Subject: Re: "canonical" text

From: [email-masked] (Mark O'Brien)
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 09:00:54 CST

Original message sent on Mon, Mar 25  11:42 PM by [email-masked] (Gregory J.
Woodhouse) :

<snip>
> Another complication I see is that there seems to be a distinction 
> between the Text and specific texts. I often explain to people, for 
> example, that there is no such thing as an original manuscript of the 
> Bible. (Okay, maybe it's too obvious to say in this forum!) 
> Nevertheless, I consider the Bible to be scripture. But what I consider 
> to be scripture is not just one manuscript, fragment, or compendium. 

This is an interesting point you make, and immediately raises in my mind the
question of how do you classify variants then?  Are all variants, in your
opinion, inspired?  This is the tricky question for those of us who would like
to hold to any kind of verbal inspiration or inerrancy.

Regards,

Mark O'Brien
Grad. student, Dallas Seminary

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 14:44:34 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 27 Mar 1996, Mark O'Brien wrote:

[addressed to Gregory J. Woodhouse] 

> to hold to any kind of verbal inspiration or inerrancy.

Quite interesting as a hypothesis, though I would not attempt it in
practice.  Theoretically (and theologically) only the readings which
comprise the autograph should be considered "inspired"; however, I am
perfectly willing to admit the accuracy of statements in certain variant
readings, such as the seven steps in the Western text of Acts.  

Even some of the non-canonical sayings of Jesus, such as those inserted
into Matt.20.28 and Lk.6:4 may be "authentic", though non-canonical and
not to be considered "inspired" as with the autograph text (the insertion
in Mk.16 in W is not considered as likely for an "authentic" saying of
Jesus, and I exclude that one).  

If "authentic," though not inspired and non-canonical, such statements
nevertheless can be "inerrant", just as any historical fact could be
"inerrant" within the secular realm.  But this brings up the further
(legitimate) issue of utilizing textual criticism to illustrate and
illuminate the varying and developing views of the Christian church in
different eras, as Bart Ehrman mentioned some time back. 

This line of argument also falls under the category of theology and not 
textual criticism per se, so I will eschew further comment on this point.

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