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

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 15:20:42 -0400

At 08:19 PM 5/22/99 +0200, you wrote:

>Maurice did a fine job to alert us regarding the C/B book. Given the fact that 
>he gave more examples of bad transcriptions, which should be verified and put 
>into statistical perspectives, I'm inclined to anticipate more concern.
>However, I would like to ask those who own a copy of the C/B book (or can get 
>hold of one) to do similar spot checks in order to contribute to a
statistically 
>more appropriate *empirical* data base. 

I offered a number of passages, chosen at random, where C/B's transcription
was 100% accurate.  Yet, for some reason, these texts have been brushed
aside.  Evidently some are only interested in the minor number of errors
while willing to overlook the many passages where correct transcription has
occured.
Have you taken account of those?

Jim

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

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 16:26:11 -0500

>Have you taken account of those?

It's a statistical thing. One error has more significance than one
correct reading.

We can take actual numbers. Suppose someone finds one error in
ten readings -- i.e. nine of ten are right. That's 90% accurate.

Now suppose we add one more reading. If it's right, then C/B is
accurate in ten of eleven, or 91%. But if it's wrong, then C/B
is accurate in nine of eleven, or 82%.

So each *error* hurts much more than each accurate reading helps.
Particularly since our goal is probably 95% to be accurate at points
of disagreement, and 99% accurate overall.

Based on Robinson's data, we need some hundreds of accurate
passages to make this an acceptably accurate book.

Of course, what we *really* need is for someone to sit down
with actual photos and check large quantities of text from
several different papyri. Presumably someone will do this
at one point, but I doubt there has been time yet.

As I said before, I don't have the data to actually know
whether C/B is accurate. I would need the sort of test described
above to be certain. However, *because* errors have so much
more weight than accurate readings, I *tentatively* incline
to distrust C/B, and to agree with its critics. I will not
buy it until an objective test offers evidence that the problems
Robinson found are merely isolated errors (as opposed to a
consistent problem).

And, btw, if it be asked if I am prepared to sacrifice everything
on the altar of statistics -- the answer is an assured *yes*!
If it's not statistical, it's not science.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

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

>I offered a number of passages, chosen at random, where C/B's 
>transcription was 100% accurate.  Yet, for some reason, these texts have
been 
>brushed aside.  Evidently some are only interested in the minor number
of 
>errors while willing to overlook the many passages where correct 
>transcription has occurred.

No "brushing aside" intended, Jim.  

One of the passages you checked and declared 100% accurate was P75 in Lk.
13:28-30.  You are _correct_ that P75 has no error in that segment of
text. 

However, read 10 lines further down on the _same_ leaf, same side
(fol.30r), to Lk. 13:33, and you will see that C/B read EXOMENH when the
photo reads clearly the correct ERCOMENH.

Continue on two pages further: at Lk 14:18 in P75 (fol.31r), the C/B
transcription has HRXANTO when the photo clearly reads HRXATO. 

I will grant that all _other_ text on that three-page span (fol.30r, 31v,
31r) covering Lk 13:28-14:26a appears to be a correct transcription, and
the same will hold for most of the text (my 98% previously stated) of
_all_ MSS transcribed in C/B (e.g., in a spot check of P66 in C/B I found
_no_ errors in C/B's transcription of fol.1v, fol.25r, fol.50r, fol.52r).

But still what is the point if complete leaves or individual verse
segments such as Lk. 13:28-30 come out 100% correct? The problem is
still, as Waltz pointed out statistically, that every error in a book of
this nature affects its reliability and usefulness much more seriously
than a large quantity of correct text, which most books have as a matter
of course, else they would not be published.

The unwary user of C/B or even you apparently could confidently assert in
a scholarly presentation.  "P75 reads EXOMENH in Lk 13:33 and HRXANTO in
Lk 14:8, which demonstrates this scribe's tendency to omit as well as to
add individual letters subconsciously." You could do this because you
consider the C/B text basically "good", "accurate", and "correct," as you
have stated.  But such a confident assertion regarding plain and clear
errors created by C/B (of which you would be totally unaware had not
someone else pointed them out) could wreck the thrust of a paper which
was dependent upon the accurate reporting of such readings.  That is
precisely the point everyone is making regarding the errors. If the
readers _cannot tell_ at any given point whether C/B are accurate, then
_how_ can they draw conclusions from what is being presented at any given
point without being forced to totally abandon C/B and go over precisely
the same ground anew, which effectively makes the book useless for any
scholarly purpose? 

That, Jim, is the problem with C/B, and _not_ the vast bulk of correct
text which otherwise appears therein.

Peace.

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