Canonical Exegesis: An Appeal for a Wider Approach

As I pointed out in a previous post, there are a number of bloggers who read biblical texts in full awareness of the first historical contexts in which they were read but who are also interested in pursuing interpretation of the text that does a measure of justice to the reception the texts received in later tradition.

The approach, sometimes referred to as canonical exegesis in the sense that Brevard Childs conceived of it, is symptomatic of a seismic shift that is underway in the field of biblical studies. Bloggers with a demonstrated interest in exegesis of this kind include: Phil Sumpter (here), Stephen (aka Q) (here), Daniel Driver (three posts just in October, but be sure to read this and browse through this), Kevin Wilson (here), Stephen Cook (here), and Frank Logue (here); a commenter extraordinaire, John Poirier (see Phil’s blog), also deserves mention.

The masthead of Stephen’s blog contains food for thought: “our deepest obedience cannot be to an absolute norm but to the biblical texts themselves. The texts constantly disturb and disorient us. We are never permitted to settle on a final interpretation. We must forever return to Sinai, to interpret and reinterpret the biblical texts anew.” Stephen is channeling here – and improving on! – statements by Walter Brueggeman.

Returning to Sinai, however, is something Jewish exegesis has been doing for millennia. My basic beef with canonical exegesis as practiced by Christians is that the Jewish exegetical tradition is rarely integrated into the discussion of the text’s traditional reception. It is often overlooked altogether. As a corrective thereto, the canonical exegesis of Michael Fishbane in his Haftarot commentary deserves a very close look. Fishbane’s engages in a form of liturgical hermeneutics that is attentive to the sensus literalis as defined by an Enlightenment hermeneutic and to the tradition of interpretation which is sometimes anything but. This review by Benjamin Sommer makes the same points in greater detail.

Comments

[James Pate]

Hi John,

I don't agree with you on canonical exegesis overlooking Jewish tradition, if you are referring to Childs' approach. Childs' Exodus commentary refers to Rashi, and I once heard Jon Levenson say that Childs is sensitive to Jewish exegesis. The rationale for Childs doing that, I really can't tell you. Maybe his approach tries to consider how various faith communities treat the text as canon.

[John Hobbins]

James,

you are exactly right about the Exodus OTL commentary by Childs. I think he even went to Jerusalem for a year to get the Jewish part right.

But I don't think the laudable template of that commentary has been followed since. Childs himself abandoned it.

[Phil Sumpter]

Your constant linking has boosted my technorati rating by miles! Somehow, that gives me a sad, pathetic sense of satisfaction ... oh, the idolatry of it all!

Your links here to other blogs are priceless, thank you!

Despite that, I can feel waves of protest welling up within me in response to your presentation of Childs. But due to exhaustion after a rather colossal bout of online-dialoguing, I'll spare you the text. For today ...

[John Hobbins]

Hi Phil. I'm glad I hit a nerve.

As you might have guessed, my sole purpose is to get you guys to read Sommer's review of Fishbane's Haftarot, and then go and start working with that. What is there to learn from Fishbane? As much or more than there is to learn from Seitz. That's how I see it, but I'm interested in seeing what you and Stephen and Daniel come up with.

[Stephen (aka Q)]

Thank you very much for both the links and the kind words!

I'm pleased that you noted the content of the masthead of my blog. However, I can't really take credit for improving on Brueggemann. A series of Brueggemann lectures is available for download here. I am paraphrasing some of his remarks from the "Leviticus" segment. I have found those lectures to be a very good introduction to Brueggemann's thought.

I will be checking out the links you suggest!

[Daniel Driver]

Hi John,

I have been very reluctant to get drawn into the debates that have recently surfaced online even though, as you note in the sidebar, there has been some "astoundingly thoughtful comment." That's because (a) I'm working against several deadlines at the moment, (b) I've been working on the particular problem of Childs' reception too long probably, so little seems fresh on the Q to me, and (c) I have some doubts about blogs as a medium for advancing the state of the Q here when so much energy has been expended on it in more traditional media over the last 2.5 decades. Also, though the reasons why I was drawn to my PhD topic are complex and rightly point to an appreciation of Childs’ work on my part, this is not uncritical. I find myself wondering about how to get out from under this first project in the next.

Nevertheless, you have drawn me. I’m still facing immanent deadlines, so I’ll have to get to it.

James makes a good point, and so do you, John, in response. It has often been claimed that Childs frequently changes his mind (so Barr above all, but by no means exclusively), and typically I think this perception has been overstated. On this precise point, it is unquestionably true that Childs had to rethink some of his initial work on what he calls “the mystery of Israel” (see chapter 4 of my forthcoming dissertation). Fishbane is a great figure to bring up at this juncture.

Rolf Rendtorff, as a self-professed Christian canonical reader, is another. He fell out with Childs over precisely this issue (see his review of BTONT in JBTh 9). I don’t know if you’ve seen his Leviticus commentary yet, but it represents a career-long effort to give the Jewish reception of the Hebrew Bible its due. For Rendtorff this is an imperative for Christians reading the OT.

On the other hand, though Childs moved from talk of midrash (Jewish in his view) to allegory (the traditional Christian reading strategy—I know that can sound over simple, but its how he sees it), he still strove to be a student of the Jewish tradition. When I interviewed him in Cambridge I pushed him exactly here. Why no midrash anymore? His answer came out as advice to a student—you’ll never master the material; trust me, I’ve tried. Also, Jewish readers themselves don’t agree on these things.

To my mind the best further reading here is Childs’ 1999 essay “The Almost Forgotten Genesis Commentary of Benno Jacob.” Not only does it tell the the story of Jacob’s Genesis commentary, it also alludes to Jacob’s Exodus commentary, which Childs used heavily in his own commentary of 1974. The astonishing thing is that Childs, when in Jerusalem, secured a copy of the then almost unknown manuscript and brought it back to Yale. He was making serious use of it decades before it was printed (first in English translation, and only very recently in its German original). There is a deep commitment to Jewish readings which really never leaves, even though he gains clarity over the years on what an explicitly Christian reading of the tradition entails.

Personally I haven’t sorted out where I stand on these issues. At the seminar paper I gave on the topic last week there seemed to be quite a bit of sympathy for Rendtorff’s position over against Childs’. Still, the latter is (in a sense) the lectio difficilior. Should a Jewish and Christian scholar really come to different results on that basis? (If no, why not?) I agree with your general point, however. It would be ironic indeed if Childs became a warrant for “canonical readers,” what ever that may mean, to neglect Jewish reception in preference for Christian. Fortunately, some of the best theological readers today (who follow Childs at times and do not follow Childs) avoid this: Walter Moberly, Markus Bockmuehl, etc.

Incidentally, I also agree with your comment on Cook’s blog about the neglected works. The only real Wirkung the NT Intro got seems to have been among Roman Catholic scholars in Germany. And James Kugel explicitly mentioned the sensus literalis essay in his respectful comments at the small Childs session at SBL Vienna this summer, but who has worked with it seriously?

Warmest regards. See you in San Diego I hope.

Daniel

[Daniel Driver]

Great lead on the review of Fishbane, by the way.

B. Sommer: "I venture to propose that this commentary is one of the few genuine works of canon criticism [sic] that any modern biblical scholar has ever written." Who is he to judge, and on what basis? This does not alter the likelihood of his conclusion, though: “Members of our guild will profit from it [Fishbane's commentary] greatly.”

[Daniel Driver]

Over lunch I posted my response in a fuller context, full of hyperlinks, on my own site: http://homepage.mac.com/dnadriver/blog_files/response-to-hobbins.html

I would be happy for discussion to take place here rather than there, though. I'm not trying to co-opt this post.

[John Hobbins]

Daniel, thank you for your thoughtful and knowledgeable comments. You illuminate a number of aspects of the larger question.

I look forward to following and linking to your work on Childs, online and off.

[Phil Sumpter]

Daniel,

What you've said here concerning allegory and midrash is roughly what I was thinking of. I didn't know Childs left off midrash in proportion to allegory because of the difficulty of midrash. I thought it was primarily becuase of the specifically 'Christian' mode of biblical appropriation that allegory represents, as opposed to midrash. I understand his emphasis on allegory to have a theological grounding with hermeneutical implications. Similar, perhaps, to what I've said about his differences to Brueggemann here. Is that a fair understanding of the matter? He wouldn't have used midrash in his last book, The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture, as it just wouldn't have made sense, would it?

John,

this theological difference between allegory and midrash is something I tried to point out on your Levinas post here.

thanks for the Fishbane reference. I'm still at the research proposal stage, so it'll take me a while to get there. But I will ...

Better than Seitz? Ouch ...

[John Hobbins]

Seitz vs. Fishbane. My statement, of course, was meant to be provocative.

Both contribute to the discussion in very important ways.