Biblical Criticism

[Akita Suggagaki]

How do you feel about contemporary Biblical Criticism?


The major types of biblical criticism are:

(1) textual criticism, which is concerned with establishing the original or most authoritative text

(2) philological criticism, which is the study of the biblical languages for an accurate knowledge of vocabulary, grammar, and style of the period

(3) literary criticism, which focuses on the various literary genres embedded in the text in order to uncover evidence concerning date of composition, authorship, and original function of the various types of writing that constitute the Bible

(4) tradition criticism, which attempts to trace the development of the oral traditions that preceded written texts

(5) form criticism, which classifies the written material according to the preliterary forms, such as parable or hymn.


biblical criticism

I find it helpful as well as challenging. Sometimes even challenging to my faith. I do not see Britannica listing Historical criticism which is one of my favorites along with philological criticism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How do you feel about contemporary Biblical Criticism?


The major types of biblical criticism are:

(1) textual criticism, which is concerned with establishing the original or most authoritative text

(2) philological criticism, which is the study of the biblical languages for an accurate knowledge of vocabulary, grammar, and style of the period

(3) literary criticism, which focuses on the various literary genres embedded in the text in order to uncover evidence concerning date of composition, authorship, and original function of the various types of writing that constitute the Bible

(4) tradition criticism, which attempts to trace the development of the oral traditions that preceded written texts

(5) form criticism, which classifies the written material according to the preliterary forms, such as parable or hymn.


biblical criticism

I find it helpful as well as challenging. Sometimes even challenging to my faith. I do not see Britannica listing Historical criticism which is one of my favorites along with philological criticism.

How do I feel about all of this? It's always interesting. But regardless of how I feel about it, it often becomes an automatic aspect of my hermeneutical and philosophical study of the bible (or of any sacred texts that are found in other world religions, really). And there's so much there that there's also something more to learn or to have to think about.

One additional thing I will say is that these areas of study can overwhelm some people who aren't prepared for the kinds of criticism they'll surely find within these various fields

I also agree with you that Historical criticism should be on the list as well.

 

[PloverWing]

I think it's an important field of study, and I'm glad I got to learn a bit of it in my New Testament classes when I was a student. I would add source criticism to the list, especially since it's a type of biblical criticism that's somewhat accessible to the layperson (line up the texts of the gospels next to each other and look at them closely).

It is a different way of dealing with the text than reading it devotionally and so forth. I'd advise the student to put down the dissection tools every so often and just read, with an eye to seeing what the authors are trying to tell us about their experiences with God. That's why the Scriptures are important to us, after all.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

(or of any sacred texts that are found in other world religions, really).

Yes, I, in my earlier days, thought the Bhagavad Gita was historical. Hah!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, I, in my earlier days, thought the Bhagavad Gita was historical. Hah!

Lol! Well, it's still an interesting read, and even though I'm no expert on these texts, I think we can appreciate the social quandry that Arjuna was in ... one that in some respects seems to have some small parallel to that of Abraham's when he was commanded to sacrifice Isaac. It definitely gives a place for moral and spiritual contemplation.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Lol! Well, it's still an interesting read, and even though I'm no expert on these texts, I think we can appreciate the social quandry that Arjuna was in ... one that in some respects seems to have some small parallel to that of Abraham's when he was commanded to sacrifice Isaac. It definitely gives a place for moral and spiritual contemplation.

Yes, and by the way. I read an article a couple of years ago about Narrative Empowerment and the themes and motifs that people discover in telling their own story. It sort of awakened me to the world of literature also.

What's the Point of Spiritual Care? A Narrative Response - PubMed

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think it's an important field of study, and I'm glad I got to learn a bit of it in my New Testament classes when I was a student. I would add source criticism to the list, especially since it's a type of biblical criticism that's somewhat accessible to the layperson (line up the texts of the gospels next to each other and look at them closely).

It is a different way of dealing with the text than reading it devotionally and so forth. I'd advise the student to put down the dissection tools every so often and just read, with an eye to seeing what the authors are trying to tell us about their experiences with God. That's why the Scriptures are important to us, after all.

Those are all good points too, and I'm glad you added Source Criticism to the list.

The funnest part for me in all of this, though, is to see if I can dissect the dissection tools.

 

[timothyu]

IMO it does two things. First it diverts 'criticism' away from the various tribes within Christianity who each seek to stand as the preferred voice of God, which can be a good thing but at the same time creates other division which in turn creates new sects. Secondly, it diverts attention from the the plain and simple Gospel of the Kingdom which is far more important than anything else but is of no use to the Adversary. As a result we turn focus back onto man and man's intentions rather then remaining focused on what we should, the basis for not only the entire scripture, but of our very existence. That is of use to the Adversary. This is not to say it is not an interesting hobby but it should not be allowed to distract from the main purpose of Jesus himself.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

IMO it does two things. First it diverts 'criticism' away from the various tribes within Christianity who each seek to stand as the preferred voice of God, which can be a good thing but at the same time creates other division which in turn creates new sects. Secondly, it diverts attention from the the plain and simple Gospel of the Kingdom which is far more important than anything else but is of no use to the Adversary. As a result we turn focus back onto man and man's intentions rather then remaining focused on what we should, the basis for not only the entire scripture, but of our very existence. That is of use to the Adversary. This is not to say it is not an interesting hobby but it should not be allowed to distract from the main purpose of Jesus himself.

I think it can bring a deeper appreciation for the main purpose of Jesus. The Word of God is as deep as one can go.

 

[timothyu]

I think it can bring a deeper appreciation for the main purpose of Jesus. The Word of God is as deep as one can go.

The word of God is simple. His will ahead of ours. Jesus' good news was that God was returning to take away authority from the minds and mouths of man. Remember what He said about mankind. As I said seeking God should be looked at from all angles as it is a lifelong purpose. But to muddy the waters with man's interpretations can be hazardous other than to see how man's will often overrides scripture. It seems the purpose it would serve is to show us just how easy it is to stray form the word of God to the word of man.

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

But to muddy the waters with man's interpretations can be hazardous other than to see how man's will often overrides scripture.

But critical methods can un-muddy the waters of man's interpretations. That is their real purpose.

 

[timothyu]

But critical methods can un-muddy the waters of man's interpretations. That is their real purpose.

But for critical methods to be effective, we must first remove the scales and see God and God's word through the eyes of God and not the eyes of man. Mankind since birth has been taught to view everything from the viewpoint of man. It then would be our natural inclination to do so also in viewing God.
Jesus, right from the start with His birth presented us with a counter-viewpoint which upset the applecart of what man expected and thought of as worthy or holy. Jesus spent His entire life living beneath the expectations of what a king (let alone God) should be according to the thinking and philosophies of man. The same applies when discerning those who would philosophize over scripture. Will their view be from the eyes of man or the eyes of God? Unmuddying comes from discerning which is which, not the particular subject at hand.
Perhaps it is the critics that should be approached with criticism. The will of God within scripture never changes from front to back. Do we decide what authors meant thus in the end deciding which interpretations of fellow man to follow? Is that not how we end up with so many sects?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

BTW I think "criticism" is a poor term to name the process and gives the wrong impression. "Analysis" would have been better.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But critical methods can un-muddy the waters of man's interpretations. That is their real purpose.

Oh, I don't know about that. It can un-muddy some waters, and it can also fracture other beliefs that some Christians would otherwise want to protect and retain. So, I wouldn't quite give an across the board sanction to the use of critical methods. One has to be both prepared to engage critical methods that may create challenges to one's faith and be willing to discern the useful from the merely theoretical.

I just thought I'd toss that little disclaimer in there. Critical methods aren't something we can use lightly, especially if we're unprepared for what we'll find.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Oh, I don't know about that. It can un-muddy some waters, and it can also fracture other beliefs that some Christians would otherwise want to protect and retain. So, I wouldn't quite give an across the board sanction to the use of critical methods. One has to be both prepared to engage critical methods that may create challenges to one's faith and be willing to discern the useful from the merely theoretical.

I just thought I'd toss that little disclaimer in there. Critical methods aren't something we can use lightly, especially if we're unprepared for what we'll find.

Totally agree as one who has had his faith....tested. And yet grew through it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Totally agree as one who has had his faith....tested. And yet grew through it.

That's good to hear, Akita! You're in the minority on that point. Then again, I guess I'm with your there too. And growth is good.

 

[timothyu]

In regards to textual and traditional, just how willing are Christians to release themselves of Gentile thinking. As an example, the Bible gives us a clear example of how the movement was to progress in the scriptures regarding what would be known as the Way.

Yet Christianity went out of its way to reject that lifestyle which followed Jesus' two commandments to pursue one more related to the traditional ways of man, even eventually building a religion based upon the already existing institutions of man, specifically Roman. Christianity went out of its way to not only distance itself from the Jews but today one might hear it immediately said that suggesting the way of life of the Way is socialism, a favourite trip word today. So is it not more a matter of controlling the narrative then 'analyzing' what was said?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So is it not more a matter of controlling the narrative then 'analyzing' what was said?

Well since critical analysis did not really start until, what 19th century? I would say the narrative was controlled long before that.

 

[timothyu]

Well since critical analysis did not really start until, what 19th century? I would say the narrative was controlled ling before that.

Agreed and it was deeply rooted in human let alone Gentile thinking. The counter-culture Jesus brought was all but gone except to be seen as rebellious, as it was in Jesus' time and would be today.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Agreed and it was deeply rooted in human let alone Gentile thinking. The counter-culture Jesus brought was all but gone except to be seen as rebellious, as it was in Jesus' time and would be today.

well I agree with you there. And I would take it a step further.

3rd Commandment
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

Anytime God's name, Word or symbol is used to bolster one's political view this commandment is broken. it happens all the time.