Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: singular and plural for Isaiah's servant

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Christian M. M. Brady" <cbrady AT tulane.edu>
  • To: H-Bible <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: singular and plural for Isaiah's servant
  • Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:14:54 -0600


On 1/24/01 10:02 PM, "Liz Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu> wrote:

> [I said]
>
>>>> Redactors don't subtract, they just add.
>
>
> Dan said:
>
>>> Who imposed that rule upon them? How can we know that? Are we
>> at liberty to
>>> make them do whatever we want? Why wouldn't they want to subtract to
>>> accomplish their subtle agenda? What could prevent them?
>
> C. M. Brady said
>> I guess this is a bit late in the thread and I hope I haven't missed it
>> already being addressed, but I would have to agree with Dan here.
>>
>> Liz, how can we, objectively and concretely demonstrate that redactors
>> always add and never subtract? There are all sorts of problems with this
>> (common) assertion, not the least of which is that not everyone can agree
>> upon which portions of a given biblical text belong to which "layer" of
>> redaction.
>>
>> So, please elaborate/defend this assertion.
>
> I don't have much to contribute to this discussion.
> It's based on the assumption that texts are holy.

I am sorry Liz, could you clarify: whose position is based upon the
assumption that the texts are holy? (Mine is not.)

> They get added to, commented upon, the comments,
> the glosses, the additions get added to the text by the
> next copiest. Stuff is lost through haplography,
> but stuff is not usually considered omitted purposefully.
> This is suggestive when you consider the relationship between
> Kings and Chronicles. It's usually assumed that the Chronicler
> deleted stuff in Kings. This to me doesn't seem likely. More
> likely to me is Auld's hypothesis whereby each added to a common
> source, the common source being that which is common among them.
>
> I think the same reasoning is used in the NT. Isn't this why Mark is
> assumed to have preceeded Luke and Matt? Otherwise you'd have to
> argue that Mark deleted stuff. People get uncomfortable with that idea.
>
> Liz Fried
> Ann Arbor

Cb
--
Chris M M Brady
Director * Jewish Studies * Tulane University
http://www.tulane.edu/~jwst/
cbrady @ tulane.edu





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page