Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Liberating Paul

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Daniel Grolin <dgrolin AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Liberating Paul
  • Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:01:04 +0000 (GMT)

Dear Kent,

Elliott is actually dealing with this passage within
his chapter called "The canonical betrayal of the
Apostle".

Regards,

Daniel


--- Kent Yinger <kent.yinger AT verizon.net> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> You wrote re. interpolation at 1 Cor 14:34-35 . . .
>
> > In his commentary, Fee makes as strong a case as
> can be made for the
> interpolation theory.
> >
> > But it is not a persuasive theory. There is no
> manuscript support for
> omitting 34-35.
>
> True, there is "no manuscript support" in the sense
> that no mss omit it
> here. However, if my memory serves me correctly (I'm
> not near my copy of
> Fee's commentary), Fee's argument as to external
> evidence revolves around a
> fair amount of unusual placement of the passage in
> various mss. While not
> firm evidence of omission, the alternate placements
> require some
> explanation, don't they? Fee's (and others')
> suggestions of an interpolation
> based largely on scribal tendencies seems at least
> as plausible to me as
> explanations suggested by others these other
> placements and, thus, for the
> original inclusion of vv 34-35 at this point in the
> text. As with so many
> matters, the persuasiveness of a theory remains in
> the eye of the beholder.
>
> >
> > Besides, claiming that this is an interpolation
> doesn't solve the problem
> about women's roles in the churches, because this is
> still the canonical
> text.
> >
>
> This one caught me by surprise ("still in the
> canonical text"). I take it
> that you are saying, "Even if 14:34-35 is an
> interpolation, it is still in
> the canonical text." I'm uncertain as to what you
> mean by "the canonical
> text." Rome resolved this with the Vulgate, but that
> doesn't satisfy most of
> us in the NT guild. If canonization was more-or-less
> concluded in the 3rd or
> 4th centuries, is that the text (which? Vaticanus?
> Alexandrinus? etc.) we
> are calling "canonical"? Help me understand what is
> "canonical text" for you
> in regard to Paul's letters. Thanks.
>
> Kent
>
>
> ***************
> Kent L. Yinger, Ph.D.
> Assoc. Prof. of NT
> George Fox University
> tel. 503-554-6156
> email: kyinger AT georgefox.edu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul
>



___________________________________________________________
Moving house? Beach bar in Thailand? New Wardrobe? Win £10k with Yahoo! Mail
to make your dream a reality.
Get Yahoo! Mail www.yahoo.co.uk/10k




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page