Kata Markon

["David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>]

Karel Hanhart stated:

>>I too believe that the latter approach is the more promising one. In
fact all the critical tools we have at our disposal should be applied
as they may shed new light on a passage: text criticism,
source criticism; redaction criticism, rhetoric analysis, narrative
analysis; interpretation of texts that appear to be a midrash; the
Wirkungsgeschichte", cultural-anthropological approach, the
psychological approach, the analysis of the libetration theologian,
the feminine approach, etc. [...]. I believe they all should be taken
seriously.<<

It probably also makes a difference whether these tools are being used
to 1) formulate explanations for historical data, or used to 2) find
modern applications for the lessons that can be learned (whether
intentional or unintentional on the part of the source or its
interpreters ) from historical sources important to our traditions.
These two aims are not necessarily working hand-in-hand! And just like
any tool, they can be mis-used by those who employ them. However, the
more I look at this question the more it appears that the system of
checks and balances a critic needs to set up to ensure the integrity
of his/her work will end up being more complex and nuanced that most
are willing (or able) to adopt.

Regards,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA