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

RE: [GTh] Redman's Response to Goodacre's Thomas Book

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: GThos In Response To: Judy Redman On: Redactional Models From: Bruce Judy: One issue I have with redactional models is that they imply that a later author
    Message 1 of 26 , Mar 27, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      To: GThos

      In Response To: Judy Redman

      On: Redactional Models

      From: Bruce

      Judy: One issue I have with redactional models is that they imply that a later author takes someone else’s work and makes deliberate, calculated decisions to change it to fit the later author’s particular theological perspective.  

      Bruce: That’s a rather pejorative way of putting it; it equates growth with corruption. Such things undoubtedly do happen (I have had editors either subtract my thoughts, or add their own, in a piece of mine which they are preparing for a collective volume, and I resent it enormously). But text growth can also occur if the author remains the same (or a series of text proprietors remains consecutive). An author (or proprietor; say the leader of a church) who still retains control of his original can at any time make changes in it, or add explanations to it, or supplement it with additional illustrations (just as I earlier today posted a revised version of my abstract for the SBL/EGL meeting next week). When (as frequently in Mark) we see a clearly interpolated passage, which nevertheless is present in all the manuscripts and thus does not come under suspicion of being a scribal change or other kind of subsequent alteration, we may well be in the presence of an authorial augmentation.

       

      I don’t see a narrative mainthread in gThos, and I also don’t see a systematic plan of exposition. If these are lacking, there is no easy test of interpolated material. The only suggestive points, as far as I can see, would be the ones DeConick is pointing to: doctrinal inconsistency. I would still like to see someone either confirm or refute her list of inconsistent passages, or at the other end of the scale, deal with her too-consistent doublets.

       

      If this list should not be thought a proper venue for those exercises, I would be glad to hear from any analytically-minded persons off-list.

       

      Bruce

       

      E Bruce Brooks

      Warring States Project

      University of Massachusetts at Amherst

       

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.