1.0 History of Old Testament Theology

7/27/2019 1.0 History of Old Testament Theology

1/83

1.0 History of Old Testament

Theology

BIB566/THE566 Old Testament Theology


2/83

1.1 Introduction


3/83

1.1.1 Difficulties in

Approaching O.T. Studies1.1.1.1 Historical barriers

1.1.1.2 Literary barriers1.1.1.3 Theological/Hermeneuticalbarriers

1.1.1.4 General unfamiliarity with the O.T.1.1.1.5 Scholarly barriers

[House, Paul R., Old Testament Theology ]


4/83

1.1.2 Five Possible Starting Points

1.1.2.1 The Old Testament itself Intra-Testamental: Michael A.

Fishbane, Biblical I nterpretation in Ancient I srael (Oxford: Clarendon,1985).

1.1.2.2 Version Analysis: LXX,Qumran, Samaritan Pent., MT, etc.


5/83

1.1.2.3 New Testament1.1.2.4 Early church fathers, medieval

interpreters and leaders of the Reformation . . .

John Calvin and Martin Luther Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the

Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflections on the Chr istian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), pp. 30-51.

N.B. Brueggemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute,Advocac y.Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.



6/83


1.1.2.5 Rabbinic scholars See: John H. Hayes and Frederick C.

Prussner, Old Testament Theology: I ts H istory and Development (Atlanta:John Knox, 1985).


7/83

1.2 Reformers &ProtestantOrthodoxy

(1550-1650)


8/83

1.2.1 Reformers "While the Bible has been read theologically since its

formation, biblical theology as a discipline has itsroots in the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers'emphasis on Scripture as the sole source and normfor all matters of faith provided the soil from whichbiblical theology sprang. While the term itself wasnot used by the Reformers to designate a distinctdiscipline, it is clear that for them biblical theologymeant a systematic theology which was biblical incharacter, that is, for which the Bible was theprimary, if not the sole, source and norm. Insofar asthe Reformers self-consciously sought to differentiatetheir theology from Roman Catholic dogma, in which

tradition played a major role, one may note a polemic


9/83

1.2.1 Reformers

dimension in the birth of biblical theology.One could go on to observe that while thetarget of the polemic changed periodically,the polemic dimension has been a constantfeature of biblical theology throughout itshistory, in the sense that it had to fightrepeatedly for an unbiased hearing of the

theological witness of Scripture."

[Lemke, Werner E., "Theology (Old Testament),"The Anchor Bible Dictionary , Freedman, David Noel,

ed., (New York: Doubleday) 1997, 1992]


10/83


11/83

1.2.1 Reformers

Luther's hermeneutic of "sola scriptura"and his principle " was Christum treibet "together with the "letter-spirit" dualismprevented him from developing a Biblicaltheology. . . . "

[Hasel, Old Testament Theology ]


12/83

1.2.2 Protestant Orthodoxy

1.2.2.1 While the Reformers in their use of Scriptureintroduced a creative tension between the Bible anddogmatic theology, the opposite was true of the proponentsof Protestant orthodoxy who followed them. In their handsthe Bible became subservient to Protestant dogmatics, which

determined the selection, order, and treatment of biblicalpassages. The Bible came to be viewed as a uniformsourcebook of quotations whose primary task was to supportthe dogmas of Protestant orthodoxy against the dogmas of Roman Catholicism. No distinctions were made in regard totime, authorship, historical context, compositional purpose,or distinctive theological perspectives of the biblicaldocuments. The system of arranging biblical data was thetraditional loci method known from medieval scholasticism.That is, various Scripture texts would be listed and briefly


13/83

1.2.2 Protestant Orthodoxy

commented upon under the topical rubrics drawn fromdogmatic theology. The understanding of biblical theologyreflected in Protestant orthodoxy may be characterized as"dogmatic biblicism" or proof-texting (dicta probanti a).Early in the 17th century, the actual words "biblical

theology" began to appear in the title of works of this kind.As far as we know, the first work to use such a title was W. J.Christmann's Teutsche Biblische Theologie published in 1629.While many other works of this nature were publishedsubsequently, a significant shift in the understanding of

biblical theology began to take place during the second half of the 17th century, thus ushering in a new era in the historyof the discipline." [Lemke, "Theology (Old Testament)," ABD ]


14/83

1.2.2 Protestant Orthodoxy1.2.2.2 "Proof-texts" - dicta probantia - collegia

biblica "Emerging, as it did, as a child of Protestant

Scholasticism, its basic presuppositions reflectedthe peculiarities of the parent system of thought.It began with the belief that the church dogmascontained the correct interpretation of theChristian religion. These, in turn, were deemedto be sacrosanct, true for all time, andunchangeable. Their authority lay especially inthe fact that the Scripture, constituting the literalWord of God, was considered to give them asupernatural approval."


15/83

1.2.2.2 "Proof-texts" ". . . the Bible was regarded as uniformly

authoritative and that any notions of thedissimilarity between the Old and New Testamentswere completely nonexistent."

"Old Testament theology thus described may be

taken to mean the use of Israels canonical writingsfor the purpose of demonstrating the soundness of Protestant doctrine on the basis of certain passagesselected for their suitability as proof-texts. Since all

of Scripture was deemed to be of equal value, suchpassages could and were chosen from all sections of the Old Testament, the only requirement being thatthe texts could be interpreted to agree withwhatever doctrine was being considered."


16/83

1.2.2.2 "Proof-texts"

"Under these circumstances, the method of discussion was an extremely simple one,involving only three steps. It began with the

authoritative definition and elucidation of anindividual doctrine. It then moved on tochoose passages from the Old Testamentwhich might be thought to support thatformulation. Finally, it entailed the detailedexposition of those texts in order to show howthey actually did provide such support."


17/83

1.2.2.2 "Proof-texts"

"The order of the subject matter came bodilyfrom the doctrinal systems themselves. In thisrespect Schmidt was only following the

practice current among the Protestanttheologians of his day."

[Hayes & Prussner, Old Testament Theology: i t history & development ]


18/83

1.3 Emancipation

from Dogmatics(1650-1800)


19/83


20/83

1.3.2 Pietism & Enlightenment 1.3.2.1 Pietism "The shift from a dogmatic to a more historically

oriented approach to biblical theology acceleratedduring the course of the 18th century. Of particularimportance in this development were two cultural

movements of the 18th century: German Pietismand the Enlightenment. Pietism was a revolt withinthe German Church against Protestantscholasticism, which it considered to be excessively

preoccupied with dogmatic speculations and aridabstractions. Whereas Protestant orthodoxy tendedto equate the Christian faith with intellectual assentto sound doctrine, Pietism stressed personalexperience and awareness of the presence of God, as


21/83

1.3.2.1 Pietism

nourished through a life of prayer,personal devotion, Bible reading, and

moral living. Pietism's emphasis on thereading and study of Scripture by allbrought about a greater familiarity withthe contents of the Bible. It also brought

about an increasing awareness of thedifferences between biblical anddogmatic theology."

[Lemke, "Theology (Old Testament),"ABD


22/83


23/83

1.3.2.1 Pietism

" As early as 1745 Biblical theology is clearlyseparated from dogmatic (systematic) theology andthe former is conceived of as being the foundationof the latter. This means that Biblical theology is

emancipated from a role merely subsidiary todogmatics. Inherent in this new development is thepossibility that Biblical theology can become therival of dogmatics and turn into a completelyseparate and independent discipline. Thesepossibilities realized themselves under theinfluence of rationalism in the age of Enlightenment."



24/83

EnlightenmentNature and Nature's

laws lay hid in night:God said, Let Newton

be! and all was light!

Alexander Pope


25/83

1.3.2.2 Enlightenment "The increasing differentiation of biblical theology

from dogmatic theology was also greatly aided by theEnlightenment which swept across Europe during the18th century. Rationalism's aversion to dogmaticreligion, its belief in the powers of the human intellectto ascertain truth through observation and inductivereasoning, as well as its belief in the existence of universal natural religion which was in conformitywith the demands of reason, exerted a powerfulinfluence on biblical studies and widened the gulf

between biblical and dogmatic theology. Increasinglythe Bible came to be subjected to the same kind of critical and rational study as any other humandocument of antiquity."

[Lemke, "Theology (Old Testament)," ABD ]


26/83

1.3.2.2 Enlightenment "In the age of Enlightenment (Aufklrung) a totally new

approach for the study of the Bible was developed underseveral influences. First and foremost was rationalismsreaction against any form of supernaturalism. Human reasonwas set up as the final criterion and chief source of knowledge,which meant that the authority of the Bible as the infalliblerecord of divine revelation was rejected. The second majorcontribution of the period of the Enlightenment was thedevelopment of a new hermeneutic, the historical-criticalmethods which holds sway to the present day in liberalismand beyond. Third, there is the application of radical literarycriticism to the Bible by J. B. Witter, J. Astruc, and others.Finally, rationalism by its very nature was led to abandon theorthodox view of the inspiration of the Bible so that ultimatelythe Bible became simply one of the ancient documents, to bestudied as any other ancient document."



27/83

1.3.2.2 Enlightenment Enlightenment as it Impinged on Christian

Theology: Historical Science matured which produced

a by-product of historical skepticism

Literary Criticism was the subject otintense occupation The enthronement of reason Sciences, i.e., physics, astronomy, etc. General religious skepticism Period of toleration Humanitarianism


28/83

1.3.2.2 Enlightenment

Omnicompetence of Criticism Utilitarianism Pervasive Moralism


29/83

1.3.3 Scholars

Johann Solomo Semler (1725-1791) ". . . claimed that the Word of God and Holy

Scripture are not at all identical. This impliedthat not all parts of the Bible were inspired andthat the Bible is a purely historical documentwhich as any other such document is to beinvestigated with a purely historical and thus

critical methodology. As a result Biblicaltheology can be nothing else but a historicaldiscipline which stands in antithesis to traditionaldogmatics." [Hasel, Old Testament Theology ]


30/83

1.3.3 Scholars Gotthilf Traugott Zachari (1729-1777)

Under the influence of the new orientation in dogmaticsand hermeneutics he attempted to build a system of theological teachings based upon careful exegetical work.Each book of Scripture has its own time, place, and

intention. But Zacharia held to the inspiration of theBible, as did J. A. Ernesti (1707-l781) whose Biblical-exegetical method he followed. Historical exegesis andcanonical understanding of Scripture do not collide inZacharias thought because the historical aspect is a

matter of secondary importance in theology. On thisbasis there is no need to distinguish between theTestaments; they stand in reciprocal relationship to eachother. Most basically Zacharias interest was still in thedogmatic system, which he wished to cleanse from

impurities." [Hasel, Old Testament Theology ]


31/83

1.3.3.1 Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826)

Gabler took the ideas that were present in the18 th century and presented them in an orderlyfashion.

"Concerning the Proper Distinction betweenBiblical and Dogmatic Theology and the

Appropriate Definition of the RespectiveGoals of Both"


32/83


Biblical Theology: Biblical theology ishistorical in character; that is, it sets forthwhat the sacred writers thought about divinematters .

Dogmatic Theology: Dogmatic theology isdidactic in character, teaching what a giventheologian thinks about divine matters in

accordance with his ability, his particularcircumstances, age, locale, religious andintellectual tradition, and similar conditioningfactors.


33/83


Two phases or distinct tasks of biblical theology: True: "The first task of biblical theology was to

ascertain simply what the various biblicalauthors thought and asserted about divinematters in their various contexts. This was to beaccomplished by means of a purely grammaticaland historical exegesis. All allegorizing orspiritualizing was to be shunned. Care was to beexercised in differentiating the various ideas of biblical writers, not to blur differences but toarrange and compare these ideas in some suitablemanner." [Lemke, "Theology (Old Testament)," ABD ]


34/83


Pure: "The second task of biblical theology wasto sift these various biblical concepts andassertions in terms of their universal and abidingvalue and to deduce some general concepts andideas from these which could serve as a basis forthe construction of a dogmatic theology."

[Lemke, "Theology (Old Testament)," ABD ]


35/83


"One possible implication of Gabler'sproposal is that the Old Testament occupies alower rung on the ladder of reason than doesthe New; after all, it is from an earlier ear.Georg Lorenz Bauer was the first to draw thisimplication . . . ."

[Ollenburger, "From Timeless Ideas to the Essence of Religion," in The F lowering of Old Testament Theology: AReader in Twentieth-Century Old Testament Theology , 1930- 1990 ]


36/83

1.3.3.1 Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826) A three-stage approach to examining biblical

theology: First, interpreters must gather data on "each of

the periods in the Old and New Testaments, eachof the authors, and each of the manners of

speaking which each used as a reflection of timeand place."

Second, having gathered this historical materialtheologians must undertake "a careful and sober

comparison of the various parts attributed toeach testament." Biblical authors ideas shouldbe compared until "it is clearly revealed whereinthe separate authors agree in a friendly fashion,

or differ among themselves."


37/83


"Third, the agreements and disagreements mustbe duly noted and analyzed in order to determinewhat universal notions emerge. Gabler offersno specific criteria for determining what

constitutes universal notions except to cite"Mosaic law" as one example of what no longerapplies to Christians. He simply distinguishedbetween that which applied to the authors times

alone and that which has more long-term value."[House, Old Testament Theology ]


38/83

1.3.3.1 Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826) " Underlying Gablers approach was a rationalistic

view of the inspiration and reliability of Scripture.For him, only eliminating the temporary, human,nonuniversal elements of Scriptures teachings canproduce ideas that are truly inspired and valuablefor church dogmatics. Even an appeal to passages onthe Bibles inspiration does not help determine theextent of the Bibles inspiration, since "theseindividual passages are very obscure andambiguous." Therefore those who "wish to deal withthese things with reason and not with fear or bias"must not "press those meanings of the Apostlesbeyond their just limits, especially since only theeffects of their inspiration and not their causes, are

perceived by the senses."


39/83


Strength: "Its chief strength is the insistenceon the value of biblical theology."

Weaknesses:

"First, his insistence on rationalism and itsrefusal to discuss what lies beyond the humansenses eliminates much of Scripture from serioustheological consideration."

"Second, despite his program for incorporatingbiblical and systematic theology, Gablerstheories open the door for a negative separationof Old and New Testament theology."


40/83


"Third, a cleavage is created between theacademic study of theology and the churchsteaching of doctrine."

[House,Old Testament Theology

]


41/83


42/83

1.4 Influence of

Rationalism(1750-1875)


43/83

1.4.1 Initial effects of Rationalism "Initially rationalism, along with Pietism, had been a

constructive force in emancipating biblical theology from thestranglehold of dogmatic theology and in establishing it as adistinct theological discipline in its own right. Many 18th-century biblical theologians combined both currents in theirlife and their scholarship. That is, they were both devoutbelievers as well as rationalists, and this was reflected in theirscholarly work on the Bible. But toward the latter part of the18th and especially during the first half of the 19th century,these two currents more often than not stood in opposition toeach other, as rationalism became the more powerful of thetwo. Increasingly, rationalist philosophy penetrated biblicaltheology and for a time forced it into a philosophicalstraitjacket which threatened to become as rigid as the olderreligious dogmatism had been. The Bible was now understoodin terms of an evolutionary religious process leading from


44/83


45/83

1.4.2 Rationalist Scholars Christopher Friedrich von Ammon: ". . . framework

of Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy, andspecifically of "Kantian hermeneutics"

Gottlieb Philipp Christian Kaiser: "He subsumed

the Old Testament under the universal history of religion, and then ultimately under the universalreligion. The particularity of Old Testamentreligion, which Kaiser refers to as Judaism, can only

be understood in relation to religion in general."[Ollenburger, "From Timeless Ideas to the Essence of Religion," in The

Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century Old Testament Theology , 1930-1990 ]


46/83


47/83

1.4.2 Rationalist Scholarsdevaluation of the OT in favor of the NT undoubtedly

contributed to this bifurcation in biblical theology. Atany rate, the work that marked the beginning of thisdivision of the discipline, and thus the beginning of OTtheology proper, was G. L. Bauer's OT theologypublished in 1797. " [Lemke, "Theology (Old Testament),"

ABD ] ". . . the task of OT theology was to trace the religious

ideas of the Hebrews in their historical development andagainst the background of other ANE religions withwhom the Hebrews came into contact. Already theinfluence of comparative religion was beginning to makeitself felt here in this first OT theology. Bauer'srationalistic orientation manifested itself in the mannerin which he judged the religious content of the OT.Miraculous and mythological elements in the Bible weredismissed by him as superstitions of a primitive race."


48/83

1.4.2 Rationalist Scholars "(1) For Bauer, Old Testament theology focused

primarily on religious ideas or concepts. (2) He claimedthat historical interpretation must trace the developmentof those ideas and interpret them in independence fromdogmatic theology's definitions. Only in that way wouldOld Testament (and then New Testament) theology beable to reform dogmatics. (3) In the course of theirdevelopment, in the Old Testament as in history generally,ideas move from particular to universal, and it is theseuniversal religious ideas that are most important for thepresent. Bauer says that in the Old Testament theseuniversal ideas are to be found principally in Proverbsand Job, because their authors are the least concernedwith particulars with their own time, their own people,their own situation." [ Ollenburger, "From Timeless Ideas to theEssence of Religion"]

1 4 3 Summary of Gabler &


49/83

1.4.3 Summary of Gabler &Bauer's Influence

1. Gabler and Bauer basically create the discipline of Old Testament theology. They argue that the Oldand New Testaments deserve to be heard on theirown terms before their ideas are incorporated intodogmatic theology.

2. Both Gabler and Bauer believe Old Testamenttheology must have a strongly historicalcomponent. Unfortunately this historicalcomponent is based on a rationalism that leaveslittle room for the supernatural. It also questions agreat deal of material that is suspect only to keenrationalists.

1 4 3 Summary of Gabler &


50/83

1.4.3 Summary of Gabler &Bauer's Influence

3. Gabler and Bauer argue that the OldTestament teaches some universal truthsapplicable to Christians in all eras. To find

these concepts, however, both men eliminatemuch of the Old Testament as being due to theauthors "own ingenuity." This approachquestions the general value of the OldTestament and leaves it with little to say thatthe New Testament does not repeat.


51/83


52/83

1.4.4 Continued Rationalism

Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette " Though he shared the rationalists conclusion aboutthe Bibles depictions of miracles, prophecies and soforth, he thought the rationalists dismissal of suchaccounts wrongheaded. Rather, de Wette argues,myths are poetic means of expressing feelings aboutGod and all sacred things. Many ancient peoplesthought and wrote in such terms, so it is not unusualthat Israel did so as well. Thus Old Testament

theologians must seek to understand the feelings anduniversal truths behind the myths, not simplydiscard them as fantasies penned by irrational orprimitive people." [House, Old Testament Theology ]


53/83

1.4.4 Continued Rationalism Wilhelm Vatke

"Wilhelm Vatke (1806- 1882) regarded the rationalisticperiod of Biblical theology as a necessary but nowsuperseded development. He was the first to adopt theHegelian philosophy of thesis (nature religion), antithesis(spiritual religion = Hebrew religion), and synthesis(absolute or universal religion = Christianity), in his Die biblische Theologie. Die Religion des AT (Berlin, 1835). Heclaimed that the system for the arrangement of the OT

material must not be set forth on the basis of categoriesderived from the Bible but must be imposed from theoutside, and formulated the dogma of the history -of-religion approach concerning the independent totalityof the OT. Three years after the publication of Vatkes


54/83

1.4.4 Continued Rationalismtome, which later had great influence on J. Wellhausen, a

second history -of- religions OT theology based onHegelianism was published by Bruno Bauer (1809-1882),who arrived at opposite conclusions from his teacherVatke." [Hasel, Old Testament Theology ]

" By the time Vatkes work was published and read, aperceptible dogmaticism had settled into the liberal ranksof Old Testament theology. First, the Old Testamentshistorical statements were clearly suspect. Statedauthorship of books, accounts of the miraculous anddescription of historical events were all challenged andoften denied. Second, the Old Testament was at worst aslight contributor to legitimate biblical theology and was atbest a legitimate source of universal ideas and inspiredreligious feelings. Third, it was unlikely, then, that the


55/83

1.4.4 Continued Rationalism

unity of the Bible could be maintained.Evolutionary views of history made it muchmore likely that the Old Testament was alower religious state that had to becompleted for the New Testament to emerge.Challenges to these assertions were soon to

come, but they were not to have the lastingforce their authors desired." [House, Old Testament Theology ]


56/83

1.4.5 Reactions Against Rationalism "However, in response to the excesses of vulgar

rationalism, a conservative reaction took place aroundthe middle of the 18th century, leading to the writing of OT theologies along more orthodox lines. Representativeof this development were scholars like E. W.

Hengstenberg and F. Delitzsch. Other OT theologians of this period, like H. Ewald, G. F. Oehler, and E. Schultz,took a more moderate or mediating position somewherebetween the rationalists and the orthodox Lutherans. Of these, the OT theology by Oehler, publishedposthumously in two volumes (1873-74) and written froma heilsgeschichtliche perspective, was a particularlyinfluential work. It was also the first of the majorGerman OT theologies to be translated into English

shortly after its original publication." [Lemke]

1 4 5 R i A i R i li


57/83

1.4.5 Reactions Against Rationalism Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1802-69)

Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the M essianic Predictions

H istory of the Kingdom of God in the Old Testament

G. F. Oehler Oehler reacted both against the Marcionite strain

introduced by F. Schleiermacher with thedepreciation of the OT and the total uniformity of

OT and NT as maintained by Hengstenberg. But hehimself does not give up the unity of the Testaments.There is unity in diversity. Oehler accepts thedivision of OT and NT theology, but OT theology

can function properly only within the larger


58/83

1.4.5 Reactions Against Rationalismcanonical context. OT theology is a "historicalscience which is based upon grammatical-historicalexegesis whose task it is to reproduce the content of the Biblical writings according to the rules of language under consideration of the historical

circumstances during which the writingsooriginated and the individual conditions of thesacred writers." [Hasel, Old Testament Theology ]

"Oehlers OT theology is considered to be "the

outstanding salvation-historical presentation of Biblical theology of the 19th century." However, itis "today almost completely outmoded, largelybecause Oehler attempted to deal with the material

genetically" under the influence of Hegel."


59/83

1.4.5 Reactions Against Rationalism Henrich Ewald (1803-1875)

"Just before OT theology was eclipsed by the history -of- religions approach, which dealt it a virtual deathblow,Henrich Ewalds four -volume monumental magnum opus was published. For a whole generation Ewaldsconservative influence held back German scholarshipfrom accepting the modernistic reconstruction of Israelitereligion as popularized by Wellhausen. Ewalds studentsFerdinand Hitzig (1807-1875) and August Dillmann

(1823-1894) wrote OT theologies which wereposthumously published. Ewald defended a systematictreatment of his subject; Hitzig wrote a history of ideas; and Dillmann a history of revelation withsalvation-historical emphases." [Hasel,

Old Testament Theolo


60/83

1.4.5 Reactions Against Rationalism J. Ch. Konrad von Hofmann (1810-1877)

According to Hofmann, the necessary presupposition of Christian self-certainty (communion with God mediated inChrist) is a relation within the Trinity, among the Father,Son, and Spirit, that involves both unity anddifferentiation-or objectification. All of history, from theworlds creation to its consummation, is a historicalmanifestation of the divine self-differentiation (1852-56:1:36, 234). Within universal history there occurs salvationhistory, a set of events that achieves the Sonsreconciliation with the Father and humankindsreconciliation with God. Salvation history is the meaningof universal history, and each of its discrete events,narrated in the Bible, occupies its own necessary place.Thus, the whole of salvation history is the essentialframework for understanding any particular text.


61/83

1.4.5 Reactions Against Rationalism In Hofmanns theology, then, there is a perfect symmetry

among (a) that of which Christians are certain, (b) thepresuppositions of that certainty spelled out by systematictheology, and (c) the salvation history narrated in the Bible.The historical form of the Bible is not accidental; it isnecessarily analogous to Gods trinitarian history, which

expands and unfolds itself into the worlds history andthen Israels. For Hofmann, biblical theology is thinking in our relation to God, not about it; hence, its relaltion tosystematic theology is organic, not something to beconsidered separately. No one before or after Hofmann

achieved such a thorough integration of historicalinterpretation of the Bible and systematic theology.Whether he brought Gablers programmatic distinctionsto fruition, or simply betrayed them, is a matter of

judgment." [Ben C. Ollenburger, "From Timeless Ideas tothe Essence of Religion,"12-13 ]


62/83

1.5 OT TheologyEclipsed by theHistory of Israelite

Religion(1875-1930)


63/83


64/83

1.5.1 History of Israelite Religion "The history-of-religion approach differentiated

itself from OT theology as traditionally conceived bythe following characteristics: (1) an exclusivereliance on a historical-genetic, rather than asystematic-conceptual, approach to the OT; (2) aconcomitant de-emphasis on the OT as specialrevelation, in favor of seeing it as a historical andhuman record of the evolution of Israelite religion;and (3) greater emphasis and attention to Israel'sANE environment. Increasingly, the OT was seen asan integral part of that environment and only oneparticular form of religious development amongmany." [Lemke]

1 5 2 Julius Wellhausen


65/83

1.5.2 Julius Wellhausen "Wellhausen accepted de Wettes conclusion that

Deuteronomy was written in the seventh century B.C.instead of by Moses. He agreed with Vatkes assertion thatIsraels religion evolved over time, which meant to him thatcomplex priestly material like that found in Leviticus waswritten at the end of Israels history and that thePentateuch was completed after the Prophets. Likewise, heagreed with Karl F. Graf, Abraham Kuenen and otherscholars who thought the first four books of the Pentateuchconsisted of written documents, or sources, that useddifferent names for God and proclaimed differingtheological views. He agreed that Vatkes views aboutHegelian historical theories and de Wettes conceptionsabout myth were correct. To these notions Wellhausenadded his own thoughts on the prophets as the founders of ethical monotheistic faith and on the origins of Israels

religion in nature cults."

1 5 2 Julius Wellhausen


66/83

1.5.2 Julius Wellhausen "The synthesis of all these beliefs began with the assumption

that Israelite religion evolved from roots in nature religionsimilar to other ancient Canaanite religions, to ethicalmonotheism in the prophets and the early stages of thePentateuch, to a stronger monotheism and insistence on acentral sanctuary in Deuteronomy and books it influences(Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel, l-2 Kings, Jeremiah), to thedetailed, priest-guided religion like that found in Ezra,Leviticus, Ezekiel and l-2 Chronicles. Unlike Vatke, who sawthis evolution as positive, Wellhausen mourned the loss of theearlier, simpler religion. Like Vatke, Wellhausen consideredmuch of the stated historical contexts in the Old Testament tobe reflections of later generations transposed upon the past.To Wellhausen, Moses was at best a shadowy historical figure,and the patriarchs could not have been as advanced culturallyas the Old Testament indicates. Prophetic monotheismeventually led to the Law, not the reverse as the OldTestament sa s." House


67/83

1.6 Rebirth of OTTheology(1930-1960)

1 6 1 C t l t f Ch g


68/83

1.6.1 Catalysts for Change1. World War I showed the moral depths to which human

beings can sink.2. Karl Barth's emphasis on the revelation of God in

Scripture3. Loss of faith in evolutionary naturalism "The dominant hold which the history-of-religions

approach had exercised over the discipline of OTtheology began to wane during the period between thetwo world wars. Several factors helped bring this changeabout. Among them were the general change intheological climate following World War I, a reactionagainst the extremes of 19th-century historicism andevolutionary developmentalism, and new developmentsin the field of OT scholarship itself." [Lemke]

1 6 2 Ei f ld Ei h d D b


69/83

1.6.2 Eissfeldt vs. Eichrodt Debate "Eissfeldt, the historian, urged a sharp distinction between

the history of Israelite (and Jewish) religion and OldTestament theology (1926). They employ two differentapproaches, he says, which correspond to differentfunctions of the human spirit: active knowing and passivebelieving. History of religion is objective, although itdepends on an empathetic reliving of its object, and itmakes no judgments about validity or truth. OldTestament theology, on the other hand, cannot be ahistorical inquiry, because it is concerned with what is

timelessly or abidingly true, as determined by a particular(Christian) confession. Eissfeldt bases this argument on theassumption that historical-critical research cannotpenetrate to the proper essence of Old Testamentreligion, and is thus unable to answer the questions of faith

assigned to Old Testament theology." [Ollenburger]

1 6 2 Eissfeldt vs Eichrodt Debate


70/83

1.6.2 Eissfeldt vs. Eichrodt Debate "In 1926 Otto Eissfeldt distinguished between two

different fields of inquiry. The history of religion is afield that proceeds along the lines of intellectualunderstanding or knowing. In this field, the effort ismade to comprehend as a historical entity the religionof Israel as one religion among others. A second field,theology, is concerned with faith. Here the religion of Israel is regarded as the true religion that witnesses toGod's revelation, and the effort is made to assess itsveracity. Accordingly, the first field proceeds in amore historical fashion, while the second sets forth amore systematic presentation. Both have methods of inquiry that stimulate each other as they carry outtheir respective tasks and objectives. However, these

methods of investigation should not be so blended



71/83

1.6.2 Eissfeldt vs. Eichrodt Debate

together that the tensions between them areeliminated. Their unity is found in theperson of the scholar who works in bothfields. Reflecting on the questions that hademerged since Gabler, Eissfeldt'sargumentation was stimulated by theemerging dialectical theology. He soughtnot to search vigorously for the "Word of God" but also to establish the independenceof historical investigation." [Preuss]



72/83

1.6.2 Eissfeldt vs. Eichrodt Debate Eichrodt, the theologian, answered that Eissfeldts view,

while preserving the integrity of history of religion,compromises that of Old Testament theology by removing itfrom the framework of Old Testament and historicalinquiry generally (1929). In opposition to Eissfeldt,Eichrodt claimed that historical investigation can get to theessence of Old Testament religion. But Eichrodt redefinedthe essence of the Old Testament as the deepest meaningof its religious thought world that historical investigationcan recover through an analysis that cuts across the

various historical levels in the Old Testament. In otherwords, since essence is whatever historical inquiry canrecover, historical inquiry, as a matter of definition, canrecover the essence of Old Testament religion. Much of what Eissfeldt included within Old Testament theology-

1 6 2 Ei f ldt Ei h dt D b t


73/83

1.6.2 Eissfeldt vs. Eichrodt Debate

questions of truth and faith -Eichrodt assigned todogmatics. On the other hand, however, heascribed to historical investigation a distinctlytheological character: all historical researchpresupposes a subjective moment, he claims, andthe interpreters Christian confession provides thecontent of that moment in Old Testament theology-

thus, it must be considered a legitimate part of historical scholarship." [Ollenburger]



74/83

1.6.2 Eissfeldt vs. Eichrodt Debate "By contrast, W. Eichrodt wished to see the two

fields mentioned above as a unity. One couldcertainly press toward the nature of Old Testamentreligion by proceeding only along the pathway of historical inquiry. This would mean that the

questions of truth and value would belong to the fieldof dogmatics but not to biblical theology. However,scholarship may no longer rest content with only agenetic analysis; rather, it must produce acomprehensive systematic work by laying out a crosssection through the material that would point out thereligion's inner structure and would establish therelationships between the varieties of its content.This way of proceeding would still represent a



75/83

1.6.2 Eissfeldt vs. Eichrodt Debatehistorical approach and would not place its results

under the scrutiny of normative questions of faith. Norwould this approach function as a testimony to therevelation of God. Eichrodt argued that his approachwould free Old Testament theology from the chains of

an Old Testament history of religion." [Preuss] "It may only be mentioned at this point that the

"battle for the Old Testament" that had intensifiedtoward the end of the nineteenth century with the"Bible-Babel controversy" and the nationalistic andracist ideas of developing anti-Semitism and emergingnational socialism also entered in general into this

discussion concerning the Old Testament." [Preuss]

1.6.5 Walter Eichrodt


76/83

1.6.5 Walter Eichrodt "The year 1933 may be said to mark the beginning of a

new era in OT theology with the appearance of twosuch works, one by E. Sellin and the other by W.Eichrodt. By far the most outstanding and enduringrepresentative of the new era in OT theology isEichrodt's Theologie des Alten Testaments, originallypublished in three parts between 1933-39 (Eng 1961-67). In spite of legitimate criticisms and acknowledgedshortcomings (Hayes and Prussner 1985: 277),Eichrodt's work so far remains unsurpassed in

comprehensiveness, methodological thoroughness, andtheological acumen. From our vantage point in the late20th century, one may safely say that it has stood thetest of time and may well turn out to be the most

significant work of its genre in the 20th century. Lemke

1 6 5 Walter Eichrodt


77/83

1.6.5 Walter Eichrodt . . . Eichrodt defined the task of OT theology as

constructing a complete picture of the realm of OTbelief in its structural unity. Such an exposition wasto be done with constant reference to two contextualrealities: the world of ANE religion on the one hand,and the realm of NT belief on the other. It should beobserved, however, that in actual execution, Eichrodtpaid far more attention to the former than the latter.

His methodology sought to differentiate itself self-consciously from the systematic rubrics of dogmatictheology on the one hand, and the genetic approachof a radical historicism on the other.



78/83

1.6.5 Walter Eichrodt The biblical concept of "covenant" was chosen by

him as an overarching category or unifying center of OT theology, and the material was presented inaccordance with the following tripartite scheme: Godand the People, God and the World, God and Man. A

look at the full table of contents reveals that theorganizational principle operative in Eichrodt'stheology was systematic or conceptual. It should benoted, however, that within this systematic scheme,

allowance was made for historically tracing changesin Israelite religion or in the perspective reflected inthe chief documents and tradition complexes of theOT."



79/83

1.6.5 Walter Eichrodt ". . . Eichrodt maintained that the theologian can

take a "cross-section" ( Querschnitt ) of this dynamicdevelopment at any point in the historical process inorder to explore the Old Testament's structure of belief and to perceive its integrity vis--vis the

religions of the environment. Just as a logger can cutthrough a tree and study the structure of its growth,so the theologian can study the "cross-section" thatshows the "inner shape" or consistent structure

manifest in its development. The faith of Israel is nota miscellaneous assortment of beliefs, nor is it only aprocess of growth and development. Rather, itmanifests a structural unity or theological integritythat is fundamentally the same in all historical stages.



80/83

1.6.5 Walter Eichrodt Eichrodt's approach is synchronic ("happeningtogether," like notes struck simultaneously in amusical chord), though he also attempted to do

justice to the diachronic dimension ("happening

through time," like the successive notes of a scale). Inhis view Old Testament theology does not concentrateon growth or evolution (e.g., the growth of the idea of God) but on "structural" features that remain the

same in all historical periods. [Anderson]

1 6 6 Gerhard von Rad


81/83

1.6.6 Gerhard von Rad While there were differences in the choice of

organizational schemas and overarching concepts,nearly all OT theologies were written from such asystematic-conceptual perspective. Thismethodological consensus was shaken during the late

1950s by G. von Rad with the publication of hisimmensely stimulating Theologie des Alten Testaments in two volumes (Eng 1961-65). Against thesystematic-conceptual approach to the OT, von Rad

insisted that the theological task proper to the OT isnot the spiritual or religious world of Israel, nor thebelief system of the OT, but simply Israel's ownexplicit assertions about Yahweh as reflected in themajor tradition complexes of the OT. The latter,



82/83

1.6.6 Gerhard von Radhowever, presented Yahweh's relationship to Israel

as a continuing divine activity in history.Consequently, it was this picture of Yahweh's activityin the history of Israel as reflected in the traditions of the OT which, for von Pad, constituted the propersubject of OT theology.

Methodologically, this meant for him that theretelling of this confessional story of the OTtraditions was the most legitimate form of theologicaldiscourse on the OT. This conviction is reflected inthe manner in which von Rad organized andpresented his material. Vol. I consists of two parts: aconcise survey of the history of Israelite religion,followed by a theology of Israel's historical traditions.



83/83

1.6.6 Gerhard von RadAfter a brief chapter on methodology, the latter are

treated under the following three headings: "TheTheology of the Hexateuch," "Israel's Anointed"(covering the Deuteronomistic and the Chronicler'shistory), and "Israel Before Yahweh (Israel's

Answer),"which covers the Psalms and the WisdomLiterature. Vol. II is divided into three parts asfollows: "General Considerations in Prophecy,""Classical Prophecy"(which treats the OT prophets

from Amos on in their sequential appearance downto and including apocalyptic literature), and "TheOld Testament and the New" (in which the authorsets forth his understanding of the relationship

1.0 History of Old Testament Theology

Documents

Transcript of 1.0 History of Old Testament Theology