'completeness and wholeness' in DA~CD

'completeness and wholeness' in DA~CD

Consider the null hypothesis that has been given to me by Tan=> a document needs  to be considered as a complete whole; let me guess just how far one can go with this in naive reading=>

Let me pick up a piece of paper with writing on it; naively I can despite "fishy" signals perhaps that one and only one writer uttered the text with no revisions; one might begin to wonder about this assumption when the text begins to show sharp differences in seeming sense to be inferred, or even big or average contradictions (nobody could be expected to be completely logical in all points uttered over a "long run" of living!) Other differences, like the handwriting/autograph showing variance in the assumed "complete whole"=> a more emphatic difference coming to the reader's attention might be that a whole language may differ inside the document. Totally different kinds of constent per writ may shift. What would be a worst-case-scendario for obvious plural challenges to the "complete whole" of the text. . .
                                                                                            would it not be a blatant "hodge podge" of challenges to an assumption that a document has unity of purpose, style, "autography"? <I think I could make such a hodge podge document by picking up litter with writing from the sundry wastes and glue them all together into {what would be obviously illogical} a silly doc that-- like the Gordian Knot-- be utterly un-decipherable.><This means, in my way as "silly redactor," that I am taking a "community"/KOINONIA into that writ expressing cacophony. This thought experiment-- easy to replicate empirically-- has what would seem to be a none-but-valid result/conclusion=> the "complely whole" document thesis cannot stand.>

<One should notice in this statement that per the Corpus Dionysiacum I wish to take (in assuming the null hypothesis of Tan's whole-and-complete ass-u-me) that something obvious and termable in Dionysius' vocabulary these jumblings of surds; the very fact is that CD is a collection of inputs in series, first in Denys himself borrowing from NeoPlatonists and Church Padres to one stage of publication; then this Ur-CD being added subtracted textually by subsequent others. With a semi-random sampling into my texts by Suchla/Heil/Ritter, I have noticed that most of the textual variations are for rather redundant expressions, likely with the motive of offering a "good text with good sense"=> there are other texts in the "extended" Corpus-- those suggesting radical digression from the usuals in Denys (that are assumed to be borrowedly origninal with this guy who claims to be Dionysius Areopagite of Acts 17). "Eyeballing" these extant docs, it looks as though the repetition of the matter-- really the false-report by my science from Leo Oppolzer's KANON DER FINSTERNISSE-- of a ?global? eclipse of the sun occuring at the very moment of the death by crucifixion of Jesus. As well, we can count the "Liturgy of Dionysius" which is guessably false production as extant only in  L A T I N. . .

I am familiar from other reads of "pseudipigrapha" and "lives of Saints' " hagiography that this kind of jarring awareness of "community authorship" readily applies to Denys and works attributed to him-- usually wrongfully when beyond what are now held to be the Corpus Dionysiacum-- and never as is the case of much writing from ancient times that "the editiorial," "the-forged" hand of some "outsider" has input which is transmitted on-down-the-line until commonly-- even by Catholics-- the entire CD "shooting-match" is pseudo.>

In other words, speaking to the suspect assumption of "completely whole" documents from ancient time, the presentation of "glares" and "misfits"from this assumption will lead us to assume possible validity to my "alternate (chosen) hypothesis of "mixture" not purity of authorship, rather speaking to a practice of editorial work which seems blatant and common PASSIM in ancient and medieval literature. To me now, this kind of assay could become perfectly empirical, for there would seem to be little reason to hold that these "glitches" sundry could not be framed into a solid empirical design.

The "glitches"seem perfectly consonant with PUNCTUMs (Barthes) and "primary reflection" (Marcel) as well as other phenomenological and psycho-analytic work. I could present my "case study" as producing such testable hypotheses of "documentary tampering" counter to Tan's notion that certain ancient texts (the NT) must be regarded as "whole," "complete" with then only shifts of emphasis re different "Gospel-like" holy texts. . .

Previously and to this moment I have found (per Ding-an-Sich case study of Denys) CD vocabulary to relate to these-- mostly modern linguage constructs-- categorical designations. <See prior entries in my writs on the topic upon Corpus Dionysiacum for vocabulary-Greek-in-CD to apply to this work, now seeming to take shape and form!>

vernonlynn stephens sissy

NOTE!! MUCH DOCUMENTATION FOR THIS WORK ON DIONYSIUS CALLED AREOPAGITE IS HELD IN MY (vernonlynn stephens', sissy's) GOOGLE CLASSROOM ON THIS SUBJECT; SEE THIS  H I G H L I G H T E D LINK, PER FAVOUR. . . .