Part One:
And Part Two:
Sit back, grab some popcorn, and enjoy!
Here is the text of my closing statement:
Here is the text of my closing statement:
In closing, I’d like to briefly consider three different
approaches to the role of tradition in the compilation of the text of the New
Testament.
One view is to look at how much agreement there is, along all transmission-lines, and conclude, “Textual
variants do not matter. Everyone agrees
that you’ve got the basics of the gospel if you use the Textus Receptus. So let’s use
that, for the sake of stability.”
Another approach is to focus on the disagreements. A person
might say, “This is very complicated, and we just can’t tell what the original
readings are. The safest course of
action is to just go on using what the church has traditionally used.”
If one defines “the church” in terms of what emerged from
the Reformation, that approach will provoke the adoption of the Textus Receptus. If one defines “the church” in a wider sense,
the traditional Greek text is the Byzantine Text. Ecclesiastical approval is on its side.
But both of those approaches are basically appeals to
authority: authority in the form of
tradition. And an appeal to authority is
not the same as an appeal to evidence. A
reading is authoritative because it is original
– not simply because it is thought
to be original. Except for scribal
blunders, practically all major readings were thought to be original by somebody;
that is why they are in the manuscripts.
It takes more than being accepted by someone to vindicate a reading.
When dogmatic statements are used instead of arguments from
evidence, it’s like saying, “We have been using mumpsimus, so mumpsimus
is what should be said.” But readings do
not become authoritative by being used.
An original reading is authoritative at the point of its inspired creation. And scribal corruptions are never
authoritative, because they are not inspired – no matter how many people like
them.
There is also a third view, in which someone says, “If
ecclesiastical usage is what endows a reading with authority, then all readings
are valid, because they all have at least a little bit of ecclesiastical usage
in their favor,” and this provokes a temptation to clutter the margins with a
multitude of textual variants. Not only
does this render the text more unstable than ever, inviting readers to pick and
choose, but it is the exact opposite of what textual critics are supposed to
do, which is, make decisions about textual contests.
I suggest that tradition does have a valid role, though, in
certain cases:
● if two competing textual variants both have strong
external support, and
● they convey two different messages, and
● neither is shown by internal considerations to be
non-original, and
● one or both readings says something that is not confirmed
in other passages,
that is a
situation that merits a footnote.
But which reading goes into the text, and which one goes
into the margin? After those qualifications
are met, there is something to be said for the principle that possession is
nine-tenth of the law. If one reading
consistently dominates the other, in terms of widespread and longstanding use,
then, instead of having a relatively brief Council of Bishops to break the tie,
we have a very long Council of Use. This
approach might not resolve every case, but it will help keep textual
instability to a minimum, without giving tradition the right to veto the
original text.
