¹ Childs, Brevard S., ‘Jonah: A Study in Old Testament Hermeneutics’, Scottish Journal of Theology 11 (1958), p. 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Henry, David Paul, The Early Development of the Hermeneutic of Karl Barth as Evidenced by His Appropriation of Romans 5:12–21 (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1985), p. 112.Google Scholar

³ Ibid.

⁴ Ibid., pp. 113–114.

⁵ Ibid., pp. 113–114.

⁶ Barth, K.D., 1/2, pp. 810–815; CD., 1/2, pp. 722–727.

⁷ Barth, K.D., 1/2, pp. 815–825; CD., 1/2, pp. 727–736.

⁸ Barth, K.D., 1/2, pp. 825–830; CD., 1/2, pp. 736–740.

⁹ Barth, K.D., 1/2, p. 810; CD., 1/2, p. 723.

¹⁰ Cf. also Barth, K.D., 1/2, pp. 811–812; CD., 1/2, p. 724.

¹¹ The English translation here omits ‘in dm Mass’ in the German original.

¹² Barth, K.D., 1/2, pp. 813–814; CD., 1/2, pp. 725–726.

¹³ Barth, K.D., 1/2, p. 814; CD., 1/2, p. 726.

¹⁴ Eicholz, G., ‘Der Ansatz K. Barths in der Hermeneutik’, in Antwort: Festschrift für Karl Barth (Zürich-Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, 1956), pp. 52–68Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Barth, K.D. IV/2, p. 274; CD., IV/2, p. 248.

¹⁶ Smend, Rudolf, ‘Nachkritische Schriftauslegung’, in Parrhesia: Karl Barth zum achtzigsten Geburtslag (Zurich: EVZ-Verlag, 1966), p. 236.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Bakker, Nicolaas T., In der Krisis der Offenbarung: Karl Barth's Hermeneutik, dargestellt an seiner Römerbrief-Auslegung, trans. Bunte, W. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974), p. 175.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Wharton, James A., ‘Karl Barth as Exegete and His Influence on Biblical Interpretation’, Union Seminary Review, 28 (1972), p. 8.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ibid., p. 5.

²⁰ Ibid., p. 9.

²¹ Barth, K.D., IV/2, p. 541; CD., IV/2, p. 478.

²² This is the title of Paragraph 68, 2 (KD., IV/2, pp. 452–546; CD., pp. 403–483).

²³ Barth, K.D., IV/2, p. 541; CD., IV/2, p. 479.

²⁴ Barth, K.D., IV/2, p. 542; CD., IV/2, p. 479.

²⁵ Barth, K.D., I/I, pp. 109–110; CD., I/I, p. 120.

²⁶ Barth, K.D., 1/2, p. 524; CD., 1/2, p. 473.

²⁷ One may, of course, argue that Barth's christocentricity functions practically as a ‘canon within the canon’, but this shifts the discussion away from exegetical method to the question of practical appropriation. Theologically speaking, for both Barth and Childs, the whole canon is the written Word of God.

²⁸ Barth, K.D., I/I, p. 104; CD., I/I, p. 114.

²⁹ Carroll, Robert P., ‘Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, by B. S. Childs’, Scottish Journal of Theology, 33 (1980), pp. 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁰ Barth, K.D., 1/2, p. 673; CD., 1/2, p. 602.

³¹ Marquardt, Friedrich-Wilhelm, ‘Exegese und Dogmatik in Karl Barths Theologie’, in Barth, Karl, K.D., (Registerband, ed. Krause, Helmut, Zürich, EVZ-Verlag, 1970), p. 666.Google Scholar

³² Childs, Brevard S., ‘Karl Barth as Interpreter of Scripture’, in Karl Barth and the Future of Theology: A Memorial Colloquim, ed. Dickerman, David L. (New Haven, CT: Yale Divinity School Association, 1969), p. 32.Google Scholar

³³ Ibid., p. 30.

³⁴ von Rad, Gerhard, ‘Typologische Auslegung des Alten Testaments’, Evangelische Theologie, 12 (1952), pp. 6–33.Google Scholar

³⁵ Childs, , ‘Barth as Interpreter’, p. 30.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid., p. 31.

³⁷ Ibid., pp. 31–32.

³⁸ Childs, Brevard S., Myth and Reality in the Old Testament, Studies in Biblical Theology, 27 (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1960; also, London: SCM, 1960), p. 33, n. l;p. 35; p. 42; p. 44, n. 1.Google Scholar

³⁹ Childs, , Myth and Reality, p. 35.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See discussion below for the influence of Barth on both von Rad and Childs.

⁴¹ Childs, , Myth and Reality, pp. 41–42.Google Scholar

⁴² One should be careful to note that when Childs specifies Old Testament exegesis, the reference is to an enterprise of Christian theology, as opposed to exegesis of the Hebrew Scriptures or Tanak, which would refer to the equally legitimate enterprise of jewish interpretation.

⁴³ Childs, , Myth and Reality, p. 104.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Childs, , Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), p. 110.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Smend, Rudolf, ‘Nachkritische Schriftauslegung’, p. 235.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Wharton, , ‘Barth as Exegete’, p. 12.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ibid.

⁴⁸ Childs, Brevard S., ‘Interpretation in Faith: The Theological Responsibility of an Old Testament Commentary’, Interpretation, 18 (1964), p. 437, n. 14.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Ibid., p. 437.

⁵⁰ Ibid., p. 440.

⁵¹ Cf. Barth, K.D., III/l, pp. 63ff.; CD., III/l, pp. 59ff.

⁵² Childs, , Myth and Reality, p. 101.Google Scholar

⁵³ James A. Sanders, review of The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary, by Childs, B. S., Journal of Biblical Literature, 95 (1976), p. 289.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Anderson, Bernhard W., ‘Tradition and Scripture in the Community of Faith’, 1980 Society of Biblical Literature Presidential Address, Journal of Biblical Literature, 100 (1981), pp. 14–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁵ For a striking example of this tension in Barth's theology, see his account of the resurrection in K.D., IV/1, Para. 59, Section 3 (CD., IV/1, ‘The Verdict of the Father’).

⁵⁶ D. Moody Smith, ‘Why Approaching the New Testament as Canon Matters’, review of The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction, by Childs, B. S., Interpretation, 40 (1986), 407–411Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ I have explored this question further in unpublished essays which seek to create a dialogue between Childs' canonical hermeneutics and the philosophical hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur.

⁵⁸ For further discussion of this issue, see the final section of this paper, ‘Childs’ Critics and Barthian Themes'. Also, the reader interested in pursuing this matter in a philosophical context is referred to Søren Kierkegaard's illuminating discussion in Philosophical Fragments or A Fragment of Philosophy, trans. Swenson, David and Hong, Howard V. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962), especially Chapter 4, ‘The Case of the Contemporary Disciple’, and Chapter 5, ‘The Disciple at Second Hand’, pp. 68–138Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Brevard S. Childs, review of The Past, Present, and Future of Biblical Theology, by Smart, James B., Journal of Biblical Literature, 100 (1981), 252–253.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Walter Brueggemann, ‘The Childs Proposal’, A Symposium with Ralph W. Klein and Gary Stanscll on Introduction to the Old Testament as Saipture, by Childs, B. S., Word and World, 1 (1981), p. 112.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Childs, , ‘Barth as Interpreter’, p. 32.Google Scholar

⁶² Childs, , ‘Jonah: Hermeneutics’, p. 59.Google Scholar

⁶³ Childs, , ‘Barth as Interpreter’, pp. 33–34.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Note how Childs here clearly sides with Barth against Bultmann in their debate. For an intriguing personal perspective on this well-known theological debate, see the Barth-Bultmann correspondence, especially Letters 94 and 95 (Jaspert, Bernd, ed., Karl Barth-Rudolf Bultmann: Briefiuechsel, 1922–1966 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971)Google Scholar; E. T., Karl Barih-Rudolf Bultmann: Ltters, 1922–1966, trans, and ed. Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981)Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Childs, , ‘Interpretation in Faith’, p. 443.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Ibid., p. 443, n. 19.

⁶⁷ Ibid., p. 443.

⁶⁸ Cf. Barth, Karl, Evangelical Theology: An Introduction, trans. Foley, Grover (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1963), ‘The Witnesses’, pp. 21–30.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Childs, Brevard S., Memory and Tradition in Israel, Studies in Biblical Theology, 37 (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1962; also London: SCM, 1962), p. 85Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Childs, Brevard S., Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

⁷¹ The references may be found on pp. 4, 26 (twice), 33, 42, 142, 143 (omitted in index), 144, 193, 195, 203, 223, 234.

⁷² Old Testament Theology, ‘Preface’, p. xiii and ‘Index of Authors’, pp. 248–250.

⁷³ Ibid., p. 188.

⁷⁴ It is important to note here that Barth holds to an ‘indirect identity’ between the words of Scripture and the Word of God, in order to avoid bibliolatry (cf. CD., I/I, Paragraph 4, Section 2, ‘The Written Word of God’). For Barth's full-blown doctrine of Holy Scripture see CD., 1/2, Chapter 3.

⁷⁵ Barr, James, Old and New in Interpretation (London: SCM Press, 1966).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ ‘… I wonder again whether Barr really understood what Barth was doing’ (Childs, ‘Barth as Interpreter’, p. 34).

⁷⁷ For Childs' claim that Barr has misunderstood his canonical approach in a major way, see especially Brevard S. Childs, review of Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism, by Barr, James, Interpretation, 38 (1984), 66–70.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Barr, James, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press, 1983), especially pp. 75–129.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Childs, , The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985; also London: SCM Press, 1985), p. 27.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Downing, T. Gerald, Has Christianity a Revelation? (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964)Google Scholar.

⁸¹ Childs, , Old Testament Theology, pp. 22–23Google Scholar.

⁸² In addition to the early correspondence cited in Jaspert, Barth-Bultmann, Barth comments on their early affinity in his famous critique of Bultmann, Rudolf Bultmann: Ein Versuch, ihn zv verstehen Theologische Studien, vol. 34 (Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1952)Google Scholar; E.T., ‘Rudolf-Bultmann - An Attempt to Understand Him’, in Kerygma and Myth, trans. Fuller, R. H., Vol. II, (London: SPCK, 1962), p. 89.Google Scholar

⁸³ Childs, ‘A Call to Canonical Criticism’, review of Torah and Canon, by Sanders, James A., Interpretation, 27 (1973), 88–91Google Scholar; James A. Sanders, review of Biblical Theology in Crisis, by Childs, B. S., Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 26 (1970–1971), 299–304Google Scholar; and James A. Sanders, review of The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary, by Childs, B. S., Journal of Biblical Literature, 95 (1976), 286–287, 289–290.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Barth, , ‘Bultmann’, p. 113.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Childs, , Old Testament Theology, p. 137.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ E.g., ‘In conclusion, Sanders has written an exciting book which should stimulate a new phase in the study of the Bible in America’ (Childs, ‘A Call to Canonical Criticism’ p. 91).

⁸⁷ Ibid., p. 90.

⁸⁸ For a summary of Sanders' canonical pluralism, largely sketching the lines of his book Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, [1984])Google Scholar, see ‘The Bible as Canon’, Christian Century, 98 (1981), 1250–1255.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Sanders, James A., ‘Canonical Criticism: An Introduction’, in Lecanon del'Ancien' Testament: sa formation et son historie, ed. Kaestli, Jean-Daniel and Wermelinger, Otto (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1984), p. 350.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Ibid.

⁹¹ Ibid., pp. 353–354.

⁹² Sanders, , ‘Adaptable for Life’, p. 542.Google Scholar

⁹³ See especially Sanders' repeated references to this ‘monotheizing’ understanding of God throughout Canon and Community. Sanders' indebtedness to H. Richard Niebuhr's notion of ‘radical monotheism’ (Niebuhr, H. Richard, Radical Monotheism and Western Culture, With Supplementary Essays [New York: Harper and Row, 1960], especially pp. 24–48Google Scholar) seems particularly apparent in his analysis of the nature of true prophecy in Torah and Canon (cf., for example, p. 69).

⁹⁴ Sanders, ‘Adaptable for Life’, pp. 536Google Scholar, 545, and pp. 559–560, n. 73. Cf. his discussion of ‘the life and death of two great syntheses’, liberalism and neo-orthodoxy, in ‘Biblical Criticism and the Bible as Canon’, Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 32 (1976–1977), pp. 157–159Google Scholar. In addition, note his reference (p. 165, n. 5) to Childs' critique of neo-orthodox biblical theology in Biblical Theology in Crisis.

⁹⁵ Sanders, , Torah and Canon, p. 90.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Radcliffe, Timothy, ‘The Old Testament as Word of God: Canon and Identity’, New Blackfriars, 61 (1980), pp. 273, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁷ Sanders, , Torah and Canon p. 91.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Cf. James A. Sanders, ‘Canonical Context and Canonical Criticism’, review of Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, by Childs, B. S., Horizons in Biblical Theology, 2 (1980), pp. 173–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁹ Sanders, , Torah and Canon, p. 120Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ Childs, , New Testament, p. 543.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Feuerbach, Ludwig, Das Wesen des Christentums (1841)Google Scholar; critical edition: Ludwig Feuerbach: Sämtlche. Werke, vol. 6, ed. Bolin, Wilhelm (Stuttgart: F. Frommann, 1960)Google Scholar; E.T., The Essence of Christianity, trans. Eliot, George [Marian Evans], 1854; reprinted New York: Harper and Row, 1957)Google Scholar.

¹⁰² For a summary of Barth's critique of anthropocentric theology in his contemporary context (especially Gogarten), see CD., I/I, Paragraph 5, Section 1, ‘The Question as to the Nature of the Word of God’.

¹⁰³ Childs, , ‘Gerhard von Rad in American Dress’, p. 85.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Ibid., pp. 84–85.

¹⁰⁵ Ibid., p. 86.

¹⁰⁶ Moltmann, Jurgen, ed., Anfdnge der dialektischen Theologie, Vol. I, Karl Barth, Heinrich Barth, Emit Brunner, 2nd ed. (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1966), pp. 323–347Google Scholar; E.T., The Beginnings of Dialectical Theology, Vol. I, ed. Robinson, James M. (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1968), pp. 165–190.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Brueggemann, Walter, ‘Unity and Dynamic in the Isaiah Tradition’, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 29 (1984), p. 90.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Ibid., p.91.

¹⁰⁹ Ibid.

¹¹⁰ Ibid., p. 93.

¹¹¹ Ibid., p. 94.

¹¹² Brueggemann, , ‘AShape for Old Testament Theology: 1. Structure Legitimiation’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 47 (1985), 28–46Google Scholar.