Confusion regarding the canonical text

Confusion regarding the canonical text

A biblical canon or canon of scripture is a set of texts (or ‘books’) which a particular religious community regards as authoritative scripture. The English word “canon” comes from the Greek κανών, meaning ‘rule’ or ‘measuring stick’. (source)

A recent video presentation with James White and Michael Kruger has brought to light a sharp distinction they make between canon and text regarding Scripture.

Video: James White & Michael Kruger on the Biblical Canon https://youtu.be/LVVRfu1eLSU

White and Kruger say the books of the canon and the texts of those books are two, different things, and we shouldn’t conflate them.

White and Kruger believe the canon to be a theological issue, but not the text.

They believe the text is a historical-critical issue.

Confessional text advocates believe both the canon and the text are theological issues.

These two approaches to the issue of text — one theological and other historical-critical — are where the confessional text advocates part ways from modern critical text advocates.

Confessional text advocates are consistent: they believe the canon is a confessional, believing, theological issue, and so also is the text.

Modern critical text advocates are inconsistent: they believe the canon is a confessional, believing, theological issue, but they believe the text is a naturalistic, historical-critical issue.

Confessional text advocates are criticized for believing the text is a theological issue.

“Moreover, the development of an authoritative text is a natural corollary to an authoritative list of books.” (Carl E. Amerding, The Old Testament and Criticism (p. 101)

Jeff Riddle mentions the quote above from Amerding in his audio response to White and Kruger. 

Riddle believes text and canon are necessary corollaries, and he further elaborates on why the text, and just not the canon, is a theological issue…

WM 89: Review: White and Kruger on Canon and Text @ G3 http://www.jeffriddle.net/2018/01/wm-89-review-white-and-kruger-on-canon.html

Since I believe all books are texts, I would say the books/texts of the canon are the canonical text.

The Bible is a book. The Bible is a text. The Protestant Bible is a canonical text. A canonical text is a fixed, unchanging text.

The Protestant canonical text was determined during the Reformation. This canonical text was — and is — the Masoretic text of the Old Testament (OT) and the Textus Receptus text of the New Testament (NT).

You can purchase a copy of this canonical text here: https://us.tbsbibles.org/store/ViewProduct.aspx?ID=9349608

A good translation of this canonical text into English is the King James Version of the Bible (KJV).

In 1881, a new Greek text of the New Testament (NT), and a new English translation based upon it, was published as the Revised Version (RV).

This was a new text.

Not the canonical text.

This was a different text.

This was a different book.

This was a different collection of books/texts.

This was not the canonical Greek text of the NT historically recognized by Protestants.

A low point in the White-Kruger video (linked above) was when Kruger said (after 49:12):

“What’s interesting is that the early church seemed to make a distinction between those two things [i.e., canon and text] and what I mean by that is, certainly we believe the canonical books hold the text that God has delivered but if you had a book of John without the pericope of the adulterous woman, and you had one with it, it’s not as if the early church was saying… well… you know… they just said John’s canonical… they weren’t necessarily telling you which text was the right text. So I think it’s important to distinguish between the two things because if you don’t you end up trying to say there has to be an authoritative church approved text.”

Here we see Kruger mistakenly believing a book and a text are two different things that must be kept separate.

But a book is a text.

A book/text of John with the pericope of the adulterous woman is not the same thing as a book/text of John without this pericope.

Kruger is conflating two, different, books/texts: one with the pericope of the adulterous woman, and one without. The two are not the same book/text.

The book/text of John recognized and accepted as canonical by Protestants during the Reformation included this pericope.

A manuscript of the book/text of John without this pericope is considered a corrupt copy.

According to Augustine, this pericope is a part of the text/book of John that some people didn’t like, so they removed it from their manuscripts…

“Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin.” (Augustine, De Adulterinis Conjugiis, 2:6–7)

Canon, by definition, means: rule, or unchanging standard.

The canonical text recognized and accepted during the Protestant Reformation is not the same text used today for the translations of modern English Bibles, such as the English Standard Version (ESV).

Those who use the ESV have accepted the new critical editions of the original language texts of the Old and New Testaments.

Those who use the KJV have accepted the Reformation era original language texts of the Old and New Testaments.

These two groups have different canonical texts of Scripture.

Those who use the ESV and those who use the KJV form two, distinctly different, religious communities.

Why?

Because they use two, distinctly different, canonical texts.

“We may look at sacred texts as being those which contain a power and authority and are given certain status within a given community. Such communities and traditions are held together most typically through liturgical acts, which help to focus life upon that which is ultimate and to which the sacred texts give testimony. The status of the sacred text is canonical: as well as being normative for a community or tradition, it is also that community or tradition’s canon or canonical text. The term ‘canon’ has a variety of meanings, but in the context of sacred texts it means the defined groups of texts for the community or tradition . . one does not add to or subtract from them.” (Ninian Smart and Richard D. Hecht, edd. Sacred Texts of the World: A Universal Anthology (p. xiii-xiv)

The Protestant Bible is a canonical text.

The Protestant Bible is an unchanging rule, or standard, for faith and life.

The Protestant Bible consists of sixty-six books/texts that make up one text/book: the Bible.

Change one letter, one word, one phrase… add or remove one letter, one word, one phrase… and a canonical text is changed: it is no longer the text once recognized as canonical.

One does not add to, nor subtract from, a canonical text.

When one does add to and subtract from the canonical text, as has happened since 1881, that text is not longer the text once received as canonical. A new text requires re-evaluation by the community regarding its canonicity.

A canonical text must be a fixed text. A text that will never change.

How could one say whether or not a text was canonical when and if that text were undergoing a process of revision? We must wait until the revision process is complete before we’re able to recognize this text’s canonicity.

But today, for example, those who use the modern critical Greek text of the NT are using a text that is undergoing a process of revision that won’t be completed until some time after 2030.

How can anyone say this text is canonical? Since it’s not a final, settled, fixed text?

I should think the term canonical can only be applied to a final, settled, fixed text.

To accept the modern critical Greek text as canonical, and the ESV as a faithful English translation of that text, is similar to signing a contract that is undergoing a process of revision. You sign the contract today, but the contract you’re signing is subject to change. Letters, words, and phrases may be added to or removed from the contract, and you’re obligated to abide by it, because you signed it.

The Protestants who recognized the canonical text of the Reformation signed a contract, so to speak. 

And that contract was a final, settled, fixed, canonical text. Nothing could be added to it or subtracted from it.

When the critics began changing letters, words, and phrases in the recognized, received, canonical text, they created a new text, which Protestants had never recognized or accepted as canonical.

“Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament . . . All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:2)

Confessional statements, like the one above, regarding the books of the canon, were written for the old canonical text, not for a new one.

A new canonical text would require a new confessional acceptance of that text, which is something that has never occurred.

Instead, what’s happened is that the husk of the old confessional list of canonical books/texts has been stuffed with the new, naturalistic, historical-critical, ever-changing, never-settled, always-open-for-revision scholars’ text.

“I am intrigued by the question of the response of the community whose text has been ‘critically edited.’ Of course when this is done, it no longer is a sacred text, because it is no longer the text which the community has always regarded as sacred; it is a scholars’ text.” ~ Paul Ricoeur (source)

As I said above, for a text to be canonical it has to be fixed. It cannot be open for revision.

Any revision of an original language book/text of the Protestant Bible should necessitate a reevaluation of that book/text’s canonical status. Little foxes spoil the vine.

People who use the ESV and accept the modern critical text of the Greek NT that underlies it really don’t have a canonical text, because their text will be undergoing revision until sometime after 2030. 

No one knows what changes will be made — both to the Greek text and to the English translation.

There was an incident last year that exposed this unpopular truth.

The publisher of the ESV announced that they were issuing a final, fixed edition of the ESV. The ESV was to become like the KJV: dependable. However, the publisher back-tracked on this, and decided not to create a final, fixed edition.

The ESV will be continue to be what it’s always been: a never-ending work in progress.

A text always in flux.

A Bible that will always change over time.

I’m sticking with the canonical confessional text.

It never changes.

The KJV will be the same in 2030 as it is today.

The ESV will not…

Word Magazine # 58: Reaction: ESV (2016) “Permanent Text Edition” Fail http://www.jeffriddle.net/2016/09/word-magazine-58-reaction-esv-2016.html