Question on Textual Criticism for Conservatives

[filosofer]

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
There is still a problem of terminology. When Biblical scholars use the term textual criticism it has a specific referent, and it is not the documentary hypothesis for the Pentateuch nor the Q hypothesis for a pre-Gospel writing. Textual criticism refers to examining the original language manuscripts and the variations between manuscripts. Secondarily it involves examining the text of translations (specifically LXX, Latin, Aramaic targums, etc for the OT).

Two of the better texts for getting into this topic are:

The Text of the Old Testament by E. Wurthwein (1979)

Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible by Emmanuel Tov (1992)

For a beginning study of the Septuagint(s) and textual criticism, consider this book as a starting point:

Invitation to the Septuagint by Moises Silva and Karen Jobes

Now, based on this starting point for textual criticism, there is no evidence textually for the documentary hypothesis. In other words there are no manuscripts in which JEDP or any other such hypothetical document exists.

Likewise for Q in the New Testament.

In both cases, scholars present literary constructs trying to establish something outside of the evidence of the existing manuscripts, and what they consider "behind" the text.

In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[filosofer]

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
For a study of the OT Canon (which is a related topic, but not specifically textual criticism), there is an excellent book published recently by CPH:

The Oracles of God: The Old Testament Canon by Andrew Steinmann



In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Are you still considering seminary?

Yup.

Keep in mind that I don't ascribe to the documentary hypothesis, especially in it's contemporary JEPD form.

I'm simply saying A. I don't understand what's wrong with higher criticism in-itself (especially since, as demonstrated with the Marian example, it can be a useful apologetic tool) and B. I don't understand why Christ's words necessitate a belief in Mosaic authorship of the whole of the Torah.

I understand that even that can be problematic within the LCMS (and, of course, that critical bibilical methodology and study is not the vocation of a pastor as has no place at the pulpit, because the pulpit is the kerygma of Law and Gospel). But I don't see why my two points can't be defended within the general biblical-theological framework espoused by the LCMS (even if this has generally not been the case, since rarely are critical approaches associated with doctrinal conservatives).

There is still a problem of terminology. When Biblical scholars use the term textual criticism it has a specific referent, and it is not the documentary hypothesis for the Pentateuch nor the Q hypothesis for a pre-Gospel writing. Textual criticism refers to examining the original language manuscripts and the variations between manuscripts. Secondarily it involves examining the text of translations (specifically LXX, Latin, Aramaic targums, etc for the OT).

You're right. Textual criticism is a popular term that actually means 'lower criticism,' which establishes the original form of a text based on all the extant manuscripts and early church citations.

Higher criticism, and it's various subdisciplines (form criticism, narrative criticism, redaction criticism, source criticism, etc.) is what we have been discussing.

For a study of the OT Canon (which is a related topic, but not specifically textual criticism), there is an excellent book published recently by CPH:

The Oracles of God: The Old Testament Canon by Andrew Steinmann

Sounds cool, I'll have to check it out.

Currently I'm reading A History of Israel: From Conquest to Exile by John J. Davis and John C. Whitcomb. It basically covers Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles from an inerrantist perspective ("The authors have approached the Old Testament text with full confidence that the original words... were inspired by God and therefore absolutely inerrant."). The period is really quite interesting (especially for a politics major with a Mideast focus). The book also addresses most of the supposed 'contradictions' in the biblical account (such as the 'twin deaths' of Saul, which it reconciles in an honest and simply manner). I'm reading it in tandum with a JSP translation of the Prophets (Nevi'im): Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.

I've really gotten into Old Testament recently. I guess it's a natural consequence of moving ever-father away from my parent's dispensationalist congregation and toward a focus on covenantal economy and redemptive history.

 

[filosofer]

You're right. Textual criticism is a popular term that actually means 'lower criticism,' which establishes the original form of a text based on all the extant manuscripts and early church citations.

Higher criticism, and it's various subdisciplines (form criticism, narrative criticism, redaction criticism, source criticism, etc.) is what we have been discussing.

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
There is a distinction, but not as you have written; rather, it's the other way around: "lower criticism" is the popular term, "textual criticism" is the technical term. Consider Tov:

Textual criticism deals with the origin and nature of all forms of a text, in our case the biblical text. This involves a discussion of its putative original form(s) and an analysis of the various representatives of the changing biblical text. The analysis includes a discussion of the relation between these texts, and attempts are made to describe the external conditions of the copying and the procedure of textual transmission. Scholars involved in textual criticism ... [p. 1]

Regarding "higher criticism", it isn't some of the tools that are suspect, but the assumptions behind them. Thus, we can and should study the literary forms of the Biblical text. We need to distinguish between narrative portions and poetic sections, wisom sayings, etc. There are many tools available to help us with this.

Notice, however, that the documentary hypothesis is not based on the existent texts nor on manuscript evidence. It also is not based on a literary analysis of the text, but a literary analysis of a reconstructed text. It does not treat the text as it exists (aside from text critical differences) but requires a re-arranged, divided text (pulling sections here and there) based on the appearance of a specific word/phrase, when there is no literary evidence to suggest such re-structuring of the text.

Consider the Q hypothesis: Find one shred of evidence for its existence as a real thing apart from its literary construct. And what is Q? It is defined as the material common to Matthew and Luke not found in Mark. It is a defined construct within a hypothesis, no different than if someone claims that S is a "document" - where S includes all words that end in SIGMA in the Greek text of Paul's writings. I can construct such a thing. But that does not mean that there is evidence that such a thing actually existed, or is a predecessor of any of Paul's actual written letters.

And why the need for Q? Because it is based on the assumption that Mark is the first Gospel. If you assume that Mark is not first, there is no need for Q. Read this book from a scholar who moved away from such a construct in the Synoptic Gospels:

Redating Matthew, Mark, Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem by John Wenham (1992)

In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[DaRev]

Originally Posted by DaRev
Are you still considering seminary?

Yup.

Which synod?

 

[filosofer]

Yup.

Currently I'm reading A History of Israel: From Conquest to Exile by John J. Davis and John C. Whitcomb. It basically covers Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles from an inerrantist perspective ("The authors have approached the Old Testament text with full confidence that the original words... were inspired by God and therefore absolutely inerrant."). The period is really quite interesting (especially for a politics major with a Mideast focus). The book also addresses most of the supposed 'contradictions' in the biblical account (such as the 'twin deaths' of Saul, which it reconciles in an honest and simply manner). I'm reading it in tandum with a JSP translation of the Prophets (Nevi'im): Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
One note: the use of the term "inerrant" has some Reformed baggage. It comes from B. B. Warfield (1851-1921), Princeton theologian, eventually coming into the LCMS through Fritz and Arndt. However, Warfield's referent for inerrant was the "autographs". The problem no one has ever seen the autographs. And what if Matthew wrote his Gospel in both Aramaic and Greek, but they differ. Which is the autograph? Prior to the time of Warfield, the common referent (of inspired, infallible, without error text) was the existent original language texts. Note how Jesus speaks about not one "jot or tittle" (smallest Hebrew letter and the extension of a few consonants), which means he was referring the existent manuscripts there that they used in first century Judea, since earlier Hebrew texts (pre-Babylonian captivity) were not written in the same form.

[/font]

I've really gotten into Old Testament recently. I guess it's a natural consequence of moving ever-father away from my parent's dispensationalist congregation and toward a focus on covenantal economy and redemptive history.

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
That's a good endeavor, and I encourage you in this. I think it is wise for all Christians to study the Old Testament as well as the New. Sadly, too many pastors forget Hebrew or never really learned it, and consequently tend to avoid the Hebrew Scriptures, or use borrowed thoughts as the basis for their sermons. Of course, I am a proponent of the position that pastors continue to learn and use both Greek and Hebrew. But that is just me.



In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[DaRev]

"jot or tittle"

You do realize that "jot or tittle" is a KJV term and not from the Greek text, don't you?

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

I've really gotten into Old Testament recently. I guess it's a natural consequence of moving ever-father away from my parent's dispensationalist congregation and toward a focus on covenantal economy and redemptive history.

I though higher critisism was part of the dispensationals? If you are promoting partial critisism then wouldn't you be reverting back to the dispesationals theology?

 

[filosofer]

You do realize that "jot or tittle" is a KJV term and not from the Greek text, don't you?

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
Yes, but most people are familiar with the expression, so that is why I used it. Better than ESV (in terms of familiarity):

Matthew 5:18: For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

iota is a Greek letter, not Hebrew (the Hebrew letter is yodth), and the extension of the Hebrew letter bet(h) is certainly not a dot.

If only we could use Hebrew and Greek so that everyone could see it in the right font. I will try to find an example of it and link here.

In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[filosofer]

I though higher critisism was part of the dispensationals? If you are promoting partial critisism then wouldn't you be reverting back to the dispesationals theology?

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
They are not necessarily related.

In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[Melethiel]

[FONT="Book Antiqua"] If only we could use Hebrew and Greek so that everyone could see it in the right font. I will try to find an example of it and link here.[/FONT]

[FONT="Book Antiqua"]

[/FONT]If you use the language settings on the computer keyboard, it will work. βλέπεις?

 

[filosofer]

[FONT="Book Antiqua"]

[/FONT]If you use the language settings on the computer keyboard, it will work. βλέπει?

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
If everyone uses the same computer and the same fonts (Win, Mac, Linux, etc.). Yes, on my Mac OS X I have several Hebrew and Greek fonts that I use daily, natively typing Hebrew right to left. But unless another person can match that, it won't turn out correctly, and then it is frustrating.

In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[filosofer]

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]

Take a look at this web page:

Genesis 1

Under the bolded larger text, on the right side, ignore the small letter, the next letter to the left is the Hebrew letter beth. If you look to the lower right of this Hebrew letter, there is a very small extension at the bottom. That is the "tittle".

In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Which synod?

Missouri- Concordia, St. Louis (with some time at Westfieldhouse)

I mean, it's not like I'm some sort of liberal.

One note: the use of the term "inerrant" has some Reformed baggage. It comes from B. B. Warfield (1851-1921), Princeton theologian, eventually coming into the LCMS through Fritz and Arndt. However, Warfield's referent for inerrant was the "autographs". The problem no one has ever seen the autographs. And what if Matthew wrote his Gospel in both Aramaic and Greek, but they differ. Which is the autograph? Prior to the time of Warfield, the common referent (of inspired, infallible, without error text) was the existent original language texts. Note how Jesus speaks about not one "jot or tittle" (smallest Hebrew letter and the extension of a few consonants), which means he was referring the existent manuscripts there that they used in first century Judea, since earlier Hebrew texts (pre-Babylonian captivity) were not written in the same form.

I don't think our Lord was refering to the text of the manuscripts, but rather the content of the law... a preemptive strike against antinomianism.

That's a good endeavor, and I encourage you in this. I think it is wise for all Christians to study the Old Testament as well as the New. Sadly, too many pastors forget Hebrew or never really learned it, and consequently tend to avoid the Hebrew Scriptures, or use borrowed thoughts as the basis for their sermons. Of course, I am a proponent of the position that pastors continue to learn and use both Greek and Hebrew. But that is just me.

I totally agree. Hebrew might end up being quite difficult for me, but I really can't imagine maintaining consistent exegesis on all three readings for each week without (unless I read from the LXX, which would be... well... eh...).

I though higher critisism was part of the dispensationals? If you are promoting partial critisism then wouldn't you be reverting back to the dispesationals theology?

Actually I've never heard of a dispensationalist who uses higher critical techniques.

The only relation I can think of is the higher critical propensity for dating the writing of New Testament texts, and the mid-Acts dispensationalist rejection of anything but the Pauline epistles as normative in the 'church age.' But the dispensationalists reject the other writings as presently normative because of they are 'too Jewish,' and not for any, well, real reasons.

 

[BigNorsk]

Higher criticism and dispensationalism are two separate things, they did kind of get going at about the same time so I can understand a bit of a link though.

I would like to go back a bit to how I linked higher criticism and using supposed history though as sources.

Take that synoptic gospel as a big part of higher criticism. Note how there isn't actually any provable history associated with the supposed common document.

I see the same sort of thing done all the time in the practitioners of higher criticism. If they can find some evidence historically, they use it to back up their theories. If they can't, they make it up.

Maybe at one time they weren't linked, I don't know. But now the two are so intertwined as to be hard to separate them.

Mostly to me it seems to be a system with the primary purpose of cranking out PhD's. Other things really seem kind of secondary. In order to get a PhD you have to come up with something new. So people do. Doesn't matter if there's really any evidence or not, just keep coming up with theories and throwing them out there and get your degree and go into teaching more people to do the same.

That's the cubbyhole I have it in in my mind.

Marv

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Consider the Q hypothesis: Find one shred of evidence for its existence as a real thing apart from its literary construct. And what is Q? It is defined as the material common to Matthew and Luke not found in Mark. It is a defined construct within a hypothesis, no different than if someone claims that S is a "document" - where S includes all words that end in SIGMA in the Greek text of Paul's writings. I can construct such a thing. But that does not mean that there is evidence that such a thing actually existed, or is a predecessor of any of Paul's actual written letters.

And why the need for Q? Because it is based on the assumption that Mark is the first Gospel. If you assume that Mark is not first, there is no need for Q. Read this book from a scholar who moved away from such a construct in the Synoptic Gospels:

Redating Matthew, Mark, Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem by John Wenham (1992)

Well that's a bit of a strech. I mean, you could reconstruct an S document including all words that end in sigma. But why would you want to?

And of course you're right- the two source hypothesis and Q material is dependent on Markan priority.

But I have every reason to believe that Mark takes priority as a gospel. It's the shortest gospel, and represents the 'lowest' Christology (I AM during the walking-on-water narrative in ch. 6 notwithstanding). It's also the first gospel mentioned in Papias, as I recall (Matthew is mentioned, but as logia or sayings, not as a gospel- possibly a reference to our hypothesized Q material, but I wouldn't even bother making a case for it)

Now you're never hear me refer to a 'Q [Source] Gospel' and much less the imaginative 'Q Community' of Burton Mark infamy. All such thinking is devoid of any intellectual merit whatsoever. The idea that we can take a hypothesized block of material and hypothetically assign it the title of 'gospel' (when there isn't really even 'good news' proclaimed in it), and then reconstruct a hypothetical community that wrote and used the source material with a hypothetical history based on hypothetical divisions within the hypothetical order of the 'text' is pure nonsense. I can't believe any serious scholar thinks that, even though there are a good number of folk who present themselves as scholars to the media.

That said, I don't see why the material common to Matthew and Luke couldn't have been drawn from a common well of information based on oral traditions in the early church and possibly a written text. Kenneth Bailey has written a wonderful little article called 'Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels' in which he demonstrated through anthropological investigation the use of information controls in rural Mideastern culture (ancient and modern) in the transmission of proverbs, wisdom sayings, parables, and narratives. It's been quite helpful is dismissing a hypothesized textual Q Source- but allowing for a common body of oral material circulating in early church liturgical structures.

Anyway, all of that is a long way of saying that I ascribe to the two source hypothesis and a Q source, without ascribing to a Q text, Q gospel, Q community, and Q history.

I mean, although I reject the documentary hypothesis (for both textual and theological reasons), I really, really don't see any problems with the two source hypothesis. I mean, Luke actually says he uses sources in his prologue.

I know absolutely none of what I said establishes Markan priority, but hey, I'm tired, and really I started the thread just to know if there was anything wrong with biblical criticism in-and-of-itself, removed from all the liberal theories, radical skepticism, and downright heresy propogated by the scholarly communities that use it as a tool. I'll try and find that book, though.

 

[Crankhandle]

http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/astatement.pdf

Look at the section on Holy Scripture. It seems to flesh out the synod's view on textual criticism higher and lower. I personally think criticism is the "slippery slope" that has ruined the ELCA among other liberal denominations. It is my prayer that it will not ruin the LCMS as well.

 

[DaSeminarian]

[FONT="Book Antiqua"]
There is still a problem of terminology. When Biblical scholars use the term textual criticism it has a specific referent, and it is not the documentary hypothesis for the Pentateuch nor the Q hypothesis for a pre-Gospel writing. Textual criticism refers to examining the original language manuscripts and the variations between manuscripts. Secondarily it involves examining the text of translations (specifically LXX, Latin, Aramaic targums, etc for the OT).

Two of the better texts for getting into this topic are:

The Text of the Old Testament by E. Wurthwein (1979)

Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible by Emmanuel Tov (1992)

For a beginning study of the Septuagint(s) and textual criticism, consider this book as a starting point:

Invitation to the Septuagint by Moises Silva and Karen Jobes

Now, based on this starting point for textual criticism, there is no evidence textually for the documentary hypothesis. In other words there are no manuscripts in which JEDP or any other such hypothetical document exists.

Likewise for Q in the New Testament.

In both cases, scholars present literary constructs trying to establish something outside of the evidence of the existing manuscripts, and what they consider "behind" the text.

In Christ's love,
filo
[/FONT]

Dr. David Scaer would agree with you on the Q or Source documents. There is no proof that Mark was the first Gospel written. Both Seminaries will teach that Matthew was the first Gospel written with Luke being second and Mark the third Gospel and finally John.

Each Gospel has a different audience to which it is directed. Matthew was written by the disciple as a final book of the OT. Luke wrote a Narrative to his patron Theophilus which is actually a two part narrative beginning with Jesus as the Son of God. The genealogy goes back to Adam whereas the Gospel of Matthew shows Jesus to be the Promised one of the Jews from Abraham.

Mark's Gospel does not get into details as the other two. But is more concerned with what Jesus did and where he went. If you read carefully through you will notice the word "Immediately" quite often appears during Jesus miracles. The end of Mark's Gospel is different as well. There is a report of his resurrection, but he really doesn't give much more. John is the most introspective of Jesus' life. It is not synoptic though there are a couple of accounts from the other three that in some way appear in his as well.

The Reformed and American Evangelicals have pretty much settled on the Q source, whereas the Lutherans and Roman Catholics have not.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Dr. David Scaer would agree with you on the Q or Source documents. There is no proof that Mark was the first Gospel written. Both Seminaries will teach that Matthew was the first Gospel written with Luke being second and Mark the third Gospel and finally John.

Why does seminary program training young men for the pastoral vocation need to endorse a single synoptic theory? It doesn't seem like theory one or the other bears on textual interpretation inasmuch as the exegesis is geared toward the homiletic proclaimation of Law and Gospel. It seems rather rigid to me.

P.S., I love David Scaer. His work on Christology in the Lutheran Dogmatics series is a great read. Where does he teach?

Mark's Gospel does not get into details as the other two. But is more concerned with what Jesus did and where he went. If you read carefully through you will notice the word "Immediately" quite often appears during Jesus miracles. The end of Mark's Gospel is different as well. There is a report of his resurrection, but he really doesn't give much more. John is the most introspective of Jesus' life. It is not synoptic though there are a couple of accounts from the other three that in some way appear in his as well.

Wait... you're saying Mark isn't one of the synoptics, with Matthew and Luke, at all?

The Reformed and American Evangelicals have pretty much settled on the Q source, whereas the Lutherans and Roman Catholics have not.

I really don't think that's the case.

Most of the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission- the primary organ of the papal bureaucracy concerned with exegesis- hold to the two-source hypothesis as an answer to the 'synoptic problem.' Raymond E. Brown certainly did (although his scholarly focus was Johannine literature).

And, haha, I don't think evangelicals have much in the way of higher criticism...

 

[DaRev]

iota is a Greek letter, not Hebrew (the Hebrew letter is yodth), and the extension of the Hebrew letter bet(h) is certainly not a dot.

Where do you get "beth" from? The Greek text says "iota", the Greek letter, and "keraia", which means "point" or "dot."