OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 17, 2014, 09:04:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Textual Criticism  (Read 481 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,952


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« on: January 17, 2013, 04:26:09 PM »

So, I was wondering what everyone here thinks about modern, biblical textual criticism. Like it or do you prefer the good ol' Textus Receptus?
Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 9,945


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2013, 04:32:55 PM »

So, I was wondering what everyone here thinks about modern, biblical textual criticism. Like it or do you prefer the good ol' Textus Receptus?

Personally, I prefer textural criticism.  Very tactile.   Grin Grin  I stay away from that other stuff.  As for Textus Receptus, if it's been good enough for 2000 years or so, it's good enough for me.  Wink

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,511



« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2013, 04:56:39 PM »

So, I was wondering what everyone here thinks about modern, biblical textual criticism. Like it or do you prefer the good ol' Textus Receptus?

Accepting the historical reality of variations in manuscript traditions and the teaching authority of the Church to explain the meaning of what is written helps. It only becomes a problem if you believe in sola scriptura and see textual criticism as a means of questioning the reliability of your sole authority. That being said, I love the Textus Receptus and have no issue with textual criticism as long as it doesn't lead one to reject the way in which those passages of scripture have always been understood.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 04:57:04 PM by Melodist » Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,905



« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2013, 05:11:49 PM »

So, I was wondering what everyone here thinks about modern, biblical textual criticism. Like it or do you prefer the good ol' Textus Receptus?

There's truth in it, but it can be hell for a believer. It may even cost you your faith. You'd certainly have to give up on many 'facts' one usually takes for granted (Moses wrote the Torah, the Evangelists the Gospels, St. John the Divine the Book of Revelation, Jonah or Job as historical figures, etc.), but other bits will add up (e.g. looking at Genesis in its Ancient Near Eastern context sure makes a lot of sense - you'll never again be able to look at it with the naive gaze of the creationist fundie, though). You'll be able to see what the author(s) intended to say, how each book would have been understood by the contemporary target-reader, its social and literary context, but you might end up viewing its traditional interpretation as an interested/interesting figment. It's like trading the big picture of Tradition for a microscope view. That's the price you pay for 'in depth' knowledge, I guess...    
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 05:39:03 PM by Romaios » Logged
Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,952


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2013, 05:19:56 PM »

That wasn't the kind of criticism I was talking about  laugh
Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,905



« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2013, 05:25:06 PM »

That wasn't the kind of criticism I was talking about  laugh

Oh, you meant whether the critical editions from Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft are preferable to, say, the Greek Patriarchal Text of 1914? I'd go with the first for in depth study and the second for liturgical/devotional use.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 05:25:32 PM by Romaios » Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 1,926


xOrthodox4Christx
« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2013, 06:53:29 AM »

So, I was wondering what everyone here thinks about modern, biblical textual criticism. Like it or do you prefer the good ol' Textus Receptus?

The Textus Receptus is clearly a flawed document. It was only based on seven manuscripts of the New Testament.

The NA28 isn't perfect, they still haven't collated many manuscripts, but at least they are trying, and at least they have incorporated over 5,100 manuscripts in their considering the "original" Greek New Testament.

That being said, I use the TR when I read the New Testament on occasion. I even own a copy. Although, I do tend to avoid it more than others when I am reading a digital NT.

Quote
Oh, you meant whether the critical editions from Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft are preferable to, say, the Greek Patriarchal Text of 1914? I'd go with the first for in depth study and the second for liturgical/devotional use.

Yeah, I think for deep textual-historical stuff, the NA28 will definitely be of use. But if I just want a read, then it doesn't really matter which text I use, frankly.
Logged

My posting on this forum is currently on hiatus, until mid-June 2014.

Have a nice spring. Smiley
Gamliel
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 1,807



« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2013, 10:11:08 AM »

I like textual criticism, but I use it cautiously.
Logged
WPM
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,776


« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2013, 12:16:07 PM »

It goes a long way to forming constructive criticism. For example, criticizing News media sources
« Last Edit: August 25, 2013, 12:16:35 PM by WPM » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Banned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2013, 06:08:16 PM »

(e.g. looking at Genesis in its Ancient Near Eastern context sure makes a lot of sense - you'll never again be able to look at it with the naive gaze of the creationist fundie, though).
My thoughts exactly.

However there is little resemblance to Genesis with the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example. But many of the narratives in Genesis correlate to a lot of material during that era.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Shiny
Site Supporter
Banned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #10 on: August 25, 2013, 06:08:16 PM »

Romaios you may want to look at a guy named Whybray. He refuted pretty much all of the documentary hypothesis. He argues that there was a single author of the Pentateuch, but derived much of the work on multiple sources and relied little on literary consistency.

I thought his argument was well done and convincing.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
St. Christopher
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #11 on: August 25, 2013, 07:04:52 PM »

Some of you are confusing textual criticism and higher criticism. Textual criticism (aka lower criticism) tries to figure out what the originals said. Higher criticism deals with questions such as authorship, date, and sources.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Banned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #12 on: August 26, 2013, 01:18:09 AM »

Some of you are confusing textual criticism and higher criticism. Textual criticism (aka lower criticism) tries to figure out what the originals said. Higher criticism deals with questions such as authorship, date, and sources.
Good point.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Tags:
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 0.074 seconds with 42 queries.