Canonical interpretation is not so much a method of interpretation rather than an attitude or a perspective. Such a perspective, however, have serious implications for the way we approach the text of Scriptures and interpret them. Pioneered by Yale scholar Brevard Childs, the underlining concept of canonical interpretaion is that the biblical literature were not put together haphazardly; rather they are where they are because of the theological intentions both of the original author and those after them responsible for placing the books in the order that we now have them. Canonical interpretation seeks to understand each work in the Bible within this canonical framework.
There is no one perfect approach to how we read Scriptures and canonical interpretation is no different. What canonical interpretation affirms is that Scriptures should be read as scriptures. The emphasis is, therefore, on the final text, what we have before us. Critics have complained that this fails to do justice to the pre-history of the biblical texts and so on. These complaints are not, of course, unfair. But any proposal can only do so much. No Bible student will be foolish enough to think that one view suits all. We learn from the strenghts of each approach but remains always mindful of pitfalls.
Further Reading & Resources:
Jonathan Catanzaro, "Canonical Interpretation and Intertextuality." Preaching Source. 21 August 2019. Blog N/span> (Open on Phone)
David Schrock, "The Good and the Bad of Brevard Childs's Canonical Criticism," (Open on Phone)
©ALBERITH
161122lch