[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: [NO SUBJECT]
Larry asked me to forward this to the list:
>David Marotta, I fear that what I intended as a message to the list has
>been sent to you solely. Please be so kind as to send on my message to the
>entire list. Thanks for you help in conducting our dialogue in public.
>Larry Hurtado
David John Marotta, Medical Center Computing, Stacey Hall
Univ of Virginia (804) 982-3718 wrk INTERNET: djm5g@virginia.edu
Box 512 Med Cntr (804) 924-5261 msg BITNET: djm5g@virginia
C'ville VA 22908 (804) 296-7209 fax IBM US: usuvarg8
*** Forwarding note from SMTP --DMT03 10/15/92 12:09 ***
=========================================================================
Received: from Virginia.EDU by DMT03.mcc.Virginia.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R1)
with TCP; Thu, 15 Oct 92 12:09:09 EST
Received: from dmt03.mcc.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU id aa05762;
15 Oct 92 11:58 EDT
Received: from Virginia.EDU by DMT03.mcc.Virginia.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R1)
with TCP; Thu, 15 Oct 92 11:59:03 EST
Received: from gray.csi.cam.ac.uk by uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU id aa05004;
15 Oct 92 11:51 EDT
Received: from phx.cam.ac.uk by ppsw1.cam.ac.uk
with NIFTP (PP-6.0) Cambridge as ppsw.cam.ac.uk
id <05797-0@ppsw1.cam.ac.uk>; Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:46:38 +0100
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 16:46:28 BST
From: LWH11@phx.cam.ac.uk
To: David John Marotta <@dmt03.mcc.Virginia.EDU:djm5g@Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Re: [NO SUBJECT]
Message-ID: <A67248912A998E20@UK.AC.CAMBRIDGE.PHOENIX>
In-Reply-To: 19921014.153815.djm5g@Virginia.EDU
David Marotta kindly and patiently responded to my query about his
qualification
to reject out of hand "angels" as the meaning of "angeloi" in 1 Cor 11, (though
he didn't really answer my query--e.g., by telling us of his specific
training/qualifications to pronounce on the validity of scholarly analyses of
the NT). And I regret that he has the notion that the differences on the
list are between "liberals" and those with more traditional religious
convictions. I have the strong sense that the difference is often between
some list members with years of training and research background in the
historical investigation of the NT (which means taking seriously that the
NT docs. are first-century writings
) and others who have an intense religious interest, some ability to read
Koine Greek, and little more by way of preparation to engage the NT
historically. So, my earrlier query was Marotta's justification for
pronouncing this or
that exegesis of this or that NT text wrong. I still don't have an answer,
David.
The current discussion about Gal. 3 illustrates the situation. Marotta
confidently assumes that Paul has to read the OT the way Marotta thinks he
does, seeking "author's intent". I shall be brief. (1) Paul, with other
ancient Jews and Christians, saw the OT as word of GOD, the true "author",
so they didn't in fact approach the text the way people influenced by
modern values of "history" try to do. For Paul, the key to the "meaning" of
the Bible was the revelation of Jesus Christ, both in the events of Jesus'
ministry/crucifixion/resurrection and as further revealed to Paul and early
Christians (Paul's "many revelations and visions" of 2 Cor 11). Paul read
his OT totally through the "lens" of Christ (e.g., check out his use of
Deut. 25:4 in 1 Cor 9:9-10, where "God" is the "author" of the passage and
where Paul asserts without hesitation that the commandment has nothing to
do in fact with oxen but with Christian ministry!!).
(2) Marotta has in advance of reading Paul a list of right & wrong ways to
read the OT which he assumes are the same as Paul's rights & wrongs (assumes
a priori, without inductively determining the matter), and also assumes that
Paul can't do anything that would upset Marotta. I appreciate that this
probably springs from what is intended as respect for Paul, the OT etc., but
David, I suggest that it all amounts in fact to a tyranny over Paul and the
Bible. You determine in advance what Paul can or cannot have done (to meet
your tastes) and then feed Paul into your tastes. Let Paul be Paul!
Let all ancient writers be themselves. Let God be free to have used whomever
and whatever types of literature, methods of exegesis, etc., God in fact used.
And how do we determine what God in fact used? We approach the texts humbly
and respecting their historical setting; we try to determine their character-
isticss the same way we would any other writings from another time & place;
we understand the language and practices in the light of the language and
practices of the writing's setting--and then we have a good idea of what it
was that God used.
My earlier query to David Marotta was not intended to silence him or to put
him down, but to bring him up short. I'm a professional scholar (and I'm also
guilty of being a Christian of relatively traditional faith). But I don't
require fawning or acceptance of my statements in authoritarian fashion. I
do, however, expect that somebody who challenges my views or the views of
other scholars has "the goods". An honest question such as "How do you
reach that conclusion; I can't see it." Fine. But, though the Internet
may allow people of various backgrounds to express themselves freely, their
expressions are not necessarily of the same value and validity as far as
determining the historical meaning of a text is concerned.
One final illustration of scholarly procedure, David. In determining the
meaning of "angeloi" in 1 Cor 11, it is far more important to gather up
how PAUL uses "angelos" and "angeloi" in his own writings, then how other
contemporary Christians used the term, then how other contemporary Jews
used the term, and then how the LXX uses the term. One does not take a
single instance of TRANSLATION GREEK (e.g., your citation of Hag. 1:13) as
a basis for pronouncing on Paul's meaning of "angeloi" in 1 Cor. 11.
That is why I asked what you have read about (1) Jewish angelology of the
first century, (2) Paul's angelology (e.g., G. B. Caird, PRINCIPALITIES &
POWERS; W. Carr's more recent study), (3) angelology of early Christianity.
Suffice this. I hope the list will accept this frank discussion as
springing from a concern for clarity and productive interchange, and will
accept my avowal that I bear no animus to David Marotta. Blessings.
Larry Hurtado, Robinson College, Cambridge, England (lwh11@phx.cam.ac.uk)