From: David B. Gowler (dgowler@micah.chowan.edu)
Date: Tue Jan 06 1998 - 16:25:53 EST
> I don't want to appear to be nit-picking, but did you not notice when
> consulting Appendix IV that only one [ Ro. 3:10 ] is in italics, thus
> denoting a _direct_ quotation, whereas the others in normal type are
> described as 'allusions' ?.
Maurice,
You are certainly correct, but I included the entire list from the N-A
26 Appendix because of the thread concerning what consitutes a
"quotation," "echo," "allusion," etc. that Jack Vogt began with:
> . . . My question is how
> close does the wording have to be for it to be a quote and how distant can
> the form be before it should be called an echo?
I should have noted the conflation between these two threads more
directly; perhaps only the N-A editors would have seen it as an
"allusion!"
In that e-mail where I listed the references, I had written a paragraph
about how N-A 26 includes such allusions (I used the Eccl 9:8 and the Mt
6:17 texts), but then decided to delete it. I should have kept it!
Thanks for the clarification.
> I think you will agree that this tells us more about the mentality of the
> compiler of the list than it does about Paul !!
Perhaps I have read too much Bakhtin, but isn't it always the case that
the reader is involved, sometimes more, sometimes less? I don't want to
open that can of worms, but the whole list of 13 references is helpful
because we can evaluate these texts for ourselves.
BTW, after I sent the e-mail on the other thread, I remembered the title
of Brawley's book (_From Text to Text Pours Forth Speech_). It's
reviewed in the latest issue of CBQ.
Best wishes,
David Gowler
Chowan College
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:46 EDT