introduction to source criticism and redactive criticism in Jonbenet Ransom note

View previous topic View next topic Go down

introduction to source criticism and redactive criticism in Jonbenet Ransom note

Post by redpill on Fri May 29, 2015 11:13 pm

it's widely commented on that the Jonbenet ransom note contains quotes but not perfect citations from movies like Dirty Harry Ransom Speed

Dirty Harry
"Now listen to me carefully." (JBR's RN begins "Listen carefully")
"Now listen. Listen very carefully."

"If you talk to ayone, I don't care if it's a Pekinese p i s s ing against a lamppost, the girl dies." (JBR's RN says "If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies")

Speed
You know that I'm on top of you. Do not attempt to grow a brain." [RN states: "Don't try to grow a brain John"]

the source and the differences in source is a topic of academic study from wikipedia

Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating an information source, i.e. a document, a person, a speech, a fingerprint, a photo, an observation or anything used in order to obtain knowledge. In relation to a given purpose, a given information source may be more or less valid, reliable or relevant. Broadly, "source criticism" is the interdisciplinary study of how information sources are evaluated for given tasks (cf. next sections).


the issue of course are the sources of texts material in the Jonbenet ransom note

The following questions are often good ones to ask about any source according to the American Library Association (1994) and Engeldinger (1988):

   How was the source located?
   What type of source is it?
   Who is the author and what are the qualifications of the author in regard to the topic that is discussed?
   When was the information published?
   In which country was it published?
   What is the reputation of the publisher?
   Does the source show a particular cultural or political bias?

For literary sources we might add complementing criteria:

   Does the source contain a bibliography?
   Has the material been reviewed by a group of peers, or has it been edited?
   How does the article/book compare with similar articles/books?

many of the ideas comes from bible source and redactive criticism


Source criticism in Biblical studies
Main article: Source criticism (Biblical studies)

Source criticism, as the term is used in biblical criticism, refers to the attempt to establish the sources used by the author and/or redactor of the final text. The term "literary criticism" is occasionally used as a synonym.

Biblical source criticism originated in the 18th century with the work of Jean Astruc, who adapted the methods already developed for investigating the texts of Classical antiquity (Homer's Iliad in particular) to his own investigation into the sources of the Book of Genesis. It was subsequently considerably developed by German scholars in what was known as "the Higher Criticism", a term no longer in widespread use. The ultimate aim of these scholars was to reconstruct the history of the biblical text, as well as the religious history of ancient Israel.

Related to Source Criticism is Redaction Criticism which seeks to determine how and why the redactor (editor) put the sources together the way he did. Also related is form criticism and tradition history which try to reconstruct the oral prehistory behind the identified written sources.

Source criticism, in biblical criticism, refers to the attempt to establish the sources used by the authors and redactors of a biblical text.

It originated in the 18th century with the work of Jean Astruc, who adapted the methods already developed for investigating the texts of classical antiquity (in particular, Homer's Iliad) to his own investigation into the sources of the Book of Genesis. It was subsequently considerably developed by German scholars in what was known as "the higher criticism", a term no longer in widespread use. The ultimate aim of these scholars was to reconstruct the history of the biblical text and also the religious history of ancient Israel.



The documentary hypothesis considers the sources for the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), claiming that it derives from four separate sources: the Yahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and Priestly:

   The Jahwist (J) source is characterized by the use of the name YHWH, has a human-like God, and is especially concerned with the kingdom of Judah. It is thought to have been written c. 950 BCE.

   The Elohist (E) source is characterized with God being called Elohim, and deals more with the kingdom of Israel. It is thought to have been written c. 850 BCE.

   The Deuteronomic (D) source is characterized by a sermon like style mostly concerned with law. It is thought to have been written c. 721-621 BCE.

   The Priestly (P) is characterized by a formal style that is mostly concerned with priestly matters. It is thought to have been written c. 550 BCE.

For example, of the two creation stories at the start of Genesis, the first is ascribed to P, while the second (the creation of Adam and Eve in chapter 2) is ascribed to J.

New Testament

There is general consensus among New Testament scholars that the Mark used a variety of sources, most of them written, and that the authors of Matthew and Luke were dependent on some version of Mark plus a lost collection of "sayings" called the Q Document. There is less of a consensus that the writers of the Gospel of John may have used a hypothetical Signs Gospel.

Redaction criticism, also called Redaktionsgeschichte, Kompositionsgeschichte or Redaktionstheologie, is a critical method for the study of biblical texts. Redaction criticism regards the author of the text as editor (redactor) of his or her source materials. Unlike its parent discipline, form criticism, redaction criticism does not look at the various parts of a narrative to discover the original genre; instead, it focuses on how the redactor(s) has shaped and molded the narrative to express his theological goals.


Methodology

There are several ways in which redaction critics detect editorial activity, including:

   The repetition of common motifs and themes (e.g., in Matthew's Gospel, the fulfillment of prophecy).
   Comparison between two accounts. Does a later account add, omit, or conserve parts of an earlier account of the same event?
   The vocabulary and style of a writer. Does the text reflect preferred words for the editor, or are there words that the editor rarely uses or attempts to avoid using. If the wording reflects the language of the editor, it points toward editorial reworking of a text, while if it is unused or avoided language, then it points toward being part of an earlier source.


Drawing conclusions

From these changes, redaction critics can sketch out the distinctive elements of an author/editor's theology. If a writer consistently avoids reporting, e.g., the weaknesses of the Twelve Apostles, even when there are earlier sources that provide lurid details of their follies, one could draw the conclusion that the later editor/author held the Twelve in higher esteem, either because of the editor's presuppositions, or because the editor was perhaps trying to reinforce the legitimacy of those chosen by Jesus to carry on his work. Through tracking the overall impact of this editorial activity, one can come away with fairly strong picture of the purpose of a particular writing.
Benefits

   Emphasizes the creative role of the author.
   Redaction critics from disparate traditions and presuppositions can still find wide agreement on their work since the purpose of an author/editor is largely still recoverable.
   It can show us some of the environment in the communities to which works were written. If an author is writing a Gospel, he is probably trying to correct or reinforce some issue in the social setting of the community to which he is writing.
   It recognizes the possibility that historical narratives in the Bible are not primarily concerned with chronological accounts of historic events, but have theological agendas (though this does not require one to believe that the accounts are not historically factual).
and

applying the above scholarly research to the Jonbenet Ramsey ransom note and the original sourced movies, Dirty Harry, Ransom, Speed, The Deer Hunter, The Rock, Die Hard, Silence of the Lambs, it is clear that there is never a direct quote, but a redaction. The author always redacts the source so as to change the wording from the original form. Several deductions can be made, that this is not a genuine ransom note and this was not a kidnapping for ransom, the author was a huge fan of these movies, and that the crime is a thrill killing. the author very likely knew these movies by heart and then could change their wording on the fly, or wrote them down on a separate document, made changes until settling into its final form, and then transferred it to the Ramsey note pad. it is likely this killing was the result of a fantasy he long held. one similar crime are the abc murders where 3 girls whose first and last names were the same.
no way the Ramsays wrote this. many crime scene elements can also be inferred from these movies. actually leaving behind a written note was a fantasy inspired by Scorpio of Dirty Harry. Tape on the mouth by Silence of the lambs. Leaving the body in the house by The Fugitive. Targeting a rich kid, The Ransom. It is also clear the author communication and intent, was simply to string together as many movie quotes as he can. i.e when the author writes "we are a group of individuals that form a small foreign faction" "we respect your business" is a quote from Die Hard, "but not the country it serves" a quote from The Rock "it's up to you now" The Deer Hunter. this is both a fantasy and a joke for him.




_________________
If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side
avatar
redpill

Posts : 1488
Join date : 2012-12-08

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum