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

[danbuter]

I do think translations should veer towards the traditional verses used by the Church for over a thousand years, if there is a question of what a verse says or if a verse should be included or not. Too many academics want to change everything, just to prove how smart they are.

 

[ralfyman]

About the Jesus Seminar and the Westar Institute, I have a copy of their Acts of Jesus, which I did not look at until recently, and found out that it contains a new translation of the Gospels, which they call the "Scholars Version."

There's a sample of the book contents here and more comments and examples here.

 

[ralfyman]

I'm not sure, but I think the issues have to do with dealing with a translation of the Hebrew Bible, a version of the Hebrew Bible that came much later, and discovering missing content and the context of several words and passages that could not be translated properly thanks to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, among others. There are probably not a lot of problems with the NT sources.

Besides that, translators had to deal with readers who had increasing difficulty understanding archaic phrases and use of words in English from the early twentieth century onward, the desire to use more gender-neutral language from the 1960s to the present, and what might be lower reading competencies during the last few decades. For example, I read somewhere that in the U.S. people read at the 7th or 8th grade level, which I think is the reading level for NABRE.

 

[com7fy8]

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.

My personal take is that each writing said to be by Paul is theologically a match with every other one said to be by Paul. And I think a writer can use different styles. Paul was growing and maturing as a Christian, plus he was writing in different relationships. So, he way of writing could have developed, for all I know. But there are people who have not changed and grown in Jesus; they can suppose, then, that people never change and therefore their writing style won't develop or become more and more creative. But they could be speaking for their own selves, not for Paul. We need to get our own selves out of it > Luke 9:23, John 15:5.

So, why would a person want to believe the epistles said to be by Paul are not authentic? They require us to personally submit to God, in order to do what they require of us, and we need to become loving of any and all people, not only caring about our own selves and ones we prefer to love. So, a person not of the nature of Jesus could have a motive to throw out writings which require of us all which only God in us can have us doing.

And Hebrews 4:12 says God's word is "a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

So, God's word will expose a person's real motives. So, in case someone thinks writings of God's word are not authentic, I would be interested in seeing what that person has as a "therefore". Therefore, what does that person say we need to be doing? Therefore, what are we going to hold ourselves to, for morals? Therefore, are we going to take things into our own hands, instead of personally submitting to God in His peace (Colossians 3:15, Philippians 4:6-7) and doing what He desires (Philippians 2:13, Colossians 1:28-29)?

The correct interpretation-translation is how God in us has us becoming how His word means for our character to become like Jesus > Hebrews 12:4-14, 1 John 4:17-18, Philippians 2:13-16), then discovering how He in us has us willing and doing (Philippians 2:13) all He knows His word means. So, I would say this is first, so we become capable of textually criticizing the best possible.

There are people who dictate that God does not want to personally guide us and share with us, all the time. But ones dictate that we have to get our own selves to do things. But Paul's writings clearly show this up. So, in case a person is not personally sharing with God in His love, such a one can not have the experience and honesty needed to understand His word; because God in us demonstrates. Good teachers do not only talk and explain, but they demonstrate. God's word is for sharing with God, discovering how He proves Himself in us, and how He has us living His word better than how we can think He means.

So, the real accuracy is in correct interpretation plus how He has us loving. This can give us the most reliable context, along with whatever has come by scholarly investigation, but keeping it humbly in its place.

Just to get into this a little bit > Paul says >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

So, included in our basic calling for all of us > "in one body" > God desires to personally rule every child of His in His own peace. So, this shows how God is personally loving and so desiring to share His own good with us, in His own peace. This fits with how "God is love," which our Apostle John says, in 1 John 4:8&16. Plus, Paul elsewhere says,

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

So, this scripture fits with how God wants to personally share with each of us, even working our willing and our doing in sharing with Him. And this, as Colossians 3:15 can clarify, means in His own peace ruling our willing and doing. And Romans 5:5 says God shares His own love with us, "in our hearts" > this also shows how God is personal with each of us His children.

So, this is only an introductory sample of how the epistles fit with one another and show how our Heavenly Father desires to personally share with and guide each of us. This needs to be in the context of contextual criticism, I would say, so a person is not inserting one's own motives to effect things

And even if people have inserted their own motives into their interpretation, we can find things like Philippians 2:13 and Colossians 3:15 and Romans 5:5 and realize how God wants us to live with Him, in spite of how interpreters might not be into this. And there are various things about how Jesus wants us to love; these can be found in any translation, I would say, with wording enough so we can find out with God how to love.

 

[Dr. Jack]

What would you gather is the difference between the two?

A brief answer would be that "Biblical Criticism" (in relation to the Jesus Seminar) was to determine (for historical purposes) what Jesus said, based upon the presuppositions held prior to the critique.

Lower Textual Criticism has to to with Eclecticism, Stemmatics, and Copy text editing.

Higher Textual Criticism has to do with the origin of the text.

Please note ... Textual Criticism also enters it process with presuppositions as well, which can be seen by examination of the rules.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

A brief answer would be that "Biblical Criticism" (in relation to the Jesus Seminar) was to determine (for historical purposes) what Jesus said, based upon the presuppositions held prior to the critique.

Lower Textual Criticism has to to with Eclecticism, Stemmatics, and Copy text editing.

Higher Textual Criticism has to do with the origin of the text.

Please note ... Textual Criticism also enters it process with presuppositions as well, which can be seen by examination of the rules.

So higher and lower is related to how they go about it. Being application minded, I was looking at the end result in whether there was a higher or lower view of what was being said, and also God.

 

[hedrick]

So higher and lower is related to how they go about it. Being application minded, I was looking at the end result in whether there was a higher or lower view of what was being said, and also God.

No. Lower criticism, more commonly called textual criticism, is concerned about how we deal with multiple manuscripts, finding the text that's closest to the original. Higher criticism is concerned with questions like authorship of the Books, historical accuracy, and what the authors meant.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

No. Lower criticism, more commonly called textual criticism, is concerned about how we deal with multiple manuscripts, finding the text that's closest to the original. Higher criticism is concerned with questions like authorship of the Books, historical accuracy, and what the authors meant.

So there's no Godly related reason why it's called higher or lower, it's just a man made distinction?

 

[Dr. Jack]

No. Lower criticism, more commonly called textual criticism, is concerned about how we deal with multiple manuscripts, finding the text that's closest to the original. Higher criticism is concerned with questions like authorship of the Books, historical accuracy, and what the authors meant.

Correct

So there's no Godly related reason why it's called higher or lower, it's just a man made distinction?

Correct

The question I have is rather simple, has anyone here either studied, or researched the "who" and "why" behind the rules of Textual Criticism used even to our current time?

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

My understanding is it's a bit more complicated than that with the New Testament. The two major text-types are the Alexandrian and Byzantine, with the Byzantine contributing to what would later be called the Textus Receptus. Though there are several other text-types, such as the Western and Caesarean text-types. And then there are manuscripts which don't seem to fit anywhere neatly.

But, generally, the two big ones are the "Majority" Byzantine texts (because they are the most numerous, though often later) and the "Minority" Alexandrian texts (fewer, but often earlier).

That can make things complicated because is a reading arguably more faithful because it's older, even if it has much less frequency; or is a reading more faithful though more generally recent, but far more frequent. Does earlier necessarily mean more representative of the original? Or does more frequent mean more representative of the original? Further, perhaps this isn't a straightforward binary issue, and there may be readings which are later but more faithful and readings that are earlier but are more faithful; and arguments for their fidelity are to be made on other bases, such as their witness in the writings of the Fathers.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hedrick]

In my opinion someone who wants the majority text should go with the UBS, since most current copies are printed editions of the UBS or related versions.

Remember that before the 16th Cent, although there weren't printing presses, there were groups doing large-scale copying of manuscripts. So while the technology was different the effect was the same: the particular editions they chose to print became the majority.

 

[Dr. Jack]

My understanding is it's a bit more complicated than that with the New Testament. The two major text-types are the Alexandrian and Byzantine, with the Byzantine contributing to what would later be called the Textus Receptus. Though there are several other text-types, such as the Western and Caesarean text-types. And then there are manuscripts which don't seem to fit anywhere neatly.

But, generally, the two big ones are the "Majority" Byzantine texts (because they are the most numerous, though often later) and the "Minority" Alexandrian texts (fewer, but often earlier).

That can make things complicated because is a reading arguably more faithful because it's older, even if it has much less frequency; or is a reading more faithful though more generally recent, but far more frequent. Does earlier necessarily mean more representative of the original? Or does more frequent mean more representative of the original? Further, perhaps this isn't a straightforward binary issue, and there may be readings which are later but more faithful and readings that are earlier but are more faithful; and arguments for their fidelity are to be made on other bases, such as their witness in the writings of the Fathers.

-CryptoLutheran

The two main "early MSS representing the Alexandrian text type are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. So how did these two MSS continue to exist far beyond the normal 'lifespan' of most MSS? The answer is quite simple ... neither were in circulation (being used). Both of these MSS were in the custodial care of the church of Rome which denied their authenticity (when being compared to Jerome's Latin Vulgate).

The only reason the Byzantine text type (Majority text) MSS date later is because these are texts that have always been in circulation. (Hence, they wear out with usage.)

In my opinion someone who wants the majority text should go with the UBS, since most current copies are printed editions of the UBS or related versions.

Remember that before the 16th Cent, although there weren't printing presses, there were groups doing large-scale copying of manuscripts. So while the technology was different the effect was the same: the particular editions they chose to print became the majority.

Not only were they the ones they chose to print ... they were also the ones they chose to use.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The two main "early MSS representing the Alexandrian text type are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. So how did these two MSS continue to exist far beyond the normal 'lifespan' of most MSS? The answer is quite simple ... neither were in circulation (being used). Both of these MSS were in the custodial care of the church of Rome which denied their authenticity (when being compared to Jerome's Latin Vulgate).

The only reason the Byzantine text type (Majority text) MSS date later is because these are texts that have always been in circulation. (Hence, they wear out with usage.)



Not only were they the ones they chose to print ... they were also the ones they chose to use.

Just to clarify: St. Catherine's, where Sinaiticus had been preserved for 1500 centuries, is an Orthodox monastery. Specifically it is part of the jurisdiction of the Church of Sinai, an autonomous jurisdiction within Eastern Orthodoxy

"The Church of Sinai owes its existence to the Monastery of the Transfiguration (better known as St. Catherine's Monastery). The monastery's origins are traced back to the Chapel of the Burning Bush that Constantine the Great's mother, Helena, had built over the site where Moses is supposed to have seen the burning bush. Between 527 and 565, Emperor Justinian I ordered the monastery built to enclose the chapel. The monastery became associated with St. Catherine of Alexandria through the belief that her relics were miraculously transported there.

St. Catherine’s monastery, as it has been known since the 9th century, was originally part of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, within the diocese of Pharan. After the bishop of Pharan was deposed for the heresy of monotheletism in AD 681, the see was transferred to the monastery itself, the abbot becoming the bishop of Pharan. With the subsequent union of the diocese of Raitho with the monastery, all the Christians in the Sinai peninsula came under the jurisdiction of the Abbot-Archbishop.

In 1575, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople granted Mount Sinai autonomous status. This was reaffirmed in 1782." - Wikipedia

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hedrick]

The two main "early MSS representing the Alexandrian text type are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. So how did these two MSS continue to exist far beyond the normal 'lifespan' of most MSS? The answer is quite simple ... neither were in circulation (being used). Both of these MSS were in the custodial care of the church of Rome which denied their authenticity (when being compared to Jerome's Latin Vulgate).

The only reason the Byzantine text type (Majority text) MSS date later is because these are texts that have always been in circulation. (Hence, they wear out with usage.)



Not only were they the ones they chose to print ... they were also the ones they chose to use.

This is way out of date. There are now a lot more early manuscripts, including papyrii from around 200. (I'm ignoring fragments from earlier.)

 

[Dr. Jack]

This is way out of date. There are now a lot more early manuscripts, including papyrii from around 200. (I'm ignoring fragments from earlier.)

My point is simply the fact that Textual Criticism holds Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as the leading two Greek MSS; both of which NOT being in circulation allowed them to be preserved to this present day.

So once again, my question remains ...

Has anyone here either studied, or researched the "who" and "why" behind the rules of Textual Criticism used even to our current time?

 

[hedrick]

My point is simply the fact that Textual Criticism holds Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as the leading two Greek MSS; both of which NOT being in circulation allowed them to be preserved to this present day.

So once again, my question remains ...

Has anyone here either studied, or researched the "who" and "why" behind the rules of Textual Criticism used even to our current time?

Moderately, yes. And I don't think current textual study "holds Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as the leading two Greek MSS."

 

[Dr. Jack]

Moderately, yes. And I don't think current textual study "holds Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as the leading two Greek MSS."

To prompt a good discussion ... please consider these questions ...

1) Who are the main figures in the development of the rules now used in Textual Criticism?

2) What were the theological views of these figures, directly relating to things such as the inspiration of Scripture, and the authoritativenes of Scripture?

 

[Radagast]

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

Well, that obviously can't be entirely correct, in that most recent versions use the same text, but differ in translation philosophy and style of English used.

Is it possible to have a civil conversation about this topic; and can it be kept at a professional, and polite level?

Past experience suggests not.

 

[Radagast]

My point is simply the fact that Textual Criticism holds Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as the leading two Greek MSS

I don't think that's true either. If you look at the footnotes of a modern Greek NT, every variant reading has evidence for it presented, and the variants are ranked on the basis of evidence that includes a wide variety of MSS plus quotes from the Church Fathers.

Has anyone here either studied, or researched the "who" and "why" behind the rules of Textual Criticism used even to our current time?

I'm beginning to doubt that you know what the "rules" are.

 

[Radagast]

I don't think that's true either. If you look at the footnotes of a modern Greek NT, every variant reading has evidence for it presented, and the variants are ranked on the basis of evidence that includes a wide variety of MSS plus quotes from the Church Fathers

That is, this: