The Hebrew word and the Greek word for canon mean a reed, stalk or staff. From this translation came the meaning: measuring rod or standard. For the Christian, the canon refers to the authoritative body of divinely inspired truth which make up our 66 book Bible. The term canonicity refers to the qualification for entry into the body of literature that make up the canon. The antecedent to the canonicity of a text is canonization, which is the acknowledgment of the authenticity and authority of the writing by the community of believers. Only after a book had been held to the standard of inspiration by God that was recognized by men of God and preserved by the people of God did it become canonical and enter into the finalized canon.
For the OT there were 4 principles which governed the development of it’s canon. They are, 1) Is it authoritative? Does it speak with divine authority; 2) Is it prophetic? Was it written by the prophets Moses or a subsequent man of God in the prophetic tradition of Moses; 3) Is it authentic? Does it tell the truth in line with previous revelation; 4) Was it received by the people of God? Was it accepted generally by the people of God who read, copied, and collected it with the other Scriptures?
We begin our study for the authority of the OT canon with Moses who was the greatest prophet and consequently the most authoritative source for it’s development (Deut 34:10). Moses was the given the authority to be God’s prophet and spokesman and serve as the mediator of His covenant to all of Israel (Exod 3,4). God then validates this authority through mighty works surrounding Moses prophecies (Deut 34:11-12). Within the writings of Moses we find God’s instructions concerning those chosen prophets who would follow Moses as authentic, acceptable by the canon, spokesmen for God.
With the arrival of the incarnate Christ we are given another authority to the OT canonicity. On many occasions Christ references the OT as the authoritative Word of God. (Matt 23:35; cf. Luke 11:51) With this and with numerous other references to the OT in His teaching He acknowledged the authority of the Hebrew canon (Matt 4:1-4; 5:17-19; 13:48; Luke 24:13-27, 44-45)
For the NT similar principles were followed as to that of the OT Canon. They are, 1) Does it have apostolic authority? This does not necessarily mean it was written by an apostle, but does it bear apostolic authority or approval; 2) Is it prophetic? As in the OT era, so too in the NT era there were prophets, spokesmen for God (Eph 2:20, 3:5); 3) Is it authentic? Does it tell the truth in line with previous revelation? 4) Was it received by the church? Was it read, circulated, copied, collected by the NT people of God (cf. e.g. Col 4:16)?
As Christ came to earth He directly fulfilled the prophecies concerning the promised Messiah and the return to canonical prophecy and writing (Deut 18:15-19). Like Moses, Jesus’ authority was validated by the miracles and signs He performed (John 10:38). Therefore, as Moses was the mediator of the Old Testament Canon, Christ is the mediator of the New (Heb 8:6). On the basis of Christ’s being the Son of God and in line with His revelatory ministry as the Word of God we find our base for the development of the NT canon.
The canon of God’s Word is closed today. There are clear indications in the NT that once the body of the apostolic teaching was delivered the Word of God was complete (Jude 3; Rev 22:18-19) In Revelation 22:18-19 we have the prohibition of any addition or subtraction of God’s Word. If the Lord has given us His complete and truthful Word it would be foolhardy to attempt to manipulate it in any way. While man may grow in their understanding of the Holy God and while there may be discoveries of various texts of scripture there will be no deviation from what has already been revealed.
The original OT and NT texts were transmitted through scholars who dedicated their lives to preserving the text's accuracy when they handmade copies. The great lengths the scribes went to guarantee the reliability of the copies is illustrated by the fact that they would count every letter and every word, and record in the margins such things as the middle letter and word of the Torah. If there was a single error that was found, the copy was immediately destroyed. However, the issue of textual variance is of little significance to the Christian faith in that the texts in question do not specifically deal with, or are not exclusively used to solidify formal doctrine and/or beliefs.
I personal prefer to use the critical texts over the majority texts. I say this for 2 reasons: 1) There is less variance in the critical text as they relate to one another; 2) It would stand to reason that the texts that were circulated and handled the most would be the least preserved.
In regards to translation of the original text into various languages there are two methods that are used, formal translation and functional translation. Formal translation holds to a word-for-word translation, as much as is possible, of the original text into a given language. Functional translation seeks to take the original words and translate them into socially relevant terms and concepts in order to aid understanding. Any work to translate the inspired Words of God through human intellect, emotion and will is dangerous and should be held in the most sensitive areas of our understanding of God’s revelation.
I personally prefer to use the New King James translation for my study and delivery when in the OT due to the poetic flow of the language and the care with which it was developed. When in the NT I prefer the New American Standard or English Standard Version having found them to line up more closely with the Greek New Testament.
Although we have no access to the original autographs of scripture we have access to copies and translations. In as much as copies and translations preserve the text to the autographs, they are the inspired Word of God. While it may be true that those who copied and translated the originals may have mistook some words and phrases in their work and erred in some lesser and lighter matters, we have our confidence in the fact that these errors do not effect any momentous article of faith or practice and therefore such translations as ours may be regarded as the rule of faith. Off of these statements we can firmly believe that the English Bibles we hold in our hands today are the inspired Word of God, albeit in a derived sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment