Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context: Brevard Springs Childs' Methodology of Biblical Theology 9781453900505, 1453900500

Citation preview

Theological Exegesis IN THE Canonical Context Brevard Springs Childs’s Methodology of Biblical Theology

CHEN XUN

Studies in Biblical Literature 137

Modern Christian theology has been problematic with the schism between the Bible and theology, and between biblical studies and systematic theology. Brevard Springs Childs is one of those biblical scholars who dismiss this “iron curtain” separating the two disciplines. Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context: Brevard Springs Childs’s Methodology of Biblical Theology analyzes Childs’s concept of theological exegesis in the biblical canons. Childs disregards negative influences of the historical-critical method by establishing canon-based theological exegesis that leads into confessional biblical theology. He demonstrates forcefully the inadequacies of the historical-critical method in practicing biblical theology. His canonical approach establishes post-critical Christian biblical theology and works within the traditional framework of faith seeking understanding. Childs’s biblical theology has a double task: descriptive and constructive, the former connects biblical theology with exegesis, the latter with dogmatics. He uses a comprehensive model that combines a thematic investigation of the essential theological contents of the Bible with a systematic analysis of the contents of the Christian faith. Childs’s theological exegesis in the canonical context offers a new interpretation in the modern history of Christian theology.

Chen Xun received his Ph.D. in theology from the University of Helsinki in Finland, where he also earned a master’s degree in theology. Chen has also received a master’s degree from Jinling Union Theological Seminary in Nanjing, China.

www.peterlang.com

Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context

Studies in Biblical Literature

Hemchand Gossai General Editor Vol. 137

PETER LANG

New York y Washington, D.C./Baltimore y Bern Frankfurt y Berlin y Brussels y Vienna y Oxford

Chen Xun

Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Brevard Springs Childs’s Methodology of Biblical Theology

PETER LANG

New York y Washington, D.C./Baltimore y Bern Frankfurt y Berlin y Brussels y Vienna y Oxford

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Chen, Xun. Theological exegesis in the canonical context: Brevard Springs Childs’s methodology of biblical theology / Xun Chen. p. cm. — (Studies in biblical literature; v. 137) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Bible—Canonical criticism. 2. Bible—Hermeneutics. 3. Bible—Theology. 4. Childs, Brevard S. I. Title. BS521.8.X86 220.1’2—dc22 2009045811 ISBN 978-1-4539-0050-5 ISSN 1089-0645

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/.

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council of Library Resources.

© 2010 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York 29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006 www.peterlang.com All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited. Printed in Germany

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ...........................................................................................vii Editor’s Preface ................................................................................................ix Abbreviations ...................................................................................................xi Abstract..........................................................................................................xiii Chapter 1: Introduction.................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: The Three Stages of Childs’s Academic Development ................... 17 Chapter 3: The Canonical Approach............................................................... 57 Chapter 4: The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism..................................... 111 Chapter 5: Theological Exegesis .................................................................... 167 Chapter 6: Evaluation and Reflection............................................................ 225 Chapter 7: Concluding Remarks................................................................... 269 Bibliography................................................................................................. 275 Index............................................................................................................ 293

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Doing research is an exciting experience. Writing a doctoral dissertation is always a collaborative effort. This thesis would not have been possible without the encouragement and assistance of a number of professors, teachers, and friends. I am indebted to Prof. Miikka Ruokanen, my supervisor, who provided the initial impetus and collected many materials for this research. I should also like to thank him for giving me a desk in his office so that I could freely use and refer to his books and for his enormous theological guidance. In many ways he also helped me to improve the content and style of my text. I am deeply grateful to Prof. Antti Laato, an Old Testament scholar at Åbo Akademi University in Turku, for his patience in dealing with my manuscript in terms of biblical study. His deep knowledge of biblical canon saved me from various mistakes on canonical issues. Thanks are due to Dr. Antti Raunio at the University of Helsinki and Prof. Aleksander Radler at Umeå University in Sweden. They read my manuscript and wrote their evaluations for the Faculty of Theology at the University of Helsinki. Their suggestions were very helpful to the final revision of my dissertation. I would like to thank Dr. Sammeli Juntunen, who offered me useful suggestions for revising my thesis. Thanks are also given to Dr. Pauli Annala, who enriched my theological knowledge about Medieval Christian dogmatics and modern theology. I would like to thank Prof. Risto Saarinen, who strengthened my knowledge of ecumenical studies and Christianity in the modern world. I also express my thanks to Mr. Seppo Heikkinen, a wonderful Latin teacher, who helped me learn Latin in two years. I can never express enough gratitude to the Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Mission, whose financial support enabled me to study at the University of Helsinki in Finland. I can never forget the many friends who helped me during these years, especially Rev. Heikki Hilvo, Ms. Leena Haavisto, and Ms. AnnaLiisa Viita, who took an interest in my studies and helped my family over the

viii Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context course of my Ph.D. research. I also warmly thank the parishes of HaminaVehkalahti and Kesälahti for their financial and spiritual support. I express my thanks to Mr. Godfrey Weldhen, the English language reviser, who helped improve the English text of my dissertation. I also show appreciation to Peter Lang Publishing and the Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Mission for the publication of this book. Finally, I would like to thank my loving family, my parents, my wife Xiao Baorong and my daughter Chen Peiru, who always provided a relaxed atmosphere conducive to learning. Beijing China, March 2010 Chen Xun 棗泾

EDITOR ’ S PREFACE More than ever the horizons in biblical literature are being expanded beyond that which is immediately imagined; important new methodological, theological, and hermeneutical directions are being explored, often resulting in significant contributions to the world of biblical scholarship. It is an exciting time for the academy as engagement in biblical studies continues to be heightened. This series seeks to make available to scholars and institutions, scholarship of a high order, and which will make a significant contribution to the ongoing biblical discourse. This series includes established and innovative directions, covering general and particular areas in biblical study. For every volume considered for this series, we explore the question as to whether the study will push the horizons of biblical scholarship. The answer must be yes for inclusion. In this volume Xun Chen copiously examines the methodology and the theological trajectory of Brevard Childs. While the focus is on Childs, in so doing this exploration by default examines Canonical Criticism and it impact and influence on biblical scholarship. Moreover in his systematic analysis the author not only discusses the theology of Child but the theoretical basis for Canon Criticism. This book will provide for scholars yet another opportunity to revisit the corpus of Childs’s scholarship, and regardless whether one is critic or supporter of Childs’s perspective, one cannot overlook the immeasurable influence. The horizon has been expanded.

Hemchand Gossai Series Editor

ABBREVIATIONS Books by Childs BTC BTONT BTP Exodus IAC IOTS Isaiah MROT MTI NTCI OTBPT OTTCC SUICS

Biblical Theology in Crisis 1970 Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible 1993 Biblical Theology: A Proposal 2002 Exodus: A Commentary 1974 Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis 1967 Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture 1979 Isaiah: A Commentary 2001 Myth and Reality in the Old Testament 1960 Memory and Tradition in Israel 1962 New Testament as Canon: An Introduction 1984 Old Testament Books for Pastor and Teacher 1977 Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context 1986 The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture 2004

Other Abbreviations ANQ ATR BA BI BTB BTM CBQ CD CTM ET HBT JAAR JBL JETS

Andover Newton Quarterly Anglican Theological Review Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Interpretation Biblical Theology Bulletin Biblical Theology Movement Catholic Biblical Quarterly Church Dogmatics Concordia Theological Monthly The Expository Times Horizons in Biblical Theology Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

xii

Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context

JSOT JSS JTS MT PTMS RSR SABH SBET SBL SBT SBT2 SBTS SHS SJT ST TT VT VTS ZAW

Journal of Study of the Old Testament Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Modern Theology Princeton Theological Monograph Series Religious Studies Review Studies in American Biblical Hermeneutics Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology Studies in Biblical Literature Studies in Biblical Theology Studies in Biblical Theology (Second Series) Sources for Biblical and Theological Study Scripture and Hermeneutics Series Scottish Journal of Theology Studia Theologia Theology Today Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ABSTRACT Modern Christian theology has been hurt by the schism between the Bible and theology, and between biblical studies and systematic theology. Brevard Springs Childs is one of the biblical scholars who attempt to dismiss this “iron curtain” separating the two disciplines. The present thesis aims at analyzing Childs’s concept of theological exegesis in the canonical context. In the present study I employ the method of systematic analysis. The thesis consists of seven chapters. The first chapter is an introduction. The second chapter attempts to find the most important elements which exercise influence on Childs’s methodology of biblical theology by sketching his academic development over his career. The third chapter attempts to deal with the crucial question of why and how the concept of the canon is so important for Childs’s methodology of biblical theology. In chapter four I analyze why and how Childs is dissatisfied with historical-critical scholarship, and I point out the differences and similarities between his canonical approach and historical criticism. The fifth chapter attempts to discuss Childs’s central concepts of theological exegesis by investigating whether a Christocentric approach is an appropriate way of creating a unified biblical theology. In the sixth chapter I present a critical evaluation and methodological reflection of Childs’s theological exegesis in the canonical context. The final chapter sums up the key points of Childs’s methodology of biblical theology. The results of this thesis are as follows: First, the fundamental elements of Childs’s theological thinking are rooted in the Reformed theological tradition and in modern theological neo-orthodoxy and its most prominent theologian, Karl Barth. The American Biblical Theological Movement and the controversy between Protestant liberalism and conservatism in the modern American context cultivate his theological sensitivity and position. Second, Childs attempts to dismiss the negative influences of the historicalcritical method by establishing a canon-based theological exegesis directed towards confessional biblical theology. Childs employs terminology such as canonical intentionality, the wholeness of the canon, the canon as the most appropriate context for doing biblical theology, and the continuity of the two Testaments, in order to put into effect his canonical program. Childs forcefully demonstrates the inadequacies of the historical-critical method in creating

xiv Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context biblical theology in biblical hermeneutics, doctrinal theology, and pastoral practice. His canonical approach endeavors to establish and create post-critical Christian biblical theology, and works within the traditional framework of faith seeking understanding. Third, Childs’s biblical theology has a double task: to be descriptive and constructive, the former connecting biblical theology with exegesis, the later with dogmatic theology. He attempts to use a comprehensive model which combines a thematic investigation of the essential theological contents of the Bible with a systematic analysis of the contents of the Christian faith. Childs also attempts to unite Old Testament theology and New Testament theology into one unified biblical theology. Fourth, some problematic points of Childs’s thinking need to be mentioned. For instance, his emphasis on the final form of the text of the biblical canon is highly controversial, yet Childs firmly believes in it and even regards it as the cornerstone of his biblical theology. The relationship between the canon and the doctrine of biblical inspiration is weak. He does not clearly define whether Scripture is God’s word or whether it only “witnesses” to it. Childs’s concepts of “the word of God” and “divine revelation” remain unclear, and their ontological status is ambiguous. Childs’s theological exegesis in the canonical context is a new attempt in the modern history of Christian theology. It expresses his sincere effort to create a path for doing biblical theology. Certainly, it was just the modest beginning of a long process.

CHAPTER

1

Introduction Childs and Modern Theological Issues 1

Brevard Springs Childs was one of the leading figures of biblical theological scholarship in the twentieth century. His influence, especially in North America and in Germany, is well documented because of his significant contributions both to the study of the Old Testament and to biblical theology. His fundamental standpoint is his emphasis on the canonical approach, which became apparent in his ground-breaking opus Biblical Theology in Crisis (BTC) in 1970. Being trained as a biblical exegete employing the historical-critical method, Childs began his study of the Old Testament and the New Testament in the late 1940s. He carried on this interest in his further studies at Heidelberg and Basel Universities in the1950s. In the1960s and1970s, he set out to rethink the role of the OT as Christian Scripture, and later in the1980s, he started to pay

1

Brevard Springs Childs (September 2, 1923 to June 23, 2007) was born in Columbia, South Carolina, and moved to Flushing, New York in 1929. He did his military service from 1943 to 1945, and then graduated from the University of Michigan with a B.A. and an M.A. in 1947. In 1950, he earned a B.D. at Princeton Theological Seminary. Later he became a student of the University of Basel (including a winter semester at Heidelberg in 1951), studying OT theology and Oriental studies with Walter Baumgartner, Walther Eichrodt, and Karl Barth. In 1955 he received a Ph.D. from Basel University with his dissertation A Study of Myth in Genesis I-XI. For the next few years he was teaching at Mission House Seminary. In 1958, he moved to Yale University and started teaching the OT and later became a member of the Departments of Religious Studies and Near Eastern Languages and Literature. From that time on, he served as Holmes Professor of OT Criticism and Interpretation at Yale Divinity School until his retirement. From 1963 to1964, he spent his sabbatical leave doing research on the OT at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He retired from Yale University in 1999. In addition, Childs was “an active Presbyterian churchman.” See Ben C. Ollenburger, “Brevard Childs: Canon,” in The Flowering of Old Testament Theology, 1992, p. 322. See also Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Baruch Spinoza to Brevard Childs. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), pp. 309–310.

2

Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context

specific attention to the holistic canonical interpretation of the OT and the NT together. Even in the early years of the twenty-first century, he still sought to understand the OT, especially the book of Isaiah, as Christian Scripture. Childs not only attempted to deal with the complex historical issues of the OT but also to discover the theological significance of OT texts. In the field of OT studies, his influence is outstanding. Ben C. Ollenburger has observed that “no OT theologian has been more concerned than has Brevard Childs to take seriously 2 the theological nature of the OT and biblical theology.” Modern Christian theology has been pained by the schism between the Bible and theology, and between biblical studies and systematic theology. The need to overcome this gap has become an increasingly urgent concern, especially from the point of view of the theology needed by the Christian church. Brevard S. Childs was one of those Christian theologians who were sensitive to this need and desire to do something to overcome these problems. He claimed that the commonly used method of historical criticism successfully discovers biblical textual insights but is inadequate to understand the theological message of the Bible. Consequently, it is necessary to find new ways of creating relevant biblical theology for the community of faith. During his research on biblical theology, especially from the 1970s onwards, he had realized that the iron curtain separating the Bible from theology and biblical studies from systematic theology had become a serious dilemma in contemporary theology throughout most of the English-speaking world. Such a deep awareness provided Childs with a certain level of academic theological sensitivity and direction for establishing a strong connection between biblical exegesis and theology. This is his major theological concern, and it has become an increasingly widely discussed concern in contemporary theological development. His program for theological exegesis in the canonical context represents a strong voice calling for a positive, constructive engagement in linking biblical scholarship with theology proper. The deepest concern of Childs’s canonical approach to biblical interpretation is to combine modern biblical studies with doctrinal theology.

2

Ollenburger, “Brevard Childs: Canon,” 1992, 322. Frank Brown also describes Childs as “an iconic figure in biblical scholarship” and “one of the most influential OT scholars of the 20th century.” Frank Brown, “Brevard S. Childs, an Iconic Figure in Biblical Scholarship, Dies at 83,” Yale Divinity School News. http://www.yale.edu/divinity/news/070625_news_ childs.shtml. 17/09/2007.

Introduction

3

Whatever his supporters or opponents may say, it is an undeniable fact that Childs’s vision for canonical theological exegesis has provoked a lot of debate and a wide range of reactions. His views have been both welcomed and criticized, and they have been seen as both positive contributions and negative 3 4 delusions. He has been looked upon as a prolific pioneer, not only because of his strong stress on the theological approach in biblical interpretation, but also because of his specific emphasis of the canonical final form of the biblical texts being crucially important for both exegesis and theology. Because of his insistence on the importance of the canon, Childs has been called “a canonical theologian,” and his approach is best known as “canonical 5 theology.” In order to evaluate the significance of Childs’s work, I will not only rely on his supporters but also his detractors. One of his most prominent critics, James Barr, has commented on him: “Brevard Childs is one of the great personalities of contemporary OT study: open-minded and imaginative, generous and creative, aware of every side of the subject, international in the 6 scope of his understanding.”

Previous Research Brevard S. Childs’s ideas and proposals have been widely discussed. There are numerous articles, monographs, chapters in monographs, and doctoral theses 7 introducing, analyzing, and discussing Childs’s methodology. In the following, I will introduce the most important works on Childs. Charles J. Scalise is an important analyst and interpreter of Childs’s canonical approach to biblical theology, his main interest being Childs’s 3 4 5 6

7

Baker 1991, 55. Scobie 2003, 39. Brett 1994, 281. Carson 1991, 62. Barr 1980, 12. Childs’s OT study is much wider than his research on the NT. However, it is a surprise that Childs’s name does not appear in the list of “Index of (OT) Modern Scholars,” which is presented by Rolf Rendtorff on the final page of his book The OT: An Introduction. See Rendtorff 1985, 308. Most of these contributions are independent chapters of books or articles widely touching on the analytical discussions of Childs’s canonical biblical theology: Barr 1980, 12–23; 1988, 3– 17; 1999. Barton 1984; 1998a, 9–20. W. Brueggemann 2000, 234–38. Collins 1990, 11–24; 2005. Goldsworthy 2000. Green 2006. Harrisville 1999, 7–25. Harrisville & Sundberg 2002. McDonald 2007. McGlasson 1999, 52–72; 2006. Mead 2007. Provan 1997, 1–38. Scobie 1992, 4–8; 2003. Seitz & Greene-McCreight 1999. Tucker & Petersen 1988. D.Williams 2004, 79–106. These are beneficial for understanding the analytical process of this thesis.

4

Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context

canonical methodology. In 1994 Scalise published his Hermeneutics as Theological Prolegomena: A Canonical Approach, which is based on his 1987 unpublished Ph.D. dissertation Canonical Hermeneutics: The Theological Basis and Implications of the Thought of Brevard Childs at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Scalise further developed his understanding of Childs in his From Scripture to Theology: A Canonical Journey into Hermeneutics in 1996. There is one important defect in Scalise’s works: his analysis of Childs is based on IOTS (1979), NTCI (1984), and OTTCC (1986), but the most important work, Childs’s magnum opus, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (BTONT) of 1992 does not appear 8 in his bibliography. Scalise attempts to provide some guiding principles for contemporary revelation-centered evangelical theology “in its movement from Scripture to Christian doctrine.” He aims to apply an appropriate prolegomenon to a postcritical evangelical theology, which intends to “develop an approach to the articulation of a biblical-grounded theology.” Scalise is well aware that the gap or discontinuity between “the language of Scripture and the proposals of Christian doctrine that claim to be authorized by Scripture” has existed in 9 Christian theology since the Enlightenment. In so doing, his main model is Childs’s canonical approach to biblical theology. The author does not completely follow Childs’s canonical theory, but critically accepts it, suggesting that “a carefully nuanced understanding of canonical hermeneutics can serve as 10 the central theme of prolegomena to a post-critical evangelical theology.” Scalise pays attention to the definition of the canon, the final form of the biblical text, and the concept of the canonical shape of Scripture. The major points presented by Scalise are as follows. First, he notes that Childs attempts to provide a new vision for the task of biblical interpretation, but he does not replace the historical-critical method with any new methodology. In Childs’s 8

Scalise says that “unfortunately, Childs’s newest work in this area, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible arrived after my research for this study was completed.” See Scalise 1994a, 15. 9 Scalise 1994a, xi, 2–3. 10 Here, the term “canonical hermeneutics” refers to a modified version of the canonical approach to biblical interpretation developed by Childs. See Scalise 1994a, 14–15. I tend to agree with Mabee’s argument that Scalise’s position is “nuanced,” because he does not uncritically accept Childs’s proposals concerning the priority of canon in biblical interpretation. Interestingly, however, his critique of Childs does not rest on evangelicalcritical grounds, but is made in a spirit analogous to historical-critical scholarship. Mabee 1994, viii.

Introduction

5

canonical proposal people can find some proper guidance in connecting biblical hermeneutics with the doctrines of Scripture. Second, he places Childs’s canonical approach in the framework of Barth’s post-critical biblical hermeneutics. Childs’s canonical proposal seeks to maintain an appropriate continuity with both the pre-critical and critical traditions of biblical exegesis. In the eyes of Scalise, Childs’s canonical hermeneutics can be seen as the central prolegomenon for a post-critical Christian theology, which seeks to overcome the weaknesses of historical criticism for biblical interpretation. The third and most important finding for Scalise is that canonical theological exegesis can provide evangelical Christian communities with a helpful approach for responding to the contemporary theological situation. In addition to these positive responses to Childs’s canonical approach, Scalise also points out that a major weakness of his canonical proposal is “its lack of openness to contemporary sociological and literary approaches to biblical 11 interpretation.” Paul Noble’s Canonical Approach: A Critical Reconstruction of the Hermeneutics of Brevard S. Childs is based on his doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of Cambridge in 1991, which was revised and expanded in 1992 and published in 1995. In the beginning of his book, Noble makes the following comment on Childs’s BTONT: Childs’s most important book 12 “implements his methodological proposals in their fullest extent.” Noble wrote his thesis between 1987 and 1990, and his analysis is rooted in Childs’s works before BTONT. Noble analyzes Childs’s biblical theological methodology with reference to a number of concrete debates on historical, hermeneutical, and theological issues. There are twelve chapters in Noble’s book. The first chapter is an introduction. The second and third chapters focus on Childs’s basic methodological elements such as canon, canonical process, canonical context, and reassessing critical exegesis, as well as Childs’s desire to introduce the canonical method to biblical theology. Chapters four to six deal with modern views of historical-critical methodology. Chapters seven to nine discuss modern hermeneutics and the philosophical hermeneutical context related to theological exegesis. Chapter ten is an independent chapter which briefly presents “The Illumination of the Spirit,” according to which Childs’s adoption of Calvin’s literalism needs more 11 Scalise 1994a, 71–72. 12 Noble 1995, 2.

6

Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context

investigation. In chapter eleven Noble finds that Childs’s canonical exegesis remains problematic with its claim regarding the Christological interpretation of the OT. Typological exegesis could be useful for a unified interpretation of the OT and the NT, Noble believes. The final chapter suggests a reconstruction of Childs’s canonical approach by implementing a more typological exegesis and inspiration of Scripture. Noble sees Childs’s canonical theological exegesis as a critical reconstruction of biblical hermeneutics, as he is well aware that Childs does not completely reject mainstream historical-critical opinions. For Childs an attempt to separate theology from the historical texts is problematic; he understands that theology and its historical textual reference cannot be distanced from each other. Noble understands that Childs’s canonical proposal is an attempt to move from historical-critical scholarship to biblical theology whilst paying attention to the needs of the community of faith. These viewpoints do not seem to be too critical of Childs; rather, they are sympathetic with his canonical theological exegesis, with the author attempting to improve on Childs’s methodology. Noble’s analysis is comprehensive but sometimes too wide, lacking a disciplined concentration on Childs’s framework for canonical theological exegesis. Noble pays considerable attention to multilateral methodological debates. One important question arising from Noble’s analysis is: What does Childs’s claim to new biblical theology really mean? Does Childs’s canonical theological exegesis mean a new and true content of biblical theology or a new way to biblical theology? This is one of the key 13 methodological issues in Childs’s canonical approach to biblical theology. 13 Noble rightly points out that Childs in his Biblical Theology in Crisis in 1970 made clear his claim to develop a new and true biblical theology, which was concerned about the canonical context and theological value in particular. See Noble 1995, 25–32, 361–62. But what does this claim really mean? Does Childs’s claim mean that he was going to provide a new biblical theology? Perhaps Childs only sought a new way of doing biblical theology. Considering the distinctions between Childs’s canonical approach to biblical theology and historical-critical scholarship describing biblical materials, the genuineness of Childs’s program can be seen as a new method but not a new kind of theology. In fact, Childs many times clearly stressed that his canonical biblical theology aimed at distinguishing itself from “the old-style” and seeking “a new way” which could continue integrating historical-critical scholarship into the theological dimension of the Bible. Sometimes Childs used a variety of terms or phrases such as “a fresh and disciplined way,” “a beneficial way,” “a new approach,” “a search for a new approach.” See Childs 1970a, 91, 93, 95–96; 1993, 53–54, 70–79; 2002, 38–55. In this book, especially in ch. 2.2.1., I will analyze Childs’s BTC as a new turning point in his academic career and look in more detail at this issue.

Introduction

7

Another scholar analyzing Childs is Mark Brett, whose book Biblical Criticism in Crisis? The Impact of the Canonical approach on OT Studies was published in 1991. The work is based on his doctoral thesis at the University of Sheffield. He also published an article “Against the Grain: Brevard Childs’s Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible,” in 1994. Brett provided important critical arguments concerning Childs’s canonical approach to biblical theology. Brett defines himself as a pluralist in dealing with the issues of biblical theology in the postmodern context. He attempts to provide a comprehensive critical discussion of Childs’s canonical proposals. Childs’s methodological statements are often not as clear as biblical critics would wish. For Brett, Childs has received some unjustified criticism, because some of his opponents take it for granted that his canonical approach is by definition an incoherent model for biblical interpretation. For this reason, Brett calls on biblical theologians to recognize the canonical approach as one justified and fruitful way of doing biblical interpretation. He also points out some weaknesses in Childs’s canonical theological exegesis. For example, Brett argues that Childs puts “all our theological eggs in one basket,” which is the idea of the canon. The over-emphasis of the concept of the canon can become a “methodologically totalitarian” view, or at least it has 14 a “totalitarian tendency.” Childs’s canonical approach should be clarified as a discipline with its own distinctive features. It is not necessary for the canonical approach to replace other methodological traditions such as historical criticism, literary criticism, the social analysis approach, or the cultural-linguistics approach, and so on. A totalitarian approach does not work well because no one method can deal with all biblical theological questions. Therefore, Brett points out that academic pluralism should be encouraged in biblical theology; in other words, the canonical approach should be placed in a pluralist context. Placing canonical theological exegesis within a pluralist understanding of contemporary biblical study methods helps it to make an effective contribution to the modern interpretation of Scripture. Following this pluralist position, Brett finds that biblical theology should strengthen its academic connection with neighboring disciplines. In short, the canonical approach should borrow from neighboring disciplines; for instance, cultural14 Brett argues that with his canonical approach Childs “wants to overwhelm the entire discipline and press everyone into his service,” but for Brett, it is not possible to use any single canonical approach to deal with all theological issues. See Brett 1991, 5–6, 11, 167.

8

Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context

philological and philosophical discussions could be helpful to Childs’s canonical approach. In general, Brett’s way of dealing with Childs is based on his postmodernist vision; he sees theological methodological pluralism as a necessary prerequisite for dealing with the issues of biblical theology. Recently, a new monograph by G. Michael O’Neal researching Childs’s canonical approach, Interpreting Habakkuk as Scripture: An Application of the Canonical Approach of Brevard S. Childs, was published in 2007. This book is a case study on Childs’s canonical approach to the book of Habakkuk; O’Neal employs an approach from biblical literature studies. The major source of this work is Childs’s IOTS of 1979. The author seeks to examine whether or not Childs’s canonical approach to the book of Habakkuk could become a satisfactory method for biblical interpretation. Childs had claimed that historical-critical scholarship had failed to deal sufficiently with the canonical shape of the Bible and had consequently failed to understand the real value of biblical theology. O’Neal finds that Childs’s canonical approach tries to combine historical-critical analysis with theological interpretation, and the theological point must be based on the final canonical form of the biblical text which reflects “a history of encounter 15 between God and Israel.” According to O’Neal, in Childs’s canonical approach, the theological message of Habakkuk offers a divine perspective on human history. This theological message is conveyed by the canonical shape of the text. Childs not only points out that historical-critical scholarship doesn’t understand adequately the canonical shaping of Habakkuk or its theological dynamic, but also suggests that one should read the canonical shape of the book of Habakkuk and understand its theological meaning of “a divine perspective upon human 16 events.” However, O’Neal suggests that the theological message of Habakkuk should be based on the tensions “resulting in the combination of traditional forms,” because the theological message can be applied both to individuals and to a community in human history, and the combination of the theological message with traditional forms can reinforce the connection between the divine 17 oracle and the human response. 15 Childs 1979, 75–77. O’Neal 2007, 10–12. The final form of the Bible’s texts, which means a final redactional shape of the Bible’s texts especially of the Old Testament, found by Judaism and then developed by Christianity, is the most controversial problem in Childs’s canonical approach. It is rejected by most biblical scholars. This matter will be addressed in ch. 3.1. 16 See Childs 1979, 447–456. O’Neal 2007, 3, 7, 145, 147–148, 151–152. 17 According to O’Neal, Childs in his canonical approach to the book of Habakkuk draws three

Introduction

9

O’Neal is not completely satisfied with Childs’s canonical approach to the book of Habakkuk, since he concludes with a “recommendation with 18 reservation.” On the one hand, Childs’s canonical approach to the book of Habakkuk opens up a new opportunity for biblical interpretation and yields some interesting results, especially his move from pure textual and form criticism to theological insights. On the other hand, O’Neal argues that one should be cautious in recommending Childs’s canonical approach, since it has some shortcomings such as his emphasis on the Masoretic text as the original 19 canonical text. Childs’s interpretation of some verses, such as Habakkuk 1:12 and 3:9 and 3:11, remains unclear. Childs should have paid more attention to textual criticism and the traditional forms of the text, not only the final form, if he wanted to interpret the theological message of the text adequately. O’Neal’s book is a case study, but a question arises: Why did O’Neal choose Childs’s canonical approach to the book of Habakkuk? Why not Childs’s canonical approach to the book of Isaiah? Childs wrote two thick commentaries on Isaiah, and although Childs’s canonical approach touches all the books of the OT, his interpretation of the book of Isaiah is the most representative. If O’Neal had chosen to analyze Childs’s canonical approach to the book of Isaiah, his conclusion would, perhaps, have been very different. Apart from the above-mentioned scholars who have either a sympathetic or warmly critical attitude towards Childs’s position, there are also harsher critics of Childs’s vision among whom James Barr is the strongest. He has sharply criticized Childs’s canonical theory and conception of biblical theology,

theological and hermeneutical implications: First, his analysis of Habakkuk’s canonical shape is designed to be a protest against the historical-critical assumption that textual correctness determines theological value. Second, the theological message of Habakkuk has been actualized in the final form of Scripture for generations of the community of faith; the prophet adopts a divine perspective on human history. And third, the book of Habakkuk performs a particular role in the canon. However, O’Neal points out that the first implication is no longer valid, as the assumption of the present historical analysis is not apparent. The second implication needs to be modified because of textual complexity and flexibility because the combination of traditional forms is important; and the third needs expansion because Childs does not give a credible explanation regarding the role of the particular in the large canon. O’Neal 2007, 145–148,150. 18 See O’Neal 2007, 151–152. 19 The Masoretic text was a Hebrew biblical text. Childs sees it as a vehicle for the modern interpreter to determine the original canonical text. This idea has been very controversial, and many scholars disagree with it. We will deal with this problem in ch. 3.1. See Childs 1979, 96–101.O’Neal 2007, 33–35, 50–51, 151.

10 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context especially Childs’s problematic treatment of the idea of the biblical canon and his Christological understanding of OT theology. Barr’s criticism appears in many of his writings including the following: The Bible in the Modern World (1973), “Childs’s Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture” (1980), Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (1983), “The Theological Case against Biblical Theology” (1988), The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective (1999), and “Unity: within the Canon or After the Canon” (2004). John Barton is another prominent critic of Childs, his criticism being a bit softer than that of James Barr. Barton’s Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (1984) can be looked upon as a work that responds to Childs’s canonical approach. Barton’s Biblical Interpretation (1998) also touches on some of the discussions about Childs’s canonical approach. Barton’s criticism also targets Childs’s views of the canon and canonical methodology. Barton describes Childs’s canonical approach as “a natural successor to redaction 20 criticism within a literary climate permeated by New Criticism.” In their criticism of Childs, both Barr and Barton are more concerned with the question of the canon than with other issues of biblical theology. Moreover, John Collins’s Encounters with Biblical Theology (2005), especially the essay “Is a Critical Biblical Theology Possible?” argues that Childs’s canonical approach to biblical theology does not successfully provide a platform for an advanced dialogue with dogmatic concepts. In contrast, Collins believes that historical criticism can still provide the most satisfactory framework 21 for further discussions concerning biblical theology. Other biblical scholars, such as Walter Brueggemann and Lee Martin McDonald, who express their appreciation of Childs’s efforts to make biblical theology possible, keep their 22 distance from Childs’s insistence on canonical intentionality. Most criticism from historical critics of Childs’s canonical biblical theology mainly focuses on the controversies in the discussion on the canon, including questions such as the implication of the canon, the investigation of the canonization process, textual historicity, and the difficulty of basing biblical theology on the concept of the canon. For them, Childs is in danger of losing the historical reality of the Bible, and Childs’s emphasis on the wholeness of the 20 Barton 1984, 208. 21 Collins 2005, 16, 22–23, 25. 22 See W. Brueggemann’s “Against the Stream: Brevard Childs’s Biblical Theology” (1993) and “A Response to Professor Childs,” and McDonald’s presentation on “Brevard Childs’s Canonical Approach” in his Biblical Canon Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority, Appendix E, 465–474.

Introduction 11 Bible is not possible. Consequently, the idea of canonical biblical theology is doubtful. The strength of these above-mentioned scholars is their defense of historical criticism as a purely scientific method of biblical study; their weakness, however, is that they are not really interested in Childs’s theological concern regarding biblical interpretation. Different kinds of exegetes and theologians have expressed their opinions on Childs’s methodology of biblical theology. Their evaluation of Childs ranges from warm support to almost complete repudiation of his vision. The various researchers of Childs exhibit some similarity in their approach: their analyses are wide and comprehensive but do not go very deep into theological issues. Many are assured of the need of biblical theology and appreciate Childs’s canonical theological exegesis, yet at the same time they express some doubts about his approach. Some with good intentions attempt to improve on Childs’s method of biblical theology. Most of the research related to Childs’s ideas of canonical theological exegesis and biblical theology concentrates solely on methodological questions and pays very little attention to questions related to theology proper or systematic theology. With good reason we can say that the theological potential of Childs’s program has not yet been fully exposed and discovered. Therefore, a more profound, systematic theological analysis of Childs’s works and thinking can provide elements for building a bridge between the exegetical study of the Bible and biblical theology, on the one hand, and between biblical studies and systematic theology on the other.

The Aim, Method, and Sources of This Study The aim of this book is to analyze Childs’s conception of theological exegesis in the canonical context (we could also use the expression: the conception of canonical theological exegesis). By exposing the idea, structure, and function of his canonical theological exegesis, I try to discover the nature of his methodology of biblical theology and how he methodologically attempts to relate modern biblical studies with the issues of systematic theology. I will employ the method of systematic analysis. Through systematic analysis, I intend to explore the theoretical foundation of Childs’s canonical theological exegesis, its structural principles, and its central characteristics and functions. Systematic analysis will also help to analyze the inner coherence and logic of his methodology. Systematic analysis starts with an analysis of the terms

12 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context and concepts which appear in the material and with an analysis of the argumentation used by Childs to support his propositions, ideas, and beliefs. As for the terminology employed in this study, by “biblical interpretation” I simply mean various ways of understanding and interpreting the Bible. “Biblical hermeneutics” has two meanings; first it is a term signifying an attempt at biblical interpretation that aims to seek out such meanings of biblical texts which can be relevant for us even today; second, biblical hermeneutics is a term for the larger methodological discussion on the methods of biblical interpretation. “Biblical theology” means an attempt at interpreting theologically biblical themes in a systematic way, while, at the same time maintaining the biblical vocabulary, images, and worldview. “Theological exegesis” is a method for creating biblical theology; it emphasizes the importance of the theological interpretation of the biblical texts. “Systematic theology” attempts to present theological thinking by way of a comprehensive and orderly method. Systematic theology begins with biblical theology, but it proceeds further, including an analysis of the theological and doctrinal discussion throughout the centuries up to the present time. Systematic theology aims at a comprehensive and coherent presentation of the epistemic content of 23 the Christian faith. Thus, this book uses “theological exegesis” to describe Childs’s methodology of biblical theology. Childs’s discussions on the canonical context and canonical theological exegesis will be explained in ch. 3 and ch. 5. 24 Childs was a prolific writer. Most of his writings are concerned with the problems of forming a biblical theological methodology which employs the idea of theological exegesis in the canonical context (or canonical theological exegesis). There is a very clear line of thinking throughout his works concentrating on the questions of the method of biblical theology. Therefore, a thorough analysis of Childs’s methodology requires that all his published works must be treated as sources for this book. The following books are the major representatives of Childs’s work on biblical theological methodology: Biblical Theology in Crisis (BTC,1970), Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (IOTS,1979), The New Testament 23 A similar definition can be found in McKim 1996, 30, 127, 275, 279. 24 Childs wrote 13 books, excluding his 1955 Ph.D. dissertation A Study of Myth in Genesis I-XI and Die Theologie der einen Bibel, Bd.1: Grundstrukturen, Bd. 2: Hauptthemen, translated by Christian Oeming, in 1994 (Freiburg: Herder). He also wrote about 56 articles (some republished articles are not counted) and at least 70 short reviews. In the bibliography of this study, I mainly list his books and articles, but some important “reviews” or “forewords” can also be found there.

Introduction 13 As Canon: An Introduction (NTCI, 1984), Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (OTTCC, 1986, the first edition was published in1985), Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (BTONT, 1992, the first edition was published in 1992), Isaiah: A Commentary (Isaiah, 2001), and The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture (SUICS, 2004). In addition, many of Childs’s essays cannot be ignored if one wants to deal properly with his theological exegesis. Since the 1970s, Childs’s proposals have been the subject of intense debate. Most of this discussion took place in the 1970s and 1980s, when his influential works, such as BTC, IOTS, NTCI, and OTTCC, came out. During this debate, Childs received both high praise and strong criticism, but in general, the voices of criticism at this period were stronger than those of praise. Criticism was due 25 not only to his open dissatisfaction with historical criticism, but also because of his peculiar emphasis of the idea of the canonical final form and canonical priority in the method of doing biblical theology. Childs’s BTONT of 1992, the magnum opus of his career, also provoked debate, but much less than before. On the one hand, this book can be regarded 26 as Childs’s best work from the point of view of theological exegesis. Here he attempts to use his canonical approach to deal with the relationship between biblical and theological subjects; of course, this does not mean that BTONT is 27 his final word on canonical theological exegesis. 25 Childs sees historical criticism as a purely critical science for analyzing biblical sources in a comprehensive way. With this approach the Bible is seen as a document, and research on the Bible is seen as an objective and scientific method. Biblical historicity, culture, literature, philosophy, sociology, phenomenology, and linguistics are paid special attention. Historicalcritical scholarship is not interested in the theological matters of the Bible and it does not regard the Bible as revelation or as the word of God. However, Childs does not deny the historicity of the Bible, and he does not reject the necessity of historical investigation, cultural knowledge, or textual analysis in biblical studies. See Childs 1960a, 104; 1967a, 124; 1970a, 19, 35; 1974a, 229; 1979, 62; 1993, 525. 26 Stuhlmacher says that “the book by Brevard S. Childs, published in 1992, represents the mature summation of a life’s work devoted to the theological interpretation of the Old and New Testaments in their canonical form and in canonical content.” Stuhlmacher 1995, 74. Some similar views can be seen in House 1998, 46–47 and Mead 2007, 142. 27 The term “the final word” I use here first appeared in Kittel’s assessment of Childs’s work IOTS, in which she says that “the final word has not yet been written by Childs on th(e) subject.” Kittel 1980, 11. Later Brett said that BTONT cannot be treated as Childs’s claim to the final word.Brett 1994, 286. Indeed, if one carefully reads his writing over the last ten years, one would be surprised to see that Childs still seeks to define the canonical biblical books as Christian Scripture, see SUICS (2004).

14 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context On the other hand, both his supporters and his opponents have more or less admitted at least the theoretical possibility of canonical theological exegesis alongside other methods of biblical exegesis and interpretation. Compared with the situation in the 1970s and 1980s, after the publication of BTONT in 1992, the voices lauding Childs have been more audible than those criticizing him. It seems that his vision of connecting biblical studies and theology proper is becoming more and more acceptable and widespread. BTONT has been praised 28 as “a true milestone in biblical-theological work,” and as “the most significant th 29 biblical theology of the 20 century.” The present book is the first monograph on Childs to include his main work BTONT in its sources.

The Structure of the Study The structure of this book is designed to provide an appropriate framework for an analysis of Childs’s methodology of biblical theology. The study will focus on the core of Childs’s biblical theological methodology and its theological implications, and will consist of the following chapters. The first chapter is an “Introduction.” The second chapter seeks an insight into Childs’s biblical theological methodology by sketching his academic development at different stages of his life. I attempt to identify the most important elements that influenced Childs’s methodology of biblical theology during his academic career (1950s-2007), raising some key issues for discussion in the following chapters. The third chapter attempts to deal with the crucial question of why and how the concept of the canon is so important for Childs’s methodology of biblical theology. The central concepts of Childs’s canonical approach, its theoretical framework, and its controversial elements will be analyzed. It is well known that the idea of the canon has its historical complications and therefore there are serious difficulties in defining what is really meant by the term “canon.” Different opinions in the field of biblical studies have led to endless disagreements. I attempt to analyze Childs’s definition of the concept of the canon, the criteria that Childs employs, and his position in the modern discussion on the canon. Special attention will be paid to the way in which Childs applies the idea of the canon to create a unified biblical theology of the OT and the NT.

28 Such high praise is from Stuhlmacher. Quoted by Räisänen 2000, 264. 29 Scobie 2003, 44.

Introduction 15 Since the Enlightenment, historical criticism has been the dominant method in biblical studies. The dominant role of this method is now undergoing a slow process of change. As early as 1970, Childs claimed that research on the Bible was in crisis, and he attempted to seek a new path for Christian biblical theology. When Childs’s proposal for a canonical approach came out in the 1970s, it was seen by some as a new type of historical criticism. In chapter four, I will analyze why and how Childs was dissatisfied with historical-critical scholarship and point out the differences and similarities between his canonical approach and historical criticism. The fifth chapter addresses Childs’s central concepts of theological exegesis. Attention will be paid to how Childs’s theological reflection of the Bible tries to connect the two disciplines, biblical studies and systematic theology. Christology is a key theological issue in Childs’s canonical exegesis; I will therefore investigate whether a Christocentric approach is an appropriate way of creating a model of unified biblical theology. In the sixth chapter I will present an evaluation and methodological reflection of Childs’s canonical theological exegesis and its orientation. Each chapter has its own summary with some critical comments. The final chapter, “Concluding Remarks,” present some key points of Childs’s methodology of biblical theology.

CHAPTER 2

The Three Stages of Childs’s Academic Development The present chapter presents the emergence of Childs’s biblical theological 1 method through a chronological analysis of his writings, thus offering insight in how and why his academic development took place. This survey of his works highlights important questions for discussion in the subsequent chapters. Childs’s exploration of biblical theological methodology underwent a threestage development during his academic career. First, during the 1950s and 1960s, Childs became dissatisfied hermeneutically and theologically with the historical-critical method and started looking for a new breakthrough in biblical theology. The term “theological reflection” with regard to the Bible began to appear in his writing from the end of the 1950s. Second, the 1970s and 1980s can be seen as the period when Childs’s biblical theology explored a new turning point, whereby he attempted to depart from the historical-critical method and create a canonical approach toward biblical theology. I use the expression “the establishment of a canonical approach in the1970s-1980s” to describe the essence of this second stage. The third stage we entitle “bridging between exegesis and theology in the 1990s-2000s” which presents his theological exegesis along with his developing of a canonical approach to biblical theology. This three-stage division of the development of Childs’s theological thought is not completely exact, but it does not misinterpret the continuity of Childs’s academic development, because in general the main direction and key ideas of Childs’s theological development remained unchanged throughout his lifetime. The three stages of Childs’s academic development are not based upon a theological thematic order but on

1

Here, it is not possible for me to write reviews of all Childs’s books and articles in detail, but this chapter attempts to address his most important writings.

18 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context the chronological order in which his major characteristics manifested themselves in different periods. Childs began the historical-critical study of the OT and NT in the late 1940s and he carried on this interest in his graduate program at Heidelberg and Basel Universities in the 1950s. The same historical-critical approach to the Bible continued after he took up a teaching position at Yale University in 1958. During the 1950s and 1960s, Childs’s exploration of the historical-critical method of biblical studies underwent little change. In general, in terms of his thinking regarding the biblical theological method in this period he can be 2 described as “a child of the critical movement,” not only because of his wide assimilation of the scholarship of historical criticism, but also because his actual interpretation of the Bible depended on the historical-critical method, though he sometimes complained about the limits of this method for a meaningful interpretation of prophetical narratives in the OT. There is common agreement that Childs’s break with the historical-critical method took place in 1970, when his Biblical Theology in Crisis (BTC) was published. During the 1970s and 1980s he attempted to build a new biblical theological method, the canonical approach, in his ongoing publications. From the 1990s, or more precisely from 1992, Childs had obviously turned to theological exegesis to bridge the relationship between the Bible and theology proper and between biblical theology and systematic theology. Two important books mark turning points in Childs’s academic career: Biblical Theology in Crisis (BTC) of 1970 and Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (BTONT) of 1992. BTC expressed his basic dissatisfaction with historical criticism. BTONT symbolized his relatively sound theological reflection on the Bible and was a major effort to transform biblical studies in the 3 direction of Christian theology. BTC and BTONT can be seen as two watersheds which define the three stages of Childs’s academic development. 2

3

Barr 1980, 15. In spite of James Barr, there are a number of other scholars who think that Childs is good at employing the historical-critical method in biblical studies. For example, Sanders feels that Childs was very strong in tradition criticism. Anderson says that Childs in his early studies stood firmly in the critical school of scholarship. In Brett’s words, Childs was already “a recognized master” of historical criticism. Similarly, Scalise views Childs’s early works as performing “a historical-critical exegete,” as he points out that “Childs himself was an outstanding practitioner of form and tradition criticism during the early years of his career,” although “the hermeneutical dilemma of historical criticism provides the point of departure for his efforts to develop his canonical approach.” Sanders 1976, 289. Anderson 1981, 14. Brett 1991, 3. Scalise 1994a, 55, 67. Brueggemann gives very high praise to these two writings as he says that “since 1970, when he

The Three Stages of Childs’s Academic Development 19

Dissatisfaction with Historical Criticism (1950s-1960s) The Rudimentary Point Some biblical scholars such as Sheppard and Ollenburger look upon Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (1960) as Childs’s first publication in his career as a 4 biblical scholar. However, even if his doctoral dissertation entitled A Study of Myth in Genesis I-XI (1955), dealing with the subject of myth in the OT, is excluded, there are still some articles from the end of the 1950s which show Childs’s early concern with the question of biblical theology and biblical hermeneutics, namely, “Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of Contemporary Hermeneutics” (1958) and “Jonah: A Study in Old Testament Hermeneutics” 5 (1958). In general, Childs’s “Prophecy and Fulfillment” can be seen as one of the earliest articles concerning modern methodological problems of biblical theology. In this article Childs examines Wilhelm Vischer’s Witness of the Old Testament to Jesus Christ (1934), and it is easy to see that Childs’s view on the relationship between the two Testaments develops partly under Vischer’s 6 influence. Childs becomes aware of a kernel principle of biblical study: Christ is the reality uniting the two Testaments, and thus Christology is the heart of the two Testaments. This notion assumes a decisive role in reading and interpreting the OT and the NT. Compared with “Prophecy and Fulfillment,” Childs’s article “Jonah” more strongly points to some topical hermeneutical issues by way of interpreting the

4 5

6

published BTC, Brevard Childs has (been) swimming upstream against the interpretive consensus of critical Scripture studies.” His “BTONT is the culmination of his long, reflective work. It is an achievement worthy of his passion, erudition, interpretive sensitivity, and courage.” W. Brueggemann 1993, 279. Sheppard 1991, 455. Ollenburger 1992, 321. Except for “Prophecy and Fulfillment” and “Jonah” which widely touch on the discussion of biblical hermeneutics at the end of the 1950s, in 1959, Childs also published an article “Enemy from the North and the Chaos Tradition,” which is a professional textual study on the phrase “the enemy from the north” with some theological eschatological reflection. We will not go into more detail here. Wilhelm Vischer (1895–1988) was a German pastor and an Old Testament scholar. He wrote a well-known two-volume work, Das Christuszeugnis des Alten Testaments (1934 & 1942) in which he insisted on the Christological interpretation of the Old Testament. In “On Reclaiming the Bible for Christian Theology” (1995), Childs expresses his very high respect for Vischer when he writes that “in the field of OT studies Wilhelm Vischer’s famous, for many, infamous, book The Witness of the OT to Jesus Christ (1934) was a lightning rod.” Childs 1995a, 2. Also see Childs 1977c, 38.

20 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context story of Jonah. The main point here is how Childs clarifies two alternative methods of interpretation: either follow the critical method of biblical studies or follow the church’s reading of the narrative under the rule of faith. The author investigates the method of critical scholarship and then estimates the value of its use. He comes to the conclusion that, though some critical analysis can be helpful, the historical-critical method in general is unable to provide an appropriate interpretation of the reality of the biblical theological witness in Jonah’s story. Childs is concerned with the fact that the Christian church heard a prophetic witness in the book of Jonah; this is the key for Christians who wish to understand and interpret the word of God, which is calling forth for a response. Therefore, he suggests that a theological reflection “with the eyes of faith” is needed to explain the spiritual manifestation of the message. The interpretation of Jonah’s story needs the eyes of the Christian faith, not a scientific demonstration. This article can be seen as a starting-point of Childs’s ongoing discussion in the field of OT hermeneutics during his career. I cannot find any earlier article concerning OT hermeneutics among Childs’s writings. This is the first time Childs expresses in his published works his dissatisfaction with the methodology of historical-critical exegetics.

Three Monographs In the 1960s, Childs published his first three monographs in the series “Studies in Biblical Theology”: Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (MROT, 1960), Memory and Tradition in Israel (MTI, 1962), and Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (IAC, 1967). Basically, these three monographs could be seen as works of historical criticism, because he employs the historical-critical method in dealing with textual passages. However, the common characteristic in the style of these three books is that “there is an indication of Childs’s growing dissatisfaction with the way historical and theological questions were commonly treated. More specifically, Childs comes to believe that literary-historical investigations could 7 not, of themselves, settle theological questions. Of these three monographs, 7

Ollenburger 1992, 321. According to Brett, Childs attempted to use emic methods in dealing with the task of biblical theology. There were at least four principles: the progressive refinement of biblical tradition; the privilege of theological reference; the need for theologically constructive as well as descriptive exegesis; and a formalist tendency in treating historical reference. Brett 1991, 28.

The Three Stages of Childs’s Academic Development 21 MROT seems more important, from the perspective of biblical theological methodology, than MTI and IAC. Thus here we will concentrate on the analysis of MROT; the others will be introduced in brief. In MROT (1960) Childs sees the problem of myth in the OT in essence to 8 be the problem of the understanding of reality in the OT. He realizes that there is a deep exegetical confusion between the nature of “event” and the essence of “history” in the OT’s understanding of reality, especially since the discussion on the concept of revelation in the OT in terms of a Heilsgeschichte (history of salvation) became popular. Historical criticism only focuses on some religioushistorical viewpoints, so that it cannot achieve an appropriate theological understanding. For Childs, on the contrary, the OT is a theological reality. Childs’s major aim in this work is to deal with the relationship between the theological problem of myth in the OT and in the OT’s understanding of reality. As to biblical theological methodology, Childs in this monograph not only employs a form critical method to interpret Gen. 1:1-2, 3:1-5, 6:1-4, Ex. 4:24-26, Isa.11:6-9,14:12-21 as exegetical cases, but also refers to the biblical canon as a commentary on these texts. Though the canonical approach for biblical theology in this work had not yet become obvious, the last chapter “The Theological Problem of Myth” seems very clearly to demonstrate that Childs was already using theological reflection for doing biblical theology in the early 1960s. From that time, theological reflection becomes more and more central in his writings. Sheppard accurately observed that “Childs argued from a traditionhistorical perspective that the mediators of biblical tradition consistently 9 historicize the myths they appropriate.” The word “myth” is derived from the Greek word mythos, which literally 10 means a “story,” “tale,” “narrative,” “speech,” and “fiction.” Childs critically analyzes both the broad definition of myth based upon the classical philological understanding, which later developed into the so-called Mythical School and the narrow definition of myth in the form critical method. The broad definition of myth refers to an attempt to deal with mythology in a purely scientific way, which treats myth as a historic, philological, and philosophical concept but not as a phenomenological one. With a vision of the understanding of reality, 8

He argues that “myth and the OT have their ultimate concern an understanding of reality.” Childs 1960a, 7. 9 Sheppard 1991, 455. See also Brett 1991, 28-31. 10 See Rogerson 1990, 479.

22 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Childs prefers to believe in the inseparability of the natural and supernatural elements and their close connection. Thus this broad definition of myth is not successful in dealing with the inner coherence of myth, and consequently it cannot be a very useful tool for biblical interpretation. Again, the narrow definition of myth only describes the myth as a literary form concerning stories of gods, or indicates that myths are stories about supernatural beings and events. Childs sees this definition as “the science of description,” as a function of a non-philosophical evaluation of literature. Childs, however, states that the narrow definition is neither adequate to discover the essential issue of myth, nor to form the basis for our study of myth in the OT. He gives two reasons: First, “myth” is defined as a purely literary concept, so that it is not helpful for understanding “the function of the myth within the total thinking of a culture.” Second, this narrow definition of myth fails to see the essence of myth in the OT, because if myth in the OT is merely treated as a “story of gods,” then “there is no true myth possible in a 11 monotheistic religion.” Then, Childs defines “myth” as an expression of human beings’ understanding of reality, in that “the human mind creating the myth perceives 12 as supreme reality the great process within nature.” For him, a historical, form critical, philosophical, rationalistic, or even aesthetic description of myth cannot be looked upon as the right starting point for dealing with the issue of myth in the OT. Childs finds that the relationship between myth and reality in the OT ought to be understood as an entity. Myth in the OT is an expressive form by which the structure of the reality of human existence can be understood and maintained. The creative spirit of man is an intelligible and unified whole, thus mythical human beings can find out the integrating factor from the stories about the action of God in the OT for an appropriate understanding of reality. Therefore, reality in the OT is the historical experience of Israel, by which God’s redemptive purpose for the world has been made manifest. Thus we do not need to penetrate “behind” Israel to look for reality. Childs’s treatment of the relationship between the OT and the NT is already apparent in MROT. Later the emphasis on the continuity of the two 11 Childs 1960a, 14-15. 12 Childs follows Malinowski’s expression that “myth…is not merely a story told but a reality lived. It is not of the nature of fiction…but it is a living reality.”Childs also argues that “no actual history in the essence of a causal sequence of events is possible,” thus human beings found in mythical stories about the activity of the gods as understanding of reality. See Childs 1960a, 7, 17-19, 20-21, 29.

The Three Stages of Childs’s Academic Development 23 Testaments forming the one canonical Bible becomes one of the great themes of Childs’s work. For Childs, the OT is not just an interesting religious historical document; rather he understands that the OT speaks about “the new reality” which is seen as a New Israel. Biblical theological reality is seen as a concrete form of Israel’s total experience in the history of Israel. The OT is theologically meaningful only when connected to the NT. Total experience as the reality of revelation is more important than Israel’s life in the midst of concrete individual historical events. Though historical criticism can make a great contribution to understanding and interpreting the experience of Israel as a mediator of reality in its details, it would still be an unsatisfactory interpretation if the definition of reality is divorced from the historical Israel’s total experience. Thus Childs presents a new relationship between the OT and the NT regarding the issue of a new reality the meaningfulness of the relationship between New Israel and Jesus Christ. For him, the OT’s speaking of Christ has been accepted by the Christian church not only as a tradition of Christian faith but also as the inheritance of the NT from 13 the OT. Therefore, the task of biblical exegesis is to discover the reality of the OT also for the Christian church and Christian life. In his Memory and Tradition in Israel (MTI) of 1962, Childs does not deal with theological issues but studies a biblical thematic topic through a form critical analysis; this is a work of philological and exegetical hermeneutics. The canonical approach does not yet appear on the agenda in this book. The series of historical events in the OT show that God brings the people of Israel into existence, because these historical events must be treated as the redemptive events of the OT. For Childs, the OT’s events are theologically determinative because they constitute Israel’s redemption. The events recorded in the OT have become the vehicle of God’s redemptive acts in human history. Therefore, the continuity of Israel’s historical events as redemptive history manifests the reality of God’s redemptive history but not the witness of those historical events only. Childs argues that in the OT, redemptive history conceives two elements, namely, God’s redemptive action and Israel’s response, which can never be isolated, nor can they be described as objective and subjective components, rather, they form a unity through which one can appreciate the fullness of the 13 Childs believes that the OT can be seen as a manifestation of Jesus Christ, as he mentions that “the ultimate criterion for determining the new reality does not lie within the OT. In Jesus Christ the new reality has appeared as the self-authenticating New Israel.” Childs 1960a, 103-104.

24 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context redemption in Israel’s history. This argument manifests his search for a possible dialogue between Judaism and Christianity given the common foundation of 14 the OT and of their similar understanding of redemptive history. In Noble’s words, from a methodological viewpoint, Childs in his MTI “sets out his views 15 on historical methodology in the context of a discussion of actualization.” Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (IAC) of 1967 grew out of a seminar on Isaiah. In this book Childs briefly applies a form critical analysis to discuss the topic of the Assyrian crisis. He is cautious with respect to the problematical complexity of history, and he regards form critical analysis as a positive method, which can offer proper help to the historian and biblical archaeologist in their ongoing task of identifying the sources of the OT. There are signs in this book that he is beginning to be seriously concerned about the problems of the relationship between Scripture and the canon.

Interpretation in Faith In addition to these three monographs, in the 1960s Childs also wrote some important articles such as “A Study of the Formula Until This Day,” “The Birth 16 of Moses,” and “Deuteronomistic Formulae of the Exodus Traditions.” It is 14 Childs 1962, 83-89. 15 Noble 1995, 94-95. 16 Some details about these three articles can be seen as follows: 1) “A Study of the Formula, Until This Day,” published in1963, can be understood as a pure textual study of the OT. It is hard to see that it has something to do with biblical theology and with theological methodological problem. However, this article is very useful to those who are interested in the discussion regarding the nature of the etiological narrative in the OT. 2) “The Birth of Moses” was published in1965, in which Childs re-examines Gressmann’s interpretation of the legend of Sargon. Childs’s analysis is to confirm and identify historical evidence from different traditional materials for the story of the birth of Moses. This is a pure textual study, too. 3) “Deuteronomic Formulae of the Exodus Traditions” was published in1967. This article deals with two important Deuteronomic formulae of the Exodus traditions, which symbolize the significance of redemption with the stereotyped phrases, the first is “Yahweh brought you out of the land of Egypt,” and the second formula is “Yahweh showed signs and wonders.” For Childs, both formulae show the entirety of Israel's redemptive experience. The former formula expresses the redemptive purpose of Yahweh and theologically shows the subject of “the election of God” in the Deuteronomist development; the latter stresses the great power of Yahweh in the way of visible signs. From the point of view of biblical theological methodology, Childs emphasizes the integrity of Deuteronomic textual narratives and their theological meanings, but his interpretive method is not out of the historical analysis.

The Three Stages of Childs’s Academic Development 25 typical of these three articles that Childs wrote them using the customary historical-critical technique of biblical scholarship. However, these three articles are not very important for our concern with Childs’s methodology of biblical theology. But, two other articles of the 1960’s are more deserving of our attention: “Interpretation in Faith: The Theological Responsibility of an OT Commentary” (1964) and “Psalm 8 in the Context of the Christian Canon” (1969). In his “Interpretation in Faith,” Childs for the first time clearly expresses his 17 biblical theological position as the discipline of faith. He claims that it is necessary for Christian theology and biblical interpretation to confirm the unity between the OT and the NT and to confess the two witnesses to the revelation of God. Childs agrees with the basic assumption in the field of OT theology that the responsible exegete must begin with the task of historical description which aims to establish an objective view of Israel’s faith. Based on this descriptive task, a responsible commentator must try to establish a bridge between the historical material and the theological problems. Keeping the descriptive task and the theological concern together is Childs’s foundational position for creating OT theology. He puts forward a central argument that even the descriptive task happens within the framework of faith, which means that the descriptive task ought not only to “learn everything relevant to the historical background of the text” and pay attention to “the historical nature of 18 the biblical witness,” but also “examine the details of its historical singularity.” Childs insists that biblical interpretation must be in faith and for faith, in other words, biblical interpretation occurs in faith and for faith. Childs’s interpretation in faith stresses an important element in “the hermeneutical circle”: biblical exegetes and Christian theologians always approach the Bible with some presuppositions; faith must be considered as the prime presupposition which can regulate biblical interpretation. Schleiermacher was

17 In this article, unfortunately, Childs does not give a definition of “faith,” but it can be observed that he is very confessional with regard to the wholeness of the Bible and the coherence between Judaism and Christianity. But in many other writings, Childs repeatedly mentions the concept of regula fidei, the rule of faith. We will deal with the definition of faith later in ch. 3.2., especially in ch. 3.2.3. 18 See Childs 1964, 434, 437, 439. As we already explained in the “Introduction”, Childs defines historical criticism as a purely critical science in relation to the Bible, but he is not critical of biblical historical investigation. He never confuses the definitive relationship between historical criticism as a discipline of biblical studies and the need for researching the historical background of biblical texts.

26 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context the first philosopher who formulated the principle of the hermeneutical circle, which is concerned with the relationship between the two poles of the interpreter and the text. Schleiermacher saw hermeneutics as no longer serving some particular fields of study but as the problem of human understanding. He stressed that hermeneutics is based upon a retrospective knowledge and seeks a proper role for the creative process within human understanding. From the viewpoint of biblical exegesis, hermeneutics is concerned with meaning and 19 reality, the author’s time, intention, and the historical situation of the text. This is one of the main reasons for illustrating why it is difficult for biblical exegetes and Christian theologians to interpret the Bible without faith. The Bible is written in different languages; however, understanding the essence of the Bible as a philological or purely epistemological analysis is a basic error, according to Childs. This is an error because it avoids understanding and interpreting the Bible in the framework of faith. Scripture came into existence as a book of faith; consequently, it is impossible to understand the essential message of Scripture outside faith. Childs suggests three dialectics. First, a biblical exegete ought to interpret both “the single text in the light of the whole OT” and “the whole of the OT in the light of the single text.” He explains that the first dialectic of the hermeneutical circle is the movement from the single text to the entirety of the OT. This implies that the historical descriptive analysis of the OT is in harmony with its theological interpretation; the framework of faith serves to esure the theological integrity of the discipline of biblical exegesis. Second, a biblical exegete interprets “the OT in the light of the NT” and interprets “the NT in the light of the OT.” This means that a biblical exegete ought not to see the Bible merely as collection of fragmentary religious documents, but should take seriously the Christian biblical faith according to which the OT and the NT together form the vehicle of God’s revelation. He explains the second dialectic of the hermeneutical circle as “the movement from the OT to the New.” Finally, he suggests that a biblical exegete “interprets the witness of the OT in the light of the theological reality” and “understands the theological reality in the light of the witness of the OT.” This third dialectic of the hermeneutical 20 circle is “the movement from the level of the witness to the reality itself.” His emphasis on the importance of faith in a hermeneutical circle represents a voice 19 See Thiselton 1992, 195, 204-205. 20 See Childs 1964, 438, 440-443.

The Three Stages of Childs’s Academic Development 27 which is opposed to a hermeneutics that only relys on rationalistic, epistemological-scientific understanding. At this point, Childs is not alone, some others too believe that the importance of faith in hermeneutics should not be ignored, especially in dealing with the relationship between the text’s author 21 and the textual interpreter. The article “Interpretation in Faith” manifests the importance of a theologically oriented interpretation of the OT. I sum up the importance of this article with three notions. First, here Childs for the first time seriously attacked 22 the historical-critical method in interpreting the OT. Second, he for the first time demanded that the descriptive historical task of biblical exegesis be linked to theological exegesis. Third, many central points, such as the relationship between the two Testaments, interpreting the OT in the light of the NT as well as reading the NT in the light of the OT, and biblical interpretation in the Christological framework of the Christian faith, are mentioned for the first time. These ideas are deeply influential regarding his later writings. Using Noble’s evaluation, “Interpretation in Faith” not only marks “a new departure in Childs’s thought,” but also builds up the “important thematic links between 23 Childs’s earlier and later work.” Hence, the importance and significance of this article is not less than that of BTC in 1970. Many of the arguments of the article, sometimes using the very same wording, are repeated in BTC and other later works. “Psalm 8 in the Context of the Christian Canon” was published in 1969. It aims at exploring the question: “To what extent can one speak of the whole 24 canon as a context for biblical interpretation?” The author attempts to demonstrate in an exegetical way, using Psalm 8 as an example, how to connect OT interpretation with the whole Christian canon. This is undoubtedly a very important article not only showing the development of Childs’s biblical theological direction, but also for understanding his biblical theological

21 For example, Thiselton sometimes argues that “without faith…considerations about hermeneutics will fail to solve the problem of understanding.” McConville points out that the “canon takes on a hermeneutical quality, since texts must always be read with alertness to other texts.” See Thiselton 1980, 92 and McConville 2006, 267, 269-270. 22 Childs even argues that “the corollary of poor theology and weak historical method must be radically rejected.” Childs 1964, 439. Landes finds that Childs attempts to present “a most helpful and insightful analysis of the inadequacies of the major exemplars of OT commentaries.” Landes 1980, 32. 23 Noble 1995, 15, 18, 23. 24 Childs 1969a, 20. Later “Psalm 8” was collected into his BTC. See Childs 1970a, 151-163.

28 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context methodology. It is necessary to pay attention to this article, if one wants to study Childs’s biblical theology. Childs attempts to interpret Psalm 8 in the context of the Christian canon. There are five main points in his article and althoughsome of them are not new, one can observe some development compared with his earlier works, especially the article “Interpretation in Faith” of 1964. First, Childs describes an unbreakable relationship between the two Testaments using Psalm 8 as an example. Second, Childs points out that Christology is the heart of the continuity of the two Testaments. Third, for a proper theological understanding of Psalm 8, he suggests reading the OT in the light of the NT and the NT in the light of the OT in the context of the Christian faith. Fourth, he stresses the necessity of combining the study of the OT with theological reflection. Finally, Childs mentions both the descriptive and constructive tasks of biblical theology.

The Establishment of a Canonical Approach (1970s-1980s) In the 1970s and 1980s, Childs published some books and a number of articles plus many short reviews. The following five books are the most important: Biblical Theology in Crisis (BTC, 1970), Exodus: A Commentary (Exodus, 1974), Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (IOTS, 1979), The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (NTCI, 1984), and Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (OTTCC, 1986).

A New Turning Point BTC can be seen as one of Childs’s major works of biblical theological methodology, symbolizing a new turning point in his biblical theological scholarship. Childs’s initial purpose in writing this book was to analyze the transformation of modern American biblical theology, especially the methodological relationship between theology and biblical studies. In terms of its content its main points represent a harmonious continuation of the proposals in “Interpretation in Faith.” BTC consists of three parts: Part I, entitled “Remembering a Past,” presents a historical analysis of the Biblical Theology Movement (BTM) and describes its rise and decline. Part II aims at “Seeking a Future” for a new biblical theology. In Part III, he concretely focuses on the discussion on biblical theological methodology with the title “Testing a

The Three Stages of Childs’s Academic Development 29 Method,” proposing a new path for doing biblical theology, namely, the canonical approach. The Biblical Theology Movement was a movement of modern American Protestantism between the 1940s and the 1960s. The Bible, the Christian church, and church proclamation were the major concerns of this movement. The Bible was seen as of absolutely central importance in doing Christian theology. Concerns such as the Bible’s close relation to the Christian church and to its proclamation, the unity of the Bible, God’s revelation in history through his acts, and the relationship between the OT and the NT, were stressed. Childs’s theological education in America and Europe took place at the same time as the BTM. When the movement was already coming to an end, Childs began his academic career at Yale University (1958). Childs sees the BTM as a biblical movement fighting for the needs of the Christian church. But the problem of the BTM is not only its lack of concern for canonical interpretation, but also its failure to deal with the theological insights of the Bible. Thus Childs claimed that biblical theology was “in crisis,” which meant that biblical theology needed something new, it needed to be changed. He emphasized that biblical theology must not only take the biblical text in its canonical form seriously, but must also treat the canon as “the most appropriate 25 context” for doing biblical theology. It is clear that this new turning point is rooted in his reflection on the BTM. BTC provides both an appropriate response to the BTM and the critical view to historical criticism. According to some critical voices, Childs’s treatment of the BTM and the historical-critical method in his BTC was not adequate. Childs himself later admitted that “the complexity of the movement was not adequately explored” in BTC, but he was very confident that the peculiar 26 dynamics of the history of BTM “have been fully understood well.” In general, his emphasis of canonical interpretation as “a new approach to biblical

25 In BTC Childs says that “the initial purpose of this book is to describe the emergence of a distinctive American way of understanding theology in its relation to the Bible.” Later, in the early 1980s, when he rethought his approach when writing BTC, he said that “ten years ago when I first proposed the theory of a BTM, I was impressed by the peculiar features of the American use of the Bible during this period.” See Childs 1970a, 9, 13, 32; 1981a, 252. Canon is “the most appropriate context” for doing biblical theology is one of the controversial issues in canonical theory; we will deal with it in ch. 3.3. 26 Childs 1981a, 252.

30 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context 27

theology” is clear. In BTC, however, Childs does not give a definition of the “canon;” rather, he stresses that the acknowledgement of the canon is “the basic Christian confession,” which has been “shared by all branches of historical Christianity.” The status of canonicity is a statement of the Christian faith, and the canon defines the rule delineating the field of the faith; thereby the 28 Christian church can hear the word of God and understand the divine reality. BTC is methodologically new because it takes an important step from using historical criticism to criticizing historical criticism. In BTC Childs expresses his deep dissatisfaction with the historical-critical method. The crisis of biblical theology is in essence a crisis of methodology in biblical interpretation, Childs affirms. The historical-critical method has had a totalitarian dominance in the modern history of biblical interpretation. Other hermeneutical traditions and approaches have been undermined. According to Childs, it is self-evident that biblical theology can be revived only if this one-sided dominance of historical criticism is overthrown. Historical-critical scholarship is unable to provide any real concern for the theological dimensions of the Bible, and it is unable to take 29 any responsibility for the reality of the Christian church. In this sense, BTC can be seen as an important work that analyzes the failure of biblical theology in the modern America, though the crisis of biblical theology became visible long 30 before the publication of BTC. The announcement of the failure of historical criticism is not Childs’s main task; rather, his central purpose is to establish a new approach for doing biblical theology. His realization of the importance of the “canon” for doing biblical theology is basically a reaction to the fact that the canon had been badly ignored in biblical studies, especially so in historical-critical scholarship. Therefore, this new turning point means a new exploration of how to establish a canon-based biblical theology. He sees a deep crisis unfolding after the decline of the

27 It seems, for example, that Barton does not deny Childs’s stress on his approach being a new one, especially in theology; the canonical method can be “brand-new.” Barton 1984, 100. See also Sheppard 1991, 455, where he says that Childs uses an “entirely new term” - the “canonical context” of Scripture and the “canonical shape” of a biblical passage and whole books. 28 See Childs 1970a, 99-101. Childs’s definition of the canon is limited, and we will deal with this in ch. 3. 29 We will discuss how and why Childs is dissatisfied with the inadequacies of historical criticism in doing biblical theology in ch. 4. 30 See Childs 1970a, 91-96, 99. Adam 1995, 113-114. Goldsworthy 2000, 23.

The Three Stages of Childs’s Academic Development 31 traditional interpretation of the Bible, especially with the collapse of theological understanding of the OT. Thus Childs seeks to create a biblical theology using a new method, and to build a proper bridge between the technique of biblical criticism and the Christian church’s desire to find the theological content of biblical texts. In BTC, he not only points out that it is necessary to rethink and reevaluate the heritage of traditional biblical hermeneutics, but he also positively seeks “a fresh and disciplined way,” which can not only continue to cherish the theological dimensions of the Bible but also be responsible for the practice and life of the Christian church. Childs also sees that his canonical proposal is in nature a theological statement and position. This is another way of understanding his canonical approach as something new. He sets out some theological reasons for devising this brand new theological approach to biblical texts. The emphasis of the theological dimension can be seen in the third part of BTC. Let us take the section “Moses’ Slaying in the Theology of the Two Testaments” as an 31 example. Childs offers a “new path” in BTC for dealing with the theological dimension of the biblical text: first, a presentation of the biblical text; second, an analysis in accordance with the OT context; third, an analysis according to the NT context; fourth, a historical analysis of interpretation; and finally theological reflections. BTC is not only an attempt to create new principles for doing biblical theology within the Christian canonical context, but can also be seen as an important theoretical basis for developing theological exegesis. Thus, BTC is Childs’s most important call for the canonical theory.

An Attempt at Canonical Approach It seems quite clear that in BTC Childs makes an effort to depart from the historical-critical method. The situation, however, was not as simple as that, for he still continued to use the historical-critical method in his writings of the early 1970s, though it was not applied for doing biblical theology. For example, in his “A Traditio-Historical Study of the Reed Sea Tradition” (1970) Childs still utilizes the historical-critical method to analyze “the Reed Sea Tradition,” and he seems to be dissatisfied with form criticism and requires a tradition-historical and source-critical re-examination of the Reed Sea Tradition. He believes that

31 Childs 1970a, 164-183.

32 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context the story of Israel being rescued from the Egyptians has a complex traditionhistorical development. In his “Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis” (1971), Childs deals with some Psalms which are related to David’s life. This article is a purely literary study. Childs feels that “the Psalm titles do not appear to reflect independent historical tradition but are the result of an exegetical activity which derived its 32 material from within the text itself.” This opinion breaks with the wide consensus among historical critics that the Psalm titles were “secondary additions.” For Childs, the form of Psalm titles is not important from the point of view of historical exegesis, but they have a meaning in terms of understanding and interpreting the Psalms of David, especially David's inner or spiritual life. Methodologically, Childs does not support the direct adaptation of the Jewish Midrashic method by historical-critical exegesis. In some articles of 1972 Childs often emphasizes the inadequacy of the historical-critical method and the importance of establishing a new canonical approach. For example, in his “The OT as Scripture of the Church” (1972) Childs clearly analyzes the canonical shape of the Pentateuch as an example and points out that biblical criticism is “neither the perfect nor the only approach to biblical studies,” and that historical criticism could lead to “unedifying results” because it fails to treat the Bible as both the Scripture of the Christian church and as the revelation of God. He also argues that the history of the canon has been badly ignored and thus an attempt to use a new approach to deal with the problems of biblical exegesis is urgent. For him, a canonical approach is a practicable method worth striving for, because canonical history can provide the key to understanding the nature of Scripture as the unified book of the Christian church. To understand the Bible as Scripture is in essence to talk about the canon, because the early Christian church already established and recognized its authoritative tradition as sacred Scripture when the Christian 33 canon was formed. Similarly, in his “A Tale of Two Testaments” (1972) Childs aims to provide a new direction for biblical theology, because he feels that it is not right to build his biblical theology directly on the foundation of modern historical

32 Childs 1971, 143. 33 See Childs 1972a, 709-711. The process of Christian canonical formation and how canon (especially the OT canon) can be related to the Christian church’s understanding of “Scripture as revelation” are big issues in canonical debates. We will discuss them in a later chapter.

The Three Stages of Childs’s Academic Development 33 34

criticism. For Childs, the Christian church means “the community of faith” or “the group of faith.” Scripture as the book of the Christian church implies that the Christian church not only seriously considers Scripture as one united book with approximately 66 distinct parts, but the Christian church also must interpret the Bible in sections of the one canon. Kevin J. Vanhoozer remarks that such a formulation of “Scripture as the book of the Christian church” 35 manifests the canon as a function of ecclesiology. In George A. Lindbeck’s understanding, religion is not only a private and individual matter, but is also inseparable from its own traditions and communities. The Christian church is a religious community, which naturally concentrates on its own intra-textual outlook and form of life, and the Christian church should maintain its 36 peculiarity and increase its influence. It seems that Childs was well aware that his proposal for a canonical approach needs both a better theoretical foundation and further development in terms of how to put it into practice. His Exodus: A Commentary of 1974 can be seen as an attempt to combine his canonical theory with the practice of writing 37 a biblical commentary. For Childs his major concern in Exodus was in seeking a possible relationship between a historical-critical analysis of the text of Exodus and the interpretation of its theological content. For this reason, Childs tried to seek a new avenue in integrating both the diachronic and synchronic dimensions of the text. The canonical role of sacred Scripture was deeply emphasized. In his Exodus Childs was principally seeking a proper dialectical

34 The new direction for biblical theology is not new in content but Childs re-emphasizes what he had mentioned earlier in his “Interpretation in Faith” (1964) and BTC. See Childs 1972c, 28-29. 35 He argues that “the canon is located under the doctrine of ecclesiology rather than revelation.” Vanhoozer 2005, 175-176. 36 See Lindbeck 1984, 22, 113, 128, 132. 37 He wrote this book in the late 1960s and early 1970s and it was published in 1974. Sanders sees Childs’s Exodus as serving as an example of OT commentary. Similarly, Landes says that Childs in his Exodus endeavors to “demonstrate his perspective on how an OT commentary might more properly be executed.” According to Noble, Childs spent over ten years writing Exodus. This means that Childs’s exploration of the canonical approach in theory is chronologically close to his struggle to find the practicability of a biblical commentary. Brett considers Childs’s Exodus as “a mature statement of the canonical approach,” because he feels that Childs is well aware of some inadequacies in his earlier articles and monographs. O’Neal uses Childs’s Commentary on Exodus as a second source for determining his canonical method. Sanders 1976, 287. Landes 1980, 32. Brett 1991, 380. Noble 1995, 34. O’Neal 2007, 7, 1522.

34 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context approach for dealing with the unity and diversity of the Scripture as a canonical entity. Childs describes his Exodus as an “unabashedly theological” work, which means reading and interpreting Exodus theologically, not only as a collection of 38 stories, and “its concern is to understand Exodus as Scripture of the church.” For Childs the truthfulness of the canonical approach is not dependent upon the degree of technicality of the exegesis, rather its veracity is rooted in its theological task. Biblical scholars and theologians have to admit that it is impossible for every theologian to master equally well such exegetical tools as Semitic philology, ancient Near Eastern history, classical Hebrew culture, or the early Hellenistic transformation. This theological task must be oriented to serve the church and it must take into consideration the rule of faith, because an adequate biblical interpretation must involve a continuous wrestling with a theology that is relevant for the faith community. There are, of course strong voices criticizing this kind of approach. Some critics accuse Childs for an overdue emphasis on theological reflection ignoring the concrete textual meaning 39 of Exodus itself. Moreover, methodologically speaking, there is common agreement that Childs’s canonical approach advocated and practiced in his Exodus closely continues the main proposals he made in his “Interpretation in Faith” (1964) and in BTC (1970). There are, however, some new insights. For instance, Childs claims that he does not share the hermeneutical position of historical criticism and his commentary should focus on the theological interpretation of 40 the book of Exodus. Obviously, in Exodus Childs attempts to abandon the historical-critical method, but in fact he keeps on assimilating historical-critical 38 Childs 1974a, ix. Similarly Childs 1974a, xiii, where he confirms this aim of Exodus as seeking to “interpret the book of Exodus as canonical Scripture within the theological discipline of the Christian church.” 39 For instance, McEvenue argues that in Childs’s Exodus “to begin at the end, it is clear that these theological reflections do not help the contemporary church understand itself in the light of Exodus,” because “Childs’s canonical approach leads him into Wirkungsgeschichte (the history of the canon’s effects), while allowing him to overlook the theology of Exodus itself. He lays the groundwork for theology very expertly and yet fails to ask the theological questions.” James Barr also disagrees with this idea of Childs. McEvenue 1981, 231-232. Barr 1983, 151. 40 Childs 1974a, xiii. Here Childs is perhaps allowing himself to criticize James Barr. Later we can see Barr’s response to this formulation in his Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism. Barr says that “the Exodus commentary (1974) begins with a solemn declaration by the author that he ‘does not share the hermeneutical position of those who suggest that biblical exegesis is an objective, descriptive enterprise.’” Barr 1983, 154.

The Three Stages of Childs’s Academic Development 35 textual discussions with theological interpretation. In other words, Childs does not use a single method though he very much emphasizes the superiority of the canonical approach. On the contrary, he is absorbed in a wide range of exegetical history. It is understandable that Childs’s Exodus adds to the philological and historical-critical discussion on the book of Exodus, and he even interacts with rabbinic and medieval Jewish exegesis. Finally, from the viewpoint of concrete exegetical operation, Childs’s commentary on Exodus demonstrates its structure in the following six sections. First, each section begins with a new translation of the Hebrew text. Second, the historical development which lay behind the final form of the biblical text is treated in considerable detail with regard to both the oral and literary levels. In this section, a tradition- historical analysis is offered. Third, the interpretation of the OT context deals with the final form of the text. Childs argues that the study of the prehistory of the text only has its proper function within exegesis in its illumination of the final text. Fourth, treating the relationship of the NT and the OT, the exegesis of the NT can have links to the Hellenistic environment. Fifth, the history of biblical exegesis focuses on the understanding of the prehistory of the text. And sixth, the climax of the work is a “theological refection” within the context of the Christian canon, which aims at discussing theological issues. In theory, theological reflection, Childs claims, is “an attempt 41 to move from witness to substance.” Here he attempts to relate the various OT and NT witnesses in the light of the history of biblical exegesis to theological issues. Witness means a signum, but biblical message touches on the substance of theological exegesis, this substance is the res of the Bible. We will talk more about this later. Throughout these six sections, Childs combines a unified attention to the OT context, the NT context, and theological reflection as the center of this commentary. In general, Exodus is an important attempt at creating a new OT theology with the canonical approach. Here we can point to some of Childs’s other works to support our remarks concerning his canonical approach as seen in Exodus. There is not necessarily an inner relationship between these publications, but they can be seen as examples of Childs’s canonical methodology as applied to OT themes. The most important works of that period are: “The sensus literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and Modern Problem” (1977a), “Symposium on Biblical Criticism” (1977b), Old Testament Books for Pastor and Teacher (1977c), “The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature” (1978a), “The Exegetical Significance of Canon for 41 Childs 1974a, xvi.

36 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context the Study of the Old Testament” (1978b), and “On Reading the Elijah Narratives” (1980). “The sensus literalis of Scripture” (1977a) is a historical survey of the literal sense of Scripture from ancient times to the Reformation. At least for Luther, sensus literalis means the real theological sense, Childs argues. The basic issue which the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation has raised is the relationship between sensus literalis and sensus originalis. Childs sees that the original historical sense which historical criticism propounds is overconcerned with the original meaning of the biblical text whilst neglecting its theological 42 meaning. Sensus literalis has been changed into sensus originalis. Sensus literalis for Childs is a concept of biblical theology which means the plain meaning of the text, but sensus originalis in historical-critical scholarship focuses on the religious-historical reality of the text. We will return to this point in detail in chapter 4.1.4. that deals with Childs’s criticism of historical criticism. Childs not only emphasizes that biblical exegesis should be aware of the different functions of the text, but also stresses that the canonical text and its subject matter must be studied together and this must take place within the framework of a faith community. “Symposium on Biblical Criticism” (1977) is probably the shortest tract concerning the discussion of biblical theological methodology. It is only one page in length, but it has some vital formulations that deserve our attention. Childs calls forth “a bold and radical direction” in biblical theology and suggests three guidelines in pursuit of this goal. The study of the Bible must not only be involved with a community of faith and be carried on in discussion with dogmatics, ethics, church history, and pastoral care, but it also must be accompanied by an eager expectancy that the Spirit of God will again awaken the Christian church through a fresh enlivening of the Scripture. Childs’s monograph Old Testament Books for Pastor and Teacher (1977) is a practical handbook for a pastor and teacher on how to use the OT as a resource for Christian ministry. Childs shows that the OT has rich resources to be used as the Scripture of the Chrisitan church. The criterion of evaluation is based on the context of faith, which means a basic confession that the OT contains the truthful witness to the prophetic and apostolic tradition in a canonical 43 consideration. Childs lists various references which can make a contribution to the church’s exegetical task. This book provides brief summaries on theological 42 Childs 1977a, 88. 43 See Childs 1977c, 7-10. A short review of the book can be seen in Holladay 1978, 41.

The Three Stages of Childs’s Academic Development 37 bibliographies, basic exegetical tools, English translations, biblical dictionaries and encyclopedias, OT introductions, OT theologies, the history of exegesis, major modern commentary series, and individual commentaries. In “The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature” (1978) Childs says that he does not entirely deny “the impressive gains” of the methods of literary, form, redaction, and historical criticism. However, he critically remarks that the historical-critical method has resulted “in serious weaknesses in the handling of the biblical literature,” because the historical-critical method cannot provide any reason for interpreting the prophetic books as the Scripture of the Christian church. Childs points out some concrete weaknesses of the historical-critical 44 method in its attempt to interpret the prophetic literature of the OT. In “The Exegetical Significance of Canon for the Study of the Old Testament” (1978b), Childs mainly defends the meaningfulness of his canonical approach with reference to the process of the canonization of the OT. He disagrees with historical-critical investigations which regard the OT canonization as a late, external, and unimportant act of the Israelite faith community. Childs feels that this attitude toward the OT canon misunderstands that canon’s actual historical development. For Childs, the formation of the OT canon is a normative historical process as the early Christians accepted the Hebrew Bible as their canon. It not only linked up with the historical Israeli tradition but also proceeded forward to early Christian theology. Thus the theological implication of the OT canon for biblical exegesis is more important than its historical significance. We will see more about the canonical final form in chapter 3. “On Reading the Elijah Narratives” (1980) explores a particular hermeneutical problem: How does one interpret biblical narrative in the light of modern historical knowledge? This is a serious and complex question concerning the methodology of biblical theology. Taking the Elijah narratives as a case in point, Childs sees that the heart of the hermeneutical problem is based on the final form of the Elijah narratives in the OT. However, it is not possible for such a hermeneutical issue to be resolved “once-and-for-all with a 45 comprehensive literary or theological formulation.” This article is useful in 44 For example, the literary critical method in identifying “between ‘genuine’ and ‘non-genuine’ oracles has continued to interject a pejorative category into the discussion.” “The form critical analysis has increasingly atomized the literature and continued to rest much of its analysis upon fragile and often highly speculative theories of original settings.” And “the redactional and sociological methods have tended to politicize the biblical material and render it into a type of political propaganda.” Childs 1978a, 47. 45 See Childs 1980b, 128, 136.

38 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context dealing with the relationship between the historical-critical method and the theological interpretation of the text in the Elijah narratives. Childs proposes to maintain the non-secularized sense of these texts which challenges the reader to a response of faith. The heart of this suggestion lies in Childs’s basic concern to protect the theological integrity of the biblical narrative and understand the Bible as the sacred Scripture of the church under the rule of faith. We will look at this in more detail in the section “Canon with regula fidei” (3.2.) in the next chapter.

The Establishment of the Canonical Approach 1979 can be seen as another turning point in Childs’s academic career marked by the remarkable publication of Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (IOTS). Some important ideas and discussions on biblical theological methodology in IOTS are mainly based on his earlier writings, especially “Interpretation in Faith” (1964), BTC (1970), and Exodus (1974). Childs’s IOTS both in its theological content and in its method not only builds on his own previous achievement but also leads to his later further development in OT studies. As pointed out above, he introduced his canonical approach in BTC and Exodus. IOTS can be seen as part of his continuous attempt to apply his canonical theory to the discipline of OT studies. If BTC was an entirely new turning point, IOTS can be seen as a more consequential work penetrating directly to the heart of OT theology and thus strengthening Childs’s canonical approach. Therefore, IOTS is undoubtedly a new milestone in Childs’s process of creating biblical theology with the canonical approach. Since IOTS was published in1979, the book has become well known and been widely commented on. Volume 16 of Journal of Study of the Old Testament (JSOT) in 1980 is an important collection of biblical scholars' comments on IOTS. Childs reacted to his commentators in his “Response to Reviewers of IOTS.” There are numerous comments on IOTS in many works of biblical 46 scholars and biblical theologians. IOTS is an influential and controversial book

46 See, for example, Anderson 1980, 100-108. Barr 1989, 3-17. Barton 1984. Blenkinsopp 1980, 24-27. Brett 1991, ch. 3. Carroll 1980, 285-291; 1981, 73-78. Cazelles 1980, 28-31. Coats 1985, 239-262. Collins 2005, 11-24. Fowl 1985, 173-176. Green, S. 2006. Harrelson 1981, 99-103. Janzen 1980, 411-414. Kittel 1980, 2-11. Landes 1980, 32-39. McEvenue 1981, 229-242. Moberly 1988, 104-109. Morgan 1982, 383-392. Murphy 1980, 40-44. Priest 1980, 259-271. Smend 1980, 45-51. Whybray 1981, 29-35.

The Three Stages of Childs’s Academic Development 39 for researchers who are interested in OT studies, especially OT theology. Most of the attention has concentrated on Childs’s attempt at establishing a new method of writing OT theology. Controversial as it is, it has provoked a lot of criticism, but no one can deny the importance and influence of IOTS on 47 discussions concerning OT theology. In my analysis of Childs’s IOTS, I will concentrate on four points. First, the purpose of this book is to reestablish the OT as Christian Scripture. But why is the re-establishment of the OT as Christian Scripture so important for theology? Childs finds that historical-critical scholarship only focuses on describing the historical development of Hebrew literature and fails to analyze its canonical relationship between the synagogue and the church. The worst aspect is that the wholeness of the OT and its inner relationships, which the 48 community of faith treasures, have been damaged. For him, the early Christian church already inherited the Jewish Scripture along with its understanding of the canon. Thus, the importance of rethinking the meaning of Hebrew Scripture for Christian theology is based on a serious concern for the historical 49 and theological relationship between the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. Throughout his book Childs tries to prove that it is still possible to think of the OT as Christian Scripture for the community of faith. Lindbeck seems to agree with this idea, as he argued that as de-Christianization has been increasingly powerful in reducing the influence of the Christian church, it is necessary for Christian theologians to defend themselves for the sake of the survival of the community of faith. The notion of the “canon,” according to

47 IOTS has been seen as “a significant factor in biblical studies,” “a preface to OT Theology,” a “revolutionary book,” “a monumental contribution to OT scholarship,” “a new kind of Introduction,” a “profound and very successful renewed approach to the OT,” “a monumental attempt,” “a valuable contribution and a remarkable exemplar of the canonical approach to OT introduction,” a “magnum opus,” and “an effectively hermeneutical manifesto.” Anderson 1980, 100, 108. Blenkinsopp 1980, 24. Brett 1991, 62. Cazelles 1980, 28. Janzen 1980, 414. Landes 1980, 32-33, 39. Priest 1980, 265. 48 He argues that “the rise of the historical-critical school of biblical interpretation in the postReformation period witnessed the collapse of the traditional concept of canon which had already severely weakened.” Childs 1979, 44. 49 In IOTS Childs emphasizes this special historical and theological relationship between the Jewish and Christian communities. Part One (pp. 27–106) in particular deals with the problem of the canon, the canon and criticism, and the text and the canon. A detailed discussion on the relationship between “the Jewish Canon and the Christian OT” will be presented in ch. 3.1.2.

40 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context which the Jewish and Christian Scriptures belong together, is “logically 50 possible,” Lindbeck believes. In the title of Childs’s IOTS, to the obviously stereotyped expression Introduction to the Old Testament has been added the programmatic wording as Scripture. It implies a challenge to readers to see the OT as the sacred Scripture of the Christian church. This is not the only use of such an expression in Childs’s writing. For example, his New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (1984) could be broken down into “An Introduction to the New Testament” with the programmatic expression as Canon added. Again, the most direct title is Childs’s Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture (2004). In purpose and style, IOTS follows BTC and Exodus; methodologically, the 51 structural arrangement of IOTS is very similar to these two previous works. The second point is the conceptual interpretation of the canon and the emphasis on the process of the final shape of the canon. Childs in IOTS describes the important role of the canon for the formation of the OT and the NT. The concept of the canon is based upon the formation of biblical literature. The theological emphasis of the importance of the canon can be seen as a significant development in Childs’s IOTS. In IOTS, he clearly argues that a canonical Introduction to the OT is not the end but just the beginning of theological exegesis. He starts his discussion with the question of the nature of the canon. He distances himself from the traditional historical-critical introductions to the OT. He presents the OT book by book and section by section. All the books of the OT are presented in their canonical (Masoretic) order. Childs’s canonical analysis clearly confirms that a Masoretic text is the

50 Lindbeck 1984, 52, 133. 51 The basic operational manner proceeds in the following way: begin with a historical-critical material analysis: dating, authorship, form criticism, tradition history, redactional development; second, analyze the main points in the canonical shape using the historicalcritical method; third, identify the understandings of and interpretations in the canonical texts; and finally, proceed to theological reflections or some theological and hermeneutical implications. In IOTS, each chapter contains four parts: First,the historical-critical analysis of the text; second, the analysis of the canonical form of the biblical book; third, the presentation of theological and hermeneutical implications; and, fourth, the presentation of a bibliography on the history of exegesis and on the thematic content of each book at the end of each chapter. A similar method appears in some of his later works such as NTCI and OTTCC. For similar views on Childs’s magnum opus, see Carroll 1980, 286–287. Harrelson 1981, 102–103. Janzen 1980, 413. Kittel 1980, 6-10. Morgan 1982, 384–385. Brett 1991, 58–75.

The Three Stages of Childs’s Academic Development 41 basis for a canonical study of the OT. In other words, he claims the Hebrew 52 canon as Christian Scripture. For Childs, the confirmation of “the Hebrew canon as Christian Scripture” needs to be reinterpreted by emphasizing the process of the final shape of the canon. He believes that Israel’s religious tradition exerted a powerful influence on the structuring of the OT’s material. He emphasizes the significance of the canonical final form and the integrity of the received text as the object of interpretation. In Childs’s eyes, the canonical final form is the crucially important one and thus its canonical shaping through historical research can provide a new perspective for biblical interpretation. In other words, the final 53 form should function as the starting point for biblical exegesis. Some issues proposed here by Childs, however, are highly controversial. They include, for instance, the questions concerning the process of canonization, the canonical final form, and the idea of regarding the Masoretic text as the original canonical text. James Barr, one of Childs’s main opponents, strongly criticizes Childs’s insistence on the canon and its final form. Barr views IOTS as “an utterance of entire approval of the side of canon,” but the final form of the biblical texts is not yet successfully described in IOTS. He doubts the objectivity of Childs’s canonical final form, though Childs already admitted 54 in IOTS that “there is no claim being made for absolute objectivity.” Similarly, G. Michael O’Neal disagrees with Childs’s view that the Masoretic text is the vehicle for determining the original canon, when he says that Childs “expresses 55 a bias toward the Masoretic text.” We will have a more detailed discussion in 3.1.3. on the Masoretic text and its role in Childs’s canonical approach. 52 See Childs 1979, 76, 93, 100–106, 659–671. In “Response to Reviewers of IOTS” he once again confirms his purpose with the words, “I am attempting to describe one language game, namely the use of the OT as Scripture by a community of faith and practices. Expressed theologically, I am trying to explore how one reads the OT from a rule-of-faith called canon.” Childs 1980a, 52. This controversial point will be addressed in a later chapter. 53 See Childs 1979, 68, 73–76, 97. In his later writings, Childs once again claims that the purpose of IOTS “is to seek to explore the potential within the literature which the shaping process has provided.” Childs 1980a, 55; 1984b, 68. 54 See Barr 1980, 13, 21; 1983, 153–155, 158, and Childs 1980a, 55. 55 O’Neal points out in the case of the book of Habakkuk that “the earliest full Masoretic manuscript is dated 800 years after the close of the canon…what is questioned is the other end of the equation, what happened around 100 C.E.”And in another place he argues that Childs fails to indentify the relationship between the canon and the Masoretic text; “the canon was established by the first century AD, the most complete Masoretic manuscript (Codex Leningradensis) dates from AD 1008.” See O’Neal 2007, 34, 50–51, 151.

42 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Third, Childs’s criticism of historical criticism manifests his proposal for a new way of understanding and interpreting the OT. Each chapter from part two to part five of IOTS starts by questioning the historical-critical method, proceeding to the development of the canonical shape of each book of the Bible, and ending with expounding each book’s theological and hermeneutical implications. He points out that historical critics never regard the OT as the canon of the Christian church, linked with the Jewish synagogue. Therefore the historical-critical method fails to establish the connection between the true nature of Hebrew literature and the community of faith. Historical criticism has not been successful in providing a powerful understanding of the dynamics of 56 Israel’s religious literature. Instead, it has been de-canonizing the Bible. Childs, however, does not entirely deny the achievements of the historicalcritical method. There is common agreement that the historical-critical method is used as an appropriate tool to help understand the canonical text in Childs’s canonical theory. In Paul Noble’s words, Childs in IOTS mainly aims at “reorientating the critical study of the OT in such a way that it would make a more positive contribution to the semantic and, in particular, to the theological understanding of the canonical text,” and it cannot be denied that Childs 57 “accepts many of the results of critical studies.” Fourth, in IOTS, Childs claims that the canon has both a historical and a theological dimension. This means that his canonical analysis aims at studying the final form of the Jewish canon in relation to Christian usage, both historically and theologically. In its historical dimension, the canon is seen not as a historical source but as having a complex process of the historical development of the text. Thus, to study the Bible is not to seek its earliest source and what is behind it, but to focus on the canonical text itself. Childs claims that “if the development of a sense of canon was only a late peripheral phenomenon of the Hellenistic period, my approach to the OT would be seriously 58 damaged.” As for the theological dimension, Childs believes that the fruits of critical research can make a significant contribution to the theological understanding of the Bible as Christian Scripture. In fact, seeking the theological interpretation of 56 See Childs 1979, 40–41, 79. 57 Noble 1995, 145–146. We will deal with this in ch. 4.4., which is concerned with how Childs uses the results of historical-critical research. 58 This is the key to Childs’s canonical approach. For him, the canon could offer a theological viewpoint regarding the content of Scripture in doing biblical theology for the Christian church. See Childs 1979, 58–59; 1980a, 56.

The Three Stages of Childs’s Academic Development 43 the Bible as Christian Scripture is always one of Childs’s central concerns, and his fundamental viewpoint on OT theology is rooted in the usage of canonical historicity. When Childs claims that his IOTS is “theological,” his opponents are full of doubt; for them, Childs’s IOTS is in essence still methodologically “biblical” not “theological.” For example, James Barr in his comment on IOTS argues that it “offers us very little in the way of reasons; the logic of the book is one of exhortation, or pressure upon the reader to accept the canonical reading, rather than one of reasoning.” Moreover, Barr sees IOTS as a mere introduction, “not a work of theology.” Later he argued that IOTS only “reads like a theology,” and he criticized the lack of Christology in Childs’s IOTS. Childs, however, explains that his canonical approach is rational, historical, and theological; and he defends himself by saying that “Barr criticizes my failure to speak Christologically or at least to seek to relate the OT to the massive impact of the gospel. The omission was, of course, intentional because I was not writing 59 a biblical theology but an introduction (1979) to the Hebrew Scripture.” There are two key elements in the debate about “biblical” and “theological” between Barr and Childs. The first is about the nature of the IOTS, namely, what is the aim of the IOTS. We have seen that Childs himself claims that his book is about rethinking the OT as Christian Scripture. Noble argues that this book proposes to “re-orientate the critical study of the OT.” O’Neal suggests that in IOTS Childs proposes to “read the canonical shape of the OT books 60 sufficiently.” For this reason, Childs’s IOTS is an Introduction to the OT texts; in that sense it is biblical. On the other hand, each chapter in parts two to five touches on the discussion on “theological and hermeneutical implications,” with 61 the help of which Childs attempts a theological interpretation of the text. For this reason, Childs’s IOTS is partly “theological.” The second element is related to the conceptual difference between “biblical” and “theological.” Barr sees “biblical” in terms of purely historicalcritical research of biblical literature, whereas “theological” should touch deeply on dogmatics, doctrinal loci such as Christology. For Childs, however, “biblical” and “theological” tasks should both take place together in relation to the community of faith. For this reason, when his IOTS stresses the importance

59 Barr 1980, 14; 1983, 152–155. Childs 1980a, 56; 1984b, 70. 60 Noble 1995, 145. O’Neal 2007, 3. 61 Noble says that Childs seeks “the theological understanding of the canonical text;” O’Neal feels that Childs attempts to understand the theological dynamic of the text. Noble 1995, 146. O’Neal 2007, 3.

44 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context of the canonical texts and moves from the historical-critical method to theological understanding, it is already “theological” but not theological enough. That is why Childs acknowledges that his IOTS is “an introduction” to the Hebrew Scripture not “a biblical theology.” Therefore, neither Barr nor Childs in this case are wrong, but they have their own concerns and different points of view. More discussion on whether Childs’s canonical approach is “biblical” or “theological” will be presented in 6.3.1. After the publication of IOTS, which marked the establishment of his canonical approach, Childs continued to strengthen his canonical theory with further studies on OT and NT theologies. In the 1980s, two important books were published: New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (NTCI) in 1984 and Old Theology in a Canonical Context (OTTCC) in 1985. In general, these two books aimed at carrying forward his canonical approach. NTCI can be seen as an Introduction to the NT rather than as a NT theology. From the viewpoint of the methodology of biblical theology, NTCI is quite close to that of IOTS. Childs uses the same approach in NTCI for studying the NT as he undertook in IOTS for researching the OT. Both IOTS and NTCI, seen together as two Introductions, aim at performing historical and theological tasks in a canonical 62 theoretical framework. Likewise, OTTCC of 1985 is methodologically very similar to IOTS. However, the historical-critical techniques are no longer much used. In contrast, theological reflection, which Childs treats as a new manner, is widely extended. For instance, some topics in OTTCC can be seen as theological reflections on the OT, such as the revelation of God, God’s will, God’s purpose in the creation, the theological significance of the Decalogue, the theological interpretation of Israelites as the elected people of God, the theological role of the prophets, the Covenant, priesthood in the OT, the theological issues of gender, the ethics of obedient life, etc. Both NTCI and OTTCC are important because of their concrete development of theological content together with new insights. However, when dealing with Childs’s biblical theological methodology, we find that in NTCI and OTTCC he consistently tries to

62 NTCI consists of six parts. Except for part one, which presents a general methodological discussion of the NT, the other five parts focus on all the books of the NT, book by book, section by section. Each book of the NT is dealt with in respect to its historical-critical issues, canonical context, and theological reflection. For similar observations, see Brown 1985, 21. Gamble 1987, 330–333. Ollenburger 1992, 322. Noble 1995, 54, 57, 65, 303.

The Three Stages of Childs’s Academic Development 45 maintain his own theological interests and academic characteristics, which he had already used in IOTS. In addition to the monographs, one article of 1990 relating to his discussion on biblical theological method needs to be mentioned: “Analysis of a Canonical Formula: It Shall Be Recorded for a Future Generation.” This article can be understood as a link between his previous studies and his forthcoming works. In this article Childs identifies some central questions concerning the 63 canonization of the OT. The heart of these issues still deal with the process of the canonization of the Hebrew Bible which is concerned as considering the Jewish-Christian tradition for reading the Bible as the authoritative Scripture. Childs believes that the written record of the Hebrew Scripture is a vehicle for interpreting the word of God. Theologically, the Hebrew Scripture is written not only to maintain contact with the historical past but also to secure the future of the community of faith. This theological sense, for Childs, has not merely an eschatological but also a redemptive meaning. He sums up two important themes in discussing the problem of the OT canon before 1990: “new attention has been directed to the difficult historical questions related to the formation of Israel’s Scripture;” and “much debate has turned on the 64 hermeneutical and theological issues raised by the concept of canon.”

Bridging between Exegesis and Theology (1990s-2000s) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments Childs’s biblical research in the early 1990s continued to struggle with the connection between biblical exegesis and Christian theology. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (BTONT, the first edition was published in 1992; I refer to the second edition of 1993) can be described as the most representative work of Childs’s theological exegesis. Many ideas in BTONT had already been presented in his earlier theological assertions. His theological direction and his handling of the biblical theological method are fundamentally based upon his earlier theological 63 We can ask: When and how did the canonical process develop, in which communities was the concept transmitted and under what circumstances? How did the growth of textualization affect the preservation and interpretation of the tradition? In what way did the structuring of a body of authoritative writings influence its interpretation? What is the status of the Hebrew canon for the Christian church? See Childs 1990b, 357. 64 See Childs 1990b, 357–358.

46 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context position, especially upon his BTC, IOTS, NTCI, and OTTCC. BTONT is the culmination of Childs’s work on theological exegesis in the canonical context. Naturally, there exists a legion of reviews and comments on this, his magnum 65 opus. From the perspective of biblical theological methodology, BTONT continues to employ and develop the approaches proposed in his earlier writings. There are seven main chapters in BTONT, among which chapter six, “Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible,” is the heart of the work. This chapter has fascinated biblical scholars and theologians, and many comments 66 and responses to BTONT in fact concentrate on this chapter. It comprises ten 67 topics of modern theological discussion. Each topic begins with an analysis of the canonical material, both in the OT and the NT, then comes a biblical theological reflection, and finally a dogmatic theological reflection. This theological and hermeneutical treatment requires the acknowledgment of the Christian authoritative canon, and its structure reflects the main traditional Christian theological categories. In this sense, BTONT in its basic nature can be understood as “theological” because of its demonstration of canonical theological exegesis. Methodologically, BTONT aims at overcoming the gap between biblical studies and Christian theology. As we have seen, in his earlier works Childs carries out his canonical theory within the separate compartments of both the OT and the NT. BTONT, now for the first time, thoroughly illustrates his canonical theological exegesis, and combines biblical studies and Christian theology together under thematic headings in both of the two Testaments. If compared with the traditional method of biblical theology, in which OT theology and NT theology are isolated from each other, and in which biblical studies and dogmatic theology have nothing to do with one another, we can say 68 that Childs’s undertaking in his BTONT is a methodological breakthrough. 65 For reviews and comments, see Bauckham 1994, 246–250. Brett 1994, 281–287. W. Brueggemann 1993, 279–284. Donfried 1995, 19–46. Goldsworthy 2000. Noble 1993, 1– 23 and 1995. O’Conner 1995, 91–96. Scobie 2003. Stuhlmacher 1995. 66 Bauckham sees ch. 6 as “the real substance of Childs’s biblical theology itself.” Bauckham 1994, 248–249. Some similar arguments can be seen in W. Brueggemann 1993, 280. Brett 1994, 281–282. Donfried 1995, 33. Scobie 2003, 44–45. 67 They are: the Identity of God; God the Creator; Covenant, Election, People of God; Christ the Lord; Reconciliation with God; Law and Gospel; Humanity; Biblical Faith; God’s Kingdom and Rule; and Christian Ethics. These contents almost occupy half space of BTONT. See Childs 1993, 349–716. 68 Some similar observations can be seen in Brett 1994, 281. Donfried 1995, 33. Stuhlmacher

The Three Stages of Childs’s Academic Development 47 For Childs, the canonical approach was already established in the 1970s and 1980s, thus the stress on the canon is no longer his major task in BTONT. Instead, he attempts to bring in more methodological efficaciousness, which not only aims at providing a proposal but also at manifesting how biblical theological reflection can be effectively related to the dialogue with contemporary Christian theology. Concretely, Childs not only needs to display how to connect biblical theology with dogmatic theology, but also to show how OT theology and NT theology necessarily belong together given their close inner-connectivity and interrelations. We will return to these in 5.2.4.

Methodological Remarks In addition to BTONT, during the 1990s Childs also randomly discussed many other related problems of biblical theology. Here some articles related with his 69 biblical theological methodology will be introduced. In 1994 Childs published an article entitled “OT in Germany 1920–1940: A Search for a New Theological Paradigm,” which pays special attention to a new paradigm of theological exegesis in German OT scholarship during the period between WWI and WWII. Here Childs analyzes some basic hermeneutical issues in biblical studies in Germany during the 1920s and 1930s, such as the debate about the historical-critical method, theological exegesis, and the significance of the paradigm. Childs points out that some controversial hermeneutical issues which had remained unresolved since the 1920s and 1930s are still “with us,” though the form of the debate and the focuses of the discussion have been “radically altered.” It is important that Childs realizes that his canonical approach is “unconsciously influenced by the 70 German struggle of the 1930s.” Some themes, such as the concept of theological exegesis, calling biblical theology back to its confessional roots, 1995, 74–75. Scobie 2003, 39. 69 Some articles not touching on Childs’s biblical theological methodology will not be presented here, for example, “Critical Reflections on James Barr’s Understanding of the Literal and the Allegorical” (1990). “Biblical Scholarship in the 17th Century: A Study in Ecumenics” (1994) is an introduction to the state of biblical studies in the seventeenth century; very few points are concerned with the discussion of biblical theological methodology. And Childs’s “The Almost Forgotten Genesis Commentary of Benno Jacob” (1999) is an article paying homage to Benno Jacob, a “remarkable scholar” of the OT, and drawing attention to his Commentary on Genesis. 70 Childs 1994a, 245.

48 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context rethinking historical criticism as a scientific method of biblical interpretation and its relationship with the traditional Christian faith, and exploring an appropriate method for OT studies, were hotly debated between1920 and 1940. Later, in 1995, Childs presented a paper “On Reclaiming the Bible for Christian Theology.” Some messages of this article overlapped with his “OT in Germany 1920–1940,” a paper of 1994. His emphasis is still on connecting the Bible and Christian theology, especially building a bridge between biblical studies and Christian dogmatics. Childs quite clearly wishes to join and continue the struggle of former generations. The 1995 article touches on the issues of the influence of historical criticism on biblical theology, the significance of the canon for the community of faith, the relationship between the two Testaments, and Christ as the true subject matter of biblical interpretation. In 1996 Childs published an article “Retrospective Reading of the OT Prophets,” in which he attempted to analyze critically various proposals for a retrospective reading of the prophetic literature, commonly referred to in 71 exegetical discussions on the OT prophets. Childs feels that the common hermeneutical problems in these approaches are their concentration on rationalization, literary fragmentation, and theological reductionism. Thus, Childs makes his own proposal for creating an interpretation of the function of prophetic retrospection with a more appropriate biblical theological approach. He underlines concepts such as prophetic dialectics, prophetical witness to a divine reality, prophetic texts as the messengers of authority, and the importance of the final form of the text. In general, this article can be seen as part of his methodological struggle to win acceptance for the idea that the OT Prophets are part of the sacred Scripture. In 1997 Childs published three articles. First, in his article “Does the OT Witness to Jesus Christ?” he attempts to deal with the implication of the OT as 71 They are: (1) the technique of adaptation, suggested by Seeligmann, dealing with the innate ability of the Midrashic interpretation to encompass new possible meanings in accommodating religious and cultural issues of a later historical era; (2) Fortschreibung, suggested by Hertzberg using the term Nachgeschichte and developed by Zimmerli with a similar concept of Fortschreibung, which is concerned with the continuity between Ezekiel’s basic text and its subsequent expansion; (3) editorial redaction which can deal with “larger literary units within a given book,” but “can also extend across an entire prophetic corpus;” and (4) etiological and vaticinium ex eventu, which are closely allied to reconstructing textual history. Childs 1996, 362–366.

The Three Stages of Childs’s Academic Development 49 a discrete witness to Jesus Christ, and to emphasize the possibility of a JewishChristian dialogue. In another essay, “Interpreting the Bible amid Cultural Change” Childs argues that a scientific and humanistic understanding and interpretation of the Bible is not fully correct, since the Bible is not just another expression of human culture. Rather, the central role of the Bible should be understood as the vehicle for encountering the living God, and which proclaims the word of God, guides Christian life and the church, and calls for further theological reflection. The third essay in 1997 was “The Genre of the Biblical Commentary as Problem and Challenge,” which attempts to explain the relationship between the traditional understandings of the Bible in the form of a commentary, and present some new modern models for a biblical commentary. On the one hand, the traditional biblical commentary has remained dominant both in periods of interpretive stability and of change, and has continued to be useful in developing new theories for biblical studies. On the other hand, a transformation of the traditional biblical commentary has been taking place because it has been seriously challenged by modern commentaries in a secular context. Therefore, it is necessary for biblical commentators to understand modern diversity and have a good knowledge of the significance and function of a biblical commentary amongst the ever increasing complexity of biblical interpretation. Again, in 1998 Childs published three articles: “Jesus Christ the Lord and the Scripture of the Church,” “The One Gospel in Four Witnesses,” and “The Nature of the Christian Bible: One Book, Two Testaments.” They were published at the same time in The Rule of Faith: Scripture, Canon, and Creed in a Critical Age (edited by Ephraim Radner and George Sumner). In these three 72 articles Childs once again emphasizes Christocentric biblical theology, canonical authority, and the Bible as Christian Scripture. He demonstrates the relationship between the two Testaments within the one Christian canon and the unifying idea within the four Gospels in the NT. These three publications affirm and make crystal clear the already fixed way in which Childs 72 The concentration on Christology is one of the most important features of Childs’s canonical biblical theology. He believes that the res of the Bible is Jesus Christ, and that a historical Jesus is the Christ of faith, that the OT and the NT witness to the same Lord Jesus Christ, who is the subject matter of the Bible. The OT and the NT belong to the one Bible of the Christian church, namely, one book, but two Testaments. See Childs 1998a, 1–12; 1998b, 51–62; 1998c, 115–125. We will have a section which focuses on the discussion of Childs’s concentration on Christology in a later chapter.

50 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context programmatically emphasizes the idea of canonical biblical theology. He holds true to the idea that both the OT and the NT are to be read and interpreted together as the unified, entire Holy Scripture, and that the canonical approach must focus on the plain sense of the text as it presents itself within the context of the whole Bible. The three articles of 1998 repeat and affirm what Childs had said in his previous publications.

Contributions to the Twenty-First Century Among Childs’s publications in the early years of the twenty-first century are the three monographs Isaiah: A Commentary (2001), Biblical Theology a Proposal 73 (2002), and Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture (SUICS, 2004), together with several articles. In 2000, Childs presented a short review of Walter Brueggemann’s Theology of the Old Testament (1997), in which he criticizes Brueggemann’s postmodern hermeneutical approach for rejecting any appeal to an ecclesial reading of sacred Scripture. From the theological methodological viewpoint, it seems that Childs takes up the challenge presented by the postmodern interpretation of the Bible and believes that an effective response to postmodern hermeneutics will determine the identity of the Christian church for future generations. He focuses on the principles of the canon, the Christian church, and the rule of faith as criteria for doing biblical theology. Over a period of forty years from his Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (1967) to SUICS of 2004, Childs sought to understand and interpret the book of Isaiah as Christian Scripture. Isaiah represents a special theological continuity between the OT and the NT, but this theological continuity only seems to exist if there is a link to the Christian church. The book of Isaiah plays a key role in the Christian canon because of its abundant theological implications, which have deeply influenced the biblical and dogmatic self-understanding of the Christian church. The traditional Christian interpretation of chapter 53 of Isaiah sees a close connection with the passion of Jesus Christ. We will return to this important view in later chapters. 73 The monograph Biblical Theology: A Proposal is adapted from BTONT. For example, Ch.1 “The History of Biblical Theology as a Discipline” is similar to BTONT pp. 3–10; Ch. 2 “The Problem of the Christian Bible” is from BTONT, pp. 55–69; again, Ch.3 is from pp.70–79; Ch. 4 from pp. 80–90; and the last chapter “Canonical Categories for Structuring a Biblical Theology” is from pp. 91–94. I will not explain this in any more detail here.

The Three Stages of Childs’s Academic Development 51 Childs’s Isaiah and SUICS form an inner continuity, both in exegetical method and in his basic theological interest, with his earlier publications. On the one hand, after Childs completed his Commentary on Isaiah in 2001, he admitted that he was painfully aware that many of the central theological and hermeneutical questions had not been adequately addressed. On the other hand, from the viewpoint of biblical theological methodology, he clearly expressed that, when writing his SUICS, he used the same approach as before. His main concern at this point was still the hermeneutical issue of how to “understand the book Isaiah as the church’s sacred Scripture.” In Childs’s eyes, the book of 74 Isaiah is “a vehicle for communicating the Christian gospel.” However, in content, one of the important differences between Childs’s SUICS and his commentary is that in SUICS he no longer concentrates on the biblical exegesis of Isaiah’s text, because in his Commentary on Isaiah (2001) he had already completed this task. Hence, he now turns his attention to analyzing how the great Christian theologians through the centuries used different ways in their 75 struggle to interpret Isaiah within the context of the Christian church. Among the last significant articles Childs wrote I will pay attention to the following: “Critique of Recent Intertextual Canonical Interpretation” (2003), “Speech-Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation” (2005a), and “The Canon in Recent Biblical Studies: Reflections on an Era” (2005b). “Critique of Recent Intertextual Canonical Interpretation” (2003) is concerned with the methodological discussion on biblical intertextual interpretation. Childs is critical of a new comprehensive literary theory which underlines the relation between canonical interpretation and historical criticism. Childs doubts the possibility of intertextuality in separating the scripture of the OT and the NT from each other. Any intertextuality proper occurs only on condition that the Bible is treated as a whole and handled as an unbreakable continuity. The intertextual interpretation of Christian Scripture can be regarded as “a useful 76 exegetical tool” to retain textual figurative linkage with theological reflections. The article, “Speech-Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation” (2005), aims to explore speech-act theory in relation to biblical interpretation. Speech-act 74 See Childs 2004, ix, xi. 75 In ch. 18 of the book he states that “the purpose of this study of the church’s struggle to understand the book Isaiah as Christian Scripture is to address a number of crucial hermeneutical problems arising from my historical analysis.” Childs 2004, 299. 76 He sees the so-called intertextual exegesis as a poststructuralist revision. His canonical approach is seen as structuralism, which means a disciplined synchronic biblical interpretation. We will deal with this later. Childs 2003, 184.

52 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context theory was philosophically based upon the work of John L. Austin and John R. Searle in the 1920s. The term “speech-act theory” was given to a relatively unified area of research which arose in the philosophy of language towards the end of the twentieth century, advocated by the Oxford philosopher John L. Austin in his How to do Things with Words. Austin believes that the doctrine of performative distinction is to the doctrine of locutionary and illocutionary acts in total speech-act as special theory is to general theory. So every act considering an utterance can be categorized as one of the following three acts: locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary. A locutionary act refers to the meaning of the statement itself. The performance of an illocutionary act refers to the consideration of the contextual function of the act. A perlocutionary act is to asses the possible results of the act upon the listener such as convincing, persuading, deterring, surprising or misleading. John R. Searle, an American 77 philosopher, developed taxonomy of illocutionary acts. With good reason we can ask: How much of a link is there between theological exegesis and speech-act theory? In order to answer this question, we need to refer to Nicholas Wolterstorff who made a noteworthy contribution in connecting speech-act theory to a theological dimension, especially in his book Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflection on the Claim that God Speaks (1995). For Wolterstorff, God may truly be thought of as speaking or as a speaker, but speaking itself is not a species of revealing, speaking is not communication, it does not even necessarily require communication. People should think of God’s speech as the performance of illocutionary acts, not necessarily performed by means of verbal locutionary acts. God should be thought of as intervening in the world; then we can say that God still speaks to people in the present. God appropriates human discourse for his own illocutionary actions, thereby expressing himself. In this sense, each individual book of the Bible is appropriated by God and, in general, the Bible as a whole is considered as “one book of God.” Therefore, based on such a concept of appropriated discourse, Wolterstorff views God’s action in the process of canonization as a 78 supplementary act of appropriating texts.

77 Austin 1955, Lectures IX-XI; 108–146. Searle 1969, especially chs. 3–8. 78 Wolterstorff 1995, ix, 10, 19–20, 23, 32, 53–54, 114–129, 301. Wolterstorff’s concept of speech may be regarded as a development of the implications for human action in general and for speaking in particular. This is related to Austin’s initial observation that to speak is not to communicate but to act, taking proper account of the fact that speech acts are always performed in a relational and moral environment. See Ward 2002, 98–99, 105.

The Three Stages of Childs’s Academic Development 53 In his “Speech-Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation,” Childs’s interest is not in dealing with the philosophical ideology of speech-act theory but in pursuing its implications for biblical hermeneutics. According to Childs, Wolterstorff presents two central points, namely, speech-act theory affords a way of understanding the unity of Scripture as God’s book in its wholeness; and it enables us to acknowledge the word of God as divine discourse without needing any description by human discourse. However, how to overcome the separation between human discourse and divine discourse has not been explained well. According to Childs, both the Christian canon and in traditional biblical interpretation from Thomas to Calvin, for instance, Paul’s and the Apostles’, human discourse has never been replaced by divine discourse. On the contrary, Paul’s and the Apostles’ voices as such are heard in faith as the word of God through the Holy Spirit. Thus, Childs feels that Wolterstorff’s adaptation of speech-act theory from philosophy to biblical hermeneutics is not satisfactory; indeed his application is 79 “deeply flawed,” because his view on divine discourse is not completely successful in making biblical hermeneutics, though various forms of the theory could reflect different biblical interpretations. From the viewpoint of biblical theological methodology, two conclusions can be drawn here. First, this article can be seen as a methodological criticism, not only of Wolterstorff, but of any attempt to adapt the reasonability of philosophical analysis to biblical hermeneutics. It seems that Childs is sufficiently confident to tell readers that a philosophical manner of biblical interpretation is difficult (if not impossible). Second, Childs presents his own canonical approach in comparison with 80 Wolterstorff’s method. The central points include “the canonical context of the Scripture and church” and “the hermeneutical significance of the canon,” which he has been emphasizing over and over again in his works. 81 Another essay of 2005, “The Canon in Recent Biblical Studies” is a historical review of theological methodology, in which Childs claims that the period from the late 1960s to the end of the twentieth century was the era of the canon. The era of the canon means that canonical issues were widely discussed both directly and indirectly in theology. The canon and canonical approach have become important themes of debate not only in the English-speaking 79 Childs 2005a, 375, 391. 80 See Childs 2005a, 380–384. 81 “The Canon in Recent Biblical Studies: Reflections on an Era” was later republished in Canon and Biblical Interpretation 2006, 33–57.

54 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context world but also in German and Scandinavian theological research, and not only in Protestantism but also in Catholic and Orthodox theology. A short paper in 2006, “Foreword” to Paul McGlasson’s Invitation to Dogmatic Theology: A Canonical Approach is the last publication of Childs.

Summary: The Issues Raised Chapter 2 of this book is a lengthy introduction to Childs’s writings during the three stages of his career. Childs’s theological thought and his academic style did not change much in his lifetime. However, from the perspective of theological methodology, the chronological development of his biblical scholarship in different periods is obvious. Here I sum up the most important observations. First, the period from the 1940s to the 1950s, his central method was that of historical criticism. From the end of the 1950s, especially after 1958, when he started working at Yale University and when the BTM was about to collapse, his exploration of biblical theological method made a dynamic move towards “theological reflection,” motivated by his growing dissatisfaction with historical criticism. This move was gradual and became increasingly obvious in the 1960s. He discovered and demonstrated the inadequacy of the historical-critical method in understanding the Bible theologically. Then he turned to seek “interpretation in faith,” not only to make up for the lack of theological meaning in traditional historical criticism, but also to claim his Christian position in doing biblical theology. Second, during the 1970s and 1980s, Childs preferred to emphasize the OT as Christian Scripture and to establish his canonical approach both in theory and in practical exploration rather than continue with his skilful mastery of historical criticism. For him, building up a canonical approach meant reorientating OT hermeneutics. BTC was a turning point; Exodus, IOTS, NTCI, and OTTCC were practical explorations in putting into effect his canonical approach. Third, from the 1990s to 2007, canonical theological exegesis was Childs’s main goal. He attempted to combine biblical exegesis with dogmatic theology. In his operative method and writing style, he was basically continuing in a coherent way what he had done before. Methodologically, BTONT is the most important book in this period, in that he redefined the concept of biblical theology and advocated the descriptive and constructive task of biblical theology.

The Three Stages of Childs’s Academic Development 55 After surveying these three stages in the development of Childs’s canonical theological exegesis, we can identify some key points that remained unchanged: namely, taking seriously the Christian canon when doing biblical theology, doing theology for the community of faith, interpreting the Bible in its entirety and wholeness under the rule of faith, paying attention to the role of Christology in biblical theology, giving biblical theology both a descriptive and a constructive task, and criticizing the historical-critical method for neglecting theology. This is how Childs tries to create a new forum of discussion and reveal a new path for doing biblical theology. These points, however, only give a general picture of Childs’s development and position. There are more detailed controversies behind the scenes. As mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, my aim is to point out the principal thematic issues for further discussion. In my further analysis I need to consider questions such as: What is “canonical” about Childs’s canonical approach? What exactly does Childs mean by the concept of “canon”? When Childs stresses the importance of the final form of the text, what does it really mean and is it possible to arrive at such a form? When he emphasizes the significance of the rule of faith, what is the basic relationship between the canon and regula fidei? What kind of unity is possible given the diversity of biblical texts? How can the OT and NT be related to each other in a theological interpretation of the Bible? When Childs expresses his intention of combining biblical interpretation with dogmatic theology, is this a realistic and practical intention? Finally, how could Childs’s suggestion to concentrate on Christology make new sense for the canonical biblical theology? In the following three chapters, I attempt to deal with these issues.

CHAPTER

3

The Canonical Approach Modern biblical scholars have had many debates on the concept of the canon, comprising discussions, for instance, on definitions of the term “canon,” the historical process of canonical formation, and the criteria of the canon. Childs contributed to and indeed was part of these debates. During his academic career of 40 years, research on the concept of the canon progressed significantly, but it seems that Childs’s own understanding of the canon did not undergo any notable changes. The most heated debate on the canon between Childs and other biblical scholars took place in the 1970s and 1980s. From the 1990s onwards, theological issues related to the canonical approach and biblical theology became more important for Childs; he did not pay any more attention to the historical debate on the canon. Some very controversial issues remained, such as the question about the final form of the canon and the historical formation of the canon. From the scientific point of view, Childs could not tackle these problems satisfactorily and, consequently, gave up discussing them. Thus, some issues in Childs’s canonical theory remain unsolved. This chapter analyzes Childs’s understanding of the canon and makes an attempt at understanding where Childs stands in the modern discussion on the canon.

The Implications of the Canon The Term “Canon” The word canon from Greek kanon literally means rule, standard, or straight rod. The early Christian church used it to refer to a canon of faith or regula fidei in 1 Latin, referring to the essence of Christian belief. Childs’s understanding of the 1

According to Childs, the church fathers used the term canon in a variety of combinations: the rule of truth and the rule of faith, as a norm of church doctrine and practice. “The use of the term canon to describe the scriptures was of Christian origin and not applied in classic Jewish

58 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context concept of the canon has its own characteristics. I will divide my analysis of his concept of the canon into three parts. First I pay attention to Childs’s understanding of the term “canon.” It arises from his reaction to Albert C. Sundberg and T. N. Swanson, who made a certain distinction between the concept of the canon and the concept of Scripture. For them, “canon” only refers to a “closed collection of Scripture,” 2 but “Scripture” refers to the authoritative writings. Childs finds that such a sharp distinction between the actual collection of the Scripture and their authoritative content can damage the “essential element” of the historical process of canonization. This essential element refers to an “interaction between a developing corpus of authoritative literature and the community which 3 treasured it.” Simply speaking, Childs insists that when defining canon and Scripture there is no need for a sharp distinction because the canonical process is continuous. This continuity means that the term canon refers to that historical process within ancient Israel which entailed a collecting, selecting, and ordering of the texts to serve a normative function as sacred Scripture in the faith community. His definition of the canon not only consists of the collection of the authoritative sacred writings, but also reveals deep theological nuances. The actual canon came into existence after a series of decisions made first by the Jewish synagogue respecting the Hebrew Bible, and later by the Christian 4 church respecting the range of apostolic writings.

2

3

4

literature.” Childs 1979, 49–50. Childs lists Sundberg’s two works: The Old Testament of the Early Church (1964) and “The ‘Old Testament:’ A Christian Canon,” (1968); and one book from Swanson, The Closing of the Collection of Holy Scripture: A Study in the History of the Canonization of the Old Testament (1970). Childs 1979, 49–50, 58–59. Scalise also deals with this, see Scalise 1994a, 46–47. For Childs, “when Scripture and canon are too sharply distinguished, the essential element in the process is easily lost.” Childs also points out two problems in Sundberg’s and Swanson’s sharp distinction between Scripture and canon. First, “to conceive of canon mainly as a dogmatic decision regarding its scope is to overestimate one feature within the process which is by no means constitutive of canon.” Second, “the sharp distinction obscures some of the most important features in the development of the canon by limiting the term only to the final stages of a long and complex process which had already started in the pre-exilic period.” Childs 1979, 58–59, 665. Scalise argues that “in Childs’s approach, the relationship between Scripture and canon is more complex than that of Sundberg in two ways. First, the term canon is used to refer to the entire historical and theological process of the Jewish and Christian communities’ recognition and reading of certain books as Scripture. Canon does not simply refer to the canonization of Scripture.” Scalise 1994a, 48. Childs once argued that “I am using the term canon to refer to that historical process within

The Canonical Approach 59 In addition to Sundberg and Swanson, there are other biblical critics who maintain the definitive distinction between the canon and Scripture. James Barr, for example, advocates this kind of difference; like Sundberg, he thinks that Scripture refers to an open set of authoritative religious texts, but the canon is a closed collection of texts. The Hebrew Bible is made up of three different sets of texts, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, and their canonical unity is not naturally obvious. Barr even argues that the Hebrew Bible does not imply any idea of Scripture; therefore, it is not appropriate for people to talk about a canonization process of the Hebrew Bible. For Barr, there was neither canon nor Scripture in so-called biblical times, and even if there were, the canon would not have been an essential idea. Barr comes to the conclusion that 5 Childs’s understanding of the canon is “vaguely and un-analytically treated.” In 6 spite of this harsh criticism, Childs never changed his concept of the canon. Second, Childs claims that the term canon has both “a historical and a theological dimension,” which is called “a new attempt at understanding the 7 canon.” For example, with regard to the OT, based on the mainstream position of both Judaism and the Christian tradition in their adherence to the Masoretic

5

6

7

ancient Israel—particularly in the post-exilic period which entailed a collecting, selecting, and ordering of texts to serve a normative function as Sacred Scripture within the continuing religious community.” In IOTS he says that “the canonical earlier decisions were not qualitatively different from the later.” Childs 1978b, 67; 1979, 59. Some similar descriptions can be seen in Childs 1984b, 68; 1995a, 9. See Barr 1980, 12–13; 1983, 49–51, 63–64, 104. Barton also argues that “If the word canon is to be used at all, then it should probably be in the sense in which the term was sometimes used in the early church, to denote a norm or regulative standard rather than a close body of texts.” Brett says that Barr insists that there was no canon in the biblical period. Provan also observes that “Barr’s general view is that biblical faith was not, in its own nature, a scriptural religion. In what we call biblical times, there was as yet no Bible.” In a current presentation in Lee Martin McDonald’s Biblical Canon, especially in Part 1, “Scripture and Canon,” he uses Scripture and canon in different ways. Barton 1986, 63. Brett 1991, 6. Provan 1997, 6, 9. McDonald 2007, 3–69. Later Childs defended himself, arguing that “I chose the term canon because it concludes both the concepts of authority and reception in order to express the process and effect of this transmitting of religious traditions by a community of faith toward a certain end in all its various aspects…I feel it is important to retain the term canon to emphasize that the process of religious interpretation by a historical faith community left its mark on a literary text which did not continue to evolve to which it bore witness.” Childs 1984b, 68. Childs 1979, 57–58. He also says that “the canonical approach to the Hebrew Bible does not make any dogmatic claims for the literature apart from the literature itself…but rather it studies them as historically and theologically conditioned writings which were accorded a normative function in the life of this community.” Childs 1979, 73.

60 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context text as the proper form of the Hebrew Bible, Childs carefully identifies the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Scripture as the “vehicle” to understanding the 8 canonical text, whilst claiming that “there is no extant canonical text.” Childs, however, immediately stresses that the Masoretic text and the canonical text are not completely synonymous, rather the Masoretic text is merely a vehicle for 9 ascertaining the canonical text. It is a well-known fact that the Masoretic text, which was stabilized and used by ancient Israel as the final form of the Hebrew 10 text towards the end of the first century A.D., is not the oldest established text. However, why does Childs stick to the Masoretic text? The reason has a historical and a theological dimension. Historically, Childs discovers that the canon came into existence as a result of a complex process of historical development of the text, and in the canonization process there was a historical continuity between the Hebrew Bible in the Jewish Synagogue and the canon of the early Christian church. The structure of the Masoretic text and its development had a long, complex history, and its authoritative role derived from a variety of unknown historical factors. However, the authority of the Masoretic text did not necessarily entail a textual superiority that would then serve as the ground for its selection. Of most important is the fact that in the first century the Masoretic text had already achieved its textual stability, which no other versions had been able to do; thus it is possible for the Masoretic text to be the best text, in the sense of being the 11 closest to the original, to ascertain the canonical text. Childs understands the 8

Childs states that “the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible is the vehicle both for recovering and for understanding the canonical text of the OT.” A similar description sees “the Masoretic text as the vehicle for the canonical text of the OT.” Childs 1979, 97, 100, 106. See also some of his later writings, Childs 1993, 74–75; 1998c, 116. 9 Childs attempts to deal with the relationship between the Masoretic text and the canonical text. That is why he adds that “however, the point needs to be emphasized that the Masoretic text is not identified with the canonical text, but is only a vehicle for its recovery.” This means that Childs only wants to make the Hebrew Bible normatively comprehensible “through an elaborate Masoretic system.” However, Childs does not clearly explain the relationship between the canonical text and the Masoretic text. See Childs 1979, 100. O’Neal criticizes this point. O’Neal 2007, 51. 10 Childs well knows that the canon was established in the first century A.D., but the most complete manuscript of the Masoretic text, Codex Leningradensis, dates from A.D. 1008. Childs 1979, 100–101. O’Neal 2007, 34. 11 Childs argues that “the first task of the OT text critic is to seek to recover the stabilized canonical text through the vehicle of the Masoretic text which is closest to the original text of the first century…. In actual practice the task of recovering a text close to the first century Masoretic text is certainly attainable and supported by Qumran manuscripts of the proto-

The Canonical Approach 61 canon of the OT Scripture used in Judaism and in Christianity as the definitive and closed list of books authenticating the contents of the OT as Scripture. Theologically, Childs stresses that canonical biblical hermeneutics should be concerned with “great theological importance” and “the theological issues” involved in the canon; he even claims that “the theological concept of canon is a 12 confession.” Thus, for him, the acknowledgment of the canon, from the perspective of doing Christian theology, is a confessional act on the basis of which the Christian canon, including both the NT and the OT, can be read 13 and interpreted in the light of the revelation of God. In this sense, the canonical shape of the Masoretic text is beneficial in providing a sphere of exegetical activity for witnessing the whole of God’s historical guidance to the community of faith—of both Jews and Christians, as the Masoretic text was accepted by Jews and then guarded by Christians. The order of the books in the Christian OT canon today is dependent upon the order in the Septuagint, because the early Christian church received the Jewish canon largely through the Greek Old Testament (LXX) translations. According to Childs, the early Christian church did not create its own order de novo, but rather “selected from available options an order which best reflected its new evangelical understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures.” Thus, the ordering of the books according to the LXX tradition already became “normative for Christians as revealing clearly the continuity of the Old and the 14 New within the one divine economy.” Though the Septuagint was not a Masoretic text type.” Although the Masoretic text did not derive necessarily from its being the best, or the original, “its choice as the canonical text was determined often by broad sociological factors and internal religious conflicts…However, this does not imply that the selection was completely haphazard or arbitrary.” Childs 1979, 101, 103. O’Neal 2007, 34. 12 This statement has three meanings here: “First, it is a testimony of the Christian church as a community of faith that God has chosen the vehicle of sacred Scripture through which to make himself known to the church and the world, both in the past, present, and future. Second, it serves a unique function in the relation between God and his people. And third, it points to a divine activity which only has its testimony in the witness of the prophets and the apostles. In other words, Scripture is not simply one means among several others of testifying to a unique self-disclosure of God in Jesus Christ.” Childs 1970a, 99–105, 121; 1974a, 300; 1979, 72–73. 13 See Childs 1972a, 714; 1979, 60, 71; 1984a, 32–33; 1986a, 30; 1993, 63-68; 1995a, 9. Brown agrees with Childs in this case, and McGlasson, following Childs, states that the “canon is the first article in our confession of faith.” See Brown 1985, 21. McGlasson 2006, 39. 14 See Childs 1993, 75. In IOTS Childs also argues that “the order of the Christian OT varies considerably within the church, but shares in common both a dependence on the Septuagint

62 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Christian but a Jewish translation, the early church completely accepted and used the Greek form of the Hebrew Holy Scripture. Childs recognizes the importance of the use of the Septuagint by the post-apostolic church; this usage had a certain influence on the decision of the church concerning the canon. It is obvious that the process of OT canonization involved the shaping of the tradition not only into each discrete book but also into larger canonical units such as the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. Childs argues that the NT canon did not fall from heaven, and that the early Christian church did not claim that it had created a canon; rather, the early church aimed to discern among competing claims what it recognized as apostolic, though this process took hundreds of years and involved much 15 controversy and uncertainty. The canon of the NT gradually developed as part of the larger growth of the Christian church during the second century. The period during the first and second centuries was a crucial time for early Christianity in coping with competing traditions and interpretations. Childs follows David Trobisch’s opinion that the entire NT was formed by the end of 16 the second century. The NT canon established a fixed context from the 17 evangelical tradition in understanding the gospel. Therefore, the significance and a disregard for the tripartite division of the Hebrew canon. The chief point to be made is that Christians did not create a new order for their OT, but chose an order from among the variety of options which best supported the Christian claim of a different understanding of the Old in terms of the New.” Childs 1979, 667. Similar arguments can be seen in Childs 1986a, 7, 13; 1997a, 58; 2004, 1; 2005a, 381. Similarly, the formulation on the order of the Septuagint can be seen in Childs 1998c, 117, where he states that on the formal side, the Jewish Scripture was read almost exclusively by the Christian Church in a Greek translation following the order of the Septuagint. Since his IOTS, the question “which text will be normative” has provoked considerable debate, especially during the1980s and early1990s. 15 Childs 1984a, 44. Some similar statements can be seen in Childs 1998a, 6; 2005a, 381. This assertion is similar to Barth’s argument that the church does not create the canon, but can only confirm or establish it as something which has already been formed or given. And the establishment of the canon took place in a long and complex process of human history. See Barth CD, I/2, 473 and Runia 1962, 192. 16 Childs expresses his appreciation of Trobisch’s new discovery of a definitive edition of the NT in his Final Redaction of the NT: An Investigation of the Formation of the Christian Bible, when he says that “Trobisch has opened up a fresh vista in showing at what early date the Church may have been dealing with a written corpus of authoritative Scripture with its witness to the one Gospel of Jesus Christ.” See Childs 1998a, 6–7; 2004, 300–310. 17 For instance, he says later that “it is widely agreed that by the end of the second century, if not before, the four Gospels had been joined in a fixed corpus. The present structure of the Gospels did not take place without a process of interpretation and controversy.” Childs 1984a, 18–28; 2005a, 382.

The Canonical Approach 63 of the NT canon lies in its decisive role in offering guidelines for understanding the variety of the texts in the light of the unity in Jesus Christ. Whereas the discussion on the NT canon is not highly controversial, there are huge problems in the debate about the OT canon. Childs’s treatment of the Masoretic text as a vehicle determining the canonical text does not seem to have been completely rejected. He recognizes that the criteria for selecting the 18 Masoretic text “remain largely obscure,” the big question is: Do we need to 19 consider a “more flexible view about the exact boundaries of the canon”? Perhaps for Childs, it is not necessary, but for many others, it is. As we know, there were some different Hebrew versions before the Masoretic text. Thus it is difficult to judge fairly which version could be the best or the original one in 20 order to determine the canonical text. That is why Charles J. Scalise remarks 21 that Childs’s canonical approach is to “include” a Jewish interpretation. Similarly, G. Michael O’Neal argues that Childs expresses “his bias toward the 22 Masoretic text” and “rejects many possibilities for emending texts.” Perhaps, Childs’s partiality for the Masoretic text as a vehicle determining the canonical text needs a more convincing explanation. Third, Childs claims that both historically and theologically, the early Christian church understood the formation of the canon as a response to divine 23 interference in order to maintain the living word of God. Only within such a 18 Childs 1979, 665. 19 Scalise suggests that “it would seem wiser to adopt a more flexible view about the exact boundaries of the canon.” Scalise 1994a, 65–66. 20 For instance, O’Connell suggests that “since various distinct Hebrew versions are available in the first centuries BC and AD and since more than one version served as the target for Greek recensional activity, it remains difficult to absolutize the canonical authority of the Hebrew version ultimately chosen by the Jewish community.” O’Connell 1981,188. McDonald in The Canon Debate clearly lists the primary sources of the Hebrew canon. Hoffman collects Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and many other Jewish and rabbinic texts in his presentation “A Brief Survey of Ancient Jewish Literature” on the internet. McDonald 2004, Appendix A, 580-582. Hoffman 2004. 21 Scalise says that “Childs’s understanding of the canon is not restricted to Christian theological appropriation of the Hebrew Bible. Rather, such an approach can explicitly include Jewish interpretation.” Scalise 1994a, 45. 22 See O’Neal 2007, 151. 35. 23 He argues in BTC that the original sense of the canon is “the rule that delineates the area in which the church hears the word of God;” or the concept of canon is “an attempt to acknowledge the divine authority of its writings and collections.” In “The Canonical Shape of the Prophet Literature” Childs says that “to speak of the Bible as canon is to emphasize its function as the word of God in the context of the worshiping community of faith. The canon

64 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context canon, could God’s voice be heard. Only in this sense, can the acts of hearing and preserving God’s word in the canon be seen as the work of the Christian church. It is only the concept of the canon, a certain set of Holy Scripture, that can keep the OT and the NT together as the whole and entire Holy Scripture for the Christian church. By definition, only one canon, one absolutely 24 authoritative collection of Holy Scripture, can exist. Barr, however, critically remarks that Childs’s understanding of the concept of canon is oversimplified with regard to the list of books which are counted as Holy Scripture. Barr advocates the view that there are three forms of canon; he 25 calls them “canon 1, canon 2, and canon 3.” Canon 1 is the usual sense of the word canon, which refers to the list of books which together comprise Holy Scripture. Canon 2 means the final form, namely, the so-called canonical form, which may differ from the original form of a book. Canon 3 refers to a way of looking at texts, or “a principle of finality and authority,” which aims at making the canonical books authoritative. For Barr, canon 3 cannot be counted as “a canon” because it is an abstraction which rises above the actual texts. Barr’s explanation of “three canons” implies that canon 1 and canon 2 are historical, and canon 3 is theological in nature, and that these three definitions of the canon are very different from each other and at times in conflict with each other. It is obvious that Barr is critical of the idea of canon 3, which brings in a theological perspective. There was a debate on the definition of canon between Barr and Childs, 26 which took place in the 1970s and 1980s. Barr critically remarks that Childs’s canonical definition is only dependent on the own use of his favorite word, canon, which mixes the concepts of canon 1, canon 2, and canon 3, together without any distinction. Thus Barr points out that Childs’s treatment of the concept of canon is very misleading. Childs, however, complains that Barr seeks to preserve the authority of the whole witness and to resist all attempts to assign varying degrees of theological value to the different layers of Scripture on the basis of literary or historical judgments.” Childs 1970a, 99, 105; 1978a, 53. Some similar statements also can be seen in Childs 1979, 80; 2005a, 381. 24 The phrase “one canon is enough” is from Stendahl’s essay entitled “One Canon is enough,” in which the author is critical of the attempts at finding a canon within the NT canon. Stendahl 1984b, 40, 55–68. 25 At this point, Barr is not alone, Barton also maintains a similar opinion, once arguing that from the perspective of Childs’s canonical criticism, “it is probably more accurate to say that there are three canons, among which the canon critic must choose.” Barr 1983, 75–79. Barton 1984, 91. McDonald 2007, 55–56. 26 Barr 1980, 22; 1983, 49–51, 75–79; 1999, 37–39, 47–51. Childs 1979, 58; 1984b, 68.

The Canonical Approach 65 misunderstands his canonical arguments because Barr uses “his own narrow and traditional definition of canon” to judge the definition of the canon. This misunderstanding in the eyes of Childs is a mistake of methodological direction and of canonical terminology. Indeed, Childs gives a definition of the canon which is both historical and theological, as he claims that the canon has a historical and a theological dimension. It seems that Barr does not need to stress such a position in understanding canonical conception; instead, his scholarship merely emphasizes canonical historical evidence and even non-canonical historical reality. Gerald Sheppard presents two definitions of canon, “canon 1 and canon 27 2.” Canon 1 means the authoritative oral and written form which was received by the Jews. Israel, for example, had a canon which had been received by Moses on Mt. Sinai and then handed over to the Jewish community as the authoritative Scripture. Canon 2 refers to a standardized norm after the biblical literature had been fixed and stabilized. However, the two definitions do not seem to be able to deal very well with the continuity of the canonical process, namely, why and how some books were included but others excluded from the 28 authoritative “canon.” Thus, some biblical scholars tend to believe that canonical stability in the whole process of canonization was not always certain, and that it became changeable and adaptable. Some even point out that the Israelites and the early Christians could not have had a stabilized text of 29 Scripture in its earliest development. As we have seen, there are several competing models in attempts to define the canon. The canon can be defined in purely literary terms, or it can be seen from the perspective of historical-critical scholarship, or it can also be understood in a confessional theological way. Childs’s understanding of the term “canon” has a bias to the confessional theological direction. This means that the role of the community of faith becomes crucially important. Within the Christian church, canon should be understood as of and for the community of faith. This kind of understanding of the canon seems to be too narrow. Here we 27 See Sheppard 1987, 64–67. 28 For example, 1 Clement was recognized as canonical by Eusebius but it was excluded in the final stabilized canon of the early church. Some apocryphal writings such as Sirach and The Wisdom of Solomon were acknowledged as authoritative but later, in the canonical process, they were discarded as part of the sacred Scripture. McDonald & Porter 2000, 601–602. McDonald 2007, 55–56. 29 McDonald sees this opinion as the broadest definition of the term canon. See McDonald 2007, 56. In fact, this is not a definition of canon but a speculation.

66 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context need to deal with two issues which are related to Childs’s understanding of the canon; one is the relationship between the Jewish canon and the Christian reception of the OT, the other is the controversy over the final form of the canon.

The Jewish Canon and the Christian Old Testament When Childs stresses that there is a coherent historical and theological relationship between the Jewish canon and the Christian reception of the OT canon, then we need to ask: How did the early Christian church inherit the Jewish canon as its own OT canon? Childs believes that there is an “unbroken 30 continuity” between the Jewish and Christian faiths based upon the relationship between the two canons. As is commonly known, the Hebrew Bible and in the Protestant OT are the same. Here we are talking about the relationship between the two canons, but not about the inner relationship between the OT and the NT in one Christian Bible. Childs mentions that, historically speaking, there are two major attitudes toward the Jewish canon. The first approach opts for a narrow canon that identifies the literary scope and the textual form of the Christian OT with the Hebrew canon of the synagogue. The other is a wider canon that supplements the Hebrew canon with other books which had long been treasured by parts of the Christian church. Jerome was regarded as the classic defender of the narrower canon among the church fathers, and Augustine was considered as the defender of the wider canon. Later, the Reformation churches sided with Jerome, the Roman Catholic Church with Augustine, and the Orthodox Church increasingly sided with the wider Christian canon. Childs’s position obviously tends to accept the tradition of Jerome, but he does not completely deny Augustine’s position. He prefers to accept the Protestant insistence on the primacy of the Bible rather than the Roman Catholic claim of ecclesiastical authority. This is another reason why Childs supports the idea of the narrow 31 canon. 30 Childs 1998c, 116; 1979, 670–671. We will discuss the question of the unbroken continuity between the two Testaments in a later section. 31 In IOTS Childs says: “The Reformers argued that the Bible was authoritative, not because the church made it so, but because of the word of God which it contained. The Roman Catholic theologians countered that the church had been the human medium through which the Spirit of God had given the Scripture a concrete form and thus tradition could not be set in subordination to Word.” Later Childs points out that “although I personally agree with the

The Canonical Approach 67 In other words, Childs only agrees with the Protestant view, which only acknowledges the Hebrew Bible canon as the authentic one. The apocryphal books might have some authority, but within Protestant Christianity their authority is very limited, because there is an essential discontinuity between the true canonical texts and non-canonical texts. Holding up the authority of the Christian canon cannot be based on an ecclesiastical judgment on otherwise un32 authoritative texts. Childs’s canonical approach is limited to the canon of Christian Scripture which only includes those books recognized by the Protestant Christian community as normative leaving out the Apocrypha. Does this mean that Childs completely denies the possibility of including texts excluded by the Protestants in the OT canon? Following the Reformers of the sixteenth century, Childs insists that the revelation of God was given through the prophets, psalmists, sages, and seers, who were anticipating a fuller revelation to be given in Christ. The Apocrypha, which was formed during the “silent centuries (400 B.C. to A.D.27),” has been looked upon by Christian Protestants as a collection of uninspired writings. Childs, however, sometimes admits that this could be “the weakness of the Reformers’ use of a critical norm and of its insufficiency in practice.” Because it is difficult to argue that “the elimination of the Apocrypha from the Protestant Bible derived solely from the 33 working of the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit.” For Childs, the Apocrypha have value in terms of conducting research on the history of later Judaism, but they are not comparable with the real canonical books which contain the prophetic reception of God’s revelation. In 1980, when Childs responded to reviewers of his IOTS (1979), he attempted to deal with the relationship between the canonical and the extracanonical texts of the OT. He did not completely deny the significance of the Apocrypha, but he insisted that the authentic testimony to the faith of Israel is 34 preserved only in the canonical books. Because Childs’s canonical exegesis is

tradition of Jerome in supporting the Christian use of the Hebrew canon, I would not disparage the claims of those Christians who follow Augustine in supporting a large canon.” Childs 1979, 80, 666. Similarly see Childs 1993, 63. 32 He argues that the “canon is not an ecclesiastical judgment sanctioning a previously unauthoritative text, but the recognition of the authority which the biblical text exerted in its actual use within the community.” Childs 1977a, 92. 33 Childs 1993, 66. 34 He understands that the nature of Israel’s tradition is reflected in the multi-layered witness of the canonical text, but “there is no direct access to the fullness of that extrinsic reality on which the faith was grounded apart from Israel’s own testimony.” Childs 1980a, 56–58.

68 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context based on the Protestant Christian canon, the treatment of the apocryphal books is practically ignored. In spite of that, Childs sometimes admits that the Jewish and Christian communities have continued to use some “non-canonical books 35 with varying degrees of authority.” Childs suggests that the truly canonical books of the Bible are the common ecumenical ground for all the communities of the Christian faith for building a bridge between exegesis and theology. But it is difficult to say whether the Catholic and Orthodox Churches could accept the Protestant canon as a common foundation for creating an ecumenically fruitful biblical theology. Childs, however, believes that early Christianity accepted the Jewish Scripture as its own canon before the Jewish community made its final decision on the canon. The Jewish Scripture served as the only Holy Scripture of the Christian church for one hundred years after Jesus’s resurrection, and it was 36 inherited by the early church along with its understanding of the canon. Judaism is not only the bearer of the OT traditions, but is also “a living community of faith,” which means that the Bible still reveals the will of God for 37 the covenant people. For Childs, the early Christian church always had a canon of authoritative writings at any given period of its history, because it had already assumed the 38 authority of Israel’s Scripture. When the Christian church accepted the Scripture of the synagogue as part of its own canon, it also sought to interpret them according to various Christian needs. Though the direct literary evidence from historical sources cannot be sufficiently determinative for building up the scope and form of the Jewish canon during the period when Christianity appeared, we know with certainty that the Jewish canon was closed by A.D. 35 He still maintains that the effect of the exclusion of the Apocrypha (“The Hidden Books”) and Pseudepigrapha (“The Pseudonymous Writings”) can be clearly recognized in the subsequent history of Judaism. Childs 1979, 66–67. 36 See Childs 1998a, 5; 1993, 75; 1998c, 115–116. 37 Childs 1970a, 121; 1972a, 711. Barr, however, strongly disagrees with Childs on this point. He argues that “in Judaism and in Christianity, in the long periods during which the material for the Book was being generated, the Jews and the Christians were not yet ‘People of the Book;’ and indeed it is doubtful whether either of them, and particularly the Christians, ever became People of the Book to the extent that the Muslims did.” Then he asserts that “the canon, far from being a bond holding Judaism and Christianity together, is a force that pulls them strongly apart.” Barr 1980, 22; 1983. 2. 38 When the NT authors spoke of the sacred writings, they referred to the Jewish Scripture, which was simply assumed to be authoritative for the Christians. Childs 1984a, 31; 1986a, 7; 1993, 55.

The Canonical Approach 69 39

100. Childs underlines that the early Christian church not only accepted the Jewish canon as its own canon, but also inherited the authoritativeness of the sacred Scripture from the synagogue. Such an inheritance of the idea of authoritative Scripture had a significant influence on how the NT came into existence as a set of canonical texts. The Christian NT canon functioned as a fulfillment of events that had been previously revealed as a promise to Israel. The Jewish Scripture was effectively influential to the development of the Christian Bible without the need for any heavy Christian interference or redaction. Therefore, the Jewish Scripture, now seen as the Christian OT, remains authoritative for the Christian church. Moreover, theologically, Childs stresses the importance of the OT as the canon both for the Christian faith and for doing biblical theology. For him, neither the Christian church nor biblical theology can exist without the OT; the OT protects Christianity from being perverted into various forms of Gnostic, 40 mystic, or romantic speculation. The “decisive point” between the two canons is that the Christian church had already determined to recognize the integrity of the OT for its own faith within its own canon of authoritative Scripture. Hence, the Jews and the Christians agreed that the canonical process of the Hebrew Scripture began for the communities of faith in the growth of the rabbinic and evangelical traditions. Israel’s faith was grounded in an anterior reality, first in oral tradition and later in written form; both Israel and the Christians bear testimony to God’s redemptive intervention on their own 41 behalf. The same biblical text can be read as authoritative Scripture in Judaism and in Christianity. Such a theological continuity between the two canons is clear for Childs as he claims that “one cannot speak adequately of the church’s 42 canonical context without a serious consideration of classical Jewish exegesis.” 39 Childs also argues that much debate continued, for instance, such as whether the canon of the Jewish Scripture was closed at an earlier date than the end of the first century B.C. For two centuries the early Christian church had only the Scripture of the synagogue as its own normative writings. It is possible to argue that the church did not adopt the Jewish Scripture merely as background to the NT, but made the theological claim that the Jewish Scripture, that is, the Old Testament, bore witness to Jesus Christ. However, before the first century, there were many other writings, as we have seen, such as the rejected literature of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. See Childs 1984a, 23, 25, 28; 1993, 58, 74–77; 1995a, 12. 40 See Childs 1986a, 17. A similar statement can be found in Childs 2005b, 42, where he says that “Christian theology without the OT was deemed impossible.” 41 Childs 1967a, 127; 1979, 188; 1980a, 57; 1986a, 7; 1997a, 58. 42 Childs goes on to argue that “neither side (Judaism and Christianity) could prove or disprove

70 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context The usage of the Hebrew canon in Christianity has great theological importance because it derives from the original historical context of Israel. The biblical text serves as a determinative force in forming the normative traditions of the Jewish and Christian communities. However, Childs’s idea raises a dilemma. Since theological continuity between Judaism and Christianity is not always possible, some discontinuity between Judaism and Christianity must also remain. Childs clearly understands that early Christianity defined the Jewish Bible as its own canon with an appropriate theological interpretation only within its own tradition, but not within Judaism, and he knows that the Christian canon and its theological 43 interpretation should be different from that of Judaism. It is necessary to keep “a delicate balance between the elements of continuity and discontinuity,” since overemphasizing the discontinuity between the Christian Bible and the Hebrew Scripture will threaten “the ontological relationship between Christianity and Judaism” and vice versa, overemphasizing the continuity will possibly destroy 44 the integrity of the Christian Bible. This dilemma is complex without an easily satisfying solution. Childs’s attempt to overcome this problem is based on a presupposition that the Hebrew canon had already been accepted by Christianity both historically and theologically, thus discussing the relationship between the Jewish canon and the Christian OT is talking about the relationship between the OT and the NT in the Christian canonical context which consists of two discrete voices. The theological continuity between these two voices means that

its basic religious structure from the OT text alone, nor could either side afford to abandon the exegetical task as irrelevant to the theological issues at stake.” Childs 1970a, 121-122. Childs in his “A Tale of Two Testaments” (1972) expresses his concern with the dialogue between Judaism and Christianity, because he has deeply realized that “it is impossible to speak meaningfully of biblical theology without serious dialogue with Judaism.” When he describes his views on the modern and even contemporary eight models of biblical theology, Jewish biblical theology is also brought in. It seems that Childs insisted on this point throughout his career. Childs 1972c, 29; 1993, 25–26; 2005b, 40–44. 43 In IOTS Childs says that the Hebrew canon has no historical or theological claims on the Christian Bible, but Christianity shares and inherits it. In BTONT, he says that “at the outset, it is crucial to recognize that the Christian understanding of canon functions theologically in a very different way from Judaism.” Childs 1979, 666–667; 1993, 64. 44 He also says that “the point is not to defend a mediating position between extremes, but to establish the proper theological dialectic between the Old and the New.” Childs 1979, 670– 671.

The Canonical Approach 71 45

a transformed OT is understood in the light of the gospel of the NT. One point that can be affirmed here is that Childs’s intention to establish a point of contact and conversation between Judaism and Christianity was a good one. The central task for him is to seek an appropriate foundation for fostering the dialogue between Judaism and Christianity. An appropriate foundation for this theological task is the common text—the OT, which serves both Judaism and Christianity. The OT is the basis of two religions, Judaism and Christianity, thus the biblical texts are the basis for both Jewish and Christian biblical theology. Based on the common text, the Jewish canon is now the Protestant 46 OT and a dialogue between Judaism and Christianity is possible.

The Canonical Final Form The notion of the “canonical final form” is an ambiguous and uncertain concept. Childs began to emphasize this term at the end of the 1970s as a prerequisite for creating an adequate biblical theology. Simply speaking, the final form of the text means the form given to the text by the last editor or redactor. This stabilization of the text is part of the process of its canonization.

45 “Although the Jewish Scriptures—later named the OT—were from the inception of the church understood as divine and authoritative, these writings were always read and interpreted from the context of the Christian gospel.” See Childs 1993, 722; 2004, 302. This discussion now turns to questions about the relationship between the two Testaments of the Christian Bible. We will go into a detailed analysis of this in ch. 3.4. 46 Childs 1967a, 273; 1970a, 122; 1972c, 28–29; 1979, 75–77; 1993, 25–26; 1997a, 58; 2003, 183; 2005b, 40–44. Anderson makes a similar observation when he says that “Childs maintains that this ‘common Bible’ which Christians inherited from the Jewish community and accepted as normative, provides the basis for Jewish-Christian dialogue today.” Baker agrees with Childs because he too believes that the same root and the same God can become the basis for learning from each other by both Judaism and Christianity. Calduch-Benages is also supportive of Childs’s suggestion, when he argues that “the dialogue between Judaism and Christianity is possible, since Jews and Christians share a rich common patrimony that unites them. It is greatly desired that prejudice and misunderstanding be gradually eliminated on both sides, in favor of a better understanding of the patrimony they share and to strengthen the links that bind them.” Scalise argues that Childs’s understanding of the canon explicitly includes Jewish interpretation; it is not restricted to the Christian theological appropriation of the Hebrew Bible. Childs’s usage of the term canon refers to the entire historical and theological process of acknowledging and reading the OT as Scripture for both the Jewish and Christian communities. Anderson 1980, 102. Baker 1991, 249. CalduchBenages 2004, 99. Scalise 1994a, 45–49. We will have a more detailed discussion on the relationship between the two Testaments later.

72 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context The canon is the end result of a process whereby the texts are selected to become authoritative holy texts. Only a text with a final accepted form could be received as canonical by the Christian church. Childs describes the process of canonization by saying that it “is constitutive of Israel’s history that the literature formed the identity of the religious community which in turn shaped the literature.” The task of a canonical analysis of the Hebrew Bible is to seek “to understand the peculiar shape and special function of these texts” and “focus 47 its attention on the final form of the text.” The process of canonization in the final stages of literary development concludes with the recognition of a work as authoritative. The existence of the final form of the total biblical canon is based upon the idea that both Israel’s and the church’s witnesses constituted the canonical normality and authoritativeness for both communities in a unique manner. Such a normative role can be played only by relying on the canonical final form.

47 Some basic descriptions of the final form of the canon can be found, for example, in “OT as the Scripture of the Church” (1972) where Childs says that “the concept of canon implies that the normative role of this Scripture functions through the shape which the church has given the tradition in its written form as a faithful witness to the redemptive work of God.” In “Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature” (1978) he argues that canonical analysis ought to pay attention to the final form of the text itself, and that the shape of the biblical text can reflect a significant history of encounter between God and Israel. In another article of 1978, “The Exegetical Significance of Canon for the Study of the OT,” he similarly points out that “canonical analysis focuses its attention on the effect which the different layers have had on the final form of the text, rather than using the text as a source for other information obtained by means of an oblique reading, such as the editor’s self-understanding. A major warrant for this approach is found within the biblical tradition itself. The tradents have consistently sought to hide their footprints in order to focus attention on the canonical text itself rather than the process.” In IOTS (1979) Childs is more concerned with the significance of the final form of the canon, as he says that “the reason for insisting on the final form of Scripture lies in the peculiar relationship between text and people of God which is constitutive of the canon. The shape of the biblical text reflects a history of encounter between God and Israel.” Similarly, he stresses that “the purpose of insisting on the authority of the final canonical form is to defend its role of providing this critical norm. To work with the final stage of the text is not to lose the historical dimension, but it is rather to make a critical, theological judgment regarding the process.” And “it is certainly true that earlier stages in the development of the biblical literature were often regarded as canonical prior to the establishment of the final form. In fact, the final form frequently consists of simply transmitting an earlier, received form of the tradition often unchanged from its original setting.” Childs 1972a, 714; 1978a, 47; 1978b, 68; 1979, 75–76. Some similar arguments can also be seen in his later writings such as Childs 1984a, 48, 240, 426; 1986a, 5–6, 9; 1993, 71, 74–77; 1996, 377.

The Canonical Approach 73 Childs advocates two significant aspects of the final form of the biblical literature. First, the final form of Scripture bears witness to the full history of 48 revelation of God. Revelation, in Latin revelatio, literally means “the selfdisclosure and self-communication of God,” by which God conveys knowledge 49 about himself to human beings. However, for Childs, “Revelation” here is not an abstract concept but refers to “the original events” experienced by Israel and recorded in the OT. In Childs’s understanding, “there is no ‘revelation’ apart 50 from the experience of historical Israel.” Second, the canonical final form performs a crucial “hermeneutical function” in establishing the peculiar profile 51 of a passage. These two aspects mean that Childs’s emphasis of the final form of biblical texts is mainly based on two reasons. One is that the final form could provide a common object that could be transformed from the Jewish tradition to the Christian church to become the basis of its own theological reflection. Another reason is that only the final form can bear witness to the revelation of God as a whole. The canonical final form not only marks the place where exegesis begins, but also marks the place where it ends. Canonical hermeneutical effectiveness is built inside the structure of the canonical text. For Childs, the hermeneutical function of the canonical final form should serve a “readership;” namely, the final form of the literature can provide an entirely new and nonhistorical framework for severing the message from its original historical moorings and rendering it accessible to all future generations of the community 52 of faith. This foundational idea is later concretely developed in BTONT. 48 He says that “the significance of the final form of the biblical literature is that it alone bears witness to the full history of revelation. Within the OT neither the process of its formation nor the history of its canonization is assigned an independent category. These dimensions have been either lost or purposely blurred. Rather, canon asserts that the witness to Israel’s experience with God is testified to in the effect of the biblical text itself. It is only in the final form of the biblical text in which the normative history has reached an end that the full effect of the revelatory history can be perceived.” Childs 1978a, 47–48. The same statement can be seen in Childs 1979, 75–76. 49 See McKim 1996, 239–240. 50 See Childs 1979, 60, 71. 51 Childs says that “again, the final form of the text performs a crucial hermeneutical function in establishing the peculiar profile of a passage…To work from the final form is to resist any method which seeks critically to shift the canonical ordering.” Childs 1979, 76–77. 52 In BTONT Childs formulates four reasons for legitimating the usefulness of recovering a theological dimension within the canonical final form of the biblical text. The first is similar to the significance of historical revelation: “the final form of the biblical text marks the end of a historical development within Israel’s tradition.” The second is that “the inner crosssectional relationship between the different witnesses can often be better grasped by an

74 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context These assertions on the canonical final form have given rise to many debates since the publication of Childs’s IOTS. From 1979, the issue of the canonical final form became a topic of harsh controversy. Childs himself admits that “in the past the use of the term ‘final form’ has evoked much controversy.” His insistence on the canonical final form has been widely seen as the most 53 unacceptable element of his canonical approach. In 1980 Childs responded to critics of IOTS, and later in his review of Barr’s Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism, Childs expressed deep disappointment that the major concerns of his IOTS had been “badly misinterpreted” and his canonical 54 approach had been “misconstrued.” Childs was very sensitive to those who 55 either misunderstood or rejected his assertion of the canonical final form. But why does Childs complain that his emphasis on the canonical final form is “misunderstood” or “misinterpreted”? interpreter if the various stages in the growth of Israel’s witness can be historically correlated.” In the third he explains that “not every group within Israel participated in the transmission of Israel’s traditions up to the point of its canonization.” The fourth concerning the hermeneutical meaningfulness suggests that “biblical texts from different ages continue to reflect a certain quality of their original life.” Childs 1993, 104–105. 53 Childs admits that “the problem of the final stages of canonization has not been settled,” and “the final word has not been said.” Childs 1980a, 59; 1996, 376. The various voices in this debate since the early 1980s include the following: Adam 1995, 183. Baker 1991, 55. Barr 1980, 20. Carroll 1980, 287–289. McEvenue 1981, 236. McDonald 2007, 471. Noble 1995, 46. Scalise 1994a, 50. Stendahl 1984b, 37. Vanhoozer 2005, 218.Ward 2002, 247– 252. 54 In 1980 Childs explained some problems under nine themes such as methodological explanation, the definition of the canon, canonical shaping, word and tradition, faith and reason, canonical text and extrinsic reality, a discussion of an alleged and conservative bias, and some concrete questions for reflection. See Childs 1980a, 52–60; 1984b, 67. 55 In his last book SUICS Childs again mentions that some criticism of his emphasis on the final form of the canonical texts is still a serious misunderstanding and misinterpretation, stating that “unfortunately this misconstrual, first articulated by James Barr (1983), then picked up by John Barton (1984), has now been continued by Ernest Nicholson (1998), along with a host of others.” Barr and Barton we have already discussed at some length; Nicholson’s opinion on Childs’s theory of canonical final form can be seen in his God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (1986) and The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: the Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (1998). Let us, here, take some words from him. For example, he argues that Childs’s canonical approach “now seeks to render absolute the latter (form) and to deny the earlier (form) any relevance. If the quest for ‘the original’ or the earlier is now regarded rightly as inadequate, however, the absoluteness now being accorded the final form reading of the text must also be rejected, for there is no reason, as Barr argues, to suppose that the product of final redaction is in any way more valid or more proper than earlier stages in the emergence of the text.” Nicholson 1998, 267. Childs 2004, 320–321.

The Canonical Approach 75 Here are two explanations that might help us to understand the main controversial points. First, in IOTS (1979) Childs makes an astonishingly simple claim that the canonical final form of the OT was already stabilized before the rise of Christianity around the first century when the canon of the 56 OT was “closed” as the last book appeared. This assertion has a chronological problem. Bernhard W. Anderson asked in 1980, “Is the church…bound by a canonical ‘decision’ ratified within the Jewish synagogue presumably before the st 57 1 century?” Scobie also doubtfully notes that “if this view is correct, it would mean that the early Christian church inherited from Judaism a canon of the Tanak (including three components: Torah, Naviim, and Ketuvim) that was 58 already closed centuries before the time of Christ.” In 1980 Childs actually admitted that this assertion had no absolute objectivity, and that the final word had not yet been said. Apparently, Childs understood that this was an 59 oversimplification because he never again made the same claim. Only a few historical critics or biblical scholars follow Childs’s line of interpretation. Some critics assert that the canon taken over by the early church could not have been the Hebrew Bible, since there was no single final form of the Jewish Holy Scripture. Consequently, they completely reject Childs’s 60 concept of the canonical final form. What Childs is concerned with is that a

56 He says that “the canon was formed and enlarged as each book was added. When the last book appeared, the canon was closed. The canon assured an unbroken series of sacred annals which had been preserved from the time of Moses.” Childs 1979, 51, 97. 57 This is one of Anderson’s questions to Childs concerning the canonical final form. The other two questions are “whether the putative shape of the biblical texts provides a foundation that is firmer and more objective,” and “whether Childs draws an unnecessarily sharp line between history and theology.” Anderson 1980, 104–105. 58 Scobie 2003, 52. 59 See Childs 1979, 55, 59. Later in his BTONT Childs not only stresses that the final form of the biblical text “marks the end of a historical development within Israel’s tradition,” but also that “it is the end of a trajectory which stretched over centuries within the life of Israel,” and that “biblical texts from different ages…continue to reflect a certain quality of their original life.” Childs 1993, 104–105. 60 Apart from Anderson and Scobie, there are many others who disagree with Childs’s concept of the canonical final form. Let us take some examples. McDonald points out that “the biggest problem that emerges in the application of Childs’s canonical emphasis is finding the final acceptable form of the canonical text of Scripture,” however, he asks “what and where is that text?” McDonald 2007, 471. Similarly McDonald 1995, 307 and McDonald & Porter 2000, 34. Brett says that Childs’s emphasis on the canonical final form is “misleading,” as ancient Israel did not use the final form of the Hebrew text since this was not stabilized until the end of the first century A.D. Thus it is not possible to judge that the canonical process

76 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context closed list of the OT books is seen as an essential part of the canonical process, namely, the final form of the canon determines the limits of canonicity. But the historical uncertainty of the existence of the final form of the biblical text remains a problem. Childs does not completely deny the historical and textual 61 problems involved with the development of the canon. The second basic issue of controversy concerns the theological hermeneutical function of the final form. Since IOTS of 1979, his main interest has been moving from researching canonical historicity to discovering the theological meaningfulness of the canon. Childs claims that the canon has both a historical and a theological dimension. For him, the canonical final unity is 62 not a literary unity, the canon needs to be read theologically, but the canonical theological reading cannot be brought about without basic historical interpretations of religious traditions and hermeneutical trajectories. Thus the canon cannot avoid being connected to its historicity and textual reality. Childs is well aware that the Bible has a long and complicated history, thus, it is not 63 possible to see his canonical proposal as a-historical. However, the problem is that Childs basically treats the reconstruction of historical particularity as the major obstacle to the theological use of the Scripture. Therefore, he is not really interested in the actual historical formation of the scriptural canon. The fundamentally historical or literary questions concerning the Bible are always in Childs’s eyes hypothetical and therefore problematic. What Childs is concerned about is that biblical revelation cannot ended before the stabilization of the Hebrew canon. Brett 1991, 19, 132. Landes points out that Childs’s canonical analysis is not sufficient to handle the canonical shape of each book of the OT. Landes 1980, 33, 37–38. More criticisms can be seen in Barr 1980, 20. Barton 1990, 104. Carroll 1980, 287–289. Smend 1980, 49. McEvenue 1981, 236. Räisänen 2000, 121. 61 For Childs, it is not possible to solve all the problems of the canonical final form completely, nor is it possible for biblical scholars to reach the meaning of the biblical authors. In his later writings, Childs did not often deal with problems which had arisen earlier. See Childs 1984a, 23-25, 28, 41–42; 1984b, 67–68; 1993, 74–77; 1996, 377; 2004, 301. 62 Childs mentions this idea many times. For example, he points out that the wholeness of the canonical unity “has sought neither a literary nor a conceptual unity;” and that “the effect on reading the book as a unity is not dependent on one’s ability to resolve this literary critical problem;” and that “canonical integrity is not synonymous with literary unity.” Childs 1979, 252, 389, 543. 63 Davies, for instance, sees Childs’s canonical approach as “anti-historical,” or “unhistorical,” or “de-historical.” Davies 1998, 51–53. Here I agree with Brett’s observation that Childs neither denies the historicity of the Bible nor makes his canonical approach an a-historical approach. Brett 1991, 143.

The Canonical Approach 77 be separated from the history of Israel, and that the historicity of the Bible should be understood as being included in the continuing history of the text itself. So the canonical text as such is both the historical and theological embodiment of the canonicity. As to the canon, history and theology are inseparable. This is perhaps why he rejects as one-sided the principle of historical criticism that “the sharper the historical focus, the better the 64 interpretation.” Moreover, Childs insists that the scriptural text in its final form has already overcome the gap between the past and the present through a process of actualizing past historical events and situations. This amounts to an attempt to see the Bible as Holy Scripture on the foundation of the past community of faith that shaped and used the canon. Thus his canonical approach no longer seeks to discover what the Bible originally meant; rather, biblical historical meaning and its permanent theological meaning are inseparably included in the text itself and, consequently, in the theological task of biblical interpretation. In other words, the essence of the canon ought to be seen as a basic dialectic between “what a text meant” and “what it means” because of the inseparability of the historical and the theological aspect of the canon. Childs insists that “the 65 concern is to illuminate what lies ‘ahead’ of the text, not behind.” In fact, historical-critical scholarship is not able to bridge the gap between “what a text meant” and “what it means.” Though Childs’s canonical approach attempts to maintain both the historical meaning of the text and the text’s power to convert today’s hearer, he is still afraid that an overemphasis on “what a text meant” could replace “what it means.” This is why Childs’s emphasis on the sameness and inseparability between “what a text meant” and “what it means” remains questionable. For example, Brett argued that “the canonical approach cannot itself provide the kind of evidence necessary to support one of Childs’s key arguments for reading the final form...He recommends that we need not recover original social-historical differences since these have been ‘subordinated to 66 theological concerns.’” We will discuss this issue further in ch. 4.1.4. Sensus literalis vs. sensus originalis. 64 Childs 1979, 61, 67, 71, 76–79, 324, 510; 1980a, 205; 1986a, 56. We will discuss the inadequacies of historical criticism in the next chapter. 65 Childs 1979, 77. Some similar arguments can be seen in Childs 1970a, 8; 1984a, 47. Some agree with Childs on this point; see Bauckham 1994, 248. Brown 1985, 22. Moberly 1988, 105. Noble 1993, 20–23; 1995, 3, 18. Scalise 1994a, 49. Scobie 2003, 39. Vanhoozer 2005, 217–218. 66 Brett 1991, 152–153.

78 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context These two controversial issues in Childs’s methodology, namely, seeing the OT canon as being completely ready-made before the rise of Christianity and the over-emphasis of the theological aspect of the canon at the expense of its historical reality, have really provoked many historical critics. James Barr is the most representative of them. Barr’s attitude to Childs’s canonical approach underwent some changes. As we have seen, one of Barr’s three definitions of the canon is “the final form.” In his early work Old and New in Interpretation (1966), Barr even agreed with Karl Barth’s insistence on the importance of the 67 “given form” of the canonical text for biblical interpretation. This implies that Barr does not always completely reject the concept of the canonical final form. However, since 1979, the relationship between Barr and Childs became as hostile as fire and water; Barr even lost patience with the discussion of Childs’s 68 canonical analysis. On the point of the canonical final form, Barr was strongly critical of the fact that Childs did not have sufficient reason for stressing the canonical final form as both the finality of the canon and its theological authority are difficult to distinguish. Barr even says that “for all his eulogies of the canonical final form, Childs has not written a study of the canonical form 69 after all.” 67 Barr admits that “Barth is quite right in arguing, as he often does, that theological exegesis should work from the text as it is. It is the given form of the text, rather than the historical reorganization which we make by using the text as data, which provides the main content for our exegesis.” Barr 1966, 93. Scalise had already dealt with this, see Scalise 1994a, 51–52. 68 Once Barr complained that “he (Childs) leaves it in no doubt that canon is a good thing…The book (IOTS) is an utterance of entire approval of the idea of canon: everything about canon, canonicity, canonical form is good. No one in the history of theology or of biblical interpretation has accorded so much centrality to the canon.” “Canon in this book is vaguely and unanalytically treated.” Childs’s canonical approach is to “de-emphasize the value of historical exegesis.” Barr even argued that “on anything affecting the canon his (Childs’s) judgment seems to me to be questionable.” Barr 1980, 12–13, 19. 69 He also asks “what are the reasons why we should accept Childs’s idea of the canon? Suppose we begin with a different opinion. Suppose we say that the canon, though significant, is not extremely important, that it is a third-or fourth-rank concept in the scheme of biblical theology; that it belongs to a world later than the biblical situation and that the actual biblical period, rather than the later of the canonization, should be our interpretive basis; and that the authority of the OT is not and never has been only the authority of the canon but also the authority of the events, traditions and persons from whom the Scripture emerged, suppose we begin with these concepts, what reason does Childs offer us why we should abandon them and adopt his in exchange?” Barr 1980, 12–14, 20. In Concept of Biblical Theology (1999), Barr still repeats his disappointment with Childs’s assertion of the canonical final form. He says that “the use of the word ‘canon’ for two distinct entities has damaging effects. For the canon, in the sense of the list of books recognized as authoritative scripture by a church, is a

The Canonical Approach 79 In general, it must be said that the problem of the canonical final form is not a problem only for Childs, but for all biblical interpreters, because textual historicity is always a most complex question. Historical critics have not yet reached a satisfactory consensus, or agreement, on this issue. From the perspective of the traditional canonical inheritance and its development, Childs’s emphasis on the importance of the final form in theological exegesis is understandable. Scalise does not disparage Childs’s emphasis on the canonical final form, and he finds that Childs’s understanding of the final form of the text 70 is foreshadowed by Barth’s idea of the exact word of the biblical text. Similarly, O’Neal does not think that Childs’s understanding of the final shape of Habakkuk is wrong; simply that sometimes his explanation seems to be insufficient. For instance, Childs does not offer convincing arguments for his treatment of the Masoretic text and for his view that the message of Habakkuk is actualized in an autobiographical framework, which could provide a 71 theological interpretation for later generations. The historical sufficiency of the canonical final form needs further discussion, but what we need to understand is that Childs’s interest was constantly moving from biblical historical research to seeking the theological concerns of the Bible for the community of faith. Perhaps this, ultimately, was the real reason for the controversies.

Canon with regula fidei Canonical Intentionality In Childs’s canonical approach to biblical theology, the concept of the canon belongs to the realm of the Christian faith. For him the canon cannot be separated from the regula fidei of the faith community. He asserts that “the canon for the Christian faith and for the church” or “for the communities of faith” and regula fidei belong inseparably together. This idea appeared for the public, legislative and objective fact…But when ‘canon’ is also used as the principle of final form exegesis for individual books, this is not a public, objective or legislative fact: it is only an opinion, a proposal, a method which might be good or not so good.” Barr 1999, 393–394, 384, 388–389. 70 Barth claims that exegesis must “allow even the detailed words of the text to speak exactly as they stand;” and that the canonical text is the norm for biblical interpretation, it is the beginning and the ending point of exegesis. Barth CD, I/2, 726; IV/2, 478-479. Scalise 1994a, 51. 71 See O’Neal 2007, 28–29,151–152.

80 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context first time in his article “Jonah” in 1958. Later on, he emphasized the importance of “faith” for biblical hermeneutics and saw canonicity as “a 72 statement of Christian belief.” Based upon regula fidei, Childs proceeds towards the concept of canonical intentionality, or canonical consciousness, in describing how “canonicity functions in Christian belief.” Childs implies that the Christian church and its faith lie deep within the canonical biblical literature itself. Canonical intentionality becomes an important idea supporting Childs’s insistence on the canonicity of the biblical texts. Canonical intentionality expresses an effective co-existence of the text and the theological content, by the aid of which the authoritative tradition could be rendered accessible to future generations. For this reason, Childs suggests that the biblical interpreter must pay attention to the objective status of the text; in fact, an interpreter of the 73 Bible should be a canonical interpreter. The authority of the canon within the rule of faith is concerned not only about the theory of faith but also about the practicability of faith in the community of faith. Confessing the existence and authority of the canon is normative for the Christian faith. The Christian church on earth as a human institution can bear witness to the effectiveness of its faith and life through understanding and interpreting the given canonical writings. The authority of the canonical Scripture for the church stemmed from God alone. Canonicity together with the rule of faith is a confession of the divine origin of the gospel; therefore, to “take seriously the canon” is to confess “along with the church to the unique function that these writings have had in its life and faith as Sacred 74 Scripture.” 72 He argues that Jonah’s miracle cannot be adequately interpreted according to human reason; rather it can be interpreted better through the eyes of faith. The theological interpretation of Jonah’s story through the eyes of faith is more important than its rationalized criticism, historical reality, and documental analysis. He used “Interpretation in Faith” as a title. Later he mentioned that “I am attempting to describe one language game, namely the use of the Old Testament as Scripture by a community of faith and practice. Expressed theologically, I am trying to explore how one reads the OT from a rule-of-faith called canon.” Childs 1958b, 53–61; 1964, 432–449; 1970a, 99, 105; 1972a, 713; 1979, 80–83; 1980a, 52; 1993, 71, 73– 77. 73 See Childs 1979, 77–79, 300, 393, 486, 574, 645; 1980a, 54–55; 1993, 18–20, 71–73; 2005b, 32. 74 The authority of the canonical Scripture is looked upon as “a commitment to a particular perspective, from which the reality of God is viewed,” but it is “not a claim of objective truth apart from the community of faith.” Childs 1970a, 102, 105–107; 1977a, 92; 1980a, 56. He

The Canonical Approach 81 Childs stresses that the authority of the canon in the Christian church must be closely tied to its unique witness to Jesus Christ, the Lord of the church, because God has never left his church without a truthful witness to himself. However, Childs neither regards the authority of the canon as equal to the belief in the authority of the Lord, nor does he hold up the canon as “an ecclesiastical 75 judgment” for “sanctioning a previously un-authoritative text.” Rather, the recognition of the authority of the canon can be appropriately exerted only for and within the community of faith. The problem is by what criterion can canonical intentionality be justified? For Childs, there is a historical continuity in describing the traditional linkage of canonical intentionality to apostolicity, because the evolution of the Christian church tradition could only have taken place in conformity with the normative apostolic witness. When the post-apostolic church struggled to maintain its apostolic witness in a pure form, the central concern naturally focused on the Christian understanding of the canon. Canonicity and canonical authorit became the determinative elements in describing the idea “the canon for the church” or “the canon with regula fidei.” The formation of the canon was already testified in the first century of the Christian era, and regula fidei was continuously spoken of by second and third 76 century Christian church fathers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian. Childs gives prominence to Irenaeus’ approach, which sought to present a comprehensive summary of the Christian faith in terms of the testimony of the Scripture as the 77 written form of the church’s rule of faith. This is consistent with Childs’s even uses very strong words to stress its significance. For example, once he said that “I would like to emphasize as strongly as possible” the seriousness of the Bible and its authority. Childs 1998a, 11. 75 Childs 1977a, 92; 1984a, 44; 1995a, 9. In the case of the interpretation of manna (Ex.16: 136), for instance, he confirms the significance of canonical witness and the canonical function of theological reflection. He believes that canonical witness can share “all the features common to human language in order to understand the testimony of the canonical writings, one must assume continuity between experience inside and outside the canon.” Therefore, “the area of common ground between the canonical witness and the extra-biblical extends to the content of ‘both’ in all its ‘aspects’ the canonical writings testify to God’s dealing with his people, but the witness is not purged of its human frailty. The canonical writings function as God’s vehicle specifically in its human form.” Childs 1974a, 301–303. 76 Childs in IOTS argues that “the early church of the second and third centuries through its spokesmen Irenaeus and Tertullian responded to Marcion’s challenge by appealing to the ‘rule of faith,’ which set the larger context from which individual portions of scripture were to be understood in relation to the sum of Christian oral tradition.” Childs 1979, 42. 77 Irenaeus’ approach is one of the important approaches that Childs seeks to adapt. Childs

82 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context canonical approach because it refers to the totality of the faith as the criterion of canonical interpretation. In the earliest period of the Christian church, regula fidei already provided an authorized oral formulation of the Christian faith which was not identical with the Scripture, because within the rule of faith the early church did not make a separation between the Christian apostolic oral tradition and the later written tradition; both were understood as being the 78 word of God. In this sense, Childs’s canonical intentionality accepts the criteria of apostolicity. Apostolicity was used as a decisive weapon to attack the Gnostics and other heretics in the early Christian church, which had received the apostolic oral and written traditions as authoritative for the community of faith. The concern of Christian theological orthodoxy could lead the early church to use regula fidei as a criterion for determining canonical books for the Christian church. When Childs stresses the criterion of apostolicity as a standard to measure the authority of the canon, he admits that the early church’s understanding of the canon, especially of the OT canon was not perfect. The early church’s understanding of the canon, according to Childs, had the following strengths. First, the church received the authority of the Jewish Scripture as a divine word. Second, the Jewish canon is placed within the framework of faith. And third, the relationship between Scripture and its author (God) as well as its addressee 79 (the church) was established. This seems to imply that apostolicity can be a criterion, but it is not the only one. In fact, there is common agreement that there is neither any absolute, certain criterion that can determine the Jewish Bible as the precise Christian OT thinks of Irenaeus’ attitude to Scripture as a classic early Christian understanding of biblical theology following traditional theological orthodoxy. Childs 1993, 30–32. Other important approaches can be learnt from Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin. Childs 1993, 33–52. 78 See Childs 1972a, 713; 1970a, 99, 105; 1979, 42–43; 1993, 30–33; 1994b, 323; 1998a, 5, 10; 2000a, 232; 2005a, 381. The italics are added. However, Childs points out that in the history of the Christian church’s development the rule of faith is not always properly maintained. For example, the issue of the canon and the community of faith touches on the old theological battle between Protestants and Catholics that fell under the rubric of word and tradition in the sixteenth century: on the side of Catholicism, they insisted on “the primacy of church tradition in forming the Bible,” but, on the side of Protestantism, they insisted on “the primacy of the word as the ultimate source of Scripture.” Childs 1993, 72; 1994b, 323; 1995a, 9–10; 2000a, 232; 2005a, 381. A similar discussion on the controversy between Protestantism and Catholicism can be seen in McGlasson 2006, 45. 79 Childs 1979, 42–43.

The Canonical Approach 83 canon, nor any single criterion that can establish the NT canon in the early Christian church. According to Lee M. McDonald, the early Christian church did not use a unified criterion to determine the contents of the biblical canon. The canonical process of the early Christian church did, however, follow several criteria; the criterion of apostolicity, which is central for Childs as well, was one 80 of them. The criterion of apostolicity was a means used by the early Christian church to guarantee the oral and written continuity of the apostolic witness to its faith in Jesus Christ. Apostolic authority behind the biblical canon was 80 The other five criteria are orthodoxy, antiquity, use, adaptability, and inspiration. The criterion of orthodoxy performed a significant role in the theological development of the early Christian church. Regula fidei at its heart was employed not only to determine which books could be used for and in the church, but also to operate a Christian theology which related to Christocentric biblical interpretation. According to this criterion, some writings which were not concerned about this theological focus were excluded. This criterion has been most widely accepted by the Christian church both in the canonical and theological tradition. The criterion of antiquity was significant in the canonical process. The early Christians believed that the NT books were the products of the apostolic era, thus they refused to recognize any writings which were written after the apostolic period; for example, the Shepherd of Hermas was not seen as Scripture because it was not written in the apostolic age. However, according to this criterion, it is difficult to explain the fact that some literature of the NT canon such as 2 Peter and the Pastorals could be written later than some non-canonical texts for example 1 Clement, 2 Clement, the Letters of Ignatius, Barnabas, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Martyrdom of Polycarp. Thus this criterion seems to be uncertain, imprecise, and insufficient for the purpose of justifying canonical credibility. The criterion of use means that the regular and widespread usage of the NT writings was characterized as a referable factor in determining how to select the books to be included in the canon for the Christian faith, worship, and ministry. However, the weakness of this criterion is that it is not able to make clear which canonical books were more important than others, or what canonical books were closer to non-canonical Christian writings. For example, some books in the NT canon such as Philemon, 2 Peter, Jude, 2 John, and 3 John were not used in the early church’s life, worship, and ritual as regularly as non-canonical texts such as 1 Clement, Barnabas, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Letters of Ignatius, and the Martyrdom of Polycarp. The criterion of adaptability means that Scripture was adaptable to the transforming context in the early Christian church. According to this criterion, some writings mentioned above became noncanonical not because they were not accepted but because they could not survive. The criterion of inspiration in the early church meant that the Bible was inspired by God. However, this criterion has never been dealt with properly because of its definitional difficulty and conceptual ambiguity. The early church fathers believed that the Scripture was inspired, but this belief could not provide a sufficient framework for determining the formation of the NT canon. With regard to these six criteria, McDonald points out that it is not correct to say that the early church used the same criteria to select their textual collections or that these criteria were used in equal measure, because the canonical process did not take place in the same historical moment and the same circumstances. McDonald 2007, 401–421.

84 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context traditionally important for understanding and interpreting the Holy Scripture of the early church. But here again we encounter a new problem: modern biblical exegesis does not see any absolute criterion for defining what is apostolic and what is not. For example, we cannot clearly know how much of the NT canon was actually written by the apostles, and some books had considerable 81 difficulty in entering the NT canon. McDonald’s suggestion implies a wide diversity of criteria for understanding how the Christian biblical canon came into existence. For Childs, however, the criterion of apostolicity is the most important, because he desires to define the canon with the aid of the regula fidei of the community of faith.

Reclaiming regula fidei in a Secularized Age Generally speaking, the concrete content of the regula fidei in Childs’s canonical approach refers to the wholeness of the Scripture. In other words, regula fidei for Childs implies the theological unity of the OT and the NT. It does not refer to any known dogmatic creed of the Christian church. The idea of combining the canon with regula fidei is for Childs a way of emphasizing the importance for the Christian church of understanding the Holy Scripture theologically and of using it boldly in the modern secularized age. Accepting the rule of faith as the norm of biblical interpretation simply means for Childs that the OT and the NT are received and used not only as a collection of ancient writings as such, but that the traditional theological interpretation attached to them is also accepted. The traditional theological interpretation can be found in and is inseparably connected with the wholeness of the faith of the Christian church. The modern American context is helpful for understanding why Childs is so devoted to the needs of the Christian church when interpreting the Bible. On the one hand, modern American culture is a product of the Enlightenment, 81 For example, the personality of some authors of the NT books are uncertain, for example, who are John and Matthew who composed the Gospels; did the apostle Peter write 1 Peter, or John 1-3 John; or did Paul write Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, and the Pastoral Epistles? Although, traditionally these were not problems, modern exegetical discussion on the issue of authorship is complicated. Again, the Gospel of Thomas, which was claimed as apostolic material by both the Gnostic Christians of the second century and the Donatists of the fourth century, was not recognized as canonical by the early church. Eusebius only accepted twenty or twenty-one books of our current NT canon, because he believed that 2 Peter, James, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation, and Hebrews should not be included. McDonald 2007, 406–408.

The Canonical Approach 85 thus it is no surprise to see that Childs has a deep historical-critical academic background in dealing with the interpretation of the Bible. On the other hand, as we have seen above, the Biblical Theology Movement (BTM) as a contemporary movement in American Protestantism really stirred Childs’s earlier theological thinking. He understands that the BTM was fighting for the needs of the Christian church both in its orientation and in its conscious 82 direction. Therefore he demands that biblical theology should care about the Christian church, or, more specifically, that the theological exegesis must take the church into consideration. He believes that biblical interpretation, strongly based on theological exegesis in the canonical context, is an effective and appropriate path for doing Christian theology in the Christian church. The theological task of biblical interpretation can only be fulfilled in the framework and on the presupposition of faith. Biblical exegesis in the framework of historical criticism has been treated as a critical historical science or a scientific exegesis, in which theology is seen as only one aspect of human understanding of reality. The emphasis of historical criticism on the historicity and the objectivity of the text in biblical exegesis is a failure to comprehend the theological meaning of the biblical texts. Therefore, Childs confirms his canonical approach as the discipline of the Christian church, which differs from historical criticism. For him, only a biblical interpretation based on the canon can protect exegetical activity as a discipline which is related with the Christian church in a meaningful way. He goes as far as demanding that the exegetical disciplines, including the historical-critical 83 method, must serve the Christian church’s theological task of proclamation. 82 Childs 1970a, 13. Some biblical critics such as James Barr, Childs’s strongest opponent, even sees the Bible and the church with its proclamation as the major concerns of the BTM. Barr argues that after WWII, “wide circles in the churches and in theology seemed to have agreed that the Bible was of absolutely central importance and that it could not be neglected without disaster to the church and to the faith of Christians,” and that “this movement was interested in the special character of the Bible, its difference from any other literature or system of thought, its relation to the church and its proclamation, the unity of the Bible and the relation of the OT to the New, and its place in the witness of the church.” Barr 1973, 1; 1983, 130–131. 83 He claims, for example, that OT theology “is essentially a Christian discipline,” or “a Christian enterprise,” or “a discipline of Christian theology,” because it “not only presents a fresh approach to the discipline by resolving many of the crucial methodological issues at stake, but also opens an avenue into the material in order to free the OT for a more powerful theological role within the life of the Christian church.” Childs 1986, 6–10. Other similar arguments can be seen in Childs 1984a, 53; 1964, 443; 1972a, 710; 1998c, 125.

86 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Facing the challenge of the secularization of biblical hermeneutics, Childs claims the Bible as the Scripture of the Christian church. One of the repeated views of his canonical program is to “take seriously the responsibility of” or to 84 “struggle for” interpreting the Bible as the Scripture of the church. Barr finds 85 that Childs borrowed these strong statements from Barthian rhetoric. For Childs, “the Bible as the Scripture of the church” means that the Bible is understood as a witness to God’s entrance into human history by way of incarnation. When the Bible is treated as Scripture, God’s gracious act of redemption of the world can be interpreted properly. He stresses the importance of understanding the Bible as the word of God. Christians read and listen to the Bible as Scripture with the intention of being transformed by the promise of the gospel. The Holy Scripture is rooted in the fact that it is seen as the Scripture of the Christian church, which includes the twofold witness of the OT and the NT. Childs thinks that “the Bible as the Scripture of the church” means “God’s 86 gift to the church and to the world.” 84 Childs 1970a, 143, 105–106. Except for BTC (1970), some similar descriptions directly appear in the titles of his works such as “Interpretation in Faith: the Theological responsibility of an OT Commentary” (1964); “The OT as the Scripture of the Church” (1972a); “The Exegetical Significance of Canon for the Study of the OT” (1978b); Introduction to the OT as Scripture (1979); NTCI (1984) and OTTCCI (1986); “On Reclaiming the Bible for Christian Theology” (1995); “Jesus Christ the Lord and the Scripture of the Church”(1998a); “The Nature of the Christian Bible: One Book, Two Testaments” (1998c); and Childs even gave a straightforward theological title to one of his latest works: The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture (2004). 85 Barr once said that “the very vocabulary used by Childs comes straight out of Barthian rhetoric: ‘struggle,’ ‘wrestle,’ ‘utterly,’ ‘grounded in,’ ‘at the very heart of,’ ‘Christologically,’ ‘hammered out.’” Barr 1999, 401–402. 86 See Childs 1993, 726; 1998a, 9. In an article “Interpreting the Bible amid Cultural Change” (1997), Childs even presents five points on “the Bible as the Scripture of the church.” “First, genuine rebirth in the history of the church has always been accompanied by a rediscovery of the central role of the Bible as the vehicle for encountering the living God; there has never been a serious form of Christianity that has divorced itself from scriptural authority. The Bible is the source of the church's life. Second, Scripture functions properly within the life of the church only if it is heard addressing issues of life and death—Scripture accrues its proper authority when it is read and celebrated in the community of the church. The Bible is the book of the church, but not in the erroneous sense that it belongs to the church; rather, when received as a divine gift to believers, the Bible becomes a guide for faith and practice. Especially, it provides the church with a critical theological norm against all our pretenses of piety and spirituality. Third, there is a family resemblance among the ways in which faithful response to the Bible occurs…Fourth, the Bible calls for faithful reflection, but it also demands faithful action. Fifth, built into the NT’s proclamation of the gospel is the promise

The Canonical Approach 87 Therefore, for Childs, the Bible ought to be read and listened to in relation with the church living under the rule of faith. He believes that his emphasis is in harmony with the traditional understanding of the Reformation. In his “Interpretation in Faith” (1964) Childs argues that the task of biblical theology in the canonical approach ought to be harmonious with the Reformatory understanding of the Bible, especially with the Reformers’ habit of reading the OT in order to hear the word of God. The task of exegesis is to “seek to hear the word of God, to this degree a commentary on the Bible had a normative 87 task.” What Childs learns from the Reformation is its starting point and theological position which are based upon the presupposition of the Christian faith, according to which both the OT and the NT witness the one purpose of God. The Holy Scripture is seen as a vehicle through which God has continuously spoken to his people. Thus a genuine theological interpretation of Scripture can be successfully carried out only when it begins from within an explicit framework of faith. The Christian church has confessed its faith in the divine origin of the sacred Scripture in a thoroughly time-conditioned history. Thus today’s church must continue to hear the voice of God through the canon, which includes both the OT and the NT. Then the church could bear witness to Scripture as the word of God. The church should seek new ways to understand and interpret the Bible as the authoritative Holy Scripture of the church. In this sense, without doubt, Childs’s view of theological exegesis for the church is obviously in harmony with the tradition of the Reformation. Childs also points out that the failure to interpret the Bible within the rule of faith has already caused tremendous confusion. Reaffirming the Bible as the Scripture of the Christian church must be based on recovering the theological significance of the Christian canon. His canonical approach not only protests against the overemphasis of historical-critical scholarship, but also pays more attention to the shape of the biblical canonical text. For Childs, one important way of understanding the biblical canonical text is to note how they functioned in a community of faith which still regarded the Bible as Holy Scripture. He looks upon canon, Scripture, church, and the Word as the basic theological exegetical factors that have been missing since the development of historical criticism. He believes that without a revival of these basic factors, “no truly of growth and fresh understanding. Change in the sense of growth in the knowledge of God is built into the Christian faith.” Childs 1997b, 209–210. 87 Childs 1964, 443, 437. A similar observation can be seen in Reventlow 1986, 7–9.

88 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context theological solution to reconcile the church’s Scripture with modernity can ever 88 be reached.”

Fides quae and fides qua There is another way of looking at Childs’s understanding of the rule of faith in creating biblical theology. A distinction must be made between the concepts fides quae creditur and fides qua creditur. Childs’s view of regula fidei refers to a Christian confessional reality which is not build upon philosophical, historical, or cultural insights, but upon the witness of the prophets and apostles within the Christian canon. For instance, Childs sees Gen.15:6 and Isa.7:9-10 as expressing both fides quae and fides qua. Fides quae (“faith which”) means the faith which is held by the Christian Church through revelation or sacred tradition. It is an objective dimension of faith. Fides qua (“faith by which”) means the faith by which a person believes in God, this is a subjective dimension of faith. For Childs, Abraham’s faith involves both fides qua and fides quae—a trust in God and a real belief in the divine promise as a true fact. He also feels that faith in Paul can be seen as an acceptance of the kerygma in a confessional sense. Paul is loyally devoted to the resurrected Christ as a fact of faith, thus Paul’s view of faith contains the elements of both fides quae creditur and fides qua creditur. Paul’s faith is not just a spiritual attitude but has a specific content which lies not on the believing act, but on that which is believed. Here, Childs is concerned with the relationship between the objective and subjective dimensions of faith (fides quae and fides qua) from a dogmatic theological perspective. He is well aware of the complexity of addressing the relationship between fides quae and fides qua. He argues that since the Reformation the relationship between fides quae and fides qua has continued to be a complicated issue. Luther and Calvin as the first generation of the Reformation were able to hold together 88 Childs 1995a, 5; 1998b, 61. Likewise, he argues that “if one affirms the Christian confession that Scripture has been given for the divine guidance of the church, then the nature of this role assigned to the Bible must be pondered.” In addition, he argues “by reviewing the history of the church’s biblical interpretation, we can derive new confidence in confessing with the creed: I believe in the one holy catholic and apostolic church.” Childs 2004, ix; 323. Here we are dealing with Childs’s views on such issues as “canon with regula fidei,” reading the Bible as Scripture of the church, and biblical exegesis for the Christian church. We will go further in discussing Childs’s points on “revelation,” “biblical inspiration,” and the Bible as the word of God in a later chapter.

The Canonical Approach 89 the two aspects of faith by allocating the subjective side of faith’s response to the work of the Holy Spirit, thus they resisted any humanistic philosophical interpretation. Later generations, however, were heavily influenced by the ever increasing controversy with Rome, by Pietism, and by the rationalism of the Enlightenment. The slogan “turn to the subject” attacked any endeavor “defining faith in terms of an objective content of beliefs and to construe it as a capacity of human consciousness.” This is why most modern Christian scholars 89 found it comfortable to place fides quae and fides qua into two different camps. Obviously, Childs does not agree with this separation between fides quae and fides qua in interpreting faith; instead, he prefers to flee from the influence of 90 the Enlightenment at this point. He appreciates Barthian neo-orthodoxy, which is closely connected to the tradition of the pre-critical era of the Reformation. In a word, his understanding of faith advocates the unity of fides quae and fides qua. Sticking to the unity of fides quae and fides qua, Childs’s view on the relationship between faith and reason becomes clear. A discussion on “faith and reason” can be seen in his article “Response to reviewers of IOTS” in 1980, when his canonical approach was criticized as irrational. He defended his position by referring to the Reformatory concept of norma normans: regula fidei is a built-in normative principle inside the canon itself, and this is exactly how 91 any canon can be seen as a set of authoritative Holy Scripture. His most important point was that he is doing Christian theology based on the Christian canon. Basic Christian beliefs are neither established upon history per se nor general philosophical insights but they rest on the witness of the prophets and apostles. Thus he denied that his rule of faith in relation to the canon is irrational; on the contrary, the use of canonical integrity is “not to be identified

89 Childs 1993, 614, 621. 90 Childs says that “Karl Barth has been successful in recovering the unity of faith…The immediate context of Barth’s treatment is his sharp rejection of the nineteenth-century liberal theological tradition respecting the subject of faith. Barth’s treatment stands closest to that of Calvin with the emphasis falling on the knowledge of its object, which is Christ, and in the power of the Spirit to call forth the response of faith to God’s redemptive work. Yet Calvin and Barth do not share the same historical context. It is hard to come away not feeling that the full unity of faith for today’s affirmation has remained elusive, and that much theological work remains to be done on this crucial subject.” See Childs 1993, 621. 91 See Childs 1980a, 55.

90 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context with literary, historical, or conceptual unity” but with “the effectiveness of the 92 literature to function coherently within a community of faith.” The role of the canon has its proper place and function only within the Christian church and as a vehicle for the community of faith. Classical theological debates in confessional theology concerning the relationship between faith and reason contain many unsolved problems. An emphasis on the canon has not been criticized as being irrational. For Childs the canonical emphasis is fully rational, but the canonical solution to see the true nature of the Bible is not analogical with the ways of thinking in modern philosophy or in Hellenistic philosophy. This defense sounds acceptable and can clear up at least some of the misunderstandings of Childs’s canonical approach by his opponents. As for theology, Childs is inclined to accept the view that the concerns of modern philosophy with faith and reason have little to do with Christian faith. Many philosophical debates have not touched deeply enough upon the concept of “faith,” they only focus on “reason.” Childs does not specify how he understands and defines the concept of “reason” or ratio; rather, he argues that the Bible has no direct message on the relationship between faith and reason. Childs insists that “all knowledge derives from faith,” and that “faith is closely joined to knowledge, wisdom, and general human experience”; so he allows at 93 least an indirect relationship. For him, the Christian never reaches a final state of pure knowledge, yet true faith must continue to grow into knowledge until the believer beholds directly God’s glory. In OTTCC he finds that “reason” is based on the rise of modern analytical philosophy and sociological analysis, but 94 their common issue is to deny revelation and regula fidei. Obviously, Childs does not deny the importance of reason when he upholds the significance of faith. His central task in the canonical approach is not to build Christian biblical theology on the foundation of reason or any philosophy but on the basis of Christian belief in the canonical authority. His emphasis on the canon connected with regula fidei is in no way irrational, because the integrity of the canon is maintained without calling into question 92 In 1980, when responding to his critical reviewers, Childs asked: “Does this mean that the relation to the canon is irrational and beyond the scope of all reasoned argument?” He answered: “Certainly not. The issue at stake is the classic theological problem of the proper relation of faith to reason. The testimony of faith and not reason establishes the canon.” Childs 1980a, 55–56; 1993, 724. 93 See Childs 1993, 610, 621. 94 See Childs 1986a, 20–26.

The Canonical Approach 91 the legitimacy of human reason in fields appropriate to the application of rationality. In other words, Childs’s theory is not rooted in a scientific method but in the rule of faith. Thus, looking for a philosophical interpretation of Scripture is no concern of his. It also needs to be noted that Childs treats the concept of regula fidei in a limited sense. For him it is the confessional basis for recognizing the idea of canonicity. He does not pay attention to the wider use of regula fidei as a principle dealing with a range of dogmatic content in Christian theology. The interpretive activity has been assigned to an exegetical task for the community of faith. The rule of faith, for Childs, plays a decisive role in illuminating the way for the biblical interpreter to hear what God says to the church and to Christians. He even stresses the role of an exegete “as a Christian theologian” or “as a 95 Christian interpreter.” If we only consider Childs’s view on the canon in terms of regula fidei, we can say that it is very important for a biblical exegete to stand with the tradition of the Christian church so that they may effectively understand and interpret the Bible for the community of faith. This idea, however, annoys biblical critics. For instance, John Barton calls for a “non-confessional” approach for a “non-Christian” in practicing a “non96 confessional exegesis.” Krister Stendahl sees the Bible as both classical literature and Holy Scripture. He argues that we live in a “society of biblical literature,” and the word biblical should include both the Bible as a classic and the Bible as Holy Scripture. Thus the responsibilities of biblical scholars and theologians should include both the task of giving readers of our time a meaningful explanation and giving “clear access to the original intentions which constitute 97 the baseline of any interpretation.” For Stendahl theological construction can be seen as an act of human self-understanding of the Bible, not as an interpretation for the community of faith or for the church alone. Stendahl’s 95 Some similar phrases such as “I stand in a community of faith,” “I belong to a community of faith,” “our Christian interpreters,” are to emphasize the basis of belief in doing Christian theology. See Childs 1969a, 20, 31; 1970a, 163; 1986a, 28–29; 2001, 4–5. 96 He once asked: “Is reading the Bible as the Bible different from reading the Bible? Is reading the Bible as a Christian different from reading the Bible?” And he even argues that “we should be allowed to read the Bible without a dogmatic framework.” Barton 2002, 89–91. 97 In defining his opinion on the Bible, he states that “it is quite clear that no original program was conceived within the problematic of the Bible as history/ the Bible as Holy Scripture. However, now I want to asses it within another duality: the Bible as a classic/the Bible as Holy Scripture. I use the word ‘classic’ to mean a piece of literature that is recognized as having a durable significance beyond its own time and place of origin.” Stendahl 1984b, 5–6, 9–10.

92 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context proposal that the Bible is both a classic piece of literature and Holy Scripture differs from Childs’s view that the Bible is the Scripture of the church. Stendahl’s idea of the dual value of the Bible is a continuation of the views of the German Kulturprotestantismus of the early twentieth century. Some biblical scholars who adopt a neutral position express their appreciation of Childs’s canonical approach, which has the intention of serving the community of faith. But they also keep their distance from Childs’s insistence on intent concentration on the principle of the canon. They doubt both its historical truthfulness and its operative possibilities. For example, Norman Whybray and Donald Carson feel that Childs’s canonical approach is praiseworthy; however, it is difficult to see how Childs could deal with it 98 successfully. Barr, McDonald, and Walter Brueggemann understand the necessity of Childs’s concern for the theological function of biblical interpretation, but find that Childs pays too much attention to the role of the 99 Christian church.

98 Whybray says that “Childs rightly deplores the gulf which exists between critical scholarship and the faith and practice of Christian (and Jewish) believers, and wishes to see it bridged; but his new method is likely to widen it.” Carson states that “canon criticism decides that the interpretation of the text within the biblical canon should be adopted as the guide to the church’s life and thought. Laudably, the result is at many points a biblical theology that is not only insightful but congruent with much of historic Christianity;” but its method still remains constrained. Whybray 1981, 29. Carson 1991, 62. 99 “The canonical approach has always claimed to speak for the church,” Barr complains. McDonald says, “we agree with Childs’s understanding that the role of biblical theology has been too limited to a ‘descriptive’ role without much focus on the ‘prescriptive’ nature of the Scripture as canon, but he is especially difficult to follow because he seems to presuppose the very ‘canonical intentionality’ of the ancient Christian church that he sets out to establish. He simply does not follow that intentionality of the ancient church as carefully as we believe he should.” Brueggemann says that “I myself am un-persuaded by a ‘canonical’ approach that knows an outcome to all of these matters that can be final, absolute, and not open to further examination and adjudication. In my estimation, such a reading is much too costly for the faith of the church.” Barr 1992, 141. McDonald 1995, 309. W. Brueggemann 2000, 237.

The Canonical Approach 93

The Canon as the Most Appropriate Context for Doing Biblical Theology The Canonical Context Throughout his career Childs maintained almost without change the idea that 100 the canon was the most appropriate context for doing biblical theology. The canon provides the comprehensive context for interpreting the Bible theologically. The most proper context for Childs refers to the biblical environment involved in interpretation. As a literary term, context denotes the parts of a composition that constitute the texture of the narrative. In a broader sense, the term context includes both the formal and the material elements of design that belong to a historical period. For example, the OT can be seen within the context of Ancient Near Eastern literature. Similarly, the NT can be analyzed as an example of Hellenistic literature that has appropriated and refashioned Jewish religious traditions in a particular way. Thus, Childs claims that the Christian canon is the most appropriate context for doing biblical theology, and that the primary task of biblical theology is “the disciplined 101 theological reflection of the Bible in the context of the canon.” In short, in Childs’s eyes, the Christian canon is not only a religious resource, but also implies a biblical hermeneutical method for doing Christian theology. The formulation that the canon is the most appropriate context for doing biblical theology implies that the basic Christian confession, according to which 100 The earliest claim perhaps can derive back to his Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (1967), in which Childs briefly mentions that the Christian canon can be seen as an appropriate theological context for biblical interpretation. See Childs 1967a, 127; 1969a, 28; 1970a, 97, 99–100; 1972a, 713–714; 1979, 82; 1984b, 68; 1993, 70–77, 91–94; 2002, 38–57, 75–80; 2004, 302; 2005a, 380–383. 101 Childs 1970a, 92, 99, 102, 122. In 1972, Childs presented three fundamental reasons for the modern Christian church to reaffirm the Christian canon as the proper context for understanding and interpreting the Scripture. First, he believes that the ancient church was right in confessing, in the formation of the canon, that “the Christian faith is tied to a particular historical witness.” Second, he believes that “the ancient church was right in testifying to the reality of a community of faith, the church, which formed the canon as a critical norm for preserving the truth of the Gospel to which it owes her existence.” Thirdly, he believes that “the ancient church was right in bearing witness in the formation of the canon that the Spirit of the resurrected Christ continues to make his will known to his church through the medium of Scripture, which is not merely a memorial to the past but the bearer of life for sustaining the future.” 1972a, 713–714.

94 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context the OT and NT together, or the whole canon, constitute the sacred Scripture for the Christian church. Doing biblical theology within the context of the canon must acknowledge the normative quality of the biblical tradition. Hermeneutically, asserting that the Christian canon is the most appropriate context for doing biblical theology means that the Christian Scripture must be interpreted in relation to its function within the community of faith. As we have seen, the Christian canon in Childs’s thinking refers to the received, collected, and interpreted material of the Christian church. Thus, this canon could effectively establish an appropriate theological context in which the tradition continues to function authoritatively today. In this sense, the Bible as the Scripture of the church already provides an essential and foundational feature for Christian biblical interpretation. For Childs, a canon that functions within the rule of faith can build “an authoritative context for the whole”—the canon is the correct context for all 102 biblical theology. Theologically speaking, Childs uses the canon as the context for interpreting the Scripture because the idea of the canon safeguards the understanding of Scripture as a vehicle of divine reality. To understand the canon as the context of biblical interpretation and theology means that “a theological context” enables a holistic use of both the OT and the NT. The theological integrity of biblical interpretation only functions within the context of the canon of Scripture. As for the OT, the importance of the canon as the context for doing OT theology requires that the OT canon offers a common text as the foundation for theological reflection. Childs believes that within the OT context the modern Christian interpreter can strive to discern how the time-conditioned Scripture bears witness to God. In the OT God is continually described as an agent of history who speaks and acts, who directs and communicates his will. The history of Israel reflects both “divine and human agency” from an inner and 103 outer dimension. As for the NT, accepting that the Christian canon is the most appropriate context for doing biblical theology requires that the whole NT 102 Childs 2004, 317. A similar statement can be seen in Childs 2005a, 383. “The effect of this canonical shaping was that a framework was given, often called a rule-of-faith within which the material was interpreted by and for the church. In other words, the biblical material in its larger structure has been rendered in a particular holistic fashion.” 103 The history of Israel is “construed within the OT as oscillating between the past, present, and future;” and the history of Israel is “depicted within the OT in terms of foreground and background.” Childs 1993, 100–101. Similarly see his earlier writings such as Childs 1970a, 100, 107; 1978b, 79; 1984a, 40.

The Canonical Approach 95 104

collection must remain the authoritative starting point for all exegesis. The formation of the NT canon did not only successfully perform its exegetical function for the early Christian church and for the church fathers, but it also effectively manifested the significant theological role of speaking of God’s 105 redemption in Jesus Christ.

The Wholeness of the Canon Obviously, Childs’s emphasis on the canon as the most appropriate context for doing biblical theology is based on his understanding of canonical wholeness, which aims not only to maintain and restore the authority of the Bible as Scripture, but also to protest against contemporary biblical interpreters who have divided the Bible into isolated pieces which have nothing to do with each other. He attempts to confirm the particular message of the Scripture in light of the canon’s unified entirety. When stressing the canon as a whole, Childs explains that his canonical approach is not a non-historical reading of the Bible and that he does not deny the historicity of the Scripture; on the contrary, the whole point of emphasizing the canon is to stress the historical nature of the 106 biblical witness. Childs understands that emphasizing the whole canon does not only mean maintaining the authoritativeness of the canonical texts, but also promoting a new path in Christian biblical theology in which the Bible can be 107 read and interpreted theologically.

104 Childs 1984a, 42. 105 He believes, for example, that the stories from and about Jesus were collected and formed into written Gospels within a thirty-year period during the first century. There is only one gospel, but it is witnessed by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The formation of a fourfold canonical corpus, at least by the middle of the second century, confirmed and established the Christian church’s confession that the reality of the one gospel found its authoritative form in a fourfold witness. Understanding and interpreting the stories of Jesus can only be attempted within this united canonical fourfold wholeness. Because the Christian canon lies at the center of understanding the form and functions of the Gospels, theological reflection can only be dealt with properly within the context of the canonical wholeness and authoritativeness of the fourfold gospel. In the same way, he stresses that the basic theological and hermeneutical issues concerning the diversity of the Gospels must be seriously addressed within the Christian canonical context. Childs 1998a, 5, 8–9; 1998b, 53. 106 See Childs 1974a, 300; 1979, 71; 1980a, 199–221. 107 Childs never stops stressing that theological issues are at stake in doing Christian biblical theology, thus he sees his canonical approach as a positive attempt to read and interpret the Bible theologically. See Childs 1970a, 91–122; 1979, 75–76, 88–89, 664; 1993, 63–68.

96 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Some biblical critics doubt the correctness of the idea of canonical wholeness. They believe that as no single canon can be uniquely and clearly defined, it is difficult to justify the emphasis on the entirety of the canon. Some even point out that such an emphasis on the canon as the most appropriate 108 context is itself “the most serious problem” and “the weakest” element in the program of the canonical approach. For example, in 1980 Barr criticized Childs’s view that the canon was the most appropriate context and denied the significance of canonical dominance in doing biblical theology. Barr argues that canon is “significant” but not “extremely important.” Especially, he insists that Childs’s judgment of the OT canon always seems to be “questionable,” because the canon is not even able to 109 tell us which text should be taken as the dominant one. Likewise, Robert P. Carroll believes that Childs’s canonical approach cannot become a trend in biblical studies because of “his deep particularity of the canonical 110 overemphasis.” And Paul R. Noble argues that Childs’s proposal works with 108 Murphy 1980, 44, 108. Some biblical scholars such as Harrelson argued in the early 1980s that “if he (Childs) believes that the application of the principle of interpretation of all books and sections in the light of canon do more than supplement currently available, then in my judgment he is mistaken.” Similarly, McEvenue says that there is some structure and some meaning to the canon as a whole. W. Brueggemann also stated that “I regard his so-called ‘canonical’ perspective as an impressive ‘imaginative construal,’ not made more authoritative because he terms it ‘canonical.’” Harrelson 1981, 103. McEvenue 1981, 238. W. Brueggemann 2000, 234. Murphy 1980, 44, 108. 109 Barr says, “the authority of the OT is not and never has been only the authority of the canon but also the authority of the events, traditions and persons from whom the Scripture emerged,” and he goes on to ask “what reason does Childs offer us why we should abandon them and adopt his in exchange?” Later he gives the following example: a law exists in different forms in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, but canon does not tell the reader which law should be accepted as the dominant one. Levenson agrees with this explanation, adding that “at least in the sense of the classical Jewish concept of the Mosaic corpus, the canon tells us that neither should be taken as the dominant one.” Childs, however, disagrees with Barr’s idea, and in the 1980s he argued that Barr misunderstood the canonical approach “as simply an extension of the old biblical theology movement.” Later in 2003, Childs himself mentions this criticism, but does not discuss it further. Barr 1980, 13–14, 19; 1983, 67. Barton 1984, 85. Levenson 1993, 77–78. Childs 1984b, 69; 2003, 173. 110 Carroll mentions at least three issues which are inevitably involved in discussions about the canon of Scripture: (1) the history of biblical interpretation and its concomitant issue, the validation of different types of interpretation, that is, the question of hermeneutics hermeneutics has always been a central issue in studying the Bible; (2) the rise of the secular university with its academic non-confessional approach to religion known as the history of religion or the phenomenological study of religion which does not assume the truth of the

The Canonical Approach 97 “an indispensable faith component” and seems to be very distinctive, but becomes controversial in terms of its actual function. Noble even feels that, when proposing his canonical emphasis, Childs “has not been able to give an 111 adequate account of how it actually functions.” For Childs, however, canonical wholeness is an absolutely necessary and positive prerequisite of biblical theology; he cannot admit that the idea of 112 canonicity could be “overemphasized.” He reminds the reader that his emphasis of the canon is based upon the traditional understanding concerning the early development of Christianity. The genesis of the canon was a much more complex historical, literary, and theological process and reality than biblical critics usually notice. Recognition of the whole canon is the basis for treating it as the most appropriate context for doing biblical theology. The canon must be accepted as a whole otherwise the idea of the canon becomes contradictory in itself. It is understandable that Childs’s canonical approach aims at establishing a possible theological context for doing Christian biblical theology. It is not difficult to accept Childs’s insistence on the wholeness of canon, if we bear in mind that his canonical approach is a Christian discipline. Though his canonical approach does not advocate a particular method or a special interpretive tool, it is concerned to restore a proper context and perspective for Christian theological biblical interpretation. Next we need to see how Childs’s idea of the entirety of the canon unites the OT and the NT into a single entity.

The Relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament The relationship between the OT and the NT is theoretically related to the three concepts analyzed above: the canonical final form, the canon with regula fidei, and the entirety of the canon as the most appropriate context for doing biblical theology. Throughout his works Childs deals with the question of the 113 relationship between the two Testaments. Christian religion and therefore the falsity of every other religion; and (3) the issue of the two canons; this means that cognizance has to be taken of Jewish and Christian common beliefs and distinctive epistemological frameworks. Carroll 1981, 76–77. 111 See Noble 1995, 26, 30. 112 For Childs, the idea, which biblical critics hold, that the theological importance of the canon has recently been overemphasized, is a gross misunderstanding. Childs 2005a, 380. 113 For instance, “Jonah” (1958); MROT (1960); “Interpretation in Faith” (1964); “Psalm 8”

98 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context

The Continuity of the Two Testaments To talk about the continuity of the two Testaments is no longer to debate the relationship between the Jewish canon and the Christian OT (see 3.1.2.), but to analyze the relationship between the OT and the NT in the one Christian Bible. In short, the continuity of the two Testaments involves questions about their historical and theological coherence. For Childs, both in the history of biblical canonization and in the theological tradition of Christianity, the canonical Christian Scripture has always been conceived of in relation to its two parts. Thus, the theological reflection of the Christian church has taken place with respect to the coherence of the Holy Scripture. The theological function of the Christian canon is based on the reception of the OT and on the apostolic faith, which then developed according to the needs of the early Christian church. In this sense, the genesis of the NT is neither rootless nor a simple extension of the OT. When analyzing Childs’s view of the continuity of the two Testaments, we need to pay attention to three issues. First, the continuity of the OT and the NT is based on the understanding of the unity of the whole Bible, which can also be described as “the integrity of the two Testaments” or as “the wholeness of the Christian Scripture.” Childs’s stress on the unity of the Bible is as important as his emphasis on the wholeness of the canon. One of Childs’s most direct claims concerning the unity of the Bible is that the Christian Bible is “one book, two Testaments.” This claim is as explicit and decisive as his announcement of “the one gospel in four witnesses,” which means that the four Gospels have been completely joined into one fourfold corpus and that the formation of this fourfold corpus establishes a context that both maintains the unique witness of each individual gospel and affirms the unity of the one gospel. Thus, for Childs, if a biblical interpreter wants to understand the unity of the Bible, it is important and necessary to understand the fact of the oneness of the biblical witness and to acknowledge Scripture’s simplicity, perspicuity, and wholeness. (1969); BTC (1970); “OT as Scripture of the Church” (1972); “A Tale of two Testaments” (1972); “Exegetical Significance of Canon for the Study of the OT” ( 1978); IOTS (1979); NTCI (1984); BTONT (1993); “On Reclaiming the Bible for Christian Theology” (1995); “Does the OT Witness to Jesus Christ” (1997); plus three essays in 1998: “Jesus Christ the Lord and the Scripture of the Church;” “The One Gospel in Four Witnesses;” and “The Nature of the Christian Bible: One Book, Two Testaments.” It must be said that Childs’s opinions on the relationship between the two Testaments are often repeated; many of them remained largely unchanged.

The Canonical Approach 99 The assertion of the unity of the two Testaments first appeared in 1958 in Childs’s “Prophecy and Fulfillment.” Its aim was to protest against the fact that historical criticism breaks the Bible into fragments and damages the continuity and unity of the two Testaments. For him, the prophetic word as “a quasiindependent activity” in the OT and its fulfillment in the NT cannot be “held independently of one another.” On the contrary, they “belong to the same 114 event.” Similarly, in BTC, when dealing with the question of the historical development of the Bible’s unity, and in referring to the various opinions of biblical critics, Childs critically remarks that the role of the Christian canon in creating and maintaining the unity of the Bible has been badly neglected by 115 historical criticism. Some biblical critics totally reject the idea of the unity of the Bible, because they see Childs’s emphasis on unity as a conservative reaction to critical scholarship. This key disagreement between Childs and his critics leads him to connect the principle of canonicity more strongly with the confession of the church recognizing the Holy Scripture. Concerning the unity of the Bible, Childs insists that the NT as Christian Scripture has never obliterated the OT, because the OT and the NT form an 116 unbroken continuity. He sticks firmly to his position according to which the NT and the OT together constitute the Christian Bible. Historically speaking, in the early church the Christian Scripture claimed that both the voice of Israel and the voice of the apostles composed a single narrative of God’s redemptive action spanning prophecy and fulfillment through the two Testaments. This 114 See Childs 1958a, 262–267, 270. Similarly in MROT he claims that theological reality is based on the Christian faith in the unity of the two Testaments; the OT would become theologically meaningless if it is isolated from the NT. Childs 1960a, 98, 105. 115 For instance, Richard Niebuhr’s use of the term “Christ-morphic;” Rowley’s “a unity without uniformity” and “a unity of the Divine revelation;” Muilenburg’s “unity of the divine purpose;” Dentan’s “a higher unity;” Eichrodt’s “a covenant-central unity;” von Rad’s “unity in diversity;” Bultmann”s demythologization; and some programs from the leading NT scholars Conzelmann, Cullmann, and Käsemann. Similarly in his IOTS, Childs criticizes the ignorance of canonical seriousness in von Rad’s OT Theology, when he states that “a major problem with von Rad’s OT Theology is that he has failed to deal with the canonical forces at work in the formation of the traditions into a collection of Scripture during the post-exilic period, but rather set up the NT’s relation to the Old in an analogy to his description of the pre-exilic growth of Hebrew tradition.” See Childs 1970a, 36–39, 66–70; 1979, 669. Levenson supports Childs on this point in his disagreement with von Rad. See Levenson 1993, 22–23. 116 The italics are added. From the perspective of the traditional relationship between Jews and Christians, “the two Testaments are neither fused nor separated.” See Childs 1993, 76; 1997a, 58; 1998a, 11.

100 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context unity of the Christian Bible as Scripture has never been undermined in the history of theological interpretation of the Bible. Second, we need to pay attention to how Childs’s formulation of the continuity of the two Testaments can be characterized as the usage of the NT of the OT. Childs employs expressions such as “the NT’s use of the OT,” “how the NT understands the OT,” “the use of the OT quotations in the NT,” “the OT in the NT,” and “the NT uses the OT materials.” What does really “the usage of the OT in the NT” really mean? Let us take some examples to answer this question. In BTC Childs presents an interesting topic: “The God of Israel and the Church” to analyze the continuity of the two Testaments taking the doctrine of God as an example. He advocates the idea of “the OT in the NT,” arguing that a set of the OT texts function within the NT in an unbroken continuity with their original meaning in the OT. For example, the identity of the God of the NT is the same as the God of the OT. The witness of the OT to God functions in the Christian church as part of the proclamation of the divine promise and divine judgment. The affirmation of the righteous God in the OT serves as a basic exhortation for Christian moral action. In sum, Childs sees that the use of OT quotations referring to God by the NT’s writers shows an unbroken sense of continuity between the God of Israel and the God worshiped by Christians. Then he says that a set of OT texts function within the NT to maintain continuity between the Old Covenant and NT Christology. Faith in God in the OT is cited explicitly to establish faith in Jesus Christ. The OT is repeatedly used in the NT to explain God’s relation to Jesus Christ. And Jesus assumes the titles of God by explicit reference to the OT; likewise, Jesus shares or fully assumes the functions of the God of the OT for the Christian church. Therefore the NT writers see no tension between the OT understanding of God and their own understanding of Jesus Christ, but 117 explicitly make use of the OT to formulate their Christian confessions. Other typical examples are the NT use of the OT books of Isaiah and of Psalms, especially in the Gospels. Childs says that the Greek NT of the United Bible Society shows that there are more than four hundred quotations, 117 He also argues that “there are a variety of NT passages that attempt to defend the continuity between Christ and the God of the OT, but without the explicit use of quotations.” He believes that “the NT confronts the various attacks, which seek to sever the Christian witness to Jesus Christ from the OT understanding of God by confessing a dynamic unity, both in terms of person and work, between God and Christ, which admits of no dissolution.” See Childs 1970a, 207, 209.

The Canonical Approach 101 paraphrases, or allusions to the book of Isaiah in the NT. The NT usage of Isaiah “varies greatly in terms of context, literary technique, and theological 118 function,” Childs says. Some important theological topics show up clearly: the fulfillment of God’s eschatological promise of salvation; the identity of Jesus as Messiah, Savior, and Lord; the suffering servant; the righteousness of God; the inclusion of the Gentiles; divine reconciliation and restoration; and God’s final victory. Likewise, the NT usage of Psalm 8, which appears in Matt.21:16; 1 Cor.15:27; Eph.1:22; Heb.2:6, is an extremely important bridge between the OT and the NT. Childs pays considerable attention in describing the 119 theological significance of Psalm 8 in the NT. Again, each of the four Gospels 120 individually makes explicit references to the OT. For Childs, “the usage of the OT in the NT” concerning the continuity of the two Testaments is decisive, because it provides a warrant for Christian development, especially for accessing 121 Christian canonical wholeness. More importantly, Childs confidently stresses the theological and hermeneutical significance of the use of the OT in the NT, when he states that although the NT’s use of the OT cannot always resolve all the issues of biblical theology, it can at least provide a serious precedent for 122 further hermeneutical and theological reflections.

118 See Childs 1967a, 136; 2004, 5. 119 See Childs 1969a, 20–31; 1970a, 151–163. 120 Childs argues that “the influence of the OT on the individual shaping of the Gospels belongs to the level of the NT compositional history and cannot be directly related to the formation of the Christian Bible qua collection.” Therefore, the use of the OT in the principle of “one gospel in four witnesses” plays a significant role in the canonization of each of the Gospels. Childs 1993, 76. 121 Though the NT’s use of the OT is “limited to only a portion of the OT,” it “reflects a great diversity in approach which includes examples of serious exegesis and also examples of merely incidental and even curious application.” Again, he considers the use of the OT quotations in the NT as “one important approach of biblical theology in seeking to take seriously the context of the whole canon.” See Childs 1970a, 106, 116–118. 122 Childs 1997a, 60. Childs defines ontology as “substance” in a theological reality. His understanding of ontology is basically consistent with classic Christian theological terminology. But he believes that there is a distinction between the economic Trinity, which means the revelation of God in the continuum of Israel’s history, and the immanent Trinity, which means the ontological manifestation of the Triune deity and manifests God’s existence in eternity. For example, concerning the interpretation of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 in relation to the passion and death of Jesus Christ from the perspective of Christian theology, Childs sees the morphological fit between the narrative of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 and the passion of Jesus Christ, both of which manifest the same subject matter within the

102 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context The third issue we need to raise about the continuity of the two Testaments concerns the idea of reading the two Testaments in the light of each other. This interesting formulation appears first in 1964 in Childs’s “Interpretation in Faith,” by which he indicates that the exegete interprets the OT in the light of 123 the NT, and understands the NT in the light of the Old. This hermeneutical principle resembles that of the Protestant Reformation, which highlighted the rule of interpreting Scripture by Scripture (scriptura sui ipsius interpres). When Childs mentions this rule in his early writings he regards it as “a consciousness 124 of canon” in “an analogy of faith.” We must admit that the influence of the Reformation on Childs’s view of “reading the two Testaments in the light of each other” is obvious. Some very concrete implications of that can also be drawn from his BTC. For Childs, reading the NT in the light of the OT has a Christological orientation. Childs suggests that the OT’s witness to the God of Israel provides the matrix in which the Christological statements of the NT were formed. The OT’s witness to God is the context in which one can understand the NT interpretation of God’s work in Christ. The OT’s witness can continue to provide the primary basis for comprehending the dimensions of God’s essence, his will, and his purpose, all of which are sustained and reiterated in the NT. What then does it mean to read the OT in the light of the NT? Childs suggests that the NT can testify to the historical failure of Israel in its response to the will of God. The witness of the NT to Jesus Christ can provide the basic and proper context through which the tensions within the OT’s witness to God can be properly understood. In Childs’s understanding, the witness of the NT to Jesus Christ can powerfully guard the OT from distortions of the whole context. Comparing “reading the NT in the light of the OT” with “reading the OT in the light of the New,” he admits that though they are in the same 125 canonical context, the former is more obvious than the latter. However, the one divine economy. This is, ontologically, an analogical interpretation: although Isaiah 53 has a continuous function as a prophecy of Israel’s history, it can also be bracketed within the eschatological framework of an unfolding divine economy theologically; perhaps, this is why Childs thinks that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is connected to Jesus Christ ontologically. See Childs 1993, 617; 2001, 422–423. 123 Childs 1964, 440. Also see 1969a, 30–31; 1970a, 162-163. 124 See Childs 1970a, 36, 109–110; 1972b, 57. I have dealt with canonical consciousness or canonical intentionality in an earlier section of this chapter. 125 He argues that “while an interpretation of the NT in the light of the OT background can be readily defended because of the historical dependence of the New on the Old, the reverse move, namely, an interpretation of the Old in the light of the New, is not at all obvious.”

The Canonical Approach 103 Scripture is the pointer to God himself, and the God of the Bible is not a theological system but the living and acting Lord. The correct knowledge of God is received in faith and obedience. Therefore, Childs emphasizes that it is necessary for a Christian interpreter to learn to use “the language of faith” in reading and interpreting the Bible. In addition, Childs formulates a rule for describing the relationship between the two discrete voices, namely, the model of promise and fulfillment. The usage of this model first appeared in 1958 in his “Prophecy and Fulfillment.” Here he examines the problem of how contemporary hermeneutics is related to this subject, and that there is a necessary and reasonable connection between the prophecy of the OT and the fulfillment of the NT. He believes that both the OT prophets and the NT evangelists and 126 apostles are witness to Jesus Christ. Childs claims that the Christian Bible consists of the OT and the NT. The OT bears its witness as the Old, which remains distinct from the New, its basic message being promise, not fulfillment. In the same way, the NT witnesses the New, which remains in continuity with the Old, the NT being fulfillment because of its subject matter Jesus Christ, who is the heart of the fulfilled promise. The OT testifies in terms of prophecy, and the NT in terms of fulfillment, but both Testaments speak of the eschatological purpose of God. Therefore, each witness “has its particular function within the one divine economy, in the scheme of prophecy and fulfillment,” because early Christianity “awarded a privileged status to both the 127 OT and the NT, to the OT prophets and to the NT evangelists.”

The Two Testaments as Discrete Voices When Childs emphasizes the continuity between the two Testaments, he does not deny the diversity of the two. Rather, he advocates the idea that the two Testaments each have their own discrete voices. Christian biblical theology Childs 1970a, 109, 217–219. 126 Childs 1958a, 259–271.This opinion has appeared throughout his writings; for example, Childs 1970a, 201–222; 1972a, 709–722; 1978a, 46–55; 1978b, 66–80; IOTS; NTCI; OTTCC; 1993, 55–90; 1995a, 1–17; 1996, 362–377; 1997a, 57–64; 1998a, 1–12; 1998b, 55–60; 1998c, 115–125; 2002, 56–74; 2004, 312. We will deal with this in detail in a later chapter concerned with Childs’s concentration on Christology. 127 Childs 1993, 77; 1998a, 6; 2004, 312. Traditionally, the model of prophecy and fulfillment is seen as “an adequate model of the relationship between the Testaments” though it still remains questionable. Bauckham 1994, 248.

104 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context should establish a proper theological, dialectical relationship between the two 128 Testaments, seeing both the unity and the discrepancy of the two. For Childs’s canonical program it is, of course, essential to keep up the principle of the continuity and unity of the two Testaments, but, being trained as an exegete, he cannot deny the differences between the OT and the NT. He points out that “the NT witness stands in both critical continuity and discontinuity with the OT,” thus “one cannot jump directly from the OT to the New without careful attention to the cultural and theological developments 129 which separate the two Testaments.” Childs claims that in exegetical history, both classical Judaism and the early Christian church approached the OT within the context of a system; namely, for Judaism it was the tradition of the 130 Synagogue, for Christianity it was the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ. As we have seen, Childs strongly emphasizes that the early Christian church inherited the canon of the Jewish Holy Scripture as such. It is obvious that he tends to overlook some elements of discontinuity in the historical material and in theological interpretation; there are many problems of discontinuity, which 131 remain unresolved. Childs, however, insists that no sharp discrepancy between the two Testaments exists; in general, the continuity of the two Testaments is overwhelmingly more important than any discontinuity. While emphasizing the unbroken continuity of the two Testaments, Childs advocates the idea of a dialectical relationship between the OT and the NT. This 128 When dealing with the relationship between the Jewish canon and the Christian OT in ch. 3.1.2., we have seen, that Childs suggests maintaining “a delicate balance between the elements of continuity and discontinuity,” since “the form of the Christian Bible as an Old and New Testament lays claim upon the whole Scripture as the authoritative witness to God’s purpose in Jesus Christ for the church and the world.” Childs 1979, 670–671. 129 See Childs 1993, 578. Similar statements can be seen in Childs 1998c, 117; 2004, 5–8. The most typical example of discontinuity between the OT and the NT is whether Christology appears in the OT or not. Childs agrees with Christological concentration, but this view is accompanied by a considerable amount of controversy. We will discuss this in ch. 5.3. 130 Childs 1967a, 126–127. He also says that “the direction by which OT tradition was received into the New was not always in an unbroken continuity from Old to New. The idea of a people of God did not form an initial part of Paul’s missionary preaching, but arose somewhat later within a polemical context with Judaism.” Childs 1993, 443. 131 Levenson, for example, argues that “for the normative theological task a choice must be made: does the canonical context of the Abraham story include the Abraham material in Galatians and Romans or not? For Christians it must; for Jews it must not. May commentators rest from their labors without having correlated the written text with its classical and medieval rabbinic expositions? Christians may and almost always do; Jews may not.” Levenson 1993, 81.

The Canonical Approach 105 means that the two Testaments are “neither to be fused nor separated, but heard 132 together,” and they are not “subordinated” to each other. Each Testament is independently placed within a discrete historical and literary sequence and thus each Testament as a discrete voice could retain its own integrity. That the two Testaments are connected as Old and New does not destroy the integrity of each individual Testament, and they cannot be separated because of their historical and literary connection in the canonical collections. As we have mentioned before, Childs stresses that the unity of the Bible does not mean that the OT should be Christianized; on the contrary, the OT 133 should be seen as a discrete voice according to its true historical context. In order to hear the voice of the witness of the OT in its own right, Childs suggests interpreting each passage within its comprehensive canonical context. For him, the narratives of the OT and NT are integral parts of the one and the same theological reality. In Christian biblical theology, any interpretation of one of the narratives is influenced by the other. A reader or an interpreter needs the whole story, not just parts of the whole reality. The theological criterion for understanding the narratives of the OT is neither literary nor aesthetic judgment but its truthful content. Historically, Childs’s insistence, that the discrete voice of the OT must be heard in its own integrity and in its own right, basically follows the demand of historical-critical scholarship that the OT be understood in its own right. Methodologically, however, his formulation seems to be different. For him, the OT can be understood as a discrete voice in its own right because of its new context within the larger Christian Bible; in other words, the OT’s discrete 134 voice should be heard in concert with that of the NT. 132 Childs’s description of the dialectical relationship between the Testaments in general follows Augustine’s vision that the two Testaments are “separate, yet undivided. Two voices, yet the sound is similar. An old word pointing to the new, yet the new is only known in the old.” Childs 1993, 70–73, 719; 1995a, 13–14; 1998a, 5–6; 1998b, 115; 1998c, 115–125; 2004, 312. 133 In OTTCC and BTONT Childs points out that the true task of biblical theology is not to Christianize the OT, nor to correct the OT. He even states that it is “incumbent on the responsible interpreter” not to Christianize the OT, but to do justice to the discrete voice of the OT. See Childs 1986a, 9; 1993, 367, 591; 1997a, 58, 61; 1998c, 116. Some similar arguments can be seen in his early writings such as Childs 1967a, 127; 1970a, 37. 134 Though the OT’s own Jewish voice was never altered by the coming of Jesus Christ, Childs believes that it was this very Jewish voice that bore witness to the gospel. Thus, his canonical approach must be rooted in acknowledging the OT’s own discrete voice in its own right. See Childs 1995a, 13.

106 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Childs also sees the NT as a discrete voice. He argues that the NT makes its own witness, because the NT is neither “an extension of the OT” nor “the last chapter in an epic tale,” but “tells its own story of the new redemptive intervention of God in Jesus Christ.” Childs repeatedly asserts that the aim of 135 the NT is not to “Christianize the OT.” The voice of the OT witness to Christ can be testified and heard in its original or literal sense on different levels. For example, the description of “the One Gospel in Four Witnesses” can be seen as a model expression. Childs claims that each Gospel is a discrete and different witness to Jesus Christ, but theologically, the good news of God, evangelion, is one reality contained in all four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. All of the evangelists testify to the lordship of Christ, all of them are concerned with providing later hearers and readers access to Jesus Christ. They, however, formulate their testimonies in very different ways. When each discrete voice, the OT and the NT, maintains its own characteristics, they both bear witness to the one purpose of “the Divine 136 revelation.” Biblical theology should seek an analogy between the revelation of God in the OT and the revelation of God in Jesus Christ in the NT. They are not two separate revelations of God, but one continuous revelation of the same God in two discrete voices. This means that doing biblical theology must be rooted in the subtle canonical relationship of the two Testaments within the one Christian Bible. This rule is most determinative for Childs’s canonical approach. The relationship between the two Testaments forms the unity of Scripture in its diverse transmissions, this unity being based on the continuity of divine revelation and its message. When Childs stresses that the early church inherited the Jewish canon, which then became its own, he denies that the OT might have been Christianized. We could ask Childs: When the early Christians read the OT, did they still read the Jewish canon? And in so doing, did they need to stress the continuity of the two communities? The fact is that the Jewish canon was founded by a community of faith in the process of shaping its religious life and 135 See Childs 1979, 666, 671; 1986a, 9; 1993, 78, 616; 1998b, 53, 61. 136 In his “Interpretation in Faith” of 1964 Childs already advocated this important idea, arguing that “both Testaments witness independently together to the one purpose of God,” and the biblical exegete ought to understand “the one purpose of God by hearing the dual witness of the Old and New Testaments.” Childs 1964, 441. Similarly see Childs 1993, 78; 2004, 310. We have seen that Childs’s understanding of revelation is not a conceptive definition, but refers to the historical events of revelation in OT’s Israel experience which is continuous with the NT’s church. See Childs 1979, 60, 71.

The Canonical Approach 107 identity. The early Christian church accepted the Jewish canon as its own canon when building up its faith and its ministry. For this reason, most biblical scholars believe that the completion of the OT canon was accelerated by the 137 influence of Christianity. At this point, Childs appears to contradict himself. It is difficult to understand precisely why he stresses that the OT has its own right and its own discrete voice, whilst at the same time arguing that the OT’s discrete voice can only be heard properly in concert with the NT. Childs prefers to emphasize the continuity of the two Testaments over and against the idea of their discontinuity. He gives little space in his arguments to discussing the discontinuity of the two Testaments.

Summary: One Possibility among Others In this chapter, we have identified some very deep controversies between Childs and modern biblical critics. Childs did not win the debate on the canon. So, where can we locate Childs’s understanding of the canon? Childs does not distinguish between the concept of the canon and the concept of Scripture, but many other scholars think of them as two separate concepts. Childs considers the Masoretic text as a norm for determining the OT canon, others offer a more flexible view about the boundaries of the canon. Childs insists that the early Christian church received the Jewish canon as its own canon, but most biblical scholars believe that there was no Jewish canon in Jesus’s time at all. The early church did not take over a fully completed canon from the synagogue, because 138 some books of the Jewish canon were not yet to be taken over. The Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Septuagint, LXX) appeared near Alexandria, in Egypt, at about the middle of the third century B.C. At first only the Pentateuch was translated, with the rest of the OT books, and even

137 For example, Barr argues that the word canon is a Christian term; furthermore it is a rather late Christian term, not found until about the fourth or fifth century A.D. Similarly, Vawter feels that the Bible was first produced by the very peoples, and later it was accepted as canon. Foruberg says that “the concept ‘canon’ historically has nothing to do with the earliest layers of an OT and NT text. It is a much later concept, stating that the (universal) church recognizes a certain collection of texts in their present shape as the normative word of God.” Barr 1983, 49–51. Vawter 1972, 1. Foruberg 1986, 49. McDonald & Porter 2000, 602–603. McDonald 2007, 218-219. 138 Karl Rahner denies that the OT canonical process was finished in the pre-Christian period arguing instead that the early Christian church “did not take over from the synagogue a ready-made and as such binding canon.” Quoted from McDonald 2007, 218.

108 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context many apocryphal texts, were gradually being translated at a later date. The core of the Jewish canon consisted of a collection of twenty-two books, which were gathered together between A.D. 90 and A.D. 400. The collection was gradually stabilized as the biblical canon of Judaism. The discovery of Qumran (in 1947), however, made a great contribution to understanding the biblical canon, both for the Jews and the Christians. According to McDonald’s current report, the manuscripts found at Qumran include both biblical and non-biblical items. Of the Hebrew biblical items, 40% belong to the Pentateuch, the rest belong to the Psalms and the Prophets. As for the non-biblical items, there are 650 scrolls including rules and regulations, poetic and wisdom literature texts, some 139 rewritten scriptures, some commentaries, and miscellaneous other writings. The Qumran community might have had the same biblical canon as those in the second century rabbinic religious tradition had, but the number of nonbiblical texts is higher than that of OT text. Some modern scholars suggest that, whilst upholding the priority of the canon, it would not be right to deny the significance of the Apocrypha. Whereas Childs stresses the principle of “taking canon seriously,” some have 140 coined the slogan “taking the Apocrypha seriously.” Childs’s viewpoint of the canon is one aspect in the modern discussion of the canon, and is characterized in particular by its emphasis on canonical biblical theology in the service of the Christian church. The essential point of Childs’s canonical approach is to claim a canonical exegetical context from which the church seeks to understand the biblical 139 The full range of Qumran literature includes the following texts: OT texts, sectarian scripture, biblical commentaries, Jewish apocryphal and pseudepigraphic writings. McDonald 2007, 127–135. McDonald & Porter 2000, 634–638. 140 Harrington, for example, points out that “the history of the OT Apocrypha’s inclusion in and exclusion from the Christian OT is indeed complicated. The historical evidence is not adequate to justify the conclusion that the Apocrypha were always part of the Christian OT. Neither does it prove that they were never part of the Christian canon...To this day, it remains an obstacle to Christian unity.” Then he also presents three contributions, or three levels of contribution, made by the Apocrypha: the first is a literary contribution, which refers to the fact that “the books of the Apocrypha add considerably to the inventory of literary genres and techniques present in biblical literature (e.g. 1 Esdras, 1–3 Maccabees). The second level of contribution is historical. He believes that “many of the Apocrypha are best interpreted as historical novels, especially Tobit, Judith, Esther, and 3 Maccabees.” The final level is in theology. Harrington argues that the Apocrypha have made a great theological contribution to biblical theological exegesis. As examples he refers to themes such as the doctrine of God, suffering, and wisdom (e.g., Judith, 3 Maccabees, Tobit). Harrington 2004, 206–210.

The Canonical Approach 109 message as a whole. It aims to establish the best theological context by taking the Christian canon seriously. As a discipline of the Christian church, theological exegesis must be practiced in the context of the canon. His canonical approach does not seek to attribute to the biblical witness a quality of objective historicity 141 outside the community of faith. His canonical approach is an explicit attempt to develop a new way of working within canonical categories. All theological use of historical referentiality in the canonical approach is closely devoted to the canonical text. His canonical approach deals with the interpretation of the Bible within an established canonical context, in which the hermeneutical function of the canon can function dynamically. Childs claims that the Reformers of the sixteenth century form the foundation of his canonical viewpoint on 142 Scripture. Scripture as the vehicle of God’s truth for guiding the believing community is another confessional point in his canonical approach. It is obvious that Childs’s view of the canon is a Protestant one. This means not only that his definition of the canon exists within the framework of Protestant Christianity, but also that he mainly understands biblical theology as the Christian theological enterprise proper. Moreover, the criterion Childs follows to make his canonical concept reasonable is based upon the concept of apostolicity and he sets up his own canonical biblical theology by employing the 143 idea of regula fidei. His views on canonical reality are not always sufficient and they need further discussion. 141 Though Childs accepts the historicity of the Bible, he does not suggest that the biblical witness arose simply as a projection of human imagination. Rather, he believes that God has revealed his will in concrete manifestations by the biblical canonical witnesses. Childs 1974a, 300; 1970a, 105; 1978a, 55; 1979, 71; 1986a, 13–14. 142 See Childs 1993, 43–46, 47–50. He attempts to seek theoretical support both from John Calvin and Martin Luther. With regard to Calvin, Childs is not only interested in his hermeneutical view but also in his opinion on the relationships between exegesis and theology. However, the most important lesson Childs has learned from Calvin is his scripturalism. Levenson sees Childs’s view on the Scripture as a revision of Calvinist scripturalism, but he feels that “Luther’s variety of sola scriptura opposes the Roman Catholic notion of tradition as an independent source of revelation; it does not vest Scripture uniformly with divine authority.” Childs does not care about this point. Barton also criticizes Childs’s agreement with Luther’s Reformation scriptural position, pointing out that the only criterion of canonicity in Lutheranism is extended in a given authoritative text in order to bear witness to Christ. Thus in nature, scriptural canonicity aims to read each book of the OT or NT “on its own terms without regard to its canonical context, and to decide whether its plain sense is compatible with the Christian gospel.” Barton 1984, 94. Levenson 1993, 73, 122. 143 The concept of regula fidei has been dealt with in considerable detail in this chapter.

110 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Canonical intentionality and regula fidei, however, are the heart of Childs’s canonical approach. In general, Childs’s understanding of the canon can be located within the framework of the principle of “faith seeking understanding,” which is treated as a particular theological approach and rooted in the acknowledgment of the canon. “Canonical” means “confessional” for the Christian church. In the modern discussion on the canon, Childs’s understanding of the canon can be described as one possibility among others.

Christological concentration is at the heart of Childs’s canonical theological exegesis; for him, Christian biblical theology must be Christocentric. Childs’s Christocentrism will be presented in a later chapter. Of the other four criteria, Childs does not pay attention to either Antiquity or Use. The criterion of Inspiration is also left out of his approach: we will explain this in ch. 5. The criterion of Adaptability has often been used by Sanders, albeit in a different way to Childs, and we will discuss this difference between Childs’s canonical approach and Sanders’s canonical criticism in ch. 4.

CHAPTER 4

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism The rise of historical criticism began in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and became dominant in biblical studies by the end of the nineteenth century. History-oriented Enlightenment biblical scholars and theologians were increasingly interested in researching the Hebrew Scriptures, the sources of the NT, and other ancient Jewish traditions as well as early Christian antiquity. Apart from methodological studies of biblical hermeneutics, biblical scholarship was also interested in the study of biblical culture, politics, history, and society, which were looked upon as the backgrounds of biblical literature. Free investigation of the Bible became popular. OT studies in the West in the 1 twentieth century were largely and resolutely “the child of the Enlightenment.” In the early twentieth century, especially after WWI, in the U.S.A., biblical scholars started using more diverse critical methodologies; historical criticism in 2 this period mainly consisted of source criticism and form criticism. Source criticism refers to the attempt to build the sources used by the author or redactor of the biblical final text. Form criticism seeks to discover the type of biblical literature. After WWII, especially from the1940s to the1960s, both biblical archaeology and the biblical theology movement became popular and fashionable. The period since 1945 is seen as an extraordinarily active period in 3 archaeology related to biblical studies.

1 2 3

Provan 1997, 22. Sheppard 1991, 450. As we have seen, some new discoveries of archaeology such as Nag Hammadi in 1945 and Qumran in 1947 opened up new avenues for understanding the antiquity of biblical texts. Childs says that “the study of the Qumran material broke open the biblical field in many different directions. It provided new evidence for tracing the historical contexts of the Hebrew and Greek textual traditions and demonstrated the enormous diversity, fluidity, and scope of biblical texts.” See Childs 2005b, 27, 29. Knight & Tucker 1985, xiv.

112 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context From the perspective of biblical theology, Childs sees the era between the 4 1930s and the1960s as “a golden age” of OT theology. Childs sees the demise of the BTM as a major force in American theology in the early 1960s and 5 claims that the death of the American BTM took place in 1963. In chapter 2.2.1., we saw that although Childs was not a direct participant of the BTM, he was a witness to this movement. Historical-critical biblical research was seen as an earthly or secular realm; the heavenly, or sacred, realm on the other hand was 6 the preserve of those doing biblical theology for the church. Along with the BTM, disputes between conservatism and liberalism also became vigorous. At this point, Childs’s BTC can be seen as a historical delineation of the BTM in modern America, and he thinks that the BTM made a contribution in pointing out the excesses and omissions of the previous forms of biblical theological scholarship. However, it was unable to save the enterprise of biblical theology from its death. Thus Childs began to seek a new path, which would allow biblical theology to continue as a discipline. From1970 this became the main mission of his canonical approach to biblical theology. The canon and the canonical context became his choice for doing biblical theology. Therefore, it is not surprising to see that he became dissatisfied with historical criticism. Before the rise of biblical theology, the historical-critical method in biblical studies in general had not been criticized much. Historical criticism in biblical 7 studies started to be criticized only in the late 1950s and early 1960s. From the 1970s, Childs became one of the main critics of the historical-critical method.

4 5

6 7

Childs 1986a, 4; 1996, 363. See Childs 1970a, 13, 31; 1995a, 3. Barton 1984, 211. Brett 1991, 1–2. Hasel 2006. Scobie 2003, 24. Moreover, Kraftchick gives some “good reasons” for remembering this period of the BTM in biblical studies. First, the BTM is “best considered as a protest against an overspecialization within the field of biblical studies and against the dominance of dogmatic theology.” Second, the devastating criticisms of the assumptions and methods of the Movement could prompt biblical theologians to create some new attempts in biblical studies. Third, it is necessary to review the situation that prompted biblical theologians to make these moves. Finally, “the Movement opened the question of locating one’s scholarship with regard to conversations outside of those held by other biblical scholars.” Kraftchick 1995, 73–77. See Provan 1997, 3. House 2002, 268–269. Barton argues that historical criticism “had been justified as intrinsically right” before biblical theology. Knight & Tucker point out that in the 1950s or 1960s historical criticism was criticized by both “those who advocate other methods such as sociology, the ‘new’ literary criticism, or structuralism, and by those who call for a renewed attention to the canonical shaping of the Hebrew Bible.” Barton 1984, 211. Knight & Tucker 1985, xvi.

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 113 His dissatisfaction with historical criticism was a persistent theme in his works throughout his career, starting at the end of the 1950s. As mentioned above, his “Jonah: A Study in Old Testament Hermeneutics” (1958) can be seen as the first expression of his dissatisfaction with historical criticism. His BTC (1970) is usually seen as a critique of historical criticism and a symbol of the transformation of Childs’s academic attitude, which became more and more negative towards historical criticism from the perspective of biblical 8 hermeneutics. His criticism of the historical-critical method was part of Childs’s long-term task of applying the canonical approach to biblical theology and was a methodological choice in doing biblical theology. Sometimes his canonical approach is understood as an attempt which “relativizes historical 9 criticism.” If we move on to look at his writings of the 1980s and 1990s, we find that Childs still insists that theological interpretation of the Bible is more important than its historical-critical investigation. Based upon the above-mentioned review of biblical theology and historical criticism in the modern American context we saw that Childs’s canonical approach to Christian biblical theology attempts to get out from beneath the umbrella of historical-critical scholarship. Now we move on to discuss Childs’s criticism of the historical-critical method in relation to biblical theology. Childs’s criticism of historical criticism mainly focuses on its methodology in general. The main inadequacies are hermeneutical, theological, and pastoral in nature.

Hermeneutical Inadequacy Childs’s Attitude towards the Enlightenment Childs’s basic attitude towards the historical-critical method from a hermeneutical perspective is based upon his understanding of the Enlightenment. The birth of American culture as part of Western civilization as a whole benefited from the Enlightenment, which served as its midwife. Childs shares this basic ethos. He never becomes an enemy of the Enlightenment, and he is not against the spirit of the Enlightenment. There is common agreement 8

9

Joyce similarly observed that “by the 1970s, a widespread dissatisfaction with the apparently negative effects of historical-critical study had developed. A very influential diagnosis of the problem came from Brevard Childs in his BTC in 1970.” Joyce 2003, 97. See Levenson 1993, 120. Adam 1995, 115.

114 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context that the integrity of the scientific and philosophical development and its influence on the theological academy began with the age of Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, and that the role of the Enlightenment in merging the science of reason with the spirit of religion was significant in the shaping of modern theology. Childs believes that the historical-critical method was one of the products of the Enlightenment’s rationalism, in which historical and sociological approaches to the Bible became mainstream theological treatments. Historical criticism is defined as a science because it is rationalistic, reflecting the Western academic spirit of the Enlightenment. From the perspective of biblical studies, however, the rise of historical criticism has increasingly become a major problem for biblical hermeneutics and theology. Childs argues that the biblical scholarship of the Enlightenment had departed sharply from the biblical hermeneutical tradition, especially that of the OT. The concept of the biblical canon had been gradually given up by Enlightenment-oriented scholarship in the name of freedom of academic and religious research. For him, the key characteristic of Enlightenment-oriented biblical scholarship is its different understanding of the Bible’s function as a medium of revelation, so that biblical scholars following the Enlightenment cannot effectively and adequately assess the true nature of biblical hermeneutics 10 or theology. This is why Childs believes that historical criticism as the product of the Enlightenment naturally has become a hermeneutical impasse and is theologically inadequate. Childs defines the application of historical-critical methodology to biblical interpretation as “a descriptive enterprise,” or as non-confessional and nontheological scholarship, which means that historical-critical scholarship only seeks to “analyze phenomenologically the biblical sources according to philosophical, literary, historical, and sociological criteria in order to set these 11 writings into the environment of their own times.” In so doing, historical criticism has subordinated Christian religious faith and theology to the politicaleconomic, cultural-linguistic, philosophical, and social functions of the 10 See Childs 1958b, 54; 1980b, 129; 1986a, 14; 1990a, 4; 1993, 524–525; 1995a, 6; 2005a, 384. Scalise accepts this idea and says that the heritage of the Enlightenment resulted in an over-identification with history as the defining intellectual category that marks the contents of our theological thinking. Scalise 1994a, 1–16, 43–74. 11 Childs 1993, 525. In his early career, he already defined historical criticism as a descriptive science in determining the historicity of events and in classifying the material into its various literary forms. In this sense, historicity is not allowed to become a criterion of theological reality. See Childs 1960a, 104; 1967a, 124; 1970a, 19, 35; 1974a, 229; 1979, 62.

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 115 Enlightenment. Thus the historical-critical method has revealed itself as a serious threat to the theological substance of the Bible. For instance, source criticism as a branch of literary criticism, concerned with the literary sources of biblical documents, is sometimes over-concerned with questions about the structure, date, and authorship of the Bible, so that theological interpretation is badly ignored. Form criticism is understood as an attempt to examine the form of textual composition by means of recovering the earliest social construction of the text. But they are so over-concerned with the historical and social functions of the biblical text that its hermeneutical meaning 12 is often forgotten. As a result, Childs sees that the OT as the word of God is completely neglected. Similarly, the historical-critical study of the NT ignores 13 the significance of the NT canon itself.

The Bible as Sacred Scripture vs. the Bible as a Part of Human Culture The slogan “the Bible as human culture,” which historical-critical scholarship affirms, is one of the reasons for Childs’s dissatisfaction with historical criticism. One of the most controversial issues is that historical-critical scholarship considers the Scripture as a human cultural manifestation of ancient Near Eastern culture. The biblical canon is treated as a late and artificial imposition on what were originally unrelated texts. For Childs, however, culture is a product of time and space. Considering the Bible merely as a part of human culture means reducing or diminishing the divine revelation of the Scripture. He claims that the OT canon is not an arbitrary and late imposition. 12 He argued in 1958 that historical criticism aims to “understand, evaluate, and interpret historical evidence for the purpose of forming as true a picture as possible of a given period of time,” but the historical-critical method “rests upon certain presuppositions, the most important of these being that the Bible shares in common the laws governing the formation of any secular literature. This means that the date and authorship of the various books of the Bible can be determined empirically since they also reflect their particular age through language, structure, and content.” See Childs 1958b, 54–55, 59. 13 For example, we can see this in OTTCC and in an earlier essay “A Call to Canonical Criticism.” Childs argues that “the last hundred and fifty years of historical criticism of the OT have demonstrated that the historical development of the Hebrew literature was quite different from the Bible’s own account, which attributed the Pentateuch to Moses, Isaiah 4066 to Isaiah, and Daniel to a sixth century writer.” With regard to the NT, he even points out that “the basic issues of the critical method in interpreting the Bible have been inadequately treated.” See Childs 1973, 90; 1984a, 12, 45; 1986a, 20–27.

116 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Childs criticizes modern biblical scholarship for treating the Bible as a human book. For example, biblical critics only see the language of the Bible in terms of the grammatical principles found in secular literature, which views the style and form of the Bible in the same way as it approaches secular literary style. The biblical critics see that the text of the Bible “has suffered the same corruption as every other book which has been passed down through the hands 14 of copyists.” Childs, therefore, points out that the historical-critical method seriously ignores the very essence of the hermeneutical and theological content of the Bible, because it pays too much attention to requiring “critical 15 evidentialist justification.” In his later works Childs continued to argue that regarding “the Bible as a fully human book” as the historical-critical biblical academy did, was a completely false approach. The historical-critical introductions have failed to relate the nature of biblical literature correctly to the community which treasured the Bible as sacred Scripture, because historical criticism only focuses on describing the history of the Bible in terms of human literature; it never respects canonical literature as the Scripture of the synagogue and of the Christian church. For Childs, “the Bible is neither a classic of human aspirations nor a noble monument to the potential of creative imagination,” but “a witness to God’s entrance into our history in an incarnate form as a gracious 16 act of redemption of the world.” Therefore, his attempted canonical approach sought to provide a proper method “to overcome the long established tension 17 between the canon and criticism.” For this reason he believes that the enterprise of historical criticism is of a completely different nature from the church’s interpretation of sacred Scripture, since historical criticism is not only problematic and inadequate, but also runs “directly in the face of the canon’s 18 intention.” 14 Childs 1958b, 55. 15 Childs says that “the shift from the Enlightenment occurred when belief in the biblical narrative was no longer held as a traditional hermeneutical assumption of truth, but now required critical evidentialist justification. To use my terminology, the hermeneutical change came about when the truth-telling role implicit in the concept of canon was replaced by the need for a critical context supported by external proof of its veracity.” Childs 2005a, 384. 16 See Childs 1993, 726; 1994a, 244; 2005b, 44. 17 See Childs 1970a, 51; 1979, 40-45. In BTONT he recognizes the usefulness of the study of biblical texts. However, he still rejects viewing the Bible as akin to a realistic novel. At this point, he even disagrees with Hans Frei’s narrative theology and George Lindbeck’s culturallinguistic approach. Childs 1993, 17; 20. We will deal with this point later. 18 Childs 1979, 76–78. Later he added that “in ch. 2 of the book (IOTS 1979) I sketched the

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 117 Again, Childs considers the biblical text as a direct channel of divine revelation, unlike historical critics who hold that the Bible is a product of human culture. Childs rejects the historical-critical treatment of the Bible according to which the human authors of the books of the Bible reflect their own historically conditioned perspectives and personal ideology. Moreover he repudiates their understanding and interpretation of the Bible as a concept of a human cultural process with philosophical idealism, because this kind of treatment could lead to a massive demythologizing and de-canonization of the 19 Bible and, therefore, to “a dangerous secularization.” Childs also explains the distinction between the Bible as sacred Scripture and the Bible as a part of human culture. Understanding the Bible as sacred Scripture not only means “to reflect on the witnesses of the text transmitted through the prophets and apostles,” but it also means to believe that these biblical writings bear witness to “the salvific activity of God.” On the contrary, seeing the Bible only as a part of human culture is connected with “a scientific and objective analysis” which is based upon human experience and reason; it 20 merely sets as its goal to reconstruct biblical literature and its history. This distinction between the Bible as sacred Scripture and the Bible as a part of human culture seems to be important for Childs’s canonical approach. However, it hides an important question: Since Childs pays more attention to the textual witness than the text itself, how then could he distinguish so clearly between understanding the Bible as sacred Scripture and treating the Bible as a part of human culture?

impasse within the discipline when the problem of the Hebrew canon was viewed as a narrow historical problem that focused on the establishment of the boundaries of Israel's sacred writings in the Hellenistic period. On the one hand, the traditional study of canonization did not take into consideration the lengthy history of the formation of the literature encompassing both oral and written stages which modern critical research had uncovered. On the other hand, current traditio-historical research into the multi-layered quality of the text saw little connection of its work to the formation of a canon of Scripture.” Childs 1980a, 53. 19 See Childs 1978a, 49; 1979, 15, 779; 1990a, 4; 1993, 14; 1996, 372; 2004, 305. 20 Childs says that “to understand the Bible as sacred Scripture means to reflect on the witnesses of the text transmitted through the testimony of the prophets and the apostles. It involves an understanding of these writings as the salvific activity of God truthfully testified in the Bible. In contrast, a history-of-religions approach arising from the Enlightenment sets as its goal to reconstruct the literature, its content and its history according to the widely accepted categories of modernity, as a scientific, objective analysis according to the critical research prescribed by common human experience and reason.” Childs 2005a, 384.

118 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Childs’s understanding of the Scripture as witness basically follows Karl Barth’s idea. Namely, first, witness denotes distinction, witness itself is not revelation; second, witness and revelation form a unity, therefore, the Bible as the Christian church’s sacred Scripture cannot be distinguished from 21 revelation. For Childs, the Bible as witness provides a theological reading of historical Israel’s and the NT apostles’ testimonies to the divine revelation and redemption. But there is a serious problem and contradiction in Childs’s thinking here. The term “witness” is linked with the notion of signum, a sign of the substance of revelation, not the revelation itself. This would appear to contradict Childs’s understanding of the nature of the Bible. Saying that the Scripture is only a witness would appear to be a rather awkward even odd statement for him to make, since it makes seeing the actual biblical text itself as divine revelation, the word of God, problematic. Childs’s emphasis of the term “witness” could de-emphasize the importance of the text itself. If we employ Christological terminology, the doctrine of the two natures of Christ, of the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), and apply it for the purpose of comparing the relationship between the Bible as sacred Scripture and the Bible as human word, we would say that the Bible as the word of God and the Bible as human word always belong together “unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, and inseparably.” The dogmatic constitution of the Second Vatican Council Dei Verbum (Ch. III, 11–13) clearly expounds the Chalcedonic concept of the Bible by stating: “for the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.” This ecumenical teaching is applicable to any kind of theology. Childs obviously has a problem when it comes to clearly defining and distinquishing between, the divine and human aspect of the Scripture. On the one hand, when speaking about the Bible he often reveals a “Monophysitic” bias emphasizing divine revelation at the expense of the full human dimension of the Bible. On the other hand, he has a tendency to see the Scripture as a “witness” to divine revelation, thus undermining the “incarnation” of this revelation into the actual text of the Bible. So this would be a “Nestorian” aspect in Childs’s concept of the Scripture. It seems that he holds conflicting views on the Scripture; he is not able to define the divine and the human aspect of the Bible in a theologically adequate manner.

21 Barth CD I/2, 463. Childs 1969b, 30–35. We will discuss this point further in ch. 6.1.2.

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 119

The Theological Importance vs. the Historical Authenticity of the Bible Childs sees that the hermeneutical inadequacy of historical criticism lies in its overemphasis of the idea that questions of historical authenticity determine the theological credibility of the Bible. Biblical critics wish to discover and reconstruct the historical authenticity of the Bible, and they regard this as the 22 sole important task of biblical studies. Childs, on the contrary, insists that the theological implications of the Scripture are more important than the questions of its origin and historical authenticity. Historical critics argue that “unless the Bible is historically correct in its ascription of direct authorship…its theological credibility is seriously called into question;” raising this as the highest criterion 23 prevents critics from grasping the real essence of the hermeneutical issue. For Childs, modern historical criticism has reached a “hermeneutical impasse,” which means that historical criticism has been unable successfully to bridge the 24 gap between the past and present in its biblical interpretation. The rise of the modern critical method has not only greatly intensified “the hermeneutical problem of faith and history,” but has also badly ignored the true meaning of 25 biblical interpretation. 22 For example, Barr argues that many biblical texts were originally not written by “the persons to whom they were traditionally attributed,” thus the biblical writings might be made up of layers of material from different periods, so that they might more or less contain elements of myth. For this reason, “the real history of the times had to be reconstructed and could not be read off from the surface text of the Bible.” Barr 1973, 2. 23 Childs 1995a, 6. Anderson and Scalise have a similar opinion. Anderson once said that historical-critical scholarship had been too atomistic, too analytical, and had not been sufficiently concerned with the unity and totality of canonical books. According to him, Childs could be said to have followed Barth’s view in that historical criticism cannot be counted as the basis of biblical theological enterprise. Scalise also points out that “the first and most obvious weakness of 20th century’s historical criticism lies in its over-identification of Scripture and history.” Anderson 1981, 13–14, 17. Scalise 1994a, 84. 24 See Childs 1964, 137–144; 1970a, 142–144; 1974a, xvi; 1979, 79. Evidently, his assertion on “the modern hermeneutical impasse” has not always been accepted by biblical scholars. For instance, Barton argues that “Childs’s own suggestion for avoiding this ‘hermeneutical impasse’ was shaped by his dissatisfaction with the ways in which American biblical scholars of the 1950s and 1960s had tried to avoid it, at the time of what he calls the ‘BTM;’ I consider his relationship to ‘Biblical Theology’ in the Appendix. However, it is quite possible to give some idea of his program without for the moment going into its antecedents.” Barton 1984, 80. 25 Childs 1980a, 57. Once he used a story about Hollywood to describe how historical criticism had missed the real meaning of the Bible: “many of Hollywood’s movies on biblical subjects

120 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context More seriously, Childs even considers historical criticism as “a threat” to biblical exegesis, because he feels that it over-historicizes theological biblical materials with its slogan, “the sharper the historical focus, the better the 26 interpretation.” Hence, Childs is dissatisfied with the elevation of the dogma of historicity as the highest criterion of all biblical interpretation. For him, the theological understanding and interpretation of the Bible is the highest criterion and target. This view, however, seems to be a complicated one, as we have already seen. The very fact that in his own exegesis Childs employs the historical-critical method, the method in fact in which he had been trained, shows that his criticism of the historical interpretation of the Bible must be exaggerated.

Sensus literalis vs. sensus originalis Childs’s dissatisfaction with the over-emphasis of history by historical critical scholarship touches on his view of the literal sense, sensus literalis, of Scripture. Childs does not disregard the importance of the literal sense of Scripture. The literal sense of the Scripture was emphasized in the Protestant Reformation, and this trend has continued in Protestant theology ever since. Historical-critical scholarship shares the idea of the primacy of the literal sense of the Scripture, but in Childs’s view it has also damaged its correct understanding and use. The central transformation is that historical criticism, since the Enlightenment, has shifted the weight of academic interest from the literal sense of the biblical text to the so-called original historical sense of the text. This has been the trend especially since the middle of the nineteenth century. As a result, the literal sense of the biblical text itself has lost all significance. The search for the original historical sense emphasizes the original meaning of the biblical text in its pristine situation. Thus the aim of the biblical interpreter in understanding the truth of the biblical text has not only been uprooted, but in terms of biblical hermeneutics the task itself had also been changed to reconstructing the original occasion of the biblical historical reference. Childs deplores the fact that “the sensus literalis had become sensus

seem to reflect the latest historical knowledge on ancient Hebrew clothing, housing, and even language, but then miss the main point of the story.” Childs 1980b, 129. 26 See Childs 1984a, 51; 1979, 779.

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 121 27

originalis,” and that, consequently, historical criticism was unable to read the Bible as Scripture. Nevertheless, historical critics do not agree with Childs’s complaint. For example, James Barr argues that the “original” is not necessarily important in biblical interpretation, as there is no one thing that can be clearly defined as “the historical sense.” According to Barr, most biblical scholars have neither changed the biblical literal sense into a historical sense nor committed themselves to the literal sense. Barr suggests that the traditional term “literal sense” should be substituted by a more appropriate term “historical sense,” which can function as the common ground for the work of modern biblical 28 scholars. Obviously, Barr does not believe in the literal sense because he doubts the reality of the literal sense; for him, historical-critical scholarship has never 29 been devoted to the literal sense. Paul Noble tries to throw light on the 27 As we have seen, for Childs sensus literalis is a concept of biblical theology that refers to the plain meaning of the biblical text, but sensus originalis in historical-critical scholarship focuses on the religious and historical reality beyond the text. Childs presents four elements in indicating the effect of historical criticism on the literal sense of the biblical text. “First, by identifying the literal sense with the historical sense, which is then interpreted within the model of meaning as ostensive reference, any claim for the integrity of the literal sense of the text is virtually destroyed... Second, by identifying the literal sense with the original sense the task of biblical interpretation has become a highly speculative enterprise...Third, by defining the literal sense as the historical, the concept of the Bible as Scripture of a community of faith, whether of the synagogue or of the church, has been sharply altered. Fourth, the effect of the historical-critical approach on the literal sense has far reaching implications for both communities, Jewish and Christian, which claim continuous religious use of the Bible.” He develops the distinction between the original meaning of the biblical text and the final form of the biblical canon more clearly in IOTS, 1979, 88–99. He argues that the rise of the historical-critical method brought a new understanding of the literal sense of the biblical text as the original historical sense, and since historical criticism has governed the explanation of the biblical text, the literal sense of the text in itself has lost all significance. Similarly, in BTONT he states that “since the Enlightenment the developing historical-critical method laid stress on recovering the historical sense and generally dismissed the allegorical as fanciful.” Childs 1977a, 89–91; 1993, 13. Vanhoozer sympathizes with Childs on this point. Vanhoozer 1998, 309. 28 Barr says that “I don’t believe that ‘total commitment to the literal sense’ would have received agreement from scholars, and indeed I don’t believe that the term ‘literal sense’ is all that common in their works. More of them, I think, would have spoken of the ‘historical sense.’” See Barr 1989, 6, 9; 1983, 36, 77, 84–85. 29 Barr in 1989 said, historical criticism has shown that “the Bible, if taken in its literal sense, was sometimes untrue, perhaps often untrue.” Barr 1989, 8. In 1990 Childs defended his position by saying that Barr “misconstrues the past history of the discipline by understanding the lasting effect of the historical critical approach to the Bible.” See Childs 1990a, 8.

122 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context difference between Childs and Barr by saying that Childs walks along with the Reformers’ use of sensus literalis which opposed an allegorical reading of the Bible, but Barr goes with the critical sense which “is opposed to both allegorical and figural reading, and has thus lost a vital theological dimension in its biblical 30 interpretation.” Childs’s view on the literary sense of the text is related to his position on biblical hermeneutics. He views the literal sense of Scripture as the foundation 31 of biblical interpretation. His opinion on the sensus literalis of Scripture can be characterized by two points: one is its background in the tradition of the Reformation; the other is its full commitment to the community of faith. First, Childs inherits his view on the literal sense of Scripture from the tradition of the Reformation, both Lutheranism and Calvinism. For example, he appreciates Calvin’s definition of the sensus literalis of Scripture and links it to his concept of the canonical theological exegesis of Scripture. Childs also uses Luther’s understanding of the sensus literalis to oppose any exaggeration of the allegorical 32 or spiritual sense. Second, Childs defines the literal sense of the text as “the plain sense of the Bible as Scripture” witnessed by the communities of faith, both Jews and Christians. For him, the plain sense of Scripture is the familiar and traditional

30 Noble has dealt with this controversy between Barr and Childs in his “Sensus literalis: Jowett, Childs, and Barr” (1993). In his Canonical Approach Noble points out that Childs uses sensus literalis not only to oppose allegorical biblical interpretation, but that he also aims to connect sensus historicus with sensus originalis. See Noble 1993, 13–14; 1995, 306–307. 31 Childs in his “Sensus Literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and Modern Problem” concludes that “the search for the literal sense of the text may seem to some to be a first and elementary step in biblical interpretation, but actually its discernment lies at the heart of one of the most difficult and profound theological questions in the entire study of the Bible.” Childs 1977a, 93. 32 He says in BTC, “for Calvin the literal sense of the OT spoke of Jesus Christ. To use another terminology, Calvin’s literal sense refers to the plain sense of the text when interpreted within the canonical context of the church.” Later in a similar statement he argued: “I am convinced that when the Reformers spoke of the literal sense of the Biblical text as normative (sensus literalis) they had in mind the canonical sense and not a hypothetical projection of what scholars thought originally happened.” He also finds that when Luther began his lectures on the Bible fully within the medieval tradition of the multiplicity of senses, his opposition to the allegorical method intensified. In his polemic against spiritualizing the text Luther appealed to ad litteram. The Reformers assumed the identity of the literal and the historical sense and they were often used as synonyms. Following the tradition of the Reformers, we may understand why Childs does not deny sensus historicus while stressing sensus literalis. Childs 1958a, 259; 1970a, 110; 1972a, 721; 1977a, 86, 89–93; 1993, 13.

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 123 teaching of Scripture recognized by the community of faith as authoritative, thus there cannot be any genuine sensus literalis apart from the faith of the 33 community, its confessional commitment to the canon. Following the concerns of the community of faith, Childs develops the definition of the Bible’s plain sense as a ruled reading. The literal sense of Scripture cannot be confined to a verbal, philological exercise alone. Its being defined as a ruled reading means obtaining a balance between “a grammatical reading and regula 34 fidei.” In this sense, it is obvious that Childs’s pursuit of the community of faith is more important than any pursuit of the primal history of the text. For Childs, sensus literalis both in history and in modern time is a key to biblical exegesis and is beneficial for developing a dialectical understanding of Scripture for the community of faith. Thus at this point, Childs’s canonical approach promoting 35 the plain sense of the biblical text as a “ruled reading” is perhaps significant. 33 See Childs 1977a, 81, 92–93; 1993, 719–727. For him, “the literal sense of the canonical Scripture offers a critical theological norm for the community of faith on how the tradition functions authoritatively for future generations of the faithful.” Then Childs explains why he is concerned about both Jews and Christians: “Judaism distinguished sharply between text and commentary. Christianity continued this position in setting apart apostolic witness (text) from later church tradition. To retain this distinction both synagogue and church assigned a unique value to the text’s plain or literal sense. The Torah was assigned to Moses; the gospel in its four- fold form to designated Evangelists. Figurative meaning was not rejected, but subordinated to the literal sense.” Childs 2003, 177. 34 Childs 1997a, 60. He also argues elsewhere that “the Bible is to be read according to its literal or plain sense. Its salvific meaning is not esoteric or hidden, but plain and forthright. Careful attention must be paid to its syntax and style. However, the literal sense is to be balanced by a ruled reading—a reading informed by its subject matter and its confessional content.” “In classic terminology, the appeal is to the sensus literalis, the literary sense, of the Scripture. In a word, the true literal sense of an OT text is far removed from a flat, rationalistic historical reconstruction, as is so often suggested under the guise of a literal reading.” See Childs 1998a, 12; 1998c, 122–123. 35 Frei expresses his appreciation of Childs in this case. He presents the idea that “the literal sense is not single” giving high praise to Childs’s article “The sensus literalis of Scripture: an Ancient and Modern Problem” which describes the history of sensus literalis. But he feels that Childs’s understanding of sensus literalis functions for the community of faith as authoritative along with the familiar and traditional teaching of the sacred Scripture. However, Frei defines the literal sense of the text not only as the coincidence between sense and subject matter, but also as a matter of hermeneutical principle. And he goes further suggesting that we may be mistaken when we make a sharp distinction between sense and subject matter. He also presents three meanings of sensus literalis which are connected to his own narrative theology: (1) sensus literalis describes the precise, or fit, enactment of the intention to say what comes to be in the text; (2) sensus literalis refers to the descriptive fit between verbum and res, sense and

124 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context As we have mentioned, following the Reformers, Childs rejects treating allegorical methods as a hermeneutical principle, since he feels that allegorical biblical interpretations are unable to solve any theological issue of biblical 36 interpretation satisfactorily. But the difference between Luther and Childs lies in their hermeneutical tasks: Luther rejected allegorical biblical interpretation because he desired to establish his faith directly on the Bible rather than depending on the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church; Childs rejected allegory because he felt that the allegorical method is unable to interpret satisfactorily the theological meaning of the biblical text. For Childs, using an allegorical method in biblical hermeneutics is incorrect because of its historical, hermeneutical, and theological insufficiency. The allegorical method is unacceptable historically, because “it changes the voice of the original witness.” It is not acceptable hermeneutically, because allegorical interpretation assumes that “every time-conditional feature of the NT can be used as a warrant for its continued use without properly understanding the theological relation of its authority to its function as kerygmatic witness.” And it is unacceptable theologically, because the allegorical method “confuses a biblical 37 word ‘promise’ with that of ‘fulfillment’ by identifying the OT with the NT.” By adopting this attitude Childs’s is warning modern critical scholarship against falling into speculative historical interpretations when seeking the “original” meaning of the text. This would be a mistake analogical to that found in the mediaeval allegorical interpretation. Allegorical interpretation is defined as “speaking one thing and signifying something other than what is said” (Heraclitus), which means that allegorical interpretation attempts to go beyond the obvious surface meaning and seeks “deeper and hidden” meanings. Allegorical interpretation became an important reference, between the grammatical/syntactical and the conceptual sense; and (3) sensus literalis is the way the text has generally been used in the community. See Frei 1992, 14–16; 1993, 102–105. 36 Childs in his “Prophecy and Fulfillment” (1958) argues that Luther, “by rejecting the allegorical method as a hermeneutical principle…did not offer any depended understanding over the Fathers since he also conceived of the OT prophecies as directly related to Christ…(Calvin) conceived of Christ’s work as the fulfillment of the historical institutions of Israel which foreshadowed his kingdom.” Childs 1958a, 259–260. In BTONT he says that “as is well-known, the Reformers increasingly attacked the use of allegory as obscuring the word of God, and emphasized the literal sense of the text;” and that “the problem of interpretation with which typology and allegory wrestled…touch on basic theological issues of the Christian faith which have not been satisfactory resolved.” Childs 1993, 13–14. 37 See Childs 1993, 85, 87.

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 125 method in understanding how the Bible explains the mystery of Christ. According to Louth, from the early church fathers upto the Reformation, allegorical biblical interpretation was popular in the biblical exegesis of the church. In the Reformation, the Reformers rejected it in order to protest against the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and turned to the authority of the 38 clear literal text of the Bible. Both Luther and Calvin believed that allegorical interpretation could lead biblical interpreters away from the truth of Scripture; Luther even saw allegorical interpretation as “dirt,” “scum,” and “obsolete loose 39 rags.” Later, after the Enlightenment, allegorical interpretation lost almost all its credibility. Allegory differs from typology, which has always been a popular method in the theological interpretation of biblical texts. According to Brian McNeil, allegorical interpretation claims that “the real meaning of the OT text is something with no continuity with the historical intention of its writer,” but typological interpretation seeks “a continuity in God’s plan such that the OT is 40 a true ‘prefiguration’ of what God would do in the NT.” In other words, allegory finds a hidden meaning in the OT, which does not depend on future historical fulfillment. Typological interpretations of OT events and persons saw them as prefigurations of the events of Christ’s life, or other aspects of the NT. Typology stresses the connection between the actual persons, events, places, and institutions of the OT and their corresponding reality in the NT which they foreshadowed. Typology works in a way that an antithesis of type and antitype exists between the two Testaments texts: the OT type corresponds to the NT 41 antitype. 38 39 40 41

Louth 1990, 12–14. Ramm 1970, 54, 58. McNeil 1990, 713. The typological approach can be seen in Paul, in Colossians 2:16–17: “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” There are many such examples: Adam is a type in the OT but Jesus is an antitype in the NT; Noah’s ark is a type in the OT but the church is an antitype in the NT; the story of Jonah prefigures Christ’s burial, the stomach of the fish being Christ’s tomb. Jonah was freed from the whale after three days, and Christ rose from His tomb after three days. Moses the lawgiver foreshadows Christ the ultimate lawgiver; Aaron, the high priest, foreshadows Christ, the ultimate high priest; manna foreshadows Christ’s heavenly bread, the Eucharist. Concerning allegory, for example, the Song of Solomon is often interpreted as an allegory of God (the lover), and His love for His people (the beloved). Paul explicitly uses allegory in Galatians 4, in which he sees the child of the slave woman (Hagar)

126 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context When Childs emphasizes the importance of sensus literalis and rejects allegorical biblical interpretation, he turns to consider the usefulness of typological exegesis. Childs, however, is not very good at defining terms such as allegory and typology. Some of his discussions on typological interpretation remain unclear and he does not seem to be satisfied with typological interpretation; sometimes he even falls into contradicting himself. For example, in his “Prophecy and Fulfillment” (1958), Childs prefers to stress the “reality” between the OT prophecies and their fulfillment in the NT in Christ’s life 42 rather than their typological interpretation. It seems that Childs is afraid that typological interpretation could throw a shadow on the actuality of the OT prophecies. However, in BTONT he treats typological exegesis as “an extension of the literal sense” which serves the understanding and interpreting of the relationship between the two Testaments. Thus, typology is useful when regarding it as closely akin to the model of prophecy and fulfillment in 43 interpreting the NT related with the OT. Again, in his “Interpretation in Faith” (1964) Childs rejected treating typological exegesis as “a method;” in contrast, he understands typological interpretation as a part of the witness to an ontological relationship between the 44 two Testaments. The ontological relationship between the OT and the NT for

as representing those under the law, while the child of the free woman (Sarah) as representing those under the New Covenant, and the casting out of Hagar and Ishmael as representing the inferiority of the Old Covenant to the New (Galatians 4:21–31). See Louth 1990, 12–14. Bjørndalen 1990, 14–16. McNeil 1990, 713–714. 42 He says that “the prophetic word and its fulfillment are not held independently of one another, but belong to the same event…Word and fulfillment are part of the selfsame reality;” and that “both the OT and the NT share in the selfsame reality which came in its fullness in Jesus Christ.” Messianic prophecy of the OT is absolutely real to the NT’s Christ, but not a typological interpretation. Childs 1958a, 267, 270. 43 Childs says: “Typology was viewed as an extension of the literal sense of historical events in a subsequent adumbration and served to signal the correspondence between redemptive events in a single history of salvation. Typology was considered closely akin to prophecy and fulfillment and thought to be a major NT category in relating to the OT.” He is even critical of Barr’s misunderstanding of biblical typology by saying that “in my opinion, Barr has mounted a strong case against the sharp methodological separation of typology and allegory and demonstrated its relation to a peculiar modern theology of divine acts in history. Yet I am far from convinced that Barr’s analysis has really touched to the heart of the theological problem related to biblical typology,” Childs 1993, 13–14. 44 Childs says that “the analogy between the two Testaments is to be sought on the ontological level. Typological exegesis is to be rejected as a method but understood as part of the witness to an ontological relationship.” And he also argues that “typology is a category by which the

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 127 him means a Christian confession: the unity of the OT and the NT bearing witness to the one purpose of God (as we saw above in 3.3.-3.4.). Thus he feels that the use of a typological interpretation could damage the ontological relationship between the OT and the NT. He argues: “when the use of the typological pattern becomes a method by which the historical events of the OT and NT are understood, it undercuts in effect the seriousness of historical 45 research.” For instance, recognizing the Messiah of the OT in Jesus Christ of the NT could make it possible to see the Suffering-Servant of Isaiah 53 as a typos 46 which became a reality in Jesus. However, for Childs, this understanding is not a typological interpretation but “a reality” in an ontological relationship between the two Testaments; since Jesus Christ is the res of the entire Bible (see later 5.3.1.). It is difficult to understand Childs’s view of typological interpretation. If typology is not a method, what is it? If typology is not an exegetical method, how could Childs associate von Rad’s comparison of Abraham’s purchase of a burial plot from the Hittites with the Eucharist as a classic example of 47 typological exegesis? Again, the ontological relationship between the two Testaments is primarily understood as a Christian belief but not as a presupposition of the exegetical method. As we saw in chapter 3 above, the wholeness of the Bible and the close relationship between the OT and the NT is considered under the rule of faith and in an ecclesiological way. The assumption that Christ is in the OT is equal to the theological interpretation of this idea.

NT understands the OT and this does not in itself mean that it is to be absolutized into an exegetical method. The NT must retain its character as a witness.” Childs 1964, 442–43. 45 Childs also claims that “the movement within the hermeneutical circle from the Old to the New, and the reverse, is not to be confused with the typological method. The central role is to be the historical study of the text. The correspondence between Old and New is an ontological one.” Childs 1964, 442. 46 Noble argues that the claim that “Yahweh’s suffering redemptive involvement with humanity took the specific form of him becoming incarnate in Jesus” represents typological exegesis. Noble 1995, 75, 302–4. 47 Childs agrees with a classic example of typological exegesis provided by von Rad in his Genesis commentary. The story tells that Abraham was forced to purchase a small piece of land at an exorbitant price for his wife’s Sarah’s death. According to von Rad, the writer of Genesis saw this purchase of the burial plot as a sign of Abraham’s faith in God’s future fulfillment. Von Rad draws a parallel to the NT’s understanding of the Eucharistic sacrament as a concrete foretaste of the divine promise of eternal life, which is experienced and anticipated in the bread and wine. See Childs 1998c, 123. Von Rad’s typological interpretation can be seen in von Rad 1972, 245–49.

128 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context The idea that any text might have a typological meaning does not deny the historical sense of the text; typological interpretation is one of the ways of understanding the text. If we need to interpret the Christological relationship between the two Testaments reasonably, a typological interpretation is methodologically necessary. In other words, when explaining the use of the OT in the NT, typological exegesis must be very important. There could be two reasons for Childs’s lack of emphasis on typological interpretation. One is that he might simply be confused about allegory and typology, and therefore carelessly dismisses typological interpretation when he rejects allegorical interpretation. Another is that he simply dismisses both allegory and typology when he stresses the importance of the literal sense urged by his confessional concern for the ontological relationship between the two Testaments.

Synchronic Interpretation vs. Diachronic Interpretation Childs is also critical of the fact that historical-critical scholarship divides the whole Bible into pieces. Biblical critics always look upon the writings of the Bible as different books, which are not related to each other. Childs’s canonical approach, as we have seen, insists on reading and interpreting the Bible as a whole, both historically and theologically. This is an obvious difference between Childs’s canonical approach and the historical-critical method. On the one hand, Childs does not deny that Scripture is time-conditioned in its real historical contexts. For him, the Bible in its human, fully time-conditioned form, functions theologically for the Christian church as a witness to God’s divine revelation in Jesus Christ. Thus the Christian church confesses the Bible’s human form. On the other hand, from the point of view of biblical hermeneutics, he suggests a basic principle that “history is understood in the light of prophecy, not prophecy in the light of history,” because for him this 48 stance forms “the inner logic” of the book that dominates the whole text. 48 Childs 1996, 373; 1986a, 14; 2005b, 44. This basic position of Childs is supported by some scholars such as Morgan, Hunter, and House. Morgan argues that “Childs is correct...when he notes that the canonical context too often has been ignored and that historical criticism which merely cuts apart and does not rebuild is a sterile enterprise.” Similarly, Hunter says that “undoubtedly, historical- criticism concentrated too much on the minutiae of the text and isolated books from each other, so that the aim of canonical criticism of allowing different biblical texts to inform each other is a useful corrective.” Here Hunter calls Childs’s canonical approach “canonical criticism,” which Childs does not like. I will deal with this issue at the end of this chapter. Again, House in his article “Biblical Theology and the

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 129 Methodologically, Childs’s resistance to historical criticism can be viewed from two dimensions: synchronic and diachronic. The synchronic dimension of the biblical text means looking at the different books of the Bible as a whole; or to put it simply, a synchronic study of the biblical text is interested in the interrelation of the parts with one another in their present form. The synchronic interpretation is often practiced by Childs and other canonical interpreters such as James A. Sanders. The diachronic dimension, on the contrary, means dividing the biblical texts into their various historical stages. In other words, a diachronic study of the biblical texts is concerned with their historical contextual transformation at different stages. The diachronic method is typically used by historical criticism. It is difficult to combine both a synchronic and a diachronic dimension 49 together in biblical interpretation. Are the synchronic and diachronic dimensions absolute alternatives? Childs’s answer seems to be complicated. He tends to choose a synchronic approach to biblical texts, but does not completely deny himself the use of the diachronic interpretation. He admits that the relationship between the synchronic and diachronic dimensions in biblical interpretation remains “extremely subtle,” because, as he always stresses, biblical interpretation should not be fragmented into unrelated operations. Consequently, both the synchronic and the diachronic dimension should be used in biblical exegesis simultaneously. It is too simplistic to consider Childs’s

Wholeness of Scripture” makes some similar remarks such as: “a biblical theologian must be committed to interpreting the Bible as a coherent whole because it is the word of an inherently coherent God” and “without question, my academic and pastoral work has convinced me that fragmented readings of Scripture, whether practiced by conservatives, moderates or liberals, do not offer the best interpretation of the Bible and therefore cannot lead to the best obedience to biblical teaching.” Morgan 1982, 390. Hunter 1990, 106. House 2002, 270. 49 Childs once said that “most biblical scholars would agree that both a synchronic and a diachronic dimension are required in biblical interpretation…However, there are not clear and obvious rules on precisely how these two dimensions of the enterprise interact.” Childs 1997b, 191. A similar expression of this concern can be found in Childs 2001, 440, where he argues that “the crucial issue remains in determining how the diachronic and synchronic relate.” Childs is not alone in suggesting that the synchronic and diachronic dimensions can be complementary with one another in biblical interpretation, Anderson is quite supportive of Childs on this. See Anderson 1981, 17. Brett sees Childs’s proposal as “formalist” rather than “strictly synchronic,” as Childs has adopted the formalist goal partly on the grounds of his understanding of the canonical process and partly on theological grounds. Brett 1991, 115– 17.

130 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context canonical approach as either “synchronic” or “diachronic,” or to say that 50 Childs’s synchronic emphasis replaces the diachronic dimension. How can Childs combine the “synchronic” and “diachronic” dimensions? There is common agreement that Childs’s Commentary on Exodus (1974) and Commentary on Isaiah (2001) can be looked upon as typical examples of his combination of the synchronic with the diachronic dimension in the canonical 51 biblical context. Here, taking the example of Isaiah, Childs not only criticizes historical criticism for it is uninterested in synchronic analysis, but is also dissatisfied with its diachronic studies which give too much attention to discovering earlier redactional layers within the text. A better way of dealing with the text of Isaiah, Childs suggests, is to stress a coherent witness in its final received form. Indeed, in his Commentary on Isaiah, Childs accepts many conclusions of historical criticism. In particular, he agrees that Isaiah can be divided into three main parts, namely, First Isaiah, Second Isaiah, and Third Isaiah, and in material reference to these three parts he identifies a close inter52 textuality. However, this acceptance of the diachronic approach to the book of 50 For instance, McDonald argues that Childs not only stresses the synchronic dimension but also destroys the practice of the diachronic approach of historical criticism, because he “rejected the fragmentation of the biblical text and instead called for a synchronic approach that views the Bible as a whole in its final form rather than in its various literary stages of development.” Most likely, McDonald is not correct in his judgment. I prefer to agree with Brett’s statement that Childs “has no wish to replace diachronic approaches to the Bible with a synchronic one.” Brett 1994, 282. McDonald 1995, 301. 51 For instance, Brett finds that Childs’s treatment of the combination is generally monistic but sometimes pluralistic, and that historical criticism cannot solve a synchronic reading of the Bible; thus both diachronic and synchronic methods must mutually influence each other. This is exactly what Childs does in his Commentary on Exodus (1974). Williamson and Everson find that Childs is able to summarize the book of Isaiah as a whole and each of its parts succinctly, and that he no longer seeks to add to the usual discussion of such critical matters as form and redaction. And Childs does not deny the usefulness of diachronic studies of the text in depth. See Brett 1991, 3–4, 41–42, 46–47, 104–105. Everson 2007. Williamson 2007. 52 As the principle of inter-textuality cannot always be applied to every biblical text, especially in the NT, Childs sometimes becomes critical of inter-textual interpretation. As we have seen, an obvious example is that the four Gospels in the NT are formed into a collection without any inner cross-reference. Childs believes that the four Gospels are witness to the same subject matter, Jesus Christ, but they maintain their discrete voices. The main reason for Childs’s criticism of inter-textual exegesis is his disagreement with the possible existence of isolated inter-textual relations between some texts of the OT and the NT. Childs is keen to protect the wholeness of canonical interpretation. Only sometimes, as in the case of Isaiah, can an inter-textual interpretation of the Bible be considered a useful tool whilst at the same time

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 131 Isaiah does not distort Childs’s view of how to understand and interpret the book of Isaiah correctly. He emphasizes that interpreting any selected section must be done in the light of the book of Isaiah as a whole. We will return to this point in more detail when discussing how Childs demonstrates his canonical approach through assimilating and using the results of historical criticism (ch. 4.4.).

Structuralism The philosophical idea of structuralism has been applied to biblical studies for several decades. Vern Poythress in his essay “Structuralism and Biblical Studies” (1978) advocates three interpretations of structuralism in relation to biblical hermeneutics. First, structuralism is a well-formulated thesis with a diverse collection of methods, paradigms, and personal preferences. Second, different practitioners of structuralist methods are in conflict with one another both in framework and in detail. Third, structuralism can be used as a cross-disciplinary label applied to different approaches such as philology, anthropology, psychology, or physics. Some argue that the definition of structuralism still remains extraordinarily blurred; there is, however, general agreement that in structuralism a synchronic analysis as opposed to a diachronic analysis is 53 central.

maintaining the discrete voices of the two Testaments. Therefore, some scholars think that this might be a shortcoming in Childs’s canonical theological exegesis, because he seems to be in conflict with himself: on the one hand he emphasizes the wholeness of theological exegesis, but, on the other hand, he is keen to protect the theological discreteness of the two Testaments. Levenson, for example, points out that Childs’s denial of the inter-textuality of the Hebrew Bible in his canonical theological exegesis is regrettable. Thus Childs’s canonical approach sometimes and inconsistently bespeaks “a hermeneutical monism.” House believes that the importance of inter-textuality in biblical exegesis cannot be ignored and suggests that inter-textuality ought to be considered an important element of canonical theology. See Childs 1986a, 12, 24–25. Levenson 1993, 172. House 2002, 268–78. 53 Poythress says that synchronic analysis examines a cross-section of culture which exists at any fixed time. Thus when emphasizing synchrony, structuralism is interested in the interrelations within a cultural cross-section. Levi-Strauss and Greimas are often seen as typical representatives in applying structuralist methods to biblical studies. In general, for Poythress, there is a deep gap between synchronic analysis and diachronic analysis. Poythress 1978, 221– 27.

132 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Some scholars see Childs’s canonical approach as some sort of 54 structuralism; they call Childs a “biblical structuralist.” They think that Childs’s canonical approach requires determinist theories of textual meaning, which is one of the characteristics of structuralism. John Barton says that Childs has been misled by the ambiguity of the word literature, because Childs is only concerned with something that may be described as theological competence, 55 which automatically means confession or commitment. In responding to Barton’s assertion, Childs, in his OTTCC, strongly denies that his canonical approach is structuralist. He argues that a canonical approach to OT theology should not be simply misunderstood as a form of structuralism. The main reason for his denial is that he understands that the biblical text continually bears witness to events and meanings in the life of Israel, and that biblical literature cannot be separated from its ostensive reference. Childs insists that the canonical approach explicitly develops a new biblical method that is consistent with working within canonical categories. Childs’s canonical approach to biblical theology does not separate method and theology, because the “approach,” that is, the method, is prior to the theological structure in his canonical approach. Therefore, Childs argues that Barton simply misunderstands his true intention when he says that his canonical approach is 56 some form of structuralism. Here it seems that Childs is justified in his rejection of Barton’s criticism. Obviously the aim of his canonical approach is neither to destroy the diachronic analysis of the biblical text nor to make synchronic analysis the only method of biblical interpretation. His central aim is to demonstrate the continuity between the two Testaments, thus he uses a combination of synchronic and diachronic analysis. Childs seeks to show that there is a unity of the canon with discrete voices that are witnesses to the subject matter of the Bible. And employing a 54 Barr 1983, 158. Barton 1984, 86–87, 104, 133, 166. A similar comment can be found in Scalise 1994a, 93. Barton also looks upon Hans W. Frei as a biblical structuralist. However, Frei’s agreement with structuralism is only partial. For example, he agrees with structuralism that we should treat textuality (what is written) and the referent or truth of the text (what it is writing about) as two different things. Frei 1993, 99, 107, 133–34, 157–58. 55 Barton employs two arguments to prove that Childs’s canonical approach was moving in the direction of a structuralist approach towards the OT. First, Childs expressed his deep disappointment and disillusionment with the traditional historical-critical method. Second, “there is a persistent awareness among biblical scholars that the ways in which they have traditionally studied the biblical text are now in important respects out of line with what is going on in the wider literary world.” See Barton 1984, 86, 105–6, 133, 222. 56 See Childs 1986a, 6; 2001, 440.

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 133 structuralist method of biblical interpretation is alien to this aim. His canonical intentionality emphasizing biblical hermeneutics within the canonical categories does not deny the historicity of, and elements of discontinuity in, the biblical texts, rather it points to the limits of the usefulness of historical criticism for theological exegesis.

Theological Inadequacy In the 1950s and 1960s Childs had already expressed his dissatisfaction with the historical-critical method, which, he argued, was inadequate for the theological interpretation of the OT. His claim about the theological inadequacy of historical criticism for doing biblical theology became 57 programmatic in his major works BTC, IOTS, OTTCC, and BTONT. For example, he points out in BTC and IOTS that the historical-critical method is limited to a descriptive task whereas it seriously ignores the task of theological interpretation. Later in the 1980s and 1990s he also argues that the historicalcritical method is theologically mute. Though historical criticism had achieved great results in some areas such as philology, the history of religions, text criticism, and in the cultural and sociological understanding of the biblical texts; Childs was disappointed by the fact that the theological task of relating the Bible to Christian theology had been badly neglected. Childs seriously criticizes those who treat the canon only as a cultural phenomenon or a natural process from the perspective of the history-ofreligions. In that kind of scholarship theology is no longer considered as the ultimate focus of biblical studies, indeed the theological dimension could even be regarded as unnecessary for biblical studies.

Missing Theological Direction Childs feels that the historical-critical method in biblical interpretation is altogether missing a theological direction. In his earliest writings such, as

57 See Childs 1970a, 142; 1972c, 26; 1979, 39–41, 128; 1986a, 17; 1993, 63–68, 97–106; 1995a, 8,14–15;2005b,31; 2006, 9. In Brett’s words, Childs feels that historical criticism is “theologically uninteresting.” Brett 1991, 2–3. Some biblical critics appear to agree with Childs on this point. One of them is Barton, who argues that “historical-critical methods are not completely adequate from a literary point of view, but Childs’s primary thesis is that they are unsatisfactory theologically.” Barton 1984, 79.

134 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context “Jonah” (1958), he already realized that the historical-critical method dismisses the aspect of faith, especially so when trying to understand the OT theologically. For instance, he is critical of the fact that the historical-critical method sees the story of Jonah as a mere myth. Childs, on the contrary, sees this story as a vehicle of God’s word which is active among the people. For him, the story of Jonah ought to be interpreted theologically, which means that it implies God’s purpose for mankind being realized through the activity of God’s word, which is written in the form of a story. The story of Jonah is a witness to the reality of this redemptive purpose. In Childs’s eyes, the Bible has two realities: the reality of human knowledge 58 and confessional reality. On the one side, the Bible expresses human understanding and knowledge; on the other side, it contains a reality which transcends things understood by the human mind, that is, it contains divine revelation. Hence, Childs believes that the Christian confession of Jesus of Nazareth being the Son of God has gone beyond the human mind and experience. He even argues that the divine reality in the Bible “is not discovered but is revealed. Its truth is not relative, but absolute. This reality is not judged 59 by human reason, but human reason is judged by it.” Thus, for Childs, understanding and interpreting the story of Jonah, for instance, ought to concentrate on seeking the theological meaning of the story through the eyes of faith, not concentrating on whether Jonah was really swallowed by a whale or not. Doing research on the historical correctness of the OT is the main task of the historical-critical method, but the theological interpretation of the OT stories, which needs the confessional element of faith, should not become the victim of historical criticism. In his BTC Childs claims that historical-critical scholarship did not make sense for those who had ‘any continuing concern for the theological dimensions of the Bible or responsibility for the life of the church,” and that “the most serious objection is that the real task of doing exegesis as a theological discipline 60 has been lost.” Anxiety about theological exegesis encouraged Childs to explore 58 However, as we have asked in ch. 4.1.2., how can Childs make so clear a distinction between the two realities of the Bible: the reality of human knowledge and confessional reality? If we consider the terminology of faith in the Council of Chalcedon and that of Dei Verbum (13), we could say that Childs’s view on the two realities of the Bible is indeed “one reality,” namely, the word of God dominates the human word. This question in Childs’s canonical approach remains unsolved. 59 See Childs 1958b, 56–57, 61. 60 See Childs 1970a, 91, 142. A similar argument can be seen in Childs 1964, 437, where he

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 135 a new path in doing biblical theology, not solely for academic reasons but also for the purpose of serving and defending the church. In his opinion, it is not difficult for well-educated modern Christians to know the rich variety of the historical content of the Bible; the problem is that they have ceased to understand the aspect of faith contained in the Bible. And the reason for that is basically that the theologians of the church have been excessively influenced by the one-sided historical dogmatism of historical-critical biblical scholarship.

Inability and Barrenness in Theology Childs believes that biblical interpretation based on the historical-critical method is unable to touch the heart of Christian theology because of its onesided overemphasis on the Bible’s historicity. This point can be seen most clearly in his BTC. He points out that historical-critical scholarship has lost itself in the minutiae of biblical literary-philological-historical problems, that the unity of the Bible has been hopelessly fragmented, and that its theological dimensions have been overlooked. Historical criticism has made an impressive contribution to modern Protestant theological scholarship, but it has neglected the theological meaning of the Bible. He admits that historical criticism as a science is helpful to some extent; however, it “does not touch the heart of the 61 problem, which is theological.” The historical-critical method treats the Bible purely as literature and deals with it so-called objective and scientific understanding of the document. The intention and function of the ancient community of faith and the canonical aspect of the biblical text have often been dismissed by modern historical criticism. Consequently, the historical-critical 62 method yielded little theological fruit for Christian theology. notes that “the possibility of a genuine theological exegesis has been destroyed at the outset,” as the biblical text is defined as a source for extracting historical truth and historical correctness. In the “OT as the Scripture of the Church,” he points out that “the issue at stake is not whether to be critical or not, but what kind of critical understanding can best serve the Christian church in her theological task of proclamation to the world in the 20th century.” See Childs 1972a, 711. 61 See Childs 1970a, 15, 18, 106–7, 141. A similar statement can be found in Childs 1972a, 710, where he argues that “there is a little which quickens the mind, and nothing which touches the heart” in historical criticism. In his essay “Critique of Recent Inter-textual Canonical Interpretation,” Childs still says that “there was a theological or figurative dimension of the Bible not adequately addressed by a scientific, critical analysis.” Childs 2003, 174. 62 Childs argues in his BTC that the historical-critical method’s failure to “produce theological

136 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context There is no place for the Religionsgeschichte (history-of-religions) type of approach in Childs’s canonical program. He appreciates and concentrates on theological exegesis in the service of the community of faith; this is definitely the primary task of biblical studies and interpretation. For Childs, the main challenge biblical interpretation faces is how the text of the Scripture can become a message that speaks to contemporary generations. For this reason, he views any philosophical, anthropological, or sociological interpretation of the canon as a modern distraction caused by the history-of-religions approach. Biblical interpretation in the manner of Religionsgeschichte is fundamentally a non-theological method and, as such, is unable to grasp the canonical structure 63 and content of the scripture. Likewise, Childs is also dissatisfied with the Heilsgeschichte (salvationhistory) approach, which extends a theological interpretation throughout the OT and the NT, because, in his opinion, such an approach still lacks sufficient biblical foundation. He understands Heilsgeschichte as a strand within the modern historical-critical method, which is unable to deal with a basic theological question; namely, how can a biblical text that is wholly rooted in a specific historical context serve as an authoritative word for future generations of believers? Thus Heilsgeschichte is essentially similar to philosophical idealism and its roots are in existentialism. This kind of approach is increasingly seen as 64 unable to resolve fundamental theological problems. In short, Childs’s 65 canonical approach is critical of both Heilsgeschichte and Religionsgeschichte. fruits lay either in its misuse or in its over-concentration on peripheral matters.” Similarly, in “Symposium on Biblical Criticism” he argues that “as a very limited method of inquiry, historical-critical research is incapable of handling the full dimension required by a genuine theological study of the Bible.” See Childs 1970a, 35; 1977b, 359. 63 Childs treats Religionsgeschichte as “a radically secular position,” though sometimes he admits that Religionsgeschichte could provide some useful and necessary insights from the perspective of comparative religions, but it is not “a substitute for biblical theology.” See Childs 2005b, 30–32, 38–39. 64 In his MROT, as we have seen in ch. 1, Childs expresses his deep dissatisfaction with Heilsgeschichte. Later in OTTCC he admits that the Heilsgeschichte approach has made a great contribution in showing the confessional nature of the OT’s traditions, and in describing how “the analogical nature of the redemptive action of God toward his people bridges the separation of historical time and indicates a fulfillment of the one divine purpose.” See Childs 1964, 436; 1986a, 30; 1990b, 363; 1993, 16–18, 520–521, 640–641. 65 Childs’s lack of interest in Heilsgeschichte and Religionsgeschichte has been criticized. For instance, Brett argues that Childs’s reading and hearing of the text operates merely on the verbal level of the Bible, and that his rejection of other attempts to go beyond the text is merely a way of protecting the theological value of the Bible. Bauckham notes that saving

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 137 It has become clear in our analysis that, according to Childs, biblical theology cannot be built on the foundation of historical criticism. He deplores the fact that historical-critical scholarship had destroyed the older Protestant 66 theological heritage in the past. Childs argues that the central mistake of historical criticism is its complete historicization of the Bible; in other words, the aim of historical criticism is to subordinate “theology” to “history” or even 67 replace “theology” with “history.” For biblical critics, historical criticism is a method that allows one to interpret the biblical text in its own historical, literary, cultural, social, etc., context. Thus the historicity of the Bible is the primary task of biblical studies. For Childs, however, the whole task of biblical interpretation could be misconstrued without first establishing a proper theological agenda. In the past 200 years, the traditional criteria and methods of biblical theology had been subjected to the sharp scrutiny of historical criticism with unfortunate results. For this reason, Childs never stopped criticizing the theological inadequacy of historical criticism and thought that it was leading biblical theology in the 68 wrong direction. Childs from dangerous narrow focus requires a broader understanding of hermeneutics. For Collins, Religionsgeschichte cannot be seen as an alternative to be avoided but as an ally to be utilized. Religionsgeschichte does not “satisfy those who see theology as an essentially confessional enterprise, but it does affirm the possibility of a biblical theology that is consistent with the regnant historical-critical method.” Bauckham 1994, 247. Brett 1991, 12. Collins 2005, 33. 66 In the 1990s, Childs argued that “the painful lesson that has emerged in the last fifty years is that the many serious attempts at a theological compromise that would build a confessional biblical theology directly on the foundation of a historical-critical method (Eichrodt, von Rad, Zimmerli, Bultmann, Jeremias, Stuhlmacher, Küng) have also failed, at least as measured by the theological call of the 1930s. The gap between critical studies and Christian theology is as great as in the pre-1920 era.” Childs 1994a, 245; 1994b, 333; 1995a, 5. 67 Similar observations can be seen in Moberly 1988, 106. Noble 1995, 94. Roberts 1995, 131– 132. Provan 1998, 206–208. 68 Even at the end of twentieth century, Childs still remarked critically that “the theological dimension of the OT itself is basically ignored” in the so-called “Third Quest for the Historical Jesus” that had appeared in America from about the 1980s. He argues that the socalled “Third Quest for the Historical Jesus” in its attempts to “bring to bear the modern Enlightenment categories of historicity functions much like a color-blind man trying to describe the paintings of Vincent van Gogh.” It destroys the basic idea that “knowledge of the truth was tied to faithful response.” Childs sees David Friedrich Strauss’s The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (1835) and Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906) as the “first quest for the historical Jesus,” and regards biblical critics such as Shirley Jackson Case and Rudolf Bultmann, who wrote new biographies of Jesus in the 1920s and 1930s, as

138 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context It is difficult, however, to see how Childs gives “theology” an appropriate definition while criticizing historical criticism. For Childs, historical criticism by definition is not a “theological” method; nevertheless, for many biblical critics, the use of the historical-critical method is a theological procedure. For instance, Barr not only looks upon himself as a “much trained” historical-critical scholar, but also believes that historical criticism “is not to be narrowly thought of as an attribute of a particular element in biblical study.” Instead, he sees historical 69 criticism as belonging to theology as a whole. Barton defends Barr’s opinion by arguing that in Lutheran biblical scholarship, historical criticism is regarded as “having a high theological importance: it is not at all the ‘problem’ for theology that Childs portrays it as. Its practitioners are seen as true heirs of the 70 Reformers.” There remains a controversy between Childs and his critics here. We need to pay more attention to analyzing and defining what it means when one says that the historical-critical method is at the same time a theological method. If historical criticism is in essence a proper theological method, then Childs’s criticism of it loses a lot of its validity. However, if historical criticism is really theologically mute, theologically inadequate, or theologically incapable as Childs argues, then his criticism is justified and very useful not only for the Christian church but also for the non-confessional academy. The key problem seems to be how to understand the concept of “theology.” The simple basic definition of “theology,” based on the meaning of the Greek, is “discourse on God.” Historical criticism, on the other hand, seeks to study 71 biblical texts by focusing on their historical setting. If we accept this simple understanding of the term “theology,” then Childs is right when he critically states that historical criticism is theologically mute, because it does not “talk about God.”

the “second quest for the historical Jesus.” See Childs 1998a, 1–3; 1998c, 121. 69 Barr 1983, 121, 130. According to Braaten and Jenson, Barr’s affirmation of “historical criticism belonging to theology” is not unreasonable, because biblical critics’ use of the historical-critical method is “free of confessional assumptions and theological motivations.” Furthermore they argue that the biblical critics’ “approach enjoys the status of objective historical science.” Braaten & Jenson 1995, x-xi. 70 Barton notes that Childs’s canonical approach is not neutral, but positively promotes a strong theological agenda, thus “Childs vehemently denies any non-theological parentage for his theory.” Barton 1984, 94–95, 141. 71 See McKim 1996, 67, 279.

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 139 Nevertheless, this controversy not only touches on the academic orientation of historical criticism, but also involves an evaluation of Childs’s own canonical approach. There is a dilemma in this controversy. It is not completely appropriate to say that Childs’s canonical approach is only theological, since it is also related to historical-critical discussions. Furthermore, it is not enough to say that Childs’s canonical approach is biblical because the fact is that Childs has already moved on from pure biblical study and theology to broader theological and doctrinal concerns. Thus, Childs should have offered a proper definition of theology if he was going to be able to set out and support his theory convincingly.

Pastoral Inadequacy In addition to the above-mentioned theoretical inadequacies, both hermeneutical and theological, Childs is also dissatisfied with historical criticism because of its inability to serve Christian pastoral practices. This particular criticism, we should remember, was rooted in the contemporary American context. Based upon the adoption of regula fidei as the guiding light of biblical theology, Childs believes that “the Christian church needs the guidance of the Bible as never before in its own struggle for understanding and faithful 72 response.” This shows how concerned he is about the practical needs of the Christian church. For Childs, one of the key problems is that historical criticism has sharply broken with the church’s exegetical tradition, so that it cannot adequately study 73 the Bible as the Scripture of the Christian church. However, an appropriate critical method would not only be beneficial for the rethinking of biblical theology that was needed by the church, but would also be good for promoting the interaction between academic theology and the church’s practical theological significance. Such a two-sided biblical theology must be linked with 72 Childs 1970a, 94, 91; 1977c, 7–8. For instance, he remarks that in the contemporary American context the church must not “be relevant without being faithful,”or “faithful without being relevant.” He also warned that “the threat of a new American theological liberalism that finds its warrant for social action in a vague reference to “making human the structures of society” has already made strong inroads into the life of the church.” 73 However, this does not mean that the Christian church’s exegetical tradition is absolutely correct or beyond criticism; Childs says that “the attempt to recover the church’s exegetical traditions does not imply for a moment an uncritical reading of the great masters; in fact, just the opposite.” See Childs 1970a, 139, 141–143, 147.

140 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context both the biblical revelation and the practical experience of the Christian church. The church’s ecclesial confession of the authority of the Bible becomes a determinative element in Childs’s program. He is critical of overly individualistic ways of interpreting the Bible in preventing Christians from hearing the word of God. Therefore, for Childs, doing biblical theology ought to be closely linked with the reality of the Christian church. From the middle 1970s on, Childs was never tired of emphasizing the importance of the pastoral practice of the Christian church for both interpreting the Bible and doing biblical theology. One the one hand, in his literary analysis of biblical sources, he attempts to avoid treating the sources as separate theological entities. On the other hand, when stressing the authority of the Christian church in interpreting the Bible, he tries to interpret the Bible by connecting it to both the community of faith and its pastoral practice. Childs points out that the Christian church needs not only seriously to rethink the role of historical criticism but also to call for “a bold and radical change in direction,” whereby the Christian exegetical tradition can confidently enter a 74 post-critical era of biblical scholarship. The point of Childs’s criticism is not that he looks upon historical criticism as “a useless or godless instrument,” but that he believes that historical criticism “has eroded the authority of the Bible as 75 witness to the word of God.” Childs sees theological exegesis in the canonical context as the solution to the problem of how to overcome the difficulties involved in Christian preaching caused by the negative influence of historical criticism. Emphasizing the wholeness and canonical unity of the Bible, seeing Jesus Christ as the true subject matter of the Scripture, and being aware of the life of the Christian church, will enable once again relevant Christian preaching which is strongly based on the Holy Scripture. Childs is defending a “pastoral position” and 76 struggling with “the historical-critical training.” One of the main reasons why Childs chooses this path is because, for him, the historical-critical method has never been successful in reading the OT as a witness to Christ. It is likely that 74 See Childs 1977b, 359; 1979, 15; 1972a, 711–713, 722; 1978b, 78; 1980a, 58; 1984a, 36; 1995a, 13; 1996, 373. 75 Anderson 1980, 102. Anderson correctly notices that Childs’s slogan “the Bible is the word of God” expresses a dynamic attempt to “arrest secularizing forces which tend to reduce the Bible to the level of other literatures and to treat the ‘religion’ of Israel as part and parcel of the religions of the Ancient Near East.” The idea that the Bible is the word of God will be dealt with in the next chapter. 76 See McDonald 1995, 299. Noble 1995, 312.

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 141 Childs’s program will find more and more supporters in the modern American context. Some American systematic theologians, like Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, for instance, sympathize with Childs’s pastoral concern. They find that his position is understandable, because, from the perspective of the pastoral practice of the Christian church, the Bible has become a victim of historical 77 criticism. In this respect, Childs’s canonical approach could help save the Christian church from the misleading effects caused by the exaggeration of the historical-critical method. Many biblical critics, on the other hand, prefer academic freedom in biblical studies to paying attention to the needs of the 78 Christian church. Here we end up with the fact that biblical scholars as well as theologians are all unavoidably involved in making value judgments, which will affect the basic orientation of their research and interpretation.

The Usefulness of Historical Criticism The Legitimacy of Historical Criticism As we have seen, Childs is greatly dissatisfied with the historical-critical method of biblical studies and interpretation. This very critical attitude, however, does not mean that he absolutely and completely disavows the significance of historical criticism. He admits that no one could deny the many contributions 79 achieved by the historical-critical method. Although Childs says that the historical-critical method does not touch the heart of theological interpretation 77 They argue that “for many in the church - pastors, teachers, and laity - the Bible seems to have lost its voice;” and today, the gap between the historical criticism of biblical studies and the church’s dogmatic interpretation of biblical belief is still very deep. For them, historical criticism at first “was rejected by the theologians of Protestant Orthodoxy and Pietism, but then it gradually gained acceptance among mediating theologians who attempted to reconcile the traditional faith of the church with principles of modern reason. However, the marriage between scholarly criticism of the Bible as a collection of ancient documents and the church’s belief in its divinely inspired message of salvation has ever since proved to be unstable.” See Braaten & Jenson 1995, x-ix. 78 Barr criticizes Childs’s pastoral position as “really utilitarian,” because Childs’s inadequacy in dealing with historical criticism is merely built on a simple consideration of the needs of pastoral practice of the Christian church. Barton argues that “biblical books should be ‘freed’ from their context in the church’s canon of Scripture—a context artificially imposed on them in the past—and studied in their own right.” Barr 1983, 137; 1992, 135. Barton 1984, 79. 79 See Childs 1970a, 140; 1980b, 131; 1990a, 8; 1997b, 209; 1998b, 52–53.

142 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context of the Bible and that historical criticism is theologically inadequate, he claims nevertheless that historical criticism is “helpful in part” in dealing with the 80 descriptive task. He even acknowledges the historical-critical method as a 81 “legitimate enterprise.” Apart from Childs’s own clear statements, other biblical scholars also noticed that Childs never completely repudiated the meaningfulness of 82 historical criticism. Some scholars in the 1980s already argued that Childs’s canonical approach does not dismiss the great contribution of the historicalcritical method, its importance and usefulness. They believe that Childs’s canonical approach aims to find a new way of explaining biblical texts in which the historical-critical method can be used correctly in the service of affirming Scripture as authoritative for the community of faith. Childs’s emphasis on understanding the final form of the text does not mean that he views the historical-critical method as bankrupt. Thus Childs’s sympathizers understand his canonical approach to biblical interpretation as being in dialogue with historical-critical scholarship. Some found that Childs does not really reject historical criticism; rather, he attempts to free it from incorrect ideological dependencies. Others point out that Childs does not deny the legitimacy of 83 pluralism in biblical interpretation. Likewise in the 1990s, some scholars observed that Childs’s canonical approach is an attempt to combine the 80 The earliest appearance of Childs’s acknowledgment of the usefulness of historical criticism is in his article “Interpretation in Faith,” where he suggests that the descriptive task can be included in the theological task. All critical methods can be used because the OT is the witness of Israel’s history. Sometimes he recognizes the importance of the historical-critical method because “it is here to stay.” Similarly, later he states: “I don’t deny the important elements of truth in the critical response, but it is theologically inadequate.” Childs 1964, 443; 1970a, 141; 1984a, 45; 1993, 4; 1995a, 8; 1997b, 209. 81 See Childs 1972a, 715; 1970a, 99–100; 1979, 72; 1980a, 52, 57–58; 2006, 10. However, Childs’s acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the historical-critical enterprise does not seem to have been sufficient to appease some biblical critics like James Barr, who reveals his unhappiness with Childs in his writings of the 1980s. Once he mentioned that Childs “deemphasizes the value of historical exegesis,” and later Barr said that Childs indeed affirms the legitimacy of the historical-critical enterprise, but Childs’s affirmation “is not much.” See Barr 1980, 12–13; 1983, 118; 1999, 37–38, 47–49, 378–438. 82 In the 1980s many scholars had a neutral stance towards Childs’s canonical approach; it was not seen as an enemy of historical criticism. Anderson 1981, 14. Brown 1985, 22. Gamble 1987, 331. Kittel 1980, 2, 6. Landes 1980, 33. Morgan 1982, 388. Moberly 1988, 105-107. Smith 1986, 407. 83 Adam 1995, 115–116. Brett 1991, 57. Collins 2005, 15. Noble 1995, 145. O’Conner 1995, 94. Ollenburger 1992, 322. Provan 1997, 4; 1998, 207. D. Williams 2004, 89.

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 143 importance of the canon as the most appropriate theological context for interpretation with the functional role of historical criticism. Thus it is impossible for Childs completely to give up the historical-critical method in so far as it helps us better to understand the reality of the biblical text. The historical-critical method is especially useful for identifying the historical origins of the biblical books. In investigating these historical origins, the historical-critical method has succeeded in meeting highly technical requirements and has achieved important results. In his “Interpretation in Faith” (1964) Childs stresses that adequate biblical interpretation requires the investigation of textual history. In BTC (1970) he recognizes that the historicalcritical method is able to deal with the question “what the Bible meant”; he argues that this method can effectively provide a meaningful and useful material analysis of the text and can thus contribute to a more accurate interpretation of the text. In NTCI (1984) he even looks upon historical criticism as “an indispensable teacher,” because biblical interpreters can learn “a multitude of things about the text, its meaning, history, and audience” by using the 84 historical-critical method. For all biblical scholarship, the study of the historical origin of the text is always indispensable. No biblical interpretation can transcend the basic historicity of the Bible. In short, we can say that Childs does not ignore the results of historical criticism; rather, he wants to go a step further than historical criticism: using the achievement of the historical research of the Bible, Childs wishes to proceed to what he thinks is the main task of biblical studies - the 85 theological exegesis of the Scripture in its canonical context.

Historical Criticism as a Secondary Tool We can conclude from the above analysis that Childs’s canonical approach makes use of the historical-critical method as a helpful but secondary tool of 86 biblical interpretation. The starting-point of his canonical approach is rooted 84 See Childs 1964, 442; 1970a, 141; 1980b, 129–130; 1984a, 35, 41, 45. 85 Similar observations can be seen in Barton 1984, 80. Collins 2005, 15. Landes 1980, 35. Morgan 1982, 384. Noble 1995, 145. Provan 1997, 4; 1998, 207. 86 This point is widely acknowledged among the Christian churches. The Catholic Church, for example, claims that “since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words…The interpreter must investigate what

144 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context in the historical tradition studied by the critical movement. The canonical approach would not work effectively without presupposing the existence of the historical-critical method; therefore, Childs’s canonical method can also be connected with the terms “historical” and “critical.” However, how can this best be understood? Two facts should not be forgotten, one is that Childs’s canonical approach does not work without the thorough knowledge of Scripture provided by historical criticism. Another is that Childs’s canonical approach critically challenges the inadequacies of the historical-critical method because of its inability to deal justly with the theological dimension of the Bible, as shown above. Therefore, Childs realizes that the historical-critical method is based on the scientific historical study of text, so he naturally realizes that it is unnecessary and indeed impossible for biblical interpreters and biblical theologians to avoid having some sort of critical function when it comes to exegesis. Some biblical critics notice that Childs’s canonical approach in its basic nature is similar to the historical-critical method; therefore it is not genuinely new. For example, Barr and Barton in the 1980s already argued that the actual operation of Childs’s canonical approach is dependent on historical criticism, 87 thus his basic method in essence is “a child of the critical movement.” However, some criticize Childs’s canonical approach for its use of the method of historical criticism in that it cannot be seen as genuinely critical, because it is impossible and incorrect to use both a single canonical criterion and the historical-critical method in the interpretation of texts simultaneously. If Childs’s canonical approach uses both, this would upset both conservatives and liberals. We will return to this issue in ch. 6.3.3. Methodologically, Childs indeed makes use of the historical-critical method as a tool, which needs to be merged into his canonical methodology. His basic position is to learn from the historical-critical method and then to transcend it. He sees biblical criticism as a practical tool to understand the existing form of the biblical texts. Historical criticism has become a useful tool for biblical meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.” Dei Verbum, Ch. III: 12. 87 Barr 1980, 15. Barton 1984, 90–99, 148, 153. Barton sometimes treats Childs’s canonical approach as “genuinely new.” However, he means that the canonical approach is a new kind of literary criticism. So, in Barton’s view, Childs’s canonical approach is literary criticism— one of the historical-critical methods.

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 145 interpretation, and it is Childs’s aim to make full use of it as a tool for constructing a methodology for canonical theological exegesis; Childs never 88 hides this aim. What makes him different from other biblical scholars is that he denies the priority of the historical-critical method over the canonical approach. BTONT is the most representative example of how Childs skillfully uses historical criticism as a tool of his canonical analysis; indeed he acknowledges that “I have made use of the tools of historical criticism throughout this study of the Bible.” He, however, rejects the claim of historical criticism “to set the critical agenda or to filter the biblical literature according to 89 its own criteria of what really happened.” Childs suggests that any theologian seeking knowledge of God and his revelation in history should study history. He sees archaeology as “the best tool” for studying ancient history; he even says that “biblical theology and biblical 90 archaeology belong together.” Childs well knows that the study of the historical background of the Bible has become a special feature of the American form of doing biblical theology. Thus, concerning OT theology, he suggests that a lot of attention should be paid to the study of Ancient Near Eastern culture, where archaeology would be especially useful. However, this does not mean that Childs wants to build biblical exegesis on a foundation of biblical archaeological achievement, because he always insists that the revelation of God cannot be reformulated in the light of any historical fact. He prefers to say that archaeology is only to be seen as a beneficial tool for discovering biblical historical materials, but that one has to be very cautious in dealing with the results of archaeology because they are subject to change. Sometimes Childs even disagrees with the archaeological method of biblical interpretation, noticing that this method has failed to deal adequately with the biblical text because of its special concern with the prehistory of the text. In Sanders’ words, Childs is cautious about using biblical archaeology, as he does not believe the

88 Childs often asks himself: “How does one wisely use historical-critical tools in illuminating the canonical text?” See Childs 1980b, 130; 1964, 443; 1979, 83; 2004, 10. 89 Childs 1993,722. Anderson, Sanders, and Stuhlmacher are quite supportive of Childs’s usage of historical criticism in his canonical approach. Anderson sees historical criticism as a necessary tool, and Sanders argues that Childs uses “all the valid tools of biblical criticism in his work.” Stuhlmacher is another supporter of Childs who also considers the historicalcritical method as an important tool in penetrating the historical dimension of the Bible. Anderson 1981, 20. Sanders 1984, 2. Stuhlmacher 1995, 67. 90 In similar fashion he says that “archaeology, if scientifically executed, was an ally, not an opponent, of biblical theology.” See Childs 1970a, 42, 48.

146 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context 91

formula: faith = event + interpretation. Obviously, Childs’s trust in biblical archaeology as a method is limited. Concerning some historical methods, Childs believes that the literary analysis of sources is frequently of great help in hearing the different witnesses within a passage precisely. He also believes that textual criticism or text criticism, redaction history, and form criticism are good tools for better understanding the structure and inner connections of biblical texts. For him, text criticism is beneficial in establishing the final form of the biblical texts, and even the form critical method in its descriptive task can be a tool confirming the fact that the Bible contains a lot of traditional material treasured by the community of faith. Though Childs is critical of biblical etiological interpretation, he admits that the form critical method has been successful in illuminating the role of the stereotyped formulae often associated with 92 etiology. We can see that in spite of all of his criticism of the historical-critical method, Childs stands in the tradition of historical scholarship “with respect to matters of dating, editorial activity, and redactional processes,” because he “does not ignore the fact that there was a historical development of the Hebrew 93 canon.” Childs indeed acknowledges the relevance of the historical-critical method and uses it as a tool for promoting his canonical theological exegesis. His appreciation of the historical-critical method, however, is selective and limited. He would never accept anything from historical criticism that would threaten or contradict his vision for canonical theological exegesis. Thus, it is fair to agree with the statement that for Childs, the historical-critical method only “plays a 94 part in canonical shape,” but it is “definitely secondary.”

91 See Childs 1974a, 338, 348–350. Sanders says that “Childs does read the archaeological reports, he is fully aware of the data there;” however, he does not believe that faith is equal to event plus interpretation. Sanders 1976, 289. 92 See Childs 1974b, 387; 1964, 439; 1974a, 177; 1979, 96–106. According to Sanders, Childs is not a good text critic, because some of his observations in his notes on the text (in his Exodus) are based on an unsound method. On another occasion, Sanders says that Childs is weak in textual criticism. Similarly, Barr doubts the reality of Childs’s usage of form criticism as he says that Childs has brought “a number of weak and doubtful statements about the nature and purpose of textual work.” Sanders 1976, 289–290. Barr 1983, 85. 93 Priest 1980, 260–261. Noble 1995, 328–329. Sanders 1997, 322. 94 Murphy 1980, 41.

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 147

The Assimilation of the Achievements of Historical Criticism: Isaiah and the Pentateuch It is obvious that Childs, a scholar trained in the historical-critical method, denies neither the necessity nor the achievement of the historical-critical investigation of the Bible over the past two hundred years. Childs accepts a great number of the results of critical studies, especially in OT studies. Let us look at some examples. The first example is his interpretation of the book of Isaiah. Biblical critics often believe that the book of Isaiah must be divided into different parts written 95 by different authors at different times. Childs follows Bernhard Duhm’s (1892) initial division of the book of Isaiah into three major parts. According to Duhm, the first part of Isaiah (chs. 1–39) reflects the career and message of the eighth-century B.C. prophet Isaiah of Jerusalem. Second Isaiah or DeuteroIsaiah (chs. 40–55) represents the poetry of an unknown prophet who lived during the time of the Babylonian exile. Third Isaiah or Trito-Isaiah (chs. 56– 66) can be accredited to a later disciple. Childs accepts a threefold division of Isaiah. Moreover, he accepts the view of historical-critical analysis which regards Deutero-Isaiah as a sixth-century product influenced by its Babylonian historical context. The material of Deutero-Isaiah was separated from its 96 original historical context and raised to a general and metaphorical level. We have seen that Childs’s canonical approach firmly affirms the wholeness of the entire Bible; how can he accept the division of the book of Isaiah into different parts? Here we need to raise the question: How does Childs demonstrate the combination of the synchronic and diachronic dimensions of biblical research in his interpretation of the book of Isaiah? Defending the idea 95 In Old Testament Books for Pastor and Teacher (1977), Childs regards Bernhard Duhm’s German commentary as one of the finest commentaries. Childs’s Commentary on Isaiah follows Duhm’s basic paragraph division: chs. 1–12, chs.13–23, chs. 24–27, chs. 28–35, chs. 36–39, chs. 40–55, and chs. 56-66. See Childs 1977c, 70–74; 1972b, 53; 1978b, 70; 1979, 311–338; 2001, 1, 7–8; SUICC 2004. 96 See Childs 1979, 78–79, 324–325; 1996, 371; 2001, 3. See also Barr 1980, 12; 1983, 94. Roberts, on the contrary, points out that Childs’s treatment of the so-called Second Isaiah becomes controversial. He argues that Childs’s claim that the placement of Isaiah 40–66 in the same scroll along with the oracles of Isaiah of Jerusalem has de-historicized the oracles of Second Isaiah so that they should be read canonically as though they were from the eighth century B.C. Therefore, for Roberts, this treatment of the so-called Second Isaiah is “sheer nonsense, and it certainly cannot claim the support of the history of interpretation.” Roberts 1995, 136.

148 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context of unity in the case of Isaiah, he mentions two points: the material relationship between the three parts of Isaiah and the theological reflection on a unity in diversity. The material relationship between the various parts of the book of Isaiah is based upon the close narrative continuity of the three parts in the redactional process. Third Isaiah intentionally uses Second Isaiah, and Second Isaiah uses First Isaiah. He argues that, although most of the material of First Isaiah can be dated as pre-exilic, it is not in full contrast to the exilic and post-exilic dating of Second and Third Isaiah, because some material of First Isaiah can be as late as the material in Third Isaiah. First, Second, and Third Isaiah could each be assigned to different historical periods with some consistency; the earlier material, however, has often been reinterpreted by the later. Second Isaiah plays a central role in the whole redactional process; it reshapes First Isaiah and largely 97 determines the form of Third Isaiah. The relationship between Second and Third Isaiah continuously raises problems for exegetical research. Childs thinks that it makes more sense to see Third Isaiah “as part of a large literary collection rather than to assume its function as an independent corpus that is only 98 peripherally connected to the larger book of Isaiah.” In this sense, Third Isaiah certainly remains in close narrative continuity with Second Isaiah in 99 prophesying the eschatological plan of God (Isa. 65:17). Such a close continuity between the three parts of Isaiah is very important for Childs from the point of view of biblical theology. For instance, Third Isaiah continues the hope of Second Isaiah for the salvation of Zion, and Third Isaiah shares Second Isaiah’s vision of the kairos awaiting Zion’s eschatological deliverance. The implications for the salvation of Israel in Second Isaiah are 97 See Childs 2001, 3, 7; 1996, 362–377. In the 1970s, he already pointed out that “the author of Third Isaiah is clearly working with written texts which are quoted, adjusted, and adapted.” In the mid-1990s, Childs argued that “Isaiah’s original oracles have undergone a change of function. Isaiah’s role as a prophet can no longer be described as that of an eighthcentury “forthteller,” but in textualized form his words now serve an authoritative foretelling, a prophetic vision to later generations of Israel for whom the word is a divine commission.” Here he uses a saying from the historical critic G. A. Smith, who once said that the OT prophets were not foretellers but forthtellers. Childs 1972b, 53; 1979, 311; 1995a, 7–8. 98 Here Childs follows Duhm’s manner of looking on Third Isaiah (chs. 56–66) as “a united literary corpus.” See Childs 2001, 440–442. 99 Childs even provides some crucial passages of Third Isaiah, which reveal a conscious intentionality by the prophetic author or redactor. Moreover, this re-use of passages from the First and Second Isaiah provides an important guide to the purpose and function of chs. 56– 66 within the book of Isaiah. Childs 2001, 444, 446–447, 545–547.

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 149 extended by Third Isaiah. Moreover, the eschatological redemption in Third Isaiah is substantially connected with Second Isaiah’s portrayal of the suffering servant (ch. 53). Thus, theologically, the important aim of Third Isaiah is to describe the new age of the redemption. Childs stresses theological reflection on a “unity in diversity” in the case of the book of Isaiah. For him this means a theological reflection on the message of 100 the entire book of Isaiah from a Christian point of view. Childs is fully convinced that the three parts of Isaiah form a unified theological content that can be discovered with the aid of theological exegesis. “Unity in diversity” is a key term for him at this point. On the one hand, he deplores the fact that some OT scholars have seriously fragmented the book of Isaiah so that the structural and editorial shape of Isaiah has been twisted by a method of redaction criticism. On the other hand, his canonical approach requires a basic principle of canonical intentionality, which means that reading and interpreting any part of the Bible, in this case Isaiah, must be a procedure that combines both the historical and theological dimensions of exegesis under the rule of faith. Anyone who looks at the book of Isaiah in this way will see both the historical and the theological continuity between the various parts of that book. That is why in his commentary Isaiah (2001) Childs is deeply concerned with “the unity of the book.” He affirms the formal canonical scope of the book of Isaiah as well as the theological convictions that speak for the theological wholeness and unity of Isaiah. This means that all the parts of Isaiah function together to illuminate God’s judgment and redemption in Israel and the world. He interprets the canonical corpus of the book of Isaiah as the word of God, and for him theological reflection on Isaiah means doing “justice to both the 101 unity and diversity of the biblical corpus.” His emphasis of the theological unity of biblical texts is a strength in Childs’s canonical approach. However, sometimes it becomes problematical. On the one hand, he blames the historicalcritical method for erroneously seeing only the historical dimension of the Bible, which has led to the historical and theological fragmentation of the biblical text. On the other hand, he acknowledges the division of the book of 100 He expresses his deep concern in understanding a Christian identity by saying that “as a Christian interpreter, I confess with the church that the OT and NT, in their distinct canonical forms, together form a theological whole.” Perhaps, understanding the theological wholeness of the book of Isaiah has some difficulties in the field of modern historical criticism; this is why he emphasizes his identity as a confessional Christian interpreter when he says elsewhere that “my major reason is a theological one.” Childs 2001, 4–5, 8. 101 Childs 2001, 3–4.

150 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Isaiah without giving an appropriate methodological explanation. Although Childs stresses the synchronic (theological) dimension of biblical interpretation, he never denies its diachronic (historical) dimension. But it would appear that Childs is not really sure of his intellectual position on the role of the diachronic dimension. Our second example is the book collection of the Pentateuch. In the area of OT studies, the Pentateuch is a very controversial topic of debate. The term pentateuchos literally means “the five-fold book,” and this ancient term is present in the Septuagint. According to the traditional view of the Christian church, the author of the Pentateuch is Moses. However, by the end of the nineteenth century, with the rise of the historical-critical method, more and more biblical scholars accepted the contrary view that the Pentateuch could not have been written by Moses. Childs acknowledges that the Pentateuch, because of its historical complexity, cannot be considered as a historical account of an early historical period written by Moses. And he believes that historical-critical scholarship at this point “won over those who wished to defend the traditional view”; and that “from this historical perspective the main lines of the 102 reconstruction of the development of the Pentateuch are basically correct.” Here Childs clearly accepts the basic results of historical-critical research. However, his agreement with the legitimacy of the historical treatment of the Pentateuch does not mean that his canonical approach to the Pentateuch is the same as that of the historical-critical method. For Childs, the most important thing is to ascertain the theological significance of the Pentateuch based on its canonical shape and on canonical exegesis. The main difference between the purely historical approach to the Pentateuch and Childs’s canonical approach is that Childs studies the Pentateuch in its canonical context as the Scripture of the Christian church and concentrates on the theological significance of the Pentateuch. In so doing, he is much less interested in debating the authorship of the Pentateuch. Childs believes that it is possible to consider the five books as an entity in the canonical context of the Pentateuch. In other words, he insists that the five books of the Pentateuch in their final form should be understood as a canonical unit. The first five books of the OT constitute Israel’s Torah, and the content of the Pentateuch offers redactional evidence of an intentional structuring of these books into a purposeful whole. Childs believes that there is an obvious inner continuity in the Pentateuch from the creation of the world in Genesis 1–2 to 102 Childs 1972a, 715. Similarly Childs 1979, 127; 1986a, 212–214.

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 151 the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34. This continuity is based upon editorial evidence showing that Genesis was edited by the final redactor with the clear intention that the story would continue in the book of Exodus. The book of Exodus, on its part, recapitulates material from Genesis; the book of Leviticus is closely linked to Exodus, and Leviticus also has a clear conclusion which marks its connection to the beginning of the book of Numbers. In a similar way, the book of Numbers shares with Exodus part of the same historical material concerning the events at Mt. Sinai. The book of Deuteronomy, likewise, has both an obvious introduction and conclusion linking the data to the previous 103 books whilst, at the same time, creating an independent work. Childs argues that the present canonical shape of the book of Genesis is not an independent literary work juxtaposed with other independent works. On the contrary, its development “underwent a complex process of growth and change in which different literary traditions mutually influenced each other in a 104 dynamic interaction within the community of faith.” The three middle books of the Pentateuch, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, share the same basic content, which describes the giving and receiving of the divine law by Moses at Mt. Sinai. Childs acknowledges the textual complexity of the final book of the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy. Its style is characterized by frequent references to the narratives of the former books, especially the speeches of Moses in the book of Exodus. In this sense, the original role of Deuteronomy is to interpret and direct the history of Israel from the moment in time when divine law was given. 103 Childs 1972a, 716–717; 1967b, 30–39; Commentary on Exodus 1974; 1979, 120–150; 1993, 130–141; 2005a, 382. 104 Childs 1979, 148. He goes on to mention that “it seems increasingly evident from the close parallelism of sequence that the editors of the Priestly writings were aware of the earlier epic traditions and did not develop their composition in complete isolation as often suggested.” Barton makes a distinction between Childs’s interpretation and the traditional source analysis of Chs. 1 and 2 of Genesis. “In traditional source analysis of the Pentateuch, one of the best known of all hypotheses is that Genesis 1 belongs to the ‘P’ source and Genesis 2, or most of it, to “J,” which is generally considered the older of the two creation accounts... But Childs points out that the expression “these are the generations of’ is elsewhere in Genesis never used as a conclusion, but always as an introductory formula. It always leads into a genealogical list, in which the history is carried forward a further stage, and events to be narrated in detail are linked with earlier narratives. Examples are Gen. 5:1, 10:1; compare also Numbers 3:1...Childs’s suggestion is that the redactional device in Gen. 2:4a functions in a similar way. It is not the conclusion of the “P” account, but a heading or title for the ‘J’ account that follows; and its function is precisely to mitigate the problem caused by the fact that the two accounts are in origin not consecutive but alternative.” Barton 1984, 50.

152 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context The final editor of the book deliberately emphasizes the unique role of Moses as the Torah’s mediator and interpreter. Deuteronomy naturally closes the Pentateuch with an account of the death of Moses. Thus, the biblical editor intentionally concluded the Pentateuch in a sacred tradition. There is a clear difference between the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua: the Pentateuch manifests the Torah as the complete and final will of God to Israel. Moreover, although the book of Joshua can be seen as the continuation of the story of the Pentateuch, its content, as given in the canon, however, is clearly distinct from 105 that of the Pentateuch. The canonical shape of the Pentateuch constituted the grounds for the religious life of Israel under the will of God. Childs argues that the Pentateuch reveals the basic theological significance of God’s redemptive work through law 106 and grace, promise and fulfillment, election and obedience. Genesis tells us that the divine will of God is manifested in his creative and redemptive works, the covenants he made, and in his graceful acts of election. The revelation of God in the patriarchal stories of Genesis shows that the action of his grace requires a response by Israel of faithful obedience. The theological significance of Exodus is also based upon the final form of its present composition, which combines the account of an original event with its later development through the ongoing celebration of that original event. The Mt. Sinai material is edited into covenant-oriented narratives as an acknowledgment of the Mt. Sinai legislation, which precedes the canonical forms of Leviticus and Numbers. Likewise, Deuteronomy could play a role within the theological aim of the canonical editors. Childs accepts the view of historical-critical research that the final form of Deuteronomy constitutes an earlier form together with the reform program of Josiah in the seventh century, thus the basic aim of Deuteronomy’s canonical shape is to reinterpret the Mt. Sinai events for future generations. In this way the Torah can be rooted in the 107 hearts of the people. 105 See Childs 1967b, 30–39; 1972a, 717–718; 1979, 131–132. 106 See Childs 1972a, 718–720; 1979, 130–131; 1993, 130–141. 107 This analysis is concerned with the “theological and hermeneutical implications of the canonical shape of the Pentateuch.” Childs attempts to build his own canonical system in order to reinterpret the theological significance of the Pentateuch. Nevertheless, most of it is based upon his assimilation of historical criticism. Childs 1972a, 718–722. A similar analysis can be found in Childs 2005a, 382, where he argues that Genesis witnesses God’s salvific purpose for his entire creation. Exodus recounts the redemption of Israel from Egypt, and Leviticus and Numbers are continuous with the stories of the gracious giving of the law to

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 153

Differences between the “Canonical Approach” and “Canonical Criticism” When dealing with Childs’s canonical approach, some inescapable questions have been raised: Can his partial acceptance of the historical-critical method as a tool be seen as another sort of biblical criticism? How does he differ from others in applying the historical-critical method? How does Childs’s acceptance of redaction criticism in order to understand the formation of the final shape of the text differ from other scholars’ views on redaction criticism? The canonical approach has led to much debate. The loudest voice of criticism argues that Childs’s canonical approach is a new method of historical criticism, which could be called “canonical criticism.” Does Childs agree that his canonical approach is “canonical criticism”? If yes, does that mean that his search for a new biblical theology has been unsuccessful? If not, how can he make his canonical approach sound plausible? In the following we try to find some answers to these various questions.

The Rejection of the Term “Canonical Criticism” If we look at A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, we can see that Childs’s 108 canonical approach is introduced under the title of “Canonical Criticism.” Barr, in a critical way, directly calls Childs’s canonical approach “modern 109 canonical criticism.” There are also other biblical scholars who understand bring order to the life of the redeemed people. The center of Deuteronomy is concerned with the validity of the Torah for the new generations that had not seen and experienced the Mt. Sinai law. 108 See Hunter1990, 105–107. 109 As we have seen, for Barr, the idea of the canon is not the most important factor in biblical theology, and the emphasis on canon is inconsonant with Scripture itself. The authority of the Bible is not rooted in the texts or the canon of Scripture but in the producers of the texts, so, for example, “Romans is authoritative because St. Paul is authoritative.” In methodology he insists that Childs’s canonical criticism is “essentially confused and self-contradictory in its conceptual formulation,” and it “leads away from any reality of biblical theology.” Therefore Barr finds that canonical criticism is dangerous not only because it has threatened the freedom of critical inquiry but also because it cannot be seen as an appropriate starting point for biblical theology. Ollenburger notes that in Barr’s eyes, Childs’s canonical approach is not only wrong but completely and dangerously and dead wrong. Likewise, Whybray not only calls Childs’s canonical approach “a new form of OT criticism,” but also points out that Childs’s canonical criticism “must be regarded as a dangerous method of interpretation which ought to be resisted.” See Barr 1983, 48, 132–133, 138. Ollenburger 1984, 208-210. Whybray

154 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Childs’s canonical approach as canonical criticism; perhaps some just follow 110 what others have asserted. The first reason for calling Childs’s proposal for canonical theological exegesis “canonical criticism” is that the term “canon” is at the heart of his program, and his actual exegesis remains both “historical” and “critical.” According to the critics, this means that Childs’s canonical approach remains in essence within the framework of historical criticism. For this reason, the method of canonical theological exegesis is similar to the historical-critical method in general, but retains a few differences in particular; it is new because of his special emphasis on the canon not because of his method. For them, Childs’s canonical approach includes a critical analysis of what is canonical and what is not, thus it is called canonical criticism. The second reason is that while Childs’s canonical approach is extremely concerned about the canonical final form of the Bible, he must use the redaction critical method to deal with the final shape of the text. Thus, Childs can in no way escape from using the methodology of historical criticism. This is why many biblical scholars look upon the canonical approach as a new kind of redaction criticism. The third reason for seeing Childs’s canonical methodology as “canonical criticism” is his emphasis on history. According to Childs, a historical understanding of the Bible is the basis for any theological understanding and

1981, 29–34. 110 Some scholars use the term “canonical criticism” to describe Childs’s canonical approach in a general and neutral way. Brown 1985, 21. Coats 1985, 251. Carroll 1980, 285; 1981, 76. Collins 2005, 15–17, 73. P. Davis 1998, 41, 48. Fowl 1985, 175. Gamble 1987, 330–332. Harrelson 1981, 100. Hunter 1990, 105–107. Jasper 1998, 22. Kittel 1980, 2. Moberly 1988, 104–109. Morgan 1982, 383; 1986, 83. Ollenburger 1984, 208–210. Schultz 2002, 87. Wallace 1990, 7. Wolterstorff 2004, 221. Priest says that “canonical criticism can be understood as the legitimate extension of other historical disciplines such as source criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism.” Noble sees it as “a genuinely critical theology.” Turner sees it as “the canonical form of criticism.” Räisänen calls Childs a “canonical critic.” Barton argues that “it is hard to resist” calling it canonical criticism, as it is “more closely analogous to form criticism and redaction criticism.” It is radically new, because “the whole style of Childs’s enterprise has from the literary point of view too an unmistakably modern air. Whether or not he has been influenced by the New Criticism, it is hard to believe that his proposals would have taken just this form, if the New Criticism had never existed...Childs stands very close to the new criticism.” Similarly, Brett and Collins describe his canonical approach as New Criticism. Barton 1984, 154, 166, 221. Brett 1991, 4–5, 114. Collins 2005, 17, 73. Noble 1995, 328–329. Priest 1980, 266. Räisänen 2000, 120. Turner 1999, 711.

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 155 interpretation of the Bible. His canonical approach widely absorbs the main results of historical criticism, as we have seen above. Childs does not accept this criticism. After the publication of BTC (1970), the canonical approach was viewed as a new sort of historical criticism, namely, 111 “canonical criticism.” Sometimes Childs himself also used the same term. Later Childs, however, was very disappointed with this term, especially in his essay “Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature” (1978), and in his IOTS 112 (1979) he firmly rejects the expression “canonical criticism.” From that time on, the term “canonical criticism” never appears in his writings. Instead, he consistently employs the term “canonical approach” in order to avoid any impression that his canonical approach is similar to other historical-critical methods. He insisted that his canonical approach was not an application of a 113 new critical method to biblical studies. Why did Childs become so unhappy with the term “canonical criticism”? He insists that reading the Bible as Scripture is the major task of the canonical approach. He has grown to dislike linking the term “critical” with biblical studies of interpretation; what he is deeply concerned about is the theological reading of the Scripture. His canonical approach is an attempt to free the Bible from the grip of historical criticism so that it can once again be sacred 114 Scripture. For Childs, the canonical approach is in no way just another critical 115 technique or tool 111 For example, in his “A Call to Canonical Criticism,” Childs 1973, 88–91. 112 He says that “the approach which I am advocating has been described by others as ‘canonical criticism.’ I am not happy with this term...I do not envision the approach to canon in this light.” Indeed, later he repeats that “the approach which I am undertaking has been described by others as ‘canonical criticism.’ I am unhappy with this term because it implies that the canonical approach is considered another historical-critical technique...” Childs 1978a, 54; 1979, 82. 113 Barr 1980, 20; 1983, 84–85. Barton 1984, 90. Brett 1991, 19–21. Carroll 1981, 76. Coats 1985, 253. Collins 2005, 15–17, 73. Fowl 1985, 174–175. Harrisville 1999, 13. House 2002, 270. Kittel 1980, 2. McDonald 1995, 302; 2007, 467. McDonald & Porter 2000, 33. Morgan 1986, 83. Murphy 1980, 42. O’Conner 1995, 91. Priest 1980, 267. Sanders 1984, 2, 9. Scalise 1994a, 44. Ward 2002, 238. D. Williams 2004, 79–80. 114 Some similar observations can be seen in Carroll 1980, 286. Scalise 1994a, 44. Carroll thinks that Childs is unhappy with the term canonical criticism; however he does not offer an alternative description for Childs’s approach. Childs’s real concern is with the question “how is the Bible to be read as sacred Scripture?” Similarly, Scalise understands Childs’s intention as offering a re-visioning of the task of biblical interpretation but not as another historicalcritical method. 115 Childs 1978a, 54; 1979, 74, 82; 1986a, 56–60, 74–75. Barton says that “Childs himself does

156 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Childs believes that the emphasis on the canonical form of the text has proved to be an effective hermeneutical tool for establishing the peculiar profile of each passage. The canonicity of the Bible is not looked upon as an objectively demonstrable entity, but as a statement of the Christian faith. Thus the canonical approach must resist any method that tries critically to shift the canonical ordering. Childs’s emphasis on the authority of the Christian canonical context as the appropriate foundation for doing biblical theology obviously aims at seeking a theological methodological breakthrough. In other words, he wants to create a new biblical theology with a new method. Therefore, if we look back at Barr’s criticism of Childs’s canonical approach, we can see that Barr certainly misunderstands Childs’s basic intention. Childs clearly goes beyond historical criticism in the sense that his canonical approach is not the same as “canonical criticism,” nor is it a new kind of historical-critical method. Barr fails to see Childs’s canonical approach as a new platform for exegesis although Childs clearly points out that his canonical approach is not the end but the beginning of exegesis. Furthermore, Barr does not understand Childs’s move from biblical interpretation to theological 116 interpretation. The publication of BTONT (1992) finally proved that Childs’s canonical approach cannot be called “canonical criticism.” Thus we can understand that the term “canonical criticism” does not fit Childs’s program.

Theological Distinction Childs’s critics maintain that his supposed “canonical criticism” is just one modification of form criticism, source criticism, and literary criticism put together. But we have seen that the real deep intention of Childs’s canonical approach is to create a methodology which acknowledges the Bible as sacred Scripture, and its central purpose is to provide canon-based biblical theology for the Christian church. Already in the early 1970s Childs clearly expressed that not understand his canonical approach as simply another, hitherto neglected, area of historical literary criticism; he understands it as different in kind from all previous methods. That is why he refuses to speak of canonical criticism.” Barton 1984, 90. 116 In IOTS, Childs says that “a canonical introduction is not the end, but only the beginning of exegesis. It prepares the stage for the real performance by clearing away unnecessary distractions and directing one’s attention to the main activity which is about to be initiated.” Childs 1979, 83. In ch. 3 above we saw how Childs strongly argued that his canonical approach is misunderstood and misinterpreted first by Barr, then by Barton, and followed by many others. Childs 2004, 320-321.

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 157 his main interest in biblical study was to understand the theological implications of the present shape of the canon. He understands his canonical approach as seeking relevant and fresh theology from the given and accepted Hebrew canon for the Christian faith community. His basic principle is that the theological core of the OT lies in the given historical form of the Scripture and not in the historical process which shaped each book. Thus, it is not necessary for a biblical interpreter to emerge from any stance either behind or above the OT canon. The interpreter can trust on the theological potential of each canonical book and base his/her interpretation on the synchronic interdependence of the canonical books. In order to fully realize the canonical potential, this kind of interpretation must also be related to the 117 community of faith. Childs looks upon the Bible as the sacred Scripture of the Christian church, which is not only a text in its traditional and historical dimensions but also an active and living text speaking God’s word for present and future generations of believers. Childs was trained in the historical-critical method and he certainly used it consistently in his works during the earlier part of his career. There is a clear methodological development from “historical” and “critical” to “canonical” and “theological” in his publications. Childs’s thinking and way of researching and interpreting the Bible becomes more and more theological over the years. We need to pay more attention to his theological and doctrinal reflection on the Bible below (see ch. 5.).

Difference from Redaction Criticism As we have seen, a number of critics, including Barr and Barton, regard Childs’s canonical approach as a new form of redaction criticism. John F. Priest argues that the difference between the canonical approach and canonical criticism is

117 Once he declared that “the canonical approach is concerned to understand the nature of the theological shape of the text rather than to recover an original literary or aesthetic unity.” This might be the reason why he mentioned later in BTONT that saying that “my approach to canon is a purely formal, literary construct without theological content is a fundamental misunderstanding of the proposal.” See Childs 1970a, 91–120; 1973, 90–91; 1979, 74–78; 1980a, 54; 1993, 72. Childs believes that his canonical approach might become a significant instrument in pursuing biblical theological implications because of its departure from the traditional historical-critical method. Childs’s move from canonical concerns to theological exegesis will be dealt with in a later chapter.

158 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context “in scope” but “not in method”; and Hugh Godfrey Williamson says that 118 Childs’s canonical approach is “redaction criticism under a new name.” Childs’s canonical approach, however, cannot be so easily compared and equated with redaction criticism. Perhaps something important is missing in the criticism made by Barr, Barton, Priest, and Williamson. Indeed, Childs often makes use of redaction criticism in studying the seams within biblical literature, but he believes that it would be a misunderstanding if one sees his usage of redaction analysis as underlining only the theology of the last editor of each canonical book. Childs applies redaction criticism, not because his canonical approach depends on it, but because he believes that there are some hiatuses still remaining between various literary sources and the final canonical shape of a book. Redaction analysis in this sense becomes a necessary tool since it can be helpful in dealing with larger units within a given text, and extending questions 119 across an entire biblical corpus. Moreover, Childs notes that some peculiar shapes of literature can be made clear by using redaction analysis; the emphasis is not on trying to find out the self-understanding or theological nuances of the final editor by redaction analysis. Rather, the canonical approach in analyzing the process of the canonization of the text pays attention to the primary theological content of the given final form of the text. In 1990 Childs offered an example in his exegesis of Ps.102. He says that the purpose of redaction criticism is to determine both the Psalmist’s conscious intention and some unintentional sociological forces by reconstructing the historical context of the act of redaction. Assuming that there is a current problem in the exilic community, which the Psalmist wishes to address, the Psalmist can be thought to have brought his text into conformity 118 In Barr’s eyes, no OT theologians ever insisted on “an exact dating of sources.” Barr even gives an instance, when von Rad “wrote an entire volume on the theological understanding of Wisdom without troubling seriously about dates at all.” Barton sees Childs’s canonical approach as “a natural successor to redaction criticism within a literary climate permeated by New Criticism.” Priest finds that the canonical approach does not deal with separate literary sources, units of oral (then written) tradition, or the process of redaction on a limited scale, thus he believes that Childs’s understanding is “congenial and necessary.” Williamson finds that Childs’s emphases on “the coercion of the biblical text” and on “the editorial tradents’ continuous effect of the whole on each single text” are characteristics of redaction criticism. See Barr 1980, 20. Barton 1984, 208. Priest 1980, 266–267. Williamson 2002. 119 See Childs 1978b, 67–68; 1979, 132–133; 1980a, 54; 1996, 364–366. Sanders is interested in this point, too. Brett also points out that Childs is not primarily concerned about the intentions or historical settings of the final editors, rather, his real interest is in “the meaning of the texts.” Sanders 1984, 29. Brett 1991, 3.

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 159 with the historical reality of his time. He, however, remarks that, when interpreting this Psalm, Childs is more concerned about “the effect of the redactional shaping on the text’s witness” than the intentionality of the redactor, thus his canonical approach is “radically Theocentric in orientation 120 rather than anthropocentric.” In this sense, redaction criticism does not influence Childs’s theological exegesis. In his BTONT (1992) Childs admits the important contribution of redaction criticism in helping to understanding the multilayered nature of the biblical text. He, however, observes that redaction criticism is concerned with recovering as far as possible the historical development of the biblical text, whereas the canonical approach analyzes the multiple layers of the text as given in the canonical final form of the text. His canonical approach focuses on 121 discovering the theological effectiveness of the final form of the text.

Childs and Sanders: Similarities and Differences In the middle of the 1960s and early 1970s, Childs tried to respond to the crisis of biblical theology by attempting to release the canonical Scripture from the chains of historical criticism. Childs sought a new canonical approach in order to overcome the atomization of the Bible into unrelated separate texts. From the 1970s, his canonical approach was recognized as a new phenomenon in biblical studies. We have seen that his proposal of canonical theological exegesis had a great number of critics and opponents, Barr and Barton being the most prominent among them. Childs also had some supporters. In the field of the contemporary American biblical studies, scholars usually look upon both Childs and James A. Sanders as important biblical theologians who made significant contributions to canonical criticism. Sanders is often seen as a positive respondent to Childs’s canonical approach, and sometimes he is even regarded as one of the very few biblical 122 scholars who “parallel and follow” Childs’s canonical approach. In his Torah and Canon (1972) Sanders employs the term “canon criticism” and seeks a “canonical hermeneutic” in which the interpretation of normative traditions of

120 See Childs 1990b, 363. 121 See Childs 1993, 642, 650. 122 See Carroll 1981, 73. Hunter 1990, 105. Jasper 1998, 22. Morgan 1986, 83. Priest 1980, 267. In Britain, W. L. Moberly has been seen as “the most distinguished representative” of Childs’s canonical approach. Barton 2002, 89–90.

160 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context the Bible can appropriately be carried on. In his Canon and Community (1984) Sanders uses “canonical criticism” to emphasize the association of this method with the historical-critical method. In 1973 Childs wrote a review of Sanders’ Torah and Canon entitled “A Call to Canonical Criticism.” This article can be treated as Childs’s attempt to identify and distance his own “canonical approach” from Sanders’ “canonical criticism.” In general, Sanders defines canonical criticism as a sub-discipline of historical-critical exegesis. According to his view, canonical criticism assimilates the sound results of historical criticism 123 provided by source, form, structural, and redaction criticism. Childs’s canonical approach and Sanders’ canonical criticism in theory have some similarities, but methodologically they differ from each other greatly. First I pay some attention to the similarities between Childs and Sanders. Childs and Sanders started discussing the question of the canon at almost the same time, with Childs perhaps a bit earlier, in the 1970s. Sanders became vocal 124 on canonical criticism in the early 1980s. Furthermore, they both connect the idea of canonicity with the necessity of giving due attention to the communities of faith which define certain books as canonical. For both Sanders and Childs, the term “the community of faith” means the believing communities of both Jews and Christians. Both accept that the biblical canon should include the contributions of the later editors who handled the original texts as well as the seams of redaction. The confession of the Christian church contains the rule of faith, which is a normative regulative principle for doing biblical theology. Sanders argues that the canon and the community belong together, stating that “neither truly exists without the other,” and that “the Bible is in the believing communities.” Although historical-critical scholarship treats the Bible as “a product of history,” this history is “a product of a very peculiar history, which continues today in the Jewish and Christian believing communities,” 125 Sanders asserts. For both of these communities, the canon in the pre-critical

123 Sanders 1972, xviii, 120; 1984, 31, 43. However, this definition does not please Childs who argues that “the definition of canonical criticism needs to be made more precise,” and that “I wonder whether the definition of canonical criticism could be made more precise right at the outset.” See Childs 1973, 88–89. 124 In the early 1980s, Sanders said that “canonical criticism is only about a decade old. While it had precursors in the 1960s, 1972 seems to mark its inception.” See Sanders 1984, 61. 125 See Sanders 1984, xv, 19. Also see Sanders 1980, 187, where he remarks that “one must keep in mind all the texts and all the canons and all the communities.” Indeed, Childs does not pay much attention to the historical context of the texts, but this does not mean that he rejects the historicity of Scripture.

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 161 period meant the very authority of the faith and practice of the synagogue and church. Sanders believes that the OT has always been the Scripture both of the Christian church and of the synagogue; similarly, when Childs says that the Bible is the Scripture of the Christian church, he means that the Bible as Scripture functions as the vehicle for God’s special communication of himself to the church and to the world. This understanding of the Scripture’s uniqueness remains a statement of faith. The Scripture does not exist as a book of truth in 126 itself, yet there is no church tradition independent of the biblical text. Thus, both Childs and Sanders agree that the biblical exegete and interpreter should acknowledge the Christian church as the proper context for biblical interpretation. As we have seen above, Childs keeps on propounding the “canon as the most appropriate context for doing biblical theology.” Sanders, too, argues that the Bible can be the word of God only as read or heard by 127 living persons in communities of faith. Like Childs, Sanders agrees that his canonical criticism sees the Bible in terms of Scripture, which seeks the lines of 128 continuity as well as those of discontinuity within the Scripture. Further on, Sanders and Childs have not only a similar critical attitude towards historical criticism, but also a similar direction in doing biblical theology. Earlier in this chapter we examined Childs’s dissatisfaction with historical criticism in its hermeneutical, theological, and pastoral dimensions, and we saw that he makes use of the historical-critical method as a tool to promote his canonical approach. Sanders follows the same historical understanding as Childs, namely, that, since the Enlightenment, the main interest of historical criticism was to reconstruct and restore the historical authenticity and original reality of the biblical texts. With this keen concentration on the past, the historical-critical method “limits the concept of 129 canon” and “de-canonizes the Bible,” Sanders says.

126 Sanders 1984, 1–2. Childs 1964, 443; 1970a, 102–104; 1993, 726; 1998a, 8; 1998b, 61. 127 Sanders 1984, xvii. A similar observation can be seen in Barton 1990, 104, where he says, Childs and Sanders agree that “the exegete should be guided, not by the historically reconstructive style of traditional critical scholarship, but by the religious concerns that led the church to canonize certain of its writings rather than others.” 128 Sanders 1984, 69. See ch. 3 above where Childs’s assertion on the relationship between the two Testaments is discussed in detail. Childs insists on the continuity of the two Testaments both in history and in theology. But he also maintains that the OT and the NT each have their own discrete voice. 129 Sanders 1984, xv-xvi, 3.

162 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context As a result, historical criticism produced problems whilst also securing vital achievements. Problems arose when historical scholarship compromised the authority of the Bible in the believing communities. Sanders claims that the aim of his canonical criticism is to be “a servant of the believing communities,” to “re-canonize the Bible,” and to “place it back where it belongs in the believing communities of today.” Sanders wishes to “correct some attitudes and 130 suppositions of earlier sub-disciplines of biblical criticism.” Like Childs, Sanders holds that his canonical criticism assimilates the sound results of historical criticism and makes use of the historical-critical method as a tool. For him, canonical criticism should continue both to honor “what our ancestors in the faith had in mind” and learn from the results of historical criticism at the 131 same time. For Sanders, one of the reasons for advocating the idea is that he is attempting to develop his own canonical-critical method in such a way that it can be comparable to those methods which had evolved earlier in the historicalcritical study of the Bible - textual criticism, source criticism, literary criticism, form criticism, tradition criticism, and more recently, redaction criticism. However, Sanders’ central aim is still to make progress for a sound canonical biblical theological discipline which does not destroy biblical authority. Paying attention to the differences between Childs and Sanders, we must first pay heed to the fact that Childs strongly rejects any categorization of his canonical approach as a new method of historical criticism and conscientiously rejects the term “canonical criticism.” Unlike Childs, however, Sanders finds that “canonical criticism” can be viewed as a part—albeit a rather complicated 132 part—of historical criticism. Second, we need to look at how the two scholars comprehend the process of canonization. Childs focuses on the stability of the final form of the text, whilst Sanders emphasizes that the biblical canon is not only stable but also adaptable. 130 Sanders 1984, xvi, 3, 20, 31. He confidently argues that “canonical criticism can provide a bridge from the valid work of biblical criticism over to the necessary questions concerning the authority of Scripture in believing communities, both in antiquity and today.” Sanders 1984, 45. 131 See Sanders 1984, 2, 43–45. 132 Sanders finds that canonical criticism is not only a logical evolution of earlier stages in the growth of criticism, but also reflects back on all the disciplines of biblical criticism and informs them all to some extent. He also argues that his canonical criticism recognizes that the true Sitz im Leben today of the Bible is in the believing communities. Childs sees Sanders’ association with historical criticism as “a necessary supplement and even final exegetical stage within the one framework of historical critical interpretation.” Sanders 1984, 19. Childs 2003, 174.

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 163 The canonical process as an element in Sanders’s canonical criticism means “the history of canon” and stresses the nature and function of the canon. The nature of the canon is characterized by both its adaptability and stability, which must 133 be seen together. Canonical stability means that there was a graduated canonization process until its formation. Most biblical scholars believe that the process of canonization took centuries, thus biblical canonical stability cannot be absolute. Adaptability means that Scripture adapted to changes in the context of the early Christian church. In this process some literature became noncanonical not because they were not accepted but because they could not survive. Sanders is concerned with the adaptability of both the OT canon and the NT canon in the changing circumstances of the early Christian church. In stressing the function of the canon, canonical criticism focuses on the significance of the authoritative traditions in the believing communities. In this sense, the canonical process is understood as a process of both canonical stabilization and adaptation. For Sanders, the stability of the canon is necessary, but its adaptability needs to be seen as equally important. Childs does not agree with Sanders’s idea that canonical stability and adaptability can be characterized as equally important, because this idea seems to follow the interests of 134 Protestant liberalism. For Childs, the canonical shape not only registers the history of Israel’s later experience with an early tradition, but also brings to an end the whole process of Israel’s understanding and reception of divine revelation. Sanders does not pay attention to the final canonical form of the text in the way Childs does, but he is concerned with what a believing community had in mind at that passing moment when the final form was achieved. This is why Sanders regards Childs’s canonical approach as overemphasizing the final form of the text and considers his own canonical criticism as a wider and more comprehensive method than Childs’s insistence on the final shape of the biblical books and of the entire 135 Bible. Third, Sanders does not fully agree with Childs’s synchronic way of dealing with the Jewish canon of the Hebrew Bible. He argues that Childs’s synchronic view isolates “the moment of stabilization of the several texts in a certain literary form as canonical;” thus it fails to provide enough evidence to demonstrate his 133 Sanders 1984, 22–24, 33. 134 Sanders 1980, 187; 1984, 9, 24, 31. Childs 1979, 37, 57–58; 2005b, 33–34. 135 Sanders 1984, 9, 24–25. Childs believes that the issue of canonical shaping and historical development in canonical criticism needs exploring. Childs 1973, 90.

164 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context treatment of the Bible as a whole. Childs’s canonical final form means the final theological statement, but Childs completely brings such a single hermeneutical 136 movement into its full canonical context. This difference between Childs and Sanders touches on their way of understanding the Bible as a whole. As we have seen, Childs is more concerned with the theological continuity of the two Testaments, whereas Sanders tends to agree with the idea that it is difficult to treat the Bible both synchronically and diachronically. If the issue of the historical continuity of the Bible cannot be solved satisfactorily, then theological continuity would be difficult to deal with, Sanders believes. Methodologically we can say that Childs stresses the theological implications of the canon, whereas Sanders emphasizes its hermeneutical role. Childs claims that his canonical approach is “theological” by nature and that the theological task is at the heart of the canonical approach. Childs criticizes Sanders for his “canonical criticism” which “aids the modern exegete by defining the hermeneutics of that generation which gave the canon its basic shape,” and adds that “my own interest in canonical criticism focuses on 137 understanding the theological implications of the present shape of the canon.” Sanders does not deny the validity of Childs’s concern with the theological implications of the canon, but he believes that his own canonical criticism is 138 able to play a hermeneutical role in biblical theology.

136 See Sanders 1984, 23, 35–36. 137 See Childs 1973, 90. Also see his later works such as 1979, 57, 67–68; 1986a, 137. 138 The five salient observations of the hermeneutical role of the canon for biblical theology are given by Sanders as follows: (1) The Bible should not be thought of as a monotheistic book but as a monothesizing literature, which means that there is no serious treatise in the Bible that contradicts the monotheistic faith. (2) The Bible as the canon establishes a broad theocentric hermeneutic, in which God is presented as Creator, Sustainer, Judge, Redeemer, and Re-creator. (3) Much of the Bible celebrates the idea: errore hominum providentia divina (God’s providence works through human error), which means that the Bible frequently celebrates the theological idea that “human sinfulness is the stuff with which God works to effect his plan and do his work.” All human beings in the Bible are shown as sinful. (4) In the Bible God betrays a divine bias for the weak and dispossessed, but this hermeneutic is “pervasive” because it cannot be absolutized. (5) There is a hermeneutical process by which the wisdom of others was adapted and re-signified. Sanders argues that there is a fourfold hermeneutic for adapting international wisdom, namely, ancient biblical thinkers depolytheized what they learned from others, monotheized it, Yahwized it, and then Israelitized it. See Sanders 1984, 46–60.

The Inadequacies of Historical Criticism 165

Summary: Inadequacy and Usefulness In this chapter we have dealt with problems and questions concerning historical-critical scholarship in biblical studies. We have analyzed Childs’s views on the inadequacies of historical criticism for hermeneutics, theology, and the pastoral practice of the Christian church. His criticism reveals his basic attitude towards modern biblical scholarship. Hermeneutically, he does not deny the achievement of the Enlightenment in biblical scholarship. But he is deeply concerned about the methodological and hermeneutical inadequacy of historical criticism for Christian biblical theology. It is not correct to understand the Bible only as a part of human culture and ignore it as the sacred Scripture of the community of faith. Nor is it right to divide the Bible into isolated, unrelated fragments. Thus, it is necessary to combine the synchronic and diachronic interpretations of the Bible, though such a combination seems to be very difficult to achieve. For Childs, the theological implications of the Bible are more important than questions about its historical authenticity. Based on this theological focus, biblical hermeneutics should pay more attention to the Bible’s sensus literalis than its sensus originalis. In ascertaining that Childs prefers to see the Bible as Scripture to seeing the Bible as part of human culture, we noticed one of his weaknesses: Childs is not very good at constructing a relationship between Scripture as the word of God and Scripture as the human word. Theologically, Childs points out that historical-critical scholarship has lacked a theological direction and has been unable to produce theology. The Bible was read and interpreted only as a human document. As a result, historical criticism became theologically barren, and, from the pastoral point of view, it could even be misleading. Childs is well aware of the weaknesses and shortcomings of the historical-critical method, and argued that there was an urgent need to find new ways of doing and creating relevant biblical theology. Basically, Childs is not an enemy of historical criticism—he was trained in the historical-critical method. In the course of his academic career, Childs gradually became more and more disillusioned with historical criticism because of its theological barrenness. He clearly wished to hear the word of God and find God’s revelation in the Bible. Because hearing and finding the revelation of God in the Bible is not a “critical” task, he does not permit his canonical approach to be called “canonical criticism.” Childs moves from detailed biblical research to wider theological topics in his published works; biblical theology becomes his real concern during the most productive part of his career.

166 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context For Childs, the investigation of the historical background of the biblical texts becomes an acceptable yet secondary tool for his canonical theological exegesis. Therefore, it is not right to label his canonical approach either as absolutely anti-historical or as essentially a-historical. Childs recognizes the usefulness of historical criticism to a certain limited extent, as a preliminary step in the process of biblical interpretation. He, however, does not give the historical-critical method a determinative role in his canonical theological 139 exegesis.

139 Some similar observations can be found in Brett 1991, 104, 113, 143. Scalise 1994a, 67. Provan 1997, 27. They believe that in accepting historical criticism, Childs is simply recognizing that the historical-critical method in general is a fairly obvious and self-evident starting point.

CHAPTER 5

Theological Exegesis In the previous chapters we have analyzed Childs’s canonical approach and the reasons for his dissatisfaction with historical criticism. In this chapter we are going to study how Childs connects biblical exegesis with theology. In chapter 1, section 1.3, , I explained that the notion of “theological exegesis” for Childs is a way for creating biblical theology. It emphasizes the importance of the theological interpretation of the biblical texts; theological exegesis means understanding and interpreting the Bible theologically.

Theological Pursuit in Biblical Interpretation The Bible Has Been Losing Itself Childs realizes that the loss of confidence of using the Bible for Christian theology leads to some difficulties in understanding the word “God.” For him, the God which theology talks about is no longer properly connected with the God of the Bible. The idea of the living God has often become a doctrinal, conceptual, and philosophical entity. The de-emphasis and even loss of biblical authority caused a lot of difficulties for the Christian faith in understanding God. Childs sees that God reveals himself through Scripture; in other words, the Bible’s main concern is to reveal the character of God. He understands “the God of the Bible” as one who both makes himself known and hides himself. Thus, the Bible bears witness to God’s activity, and the revelation refers to the content of the Bible. It is incorrect to treat the Bible only as another cultural artifact based upon its historical context. A mere cultural treatment of the Bible can neither illuminate the Bible’s role, or status, as an authoritative text for the rule of faith nor provide a theologically sound interpretation of God’s will. The central role of the Bible as the vehicle for encountering the living God has been badly ignored. In the 1960s and early 1970s scientific and humanistic

168 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context approaches to the Bible became commonplace in America, which led to a decrease in the authority of the Bible. Consequently, the essence of the Bible 1 has been dismissed, therefore the Bible has been losing itself, Childs affirms. Childs criticizes his Yale colleague George A. Lindbeck for “talking more about the text than about God” in his cultural-linguistic method of interpreting 2 the Bible. Lindbeck views religion as a kind of social experience, which is strongly dependent on the cultural and linguistic framework and which shapes the entire life and thought of the faith community. In the cultural-linguistic framework, doctrines do not function as propositions but as rules for speech and action. Childs, however, feels that Lindbeck’s understanding of Scripture merely provides an “intratextual” “lexical core” for Christian discourse within the context of the Christian community. In Lindbeck’s intratextual emphasis, the meaning of Scripture is not dependent on an outside referential verification, but is understood only within a self-related whole. Childs is unconvinced that Lindbeck’s cultural-linguistic approach is a way in which the Bible functions for the Christian church. He, however, points out that Lindbeck’s approach merely creates “its own fictive world.” The world into which “the reader is drawn has 3 its origins far more in high church liturgical practice than from the Bible.” Similarly, Childs criticizes narrative theology because of its “pure literary” description of the Bible. It was another Yale colleague of Childs, Hans W. Frei, and his narrative theology that became the target of Childs’s criticism. According to Frei, the gospel narrative finds its significance in the narrative structure itself, and therefore an appropriate method of biblical interpretation is “to observe the story itself.” Thus, the aim of biblical exegesis is simply to look for the sense of a story as such; biblical exegesis is “in the final analysis that of

1 2 3

Childs 1970a, 39–44; 1979, 76; 1986a, 20–26; 1997b, 206–207. See Childs 1986a, Excursus III, 541–543; 1993, 21–22. Childs is of the opinion that Lindbeck does not entirely comprehend Barth’s understanding of biblical texts; rather, he recommends his own view on Barth according to which “the Bible above all bears witness to a reality outside the text, namely the word of God who is Jesus Christ.” Childs 1993, 21–22. Vanhoozer argues that “Lindbeck maintains that doctrines are second-order rather than first-order propositions and affirms nothing about extra-linguistic or extra-human reality.” Brevard Childs thinks the real problem in Lindbeck is the tendency to substitute talk about ‘text’ for talk about God. Vanhoozer 2005, 174. Cf. Lindbeck 1984, 80–81, 117. Lindbeck speaks about the analysis of texts and assumes that some communities may regard texts as authoritative. Doctrines may be second-order in analytical meaning but they become first-order propositions when the community adopts the texts as holy.

Theological Exegesis 169 reading the story itself.” The story does not find its meaning from any wider 4 interpretational or theological perspective from outside the story itself. Childs thinks that Frei’s narrative theology can most appropriately be regarded as a literary approach. He sees narrative theology as being far removed from the real theological issues of the Scripture. The subject matter of the Bible is not a “story” but Jesus Christ whom God has given for the salvation of the whole world. Narrative theology pays too much attention to reading biblical texts as realistic narratives. Childs claims that the narrative approach sidesteps theological issues; many modern narrative theologies are interested in retelling the story but not in theological issues. For Childs doing Christian biblical theology does not mean telling stories, so he does not regard narrative theology as a successful method for biblical theology. On the contrary, Childs sees narrative theology as “a fully secular, non-theological reading of the Bible” and 5 declares that in biblical theology we do not tell a story.

The Bible as the Word of God Many scholars believe that Childs’s canonical theological exegesis is influenced 6 by Karl Barth’s theology of the word of God. For example, Childs and Barth both think that it is not necessary to separate the word of God from the events 7 of the Bible. For both, the Bible as Scripture implies the human witness to the 4 5

6

7

See Frei 1974, xv, 47, 87. Childs is not alone on this point. Hunsinger also disagrees with Frei’s narrative theology, arguing that Frei’s narrative theology has two consequences: one is that its interpretations of the NT story about Jesus Christ become “increasingly arbitrary;” another is that “Christology comes to play an increasingly peripheral role.” However, Childs’s assertion that “in biblical theology we do not tell a story” seems to be narrow and questionable; for instance, Bartholomew and Goheen argue that telling a story can be one way of doing biblical theology, too, because “the objections to a narrative biblical theology do not stand up to critical scrutiny, and while we do not argue that this is the only way to do biblical theology, we think that it is an important approach.” Childs 1993, 723; see also 1993, 8–9, 81, 102–115, 118– 151, 665–666, 722. Hunsinger 1993, 238, 256. Bartholomew & Goheen 2004, 168, 154, 162. Many theologians and biblical scholars agree that Barth had a powerful influence on Childs’s theological exegesis. Barth’s influence on Childs is mainly based on two points. One is Childs’s personal student-teacher relationship with Barth, another is Barth’s doctrine of Scripture. See Bartholomew 2004. Bauckham 1994, 250. Brown 2007. Burnett 2001, 9–10. McGlasson 2006, 91–108. Noble 1995, 77. O’Conner 1995, 91. Scalise 1994b, 62–63. Barth sometimes understands biblical events as the revelation of God since the Bible can interpret itself. He thinks that “revelation takes place as an event, when and where the word

170 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context word of God. Both of them hold that theological exegesis is a matter for the church; in other words, they seek an ideal ecclesiology through faith seeking understanding. Their understanding of the Bible as an authoritative witness to the word of God functions in the life of the Christian church within the framework of faith; therefore, the primary task of theological exegesis ought to be to speak for the Christian church, the community of faith. Biblical interpretation must build a bridge from the theological revelational content of Scripture, received in faith by the prophets and the apostles, to the theological 8 content of the faith of the church. We will discuss some similarities between Barth and Childs concerning the doctrine of Scripture in the next chapter. Childs’s claim that the Bible is the word of God can be seen throughout his works. His earliest description of “the Bible as the word of God” can be seen in “Jonah” (1958) where he argues that the Bible is the word from God calling forth a response. For him, the message of Jonah can be understood as a vehicle for the word of God acting in the lives of God’s people, and through which the purpose of God’s salvation for human beings can be realized. God’s word is addressed and heard in the form of a story. Childs disagrees with the judgment of historical criticism that the story of Jonah is a mere tale; rather, he believes

8

of the Bible becomes God’s word.” Barth also says that “the primary event alone is the Word: Scripture becomes the Word in fidelity to Christ, preaching becomes the Word in fidelity to Scripture, but Christ is the divine act itself.” Childs shares this opinion of Barth. A typical example is Childs’s Commentary on Exodus, in which he argues that “the biblical writer brackets the Exodus event with a preceding and a succeeding interpretation. He does not see the Exodus as an act of God distinct from the word of God which explains it. In theological terms, the relation between act and interpretation, or event and word, is one which cannot be separated.” See Barth CD I/1, 117; I/2, 127. Childs 1964, 442–443; 1972a, 719; 1974a, 204. Scalise makes a similar observation, when he notes that “the influence of Karl Barth upon Childs’s theological interpretation of Exodus becomes clearly apparent in the refusal finally to separate ‘word and event.’” Scalise 1994a, 60. Barth points out that “the discipline of biblical theology does not operate in a vacuum, but in service to the church of Jesus Christ, which is established by the prophetic-apostolic witness.” Quoted by Stuhlmacher 1995, 70-71 (the quotation is from Barth’s Einführung in die evangelische Theologie 1963, 193). Childs understands Barth’s theology of the word of God as an important basis for the theological task of biblical exegesis. See Childs 1964, 443; 1969b, 32–34; 1994a, 234–236; 1995a, 16; 1997b, 205. For similar observations, see Barr 1992, 141. Scalise 1994b, 66-68. Barr sees Childs’s canonical approach as speaking for the church in a very similar way to that of Barth in his time. Scalise argues that “for both Barth and Childs canon signifies the primarily theological and secondarily historical declaration that the Bible at hand is the Holy Scripture of the church.”

Theological Exegesis 171 9

that Jonah is “a witness to the reality of God’s redemptive purpose.” In “Interpretation in Faith” (1964) Childs claims that the whole Bible with its two Testaments should be read as the word of God within an explicit framework of faith. The final and normative task of theological exegesis is to seek to hear the 10 word of God. In his IOTS (1979) Childs suggests that the canonical approach aims at reading the Bible as the word of God, not as a source of ancient religious systems. The Bible as the word of God is continuously infused with the promise of God’s divine illumination; that is why the Bible is understood as both “being the word of God” and “becoming the word of God.” Childs sees the OT as a powerful vehicle of the word of God. For example, he views Wisdom Literature as the word of God and reads the Psalms as the word of God. He regards Psalm 1 as an instruction and guideline for a Christian life, which ought to be seen as the word of God rather than a philosophy of Jewish life and Hebrew 11 mentality. Childs argues that Christian biblical interpreters should treat Scripture as an authoritative collection of sacred writings, so that they can effectively understand the Bible as the continuing vehicle of divine manifestation within the Christian community of faith. Canonical theological exegesis must serve the task of preaching and teaching in the community of faith, thus theological reflection on the Bible as the word of God means first to hear the voice of God and then to speak his word to our age. Both hearing and speaking the word of God take place through “the Prophets and Apostles” who have received the 9

Childs also argues that “the Bible is not concerned with transmitting general truths about God, but is the Word from God calling forth a response,” and that the story of Jonah “is no longer a tale about Jonah,” but about the chosen people, that is, chosen by God, who are “miraculously saved from death, and given another lease on life to proclaim the message of salvation to the heathen…The message of Jonah is God’s word in action judging (the) disobedience and challenging them to a new apprehension of their divine commission.” Childs 1958b, 60–61. 10 He argues that “it is not a neutral ground but a part of the exegetical responsibility of studying the Bible to hear the word of God.” Similarly, on another page he says that “the final task of exegesis is to seek to hear the word of God.” Childs 1964, 438, 443. 11 Childs 1979, 76, 337, 513–514; 2005a, 380. One of Childs’s supporters, McGlasson presents the same argument of faith seeking understanding, meaning hearing the living word of God through the Bible and then bringing it to the contemporary world. Vanhoozer argues that, according to Childs, the “canon is first and foremost an example of divine use and divine practice: God's word. To participate in the canonical practices is thus to participate in what God is doing in Scripture and to be caught up in the economy of divine revelation and redemption.” McGlasson 2006, 93–94. Vanhoozer 2005, 218–219.

172 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context revelation. The prophets and apostles were the proclaimers of divine revelation; consequently, biblical theology must serve to illuminate the task of preaching in 12 the Christian church. The Bible as the word of God in the tradition of the prophets and apostles illustrates Childs’s emphasis on the importance of acknowledging the Bible as God’s revelation. That is to say, because the Bible as the Christian canon speaks the word of God, theological reflection on the Bible needs to rehear God’s word. The heritage of the prophets and apostles is seen as the key to understanding the theological continuity of the two Testaments, which bear 13 witness to encounters with God. However, the question that arose in ch. 4.1.2. and ch. 4.1.4. reappears here. Childs claims that the tradition of the prophets and apostles is the key “witness” to the word of God and argues that the “witness” of Moses, Jeremiah, 14 Paul, John, etc., becomes a vehicle for the word of God. As we have seen, he also says that the Bible is something that is “becoming the word of God.” These views imply that Childs thinks that the biblical text and the living witness of today are inseparable from each other. It seems that Childs is careful not to equate the text of the Bible with the word of God, so although the text testifies to God’s word, he does not like to call the text the word. This implies that the divine word is different from the text of Scripture. It is difficult to know exactly 12 Childs says, “the challenge of the Christian interpreter in our day is to hear the full range of notes within all of Scripture, to wrestle with the theological implication of this biblical witness, and above all, to come to grips with the agony of our age before a living God who still speaks through the Prophets and Apostles.” Childs 1969a, 31; 1970a, 163; 1972c, 28; 1986a, 20–26. 13 Childs says that the prophetic message “is not transmitted in the form of theological tractates nor of philosophical ruminations about abstract moral ideals. Rather, the prophets bear witness to a divine reality.” And, he continues, “prophetic truth is measured by what rightly conforms to its divine subject matter and evokes a faithful response from its recipients.” He goes on, “because the nature of prophetic speech was to reflect an encounter with the reality of God, an analysis of a prophetic oracle as if it were simply a freely composed literary construct does not do justice to the material...Prophetic authority is related to the function of the biblical text...The prophet serves as the living voice of God now preserved in a living text of Scripture. The text can certainly be extended beyond the scope of the original prophecy, but the theological link with its origin must be maintained in order to sustain its authority...The prophetic text is not a creation of nameless editors to manipulate for a private agenda, but it remains the irreplaceable vehicle in the service of God for the sake of Israel.” Childs 1996, 374–375. Similar arguments can be found in Childs 1986a, 123–130; 1993, 167–180; 2004, 321. 14 Childs 1964, 443.

Theological Exegesis 173 what Childs meant by the term “the word of God.” As noted above, it is obvious that Childs does not adapt the Chalcedonian principle of the simultaneity and inseparability of the divine and human aspect of the word, as, for instance, Luther and modern Catholic theology do. Childs understands Barth’s claim about the inseparable relationship between “word” and “event,” but he does perhaps ignore the fact that Barth also emphasized the importance of “the matter” of the Bible’s text itself. Thus the text itself is also the actual word, and the revelation of God is neither behind nor 15 above but in biblical texts. It is well known that Barth is concerned about the word of God in the words of man. Knowingly or unknowingly, Barth follows the Chalcedonian principle, whereas Childs does not. It is clear that biblical theology for both Barth and Childs is no longer a purely academic exercise but a disciplined study of and for the proclamation of the word of God. We will have a more detailed discussion on how Barth’s doctrine of Scripture might have influenced Childs’s understanding of the Bible in ch. 6.1.2. Barth’s influence on Childs is deep and lasting. There is also a strong link between Barthian neo-orthodoxy and the American Biblical Theological Movement (BTM). Both neo-orthodox theology in Europe and the BTM in America gradually lost their influence in the1960s. Central to both is their common concern to understand the Bible not merely as a human book but as a vehicle or witness of the divine word; and both of them view Scripture as an essential witness to the revelation of God. Thus, the BTM, fostered by Barthian neo-orthodoxy, was a reaction against both theological liberalism and conservatism. Childs thinks that Barth’s theology of the word of God has nothing to do with Heilsgeschichte, thus Barth’s dialectical theology is not a return to the history of the Bible but to the central theological idea, “the word of God in the word of men.” However, what Childs is worried about is that the BTM in America misunderstood this key point in Barth’s concept of Scripture, so that the positive mediating role of Barth’s theology was dropped and, instead, the European crisis of faith was imported to America and developed into an

15 Barth in his 1921 “Preface to the Second Edition” to The Epistle to the Romans said that “a perception of the ‘inner dialectic of the matter’ in the actual words of the text is a necessary and prime requirement for their understanding and interpretation.” It was precisely because of this attitude towards the text that Barth was called a “biblicist.” Barth 1968, 10–11. In CD, Barth points out that the Bible as Scripture means that the revelation is neither behind nor above but in biblical texts. Barth CD I/1, 285, 362; I/2, 492–494.

174 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context 16

American form. Childs’s regret at Barth’s theology not having enough impact on the American theological scene shows how he appreciates and depends on Barth. The BTM did not successfully serve as a neo-orthodox response to the combination between the Bible and theology. For this reason, Childs’s canonical theological exegesis aims to reassess biblical hermeneutics, allowing him to distance himself from the BTM.

Biblical Inspiration The Christian faith traditionally includes some kind of belief in the inspiration of the Holy Scripture (inspiratio divina; grafe theopneustos, 2 Tim. 3:16). The doctrine of biblical inspiration implies both the idea of the Bible’s special origin and authority as well as a special manner whereby the living God continues to address his people through the Bible. Biblical inspiration is a controversial theological topic. The doctrine of biblical inspiration has undergone certain changes since the church fathers; there are various forms of the doctrine of biblical inspiration. The most conservative theory, the theory of verbal inspiration, emphasizes the supernatural dictation and literal infallibility of the actual text of Scripture. Another theory sees the theological and moral content of Scripture, “the divinely inspired doctrine” (Luther) of the prophets and apostles, as infallible and authoritative. Moreover, the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches have always regarded the Bible as inspired because it is the 17 book of the inspired community, namely, the church. 16 Childs 1970a, 110; 1994a, 235. Later, recalling this theological situation after WW II, Childs argued that “when I entered Princeton Theological Seminary in 1947 following my discharge from the army at the end of WW II, most American Protestant theological seminaries and divinity schools had been shaped to some degree by the recent European experience. The socalled neo-orthodox movement was led by giants such as the two Niebuhrs, Paul Tillich, and John Mackay, among others.” Childs 1997b, 205. 17 For example, Justin Martyr and the Jewish philosopher Philo saw inspiration as a kind of mechanical dictation. Ambrose saw God as the auctor of Scripture, thus the inspiration was seen as divine dictation. Jerome acknowledged the human authorship of the Bible and denied the inspiration of the LXX. Origen rejected the concept of mechanical inspiration; instead, he explained that biblical inspiration was the Holy Spirit’s illumination of the writers who had their own mind, will, and memory. Augustine thought that inspiration could be discussed in the context of prophecy with three visions: bodily sensible vision, spiritual vision, and intellectual vision. In the Middle Ages, Aquinas defined prophetic inspiration (prophetia inspirante) as a motio, which means that the Holy Spirit used a per se transitory impulse in the authors of Scripture. For Scholasticism, the Bible was not mechanically dictated; rather,

Theological Exegesis 175 If Childs’s canonical approach wants to claim that the Bible is the word of God, then he should provide an appropriate view of biblical inspiration as a form of theoretical support for his view. Childs’s strong emphasis on the canonicity of the Bible seems already to imply that he needs some kind of theory, or doctrine, of biblical inspiration to support his view about the theological particularity of the canonical books. He needs this in order to answer his own question: How, if the Bible is written by human beings, can it 18 be, at the same time, the word of God? Some scholars argue that the doctrine of biblical inspiration cannot be ignored if one stresses the importance and significance of the Christian canon. Barth pointed out that both the historical investigation of Scripture and the doctrine of inspiration must be maintained, but the doctrine of inspiration 19 seems to be “broader, deeper, and more important” than the former. It is clear that Barth accepted the importance of biblical inspiration in theological instrumental causality was used to describe the phenomenon of prophecy. Thus, God, the principal cause, moved the instrumental cause, the prophets, to speak, act, and write. In the Reformation, Luther argued that the human authors of the Bible were the channel or the tongue of the Holy Spirit. Similarly, Calvin explained the inspiration of the Bible with reference to Isa. 59:21 (“My Spirit which rests on you and my words which I have put into your mouth”). In the Reformation, the Bible was regarded as the word of God in a literal sense. The Roman Catholic Church basically holds that the Bible is written by the agency of the Holy Spirit, though a more specific definition of inspiration has been discussed for a long time. Neo–orthodox theology whilst having a doctrine of biblical inspiration, did not lay much emphasis on it. Barth saw the Bible as a witness to God’s word. In contemporary theology, Christian conservatism still maintains that the Bible is infallible and inerrant and that verbal inspiration is still at its heart. Christian liberalism, however, has given up debating biblical inspiration. In general, epistemologically the doctrine of biblical inspiration has lost its credibility, but ecclesially it is still an important albeit controversial theological topic. See Achtemeier 1980, 21–31. Burtchaell 1969, 121–122, 151–153, 161–164. Vawter 1972, 21– 25, 38–39, 79-80. Ruokanen 1985, 27–57. 18 This is a question not only for Childs; Barth’s doctrine of Scripture faced the same question. When the Bible is seen as the word of God, it is infallible; but when the Bible is seen as a human product, then it is fallible. This has been seen as the biggest question in Barth’s doctrine of Scripture. It seems that Barth attempted to maintain both the divine and the human dimension of the biblical text. For Barth, saying that the Bible is a human and fallible book is a first and necessary word, but it is not the final and decisive word. The final and decisive statement is that the Bible is the word of God. See Runia 1962, 116–118. 19 Barth in his 1918 “Preface to the First Edition” to The Epistle to the Romans said that “the historical-critical method of biblical investigation has its rightful place: it is concerned with the preparation of the intelligence, and this can never be superfluous. But, were I driven to choose between it and the venerable doctrine of Inspiration, I should without hesitation adopt the latter, which has a broader, deeper, more important justification.” Barth 1968, 1.

176 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context exegesis. Ben Witherington and Paul C. McGlasson argue that the doctrine of biblical inspiration, the authority of the Bible, and the Christian canon should 20 all be thought of together. Unfortunately, it is difficult to see clearly what Childs’s real view on the issue of biblical inspiration was, because there is very little direct discussion on inspiration in his works. Childs does not speak about the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in relation with the origin of the canonical books. Sometimes, however, he simply argues that “God himself testified to its truth by inspiring both the authors and readers of the scared writings.” Moreover, he asserts that hearing the word of God is “repeatedly confirmed by the Holy Spirit through 21 its resonance with the church’s Christological rule-of-faith.” This implies that the revelation of God in Jesus Christ is quite perspicuous as such and does not need the work of the Holy Spirit for support—this, of course, if compared with the concept of inspiration of Barth or of the Reformers, implies a deficit in Childs’s concept of the work of the Holy Trinity. It is also difficult to see that Childs’s canonical theory includes the doctrine of biblical inspiration. Witherington notes that Childs completely fails to discuss 22 the doctrine of inspiration. As we have seen above, Childs defines revelation as the theological content of the Bible, and the theological interpretation of the Bible is rooted in events which are witness to the word of God. Thus, there is no place for the doctrine of verbal inspiration with its view of mechanical dictation in Childs’s canonical theory. There is general agreement that Protestant conservatism emphasizes the verbal inspiration, infallibility, and full inerrancy of the Bible. This firm insistence on verbal inspiration and complete inerrancy is based on the resolute confession that the Bible is the revealed word of God; there cannot be any mistakes in the Bible either historically or theologically. Historically, all events in the Bible are real historical events. Theologically, everything the Bible teaches 20 Witherington says that “the issues of inspiration, authority, canon, and Scripture ought to be addressed together.” McGlasson finds that “the concept of canon includes the inspiration of Scripture by the Holy Spirit, as well as the absolute need for illumination by the same Holy Spirit. In confession canon, the universal church confesses the inspiration of Scripture and illumination of the present-day church by the Spirit.” Witherington 2003, 267–268. McGlasson 2006, 55. 21 Childs 1993, 66–67. He also says that “although the church was in an external, formal sense the vehicle of the sacred tradition, there was a universally acknowledged belief that God was the source of its truth and that human writers were divinely inspired by God’s Spirit to bear a truthful witness.” Childs 1993, 64. 22 See Witherington 2003, 267.

Theological Exegesis 177 about faith and morality, or even about history, geography, biology, and so on, is fully correct and trustworthy. Thus, the Bible is absolutely authoritative for theology, the church, and individual believers. Childs, though, would not follow Protestant conservatism this far. He is not interested in debating the infallibility of the Bible. He is interested in supporting the authority of Scripture, but not by referring to any theory akin to verbal inspiration. He believes the authority of Scripture is best established on the theory of the canonicity of the Bible. And this kind of concept of biblical authority neither implies nor needs any notion of the absolute infallibility of Scripture; Childs points out that “the canon can make no claim to 23 infallibility.” Childs intentionally distinguishes his emphasis on the unity of the Bible both from the conservative position, which develops “blind biblical superstition,” and from historical-critical scholarship, which rejects the idea of the unity of the Bible. According to Paul R. Noble, Childs’s emphasis of the canonical principle is in essence “equivalent to the Bible being divinely 24 inspired.” Noble is basically right. In his BTC Childs says that “the claim for the inspiration of Scripture is the claim for the uniqueness of the canonical context of the church through which the Holy Spirit works,” and that “divine 25 inspiration is a way of claiming a special prerogative for this one context.” It seems that Childs prefers to replace the concept of biblical inspiration with his 23 Similarly, he says that “the concept of the canon lays no claim to universal knowledge or to a theory of infallibility, and thereby sets itself apart from supernaturalism.” Childs 1974a, 300. In BTC Childs says that “the doctrine of inspiration is an attempt to deal adequately with the medium of revelation. The mistake of employing such a concept as inerrancy…was in its defining of the medium apart from its canonical context.” Childs 1970a, 104. Barr points out that Childs rejects the apologetic arguments for the inerrancy of Scripture. Barr 1980, 14. For more argumentation, see Childs 1980a, 55; 1996, 372; 2004, 109, 300; 2005a, 378. 24 Noble asserts that “the completed canon is the intentional context for each of its parts, and since the only kind of intentionality which can be exercised with respect to the canon as a whole is that of a divine will,” then the canonical principle is “formally equivalent to believing that the Bible is so inspired as to be ultimately the work of a single Author.” Vanhoozer agrees with Noble’s suggestion, stating that “Childs’s canonical principle, according to which the meaning of each text is found by interpreting it in the context of the canon as a whole, is formally equivalent to believing that the Bible is so inspired as to be ultimately the work of a single Author.” Noble 1995, 340–341. Vanhoozer 2005, 178. 25 Childs also says “yet the concept of canon remains to many an offense, not only in its assigning such an exclusive role to the Bible as the medium of revelation, but by insisting that it be understood within a particular context, if it is to function as the word of God.” Childs 1970a, 104.

178 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context conception of canonicity. Here his attention focuses on the particular context— the canonical context, in which the revelation of God and the word of God can be seen as inspired. The final form of the canon is the most appropriate context for recognizing the authority of the Bible as containing the revelation of God and the word of God. It is also the only appropriate context for exercising theological exegesis and creating biblical theology. Childs does not seem to be very interested in speaking about biblical inspiration in a dogmatic way; he believes, rather, that the correct understanding of the canonical principle as such contains a solution to the question of biblical inspiration. It is understandable that Childs avoids speaking about biblical inspiration because inspiration is one of the topics heavily criticized by historical-critical scholarship, which, after all, was Childs’s academic background. Moreover, Childs does not like to employ the vocabulary of Christian Protestant conservatism on biblical inspiration and inerrancy, because he does not see himself as belonging to this branch of theology. If historical-critical scholarship is critical (if not hostile) towards any sort of theory of biblical inspiration, and conservative Protestantism is pre-critical with its emphasis on verbal inspiration, perhaps we can say that Childs is post-critical 26 with his pathos for the theological substance of the canonical Scripture. His

26 At this point, for instance, it is difficult to judge whether Childs’s attitude has something to do with Luther’s view of biblical inspiration. According to Miikka Ruokanen, Luther has a doctrine of prophetic inspiration, which means that God is the author of the Bible through direct prophetic inspiration. In Luther, the word of God is the “divinely inspired doctrine” (doctrina divinitus inspirata) received and recorded in Scripture by the prophetic and apostolic persons. God’s word has three modes: (1) the mental word (verbum cogitatum et mentale), which means that the prophets and apostles are taught by God directly; (2) the vocal word (verbum dictum seu vocale), which means that the prophetic and apostolic persons proclaim vocally and publicly to the ears of their listeners the mental word which they received from God; and (3) the written word (verbum scriptum seu scriptile) which signifies that the publicly proclaimed vocal word will be recorded in a written form either by the prophetic and apostolic persons themselves or by someone else; this is the word meant for the eyes. According to Luther, the first mode is the inspiration proper of the Holy Spirit and the foundation of the other two modes; it is the direct way of learning and receiving the word of God whilst the other two are indirect ways. Luther represents a doctrine of inspiration which sees the content, or res of the Bible—the “divinely inspired doctrine”—as inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is impossible to find a theory of verbal inspiration, a view of a mechanical dictation of Scripture, in Luther. See Ruokanen 1985, 58–82. Compared with Luther, Childs’s recognition that God is the author of the Bible is not based on any detailed analysis of inspiration or the doctrinal content of the revelation of God, but on a basic general Christian confession that Scripture is God’s word.

Theological Exegesis 179 starting point is the acceptance of the traditional ecumenical Christian conviction that God is the author of the Scripture, without getting into any technically detailed explanations about how God can be such. The great mission of Childs is not to be clear on all doctrinal points, but to promote a theological interpretation of the Bible.

A Correlation between Exegesis and Theology 27

Facing an “iron curtain”—like separation between the Bible and theology in modern biblical and theological scholarship, Childs stands firm to his position that “Christian theology without the Bible becomes speculative and heretical, 28 biblical studies without theology appear trivial and irrelevant.” Childs even argues that both dogmatic theology and biblical studies are unhealthy when they are isolated from each other. OT theology and NT theology have been regarded as independent and self-sufficient entities, separated from each other and from any sort of systematic theology. According to Childs, the gap between biblical studies and systematic theology is destructive to both parties. Instead, there should be a healthy continuing dialogue and cooperation between biblical studies and theology proper; they are not contradictory but complementary 29 with each other. For Childs the task of biblical theology is a distinctively 27 He sighs in BTONT that “an iron curtain separated Bible from theology, not just in Yale, but throughout most of the English-speaking world.” Later he said, “the issues of today have arisen in a strikingly different, pluralistic and secular context. No longer is the primary struggle to relate traditional Christian faith with modern scientific method, nor is there a strong voice from the side of dogmatic theology calling biblical studies back to confessional roots. Rather, the direction has been the reverse. Especially in the English-speaking world, when occasionally tension arises within theological education, it stems from the voice of biblical scholars challenging modern theology’s attempt to reflect theologically without any serious appeal to Scripture.” Childs 1993, xvi; 1994a, 244; 1995a, 4. 28 Childs 1977b, 359. In IOTS Childs says that “the dogma of modern hermeneutics which rejects as alien to the OT everything which even approaches a theological doctrine or biblical principle cannot be sustained from the Bible itself.” In BTONT he also points out that “clearly if there is to be any future for biblical theology, the pressing need for the next generation is to build strong links between the disciplines of the Bible and theology.” Childs 1979, 337–338; 1993, xvi. Similar statements can be seen in Childs 1978b, 80; 1986a, 4; 1993, 77–78, 336, 551. 29 In BTONT Childs argues that “the health of biblical theology is dependent on the continuing conversation with dogmatics. Conversely, dogmatic reflection runs the risk of losing its Christian roots whenever it abandons its serious engagement with Scripture.” Childs 1993, 594. See also Childs 1972a, 709–722; 1977b, 359; 1980a, 52–60; 1998c, 125. W.

180 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Christian enterprise, which not only bridges the gap between the Bible and theology, but can also explore the dialogue between biblical studies and the tradition of dogmatic theology. Already in BTC (1970) Childs proposes a remarriage between biblical studies and systematic theology, arguing that it is necessary; this wish is repeatedly and consistently expressed in his later writings. In BTONT (1992) Childs attempts a preliminary experiment at uniting biblical 30 studies and systematic theology.

The Gap between Biblical Theology and Dogmatic Theology The divide between biblical theology and doctrinal systematic theology has a complicated historical background. There is general agreement that this separation started with Johann P. Gabler’s proposal for a distinction between biblical and dogmatic theology in 1787, when he gave a lecture at the University of Altdorf on De iusto discrimine theologiae biblique et dogmaticae regundisque recte utrius que finibus (On The Distinction between Biblical Theology 31 and Dogmatic Theology). As a son of the Enlightenment, Gabler stood firmly within the framework of rationalism and was dissatisfied with how biblical arguments were mixed with traditional dogmatic theology. Rationality, not conventional dogmatic positions, became an absolutely necessary condition for biblical exegesis. In order to establish a pure biblical theology, Gabler suggested that materials for biblical theology should be gathered from the Bible employing

Brueggemann notes that “Childs has made clear that modern interpretation has missed the boat.” W. Brueggemann 1993, 281. 30 In BTC Childs says that “one began to wonder just how solid the marriage has been between systematic theology and biblical theology.” In BTONT he argues that “the ultimate test of the success of co-operation between the two fields lies in the degree to which the biblical text and its subject matter are illumined. Neither biblical theology nor systematic theology is an end itself, but rather they remain useful tools by which to enable a fresh access to the living voice of God in sacred Scripture.” Childs 1970a, 56–57; 1993, 89. In ch. 1 above, I argued that his main purpose in BTONT was to bridge the gap between exegesis and theology and in so doing allow the two to converse. 31 For a modern translation, see “On the Proper Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each” in SJT 1980, 133–144. Anderson’s translation is “A Discourse on the Proper Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Boundaries to be Drawn for Each.” Bartholomew says it is an inaugural address, given on the 30th March, 1787, entitled “On the Proper Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each.” Anderson 1981, 5–6. Bartholomew 2004, 2. Brett 1991, 74. Calduch-Benages 2004, 89–90. Lincoln 2004, 313–314.

Theological Exegesis 181 historical, not dogmatic, methods. He aimed to distinguish biblical studies as a descriptive and historical discipline from dogmatic theology as a philosophical and constructive discipline. Gabler’s call sounded “a welcome note for many and served to initiate a process of emancipating biblical studies from 32 ecclesiastical restraints.” From the end of the eighteenth century, it became customary to view biblical theology as a descriptive and historical discipline, which depends solely on the historical analysis of the Bible. Dogmatic theology, on the contrary, was conceived as a church-related constructive synthesis of beliefs related, not only to Scripture, but also to ecclesial doctrinal tradition and engaged in an intensive dialogue with philosophy, culture, and society. Now, two hundred years later, there are more and more biblical scholars and theologians who question Gabler’s separation of biblical and dogmatic theology. A clear-cut distinction between biblical theology and dogmatic theology seems to be impossible to draw and cannot be supported by scientific arguments. Mark G. Brett points 33 out that “the boundaries between all disciplines are permeable.” Since the nineteenth century, when historical-critical scholarship increasingly developed its independence from dogmatic theology, biblical 32 Childs 1993, 4–5, 11. A number of scholars have studied Gabler’s hermeneutics. For example, according to Anderson, Gabler’s argument on the distinction between the two disciplines does not stress that the two disciplines “should be divorced and go their separate ways.” Provan argues that Gabler’s principle must be “a descriptive and historical discipline, freed from dogmatic constraints and resistant to the premature merging of OT and NT.” Similarly, Collins says that the independence of biblical theology from dogmatic theology was “largely illusory” and that “Gabler’s foundational essay of 1787, which called for the distinction of biblical from dogmatic theology, nonetheless saw the role of the former as laying a firm foundation for dogmatics.” Bartholomew expresses a different opinion when he says that Gabler’s understanding of biblical theology is “deeply rationalistic, his whole approach is colored by rationalism, and his distinction of biblical theology from theology proper is not only helpful but also can be treated as an important step in the theological encyclopedia.” Anderson 1981, 6. Bartholomew 2004, 2. Collins 2005, 11, 24. Provan 1997, 23. 33 Brett says that all disciplines, from the perspective of theological methodology, can be permeable, in some cases the disciplines can be the result of socio-political accidents, but there are often characteristic foci which define the distinctiveness of particular interpretative interests. He goes on to say that “biblical studies may draw on, say, linguistics, the social sciences or literary theory in order to interpret a particular biblical text (which interpretation might secondarily become a theological stimulus). Systematic theology may draw on those same disciplines, but the primary goal would be to articulate a contemporary vision.” Brett 1994, 285–286. A similar insight can be seen in Bauckham 1994, 250, who thinks that the boundary between disciplines is fluid.

182 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context theology has become more and more remote. Historical-critical exegesis lost interest in it; systematic theology was incapable of dealing with Scripture properly, because the Bible was in the hands of “professionals” who were not interested in theology. Biblical theology not only lost influence but almost disappeared in the face of the triumphant advance of historical criticism. Most biblical scholars and theologians accept that “the great giants” of biblical study in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries worked within certain 34 dogmatic and philosophical traditions. As a result, an increasing number of biblical scholars no longer consider theology as the ultimate focus of biblical study; even the very existence of biblical theology was questioned or subject to doubt. For instance, in the history of the development of NT theology, Childs finds that the traditional Christian form of viewing the NT within the framework of dogmatic theology began appearing in the post-Reformation 35 period in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries when both Catholicism and Protestantism were involved in a variety of doctrinal controversies against one another. The Reformers attempted to build up the sole authority of Scripture as opposed to the Roman Catholic Church, which claimed ecclesiastical authority. Meanwhile, treating the Bible as an infallible rule of truth was strongly resisted by rationalists. By the end of the seventeenth century, the NT was still looked upon by the church as a collection of apostolic writings, and the NT canon as a whole was still universally acknowledged as authoritative. However, in the eighteenth century, the authority of the NT canon increasingly came under pressure from Deists, especially in relation to

34 Among the “great giants” are Wette, Bauer, Wellhausen, Bultmann, Käsemann, and von Rad. Childs points out that “biblical scholars have generally prided themselves on their independence from systematic theology. However, their greatest achievements have been accomplished in those periods when constructive theology was strong and virile.” He believes that traditional dogmatic rubrics were used continuously by some scholars, especially in the English-speaking world throughout the nineteenth century. In Provan’s words, “all great giants of biblical study in the last 200 years have worked within certain dogmatic and philosophical traditions.” Childs 1972c, 20; 1993, 11–12. Provan 1997, 23. 35 Childs says that “there is general agreement that biblical theology as a discrete discipline within the field of biblical studies is a post-Reformation development.” Green responds to this assertion by saying, “as Brevard Childs tells the story, biblical theology, as a discrete discipline, is a post-Reformation development. The Reformation’s appeal to the Bible as sole authority in matters of faith signaled a shift away from a dogmatic ecclesiastical framework. In presenting the theology of the Bible, one no longer assumed that the content of church dogma could be identified with the message of the Bible.” Childs 1993, 3–4. Green J. 2002, 6–7.

Theological Exegesis 183 problems about the historical credibility of the gospel records. Unfortunately, during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, Childs says, “English scholars 36 did not produce any serious, scholarly introductions to the NT.” In the 1920s and 1930s, biblical scholars and systematic theologians did not have much contact with each other, although later, in the 1940s and 1950s, some interaction between biblical theology and systematic theology began to appear. In America, the BTM was a typical case of this interaction. On the one hand, the BTM did not deny the importance of dogmatic questions in theological exegesis, but on the other, the BTM was unable to make any significant contribution to dealing with doctrinal controversies because of its own rather narrow focus on biblical texts. When Childs claimed in BTC, in 1970, that the BTM had reached an impasse, he was well aware of the necessity 37 of exploring a new path in biblical theology. Generally speaking, for Childs, traditional biblical theology merely focuses on its descriptive task whereas dogmatic theology is mainly concerned with the task of theology proper, especially its doctrinal construction. Methodologically, both biblical theology and dogmatic theology have taken the road of rationalism since the Enlightenment. They differ, however, in that biblical theology employs the method of so-called purely scientific historical criticism, while dogmatic theology uses more comprehensive methods. This implies that Childs’s canonical approach to biblical theology should consider a proper combination between these two methodologies. The method of canonical theological exegesis needs to redefine the concept of biblical theology and attempt to carry out both the descriptive and the constructive task.

Redefinition of Biblical Theology Childs’s sensitivity to the lack of theological exegesis and biblical theology in modern scholarship is the foundation of his proposal for canonical exegesis. This sensitivity can be traced back to 1970, when he asked crucially: “The real question is not whether to do biblical theology or not, but rather what kind of

36 Later he also said that the theological task of relating the biblical canon to Christian dogmatic theology had been virtually ignored. Childs 1984a, 5–6, 9; 1993, 3–6, 211–217; 2006, 9. 37 Childs 1970a, 93. In BTC Childs for the first time proposes a canonical paradigm for doing biblical theology as an appropriate response in dealing with this crisis. From 1970 on, he was struggling to bring about a theological exegesis that would create a relevant biblical theology.

184 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context 38

biblical theology does one have?” As we have seen, Childs insists that the Christian canon is not a purely historical entity but a theological one too; thus, biblical study should not only seek the earliest source of the text or try to discover what is behind the text, but should focus mainly on the canonical text itself. For Childs, theological interpretation is the most important task; the biblical historical sense cannot be ignored but it plays a supplementary role. Biblical theology arises from the very content of the canonical Scripture itself. Childs employs Gerhard Ebeling’s understanding of biblical theology, that is, “the theology contained in the Bible,” or “the theology of the Bible itself.” Childs defines biblical theology as “a theologically oriented study of the Bible,” 39 and as “theological reflection on the Bible.” This definition implies, not only that the Bible has its theological function, but also that the Bible must be seen as the source of theology. Childs understands Ebeling’s redefining of the task of biblical theology as “a valuable start” toward reconstituting the area of biblical 40 theology. As we have seen above, the publication of BTC in1970 was seen as Childs making a decisive choice in terms of how Christian biblical theology should be practiced. Here he proposed his alternative and corrective method to that of the 41 BTM. He characterizes the BTM as “a particular way of doing theology in

38 Childs 1970a, 95. 39 Childs argues that biblical theology is based upon the Bible. Biblical theology in nature can be called “a theology that accords with the Bible, scriptural theology.” Childs 1970a, 34; 1993, xv, 3, 7. See Ebeling 1963, 79, 96. This definition, however, seems to be a part of dogmatic theology, since many theologians such as Barth in his Church Dogmatics and Pannenberg in his threefold Systematic Theology already used the Bible as the most important source for their theological analyses. This is a cross-disciplinary question, which is not easy to deal with conclusively. We will engage in more discussion on the definition of biblical theology later in chs. 5.2.3. and 5.2.4. 40 Childs 1993, 7. 41 In BTC he spends about one third of the contents (pp.13–87) in “remembering a past,” more precisely that of the BTM. The most interesting part is entitled “Major Elements of the Consensus,” which points out some main elements of this consensus are: the rediscovery of the theological dimension; the theological unity of the entire Bible; the revelation of God in history; the distinctive biblical mentality; and the contrast of the Bible to its environment. A similar description of Childs’s criteria for consensus can be seen in Coats 1985, 240, arguing that “in a perceptive chronology of the period, Brevard Childs described a consensus among biblical scholars as a biblical theology movement. The elements of consensus were: (1) a concern for the theological nature of the biblical text in contrast to the arid historical and linguistic exegesis of the previous period; (2) a conviction that the Bible must stand as a unity, at least as a unity in diversity, rather than fall into two distinct or even unrelated camps; (3) a

Theological Exegesis 185 relation to biblical studies” and as adopting “a unified position regarding the role of the Bible and theology.” Thus, the central task of the BTM was to 42 rediscover “the theological dimensions of the Bible.” This is the main point that Childs emphasizes over and over again: the Bible must be read “theologically,” and biblical theology must be “theological.” Childs appreciates the rejection by the BTM of the influence of modern philosophy in interpreting the Bible. Thus he suggests that a new biblical theology must go back to the Christian canon. Childs believes that one of the reasons for the failure of the 43 BTM was its lack of serious attention to the principle of the canon. Taking the canon seriously means, according to Childs, seeing the canonical books of the Bible as the primary source of theology. For him, the canon guarantees the true theo-centric content of the Bible, the subject of this theology being God himself. So, biblical theology is not a projection of the religious aspirations of mankind, although it was received and written in a human way. The theological function of the Bible is to provide the foundation on which people can talk about and believe in God. Scripture functions as “a literary vehicle,” which calls for a faithful response. Authentic biblical interpretation takes place as an interaction between the text and the reader, thus theological interpretation of the Bible demands “a serious wrestling with the 44 content of Scripture.” strong emphasis on the revelation of God in history; (4) an assertion that the Bible contains a distinctive approach to matters of faith; and (5) a passionate appeal to the distinctive character of the OT in contrast to its environment.” 42 The BTM reflected an interest, in America, in European neo-orthodox theologians after WWII. Childs says that “the biblical theology movement was a challenge to recover a theological dimension of the Bible. The concern was neither with a new doctrinal statement nor with a return to a theological system, but rather to penetrate to the heart of the Bible which was, in some way, thought to be theological.” Childs 1970a, 31–33, 82. This description and assessment of the BTM seems to be fair. Bartholomew similarly picks out some of the major emphases of the BTM, for instance, seeing the Bible as a theological book, making God’s revelation in history, and uniting the Bible as a whole. Bartholomew 2004, 4–5. 43 Childs argues that “the attempt to do biblical theology in the context of the canon has important hermeneutical implications for the approach to the biblical text. One of the persistently weak points of the biblical theology movement was its failure to take the biblical text seriously in its canonical form.” Childs 1970a, 102. 44 See Childs 1993, 88; 1998a, 9. Likewise, later he said that “although I have learned much from modern literary techniques, I differ in my theological understanding of the nature and function of Scripture. I regard the biblical text as a literary vehicle, but its meaning is not selfcontained. Its function as Scripture is not to point to the substance (res) of its witness, to the content of its message, namely, to the ways of God in the world.” Childs 2001, 4.

186 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context

The Descriptive and Constructive Tasks Based upon his understanding of biblical theology, Childs points out that it is not good to limit biblical theology to a descriptive task. On the contrary, he understands that canonical biblical theology must have both a descriptive (historical or exegetical) and a constructive (theological) task. For Childs, theological exegesis in the canonical approach combines the descriptive and 45 constructive tasks in “a beneficial way.” The descriptive task of biblical theology seeks to discover the theological intentions of the authors of the canonical books and their reasons for writing them. Childs suggests that an exegete “must do the descriptive task” and, in so 46 doing, he or she should continue to work within the framework of faith. Childs treats biblical interpretation as a theological discipline serving the

45 In BTC he argues that “there is little hope of the biblical and theological disciplines interacting in a beneficial way unless biblical scholars are working constructively in theology, and conversely challenging the theologians to come to grips with the material described by the biblical disciplines.” “It simply will not do to limit biblical theology to the descriptive task.” Childs 1970a, 93, 100. Similar views can be seen in Childs 1993, 3, 22, 86–87, 721; 1998a, 9; 1998c, 124; 2006, 9–10. 46 As we have seen, Childs follows Irenaeus’ regula fidei in providing the rule of faith as a framework for Christian interpretation that emphasized the theological content of Scripture. In BTC he gives the Christian interpreter two fundamental hermeneutical suggestions for the descriptive task of theological exegesis: First, the Christian interpreter must commit her/himself only to hearing both the OT and the NT, and then in conjunction with one another. Second, a Christian theologian must penetrate the canonical texts of Scripture and grapple with the reality. These two suggestions in fact are not “suggestions” but “requirements” for the Christian biblical interpreter, and these two requirements were never abandoned in Childs’s later works. Indeed they have been added to. For example, in “Sensus Literalis of Scripture” (1977) Childs gives four suggestions for biblical exegesis; later in “Jesus Christ the Lord and the Scripture of the Church” (1998) he presents four similar main points by which the Christian church seeks to establish a faithful reading of its Scripture. A more concrete example is SUICS (2004), in which Childs briefly introduces seven characteristic features of the Christian exegetical tradition which have been brought into a canonical theological exegesis; namely, the authority of Scripture; the literal and spiritual senses of Scripture; the two Testaments as Scripture; Scripture’s divine and human authorship; Scripture’s Christological content; the dialectical nature of history; and history and the final form of the text. See Childs 1964, 439, 446; 1969a, 20–31; 1970a, 159–160; 1977a, 92; 1979, 58, 72; 1984a, 28, 31; 1993, 3, 30–32, 721; 1998a, 11–12; 2004, 300–323; 2006, 9– 10. Some biblical scholars and theologians, for instance, Stuhlmacher, House, and McGlasson, are quite familiar with Childs’s view on this. Stuhlmacher 1995, 67. House 2002, 278. McGlasson 2006, 91–100.

Theological Exegesis 187 47

Christian church and calls on all theology to return to the canonical Bible. In short, the main characteristic of the descriptive task in Childs’s canonical approach is to do biblical research for the church by analyzing the historical sense and details of the Christian canon so that the canonical identity can be more fully described. The constructive task means that the Bible, including both the OT and the NT, must be read theologically and reflectively, they must be interpreted together with the intention of formulating a modern theology that is compatible with the Bible. For Childs, the constructive task of biblical theology is not just ordering biblical texts into some sort of “system,” but means “approaching the material in a theologically significant way.” It not only aims at re-establishing theological discipline on the solid foundation of the Christian Scripture, but it also means protesting against those who want to deny “the right of constructive 48 theology to relate the Bible and theology.” In short, Childs wants to do biblical theology that is truly “theological.” Nevertheless, this view of Childs was criticized by James Barr, who argued that the historical and theological tasks were already close to each other in 49 biblical study. Barr defends the view that the historical-critical method is already a theological method as well. As a matter of fact, Barr and Childs are not too far from each other. Childs does not separate biblical theology from historical descriptive exegesis, on the contrary, he suggests that there is always a 50 dialectical relationship between exegesis and theology. For him biblical 47 This concern of Childs closely walks along the road of neo-orthodoxy. For example, Barth in 1963 had already voiced a similar argument on the discipline of biblical theology, saying that “the discipline of biblical theology does not operate…in a vacuum, but in service to the Church of Jesus Christ, which is established by the prophetic-apostolic witness.” Quoted by Stuhlmacher 1995, 70–71. And a similar explanation can be seen in McGlasson 2006, 91– 108. 48 Childs 1970a, 93. 49 Barr criticized Childs for dividing the descriptive task and the theological task too clearly. Barr also said, for Childs, “theology is just as speculative and reconstructive as historical study is, in fact, the historical and the theological modes of understanding are particularly close to one another.” Barr 1992, 140–141. 50 Childs clearly points out that “I would argue that the relationship between exegesis and theology is a far more complex and subtle one which is basically dialectical in nature. One comes to exegesis already with certain theological assumptions and the task of good exegesis is to penetrate so deeply into the biblical text that even these assumptions are called into question, are tested and revised by the subject matter itself. The implication is also that proper exegesis does not confine itself to registering only the verbal sense of the text, but presses forward through the text to the subject matter (res) to which it points. Thus, erklären

188 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context theology is “an exegetical and a theological enterprise which seeks to pursue a 51 relationship of content.” Let us take an example from Childs’s article in BTC, “Psalm 8 in the Context of the Christian Canon.” He argues that if a theological exegete was really “concerned to speak theologically about the content of the psalmist’s faith, 52 the simple descriptive task is not adequate.” Modern Christian biblical interpreters including Childs himself are no longer in the community of Israel and Jewish people no longer have their temple, thus the constructive task of biblical theology is to seek a reflective way of interpreting Ps.8. In the canonical context, this reflection must extend to the whole body of the canonical texts, including the NT. The constructive task of interpreting Ps.8. is rooted in understanding the OT and the NT as a whole. Childs attempts to seek common ground between the two Testaments in order to interpret Ps.8. In Childs’s canonical approach Christology is the key to this interpretation. He suggests that a proper understanding of the human existential phenomenon in Ps.8 can only occur in relation to the Christ of the NT. The psalmist confesses the role of human beings in God’s creation in which the Son of God plays the crucial salvific role. Childs sees the enterprise of biblical theology as “theological” because it focuses on God, the divine reality received and understood in terms of faith seeking understanding. Therefore, biblical theology is bound to be constructive and not merely descriptive. Divine reality for Childs is not a philosophical concept but a description of the divine truth based on the confession that God really exists and God can be known through reading the Bible. When a Christian reader or interpreter wants to hear the voice of God, he must turn to the Scripture because only the canonical texts of the faith community contain the divine word received in faith by the community. The canonical biblical text itself already exerts theological pressure on the reader and interpreter of the Bible. Childs’s demonstration of the relationship between the descriptive and constructive tasks of biblical theology is reasonable, but it is limited to the framework of faith because of his intention of doing theological exegesis for the church.

(explaining) and verstehen (understanding) belong integrally together in the one activity and cannot be long separated.” See Childs 1997a, 60. 51 Childs 1997a, 61. Italics added. 52 Childs 1969a, 26. The same statement can be seen in Childs 1970a, 158.

Theological Exegesis 189 Based on the discussions of redefining the concept of biblical theology and its tasks, Childs uses the term “theological reflection” to explain his canonical biblical theology. This phrase theological reflection appears in all his major 53 writings concerning biblical theological methodology. Childs, however, did not provide any clear conceptual definition of the term “theological reflection;” instead, he says that theological reflection in his canonical biblical theology means to read and interpret the subjects within the context of the whole Christian Bible theologically. The term seems to be similar to “theological understanding” or “theological interpretation;” and, sometimes, theological 54 reflection is also seen as a method for doing biblical theology. Perhaps it implies a hermeneutical skill based on one’s spirituality and theological exercise, but Childs definitely rejects seeing theological reflection as “a subjectively 55 reflective activity.” Childs believes that theological exegesis can be derived from the long history of the church beginning with the early church fathers. In trying to relate biblical theology to dogmatic theology, his canonical proposal seeks a theory and a practical method in order to get on with the task of biblical theology. According to Childs, neither biblical theology nor dogmatic theology can lose its own theological goal, which is to provide fresh access to the living voice of God in the Bible. Following this goal, biblical theology can support the continuing task of dogmatic theological reflection. A canonical approach can

53 The most typical example is his BTONT, in ch. 6, “Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible,” Childs uses both biblical theological reflection and dogmatic reflection to interpret the ten topics selected from the Bible. Childs 1993, 349–716. 54 For example, he says that “to raise the topic of God as a subject of reflection within the context of the whole Christian Bible requires not only recognition of the range of material within both Testaments, but also an understanding of the different dimensions of the subject matter to be addressed. A major concern will be an attempt to make use of both historical and theological categories when moving from description to theological analysis.” Elsewhere, he argues that “the task of biblical theology is to reflect theologically on the witness of both Testaments of the Christian Bible.” Childs 1993, 351, 369. 55 Childs argues that “it is a common caricature of the relationship between exegesis and theological reflection to suggest that the former is an independent historical and philological exercise which seeks objectively to discover what the text actually says, whereas the latter is a subsequent subjectively reflective activity. This misleading mischief goes back at least to the time of Gabler.” Then he suggests “a single method of interpretation which takes seriously both the different dimensions constituting the text as well as the distinct contexts in which the text functions.” Childs 1997a, 60–61.

190 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context effectively bring forth the word of God in the biblical texts and, as such, it can 56 offer “a critical basis for genuine theological reflection.” Childs neither wants to go along with the philosophical orientation of modern doctrinal systematic theologies, nor is he willing once again to fall victim to historical criticism. Thus he must both come out from under the shadow of over-theoretical dogmatic theology and fight against the negative influence of historical criticism. Childs great aim and vision is to maintain a healthy balance between biblical theology and dogmatic theology. That is why Childs wishes neither to see biblical theology isolated from dogmatic theology nor dogmatic theology separated from biblical theology. Childs insists on his view that both biblical theology and dogmatic theology are proper “theology” and true “theological disciplines,” and that they both share the same 57 indispensable foundation of theology, the common canonical Scripture. Hence, he hopes to build a biblical theology, which can methodologically be described as a bridging discipline, which connects biblical theology and dogmatic theology.

A United Biblical Theology According to Childs, in the sixteenth century, there was something that can be called “a form of dogmatic biblicism.” The term “biblical theology” (theologia biblica) was first used in the seventeenth century, when Protestant orthodoxy and later Protestant pietism were seeking a theology based strictly on the Bible. At that time, the term “biblical theology” was also accepted by rationalists, who

56 Childs 1990b, 363–364; 1993, 12, 89, 450, 550–551. Sumner and Radner are perhaps right when they observe that “scriptural canon and ecclesial creed are understood to form together a single, inseparable, and irreplaceable approach to Scripture as it stands at the center of the church's life.” They also give evidence for this observation: there are a number of notable aspects to this inseparability of the canon and the creed of Scripture. First, in historical terms, the scriptural canon and the creed are joined at the hip. Second, with the help of sociological and anthropological tools, contemporary analyses of the church have emphasized the distinctiveness of the connection. And third, these entities must be loosely tethered together. Sumner & Radner 1998, xiii, xiv. 57 As we have seen above, Childs insists that biblical theology is a theological discipline, but some biblical scholars still see biblical theology as biblical in nature. We will return to this in the next chapter where we will discuss how and why his canonical biblical theology can be theological.

Theological Exegesis 191 opposed complex ecclesiastical doctrinal formulations and demanded a return to 58 the “simple religion” of the NT. At the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth century, biblical theology experienced a renaissance. When debate on the relationship between biblical theology and dogmatic theology was vigorous, theologies of both the OT and the NT started to appear. The year 1796 was a turning point with Georg Lorenz Bauer publishing his Theologie des Alten Testaments in Leipzig. This ground-breaking work of biblical theology for the first time made OT theology an independent discipline, distinct from both NT theology and dogmatic theology. So, Bauer became the first biblical scholar to separate the theologies of the OT and the NT. Childs admires the methodological skill of Bauer’s work, but at the same time he deplores the fact that this work damaged 59 the traditional canonical unity of the two Testaments. Some biblical theologians such as John J. Collins suggest that, after Karl Barth, neo-orthodox theology started to seek reconciliation between the historical-critical and dogmatic views of the Bible. However, the Bible has not been seriously treated as the primary source of theology. Barth made a great contribution to dogmatic theology by associating it with biblical texts, but his work cannot be counted as biblical theology. Gerhard von Rad in OT Theology and Rudolf Bultmann in NT Theology attempted to deal with themes of theology proper on the basis of biblical studies related with historical-critical analysis. However, Childs sees that their attempts at doing theology could not be very successful because OT theology and NT theology were isolated from each other as independent subjects. Comprehensive theology can only be built 60 upon the foundation of the entire canon of Scripture. Collins says that 58 Childs 1993, 4. In 1997 Pannenberg also argued that the biblical theology of this period can be seen as a product of the Protestant dogmatics of that time, and it was nourished by the new emphasis of pietism in the Scripture as the norm and basis of Protestant theology. Pannenberg 1997, 275. 59 Childs 1993, 4–5, 9, 221. A similar assertion can be seen in Provan, who says that the first monograph of OT theology in a strict sense appeared in 1796 and was “an historical discussion of the ideas to be found in the OT, with an emphasis on their probable origin and the stages through which Hebrew religious thought had passed, compared and contrasted with the beliefs of other ancient peoples, and evaluated from the point of view of rationalistic religion.” Provan 1997, 1–2. See also Bartholomew 2004, 4. 60 Childs summarizes Ebeling’s analysis by describing the seriousness of the isolation between OT theology and NT theology as follows: “First, the theological unity of the OT and the NT has become extremely fragile and it seems now impossible to combine the Testaments on the same level in order to produce a unified theology. Secondly, the inner unity of each of the

192 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Childs’s canonical program, which attempts to unite biblical theology and 61 dogmatic theology, is “a more substantial challenge.” This remark is to the point: it is the essence of Childs’s mission to try to establish an adequate platform for dialogue between biblical and doctrinal theologies. As we have seen, Childs shares Ebeling’s definition of biblical theology. Here again, he is hopeful of Ebeling’s somewhat concealed suggestion that is necessary to redefine biblical theology not as a historical discipline, but as a theological discipline. He argues that Ebeling’s redefinition of the task of biblical theology has created a valuable start toward reconstituting the field, thus 62 he understands Ebeling’s proposal as “a return to a pre-Gabler position.” Following Ebeling’s idea of biblical theology as a theological discipline, Childs attempts to combine OT theology and NT theology together. Biblical theology as a whole is looked upon as a theological reflection on the Christian Bible, in which OT theology and NT theology cannot be viewed as two separated theologies. The heart of joining the two biblical theologies together must be based upon the recognition of the Bible as a whole within the Christian canon. respective Testaments has been cast into such doubt that a theology of the NT consists largely in classifying the discrete theologies of its different authors. Thirdly, the study of the OT and the NT as a historical discipline can no longer be limited to the so-called canonical Scripture since this category is ultimately dogmatic and ecclesiastical. Rather, the use of all historical sources which are pertinent to the subject is required without distinction. Finally, the strongest objection has arisen even to the application of the term ‘theology’ in describing the contents of the Bible.” Concerning the historical separation between OT theology and NT theology, Pannenberg also argues that “as early as J. A. Ernesti (1761) the historical character of biblical theology was also emphasized, and that led to the distinction between a biblical theology of the NT and that of the OT. The separate treatment of the two biblical theologies was postulated by J. S. Semler since 1771 and was subsequently established on the assumption that the NT is the document of a different religion than the OT...The separation of NT theology from OT theology by reason of the argument that the OT belongs to a different religion, i.e. Judaism, may appear as awkward today.” Childs 1993, 7. Pannenberg 1997, 276. Ebeling 1963, 79–97. The italics are added. 61 Collins 2005, 13-15. See also Lincoln 2004, 314–315. 62 The so-called pre-Gabler position means that theology joins the historical and theological elements together. In 1787 J.P.Gabler published his decisive essay De iusto discrimine theologiae biblique et dogmaticae regundisque recte utrius que finibus, in which he called for distinguishing biblical theology from dogmatic theology. Childs argues that “Gabler’s call for separating biblical studies as a descriptive, historical discipline from dogmatic theology as a philosophical, constructive discipline struck a welcome note for many and served to initiate a process of emancipating biblical studies from ecclesiastical restraints.” Childs 1993, 11, 669. This issue touches on the relationship between biblical studies and systematic theology, to which we will return in detail in a later section.

Theological Exegesis 193 Based upon the acknowledgment of the continuity of the two Testaments both in history and in theology, canon-based biblical theology ought to reflect both 63 the OT and the NT as discrete witnesses to the same God. For Childs, the vision of a united canonical biblical theology is an attempt to create a new path, although he does not believe in an unrealistic utopia of creating some kind of “perfect” biblical theology. He believes that it is necessary for theological exegesis to maintain the theological integrity of each biblical narrative in the process of interpretation. Biblical theologians should look at the same biblical text and seek to discover how a biblical narrative can reveal God’s truth to readers in different conditions and contexts; this will call the readers and interpreters to a fresh response of faith. He also suggests that the Bible as the Scripture of the church should be treated as comprising “a theological unity 64 although its form combines two distinct sections, each with a unique voice.” Childs claims that the task of biblical theology is “an investigation of the unity of the Bible” and can be carried out successfully and adequately only 65 when relying upon the unity of the two Testaments. The typical example is his 63 For example, in 1970, Childs called for understanding Scripture as “pointers to God himself,” because “the God of the Bible is not a theological system, but a living and acting Lord.” In his Exodus Childs emphasizes that “the theological task...is to seek a modern reflection on the biblical witness in the context of both Testaments which comprise Christian Scripture.” This idea was continuously stressed in his later writings. In OTTCC he states that “the Christian canon maintains the integrity of the OT in its own right as Scripture of the church. However, it sets it within a new canonical context in a dialectical relation with the NT. In my judgment, the task of biblical theology is to explore the relation between these two witnesses, whereas the task of OT theology is to reflect theologically on only the one portion of the Christian canon, but as Christian Scripture.” In the 1990s, when Childs came to enhance his canonical approach further, theological reflection on the whole canonical Christian Bible became increasingly important. Childs 1970a, 219; 1974a, 550, 552; 1986a, 9; 1993, 722. 64 Here Childs suggests that “confronting the subject matter of the two discrete witnesses of Scripture creates a necessity for the interpreter to try to understand the biblical text from the full knowledge of the subject matter gained from hearing the voices of both Testaments...The central point to emphasize is that the biblical text exerts theological pressure on the reader which demands that the reality which undergirds the two voices not be held apart and left fragmented, but critically reunited.” Childs 1997a, 62. 65 Similarly he says that “the task of biblical theology cannot be adequately achieved by merely charting the variety of witnesses between the two Testaments, or indeed within each testament…It is incumbent upon biblical theology to move in its reflection from the OT to the NT and from the NT to the OT.” He even confirms that “one of the initial contributions of biblical theology, especially in its mid-20th-century form, was its concern not to impose foreign categories on the biblical material, but to allow each witness its own integrity.” Childs 1993, 551, 647–650.

194 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context BTONT (1992), in which OT theology and NT theology are tied together as a united biblical theology. When interpreting each theological topic or locus, he always presents both a biblical and a dogmatic theological reflection on both the OT texts and the NT texts. In short, for Childs, there is one Bible and one biblical theology. Theoretically Childs’s vision of one united biblical theology certainly seems attractive, but it may be too optimistic. In fact in ch. 3, when dealing with Childs’s view of the continuity and discontinuity of the two Testaments, we already found out that he stresses continuity and emphasizes faith as the unifying power in biblical theology; there is no place for non-confessional biblical scholarship in his system. Some scholars criticize Childs for his ideal of one united biblical theology. For instance, Barr says that Childs seems to “idealize theology”; Craig Bartholomew maintains that a united biblical theology “needs to be carefully nuanced”; and James K. Mead remarks that the possibility of creating biblical theologies which cover both Testaments “seems 66 small indeed.”

Systematic Analysis and Thematic Investigation Charles Scobie, in his book The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology, analyzes several ways of doing modern biblical theology and presents three alternative approaches to biblical theology: the historical approach, the thematic approach, and the systematic approach. He looks upon Childs’s canonical biblical theology as falling under the third option, the systematic approach, which is influenced by the practice of Protestant orthodoxy of compiling collections of biblical proof texts, dicta probantia. According to Scobie, Childs aims at developing an independent biblical theology characterized by collections of the biblical texts under topics reflecting the loci of 67 Protestant dogmatic theology. 66 Barr 1992, 140. Bartholomew says: “Utterly central to biblical theology must be the question of the OT and NT relationship, and this needs to be carefully nuanced.” This was a response to Childs’s statement that the relationship of the two Testaments is “the heart of the problem of biblical theology” (see Childs 1993, 78). Bartholomew 2004, 11. Mead argues that “in fact, the percentage of biblical theology in relation to Old and New Testament theologies seems small indeed.” He even says that “since B. Childs’s BTONT was published in 1993, there have been few attempts to produce a major work of biblical theology covering both Testaments.” Mead 2007, 27. 67 Scobie’s observation is based on his analysis of Childs’s BTONT from the perspective of

Theological Exegesis 195 Nevertheless, Scobie’s criticism is questionable. First, it is not obvious that the aim of Childs’s canonical biblical theology is to develop an independent biblical theology; rather, as we have seen above, Childs’s canonical approach eagerly attempts to unite exegetics and systematic theology on the basis of biblical theology. Second, Childs’s canonical proposal is indeed inclined to put 68 into practice some principles and practices of Protestant orthodoxy. In his fight for “orthodoxy” the target of his criticism is the one-sided historical-critical method of biblical studies. Childs acknowledges the usefulness of the historicalcritical method and admits that his canonical approach is also a “historical” enterprise. Childs accepts the results of historical criticism selectively and uses the historical-critical method as a helpful tool in establishing his canonical theological exegesis. Thus no pure form of Protestant “orthodoxy” can be supported by his canonical biblical theology. Scobie’s suggestion seems to see Childs’s canonical theological exegesis as representing the pre-critical tradition; 69 we, however, can see Childs in the light of post-critical biblical theology. Following Scobie’s three alternative approaches to biblical theology, one might conclude that in his BTONT (1992) Childs ends up with a comprehensive model that includes both the systematic approach and the thematic approach. Childs does not adopt any of the traditional systematic models normally used when presenting the doctrine of the Christian faith. He chooses the theological topics freely and creatively. Moreover, Childs selects theological themes from the biblical text at will. It seems that the plenitude of themes arising from the biblical material itself needs theoretical clarification, according to Childs. Childs builds up his comprehensive model by combining the systematic and the thematic aspect in the following way. First, he combines some Christian doctrinal themes (loci) with certain thematic contents picked from the Scripture. Secondly, he tries to show how the selected doctrinal-biblical themes biblical studies. He explains that the historical approach is based upon “the advance of the historical-critical approach to the Bible in late 18th and early 19th centuries...(when) the Bible began to look less and less like a textbook of systematic theology and more and more like a history book.”And he adds that “the thematic approach to biblical theology seeks to structure its treatment around themes or topics that arise from the biblical material itself.” Scobie 2003, 81–87. 68 Here “orthodoxy” is not limited to seventeenth-century Protestant orthodoxy. I refer to orthodoxy in its wider sense as a theology that seeks to maintain the fundamental traditional ideas of the Protestant Reformation. 69 We will discuss the controversial question, is Childs’s canonical theological exegesis precritical or post-critical? in more detail in ch. 6.3.2.

196 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context appear in the entire text of the canon. In so doing, Childs wishes to demonstrate 70 the theological unity and coherence of the two Testaments. In this operation, the historical-critical method is virtually excluded, but its achievements are selectively assimilated into the theological description. As to the structure of BTONT, Childs first offers a diachronic analysis of “the discrete witness of the OT” in Part 3. Part 4 and Part 5 present “the discrete witness of the NT” and a theoretical demonstration of exegesis in the context of biblical theology. Part 6 is an example of “theological reflection on the Christian Bible.” The reconstruction of the prehistory of the biblical texts is overlapped and even 71 overemphasized. Childs has not won many supporters for his comprehensive model. On the contrary, most commentators do not believe that his model is properly established or could work very well. However, his canonical approach in attempting to connect biblical theology and dogmatic theology has been 72 welcomed. However, concerning the feasibility of the comprehensive model presented in Childs’s BTONT, many scholars find that his canonical theological 73 exegesis has not yet connected the two fields together successfully. Biblical 70 See Part 6 entitled “Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible” in BTONT pp. 349–716. Among the ten topics, “the identity of God,” “God the Creator,” “Christ the Lord,” “Reconciliation with God,” “God’s Kingdom and Rule,” obviously belong to the doctrine of God according to the tradition of dogmatic theology. Other themes such as “Covenant, Election, People of God,” “Law and Gospel,” “Humanity: Old and New,” “Biblical Faith,” and “the Shape of the Obedient Life: Ethics” are fixed subjects or “complexly thematic.” From the perspective of theological method, these ten topics are dealt with in a comprehensive way. Each theme is dealt with in a similar order: OT canon, NT canon, biblical theological reflection, and dogmatic theological reflection. 71 A similar observation has already been given by Bauckham in his “Review to BTONT,” where he points out that there are two weaknesses in BTONT. First, “it is not sufficiently clear that the diachronic analysis in Parts 4 and 5 really makes much difference or, for that matter, ought to do so. It is a serious mistake to suppose that the biblical texts lack ‘depth’ without such reconstruction of their prehistory. Second, the topical chapters in Part 6 vary quite considerably in the extent to which they actually engage in doing biblical theology.” Bauckham 1994, 249. 72 Bauckham admits that Childs is right to attempt to cross the boundary between the two fields. Similarly, Brett states that we should welcome the attempt to cross the boundaries between biblical studies and systematic theology in a single book. As for the establishment of a canonical biblical theology that aims to link biblical theology with dogmatic theology, Noble says that Childs’s proposal appears to be “a coherent concept,” thus his canonical biblical theology presented in BTONT can be “a genuine theology.” Bauckham 1994, 250. Brett 1994, 285. Noble 1995, 362. 73 For example, Bauckham argues that “there is far too little to show how biblical theology can

Theological Exegesis 197 theology and dogmatic theology have their own interpretive interests, which cannot be easily combined in a comprehensive canonical approach. Furthermore, Childs is not yet able clearly to demonstrate how canonical biblical theology can be based simultaneously on certain dogmatic presuppositions and a selection of biblical topics and themes the choice of which at least partly depends on the achievements of historical-critical scholarship. Finally, as I have pointed out above, Childs lacks a clear definition of the term theology in his canonical approach. This is one of the reasons why his project is somewhat ambiguous. Childs understands that the heart of biblical theology is theological reflection rather than documentary description. His canonical biblical theology attempts to build a workable connection between biblical exegetics and dogmatic theology. It is clear that the aim of Childs’s canonical theological exegesis is to promote Scripture as the soul of all theology and, on the other hand, bring theology back to the hermeneutical reflection of Scripture. Childs is convinced that biblical theology, being based on the theological exegesis of Scripture, and dogmatic theology can communicate with one another within the canonical framework, as their common concern is the theological focus on the Bible. Childs says that this kind of bridge building should be “encouraged” 74 by all possible means.

validly function as a bridge for two-way traffic between exegesis and dogmatic theology.” Brett finds that differences of interpretative interest between biblical studies and systematic theology still exist. Collins denies the possibility of Childs’s canonical theological exegesis being able to bring biblical theology and dogmatic theology together, because Childs’s concept of the canon as a dogmatic principle cuts off the possibility of dialogue with those who do not share his principles. Green says that “the pathway from biblical text to Christian theology, if there is one, has not been well marked.” Noble points out that Childs’s canonical theological exegesis, whilst trying to realize the target of the unity of biblical theology and dogmatic theology, lacks theological substantiality. Räisänen argues that in Childs’s attempt to unite OT exegesis and NT exegesis, and not only these two with each other but also both of them with systematic theology, “he does perceive many questions sharply, but he is content with traditional answers. He fuses different NT views into a common vision which is assimilated to OT concepts. The result is then viewed through the lenses of traditional dogmatics which eventually “wins out” in the enterprise.” Bauckham 1994, 250. Brett 1994, 285. Collins 2005, 16, 22–23, 25–26. Green J. 2002, 5–6. Noble 1995, 362–364. Räisänen 2000, 120. 74 In the 1980s Childs said that “any attempt to narrow the wide gap between dogmatic theology and biblical studies should be encouraged.” Childs 1984a, 541.

198 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context

Concentration on Christology We have seen that Childs’s theological exegesis in BTONT is neither purely systematic nor completely biblical but in a comprehensive way a combination of systematic analysis and thematic investigation. Childs cannot wish the differences between the theological disciplines away; he can only try to assimilate some basic elements of both biblical theology and systematic theology. For him, both dogmatic theology and biblical theology are 75 strategically useful tools in facilitating a fresh access to the living voice of God. Thus, he wants to go back to the Bible to seek the proper theological content of the Christian canon, which bears witness to God’s works and can be comprehended in a commitment of faith. It is Christology where Childs sees the core of God’s redemptive activity both in the OT and in the NT. Christology is the most important theological content uniting the entire canonical collection of the biblical writings; Christology lies at the heart of Childs’s theological exegesis and biblical theology 76 in the canonical context. Childs’s concentration on Christology means a Christology-oriented biblical theology. He says that no one “can speak meaningfully of man and his 75 Childs sees both biblical theology and dogmatic theolgoy as “a tool for better understanding Scripture, the true source of the knowledge of God,” thus a canonical theological reflection on the Christian Bible is a “strategy” but not a “principle.” He understands both biblical theology and dogmatic theology as working from different contexts to discover “a further tool” for illuminating the Christian Scripture theologically. Childs 1993, 89, 369, 403. 76 Bound together with confessional theology, Childs’s biblical theology pursues “a detailed effort to do justice to the genuine complexity of the subject matter.” He even seriously points out that “if Jesus Christ is not the norm, but various cultural criteria are, the result for biblical theology is an unmitigated disaster.” Childs also claims that “unless such a theological move is attempted by the biblical interpreter, it is difficult to see how the bridge to a modern theological reflection within the context of the Christian faith can be successfully made.” In making this point Childs does not seem to be alone. Some scholars such as Scobie also maintain that the main goal of biblical theology is to hear the two different voices of the OT and the NT in their canonical integrity and understand them both as witnesses to the one divine reality of Jesus Christ. However, Brett differs from Childs arguing that “Childs is fully conscious that he is running against the chronological grain when he argues that both Testaments bear witness, albeit in distance ways, to a common subject matter who is Jesus Christ. This is expressly not a call to imitate the hermeneutical practices of the NT, nor is it a biblicist attempt to assert that the one true interpretation of the OT was always Christological. Christian biblical theology represents a level of interpretation which is not a direct rival to historical criticism.” See Childs 1993, 561, 721, 725; 1995a, 9. Brett 1994, 282. Scobie 2003, xi.

Theological Exegesis 199 relationship to God and the creation without speaking Christologically.” In 77 short, for Childs, biblical theology is Christological. He suggests that Christology ought to become the basis for the dialogue between biblical theology and dogmatic theology; in other words, Christology can help to build 78 a bridge between biblical theology and dogmatic theology. It is well known, however, that historical-critical biblical scholarship does not acknowledge Christology as an essential part of OT theology. Childs cannot lean on scientific scholarship on this point. Therefore, the only way open to Childs is to find convincing theological and confessional arguments to support

77 Childs not only claims that the heart of the enterprise of biblical theology “is Christological,” or “must be Christological,” but also believes that this Christological content is Jesus Christ “not its own self-understanding or identity,” thus theological reflection on “the content of Christology from the perspective of the witnesses of both Testaments is possible.” However, he explains that Christocentrism “is not a simplistic Christomonism, but a theological conviction held in common by Christian theologians from Augustine to Calvin, and beyond.” He firmly believes that Christocentrism is not given by any methodological imposition but has been accepted by the community of faith through the church according to the rule of faith. He is critical of Richard Niebuhr’s use of the term “christo-morphic,” arguing that “there was an agreement that the OT not be Christianized, and the specter of a so-called ‘Christomonism’ was called forth and summarily dismissed.” See Childs 1969a, 26–27; 1970a, 37, 228; 1993, 86, 477– 452; 2004, 314; 2005b, 45. 78 One of Childs’s obvious arguments is that the theological reflection of biblical theology on Christology is “neither a substitute nor a rival to the task of historical and dogmatic theology;” on the contrary, it is “to provide a bridge for two-way traffic between biblical exegesis and systematic theology’s reflection on the subject matter.” Therefore, his canonical biblical theology aims at serving both “a negative and a positive role” in relation to the church’s ongoing task of critical reflection on its proclamation in the light of the gospel. In terms of the negative role, biblical theology serves critically to check types of exegesis which so deconstruct the OT and the NT through the various approaches of historical, literary, and sociological criticism as to render inoperative the theological use of the Bible as the authoritative Scripture of the church. Biblical theology performs a positive role in the ongoing task of testing the church’s theological reflections on Christology in its creeds and dogmas in the light of the full biblical testimony. Similarly, he states that “the ultimate test of the success of the cooperation between the two fields lies in the degree to which the biblical text and its subject matter (Jesus Christ) are illuminated.” He also argues that “actually I am not worried when the sharp line that separates biblical studies from dogmatics becomes somewhat blurred. Naturally there should remain a division of labor, but this is a strategic judgment, and not one of principles. Because of the training and interest of biblical scholars, the weight of their contribution will remain largely on describing and interpreting biblical texts. Conversely, systematic theologians bring a variety of well-honed philosophical, theological, and analytical skills to bear that are invaluable in relating the study of the Bible to the subject matter of Christian theology.” See Childs 1993, 70–94, 481–482; 1995a, 15.

200 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context his vision of Christology as a uniting theological theme between the two Testaments and between biblical theology and systematic theology.

Jesus Christ is the res of the Bible In Childs’s thinking, the two Testaments together witness to the subject matter 79 of Scripture which is Christ; he is “the res of the Bible.” Childs claims that full knowledge of this subject matter can be gained through hearing the discrete voices of the two Testaments. In his earlier period, Childs accepted Christ as the “Fulfiller” standing in a dialectic relationship between the two Testaments, 80 which can share in “the selfsame reality” of Christ. In his turning-point book BTC (1970), Childs stresses the importance of Christology in the canonical Scripture, when he calls biblical interpreters and theologians to come back to the Scripture in doing biblical theology. He believes that understanding Christ as the subject matter can lead scholars and theologians back to the Scripture. From the point of view of faith, he feels it is possible to support the juxtaposition of the two Testaments in order to create a true biblical theology. The two Testaments are complementary in offering two discrete witnesses to the Christological reality. The early Christian church not only joined its new writings to the Jewish Scripture, but also claimed the OT was a witness to the subject matter, Jesus Christ. The juxtaposition of the two Testaments as two parts of the Christian Bible was the foundation of early Christian theology, and should still be so today, Childs believes. Childs frequently emphasizes in BTONT (1992) that Christ is the res of the Bible. He claims that both discrete voices, the OT and the NT, independently give witness to Christ, and their discrete voices must be heard both separately and together. The term “witness” is understood as the reception and acknowledgment of the holy texts of a certain religious tradition as authoritative 81 within a community of faith. Such a claim is rooted in Childs’s conviction of 79 Childs 1995a, 14; 2004, 304. 80 Without doubt this acceptance is based upon his understanding of the model of promise and fulfillment. This description is close to Barth’s Christological concept of OT exegesis. For instance, in MROT (1960) Childs agreed with Barth’s Christology, saying that “in Jesus Christ the new reality has appeared as the self-authenticating new Israel. As the truly obedient man Jesus is the new existence in its fullest and most concrete form.” See Childs 1958a, 269– 270; 1960a, 41–42, 104. 81 Similarly, he states that “both Testaments bear testimony to the one Lord, in different ways, at different times, to different peoples, and yet both are understood and rightly heard in the

Theological Exegesis 201 the unity of the entire Bible and of the rule of faith, which functions toward the one divine purpose of God for the church and the world. Christ as the subject matter is rooted in both Testaments, thus, both the OT and the NT bear witness to Christ in different ways; their witnesses are “measured in the light of 82 the reality of Christ himself.” It is clear that Childs has to refer to confessional factors in order to find support for his claim about the unified Christo-centric testimony in the two Testaments. It is only the Christian church that can acknowledge and accept the main theological agenda of Childs’s canonical exegesis. But Childs makes his choice deliberately: it is his deep conviction that biblical theology should be closely connected with the life and faith of the Christian church and should serve the community of faith. As to the NT, it is uncontroversial to regard Jesus Christ as the primary 83 theological content of the entire NT. The authority of the apostolic kerygma is based on their unique testimony to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The writers of the NT bear witness to Jesus Christ who is the subject matter of each of the Gospels. Childs holds firmly to the traditional understanding that the Gospels do not display the ideological views of their authors but faithfully bear witness to the subject matter, Jesus Christ. The Gospels address Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of God’s redemptive promises in the Old Covenant, but also have a kerygmatic purpose as living witnesses to the divine revelation in Christ. As such, the Gospels are, fundamentally, documents which give testimony to the resurrection of Christ. Moreover, Childs follows

light of the living Lord himself, the perfect reflection of the glory of God (Heb.1:3),” and adds that “the whole gamut of OT and NT voices testifying to Christ is obviously indispensable.” See Childs 1993, 70, 78, 85, 522; 1995a, 15. 82 For Childs, Jesus Christ as God’s true man is testified to in both Testaments and is seen as “the ultimate criterion of truth” for both Testaments, thus the divine reality of Jesus Christ is “the test of the biblical witness.” He even says that “if Scripture is not regarded as a vehicle of truthful witness, but instead as a faulty filtering prism through which the person of Jesus has been impaired or severely distorted, then, by necessity one must find another access to this figure.” Similarly he says that “it is this reality of Jesus Christ that measures both Testaments, and not the NT over against the Old.” See Childs 1993, 452, 477, 591; 1998a, 4; 2004, 313. 83 At the end of the 1950s, Childs argued that “the person of Jesus Christ himself as the fullness of the word is self-authenticating. Because the Evangelists have been confronted by this wholeness, they witness to it.” In NTCI (1984) he claims that the particular goal of reading the NT text “is congruent with the kerygmatic character of the Scripture in bearing testimony to God’s redemption of the world in Christ.” Childs 1958a, 269; 1984a, 48. Similarly see Childs 1993, 64, 614–615; 1998b, 53; 2005a, 383.

202 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Paul’s Christological understanding of faith, in which the totality of God’s 84 redemptive works culminates in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Is There Christ in the Old Testament? Most traditional Christians share the conviction that Jesus Christ is the Messiah of Israel whom God promised to his people through the OT prophets. Childs also accepts that the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Messiah of Israel 85 is “hardly problematic.” However, a serious controversial question in biblical exegesis remains: Does the subject matter Christ really appear in the OT? Or, to put it another way, is it possible for the OT to be witness to Jesus Christ? Childs’s answer to these questions is an unqualified and firm “yes.” Jesus Christ 86 exists in the OT. To say that “Jesus Christ is in the OT” means that “the OT witnesses to Jesus Christ.” Childs is not interested in only regarding Scripture as an historical source of cultural information about Jesus of Nazareth but considers Scripture as the witness of salvation. He is sure that theological exegesis can be, and canonical exegesis must be, based on the conviction that this particular man of Nazareth, Jesus, the son of Mary, is the promised Messiah of Israel and the Christ of the Christians. Speaking about the OT’s witness to Christ does not mean moving beyond the Hebrew prophets’ testimony, but means that both of the canonical Testaments witness to God’s mysterious purpose that was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, this particular man of Nazareth. According to Childs, Christian biblical

84 See Childs 1993, 262–265, 308–312, 605, 608, 610, 612, 670–671. 85 Childs 1993, 452. 86 Childs never changed his answer during his long career. For example, he claims that “in our opinion, Jesus Christ is in the OT.” He considers the subject matter Jesus Christ as “the radical new element”of Christian interpretation, through which the OT could unfold into the faith of the NT. In his “Psalm 8,” Childs says that the subject matter Jesus Christ is the reality the two witnesses have in common. In BTC he develops this point into the more powerful assertion that reading the NT can be in accordance with its own clear witness to Jesus Christ in the light of the OT and that reading the OT witness must be understood in the light of Jesus Christ, too. The aim of his emphasis on reading the OT as Christian Scripture is to maintain the interpretation of the tradition of the Old Covenant in the light of Jesus Christ. In BTONT Childs still stresses that “the OT functioned as Christian Scripture because it bore witness to Christ.” See Childs 1958a, 260–271; 1958b, 56–59; 1964, 442–448; 1969a, 25– 26, 28; 1970a, 29, 105; 1972a, 721; 1972b, 57; 1974a, 24–25, 213; 1986a, 9; 1993, 65, 458–459; 1997a, 59–63; 1998c, 119–120; 2001, 421–423; 2004, 312–313.

Theological Exegesis 203 scholars should look upon the OT as Christian Scripture, seeing that the Christian faith receives its true understanding about Jesus Christ from the OT. In his support, Childs refers to the traditional interpretation of the relationship of Christology and the OT. From the early church fathers to modern neo-orthodoxy, the OT prophecies have been related to Jesus Christ, the man of Nazareth. This was also the firm view of the Protestant Reformers 87 five hundred years ago. It is the common practice of all the canonical books of the NT to interpret the various events of the life of Jesus as the fulfillment of the OT prophecies. Childs says that the authors of the NT considered the OT 88 as Holy Scripture in “its pre-Christian form.” Hence, the OT is the necessary theological vehicle through which the redemptive events of the NT receive their real meaning. Jesus Christ’s divine mission can be correctly understood only in the light of God’s plan, which was revealed in the OT. Childs points out that “without the setting of the OT, Jesus of Nazareth could be seen as simply a miracle worker, an ecstatic prophet, a political revolutionary, or a disturbed 89 Jewish fanatic. The list of identifications is limitless.” Childs presents some typical examples to illustrate how the OT bears witness to the Jesus Christ of the NT. The paramount example is Isaiah 53. Childs not only believes that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of the Jesus Christ of the NT, but he also accepts that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus 90 Christ and his passion. In explaining the relation of Isaiah 53 to the NT, Childs is critical of both the conservative and liberal interpretations of the

87 In his “Does the OT Witness to Jesus Christ?” (1997) Childs concludes that “both from the side of the great Roman Catholic Renaissance interpreters, the Protestant Reformers, and the historical-oriented Enlightenment scholars of the 18th to the 20th centuries, there was theoretical agreement…that the OT was the voice of Israel to be interpreted as some stage historically before being related to the theological agenda of Christianity.” Childs 1997a, 58. 88 See Childs 1958a, 260–270; 1986a, 9. Similarly, Barth insists that the OT is a witness to Christ, and Christ is the essential identity of the two Testaments. See Barth CD I/1, 124ff.; III/2, 92. Baker 1991, 105–113. Kantzer 1991, 492. 89 Childs 1998c, 119; 1993, 65; 1998c, 120; 2004, 312–313. 90 For example, in his earliest work “Prophecy and Fulfillment”(1958) Childs argued that “the ‘suffering servant’ of II Isaiah, whether interpreted individualistically or collectively, arose out of and was rooted in the historical situation of the exile. The NT sees in the suffering servant a manifestation of the reality known in Jesus Christ and, therefore, identifies the two.” In his Commentary on Isaiah (2001), Childs similarly presents his theological reflection on Isaiah 53 within a canonical context; he still believes that there are two themes relating to the servant of Isaiah 53, namely, the relation of Isaiah 53 to the NT and the role of the suffering servant in Christian theology.

204 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context 91

passage. Some conservative biblical scholars propose that Jesus himself consciously shaped his ministry according to the servant figure in Isaiah 53. On the other hand some liberal scholars argue that no explicit references to Isaiah 53 can be found in the Synoptic Gospels and that Jesus’s own selfunderstanding has no relation to the passage; uniting the concept of the suffering servant with Jesus is a product of the subsequent Hellenization of Christianity. According to Childs, both conservatives and liberals failed adequately to distinguish between the kerygmatic witness of the NT to Jesus Christ and the historical-critical reconstruction of the figure of the historical Jesus. From the point of view of the canonical context, one cannot analyze and discover the historical details concerning what kind of influence Isaiah 53 exercised both on the apostolic kerygma and on the NT writers. The OT functioned as a coherent whole in shaping the Christology of the NT; its influence cannot be restricted to any single passage or exact linguistic parallels. Childs’s criticisms of both the conservative and liberal interpretations of Isaiah 53 aim at emphasizing the importance of the canonical context for both exegesis and theology. For him “the true exegetical task is to understand its theological role as the witness of Scripture within the entire Christian canon.” The suffering servant of Isaiah “is linked dogmatically to Jesus Christ primarily in terms of its ontology, that is, its substance, and is not simply a future promise of the OT awaiting its NT 92 fulfillment.” Childs takes Isaiah 53 as an illuminating example of how the rule of Christian faith is an unavoidable understanding involved with our reading and interpretation of the OT. He says that “few Christians can read Isaiah 53 without sensing the amazing morphological fit with the passion of Jesus 93 Christ.” For Childs, Isaiah 53 functions theologically within the whole of the Christian Bible. This example shows how a scriptural passage can be viewed as a 91 Childs mentions some names: the leading defenders of the conservative position are J. Jeremias, H.W. Wolff, P. Stuhlmacher, and M. Hengel. Among those who defend the liberal position are R. Bultmann, E. Käsemann, and M. Hooker. See Childs 2001, 420. 92 See Childs 2001, 420–423. 93 Childs 1997a, 63. The same statement can be found in Childs 1998c, 124. He even asks, “how can one claim to read Isaiah as the voice of Israel in the Hebrew Scripture and at the same time speak of its witness to Jesus Christ?” Then he answers very surely that “it is not only possible, but actually mandatory for any serious Christian theological reflection. Because Scripture performs different functions according to distinct contexts, a multi-level reading is required even to begin to grapple with the full range of Scripture’s role as the intentional medium of continuing divine revelation.” See Childs 1997a, 63; 2001, 421–422.

Theological Exegesis 205 kerygmatic testimony to divine reality, but not as an objective source of cultural information. In pondering over the theological relationship between the narrative of the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 and the passion of Jesus Christ, Childs proposes that the suffering servant theme of Isaiah 53 cannot be interpreted either simply as a future prophecy or as a timeless metaphor of the suffering nation of Israel, rather, he asserts, this passage has been assigned “a central and continuing theological role in relating to the life of the redeemed Israel.” Isaiah 53 almost compelled the early Christians to see Jesus in it, so in effect the text “exercised pressure on the early church in its struggle to 94 understand the suffering and death of Jesus Christ.” The second example is the Passover. Here Childs’s Commentary on Exodus offers some illustrative material. He argues that the early Christian church continued to observe the Jewish Passover tradition and created a Christian interpretation of Israel’s history. Later the church fathers, such as Origen and Hippolytus, developed interpretations of the Passover that were influential for centuries. Later, when the interpretation of the Passover expanded into medieval biblical exegesis, its symbolism had already been joined with central Christian doctrines including Christ’s passion, death, resurrection, the Eucharist, and 95 even Christian morals, Childs says. He points out that the Reformers continued to stress the traditional themes of the Passover. It is well known that Luther related the Passover to the Eucharist and Jesus’s passion. Calvin presented a theological interpretation of the Passover as “a recollection of past 96 deliverance and nourishment for future redemption.” Childs interprets the Passover as an extremely significant event for both the OT and the NT. In the OT, the foundational narrative of the Passover is in Ex. 12:1-28 (also in Lev. 23:4–8; Num. 9:1–4; Deut. 16:1–8.). There is an 94 He also argues that in interpreting the suffering servant as being in some way related to the passion of Jesus Christ, an analogy can be drawn between the redemptive activity of the Isaianic servant and the passion and death of Jesus Christ. In short, in the suffering and death of the servant of Second Isaiah, the self-same divine reality of Jesus Christ was made manifest. The meaning of the OT servant was thus understood theologically in terms of the one divine reality disclosed in Jesus Christ. The suffering servant retains its theological significance within the Christian canon because it is inextricably linked in substance with the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is and always has been the ground of God’s salvation of Israel and the world. See Childs 2001, 422–423. In the early Christian biblical interpretation, the two stories, the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 and the passion of Jesus Christ, were always read together. See Laato 2008, 215–229. 95 Childs 1974a, 208–210. 96 Childs 1974a, 210–211.

206 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context abundance of NT references to the Passover. The Synoptic Gospels record the tradition of the Passover (Matt. 26:2; 17-18; Mark 14:1; Luke 2:41; 22:1). Paul saw the narrative of the Passover as an essential part of the Christian faith (1 Cor. 5:6–8; 8:1; 10:16; 11:23–26). The Gospel of John depicts Jesus as the slaughtered Lamb of God (John 1:29–34). The blood of the Passover Lamb (Ex. 12: 4–5) delivered the Israelites in Egypt from death; the blood of Jesus, the true Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7), delivers human beings from eternal death. And the slaughtered lamb becomes a symbol of God’s redemption of the whole world, Childs maintains. All these imply that “the NT provides an adequate warrant for seeking to understand what the redemption in Jesus Christ is by 97 means of the witness of the OT Passover,” Childs concludes. For Childs, the Passover is the starting point of Israel’s exodus or “redemption” from Egypt, in the OT, and, at the same time, it is also the climax of the redemptive activity of Jesus Christ in the NT. Interpreting the OT Passover in the light of the NT means affirming the hope of Israel in God’s true redemption; vice versa, the Passover in the NT context can be interpreted as a symbol of the price God paid for Israel’s redemption. In such an interpretation, the Passover is not merely the festival of unleavened bread but also functions in canonical continuity with the NT. Consequently, the exodus of Israel from Egypt means not only the redemption of Israel but also the redemption of the whole world given in Jesus Christ. The Passover in the OT is a historical event about Israel, but when it is read theologically in the light of the NT, it has Christological continuity in the series 98 of God’s redemptive acts for Israel and the whole of humanity. The Passover is a realistic symbol, which clearly exemplifies how, according to Childs, the OT and the NT must be interpreted together, and in this way, can enrich and deepen each other’s theological meaning. The third example is Psalm 8. Childs understands Psalm 8 as being related in a Christological way to the text of Hebrew 2. For Childs Psalm 8 is a proper text for interpreting the doctrine of the Son of Man, especially for 97 Childs 1974a, 209, 213. 98 Childs’s theological reflection on the Christian doctrine of redemption is based upon the NT’s use of the OT Passover. Here Childs presents the three following points: “First, the ceremony of Passover testifies to the redemptive nature of God’s dealings with Israel.” Second, “the Passover ritual serves as a warning against overlooking the collective nature of God’s intervention.” Third, “the eschatological dimension of redemption already found deeply embedded in the Passover traditions of Judaism, must not be lost through an overconcentration on the death of Christ.” Childs 1974a, 213–214.

Theological Exegesis 207 understanding Christ’s humiliation, his incarnation, and his role as a representative of human beings. He explains that the writer of the letter to the Hebrews uses Heb. 2:7, “You made him for a little lower than the angels” (English New International Version, originally in Psalm 8:4–6), to describe the Son of Man as God’s incarnated Son. In this sense, the writer of Hebrews “proceeds to read into the psalm a full Christology,” and looks upon it as a witness to the life and death of the Incarnate One whom God acknowledged as 99 the representative of mankind. Theologically speaking, Psalm 8 in the context of the entire Christian canon can be seen as an example of interpreting an appropriate relationship between human existence and the existence of Jesus Christ as a man. This relationship is an example of reading the OT in the light of the NT, and reading the NT in the light of the OT. In Ps.8, the psalmist confesses a basic existential reality of human beings as having a special role in God’s whole creation. Human sin causes human beings to lose their role. However, the NT brings them hope, because Jesus Christ as the Son of God is “the pioneer of salvation” (Heb. 2:10) who brings about the fulfillment of salvation. These three examples, Isaiah 53, the Passover, and Psalm 8, are very typical of Childs’s canonical theological exegesis. There are many other cases which could be taken as examples, but we will limit our investigation to the three examples mentioned. For instance, Childs argues that in both of the Testaments God’s redemptive plan has a fragile beginning: the narrative of the birth of Moses (Ex.1:8–2:10) in the OT and the story of the birth of Jesus (Mt. 2) in the NT. In both stories God’s salvation appears to be under threat, in that the world can unleash its power against this frail beginning. According to Childs, both stories “witness to the wonderfully unexpected rescue from a humanly impossible situation” and both of them “testify to the suffering of the people 100 which accompanies the redemption.” In addition, we can, very briefly, mention some other connections between the OT and the NT made by Childs: Ps. 110:2–4 was developed by Heb.1:13 and Heb.8:1 into Christ’s office as a “heavenly intercessor.” Psalm 110 in general provides the image of Christ being exalted at the right hand of God and reigning sovereign over the powers of death (Mark 12:35–37, Heb. 7:17, 21). 99 Childs 1969a, 25–26; 1970a, 151–163. A similar example can be seen in Childs 1972b, 57., where he takes up the use of Psalm 40 in Hebrews 10 in order to reveal the inner life of Christ. 100 Childs 1974a, 24-25, 213.

208 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context The expression “you are my son, today I have begotten you” in Ps. 2:7 can be understood as Jesus Christ who is the only begotten Son of God in the NT (Heb.1:5). Ps. 89:46–48 can be connected with Christ’s humiliation (Luke 1:51; Acts 2:30). Ps. 22:1; 8; 18 speak of Christ’ suffering (Mark 15:34). Daniel 7:14 & 22–27 speak about the eschatological hope of Christ’s kingdom (Mark 101 13:26, 14:62). Looking at Childs’s manner of interpreting OT passages, we are compelled to make some remarks. First, Childs’s theological interpretations of Isaiah 53, the Passover, and Psalm 8 are clearly Christianized versions of interpretation. The “discrete voice,” that is, the historically and theologically authentic and independent voice of the OT, is maintained only on a literary level, but on the level of theological interpretation, a profound Christianization of interpretation is obvious. As we observed in ch. 3.4.2., Childs emphasizes that the OT exists in its own right and has its own discrete voice; in the cases we studied above, this requirement is compromised. Second, in ch. 4.1.4. we said that Childs basically rejects any application of typology to exegesis. For him, typological exegesis might be used only for connecting the partial theological perspectives found in biblical texts with the 102 clearer and more truthful claims of the canonical text. It is obvious, however, that here Childs does not follow his own teaching. As we have seen above, when building bridges between the OT and the NT on the basis of Christology, Childs is quite clearly making typological comparisons between what he believes are Christological models in the OT and the NT. Third, in these interpretations, the rule of faith plays a determinative role. The OT’s witness to Jesus Christ can only be seen on the basis of the rule of faith accepted in the Christian community of faith, the church. The rule of faith becomes the basic directive rule of biblical hermeneutics. Saying, for instance, that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 or the Son of Man in Psalm 8 is Jesus Christ presents no problems if said within the Christian community, which exists under the guidance of regula fidei; those statements express the traditional view of Christians. Here it becomes clearly visible how Childs’s theological exegesis is entirely dependent on the traditional theological orthodox

101 All above-mentioned examples can be seen in Childs 1993, 229, 454, 456–460, 475–476. One more example about “the Christological use of Messianic tradition” will be presented later in ch. 5.3.3. below. 102 See Childs 1964, 442–443; 1993, 13, 382; 1998c, 123. Some similar observations can be seen in Noble 1995, 290. D. Williams 2004, 92–93.

Theological Exegesis 209 understanding and interpretation of Scripture. In the examples we analyzed, the 103 question of historical authenticity was not an issue at all for Childs.

The Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith Childs sees belief in Jesus Christ to be the heart of the whole Christian faith. The central confession of the NT declares: “Jesus is the Christ.” There is the question, however, of how to interpret the relationship between faith as preached by Jesus and faith in Christ as proclaimed by the early church. Childs rejects any attempt to describe the pre-Easter Jesus merely as a Palestinian rabbi alone. Resurrection is the crucial foundation for understanding both the mission of the pre-Easter Jesus and for recognizing and confessing him as Christ, the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God. For Childs, any reduction of 104 faith in Jesus’s resurrection is an unacceptable form of reductionism. In 103 Many biblical critics do not accept this idea, because they argue that there is no historical evidence to prove the necessary connection between the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 and Jesus Christ in the NT. Thus methodologically, they believe such an interpretation needs a more powerful theoretical basis. For example, Noble argues that a “broader” problem in Childs is the lack of “a sound methodological basis” in recommending “the OT as a witness to Christ” for the modern biblical interpreter. In his “Does the OT Witness to Jesus Christ?” Childs admits that the formulation of the OT as a witness to Jesus Christ “has evoked confusion and concern in many readers,” including one of his close colleagues, Rolf Rendtorff, who strongly disagrees with Childs’s perspective on this subject. In his later works, Isaiah: a Commentary, 2001, and The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture, 2004, Childs continuously stresses his opinion and theological position. However, it is hard to see some effective methodological developments at this point. See Noble 1995, 305–306. Childs 1997a, 59. 104 Some scholars became the targets of Childs’s criticism. For instance, Childs argues that Bultmann in his later writings assigned no theological significance to the pre-Easter Jesus, whom he described as a Palestinian rabbi. Rather he grounded Christianity solely upon faith in the resurrected Christ. Similarly, he states that “Bultmann ‘demythologized’ the NT in order to preserve the transcendent dimension of faith in an existential moment of decision making; he was accused of theological reductionism.” Childs is also dissatisfied with Ebeling’s suggestion to establish a continuity between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith “by positing a structural analogy in which Jesus is conceived of, not as the object of Christian faith, but as the source of faith which he then awakens in others through personal contact;” this solution “does not have adequate textual support from the NT and appears to many to be derived from a modern philosophical construal.” Again, Schlatter’s proposal to understand “a continuity of faith among the various levels of tradition” seems to be inadequate, because there remains a serious question relating to the NT texts. However, Childs tends to agree with Bornkamm’s proposal “to seek the history in the kergyma” and “to seek the kergyma in this

210 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context describing the importance of Christology for connecting biblical theology and dogmatic theology, Childs does not make any distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. Instead, he insists that the Jesus of history is the Christ of faith, and the Christ of faith can never be known apart from the Jesus 105 of history. Childs says that “the search for the historical Jesus was a massive effort to wrench free from the Christological dogmas of the church while seeking to 106 retain the religious significance of Jesus.” The witness of the four Gospels to Jesus is the historical framework for Christology. Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection are joined together, giving testimony to his true identity. The portrayal of Jesus’s earthly life in the Synoptic Gospels widely and forcefully reveals an implicit Christology, Childs asserts. The use of the OT in the NT provides powerful evidence for understanding the unity of the identity of the 107 earthly Jesus and the exalted Christ. It not only shows that the appearance of Christ is based on OT witness, but also describes the activity of Christ as the pre-existent one. The pre-existence of Christ is not explicitly taught in the Synoptic Gospels, but the Gospel of John is explicit in its formulation of the pre-existent eternal Logos. The doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ touches upon his role in creation, thus, a pre-existent Christ is already portrayed as 108 active in the OT. Childs’s theological reflection on Jesus Christ as the exalted Lord is based 109 upon the way he sees the earthly life of Jesus in the Gospels. The passion of history,” thus combining the two, in which both faith as preached by Jesus and faith in Christ as proclaimed by the early church could be harmoniously continuous. For Childs, Bornkamm’s view both on Jesus’s preaching and the church’s kerygma is theologically rich and full of insight though he does not fully succeed in escaping the criticism of historical reductionism. See Childs 1993, 603–605, 668. 105 See Childs 1958b, 57–58; 1984a, 134–135; 1993, 614–615. 106 The element of Heilsgeschichte can be seen as a feature for identifying the earthly Jesus and the exalted Christ, but all historical witness in both Testaments bears testimony to Jesus’s true identity as the glorified Messiah. Childs 1993, 463–465, 614–615; 1984a, 135–136. 107 He states that “the identity of the earthly Jesus and the exalted Christ was understood and interpreted by the NT by means of its use of the OT.” Childs 1993, 466. 108 Childs says that “it is the Gospel of John which formulates the doctrine of pre-existence in terms of the eternal Logos. (John 1:1, 14; 3:31; 6:38).” He adds that “Jesus’s pre-existence is celebrated in the mystery of his revelation in a hymnic, liturgical style often connected with wisdom, (Heb. 1:2ff; 2:5ff.)” and the theme of Jesus’s existence is further developed in the incarnation (Phil.2:6ff.). Childs also says that the pre-existent Christ is portrayed as active in the OT. (Isa.6:31ff, 47ff.) Childs 1993, 469. 109 He describes the theological significance of Jesus’s public ministry in the canonical context,

Theological Exegesis 211 Jesus Christ in the Synoptic Gospels has varying theological implications for Childs. For example, by his frequent references to the OT Matthew emphasizes the passion of Jesus Christ as the death of Israel’s Messiah. Mark illustrates the passion of Jesus with an extended introduction. Luke provides his interpretation of the passion of Jesus Christ through the words of the risen Lord. John depicts his coming death as an exaltation and glorification of Christ as he returns to the 110 Father. Childs says that the heart of the NT’s witness to the passion of Jesus is the confession that his suffering and death is in accordance with the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.

Christocentric Trinity Childs admits that the Bible does not contain a developed doctrine of the Trinity. Nevertheless, it is possible to make such combined theological reflections on the OT and the NT which will be helpful for understanding the idea of the Trinity. The Trinitarian theology of the patristic period is the formulation of the Christian church in attempting to reflect faithfully on the biblical witness to God’s nature. Childs’s understanding of Trinitarian theology is based upon his theological position that the two Testaments together comprise Christian Scripture. Together they bear witness to apprehending 111 God’s identity. Although the unity of God’s identity is emphasized in Scripture, the God of the Bible shows his unity in three modes of being 112 (hypostasis). In the NT, the center of Trinitarian theology is the relationship between the Father and the Son. According to Childs, the doctrine of the Trinity was such as: Jesus’s summoning of a group of disciples is understood as Jesus’s initial act of Messianic authority; Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount is seen as a protest against the sacred tradition of the law of Moses; the commands of God are to be obeyed; the kingdom of God can be interpreted within God’s eschatological purpose; the healing miracles of Jesus signify the overcoming of the powers of evil and they are closely connected with the call for faith, etc. See Childs 1993, 470–472, 467. 110 Childs 1993, 473. Some similar contents can be seen in Childs 1998a, 5–7; 1998b, 51–62. 111 He claims that “it is the doctrine of the Trinity which makes the doctrine of God actually Christian.” Some passages taken from the Bible are as follows: Deut. 6:4; Isa.45:5; 1 Cor. 8:4; Gal. 3:20; John 10:30; 1 Tim. 2:5. Childs 1993, 372–373, 375, 521, 650. 112 For instance, “the divine subject, predicate and object are not only to be equated, but also differentiated.” There are a number of passages in which both the unity and diversity between God and Christ are mentioned; for example, 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Tim 2:5; John 5:23. Childs 1993, 375–376, 378.

212 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context historically developed on the foundation of its Christological center; its 113 unfolding was rooted in “the most fundamental confession in Christ as Lord.” God reveals himself to the elected people of Israel in the OT, and in the NT God reveals himself “a second time” in a different way. Jesus Christ is an unbroken direct continuation of the revelation of the same God who identified himself in the OT. Jesus in the NT calls God his Father, and Jesus is not the Father but the Son, who is sent by the Father, who is exactly the same God who revealed himself in the OT. Thus, the struggle around the Trinitarian dogma in the early church “was not a battle against the OT, but rather a battle for the OT, 114 for the one eternal covenant of God in both unity and diversity.” Childs notes that the early Christian church in its Nicean and post-Nicean period upheld and developed its Trinitarian dogma in order to fight against 115 heresies. The Trinitarian dogma contributes to the true theological understanding of the Christological core of the entire Holy Scripture. The traditional Christian emphasis on the idea of the Trinity is significant in Childs’s confessional understanding of the identity of God. The God of the Bible is not a concept, but a living reality. Following orthodox catholic Christianity, Childs confesses that God manifests himself as Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, any interpretation of Scripture should take place in 116 the light of this full Trinitarian divine reality. In taking a close look at Childs’s Christologically based understanding of the Holy Trinity, we once again notice that the traditional faith of the Christian church is the decisively important preconception (Vorverständnis) of his biblical 113 Similarly, he argues that one effort made to do justice to Jesus Christ in the early Christian church was to acknowledge the church’s confession of Jesus as the Lord. Perhaps, his Christocentric Trinitarian theology is influenced by Barth. Once Childs quoted Barth’s opinion that a truthful witness to the knowledge of God can be found in and through Jesus Christ alone, who is the true Word. Childs 1993, 368, 376, 404–405, 650. 114 For Childs, there is a development of a triadic formula in the NT, and the most developed form of the relation of God to Christ within the NT has been expressed in a series of triadic formulas. For example, 2 Cor.13:13 speaks of the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, which has been seen as the foundation for the historical growth of the doctrine of the Trinity. Other passages are Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 6:2; Rom. 5: 5–8; Eph. 4:4–6; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2. Childs 1993, 85–87, 364, 376. 115 Arius, one of the Subordinationists, sought to defend the unity of God by demoting Christ to the status of a creature. Sabellius, one of the Modalists, treated the Trinity only as attributes of the one God but without essential distinction within the Godhead. Childs feels that the early Christian church rightly rejected both, and upheld the view that the Trinity consists of God in his unity of three modes of being. Childs 1993, 378. 116 See Childs 1993, 478, 480.

Theological Exegesis 213 theology. He believes that the doctrine of the Trinity not only “developed from a Christological centre” but also “grew from the knowledge of Christ as 117 Lord.” Childs only very briefly discusses the doctrine of the Trinity in his publications. Surprisingly, he does not even talk about the role of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity and its relationship with the Father and the Son. The central theological doctrine is interpreted more on the basis of the ecclesial rule of faith than a true theological exegesis of Scripture. Childs has chosen his theological position, namely, the Christological concentration and consequently is able to say: “The continuing task of biblical theology is to engage in critical theological reflection on the Christological witness of both Testaments to the person and work of Jesus Christ as the one reality of God toward which all 118 Scripture points.”

Christological Connection between Creation and Redemption In the framework of Christocentric Trinity, Childs believes that Christology has a central place in the doctrine of the creation. He states that the OT belief in God as the Creator formed the ground for the Christian faith, and thus the OT trajectory was continued and found its completeness in the NT. The resurrection of Jesus became the theological foundation for understanding the 119 grace of God in Jesus Christ as the ontological ground of new creation. In the NT, Paul’s Christology successfully describes Christ as the mediator of creation. The Gospel of John and the letter to the Hebrews also witness to Christ’s role as 120 Creator. Childs criticizes Emil Brunner’s argument according to which “John 1, not Genesis 1, should be the point of orientation for the Christian doctrine of 117 Childs 1993, 376. 118 He also says that such a theological reflection needs to engage with the witness of both the OT and the NT in the light of the reality made known in Jesus Christ, in the incarnate and exalted Lord. Childs 1993, 480. 119 There is a similar argument that the early Christian church already confessed that “God is in Christ and sought to interpret the creative role of God in the light of its new faith in Jesus Christ; the NT increasingly reversed the direction of the creation trajectory and proceeded from Jesus Christ back to the OT.” See Childs 1993, 392, 397. 120 For example, Rom. 8:37; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15–16. Especially the fourth Gospel, John. 1:1– 4; 8:58, combines two OT streams of tradition to formulate a witness to Christ. Heb. 1:2–3; 2:10, describes Christ who “in his role as mediator of creation was made perfect through suffering, for whom and by whom all things exist.” See Childs 1993, 392–393.

214 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context 121

creation because the OT is only provisional in the light of the NT.” Childs feels that Brunner did not properly understand the canonical relationship of the two Testaments, since his argument breaks the essential theological link between John 1 and Genesis 1. For Childs, the OT understanding of creation is encompassed in the NT’s teaching, and the theology of creation of the OT becomes confirmed in the NT. In the theology of creation, the NT does not replace the OT with a new doctrine, but adds the doctrine of a new creation with the incarnation of Christ as its ontological basis. Therefore, both John 1 and Genesis 1 have a close continuity in terms of their understanding of the 122 doctrine of the creation by God. In Childs’s biblical theology, the combined understanding of Father as the Creator and Christ as the co-creator in the canonical Scripture is based on Christocentric Trinitarian theology. He believes that there is an inner Christological connection between the doctrine of creation and the doctrine of redemption. The whole creation and God’s creative acts are related to the plan of God’s divine salvation. God as the Creator and redeemer forms a united identity. The creation in the OT, especially in Genesis, ought to be understood “not as a self-contained autonomous act, but in closest connection with 123 redemption.” Childs rejects the view of critical scholarship, which makes the OT theology of creation dependent on the mythological thought of the ancient Near Eastern cultural environment. He also refuses to interpret God’s redemptive will for 124 Israel as relying on any philosophy of history. For him, creation had a beginning but it was “not just an ontological condition of creative potentiality,” 121 This argument is quoted from Childs, based on E. Brunner’s Dogmatics, Vol. 2, 7. (1949). Childs 1993, 397–398, 402. 122 For example, John 1:1 in reference to Gen. 1:1, and John. 8:58 in relation to Prov. 8:22. Childs 1993, 392, 397–398. 123 Childs 1993, 386–387, 404–405. This statement seems to be similar to Barth’s argument which sees “creation as the external basis of the covenant.” Barth CD, III/1, 94. 124 Childs says that there is “the sharpest distinction made between creator and creature” in Genesis’s creation narrative, and the OT’s understanding of creation already stands “in stark contrast to the mythopoetic relation between the divine and human.” Thus, creation can never be “a neutral condition” but is always related to the creator’s redemptive purpose. In this sense, creation and redemption must be “closely joined in a historical sequence.” This historical sequence is seen as “an extension in time of the beginning of a divine intervention.” For Childs, “God’s creative activity encompassed the first and the last. The beginning cannot be understood apart from the end, nor the end be grasped apart from the beginning.” See Childs 1993, 398–399; 1974a, 88, 302.

Theological Exegesis 215 thus creation and redemption were “closely joined in a historical sequence 125 which was an extension in time of the beginning of a divine intervention.” For this reason, he is critical of von Rad’s idea which subordinates the doctrine of creation to the doctrine of redemption in OT theology. Childs remarks that both doctrines must be balanced in biblical theology; the central point is their 126 theological continuity, not any subordination. Childs believes that the old creation and the new creation are part of the same divine aim. Each of the four Gospels starts its account of Jesus with reference to a divine plan that prepares the coming of Christ. The entire NT presupposes the incarnation of Jesus as the Son of God. The story of Jesus’s birth implies that Jesus’s origin lies completely in God. Jesus’s passion and death show his absolute obedience to his Father in completing the divine plan of redemption. The NT’s faith in Christ’s resurrection is the foundational confession that Jesus’s passion and death are rooted in a definite divine plan and the foreknowledge of God. The whole drama of Christology expresses how the Triune God reconciles himself with his creation and fulfills his original plan of 127 creation in the new creation.

Christology and the Doctrine of Human Nature Childs shares the traditional theological conviction that Christology plays a 128 central role for a theological understanding of human nature. Incarnation 125 See Childs 1993, 399. Schultz observes that in Childs’s view “the primeval narrative and the larger canonical witness know of both a pre-Fall innocence and an eschatological restoration.” Schultz 2002, 86. 126 Here Childs refers to von Rad’s article, “The Theological Problem of the OT Doctrine of Creation,” published in 1936. Childs argues that von Rad “was not addressing the question from a history of religions perspective, nor was he unaware that an understanding of creation was known in Canaan in extremely early times and played a part in the cult during the preIsraelite period through mythical representation. On the basis of a study of creation in certain psalms and in Deutero-Isaiah he came to the conclusion that creation was an ancillary doctrine in relation to Israel’s primary faith in a historical salvation.” Then Childs points out that “the major weakness of von Rad…lay in his view that wisdom entered as a foreign element and was therefore peripheral to Israel’s historical faith.” According to Childs, “Israel’s faith developed historically from its initial encounter with God as redeemer from Egypt, and only secondarily from this centre was a theology of creation incorporated into its faith.” See Childs 1993, 109–110, 120. 127 See Childs 1993, 399, 404–405. 128 For example, in his earliest article “Jonah: a Study in OT Hermeneutics” Childs points out that Jesus Christ is the living word, who has entered the world, participating in worldly

216 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context manifests the inseparable identity of both divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ. His humanity and his actual existence show the fact that humans can communicate and be reconciled with God only through the God-man Jesus Christ. The doctrine of the divinity of Christ is based not only on the doctrine of incarnation but also on the historical fact of his resurrection. In accordance with his canonical intention, Childs attempts to connect the OT teaching on humanity with that of the NT. The OT not only provides the background for the NT’s teaching, but has itself a strong theological anthropology which depicts the human being as someone whom God “created in his own image.” The OT also bears witness to the unity of the human person. And most importantly, the OT “serves as a faithful witness to the salvation of God which 129 overcomes human alienation and renders a human being whole.” From the point of view of Christological function, Jesus Christ as the true man in the NT is the key for understanding the continuity of the concept of human nature throughout both of the Testaments. The NT builds on the basis of the OT and does not offer any drastically new description of theological anthropology. The NT emphasizes the idea of the human being as “God’s image” and teaches that this intention of the Creator can be restored and 130 realized only in relation with Jesus Christ. For instance, in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’s proclamation concentrates on the coming kingdom of God with a call for repentance. This proclamation expresses the need for divine forgiveness. The major anthropological witness of the Synoptic Gospels lies in their portrait of Jesus as God’s true human servant and a full human being. Jesus, his life, and his teaching are unique because of his unheard of openness and obedience to the will of God. But Childs remarks that imitatio Christi, following Jesus in his authentic humanity, is not the way of weakness and relativity. Sinfulness is the weakness of the world, but Jesus is truly man “yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). In the Bible disobedience is a sin, and Jesus Christ as a man is absolutely obedient to his Father. Confessing the divinity of Jesus Christ cannot be based on human epistemological insights or logic, but is rooted in the work of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 16:17). Through faith, Christians can see the redemptive work of God in human history by understanding Christology in the Christian Bible in its entirety. Childs 1958b, 56–59. 129 Childs 1993, 591. On the same page he also argues that “the Christian church reads the OT’s depictions of both divine and human reality as a true witness to its faith, but also in relation to the full revelation of true humanity in Jesus Christ.” 130 He explains that “Christ is confessed to be the reality to which the OT in various imperfect ways bears witness. Because the NT comes to anthropology through Christology, Jesus Christ becomes the one measure of true humanity rather than any idea of an original prototype or of man in general.” Childs 1993, 588.

Theological Exegesis 217 131

salvation in the Synoptic Gospels. Childs finds that God’s true intent in Jesus Christ is to forgive and save the sinner, to identify with the poor and outcast, to heal the sick and restore the lost, and to lead people into the presence of God. Imitatio Christi is important but it is not the redemptive purpose of God. Childs also sees the Johannine witness as an important contribution to our understanding of Jesus’s humanity. Childs argues that the fourth Gospel uses the term “man” or “human being” (anthropos) as a generic term to describe human existence. Jesus became incarnate by taking on “flesh” (sarx) as a truly human being, and for John, human nature in itself is neither evil nor opposed to God. Likewise, the “world” (kosmos) is designated as the world which God 132 created and as the arena of God’s salvific acts. The central theological theme of the fourth Gospel can be assigned to faith as a move from this world to the world of eternal life. John does not think of the transformation of humanity in terms of successive stages of history, but of a qualitatively new existence, of a new birth from God. The incarnation in John’s vision implies the only begotten Son entering into the world at a special historical moment through taking the form of a true human being. Therefore, the key for Christological understanding of human nature is to accept Jesus Christ as “the measure of true 133 humanity,” Childs asserts. Methodologically, in interpreting the doctrine of human nature, Childs employs the concepts of Christo-centric theological anthropology. This shows that he is not interested in an independent anthropological interpretation of humanity as such; rather, he attempts to restore the classic Christian understanding of anthropology, which is strongly based on Christology and 134 rooted in the Bible. According to Childs, since the Enlightenment, the 131 See Childs 1993, 578–580. 132 He also believes that there is a parallel between John’s use of the term “world” and Paul’s use of the term “flesh.” See Childs 1993, 585–586. 133 See Childs 1993, 586; 1984a, 123–124, 134–135. 134 He believes that the subject of humanity must be handled within the presupposition of creation, in which a human being has his/her relations not only with God but also with society within a given historical context. At this point, Childs is close to Barth. The opinion that most obviously follows Barth is the view that human existence is something that bears witness to the truth of Jesus Christ as a man. Barth’s stress on “human nature can only be discerned from its one source in Jesus Christ as God’s true man.” Childs also appreciates Barth’s theological integration of anthropology and Christology. He is sensitive to the fact that Barth’s early stance on human nature is somewhat different from that of his later theology. Obviously, Childs appreciates Barth’s later interpretation of human nature. For example, Barth’s radical anthropological stress on the contrast between the condemnation of

218 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context foundation of the traditional Christian theological anthropological understanding of humanity has been totally destroyed by the replacing of biblical teaching with modern Western epistemological and philosophical 135 ideas. Typical examples of this development are, for instance, F.D.E. Schleiermacher’s refusal to use biblical arguments and texts in his anthropology and Paul Tillich’s introduction of speculative existential philosophical categories for theological anthropology. Moreover, Childs insists that the OT and the NT provide neither a phenomenological description nor a philosophical exposition of human nature. Modern biblical scholarship has gone astray by trying to analyze and interpret the theological anthropology of the OT and the NT with methods and theories borrowed, for instance, from philosophy, cultural anthropology, or the natural sciences. This kind of research, which applies alien views to biblical theology, can never get to the heart of the theological anthropology contained in the canonical Scripture. They miss the profound theological meaning of 136 anthropology. For Childs, only a Christologically based theological anthropology, which bases its argumentation both on the OT and the NT, can humanity through Adam and the free grace of God through Jesus is controversial. In contrast, Barth’s later theological development with his vision of anthropological-Christological integrity in emphasizing Jesus Christ as the center of Christian faith becomes very significant. Childs 1993, 566, 589–590, 586. Barth CD III/2, 44. 135 Here Childs refers to the contribution of David Kelsey. A traditional Christian theological anthropological understanding of humanity refers to the orthodox Christian view that the created world is seen as providing a harmonious relationship between man and his environment under the Creator God; the crucial point is to see humankind’s unique capacity for communion with God. Childs 1993, 592. 136 Childs’s cultural-anthropological analysis on human nature with regard to the OT can be found in his OTTCC. It includes the following observations. First, “the Christian church took over from Graeco-Roman antiquity the genre of the biography of the holy man, and soon sought to interpret the OT characters as heroes with ideal traits and virtues. This moralistic reading of the OT was doomed to failure and resulted in fanciful allegory so as to avoid the obvious difficulties.” Later, “under the influence of Romanticism, the biographical interest was once again revived, but with an eye to recovering the genuinely earthly quality of human life, both good and bad, and to tracing the development of character.” Then, “beginning in the late part of the 19th century and extending up to the present time, there have been frequent attempts to employ various forms of social science in an effort to gain a more objective measurement of man in the OT.” Finally, “in an effort to remain close to the biblical text, a precise philosophical study of the specific anthropological terminology of the Hebrew Bible has been attempted—flesh, body, soul, spirit, etc.—with a view to interpreting the significance of being human.” Childs 1986a, 196–197; 1993, 566–568, 571–572, 578– 579.

Theological Exegesis 219 be adequate and in harmony with the faith of the church under the guidance of 137 the rule of faith.

Theocentrism vs. Christocentrism There is a gap between Childs’s Theocentric and Christocentric approaches in theology. Christocentrism in theology places Jesus Christ in a central position in a theological system, whereas Theocentricism assigns this central position to 138 God. In OTTCC Childs claims that the OT is consistently Theocentric. Nevertheless, in BTONT he believes that the movement from the Theocentric view of the OT to the Christocentric focus of the NT in understanding the 139 doctrine of God can be seen as a continuum. Can this movement take place without provoking a theological conflict? Childs finds that when the writers of the NT made use of the OT in formulating their Christian confession, they did not see any tension between the OT’s understanding of God and their own understanding of Jesus Christ. Thus, the whole testimony of the NT to God is based on the experience of Jesus Christ, whose identity is seen as the unique manifestation of God; accordingly, Jesus is seen as the Son of the same God who revealed himself in the OT. For Childs, this is a key theological issue in understanding the continuity between the Theocentric approach of the OT and the Christocentric approach in the NT. In such a theological reflection, the OT remains the true word of God for the formulation of the doctrine of God by the early Christian church. From the 137 If OT anthropology wishes to provide an avenue into Israel’s confessional witness, then it must be an appropriate combination of theology and anthropology which can reflect not only Israel’s real human historical context but also Israel’s theological understanding of the human being. For example, in the OT, the Psalms and wisdom literature such as the Book of Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes are characterized by sayings of wisdom intended to teach about divinity and virtue, they can be seen as reflections on the human condition before God, but they do not seek to provide an example of OT anthropology with a specific cultural terminology and linguistic formulae. People can neither discover human frailty nor find their hope in God through anthropology. However, acknowledgment of human sinfulness and hope in God are just people’s real confessional need. The dominant anthropological note struck in the Psalter is that of human frailty and vulnerability such as sin, suffering, sickness, guilt, death, and shame. However in the OT these words do not just express psychological emotions associated with feelings of embarrassment. On the contrary, theologically they reflect the entirety of human nature. Childs 1993, 572–573. 138 McKim 1996, 48, 278. 139 Childs 1986a, 44; 1993, 364, 367–377.

220 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context perspective of the subject matter of theology, Childs thinks that the theological understanding of God through Christology in the NT is formulated on the basis of the activity of Jesus Christ, which is founded on the faith of Israel including the theologies of creation, redemption, reconciliation, law, kingship, and judgment in the OT. The NT aims not to correct the OT but to inherit it. At the same time the two Testaments keep their discrete voices in witnessing to the same God. Early Christianity already manifested a remarkable continuity with the OT in respect to its understanding of the doctrine of God; the Christian theological trajectory has moved from the OT to the NT. The NT understanding of God has been developed as “a coefficient of Christology which 140 strongly affects how the OT was heard and used.” For Childs, there is a key point here, namely, there is no contradiction between the OT Theocentric and the NT Christocentric approaches in theological methodology because they are united in the one canon. Therefore, the NT understanding of the reality and identity of God is continuous to and harmonious with the OT understanding of God. Childs also denies that Jesus attempted to bring in a new concept of God; rather he insists that Jesus demonstrated in action the full extent of God’s redemptive will for the world. NT theology presupposes the OT in principle and constantly refers to the OT in practice. Jesus’s Jewish background is obvious in the Synoptic Gospels, and 141 the monotheism of the OT can be seen throughout the entire NT. Here we could reasonably ask whether Childs’s understanding of the OT doctrine of God is acceptable to Jewish biblical theology or not. Does Childs 140 For example, God’s name in the OT, Yahweh, does not reappear in Hebrew in the NT; the numerous ego eimi expressions used by Jesus, however, may reflect that name. According to Childs, the Christological understanding of God in the NT is not dependent on the Hebrew name of God. He argues that the formulation in terms of the Yahweh who redeemed Israel from Egypt is not continued in the NT, and the NT identifies God the Savior revealed in Christ. It is clear that the theological trajectory is from the resurrection of Christ back to the OT. See Childs 1993, 365–366. 141 Childs gives some examples: (1) “The OT’s faith in God is cited explicitly to establish faith in Jesus Christ. Because God is a fearful God, do not incur his wrath by rejecting the Son of God (e.g. Heb. 10:30 quoting Deut. 32:35. Heb. 12:29 with reference to Deut. 4:24).” (2) “The OT is repeatedly used in the NT to interpret God’s relation to Jesus Christ (e.g. 2 Cor. 4:6 citing Gen. 1:3; 2 Cor. 5:17 relating to Isa. 65:17 & 66:22; and Heb. 1:5 quoting Psalm 2).” (3) “Jesus assumes the titles of God by explicit reference to the OT (e.g. Heb. 1:8 with reference to Ps. 45:7; Rom. 10:8 to Deut. 30: 14; Isa. 44:6 to Rev. 1:17; II Isaiah in John 8:28; and Rev. 1:8 with an allusion to Ex. 3:14).” And (4) “Jesus shares or fully assumes the function of the God of the OT, (e.g. 2 Cor. 5:10 with reference to Eccles. 12:14; Isa. 45:23; 1 Thess. 5:2; Acts 19:13; Rom. 10:14; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 5: 13).” Childs 1993, 363–364.

Theological Exegesis 221 interpret the OT teaching on God in an authentic way or does his Christological concentration distort this teaching in one way or the other? Above we have frequently pointed out that, according to Childs, the OT has its own independent “discrete” theological voice within the canon. On this basis, he believes that the OT can be common ground for a dialogue between Judaism and Christianity, and the same God in whom the two communities of faith believe can be seen as the foundation on the basis of which dialogue between 142 Jews and Christians becomes possible. For Childs, the Jewish God and the Christian God is the same true God, and both communities of faith in their own way give testimony to the same God. The issue is whether Jesus Christ can become a central concern for both Judaism and Christianity or not. Essentially, the problem is: Do Jews acknowledge the Christian belief that the NT’s Jesus Christ, the Lord and the Son of the God, is the OT’s Messiah? Or, is the Christian belief in Jesus Christ as the Lord harmonious with Jewish monotheism? Is there any way of creating a unified biblical theology that combines the OT and the NT, which could be 143 accepted by Jews and Christians alike? 142 A clear statement about this appears in “Does the OT Witness to Jesus Christ?” He says that “the real task of theological dialogue between Jews and Christians does not lie in exploring the religious boundaries of a lowest common denominator within a secular society, nor does it consist merely in engaging in common ethical causes good as the latter may be. For serious Jews and Christians such endeavors are theologically uninteresting and do not touch the heart of either community. Rather, true dialogue must engage itself with the elements of uniqueness of each group and focus on its highest denominator. Perhaps one place to begin is for Jews and Christians to agree in confessing faith in the one eternal God of Israel who also wills salvation for the Gentiles. Each community will make its own formulation in response to the Bible’s pressure to retain Israel’s particularity commensurate with the universal rule of God. For the Christian church the continuing paradox of faith lies in its encounter through the Jewish Scripture with the selfsame divine presence which it confesses to have found in the face of Jesus Christ.” See Childs 1997a, 63–64. 143 Dunn, for example, says that the key issue for biblical theology is “whether Christian faith in Jesus as expressed within the NT breaches that monotheism. If the conclusion is affirmative, then it actually becomes questionable whether NT Christology can be counted as a part of biblical theology. It could only be so in terms of a Christian faith that rode roughshod over one of the fundamental Jewish axioms; it could only be a biblical theology in which Jewish Scripture was no more than the OT, wholly subservient to New. It is a key issue...because it helps define what biblical theology is.” Then he suggests that “biblical theology cannot simply be content with a description of NT Christology as going beyond Jewish monotheism,” because it is actually not only difficult to know whether the monotheism of the Jewish Scripture can continue to be “a controlling element in NT Christology;” but it is also difficult to save the Christian interpretation of NT Christology from ignoring its monotheistic

222 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Childs’s position is a Protestant Christian position. For him, dialogue between Judaism and Christianity is possible because his Christological biblical theology builds a strong continuity from the OT to the NT. It must be remarked here that Christocentrism’s uniting of the OT with the NT is not a new but a rather traditional theological direction. Childs is not creating anything drastically new here. Rather he is shedding some new light on some classical emphases to support his protest against the interpretations of historicalcritical scholarship which undermine theology, especially Christology and the sanctity of Scripture. Christology is probably the biggest problem in any dialogue between Jews and Christians. Accepting the divinity of Jesus Christ is impossible for any Jew who wants to keep true to his or her own religion. If Childs wants to promote this dialogue on the foundation that the two faiths share the same God, then it would probably be more fruitful to concentrate only on the doctrine of God rather than a doctrine of God that is strongly dependent on Christology. Childs regards Christocentrism as superior to Theocentrism because he thinks that Christology is able to unite the two Testaments. In fact, here we can see that Childs’s canonical theological exegesis is designed to uphold a Christocentric theology. Childs fails to maintain a balance between the Theocentric view of the OT and the Christocentric teaching of the NT in his canonical theological exegesis. If Christocentrism and Theocentrism are not contradictory in the canonical context, why should we subordinate Theocentrism to Christocentrism, as Childs does? This assessment is particularly true both in the doctrinal understanding of the creation and in the interpretation of theological anthropology. Childs likes to underline that his canonical biblical theology follows the rule of faith of the Christian church, but it is doubtful whether his Christo-monistic orientation could be regarded as an expression of the ecumenical faith of the Christian church. Perhaps it is a particular feature of some part of Protestantism, more specifically of Barthian theology (we will come back to this in ch. 6.1.).

Summary: An Idealized Scenario We now return to the questions raised at the end of ch. 2: Is Childs’s claim to combine biblical theology with dogmatic theology successful and workable? Is framework. Dunn 2004b, 178–179.

Theological Exegesis 223 Christological concentration helpful for doing Christian biblical theology? Barr’s evaluation, “Childs’s biblical theology is not really a biblical theology at 144 all,” is too negative. I would rather suggest that Childs does create a kind of biblical theology, but this theology is “an idealized scenario,” not yet an extensively developed model of biblical theology. It is a scenario because it could be the basis for creating a biblical theology for the community of faith. However, it is idealized for two reasons: First, it is still just a proposal which needs to be carried out in practice; and second, its practical operability is completely dependent on whether the biblical theologian accepts the rule of faith of the Christian church as the guiding principle of his work. Childs’s definition of biblical theology manifests that biblical theology in the canonical context, which is a combination of both OT and NT theologies, no longer follows the normative rules of historical criticism. His theological reflection on the entire canonical Bible demonstrated the crucially important fact that exegesis cannot be separated from theology. We can assert that Childs program for canonical biblical theology is by no means a perfect, or final, way of solving problems, but it is certainly a welcome new attempt at drawing our attention to essentially important questions in theology and offering challenging proposals for further debate and discussion. It is not right to demand that Childs, who has been trained in the historical-critical method, should be fully competent to develop a systematic theological discussion and argumentation on the different loci of Christian doctrinal theology. His ambition is to be a biblical theologian, and he sees certain clear differences between biblical theology and dogmatic theology. But Childs does refer to dogmatic themes and contents in order to stimulate discussion on biblical theology. Childs’s suggestion to build a bridge between the Bible and theology and to promote a correlation between biblical theology and dogmatic theology is significant. It seems that his demonstration goes beyond the discipline of biblical theology, but it is not yet systematic. If we look at his concentration on Christology carefully, we may notice that his Christocentric biblical interpretation is not akin to Christology as it is normally carried out in doctrinal systematic theology or dogmatics. From the perspective of dogmatic theology, Christology as an important field of Christian theology addresses many of its important issues, such as incarnation, resurrection, soteriology, Christ’s human nature and divine nature and the inter-relationship of these two natures as well as how the human and divine 144 Barr 1999, 422.

224 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context coexist in one person, the sinlessness of Christ, the work of Jesus, the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith, the Trinitarian background of Christology, historical controversies as well as Christological development in Christian history, sin, grace, etc. Childs provides a Christological reading of the Bible, but does not offer any systematic analysis of Christology and its questions, such as incarnation, pre-existence, kenosis, the two natures of Christ, atonement, resurrection, parousia, and so on. Thus it would be better to say that he knows there is a need to systematize various theological themes of the Bible and bring them to a close dialogue with dogmatic theology, but he is compelled to leave that task to others. Childs is well aware of some key problems in contemporary Christian theology and advocates some beneficial suggestions for dealing with these problems. However, it is difficult to see that he has actually provided any solutions or indeed clues as to how to solve them. If doing a biblical theology only for the community of Christian faith, Childs’s argumentation on Christology is a workable example in connecting the Bible with theology, and biblical studies with systematic theology. It is clear, however, that the concentration on Christology will not solve all the problems in creating a unified canonical biblical theology of the OT and the NT. Christological 145 concentration is just the starting-point for that kind of biblical theology.

145 Brueggemann makes a similar observation noting that Childs’s focal point is to insist on a canonical Christian understanding, which means that the two Testaments are two distant witnesses to a common subject matter, Jesus Christ. Thus his biblical theology is based on “this single Christological focus.” W. Brueggemann 1993, 280.

CHAPTER

6

Evaluation and Reflection Childs and Barth Among biblical scholars, there seems to be common agreement that Childs’s canonical theological exegesis in general assimilates John Calvin, Walter Zimmerli, and Karl Barth. In Childs’s canonical program there are elements from Calvinistic biblical-fideism, Zimmerli’s form critical studies, and the 1 Barthian style of theological exegesis. Here we will only focus on Barth’s influence on Childs’s canonical biblical theology, since in previous chapters we already noticed that at certain points there is a clear link between Childs and Barth. Childs’s supporters such as Charles J. Scalise and Paul C. McGlasson believe that there is a strong tie, both theologically and methodologically, 2 between Childs and Barth. A number of other scholars have also argued that 1

2

Calvin’s biblical theology can be seen, for example, in Childs 1993, 47–50. Zimmerli’s influence on Childs is mainly in the perspective of biblical studies. See for example, Childs 1993, 3, 5, 174–175. Bauckham, O’Conner, and Scobie confirm that Childs’s canonical theological exegesis is theologically in the style of Calvin and Barth. Stuhlmacher finds that Zimmerli’s suggestion to build a biblical theology on the foundation of both of the Testaments influenced Childs. Bauckham 1994, 250. O’Conner 1995, 91. Stuhlmacher 1995, 74. Scobie 2003, 39. Scalise 1994b, 62–63, 66–68. McGlasson sees Childs as a kind of American “Barth,” and argues that his canonical biblical theology is nearly as important as Barth’s contribution to modern theology. In his Invitation to Dogmatic Theology: A Canonical Approach he depicts Childs as a developer of the Barthian tradition. He finds that the principle of faith seeking understanding can be seen as a common theological heart shared by Barth and Childs, because both Barth’s method and Childs’s canonical approach aim at constituting the model of faith seeking understanding as the fundamental direction of Christian dogmatic theology. From the point of view of the development of the history of theology, McGlasson argues that Barth started a new era in linking dogmatic theology with Scripture when he published “The Strange New World within the Bible” in 1916, which opened a new and powerful understanding of Scripture that completely reoriented the task of interpretation. Childs began another new era by providing the canonical approach connecting biblical theology with

226 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Barth’s biblical hermeneutics is the basis of Childs’s canonical theological 3 exegesis.

The Student-Master Relationship Childs can be seen as a student of Barth not only because he actually was his student in Basel but also because his theological methodology resembles that of Barth. Many commentators describe the relationship between Childs and Barth as a personal student-teacher relationship and say that Barth’s theology is an 4 important source for the development of Childs’s theological hermeneutics. Childs’s own attitude toward Barth can be seen throughout his works. For example, in his earlier works Childs points to Barth as his source of biblical hermeneutics and theological exegesis. His “Karl Barth as Interpreter of Scripture” (1969) in particular is an important article where he describes his 5 special respect for his master Barth.

3

4

5

dogmatic theology; the publication of Childs’s BTC in 1970 was an important turning point in the latter half of the twentieth century. McGlasson believes that Childs’s canonical emphasis is “certainly in continuity with Barth, and yet a very different voice” and that “we must not only wholeheartedly accept the reorientation of theology provided by Barth, we must also stress the absolute ontological claim of canon as described by Childs.” Moreover, McGlasson finds that both of them had built on from the heritage of such theological giants as Irenaeus, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, John of Damascus, Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. See McGlasson 2006, 14, 91–108. For example, Bauckham finds that Childs’s canonical approach is dependent on a prior decision made in the Barthian mode of theology. Noble argues that Childs makes himself dependent on Barth’s theological exegesis. Burnett believes that Childs is a longtime admirer of Barth’s theology. Bartholomew and O’Connor treat Childs’s canonical approach as biblical scholarship which continues in the Barthian tradition. Bauckham 1994, 250. Noble 1995, 77. O’Conner 1995, 91. Burnett 2001, 9. Bartholomew 2004, 10. Brown 2007. The italics are added. Childs was a student of Karl Barth in the early 1950s when he studied theology at the University of Basel. Scalise 1994b, 68–72. O’Conner 1995, 91. Burnett 2001, 9. Harrisville & Sundberg 2002, 310–312, 323. DeHart 2006, 10. For example, Childs argued that Barth’s basic hermeneutical contribution is to consider the Bible as a main source of theological construction. In his “Karl Barth as Interpreter of Scripture” Childs confides: “I suppose I have been exposed to Barth longer than most people: four years in Basel listening to Barth. And yet, I did not go to hear Barth. I learned later that, of course, he was there. I went to Basel to learn Hebrew grammar from W. Baumgartner. And yet Barth was there and we all listened to him.” He goes on “I think that I was typical of most of the Biblical men, not just in Basel, but of the whole situation of that period, that did not

Evaluation and Reflection 227 According to Scalise, Childs in OTTCC (1986) makes 13 special references to Barth, and notes that Barth’s substantial influence on Childs “has not 6 diminished in recent years.” In Childs’s magnum opus BTONT (1992) Barth’s name and Barthian theology are not forgotten; although there are no direct quotations from Barth in BTONT, some usages of Barth’s opinions are 7 obvious. It is clear that his attitude towards Barth and Barthian theology remains basically unchanged. In the 1990s, he concluded that Barth’s theological exegesis was an appropriate exercise in biblical theology and acknowledged that his canonical and confessional attempt to resolve the 8 hermeneutical problems of the OT was influenced by Barth. It is beyond doubt that Childs was in many ways influenced by Barth and his theology. But there are some differences between Childs and Barth, too. James Barr notes that Childs misunderstood Barth’s real biblical theological intention and as a result did not follow Barth exactly. Barr argues that Childs’s reading of Barth’s works was conducted in order to further “his own canonical interest,” which is alien to Barth himself. Childs considers Barth’s biblical theology as evidence of a canonical approach, but this is incorrect because the Christian canon is neither “a true representation” nor the heart of Barth’s 9 theology, Barr concludes. In response, Childs rejected Barr’s criticism maintaining that Barth’s theology consistently works from the context of the biblical canon. The controversial point between Childs and Barr is whether Childs’s emphasis on the importance of the canon for biblical theology is similar

6 7

8 9

take Barth really seriously, and perhaps what I’m saying is a confession of the sins of my youth.” Childs 1969b, 30–31; 1964, 437–443; 1970a, 110–111. Scalise 1994b, 79. In general, Childs does not often provide a clear source; rather, he merely adds a bibliography as an appendix to the contents of his books. Normally there is an index of authors at the back of Childs’s books, but no index of main subjects. In BTONT the name of Karl Barth appears at least one hundred times in the book; Childs’s reference to Barth in BTONT mainly focuses on Church Dogmatics. But there are also references to some shorter works of Barth, for example: “The word of God and the Word of Man” (1928 ), “No” in Natural Theology (1934 in German and 1946 in English), Dogmatics in Outline (1949), “The Christian Community and the Civil Community” (1954), “Christ and Adam” (1956), and “Gospel and Law” (1968 in English). See Childs 1993, 589; 1994a, 245; 1997b, 202. Barr criticizes that Childs follows Barth “too complete,” so that he does not really follow Barth at all. Childs’s canonical approach does not “stand on the side of Barth, instead, it is on the side of traditional biblical scholarship.” Barr even argues that Childs misreads Barth’s concept of biblical theology, and that Childs’s canonical proposal “has nothing much to do with Barth’s mind.” Barr 1983, 140–141; 1999, 408–412.

228 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context to Barth’s claim concerning the crucial role of the Bible for theology. Childs says that Barth’s theological exegesis worked “from an avowed theological 10 context, namely, from the context of the Christian canon.” In this controversy, Barr might exaggerate the distinction between Barth’s understanding of the Bible and Childs’s emphasis on the canon. Though Barth did not use the term “canon” much, his idea of theological exegesis is somewhat 11 similar to Childs’s canonical exegesis. Some scholars argue that Childs’s emphasis on the canon as the most appropriate context for biblical interpretation overshadowed Barth’s view on the exact words of the text. Barth does not merely claim that the Bible is self-authenticating as the revelation of God, but he also believes that the Christian Bible can provide the context for post-critical exegesis. In other words, Barth already treats the canonical biblical text itself as the provider of the basis of biblical theology. Barth believes that the 12 church did not create the canon, but received it. Barr’s critical remark is also helpful; it is probably true that the canon is not the heart of Barth’s theological exegesis. Only very few scholars see Barth as a founder and developer of canonical theological exegesis. Barth did not create a canonical theological exegesis; rather, he merely emphasized the important role of biblical theology and biblical argumentation for theology in general. Barr is not the only one who doubts the similarity between Childs and Barth; in recent years, some scholars have rethought the actual influence of Barth’s neoorthodox theology on the English-speaking world, especially on so-called American neo-orthodoxy. Bruce McCormack argues that “the hermeneutics of Karl Barth has never been well understood in the English-speaking world,” with 13 the Yale school being one case in point. McCormack’s main point is that the Yale theologians were unable to focus attention on Barth’s actual scriptural 10 See Childs 1970a, 111–112. Later Childs critically remarks that Barr’s denial is an attempt to replace Christian orthodoxy with rationalism. See Childs 1997b, 206. 11 For example, Scalise finds that Barth’s insight into the theological content of the canon can be equated with Childs’s emphasis on the canon as a theological norm for the interpretation of the Bible. He also says that Barth’s formulation “from actuality to possibility” can be equated with Childs’s hermeneutical move from the actuality of the final form of the text to the possibility of its appropriation. Scalise 1994a, 51; 1994b, 62–63, 66–68. Scobie 2003, 39. Barth’s point on the Christian canon can be seen in Barth’s CD I/2, 726. 12 This point is similar to Childs’s, as we have seen in previous chapters. Barth CD, I/2, 473. Runia 1962, 192. 13 McCormack 2001, vii-viii. Yale School theologians include professors David H. Kelsey, Hans W. Frei, George A. Lindbeck, and Brevard S. Childs. Childs, nevertheless, does not see himself as a member of the New Yale Theology. Childs 1984a, 541–546. Burnett 2001, xi.

Evaluation and Reflection 229 exegesis and hermeneutical principles. They were interested in Barth’s theological exegesis merely in order to find support for their own biblical exegetical preoccupations. As a matter of fact McGormick concludes that the Yale school in the movement of American neo-orthodoxy is theologically much 14 more conservative than Barth himself. We still need to try to answer the question: How much is Childs’s canonical approach influenced by Barth, and what did Childs learn from Barth? Above we have already noted that Childs’s view of the Bible as God’s word and especially his Christological concentration are somewhat linked to Barth’s theology, although Childs does not completely follow Barth’s theological 15 exegesis. We can assert that his canonical biblical theology falls within the 16 Barthian tradition, but there are also differences. Here it is not possible to compare all the theological similarities and differences between Childs and Barth, but we will attempt to deal with some key elements from the perspective of biblical theological methodology.

The Doctrine of Scripture Barth’s influence on Childs is best seen in his theological interpretation and use of the Bible. Barth’s concept, or doctrine, of Scripture is important for Childs, who very much appreciates Barth’s idea that the Bible is the indispensable basis 17 for all Christian theology. Barth’s rediscovery of the role of the Bible in 14 McCormack also describes the Yale school’s assimilation of Barthian theological hermeneutics as “the last (and, in many ways, the greatest) achievement of American ‘neo-orthodoxy.’” McCormack 2001, vii-viii. 15 Childs is sometimes critical of Barth’s exegesis because he finds that Barth had not successful dealt with the descriptive task of exegesis. For instance, in MROT (1960), Childs is critical of Barth’s concept of history, arguing that “Barth avoids the dangers of a dualistic concept of history by remaining strictly within the Biblical categories...Barth certainly acknowledges historical criticism, but its findings are consigned merely to formal matters without adding any tangible content to his history.” And later Childs wrote that “the fundamental criticism of the so-called theological exegesis of Luther and Calvin and...of Barth is the failure to execute with sufficient precision the descriptive task of exegesis.” See Childs 1960a, 101; 1964, 440. Scalise 1994b, 72–73. 16 Here we can also employ Scalise’s argument that Barth’s hermeneutics provides an appropriate theological context for understanding Childs’s canonical approach. Scalise 1994a, 51. 17 Childs claims that “Barth effected the basic hermeneutical revolution in the (19)20s which provided the correct foundation for the theological use of the Bible,” and Barth’s theological use of the Bible is seen not only as a serious attempt to “relate the Bible and theology within a

230 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context theological exegesis includes some important hermeneutical implications, which were of great interest to Childs. First, an appropriate explanation of the relationship between God’s revelation and the text of Scripture is necessary in dealing with the problem of biblical hermeneutics. In CD Barth points out that the Bible as Scripture means that the revelation of God is neither behind nor above but in biblical texts; and 18 he insists that the form of revelation is inseparable from its content. From the perspective of biblical hermeneutics, Barth’s assertion on the relationship between the revelation and the biblical texts implies that Scripture is “the 19 indispensable form of the content of revelation.” According to Childs, Barth’s assertion concerning the relationship between the revelation of God and the text of Scripture means that Barth recognizes that “the nature of revelation is hidden in the text of Scripture which called for a 20 profound nachdenken, mitdenken, and selberdenken.” Childs understands Barth’s theology as a new voice, expressing that Sripture as a form of revelation has been neglected. Barth’s Epistle to the Romans can be seen as a typical and 21 powerful example of this new voice. Here, Childs is not alone. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, for instance, is very close to Childs’s evaluation of Barth. Vanhoozer argues that Barth turned to Paul’s letter to the Romans not only “in the hope of

18

19 20

21

new critical synthesis,” but also as a decisive rediscovery of the theological role of the Bible. Wallace and Scobie also observe that Childs is influenced by Barth’s idea that “the Bible should be read on its own terms as a living theological voice.” See Childs 1981a, 253; 1970a, 111; 1993, 405; 1997b, 203. Wallace 1990, 24. Scobie 2003, 39. Barth’s CD I/1, 285, 362; I/2, 492–494. Barth said that “if I understand what I am trying to do in the CD, it is to listen to what Scripture is saying and tell you what I hear.” Quoted by Ford 1979a, 55, 60. Brett 1991, 12, 170. Scalise 1994a, 60; 1994b, 61–62. Nachdenken (the act of reflection), mitdenken or Beobachtung (the act of observation), and selberdenken or Aneignung (the act of appropriation) are Barth’s three key operations for interpreting Scripture. Barth CD I/2,719ff, 722-740. Childs 1981a, 252–253; 1993, 382. Ford 1979a, 58, 60. Scalise 1994b, 62–63. Vanhoozer 2006, 9–10. Childs points out that Barth has spoken of “the strange new world of the Bible,” which announced that “the Bible was not about humanity’s search for God but God’s search for humanity.” He also says that “the Bible was unconcerned with human religious aspirations but rather spoke of a merciful disclosure of God to a rebellious creation. Barth saw humanity not as valiantly striving for truth but as fleeing blindly from God’s truth already plainly revealed.” Childs 1997b, 202. Also see Childs’s earlier works such as Childs 1969b, 35; 1974a, 301.

Evaluation and Reflection 231 hearing the word of God,” but also in the hope of finding “a new starting point 22 and principle for theology.” Barth’s theology is certainly close to the biblical text. The Bible as Scripture for Barth means that the revelation is neither behind nor above but in the biblical texts. Childs objected to this idea as he developed his own canonical 23 theological exegesis. Here Barth and Childs seem almost to share the same position. But their understanding of the term “witness” is not the same. As we observed above, Barth’s understanding of the Bible as “witness” has influenced Childs. Barth uses the term “witness” when he speaks of Scripture as divine revelation. The term “witness” implies notions of distinction and limitation, witness itself is not revelation, but points to revelation, which is something other than itself. Barth also gives the term “witness” another function: witness 24 and revelation form an indissoluble unity and belong inseparably together. Childs argues that Barth accepts Calvin’s emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit in making the Scripture relevant to the community of faith, God’s people. According to Childs, Barth views the Bible as the Scripture of the church and confesses the prophetic and apostolic origin and normative authority of the 25 26 Holy Scripture. Childs completely agrees with Barth on these points. For 22 Vanhoozer says that Barth did not appreciate theological liberalism’s interpretation of the Bible as a pure expression of human religious experience; rather, he “turned to Scripture not so much to discover God but to be discovered by God;” as “God is not an object of human reflection but an active subject. Theology’s task therefore is not to formulate human thoughts about God but to explicate God’s thoughts about us.” Barth proceeds with his own biblical interpretative principle that homo peccator non capax verbi divini (a sinful person has no capacity for the divine word.) in CD I/1,407. Vanhoozer distinguishes Barth from Schleiermacher by arguing that Schleiermacher views the Bible as an expression of human experience, but Barth aims to bring the reader “face to face with the subject-matter of the Scriptures.” All the human authors of Scripture are witnesses, “neither to their own experience, nor even to past events, but to the living God, who is no inert matter but the speaking subject of biblical discourse.” Vanhoozer 2006, 8–10. 23 In CD Barth says that “the special instance of biblical saga is that in which intuition and imagination are used but in order to give prophetic witness to what has taken place by virtue of the word of God in the (historical or pre-historical) sphere where there can be no historical proof.” In his “Barth as Interpreter of Scripture” Childs firmly stands on Barth’s side, stating that “Barth always complained that one could not get behind the text, that one could not come at Scripture from a context other than the canonical context as it had been received by the Church, that there was no neutral position from which one could start and then somehow make a bridge from neutrality to commitment.” See Childs 1969b, 32; 1993, 571. Barth CD IV/1, 508. 24 See Barth CD I/2, 463. Runia 1962, 18–19, 21–22, 45–47. 25 Barth CD I/1, 107. Childs’s argument was presented in a symposium at Yale Divinity School

232 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Childs, Barth’s attempt to construct church dogmatics on the foundation of biblical exegesis is “the most ambitious attempt” in twentieth-century 27 theology. Barth’s emphasis on the Bible as witness not only confirms the significance of the Christian biblical tradition for theology, but also holds the key to dealing with the relationship between biblical exegesis and theology proper. As Childs attempts to connect biblical theology and dogmatic theology, it is not difficult to see the similarity between Barth and Childs. In ch. 4.1.2. and ch. 5.1.2. we noted, however, that Childs assimilated Barth’s understanding of the Bible as witness but ignored Barth’s emphasis on the word of God being 28 inseparable from the human words and actual text of the Bible. In other words, Barth agrees with the Chalcedonian principle of biblical hermeneutics, but Childs does not express this in an obvious way. Here lies a major discrepancy between Barth and Childs. Both Barth and Childs believe that Christology performs a central role in biblical theology. According to Barth, the Bible as Scripture focuses on two central events, which are both related to Jesus Christ: the crucifixion and the resurrection. For him, the understanding of the Holy Trinity is based on the Christocentric acceptance of the doctrine of God. The whole Bible is the authoritative witness to God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, who is the essence of on 28 January 1969. Childs 1969b, 30–35. Also see Harrisville 1999, 10. Harrisville & Sundberg 2002, 313. 26 However, Childs admits that Barth still left some unresolved difficulties, as he states “yet it seems to me it’s the fact that Barth wants to go through the text, to the reality, that the text becomes a transparency, that the walls that separate the Apostle from the reader are dissolved, and then one begins to confront the reality itself—and for Barth there can be no antiquarian interest. And that means that Barth has the tendency always to move down, to move through and talk about transparency.” Childs 1969b, 32–34. Also see Childs 1962, 85; 1964, 443. The implications of canon with the stress on regula fidei as well as the controversy around it are dealt with in ch. 2 above. 27 Burnett 2001, 9. Burnett compares Barth’s usage of biblical detailed exegesis throughout his CD with Brunner, Althaus, Niebuhr, Tillich, and Ebeling from the perspective of theological hermeneutics. Childs’s own interest in Barth on this point can be seen in Childs 1993, 648; 1997d, 19. 28 Scalise finds that from the perspective of biblical theology, and following a Barthian understanding of witness, “Childs moves beyond this Barthian emphasis on the text as theological transparency to elaborate a dialectics between substance and witness in biblical theology.” Similarly, Wallace argues that “Scripture is trusted (by Barth) because in the past and the present it has functioned as a faithful witness to the divine reality by virtue of its role as God’s written Word.” Scalise 1994b, 77–78. Wallace 1990, 5.

Evaluation and Reflection 233 the Bible. Thus, God has made himself known both in Jesus Christ and in the Scripture. God reveals himself both by the human words of Scripture and the 29 humanity of Jesus Christ. From this Christ-centered understanding of revelation it follows that theological exegesis is completely concentrated on the Christological biblical interpretation, and Barth’s theology is regarded as 30 “strongly Christocentric,” or even “Christomonistic.” Christocentric theology in Barth and Childs follows the tradition of Reformed Protestantism. The neo-orthodoxy of Barth obviously calls for a return to the Reformation, and Childs follows Barth’s theological and hermeneutical position. For both, the subject-matter of Scripture is Jesus Christ. Barth’s theology of the word of God operates in a Christocentric hermeneutic of redemption; Childs’s canonical approach follows the same path. Both confess that Jesus Christ is the subject matter of the Bible. The reality of Jesus Christ is 31 seen as the determinative scope of the whole biblical witness. Both understand the doctrine of the Holy Trinity via Christology. Both Barth and Childs frequently return to such theological traditions as the church fathers and the Reformation not only because they want to avoid theological modernism but also because they are searching for a new, fresh path for theological exegesis, biblical theology, and doctrinal theology proper. Childs is also positively supportive of Barth’s implementation of a Christological approach to OT 32 exegesis.

29 See Barth CD I/1, 117; 124ff; II/2, 364; III/2, 91; IV/3, 126–130. 30 Ford 1979a, 57, 60, 66, 70. Similarly, Kantzer finds that Barth “not only holds to a Christocentric theology, but also to Christomonism.” Kantzer 1991, 492. As we have already mentioned Childs does not like the term “Christomonism” when it comes to describing his Christologically orientated biblical theology, however, on this point, both Childs and Barth are quite similar. 31 See Barth CD III/1; I/2; III/2. Similar observations can be seen in Sanders 1984, 6. Wallace 1990, 79. Vanhoozer 2006, 9. 32 In his MROT (1960) Childs repeatedly cites Barth’s exegetical point on Genesis in his CD and in BTC (1970) he defends Barth’s OT exegesis. Moreover, according to Scalise, Childs’s resistance to any theological proposal which de-emphasizes the Christological role of the Christian Scripture is based upon his partiality to Barth’s rejection of anthropocentric theology. Once Scalise argued that “following Barth’s rejection of anthropocentric theology, Childs is suspicious of any biblical theology that does not emphasize the Christological role of the Christian canon.” Childs 1960a, 33–35, 44; 1970a, 110. Scalise 1994a, 72; 1994b, 70– 71.

234 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context

Barth’s Attitude towards Historical Criticism Barth and Childs share a sense of dissatisfaction with the dominance and onesidedness of historical-critical scholarship, but, on the other hand, they also acknowledge its usefulness to a certain extent. In ch. 4 we studied Childs’s criticism of historical criticism and his assimilation of some of the achievements of historical-critical scholarship. It is well known that when Barth launched his theological program in the early part of the twentieth century, he was critical of the pre-eminent influence of the historical-critical investigation of Scripture. A similar reaction against historical criticism took place in America but a few decades later. The beginning of Childs’s career as a critic of historical criticism was coincided with and was influenced by Barthian neo-orthodoxy’s arrival in North America. Barth’s break with theological liberalism based on historical-critical 33 scholarship occurred in 1915, whilst Childs’s break with historical criticism only became apparent in 1970. Both Barth and Childs rejected the absoluteness of the historical-critical method, which had dominated academic biblical studies since the Enlightenment. Neither of them denied the usefulness of historical criticism. However, only Childs made use of the achievements of historicalcritical scholarship to any significant degree, whereas Barth seldom used it at all. 34 Some scholars observed that the main reason for both Barth’s and Childs’s opposition to natural theology (knowledge of God outside revelation) was based upon their dissatisfaction with historical criticism. Their interest was in trying to move from historical criticism to a post-critical biblical interpretation and biblical theology that focused on the theological aspects of the Scripture and on the canonical Scripture as God’s only revelation. Barth refused to regard historical criticism as a theological enterprise, but did not completely reject historical criticism because it could be useful for exegesis. For Barth the historical-critical method with its own presuppositions and claims to scientific objectivity remained suspect. Barth even sees historical criticism as “a ridiculous and middle-class habit of the modern Western mind 35 which is extremely phantastic in its chronic lack of imaginative phantasy.” 33 Burnett 2001, xi. 34 Anderson 1981, 15. Scalise 1994b, 75. O’Conner 1995, 95. McGlasson 2006, 92–97. 35 Barth CD III/1, 81. Also see Anderson 1981, 13–14. Burnett 2001, 230.

Evaluation and Reflection 235 Similarly, as we have seen, although Childs sees historical criticism as a legitimate approach, he does not view it as a theological enterprise. The turning point came in 1970 when Childs became openly critical towards the historicalcritical school and started looking for a new path of theological exegesis. Before 36 that he had not shared Barth’s sharp criticism of that school. Childs started to follow Barth more closely in 1969 when writing BTC. In “Karl Barth as Interpreter of Scripture” (1969) and BTC (1970) Childs finally adopts Barth’s 37 criticism of modern historical criticism of the Bible. From 1970 on, Childs never stopped developing his own canonical approach to biblical theology, which is highly critical of the “scientific” historical-critical method. Barth did not want to see his biblical hermeneutics as an enemy of historical criticism. In his “Preface to the First Edition” of Epistle to the Romans (1918) Barth pointed out that “the historical-critical method of biblical investigation has its rightful place: it is concerned with the preparation of the intelligence, and this can never be superfluous;” similarly, in his “Preface to the Second Edition” (1921) Barth again emphatically declared “nor am I a bitter enemy of 38 39 historical criticism.” Some scholars have observed that Barth’s purpose was to create a unifying theological framework in which hearing the word of God is the main goal of biblical exegesis. Barth did not regard his proposal concerning biblical interpretation as an alternative to the historical-critical method, nor did his theological hermeneutical intention attempt to dismiss modern biblical scholarship. On the contrary, he believed that the historical-critical method could be of indispensable service to biblical interpretation. In short, both Barth and Childs find that historical-critical investigation provides instrumental help 36 For example, as we have mentioned earlier, in MROT Childs is critical of Barth’s concept of history arguing that “Barth avoids the dangers of a dualistic concept of history by remaining strictly within the biblical categories...Barth certainly acknowledges historical criticism, but its findings are consigned merely to formal matters without adding a tangible content to his history.” Similarly, he writes in another context that “the fundamental criticism of the socalled theological exegesis of Luther and Calvin and...of Barth is the failure to execute with sufficient precision the descriptive task of exegesis.” Scalise notes that Childs moved from “defender of Barth’s exegesis to critic of his exegesis” out of consideration for the complexity of the historical issues in biblical interpretation. Childs 1960a, 101; 1964, 440. Scalise 1994b, 72–73. 37 Childs 1969b, 32–34; 1970a, 52, 80. Childs is criticized in a similar way by biblical critics, for instance by Barr and Barton, as we have seen above. 38 See Barth 1968, 1, 9. Barth also argued that “what I must defend myself against is not historical criticism.” quoted by Sykes 1979, 28. 39 Wallace 1990, 7, 10. Burnett 2001, 231, 239. Räisänen 2000, 45.

236 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context for the detailed analysis of biblical texts and, as such, was a form of intellectual preparation for biblical interpretation.

Methodological Reflection A Forum for Methodological Dialogue From the point of view of biblical theological methodology, Childs’s canonical theological exegesis concentrates on the concept of the “canon,” whereas he pays only scant attention to the various methods of historical, literary, anthropological, sociological, cultural, or philosophical analysis of the texts. Hence, his proposal has been critically described as “a very unjustifiable opinion,” an “un-dialectical” approach, “a single methodology,” a “single40 minded” approach, and a “pan theology.” However, these judgments only touch on Childs’s canonical methodological narrowness; its positive elements are sometimes not considered fairly. I will raise three points that hopefully will allow for a more profound understanding of Childs’s program. First, for Childs a Christian theology must be based on the entire Bible, and Christian theological exegesis ought not only to serve the Christian church of its own time, but is also responsible to the next generation of the community of faith. Reading and interpreting the Bible must take place under the guidance of the Christian confession. After two centuries of historical criticism’s influence, few biblical scholars and theologians have managed to maintain a clear Christian theological position, and very few indeed are able both to criticize historical-critical scholarship and defend the necessity of doing a Christian and canonical biblical theology. Childs is one of the very few of these theologians. John J. Collins argues that historical criticism could be more inclusive than 41 Childs’s canonical approach, but this argument is problematic and too

40 Barr 1983, 165. Carroll 1980, 286; 1981, 76. Hunter 1990, 105, 165–167. W. Brueggemann 1993, 281. The criticism mainly focuses on whether the rule of faith should be treated as the foundation for a dialogue between confessional theology and non-confessional theology. The critics presume that Childs’s emphasis on regula fidei is unfair to those who do not want to accept this confession as a matter of faith. 41 Collins, for instance, complains that Childs fails to explain why anyone should adopt this approach to the text unless they happen to share his view of Christian faith. The canonical approach then fails to provide a context for dialogue with anyone who does not accept it as a matter of faith. He also remarks critically that “Childs’s dogmatic conception of the canon provides no basis for advancing dialogue. In my opinion historical criticism still provides the

Evaluation and Reflection 237 extreme. As John D. Levenson points out, Collins uses a double standard. On the one hand, he has not explained how historical criticism can sufficiently provide a proper context for dialogue with those who do not agree with the presuppositions of that method. On the other hand, historical criticism does not facilitate any meaningful conversation between the liberal and conservative viewpoints. Therefore, Levenson prefers to stand with Childs rather than 42 Collins. Here, the key issue is whether Childs’s emphasis on the rule of faith and canon has really crossed an insurmountable threshold in the dialogue between his canonical approach and historical-critical scholarship. Perhaps, the answer is no. As we have seen, Childs himself is a typical example of a scholar involved in this kind of dialogue. As a biblical scholar, he acknowledges the reasonableness of referring to the rule of faith; whilst as a theologian, he accepts the usefulness of historical criticism. Childs wishes to enlarge not end the dialogue between his canonical approach and historical criticism. Contemporary Christian theological hermeneutics needs an appropriate consideration of faith, especially for the Christian community. In this sense, Childs’s canonical approach is practicable. It is not right for Christian theologians and Christian biblical scholars to deny the importance of faith in doing either biblical theology or dogmatic theology. It is better to admit the importance of faith if one wishes to create theology that is relevant for people today. The essential point in the conflict between the canonical approach and nonconfessional disciplines is the question about distinct “interpretative interests” rather than methodological concerns. Childs’s view, which describes faith as the requirement of biblical theology, is criticized because it is “not universally 43 accepted.” Perhaps, when Childs emphasizes the need for a confessional Christian theology in the contemporary Christian theological academy, both non-confessional and confessional theologians should seriously rethink the somost satisfactory framework for discussion.” Collins 1990, 2, 15–16. 42 He says, “I note, however, that if inclusiveness could be gauged quantitatively, then Childs would win the match hands down, for far more people with biblical interests share Christian faith than a thoroughgoing historicism.” Levenson 1993, 120. 43 The term “interpretative interests” is used by Brett to explain Childs’s confessional concern to interpret biblical texts in their canonical form. The phrase not universally accepted appears in Collins 2005, 2. Collins does not accept Childs’s definition of biblical theology from a specific confessional perspective and in the light of a faith commitment. Thus he feels that this view is not universally accepted. Collins’s criticism is based on Pannenberg’s disagreement with reading the OT in a canonical and confessional way. See Pannenberg 1997, 275–280. Brett 1991, 12, 27.

238 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context called unbridgeable gap between secular and confessional disciplines. Evidently, for Childs, theological exegesis and biblical theology can be based only on the latter option. Second, Childs’s canonical biblical theology attempts to establish a platform for methodological dialogue. As we have seen, he not only wishes to absorb the results of historical research of the Bible and combine biblical theology and dogmatic theology , but he also attempts to unite OT theology and NT theology into one biblical theology. To connect these theological disciplines is no easy matter, but he makes a promising attempt. At least he has said what other theologians might have thought but never dared express. Childs’s canonical theological exegesis is concerned with the restoration of the theological task of reading and interpreting the Bible as Scripture under the accepted influence of the rule of faith and for the Christian church. For this reason, some biblical scholars think that Childs’s canonical theological exegesis has not made a great contribution to methodological dialogue between the 44 various disciplines. We can, however, think of Childs’s canonical biblical theology in another way by asking: Does Childs’s canonical biblical theology create a really new way of connecting the Bible and theology, uniting OT theology and NT theology, and creating a platform for dialogue between biblical theology and dogmatic theology? Third, proceeding from the first and second points, it is possible to say that Childs does not close but opens a forum for methodological dialogue. His canonical biblical theology acts not as an undertaker but as a midwife. He does not argue that his way of practicing theological exegesis in the canonical context can deal with all the theological issues that can arise from different contemporary circumstances. The methodological discussion has just begun. Childs feels that he is a pioneer who has just taken some initial steps in a long process of creating a new methodology.

44 For example, Barr argues that Childs sometimes has engaged in an extensive dialogue with past scholarly literature. In general, however, Childs’s canonical approach “makes itself unable to discuss on equal terms with any other position.” After reading Childs’s BTONT, Bauckham says that he feels disappointed but that the work is impressive. Provan explicitly doubts that Childs’s canonical theological exegesis can be an ecumenical method. Brett prefers to see Lindbeck’s cultural-linguistic proposal as more beneficial to ecumenical conversations than Childs’s canonical approach. Again, for Collins, Childs’s canonical approach has cut off “the possibility of dialogue with those who do not share those principles.” Barr 1983, 146; 1980, 19. Bauckham 1994, 246–247. Brett 1991, 157. Collins 2005, 25, 33. Provan 1997, 15.

Evaluation and Reflection 239 As for his concentration on Christology, Childs believes that Christology 45 could be helpful for an interdenominational ecumenical dialogue. With regard to the dialogue between Judaism and Christianity, Childs finds that the same OT and the same God can be treated as the common basis of encounter between Judaism and Christianity. In BTONT he mentions that a true ecumenical dialogue can be brought about by acknowledging that the canonical 46 Bible is the common resource for the entire Christian church. Although Childs’s canon only refers to the canon of the Protestant church, so that a canonical difference between Protestantism and other Christian bodies still remains unsolved, his proposal for canonical theological exegesis is a practicable suggestion for Christian ecumenical dialogue.

Participation by the Catholic Church There are some positive signs that Childs’s canonical biblical theology has attracted attention. For instance, in 1994 the Catholic Church published a document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission called “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church,” which warmly welcomed the canonical approach in biblical studies. Pope Benedict XVI in his recent book Jesus of Nazareth (2007) expresses his deep appreciation of the development of canonical exegesis in America; he does not mention anyone by name, but it is quite evident that 47 Childs is one of those to whom he refers. Though the Catholic Church has a 45 Canonical biblical theology “has the unique opportunity in today’s ecumenical climate of fostering genuine inter-denominational dialogue on the subject matter of Christology.” Christology can be understood as the common ground that offers an appropriate platform for cross-denominational dialogue. Childs 1993, 482. 46 Childs argues that “it would be important if all the major Christian traditions were involved in continuing discussion: Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Free, Lutheran and Reformed;” but “any suggestion that it serves as a substitute for sustained theological reflection is fundamentally to misunderstand the nature of Scripture.” Childs 1993, 529; 2005b, 41. 47 See the 1994 document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, 14. The Pope seems to appreciate the concept of canonical theological exegesis, which proposes reading and interpreting the Bible as Scripture, under the rule of faith, as a whole, backed by the principle of “diversity in unity.” Bartholomew also observes that Childs’s canonical theological exegesis can be ecumenical, because it has led to a growth in Catholic attention and participation. Once he argued that “Childs’s attempt to renew biblical theology is overtly ecumenical, and it is vital that attempts to renew and reinvigorate biblical theology and biblical interpretation should be so too. One of the most exciting developments in the Scripture and Hermeneutics Seminar is the growing Catholic participation.” Bartholomew 2004, 15. Ratzinger 2007, xviii-xix. Costacurta 2008, 82.

240 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context different canon from the Protestant church, its attitude towards canonical theological exegesis and the role of regula fidei in it is very similar. The positive reaction of Catholics to the canonical approach gives hope for the possibility of creating an ecumenically oriented and relevant biblical theology. There are five aspects in Childs’s canonical proposal, which unite his interests with those of Catholic theology. First, both Childs and Catholic theologians are concerned with the necessity of the rule of faith in academic biblical theology and attempt to seek a proper theological exegesis that will serve the community of believers. Catholic scholars stress the importance of the rule of faith in the theological academy. Faith is seen as part of the pre48 understanding of exegesis and as one of the principles of biblical 49 hermeneutics. Some Catholic scholars even see the rule of faith in biblical interpretation as “the science of faith,” which deals with “the word of God 50 understood in faith.” Some suggest that it is necessary to keep a balance between the rule of faith and non-confessional biblical disciplines and make 51 them function together. The Catholic Church also thinks that it is important 48 For instance, Vanhoye argues that “exegesis itself should be…fides quaerens intellectum, an intellectual study practiced with a pre-understanding of faith.” He even agrees with Childs’s emphasis on the importance of the rule of faith in Christian biblical interpretation saying that “Childs…has noted that if exegesis is not practiced ‘within an explicit faith setting,’ it cannot be useful for theology, because ‘it is impossible to build a bridge which would go from a neutral descriptive content to a theological reality’ (Childs 1964, 438).” Vanhoye 2008, 120– 121. 49 If we look at some documents of the Catholic Church, we realize that the rule of faith also plays an important role in Catholic biblical interpretation. For example, Dei Verbum speaks about proclaiming the word of God “with faith,” emphasizing that the revealed truth needs “the obedience of faith.” Dei Verbum 1, 5. Catechism of the Catholic Church indicates that “theological research deepens knowledge of revealed truth,” and that “the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow the life of the Church.” Catechism of the Catholic Church 1995, 34. Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger, points out that theology “must acknowledge that the faith of the church is precisely the sort of sympathy without which the text remains closed. It must acknowledge this faith as the hermeneutic, as the locus of understanding, which does not dogmatically force itself upon the Bible, but is the only way of letting it be itself.” Ratzinger 2008, 29. 50 “The science of faith” is from a Catholic theologian Romano Guardini, who responds to the epistemological principle of historical criticism by arguing that “faith is the correlative cognitive attitude to the word of God,” and that “the science of faith deals precisely with this: the word of God understood in faith.” And his aim is to develop “an authentic science of faith,” so that “we can do the work of exegesis within faith while at the same time respecting the strict laws of scientific research.” Quoted by Potterie 2008, 54–55. 51 Williams, for example, argues that “only fideism can fail to recognize the human factors and

Evaluation and Reflection 241 that theological research should be responsive to the needs of the church and Christians. Biblical interpretation is relevant and meaningful because it is done in the context of the living community that is interested in it. In other words, 52 one of the tasks of Catholic theological exegesis is its ecclesial function. Second, Catholic scholars think that Christological concentration is a possible direction for biblical theology. Like Childs, Catholic theology acknowledges that Jesus Christ is the center and heart of Scripture, or that Jesus 53 Christ is the unique Word of the Sacred Scripture. Similarly, Catholic theology also insists that the OT witnesses to Christ, and accepts that the Messianic passages of the OT were already accepted by the Jews and the early Christians; consequently, a Christian reading of the OT must be practiced in 54 the light of the NT. Christology is also an important way of doing Christian biblical interpretation because the Chalcedonian principle is the best way of explaining the incarnational and sacramental nature of God’s word being given inseparably in the form of the human word. The Second Vatican Council emphasized the application of the Chalcedonian principle for a proper concept 55 of the Bible.

52

53

54

55

historical conditions at work in the Bible; only lack of faith can fail to acknowledge God as the unifying authority and unique source of the Bible.” D.Williams 2004, 174. For example, Dei Verbum, 22, says that “Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful.” The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church argues that “the task of Catholic exegetes embraces many aspects. It is an ecclesial task, for it consists in the study and explanation of Holy Scripture in a way that makes all its riches available to pastors and the faithful.” The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church 1994, 40, chs. III-IV. See also Vanhoye 2008,110. Dei Verbum, 13, claims that “for the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.” Catechism of the Catholic Church says that “this one book is Christ, because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1995, 35, 38, 43. See also Ratzinger 2008, 26. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1995, 42, declares that “Christians read the OT in the light of Christ crucified and risen.” Simonetti argues that “the Messianic character of many passages in the OT was recognized by both Christians and Jews.” Potterie points out that “two Testaments gather into itself the whole of Scripture, which is centered on Christ.” Simonetti 1994, 9. Potterie 2008, 48. Dei Verbum, 13, reemphasizes the significance of Chalcedonian terminology. Pope Benedict XVI argues that “the Christological view is complemented by a properly theological one in the strict sense of the word.” Stock says that it is one of the “possible directions for exegetical work on Christ,” and argues that “we want our view of the real Jesus as a whole to be unobstructed either by our own methods or by the imposition of any overlay on the sources.”

242 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Third, both Childs and Catholic scholars emphasize the unity of the Bible. It is well known that one of the important criteria for interpreting Scripture in the Second Vatican Council was to indicate the content and unity of the whole 56 Bible. Thus, “Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan.” The emphasis on the unity of the Bible for both Childs’s canonical theological exegesis and Catholic biblical interpretation is a basic exegetical requirement or 57 a hermeneutical decision. The unity of the OT and the NT is an ontological relationship, which means that it is founded on the unity of the two covenants within one divine economy of salvation. Therefore, some Catholic scholars 58 argue that “a theology of the two Testaments is necessary today.” Fourth, both have similar criticisms of the historical-critical investigation of the Bible. Like Childs, Catholic theologians are well aware of the shortcomings of the historical-critical method and regard it as theologically inadequate. Pope Benedict XVI pointed out that the historical-critical method is in need of “self59 criticism.” For example, it damages the unity of the Bible because of its one60 sided diachronic interpretation. Historical-critical exegesis is reproached for

56 57

58 59 60

Stock also adds that “Jesus really is and as a whole. I believe that we can attain this goal only with, and not against, our sources.” Healy points out that what is needed is a Chalcedonian form of exegesis, which does full justice to the human and the divine aspects of Scripture in their integral unity. Ratzinger 2008, 26. Stock 2008, 95, 103. Healy 2006, 40. See Catechism of the Catholic Church 1995, 38, 42, 43, and Dei Verbum, 12, which employs the expressions “the unity of the OT and the NT” and “all Sacred Scripture is one book.” The Pope says that “a NT separated from the OT cannot hold together even on its own terms, because, according to its own claim, it exists only thanks to this unity;” and “the first presupposition of all exegesis is that it takes the Bible as one book.” Other Catholic theologians, such as Granados & Sánchez-Navarro, argue that “the fundamental presupposition upon which biblical exegesis is based is the Bible’s unity; confirming to this requires of the exegete…an authentic hermeneutical decision.” Similarly, Potterie finds that theological exegesis requires a fundamental consequence for interpretation: “the Bible as a whole forms a unity.” Ratzinger 2008, 25, 29. Granados & Sánchez-Navarro 2008, xxi-xxii. Potterie 2008, 48. The equivalent view in Childs’s canonical approach was identified in chs. 3.3.–3.4. Beauchamp 2008, 68. Healy 2006, 34. See Childs’s view on “a united biblical theology” in ch. 5.2.4. above. “What we need is a criticism of the criticism.” Ratzinger 2008, 8. Or see Granados & Sánchez-Navarro 2008, xxii. The Pope says that “on the whole, traditional exegesis is considered to be pre-scientific and naïve; historical-critical exegesis is thought to be the first proper exploration of the text. By the same logic, the unity of the Bible itself becomes an obsolete postulate.” Ratzinger 2008, 6. Again, the document, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church 1994, 3, mentions that “the historical-critical method…is particularly attentive to the historical development of texts

Evaluation and Reflection 243 offering only hypotheses and being unable to provide “bread that people can 61 live on;” it is also blamed for “its disconnection from praxis.” Similarly, like Childs, the Catholic Church, since the Second Vatican Council, acknowledged that theological exegesis needs the support of historical investigation; thus historical-critical scholarship is a necessary preparation and help for the proper 62 theological interpretation of the Bible. Finally, both desire to promote exegesis and theology working together; on this point, Childs and Catholic theology have a similar biblical hermeneutical interest. Both realized that in both Protestant and Catholic theologies, the isolation of exegesis from theology and the gap between biblical theology and 63 dogmatic theology have been serious problems for a long time. Childs stresses that canonical theological exegesis has both a descriptive and a constructive task; Catholic biblical interpretation emphasizes that “biblical study is the soul of 64 theology.” Pope Benedict XVI points out that the dogmatic constitution of the Second Vatican Council Dei Verbum promotes “a synthesis between historical 65 method and theological hermeneutics.” He also argues, using the wording of

61 62

63 64

65

or traditions across the passage of time, that is, to all that is summed up in the term ‘diachronic.’ But at the present time in certain quarters it finds itself in competition with methods which insist upon a ‘synchronic’ understanding of texts, that is, one which has to do with their language, composition, narrative structure and capacity for persuasion.” A more detailed presentation on the modern historical-critical method can be found in The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church 1994, 5–13. See Stock 2008, 89–91. Dei Verbum, 12, indicates that “the interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.” Similarly, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church 1994, 1, says that “everything that helps us better to understand the truth and to appropriate its representation is helpful and worthwhile for theology. It is in this sense that we must seek how to use this method (the historical-critical method) in theological research. Everything that shrinks our horizon and hinders us from seeing and hearing beyond that which is merely human must be opened up.” Granados & Sánchez-Navarro also point out that “critical reflection regarding the foundations, scope, and limits of the historical-critical method is necessary, and will, in turn, allow for fruitful advancements in biblical studies.” Granados & Sánchez-Navarro 2008, xxi. Pope Benedict XVI says that the gap between exegesis and dogmatics is basically the same for both Protestant and Catholic theology. Ratzinger 2008, 5. 7. See Childs’s views in ch. 5.2. This phrase is originally from Pope Leo XIII, and quoted by the Second Vatican Council. Dei Verbum, 24, alleges that biblical theology “rests on the written word of God…so the study of the sacred page is…the soul of sacred theology.” The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church 1994, 1, highlights the point that “the study of the Bible is, as it were, the soul of theology.” But he also admits that “the coherence between them (exegesis and theology) does not simply

244 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context José Granados, that “if we call patristic and medieval exegesis ‘method A’ and the historical-critical exegesis ‘method B,’ we need to find a new method (method C) that would take into account the advantages of these two 66 approaches and would also be able to overcome their limits.” This idea is similar to Childs’s claim that his canonical approach is a new path to theological exegesis. In modern Catholic theology, there are a growing number of theologians who wish to promote a theological exegesis of Scripture and 67 cooperation between biblical exegesis and doctrinal theology. Surprisingly, it seems that Childs’s canonical program is getting its strongest support from Catholic theology.

Reducing Theology to Sociology and Philosophy Childs understands Christian biblical theology, not as “an abstract academic 68 exercise” but as “a disciplined study of Scripture by the people of God.” He is against any model of biblical interpretation that is heavily based on philosophical, sociological, psychological, anthropological, cultural or other presuppositions. Here we focus on his rejection of sociological-philosophical methods in theological exegesis. These are the two non-theological approaches to biblical hermeneutics that he discusses. For Childs, a sociological approach mainly seeks to determine the cultural and social roots of Christianity; as a result, the reality of early Christianity is lie ready to hand.” Ratzinger 2008, 7. 66 The quotation is from José Granados who analyzes the Pope’s teaching. He continues: “The task of developing this new method, according to Ratzinger, will take the work of an entire generation.” See Granados 2008, xv. The Pope says elsewhere that “we do not need at the moment any new hypotheses about the Sitz im Leben…We need a critical reconnaissance of the exegetical landscape in order to get back to the text and to separate the promising hypotheses from the unhelpful ones. Only under these conditions, moreover, can a new, fruitful collaboration between exegesis and systematic theology emerge; only thus can exegesis truly be at the service of the understanding of the Bible.” Ratzinger 2008, 28. Similarly, according to Dulles, the Pope also argues that “dogma, no longer able to rest on the ground of Scripture, loses its solidity. The Bible, which has cut itself loose from dogma, has become a document of the past and itself belongs to the past.” Ratzinger’s remark is from 1988, and quoted in Dulles 2006, 17-18. 67 For instance, Williams says that “the substantive problem lies in finding a way that allows classic and modern approaches to function together.” Beauchamp argues that “biblical theology exists, but not by itself: it relies on the research done in all the textual and historical sciences.” D. Williams 2004, 174. Beauchamp 2008, 65. 68 Childs 1972c, 28; 1979, 61.

Evaluation and Reflection 245 interpreted only from the perspective of sociological analysis. Childs refuses to confine the analysis of the OT to any sociological or phenomenological category. For him, a sociological analysis of the OT not only falls into an endless discussion of the historical complexity and enormous cultural69 sociological diversity of the texts, but it also badly ignores the theological understanding of the Bible. For instance, he is critical of James Barr and Gerald Downing. Barr defines revelation as implying “hitherto unknown information,” whilst Downing sees revelation as effecting “a removal of obscurity.” Childs, however, finds that both of them failed to “deal adequately with the Bible’s role as authoritative canonical 70 literature.” Norman Gottwald also becomes the target of Childs’s criticism, because he uses a sociological approach to describe the Bible. In particular he applies a cultural-materialistic reading to the OT in his Tribes of Yahweh. In Childs’s eyes, Gottwald’s sociological approach is too radical to facilitate a correct understanding of the OT. The main problem is that Gottwald reads the biblical text only as a symbolic expression of certain underlying primary social realities with a strongly critical sociological analysis; the meaning of the Bible as a religious or theological text, not to speak of revelation, is ignored. As a result, 71 the message of the OT is flattened into a reflection of a social system. Moreover, in BTONT, when interpreting OT ethics, Childs disagrees with John Barton’s, Henry McKeating’s, David Kelsey’s, and Stanley Hauerwas’ interpretations of OT ethics because of their use of a sociological method. He is critical of Wayne Meeks’s sociological approach for analyzing Christian ethics, and of Leander Keck’s NT ethics, because he is convinced that applying a radical sociological method to Christian ethics is theologically unhelpful and 69 He argues in BTONT that “I have been critical of the many modern attempts, particularly within the Anglo-American world, to define the unity of the Bible within the categories of religion, or to describe its content purely within the phenomenological rubrics of human culture, whether philosophical, sociological, or psychological.” Childs 1993, 722. See also Childs 1993, 22–25, 376–378; 1998a, 2; 1998c, 121. 70 Childs 1986a, 20–24. 71 Childs 1986a, 24–25. Elsewhere he remarks similarly, “Gottwald is insistent on defending the cultural-materialist priority of social relations over religious formulation...He projects a form of historical idealization which not only makes use of a limited selection of evidence, but also interprets it anachronistically by bringing to bear a whole battery of modern philosophical categories.” In BTONT Childs says that “Gottwald understands theology as a form of secondary ideological formulation which seeks to give expression to social phenomena in a conventional religious idiom, but which can be translated by sociological categories to establish material equivalents within a given social system.” Childs 1986a, 176; 1993, 22.

246 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context 72

cannot produce a normative Christian ethics. The common denominator found in all these sociological approaches is that they opt for a strictly historical and sociological description of early Christian ethics using the terminology of the ancient moral world. Thus, they do not provide any true Christian ethics that could be normative and practical for today’s faith community. On the contrary, these moral approaches promote ethical and theological relativism. Childs is also dissatisfied with Albrecht Ritschl’s social gospel approach in interpreting the kingdom of God and Jürgen Moltmann’s eschatological interpretation of political theology. For Childs, the social gospel approach and 73 political theology easily slip into human utopianism. Similarly, Childs is uninterested in modern feminist theology and treats it as just another sociological interpretation of the Christian faith; consequently he has been 74 criticized as “an anti-feminist stance.” For Childs, a sociological interpretation of Scripture means that the OT is understood and interpreted on the basis of the social processes and institutions of ancient Israel using modern tools and sociological analytical methods. Contemporary political and feminist interpretations look at the texts of the Bible, especially those of the OT, from the point of view of a special social concern. Thus the theological witness of the 75 texts gets diluted with concrete contemporary historical circumstances. As to a philosophical approach to biblical texts, Childs opposes any attempt on the part of a particular philosophical school to infiltrate biblical interpretation. For Childs, that would undermine the value of the Bible as the revelation of God. Since the influence of Immanuel Kant and F.D.E. Schleiermacher two hundred years ago, philosophical pre-concepts, especially those of rationalism and German idealism, have dominated biblical interpretation and biblical theology. For Childs, the God of the Bible is not the 72 This entire critique of Christian ethics can be seen in Childs 1993, 659–676. Some of it can also be found in Childs 1986a, 201. 73 See Childs 1993, 383, 394–395, 399, 594, 626–627, 652. 74 Mead 2007, 112. Similarly, according to Williams, feminist theology is dismissed in the canonical approach, because Childs is consistent in rejecting any approach that embraces “a process of critical reconstruction to extract the real theological data from the biblical text.” D. Williams 2004, 83–84. Childs’s view on feminist theology can be found in Childs 1993, 17, 24, 376–378. 75 Bauckham, for instance, argues that Childs’s theological intention is to offset any contextualizing effect of the canon. Thus, he points out that Childs has “an inherent tendency to de-contextualize theology,” not only because of his strong insistence on the “theological integrity of the texts” but also because of his strong resistance to “any phenomenological or sociological reductionism.” See Bauckham 1994, 249–250.

Evaluation and Reflection 247 God of philosophy, and the kingdom of God is not a product of humanist romantic ideology. Scientific research into faith and its existential and ethical hermeneutical application to human reality is at the heart of religious philosophy. Kantian-Schleiermacherian philosophical hermeneutics in general challenged the authority of traditional Christian biblical interpretation and 76 theology. Childs is also opposed to Paul Tillich, who develops a philosophical alternative to biblical interpretation. In Tillich’s thinking, hermeneutics becomes a depth-ontological system based on the idea of Being. This depthontological system is a hermeneutic method, by which God is identified with Being itself. For Childs, such an interpretation is in conflict with Scripture’s understanding of God as the Creator. Moreover, Childs is uninterested in Rudolf Bultmann’s program of demythologization and his existential 77 interpretation of the biblical texts. Childs is critical even towards Thomas F. Torrance, another devote follower of Barth’s theology, because Torrance makes his interpretation of the Trinity dependent on understanding theology as a category of science. For Childs, all these kinds of interpretations are based on various forms of modern philosophy; biblical texts cannot be properly 78 understood and interpreted on the basis of any modern philosophy. Childs is even somewhat critical of the influence of Platonism on Augustine’s biblical interpretation and the influence of Aristotelianism on that of Thomas Aquinas. Childs finds that both Augustine and Aquinas, and Aquinas more so, might have diluted the theological substance of biblical texts to some extent when integrating them to support their philosophically based 79 theological systems.

76 See Childs 1993, 5–6, 375–383, 449–450, 592–593; 1984a, 7–8, 378, 542–543. 77 See Childs 1993, 404. 78 Childs is opposed to these modern theologians and their way of theological reflection. For Childs, both in theological methodology and in theological content, Tillich, Torrance, Moltmann, and Ritschl are walking along modern philosophical lines. See Childs 1993, 377– 378, 404, 406, 594, 626, 652. 79 Childs argues that “it is difficult to find a treatment which has carefully analyzed Augustine’s hermeneutical stance toward Scripture in relation to his entire theology.” He says that “Augustine’s initial problem with understanding Scripture was clearly formulated in NeoPlatonic terms.” Childs 1993, 36. In the case of Thomas Aquinas, Childs argues that it is difficult to see Thomas Aquinas’ biblical interpretation as a model of biblical theology; rather, Thomas Aqunias can be seen as “a prime example of dogmatic theology” which imposes a philosophical structure on the biblical text. See Childs 1993, 40–42.

248 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context We saw in ch. 2.3.3. above that Childs views speech-act theory, which is favored by a number of relatively conservative biblical interpreters, as a purely philosophical product which as such cannot be a suitable approach to biblical 80 theology. He feels that theological exegesis cannot be formed on a foundation of reason and philosophy, because exegesis is directly concerned with Christian beliefs based on and discovered in Scripture. For him, philosophical debate does not touch on “faith,” and “faith” cannot be replaced by knowledge, human experience, or philosophical insights. Given that Childs sees “structuralism” as a philosophical concept, it is not surprising that he dislikes his canonical approach being criticized as a kind of “structuralism.” It is clear for Childs that the application of sociological and philosophical premises to interpreting the Bible has led to a massive degree of theological reductionism. He is worried that biblical theology is in danger of being replaced with these kinds of non-theological substitutes. Childs’s criticism is based upon his confessional emphasis on the Bible as the revelation of God. He understands that it is the integral task of Christian biblical interpretation to stick to divine revelation. Childs does not deny the possibility of using sociological, philosophical, cultural, or any other form of analysis of biblical texts as helpful tools; but if they are used, they must serve theological exegesis, not rule over it. If treating the Bible as another expression of human culture substitutes for the proper theological interpretation of Scripture, this kind of secularized biblical 81 study will eventually marginalize Christian theology, Childs believes. He has 82 been criticized for the lack of scientific-epistemological interest, but these 80 Speech-act theory was based philosophically on the work of John L. Austin and John R. Searle in the 1920s and developed by Nicholas Wolterstorff into a theological instrument. Childs thinks that Wolterstorff’s development of speech-act theory from philosophy to biblical hermeneutics is unsatisfactory, because the word of God as divine discourse does not need a description of human discourse. This theory was analyzed in detail in 2.3.3., where we discussed Childs’s article: “Speech-Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation” (2005a). 81 He argues that “it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to deny the force of these two models (the scientific and the humanistic models) for understanding, which often flow together in modern society. Nevertheless, I would strongly argue that far more is involved when it comes to explaining the changing interpretation of the Bible, and that these suggested resolutions of our initial question are far from adequate. Often, they can be both superficial and misleading in the extreme. In a word, the true theological dimension of the problem has not been dealt with.” Childs 1997b, 201–202. 82 For example, in the 1980s Barr criticized Childs for putting canonical criticism up against other biblical explanations, saying this is “a very unjustifiable opinion.” Barr said that biblical critics should aim at an epistemological self-consciousness of academic objectivity. Brett argues that Childs in his BTC already suggested that biblical theology needed to give up its

Evaluation and Reflection 249 critics do not see Childs’s deep concern about the future of Christian theology in general, and about biblical theology in particular.

Sociological and Philosophical Help: The Problem of the Context Childs must be right, at least to some extent, when he points out that the implementation of sociological or philosophical approaches to biblical studies has led to theological reductionism. Even so, the question remains whether these secular methods could be of any help for theological exegesis and biblical theology or should they be completely discarded, as Childs seems to do. In the history of Christian biblical interpretation, from Irenaeus to Origen, from Augustine to Aquinas, and from Martin Luther to Karl Barth, help from what we might call the secular sciences has been appreciated in some ways. It seems that Childs in his almost complete rejection of any support from the secular sciences has chosen an extreme strategy of biblical interpretation. The central issue here is that he fails to explain in a satisfactory way why the concepts of orthodox theology can be illuminated only through the acknowledgment of the canon without considering any help from philosophy and sociology. Moreoever, he does not explain why he can accept help from the historical-critical method but not from sociological or philosophical analysis. Childs desires to establish a platform for uniting biblical studies and dogmatic theology. He is clearly afraid that any interference on the part of secular science would lead to theological reductionism or, in some way or other, send this purely theological enterprise in the wrong direction. It seems that Childs believes in some kind of ideal “pure” biblical theology and “pure” doctrinal theology, which must not be “contaminated” by secular influences. However, we can criticize Childs here by pointing out that a contextually neutral theology is hardly possible. Throughout the history of Christian theology, both biblical and systematic interpretations have always been to some extent under the influence of the culture, society, habits, philosophy, and so on, of each time and place. As Childs accepts that the confessional canonical “context” is a presupposition of biblical interpretation, why should he refuse to see the actual human context in which the understanding and interpretation of “scientific interest” in the historicity of biblical material. Brett agrees with Barr’s argument that there is a spirit of anti-objectivism in Childs’s work. Barr 1983, 165. Brett 1991, 2, 12– 13.

250 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context a biblical text unavoidably and necessarily takes place? His canonical approach is not convincing when it disregards this human context. Both modern theological research and modern constructive theology are increasingly conscious of the dependence of any theology on its context. Consequently, from the perspective of systematic theology, Christian theology should not completely refuse to enter into a serious dialogue with philosophy’s 83 insights and methodological challenges. As to the sociological context, some critics have pointed out that Childs’s canonical theological exegesis lacks awareness of the social context of carrying out theology; they suggest that a proper analysis of the sociological perspective would not diminish the authority 84 of the Christian canon. It seems that Childs is oversensitive to the threat posed by the secular sciences and to their potential influence on biblical theology. There is no theological method that is “purely theological.” The methods of theology are always under development and change. Theological research and interpretation, including biblical study and theology, do not take place in a vacuum, but at the crossroads of various cultural, social, and other influences. Any theology is 83 Vanhoozer claims that “philosophy is necessary for doing theology.” “If theology would regain her throne and again don the mantle of queen of the sciences, she must consult the philosopher...Philosophy has first an internal ministry in the domestic affairs of theology’s hard core, the language of the Bible.” Similarly, Murphy argues that a central task of philosophy is to expose and criticize some invisible assumptions, thus philosophy can help people to “sum up the most basic characteristics of an era past and foreshadows features of the era to come.” Thus, he calls for a fair treatment of the role of philosophy in theological development. Vanhoozer 1991, 140. Murphy 1996, 1, 3–4. 84 Morgan, in the1980s, predicted that in the future the canonical focus would be more fully integrated with sociological perspectives. And he assumed that the canonical approach would be seen as part of a dialogue with historical criticism, but not as an either/or approach to biblical interpretation. Scalise argues that Childs’s canonical theological exegesis lacks “openness” to contemporary sociological and literary approaches to biblical interpretation. Again, Collins argues that the integration of biblical theology with mainstream biblical research is dependent upon its acknowledgment and usage of historical, sociological, and literary research; for this reason, Childs’s rejection of sociological approaches “excludes a potential fruitful source of analogies.” He also argues that “we are repeatedly told that the Scripture shapes and enlivens the church or mediates the revelation of God, but we are not told how. Childs is convinced...that the text has something to say to the present, but he has no hermeneutic.” Thus Collins believes that without the help of philosophy and sociology, Childs’s canonical theological exegesis seems to be “questioning without solution—only what without how,” so Childs’s canonical approach loses its explanatory power. Morgan 1982, 390. Scalise 1994a, 71–72. Collins 2005, 15, 26. Similar observations can be seen in Carson 1991, 62. Noble 1995, 76. Provan 1997, 17.

Evaluation and Reflection 251 bound to be “contextualized” or “inculturated” in one way or another. One could even argue that the use of “secular” methods to analyze the context in which theological exegesis is taking place would be beneficial for biblical theology. Paul R. House presents a collaborative attitude to biblical, dogmatic, philosophical, and other practical methodologies. He suggests that we should “share their best insights with one another,” and observes that “when scholars from different fields work together keen insights can develop.” For him, a canonical biblical theology ought to be largely thematic and use every legitimate 85 academic exercise to inform, correct, enlarge, and shape thematic analysis. According to Mark G. Brett, we should see Childs’s canonical theological exegesis not as the solution to the problems of biblical theology, but just as “one 86 approach to the Bible among others.” No single method of research or theological method can satisfy all the requirements of biblical studies. Childs’s canonical theological exegesis has been criticized not so much because of his emphasis of the canon but because of his resistance to employing nonconfessional methods for exegesis.

The Post-Critical Theological Orientation Biblical or Theological? In ch. 5, where we took a close look at the relationship between the Bible and theology and between biblical theology and dogmatic theology, we mentioned that biblical scholars and theologians still face difficulties when it comes to defining the term “biblical theology.” A definition of biblical theology not only touches on the problem of rethinking biblical hermeneutics but also on the issue of theological methodology. The complexity of the task of definition can be seen in how it causes endless disputes about the relationship between the Bible and theology, between biblical interpretation and dogmatic construction, between historical tradition and modern/contemporary development, and between the confessional interpretation of the faith community under the rule of faith and secular historical-critical research of biblical texts.

85 House 2002, 268–270. 86 Brett 1991, 5–6, 11, 13, 27. Brueggemann employs a similar argument, saying that any socalled canonical reading must be made a competitor to other readings, an advocacy among many advocacies. W. Brueggemann 1993, 282.

252 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context From the perspective of the Christian theological tradition, theologians loyal to the church maintain that biblical theology is based on the analysis and interpretation of the Bible as Holy Scripture, and that the Bible must be read theologically. On the other hand, many scholars regard biblical theology as a non-theological biblical discipline which is based on a purely scientific analysis of the texts without any confessional bounds. For instance, some treat the essence of biblical theology as “contemporary explication of the text” because it “begins 87 with the text and leads back to the text.” So far, no consensus about the most appropriate definition of biblical theology exists. As a student of historical criticism, Childs in the early part of his academic career viewed his work as biblical, even defining himself as a typical “biblical 88 man.” He would not refer to the term theological when describing his work and calling. Thus his understanding of biblical theology early in his career was not theological. Since 1970, there has been a gradual change in Childs’s thinking. He had become fonder and fonder of the term theological as he became more conscious of his canonical program, which aims at creating a biblical theology. What many critics doubted in the 1970s was not the viability of his biblical work but rather whether his canonical proposal could really be theological. There were debates about the relationship between biblical exegesis and theological methodology after Childs’s announcement of his new canonical path to biblical 89 theology. Childs tended to overlook the historical particularity of the biblical texts, especially that of the OT, in emphasizing the canonical theological themes common to both of the Testaments. Many critics felt that he ignored the results of the historical-critical research of the Bible achieved over the past two hundred years. His canonical thesis was gradually accepted as a theological enterprise, but 90 there was considerable doubt about the validity and success of his proposal. 87 Hart 2004, 348–349. 88 He said, “I was typical of most of the biblical men.” Childs 1969b, 31. 89 For example, Anderson in the early 1980s already argued that “it is too soon to judge whether his canonical approach is viable.” See Anderson 1980, 104; 1981, 20–21. Similarly, Harrelson argues that “Childs was claiming too much but demonstrating too little,” and views Childs’s canonical approach as “not theological” but “a highly significant editorial operation,” because “what Childs had done is to remove the editors from any connection with particular historical events and movements and apparently leave them in the anonymity of the divine overseeing of the canon.” Harrelson 1981, 101–102. 90 For Carroll, Childs’s canonical approach was “in no sense a biblical one;” but for Morgan, Childs was “less successful” in relating the theological theses of biblical books, especially those of the OT books, to each other. For example, he argued that “the historical particularity of Amos’ judgment message and the tension created by placing it within a later framework of

Evaluation and Reflection 253 The fiercest debate on whether Childs’s canonical approach to biblical theology was a serious theological undertaking took place in the 1980s. Among biblical scholars, Barr and Barton were Childs’s main critics. After Childs’s IOTS (1979) was published, Barr and Barton responded by saying that IOTS could be considered as a mere introduction, but “not as a work of theology.” They also said that it only “reads like a theology,” but it was not really and 91 essentially theological. Barr and Barton represent the school of biblical exegesis which defines the term “biblical theology” as something that is based purely on historical research of the Bible and is completely independent from any dogmatic theological reflections. Therefore, biblical theology does not need to be devoted to the authority of the Christian church. For Barr and Barton, biblical theology is not shaped by the canon, and theology does not depend on the Bible alone; rather, the historical reality of the Bible and that of the extrabiblical reality should be linked. Literary analysis of the Bible and theological exegesis cannot be bound together as the same thing. Thus, biblical theology must be understood as biblical rather than theological. Biblical “theology” is only “a mode of organizing and interlinking the biblical material.” In fact, biblical 92 theology at its best is not “theology” at all. Criticizing Childs’s canonical approach, Barr said that biblical theology cannot make decisions concerning theology. Childs’s emphasis on the canonicity of the Bible does not actually touch on theological issues at all, thus, 93 it cannot be described as a genuinely theological program. Barton also argues redemption and salvation is not erased by Childs, but emphasized.” Carroll 1980, 287. Morgan 1982, 386. 91 Barr 1980, 14; 1983, 155; 1983, 170; 1988, 4–6, 11, 19. Barton 1984, 101, 153, 208. 92 Barr 1983, 102–104, 137, 160; 1988, 6–9, 11, 19. Barton similarly suggests that Childs’s canonical approach to biblical theology is “ultimately unconvincing at the theological level,” and that it is “better understood as a specifically literary approach than as a theological tool for reuniting biblical criticism with Christian faith.” Barton 1984, 92, 97. 93 For Barr, biblical theology as a discipline “must accept the possibility of variation within itself,” but Childs’s canonical proposal does not actually “attempt to wrestle with the question of truth.” For example, Barr argued that “belief in the Incarnation does not tell us how Matthew was related to Luke, and belief in the Trinity does not tell us whether St. Paul wrote the letter to the Ephesians or not.” Later, Barr explained that “no one will question Childs’s devotion to “theology” as principal focus of exegesis. But this does not mean that he is any more a theologian than the average biblical scholar. What he seems to do is to idealize theology; while historical study is plagued with uncertainty, speculation, and reconstruction, theology seems to be, in his opinion, free from all of these. This is a positivistic dream of theology: remember the ‘revelational positivism’...In all this Childs is simply mistaken. Theology is just as speculative and reconstructive as historical study is. In fact, the historical

254 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context that it is difficult to see that Childs’s canonical proposal for creating biblical theology would be able to deal with proper theological issues, which belong to dogmatic theology. Emphasizing the canonicity of the Bible is different from stressing the theological meaning of the Bible as Scripture for the Christian church. The canonicity of the Bible cannot be treated as a criterion for measuring theology. Childs has not credibly explained why his canonical approach could employ one criterion to judge two entirely different academic 94 programs. Some scholars believe that Barr and Barton have been fair in their 95 criticism of Childs’s canonical approach. However, some supporters of the canonical approach point out that both Barr and Barton have at least partly misunderstood Childs’s intention. Moberly, for instance, says that Barr and Barton have not “sufficiently accurately discerned the central concerns of Childs’s approach.” Rather, from a strong position of Christian faith, Childs comes to the Bible as a Christian theologian by emphasizing the Bible as a religious book for the practical purpose of the guidance of believers wishing to 96 reinstate theology as a discipline integrated with biblical study. The debate on whether Childs’s canonical approach is theological or not ended with the publication of BTONT (1992). This work, Childs’s magnum opus, revealed his theological ambition. On the one hand, Childs’s canonical theological exegesis was well known for being biblical not only because of his reputation as a biblical scholar, but also because of his proposal to seek a relevant theology on the basis of the unity of the whole Bible. On the other hand, Childs is sufficiently confident to restate his view that the enterprise of biblical theology is theological and that it is a Christian theological discipline, in which the Bible must be treated as the Scripture of the Christian church. Biblical theology could play an effective role in building a bridge between the Bible and doctrinal theology. and the theological modes of understanding are particularly close to one another.” Barr 1983, 36, 102, 120; 1992, 140–141. 94 Barton argues that “the canonical approach seems to be far more neutral theologically than Childs intends. Just as redaction criticism can tell us what was the theological belief of ‘J’ or the compiler of Ecclesiastes, so the canonical method can tell us what theological beliefs these works can sustain within any given collection of texts accepted as canonical; but there are a number of possible canonical collections, and Childs’s approach does not help us to choose between them.” Barton 1984, 93–94. 95 Roberts says Barr provides “a trenchant critique of both Childs’s negative theological assessment of the traditional historical-critical approach and of the theological value of Childs’s own canonical approach.” Roberts 1995, 5. 96 Moberly 1988, 105–106, 109.

Evaluation and Reflection 255 Theology, according to Childs, must avoid a purely textual-historical study of the Bible; theological reflection on the Bible is concerned with the divine res of the Scripture. In this sense, biblical theology is a theological enterprise because its central purpose is to relate to the divine reality through faith seeking 97 understanding. After the publication of BTONT, more biblical scholars and theologians tended to agree that Childs’s theological reflection on the Christian Bible is a valid example of theological exegesis which positively draws the Bible and its theological content closer to traditional systematic theological 98 questions. It is not difficult to accept that Childs is both a biblical scholar and a theologian, and that his canonical theological exegesis is both biblical and theological. As shown in ch. 5 above, I tend to believe that Childs’s canonical theological exegesis works in the style of “systematic analysis plus thematic investigation.” It is theological but only partly, because Childs’s canonical theological exegesis is more biblical than theological. It is theological, but sometimes it is not theological enough. It is biblical, but sometimes it seems to be over-biblical. Following Childs’s deepest intentions, we could say that the proclamation of the word of God is to be heard in the world not only for the sake of the community of faith but also for the sake of all human beings. The Christian church is not only concerned about itself. It needs to care about others too. Good Christian theology helps Christians to sustain their faith in God, the Bible, and the church and its indispensable theological tradition, but it also helps them to reach out to all fellow human beings by inviting them to encounter the living God who speaks in the canonical Scripture. There is no doubt that Childs’s canonical program is a theological one. Next we need to take a closer look at what kind of theology he represents.

97 See Childs 1993, 80, 83–87, 551, 616. 98 For instance, Brueggemann argues that “Childs draws biblical theology very close to dogmatic categories and seems to put biblical theology in the service of dogmatic claims.” Similarly, Möller states that Childs’s canonical approach to biblical theology follows traditional systematic categories. W. Brueggemann 1993, 283. Möller 2004, 48. However, some still ask the controversial question like Barr and Barton asked twenty years ago: Can such an enterprise really be considered theological? For example, see Collins 2005, 26.

256 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context

Pre-Critical or Post-Critical? We have already come across the following question: Is Childs’s canonical biblical theology pre-critical or post-critical? Generally speaking, there are three brands of biblical hermeneutics, namely, pre-critical, critical, and post-critical. Chronologically, the pre-critical period means the period from the first century A.D. to the Reformation, whilst the critical period consists of the era from the Enlightenment until today. Pre-critical biblical hermeneutics signifies the traditional Christian biblical interpretation, which is rooted in the Bible as the Scripture of the church. Critical biblical hermeneutics, as we have seen in ch. 4, refers to the dominance of the historical-critical method for the past two centuries. Both chronologically and terminologically there is no clear-cut starting line as to when and where post-critical biblical hermeneutics begins. Chronologically, Barth has usually been seen as an important post-critical theologian. Few scholars, though, can define when the post-critical period started. As we have seen above, Childs claims that the previous 40 years were “the era of canon,” and, from 1970 on, he repeatedly stated that his canonical biblical theology sought a post-critical biblical orientation. However, we still do not know whether today’s biblical hermeneutics is best located in the postcritical period or not. Terminologically speaking, few define post-critical biblical hermeneutics as non-critical or as a biblical interpretation without any critical function. Some even view Barth’s hermeneutics as meta-critical rather than postcritical, because Barth sought to unify historical criticism and theological 99 interpretation into his understanding of Scripture. Scalise views the term post-critical as referring not only to “the general situation of much contemporary theological reflection” but also to “the critique of the doctrine of revelation as the central category for theological 100 prolegomena.” Some might like to link the definition of “post-critical” with the framework of postmodernism, but “post-critical” is a particular term used to refer to the most recent developments in biblical hermeneutics, whereas “postmodern” describes the comprehensive cultural situation of the age in which we live now. In the case of Childs’s theological exegesis, the preferred term in this book is “post-critical.” Although Childs claims that his canonical theological exegesis cannot return to the pre-critical period, his main interest in canonical theological exegesis is 99 Wallace 1990, 12. 100 Scalise 1994a, 51–53.

Evaluation and Reflection 257 not far from the central ideas of the pre-critical biblical theological tradition. He learned from this pre-critical biblical interpretation to respect the Bible as the book of God’s revelation and to read it under the guidance of the rule of faith of the Christian church. Moreover, Childs believes that essential theological 101 questions arise directly from Scripture. In BTC (1970) he expressed his deep appreciation of pre-critical biblical scholarship and theology, stating that “it is either arrogance or ignorance to suggest that a completely new start is 102 necessary.” Such an assertion implies that Childs had not abandoned precritical biblical hermeneutics. This is why some tend to see Childs’s theological 103 exegesis as a pre-critical stance in biblical interpretation. Childs’s canonical theological exegesis should, however, be seen as postcritical for the following reasons. First, Childs himself announces that his canonical biblical theology is post-critical. In his early career Childs stood firmly in the tradition of historical criticism, but later he realized that the historicalcritical method was not able to deal with the theological meaning of the Bible as Holy Scripture. So, he started seeking a new biblical theological path, especially after declaring, in 1970, that biblical theology was in crisis. This circumstance implies that the canonical approach he pursued was not just a turning back to pre-critical ideals, because a new beginning in biblical theology must consolidate its position with regard to historical-critical scholarship. What was needed was 101 The tradition of Calvin and Luther has become the main model of the pre-critical era of theological biblical interpretation. Childs’s canonical approach seeks support from Luther and Calvin, and he frequently refers to both of them. See Childs 1970a, 22, 35, 52–53, 110, 120, 144–145, 148, 158–159, 242–243; 1984a, 31, 144, 158–159, 163, 166, 172–174, 188, 201, 243, 503, 549–552; 1993, xviii, 43–52, 72, 247, 326, 332, 450, 523, 528, 623, 708, 710– 711. 102 He also reasons that a “pre-critical interpretation of the Bible has much of great value to offer the modern biblical theologians,” and argues further that “many of the pre-critical commentators attempted to deal seriously with the Bible as the Scripture of the church. This often means that they worked consistently from the context of the whole canon... Calvin’s commentaries are classic examples of an exegesis that works consistently from a theological context.” Childs 1970a, 143–144. 103 Carroll, for example, argues that Childs in his IOTS “returns to the pre-critical method of treating the canon first and so differentiates between his approach and the normal historicalcritical tendency to deal with the canon last (if at all).” Sanders is also worried that Childs’s resistance to thinking of his own work on canon as biblical criticism could be (mis)understood, and that he was reverting to a pre-critical stance in his studies. Similarly, Scobie argues that Childs’s canonical approach can be placed in the pre-critical tradition, though it sometimes seems that Childs rejects this interpretation of his approach. Carroll 1980, 286. Sanders 1984, 2. Scobie 2003, 39, 81–87.

258 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context “a bold and radical change in direction” to enter forthrightly into a post-critical era of biblical scholarship. In IOTS, when dealing with the Pentateuch’s canonical significance, Childs says that its canonical shaping is post-critical. Similarly in his review of Barr’s Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism Childs insists that a canonical theological exegesis must be post-critical in nature. He also says in NTCI that a new canonical approach has no need to return to the traditional pre-Enlightenment understanding of the Bible, because “such an endeavor is not only wrong in concept, but impossible in practice.” In the 1990s, Childs argued that it was quite impossible for his canonical approach to return to the pre-critical period or the sixteenth-century Protestant 104 Reformation. Second, the post-critical orientation of Barth’s theology provides the necessary reference for Childs’s development. There is a general agreement that Barth’s neo-orthodoxy can be viewed as a representative of post-critical theology. According to Bernhard W. Anderson and Mark I. Wallace, the most powerful argument that Barth’s theology was considered as post-critical was made by the German OT scholar Rudolf Smend, who called Barth “a postcritical exegete” and who viewed Barth’s scriptural exegesis as belonging neither to the period of pre-critical interpretation nor to the current period of the historical-critical method. Smend regarded Barth’s approach in dealing with the Bible as a classic example of post-critical exegesis in which the Bible can be re105 read naively. From the perspective of theological methodology, Barth’s post-critical theological orientation is based upon the most fundamental criterion: he attempted to understand the theological object of the Bible, the word of God, through a Christological concentration. For Barth this procedure was designed to utilize the historical-critical method to enable a critical biblical hermeneutics. Based upon this criterion, we may see that Barth and Childs methodologically 104 See Childs 1972c, 28; 1977b, 359; 1979, 127-135; 1984a, 35; 1984b, 69; 1993, 99; 1997b, 191. 105 Anderson 1981, 13, 16, 21. Wallace 1990, 12. Smend sees Barth’s approach as positive postcritical theological exegesis. According to Scalise, Bakker sees Barth’s Epistle to the Romans as a remarkable example of modern post-critical hermeneutics. Wharton sees Barth’s hermeneutical method as “confessional exegesis” which is “single-mindedly devoted to the post-critical task of listening to the text.” As an example of the post-critical nature of Barth’s theological exegesis, Scalise refers to his interpretation of Numbers 13–14. Scalise not only sees Barth and Childs as post-critical theologians, but also treats Søren Kierkegaard, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Hans-Georg Gadamer, and Paul Ricoeur as post-critical thinkers. Barth CD IV/2, 478–479. Mabee 1994, viii. Scalise 1994b, 64–65.

Evaluation and Reflection 259 represent a similar post-critical orientation of biblical hermeneutics. A large 106 number of theologians and biblical scholars believe not only that Barth’s theological exegesis belongs to post-critical theology, but also that Childs’s canonical biblical theology is deeply influenced by Barth’s post-critical position. Therefore, we may consider Barth’s post-critical mode as a reliable mirror that proves that Childs’s canonical theological exegesis is post-critical. Third, a number of scholars maintain that Childs’s canonical theological 107 exegesis is founded on post-critical biblical hermeneutics. Scalise, for instance, suggests that Childs’s canonical theological exegesis has an obvious post-critical characteristic, which is in harmony with the true nature of Barth’s biblical hermeneutics. The important point made by Scalise is that the focus of Barth’s post-critical biblical exegesis on the exact words of the biblical text clearly foreshadows Childs’s emphasis upon the final form of the text. Barth’s emphasis on the biblical text eventually submerges historical-critical distinctions under theological exegesis. Both Barth and Childs attempted to re-establish a postcritical continuity “with the entire historical tradition of exegesis, both pre108 critical and critical.” In this sense, their canonical exegesis can be seen as genuinely post-critical. However, it is neither “the only correct one” nor “the most comprehensive one,” but it might be “the most useful one,” Scalise 109 concludes. If we consider post-critical canonical biblical theology simply as an attempt to maintain a posited continuity with both the biblical exegetical pre-critical and critical traditions, then we should say that both Barth and Childs have been 106 See Anderson 1981, 14–15. Bartholomew 2004, 10. Barton 1984, 98. Blenkinsopp 1998, 191. D. Brueggemann 1989, 312. Burnett 2001, 9. Fowl 1985, 73. Kittel 1980, 4. McGlasson 2006, 14. Moberly 1988, 105. Morgan 1982, 384. Noble 1995, 77. O’Conner 1995, 91. Scalise 1994a, 51–52; 1994b, 64–65. Scobie 2003, 39. 107 Barton 1984, 84–85, 98. Fowl 1985, 173. Kittel 1980, 4. Morgan 1982, 384. Moberly 1988, 105. Scalise 1994a, 51–53, 82–83. D.Williams 2004, 104–105. 108 Scalise also argues that “although post-critical canonical hermeneutics seeks to reestablish continuity with the long tradition of biblical interpretation before the Enlightenment, it does not represent a rejection of the historical-critical method of biblical study in favor of some romanticized ‘return’ to ‘pre-critical’ interpretation.” See Barth CD I/2, 726. Scalise 1994a, 51–53, 82–83. 109 Scalise sees Childs’s canonical theological exegesis as “an advocate for a post-critical hermeneutic,” and as “the central theme of prolegomena for a post-critical evangelical theology” because of its search to overcome the weaknesses of historical criticism in biblical interpretation. Mabee finds that Scalise regards Childs’s canonical hermeneutical theory as a nuanced form of understanding post-critical evangelical theology. Scalise 1994a, xi, 15, 87; 1994b, 64–65. Mabee 1994, viii.

260 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context successful in this attempt. Scalise’s decision to treat post-critical canonical hermeneutics as a developable continuity of the pre-critical and critical biblical interpretations is correct. Therefore, Childs’s canonical hermeneutics can be seen as post-critical, though he has a deep appreciation of pre-critical biblical hermeneutics. Childs’s canonical biblical theology belongs to post-critical hermeneutics, but it is, simultaneously, in step with the pre-critical biblical theological heritage.

Liberal or Conservative? Broadly speaking, the term “conservative theology” means a theology which regards the Bible as the only reliable source and highest norm of theology and seeks to maintain a reverence for traditional classical theological formulations and doctrines. In the North American context, “conservative” is most often linked with support, to some degree, for a doctrine which sees the Bible as a source of verbal inspiration, together with an emphasis on the inerrancy of Scripture. “Liberal theology,” broadly speaking, means any theology that questions the authority and reliability of Scripture and seeks to reformulate 110 Christian doctrines in modern and contemporary terms. Of course, there are many varying degrees and forms of both “conservative” and “liberal” theology. Debates between liberalism and conservatism have been a commonplace in Western theology since the Enlightenment. Usually, the historical-critical 111 analysis of the Bible has been associated with liberal theology. As an active member of the Presbyterian Church, Childs witnessed the controversy between liberals and conservatives in America. In 1970 he deplored the fact that by the 112 middle of the 1930s “the liberals had won the battle of historical criticism.”

110 See McKim 1996, 59, 160. 111 Referring to the modern American context, Murphy says, “the divide between liberal and conservative in American Protestantism is news to no one.” He also says elsewhere that “American Protestant Christianity is often described as a two party system. The division between liberals and conservatives…is a deep one.” See Murphy 1996, ix, 1. 112 He argued that the conservative-modernist controversy had been waged from 1910 to the late twenties. As one of the biggest Christian denominations in America, Presbyterianism could suffer from this sharp division between liberalism and conservatism. Therefore he claimed that “none was bitter than the Presbyterian” in this battle. For him, the study of the Bible in the American church covers the spectrum of the Christian church, but “the different degree of its application between conservative and liberal seminaries is actually irrelevant.” Childs 1970a, 19; 1977b, 359; 1981a, 252; 1993, 403.

Evaluation and Reflection 261 This brief presentation of the historical background leads us to another question, is Childs’s canonical theological exegesis liberal or conservative? First, in spite of the fact that Childs was trained in and became a skilled biblical researcher of the historical-critical method, he is not a liberal theologian, his theological interest is in no way in accordance with theological liberalism. His assimilation of the great achievements of historical criticism is merely for the purpose of building his own canonical approach. As we have seen, Childs not only treats historical criticism as liberal, but also sees all non-confessional approaches as liberal and secular. In Childs’s eyes, biblical critics define the essence of all religion as a certain sort of feeling or awareness, and regard the individual’s religious self-consciousness as a medium of universal truth. They uphold human experience as the key for theology (e.g., Schleiermacher and Tillich were foundational figures in this anthropological turn of theology). Then there are those who consider contemporary cultural sociology as providing some kind of assistance to Christian theology (e.g., N. Gottwald, J. Moltmann, D. Kelsey, and some feminists and liberation theologians), and then there are those who tend to treat the Bible not as Scripture of the church but as comparable with any ancient literature (liberals). Sometimes Childs views Sanders’s canonical criticism as being deeply embedded in modern and contemporary Protestant theological liberalism. We have already noted that Childs’s canonical approach is very different from Sanders’s canonical criticism. Childs’s dissatisfaction with theological liberalism is very obvious. He wants to stay far removed from liberalism. Others see him as a non-liberal exegete and theologian. Most scholars look upon his canonical theological exegesis as 113 belonging to the conservative rather than the liberal wing of theology. Apart from this obviously non-liberal tendency of his theological exploration, there are two other reasons for regarding Childs as a non-liberal theologian: Childs is a Barthian and post-critical theologian, and most modern interpreters think of Barth as a non-liberal theologian. Taking this into consideration, we could say that this itself indicates that Childs as a disciple of 114 Barth is no liberal either. Again, there is a general consensus that theological 113 For example, Barton 1984, 84–85, 98. Fowl 1985, 173. Kittel 1980, 4. Morgan 1982, 384. Moberly 1988, 105. Outler 1985, 281–291. Sheppard 1991, 437–462. 114 For instance, some see Barth as “the first great anti-foundationalist theologian.” Murphy, nevertheless, finds that “Barth is certainly open to being read as a scriptural foundationalist.” Vanhoozer also argues that Barth is not “in a type of theological liberalism.” Bartholomew similarly considers Childs’s Barthian tradition as non-liberal. Murphy 1996, 95. Bartholomew 2004, 10–13. Vanhoozer 2006, 8.

262 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context conservatism has a link to the Christian tradition of the pre-critical period. When we discovered that Childs’s canonical biblical theology belongs to the post-critical position in step with the pre-critical theological tradition, this 115 confirmed that he is not a liberal theologian. Second, when we say that Childs is not a liberal theologian, does it necessarily mean that he is a conservative theologian? The answer is no. We need not label him as a conservative theologian. The most obvious point is that Childs does not exhibit the characteristics of biblical conservatism, and as we have seen he even ignores the doctrine of biblical inspiration. Childs never placed himself among the Christian conservatives although he clearly knows some prominent biblical scholars and theologians, such as Martin Kähler, Adolf Schlatter, Oscar Cullmann, George E. Ladd, Charles Hodge, and Benjamin B. 116 Warfield, who are conservative Protestants. When Childs was eagerly looking for an appropriate biblical theology, he was critical not only of Christian liberalism, represented by the historical-critical method, which had lost its theological perspective but also of conservatism, which failed to acknowledge the validity of biblical criticism making the conservative position indefensible. Thus he explored a new path that would be theological and would differ from both liberalism and conservatism. One of Childs’s aims was to put an end to the endless disputes between liberalism and conservatism by creating a “third way” or “third alternative” of 117 canonical biblical theology. The aim of Childs’s canonical exegesis is neither to jump beyond critical scholarship nor to deny historical criticism, but to remove and dismiss the negative effects of the historical-critical method by creating a biblical theology that is relevant for the church. In other words, the 115 Both Barr and Barton argue that “post-critical” in nature means “non-liberal.” Barr says that “the vision of a ‘post-critical’ era is the conservative dream;” Barton defines “all pre-critical Christians were conservatives.” Barr 1980, 15. Barton 1984, 98–99. 116 This is a common assertion in English-speaking theology. McGlasson is to some extent supportive of Childs in this case. According to Murphy, D. Bloesch and A. McGrath can be seen as two contemporary conservatives who stem from the conservative tradition of Charles Hodge and Augustus H. Strong. He argues that Bloesch is “explicitly foundationalist” because he believes that Scripture is inerrant and the authority of Scripture is unchallengeable. McGrath “speaks of theology in foundationalist terms and gives biblical revelation an unchallenged role in theology,” as he sees the Bible as the ultimate source of Christian theology. Murphy sees McGrath as a narrative foundationalist rather than a scriptural foundationalist. Childs 1981a, 252; 1990a, 7; 1993, 628–629; 2006, 11. Murphy 1996, 7, 17–19. McGlasson 2006, 132–137. 117 See Childs 1970a, 34, 95, 139, 141–143; 1977c, 11; 1980a, 58–59; 1993, 403.

Evaluation and Reflection 263 most direct distinction between Childs’s canonical program and biblical conservatism is his use of historical criticism and its achievements. There are a number of biblical scholars and theologians who support this book’s view that Childs’s canonical theological exegesis in essence is not conservative. Many argue that he is not a biblical conservative because of his 118 acknowledgment of the legitimacy of historical criticism. Some find that Childs’s emphasis on regula fidei cannot be seen as “a conservative defense” of an “ancient and pre-critical dogma against the discomfiting forays of 119 contemporary historical criticism.” Even his opponents do not see Childs as a conservative, though they believe that Childs’s canonical theological exegesis has certainly provided some consolation for conservatives and even become a forceful weapon of biblical conservatism against historical criticism. The most typical example is Barr, who, although he does not see Childs as a conservative, is strongly critical of Childs’s canonical approach in that it could lend support 120 to the conservative wing within the Christian church. In his latest works, Barr 118 Moberly argues that “Childs’s full acceptance of the methods and results of historical criticism sharply distinguishes his position from those conservative scholars who have explicitly or implicitly restricted the historical scrutiny of biblical documents. What Childs seeks is to establish a proper relationship between history and theology in biblical interpretation in which the integrity and legitimate concerns of each discipline will be respected.” Here it is necessary to note that, in fact, Childs does not fully accept the methods and results of historical criticism, but he partly acknowledges and selectively accepts the objectivity and usefulness of historical criticism. Similarly, Braaten and Jenson view Childs not as a conservative because Childs does not reject the use of the historical-critical method, which biblical conservatism completely denies. Moberly 1988, 106. Braaten & Jenson 1995, x. 119 Sumner & Radner 1998, vii. In The Rule of Faith (1998) Childs presents three important articles exemplifying his canonical theological position: “Jesus Christ the Lord and the Scripture of the Church,” “The one Gospel in Four Witnesses,” and “The Nature of the Christian Bible: One Book, Two Testaments.” As we have seen, Childs wants to promote a Christologically centered reading of the Bible as a whole. 120 In 1980, after the publication of Childs’s IOTS in 1979, Barr criticized the book for being overly conservative, and arguing that Childs’s rhetoric on the historical-critical method is really “what conservative ears want to hear.” Barr continued by adding that “on the Christian theological side, the current which will naturally combine with Childs’s approach is the conservative one. It is not at all Childs’s own approach: but it will simply read into his scheme its own referential and extrinsic convictions.” In response, Childs thought Barr’s criticism was a “strongly negative reaction.” Childs, however, did not deny the possibility that his canonical proposal could give comfort to conservatives in some ways, admitting that “if some conservatives find portions of the book (IOTS 1979) agreeable, I can only rejoice that they are not completely without light.” He also rebuffed conservatives, saying that “the dynamics of a canonical approach to the OT is sharply at odds with the conservative position. The role

264 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context still holds the view that Childs’s canonical approach is not conservative. On the one hand, Barr finds that Childs’s acknowledgment of the legitimacy of biblical criticism essentially shows his difference from conservatism. On the other hand, Barr believes that on many deeper questions of historical criticism, Childs’s canonical exegesis is “adopting and supporting a much more conservative 121 stance.” Childs is neither a liberal nor a conservative. This implies that he falls into neither the theological left, that is, liberalism, nor the theological right, conservatism. He stands in the middle between liberalism and conservatism, adopting a “third” position. This middle position does not mean that Childs is a fence-sitter without his own theological stand and responsibility; rather it means that he attempts to make his canonical biblical theology a platform for an encounter and discussion between the two. Childs does not like seeing himself as a mediating theologian and rejects labeling his canonical exegesis as a mediating biblical theology. Rather he attempts to reconcile the traditional faith 122 of the Christian church with the principles of modern rationalism. In assigned to the history of tradition, the function of the community as tradents of the tradition, and the time-conditionality of the canonical witness, all move in a direction which is antithetical to conservatism.” Barr 1980, 14–15, 23. Childs 1980a, 58–59. 121 Barr says that “not all Childs’s own approach” is conservative, but he notes that Childs’s canonical approach has provided “an easier conservative option than traditional conservatism.” Likewise, Barton argues that conservatives often think about all the OT books as speaking with a single voice because of their single author—God. However, unlike conservatism, Childs’s canonical approach does not suggest viewing God as the Bible’s ultimate redactor; rather, he acknowledges diversities in the unity of the OT. Barton also believes that it is impossible not only for Childs’s canonical approach but also for all biblical theology to go back to biblical conservatism. In addition, some are worried that Childs’s canonical theological exegesis might be used as a tool by the conservatives to protest against liberalism and historical criticism. Some find that Childs’s canonical approach, as a postcritical biblical interpretation, looks similar to conservatism. See Barr 1983, 148-150; 1989, 8. Barton 1984, 86, 98–99, 153–154, 211. Morgan 1982, 388. Roberts 1995, 131. Räisänen 2000, 260. 122 Some mention that Childs’s canonical approach could, in effect, be calling for reconciliation between liberalism and conservatism from the perspective of theological methodology. In BTONT Childs argues that “whether one calls a new approach ‘canonical,’ ‘kergymatic,’ or ‘post-critical’ is largely irrelevant. I would only reject the categories of mediating theology which seeks simply to fuse elements of orthodoxy and liberalism without doing justice to either...there is no comprehensive philosophical or hermeneutical system available which can adequately resolve with one proposal the whole range of problems arising from the historicalcritical method.” See Braaten & Jenson 1995, x. Sumner & Radner 1998, xvii-xviii. Childs 1993, 99.

Evaluation and Reflection 265 performing this role, Childs’s approach is similar to Barth’s middle position. Both Barth and Childs claim that their theological exegesis is both historical and 123 theological; neither of them is liberal or conservative. There remains a dilemma, or ambiguity, in Childs’s canonical theological exegesis. On the one hand, he is quite dissatisfied with the theologically liberal study of the Bible, which atomizes the biblical text into separate sources and shatters the unity of the Bible into fragments of documents. On the other hand, he is also dissatisfied with the conservative position in which the Bible is upheld as a deposit of inerrant texts and absolute doctrines. This dilemma was perhaps formed in Childs’s reflection on the American BTM earlier in his career. For him the BTM represents an unsuccessful attempt at protesting against both conservatism and liberalism. His dream is to accomplish the task left unfinished by the BTM, namely, to transcend the liberal-conservative gap by building a 124 bridge between them. As a result, he agrees with the conservative argument that there is an urgent need to focus on the theological content of the Bible; but, on the other hand, he insists that historical criticism and its achievements could not be completely eschewed, because only a historical analysis of the Bible satisfies the legitimate requirement that Scripture be intelligible. Childs’s third, or middle, position implies the prospect of transcending the liberal-conservative controversy. He sees both Christian liberalism and 125 conservatism as “children of the same Enlightenment father.” His canonical theological exegesis does not try reluctantly to combine conservatism and liberalism. On the contrary, it tries to provide a check against liberalism with its rationalism on the left; and against conservatism and its supernaturalism on the right. For him, both extreme positions are unable to deal satisfactorily with the 126 canonical interpretation of Scripture. Childs is convinced that canonical 123 As we have mentioned, Childs’s situation is very similar to that of Barth’s. It frequently happened that conservatives criticized Barth as an anti-conservative theologian whilst liberals criticized him for being a fideist. Criticism of Barth was perhaps sharper than that of Childs. Ford asks: “Is Barth a fraud?” And answers: “Barth is a fraud if God does not exist, act, and speak with freedom, appropriateness, and intimacy.” Ford 1979b, 194–196; 1979a, 83. At least, to date, no one has asked: “Is Childs a fraud?” 124 He believes that the BTM “had its roots in the post-Reformation period and was an attempt to use the Bible as a warrant in a battle with both Protestant orthodoxy and rationalism.” See Childs 1970a, 19–22; 1981a, 252. 125 See Childs 1993, 333; 2006, 11. Similarly, Sheppard sees both conservatism and liberalism as two sides of the same coin, namely, modernism. Sheppard 1991, 440. 126 Childs 1970a, 65; 1974a, 300; 1977a, 89; 1984a, 52; 1993, 416; 1995a, 6. Carroll and Kraftchick make a similar observation. Carroll 1980, 287. Kraftchick 1995, 72–73.

266 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context biblical theology can be the solution for finding a new path that leads out of the unpleasant perennial dead-end controversy between conservatism and liberalism. Childs’s canonical approach is probably unable to maintain a fully balanced view acceptable to both liberals and conservatives alike. Sometimes he sounds liberal, but at other times he may give the impression of being very 127 conservative. Some argue that Childs’s canonical theory is “not evangelical,” but others understand it as “sympathetic to an evangelical way of 128 thinking.” Some think that his criticism of historical criticism is comforting for conservatism, whilst some view his absorption of the achievement of historical-critical studies as liberalism. This is why it is easy for both liberals and 129 conservatives alike to criticize his middle position. For the conservatives, Childs’s recognition of the historical-critical method and his acceptance of some of its results appear to be a compromise with the liberals enhancing theological secularization in an indirect way. For the liberals, Childs’s emphasis on the theological unity of the canonical Scripture is a very conservative reaction to critical scholarship.

Summary: A New Horizon First, Barth’s influence on Childs’s canonical theological exegesis is undeniable. Both strive for a biblical theology that would become a mediator between exegetics and dogmatic theology. Some of Barth’s basic theological ideas, such as his Christocentrism, revelation-based theology, the theology of the word of God, the role of biblical argumentation in all theology, theological exegesis for 127 Barr 1992, 136. Brett 1991, 13, 167. Levenson 1993, 172. 128 The former opinion can be found in Mabee 1994, viii, the latter in Goldsworthy 2000, 23. 129 After the publication of IOTS in1979, some predicted that Childs’s canonical approach would “disturb many people” from both the left and the right. For instance, Anderson argues that Childs’s canonical approach “will be disturbing to both conservatives and liberals.” This general assertion concerns not only Childs but also other Yale School theologians such as Hans W. Frei, Paul Holmer, David H. Kelsey, and George A. Lindbeck, who have been seen as post-liberal theologians adopting a non-conservative approach. From the perspective of biblical hermeneutics, the Yale School theologians seem to be more conservative than liberals and postmodernists, but more liberal than radical evangelicals and conservatives. Consequently, these theologians face the predicament of being criticized by both conservatives and liberals; in Murphy’s words, “post-liberal theologians appear as fideists to liberals but as relativists to conservatives.” Anderson 1980, 101–108. Murphy 1996, ix, 95– 96. Noble 1995, 81. McCormack 2001, vii-viii.

Evaluation and Reflection 267 the community of faith, his opposition to a pure humanistic and existentialist hermeneutics, his dissatisfaction with historical criticism, and his partial recognition of the usefulness of historical-critical research, all affected the launching of Childs’s own canonical biblical theology. In spite of the great similarities between Barth and Childs both in their method and in the substance of their theology, some differences still remain. For instance, Barth’s appreciation of the doctrine of biblical inspiration and his view on “the word of God in human words,” based on the Chalcedonian principle of the two natures of Christ, are not firmly rooted in Childs’s canonical theological exegesis. Moreover, Childs applies and uses the achievements of historical-critical research much more widely than Barth. In sum, Barth’s biblically oriented theology provides the theoretical foundation for the establishment of Childs’s canonical theological exegesis. Childs’s disregard of the doctrine of biblical inspiration exemplifies his lack of competence in matters of dogma. Second, when we look at the recent transformation of contemporary theology we need to affirm that theological liberalism and conservatism have failed to understand each other, and that the gap between them has been growing wider. Methodologically, an ideal Christian theology should be accountable to both the theological academy and the Christian church. Thus, further efforts to understand each other are necessary if there is to be some form 130 of reconciliation. This is the wish of Childs, too. Childs’s middle position could be useful, if both sides were eager to consider cooperating. Third, Childs’s worry that theology could be replaced by sociology or philosophy reveals the weakness of sociologically or philosophically oriented biblical hermeneutics. However, Childs’s rejection of a sociological or philosophical contribution to biblical exegesis also makes his own canonical theological exegesis vulnerable to charges of naiveté. The danger of theological reductionism is real, but it is difficult to accept that sociological and philosophical analysis could not be of some help in biblical interpretation in our postmodern context. It remains to be seen whether Childs can effectively utilize various sciences in an auxiliary capacity to enrich his canonical theological exegesis. Finally, Childs’s canonical theological exegesis is both biblical and theological, adopting a post-critical position. In essence, this exegesis must be 130 In BTONT Childs says that many modern theologians are happy to settle for a truce between the two sides (liberalism and conservatism). Childs 1993, 403.

268 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Christian and confessional. Perhaps, a Christian, post-critical, confessional biblical theology is unable to deal properly with all the concrete exegetical and historical issues and details arising from contemporary developments. Theology for Childs is not a speculative science that talks about the probabilities of God’s existence, about the limits of our knowledge of God, or about the language with which we speak about God. Rather, for him, Christian theology is already grounded both on the acknowledgment of the real existence of God and on God’s selfrevelation through the Bible. Theology for Childs is a practical business of interpreting the given canonical Scripture in a theologically meaningful and fruitful way. Childs must be seen as a biblical theologian, and his canonical 131 program should be viewed as a practical rather than a theoretical enterprise. Childs optimistically declared that the last forty years (that is since the 132 1960s) has been “the era of the canon,” which means that the nature of the canon has been an attractive subject of debate in academic exegetics and theology. It is really very difficult to assess what Childs’s canonical proposal has really achieved after all these debates. However, it is clear that Childs has established a forum for further methodological discussions between biblical studies and systematic theology. In this sense, Childs can be seen as “an 133 exponent of biblical theology.” The positive reaction to the canonical approach from the Catholic side could help Childs’s pursuit of a canonical theological exegesis. In the words of Pope Benedict XVI, “the time for a thorough new reflection on the methodology of exegesis seems to have come,” but the task of combining 134 exegesis and theology “will take the work of an entire generation.” Indeed, Childs’s program for theological exegesis in the canonical context is just the beginning of a long-term process of ecumenical cooperation seeking to establish a new horizon and a new methodology for Christian biblical theology. But in opening up a new path, it is an extremely important we could even say prophetic beginning.

131 In Childs’s own words, many features of his canonical approach are “the American form of doing biblical theology.” As we have seen before, when trying to understand Childs’s canonical biblical theology we ought not to reject considering the modern American context. In Mabee’s words, attention should be paid to “the Americaness of our theological experience.” Childs 1970a, 47. Mabee 1994, vii. 132 Childs 2005b, 26, 35; 2006, 9. 133 Thiselton 1997, 528. 134 Quoted by Granados 2008, xv. It also can be seen in Ratzinger 2008, 28.

CHAPTER

7

Concluding Remarks The aim of this study was to analyze Brevard S. Childs’s concept of theological exegesis in the canonical context and to find out how, on the basis of his canonical approach, he relates modern biblical studies with the issues of systematic theology. I have analyzed and presented his basic ideas in a systematic order, which reveals the structure of his biblical theological endeavor. The fundamental theological structure of his Reformed and neo-orthodox presuppositions have also been analyzed. The fundamental elements of Childs’s theological thinking remained more or less unchanged throughout his career. Even when some development in his thinking can be discerned, the new insights are built upon the old foundation; Childs never drastically changed his views. His theology is mainly rooted in modern theological neo-orthodoxy and in the work of its most prominent theologian, Karl Barth. Both the Reformed tradition and modern neo-orthodox theology are influential fundaments of his canonical biblical theology. The American Biblical Theological Movement and the controversy between Protestant liberalism and conservatism in contemporary America cultivated his theological sensitivity and Christian position. Childs attempts to counter the negative influences of the historical-critical method and modern biblical hermeneutics by establishing a canon-based theological exegesis leading to a confessional biblical theology. Childs’s canonical approach attempts to combine aspects of the historical development of the biblical texts with the theological authority of Scripture in a process of exposition in which the entire canon of the two Testaments becomes the highest rule and norm of interpretation. Relying on the idea of the canon means agreeing with the confession or the regula fidei of the early church, according to which, in his divine providence, God gave his word to humanity in the form of the collection of canonical books. The canonical Scripture represents doctrinal orthodoxy, because it is based on the prophetic and apostolic reception of divine revelation. Childs employs terminology such as

270 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context canonical intentionality, the wholeness of the canon, the canon as the most appropriate context for doing a biblical theology, and the continuity of the two Testaments, in order to explain his canonical program. In the contemporary debate about biblical theology, Childs’s heureka of the canon is regarded as one possibility among others. The concentration on the canon can be a strong point in theological exegesis, which aims at creating a biblical theology at the service of the Christian church. Both biblical interpretation and Christian theology proper function under the rule of faith of the early Christian church—in the case of Childs regula fidei includes some basic principles of traditional Reformed theology and modern neo-orthodox theology. Childs’s canonical biblical theology works within the traditional framework of faith seeking understanding. Childs understands the reconstruction of historical original particularity as the major obstacle to the theological use of the Scripture. He, therefore, attempts to extricate his canonical theological exegesis from the predicament of historical criticism. However, this does not mean that he gives up the historical-critical method; rather, he tends to move the canonical approach from a purely historical interpretation of the Bible to a theological reconstruction of the Scripture for the community of faith. Childs convincingly demonstrates the inadequacies of the historical-critical method in biblical research. Biblical studies have been dominated for two centuries by the historical-critical ideology, which propagates the dogma of history. According to Childs, this has led to a secularization of biblical studies, which has caused serious defects in biblical theology, biblical hermeneutics, doctrinal theology, and even in pastoral practice. Childs is dissatisfied with the historical-critical method, in which he himself was trained, not only because the Bible has been fragmented and historical criticism has become theologically barren, but also because historical criticism has been misleading today’s community of faith and threatens to do the same to tomorrow’s. Thus, he demands that biblical research and interpretation must turn back to theology and away from mere history. Childs tends to use the results of historical-critical research selectively to support his canonical program. His canonical approach endeavors to establish and create a post-critical Christian biblical theology. For Childs, biblical theology has two tasks: descriptive and constructive, the former connects biblical theology with exegesis, the latter with doctrinal theology. He recognizes the distinction between biblical theology and systematic theology both in their theological content and in their methods. Nevertheless he wants canonical biblical theology to engage in appropriate theological reflection on both the Bible and dogmatic theology. Thus he attempts to operate a

Concluding Remarks 271 comprehensive biblical theology that combines thematic investigation of the essential theological content of the Bible with systematic analysis of the content of the Christian faith. However, Childs’s biblical theology does not deal with traditional doctrinal issues in a systematic way; rather he tries to find the theologically essential points by collecting the main themes from the texts of the two Testaments. In this way Childs attempts to unite OT theology and NT theology into one unified biblical theology. Being loyal to Reformed theology and modern neo-orthodoxy, Childs regards Christology as the very heart of this new unified biblical theology and indeed of all doctrinal theology. I have carefully analyzed the concepts he employs and the arguments he uses to support his attempt to create biblical theology on the basis of theological exegesis in the canonical context. I am forced to say that some elements of Childs’s thinking remain obscure and difficult to understand. Thus it is often very difficult to explain exactly what Childs had in mind on many issues. I have tried to avoid over-interpreting Childs; argumentatio ex silentio is not good research. My analysis of Childs has also pointed out some of his scholarly and theological limits and shortcomings. Often it is difficult to define some of the concepts he uses. Quite often his arguments are far from convincing, and sometimes even contradictory. Some problematic points of Childs’s thinking need to be mentioned. For instance, his emphasis of the final form of the text of the biblical canon is highly controversial, yet Childs firmly believes in it; he even regards it as the corner-stone of his biblical theology. Moreover, the relationship between the canon and the doctrine of biblical inspiration is weak; any form of the doctrine of inspiration is almost absent from Childs’s works. He is unable to define clearly whether Scripture is God’s word or whether it only “witnesses” to it. Because Childs is apparently unaware of how to apply the Chalcedonian principle to biblical hermeneutics, his concepts of “the word of God” and “divine revelation” remain somewhat unclear, and their ontological status is ambiguous. This is an obvious sign of his theological weakness. Childs’s demonstration of the Christological concentration, which unites OT theology and NT theology, is rather convincing. In doing this, Childs clearly applies the classical mode of typological interpretation, although he denies expressis verbis any use of typology. Although Childs underlines the idea that the OT is an independent, “discrete” voice in the canon, he does not pay much attention to authentic Jewish interpretations of OT theology. Furthermore, he is so worried about reducing biblical theology to sociology or philosophy that he neglects the possibility of learning from neighboring

272 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context disciplines or using them as ancillae theologiae biblicae. Childs is also unaware of the contextual conditions of biblical interpretation; in modern theological discourse, awareness of one’s own contextual pre-concepts and dependencies has become a necessary requirement of credible theology. On the other hand, if we ask whether Childs’s canonical biblical theology connects exegesis and theology or not, the answer would be in the affirmative. Childs uses textual analysis of the two Testaments and in doing so critically assimilates some achievements of historical-critical scholarship into his canonical theological synthesis. Moreover, his theological reflection on the Bible touches on both biblical theology and dogmatic theology. His theological exegesis covers both the descriptive and constructive tasks. If asked to decide whether Childs’s correlation between exegesis and theology is successful or not, our answer is an uncertain and complicated one, since we encounter two questions: First, is Childs’s theological exegesis in the canonical context able to satisfy the requirements and needs of both historical investigation and dogmatic theology? Second, how could canonical theological exegesis be deepened? As to the first question, the answer is that no single theological method is able to satisfy all the different interests of biblical interpretation, and Childs’s canonical approach is no exception. The use of the historical-critical method together with canonical interpretation is a necessity for creating a credible biblical theology. And we must bear in mind that Childs deals with a “biblical theology” not a “systematic theology.” As to the second question, we must assert that a step from biblical theology to systematic doctrinal theology is a necessity; mere biblical theology as such is too naïve. In order to avoid such naivety, biblical theology should also use various sciences as supportive tools. The conclusions of this book differ on two main points from the interpretations of previous researchers on Childs, such as Charles J. Scalise, Paul R. Noble, Mark G. Brett, and John J. Collins. First, there is a methodological difference. This study employs the method of systematic analysis to analyze Childs’s canonical approach to biblical theology, paying attention to the logic and coherence of his program. The basic structure of Childs’s canonical methodology has been revealed and the inadequacies and problems of his thinking have been uncovered. Second, the book has displayed the major contents of Childs’s biblical theology, which aims at connecting biblical theology and dogmatic theology in a united canonical biblical theology. Moreover, the book has shown in detail how Childs’s biblical theology concentrates on Christology.

Concluding Remarks 273 I can agree to some extent with the interpretations of previous researchers on Childs, but there are also points where I disagree. For instance, Scalise rightly points out that Childs’s canonical approach is revelation-centered and close to Barth’s post-critical position. However, it is difficult for me to accept his argument that Childs’s canonical approach belongs to the category of evangelical theology. Rather, I believe that Childs tends to stress doing biblical theology for the community of faith with an ecclesial consideration. I also agree with Scalise’s opinion that Childs does not replace the historical-critical method with a new methodology. Nevertheless, I cannot follow Scalise’s argument that Childs’s biblical theology has moved from Scripture to Christian doctrine. Rather, I think that Childs tries to build his theological reflection on themes that are taken from the Scripture. Noble mentions correctly that Childs does not completely reject the historical-critical method and that his canonical program is mainly concerned with the Christian church. I agree with Noble’s view that Childs’s canonical biblical theology needs to consider seriously both typological exegesis and the doctrine of biblical inspiration. However, it is difficult to agree with Noble’s view that Childs’s canonically oriented biblical theology is a new theology. It is better to say that Childs’s canonical approach is a new attempt to reconstruct biblical theology. This new attempt means that Childs’s canonical program has good intentions, but it has not yet succeeded very well in connecting biblical studies with Christian theology, and biblical theology with dogmatic theology. It does provide a platform for a dialogue amongst the various biblical and theological disciplines, but it needs further discussion and development. Brett encourages modern biblical scholarship to recognize Childs’s canonical approach as one way of interpreting the Bible in the postmodern, pluralist context. Brett also rightly suggests that Childs should borrow from and connect with neighboring disciplines. I, however, disagree with Brett’s proposal that Childs should borrow from neighboring disciplines for the purpose of getting rid of his over-emphasis of the concept of the canon. Rather I would say that Childs should borrow from neighboring disciplines not only in order to understand the context of the text and the context of the act of interpretation properly, but also in order to strengthen and deepen his biblical theology. Since the Enlightenment the idea of canonicity has been almost completely ignored, nevertheless Childs’s emphasis on the canon seems justified. I am not able to agree with Collins’s claim that historical criticism is still a more satisfactory method of biblical interpretation than Childs’s canonical approach. Childs has convincingly exposed many of the inadequacies of

274 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context historical criticism with regard to the hermeneutical, theological, and pastoral dimensions of biblical interpretation. It is meaningless to deny the fact that, since the Enlightenment, historical-critical scholarship has been undermining the task of theological interpretation of Scripture. Finally, I conclude by stating that Childs’s theological exegesis in the canonical context is a new venture in the modern history of theology. It expresses his sincere effort to create a new path for doing relevant and credible Christian biblical theology. The realization of his vision is “an idealized scenario,” not “a perfect example.” It would not be right to be too optimistic about, or overestimate the importance or success of, Childs’s canonical theological exegesis; rather it should be seen as a modest beginning to a long process. But there will be others who will continue his work—at least in Catholic biblical scholarship and theology.

Bibliography Sources Childs, Brevard S., 1958a. “Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of Contemporary Hermeneutics,” Interpretation, vol.12. 259–271. ———. 1958b. “Jonah: A Study in Old Testament Hermeneutics,” SJT, vol.11:1. 53–61. ———. 1959. “The Enemy from the North and the Chaos Tradition,” JBL, vol.78. 187–198. ———. 1960a. Myth and Reality in the Ole Testament. SBT, vol. 27.London: SCM. ———. 1960b. “A Christian Theology of the Old Testament,” Interpretation, vol.14:2. 202– 204. ———. 1962. Memory and Tradition in Israel. SBT, vol.37.London: SCM. ———. 1963. “A Study of the Formula, ‘Until This Day’,” JBL, vol. 82. 279–292. ———. 1964. “Interpretation in Faith: The Theological Responsibility of an Old Testament Commentary,” Interpretation, vol.18. 432–449. ———. 1965a. “The Birth of Moses,” JBL, vol. 84.109–122. ———. 1965b. “History, Archaeology, and Christian Humanism,” Interpretation, vol. 19. 59– 60. ———. 1967a. Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis. SBT2, vol. 3. London: SCM. ———. 1967b. “Deuteronomic Formulae of the Exodus Traditions,” VTS, vol. 16. 30–39. ———. 1969a. “Psalm 8 in the Context of the Christian Canon,” Interpretation, vol. 23. 20–31. ———. 1969b. “Karl Barth as Interpreter of Scripture” in Karl Barth and the Future of Theology, ed. by David L. Dickerman. New Haven: Yale Divinity School Association. 30–35. ———. 1969c. “History and the Gods: An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events as Divine Manifestations in the Ancient Near East and in Israel,” JSS, vol. 14:1. 114–116. ———. 1970a. Biblical Theology in Crisis. Philadelphia: Westminster. ———. 1970b. “A Traditio-Historical Study of the Reed Sea Tradition,” VT, vol. 20. 406–418. ———. 1971. “Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis,” JSS, vol. 6:2. 137–150. ———. 1972a. “The Old Testament as the Scripture of the Church,” CTM, vol. 43. 709–722. ———. 1972b. “Midrash and the Old Testament” in Understanding the Sacred Text, ed. by John Reumann. Valley Forge: Judson Press. 47–59. ———. 1972c. “A Tale of Two Testaments,” Interpretation, vol. 26. 20–29. ———. 1973. “A Call to Canonical Criticism,” Interpretation, vol. 27. 88–91. ———. 1974a. Exodus: A Commentary. London: SCM. ———. 1974b. “The Etiology Tale Re-examined,” VT, vol. 24. 387–397. ———. 1976a. “Reflection on the Modern Study of the Psalms” in Magnalia Dei. Garden City: Doubleday. 377–388. ———. 1976b. “Search for Biblical authority today,” ANQ, vol. 16. 199–206.

276 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context ———. 1977a. “The Sensus Literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and Modern Problem” in Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by Herbert Donner, Robert Hanhart and Ruldof Smend. Göttingen : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 80–93. ———. 1977b. “Symposium on Biblical Criticism,” TT, vol. 33. 358–359. ———. 1977c. Old Testament Books for Pastor and Teacher. Philadelphia: Westminster. ———. 1978a. “The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature,” Interpretation, vol. 32. 46– 55. ———. 1978b. “The Exegetical Significance of Canon for the Study of the Old Testament,” VTS, vol. 19. 66–80. ———. 1978c. “Canonical Shape of the Book of Jonah” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 122–128. ———. 1979. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Augsburg: Fortress. ———. 1980a. “Response to Reviewers of Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture,” JSOT, vol.16. 52–60. ———. 1980b. “On Reading the Elijah Narratives,” Interpretation, vol. 34. 128–137. ———. 1980c. “A Response,” HBT, vol. 2. 199–221. ———. 1981a. “A Review to Smart’s Past, Present, and Future of Biblical Theology,” JBL, vol. 100. 252–253. ———. 1981b. “Differenzen in der Exegese: Biblische Theologie in Amerika,” Evangelische Kommentare, vol. 14. 405–406. ———. 1982. “Some Reflections on the Search for a Biblical Theology,” HBT, vol. 4:1. 1–12. ———. 1984a. The New Testament As Canon: An Introduction. London: SCM. ———. 1984b. “Review of Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism by James Barr,” Interpretation, vol. 38. 66–70. ———. 1986a. Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. Philadelphia: Fortress. ———. 1986b. “Gerhard von Rad in American Dress” in The Hermeneutical Quest: Essays in Honor of James Luther Mays on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. by Donald G. Miller. PTMS. Allison Park: Pickwick Publications. 77–86. ———. 1987a. “Death and Dying in Old Testament Theology” in Love & Death in the Ancient Near East, by John Marks, ed. by Robert McClive Good. Guilford: Four Quarters. 89–91. ———. 1987b. “Die theologische Bedeutung der Endform eines Textes,” Theologische Quartalschrift, vol. 167:4. 242–251. ———. 1988. “Biblische Theologie und christlicher Kanon” in Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie, Band 3: Zum Problem des biblischen Kanons, ed. by Ingo Baldermann et al. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 13–28. ———. 1989a. “The Struggle for God’s Righteousness in the Psalter” in Christ in Our Place. Allison Park: Pickwick Publications. 255–264. ———. 1989b. “Reflections on the Reissue of William Perkins’ Commentary on Galatians” in A Commentary on Galatians by William Perkins. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press. xiv-xvi. ———. 1990a. “Critical Reflections on James Barr’s Understanding of the Literal and the Allegorical,” JSOT, vol. 46. 3–9. ———. 1990b. “Analysis of a Canonical Formula: ‘It Shall Be Recorded for A Future

Bibliography 277 Generation’” in Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Eckhard Blum et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 357–364. ———. 1992. “Die Bedeutung der hebräischen Bibel für die biblische Theologie,” Theologische Zeitschrift, vol. 48:3–4. 382–399. ———. 1993. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress. ———. 1994a. “Old Testament in Germany 1920–1940” in Altes Testament, Forschung und Wirkung: Festschrift für Henning Graf Reventlow, ed. by Peter Mommer and Winfried Thiel. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 233–246. ———. 1994b. “Biblical Scholarship in the Seventeenth Century: A Study in Ecumenics” in Language, Theology, and the Bible, ed. by Samuel E. Balentine and John Barton. Oxford: Clarendon. 325–333. ———. 1995a. “On Reclaiming the Bible for Christian Theology” in Reclaiming the Bible for the Church, ed. by Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson. Grand Rapids & Cambridge: Eerdmans. 1– 17. ———. 1995b. “Old Testament Theology” in Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future, ed. by James Luther and Kent Harold. Nashville: Abingdon Press. 293–301. ———. 1996. “Retrospective reading of the Old Testament Prophets,” ZAW, vol.108. 362–377. ———. 1997a. “Does the Old Testament Witness to Jesus Christ?” in Evangelium, Schriftauslegung, Kirche: Festschrift für Peter Stuhlmacher zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Jostein Ådna et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 57–64. ———. 1997b. “Interpreting the Bible amid Cultural Change,” TT, vol. 54. 200–211. ———. 1997c. “The Genre of the Biblical Commentary as Problem and Challenge” in Tehillah Le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg, ed. by Mordechai Cogan and Barry L. Eichler et al. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. ———. 1997d. “Toward Recovering Theological Exegesis,” Pro Ecclesia, vol. 6. 16–26. (Reprinted in Ex Auditu, 2000, vol.16. 121–129.) ———. 1998a. “Jesus Christ the Lord and the Scripture of the Church” in The Rule of Faith: Scripture, Canon, and Creed in a Critical Age, ed. by Ephraim Radner and George Sumner. Harrisburg: Morehouse Publishing. 1–12. ———. 1998b. “The One Gospel in Four Witnesses” in The Rule of Faith: Scripture, Canon, and Creed in a Critical Age, ed. by Ephraim Radner and George Sumner. Harrisburg: Morehouse Publishing. 51–62. ———. 1998c. “The Nature of the Christian Bible: One Book, Two Testaments” in The Rule of Faith: Scripture, Canon, and Creed in a Critical Age, ed. by Ephraim Radner and George Sumner. Harrisburg: Morehouse Publishing. 115–125. ———. 1999a. “The Almost Forgotten Genesis Commentary of Benno Jacob” in Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament—Gestalt und Wirkung: Festschrift für Horst Seebach, ed. by Stefan Beyerle et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 273–280. ———. 1999b. “Hermeneutical Reflections on C. Vitringa, Eighteenth-Century Interpreter of Isaiah” in In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament Interpretation in Honor of Ronald E. Clements, ed. by Edward Ball. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 89–98.

278 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context ———. 2000a. “Walter Brueggemann’s Theology of The Old Testament. Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy,” SJT, vol. 53:2. 228–233. ———. 2000b. “Foreword,” in Renewing Biblical Interpretation, ed. by C. Bartholomew, C. Greene and K. Möller. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. xv-xvii. ———. 2001. Isaiah: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster. ———. 2002. Biblical Theology: A Proposal. Augsburg: Fortress. ———. 2003. “Critique of Recent Inter-textual Canonical Interpretation,” ZAW, vol.115:2. 173–184. ———. 2004. The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture. Grand Rapids & Cambridge: Eerdmans. ———. 2005a. “Speech-Act theory and Biblical Interpretation,” SJT, vol. 58:4. 375–392. ———. 2005b. “The Canon in Recent Biblical Studies: Reflections on an Era,” Pro Ecclesia, vol. 14:1. 26–45. (This article also can be found in Canon and Biblical Interpretation, ed. by Craig Bartholomew, Scott Hahn et al. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. 33–57.) ———. 2006. “Foreword” in Invitation to Dogmatic Theology: A Canonical Approach, by Paul McGlasson. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press. 9–11.

References Achtemeier, Paul J. 1980. The Inspiration of Scripture: Problems and Proposals. Philadelphia: Westminster. Adam, Andrew K. M. 1995. Making Sense of New Testament Theology: Modern Problems and Prospects. SABH vol.11. Macon: Mercer University Press. ———. 2006. Faithful Interpretation: Reading the Bible in a Postmodern World. Minneapolis: Fortress. Adler, William. 2004. “The Pseudepigrapha in the Early Church” in The Canon Debate. 211– 228. Anderson, Bernhard W. 1980. “Review to Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture by B. S. Childs,” TT, vol. 37. 100–108. ———. 1981. “Tradition and Scripture in the Community of Faith,” JBL, vol. 100. 5–21. ———. 2006. The Unfolding Drama of the Bible. 4th edition. Minneapolis: Fortress. Augustine. 1956. The City of God. Translated by M. Dods. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Austin, John L. 1955. How to do Things with Words: The William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University. Oxford: Clarendon. Baker, David L. 1991. Two Testaments, One Bible: A Study of the Theological Relationship between the Old and New Testaments. 2nd edition. Leicester: Apollos. Balla, Peter. 2004. “Evidence for an Early Christian Canon (Second and Third Century)” in The Canon Debate. 372–385. Barr, James. 1966. Old and New in Interpretation: A Study of the Two Testaments. London: SCM. ———. 1973. The Bible in the Modern World. New York: Harper & Row. ———. 1980. “Childs’ Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture,” JSOT, vol.16. 12–23. ———. 1983. Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism. Philadelphia: Westminster. ———. 1988. “The Theological Case against Biblical Theology” in Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation. 3–19.

Bibliography 279 ———. 1989. “The Literal, the Allegorical, and Modern Biblical Scholarship,” JSOT, vol. 44. 3– 17. ———. 1992. “Review to Biblical Criticism in Crisis? The Impact of the Canonical Approach on Old Testament Studies by Mark G. Brett,” JTS, vol. 43. 135–141. ———. 1999. The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress. ———. 2004. “Unity: Within the Canon or After the Canon” in One Scripture or Many? Canon from Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives. 151–158. Barth, Karl. 1968. The Epistle to the Romans. Translated by Edwyn C. Hoskyns from the 6th edition. London: Oxford University Press. ———. 2004. Church Dogmatics. Translated by G.W. Bromiley, ed. by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. London & New York: T&T Clark. Bartholomew, Craig. 2004. “Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation: Introduction” in Out of Egypt. 1–19. Bartholomew, Craig & Healy, Mary & Möller, Karl & Parry, Robin (eds.). 2004. Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation. SHS, vol. 5. Milton Keynes: Paternoster & Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Bartholomew, Craig G. & Goheen, Mike W. 2004. “Story and Biblical Theology” in Out of Egypt. 144–171. Bartholomew, Craig & Hahn, Scott et al. (eds.). 2006. Canon and Biblical Interpretation. SHS, vol.7. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Barton, John. 1984. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. London: Darton Longman and Todd. ———. 1986. Oracle of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile. New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 1990. “Canon” in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. 103–105. ———. 1998a. “Historical-critical Approaches” in Biblical Interpretation. 9–20. ———. 1998b. Biblical Interpretation, ed. by John Barton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2002. “Review to Moberly’s The Bible, Theology, and Faith: A Study of Abraham and Jesus,” BI, vol. 1. 89–91. ———. 2004. “Marcion Revisited” in The Canon Debate. 341–354. Bauckham, Richard. 1994. “Review to Childs’ Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testament: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible,” BI, vol. 2. 246–250. Beauchamp, Paul. 2008. “Is a Biblical Theology Possible?” in Opening Up the Scriptures. 65–78. Bjørndalen, Anders Jørgen. 1990. “Allegory” in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. 14–16. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. 1980. “A New Kind of Introduction: Professor Childs’ Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture,” JSOT, vol. 16. 24–27. ———. 1998. “The Pentateuch” in Biblical Interpretation. 181–197. ———. 2004. “The Formation of the Hebrew Bible Canon: Isaiah as a Test Case” in The Canon Debate. 53–67. Braaten, Carl E. & Jenson, Robert W. 1995. “Introduction: Gospel, Church, and Scripture” in Reclaiming the Bible for the Church, ed. by Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson. Grand Rapids &

280 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Cambridge: Eerdmans. ix-xii. Brett, Mark G. 1991. Biblical Criticism in Crisis? The Impact of the Canonical Approach on OT Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1994. “Against the Grain: Brevard Childs’ Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testament: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible,” MT, vol. 10:3. 281–287. Brown, Raymond E. 1985. Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine. London: Geoffrey Chapman. Brueggemann, Dale A. 1989. “Brevard Childs’ Canon Criticism: An Example of Post-Critical Naivety,” JETS, vol. 32:3. 312–319. Brueggemann, Walter. 1993. “Against the Stream: Brevard Childs’ Biblical Theology,” TT, vol. 50:2. 279–284. ———. 2000. “A Response to Professor Childs,” SJT, vol. 53:2. 234–238. Bultmann, Rudolf. 1951. Theology of the New Testament, vol.1. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. London: Macmillan. ———. 1955. Theology of the New Testament, vol. 2. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. London: Macmillan. Burnett, Richard E. 2001. Karl Barth’s Theological Exegesis. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Burtchaell, J. Tunstead. 1969. Catholic Theories of Biblical Inspiration since 1810: A Review and Critique. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Calduch-Benages, Nuria. 2004. “The Theology of the OT by Marco Nobile: A Contribution to Jewish-Christian Relations” in Out of Egypt. 88–101. Carroll, Robert P. 1980. “Review to Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture by Brevard S. Childs,” SJT, vol. 33. 285–291. ———. 1981. “Canonical Criticism: A Recent Trend in Biblical Studies?” ET, vol. 92. 73–78. Carson, Donald A. 1991. “The Role of Exegesis in Systematic Theology” in Doing Theology in Today’s World. 39–76. 1998. “Review to The Canonical Approach: A Critical Reconstruction of the Hermeneutics of Brevard S. Childs,” JETS, vol. Sept., 1–4. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 1995. New York: Doubleday. Cavadini, John C. 2006. “The Use of Scripture in the Catechism of the Catholic Church” in The Authority of Mystery: The Word of God and the People of God, ed. by Scott Hahn. 43–54. Cazelles, H. Traduit. 1980. “The Canonical Approach to Torah and Prophets,” JSOT, vol. 16. 28–31. Chapman, Stephen B. 2004. “Imaginative Reading of Scripture and Theological Interpretation” in Out of Egypt. 409–447. Clarke, Kent D. 2004. “The Problem of Pseudonymity in Biblical Literature and Its Implications for Canon Formation” in The Canon Debate. 440–468. Coats, George W. 1985. “Theology of the Hebrew Bible” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters. Chico: Scholars Press. 239–262. Coggins, Richard J. & Houlden James L. 1990. A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. London: SCM. Coggins, Richard. 2000. “Review to Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs,” JTS, vol. 51. Part 1. 167–169. Collins, John J. 1990. “Is a Critical Biblical Theology Possible?” in The Hebrew Bible and Its

Bibliography 281 Interpreters, ed. by William Henry Propp et al. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. (The same article can be seen in Encounters with Biblical Theology, 11–24.) ———. 2005. Encounters with Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress. Costacurta, Bruna. 2008. “Exegesis: Reading the Scriptures in Faith” in Opening Up the Scriptures. 79–86. Davis, Philip R. 1998. Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures London: SPCK. ———. 2004. “The Jewish Scriptural Canon in Cultural Perspective” in The Canon Debate. 36– 52. DeHart, Paul J. 2006. The Trial of the Witnesses: The Rise and Decline of Postmodern Theology. Oxford: Blackwell. Donfried, Karl P. 1995. “Alien Hermeneutics and the Misappropriation of Scripture” in Reclaiming the Bible for the Church, ed. by Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson. Grand Rapids & Cambridge: Eerdmans. 19–46. Downing, F. Gerald. 1964. Has Christianity a Revelation? London: SCM. ———. 1968. The Church and Jesus: A Study in History, Philosophy, and Theology. London: SCM. Dulles, Avery Cardinal. 2006. “Vatican II on the Interpretation of Scripture” in The Authority of Mystery: The Word of God and the People of God. 17–26. Dungan, David L. 1975. “The New Testament Canon in Recent Study,” Interpretation, vol. 29. 339–351. Dunn, James D. G. 2004a. “Has the Canon a Continuing Function?” in The Canon Debate. 558– 579. ———. 2004b. “The Problem of ‘Biblical Theology’” in Out of Egypt. 172–186. Ebeling, Gerhard. 1963. “The Meaning of ‘Biblical Theology,’” in Word and Faith. Philadelphia: Fortress. 79–97. Epp, Eldon Jay. 2004. “Issues in the Interrelation of NT Textual Criticism and Canon” in The Canon Debate. 485–515. Evans, Craig A. 2004. “The Scriptures of Jesus and His Earliest Followers” in The Canon Debate. 185–195. Ferguson, Everett. 2004. “Factors Leading to the Selection and Closure of the NT Canon: A Survey of Some Recent Studies” in The Canon Debate. 295–320. Ford, David F. 1979a. “Barth’s Interpretation of the Bible” in Karl Barth Studies of His Theological Method, ed. by S. W. Sykes. Oxford: Clarendon. 55–87. ———. 1979b. “Conclusion: Assessing Barth” in Karl Barth Studies of his Theological Method, ed. by S. W. Sykes. Oxford: Clarendon. 194–202. Ford, David F. (ed.). 1997. The Modern Theologians: An Introduction to Christian Theology in the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Blackwell. Ford, David F.& Stanton, Graham (eds.). 2003. Reading Texts, Seeking Wisdom: Scripture and Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Foruberg, Tord. 1986. “Textual Criticism and Canon: Source Problems,” ST, vol. 40. 45–53. Fowl, Stephen E. 1985. “The Canonical Approach of Brevard Childs,” ET, vol. 96. 173–176.  ———. 2000. “The Role of Authorial Intention in the Theological Interpretation of Scripture” in Between Two Horizons, ed. by Joel Green and Max Turner. 71–87.

282 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Frei, Hans W. 1967. The Identity of Jesus Christ. Philadelphia: Fortress. ———. 1974. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. ———. 1992. Types of Christian Theology. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. ———. 1993. Theology and Narrative: Selected Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gabler, Johann P. 1980. “On the Proper Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each,” Translated by J. Sandys-Wunsch and L. Eldredge, SJT, vol. 33. 133–144. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 2004. Truth and Method. 2nd ed. London & New York: Continuum. Gamble, Harry Y. 1987. “Review of the New Testament as Canon by Childs,” JBL, vol.106. 330– 333. ———. 1995. Books and Readers in the Early Church A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ———. 2004. “The New Testament Canon: Recent Research and the Status Quaestionis” in The Canon Debate. 267–294. Goldsworthy, Graeme. 2000. Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture: The Application of Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids & Cambridge: Eerdmans. Gottwald, Norman K. 1980. The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel 1250–1050 BC. London: SCM. Granados, Carlos & Granados, José; & Sánchez-Navarro, Luis (eds.). 2008. Opening Up the Scriptures: Joseph Ratzinger and the Foundations of Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Granados, Carlos & Sánchez-Navarro, Luis. 2008. “On the Horizon of Hope” in Opening Up the Scriptures. xix-xxv. Granados, José. 2008. “Preface to the American Edition” in Opening Up the Scriptures. xiv-xviii. Green, Joel B. 2002. “Scripture and Theology: Failed Experiment, Fresh Perspectives,” Interpretation, vol. 56:1. 5–20. Green, Joel B. & Turner, Max (ed.). 2000. Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Green, Stefan A. 2006. “Brevard S. Childs: Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture.” Unpublished. Turku: Åbo Akademi University Press. Grenz, Stanley J.& Franke, John R. 2001. Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context. Philadelphia: Westminster. Hafemann, Scott J. (ed.). 1995. “The ‘Righteousness’ of God: An Introduction to the Theological and Historical Foundation of Peter Stuhlmacher’s Biblical Theology of the New Testament” in How To Do Biblical Theology by Peter Stuhlmacher. PTMS vol. 38. Eugene: Pickwick Publications. xv-xli. ———. 2002a. Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. ———. 2002b. “Biblical Theology” in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect. 15–21. Hahn, Scott W. (ed.). 2006. The Authority of Mystery: The Word of God and the People of God, in Letter & Spirit, vol.2. Steubenville: St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology. Hahneman, Geoffery M. 2004. “The Muratorian Fragment and the Origins of the NT Canon” in The Canon Debate. 405–415. Harrelson, Walter. 1981. “Review to Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture by Brevard S.

Bibliography 283 Childs,” JBL, vol. 100:1. 99–103. Harrington, Daniel J. 2004. “The OT Apocrypha in the Early Church and Today” in The Canon Debate. 196–210. Harrisville, Roy A. 1995. “The Loss of Biblical Authority and Its Recovery” in Reclaiming the Bible for the Church, ed. by Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson. Grand Rapids & Cambridge: Eerdmans. 47-62. ———. 1999. “What I Believe My Old Schoolmate Is Up To” in Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs, ed. by Christopher Seitz and Kathryn Greene- McCreight. Grand Rapids & Cambridge: Eerdmans. 7–25. Harrisville, Roy A.& Sundberg, Walter. 2002. The Bible in Modern Culture: Baruch Spinoza to Brevard Childs. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hart, Trevor. 2004. “Systematic - In What Sense?” in Out of Egypt. 341–351. Hauerwas, Stanley. 1980. “The Moral Authority of Scripture,” Interpretation, vol. 34. 356–370. Healy, Mary. 2006. “Inspiration and Incarnation: The Christological Analogy and the Hermeneutics of Faith” in The Authority of Mystery: The Word of God and the People of God, ed. by Scott Hahn. 27–42. Helmer, Christine & Landmesser, Christof (eds.). 2004. One Scripture or Many? Canon from Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Henry, Carl. 1990. “Canonical Theology: An Evangelical Appraisal,” SBET, vol. 8. 76–108. Holladay, William L. 1978. “Review to Childs’ Old Testament Books for Pastor and Teacher,” JBL, vol. 97. 34–41. House, Paul R. 1998. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. ———. 2002. “Biblical Theology and the Wholeness of Scripture: Steps Towards a program for the Future” in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect, ed. by Scott J. Hafemann. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 267–279. Hunsinger, George. 1993. “Afterword: Hans Frei as Theologian” in Theology and Narrative. 233– 270. Hunter, Alastair G. 1990. “Canonical Criticism” in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. 105– 107. Janzen, J. Gerald. 1980. “The Canonical Context of Old Testament Introduction” a review to Childs’ Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture,” Interpretation, vol. 34. 411–414. Jasper, David. 1998. “Literary Reading of the Bible” in Biblical Interpretation, ed. by John Barton. Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press. 21–34. Jodock, Darrell. 1990. “The Reciprocity Between Scripture and Theology: The Role of Scripture in Contemporary Theological Reflection,” Interpretation, vol. 44. 369–381. Joyce, Paul. 2003. “Proverbs 8 in Interpretation: Historical Criticism and Beyond” in Reading Texts, Seeking Wisdom: Scripture and Theology, ed. by David Ford and Graham Stanton. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 89–101. Kalin, Everett R. 2004. “The NT Canon of Eusebius” in The Canon Debate. 386–404. Kantzer, Kenneth S. 1991. “A Systematic Biblical Dogmatics: What is it and How is it to be Done?” in Doing Theology in Today’s World. 463–494. Kaiser, Otto & Kümmel, Werner G. 1981. Exegetical Method. New York: Seabury Press. Kaiser, Otto. 1981. “Old Testament Exegesis” in Exegetical Method. 1–42.

284 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Keck, Leander E. 1972. A Future for the Historical Jesus. London: SCM. ———. 1982. Paul and His Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress. Kelsey, David H. 1975. The Use of Scripture in Recent Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress. ———. 1980. “The Bible and Christian Theology,” JAAR, vol. 48. 385–402. Kitchen, Kenneth A. 2003. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Kittel, Bonnie. 1980. “Brevard Childs’ Development of the Canonical Approach,” JSOT, vol. 16. 2–11. Knight, Douglas A. & Tucker, Gene M.(eds.). 1985. The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Knight, Douglas A. 1985. “The Pentateuch” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters. 263–296. Kraft, Robert A. 2004. “The Codex and Canon Consciousness” in The Canon Debate. 229–233. Kraftchick, Steven J. 1995. “Facing Janus: Reviewing the Biblical Theology Movement” in Biblical Theology: Problems and Perspectives in Honor of J. Christiaan Beker, ed. by Steven Kraftchick, et al. Nashville: Abingdon Press. 54–77. Krentz, Edgar. 1975. The Historical-Critical Method. London: SPCK. Kümmel, Werner G. 1981. “New Testament Exegesis” in Exegetical Method. 43–76. Laato, Antti. 2008. “Isaiah 53 and the Biblical Exegesis of Justin Martyr” in Rewritten Bible Reconsidered. Studies in Rewritten Bible 1, ed. by Antti Laato and Jacques van Ruiten. Eisenbrauns: Åbo Akademi University Press. 215–230. Landes, George M. 1980. “The Canonical Approach to Introducing the Old Testament: Prodigy and Problems,” JSOT, vol. 16. 32-39. Lash, Nicholas. 2007. “The Question of God Today” in Transcending Boundaries in Philosophical and Theology: Reason, Meaning, and Experience. 129–144. Levenson, Jon D. 1993. The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies. Kentucky: Westminster. Lienhard, Joseph J. 1995. The Bible, the Church, and Authority: The Canon of the Christian Bible. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press. Lincoln, Andrew T. 2004. “Hebrews and Biblical Theology” in Out of Egypt. 313–340. Lindbeck, George A. 1984. The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age. Philadelphia: Westminster. ———. 1999. “Post-critical Canonical Interpretations: Three Modes of Retrieval” in Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs. 26–51. Louth, Andrew. 1990. “Allegorical Interpretation” in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, ed. by Richard J. Coggins and James L. Houlden. London: SCM. 12–14. Mabee, Charles. 1994. “Editor’s Preface” in Hermeneutics As Theological Prolegomena: A Canonical Approach, written by Charles Scalise. Macon: Mercer University Press. vii-x. MacDonald, Neil B. 2006. Metaphysics and the God of Israel: Systematic Theology of the Old and new Testaments. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Mason, Steve. 2004. “Josephus and His Twenty-Two Book Canon” in The Canon Debate. 110– 127. Matin, Francis. 2004. “Some Directions in Catholic Biblical Theology” in Out of Egypt. 65–87. McConville, Gordon. 2006. “Old Testament Laws and Canonical Intentionality” in Canon and

Bibliography 285 Biblical Interpretation. 259-281. McCormack, Bruce L. 2001. “Foreword” in Richard E. Burnett’s Karl Barth’s Theological Exegesis. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. vii-ix. McDonald, Lee Martin. 1995. The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon. Massachusetts: Hendrickson. ———. 2004. “Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church: The Criteria Question” in The Canon Debate. 416–439. ———. 2007. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. 3rd edition. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. McDonald, Lee M. & Porter, Stanley E. 2000. Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. McDonald, Lee M. & Sanders, James A. (eds.). 2004a. The Canon Debate. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. ———. 2004b. “Introduction” in The Canon Debate. 3–17. McEvenue, Sean E. 1981. “The Old Testament, Scripture or Theology?” Interpretation, vol.35. 229–242. McGlasson, Paul C. 1999. “The Significance of Context in Theology: A Canonical Approach” in Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs. 52-72. ———. 2006. Invitation to Dogmatic Theology: A Canonical Approach. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press. McKeating, Henry. 1979. “Sanctions against Adultery in Ancient Israelite Society, with Some Reflections on Methodology in the Study of Old Testament Ethics,” JSOT, vol. 11. 57–72. McKim, Donald K. 1996. Dictionary of Theological Terms. London: Westminster. McNeil, Brian. 1990. “Typology” in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, ed. by Richard J. Coggins and James L. Houlden. London: SCM. 713–714. Mead, James K. 2007. Biblical Theology: Issues, Methods, and Themes. London: Westminster. Meeks, Wayne A. 1972. “The Man From Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” JBL, vol. 91. 44– 72. Moberly, R.Walter. 1988. “The Church’s Use of the Bible: The Work of Brevard Childs,” ET, vol. 99. 104–109. Motyer, Steve. 2000. “Two Testaments, One Biblical Theology” in Between Two Horizons, ed. by Joel Green and Max Turner. 143–164. Moltmann, Jürgen. 1979. The Future of Creation. London: SCM. ———. 1981. The Trinity and the Kingdom of God. London: SCM. ———. 1985. God in Creation. London: SCM. Morgan, Donn F. 1982. “Review to Childs’ Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture,” ATR, vol. 64. 383–392. ———. 1986. “Canon and Criticism: Method or Madness?” ATR, vol.68. 83–94. Möller, Karl. 2004. “The Nature and Genre of Biblical Theology: Some Reflections in the Light of Charles H.H. Scobie’s ‘Prolegomena to a Biblical Theology’” in Out of Egypt. 41–64. Murphy, Nancey. 1996. Beyond Liberalism and Conservatism: How Modern and Postmodern Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International. Murphy, Roland E. 1980. “The Old Testament as Scripture,” JSOT, vol.16. 40–44.

286 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Nicholson, Ernest W. 1986. God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 1998. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen. Oxford: Clarendon. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1987. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress. Noble, Paul R. 1993. “The Sensus Literalis: Jowett, Childs, and Barr,” JTS, vol. 44. 1–23. ———. 1995. The Canonical Approach: A Critical Reconstruction of the Hermeneutics of Brevard S. Childs. Biblical Interpretation Series, vol. 16. Leiden: E.J.Brill. O’ Connell, Kevin G. 1981. “Review of Childs’ IOTS,” BA, vol. 44. 187–188. O’ Conner, Michael P. 1995. “How the Text is Heard: The Biblical Theology of B. Childs,” RSR, vol. 21:2. 91–96. O’Dowd, Ryan P. 2006. “Wisdom as Canonical Imagination: Pleasant Words for Tremper Longman” in Canon and Biblical Interpretation, ed. by Craig Bartholomew, Scott Hahn, et al. 374–392. Oeming, Manfred. 1988. “Text-Kontext-Kanon: Ein neuer Weg alttestamentlicher Theologie? Zu einem Buch von Brevard S. Childs” in Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie Band 3.Zum Problem des Biblischen Kanons. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 241–251. Ollenburger, Ben C. 1984. “Review to James Barr’s Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism,” TT, vol. 41:2. 207–210. ———. 1992. “Brevard Childs: Canon,” in The Flowering of Old Testament Theology. 321–345. ———. 1995. “Old Testament Theology: A Discourse on Method,” in Biblical Theology: Problems and Perspectives in Honor of J. Christiaan Beker. S. Kraftchick, et al. Nashville: Abingdon Press. 81–103. Ollenburger, Ben C. & Martens, Elmer A. & Hasel, Gerhard F. 1992. The Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century Old Testament Theology, 1930–1990. SBTS, vol. 1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. O’Neal, G. Michael. 2007. Interpreting Habakkuk as Scripture: An Application of the Canonical Approach of Brevard S. Childs. SBL, vol. 9. New York: Peter Lang. Outler, Albert C. 1985. “Toward a Postliberal Hermeneutics,” TT, vol. 42. 281–291. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. 1997. “Problems in a Theology of (Only) the Old Testament” in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim, ed. by Sun H. T. C., Eades K. L. et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 275–280. Penner, Todd and Stichele, Caroline Vander. 2005. Moving Beyond New Testament Theology? Essays in Conversation with Heikki Räisänen. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society. Perkins, Pheme. 2004. “Gnosticism and the Christian Bible” in The Canon Debate. 355–371. Pinnock, Clark H.& Callen, Barry L. 2006. The Scripture Principle: Reclaiming the Full Authority of the Bible. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Potterie, Ignace de la. 2008. “Biblical Exegesis: A Science of Faith” in Opening Up the Scriptures. 30–64. Poythress, Vern S. 1978. “Structuralism and Biblical Studies,” JETS, vol. 21:3. 221–237. Priest, John F. 1980. “Canon and Criticism: A Review Article,” JAAR, vol. 48:.2. 259–271. Provan, Iain W. 1995. “Ideologies, Literary and Critical: Reflections on Recent Writing On the

Bibliography 287 History of Israel,” JBL, vol. 114:4. 585–606. ———. 1997. “Canons to the Left of Him: Brevard Childs, His Critics, and the Future of Old Testament Theology,” SJT, vol. 50:1. 1–38. ———. 1998. “The Historical Books of the Old Testaments” in Biblical Interpretation, ed. by John Barton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 198–211. Provan, Iain & Long, V. Philips; & Longman, Tremper. 2003. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville: Westminster. Rad, Gerhard von. 1962. Old Testament Theology, vol.1. San Francisco: Harper & Row. ———. 1965. Old Testament Theology, vol.2. San Francisco: Harper & Row. ———. 1972. Genesis: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster. Radner Ephraim & Sumner George (eds.). 1998. The Rule of Faith: Scripture, Canon, and Creed in a Critical Age. Harrisburg: Morehouse Publishing. Ramm, Bernard. 1970. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker. Ratzinger, Cardinal Joseph (Pope Benedict XVI). 2007. Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Doubleday. ———. 2008. “Biblical Interpretation in Conflict: On the Foundations and the Itinerary of Exegesis Today” in Opening Up the Scriptures. 1–29. ———. 2008. “Exegesis and the Magisterium of the Church” in Opening Up the Scriptures. 126– 136. Rendtorff, Rolf. 1985. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM. ———. 1997. “Approaches to Old Testament Theology” in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim, ed. by Sun H.T.C., Eades K. L. et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 13– 26. ———. 2005. The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament. Leiden: Deo Publishing. Reno, Russell R. 2004. “Biblical Theology and Theological Exegesis” in Out of Egypt. 385–404. Reventlow, Henning G. 1986. Problems of Biblical Theology in the 20th Century. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM. Ritschl, Albrecht. 2004. The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers. Roberts, Jimmy Jack M. 1995. “Historical-Critical Method, Theology, and Contemporary Exegesis” in Biblical Theology: Problems and Perspectives in Honor of J. Christiaan Beker. S. Kraftchick et al. Nashville: Abingdon Press. 131–141. Rogerson, John William. 1990. “Myth” in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, ed. by Richard J. Coggins and James L. Houlden. London: SCM. 479–480. Runia, Klaas. 1962. Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Holy Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ruokanen, Miikka. 1985. Doctrina Divinitus Inspirata Martin Luther’s Position in the Ecumenical Problem of Biblical Inspiration. Helsinki: Luther-Agricola Society. Räisänen, Heikki. 2000. Beyond New Testament Theology: A Story and a Program. 2nd edition. London: SCM. Sanders, James A. 1972. Torah and Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress. ———. 1975. “Torah and Christ,” Interpretation, vol. 29. 372–390. ———. 1976. “Review of Childs’ Exodus: A Critical Commentary,” JBL, vol. 95. 286–290.

288 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context ———. 1980. “Canonical Context and Canonical Criticism,” HBT 2. 173–197. ———. 1984. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Philadelphia: Fortress. ———. 1997. “The Task of Text Criticism” in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim. 315–327. ———. 2004. “The Issue of Closure in the Canonical Process” in The Canon Debate. 252–263. Scalise, Charles J. 1989. “The sensus literalis: A Hermeneutical Key to Biblical Exegesis,” SJT, vol. 42. 45–65. ———. 1994a. Hermeneutics as Theological Prolegomena: A Canonical Approach. SABH, vol.8. Macon: Mercer University Press. ———. 1994b. “Canonical Hermeneutics: Childs and Barth,” SJT, vol. 47:1. 61–88. ———. 1996. From Scripture to Theology: A Canonical Journey into Hermeneutics. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Schneemelcher, W. & Hennecke, E.(eds.). 1990. New Testament Apocrypha. Louisville: Westminster. Schniedewind, William M. 2004. How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schultz, Richard. 2002. “What is ‘Canonical’ About a Canonical Biblical Theology?: Genesis as a Case Study of Recent OT Proposals” in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect. 83–99. Scobie, Charles H.H. 1992. “New Directions in Biblical Theology,” Themelios, vol.17:2. 4–8. ———. 2003. The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seitz, Christopher & Greene-McCreight, Kathryn (eds.). 1999. Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs. Grand Rapids & Cambridge: Eerdmans. Seitz, Christopher R. 2006. “The Canonical Approach and Theological Interpretation” in Canon and Biblical Interpretation. 58–110. Sheppard, Gerald T. 1982. “Canonization: Hearing the Voice of the Same God through Historically Dissimilar Traditions,” Interpretation, vol. 37. 21–33. ———. 1987. “Canon” in The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol.3, ed. by Mircea Eliade. New York: Macmillan. 62–69. ———. 1991. “How Do Neo-orthodox and Post-neo-orthodox Theologians Approach the ‘Doing of Theology’ Today?” in Doing Theology in Today’s World. 437– 462. Simonetti, Manlio. 1994. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: An Historical Introduction to Patristic Exegesis. Translated by John Hughes. Edinburgh: T&TClark. Smend, Rudolf. 1980. “Questions about the Importance of the Canon in the Old Testament Introduction,” JSOT, vol. 16. 45–51. Smith, D. Moody. 1986. “Why Interpreting the NT as Canon Matters?” Interpretation, vol. 40. 407–411. Stendahl, Krister. 1984a. “The Bible as a Classic and the Bible as Holy Scripture,” JBL, vol. 103. 3–10. ———. 1984b. Meanings: The Bible as Document and as Guide. Philadelphia: Fortress. Stock, Klemens. 2008. “Christ in Contemporary Exegesis: Where We are and Where We are Going” in Opening Up the Scriptures. 87–103.

Bibliography 289 Stuhlmacher, Peter. 1977. Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress. ———. 1995. How To Do Biblical Theology. PTMS, vol. 38. Eugene: Pickwick Publications. Sumner, George R. & Radner, Ephraim. 1998. “Introduction” in The Rule of Faith: Scripture, Canon and Creed In a Critical Age. vii-xxii. Sun, Henry T.C.& Eades, Keith L. et al. 1997. Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Sundberg, Albert C. 1968. “The Old Testament: A Christian Canon,” CBQ, vol. 30. 143–155. ———. 2004. “The Septuagint: The Bible of Hellenistic Judaism” in The Canon Debate. 68–90. Sykes, Stanley W. (ed.). 1979. Karl Barth: Studies of His Theological Method. Oxford: Clarendon. Sykes, Stanley W. 1979. “Barth on the Centre of Theology” in Karl Barth: Studies of his Theological Method. 17–54. Teilhard, de Chardin Pierre. 1965. The Man and His Meaning. New York: Harper and Row. Thiselton, Anthony C. 1980. The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description with Special Reference to Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer, and Wittgenstein. Carlisle: Paternoster & Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 1992. New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ———. 1997. “Biblical Theology and Hermeneutics” in The Modern Theologians: An Introduction to Christian Theology in the Twentieth Century, ed. by David Ford. Oxford: Blackwell. 520–537. ———. 2006. “Introduction: Canon, Community, and Theological Construction” in Canon and Biblical Interpretation. 1–32. ———. 2007. The Hermeneutics of Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Tillich, Paul. 1955. The New Being. New York: Scribner. ———. 1967. Systematic Theology: Three Volumes in One. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Torrance, Thomas Forsyth. 1969. Theological Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 1971. God and Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 1988. The Trinitarian Faith. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Tov, Emanuel. 2004. “The Status of the Masoretic Text in Modern Text Editions of the Hebrew Bible: the Relevance of Canon” in The Canon Debate. 234–251. Trebolle Barrera J. C. 2004. “Origins of a Tripartite OT Canon” in The Canon Debate. 128–145. Tucker, Gene M. & Petersen, David L. & Wilson, Robert A. 1988. Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs. Philadelphia: Fortress. Turner, Philip. 1999. “Review to The Rule of Faith: Scripture, Canon and Creed in a Critical Age,” ATR, vol. 8:1. 711–713. Ulrich, Eugene. 2004. “The Notion and Definition of Canon” in The Canon Debate. 21–35. Vanderkam, James C. 2004. “Questions of Canon Viewed Through the Dead Sea Scrolls” in The Canon Debate. 91–109. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. 1991. “Christ and Concept: Doing Theology and the ‘Ministry’ of Philosophy” in Doing Theology in Today’s World. 99–146. ———. 1998. Is There A Meaning in This Text? Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ———. 2002. First Theology. Leicester: Apollos.

290 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context ———. 2005. The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology. Louisville: Westminster. ———. 2006. “Discourse on Matter: Hermeneutics and the ‘Miracle’ of Understanding” in Hermeneutics at the Crossroads. 3–15. ———. 2007. “Transcending Boundaries in Philosophy and Theology” in Transcending Boundaries in Philosophical and Theology: Reason, Meaning, and Experience. 15–30. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. & Smith, James K. & Benson, Bruce E.(eds.). 2006. Hermeneutics at the Crossroads. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. & Warner, Martin (eds.). 2007. Transcending Boundaries in Philosophy and Theology: Reason, Meaning, and Experience. Hampshire: Ashgate. Vanhoye, Albert Cardinal. 2008. “The Reception in the Church of the Dogmatic Constitution ‘Dei Verbum’” in Opening Up the Scriptures. 104–125. Vawter, Bruce. 1972. Biblical Inspiration. London: Hutchinson. Vidu, Adonis. 2005. Postliberal Theological Method: A Critical Study. Cumbria: Paternoster. Wall, Robert W. 2004. “The Significance of a Canonical Perspective of the Church’s Scripture” in The Canon Debate. 528–540. Wallace, Mark I. 1990. The Second Naiveté: Barth, Ricoeur, and the New Yale Theology. SABH, vol. 6. Macon: Mercer University Press. Ward, Timothy. 2002. Word and Supplement: Speech Acts, Biblical Texts, and the Sufficiency of Scripture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Warner, Martin. 2007. “Once More Into the Border Lands: The Way of Wisdom in Philosophy and Theology after the ‘Turn to Drama’” in Transcending Boundaries in Philosophical and Theology: Reason, Meaning, and Experience. 31–53. Webster, John. 2003. Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. White, Leland J. 1981. “Biblical Theologians and Theologies of Liberation Part I: CanonSupporting Framework,” BTB, vol. 11:2. 35–40. Whybray, R. Norman. 1981. “Reflection on Canonical Criticism,” Theology, vol. 84. 29–35. Williams, David M. 2004. Receiving The Bible in Faith: Historical and Theological Exegesis. Washington D. C: The Catholic University of America Press. ———. 2004. “Brevard Childs” in Receiving The Bible in Faith: Historical and Theological Exegesis. 79–106. Willson, Gerald H. 2002. “Psalms and Psalter: Paradigm for Biblical Theology” in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect. 100–110. Witherington, Ben. 2003. “Contemporary Perspectives on Paul” in The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul, ed. by James D. G. Dunn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 256–269. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 1995. Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2004. “The Unity Behind the Canon” in One Scripture or Many? Canon from Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives. 217–232. Woodbridge, John. D. & McComiskey, Thomas E. (eds.). 1991. Doing Theology in Today’s World: Essays in Honor of Kenneth S. Kantzer. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Bibliography 291 Internet Brown, Frank. “Brevard S. Childs, an Iconic Figure in Biblical Scholarship, Dies at 83” in Yale Divinity School-News. http://www.yale.edu/divinity/news/070625_news_childs.shtml. 17/09/2007. Dei Verbum. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html (1965). 30/10/2008. Everson, A. Joseph. “Review to Childs’ Commentary on Isaiah,” http://fontes.lstc.edu/ ~rklein/Doctwo/everson.pdf. 6/11/2007. Hasel, Gerhard F. “Biblical Theology Movement” http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/bibtheol.htm. 7/08/2006. Hoffman, Mark G. V. 2004. “A Brief Survey of Ancient Jewish Literature: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Other Jewish and Rabbinic Texts,” printed out on the 19th November 2008 in http://www.gettysburgseminary.org/mhoffman/OTinNT/resources/JewishLit2.pdf The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. Document of Pontifical Biblical Commission (1994). http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER:HTM. 13/09/2007. Osborne, Grant R. “New Testament Theology” http://mb-soft.com/believe/txw/newtheo.htm. 7/08/2006 Williamson, Hugh Godfrey M. “Isaiah” http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3664/ is_200204/ai_n9070253. 3/10/2007.

INDEX A Abraham, 88 academic developmental stages (Childs’s) canonical approach. see canonical approach, establishing exegesis and theology. see exegesis and theology, bridging historical-critical method. see historicalcritical method, dissatisfaction with overview of, 17–18 summary remarks, 54–57 academic pluralism, 7–8 adaptability of canon, 162–163 allegorical interpretation, 122–128 American biblical theology BTM. see Biblical Theology Movement (BTM) Childs’s analysis of, 28–31 conservative vs. liberal, 260 neo-orthodoxy of, 173–174 American culture and faith, 84–85 Anderson, Bernhard W., 75, 258 anthropology, 217–219 anti-historicism, 166 Apocrypha significance in canon, 67–68 taking seriously, 108 apostolicity biblical purpose and, 171–172 criterion of, 81–84 discontinuity between OT and NT, 104 as foundation of canonical viewpoint, 109 of Isaiah 53, 204–205 Jesus Christ as res of Bible, 201 Aquinas, Thomas, 247 archeology, 145–146 Aristotle, 247 Augustine, 247 Austin, John L., 52 authenticity, historical, 119–120 authority of canon context and, 94–95

final form, 71–79 rule of faith and intentionality, 80–84 theories of biblical inspiration, 174–179 understanding God and, 167–169 as word of God, 169–174 authorship Bible as Scripture vs. Bible as culture, 115– 118 Bible’s theological importance vs. historical authenticity, 119–120 biblical inspiration, 174–179 Jesus Christ as res of NT, 201–202 of Pentateuch, 150 theological intentions, 186

B Barr, James on Barth and Childs, 227–228 on biblical theology, 187, 253–254 on canonical approach, 41, 92 on “canonical criticism”, 153, 156 on canonical final form, 78 on canonical wholeness, 96 on Childs’s biblical theology, 223 on Childs’s dependency on historical criticism, 144 on Childs’s redaction criticism, 157–158 on conservatism of Childs, 263–264 as critic of Childs, 9–10 defining canon, 64–65 defining revelation, 245 on historical criticism and theology, 138 on IOTS, 43–44 on Scripture vs. canon, 59 on sensus originalis vs. sensus literalis, 120– 121 on united biblical theology, 194 barrenness in theology, 135–139 Barth, Karl canonical final form, 78–79 in history of biblical theology, 191 middle position of, 265

294 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context as non-liberal theologian, 261 as post-critical theologian, 256, 258–260 Scripture as witness, 118 theology of word of God, 169–170, 173 view of biblical inspiration, 175 Barth, Karl (and Childs) doctrine of Scripture, 229–233 overview, 225–226 student-master relationship, 226–229 summary remarks, 266–267 view of historical criticism, 234–236 Bartholomew, Craig, 194 Barton, John biblical structuralism, 132 on biblical theology, 253–254 on Childs’s dependency on historical criticism, 144 on Childs’s redaction criticism, 157–158 as critic of Childs, 10 ethics interpretations, 245 on historical criticism and theology, 138 on rule of faith, 91 Bauer, Georg Lorenz, 191 Being, 247 Bible Barth’s doctrine of Scripture, 229–233 continuity of Testaments, 98–103 Jewish canon and Christian OT, 66–71 loss of itself, 167–169 as Scripture vs. as culture, 115–118 theological importance vs. historical authenticity, 119–120 as word of God, 169–174 biblical archeology, 145–146 biblical hermeneutics Barth’s doctrine of Scripture, 229–233 Barth’s view of historical criticism and, 235 canonical context, 61, 93–95 Catholic participation in, 243–244 Childs’s articles in 1950s on, 19 in German scholarship, 47–48 inadequacies. see hermeneutical inadequacies pre-critical or post-critical?, 256–260 secularization of, 86 speech-act theory and, 53 biblical interpretation diachronic vs. synchronic, 128–131 pastoral inadequacy of historical criticism, 139–141 reducing theology to sociology and philosophy, 244–249

sensus literalis vs. sensus originalis, 120–128 theological inadequacy of historical criticism, 133–135 through reflection, 188–190 biblical methodology, 43–44 biblical narrative Childs’s criticism of theology, 168–169 continuity of Pentateuch, 150–152 discontinuity between OT and NT, 105 modern historical knowledge and interpretation, 37–38 biblical theology Brett encouraging academic pluralism in, 7–8 canonical context for, 93–95 canonical final form, 71–79 Childs bridging exegesis and. see exegesis and theology, bridging Childs’s analysis of BTM, 28–31 Childs’s articles in 1950s on, 19 Christological nature of, 198–200 in comprehensive model, 194–197 in context of faith, 25–28 fides quae and fides qua, 88–92 forum for methodological dialogue, 236– 239 gap between dogmatic theology and, 180– 183 inadequacies of historical criticism, 111– 113 inheritance of Jewish canon, 69 issues of modern Christian, 2 of OT and NT, 45–47 outstanding influence of Childs in, 1–2 post-critical orientation, 251–255 pre-critical or post-critical?, 256–260 reclaiming regula fidei in secularized age, 84–88 redefinition of, 183–185 Sanders’s vs. Childs’s, 159–164 summary remarks, 222–224 Theocentrism vs. Christocentrism, 219– 222 united, 190–194 Biblical Theology in Crisis (Childs) barrenness in theology, 135 biblical inspiration, 177 continuity of Testaments, 99–100 correlation between exegesis and theology, 180 descriptive and constructive tasks of biblical theology, 188

Index 295 establishment of canonical approach, 28– 31 importance of Christology, 200 inadequacies of historical criticism, 112– 113 influence of Barth in, 235 legitimacy of historical criticism, 143 rejection of “canonical criticism”, 155 representing Childs’s work, 13 theological inadequacy of historical criticism, 133 Biblical Theology Movement (BTM) biblical theology vs. dogmatic theology, 183 Childs’s analysis of, 28–31 Childs’s rejection of, 184–185 dilemma of, 265 historical criticism and, 112 rule of faith and, 85 theology of word of God, 173–174 Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Childs) Barth in, 227 Childs’s use of redaction criticism, 159 Christocentrism of, 219 comprehensive model in, 195–196 correlation between exegesis and theology, 180 ecumenical dialogue, 239 historical-critical method as tool, 145 importance of Christology, 200 as magnum opus of Childs’s career, 13–14 overview of, 45–47 reducing theology to sociology, 245 rejection of “canonical criticism”, 156 Scalise not investigating, 4 theological ambition of, 254–255 typological exegesis in, 126 united biblical theology, 194 Brett, Mark analysis of Childs’s work, 7–8 on biblical theology and dogmatic theology, 181 on canonical approach, 77 Childs’s approach as one among many, 251 concluding remarks on, 273 Brueggemann, Walter on canonical approach, 92 Childs’s review of, 50 as critic of Childs’s canonical theology, 10 Brunner, Emil, 213–214

BTC. see Biblical Theology in Crisis (Childs) BTM. see Biblical Theology Movement (BTM) BTONT. see Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Childs) Bultmann, Rudolf, 191, 247

C “A Call to Canonical Criticism” (Childs), 160 Calvin, John in Childs’s canonical approach, 225 definition of sensus literalis, 122 rejection of allegorical interpretations, 125 canon continuity of Pentateuch, 150–152 defined, 57–66 Jewish, 66–71 theories of biblical inspiration, 174–179 canonical approach Barth’s influence on Childs, 227–229 Bible as Scripture vs. Bible as culture, 116– 117 Bible as word of God, 171 biblical or theological?, 251–255 vs. “canonical criticism”, 153 canonical final form, 71–79 Childs’s move to, 54–55 concluding remarks, 269–274 context for biblical interpretation, 27–28, 93–95 descriptive and constructive tasks, 186–190 fides quae and fides qua, 88–92 inadequacies of historical criticism and, 113 intentionality and regula fidei, 79–84 Jewish canon and Christian OT, 66–71 OT and NT as discrete voices, 103–107 OT and NT continuity, 98–103 reclaiming regula fidei in secularized age, 84–88 vs. redaction criticism, 157–159 as redefinition of biblical theology, 183– 185 relationship between OT and NT, 97 summary remarks, 107–110 terminology, 57–66 theological distinction of, 156–157 united biblical theology, 190–194 using historical-critical method with, 143– 146

296 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context as way beyond liberalism and conservatism, 265–266 wholeness of, 95–97 canonical approach, establishing attempts, 33–38 books published during this time, 30 with IOTS, 38–45 new turning point, 30–33 canonical criticism vs. canonical approach, 153 Childs’s rejection of, 153–156 of Sanders, 159–164 canonical final form continuity of Pentateuch, 152 literary analysis of, 146 overview of, 71–79 problems with, 271 Sanders’s view of, 163–164 canonical intentionality as basis for canonical approach, 110 biblical structuralism and, 133 division of Isaiah and, 149 overview of, 79–84 terminology, 270 “The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature” (Childs), 37, 155 canonical theological exegesis. see also theological exegesis Childs’s vision for, 2–3 as forum for methodological dialogue, 236–239 historical critics of Childs’s, 9–11 liberal or conservative?, 260–266 participation by Catholic church, 239–244 previous research on Childs’s approach. see Childs, Brevard Springs (previous research on) “The Canon in Recent Biblical Studies: Reflections on an Era” (Childs), 51, 53–54 canonization defining, 58–66 final form, 71–79 problems with, 45 process of, 37 Sanders’s and Childs’s views on, 162–163 Carson, Donald, 92 Catholic church biblical theology vs. dogmatic theology, 182 participation in canonical biblical theology, 239–244, 268 view of biblical inspiration, 174

wider canon of, 66 Chalcedonian principle Barth and, 173, 232 in biblical hermeneutics, 271 Catholic view of, 241 defined, 118 Childs, Brevard Springs academic development. see academic developmental stages (Childs’s) canonical approach. see canonical approach concluding remarks on, 269–274 dissatisfaction with historical-critical method. see historical-critical method, dissatisfaction with Enlightenment and, 113–115 inadequacies of historical criticism. see historical criticism, inadequacies overview of writings, 54–55 Sanders and, 159–164 theological exegesis. see theological exegesis training and studies of, 1 Childs, Brevard Springs (and Barth) Barth’s view of historical criticism, 234– 236 doctrine of Scripture, 229–233 overview, 225–226 student-master relationship, 226–229 Childs, Brevard Springs (previous research on) Charles Scalise, 3–5 G. Michael O’Neal, 8–9 historical critics of, 9–11 Mark Brett, 7–8 Paul Noble, 5–6 Christian church bridging gap between exegesis and theology, 45–47 Childs’s understanding of, 33 forum for methodological dialogue, 239 liberal theology vs. conservative theology, 260–266 as participant in biblical theology, 36 pastoral inadequacy of historical criticism, 139–141 reclaiming regula fidei in secularized age, 87–88 role of Bible in, 167–169 view of biblical inspiration, 174 Christianization of OT discrete voices of two Testaments, 105–107 Jewish canon and, 66–71 Christocentrism of Barth, 232–233

Index 297 of biblical theology, 49 of canonical approach, 97 vs. Theocentrism, 219–222 Christology of Barth, 232–233 Catholic view of, 241 Childs’s concentration on, 198–200, 271 Christocentric trinity, 211–213 Christological connection between creation and redemption, 213–215 Christology and doctrine of human nature, 215–219 Jesus Christ as res of Bible, 200–202 Jesus Christ in OT, 202–209 Jesus of history and Christ of faith, 209– 211 as key to Psalm 8, 188 methodological dialogue and, 239 summary remarks, 223–224 Theocentrism vs. Christocentrism, 219– 222 Collins, John concluding remarks on, 273 as critic of Childs, 10 on historical criticism, 236–237 on neo-orthodoxy, 191–192 community of faith barrenness in theology, 135–139 Bible as Scripture vs. Bible as culture, 116 Bible as word of God, 169–174 bridging exegesis and theology, 68 canonical intentionality and regula fidei, 79–84 Catholic view of, 240–241 inheritance of Jewish canon, 106–107 interpreting fides quae and fides qua, 88–92 Jesus Christ as res of Bible, 201 literal interpretation of Scripture, 122–123 OT as Scripture for, 39 role in canonical approach, 65–66 Sanders’s and Childs’s views on, 160–161 comprehensive model, 195–196 concluding remarks, 269–274 confession canon as, 110 canonical approach as, 61, 269 methodological dialogue and, 237–238 reducing theology to sociology and philosophy, 248 rule of faith and, 80, 91 conservative theology forum for methodological dialogue, 237

historical criticism and, 112 vs. liberal theology, 260–266 middle position, 267 neo-orthodoxy as reaction to, 173 theory of verbal inspiration, 174, 176–178 view of Isaiah 53, 204 context of canonical approach defined, 93–95, 108–109 discontinuity between OT and NT, 105 wholeness of canon, 95–97 continuity of canonical process, 58, 69–71 continuity of Testaments Childs’s view of, 98–103 Christological connection between creation and, 213–215 Council of Chalcedon, 118 critical biblical hermeneutics, 256–260 criticism canonical. see canonical criticism of historical-critical method. see historical criticism, inadequacies redaction. see redaction criticism critics of Childs, 9–11 “Critique of Recent Intertextual Canonical Interpretation” (Childs), 51 crucifixion, 232 culture Bible as Scripture vs. Bible as, 115–118 faith and American, 84–85 myth and, 22 reducing theology to sociology, 244–246 sociological and philosophical context, 249–251 understanding God and, 167–168

D David, Psalms, 32 death of Moses, 152 descriptive task in biblical theology, 270–271 in biblical theology vs. dogmatic theology, 181 historical criticism as, 133 as role of historical criticism, 142–143 of theological exegesis, 186–190 Deuteronomy, book of, 151–152 diachronic interpretation of Isaiah, 147–150 Sanders’s view of, 164 vs. synchronic interpretation, 128–131

298 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context dialectics interpretation in faith, 26–27 relationship between OT and NT, 104– 107 dialogue on methodology, 236–239 A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, 153 discontinuity, between Christian Bible and Hebrew Scripture, 70–71, 103–107 discourse, 52–53 discrete voices of two Testaments Christianization of OT, 208 defined, 103–107 Theocentrism vs. Christocentrism, 220– 221 divinely inspired doctrine, 174–179 doctrine of human nature, 215–219 doctrine of Scripture, 229–233 “Does the OT Witness to Jesus Christ?” (Childs), 48–49 dogmatic theology Childs’s canonical approach vs., 270 Christology and, 198–200 in comprehensive model, 194–197 correlation between exegesis and theology, 179–180 forum for methodological dialogue, 236– 239 gap between biblical theology and, 180– 183 summary remarks, 222–223 united biblical theology and, 190–194 Downing, Gerald, 245 Duhm, Bernhard, 147

E Ebeling, Gerhard, 184, 192 ecumenical dialogue, 239 Elijah, 37–38 Enlightenment, 89, 113–115 Epistle to the Romans (Barth), 230, 235 ethics interpretations, 245–246 evangelism of Gospels, 106 exegesis, typological, 125–127 exegesis and theology. see theological exegesis exegesis and theology, bridging biblical theology of OT and NT, 45–47 with canonical approach, 68 contributions to twenty-first century, 50– 54 correlations, 179–180 methodological remarks, 47–50

reclaiming regula fidei in secularized age, 85–86 “The Exegetical Significance of Canon for the Study of the Old Testament” (Childs), 37 Exodus, book of, 151–152 Exodus: A Commentary (Childs) attempt at canonical approach, 33–35 Christ in OT, 205 synchronic and diachronic interpretation in, 130

F faith. see also rule of faith Bible’s historical authenticity and, 119– 120 biblical inspiration and, 174–179 in biblical theology, 36 in canonical approach, 34 canonical intentionality and, 79–84 in Christian church, 33 Christianization of OT and, 208 Christ of, 209–211 descriptive and constructive tasks of biblical theology, 188 historical criticism’s dismissal of, 134 interpreting fides quae and fides qua, 88–92 Jesus Christ as res of Bible and, 200–202 methodological dialogue and, 237 philosophy and, 248 reading the Testaments and, 102–103 reclaiming in secularized age, 84–88 reconciling with rationalism, 264–265 Theocentrism vs. Christocentrism, 219– 222 understanding God, 167–169 Father as Creator and redeemer, 213–215 Holy Trinity, 211–213 feminist theology, 246 fides quae and fides qua, 88–92 final form, canonical. see canonical final form five books of the Pentateuch, 150–152 forgiveness, 216–217 forms of canon, 64–65 Frei, Hans W., 168–169

G Gabler, Johann P., 180–181 Genesis, book of connection with Paul, 213–214

Index 299 continuity of Pentateuch, 150–152 “The Genre of the Biblical Commentary as Problem and Challenge” (Childs), 49 German Old Testament scholarship, 47–48 God continuity of in Testaments, 100–101 as Creator and redeemer, 213–215 identity as Holy Trinity, 211–213 as speaker, 52 Theocentrism vs. Christocentrism, 219– 222 theories of biblical inspiration, 174–179 Tillich’s view of, 247 understanding, 167–169 “The God of Israel and the Church” (Childs), 100 Gospels Christological connection between creation and, 215 as historical framework for Christology, 210 humanity of Jesus in, 216–217 NT as discrete voice, 106 usage of OT in NT, 100–101 Gottwald, Norman, 245 Granados, José, 244 Greek Old Testament, 61–62, 107–108

H Habakkuk, book of, 8–9 Hauerwas, Stanley, 245 Hebrew Bible Christian OT and, 66–71 as Christian scripture, 38–45 development of canon, 57–66 Masoretic text, 60–61 Heilsgeschichte (history of salvation), 21, 136 hermeneutical inadequacies Bible as Scripture vs. Bible as culture, 115– 118 Bible’s theological importance vs. historical authenticity, 119–120 Childs and Enlightenment, 113–115 overview of, 111–113 sensus literalis vs. sensus originalis, 120–128 structuralism, 131–133 synchronic interpretation vs. diachronic interpretation, 128–131 hermeneutics Barth’s, 228–229 of canonical final form, 73, 76–77

Childs’s reorientation of, 54 Childs’s view of Sanders’s, 164 in German OT scholarship, 47–48 interpretation in faith, 26–27 interpreting biblical narrative and modern historical knowledge, 37–38 reading the Testaments in light of each other, 102 Sanders’s, 159–160 Tillich’s, 247 historical-critical method, dissatisfaction with attempt at canonical approach, 31–38 in Biblical Theology in Crisis, 28–31 canonical final form and, 76–77 concluding remarks, 269–274 establishment of canonical approach, 38– 45 “Interpretation in Faith”, 24–28 overview of, 19–20 reclaiming regula fidei in secularized age, 85 historical criticism achievements of, 147–152 Barth’s view of, 234–236 “canonical approach” vs. “canonical criticism”, 153 Catholic view of, 242–243 Childs and Sanders, 159–164 in comprehensive model, 194–196 difference from redaction criticism, 157– 159 influence on biblical theology, 48 legitimacy of, 141–143 as liberal, 260–261 methodological dialogue and, 236–239 rejection of “canonical criticism”, 153–156 as secondary tool, 143–146 summary remarks, 165–166 theological distinction, 156–157 historical criticism, inadequacies Bible as Scripture vs. Bible as culture, 115– 118 Bible’s theological importance vs. historical authenticity, 119–120 Childs and Enlightenment, 113–115 inability and barrenness in theology, 135– 139 missing theological direction, 133–135 overview of, 111–113 pastoral inadequacy, 139–141 sensus literalis vs. sensus originalis, 120–128 structuralism, 131–133

300 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context synchronic interpretation vs. diachronic interpretation, 128–131 history Bible’s theological importance vs. historical authenticity, 119–120 of biblical hermeneutics, 256 of canon, 59–61 in “canonical criticism”, 154–155 continuity of Testaments, 99–100 determining biblical origins, 143 development of Old Testament, 42 forms of canon, 64–65 of gap between biblical theology and dogmatic theology, 180–183 Jesus of, 209–211 rejection of allegorical interpretations, 124 Sanders’s and Childs’s views on, 160–161 theory of verbal inspiration, 176–177 uncertainty of canonical final form, 75–79 of united biblical theology, 190–191 history-of-religions approach, 136 Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Barr), 10, 74, 258 Holy Spirit, 176, 213, 231 Holy Trinity Barth’s view of, 232–233 Christocentric, 211–213 theories of biblical inspiration, 176 House, Paul R., 251 human discourse, 53 human existence of Jesus, 207 humanism biblical interpretation, 49 Christology and, 215–219 of fides quae and fides qua, 89 reducing theology to philosophy, 246–249

“Interpreting the Bible amid Cultural Change” (Childs), 49 Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Childs) Bible as word of God, 171 canonical final form, 74–76 establishing canonical approach, 38–45 rejection of canonical criticism, 155 theological inadequacy of historical criticism, 133 IOTS. see Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Childs) Irenaeus, 81 irrationality, 89–90 Isaiah, book of achievements of historical criticism, 147– 150 Childs’s interpretation of, 9 Childs’s understanding and interpretation, 50–51 Christianization of, 208–209 Christ in OT, 203–205 synchronic and diachronic interpretation of, 130–131 typological exegesis, 127 usage of in NT, 100–101 Isaiah: A Commentary (Childs), 50–51 representing Childs’s work, 13 synchronic and diachronic interpretation in, 130 unity of Isaiah, 149 Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (Childs), 20, 24 Israel Hebrew canon as Christian scripture, 41 as historical context of Hebrew canon, 70 historical experience of, 22–23 interpreting Passover, 205–206

I IAC. see Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (Childs) ideology, 270 inability in theology, 135–139 incarnation of Christ, 215–217 infallibility of Bible, 174–177, 182 inheritance of Jewish canon, 66–71, 106–107 inspiration, biblical, 174–179 “Interpretation in Faith” (Childs) analysis of, 24–28 continuity of Testaments, 102 legitimacy of historical criticism, 143 reclaiming regula fidei in secularized age, 87 rejection of typological exegesis, 126–127

J Jenson, Robert W., 141 Jerome, 66 Jesus Christ. see also Christology canon as witness, 81 in Christocentric trinity, 211–213 historical and faith-based, 209–211 New Israel and, 23 in OT, 202–209 OT as witness of, 48–49 as res of Bible, 200–202 as subject of Bible, 169

Index 301 Theocentrism vs. Christocentrism, 219– 222 typological exegesis, 127 “Jesus Christ the Lord and the Scripture of the Church” (Childs), 49 Jewish Scripture. see also Hebrew Bible Christian canon and, 38–45 Christian OT and, 66–71 Jewish theology, 220–222, 271 John connection with Genesis, 213–214 humanity of Jesus in, 217 pre-existence of Christ in, 210–211 “Jonah: A Study in Old Testament Hermeneutics” (Childs) Bible as word of God, 170–171 canonical intentionality and regula fidei, 80 on dissatisfaction with historical-critical method, 19–20 inadequacies of historical criticism, 113 theological inadequacy of historical criticism, 134 Joshua, book of, 152 Judaism, 220–222, 239

literary analysis biblical or theological, 253 Childs’s criticism of, 51, 168–169 redaction criticism as, 157–159 as tool, 146 literature ambiguity of, 132 Bible as, 91–92, 115–118 development of canon and, 58 interpreting fides quae and fides qua, 90 living God biblical inspiration, 174–179 identity as Holy Trinity, 211–213 understanding, 167–169 Louth, 125 Luke, 211 Luther, Martin on biblical inspiration, 174 definition of sensus literalis, 122 historical criticism and theology, 138 on Passover, 205 rejection of allegorical interpretations, 124, 125

M K Kant, Immanuel, 246–247 “Karl Barth as Interpreter of Scripture” (Childs), 226, 235 Keck, Leander, 245 Kelsey, David, 245 kerygmatic witness, 201, 204–205 knowledge and faith, 90, 248

L legitimacy of historical criticism, 141–143 Levenson, John D., 237 Leviticus, book of, 151–152 liberal theology Barth’s break with, 234 vs. conservative theology, 260–266 forum for methodological dialogue, 237 historical criticism and, 112 neo-orthodoxy as reaction to, 173 view of Isaiah 53, 204 Lindbeck, George A. on Childs’s idea of canon, 39–40 cultural-linguistic approach, 168 religion and community, 33 literal meaning vs. original meaning, 120–128

Mark, 211 Masoretic text, 40–41, 59–61, 63 Matthew, 211 McCormack, Bruce, 228–229 McDonald, Lee Martin on canonical approach, 92 canonical criteria, 84 discovery at Qumran, 108 McGlasson, Paul C., 176, 225 McKeating, Henry, 245 Mead, James K., 194 meaning original vs. theological, 36 sensus literalis vs. sensus originalis, 120–128 theological, 134 Meeks, Wayne, 245 Memory and Tradition in Israel (Childs), 20, 23–24 methodology in Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, 45–47 biblical vs. theological, 43–44 bridging gap between exegesis and theology, 47–50 canonical approach as, 30–31 distinction of canonical approach, 156–157

302 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context in Exodus: A Commentary, 34–35 forum for dialogue, 236–239 interpreting biblical narrative, 37–38 participation by Catholic church, 239–244 reducing theology to sociology and philosophy, 244–249 Sanders’s vs. Childs’s, 160–164 sociological and philosophical help, 249– 251 “Symposium on Biblical Criticism”, 36 typological exegesis, 126–128 middle position, 262–266 Moberly, W.L., 254 modernity canonical context and, 94–95 interpreting biblical narrative with historical knowledge, 37–38 reclaiming regula fidei in secularized age, 84–88 Moltmann, Jürgen, 246 Moses, 150, 152 MROT. see Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (Childs) MTI. see Memory and Tradition in Israel (Childs) muteness, theological, 133, 138 myth, 21–24, 134 Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (Childs), 19–24

N narrative, biblical. see biblical narrative natural theology, 234 “The Nature of the Christian Bible: One Book, Two Testaments” (Childs), 49 neo-orthodoxy Barth and, 229 Christocentrism of, 233 Collins on, 191 influence on Childs, 269 post-critical theology, 258 theology of word of God, 173–174 New Israel, 23 New Testament allegorical and typological interpretations, 124–128 biblical theology of, 45–47 canonical context of, 93–95 Christ in OT, 203–209 Christocentric trinity in, 211–213 Christological connection between creation

and, 213–215 continuity with OT, 98–103 creation of canon, 62–64 as discrete voice, 103–107 inheritance of Jewish canon, 69 interpretation in faith, 25–28 Jesus Christ as res of Bible, 200–202 methodological remarks, 47–50 in Myth and Reality in the Old Testament, 22–23 New Testament as Canon: An Introduction, 44 relationship between OT and, 97 Theocentrism vs. Christocentrism, 219– 222 united biblical theology, 190–194 New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (Childs) establishment of canonical approach, 44 legitimacy of historical criticism, 143 post-critical theology, 258 representing Childs’s work, 13 Noble, Paul analysis of Childs’s work, 5–6 on biblical inspiration, 177 on canonical approach, 42 on canonical wholeness, 96–97 concluding remarks on, 273 on “Interpretation in Faith”, 27 on IOTS, 43 on Memory and Tradition in Israel, 24 sensus literalis vs. sensus originalis, 121–122 normative quality of biblical tradition, 94 NT. see New Testament NTCI. see New Testament As Canon: An Introduction (Childs) Numbers, book of, 151–152

O Old Testament achievements of historical criticism, 147– 152 allegorical and typological interpretations, 124–128 biblical theology of, 45–47 canonical context of, 93–95 Childs’s reorientation of hermeneutics, 54 Christocentric trinity in, 211–213 Christological connection between creation and, 213–215 continuity with NT, 98–103

Index 303 creation of canon, 59–62 as discrete voice, 103–107 as foundation for Judaism and Christianity, 71 interpretation in faith, 25–28 Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 38–45 Jesus Christ as res of Bible, 200–202 Jewish canon and Christian, 66–71 methodological remarks, 47–50 Myth and Reality in the Old Testament, 20– 24 relationship between NT and, 97 Theocentrism vs. Christocentrism, 219– 222 understanding as Scripture, 38–45 united biblical theology, 190–194 using as resource for Christian ministry, 36–37 as word of God, 171 Old Testament Books for Pastor and Teacher (Childs), 36–37 Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (Childs) Barth in, 227 biblical structuralism, 132 establishment of canonical approach, 44 faith and reason, 90 Theocentrism of, 219 O’Neal, G. Michael analysis of Childs’s work, 8–9 book of Isaiah and, 9 on canonical final form, 79 on Childs’s canonical approach, 63 on IOTS, 43 on Masoretic text, 41 “The One Gospel in Four Witnesses” (Childs), 49 “On Reading the Elijah Narratives” (Childs), 37–38 “On Reclaiming the Bible for Christian Theology” (Childs), 48 ontological relationship between two Testaments, 126–128, 242 original vs. literal meaning, 120–128 Orthodox church, 174 OT. see Old Testament “The OT as Scripture of the Church” (Childs), 32 “OT in Germany 1920–1940: A Search for a New Theological Paradigm” (Childs), 47–48

OTTCC. see Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (Childs)

P passion of Christ in Gospels, 210–211 in Isaiah 53, 203–205 redemption and, 215 Passover, 205–206, 208–209 pastoral inadequacy of historical criticism, 139–141 pastoral use of Old Testament, 36–37 Paul, 88, 230–231 Pentateuch, 150–152 philosophy Childs and Enlightenment, 113–115 faith and reason, 90–91 help from, 249–251 reduction of theology to, 244–249 speech-act theory, 51–53 structuralism, 131–133 vs. theological anthropology, 217–218 Plato, 247 Pope Benedict XVI, 239, 242–243 post-critical theology biblical inspiration, 178–179 biblical or theological, 251–255 liberal or conservative, 260–266 pre-critical or post-critical, 256–260 summary remarks, 267–268 Poythress, Vern, 131 practical needs of church, 139–141 preaching, 139–141, 171–172 pre-critical theology, 256–260 Priest, John F., 157–158 prophecy biblical purpose and, 171–172 Childs on, 48 history and, 128 in Isaiah 53, 203–205 OT as, 103 “Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of Contemporary Hermeneutics” (Childs) continuity of Testaments, 99 on methodological problems of biblical theology, 19 reading the Testaments in light of each other, 103 typological interpretation, 126

304 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context Protestant church biblical theology vs. dogmatic theology, 182 Christocentrism of, 222 conservatism of, 262 emphasis on literal meaning, 120 foundation of canonical viewpoint, 109 narrow canon of, 66–68 orthodoxy in Childs’s method, 194–195 view of biblical inspiration, 176–178 Psalm 8 Christianization of, 208–209 Christ in OT, 206–207 reflective interpretation, 188 usage of in NT, 101 “Psalm 8 in the Context of the Christian Canon” (Childs), 27–28, 188 Psalms Psalm 102, 158–159 Psalm 110, 207–208 usage of in NT, 100–101 as word of God, 171 “Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis” (Childs), 32

Q Qumran, 108

R Radner, Ephraim, 49 rationalism biblical theology vs. dogmatic theology, 180, 182–183 Childs and Enlightenment, 113–115 interpreting fides quae and fides qua, 89 reconciling with faith, 264–265 reducing theology to philosophy, 246–247 reason and faith, 89–91 redaction criticism vs. canonical approach, 157–159 in canonical criticism, 153, 154 division of Isaiah and, 148–149 redemption Christological connection between creation and, 213–215 in Memory and Tradition in Israel, 23–24 Passover and, 205–206 reductionism Childs on, 209 Childs’s fear of, 271–272

sociological and philosophical help and, 249–251 of theology to sociology and philosophy, 244–249 reflective interpretation, 188–190 Reformation biblical theology vs. dogmatic theology, 182 Christocentrism of, 233 foundation of canonical viewpoint, 109 reclaiming regula fidei in secularized age, 87 Reformers formation of canon, 67 influence on Childs’s view of interpretation, 102 interpreting fides quae and fides qua, 89 on Passover, 205 rejection of allegorical interpretations, 125 sensus literalis vs. sensus originalis, 122 regula fidei canonical intentionality, 79–84 Catholic view of, 240–241 Childs’s Christianization of OT, 208 defined, 57 fides quae and fides qua, 88–92 foundation of canonical viewpoint, 109– 110, 269–270 reclaiming in secularized age, 84–88 in ruled reading, 123 relationship between Barth and Childs, 226– 229 Religionsgeschichte, 136 “Response to reviewers of IOTS” (Childs), 89– 90 Resurrection, 209, 232 “Retrospective Reading of the OT Prophets” (Childs), 48 revelation Barth’s doctrine of Scripture, 230–231 Bible as Scripture vs. Bible as culture, 115– 118 Bible as word of God, 169–174 Childs’s view of, 271 formation of canon, 67 inadequacy of historical criticism, 134 in Old Testament, 21 sociological definitions of, 245 speaking and, 52 voices of two Testaments, 106 Ritschl, Albrecht, 246 rule of faith canonical intentionality and, 79–84

Index 305 Catholic view of, 240–241 fides quae and fides qua, 88–92 methodological dialogue and, 237–238 reclaiming in secularized age, 84–88

S Sanders, James A. biblical archeology, 145–146 Childs and, 159–164 liberal theology of, 261 synchronic interpretation, 129 Scalise, Charles J. on Barth and Childs, 225, 227 on canonical final form, 79 on Childs’s canonical approach, 63 concluding remarks on, 273 post-critical canonical hermeneutics, 259– 260 on term post-critical, 256 works on Childs’s canonical methodology, 3–5 Schleiermacher, F.D.E. interpretation in faith, 25–26 reducing theology to philosophy, 246–247 Theocentrism vs. Christocentrism, 218 science Barth’s view of historical criticism, 234– 235 biblical interpretation, 49 of biblical theology, 252 Childs and Enlightenment, 113–115 of faith, 240 faith and, 90–91 myth and, 21 reclaiming regula fidei in secularized age, 85 reducing theology to, 244–249 sociological and philosophical help, 249– 251 Scobie, Charles, 75, 194–195 scriptura sui ipsius interpres, 102 Scripture Barth’s doctrine of, 229–233 Bible as culture vs. Bible as, 115–118 Bible as word of God, 169–174 vs. canon, 58–59 as canon, 64 canonical role of, 33–34 Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 38–45 liberal and conservative views of, 260–266

literal meaning and theological meaning, 36 Sanders’s and Childs’s views on, 161 understanding Bible as, 32–33 Searle, John R., 52 Second Vatican Council, 118, 243 secularization of Bible, 117 of biblical theology, 167–169 reclaiming regula fidei despite, 84–88 secular methods forum for methodological dialogue, 236– 239 reducing theology to sociology and philosophy, 244–249 sociological and philosophical help, 249– 251 sensus literalis, 36, 120–128 “The sensus literalis of Scripture” (Childs), 35– 36 sensus originalis, 36, 120–128 Septuagint, 61–62 servant figure in Isaiah 53, 203–205 Sheppard, Gerald, 21, 65 signum, 118 Smend, Rudolf, 258 sociology, 244–251 Son of Man, 206–207 speech-act theory, 51–52, 248 “Speech-Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation” (Childs), 51–53 stability of canon, 162–163 Stendahl, Krister, 91–92 structuralism, 131–133, 248 Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture (Childs), 13, 50–51 “Studies in Biblical Theology” (Childs), 20 A Study of Myth in Genesis I-XI (Childs), 19 Sumner, George, 49 Sundberg, Albert C., 58 Swanson, T.N., 58 “Symposium on Biblical Criticism” (Childs), 36 synchronic interpretation vs. diachronic interpretation, 128–131 of Isaiah, 147–150 Sanders’s view of, 163–164 Synoptic Gospels, 210–211, 216–217 systematic analysis, 11–12, 194–197 systematic theology, 179–180, 272

306 Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context T “A Tale of Two Testaments” (Childs), 32–33 terminology biblical theology, 251–255 canon defined, 57–66 in Childs’s canonical approach, 269–270 rejection of “canonical criticism”, 153–156 Tertullian, 81 textual witness, 116–118 thematic investigation, 194–197 Theocentrism vs. Christocentrism, 219–222 theological anthropology, 217–219 theological dimension of canon, 59–61 of forms of canon, 64–65 of OT, 42–43 theological exegesis. see also canonical theological exegesis authorship of Pentateuch and, 150–152 Barth’s influence on Childs. see Childs, Brevard Springs (and Barth) Bible as word of God, 169–174 Bible’s loss of itself, 167–169 biblical inspiration, 174–179 in Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, 45–47 Childs’s use of redaction criticism, 159 Christocentric trinity, 211–213 Christological connection between creation and redemption, 213–215 Christology, 198–200 Christology and doctrine of human nature, 215–219 concluding remarks, 269–274 correlation between exegesis and theology, 179–180 descriptive and constructive tasks, 186–190 gap between biblical and dogmatic theology, 180–183 historical-critical method as tool, 145–146 inadequacy of historical criticism, 133–135 in Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 40–41 Jesus Christ as res of Bible, 200–202 Jesus Christ in OT, 202–209 Jesus of history and Christ of faith, 209– 211 pastoral inadequacy of historical criticism, 139–141 reclaiming regula fidei in secularized age, 85–86 redefinition of biblical theology, 183–185

rejection of “canonical criticism”, 153–156 roots in German OT scholarship, 47–48 stages of Childs’s, 54–55 summary remarks, 222–224 systematic analysis and thematic investigation, 194–197 Theocentrism vs. Christocentrism, 219– 222 united biblical theology, 190–194 theological inadequacies of allegorical interpretations, 124 inability and barrenness in theology, 135– 139 missing direction, 133–135 theological reflection in Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, 45–47 in Exodus: A Commentary, 34–35 interpretation through, 188–190 in Myth and Reality in the Old Testament, 21 in Old Theology in a Canonical Context, 44 “Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible” (Childs), 46 theology Bible’s importance vs. historical authenticity, 119–120 vs. biblical methodology, 43–44 correlation between exegesis and, 179–180 distinction of canonical approach, 156–157 gap between biblical and dogmatic, 180– 183 hermeneutics of canonical final form, 76– 77 literal meaning vs. theological meaning, 36 post-critical orientation. see post-critical theology reduction to sociology and philosophy, 244–249 sociological and philosophical context, 249–251 third way, 262–266 threefold division of Isaiah, 147–150 Tillich, Paul, 218, 247 Torah and Canon (Sanders), 159–160 Torrance, Thomas F., 247 “A Traditio-Historical Study of the Reed Sea Tradition” (Childs), 31 Trinity Barth’s view of, 232–233 Christocentric, 211–213 Trito-Isaiah, 147

Index 307 Trobisch, David, 62 typological interpretations of Bible, 125–127, 208

U united biblical theology, 190–194 unity in diversity in Isaiah, 148–150 unity of Bible overview of, 98–103 theory of verbal inspiration vs., 177 unity of canon, 95–97 unity of fides quae and fides qua, 89–90

V Vanhoozer, Kevin J., 33, 230–231 vehicle of Masoretic text, 59–61, 63 verbal inspiration, 174, 176–177 von Rad, Gerhard, 127, 191, 215

Williamson, Hugh Godfrey, 158 Witherington, Ben, 176 witness Barth’s vs. Childs’s understanding of, 231– 233 Bible as God’s, 116–118 Bible as word of God, 169–174 vs. biblical inspiration, 271 biblical structuralism and, 132 canon as, 81 Christ in OT, 202–209 Jesus Christ as res of Bible, 200–202 literary analysis of, 146 NT as discrete voice, 106 OT as witness of Christ, 48–49 Wolterstorff, Nicholas, 52–53 word of God Barth’s doctrine of Scripture, 232 Bible as, 169–174 theological reflection, 190 theories of biblical inspiration, 174–179

W Wallace, Mark I., 258 Whybray, Norman, 92

Z Zimmerli, Walter, 225

Studies in Biblical Literature This series invites manuscripts from scholars in any area of biblical literature. Both established and innovative methodologies, covering general and particular areas in biblical study, are welcome. The series seeks to make available studies that will make a significant contribution to the ongoing biblical discourse. Scholars who have interests in gender and sociocultural hermeneutics are particularly encouraged to consider this series. For further information about the series and for the submission of manuscripts, contact: Peter Lang Publishing Acquisitions Department P.O. Box 1246 Bel Air, Maryland 21014-1246 To order other books in this series, please contact our Customer Service Department: (800) 770-LANG (within the U.S.) (212) 647-7706 (outside the U.S.) (212) 647-7707 FAX or browse online by series at: WWW.PETERLANG.COM