100 - Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture

Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture
By Brevard S. Childs
Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1979. 688 pp. $28.50.

This revolutionary book by the Professor of Old Testament at Yale Divinity School presents an inescapable challenge to all who seek to understand the Bible as sacred Scripture. It appropriately follows up his earlier book, Biblical Theology in Crisis (1970), which announced the shipwreck of the biblical theology movement that flourished during the post-war period when neo-orthodoxy worked out an uneasy alliance between Reformation theology and the historical-critical study of Scripture. In his analysis, the movement collapsed because of various weaknesses, one of which was the emphasis on the revelation of God in history. So, after "remembering a past" he engaged in "seeking a future," in which context he provisionally explored "the shape of a new biblical theology" that would enable the church to rediscover the power and authority of biblical writings in their canonical context. His Introduction to the Old Testament, a title which significantly adds the words as Scripture, is a major step toward the realization of his quest.

This Introduction is quite unlike any others that we may have on our library shelf (e.g.,books by Bentzen, Eissfeldt, Fohrer, etc.). Conforming to the genre often described with the German word Einleitung, it displays a comprehensive grasp of the vast and complicated field of Old Testament scholarship. But this voluminous work really engages the attention of the reader by its bold criticism of the standard Introductions which uncritically assume the exercise of historical criticism and its fascinating proposal of a new way of understanding Old Testament theology. Indeed, this book may be regarded as a preface to Old Testament Theology. Just as Gerhard von Rad's Old Testament Theology was predicated on a new understanding of Einleitung, one that relied on a traditio-historical approach, so Childs' view of Old Testament theology is founded on a new kind of Introduction which uses a "canonical approach."

What Childs means by the canonical approach (he hesitates to describe it as a "method" alongside the various "criticisms"-source, form, rhetorical, etc.) is spelled out in his book-by-book treatment of the Old Testament, following the sequence of the Hebrew Bible. The, various chapters follow a basic outline: first, a discussion of historical critical problems, which invariably concludes with the judgment that critical scholarship has failed to deal adequately with the theological message of a biblical book and therefore another approach is needed; second, he considers "the canonical shape" of a biblical book; an

101 - Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture

finally he treats theological and hermeneutical issues that arise out of wrestling with the text in its final form.

The key to understanding Childs' approach is found in "canonical shape." By this he does not mean that a book in its final form has an esthetic literary unity, that it displays a symmetrical design owing to the work of a redactor, or that it is harmonious in content. Agreeing with historical critics, he emphasizes that behind the final form of Scripture is a long history of traditions as evidenced by diversity, dissonance, and plural views. Rather, Childs means that a canonical unit of Scripture (e.g., Joshua, Psalms, Ecclesiastes) displays an overall theological coherence in which the various parts function in the context of the whole. This whole, which is greater than the sum of its parts, arose because-especially in the post-exilic era-"a force was unleashed by Israel's religious use of her traditions which exerted an influence on the shaping of the literature as it was selected, collected and ordered" (p. 78).

One of the clearest, and likewise most controversial, examples of his canonical approach is given in his treatment of so-called "Second Isaiah." If there has been consensus among historical critics at any point, it has been the rejection of the traditional view of the unity of the book of Isaiah. The first part of the book (chs. 1-39) reflects the career and message of the eighth century prophet, Isaiah of Jerusalem, and the second part, beginning with ch. 40, presents the poetry of the unknown prophet of the Exile who lived during the time of the Babylonian Exile (Isa. 40-55; chs. 56-66 are often accredited to a still later disciple, so-called Third Isaiah).

Childs, however, argues that quite apart from the long history of the composition, "the canon's intention" (for this language see, p. 78) is that the book should be read, for example, as a theological whole, in which the various parts cohere and function meaningfully. The canon does not "intend" that the message of divine judgment found in the first part should be read by itself; rather it should be read in connection with, and from the standpoint of, the message of divine grace and forgiveness which is found in the latter part. Further, the theological meaning of the whole is not dependent on scholarly reconstructions of the prehistory of the final text or the ability of the exegete to relate particular texts to historical events or situations in the Assyrian, Babylonian, or Persian periods. "The final form of the literature," he writes, "provided a completely new and non-historical framework for the prophetic message which severed the message from its original historical moorings and rendered it accessible to all future generations" (p. 337). Thus within the "interpretive structure" of the canonical unit, which has been given to us by the community which shaped and used it as Scripture, the book of Isaiah is seen to be a unity once again, all of the parts functioning together for the purpose of testifying to "the ways of God with Israel and the world, both in judgment and in redemption."

This approach is bound to disturb many people. On the face of it, it

102 - Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture

seems to demand further revision of sermons, lectures, curricula, textbooks, and commentaries. Furthermore, Childs bravely and independently goes his own way, seemingly heedless of the academic establishment and insensitive to his standing on the shoulders of scholars whom he judges. Before we react in shock or defensiveness, however, it is important-and this is especially true in church circles -to realize that Childs addresses himself to theological matters that have too often been neglected or buried.

First, no one who follows his chapter-by-chapter discussion can fail to appreciate his profound and legitimate concern that the Bible is the book of the community of faith (synagogue and church), the community which has both shaped, and been shaped by, the authoritative word of God mediated in Scripture. He is critical of historical criticism, not because it is a useless or godless instrument, but because as often used it has eroded the authority of the Bible as witness to the Word of God. Hence he seeks to arrest secularizing forces which tend to reduce the Bible to the level of other literatures and to treat the "religion" of Israel as part and parcel of the religions of the Ancient Near East.

Secondly, Childs has placed the canon at the center of theological discussion. Other Introductions to the Old Testament conclude, if they touch the subject at all, with a discussion of canon and text; but he begins precisely at this point. He can speak of "the canonizing process," that is, the recognition of scriptural authority in the worshiping community before the final canonical shaping of the Scriptures, but he does not ground authority in the existential response of the community to immediate situations, as theologians are wont to do who take the traditio-historical development with theological seriousness. It is his contention that "the closing of the Hebrew canon had been largely effected before the rise of Christianity" (p. 665), a debatable thesis, and that Christians are bound by this canon of the "Old Testament," access to which is gained through the Masoretic Text. He maintains that this "common Bible," which Christians inherited from the Jewish commu-nity and accepted as normative, provides the basis for Jewish-Christian dialogue today.

Thirdly, Childs is deeply concerned about the hermeneutical problem of how the pastness of Scripture is overcome so that the biblical message may speak contemporaneously to generations who were not involved in the original experiences of long ago. This is the problem of "actualiza-tion" (Vergegenwartigung), that is, making the past present or contemporizing the tradition, which has been much discussed in the past generation. Childs cuts the Gordian knot with one blow by saying that actualization "is built into the structure of the text itself" (p. 79). By this he means that the text in its final form has already overcome the distance between the past and the present by "relativizing" past historical events and situations, that is, lifting the biblical texts above the limitations of historical particularity so that they may speak with a more universal meaning. To extrapolate from his discussion, it would be

104 - Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture

appropriate to say that Paul's letters, once addressed to particular situations in the life of local churches, were eventually circulated as "Scripture" for reading in other churches not involved in the original situations that Paul addressed. Hence they acquired, through usage in Christian worship, a universal theological meaning which transcends their original historical concreteness and therefore may be read as Scripture in the church today.

These are some of the ways in which Childs challenges us to take seriously the role of the Bible as Scripture in the believing and worshiping community. It is too soon to judge whether his canonical approach is viable, for it must be subjected to the rigid scrutiny of careful biblical exegesis and theological debate. For all of its merits, his canonical approach is fraught with problems which may call into question the viability of his earlier programmatic, and now definitely formulated, proposal for a new shape of biblical theology.

The first question has to do with his fundamental thesis concerning "canonical shape." Childs maintains that canonical analysis is a "descriptive" task in the sense that the reader should be able to perceive "the peculiar shape and special function" of the books of the Hebrew Bible apart from any commitment; after the descriptive task has been done the reader then can decide "whether or not to identify with the perspective of the canonical texts of Israel" (pp. 72-73). The difficulty is, however, that any theological knowledge gained from function in relation to the whole is inferential. Further, the exegete apparently must assume in advance that a particular book (say, Genesis or Judges) has an integrity of its own which can be found, though a purely descriptive task should allow the possibility that the canonical unit may be a loosely joined collection of material or that it functions in relation to a non-canonical whole (e.g., the so-called Deuteronomistic History). Understandably, Childs is averse to building theology on the fragile foundation of scholarly reconstruction (subjectivity); the question is whether the putative "shape" of the biblical texts provides a foundation that is firmer and more objective. At one point, Childs seems to sense this problem. He admits that grasping the canonical shape of the biblical text "requires the highest degree of exegetical skill" and recognizes that inevitably "interpreters will sometimes disagree on the nature of the canonical shaping" (p. 73).

Secondly, a question is bound to arise concerning the hermeneutic which allegedly is "written into" the final shape of the biblical text. Here again his view of "actualization," referred to previously, is theologically debatable. The canon, he maintains, has overcome the chasm between the past and the present by actualizing theological meaning in Scripture which transcends the historical particularity of those involved in the original experience (e.g., the Exodus) and there-fore presents a message that is available to all generations. The theological truth of Scripture is transhistorical (not "non-historical"),

105 - Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture

for it is not dependent on "an extrinsic norm of historicity" or the search for "a historical referent."

It is not suprising that in his discussion of so-called "Second Isaiah," where the historical character of the text becomes most controversial, he makes a move toward biblical "doctrine." He writes: "The dogma of modern hermeneutics which rejects as alien to the Old Testament everything that even approaches a theological doctrine or biblical principle cannot be sustained from the Bible itself" (p. 338). Suppose that we grant the thesis, at least for a moment. The question is: even if the movement from tradition to Scripture has "actualized" the meaning of the past at a transhistorical level of theological truth, has the canon canonized this hermeneutic and made it binding forever? Is the church, which emphasizes the freedom of the Holy Spirit, bound by a canonical "decision" ratified within the Jewish synagogue, presumably before the first century?

Finally, we must ask whether Childs draws an unnecessarily sharp line between history and theology. He insists that the "historical enterprise," as carried out by those who write a history of Israel, is legitimate within its own historiographical purpose and limitations, but it should not be confused with the theological task which moves in another dimension. He says emphatically that this differentiation between history and theology, as set forth in a canonical approach, should not be construed as "non-historical" (p. 71). "Scripture bears witness to God's activity in history on Israel's behalf," he says, "but history per se is not a medium of revelation which is commensurate with a canon" (p. 76). This is a confusing, if not equivocal, use of the word "history." Apparently, history still remains a theological category in the limited sense of "a history of encounter between God and Israel," to which we gain access only through the final form of Scripture. But there is no theological value in attempting, via form criticism and the history of traditions, to explore the immediate situations in which the tradition was appropriated, to say nothing of seeking for a historical referent in, say, the Exodus tradition.

This bold step delivers the biblical theologian from the risks and uncertainties of historical study. It may be that we have here another example of what Pannenberg once described (in reference to Bultmann and Barth) as "a flight into a harbor supposedly safe from the critical-historical flood tide" (essay in Claus Westermarm, ed., Old Testament Hermeneutics, pp. 314-315). In any case, the question is-and this question is especially pertinent for the Christian theologian who takes with radical seriousness the historical particularity of God's revelation in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ-whether this view of scriptural revelation, which transcends the particularities and contingencies of history, is purchased at too great a theological cost. At one point, Childs remarks that "there is no greater indictment of the critical method than the theological bankruptcy of its homiletical

108 - Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture

model" (p. 409). This may be true, but more evidence should have been given. On the other hand, there are exciting homiletical possibilities in an approach to Scripture which takes historical particularity with radical theological seriousness-one that helps us to understand, in some small degree, the risk that God has taken in becoming involved in the history of God's people and the sheer earthiness of the scriptural texts that bear witness to God's word concretely.

This book, I predict, will be discussed for a long time to come. It will be disturbing to both conservatives and liberals: to the former if they think that Childs' criticism of historical criticism gives them any support for biblical fundamentalism; to the latter if they think that devotion to historical criticism will yield positive theological results. It is to be hoped that the controversy which the book is bound to excite will, in the long run, help to stem the forces of secularization at work in the church and to help modern people in the community of faith to gain a deeper appreciation of the Bible as sacred Scripture.

Bernard W. Anderson
Princeton Theological Seminary
Princeton, New Jersey