Wed Jan 22 10:25:53 1997

From owner-tc-list  Wed Jan 22 10:25:53 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA28420; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:25:09 -0500
Date: 	Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:19:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Bart Ehrman 
X-Sender: behrman@login4.isis.unc.edu
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism
In-Reply-To: <16BDEC2A36@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: 1260



On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote:
> 
> Bart--My point was that it is legitimate to try to determine what may 
> be more or less "correct" readings, as distinguished from the view 
> that there is no theoretical basis for even entertaining the 
> question. I wish to assert that it is not a waste of time for us to 
> argue over readings as to whether they are more or less "correct" and 
> to argue over what "correct" means.
> 
   Of course we can argue over readings.  What else do you imagine
postmodernist interpreters *do*?  Fish, after all, is a *Milton* scholar,
and his readings of Milton might strike you as remarkably traditional. But
you still haven't answered my question concerning what you think a
"correct" reading is.  (I should point out, by the way, that a more or
less correct reading, to use your phrase, is also more or less incorrect; 
and if all we can do is give readings that are more or less correct, then
our readings always, inevitably, more or less incorrect.  I.e., we
inevitably corrupt the text.  This is quite apart from the question of
what you imagine this "correct" reading to be, which we appear to be able
only more or less to approximate.)

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

Back