Subject: Re: Who practices TC (Was: Re: The function of TC)

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 08:32:33 -0500 (EST)

Andrew,
At 11:40 PM 1/25/97 +0900, you wrote:

>
>Actually a similar command was given to Timothy who was in Ephesus (1
>Tim 2:11-12).
>

This example, unlike the Corinthian case, does belong to an anti-woman
mentality.  The author of the Pastorals (not Paul!) had a gnostic bent which
spewed forth in his recommendation that women not be allowed to have any
authority over men.
Thus it is in no case "similar".

Which brings up an interesting point regarding Fee- why did he not attempt
to eliminate this verse on shaky text critical grounds as he did the passage
in Corinthians?

>-- 
>cheers,
>Andrew

Jim
Old Bultmannian and friend of D.F. Strauss
(not alive then, of course!)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West

[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 08:38:11 -0700

On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Jim West <[email-masked]> wrote:

[ ... ]

>>Actually a similar command was given to Timothy who was in Ephesus (1

[ ... ]

>to eliminate this verse on shaky text critical grounds as he did the passage

Well... shaky text critical grounds are not the same as *no* text-critical
grounds. At least the verse in Corinthians was transposed by a whole
text-type (the "Western"). As Aland has noted, such large changes
often indicate a confused text. Not confused enough to justify eliminating
the verses, of course.... :-)

But let's assume that there were some such evidence for eliminating
the passage in 1 Timothy. This might be another case where personal
bias comes in. An editor might think (I know *I* might -- one reason
why I try to have a fixed method) "This isn't by Paul; it's a fake.
And an editor might say anything; why should I consider *him*
inspired."

Sigh.

BTW -- Fee's attempt to set these verses aside occurs in his commentary
on 1 Corinthians. I don't have the commentary myself, but the footnotes
in Ehrman & Holmes locate the remarks on pp. 699-708.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: Andrew Kulikovsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 19:42:55 +0900

> Thus it is in no case "similar".

Sigh. Another example of historical criticism making absolutely
rediculous claims with no real historical evidence to support them -
forcing a passage to fit a particular interpreter's *theological*
presuppositions (and I emphasize theological - because they are
certainly not historical!).

You interpretation of the 1 Cor. passage is right but with 1 Tim 2 - I
think you're off the planet! If you read the passage in 1 Tim the reason
given (by PAUL!!! - try reading 1 Tim 1:1) for prohibiting women taking
on authority is the order of creation. Gnosticism? Are you for real?

The claim that Paul did not write 1 Tim is based on the acceptance of
pseudonimity. There are a number of ethical and historical problems with
this view which are well articulated by the likes of FF Bruce, D
Guthrie, JI Packer and BM Metzger. To apply pseudonimity to the New
Testament you would have to show 1. That it was actually practised and
2. That the New Testament writers practised it - something which has
been affirmed by many critics with not a drop of evidence, only
subjective and selective interpretation of the evidence or lack of it.

The Bible has shown itself to be historically accurate time and again so
if 1 Tim 1:1 says Paul was the author it only sensible to accept it as
so unless there is real evidence indicating otherwise. IN this case
there isn't.

The early church fathers not only didn't tolerate any hint of
pseudonimity (which is at best dishonest and at worst blatant
deception!) they actively and emphatically attacked it. (Ecclesiastical
History of Eusibius Pamphilius 6.12)

> (not alive then, of course!)

While Bultmann has contributed a little insight to NT study, there has
been many scholars who have shown his arguments to be illogical and his
historical claims to be nothing more than optimistic affirmations. The
majority of his work is pretty much worthless!
 
I am surprised that any thinking person would still go along with
anything he has said.

Although this has got a bit off topic, one lesson we can learn by all
this, is not to come up with theories that are devoid of evidence. Even
worse, is when we actually work to one of these theories! (like
pseudonimity!).

cheers,
Andrew

+---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS                   
|                                              
| Software Engineer (CelsiusTech Australia)
| & Theology Student (MA - Pacific College)
| Adelaide, Australia
| ph: +618 8281 0919  fax: +618 8281 6231
| email: [email-masked]
| 
| Check out my Biblical Hermeneutics web page:
| http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5948/hermeneutics.htm
|                                                            
| What's the point of gaining everything this world has  
| to offer, if you lose your own life in the end?          
|                                                          
|                                   ...Look to Jesus Ch