Subject: autographs versus archetypes

From: [email-masked] (Richard K. Moore)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 09:05:23 +0800

What working hypothesis ought a textual critic have for any 'autograph' of
a NT writing?  Is there the expectation that in a longer document such as
Romans (about 28 A-4 pages if written out by hand today) there would be
absolutely no (unintentional) errors of any kind whatever?  Even with
computer technology, including spell and grammar checkers) modern
tertiary-trained students are not, in my experience, able to achieve this
even for much shorter documents.  Few books, even the most scholarly, are
without any unintentional errors.  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 point being made gains force when the purposes for which the NT
writings came into being are taken into account.  To stay with Romans, for
example, Paul and Tertius no doubt saw their task as that of writing to
Christians at the heart of the Empire; it would never have occurred to them
that they were engaged in writing Holy Scripture or that their letter would
be studied in 2000 years time.  Here indeed is a double standard:  to
accept that everyone else makes (unintentional) errors when composing
longer documents, but not the NT authors!  The view that the autographs
themselves were completely free of (unintentional) errors is itself a faith
statement.
(This situation, indeed the whole history of the transmission of the text
of the NT, far from being a threat to a committed Christian, beautifully
illustrates how God, in his grace, delights to use the weak and foolish
things of this world to shame the strong and the wise; it is not just the
copyists and modern scholars who are involved here, but the original
authors).

Richard K. Moore,
Head of New Testament Department, Baptist Theological College of Western
Australia;
Lecturer, Murdoch University.

---

From: "Mark E. Burrill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 12:30:46 -0500

At 09:05 AM 4/2/96 +0800, Richard K. Moore wrote:

>Here indeed is a double standard:  to

>copyists and modern scholars who are involved here, but the original

This is interesting indeed and from a purely human point of view would be
accepted without reservation. BUT...doesn't this theory necessarily
presuppose the denial of even the possibility of the THEOPNEUSTOS?

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:46:08 -0500

>presuppose the denial of even the possibility of the THEOPNEUSTOS?

The notion that the Biblical writers were somehow possessed by the Divine
Spirit, losing their humanity and becoming automatons drives against the
grain of serious Biblical interpretation.  To inisit that God emptied them of
their humanity (which is the logical conclusion of your implication) is to
repeat the error of Docetism- this time not in the area of Christology, but
in the area of something far less.

The Biblical writers did not know they were writing Scripture- they were just
writing theology, like Barth or Schleiermacher or Schaffer, or the like.
 Their works were and are treasured because they are meaningful, not because
they are inhuman.

Jim West

Jim West

---

From: Marty Brownfield <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 18:20:15 -0600

>presuppose the denial of even the possibility of the THEOPNEUSTOS?
It does no such thing.  I find it amazing that normally intelligent people
will believe that they have the Word of God only if the autographs are
infallible, even though the autographs no longer exist.  Instead, what we
have are fallible preachers and teachers using fallible translations based
on fallible manuscripts.  Everyone agrees on these points; but somehow the
inspiration of the Word is compromised unless the non-extant autographs are
infallible!

Marty Brownfield
[email-masked]  or  [email-masked]
http://www.vantek.net/pages/mbrownfield/index.html

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 12:08:15 -0500

Jim Beal,

I regret that I must decline your invitation to offer "prrof" for something
which has none.  I feel compelled to acquiesce to the wishes of Dr. Winberry
and stick to purely textual issues in this forum.

Yours,

Jim West