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

Re: [textualcriticism] SNTS 2005 paper on INTF/IGNTP colaboration

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... The paper claims that their initial text is different from the archetype of the tradition, but it is not quite clear to me how. ... However, in my
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      At 08:25 AM 8/30/2005 +0200, Wieland Willker wrote:
      >They also coin, quite needlessly, another term for the archetype of the
      >tradition. They call it "initial text".

      The paper claims that their "initial text" is different from the
      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
      |editor�s business.

      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 Carlson
      --
      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
      Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
      Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.