Fri Jan 24 19:33:22 1997

From owner-tc-list  Fri Jan 24 19:33:22 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id TAA23741; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 19:32:50 -0500
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 19:28:17 -0500 (EST)
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net
From: Jim West 
Subject: Re: Who practices TC (Was: Re: The function of TC)
X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970124192848.280f9918@mail.sunbelt.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1724

Bob,
At 05:45 PM 1/24/97 -0700, you wrote:

>The fact that you can explain this away isn't relevant to my point.

True, you were not discussing the meaning of the text, which is why I began
with "just as an aside".

Further, exegesis is not a simple "explaining away" as you suggest;  rather,
it is an effort to allow the text to speak for itself in its own time, its
own situation in life.

>The relevant datum is that Fee tried to set the verses aside. His
>reasons were textually inadequate; he wanted to eliminate a sexist
>reading. Which is, I'm sure, good theology, but it isn't good TC.
>

It is neither good theology nor good tc.

>You may try to explain this passage away (I've tried to explain away
>the passage, too -- though my explanation differs slightly from yours)

And what exactly is the basis of your presumption that I have either tried
to dismiss the passage or that my explanation is inadequate?

>It doesn't affect my point -- which is that people's theological
>and personal biases will affect the texts they produce.
>

And the fact is that a person without theological commitment is likewise
deterred from a clear understanding of the purpose of the text and its
preservation.   The suggestion that people of faith are somehow crippled by
it as far as scholarly investigation is concerned is as ridiculous as saying
that a person with no faith commitment cannot rightly understand the text or
its transmission.
  
>Which may be an argument for community editing of texts, since no two
>people will have *quite* the same prejudices.
>

I recommend for your perusal Rudolf Bultmann's essay, "Is Presuppositionless
Exegesis Possible?"

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West

jwest@sunbelt.net

Back