"Tim Mitchell in JETS 59.2 (2016) - the journal by ETS (that requires member[s] to be inerrantist), attempts to patch up these problems by bestowing Divinity/perfection to the "released" autograph, not the *original* original autographs, which doesn't solve problems..."
"What are the NT Autographs? An Examination of the Doctrine of Inspiration and Inerrancy in Light of Greco-Roman Publication." JETS 59/2 (June 2016): 287-308.
I too, like Hübner struggled with the evangelical doctrine of inerrancy. This curiosity (some would call doubt) is what initially drove me into the field of New Testament textual criticism. Some of these issues that I had with inerrancy didn't begin to iron out in my mind until I began to gain a better grasp of the ways in which books were copied and circulated in the first few centuries of the Christian era. It was these insights that I culled together in the JETS article. After publication, I realized a few issues with the definitions my JETS article. One of which Hübner points out, without maybe realizing it. He fails to distinguish between the autographs as "text" and the autograph as "physical document."
I realized that I was not as clear on this distinction in my JETS article, and I attempted to flesh this out better in another article which was published recently.
Where Inspiration is Found: Putting the New Testament Autographs in Context,” in Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 24.3 (Fall 2020): 83-101.In this article I wrote concerning the "autograph."
"the term “autograph” is not very helpful in describing the multifaceted aspects of divine inspiration and the composition of the NT writings, because at every phase of the draft stages, the document(s) would technically be “autographs.” Yet this is clearly not what is meant by “autograph” in doctrinal statements. Any definition of the original text, or “autograph,” must take these aspects into consideration." (pg. 92)I continue on,
"Therefore, in reference to the NT, the “autograph,” as often discussed by apologists, theologians, and doctrinal statements, should be defined as the text of the completed authorial work the moment in which it was released by the author for circulation and copying, not earlier draft versions or layers of composition." (pg. 96)Finally, I wrote,
"Certainly, the physical properties of the autograph (whether papyrus, parchment, wax or wooden tablet, etc.) helped to shape the text, however, it is the text—the wording—that was inspired, not the physical medium of the material autograph. Passages in the scriptures, such as Colossians 4:16, 1 Thessalonian 5:27, and 1 Timothy 4:13, imply a copying and distributing process. For Paul, addressing these congregations, it was imperative that the recipients received the text of the epistle, not the original physical material autograph penned by the sender of the letter." (pgs. 96-97)
