THE CRITIQUE OF IDEOLOGY

Having argued in the previous chapter that Gadamer's hermeneutics provides the most charitable way to understand the canonical approach, I want to stress that there are still some differences between Childs and Gadamer which prevent us from simply paraphrasing Childs's writing in Gadamerian terms. There are some residual problems which suggest that the canonical approach needs a more thorough reconstruction. Gadamer, for example, has consistently stressed that hermeneutics has a ‘productive’ aspect, that is, the interpreter needs to consider issues beyond the perspective of the author if the truth value of an author's text is to be taken seriously. Childs, on the other hand, wants both to emphasize the truth value of canonical Old Testament theology and at the same time to reject etic biblical studies which reformulate biblical theologies and reconstruct Israelite history using modern analytical concepts. But how can the biblical classic continue to demonstrate its truthfulness if the critical questions raised by later generations are excluded from the outset? How can the canonical approach avoid charges of fideism or dogmatic classicism? Childs's arguments so far provide no adequate way of responding to these charges. In the first part of this chapter I will argue that one possible way forward for the canonical approach would be to follow Gadamer's philosophical response to the critics of his classicism. In the second part of the chapter I will examine other alternatives.

Both Gadamer and Childs stress that a classic text can exercise considerable influence long after the time of its production.