1.

0 History of Old Testament Theology

BIB566/THE566 Old Testament Theology

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 Difficulties in Approaching O.T. Studies

1.1.1.1 Historical barriers 1.1.1.2 Literary barriers 1.1.1.3 Theological/Hermeneutical barriers 1.1.1.4 General unfamiliarity with the O.T. 1.1.1.5 Scholarly barriers
[House, Paul R., Old Testament Theology ]

1.1.2 Five Possible Starting Points

1.1.2.1 The Old Testament itself Intra-Testamental: Michael A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985).

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

1.1.2 Five Possible Starting Points

1.1.2.3 New Testament 1.1.2.4 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 Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), pp. 30-51. N.B. Brueggemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy.Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.

1.1.2 Five Possible Starting Points

1.1.2.5 Rabbinic scholars See: John H. Hayes and Frederick C. Prussner, Old Testament Theology: Its History and Development (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985).

1.2 Reformers & Protestant Orthodoxy (1550-1650)

1.2.1 Reformers
"While the Bible has been read theologically since its formation, biblical theology as a discipline has its roots in the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers' emphasis on Scripture as the sole source and norm for all matters of faith provided the soil from which biblical theology sprang. While the term itself was not used by the Reformers to designate a distinct discipline, it is clear that for them biblical theology meant a systematic theology which was biblical in character, that is, for which the Bible was the primary, if not the sole, source and norm. Insofar as the Reformers self-consciously sought to differentiate their theology from Roman Catholic dogma, in which tradition played a major role, one may note a polemic

1.2.1 Reformers
dimension in the birth of biblical theology. One could go on to observe that while the target of the polemic changed periodically, the polemic dimension has been a constant feature of biblical theology throughout its history, in the sense that it had to fight repeatedly 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]

1.2.1 Reformers
"The Protestant principle of "sola scriptura," which became the battle cry of the Reformation against scholastic theology and ecclesiastical tradition, provides with its call for the self-interpretation of Scripture (sui ipsius interpres) the source for the subsequent development of Biblical theology. The Reformers did not create the phrase "Biblical theology" nor did they engage in Biblical theology as a discipline as subsequently understood. . . .

1.2.1 Reformers
Luther's hermeneutic of "sola scriptura" and his principle "was Christum treibet" together with the "letter-spirit" dualism prevented him from developing a Biblical theology. . . . "
[Hasel, Old Testament Theology]

1.2.2 Protestant Orthodoxy

1.2.2.1 While the Reformers in their use of Scripture introduced a creative tension between the Bible and dogmatic theology, the opposite was true of the proponents of Protestant orthodoxy who followed them. In their hands the Bible became subservient to Protestant dogmatics, which determined the selection, order, and treatment of biblical passages. The Bible came to be viewed as a uniform sourcebook of quotations whose primary task was to support the dogmas of Protestant orthodoxy against the dogmas of Roman Catholicism. No distinctions were made in regard to time, authorship, historical context, compositional purpose, or distinctive theological perspectives of the biblical documents. The system of arranging biblical data was the traditional loci method known from medieval scholasticism. That is, various Scripture texts would be listed and briefly

1.2.2 Protestant Orthodoxy

commented upon under the topical rubrics drawn from dogmatic theology. The understanding of biblical theology reflected in Protestant orthodoxy may be characterized as "dogmatic biblicism" or proof-texting (dicta probantia). 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 published subsequently, 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 history of the discipline."

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

1.2.2 Protestant Orthodoxy

1.2.2.2 "Proof-texts" - dicta probantia - collegia biblica
"Emerging, as it did, as a child of Protestant Scholasticism, its basic presuppositions reflected the peculiarities of the parent system of thought. It began with the belief that the church dogmas contained the correct interpretation of the Christian religion. These, in turn, were deemed to be sacrosanct, true for all time, and unchangeable. Their authority lay especially in the fact that the Scripture, constituting the literal Word of God, was considered to give them a supernatural approval."

1.2.2.2 "Proof-texts"
". . . the Bible was regarded as uniformly authoritative and that any notions of the dissimilarity between the Old and New Testaments were completely nonexistent." "Old Testament theology thus described may be taken to mean the use of Israels canonical writings for the purpose of demonstrating the soundness of Protestant doctrine on the basis of certain passages selected for their suitability as proof-texts. Since all of Scripture was deemed to be of equal value, such passages could and were chosen from all sections of the Old Testament, the only requirement being that the texts could be interpreted to agree with whatever doctrine was being considered."

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 an individual doctrine. It then moved on to choose passages from the Old Testament which might be thought to support that formulation. Finally, it entailed the detailed exposition of those texts in order to show how they actually did provide such support."

1.2.2.2 "Proof-texts"
"The order of the subject matter came bodily from the doctrinal systems themselves. In this respect Schmidt was only following the practice current among the Protestant theologians of his day." [Hayes & Prussner, Old Testament Theology: it history & development ]

1.3 Emancipation from Dogmatics (1650-1800)

1.3.1 Introduction
1.3.1.1 "The more attentively Scripture was read and studied during the course of the 17th century, the more it became apparent that the biblical documents did not really contain a theological system of doctrines at all. Rather, Scripture was cast into the form of a historical narrative. It told the story of God's unfolding relationship with humanity through a sequence of temporal events (oeconomia temporum)." [Lemke, "Theology (Old Testament)," ABD]

1.3.2 Pietism & Enlightenment

1.3.2.1 Pietism "The shift from a dogmatic to a more historically oriented approach to biblical theology accelerated during the course of the 18th century. Of particular importance in this development were two cultural movements of the 18th century: German Pietism and the Enlightenment. Pietism was a revolt within the German Church against Protestant scholasticism, which it considered to be excessively preoccupied with dogmatic speculations and arid abstractions. Whereas Protestant orthodoxy tended to equate the Christian faith with intellectual assent to sound doctrine, Pietism stressed personal experience and awareness of the presence of God, as

1.3.2.1 Pietism
nourished through a life of prayer, personal devotion, Bible reading, and moral living. Pietism's emphasis on the reading and study of Scripture by all brought about a greater familiarity with the contents of the Bible. It also brought about an increasing awareness of the differences between biblical and dogmatic theology." [Lemke, "Theology (Old Testament)," ABD]

1.3.2.1 Pietism
"The back-to-the-Bible emphasis of German Pietism brought about a changing direction for Biblical theology. In Pietism Biblical theology became a tool in the reaction against arid Protestant Orthodoxy. Philipp Jacob Spener (16351705), a founding father of Pietism, opposed Protestant scholasticism with Biblical theology. The influence of Pietism is reflected in the works of Carl Haymann (1708), J. Deutschmann (1710), and J. C. Weidner (1722), which oppose orthodox systems of doctrine with "Biblical theology."

1.3.2.1 Pietism
"As early as 1745 Biblical theology is clearly separated from dogmatic (systematic) theology and the former is conceived of as being the foundation of the latter. This means that Biblical theology is emancipated from a role merely subsidiary to dogmatics. Inherent in this new development is the possibility that Biblical theology can become the rival of dogmatics and turn into a completely separate and independent discipline. These possibilities realized themselves under the influence of rationalism in the age of Enlightenment." [Hasel, Old Testament Theology]

Enlightenment
Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, Let Newton be! and all was light!
Alexander Pope

1.3.2.2 Enlightenment
"The increasing differentiation of biblical theology from dogmatic theology was also greatly aided by the Enlightenment which swept across Europe during the 18th century. Rationalism's aversion to dogmatic religion, its belief in the powers of the human intellect to ascertain truth through observation and inductive reasoning, as well as its belief in the existence of universal natural religion which was in conformity with the demands of reason, exerted a powerful influence on biblical studies and widened the gulf between biblical and dogmatic theology. Increasingly the Bible came to be subjected to the same kind of critical and rational study as any other human document of antiquity."
[Lemke, "Theology (Old Testament)," ABD]

1.3.2.2 Enlightenment
"In the age of Enlightenment (Aufklrung) a totally new approach for the study of the Bible was developed under several influences. First and foremost was rationalisms reaction against any form of supernaturalism. Human reason was set up as the final criterion and chief source of knowledge, which meant that the authority of the Bible as the infallible record of divine revelation was rejected. The second major contribution of the period of the Enlightenment was the development of a new hermeneutic, the historical-critical methods which holds sway to the present day in liberalism and beyond. Third, there is the application of radical literary criticism to the Bible by J. B. Witter, J. Astruc, and others. Finally, rationalism by its very nature was led to abandon the orthodox view of the inspiration of the Bible so that ultimately the Bible became simply one of the ancient documents, to be studied as any other ancient document."
[Hasel, Old Testament Theology]

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 ot intense occupation The enthronement of reason Sciences, i.e., physics, astronomy, etc. General religious skepticism Period of toleration Humanitarianism

1.3.2.2 Enlightenment
Omnicompetence of Criticism Utilitarianism Pervasive Moralism

1.3.3 Scholars
Johann Solomo Semler (1725-1791)
". . . claimed that the Word of God and Holy Scripture are not at all identical. This implied that not all parts of the Bible were inspired and that the Bible is a purely historical document which as any other such document is to be investigated with a purely historical and thus critical methodology. As a result Biblical theology can be nothing else but a historical discipline which stands in antithesis to traditional dogmatics." [Hasel, Old Testament Theology]

1.3.3 Scholars
Gotthilf Traugott Zachari (1729-1777)
Under the influence of the new orientation in dogmatics and 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 the Bible, as did J. A. Ernesti (1707-l781) whose Biblicalexegetical method he followed. Historical exegesis and canonical understanding of Scripture do not collide in Zacharias thought because the historical aspect is a matter of secondary importance in theology. On this basis there is no need to distinguish between the Testaments; they stand in reciprocal relationship to each other. Most basically Zacharias interest was still in the dogmatic system, which he wished to cleanse from impurities." [Hasel, Old Testament Theology]

1.3.3.1 Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826)

Gabler took the ideas that were present in the 18th century and presented them in an orderly fashion. "Concerning the Proper Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Appropriate Definition of the Respective Goals of Both"

1.3.3.1 Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826)

Biblical Theology: Biblical theology is historical in character; that is, it sets forth what the sacred writers thought about divine matters. Dogmatic Theology: Dogmatic theology is didactic in character, teaching what a given theologian thinks about divine matters in accordance with his ability, his particular circumstances, age, locale, religious and intellectual tradition, and similar conditioning factors.

1.3.3.1 Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826)

Two phases or distinct tasks of biblical theology: True: "The first task of biblical theology was to ascertain simply what the various biblical authors thought and asserted about divine matters in their various contexts. This was to be accomplished by means of a purely grammatical and historical exegesis. All allegorizing or spiritualizing was to be shunned. Care was to be exercised in differentiating the various ideas of biblical writers, not to blur differences but to arrange and compare these ideas in some suitable manner." [Lemke, "Theology (Old Testament)," ABD]

1.3.3.1 Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826)

Pure: "The second task of biblical theology was to sift these various biblical concepts and assertions in terms of their universal and abiding value and to deduce some general concepts and ideas from these which could serve as a basis for the construction of a dogmatic theology."
[Lemke, "Theology (Old Testament)," ABD]

1.3.3.1 Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826)

"One possible implication of Gabler's proposal is that the Old Testament occupies a lower rung on the ladder of reason than does the New; after all, it is from an earlier ear. Georg Lorenz Bauer was the first to draw this implication . . . ."
[Ollenburger, "From Timeless Ideas to the Essence of Religion," in The Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century Old Testament Theology, 19301990]

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, each of the authors, and each of the manners of speaking which each used as a reflection of time and place." Second, having gathered this historical material theologians must undertake "a careful and sober comparison of the various parts attributed to each testament." Biblical authors ideas should be compared until "it is clearly revealed wherein the separate authors agree in a friendly fashion, or differ among themselves."

1.3.3.1 Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826)

"Third, the agreements and disagreements must be duly noted and analyzed in order to determine what universal notions emerge. Gabler offers no specific criteria for determining what constitutes universal notions except to cite "Mosaic law" as one example of what no longer applies to Christians. He simply distinguished between that which applied to the authors times alone and that which has more long-term value." [House, Old Testament Theology]

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 can produce ideas that are truly inspired and valuable for church dogmatics. Even an appeal to passages on the Bibles inspiration does not help determine the extent of the Bibles inspiration, since "these individual passages are very obscure and ambiguous." Therefore those who "wish to deal with these things with reason and not with fear or bias" must not "press those meanings of the Apostles beyond their just limits, especially since only the effects of their inspiration and not their causes, are perceived by the senses."

1.3.3.1 Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826)

Strength: "Its chief strength is the insistence on the value of biblical theology." Weaknesses:
"First, his insistence on rationalism and its refusal to discuss what lies beyond the human senses eliminates much of Scripture from serious theological consideration." "Second, despite his program for incorporating biblical and systematic theology, Gablers theories open the door for a negative separation of Old and New Testament theology."

1.3.3.1 Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826)

"Third, a cleavage is created between the academic study of theology and the churchs teaching of doctrine." [House, Old Testament Theology]

1.3.3.1 Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826)

Hayes, John H. and Frederick Prussner, Old Testament Theology: its history & development, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985), 62-66. Knierim, Rolf P., "On Gabler," in The Task of Old Testament Theology: Method and Cases (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 495-556. Ollenburger, Ben C., "Biblical Theology: Situating the Discipline," in Understanding the Word: Essays in Honor of Bernhard W. Anderson, eds. James T. Butler, Edger W. Conrad and Ben C. Ollenburger, (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 37-62. _____, "From Timeless Ideas to the Essence of Religion," in The Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in TwentiethCentury Old Testament Theology, 1930-1990, (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1992) Sandys-Wunsch, John and Laurence Elbredge, "J. P. Gabler and the Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology: Translation, Commentary, and Discussion of his Originality," Scottish Journal of Theology 33 (1980), 133-158.

1.4 Influence of Rationalism (1750-1875)

1.4.1 Initial effects of Rationalism

"Initially rationalism, along with Pietism, had been a constructive force in emancipating biblical theology from the stranglehold of dogmatic theology and in establishing it as a distinct theological discipline in its own right. Many 18thcentury biblical theologians combined both currents in their life and their scholarship. That is, they were both devout believers as well as rationalists, and this was reflected in their scholarly work on the Bible. But toward the latter part of the 18th and especially during the first half of the 19th century, these two currents more often than not stood in opposition to each other, as rationalism became the more powerful of the two. Increasingly, rationalist philosophy penetrated biblical theology and for a time forced it into a philosophical straitjacket which threatened to become as rigid as the older religious dogmatism had been. The Bible was now understood in terms of an evolutionary religious process leading from

1.4.1 Initial effects of Rationalism

lower forms of religion to the absolute or universal religion. The latter was usually defined as a religion of reason (deism) or morality (Kant). Representative of this kind of 19thcentury biblical theology were the works of G. L. Bauer, C. F. von Ammon, and G. P. C. Kaiser. Only those teachings of Scripture which were in accord with reason, or the universal religion as established by reason, were of abiding value. Everything else was to be discarded as the outgrown ideas and practices of a particular culture or period in history. Concomitant with such a rationalistic approach to biblical theology was an increasing devaluation of the OT as the record of an inferior stage in the religious development of the human race, and hence less suitable than the NT for the construction of a biblical theology." [Lemke, "Theology (Old Testament)," ABD]

1.4.2 Rationalist Scholars

Christopher Friedrich von Ammon: ". . . framework of Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy, and specifically of "Kantian hermeneutics" Gottlieb Philipp Christian Kaiser: "He subsumed the Old Testament under the universal history of religion, and then ultimately under the universal religion. The particularity of Old Testament religion, 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]

1.4.2 Rationalist Scholars

Bauer & the Division of OT and NT Theology:
"Another important development during this period was the division of biblical theology into the separate disciplines of OT and NT theology, a practice which has become customary down to the present day. Several reasons may be cited for this development. One was undoubtedly the increasing recognition of the diversity of Scripture, especially the distinct differences in content, historical context, and outlook between the testaments, which made it more difficult to treat them as homogenous documents. Another reason was the sheer increase in data and new discoveries pertaining to the Bible, which made it more difficult for anyone to master the entire field of biblical studies. Thus specialization became a necessity. But thirdly, it must also be said that the rationalistic

1.4.2 Rationalist Scholars

devaluation of the OT in favor of the NT undoubtedly contributed to this bifurcation in biblical theology. At any rate, the work that marked the beginning of this division of the discipline, and thus the beginning of OT theology proper, was G. L. Bauer's OT theology published 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 and against the background of other ANE religions with whom the Hebrews came into contact. Already the influence of comparative religion was beginning to make itself felt here in this first OT theology. Bauer's rationalistic orientation manifested itself in the manner in which he judged the religious content of the OT. Miraculous and mythological elements in the Bible were dismissed by him as superstitions of a primitive race."

1.4.2 Rationalist Scholars

"(1) For Bauer, Old Testament theology focused primarily on religious ideas or concepts. (2) He claimed that historical interpretation must trace the development of those ideas and interpret them in independence from dogmatic theology's definitions. Only in that way would Old Testament (and then New Testament) theology be able to reform dogmatics. (3) In the course of their development, in the Old Testament as in history generally, ideas move from particular to universal, and it is these universal religious ideas that are most important for the present. Bauer says that in the Old Testament these universal ideas are to be found principally in Proverbs and Job, because their authors are the least concerned with particulars with their own time, their own people, their own situation." [Ollenburger, "From Timeless Ideas to the
Essence of Religion"]

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 Old and New Testaments deserve to be heard on their own terms before their ideas are incorporated into dogmatic theology. 2. Both Gabler and Bauer believe Old Testament theology must have a strongly historical component. Unfortunately this historical component is based on a rationalism that leaves little room for the supernatural. It also questions a great deal of material that is suspect only to keen rationalists.

1.4.3 Summary of Gabler & Bauer's Influence

3. Gabler and Bauer argue that the Old Testament teaches some universal truths applicable to Christians in all eras. To find these concepts, however, both men eliminate much of the Old Testament as being due to the authors "own ingenuity." This approach questions the general value of the Old Testament and leaves it with little to say that the New Testament does not repeat.

1.4.3 Summary of Gabler & Bauer's Influence

4. Gabler never writes an Old Testament theology, but in his work Bauer divides the biblical material into the study of God, humankind and Christ.

1.4.4 Continued Rationalism

Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette
"Though he shared the rationalists conclusion about the Bibles depictions of miracles, prophecies and so forth, he thought the rationalists dismissal of such accounts wrongheaded. Rather, de Wette argues, myths are poetic means of expressing feelings about God and all sacred things. Many ancient peoples thought and wrote in such terms, so it is not unusual that Israel did so as well. Thus Old Testament theologians must seek to understand the feelings and universal truths behind the myths, not simply discard them as fantasies penned by irrational or primitive people." [House, Old Testament Theology]

1.4.4 Continued Rationalism

Wilhelm Vatke
"Wilhelm Vatke (1806-1882) regarded the rationalistic period of Biblical theology as a necessary but now superseded development. He was the first to adopt the Hegelian 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). He claimed that the system for the arrangement of the OT material must not be set forth on the basis of categories derived from the Bible but must be imposed from the outside, and formulated the dogma of the history-ofreligion approach concerning the independent totality of the OT. Three years after the publication of Vatkes

1.4.4 Continued Rationalism

tome, which later had great influence on J. Wellhausen, a second history-of-religions OT theology based on Hegelianism was published by Bruno Bauer (1809-1882), who arrived at opposite conclusions from his teacher Vatke." [Hasel, Old Testament Theology] "By the time Vatkes work was published and read, a perceptible dogmaticism had settled into the liberal ranks of Old Testament theology. First, the Old Testaments historical statements were clearly suspect. Stated authorship of books, accounts of the miraculous and description of historical events were all challenged and often denied. Second, the Old Testament was at worst a slight contributor to legitimate biblical theology and was at best a legitimate source of universal ideas and inspired religious feelings. Third, it was unlikely, then, that the

1.4.4 Continued Rationalism

unity of the Bible could be maintained. Evolutionary views of history made it much more likely that the Old Testament was a lower religious state that had to be completed for the New Testament to emerge. Challenges to these assertions were soon to come, but they were not to have the lasting force their authors desired." [House, Old Testament Theology]

1.4.5 Reactions Against Rationalism

"However, in response to the excesses of vulgar rationalism, a conservative reaction took place around the middle of the 18th century, leading to the writing of OT theologies along more orthodox lines. Representative of 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 somewhere between the rationalists and the orthodox Lutherans. Of these, the OT theology by Oehler, published posthumously in two volumes (1873-74) and written from a heilsgeschichtliche perspective, was a particularly influential work. It was also the first of the major German OT theologies to be translated into English shortly after its original publication." [Lemke]

1.4.5 Reactions Against Rationalism

Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1802-69)
Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions History of the Kingdom of God in the Old Testament

G. F. Oehler
Oehler reacted both against the Marcionite strain introduced by F. Schleiermacher with the depreciation of the OT and the total uniformity of OT and NT as maintained by Hengstenberg. But he himself does not give up the unity of the Testaments. There is unity in diversity. Oehler accepts the division of OT and NT theology, but OT theology can function properly only within the larger

1.4.5 Reactions Against Rationalism

canonical context. OT theology is a "historical science which is based upon grammatical-historical exegesis 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 writings ooriginated and the individual conditions of the sacred 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, it is "today almost completely outmoded, largely because Oehler attempted to deal with the material genetically" under the influence of Hegel."

1.4.5 Reactions Against Rationalism

Henrich Ewald (1803-1875)
"Just before OT theology was eclipsed by the historyof-religions approach, which dealt it a virtual deathblow, Henrich Ewalds four-volume monumental magnum opus was published. For a whole generation Ewalds conservative influence held back German scholarship from accepting the modernistic reconstruction of Israelite religion as popularized by Wellhausen. Ewalds students Ferdinand Hitzig (1807-1875) and August Dillmann (1823-1894) wrote OT theologies which were posthumously published. Ewald defended a systematic treatment of his subject; Hitzig wrote a history of ideas; and Dillmann a history of revelation with salvation-historical emphases." [Hasel, Old Testament Theology]

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 in Christ) is a relation within the Trinity, among the Father, Son, and Spirit, that involves both unity and differentiation-or objectification. All of history, from the worlds creation to its consummation, is a historical manifestation of the divine self-differentiation (1852-56: 1:36, 234). Within universal history there occurs salvation history, a set of events that achieves the Sons reconciliation with the Father and humankinds reconciliation with God. Salvation history is the meaning of 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 essential framework for understanding any particular text.

1.4.5 Reactions Against Rationalism

In Hofmanns theology, then, there is a perfect symmetry among (a) that of which Christians are certain, (b) the presuppositions of that certainty spelled out by systematic theology, and (c) the salvation history narrated in the Bible. The historical form of the Bible is not accidental; it is necessarily analogous to Gods trinitarian history, which expands and unfolds itself into the worlds history and then Israels. For Hofmann, biblical theology is thinking in our relation to God, not about it; hence, its relaltion to systematic theology is organic, not something to be considered separately. No one before or after Hofmann achieved such a thorough integration of historical interpretation of the Bible and systematic theology. Whether he brought Gablers programmatic distinctions to fruition, or simply betrayed them, is a matter of judgment." [Ben C. Ollenburger, "From Timeless Ideas to the Essence of Religion,"12-13 ]

1.5 OT Theology Eclipsed by the History of Israelite Religion (1875-1930)

1.5.1 History of Israelite Religion

Three Factors:
Greater historical consciousness Archeological discoveries of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Ugarit, Greece, etc. The literary critical works of Vatke, Graf, Kuenen, and above all Wellhausen.

1.5.1 History of Israelite Religion

"The history-of-religion approach differentiated itself from OT theology as traditionally conceived by the following characteristics: (1) an exclusive reliance on a historical-genetic, rather than a systematic-conceptual, approach to the OT; (2) a concomitant de-emphasis on the OT as special revelation, in favor of seeing it as a historical and human record of the evolution of Israelite religion; and (3) greater emphasis and attention to Israel's ANE environment. Increasingly, the OT was seen as an integral part of that environment and only one particular form of religious development among many." [Lemke]

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 that Israels religion evolved over time, which meant to him that complex priestly material like that found in Leviticus was written at the end of Israels history and that the Pentateuch was completed after the Prophets. Likewise, he agreed with Karl F. Graf, Abraham Kuenen and other scholars who thought the first four books of the Pentateuch consisted of written documents, or sources, that used different names for God and proclaimed differing theological views. He agreed that Vatkes views about Hegelian historical theories and de Wettes conceptions about myth were correct. To these notions Wellhausen added 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

"The synthesis of all these beliefs began with the assumption that Israelite religion evolved from roots in nature religion similar to other ancient Canaanite religions, to ethical monotheism in the prophets and the early stages of the Pentateuch, to a stronger monotheism and insistence on a central sanctuary in Deuteronomy and books it influences (Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel, l-2 Kings, Jeremiah), to the detailed, priest-guided religion like that found in Ezra, Leviticus, Ezekiel and l-2 Chronicles. Unlike Vatke, who saw this evolution as positive, Wellhausen mourned the loss of the earlier, simpler religion. Like Vatke, Wellhausen considered much of the stated historical contexts in the Old Testament to be 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 culturally as the Old Testament indicates. Prophetic monotheism eventually led to the Law, not the reverse as the Old Testament says." [House]

1.6 Rebirth of OT Theology (1930-1960)

1.6.1 Catalysts for Change

1. World War I showed the moral depths to which human
beings can sink. 2. Karl Barth's emphasis on the revelation of God in Scripture 3. Loss of faith in evolutionary naturalism "The dominant hold which the history-of-religions approach had exercised over the discipline of OT theology began to wane during the period between the two world wars. Several factors helped bring this change about. Among them were the general change in theological climate following World War I, a reaction against the extremes of 19th-century historicism and evolutionary developmentalism, and new developments in the field of OT scholarship itself." [Lemke]

1.6.2 Eissfeldt vs. Eichrodt Debate

"Eissfeldt, the historian, urged a sharp distinction between the history of Israelite (and Jewish) religion and Old Testament theology (1926). They employ two different approaches, he says, which correspond to different functions of the human spirit: active knowing and passive believing. History of religion is objective, although it depends on an empathetic reliving of its object, and it makes no judgments about validity or truth. Old Testament theology, on the other hand, cannot be a historical inquiry, because it is concerned with what is timelessly or abidingly true, as determined by a particular (Christian) confession. Eissfeldt bases this argument on the assumption that historical-critical research cannot penetrate to the proper essence of Old Testament religion, and is thus unable to answer the questions of faith assigned to Old Testament theology." [Ollenburger]

1.6.2 Eissfeldt vs. Eichrodt Debate

"In 1926 Otto Eissfeldt distinguished between two different fields of inquiry. The history of religion is a field that proceeds along the lines of intellectual understanding or knowing. In this field, the effort is made to comprehend as a historical entity the religion of 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 to God's revelation, and the effort is made to assess its veracity. Accordingly, the first field proceeds in a more historical fashion, while the second sets forth a more systematic presentation. Both have methods of inquiry that stimulate each other as they carry out their respective tasks and objectives. However, these methods of investigation should not be so blended

1.6.2 Eissfeldt vs. Eichrodt Debate

together that the tensions between them are eliminated. Their unity is found in the person of the scholar who works in both fields. Reflecting on the questions that had emerged since Gabler, Eissfeldt's argumentation was stimulated by the emerging dialectical theology. He sought not to search vigorously for the "Word of God" but also to establish the independence of historical investigation." [Preuss]

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 it from the framework of Old Testament and historical inquiry generally (1929). In opposition to Eissfeldt, Eichrodt claimed that historical investigation can get to the essence of Old Testament religion. But Eichrodt redefined the essence of the Old Testament as the deepest meaning of its religious thought world that historical investigation can recover through an analysis that cuts across the various historical levels in the Old Testament. In other words, since essence is whatever historical inquiry can recover, historical inquiry, as a matter of definition, can recover the essence of Old Testament religion. Much of what Eissfeldt included within Old Testament theology-

1.6.2 Eissfeldt vs. Eichrodt Debate

questions of truth and faith -Eichrodt assigned to dogmatics. On the other hand, however, he ascribed to historical investigation a distinctly theological character: all historical research presupposes a subjective moment, he claims, and the interpreters Christian confession provides the content of that moment in Old Testament theologythus, it must be considered a legitimate part of historical scholarship." [Ollenburger]

1.6.2 Eissfeldt vs. Eichrodt Debate

"By contrast, W. Eichrodt wished to see the two fields mentioned above as a unity. One could certainly press toward the nature of Old Testament religion by proceeding only along the pathway of historical inquiry. This would mean that the questions of truth and value would belong to the field of dogmatics but not to biblical theology. However, scholarship may no longer rest content with only a genetic analysis; rather, it must produce a comprehensive systematic work by laying out a cross section through the material that would point out the religion's inner structure and would establish the relationships between the varieties of its content. This way of proceeding would still represent a

1.6.2 Eissfeldt vs. Eichrodt Debate

historical approach and would not place its results under the scrutiny of normative questions of faith. Nor would this approach function as a testimony to the revelation of God. Eichrodt argued that his approach would 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 intensified toward the end of the nineteenth century with the "Bible-Babel controversy" and the nationalistic and racist ideas of developing anti-Semitism and emerging national socialism also entered in general into this discussion concerning the Old Testament." [Preuss]

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 two such works, one by E. Sellin and the other by W. Eichrodt. By far the most outstanding and enduring representative of the new era in OT theology is Eichrodt's Theologie des Alten Testaments, originally published in three parts between 1933-39 (Eng 196167). In spite of legitimate criticisms and acknowledged shortcomings (Hayes and Prussner 1985: 277), Eichrodt's work so far remains unsurpassed in comprehensiveness, methodological thoroughness, and theological acumen. From our vantage point in the late 20th century, one may safely say that it has stood the test of time and may well turn out to be the most significant work of its genre in the 20th century.

1.6.5 Walter Eichrodt

. . . Eichrodt defined the task of OT theology as constructing a complete picture of the realm of OT belief in its structural unity. Such an exposition was to be done with constant reference to two contextual realities: the world of ANE religion on the one hand, and the realm of NT belief on the other. It should be observed, however, that in actual execution, Eichrodt paid far more attention to the former than the latter. His methodology sought to differentiate itself selfconsciously from the systematic rubrics of dogmatic theology on the one hand, and the genetic approach of a radical historicism on the other.

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 in accordance with the following tripartite scheme: God and the People, God and the World, God and Man. A look at the full table of contents reveals that the organizational principle operative in Eichrodt's theology was systematic or conceptual. It should be noted, however, that within this systematic scheme, allowance was made for historically tracing changes in Israelite religion or in the perspective reflected in the chief documents and tradition complexes of the OT."

1.6.5 Walter Eichrodt

". . . Eichrodt maintained that the theologian can take a "cross-section" (Querschnitt) of this dynamic development at any point in the historical process in order 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 cut through a tree and study the structure of its growth, so the theologian can study the "cross-section" that shows the "inner shape" or consistent structure manifest in its development. The faith of Israel is not a miscellaneous assortment of beliefs, nor is it only a process of growth and development. Rather, it manifests a structural unity or theological integrity that is fundamentally the same in all historical stages.

1.6.5 Walter Eichrodt

Eichrodt's approach is synchronic ("happening together," like notes struck simultaneously in a musical chord), though he also attempted to do justice to the diachronic dimension ("happening through time," like the successive notes of a scale). In his view Old Testament theology does not concentrate on 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

While there were differences in the choice of organizational schemas and overarching concepts, nearly all OT theologies were written from such a systematic-conceptual perspective. This methodological consensus was shaken during the late 1950s by G. von Rad with the publication of his immensely stimulating Theologie des Alten Testaments in two volumes (Eng 1961-65). Against the systematic-conceptual approach to the OT, von Rad insisted that the theological task proper to the OT is not the spiritual or religious world of Israel, nor the belief system of the OT, but simply Israel's own explicit assertions about Yahweh as reflected in the major tradition complexes of the OT. The latter,

1.6.6 Gerhard von Rad

however, presented Yahweh's relationship to Israel as a continuing divine activity in history. Consequently, it was this picture of Yahweh's activity in the history of Israel as reflected in the traditions of the OT which, for von Pad, constituted the proper subject of OT theology. Methodologically, this meant for him that the retelling of this confessional story of the OT traditions was the most legitimate form of theological discourse on the OT. This conviction is reflected in the manner in which von Rad organized and presented his material. Vol. I consists of two parts: a concise survey of the history of Israelite religion, followed by a theology of Israel's historical traditions.

1.6.6 Gerhard von Rad

After a brief chapter on methodology, the latter are treated under the following three headings: "The Theology of the Hexateuch," "Israel's Anointed" (covering the Deuteronomistic and the Chronicler's history), and "Israel Before Yahweh (Israel's Answer),"which covers the Psalms and the Wisdom Literature. Vol. II is divided into three parts as follows: "General Considerations in Prophecy," "Classical Prophecy"(which treats the OT prophets from Amos on in their sequential appearance down to and including apocalyptic literature), and "The Old Testament and the New" (in which the author sets forth his understanding of the relationship between the testaments).