Biblical Criticism in Crisis? The Impact of the Canonical Approach on Old Testament Studies (review)

Hebrew Studies 34 (1993) 106 Reviews Hebrew, even though the latter contains a number of verses that have particular relevance to biblical phrasing and concepts (e.g., 16:18; 32 [35]:18; 43:17, 24; 48:6; 50:20). At other times the evidence adduced for Ben Sira is incorrect: for yiIqa! we are told (p. 288) that the noun moqes appears "once in Sirach" (32[35]:20) when in fact it appears several times (see also Sir 51:3; 31 [34]:30). The inconsistent use of sources between articles is evident in the discussion of yiItom where texts from Qumran and Ben Sira that are theologically significant for the Old Testament are missed: "To orphans be as a father, assist widows in their husbands' place; then God will call you his son, and he will be more tender to you than a mother" (Sira 4:10; cf. lQH 5.20; CD 6.17; 14.14). In a similar fashion there is a curious privileging of the Septuagint as a source for translation equivalents of Hebrew terms. In contrast, the reader will frequently not be supplied with translation equivalents from the Vulgate and Targums. Those few articles that do devote space to Vulgate and/or Targumic renditions are worthy of emulation (e.g., y!C p. 449; yUurun p. 474). Although one can expect unevenness between articles in such an all-encompassing work as this enterprise, one would nevertheless still presume that there would be an equal attention to the same primary sources (such as Ben Sira, the Targums, and the Vulgate). I will close with a toast to the article on wine (yayin). It is unfortunate that J. V. Kinnier Wilson's The Nimrud Wine Lists (1972) did not appear in the bibliography for yayin (even though articles as late as 1975 did). The notion (p. 62) that women were not invited to festivities where wine was drunk is hardly substantiated by 2 Sam 13:23-32, and indeed contradicted by Deut 14:26, 1 Sam 1:12-14, Job 1:4, and the imagery of Prov 9:1-6. Samuel A. Meier The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210-1229 BIBLICAL CRITICISM IN CRISIS? THE IMPACT OF THE CANONICAL APPROACH ON OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES. By Mark G. Brett. Pp. xiii + 237. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Cloth. Is biblical criticism in crisis? Well, yes and no, according to Brett. In this work which originated as a dissertation directed by John Rogerson at Hebrew Studies 34 (1993) 107 Reviews the University of Sheffield, Brett identifies certain weaknesses in B. S. Childs's canonical approach to the crisis that emerged in the 1960s with the collapse of the Biblical Theology movement. He then seeks to show how the canonical approach can be "charitably reconstructed" into a coherent mode of biblical interpretation by comparison with the literary theories of HansRobert Jauss, Karl Popper, and Hans-Georg Gadamer. In its reconstructed fonn, the canonical approach, Brett argues, can make an important contribution to modern theological conversations about intratextuality, especially as developed by Hans Frei and George Lindbeck. The first problem with the canonical approach according to Brett is its tendency towards methodological totalitarianism. At times Childs argues as if the distinctive interpretive interests of the canonical approach-the theological value of the final fonn of the Bible-is the only legitimate and productive task for biblical studies. Brett counters that Childs fails to appreciate the necessity of a more pluralistic situation for biblical studies. The different interpretive goals of historical critics (e.g., Noth) or materialists (e.g., Gottwald) or canonical critics (e.g., Sanders) logically require different approaches. There is no need for Childs to tie his distinctive concerns to attacks on alternative interpretive interests. As long as interpretive goals are clearly defined, there is no reason why the canonical approach cannot work in a pluralistic context as one approach among others. Related to the problem of Childs's totalitarian tendencies is his failure to provide a coherent account of the exegetical theory that undergirds his own interpretive interests. Brett seeks to correct this omission by reconstructing the principles of Childs's actual exegetical practice from both his early monographs...