From: Andrew Kulikovsky (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Feb 05 1997 - 04:37:21 EST
> I really ought to let Edgar speak for himself, but it seems to me that by
> declaring the date to which he assigns the work he has layed his cards
> pretty clearly on the table, indicating that he accepts historical-critical
> views of 2 Tim, according to which it is not authentically Pauline in
> authorship and its concerns for right doctrine and institutional authority
> "clearly" express concerns that belong to an era considerably later than
> Paul was writing. Those concerns and stylistic differences are the primary
> reasons for the late dating. Of course, those who believe the letter
> authentically Pauline don't find those arguments convincing. However, IF
> one goes with the early dating and authentic Pauline authorship, THEN
> "scripture" in this passage can hardly refer to NT documents, inasmuch as
> even the beginnings of a consensus on what is canonical for the NT comes
> much later; the later dating DOES assume that "scripture" in this verse
> refers to NT documents, even though what-all that includes has by no means
> been resolved completely by that point.
The problem with this is that we DON'T KNOW exactly what Paul's concerns
and theology were because He has not categorically stated them. What we
do have is several OCCASIONAL letters that Paul wrote in order to
and in some cases chastise the churches. 2 Tim is different from other
Pauline letters because it is written to an individual and personal
of Paul's not a church group. This must be taken into account but rarely
The stylistic arguement is quite invalid. Authors can use different
for different purposes eg. If you read a letter I wrote to a friend and
compared it with a spec I wrote at work, you would notice that the
writing style, vocabulary, subject matter would all be completely
different but you couldn't conclude they were written by different
authors! Authors also CHANGE their style. eg. Picasso changed style
many times through his lifetime - although Picasso was a painter not a
writer I think the point is the same.
Therefore it seems premature to dismiss Pauline authorship on these
2 Tim. 1:1, says Paul wrote it - why doubt it if there is no concrete
evidence to the contrary?
> As for the KAI being emphatic, the view Edgar espouses is evidently that
> there is an implicit ESTI, that QEOPNEUSTOS is attributive with GRAFH, and
> that KAI WFELIMOS PROS DIDASKALIAN KTL. is predicative; if one construes
> the elements that way, then KAI is adverbial with the predicate of the
> sentence: "All scripture (that is) divinely-inspired (is) also useful for
> instruction etc." If, however, one reads QEOPNEUSTOS as predicative, then
> KAI WFELIMOS KTL. will be additional to the predicate, and we read: "All
> scripture (is) divinely-inspired and useful for ..." There's nothing in
> the Greek text that points unambiguously in favor of either of these two
> readings; since the ESTI is implied rather than expressed, there's no way
> to be sure that one of those adjectives is attributive while the other is
> predicative or that both adjectives are predicative.
But if Paul meant to say "All scripture (that is) divinely-inspired (is)
useful for instruction etc." implying that not every scripture is
why didn't he tell Timothy which ones are inspired and which aren't?
supposed to be helping Tim out here...
> In sum, I think it has to be admitted that this is one passage where one's
> theological presuppositions are likely to govern one's preference regarding
> construction of the words in the clause.
Actually, I think it's more a case of our HISTORICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS
than theological ones...
| Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS
| Software Engineer (CelsiusTech Australia)
| & Theology Student (MA - Pacific College)
| Adelaide, Australia
| ph: +618 8281 0919 fax: +618 8281 6231
| email: email@example.com
| Check out my Biblical Hermeneutics web page:
| What's the point of gaining everything this world has
| to offer, if you lose your own life in the end?
| ...Look to Jesus Christ
| hO IESOUS KURIOS!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:04 EDT