tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post115754507126892600..comments2023-08-19T23:23:19.849+10:00Comments on Sentire cum Ecclesia: The Devil Made Me Do It? Or: What Would Jesus Do? Schütz gatecrashes parish workshop on "Woman in the Tradition"Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-1157802206151561092006-09-09T21:43:00.000+10:002006-09-09T21:43:00.000+10:00Yes...very naughty of you David.Now I feel the nee...Yes...very naughty of you David.<BR/><BR/>Now I feel the need to spank you.<BR/><BR/>I had a giggle at your orange tree moment. Very clever.<BR/><BR/>Oh the naughtiness!malleebullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03276179011409269170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-1157700185516362192006-09-08T17:23:00.000+10:002006-09-08T17:23:00.000+10:00God knows I’m no scripture scholar, but even if I ...God knows I’m no scripture scholar, but even if I did perceive a contradiction, conflict or tension between two passages – let’s call them ‘A’ and ‘B’ – traditionally attributed to Paul, I wouldn’t assume that the explanation must be that (at least) one of them was not in fact written by Paul, but was interpolated by somebody else.<BR/><BR/>Paul’s writings were, after all, produced over a period of several decades, and at the start of his time as a Christian he knew practically nothing about Christianity. Even at the end of his time, he could still have had large gaps in his knowledge. If we were reliant only on the writings of Paul for our knowledge of the life of Christ, we would know practically nothing about it. Came from Nazareth, had a ‘brother’ called James, instituted the eucharistic meal, got crucified, rose again. That’s about it, really.<BR/><BR/>I don’t imagine that Paul’s epiphany on the Road to Damascus included the delivery of a fully-formed Pauline theology; it took years of prayer, grace, reflection and lived experience to produce that. It’s not only possible but highly likely that he altered his position on various matters along the way. Indeed it’s quite possible that he simultaneously held views which were in tension with one another on some point, or vacillated between two inconsistent views. Most of us do that.<BR/><BR/>So you’d need to read the text much more carefully and reflectively than I have done in order to decide whether the most likely explanation of an apparent conflict was different authorship. It’s a legitimate speculation, and I think we should be open to it as a possiblity, but we should equally be open to other possibilities, including that he was contradicting himself.<BR/><BR/>What does it matter, given that the authority of the text does not depend on Pauline authorship? As you point out, even if it’s not by Paul, we are still challenged to develop a scriptural theology which accommodates it.<BR/><BR/>It may have this relevance: if we’re trying to understand a third passage, ‘C’, which is admittedly by Paul, and one undertanding of C is coherent with A, which is probably by Paul, while another is coherent with B, which is probably not, then we will tend to regard the first understanding as the more likely one. But, frankly, it seems a fairly marginal signficance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-1157688349352742152006-09-08T14:05:00.000+10:002006-09-08T14:05:00.000+10:00Oh, and to answer your other question, Peregrinus,...Oh, and to answer your other question, Peregrinus, I ask her if the three "stages" of New Testament witness concerning the attitude toward women which she identified (Christ, Paul, and the later Church) had different levels of authority, to which she replied, "No". So that was nice.Schützhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-1157688190288697882006-09-08T14:03:00.000+10:002006-09-08T14:03:00.000+10:00Why would someone want to say that Paul didn't wri...Why would someone want to say that Paul didn't write those bits when there is no textual or historical evidence that he didn't? <BR/><BR/>Because then you don't have to do the hard work of squaring up the statements in a unified theology of women. <BR/><BR/>If Paul wrote only the "nice" bits and someone else wrote the "nasty" bits, write both bits, we still--as you point out--have a problem of hermeneutics, but it then becomes a question of forming a unified New Testament theology of women, rather than a unified Pauline theology.<BR/><BR/>Few view this as urgent, as most biblical theologians have learnt to live with the evident "unity and diversity" in the New Testament witness arising from its various writers. <BR/><BR/>But it is urgent if it is all genuinely Pauline, because it is harder to think that Paul, in his own theology, held mutually contraditory ideas. <BR/><BR/>If in fact it is all genuinely Pauline, then we have to rethink our interpretations of what Paul was actually saying, in both the "nice" bits and the "nasty" bits. In short, by proposing different authors of the various texts, we end up misreading the text itself.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and yes, I am terribly, terribly biased. But always ready and willing to learn to look at things in a new way, given sufficient evidence and logical argument. And grace.Schützhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-1157610662716028522006-09-07T16:31:00.000+10:002006-09-07T16:31:00.000+10:00Something in the back of my head said: Go and see ...<I>Something in the back of my head said: Go and see what she has to say. I googled her, and found nothing at all objectionable.<BR/><BR/>[Reader: Why would you?<BR/>Schütz: Oh, I don't know, something about the words "Sister" and "Biblical Theologian" and "Australian Catholic University" used in the same sentence, I guess.]</I><BR/><BR/>Reader: Lord save us! You wouldn’t be admitting to prejudice, would you, David?<BR/><BR/><I>. . . But I did find myself rather vocally objecting to one part of her presentation, namely, the suggestion that Paul was actually very pro-women, and the bits in the Pauline letters that seem to be negative (eg. 1 Cor 14:32-38, and all the bits about women being silent and submitting) were not genuine Paul, but either non-genuine letters or interpolations. <BR/><BR/>. . . And what really is the point? Even if it isn't genuinely Pauline, it is genuinely canonical New Testament, a point Dr Mary didn't dispute. So how does it help to say it isn't "genuinely" Pauline?</I><BR/><BR/>Is this a rhetorical question that you put before us, or a question that you actually put to the good doctor? <BR/><BR/>I ask because this seems to be tne key to the matter. If she perceives a contradiction or tension between different parts of the writings of Paul and proposes as an explanation that in fact the conflicting texts were written by two different people, I see nothing unorthodox in that. The church does not teach that all scripture was written by the people to whom it has traditionally been attributed. In fact, she is doing precisely as you urge; taking the received canonical text as it is, and offers an interpretation that accounts for perceived contradictions or conflicts within it. <BR/><BR/>But if she goes further and suggests that, if we conclude that Paul did not write certain passages, we can wield the blue pencil and simply delete them from the canon of scripture, <I>that</I> would be unorthodox. The canonicity of scripture depends on its discernment and reception by the church, not on its authorship.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-1157600455557108512006-09-07T13:40:00.000+10:002006-09-07T13:40:00.000+10:00Well done. Now, find out where she's speaking next...Well done. Now, find out where she's speaking next and turn up there!Ron Van Wegenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15181898839992597105noreply@blogger.com