Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza wrote a couple commentaries, and I would like to have her commentaries avaliable in the Logos format.
I respectfully disagree. Since this is not the forum for theological debate, I will resist the temptation for in depth disputation. Readers can research her beliefs and come to their own conclusions.
God Bless
Mark
Proposed translation: Only read those things you agree with. I would disrespectfully disagree with you. Not that I have anything against you, but I don't respect that view. You should especially read those with whom you disagree.
Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.
Interesting to read but I doubt I would pay money to read it. Since there are already too many titles I would love to read again and again, I would probably consult this one at the library and only when I am curious how the feminists come up with their views.
I am already happily married to a truly feminine and godly woman. I would rather incline mine ear toward her.
Interesting to read but I doubt I would pay money to read it. Since there are already too many titles I would love to read again ad again, I would probably consult this one at the library and only when I am curious how the feminists come up with their views. I am already happily married to a truly feminine and godly woman. I would rather incline mine ear toward her.
Interesting to read but I doubt I would pay money to read it. Since there are already too many titles I would love to read again ad again, I would probably consult this one at the library and only when I am curious how the feminists come up with their views.
Well said Matthew. I will also strongly but respectfully disagree on Fiorenza making it into Logos, i agree with Mark.
Sir T.
I respectfully disagree. Since this is not the forum for theological debate, I will resist the temptation for in depth disputation. Readers can research her beliefs and come to their own conclusions. Proposed translation: Only read those things you agree with. I would disrespectfully disagree with you. Not that I have anything against you, but I don't respect that view. You should especially read those with whom you disagree. Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.
Hi George,
I wish you would take your own advise & give the ............. point of view some serious thought[:D]
I wish you would take your own advise & give the ............. point of view some serious thought
Would you care to fill in the blank? What would that be? The feminist viewpoint? The Muslim viewpoint? The Dumb Old Rat viewpoint?
Personally, I would rather that Bob P. using Adam Smith's "invisible hand" determine what gets published on Logos.
I can then filter what does or does not load onto my computer.
FYI, I did a search of my Logos library and got 37 hits for her name. There are several book reviews and other mentions, but nothing written by her. Here is the paragrah that mentions her from "The Dictionary of Christianity in America" "A number of women have taken prominent theological roles both within the churches and the academe. Feminist theology—critical theological reflection carried out from a distinctly feminine perspective—has become a recognized theological movement among both Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians. Rosemary Radford Ruether and Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza have achieved prominence within this diverse movement that in some expressions has become confessedly non-Christian." Also, here is a paragraph from a review "Faith and Mision" vol 2, of Fiorenza's book "In Memory of Her" in which Fiorenza attempts to reconstruct the leadership roles of women in the early church that were suppressed by the male dominated culture. "In moving to the pre-Pauline missionary movement, Fiorenza argues women’s apostolic and ministerial leadership. She locates Paul within an ongoing and diversified Christian mission built out of house churches supported, organized, and led by women. Using “evidence from Pauline and post-Pauline literature, as well as Mark and John, Fiorenza demonstrates that Galatians 3:28, rather than being original with Paul, is the moment when he most accurately reflects the actual praxis of the early churches. She shows that the biblical witness to women’s involvement as deacons, apostles, and missionaries is steadily down-played by the efforts of the canonical writers to make the texts palatable to the dominant, non-Christian ethos. For example, diakonos becomes deaconess in reference to women and Acts emphasizes women as wealthy patrons while neglecting them as missionaries. Chapter Seven follows the trajectory of Christian patriarchy which begins with Paul’s modifications of the Galatians passage. The results, Fiorenza argues, are closer to Jewish religious and biological distinctions, the Greco-Roman ethos, and the pagan household than the radical discipleship of Jesus. Concern for decorum and good citizenship categorically revised the politically intrusive movement which led to the cross."
Yucch!!!!
Yours in Christ
John
Personally, I would rather that Bob P. using Adam Smith's "invisible hand" determine what gets published on Logos. I can then filter what does or does not load onto my computer.
And all the people said, "Amen!"
Yucch!!!! Yours in Christ
Does your wife know you feel this way about women?
I wish you would take your own advise & give the ............. point of view some serious thought Would you care to fill in the blank? What would that be? The feminist viewpoint? The Muslim viewpoint? The Dumb Old Rat viewpoint?
George, you know what i mean the Evangelical perspective. The view that holds that the bible is the inerrant & infallible Word of God, which is without error in all that it teaches on Geography ,history,culture, custom, theology etc.
Do try and be gracious in your response.[;)]
Thanks Joe for the search in your Logos Library nothing further needs to be said about Fiorenza.
I have been spending a lot of my time reading interesting stuff on your website & your interview with the author of the Shack was an eye opener. He was very orthodox in his interview with you but i am not sure how he could have gone wrong in his Novel. Of course not all he said was wrong in his Novel but some things were troubling.
Kind Regards,
Ted.
You are welcome for the post and thanks for the kudos. Glad you dug the interview with Paul Young.
Yucch!!!! Yours in Christ Does your wife know you feel this way about women?
I don't have a wife and don't be obtuse. You know perfectly well that the remark has nothing to do with feelings about women.
You know perfectly well that the remark has nothing to do with feelings about women.
What then?
I don't have a wife
I must be confusing you with Smiley.
You know perfectly well that the remark has nothing to do with feelings about women. What then?
Do you really want to get into this?
It's about modern day, self exalting political agendas trying to infect Christian doctrine by projecting conspiracy theories on ancient peoples. In fact, if the message that has been passed down to us was tainted from the beginning by egocentric prejudices then the whole thing is a sham. You can't root through it and make corrections, I don't care how keen and/or knowledgable you are. If any part of it is insincere then there is no way that you can trust any of it to be sincere because there is no possibility of a tool or algorithm to measure that sincerity.
If you are someone who is only interested in worldly exaltation then none of that matters. A weak philosophy is just as capable of supporting a shallow world of robes, grand cathedrals and gold chalices as a real church. The real church, on the other hand, is really only supported by the word of God and the faith of its members. If that word can't be trusted then there is no real church. Only a bunch of hoodwinked fools.
Well, I happen to know that the word of God is true, sincere and authoritative. It can't be knocked down by Jesus Seminars, liberation groups or any other power seeking schemes that seek to highjack it to their own ends. However, whenever I see attempts to do so it always makes me go "Yucch". That's because even though the word of God is crystal clear, the murkiness of the world around us and our own weaknesses that prevent us from seeking to live above the chaos causes our vision to be less than clear.
As far as I'm concerned women and men are pretty much the same. Flawed humans who can choose to seek humble servitude in Christ's Kingdom or sell their souls to the pursuit of worldly rewards. I just think that if you choose the later (which is, of course, your right) and you think you need a religion to decorate your facade then you should pick one of the pagan varieties. They have a lot more colorful fluff to offer and they don't require tons and tons of backpedalling and equivocation of doctrine along the way. Besides, I have a feeling that it's a lot safer to devote oneself to paganism than it is to pretend Christianity and try and doctor scripture to ones own selfish ends.
It's about modern day, self exalting political agendas trying to infect Christian doctrine by projecting conspiracy theories on ancient peoples.
I assume that since you say "It's all about ..." that the rest of this somehow is related to this. I fail to see, however, what this has to do with whether the works of ESF should appear in Logos. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Are we about to institute a McComb Index of Prohibited Books?
Gettin' pretty heated, guys.
George, if I've been following this correctly, I think you asked John what in fact his "yuchh" was there, for.
I think he has explained it.
Wouldn't it be best to just leave it there?
It's about modern day, self exalting political agendas trying to infect Christian doctrine by projecting conspiracy theories on ancient peoples. I assume that since you say "It's all about ..." that the rest of this somehow is related to this. I fail to see, however, what this has to do with whether the works of ESF should appear in Logos. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Are we about to institute a McComb Index of Prohibited Books?
What on earth are you talking about? Joe Miller posted a couple of excerpts that explained a bit about the theology of this Fiorenza woman and I responded "Yucch". The only place where the word "yucch" implies any opinion at all about what Logos should or shouldn't publish is in your rather (uhhhh, let's call it 'interesting') imagination.
Logos can publish whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. Moreover, you can buy it and read it 20 times over if that's what you want to do. You won't hear any complaints from me.
It's about modern day, self exalting political agendas trying to infect Christian doctrine by projecting conspiracy theories on ancient peoples. In fact, if the message that has been passed down to us was tainted from the beginning by egocentric prejudices then the whole thing is a sham. You can't root through it and make corrections, I don't care how keen and/or knowledgable you are. If any part of it is insincere then there is no way that you can trust any of it to be sincere because there is no possibility of a tool or algorithm to measure that sincerity. If you are someone who is only interested in worldly exaltation then none of that matters. A weak philosophy is just as capable of supporting a shallow world of robes, grand cathedrals and gold chalices as a real church. The real church, on the other hand, is really only supported by the word of God and the faith of its members. If that word can't be trusted then there is no real church. Only a bunch of hoodwinked fools. Well, I happen to know that the word of God is true, sincere and authoritative. It can't be knocked down by Jesus Seminars, liberation groups or any other power seeking schemes that seek to highjack it to their own ends. However, whenever I see attempts to do so it always makes me go "Yucch". That's because even though the word of God is crystal clear, the murkiness of the world around us and our own weaknesses that prevent us from seeking to live above the chaos causes our vision to be less than clear. As far as I'm concerned women and men are pretty much the same. Flawed humans who can choose to seek humble servitude in Christ's Kingdom or sell their souls to the pursuit of worldly rewards. I just think that if you choose the later (which is, of course, your right) and you think you need a religion to decorate your facade then you should pick one of the pagan varieties. They have a lot more colorful fluff to offer and they don't require tons and tons of backpedalling and equivocation of doctrine along the way. Besides, I have a feeling that it's a lot safer to devote oneself to paganism than it is to pretend Christianity and try and doctor scripture to ones own selfish ends. Yours in Christ John
Very good summary [Y]
I think he has explained it. Wouldn't it be best to just leave it there?
I don't really think he explained anything. What he did was to give me a bunch of double-talk which seems to have no bearing on the issue.
Wow, I did not mean to stir up a bee's nest here.
As Joe Miller quoted from The Dictionary of Christianity in America
""A number of women have taken prominent theological roles both within the churches and the academe. Feminist theology-critical theological reflection carried out from a distinctly feminine perspective-has become a recognized theological movement among both Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians. Rosemary Radford Ruether and Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza have achieved prominence within this diverse movement that in some expressions has become confessedly non-Christian."
Note: This quote states "some expressions" believe that "this diverse movement" falls out of the Christian teachings.
While I do not want to get into a debate of what is a "Christian teaching" and what is not (this debate will fall into what denomination has the 'correct' teachings), it is safe to say that some expressions of Christianity will say that "this diverse movement" does conform to Christian doctrine.
Because some people do believe that feminist theology - liberation does conform to Christian doctrine, I believe that this is one reason why we should read and have her items available in Logos.
I have read some of Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza's writings, and I have found out that I agree with some of the points she makes and I disagree with other points she makes (just like I agree with and disagree with other authors). I do know one thing, I learn from reading her books.
I could not agree more with George when he said,
You should especially read those with whom you disagree.
Not only do we learn why someone believes the way they do, it helps us in our own understanding. I also believe that it is by reading and listening to people who we disagree with that we can the errors in our logic / theology.
This why I would love to have commentaries written by Fiorenza and others who hold to feminist theology, liberation theology, . . .
I could not agree more with George when he said, You should especially read those with whom you disagree. Not only do we learn why someone believes the way they do, it helps us in our own understanding. I also believe that it is by reading and listening to people who we disagree with that we can the errors in our logic / theology. This why I would love to have commentaries written by Fiorenza and others who hold to feminist theology, liberation theology, . . .
I agree also with George it is good to read something we don't agree with, but IMHO it make sense in the situation when I see I can be enriched by the opposite opinion. I have an opinion, but who knows, may be they will say something what can adjust my point of view. I want to learn, to grow etc.
I am sorry to say however, that it does not apply IMHO to the certain ideologies I know they are just wrong and I don't want to learn from them anything. Communism is an example, not to speak too close to the subject. I would rather put my money into some resources I can benefit from because there is a chance they might be right and I can be wrong. That is just my little 2 cents.
I am sorry to say however, that it does not apply IMHO to the certain ideologies I know they are just wrong and I don't want to learn from them anything.
hmmm, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I believe that there are only a few "things" in this world that are completly just completely wrong. Even with these "things" that are completely wrong, we can still learn from them. Therefore, I do believe that we need to read/listen/understand the items that we do not agree with or believe to be wrong.
I would rather put my money into some resources I can benefit from because there is a chance they might be right and I can be wrong.
If you do not want material from Fiorenza, then you do not have to purchase the material.
I do want to learn from people who have a different point of view. Thus, I want to have recourses by people like Fiorenza.
I am sorry to say however, that it does not apply IMHO to the certain ideologies I know they are just wrong and I don't want to learn from them anything. hmmm, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I believe that there are only a few "things" in this world that are completly just completely wrong. Even with these "things" that are completely wrong, we can still learn from them. Therefore, I do believe that we need to read/listen/understand the items that we do not agree with or believe to be wrong. I would rather put my money into some resources I can benefit from because there is a chance they might be right and I can be wrong. If you do not want material from Fiorenza, then you do not have to purchase the material. I do want to learn from people who have a different point of view. Thus, I want to have recourses by people like Fiorenza.
To put it simply, what I read has boundaries. Since my time is limited and my finances are limited, I have to use both wisely. I read the things obviously wrong only if I have to do a research concerning the given subject. May be if I have as much time as Methuselah had, I would be free to read just anything. I read all the time, but it just takes time... There is also another aspect to it. IMHO what I read I know it influences me. I want to be wise what I allow to influence me. I know there are people who think they can absorb any idea and stay untouched by that. I am not that naive.
I respect however your opinion and understand it very well. Have a great day.
I understand were George in his view and others in their view are coming from.
I guess when the original poster said he wanted these I took that to mean that he saw "Orthodox Christian" beliefs being put forth in them and that's why he wanted them. Maybe a wrong assumption on my part.
I have no problem with having the "other" kind of resources available in Logos because I agree with George, it's a must that you are at least "familiar" with the opposite point of view.
Personally, I'd LOVE to have a Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and a Pearl of Great Price and a copy of the Watchtower Interlinear Bible available...that would be great...but the difference between LDS or JW materials and these commentaries is that we all understand that the LDS and JW materials are not Christian materials, whereas some other things like the New Perspective stuff or these kings of things might not be as easy to spot.
Edited to add: And I'd hate to spend a ton of cash on a commentary or something only to find out once I got into it that it's unorthodox...
All in all It's a thorny issue.
PS: note to George: I also understand why people don't want to read commentaries that are antithetical to a certain viewpoint. It's not being close minded, it's being true to what you believe to be the truth about a particular issue.
Example: personally I'm familiar with the Calvinist/Arminian view point on things and it drives me up a wall while reading through an Arminian commentary to have to wade through the same old tired points that have been soundly refuted for 300 years before I was born.
There are several reasons why these feminist resources should be published in Logos format.
- Fiorenza is a recognized voice and leader in this area of feminist/liberation theology. She is regularly quoted in magazines and resources in Logos such as the Magazine by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. It would be good to see the full context for the passages in which Fiorenza is quoted by her detractors.
- For anyone attending a seminary or doing PhD work as a rebuttal against feminist theology, this resource would provide an invaluabel research tool in the Logos library format.
- For anyone who supports Fiorenza, the Logos format would be a huge conveniance.
- Jimmy Carter recently came out and denounced his lifelong association with the Southern Baptist Convention. His rationale is steeped in the feminist ideology of Fiorenza. Hiding from the influence of this theology is not helpful and addressing the issues brought up by Carter.
-This resource could be a help to any pastor who in engaged in meaningful discussions with their congregation about the influence of feminist theology. Having primary source knowledge of the issues being discussed by our younger generations, is very valuable.
- Finally, Logos is supposed to be a LIBRARY system on our computers. Libraries contain a breadth of knowledge on many subjects. Libraries do not endorse content, they simply contain it. The idea that somehow because a book is published for use in a Library is going to mislead people seems rather arcane.
Hello Robert,
Just to let you know, I am the original poster, and the reason that I would love to have feminist/liberation resources is because they do not fall into what some people would say orthodox Christianity.
FYI... I believe what St. Augustine wrote about and said during the 5th century was a good explanation for the 5th century church, but we do not live in the 5th century. What St. Augustine said and wrote is not part of our cannon. Therefore, the teachings of St. Augustine should be treated as 5th century teachings, and not as the 67th book of the Bible. Therefore, I am not afraid to take a position that some people will call unorthodox.
Tom,
No problem but I'm at a loss as to why we'd be talking about Augustine??
Not everything written about Christianity is Orthodox..I agree...and the church fathers are no exception.
BUT...
If we are having a hard time defining what orthodoxy is then we are in a heap o trouble!
Quoting Joe Miller:
- Finally, Logos is supposed to be a LIBRARY system on our computers. Libraries contain a breadth of knowledge on many subjects. Librariesdo not endorse content, they simply contain it. The idea that somehowbecause a book is published for use in a Library is going to misleadpeople seems rather arcane.
Fully agreed...I stand corrected if I differed on this.
But my comment about this particular resource would still echo John's [:(]
There is no trouble defining orthodoxy.
knows that it is
[:D]
What St. Augustine said and wrote is not part of our cannon. Therefore, the teachings of St. Augustine should be treated as 5th century teachings, and not as the 67th book of the Bible. Therefore, I am not afraid to take a position that some people will call unorthodox.
St. Augustine did not take the Apostle Paul to task claiming God had said one thing to Paul but Paul didn't like it so Paul changed it to suit his personal bias against females. If you believe the Canon of scripture is more important than what Augustine wrote then you should take issue with the non-canonical writings of Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza that claim the Apostles corrupted God's true message.
I still have no objection to her writings being made available in Logos. I do however question the whole foundation of her belief system. If you are going to cast aspersions on the canon, why not question the parts that teach love for ladies?
If we are having a hard time defining what orthodoxy is then we are in a heap o trouble! There is no trouble defining orthodoxy. Everyone knows that it is what I believe.
Ha, than I am afraid, I am not orthodox, according to this criteria. [:(] ...but here I stand... [H]
George, what a mess you have created in this thread with your alarming honesty and sharp insight. Sigh...you are my hero!
George is your hero? [:S] Now, I am afraid!
George is your hero? Now, I am afraid!
Yes, be
afraid!
Yucch!!!
Tom, No problem but I'm at a loss as to why we'd be talking about Augustine?? Not everything written about Christianity is Orthodox..I agree...and the church fathers are no exception. BUT... If we are having a hard time defining what orthodoxy is then we are in a heap o trouble!
Hi Robert,
The reason why I brought St. Augustine into thisconversation is because so much of our theology is built on what he said 1600years ago. For an example, I do notbelieve original sin is the first documented case of an STD.
What is orthodoxy? Every denomination has its own version of orthodoxy. Thus, we are not going to agree with what isorthodoxy. Then again, we could just askGeorge ;-)
Matthew,
In my previous post, I said St. Augustine provided thechurch with good theological understanding of God for the 5th centurychurch. St. Augustine formed histheology by using what was known and understood at the time.
We are living during the 21st century, not the 5th. Thanks to God, our understanding of theuniverse, the environment, and our bodies has improved tremendously over the1600 years.
When it comes to our scripture, we now know how it has been editedover the years. For example, we read inthe footnotes of our Bibles things like "most ancient authorities lack. . ." One example is John 7:53-8:11,and another text critical example is the phrase "in Ephesus" being added to Eph 1:1.
Another example of our knowledge about our scripturechanging can be seen in the pastoral letters 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholars believe that the (human) author ofthese letters are considered "inauthentic [not Paul], and that they are at besta later and derivative testimony to genuine Pauline theology" (Luke TimothyJohnson and Todd C. Penner, The Writings of the New Testament, 423).
We know these things by using the methods that other fields ofstudy (like criminal justice) have been using for years before biblical scholarsapplied them to the Holy Bible.
Does this take the authority away from the Bible knowingthat Paul did not write 1 Timothy or that the text has been edited over theyears, no. Knowing the history of ourscripture keeps our feet on the ground and our heads from becoming toobig. Knowing the history of ourscripture helps us to understand what a loving God we worship and serve.
We all have heard some ridiculous claims that people havemade concerning our Bible. For anexample, I once heard someone say that God is the one who wrote the Bible, andGod put every period and comma right where God wanted them. It is very obvious that this person only readone English version of the Bible, and he had no knowledge of the original Greektext, where they did not use things like periods, commas, or even spacesbetween words.
Does this mean, using the gifts and tools God has given usin the 21st century, that our theology is going to change, yes. I think this is a good thing because we areusing all of the gifts that God has given us to know God better. In the next couple of hundred years, ourknowledge is going to continue to change, and thus our theology is going to continueto change.
[quote]Another example of our knowledge about our scripturechanging can be seen in the pastoral letters 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholars believe that the (human) author ofthese letters are considered "inauthentic [not Paul], and that they are at besta later and derivative testimony to genuine Pauline theology" (Luke TimothyJohnson and Todd C. Penner, The Writings of the New Testament, 423).
And I believe that these "mystery scholars" are dead wrong.
[quote] "When it comes to scripture we now know how it's been edited over the years
Yes, we do...and it doesn't get any more reliable than the scriptures.
And PLEASE don't trot out the Pericope Adulterae as some sort of an example of distortion of the bible text...it's neither new nor is it a concern. If you're going to be radically skeptical of this particular ancient document, you're going to have to do a lot better than that.
And i'm curious; do you have this level of skeptism for any OTHER historical document?
Another example of our knowledge about our scripture changing can be seen in the pastoral letters 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholars believe that the (human) author of these letters are considered "inauthentic [not Paul], and that they are at best a later and derivative testimony to genuine Pauline theology" (Luke Timothy Johnson and Todd C. Penner, The Writings of the New Testament, 423). We know these things by using the methods that other fields of study (like criminal justice) have been using for years before biblical scholars applied them to the Holy Bible. Does this take the authority away from the Bible knowing that Paul did not write 1 Timothy or that the text has been edited over the years, no. Knowing the history of our scripture keeps our feet on the ground and our heads from becoming too big. Knowing the history of our scripture helps us to understand what a loving God we worship and serve.
Another example of our knowledge about our scripture changing can be seen in the pastoral letters 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholars believe that the (human) author of these letters are considered "inauthentic [not Paul], and that they are at best a later and derivative testimony to genuine Pauline theology" (Luke Timothy Johnson and Todd C. Penner, The Writings of the New Testament, 423).
We know these things by using the methods that other fields of study (like criminal justice) have been using for years before biblical scholars applied them to the Holy Bible.
Does this take the authority away from the Bible knowing that Paul did not write 1 Timothy or that the text has been edited over the years, no. Knowing the history of our scripture keeps our feet on the ground and our heads from becoming too big. Knowing the history of our scripture helps us to understand what a loving God we worship and serve.
I promised myself that I would stay away from theological discussions
In the words of Michael Corleone: “Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.”
Tom Collinge said:
“Another example of our knowledge about our scripture changing can be seen in the pastoral letters 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholars believe that the (human) author of these letters are considered "inauthentic [not Paul], and that they are at best a later and derivative testimony to genuine Pauline theology" (Luke Timothy Johnson and Todd C. Penner, The Writings of the New Testament, 423).”
The above quote got my attention. It gives the impression that the “pseudonymous” nature of the Pastoral Epistles is a foregone conclusion in the world of scholarship.
It is true to the majority of critical scholars hold to that view but the vast majority of evangelical scholars would disagree (i.e. Mounce’s WBC, Knight’s NIGTC, Fee’s NIBC, Belleville and Laansma in CBC, Kostenberger in EBC rev). Even some critical scholars like J. N. D. Kelly in BNTC maintains that the traditional view which upholds Pauline authorship is to be preferred based on the preponderance of evidence.
Even Luke Timothy Johnson’s take (quoted by Tom above) when read in its full context concedes that the case is far from being closed because “Even those who are not absolutely convinced that the letters come directly from Paul find unconvincing many of the reasons given for assigning their [the Pastoral Epistles] composition to a later Pauline forger” The Writings of the New Testament, 423.
The “assured results of critical scholarship” do not appear to be so solid when one actually looks at the evidence (or the absence thereof)
The arguments based on manuscript evidence (P46) and the silences of Acts are weak at best and are easily countered. The theological arguments are arbitrary while the stylistic objections could easily been explained by the use of an amanuensis or alternatively by Paul having to write without one.
In order to conclude that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous one must disregard the evidence from the earlier church claiming the contrary (the Muratorian Canon (c. 150); Irenaeus (c. 175) in Her. 3.3.3; Clement of Alexandria (c. 200) in Stromata 2.11).
The claim that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous flies in the face of the internal and external evidence in support of the letter. Some scholars like Philip Towner following Howard Marshall argue that allonymity might be a better concept than pseudonymity since it escapes the critical allegations of deception and falsehood by proposing that a student or follower of Paul edited his notes or assumed his mantle to address issues facing later generation (NICNT, 25-26) However, the only examples close to the time of Paul as found in the philosophical schools and considerably differ from the autobiographical and personal character of the Pastoral Epistles making it very difficult to escape the charge of fraud and dishonesty.
This brings me back to the following claim by Tom:
“Does this take the authority away from the Bible knowing that Paul did not write 1 Timothy or that the text has been edited over the years, no. Knowing the history of our scripture keeps our feet on the ground and our heads from becoming too big. Knowing the history of our scripture helps us to understand what a loving God we worship and serve. ”
I just finished tracing overall argument of each of the Pastoral Epistles, if the letters were nothing than pious frauds, they would nullify the point that the writer is trying to drive home; especially the need for Timothy and Titus to sharply differentiate themselves from the false teachers that are upsetting the churches in their way to ruin and destruction.
He denounces those who are liars, those who swear falsely (1 Tim 1:10)
A few verses later he emphatically declares:
“For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle– I am telling the truth; I am not lying– and a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. (1Ti 2:7 NET)”
He continues by describing the heretics as “hypocrites, liars, with a seared conscience”
In 2 Tim 3:13 he castigates the false teachers as “imposters” who are proceeding “from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. (2Ti 3:13)”
In Titus he asks Titus to be on guard against “deceivers” and “liars” (Titus 1:10-12)
This is to be contrasted with the insistence on truth and integrity throughout
The goal is to have “a sound message that cannot be criticized, so that any opponent will be at a loss, because he has nothing evil to say about us. (Tit 2:8 NET)”
The message of the Pastoral Epistles would be discredited if the letters were found to be a mere forgery, even a pious forgery. Just like an unrepentant adulterer does not have the moral authority to preach against adultery, a habitual liar does not have the moral authority to ask people to have integrity, preach the truth, and keep a good conscience.
It was true in the first century, it is still true today
Mounce states “The real question is whether the church recognized and accepted false letters that they knew to be pseudepigraphical… It is one thing to write a book and claim someone wrote it (e.g., 1 Enoch , in the name of one who had been dead for thousands of years); it is another to write a personal letter filled with personal and historical references and claim it was written by someone in the recent past” (Pastoral Epistles WBC vol 46, cxxiv)
If pious forgeries were acceptable in the earlier church, none of the church fathers seemed to have received the memo, au contraire, the authenticity of a letter and apostolicity was key for its incorporation into the Canon.
If the Pastoral Epistles are fake, the only consistent position is that of Stanley Porter: they should not be regarded as canonical because they are not Pauline (BBR 6, 105-23)
they would be pious garbage worthy of an equally pious trash can... and the joke would be on us
Alain
In my previous post, I said St. Augustine provided the church with good theological understanding of God for the 5th century church. St. Augustine formed his theology by using what was known and understood at the time. We are living during the 21st century, not the 5th. Thanks to God, our understanding of the universe, the environment, and our bodies has improved tremendously over the 1600 years.
In my previous post, I said St. Augustine provided the church with good theological understanding of God for the 5th century church. St. Augustine formed his theology by using what was known and understood at the time.
We are living during the 21st century, not the 5th. Thanks to God, our understanding of the universe, the environment, and our bodies has improved tremendously over the 1600 years.
So, you are assuming E.S. Fiorenza & you have all he facts, all the understanding and all the wisdom.....Hmmm, I disagree,
Although I am not Catholic and only adhere to the Bible, I can comfortably say St. Augustine, at 1600 years in the grave, is miles closer to the truth of God than your method of scholarship will ever get you. The method you espouse is nothing other than Darwinism, believing you are just improving with age. It was not very long ago when the "wise" of this world said the Hittites could never have existed because WE don't have evidence of them. Zoologists told us the Bible was mistaken saying a rabbit chews it's cud. And the examples can go on all day.
Another example of our knowledge about our scripture changing can be seen in the pastoral letters 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholars believe that the (human) author of these letters are considered "inauthentic [not Paul], and that they are at best a later and derivative testimony to genuine Pauline theology" (Luke Timothy Johnson and Todd C. Penner, The Writings of the New Testament, 423). We know these things by using the methods that other fields of study (like criminal justice) have been using for years before biblical scholars applied them to the Holy Bible.
"Scholars" believe a lot of stuff even when it contradicts the stuff they already believe. And we all know, no innocent person has ever been convicted by forensics [*-)] (Good tools in the hands of fools can do a lot of harm, to the fools with the tools & those who trust the fools.)
In the next couple of hundred years, our knowledge is going to continue to change, and thus our theology is going to continue to change.
So here you are admitting you do not currently have the truth and what you believe will definitely change in a few centuries! How do you expect to be taken seriously. You ask us to believe you when you believe you are already wrong. Your self-serving philosophy isn't serving you very well.
If the Pastoral Epistles are fake, the only consistent position is that of Stanley Porter: they should not be regarded as canonical because they are not Pauline (BBR 6, 105-23) they would be pious garbage worthy of an equally pious trash can... and the joke would be on us
Thanks for the advice. On your recommendation I just ripped them out of my bible.
I promised myself that I would stay away from theological discussions In the words of Michael Corleone: “Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.” Tom Collinge said: “Another example of our knowledge about our scripture changing can be seen in the pastoral letters 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholars believe that the (human) author of these letters are considered "inauthentic [not Paul], and that they are at best a later and derivative testimony to genuine Pauline theology" (Luke Timothy Johnson and Todd C. Penner, The Writings of the New Testament, 423).” The above quote got my attention. It gives the impression that the “pseudonymous” nature of the Pastoral Epistles is a foregone conclusion in the world of scholarship. It is true to the majority of critical scholars hold to that view but the vast majority of evangelical scholars would disagree (i.e. Mounce’s WBC, Knight’s NIGTC, Fee’s NIBC, Belleville and Laansma in CBC, Kostenberger in EBC rev). Even some critical scholars like J. N. D. Kelly in BNTC maintains that the traditional view which upholds Pauline authorship is to be preferred based on the preponderance of evidence. Even Luke Timothy Johnson’s take (quoted by Tom above) when read in its full context concedes that the case is far from being closed because “Even those who are not absolutely convinced that the letters come directly from Paul find unconvincing many of the reasons given for assigning their [the Pastoral Epistles] composition to a later Pauline forger” The Writings of the New Testament, 423. The “assured results of critical scholarship” do not appear to be so solid when one actually looks at the evidence (or the absence thereof) The arguments based on manuscript evidence (P46) and the silences of Acts are weak at best and are easily countered. The theological arguments are arbitrary while the stylistic objections could easily been explained by the use of an amanuensis or alternatively by Paul having to write without one. In order to conclude that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous one must disregard the evidence from the earlier church claiming the contrary (the Muratorian Canon (c. 150); Irenaeus (c. 175) in Her. 3.3.3; Clement of Alexandria (c. 200) in Stromata 2.11). The claim that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous flies in the face of the internal and external evidence in support of the letter. Some scholars like Philip Towner following Howard Marshall argue that allonymity might be a better concept than pseudonymity since it escapes the critical allegations of deception and falsehood by proposing that a student or follower of Paul edited his notes or assumed his mantle to address issues facing later generation (NICNT, 25-26) However, the only examples close to the time of Paul as found in the philosophical schools and considerably differ from the autobiographical and personal character of the Pastoral Epistles making it very difficult to escape the charge of fraud and dishonesty. This brings me back to the following claim by Tom: “Does this take the authority away from the Bible knowing that Paul did not write 1 Timothy or that the text has been edited over the years, no. Knowing the history of our scripture keeps our feet on the ground and our heads from becoming too big. Knowing the history of our scripture helps us to understand what a loving God we worship and serve. ” I just finished tracing overall argument of each of the Pastoral Epistles, if the letters were nothing than pious frauds, they would nullify the point that the writer is trying to drive home; especially the need for Timothy and Titus to sharply differentiate themselves from the false teachers that are upsetting the churches in their way to ruin and destruction. He denounces those who are liars, those who swear falsely (1 Tim 1:10) A few verses later he emphatically declares: “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle– I am telling the truth; I am not lying– and a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. (1Ti 2:7 NET)” He continues by describing the heretics as “hypocrites, liars, with a seared conscience” In 2 Tim 3:13 he castigates the false teachers as “imposters” who are proceeding “from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. (2Ti 3:13)” In Titus he asks Titus to be on guard against “deceivers” and “liars” (Titus 1:10-12) This is to be contrasted with the insistence on truth and integrity throughout The goal is to have “a sound message that cannot be criticized, so that any opponent will be at a loss, because he has nothing evil to say about us. (Tit 2:8 NET)” The message of the Pastoral Epistles would be discredited if the letters were found to be a mere forgery, even a pious forgery. Just like an unrepentant adulterer does not have the moral authority to preach against adultery, a habitual liar does not have the moral authority to ask people to have integrity, preach the truth, and keep a good conscience. It was true in the first century, it is still true today Mounce states “The real question is whether the church recognized and accepted false letters that they knew to be pseudepigraphical… It is one thing to write a book and claim someone wrote it (e.g., 1 Enoch , in the name of one who had been dead for thousands of years); it is another to write a personal letter filled with personal and historical references and claim it was written by someone in the recent past” (Pastoral Epistles WBC vol 46, cxxiv) If pious forgeries were acceptable in the earlier church, none of the church fathers seemed to have received the memo, au contraire, the authenticity of a letter and apostolicity was key for its incorporation into the Canon. If the Pastoral Epistles are fake, the only consistent position is that of Stanley Porter: they should not be regarded as canonical because they are not Pauline (BBR 6, 105-23) they would be pious garbage worthy of an equally pious trash can... and the joke would be on us Alain
This is one reason i love Alain Maashe even though i have not met him, long may their kind increase. It is my sincere prayer that the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, would be blessed with such teachers who know what they are talking about. May the Lord bless and keep you brother - what a defence of the authority of scripture & a high view of scripture!
I could not improve on what you have said & thank you for saving me the embarrassment of trying to responded. Well, said Alain.[Y]
Ted
2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
So here you are admitting you do not currently have the truth and what you believe will definitely change in a few centuries! How do you expect to be taken seriously. You ask us to believe you when you believe you are already wrong. Your self-serving philosophy isn't serving you very well
Thanks for the response[Y] Keep it up.
Regards
Sir T
3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
George, what a mess you have created in this thread with your alarming honesty and sharp insight. Sigh...you are my hero! George is your hero? Now, I am afraid!
Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John MacArthur, John Piper, C.H. Spurgeon, R.C. Sproul & D.A. Carson are my heroes [Y][H]
The message of the Pastoral Epistles would be discredited if the letters were found to be a mere forgery, even a pious forgery. Just like an unrepentant adulterer does not have the moral authority to preach against adultery, a habitual liar does not have the moral authority to ask people to have integrity, preach the truth, and keep a good conscience. It was true in the first century, it is still true today Mounce states “The real question is whether the church recognized and accepted false letters that they knew to be pseudepigraphical… It is one thing to write a book and claim someone wrote it (e.g., 1 Enoch , in the name of one who had been dead for thousands of years); it is another to write a personal letter filled with personal and historical references and claim it was written by someone in the recent past” (Pastoral Epistles WBC vol 46, cxxiv) If pious forgeries were acceptable in the earlier church, none of the church fathers seemed to have received the memo, au contraire, the authenticity of a letter and apostolicity was key for its incorporation into the Canon. If the Pastoral Epistles are fake, the only consistent position is that of Stanley Porter: they should not be regarded as canonical because they are not Pauline (BBR 6, 105-23) they would be pious garbage worthy of an equally pious trash can... and the joke would be on us Alain
Thank you, Alain. the entire post is thoughtful and well-written. If I held the view of Scripture many in this forum espouse, I would have abandoned Scripture as an authoritive guide for life long ago.
With all due respect, I don't understand this mindset. The mindset that prefers Logos DOESN'T add specific authors/works to their growing library. I would like to see commentaries on the Qu'ran, BOM, etc... It is up to each individual person whether or not they would be interested in purchasing said work. I would brather Logos has every work of every author rather than ignoring certain works of certain authors.
