Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Two items of interest in the Expository Times

1. J.C. Poirier, 'Living Text or Exquisite Corpse?' Expository Times 119.9 (2008), 437-439.

This is a response to David Parker's essay 'Textual Criticism and Theology' which we discussed earlier here .

2. Paul Foster reviews Michael Holmes' Apostolic Fathers as 'Book of the Month' (pp. 440-441), describing it in glowing terms: 'The presentation is magnificent, the attention to detail first class'. Congratulations to Mike (the only ETC blogger with a wikipedia entry! He must be famous.)


  1. I went to read the Review of J.C. Poirier, 'Living Text or Exquisite Corpse?' at the link, but you have to pay for it. Doesn't make much sense to me why someone would have to pay for a Review. Can someone out here do their own review and post it here.

  2. It is a (brief) article, not a review. But the article itself is a response to a previous article. Have you tried here: http://ext.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/119/9/437?etoc

  3. No, but I just did. No luck. It asks for a username and password. I can see the abstract, but that is very minimal indeed.

    It appears he is wanting some compensation for this article. Any other URLs you know of?

    Peter... keep walking. You can do this.

  4. Anonymous, you can get a free-trial subscription to May 31 on all SAGE publications including Expository Times, via that URL which Peter mentioned. I did it and it works.

    Poirier's brief article does not offer much, however. One of the main arguments is that most editors do try to reconstruct the original text, although they do not claim that their result is equivalent. Thus, Poirier interprets the passage in the introduction of NA27 where the editors describe it as a "working text" differently than Parker.

  5. I think he interprets that passage correctly - but I argued the same point in our earlier discussion of Parker's article.

  6. John C Poirier5/29/2008 1:49 pm

    Wasserman's charge that my "article does not offer much" is fair, I think, if an academic readership is in view. I aimed my article at a more lay audience, however, because I think that's where Parker aimed his article.

    I'm also holding out the hope that Parker himself would rethink his position--at least with respect to its descriptive component.