|
|
207 - Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism |
Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism
By James Barr
Philadelphia, Westminster, 1993. 192 Pp. $9.95.
Formerly the Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University, the author has earned a reputation in the field of biblical studies as an
|
|
208 - Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism |
insightful critic. In this book he casts his critical eye upon the discipline of biblical theology. The book's title suggests that we now have his positive statement on some issues of central importance to that discipline; however, the title does not accurately describe the content of the book. What Barr has written is a critique of "canonical criticism," in the form of a lengthy, critical review of Brevard Childs's Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (1979), and the understanding of canon which Childs advocates. Barr thinks that Childs is not only wrong, but completely and dangerously wrong.
In the first two chapters ("Before Scripture and after Scripture"; "Biblical authority and biblical criticism in the conflict of church traditions"), Barr reviews the development of Scripture and then of the canon from the period of the Old Testament through Protestant Orthodoxy. He seems to have two purposes in view here. First, he wants to show that a strong view of the canon emerged with Protestant Orthodoxy in connection with the doctrine of inspiration, and he wants implicitly to associate Childs with this development. Secondly, be wants to show that this emphasis on canon is not consonant with Scripture itself. Chapters three and four ("The concept of canon and its modern adventures"; "Further adventures of the canon: 'canon' as the final shape of the text") attempt to bring the historical survey more concretely to bear on the question of canon in order to show that Childs's conception of it is groundless. The fifth chapter ("The spiritual and intellectual basis of modern biblical research") argues that "canonical criticism" threatens the freedom of critical inquiry, and is hence dangerous, and that it is an inappropriate starting point for biblical theology. There are two appendices: the first provides some canon lists while the second tries to trace the development of "canonical criticism" in order to show (again) its weaknesses.
There is much in these chapters that is interesting and instructive. Barr has some important criticisms to make of Childs, and his critique will have to be taken into account. However, the form in which the book is written makes this exceedingly difficult to do. Barr never enters into any real dialogue with Childs and at a number of points seriously distorts Childs's argument. He claims, for example, that Childs requires religious commitment as the starting point for biblical interpretation. Childs carefully avoids such a requirement and begins merely with the observation that the canon of Scripture does function authoritatively for some religious communities. Barr criticizes Childs for ignoring the historical dimension in the texts, then chides him for not adopting a more literary-critical approach. He seems to think that Childs should be faulted for following Karl Barth too completely, then argues that Childs really doesn't follow Barth at all-an argument that is certainly specious. Barr's book would have been far more satisfactory had he either stated his own constructive proposals consistently, or entered more fully into an exposition of Childs's argument.
Where Barr does articulate his own position, it seems almost odd. He
|
|
210 - Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism |
argues, for example, that the focus of authority does not reside in the texts or the canon of Scripture, but in the persons who produced the texts. "Romans is authoritative because St. Paul is authoritative" (p. 48). Barr finds it necessary to argue this way because of his prior claim that since the people of the biblical period ascribed no theological importance to canon, neither should we. To say in opposition to this that "we are not biblical men [sic]" commits us to "cultural relativism" (p. 65). It is hard, if not impossible, to take such an argument seriously. Since Barr refers frequently to Barth, it is perhaps not out of place to note that Barth said of these "biblical men" that "there is no reason why as men they should not deserve as much faith as we usually give to other men-but no more, and of no other kind" (Church Dogmatics 1/2, p. 491).
Barr regards Childs's argument as dead wrong, but the attention he gives it shows that be also regards it-as awesomely important. There are serious problems with Childs's proposals that need to be debated among biblical and theological scholars. Barr's book contributes only minimally to that debate, because it shows no appreciation of its hermeneutical starting point, and has the curious effect of making Childs seem the more attractive option.
Finally, it is disturbing to find assumed in a book published by Westminster Press that the people of the biblical period, contemporary Christians, biblical and theological scholars were and are all "men."
BEN C. OLLENBURGER
Princeton Theological Seminary
Princeton, New Jersey