Re: [textualcriticism] SNTS 2005 paper on INTF/IGNTP colaboration
- At 08:25 AM 8/30/2005 +0200, Wieland Willker wrote:
>They also coin, quite needlessly, another term for the archetype of theThe paper claims that their "initial text" is different from the
>tradition. They call it "initial text".
archetype of the tradition, but it is not quite clear to me how.
One of their reasons given for this distinction is:
|In traditional Lachmannian stemmatics, what happened to
|the text before the archetype was written was not the
However, in my understanding of stemmatics, what happened
before the archetype was written is certainly the editor's
business and, in fact, two of the four phases of stemmatics--
examinatio and divinatio--are expressly devoted to determining
the pre-archetypal text.
Perhaps a valid reason to avoid the term "archetype" is to
avoid its implications, especially that the "archetype"
represents the most recent common ancestor of the entire
textual tradition. If their techniques do not reconstruct
or even approximate such an entity, then it would be
certainly appropriate *not* to term the text that they do
generate as an "archetype."
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481