Thu Apr 4 21:32:33 1996

From majordom  Thu Apr  4 21:32:33 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA25614; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 21:32:33 +0500
Message-Id: <3164173A.5032@ucr.campus.mci.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 18:38:50 +0000
From: Don Wilkins 
Organization: UC Riverside
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Gergesenes and tc
References: <960404190342_505919328@emout10.mail.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1047
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 96-04-04 16:56:49 EST, you write:
> 
> >reconciling biblical archaeology/geography with textual criticism?
> 
> Why do the two need to be reconciled?
> 
> Jim
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Jim West, ThD
> Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI
> Petros TN 37845

It of course depends on one's viewpoint whether there is any need 
for reconciliation. If one puts little faith in traditional (if I may use 
that term) textual criticism and, e.g., assumes that there is no 
reason to prefer one manuscript or text tradition over another, then 
archaeological/geographical evidence can be considered decisive. Or, 
if one agrees that the autographs can be mistaken about such 
geographical details, then contradictions are of no concern. I accept 
(by faith) the accuracy of the autographs and prefer the criteria of 
sound textual criticism (as stated by Metzger et al.) to the 
arguments of Burgon and Hodges, so I am left with a more difficult 
problem.

Don Wilkins
UC Riverside

Back