Thu Apr 4 21:40:53 1996

From majordom  Thu Apr  4 21:40:53 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA25651; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 21:40:53 +0500
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 21:37:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: autographs versus archetypes
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 2383
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu


Richard K. Moore wrote on 2 Apr 1996:

>What working hypothesis ought a textual critic have for any 'autograph'
>of a NT writing?  . . .   It would be surprising if there were
>absolutley no errors in any of the original compositions of the NT, and
>naturally, the possibility of error increases with the increase in
>length of a document.

The textual critic has to proceed under a double burden: the natural
process of composition and production of an "autograph" of any work,
and (in the case of the biblical books) the theological issue of divine
inspiration and whatever that may entail.  My intention is to keep 
those two issues separate in the praxis of textual criticism, even 
though I obviously have a faith presupposition regarding the autograph.

As I noted before, I do not desire to enter into a theological debate 
on inspiration and what it may or may not entail, for the simple reason 
that this will in no way help to restore an archetypical "autograph"
text.  The only point textual critics need to hold is that they are 
pressing toward a goal or restoring an "autograph," whether that be an 
inerrant and perfect composition, or whether that be whatever underlies 
the quest for "autograph authenticity," including a document which (as 
Mr. Moore suggests) may have had at least scribal errors in the 
original document.  For me, there is no problem whatever in pursuing 
the text-critical quest of the autograph without allowing the 
theological considerations to control the nature or appearance of what 
that autograph "must" look like.

>The view that the autographs themselves were completely free of
>(unintentional) errors is itself a faith statement.

Which usually is answered by the glib remark that no one has ever seen 
or restored the "errant autographs" either.  *;-)  I for one have never 
had a problem crop up in textual criticism which had to be resolved by 
appeal to the theological argument of inspiration or inerrancy.  The 
data speak well enough for themselves to allow autograph restoration 
with an extremely high degree of certainty.

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

Back