Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: conan@sizzlean.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: St Paul and Women Message-ID: Date: 23 Jun 91 01:32:04 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department. Lines: 45 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu (John Graves) writes: > >According to Dr. Jeffrey Hopper, Professor of Theology at the Methodist >Theological School in Delaware, Ohio, in his textbook, Understanding >Modern Theology I: Cultural Revolutions and & New Worlds, > > ...Careful examination has convincingly shown that Hebrews, 1 and >2 Timothy, and Titus cannot have been written by Paul, and many scholars >are persuaded that Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians must also be >designated as Deutero-Pauline (that is, written by someone else in the >tradition of Pauline teaching). The factors involved in these judgments >(and the arguments and counterarguments) are quite complex. They include >differences in language, style, and theological teaching, and indications >of later circumstances, such as the assumption of the postapostolic church >order evident in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. (p. 149) > >In other words, this letter to Timothy may have been an attempt by a >postapostolic church which was dominated by men, to serve as a foundation >for maintaining their positions. If so, it is an apostasy forced on the >Christian community in its choice as canon under a forgery of Paul's name. I wanted to comment on this post since it brings to a head many of the difficulties I have with modern scripture scholarship. I have read only small amounts of critical scholarship on the authorship of the Pauline epistles--my general reaction has been negative, as the authors seem to be piling large conclusions onto the backs of very small bits of information. I do admit, however, that I have not read enough to make a reasonable judgement. What bothers me the most however, is that this scholarship is then used to "edit" the Bible to support particular conclusions. To wit, the above argument: 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are, in effect, thrown out of the Bible as "heresy" because they do not support a particular conclusion. Before I am deluged by rebuttal's, let me acknowledge that traditional scholarship is guilty of a similar crime--ignoring certain passages and themes because they do not support a given line of thought. But my enemy's crime in no way justifies my own. I would appreciate any thoughts which could help me clarify my thinking on this issue. Yours in Christ,