Subject: Re: Cold Comfort [was: tc-list Comfort's book...]

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 22:20:59 -0400

At 06:32 PM 5/22/99 -0400, you wrote:

>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?

Im not- but I do believe in fair play.  Even in academia.

>
>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.

Rubbish.  I have offered numerous evidences regarding Comfort's accuracy.
Why do you refuse it?

>
>Bart Ehrman pointed to several "egregious historical errors" in the

What were these errors?  Bart never made this claim explicit did he?  Yet
his broad statements have been accepted as fact by you and others, haven't
they.  In other words, many have rejected the book having never set eyes on
it.  Why?

>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." ;-)

So make the same accusation against Bart.  Or is equality only granted to
those of superior standing?

>
>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?

Have you seen it?

>
>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 it is trustworhty.  But instead of looking at it yourself yo have
evidently accepted the evaluation of Maurice and Bart without further ado.
So be it.  But I would submit that there is another side to the story.

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

Good luck finding it.

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

I agree.  It is ridiculous that people are willing to say something about a
book they have not laid eyes on.

>
>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.

I apologize.  My ire is always raised when someone's work is dismissed out
of hand by virtue of one reviewer's comments.  

>Nichael

Best,

Jim

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

---

From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 00:15:08 -0400

Jim West wrote:
> [...]

Jim

I have really said all I can say on the topic, but one final point...

>[...]  But instead of looking at it yourself yo have

The careful reader will note that I have never written so much as a single
word expressing an opinion --either in condemnation or in support--
concerning the book being discussed.

That was not the issue I was addressing.

Nichael

---

From: M A Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 19:34:34 EDT

On Sat, 22 May 1999 22:20:59 -0400 Jim West <[email-masked]> writes:

>What were these errors?  Bart never made this claim explicit did he?  

Agreed. It _would_ be informative were Bart to provide a few
representative examples. Tracking down factual errors in the introduction
and related matters was not my area of concern. 

>>then it would be an extremely valuable resource.  The only question is,

Why the _ad hominem_ approach here?  How about those of us who _have_
seen it, have tested it, and found it wanting. You purportedly have the
C/B book in hand: have you checked and verified that my reported errors
are in fact such? Please do, since if you and I both agree as to the
errors, then everyone else can certainly accept what two opposing parties
concur in as factual, and it then will become irrelevant as to whether
they then have seen the book. Certainly, most text-critical students
"know" that von Soden and Legg's apparatuses have errors, regardless of
whether they have ever seen the books or even know what the errors happen
to be; they should not have to track them down personally before they
become valid, should they?. 

Further, you already have my statements regarding some portions of C/B
which have _no_ error;  if you similarly agree on this point, which I'm
sure you will, then anyone else can accept those portions as accurate
without possessing the volume, correct? 
Your point erroneously parallels the example of someone declaring England
not to exist, simply because he has never seen the place, but has relied
only on someone else's testimony. 

>>perfect simply is not, like it or not, good enough.

Seems that I have already pointed out that one could obtain the IGNPT
John Papyri volume or the Muenster "Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus" for
the Epistles and then _would_ have the "darn near perfect" transcriptions
without having to look very far. It's really not that difficult; plus,
the difference in accuracy and precision between those volumes and C/B is
clearly significant.

>I apologize.  My ire is always raised when someone's work is dismissed 
>out of hand by virtue of one reviewer's comments.  

It seems appropriate that I entitled my original critique message of C/B
as "Don't shoot the messenger -- this book has problems."  You do seem
bent, Jim, on going after the messenger instead of the substance of the
message. If 20 other people obtain the book, find additional errors, and
come to the same conclusion as I about this being a serious problem,
would that change your opinion?  Likely not. 

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