Subject: Re: Gergesenes and tc

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 19:03:43 -0500

In a message dated 96-04-04 16:56:49 EST, you write:

>reconciling biblical archaeology/geography with textual criticism?

Why do the two need to be reconciled?

Jim 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI
Petros TN 37845

---

From: Don Wilkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 18:38:50 +0000

> Why do the two need to be reconciled?

It of course depends on one's viewpoint whether there is any need 
for reconciliation. If one puts little faith in traditional (if I may use 
that term) textual criticism and, e.g., assumes that there is no 
reason to prefer one manuscript or text tradition over another, then 
archaeological/geographical evidence can be considered decisive. Or, 
if one agrees that the autographs can be mistaken about such 
geographical details, then contradictions are of no concern. I accept 
(by faith) the accuracy of the autographs and prefer the criteria of 
sound textual criticism (as stated by Metzger et al.) to the 
arguments of Burgon and Hodges, so I am left with a more difficult 
problem.

Don Wilkins
UC Riverside