I looked redaction up on the web in three dictionaries and got the
following meanings:
/
1st set of meanings
1a the act of putting something in writing/
/1b putting something (as a literary work or a legislative bill) into
acceptable form/
--- 2nd meaning act of reducing, compressing ---- 3rd meaning 3a.The act or process of editing or revising a piece of writing; preparation for publication. 3b.An edited work; a new edition or revision. Am not sure what sense of the word is being used in this discussion? Meaning 2 is the only one I can see that could cause concern, however I am not a Biblical scholar. Pim How far are you willing to take that we can change the cannon? My mother in law is a charismatic and claims that her "visions" can override scripture. I would assume you would not go that far? I can already see that even history I lived through is being revised and whitewashed. What principles would you apply in deciding which books are authentic and which are people adding things to get what Jesus said... to match how they want theology to come out? Do you not feel that God oversaw the selection of books just like the actual writing process? Or do you completely disregard inspiration? Am not trying to criticise just to understand. When you talk about what they like or dislike, I think that is unfair. Surely some criteria of consistency was involved. Dave Wallace Pim van Meurs wrote: > As others have already pointed out, that argument does not hold. Many > hundreds of years ago, some got to decide what they liked and disliked > as the 'canonical gospel'. Studying all material of those days will > likely present a more complete picture of Jesus and Christianity than > relying on that which was ruled to be acceptable. > > Just my opinion of course. > > > Rich Blinne wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> The scholars in this book did what Natioinal Geographic did not. They >> applied their critical techniques to the gnostic literature just as >> they did to the canonical Gospels. I would contend that it is even >> more appropriate to do this for this class of literature. The Nag >> Hammadi library is an incoherant mish-mash of many different >> redactions. With the Jewish Gnosticism there is no debate which came >> first like there is for canonical Gospels/the Gospel of Thomas. >> Gnosticism modified Judaism and not the other way around. The picture >> becomes clear of an enterprise that feeds and edits off of a host >> tradition. The editting goes in both directions where Christianity >> and Judaism is gnosticized and there are also examples going the >> other way. But, given that this religion is provably derivative then >> it cannot be something written by the alleged eye witnesses. >> >> On the other hand, the canonical Scriptures show the signs of copying >> and not redaction. The many copies in may geographies don't change >> much except for what can easily be explained for the most part as >> copying errors. The only notable exception was the Johanine Comma and >> since it was in Latin the insertion was easiliy found. While there >> are disputed passages and some issues with authorship and dating >> there is an order of magnitude difference when comparing the >> canonical Scriptures with the gnostic Scriptures. >> >> Pim, this is why we should treat the canonical Scriptures and the >> gnostic ones differently. >> >> >> >> >> > > >Received on Sat Apr 8 17:22:00 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 08 2006 - 17:22:00 EDT