Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism by James Barr

Review by: Robert G. Boling

The Journal of Religion, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Jan., 1986), pp. 69-70
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1562396 .
Accessed: 17/06/2014 20:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 20:20:43 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Book Reviews
Hellenistic literature. While he rightly argues for the continuity between the
symbolic meanings of biblical and rabbinic Zion, he does not take sufficient
account of the discontinuities shaped by the very different sociopolitical, cul-
tural, and demographic realities. (On this point, and for another treatment of
the Sinai and Zion symbolism, see my book, not cited by Levenson: TheShape
of SacredSpace[Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981], pp. 25-79.)
But Levenson fulfills the promise of comparative study in his sensitive
analysis of the distinctive emphases of the Zion symbolism. He demonstrates,
for instance, that whereas the Sinai traditions focus on audition as the medium
of revelation, the Jerusalem temple tradition emphasizes vision. Again, he
argues that Zion functions especially as a moral center. In contrast to those
scholars who identify the priesthood and temple as corrupt, Levenson stresses
the priesthood's self-critique manifested in texts such as Psalm 24.
In his concluding part, Levenson challenges those critics who claim that the
Sinai and Zion traditions represent radically different visions of God's rela-
tionship to Israel. Levenson's eye toward Judaism, in which Torah and
Messiah complement rather than oppose each other, leads him to argue for the
coexistence - indeed, the mutual fructification- of the two theological
traditions in ancient Israel. Together they represent two sides of the same
coin, the coin of Judaism minted in the Jewish Bible. In this eminently read-
able work of biblical scholarship of the highest order, Levenson enables that
Bible's many voices to speak for themselves and yet communicate a coherent
religious vision.
ROBERT L. COHN, Northwestern University.

BARR, JAMES. Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism. Philadelphia: West-

minster Press, 1983. vi+ 182 pp. $9.95.

In these James Sprunt Lectures of 1982, James Barr evaluates canonical

criticism, as represented chiefly by B. S. Childs in Introductionto the Old
Testament as Scripture(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979). James Sanders, in
Torahand Canon(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), receives proportionately
smaller and somewhat less negative space.
Three constructive chapters lay the groundwork of canonical criticism,
while opposition waits in the wings. Chapter 1, "Before Scripture and after
Scripture,"is a well-reasoned statement of matters that ought to be obvious:
"Faithand religion, within the Bible, were not faith and religion defined and
determined by a Bible" (p. 1). When, in later centuries, completed Scripture
became the starting point for interpretation- a point outside the situation of
the biblical people - the result was a deep anachronism in the traditionaldoc-
trine. The subsequent Renaissance and Enlightenment made the history of
religion indispensable to biblical theology.
Chapter 2 addressesbiblical authority and biblical criticism in the conflict of
church traditions: Catholic versus Protestant (Judaism regularly comes in for
comparison, eastern Christianity is ignored). Barr unmasks the Jekyll-and-
Hyde behavior of tradition in the opposing camps and applauds beneficent
ecumenical effects of twentieth-century biblical criticism in this regard. In
Barr's brief history of tradition both camps score points. "It no longer makes
sense to speak of the authority of the Bible as if it meant the authority of the

69

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 20:20:43 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Journal of Religion
written documents, quite apart from the persons and lives that lie behind
them" (p. 47).
Chapter 3, "The Concept of Canon and Its Modern Adventures," deals
mostly with the concept. The bottom line is canon as a list, a rather late Chris-
tian one, of scriptural books. "Canon" is only applicable in some analogical
way to the formation of Old Testament books as recognized Scripture forJews
and earliest Christians. The triumph of Torah was "not really a process of
canonization at all" (p. 51). Nor are "canon" and "Scripture" synonymous for
the New Testament, where "the existence of holy scripture is beyond doubt,
but we do not know exactly what it comprised, or whether it was thought to
have precise boundaries at all" (p. 61).
With chapter 4, Barr steps into the ring, assuming the readers' familiarity
with canonical criticism. Barr faults the use of "canon" and "canonical form"
for three different things that function in three different ways. Canon 1 is
standard usage for the list of books comprising holy scripture. Canon 2, the
final form, so-called canonical form, is something else, making it possible to
attribute "intentionality" to the canon. With Scripture virtually hypostatized,
canonical criticism completely rules out any attention to earlier stages that
may, Barr argues, have something more or better to contribute to interpreta-
tion. Canon 3 is a governing perspective required of the interpreter, for which
"holistic" is a favorite label. Not a canon in any ordinary sense, that is rather
"the principle of attraction, value, and satisfaction that makes everything
about canons and canonicity beautiful" (p. 76). Barr's point is that the
influence of structuralism ought to be openly acknowledged as another mem-
ber in the family of criticism, subject to the same give and take of family life.
"Theology begins when we pass by the sense of religious satisfaction and begin
to pose the question of truth" (p. 104).
With chapter 5, Barr returns to the constructive vein: "For critical scholar-
ship the standard and criterion for judging the validity of exegesis lies no
longer in church doctrine, but in research" (p. 108).
Two appendixes, a bibliography, and two indexes augment the usefulness
of this book, which helps to clear the air of inflated claims, so that enduring
contributions of canonical criticism can be welcomed.
ROBERT G. BOLING, McCormick TheologicalSeminary.

CANCIK, HUBERT, ed. Markus-Philologie: Historische, literargeschichtlicheund

stilistische Untersuchungenzum zweiten Evangelium. Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr
(Paul Siebeck), 1984. v+227 pp. DM 148.
The eight studies in this collection seek to describe the historical and literary
character of the Gospel of Mark. Questions of date, place of origin,
authorship, and language are addressed in the first part of the book (Martin
Hengel, "Entstehungszeit und Situation des Markusevangeliums"; Giinther
Zuntz, "Wann wurde das Evangelium Marci geschrieben?"; Hans Peter
Riiger, "Die lexikalischen Aramaismen im Markusevangelium"), while
problems of genre, composition, and rhetoric occupy the second part (Hubert

70

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 20:20:43 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions