Canonical criticism

Last updated
A portion of the Leningrad Codex. Although the Hebrew Bible is the result of a developmental process, canonical criticism focuses on the final form of the text. LeningradCodex text.jpg
A portion of the Leningrad Codex. Although the Hebrew Bible is the result of a developmental process, canonical criticism focuses on the final form of the text.

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.

Contents

Brevard Childs (1923-2007) popularised this approach, though he personally rejected the term. [1] [ need quotation to verify ] 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." [2] According to James Barr, it involves concentrating authority "in the canonical text, and not in the people or events out of which that text came." [3] Brevard Childs says that the canon "not only serves to establish the outer boundaries of authoritative Scripture," but "forms a prism through which light from the different aspects of the Christian life is refracted." [4] He also notes that "the tradents of the tradition have sought to hide their own footprints in order to focus attention on the canonical text itself and not on the process." [5] However, Childs refuses to speak of canonical criticism as if it were on a level with form criticism or redaction criticism. According to Childs, it represents an entirely new departure, replacing the entire historical-critical method. [1]

John H. Sailhamer views the "canonical approach" as including the "canon criticism" of Childs, as well as composition criticism, redaction criticism, and text linguistics. [6]

Origins

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. [5]

Canonical criticism arose as a reaction to other forms of biblical criticism. John Barton argues that Child's primary thesis is that historical-critical methods are "unsatisfactory theologically." [9]

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 New Criticism of T. S. Eliot and others. Both schools of thought affirm that "a literary text is an artefact," that "intentionalism is a fallacy," and that "the meaning of a text is a function of its place in the literary canon." [13]

Criticism

The canonical approach has been criticised by scholars from both liberal and evangelical perspectives. On the one hand, according to Dale Brueggemann, James Barr accuses Childs of "aiding and abetting" fundamentalists. [14] Although Childs' approach is "post-critical" rather than pre-critical, [15] Barr argues that the vision of a post-critical era "is the conservative dream." [3] Barton, however, notes that

Whatever else Childs is doing, he is not taking us 'back to the canon', for no one has ever been aware of the canon in this way before. It is only after we have seen how varied and inconsistent the Old Testament really is that we can begin to ask whether it can nonetheless be read as forming a unity. [16]

Conservative scholars, on the other hand, object to the way canonical criticism bypasses "vexed questions relating to the historical validation of revelation." [2] 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. [2]

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," [5] 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." [5]

Jon Isaak applies the canonical approach to 1 Corinthians 14 and the issue of women being silent in the church. Isaak argues that

In the canonical approach, theological concerns take precedent over historical interests. No attempt is made to reconstruct a historical portrait of Paul in order to prove some point or to disprove another. There is no psychologizing based on what Paul could or could not have said. [19]

Gerald H. Wilson adopted a canonical approach in his studies of Psalter, and concluded that the book had a purposeful unity and "had been redacted to represent a developing sequence of ideals." [20] Yee Von Koh suggests that Wilson was "the first to apply canonical criticism to the study of the Psalter in the clearest and most comprehensive way." [20]

The canonical approach has also been applied to passages such as Psalm 137 [21] and Ezekiel 20. [22]

See also

Related Research Articles

Apocrypha Works of unknown authorship or of doubtful origin

Apocrypha are the biblical books received by the early Church as part of the Greek version of the Old Testament, but not included in the Hebrew Bible, being excluded by the non-Hellenistic Jews from their canon. Their position in Christian usage has been ambiguous.

Bible Collection of religious texts in Judaism and Christianity

The Bible is a collection of religious texts, writings, or scriptures sacred to Jews, Samaritans, Christians, Rastafaris, and others. It appears in the form of an anthology, a compilation of texts of a variety of forms that are all linked by the belief that they are collectively revelations of God. These texts include theologically-focused historical accounts, hymns, prayers, proverbs, parables, didactic letters, admonitions, essays, poetry, and prophecies. Believers also generally consider the Bible to be a product of divine inspiration.

Deuterocanonical books Books of the Bible which are considered non-canonical by Protestant denominations

The deuterocanonical books are books and passages considered by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East to be canonical books of the Old Testament, but that Protestant denominations do not regard as part of the biblical canon. They date from 300 BC–AD 100, mostly from 200 BC–AD 70, before the definite separation of the Christian church from Judaism. While the New Testament never directly quotes from or names these books, the apostles most frequently used and quoted the Septuagint, which includes them. Some say there is a correspondence of thought, and others see texts from these books being paraphrased, referred or alluded to many times in the New Testament, particularly in the Pauline epistles, depending in large measure on what is counted as a reference.

New Testament Second division of the Christian biblical canon

The New Testament (NT) is the second division of the Christian biblical canon. It discusses the teachings and person of Jesus, as well as events in first-century Christianity. The New Testament's background, the first division of the Christian Bible, is called the Old Testament, which is based primarily upon the Hebrew Bible; together they are regarded as sacred scripture by Christians.

Old Testament First division of Christian Bibles based on the Hebrew Bible

The Old Testament is the first division of the Christian biblical canon, which is based primarily upon the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh, a collection of ancient religious Hebrew writings by the Israelites. The second division of Christian Bibles is the New Testament, written in the Koine Greek language.

Hebrew Bible Canonical collection of Hebrew scriptures

The Hebrew Bible or Tanakh, is the canonical collection of Hebrew scriptures, including the Torah. These texts are almost exclusively in Biblical Hebrew, with a few passages in Biblical Aramaic.

Dating the Bible Commonly accepted dates for composition of the Bible

The oldest surviving Hebrew Bible manuscripts—including the Dead Sea Scrolls—date to about the 2nd century BCE (fragmentary) and some are stored at the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem. The oldest extant complete text survives in a Greek translation called the Septuagint, dating to the 4th century CE. The oldest extant manuscripts of the vocalized Masoretic Text, date to the 9th century CE. With the exception of a few biblical sections in the Prophets, virtually no biblical text is contemporaneous with the events it describes.

Biblical inerrancy Belief that the Bible is without error

Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact". Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility; others do not. The belief is of particular significance within parts of evangelicalism, where it is formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy".

Biblical studies Academic study of the Bible

Biblical studies is the academic application of a set of diverse disciplines to the study of the Bible. For its theory and methods, the field draws on disciplines ranging from ancient history, historical criticism, philology, textual criticism, literary criticism, historical backgrounds, mythology, and comparative religion.

Biblical criticism Scholarly study of biblical writings

Biblical criticism is the use of critical analysis to understand and explain the Bible. During the eighteenth century, when it began as historical-biblical criticism, it was based on two distinguishing characteristics: (1) the scientific concern to avoid dogma and bias by applying a neutral, non-sectarian, reason-based judgment to the study of the Bible, and (2) the belief that the reconstruction of the historical events behind the texts, as well as the history of how the texts themselves developed, would lead to a correct understanding of the Bible. This set it apart from earlier, pre-critical methods; from the anti-critical methods of those who oppose criticism-based study; from later post-critical orientation, and from the many different types of criticism which biblical criticism transformed into in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.

Biblical hermeneutics

Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible. It is part of the broader field of hermeneutics, which involves the study of principles of interpretation, both theory and methodology, for all forms of communication, nonverbal and verbal.

Historical-grammatical method Christian hermeneutical method

The historical-grammatical method is a Christian hermeneutical method that strives to discover the biblical authors' original intended meaning in the text. According to the historical-grammatical method, if based on an analysis of the grammatical style of a passage, it appears that the author intended to convey an account of events that actually happened, then the text should be taken as representing history; passages should only be interpreted symbolically, poetically, or allegorically if to the best of our understanding, that is what the writer intended to convey to the original audience. It is the primary method of interpretation for many conservative Protestant exegetes who reject the historical-critical method to various degrees, in contrast to the overwhelming reliance on historical-critical interpretation in biblical studies at the academic level.

Internal consistency of the Bible Coherence and textual integrity of the Bible

Disputes regarding the internal consistency and textual integrity of the Bible have a long history.

James A. Sanders was an American scholar of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible and one of the Dead Sea Scrolls editors. He was the first to translate and edit the Psalm Scroll, which contained a previously unknown psalm. Sanders retired in the late 1990s, but still published and lectured regularly.

Development of the Old Testament canon Development of the Old Testament canon

The Old Testament is the first section of the two-part Christian biblical canon; the second section is the New Testament. The Old Testament includes the books of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) or protocanon, and in various Christian denominations also includes deuterocanonical books. Orthodox Christians, Catholics and Protestants use different canons, which differ with respect to the texts that are included in the Old Testament.

Biblical canon Set of texts which a particular religious community regards as authoritative scripture

A biblical canon, also called canon of scripture, is a set of texts which a particular Jewish or Christian religious community regards as authoritative scripture. The English word canon comes from the Greek κανών, meaning "rule" or "measuring stick". Christians were the first to use the term in reference to scripture, but Eugene Ulrich regards the notion as Jewish.

Brevard Springs Childs was an American Old Testament scholar and Professor of Old Testament at Yale University from 1958 until 1999, who is considered one of the most influential biblical scholars of the 20th century.

Historical criticism Branch of literary criticism that investigates the origins of ancient text

Historical criticism, also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism, is a branch of criticism that investigates the origins of ancient texts in order to understand "the world behind the text". While often discussed in terms of Jewish and Christian writings from ancient times, historical criticism has also been applied to other religious and secular writings from various parts of the world and periods of history.

Christopher R. Seitz is an American Old Testament scholar and theologian known for his work in biblical interpretation and theological hermeneutics. He is the senior research professor of biblical interpretation at Toronto School of Theology, Wycliffe College. He is also an ordained priest in the Episcopal Church, and served as canon theologian in the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas (2008-2015).

Gerald Henry Wilson was an American Old Testament scholar. He served as professor of Old Testament and Biblical Hebrew at Azusa Pacific University.

References

  1. 1 2 Childs, Brevard Springs (1979). Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (reprint ed.). Fortress Press. p.  82-83. ISBN   9780800605322 . Retrieved 2019-02-05.
  2. 1 2 3 Oswalt, John N. (1987). "Canonical Criticism: A Review From A Conservative Viewpoint" (PDF). Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society . 30 (3): 317–325.
  3. 1 2 Barr, James (1 May 1980). "Childs' Introduction To the Old Testament as Scripture". Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. 5 (16): 12–23. doi:10.1177/030908928000501602. S2CID   170336118.
  4. ↑ Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Augsburg Fortress, 1993), p. 672.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Childs, Brevard S. (1 January 1978). "The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature". Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology. 32 (1): 46–55. doi:10.1177/002096437803200104. S2CID   170292286.
  6. ↑ Sailhamer, John H. (1995). "Criticism or Canon". Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach. Zondervan. pp. 86–114. ISBN   978-0-310-23202-5.
  7. ↑ James Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Westminster John Knox, 1983), 67.
  8. ↑ James A. Sanders, Torah and Canon (Fortress Press, 1972)[ page needed ]
  9. ↑ Barton 1984, p. 79.
  10. ↑ Barton 1984, p. 90.
  11. ↑ Sanders 1984, p. 19.
  12. ↑ Sanders 1984, p. 20.
  13. ↑ Barton 1984, p. 144.
  14. ↑ Brueggemann, Dale A. (1989). "Brevard Childs' Canon Criticism: An Example of Post-critical Naiveté" (PDF). JETS . 32: 311–326.
  15. ↑ Barton 1984, p. 84.
  16. ↑ Barton 1984, p. 99.
  17. 1 2 Barton 1984, p. 171.
  18. ↑ Barton 1984, p. 172.
  19. ↑ 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.
  20. 1 2 Koh, Yee Von (2010). "G. H. Wilson's theories on the organization of the Masoretic Psalter". Genesis, Isaiah, and Psalms: A Festschrift to Honour Professor John Emerton for His Eightieth Birthday. Brill. p. 177. ISBN   978-9004182318 . Retrieved 1 March 2015.
  21. ↑ 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.
  22. ↑ Hahn, Scott Walker; Bergsma, John Sietze (2004). "What Laws Were 'Not Good'? A Canonical Approach to the Theological Problem of Ezekiel 20:25–26". Journal of Biblical Literature. 123 (2): 201–218. doi:10.2307/3267942. JSTOR   3267942. S2CID   159079397 . ProQuest   214612496.

Sources

Listen to this article (7 minutes)
noicon
Sound-icon.svg
This audio file was created from a revision of this article dated 26 July 2019 (2019-07-26), and does not reflect subsequent edits.
(Audio help  · More spoken articles)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.