tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post1415959864006238159..comments2024-01-09T12:59:32.666+01:00Comments on Narrative and Ontology: What are B.S. Childs' weaknesses?Phil Sumpterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-71429192858244078492008-12-12T16:22:00.000+01:002008-12-12T16:22:00.000+01:00John, I've responded in a separate post. I thought...John, <BR/><BR/>I've responded in <A HREF="http://narrativeandontology.blogspot.com/2008/12/some-critiques-of-childs.html" REL="nofollow">a separate post</A>. I thought I'd post here too. I'll simply post what i wrote in my post:<BR/><BR/>The following critiques of Brevard Childs' work were recently made in <A HREF="http://narrativeandontology.blogspot.com/2008/12/what-are-bs-childs-weaknesses.html" REL="nofollow">a comment on this blog</A>. 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 response beneath:<BR/><BR/><EM>His weaknesses primarily lie ...</EM><BR/><BR/><EM>in his reformed theology (with its questionable assumption that its God is clearly good!)</EM><BR/><BR/>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 <A HREF="http://narrativeandontology.blogspot.com/search/label/A.%20Louth" REL="nofollow">Andrew Louth</A> and said things that sound similar to <A HREF="http://narrativeandontology.blogspot.com/2008/10/is-pope-barthian.html" REL="nofollow">recent statements by the current Pope</A>. <BR/><BR/>As for the idea that God is always good, I would have thought that that is a basic tenet of Biblical and Christian faith …<BR/><BR/><EM>... in his tendency to over-state his case at some points (e.g. in connection with Sanders)</EM><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what this means.<BR/><BR/><EM>... in his failure to provide really convincing examples of canonical exegesis</EM><BR/><BR/>That depends what “canonical exegesis” is. Childs' approach is consistently misunderstood, so that critiques of his work tend to miss the point. 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 <EM>res</EM>). 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 <EM>PTR</EM> (available online <A HREF="http://www.princetontheologicalreview.org/issues_pdf/38.pdf" REL="nofollow">here</A>) points out how diverse the term is just amongst Evangelicals. So again, what <EM>is</EM> the “canonical approach”?<BR/><BR/><EM>...in his over-reliance on historical criticism in a piecemeal and non-systematic way</EM><BR/><BR/>This comment is really interesting, especially as it relates to the former critique. A <EM>Childsian</EM>”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 <EM>IJST</EM>. 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. <BR/><BR/><EM>... in his failure to provide a detailed blueprint as to how others should follow him in his work</EM>.<BR/><BR/>This complaint has often been made (most recently by Georg Steins, in his own attempt at a <EM>kanonisch-intertextuelle Lektüre</EM>, see my critique <A HREF="http://narrativeandontology.blogspot.com/2008/04/question-marks-on-g-steins-canonical.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>). 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 <EM>vis-à-vis</EM> 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.”<BR/><BR/><EM>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.</EM><BR/><BR/>I think so. This emphasises the holistic dimension to Childs' work. See his statement of <A HREF="http://narrativeandontology.blogspot.com/2008/10/greatness-of-von-rad.html" REL="nofollow">the significance of von Rad</A>.<BR/><BR/>I'm more than happy to be corrected on any of these points!Phil Sumpterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-23566094411368993212008-12-10T16:55:00.000+01:002008-12-10T16:55:00.000+01:00John,once again, sorry for my delayed response. I ...John,<BR/><BR/>once again, sorry for my delayed response. I wanted to briefly comment on each of the points you made, and so need to find the time to do so! I will let you know when. <BR/><BR/>By the way, I thought I recognized your name! Unfortunately, I haven't read your book as I have run out of time and my doctoral superivisor insists that I have done enough theory and ought to get on with my actual exegesis. My doctorate will have a similar structure to your book: canonical theory along with my own exegesis, this time of Psalm 24.Phil Sumpterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-69881845825784045312008-12-05T00:42:00.000+01:002008-12-05T00:42:00.000+01:00Thanks for that, Phil. It does mirror some of my ...Thanks for that, Phil. <BR/><BR/>It does mirror some of my own experience of reading Childs. If I were to answer Juan's question, I would suggest the little book Childs wrote as a proposal (which summarises most of the early chapters of the Biblical Theology and alongside that, his little essay on Barth from around 1968. I was always bemused when I read critics of Childs who failed to realise not only how Barthian (or Calvin-oriented maybe) he was and how early that happened. His first published essay from 1958 on, I think, Jonah already shows a deep Barthian influence. <BR/><BR/>I have already written a thesis on Childs (though I think it is now little read) but my own feeling is that his weaknesses primarily lie in his reformed theology (with its questionable assumption that its God is clearly good!), in his tendency to over-state his case at some points (e.g. in connection with Sanders), in his failure to provide really convincing examples of canonical exegesis, in his over-reliance on historical criticism in a piecemeal and non-systematic way, and finally, in his failure to provide a detailed blueprint as to how others should follow him in his work. This last reminds me of his comment about the theological brilliance of von Rad and the poorer work of von Rad's students. Childs had flashes of brilliance and on his day was a reformed theologican par excellence. 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.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for taking up the challenge.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>JohnJohn Lyonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299727033033232363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-63613882509365425072008-12-03T21:42:00.000+01:002008-12-03T21:42:00.000+01:00Well, if you have any comments, queries, or critic...Well, if you have any comments, queries, or criticisms, feel free to get in touch.Phil Sumpterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-37182718841689780212008-12-03T18:51:00.000+01:002008-12-03T18:51:00.000+01:00Phil,Thaks for the reply. I justed wanted guideanc...Phil,<BR/><BR/>Thaks for the reply. I justed wanted guideance on where to start. I will start with the Biblical Theology book.<BR/><BR/>Thanks<BR/><BR/>JuanJuanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04648064239937184197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-62465661393204373302008-12-03T16:11:00.000+01:002008-12-03T16:11:00.000+01:00Did you want John Lyon's or me, Phil?It depends wh...Did you want John Lyon's or me, Phil?<BR/><BR/>It depends what you are most interested in. If you are into exegesis, then either his <EM>Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture</EM> or perhaps his last commentary on Isaiah. If you are into Biblical Theology, his <EM>Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments</EM> is his magnum opus. I'd recommend starting with this last book, as it puts a lot of things into perspective and seems to be largely ignored by his critics.Phil Sumpterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-69425339496859916622008-12-02T19:45:00.000+01:002008-12-02T19:45:00.000+01:00John,What book would you recommend to start with C...John,<BR/><BR/>What book would you recommend to start with Childs?Juanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04648064239937184197noreply@blogger.com