You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Canonical Theology' tag.
Many thanks to Chris Seitz for providing me a copy of his newly released book, “The Goodly Fellowship of the Prophets: The Achievement of Association in Canon Formation” put out by Baker Academic.
This book is a small book—only about 140 pages—but is a great contribution to the study of canon and its formation. Forthcoming will be summaries of each chapter to give you all an idea of the arguments Seitz advances which will hopefully wet your appetite for an interest in canonical studies. Stayed tuned.
“The Decalogue … reflects a special content. Its imperatives are not addressed to a specific segment of the populace, but to everyone within Israel. They are straightforward and immediate with a comprehensiveness which is unusual. This quality has been achieved historically by a lengthy development which both expanded and contracted the commandments. A Certain flexibility can be seen in the different homiletical. It remains an imperative directed to historical Israel, but Israel as the people of God which has been extended both in time and space beyond the first generation of those who experienced Sinai….
directions to which the material has been pointed …
… it is an important task of an Old Testament theology to sketch the range of interpretation within the whole Old Testament in order to understand how the Decalogue functioned within Israel, and to discern both the dynamics of its movement and nature of its actualization. For example, the narrative material offers a major commentary within scripture as to how these commands now function within the canon … Similarly, the writings of the prophets, psalmists and sages bear directly on a canonical understanding of the Decalogue….” (OTT, 63-64).
A Brief Assessment of the Distinction Between “Person” and “Essence” in the Canonical Scriptures
With all the talk about Christology and Trinitarian theology in the past week or so, I want to briefly make a few points about the distinction between “person” and “essence” (ousia) in the canonical Scriptures. Essentially, I want to answer a few questions to perhaps lay the groundwork for a future post(s) and to contribute to the ongoing bloggersation (a word coined by James McGrath) that has taken place in recent days.
First, “Did Paul understand the distinction between ‘person’ and ‘essence’ in the same way that Chalcedon understood the distinction between ‘person’ and ‘essence’?”
In short, the obvious answer is “No.” There is no evidence in the Pauline Corpus to suggest Paul made a distinction between ‘person’ and ‘essence.’ While it is certainly possible that he made this distinction, there is little to no evidence to argue such a case. Okay, nothing new here, this is pretty axiomatic.
Next question, “Did Nicea or Chalcedon believe that Paul made a distinction between ‘person’ and ‘essence’ in his writings?”
In short, the obvious answer is a resounding “No.” Of course they didn’t think Paul held to such a distinction (nor thought of the distinction when he penned his writings) because there is no evidence of this in the Pauline corpus. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but the time I’ve spent reading the Fathers, I have never once read where one of the Fathers suggested Paul held to such a distinction. It is important to realize that the Fathers did not think this to be Paul’s authorial intent.
Next question, “So why did Chalcedon conclude on a distinction between ‘person’ and ‘essence’ seeing as they knew the biblical authors did not hold to such a distinction?” Moreover, “ Since this distinction is not explicitly biblical, should the language of ‘person’ and ‘essence’ be abandoned when discussing Trinitarianism and Christology in the modern day?.”
In short, I would suggest that the answer is “No the terminology should not be abandoned.” Let me explain:
It was obvious to the Fathers that Christ was presented in some Scriptures as equal with God the Father while in other passages they saw it clear that Christ was subordinate to God the Father. On the surface this indeed seems like a paradox. However, instead of the Fathers beginning with presupposition that one view must be right and another view wrong (as is the modern trend with critical scholars), they viewed all of Scripture canonically and as authoritative. They wouldn’t for a second have thought “Is Paul right and the authors of the Gospels and Hebrews wrong? Or are the authors of the Gospels and Hebrews right and Paul wrong?”
It is indeed axiomatic that the Fathers viewed the Gospels as authoritative, but what about Paul? Did they find him authoritative?
Not only does 2 Peter suggest that all of Paul’s writings were completely authoritative (3.16-17), but also it is clear from P 46 that the early Christian communities saw the Pauline corpus as completely authoritative. Note, it is only of the critical mind to suggest that only some of Paul’s thought was authoritative. So again, I make the point that all of the evidence suggests Paul was found completely authoritative by early Christian communities. Thus, with the Early Church viewing the totality of Scripture as authoritative, how do they reconcile the passages that point to Christ’s equality with God with the other passages that point to Christ’s subordinate status to God?
It is likely that Paul and the Apostles understood that there was a paradox but failed to harmonize this for believers because they probably attributed it to God’s mysterious nature. Since God is complex and beyond human comprehension, both Christ’s equality and subordination stood true without further question or examination. This then does not mean that a distinction between ‘person’ and ‘essence’ is invalid or to be dismissed; on the contrary, the time it took to precisely define what one doctrinally can and cannot say while still being considered orthodox is helpful. Consider this: Bibliobloggers have been debating these issues for 2 weeks, so much so that it makes your head want to spin. However, how much more nuanced and thorough would we expect the early Church to have been on these issues (and as evident by their writings) since they wrestled with the paradox for 400 years?
Concluding Thoughts
In conclusion, I think the language used to describe Christ, i.e. ‘person’ and ‘essence’ should be maintained in modern day. Considering the mysteries of God, one would expect some paradoxical statements in Scripture. Nonetheless, the 400 years of the Fathers wrestling with these issues has proved helpful. For Christ to be preexistent and declare “I AM” would indeed suggest equality with God. For Christ to be incarnate (perhaps more of Paul’s focus), would indeed have to suggest subordination. A modernist conclusion here would fail every time. For God is not of God of “it has to be A or B,” rather God is a God of “It is both A and B.”
On “the goal of self-disclosure”:
Surprisingly, the Old Testament is virtually silent regarding divine motivation. One searches in vain to see this issue treated in any diret fashion. It is evident that divine revelation is never grounded in some need of God, as if he were lonely. There si no hint that God required some fulfillment, or even sought fellowship with mankind in order truly to express his Godhead. Such a move is simply foreign to the Old Testament. (43).
He continues suggesting that the only way to begin to discern God’s purpose in revelation is to oberve his acts throughout Scripture. These acts ultimately point to God’s intent to make himself known for “the proper response … of praise before the manifest glory of God’s presence in his works…” (46).
But since his purposes have been obscured at the fall (46),
the most suitable biblical term for God’s purpose with his creation is ’savlation’ or ‘redemption’. These are much more to be preferred to the much-abused term ‘liberation’. … To make use of the biblical term ‘kingdom of God’ as an equivalent to salvation – his rule over all that he created – will perhaps serve to prevent any restriction of God’s work to the individual human soul, but also point to the divine initiative of bringing his cosmic will to completion, which is an eschatological force energizing the world. (49)
I’m not so sure I agree with this. Even though his purposes became obscured by the fall, I think overall his purposes was always to make himself known so that he might be glorified in praised. No?
In continuation of my rereading of Childs’ OTT in a CC, here’s the most stimulating quote of today’s reading.
Chapter 3 – How is God Known?
… to reflect on the Old Testament theologically in the context of the Christian canon establishes a perspective from which the enterprise is engaged. It rules out a stance which distances itself form Christian faith and tries merely to describe the development of Israel’s faith in God or to picture differently concepts of an ancient deity. But then does not this canonical context imply that a reflection on the Old Testament faith in God be immediately related to Christian faith in Jesus Christ? The very fact that the Christian canon treasures a portion of the scripture in which the name of Jesus is not mentioned offers an initial warrant for seeking another theological option. The implication of the Old Testament canon, both on a formal and material level, is that the Christian life is still lived between promise and fulfilment, not as a unilinear heilsgeschichtlich pattern, but as a description of the essential eschatological dimension of divine redemption. To reflect on God’s revelation in the Old Testament is not a pre-Christian stage which has been rendered inoperative by the full revelation in Jesus Christ. Rather, it belongs to the nature of the Christian faith that the perception of God through the witness of the old covenant remains a constitutive stance for Christian theology. The struggle to perceive God in the testimony of the Hebrew scriptures is not an historical anachronism, but a consciously Christian understanding of the continuing, authoritative function of the Old Testament for the church. Although the ultimate task of biblical theology is to hear the witness of both Testaments, such an enterprise does not call into question the legitimacy, even necessity, of serious theological reflection on the old covenant in its own right as scripture of the church. (30)
In honor of my rereading of Child’s “Old Testament Theology in A Canonical Approach,” I’m going to start a new series entitled “Brevard Childs Quote of the Day” where I bring forth the most stimulating quote of the day’s reading. I’m only reading about a chapter a day so we should get 20 good quotes out of this.
Chapter 1 – Introduction to Old Testament Theology
The controversy with the traditio-historical critics is not over the theological significance of a depth dimension of the tradition. Rather, the issue turns on whether or not features within the tradition which have been subordinated, modified or placed in the distant background of the text can be interpreted apart from the role assigned to them in the final form when attempting to write a theology of the Old Testament. For example, to seek to give theological autonomy to a reconstructed Yahwist source apart from its present canonical context is to disregard the crucial theological intention of the tradents of the tradition, and to isolate a text’s meaning from its reception. (11)
In my first post on this topic, I gave brief explanation as to why Historical Criticism is NOT an indispensable tool (more on this here). I think there needs to be a big qualifier here, however. The question really becomes “Indispensible for what?” If one is looking to discover the customs and norms of early Judaism or the Greco-Roman empire, then Historical Criticism is without question ‘indispensible.’ If however, one is looking use the biblical texts as Scripture and understand/interpret them as Scripture, then Historical Criticism is NOT ‘indispensible,’ but rather helpful if ordered appropriately.
Here’s my comment over on Sibboleth’s page:
With all due respect to Pope Benedict, the phrase “an indispensable tool” is ludicrous.
This kind of talk [is] oozing with the arrogance of the modern era and the enlightenment. If it’s so ‘indispensable’ has the Church simply been lost for 1800 years? If it’s so ‘indispensable’ why doesn’t the early Church use the ‘historical’ method in their exegesis?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Historicism is not important or helpful, but I think it needs to be ordered appropriately.
Nothing new from me of course. I make similar comments here.
Kevin Skull has started another “meme” to those who are so fortunate to receive the honor of being summoned for duty. Here are the rules Kevin set forth:
1.) List the 5 primary sources that have most affected your scholarship, thoughts about antiquity, and/or understanding of the NT/OT.
2.) Books from the Bible are off limits unless you really want to list one, I certainly will not chastise you for it.
3.) Finally, choose individual works if you can. This will be more interesting than listing the entire corpus of Cicero as one of your choices.
I’ve been summoned first by John Anderson, then Brandon “the Wason”, and then Michael Whitenton, all of who have posted excellent works for consideration. Since my approach to Scripture is theological, this isn’t exactly an easy post for me because I often minimize the importance/necessity of such works for the understanding of Scripture. For this reason, I do break rule number 3 twice; but since the wording set forth is not so hard-and-fast, I feel no guilt whatsoever. Moreover, since my theological grid is a canonical perspective, the works below are those that I thus far have found most helpful for a canonical approach to the Scriptures.
1. The Isaiah Scroll – For canonical studies, the discovery of the Isaiah Scroll is, in my opinion, probably the most significant primary resource. I say this mostly because historical critics make a strong cause for a proto, deutero, and trito-Isaiah. Since historical critics find this true, they suggest ripping apart the book of Isaiah into three sections and studying them individually without any thematic or literary unity. The discovery of the Isaiah scroll, however, suggests that the text was read as either a unified corpus or as a single text, regardless of authorship issues. This of course branches out and has implications for the individualizing of the Twelve, then, of course, for the Law, Prophets, and Writings, etc.
2. Enûma Eliš – The discovery of the Enuma Elish is very valuable for interpretation of the biblical texts, especially when it comes to the significance of genre (of course there are other examples, but this Babylonian text was what first influenced my thinking on interpretation and genre). In the Old Testament there are seven different creation accounts, so which one is ‘historical?’ Christians no longer have to blindly accept Gen 1-2 as an exactly historical account of the actual events, rather they are liberated to think freely about whether or not there is something else going on (in the case of Gen 1-2, probably a polemic).
3. Apostolic Fathers – Since the first three centuries of Church history are those who had to begin dealing with a completed canon of Scripture, albeit their interpretations quickly became heterodox and skewed, their commentary and interpretation of the entire biblical corpus is invaluable for a canonical approach
4. ANF & NPNF – See above (3).
5. The Book of Enoch – While this technically might be considered a biblical book according the Ethiopic canon, most do not regard it as a canonical text. In my studies thus far, this book has been very valuable for understanding messianism and progress revelation (in particular, an evolution of belief in the afterlife) and for its midrash on Genesis 6 (this can be debated).
It is now my privilege to bless 5 other with the honor of being summoned for duty: Rodney Thomas, Mark Goodacre, Richard Sherrat, Pete Enns, and Mike Fox (not to be confused with Michael V. Fox, of course).
Recent Comments