Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!cjdb
From: cjdb@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Charles Blair)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dissolving Biblical Inerrancy / Abiathar-furthther notes on the greek txt
Message-ID: <924@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Jul-85 11:34:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.924
Posted: Wed Jul 31 11:34:43 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 2-Aug-85 00:04:44 EDT
References: <918@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center
Lines: 17

One could push Gary's line of reasoning one step backward, to the texts of
Samuel itself. I say texts, not text, because the text of Samuel exists in
three main versions: the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint
(LXX) and the version exemplified by the Qumran scrolls of Samuel. Since
these texts differ in important respects from each other, the question arises,
Which text is to be regarded as the inerrant one? One might rule out the
Septuagint from candidacy, because it is written in Greek, but suppose it
points back to a Hebrew  original different from the Masoretic text? In any
case we have two groups of extant Hebrew texts, the Masoretic and the
Qumranic, which differ among themselves. Which is the inspired text? Why? 
Not having read Barr's book, I cannot speak to the issue of when the problem 
of inerrancy arose, but I cannot help thinking that its roots may ultimately 
be pushed to the beginning of the Protestant Reformation: once the Bishop of 
Rome was no longer regarded as infallible (inerrant) when he spoke ex 
cathedra, another source of supreme authority was needed. That source?--the 
Bible. So while Roman Catholics tend to put tradition over the Bible, 
Protestants tend to put the Bible over tradition.