tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post9060593189604546922..comments2024-03-20T12:35:12.828-04:00Comments on The Text of the Gospels: James White and Hebrews 1 - A ResponseJames Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-84426684095011464882017-07-12T12:45:32.298-04:002017-07-12T12:45:32.298-04:00Maurice Robinson,
I antocipate that apologists wo...Maurice Robinson, <br />I antocipate that apologists would handle Mt. 1:7 and 1:10 by saying that Matthew simply used alternative spellings (basically parroting Metzger, even though Metzger flatly called them errors); Luke 4:44 as mere vagueness on Luke's part -- i.e., having in view an ethnic concept rather than a political one -- and Mark 6:22 . . . well, yes; that would be another good example. <br /><br />The NET went with that "despite its historical difficulties" and no one seems too upset about it. Which may explain why DTS professor Wallace considers inerrancy a "peripheral" doctrine, while DTS' website declares inerrancy to be an essential of some sort.<br />James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-66770677355053232742017-07-11T15:52:24.040-04:002017-07-11T15:52:24.040-04:00Rather than concentrating on aberrant minority rea...Rather than concentrating on aberrant minority readings that are not accepted within the critical editions, one would be more to the point to concentrate on readings within the critical text that more directly affect inerrancy (e.g., Mt 1.7, 10; Mk 6.22; Lk 4.44, etc.)Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-68121412636996172392017-07-11T13:08:01.262-04:002017-07-11T13:08:01.262-04:00Eric Rowe,
ER: "But the example you cite t...Eric Rowe, <br /><br />ER: "But the example you cite to counter that is about a reading that is not "the most Alexandrian," at least from the way you describe the evidence."<br /><br />Regarding the reading of Sinaiticus in Mt. 13:35: I was concise; see Willker's TCGG for more data. When "Isaiah" is either in the text or a footnote of a normal Bible (and, in the ESV, it is in a footnote), readers may understandably conclude that the doctrine of inerrancy is in perpetual limbo (thinking, "/Maybe/ Matthew was right, and /maybe/ Matthew was wrong.) That is a different conclusion than what one would get if one relied more on the Byzantine Text. (I do not mean that one should make text-critical decisions based on the notion that the less errant-looking reading is original; I mean to simply foresee an effect of treating Alexandrian glitch-readings as if they are something else.)<br /> James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-83904837546834731332017-07-11T11:24:28.644-04:002017-07-11T11:24:28.644-04:00It's such a strange quote, because Daniel Wall...It's such a strange quote, because Daniel Wallace would say that the textual variants have no bearing on doctrine or the Christian faith. Mmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14372611545178823736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-30888642029812340492017-07-11T11:01:41.090-04:002017-07-11T11:01:41.090-04:00You quote White saying, “If you apply the same sta...You quote White saying, “If you apply the same standards of hermeneutics and exegesis to the most Alexandrian text, and the most Byzantine text, you’re not going to come up with a different Christian faith.” <br /><br />But the example you cite to counter that is about a reading that is not "the most Alexandrian," at least from the way you describe the evidence. It's just a reading that crops up in Sinaiticus, and if it also does elsewhere, then I infer from the way you describe the situation that it's still not the reading of the Alexandrian text-type as a whole.<br />Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.com