Biblical Criticism

[Graceisgraceworksareworks]

I

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.

I feel that it is a cult of Bible Gnostics that do everything they can to promote one manuscript, Vaticanus, while also taking mens faith in the Bible away by saying no translation is perfect but mythological originals that they or anyone else has seen. This has been the status quo since the advent of Westcott and Hort

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Take for instance a time back when I first was learning the ropes on what the Christian faith "is." I remember going into a Waldenbooks, back when they had that kind of thing, and I perused the religious section. I was looking for biblically related things, but I happened across a copy of The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey. My first reaction was, "Woah, hold on there! Really?" And I reached out, picked it up off the shelf, and I leafed through its contents to find some juicy, central idea within it. Guess what happened next?

I guess I better wrap up this loose end by saying that the answer to my question above is: Nothing! Nothing happened, other than that for a few moments before I shoved the book all too firmly back on the bookstore shelf, I was dumb-struck by the fact that anyone would take what Anton LaVey had to say seriously.

And that was that.

 

[FireDragon76]

Many people have a lot invested in their church affiliation. Family, connections and history, etc. As a Catholic baptized one month old, I would find it hard to leave. But I am capable of looking critically at it all. Which brings up another issue. Inner tension. I think of it like a dysfunctional family. For all the problems it is family and I am a loyal kind of guy. Fortunately it is also a big tent. My first encounter with Biblical Criticism was in Catholic seminary. I loved it. Like pulling back the curtain.

As a a young teen with a deepening interest in religious questions, I had a Presbyterian chaplain hand me an introductory text book on source criticism as a way to disabuse me of Evangelical Fundamentalism. It did work, but it took years to really begin to sink in, and I had to deconstruct first the fundamentalism I was absorbing from the general Evangelical culture surrounding me (and honestly misleading me from my simple childhood Methodist faith, that wasn't so much Bible-centered, as community-centered and experiential).

I was puzzled how she could "believe" all this stuff deeply critical of the surface narrative of the biblical text, and yet preach about God at the same time. I think I didn't understand at the time for most serious, intellectually informed Christians, the real basis of their faith is more religious experience than an historical-grammatical approach to the Bible.

So, I think biblical criticism is not only helpful, but it's vital for Christians to develop a religious consciousness that's actually intellectually responsible.

 

[linux.poet]

I think I didn't understand at the time for most serious, intellectually informed Christians, the real basis of their faith is more religious experience than an historical-grammatical approach to the Bible.

So, I think biblical criticism is not only helpful, but it's vital for Christians to develop a religious consciousness that's actually intellectually responsible.

This is a bit of a weird argument to me, because it's not my college experience of what biblical criticism is. Biblical criticism was a bunch of intellectuals writing lies about the Bible trying to disprove biblical prophecy (and since biblical prophecies point to Christ, the Gospel).

But as for the idea of going back to the original Hebrew and Greek and understanding the time period in which the Bible was written to better interpret it, I agree with you 100%. Those of us who are able to do so should indeed do that, as it may clear up some misconceptions. In theory (at least, in my church experience) the pastor of the local church should be able to do the Hebrew/Greek/historical time period interpreting stuff - that's what I pay my pastor to do for me every week. But if the Lord has equipped you for this type of study, I would encourage you to do it. There is a wealth of truth available to strengthen your faith, and I have benefitted from what little I have been able to do.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is a bit of a weird argument to me, because it's not my college experience of what biblical criticism is. Biblical criticism was a bunch of intellectuals writing lies about the Bible trying to disprove biblical prophecy (and since biblical prophecies point to Christ, the Gospel).

That's the standard Evangelical Fundamentalist polemic against source criticism, but it's not really fair. There's a difference between biblical scholarship, and theology grounded in certain presuppositions about revelation, and what that should look like. The two don't directly translate, though I would say it's not totally wrong to suggest the consensus of biblical scholarship points away from 16th-17th century Protestant scholasticism, and more towards the theology of Schleiermacher or Tillich.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Biblical criticism was a bunch of intellectuals writing lies about the Bible trying to disprove biblical prophecy (and since biblical prophecies point to Christ, the Gospel).

That was never my experience. No lies, just questions.

 

[FireDragon76]

That was never my experience. No lies, just questions.

Well, they did come up with answers, too. It's just some people didn't like the answers, not because they denied biblical prophecy, but because they upended the power structures of their lives. They took power away from the Protestant clergy who only had to know some Hebrew and Greek to get by, and like the Pharisees of old, they had gotten used to being the moral authorities of their culture, and the status and self importance that came with that, and in some cases they contested zealously to uphold, fighting all threats on all sides. For instance, in the Reformed tradition, you were expected to uphold the "dignity" of the clergy, something that Vincent van Gogh, who was at one time a preacher in the mines in the rural Netherlands, was punished for failing to uphold, because he wanted to live as simple a life as possible, in imitation of Christ.

But not liking answers, or loving a particular arrangement of power structures in a society, has nothing to do with truth. Things are true whether I like them or not. At some point, some people start caring more about truth, than having a settled set of religious assumptions. At least, as I get older, I find that is the case.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

At some point, some people start caring more about truth, than having a settled set of religious assumptions. At least, as I get older, I find that is the case.

OK, some natural conclusion arrived at after objectively researching some questions seems like "trying to disprove biblical prophecy" to some.

 

[Davy]

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.

I suggest the Bible-believing Christian immediately RUN... away from those fields of un-study.

The system of Textual Criticism reveals error in man's thinking by their evidence of modern translations that mimic occult philosophers like the early Christian Gnostics.

 

[FireDragon76]

I suggest the Bible-believing Christian immediately RUN... away from those fields of un-study.

The system of Textual Criticism reveals error in man's thinking by their evidence of modern translations that mimic occult philosophers like the early Christian Gnostics.

Anti-intellectualism, the halmark of American Fundamentalism.

 

[Davy]

Anti-intellectualism, the halmark of American Fundamentalism.

Amen to that! We don't need no 'education'! no Gnostic philosophy!

Communist Goal "#27: Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
(from ex-FBI agent Cleon Skousen's 1958 book The Naked Communist.)

Skousen listed 45 strategic goals by the Soviet Communists in their long-range disinformation plan to destroy the Christian West. Those goals were entered into the United States Congressional Record in 1963.

So no, Fundamentalists don't need no... communist-Marxist philosophy in their Bible teaching. There is right education, and then there is wrong education. Your "anti-intellectualism" remark shows you favor a wrong "social" education with Bible teaching instead of a 'REVEALED' education in The Bible directly from God by The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is dead in the field of man's Textual Criticism.

 

[Leaf473]

Amen to that! We don't need no 'education'! no Gnostic philosophy!

Communist Goal "#27: Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
(from ex-FBI agent Cleon Skousen's 1958 book The Naked Communist.)

Skousen listed 45 strategic goals by the Soviet Communists in their long-range disinformation plan to destroy the Christian West. Those goals were entered into the United States Congressional Record in 1963.

So no, Fundamentalists don't need no... communist-Marxist philosophy in their Bible teaching. There is right education, and then there is wrong education. Your "anti-intellectualism" remark shows you favor a wrong "social" education with Bible teaching instead of a 'REVEALED' education in The Bible directly from God by The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is dead in the field of man's Textual Criticism.

Amen to God's revealed word. Over time, of course, people have tried to add to and take away from that word. The process of getting back to what was originally written is textual criticism. It can be done in a godly or an ungodly way.

Peace be with you, my brother!

 

[FireDragon76]

Amen to that! We don't need no 'education'! no Gnostic philosophy!

Communist Goal "#27: Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
(from ex-FBI agent Cleon Skousen's 1958 book The Naked Communist.)

I'm not a Communist.

Skousen listed 45 strategic goals by the Soviet Communists in their long-range disinformation plan to destroy the Christian West. Those goals were entered into the United States Congressional Record in 1963.

So no, Fundamentalists don't need no... communist-Marxist philosophy in their Bible teaching. There is right education, and then there is wrong education. Your "anti-intellectualism" remark shows you favor a wrong "social" education with Bible teaching instead of a 'REVEALED' education in The Bible directly from God by The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is dead in the field of man's Textual Criticism.

Higher criticism is several centuries old at this point. It wasn't invented in the 1950's.

 

[Davy]

I'm not a Communist.

Good, and I didn't say you were.
But trying to use the religious 'intellectualism' ploy is... one of the Communist's methods, as documented. 1993 is the last news report that I read about some western Catholic and Protestant leaders attending a Christian summit in Moscow, Russia. The ex-KGB colonel that defected to the U.S. in the 1960's, Golitsyn, also warned in his 1984 book New Lies For Old, about the Soviet's long-range plan to corrupt the western Christian Churches.

Higher criticism is several centuries old at this point. It wasn't invented in the 1950's.

Occult philosophy is even older, so does that mean it is truth just because it's older?

The Traditional Greek text of the New Testament is what the early Church was established upon. The field of textual criticism is based on the Critical Greek text which is mainly from 2 questionable Greek manuscript sources, the Codex Vaticanus, discovered mysteriously in the Vatican in 1475 and the Codex Sinaiticus discovered in the trash at a Greek monastery by Tischendorf in the 1840s in part, in which he claimed he found the other part in 1859, very fishy, which reveals the true origin of neither one can be accurately documented. Furthermore, those discovered Greek text omit much of the New Testament that the Traditional Greek text has, which has been quoted throughout early Bible history by the Christian Church. Thus textual criticism's love of the Codex Vatincanus and Sinaiticus reveals a foreign 'weed' ("tare") that has crept in among the good wheat.

 

[FireDragon76]

Good, and I didn't say you were.
But trying to use the religious 'intellectualism' ploy is... one of the Communist's methods, as documented. 1993 is the last news report that I read about some western Catholic and Protestant leaders attending a Christian summit in Moscow, Russia. The ex-KGB colonel that defected to the U.S. in the 1960's, Golitsyn, also warned in his 1984 book New Lies For Old, about the Soviet's long-range plan to corrupt the western Christian Churches.


Occult philosophy is even older, so does that mean it is truth just because it's older?

The Traditional Greek text of the New Testament is what the early Church was established upon. The field of textual criticism is based on the Critical Greek text which is mainly from 2 questionable Greek manuscript sources, the Codex Vaticanus, discovered mysteriously in the Vatican in 1475 and the Codex Sinaiticus discovered in the trash at a Greek monastery by Tischendorf in the 1840s in part, in which he claimed he found the other part in 1859, very fishy, which reveals the true origin of neither one can be accurately documented. Furthermore, those discovered Greek text omit much of the New Testament that the Traditional Greek text has, which has been quoted throughout early Bible history by the Christian Church. Thus textual criticism's love of the Codex Vatincanus and Sinaiticus reveals a foreign 'weed' ("tare") that has crept in among the good wheat.

I've heard better conspiracy theories in a Dan Brown book. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are used heavily by most New Testament translations now days.

 

[Davy]

I've heard better conspiracy theories in a Dan Brown book. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are used heavily by most New Testament translations now days.

Either you are ignorant of the corruptions in the Critical Text of the NT Greek, or you purposefully try to hide them, as they are easily detected by comparison with the Traditional Greek text and the Textus Receptus.

 

[Leaf473]

Either you are ignorant of the corruptions in the Critical Text of the NT Greek, or you purposefully try to hide them, as they are easily detected by comparison with the Traditional Greek text and the Textus Receptus.

Hi! What is the Traditional Greek text?

 

[Davy]

Hi! What is the Traditional Greek text?

The 'Traditional Text' is simply a label for the Greek Majority Text, which is about the 'majority' of existing Greek manuscripts from the Byzantine type associated with Antioch.

Here's a definition from Wikipedia (which I don't like Wikipedia that much, but... this description is fairly accurate) --

"In the textual criticism of the New Testament, the Byzantine text-type (also called Majority Text, Traditional Text, Ecclesiastical Text, Constantinopolitan Text, Antiocheian Text, or Syrian Text) is one of the main text types. It is the form found in the largest number of surviving manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. The New Testament text of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Patriarchal Text, as well as those utilized in the lectionaries, are based on this text-type. Whilst varying in at least 1,830 places,[1] it also underlies the Textus Receptus Greek text used for most Reformation-era (Protestant) translations of the New Testament into vernacular languages. Modern translations (since 1900) mainly use eclectic editions that conform more often to the Alexandrian text-type."

Notice the very last sentence above especially, which reveals that Greek texts AFTER the 1900s use what is called "eclectic" versions that follow the "Alexandrian text-type", which is what most all later NT Bible versions are based on.

 

[Leaf473]

The 'Traditional Text' is simply a label for the Greek Majority Text, which is about the 'majority' of existing Greek manuscripts from the Byzantine type associated with Antioch.

Here's a definition from Wikipedia (which I don't like Wikipedia that much, but... this description is fairly accurate) --

"In the textual criticism of the New Testament, the Byzantine text-type (also called Majority Text, Traditional Text, Ecclesiastical Text, Constantinopolitan Text, Antiocheian Text, or Syrian Text) is one of the main text types. It is the form found in the largest number of surviving manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. The New Testament text of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Patriarchal Text, as well as those utilized in the lectionaries, are based on this text-type. Whilst varying in at least 1,830 places,[1] it also underlies the Textus Receptus Greek text used for most Reformation-era (Protestant) translations of the New Testament into vernacular languages. Modern translations (since 1900) mainly use eclectic editions that conform more often to the Alexandrian text-type."

Notice the very last sentence above especially, which reveals that Greek texts AFTER the 1900s use what is called "eclectic" versions that follow the "Alexandrian text-type", which is what most all later NT Bible versions are based on.

Thanks! You may have talked about this already, but what lead you to believe that the Traditional text is the right one?

 

[Davy]

Thanks! You may have talked about this already, but what lead you to believe that the Traditional text is the right one?

The Traditional text is what is most quoted by the early Church fathers, and shows the most usage throughout Church history, which is why it makes up the 'majority' of existing Greek manuscripts. Although those Greek texts of the Alexandrian type are older, they are few in number, showing less usage by the Church, and thus less favored. They also omit many NT verses and words that exist in the Traditional text.

See this...