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: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 08:33:12 -0600


Thanks Dave. I just wanted to add a note to say that Dave presented my point
much more succinctly than I did! ;-)

Cb

On 1/25/01 7:52 AM, "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net> wrote:

> I haven't commented so far, but this caught my attention:
>
>>> 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.
>
> But did these redactors consider it holy? Since we don't really
> know when the texts achieved this status, this doesn't seem like a
> very solid assumption to me.
>
>> 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.
>
> It seems much more likely to me that the Chronicler would
> deliberately leave out things like the Bathsheba episode, and I tend
> to think the reasons are fairly obvious. Nevertheless, the fact that
> one can make a case either for addition, deletion or reworking of a
> common source illustrates just how "iffy" this whole field of source
> criticism is.

Cb
cbrady @ tulane.edu
--
"The word 'genius' isn't applicable in football. A genius
is a guy like Norman Einstein."
--Joe Theisman, former NFL quarterback





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page