Commencing from a critical reading of two recent publications on the Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa and the Devīmāhātmya, this article argues that, contrary to what is maintained by the author of the two books under review, what is ailing Purāṇic studies is not a reliance on traditional modes of textual criticism, but a misunderstanding about its utility for accessing the dynamic history of Purāṇic text corpora. Commencing from a critical reading of two recent publications on the Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa and the Devīmāhātmya, this article argues that, contrary to what is maintained by the author of the two books under review, what is ailing Purāṇic studies is not a reliance on traditional modes of textual criticism, but a misunderstanding about its utility for accessing the dynamic history of Purāṇic text corpora.