The following critiques of Brevard Childs' work were recently made in a comment on this blog. They are brief and elliptical. Nevertheless, I thought it would be a good opportunity to clarify my thoughts further. Here they are, critique in italics and my (spontaneous) response beneath:His weaknesses primarily lie ...
... in his reformed theology (with its questionable assumption that its God is clearly good!)
I'm really not sure how Reformed Childs was. I'd like to know how ... He certainly was a great fan of Barth and Calvin, but his basic theological approach to Scripture was often very open to non-Protestant approaches, especially later in his career with his turn to allegory. He talked of the need to keep Word and Tradition in healthy tension, the need to take into account the dogmatic tradition of the church, the subordination of text to substance etc. He was inspired by Orthodox theologian Andrew Louth and said things that sound similar to recent statements by the current Pope.
As for the idea that God is always good, I would have thought that that is a basic tenet of Biblical and Christian faith …
... in his tendency to over-state his case at some points (e.g. in connection with Sanders)
I'm not sure what this means.
... in his failure to provide really convincing examples of canonical exegesis
That depends what “canonical exegesis” is. Childs' approach is consistently misunderstood, so that critiques of his work tend to measure him according to a standard he himself never set up. Some call him too synchronic, others too diachronic (e.g. Rendtorff). Childs has always said the key lies in maintaining the tension, keeping a proper sense of proportion, most significantly in relation to the text's theological subject matter (its res). In fact, Childs was so disturbed by what was passing for “canonical interpretation” that in his Isaiah commentary he tried to refrain from using the term altogether. Richard Schultz's article for the PTR (available online here) points out how diverse the term is just amongst Evangelicals. So again, what is the “canonical approach," and what are the criteria for evaluating Childs' work?
...in his over-reliance on historical criticism in a piecemeal and non-systematic way
This comment is really interesting, especially as it relates to the former critique. A Childsian "canonical approach” is predicated on a historical-critical assumption and a commitment to the historical intentionality of Prophetic and Apostolic witnesses. This is his starting point, as I have argued in a recent paper I submitted to IJST. Once that is accepted, working out how he bridges the gap to “synchronic” interpretation is very interesting … but it doesn't have much to do with theories of speech, intertextuality, or reader-response. Something more like a commitment to ontology and the power of the Spirit. That, in my opinion, is the stance from which a critique of his use of historical-criticism needs to be made.
... in his failure to provide a detailed blueprint as to how others should follow him in his work.
This complaint has often been made (most recently by Georg Steins, in his own attempt at a kanonisch-intertextuelle Lektüre, see my critique here). I think the problem with this critique is that Childs never set out to develop a “method.” Rather, he wanted to articulate the hermeneutical implications of a certain stance vis-à-vis the text, which means taking into account his whole historical-critical, philosophical and most of all dogmatic assumptions. That is the reality out of which the canonical approach lives and breathes and has its being. The canonical approach is an approach and not a method.
I wonder if many of the problems we have with him are simply that we are either not reformed enough or that we are not theologically capable enough.
I think so. This emphasises the holistic dimension to Childs' work. See his statement of the significance of von Rad.
I'm more than happy to be corrected on any of these points!
6 comments:
Hi Phil,
I'll try to reply to your comments in the coming week. Of course, much of what I said can be found in the final chapter of my thesis on Childs, published as Canon and Exegesis. But I'll try to explain my all too brief comments on-line.
It looks like I may well be revisiting Childs in the near fitire in connecton with gender. Wonder where that will go?
Still, interesting to see we agree at the end :)
Hi John,
thanks for getting back on this! I look forward to your comments. I didn't meant to be overly critical. I know that your comments are elliptical and so I am probably debating with various positions at once in my response. Anyway, I'd love to see what Childs has to say about gender!
Phil,
Thanks for this. A few comments, picking up on what has already been said:
I think you're right re: Childs's reformed thinking and his desire to find a path that takes both word and tradition seriously. even in his discussion of what the 'canon' is in his Biblical Theology, he says we need to take both the tradition of the reformers and the catholic tradition seriously, finding a way to hold the closed and open traditions in tension. thus, even concerning the issue at the core of his thinking (canon), his reformed-ness isn't as obvious as people like to assume. i think this is definitely something that needs unpacking in relation to childs's work.
i'm not sure i agree with you on the subject of childs's actual exegesis. it seems, to me at least, that childs is at his best when doing his methodological stuff, as in the first section of his BT. it's not that his exegesis is bad; it just seems that it never quite lives up to what is expected based on his methodological work.
case in point: the isaiah commentary (which i'm surprised you recommended as a starting point for new readers - better, i would think, to see what he does with exodus, where he strikes the balance of history of interpretation, critical engagement, and theological reflection - history of interpretation, by the way, well before it was en vogue).
maybe you have a different take on the isaiah commentary, but i thought this was childs really off his game. it felt like he never got around to actually dealing with the subject matter (res), because he was caught up in the perpetual throat clearing of redactional issues. This was frustrating, not least because at that stage in his career you would think we could have taken some of those arguments as read. but he deals almost as much with redaction as with exposition, with much less theological reflection than the exodus commentary. i know he says we need to take the compositional history seriously alongside of the canonical shape, but he also states that those issues will only take you so far. so why give them so much space?
i'd be interested in hearing your take on the isaiah commentary: what sets this commentary apart from other offerings on isaiah? if, as you claim, childs's exegesis is consistently misread and not adequately understood, how so?
(by the way, his volume on the history of interpretation i thought was much better, and actually dealt with more of the substantive issues of understanding and reading isaiah than the commentary did.)
one final thing: it seems to me a bit of a double standard to say that childs's work was not a method, was not methodologically programmatic for others, but then for childs (and some of his followers) to be constantly upset at what passes for 'canonical' interpretation. i understand his frustration - the term was co-opted by way too many and continues to be misused. but if this is the case, then lyons' critique seems to be apt: it seems a bit unfair to say 'i'm not developing a method, just an approach, but none of the rest of you seem to get it right!'
if what he wanted to do was, as you say, 'articulate the hermeneutical implications of a certain stance vis-à-vis the text', it seems to leave the door quite open regarding what the use of those 'hermeneutical implications' might look like. isn't that the danger of developing an approach and not a method?
interestingly, this criticism that childs hasn't sufficiently left a method that others can follow is is a common critique aimed at others in the field as well - i know the same has been said of brueggemann, moberly, and seitz, to name a few. so maybe it just comes with the territory...
i'll stop there. if i've sounded negative regarding childs, that is not my intetion. childs has been extremely formative in my own thinking, and continues to be so. if anything my concerns are as a sympathizer with sincere questions. and i think you're right in that his influence and impact on the field have not been fully mined. looking forward to your research...
Bradangeo,
wow, thanks for the response! I want to write a worthy reply, so please bare with me as I take time to write one. My work load is getting on top of me again.
i'll stop there.
Feel free to add more!
no worries, take your time... didn't realise how long my comment was until after the fact... if nothing else childs seems to spark conversation! have a good one,
Brad
Hi Brad,
I finally have time to respond. I'll go through point by point (I've also posted these comments, neatened up, here:
it ... seems that it never quite lives up to what is expected based on his methodological work.
I totally agree with you, and I think he knew that himself. He was pioneer, cautiously, very cautiously, trying to spy out the promised land from the wilderness, not wanting to forget all the lessons that have been learnt along the way. To that end, I think his exegesis often has the feeling of one pushing forward in a direction, yearning to get there, but not wanting to betray the route that is set out for us. He kind of says this in the intro to his Struggle:
““I have recently finished a technical, modern commentary on the book of Isaiah. The task of treating the entire book of sixty-six chapters was enormous, but in addition, the commentary had necessitated restricting the scope of the exposition. That entailed omitting the history of interpretation and relegating many important hermeneutical problems to the periphery of the exegesis. After the commentary had been completed, I was painfully aware that many of the central theological and hermeneutical questions in which I was most interested had not been adequately addressed” (emaphsis mine).”
The scope of Isaiah is one reason why he couldn't go as deep as in Exodus (both commentaries are roughly the same size), but as I said: I think he was incredibly cautious and wanted to restrain himself from “rushing to the referent.” My doctoral thesis is an attempt to do what you are looking for (and which Childs himself has done in a haphazard manner), and make the move from text to referent and back again (on Psalm 24).
better, i would think, to see what he does with exodus
Agreed, this is the best model for a commentary and it is the one I will follow.
Interesting point about the Isaiah commentary. I agree with you that he focusses a lot more on the text than the substance, but I think for various reasons. One is the reason of caution given above; another is the genre of commentary. Though I think Childs would ultimately like to get to the allegorical intensity of Luther or Augustine, he wants to do it through intensive exegesis, and it is the role of a commentary to prioritise that. And I would call his redactional analyses “throat clearing” only in the positive sense of the phrase … Close analysis of the text always precedes talk of its substance, at least in a commentary. There are places where his diachronic analysis has direct repercussions on his perception of the substance. See his critique of certain redaction-critical trends in Isaiah studies on p. 462:
“First, Third Isaiah remains a prophetic collection, both in form and content, which means there is an encounter with actual historical realities, albeit seen in the light of the divine. This dimension dare not be flattened simply into a type of learned scribal activity dealing exclusively with literary texts. Second, not every occurrence of a parallel can be assigned to an intentional reuse. A critical assessment must be made that reckons with the theological substance at stake beyond merely identifying formal parallelism discovered by the perusal of a concordance.”
It's these kinds of nuanced insights and his constant straining to hold everything in correct proportion, always in light of the text's res (which figures more, I think, than in Exodus), which makes his commentary so exciting for me. But it certainly isn't a commentary to end all commentaries. It's a call to persevere!
This was frustrating, not least because at that stage in his career you would think we could have taken some of those arguments as read.
My impression is that his balancing act between diachrony (Westermann) and synchrony (Beuken) was quite unique, and so by no means read. Perhaps I've not read enough other commentaries …
i know he says we need to take the compositional history seriously alongside of the canonical shape, but he also states that those issues will only take you so far. so why give them so much space?
I asked myself this. I had the feeling it was more like light shining through the cracks then standing in front of a text turned transparency to the divine (a metaphor he used for Barth's exegesis). But then I think the reasons I gave above account for this, along with his comments in Struggle …
what sets this commentary apart from other offerings on isaiah?
I think I've answered this: his straining to keep balance and proportionality in light of the text's subject matter, given its genre as canonical scripture.
if, as you claim, childs's exegesis is consistently misread and not adequately understood, how so?
Not his exegesis. In fact that's the remarkable thing, I'm not sure his exegesis is read that much at all. Otherwise, people wouldn't make the comments they do about him advocating a hermetically sealed, self-referential canon (e.g. Barr). When they do, they usually act bemused and call him schizophrenic because they can see how theory and practice fit together.
his volume on the history of interpretation i thought was much better, and actually dealt with more of the substantive issues of understanding and reading isaiah than the commentary did.
Well, again, I think that belongs to the genre of such a book that the move to the referent is easier. See his comments in the intro to Exodus! Ideally things wouldn't be so divided, but that's the way things are.
it seems to me a bit of a double standard to say that childs's work was not a method, was not methodologically programmatic for others, but then for childs (and some of his followers) to be constantly upset at what passes for 'canonical' interpretation.
I'm not sure I get your point here. Why can't people's approach be critiqued too? Regardless of the soundness of his philosophical theories concerning Bakhtinian intertextuality and their applicability to interpretation, Childs still critiqued G. Steins' proposal and exegesis for not taking into account the theological nature of Christian-scriptural referentiality (i.e. allegorical and not midrashic). I'm not sure allegory is a method … it's a stance within a community guided by a rule of truth (regula veritatis).
if what he wanted to do was, as you say, 'articulate the hermeneutical implications of a certain stance vis-à-vis the text', it seems to leave the door quite open regarding what the use of those 'hermeneutical implications' might look like.
The door swings on a hinge, but there is still a hinge on which it turns, and so there is room for diversity (Childs appreciated an extraordinarily diverse range of interpreters, ranging from Augustine to von Rad!) as well as critique (again, applied by Childs to a diverse ranger of interpreters).
Once again, thanks for the helpful interaction Brad! I look forward to your response … I hope what I've said makes sense.
Post a Comment