Sun Feb 9 12:26:42 1997
From owner-tc-list Sun Feb 9 12:26:42 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id MAA13366; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 12:26:41 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 11:23:00 -0700
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz"
Subject: Re: Equidistant letters
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1505
On Sun, 9 Feb 199, nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) wrote:
[ ... ]
>For example: Let us assume for the sake of argument that such sequences of
>letters really exist and all that Dr Riplinger and the author of the BR
>article claim them to be. In that case, what are we to make of those
>unfortunate souls who happened to have lived during those centuries before
>the MT took its final --and presumably divinely authorized-- form?
>
>To name one such group: the members of the early Christian church and, in
>particular the writers of the NT. Setting aside the fact that they
>primarily used the LXX, are we not then forced to accept that these writers
>didn't even have _access_ to an authentic, inspired text of the Hebrew
>Scriptures?
It seems to me that, *if* one accepts that assumption, then the
conclusion is obvious: The MT is *the* divinely inspired text, and
so presumably the original text. Divergences from it, as found e.g.
in LXX, are errors.
A secondary conclusion, it seems to me, is that Judaism is the
divinely inspired religion, rather than Christianity.
But, of course, this still ignores the other possibility: Coincidence.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Robert B. Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
Back