Textual Criticism conundrum of the Qur’an

[firedragon]

Mate, I'm trying to make sure I UNDERSTAND the OP

Thats the spirit.

 

[icehorse]

Where does one think it has all gone wrong or right?

Okay, I *think* I understand the OP now (I hope I do).

In trying to understand the OP, I learned that theologists have at least four types of analysis / criticism they use when studying scripture:

- textual
- source
- form
- literary

So far, so good, nothing wrong with that.

BUT, I would guess that for non-theologists, these four approaches are not well known. If that's the case, then my guess is that people who want to debate or discuss these approaches have lost sight of the fact that the rest of us would need some context in order to properly understand the topic. In the case of this OP, it could have started with something like this:

In the domain of theology there are four well known types of scriptural criticism / analysis: textual, source, form, and literary. What I often see is that when discussing scriptural criticism, people of get these four approaches confused or they blur them together. More specifically, I see that textual criticism as an approach, if often misunderstood..

Did I get that mostly right? If so, it seems like a fine topic for a thread

 

[firedragon]

Okay, I *think* I understand the OP now (I hope I do).

In trying to understand the OP, I learned that theologists have at least four types of analysis / criticism they use when studying scripture:

- textual
- source
- form
- literary

So far, so good, nothing wrong with that.

BUT, I would guess that for non-theologists, these four approaches are not well known. If that's the case, then my guess is that people who want to debate or discuss these approaches have lost sight of the fact that the rest of us would need some context in order to properly understand the topic. In the case of this OP, it could have started with something like this:



Did I get that mostly right? If so, it seems like a fine topic for a thread

Bro. Form criticism, narrative criticism, literary criticism, redaction criticism, etc are all methodologies of applying a scientific approach to literature, especially scripture, and used predominantly on the Bible. See, your questions are leading this discussion away from the topic of the OP. Nevertheless honouring you I will say this.

Theologians do not necessarily apply bible criticism. There are many theologians who come out of seminary education who do not have any knowledge in Bible Criticism. There are some "theologians" whose main study is ministry and sometimes they come out with an MA in theology with an expertise in ministry, not criticism.

Yet, there are many many theologians who are experts in Biblical Criticism. There are some theologians who take such a critical approach you have to respect their honesty so much its mind boggling. Especially New Testament theories like the synoptic problem which is a direct hit at the dogma of "divine inspiration" of the Gospels. Imagine a theologian, a Christian taking this approach and analysing the Bible coming up with such great statistical analysis. To me, that's an amazing show of scholarship. That is why I respect Christian bible scholars.

Anyway, there are those who are educated in the sciences of criticism form the university background. They are a different breed. So its better that we not use these terms like theologian and generalise areas of study to all. You know there are DD's who write books and sell well with no education whatsoever? There are people who have Doctor of Divinity certificates they purchased for money and they are able to conduct marriage ceremonies as a priest, but the qualification was purchased for a few dollars. Sometimes a body might award you simply for your contribution to the church or ministry as a gratitude.

In this post I am directly addressing textual criticism of the Qur'an which almost all have misunderstood and only learned a little off some YouTube videos done by famous, well spoken sarcastic entertainers with absolutely no expertise on the subject. I dont have percentages to show you how many people because no research can be done to substantiate that kind of thing and is also worthless. As an individual it is up to you or anyone to make your judgment about yourself and conclude "where did I get this knowledge from". The OP is addressing some of the most famous, fundamental errors these people make. And genuinely if you do study the subject you would know the utter nonsense some people speak about as if they are scholars in the subject which appeals to an already convinced and juicy audience. This is fact. Otherwise it is impossible to see good people just repeat utter nonsense these guys preached, the irony is when they repeat they say it with conviction, not doubt, as if they are scholars themselves.

One person must have the ability to shed the biases and approach scripture critically. Thats the whole aim of the subject of criticism. Its very hard, and you would not know if you actually achieved a state of neutrality but at least the curriculum teaches you to so its a good approach.

Icehorse. If you need to clarify a post, clarify it. No problem.

 

[icehorse]

In this post I am directly addressing textual criticism of the Qur'an which almost all have misunderstood and only learned a little off some YouTube videos done by famous, well spoken sarcastic entertainers with absolutely no expertise on the subject.

And my suggestion is that people who do specialized forms of scriptural criticism ought to set more precise context when they discuss or debate in public.

For example, you know that I approach the study of scripture from a cognitive science perspective. If people are discussing scripture in general, I might want to join that discussion or debate. But if you declare upfront that you're talking about "textual criticism", then I know to leave that topic alone

 

[firedragon]

And my suggestion is that people who do specialized forms of scriptural criticism ought to set more precise context when they discuss or debate in public.

For example, you know that I approach the study of scripture from a cognitive science perspective. If people are discussing scripture in general, I might want to join that discussion or debate. But if you declare upfront that you're talking about "textual criticism", then I know to leave that topic alone

Of course. The topic textual criticism and its written in the heading.

But any tom, dick or harry can relate to what's said in the OP. This is not some theoretical curricula said here mate.

Cheers.

 

[icehorse]

Of course. The topic textual criticism and its written in the heading.

But any tom, dick or harry can relate to what's said in the OP. This is not some theoretical curricula said here mate.

Cheers.

"The Curse of Knowledge" is a very common problem, and you've got it in this case. You've forgotten what it's like to be a beginner in this domain. I can assure you that "any tom, dick, or harry" will be confused by the OP. OTOH, I think people who are interested in theology will find it understandable.

 

[firedragon]

"The Curse of Knowledge" is a very common problem, and you've got it in this case. You've forgotten what it's like to be a beginner in this domain. I can assure you that "any tom, dick, or harry" will be confused by the OP. OTOH, I think people who are interested in theology will find it understandable.

Oh I apologise then.

 

[icehorse]

Oh I apologise then.

No worries, it seems like we're having a nice conversation here - who would have predicted that?

 

[firedragon]

No worries, it seems like we're having a nice conversation here - who would have predicted that?

haha. You should meet in person mate, wee hours it will end at.

 

[firedragon]

@2ndpillar

Please do your Quranic manuscript or/and textual criticism here instead.