Kritik teks (Alkitab): Perbedaan antara revisi

Konten dihapus Konten ditambahkan
InternetArchiveBot (bicara | kontrib)
Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5
 
(28 revisi perantara oleh 7 pengguna tidak ditampilkan)
Baris 1:
'''Kritik teks''' adalah salah satu metode [[Hermeneutika Alkitab|penafsiran]] [[Alkitab]] yang mempelajari [[teks]] yang ada secara terperinci untuk memahami makna yang terkandung di dalamnya.
 
Ketika seseorang mencoba mempelajari suatu teks Alkitab dari beberapa terjemahan yang berbeda, tidak jarang ia menemukan bagian yang berbeda antara dua terjemahan. Hal ini dapat terjadi karena beberapa macam hal, antara lain:<ref name="Biblical Exegesis">{{en}} John H. Hayes dan Carl R. Holladay. (tahun tidak diketahui). ''Biblical Exegesis : A Beginner's handbook (revised edition)''. London : Westminster John Knox Press.''</ref>
* Perbedaan sumber asal.
* Perbedaan interpretasi pada saat menerjemahkan.
Baris 18:
== Sejarah ==
Kritik teks sudah dimulai dari zaman kuno tetapi metode kritik teks modern untuk [[Alkitab]] [[Kristen]] yaitu [[Perjanjian Lama]] dan [[Perjanjian Baru]] berawal dari rasionalisme abad ke-17 dan ke-18 dan dikembangkan dalam konteks pendekatanan ilmiah kepada humanitas (terutama sejarah) yang tumbuh pada abad ke-19.<!-- Studies of the Old and New Testaments were often independent of each other, largely due to the difficulty of any single scholar having a sufficient grasp of the many languages required or of the cultural background for the different periods in which texts had their origins.
-->
 
=== Alkitab Ibrani/Perjanjian Lama= ==
[[FileBerkas:Title page of the" "Histoire critique du vieux testament" by Richard Simon.jpg|thumbjmpl|uprightlurus|TitleHalaman pagejudul of"Critical History" tulisan [[:en:Richard Simon (priest)|Richard Simon]]'s "Critical History" (1685), ansuatu earlykarya work ofawal biblicalkritik criticismAlkitab]]
Kritisisme Alkitab modern dimulai pada abad ke-17 oleh para filsuf dan teolog —[[Thomas Hobbes]], [[:en:Benedict Spinoza|Benedict Spinoza]], [[:en:Richard Simon (priest)|Richard Simon]] dan lain-lain — yang mempertanyakan asal usul teks [[Alkitab]], terutama [[Pentateukh]] (lima kitab pertama [[Perjanjian Lama]], yakni [[Kitab Kejadian|Kejadian]], [[Kitab Keluaran|Keluaran]], [[Kitab Imamat|Imamat]], [[Kitab Bilangan|Bilangan]], dan [[Kitab Ulangan|Ulangan]]). Secara spesifik, dipertanyakan siapa penulis kitab-kitab ini; menurut tradisi pengarangnya adalah [[Musa]], tetapi para kritikus ini melihat ada kontradiksi dan inkonsistensi dalam teks yang membuat mereka menentang [[:en:Mosaic authorship|kepengarangan Musa]]. Pada abad ke-18 [[Jean Astruc]] (1684–1766), seorang dokter PerancisPrancis, berupaya membantah para kritikus itu. Menggunakan metode [[kritik teks]] yang sudah dipakai untuk meneliti teks-teks Yunani dan Romawi, ia menemukan apa yang diyakininya sebagai sejumlah dokumen terpisah dalam [[Kitab Kejadian]], berasal dari gulungan-gulungan asli tulisan Musa, yang sebagaimana empat penulis menghasilkan empat kitab Injil, merupakan catatan-catatan yang saling melengkapi. Generasi-generasi berikutnya, menurut Astruc, menggabungkan dokumen-dokumen asli ini untuk menghasilkan kitab Kejadian yang ada sekarang, di mana secara sekilas menunjukkan inkonsistensi dan kontradiksi sebagaimana diamati oleh Hobbes dan Spinoza.
<!--
Astruc's methods were adopted by German scholars such as [[Johann Gottfried Eichhorn]] (1752–1827) and [[Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette]] (1780–1849) in a movement which became known as the [[higher criticism]] (to distinguish it from the far longer-established close examination and comparison of individual manuscripts, called the [[lower criticism]]); this school reached its apogee with the influential synthesis of [[Julius Wellhausen]] (1844–1918) in the 1870s, at which point it seemed to many that the Bible had at last been fully explained as a human document.
Baris 27:
The implications of "higher criticism" were not welcomed by many religious scholars, not least the Catholic Church. [[Pope Leo XIII]] (1810–1903) condemned secular biblical scholarship in his encyclical ''[[Providentissimus Deus]]'';<ref>Fogarty, page 40.</ref> but in 1943 [[Pope Pius XII]] gave license to the new scholarship in his encyclical ''[[Divino afflante Spiritu]]'': "textual criticism ... [is] quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books...Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavor to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed".<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html Encyclical ''Divino afflante Spiritu''], 1943.</ref> Today the modern [[Catechism of the Catholic Church|Catechism]] states: "In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression".<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PQ.HTM Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article III, section 110] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140816202810/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PQ.HTM |date=August 16, 2014 }}</ref>
-->
[[ImageBerkas:Targum.jpg|rightka|thumbjmpl|Naskah Alkitab Ibrani dengan [[Targum]] dari abad ke-11]]
[[ImageBerkas:Aleppo Codex (Deut).jpg|rightka|thumbjmpl|Satu halaman memuat [[Kitab Ulangan]] dari [[Aleppo Codex]].]]
 
Kritisisme tekstual Alkitab Ibrani membandingkan versi [[naskah Alkitab]] dari berbagai sumber (tarikh berdasarkan naskah tertua yang terlestarikan dari setiap keluarga/famili tekstual):
Baris 40:
|-
 
| [[Gulungan Laut Mati]]||[[:en:TanakhNaskah atLaut QumranMati|Tanakh atdi Qumran]]|| Ibrani, [[Abjad Ibrani Kuno|Paleo-Ibrani]] dan Yunani (Septuaginta) || c. 150 BCE&nbsp;– 70 M || ~ 150 Sm&nbsp;– 70 M
|-
| colspan="5" style="background:#66cdaa;"|
|-
|[[SeptuagintSeptuaginta]]||[[Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209|Codex Vaticanus]], [[Codex Sinaiticus]] anddan othernaskah earlierpapirus papyrikuno lain
||GreekYunani||300–100 BCESM || 2ndabad centuryke-2 BCESM(fragmentsfragmen)<br />4thabad centuryke-4 M CE(completelengkap)
|-
| colspan="5" style="background:#66cdaa;"|
|-
| [[PeshittaPesyita]]||||[[Syriacbahasa languageSuryani|SyriacSuryani]]|| ||earlyawal 5thabad centuryke-5 CEM
|-
| colspan="5" style="background:#66cdaa;"|
|-
| [[Vulgata]]|||| Latin|| ||earlyawal 5thabad centuryke-5 CEM
|-
| colspan="5" style="background:#66cdaa;"|
|-
| [[Teks Masoret|Masoretik]]||[[Aleppo Codex]], [[Leningrad Codex]] dan mss tidak lengkap lainnya|| HebrewIbrani|| ca.~ 100 CEM ||10thabad centuryke-10 CEM
|-
| colspan="5" style="background:#66cdaa;"|
|-
|[[SamaritanTaurat PentateuchSamaria]]|| Abisha Scroll ofdi Nabus|| HebrewIbrani indalam [[:En:Samaritan alphabet|Abjad Samaria]]||200–100 SM||Oldestmss extanttertua mss~ c.11thabad centuryke-11 CEM, oldest mss availabletertua toyang scholarstersedia 16thuntuk centurypenelitian: abad ke-16 M,; hanya memuat [[Taurat]]
| colspan="5" style="background:#66cdaa;"|
|-
Baris 68:
| colspan="5" style="background:#66cdaa;"|
|}
<!--
As in the New Testament, changes, corruptions, and erasures have been found, particularly in the Masoretic texts. This is ascribed to the fact that early ''soferim'' (scribes) did not treat copy errors in the same manner later on.<ref>Tov 2001, p. 9</ref>
 
Sebagaimana dalam naskah-naskah [[Perjanjian Baru]], munculnya perubahan, korupsi dan penghapusan, terutama dalam teks-teks Masoret, disebabkan oleh para juru tulis (''soferim''; ''scribes'') kuno yang tidak menangani kesalahan penyalinan secermat di waktu-waktu kemudian.<ref>Tov 2001, p. 9</ref>
There are three separate new editions of the Hebrew Bible currently in development: ''[[Biblia Hebraica Quinta]]'', the ''[[Hebrew University Bible Project|Hebrew University Bible]]'', and the ''[[Oxford Hebrew Bible]]''. ''Biblia Hebraica Quinta'' is a [[diplomatics|diplomatic]] edition based on the [[Leningrad Codex]]. The ''Hebrew University Bible'' is also diplomatic, but based on the [[Aleppo Codex]]. The ''Oxford Hebrew Bible'' is an eclectic edition.<ref>Hendel, R., "The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Prologue to a New Critical Edition", ''Vetus Testamentum, vol. 58'', no. 3 (2008). pp.&nbsp;325–326</ref>
 
ThereAda aretiga threeedisi separatebaru newterpisah editionsuntuk ofAlkitab theIbrani Hebrew Bibleyang currentlysekarang indalam developmentpengembangan: ''[[Biblia Hebraica Quinta]]'', the ''[[:en:Hebrew University Bible Project|Hebrew University Bible]]'', and thedan ''[[:en:Oxford Hebrew Bible|Oxford Hebrew Bible]]''. ''Biblia Hebraica Quinta'' isadalah aedisi [[:En:diplomatics|diplomaticdiplomatik]] edition based on theberdasarkan [[Leningrad Codex]]. The ''Hebrew University Bible'' isjuga also diplomaticdiplomatik, but based ontetapi theberdasarkan [[Aleppo Codex]]. The ''Oxford Hebrew Bible'' is anadalah eclecticedisi editioneklektis.<ref>Hendel, R., "The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Prologue to a New Critical Edition", ''Vetus Testamentum, vol. 58'', no. 3 (2008). pp.&nbsp;325–326</ref>
==== Alkitab Ibrani sebagai Perjanjian Lama ====
 
==== Alkitab Ibrani sebagai Perjanjian Lama ====
As far as the Hebrew Bible referenced by the Old Testament is concerned, almost all of the textual variants are fairly insignificant and hardly affect any doctrine. Professor [[Douglas Stuart (biblical scholar)|Douglas Stuart]] states: "It is fair to say that the verses, chapters, and books of the Bible would read largely the same, and would leave the same impression with the reader, even if one adopted virtually every possible ''alternative'' reading to those now serving as the basis for current English translations."<ref>{{cite book|last=Kaiser|first=Walter|title=The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant?|year=2001|publisher=InterVarsity Press|page=48|url=https://books.google.com/?id=FbKhwkrCoD8C&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48#v=onepage&q&f=false|isbn=9780830819751}}</ref>
 
AsDalam farmelihat as[[Alkitab theIbrani]] Hebrewsebagai Bible[[Perjanjian referenced by the Old Testament is concernedLama]], almosthampir allsemua ofvarian thetekstual textualtidak variantsbernilai arepenting fairlydan insignificanttidak andmempengaruhi hardlydoktrin affect any doctrinekepercayaan. Professor [[:en:Douglas Stuart (biblical scholar)|Douglas Stuart]] statesmenyatakan: "ItSecara isjujur fairdapat todikatakan saybahwa that the versesayat-ayat, chapterspasal-pasal, anddan bookskitab-kitab ofdalam theAlkitab Bibleakan wouldterbaca readumumnya largely the samesama, anddan wouldmemberikan leavekesan theyang samesama impressionkepada withpara the readerpembaca, even if onemeskipun adoptedorang virtuallymemasukkan everysemua possiblebacaan ''alternativealternatif'' readingyang toada thoseke nowdalam servingteks asyang themenjadi basisdasar forterjemahan current[bahasa Inggris] Englishsaat translationsini."<ref>{{cite book|last=Kaiser|first=Walter|title=The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant?|year=2001|publisher=InterVarsity Press|page=48|url=https://books.google.com/?id=FbKhwkrCoD8C&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48#v=onepage&q&f=false|isbn=9780830819751}}</ref>
 
=== Perjanjian Baru ===
[[File:Albert Schweitzer, Etching by Arthur William Heintzelman.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Albert Schweitzer]]'s (1875–1965) ''The Quest of the Historical Jesus'' (1906) demonstrated that 19th-century "lives of Jesus" were reflections of the authors' own historical and social contexts.]]
 
{{utama|Kritisisme Tekstual Perjanjian Baru}}
The seminal figure in [[New Testament]] criticism was [[Hermann Samuel Reimarus]] (1694–1768), who applied to it the methodology of Greek and Latin textual studies and became convinced that very little of what it said could be accepted as incontrovertibly true. Reimarus's conclusions appealed to the rationalism of 18th century intellectuals, but were deeply troubling to contemporary believers. [[Baron d'Holbach]] (1723-1789) - "Ecce Homo -The History of Jesus of Nazareth, a Critical Inquiry" (1769), the first Life of Jesus described as a mere historical man, published anonymously in Amsterdam. George Houston translated the work into English—published in Edinburgh, 1799, London, 1813, and New York in 1827—for which "blasphemy" Houston was condemned to two years in prison.
 
Teks kuno [[Perjanjian Baru]] meliputi lebih dari 5.800 naskah [[bahasa Yunani]] manuscripts, 10.000 naskah [[bahasa Latin]] dan 9.300 naskah dalam bahasa-bahasa kuno lain (termasuk [[bahasa Suryani]], [[bahasa Slavia]], [[bahasa Etiopia]] dan [[bahasa Armenia]]). Naskah-naskah itu memuat sekitar 300.000 varian tekstual, sebagian besar meliputi pertukaran urutan kata dan perbedaan penulisan yang trivial.<ref name=wallace_on_majority>{{cite web|last= Wallace|first= Daniel|title= The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?|url= https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical|accessdate= 23 November 2013|deadurl= no|archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20131203000201/https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical|archivedate= 3 December 2013|df= }}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last= Westcott and Hort|title= The New Testament in The Original Greek: Introduction Appendix|url= https://books.google.com/?id=7ZxUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA2&dq=The+New+Testament+in+the+Original+Greek#v=onepage&q&f=false|accessdate= 23 November 2013|year= 1896}}</ref> Jadi selama lebih dari 250 tahun dilakukan kritis teks mendalam, para sarjana Perjanjian Baru dapat menyatakan tidak ada varian tekstual yang mempengaruhi doktrin apapun. Profesor [[D. A. Carson]] menyatakan: "tidak ada dari apa yang kita percayai secara doktrinal benar, dan tidak ada dari apa yang diperintahkan kepada kita untuk dilakukan, yang diubah oleh varian-varian itu. Ini benar untuk tradisi tekstual manapun. Penafsiran perikop-perikop individual dapat saja dipertanyakan; tetapi tidak pernah ada doktrin yang terdampak."<ref name=wallace_on_majority/><ref>
{{Cite book
|url= https://books.google.com/?id=uQWTxDdIO6IC&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=D.+A.+Carson+nothing+we+believe+to+be+doctrinally+true,+and+nothing+we+are+commanded+to+do,+is+in+any+way+jeopardized+by+the+variants.#v=onepage&q=D.%20A.%20Carson%20nothing%20we%20believe%20to%20be%20doctrinally%20true,%20and%20nothing%20we%20are%20commanded%20to%20do,%20is%20in%20any%20way%20jeopardized%20by%20the%20variants.&f=false
|title= One Bible Only?: Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible
|last= Beacham|first= Roy E.|last2= Bauder|first2= Kevin T.
|publisher= Kregel Publications|isbn= 9780825497032|language= en
}}
</ref>
<!--
In the 19th century important scholarship was done by [[David Strauss]], [[Ernest Renan]], [[Johannes Weiss]], [[Albert Schweitzer]] and others, all of whom investigated the "[[historical Jesus]]" within the Gospel narratives. In a different field the work of [[H. J. Holtzmann]] was significant: he established a chronology for the composition of the various books of the New Testament which formed the basis for future research on this subject, and established the [[two-source hypothesis]] (the hypothesis that the gospels of [[gospel according to Matthew|Matthew]] and [[gospel according to Luke|Luke]] drew on the [[gospel of Mark]] and a hypothetical document known as [[Q document|Q]]). By the first half of the 20th century a new generation of scholars including [[Karl Barth]] and [[Rudolf Bultmann]], in Germany, [[Roy Harrisville]] and others in North America had decided that the quest for the Jesus of history had reached a dead end. Barth and Bultmann accepted that little could be said with certainty about the historical Jesus, and concentrated instead on the [[kerygma]], or message, of the [[New Testament]]. The questions they addressed were: What was Jesus’s key message? How was that message related to Judaism? Does that message speak to our reality today?
 
The discovery of thePenemuan [[Dead Sea Scrolls]] in 1948 revitalised interest in the possible contribution archaeology could make to the understanding of the New Testament. [[Joachim Jeremias]] and [[C. H. Dodd]] produced linguistic studies which tentatively identified layers within the Gospels that could be ascribed to Jesus, to the authors, and to the early Church; [[Burton Mack]] and [[John Dominic Crossan]] assessed Jesus in the cultural milieu of first-century [[Judea]]; and the scholars of the [[Jesus Seminar]] assessed the individual [[trope (literature)|tropes]] of the Gospels to arrive at a consensus on what could and could not be accepted as historical. Kritikus Perjanjian Baru kontemporer cenderung mengikuti tren yang sudah mengalir pada paruh kedua abad ke-20 di mana penelitian mengenai "Yesus sebagai tokoh sejarah", sekarang mengarah kepada "Keyahudian Yesus" ([[:en:Bruce Chilton|Bruce Chilton]], [[Geza Vermes]] dan lain-lain) serta pembentukan dari keadaan politik dan agama di Palestina pada abad ke-1 ([[Marcus Borg]]).
 
-->
Contemporary New Testament criticism continues to follow the synthesising trend set during the latter half of the 20th century. There continues to be a strong interest in recovering the "historical Jesus", but this now tends to set the search in terms of Jesus' Jewishness ([[Bruce Chilton]], [[Geza Vermes]] and others) and his formation by the political and religious currents of first-century Palestine ([[Marcus Borg]]).
Jumlah saksi naskah yang sangat banyak menimbulkan kesulitan yang unik, terutama tidak memungkinkan membuat "''stemmatics''" dalam banyak kasus, karena sejumlah penulis menggunakan dua atau lebih versi naskah yang berbeda sebagai sumbernya. Akibatnya, kritik teks Perjanjian Baru mengadopsi [[:en:eclecticism|eklektisisme]] setelah mengurutkan saksi-saksi naskah itu dalam tiga grup besar, yang disebut "jenis teks" ("''text-types''"). {{As of | 2017}} pembagian jenis teks adalah:
{| border="1" style="margin:auto; width:100%;"
|- style="background:#cef2e0; text-align:center;"
! width="20%"|Jenis teks !! width=" 10%" |Tarikh!!Ciri!! Versi Alkitab
|-
| [[Teks Alexandria]]<br />(juga disebut tradisi "''Neutral Text''" ("Teks Netral"); atau "''Minority Text''"/"Teks Minoritas")||abad ke-2 sampai ke–4 M|| Keluarga tekstual ini meliputi sejumlah naskah paling tua, termasuk [[Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209|Codex Vaticanus]] dan [[Codex Sinaiticus]]. Naskah-naskahnya umumnya hanya ditemukan terbatas di daerah sekitar [[Mesir]]: [[Aleksandria]] dan [[Gereja Koptik|Gereja Aleksandria]]. Karena iklim yang menguntungkan, naskah-naskah tua masih terlestarikan dalam penyimpanan, meskipun tidak diteruskan penyalinannya, dan sekarang mendasari banyak terjemahan modern Perjanjian Baru sejak tahun 1900-an.||[[:en:New International Version|NIV]], [[New American Bible|NAB]], [[New American Bible Revised Edition|NABRE]], [[:En:Douay|Douay]], [[Jerusalem Bible|JB]] and [[New Jerusalem Bible|NJB]] (meskipun juga tergantung pada jenis teks Bizantin), [[:en:Today's New International Version|TNIV]], [[:en:New American Standard Bible|NASB]], [[:en:Revised Standard Version|RSV]], [[:en:English Standard Version|ESV]], [[:en:Emphasized Bible|EBR]], [[:En:New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures|NWT]], [[:en:The Living Bible|LB]], [[American Standard Version|ASV]], [[:En:New Century Version|NC]], [[:En:Good News Bible|GNB]], [[:En:Christian Standard Bible|CSB]]
|-
|[[Teks Western]]<br>(juga disebut "jenis [[teks Kaisarea]]")||abad ke-3 sampai ke-9 M ||Dianggap suatu tradisi paling tua, tersebar dalam geografi luas dari Afrika Utara ke Italia dan dari [[Gaul]] (Prancis) ke [[Siria]]. Ditemukan dalam naskah-naskah bahasa Yunani dan terjemahan Latin yang digunakan oleh [[Gereja Barat]]. Sejumlah sarjana Perjanjian Baru membedakan teks Western dan teks Kaisarea.||[[Vetus Latina]]
|-
| [[Teks Bizantin]]<br>(juga disebut jenis "teks [[bahasa Yunani Koine|Koinē]]"<br />atau terkenal sebagai "''Majority Text''"/"Teks Mayoritas")||abad ke-5 sampai ke-16 M|| Kelompok ini meliputi sekitar 95% seluruh naskah yang ada, mayoritas dari abad-abad kemudian. Menjadi dominan di [[Konstantinopel]] sejak abad ke-5 dan seterusnya, serta digunakan di seluruh [[Gereja Ortodoks Timur]] dalam [[Kekaisaran Bizantium]]. Mendasari [[Textus Receptus]] yang digunakan dalam kebanyakan terjemahan Perjanjian Baru dalam era-[[Reformasi Protestan|Reformasi]].|| [[King James Version|KJV]], [[New King James Version|NKJV]], [[Alkitab Tyndale|Tyndale]], [[Alkitab Coverdale|Coverdale]], [[Alkitab Jenewa|Geneva (Jenewa)]], [[:en:Bishops' Bible|Bishops' Bible]], [[:en:Orthodox Study Bible|OSB]]
|}
 
== Metode dan perspektif ==
==Methods and perspectives==
[[FileBerkas:Two Source Hypothesis.svg|thumbjmpl|ka|200px|[[:en:Source criticism|Kritisisme sumber (''source criticism'')]]: diagram of the [[:en:two-source hypothesis|hipotesis dua sumber]], ansalah explanationsatu forpenjelasan thehubungan relationshipInjil of the gospels ofMatius ("Matthew", Markus ("Mark") dan andLukas ("Luke")]]
Metode dan perspektif kritis jumlahnya banyak, dan tinjauan berikut tidak dapat dianggap komprehensif.
The critical methods and perspectives now to be found are numerous, and the following overview should not be regarded as comprehensive.
 
===Textual criticismKritisisme tekstual ===
[[TextualKritik criticismteks|Kritisisme tekstual]] (sometimes"Kritik stillteks", referred''Textual tocriticism''; askadang-kadang dirujuk sebagai "''lower criticism''"); refers"kritisisme totingkat the examinationrendah") ofmerujuk thekepada textpenelitian itselfteks toitu identifysendiri itsuntuk provenancemengidentifikasi orasal tousul traceatau itsmelacak historysejarahnya.<!-- It takes as its basis the fact that errors inevitably crept into texts as generations of scribes reproduced each other's manuscripts. For example, [[Josephus]] employed scribes to copy his [[Antiquities of the Jews]]. As the scribes copied the Antiquities, they made mistakes. The copies of these copies also had the mistakes. The errors tend to form "families" of manuscripts: scribe ''A'' will introduce mistakes which are not in the manuscript of scribe ''B'', and over time the "families" of texts descended from ''A'' and ''B'' will diverge further and further as more mistakes are introduced by later scribes, but will always be identifiable as descended from one or the other. Textual criticism studies the differences between these families to piece together a good idea of what the original looked like. The more surviving copies, the more accurately can they deduce information about the original text and about "family histories".
 
Textual criticism uses a number of specialized methodologies, including [[eclecticism]], [[stemmatics]], copy-text editing and [[cladistics]]. A number of principles have also been introduced for use in deciding between variant manuscripts, such as ''[[Lectio difficilior potior]]'': "The harder of two readings is to be preferred".<ref>Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812) published several editions of the New Testament. In his 1796 edition, he established fifteen critical rules, including a variant of Bengel's rule, ''Lectio difficilior potior'', "the hardest reading is best." Another was ''[[Lectio brevior|Lectio brevior praeferenda]]'', "the shorter reading is best," based on the idea that scribes were more likely to add than to delete. {{cite web | url=http://www.bible-researcher.com/rules.html#Griesbach |title=Critical Rules of Johann Albrecht Bengel|publisher=Bible-researcher.com|accessdate=2010-03-16| archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20100213010108/http://www.bible-researcher.com/rules.html| archivedate= 13 February 2010 | deadurl= no}}</ref> Nevertheless, there remains a strong element of subjectivity, areas where the scholar must decide his reading on the basis of taste or common-sense: Amos 6.12, for example, reads: "Does one plough with oxen?" The obvious answer is "yes", but the context of the passage seems to demand a "no"; the usual reading therefore is to amend this to, "Does one plough ''the sea'' with oxen?" The amendment has a basis in the text, which is believed to be corrupted, but is nevertheless a matter of judgement.<ref>[[David J. A. Clines]], "[http://www.shef.ac.uk/bibs/DJACcurrres/Postmodern1/Methods.html Methods in Old Testament Study]", section ''Textual Criticism'', in ''On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967–1998, Volume 1'' (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: [[Sheffield Academic Press]], 1998), pp. 23–45.</ref>
-->
=== Kritisisme sumber ===
[[:en:Source criticism (biblical studies)|Kritik sumber (''Source criticism'')]] isadalah theupaya searchpencarian forsumber-sumber theasli originalyang sourcesmendasari whichsuatu lieteks, behinddalam ahal givenini biblical text[[Alkitab]].<!-- ItMetode canini bedapat tracedditelusuri backkepada topendeta thePrancis 17th-centuryabad French priestke-17, [[:en:Richard Simon (priest)|Richard Simon]], anddan d its most influential product is [[Julius Wellhausen]]'s ''[[Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels]]'' (1878), whose "insight and clarity of expression have left their mark indelibly on modern biblical studies".<ref>[[Antony F. Campbell]], SJ, "[http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/9780631210719/perdue.pdf Preparatory Issues in Approaching Biblical Texts]," in ''The Hebrew Bible in Modern Study'', p.6. Campbell renames source criticism as "origin criticism".</ref> An example of source criticism is the study of the [[Synoptic problem]]. Critics noticed that the three [[Synoptic Gospels]], [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]], [[Gospel of Mark|Mark]] and [[Gospel of Luke|Luke]], were very similar, indeed, at times identical. The dominant theory to account for the duplication is called the [[two-source hypothesis]]. This suggests that Mark was the first gospel to be written, and that it was probably based on a combination of early oral and written material. Matthew and Luke were written at a later time, and relied primarily on two different sources: Mark and a written collection of Jesus's sayings, which has been given the name [[Q document|Q]] by scholars. This latter document has now been lost, but at least some of its material can be deduced indirectly, namely through the material that is common in Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark. In addition to Mark and Q, the writers of Matthew and Luke made some use of additional sources, which would account for the material that is unique to each of them.
-->
=== Kritisisme bentuk dan sejarah tradisi ===
[[:en:Form criticism|Kritisisme bentuk (''Form criticism'')]] breaksmembagi theAlkitab Bibledalam downbagian-bagian into sectionskecil ("perikop", ''pericopespericope'', storiescerita-cerita) whichyang aredianalisis analyzeddan anddikategorikan categorizedberdasarkan by genres[[genre]] (proseprosa oratau versesajak, letterssurat-surat, lawshukum-hukum, courtarsip archivespengadilan, warnyanyian hymnspeperangan, poems ofpuisi lamentratapan, etcdll.).<!-- The form critic then theorizes on the pericope's ''[[Sitz im Leben]]'' ("setting in life"), the setting in which it was composed and, especially, used.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://bibledudes.com/biblical-studies/form.php|title=This site is temporarily unavailable|publisher=|accessdate=29 January 2016}}</ref> [[Tradition history]] is a specific aspect of form criticism which aims at tracing the way in which the pericopes entered the larger units of the biblical canon, and especially the way in which they made the transition from oral to written form. The belief in the priority, stability, and even detectability, of oral traditions is now recognised to be so deeply questionable as to render tradition history largely useless, but form criticism itself continues to develop as a viable methodology in biblical studies.<ref>[https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20080407061814/http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/3815_3767.pdf Yair Hoffman, review of Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), ''The Changing Face of Form-Criticism for the Twenty-First Century'', 2003]</ref>
-->
=== Kritisisme redaksi ===
[[:en:Redaction criticism|Kritisisme redaksi]] mempelajari "pengkoleksian, pengaturan, penyuntingan, dan modifikasi sumber-sumber", dan sering digunakan untuk merekonstruksi komunitas dan tujuan para penulis teks.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/facstaff/murphy/courses/exegesis/redaction.htm |title=Religious Studies Department, Santa Clara University. |access-date=2018-05-23 |archive-date=2006-02-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060228065539/http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/facstaff/murphy/courses/exegesis/redaction.htm |dead-url=yes }}</ref> Didasarkan pada perbandingan perbedaan antara naskah-naskah dan nilai penting teologisnya.<ref>[http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NewTestament/Gospels/REDACCR.htm Redaction Criticism] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080105121203/http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NewTestament/Gospels/REDACCR.htm |date=2008-01-05 }}.</ref>
 
=== Kritisisme sumberkanonik ===
Associated particularly with the name of [[Brevard S. Childs]], who has written prolifically on the subject, [[:en:canonical criticism|Kritisisme kanonik]] isadalah "ansuatu examinationpenelitian ofbentuk theakhir finalteks formsebagai ofsuatu the text as a totalitytotalitas, asserta wellproses as the processyang leading to itmengarahkannya".<ref>[http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1985/v42-3-article3.htm Norman K. Gottwald, "Social Matrix and Canonical Shape", ''Theology Today'', October 1985.] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100531012200/http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1985/v42-3-article3.htm |date=2010-05-31 }}. Kutipan: "an examination of the final form of the text as a totality, as well as the process leading to it"</ref> Metode ini terutama dikaitkan dengan [[:en:Brevard S. Childs|Brevard S. Childs]], yang menulis secara prolifik mengenai subjek ini.<!-- Where previous criticism asked questions about the origins, structure and history of the text, canonical criticism addresses questions of meaning, both for the community (and communities—subsequent communities are regarded as being as important as the original community for which it was produced) which used it, and in the context of the wider canon of which it forms a part.<ref name="harpers"/>
[[Source criticism (biblical studies)|Source criticism]] is the search for the original sources which lie behind a given biblical text. It can be traced back to the 17th-century French priest [[Richard Simon (priest)|Richard Simon]], and its most influential product is [[Julius Wellhausen]]'s ''[[Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels]]'' (1878), whose "insight and clarity of expression have left their mark indelibly on modern biblical studies".<ref>[[Antony F. Campbell]], SJ, "[http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/9780631210719/perdue.pdf Preparatory Issues in Approaching Biblical Texts]," in ''The Hebrew Bible in Modern Study'', p.6. Campbell renames source criticism as "origin criticism".</ref> An example of source criticism is the study of the [[Synoptic problem]]. Critics noticed that the three [[Synoptic Gospels]], [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]], [[Gospel of Mark|Mark]] and [[Gospel of Luke|Luke]], were very similar, indeed, at times identical. The dominant theory to account for the duplication is called the [[two-source hypothesis]]. This suggests that Mark was the first gospel to be written, and that it was probably based on a combination of early oral and written material. Matthew and Luke were written at a later time, and relied primarily on two different sources: Mark and a written collection of Jesus's sayings, which has been given the name [[Q document|Q]] by scholars. This latter document has now been lost, but at least some of its material can be deduced indirectly, namely through the material that is common in Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark. In addition to Mark and Q, the writers of Matthew and Luke made some use of additional sources, which would account for the material that is unique to each of them.
 
===Form criticism and tradition history===
[[Form criticism]] breaks the Bible down into sections (''pericopes'', stories) which are analyzed and categorized by genres (prose or verse, letters, laws, court archives, war hymns, poems of lament, etc.). The form critic then theorizes on the pericope's ''[[Sitz im Leben]]'' ("setting in life"), the setting in which it was composed and, especially, used.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://bibledudes.com/biblical-studies/form.php|title=This site is temporarily unavailable|publisher=|accessdate=29 January 2016}}</ref> [[Tradition history]] is a specific aspect of form criticism which aims at tracing the way in which the pericopes entered the larger units of the biblical canon, and especially the way in which they made the transition from oral to written form. The belief in the priority, stability, and even detectability, of oral traditions is now recognised to be so deeply questionable as to render tradition history largely useless, but form criticism itself continues to develop as a viable methodology in biblical studies.<ref>[https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20080407061814/http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/3815_3767.pdf Yair Hoffman, review of Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), ''The Changing Face of Form-Criticism for the Twenty-First Century'', 2003]</ref>
 
===Redaction criticism===
[[Redaction criticism]] studies "the collection, arrangement, editing, and modification of sources", and is frequently used to reconstruct the community and purposes of the authors of the text.<ref>[http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/facstaff/murphy/courses/exegesis/redaction.htm Religious Studies Department, Santa Clara University.]</ref> It is based on the comparison of differences between manuscripts and their theological significance.<ref>[http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NewTestament/Gospels/REDACCR.htm Redaction Criticism].</ref>
 
===Canonical criticism===
Associated particularly with the name of [[Brevard S. Childs]], who has written prolifically on the subject, [[canonical criticism]] is "an examination of the final form of the text as a totality, as well as the process leading to it".<ref>[http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1985/v42-3-article3.htm Norman K. Gottwald, "Social Matrix and Canonical Shape", ''Theology Today'', October 1985.] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100531012200/http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1985/v42-3-article3.htm |date=2010-05-31 }}</ref> Where previous criticism asked questions about the origins, structure and history of the text, canonical criticism addresses questions of meaning, both for the community (and communities—subsequent communities are regarded as being as important as the original community for which it was produced) which used it, and in the context of the wider canon of which it forms a part.<ref name="harpers"/>
 
===RhetoricalKritisisme criticismretorik===
[[:en:Rhetorical criticism|Kritisisme retorik]] ofAlkitab thebertarikh Biblesejak datespaling backsedikit to at leastkepada [[SaintAugustinus Augustinedari Hippo|Augustinus]]. ModernAplikasi applicationmodern ofteknik techniquesanalisis ofretorik rhetoricalpada analysisteks toAlkitab biblicalbermula texts dates todari [[James Muilenburg]] inpada tahun 1968 assebagai asuatu correctivebentuk tokorektif formterhadap criticismkritisisme bentuk, whichyang dipandang oleh Muilenburg sawterlalu asmengeneralisasi toodan generalizedkurang and insufficientlycukup specificspesifik. ForBagi Muilenberg, rhetoricalkritisisme criticismretorik emphasizedmenekankan thepesan uniqueunik anddan unrepeatabletidak messageterulangi ofdari thepenulis writeratau orpembicara speakeryang asdisampaikan addressedkepada topara his audiencependengarnya, terutama includingtermasuk especiallyteknik thedan techniquespiranti andyang devicesmasuk whichke wentdalam intoproses craftingpenyusunan thenaratif biblicalalkitabiah narrativesebagaimana as it was hearddidengar (oratau readdibaca) byoleh its audiencehadirin.<!-- "What Muilenburg called rhetorical criticism was not exactly the same as what secular literary critics called rhetorical criticism, and when biblical scholars became interested in "rhetorical criticism", they did not limit themselves to Muilenberg's definition...In some cases it is difficult to distinguish between rhetorical criticism and literary criticism, or other disciplines". Unlike canonical criticism, rhetorical criticism (at least as defined by Muilenberg) takes a special interest in the relationship between the biblical text and its intended audience within the context of the communal life setting. Rhetorical criticism asks how the text ''functions'' for its audience, including especially its original audience: to teach, persuade, guide, exhort, reproach, or inspire, and it concentrates especially on identifying and elucidating unique features of the situation, including both the techniques manifest in the text itself and the relevant features of the cultural setting, through which this purpose is pursued.--><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.angelfire.com/md/mdmorrison/ot/rhetoric.htm|title=Rhetorical Criticism of the Hebrew Bible|publisher=|accessdate=29 January 2016}}</ref><!--
 
[[Phyllis Trible]], a student of Muilenburg, applied and developed his methods, while adding her own [[Christian feminism|Christian feminist]] perspective to biblical scholarship.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Tull|first1=Patricia K.|editor1-last=Haynes|editor1-first=Stephen R.|editor2-last=McKenzie|editor2-first=Steven L.|title=To each its own meaning : an introduction to biblical criticisms and their applications|date=1999|publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|location=Louisville, Ky.|isbn=978-0664257842|edition=Rev. and expanded.|chapter=Chapter 8: Rhetorical Criticism and Intertextuality}}</ref>{{rp|158-159}}<ref name=UTSaid>{{cite web|title=Finding Aid for Phyllis Trible Papers, 1954-2015|url=http://library.columbia.edu/content/dam/libraryweb/locations/burke/fa/awts/ldpd_5635427.pdf|publisher=Archives of Women in Theological Scholarship The Burke Library Columbia University Libraries Union Theological Seminary, New York|accessdate=4 April 2018|date=2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Vater|first1=Ann M.|title=Review of God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality|journal=Journal of Biblical Literature|date=1980|volume=99|issue=1|pages=131–133|doi=10.2307/3265712|jstor=3265712}}</ref>
 
===NarrativeKritisisme criticismnaratif===
[[:en:Narrative criticism|Kritisisme naratif]] is one of a number of modern forms of criticism based in contemporary literary theory and practice—in this case, from [[narratology]]. In common with other literary approaches (and in contrast to historical forms of criticism), narrative criticism treats the text as a unit, and focuses on narrative structure and composition, plot development, themes and motifs, characters, and characterization.<ref>Johannes C. De Klerk, "[http://www.unisa.ac.za/default.asp?Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=7379 Situating biblical narrative studies in literary theory and literary approaches]", ''Religion & Theology'' 4/3 (1997).</ref> Narrative criticism is a complex field, but some central concerns include the reliability of the narrator, the question of authorial intent (expressed in terms of the context in which the text was written and its presumed intended audience), and the implications of multiple interpretation—i.e., an awareness that a narrative is capable of more than one interpretation, and thus of the implications of each.<ref>[http://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/archives/1990s/vol_38_no_1_contents/heard.html Christopher Heard, "Narrative Criticism and the Hebrew Scriptures: A Review and Assessment", ''[[Restoration Quarterly]]'', Vol. 38/No.1 (1996)] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071130203800/http://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/archives/1990s/vol_38_no_1_contents/heard.html |date=2007-11-30 }}</ref>
 
===Psychological criticism===
Baris 171 ⟶ 191:
* [[William F. Albright|William Albright]] (1891–1971): profesor pada [[Johns Hopkins University]] dan pendiri "[[:en:biblical archaeology|biblical archaeology (arkeologi Alkitab)]]" yang mendukung otentisitas naskah-naskah kuno Alkitab, terutama [[Perjanjian Lama]].
<!--* [[Albrecht Alt]] (1883–1956): berperan dalam debat awal mengenai agama leluhur di Alkitab; <!-- ; he was also an important influence on the generation of mid-20th century German scholars like [[Martin Noth]] and [[Gerhard von Rad]]-->
* [[Jean Astruc]] (1684–1776): kritikus Alkitab mula-mula asal PerancisPrancis, yang mengadaptasi kritik sumber pada studi kitab Kejadian dan berpendapat bahwa Musa adalah penyusun seluruh Taurat.
<!--* [[Margaret Barker]] (1944–): maintains that the polytheistic practices of the First Jewish Temple survived and influenced gnosticism and early Christianity
* [[Walter Bauer]] (1877–1960): redefined the parameters of orthodoxy and heresy with his multiregional hypothesis for the origins of early Christianity
Baris 197 ⟶ 217:
* [[Thomas Jefferson]] (1743–1826): Presiden Amerika Serikat. Pengarang "Jefferson Bible", sebuah rekonstruksi Perjanjian Baru yang menghilangkan rujukan bersifat mujizat.
* [[Baruch Spinoza]] (1632–1677): filsuf Belanda, yang mengumpulkan diskrepansi, kontradiksi dan anakronisme dari Taurat dan berpendapat bahwa Taurat tidak dapat ditulis oleh Musa. Pendapatnya disanggah secara detail oleh [[Jean Astruc]].
* [[Baron d'Holbach]] (1723–1789): pembuat ensiklopedia PerancisPrancis/Jerman, menerbitkan secara anomim di Amsterdam pada tahun 1769 "Ecce Homo: The History of Jesus of Nazareth, a Critical Inquiry", yang menyangsikan Yesus sebagai manusia biasa dalam sejarah. Diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Inggris oleh George Houston dan dipublikasikan di Edinburgh, 1799, London, 1813, (karena "blasphemy" ini Houston dipenjarakan selama 2 tahun), dan New York, 1827. Pendapatnya ditinggalkan karena temuan-temuan arkeologis modern.
* [[David Friedrich Strauss]] (1808–1874): kritikus Jerman yang berfokus pada penelitian [[Yesus sebagai tokoh dalam sejarah]], terutama dengan bukunya ''Das Leben Jesu''. Pendapatnya sudah ditinggalkan karena temuan-temuan arkeologi modern.
<!--* [[Thomas L. Thompson]] (1939–): penyanggah kesimpulan Albright mengenai arkeologi dan sejarah Pentateukh-->
Baris 205 ⟶ 225:
* [[Joseph Wheless]] (1868–1950): ahli hukum Amerika Serikat yang menentang bahwa Yesus pernah hidup.-->
* [[R. N. Whybray]] (1923–1997): penyanggah asumsi "kritik sumber" yang mendasari [[hipotesis dokumen]].
* [[N. T. Wright]] (1948-): uskup emiritus Anglikan dan profesor "New Testament and Early Christianity" pada [[:en:University of St. Andrews|University of St. Andrews]], Wright dikenal karena [[:en:New Perspective on Paul|New Perspective on Paul]] dan karyanya berupa serial ''Christian Origins and the Question of God''.<ref>[{{Cite web |url=http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/rt/staff/ntw2/] |title=Salinan arsip |access-date=2015-09-15 |archive-date=2014-03-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140328185956/https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/rt/staff/ntw2/ |dead-url=yes }}</ref><ref>[http://ntwrightpage.com/]</ref>
 
== Lihat pula ==
Baris 222 ⟶ 242:
| volume=
| issue=
| url =https://archive.org/details/readingoldtestam0000bart
| url =
}}
* Barenboim Peter, ''Biblical Roots of Separation of Powers'', Moscow : Letny Sad, 2005, ISBN 5-94381-123-0, http://lccn.loc.gov/2006400578
* {{cite book
|author=Birch, Bruce C., Walter Brueggemann, Terence E. Fretheim, and David L. Petersen
Baris 241 ⟶ 261:
|isbn = 0-334-00294-X
|location = London
|url =https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofbibl0000unse_p0o4
|url =
|publisher = SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International
}}
Baris 251 ⟶ 271:
|volume=
|issue=
|url =https://archive.org/details/misquotingjesuss0000ehrm
|url =
|publisher=HarperSanFrancisco
|authorlink=Bart D. Ehrman
Baris 329 ⟶ 349:
== Pranala luar ==
* [http://www.shef.ac.uk/bibs/DJACcurrres/Postmodern1/Possibilities.html David J. A. Clines, "Possibilities and Priorities of Biblical Interpretation in an International Perspective", in ''On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967–1998'', Volume 1 (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: [[Sheffield Academic Press]], 1998), pp.&nbsp;46–68] See Section 6, Future Trends in Biblical Interpretation, overview of some current trends in biblical criticism.
* [http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5159_5434.pdf Philip Davies, review of John J. Collins, "The Bible after Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age", 2005] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110612134709/http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5159_5434.pdf |date=2011-06-12 }} Reviews a survey of postmodernist biblical criticism.
* [http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org/txtcriticism.htm Allen P. Ross (Beeson Divinity School, Samford University), "The Study of Textual Criticism"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110725165002/http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org/txtcriticism.htm |date=2011-07-25 }} Guide to the methodology of textual criticism.
* [http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/3815_3767.pdf Yair Hoffman, review of Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), ''The Changing Face of Form-Criticism for the Twenty-First Century'', 2003] {{Webarchive|url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20080407061814/http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/3815_3767.pdf |date=2008-04-07 }} Discusses contemporary form criticism.
* [httphttps://wwwweb.webcitationarchive.org/query?url=web/20091020075852/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5993/crit.html&date=2009-10-25+06:08:49 Exploring Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations on the Internet] Introduction to biblical criticism
* [http://biblicalauthorship.blogspot.com/2011/07/library.html Library of latest modern books of biblical studies and biblical criticism]