Canonical criticism doesn’t give a rip about all that authorship and dating stuff. It is concerned with how the texts are used now: as faith documents for Jewish and Christian communities. It is interested in how we would read the Bible for devotional purposes, preparing a sermon, or trying to figure out some personal theology. It rebels against breaking down the text down into little bits and, as far as I can tell, advocates a completely uncritical approach to Bible reading.
Most Christians are blissfully unaware of debates surrounding the Bible’s historical background, let alone the fine details of authorship and dating. Canonical Criticism allows us to see the Bible as most of us do: separated from its roots and plonked into our 21st century lives.
Such an outlook creates a completely different set of questions with which to approach the text. Some of these may include:
What is God saying to me now?
How can I apply this to daily life?
How should I respond to the world’s needs?
How should I react to a particular situation?
Does this have anything to say about my theology and/or spiritual life?
Some technical areas that this touches on are:
The point of view is that of a believer, so ‘problems’ or inconsistencies are ignored or glossed over.
Where the book is currently placed within the Bible is more important than when it was written.
Reconstructions of the ‘historical Jesus’ et al are ignored or given little thought.
The texts are seen as foundations for theology as opposed to historical documents.
I disagree
I disagree with your assessment that canonical criticism does not “give a rip” about historical context. In fact, I would posit that canonical criticism is the only approach which allows one to define the ever-changing hermenuetical shape of a text through time by seeking to understand not only what it means in the present, but what it has meant in the past. Also, it attempts to define the relationships between any two points along the line of a texts transmission through history in the communities which have held the text as authoritative.
I agree
Thanks Jeff j, I agree with your disagreement. Unfortunately my mistake was made because of the style of one of my references; another OST member pointed out my mistake by private message.
I’ve been reading up on some Brevard Childs and drafting a corrective post, but would you like to write it instead? Perhaps by expanding your above points? If not, I hope to have my effort posted in a month or so.
This is all meant to be a collaborative effort, so thanks for collaborating!
Canonical Criticism | Second Attempt
Thanks to those that have pointed out my misunderstanding of Canonical Criticism and suggested some further reading. Here’s my attempt to fix my earlier misconception. As always, feel free to question further and add more.
I’m going to pull back my statement: “Canonical criticism doesn’t give a rip about all that authorship and dating stuff”. This is a gross overstatement. Canonical criticism does give a rip about all that authorship and dating stuff. However, it is concerned with breaking down “the long established tension between canon and criticism” (45). It rebels against breaking down the text down into little bits but seeks to apply “full and consistent use of the historical critical tools.” (45)
While I oversimplified the questions and concerns in my original post, it is true that “canonical analysis focuses its attention on the final form of the text itself,” (73) which may lead to those issues. To me, this makes sense: the focus is on the final form of the book, since that’s what we have and that’s what we use.
This approach allows us to make hermeneutical gains by attempting to establish the texts ‘spiritual’ use rather than historical or social…to view the texts as canon.
I feel Jeff j summed up well by saying that Canonical Criticism is an:
Quotes are taken from: Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as scripture. London: SCM, 1979.
Canonical shaping
One key, but complex, concept in Childs’ integration of h-c with a study of the "final form" into what is claimed to be a post-critical approach, is "canonical shaping". But, back a step, for Childs canon is not only a fixed and final list, but also a process. During the time that tradition, redaction, source and form critics claim to uncover, the text was on its way to becoming canon. The redactors et al. who passed the text on from generation to generation did so because it was (in a sense) Scripture (even while it was still oral;). This pre-history of the text shaped it and its meaning. This shaping therefore to some extent defines what the canonical text meant.
So, if Hosea and Amos did (as redaction criticism says they did) undergo an editing to reapply the prophets’ words to Judah (addition of mentions of Judah, David etc.), then this shaping is part of what the texct means as canon. Therefore the canonical prophets are ipso facto ripe for reapplication in similar ways in future times…
Hope this is clear, but it is a complex idea!