And the Goal of New Testament Textual Criticism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RECONSTRUCTING THE TEXT OF THE CHURCH: THE “CANONICAL TEXT” AND THE GOAL OF NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM by DAVID RICHARD HERBISON A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Master of Arts in Biblical Studies We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard ............................................................................... Dr. Kent Clarke, Ph.D.; Thesis Supervisor ................................................................................ Dr. Craig Allert, Ph.D.; Second Reader TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY December 2015 © David Richard Herbison ABSTRACT Over the last several decades, a number of scholars have raised questions about the feasibility of achieving New Testament textual criticism’s traditional goal of establishing the “original text” of the New Testament documents. In light of these questions, several alternative goals have been proposed. Among these is a proposal that was made by Brevard Childs, arguing that text critics should go about reconstructing the “canonical text” of the New Testament rather than the “original text.” However, concepts of “canon” have generally been limited to discussions of which books were included or excluded from a list of authoritative writings, not necessarily the specific textual readings within those writings. Therefore, any proposal that seeks to apply notions of “canon” to the goals and methods of textual criticism warrants further investigation. This thesis evaluates Childs’ proposal by asking two overarching questions. First, is there historical evidence that supports the existence of a “canonical text” of the New Testament as a lost artifact, and therefore a valid object of historical reconstruction? Second, if such evidence exists, should modern text critics and exegetes prefer this textform to more traditional reconstructions? This study concludes that there is little evidence to support the existence of a lost “canonical text” of the New Testament, and that even if one assumes the existence of such a text, there are good reasons for continuing to prefer more traditional reconstructions. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................. 2 ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER 1: ISSUES WITH “ORIGINAL TEXT” ........................................................................... 8 1.1. THE TRADITIONAL GOAL AND METHODS OF NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM ................... 10 1.2. PROBLEMS WITH CONCEPTIONS OF THE “ORIGINAL TEXT” ............................................................ 12 1.2.1. Focus is too Narrow ................................................................................................................. 12 1.2.2. Which Stage is “Original”? ..................................................................................................... 14 1.2.3. Eclectic Text is not the Church’s Text ...................................................................................... 18 1.2.3.1. Majority Text/Byzantine Textform ...................................................................................................................... 18 1.2.3.2. Follow the Earliest Manuscripts .......................................................................................................................... 20 1.2.3.3. Adopt a Single Manuscript .................................................................................................................................. 22 1.2.3.4. Reconstruction of a “Canonical Text” ................................................................................................................. 25 1.3. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................. 32 CHAPTER 2: CANONICITY—AT WHAT LEVEL? BOOKS, READINGS, AND THE CHURCH FATHERS ............................................................................................................................... 34 2.1. CHURCH FATHERS AND EARLY CHRISTIAN BOOKS ......................................................................... 35 2.2. TREATMENT OF VARIANTS BY THE CHURCH FATHERS ................................................................... 40 2.2.1. Types of Textual Data Referenced by the Fathers .................................................................... 41 2.2.1.1. Reading Supported by Greek Manuscripts .......................................................................................................... 41 2.2.1.2. Reading Supported by Numerous or the Majority of Manuscripts ...................................................................... 43 2.2.1.3. Reading Preferred Based on Meaning and/or Context ........................................................................................ 44 2.2.1.4. Reading Supported by Latin Manuscripts ............................................................................................................ 45 2.2.1.5. Reading Supported by Earlier Manuscripts ......................................................................................................... 46 2.2.1.6. Reading Supported by “Accurate” Manuscripts .................................................................................................. 46 2.2.1.7. Reading Supported by Specific Copies or Authors ............................................................................................. 48 2.2.1.8. Reading Preferred Due to Non-Textual Evidence ............................................................................................... 49 2.2.2. The Fathers’ Response to Variation ......................................................................................... 50 2.2.2.1. Variant Mentioned ............................................................................................................................................... 51 2.2.2.2. Exegete Multiple Variant Readings ..................................................................................................................... 52 2.2.2.3. Neither Reading Changes the Text’s Meaning .................................................................................................... 54 2.2.2.4. Cause for the Introduction of a Reading Proposed .............................................................................................. 55 2.2.2.5. Heretics/Orthodox at Fault for Variant ................................................................................................................ 56 2.2.3. Potential Use of “Canonical” Terminology to Describe Variant Readings ............................ 58 2.2.3.1. Anastasius Abbot of Sinai, Viae Dux 22.3 .......................................................................................................... 58 2.2.3.2. Victor of Antioch, Comm. Mark 16:8-9 .............................................................................................................. 58 2.2.3.3. Eusebius, Quaest. Marin. 1.1-2 ............................................................................................................................ 59 2.2.3.4. Epiphanius, Anc. 31.4-5 ....................................................................................................................................... 59 2.2.3.5. Pseudo-Athanasius, De sancta trinitate 3.20 [Didymus?] .................................................................................... 60 2.2.3.6. Basil, Eun. 2.19 .................................................................................................................................................... 61 2.2.4. Canonical Terminology Applied to Variant Readings? ........................................................... 61 2.3. MULTIPLE COMMUNITIES—MULTIPLE CANONICAL TEXTS ............................................................ 63 2.4. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................. 64 CHAPTER 3: IN SEARCH OF A CANONICAL TEXT: CANONICAL TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND THE MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE ................................................................................................. 67 3.1. AN EXAMPLE OF THE CANONICAL METHOD OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM ............................................ 67 3.2. IS THERE A “CANONICAL TEXT”? MATT 26 AS A CASE STUDY ...................................................... 76 3.2.1. Choice of Text and Manuscripts ............................................................................................... 77 3.2.2. Statistical Analysis .................................................................................................................... 79 3.2.3. Corrections ............................................................................................................................... 82 3.2.4. Significant Variants .................................................................................................................. 99 3.3. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................ 120 3 CHAPTER 4: THE CANONICAL TEXT: PREFERABLE? ......................................................... 126 4.1. THE