1.0 History of Old Testament Theology

1
1.0 History of Old Testament Theology

• BIB566/THE566 Old Testament Theology

2
1.1 Introduction
3
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

4
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.

5
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.Minneapoli
  s Fortress Press, 1997.

6
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).

7
1.2 Reformers Protestant Orthodoxy (1550-1650)
8
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

9
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

10
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. . . .

11
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

12
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

13
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

14
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."

15
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."

16
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."

17
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

18
1.3 Emancipation from Dogmatics (1650-1800)
19
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

20
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

21
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

22
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 (1635-1705), 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."

23
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

24
Enlightenment

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

25
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

26
1.3.2.2 Enlightenment

• "In the age of Enlightenment (Aufklärung) 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

27
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

28
1.3.2.2 Enlightenment

• Omnicompetence of Criticism
• Utilitarianism
• Pervasive Moralism

29
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

30
1.3.3 Scholars

• Gotthilf Traugott Zachariä (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
  Biblical-exegetical 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

31
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"

32
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.

33
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

34
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

35
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, 1930-1990

36
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."

37
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

38
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."

39
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."

40
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

41
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 Twentieth-Century 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.

42
1.4 Influence of Rationalism (1750-1875)
43
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 18th-century 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

44
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
  19th-century 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

45
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

46
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

47
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."

48
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"

49
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.

50
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.

51
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.

52
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

53
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-of-religion approach concerning the
  independent totality of the OT. Three years
  after the publication of Vatkes

54
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

55
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

56
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

57
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

58
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."

59
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 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

60
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 (1852-56 136,
  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.

61
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

62
1.5 OT Theology Eclipsed by the History of
Israelite Religion (1875-1930)
63
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.

64
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

65
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."

66
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

67
1.6 Rebirth of OT Theology (1930-1960)
68
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

69
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

70
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

71
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

72
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-

73
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
  theology-thus, it must be considered a legitimate
  part of historical scholarship." Ollenburger

74
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

75
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

76
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 1961-67). 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. Lemke

77
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
  self-consciously from the systematic rubrics of
  dogmatic theology on the one hand, and the
  genetic approach of a radical historicism on the
  other.

78
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."

79
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-à-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.

80
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

81
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,

82
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.

83
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).