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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 16 , Apr 19 6:50 AM
      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.