Is it possible to have a professional conversation about the history of Textual Criticism?

[Dr. Jack]

I am asked many times why there are so many versions of our Christian Bible. I believe the answer lays in the history of Textual Criticism, and understanding the purpose of its origin, and what the theological views were of those who brought Textual Criticism into existence. Is it possible to have a civil conversation about this topic; and can it be kept at a professional, and polite level?

 

[Monk Brendan]

I am asked many times why there are so many versions of our Christian Bible. I believe the answer lays in the history of Textual Criticism, and understanding the purpose of its origin, and what the theological views were of those who brought Textual Criticism into existence. Is it possible to have a civil conversation about this topic; and can it be kept at a professional, and polite level?

Textual criticism is simply trying to find the most reliable text of the Bible, or of this or that passage therein.

Origen, I think was the first to do so with his Hexapla.

With the NT, there are really only two basic texts: the Alexandrian and the Textus Receptus. The differences between these, outside of a verse here and there, are the Pericope de adultera, the "lost ending" of Mark, and the Johannine comma. Even the teaching of these passages are supported elsewhere in the NT.

The Eastern Churches prefer the LXX for the OT. It's based on an older Hebrew text than the Masoretic Text.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I hope so. It sounds good.

But I beleive it started with protestants so Catholics will be Skeptical. No?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I am asked many times why there are so many versions of our Christian Bible. I believe the answer lays in the history of Textual Criticism, and understanding the purpose of its origin, and what the theological views were of those who brought Textual Criticism into existence. Is it possible to have a civil conversation about this topic; and can it be kept at a professional, and polite level?

Textual criticism continues in the Evangelical tradition of being applied by the interpreter to texts they don't want to follow, and not applied to the ones they would like everyone else to follow.

When looking at an interpretation model the fruit is all that matters.

As far as the origin of textual criticism, I believe the Jesus Seminar was one group at the centre of forming this type of bible interpretation where genre is examined as evidence to what the text is really saying, and historical data is examined to determine when a text was actually written. (i.e. this was the subject matter, so it was written at the same time as these texts which was in this decade, or this century)

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Textual criticism is simply trying to find the most reliable text of the Bible, or of this or that passage therein.

Origen, I think was the first to do so with his Hexapla.

With the NT, there are really only two basic texts: the Alexandrian and the Textus Receptus. The differences between these, outside of a verse here and there, are the Pericope de adultera, the "lost ending" of Mark, and the Johannine comma. Even the teaching of these passages are supported elsewhere in the NT.

The Eastern Churches prefer the LXX for the OT. It's based on an older Hebrew text than the Masoretic Text.

Actually, it was the LXX that Jesus used for His OT quotes. It is difficult to determine which of the NT texts are the most reliable, because the original has been lost, and so all the texts available to us are copies.

 

[com7fy8]

I am asked many times why there are so many versions of our Christian Bible.

Each version can be a ministry of whoever did that translation. And each of us does our ministering differently.

I have been blessed by reading a Spanish translation. The ones doing this, I would say, were ministering as well as translating.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Actually, it was the LXX that Jesus used for His OT quotes. It is difficult to determine which of the NT texts are the most reliable, because the original has been lost, and so all the texts available to us are copies.

I know that.

YOu simply proved my point--the LXX is based on an older text than the Masoretic.

The NT the Byzantine Churches us is the accurate one.

 

[ml5363]

I personally believe the multiple versions are to create confusion...

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I personally believe the multiple versions are to create confusion...

I can understand that they would create confusion in those who are not genuinely converted to Christ and therefore don't have the Holy Spirit in them to rightly divide the word of truth for them.

Usually those with just a religious spirit and not the Holy Spirit are the ones who quibble over the peripheral parts of the Scripture, and pass over the foundational gospel parts. Jesus said about those people that they strain at a gnat but swallow a camel!

 

[Dr. Jack]

Textual criticism is simply trying to find the most reliable text of the Bible, or of this or that passage therein.

Origen, I think was the first to do so with his Hexapla.

With the NT, there are really only two basic texts: the Alexandrian and the Textus Receptus. The differences between these, outside of a verse here and there, are the Pericope de adultera, the "lost ending" of Mark, and the Johannine comma. Even the teaching of these passages are supported elsewhere in the NT.

The Eastern Churches prefer the LXX for the OT. It's based on an older Hebrew text than the Masoretic Text.

I don't think it was Origen's purpose to "find the most reliable text of the Bible"; rather, Origen took upon himself to put several Greek translations into a single volume for comparison sake.

What I am referring to is the process that is known as Textual Criticism that operates according to the rules formulated in the 18th and 19th centuries.

It is important to understand the theological views of those who started the process of Textual Criticism, and their purpose, which was generated by the theological views.

 

[Monk Brendan]

I don't think it was Origen's purpose to "find the most reliable text of the Bible"; rather, Origen took upon himself to put several Greek translations into a single volume for comparison sake.

What I am referring to is the process that is known as Textual Criticism that operates according to the rules formulated in the 18th and 19th centuries.

It is important to understand the theological views of those who started the process of Textual Criticism, and their purpose, which was generated by the theological views.

While various forms of Biblical criticism were generated and embraced by more liberal scholars, the general attitude was, "Hooray! Now we can really understand what the Bible is getting at!"

 

[hedrick]

As far as the origin of textual criticism, I believe the Jesus Seminar was one group at the centre of forming this type of bible interpretation where genre is examined as evidence to what the text is really saying, and historical data is examined to determine when a text was actually written. (i.e. this was the subject matter, so it was written at the same time as these texts which was in this decade, or this century)

The Jesus Seminar was (to my knowledge) involved in higher criticism, which is what your post seems to describe. It doesn't affect the text, so it's not part of the current discussion.

 

[Dr. Jack]

The Jesus Seminar was (to my knowledge) involved in higher criticism, which is what your post seems to describe. It doesn't affect the text, so it's not part of the current discussion.

Higher Criticism affects such views as the authenticity of particular Epistles. Take for example Ehrman's view that because of the different writing style of the Pastoral Epistles, he asserts that Paul wasn't the writer, hence the Pastorals are not authentic.

This is particularly why it is necessary to know the theological views of those who both formulated the rules, as well as those who practice them.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The Jesus Seminar was (to my knowledge) involved in higher criticism, which is what your post seems to describe. It doesn't affect the text, so it's not part of the current discussion.

When I learned about textual criticism in secular university, the Jesus Seminar was discussed as part of it.

The way they'd vote over whether a book was written by the author or not, doesn't sound like higher criticism to me.

In 18th century Biblical criticism, the term "higher criticism" was commonly used in mainstream scholarship in contrast with "lower criticism". In the 21st century, historical criticism is the more commonly used term for higher criticism, and textual criticism is more common than the loose expression "lower criticism".

The first findings of the Jesus Seminar were published in 1993 as The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. The Fellows used a voting system to evaluate the authenticity of about 500 statements and events.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Since putting "whether God really said that" to a vote mimicks what the snake said in the garden to the first humans, it would be a criticism of the text for sure, not higher criticism.

 

[hedrick]

Since putting "whether God really said that" to a vote mimicks what the snake said in the garden to the first humans, it would be a criticism of the text for sure, not higher criticism.

Yeah, but "textual criticism" has a specific meaning.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yeah, but "textual criticism" has a specific meaning.

Which one are you going by?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Textual criticism - what is it?
Textual criticism is why some verses are shorter in modern translations, the Jesus Seminar was foundational for that in terms of their voting system.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Textual criticism - what is it?
Textual criticism is why some verses are shorter in modern translations, the Jesus Seminar was foundational for that in terms of their voting system.

The Jesus Seminar was essentially a group of men that (according to them) decided to use all available sources (canonical and non-canonical) to determine what Jesus said, and what He didn't say.

William Lane Craig wrote a great article on the Jesus Seminar
Presuppositions and Pretensions of the Jesus Seminar | Reasonable Faith

I think the proper way to describe the work of the Jesus Seminar would be a term such as "Biblical Criticism", rather than "Textual Criticism".

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I think the proper way to describe the work of the Jesus Seminar would be a term such as "Biblical Criticism", rather than "Textual Criticism".

What would you gather is the difference between the two?