5433Re: [textualcriticism] Re: M. A. Robinson's recent article
- Dec 1, 2009Wieland, I don't know exactly what you mean, we probably talk past each other. I just wanted to point out that your own method ("repeating WH") as applied in your textual commentary looks as "circular" as the CBGM to me (as you apply your external evidence in every passage you comment on), but, as I said, I don't think the term "circular" is the best description.I have blogged on this three years ago:http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/09/textual-circularity-unavoidable.htmlAnd as Stephen Carlson nicely put it in one of the comments:"There's no real circularity, but more of a question of working from the known to the unknown.
Some readings are more clearly right or wrong on internal grounds than others. The idea is to use our knowledge about the variation units where the application of internal criteria is clear to identify which witnesses to use in conjunction with the external evidence for when the internal evidence is not so clear.
This is more like a bootstrapping process than a circularity."Tommy Wasserman
From: Wieland Willker [wie@...]
Sent: 1/12/2009 11:34:28 AM
Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: M. A. Robinson's recent article
Tommy Wasserman wrote:
> I would describe it as a bootstrapping procedure > (not just circular),that you seem to accept
> yourself since you appeal to external evidenceThat's not circular.
> that is largely based on internal evidence. You
> arrive at this external evidence by accumulating
> data in a large number of passages, working from
> clearer cases to more complex.
It get's circular if you repeat this procedure more than once.
------------ --------- -----
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
http://www.uni- bremen.de/ ~wie
http://www.uni- bremen.de/ ~wie/TCG/
Vinster p� �ver 40 miljoner i Betssons Casino!
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>