sThank you for the information.
Instead he argues that texts are always fluid and their dynamism should be explored rather than tamed by dubious static notions of originality and corruption.
Thats indeed a very important saying. Because from the oral tradition to the writings and even in the time of writing down the New Testament memories or letters there was no central authority that decided what kind of text is "acceptable" or not. The "writing down"-project was a "living" project.... as you call it "dynamic".
The fact that there are version of the text e.g. in Acts where we have a text with and without "strangled", texts with better grammer or less grammer, more fanciful stories and more autere stories, all this is hint that it doesnt turn around what is the earliest manuscript but about how the text developed, was accepted, then how it was used, by whom and for what and where. Alone these things are things we can be happy to have a bible, a single word, or phrase can reveal much about the history of development but doesnt urge us to become literalits and bigoted.
This is an interesting series of lectures about the Development of the New Testament, by Prof. Dr. Stefan Schreiber at University Heidelberg. - from oral tradition until biblical canon principle. He compares the development of the biblical canon with the differene between sect and church.
"Plurality is allowed and at the same time limited, thats the canon principle."
This decision is important if one thinks socialogical.
For a sect, as social term, its characteristic that it creates homogenity. Members of a sect have to follow very plain the rules of the group and there is nothing outside of the group. A very plain limited course.
For a church it is again characteristic that it is plural but not arbitrary. In a church more streams will have room.
For me that seems to be very important if I look in my church.....where there are certain tendencies of narrowing. It is not liked anymore that one thinks to much in this or that direction. That is not in.
Thats understandable at one hand, because one has then a clear line, but on the other side there is the problem that the plurality that is inherent for Christendom falls by the wayside.- Then church becomes a narrow corrodor and no vastness" (translation mine)
The bible development, the acceptance of bandwith, more spectrum than one in the canonization-process, how the church handled it, itself is a witness for PLURALITY at one hand and LIMITATION at the other hand. Thoughts have to be allowed. A sect can even be created by publishing an own bible translation.
If the Governing Body would listen to such information that would change much in the watchtowers understanding.