Brevard Childs’ Intro to the OT
I am working my way through Brevard Childs’ Introduction to the OT as Scripture (Fortress Press, 1979). The more I read it, the more I like his approach. Now I want to see how his methodology is going to play out in practice.
His canonical approach does raise some issues, and I was pleasantly surprised that every time I had a question, he either answered it or at least gave me enough to think about. One of the questions I had was about textual criticism since I wanted to know when we would start to talk about a “canon” of the OT when things seemed to be so fluid in the first century. Not only that, why should I even limit myself to the first century? What is the role of the canonical shape of scriptures throughout its entire history?
Childs proposes that we start with the Masoretic text not because it is the best, but because it is a vehicle for both “recovering and for understanding the canonical text of the Old Testament” (97). He is not just interested in the text but also in the community which shaped it. I am still not sure how this is going to work out because I am still wondering how you go about understanding the community of faith (which community?) in order to understand the canonical text. What makes sense to me at this point is that, somehow, we need to take into consideration how the community used Scriptures. Trying to understand the history of the text is fine as far as it goes, but how did the people of God appropriate it? This seems to be a much better vehicle for how we may read the text today.
I really liked his discussion on the history and current status of biblical scholarship. Childs thinks there is a lot to be gained from historical criticism, but it is quite obvious that theories have been challenged, changed, revised and expanded. However, regardless of the various theories, critics seem to agree that the traditional understanding of the composition of the text just doesn’t explain the evidence. To me, this brings up the question of where we are today in terms of source criticism. I think it was Richard Pratt who said that he believes that the Pentateuch was “essentially” written by Moses (probably a position held by many). This allows him to explain the obvious oddities in holding on to a full mosaic authorship and still (somehow) cling to tradition. But the catch word here is “essentially.” Childs uses JEPD-ish language but wants to acknowledge that people who used the bible throughout history never understood its significance by how it was composed. So, if we say today that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, how do we explain the fact that the text itself wants to be understood as being written by Moses and the fact that the community of faith understood it that way? How do we reconcile what the critics have to say and what the canonical shape of the text has to say?
About Mosaic authorship, Childs writes:
“… in spite of the lack of historical evidence by which to trace the actual process, it would seem clear that the authorship of Moses did perform a normative role with a canonical context from a very early period. Thus laws attributed to Moses were deemed authoritative and conversely authoritative laws were attributed to Moses… The claim of Mosaic authorship functioned as a norm by which to test the tradition’s authority” (134).
Interesting. If this is correct, then it would not be contradictory to say that Moses wrote the Pentateuch although he was not the original author. Because when I say that he wrote the Pentateuch, I am making a statement about the authority of the text and not necessarily its historicity.
Does that work?
