Wed Jan 22 07:54:41 1997

From owner-tc-list  Wed Jan 22 07:54:41 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id HAA26781; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 07:54:11 -0500
Date: 	Wed, 22 Jan 1997 07:49:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Bart Ehrman 
X-Sender: behrman@login2.isis.unc.edu
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism
In-Reply-To: <11C40F26DB@div.ed.ac.uk>
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: 2420

    It seems to me that what you're giving is a *caricature* of
postmodernist approaches to texts.  Where, Larry, did you get the idea
that postmodernists have no theoretical grounds on which to evaluate
different readings of a text??? (Not from Fish, I can assure you!) (You
should reread him!) (Actually, everyone should reread him, in my opinion)

    One point at issue may simply be rather banal, viz., what you mean by
a "correct" reading.

    I should also say that there are not many folk working in the biblical
field who are intimately familiar with postmodernist discourse from the
*inside* (as opposed to the dilletantes, who will always, I'm afraid to
say, be with us) -- i.e. people who actually read this stuff on its own
terms and for its own merit rather than simply seeing how they can come up
with a different approach to interpreting Mark, or whatever.  The ones in
this small crowd who have talked to me about "Orthodox Corruption" have
actually *liked* its approach to textual criticism (well ... they _said_
they did :-)).  And they seem to be the ones who have appreciated the full
ironies of the title. 

-- Bart

On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote:

> 
> Bart and I seem to have different appraisals of the value and even 
> the import of radical "post-modernist" theory.  Of course, every 
> reader has no choice but to decide what a text means, and in that 
> sense is terribly important in the reading/interpreting process.  
> And, of course, when texts are copied by hand, this "reading" will 
> also affect the copying/transmission.
> But the point Bart seems to be missing about radical postmodernist 
> theory (e.g., Fish, Lyotard, et alia), is that in their view *you 
> can't really criticize any reading as to whether it is more or less 
> correct, for there is no standard theoretical or otherwise by which 
> to talk about "correct"*.  That is, Bart, your term "orthodox 
> *corruption*" is out of bounds on postmodernist terms--there can be 
> no "corruption" for there is no standard by which to make such 
> judgments, or else *all* reading/copying is "corruption" so what's 
> the big deal?  Do you really want to embrace this approach to our 
> field, Bart?
> 
> Larry Hurtado
> 
> L. W. Hurtado
> University of Edinburgh,
> New College
> Mound Place 
> Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
> Phone: 0131-650-8920
> Fax: 0131-650-6579
> E-mail:  L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk
> 

Back