Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Brevard Childs' "Old Testament Theology:" Ch. 1-2

Childs, Brevard. Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989.
http://www.amazon.com/Old-Testament-Theology-Canonical-Context/dp/0800627725/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1383078431&sr=8-4&keywords=brevard+childs

To a “newer generation,” Mr. Childs tells us, the “old approaches often appear less convincing.” Although…Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Childs pays his tributes to Profs. Eichrodt, von Rad, and W. Zimmerli, instructors under whom he sat.

The old view was that Old Testament was the acme of the discipline of Old Testament studies. Philology, history, and backgrounds all rising to the acme...the summaries of theological issues. Mr. Childs believes that his approach, a “canonical approach,” brings a "fresh approach" to apparent "stalemates" in the discipline. Prima facie, we are not sure here.

He observes that the Old Testament as a separate discipline did not exist in ancient, medieval, Reformation or post-Reformation periods (2). This is rather odd to us. Currently, this scribe is looking for a 14th century Greek (Orthodox) scholar who did some heavy-lifting on textual and introductory issues. Or, off hand, one thinks of Calvin’s comprehensive work. Or, Augustine's work on the Psalms. He offers the complaint that medieval exegetes played willy-nilly with the text as allegories to take a straight leap to Christology with little attention to backgrounds. But, we’ll note his assertion.

Mr. Childs observes that the Old Testament as a “separate discipline” had German pietistic origins, a development in response to the allegedly sterile scholastic period.

The first half of the 19th century saw Ewald and Vatke as voices. Literary-critical approaches of Wellhausen emerged (and dominated) the late 19th century. Oehler, Schilz and A.B. Davidson were serious voices in Old Testament theology.

With the “assured results of criticism” (the annoying term which got frequent citation)and Gunkel’s religiongeschichtliche, there was little development in Old Testament theology.

The 1930-1960s, he claims, was dubbed a “golden age” of Old Testament theologies. Kohler, Eichrodt, Vrieza, von Rad, Zimmler, and H. Wheeler Robinson were voices that emerged.

But, he notes, unresolved problems remain:

• Two schools were in tension: Theology as normative for the church v. "History of Religions" where the Old Testament was merely a historical discipline. We wish Mr. Childs had said more at this point; he’s very concise.

• The ever-emerging "collage" (his word) of varied views, with “J and P” which “exacerbated the problem” (5). Mr. Childs, go ahead and say it: “D and E” further exacerbated the problems including the vast disorders that no one knew what-was-where-and-what-was-what. The chaos has essentially collapsed Graf-Welhausen’s theorems under its own weight of disorder; no one knows what is what and where. Go ahead, Mr. Childs, just say it and annoy the Biblical establishmentarians: Graf-Wellhausians, with their "assured results," are in retreat, collapse and disarray. This appears to be one grand understatement. And where are the grand old Princetonians in the bibliography? Profs. William Henry Green and Robert Dick Wilson? We'll postulate this for later review.

• People were not listening “to how the text was heard” by the recipients. We would add that this is (somewhat) funny. This is code for overlaying one’s own views and presuppositions onto the text. Whaddya mean? Scholars not listening to how Abraham "heard?" Moses heard? Israel heard? What does all this mean? But, as a point, it is worth raising again.

• Mr. Childs concludes that Old Testament theology is at a “stalement.”

Mr. Childs proposes a “canonical approach:”

• A “fresh approach” (his may well be a major course correction to the 19th and 20th century perspectives, but is it new?)

• Receive the text as canonical

• The Old Testament is a Christian discipline

• Treat the Old Testament as a completed unity. It almost sounds like he’s ringing the tocsin against Graf-Wellhausen?

• Confusion in the history of Old Testament “because of a reluctance to recognize that it is a Christian enterprise”

• Seeks to stand “within the circle of tradition” and to “identify with Israel as a community of faith” (14)

• We are not sure what is so very new or fresh about this?! ?? What the heck is so new here in this proposal?

Importance of Old Testament theology:

• Allows greater focus prior to engaging New Testament theology

• Serves as a check against exclusive preoccupations with philology, history, and literary-perspectives

• Serves as a check to using the Old Testament as a foil for the New Testament

• Makes for a correct hearing of the New Testament. We believe this is very important, e.g. how did Matthew reflect his view of the Old Testament? Or, may it be remembered that Luke was the only Gentile writer in the New Testament, assuming Pauline authorship of Hebrews.

Two views that have been reductionistic regarding Old Testament revelation

• James Barr’s and Downing’s analytic philosophy. “Flat and reductionistic” which “denies a role in shaping, informing and edifying” the faith community

• N. Gottwald’s “sociological approach,” or “sociology of Israel” with “no room for divine revelation” arising from “enormous epistemological assumptions” resulting in “demythologization” and “massive theological reductionism” (25)