Scripture and interpretive method: why read scripture as Canon?

Introductory texts intending to introduce children to scientific method often note basic principles. One text, for example, stresses the notion that "understanding begins with observation" (Beech: 17). If a casual perusal of the more popular monographs and periodical literature is any measure, observation of Scripture often can produce a study focused on an isolated pericope or text. Such focused studies also tend to employ only one or a few of the classical criticisms like, for example, an understanding of Paul's rhetoric in Romans or Matthew's redaction of the parable about the mustard seed. Any study intended to reconstruct the specific context within which a perception of the Divine was received and articulated is certainly essential and foundational. But such reconstructions can leave one with only a partial understanding of how a text or tradition can function. If Scripture is ultimately a collection of human understandings of the Divine (whether and to what extent this understanding is recognized as inspired or not), observations about Scripture can go beyond the more limited scopes of pericope or text to describe how the Divine is portrayed working through the variety of human conditions articulated in larger collections of, for example, a denomination's canon. An understanding of how Scripture can function with appreciation for this broader scope is offered in the method of James A. Sanders. The description of this method follows some brief preliminary comments on the nature of Scripture.

Scripture as Canon

English-language dictionaries typically note two meanings in a definition of Scripture. For example, WEBSTER'S NINTH NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY first mentions the components or the concrete thing(s): "a passage" or the "books of the Bible." Second mentioned is a process. Here, Scripture is defined as "writings considered sacred or authoritative" (italics added). Similarly at this more functional level, THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE mentions Scripture as "a statement regarded as authoritative" (italics added). To some extent these definitions push one to describe first, what is meant by "sacred" or "authoritative" and then, who is responsible for such "considering" or "regarding."

Scripture can further be described as a time-tested literature that provides groups with a sense of mythos (identity) and ethos (Sanders 1984, 25-28). These notions of identity ("who we are") and ethos ("what we do") refer to how groups utilizing Scripture understand themselves and, as well, how groups understand the Divine or their relationship with the Divine. Groups that utilize a tradition (that is, a description of a particular person, place, event, concept or theme) as Scripture seemingly do so because these texts understand and explain such relationships well.

Because the texts have an ability to provide a group with insight into the realities of their collective life, they are considered sacred and/or authoritative. As received, traditions are regarded as meaningful, at least potentially. They might similarly be said to be life affirming, authoritative, sacred, of efficacious as opposed to meaningless or without authority, profane and non-efficacious.

One might think of the collective of Scripture aligned (implicitly or explicitly) along some type of continuum. For example, the JEWISH ANTIQUITIES of Josephus might be of great interest to those concerned with Scripture while the PRAYER OF MANASSEH and 2 MACCABEES might be included (perhaps as "Apocryphal") in some Bibles. Nevertheless, it is, for example, Paul's letter to Philemon that is received for all Christians while at the same time it may be the book of Psalms, John of Isaiah that serves as a frequent touchstone for a particular Christian group. Certainly different groups have different criteria for determining why a text or tradition is implicitly of formally received as Scripture, but common to all is that each respective group determines and recognizes the criterion to be used. With respect to the First (a.k.a. Old) Testament, for example, Roman Catholics would have referred to a particular edition of a Vulgate following the Council of Trent. At the same time, Protestants might have referred to a translation of a particular edition of a Hebrew Bible. Today, of course, both Protestant and Roman Catholic Bibles utilize translations of Leningradensis. Defining Scripture is ultimately a task of the group that receives a tradition as Scripture.

Still, various groups differ in their understanding of what specific texts have been explicitly or doctrinally judged as constituting Scripture. These differences are nowhere more clear than in comparisons of the official lists of texts used by contemporary groups. For example, many appreciate as distinct the specific lists of received texts recognized by Jews and Christians. Even within Christianity, the Protestant list is not as inclusive of texts as the Roman Catholic list, which is not as inclusive as the Orthodox list. Recognizing and respecting these distinctions need not imply, however, that there are fundamental differences in what is said within these collections. The various Jewish and Christian groups that employ Scripture, for example, may do so ultimately to attest an understanding of God as one (monotheism) and to correlate this perception to a view of reality as integrated. Differences regarding which text is or is not received (officially listed as Scripture) can be less important than the desire to recognize the pervasive hermeneutics within these Scriptures, the hermeneutics that consistently posit reality as ultimately integrated, or God as one. As such, respective collections of Scriptures can hold a value in their potential as a paradigm for understanding how to strive to monotheize, that is, how to be as conscious as possible of the assertion that God is one.

Groups select and appropriate varied traditions for their own respective identity/ethos. And groups may exhibit a preference for some traditions (for example, John 3:16) more than others (for example, 1 John 3:17), a canon within a canon so to speak. However, Scriptural traditions are seldom explicitly segregated into "pearls of wisdom" or "timeless maxims" vs. "other less important stuff." The canon can be carried whether or not it is consistently (let alone equally) read. Beyond specific chapter and verse, even themes can be received more specially by different groups. For example, consider how many churches in America would embrace or value justice and peace. But these contemporary Western values may not be characteristic of all of Scripture. Indeed, reading all of Scripture can lead to certain tensions. Looking for a biblical precedent on the value of justice within the First Testament might lead one to compare honestly the calls for justice in Isaiah (for example, 1:17) with the assertion of Qoheleth (a.k.a. Ecclesiastes) 3:16-19 that there may be wickedness in place of justice and that justice--like everything under the sun--is a vanity. Likewise, looking for insights on the value of peace in the Second Testament, readers could honestly contrast Matthew's portrayal of Jesus declaring: "Blessed are the peacemakers ... " (5:9) with the portrayal of Jesus declaring: "Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division ... " (Lk 12:51). Understanding how traditions have provided identity and ethos may be most fully appreciated, then, by paying attention to the context(s) and hermeneutic(s) that allowed for the manifestation of a specific tradition. Thus, a task for understanding Scripture is to move beyond the pericope-based study and identify how various Scriptural traditions might have related or differed in their perspectives of, for example, justice or peace. The following overview presents briefly a method that effectively assists such a scope of tasks.

Interpretive Method

The method developed by James A. Sanders is based on Comparative Midrash (Sanders 1961, 1976a, 1976b, 1977, 1984; Callaway 1986, 1999) and has been more recently articulated to a broader audience through the language of Intertextuality (Sanders 1995a, 1999). While the 1992 edition of the ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY entry discussing Sanders' contributions to "Canonical Criticism" states that Sanders' method is "less a formal criticism than an approach," Sanders' method is like many other methods or more popularly received formal criticisms that employ a conceptual framework including both (non-testable) assumptions about Scripture (an approach) and theories that are testable. While based upon a stance that seeks to appreciate Scripture as it functions in the groups of communities that it serves, the method goes beyond stance to assess critically how it has functioned.

More specifically, Sanders' method seeks to compile manifestations of a tradition and then critically define these as products of a respective context and the hermeneutics that underlie each manifestation. A broader objective is to bring an interpreter to an appreciation of the processes embedded in Scripture. The manifestations of a tradition, he points out, taken together, "provide a paradigm in sequence for seeing how the traditioning process moves from the earliest to the latest literature in the Bible" (Sanders 1993: 16). By seeking to describe both a series of texts and then, ultimately, how Scripture functions, the method goes beyond an exegetical approach that would assume interpretation is best served through study of how a particular pericope was perhaps initially understood by its earliest audiences.

The interpretation of a tradition manifest in a text typically involves an awareness of at least three distinct fields: the text, the context(s) within which the text was authored/received, and the assumptions or hermeneutics with which it was produced and heard. If one were to think of any manifestation of a tradition as a unity of this text, context and hermeneutic, one might imagine it represented by a triangle.

As a model, the triangle allows the interpreter to be mindful of the fact that any text is the product of a particular context which holds a coterminous hermeneutic or point of view. As an interpretive tool, however, the triangle provides a simple format allowing one to explore any given point, albeit superficially, in isolation from another. Since the method is interested in describing any and all manifestations of a particular tradition, it is likely one would end up with a series of triangles graphically represented as shown in the right-hand column.

The compilation of triangles intends to represent the awareness that whenever applied or employed (whether it is re-applied or altered) a tradition is always manifest anew. There is seldom even a translation (e.g., from the Greek to the Latin) that does not render a new reading. Further, the method suggests it is important to be aware that those who employ it bring their own life experiences to the text. In other words, not only are texts written in a particular context and with a particular point of view, readers also encounter these texts within particular contexts and points of view. The one compiling and assessing the manifestations of a tradition is, so to speak, another dimension of text, context and hermeneutic.

An initial task of the method is to determine where the tradition exists. Defining where the tradition is manifest is potentially difficult and can be controversial. Collectively, Scripture does not always label its referents in the same way of with the same name. For example, in pursuing a study of Jerusalem, one could consider the multiple ways this city is referred to by name(s), title(s) and metaphor(s). The ability to define where a tradition has been manifest can be limited to one's ability to recognize any tradition re-applied in phrases, paraphrases, and allusions, or in similar forms. While the issue of "form" will be discussed separately below, it is possible to think of phrases, paraphrases and allusions along a continuum of reapplication or use. On one side of the continuum would be specific phrases or traditions that have been marked off with introductory formulae. For example in Luke's version of the so-called "temptation in the wilderness" (4:1-13), the phrase "it is written ... " appears. Luke portrays both Jesus and the devil (diabolos) in a kind of match of exegetical expertise. Eventually each character introduces a point with either an explicit reference to a text ("it is written") or, the more popular tradition ("it is said"). Parenthetically it might be noted how this pericope efficiently raises the notion that for Luke and perhaps other groups that received this text, it may not have been one's ability to quote Scripture that mattered so much as it was one's ability to apply the correct tradition to the correct context.

Moving toward the other end, citations without such introductory formulae would be considered. These manifestations are different from the above only in that they are not introduced through formulae. Many study Bibles helpfully note such citations. Even the Letter of Jude's references to texts no longer received in many of the official lists of Scripture may be given (the Apocalypse of Enoch may be cited at verse 14 and the Ascension of Moses may be cited at verse 9)! By contrast, few Bibles or studies offer an understanding of how the context or social location behind one manifestation (the Ascension of Moses) might compare or contrast with that for another (Jude's) manifestation of the tradition. Equally significant is the lack of attention given to the corresponding hermeneutics of point of view each respective manifestation of a tradition may employ.

Moving further along the continuum of re-applications, one might consider paraphrases and/or traditions that have been woven into a new text. Paraphrases of course are rewordings intended to capture the same sense as that held by a previous tradition, but in other words. Jesus is portrayed as presenting (Mt 22:34-40; Mk 12:28-31) and accepting (from Luke's lawyer, 10:25-28) different paraphrases of the great commandments. Weavings are more difficult to discover for interpreters reliant on English translations. To underline this point, one might read any English translation of the often-titled "Priestly Blessing" (Num 6:23-27) and then see whether or how this has been woven into the book of Malachi (1:9-2:6). While perhaps not so obvious in English, Michael Fishbane has shown how the blessing is clearly woven into the Massoretic text of Malachi (329-34). A weaving of the tradition is neither verbatim or in other words, but it does manifest a tradition through a somewhat unique and consistently shared vocabulary.

At the end opposite citations introduced with introductory formulae, one can consider the less than explicit allusion or the related but even less clearly connected, echo. An allusion can often assume an intentional borrowing among limited numbers of texts (see, for example, Sommer: 10-16). Echoes similarly are veiled references, but perhaps not quite so obviously connected to any other text(s). For example, could there be a connection between the "tower of Babel" story in Genesis 11 and the manifestation of the Spirit in Acts 2? In a general way, both seem to portray a world view enforcing the concept that while the Divine may descend from a presumably higher dwelling, the human cannot on his or her own ascend to such a state. Rather than dismiss any allusion or "echo" on the grounds that a contemporary exegete cannot prove that a perceived echo or allusion was something in fact intended by the author(s) and/or heard by the intended audiences, the method can respect an explication of the parameters under which the allusion or echo may have been or may be received. The method is open to the possibility that echoes never intended or received initially may have served later--or may still come to serve--some other community's understanding of their relationship with the Divine. Somewhat underwriting this point of view is the notion that groups receive not the authors or the initial communities that used a tradition, but the tradition itself.

Somewhat different from phrases, paraphrases and allusions are reapplications that rely on an interpreter's ability to note similarities of form. While it may be a truism to state that writers of Scripture write "scripturally," it is also evident that some texts reflect a more obvious adaptation of style of structure. One might consider, for example, how the Gospel of Luke touches on the sequence of Deuteronomy 1-26 in its presentation of 9:51-18:14 (Sanders 1984: 63; Evans: 121-30).

As the list of sites where a tradition has been manifest emerges, the next step in the method is to assess how the tradition functioned for any manifestation, to assess how any particular group received/utilized a tradition. This goal is perhaps most efficiently achieved through a sequence of study aiming to describe the text, the respective context, and, finally, the point of view housed in any manifestation of a tradition.

The Text

To describe the text as a literary document, one pursues an understanding of the more typical lower and higher critical methods of investigation. Sanders' method is fully appreciative of prior critical work that serves as a basis for subsequent study. A consideration of lower or text-critical issues allows one to determine whether a manifestation of a tradition was the result of an intentional manipulation or, instead, a copyist's error. Several of the leading commentary series (for example, WORD, NEW CENTURY, or HERMENEIA) consistently include significant text-critical issues. As well, concerns with higher criticism are often addressed through surveys of commentaries or might begin with basic introductory tools like the ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY or Lowell Handy's THE EDUCATED PERSON'S THUMBNAIL INTRODUCTION TO THE BIBLE (1997). However, more sophisticated study is inevitable. One exploring, for example, the tradition of the "disciples" would gain much from descriptions of vocabulary and features of rhetorical style found in a more focused study like Rhoades, Dewey & Michie's MARK AS STORY: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NARRATIVE OF A GOSPEL before even more rigorous study of more specific pericopes were undertaken. Since certain kinds of secondary resources may be limited, the method can be limited in its attempt to consistently describe the composite of manifestations for any given tradition. For example, one doing a study on the function of Judah's King Manasseh in the Massoretic and Septuagint texts might find a number of formal or structural analyses available to help one describe the books of Kings or Chronicles. There may be less help, however, for one intending to understand the complex structures of the book of Jeremiah. There may be little help at all to understand the place of the "Prayer of Manasseh" found in the Septuagint's Odes (ms. Alexandrinus). With or without such studies, it is often beneficial for interpreters to utilize a structural analysis of a tradition along with its justification or explanation. Such analysis invites interpreters to organize a text in such a way that one can describe how major points of the text relate to minor, subordinate or supportive statements. One might think of this task as intending to recreate an outline that might have been used when creating the text. Such efforts distinguish formal elements, for example, how much of the text appears to be exhortation or reproach etc., or how the text portrays a narrator's voice in distinction to a first person speech within the larger narrative. Creating a structural analysis also allows for other contemporary interpreters to appreciate a colleague's understanding of the text. Most important, as the various manifestations of a tradition are compiled, structural assessments allow one to efficiently compare and contrast the respective conceptuality of each text and, subsequently, their respective hermeneutics.

Context

Because interpreters typically deal with texts that are products of an ancient Mesopotamian or Mediterranean culture, a text's use of analogies, mores or rhetorical patterns can appear strange to modern readers who would not necessarily share such views. Jesus' suggestion in Matthew 8:22 and Luke 9:60 that one "leave the dead to bury their own dead," for example, can appear almost crass in a modern Western context. With an appreciation of ancient burial customs, however, the statement looks less crass than concerned with limited time constraints. To recapture the impact of what a tradition/text may have meant in any given context, or to avoid ethnocentrisms of anachronisms that lessen a reading or even support misreading, one must, in presenting texts for contemporary

contexts, consider the respective cultural norms and presuppositions held by past and present. A description of a context can address many variables. Broad socio-political descriptions are basic. Traditionally, an understanding of the socio-political context has been dependent upon insights from archaeology and studies of historiography. Most commentaries presenting such information provide interpreters with an understanding of the "who, what, where, and when" questions. But it may be more important to define other concepts at play in the text. For example, in a study focused on a particular person portrayed in Scripture, it may be important to consider distinctions between what it meant/means to be male, female, to receive honor, to bear shame, to sin, to be redeemed, to be considered clean or unclean, etc., and why. More recently, social scientific studies have presented cross-cultural models that assist such descriptions. If language is given meaning in a culture, then these cross-cultural models are invaluable as they allow one to create a bridge, not only between the past and present, but also between the cultural scripts of the industrialized west and those scripts assumed by a more traditional Mediterranean culture. Basic texts for understanding such issues, as well as the goals and methods of this particular social scientific sub-discipline, can be found, for example, in Overholt, Elliott, Malina, and Malina & Rohrbaugh (1992, 1997).

Hermeneutics

After describing text and context(s), one can begin to assess what shifts in hermeneutics might have allowed for or motivated the respective manifestations. The term hermeneutics refers to "those means used to translate a thought or event from one cultural context to another" (Sanders 1979: 8). The goal here is to articulate the assumptions or points of view, especially the theological assumptions that "cause the earlier tradition to function in the new composition" (Sanders 1995b: 59).

A classic explication of the importance of hermeneutics can be found in Mark's reapplication of Isaiah's "A voice cries: 'In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God" (Is. 40:3). The terminology is largely the same: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight" (Mark 1:3). Subtle shifts in the verbs may appear in the English text, but the most significant change may be the respective placements of the colon. Hermeneutics, however, differ. The Gospel of Mark no longer presumes that insight into the Divine comes through a mid-sixth-century BCE revelation in the desert. Readers of the entire Gospel find a more intimate insight portrayed. As such, the tradition becomes a kind of characterization pointing to John the Baptist as God's penultimate messenger. For the contemporary interpreter considerate of both manifestations, the cumulative effect serves as a mini paradigm for how Scripture may function differently for respective groups holding distinct contexts and hermeneutics.

In a beautifully written monograph, James E. Brenneman has assessed the prophetic tension that exists in the call to cast "swords into plowshares" (Is 2:4 and Mic 4:3) and "plowshares into swords" (Joel 4:10). While some might respond to these various statements that there is a time and place for everything under heaven, including peace and war, Brenneman articulates how his own Mennonite community can receive the tradition in Joel while remaining committed not to follow it. Are Christians who have sinned reading Matthew 18:9 with any less selectivity in their hermeneutics? Indeed, the task of describing hermeneutics need not be limited to a contemporary exegete's awareness of those held in the past. Suppose a contemporary western group of readers thought Scripture was timeless and that, as timeless, it could be read as if it were written yesterday and by neighbors. And suppose that this reading of Scripture was thought to be superior to that given by one who engaged in the above described cross-cultural tasks. These respective perspectives held by contemporary readers are, as well, important facets of assessing hermeneutics. Assumptions and points of view that we bring with our interest in understanding traditions matter greatly. Thus, an important task for this stage of the method is for interpreters to be reflective and forthright about their own particular perspectives.

A final and brief consideration of two reading perspectives applied to understanding the portrayal of women in the Gospels may further articulate the importance of being aware of and forthcoming about the points of view one holds. In the healing of Simon's mother-in-law (Mk 1:29-34), it may be that we are given an example of how Jesus healed more than extreme conditions (unclean spirits--even legion, those bleeding or near the point of death). However, the consequence of this healing has provided much for those assessing the roles of the women who followed or were related to those who followed Jesus. For some, the fact that healing seems to result in her domestic "serving" suggests that while a part of the group, she nevertheless sustains a role of service. Others, however, might point out that service in Mark is a value of utmost importance. Hence the unnamed mother-in-law in contrast to the somewhat self serving and named disciples becomes a model for all, not only women. Likewise, women in all four Gospels portrayed at the cross or attending to the presumably dead Jesus are assumed to be either women of conviction, staying with Jesus as others fled in fear, or persons who had little to lose and were therefore somewhat appropriately naive in their care. While the historian will always want to know exactly what Mark or any writer had in mind or how that message was received, it is nevertheless the case that we have inherited texts uncertain about their specific meanings. Thus, as these texts are utilized today, it is essential that one describe one's preference even as one responsibly presents both possible reading stances.

Beyond work in the triangle: With descriptions of text, context, and hermeneutics for specific manifestations of a tradition concluded, and with the description of one's own perspective, one can present next a perception of general patterns. Significant commonalities and differences can be noted, and when possible correlated to context and hermeneutic(s). One can point out where and how the tradition is stable. And one can note where and how the tradition has been manipulated. For example, the above mentioned Manasseh is portrayed within the Massoretic text as one whose sin both brings Yahweh's depletion of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 21, 23: 26-27, 24:3-4; Jer 15:4) and as one whose sin leads to an imprisonment, repentance, Yahweh's forgiveness, and improvements to Jerusalem (2 Chr 33). Beyond these Massoretic traditions, there are translations and related traditions (the Septuagint, Josephus, THE PRAYER OF MANASSEH, THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH, 2 BARUCH, TARGUMIM, MISHNAH, TALMUD, the Rabbinical literature, Jerome's translations and commentary) that show a mix of similarities and differences. Specifically, while the Septuagint and Jerome's commentaries reflect some harmonization of the respective differences between 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, other traditions stress only his sin (for example, 2 BARUCH), while still others mention sin only to stress Manasseh's repentance (for example, THE PRAYER OF MANASSEH). Each and every manifestation, however, includes mention of both Manasseh's sin and God's response working through Manasseh. This divine reaction is portrayed as emphasizing God's retribution and/or God's forgiveness. Like portrayals of an immanent God alongside portrayals of a God who is more transcendent (Gen 1-3), Scripture seems to be more focused on how God could be than how God in fact was. But what motivates these shifts, if not a particular hermeneutic, a particular point of view or collection of views that presents itself within the overall tradition about Manasseh and/or creation?

A salient phenomenon of Scripture is the consistency with which a broad theocentric (focused on the Divine) and monotheizing (focused on the Divine as one) hermeneutic is applied. While not every page of Scripture can be said to focus specifically on such a theocentric or monotheizing hermeneutic, it might be appropriate to read the exceptions in light of the greater whole (Sanders 1991a: 92). That God is and is one God--that reality should be understood with such an assumption, conviction or understanding-does not appear to be so much a mantra as it is Scripture's way of expressing how there is integrity to life--especially in the face of pressing crises. And it is often upon times of crises that Scripture reflects.

The theocentric and monotheizing hermeneutic has been further divided into two categories: constitutive and prophetic (Sanders 1976b: 405; 1984: 53). Each addresses more specifically how God can be perceived in a particular context. A constitutive hermeneutic can be paralleled with texts that portray God as redeemer for example, as the redeemer of Israel. And, while "Israel" can refer to Judah and/or northern Israel, Jews or, for that matter, Christians, it is characteristic of such a constitutive hermeneutic that a particular group understands itself to be the object of God's redemption, generally vis-a-vis another or others. This constitutive hermeneutic portrays God as supporting one or a group otherwise extremely challenged or in a state of despair. The Psalms are filled with texts assuming or articulating a constitutive hermeneutic. By contrast, a prophetic hermeneutic pertains to texts portraying God as creator of all and free to create anew. In such instances God is portrayed as challenging the perception of a group that assumes God has a concern only with a particular group rather than all of creation. As an example, one might consider the portrayals of Jerusalem vis-a-vis Shiloh in Jeremiah 7 and 26.

While it might not be obvious when reading a specific text, the larger collection received as Scripture portrays God as both free and committed. Applied to the notion that Scripture is (and has been) primarily about "who we are" and "what we should do," the question then can be raised: Is our understanding of who we are and what we do supported by God, or is it not? Those who compiled traditions into Scripture appear to have been aware that as life continually unfolded in ways both anew and familiar, God was God in a variety of ways or manifestations. The challenge was (and seemingly is and will continue to be) to articulate how God is God amidst continually unfolding (and especially critical) contexts.

The Method in Other Words

It was mentioned above that Sanders' method has been described both through the perspective of Comparative Midrash and, beginning in the 1990's, through the language of Intertextuality. Sanders' use of Intertextuality focuses on

    three basic textual relationships: the interplay between two
    bodies, small or large, of texts of differing provenance
    (synchronic), the function or interplay of an older text
    or tradition cited, alluded to or echoed in a new text
    (diachronic); and the interplay between a text and its
    reader(s) [Sanders 1995a: 178; 1999: 38].

The method and process of CM is still assumed here. And while the concern to be aware of "diachronic" relationships between texts might raise cautions from those who would argue that Intertextuality is technically restricted to synchronic relationships between texts, the emphasis on these relationships as ultimately "textual" and the stress on recognizing the perspectives of a multiplicity of "readers," as well as the notion that "the observer is part of the observed" (Sanders 1999: 43) would be more widely received as Intertextual. Especially welcome has been the way the language of Intertextuality calls readers to describe the synchronic realities in collections of Scripture (the first relationship described above). As a collection of texts, Scripture is capable of holding both a point and its countermand. Again, presentations of creation in Genesis, for example, suggested God is or can be both more immanent and more transcendent. While interpreters can note that these portrayals of immanence and transcendence come from different contexts, interpreters can also consider that, rather than definitively posit God as one of the other, Scripture holds both views (Sanders 1999: 38). Other types of texts present similar challenges. Judah's royalty is portrayed with God working through an intense awareness of Yahweh's presence and then, again, through more familiar human capabilities. King Manasseh was briefly described above, but one might also consider the varied portrayals of David, Solomon, and Josiah in both Kings and Chronicles. As mentioned, even the portrayals of the resurrection of Jesus can be both unanimous in noting the first appearances to Mary and disjointed in their portrayal of other characters--specifying, for example, who went with Mary or who was there to greet Mary. These synchronic realities in the Bible raise important questions. A single diachronic analysis intending to describe how groups that later received traditions may have both called upon that older tradition and, at the same time, adapted it to a new context, presumably in response to a particular need of that community, can choose to dismiss any tensions by labeling each portrayal as sequentially related to any other. Perhaps then the earliest portrayal would be preferred because it is understood to be the "more original" of, perhaps, the latest manifestation of the tradition is more deserving of attention as it is the more refined "last word" (assumptions readers bring to a text matter). In any event, diachronic readings are localized with respect to context, specifically their respective dating and provenance. Utilizing both a diachronic and synchronic analysis, one can note the respective contexts and then further describe how these synchronic tensions have served (and can serve) readers of a collection.

A Critique of the Method

Some might suggest that the above described method resembles a history of interpretation or a tradition-historical critical study. That may be correct if in presenting a history of tradition one considers both the similarities of text and context and, as well, articulates the various hermeneutics that have allowed the tradition to be re-articulated or reformed. And it would also be appropriate for the one constructing the tradition history to be in a sense confessional about his or her essential role as one with a specific contextual and hermeneutical perspective. Some histories of interpretation might impose (explicitly or implicitly) a ranking of interpretations wherein, for example, Christian interpretations are held more valid than Jewish, or Roman Catholic interpretations are held more valid than those offered by certain Protestants. Again, Sanders' method suggests that one come forward with such assumptions or hermeneutics and, furthermore, that there would be nothing necessarily superior, a priori, about any reception of a tradition. Such assessments would be possible only after the description and assessment of how the tradition was received in a particular context and with a particular point of view.

The method encourages one to employ the full variety of classical criticisms, and this comprehensiveness applied to assessing text, context and hermeneutic can take a great deal of time. The efforts, however, enable interpreters to appreciate the variety of exegetical nuances that exist when assessing any tradition. Extending one's focus to post-Biblical applications of a tradition requires even further work. Some might worry that as one extends an investigation beyond one's own sub-specialty that expertise is lost. Because the method ultimately seeks to understand how Scripture functions and because Scripture can be quite extensive in scope, those who engage it generally rely on the expertise of others. But considering a theme, person, event, or topic--rather than a pericope--interpreters have the opportunity to appreciate the numbers of people through time who have been challenged to adapt a particular and appropriate tradition to their own contemporary questions and needs.

Typically, those who have engaged the method find that Scripture--even when defined narrowly as one testament or another--can provide multiple views of the same theme, character or event. There are some exceptions. Certain values do stand univocally at certain levels of abstraction. For example, Scripture is fairly consistent with the confession "God is," or the ethical norm that unprovoked killing is wrong. And these are merely two examples. But, at the same time, the method demonstrates that one would go too far if one were to understand or presuppose that Scripture is a univocal collection of insights on the relationship between the human and the Divine or, for that matter, a prima facie moral guide. This can be a challenge for many interpreters. But, again, it is a matter of text and hermeneutic. What are the texts saying, and what can/should one assume the texts are saying?

If it is possible to appreciate the plurality of views contained in Scripture, some may further wish to consider what function this plurality serves. Sanders has suggested that the plurality be considered as a paradigm or self-corrective apparatus wherein no one perception of a tradition or, more important, the theology behind such a tradition, would become an absolute without consideration of its countermand. Contemporary interpreters would thus not be limited to approach the mix of views on any tradition as a problem presumably solved through diachronic analysis. Reading Scripture diachronically and synchronically, all views provided by the canon would be considered as in a kind of dialogue. As such, interpreters would not be left wondering how a text's original or initial meanings could be applied in a post-enlightenment world-view. Instead, interpreters are invited to consider how traditions/texts meaningful throughout the past might serve as precedents for contemporary readings of Scripture. This perspective puts a great deal of responsibility on contemporary communities of interpreters, but it can be quite liberating. Approaching Scripture as a received set of precedent views on how humans relate to one another as well as to the Divine, the interpretive task need not be focused on preserving the morals of our predecessors (for example, the polygamy of the ma/patriarchal period, the First Testament's indifference to inequality between elites and non-elites, Paul's indifference to slavery or the male-centered views of the generation of those who followed Jesus). Rather, it can be focused on the theological views that expressed how God was perceived to be working through these varied conditions.

Through a method that invites one to consider many perspectives of Scripture, interpreters also gain an awareness of the types of groups or communities who have received the same or a similar tradition as Scripture. To a certain extent, the method can assume that one's decision to exclude any group's reading of Scripture would be tantamount to excluding that group's perception of the Divine. While such exclusion is not dismissed a priori (one can imagine a myriad of hermeneutical errors employed by the followers of Vernon Howell a.k.a. David Koresh), the method suggests that any exclusion be considered only after the reception has been considered and carefully discussed. Indeed, it is a discussion that the method presents when it lines up the various voices that have chosen to consider and/or process the tradition.

Respect for a more inclusive collection of traditions can also result from employing the method. There is no attempt here to suggest that Protestants should accept those "extra seven" books in the Roman Catholic canon of that Roman Catholics would be better served by incorporating the larger Orthodox canon. These traditions can be respected for what they are. It can be suggested, however, that both Protestants and Roman Catholics may find significant insights applicable for their own mythos and/or ethos while reading the Prayer of Manasseh or Psalm 151. Likewise, while the ANTIQUITIES OF JOSEPHUS or FOURTH MACCABEES are likely not in many interpreter's formally received canon, assessing these texts can provide one with the opportunity to appreciate how others have employed Scripture. Such approaches suggest the interpretive task is not to simply learn about others, but possibly to learn from others, even if what we learn is through observing a process of how the mark was missed relative to our own confessional or doctrinal traditions.

Ultimately, this method asks interpreters to make some fundamental decisions about the nature of Scripture. Throughout the articulation of the method, the assertion is made that the message/revelation is not simply in the text, to be discovered of unearthed through modern exegesis. Nor is the message/revelation limited to a contemporary group's ability to grasp the original moment or the most original moments in the tradition's past reception. Instead, the message/revelation has been in the interplay between the text and the variety of groups or communities that have employed it through time. Standing latest in this line of interpreters we, as well, inherit the privilege and responsibility to engage the same. We may be asked by our own respective communities to recommend how these collections of texts and their interpretations might serve either as insights to our never ending quest to understand the Divine or in service to our own questions and concerns about how we can relate to one another. Said another way, the perception of the Divine is not limited to the presumption that God is clothed in the garb of a finite collection of texts. Instead, one's perception of divine revelation becomes an ongoing task fueled through the interplay between Scripture and the groups that receive it as Scripture (Sanders 1995b: 56-63). Rather than default to the decisions of the past, the method suggests any contemporary group could consider the precedent(s) of the past and then, perhaps through the ongoing guidance of the Holy Spirit, determine how God may be understood through the particulars of the present.

More directly, the method questions the legitimacy of the notion that interpreters have completed their work through approaching a specific text and finding both what was said and then what was meant initially. The above method recommends, instead, that interpreters consider how revelation has been occurring successively throughout respective manifestations of a tradition (Sanders 1995b: 61) and whether observation and assessments of the collective whole of Scripture might provide insights that are different from those possible when studying an isolated pericope or text.

We now live--and history suggests that we seemingly always have lived--in a world where there are a variety of Scriptures. These reflect the reality of the plurality of people perceiving and articulating the Divine. These manifestations might also reflect the variety of visions about human relationships and, at least for those theistic religions discussed above, human relationships with the Divine. While some might consider other manifestations or the use of Scripture by "others" as fodder for condemnation, others might consider humbly the possibility that no single group may be expected to perceive all of what it is possible to perceive about the Divine. While many groups hold their view of the Divine as (perhaps even preeminently) sufficient for salvation, few mainline groups any longer suggest their traditions about the Divine are perfect or, for that matter, the only means to salvation.

When describing the broader phenomenon of Scripture, W. C. Smith stated that "persons involved in a process do well to become conscious of the process and to recognize their responsibility in its current phase" (Smith: 10). Understanding that process, understanding how Scripture has functioned, may lead the faithful, the academics and the academic faithful alike to a more responsible understanding of the Divine and our relationship to the Divine.

Works Cited

Beech, Linda Ward. 1996. THE MAGIC SCHOOL BUS GETS ANTS IN ITS PANTS: A BOOK ABOUT ANTS. New York, NY: Scholastic.

Brenneman, James A. 1997. CANONS IN CONFLICT: NEGOTIATING TEXTS IN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHECY. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Callaway, Mary. 1999. Canonical Criticism. Pp. 142-55 in TO EACH ITS OWN MEANING: AN INTRODUCTION TO BIBLICAL CRITICISMS AND THEIR APPLICATION, edited by Stephen R. Haynes & Steven L. McKenzie. Revised Edition. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

1986. SING, O BARREN ONE: A STUDY IN COMPARATIVE MIDRASH. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Elliott, John H. 1993. WHAT IS SOCIAL-SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM? GUIDES TO BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP. Hew Testament Series. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Evans, Craig A. 1993. Luke 16:1-18 and the Deuteronomy Hypothesis. Pp. 121-39 in LUKE AND SCRIPTURE. THE FUNCTION OF SACRED TRADITION IN LUKE-ACTS, co-authored by James A. Sanders and Craig A. Evans. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Fishbane, Michael. 1985. BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN ANCIENT ISRAEL. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Handy, Lowell K. 1997. THE EDUCATED PERSON'S THUMBNAIL INTRODUCTION TO THE BIBLE. St. Louis. MO: Chalice Press.

Malina, Bruce J. 2001. NEW TESTAMENT WORLD: INSIGHTS FROM CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY. Third Edition, Revised and Expanded. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Malina, Bruce J., & Richard L. Rohrbaugh. 1997. SOCIAL-SCIENCE COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

1992. SOCIAL-SCIENCE COMMENTARY ON THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Overholt, Thomas. 1996. CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY AND THE OLD TESTAMENT. Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Old Testament Series. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Rhoads, David, Joanna Dewey and Donald Michie. 1999. MARK AS STORY: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NARRATIVE OF A GOSPEL. Second Edition. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Sanders, James A. 1999. Intertextuality and Dialogue. BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN 29: 35-44.

1995a. "Hermeneutics." Pp. 175-82 in THE CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PREACHING, edited by William H. Willimon and Richard Laetcher. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.

1995b. Scripture as Canon for Post-Modern Times. BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN 25: 56-63.

1993. Introduction: Why the Pseudepigrapha? Pp. 13-19 in THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA AND EARLY BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION, edited by James H. Charlesworth and Craig A. Evans. Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press.

1991a. Canon as Shape and Function. Pp 87-97 in THE PROMISE AND PRACTICE OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY, edited by John Reumann. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

1991b. Stability and Fluidity in Text and Canon. Pp. 203-17 in TRADITION OF THE TEXT: STUDIES OFFERED TO DOMIQUE BARTHELEMEY IN CELEBRATION OF HIS 70TH BIRTHDAY, edited by G. Norton & S. Pisano. Gottingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

1984. CANON AND COMMUNITY: A GUIDE TO CANONICAL CRITICISM. GUIDES TO BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

1979. GOD HAS A STORY Too: SERMONS IN CONTEXT. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

1977. The Hermeneutics of True and False Prophecy. Pp. in CANON AND AUTHORITY, edited by George W. Coats & Burke O. Long. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

1976a. From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4. Pp. 75-106 in CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM, AND OTHER GRECO-ROMAN CULTS: STUDIES FOR MORTON SMITH AT SIXTY. Part 1: NEW TESTAMENT, edited by Jacob Neusner. Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill.

1976b. Hermeneutics. Pp. 402-07 in THE INTERPRETER'S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, Supplementary Volume, edited by Keith Crim. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

1961. THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE CROSS. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.

Smith, W. C. 1993. WHAT IS SCRIPTURE? A COMPARATIVE APPROACH, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Sommer, Benjamin. 1998. A PROPHET READS SCRIPTURE. ALLUSION IN ISAIAH 40-66. 8tanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Kenneth G. Stenstrup, Ph.D. (Claremont Graduate School), is Assistant Professor of Theology at St. Mary's University of Minnesota, 700 Terrace Heights #1440, Winona, MN 55987-1399 (e-mail: [e-mail]). He is presently working on a manuscript describing how a Canon Critical method would read the varieties of tensions in the Bible, and is completing journal articles on "Jerome and Scripture" and "Traditions of King Manasseh in Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic Texts."