# Higher/Textual criticism



## Jesus is my friend (Jul 31, 2013)

Can someone shed some light on this (these),I need a layman's explanation as to the definition of these,or are they the same,and if so,do they serve a good purpose or are should they be discarded

Thanks so much


----------



## jehough (Jul 31, 2013)

Textual (lower) criticism is trying to remove textual errors from manuscripts. For Scripture, we don't have the originals for any of the books, all we have is manuscripts. Many of these manuscripts have a few differences in the way they were copied. They might come from scribe errors, or notes that scribes may add to help clarify etc. The idea of textual criticism is trying to take these manuscripts and compare them to piece together what was in the original piece (known as an original autograph)

Historical (higher) criticism is establishing the original meaning of the text based on the author, context and historical timeframe.


----------



## SolaSaint (Aug 1, 2013)

Isn't higher criticism also concerned with the transmission of the texts? 

I also heard a radio program from Christian Pinto where he talked about Bruce Metzger being more of a critic against the inspiration of scripture than what I had always believed about him. If so I can kind of see where Erhmann gets his rants from. Is this true about Metzger? They said he did a lot of textual work for the Catholics including work on extrabiblical texts.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 1, 2013)

*Higher/Textual criticism*

Brian,

I will try to explain the difference. Please note that I am answering from a minority school within the Reformed community, that of the King James _priority_ school (which is _not_ King James _only_,which sometimes seeks to delegitimize others’ modern Bibles).

I think the simplest way to do this is to quote from Harvard text critic, E. F. Hills, in his book, _The King James Version Defended_, a classic in the field. The “higher criticism” of the Bible would be represented in these quotes by what he calls the “unbelieving” or “naturalistic” approach. This view would treat the Bible by critical methods used on other ancient literature, and does not take into account a _strict_ view of God’s providential preservation of His word. He also takes the view that much of believing (including Reformed) textual criticism has been infected by the naturalistic methodology, thus contributing to the mess discerning what is God’s true word in this 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century.

Dr. Hills:
Has the text of the New Testament, like those of other ancient books, been damaged during its voyage over the seas of time? Ought the same methods of textual criticism to be applied to it that are applied to the texts of other ancient books? These are questions which the following pages will endeavor to answer. An earnest effort will be made to convince the Christian reader that this is a matter to which he _must_ attend. For in the realm of New Testament textual criticism as well as in other fields the presuppositions of modern thought are hostile to the historic Christian faith and will destroy it if their fatal operation is not checked. If faithful Christians, therefore, would defend their sacred religion against this danger, they must forsake the foundations of unbelieving thought and build upon their faith, a faith that rests entirely on the solid rock of holy Scripture. And when they do this in the sphere of New Testament textual criticism, they will find themselves led back step by step (perhaps, at first, against their wills) to the text of the Protestant Reformation, namely, that form of New Testament text which underlies the King James Version and the other early Protestant translations. (Hills, _KJVD_, Introduction, page 1 – see here for downloads)​ 

And then on page three – still in the Introduction, Hills says,*
Two Methods Of New Testament Textual Criticism*

The New Testament textual criticism of the man who believes the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures to be true ought to differ from that of the man who does not so believe. The man who regards these doctrines as merely the mistaken beliefs of the Christian Church is consistent if he gives them only a minor place in his treatment of the New Testament text, a place so minor as to leave his New Testament textual criticism essentially the same as that of any other ancient book. But the man who holds these doctrines to be true is inconsistent unless he gives them a prominent place in _his _treatment of the New Testament text, a place so prominent as to make his New Testament textual criticism _different _from that of other ancient books, for if these doctrines are true, they demand such a place.

Thus there are two methods of New Testament textual criticism, the _consistently Christian _method and the _naturalistic _method. These two methods deal with the same materials, the same Greek manuscripts, and the same translations and biblical quotations, but they interpret these materials differently. The consistently Christian method interprets the materials of New Testament textual criticism in accordance with the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures. The naturalistic method interprets these same materials in accordance with its own doctrine that the New Testament is nothing more than a human book.

Sad to say, modern Bible-believing scholars have taken very little interest in the concept of consistently Christian New Testament textual criticism. For more than a century most of them have been quite content to follow in this area the naturalistic methods of Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort. And the result of this equivocation has been truly disastrous. Just as in Pharaoh's dream the thin cows ate up the fat cows, so the principles and procedures of naturalistic New Testament textual criticism have spread into every department of Christian thought and produced a spiritual famine. The purpose of this book, therefore, is to show that in the King James (Authorized) Version we still have the bread of life and in demonstrating this to defend the historic Christian faith.

In the world, which He has created, and in the holy Scriptures which He has given God reveals _Himself, _not merely information about Himself, but HIMSELF. Hence the thinking of a Christian who receives this divine revelation must differ fundamentally from the thinking of naturalistic scholars who ignore or deny it. In this book we shall endeavor to prove that this is so, first in the field of science second in the realm of philosophy, and third in the sphere of Bible study, and especially in New Testament textual criticism.​ 
(I have written on this here at PB quite a bit.) Another excellent book on the topic, from the same point of view, is Dr. Thomas Holland’s, _Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version_. Another easy-to-read classic.

You folks who disagree with my AV (Authorized Version) view, please refrain from debating me; if you want to contribute a differing view, just do it, and let it stand or fall on its own merits. Thanks.

--------

Rick, you are exactly right in your take on the late Bruce Metzger – and his protégé, Bart Ehrman, is a far worse enemy to the Faith, and its Holy Bible, than Metzger was.


----------



## SolaSaint (Aug 1, 2013)

Hey Steve thanks for the book reference. I will most likely read this one.


----------



## housta (Aug 2, 2013)

Brian,

Here is a video series by Dan Wallace, it's an introduction to textual criticism, it was helpful to me:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/basics-new-testament-textual/id446655163


----------



## Jesus is my friend (Aug 4, 2013)

Gentleman

Thanks so much for the input,and like Steve prefer the KJV-Geneva translations and the reason I was curious about this was I have seen my translations sadly attacked from some in the seminary crowd and I deeply love my Bible and God who wrote it,to me it is a love-letter of Truth to me from God,universal for all Christians and intensely personal for me,I had not expected an attack from within the body of Christ,I would expect the Devil to attack it,but not the church and I wonder if these forms of criticism come from Satan himself,through the serpent,his first move recorded for us was,Did God really say? (paraphrase)and I am afraid this is exactly what is happening sometimes in higher and lower criticism,I am not looking for arguments from others on the issue,but If someone attacks the Word I believe in,shame on me if I dont stand for and in the Truth.I have seen some of Dan's work on YouTube and will check it out,there's a dear brother here that has done some fantastic work on this,I am sorry I have forgotten his forum name If you know it please post it,hes a good guy and has done a good job on these

Robert Paul Wieland - YouTube


----------

