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

Re: [revelation-list] Re 16.15 a gloss?

Expand Messages
  • polycarp66@aol.com
    In a message dated 4/19/2004 4:51:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, editor@grovebooks.co.uk writes: But you only have to look at the amazing complex of words
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 19, 2004
      In a message dated 4/19/2004 4:51:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, editor@... writes:
      But you only have to look at the amazing complex of words occurring
      four, seven, ten, 14 and 28 times (Richard Bauckham gives a start in
      Climax of Prophecy) to see that there are structures in the book which
      are not made explicit.

      If you are suggesting that we can effectively discard part of the text
      unless we see a reason for it being there--I think I would want to take
      issue with your methodology!
      _________
       
      Do you mean to say that if you were to find (hypothetically speaking, of course) a passage with a recipe for Trout Munieres in the middle, you would have any hesitation in saying it wasn't original?  I find something amiss with that methodology.
       
      gfsomsel
    • Ian Paul
      ... What I would do is ask: 1. whether it is genuine data in the text, or has been constructed by unjustifiably selective reading 2. whether this was a
      Message 2 of 16 , Apr 19, 2004
        On Monday, April 19, 2004, at 01:26 PM, polycarp66@... wrote:

        > Do you mean to say that if you were to find (hypothetically speaking,
        > of course) a passage with a recipe for Trout Munieres in the middle,
        > you would have any hesitation in saying it wasn't original?  I find
        > something amiss with that methodology.
        >
        What I would do is ask:

        1. whether it is genuine data in the text, or has been constructed by
        unjustifiably selective reading
        2. whether this was a possible significance of the text for the author
        3. whether an informed first reader might have been able to discern
        this (ie so that this feature of the text was a genuine act of
        communication, which presumably all texts are intended to be)
        4. whether this could fit with the explicit (ie expressed at the level
        of semantic content) theology of the text.

        All four are satisfied in the observation of word frequencies (see my
        Grove booklet on the subject http://www.grovebooks.co.uk) whereas the
        supposed recipe for Trout Munieres would, I think, fall at every step.
        (As an alternative example, the Bible Code stuff fails at least at
        steps 1, 3 and 4.)

        There is also the question of burden of proof, that is, if we think
        that text has been added, we would need to support this with a good
        reason why a later scribe would see the need for this. (As an example,
        there are two good reasons for justifying the alternative reading of
        616 in Rev 13.18 which explains why it might have arisen, and
        additionally makes sense of the primary reading 666). The difficulty in
        16.15 is constructing a plausible meaning for the text *without* the
        interpolation (the meaning for the author) and constructing a plausible
        meaning for the text *with* the interpolation (the meaning for the
        later scribe/editor) and being able to tell the difference and how we
        might attribute these two meanings to the two people concerned the
        right way around (since if they are attributed the other way around,
        then the scribe should have taken text out not added it in).

        What I would avoid is:
        1. assuming that if something does not fit in with my reading, then it
        could not have fitted with the author's (possibly incoherent) intention
        2. offering slightly facile illustrations as a counter to a serious
        comment
        3. going under an anonymous signature in my emails

        regards

        Ian Paul
        _________________
        Revd Dr Ian Paul
        Director of Partnership Development, St John's College, Bramcote, Nottm
        NG9 3DS
        w 0115 925 1114 x 254 h 01202 745963 m 07974 351502
        Also Managing Editor, Grove Books Ltd Ridley Hall Road Cambridge CB3
        9HU
        01223 464748 Fax 01223 464849
        http://www.grovebooks.co.uk
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.