Mon Mar 25 19:59:10 1996

From majordom  Mon Mar 25 19:59:10 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA24231; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 19:59:10 +0500
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 19:56:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: "canonical" text
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 3318
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu



On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, James R. Adair wrote:

> When did the NT text become "canonical," and what exactly is a canonical 
> text?  

I suspect we will have very divergent views on this question, so I will
not make it an issue.  As a conservative evangelical, I do suspect
canonicity to be far earlier than non-evangelicals. 

> My view is that the first recipients of NT documents might have 
> viewed them as having some authority (even 2-3 John?), but they were not 
> viewed as "scripture," much less part of a fixed list of authoritative 
> documents, for at least 300 years (longer in the case of Revelation).  

I would see that time frame as far too long, even considering Eusebius' 
list of the "disputed" books written in the fourth century.  Most NT 
books would have already been recognized as "canonical" within the second 
century at the latest, and even the disputed books were held to be 
canonical by many if not most Christian communities long before Eusebius.

> The whole issue of the canon can be deabted further if there is any 
> interest in that thread, but my point here is that the earliest scribes 
> didn't view the works they were copying as scripture.  Important, yes; 
> authoritative, probably; scripture, not at first.  Thus, they might not 
> have felt as much compunction as later scribes about "fixing" the text in 
> front of them.

I in contrast suspect a greater number of scribes did accept these texts 
as scripture from the earliest times; but their view of what the essence 
of "scripture" was likely did not include a sense of inviolability such 
as held for the Hebrew MT.

> Next, is there such a thing as the "canonical" text?  I don't think so.

None if such is the result of an officially-determined canon together 
with its text.  But I do not even think the canon was ever officially 
determined until after it was unofficially recognized in most communities.
As a Protestant, I would not accept the argument that "the church 
determined the canon", which you mention.

> My point is that without the 
> presumption of a "canonical" text, again scribes might not have felt bad 
> about altering the text in front of them (not to degrade it, but to "fix" 
> it).  

But matters do not change after the canon is established without 
question: there still is a non-uniform text and no official promulgation 
of any specific reading(s).  Yet the scribes in the later eras still had 
a theological view of canonicity and scriptural authority which in 
itself imposed _some_ controls on their copying habits.  I merely suggest 
that such controls in the minds of scribes existed from early times, 
beginning with the fourfold gospel and the Pauline corpus, both clearly 
recognized as canonical "scripture" by the mid-second century.

> The tradition that developed among the Masoretes that involved 
> counting the very letters of the text never seems to have taken hold 
> among Christian copyists.

Agreed. We might have less to do in textual criticism had they done so.


_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back