Canon and Scripture in 11 Lines or Less!

In the latest issue of JETS, Eugene Merrill attempts to summarize Brevard Childs, the canonical approach as well as its impact on Old Testament biblical studies.  What is truly amazing is not that he proceeds to criticize the approach, but that he attempts to do all this in 11 lines.  How inspiring!

My purpose in calling attention to this section of the article is not to fault Merrill for writing too little on the subject.  No, my intention is to note an unfortunate truth: Childs’ canonical approach, I suggest, is still misunderstood by his detractors.

Merrill is a gifted scholar, to be sure.  He possesses a comprehensive perspective of the OT as evident in his many works.  However, this point does not preclude a tendency to write off those pesky OT perspectives that allegedly wave a “liberal flag.”  Let’s look at some of the oversights in Merrill’s section (entitled ‘Canonical Redaction [or reduction],’ har, har):

“Brevard Childs popularized the terms ‘canonical criticism’ and ‘canonical theology,’ meaning in both cases that all that can be known for certain about the OT and its development is what can be found in its final post-exilic canonical form.  This appears to rid the scholar of the need to quarrel over method in constructing models to account for the origins and processes of biblical tradition.  The whole can be dismissed by maintaining that the canonical shape is the last layer of reshaping and reinterpreting biblical texts so as to make them meaningfully authoritative to every generation that embraced them as God’s word.  Once more, evangelicals in some instances are finding comfort in this approach because it delivers them from the burden of always having to argue for or ‘prove’ some point or other as regards authorship, dating, text transmission, and the like.”

We can begin at the beginning.  Merrill  believes Child’s popularized ‘canonical criticism’ and ‘canonical theology.’  Neither is completely true and both need qualification.  Canonical ‘criticism’ is a good designation for James Sander’s work which seeks to supplement other higher-critical tools with an awareness of canonical function.  On the contrary, Childs was not the least bit comfortable with the label “canonical criticism” for this reason; a “canonical approach” (a more accurate heading) was never meant to be another higher-critical tool.

‘Canonical theology’ is too broad to represent Childs’ approach well.  So many interpreters claim a canonical aspect to his or her theology that the concept is bound to flow into and mix with some voices that do not agree with some of Childs’ major contributions (e.g., Christine Helmer, James Barr, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Kevin Vanhoozer).  Issues of canonical unity and interpretation tend to bleed into issues of ‘biblical theology.’

The second, and most important, problem with Merrill’s blip is his rendition of what Childs calls the “final form.”  This idea is the epicenter of misinterpretation.  Echoing the well-noted concerns of John Barton, The Old Testament: Canon, Literature and Theology (2007) and James Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority and Criticism (1983), scholars accuse Childs of dismissing the interpretive value of the pre-canonical material while at the same time privileging the interpretive value of the final presentation of the canon.

This accusation is not only unfounded, its boring!  The hand-me-down effect of this indictment is huge; too many biblical scholars default to the secondary literature and, thereby, do violence to the definition of “final form.”  Childs’ primary concern is “understanding the relationship between the divine initiative that created Israel’s Scripture and the human response that receives and transmits the authoritative Word” (Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture [1975], 79).  Naturally, this program endeavors to look at everything in between.  The final form, therefore, is nothing without its formationality.  Studying the final form of the text implies that one study the rough texture of the text preceding the final presentation.  We can not identify the final form without an eye toward this development; the final form would be shapeless.

As for Merrill’s last remark, it is difficult to say whether or not he is serious.  Does he believe evangelicals need to “prove” authorship, date and the like?  Why is “prove” in quotes?  If this statement is in the same vein as sentence two (which I believe it is), then it seems the sarcasm train has left the station.  Well played, sir!  As Christopher Seitz points out in an essay on theological interpretation and canon, these elements (authorship, transmission, dating) are precisely what most evangelical scholars believe Childs emphasizes too much.  Take Childs’ commentary on the book of Daniel, for example.  Much of the preliminary remarks are devoted to the bi-fold construction of the chapters, a Maccabean dating and the historical situation surrounding transmission (namely, the actions of Antiochus IV).  Few evangelicals enjoy this little bit of historical reconstruction.

Little else needs to be said about Merrill’s mini-rant, but I suppose it is only 10-11 lines  🙂