Ist das Letztgültige wirklich „ein Gegenstand neben anderen“?

W. Schüssler
{"title":"Ist das Letztgültige wirklich „ein Gegenstand neben anderen“?","authors":"W. Schüssler","doi":"10.1515/iytr-2018-247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Based on the dictum of Tillich: “There is no ‘urtext’ with me,” the article raises the question of the authenticity of Tillich’s texts. Recourse to the first editions proves to be inadequate, especially with regard to the English texts, since these texts have been corrected by third parties, which has often led to errors. Thus it is usually necessary to use the manuscripts and typescripts, and sometimes also the translation of the English texts into German, since Tillich here often also made changes to the English text.","PeriodicalId":318433,"journal":{"name":"International Yearbook for Tillich Research","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Yearbook for Tillich Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/iytr-2018-247","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Based on the dictum of Tillich: “There is no ‘urtext’ with me,” the article raises the question of the authenticity of Tillich’s texts. Recourse to the first editions proves to be inadequate, especially with regard to the English texts, since these texts have been corrected by third parties, which has often led to errors. Thus it is usually necessary to use the manuscripts and typescripts, and sometimes also the translation of the English texts into German, since Tillich here often also made changes to the English text.
最近的这个真的是"一个物体和另一个物体"吗?
摘要本文以蒂利希的名言“在我这里没有‘非文本’”为基础,提出了蒂利希文本的真实性问题。诉诸第一版证明是不够的,特别是关于英文文本,因为这些文本已由第三方更正,这往往导致错误。因此,通常有必要使用手稿和打字稿,有时还需要将英语文本翻译成德语,因为蒂利希在这里也经常对英语文本进行修改。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信