Although this post can be read on its own, it is part of a longer thread analysing Chris Seitz's Prophecy and Hermeneutics (go here for an overview).According to Seitz and Childs, the canonical approach is predicated upon some conception of theological continuity within the development of the Biblical tradition. Within this framework, later tradents of the sacred tradition were
seeking to hear the original word, overtaking them and enclosing them, in the context of a new set of circumstances, constraints, hopes, and divine judgments (129).
What are the hermeneutical implications of this for those interpreters today who want to grasp the word itself, the living word active throughout the process?
The theological continuity between traditions means that one can read older traditions in light of their later development, and thus gain a fuller understanding of their original witness (Childs would have said that the old is infused with its “full ontological reality”). The prophetic word of the past lays claim to the future,
The theological continuity between traditions means that one can read older traditions in light of their later development, and thus gain a fuller understanding of their original witness (Childs would have said that the old is infused with its “full ontological reality”). The prophetic word of the past lays claim to the future,
without ever ceasing to be relevant on the terms of its original delivery. The dynamic character is fully on view, but the bridge being built enables us to move in two directions and not just one. The book of Joel shows a present generation enacting the repentance (2:12-29 … ) called for in the days of Hosea (… Hosea 14.1 …). In so doing, one is drawn back into the world of Hosea to learn again what the character of God is truly like. More than this, one is given the chance to stand before the mystery of God's ways and the penetrating insight offered through the canonical witness of Hosea to that, which had gone unheeded or was only partially comprehended in the days of the first delivery (125-126, emphasis original).
Again, von Rad is Seitz's foil. In von Rad's attempt to bridge the gap between earlier and later tradition, including the New Testament, by means of a critically reconstructed, non-canonical theory of prophecy's “forward thrusting” movement, the bridge
self-destructs once it has arced from the past into its next phase (125, emphasis removed).
Next in the series I will post a parallel insight from the New Testament, furnished by Richard Bauckham.
4 comments:
If I am understanding you, an example of this is in the way Hebrews uses Psalm 95.
Hi Bob,
not really ... This is a hermeneutic for post-Biblical scholars, whereas the author of Hebrews is already within the Bible. His activity of reading the Old Testament Christologically is a function of his status of "apostle," and his goal is to witness to the resurrected Lord by means of the OT text. We ain't apostles, so we can be expected to mimic his approach to the Bible - not exactly at least. Whereas he went from the apostolic tradition to the OT and back again, we go from a complete NT to the OT and back again, within the framework of whatever we consider to be authoritative tradition (the creed). Hebrews is a primary witness to the "divine" reality, we are secondary witnesses, to use Barth's term.
In terms of the post, "reading a tradition in light of its later developement" means reading Ps 95 and Hebrew's interpretation of it together (though not flatly, i.e. reducing Ps 95 to Hebrew's interpretation, rather: dialectically). Hebrew's is itself the later tradition. Though of course we also belong to church tradition, Hebrew's is "canonical," i.e marked off and authoritative and a standard of truth to which we submit, rather then a template for our own interpretation.
Again: "that which ... was only partially comprehended" applies to both Ps 95 and Hebrews. For us, as secondary witnesses, it is the reality witnessed to by the interplay of these two primary witnesses that is of interest.
I have the uncomfortable feeling that this doesn't answer your question clearly enough ... Does it help?
Hi Phil: you quote this: The book of Joel shows a present generation enacting the repentance (2:12-29 … ) called for in the days of Hosea (… Hosea 14.1 …). In so doing, one is drawn back into the world of Hosea to learn again what the character of God is truly like.
I see Hebrews being written - with no thought of its being canonical - as a rereading of Psalm 95 to prove that the entry into the promised land was not the entry into the rest of God. So here the preacher is redefining God's 7th day rest by using a later scripture to define an earlier one. And in so doing is reframing both the psalms and the Torah. This kind of hermeneutic should warn us away from certain forms of reading and encourage us to know the God to whom Hebrews is now pointing us.
In other words, our use of the idea of canon needs much more nuance than is common.
Anyway - that's what your note suggested to me - but of course you may be in a different world than I am. In any case I will look forward to Bauckham's contribution - and I always enjoy what you write - thanks.
Thanks Bob.
In other words, our use of the idea of canon needs much more nuance than is common.
This is, of course, true!
Post a Comment