Tue Jan 21 15:05:09 1997

From owner-tc-list  Tue Jan 21 15:05:09 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id PAA19444; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 15:04:11 -0500
Date: 	Tue, 21 Jan 1997 14:59:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Bart Ehrman 
X-Sender: behrman@login1.isis.unc.edu
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Post-modern textual criticism
In-Reply-To: <32E4CFAF.3043@emory.edu>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1251

   Let me just say that I find P. Durusau's comments, personally,
convincing (on literary theory and post-modernist approaches to texts),
and not at *all* off-topic with respect to textual criticism.  As it turns
out, I have found Stanley Fish's work in particular to be completely
germane to the sorts of things we do in the field (which involves, among
other things, determining not only what writers wrote but also what
readers read), and used it explicitly, in fact, as the theoretical
framework within which to situate my study _The Orthodox Corruption of
Scripture_.  The point I tried to make there is that every rereading of a
text is a rewriting of the text, and what the scribes did when they
literally rewrote the text is analogous, in significant ways, with what
each of us does (whether we choose to acknowledge it or not) every time we
read a text.   (To my knowledge, every textual specialist who has reviewed
the book has overlooked this theoretical placement of its analysis.)

    I've been tempted to write a short paper entitled "When Stanley Fish
Met Constantine von Tischendorf" to play this out a bit, but haven't
gotten around to it.  At least I have a title...

-- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Back