Subject: tc-list the Parker review

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 17:37:37 -0400

Hearty thanks to Professor Parker for providing a fair, reasoned, and
precise review of Comfort's book.

While I agree with most of what he says- I must wonder about one particular
issue which though not precisely addressed has bothered me quite a bit in
this whole discussion... i.e., how many errors make a work unusable?

If we assume that Comfort's book has as many as 200 errors  ( rather a lot!
) on almost 650 pages of text; and further we assume that there is less than
one error for every three pages... and that there is less than one error for
every single manuscript transcribed... we have a book that is fairly
accurate and trustworthy- do we not?

So, my question- how many errors make a text useless?  Are we to discount
every book as useless and untrustworthy if we find a typo or an editorial
oversight every three pages?  Does the 99% accuracy rate of Comfort's book
become overridden by the 1% error rate?  Do we, in fact, need to count every
accuracy and every error of the book- and then lay out an error to accuracy
percentage rate to decide if the book is worthwhile?

What we have here- it seems to me- is a book like any other book- it has
some errors- and so do they all.  But what we also have here is a logical
fallacy whereby the whole is being discounted (certainly not by Parker- let
me hasten to add) because of the numerically insignificant amount of errors.

Perhaps the most honest thing we can say about the book is that its
transcriptions should be evaluated on an individual basis.  In the end
perhaps some will even admit that the transcription of P(x) is accurate
while P(y) has one error.

I maintain, however, that on the whole the book is a great resource and a
tremendous boon to every textual critic.  In fact- it will at least give its
naysayers something to do over their vacations...  :-)

Best,

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

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 17:48:56 -0500

>accurate and trustworthy- do we not?

I have to point out that this is self-contradictory -- how can it
have a lot of errors and be fairly accurate?

>percentage rate to decide if the book is worthwhile?

There is a mathematical defect here, in that you have not defined "accuracy
rate" or "error rate." Are you counting in terms of correct letters where
the reading is certain? In that case, I suspect the error rate is less
than 1% -- but I also feel that, in that case, an acceptable error rate
is on the order of .03% (i.e. one error in three thousand letters).

I would also point out that this ignores what, to me, is the most
devastating part of the review. It appears that C&B are more accurate
than our worst fears (though not, on its face, accurate enough).
But it still does not mark questionable letters. I suspect, if
questionable letters are treated as errors (as they assuredly should
be!) then the error rate is much, MUCH higher than your comments
would imply.

>me hasten to add) because of the numerically insignificant amount of errors.

200 errors is not significant? Does this mean that we can use the
Textus Receptus in Philemon, since it contains far fewer than 200
differences from the UBS text? :-)

>while P(y) has one error.

This is well and good -- but it means that students cannot rely on the
book until someone has gone over every transcription and tested it.

So what use is that?

At this point, perhaps I should modify my opinion. I might buy the
book *after* someone has gone through and tested each papyrus. :-)

But, as Parker observed, that is a lot of work for a small reward.
If someone is willing to put that much work into testing papyri,
it would be better to just put out a publication that is correct
in the first place.

Of course absolute accuracy is impossible. Most of us use
the editions derived from Von Soden (Soden's own, Merk's,
Bover's), even knowing that they contain errors at a rate
about as high as C&B. But there is a difference: there is
no alternative to Von Soden. None whatsoever. There are,
in almost all cases, alternatives to C&B. They're harder
to find, they cost more, but they are at least alternatives.

I still don't understand why West finds it so desperately
important to defend this book. The errors, perhaps, can
be corrected in future printings. But will anything be
done about the failure to mark uncertain letters? Hard to
imagine such happening now.... 

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)