Skip to main content

Home/ BS2615-1-WI10/ Canonical Criticism
Marcus Carlson

Canonical Criticism - 31 views

canonical criticism

started by Marcus Carlson on 16 Feb 10
  • Marcus Carlson
    #1 Marcus Carlson on 16 Feb 10
     
    The Canonical Criticism approach is based on an understanding that the cannon as it is formed in both the Old and New Testament has authority. This form of understanding and reading the scripture asserts that the final result is appropriate for use in communities because the process of forming the cannon years after the events themselves gives the scripture power and authority just as it is for use in Christian communities. This method also recognizes the Canon as it exists today as demonstrating the full historical revelation of God. The Canon is itself the interpretation of the story and the scripture is to be read as it is as truth. The goal of this form of criticism is simply to understand the scripture in its final form.
    Brevard Childs is credited as the major theologian using this method, however he is known for not liking this term at all. The term was created by James Sanders. These are the two thinkers most known regarding this approach.
  • Aaron Pope
    #2 Aaron Pope on 17 Feb 10
     
    I'm actually not too big a fan of Canonical Criticism. I actually have qualms with the canonization process itself. Major problems being that certain books were chosen by the authority (those in power) as the ones that, as you say, demonstrates "the full historical revelation of God. However there was a large pool of wisdom literature called"Christian" that was circulating at the time that was left out. Now I've read some of those books that were left out, such as the Gospel of Thomas, and they've spoken to me almost as much if not more than the Canonical Gospels. So why not add these books, why do we still deny them?

    Also, when there are books in the canon in the Old and New Testament that present very negative ideas (genocide, misogyny, etc.) why do we still use them. Why haven't we changed the Canon and added books that offered a more fair view, using wisdom literature that was written and circulated at the same time of those books that were canonized (like the Gospel of Mary)?

    These are questions that I really struggle with, and are some of my frustrations with the canon. Does anyone else feel this way, or do you feel I'm way off? Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
  • Michael Hemenway
    #3 Michael Hemenway on 17 Feb 10
     
    Marcus, great summary. Aaron, I too am fascinated by the "canonization" process. Questions about what was included and excluded are important and can tell some interesting things about the communities that attempted to put firm boundaries around these collections. Even if I don't find any of the present Christian or Jewish canons restrictively authoritative, I do find it valuable to have an approach that asks questions about what we might learn from the final form of a collection of texts viewed as sacred by a community.
  • Mary Price
    #4 Mary Price on 18 Feb 10
     
    If the books in the Bible are to be regarded as Truth, would the Canonical theory argue that knowledge and understanding of God have a limit?
  • suesaldin
    #5 suesaldin on 18 Feb 10
     
    The canonization process is fascinating! I attended a lecture this evening by a local scholar, and he emphasized how important it is to study early church history and the conflicts around doctrine and orthodox texts. He stated that throughout Christianity's history, the tensions and issues that resulted in one text being included and another being excluded are still with us and are relevant to today. For instance, Elaine Pagels hypothesizes that the Gospel of Thomas (which you mention, Aaron) was excluded in favor of John in part because of its emphasis on the personal, experiential dimension of faith. Based on your summary, Marcus, this sort of thinking would not be part of canonical criticism. The canon is the canon. I wonder what the canon will look like in 500 years - will the church support some of the changes you suggest, Aaron?
  • Carlene Sikorsky
    #6 Carlene Sikorsky on 18 Feb 10
     
    The term, "canonical criticism" intrigued me as soon as I saw it. I wonder of the word "canon" means different things. When I was a Catholic, there was Canon Law. This is about the legal system of the Catholic church. And the canonization process is how one becomes a saint. For the purposes of this class, I understand the canon in regards to the authority of the Old and New Testament. Sue states that she wonders what the Bible will look like in 500 years. Interesting. I always assumed the Bible was static, permanent, unchangeable. Now I consider that it can take the shape of the community.
  • Carlene Sikorsky
    #8 Carlene Sikorsky on 18 Feb 10
     
    Thanks, Aaron. I have a better understanding of "canon" now. This definition makes sense in all of the contexts I mentioned.
  • Marcus Carlson
    #10 Marcus Carlson on 18 Feb 10
     
    I am not totally sold on this theory, but to answer and address some questions. Yes, the cannon theory would completely reject Thomas (which I would not actually) as the canon is what it is and it is good as it is (this is the theory). Sometimes we get way too hung up in the canon process to the point where we demonize it. We see it as tainted because people were involved in creating the canon and the understanding of the scriptures, which is not much different than what any of these other theories are doing or what we do in this course in my mind. I have a trust of the Holy Spirit's ability to work and be present in the process of the canon and while God did not pen the scripture, God's hand was in it enough to move past the human issues and I think we too can and need to move past some of our issues with the human influence on the canon and really try and digest the deeper meaning. Just my thoughts as the oddball :)
  • Steve Starliper
    #11 Steve Starliper on 19 Feb 10
     
    Great discussion.

    I'm a little stuck on the thought that the cannon is frozen in time. I strongly believe that we're on an individual and collective, societal journey to discover God and know God & our primary source of knowledge is a collection of documents that were 'blessed" (wrong word) at the time of Constantine. We expend a lot of energy trying to understand these documents from various vantage points versus channeling that energy into trying to discover God in a modern context. [I'm more venting now than anything]. I greatly respect and honor the sacredness of the texts, but believe that God continues to speak through contemporary events and people.
  • Mary Price
    #12 Mary Price on 19 Feb 10
     
    I agree, Steve, which is why I asked the question about our understanding having a limit. I, too, believe we continue to learn through human-God interactions today. Martin Luther King Jr. is an example of someone who challenged our thinking and made the world a better place. Appreciating his influence on our society is, in my view, one way of "discovering God in a modern context", as you stated.

    I have tremendous respect for scripture, but I believe our relationship with God extends far beyond the Bible.

To Top

Start a New Topic » « Back to the BS2615-1-WI10 group