Textual Criticism

[Damien the Leper]

Does evidence and scholarly research concerning textual criticism of Biblical books have any bearing on whether a teaching or thought process is actually inspired?

This thread is in response to Pahoran's statement:

The default position for believing Latter-day Saints is to accept the books of the Bible as authentic, scriptural and authoritative; the sole exception to which being the Song of Solomon. As a believing Latter-day Saint I find that I am entitled to hold the default position, and am required to justify it to exactly nobody at all.

Does such a default position really stand on a firm foundation with well reasoned and thought out arguments?

Personally, I disagree with the default position because there seems to be little to no real merit to the argument. Furthermore, "because the General Authorities say so" is not a valid argument.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I agree. I wish I'd seen this thread before I responded to the other one. But just to repeat myself:

Personally, I think the beautiful poetry shared between lovers in the Song of Solomon is far more inspired and emblematic of the purposes of God than, say, the details of Joshua's campaigns to murder infants, the dismembering of the woman into twelve pieces in Judges 19, or Elisha's cursing of the kids teasing his baldness to be eaten by ravenous she-bears. To name just a few of the horrors found in our "good" book.

I also rather prefer Joseph Smith's view of the scriptures as very fallible and open to questioning despite being extremely valuable. As he said, "from sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled." Indeed, "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors."

There is plenty of space for the possibility of pseudepigrapha, less-than-trustworthy sources, and even outright fabrications included in the canon, within the "default position" of faithful and "believing Latter-Day Saints." Textual criticism, when it is fair and well-done, actually increases my faith in the reasoning abilities of humans; if we're created in the image of the Gods, then let's try to use our brains the way they do, rather than relying on comforting but facile Sunday-school lessons. (Speaking as an Elder's Quorum teacher who has given many an over-simplified lesson. *grin*)

Edited April 12, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Damien the Leper]

I agree. I wish I'd seen this thread before I responded to the other one. But just to repeat myself:

Personally, I think the beautiful poetry shared between lovers in the Song of Solomon is far more inspired and emblematic of the purposes of God than, say, the details of Joshua's campaigns to murder infants, the dismembering of the woman into twelve pieces in Judges 19, or Elisha's cursing of the kids teasing his baldness to be eaten by ravenous she-bears. To name just a few of the horrors found in our "good" book.

I also rather prefer Joseph Smith's view of the scriptures as very fallible and open to questioning despite being extremely valuable. As he said, "from sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled." Indeed, "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors."

There is plenty of space for the possibility of pseudepigrapha, less-than-trustworthy sources, and even outright fabrications included in the canon, within the "default position" of faithful and "believing Latter-Day Saints." Textual criticism, when it is fair and well-done, actually increases my faith in the reasoning abilities of humans; if we're created in the image of the Gods, then let's try to use our brains the way they do, rather than relying on comforting but facile Sunday-school lessons. (Speaking as an Elder's Quorum teacher who has given many an over-simplified lesson. *grin*)

I saw that response before I saw this one.

I completely agree with you.

[blackstrap]

It is possible to have well-reasoned and thought out arguments on a subject...and still be wrong because of unknown facts.The history of science is replete with such situations,so is the history of religion.

[Evangeline]

I also rather prefer Joseph Smith's view of the scriptures as very fallible and open to questioning despite being extremely valuable. As he said, "from sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled." Indeed, "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors."

There is plenty of space for the possibility of pseudepigrapha, less-than-trustworthy sources, and even outright fabrications included in the canon, within the "default position" of faithful and "believing Latter-Day Saints." Textual criticism, when it is fair and well-done, actually increases my faith in the reasoning abilities of humans; if we're created in the image of the Gods, then let's try to use our brains the way they do, rather than relying on comforting but facile Sunday-school lessons. (Speaking as an Elder's Quorum teacher who has given many an over-simplified lesson. *grin*)

Absolutely. In fact, I always thought it was a given. Thank goodness we have brains and the ability to reason AND we can receive personal revelation from God and not have to rely solely on the words of imperfect people.

[Mudcat]

Does such a default position really stand on a firm foundation with well reasoned and thought out arguments?

If a position is held in faith, then by virtue, such a position is unfalisifiably held.

All well reasoned arguments are falsifiable.

Attacking a faith held position with reasonable logic is like trying to box Joe Louis with Wii controller.

[Damien the Leper]

If a position is held in faith, then by virtue, such a position is unfalisifiably held.

All well reasoned arguments are falsifiable.

Attacking a faith held position with reasonable logic is like trying to box Joe Louis with Wii controller.

Reasonable Logic (Joe Louis) vs Wii Controller (faith held position)?

[Pahoran]

I agree. I wish I'd seen this thread before I responded to the other one. But just to repeat myself:

Why not? And since we're all doing it...

Personally, I think the beautiful poetry shared between lovers in the Song of Solomon is far more inspired and emblematic of the purposes of God than, say, the details of Joshua's campaigns to murder infants, the dismembering of the woman into twelve pieces in Judges 19, or Elisha's cursing of the kids teasing his baldness to be eaten by ravenous she-bears. To name just a few of the horrors found in our "good" book.

De gustibus non est disputandum. Erotic poetry just doesn't do it for me, even when the participants are of the appropriate sexes. And personally, I rather think it's good to get past being squeamish about some of the more vigorous demonstrations of God's power in the Scriptures.

I also rather prefer Joseph Smith's view of the scriptures as very fallible and open to questioning despite being extremely valuable. As he said, "from sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled." Indeed, "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors."

Yes, and notice what sorts of errors are mentioned: things that had been "taken from the Bible, or lost." Joseph was worried more about losses than glosses.

There is plenty of space for the possibility of pseudepigrapha, less-than-trustworthy sources, and even outright fabrications included in the canon, within the "default position" of faithful and "believing Latter-Day Saints." Textual criticism, when it is fair and well-done, actually increases my faith in the reasoning abilities of humans; if we're created in the image of the Gods, then let's try to use our brains the way they do, rather than relying on comforting but facile Sunday-school lessons. (Speaking as an Elder's Quorum teacher who has given many an over-simplified lesson. *grin*)

Unfortunately, what passes as "textual criticism" may be turned to tendentious uses. This has been brought into stark relief by the recent movement to explain away the uncompromising moral teachings of the Bible. While at one level the sight of libertines dallying with biblical exegesis like they dally with their many partners has its own entertainment value, the fact remains that such efforts are invariably self-serving.

The Gospel is built upon revealed truth. The slender threads of evidence upon which the new Reprobate school want to hang their arguments are entirely insufficient to silence the clear and univocal moral teaching that sex belongs to marriage; marriage is a permanent mixed-sex union; and anything else is contrary to the purpose for which we were created.

And if anyone finds themselves reduced to trying to drive that teaching from the field by pelting it with unsavoury epithets like "homophobic," then I shall accept that as an admission of failure.

Regards,

Pahoran

Do not derail this thread by bringing in inflammatory topics.

[Damien the Leper]

Unfortunately, what passes as "textual criticism" may be turned to tendentious uses. This has been brought into stark relief by the recent movement to explain away the uncompromising moral teachings of the Bible. While at one level the sight of libertines dallying with biblical exegesis like they dally with their many partners has its own entertainment value, the fact remains that such efforts are invariably self-serving.

If you don't mind, would you please clarify what you mean by the sentence I have bolded? But more specifically that which is bolded and red.

The Gospel is built upon revealed truth. The slender threads of evidence upon which the new Reprobate school want to hang their arguments are entirely insufficient to silence the clear and univocal moral teaching that sex belongs to marriage; marriage is a permanent mixed-sex union; and anything else is contrary to the purpose for which we were created.

Reprobate? Nice ad hom, Pahoran. Your condescension is noted. CFR on what you consider univocal. And once AGAIN you have derailed the topic of the thread to talk about sex and sexual morality. Do you have anything to contribute to the thread or are you just going to condescendingly attempt to tear down others posts?

And if anyone finds themselves reduced to trying to drive that teaching from the field by pelting it with unsavoury epithets like "homophobic," then I shall accept that as an admission of failure.

Regards,

Pahoran

Like you failed to respond to my response on 1 Timothy in the other thread?

Edited April 12, 2012 by Valentinus

[mfbukowski]

Remember this?

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly....

-my underlining

Depending on what "translate" means- as we apply it especially to the Book of Mormon- considering Ostler's "Expansion Theory" -this gives us a lot of leeway to interpret the Bible, especially considering Joseph's translation.

So is it "authoritative" as it stands? It depends.....

Edited April 12, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

If a position is held in faith, then by virtue, such a position is unfalisifiably held.

All well reasoned arguments are falsifiable.

Attacking a faith held position with reasonable logic is like trying to box Joe Louis with Wii controller.

Dang, you're good!

[Maidservant]

I think that it is absolutely critical to understand exactly where the texts we engage with come from (and how, and etc). The truth that can be gleaned from such a study can only take us farther in our progression as human beings; and, indeed, until all of us have a greater understanding of, say, the transmission process of the New Testament, the translation process of the Book of Mormon, the process that resulted in the Quran, etc . . . for me, I think this means something is missing and a step we shall eventually have to take in order to grow spiritually.

Having said that, there are a couple of other things I also think that go along with this.

1. My greatest spiritual engagement and location of truth is not in texts. It may be a starting point, or a set of parameters (which often then I find I need to challenge in order to grow). But I am able to find truth and spiritual growth and support for my potential as a human beings in many sacred texts. Perhaps I could say I can find it easily in The Book of Mormon, and more difficult-ly in the Vedas, and also in, say, the Hitchhiker's guide to the Universe--but I can find the message of charity and the truth of who we are as human beings and what we are doing here in a LOT of different texts. So, while, knowing more exactly how these texts arose is important and does cause me to evaluate the content, up to a degree. The content itself speaks for itself, and my conscience, my life experience, and my direct engagement with my Father in heaven as my Teacher is where the real action happens and which allows me to evaluate what the texts have to offer and on what level. By the way, I've always enjoyed a proverb that comes from the Islamic tradition that says that a godly person accepts truth wherever it comes from, even if it comes from the mouth of a reprobate or atheist. I think we have a similar proverb in the LDS church, that we gather and accept all truth on the earth. EVEN if so-and-so didn't write a certain letter, that counts as truth. It is good to know he didn't write something, and then allowing that knowledge to give us more caution in accepting the text wholesale--that is also truth. But the truth isn't in the facts or in what is written . . . the truth is in us and how we engage with the facts, or with metaphor, or how our Father in heaven can use whatever WE need to create us, to sanctify us.

2. The gospel of Jesus Christ is charity. All texts--whether they are the color paper a three year old did, whether they are mis-labeled ecclesiastical letters, whether they are novels, whether they are Native American legends, whether they are Greek poetry, etc . . . . all of these things, in my opinion, ought not to be evaluated on their authority, on whether God touched them or not at some point, but they need to be evaluated on whether or not they teach charity. Even a simple, humble man who cannot read, but who knows about life, about nature, can, by his conscience and by being open to the Spirit, learn all he needs to learn about charity. Then if he happens to stumble upon the Book of Mormon or the new Testament or a Woodsworth poem after he learns to read at age 90--then he recognizes an old friend and becomes delighted to find that what he has always known is there written on a page. Whatever is not charity in the Bible or the Book of Mormon or the evening news or anywhere, can be left behind. Of course, the trick is to trust our own spiritual sight and trust that we are charitable people and are capable of making this call. But even if we make a mistake on this, it is also a mistake to just take someone's word for things. It is good to trust God, it is good to trust and follow the prophets, but in the end, we are accountable for our own spiritual journey and should never cede that to a text.

3. The miraculousness of texts that cannot be accounted for, from their origins. That instead of 2 + 2 = 4, 2 + 2 = 9 billion. I don't care how many stones Joseph had in a hat (for example)--when I read Mosiah 3 or 15, or some glorious passages in the Pearl of Great Price or D&C--I don't care that the resurrection story has no corroboration--I find symbolisms and joy and truth and guidance from these things that cannot be accounted for by the "dry" story. Again, I am all for modifying the picture--increasing the reality of the picture and thereby gaining more--by understanding exactly the nature of the texts I hold. But there is a genius, an art, and a spirit in them that comes from--God? us, as amazing human beings? Even if, for example, I completely reject the stories of the Israelite massacres as anything religious, true, or guiding--the very act of that engagement with the text is important, that challenge. I have found, anyway.

But these three ideas I hold can only be added to by a reality check on text origins and transmissions. But I don't say that knowing this information is the 'end' truth or fact--the end truth or fact is me, as a child of God, sanctified and full of charity.

[Bob Crockett]

Reprobate? Nice ad hom, Pahoran. Your condescension is noted. CFR on what you consider univocal. And once AGAIN you have derailed the topic of the thread to talk about sex and sexual morality. Do you have anything to contribute to the thread or are you just going to condescendingly attempt to tear down others posts?

Textual criticism can be the refuge of the scoundrel, a way to get the Bible to say what it doesn't, like God celebrates loving committed homosexual relationships. Somehow, when Phillip preached the scriptures to the eunuch and then baptized him in one meeting, I don't think that the two went to Hebrew school for four years to understand whether Isaiah was one or three prophets.

I've long been influenced by Elder Oaks' article, "Scripture Reading and Revelation," in the 1995 January Ensign. In fact, I think this article has been the singular most influential article to me in understanding scripture. I read that to say that hermeneutics, even of the Book of Mormon, may be contrary to the way God intends the plain word of God to be used.

[Mudcat]

Reasonable Logic (Joe Louis) vs Wii Controller (faith held position)?

No, I didn't mean it quite that way Valentinus. What I am suggesting is that trying dismantle faith through logical argument is going to be about isn't going to be productive.

Faith isn't established through logical argument so using such a mechanism to challenge it won't get a person very far I think. Generally faith is experientially related. In example, in an experiential sense, I believe the Holy Spirit has witnessed to me of the reality of Christ. Ergo the Holy Spirit and Christ are real.. there isn't really any logic involved in the process. Just an apprehension of what you have percieved and an acceptance of it as part of reality.

Logic is great mechanism for intellectual inquiry, but it doesn't offer much to help or harm faith. It's sort of like using a monkey wrench to fix "love". It just doesn't work out well.

For logical argument to be utilized against faith, then the only valid approach is to logically dismantle a persons experiences.. but its a slippery slope because our apprehension of "logic" itself are rooted in our body of experiences. It effectively pulls the rug out from under itself and it doesn't even leave you with Solpsistic concepts of "I think therefore I am".

IMO once "logic" disavows "experience" to dismantle "faith"... the concept reduces to the absurd even further than solipsism would take it to something like... "I think therefore I am a thinking thing".

Edited April 12, 2012 by Mudcat

[Damien the Leper]

No, I didn't mean it quite that way Valentinus. What I am suggesting is that trying dismantle faith through logical argument is going to be about isn't going to be productive.

Faith isn't established through logical argument so using such a mechanism to challenge it won't get a person very far I think. Generally faith is experientially related. In example, in an experiential sense, I believe the Holy Spirit has witnessed to me of the reality of Christ. Ergo the Holy Spirit and Christ are real.. there isn't really any logic involved in the process. Just an apprehension of what you have percieved and an acceptance of it as part of reality.

Logic is great mechanism for intellectual inquiry, but it doesn't offer much to help or harm faith. It's sort of like using a monkey wrench to fix "love". It just doesn't work out well.

For logical argument to be utilized against faith, then the only valid approach is to logically dismantle a persons experiences.. but its a slippery slope because our apprehension of "logic" itself are rooted in our body of experiences. It effectively pulls the rug out from under itself and it doesn't even leave you with Solpsistic concepts of "I think therefore I am".

IMO once "logic" disavows "experience" to dismantle "faith"... the concept reduces to the absurd even further than solipsism would take it to something like... "I think therefore I am a thinking thing".

I get what you are saying. Let me be clear, I'm not trying to dismantle anyone's faith or discount their experiences. If I were to do so, I wouldn't recognize Joseph Smith as a prophet.

The logical and researched arguments that I adhere to are what are being academically and theologically taught. For example, I refuse to swallow the razor sharp pill of Reformed theology because it doesn't make sense to me that God is legalistic and elitist. However, by embracing the The New Perspective, I have been able to see scripture as more lush, thought provoking and Spirit inviting. It has allowed me to better and more intimately experience God than any other avenue. I don't discount my experiencing God through doing proxy baptisms, washings and annointings, or even the endowment but they have done less for me than what they may have done for others. I see no problem with this. I best experience God through intellectual inquiry, academic and theological engagement, etc.

[Damien the Leper]

Textual criticism can be the refuge of the scoundrel, a way to get the Bible to say what it doesn't, like God celebrates loving committed homosexual relationships. Somehow, when Phillip preached the scriptures to the eunuch and then baptized him in one meeting, I don't think that the two went to Hebrew school for four years to understand whether Isaiah was one or three prophets.

I've long been influenced by Elder Oaks' article, "Scripture Reading and Revelation," in the 1995 January Ensign. In fact, I think this article has been the singular most influential article to me in understanding scripture. I read that to say that hermeneutics, even of the Book of Mormon, may be contrary to the way God intends the plain word of God to be used.

But what about the 'reprobate' school that only proscribes the traditional perspect and paradigm of scripture that is the safe haven for conservative religionists? The standard works both ways. In my experience, the conservative perspective calls for the classical interpretation of how scripture reads and not what it says.

[volgadon]

Even though I don't think textual criticism of the scrpitures supports Christianity, can I still join the Reprobate School? If nothing more, then at least for the flippant reason of thinking the name is brilliant.

[phaedrus ut]

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism's entry on Biblical Scholarship says

1. Approaches to the Bible must accept divine inspiration and revelation in the original biblical text: it presents the word of God and is not a merely human production. Therefore, any critical methodology that implicitly or explicitly ignores or denies the significant involvement of God in the biblical text is rejected. With minor exceptions, such as the Song of Solomon, which Joseph Smith judged not to be inspired

That seems to support what Pahoran was saying.

Textual criticism doesn't distinguish whether or the the original autograph was inspired or not and I believe there is room for both. What it does offer are the critical tools to analyze variant versions of a text and to identify which reading is closest to the original.

I first encountered critical Biblical scholarship it was with the intent of proving and defending my beliefs as a Latter Day Saint. Reading the bible with in a historicalcritical manner is absolutely fascinating. The tools of historiography used in the past 200 years have given us amazing insights like Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis, Isaiah in exile, Markan priority, the Q Source, and the various Jesus "Quests".

Phaedrus

[wenglund]

In concert with what others have said in this thread, it helps me to remember that textual criticism is a man-made, academic methodology, and not a divine, spiritual methodology.

This defines for me not only where this methodology best applies (e.g. in academia, and not as much in spiritual faith), and how it should be prioritized within different fields and in relation to other methodologies, but also its limitation (it is only as good as the oft scant available data and the finite minds that employ it).

In short, for me, while textual criticism may provide some useful insights within academia, when it comes to scriptural interpretation and determining what is or is not of God, it isn't the final arbiter, if an arbiter at all.

But, then, in godly and spiritual matters, I don't place man before God--though I can accept that others may believe differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

In concert with what others have said in this thread, it helps me to remember that textual criticism is a man-made, academic methodology, and not a divine, spiritual methodology.

This defines for me not only where this methodology best applies (e.g. in academia, and not as much in spiritual faith), and how it should be prioritized within different fields and in relation to other methodologies, but also its limitation (it is only as good as the oft scant available data and the finite minds that employ it).

In short, for me, while textual criticism may provide some useful insights within academia, when it comes to scriptural interpretation and determining what is or is not of God, it isn't the final arbiter, if an arbiter at all.

But, then, in godly and spiritual matters, I don't place man before God--though I can accept that others may believe differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

On a somewhat personal level, this is one of the reasons I am totally uninterested in Book of Abraham "scholarship".

[Log]

A query: has textual criticism ever made testable claims about the urtext of some text or other that was subsequently verified? Or, to put it another way, has textual criticism got any controls over its claims, whatsoever?

I have this essay in mind.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Log

[The Nehor]

Does evidence and scholarly research concerning textual criticism of Biblical books have any bearing on whether a teaching or thought process is actually inspired?

No. It might help reveal inspiration but it won't create any inspiration that wasn't already there or destroy any preexisting inspiration.

[Bob Crockett]

But what about the 'reprobate' school that only proscribes the traditional perspect and paradigm of scripture that is the safe haven for conservative religionists? The standard works both ways. In my experience, the conservative perspective calls for the classical interpretation of how scripture reads and not what it says.

You mean biblioidolatry?

[volgadon]

You mean biblioidolatry?

Not too be pedantic, bu surely you mean bibliolatry.

[Log]

OOOH OOOH, can I play?

Not too be pedantic, bu surely you mean bibliolatry.

Nut 2 b ovrly criticism, butt shirley yew mint ... nevermind.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Log