Corpus-Paul

[Christopher Hutson <crhutson AT salisbury.net>]

Thanks to Sheila for her post and to George for clarifying his
position on canon.

With the indulgence of our moderator, I would like to respond to Jim
Hester's remarks:

>I guess I need to know just what canon we are talking about. 
Christian
>scripture?  Hebrew Scripture?  The Jewish Bible; the Orthodox Bible;
the
>Catholic Bible; the Protestant Bible?  It seems to me that the very
>designation of "canon" is theological, driven by traditional choices,
and
>anything but "fixed".  


I agree completely that the canon is a theological question.  That is
why I said to George

>It seems a very strange move theologically for you to begin with your
>own private judgment about which books YOU consider to be canonical
>before you decide whether or not to study them. 

Notice the key word "theologically."  I also recognize that different
traditions use different canons, but in each tradition the canon is
fixed.

But I think the point at issue becomes clearer when you say:

>If the Jesus Seminar has taught us anything, it is that we must
consider
>authentic Jesus traditions to be found in more than the "canonical"
gospels.
>If Robbin's socio-rhetorical criticism has taught us anything, it is
that we
>cannot privilege the texts in the NT canon but must analyze early
Christian
>traditions by going beyond them to aspects of the multifaceted
cultures of
>the Greco-Roman world of the first and second centuries.
>
>Considerations of canon for NT scholarship are largely irrelevant, or
so it
>seems to me!


I think the issue is a confusion between theology and history.  If by
"NT scholarship" you mean historical investigation, then I agree.  The
canon does not control historical research, since the canon is a
theological construct.  What the Jesus Seminar and other research has
shown is the value of using non-canonical materials for answering
historical questions.  I agree with that.  But if "NT scholarship"
includes "NT Theology" with an intent to express what is relevant
about, say, Paul's theology for Christians today, then the canon is
indeed a crucial consideration.

To turn from the Jesus Seminar and put the question in terms of the
Corpus Paulinum, the old conundrum is:  What if archaeologists
discovered a manuscript of some letter, and historians could
demonstrate conclusively that it was an authentic letter from Paul? 
Should that newly discovered letter be included in the canon?

To that I would say, NO!  The canon is fixed already by the
theological tradition.  The purpose of the canon is to define the
basis of theological reflection.  But I would certainly want to study
that new manuscript for any insights it might offer into the
historical Paul.  For historical questions the canon does not set
boundaries, and all evidence is welcome.  

Finally, on the canon, I am influenced by Luke Timothy Johnson's
"epilogue" to his _Writings of the NT_, which includes a helpful and
concise statment of the meaning of canon.


Regards,

XPIC

------------------------------------
Christopher R. Hutson
          Hood Theological Seminary
          Salisbury, NC  28144
crhutson AT salisbury.net
------------------------------------