Thu Jun 6 11:50:31 1996
From owner-tc-list Thu Jun 6 11:50:31 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id LAA09244; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 11:49:21 -0400
Message-Id: <199606061545.RAA28382@mail.uni-muenster.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 96 17:49:38 +0100
From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid)
Subject: Re: NT Interpolations - request for help.
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
In-Reply-To: <199606060835.JAA26327@sable.ox.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2562
On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Jeremy Duff wrote (inter alia):
>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.
Do you know of any edition/translation of the NT where 1 Cor 14.34-35 is cut out
from the text? Even the _mulier adultera_ story to my knowledge is not cut out
from the text or the longer ending(s) of Mark. If in editions/translations the
mentioned texts are sometimes put into brackets or typed smaller or hesitations
were expressed that they presumably did not belong to the oldest form of the
writings, it was the editor's coice to do so. Up to now I fail to see how these
operations result in cutting the mentioned texts out from the canon. This to my
mind is quite a different thing depending on different concepts of canon. I do
not know of any currently held concept of canon -but I am open to new insides-
where canon is related to the oldest available Textform of individual NT
writings in a way that scholarly progress would automatically affect the shape
of 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?
I must confess that I do not fully grasp what the point is therein. What is "the
Pauline canon" (first sentence) in relation to "the canon" (second sentence)?
BTW I do not know of "the Pauline canon". What I know is the Corpus Paulinum as
part of the New Testament as part of the Christian Bible. Within the Corpus
Paulinum there is even one writing (letter?), Hebrews, transmitted that does not
even claim to be written by Paul. The Corpus Paulinum is in itself simply
speaking a 14-letter edition. Presumably other editions existed too, but which
can properly addressed to be "the Pauline canon"?
Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
Back