Thu Jan 16 20:59:03 1997

From owner-tc-list  Thu Jan 16 20:59:03 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id UAA03773; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 20:58:23 -0500
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:54:11 -0600 (CST)
From: "Ronald L. Minton" 
X-Sender: rminton@orionc0
To: The Andersons 
cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Original Text
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970115183926.64b723ae@pop-3.ukonline.co.uk>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1168

I do know what the original text is not.

1.  It is not Kurt Aland's "original text," ie. the Alexandrian text; 
though that is no doubt close and, like all other texts and families, 
exact in most places.  This is not to detract from his contributions to 
textual studies, but I believe his use of the original text was a step 
below his usual work.

2.  It has nothing to do with papyrus or ink.  I have had many students 
think of the original sheets of writing materials when they discussed 
"the originals" or "the autographs" or "the original writings."

My definition of the originals includes the supernatural.  The originals 
are the words chosen or approved by God as he directed and guided the 
first writers.  This would include Luke's research and Baruch's 
re-writing of Jeremiah's work.  Ultimately, the result was the same as 
the dictation theory (which I see as absurd) produces.  I do not have all 
the answers for even my own views, but they are similar to those of John 
Gill and Charles Spurgeon.



--
Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org   W (417)268-6053  H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803

Back