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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

“quote early” = “quite early”

“early century” = “early second century”