Comments for http://www.canonicaltheology.com Considering the Canon Sat, 01 May 2010 01:27:52 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 Comment on Event with Stephen Chapman by Matt Emerson http://www.canonicaltheology.com/?p=172&cpage=1#comment-519 Matt Emerson Sat, 01 May 2010 01:27:52 +0000 http://www.canonicaltheology.com/?p=172#comment-519 Corey, We do have it recorded but have not yet made it available. If it does come available we will definitely let that be known on this site. In Christ, Matt Emerson Corey,
We do have it recorded but have not yet made it available. If it does come available we will definitely let that be known on this site.

In Christ,
Matt Emerson

]]> Comment on Event with Stephen Chapman by Corey Reeder http://www.canonicaltheology.com/?p=172&cpage=1#comment-518 Corey Reeder Fri, 30 Apr 2010 01:31:19 +0000 http://www.canonicaltheology.com/?p=172#comment-518 I heard that this meeting was recorded. Do you know where we can download the audio? Thanks. I heard that this meeting was recorded. Do you know where we can download the audio? Thanks.

]]> Comment on The Context of Theology and Exegesis by Luke Wisley http://www.canonicaltheology.com/?p=166&cpage=1#comment-511 Luke Wisley Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:45:29 +0000 http://www.canonicaltheology.com/?p=166#comment-511 Matt, I was wondering if "Anthology" was the odd word out when it comes to composition. In my understanding composition has more intentionality than what anthology can bring. LGW Matt,

I was wondering if “Anthology” was the odd word out when it comes to composition. In my understanding composition has more intentionality than what anthology can bring.

LGW

]]> Comment on The Locus of Revelation by Ryan http://www.canonicaltheology.com/?p=169&cpage=1#comment-509 Ryan Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:05:13 +0000 http://www.canonicaltheology.com/?p=169#comment-509 This author places the locus of revelation in a reconstructed historical past, not in the Scriptures themselves. He commendably holds the Scriptures to be accurate "history," but, I believe, wrongly regards the Scriptures to be merely a repository for facts. The facts are then constructed into theories about the revelation, but the Scripture itself is not seen as revelation or the locus for the meaning of revelation. At least, that's what Sailhamer seems to say, and I find myself agreeing with him. This author places the locus of revelation in a reconstructed historical past, not in the Scriptures themselves. He commendably holds the Scriptures to be accurate “history,” but, I believe, wrongly regards the Scriptures to be merely a repository for facts. The facts are then constructed into theories about the revelation, but the Scripture itself is not seen as revelation or the locus for the meaning of revelation. At least, that’s what Sailhamer seems to say, and I find myself agreeing with him.

]]> Comment on The Context of Theology and Exegesis by Matt Emerson http://www.canonicaltheology.com/?p=166&cpage=1#comment-505 Matt Emerson Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:11:23 +0000 http://www.canonicaltheology.com/?p=166#comment-505 Matt C., I definitely agree that editing/composition should be included in our view of authorship. It is not, though, clear to me how piecing together texts or adding seams to them (e.g. the composition of the Tanak) supersedes or changes the (perhaps only subtle) differences of the meaning of words in the different parts of the whole. In my opinion word definition should be determined first by immediate context, but this does not exclude that determination being influenced by the canonical context. I'm still thinking through this as well, just some things to consider. Matt Emerson Matt C.,
I definitely agree that editing/composition should be included in our view of authorship. It is not, though, clear to me how piecing together texts or adding seams to them (e.g. the composition of the Tanak) supersedes or changes the (perhaps only subtle) differences of the meaning of words in the different parts of the whole. In my opinion word definition should be determined first by immediate context, but this does not exclude that determination being influenced by the canonical context. I’m still thinking through this as well, just some things to consider.

Matt Emerson

]]> Comment on The Context of Theology and Exegesis by Matt Carter http://www.canonicaltheology.com/?p=166&cpage=1#comment-504 Matt Carter Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:24:56 +0000 http://www.canonicaltheology.com/?p=166#comment-504 Great discussion Gents, glad we are back at it! Mr. Emerson, in regards to your first question of the post, the word in the Alexander quote that strikes me as out of place is "most", as in the Bible itself provides most of the literary context. I suppose it makes a good bit of difference if he means that the rest of the literary context is provided from within each individual book, or somewhere outside of the Bible (which makes little sense). Maybe I am misunderstanding him here. As for the question of how to consider the parts in light of the whole, I think Andy summed things up nicely. I've also struggled with how to do justice to both authorial intent and canonical unity/intertextuality when it comes to word meanings. I think we have three options on this point: 1.We define/explain words(or texts) on two levels, the "original intent/setting" of the author and then a canonical level. This approach to me, however, seems far to simplistic and creates a false dichotomy. It seems to me that authors are generally writing with a canon-consciousness. 2.We grant that the biblical writers did indeed have a canon-consciousness, and so when an author uses a particular word or phrase that creates a case of intertextuality, we take the canonically informed meaning and implication of the word to be the author's original intent. i.e. authors mean for us to "read in" meaning from other texts. 3.We expand what we mean by "author". What I mean here, is perhaps we need to consider the canonicler the "final author" of each text, and so meanings and interpretation created by any editing or juxtaposition of books is now "authorially intended". My guess is all of three of these may at times be at work. Just my thoughts, and I am still working through it, would love to hear you guys' thoughts and feedback. In any case, I don't think it is illegitimate to derive the meaning of words in the part (a book) in the light of the whole (the canon), otherwise "canonical theology" seems to have very little meaning. Matt Carter Great discussion Gents, glad we are back at it! Mr. Emerson, in regards to your first question of the post, the word in the Alexander quote that strikes me as out of place is “most”, as in the Bible itself provides most of the literary context. I suppose it makes a good bit of difference if he means that the rest of the literary context is provided from within each individual book, or somewhere outside of the Bible (which makes little sense). Maybe I am misunderstanding him here.

As for the question of how to consider the parts in light of the whole, I think Andy summed things up nicely. I’ve also struggled with how to do justice to both authorial intent and canonical unity/intertextuality when it comes to word meanings. I think we have three options on this point: 1.We define/explain words(or texts) on two levels, the “original intent/setting” of the author and then a canonical level. This approach to me, however, seems far to simplistic and creates a false dichotomy. It seems to me that authors are generally writing with a canon-consciousness. 2.We grant that the biblical writers did indeed have a canon-consciousness, and so when an author uses a particular word or phrase that creates a case of intertextuality, we take the canonically informed meaning and implication of the word to be the author’s original intent. i.e. authors mean for us to “read in” meaning from other texts. 3.We expand what we mean by “author”. What I mean here, is perhaps we need to consider the canonicler the “final author” of each text, and so meanings and interpretation created by any editing or juxtaposition of books is now “authorially intended”.

My guess is all of three of these may at times be at work. Just my thoughts, and I am still working through it, would love to hear you guys’ thoughts and feedback. In any case, I don’t think it is illegitimate to derive the meaning of words in the part (a book) in the light of the whole (the canon), otherwise “canonical theology” seems to have very little meaning.

Matt Carter

]]> Comment on The Context of Theology and Exegesis by admin http://www.canonicaltheology.com/?p=166&cpage=1#comment-503 admin Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:07:24 +0000 http://www.canonicaltheology.com/?p=166#comment-503 Andy, I personally think you're correct: because the canon has been put together as one book, and because of the almost unmeasurable number of intertextual references, it seems to be that the most sound theological and exegetical approach is to consider the part in light of the whole. My specific concern is with the meaning of words as used by different authors; when we read the part (book) in light of the whole (canon), do we import the meaning of words onto an author's use of that word? I personally don't think that is legitimate. But how do we avoid that fallacy while at the same time reading the book in light of its canonical context? Matt Emerson Andy,
I personally think you’re correct: because the canon has been put together as one book, and because of the almost unmeasurable number of intertextual references, it seems to be that the most sound theological and exegetical approach is to consider the part in light of the whole.

My specific concern is with the meaning of words as used by different authors; when we read the part (book) in light of the whole (canon), do we import the meaning of words onto an author’s use of that word? I personally don’t think that is legitimate. But how do we avoid that fallacy while at the same time reading the book in light of its canonical context?

Matt Emerson

]]> Comment on The Context of Theology and Exegesis by Andy http://www.canonicaltheology.com/?p=166&cpage=1#comment-501 Andy Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:24:24 +0000 http://www.canonicaltheology.com/?p=166#comment-501 Matt, Great questions. I'll admit that I'm having trouble with them. The reason is that each individual book has an author who wrote that book with a purpose, to communicate something to his readers. That author, however, was writing his book within a stream of literature that has been editorially collected to form what we now call Scripture. Unless the reader is familiar with the whole Text, the spiritual and theological depth of the writing will not be appreciated to the degree the author intended. That said, those not familiar with the whole Text can still satisfactorily read each individual book of the Bible - and probably would not appreciate the connections even if they were noticed. It seems to me that people read the Bible from many different levels of spiritual maturity, and some texts they simply won't understand until they have become more familiar with the larger context of the Bible (e.g. the warning in Hosea 14.9). The lessons they are learning from these books are not the lessons you or I would learn, but I still think they are important parts of how they are growing to understand God and his mission. Andy Matt,
Great questions. I’ll admit that I’m having trouble with them. The reason is that each individual book has an author who wrote that book with a purpose, to communicate something to his readers. That author, however, was writing his book within a stream of literature that has been editorially collected to form what we now call Scripture. Unless the reader is familiar with the whole Text, the spiritual and theological depth of the writing will not be appreciated to the degree the author intended. That said, those not familiar with the whole Text can still satisfactorily read each individual book of the Bible – and probably would not appreciate the connections even if they were noticed.

It seems to me that people read the Bible from many different levels of spiritual maturity, and some texts they simply won’t understand until they have become more familiar with the larger context of the Bible (e.g. the warning in Hosea 14.9). The lessons they are learning from these books are not the lessons you or I would learn, but I still think they are important parts of how they are growing to understand God and his mission.

Andy

]]> Comment on Vanhoozer Luncheon: Questions and Registration by Luke Wisley http://www.canonicaltheology.com/?p=162&cpage=1#comment-486 Luke Wisley Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:35:50 +0000 http://www.canonicaltheology.com/?p=162#comment-486 Dr. Vanhoozer, Could you comment on how you view the relationship between systematic and biblical theology and how you incorporate this into the way you theologize. Dr. Vanhoozer,

Could you comment on how you view the relationship between systematic and biblical theology and how you incorporate this into the way you theologize.

]]> Comment on Meeting Notes by Andy http://www.canonicaltheology.com/?p=139&cpage=1#comment-485 Andy Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:10:51 +0000 http://www.canonicaltheology.com/?p=139#comment-485 Jonathan, I don't think the view needs levereging ;-) From what I've understood, the modern use of the "historical-grammatical" is not the "historical" historical-grammatical. When it first was given a title, the title meant "historical, as in, grammatical", meaning that the historical meaning of the text was in the grammatical use of the words - words as context. Nowadays, we tend to think of it as "historical, and also grammatical", meaning that we look are using two sources for our interpretation, history and text. Read Sailhamer's article on Ernesti in JETS. Jonathan,
I don’t think the view needs levereging ;-) From what I’ve understood, the modern use of the “historical-grammatical” is not the “historical” historical-grammatical. When it first was given a title, the title meant “historical, as in, grammatical”, meaning that the historical meaning of the text was in the grammatical use of the words – words as context. Nowadays, we tend to think of it as “historical, and also grammatical”, meaning that we look are using two sources for our interpretation, history and text. Read Sailhamer’s article on Ernesti in JETS.

]]>