Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§6.6 History, Hermeneutics and Faith
6.6. Two Corollaries
Finally, two corollaries which emerge from the preceding discussions are of interest
at least to Christian scholarship.
a. One is the issue of norms. At various points I have indicated that the interpreter
of the Jesus tradition has to acknowledge a degree of normativity to particular
forms of that tradition: the Greek text is normative for translations and
thus also interpretations of that text; the 'plain meaning' of the text (as defined
earlier) has primary claim to be the voice of the text in the dialogue of meaning;
the Synoptic form of the Jesus tradition is normative for any attempt to illuminate
the very first stirrings of Christianity in the making. I use the terms 'norm'
and 'normative' here in the sense of 'definitive', 'determinative', setting the
boundaries for acceptable re-expressions. This is not an attempt to insist on a
univocalicity of interpretation (as though there could be only one correct hearing
of a text). Nor is it an attempt to privilege origins illegitimately. It is simply a reminder
that, for better or worse, these are the definitive and determinative texts
for any talk of Jesus which aspires to historical integrity.
The point first arose, and in an archetypical way, with the Reformation's
criticism of the abuses of mediaeval Catholicism on the basis of Scripture. The
principle thus emerged that only by recognizing the historical otherness of the
NT witness to Jesus can we free ourselves to hear the NT speaking within the tradition
and when necessary over against the tradition. It was precisely this recognition
which resulted in the attempt to formulate methods of inquiry back into
the earliest forms of the tradition. In that inquiry it became necessary to acknowledge
that within the flow of tradition, of which Scripture is itself a part, the NT
must be accorded some sort of critical role. Precisely by virtue of the NT's pivotal
testimony to the incarnation, the NT was bound to function as the norma
normans, the canon within the canon of Scripture and tradition; otherwise that
pivotal testimony would be devalued and its canonical status be effectively
lost. 124 Of course, it certainly does not follow that determining or exercising the
critical role of the NT should therefore lie in the hands of biblical scholars,
though, given not least what has been said just above, it would be surprising if
they did not have some part to play in the process — both as scholars and as
Christians. It is this readiness for self-criticism in the light of tradition, and not
simply on the part of scholars, which marks out the western church — its willingness
to recognize and acknowledge when it has departed from its norm,
whether in the condemnation of a Galileo or in its centuries-long tradition of
124. Cf. the criticism ofVatican II's 'Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation' acknowledged
by J. Ratzinger in H. Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents ofVatican II,
Vol. 3 (London: Burns and Oates/New York: Herder and Herder, 1968) 192-93.
135