Mon Mar 25 12:21:11 1996

From majordom  Mon Mar 25 12:21:11 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA21826; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 12:21:11 +0500
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 12:18:22 -0500
From: MoreCB@aol.com
Message-Id: <960325121821_361235541@emout06.mail.aol.com>
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: re: "canonical" text
Content-Length: 575
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

On Monday, Mar 25, James Adair wrote,
"My point here is that the earliest scribes 
didn't view the works they were copying as scripture.  Important, yes; 
authoritative, probably; scripture, not at first.  Thus, they might not 
have felt as much compunction as later scribes about "fixing" the text in 
front of them."

As a novice in the field(s), I ask, does such a statement discount1 Cor 14:37
and 2 Pet 3:15, 16 (even if one relegates 2 Pet to the pseudepigrapha)  as
revelatory of early (i.e. pre- A.D. 200) reverential attitudes towards
Pauline writings?

Jim Woychuk

Back