From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Fri Jul 03 1998 - 17:16:11 EDT
I am grateful to Larry for what he has written here. He understands very
well the thinking underlying what I wrote early this week about the
spill-over of the questions on 1 Timothy into discussion of the NT doctrine
of the EKKLHSIA and NT teaching on the place of women. If it's been
forgotten, I'll simply repeat: I said that our discussions are more
fruitful when we confine discussion to the Greek text of specific passages
rather than endeavor to interpret large chunks (often, it turns out, with
very little reference to the Greek text thereof) or when we attempt to draw
out the BROADER THEOLOGICAL implications that we as individuals read in the
particular Greek text. We can come, usually even if not always, to some
sort of consensus on what the Greek text itself actually MEANS, but the
interpretation gets into a number of background areas, and most
particularly, it very quickly gets into hermeneutics, where different
list-members espouse very different assumptions.
One reason that Larry understands that thinking is that, although he writes
in his own person without making any claim of authority, he has been a
member of the B-Greek staff since it was first appointed by David Marotta
in October of 1996 and he participated in our discussions of Netiquette
then.
At 3:20 PM -0400 7/03/98, Larry Swain wrote:
>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.
Carl W. Conrad
Co-Chair, B-Greek List
Department of Classics, Washington University
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
--- 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