>incidentally, part of the problem with source criticism is that if you think
>there was a "J", then it begs the question, who was J? likewise E, P, and D.
>this is where the fun of biblical criticism begins! :-) here is where i
>think alter, for example, is on the mark: source criticism and redaction
>criticism really only tell you so much. i believe they're helpful, but in
>the end, there's the text, as it is, and you have to deal with it as such if
>it's going to mean anything.
We run into the same (fascinating) problem with 'Q' - the hypothetical oral tradition that is the source for the synoptic gospels.
Eventually... I'll get back to all of this.
detour de lacan, ken