Thu Jun 6 04:40:25 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Jun  6 04:40:25 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id EAA07526; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 04:38:59 -0400
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 09:35:44 +0100
Message-Id: <199606060835.JAA26327@sable.ox.ac.uk>
X-Sender: duff@sable.ox.ac.uk
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: Jeremy Duff 
Subject: NT Interpolations - request for help.
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1762

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 appreciated.

Thanks.


=========================================

Jeremy Duff
D. Phil. Student
Jesus College, Oxford

Back