Textual Criticism

[Cobalt-70]

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.....

The Book of Mormon is authoritative. However, authoritative does not mean the same thing as "authentic" or "historical." Mythological stories like the Deluge, the tower of Babel, the trial of Job, and the story of Jonah and the sea monster can be just as scriptural and authoritative as stories that really happened. They are authoritative because we believe the lessons these fictional stories teach are the word of God.

[Cobalt-70]

The default position is as follows:

Articles of Faith 1:

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

D&C 42:

12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.

And I agree with default position.

See, but without textual criticism, you would fail to know that D&C 42 was written before the D&C itself was written or published, long before the PofGP, and before any of the temple ceremonies. When it was written, Mormonism was still essentially Protestant. Without textual criticism, you would come to a very wrong conclusion about the above text.

[zerinus]

See, but without textual criticism, you would fail to know that D&C 42 was written before the D&C itself was written or published, long before the PofGP, and before any of the temple ceremonies. When it was written, Mormonism was still essentially Protestant. Without textual criticism, you would come to a very wrong conclusion about the above text.

Without "textual criticism," I know that D&C 42 is the word of God.

[mfbukowski]

The Book of Mormon is authoritative. However, authoritative does not mean the same thing as "authentic" or "historical." Mythological stories like the Deluge, the tower of Babel, the trial of Job, and the story of Jonah and the sea monster can be just as scriptural and authoritative as stories that really happened. They are authoritative because we believe the lessons these fictional stories teach are the word of God.

Did I say otherwise.

My only disagreement is that we cannot know what is "mythological" (in the sense of "never happened") or not so why worry about it?

But to me, all discourse is somewhat "mythological" anyway because it is based on interpretation of human experience which is inescapable- you can never take off the "rose colored glasses" to see what is real or not- so that makes "real" that which is rose colored.

Even science only interprets those rose colored perceptions and turns what is replicated into "facts"- and all we really have is consistently interpreted rose-colored perceptions. So what is mythological and what is not?

[mfbukowski]

Without "textual criticism," I know that D&C 42 is the word of God.

Incidentally, I agree. We know that because we have direct experience of it.

And ultimately that is all that matters. The rest is literally "just talk".

Edited April 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Log]

So what is mythological and what is not?

The subtext of, and train of thought in, Cobalt-70's post regarding myths was quite clear to me.

[volgadon]

Wonderfully fascinating response, Nehor.Thank you for the response. Not to take their side, because I do really appreciate what you have written...I'm curious what the Biblical critics would say in response to this post.

Also, and this is not directed at you, it is disappointing to know that many have a negative opinion of the criticism disciplines that are applied to scriptural study.

The way I look at it, despite textul criticism's shortcomings, we are better positied to understand texts with it than we would be without it.

[Calm]

all three of the previous posts answer the question, independently, with the same answer in different words.

Indeed....and an important point on its own (that this type of intersection could happen).

Edited April 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Without textual criticism, you would come to a very wrong conclusion about the above text.

That would depend on what question you were examining for that conclusion. There are infinite ways to examine the text and come to correct conclusions about it without referring to textual criticisms. Simply because there are some questions that require the tool of textual criticisms to accurately answer them does not mean that tool is required to answer all questions regarding the text.

[Calm]

The way I look at it, despite textul criticism's shortcomings, we are better positied to understand texts with it than we would be without it.

Almost anything that allows us to look at a text in a new way can add to our understanding, imo. The more tools we can bring to the work of understanding, the more complete the work will be in the end.

[volgadon]

Almost anything that allows us to look at a text in a new way can add to our understanding, imo. The more tools we can bring to the work of understanding, the more complete the work will be in the end.

I agree, Hauglid's critical edition of the Book of Abraham is a magfnificient tool, but it hardly answers all questions that may be asked about the text. There is a place for word studies, comparative studies, theological studies, and literary studies, to name just a few possibilites.

[Cobalt-70]

Did I say otherwise.

My only disagreement is that we cannot know what is "mythological" (in the sense of "never happened") or not so why worry about it?

But to me, all discourse is somewhat "mythological" anyway because it is based on interpretation of human experience which is inescapable- you can never take off the "rose colored glasses" to see what is real or not- so that makes "real" that which is rose colored.

Even science only interprets those rose colored perceptions and turns what is replicated into "facts"- and all we really have is consistently interpreted rose-colored perceptions. So what is mythological and what is not?

I used the term "mythology" in two senses a the same time. One sense of mythology is in reference to a fable posing as history. In the second sense, I would define mythology as a story, marked with indicia of ancientness, which embodies a cultural judgment. So a myth is not history, even if the myth is a historical "event," which my above examples were not. I don't think the term myth is so meaningless that you cannot tell what is myth and what isn't.

Why should we worry about whether scripture stories are myth or not? Because if we don't read them as mythological, then we misunderstand their mythological context and meaning. For example, if you read the Noah's flood story as history, then you have missed the point.

[mfbukowski]

Indeed....and an important point on its own (that this type of intersection could happen).

Yeah, I thought that was pretty cool!

[The Nehor]

The way I look at it, despite textul criticism's shortcomings, we are better positied to understand texts with it than we would be without it.

I agree, as long as we don't take most of it too seriously.

To give a metaphor:

I would listen respectfully to someone speaking about Neanderthals and the tools we have found that they used and speculating intelligently about what they may have been used for and what they may say about the lives of those people.

I would walk out in disgust if that same person tried to give me a conclusively complete normal day in the life of a neanderthal based on the same scanty evidence. So many questions we can't answer: Did they have poetry? Did they sing? What games did their children play? What were their religious beliefs if any?

Most forms of textual criticism (particularly those dealing with really ancient texts) are based on guesswork and, as long as that is acknowledged, we are fine. Too many don't realize this.

As we get to more recent texts we can say more definitively things about texts. We also more often have additional records from the author themselves able to expand on the text and what they meant. With really recent stuff we can ask them.

[mfbukowski]

Most forms of textual criticism (particularly those dealing with really ancient texts) are based on guesswork and, as long as that is acknowledged, we are fine. Too many don't realize this.

This nails it imo.

It's great for laying out possibilities and new ways of looking at things, but when one makes it into dogmatic certainty, look out.

[volgadon]

I agree, as long as we don't take most of it too seriously.

To give a metaphor:

I would listen respectfully to someone speaking about Neanderthals and the tools we have found that they used and speculating intelligently about what they may have been used for and what they may say about the lives of those people.

I would walk out in disgust if that same person tried to give me a conclusively complete normal day in the life of a neanderthal based on the same scanty evidence. So many questions we can't answer: Did they have poetry? Did they sing? What games did their children play? What were their religious beliefs if any?

Most forms of textual criticism (particularly those dealing with really ancient texts) are based on guesswork and, as long as that is acknowledged, we are fine. Too many don't realize this.

As we get to more recent texts we can say more definitively things about texts. We also more often have additional records from the author themselves able to expand on the text and what they meant. With really recent stuff we can ask them.

Textual criticism though doesn't particularly seek to answer most of those questions you posed on Neanderthals. Textual criticism looks at what the form of the text and its development can say, but, more importantly, it seeks to show what the text would have looked like.

[The Nehor]

Textual criticism though doesn't particularly seek to answer most of those questions you posed on Neanderthals. Textual criticism looks at what the form of the text and its development can say, but, more importantly, it seeks to show what the text would have looked like.

No, because the Neanderthals didn't write. It was a metaphor.

I know that is what textual criticism tries to do but it involves the same principle. It's guessing. It may be intelligent guessing but it is still guessing.

I also find textual reconstruction inherently hilarious. I've seen the results of tests done in English where two pieces of writing melded together from two authors, a piece of writing filled with commentary and explanations by another author, and a piece of writing written by one author are handed to a textual critic for analysis and the analysis is almost always wrong as to how the work was composed. I'm supposed to believe that critics that can't differentiate this stuff from the language and culture they've known from birth can somehow figure it out when it involves dead languages in cultures they have never experienced. Then I'm supposed to take a further leap of faith and assume they can tell me that there are deleted things from the text and that they have a pretty good idea what they said. Not a chance.

I commend them for trying, respect their work, and even enjoy their attempts but I won't accept their guesswork as probable, let alone a near-certainty.

Whenever I say things like this I'm accused of impugning the whole field. My response is if they wanted to be taken seriously as purveyors of truth or the facts they should have picked a more exact occupation with results that are in some way testable.

[mfbukowski]

Whenever I say things like this I'm accused of impugning the whole field. My response is if they wanted to be taken seriously as purveyors of truth or the facts they should have picked a more exact occupation with results that are in some way testable.

Hey man, if you have a degree in English, it's better than teaching high school!

[The Nehor]

Hey man, if you have a degree in English, it's better than teaching high school!

As someone who holds a degree in Literature I agree. I went the Technical Writing/Instructional Design route though.

[Damien the Leper]

To me, as with most any pragmatic methodology, the so-called solid foundation comes as a result of using, in faith, the divine methodologies--or rather, our recognition of the solid foundation comes through the growth in faith process, and is not as a prerequisite thereto. The more you use the divine methodologies, and exercise faith therein, your faith may grow, and the more you may see what is the best approach and/or gain greater understanding of the divine methodologies.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It does. Thanks, Wade.

[Damien the Leper]

The problem is that what most people regard as having a "solid foundation" is a scientific methodology, and that is based on objective observations and experiments which can be replicated.

On the other hand, science cannot tell us much about the most important things in life, which are often subjective problems like whom to marry, what gives your personal life meaning, understanding your place in the universe, and achieving a personal sense of peace. All the scientific investigation in the world cannot give you a sense of peace and meaning in your life, since science pursues only factual information.

So the two are incompatible- one can have either a "solid foundation" based on scientific fact, or a not-very-solid-to-others foundation which cannot be "proven" to others, based on religious methodologies.

Yet on a subjective basis those subjective methodologies can produce a high degree of certainty to the individual. When a spiritual principle works for you in your life, you can know that it works for you. That is the good old Alma 32 "experiment" on faith. But proof to you is not proof to anyone else.

So I think it is important to distinguish between what is a "solid foundation" on a personal, subjective, religious basis and what is a "solid foundation" which can be proven to others in a factual, scientific way.

Big difference!

Awesome response. Thank you sir.

[Damien the Leper]

The way I look at it, despite textul criticism's shortcomings, we are better positied to understand texts with it than we would be without it.

I agree. Would you say that we have benefited from textual criticism in understanding the origins of certain texts? For example, Deuteronomy (and King Josiah's influence) and the Three Author Theory of Isaiah.

[TheSkepticChristian]

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

I know little about the Book of Abraham scholarship