Canonical criticism
Canonical criticism, sometimes called canon criticism or the canonical approach, is a way of interpreting the Bible that focuses on the text of the biblical canon itself as a finished product.
Brevard Childs (1923–2007) popularised this approach, though he personally rejected the term.[1][2] Whereas other types of biblical criticism focus on the origins, structure and history of texts, canonical criticism looks at the meaning which the overall text, in its final form, has for the community which uses it.
Description
Canonical criticism involves "paying attention to the present form of the text in determining its meaning for the believing community."
Origins
Part of a series on the |
Bible |
---|
Outline of Bible-related topics Bible portal |
Canonical criticism is a relatively new approach to biblical studies. As recently as 1983, James Barr could state that canon had no hermeneutical significance for biblical interpretation.[7] Childs set out his canonical approach in his Biblical Theology in Crisis (1970) and applied it in Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (1979).
The phrase "canonical criticism" was first used by James A. Sanders in 1972.[8] Childs repudiates the term because
It implies that the concern with canon is viewed as another historical-critical technique which can take its place alongside of source criticism, form criticism, rhetorical criticism, and the like. I do not envision the approach to canon in this light. Rather, the issue at stake in canon turns on establishing a stance from which the Bible is to be read as Sacred Scripture.[2]
Canonical criticism arose as a reaction to other forms of
According to Barton, Childs' approach is "genuinely new," in that it is an "attempt to heal the breach between biblical criticism and theology," and in that it belongs more to the realm of literary criticism than that of 'historical' study of texts.[10]
Sanders argues that canonical criticism is biblical criticism's "self-critical stance":
It is not only a logical evolution of earlier stages in the growth of criticism but it also reflects back on all the disciplines of biblical criticism and informs them all to some extent."[11]
He also suggests that it places the Bible "back where it belongs, in the believing communities of today":
Canonical criticism might be seen in metaphor as the beadle (bedelos) who now carries the critically studied Bible in procession back to the church lectern from the scholar's study.[12]
Barton has noted parallels between canonical criticism and the
Criticism
The canonical approach has been criticised by scholars from both liberal and evangelical perspectives.
As excessively conservative
On the one hand, according to Dale Brueggemann,
Whatever else Childs is doing, he is not taking us 'back to the canon', for no one has ever been aware of the canon in this way before. It is only after we have seen how varied and inconsistent the Old Testament really is that we can begin to ask whether it can nonetheless be read as forming a unity.[16]
As inadequately conservative
Conservative scholars, on the other hand, object to the way canonical criticism bypasses "vexed questions relating to the historical validation of revelation."[3] Oswalt suggests that canonical critics blithely "separate fact and meaning" when they suggest that we are called to submit to the inspired truth of the text, despite the community's inability to admit where they really got it.[3]
Failure to achieve its own goals
Barton also suggests that there is tension between "the text itself" and "the text as part of the canon".[17] That is, the canonical approach stresses both the text in its final form as we have it, as well as the idea that "the words which compose the text draw their meaning from the context and setting in which they are meant to be read."[18] Barton argues that "the canonical approach actually undermines the concern for the finished text as an end in itself, and brings us, once again, nearer to traditional historical criticism."[17]
Applications
Childs applies his canonical approach to prophetic literature, and argues that in Amos, "an original prophetic message was expanded by being placed in a larger theological context,"[2] while in Nahum and Habakkuk, the oracles are assigned a new role through the introduction of hymnic material, and they "now function as a dramatic illustration of the eschatological triumph of God."[2]
Jon Isaak applies the canonical approach to
In the canonical approach, theological concerns take precedent over historical interests. No attempt is made to reconstruct a historical portrait of Paul in order to prove some point or to disprove another. There is no psychologizing based on what Paul could or could not have said.[19]
The canonical approach has also been applied to passages such as Psalm 137[21] and Ezekiel 20.[22]
See also
References
- ^ a b
ISBN 9780800605322. Retrieved 2019-02-05.
- ^ S2CID 170292286.
- ^ a b c Oswalt, John N. (1987). "Canonical Criticism: A Review From A Conservative Viewpoint" (PDF). Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 30 (3): 317–325.
- ^ S2CID 170336118.
- ^ Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Augsburg Fortress, 1993), p. 672.
- ISBN 978-0-310-23202-5.
- ^ James Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Westminster John Knox, 1983), 67.
- ^ James A. Sanders, Torah and Canon (Fortress Press, 1972)[page needed]
- ^ Barton 1984, p. 79.
- ^ Barton 1984, p. 90.
- ^ Sanders 1984, p. 19.
- ^ Sanders 1984, p. 20.
- ^ Barton 1984, p. 144.
- ^ Brueggemann, Dale A. (1989). "Brevard Childs' Canon Criticism: An Example of Post-critical Naiveté" (PDF). JETS. 32: 311–326. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 June 2022.
- ^ Barton 1984, p. 84.
- ^ Barton 1984, p. 99.
- ^ a b Barton 1984, p. 171.
- ^ Barton 1984, p. 172.
- ^ Isaak, Jon M. (1995). "Direction: Hearing God's Word in the Silence: A Canonical Approach to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35". Direction. 24 (2): 55–64.
- ^ ISBN 978-9004182318. Retrieved 1 March 2015.
- ^ Lyons, William John (2005). "A man of honour, a man of strength, a man of will?: a canonical approach to Psalm 137". Didaskalia. 16 (2): 41–68.
- ProQuest 214612496.
Sources
- ISBN 978-0-664-24555-9.
- Sanders, James A. (1984). Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Fortress Press. ISBN 978-0-8006-0468-4.
External links
- Gottwald, Norman K. (1 October 1985). "Social Matrix and Canonical Shape". Theology Today. 42 (3): 307–321. S2CID 143674939.
- Gerald T. Sheppard, "Canonical Criticism" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary.
- Callaway, Mary C. (1999). "Canonical Criticism" (PDF). In Haynes, Stephen R.; McKenzie, Steven L. (eds.). To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 142–155. ISBN 978-0-664-25784-2.