Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5435RE: [textualcriticism] Re: M. A. Robinson's recent article

Expand Messages
  • Tommy Wasserman
    Dec 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      WW: "But in the CBGM, they enter the external evidence, process again, from this
      get new external evidence, process again and so on. This is circular."

      The "external evidence" that enters the process at the outset is called "pre-genealogical." This data has to do mainly with the quantitative relationship between the manuscripts (how closely related are they in terms of conformity of readings). This data will be used later in order to assess how genealogically significant any agreement between two witnesses is. For example, if two MSS have a very similar text, any individual agreement between them is more unlikely to be coincidental (therefore "connective"), and vice versa. The other type of pre-genealogical evidence has to do with the character of variants - the same type of data you use when you speak of "clearly secondary readings". When you view them as clearly secondary you have made a decision on the genealogy of variants. For your evaluation of external evidence you have picked out (I suppose) as many clear cases as you could find and applied a local-gen. method. To use the CBGM-terminology you have decided that variants in those particular variation-units are highly connective, one reading is derived from the other (or perhaps you have more readings than two, but the relationship is clear). In other variation-units where the relationship between the variants is unclear, the connectivity is low. 

      In your own circular movement, if you allow me to use that phrase, you move around the circle once in order to find "clearly secondary readings" and then in the next round you dealt with clear cases (right?). The question is if all of these cases in the first round are as clear, or if you could have devised a method to go through the circle twice or thrice (perhaps corresponding to your own rating system). What if you had a computer program to help you accumulate the genealogical data along the way? 

      BTW, at this point the INTF is doing a revision in light of the accumulated genealogical data for the whole of the Catholic Letters. 

      Tommy Wasserman


      <-----Ursprungligt Meddelande----->
        From: Wieland Willker [wie@...]
      Sent: 1/12/2009 12:06:13 PM
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: M. A. Robinson's recent article 


       

      Stephen Carlson:

      > 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.

      I think the method as described by Carlson is sound. It is used for
      generations already. There is no other choice than work like this, IMO.
      But in the CBGM, they enter the external evidence, process again, from this
      get new external evidence, process again and so on. This is circular.

      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      ------------ --------- -----
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:wie@uni-bremen. de
      http://www.uni- bremen.de/ ~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www.uni- bremen.de/ ~wie/TCG/

      _______________________________________________________________
      Vinster p� �ver 40 miljoner i Betssons Casino!

    • Show all 12 messages in this topic