Thu Apr 4 08:37:10 1996

From majordom  Thu Apr  4 08:37:10 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA21434; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 08:37:10 +0500
X-Snapmail: 2.0.2
Message-Id: <000019DA.sm@dts.edu>
Subject: Re: "canonical" text
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 09:00:54 CST
From: Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu (Mark O'Brien)
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu, gjw@wnetc.com (Gregory J. Woodhouse)
Organization: Dallas Theological Seminary
X-Hologate: 1.1.7c
Lines: 819
Content-Length: 864
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu


Original message sent on Mon, Mar 25  11:42 PM by gjw@wnetc.com (Gregory J.
Woodhouse) :


> Another complication I see is that there seems to be a distinction 
> between the Text and specific texts. I often explain to people, for 
> example, that there is no such thing as an original manuscript of the 
> Bible. (Okay, maybe it's too obvious to say in this forum!) 
> Nevertheless, I consider the Bible to be scripture. But what I consider 
> to be scripture is not just one manuscript, fragment, or compendium. 

This is an interesting point you make, and immediately raises in my mind the
question of how do you classify variants then?  Are all variants, in your
opinion, inspired?  This is the tricky question for those of us who would like
to hold to any kind of verbal inspiration or inerrancy.

Regards,

Mark O'Brien
Grad. student, Dallas Seminary

Back