 |
| Image: Bruce Metzger (1914-2007) |
The Canonical Text
“THE textual diversity among the manuscripts of the New Testament is well known, presenting, as they do, several characteristic types of text, chief of which are the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Byzantine or Ecclesiastical text-types.' The question arises what attitude with respect to the canon should be taken toward these several types of text of the New Testament books. Is one type of text to be regarded as the canonical text, and if so, what authority should be accorded variant readings which differ from that text?” (p. 267).
The Text-Canon and The Long Ending of Mark
“Today we know that the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to Mark (xvi. 9-20) are absent from the oldest Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian manuscripts, and that in other manuscripts asterisks or obeli mark the verses as doubtful or spurious. Eusebius and Jerome, well aware of such variation in the witnesses, discussed which form of text was to be preferred. It is noteworthy, however, that neither Father suggested that one form was canonical and the other was not. Furthermore, the perception that the canon was basically closed did not lead to a slavish fixing of the text of the canonical books. Thus, the category of 'canonical' appears to have been broad enough to include all variant readings (as well as variant renderings in early versions) that emerged during the course of the transmission of the New Testament documents while apostolic tradition was still a living entity, with an intermingling of written and oral forms of that tradition. Already in the second century, for example, the so-called long ending of Mark was known to Justin Martyr and to Tatian, who incorporated it into his Diatesseron. There seems to be good reason, therefore, to conclude that, though external and internal evidence is conclusive against the authenticity of the last twelve verses as coming from the same pen as the rest of the Gospel, the passage ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark” (pp. 269-270).
“In short, it appears that the question of canonicity pertains to the document qua document, and not to one particular form or version of that document. Translated into modern terms, Churches today accept a wide variety of contemporary versions as the canonical New Testament, though the versions differ not only as to rendering but also with respect to the presence or absence of certain verses in several of the books (besides the ending of Mark's Gospel, other significant variations include Luke xxii. 43-4, John vii. 53-viii. u , 8 and Acts viii. 37)” (p. 270).
The Ecclesiastical Text-Canon: Theoretically Open; Practically Closed
“[I]t appears that, though from a theoretical point of view the way is open for the possible addition of another book or epistle to the New Testament canon, it is problematic that any would, so to say, meet the standards, whether ancient or modern, of accreditation” (p. 273).
The Historical Ecclesiastical Text-Canon
“To remove one or more books from the New Testament canon as hitherto defined would sever bonds that have united groups of believers, and thus would almost certainly result in still greater fragmentation of the Church. Furthermore, at this late date in the history of the Christian Church, to delete one or more books from the canon, even if such a proposal could find general approval, would result in cutting off important historical roots of the Church” (p. 274).
The Received Ecclesiastical Text-Canon
“True enough, occasionally the suggestion is made that, for example, the Ignatian epistles should be added to the New Testament canon, and 2 Peter and/or Jude should be dropped. But, on the whole, there is no significant body of opinion within the churches that wishes to see the New Testament canon altered, either by enlargement or by reduction. One may predict that individual views and proposals will die a natural death. It may be concluded, therefore, that, while the New Testament canon should, from a theoretical point of view, be regarded as open in principle for either the addition or the deletion of one or more books, from a practical point of view such a modification can scarcely be contemplated as either possible or desirable. To say that the canon may be revised is not the same as saying it must be revised. The canon by which the Church has lived over the centuries emerged in history, the result of a slow and gradual process. To be sure, in this canon there are documents less firmly attested by external criteria than others. But the several parts have all been cemented together by usage and by general acceptance in the Church, which has recognized, and recognizes, that God has spoken and is speaking to her in and through this body of early Christian literature. As regards this social fact, nothing can be changed; the Church has received the canon of the New Testament as it is today, in the same way as the Synagogue has had bequeathed to it the Hebrew canon. In short, the canon cannot be remade—for the simple reason that history cannot be remade” (pp. 274-275).
The Ecclesiastical Text-Canon
“The word κανών has an active sense, referring to those books that serve to mark out the norm for Christian faith and life; it has also a passive sense, referring to the list of books that have been marked out by the Church as normative” (p. 283).
“The self-authenticating witness of the word testified to the divine origin of the gospel that had brought the Church into being; such is the implication of Paul's words to the Thessalonians: 'We thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of any human being but as what it really is, the word of God which is at work in you believers' (1 Thess. ii. 13). During the second and succeeding centuries, this authoritative word was found, not in the utterances of contemporary leaders and teachers, but in the apostolic testimony contained within certain early Christian writings. From this point of view the Church did not create the canon, but came to recognize, accept, affirm, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church. If this fact is obscured, one comes into serious conflict not with dogma but with history” (pp. 286-287).
A Theologically Diverse and Limited Ecclesiastical Text-Canon
“In short, the canon recognizes the validity of diversity of theological expression, and marks the limits of acceptable diversity within the Church” (281-282).
An Unalterable Ecclesiastical Text-Canon
“A 'canon' that alters is scarcely worthy of the name” (p. 282).
The Critical Scholars’ Duty to the Church
“New Testament scholars have the responsibility as servants of the Church to investigate, understand, and elucidate, for the development of the Christian life of believers, the full meaning of every book within the canon and not only of those which may be most popular in certain circles and at certain times. Only in such a way will the Church be able to hear the Word of God in all of its breadth and depth” (p. 282).
No comments:
Post a Comment