Tue Mar 26 19:05:04 1996

From majordom  Tue Mar 26 19:05:04 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA00829; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 19:05:04 +0500
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 19:02:09 -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: 2317
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu



On Tue, 26 Mar 1996, Carlton L. Winbery wrote:

> Concerning the question of the cononical text, Bruce Metzger has a very
> short discussion of this question in The Canon of the NT, pp. 267-270.  He
> concludes that the category of 'canonical' appears to have been broad
> enough to include all variant readings.  

I would concur on this point.  I do not think canonicity ever excluded 
particular variant readings one way or the other.  "Non-canonical" texts 
were non-biblical text, plain and simple.

> He specifically mentions variants
> like the ending of Mark, Luke 22:43-44, John 7:53-8:11, and Acts 8:37.  I
> first heard the material in this part of his book on Canon in an address in
> New Orleans.  I asked him specifically at that time would he include the
> Comma Johanneum in that class and he said "No."  His reason was because of
> the lateness (12th cent. in Greek) and the way it got in, a trick played on
> Erasmus.

This latter raises an interesting point.  Although the Byzantine text 
includes the long ending of Mark, Lk.22:43-44, and Jn.7:53-8:11, it 
excludes Acts 8:37 and the Johannine Comma (1Jn.5:7).  Yet in my various 
Greek NT editions published by the Greek Orthodox Church, Ac.8:37 
continues to be printed in normal type in the ZWH Brotherhood edition but 
in reduced type in the Antoniades edition, with 1Jn.5:7 printed in the main 
text in reduced type in both the ZWH and Antoniades editions.

I would like to hear input from Greek Orthodox scholars on these two clearly 
non-Byzantine passages which nevertheless are retained in their 
"canonical" printed editions (and no, it is not because those editions 
present a form of the Textus Receptus, since they otherwise agree quite 
closely with Von Soden's "K" or the N27 "M" designations as to the 
formal Byzantine text as opposed to the TR).  It seems to me that the 
Greek Orthodox Church chooses to walk a quasi-canonical line in the case 
of those two passages which does not accord with their own historical 
tradition.


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

Back