Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: NT Interpolations - request for help.

Expand Messages
  • rachel@ms1.hinet.net
    In , on 06/06/96 at 07:47 AM, waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) said: In dealing with interpolations I have some
    Message 1 of 1714 , Nov 9, 2001
      In <v02140b00addc2ebcf5aa@[]>, 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
      ---<Jeremy.Duff@...> wrote:
      --->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.

      ---Bob Waltz

      Respond to Jim at the following address

    • Julian Goldberg
      The complete Hebrew Scriptures (Hebrew Bible) or TANAKH (Torah-Law, Neviim-Prophets, Ketuvim-Writings) based on the Masoretic Hebrew text with vowels and
      Message 1714 of 1714 , Feb 4, 1997
        The complete Hebrew Scriptures (Hebrew Bible) or TANAKH (Torah-Law,
        Neviim-Prophets, Ketuvim-Writings) based on the Masoretic Hebrew text
        with vowels and cantillation marks in one complete compact black hard
        covered volume which measures 12 cm x 19 cm with over 1360 pages that
        have been arranged according to traditional chapter and verse divisions
        along with larger Hebrew letter printing and thicker paper pages for a
        volume of this size. Each book is $ 20.00 (U.S.) postpaid ($ 15.50 for
        the book plus $ 4.50 for postage) and can be ordered directly from:

        Julian Goldberg, 260 Adelaide St., E., # 215, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
        M5A 1N0.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.