Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Christian M. M. Brady" <cbrady AT tulane.edu>]

On 1/26/01 4:39 PM, "Christine Bass" <christinebass AT home.com> wrote:

> 
>> Since Isaiah speaks for God, there is little reason to make a big fuss
>> about who is talking. But I am comfortable, after many years of reading
>> the Bible, with the idea that God at times speaks of himself in the third
>> person.
>> 
>> Yours,
>> Harold Holmyard
> 
> ***********************
> 
> Liz Fried wrote:
> 
> It's based on the assumption that texts are holy.
> 
> ***********************
> 
> Christian Brady wrote:
> 
>> I am sorry Liz, could you clarify: whose position is based upon the
>> assumption that the texts are holy?  (Mine is not.)
> 
>> Chris   M   M    Brady
>> Director * Jewish Studies * Tulane University
> 
> **********************
> 
> It is interesting to observe the different perspectives through which
> information is being filtered and analyzed in this discussion----
> and to ponder how those views brought to the text influence the
> interpretation of text.
> 
> Christian,  you question Liz on whose position it is that the texts are
> holy---  I think it would be safe to say their numbers are legion.

Thanks Christine,

I am certainly well aware of that those who view the Bible as Holy are
innumerable. Two key points, however, that have been conflated.

1) Liz's first quote presented above did not follow from Harold's discussion
about person and speaker. It was in reference to a tangential discussion
about whether or not redactors "always add and never subtract" from the text
that they have received.

2) My question about "whose position is based upon the assumption that the
texts are holy" was in this vein of discourse about redactional technique
not, I grant you, the original topic of this thread. I was asking if she was
saying that the current academic view presented by Liz was derived from this
sacrosanct view of the Bible or if she was referring to my position (that
the redactor did not *always* add and never subtract) as requiring a view of
the Bible as Holy. 

In response Liz clarified that she was not referring to either contemporary
view as being predicated upon the belief in the Bible as holy, but that the
REDACTORS viewed the received text as holy and therefore would not have
deleted anything that they viewed as holy. I suggested that this is
unprovable.

Finally, you said: "It is interesting to observe the different perspectives
through which information is being filtered and analyzed in this
discussion." You have, in fact, demonstrated a excellent example of
redactional activity and how it can confuse the original intent! Thanks for
the lesson! ;-) 

cbrady @ tulane.edu