From: Andrew Bromage (bromage@cs.mu.oz.au)
Date: Thu Mar 05 1998 - 02:13:46 EST
G'day.
JM Jackson wrote:
> For my own benefit, do you think this statement is accurate?
>
> Inerrantists ~generally~ are Byzantine text people and Alexandrian text people
> are ~generally~ not?
>
> Please, please, puhlease!!!! no arguing. Only a yea or a nay.
Nay. Not even generally, as far as I can tell.
As evidence, I cite the Chicago Statement on Biblical Innerancy (which
most would consider a fair summary of the mainstream inerrantist
position).
<<
Section E: Transmission and Translation
Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture,
it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the
original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual
criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into
the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this
science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be
amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming,
with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this
matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way
jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely
error-free.
[Similar statement on translations follows.]
>>
I interpret this as a vote of confidence in the critical text on behalf
of the writers.
Now back to Greek. :-)
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:08 EDT