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

From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 12:40:22 -0400

Dr. Ulrich,

> Dr. Ulrich Schmid wrote:
>
> What's the use of having Comfort/Barrett presenting their case on this list?
> (Of course, they can do; no censorship intended). They had ample space to
> present their case in the book they published. Now it's up to the public to
> evaluate the merits and the shortcomings of their work.

Although I agree with you, allow me to explain further.

C/B had all the time (I suppose) to verify the accuracy of their 
transcriptions before
publication, to make sure that their 'house was in order.' If they 
failed to review their own
work and now are being chastised for mistakes, it is well deserved. 
However, my suggestion was
along the lines of 'fair play' within this present discussion, in 
inviting Comfort or Barrett to
present their case before us fellow textual critics, ESPECIALLY in light 
of the critique that
Robinson presented! I find his comments have quite seriously underminded 
the value and/or
reliability of C/B's book (as already mentioned, it was a number of 
questions raised about the
accuracy of Merk that made text critics uneasy about using his NT, and 
it was (again) multiple
accusations of innacuracy that prevented S.C.E. Legg's edition of "Luke" 
from ever being
published).

There are cases in which a book is published, it is reviewed in a 
journal, and later the author
himself writes a 'rejoinder' to the same journal, either acknowledging 
the errata discovered, or
clarifying his position if it has been misunderstood by the reviewer in 
question. Since the
TC-LIST is now handling this hot potato, I would have liked for Comfort 
to join in and comment:
does he agree with Robinson? Did he and Barrett themselves do all the 
transcriptions, or did
their students do the work? How was the proofreading done?

Actually, I agree with both Dave Washburn and Jean Valentine: since the 
book has errors and I
have to re-examine all transcriptions myself in order to have some 
confidence AND since accurate
transcriptions are already available (done by expert papyrologists), 
then _why_ whould I use the
C/B volume in the first place? Convenience??

just another thought ;-) ;-)

Mike A.

---

From: [email-masked] (U.B.Schmid)
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 20:19:05 +0200

Mike Arcieri wrote:
> question. 

Two points on that:

1) I agree, there are cases when reviews get reviewed again by the author of the 
first publication. I would prefer however to get the first publication before I 
get the 'rejoinder'. In other words: I don't think in this case that the time is 
ripe for calling the authors in.
2) If it were a publication with a strong and/or complicated theses that could 
be missed or misrepresented or the like, I would be less hesitant to consult the 
author(s) at an early stage of the discussion. So far however we did not discuss 
any theory, but the reliability of transcriptions (or the lack thereof). In 
other words: Facts not opinion. Thus, interpretation is not necessary.

> Since the

>From point 2) above it follows quite naturally that there is not much to 
agree or disagree with, the sole exception being reconstructions of dammaged 
leafs, 
lacunae, erasures, hands and that sort of tricky stuff, where occasionally 
disagreement is legitimate. Again, what is the use of having answers to all 
the other questions? It won't change the printed result. 

Jim Oxford, Jr. wrote:

>I believe that any time someone who has just published something is called
>"brainless," that particular individual does indeed have the right to
>defend himself/herself in the venue in which such ad hominem comments were
>made.

I agree. But even this rude "qualification" of one of the authors by an 
individual on this list won't change the quality of the book under discussion. 
This is, after all, my main concern.

To put things into (my) perspective. So far the only statistics I can come up 
with is Maurice's list of errors drawn from MS 0189v (BTW-- 2nd/3rd centuries!). 
Everyone who can get hold of K.Aland/B.Aland, The Text of the NT should find a 
photograph of this page (in the 2nd *German* edition it is p. 115). It is, 
admittedly, a little bit difficult to read, but that's not unusual with 
manuscripts of that age and that level of preservation. Given the fact that 
Maurice correctly rendered the C/B transcription I have to say that he is 
basically right in pointing out the five errors when compared to the photograph 
(The only thing I'm not quite sure about is whether in line 22 Q[YRAS] the theta 
is completely visible or only three quarters of it). 
Thus, in total we find (at least) five transcription errors from one page of a 
manuscript that has 32 lines with around 26 characters per line covering roughly 
10 verses of NT text. This sample is, in my mind, not large enough for serious 
statistics but large enough for serious concern.
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. 

------------------------------------------
Dr. Ulrich Schmid
[email-masked]