Subject: tc-list Reply to Parker's review

From: "Barrett, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:34:55 -0500

Recently, Dr. D. C. Parker presented a review of {i}The Complete Text of 
the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts{xi} (hereafter referred to as CT), 
editors Philip Comfort and David Barrett, for the online TC journal. 
Since the article was so critical, it calls for a critical response. We 
will do this item by item, following Parker's numeration, from 1-40. We 
urge readers to be patient with the lengthy and detailed response, as we 
are certain they have been with Parker's review.

1. no comment needed
2. no comment needed
3. P7--is not dated any earlier than fourth c.--see Aland (who cites 
others), Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus, 104. No one has dated it earlier 
than c. 300.
P17--explanation for dating is clearly stated in CT, 91
P24--we date c. 300, explanation for dating is clearly stated in CT, 105
P6--why is P6 not included? see {i}Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus,{xi} 
104--no one dates it before 300
4. no comment needed
5. Our dates on the first four of the five majuscules are acceptable, as 
noted by Parker. We accepted C. H. Robert's dating of 0232--WITH A 
THOROUGH EXPLANATION ABOUT ALAND'S DATING.
6. P15 + P16--we followed Grenfell and Hunt in thinking that the two 
parts could very well be from the same codex. We cannot be 100% certain; 
however, a detailed study of lettering reveals a common hand--see our 
notes in CT, 85.
P49 + P65--our detailed comments, following the lead of Bartoletti and 
Oates (the original editors for these MSS, respectively), provide the 
groundwork for believing these two MSS to be part of the same codex--see 
CT347.
7. no comment needed
8. We also wish that some of the photographs weren't so dark.
9. It is not bad argumentation to state that Grenfell and Hunt dated 
manuscripts later because they thought the codex was a third-century 
invention. C. H. Roberts and T. C. Skeat take the same line of reasoning 
for their re-dating of several manuscripts (see our introduction, 16-18 
and corresponding bibliography).
10. Where margins of manuscripts were fairly certain, we provided a 
provisio reconstruction of the entire page. This is not an unusual 
practise--see, for example, Skeat's "The Oldest Manuscript of the Four 
Gospels?" NTS 43:1-34 (for P64) and J. N. Birdsall's reconstruction of 
0171 (see CT, 635 for bibliography). Perhaps we should make a note of 
this in the introduction.
11. We were told by our publishers before the project began that they did 
not want to place dots beneath uncertain letters. We explain this in the 
introduction.
12. It was a publishing decision not to indicate line numbers because 
this is needed only if notations correspond to lines. Our notations are 
on a lettering system. Our text, in contrast to most transliterations, 
helps readers by giving them the verse numerals exactly where they appear 
in the text, and not out in the margin.
13.  There is no contradiction here, as Parker posits--the word "however" 
sets up the contrast. But the real criticism here is that Parker says 
that we could not have consulted many manuscripts because we said that we 
looked at "several manuscripts." This is an unfair criticism. The truth 
of the matter is that we examined the following actual manuscripts:
P1--at the U. of Pennsylvania
P4--twice (for two days and three days) at the Biblioteque Nationale, 
Paris
P64--at Magdalen College
P20--Princeton
P24--Andover Newton Theological School
P37--University of Michigan
P38--University of Michigan
P39--Rochester Divinity School
P46--five separate visits to University of Michigan
P53--University of Michigan
P66--Bodmer Foundation, Geneva (portions)
P69--Ashmolean, Oxford
P70--Ashmolean, Oxford
P72--Bodmer Foundation, Geneva (portions)
P75--Bodmer Foundation, Geneva (portions)
P77--Ashmolean, Oxford
P78--Ashmolean, Oxford
P90--Ashmolean, Oxford
P101--Ashmolean, Oxford
P102--Ashmolean, Oxford
P104--Ashmolean, Oxford

For these and the rest of the manuscripts, we put a great deal of effort 
into getting the best quality photographs as possible. This took several 
years!

14. Parker tells us here that he is in a good position to do a critique 
of {i}The Complete Text{xi} by comparing it to his work, with the IGNTP, 
on the papyri for John's Gospel, entitled {i}The New Testament in Greek 
IV, The Gospel According to John: Volume One, the Papyri{xi} (editors, W. 
J. Elliott, D. C. Parker; publisher, E. J. Brill). Because he sets up the 
IGNTP as the exemplar of excellence, by which he compares our work, I 
have no choice but to point out the flaws and errors of the IGNTP volume 
as I respond to his comments. I do not relish making criticisms against 
this work, because I (with Barrett and other Wheaton College graduate 
students) participated in correcting the first draft of P66. However, 
since Parker has called into question the usefulness of our book based on 
inaccuracies, I must present the facts of the matter.
	But before I proceed with an item-by-item critique, I need to make some 
general criticisms about the IGNTP volume. First, the IGNTP's 
reconstructions of where there are lacunae in the papyri are more often 
than not filled in with wording from the Textus Receptus. This is very 
strange, especially for the early papyri, where there are so many 
significant differences between the early text and that later found in 
the TR. This affects the reconstruction of several verses.
	Second, the IGNTP editors provided transliterations of manuscripts as 
they recently saw them in either manuscript form or in photograph form. 
This prompted them to disagree with the {i}editio principes{xi} of nearly 
every manuscript. But the original editors, notably Grenfell and Hunt 
(for several manuscripts), Kenyon (for P45), and Barns and Martin (for 
P66, P75) had an advantage over recent editors--THEY WORKED WITH THE 
ACTUAL MANUSCRIPTS IN THEIR MOST PRISTINE FORM. This means that the 
original editors saw letters on the margins of manuscripts before there 
was breakage or even in small fragments that have since broken away. (P1 
is a prime example of this. The manuscript as it now stands in 
Pennsylavania has a piece missing.) We, the editors of {i}The Complete 
Text{xi}, almost always trusted the judgment of the original editors when 
it came to reading letters along the margin. By contrast, the editors of 
the IGNTP disagreed with the {i}editio principes{xi} hundreds of times in 
this regard. (Note, how often Parker mentions this in his review.) This 
becomes an extremely bad problem in their reconstruction of P66--see 
comments below.
	Third, the format for P66 and P75 in the IGNTP volume has several 
problems. There is no or little representation of punctuation, nomina 
sacra are scarse (this is important when showing corrections), 
explanations of corrections in P66 are extremely difficult to follow, and 
there is no indication of line lengths (cf. B. Aland's work). By 
contrast, the {i}Complete Text{xi} has a format that is reader-friendly, 
with thorough explanations of corrections in marginal notes.
	And now--on to the items.

15. For P5

In John 1:34, their text reads O UIOS TOU QU instead of O EKLEKTOS TOU QU 
-- the only reading that fits the line length and the reading first 
proposed by Grenfell and Hunt (see also NA27)

In John 16:15, their text reads UMI instead of UMEI -- the letter before 
the iota could not be a mu; it must be an eta (cf. the scribe's spelling 
of the same word, appearing three times in 16:20--it always has EI)

In John 16:17, their text mistakenly reads EN TWN MAQHTWN, when it should 
read EK TWN MAQHTWN

In John 16:20, they missed the correction on LUPHQH --I think we got it 
right, but it needs more research.

In John 16:23, their text adds OTI OSA against Grenfell and Hunt's text 
and against the space of the line length

In John 16:25, their text misses the apostrophus (or hook) between the 
double gammas of APAG'GELW --an important feature for dating manuscripts, 
according to Turner.

In John 20:11, their text fills in the lacuna with TR's MNHMEION with no 
ancient manuscript support, contra MNHMEIW.

In John 20:12, their text says that there are three lines missing--there 
are only two (see our transcription).

In John 20:14, an article is added before IHS from the TR, with no 
ancient MSS support.

In John 20:15, EQHKAS AUTON comes from the TR, with no ancient manuscript 
support.

Parker claims we are wrong on two of our readings, while the rest are 
debatable. These two (in 20:15 and 20:24), which involve a word break at 
one letter, call for more research.

16. For P22

In John 15:26, IGNTP text has PRS for the nomen sacrum, but the scribe 
wrote PS -- there is no room for a rho, and the scribe penned a very 
broad pi (see next line in photograph)--we did not make a mistake here, 
as Parker posited.

In 16:1, we followed ed. pr. but now think IGNTP is probably right in 
reconstructing it as SKAND]ALISQHTE

In 16:28, we will fix the bracketing on the nomen sacrum for PATROS.

In spite of their explanation, their reconstruction of the lines of P22 
is very misleading. There is no way the scribe would have left so many 
words unfinished at the end of the right margin. They should have 
reconsctructed it the way we did, following ed. pr.

17. For P28
In John 6:8-9, the word ESTI is lacking a final nu. The same line is 
reconstructed with EN WDE from the TR. Furthermore, the editors of IGNTP 
show their mistrust of Grenfell and Hunt's reconstruction of letters 
running along the margin--see, for example, the extant text at the end of 
l. 17, beginning of l. 19, end of l. 22 in the IGNTP text and cf. ed. pr. 
, which was followed by CT. Thus, IGNTP has at least three errors here.

18. For P39
I am baffled why the IGNTP editors would disagree with the ed. pr. of 
this manuscript eight times! But, again, most of these come from their 
mistrust of the original readings done by Grenfell and Hunt, especially 
in places where the manuscript has pieces chipped off and/or is broken 
along the margins.  This accounts for seven errors in the IGNTP as I see 
it--all involving the moving of a bracket (see the differences they note 
between IGNTP and ed. pr. and cf. CT, which follows ed. pr.). Several of 
these letters still show: the alpha of ELALHSEN (8:20), the epsilon of 
EPIASEN (8:20), and the tau of TH (8:21).

In 8:14, they used TR to reconstruct line with ERCOMAI KA]I versus H as 
found in ed. pr. and CT.

Parker is right: we need to move the bracket one letter on ELEGON

19. For P45

In John 4:52, the IGNTP text is reconstructed using TR: KAI EIPO]N OTI 
E[CQES --this differs from CT, 174.

Concerning John 11:32 and 54, this will call for more research.

We have noted the lack of bracket in John 10:24 for EKUKLWSAN and will 
correct it.

We were very reluctant to reconstruct the beginning and ending lines of 
folio 17, recto and verso, because there are only the very slightest 
tracings of letters there--the reconstruction in the IGNTP is very 
daring.

20. For P52

In John 18:38, the word ECHLQE in IGNTP is lacking final nu.

Parker's other comments about two readings in P52 are debatable.

21. For P80
no comment needed

22. For P90
no comment needed

23. For P95
no comment needed

24--29. For P66 and P66c

In the IGNTP reconstruction of the text of P66, the editors designated 
hundreds of lacuna for portions of text that come up to the margin of the 
page. In these reconstructions, they disagree with the original editors 
(Martin and Barns) who had the opportunity to lift up (or remove) the 
overlay papyrus marginal strip (used for strengthening the sheet) on 
several of these sheets and then read the text beneath (see p. 110 in the 
photographs of P66 for a good example of where the strip is broken and 
thereby reveals the text; cf. p. 27). Note: the {i}editio princeps{xi} is 
found in Victor Martin, {i}Papyrus Bodmer II: Evangile de Jean, 1-14{xi} 
(Cologny/Geneva, 1956); {i}Papyrus Bodmer II: Supplement, Evangile de 
Jean, 14-21{xi} (Cologny/Geneva, 1958); Victor Martin and J. W. B. Barns, 
{i}Papyrus Bodmer II: Supplement, Evangile de Jean, 14-21{xi} 
(Cologny/Geneva, 1962).
	Because the editors of the IGNTP worked from the photographs and not 
from the original leafs of P66, they re-presented P66 as if several 
portions of text were missing, when, in fact, they were simply beneath 
marginal overlay strip. This affects nearly a hundred words in the 
following verses:

John 1:6, 21, 30-37; 3:20-26; 3:33--4:6; 8:57--9:6, 11-17, 22-28; 
10:36-42; 11:6-12, 19-27; 15:19.

By comparison, the editors of the {i}Complete Text{xi} trusted the 
judgments of the original editors and thereby re-presented these words as 
not being defective.
	Furthermore, the editors of the IGNTP volume did not include any of the 
new reconstructions of P66 fragments made by Kurt Aland in the following 
article: "Neue neutestamentliche Papyri III," in {i}New Testament 
Studies{xi} 20 (1974), 357-381. This lack is seen in the following 
verses: John 16:19, 23; 19:27-28, 32; 20:1, 6, 15-16, 19 (compare IGNTP 
with Aland's text). One of the most glaring problems with not 
incorporating these reconstructions is that IGNTP incorrectly says P66 
lacks IHSOUS in 19:28, when Aland's reconstruction clearly shows this 
word (as a nomen sacrum). Another lack is seen in John 16:19, where PROS 
ALLHLOUS is not listed as a variant reading for P66.  {i}The Complete 
Text{xi} reflects all of Aland's reconstructions (which were checked), 
plus adds a few more reconstructions of fragments that Aland could not 
identify--namely, in John 14:21; 15:1; 16:23, 29; 17:6-7, 12-13; 19:16, 
20-21, 24; 20:24, 27; 21:12, 17. In all, the IGNTP is affected in over 50 
words by failing to represent these fragments.
	Now, let's move on to the presentation of the scribal corrections in 
P66. By doing a detailed comparison of the IGNTP's notations of 
corrections in P66 with those found in the {i}Complete Text{xi}, I can 
say that we included every correction they noted--and in much clearer 
language--and we went beyond what they did, both in terms of noting more 
corrections and in identifying the correctors. Here are the problems I 
spotted in the IGNTP:

1:8--they do not note that P66 reads ALLA, against the text, ALL

1:35--missing two notes on corrections concerning EPAURION and 
IWANNHS--cf. CT 380, c and d

2:5--lacking note on correction concerning POIHSATAI--cf. CT 382, d

2:10--lacking note on correction concerning WS--cf. CT 383, b

2:12--EMEINAN should be EMEINAIN

2:15--lacking note on correction concerning TA TE--cf. CT 383, i

3:1--lacking note on erasure of OUTOS--cf. CT 384, d

3:2--lacking note on correction concerning RAMBEI--cf. CT 385, a

3:8--correction to PNEUA is wrong; the scribe started to write nonsacral 
form of PNEUMA and then corrected it to nomen sacrum--see CT 385, d

3:19--lacking note on correction concerning TO--cf. CT 386, b

3:33--lacking mention of a two-stage correction: TOUTON added 
superlinearly, then changed to OUTOS

5:11--note on MOI should be listed as a correction--cf. CT 394, b

5:43--lacking note on correction concerning ME--cf. CT 397, e and see 
Royse's disseration, 378

6:5--lacking note on correction concerning OFQALMOUS--cf. CT 398, c

6:63--lacking note on correction of PNEUMA to nomen sacrum--see CT 401, e

7:30--lacking note on correction concerning OI DE--cf. CT 404, e

7:40--OI, not OU, was changed to OUN--cf. CT 405, e

8:28--lacking note on correction concerning EDEIDACEN--cf. CT 408, d

8:37--P66 was corrected to ZHTITE, not ZHTEITE--cf. CT 409, d

10:8--lacking note on correction concerning EISIN--cf. CT 416, e

10:10--lacking note on correction concerning LUKON--cf. CT 416, g

11:21--it would really help to show change from one nomen sacrum to the 
other: IN to KN

12:23--P66* reads ELHLIUQEN, not ELHLEUQEN--cf. CT 427, v. 23

13:21--need to show correction from one nomen sacrum to another--cf. CT 
432, g

14:24--need to add that LOGOU was changed to LOGOUS--cf. CT 436, c

16:19--lacking note concerning deletion of KAI HQELON--cf. CT 441, b

17:16--note shows deletion of only first half of the verse; the entire 
verse was deleted by dots above the letters of the entire verse--cf. CT 
444, e and NA27.

18:17--the notation of a correction on TWN MAQHTWN is very doubtful

19:38--lacking note on addition of article O after IWSHF--cf. CT 453, a

furthermore, it is not noted that P66 could not have contained KAI 
EPETREYEN O PILATOS--cf. CT 453, NA27

21:12, 17--has no reconstruction of P66--cf. CT  458

Now, in all of this we have not mentioned that the IGNTP and CT vary 
greatly on the matter of identifying the correctors for P66. Parker's 
comments are inconclusive. In short, one must do a complete tracing of 
all the letters by the various hands and then make a detailed study of 
the differences. We have done this and are sure that we see three hands 
at work. Our judgment on the differentiation of hands is the best we 
could do.

30. For P75

John 1:22--the correction noted on P75 in IGNTP is very doubtful; if 
true, it would read UPER ISEAUTOU--clearly a nonsense reading

5:11--there should not be a correction cited for P75

5:22--lacking note on correction concerning DEDWKEN--cf. CT 570, b

7:3--there should not be listed a correction from SOI to SOU; the iota 
simply has a diaresis over it --cf. CT 576, v. 3

31-40. Parker asserted that he would be pretty worried if anyone could 
point to half a dozen clear errors in the IGNTP transcription of the 
Johannine papyri. Well, the truth of the matter is that the IGNTP volume 
has a multitude of errors. The most glaring have to do with all those 
parts of the text which should be presented but are not. We haven't done 
an exact count of these, but the number of words affected is probably 
well over 150. In addition, they completely neglected the work of Kurt 
Aland who made identifications of various fragments for P66. Furthermore, 
the notations on the corrections in P66 have significant omissions or 
errors. All this does not mean that the book is damaged beyond repair; 
rather, it points to the fact that it is difficult to produce an 
error-free volume in these kinds of works. We used this volume in our 
work (see CT, 22), and were helped by it. But it is not perfect.
	The point of all this is not to cast blame but to show that it is 
exceedingly difficult to get everything just right in the first printing. 
We would urge a second, corrected printing of the Johannine papyri in the 
IGNTP--as this is our desire for {i}The Complete Text of the Earliest New 
Testament Manuscripts.{xi} We would urge the IGNTP editors to rethink 
their disagreements with the original editors of several (though not all) 
of the manuscripts, to make use of Aland's work, and to display P66 and 
P75 with nomina sacra and punctuation. The ultimate goal is to provide as 
accurate as possible transcriptions of the Greek NT manuscripts to aid 
the work of NT textual criticism.
	Finally, we think it is very disheartening that Parker essentially asks 
us to give up on this project. Why? Because he posits that it has errors 
and will always have errors because of the process involved in producing 
it. Yes the book has errors--and we will provide the TC-List with an 
errata sheet in the near future (most of which are typographical and 
involve one or two letters). But this does not mean that we should give 
up on producing transcriptions of the Greek New Testament manuscripts 
that are as accurate as possible.

Philip Comfort and David Barrett

---

From: "DC PARKER" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 12:55:43 GMT

I'm in between SNTS and holidays, and am simply noting that Barrett 
has written a reply to my review.  Silence is not consent.

DR DC PARKER
READER IN NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND PALAEOGRAPHY
DEPT OF THEOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
TEL. 0121-414 3613
FAX  0121-414 6866
E-MAIL D.C.PARKER@.BHAM.AC.UK