Fri Jan 24 06:36:42 1997

From owner-tc-list  Fri Jan 24 06:36:42 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id GAA17458; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 06:35:54 -0500
Message-Id: <199701241131.MAA123762@mail.uni-muenster.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 97 13:43:07 +0100
From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid)
Subject: Re: The function of TC
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: 979

On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Andrew C. Smith wrote:

>As much as many practitioners of TC might want to classify it as a
>scholarly, scientific, or academic pursuit, I would argue that it remains
>primarily a religious enterprise. (I duck as bricks are thrown.)

>To support this statement, I point to the lack of TC activity on
>non-religious texts. For example, the Diels-Kranz collection of
>pre-Socratic fragments presents us with many interesting textual
>questions; yet only a handful of researchers here and there are working on
>these projects. Compare this to the thousands who are working on NT
>textual concerns, and the thousands who analyze the MT of the Tanakh, and
>one can only conclude that they are religiously motivated, even though
>they might not be aware of this motivation. (Who's more interesting: Jesus
>or Thales.)

Andrew, I suspect you referred to the numbers off the top of your head. Could 
you, please, substantiate your claims.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster 

Back