- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Basic notions and objectives
The basic problem, as described by Paul Maas, is as follows:
We have no autograph [handwritten by the original author] manuscripts of the Greek and Roman classical writers and no copies which have been collated with the originals; the manuscripts we possess derive from the originals through an unknown number of intermediate copies, and are consequently of questionable trustworthiness. The business of textual criticism is to produce a text as close as possible to the original (constitutio textus).[7]
Maas comments further that "A dictation revised by the author must be regarded as equivalent to an autograph manuscript". The lack of autograph manuscripts applies to many cultures other than Greek and Roman. In such a situation, a key objective becomes the identification of the first exemplar before any split in the tradition. That exemplar is known as the archetype. "If we succeed in establishing the text of [the archetype], the constitutio (reconstruction of the original) is considerably advanced.[8]
Higher Critics as I say usually don't adhere to inspiration of Scripture, or at very minimal have a very limited view of inspiration. They are scientists (many humanistic) not scholars. So I need not really even reply to them as they have anti spiritual biases in favor of humanism. But I will reply to it, as well as provide an alternative essay on higher criticism that you should read when you have time here:
The History of the Higher Criticism2.pdf
But let me analyze what he says...
Again inspiration of the Bible and authenticity of the Bible is sort of a broad topic, but I will reply briefly, if we continue this discussion (which I don't mind) I would prefer to split off from this thread into a separate topic. If you don't mind. But anyway, every thing he said above is true. We do not have the original Bible, and there is no "Holy" Bible in existence. All we have is copies of the original, and those copies have been translated into entirely new dialects harboring numerous errors, it is the purpose of this thread to talk about those errors. And how the byantine tradition has typically been more faithful to the greek texts, and thus has limited the errors quite a bit.
I would disagree here. We have entire collections of lectionaries that quote eary nicene scripture to a 95% accuracy. So even if we did not have ANY manuscripts we could still attest to their quotations and piece together a text. God's word cannot be defeated. Secondly we have over 5000 manuscript fragments, and the latest called the chester beaty papyri collection has dated to roughly a few decades after Christ, it just happens to be a word for word direct quotation of other texts we have. Lastly you have the Dead Sea scrolls which have a coplete copy of Isaiah again 95% accurate to manuscripts we have of the copy of Isaiah. I could quote stuff like this ad nauseum. I literally have hundreds of pages of evidence on it, so like I said we should start another thread on it.and are consequently of questionable trustworthiness. The business of textual criticism is to produce a text as close as possible to the original (constitutio textus).
Maas comments further that "A dictation revised by the author must be regarded as equivalent to an autograph manuscript". The lack of autograph manuscripts applies to many cultures other than Greek and Roman. In such a situation, a key objective becomes the identification of the first exemplar before any split in the tradition. That exemplar is known as the archetype. "If we succeed in establishing the text of [the archetype], the constitutio (reconstruction of the original) is considerably advanced.[8]
this is where the higher a lower criticism differs. Before going further in this discussion you should know why we have a diffrentiation between lower and higher criticism:
https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/presidentialaddresses/JBL67_1_1Colwell1947.pdf
Upvote
0