Thu Apr 4 14:47:28 1996

From majordom  Thu Apr  4 14:47:28 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA23584; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 14:47:28 +0500
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 14:44:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: "canonical" text
In-Reply-To: <000019DA.sm@dts.edu>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1901
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu



On Wed, 27 Mar 1996, Mark O'Brien wrote:

[addressed to Gregory J. Woodhouse] 

> 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.

Quite interesting as a hypothesis, though I would not attempt it in
practice.  Theoretically (and theologically) only the readings which
comprise the autograph should be considered "inspired"; however, I am
perfectly willing to admit the accuracy of statements in certain variant
readings, such as the seven steps in the Western text of Acts.  

Even some of the non-canonical sayings of Jesus, such as those inserted
into Matt.20.28 and Lk.6:4 may be "authentic", though non-canonical and
not to be considered "inspired" as with the autograph text (the insertion
in Mk.16 in W is not considered as likely for an "authentic" saying of
Jesus, and I exclude that one).  

If "authentic," though not inspired and non-canonical, such statements
nevertheless can be "inerrant", just as any historical fact could be
"inerrant" within the secular realm.  But this brings up the further
(legitimate) issue of utilizing textual criticism to illustrate and
illuminate the varying and developing views of the Christian church in
different eras, as Bart Ehrman mentioned some time back. 

This line of argument also falls under the category of theology and not 
textual criticism per se, so I will eschew further comment on this point.


_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back