Thu Jan 23 15:11:05 1997
From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 23 15:11:05 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id PAA12712; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:10:27 -0500
Message-Id: <199701232006.VAA38986@mail.uni-muenster.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 97 22:17:53 +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: 2610
On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote:
> But off the top of my head, I guess I think a "written" text (is this
>what you wanted?) is a concatenation of symbols on a page that is socially
>constructed to convey meaning. How am I doing?
Oh, you are doing fine. If I understand you correctly, (a) meaning is socially
constructed, too; (b) "to convey" does not rule out the fact that an individual
creating a written text may have his/her own intended meaning he/she likes to
communicate.
No problems with that.
>(I think, by the way,
>that any conceivable concatenation of symbols is in fact able to be
>construed as meaningful)
Now, what does this passive voice construction imply when compared to your
definition? Any restrictions with respect to either (a) or (b)?
[Schmid]
>> 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.
>>
> Now see, by forsaking asterisks you've limited yourself. I'd say that
>"copying *can* be done" this way. And it probably *is* (sorry) done that
>way by scribes who can't read the language they are transcribing (I
>suppose Codex Theta could be an example?), and possibly by scribes who
>"space out" in the course of their labors. But then again, a lot of us
>space out when we read, with the letters making some kind of presentation
>to our eyes but not to our heads, so I'm not sure the processes are all
>that different.
Now, that's fine. You conceded my example to be theoretically possible, in fact,
you even added some evidence (Codex Theta) that it may have happened
practically.
> I guess maybe one difference could be that scribes _are_ (how's that?)
>able to reproduce exactly what they inherit in their exemplars, whereas
>readers, I would maintain, can never reproduce exactly the meanings either
>of the author or of any other readers.
I wish I could do the same with respect to your example. I have no problems
conceding theoretically that "scribes _are_ able to reproduce exactly what they
inherit in their exemplars". However, I fail to add any evidence that this has
happened practically. Now, if something seems theoretically plausible (exact
copy) that has, as far as I know, not been practically achieved until the
invention of printing, why should it be theoretically implausible to assume
exact reproduction of meaning? To my mind, the crucial term in your example is
"exactly".
Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
Back