What is the “canonical approach,” and in what respect is its main supporting argument a “shell game”?
One approach to Scripture that has gained a strong following since its appearance in the early 1970’s is the so-called “canonical approach,” associated with Brevard Childs (†2007). This way of reading the Bible assumes that literary aspects of the Bible in its final form, including aspects not native to any of the individual writings, should have a bearing on what the Bible is said to mean. Although this approach appeals to many of the more pious habits of thought that Christians have concerning the Bible, I am convinced that it represents a huge step away from the approach of the early Church.
Although I have long recognized the debt that Childs’s approach owes to a certain non sequitur, it is only recently, while watching an online lecture by Childs’s student Christopher Seitz, that I came to see just how central this non sequitur is for this approach. In some respects, of course, referring to Childs’s argument as a “shell game” is unfair, as it is obvious that Childs was not doing anything dishonest with his arguments about “meaning,” while those who work real shell games (like those I have personally witnessed on 52nd Street in New York) know fully well what they are doing. I say this as more than just an admission that my rhetoric, in this respect, is not trimmed to fit Childs’s true intentions, but
| To view the remainder of this article, please log in at the top of this page. | OR | |
OR
If you are not yet a Premium Content subscriber, please consider this amazing tool for Bible study. Premium Content membership gives you access to hundreds of articles, written by many of the best New Testament scholars in Israel and abroad, which illuminated Jesus' sayings. (Read our free sample articles!)
New articles are continually being added to this database of knowledge. Articles are searchable by keyword, category or scripture reference.