James A. Sanders. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
I
stumbled upon this book when I went home over a year ago for my
sister's wedding. I was looking through the closet of my childhood room
for books that I could read for My Year (or More) of Nixon, and I
discovered this short book by James Sanders explaining canonical
criticism. The book probably meant more to me when I found it in that
closet than it did when I first picked it up over a decade before. I
first picked the book up way back when I was an undergraduate, and the
chaplain of the college was giving away some of his old books for free.
A professor of mine had recommended that I look into canonical
criticism, since, as a conservative Christian at the time, I was upset
with how the historical-critical method of interpreting the Bible tended
to split the Bible up into contradictory, sometimes
historically-inaccurate sources that related only to the time of their
own composition, not to today. My professor pointed me to canonical
criticism so that I could be exposed to a scholarly methodology that was
more holistic, synchronic, and faith-affirming in its engagement with
the Bible. I remember her recommending to me Brevard Childs' books,
though she may have also mentioned Sanders' work. In any case, I
remembered Childs' name, perhaps because it struck me as rather unusual,
but not Sanders. When I first saw Sanders' book on canonical
criticism, I decided to pick it up because it was about canonical
criticism, but I did not realize at the time that Sanders himself was a
significant figure in terms of this methodology. I would come to
appreciate that years later. Consequently, when I found the book in my
old closet over a year ago, I appreciated it for the jewel that it is,
more so than I did when I was an undergraduate.
I
was one time talking with an old student of Sanders about canonical
criticism, asking him if Sanders' canonical criticism is the same as
that of Childs. His response was that they are different----that
Childs' enterprise was more theological, whereas Sanders focused more on
the use of Scripture within religious communities. After reading Canon and Community,
I can see differences between the approaches of Childs and Sanders,
many of which Sanders himself highlights. At the same time, I also
notice similarities, as I will explain in the course of this post.
Essentially,
Sanders argues that traditions in the Bible have been re-interpreted
and re-used within religious communities to speak to their own
concerns. Sanders contends that one can see this process going on
within the Bible itself, and also after the Bible's canonization.
Consequently, according to Sanders, historical-criticism that limits the
writings of the Bible to their own historical contexts is incomplete
and misguided, for traditions within those writings (and even before
those writings) were continually reapplied to speak to new contexts.
Many scholars have acknowledged this, but Sanders wants for people to
appreciate it. His impression in 1984 was that many did not. Some
tended to over-value what a prophet originally said, while dismissing or
under-valuing the redactors and writers within the Bible who re-applied
or built upon those prophet's words to speak to new situations. A
number of preachers chose to avoid exegetical preaching of the Bible,
choosing instead to give topical sermons, for historical-criticism
seemed to consign the meaning of the Bible to the past, thereby
convincing certain preachers that they could not adequately relate it to
the present. Sanders' canonical criticism speaks to this problem by
affirming that traditions in the Bible were historically not understood
to relate only to their original context, but were applied to speak to
new contexts, even within the Bible itself.
How
does Sanders' approach compare with what Childs did when Childs
attempted to address the same problem? According to Sanders, Childs'
canonical criticism primarily focused on the final form of the biblical
text. Childs would, say, focus on what the final form of the Book of
Isaiah appears to be saying, or what a passage in Isaiah may mean in
light of its final form, rather than the sources within the Book of
Isaiah. Childs would also discuss how a biblical book or passage would
fit into the larger canon: the Masoretic Text, and Christian Scripture.
Sanders had issues with these sorts of emphases, however. For one,
interpretation and re-interpretation of biblical traditions were going
on prior to the "final form" of the biblical book, and Sanders believes
that this should be acknowledged and appreciated, as opposed to acting
as if interpretation jumped off after the final form came to be.
Second, there were cases in which there was more than one final form
(i.e., different versions of Jeremiah), and even more than one canon
within Judaism and Christianity. Why privilege some over others? And
third, I would say that Sanders does focus more on religious communities
than does Childs, who primarily looks at what different sources can
mean theologically when they come together into one book or are
juxtaposed with books elsewhere in the Bible. My impression is that
Childs also highlights more the history of interpretation----the church
fathers, Ibn-Ezra, etc.----not so much to define how a text was
historically applied to speak to the concerns of a religious community,
but rather to demonstrate how great thinkers interpreted the Bible in a
synchonic, theological fashion, the way that he seems to support.
But
I believe that there is some overlap between the canonical criticisms
of Childs and Sanders. Sanders himself attempts to derive theological
ideas from the biblical text, and he, like Childs, explores how one can
read one biblical tradition in light of a different biblical tradition
that appears elsewhere in the Bible. Sanders argues that the diverse
traditions within the Bible serve to balance each other out or correct
each other. Israelites in the Book of Deuteronomy affirm their chosen
status before God, for example, whereas Jesus in the Gospel of Luke
criticizes a Pharisee who praised God that he was more righteous than
others. The latter, according to Sanders, can serve as a corrective to
the former when the two are read together by Christian devotees to the
text.
There are questions that one can ask
about Sanders' approach. Should we accept every interpretation and
re-interpretation of biblical traditions in history to be true (as in,
how God wants us to understand the text)? Are, say, Qumran, rabbinic
Judaism, and the New Testament all correct in how they interpret
Scripture, notwithstanding their different beliefs and agendas? And
what exactly defines an interpretation or re-interpretation as true?
Are there any boundaries?
I do not think that Sander adequately answered these questions in Canon and Community,
but I doubt that he would even claim that he did, for he acknowledges
in the book that there is still a lot of work to do. He does offer
suggestions regarding interpretation, however. He states that the text
itself can provide some boundaries as to its own meaning. He proposes
that interpreters keep in mind what a biblical passage meant in its
original context, even if they are applying the passage to new contexts,
for that can keep interpretations from getting out of hand. He also
identifies trends that perhaps can guide interpretations: there are
trends within and outside of the Bible towards monotheism, for example,
exalting God as the truth of the universe, above all competitors for our
worship and allegiance. Sanders also exhorts readers to focus on what
God is doing in the biblical text, and to try to identify with the
perspectives of different biblical characters, good and bad, as a way to
learn from them. Sanders' presupposition here is that even the bad
characters are children of God, and thus we need not be afraid to learn
from them, as that can correct us and build in us empathy and love
towards our enemies.
I cannot say that
all of my questions about canonical criticism were answered, but Sanders
did give me fresh ways to look at the text. Suppose that I read the
Bible and sought to understand the perspective of, say, Goliath? The
thing is, I fear that such an approach would lead me to have less
sympathy for the God of the Bible, who tends to side with some over
others!