Canonical Approaches, New Trajectories, and the Book of Daniel

Bibliographic information:

Jordan M. Scheetz. “Canonical Approaches, New Trajectories, and the Book of Daniel,” in Text and Canon: Essays in Honor of John H. Sailhamer, edited by Robert L. Cole and Paul J. Kissling (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2017). 149-166.



This paper briefly outlines the origins of canonical approaches including James Sanders, Brevard Childs, and Rolf Rendtorff, before turning to the canonical approach of John Sailhamer. Points of contrast between Childs, Rendtorff, and Sailhamer are made in relation to their proposed canonical texts and the development of these canonical texts. Although they all rely to a greater or lesser extent on the text of BHS, Sailhamer’s approach lends itself to exploring LXX texts, including their different early orderings exactly because of their early pre-Masoretic origins. Moving beyond these earlier approaches, the book of Daniel becomes a test case, critically challenging the assumption that BHS or even Baba Batra 14b represents the (earliest) canonical form of the Hebrew Scriptures. The point is not the rather historically dubious position that the placement of Daniel is to be here or there, but that thematic considerations and not the date of composition have led to its various placements, what I have called elsewhere canonical intertextuality.


Wipf and Stock (website:

Leave a Comment