tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post7658129556642548335..comments2024-03-03T21:51:46.662-05:00Comments on stylos: Responding to TurretinFan on (the real) TurretinJeffrey T. Riddlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-41683815320448296612017-05-17T23:46:47.979-04:002017-05-17T23:46:47.979-04:00Ok Noah, thanks. Yes, let's do the coffee some...Ok Noah, thanks. Yes, let's do the coffee sometime. Let me know if you're in Virginia. Look forward to hearing about your experiences in the text class at PRTS. JTRJeffrey T. Riddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-81176243239793352232017-05-17T12:07:29.596-04:002017-05-17T12:07:29.596-04:00Thank you for your help and patience, Dr. Riddle. ...Thank you for your help and patience, Dr. Riddle. This is helpful.<br /><br />I'm sure I will have more questions when I take the course in textual criticism from PRTS this fall. I would love to buy you a coffee sometime so we can talk in a lot more detail.Noah Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-86701566028621399802017-05-17T09:03:42.906-04:002017-05-17T09:03:42.906-04:00Noah, thanks for the comment. Follow ups:
1. On i...Noah, thanks for the comment. Follow ups:<br /><br />1. On inerrancy, see my most recent post on this topic. As indicated there, the idea of inerrant autographs versus errant apographs did not develop until the 19th century. I prefer to use the confessional term "infallible" to describe the apographs which accurately reflect the autographs, not because I believe there is any error in Scripture (to borrow the language of the New Hampshire Confession, it is "truth without any mixture of error") but because I want to affirm their total trustworthiness without adopting the scheme of hypothetically reconstructed autographa.<br /><br />2. By definition aleph is a copy (an apograph) but it is one that diverges from the traditional text which prevailed and was essentially a "dead-end" line of transmission till revived in the 19th century. BTW, it is also notoriously riddled with copyist blunders.<br /><br />JTR Jeffrey T. Riddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-53761803659547719002017-05-16T09:17:34.852-04:002017-05-16T09:17:34.852-04:00Thank you. Couple follow-up questions:
(1) As yo...Thank you. Couple follow-up questions: <br /><br />(1) As you understand it, then, inerrancy extends to the autographa but not the apographa, correct?<br /><br />(2) Would a recently discovered manuscript like Codex Sinaiticus be a member of the apographa?<br /><br />Thanks for bearing with my ignorance here.Noah Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-18102367918454067582017-05-15T22:46:43.189-04:002017-05-15T22:46:43.189-04:00Noah, Yes and Yes. Autographa (autographs) refers ...Noah, Yes and Yes. Autographa (autographs) refers to the original writings (now lost) and apographa (copies) to the existing, extant copies. This is standard terminology. JTRJeffrey T. Riddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-87582050754496187962017-05-15T12:41:02.074-04:002017-05-15T12:41:02.074-04:00Dr. Riddle,
I'm a bit fuzzy on Muller's t...Dr. Riddle,<br /><br />I'm a bit fuzzy on Muller's terminology here. Perhaps you can help me out.<br /><br />In the first quote (p. 433) Dr. Muller seems to be using "autographa" to refer to manuscripts of the NT in the authors' handwriting (or that of their amanuensis) while the "apographa" refers simply to all Greek and Hebrew copies of the autographa.<br /><br />Have I got that right? Also, is this autographa/apographa distinction standard in textual critical literature?Noah Wnoreply@blogger.com