Subject: Re: NT Interpolations - request for help.

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 96 07:47 CDT

On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Jeremy Duff <[email-masked]> 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 appreciated.

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
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 96 21:58:57

In <v02140b00addc2ebcf5aa@[199.86.33.110]>, on 06/06/96 
   at 07:47 AM, [email-masked] (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
---<[email-masked]> 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
---appreciated.

---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
[email-masked]

-- 
Respond to Jim at the following address
----------------------------------------------------
[email-masked]

-----------------------------------------------------------