Early Childs on Source Criticism and the Final Form
By P. Sumpter, 21 April 2008 | 
Email
| 
Print
Brevard Childs has often been accused of “flattening the text,” i.e seeking literary unity where there is none for the sake of sticking with the text’s final form. However, it is clear as one reads his 1974 Exodus commentary1 that nothing could be farther than the truth. Not only does he devote extensive space to source, form and tradition critical questions, he also consistently rejects more conservative attempts to find literary unity, even questioning the usefulness of such unity if actually present (such as U. Cassuto’s suggestion of a structure behind the 10 plagues of Egypt).
In what, then, does the “integrity” of the final form consist, if not in its literary structure, and why is this so important to Childs?
A clue can be seen in Childs’ endorsement of M. Greenberg’s alternative to Cassuto’s suggestion of a literary unity to the plague tradition. Greenberg simply delineates the major themes of the entire passage in its final form, which does not depend on identifying one final literary pattern. He sees the major theme of the plague story to revolve around the revelation by God of his nature to Pharaoh, to the Egyptians, and to all men. Within the movement of the book as a whole, the plagues function as a demonstration of God’s power which shatter the human reisistance to this revelation.
Why does a thematic approach to the final form serve Childs better than literary analysis (the “canonical approach” has not been fully developed yet)? The answer lies with Childs’ theological convictions. The text for Childs is not the product of human ingenuity alone, but has been ultimately called into being by God. The text’s function within God’s plan is to “witness” to the divine reality. As such, it is the divine reality which constitutes the unity of the text, and not the literal sense of the text itself. The literal sense serves as a “vehicle” to enable the interpreter to understand the broader reality behind it, but the vehicle is not to be confused with the reality itself. As such, contradictions at the level of the narrative point to the existence of various witnesses, each speaking of God from a different angle. It is in the unity of their perspectives that the unity of scripture consists and not in the existence of one perspective alone. It just so happens that the redactional shaping of the text belongs to the witness of text. This shaping functioned as a critical norm in order to guide the way in which the multiple perspectives are correlated, so that it is at the level of the last redaction that the divine reality can be fully appreciated.
The theological exegete, then, is obliged both to look at the individual witnesses (e.g. JEDP) in all their particularity as well as the way in which they have been correlated by the final redactor. Ultimately, then, the theological exegete will need to draw on commentators of both a critical as well as conservative persuasion.
Ironically, this may bring Childs closer to the approach of J. Gabler than H. Frei.
- The Book of Exodus: a Critical, Theological Commentary. Louisville: Westminster, 1974 [↩]
Tags: canon, Childs, Exodus, final form, literal sense
April 21st, 2008 at 5:35 am
Thanks for a very solid submission, Phil. It’s clear, succinct, and yet still shows some depth of reading.
I’m not sure I know enough about Gabler to agree or disagree with your last line, but I’m in complete agreement about the differentiation that needs to be drawn between Childs and Frei. As you know, I put up a great early illustration of this point over at Occasional Publications.
Has your reading of Childs changed since last Fall do you think? Maybe now that you’re working through his commentaries?
Keep posts like this coming!
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:03 am
Thanks Daniel. I hope to post on the Gabler connection on my blog sometime soon. It’s not a particularly profound connection. Both Frei’s history of interpretation and a recent quote from Gabler show me that Childs emphasised more than Frei did the significance of the referent for interpretation. They both agreed that the meaning of the text shouldn’t be collapsed into the meaning of the referent, but I think Frei focussed far more on the literal sense than Childs did. Childs was interested in the interaction between the two, which is why it was important for him that the hermeneutical circle goes from “subject matter” back to text.
In answer to you question: I’m not sure that my reading of Childs has changed, it’s just being padded out with concrete examples - a refreshing treat after so much theory! My goal is to read both his commentaries in light of his broader theoretical approach, to see how it works out in practice, as well as to see whether there is a development between his earlier and later commentary. I think that his focus on the final form has been way over-emphasised and needs to be qualified by his understanding of the text as “witness,” which is much as von Rad saw it (I think …). He very much stands within the tradition of Barth and von Rad, right to the end. He develops his approach, but I think they set the parameters that stayed with him. Does that sound right to you?
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:22 am
Childs’ debts to Barth and von Rad are complicated. There are things Childs criticizes in each of the others that should not be overlooked. But in general, yes, I would say there is a “family resemblance” between all three.