It used to be my belief that (and I know many persons who still hold to this view), as far as inerrancy goes, the original autographs of biblical documents were inerrant. The argument kind of runs along these lines: At present, all we have are copies of copies of copies and all of the M/mss are not in agreement. Thus, our present versions of the Bible, especially those translated from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek to another language, are not perfect. What is/was perfect, however, were the original autographs.
Personally, I am no longer an advocate of this position and I am not convinced that it is even an argument worth having. It makes no difference whether or not the first manuscript was errant. Of course, I am referring to things like incorrectly spelled words, left out words, extra words, etc. It seems more likely to me that documents like the Gospels were composed over time, not in one sitting. In short, the production of the Gospels happened in a process. The authors were at liberty to add, take away, etc. They could have written the original, taken something out, replaced or added something to it or scribbled a note in the margins. Who knows? Who cares?
There is an assumption underlying the mentality of "getting as close to the original autographs as possible" that I think is fundamentally flawed too. It is not always true, even from a text-critical standpoint, that earlier = better. In fact, it is very often the case (in very many things) that later = better. It is quite possible and plausible that the earliest manuscript was a rough draft. Maybe the author(s) went back later and read it and decided more needed to be said, or less. Maybe the first and earliest manuscript was written on a piece of papyrus that was too short or maybe they didn't have enough ink or even money to buy more materials. In other words, there are many reasons to shed the idea that earilest = best. If the texts were composed in a process, then, it is not the earliest that's most important at all but perhaps a late, finished manuscript--or even a copy created in the middle of the process that was best.
All I am attempting to argue here is that earliest does not always = best, most reliable, most informative, most accurate, most easy to read, best spelling or best grammar, etc. That is why I don't hold tightly to the view that I used to, that, if we could just find the originals, we'd be so much better off than we are now. Indeed, finding mss is great but whether or not we find an original well, that does not make the Bible any more inerrant or inspired than it already is (however one defines and uses the terms--or doesn't--inerrant and inspired).
Personally, I am no longer an advocate of this position and I am not convinced that it is even an argument worth having. It makes no difference whether or not the first manuscript was errant. Of course, I am referring to things like incorrectly spelled words, left out words, extra words, etc. It seems more likely to me that documents like the Gospels were composed over time, not in one sitting. In short, the production of the Gospels happened in a process. The authors were at liberty to add, take away, etc. They could have written the original, taken something out, replaced or added something to it or scribbled a note in the margins. Who knows? Who cares?
There is an assumption underlying the mentality of "getting as close to the original autographs as possible" that I think is fundamentally flawed too. It is not always true, even from a text-critical standpoint, that earlier = better. In fact, it is very often the case (in very many things) that later = better. It is quite possible and plausible that the earliest manuscript was a rough draft. Maybe the author(s) went back later and read it and decided more needed to be said, or less. Maybe the first and earliest manuscript was written on a piece of papyrus that was too short or maybe they didn't have enough ink or even money to buy more materials. In other words, there are many reasons to shed the idea that earilest = best. If the texts were composed in a process, then, it is not the earliest that's most important at all but perhaps a late, finished manuscript--or even a copy created in the middle of the process that was best.
All I am attempting to argue here is that earliest does not always = best, most reliable, most informative, most accurate, most easy to read, best spelling or best grammar, etc. That is why I don't hold tightly to the view that I used to, that, if we could just find the originals, we'd be so much better off than we are now. Indeed, finding mss is great but whether or not we find an original well, that does not make the Bible any more inerrant or inspired than it already is (however one defines and uses the terms--or doesn't--inerrant and inspired).
