gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (gary w buchholz) (10/31/85)
"Every critic like every theologian and every philosopher is a
casuist in spite of himself. To escape or surmount the
discontinuity of knowledge, each resorts to a particular
heresy and makes it predominant and even omnivorous."
-R. P. Blackmur / Language as Gesture
James A. Sanders is Elizabeth Hay Bechtel Professor of Intertestamental
and Biblical Studies in the School of Theology at Claremont,
California, Professor of Religion at Claremont Graduate School and
President of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center at Claremont.
The following is taken from his "Canon and Community: A Guide to
Canonical Criticism" published in the "Guides to Biblical Scholarship"
series Fortress Press (1984)
I take this to be a more succinct codification of what Charley Wingate
espouses as his construal of the historical process... In other words,
I take Charley to be a "closet" canon critic and canonical conjurer of
"Phamtasma" in the style of Brevard Childs of Yale Divinity School.
Childs, Sanders and Charley all appeal to "apparition"(=Holy Spookery)
as operative in Christian tradition over against Koester et al and the
historical school who see no such specter at work...
"The model canonical criticism sponsors as more nearly true to what
happened, and what happens, is that of the Holy Spirit [Spook] at
work all along the path of the canonical process: from the original
speaker, through what was understood by the hearers; to what the
disciples believed was said; to how later editors reshaped the
record, oral and written, of what was said; on down to modern
hearers and understandings of texts in current believing
communities..."
"Could not God in the Holy Spirit [Spook] so work with all the
individuals in the believing communities, at all the points along
with way of the canonical process, as to weave these texts to Gods
own purpose and truth ? "
I would wonder is this is true at the level of definition or if this is
something derived from a critical investigation of the historical
process.
We'll let Sanders have his way. If the Holy Spook is at work "all
along the way" - from original hearer, to writer, to redactor, through
Church Fathers and in the tradition that framed the creeds of the
church then it would be a simple matter to "ferret out" a number of the
immutable truths that have been delivered by the Holy Spook to "great
church theologians" through the centuries...
Who better an exemplar than Cyril of Alexandria...
"The jews are the most deranged of all men. They have carried impiety
to its limit, and their mania exceeds even that of the Greeks. They
read the Scriptures and do not understand what they read. Although
the had heavenly light from above, the preferred to walk in
darkness. They are like people who had neither their mind nor their
thinking faculty. Accordingly, they were seized by the darkness and
they live as in the night. They were deprived completely of the
divine splendour and did not have the divine light."
Such was delivered from God by the "Spirit" to Cyril and preserved for
present instruction - an insight both into the nature of jews and
Greeks alike.
Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza supplies us with another example of Truths
communicated to the "great theologians of the church" by the "Spirit"...
(quoted from In Memory of Her: a feminist theological reconstruction of
Christian origins)
"The polemic of the patristic authors against womans ecclesial
leadership and the office ultimately resulted in the equation of
woman's leadership in the church with heresy. This progressive
equation of women with heresy had as a consequence the theological
defamation of Christian women."
"The attacks of Tertullian indicate how prominent women's leadership
still was toward the end of the second century. Tertullian is
outraged about the insolence of those women who dared 'teach, to
participate in theological disputes, to exorcise, to promise
healings and to baptize'. He argues that it is not permitted for
women 'to speak in church, to teach, to baptize, to sacrifice, to
fulfill any other male function, or to claim any form of priestly
functions'... He accuses women of the temptation not only of man but
also of the angels. According to him woman is the 'devils gateway'
and the root of all sin. Finally, Jerome attributes to women the
origin not only of sin but all heresy".
Further investigation of the historical process shows the Holy Spirit
at work in the form of the emperor Constantine.
(edict A.D. 333)
"Constantine, Victor, Greatest Augustus, to bishops and laity: (The
heretic) Arius, having imitated wicked and impious men, deserves to
suffer the same loss of privleges as they. Therefore, just as
Porphry, that enemy of piety who put together various illegal works
against religion, got his just deserts, so that he was made
contemptible forever after and filled full of ill fame, and his
impious books have been obliterated thus too, we now order that
Arius and those who agree with him shall be called Porphyrians...and
besides this, if any book by Arius be found, it is to be consigned
to the fire, so that not only his corrupt teachings may vanish, but
no memory of him at all may remain."
Bishops were given judicial authority by Constantine to carry out
further work of the Spirit... Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus in Syria,
about 450 AD wrote of a heretic Tatian:
"This [fellow] composed that gospel called "By the Four".... I myself
found more than two hundred such books revered in the churches of my
own [diocese], and collecting them all, I did away with them and
introduced instead the gospels of the four {canonical} evangelists"
There we have Theodoret, another agent of the Holy Spirit doing the Gods
work by "consigning to the fire" a gospel revered by Christians in his
own diocese in favor of those gospels sanctioned by emperor Constantine
(our canonical four).
I could multiply these examples indefinitely. I took these quotes from
various books of the "historical school". The "historical school"
proceeds on the presupposition that one does critical historiography
first, before one does theology despite the "canonical school" who would
hold this to be "backwards".
The first quote (of Cyril) comes from Susan Handelman (Prof. of English
U of Maryland) who wishes to recover the Hebrew Bible and jewish tradition
from the jewish Christian heresy of allegorical/spiritual interpretation
which made the Hebrew Scriptures the "Old" Testament.
The second quote comes from Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza (Prof of NT
Studies at Notre Dame) who wishes to recover the role of women in the
Church against the androcentric distortion of the early church fathers
and the framers of the canon.
The final quote comes from Morton Smith (Prof of Ancient History at
Columbia) who wishes to recover the historical Jesus in the face of the
systematic destruction of ancient texts decreed as "heretical" by the
Roman empire.
What the "historical school" would agree on is that the jews as a
people are NOT deranged (contra Xian tradition / Cyril); that women are
not the cause of all heresy (contra Xian tradition / Tertullian &
Jerome); and that "might is not right"(contra the systematic burning
and destruction of "other" Christian texts at the hands of emperor
Constantine and his army of bishops.
Basically, Charley, with this model of "Holy Spirit" and God's
providential work/action in history can theologically justify and
legitimate any and all of the above as "acts of divinity".
Lets understand this. Sanders posits this as a rhetorical question.
"Could not God in the Holy Spirit so work with all the
individuals in the believing communities, at all the points along
with way of the canonical process, as to weave these texts to Gods
own purpose and truth ? "
If Sanders is right then we have learned Gods truth about jews (they
are deranged), about women (they are the source of all heresy) and
about Arian theology ("...consigned to the fire, so that not only his
corrupt teachings may vanish, but no memory of him at all may remain.")
and about the true gospel (two hundred copies of Tatians gospel revered by
"Christian" churches burned by Theodoret at the emperors orders).
If Sanders is wrong and "Gods truth" is not worked out in history
through the Holy Spirit then what do we make of this "systematic
destruction of texts" at the hands of Constantine such that only a
"canonical" four remain ? Or the burning of the Arian texts as
"heresy" ?
If the authority of the creeds and doctrines of the church are not
framed under the authority of the Holy Spirit and Gods providence
then whose "authority" are they framed under ?
Here is the crux of the matter and the divergence between the
"historical school" and the "canonical school" represented by Sanders.
The "historical school" begins with critical historiography and derives
its theology (or non-theology) from this. Canon critics are the
bemused recipients of a whole slew of "doctrines" and "creeds"
bequeathed to them by tradition and said to be "true". It is their
uncritical acceptance of tradition that forces them to seek the axial
hermeneutic by which they may *make* what they have received "true".
Here is where Sanders et al enlist the aid of a specter and the
"canonical method". Again,
"The model canonical criticism sponsors AS MORE NEARLY TRUE to what
happened, and what happens, is that of the Holy Spirit at work all
along the path..."
Thats a hard one indeed !! Does Sanders mean what he says in light of
church fathers such as Cyril, Tertullian and Jerome. The path to canon
included the "burnings" of Constantine and Theodoret. Does Sanders wish
to subsume under "Gods Truth" the action of the Roman Emperor and his
"systematic destruction" of texts ? The exclusion of women from the
clergy ? The denigration of the jewish people ? For Sanders, God is
at work "all along the path" even to the present day !
Is Sanders aware that "paths" have diverged ? Who is God with now ?
Obviously, God is not with the Roman Catholics (any more) because
Sanders is Protestant and Sanders theology is Protestant and we know
that "Gods truth" is Sanders truth "all along the path" to Sanders
Canonical methodology. Canonical criticism is "Gods Truth" "all along
the (torturous) path".
According to Charley Wingate "Gods Truth" is Anglican truth "all along
the path" thanks to the providential acts of God and the Holy Spirit.
Does the Anglican Church allow Women in the priesthood ? Does the
Anglican church think the jews deranged ? Does the Anglican Church
read any other gospels than those allowed by emperor Constantine ?
Does the Anglican Church hold Arian theology to be "heresy" as the
emperor declared ?
Shifting gears slightly, let me say that most people in the academy take
Sanders meta-history and the legitimating "function" of Holy Spookery
to be beneath discussion. This is the judgement of James Barr (Oxford)
when he takes both Childs and Sanders to task on these matter saying
that the whole system is ultimately confused and self-contradictory.
The entire "historical school" follows suit in this evaluation.
It is interesting to note that Sanders book "Canon and Community: a
guide to canonical criticism" is directed to a lay audience even
through it bears the imprint "Guides to Biblical Scholarship".
What "Scholarship" could this be ?
Charley Wingate has remarked several times in response to my postings
that I would set "theology" above the laity and out of their reach. In
Sanders work Charley may find the peaceful union of Church and theology
that he seeks. Sanders declares quite explicitly:
"Canonical criticism may perhaps be the corrective to what happened
because of the Enlightenment, when the Bible was taken from the
church lectern into the scholars study. The movement of canonical
criticism is that of the scholars being openly willing to be a
SERVANT of the believing communities" [ emphasis mine ]
Now here is where Sanders and a great many theologians and biblical
scholars come to a parting of the ways both in what counts as
"theology" and what counts as "biblical scholarship".
Why should any theologian or any biblical scholar be constrained or
answerable to believing communities ? What sort of "theology" or
"biblical scholarship" could this be that acquiesces to the whim of
an uneducated and theologically oblivious lay community ?
Here is where I must appeal to an 1806 work by Friedrich Schleiermacher
who has been called the father of modern theology. He writes "Speeches
on Religion to its Cultured Despisers" as an apologetic for religion to
the heirs of the Enlightenment. Schleiermacher knows "religion" looks
"silly" to the educated but what is "silly" is not religion itself but
religion in the hands of the laity.
Schleiermacher writes...
"...This at least is certain, that all truely religious men, as many as
there ever have been, ... have all known how to estimate the church,
commonly so-called, at about its true value, which is to say, not
particularly high.
<the church> ... is very far from being a society of religious men. It
is only an association of persons who are but seeking religion, and it
seems to me natural that, in almost every respect, it should be the
counterpart of the true church <true Christianity / Schleiermachers
theology>
...They <people in church> cannot be spoken of as wishing to complete
their religion... for if they had any religion of their own, it would,
by necessity of its nature, show itself in some way... They exercise
no reaction because they are capable of none; and they can only be
incapable because they have no religion.... I would say that they are
negatively religious, and press in great crowds to the few points where
they suspect the positive principle of religion... In entire passivity
they simply suffer the impressions on their organs.
...In few words this is the history of their religious life and the
character of the social inclination that runs through it. Not
religion, but a little sense for it, and a painful, lamentably
fruitless endeavor to reach it, are all that can be ascribed even to
the best of them, even those who show both spirit and zeal"
I can readily identify with those in academic theological community who
are quite willing (contra Sanders) to let the laity fall by the wayside
and to disengage theology both from the Church and from a "biblical
revelation".
'We" know that Sanders "spooky" meta-history is silly. And "we" know
that canon criticism is the dead corpse of secular "New Criticism"
whose obituary was filed long ago.
Professional societies such as AAR(American Academy of Religion) and
SBL(Society of Biblical Literature) that do theology and biblical
scholarship in a radically interdisciplinary matrix do not take kindly
to this naivete exemplified by Sanders.
I've been a member of AAR and SBL for the past two .years. I read their
journals, go to their national and regional meetings and participate
within subgroups of AAR dedicated to very specific fields of study. I
would not count myself a "scholar" of "their" caliber yet. But, in the
two years that I have been associated with these societies I think I
have appropriated their Zeitgeist enough to make this remark in
response to Sanders method and his understanding of the relation between
theology and the laity - Hell will freeze over before "we" become the
SERVANTS of believing communities !
Garyfriesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (11/07/85)
In article <1263@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (gary w buchholz) writes: > >Childs, Sanders and Charley all appeal to "apparition"(=Holy Spookery) >as operative in Christian tradition over against Koester et al and the >historical school who see no such specter at work... > > "Could not God in the Holy Spirit [Spook] so work with all the > individuals in the believing communities, at all the points along > with way of the canonical process, as to weave these texts to Gods > own purpose and truth ? " > >...it would be a simple matter to "ferret out" a number of the >immutable truths that have been delivered by the Holy Spook to "great >church theologians" through the centuries... > <<< A series of examples of church leaders such as Cyril of Alexandria, <<< Tertullian, Constantine, and Theodoret <<< who held extremely bigoted opinions. > >Basically, Charley, with this model of "Holy Spirit" and God's >providential work/action in history can theologically justify and >legitimate any and all of the above as "acts of divinity". > >Lets understand this. Sanders posits this as a rhetorical question. > > "Could not God in the Holy Spirit so work with all the > individuals in the believing communities, at all the points along > with way of the canonical process, as to weave these texts to Gods > own purpose and truth ? " > >If Sanders is right then we have learned Gods truth about jews (they >are deranged), about women (they are the source of all heresy) and >about Arian theology ("...consigned to the fire, so that not only his >corrupt teachings may vanish, but no memory of him at all may remain.") >and about the true gospel (two hundred copies of Tatians gospel revered by >"Christian" churches burned by Theodoret at the emperors orders). Except that noe of your examples come from the scriptures! They are all the individual actions of individual men. It is in fact remerkable that in spite of them the Bible is essentially free of their more extreme polemic. This can be viewed as evidence that perhaps the Holy Spirit really did have something to do with the origin of the scriptures! Certainly I do not believe that *all* actions by religious leaders are correct and holy, or even inspired. Thus I see no way to argue that the Holy Spirit must necessarily been involved in these actions. In fact these extreme positions have in general been *rejected* in the long run. >Here is where Sanders et al enlist the aid of a specter and the >"canonical method". Again, > > "The model canonical criticism sponsors AS MORE NEARLY TRUE to what > happened, and what happens, is that of the Holy Spirit at work all > along the path..." > >Thats a hard one indeed !! Does Sanders mean what he says in light of >church fathers such as Cyril, Tertullian and Jerome. The path to canon >included the "burnings" of Constantine and Theodoret. Does Sanders wish >to subsume under "Gods Truth" the action of the Roman Emperor and his >"systematic destruction" of texts ? The exclusion of women from the >clergy ? The denigration of the jewish people ? NO, but I would say that God was able to use these evil actions by fallen men to bring about the accomplishment of His goals, which is something quite different. It is saying that even if individual men, even powerful leaders, blow it and head the wrong way God's purposes are still accomplished. > -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa