Subject: tc-list Comfort and Barrett Book in Galatians

From: James A Gehman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 15:54:35 -0500

I have read with concern the discussion over the C/B book.  Like many of
you, I quickly ordered the book.  I am a professor of theology in
Caracas, Venezuela, and such a book would be priceless, if it were
accurate.  Working in Venezuela, I have no access to the facsimiles and
transcriptions which can be found in the larger seminary libraries in the
States.  I am presently working on Galatians and so did a quick collation
of the transcriptions in C/B with reference to Galatians.  I found the
following differences (using C/P transliteration scheme) between C/B and
P46 (according to Kenyon, Chester Beatty Papyri, Fasc III):

Verse		P46			C/B
1.6		OUTW			OUTWS
1.11		DE UMEIN		GAR UMEIN
1.20		UMIN IDOU		UMEIN IDOU
4.15		GA[R UMIN		GA[R UMEIN (contra NA27)
4.29		WS (final)		WS (medial) 

It is particularly disconcerting to think that in P46, the main papyrus
witness to Galatians, has five discrepencies with the transcription
according to Kenyon.  Since I am not a professional textual critic and
cannot adequately verify by the photographs which transcription is
correct, can anyone on this list please verify which of the readings are
correct?

Sincerely,
James A. Gehman, M.A.
Missionary in Residence, Brookside Community Church
[email-masked]   ***   [email-masked]
Web site: http://www.familyshoebox.com/family/gehmangateway

___________________________________________________________________
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: M A Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 15:15:07 EDT

On Tue, 25 May 1999 15:54:35 -0500 James A Gehman <[email-masked]>
writes:

> I am presently working on Galatians and so did a quick 
>collation of the transcriptions in C/B with reference to Galatians.  I 
>found the following differences (using C/P transliteration scheme) 
>between C/B and P46 (according to Kenyon, Chester Beatty Papyri, Fasc 
>III):
>
>Verse		P46			C/B
>1.6		OUTW			OUTWS
>1.11		DE UMEIN		GAR UMEIN

These two definitely reflect differences between C/B and the
transcription by Kenyon. Which of these is correct at any point of course
can only be determined by looking at the photos. 

Gal. 1.6 reads OUTWTAX[  in the photo (and a dot should probably be put
under the X; the TA is faint but clear enough to guarantee that there is
no final Sigma on OUTW. So C/B are wrong on that one, even if movable -S
is not a significant reading. 

Gal. 1.11 -- Things are different here, since DE or GAR obviously becomes
significant, and both editors cannot be correct.  My inclination (typed
before even looking at the photo!) is to trust Kenyon, based on Comfort's
track record. So after looking at the photo, I find that indeed Kenyon is
correct and C/B are wrong (again).  P46 clearly reads GNWRIZW DE UMEIN.  

>4.15		GA[R UMIN		GA[R UMEIN (contra NA27)

In these two cases (as mentioned to Jim before), the problem lies in the
editors' reconstruction of a portion of non-extant text.  P46 is cited by
both editors in 1.20 as containing ONLY the text   ]OU ENWPION, with even
the OU having dots below the letters in Kenyon (which C/B do not place
under letters), so whether what preceded was UMIN ID] or UMEIN ID] is an
editors call.  Likewise, in 4.15, both editors similarly agree that the
extant text is only GA[    , so the spelling of UMIN/UMEIN is again an
editors' choice. Yet in both these cases, I would accept the
reconstruction of C/B rather than Kenyon, simply because P46 in its
extant portions elsewhere _does_ tend to spell the word as YMEIN quite
consistently. 

>4.29		WS (final)		WS (medial) 

This is merely a matter of transcription, since the uncial script of P46
has only the one form (C) of Sigma.  No difference at this point at all.

So three of the above cases do not relate to accuracy of transcription,
and should not be counted for or against the accuracy issue, though in
the YMIN/YMEIN cases C/B  more accurately reflect the usage of P46. 

However, the two actual errors of transcription by C/B are far more
serious, and once more serve to nullify the usefulness of the C/B edition
(BTW, the DE / GAR interchange in 1:11 reflects a known variant, where DE
has the support (teste Kenyon) of Aleph A TR, and GAR has the support of
BDFG. So in this case especially, one can see how the error of C/B could
skew the analysis of textual alignments if C/B were used authoritatively
to support the wrong reading -- and that of course is precisely what we
have been saying was the problem all along.

>It is particularly disconcerting to think that in P46, the main 
>papyrus witness to Galatians, has five discrepancies with the 
>transcription according to Kenyon.  

Make that only two discrepancies. But of course even that is two too
many.

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