Sep 01
Sources, contexts, histories and canon
John Hobbins has several posts on the interpretation of the Genesis accounts of the Fall, and moving on to Cain and Abel. They are particularly fascinating on detailed examination of the language. It does seem to me, however, that this would in fact be enhanced by further exploration of its canonical context following the first creation narrative: being fruitful and multiplying is precisely targeted by the pain of obtaining food and bearing children, and having dominion marred by enmity between serpent and human.
Some of this ties in with the questions raised by Kevin Wilson about source criticism. The interpretative task does both: the examination of the particular textual strand, and the ever-increasing circles of its contexts. Doing this properly may expose tensions between sources and redactions, but always needs self-awareness that with but a few exceptions (such as Mark’s Gospel) the sources themselves are but an interpretative construct from a final text.
Equally, in all sorts of ways, one cannot stop with the canonical text. Whatever claims are made about the authority of the canonical text, subsequent readings of it (which include poetic and artistic representations of the narrative) are themselves implicated in its meaning(s). The Augustinian interpretation of Paul’s interpretation of Adam’s sin was and is for many the authoritative meaning of the text.
The importance of canon, perhaps, is not in that it provides a final form of the text, or a uniform synchronic text collected out of a multiform diachronic variety of texts, but that it points to the texts as located in a reading community that turns to them in both diversity and uniformity, as those texts which the community authorises to author its conversation and its life.
September 1st, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Doug, you seem to imply that Augustine’s misunderstanding (based on a poor translation) of Romans 5 should be taken as part of the meaning of Romans 5. Now of course we need to consider Augustine’s understanding as we understand the tradition of interpreting this text. But I would reject any suggestion that this has become part of the meaning of the text; rather, I would see this misconception as something to be rejected and rooted out of any current understandings, so that we might avoid letting go of the commands of God by holding on to human traditions (Mark 7:8). By writing this I don’t mean to reject all traditional understandings. But in so far as these understandings are based on demonstrable errors, or are imports of anti-Christian doctrines (another charge made against Augustine, I’m not sure how justified this is), I take these as distortions of Christianity to be weeded out of the tradition.
September 1st, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Peter, I picked this example mainly because of the starting point in the discussion of Genesis. At one level your point is irrefutable: this meaning is a translation error. At another level it is foundational to, and implicated in formulations of the doctrine of original sin, to such an extent that it has a life of its own. So the question of reading it “correctly” is not simply a discussion about the lexical meaning of the text, but about an engagement of the fresh (in this case “freshly original”) reading of the text with all the other texts that have been read with the interpretative lens of Augustine’s “eph’ ho.” Not least, in the present instance, Genesis 3.
September 1st, 2007 at 5:09 pm
[...] at Metacatholic has a post in which he references my brief discussion of canon. I liked his final [...]
September 1st, 2007 at 5:47 pm
If I may chime in here, the fact that Augustine at some level misunderstood Romans 5 does not disqualify his theology of sin from further consideration.
Indeed, I would argue that Augustine’s understanding of sin has deeper roots in scripture than is usually realized, and in any case is far and away better than the historical alternatives (Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism).
September 1st, 2007 at 7:00 pm
John, as always an important comment, and I would not quibble with your main point. However, I’m not convinced either that Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism are the only historical alternatives, unless one allows Augustine to determine the framing of the debate. I also, whatever the merits of Augustine’s view (and they are considerable), tend to suspect him of not having entirely shaken off his Manichaean past.
September 1st, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Doug, you are right on. To the extent that Augustine has not shaken off his Manichaean past, his approach must be questioned. But I think Manichaean thinking plagues many modern day alternatives to Augustine more than it did Augustine.
For befuddled readers, I would note that Manichaean in this context means a kind of dualism in which transcendent good and evil determine life, with evil in strict opposition, not subordination to, the good.
The alternative is monism, which holds, to quote scripture, that the LORD creates evil, not just good (Isa 45:7).
I suppose this opens a can of worms, but so be it.