Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] Evidence of Independence

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Belated Response To: Chuck Jones On: The 1Th 2:15-16 Interpolation Possibility From: Bruce One more thing on my screen to tidy up,
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 29, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      Cc: GPG
      In Belated Response To: Chuck Jones
      On: The 1Th 2:15-16 Interpolation Possibility
      From: Bruce

      One more thing on my screen to tidy up, before the weekend gets entirely
      away from me. It concerns a methodologically general and thus presumably
      licit matter: the point at which an interpolation is added to a text. A
      reminder of the issue here discussed: I have held that not all
      interpolations are made by evil scribes in later ages; they may also be made
      (as self-interpolations) by authors, or by legitimate text proprietors,
      simply to improve the text in their eyes, before it goes public and is
      copied for a wider readership.

      CHUCK: Separately, the reason interpolations like the one in I Thess. are
      hypothesized is that the content of the passages doesn't make sense for that
      author at that place and time. The I Thess verses, it is said, betray later
      knowledge of the fate of the Jewish people. By definition, this change
      would have been made after some period of time, not when one copy existed.

      BRUCE: Non sequitur. I don't find any alternative to the idea that 1Th 2:16b
      shows a knowledge of what can only be the Temple destruction of 70.
      Therefore, an interpolation is indicated, and it must have been made after
      Paul's death, unless someone has a whole new theory of Paul's death. But it
      does not follow that "after some period of time" necessarily takes us into
      the zone where "more than one copy existed." Manuscript variation, scribal
      interference, is not the only available model.

      Here is a sample of the other model. I have recently been editing some of my
      and Taeko's papers for publication in the year 2008. Some of them go back to
      1995, before our book The Original Analects had come out. While preserving
      the general historical stance of those papers, we have thought it right and
      helpful to include occasional references to our subsequent work; otherwise
      one is functioning like a museum curator. Hence several footnotes along the
      lines of "see now also [name of later publication]." All some future editor,
      say someone at Brill gathering the best Sinological work of the past several
      years, has to do is to move those notes into the text, and strike the adverb
      "now," and our self-interpolations (still visible as such, given their
      marginal position) become *integrated* interpolations, and the document for
      the first time becomes genuinely anachronistic.

      I generally suspect and disrecommend modern parallels; our literary culture
      is too different. But I nevertheless submit this one as a verifiable case of
      the kind of thing I think is perfectly possible to have happened with any
      authority text possessed by a 1c Christian group, whether it was received
      from an Apostle or composed by the group's own leader. One tries to keep
      these things reasonably fresh, current, and responsive to present need and
      interest. Just so, I venture for the last time to suggest, might the
      resident preacher of the Thessalonians have dealt with the genuine Pauline
      holograph in his care.

      Respectfully submitted,


      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.