I indicated in my post on the relation of the New Testament to the Old that a primary characteristic of the Christian two-testamental Bible is that these two testaments are simply juxtaposed to each other. There are no attempts to redactionally link them together, as we find in individual books such as Isaiah, or attempts to update the text of the Old Testament so that it speaks of Jesus more unambiguously (by inserting Jesus' name in Isaiah 53, for example).In short, this juxtaposition of the two testaments is of a different order than the canonical shaping that gave us the individual books in the first place. According to Childs, this type of "canonical shaping" is comparable to the composition of the fourfold Gospel collection. Just like the two testaments, the Gospels were also simply juxtaposed without an attempt to make the individual books conform to a single redactional pattern. This has hermeneutical significance in that it is the resulting effect of the juxtaposition, rather than in a single editorial intentionality, that should guide theological interpretation. (This also demonstrates, I should point out, that canonical exegesis is commited to reckoning with various types of intentionality when dealing with the totality of Scripture.)
In contrast to the two-testamental canon, however, there is no cross-referencing within the fourfold Gospel collection amongst the individual Gospels. Each of the individual Gospels, however, makes constant and explicit reference to the Old Testament – albeit in different ways. Indeed, the use of the Old Testament plays a major role in the canonical shaping of each of the Gospels and many of the New Testament letters as well. Childs draws the following implication from this observation:
the influence of the Old Testament on the individual shaping of the Gospels belongs to the level of the New Testament’s compositional history and cannot be directly related to the formation of the Christian Bible qua collection. This means that the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament, either by direct citation or allusion, cannot provide a central category for Biblical Theology because this cross-referencing operates on a different level. There is no literary or theological warrant for assuming that the forces which shaped the New Testament can be simply extended to the level of Biblical Theology involving theological reflection on both testaments (Biblical Theology, 76).
3 comments:
Hi Phil,
re:
> "...a primary characteristic of the Christian two-testamental Bible is that these two testaments are simply juxtaposed to each other. There are no attempts to redactionally link them together, as we find in individual books such as Isaiah, or attempts to update the text of the Old Testament so that it speaks of Jesus more unambiguously (by inserting Jesus' name in Isaiah 53, for example)."
Well . . . we do find the interpolation "The Lord reigns FROM THE TREE" in some Greek witnesses of Ps 96:10 (= LXX Ps 95:10); that looks to me like "more unambiguous" Christian updating :)
Leaving Childs' quote aside for the moment, I wonder if you aren't downplaying the significance of intertextual quotation and allusion. "SIMPLY juxtaposed"??? I am surprised you don't attach a greater hermeneutical significance to text-referencing.
You could also consider the deliberate adoption of certain formal features . . . e.g. I find it curious that Matthew begins with a genealogy emphasizing the Davidic lineage of Jesus, which is strikingly like the genealogy of Chronicles, which signals its interest in David by prioritizing the line of Judah above his brothers (1 Chron 2:3; cf. vv. 1-2) and moving to the Davidic genealogy (through Perez and Hezron) as quickly as possible.
So: "In short, this juxtaposition of the two testaments is of a different order than the canonical shaping that gave us the individual books in the first place."--
But there is more than just juxtaposition going on; there is also intertextual quotation and allusion. How different is the connection between Matt & 1 Chron from e.g. the editing linking Chron and Ezra (2 Chron 22:21-23 // Ezra 1:1-3)?
It seems to me that intertextual quotation and allusion IS part of the "shaping that gave us the individual books in the first place."
Though I think you are correct that juxtaposition is a different matter. Would you compare the OT/NT with the MT juxtaposition of Prov 31 and Ruth (perhaps based on a recognition of similar content and the keyword ’eshet hayil)?
Regarding your quote of Childs: "cannot be directly related to the formation of the Christian Bible qua collection"--I will grant you are right here. I don't see anything in the NT that creates a "collection" (like e.g. the redactional linkages in Deut 34/Josh 1/Mal 3/Psa 1).
However: what word WOULD you use when new books are being composed in relation to an older Scripture collection? And how does this differ from ancient Israelite books that are being composed in relation to each other to form a Scripture collection?
btw, interesting review of Wright on Chris's blog--I'll have to check it out!
all the best,
Michael
Hi Michael,
good to hear from you as always.
I think I need to clarify my point in the post, because I agree with you that intertextual quotation and allusion IS part of the "shaping that gave us the individual books in the first place."
. In the post I was talking about different levels of canonical activity. Quotation and allusion belongs to the level of the composition of the different books, not at the level of the creation of the whole. So I'm in total agreeement with you on all your comments. The fact that Matthew mirrors Chronicles (interesting, thanks!) is a matter of the composition of Matthew, and a not a matter of the composition of the fourfold gospel collection or the new testament corpus as a whole.
This insight is important for me in understanding Childs as it shows that, in contrast to the consistent cariacatures of his critics, his approach to the canonical text was highly differentiated. He was commited to the entire canonical process and the diverse types of activity and intentionality that activity involved. Exegesis should not try to flatten the diachronic dimension out; it should try to integrate or correlate it somehow. Thus, in response to your question about the juxtaposition of Proverbs 31 and Ruth (again, fascinating, thanks), this juxtaposition would be an example of a type of canonical activity distinct from the composition of either book on their own and perhaps distinct from the composition of the entire testament. I'm not sure what that means hermeneutically/theologically. I think Childs would allocate the juxtaposition to a part of the texts' Wirkungsgeschichte and so it would be of lesser authority that the message of each text on its own. But on the other hand, Childs had a very high estimate of Wirkungsgeschichte, as it helps us in our ultimate theological-exegetical task of accessing the text's true "subject matter," the divine reality. So I think that the MT's juxtaposition should be taken seriously as a guide for a theological wrestling with each individual book, but because of it's unstable nature (in the sense that there were various canonical orderings representing various theological agenda), the hermeneutical perspective it creates is not binding. Though Childs argued for the MT text, he did not argue for the MT ordering, on the ground that it was never really settled. This is a complex task, and Childs never ceased in calling for us to handle it with sensitvity.
You asked: How different is the connection between Matt & 1 Chron from e.g. the editing linking Chron and Ezra (2 Chron 22:21-23 // Ezra 1:1-3)?
Interesting question. I'm not sure, but I think that the connections would be of a different order. Matthew's linking to Chronicles is not calling us to see the "effect" of the juxtaposition of the two books, in the sense of the word that I used in my post. It is presenting us with a concrete type relationship: that of prophecy and fulfilment (or in the case of the genealogy, perhaps there is no conscious allusion and it just reflexion memebership in a common interpretative tradition). The linking of Chronicles and Ezra would seem to be different again: a conscious descion to force a chronological reading (perhaps?). But then what do we do with the fact that the MT ordering ignores this? I'm guessing that the linking of Chronicles and Ezra in this case (as opposed to Prov/Ruth) should take interpretative precedence, as it is more than a matter of Wirkungsgeschichte, the connection already being made in the text. But the MT ordering is nevertheless interesting. There is a doctoral dissertation here in Germany arguing that Chronicals is actually designed to close the Jewish canon! This is all complext (for me at least!), but at least I can see that Childs' canonical approach requires that we wrestle with it an does not ask us to cover it over for some non-existent self-referential textual universe (which, again, he has been accused of).
Congratulations on your forthcoming book, by the way! If you want it to be reviewed on this blog .... ;)
By the way, I think an old post of mine on authorial intentionality and the final form could be relevant here.
Post a Comment