As a means of following up the previous post, I decided to share a quotation from Wrede’s famous essay on the task and methods of New Testament theology. Here Wrede addresses the scope of the investigation. He asserts that early Christians authors did not think in terms of canon, so as students of this period we shouldn’t be bound by the canonical restraints.
If the New Testament writings emerged in the course of a history and are the witnesses and documentation of this history, then we are faced with a question: why should our discipline be concerned just with these and no other writings? The normal answer is that only these belong to the canon. But that is not a satisfactory answer. Where the doctrine of inspiration has been discarded, it is impossible to continue to maintain the dogmatic conception of the canon.
No New Testament writing was born with the predicate ‘canonical’ attached. The statement that a writing is canonical signifies in the first place only that it was pronounced canonical afterwards by the authorities of the second- to fourth-century church, in some cases only after all kinds of hesitation and disagreement. The history of the canon is sufficiently instructive in this respect.
So anyone who accepts without question the idea of the canon places himself under the authority of the bishops and theologians of those centuries. Anyone who does not recognize their authority in other matters — and no Protestant theologian does — is being consistent if he questions it here, too. (70-71)
That last paragraph is particularly spicy.
Now Wrede is not interested in how the church reads the New Testament; he leaves that task to the dogmatic theologians. Rather Wrede’s interest is in the religion and theology of the first Christians. Since Childs there has been a resurgence of canon criticism and as a result a more nuanced view toward the canon has emerged, so unlike Wrede, I don’t think we should throw the baby out with the bath water. However, I still agree with Wrede’s point that as students we should be as inclusive as possible concerning the early Christian writings. Why not pay significant attention to texts such as the Didache, which actually predate some NT writings?
I could write more on this topic about how many of us approach the Bible from multiple angles. As students or scholars, we want to know as much as possible about the first Christians and find that the canonical restraint is unnecessary. We obviously care about the issues, but we don’t want our biases to interfere with our view of the text because that’s what being a good scholar is all about, right? But then some of us also view the text within the context of our religious history and topics like canon become very important. Of course it sounds like I’m rehearsing the old Jesus-of-history-versus-Christ-of-faith dichotomy, since that is usually where this road leads. This means that there’s not much a reason to traverse it, is there?
- Wrede, William. “The Task and Methods of ‘New Testament Theology.’” Pages 68-116. The Nature of New Testament Theology: The Contribution of William Wrede and Adolf Schlatter. Edited and Translated by R. Morgan. Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1973.
Well said, Brandon. I once heard a prominent Jesus and early Judiasm scholar say, “I think we should give as much spiritual significance to the Psalms of Solomon as we give to Isaiah!” Now, I’m not there yet. But I do see the value in extra-canonical writings for studying the earliest strata of Christianity. And, if I’m honest, I sometimes prefer them to the canonical ones for some reason. Strange, I know!
Wrede, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, has a wrong view of Canon. As you say Brandon, Childs has done well in defining the true sense of canon for Christians. That is, it isn’t a voted on set of books that the early Church though of to be “canonical” rather canon formed itself. The early communities collected certain writings, tearing them out of their original contexts, and organized them in a certain way and used them for their own authoritative living. Regardless of what the Churches voted on or not is besides the point.
To some, this may be a bit unclear. If so I’d recommend Childs ‘Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach’ and ‘The Churches Guide to Reading Paul.’
Though I think comments like the one Mike makes fails to recognize the authority these writings had for the early communities. This is not to say the extra-canonical writings are not important, but such a sweeping statement is unwarranted.
To be clear I’m not talking about Mike’s overall response, but his quotation of ‘Jesus and early Judiasm scholar’ which he himself does not seem to agree with.
Thanks for raising a couple of these issues, Rob. I was thinking about writing a follow-up post on the canon, but I’m still not sure about that. Even if one doesn’t agree with Wrede’s description of the canonical process, the NT writers themselves weren’t aware of the concept of canon as it later took shape, so I think the point about addressing the larger body of literature as historians or scholars or whatever is still valid. But as a Christian, I do share some of your criticisms of Wrede when I think of canon.
With respect to Michael’s remark about the Psalms of Solomon, I think how much spiritual significance we give a text is up to each person’s own discretion. Canon-minded Christians will have a harder time putting extracanonical texts on par with the Canon for spiritual use. I don’t read Ignatius to be spiritually edified, but I do read Ignatius to understand the early church. But even if canon weren’t an issue, not all texts are spiritually helpful. A good portion of the early church liked the epistle of Barnabas, but it’s not congruent with my own faith, so I wouldn’t mine its spiritual treasures (if it had any). I hope at least some of this made sense.
One follow up or maybe a disagreement. I would say that the New Testament writers were very much aware of a canonical formation of the Old Testament, granted it may not have been as fixed as it would later become. Concerning the New Testament, I would agree with you that the New Testament writers themselves weren’t aware of a canon taking shape, though I would add the caveat, when they wrote the writings. Meaning, I think these texts begin to circulate and become joined as a corpus quote early. To be clear, I think it is those who received the text that received them in a canon conscious way not the New Testament writers, though the New Testament writers may very well have been alive. Any disagreement with early canon formation would have to address P 46 and the implications it has on late first century / early century canon formation (albeit the P 46 itself is late second/ early third).
Dang it… typos:
“quote early” = “quite early”
“early century” = “early second century”
Brandon:
I’m curious whether you looked at (or applied to) Baylor’s NT Ph.D. program. What you describe–focus on other literature–is a central emphasis. Specifically, the NT program focuses on audience-criticism, looking at rhetorical handbooks such as the Progymnasmata and focusing on rhetoric–what would an ancient audience have heard. Therefore, not only other Christian literature but other Greco-Roman literature is of paramount importance. I honestly don’t know much about this overall method, and I have some reservations about it as a replacement for authorial intent. It is also unclear to me at least what the limits end up being . . . a simple survey of various NT introductions should make this point quite patent. Take, for instance, Koester treats 60 non-canonical writings alongside the canonical ones (he, though, has little regard for canon and is instead presenting an introduction to the history of early Christian churches and their Hellenistic context), or Ehrman, who includes NT apocalyptic up through the 2nd century as well as the Apostolic Fathers. Pregeant treats other texts such as the Didache, 1 Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, etc. as texts outside the bounds of canon. At bottom, I don’t really know where to draw the line. But regardless, it seems canon is central and seminal, but one also needs to go beyond, it seems.
I was originally a fan of the canonical approach. And I do still find the method very helpful and illuminating. And I think there is a high level of intentionality in the arrangement of various books, etc. But I don’t find the canonical method itself as compelling as I once did. Final form is one thing, but to aver that one can interpret properly the meaning of a text by an exercise in intertextuality presupposes far too much intentionality. For instance, I am obviously dissatisfied with Childs’ treatment of the problem of morality in the ancestral narratives (even beyond the simple fact I don’t think these texts are concerned about morality at all!) by appealing to how the ancestors are treated elsewhere in the canon. He sees a strikingly coherent picture the emphasizes God’s faithfulness despite . . . I’m on board with God’s faithfulness. But what dictates the direction of interpretation? Why can’t I interpret the ancestors in Pss 105 and 106 by appealing to Genesis, instead of interpreting Genesis by appealing to Pss 105 and 106? The canonical method is of great value, still; Childs’ chapter on methodology in his Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context is indeed wonderful and has much to commend it. When put into practice, however, is where it CAN (though not always) get a bit hairy for me. But I would much much much rather do canonical exegesis than historical critical readings! Anyday!
John, I don’t have time for an in depth reply, but I think in fairness wouldn’t you say Child’s students have been helpful in further developing and nuancing the canonical approach? I think Childs can = the canonical approach at the broad level, but when you get into specifics I think others have perhaps done a better job at teasing out the method. All this to say, I don’t think you should dismiss the canonical approach because you disagree with Childs in some specific areas.
Also, just to be clear for any readers, canonical theology is not to be confused with intertextuality and is far from Hayes’ method. Though there is some overlap because both are ‘theological’ in their interpretation.
Rob:
Two very brief points:
1) Of course Childs’ students have honed the approach. But I also don’t wnat to address the canonical method as if it is a monolithic entity. Also, read my post again. I do not dismiss the canonical approach. Childs’ introductory chapter that I note has many points that convince me of the success of the canonical approach (i.e., that the process of canonization is the final step in hermeneutical activity that preserves various stages in the development of the traditions located therein and thus preserves a certain diachronic element). I simply remain unconvinced a) specifically on the example of the ancestors and morality that I cite; b) and less persuaded by the claim that the entire canon is so purposely shaped (I think it is, but . . . ) so that any interpretive question can be answered by an appeal to the canon. I’m on board entirely with the canonical form of the text as the necessary starting place for interpretation–I trust you gleaned that from reading my article–but by canonical I mean ‘final form’ and at times ‘final ordering,’ but not much more than that. I’m not much interested in questions of final form such as Seitz advances, for instance, with Isaiah. Not that I think he is wrong–that just isn’t my methodological MO. I’m less interested in how the text came to be (although it is a fascinating question to me–I’m just agnostic we can arrive at anything with any degree of confidence) and more interested in interpreting the meaning of the text we have. Just me.
2) Childs very clearly describes the canonical approach as an intertextual one in his opening chapter to his OT Theology in a Canonical Context. Again, I recognize this is one particular element of the canonical method, but it is a BIG ONE. I’m not sure who Hayes is (do you mean Richard HAYS?). If so, Hays’ approach is more a narrative theology (he’s a former teacher of mine at Duke), and yes, he is quite high on intertextuality. Again, the canonical method is not ONLY intertextuality, but it is a significant part of it.
John, thanks for clarifying. Your comments regarding Seitz are a bit sweeping, I’m not sure I’m reading his focus (on formation) as you are (meaning, I think Seitz is playing the ‘historical’ game to make his point that is still made without the ‘historical’ game but because he plays it it gives more credibility), but perhaps another day.
Yes, I meant Hays, sorry for the ‘e’ it was accidental. When I say canonical theology is not intertextuality, I should have clarified… it’s not the intertextuality that Hays does. Childs clearly distinguishes canonical theology from Hays’ intertextuality in his first chapter on the Pauline corpus.
Ha! Now there’s a lot to comment on. Sorry, I’ve been watching the NBA finals.
Rob. Okay, we probably agree more on things than we think. The communities that received the NT writings surely kept them with other similar writings; this process is the beginning of the canon formation, but I don’t think it’s until after Marcion that the larger Christian community had to face questions of canon. Yet before this each community had their own proto-canons, and I think P46 is an example of this.
I do believe that some later NT writers might have been aware of canon formation, but not many. I’ll highlight a book in a future post that talks about canon formation and the purpose of the letter of James. [D. R. Nienhuis. Not by Paul Alone Waco, TX: Baylor UP, 2007.] Also, the author of Luke-Acts may have thought of his writings as being “biblical history”, a conscious attempt to continue the writings and history of the OT (cf. Dahl’s article in the Schubert FS and Sterling’s Historiography and Self-Definition).
John. I definitely looked into Baylor when applying to PhD programs and anyone who ends up studying the NT there is in an excellent place. They were a good program before they acquired Longenecker, but that just made them that much better. I didn’t really have a good reason for not applying there, other than the fact that I had to limit my applications at some point and tried to go for the best fits and most practical options.
It’s great to hear such an emphasis on Greco-Roman literature and the progymnasmata specifically! I really don’t think anybody would deny the usefulness of looking at other writings from early Christianity or the Greco-Roman world or the Jewish milieu. The main point I was originally making is that more work needs to focus on those texts because not only do they help us better understand the NT, but they have an intrinsic worth of their own.
We need more OT bloggers giving their props to Baylor’s OT program! ha!