Biblical criticism - Revision history

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "--" to " — "

2022-12-10T10:04:09Z

Text replacement - "--" to " — "

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:04, 10 December 2022
Line 62:		Line 62:
	* What purpose or purposes were served by bringing disparate stories together?		* What purpose or purposes were served by bringing disparate stories together?

	We can only judge a redactor's contribution to the final form of a story when two or more versions of the same story exist. For those who accept the Q-hypothesis, Matthew and Luke redacted (edited) the gospel of Mark. The second ending of the gospel of Mark (16:9-20) looks like a redaction of the Lucan resurrection stories. John 21 seems to be tacked onto the end of the original gospel of John by another author. There is a peculiar relationship between Ephesians and Colossians--one might be a second edition of the other.		We can only judge a redactor's contribution to the final form of a story when two or more versions of the same story exist. For those who accept the Q-hypothesis, Matthew and Luke redacted (edited) the gospel of Mark. The second ending of the gospel of Mark (16:9-20) looks like a redaction of the Lucan resurrection stories. John 21 seems to be tacked onto the end of the original gospel of John by another author. There is a peculiar relationship between Ephesians and Colossians — one might be a second edition of the other.

	=== Other forms of criticism ===		=== Other forms of criticism ===

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€™" to "’"

2022-12-10T09:20:35Z

Text replacement - "â€™" to "’"

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:20, 10 December 2022
Line 52:		Line 52:
	:"Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungryâ€¦how he entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the showbread?" (Mark).		:"Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungryâ€¦how he entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the showbread?" (Mark).

	::"Except, Abiathar was not the high priest at that time, ~~Abiatharâ€™s~~ father Ahimelech was!"[http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/08/08/the-old-testament-was-made-for-man/]		::"Except, Abiathar was not the high priest at that time, Abiathar’s father Ahimelech was!"[http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/08/08/the-old-testament-was-made-for-man/]

	=== Redaction criticism ===		=== Redaction criticism ===

Mxmsj: /* Other forms of criticism */

2013-04-01T14:10:16Z

Other forms of criticism

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 * What influenced their choice of this book to become part of the [[canon]]?
 * What difference does inclusion or exclusion of various texts make in the interpretation of the remainder of the [[canon]]?
 [[Category:Exegesis]]
 [[Category:Scripture Studies]]

Mxmsj at 16:24, 29 March 2013

2013-03-29T16:24:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:24, 29 March 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Biblical criticism''' applies the standards of [[critical thinking]] to questions raised by the Scriptures.		'''Biblical criticism''' applies the standards of [[critical thinking]] to questions raised by the Scriptures.

	:; [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html "Divino Afflante Spiritu", §23]		:; Pope Pius XII, [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html ''Divino Afflante Spiritu,'' "Inspired by the Divine Spirit"(1943), §23]

	:: Being thoroughly prepared by the knowledge of the ancient languages and by the aids afforded by the art of criticism, let the Catholic exegete undertake the task, of all those imposed on him the greatest, that namely of discovering and expounding the genuine meaning of the Sacred Books.		:: Being thoroughly prepared by the knowledge of the ancient languages and by the aids afforded by the art of criticism, let the Catholic exegete undertake the task, of all those imposed on him the greatest, that namely of discovering and expounding the genuine meaning of the Sacred Books.

Mxmsj at 16:22, 29 March 2013

2013-03-29T16:22:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:22, 29 March 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Biblical criticism''' applies the standards of [[~~Critical~~ thinking]] to questions raised by the Scriptures.		'''Biblical criticism''' applies the standards of [[critical thinking]] to questions raised by the Scriptures.

			:; [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html "Divino Afflante Spiritu", §23]

			:: Being thoroughly prepared by the knowledge of the ancient languages and by the aids afforded by the art of criticism, let the Catholic exegete undertake the task, of all those imposed on him the greatest, that namely of discovering and expounding the genuine meaning of the Sacred Books.

	== Lower criticism ==		== Lower criticism ==

Mxmsj: /* Historical criticism */

2011-08-12T14:04:23Z

Historical criticism

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:04, 12 August 2011
Line 43:		Line 43:
	=== Historical criticism ===		=== Historical criticism ===
	[[Historical-critical methods]] apply the standards of academic history to questions about the development of and material in the Scriptures.		[[Historical-critical methods]] apply the standards of academic history to questions about the development of and material in the Scriptures.

			==== Some historical problems ====

			:"Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungryâ€¦how he entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the showbread?" (Mark).

			::"Except, Abiathar was not the high priest at that time, Abiatharâ€™s father Ahimelech was!"[http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/08/08/the-old-testament-was-made-for-man/]

	=== Redaction criticism ===		=== Redaction criticism ===

Mxmsj: /* Other forms of criticism */

2011-06-24T16:40:29Z

Other forms of criticism

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:40, 24 June 2011
Line 62:		Line 62:
	* What difference does inclusion or exclusion of various texts make in the interpretation of the remainder of the [[canon]]?		* What difference does inclusion or exclusion of various texts make in the interpretation of the remainder of the [[canon]]?

			[[Category:Exegesis]]
	[[Category:Scripture Studies]]		[[Category:Scripture Studies]]

Mxmsj at 20:14, 17 January 2011

2011-01-17T20:14:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:14, 17 January 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Biblical criticism''' ~~is the result of applying~~ the standards of [[Critical thinking]] to questions raised by the Scriptures.		'''Biblical criticism''' applies the standards of [[Critical thinking]] to questions raised by the Scriptures.

	== Lower criticism ==		== Lower criticism ==
	Textual criticism deals with handwriting analysis, spelling errors, scribal errors, glosses, omissions, doublets, provenance of manuscripts, etc. The goal of textual criticism is to determine the original version of the scriptures.		Textual criticism deals with handwriting analysis, spelling errors, scribal errors, glosses, omissions, doublets, provenance of manuscripts, etc.

			The goal of textual criticism is to determine the original version of the scriptures.

			There are many subspecialties in this field: handwriting analysis, physical dating of texts, etymology of words, linguistics (grammar, syntax, spelling), development of historical lexicons and dictionaries, classification of families of manuscripts, comparison with non-sacred texts, etc.
	== Higher criticism ==		== Higher criticism ==
	=== Form criticism ===		=== Form criticism ===
	All interpretation of language depends on assessing the form of speech or literary genre (French, "kind" or "type") being employed.		All interpretation of language depends on assessing the form of speech or literary genre (French, "kind" or "type") being employed. It is a serious error to apply the standards of one form when reading something written in a different form.
	* oral vs. written		* oral vs. written
	* fiction vs. non-fiction		* fiction vs. non-fiction
Line 47:		Line 51:
	* What was the editor thinking of when changes were introduced?		* What was the editor thinking of when changes were introduced?
	* What purpose or purposes were served by bringing disparate stories together?		* What purpose or purposes were served by bringing disparate stories together?
	* Who decided that the book was [[canon\|canonical]] (i.e., who decided that it was to be listed as one of the books "inspired by God")?
	* What influenced their choice of this book to become part of the [[canon]]?

	We can only judge a redactor's contribution to the final form of a story when two or more versions of the same story exist. For those who accept the Q-hypothesis, Matthew and Luke redacted (edited) the gospel of Mark. The second ending of the gospel of Mark (16:9-20) looks like a redaction of the Lucan resurrection stories. John 21 seems to be tacked onto the end of the original gospel of John by another author. There is a peculiar relationship between Ephesians and Colossians--one might be a second edition of the other.		We can only judge a redactor's contribution to the final form of a story when two or more versions of the same story exist. For those who accept the Q-hypothesis, Matthew and Luke redacted (edited) the gospel of Mark. The second ending of the gospel of Mark (16:9-20) looks like a redaction of the Lucan resurrection stories. John 21 seems to be tacked onto the end of the original gospel of John by another author. There is a peculiar relationship between Ephesians and Colossians--one might be a second edition of the other.
Line 54:		Line 56:
	=== Other forms of criticism ===		=== Other forms of criticism ===
	The popularity of Biblical criticism has spawned many children: audience criticism, canon criticism, feminist criticism, etc.		The popularity of Biblical criticism has spawned many children: audience criticism, canon criticism, feminist criticism, etc.

			Canon criticism poses these kinds of questions:
			* Who decided that the book was [[canon\|canonical]] (i.e., who decided that it was to be listed as one of the books "inspired by God")?
			* What influenced their choice of this book to become part of the [[canon]]?
			* What difference does inclusion or exclusion of various texts make in the interpretation of the remainder of the [[canon]]?

	[[Category:Scripture Studies]]		[[Category:Scripture Studies]]

Mxmsj: /* Redaction criticism */

2011-01-14T16:11:27Z

Redaction criticism

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:11, 14 January 2011
Line 43:		Line 43:
	A "redactor" is an editor (from the Latin ''redigere,'' ''re-'' + ''agere'', to collect or bring back).		A "redactor" is an editor (from the Latin ''redigere,'' ''re-'' + ''agere'', to collect or bring back).

	Who assembled the material in its final form? What was the editor thinking of when changes were introduced? What purpose or purposes were served by bringing disparate stories together? Who decided that the book was canonical (i.e., who decided that it was to be listed as one of the books "inspired by God")? What influenced their choice of this book to become part of the canon?		Some of the questions raised by redaction criticism:
			* Who assembled the material in its final form?
			* What was the editor thinking of when changes were introduced?
			* What purpose or purposes were served by bringing disparate stories together?
			* Who decided that the book was [[canon\|canonical]] (i.e., who decided that it was to be listed as one of the books "inspired by God")?
			* What influenced their choice of this book to become part of the [[canon]]?

	We can only judge a redactor's contribution to the final form of a story when two or more versions of the same story exist. For those who accept the Q-hypothesis, Matthew and Luke redacted (edited) the gospel of Mark. The second ending of the gospel of Mark (16:9-20) looks like a redaction of the Lucan resurrection stories. John 21 seems to be tacked onto the end of the original gospel of John by another author. There is a peculiar relationship between Ephesians and Colossians--one might be a second edition of the other.		We can only judge a redactor's contribution to the final form of a story when two or more versions of the same story exist. For those who accept the Q-hypothesis, Matthew and Luke redacted (edited) the gospel of Mark. The second ending of the gospel of Mark (16:9-20) looks like a redaction of the Lucan resurrection stories. John 21 seems to be tacked onto the end of the original gospel of John by another author. There is a peculiar relationship between Ephesians and Colossians--one might be a second edition of the other.

			=== Other forms of criticism ===
			The popularity of Biblical criticism has spawned many children: audience criticism, canon criticism, feminist criticism, etc.

	[[Category:Scripture Studies]]		[[Category:Scripture Studies]]

Mxmsj: /* Historical criticism */

2011-01-14T16:08:45Z

Historical criticism

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:08, 14 January 2011
Line 38:		Line 38:

	=== Historical criticism ===		=== Historical criticism ===
	What likelihood is there that the story, in whole or in part, reflects real events? When was the story first told? Who first wrote it down? How many versions of the story are there? Do they support or contradict each other? What was going on in the world of the tellers, recorders and editors of the story when they made their contribution to the text as we have it now-~~-in other words, what was the sitz im Leben (life-situation) of the text as it developed?~~		[[Historical-critical methods]] apply the standards of academic history to questions about the development of and material in the Scriptures.

	~~James Pritchard (1910-1997) was one of~~ the ~~great biblical archeologists. He found hundreds~~ of ~~sites mentioned in the Bible in an effort~~ to ~~prove that "every word in~~ the ~~Bible was factually correct." I don't think he succeeded in that effort, but he showed that there are unquestionably a multitude~~ of ~~historical truths~~ in the ~~Bible~~.

	=== Redaction criticism ===		=== Redaction criticism ===