Larry Hurtado writes:

>With regard to 1 Cor 11:10, you may find the idea "complex angelology"
>if you would study scholarly analyses of (1) Paul's angelology (e.g.,
>W. Carr)
>and (2) angelology of Paul's Jewish background, you would find
>proposal re: 1 Cor 11:10 much more sensible.  You improbable suggestions
>about possible strained meanings of "angels" in 1 Cor. 11 I find to be
>subjective and unconvincing.  larry Hurtado, Robinson College,
>England, CB2 9AN  (e-mail = lwh11@phx.cam.ac.uk).

I am not quite certain how to respond to your criticism.  It seems
as if I was worthy of a rebuke, but not a dialog.

"If you would study scholarly analyses" really means "if you
would agree with what's been published already" unless you assume
if I read more and more I will finally be convinced.

Given the LXX of Haggai 1:13, where angelos has been used to
translate "the Lord's message" I don't understand what is strained
about suggesting a similar usage in 1 Cor 11?  Why would you judge
it subjective and unconvincing?  If Paul had said "because of the
Lord's message" in 1 Cor 11 does this somehow not make sense in the
contextual flow?  Do you think the usage in Hag is substantially
different than here in 1 Cor?

>By the way, as you seem to be hot to try to probe various NT texts,
>may I
>ask what training in biblical exegesis and historical backgrounds you
>to the effort?  You often seem to ask the most elementary questions and
>treat the reasoned work of seasoned scholars with disdain and a cavalier
>disregard of the hard work involved in scholarship.

Well this is a more personal question, and one with several barbs,
probably provoked by what you sense as disdain on my part.  First I
would like to say that, although I may seem simplistic and hardheaded
about what you regard as elementary issues I have nothing respect for
the hard work involved in scholarship, and the men and women who give
their vocations to these pursuits.

I don't think the questions are elementary.  Fundamental perhaps, but
presuppositional might be the best description.  Issues such as
the claim that "Authorial intent determines meaning" are fundamental
but there is no concensus of the people on this list as to its validity.

Early in the lists formation there were two different groups which
you could roughly label liberal and conservative.  I know these are
simplifications, but bear with me.  The first group consists mostly
of academics studying religion, while the latter group consists of
those in religious work engaging in academic study.  The first group
includes universities, the latter seminaries.  You are a scholar of
repute in the first group, John Stott would be one of repute in
latter group.

The list had an early flurry of activity and then went dormant for
a long time.  It was less active with 100 people then it had been
with the first 25 before it was announced publically.  In private
conversations with some of the subscribers I took it upon myself
as the one who started and manages the list to increase the volume,
even if not the quality of the debate.  My theory is that no learning
takes place on an inactive list, and those who simply listen, and
don't even have the time for that will unsubscribe.  Thus I won't
be apologetic for the quality of scholarship, or intimidated by the
caliber of subscriber.

My goal with the Galatians 3 question, was first to find out what
the reception would be to, what I consider, a very interesting
idea concerning Paul's understanding of the promise to Abraham.
Second, it became clear that university types and seminary types
differ greatly in the scholarship they read, study, and respect.

Many of the postings would seem elementary, juvinile, perhaps even
absurd from the starting point of the other.  This gives rise to your
criticism of the issues I raise as elementary, and the preception
that I disdain the hard work and scholarly opinions of seasoned

The difficulty is that I am trying to ask basic questions about
the seasoning which that scholar now assumes, but which is foreign
and contradictory with the assumptions made by a different
group of scholars.  Now the Internet is largely colleges, and
universities, few seminaries or churches are connected, hence
those who are involved from this area are mostly those who
have other reasons to be on the Internet.

The reason why I have been interested in pursuing this line of
questioning is that I have been reading Evengelical Essentials
by Edwards with a response by Stott, and Os Guinesses' Gravedigger
Files, and have become convinced that both sides have important
elements to add to the health of the church, but as it stands now
their isn't even a dialog.  I understand why, dialog is difficult,
painful, and returns marginal results, but it is healthy and I
would like to better understand where common ground is, and where
it is not.

I am "hot" as you put it to probe various NT and OT passages, but
who among us isn't who thinks this is more than just the study of
some ancient writtings isn't, or shouldn't be?  My own background
has been a 3 year graduate program followed by the past 7 years
teaching at churches and Christian Study Centers.  My main area
of focus has been a biblical view of human sexuality.  But I don't
think that the level of education or experience is a prerequisite
for challenging assumptions held within the academic world, but
not outside the academic world (and by that I mean the first group
I tried to describe).  The Internet, in that sense, is a
leveling medium which gives everyone a chance to talk for as long
as they like.  Let's try to encourage this dialog, even when
we are in the majority.

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