A few months ago I began a review of R.W. Jenson\u2019s Canon and Creed<\/em> (WJK, 2010) in the Interpretation: Resources for the Use of Scripture in the Church series. I have now had a chance to finish the book so I will give some general comments about the whole book as well as some specific comments about the latter chapters.<\/p>\n Overall, Jenson\u2019s big point is that too many Christians think they only need Scripture and that \u201ccreed\u201d is for theologians. However, creed and canon complement one another. The creeds give testimony to the centralizing aspects of the canon. The canon takes the short ideas of the creed and fleshes them out in detail. \u201cLooked at from this angle, the new canon and the rule of faith match like conversely notched puzzle pieces. Each advances what the other holds back. \u00a0Canon and creed fitted together, and only canon and creed fitted together, could make and can now make one whole and integral guardian of the church\u2019s temporal self-identity\u201d (p. 41).<\/p>\n In terms of canon development and finalization, Jenson points to the concern over Gnosticism as well as the question of Marcion\u2019s perspective. However, Jenson also hints at the point that perhaps it would have been time anyway for the Church to have some stability with regard to its sacred Scriptures (see 40).<\/p>\n In chapter 5 Jenson looks at the Apostle\u2019s Creed. Not much of interest here, as his comments seem rather random. I was intrigued by his comment that the \u201ccommunion of saints\u201d focuses on fellowship with departed saint \u2013 I never took it that way.<\/p>\n Chapter 6 deals with \u201cThe Canonical Text\u201d and engages in two questions: (1) Should Christians go beneath the canonical text in search for meaning in the reprintinated \u201coriginal text\u201d of a redacted book, like John? and (2) Should we consider the Hebrew or Greek version of the OT Scripture?<\/p>\n As for the first, Jenson moves away from focusing on earlier forms of a text and focuses on the canonical form. There seems to be a view that the canonical form is a corrupted form. But Jenson makes the same point that Childs does: \u201cIt is only because the church maintains the collection of the these documents with the texts they presented, as the book she needs, that we are concerned for their interpretation\u201d (p. 55). His answer, ultimately, is pneumato-centric. Fair enough, but it is not fully satisfying to me. On the issue of the Gospels and the historical Jesus, here is what he writes:<\/p>\n we can receive the fourfold Gospels as a single gift of the Spirit and therefore trust that the witness that the Spirit-led church from time to time draws from the Gospels is reliable knowledge of the historical Jesus, even while some of us keep trying to resolve such questions as the day of the crucifixion [and which Gospel presentation is most true to what really happened]. (p. 58-9)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On the second question (LXX versus MT), Jenson raises an important matter, but, again, does not offer a cogent solution. I do like his expression that \u201cthe fixity characteristic of Scripture is not dependent on fixity of language\u201d (62). This is where I get lost: \u201cthe canonical text of the OT is neither the Hebrew nor the Greek by itself, but both texts together and either text if need be.\u201d (62). Again, \u201cWe must trust the purposes of the Spirit both in the history that leads to the dual text, and in the problem with which he thus leave us\u201d (62). Hmmmm.<\/p>\n In Chapter 7 he treats \u201cDogma,\u201d arguing that theological \u201chard thinking\u201d is what the church does and what it repeatedly and perpetually needs to do. Fair enough.<\/p>\n In Chap 8, Jenson urges the Church to renew an appreciation for the \u201cEpiscopacy\u201d \u2013 not a holy magisterium that pulls the strings behind the scenes, but a trust in those leaders gifted by the Spirit, discerned by the body, and in accordance with Scriptural holiness and probity.<\/p>\n Finally, in the last few chapters, Jenson makes his own case for a theological interpretation of Scripture, where he, then, interprets a number of texts. Personally, as \u00a0a Biblical researcher, I could not make heads or tails of Jenson\u2019s exegetical acrobatics, finding Jesus in all sorts of places. This reminds me, while much healing has gone on to bridge the gulf between \u201ctheologians\u201d and \u201cBiblical scholars,\u201d we still need some work especially in the area of presuppositions, terminology, and simplicity (on both sides I am sure!).<\/p>\n Overall, this book was more interesting for the questions it asked than for the answers it provided. I liked Miller\u2019s volume on the Decalogue in this series more as a tool for the Church. Jenson\u2019s book is more for seminary students and scholars who want to think about the relationship between canon and creed.<\/p>\n RATING: 3\/5<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A few months ago I began a review of R.W. Jenson\u2019s Canon and Creed (WJK, 2010) in the Interpretation: Resources for the Use of Scripture in the Church series. I have now had a chance to finish the book so I will give some general comments about the whole book as well as some specific […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4302,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1974","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n