Brevard S. Childs

The book of Exodus : a critical, theological commentary

Taking a pioneering approach to commentary writing, Brevard Childs gives an entirely original treatment to the book of Exodus. Apart from the philological notes and translation, this commentary includes a form-critical section, looking at the growth of the tradition in its previous stages; a consideration of the meaning of the text in its present form; and a consideration of its meaning in its total Old Testament context. This volume is now available in a new casebound edition.The Old Testament Library provides fresh and authoritative treatments of important aspects of Old Testament study through commentaries and general surveys. The contributors are scholars of international standing.

The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature

A major literary and theological force was at work in shaping the present form of the Hebrew Bible by which prophetic oracles directed to one generation were fashioned in Sacred Scripture by a canonical process to be used by another generation.

Isaiah: A Commentary

In this important addition to the Old Testament Library, now available in a new casebound edition, renowned scholar Brevard Childs writes on the Old Testaments most important theological book. He furnishes a fresh translation from the Hebrew and discusses questions of text, philology, historical background, and literary architecture, and then proceeds with a critically informed, theological interpretation of the text. The Old Testament Library provides fresh and authoritative treatments of important aspects of Old Testament study through commentaries and general surveys. The contributors are scholars of international standing.

Psalm 8 in the Context of the Christian Canon

“The challenge of the Christian interpreter in our day is to hear the full range of notes within all of Scripture, to wrestle with the theological implication of this biblical witness, and, above all, to come to grips with the agony of our age before a living God who still speaks through the Prophets and Apostles.”

The Etiological Tale Re-Examined

The intensity of the discussion regarding the nature of the etiological tale has somewhat subsided in recent years. The debate reached its height in the late fifties between Martin NOTH and John BRIGHT each of whom represented a different school of thought. The issue then turned on determining the relation between the etiological form and the historical value of the tradition used. During the last decade interest in etiology has narrowed considerably to focus chiefly on describing the marks of the etiological narrative and in seeking to understand its function more precisely. A number of detailed form critical studies have been successful in illuminating the role of certain of the stereotyped formulae usually associated with etiology 1). Other studies have correctly stressed the need for assessing the literary structure of the narrative itself in relation to its etiological material 2). However, in spite of the genuine progress in understanding which has been made in limited areas, it remains a question to what extent the central problem of the etiological narrative has been resolved. B. O. LONG 3) concluded his insightful monograph by pointing out that the broader issue still remained as to how etiological material functioned which did not have fixed formulae or a clear structure.

A Traditio-Historical Study of the Reed Sea Tradition

The importance of the exodus in Israels tradition has been recognized by several generations of form critics 1). In spite of the intense critical research on the subject there remain whole areas of great unclarity. Because the exodus tradition is interwoven with the traditions of the plagues, passover, wilderness wanderings, and conquest, this state of scholarly uncertainty affects a wide area of Old Testament studies.

Speech-act theory and biblical interpretation

This essay seeks to explore speech-act theory in its relation to biblical interpretation. Its initial focus falls on the application of N. Wolterstorff whose book Divine Discourse provided the decisive catalyst for the recent debates. Building on the different kinds of action involved when speaking (locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary) Wolterstorff draws two important hermeneutical implications. First, the theory affords a way of understanding the unity of scripture in its entirety as Gods book; second, it enables the reader to acknowledge the infallibility of Gods Word as divine discourse without ascribing infallibility to the human words of scripture. The second part attempts to offer a critical assessment of Wolterstorffs application of his theory, especially in its failure to deal adequately with the function of the Christian canon which shaped the churchs traditions in such a way as to provide a rule-of-faith for the theological guidance of subsequent generations of readers. By abandoning the hermeneutical understanding of scripture developed by Irenaeus and Calvin, Wolterstorff flounders in his inability to overcome the threat of scriptures becoming a ‘wax nose’ in which the noematic content of what God now says in divine discourse is not identical with the meaning of the biblical sentence itself. The final section examines the exegesis of the well-known scholar A. Thiselton, whose work has done much in developing a speech-act theory. The conclusion reached is that Thiseltons application of the theory is far different from that of Wolterstorffs and avoids many of the problems which plague Wolterstorffs exegesis. The implication of this analysis is to argue that speech-act theory cannot be indiscriminately lumped together, because various forms of the theory often reflect different hermeneutical theories of biblical interpretation.

On Reading the Elijah Narratives

It is simply not the case that the more historical and literary knowledge acquired, the better one is able to understand the biblical text. The issue turns on the use of proper discernment.

Response To Reviewers of Introduction To the Ot as Scripture

method does not arise from a &dquo;deep disillusionment&dquo; (J. Barr) with historical scholarship per se, but rather from the confusion caused when language is employed which is inappropriate to the particular mode of speech being examined. In one sense, I have simply extended the insights of the form critical method which called for an exact description of the material’s literary genre. Of course, no one language game functions in complete isolation from many other legitimate modes of speech and this interrelationship evokes the kind of problem which criticism is trying toaddress. However, the relationship among the various modes of discourse is a very subtle one and the failure to recognize this factor lies at the heart of much of the problem.

Critical Reflections on James Barr's Understanding of the Literal and the Allegorical

In a recent issue of~SOT (44 [1989], pp. 3-17), Professer Barr has written a highly stimulating essay in which he sets forth a provocative thesis regarding the relation of the literal and allegorical senses of Scripture as a means of describing an important feature of modern bibli~al scholarship. Many important issues are at stake respecting the past history of the discipline as well as its present and future direction. Because one of my essays has been used as the representative foil for the thesis, a response from me seems in order.