At the moment I am working on the section of my thesis which tries to explain what a canonical approach to interpretation actually is. This is a harder question than I first thought. Here’s a summary of my thinking so far:
1. The canon is a cohesive, ordered collection of texts.
2. Choosing to read one of these texts canonically involves privileging the intra-canonical intertext above extra-canonical intertexts.
3. This involves a choice (whether conscious or not) on the part of the reader and does not deny the possibility of other interpretations, merely the right of other interpretations to be called canonical.
4. This intertextual interpretation must be governed by those canonical texts which describe the nature of the whole canonical intertext. That is to say, the canon’s own statements about its origin, purpose, content and audience need to be considered in a canonical interpretation of any part of the canon.
5. One of the things the canon tells us about itself is that it is divine discourse: God speaks through the canon.
6. Which means that the reader’s choice of a canonical interpretation in fact leads to an emphasis on the (implied) divine author’s communicative intent.
7. The divine author’s communicative intent is by no means limited to the passing on of information. The canon tells us that God’s purposes for the canon include things like making promises; giving warnings; making people wise for salvation; establishing covenant and so on. A helpful model for clarifying these kinds of things is Austin’s speech act theory. Locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts describe what is said, what is done by saying, and what results from what is said. All of these (and a fourth kind of speech act identified by Vanhoozer, the interlocutionary act) are part of the communicative intent of the divine author implied in the canonical text. Thus all of these should inform a canonical interpretation.
8. Canonical interpretation will thus make demands on the reader. A canonical interpretation will implicate the reader in the illocutionary, perlocutionary and interlocutionary acts. The effects of an interpretation will thus form one means of evaluating it: not simply ‘Is it right?’ but ‘Does it work?’
Thoughts?
Stumble It!
10 Comments
To what extent can the canon be abstracted from the community which recognises it as authoritative? Does a canonical reading of the text involve some sort of commitment to read the text as the ‘Church’s Scriptures’?
Also, in thinking of the canon as ‘cohesive’ and ‘ordered’, I wonder whether there is a danger of moving to a position in which we view the text as having too much of an autonomous integrity. I have been listening through the whole of the Scriptures for Lent and one of the things that has struck me once again is the multiformity and plurality of the text. Taken by themselves, the true coherence of the canonical Scriptures is not entirely clear. Perhaps the coherence and ordering of the Scriptures is not so much their internal coherence, as it is their coherence in the Totus Christus. The true unifying principle of the text lies outside of the text, in the One to whom they bear witness – in Christ and his body.
I suspect that a truly canonical reading has to be a Christological and ecclesiological one. The text is that which forms the community which enacts it (the interpretation of Scripture being like the dramatic performance of a script, the Church being the cast). The text as the ’script’ should not be detached from its performance in and as the community, the sense of the text is only arrived at in its performance. The gradual revelation of the text could be seen in incarnational terms – God’s gradual preparation of a body for his Son. The text arrives at its true sense in Christ and is worked out in his body. To read the text canonically is to commit ourselves to be active members of the ecclesial cast.
Yes. I agree. I don’t think I’m saying (or trying to say) everything that a canonical interpretation ought to be. And certainly a canonical reading needs to be Christological and ecclesiological. I think that part of the performance aspect of the canon will be addressed in the section on interlocutionary speech acts. And I also think that ‘choosing to read canonically’ is a necessary part of being in the canonical community and to some extent constitutive of the canonical community.
I also don’t think that by cohesion I was meaning to imply coherence. What I was trying to say is that the canonical texts go together, somehow. They are not canonical in their isolated form but as part of the collection. And as that collection they do indeed bear witness to Christ who holds them together. One of the things that the intertextual model allows for is precisely the multiformity and plurality that you observe.
Taken by themselves, the true coherence of the canonical Scriptures is not entirely clear. Perhaps the coherence and ordering of the Scriptures is not so much their internal coherence, as it is their coherence in the Totus Christus. The true unifying principle of the text lies outside of the text, in the One to whom they bear witness – in Christ and his body.
I’m sympathetic to this and therefore have slight problems with Ros’s points 4 and 5:
where do any of the books of the Bible say anything about the canon as we understand it? After all, did any of the Bible writers have much of an idea we’d one day end up with this particular set of 66 books. I’m not definitely not denying that the Bible claims to be the word of God, because I believe you can find in the Bible statements that imply, for each of the 66 books, that it is the word of God (eg 2 Tim 3:16 covers the OT, 2 Pet 3:16 covers Paul, if Paul was regarded as scripture so probably were the other apostles etc). I just wander if you want to be careful using canon language in the way you do, Ros, since the Bible’s approach seems more de facto: various texts suggest that various books are God’s word, the church beleives these claims about the books individually and then groups those books together and calls them the canon, because they have several important things in common: they are all God’s sufficient word about his Son. Probably doesn’t make too much difference in practise, I just wander if “canon” is a concept the church has (helpfully) invented to recognise the unique nature of Scripture, rather than one found in Scripture itself.
Michael,
The canonical shape of individual books is pretty well established, i.e that they have a particular message, how that works within collections is increasingly being explored. A good example is the work being done on the twelve minor prophets by Sweeney and Seitz. The Psalter also bears evidence of canonical shaping that is eschatological in intent.
I’m sorry, Richard, I didn’t follow much of that. So obviously particular Bible books (like any books) have a particular message. I’m sure there are interesting questions to be asked if groups of books within the Bible have a particular message as well. I’m also not denying the harmony and unity of scripture.
All I’m saying is that arguably the harmony of scripture and the fact that the books all bear unified testimony to Jesus is not because they’re all part of the canon. Rather they’re all part of the canon because they’re all God’s word bearing testimony about his son. These books are God’s word and therefore these are the books the church chose to include in the Bible. At the early councils the church fathers were surely only recognising authority not conferring it.
I am reluctant to say that the canon makes claims about the canon. The books in the Bible make claims about the other books in the Bible, but they don’t makes claims about any list drawn up by the church fathers, because this list didn’t exist when the Bible was written. The list is affirming the claim the Bible writers made. The fact that the list contains all and only the books that are God’s word means that “what do the books of the Bible say” and “what the canon says” have (to borrow a few more concepts from the philosophy of language) the same meaning, but different senses, much as “the morning star” and “the planet Venus” do. The two refer to the same object, but “the morning star is the planet Venus” is not a tautology and if I don’t know that that sentence is true there is a sense in which you misreport my experience if you say “Michael say the morning star” when I think I saw the planet Venus.
Just thoughts.
Michael, have you read any of Brevard Childs?
This isn’t the canonical approach of either Seitz or Childs, as far as I can see.
No, it isn’t. It’s my thoughts (which are informed by but not the same as those of either Seitz or Childs) about the ways in which canonical status affects interpretation.
No, haven’t read either. What in summary do they say?
Michael, I’d visit Phil’s blog as he is focusing on Childs’ approach and has a couple of series on him.
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] canonical approach to interpretation Ros offers her thoughts here and invites [...]