Thu Jan 23 12:01:03 1997

From owner-tc-list  Thu Jan 23 12:01:03 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id MAA10426; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:00:24 -0500
Message-Id: <199701231655.RAA97886@mail.uni-muenster.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 97 19:07:09 +0100
From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid)
Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
In-Reply-To: 
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1137

On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote:

[snip]
>    Let me end for anyone else who hasn't had the good sense simply to
>delete these little tirades back and forth by saying that Larry and I are
>Yindeed friends and are probably having a good time (though it is starting
>to heat up in here). Moreover, this conversation is not at *ALL* unrelated
>to textual criticism.  If this discipline is involved in reconstructing
>*texts* then it makes some sense to figure out what it is that we think
>we're *doing*.  For example, the question of what a text *is* is not
>unproblematic.  

Give it a try, Bart. What *is* a text? Suggestions without * * are particularly 
welcome.

>And the questino of whether scribes who reconstructed the
>text were doing something different from what we all do every time we read
>a text strikes me as particularly germane. 

There is at least one difference at first sight. Reading a text includes some 
interest in the interplay of signs, while copying can be done by mechanically 
drawing horizontal and vertical lines in exactly the same way as they were found 
in a source copy.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

Back