Canonicity

The basic belief of Christians about the Bible is that it is the inspired Word of God as written — and copied and translated — by men. We have seen the main road the Bible has taken to get to us, but what of its difficult journey? How do we know we have the ideals, the theology, and the actual facts that the writers originally intended? Since we know that we do not have access to any of these writings in their original forms, what can we say of their copies and translations? We also know that the church of the first and second centuries was mercilessly persecuted by the Roman Caesar and the church of the middle ages was similarly repressed by the Roman Pope. The scriptures were therefore anything but numerous. Combine this with the time and difficulty then involved with traveling and permitting correlation between groups of Christians, and you can see that, until the introduction of the printing press, the accurate transmission of the New Testament text was sometimes a tricky thing to accomplish. So how can we know that we have the Bible as God intended us to have it?

First a review of the “acknowledgment” of the canon. I use the word acknowledgment because our acceptation of the scriptures that make up the canon is really what is at question. The scriptures that have been genuinely inspired by the Holy Ghost are canonical, those that weren’t are not. Our judgment of their “canonicity” really has no relation to their actual status. The burden is upon us to realize their authority. There are some generally accepted rules that allow us to investigate a book of scripture to determine its status based on its conformity to these criteria. These are:

• Apostolicity = Was the author an apostle or some other close source to the events or ideas written about?
• Content = Was the subject matter and the treatment given it of the caliber normally associated with scripture?
• Universality = Was the content applicable to any and every Christian, or did the work seem to favor a particular viewpoint?
• Divine Inspiration = Did the Holy Ghost endorse it? Did it agree with other scripture?

Several of the books of our New Testament were questioned early in church history. They were Hebrews, 2nd Peter, 2nd & 3rd John, James, and Jude. The authorship of these works were questioned more than any other factor. Most start by saying that they have been written by a “servant” of Jesus, not an apostle, as Paul does in his letters. It is not insignificant to note that even if an author says he IS an apostle, he might not be. Furthermore, the book of James is addressed to Jewish Christians, making it questionable on another point. The book of Jude quotes from the book of Enoch, an obviously well-known book, but one that is not included in the Old Testament canon. In any case, the writers themselves knew what they were doing, and it is in part because of this, that the New Testament scriptures have come to be recognized as canonical. The writer of 2nd Peter claims inspiration for Paul’s letters in 3:15,16. Paul quotes in 1st Timothy 5:18 that “The laborer is worthy of his hire,” an expression that only occurs in Matthew 10:10 and Luke 10:7. Paul personally claimed divine inspiration several times (c.f. 1st Corinthians 2:7-13, 14:37; 1st Thessalonians 2:13), as did John in The Revelation. Paul intended his letters to be read in the churches (c.f. Colossians 4:16; 1st Thessalonians 5:27; 2nd Thessalonians 2:15). Peter wrote that his teachings should last (c.f. 2nd Peter 1:15, 3:1,2). In the case of all of these questioned books, though, the witness of their inspiration became evident over time and they all came to be accepted as scripture. In the West, this general consensus happened around 400 A.D., helped in part by the 3rd Council of Carthage in 397, which declared our present 27 books of scripture as the canon of the New Testament. Consensus congealed in the East around 500 A.D.

With the question of which books to include in the Bible settled, it still remains to obtain the best reading of the various manuscripts in existence. Now understand that of any ancient literary work, the Bible is the most well attested, most cross referenced and verified, and most supported by archeology. Though the original works are no longer available, we have copies that sometimes date back to the second century: perhaps copies of copies of the originals. Considering the amount of credence which is given to works by Homer and Shakespeare, whose works were transmitted orally for decades before being written down, biblical scholarship should have more respect. But in all honesty, though many express just such an opinion, the truth is that no other work but the Bible needs the closest scrutiny we can apply, because no other work matters as much. Modern discoveries have provided over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament books. Most are fractional, given to corruption by time and elements, but many are very nearly complete and in good condition, even for a written document that is centuries old. The problem is that, while there is good agreement with these various copies, they were copied by men: men who make mistakes. It is an inescapable fact of life. And so these copies do express differences. Many people stop there and declare that it thus proven that we cannot rely on the Bible as the guide to life that it purports to be. But when the smoke screen of rhetoric is cleared away, one can see that the difficulties presented by the differing of the manuscripts are not insurmountable.

Sources of error in the extant manuscripts

1. Singularities: Some sources simply have unique readings that cannot be cross referenced. These are usually insignificant modifications.
2. Scribal
3. 1. Intentional
   2. 1. Harmonization: Making similar passages identical. The copyist would think to improve the work adjusting a scripture that was almost the same as another. Most common in the synoptic gospels. Compare Matthew 12:13 and Mark 3:5. The earlier versions of the scripture in mark stop at “restored.”
      2. Removal of heresy: Carefully guarding word order or word choice so that no reproach could be made against the doctrines of the Bible. See Luke 23:32. The comma makes it clear that only the 2 others are criminals, whereas one early reading says, “Also other criminals, two, were led away to be put to death with him,” making it appear as though Jesus is also a criminal.
      3. Clarification: Where an explanatory note has crept into the text. See John 5:4. The better texts don’t have this verse. It was inserted later for explanation.
   3. Unintentional
   4. 1. Spelling and Skipped Lines: Sometimes lines can be skipped if they start or end the same.
         1. Mark 10:46 has: “…to give his life a ransom for many. And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho …”
         2. John 17:15 has: “I do not pray that thou shouldest take them from the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one.”
      2. Familiarization: Giving a passage the same reading as another without thinking. Completing the thought echoed somewhere else and not catching it.
4. Editorial: Blending or otherwise modifying in order to preserve the thought, though it may change the reading. See Mark 9:49. Some texts have “For every one shall be salted with fire;” some have “For every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.” The KJV is a combination of them both.
5. Translation: Ambiguity brought out by translation that needs to be resolved can change, if but slightly, the meaning. See Matthew 26:27. “Drink of it all of you,” or “All of you drink of it?” Which is correct? How much does it matter?
6. Standardization: More of a vehicle to propagate the variant readings. Once the changes have been made, the “standard” version would circulate to the exclusion of other copies. This had the effect of making what might have been a clearer rendering more rare.

Guidelines for choosing the best text

1. Old Methods
2. 1. Custom: Simply following what was already in practice. Say, choosing a KJV rendering when a slightly better one might be had in the NIV, but doing so in order to maintain uniformity.
   2. Majority opinion: Just because everyone says that a particular reading is the best does not make it the best. Nor would the fact (as witnessed by point 5 above) that a particular reading had the largest number of copies made of it be grounds for acceptance as the best.
   3. Date: Just because a manuscript is old does not necessarily mean it is closer to the original. The early copy may have been made from a poor, though earlier, copy. Conversely, an older text may have been copied from a very accurate copy.
   4. Quality: Biblical experts classify the manuscripts into “genealogical” trees. It would seem that particular families of texts could be trusted more than others, but this is not the case. By following the texts very closely, the original complete texts can be seen to be an agglutination of families that may or may not have been copied well. Thus many MS are to hodgepodge in their attempt at conformity to the original to classify as “good” or “bad.”
   5. Genealogy: The problem described above manifests itself as an obstruction to tracing the roots of particular MS, again stifling the efforts at finding the best text. Just because the MS reads like another doesn’t mean it won’t be a poorer copy later in the text.
   6. Quotation: Many times the New Testament has been cross-referenced by the way the early church “fathers” quoted it in their writings. It is now known that they frequently cited the same passages differently than other writers and even sometimes differently in their own writings at a different time. Because they were closer to the time of the writings, it was assumed that they had better texts, copies of which agreed with one another well. Modern scholarship has shown that this may not have been the case.
   7. Geography: Again, the “family tree” of the copy cannot be judged by where it was found. Just because a manuscript was unearthed at Jerusalem doesn’t mean it came straight down from a close source or that it was copied from a good manuscript.
3. New Methods
4. 1. External Evidence: Comparing copies with others in the “tree;” though the assumptions that have long been held in practicing this procedure are now seen as not necessarily true.
   2. Internal Evidence: Hort of the Hort & Wescott standard Greek New Testament has 2 rules he follows in putting together the best reading from all of the available manuscripts:
   3. 1. Intrinsic Probability = The reading is to be preferred which best suits the context. Thus, for a confusing reading, what — in the vein of the discourse – is expected? This guiding principle requires the complete understanding of the author of the book as well as its intended audience and purpose. It also requires a perfect grasp of the idiom, or the grammatical, syntactical, and stylistic considerations of the language at hand.
      2. Transcriptural Probability = The reading is to be preferred which explains the origin of all of the others. Again, for several varied readings, what one reading might have caused this variation? This guiding idea requires full knowledge of the historical setting – the time and the place – in which the work was produced – both originally and the from the setting of the copy – in order to understand why a variant reading might have been produced.
   4. Conjectural Emendation: “Best guess fixing.” When the biblical scholar has exhausted the suggestions the first 2 rules might have provided, it is time to use his best judgment. To use unqualified judgments is as bad as to never use them at all. Given the state of the manuscripts, such situations will occur. However, in the light of today’s discoveries, such need has dwindled to an appreciable low. Earnest C. Colwell, President of the University of Chicago, says, “… it is seldom that a modern edition of the New Testament will contain more than 2 or 3 conjectures. For in the wealth of the manuscript evidence, it is probable that the original reading has survived.”

As an example of these modern methods, we will review the text from 1st Corinthians 15:51. Codex Vaticanus has, “We shall not all sleep, but shall all be changed.” Codex Sinaiticus reads, “We shall all sleep, but we shall not all be changed.” Codex Bezae: “We shall all be raised, but we shall not all be changed.” The Beatty Papyrus has, “We shall not all sleep, and we shall not all be changed.” Because Vaticanus has the more challenging theological implications, and because one can find a way to explain the others by it, and because it is the most well known and widely attested, it is the reading to be preferred. The King James settles on, “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.”

[ BACK ] [ UP ] [ NEXT ]