Random thoughts on Canonicity

In the comments of my last post, I was accused of not "recogniz[ing] the Canon of Scripture". That's a charge I can't say has ever been levelled against me before, and it got me to thinking... Perhaps we need to talk about the issues involved in canonicity. If you have no interest whatsoever in how we came to have the Bible we now have, you may safely skip this post. For the rest of you...

There are a lot of issues tied up in this. I'm not quite sure how to approach this subject - it's potentially vast and complicated - so I'll just "shot-gun" a few topics in broad strokes. If anything in particular interests you, feel free to comment or send me an email and I can get into more detail.

So on with the broad brush:

A) Textual issues: There are two major "text types" floating around with regard to the New Testament. [The OT is pretty much dominated by one text type, the Masoretic Text.] One (the Majority Text) is generally much more numerous but not (comparatively) as old; the other (the Eclectic/Alexandrian Text) is generally much less numerous but significantly older. Which is more likely true? It's honestly more a question of philosophy than theology.

B) Textual variants: Within an given text type, there are always variations of a particular verse, phrase, or word. If - for example - a particular variation only shows up in one or two places out of a possible 75, the variation is normally ignored and few people ever know otherwise. If, however, a variation has more claim to consideration, most study Bibles will make a footnote of it. This is why your Bible sometimes has a footnote that reads, "some manuscripts read _____".

Not all variants are created equal, as you can imagine. The two most debated/heated are a) the reading of 1 John 5:7-8, and b) the "longer ending" of Mark (Mark 16:9-20). With regard to the first, only the text upon which the KJV is based (the so-called Textus Receptus, a micro-sized version of the Majority Text) reads

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

Every other text out there argues that some of these words are not in the originals, and thus have something like:

For there are three that testify, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement.

If you're paying attention, you probably already guessed why this is such a hot button for some people - if the Textus Receptus (KJV) version could be trusted, this is undoubtedly the clearest text in all of the Bible supporting the Trinity. But that doesn't change the fact that the extra words in question have almost no support in the massive amount of Greek fragments of the NT we've dug up and uncovered. It's just hugely unlikely that John actually penned those words. The only folk that argue otherwise are the most radical of the KJV-only people.

The other biggie is the longer ending of Mark. I went into some detail about it in my previous post, so I'll not bore you with the details here. It's not nearly as plain a choice as the 1 John 5 issue - most translations of the Bible therefore include the words, but with a footnote explaining the controversy a bit.

C) The formation of the Canon: This one gets a bit tricky. One thing that must be observed is the difference between the official approval and the common acceptance of the NT canon. There are those that will argue that the NT wasn't even "decided upon" until ______: they often pick Athanasius' Easter Letter of AD 367, but other dates/events are common. This is nonsense. The early church had a pretty clear picture of what writings they considered to be inspired from a fairly early date. For example, by the early 4th century AD Eusebius gives us a list of NT books that is virtually identical to ours today - the only difference being that he did not consider Revelation to be Scripture unless it could be shown for certain that John wrote it.

In general, the early church seems to have used apostolicity (was it written by an Apostle or a close associate of an Apostle), harmony (does it agree with the rest of Scripture), and geographic scope (have churches in other parts of the Empire regard it as Scripture) as the primary guides for deciding on Canonicity.

It's also important to note that the early church did not see itself as "deciding upon" or "selecting" the Canon. They viewed their role as discovery - looking for indications that God had authored a given text.

D) Autographa: Finally, let us note that the original manuscripts of the NT (the "autographa") - that is, the actual letters that, say, Paul wrote - no longer exist. Not a single autographa has ever been discovered. Frankly, I don't think they ever will be, since I find it likely that mankind would unduly venerate them (the same reason I find it unlikely the Ark of the Covenant will ever be found, though not why I doubt we'll ever find Noah's Ark). But the fact that we don't have the originals is of no real concern. We have over 3,000 copies of various sections of the NT, many of them dating back to within 400 years of the autographa (and some much closer than that). To put it in perspective, you can count on one hand the number of ancient manuscripts we have on hand of most ancient works. The recorded works of Homer, for example - only a copy or two dating back as far as the NT manuscript evidence. We don't even have all that many early copies of more common works - Shakespeare, for example. Yet no one doubts the accuracy of these other works. How much more so should we have confidence in our modern Bible?

E) Theological Issues: I would be remiss if I didn't point out that despite the various text types and textual variants there are no significant differences in the fundamental doctrines of the Bible. Moreover, some 97% of the various text agree with one another in all but the most mundane of details. Even the remaining 3% (roughly) is made up of mostly inconsequential issues like word order and articular/anarthrous constructions. The only two issues hotly contested I spoke about above - 1 John 5:7-8 and the longer ending of Mark. And even those are of little consequence in the grand scheme of things. Do we need the Textus Receptus version of 1 John 5:7-8 to show the Trinity from Scripture? Certainly not! If the longer ending of Mark turns out to be a later addition to the Bible and therefore not actually Canonical does it really effect our theology? Are we really that concerned about handling snakes and drinking poison (the only thematic elements not included in the other Gospels)? Hopefully not.

---

So, is all this now as clear as mud? Anything strike you as needing further analysis?

Hatushili

PS: I trust that you understand I have a very high view of Scripture, and that this discussion of some of the issues involved in the Canonicity debate does not change that fact. In fact, if I held a low view of Scripture, why would I even bother talking about this stuff?