Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

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

Expand Messages
  • Nichael Lynn Cramer
    ... Jim I have really said all I can say on the topic, but one final point... ... The careful reader will note that I have never written so much as a single
    Message 1 of 14 , May 22, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      >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.

      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
    • Mike and Jeanne Arcieri
      ... Can you imagine the TC-LIST discussion if one of those pre-pub editions was the one published? ;-) ;-) Good thing they published the corrected edition...
      Message 2 of 14 , May 23, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        > Dale M. Wheeler wrote:
        >
        >
        > It was my understanding that the book's release was delayed (twice?)
        > precisely because one or more of the pre-pub reviewers/editors had
        > discovered the same types of errors that Maurice found, and that is was
        > sent back to Comfort, et.al., to be fixed, ie., the papyri were supposed to
        > be re-examined/transcriptions corrected. So either someone decided to turn
        > it loose finally without a complete rechecking or this *is* the rechecked
        > version. 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.
        >
        > XAIREIN...
        >


        Can you imagine the TC-LIST discussion if one of those pre-pub
        editions was the one published? ;-) ;-) Good thing they published the
        'corrected' edition... ;-)

        (Just a joke, Jim, no need for any flame-throwing :-) )

        Thanks for the info Dale.


        Mike
      • Bauer, Marc
        ThD West: Last comment? Three posts or more ago, no? Marc Bauer ... From: Jim West [mailto:jwest@Highland.Net] Sent: Saturday, May 22, 1999 8:21 PM To:
        Message 3 of 14 , May 23, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          ThD West:

          Last comment? Three posts or more ago, no?

          Marc Bauer

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Jim West [mailto:jwest@...]
          Sent: Saturday, May 22, 1999 8:21 PM
          To: tc-list@...
          Subject: Re: Cold Comfort [was: tc-list Comfort's book...]


          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- jwest@...
          web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
        • Bauer, Marc
          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
          Message 4 of 14 , May 24, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            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. :-)

            You speak out of class ;)

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

            Yawn,

            Marc Bauer
          • M A Robinson
            ... Agreed. It _would_ be informative were Bart to provide a few representative examples. Tracking down factual errors in the introduction and related matters
            Message 5 of 14 , May 24, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sat, 22 May 1999 22:20:59 -0400 Jim West <jwest@...> writes:

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

              >>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?

              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.

              >>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.

              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
            • M A Robinson
              On Mon, 24 May 1999 01:21:09 -0600 Bauer, Marc ... Precisely. Once McCarthy was invoked, the issue degenerated to the relative merits of
              Message 6 of 14 , May 25, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                On Mon, 24 May 1999 01:21:09 -0600 "Bauer, Marc" <Mbauer@...>
                writes:

                >You speak out of class ;)

                Precisely. Once McCarthy was invoked, the issue degenerated to the
                relative merits of "Point of Order" versus "Conspiracy Theory"; the
                latter film was far more entertaining. :-)

                At least the discussion over the C/B book seems to have subsided, and
                just in time; I now go off-list for the summer months to do some more
                collation work in Muenster and not worry about the errors in C/B. :-).

                Best wishes to all of you for the summer!

                ==============================================================
                Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D.
                Professor of Greek and New Testament
                Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
                Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.