Textual Criticism

[Traveler]

This could be a thread of interest and discussion or a thread of disinterest, little discussion and even some difficulties in understanding.  I will initiate my thoughts on textual criticism with two terms of text.  Extent of text and intent of text.  The extent of text is all the possible meanings a word or phrase could have.  The intent of text is a specific understanding that is being communicated.

When Jesus taught, he made reference to eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear.  It is generally understood in LDS theology that sacred things can only be understood (seen or heard) through one’s spiritual connection to the Holy Ghost.

It is my belief that one must be spiritual connected to spiritual things to gain understanding of any divine truth.  That there is no end to what one can glean with repetitive study and contemplation.  With all this said there is also a great deal to be understood of scripture through the study of the word texts, language translations and culture from which we obtain our scripture.

There is a problem in studying (especially Biblical) textual criticism.  There are thousands of ancient Biblical texts that experts have divided into many “families” of similar text based on language, time period, culture and place.  The reason our modern Bibles are called versions is because there is no specific ancient text that are translated into our modern languages.  Rather many ancient texts are used and picked from in a smorgasbord style – often to give what is often a predetermined rendering.  Despite the effort of the ancient Scribes there are no two ancient texts that are the same.

There are no original Biblical texts.  There are considered two kinds of original texts.  The first and most accurate are called autograph text.  These are texts written by the hand of the author.   One would think that there would only be one autograph text but this is not often the case.  Often the originator would make a number of copies for a variety of reasons.

The other kind of original is call a autogram text.  An autogram is a copy made by someone other than the author of the author’s autograph text in the same language.  A translation or a copy of a copy is not considered an original text.

It is sad that there are no original Biblical texts.  There are ancient original text that predate the oldest Biblical texts available.  Even original religious texts of other religions but for reasons that can only be speculated there are no original Biblical texts.  This fact has caused a lot of uncertainty in the accuracy of our modern Bibles.  Many devout Christians and Jews that have carefully studied textual criticism of the Biblical texts have become disillusioned and have become atheists or agnostics.

It is my belief that Latter-day Saints who are loyal to their covenants and joyful recipients of the Gift of the Holy Ghost will find inspiration in a deep dive into Biblical textual criticism.  It can be a most rewarding journey that will testify to the cycles of apostasy and restoration in human history.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

So far, I have not discussed any particular passages of ancient Biblical scripture.  I am still laying some ground work.  The Greeks had a significant impact on ancient texts throughout western civilization.  The Greeks are a little prideful about their contributions.  The writings of Homer brought about a continental shift in the manner of literal methods.   Homer changed how stories were told from subjective and symbolic representations to a literal capture of recorded history.  The Greeks reference this as historic verses pre-historic.  The Greek definition of pre-historic is pre-Homer and historic is defined as after Homer. 

This little literary definition is confusing to most that think of pre-historic as the era that preceded written language.  Historic they think of as the era of written language.  If anyone encounters someone referencing the Book of Genesis as not being historic – do not have a coronary over it and say for example the Noah was a real historical character that did build an actual ark.  Your argument will appear as sophomoric ignorance to someone versed in scholastic textual criticism.  Regardless of how you may feal about such thinking it is important to be aware of how expert scholars are translating and interpreting the ancient texts.   I have posted that the Book of Mormon is not historical and says so in its own text with comments like many important elements are being left out and only important religious references are being included – that the history of the Nephites are recorded in other records.  It is a technical definition used by scholars and it does not help to argue over technical definitions that are not understood or utilized.

The reason I bring this up is because there is a great difference between the New and Old Testament Biblical scriptures.  They belong to different eras and methods of storytelling.  Perhaps, Hugh Nibley explained this best by encouraging people to worry less about technical nuisances and more about being spiritually in tune with divine light and revelation.

LDS students of divine things, that are loyal to their covenants, have an advantage over others, especially because of the covenant we have with G-d at our baptism to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by someone with authority directly from Christ.  I would suggest that those that rely on any other means and especially scripture to settle disputes over doctrines will quickly discover that there is no resolution to disputes.   Those that hope to settle religious disputes through Biblical reference will learn by experience that such efforts are seldom fruitful because there is enough ambiguity (especially in the Old Testament) to cause major problems in interpretations.

I will now use an example in the Bible to demonstrate the ambiguity and the difference of interpreting Old Testament scripture from New Testament scripture.   The Gospel of John highlights many of the interpreting ambiguities.  In John chapter 10 Jesus highlights his relationship with the (his) Father.  Jesus does this by combining both the Old Testament symbolism and New Testament literal meanings.  This comes to a crescendo in verse 30 with Jesus declaring he and the Father are one.

In the next few verses, the Jews reject both the symbolism and the literal interpretation as blasphemy.  Because they interpret their scripture that to be one with G-d makes that man or person a G-d and that is simply unacceptable.   In verse 34 Jesus already designates from Biblical scripture that men becoming g-ds that accept the word of G-d.  This turns out to be a variant reading of scripture that previous to this moment no one had ever pronounced.  Jesus uses scripture to prove that man belongs to the designation of a g-d through accepting the word of G-d.

As I have discussed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with other Abrahamic religions, this particular doctrine is the most criticized interpretation of the purpose of scripture and worship that we uphold as a premier purpose of G-d’s Plan of Salvation.

What is the most important notion to realize is how foreign the idea is, to consider variant readings of sacred scripture.  It is impossible to discuss the light and truth of G-d without the witness of the Holy Ghost.   Not even the Son of G-d and the Redeemer of mankind is able to teach the meaning of scripture without the assistance of the spirit.  We should not think of ourselves as a better convincer. 

 

The Traveler

[mordorbund]

18 hours ago, Traveler said:

This little literary definition is confusing to most that think of pre-historic as the era that preceded written language.  Historic they think of as the era of written language. 

I have not found anyone (even scholars) who use this literary definition you describe. All definitions and descriptions refer to the line before writing and after. It can be used as a localized term, with Greek prehistory coming before the Iliad and Egyptian prehistory coming before the Narmer Pallette. Do you have some citations or examples?

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, mordorbund said:

I have not found anyone (even scholars) who use this literary definition you describe. All definitions and descriptions refer to the line before writing and after. It can be used as a localized term, with Greek prehistory coming before the Iliad and Egyptian prehistory coming before the Narmer Pallette. Do you have some citations or examples?

You need to talk to a Greek historical scholar.   Even visiting Greek historical sites with a professional Greek guide will suffice.  The explanation that I was given is that pre-history as you are referencing were oral histories.  Therefore, literature that had not developed beyond the style of oral histories is not sufficient to be considered as historical but rather a pre-historical record.   Much like the designation in our modern library system of fiction and non-fiction.   Have you never heard the argument among certain scholars that the Bible is not historical? 

 

The Traveler

[mordorbund]

54 minutes ago, Traveler said:

You need to talk to a Greek historical scholar.   Even visiting Greek historical sites with a professional Greek guide will suffice.  The explanation that I was given is that pre-history as you are referencing were oral histories.  Therefore, literature that had not developed beyond the style of oral histories is not sufficient to be considered as historical but rather a pre-historical record.   Much like the designation in our modern library system of fiction and non-fiction. 

I would expect a Greek historical scholar to refer to pre-Homeric periods as prehistory since for the Greek culture. What I disagree with is that an Egyptologist would say that the diary of Merer is prehistoric because it antedates Homer. Are you saying they would? Similarly, if a culture is discovered in the Amazon lacking writing, I would not bat an eye if sociologists referred to it as prehistoric.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Have you never heard the argument among certain scholars that the Bible is not historical? 

Yes I have. The context that comes readily to mind is that the Jericho account is not historical because it conflicts with the archeology of the city consensus holds to be Jericho. They did not include any reference to Greek literature.

Did you notice you changed your terminology? When referring to culture without writing you used “prehistoric” but when referring to a writing culture (specifically the writing) you used “not historical”. That suggests to me that you instinctively recognize the difference even if you haven’t cognitively processed it.

[MrShorty]

I have had a long interest in textual criticism, though it hasn't been intense or deep. The most interesting to me are sections like the long ending of Mark or the woman taken in adultery in John's gospel, where large blocks of text seem to be later additions.

In my experience listening/reading those who have struggled with their faith because of textual criticism, it often seems that they started with a very fundamentalist, inerrant, univocal view of scripture. As they studied the textual history and variants of the Bible, they found significant conflict with their fundamentalist view of scripture, and sometimes just couldn't hold on to their faith. I don't know if we LDS are really any more resilient than other Christian groups in this regard, as I find that some of us do expect scripture to be univocal and quasi-inerrant. IMO, those whose faith will benefit from studying textual criticism will be those who have a realistic understanding of what scripture is.

Let's not forget that textual criticism is not just for the Bible. The Book of Mormon has its own textual criticism project exploring the history of our own founding scriptural text. The history is a lot shorter, but there are textual variants nonetheless -- such as the never ending discussion over whether it should read "pure and delightsome" or "white and delightsome." (FAIR page:https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes )

Personally, I've found the study of textual variants to be interesting, but not challenging to faith. The parts of scripture that have been the most challenging to my faith have been those where scripture attributes something to God that I struggle to believe came from God. The genocides of the OT are a go to example. It is difficult to attribute these problems to some kind of textual variant problem or a translation problem. The authors of the Bible put those stories in there, and they challenge my sense of who God is and what His nature is.