Misplaced Pages

#362637

30-598: Childs is particularly noted for pioneering the canonical approach , a way of interpreting the Bible that focuses on the text of the biblical canon itself as a finished product. In fact, Childs disliked the term, believing his work to represent an entirely new departure, replacing the entire historical-critical method . Childs set out his canonical approach in his Biblical Theology in Crisis (1970) and applied it in Introduction to

60-415: A dramatic illustration of the eschatological triumph of God." Jon Isaak applies the canonical approach to 1 Corinthians 14 and the issue of women being silent in the church . Isaak argues that In the canonical approach, theological concerns take precedent over historical interests. No attempt is made to reconstruct a historical portrait of Paul in order to prove some point or to disprove another. There

90-472: A new and firmer footing." He edited Journal of Semitic Studies 1965–76, and served as editor of the Oxford Hebrew Dictionary project. He was also an outspoken critic of conservative evangelicalism , which he attacked in his 1977 book Fundamentalism . In particular he criticised evangelical scholars such as J. I. Packer for affirming the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy , the teaching that

120-471: A reaction to other forms of biblical criticism . John Barton argues that Child's primary thesis is that historical-critical methods are "unsatisfactory theologically." According to Barton, Childs' approach is "genuinely new," in that it is an "attempt to heal the breach between biblical criticism and theology," and in that it belongs more to the realm of literary criticism than that of 'historical' study of texts. Sanders argues that canonical criticism

150-414: A unity. Barton also suggests that there is tension between "the text itself" and "the text as part of the canon". That is, the canonical approach stresses both the text in its final form as we have it, as well as the idea that "the words which compose the text draw their meaning from the context and setting in which they are meant to be read." Barton argues that "the canonical approach actually undermines

180-416: Is "post-critical" rather than pre-critical, Barr argues that the vision of a post-critical era "is the conservative dream." Conservative scholars, on the other hand, object to the way canonical criticism bypasses "vexed questions relating to the historical validation of revelation." Oswalt suggests that canonical critics blithely "separate fact and meaning" when they suggest that we are called to submit to

210-483: Is a relatively new approach to biblical studies. As recently as 1983, James Barr could state that canon had no hermeneutical significance for biblical interpretation. Childs set out his canonical approach in his Biblical Theology in Crisis (1970) and applied it in Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (1979). The phrase "canonical criticism" was first used by James A. Sanders in 1972. Childs repudiates

240-487: Is biblical criticism's "self-critical stance": It is not only a logical evolution of earlier stages in the growth of criticism but it also reflects back on all the disciplines of biblical criticism and informs them all to some extent." He also suggests that it places the Bible "back where it belongs, in the believing communities of today": Canonical criticism might be seen in metaphor as the beadle ( bedelos ) who now carries

270-674: Is no psychologizing based on what Paul could or could not have said. Gerald H. Wilson adopted a canonical approach in his studies of Psalter , and concluded that the book had a purposeful unity and "had been redacted to represent a developing sequence of ideals." Yee Von Koh suggests that Wilson was "the first to apply canonical criticism to the study of the Psalter in the clearest and most comprehensive way." The canonical approach has also been applied to passages such as Psalm 137 and Ezekiel 20. James Barr (biblical scholar) James Barr FBA (20 March 1924 – 14 October 2006)

300-839: The Society for Old Testament Study (1973) and of the British Association for Jewish Studies (1978), and was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a member of the American Philosophical Society in 1993. He was a member of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters from 1977. His The Semantics of Biblical Language (1961), in which he criticised the tendency of many scholars to rely on linguistically flawed arguments, such as arguments from etymology or based upon misconceptions about

330-462: The University of Michigan . In addition to his earned degrees, Childs was awarded an honorary Doctorate of Theology by the University of Aberdeen in 1981 and by the University of Glasgow in 1992. There is no one hermeneutical key for unlocking the biblical message, but the canon provides the arena in which the struggle for understanding takes place. Most of Childs' professional life was spent in

SECTION 10

#1732852738363

360-504: The Bible should not confront the biblical text as if it were a newly discovered document." To the contrary, as Barton reads Childs, "a properly theological reading of the Bible, by contrast, would treat it just as it stands as a vehicle of a living faith." Childs' formal education was interrupted during 1943-45 while he was serving in the United States Army during World War II . After being discharged, he continued his academic work at

390-818: The Church of Scotland in Tiberias, Israel (1951–53), during which time he acquired fluency in modern Hebrew and Arabic, he was appointed Professor of New Testament in the Presbyterian College, Montreal (1953–55). Then he was appointed Professor of Old Testament Language, Literature & Theology in Edinburgh University (New College, 1955–61). He then moved to the US as Professor of Old Testament in Princeton Theological Seminary (1961–65), followed by appointments in

420-807: The Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford from 1976 to 1978 and Regius Professor of Hebrew from 1978 to 1989. Following service in World War II in the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy where he was a pilot of torpedo bombers and took part in air-sea rescue missions, he studied at Edinburgh University, obtaining a first-class honours degree (Scottish MA) in Classics (1948) and the BD with Distinction in Old Testament (1951). After ordination (1951) and service as minister in

450-420: The Old Testament as Scripture (1979). This latter book has been described as "one of the most discussed books of the 1980s". Childs' influences included Karl Barth and Hermann Gunkel . Christopher Seitz argues that Professor Childs single-handedly effected major and sustained changes in the conceptual framework of modern biblical studies through appeal to the canonical presentation of biblical books and

480-680: The United States, Germany and the United Kingdom. From 1958-1999, he was Professor of Old Testament at Yale University. In 2007, shortly after returning from his spring residence in the United Kingdom, Childs suffered a severe fall at his home in Connecticut from which he did not recover. He had continued writing and publishing until the end. Childs was survived by his wife, Ann, and their children, Cathy and John. Ellen Davis of Duke Divinity School studied under Childs and notes: His scholarship

510-589: The University of Manchester (1965–76) as Professor Semitic Languages and Literatures, and in Oxford University, initially as Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture (1976–78) and then as Regius Professor of Hebrew (1978–89). After his retirement from Oxford, he was appointed Professor of Hebrew Bible in Vanderbilt University (1989–98). Barr received many honours. He served as president of

540-501: The canonical text itself and not on the process." However, Childs refuses to speak of canonical criticism as if it were on a level with form criticism or redaction criticism . According to Childs, it represents an entirely new departure, replacing the entire historical-critical method . John H. Sailhamer views the "canonical approach" as including the "canon criticism" of Childs, as well as composition criticism, redaction criticism , and text linguistics . Canonical criticism

570-472: The canonical text, and not in the people or events out of which that text came." Childs says that the canon "not only serves to establish the outer boundaries of authoritative Scripture," but "forms a prism through which light from the different aspects of the Christian life is refracted." He also notes that "the tradents of the tradition have sought to hide their own footprints in order to focus attention on

600-549: The concern for the finished text as an end in itself, and brings us, once again, nearer to traditional historical criticism." Childs applies his canonical approach to prophetic literature , and argues that in Amos , "an original prophetic message was expanded by being placed in a larger theological context," while in Nahum and Habakkuk , the oracles are assigned a new role through the introduction of hymnic material, and they "now function as

630-680: The critically studied Bible in procession back to the church lectern from the scholar's study. Barton has noted parallels between canonical criticism and the New Criticism of T. S. Eliot and others. Both schools of thought affirm that "a literary text is an artefact," that " intentionalism is a fallacy," and that "the meaning of a text is a function of its place in the literary canon." The canonical approach has been criticised by scholars from both liberal and evangelical perspectives. Dale Brueggemann notes that Barr accuses Childs of "aiding and abetting" fundamentalists . Although Childs' approach

SECTION 20

#1732852738363

660-426: The following books, during the 1955–2006 period, Childs wrote some eighty articles and reviews. Canonical approach Canonical criticism , sometimes called canon criticism or the canonical approach , is a way of interpreting the Bible that focuses on the text of the biblical canon itself as a finished product. Brevard Childs (1923–2007) popularised this approach, though he personally rejected

690-419: The inspired truth of the text, despite the community's inability to admit where they really got it. Barton writes that Whatever else Childs is doing, he is not taking us 'back to the canon', for no one has ever been aware of the canon in this way before. It is only after we have seen how varied and inconsistent the Old Testament really is that we can begin to ask whether it can nonetheless be read as forming

720-675: The relation between Hebrew thought and language was very influential. Much of the critique was built upon the work of French linguist Ferdinand de Saussure . In turn, Barr's student Moisés Silva built on Barr's work in Biblical Words and Their Meaning (1983). In another important study, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (1968), he criticised the tendency to ascribe meanings to difficult Hebrew words based on words in other Semitic languages (e.g., Ugaritic). This study has been described as having "put comparative Semitic philology on

750-426: The term because It implies that the concern with canon is viewed as another historical-critical technique which can take its place alongside of source criticism, form criticism, rhetorical criticism, and the like. I do not envision the approach to canon in this light. Rather, the issue at stake in canon turns on establishing a stance from which the Bible is to be read as Sacred Scripture. Canonical criticism arose as

780-447: The term. Whereas other types of biblical criticism focus on the origins, structure and history of texts, canonical criticism looks at the meaning which the overall text, in its final form, has for the community which uses it. Canonical criticism involves "paying attention to the present form of the text in determining its meaning for the believing community." According to opponent James Barr , it involves concentrating authority "in

810-439: The theological implications of attending to their final form. Seitz has also noted that "there is a small cottage industry in evaluating the contribution of Brevard Childs." For example, John Barton writes about Childs' response to those who claimed that historical criticism "deliberately took away the Bible's religious claims in order to subject it to analysis". In Childs' canonical approach, writes Barton, "the interpreter of

840-631: Was a Scottish Old Testament scholar, known for his critique of the notion that the vocabulary and structure of the Hebrew language may reflect a particular theological mindset. At the University of Oxford , he was the Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture from 1976 to 1978, and the Regius Professor of Hebrew from 1978 to 1989. Born in Glasgow , Scotland (although one obituary claims he

870-641: Was born in Edinburgh on 20 March 1924), educated at Daniel Stewart's college in Edinburgh and the University of Edinburgh , Barr was ordained to the ministry of the Church of Scotland in 1951. He held professorships in New College in the University of Edinburgh, University of Manchester , in Princeton Theological Seminary and at Vanderbilt University in the United States. He was Oriel Professor of

900-471: Was very fully integrated into his character, it would be very difficult to separate those two. He was a Christian. His work was a form of discipleship. In 1990, a Festschrift was published in his honor. Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs included contributions from James Barr , John Van Seters , Ronald E. Clements , and James Luther Mays . In addition to

#362637