This is by no means exhaustive on this subject as for the assignment I was limited to 750 words. Also I poorly explained the canonical approaches understanding of multiple canons. I still believe that the best approach to interpreting scripture (at this point) is a mastery of as many as possible and then starting with questions when encountering scripture. I think this leaves the most room for the holy spirit and allows us to be more imaginative and theologically minded when reading scripture. Any comments or critiques would be appreciated (I know my professor will have a few!)
Nathan Goldbloom
Seattle Pacific University
Theo 6010
October 5, 2010
How do we theologically understand the different Christian canons when interpreting the Bible?
Without scriptural canon, heresy and theological disagreements become commonplace. As a result it is important to address this question as interpreting scripture. To theologically engage with this question we must examine what scripture is and criterion for canonization, and then determine a method of scripture interpretation will address this issue.
What is scripture? Barth discusses scripture as “The Bible is God’s Word to the extent that God causes it to be His Word, to the extent that He speaks through it.” [1] This means that Scripture is a witness to God. God takes the human words and uses them to reveal God’s self to us in a dynamic event.[2] Others take the perspective of scripture as God in written from, or claim that the Bible is more the “word of Israel”.[3] For the sake of space we will proceed with this basic understand as Barth explained, recognizing that there are valid criticisms and issues here that could be further explored.
In the discernment process to establish a standard canon various ideas for criteria and lists of texts were proposed. There became six main criteria that have been used to establish Christian Canons: Apostolic authority, orthodoxy, catholicity, traditional use, antiquity and inspiration.[4] Canons of Christian scripture use these criteria in varied degrees. For example Origen’s view was that inspiration mattered more than apostolicity.[5]
Within the canonical approach the canon takes center stage. The oneness of scripture and the point of canonization[6] become crucial. Unfortunately, this approach places an extreme importance on the fourth century church, since it establishes the canon, and its discernment.[7] Then the question becomes if we are trading one historical context, original author, for another, canonical church? Finally, by focusing on the point of canonization God becomes inadvertently limited prior to this point. Did not God have to sanctify the texts beforehand so that we could formally recognize them through canonization?
Proponents of the canonical approach may use the gifts of the Holy Spirit to explain multiple canons. The Gifts of the Spirit vary in the bible and when given to people.[8] This answer indirectly addresses the issue with an analogy and leaves us at “it’s a mystery.” Contrary, I believe clarity can be achieved.
The solution I would propose is an eclectic approach that utilizes the synchronic, diachronic, and existential approaches to interpretation. Sandara M. Schneiders develops this approach and gives us a starting point- the question.
“A research project does not begin by classifying the methodological approaches, choosing one, and attempting to operate according to its canons. Rather, the interpretive project begins with the proper formulation of the questions one wishes to ask of the text and the selection, from the repertoire of methods, of those that are useful for eliciting from the text the material for answering those questions.”[9]
One concern is choosing which method suits us in order to get a desired meaning out of scripture. This however can be avoided by a series of criteria that Schneiders details[10] and by interpreting within community so there is accountability to interpretation.
The Gospel of Matthew quotes a non canonical form of Isaiah, which he would have known, the evidence begins to point that a singular canonical form is not necessary for God’s revelation.[11]As a result, the proposed approach would not have canonization as its crux, but discernment lead by the Holy Spirit. The multiple canons are then other texts that can use for revelation. Flexibility allows us to hear or understand the revelation that God has for us as Barth explained.[12] In this adaptable approach the Spirit is given a flexible person to engage relationally through the human words within the Bible.
Words: 744
Bibliography:
1. Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of the Word of God. London, New York. T&T Clark International. 1932.
2. Bruce, F.F.. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1988.
3. Gorman, Michael J. Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009.
4. Islamic Awareness. “Canon of the Bible,” Islamic-awareness.org. http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/
5. McDonald, Lee Martin. The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1988.
6. Schneiders, Sandra M.. The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1999.
7. Vanhoozer, Kevin J., ed. Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic. 2005.
8. Wall, Robert. “Canonical Approach.” Seattle Pacific University. Demaray Hall. October 4, 2010.
[1] Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of the Word of God. (London, New York. T&T Clark International. 1932), 109.
[2] Vanhoozer, Kevin J., ed.”Word of God.” Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic. 2005), 850-851.
[3] Ibid., 850-851.
[4] Bruce, F.F.. The Canon of Scripture. (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1988), 256-265.
[5] Ibid., 264.
[6] Bruce, F.F.. The Canon of Scripture. (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1988), 291.
[7] Mcdonald., 33.
[8] Robert Wall. “Canonical Approach.” (Seattle Pacific University. Demaray Hall. October 4th, 2010.)
[9] Schneiders, Sandra M.. The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture. (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1999), 152
[10] Ibid., 164-167.
[11] Bruce, F.F.. The Canon of Scripture. (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1988), 285.
[12] Vanhoozer, Kevin J., ed.”Word of God.” Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic. 2005), 850-851.
No comments:
Post a Comment