In <email@example.com>, on 06/06/96
at 07:47 AM, waltzmn@...
(Robert B. Waltz) said:
In dealing with interpolations I have some comments: Firstly I do
not see that 1 Cor 14:34-35 as an interpolation After reading
Gordon Fee`s commentary and other opinions that support an
interpolation I lean heavily towards it not being an
interpolation at all. I surmise that Paul is quoting and
re-playing comments made by some turkeys in the Corinthian
church. If it was an interpolation then why does it not appear
that way in our Gk texts? As as I recall it is placed where it
is in most mss and it is placed in a few other locations in
a few other mss .
As for 1 Tim I have taken Kelly comments as being convincing and
reasonable enough for me to accept the Pauline authorship for the
pastoral letters. Now for some the irony would be that altho I
accept them as Paul`s YET I do not accept the trad. interp.
regarding the "gender issue" i.e. women are subservient to men
in and outside of the Church...... <grin>
I think it is not good hermeneutics to use 1 Tim 2 as a proof
text for all the other related passages concerning this issue.
Why do we need another "canon with the canon"?
Why should some try to harmonize all other texts with 1 Tim 2??
Again I do not recall any strong arguments from textual criticism
that the pastorals are not Paul`s.
---On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Jeremy Duff
--->I wonder if I could pick the list's collective brain. >
--->I am doing a D.Phil. here in Oxford looking at Pseudepigraphy
---among the >early Christians (until about 200 A.D.). While I
---have been thinking about >this, I have become interested in
---what I see as an anomaly in NT scholarship >/ text criticism .
---I am sure that I am not coming up with anything new but >if
---anyone could comment on it, or point me to suitable literature
---which >discusses it, I would be very grateful. I am aware that
---in HB textual >criticism there is talk of finding the "final
---form of the text" not the >"autograph" and I guess there might
---be some insights here to help me. >
--->The anomaly is as follows:
--->Most NT textual criticism (I think) works to try to get back
---to the >autograph - removing both accidental changed to the
---text and also purposeful >interpolations etc. If we think 1
---Cor 14.34-35 is not by Paul - that is it >is a later
---interpolation into the text - then we cut it out from the text
--->and hence from the canon. Fine, but, much NT scholarship has
---decided that >the whole of 1 Timothy is not by Paul - it is a
---later "interpolation" into >the Pauline canon. Nevertheless
---most NT scholars assert that it should stay >in the canon. We
---can speculate about how or why it got in there but
--->nevertheless it is (by hypothesis) not 'by' Paul (I know that
---there is a lot >packed into the word 'by' here but I don't
---think that is of the essence here >- it is later compositions
---were are looking at here not secretaries, >fragments or the
---like). Why is it seen as reasonable to cut out little
--->interpolations but leave in big ones?
--->Any comments or directs to literature on this would be
---I'm short on time, but cannot resist a brief reply:
---One needs to distinguish between two processes here.
---The first is the process of canonization. This was carried out
---by the entire church in the first four centuries. After
---significant hesitation, the entire church agreed on the
---current NT canon.
---Now you or I may dispute their decisions -- e.g. as a very
---"low church" protestant I don't much like 1 Timothy -- but I
---cannot deny that the church canonized it. The fact that Paul
---is probably not responsible for large parts of the epistle
---doesn't matter; Hebrews was canonized, and everyone admitted
---*it* was not by Paul.
---BTW -- there's a strong tendency to credit Athanasius with the
---official list of canonical books. And he *was* the first to
---publish the exact and official list. But don't lay too much
---stress on that. His authority was limited -- note that the
---Codex Alexandrinus, written well after his death -- still
---contains extracanonical books. I repeat: Our current canon is
---the result of consensus in the church (even if, e.g., the
---Catholic church did not formally publish a canon until the
---Council of Trent).
---But the church could not canonize the text; it could not even
---produce a uniform text. So even though ever Bible after the
---fifth century contained the same books, they didn't contain
---the same texts.
---The goal of textual criticism is to obtain the original form
---of the books that were later canonized. If, somehow, there had
---been a form of the books that had been canonized, we might try
---to look for that. But no such form ever existed.
---I hope this helps.
Respond to Jim at the following address