gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (gary w buchholz) (10/23/85)
"In order to distinguish true from false statements, I refer to the
judgement of another - and indeed to the judgement of all others
with whom I may enter a conversation (whereby I counterfactually
include all of the conversation partners I could find if my life
history were coextensive with the history of humanity). The
condition for the Truth of statements is the potential consent of
all others. Truth means the possibility of obtaining a rational
consensus."
"Toward a reconstruction of
historical materialism" in
Communication and the Evolution
of Society. Jurgen Habermas
This is a reply to the second of Childs criticisms of Dunn, Best and
Koester cited by Jeffrey Gillette in New Testament as Canon (1985)
> Recently Brevard Childs of Yale has registered two very powerful (to my
> mind at least) criticisms of the Dunn / Best view of Scripture....
> Second, Childs criticizes Best and Dunn for not realizing that the
> significance of the canon was not to tie the gospel to the past, but
> to the future. The process of canonization was a dialectic in which
> the church shaped the text, and in return were shaped by the same
> Scriptures. Rather than presenting a series of outdated and
> irrelevant snapshots of Christianity (a position, by the way, which
> neither Dunn nor Best would hold), we see in the canon the church of
> several generations wrestling with the basic questions of what it
> means to be and to live as a Christian. Inasmuch as the basic
> questions of human existence, justice and theology have remained the
> same throughout the past two millennia, the canon serves to give us a
> living paradigm of how the contemporary community must wrestle with
> the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Childs is right, tradition shaping canon and canon shaping tradition
was a dialectical process in history. But, this analysis of the
dynamic of how the canon (and the church) "evolved" does not give
warrant to valorize this process.
In this, Childs remains pre-critical ignoring the possibility of
systematic distortion in the tradition. He ignores the possibility
that texts and language, far from being a vehicle of knowledge, are
in fact the bearers of oppressive ideologies.
Such is the view of feminist theologians. Elisabeth Shussler Fiorenza
has recognized this and writes her book "In Memory of Her" to try to
restore the historically true picture of the full participation of
women in the church over against the distortion of same by both the
canonical biblical texts and tradition.
Again, if we go "outside" the canon to the apocryphal Acts we find the
full participation of women in roles of preaching and baptism (attn:
Roman Catholic Church). An excellent example of this is The Acts of
Paul and Thekla(sp). A story of Paul teemed up with a woman who
preaches and baptizes didn't quite make it into a male dominated
society and therefore was excluded from the canon.
Childs is naive. Anything and everything the tradition does is True
and right. That the canon could contain anything like "corruption" is,
for him, unthinkable.
Childs "valorization" of history is very uneven. He takes what he
likes and discards what he does not like. Tradition that wrote the
texts were "good". Tradition that redacted the texts was "good".
But, Childs will never appeal to that same tradition (2nd century
church fathers and later) for authoritative exegesis of these texts.
It seems that the tradition was "good enough" and authoritative to
*write* the texts but they were in no position of authority to tell
us what they mean.
Again, in the canonical approach "authors intention" is not important
and so the texts, in reality, become the vehicle for legitimation for
Childs own confessional position. "Authors intention" cannot judge
Childs nor can historical context since he has excluded these from the
conversation from the very beginning.
If Childs valorizes the tradition then why did he leave it. Childs is
Protestant reformed. It seems that the tradition that framed the canon
with authority has lost that authority in pronouncing Protestantism a
heresy. Childs does not "like" this part of the tradition so he
discards it.
Canon is the founding ideological document of the Protestant Church.
By consensus, Protestants have agreeed that the bible is the "Truth".
Bible and canon exist at the level of truth as consensual definition
and not Truth as defined in terms of mimetic re-presentation of any
external reality. Childs will see to this by eliminating historical-
critical method which could prove it wrong. Childs will see to this
by eliminating any appeal to authors intention which would inhibit the
free-play of his exegesis.
> Inasmuch as the basic...
> questions of human existence, justice and theology have remained the
> same throughout the past two millennia, the canon serves to give us a
> living paradigm of how the contemporary community must wrestle with
> the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Is it not possible that the 2000 year history of Christianity has
*created* the problem as much as it has solved it. In HR(History of
Religions) this is known as the "Salvation Syndrome". Religion offers you
both poison and cure. It becomes the answer to its own self-generated
problem.
Why have the "questions of human existence, justice and theology"
remained the same throughout the past two millennia ? Because the West
has been Christian for the past two millennia and has been prey to
Christianities own self-generated, self-defined problems.
Yes, and the canon can serve as a paradigm for the solution of said
"problem". But why accept the "problem" as a problem in the first
place ? The problem is a problem by definition - a "given".
I don't think Man is in need of any "supernatural" redemption. I don't
think any supernatural redemption is either possible or necessary. I
don't think the canon should be "valorized" in the way Childs sets out
to do. I don't think the (Christian) tradition should be valorized.
I don't accept the statement of the problem and therefore "the truth of
the gospel of Jesus Christ" is no answer.
The Christian tradition is valuable but should not be taken at its
word. Christianity is a history of human being(=singular) dealing with
the world solving ontological problems. Christianity is expert at
ontology but no authority on metaphysics or any ontic reality.
Christianity is about "us" as human being in-the-world. It ought not
look "up" for a "revelation" but rather look "within" to its own
history. By its mistake one takes hold of Truth(greek "aletheia") as
"unconcealedness" or "disclosure" of Mans (ontological) being(dasein)
in-the-world. For Childs to continue the "mistake" of 2000 years of
Christian history is the precondition for the success of the program of
Secular Theology and its move to the post-modern and post-Christian
historical epoch.
Gary