Difference between revisions of "Biblical criticism"

Revision as of 05:14, August 30, 2011

Haven't you incompetent idiots blocked me yet? This wiki will be assimilated by the Borg. Resistance is futile.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Bible}}
+Haven't you incompetent idiots blocked me yet? This wiki will be assimilated by the Borg. Resistance is futile.
-[[Biblical criticism]] is any examination of the [[Bible]] for accuracy, authenticity, authorship, dating, or anything else that bears on the Bible's reliability as a [[history|historical]] source against which one might legitimately judge other sources.
-The traditions of the last century or more have divided Biblical criticism into two main areas, called the ''higher'' and the ''lower''. While the ''lower'' criticism (including textual criticism) deals with the provenance of the text and the faithfulness of the present text to the lost originals, the ''higher'' criticism deals with the heart of the Bible itself: whether it is, in fact, historical, and if not, exactly how ought one to read it.
-== Higher criticism ==
-The ''higher'' or ''historical criticism'' of the Bible (not the criticism of the Bible ''throughout'' history, but rather the criticism of the Bible ''as'' history) deals with whether the Bible is, or is not, a valid source of history. The German higher critic Johann Gottfried Eichhorn coined the term.<ref name=CathEn>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04491c.htm Biblical criticism (higher)] in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908)</ref>
-Higher criticism asks whether the Bible is consistent with extra-Biblical [[Archaeology|archaeological]] finds and with what is known of the languages in which it was written. Inevitably higher criticism must face squarely the question of whether Divine inspiration exists or not, and whether supernatural causes or events are admissible or not. These can only be [[presupposition]]. For that reason, at least two divergent schools of thought have always existed in higher criticism. Their differences are irreconcilable, because one school believes that anything supernatural is to be rejected out-of-hand, and the other school is not so sure of that. These "non-rationalistic" thinkers tend to divide between [[Protestantism|Protestant]] and [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] schools of thought. Higher criticism ''also'' claims to examine the internal evidence of the Bible and whether certain parts of the Bible are properly consistent with other parts.
-=== History of higher criticism ===
-[[The Catholic Encyclopedia]] includes<ref name=CathEn/> an excellent treatment of the full state of higher criticism until 1908. It shows that higher criticism, as such, began earlier than the Enlightenment. The [[Constantine]]-era bishop [[Origen]] holding, for example, that [[Paul]] was not the same man who wrote the Epistle to the [[Hebrews (book)|Hebrews]]. Origen's student [[Dionysius]] held on linguistic grounds that the man calling himself "John" who wrote [[Revelation]] was not the same man as the [[Apostle]] named [[John]]. Higher criticism contemporary to Ussher explored such questions as whether [[Moses]] was the true author of the first five books of the Bible, called the "Books of Moses" in the [[King James Version]].
-Then in the early nineteenth century a group of French and German scholars began evaluate the internal style of the Bible and to test its historical claims against other historical documents and archaeological finds. They drew their inspiration from the new fields of historiography, archaeology, and linguistics.
-Analysis of the Old Testament and the New Testament tended to have vastly different emphases, with Old Testament criticism centering on questions of language and competing historical records, and New Testament criticism looking at authorship and the interrelations of texts, including non-canaonical and apocryphal texts.  Of special concern was the authorship of of the Epistles.
-The claims made in the field of [[Assyrian chronology]], and specifically as regards alleged synchronies between [[Assyria]]n rulers and certain kings of the [[Northern Kingdom]], became popular toward the end of the nineteenth century. This is the criticism that informed [[Edwin R. Thiele]]'s thesis that the writers of the Kings and Chronicles books used reign synchronies and lengths that were incomplete.
-==Atheists==
-Atheists rarely study the Bible, but there is a small group that tries to revive some theories from the 19th century that most scholars now dismiss. They started the ''Journal of Higher Criticism''<ref name=JHC>[http://www.atheistalliance.org/jhc/index.htm Journal of Higher Criticism] at the [[Atheist]] Alliance. Has multiple additional links.</ref> and billed it as "a forthright attempt - in a time of scholarly neo-conservatism - to hark back to the bold historical hypotheses and critical interpretations associated with the great names of F. C. Baur and Tübingen."
-=== Biblical criticism understood to support Christian supernatural beliefs ===
-The Catholic church gave its approval to some forms of Biblical criticism in its 1943 ''[[Divino Afflante Spiritu|Divino afflante spiritu]]'' issued on the fiftieth anniversary of ''[[Providentissimus Deus]]'', which had actually condemned the use of [[higher criticism]].  Two catholic scholars who help usher in the 1943 and later acceptance were the [[Dominican Order|Dominican]] [[Marie-Joseph Lagrange]] and the [[Jesuit]] [[Augustin Bea]].  Notable Protestant biblical scholars also holding Christian supernatural beliefs include [[Arthur Peake|A. S. Peake]], a member of the [[United Methodist Church]], and [[William Robertson Smith]], a member of the [[Free Church of Scotland]].   <ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=udr0HQAACAAJ The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought], 2000, [[Oxford University Press]], page 298, ISBN 0-1986-0024-0 </ref>
-== Textual criticism ==
-The ''lower'' or ''textual'' criticism of the [[Bible]] starts with the premise that the Bible ''is'' reliable history. Unhappily, none of the original [[Hebrew]] texts of the [[Old Testament]] remain. (Even the [[Dead Sea scrolls]] do not qualify, though they come close.) The situation with the [[New Testament]] is arguably worse, in that no agreement has been possible as to which of the many manuscripts of various New Testament books is actually original. Hence, textual criticism strives to determine which copies of the Old Testament are the most faithful to the original, and which manuscripts of the New Testament are either original (if such can ever be found) or at least faithful and correct.<ref name=CathEnNT>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04497a.htm Biblical criticism (textual)] in the Catholic Encyclopedia</ref>
-=== History of textual criticism ===
-Again, possibly the first person to undertake any form of textual criticism for a practical reason was [[James Ussher]]. He needed a reliable text to serve as an anchor for a unified treatment of ancient history. Ussher rejected the [[Septuagint]] for various reasons, chief among which was that the Septuagint was a translation into a language foreign to that in which the originals were written, and that the translation was a work by consensus. (Its very name, which translates as ''Interpretation According to the Seventy'', so indicates.) Ussher selected the [[Masoretic Text]], which was an attempt by second-century [[Hebrew]] scholars to reproduce a text in its original language.
-In addition to Ussher, the Royal Commission on Bible Translation, in the reign of King [[James I]] of [[United Kingdom|Great Britain]], had to determine a proper text from which to produce a translation of the Bible into [[English]]. They worked largely from the Masoretic Text, but consulted the Septuagint occasionally when the meaning of the Hebrew was difficult to discern.
-Textual criticism gained new impetus in the nineteenth century with the work of Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. The questions they have raised remain today the subject of great and often bitter controversy.
-==== The Old Testament ====
-No modern scholar claims to have original texts of Old Testament books. [[Ptolemy II Philadelphus]] had them translated into the [[Greece|Greek]] of his day to produce the famous [[Septuagint]] at the [[Great Library of Alexandria]]. What happened to the originals from which the Seventy Interpreters worked has never been established. Tragically, much of the collections of the Great Library were lost in one or more fires that struck the Library at various times in its history. As a result, the New Testament writers quote the Septuagint, because that was all that was available.
-The Masoretes would later correct that lack with their production of the [[Masoretic Text]]. That text remained for centuries the best extant [[Hebrew]] copy of the Old Testament. However, this text proved quite vulnerable to higher critics who doubted the authenticity or the dating of some of its books. Chief among these was the book of [[Daniel]], which some alleged to have been written after the fact.
-In 1947, in the midst of the War for the Independence of the Republic of [[Israel]], came the discovery, at [[Qumran]], of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls|Dead Sea scrolls]]. These scrolls have largely backed up the accuracy of the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, with rare exception.
-Among the principles that aided the Masoretes (and presumably the [[Essene]] scribes who wrote the Dead Sea scrolls) was the elaborate procedures that the original scribes had used. This included checksumming of each line and the insistence that the making of a single mistake required throwing out the entire scroll and starting over.<ref name=Williams>Williams, Fred, [http://www.bibleevidences.com/transmission.htm Meticulous Care in the Transmission of the Bible], retrieved March 25, 2007</ref>
-==== The New Testament ====
-The situation with the New Testament is much less settled, because no checksumming was ever done with any manuscript of any of its books. In 1611, King James' Royal Commission had available to it a [[Majority Text]], which may or may not be the same as the [[Textus Receptus]], of manuscripts of which more copies existed than any others. This largely included the [[Byzantine Text]] family of manuscript copies that, strikingly, seem to agree in every particular with one another.
-But Westcott and Hort pointed out the existence of many more manuscripts, including the [[Codex Alexandrinus]] and the [[Codex Sinaiticus]], that disagree with the Majority Text in many key areas. Among the points of disagreement are:
-* The authenticity of the ''Pericopa Adultura''<ref>{{Bible ref|book=John|chap=8|verses=1-11|version=NIV}}</ref>
-* The person of the verb endings used in the Song of the Twenty-four Elders<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=5|verses=9-10|version=KJV}}</ref><ref>{{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=5|verses=9-10|version=NIV}}</ref>
-* The true length of the Gospel According to [[Gospel of Mark|Mark]]
-The reception of Westcott and Hort's has varied from cordial to hostile.<ref>[http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/Topics/Bible/Bible_Reliability.html The Reliability of the Bible Texts] at FoundationsforFreedom.net</ref> Many Bible defenders roundly condemn New Testament textual criticism, because they see in it the same kind of compromise of the truth that they decry on the part of the ''higher'' critics. This led the writers of the Catholic Encyclopedia, in 1908, to despair of ever having a fully reliable New Testament in the [[Greek]] language of its original authorship.
-== Footnotes ==
-<references/>
-== Additional References ==
-== See Also ==
-* [[Disputed Biblical Translations]]
-[[Category:Bible]]
-[[Category:Bible Study]]

Difference between revisions of "Biblical criticism"

Revision as of 05:14, August 30, 2011

Navigation menu

Search