Th. doct.--Théologie--Rome--Université pontificale grégorienne, 2003. / Bibliogr. des oeuvres de B. S. Childs p. 439-442. Bibliogr. p. 439-463. Index.

Texte remanié de: Doctoral diss.--Cambridge--University, 1991. / Bibliogr. p. 371-377. Index.

Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 1988. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves [68]-76).

Thesis (Ph.D.) - University of St Andrews, February 2009. / Electronic version restricted until 23rd February 2012.

Afrikaans Dit is meer as dertig jaar gelede dat Childs (1964) sy belangrike artikel lnterprefation in Faith gepubliseer het. Dit het die begin ingelei van 'n nuwe fase in die Ou-Testamentiese navorsing. Talle verdere publikasies van Childs het die lig gesien. Sy publikasies het baie reaksie uitgelok. Die kanoniese benadering van Childs sou tot 'n debat lei wat steeds nie uitgewoed is nie. Hlerdie studie poog om 'n evaluering van die benadering van B. S. Childs te maak. As 'n hipotese word gestel dat die kanoniese benadering van Childs hom nog steeds in die hoofstroom van die historiese kritiek bevind. Childs maak nog steeds van die resultate van die histories-kritiese metode gebruik. Dit word gedoen teenoor aannames dat Childs a-histories werk en sy eie siening dat die kanoniese benadering 'n paradigmaskuif verteenwoordig. Die hipotese word uitgewerk aan die hand van die volgende werkswyse: Na inleidende opmerkings volg 'n bespreking van die plek wat Childs inneem in die navorsing oor die kanon. Dit word gevolg deur 'n gedeelte wat aandag gee aan outobiografiese gegewens oor Childs, sy belangrikste publikasies en die ontwikkeling van sy kanoniese benadering. 'n Uiteensetting van Childs se benadering gegee aan die hand van kernkonsepte volg hierna. Om Childs as 'n kind van sy tyd te sien word daar gekyk na die invloed wat sy mentors op hom gehad het asook ooreenkomste wat hy met ander teoloë en nie-teoloë het. Ten einde Childs in perspektief te sien word reaksie op sy benadering vervolgens aan die orde gestel. Reaksie op die benadering van Childs word geëvalueer in die daaropvolgende deel. Indien Childs nie 'n paradigmaskuif verteenwoordig nie, wat is dan sy relevansie vir die toekomstige debat? Die laaste hoofstuk is 'n konklusie wat die bydrae van Childs evalueer en die moontlike implikasies van die kanoniese benadering vir die toekoms bespreek. Die studie bevestig die feit dat die kanoniese benadering hom nog steeds binne dieselfde kader as die historiese kritiek bevind. Childs is in die implementering van sy benadering afhanklik van die resultate van die histories-kritiese metode. Om hierdie rede kan Childs nie geëtiketteer word dat hy a-histories werk nie. Die aanspraak wat gemaak word dat hy 'n paradigmaskuif bewerksteliig het, gaan ook nie op nie. Dit neem egter niks weg van die feit dat B. S. Childs 'n monumentale bydrae tot die Ou-Testamentiese wetenskap gemaak het nie. English It is more than thirty years ago since Childs (1964) published his important article Interpretation in Faith. This article introduced the start of a new phase in OldTestamentical research. A number of other publications by Childs have since seen the light. His publications have elicited wide reaction. The canonical approach of Childs would lead to a debate that has still not abated. This study attempts to evaluate B.S. Childs' approach. It is hypothesised that the canonical approach by Childs still finds itself in the mainstream of historical criticism. Childs still uses the results of the historical critical method. This is done in contrast to the suppositions that Childs operates a-historically and to his own view that the canonical approach represents a paradigm move. The above hypothesis was developed using the following methodology: Introductory comments followed by a discussion of Childs' place in canonical research. Subsequently, autobiographical data on Childs, his most important publications and the development of his canonical approach are presented. It is followed by a discussion of his approach in view of fundamental concepts. To view Childs as a child of his time, regard must be had to the influence of his mentors on him and the similarities he shared with theologians and non-theologians. To place Childs' approach into perspective, reaction to the approach is discussed and evaluated. If Childs does not represent a paradigm move, what then is his relevance for future debate? The final chapter is a conclusion of the study where Childs' contribution is evaluated and possible implications of the canonical approach for the future are discussed. The study confirms the fact that the canonical approach still finds itself in the same cadre as the historical criticism. Childs depends on the result of the historical critical method for the implementation of his approach. He can therefore not be labelled as a-historical. Furthermore, claims that he accomplished a paradigm move can not be sustained. However, the fact that Childs made a monumental contribution to Old Testamentical scholarship can never be negated. / Thesis (DD)--University of Pretoria, 2008. / Old Testament Studies / unrestricted

Brevard Childs argues for the inner logic of scripture’s textual authority as an historical reality that gives rise to the material condition by which the church apprehends and experiences God in Christ. The church’s use of (or by) scripture thus has a larger interiority: the shaped canon of scripture, Old and New Testaments, is a rule of faith which accrues authority in the church, through the vehicle of the sensus literalis. Childs’ work has been misplaced, however. Part one locates it internationally, attending to the way it has been read in English and German and finding that it has enjoyed a more patient reception in Europe than in Britain or North America. To illustrate, Childs’ definition of biblical theology is contrasted with that of James Barr. Their differences over gesamtbiblische theology involve opposite turns toward and away from Barthian dogma in biblical inquiry. Part two examines Childs on biblical reference, introducing why intertextuality is not midrashic but deictic—pointing to the res. This coincides with an understanding of the formation of biblical literature. Childs’ argument for canonical shaping is juxtaposed with Hermann Gunkel on tradition history, showing “final form” to be a deliberate inversion of form critical principles. Childs’ interest in the Bible as religious literature is then set alongside his studious confrontation of Judaism, with implications for inter-religious dialogue. Barr and Childs are compared again in part three, which frames their respective senses of indirect and direct biblical reference in terms of allegory. Both see allegory at work in the modern world under certain rules (either biblical criticism or the regula fidei). Their rules affect their articulations of trinitarian dogma. Finally, Psalm102 highlights divergences between modern and pre-modern interpreters. If scripture comprehends the present immediately, some postures of the church toward the synagogue may be excluded.