When I was in undergrad (Bible College) there was this ongoing debate between almost all of the profs with one stand out prof (and I mean from the other profs). The debate orbited around a theory of hermeneutics/exegesis. It was a debate, in my context, that had its own idiosyncrasies, but those notwithstanding, in general, it is a debate that goes beyond those and offers some questions that are applicable beyond the particular ones that were inherent to the ones being debated on my Bible College campus. The debate was between the majority of profs who endorsed the [Literal] Grammatical-Historical approach V. the minority position, held by this one stand out prof, who argued for a Canonical critical approach to Biblical interpretation—the ‘minority’ approach was actually the most popular on the campus, largely because this one stand out prof was simply an excellent communicator and teacher.

The Canonical approach articulated by this one prof came from his relationship (as a colleague and friend) with John Sailhamer; and Sailhamer was/is largely influenced by Brevard Childs’ Canonicalism.  The simplistic and basic thesis of the Canonical approach really finds a lot of resonance with what Hans Frei and the Lindbeckian Yale school of thought has to offer in regard to cultural-textual-linguistic reality. In short, and in basic form, the canonical approach taught at my school (undergrad) was that we didn’t need any historical reconstruction, maps, socio-cultural reconstruction etc. in order to interpret Scripture; in fact, as it was argued, these things could actually distort Scripture’s meaning. The supposition that stands behind this, is that Scripture has its own self-referential, narrative-rich environment, that does not need extraneous material to source its intended meaning. And thus there is a heavy emphasis upon literary studies, and the connections those provide intra/intertextually in the text. So in summary, this approach assumes that the text is sufficient by itself, to convey the meaning that God has always intended it to have.

It has become clear to me over the years that this approach, in principle, is a better approach than simply relying on the Grammatical-Historical approach; even though the Canonical approach, in a qualified ways, is relying on the GH as well (in the sense that language itself is shaped by its historical locatedness etc.). The problem with the ‘Yale’ canonical approach, though, is that it is too reductionistic (too structuralist); it is too reductionistic towards placing all of meaning in the text, and the text was given shape by its cultural-textual-linguistic organization and setting; so the text’s final referent for positing its locution and meaning becomes the community that interprets it—the community and people of God become its regulative reality.

A better and constructive way to locate the text’s regulative meaning and reality is not to locate it in the people of God, or its canonical shape simpliciter; but the better place is to place it in a doctrine of God, and to see Christ as the regulative center wherein the text finds its ultimate source of meaning. This way the text does not become something owned by the community, but it is owned by its giver (God); and as such, He is able to actually speak to us through the text of scripture, as something and an instrument that belongs to His reality, which He has graciously invited us to as participants in His life through the mediatorial life of His beloved Son. One benefit of this, is that the text and its interpretation and regulation is not contingent upon our discovery of new manuscripts, archaeological finds, etc.

And it is this one benefit that I think should place people like N.T. Wright and all the historical projects that count as Biblical studies today into perspective. N.T. Wright is all the rage today (and rightfully so, his output of material is astonishing). But what is interesting to me is the instability, really, of what N.T. Wright’s proposal has built into it. That is, all of this ‘New’ stuff that Wright is offering in regard to understanding Christian salvation etc. is contingent upon the uncovering of historical data and its reconstruction. In other words, what is built into Wright’s groundbreaking work is idealistic assumption that not only can all of these various threads of the Second Temple Judaism period be uncovered, but then he as an historian (and all of these others in Wright’s discipline) can construct an appropriate framework in which to place this historical data; thereby creating a matrix which purportedly has the capacity to fund and inform Biblical exegetical conclusions in a certain way—indeed, an determinative way.

Ironically, Wright’s approach really gets us back to the cultural-textual-linguistic approach, a community driven/contingent approach, to biblical interpretation. The Bible’s meaning is contingent upon OUR recovery of the historical data, and OUR capacity to reconstruct that data in a way that gives the text its proper meaning. So the text (of Scripture) and its meaning is not contingent upon God in Christ, but upon OUR reconstruction of the historical data, as the Christian community; and as such, the center for meaning in the text of Scripture is not ultimately Jesus Christ, and thus the text becomes the possession of the community, in a way that can leave God out—or in the least, it makes God’s voice contingent upon the proclivities of human and natural history, and our discovery and appropriation of it.

So in principle I think my one prof was onto something. But ironically his approach was funded (by the ‘Yale school’) by an approach that ultimately bottoms out in a kind of community driven interpretation of the text (the difference between my prof’s approach and Wright’s is that my prof simply reduced everything to the Literary/Literal, and Wright reduces the text to the Historical—and both of these are finally reduced to the Community’s capacity to manipulate both the Literary and the Historical). What my prof was onto though was that the text and its meaning is not ultimately contingent upon historical reconstruction (because if it is, then we would have to ask: Whose reconstruction should we view as normative?); but his answer and way out was not adequate (i.e. Literary only), and in fact, ironically comes back to the same problem that He was/is intending to critique—the community becomes the norm.

The way forward is to understand Scripture and its ontology as Theological! To understand Scripture’s location and giveness from the center of God’s life in Jesus Christ, and to see Scripture as the product of God’s triune speech within the realm of gracious salvation and sanctification (so John Webster’s thesis). This way Scripture’s meaning is not ultimately generated by our reconstruction of human history, or our capacity to do literary work; but Scripture’s rule of faith is Christ.

I will have to end it here. Thanks for enduring my reflections on this. This post helped me get some of this out and think it through further, hopefully it has helped you out too.