Alter's Canon and Creativity

I've recently read Alter's little book Canon and Creativity: Modern Writing and the Authority of Scripture. Like so much of what Alter does, this study is rich and fascinating, and yet rather lacking in the requisite theoretical groundwork. For example, Alter wants to claim that writers of faith, writers in faithful ages, can produce destabilizing, even subversive literary reflections upon biblical material, only because they have a sense of the 'double canonicity' of the Bible. The Bible, that is, both organizes religious life and theological reflection and is the linguistic/literary repository of biblically-informed culture. Thus, when faithful writers playfully rework biblical texts in unorthodox ways, they are merely taking up the biblical language (i.e., the second sense of biblical canonicity), divorced from any and all religious or theological concerns. The reason for this claim?: "if the canonicity of the Bible were strictly a matter of doctrinal truth [i.e., if there were only a single way of understanding the Bible as canon] . . . radical [literary] redirecting of biblical language would be unimaginable" (48). What's lacking here is any awareness - odd, because Alter does know better - of poststructuralist textuality, intertextuality, etc., or even a much more basic appreciation of the multiple ways in which scholars of reception history complicate questions of interpretation and meaning.

This idea of 'double canonicity' seems ultimately a device for gauging a writer's religious commitment. If so-and-so alters biblical language in such a way as to call into question the Bible's authority or some basic doctrinal point, then so-and-so must be writing beyond or outside of faith. Why this simplistic binary should be attractive is quite unclear to me, but that it is attractive to some (like Stanley Fish or James Wood) is obvious. Unfortunately, it's also the very thing against which I must struggle in my Bible and Literature courses every year. Perhaps actually teaching Alter, thereby trying to encourage students to reflect critically upon their own positions by getting them to notice the flaws in his, would be one way to go.