Article Review: John Goldingay, 2008. “Old Testament Theology and the Canon”. Tyndale Bulletin 59 (1): 1–26.
In his article Old Testament Theology and the Canon by John Goldingay is concerned with demonstrating that the form of the canon of the Old Testament is really composed of two canons and that its focus is primarily on the canon and not on history. Goldingay understands the term canon as, ‘analysis that is God-centered, intertextually oriented, authority-conscious, historically sensitive and devoted to the pursuit of the wholeness of the Old Testament message’.[1] He goes on to make six comments on the interrelationship of Old Testament theology and the canon.
In the first section, Old Testament Theology Considers the Insight that Emerges from the Form of the Old Testament Canon, he considers the way the Old Testament is organized, its form or organization. This helps us understand the ways in which people interacted with God in praise, protest, and penitence.[2]
In the second section, Old Testament Theology Focuses on the Canon of the Old Testament Itself, Not the History of Israel, Goldingay believes we should focus on the text of the Old Testament rather than the history to which it refers. The historic events, people and places to which scripture refers are certainly important. But he maintains that in doing theology the way in which the text itself deals with those items of history is the proper focus and not the history itself.
In section three, Old Testament Theology Lets the Canon Itself Be the Canon, Goldingay is concerned with not reading back into the text of the Old Testament the later developments of creeds, or Church traditions. The issue of proof texting is discussed, and a strong recommendation is made to let the text speak for itself out of its immediate and extended context. Theology of the Old Testament should emerge from that text and not from later developments.
In section four, Old Testament Theology Recognizes a Canon within the Canon, Goldingay addresses the charge that the canon was shaped by the special interests of people such as landowners and slave holders. It was slanted to enforce their ideas and community standing. The fact that the scriptures reference the allowance God makes for the stubbornness of people’s hearts and the differences between their desires and his own mean for Goldingay that there is God’s standard, canon, within the larger canon.[3]
In the fifth section, Goldingay addresses the Old Testament Theology Treats the First Part of the Canon as Significant in Its Own Right, by maintaining that the New Testament should not be used to interpret the Old in a wholesale manner. The first or Old Testament stands on its on as an expression of God’s dealing with man.
In the final section, Old Testament Theology Expects to Find the Two Parts of the Canon Illumine Each Other, Goldingay suggests that both testaments significantly expand our understanding of each other as we read them in concert. They together form a larger and complete canon.
I quite enjoyed the article in which Goldingay makes several good points on how we should regard the Old Testament canon. It provides a good introduction and overview for those who might be interested in his more extensive work his Old Testament Theology in three volumes. In that extensive effort Goldingay explores Old Testament theology as narrative, belief, and ethos. It is not only a scholarly contribution to the ongoing quest of understanding the theological dimensions of the First Testament, It makes available to preachers and teachers as a smart, informed, and engaging companion as they read his understanding of the Old Testament.
[1] Ibid, p. 1
[2] Ibid, p. 6
[3] Ibid, p. 16 synthesized and summarized.