Category: Canon-Within-the-Canon

The Necessity of Diversity within the Canon
Perhaps the strongest argument against the legitimacy of some inner canons used in a strong normative sense is that this does violence to a key aspect of the Bible. Though it is a truism of much modern biblical scholarship that dogmatic theology has no place in setting its agenda, some who challenge this creatively see a necessary diversity within the Bible, for example:

1. Brueggemann argues that some parts of the Old Testament, particularly elements of the Psalms and Wisdom Literature, provide a countertestimony to the core testimony found within the bulk of the Old Testament narrative.[1] This is a constructive analysis of otherwise contradictory voices in the Old Testament.
2. Wall urges a mutual criticism of texts rather than a bland mediated position between competing voices.[2]
3. Watson identifies what he terms ‘conflict of interpretation’ in Paul and this is fruitful.[3]

Such approaches recognise implicitly the danger of capitulating to an inner canon and are a recognition of the text on its own terms. This prevents illegitimate skewing of texts or the marginalisation of uncomfortable texts contra Luther’s analogia scripturae.

Conclusions
Our exploration of the notion of a canon-within-the-canon has highlighted that the notion is not a singular one, but rather a family of notions. The diversity of both form and function implied by different scholars makes the term ultimately unfruitful. The value in the idea of an inner canon is how it points to a yet more fundamental issue, that of the presuppositions of the interpreter. Despite the long standing recognition of the role of presuppositions many controversial issues need to be considered and special attention paid to presuppositions. In such debates the use of the term inner canon is all too often just an unhelpfully veiled denial of another’s presuppositions.

Throughout this essay the author’s presupposition of the necessity of faith in interpretation will have been obvious. Such a stance is, I would suggest, a vital one and yet prone to misuse. For, as an ‘unthinking’ presupposition it can simply lead to a Biblicism which does violence to the Bible. Abraham judges that the Church has, for fifteen centuries, been in a downward spiral in seeing the Bible as epistemic norm rather than as a means of grace.[4] He arguably goes too far in counteracting a correctly diagnosed problem, but his message is a useful reminder that the canon is not just about acting as a rule. When we are open to the canon as both rule and means of grace then we are open to the diversity of its message. We need to have a hermeneutic of trust in recognising the canon as Holy Scripture and a hermeneutic of suspicion to all theologies that systematise its voice, especially those that employ an inner canon that is dictated by our own agendas.

Dunn’s identification of Jesus Christ as a canon-through-the canon seems to offer a fruitful theological insight.[5] The gracious gift of Christ from the Father implies a necessarily implicit trust in Scripture. At the same time there remains a suspicion that we cannot master the self-revelation of God himself. Might it not be the case that a presupposition of faith be the way to ensure that the Bible is not left broken by the interpretative process?

[1] See Brueggemann, Old Testament, pp.317-332.
[2] Wall, Scripture, p.539.
[3] Watson, Paul, pp.24-29.
[4] Abraham, Canon, p.1.
[5] Dunn, Canon, p.572.

Full Bibliography
Abraham, William J., Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology: From the Fathers to Feminism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Barr, James, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.
Barr, James, The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament perspective, London: SCM press, 1999.
Barth Karl, Church Dogmatics, I/1: The Doctrine of the Word of God, editors: G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, translator: G. W. Bromiley, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975 [original 1932].
Barth Karl, Church Dogmatics, I/2: The Doctrine of the Word of God, editors: G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, translators: G. T. Thomson and Harold Knight, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1970 [original 1939].
Bosch, David J., Transforming Mission: Paradigm shifts in theology of mission, Maryknoll: Orbis, 1991.
Brueggemann, Walter, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, dispute, advocacy, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.
Bultmann, Rudolph, ‘Is Exegesis Without Presuppositions Possible?’, pp.289-315 in Existence and Faith: Shorter writings of Rudolph Bultmann, translator: S. M. Ogden, Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1960.
Burnett, Richard E., Karl Barth’s Theological Exegesis: The hermeneutical principles of the Römerbrief period, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.
Childs, Brevard S., Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, London: SCM Press, 1979.

Childs, Brevard S., The New Testament as Canon: An introduction, London: SCM Press, 1984.
Childs, Brevard S., Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological reflection on the Christian Bible, London: SCM Press, 1992.
Childs, Brevard S., Biblical Theology: A proposal, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002.
Dunn, James D. G., Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An inquiry into the character of earliest Christianity, second edition, London: SCM Press, 1990.
Dunn, James D. G., ‘Has the Canon a Continuing Function’, pp.558-579 in Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders (editors), The Canon Debate, Peabody, Hendrickson: 2002.
Funk, Robert W., ‘The Once and Future New Testament’, pp.541-557 in Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders (editors), The Canon Debate, Peabody, Hendrickson: 2002.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg, Truth and Method, second revised edition, translated by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall, London: Continuum, 2004.
Goldingay, John, Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Goldingay, John, Models for Interpretation of Scripture, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Jeremias, Joachim, New Testament Theology, London: SCM Press, 1971.
Koyama, Kosuke, Water Buffalo Theology, Twenty-Fifth Anniversary edition, Maryknoll: Orbis, 1999 [original 1974].
Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, third edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996 [first edition 1962].
Metzger, Bruce M., The Canon of the New Testament: Its origin, development, and significance, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.
Ng, Esther Yue L., Reconstructing Christian Origins? The Feminist Theology of Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza: An evaluation, Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2002.
Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A comparison of patterns of religion, London: SCM Press, 1977.
Schüssler Fiorenzia, Elisabeth, In Memory of Her: Feminist theological reconstruction of Christian origins, second edition, London: SCM Press, 1996 [original first edition 1984].
Vanhoozer, Kevin J., Is There a Meaning in this Text?: The Bible, the reader and the morality of literary knowledge, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J., The Drama of Doctrine: A canonical-linguistic approach to Christian theology, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.
Wall, Robert W., ‘The Significance of a Canonical Perspective of the Church’s Scripture’, pp.528-540 in Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders (editors), The Canon Debate, Peabody, Hendrickson: 2002.
Watson, Francis, Text, Church and World: Biblical interpretation in theological perspective, London: T&T Clark, 1994.
Watson, Francis, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, London: T&T Clark, 2004.
Wright, D. F., ‘Creed, Confessional Forms’, pp.255-260 in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids (editors), Downers Grove: IVP, 1997.
Wright, N. T., The New Testament and the People of God, London: SPCK, 1992.
Wright, N. T., Jesus and the Victory of God, London: SPCK, 1996.
Wright, N. T., Paul: Fresh perspectives, London: SPCK, 2005.

The Historical Critical Method
As has been frequently pointed out the historical critical method, rooted in the intellectual paradigm of the Enlightenment, is based on assumptions which are no more neutral than those it sought to challenge.[1] Its inception marked the shift from a hermeneutic of trust to a hermeneutic of suspicion. For our purpose here it can be argued that the historical critical method, when used as the primary method of exegesis and hermeneutics, sets as a rule, or canon, a variety of judgements. For example, when reading the gospels, it is assumed a priori that the miracles reported there cannot have a basis in reality as miracles do not happen.[2] This is in effect an inner canon as some parts of Scripture are accepted as being ‘a locus of truth’ and others not. This was seen, for example, in Liberal Protestantism’s focus on the ethical teaching of Jesus, perhaps most notably by Baur and Ritschl.

Sometimes the historical critical method operates with an inner canon in a more subtle way. This is the case with, for example, source criticism. Whilst it would be easy to argue that many source critical theories are highly questionable, there is nothing wrong in principle with examining textual evolution and the relationship of the canonical text with some hypothetical precursors. However, some would use the findings of this type of work to argue for recognition of some hypothetical reconstruction as in some ways normative and a ruler against which canonical texts should be measured.

Another way of looking at this is that one of the underlying dynamics of the historical critical method is fundamentally at odds with the idea that the Bible in some way mediates revelation. It is a truism of the critical method that understanding of the meaning of the text is always provisional[3] and built on hypothetical constructions which by their very nature are transient awaiting the next piece of data; data which often comes from sources outside of the Bible itself. To use and extend Barth’s analogy of the interpreter as a prodigal son[4] the historical critical interpreter who is wholly committed to its core rationale is in danger of not only living in rags and squalor but also of remaining unrepentant in seeking an inheritance as if God the father were dead.

The logical end point of the historical critical approach can be seen in the activities of the Jesus Seminar.[5] Here what might be deemed the authentic words of Jesus, and perhaps judged by some to be canonical, are voted on by a group of self-selecting scholars. One of the members of the Jesus Seminar, Robert W. Funk, has developed this point canonically in suggesting there need to be two new canons, a smaller and a larger one;[6] the smaller canon which is reliable in its historical basis, the larger one being a collection of all extent Christian writing from around the New Testament period. This of course raises two immediate problems which Funk does not entertain, let alone answer:

1. Such a notion contradicts the general meaning of the term canon, whether it means a selective list or an identification of texts which are in some sense an epistemic norm. Making the larger canon consist of all extant texts is hardly a selective list! As Wright points out using all sources as historical data is good scholarly practice[7] but making them all canonical is at best misleading.
2. By definition the smaller canon would be highly contested and provisional. How could a changing canon or a range of competing smaller canons proposed by different scholars serve the Church?

Gadamer’s observation that the Enlightenment, in which the historical critical method is rooted, has a “prejudice against prejudice” is apposite here.[8] The Enlightenment’s flawed pretence at objectivity gives, ironically, a different stance of prejudice. By privileging diachronic rather than synchronic relationships,[9] the committed historical critic effectively plays a power game with the text in which the Guild is made king of the text.

The three areas examined thus far indicate that an inner canon is a notion central to large sections of recent, and not such recent, interpretive work. The three areas also exemplify the intimate relationship between inner canons and the presuppositions of the interpreter.

[1] So, for example, Gadamer, Truth, p.277-285, Wright, People, p.15 and Schüssler Fiorenza, Her, p.xxvff.
[2] So Bultmann, Exegesis, pp.290-291.
[3] See Watson, Text, pp.46-53 who explores this point helpfully.
[4] See Barth CD I/1 p.729.
[5] See Wright, Jesus, pp.29-35 for a judicious summary of their activities.
[6] Funk, New Testament, p.555.
[7] Wright, Jesus, p.30.
[8] Gadamer, Truth, pp.270ff.
[9] See Watson, Text, p.34 and passim for the competition between diachronic and synchronic relationships.

Recent Feminist Interpretive Approaches
Those critical of attempts to find a feminist interpretive framework to the Bible often criticise proponents as operating with an inner canon. It is easy to see why, as like all contextual theology, feminist theologies start with a specific concern. Abraham, however, praises feminist interpreters in the sense that that, in his judgement, they have reversed the harmful post-Fathers’ trajectory of shifting Scripture from a means of grace to an epistemic norm. He argues that fundamental to such approaches is the recognition that the canon must be a ‘means of healing and liberation’.[1] However, surely such an approach becomes an epistemic one in the sense that the Biblical canon is inevitably narrowed either by discarding, in some manner, those texts that are ‘dark’ to a feminist agenda or by relativizing them by texts more conducive to such an approach? Either way there is not only an inner canon but it functions epistemically.

Even those who count themselves as feminist interpreters recognise that some such approaches do indeed operate with an inner canon. For example, Schüssler Fiorenza defends herself against such a claim,[2] but accuses the feminist biblical interpreters, Cady, Stanton and Russell, of just such a mistake.[3] We might go further and argue that even this appraisal of Russell, for example, is an optimistic one in that Russell would separate the Bible into script and Scripture.[4] Script here is so historically relativised as to be normative in no sense at all; it becomes essentially a piece of background literature like extra-biblical texts such as the Didache. In this way there is an inner canon, but in the sense that it becomes the canon.[5]

It has been suggested that whilst Schüssler Fiorenza might be judged on this basis as more moderate, her proposals also amount to an inner canon by the canonisation of her historical reconstruction.[6] Ng goes on to argue that all attempts to deal with texts like Galatians 3:28, that challenge the traditional interpretation of male headship are based a priori on an inner canon and are thus not legitimate.[7]

Can the claims of such critics of Schüssler Fiorenza be judged to be fair? Given the topics she is most concerned with, will not any historical reconstruction make explicit, or at least implicit, decisions about gender issues in both society and the early church? Schüssler Fiorenza’s approach is illuminating however in that she is openly critical of those who argue for a neutral stance.[8] Her approach is one of integrity in that her presuppositions are made clear in her work. Indeed her methodology is essentially a critical realist one along the lines suggested by Wright.[9]

[1] Abraham, Canon, p.434.
[2] Schüssler Fiorenza, Her, p.xxi.
[3] See Schüssler Fiorenza, Her, pp.13-15.
[4] Schüssler Fiorenza, Her, pp.15-16.
[5] See, for example, Ng, Origins, p.368.
[6] So Ng, Origins, p.329.
[7] Ng, Origins, p.390.
[8] See Abraham, Canon, p.448.
[9] See Wright, People, pp.32-46.

The Relationship between Romans and the Epistle of James
The relationship between interpretations of Paul’s letter to the Romans and the letter of James took on a new note during the Reformation. Luther’s new-found emphasis on the centrality of justification by faith led him to question the value of James in no uncertain terms. He famously labelled it as ‘the epistle of straw’, seeing Paul’s Romans as the real locus of truth. Our concern here is not to settle a discussion which, in some quarters, still lives on. Rather it needs to be recognised that in this debate there are some who would recognise the normative value of one part of Scripture (Romans in this case) to the point where another part of Scripture is challenged, resulting in either its marginalisation (in the extreme the decanonization of a text) or interpretation through the normative text.

The nature of Romans as an inner canon varies. Dunn argues that in general, Protestantism has used the Pauline corpus as an inner canon whereas Lutheran theologians have in a sense gone further and used a doctrine of justification by faith as an inner canon.[1] Though there might be grounds to challenge the former as an over generalisation, some Lutheran theologians themselves actively recognise that they use justification by faith as an inner canon.[2] Whilst this use of an inner canon is a honestly open one, can this really be a sensible approach? As Wall notes, if the letter of James is read through the prior framework of a reading of Romans then some of the meaning and nuance of James will simply be lost.[3]

Elsewhere Luther justifies a broader, but essentially similar argument, in an exhortation to use an inner canon, that has become essentially a maxim in the Protestant church, namely the notion that clear texts can be used to interpret what Luther terms ‘dark passages’.[4] Whilst this so-called analogia scripturae might seem commendably logical, it has been frequently noted that there is not always unanimity amongst interpreters regarding which texts might be clear and which dark.[5]

The clarity of justification by faith’s understanding of salvation over James’ ‘dark’ flawed attempts at ethical exhortation has been criticised by those involved in the so-called New Perspective on Paul who see Luther’s exegesis as reactionary to his context.[6] That there might be other approaches of engaging both James and Romans is hinted at in a playful way by Koyama,[7] who presents, in an imaginative dialogue, just how well James is received in Thailand. For James provides a welcome connection between Christianity and those influenced by Thai Buddhism. This is not to suggest that this reversal of the hermeneutical flow, from that which has dominated so much of Western theology, is better, but rather that an inner canon of the Pauline corpus or justification by faith is one possibility. Just as Luther’s contemporaries needed James’ exhortation to a living faith demonstrated in works alongside Paul’s soteriology, so too James’ audience, portrayed by Koyama, need to move on to hear Paul’s theology in order to temper James’ perspective on faith.

[1] Dunn, Canon, p.560.
[2] See, for example, Dunn, Canon, p.560 who cites specific examples.
[3] Wall, Scripture, p.540.
[4] See Abraham, Canon, p.129.
[5] See, for example, Vanhoozer, Text, p.171.
[6] See, for example, Sanders, Paul, passim and Wright, Paul, pp.3-20.
[7] Koyama, Water Buffalo, pp.118-124.