The Role of Canonical Order in Biblical Interpretation
The canonical method holds that the order of the books are important and there is information that helps inform our understanding of a particular text based on where it is found in the canon. A great deal of emphasis is placed on going back to the TaNaKa order when reading the Old Testament. While the canonical method has some merits when it come to understanding the roots of Christianity and the emphasis that it places on using the texts to interpret the texts it lacks the support to make it a viable theory.
The Method
The canonical method places an emphasis on the idea that the bible is a unified whole with a specific arrangement of books and to drive home a major point. They see the bible as a cohesive whole that God specifically ordered so that an explicit message would be communicated to his people. It is through understanding the order and how the order influences the meaning of texts that new revelations and insight is gathered on God’s scripture.
The canonical method advocates for a return to the TaNaKa order because this is the order that was created by the Jewish people and therefore the order that God intended the Old Testament to be read. These advocates see connections in the way the TaNaKa is ordered and laid out.
The usage of the TaNaKa in place of the western order is preferred as it is the order that has been given to the Israelites and it represents their own understanding of the scriptures. It is also considered that it is this canon that is quoted in the New Testament. It is this order of books that the New Testament considers the divine scriptures[1] so therefore we must follow the general order of the TaNaKa.[2]
The Hebrew bible is seen as being dived into three main theological sections. With the Torah being the foundation for life in the community. The Torah then sets the stage for the second section of books by ending with this “And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.”[3] The third section of books refers back to the Torah and if we think of the first two sections as God acting and God speaking the final section would be the people speaking to God.[4]
By using this method the ideas and influence of the Torah is seen throughout the whole Hebrew canon. The books build on each other and help us understand the books before it in the canon and after it in the canon. “…Because it is an unfolding canon, intertextual connections between the books must be duly noted.”[5] The canonical method argues that we must first read the Torah so that we can understand the prophets and that we must first read the prophets so that we can understand the writings.
The canonical method argues that it is a better idea then that of a thematic hermeneutic due to the fact that there are many different themes that can be pulled from the bible and many different ways to view these themes.
“The themes are often viewed from quite different perspectives and with different sorts of presuppositions, and their various aspects illuminate and complement one another. Thus the variety of voices with in the Hebrew Bible gains its quite specific structure through the arrangement of the canon.”[6]
The issue here is that we as humans bring our own understanding to themes and we see what we want while the structure of the TaNaKa keeps us honest and shows us how these themes and presuppositions all work in concert to expand our understanding of God.
This method also helps to keep the historical events and timeline before the reader. By using this method the reader is kept up to date on the historical context during which the events are taking place.[7] Other methods for study do not allow the reader to easily understand and grasp the history of the Jewish people. This is mainly due to the fact that other systems jump around thematically and require continual reminders of the historical setting that the passage was written in. While the canonical method goes book by book so the historical details are present as the reader moves from passage to passage.
This leads us to the understanding that most canonical advocates are staunch “analogy of faith” defenders. They see scripture defining scripture as key in their understanding and study of the scriptures. Those in the canonical method will look to other places in the bible to uphold and explain the problem passages that they encounter. [8]
Strengths of The Canonical Method
The canonical method places a great deal of emphasis on the unity of scripture. They see the scriptures as a unified whole with a specific message to get across to the people of God. It assumes that there is a connection between the books specifically in the Old Testament. “There is scarcely a theme that dose not appear in some way in several or all parts of the canon [the Hebrew canon].”[9]
Not only does the canonical method provide a strong argument for the unity of scripture is also places an importance on the role of scripture to interpret scripture. So instead of looking outside of the scriptures for the answers the canonical scholar will look to other places in scripture to gain insight into problem passages. This shows that the canonical scholars have a very high opinion of scripture and relies on it to solve the problems that it presents.
This high opinion of scripture naturally leads one to conclude that the canonical method is God centered. Because it depends on the idea that the scriptures contain all we need to understand them then it follows that the focuses has to be on God to find the meaning of his scriptures.
The canonical method also allows for those without extensive knowledge of the bible and the theological implication of each book to follow the reasoning of theologians and those that prescribe to other methods.
“One of the drawbacks of a noncanonical or non-book-by-book, approach is that many current students do not have extensive biblical knowledge. Therefore it is quite difficult for these students to use a systematic or dialectic approach that assumes the have already mastered the theological details in individual Bible books.” [10]
This method allows access to the scriptures that might otherwise be overwhelming to those with out the necessary background for study. It helps to foster the idea that Luther and others of the reformation fought for that every man and woman can read and understand the scriptures for themselves.
Critic of the Canonical Method
For all the good that this method has going for it there are some serious issues that make the method seem less useful.
First in order to hold onto the canonical interpretations at time the authorial intent has to be thrown over board in favor of the canonical interpretations. “In doing so, however, he [Childs] has had to jettison interest in the historical ‘intended meaning’ of the biblical author in favor of a canonical interpretation.”[11] This seems ludicrous, in order to keep consistent with the method the author is left by the wayside in favor of the canon. It would seem that the author of the book would take precedent over the place and shape of the canon when it comes to looking at passages. For it is the author not the canon that penned the book and it is the author not the canon that has a specific message to get across.
Second if there is a specific order that we need to read the bible in how do we know that we have picked the proper order. There is little evidence that the Masortic Texts (MT) are the one and only Hebrew reading tradition. There are various formations of books and even chapters with in books. When we look at the Septuagint (LXX) we find that the Minor Prophets are arranged in a different order then those in the MT texts. Then there is the issue of Jeremiah having a different chapter orders from the LXX to the MT as well as Ezekiel having differing chapter lengths. These differences from the LXX to the MT seem to point toward there being different traditions with in the Jewish world on the order of the books. For a method that draws significance from how the books are ordered it is necessary to know which is the correct order. And it would seem that it is impossible to know which is the correct order. With out a proper order the meaning found in the order is just a nice little addendum that might or might not mean anything. If there were different traditions with in the Jewish world it would seem to negate any necessity to read the scriptures in a specific order.
Third before there were books there were scrolls. It is hard to argue that there is a necessary order to the bible when it was the invention of the printing press that placed them in an order. Before the printing press all the scrolls were kept in a bin and brought out when they wanted to read them. This leads one to wonder if there is any meaning at all that can be derived from an order that was created so that the books could be published. While they might have been placed in some rough categories to help sort the bins it seems to me to be foolish to place a great weight on the order of the books when this order was created for the printing press and the invention of the book.[12]
Fourth while the use of scripture determines scripture has the potential to be a dangerous tool. It sounds like a wonderful idea that if there is a problem with a passage another passage in the bible can clarify it. Yet this can lead to what is called “parallelomaia”[13] this is the term for the inclination to take any passage that is analogues and define the meaning or origin of a biblical idea. This also leads to an increase in overreaching for biblical unity.
“This also can lead to an over emphasis upon the unity of biblical texts, resulting in what Cason calls an ‘artificial conformity’ that ignores the diversity of expression and emphasis between divergent statements in the bible.”[14]
This is one of the great dangers of using analogia fidei instead of allowing the text to have ambiguity unity is preferred and forced at the expense of the author’s original meaning. Instead of asking what might the author be doing with the ambiguous passage or controversial one unity is preferred and forced upon the passage by referencing others. Our understanding of scripture and desire to see it untied or our faith can over run the scripture. “Ebling goes so far as to claim that the analogia fiedei actually undercuts a true biblical theology, since in the end ‘the faith’ or the interpreter’s preunderstanding takes precedence over Scripture itself.” [15] It is scripture that should take the precedent neither our understanding nor our faith should lead the way but scripture.
Fifth the canonical method seems to draw deeper meaning from the order of the texts. This feels like some twisted or mild form of sensus plenior. They, the canonical scholars, appear to be drawing deeper meaning from the text biased on the order that it is in the canon. While this is not the full-blown sensus plenior ideal it is close to it and can lead some down that road. That the canon shows a deeper meaning for the texts that you would not have know about otherwise.
Conclusion
While the canonical method proposes some unique ideas and appeals a place in us that desires to see deeper meanings in the bible it seems to have many flaws in its system to allow it to stand on its own.
The method does place a great emphasis on the role of God and the scriptures and we should not dismiss this but it is more likely that this method is not one that should be use exclusively in the study of the bible. Rather it should be used in conjunction with authorial intent. In order to gain a broader understanding of how the bible is a unified whole we can carefully and with limited application look at how the book works with in the canon to create a broader story and point that God is getting across to his people.
We should not be so quick to abandon the author in all of our biblical study. For it is the author that sets the meaning of texts not to the order of the texts. It is through the author that we understand and learn while the canonical method looks to the canon to provide the meaning for the passages it is really the author that does this not the order of books.
This method brings to light the issue of duel authorship. For if the canon was set by God why not the order of the books? And why not meaning in the order of the books? This leads to the dangerous course of loosing the human author and emphasizing one author over the other. when in reality we should realize that God inspired the human author to write therefore what he wrote is what God wanted written. This leads to the idea that it does not matter what order the books are in for they were written independently and God has taken them and woven them into a tapestry that has him at the center.
[1] Paul House here points to Luke 24.44 as textual evidence for this claim. While the verse lists the books in the TaNaKa order I am unconvinced that this is firm evidence of the one and only way that the scriptures should be ordered, rather Jesus is saying I was talked about before.
[2] House R., Paul. Old Testament Theology. p 55.
[3] Deuteronomy 34.10
[4] Rendtorff, Rolf. The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A theology of the Old Testament. pp. 5-6.
[5] House R., Paul. Old Testament Theology. p. 55.
[6] Rendtorff, Rolf. The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A theology of the Old Testament. p. 8.
[7] House R., Paul. Old Testament Theology. p. 55.
[8] Osborne R., Grant. The Hermeneutical Spiral. pp. 271-272
[9] Rendtorff, Rolf. The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A theology of the Old Testament. p. 8.
[10] House R., Paul. Old Testament Theology. p. 56
[11] Osborne R, Grant. The Hermeneutical Spiral. p. 272 this quote is in reference to Childs and his specific changes and while this might not be true of all proponents of this method it is interesting to note that at times one must chose to either abandon the canonical method or authorial intent in order to explain some passages.
[12] Dr. Koivisto in summer hermeneutics class pointed out that the scrolls were kept in bins and not organized in any particular order.
[13] Sandmel’s term found and used by Osborne R, Grant The Hermeneutical Spiral. p. 273
[14] Osborne R, Grant The Hermeneutical Spiral. p. 273
[15] Osborne R, Grant The Hermeneutical Spiral. p. 273
No comments:
Post a Comment