Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology: From the Fathers to Feminism

525 Pages·1998·4.35 MB·English

by  William J. Abraham

Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology
This page intentionally left blank
Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology
From the Fathers to Feminism
William J. Abraham
GreatClarendonStreet,OxfordOX26DP
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford
ItfurtherstheUniversity'sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwidein
OxfordNewYork
AucklandBangkokBuenosAiresCapeTownChennai
Dar esSalaamDelhiHongKongIstanbulKarachiKolkata
KualaLumpurMadridMelbourneMexicoCityMumbaiNairobi
SãoPauloShanghaiTaipeiTokyoToronto
Oxfordisaregisteredtrademark ofOxfordUniversityPress
intheUK andincertainothercountries
PublishedintheUnitedStatesby
OxfordUniversityPressInc., NewYork
©WilliamJ.Abraham1998
Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted
DatabaserightOxfordUniversityPress(maker)
Firstpublished1998
Firstpublishedinpaperback2002
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,
storedinaretrievalsystem,or transmitted,inanyform orbyanymeans,
withoutthepriorpermissioninwriting ofOxfordUniversityPress,
oras expresslypermittedbylaw, or under termsagreedwiththeappropriate
reprographicsrightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproduction
outsidethescopeoftheaboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,
OxfordUniversityPress,attheaddressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisbookinanyotherbindingorcover
andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressCataloguinginPublicationData
CanonandcriterioninChristiantheology:fromthe
Fatherstofeminism/WilliamJ.Abraham.
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
1.Bible—Canon.2.Authority—Religiousaspects—Christianity.
3.Knowledge,Theoryof(Religion).4. Theology—Methodology.
I.Title.
BS465.A251998 230’.01—dc2197–47465
ISBN0–19–826939–0(Hbk)
ISBN0–19–925003–0 (Pbk)
To James Barr
Acknowledgements
The argument developedin these pages has been germinating in my mind for well over ten years. During that time I
have shared varied expressions of it with many people and benefited enormously from their response. It would be
impossible to record the debt I owe to all those who have contributed to my reflection. I want in particular to thank
William Babcock, Eric Barnes, James Barr, David Beck, Michael Beggs, Clifton Black, Ellen Charry, Keefe Cropper,
Cornelia DeLee, Pavel Gavrilyuk, Frank Gourley, Chuck Gutenson, Julie Halstead, Harriet Harris, Jean Ann Karm,
Sandy Menssen, Basil Mitchell, Elizabeth Moreau, Russell Pannier, Paddy Roche, Thomas Sullivan, Andrew Walker,
and Jerry Walls.
A very special word of thanks goes to the Evangelical Scholarship Initiative for electing me to be a Pew Evangelical
Scholar. As a recipientof a fellowship I have been able to garner the time and resources essential to a project of this
magnitude. I am grateful beyond words for this invaluable help.
IwantalsotothankTimothyandShaunforessentialhelpwiththecomputer.ThankstoSiobhanforwelcomereliefin
Frederick.
As ever I thank my wife, Muriel, for unfailing support through it all.
W.J.A.
Preface to the Paperback Edition
Revisiting the central thesis of this book can be as unsettling as when I first formulated it. Thus it remains no small
task to ask theologians to rework two longstanding convictions. The first conviction is that the term ‘canon’ means
essentially a criterion; and the second is that the term ‘canon’ applies only to the Bible. On my revisionist analysis
‘canon’isamuchmoremodestnotion,meaningessentiallya‘list’;and‘canon’appliesnotjusttothebiblicalcanon,but
to the canon of saints, the canon of doctrine, the canon of Fathers, and the like, adopted over time in the Church of
thefirstmillennium. Beyondthesetwocrucialsuggestions, Ihaveproposedthatweredescribeand reidentifycanonin
sucha way that we thinkinterms of a canonicalheritage; and that weenvision that heritage as a networkof means of
graceintendedfor use inspiritualdirectionintheChurch.Inmakingthesemoves, whileIhave innoway givenupon
thechallenges ofepistemology for theology, I insistthattheplace ofepistemology be radicallyrelativized in thelifeof
the Church. We need the very best epistemologicalwork we can develop, but such labour should never be allowed to
displace the crucial functions that the canonical heritage of the Church is designed to fulfil.
Forthemostpartreviewershaveunderstoodthecentralclaimsadvanced.ThemostpersistentworryiswhetherIhave
properlyunderstoodthevarious historicalfigures I discussed insome detailacross thecenturies. Here I wanttomake
a disclaimer and mount a defence. The disclaimer is that in no way did I propose a comprehensive history of canon
and its intersection with epistemological proposals. Hence I welcome unreservedly further work in this domain. I
expectthatsuchinvestigationwillleadtoappropriatequalifications,confirmations,andreversalsofsomeofmyclaims.
The defence is that it is insufficient to plead that proposals in the wider corpus of the thinkers discussed will
viii PREFACE TO THE PAPERBACK EDITION
somehowundowhatispresented inthosematerialsthataremoreavowedlyepistemologicalincharacter. Itisperfectly
possible to hold to a thoroughly epistemological conception of canon and continue to use the canon as a means of
grace. Naturally such usage surfaces most tellingly in exegesis, in sermons, and in reflection on the great theological
themes of redemption and salvation.On my analysis this is to be expected. For one thing, it takes time for the older
view to be supplanted by the later developments; hence the two can lie side by side in the same author. Moreover,
given the nature of the canonical heritage, and given its continued usage in liturgy, it works effectivelyas a means of
grace despite our constant tendency to recast it in epistemological categories.
This applies, for instance, in the case of Aquinas. NothingI say about Aquinas is undermined by the additional claim
thathe had a resolute grasp of thespiritual contentof thegospel, or that he was an extremelyinsightfulcommentator
on scripture, using it to great effect soteriologically in exegesis and homiletics. My claim is that he also has the
epistemological position I attribute to him here, and that this position is integral to his conception of canon.
A more interesting counter-claim is that we should see Aquinas's epistemological work as essentially a form of
apologetics. WhileImayberightinwhatIsayabouthis viewsofcanon,hisepistemologywasreallya secondaryaffair
thatoperatedas ananti-epistemologyintheserviceofremovingepistemologicalpretensions.Idonotfindthisviewat
allconvincing. WhileI am delighted toreceiveAquinas's labours inthisspiritand indicateas much quite clearly inthe
text,thisisnota compellingreading ofAquinashimself.Thecrucialpointisthis: Aquinas's doctrineofrevelationisat
the core of his doctrine of scripture. Once we relocate the canon of scripture withinthis framework, then the shiftto
canon as a criterion is as secure as it can be.
Forbetterorworse,Ihave becomeevenmoreconvinced thatAquinas is an absolutelypivotalfigure inthenarrative I
relate.Moreover, Ihavecomeacrossa remarkableinterpretationofAquinasthatconfirms myinitialconclusions. This
interpretation also shows how I can restate my thesis about canon in terms of scripture. Happily we can rely on an
unsullied witness to articulate these claims; they are more than amply stated by the great French theologian Yves
Congar.
PREFACE TO THE PAPERBACK EDITION ix
Congar insists that Aquinas inherited two crucial assumptions from the Middle Ages.
First, theattributing ofalltrue(and holy)determinations ofthelifeoftheChurch,toa revelatio, inspiratio, suggestio, of
theHolySpirit. .. . Thesethreewordsareverycloselylinked inmeaning:inspiratiosignifiestheactionoftheSpiritus;
suggestio introduces the nuance of the interiority of action; revelare, revelatiohas a fairly wide sense: to discover, make
known or understood.The expressioncan be applied to an activityof theintellect whichwe should callnatural, all
the more easily because the Augustinian theory of illumination was held fairly widely.
Second,thepracticeofincludingtheFathers,theconciliarcanonsandeventhepontificialdecreesand(morerarely)
themore outstanding treatises ofthetheologians, intheScriptura sacra, or again,without distinguishing, inthedivina
pagina. This is a practice of long standing; there seems no doubt but that it arises from the Decretum Gelasianum,
which, slightly modified by Formosus, had passed into canonical collections, and into those chapters which deal
withsources andrules(as, forexample,inHughofSaint-Victor,Didasc., IV, 12).Scriptura signifieda ‘text’; sacra, the
value it derivedfrom theactivityof theSpirit. The canonical scriptures, theBible, weretheScriptura sacra and divina
pagina par excellence; but the influence of the Holy Spirit had been felt in the patristic texts, and those of the
councils, popes, and theologians, which, in any case, were only produced as an explanation of Scripture. In the
simplicity and force of its Catholic faith, the Middle Ages never thought of them as anything else.
Even if we make allowances for Congar's glosses here, the second observation is staggering. ‘Scripture’ was not
originallyconfined to the Bible; it had a much wider range of reference. Moreover, initially, ‘scripture’simply meant a
text or writing; and the exact value was left unspecified beyond acknowledging the role of the Holy Spirit in its
production.
What wesee emerginginwhatfollows withrespect toscripture is a quitedifferentrange of sense and reference.Over
time, scripture was cut back to apply materially to the Bible; and its primary function lay in that of operating as an
authority. Congar goes on to suggest that Aquinas was crucial in this transposition as it applied to ‘scripture’.
St.Thomas Aquinas had reacted, inhis usual discretebut firm way, against thevaguenessofcategories whichwere
too comprehensive. On the one hand, he reserved, with increasing precision, the words revelare,