Biblical criticism: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Biblical criticism''' | '''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. | |||
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? | ||
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]] | ||
Revision as of 21:14, 17 January 2011
Biblical criticism applies the standards of Critical thinking to questions raised by the Scriptures.
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.
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
Form criticism
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
- fiction vs. non-fiction
- poetry (sung or recited) vs. prose
- first person vs. third person point-of-view
- contemporary account vs. history derived from sources
- Indirect uses of language: irony, sarcasm, puns, humor; metaphor and simile; allusions to other texts; juxtaposition; etc.
Special Biblical Genres
Old Testament
- cosmic myths
- history
- law (early forms of Midrash: Haggadah or Halakah)
- psalm
- proverb
- apocalyptic
- prophecy
- Wisdom literature (includes some theological fiction like Jonah, Job, Tobit);
New Testament
- gospel
- epistle
- parenesis (comfort)
- parable
- hymns
- sayings of the Lord
- miracle stories
- polemic
- diatribe
- hyperbole
- ridicule
Historical criticism
Historical-critical methods apply the standards of academic history to questions about the development of and material in the Scriptures.
Redaction criticism
A "redactor" is an editor (from the Latin redigere, re- + agere, to collect or bring back).
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?
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.
Canon criticism poses these kinds of questions:
- 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?
- What difference does inclusion or exclusion of various texts make in the interpretation of the remainder of the canon?