Mon Jan 20 17:02:01 1997

From owner-tc-list  Mon Jan 20 17:02:01 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id RAA09718; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:01:39 -0500
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:57:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc 
Subject: Re: original ?
In-Reply-To: 
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: 1465



On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, ANDREW SMITH wrote:

> If one makes the argument that "a word which is in every manuscript will
> be taken as having been in the original," one is dealing with the
> arbitrary and contingent fact that one has discovered some manuscripts and
> not others. One would have to revise whenever a new MS was unearthed
> (which is good), but one runs the danger and the probability that some MSS
> will never be unearthed (and thus one will not be able to revise according
> to them). Must we resign ourselves to the capriciousness of the selection
> of MSS available to us?

And where would this line of thought then take us if strictly applied?
That nothing is certain, and we therefore might well declare to be the
"original text" words and phrases which have never appeared in any known
MS?  I certainly would hope not.  Far better is it to recognize that
statistically the representative sample of antiquity which we possess in
our extant MSS (of all eras and of all texttypes) _do_ provide sufficient
and adequate information so as to proclaim "autograph certainty" at least
for those portions where all or virtually all such witnesses concur.

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

Back