Author Topic: Textual Criticism  (Read 863 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cyrillic

  • Arbiter Elegantiarum
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,806
  • We must go back!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Textual Criticism
« 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?
"We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!"
-T.S. Eliot

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,627
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Textual Criticism
« 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.   ;D ;D  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.  ;)

"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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline Melodist

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,523
Re: Textual Criticism
« 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 »
And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God

Offline Romaios

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,933
Re: Textual Criticism
« 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 »

Offline Cyrillic

  • Arbiter Elegantiarum
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,806
  • We must go back!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Textual Criticism
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2013, 05:19:56 PM »
That wasn't the kind of criticism I was talking about  :laugh:
"We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!"
-T.S. Eliot

Offline Romaios

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,933
Re: Textual Criticism
« 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 »

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Partisan Pro-Chalcedonian Fanatic
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,524
  • #FeelTheBern
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Textual Criticism
« 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.
Not everything I type or have typed in the past is reflective of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, or may not reflect my contemporary views on a subject. (5/30/2015)

I am scaling back posting because the crack in my computer screen makes it harder and harder to type.

Offline Gamliel

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,893
  • ὁ δὲ ἀνεξέταστον βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Re: Textual Criticism
« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2013, 10:11:08 AM »
I like textual criticism, but I use it cautiously.

Offline WPM

  • Revolutionary Writer
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,103
Re: Textual Criticism
« 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 »

Offline Shiny

  • Site Supporter
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,267
  • Paint It Red
Re: Textual Criticism
« 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.
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan

Offline Shiny

  • Site Supporter
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,267
  • Paint It Red
Re: Textual Criticism
« 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.
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan

Offline St. Christopher

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: Textual Criticism
« 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.

Offline Shiny

  • Site Supporter
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,267
  • Paint It Red
Re: Textual Criticism
« 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.
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan