Canonical criticism, associated most closely with B. Childs, J. Barr, F. Thielman, and J. Sanders (among others) seeks to understand and apply the Bible as Scripture to the Church. For Childs, the historical-critical method is useful in its own context, but is insufficient in itself to account for the theological questions that the Church places on the Bible as Scripture. Canonical criticism, as its name implies, takes the canon (and the canon’s limits are based on ecclesial confession) as its starting point for theological reflection. For the Christian church in general, this provokes the following question: what is the theological legacy and responsibility for the corporate body of saints that uses a two-testamented Bible (i.e., does the New Testament always trump the Old Testament?) — and for LDS Christians more specifically, the other standard works: the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants. Canonical criticism does not ignore or gloss over differences or disagreements in Scripture. Rather, canonical criticism attempts to synthesize the disparate parts of the Canon while remaining faithful to its original parts. It wishes to speak of Scripture in its entirety theologically as inspired by and superintended by God and the Holy Spirit. Thus the canon, however it is defined, must be greater than its individual parts, and these parts must be read in concert, even if they are discordant (cacophony, to push the metaphor) — and the results are rarely univocal. When an individual text (e.g., Luke or Nahum) is placed along with other authoritative texts (e.g., the Canon), this Canon exerts hermeneutical pressure on the way the individual parts are interpreted. Thus Canonical criticism, in a sense, is really a method of theological exegesis that has striking affinities in its theoretical hermentical apparatus to literary methods such as redaction criticism. In this case, the Bible is to be approached as a canonical unity (often within an explicit ecclesiastical tradition) as seen in its final stage of redaction. Canonical criticism rejects the notion, moreover, that a text may only be understood by the intentions of its original author (something historical criticism has often assumed or argued for). There are a host of theoretical issues about this subject that literary theorists have debated, but suffice it to say that for this method a specific passage of the Bible (or Book of Mormon) as Scripture may mean something different than what its original author might have meant.