Steve Black wrote:
>CC Black's book suggests three basic approaches to redaction
>criticism ..... The three approaches are;
>1. The author is slave to the received tradition. Mark makes very few
>changes to received tradition, but his hand can still be seen in the
>2. The author exercises mastery over the received tradition AND the
>the received tradition exercises mastery over him. This model ,
>obviously quite dialectic, was illustrated using E. Best as an
>3. The author exercises mastery over the received tradition. Ted was
>the example in this category. Here the author has no problem at all
>changing and adding to the received tradition.
I wonder if these three approaches correlate roughly with the three
basic approaches to the Bible which I have pointed out elsewhere:
1. The conservative believes the text because it is inspired.
2. The liberal takes the text as true by default unless it can be
3. The skeptic is suspicious of the text because its author is trying to
push a point of view.
Redaction Criticism as I see it is only valid with approach number 3
in C.C.Black's list and in my list. Thus as you see I side with Ted
Weeden in his approach to Markan redaction (though I am not claiming
that Ted would necessarily accept my classification of approaches to the
Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm