BIBLICAL THEOLOGY PDF Free Download
1 / 7/7
100%
prophesies in
order
to show that Jesus was the Messiah.
He
thought
th3t there might have been
so
me histor-
iol
core,
bu
t th3t this was very difficult to
detennine
with any certainty.
Stromss'
book
raised a
stonn
through
out
Genn
any,
and Baur,
as
Strauss' teacher,
fell
under
suspicion
of
heresy. For the next
thr
ee
de
ca
des the
nlm
e Tiibingen
became
notoriou
s and
sy
non
ymous with 'unbelief.'
Baur him
se
lf
at
this time h
ad
not yet
es
poused such
radical views, but he had already begun to fonnulate
the
principl
es
which
lat
er
became
known
as
the
Tiibingen historical viewpoint.
He
detected a struggle
between
two
main £,ctions in the
ea
rl
y c
hur
ch, between
a party led by the apostle Peter a
nd
one led by the
ap
os
tl
e Paul. These t
wo
fa
ctions, he be
li
eved, st
ood
in
bitter
ho
stility to each
oth
er through the years, fighting
for supremacy. until finally they were submerged into
a third party led by adherents
of
the apostle
John.
Baur
alleged that only four
of
Paul's letters were genuine -
Romans, Galatians, and the
two
Co
rinthian letter
s.
On
this interpretation
of
history, he and his pupils (pre-
eminently Eduard Zeller and Albert Schwegler)
se
t
out
to reexamine the whole
New
Testament.
But behind this
historical
v
iewpoint
la
y
an
even more
important
theological
viewpoin
t in which
the
New
Testament was interpreted by purely 'natural' criteria,
which, in eHeer, excluded the supernatur
al.
W herever
a miracle occurred, declared Baur, the nalTJtive
was
inauthentic and fictional.
On
this foundation the higher-
critical principles which interpreted the Bible according
to the
se
non
supernaulral and nonmiraculous
ca
tegories
of
criticism gradually developed. Wher
eas
Baur's hist
or-
ical
viewpoint was later demonstrated to be untenable,
the
theolo
gical
, or
more
accurately a-th
eo
l
ogica
l,
view-
point, which excluded the supernatural, continued on
in the works
of
Albrecht Ritschl, von Harnack, and
Lietzlllann. a
nd
to an even greater degree in the history
of
religions
sc
hool.
References and further reading
Relevant entry from the
O:",{t1Yd
Diffitmary
~f
the
C
hristian
Cillm-h,
p.
171.
Harris, H. (1990) H e
Tiihill
gen
School,
Grand
Ra
pids:
Baker.
Hodgson,
P.e.
(1966) The Formation of Historiral
n,col
ag),.·
A
St,~d)'
~f
Fcrd
il1
tmd
C
hristia/l
Bmlr,
Makers
of
Modem
Theology,
New
York: Harper &
Row
.
HORTON HARRIS
BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
In
one
se
n
se.
any sort
of
di
sc
iplined theological reflec-
tion
on
the Bible might usefully be labeled 'biblical
theology.' But
so
far
as
our
SOHrces
go, the expre
ss
ion
Wa
s
tIrst
nsed
in
the title
of
a
book
by W.). Christmann.
BIBLICAL
THEOLOGY
published in 1607 (T
C/ltsc
he
biblis
c
hc
n,eologie).
The
work
is no longer extant,
but
was ;tpp3rently a compilation
of
proofiexts drawn from the Bible to support Protesta
nt
sys
tematic theology. This usage continued for at l
eas
t
a
ce
ntury and a hale culminating in the learned five-
volume
work
of
G
.T
. Zachariae
(B
iblische
nleol
ogie
ode
r
Umer51lcl
lllll
g
dr
s
hiblische
ll
Cnmd
cs
de
r
tJo
rnchmtCII
th
co-
logi
sc
hell
Lehrell,
1771-1786
).
More
exege
ti
c
all
y rigorous
than the little volume by Christmann, this
work
never-
thele
ss
belonged to the
sa
me
approach, dispb.y:ing very
little :lwareness
of
historical development within the
ca
non.
Ove
rl
appillg
wit
h this usage
of
biblical theology
Philip Jacob Spen
er
introduced a
new
overtone. In his
famous
Pia
D
esideria
(1675) Spener distinguished
rlJeo-
l
()~
ia
b
iblira,
his
own
theology sufiilsed with piety, from
theologia
sch,'lasti
ca,
the prevailing Lutheran
orthodoxy
that had returned to the Aristotelianism Luther had
rejected.
Thu
s biblic
al
theolo
gy
t
ook
on the flavor
of
protest. Spener's theology was claiming to be more
'biblical' than the prevailing dogmatics.
The
sa
me
fl
avor
of
protest soon attached itself to a
rather different use
of
'biblical theology.' Influenced by
English Deism and the
Gennan
A
'
~fklii
Ylmg,
this
move-
me
nt
, in the seco
nd
half
of
the eighteenth century,
opposed the prevailing d
og
mati
cs
in favor
of
ration
alis
m
rather than pietislll. In seve
ral
works the aim
WOlS
to
extr
ac
t
trom
th
e Bible timele
ss
truths in accord with
autonomous reason, truths that were still largely acce
pt-
able to the orthodoxy
of
the ecclesiastical establis
hm
ent.
J.P. Gabler belonged to this group, a
nd
it was his 1787
inaugural lecture at the University
of
Altdorf that
ca
p-
tured the
mood
and prepared the way
tor
the next
developments.
Cont
rary to
wh
at
is
often claimed, his
lecture,
'An
Oration on the Proper Distinction Between
Biblical and
Dogmatic
The
ology
and
the Specific
Objectives
of
EJCh
,' was
not
primarily
an
insistence that
the Bible must first be read historica
ll
y,
or
that its
doc-
um
ents need to be
se
t
out
in historical
se
quence
(t
h
oug
h
some
of
this
is
implicit in his argument).
Rath
er, co
n-
vinced that dogma
ti
cs
as
a discipline was too far
removed
from
sc
ripture and that dogmaticians were endle
ss
ly dis-
puting matters that could not be
re
so
lved when their
di
sc
ipline was
so
divorced from
sc
ripture, Gabler
pro-
po
se
d a mediating discipline: biblical theology. By this,
Gabler meant a largely inductive study
of
the biblical
text
s.
This sort
of
study, he argued, was
much
more
likely to ge
ner
ate widespread agreeme
nt
amongst godly,
learned,
ca
utious theologians. Such resu
lts
could then
u
se
fully serve
as
the foundation
o~
which
:l
more
precise
and bro,ldly Jcceprable dogmatic theology mig
ht
bt'
built. Intrinsic to the proposal was the assumption thar
biblical theologians
wo
uld go about their study
of
scri
p-
tm
e
wi
th a minimal sense
of
being
bound
by dogmatic
consideration
s.
The unambiguous articulation
of
these
priorities
has
earned for Gabler the
so
briquet 'father
of
biblical theology.'
35
BIBLICAL
THEOLOGY
How
much
Gabler really
wanted
the fruits
of
biblical
theology
to
serve
as
the basis for a revitalized system-
atic theology,
and
how
much
this part
of
his appeal was
little
more
than a sop
tor
the establishment, it
is
difri-
cult to tell. Certainly that part
of
his proposal \vas
not
seriously taken up, while the tirst and fimdamental part.
inductive study
of
the biblical texts, assuming a
ruptured
link
between
biblical study and confessional application
-was
soon
widely
ad<'fj:>ted.
The
efkcrw1s
t()
tilt
bibiical
study
toward
a recognition
of
scripture's diversities,
with
diminishing interest in building a
coherent
'system.' By
1796, G.L.
Bauer
had
written
not
a biblical theology
but
an
Old
Testament
theology, followed shortly by a
two-volume
New
Testament
theology
(1800-1802).
Biblical theologies
of
the entire Christian
canon
con-
tinued
to
be
written
during
the
nineteenth
century
and
even
in the
twentieth
(see below).
The
most influen-
tial
during
the nineteenth
century
was doubtless that
of
j.e.K.
von
Hofinann
(1886), whose
work
contributed
significantly
to
the
thinking
of
Adolf
Schlatter.
But
the
tide was flowing
in
another
direction.
Throughout
the
nineteenth
century. a diminishing
number
of
scholars conceived
of
their
work
in biblical
theology
as
the foundation for a larger systematic
or
dog-
matic synthesis.
That
stance
tended
to
be
associated
with
theological conservatives,
who
still confessed
one
Mind
behind
scripture.
But
there
were
notable exceptions.
W.M.L.
de
Wette,
for instance, tried to spell
out
the
bearing
of
his
work
on
dogn1atics (1813-1831),
though
his vision was a synthesis
of
faith
and
aesthetics,
of
faith
and
teeling -an
attempt
to isolate the timeless and the
general while the hard data
of
the
New
Testament
could
be stripped
out
and
jettisoned
as
the particular
phe-
nomenon
of
one
phase
or
other
of
the history
of
reli-
gions. In any case, attempts at synthesis were against the
grain: the tendency in biblical theology was
toward
the
atomistic,
cut
off
from any obligation
to
contessiollJl
dogmatics.
This
drift toward fragmentation soon
meant
that even categories like
'New
Testament
theolob'Y'
and
'Old
Testament
theology'
were
much
too broad. except
as
boundary
detinitions
of
sources.
One
had to foem
on
the theology
of
the Pentateuch,
or
of
the sources
of
the
Pentateuch;
on
the theology
of
Wisdom,
or
of
the various
Wisdom
books;
on
the theology
of
the Synoptics,
or
of
each Synoptic Gospel individually,
or
of
its sources,
including
the theology
of
Q (Quelle. an ostensible sayings
source used
by
Matthew
and Luke);
on
the theology
of
Paul,
and
of
each
document
linked to his name.
In
short,
so
br
as
subst,lIlce
is
concerned,
we
must deal '>\ith
Old
Testament
theologies and
New
Testament
theologies.
This
approach to biblical theology still governs
much
of
the diSCIpline, and
;lCroSS
a very wide theologic.ll spec-
trum
(e.g
..
compare Ladd 1974
md
Sn-ecker
1<)95).
The
tlrst half
of
the
twentieth
century
w'itnessed the
flowering
of
these developments,
and
some reactions
against
them.
A
'whole
Bible'
biblical theology
could
36
still
be
produced
(e.g .. Vos 1948),
but
it was very
much
out
of
vogue.
One
may
usefully distinguish four
over-
lapping
movements.
The
jirst may
be
labeled
the
historicist impulse.
Historical criticism,
with
roots reaching
as
tar back
as
Spinoza
and
Richard
Simon,
became
part
of
establish-
ment
academic
scholarship
during
the
nineteenth
century_
In
no
small measure it was stimulated by
the
work
bf
F.e.
Bam
and- the
Tiibingen
school,
whose
influence
extended
tar
beyond
the
rather
simplistic
law/grace.
Peter/Paul
dichotomies
that
lay at
the
heart
of
their historical reconstructions. In 1864, Baur's
New
Testament
theology was published posthumously,
and it marks the
beginning
of
a cOllunitment by
many
biblical theologians to a developmental view
of
critic-
ally reconstructed history. Invested
with
a tair degree
of
naturalism (for
which
Darwin's
discoveries
provided
sub-
stantial reinforcement in later decades), the biblical
doc-
uments
tended
less
and
less
to
be
thought
of
as
revelatory,
still
less
as
theologically binding.
They
merely
provided
information
about
the
flfSt
century
and
earlier.
They
were therefore
to
be studied
as
part
of
the
development
of
religious
thought
in
general.
The
history-of-religions
school,
which
controlled
much
of
the discussion at the
end
of
the
nineteenth
and the
beginning
of
the
twen-
tieth century, aspired
to
a cool neutrality, to an approach
that \vas usually comparative, synchronically descriptive.
and interested
as
well in diachronic developlllent.
The
primacy
of
a
developmental
view
of
history in
the
interpretation
of
biblical
documents
shaped
not
only
the
best
of
the
liberal
biblical
theolOgians
(e.g.,
Holtzmann
18<)7,
1<)11)
but
the best
of
the conserva-
tive ones
JS
well (e.g .. Weiss 1868,
19(3).
Increasingly,
however,
a
narrow
definition
of
history prevailed, i.e.,
one
that excludes any possibility
of
accepting
as
true
any biblical afrinnation that talks
of
God
acting in
history_
Its
assumptions are naturalistic.
Of
course, it
does
not
deny
the
possibility
of
the existence
of
God,
but
denies that history can
tlnd
anv
evidence
of
him.
History
is
by
defimtion
a closed
continuum.
Under
such a regimen biblical
theology
can
never
be
more
than
the study
of
what
\'ariom
groups
thought
about
God
and related matters at various times.
Hence
the
cheeky title
of
the influential
work
ofW.
Wrede
(11)97),
[jIm
Allf~ahc
IIl1d
Methode
da
.<ogct/tlIIllteli
nClltcstametitlichc
Theologle
(Con(cming
rile
Task
alld
Method
of
S,I-C1!lcd
New
Te.<taJllcnt
T1lcollIXY).
Reacting
to
the sterility
of
the history-or-religions
school,
BJrth
generated the
secolld
movement.
His
com-
mentary
on
Romans
(1933)
threw
dowll
a g,lUnrlet: it
was a
protoundly
rheo
logical
v.,,-ork,
an approach
pro-
gressively
eroded
bv
the history-of-religions school.
For
many, Barth's
reduction
of
the
importance
of
historical
and
comparative research
tor
the
meaning
of
the Bible-.
and
hi, elevation
of
the
theolopcal.
was an
Q;lsis
in
a
parched
land;
tor
others, it was a fonll
of
theological
escapism th.l!
could
not
long
endure.
Mor
eove
r,
Barth com-inced Bultmann that cla
ss
ic
theological liberalism had to be abandoned.
But
instead
of
joining
Barth's crusade,
Bultmann
introduced
and
Jed
a
tliird
movement
that dominated
di
sc
u
ss
ion
(espe-
cially in
th
e realm
of
New
Testament theology) for
Jlmost half a century. At
one
level, the natur,llism ,md
hi
storicism
of
\,\ircde persisted; but at
another
leveL
inst
ea
d
of
eschewing theological
fonnubtion
or
dog-
matic synthesis,
Bultmann
'demythologized'
what
he
thought 'm
ode
m
man'
could
no
longer believe, in
order
to
i
s~
bte
the real, unchanging gospel in te
rm
s that
could
still be believed. In that sense
Bultmann
abandoned the
hi
storicism of Wrede to
produce
a kerygma that
is
remarkably similar to Heideggerian existemialism. Along
the way. revelation,
God,
faith. and
much
else
were
r<'ddined. The
g::lin,
however, from
Bulrnunn's
per-
spective _ was a theologic.11 grasp that
was
utterly
inde-
pendent
of
historical criticism. His e
normously
influential
Tli
c
"h'RY
~(
the
t\JerJ!
Te
s
tllm
e
nt
(1948-1953;
ET
1952-1955) provided a faith
who
se object
is
not
tied to
hi
storical revelation, a Jesus about
whom
little
can be said except for a raw
Dass
, a r
es
urrection whose
signitl
ca
nce lies not in its ostensible
hi
storical reality bur
in the p
syc
hological faith
of
the conununity, and so
forth.
Today his views are largely
abandonl
'd. This IS
nor only because it
is
increasillgly difficult to accept
JS
nonnative Heideggerian existemi'llism, and still
more
ditl:icult to
se
e it
;lS
somehow
at the core
of
biblical
revelation (
thu
s the demythologizing pro
ject
is
seen
as
obsolete on the
one
h:lI1d
md
anachronistic
on
the
other), but also tor a stronger reason.
Once
allowallce
is
made tor the conceptual strucrures that pre
va
iled
when the biblical
document
s were written, many pas-
s:
l
ges
ill
both
Testame-ms (e.g., Luke
1:1-4
; 1
Co
r.
15:6)
approach what we mean by
sc
ientific
hi
stor
y,
i.e., tight
linking of the textual witness to
what
actually happened.
Christianity
is
not
Buddhism: its ciJims are in part irre-
ducibly historical.
Contemporary
sc
holars may
judge
that witne
ss
to be true, and advance their reasons,
or
they may ho
ld
it to be talse, and
ju
s
tifY
their skepti-
cism. Bur biblical theologians cannot disa
ll
ow
historical
re
fl
ectiol!
as
part
of
their
ta
sk
of
understanding the
bibliClI
document
s,
or
relegate such reflection to a
com-
partment hermetically sealed
off
from theology.
The
.I"Ml'Ch
move
ment
was the short-li
ve
d
but
widely
illfluential biblical theology
mo
vement which
was
s
trong
in
tlI
e 1930s to 1950s in Britain and
Eur
ope, and in
the
19-1-
(15
to 1950s in America. Perhaps its
mo
st influ-
ential
ti
gure
WJS
Oscar
Culll11:lI~n.
Hi
s err;ph,lsis
on
s;ll-
v.l
tio
ll
hiqory
(
Hcilsges[hidlfC)
as
the unifying
theme
of
scripture
so
ug
ht
to
bring together the the
me
s that had
been
Hying apart since
the
turn
of
th
e
cenrury.
."vl
oreover. his int1uence
was
magnitied
by
his
deter-
lIIina
ti
on to write in
In
edifying way. Int'vitably, those
who constructed the 'history'
inher
ent
in
'salvation
hi
story' a little difiere-mly
rai
sed
III:m
y ob]ec
tiom
.
BIBLICAL
THEOLOGY
Thi
s
wa
s
not
the only stream
of
the biblical theology
movem
ent
.
Another
stream focused
on
-the mighty acts
of
God'
(es
p.
G. Ernest Wright)
::IS
the unifying
theme
of
scripture,
though
acts ,Ipart from an authoritative
interpretation
of
tht'ir sigrIific:Jnce can prove very plastic.
R.
Morgan
(A
BD
6.-1-79)
includes Kittel's
T11cologic,d
DiClioll,lry
4
th
e New Tcstarllftlt
(1933-1974;
ET
1
%4-1974)
within the bibliCJI theolo
gy
movement:
after all, it was dedicated to Schhtter.
But
the biblical theology
movement
soon suttered
catastrophic criticism.
The
relation
bet
wee
n the mighty
acts
of
God
Jnd the biblical texts
wa
s J
ess
than clear.
The
attempt to erect entire theologiCJI s
nu
crures
on
word
studies soon faced the withering attack
of
Jame
s
Barr (1961).
The
meaning
of
Heil~«esdlidlf
C
proved slip-
pery,
with
quite ditterent emphases from
writer
to
writer. H
es
iution
about
the 1I10vement climaxed in the
cliticism
of
Childs (1970).
Th
e
la
st titty years have witnessed ext
ra
polations
of
mo
st
of
the earlier stances regarding biblical theology,
plus some new developments.
We
may summarize
as
tallows:
(
1)
Sonle
of
the
mo
st straightforward extrapolations
have yielded
wo
rks
of
great influence. F
or
instance, in
the
field of
Old
Testament
theology,
Eichrodt
(1959-1
(64)
,
though
he himself insisted that the
di
sc
i-
pline should nor be shaped by
;my
'dogmatic scheme,'
neverthele
ss
so
ught a theological
ce-m
er
in
the
docu-
lIIents.
On
the
one
hand, he developed a triple divi-
SIOn:
God
and the people,
God
and the world,
God
,md the individual;
on
the
other
halld, the controlling
concept in
hi
s
work
was the coven:mt -an
approKh
which,
if
nothing else, generated prolonged
di
scu
ss
ion
regarding the
'center'
of
Old
T est:
unent
theology. By
contra
st, von
Rad
's
complex
and
influenti,11
wo
rk
(195
7-
1960) rejects any attempt to elaborate the struc-
ture
of
the O
ld
Testament
'world
of
faith. ' Be
ca
u
se
the
Old
T estanlent
documents
present Hc
il
.':I?CSLhi(
lzt
e, a
history
of
salvatio
n,
Old
Testament
theology
worthy
of
the name must in the first instance rete
ll
this history.
Bur von
Rad
does
not
want
to return to
th
e sterile
'narrow'
history against which
Eichrodt
and others
reacted.
Rather
than crearing
;t
hi
story
of
Israelite reli-
gion, von
Rad
develops a sequenti:
11
or
d
er
ing
of
the
theological w
itne
sses that build up an JcconlH
of
Yahw
eh
's
;lCtion in
hi
story -de-pending,
as
he goes,
on
more-or-I
es,>
standard hisroricll-critil'al recons
truc-
tions
of
the sources and their d:nes.
.
~imil.arlyin.>~h~
domain
of
New
Testament theology:
,ome
lin
es
of
ex
trapolition
from earlier
work
are plain
ellough, and s
how
up in various contigur:nion
s.
SOIl1e-
(e.g., Kiimmel 197
-1-)
begin
with
J
recon
struction
of
the
teachmg of Jesm
as
that
(;111
be-
extr.lCted
ii-o
m the
Synoptic Gospels
on
the basis
of
stmd.lrd
hi
storical-
critical givens.
Thi
s
is
tollowed by
3n
:
ll1
:u
ys
is
of
the
primiti
ve
church'
s belids. so
tlr
3S they can
be-
recolI-
structed
on
torm-critical grounds.
Thae
foll
ows in tum
37
BIBLICAL
THEOLOGY
the theology
of
the
New
Testament corpora, on roughly
chronological grounds, starting with Paul. Although
the judgments and results vary considerably, the same
methodological
approaches are
followed
by
many
(e.g., Stuhlmacher 1992; Hiibner 19
90-
1995). A more
conservative biblical theologian such
as
Ladd (1974)
varies this procedure by starting with the Synoptic
Gospels rather than with the historical Jesus
behind
the
Synoptics, since he
is
persuaded that the Synoptics bear
faithful witness.
None
of
these writers, however, makes
much
of
an attempt at synthesis. Guthrie (1981) attempts
to escape the lack
of
synthesis by tracing a rich variety
of
th
em
es
across the
New
Testament corpora. This
pro-
du
ces
a certain gain in perspective, but at the very
considerable e),:pense
of
losing sight
of
the distinctive
emphases and contributions
of
each corpus. Caird's
conference-table approach (1994) is more creative, but
shares Guthrie's methodological limitations.
(2)
Approaches that rely
on
a fairly radical applica-
tion
of
historical criticism, usually tied
to
a 'narrow'
understanding
of
history, tend to produce idiosyncratic
result
s.
The
work
of
Schmithals (1994), tor instance, is
le
ss
a
New
Testament theology than
an
independent
reconstruction
of
early Christianity (shades
of
Wrede
)
into
which
the
New
Testament
is
squeezed. Attempting
to
find a reason
why
the traditions about the historical
Jes
us
should have been connected with the post-Easter
kerygma, he
fa
stens
on
such pa
ssages
as
1 Corinthians
15:20-28 and links between the theme
of
the kingdom
of
God
in Jesus' te
ac
hing and Paul's theology.
From
this base Schmithals develops a fundamental polarity
between
Antioch
theology
(typically apocalyptic,
fo
cused
on
the righteousness
of
God
, and
with
gnostic
tendencies) and Damascus theology (characterized by
high Christology, real incarnation, a radical view
of
sin,
realized eschatology) - a polarity which
is
then tra
ce
d
in various ways through the
New
Testament documents
and
on
into the Apostolic Fathers. Berger's large volume
(1994) develops the analogy
of
the tree:
New
Testament
thought
is
like a tree with roots in Jerusalem,
but
"vith
the primary branching taking place in Antioch.
The
Jerusalem believers shaped the early
Roman
church and
the Epistle
of
Jam
es;
believers more influenced by
Hellenism
moved
to Antioch and became the source
of
the Pauline and Johannine streams. A secondary node
in the Antioch branch generates the Synoptic Gospels,
including Mark,
Q,
and
John
(which according to
Berger antedates Matthew and Luke).
All
this Berger
lays
out
before
his
sys
tematic examination
of
the
New
Te
stament documents.
The
examination itself places the
documents within the established grid. Berger thinks
he
ca
n detect
how
the various branches repeatedly cross
and influence
one
another.
There
is
no
signifi
ca
nt
attempt to seek
out
what
is
unifying in
New
Testament
thought.
(3)
Roman
Catholic contributions to the
dis
cipline
were negligible until ]
95(1.
The
earlier popular and
38
confessional works
of
Lemonnyer
(1928) and Kiiss
(1936) broke little
new
ground. Since the publication
of
Divino Affiante (1943), however, Catholic scholars
have gradually
come
to display the diversity
of
approach
es
to biblical theology that characterize their
Protestant colleagues. Meinertz (1950) works induc-
tively a
nd
descriptively
with
the
New
Testament
corpora, but attempts no evaluation
of
their
chrono-
logical
order
or
histori
ca
l development. Bonsirven
(1931-1951)
is
not
di
ss
imilar,
but
is
suffused
with
gentle piety.
It
was Schnackenburg (1962-1965) who,
in the domain
of
New
Testament theology, broke
into
the main stream
of
di
sc
ussion. After fIrst dealing with
the kerygma and the theology
of
the primitive church,
he reconstructs the teaching
of
Jesus according to the
Synopti
cs,
summarizes the contribution
of
the individual
synoptists, and then progre
ss
ively examines Paul,
John
,
and the
re
st
of
the
New
Testament writings.
Meanwhile,
Roman
Catholic
Old
Testament
the-
ologies were written by van Imschoot (1954-1956),J.L.
McKenzie (1974). and Mattioli (1981). Both Schelkle
(ET 1968-1976) and Harrington (1973) wrote a biblical
theology
of
the entire Christian Bible -the former a
four-volume
work
structured more-or-Iess in traditional
dogmatic categories,
but
concerned to trace those cat-
egories
from
the
Old
Testament
through
Second
Temple Judaism to the
New
Testament. By the
end
of
this period, mainstream
Roman
Catholic biblical the-
ologies could
not
easily be distinguished from, their
Protestant
counterparts
(e.g.,
Goppelt
1981-1982
,
Thiising 1981, Gnilka 1989).
(4)
Biblical theology
has
been increasingly shaped
by various perspectives
on
the canon
or
on
'canon
criticism.'
The
last twenty years have witne
sse
d a gentle
revival
of
what
the Germans call
ein
e
gcsa
mthihli
sc
he
Theologie
, a 'whole Bible theology,' what Barr (some-
what dismissively) refers to
as
'panbibli
cal
theology.'
Sometimes this
is
the product
of
strong confessionalism:
if
the canon is considered in any sense to be the product,
ultimately,
of
one
Mind
or
Actor. then scholars
ma
y
responsibly pursue its unity within its diverse
move-
ments.
But
two
movements have most commonly been tied
to the rubric 'canon criticism.'
The
first is the
com-
munitarian stance
of
].A
. Sanders and his disciple
s.
Sanders does
not
content himself with the final
forn1
of
the canonical
document
s.
It
is
pr
ecisely their growth
and development that interest him, and in particular
the changing communitarian experiences and interests
that such changes reflect.
The
second
(and more influ-
ential) foml
of
canon criticism
is
found in the
work
of
Brevard Childs and his followers (though Childs himself
does
not
now
use
the
ca
tegory for
his
own
work
).
Childs allows only the final
foml
of
the
ca
non to shape
his theological synthesis. Unlike Sanders, Childs
is
little
interested in delineating the communitarian interests
that produced
our
documents, and not at
all
interested
in ostensible extracanonical influences.
The
Christian
church
recognizes a restnctive
canon
(whose borders
are a little fuzzy
as
one
moves
from
group
to group),
and
if
we
are Christians that
must
be
the tralllework
in
which
we
do
our
theological reflection. Ultimately,
Childs
is
interested
in
using
the
biblical
documents
of
both
Testaments
to
show
how,
together,
they
justify a
more-or-less
traditional,
orthodox
theology,
as
expressed
in
postbiblical categories.
Although
much
of
his
work
is
fresh
and
stimulating,
he
has sometimes
been
charged
with
'canonical ttmdamentalism' because his reason for
using the
canon
as
his
boundary
is
not
well
detended
(since
he
rejects
my
traditional
view
of
scriptural
authority). Childs emerges
with
a
unity
of
result,
but
it
is
less
than
clear
how
he
gets
there
as
long
as
the
unity
of
the
foundation
documents
is
affirmed
by
little
more
th:m the results
(cf
Noble
1995).
(5)
The
impact
of
postmodernism
on
the discipline
of
biblical theology has
begun
to
be
telt,
and
will cer-
tainly increase
in
years ahead.
Some
postmodernists criti-
cize the earlier 'biblical
theology
movement'
tor
being
too
'modernist'
in
its epistemology (e.g .. Penchansky).
Jeanrond
provides a definition
of
biblical
theology
that
'maximizes
diversity
and
competing
perspectives,
rebukes all systematic theology, encourages all nom10g-
matic models and paradigms,'
and
eschews any
hint
of
unity.
Brueggemann's
recent
Old
Testament
theology
(1997), wonderfully stimulating
and
innovative, greatly
stresses the virtue
of
imagination, constantly insists
on
interpreting
individual biblical narratives
independently
of
the larger narrative
of
its corpus (still
less
of
the
biblicalmetanarrative),
and
builds
into
its very structure
mutually contradictory options.
In
other
words, it
organ-
izes its material into core testimony,
countertestimony,
unsolicited testimony,
and
embodied
testimony.
An
example
of
the
outworking
of
the first
two
(core testi-
mony
and
countertestimony) occurs
in
Brueggemann's
treatment
of
Exodus 34:6-7.
This
'credo,'
according
to
Brueggemann,
embraces a
'besetting
tension
not
between
opposing theological traditions,
but
in
the very
lite, character, and person
of
Yahweh':
between,
on
the
one
hand,
Yahweh's
solidarity
with
his
people
Jnd
gracious fidelity, and,
on
the
other,
his sovereign,
sometimes excessive and destructive self-regard.
The
net
result,
of
course,
is
a
picture
of
a
god
whom
Brueggemann
is
happy
to
embrace,
but
scarcely
one
that can
refonn
his perspectivalism.
(6)
Despite
repeated
pronouncements
that
the
'biblical theology
movement'
of
the
first
half
of
the
centurv
was dead, biblical
theology
has
renewed
itself
and
begun
to
flourish
anew
in
the closing decades
of
the
twentieth
century.
The
joumal
Jahrblicli
.titr
blbliselie
TIleologie
has
been
published
tor
over
fifteen years,
Honzons
111
Biblical
TI1CO!t:gy
for
more
them
twenty.
lVbjor
volumes
in
the field Jre
complemented
by
count-
less
others.
Although
enonnous
diversity
of
perspective
is
still the
order
of
the
dJY,
the best
of
this
work
is
BIBLICAL
THEOLOGY
enriched
by fresh
thinking
dbout literary genre, speech
act theory, intertextuality, and,
more
broadly, the use
of
the
Old
Testament
in
the
New.
(7)
At the same time,
one
cannot
ignore
the
con-
demning
voices
who
view
askance all
or
part
of
the
biblical
theology
project.
We
may
mention
two
of
the
more
articulate
of
these voices.
Rais~inen
(1990)
is
con-
vinced
that
New
Testament
theology
in
any
integra-
tive sense
is
a chimera: the divergences are so great
that
the pursuit
of
unity
is
futile. Barr's
recent
volume
(1999),
though
it pursues certain biblical thcologians
intem-
perately (especially Childs),
is
at best cautious
about
the rest
of
the discipline, especially
if
it attempts
to
clothe
itself
in
anything
that
smacks
of
the
normative
or
the revelatory.
At
the
beginning
of
a
new
millennium,
biblical
theology
stands
on
the
threshold
of
m;tior adVJnce.
On
the
one
hand,
the
diversity
of
the
traditions
and
hermeneutical
assumptions
that
have
gone
into
its
history has left the
movement
in
some
serious disarray.
There
is
still
no
broad
agreement
on
such
major
issues
as
the
nature
of
revelation, the significance
of
the
canon,
the relationships
between
theological reflection
and
history, and
much
more
-
all
of
which
bear on the
very definition
of
the enterprise.
On
the
other
hand,
enough
groundbreaking
work
has
been
done
that a
path
has
been
cleared for major, creative syntheses
to
take
place, syntheses
that
do
not
for a
moment
downplay
the diversities
of
the biblical
corpora
but
thJt
refuse
to
succumb
to
the minimalism
of
those
who
think
'whole
Bible' biblical
theology
is
a chimerical vision.
References and further reading
Adam,
A.K.M.
(1995) Making
Sense
of
Nell!
Testament
TIlcology:
Alodern
Problems
,md
Prospects,
StABH
11,
Macon,
GA:
Mercer
University Press.
Balla,
Peter
(1997)
Challenges
to
New Tcstamelli
TI1eolo,r;y:
An
Attempt
to
Justify
tire
Enterprise,
WUNT
95,
Tiibingen:
J.CB.
Mohr
JJld Paul Siebeck.
Barr, James (1961)
The
Semantics
(?f
Biblied
Language,
Oxford:
Oxford
University Press.
--
(1999)
TIle
Cmleept
of
Biblical
TIrcology:
An
Old
TcstameHt
Perspective,
Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Barth, Karl (1933)
TIre
Epistle f[>
the
Ronlims,
Oxford:
Oxford
University Press (orig. 1919, 1921).
RUler,
C.L.
(1796) Thcologie
des
.'lirell
TC.itillI/CIltS,
Leipzig:
Weygand.
--
(1800-180:2)
B,blisrhe
Thcologif
des
Ncrtcll
TCSt,l-
mClliS,
:2
Vols., Leipzig:
Weygand.
Baur,
F.C.
(1864)
[/orleSlI1l,\!Cll
/lber
Ilcutcsromenrlichc
TIlcologie,
Leipzig: Fues's Verlag.
Berger,
K.
(1994)
Tl1cologiegeseiricilte
des
C'rciJristenfllll1s,
Tiibingen.
Francke.
Bonsirven, J. (1963)
TIteology
of
tire
Ne/ll
Testamellt,
London:
Bums
and
Oates
(orig.
1(51).
39
'I
I
BIBLICAL
THEOLOGY
Brue
gge
mann,
Walt
er (1997) Theology
of
the
Old Holtzmann, H.].
(1
897, 1911)
Lehrbudl
der neut
es
ta-
Test
ammt: T
est
imon
y,
Disput
c,
Advo
cacy
,
Minn
eapoli
s:
me
ntlichen
Thealogie,
Tiibingen: JC.
B.
Mohr
and Paul
Augsburg Fortress
Pr
ess
.
Si
ebeck.
Bultmann,
Rudolf
(1952-1955 [1948-1953])
Tlreolo
gy
Hiibner,
Hans
(1990-1995)
Biblis
cllc
Tlr
eo
logi
e
de
s
C!(
tir
e New T
es
tament
, London:
SCM
Press. Ne
uC/l
T
est
aments,
3
Vok
, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
Caird, G.B. (1994) Nell'
Testam
e
llt
Tlr
eolog
y,
LD.
Hur
st &
Rupre
cht.
(ed.). Oxford: Clarendon.
Jeanrond,
Wern
er (199
8)
'
The
Significance
of
Carson, D.A. (1997) '
New
Te
stament Theology,' pp. Revelation for Biblical
Th
eology,'
Biblical
Interpret9-
796-814
in
Dictionary
of
th
e IAter'"New'TIstatflent
ana'-
.
tlon
6:' 243':"'5Y . " -
Its
D
eve
lopm
e
nt
s,
Ralph
P. Martin and Peter H. Davids Kraftchick, S.].,
C.D.
Myer
s,
Jr., and B.C. Ollenburger
(eds).
Down
e
rs
Grov
e:
IVP. (eds.)
(19
9
5)
Biblical
Tlreolo
g
y:
Probl
e
ms
and
Perspedil'es,
--
(2000) 'Systematic
Theolo
gy
and
Biblical N
as
hville: Abingdon Pre
ss.
The
ology,' pp.
89-104
in Nell'
Dictionary
if
Biblic
al Kiimmel, W.G. (1974) The
Tlr
eo
locey
C!(
tire
New
Testam
ent
Tlreolo
g
y,
TD.
Alexander and Brian
Rosn
er (eds.), A
cco
rding
to
Its
M
aJo
r Witn
es
ses,
London:
SCM
Pre
ss
Leicester: IVP. (orig. 196
9).
Childs,
Brev
ard (1970) Bibli
ca
l
Tlr
eo
logy
in
Crisi
s,
Kii
ss,
O.
(1936) Die
Tlreolo
gie
des
NClien
Testaments:
Eine
Philadelphia: Westminster
Pr
ess
.
Einfuhrung,
Regensburg: Pustet.
--
(1992)
Biblical
Theolo
J?
y
'?f
til
e Old
an
d New Ladd, George E. (1974) A
Tlr
eo
logy
'?(
the
New T
es
tam
e
nt
,
Testaments, London:
SCM
Press. Grand RapIds: Eerdmans (rev. edn. 1993).
Cullma
nn
, O
sca
r (1951) Christ a
nd
Tim
e,
London:
SCM
Lemonnyer, A. (I92R)
La
th
eolog
ie
du
NOr/Feau
Testam
cr
lt
,
Pre
ss.
Pari
s:
Bloud & Gay.
__
(1967) Salvation
in
History,
London:
SCM
Pres
s.
McKenzie,
JL.
(1974) A
Tlr
eo
logy
I!(
the
Old
Testam
e
nt,
Davie
s,
Philip
R.
(1995)
Mo
se
Bibl
e
Is
It Anyway?, Garden City: Doubleday.
JSOTSup
204, Sheffield: Shefileid Academic Pre
ss
. Mattioli,
A.
(1981)
Dio
e 1"
lOnlO
ne
lla
Bibbia
d'
Isr
aelc:
de
Wett
e,
W.M.L. (1831)
Lehrbucll
der
chri
s
tlichen
Dogmatik
Tlr
e
ologia
dell' Antico
Testamento,
Ca
sale
Monferrato:
Marietti.
in
ihr
er
hi
s
tori
scl
le
ll
Erltwicklun
g
darg
es
tellt
.
Erst
er Te
il:
Die Meinertz, M. (1950)
Tlreol
ogie
des
Ne
uen
T
es
tament
s,
2
bibli
sc
he
Do
g
matik,
enthaltend
biblische
Dogmatik Alten
und
Neuen
Testam
e
nts.
Oder
kritiscll
er
Darst
e
llung
der
Religion-
Vol
s.
, Bonn: P. Hanstein.
Morgan,
Ro
bert
(1
973)
TIr
e Nature
of
New
Te
s
tam
en
t
s
lehr
e d
es
Hebrai
s
ml/..<
, d
es
jud
e
nthulll
s,
WId
Urchristelltums,
l1,
co
logy,
London:
SCM
Pre
ss.
Berlin:
G.
R eimer, 3rd edn. (1st edn. 1813). (1995)
__
(1992)
'The
ology
(New
T
es
tament),'
ABD
Dohmen
,
Chri
stoph and Thomas Soding (eds.)
b I
bl
h 6.473-83.
Eine Bi e zwei T
es
tam
ent
e:
Po
sitionen
hi
i
sc
er Nobl
e,
Paul R . (1995)
TIre
Ca
nonical
Approach: A
Critical
Tlr
eo
logie,
Paderborn: Schoningh. (
Reconstructiar!
C!(
th
e
Herm
e
neutics
<?
Brcl'ard
S.
Childs,
Eichrodt,
W alter
(1961-1967)
Tlreol
ogy
of
th
e Old BIS 16, Leiden: Brill.
Tes
tamerrt
, 2 Vols.,
London
: SCM
Pr
ess
(orig. Perichansky, David (1995)
Th
e
Politics
of
Bibli
ca
l
1959-1964).
Tlr
eo
logy:
A
Postmodern
Reading,
StABH 10, Maco
n:
Gabler,
JP.
(1831) 'Oratio de iusto di
sc
rimine theolo- Mercer University Pre
ss.
giae biblicae
et
d
og
maticae regundisque recte Rai
sa
ne
n,
Heikki (1990)
Beyond
Nell'
Testam
e
lll
Tlreolo
g
y:
utriusque finibus,' pp.
179-
98 in Vol. 2
of
Kleiner
c A
Story
and
a
Programme
, London: SCM Press.
th
e
olo
gi
sc
he
Schrijterr,
T.
A.
Gabler and
JG.
Gabler Sanders,
JA
. (1972)
Torah
and
Ca
rron,
Philadelphia:
(eds.), Ulm: Verlag des Stettinischen Buchhandlung Fortress Press.
(available in English
in
J. Sandys-
Wuns
ch and
--
(1987)
From
Sacred
Story
to
Sacred
Te
xt:
Canon
as
L.
Eldredge (1980) 'J.p. Gabler and the
Di
sti
nction
Paradigm,
Philadelphia: Fortr
ess
Pr
ess.
Betw
een Biblic
al
and Dogmatic
Th
eology: Trans- Schelkle.
K.H.
(1
9
71-197
8)
Th
eo
lan
of
tire
New
!ation,
Con
mle
ntary a
nd
Di
sc
ussion
of
Hi
s Origin- T
esta
ment. 4 Vol
s.,
Collegeville: Liturgical
(o
rig.
ality,'
Scolfish
Jarmral
'?(
Th
co
l
o.U
33:
133-5
8. 1968
-197
6).
Gnilka, J (1989)
Neutestamentlrche
Theol
og
ie:
Ein
Obe
rblick,
Schlatter,
Adolf
(199
7)
Th
e History
of
the
C
hrist:
The
Wiirzburg: Echter Verlag.
Foundatia/1
<?(
New
Te
s
tam
en
t
l1,eolo
gy,
Gr
and
Rapid
s:
--
(1994)
I1
ICo
logi
e d
es
NC
II
cn
T
es
tament,
Freibur
g:
Baker (ori
g.
19(
9).
Herd
e
r.
--
(1998)
TIre
Tlr
eo
logy
of
the
Apos
tles:
TIr
e Devel
op-
Goppelt, L. (1981-19R2)
Tlreol
ogy
~f
th
e Nell' T
es
tament.
//I
e
lll
a( New
Te
s
tam
e
llt
Th
eo
l
ogy,
Grand R apid5: Baker
2 Vols.,
Gr
and
Rapid
s:
Eerdm
a
ns
(o
rig. 1975
-1976
).
(o
rig. 1910
).
Guthrie,
Don
a
ld
(19
81)
]\,'cw
Testam
e
ll
t
Thcoh
~IZ
Y:
A Schnllthals,
W.
(1994)
111eola
~
~
i~>;C.'Chicilte
dcs
L're/,ristent-
l1,cma
ti
(
Str/dy.
Leicester: IVP.
um
s.
Stutt
ga
rt: Kohlhamme
r.
Harringto
n,
W . (1973)
Path
C!f
Biblical
Tlr
e
oic;f?Y,
Dublin: Schnackenbur
g.
Rudolf
(1965)
The
Maral
T
ead
,il/X
C!f
th
e
Gill and Macmillan. N
ew
Testam
c
nt,
London: Bums and Oates (orig. 1962).
40
Strecker, George (1995)
Thcolo
g
ie
des
Neue
ll
Testamer/ts,
Berlin: de Gruyter.
Stuhlmacher, Peter (1992)
Biblis
che
T7,
eo
lo
gie
des
Neuen
TeSlLI/lICnl5.
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Thusing,
W.
(1981) Die
IlcuteslamCIIllich
e
ll
Theologien
lind
jesus
ChriSfUS,
Band
1:
Kriterien
auf Grund der
RuckfraJ(e
na
ch
Jesus
lind
des
Glaubens
an
se
ill
e
A/~fenveckllng,
Dusseldorf Patmos.
Van Imschoot, Paul (1954-1956)
ThcoloJ?ie
de
I'AI/dell
Testament, 2 Vols.,
Tournai
: Desclee.
Von
Hofimnn,
].c.K.
(1886) Bibli
sc
he neologie
des
Neue
l/
Testaments, Nordlingen: Bec
k.
Von
Rad,
Gerhard
(
1962-1965
) Old Testament
n
eo
l(l
gy, 2 Vols., Edinburgh:
Oliver
a
nd
Boyd (orig.
1957-60).
Vos,
Geerhardus (1948) Bibliwl
Theology:
O
ld
,md New
Testal1lellts,
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Weiss,
B.
(1868)
Lehrbuch
der
Biblis
ch
en
n
eo
logie
des
Neue" Testaments, Berlin: Teubner.
Wrede,
W.
(1897) t!ber
Au.fgabe
und
Methode
der
sogenan-
/li
e neut
esta
lll
entlic
he
neologie, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht.
Wright, G. Ernest (1952) God
J;t/I/O
Acts, London:
SCM
Press.
Zachariae, G.T. (1771-1786) Bibli
sc
he n
co
logie,
oder
Unte
rsuclllwg
des
biblischell
Gnmdes
der
VOYIIC!zlllstetl
th
eo
logi
sche
n
Lehren,
Tubingen: Frank & Schramm.
DA
CARSON
BROWN, RAYMOND EDWARD S.S.
(1928-1998)
Raymond
E.
Brown
was
an influential and leading
Roman
Ca
tholic biblical scholar
of
the
twentieth
century,
who
was
born
in
New
York City
on
May
22, 1928.
He
studied under W.F. Albright and became
Professor
of
New
Testament at the
Union
Theological
Seminary
in
New
York
(1971).
He
had earlier studied
at the Catholic University
of
Ameri
ca
(Washington),
receiving
his
bachelor's and master's degrees, and sub-
seq
uently at St. Mary's Seminary (Baltimore) and Johns
Hopkins University, receiving doctorates in Sacred
Theology a
nd
Semitic Languages respectively. He died
August 8, 1998.
Brown
was the first Catholic in a tenured position
;u
Union
Theological
Seminary, an historically
Protesta
nt
institution. where he taught for two decades
and
was
one
of
the pioneers
of
biblical critic
is\11
in
New
T c'stJlnent studies with
his
defining work
on
the Sa/sus
Plerlior
4
Sacred
Scriptures.
He
wrote very widely and
was
the author
of
many articles and nearly forty books,
l1uny
of
them
commentaries
on
the
New
Testament
mduding
detailed studies
on
the Gospel accounts
of
Jesus' birth and death.
Although
his
writings were intended tor nonspecial-
im and thus were intelligible to J
va
riety
of
audiences,
BROWN, RAYMOND EDWARD
5.5.
i.e., scholars, students
of
theology, and
interested
Christians, this, however, did
not
compromise
his
high
standards
of
exegesis and care for detail, evidenced by
treatment
of
detailed technical issues and general
com-
ments in the footnotes
of
all
his
writings.
In
his
Birth
of
the
Messiah.
a commentary
on
the
infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke,
Brown
writes
a convincing 'masterwork'
of
exegesis covering all
aspects
of
the background and interpretation
of
the nar-
ratives to show that they are a key to the interpreta-
tion
of
the gospel me
ssa
ge. In the D
ea
t"
'~f
th
e
Messiah,
Brown tackles
all
i
ss
ues pertinent to the Passion
of
Jesus
and explains in detail what the four evangelists intended
to convey
to
their various audiences.
He
does this by
interpreting the various
acts
of
the Passion and also
by providing a comparison with a noncanoni
ca
l Passion
narrative in
rhe
Gospel
of
Peter.
In answer
to
the question
of
whether
the biblical
accounts
of
Jesus' life and teaching embraced historical
truth about Jesus
or
whether
they were the product
of
early Christian theologians writing de
ca
des after the
CrucifIxion,
he
wrote what he called a '
new
and bold
thesis' to bring some balance and direction to biblical
studies,
An
Itltrodllc
t
ion
to
the
New Testament.
The
Intro-
duction
addresses religious, spiritual, and ecclesiastical
issues
raised by the
New
Testament and keeps
to
the
tore the literary
power
of
the books
of
the
New
Testament and their message.
His main work was, however,
on
Johannine litera-
ture. His
two-volume
commentary
on
the Gospel
according to
John
is
an indispensable contribution to
Johannine studies. In the first volume (chapters
1-12
),
he manifests an incisive and brilliant mind in the way
he interprets the Gospel, showing expert knowledge
of
the Dead
Sea
Scrolls, the Palestinian and the Gnostic
backgrounds in the presentation
of
Jesus , divinity, eccle-
siology, sacramentalism, eschatology, and
other
motitS.
In the second volume (chapters 13-21), the emphasis
is
on
the book
of
signs stressing an independent trad-
ition underlying
John's
Gospel. In the commentary
on
the Epistles
of
John,
Brown
delineates the history
of
the Johannine
comm
unity (cf Commllnity
of
the
Beloved
Discipl
e)
.
In the contentious field
of
biblical studies
Brown
epitomized the broadly learned, disciplined, tair-minded
scholar
who
was
not
only a rigorous and exacting
scholarly mind
but
also a centrist, a man
of
the church
who
strong
ly
believed that the Gospel acco
unt
s
wer
e
produGts
.of
the church and th;tt they were basically
rrustworthy, and a
lso
showed that contemporary
inter-
pretation
of
the
New
Testament could be built
on
a
solid histori
cal
analysis
of
ancient texts.
References and further reading
Carson, Donald
A.
(1993) New
Te
s
tam
ent
CO
lllmentary
Survey,
leices
ter: IVP.
41
