Meeting Notes
Here are the notes from our Monday meeting. These are in rough form, but you should get the general idea.
The topic was “What we mean by Canonical Theology.”
We hope to see you at our next meeting on October 26th.
-JC
I. pasa graphe theopneustos (‘All Scripture’) – Interested in the final shape of our 2 part Bible
A. Positive – It is the locus of revelation – In written text(s), God speaks. Process for understanding involves reading, following the agenda of the writer by understanding the symbols and structure he has utilized.
B. Negative – Not using written text to reach back to an event in which God spoke to/acted upon someone
-Not using written text to reach back to a previous layer/piece of Scripture
C. Positive – Place emphasis on ‘Hebrew order’ (used by Jesus, Luke, historical records)
D. Negative – refraining from devaluing other orders. Recognize that they existed and also communicated something
These latter 2 points leads to the 2nd major point of our discussion
II. The Final Shape has divisions/order which in some way delimits/affects meaning
A. Law, Prophets, Writings, NT
1. Law
2. Prophets are divided into Former (JSSK) and Latter (IJE – 12 [HJAOJMNHZHZM])
3. Writings – Ps, Job, Pr, Ruth/SoS/Eccl/Lam/Esther, Daniel, E-N, Chron
4. NT
III. Text Model – How Individually and Corporately the HB received its Shape
- Composition – the selection, arrangement, adaptation, and writing of biblical texts in order to create a purposeful and structured whole; for example, Kings
1. Intextuality – how repetitions affect structure and understanding of single passage
2. Innertextuality – Definition: intentional linguistic connection between texts in order to combine them into a larger whole
– how similar texts interface with one another w/in a whole
3. Intertextuality – how similar texts interface with one another between 2 wholes
4. Con-textuality – how the arrangement of books nuances meaning
B. Historical Process of Canonization; reception, arrangement, adaptation, and writing in order to create canon.
Contrast to Childs
“I used the term ‘canonical’ as a cipher to encompass the various and diverse factors involved in the formation of the literature. The term was, above all, useful in denoting the reception and acknowledgement of certain religious traditions as authoritative writings within a faith community. The term also included the process by which the collection arose which led up to its final stage of literary and textual stabilization, that is, canonization proper. Emphasis was placed on the process to demonstrate that the concept of canon was not a late, ecclesiastical ordering which was basically foreign to the material itself, but that canon-consciousness lay deep within the formation of the literature. The term also serves to focus attention on the theological forces at work in its composition rather than seeking the process largely controlled by general laws and folklore, by sociopolitical factors, or by scribal conventions.
I also included in the term ‘canonical’ an important addition component that was a theological extension of its primary meaning. The canonical form of this literature also affects how the modern reader understands the biblical material, especially to the extent in which he or she identifies religiously with the faith community of the original tridents. The modern theological function of canon lies in its affirmation that the authoritative norm lies in the literature itself as it has been treasured, transmitted, and transformed – of course in constant relation to its object to which it bears witness – and not in ‘objectively’ reconstructed stages of the process. The term ‘canon’ points to the received, collected, and interpreted material of the church and thus establishes the theological context in which the tradition continues to function authoritatively for today.” (Childs, Biblical Theology, 39-40)
Can you explain briefly the “contrast to Childs”? In other words, is what you outlined above opposed to Childs’ idea of “canonical,” or is it very similar, but nuanced differently? If so, in what ways?
Thanks!
Andy
Hey Andy,
What I have here in the notes are two quotations by Childs from his “Biblical Theology: A Proposal.”
We were going to discuss the differences but did not make it to that discussion in the meeting. In answer to your question, we are both looking at the canon for meaning but for distinct reasons.
Is one big difference Childs’ continued use of historical critical methodology? And another being his view of inspiratiion?
How much of the historical grammatical, mainly the histoirical aspect does one use while maintaining a canonical critical method? Does one only utilize background supplied by the text or what?
Thanks Tracy. To me, it seems like the major differences are the continued use of historical-critical methodology (as Stephen noted above) and the use of the term “canon” to include not only the formation of the canon itself, but also the use and function of the canon throughout church history. I’m looking forward to hearing how you guys think through this topic!
Andy
Brothers, I love this.
“How much of the historical grammatical, mainly the historical aspect does one use while maintaining a canonical critical method? Does one only utilize background supplied by the text or what?”
Stephen, this is the stuff that makes us weird (that is, contra hist-gramm), right? I think Vanhoozer’s use of “ministerial role” as opposed to “magisterial role” is helpful. Vanhoozer helps me leverage Sailhamer, sort of, I think. Andy, is that cool?
Jon,
I would be interested to hear Vanhoozer talk more about the ministerial role and magisterial role. Maybe this is a good question to ask him at the luncheon.
If you have any others, let me know and we’ll ask him.
JC
I think it’s supposed to stay ‘mirky.’ What I mean is, we want to steer away from “grid imposition/encroachment.” But clarity would be nice. I look forward to catching up in December. I’m excited about your upcoming event.
What I think would be interesting/essential is to discuss the reason for adopting the above delineation of the canon that you have above. There are enough different TNK (and non-TNK Jewish) canons that when someone gives an order (and I applaud you doing that instead of just saying TNK), especially arguing that it is the order that was ‘used by Jesus, Luke, historical records’ (which?) then the reasons for using that order ought to be laid out. I say that noting that it is not the order Dempster uses (51-Ruth is first in Writings, 39-where he argues for a canon without Daniel), Rendtorff (Canonical Hebrew Bible, 4-5) is unclear on what he uses (seems to be what is currently in print), and Childs (Biblical Theology of OT&NT) seems to be arguing that Josephus was the one who in the first century ‘limits the number of sacred books to twenty-two, and enumerates a tripartite division’ (58) and ‘who is reporting a tradition concerning scripture long held by Jews which he probably learned early in his life as a member of the Pharisaic party (c. AD 56-57).’ and who is depicting a AD 50 vice a post AD 70 tradition (59). This last statement of Childs argues to me that Jesus and Luke’s canons are more found in Josephus’s ordering than a ‘post AD 70′ ordering.
Shawn
Dr. Madden,
Dr. McKenzie actually laid out a variety of reasons for the canonical order we are using on this site at our last group meeting. We plan on posting the notes in the coming week.
Matt Emerson
Thanks Matt–I look forward to reading them.
Shawn
Jonathan,
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.
I don’t think the view needs levereging