Tue Apr 2 20:55:59 1996
From majordom Tue Apr 2 20:55:59 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA12630; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 20:55:59 +0500
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 19:52:53 -0600
Message-Id: <9604030152.AA07049@felix>
X-Sender: crockett@teclink.net (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: crockett@felix.TECLink.Net (crockett)
Subject: Autographs
Content-Length: 3386
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
On 2 April 1996, 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.
...
As I think you affirm, most--if not all--propositional statements include
an element of faith. I agree that the proposition "the biblical authors
committed no intentional errors" is a faith statement, which cannot be
demonstrated hypothetically apart from a priori assumptions. Existentially,
such a statement could never be demonstrated due to the apparent fact that
there are no autographs. However, if an autograph were to be discovered,
who would have the authority to claim that it would be such? Furthermore,
if such a discovery were made and agreed upon (a theoretical possibility,
but a practical impossibility), who would be willing to admit "unintentional
errors" were present (at this point, theological gymnastics undoubtedly
would consume many interpreters)?
I suppose such unintentionality is an important concept for some
non-empirical theories of human experience or biblical inspiration, but
I can't see what unintentionality yields now in light of the ms evidence
available.
...
Richard K. Moore further wrote:
>(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 certainly qualifies as a faith statement, and I quickly would cite
2 Cor. 4.7a as a primary source for such a view. Aren't "the weak and
foolish" integral to all human experience? Assuming God created human
rationality with limitations in the first place certainly would agree
with your view of the authors/editors, the copyists, modern critical
editors, and publishers. In this context, I fear that some people
unknowingly assume a Cartesian epistemological discourse to excuse or
condemn the innate human experience of rational limitation for writing,
reading, copying, and interpreting. When this kind of dogmatic discourse
is applied to the NT texts (or any other), one erects barriers against
any hope for a glimpse of the author's original intent.
So, to respond to the question about what working hypothesis one should have
about a biblical autograph's "unintentional errors," I would start with
2 Cor. 4.7a and Lk 1.1-4. Although 2 Cor. 4.7a does not specifically
address biblical autographs, it may inform the question as to Paul's view
of the human knowledge process. And, Lk 1.1-4 seems not to invest any
"autograph" (if such were known to the writer) with additional hypothetical
value; hence, once might argue that Lk 1.1-4 reveals a lack of interest in
(or ignorance of) the kind of exactitude assumed achievable by some
positivistically minded interpreters and text critics.
============================================================================
======
Bennie R. Crockett, Jr.
Professor of Religion and Philosophy
Assoc. VP, Academic Programs
William Carey College
Hattiesburg, MS
USA
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA14546; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 07:25:47 +0500
Errors-To: jadair@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 07:25:48 -0500
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: beale@q.continuum.net (Jim Beale)
Subject: Re: autographs versus archetypes
Content-Length: 2426
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
At 2:46 PM 4/2/96, HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 96-04-02 12:35:27 EST, you write:
>
>>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?
>
>The notion that the Biblical writers were somehow possessed by the Divine
>Spirit, losing their humanity and becoming automatons drives against the
>grain of serious Biblical interpretation. To inisit that God emptied them of
>their humanity (which is the logical conclusion of your implication) is to
>repeat the error of Docetism- this time not in the area of Christology, but
>in the area of something far less.
Sorry, to intrude on this thread, but I couldn't resist ;-) What you wrote
(Jim West) is simply not true! The doctrine of inspiration doesn't at all
imply that the Biblical writers were "automatons" any more than the doctrine
of predestination implies that people are not free agents. God's providence
in assuring that the Biblical writings would be free from error works in and
through the human consciousness.
I challenge you to find a single theologian (aside from those represented at
the Council of Trent - which is the only place I know that the dictation
theory is really taught) who has held a position such as you outline above.
Otherwise the charge of setting up a strawman lies waiting at your doorstep;)
Or, perhaps you might attempt to support your claim that "losing their
humanity and becoming automatons [...] is the logical conclusion" of the
doctrine of inspiration. I'd welcome that! :)
>The Biblical writers did not know they were writing Scripture- they were just
>writing theology, like Barth or Schleiermacher or Schaffer, or the like.
> Their works were and are treasured because they are meaningful, not because
>they are inhuman.
Evidently Peter knew that Paul was writing Scripture! And surely Jeremiah
knew that the writing of his book was the revelation of God, since it was
at God's command that it was written. And even if some of them didn't know
they were writing Scripture, how does that preclude that they weren't?
And how is it that the Bible can't be both the writings of men and the
inspired revelation from God? I just don't see this as necessarily a true
disjunction (at least not without some _argument_ to support it).
In Christ,
Jim Beale
Back