Wed Jan 22 10:47:09 1997

From owner-tc-list  Wed Jan 22 10:47:09 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA28674; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:46:22 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
 
References: <16BDEC2A36@div.ed.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:44:54 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2200

On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Bart Ehrman  wrote:

>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.)

OK, I'll play the straight man (booby, whatever). Is not the "correct"
reading "the original reading of whatever document you are trying to
reconstruct"?

This might not be the autograph, and it may be that we cannot find
that reading. But surely that is what we are looking for! If not,
what is the point of the exercise?

If I've missed something here (I've never been too interested in
modern forms of destructive literary criticism; indeed, I almost
never read post-18th century literature, other than -- I will
admit -- science fiction), I hope someone will explain.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         waltzmn@skypoint.com

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

Back