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

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 17:05:44 -0400

At 01:28 PM 5/22/99 -0700, you wrote:
 In any case, someone has dropped the ball on this project, which
>given the easily identifiable errors in the transcriptions, should have
>exhibited virtual perfection.   

Um- you mean like the virtual perfection evidenced in the harmony displayed
between the 5200 odd manuscripts of the Greek New Testament?
Wonder who can be blamed for "dropping the ball" on the preservation and
transmission of the Biblical text......  
(so much for inspiration and "overseeing of the transmission" of that
inspired Urtext)

>XAIREIN...

Again, in spite of the numerous examples cited by me- totalling, word count
wise- far more than Maurice's examples of errors, folk insist on dismissing
the book.  Why?  How was the "ball dropped"?  What on earth do y'all have
against Comfort's work?  In all honesty, from Maurice, to Bart, to Bob,
there seems to be an almost intentional effort to undermine and disparage
Comfort's work.  Is it because his views on the importance of early mss
leaves you a tad disgruntled?  But that does not invalidate everything the
guy does.  I am really starting to think that there is simply here some
measure of academic blackballing going on.  Macarthyism in Biblical Textual
Criticism.  Who woulda thought it.  In spite of the minor criticisms offered
by Maurice (outweighed, as far as I am concerned by the very fine work that
characterizes the volume as a whole), I maintain that this book is very
useful.  Macarthyism notwithstanding.

So, I conclude my participation in this string.  I look forward to hearing
what others say- as I have already said enough (and maybe too much).

Best,

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

---

From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 18:32:13 -0400

Jim West wrote:
> ...  What on earth do y'all have
>Comfort's work.  

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?

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.

Bart Ehrman pointed to several "egregious historical errors" in the
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." ;-)

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?

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

>  ... [embarassing references to Macarthyism deleted]...

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

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.

Nichael

--
Nichael Cramer
[email-masked]
http://www.sover.net/~nichael/

---

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

>Um- you mean like the virtual perfection evidenced in the harmony 
>displayed between the 5200 odd manuscripts of the Greek New Testament?
>Wonder who can be blamed for "dropping the ball" on the preservation 
>and transmission of the Biblical text......  (so much for inspiration
and "overseeing of >the transmission" of that inspired Urtext)

Precisely what would any of that have to do with inaccuracy in Comfort
and Barrett's book, Jim? This is a red herring, plain and simple. While
you're at it, please take note that (so far as I know) not one person on
this list has claimed any "perfect preservation and transmission of the
Biblical text" in a manner which would exclude normal transmissional
error or deliberate alterations in the MSS preserved to us. So what's the
point? There is none.

>How was the "ball dropped"?  What on earth do y'all have against 
>Comfort's work?  

Errors. Too many errors. Nothing more.

>Is it because his views on the importance of early mss 
>leaves you a tad disgruntled?  But that does not invalidate everything 
>the guy does.  

Has even ONE person complained about the Comfort/Barrett book in view of
Comfort's text-critical theories, Jim?  You are creating ghosts where
there are none. 
I would not care whether Comfort were a pro-Byzantine spokesman par
excellence -- if his book containing "exact transcriptions" isn't
"exact", something is seriously wrong. That's it, plain and simple.

>In all honesty, from Maurice, to Bart, to Bob, there seems to be an
almost 
>intentional effort to undermine and disparage Comfort's work.  
>I am really starting to think that there is simply here some
>measure of academic blackballing going on.  Macarthyism in Biblical 
>Textual Criticism.  

I had a wonderful story about the illuminati, the secret meetings, and
the black helicopters which would have explained all of this, but the
High Council instructed me not to reveal the secrets just yet. :-)  

Sorry, Jim, no one is getting blackballed for their textual theory, nor,
as far as I can see, is anyone on this list getting blackballed, despite
their views. I'm still here. :-)

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