Tue Apr 2 12:35:31 1996

From majordom  Tue Apr  2 12:35:31 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA09846; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 12:35:31 +0500
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 12:30:46 -0500
Message-Id: <199604021730.AA03286@vnet.net>
X-Sender: mburrill@vnet.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Mark E. Burrill" 
Subject: Re: autographs versus archetypes
Content-Length: 914
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

At 09:05 AM 4/2/96 +0800, Richard K. Moore wrote:

>Here indeed is a double standard:  to
>accept that everyone else makes (unintentional) errors when composing
>longer documents, but not the NT authors!  The view that the autographs
>themselves were completely free of (unintentional) errors is itself a faith
>statement.

>(This situation, indeed the whole history of the transmission of the text
>of the NT, far from being a threat to a committed Christian, beautifully
>illustrates how God, in his grace, delights to use the weak and foolish
>things of this world to shame the strong and the wise; it is not just the
>copyists and modern scholars who are involved here, but the original
>authors).


This is interesting indeed and from a purely human point of view would be
accepted without reservation. BUT...doesn't this theory necessarily
presuppose the denial of even the possibility of the THEOPNEUSTOS?

Back