OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 23, 2014, 06:00:59 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What Do You Think of Textual Criticism?  (Read 2587 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,178


that is not the teaching of...


« on: October 24, 2009, 08:19:42 PM »

Most people associate textual criticism as being a fairly recent, mostly Protestant endeavor. However, we also know that the Fathers engaged in what would be considered textual criticism if it were happening today. Jerome, for example, was asked about a seeming contradiction between Matthew and Mark, and part of his response was to leave open the possibility that the ending of Mark not be accepted, since "that is carried in few gospels, almost all the books of Greece not having this passage at the end, especially and since it seems to speak various and contrary things to the other evangelists" (Letter 120). So what do you make of textual criticism? Do you accept it, but only if we find it in the Church Fathers? Or do you take what modern textual critics say into account as well?
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2009, 08:34:24 PM »

Oral Tradition:
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/podup/searchthescriptures/introduction_to_the_bible_lesson_4_the_oral_tradition

Bible manuscripts:
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/searchthescriptures/introduction_to_the_bible_lesson_5_bible_manuscripts_1

Part 2:
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/searchthescriptures/introduction_to_the_bible_lesson_6_bible_manuscripts_2

Part 3:
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/searchthescriptures/introduction_to_the_bible_lesson_7_bible_manuscripts_3


The Septuagint:
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/searchthescriptures/introduction_to_the_bible_lesson_8_the_septuagint


New Testament textual variants:
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OguifTmLAAA&feature=channel


Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjE8KVqhruI (New Testament textual variants part 2)


and


Saint Jerome & The Septuagint:
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTzkl3_lEXo

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYkLkPFyFkc

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy938DqJl1k (Saint Jerome & The Septuagint part)



And I traced a quote back to what Saint Cyprian had as Scripture some months ago:
http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/2009/07/1st-john-57-saint-cyprian.html (1st John 5:7, & Saint Cyprian)


Bishop Mark told his testamony in passing while talking about the canon of Scripture:
http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/2009/08/formation-of-scriptures-canon.html (The Formation of the Scriptures / Canon)








ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: October 24, 2009, 08:58:48 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,178


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #2 on: October 24, 2009, 08:42:13 PM »

Could you perhaps summarize in your own words what you are trying to say by providing these links? Smiley
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 24, 2009, 09:01:56 PM »

Could you perhaps summarize in your own words what you are trying to say by providing these links? Smiley


I will after you listen to the link about Oral tradition first. When you are done listenning to that, then I will share my own thoughts, for much of what I have to say is based on the concept of Oral Tradition, in which a good chunk of the New Testament....as well as the Old.......is.


So let me know when you are done listenning to the Oral Tradition one.........then I'll talk/type.








ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: October 24, 2009, 09:05:11 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,708



« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2009, 09:19:38 PM »

I have no use for textual criticism.  The Orthodox Faith existed before the New Testament Scriptures, just as the Jewish Faith existed before the Old Testament Canon.  Since it was Holy Tradition that dictated which scriptures were to be included, and which were to be rejected, textual criticism is of little to no value in determining what is true and correct, in other words, Orthodox.  It may have some value to those who have rejected the Church, Tradition, and the Fathers, and cling to the concept of Sola Sriptura.  But what some so called scholar hypothesizes about what some word means on some manuscript written in a language that hasn't been spoken in centuries has no meaning to me when I have 2000 years of Tradition to tell me what is necessary for living my life and working out my Salvation.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 24, 2009, 09:28:59 PM »

textual criticism is of little to no value in determining what is true and correct, in other words, Orthodox. 
Isn't the fact that the Orthodox Church only approves the Septuagint based on the fact that it is the version quoted in the New Testament an example of using textual criticism to determine what is Orthodox?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 24, 2009, 10:20:42 PM »

^^Um, exactly.  That and the fact that the earliest leaders of the Church after the Apostles (Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Polycarp, Cyprian) went to very detailed lengths in their expositions of the faith -- often down to the very words or even parts of words in Scripture verses -- to make their points when arguing with Jews or pagans.  For them, it was of the utmost importance to be κατα τας γραφας -- according to the Scriptures, not some unfounded oral tradition like the gnostics were doing.  Irenaeus went so afar as to say that the κερυγματα, the canon of truth which had been committed orally, was no different than what had been passed down in written form as well, so it was of utmost importance to stay faithful to the written Scriptures...and to do that, you have to engage the text rigorously.

Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2009, 10:42:28 PM »

^^Um, exactly.  That and the fact that the earliest leaders of the Church after the Apostles (Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Polycarp, Cyprian) went to very detailed lengths in their expositions of the faith -- often down to the very words or even parts of words in Scripture verses -- to make their points when arguing with Jews or pagans.  For them, it was of the utmost importance to be κατα τας γραφας -- according to the Scriptures, not some unfounded oral tradition like the gnostics were doing.  Irenaeus went so afar as to say that the κερυγματα, the canon of truth which had been committed orally, was no different than what had been passed down in written form as well, so it was of utmost importance to stay faithful to the written Scriptures...and to do that, you have to engage the text rigorously.




The written Scriptures of the East had somethings that the West didn't write down, and the West had somethings that the East didn't write down, and this is why you will find eastern christians living before as well as a little after 200A.D. quoting Scripture that is a little different (in some places) from what the western christians were quoting before as well as a little after 200A.D.

Most of it was the same, but there was slight variation, but most if not all of our New Testament Variants existed and were quoted by Christians before the year 300A.D., and that's why I see it all as "SCRIPTURE"!

The latter Byzantine Tradition included both early eastern & western traditions all in one text, and this is why the Byzantine text is usually longer.....for when you read that.....you will be reading everything that both EAST & West had as Scripture.......and thus, nothing will be missing.


Don't forget that the Gospels started out as Oral First, before they were written down, and therefor, it shouldn't matter when "parts" of the same Oral Tradition was later written, and this is what alot of Protestants, as well as Liberal Protestants, just don't understand. They know that the Gospels were Oral first, but they reason as if, they were written first. In doing so, they ignore the real impact of Oral Tradition, and the Cultures who relied on Oral tradition more than written Tradition.

Therefore, we should start with the Premise of Oral Tradition, and then go from there.








ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: October 24, 2009, 10:53:15 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,708



« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2009, 11:26:30 PM »

textual criticism is of little to no value in determining what is true and correct, in other words, Orthodox. 
Isn't the fact that the Orthodox Church only approves the Septuagint based on the fact that it is the version quoted in the New Testament an example of using textual criticism to determine what is Orthodox?

I don't believe that to be a fact.  I have always believed that the Orthodox Church uses the LXX because that is the version of the OT that was handed down to it.  The Orthodox Church had no need to use textual criticism to determine what version of the OT to use because the Orthodox Church was using the LXX to WRITE the New Testament.  Of course, this only holds true if you believe that the Orthodox Church is the APOSTOLIC Church mentioned in the Creed.  If you believe that the Orthodox Church is an organization that was developed in the Byzantine era, as some of the modernists do, then it may be necessary to "discover" the LXX through textual criticism.  For Orthodox Christians, this is not necessary. The LXX is simply what we always used.  Yes, as the first poster noted, men like Jerome and Origen started to question.  Look where that got Origen, and the West eventually.  I don't believe that the early Fathers who set the Church's Canon used textual criticism to determine what was Scripture.  I believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to sift the wheat from the chaff.  Given that the Canon of the NT has not changed in nearly 1400 years, I am at a loss to see what is left to discover.  It seems that most of the innovations that textual criticism have brought have driven men further from God, not closer, as is witnessed by the religious organizations that rely on this method.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,178


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #9 on: October 24, 2009, 11:46:48 PM »

Quote
Given that the Canon of the NT has not changed in nearly 1400 years, I am at a loss to see what is left to discover.

Is not the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 an addition from after the period when the NT canon was settled? It is my understanding that no Greek Father of that time quoted it, even those who went through the books commentating passage by passage (e.g. St. John Chrysostom). Yet these verses from John 8 are in Bibles today.
Logged
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,708



« Reply #10 on: October 25, 2009, 02:05:45 AM »

Quote
Given that the Canon of the NT has not changed in nearly 1400 years, I am at a loss to see what is left to discover.

Is not the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 an addition from after the period when the NT canon was settled? It is my understanding that no Greek Father of that time quoted it, even those who went through the books commentating passage by passage (e.g. St. John Chrysostom). Yet these verses from John 8 are in Bibles today.

So.  Is the message of worrying about our own sin rather than casting stones at others any less valid because of it?  That is the problem with textual criticism.  It puts the emphasis on unimportant details rather than the message of the text.  Also, the fact that no Greek Father commented on the "Pericope de Adultera" is of little consequence.  Several Latin Fathers did, including St. Ambrose and Bl. Augustine, both of whom were Fathers of the unified Church before the Schism.  Augustine goes as far as to say "certain persons of scant faith - or better, I believe, enemies of the true faith - fearing that their wives be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of kindness toward the adulteress".  There were also some Greek manuscripts that did include this pericope, but in different places within the Gospels than we have in texts today.  There is also evidence that this pericope was known in writings that were not contained in the current Canon (Gospel of the Hebrews and the writings of Papias).  In any case, both the Orthodox Study Bible's commentary (from my standpoint somewhat liberal) and the footnotes for the English translation of the commentary by the Blessed Theophylact (from my standpoint, a document written by a Conservative translator) agree that this section of text is regarded as Scripture by the Orthodox Church.  So again, what does it matter when the Orthodox Tradition is that it is Scripture?
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,178


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #11 on: October 25, 2009, 02:40:23 AM »

It seems to me that textual criticism is part of Orthodox tradition. Thus, if you accept Orthodox tradition as authoritative, you shouldn't be opposed to textual criticism in my opinion. You might disagree with the findings of certain textual critics, but in my opinion you shouldn't be opposed to the very idea. And I think it matters because I think the truth matters. I think having as much truth as we can gather puts us in the best position to make spiritual decisions.
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,184


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #12 on: October 25, 2009, 02:54:14 AM »

Most people associate textual criticism as being a fairly recent, mostly Protestant endeavor. However, we also know that the Fathers engaged in what would be considered textual criticism if it were happening today. Jerome, for example, was asked about a seeming contradiction between Matthew and Mark, and part of his response was to leave open the possibility that the ending of Mark not be accepted, since "that is carried in few gospels, almost all the books of Greece not having this passage at the end, especially and since it seems to speak various and contrary things to the other evangelists" (Letter 120). So what do you make of textual criticism? Do you accept it, but only if we find it in the Church Fathers? Or do you take what modern textual critics say into account as well?

The Orthodox have nothing to fear from modern textual criticism.  In fact, we should welcome it as a tool, like any other tool, as a means for better understanding Scripture and the environment in which Scripture was produced.  Unlike Protestants and even some Catholics, however, we don't have to (and fundamentally shouldn't) see it as the major way in which to properly interpret Scripture.  We are not fumbling around looking for a "hermeneutic bridge".  We know that the only way to ultimately interpret Scripture is through the Holy Spirit in the Church. However, when it is not taken to excess (as it unfortunately often is), textual criticism can be a great aid in understanding things about Scripture.  We just have to be careful to not take our eyes off of Christ, the Church, and Tradition.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2009, 02:57:24 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #13 on: October 25, 2009, 03:21:51 AM »

It seems that most of the innovations that textual criticism have brought have driven men further from God, not closer, as is witnessed by the religious organizations that rely on this method.

^ This is it right here.

Ironically, textual criticism is part of what drove me into Orthodoxy.  It destroyed my faith in relying on the Bible alone as a guide for my faith, and I began to see it as representing the logical conclusion of Protestantism (tearing the Holy Scriptures to shreds until belief was lost; basically, protesting one's way right out of Christianity).  This helped me appreciate concepts like tradition and apostolic authority almost immediately upon encountering them.

I don't see this as any kind of a good road for the Orthodox to go down.  Everything in the East exists in a mystic bubble, and we don't want to go popping it.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,178


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #14 on: October 25, 2009, 03:54:06 AM »

Quote
Ironically, textual criticism is part of what drove me into Orthodoxy.  It destroyed my faith in relying on the Bible alone as a guide for my faith, and I began to see it as representing the logical conclusion of Protestantism (tearing the Holy Scriptures to shreds until belief was lost; basically, protesting one's way right out of Christianity).  This helped me appreciate concepts like tradition and apostolic authority almost immediately upon encountering them. I don't see this as any kind of a good road for the Orthodox to go down.  Everything in the East exists in a mystic bubble, and we don't want to go popping it.

I perhaps followed a similar path, with my rejection of biblical inerrancy and sola scriptura playing a big part in my leaving Protestantism. However, I don't think Orthodoxy should avoid things like textual criticism for fear that the bubble might burst. Like the early Christians faced up to pagan mythology and philosophy, I would hope that Orthodoxy will face up to modern opponents as well, taking what is good from them and attempting to refute what is deemed harmful. I think this is especially true since Orthodox writers of the past have already faced up to such issues.

I would take St. Basil the Great as a model. He suggests that young people, so far from avoiding pagan literature, should "be conversant with poets, with historians, with orators, indeed with all men who may further our soul's salvation". St. Basil realised of course that there were some things in pagan literature that the Christian youth he was speaking to would find intellectually untrue or morally wrong, yet he still recommended reading such literature before delving into the Scripture. "If, then, there is any affinity between the two literatures [ie. pagan works and the Scripture], a knowledge of them should be useful to us in our search for truth; if not, the comparison, by emphasizing the contrast, will be of no small service in strengthening our regard for the better one." (St. Basil the Great, Address to the Young Men on the Right Use of Greek Literature, 2-3)
« Last Edit: October 25, 2009, 03:54:24 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,708



« Reply #15 on: October 25, 2009, 01:37:57 PM »

Asteriktos, my friend, I believe that we have found much common ground, only from opposite directions.  There is little in your last post that I do not agree with.  After reading the posts of this and the other thread, I have come to believe that my dislike for TC (and I still do dislike it) stems more from the motives of many that I have seen practice this than from the actual process itself.  Like any tool, it can be used for good or bad, depending on the heart of the person wielding it.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #16 on: October 25, 2009, 10:56:16 PM »

After reading the posts of this and the other thread, I have come to believe that my dislike for TC (and I still do dislike it) stems more from the motives of many that I have seen practice this than from the actual process itself.  Like any tool, it can be used for good or bad, depending on the heart of the person wielding it.

I completely agree.  I probably dislike it so much because everyone that I know who does this professionally utilize it as a way to destroy people's faith, and they take great pleasure in it.  They are truly evil men, and my boss is one of them.  I work in a secular department of Religious Studies, and the people in my department who do textual criticism of the Holy Scriptures absolutely hate religious people and faith in general.  I know that they used to be religious themselves and must have gotten hurt somewhere along the way.  I almost became one of them myself, and by the grace of God I literally stumbled into an Orthodox temple just in time.

Anyway, my general impression of these types of scholars can be summarized by the conduct and content of the works of Bart Ehrman.  This man came and spoke at my department a couple of years ago as the "resident theologian" for the year, and he ended up screaming and punching the lectern when he started talking about contradictions in the Bible.  He is still a hate-filled fundamentalist, the only difference is that now he's batting for the other team.  (For those of you that don't know, that's team Satan.)

Many of these professors who are textual critics take sadistic pleasure in torturing their sheltered religious students.  For example, my area of the country and the university that I teach and study at has a large Catholic population.  So last week during lectures, my professor made sure to take twenty minutes of his lecture on the 'historical Jesus' to explain the virgin birth 'myth' and its pagan origins, followed by a scholarly defense of the thesis that Mary the mother of Jesus was raped by the Roman soldier Pantera.  He really drove in that this 'bastard Jesus' (may God forgive my repeating it) spoke of God as Father because he had none of his own, so he projected this persona onto his deity to fulfill his own needs.  He really wanted to get a strong reaction out of the students by soiling the good name of the Mother of God by suggesting she was raped.  A truly sick man.  I contemplated quitting that day, but I still have done nothing.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2009, 10:59:47 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 26, 2009, 05:00:02 AM »

textual criticism is of little to no value in determining what is true and correct, in other words, Orthodox. 
Isn't the fact that the Orthodox Church only approves the Septuagint based on the fact that it is the version quoted in the New Testament an example of using textual criticism to determine what is Orthodox?

I don't believe that to be a fact.  I have always believed that the Orthodox Church uses the LXX because that is the version of the OT that was handed down to it.  The Orthodox Church had no need to use textual criticism to determine what version of the OT to use because the Orthodox Church was using the LXX to WRITE the New Testament.  Of course, this only holds true if you believe that the Orthodox Church is the APOSTOLIC Church mentioned in the Creed.  If you believe that the Orthodox Church is an organization that was developed in the Byzantine era, as some of the modernists do, then it may be necessary to "discover" the LXX through textual criticism.  For Orthodox Christians, this is not necessary. The LXX is simply what we always used.  Yes, as the first poster noted, men like Jerome and Origen started to question.  Look where that got Origen, and the West eventually.  I don't believe that the early Fathers who set the Church's Canon used textual criticism to determine what was Scripture.  I believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to sift the wheat from the chaff.  Given that the Canon of the NT has not changed in nearly 1400 years, I am at a loss to see what is left to discover.  It seems that most of the innovations that textual criticism have brought have driven men further from God, not closer, as is witnessed by the religious organizations that rely on this method.


As far as I know, Origen was a strong advocate of the LXX. Saint Jerome told a fib about Origen being against the LXX. If you read what Origen had to say, you will see that he created the Hexepla(6 colomn parallel Bible) to argue against non-believing Jews.

It was really Saint Jerome that started the whole diss of the LXX. Alot of later people simply quote Saint Jerome in what he said about Origen, but if you read Origen, it's clear that such a thing wasn't the case. Saint Jerome also told a fib about the Apostles not liking the LXX or quoting from the Hebrew more than the LXX. If you trace the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament, then it's pretty easy to see that the Apostles """mostly""" quoted from the LXX family of texts.

The Protestant Reformers as well as the translators of the 1611 KJV all followed Saint Jerome's lead, and it wasn't too hard for Saint Jerome put his commentary in the Latin Vulgate. So don't believe what Saint Jerome says.........always double check his claims in this regard.








ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: October 26, 2009, 05:06:12 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #18 on: October 26, 2009, 05:10:15 AM »

It seems to me that textual criticism is part of Orthodox tradition. Thus, if you accept Orthodox tradition as authoritative, you shouldn't be opposed to textual criticism in my opinion. You might disagree with the findings of certain textual critics, but in my opinion you shouldn't be opposed to the very idea. And I think it matters because I think the truth matters. I think having as much truth as we can gather puts us in the best position to make spiritual decisions.

The Byzantine family of texts.....the majority text is a form of textual criticism, the only difference is our methods.

But when it comes to the LXX family of texts, there is really no need for we started with this tradition. To leave it for the latter Masoretic would be a bad thing.


I think when it comes to textual criticism......just like all things, we must look at the philosophies behind it, and question all assumptions/speculations.









ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: October 26, 2009, 05:35:24 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #19 on: October 26, 2009, 05:44:23 AM »

Quote
Given that the Canon of the NT has not changed in nearly 1400 years, I am at a loss to see what is left to discover.

Is not the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 an addition from after the period when the NT canon was settled? It is my understanding that no Greek Father of that time quoted it, even those who went through the books commentating passage by passage (e.g. St. John Chrysostom). Yet these verses from John 8 are in Bibles today.


Antioch and parts of Palistine had a different tradition, for they were missing 5 books in their New Testament as well........Saint John Chrysostom was missing 5 books. But just because he was missing 5 books doesn't mean , Rome, Alexandria, Carthage, and Gaul were missing those same 5 books and that chapter in John.

Also, don't forget that early Constantinople borrowed alot of it's tradition from Antioch.....and so we shouldn't make "all of christiandom" change their scriptural tradition ......so that they can conform to the Antiochian tradition. Don't forget, we didn't have a 100% uniform New Testament collection of books for the first few centuries.


What the Byzantine family of texts did was combine the different traditions of east and west all into one uniform text. So that no matter what, what both sides had would be fused together as one text.









ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: October 26, 2009, 05:52:29 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #20 on: October 26, 2009, 09:20:21 PM »

Personally, I think if one is a scholar then perhaps it might be very useful. For the faithful of Christ, it largely serves as a distraction from using the Sacred Text as a spiritual means of salvation.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #21 on: October 26, 2009, 09:43:03 PM »

Textual criticism grew out of the writings of the Bible and of early Church Fathers. Modern textual criticism simply reinvents the wheel. We all know how to do textual criticism, it's there in the Bible and there in the Fathers.

For example, consider the dialogue of Mary and the angel at the Annunciation. Mary constantly wonders how to interpret what is being said to her, and what it may mean.

A line can be drawn from the early Church Fathers and their writings, right up to the textual criticism that was becoming popular 100-150 years ago, when English became a discipline in its own right. People have always built on the religious model of interpretation.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #22 on: January 29, 2011, 03:44:18 PM »

 So last week during lectures, my professor made sure to take twenty minutes of his lecture on the 'historical Jesus' to explain the virgin birth 'myth' and its pagan origins, followed by a scholarly defense of the thesis that Mary the mother of Jesus was raped by the Roman soldier Pantera.  He really drove in that this 'bastard Jesus' (may God forgive my repeating it) spoke of God as Father because he had none of his own, so he projected this persona onto his deity to fulfill his own needs.  He really wanted to get a strong reaction out of the students by soiling the good name of the Mother of God by suggesting she was raped.  A truly sick man.  I contemplated quitting that day, but I still have done nothing.

Sorry to bump such an old thread, but that is some sick stuff. What was the reaction with the rest of the class?

I guess that whole rape thing began in the 2nd century with Celsus if I'm not mistaken: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus
« Last Edit: January 29, 2011, 03:56:30 PM by Aposphet » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
David Garner
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 292



WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 01, 2011, 10:43:21 AM »

It would probably do well to define what we mean by "textual criticism."

I think what is meant is the higher critical method (as opposed to the historical grammatical method).

Everyone uses "textual criticism."  The issue is one of authority and second-guessing.  The historical grammatical method, as I understand it, accepts the tradition handed down.  The higher critical method, by contrast, seeks to "discover" the "truth" about the Scriptures by comparing them to each other and other historical works, and excludes the supernatural.  As a rough, crude example of the latter, a higher critical scholar might (and many such scholars do) say the reference in Matthew to the destruction of the Temple in 70AD suggests a date of authorship for Matthew after 70AD, since the author could not have known in advance this would happen.  Of course, the tradition is Matthew was written a couple of decades prior to this.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2011, 10:46:20 AM by David Garner » Logged

MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #24 on: February 02, 2011, 12:13:05 AM »

Its a great method by which we know the state of the Christian scriptures and that refute such ignorant claims that it has been preserved perfectly that some evangelical authorities make claim of. Of course it seems there are many opinions regarding this, but it certaintly doesn't hurt Orthodox Christianity but only equips people with more knowledge.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2011, 12:22:18 AM »

textual criticism is of little to no value in determining what is true and correct, in other words, Orthodox. 
Isn't the fact that the Orthodox Church only approves the Septuagint based on the fact that it is the version quoted in the New Testament an example of using textual criticism to determine what is Orthodox?

This is a fact? Seems more of the more serious and thoughtful Orthodox thinkers I listen to and read and interact with engage with many texts (there is no Septuagint) including Hebrew texts.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #26 on: February 02, 2011, 12:33:39 AM »

The Septuagint is mostly reccomended I think but it is not forbidden to use another. I think the reason for this because the Apostles used the Septuagint and they found it sufficient to get accross the message of Christ, therefore why use another other?
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #27 on: February 02, 2011, 12:35:26 AM »

textual criticism is of little to no value in determining what is true and correct, in other words, Orthodox. 
Isn't the fact that the Orthodox Church only approves the Septuagint based on the fact that it is the version quoted in the New Testament an example of using textual criticism to determine what is Orthodox?

This is a fact? Seems more of the more serious and thoughtful Orthodox thinkers I listen to and read and interact with engage with many texts (there is no Septuagint) including Hebrew texts.

Referencing the hebrew OT can come in handy once in a while, especially for looking up the meaning of names and words like how "echad" describes God.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #28 on: February 02, 2011, 12:42:42 AM »

All reading is textual criticism. I can't believe that anyone outside the most blind Fundie circles can think otherwise. Even then, it takes about five and half minutes to demonstrate to them, they in fact use textual criticism.

Hermeneutics is a complex and vast and probably the most singular important area of study.

Even arguing against textual criticism whether "high" or "low" invariably draws one into using "high" and "low" textual criticism to attempt to discredit it.

Contrary, to what many might believe (and they are usually the ones who haven't cracked open many contemporary texts on hermeneutics) "post-modern" hermeneutical insights I believe have extra-ordinary tools to offer serious students of any text, Biblical, Patristic. etc.

I just read some interesting work by Fr. John Breck using more contemporary hermeneutical methods to approach Patristic writing. Which methods of course were conditioned and informed by the hermeneutics of the Fathers themselves.

It is the hermeneutic spiral.

Even the great hermeneut Heidegger himself quipped that his insights and expansion of hermeneutics outside of their typical areas of explicit use were mere footnotes to St. Augustine.

Just look at all the Bible version / translation threads here, not too mention what possibly the sources texts mean in light of many variables and how they are rendered through time, culture, and language.

This is my wheelhouse. But I don't try to get too carried away outside of my academic interest when it comes down to the hermeneutics of living out what I read.

The simple reminder I give myself when I am parsing out the and vexing over the slightest shade of meaning of any text, especially Biblical is:

The Sermon on the Mount.

Pretty Straightforward.

Pretty Scary.

Not a lot of fancy criticism to be doing there, except of myself.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #29 on: February 02, 2011, 12:50:44 AM »

The Septuagint is mostly reccomended I think but it is not forbidden to use another. I think the reason for this because the Apostles used the Septuagint and they found it sufficient to get accross the message of Christ, therefore why use another other?

This is very controversial. And again there was no Septuagint in the sense that there was not a single collection of uniform Scriptures sitting in every home of every Hebrew.

Why use the Hebrew Scriptures at all, if the NT is sufficient?

Have you done a fair bit of reading of the varient sources for whatever Septuagint you are using along with varient sources from the Hebrew texts?

Not necessary for salvation, but quite interesting and eye-opening.

There is a reason why people remain employed and writing volumes regarding this subject.



Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 03, 2011, 02:53:23 AM »

Another great lecture about the Oral Tradition. This one from a Roman Catholic perspective from a Jewish convert to the RCC:
http://hebrewca.ipower.com/SoundFiles/S5L01ApostolicTraditionandOralTorah.mp3 (The Oral Torah) by Dr. Lawrence Feingold
« Last Edit: February 03, 2011, 02:54:13 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 03, 2011, 02:57:30 AM »

The Septuagint is mostly reccomended I think but it is not forbidden to use another. I think the reason for this because the Apostles used the Septuagint and they found it sufficient to get accross the message of Christ, therefore why use another other?

This is very controversial. And again there was no Septuagint in the sense that there was not a single collection of uniform Scriptures sitting in every home of every Hebrew.

Why use the Hebrew Scriptures at all, if the NT is sufficient?

Have you done a fair bit of reading of the varient sources for whatever Septuagint you are using along with varient sources from the Hebrew texts?

Not necessary for salvation, but quite interesting and eye-opening.

There is a reason why people remain employed and writing volumes regarding this subject.



Why do you hate the LXX Text Family? And why do you want us to change? Why can't we continue to preserve this most ancient Christian tradition? It's not like we started to hold to the LXX family of texts yesterday. We have been holding on to it for a long long time.


So why do you want us to change? Also, it's alot easier to simply say "The LXX" than "The LXX family of texts"

« Last Edit: February 03, 2011, 02:59:25 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #32 on: February 03, 2011, 06:01:25 AM »

The Septuagint is mostly reccomended I think but it is not forbidden to use another. I think the reason for this because the Apostles used the Septuagint and they found it sufficient to get accross the message of Christ, therefore why use another other?

This is very controversial. And again there was no Septuagint in the sense that there was not a single collection of uniform Scriptures sitting in every home of every Hebrew.

Why use the Hebrew Scriptures at all, if the NT is sufficient?

Have you done a fair bit of reading of the varient sources for whatever Septuagint you are using along with varient sources from the Hebrew texts?

Not necessary for salvation, but quite interesting and eye-opening.

There is a reason why people remain employed and writing volumes regarding this subject.



Why do you hate the LXX Text Family? And why do you want us to change? Why can't we continue to preserve this most ancient Christian tradition? It's not like we started to hold to the LXX family of texts yesterday. We have been holding on to it for a long long time.


So why do you want us to change? Also, it's alot easier to simply say "The LXX" than "The LXX family of texts"



I try not to feed folks' histrionics. So if you can reply in a more reasonable manner, you might get the attention you are seeking.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2011, 06:01:56 AM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 03, 2011, 11:11:57 AM »

The Septuagint is mostly reccomended I think but it is not forbidden to use another. I think the reason for this because the Apostles used the Septuagint and they found it sufficient to get accross the message of Christ, therefore why use another other?

This is very controversial. And again there was no Septuagint in the sense that there was not a single collection of uniform Scriptures sitting in every home of every Hebrew.

Why use the Hebrew Scriptures at all, if the NT is sufficient?

Have you done a fair bit of reading of the varient sources for whatever Septuagint you are using along with varient sources from the Hebrew texts?

Not necessary for salvation, but quite interesting and eye-opening.

There is a reason why people remain employed and writing volumes regarding this subject.



Why do you hate the LXX Text Family? And why do you want us to change? Why can't we continue to preserve this most ancient Christian tradition? It's not like we started to hold to the LXX family of texts yesterday. We have been holding on to it for a long long time.


So why do you want us to change? Also, it's alot easier to simply say "The LXX" than "The LXX family of texts"



I try not to feed folks' histrionics. So if you can reply in a more reasonable manner, you might get the attention you are seeking.

I just asked a simple question. You seem to have a problem with this tradition. Why? My previous response should be looked at within the context of me liking this tradition of ours. I actually like it, and I want us to continue to preserve it.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2011, 11:13:29 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Tags: Scripture textual criticism Tradition 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.131 seconds with 60 queries.