]3)."  Yet there is _no_ change to the EME in that line (which 
word is complete as written by the original hand); C/B simply have 
their data wrong.

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION:
========================

The upshot of all these _verifiable_ errors in a book dedicated to 
presenting  text-critical students and scholars with an _accurate_ 
representation of the earliest NT MSS is obvious.  When one cannot rely 
upon the accuracy of the edition in any given instance, the worth of 
the whole is utterly diminished and vitiated.  Even though the book may 
well be "generally correct" in the main, the fact remains that Comfort
and Barrett _cannot_ be depended upon to provide accurate information
regarding the reading of any given MS at any point, since there is no
real pattern to the errors they themselves commit.

Even if it were certain that 98% of their text and transcription were 
accurate, the apt comparison would have to be made with the clock that 
loses a minute an hour, wherein one can never be certain of what the 
exact time happens to be, even though it remains "approximately" 
accurate most of the time.  Given the likelihood of far more problems
and errors once the placement and boundaries of bracketed text are
included (along with the reconstruction of fragmentary letters), it is
far more likely that the said clock is losing two or even three minutes
per hour, in which case the value and usefulness of the volume is
diminished even further.

It appears that the only way to salvage this book might be for someone
-- carefully and precisely  -- to go over the same ground as Comfort
and Barrett, recheck everything they printed regarding the text of any
MS, and then produce a lengthy list of errata to this volume which
could be sold separately. 

But of course, given the number of errata which apparently would have
to be listed following such a detailed investigation, the better
proposal would be to call for _someone else_ to publish their own
accurate edition of "the complete text of the earliest NT MSS" and to
bypass Comfort and Barrett entirely. 

Such a project would have to be done in a manner comparable to that of 
the IGNTP on the papyri of John or the Muenster volumes on the papyrus
text 
of the Epistles -- but this probably implies that the ones best equipped
and
trained to produce such a volume are in fact those parties. Should
anyone else attempt to do the same apart from the degree of accuracy
demonstrated in the Muenster and IGNTP volumes, the resultant volume
should never be allowed to leave the editors' eyes without a careful
proofing by several outside expert readers before going to press.
Regrettably, such a process obviously was _not_ followed in regard to
the present volume, and it becomes very difficult for me to recommend 
this volume for any serious scholarly study or use.

-30-

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