104

personal integrity even though they may not call it sin,

and they understand how to recuperate from it even
though they may not use the words repentance and
absolution to describe it. They appreciate the
importance of their commitment to their work, to their
families, to bringing up their children and to caring for
elderly relatives even though they may not describe it
as worship. They are aware that there are aspects of
their experience that are of deeper significance than
their mundane routines even though they may not
choose to describe them as being close to God, and
they understand and practise prayer even if they
happen to call it taking the dog for a walk.
The point is that Christians do not have a monopoly
on Gods love and they are not unique in their
awareness of Gods workings, and it is this shared
awareness that provides the contact point between
Christians and non-Christians at work and elsewhere.
The church needs to speak to people like these both
because of what it has to offer them and because of
what it can learn from the dialogue about how it might
put its own house in order, and NSMs can be useful
both as intermediaries and as interpreters. God so
loved the world, not the church but the world, that he
gave his only son Jesus Christ to save us from our sins.
It is in the appreciation of this truth that NSMs
perhaps have most to contribute.

The Churchs Use of the Bible

The Work of Brevard Childs
BY DR R. W. L. MOBERLY
UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM

THERE is at present an extensive debate in progress on

the methods and goals appropriate to the study of the
Bible and its use by the believer today. The object of
this paper is not to attempt any overview or analysis of
the debate as such, but simply to concentrate on the
work of one scholar, that is Brevard Childs. Whatever
ones assessment of the debate, the importance of
Childss contribution can hardly be denied. First,
Childs is a professional biblical scholar, who is aware
of the issues peculiar to the field of biblical study.
Secondly, his theoretical proposals concerning the
nature of biblical interpretation have always been
accompanied by close exegetical study of the text, thus
constantly relating theory and practice. Thirdly,
Childss work covers both Old and New Testaments
alike. Such a thoroughgoing approach to biblical
interpretation is otherwise unparalleled in
contemporary scholarship, and means that his
proposals deserve the closest attention.l1

Since Childss work cannot be properly appreciated

unless it is seen in context, it will be appropriate to
begin with a rapid sketch of some of the assumptions
and issues that are generally characteristic of modem
biblical scholarship.
First, there is the rise of historically-oriented
biblical criticism, which may, for convenience, be
called the historical-critical approach. This is
characterized by a great diversity of procedures and
methods, which may not always be mutually
compatible, but which share certain basic
assumptions. At the heart lies the understanding that,
given the nature of the Bible as a collection of
documents from the ancient world, the essence of
biblical interpretation lies in the attainment of an
accurate historical understanding of these documents.
The meaning of these documents is that meaning
which they had in their ancient historical context, and
so the aim of the scholar is to use whatever means he
has to reconstruct that context and the setting of the
biblical document within it.
Secondly, a corollary of the rise of historical
criticism was the detachment of the Bible from the
context of ecclesiastical doctrine and dogma within
which, in one way or another, the Bible was previously
interpreted. Such a context of interpretation was felt
to be increasingly untenable for at least two reasons.
First, the integrity of the Bible was abused, in that
often the Bible was only allowed to say what later
doctrine permitted it to say, and it was not heard on its
own terms. For all that Protestantism in particular
claimed to be under the authority of the Bible, it is
clear that in practice the Bible tended to be under the
authority of Protestantism. Secondly, there was the
all-important rise of a truly historical consciousness.
Whereas, prior to the Enlightenment, people tended to
have a flat and undifferentiated view of the past, the
Enlightenment introduced a new sense of the
distinctiveness of the past. People had not always
thought, believed, and acted in ways that modern
Europeans found congenial or took for granted, and
this included the great figures of biblical times. The
beliefs and practices of ancient Israel had to be
respected and understood in their own historical
integrity, and as a matter of historical principle they
could not be assimilated to subsequent Christian belief
and practice. For these two reasons, therefore, the
interpretation of the Bible, at least in the scholarly
world, was increasingly detached from an
ecclesiastical context and transferred to a secular and

historically-oriented university context.

A third factor, which is essentially a corollary of the
above two points, has been the problem of
hermeneutics. The Bible is different from any other
ancient documents in that many people today still
seek, in one way or another, to live by it and to hear the

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at Durham University on March 2, 2015

105
voice of God through it. Yahweh is considered to be
real and true in a way that Marduk and Zeus are not.
What is the reason for this remarkable fact? However
much one may point to the inherent quality and
authority of the biblical documents, the primary
reason
is clearly the continuous existence of
communities of faith for whom belief in the God of
Israel and the God and Father of Jesus Christ has been
a living and creative reality down the centuries. This
centrality of a living community of faith for an
approach to the Bible was perhaps most famously
expressed by St Augustine, Indeed I should not have
believed the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic
Church had not moved me. But given the detachment
of biblical interpretation from the community of faith
and the insistence that its meaning is what it meant in
its ancient context, the question naturally arises as to
how the Bible can still be responsibly interpreted and
used by the community of faith.
The problem has often been particularly acute when
the historian has appeared to deny what the Bible
seems to affirm, that, for example, Moses and Jesus
actually said and did what the Pentateuch and Gospels
record. For how then can a faith that is rooted in
history base itself upon texts that appear to be
historically inaccurate? But apart from the issue of
historical inaccuracy, the basic problem has been that
the Bible as a whole is historically distant, and
therefore no part of it escapes the hermeneutical
problem of how to transcend the great gulf in outlook
between ancient and modern times.
Attempts to resolve the hermeneutical problem
have been many and varied. On the one hand there has
been the liberal Protestant hermeneutic classically
expressed by Harnack, that some parts of the Bible
contain timeless moral and religious truths which
move the modern conscience, or the existential
Lutheran hermeneutic of Bultmann, that some parts
of the Bible, when demythologized, contain a
challenge to authentic existence in faith. On the other
hand there have been conservative voices which have
accepted the principle of an historical approach and
yet restricted its scope so that there should be no sharp
distinction between historical fact, the plain sense of
the text, the meaning the text has been given in
traditional Christian theology, and the meaning of the
text today. In all this, two things at least are clear.
First, all scholars, liberal and conservative alike, have
shared the assumption that it is the meaning of the
biblical text in its ancient historical context that is the
primary goal of the interpreter and the basis for his
theology. Secondly, the status and authority of the
received biblical text, which needs to be related on the
one hand to the findings of the critical historian and on
the other hand to the needs of believers in the modern
world, has been left entirely unresolved. No proposed

hermeneutic has yet commanded a broad consensus.

It is the resolution of this hermeneutical conundrum
that is Childss chief concern, and he sets about it by
criticizing some of the assumptions that have
accompanied the first two factors outlined above. His
approach may be succinctly described by saying that
he comes to the Bible as a Christian theologian.
Childs comes to the Bible as a Christian in that he
stresses that the Bible is a religious book, written
explicitly for the practical purpose of the guidance of
believers. Childs sees this not as a mere truism but as a
vital guide to understanding the nature of the Bible. It
is not just the relatedness of the Bible to a community
of faith that explains many of the factors that have
most influenced the development of the text, but also it
is in the context of the community of faith that its
witness is to be heard and understood. That is to say,
Childs questions that removal of the Bible from a
specifically Christian context of interpretation that has
lain at the heart of the modern critical approach. This
is no attempt to reestablish a traditional, preenlightenment view of the Bible. It is rather an attempt
to establish a post-liberal, post-enlightenment view.
What Childs is concerned for is a context of
interpretation within which biblical study should be
carried out. In particular he is critical of the
assumption that it is possible to determine the
meaning and assess the truth claims of the Bible in
historical terms independently of the Bibles reception
and interpretation within the community of faith.
Childs in no way denies the historical objectivity of
biblical content, nor does he deny the enormous
illumination that has come from purely historical
study, nor does he deny the great contribution that has
been made by scholars of little or no faith. Childs
accepts the legitimacy of pluralism in biblical

interpretation. Nonetheless, among the many possible

and legitimate approaches to the Bible, Childs argues
that it is an approach from within the community of
faith that should have normative status. Childs
observes that the modern interpreter is no less
historically-conditioned and culturally-relative in
outlook than any ancient biblical writer, and must
therefore stand within one or other particular context
of meaning and understanding. In conjunction with
this he stresses that since all interpretation involves a
degree of interaction between text and reader, there is
no absolute distinction between what a text meant and
what a text means. The historical and evaluative tasks
are inseparable. The interpreter who stands within the
community of faith that lives in obedience to the
biblical witness stands thereby in the context of
meaning that should in principle be most congenial to
the positive appreciation of the biblical witness. The
ecclesiastical context should in no way prejudge
questions of interpretation on dogmatic grounds nor

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at Durham University on March 2, 2015

106
should it neglect a proper historical awareness, but
rather it should be the setting in which the dialectical
interaction between ancient text and modern world
can most fruitfully be carried out. Such a religious
context does not, of course, exist in isolation but, like
any other context, naturally interacts with and is
interpenetrated by a wide number of other contexts.
But it still retains an integrity and identity of its own.
In such a concern for the standpoint of the
interpreter one can of course detect overtones of
similar contemporary debates in a wide range of other
disciplines in both the humanities and the sciences. It
is, moreover, no novel concern. For one is reminded of
the arguments over a proper approach to biblical
interpretation that marked the patristic period. Men
such as Irenaeus and Athanasius insisted that the
issues raised by Gnostics, Marcionites and Arians
could never be resolved by the text of scripture alone,
but that scripture had to be interpreted from the
perspective of the rule of faith, that is from the
context of the church. It is in general continuity with
such a classic Christian stance that Childs is to be
understood.
Childs comes to the Bible as a theologian in that he
wishes to reinstate theology as a discipline with an
agenda and an integrity of its own in biblical study.
Childs believes that over the last 200 years or so
theology has been largely subordinated to history.
Theology has often been reduced to an interpretative
comment to round off an historical enquiry. The cake
has been history, the icing theology. Childs argues that
without a proper theological agenda the whole task of
interpretation is misconstrued. This means that Childs
wishes to downgrade the importance of historical
criticism in biblical study. This downgrading should
not, however, be exaggerated. If the subordination of
theology to history is the Scylla of modern biblical
criticism, the neglect of a proper critical historical
awareness is Charybdis. Childss full acceptance of the
methods and results of historical criticism sharply
distinguishes his position from those conservative
scholars who have explicitly or implicitly restricted the
historical scrutiny of biblical documents. What Childs
seeks is to establish a proper relationship between
history and theology in biblical interpretation in which
the integrity and legitimate concerns of each discipline
will be respected. What this involves in practice will
emerge as we turn next to consider the three major
elements that Childs argues for as constituting a
normative approach to the text.

The historical Amos, for example, had preached a

message of unmitigated judgment - the end of Israel
(Amos 7:7ff, 8:2; 9:1). Although such a message was
appropriate to the specific context of eighth century
Israel, it could not as it stands be taken as normative,
for in a larger theological context the ultimate
purposes of God include mercy and the divine gift of a
new, restored existence. Therefore Amoss message of
judgment, while recognized as true within its original
context and preserved fully as a warning to future
generations, is set in a context of eschatological
renewal (9:11-15), so as to have a normative
significance that transcends its historical origins.

l. Theological concerns are central to the processes

that have formed the biblical text
Much attention has been paid in modern study to
the process of development of biblical traditions from
their earliest oral stages, through their various literary

2. Theology should be based upon the received

biblical text
The modern recognition that biblical texts usually
stand at varying degrees of remove from their
historical referent - as most famously illustrated in

to their final editing and fixation in the

form that we now have them. This oral and literary
process has usually been studied in close relationship
to the historical communities that preserved and
shaped the traditions. The resultant picture has been
one of complex and subtle interaction between on the
one hand literary and on the other hand historical and
sociological factors. Familiar examples are the re-use
and expansion of prophetic oracles by disciples or
editors who applied the material to new historical
contexts, or the development and moulding of the
synoptic traditions within the context of the liturgical
and evangelistic life of the early church. Although
many of the details of such study are inevitably
hypothetical, the overall picture has commanded a
wide consensus.
Childs shares in the consensus view but difl&dquo;ers in his
assessment of the factors at work. In contrast to the
general view that the traditions were shaped by the
demands of changing historical circumstances, Childs
argues for the formative influence of theological
factors. To put it simply, the concern of the biblical
tradents was less the reapplication of material from
one specific situation to another specific situation, but
rather the reapplication of material from one specific
situation to any situation. That is, the concern for
hermeneutics is integral to the traditio-historical
process. The biblical tradents recognized the problems
inherent in making a message related to one particular
context to be authoritative for an ongoing community
of faith. Their approach, therefore, was deliberately to
loosen or relativize the links between a tradition and
its original historical setting so as to make the material
more accessible to subsequent believers. This was
achieved in a wide variety of ways, and certainly not
through the application of any single dogmatic

developments,

principle.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at Durham University on March 2, 2015

107
various quests for the historical Jesus - has tended to
make the status of the biblical text problematic,
especially for the theologian. Numerous different
approaches to the problem have of course been
suggested. In general, however, theologians have
tended to base their theology upon the sources or
editors of the received text, that is some abstraction
from it, rather than the received text itself. Von Rad
expounds the J and P sources in the Pentateuch, and
Jeremias expounds the supposed words of the
historical Jesus.
Childs objects to such an approach to biblical
theology for several reasons. First, the reconstruction
of sources is always hypothetical to a greater or lesser
degree, and this means that the basis for ones theology
is likewise hypothetical and subject to frequent
reformulation. As such it tends to resemble the house
built on sand. While the acceptance of the necessarily
tentative nature of ones results is proper to the
historian, it by no means follows that the theologian
should always be subject to such uncertainties, at least
not in the same way as the historian.
Secondly, prepossession with sources leaves
important aspects of the received biblical text
unexplained. For neither J nor P (in the Pentateuch)
nor Q (in the Gospels) exist as independent entities any
longer, but have been combined into a whole which
transcends its individual parts, in that the parts may
now take on a somewhat different meaning when read
in the context of the whole. The meaning of Gen 2
varies according to whether it is read as an
independent creation account, or as an account
subordinate to Gen l.
Thirdly, there is the point made in the previous
section that the biblical tradents deliberately
transformed their traditions into a new whole precisely
in order to provide a foundation for the theological
appropriation of that material. The modern concern
to recover the historical Isaiah, Jesus or Paul as the
norm for theological reflection is a movement exactly
opposite to that of the biblical tradents; hence it is
hardly surprising that the subsequent hermeneutical
difficulties should be acute. The Jesus of Christian
faith is, and always has been, Jesus as he is presented in
the gospels. The attempt to penetrate behind this on
the assumption that one can thereby produce a
somehow superior presentation of Jesus involves
highly questionable assumptions about the
relationship of history and faith, which are certainly
very different from those of the biblical tradents.
Childs argues, therefore, that biblical theology
should be based upon the received biblical text. The
parameters of the text are not subject to speculative
reconstruction, and its meaning as a whole can
constantly be freshly appreciated in the way that those
responsible for its creation intended. The modern

also stands in continuity with

mainstream Christian theology down the centuries
which has also worked on this basis.
In order that this position should not be
misunderstood, three points of clarification should
perhaps be emphasized. First, Childs is not severing
the links between theology and history, for he in no
way wishes to deny the historical nature of biblical
revelation. He is modifying the connection, not
denying it. Interpretation should still be historical,
both negatively to prevent the ascription of a false or
anachronistic meaning to the text, and positively to
illuminate references and concepts that might
otherwise remain obscure. Secondly, Childs does not
deny a possibly complex prehistory to many biblical
texts. He constantly refers to the text as multilayered. He does not deny a prehistory, but he is
modifying its significance. Thirdly, Childs does not
deny all theological relevance to the sources and
prehistory of a text. On the contrary, he emphasizes
the value of such study for sharpening ones
perception of the contours of the received text and for
adding a depth dimension to ones reading. What he
does insist on, however, is that the various levels of
meaning perceived in a texts prehistory should serve
the task of sharpening appreciation of the received
text, rather than competing with the received text or
even replacing it.

interpreter thereby

3. Theology should take seriously a writings

scriptural cvntext
Modern study of biblical books usually begins with
discussion of such issues as authorship, date, place of
composition, intended recipients, literary integrity, etc
what is known as introduction. The underlying
assumption is that an accurate understanding of the
text depends upon the prior establishment of the
historical context of its composition. The books
position within the canon of scripture is usually noted
but is considered irrelevant to its interpretation, except
in an occasional postscript.
Childs, by contrast, wishes to give considerable
interpretative significance to the position of a writing
within the biblical canon. Again, it is not the propriety
of traditional scholarly enquiry that he queries, but
rather its relative significance. Childs often refers to
the intertextuality of biblical writings to describe the
context of meaning within which they are to be
understood by virtue of their position within the
canonical collection. This context can give a new
meaning to material which may be independent to a
greater or lesser extent from that meaning which it had
in its original historical context. Two examples will
help illustrate the point.
First, the laws of the Sinai covenant in ExodusNumbers. Historians have long recognized the
-

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at Durham University on March 2, 2015

108

diversity of these laws. In all likelihood, they range in

date from the earliest period of Israels history to the
latest and originate from a wide diversity of contexts.
Childs accepts this but nonetheless stresses that the
decisive factor for interpretation should be their
biblical presentation as laws of God belonging to the
Sinai covenant. What is at stake is the theological
assessment of the Sinai tradition as normative for the
establishment of the identity of Israel, such that laws
and
practices which subsequently became
authoritative for Israel are all to be understood within
the context of Sinai. This presentation is a theological
construct based on a theological principle which can
only be appreciated when the biblical, not the
historical, context is taken seriously.
A second example, with a different kind of material,
can be seen in the letters of the New Testament. Here
Childs argues that the customary concern with
questions of introduction introduces a perspective
different from that of the New Testament itself. The
New Testament did not preserve the historical context
of the letters, except in occasional details, but from the
outset the letters were seen as having a meaning that
transcends their original context. Childs gives
particular attention to the question of pseudepigraphy
and the interpretation of Ephesians, Colossians, 2
Thessalonians and the Pastorals within the Pauline
corpus. Childs does not argue for the Pauline
authorship of these disputed letters, but insists that
argument about the historical relationship of these
letters to Paul does not significantly further the task of
interpretation. What matters is that these letters have
been included within the Pauline corpus, and
interpretation therefore should centre upon
understanding Pauline theology in the light of them.
Colossians, for example, provides a warrant for
translating Pauline theology into a new idiom, and the
Pastorals show Pauline teaching being given the status
of normative teaching whereby the church is to
combat heresy. It is important to appreciate that the
historical Paul, just as the historical Jesus, has been
interpreted and developed by the early church as part
of a process of making him normative for the
community of faith. The interpretative task, therefore,
consists in understanding the meaning of the letters
within this canonical context, not in reconstructing an
alternative context.
To sum up. It is clear that canonical criticism as
advocated by Childs does not involve any particular
method or tool of interpretation, as though canonical
criticism were the next step on from redaction
criticism. Rather, Childs is concerned to establish a
context and perspective for interpretation, within
which all existing methods and tools can be
appropriately exercised. This context is one of faith, by
which is meant not the piety of the individual but the

corporate life, witness and search for understanding of

the Christian church, at the heart of which lies the use
of the Bible

as canonical scripture. A canonical

distinguished by the central importance
which the scholar gives to the Bibles own
interpretation and presentation of its witness to God
(which is not to be equated with that of the pure
historian). The basis for this lies in the conviction that
the hermeneutical task of the use of scripture within a
community of faith is inseparable from, and integral
to, the historical description and assessment of the

context is

biblical documents. It is the attempt to put asunder

that which God has joined together that has created
the major difficulties for the churchs use of the Bible

today.
In

conclusion,

proposals

few brief comments

may be offered.

on

Childss

First, I have deliberately

made minimal use of the terms canon and canonical

in my outline, because the terms as such are less
important than is sometimes supposed. It is
undoubtedly true that Childs uses them in a diversity
of ways which can sometimes be irritating, but that is
because he uses them as a convenient shorthand for his
overall approach to the Bible as authoritative scripture
for a community of faith. It is important that debate
should centre upon the substantive issues to do with
the relationship of the Bible to a community of faith,
and not be sidetracked into secondary issues of

terminology.
Secondly, Childs is probably on weakest ground in
his assertion of the importance of hermeneutical
concerns to the biblical tradents. This is primarily an
historical judgment, and is therefore subject to
historical assessment in the light of the evidence. Yet
explicit evidence in favour is extremely limited. A
passage such as Ecclesiastes 12:9-14 does indeed
display hermeneutical concern for the interpretation

of Qoheleth by the community of faith, but this

passage is exceptional (as is Qoheleth). For the most
part the Bible is silent as to the precise nature of the
processes that formed it. There is indeed an equal
paucity of evidence that tells against Childss
supposition, and so it cannot be discounted as a
possible interpretation of the developmental process;
and indeed the undoubted fact of the transmission of
biblical material by people seeking to live by it gives his
interpretation an inherent plausibility. Nonetheless, as
an assessment of what was universally, or even
generally, the case, it must remain open to debate.
Thirdly, it is unclear what limits to interpretation
are provided by a canonical perspective. While it is
valuable to stress the freedom and potential for
interpretation that should characterize the churchs
engagement with the Bible as scripture, Childs gives

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at Durham University on March 2, 2015

109
little attention to the wide diversity of outlooks within
the church and the resultant problem of conflicting
and unacceptable interpretations. While Childss own
strong historical sense and theological sensitivity
provide a control in his own writing, there are many
other Christians who do not possess these attributes,
especially the historical awareness, in the same way.
While the relationship between Bible and church may
be relatively straightforward in theory, in practice the
intractable plurality of communities of faith raises
problems that need more specific treatment if the
relationship between Bible and church is to be
exploited as fruitfully as Childs proposes.
Such diverse and conflicting use of scripture within
the church is, however, one of the major recurring
problems of church history, and therefore it is
unreasonable to expect any one solution to it. Childss
work is directed to one specific modern form of the
perennial problem of the use of the Bible, that is the
problem of maintaining the Bibles theological
integrity for the church in the light of historical
criticism. It is by his success or failure here that his
work must be judged.

1
Those of Childss books which specifically address the
questions of method and hermeneutics in biblical study are:
Bihlical Theology in Crisis (Westminster Press,
Philadelphia [1970]).
Exodus (SCM, London [1974]).
Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (SCM,
London [1979]).
The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (SCM,
London [1984]).
Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (SCM,
London [1985]).
Important articles on the subject are:
The Sensus Literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and Modern
Problem in H. Donner et al. (ed.), Beiträge zur
Alttestamentlichen Theologie (Zimmerli Festschrift,
Göttingen [1977], 80-93).
The Exegetical Significance of Canon for the Study of the
Old Testament (
VT Suppl 29 [1978], 66-80).
On Reading the Elijah Narratives (Interpretation 34 [1980],

128-137).
the best statement of Childss approach in his
words is that in the opening chapters of The New

Probably
own

Testament

as

Canon.

Response and criticism from other scholars is partly to be

found in the reviews of Childss books in the various biblical
journals. One important collection of articles is in JSOT 16
[1980]. There is also an extended exposition and critique of
Childs in J. Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism
(Clarendon Press, Oxford [1983]), ch. 4, and appx. 2, and J.
Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study
(DLT; London [1984]), chs. 6 & 7. Both Barr and Barton
make some telling criticisms, but neither of them, in my
judgment, has sufficiently accurately discerned the central
concerns of Childss approach.

From Desk to

Pulpit

The Junior Church

Short
BY

THE

Prayers by Great People

IX. Samuel Johnson

REVD DR KENNETH LYSONS, MA, MED,
ST HELENS

Who keeps a diary?

One of my best friends keeps a diary. She can tell me
what I preached about several years ago and, in her
opinion, if the sermon was good or poor.
Do you know any famous diarists? (Pepys, Evelyn,

etc)
John Wesley kept a diary called a Journal. This is
what he wrote at the end of a happy day:
I could truly say when I
lived a day.

lay down at night,

now

I have

What do you think he meant by living a day?

That sentence reminds me of a short prayer by a
great man named Samuel Johnson who lived from
1709-1794. Samuel was poor, but clever. He went to
Oxford, but when his father died, he left without
taking his degree. Eventually, with only twopence
halfpenny in his pocket, he went to London and
struggled to live by writing. Then in 1769, after seven
years work, he compiled a dictionary. In some ways it
wasnt a good dictionary, because Samuel often used
long words to define short ones.
Here, for example, is his definition of a net used for
catching fish or flies:

Anything reticulated

or decussated at equal intervals

with interstices between the intersections.

What a mouthful!
The dictionary and other books, however, made
Samuel famous. He was granted a pension. He had
many friends, one of whom, James Boswell, wrote his
biography. When he died, he was buried in
Westminster Abbey.
Samuel Johnson was a devout Christian and wrote
many prayers. Here is one:
Make me remember, 0 God, that every day is Thy gift
and ought to be used at Thy command.

There is a hymn that echoes Samuels prayer. It begins:

At

Thy feet, 0 Christ, we lay

own gift of this new day.

Thine

Who wrote it?

To regard each
secrets of living a

(William Bright)

day as Gods gift, is

day.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at Durham University on March 2, 2015

one

of the