• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Textual Criticism Versus Providential Preservation?

Alfred Persson,

Greetings - I am new to this board, but thought I would reply. The variant you note (i.e. 'e' versus 'on') is duly foot-noted in the bible I consult. I could even grant that your reading may be preferable. That being the case, to what extent does one critical judgement that is conceded at the outset to be one reading with variants acknowledged wholly discredit 'textual criticism'. Moreover, how does the existence of textual variants (of which this is just one example of many) square with 'providential preservation'?

As for preferring the older MMS evidence over the more recent, at times scholarship does not adhere to this as a hard-and-fast rule. As you may be aware, it is not axiomatic as in some cases (e.g. variants in Bezae) are eschewed despite the MSS being 'early'.

Take care,
TFV

One example of unsoundness, by such a wide swath of scholars in agreement, should cause the critically minded to review every claim they make, every assumption leading to those claims.

When that is accomplished, the entire becomes suspect.

Your last serves my point, there are no absolute facts, from the dating, to the scope of usage, the alleged agendas of the copyists, its all sheer speculation.

Subjective. Whatever rings true ends up being chosen, nothing factual actually leads to the choice, or rules it out.
 

tfvespasianus

New Member
I think it’s unwise to dismiss an entire field based upon one interpretation of a known variant. The variant in question is plainly shown to be attested in a widely read edition of the bible which throws into question the basis for discrediting the whole disciple as incompetent or acting in bad faith. Moreover, while you (or I) may prefer the ‘better’ reading, the fact that the other reading exists is predicated on its multiple attestation. I don’t have the time at the moment, but if, for example, it is preserved in the Uncial Codices (I am guessing that it is), then it’s well-attested. Moreover, this book doesn’t contain perfect grammar throughout the text. I haven’t thought about it deeply, but it’s at least logically possible that the ‘he’ could be the dragon as the dragon is wounded and probably a little tired bit prior to these lines.


As for the lack of ‘objective’ standards and proofs, indeed. We do not have ‘bates stamped’ documents, interviews with the original authors, or ‘tell-all’ books from the redactors/copyists. Critical scholarship (at its best) recognizes this and holds its conclusions as tentative readings based upon a reading of the evidence. That is subjective. That’s why (in part) we discuss these things.


Take care,

TFV
 
I think it’s unwise to dismiss an entire field based upon one interpretation of a known variant. The variant in question is plainly shown to be attested in a widely read edition of the bible which throws into question the basis for discrediting the whole disciple as incompetent or acting in bad faith. Moreover, while you (or I) may prefer the ‘better’ reading, the fact that the other reading exists is predicated on its multiple attestation. I don’t have the time at the moment, but if, for example, it is preserved in the Uncial Codices (I am guessing that it is), then it’s well-attested. Moreover, this book doesn’t contain perfect grammar throughout the text. I haven’t thought about it deeply, but it’s at least logically possible that the ‘he’ could be the dragon as the dragon is wounded and probably a little tired bit prior to these lines.


As for the lack of ‘objective’ standards and proofs, indeed. We do not have ‘bates stamped’ documents, interviews with the original authors, or ‘tell-all’ books from the redactors/copyists. Critical scholarship (at its best) recognizes this and holds its conclusions as tentative readings based upon a reading of the evidence. That is subjective. That’s why (in part) we discuss these things.


Take care,

TFV

You're welcome to your opinion. And your protest "we do not have date stamped documents" merely confirms my conclusion, there is nothing factual about lower criticism, its all speculation, from beginning to its end. Thanks for your input.
 
Last edited:
Top