From: Larry Swain (swainl@rocky.edu)
Date: Fri Jul 03 1998 - 15:20:22 EDT
It is with some dismay that I read the responses to my attempt to clarify
issues. So let me again attempt to set things straight.
First, as to context-my original remarks were addressed to a line where
someone was apologizing for making a request about the meaning of a passage
and was concerned that it was "theological". My remarks were intended to
let that person and any others know that almost every question we ask and
address on this list in some way touches "theology" and interpretation, and
that there was no need to apologize or be wary of asking such questions.
Rather as long as the discussion centered on the Greek text, we were fine.
That was my intent, it seems to have the opposite affect.
Second, Ward, to you directly, I envy you. If you have had such positive
experiences then sir, my hat is off to you. It is what I would want this
list to be (and by and large is). However, I have been on the Internet
before there was an Internet, 13 years now, and I have seen a lot of
wounds. I have seen lists and newsgroups in the early days fall apart over
discussion of a theological issue. I have seen people doubt their faith
and their church and end up giving up both sparked by an online discussion.
I have seen people not contribute to lists in fear of being flamed. And
as Carl may recall about 3 years ago I was guilty of borderline behavior on
this list as well. Gracefully, he called me on it. So my concern is that
in the discussion of items such as the role of women in the church (our
Timothy passage) that once we stop discussing whether ANHR and GUNH can or
should be translated as husband/wife rather than generic man/woman and
begin discussing instead historical-critical models of the church, the role
of women in the early or modern church and so on, when those issues are
broached we have strayed away from the meaning of the Greek text to the
application of the text and open the way for hammer and tongs debate.
Because the major discussants on that issue are gracious, mature, academic
kind of folk, the Scylla and Charibdis danger was avoided and my fears
allaid.
Third, what does it mean to discuss the Greek text and its meaning? At
what point does that discussion become the doing of theology? That's a
gray area that can only be defined on a case by case basis and is going to
be difficult. But, the shift in the FAQ from NT studies in general to
specifically the import and meaning of the Greek text means that the focus
of this list is the Greek text. When dealing with a text, as we all know,
several other disciplines come into play-historical-critical, text
critical, redaction, social history, etc that are important to interpreting
a text and as Jonathan has remarked, they don't really belong on a list
which deals with the Greek of the Bible. 9.9 times out of 10 the original
question asked is fine, it is the later discussion of it that gets out of
hand.
As I reread this, I debate whether to post it. I hope to clarify, perhaps
by way of discussion, the issue we face-it is very grey at times and
perhaps the staff needs to discuss this online to try and get a sense for
when lines should be drawn. But I fear that just as my last post on this
list, my remarks will result in further obfuscation rather than
enlightenment.
Larry Swain
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to unsubscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:51 EDT