CANONICAL CRITICISM. !
e term expressed in the light of critical historical
“canonical criticism” does not adequately convey
the range of approaches or the variety of
methodologies employed by scholars who are
o"en associated with it. Even scholars who have
come to reject the term, e.g., Brevard Childs,
may still be regarded by other scholars as its
leading practitioners. What is clear is that
canonical criticism is less a formal “criticism”
than an approach or series of approaches that
seeks to raise neglected questions about the form
and function of scripture, both Jewish and
Christian.
A. Introduction
B.“Canon” and Canonical Approaches
1. Canonical Dimension and Biblical
Interpretation
2.“Shape” of Biblical Books
3. Examples of a Canonical Approach
C. Conclusion
A. Introduction
Approaches currently associated with
“canonical criticism,” regardless of how it is
specifically defined, presuppose the triumph of
historical criticism over premodern historical
notions about the authorship and formation of
biblical books. While many of the proposals
associated with a canonical approach rejuvenate
traditional questions about the nature and
authority of scripture, they do so only through
significant innovation and with the hope of a
greater degree of historical precision than one
could have expected of similar premodern
treatments. In this way, biblical fundamentalists
find that some subjects neglected by older
historical critics are taken up once again, though
David Noel Freedman et al., eds., !e Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992).
Exported from Logos Bible Software, 10:33 AM July 19, 2023.
conclusions alien to fundamentalist views
regarding the history of the Bible. Canonical
criticism, regardless of the theological spectrum
that may find it appealing, is a response from
within a more liberal, rather than a
conservative, assessment of the biblical
prehistory.
Canonical approaches in general strive to
articulate a perspective on the relationship
between biblical studies and the study of religion
and theology. In premodern Christian studies of
the Bible, both Roman Catholics and Protestants
agreed that the “literal sense” of scripture
provided the principal authority for Christian
doctrine and that this sense, as distinguished
from “spiritual senses,” could be identified, at
least in part, with the “author’s intent.” Since the
15th century, Nicholas of Lyra and many other
Christian exegetes resorted to the idea of a
double “literal sense,” especially for the OT: one
aimed at a grammatical, historical, and religious
dimension common to both Jews and Christians;
the other based on the role of the OT within
Christian scripture as a norm of distinctly
Christian doctrines. In the early modern period,
biblical scholars frequently sought through a
“historical” approach to secure neutral, scientific
consensus regarding what a biblical text “meant”
distinct from ecclesiastical or sectarian
assessments of what it “means.” !is allegedly
neutral meaning of the Bible o"en became
identified with the traditional religious goal of
describing the “literal sense” of scripture as a
prior step to theological interpretation.
In the past few decades, the confidence that
the literal sense of scripture can be equated with
1
the results of historical criticism has been
seriously reexamined. At the outset, biblical
criticism has convincingly shown that the Bible
is a multilayered, editorial composite of diverse
texts and traditions. Any effort to describe the
“original” historical traditions, as against the
“secondary” one now preserved with them in the
Bible, is highly speculative and, more
significantly, must isolate older traditions away
from their context within scripture. Such
historical analysis leads properly to an effort to
recover the “original” form and function of
ancient Israelite traditions and to conjecture
about the original prebiblical social se"ings in
which they were once heard or read. If the
“literal sense” is identified rigorously with the
intent of the first “authors” of such traditions,
then the intent will, in most instances, be
prebiblical in so far as these authors rarely, if
ever, “intended” to write “biblical” traditions.
Many of these traditions only became identified
as “biblical” at a later time and were publically
established as such when they were assigned a
place within a scripture by editors.
Consequently, the “meaning of the biblical text”
cannot be equated uncritically with the
historical intent of a modern conception of
V 1, p 862 the “original” authors, without losing
precisely what the traditional formulation
sought to preserve.
A modern understanding of the form and
function of a scripture implies a shi# in the
semantic import of its antecedent traditions. $e
canonical context of the Bible exhibits moments
of both formal preservation and contextual
modification, both historical retention and
ahistorical, or topical, reorientation. Just as the
David Noel Freedman et al., eds., !e Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992).
Exported from Logos Bible Software, 10:33 AM July 19, 2023.
semantic force of words is not secured solely by
appeal to their etymologies but gains specific
import within the context of a particular
sentence, so the context of scripture inevitably
influences how earlier traditions come to make
sense as a part of scripture. $is transformation
in the meaning of texts and traditions occurs
through a complex, sociopolitical process of
literary production leading to the public
recognition of both a particular religion and the
canonization of its scripture. $is process is
historically serendipitous, but reflects in general
terms a dialectical relationship between canon
and community, between the formation of a
scripture and the identification of the
community of faith that treasures it. In
sociological terms, a scripture may be
considered a social contract between differing
groups that assume a common purpose and
status before God. While the context of a
scripture establishes a restrictive framework in
which religious interpretation takes place, the
context itself is composed of the favored
traditions of different groups, ordered in, at
times, a remarkably unharmonized fashion.
In sum, the semantic function of a scripture
o#en exceeds or contravenes the original intent
of various historical authors/redactors who can
be reconstructed within the prehistory of the
canon. In the place of a modern reconstruction
of historical authors, Jewish and Christian
scripture presents key figures—Moses, David,
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Luke, John, Paul—as “biblical”
persons whose “intents” can only be found in the
canonical context. $e very realism of these
biographical presentations, together with some
degree of modern historical support for their
2
historicity, may tempt interpreters to replace the
biblical portrayal with more historically
“accurate” biographies. However, such
substitution usually sacrifices the context of
scripture and misses the possibility of a biblical
anthropology. Only the biblical context warrants
such a wedding of word and persona that
presumes to render the nature of ultimate
reality through the reception of scripture as a
human witness to divine revelation.
Start Reading
B. “Canon” and Canonical Approaches
As early as the 2d century, Christians could
speak of the Bible as “canonical,” as well as
divinely “inspired.” Only later did Athanasius (
ca. 350 C.E.) identify ta biblia (“the books” of
scripture) with the noun kanon (a list of
normative books). !e same usage in Judaism
belongs only to the modern period, though, as
in Christianity, Jewish scriptures possesses a
special normative quality—it is “spoken by God”
and “defiles the hands.” In both Christianity and
Judaism, the identification of books belonging to
scripture preceded by several centuries the
determination of a textus receptus, or fixed
textual tradition. Prebiblical uses of the word
“canon” reflect well the ambiguities a"endant to
the formation of a “normative” scripture.
As a Semitic loan word transliterated into
Greek and Latin, “canon” can denote (1) an ideal,
standard, central criterion, or essential
summation and/or (2) a list, catalog, or measure.
Something “canonical” may not yet be situated
in a fixed list or collection of similar canonical
things. So, biblical traditions and even whole
books may be viewed as “canonical” long before
they belong to a fixed “canon” or list of such
David Noel Freedman et al., eds., !e Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992).
Exported from Logos Bible Software, 10:33 AM July 19, 2023.
books. A scripture is, of course, only one special
type of canonical text or tradition. Other canons
a may include oral Torah, magisteria, special
exegetical traditions, the inspired interpretation
of a rabbi, or a contemporary word of Christian
prophecy. !ese extrabiblical canons may seem
more immediately influential for practical
religious life than the scripture. !e practice of
religion is, of course, further subject to still
other secular authorities or canons.
Nonetheless, scripture is, at least in theory,
assigned a superior place as a norm of faith
within Judaism and Christianity.
Premodern handbooks or introductions
usually began by considering the subjects of text
and canon. As the more rigorous historical
orientation of the modern period came to
dominate, canonical issues seemed to belong
only to the last steps in a long process, at great
distance from the original historical events upon
which the revelatory claims of a religion
depends. !erefore, modern scholars, whether
conservative or liberal on questions of biblical
history, tended to shi# the treatment of these
subjects to the back of introductions, following
the lead of such major orthodox interpreters as J.
G. Carpzov (1721). !is same priority of biblical
history to biblical text informed much of the
recent “Biblical !eology Movement” which
o#en focused the theological worth of the Bible
to the “acts of God in history” or defined the
biblical witness in terms of an “actualized”
report about a historical event. !e canon could
be viewed, according to this model, as merely a
late and flawed premodern effort to preserve
efficacious “confessions” about history . A
3
canonical approach challenges the assumption
that the earliest historical events play such a
determinative role in the capacity of scripture to
have authority or to render reality. Without
denying the value of information gained by
means of any critical investigation, a canonical
approach seeks to understand a different issue:
how a biblical text is normative within religious
interpretation, that is to say, how the context of
ancient traditions within scripture functions as
an arena in which certain religious questions are
asked and answered . In this approach, one
seeks to recognize the textual warrants and rules
whereby a scripture makes specific religious
claims, perpetuates paradoxical and ambiguous
expressions of faith, engenders the need for
repeated interpretation, and imposes upon the
reader a vision of the world that God has made.
"ough various canonical approaches explore
the same neglected perspective on the nature of
a biblical text, their chief interpreters do not
always agree on terminology, on methods of
analysis, or on the practical implications for the
future of biblical interpretation and
commentary. James Sanders first coined the
term “canon criticism” and popularized it
through his Torah and Canon (1972 ). "rough
the study of interpretations within the Bible,
which he calls “comparative midrash,” Sanders
sought to find a “canonical hermeneutic” that
would explain why the same normative
traditions could properly be interpreted
V 1, p 863 with contradictory implications at
different times and places . Later, in Canon and
Community (1984) he changed the terminology
from “canon criticism” to “canonical criticism,”
David Noel Freedman et al., eds., !e Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992).
Exported from Logos Bible Software, 10:33 AM July 19, 2023.
stressing its alignment with other critical
methods. Brevard Childs, for one, initially used
the term “canon criticism” in the 1970s (e.g.,
Exodus OTL) but dropped it as a misleading label
for his own approach . It does not occur in
either his Introduction to the Old Testament as
Scripture (IOTS) or !e New Testament as Canon
(NTC). For Childs, “canon criticism” wrongly
suggested a “criticism” parallel to other standard
biblical methodologies (e.g., source, form, and
redaction criticism).
Childs prefers to speak of a “canonical
approach,” highlighting how “the canonical
shape” of a biblical book established possibilities
and limits to its interpretation as a part of Jewish
and Christian scripture . He starts with “the
final text” of scripture, without uncritically
accepting the textus receptus, and makes
observations about how diverse, even
contradictory, traditions share a canonical
context together. Rather than allowing the
reader to pick and choose what elements of
traditions seem the most appealing, this
canonical context deepened the demand for
interpretation in specific ways and in certain
significant theological directions. Leaning more
in the direction of Childs than Sanders, Rolf
Rendtorff ’s !e Old Testament: An Introduction
(1983, ET 1986) finds evidence of additional
unifying “literary” features in a
Kompositionsgeschichte (“composition criticism”
or “history of composition”) for each biblical
book. Rendtorff stresses the inability of form
criticism to account for how the “literary”
dimension of the biblical text extended the
audience and o#en detached traditions from
4
their historical moorings for the purpose of “scriptural vision” (Fishbane), or with a special
establishing another theological way of potential for “actualization” (Childs). "is highly
receiving these traditions within Judaism and tendentious sketch of scholarly activities that are
Christianity. o#en associated with “canon criticism”
Related studies include I. L. Seeligmann’s illustrates some of the diversity in the present
seminal study of “canon conscious” exegesis debate. In order to convey what is at stake in
within the Bible. Nahum Sarna and Michael these newer approaches, a more general
Fishbane have elaborated cases of “inner- discussion of the canonical dimension will be
biblical” interpretation that similarly presume followed by some examples of implications for
plays upon fixed normative traditions, assessing biblical literature.
anticipating in some instances later types of 1. Canonical Dimension and Biblical
Jewish midrashic interpretation of scripture. Interpretation. "e present diversity in
More radically, the French school of canonical approaches has led to a variety of
“anthological midrash” (e.g., A. A. Robert, R. proposals regarding the future of biblical
Bloch DBSup 5: 1263–81 ) sought to describe a interpretation. Sanders’ and Fishbane’s concern
particular type of inner-biblical interpretation with “inner-biblical” interpretation suggests a
that reemploys words and phrases from continuity between the prebiblical
canonical traditions in order to compose whole interpretation of normative traditions and the
portions (e.g., parts of Proverbs 1–9) of some later postbiblical interpretations of scripture in
late biblical books. A number of redaction- Judaism and Christianity. As Fishbane finds
critical studies, such as those of Ackroyd, anticipations of later Jewish midrash, so Sanders
Blenkinsopp, Clements, and Sheppard, have detects a midrashic “canonical hermeneutic,”
called a!ention to the special nature of already forged among Israel’s ancient prophets
canonical traditions from the perspective of later
and continuing into the postbiblical period.
editors. Certain “canon conscious” redactions
Sanders argues that contemporary theological
tell readers how some biblical books should be
exegesis should employ the same hermeneutic
read in the context of others (Sheppard EncRel 3:
he has found here and there in ancient Israel and
62–69) . An editor’s use of certain esoteric
throughout the process of canonization. In
techniques in the alteration and placement of a
religious terms he identifies this hermeneutic
tradition suggest self-conscious terms of
with “the ancient struggles of our ancestors in
restriction and freedom in how biblical
the faith to monotheize, to pursue the oneness
authors/editors handled the preceding
of God, over against all kinds of polytheisms and
normative traditions. "ese traditions can be
fragmentations of truth” (1984: 17) . "e
seen to function within the formation of the
Bible with a special “semantic canonization of scripture represents the freezing

depth” (Clements), “vitality” (Ackroyd), of only one imperfect moment within that same

“adaptability” (Sanders), or within an implicit process of interpretation. In Sanders’ view, this

David Noel Freedman et al., eds., !e Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992).
Exported from Logos Bible Software, 10:33 AM July 19, 2023. 5
hermeneutical criterion allows one to
distinguish true from false prophecy in ancient
Israel and can be applied similarly today to
discern true and false biblical preaching in
Christian churches.
Conversely, Childs, Rendtorff, and Sheppard
have emphasized elements of discontinuity
between the prescriptural functions of ancient
traditions and the new roles they play within
“the canonical context” of Jewish and Christian
Bibles . While acknowledging different levels of
authority and canonicity in the prehistory of the
Bible, these scholars start with the canonical
context as a way to assess how earlier traditions
have been put together to form a new literary
entity. Because the historical forces behind the
formation of biblical books are so
heterogeneous, Childs concludes: “"e history
of the canonical process does not seem to be an
avenue through which one can greatly
illuminate the present canonical text” (IOTS 67).
Only the present “shape” (Childs) or
“composition” (Rendtorff) of a biblical book
survives as evidence of how the community of
faith ordered past traditions as a normative
witness to divine revelation. Besides indicating a
specific inner-textuality and a unity of subject
ma#er, the canonical context, also, gives
permanence to unresolved differences between
traditions, delimits functional ambiguities, and
perpetuates undecoded symbolism integral to a
religion’s understanding of divine mysteries yet
to be fully revealed. Clearly, many ancient
historical features are retained within this later
context, though the formation of scripture tends
to insure that “texts are less bound up with
particular events and situations” (Rendtorff
David Noel Freedman et al., eds., !e Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992).
Exported from Logos Bible Software, 10:33 AM July 19, 2023.
1986: 125).
"e hermeneutical significance of the
canonical context of scripture depends partly on
how a religion construes the relation between
the biblical witness and its revealed subject
ma#er. Rabbinic Judaism sought to interpret the
wri#en Torah of scripture chiefly through
midrashic methods, honoring the parallel
testimony of oral Torah (Mishnah V 1, p 864 and
the Talmud[s]). Christianity moved in another
hermeneutical direction. With the addition of a
“New Testament” and the transformation of
Hebrew scripture into “Old Testament,” a new
literary horizon emerged. At least by the
middle of the 2d century, Christian leaders
asserted that priority in dogmatic disputes
should be given to a nonmidrashic, “plain” or
“literal sense.” Similarly, Christians sought to
understand the relation of the Torah to the
Gospel. A prophetic interpretation o$en
predominated and certain texts lent themselves
more readily than others to Christian messianic
explication. "ough Christianity did not share
the oral Torah of Judaism, it did not lack its own
extrabiblical authorities in the form of creeds,
binding church decisions, local ecclesial laws,
and so forth. "ough the practice of biblical
interpretation differs between Judaism and
Christianity, both frequently show a similar
concern for warrants implicit within the
canonical “shape” of books. In this respect,
crucial religious features of the Hebrew Bible are
fully retained in Christian scripture in spite of
the semantic transformation that takes place
when Christians appropriate the Hebrew Bible
as the “Old Testament” within the context of the
“New.” At a minimum, the canonical context is a
6
highly significant factor, but not the only one
that may influence the nature of biblical
interpretation.
2. “Shape” of Biblical Books. Childs has
chosen the term “shape” to describe the
distinctive features of biblical books when they
are read as scripture. !is trope may connote
too readily a trait of harmony or full coherence
of traditions in books, comparable to geometric
symmetry . Nevertheless, Childs uses “shape”
carefully to describe the boundaries and
orchestration of semantic possibilities
traditions within a biblical book from the
perspective of its form and function as scripture.
From the 1st centuries of Christianity up to the
modern period, Christians have o"en sought to
preserve the same scriptural dimension by an
appeal to the “scope” of a biblical book. At times,
the “scope” (skopos) has pertained to an element
in the church’s “rule of faith,” as in Athanasius’
refutation of the Arians’ use of Proverbs; at other
times, it denoted a more literary appeal to the
beginnings and endings of biblical books, to
titles, and other transitional markers within a
biblical text. !e la#er usage can be readily seen
in the rules of Flacius in the middle of the 16th
century and commonly among English
Protestants in the late 16th century until the
end of the 19th. !e indices of the scope of a text
were supposed to provide clues regarding the
normative “purpose” of the text, coinciding with
the “intent” of the inspired author.
In the premodern period, Christian
interpreters commonly assumed that the literal
sense of scripture was identical with the biblical
author’s “intent.” What becomes obvious is that
in these formulations the “biblical author,” the
David Noel Freedman et al., eds., !e Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992).
Exported from Logos Bible Software, 10:33 AM July 19, 2023.
central figure associated with a particular book,
is not identical with a “historical author”
reconstructed by modern historical criticism .
A canonical approach can try to express what
the older formulation sought to describe in
another way, informed by a modern
understanding of history and religion. !is
alternative expression of how the biblical text
relates to its subject ma#er must take into
account a different perception of diachronic
dimensions and involves a critical awareness of
of the semantic import of traditions shi"ed from
their origins, through transmission and editing,
to their later places among biblical texts. !e
shape of a biblical book and its canonical context
within scripture provide an essential guide as to
how the intents of various historical authors and
editors pertain to the presentation of a biblical
author and a biblical book. Moreover, the
canonical context indicates how the
presentations of key biblical figures have been
linked to the “canonical intention” of the biblical
text. In these two ways, the aim of the older
identification of literal sense with the author’s
intent is maintained but expressed in new ways
that respond to the impact of historical criticism
and the contemporary perception of differences
in a biblical text.
3. Examples of a Canonical Approach. !e
form of the Pentateuch (“the book of Moses,”
Josh 1:7) corresponds to its function as scriptural
“Torah” in various ways. First, as Sanders has
eloquently shown, it situates the law of God
prior to the actual conquest of the land . !e
Torah could be received by future readers of the
Jewish Diaspora as an address to people who
themselves yearn to enter into a promised land.
7
!e laws, regardless of what we may say about
their original historical se"ings, refer in this
context to a revealed Torah rather than to law
codes that reflect merely compromises to the
experiences of life at various times in the land.
Second, while “the Torah” denotes a single,
coherent instruction from God, it is represented
in the narrative form through different Mosaic
mediations : as shown in the legal collections
of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and, then, those
of Deuteronomy. While each of these collections
now shares substantially the same Decalog
(Exod 20:2–14 and Deut 5:6–18), the other laws
contain many disagreements, even within laws
governing the same offense. While historical
criticism can provide one account for these
differences, the canonical context now relates
them according to another religious
implication. In the context of the Mosaic Torah,
the laws found in Exodus, Leviticus, and
Numbers belong to the legislation as given to
Moses in the region of Sinai, while the laws
presented in Deuteronomy belong to Moses’
subsequent “interpretation” of them on the
plains of Moab to the next generation (Deut 1:5)
. Based on the role of these laws in scripture,
the historical etymology of these traditions is
less important than the canonical context which
depicts Moses as “interpreting” the earlier laws
to the changing circumstances of a later
generation. !is contextual precedent was
recognized by rabbinic Judaism and perpetuated
by the acceptance of the oral Torah (the Mishnah
and Talmud[s]), that accompanies the
interpretation of the wri"en Torah. It was also
allegedly perpetuated by Moses through the
David Noel Freedman et al., eds., !e Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992).
Exported from Logos Bible Software, 10:33 AM July 19, 2023.
Elders.
!ird, Moses appears in these books as a vivid
flesh-and-blood figure with strengths and
weaknesses like our ow n. Genesis elaborates
the genealogical record leading to his birth in
Exodus, and the five-book Torah concludes in
the last chapters of Deuteronomy with an
account of his death. !is presentation of his life
provides a key unifying feature corresponding to
the unity of the revealed Torah which this five-
book collection mediates . Moses’ unique
status as the prophet par excellence (Deut
34:10–12) indicates the special role these books
play within the scripture as a whole. !ough
modern critics suspect correctly that a V 1, p
865 historical Moses could not have wri"en all of
these traditions, the biblical portrayal of Moses
and the events of his life belong to the very
syntax of these books in their form and function
as scripture. Modern critics have o$en sought to
improve on the historical elements in this
presentation by searching for the “historical”
Moses. If such a search claims to pursue
“biblical” faith, then it has confused uncritically
the mode of understanding congruent to the
realism of a scripture with the mode of
understanding congruent to a realism
pertaining to conceptions of a modern “history.”
As Judaism now finds in scripture and in oral
Torah different literary manifestations of law as
inspired human witnesses to the one Torah that
God has given to a chosen people, so Christianity
possesses in the NT four different Gospels, as
well as Romans and James, despite the
confession that there is actually only one Gospel
of Jesus Christ. From this perspective the biblical
8
canons do not end interpretation by
harmonizing as much as they ground and
perpetuate the need for fresh interpretation of
the Bible by each generation of believers.
!ough both Judaism and Christianity resist the
expansion of scripture by new revelation, each
generation seeks to express the Torah or the
Gospel, with the aid of scripture, more precisely
and in pragmatically more pertinent ways than
preceding generations. !erefore, the scripture
harbors in its own contextual ambiguities the
potential for a criticism of each believer’s
current ruling metaphors while, at the same
time, it delimits a specific arena in which a grand
quest for the revelation of reality can take place.
In both the OT and NT, collections of
tradition outside of the Mosaic Torah and the
Gospels have been assigned a special context and
function together as parts of scripture. What
might be regarded as historical anachronisms
frequently contribute to the canonical context
and religious import of ancient traditions
!ough the activity of many of the OT prophets
precedes historically the period when the
present Mosaic Torah was formed, the traditions
of the prophets have been edited together as
scripture in a manner that allows the prophetic
books now to be read as commentary on the
Torah of Moses . So, too, the Pauline Epistles,
many of which precede the time when the
Gospels were composed, now are found a"er the
wri#en Gospels as a part of a collection of
“Pauline Le#ers” and provide a commentary
upon the same essential message found in the
four Gospels.
!e Solomonic books offer a vivid example of
David Noel Freedman et al., eds., !e Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992).
Exported from Logos Bible Software, 10:33 AM July 19, 2023.
how the canonical context alters our vision and
reception of ancient traditions when read as
scripture. Modern criticism properly questions a
direct connection between the historical
Solomon and the books of Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. Nevertheless,
the context of scripture identifies these books in
a highly significant manner as Solomonic
“wisdom” within Hebrew scripture. Because of
its association with Solomon, biblical wisdom
cannot be equated uncritically with a strictly
historical conception of ancient Israelite
“wisdom” in the Near East. !e canon-
contextual presentation of Solomon delimits
some crucial distinctions between the biblical
wisdom traditions and those of the Mosaic
Torah. For instance, Solomon epitomizes the
wisest person who ever lived (1 Kgs 5:9–11), but
he must, also, obey the Torah of Moses as did his
father (1 Kgs 3:14). Furthermore, by assigning
this “wisdom” literature to Solomon, the
. canonical context provides its own account for
why wisdom literature appears to bracket out
self-consciously the idiosyncratic language of
faith about the Exodus, the giving of the law of
God at Sinai, the covenant, and other historical
details regarding Israel’s faith in Yahweh . Part
of the religious genius of biblical wisdom lies in
its affirmation of an international collection of
sayings that borrows from and rivals that of
other nations, without resolving issues of
conflict between different religions. It is the sort
of knowledge that inspires the Queen of Sheba to
travel to test Solomon with riddles. Biblical
wisdom lends itself to an international
cooperation in understanding territories not
explicitly addressed by the Torah but shared by
9
the wisdom of other religions. !is demarcation theological interpretation, canonical approaches
of wisdom in association with Solomon, distinct offer foundational descriptions of the context of
from other parts of scripture, naturally invited a scripture and detect warrants for a reading of
debate over how the parts of scripture relate to the diverse traditions as multiple human
each other as a guide to the obedient life. Prior to witnesses to the same subject ma#er of faith and
Christianity, Judaism overtly affirmed that the revelation.
Torah and Wisdom complemented one another Bibliography
and that the one could be read as a resource for Blenkinsopp, J. 1977. Prophecy and Canon.
refinements in the understanding of the other Philadelphia.
(cf. Sirach 24 and Bar 3:9–4:4) . !e manner in Brown, R. 1981. !e Critical Meaning of the Bible. New
York.
which wisdom relates to the Torah and to the
Childs, B. S. 1970. Biblical !eology in Crisis.
Prophets, and how wisdom relates to all of these
Philadelphia.
and to the Gospel, becomes part of the
———. 1972. !e Old Testament as Scripture of the
vocabulary that continues to inform the Church. CTM 43: 709–22.
response of both Judaism and Christianity to ———. 1985. Old Testament !eology in a Canonical
issues of practical knowledge, scientific inquiry, Context. Philadelphia.
psychology, and many other areas of common Clements, R. 1978. Old Testament !eology. London.
life. Coats, G. W., and Long, B. O., eds. 1977. Canon and
Stop reading Done Authority. Philadelphia.
V 1, p 866 Fishbane, M. 1980. Revelation and
C. Conclusion
Tradition: Aspects of Inner-biblical Exegesis. JBL
Canonical criticism has become a popular, 90: 343–61.
though debated, label for a variety of approaches ———.1985. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel.
that inquire into the form and function of the New York.
Bible as scripture. A canonical approach assumes Metzger, B. 1987. !e Canon of the New Testament.
a particular perspective by which biblical studies Oxford.
can understand the nature of scripture and its Neusner, J. 1983. Midrash in Context. Philadelphia.
relation to the history of religious interpretation Rendtorff, R. 1986. !e Old Testament: An
Introduction. Philadelphia.
and theology. As shown by Childs’ commentary
Sanders, J. 1972. Torah and Canon. Philadelphia.
on Exodus, this perspective encourages a critical
———. 1976. Adaptable for Life: !e Nature and
examination of the history of interpretation,
Function of Canon. In Magnalia Dei, ed. F. M.
both ancient and modern. In my view, a#ention Cross, et al. Garden City.
to the canonical context of scripture is essential ———. 1984. Canon and Community. Philadelphia.
for an appreciation of how religions construe Sarna, N. 1963. Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical
reality and how competence in biblical Exegesis. Pp. 29–46 in Biblical and Other Essays,
interpretation is recognized in earlier periods. In ed. A. Altmann. Cambridge, MA.
the larger task of contemporary Christian Seeligmann, I. L. 1953. Voraussetzung der

David Noel Freedman et al., eds., !e Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992).
Exported from Logos Bible Software, 10:33 AM July 19, 2023. 10
 Midraschexegese. VTSup 1: 150–81.
Sheppard, G. T. 1974. Canon Criticism: !e Proposal
of Brevard Childs and An Assessment for
Evangelical Hermeneutics.SBT 4: 3–17.
———. 1980 Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct.
BZAW 151. Berlin.
———. 1982. Canonization: Hearing the Voice of the
Same God !rough Historically Dissimilar
Traditions. Int 34: 21–33.
Smith, W. C. 1971. !e Study of Religion and the
Study of the Bible. JAAR 39: 131–40.
GERALD T. SHEPPARD

David Noel Freedman et al., eds., !e Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992).
Exported from Logos Bible Software, 10:33 AM July 19, 2023. 11