1. Read the Old Testament, carefully, often.
2. Pray for understanding.
3. Read John Sailhamer. (Here is a link to a recent interview with John Sailhamer by Christianity Today)
(HT: Justin Taylor)
1. Read the Old Testament, carefully, often.
2. Pray for understanding.
3. Read John Sailhamer. (Here is a link to a recent interview with John Sailhamer by Christianity Today)
(HT: Justin Taylor)
We Maitlands heartily agree.
I find that the propensity to make Sailhamer a paper pope deleterious to one’s understanding of the Old Testament. The “canonical method” has some valid points in its hermeneutical theory, yet I think, in a philosophical hermeneutical discussion, it suffers and lacks cogent answers to modern questions of language, and moreover assumes a non-contingent view of language. Moreover, I find that little analytical thought is given by those who are in agreement with Sailhamer’s view (or Lubeck’s, etc.). For example, say we observe a repetition of Joshua 1 in Psalm 1 — what follows from this? Does an entire hermeneutical theory follow? It does if and only if one assumes a closed canonical hermeneutic.
James,
You are right that presuppositions are assumed in the canonical method. However, presuppositions are also assumed in your philosophy of language approach. Yet, we both believe that our presuppositions are supported by the greater weight of evidence. If the repetition in Joshua 1 and Psalm 1 was the only authorial clue that lead a reader to see the bible as a closed canon unit, then their hermeneutic would seem forced. However, you know that this is not by any means the only such clue. I see enough evidences to believe that the OT redactor is directing the reader to use a closed canonical hermeneutic, and I believe that Sailhamer is perhaps the best scholar in his field helping the church to pay attention to these evidences and their implications.
By the way, it is good to interact with you. I hope all is well for you and Erin and congrats on coming baby Isaiah!
with joy,
Jeff
Jeff, I have not endorsed the above stated view of language. The above response seems to exhibit some naivete regarding the Philosophy of Language, which makes me leery about responding any further. Yet, I must, for several corrections are in order.
By stating presuppositions are in every hermeneutic does little to abnegate, or even to enervate the objections raised. Moreover, you have misunderstood the analysis of language. I do not suggest a “philosophy of language approach.” I fear your comment verges on an epistemological error in that believing X does not in anyway provide veracity to belief X. In other words, epistemology does not create ontology! You must demonstrate that a Sailhamerian canonical approach is not contradictory, and thus is coherent in its hermeneutical axioms. I argue that the hermeneutic is internally flawed by what linguists have observed for years, namely, language is part of Dasein.
You statement, “I see enough evidences to believe that the OT redactor is directing the reader to use a closed canonical hermeneutic,” is an a priori statement that is circular; it assumes the validity of the Sailhamerian canonical approach to validate its claim. Moreover, to prove such a premise must violate the Sailhamerian hermeneutic—hence my objection. To establish such an axiom one must turn to history, seeking for answers in the textual transmission. Now, this is where I think that some of the canonical theologians are helpful. For example, read Christopher Seitz. I find that most of the people who have bought into the Sailhamerian canonical theology have not really understood the origins of canonical theology, or even asked questions of its origins (e.g. Biblical Theology Movement, Brevard Childs, Hans Frei, Derrida, Structuralism, Reader-Response Theory, Deconstructionism, etc.). Seitz, a student of Childs, calls his approach “Canonical Criticism.” I do not fully agree with his entire hermeneutic, but I think it has more explanatory power of observable phenomenon (see. Seitz’s article in Yale Anchor Bible Dictionary on the Redactions of Isaiah 1-11 entitled First Isaiah. Seitz, while not in full agreement with his Mentor, represents Childs view well. In fact, if you read Childs’ introduction to his Isaiah commentary, you will find a good summary of what he is attempting in his suggestion of “Canonical Theology.” Now let me be clear. I am not claiming that Sailhamer’s view is wrong because he deviates from what Childs proposed. I am saying that Seitz and Childs have good answers to my objections, whereas Sailhamer’s does not.
Moreover, Sailhamer argues that the text is of primary importance. I agree. He also argues that two foundational (see his Old Testament Theology, pp. 36ff) elements are at work in the biblical writings. I agree, tentatively. I would say that these two elements are foundational to all writing (cf. Copleston’s History of Philosophy v. 1 introduction. He summarizes this nicely). He argues that the text interprets the event. I agree. He argues through the interpretation of the event, one gets God’s perspective. I disagree. How can I know this if I do not have the event to compare it? This surfaces a large hermeneutical problem, namely, the “pastness of the past” (see Thiselton, Two Horizons; Gadamer, Truth and Method).
Lastly, I did not cite or anyway refer to the Ps.1/Josh.1 phenomenon as “the only such clue.” You are correct: I do know that there are many more “clue[s]” that are amassed in a Sailhamerian canonical method. This evades my question: how is it a necessary and sufficient condition that it evolves to a Sailhamerian canonical method. I merely used Ps.1/Josh.1 as an analogy to the point (“for example…say”), namely, how does it logically follow.
Warmest regards,
What I was suggesting when I pegged you as using a “philosophy of language approach” is that you assume that an investigation into a philosophy of language is necessary for an accurate investigation of the text, when on the contrary I presuppose a certain innate universal function of language which renders an investigation into the philosophy of language unnecessary. I was trying to say that in your approach of the text you highly esteem considerations in the philosophy of language. Perhaps calling it an “approach” without first defining my terms was unhelpful… or perhaps I pegged you wrong altogether. This is the danger of gauging a viewpoint from a few sentences. Thank you for taking the time to explain my egregious error erupting out of my gross naivete, though you were leery to do so.
Now concerning your statement:
If I understand Sailhamer, he does not object to the use of history period, rather he objects to a use of history in the exegesis of the biblical text. So, as it relates to establishing the text, its function and nature, history may be helpful – though still not as certain as the text of scripture. It is not as though Sailhamer is using extra-biblical data to try and reconstruct a biblical history in which to exegete, which is what he is polemicizing. Rather, he is simply trying to make room for scripture as one complete unit (because it seems to be what the text is trying to be) by investigations into various theories of textual transmission, validating his hermeneutic (not informing it).
I hope that in your second to last paragraph you are not suggesting that the interpretation of the historical event resident in the text does not accurately reflect God’s perspective, but it seems that you are. Are you then saying that the only use for the text is to arrive at the historical event and to understand the historical fallible human interpretation of that event resident in the text? Is it your ambition then to exegete history using the text as a tool toward that end?
To be honest, I am unable to keep up with much of what you are saying. Yet, I acknowledge that you have some misgivings to the canonical approach, and perhaps some that I should consider (if I get my brain around what you are saying). However, as of yet, Sailhamer’s approach has been the most satisfying, comprehensive and honest approach to the OT that I found, dealing with the text as it is – with high esteem. May God give us both grace to hear His voice in the pages of the bible as we investigate it with utmost seriousness and candor.
hopeful,
Jeff
James, could you clarify this sentence?
“I argue that the hermeneutic is internally flawed by what linguists have observed for years, namely, language is part of Dasein.”
I follow the rest of your response but am unsure what you mean when you say that language is part of “Dasein.” Are you referring to something connected to Heidegger’s notion of Dasein or is this concept something else? I’m confused. Thanks.