Scripture and interpretive method: why read scripture as Canon?

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Winter, 2003 by Kenneth G. Stenstrup

Introductory texts intending to introduce children to scientific method often note basic principles. One text, for example, stresses the notion that "understanding begins with observation" (Beech: 17). If a casual perusal of the more popular monographs and periodical literature is any measure, observation of Scripture often can produce a study focused on an isolated pericope or text. Such focused studies also tend to employ only one or a few of the classical criticisms like, for example, an understanding of Paul's rhetoric in Romans or Matthew's redaction of the parable about the mustard seed. Any study intended to reconstruct the specific context within which a perception of the Divine was received and articulated is certainly essential and foundational. But such reconstructions can leave one with only a partial understanding of how a text or tradition can function. If Scripture is ultimately a collection of human understandings of the Divine (whether and to what extent this understanding is recognized as inspired or not), observations about Scripture can go beyond the more limited scopes of pericope or text to describe how the Divine is portrayed working through the variety of human conditions articulated in larger collections of, for example, a denomination's canon. An understanding of how Scripture can function with appreciation for this broader scope is offered in the method of James A. Sanders. The description of this method follows some brief preliminary comments on the nature of Scripture.

Scripture as Canon

English-language dictionaries typically note two meanings in a definition of Scripture. For example, WEBSTER'S NINTH NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY first mentions the components or the concrete thing(s): "a passage" or the "books of the Bible." Second mentioned is a process. Here, Scripture is defined as "writings considered sacred or authoritative" (italics added). Similarly at this more functional level, THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE mentions Scripture as "a statement regarded as authoritative" (italics added). To some extent these definitions push one to describe first, what is meant by "sacred" or "authoritative" and then, who is responsible for such "considering" or "regarding."

Scripture can further be described as a time-tested literature that provides groups with a sense of mythos (identity) and ethos (Sanders 1984, 25-28). These notions of identity ("who we are") and ethos ("what we do") refer to how groups utilizing Scripture understand themselves and, as well, how groups understand the Divine or their relationship with the Divine. Groups that utilize a tradition (that is, a description of a particular person, place, event, concept or theme) as Scripture seemingly do so because these texts understand and explain such relationships well.

Because the texts have an ability to provide a group with insight into the realities of their collective life, they are considered sacred and/or authoritative. As received, traditions are regarded as meaningful, at least potentially. They might similarly be said to be life affirming, authoritative, sacred, of efficacious as opposed to meaningless or without authority, profane and non-efficacious.

One might think of the collective of Scripture aligned (implicitly or explicitly) along some type of continuum. For example, the JEWISH ANTIQUITIES of Josephus might be of great interest to those concerned with Scripture while the PRAYER OF MANASSEH and 2 MACCABEES might be included (perhaps as "Apocryphal") in some Bibles. Nevertheless, it is, for example, Paul's letter to Philemon that is received for all Christians while at the same time it may be the book of Psalms, John of Isaiah that serves as a frequent touchstone for a particular Christian group. Certainly different groups have different criteria for determining why a text or tradition is implicitly of formally received as Scripture, but common to all is that each respective group determines and recognizes the criterion to be used. With respect to the First (a.k.a. Old) Testament, for example, Roman Catholics would have referred to a particular edition of a Vulgate following the Council of Trent. At the same time, Protestants might have referred to a translation of a particular edition of a Hebrew Bible. Today, of course, both Protestant and Roman Catholic Bibles utilize translations of Leningradensis. Defining Scripture is ultimately a task of the group that receives a tradition as Scripture.

Still, various groups differ in their understanding of what specific texts have been explicitly or doctrinally judged as constituting Scripture. These differences are nowhere more clear than in comparisons of the official lists of texts used by contemporary groups. For example, many appreciate as distinct the specific lists of received texts recognized by Jews and Christians. Even within Christianity, the Protestant list is not as inclusive of texts as the Roman Catholic list, which is not as inclusive as the Orthodox list. Recognizing and respecting these distinctions need not imply, however, that there are fundamental differences in what is said within these collections. The various Jewish and Christian groups that employ Scripture, for example, may do so ultimately to attest an understanding of God as one (monotheism) and to correlate this perception to a view of reality as integrated. Differences regarding which text is or is not received (officially listed as Scripture) can be less important than the desire to recognize the pervasive hermeneutics within these Scriptures, the hermeneutics that consistently posit reality as ultimately integrated, or God as one. As such, respective collections of Scriptures can hold a value in their potential as a paradigm for understanding how to strive to monotheize, that is, how to be as conscious as possible of the assertion that God is one.