Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: IVP Academic
- Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
- Sprache: Englisch
The discipline of Old Testament theology continues to be in flux as diverse approaches vie for dominance. Paul House serves as our guide—without being partisan or uninformed—exploring each Old Testament book, summarizing its content and showing its theological significance within the whole of the Old Testament canon. Readers with little prior background will find House's thematic surveys particularly helpful for coming to grips with basic biblical content as well as for probing the theological nuances of individual parts of the canon. The book concludes by forging a set of summary statements concerning God and his character, the people of God, and links between the Old and New Testaments that suggest avenues for the exploration of a full biblical theology.Old Testament Theology offers an overview of the discipline and a fair treatment of differing views while remaining unabashedly evangelical. Readers will welcome the obvious passion of its author for the subject matter. Student friendly and useful to a wide audience, this impressive work has proved a profitable read for many.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 1578
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Ähnliche
OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Contents
Preface
Anyone picking up a volume on Old Testament theology has a right to know what sort of book he or she is holding. Therefore I offer the following explanations, some of which are intended to state what the volume consciously intends to do, while others are given so that the book will not be read with false expectations.
First, this book is written primarily for college and seminary students, though I hope that it will be of use to scholars and teachers of Old Testament theology. Given this audience, I have tried to produce an analytical study of the Old Testament and the theology that can be derived from its pages. Thus there is more description, even summary, of texts than would be the case if I could have assumed that the audience had been the academic guild. After years of teaching undergraduates and seminarians I have learned that one cannot take for granted a shared knowledge of the Bible’s contents. The good news is that I have learned that both types of students are eager, intelligent learners. They simply need the chance to absorb the biblical text and its theological emphases. I have also spent a good bit of time with the text because I think theology should come from the Bible itself, not from the system I bring to the Scriptures.
Second, research for this volume, with a few exceptions, stops at the end of 1993. Scholarship in any biblical field continues unabated while one is writing and then editing for final publication a manuscript. Therefore I found it necessary to state where the scholarly material for the book ends. Sadly, certain works that would have informed and challenged my own were not available to me until it was too late in the writing process to use them. Several of these volumes are discussed in the appendix.
Third, I have emphasized the importance of historical context for theological analysis. To try to be consistent with this assertion I have included some discussion of authorship, date and setting issues. Of course such matters are usually reserved for Old Testament introduction, but I felt it necessary to suggest historical settings for the biblical books if I was going to argue for the value of historical study for Old Testament theology. Most of this type of material was cut from the final manuscript, but I trust that my views will be clear enough to be serviceable.
Fourth, I have utilized a canonical approach that attempts to demonstrate the Old Testament’s coherence through discussions of intertextual connections. In this way I have tried to keep faith with the theological contribution of each section of the Old Testament, yet without losing a sense of the canon’s wholeness. Some linkages with the New Testament have been made in hopes that future research might show how both parts of the Scriptures cohere.
Fifth, I have sought to incorporate the findings of scholars of various theological persuasions. I am an evangelical Old Testament scholar, but I see value in the works of writers with whom I disagree on a number of issues related to authorship, date and specific details of Old Testament theology. Thus I have utilized a wide variety of scholarly writings. I have attempted to make my own views plain. No doubt at times I have not been as irenic as I ought, yet my respect for those with whom I disagree should not be doubted. I am under no illusion that I am always correct, and I sincerely hope that I have been fair to the authors I have cited.
Sixth, this book has been written with the help of a number of persons. Each one made a significant contribution, and each one deserves more than the thanks I can give for their support.
Most of the manuscript was written while I was teaching at Taylor University in Upland, Indiana. During my ten years in the Department of Biblical Studies, Christian Education and Philosophy I had the privilege of working with as congenial and close-knit group of colleagues as I believe exists in academe. The encouragement of Herb Nygren, Bob Pitts, Win Corduan, Larry Helyer, Gary Newton, Bill Heth, Ted Dorman, Faye Chechowich, Doug Geivett, Ron Collymore, Mike Harbin, Jim Spiegel, Bob Lay and Ed Meadors was as kind as it was constant. Other Taylor friends such as Tom Jones, Carol Mott and Daryl Yost were helpful to me as I worked on the project. I am thankful that Dean Dwight Jessup, Associate Dean Steve Bedi and the Faculty Policies Committee made it possible for me to have a sabbatical and two-month-long study leaves during the research and writing process. Joanne Giger and Kari Manganello typed the long text, and Kari even completed the task after I had left Taylor University. June Corduan edited the footnotes and seemed to enjoy herself while doing so. These friends know that I owe them a debt I cannot pay.
The writing was completed after I moved to the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. I am grateful for the affirmation I have received while teaching classes and seminars on Old Testament theology. Friends such as Ben Mitchell and Greg Thornbury offered specific encouragement. Bev Tillman helped produce the manuscript. Heather Old-field, a great editor, aided in the honing of the final copy, and Kyle McClellan helped proofread the page proofs. Each of these persons made the least exciting part of writing a book much more than bearable. My daughter, Molly, was excited about this project. Scott Hafemann, who is as close as family, was as enthusiastic as I was about the book. You do not make friends like Scott; God sends them to you.
I appreciate all the aid I received from Jim Hoover and the staff of InterVarsity Press. Jim was especially helpful in making the final draft of the book better than its predecessors. He also secured excellent comments from readers that honed weak portions of the text.
Finally, this volume is dedicated to my father, Roy D. House. He taught me to know God, to know what I believe and to stay connected to the Bible. For the past twenty-seven years he has supported my preaching, teaching and writing ministries. With the death of my mother in 1982, no one else survives from my beginnings, so no one person has been more steadfast in his encouragement and counsel.
For these and other kindnesses I am extremely grateful.
1
Old Testament Theology
History & Methodology
WITHOUT QUESTION THE OLD TESTAMENT DESERVES CAREFUL STUDY AND accurate interpretation. After all, this body of sacred Scripture chronicles such diverse and important events as the creation of the world, the origins of Israel, the ongoing relationship between God and Israel and God and the nations, the destruction of world powers and the rise and fall of mighty rulers. It stresses vital themes like the sinfulness of the human race, the certain judgment of that sinfulness, God’s willingness to save and forgive sinners and the ultimate renewal of all God has created. The Old Testament promises that a descendant of David will someday lead Israel and the rest of the nations into an era of salvation, peace and purity. Without forfeiting this sense of hope, the Old Testament refuses to live only in the future. Rather it boldly presents the pain and suffering inherent in human life. Incredibly, the Old Testament teaches that God is able to sustain the weary, heal the hurting, judge the wicked, empower the oppressed and do anything else necessary to be a loving Creator. Thus the Old Testament tells a vital story. It speaks of major issues to real people. It portrays a magnificent and all-sufficient God who constantly surprises his followers with a perfect blend of power and goodness. No wonder these texts have captivated readers through the centuries.
At the same time, any reader of the Old Testament understands there are certain difficulties in approaching this material. First, there are historical barriers. One does not have to be an expert in ancient history to read the Old Testament intelligently, but some historical context is necessary. Such knowledge is particularly important if for no other reason than that the books of the Old Testament are not in chronological order. Unfortunately few readers are knowledgeable in even basic background matters. Second, there are literary barriers as well. Most readers can easily comprehend narrative books like Genesis, Joshua and Esther. Poetic works and prophecies, though, are more difficult to manage. Protoapocalyptic writings like Daniel 7—12 are even harder.
Third, theological barriers exist. How does one reconcile the love of God and the wrath of God? How does God effect salvation in the era before Jesus? How does the Old Testament relate to the New Testament? What does the Old Testament have to say to current readers? Is the Old Testament relevant for worship today? These and other theological questions cause readers to pause, reflect and seek difficult answers. Fourth, the barrier of general unfamiliarity with the Old Testament hampers many readers. If there ever was a time when the Old Testament’s contents and emphases were well known, then that time has passed. Many if not most undergraduate and seminary students have never read the entire Old Testament. Fifth, there are scholarly barriers. Old Testament experts do not agree on how to approach the Old Testament’s history, contents and theology. Again, if such agreement ever existed; it no longer does so. The diversity of opinion can be quite confusing.
Clearly, then, Old Testament students and teachers are left with a dilemma. On the one hand is the opportunity to analyze and enjoy enriching, inspired literature that makes up three-fourths of the Bible. Yet on the other hand lie the problems of understanding, interpreting and unifying the material being studied. Any attempt to discuss Old Testament theology must therefore strive to bridge these gaps while remaining faithful to the Old Testament’s message.
Though it can only partially succeed, this book seeks to face this challenge. It will do so by first sketching the history of the academic discipline known as Old Testament theology. A complete survey of this subject is impossible, since that topic itself can only be treated in book-length form.1 Next, a methodology for analyzing Old Testament theology will be suggested. Then a book-by-book analysis of the Old Testament’s unfolding theology will be offered. The Hebrew order of books will be followed because of that sequence’s clarity and ancient roots. Finally, some suggestions about how the Old and New Testaments are linked will be noted. One of the questions students ask most often is how the Bible holds together, so some response is necessary. Throughout the discussion, a single unifying theme will be used to keep the various topics together, and Israel’s historical context will be duly recognized at strategic points. By the end of this work readers will grasp the basic details of Old Testament theology, will know how those details unfold in Israel’s history and will understand how the details unify the Old Testament and the whole of Scripture. Even partial fulfillment of these goals may prove helpful to many students.
A Survey of the Study of Old Testament Theology
It is quite difficult to choose a starting point for a description of the study of Old Testament theology. One could begin with the Old Testament itself, for there are many places where a text is influenced by a previous passage or refers to what “is written” in another part of Scripture.2 Certainly how the Old Testament’s theology grows and develops within its own pages must be part of a serious analysis of the subject. Still, attempting to chart how ideas originated and grew to maturity has the potential to leave interpreters seeking the history of theological processes rather than the conclusions of theology proper. Such analyses are legitimate forms of scholarship, but pursuing them in detail does not fit this book’s purpose.
One could also start the description with the New Testament’s treatment of the Old Testament. This approach also has validity, because the New Testament writers make extensive use of the Old Testament. After all, it was their Bible! To start here, however, is to run ahead of one’s self. The New Testament authors knew the Hebrew Scriptures thoroughly and expected their readers to possess a similar familiarity. Most current readers need to examine the whole of the Old Testament and digest its theological contents before undertaking a study of the relationship between the testaments. Some knowledge and expertise are needed to proceed further.
Another potential entry point is to examine how the early church fathers, medieval interpreters and leaders of the Reformation viewed Old Testament theology. Brevard Childs’s clear, concise description of these approaches demonstrates the richness and variety that has always attended biblical theology.3 John Calvin and Martin Luther are particularly notable examples of figures from church history who interpret the Old Testament as a theological document closely linked to the New Testament.4 The problem with this approach is that none of these individuals ever produced a single volume specifically devoted to Old Testament theology. Their ideas must be gleaned from literally dozens of sermons, commentaries and other works. Though this is an enriching task, once again an entire work or series of works would be required to complete the assignment.
One other beginning place must be mentioned. Rabbinic scholars have been commenting on the Hebrew Scriptures since the Old Testament was completed. Thus some modern writers argue that the synagogue tradition is the place to start when assessing Old Testament theology.5 This approach is certainly legitimate and enlightening, yet it has the same constraints as trying to gather the various comments from church history. There are precious few concise works in the rabbinic tradition on the theology of the whole of Hebrew Scriptures. Much valuable linguistic, historical and inspirational data can be gained from rabbinic studies. But Judaism and Christianity disagree over the value of a two-Testament Bible and over the nature and work of Jesus Christ. Therefore common concerns of both religions can and should be addressed, yet without glossing over real differences.6 Only those who are open about their disagreements can truly relate their commonalities. Future dialogue between Judaism and Christianity can surely proceed only with complete candor.7 Honesty and kindness should, of course, characterize such discussions.
Thus despite the importance of these four possibilities, another starting place is preferable. Over the past two centuries a number of works that deal specifically with Old Testament theology have been written. These efforts vary in style, substance and length, of course, yet they also share certain characteristics. First, the purpose of the book or books is to discuss Old Testament theology. Before this era the Old Testament’s theological statements were systematized with New Testament statements to describe Christian doctrine. Sometimes the biblical texts were part of an extensive biblical-theological system, such as in Calvin’s Institutes. At other times they were part of a philosophical and biblical system, as in Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae. In Calvin and Aquinas the Old Testament contributes to a larger theological scheme but does not appear as a separate theological voice. The pioneers of Old Testament theology attempted to analyze and explain what the Old Testament itself taught. They then sought to incorporate those teachings into a larger biblical or systematic theology. Scholars who have followed them have continued this pattern.
Second, specifically Old Testament theologians pay close attention to historical data. That is, they strive to determine what each biblical author’s statements meant in their ancient context. They view this commitment as fundamental to accurate application of texts for today, since they believe strongly that “a text cannot mean what it never meant.”8 This emphasis breaks with the allegorical method of interpretation, whose best-known practitioner was St. Augustine. Of course, Old Testament experts hardly agree on the background of every biblical book, paragraph or sentence. Indeed Old Testament theologians have been participants in these disputes. At times they have proposed such radical historical reconstructions that a passage’s statements have largely been lost.9 Still, the effort to establish historical context must continue. Authors of Scripture wrote in concrete historical settings to real people. The ongoing value of the Bible stems in part from its ability to continue to speak to real people in the midst of everyday life.
Third, though there are notable exceptions to this generalization,10 most Old Testament theologians seek to relate the Old Testament’s message to the church. Some do so by showing how the Old Testament leads naturally into the New Testament. Others state where the Old Testament no longer applies in Christian doctrine but maintain as valuable for the church as much of the Hebrew Scriptures as possible. Still others treat the Old Testament as a document that describes part of the history of Israel’s religion. These writers tend to exclude elements of the Old Testament such as animal sacrifice and holy war from any segment of Christian doctrine, yet they assert that universal truths such as the Ten Commandments are still valid for the Christian faith. Regardless of their approach, these authors believe that the Old Testament has always been the church’s Scripture and must therefore be incorporated into the church’s doctrine and practice. How to do so is the challenge they face.
As has already been indicated, even these basic agreements cannot hide the differences that divide Old Testament theologians. They agree that the Old Testament deserves to be heard as an individual theological voice, yet they do not listen the same way, for the formats of their works are not all alike. They do not hear the same voice, and their conclusions differ. Though they think historical analysis is vital to their task they cannot always agree on a text’s actual historical background or what that background tells them. Despite their belief that the Old Testament belongs in the Christian Bible they are not unanimous on what the Old Testament teaches the church.
Simply put, the history of this discipline is rather untidy. It does not reflect perfect agreement or unfailingly harmonious Christian unity. In other words, it is a bit like worldwide Christianity itself: imperfect, struggling, yet moving toward a worthy goal. The brief history sketched below will demonstrate the discipline’s agreement, disagreement and potential. Four periods are highlighted, each of which moves Old Testament theology studies onto new and challenging ground. Not every stage improves the discipline, but each one shapes it.
Beginnings: From Gabler to Wellhausen (1787-1878)
The beginnings of the discipline of biblical theology are commonly traced to March 30, 1787, when Johann P. Gabler delivered an address entitled “An Oration on the Proper Distinction Between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each” at the University of Altdorf, Germany. Before this time biblical theology had been subsumed under systematic theology (dogmatics). Gabler declared that biblical theology differs from dogmatics in origin and purpose. He writes that
there is truly a biblical theology, of historical origins, conveying what the holy writers felt about divine matters; on the other hand there is a dogmatic theology of didactic origin, teaching what each theologian philosophizes rationally about divine things, according to the measure of his ability or of the times, age, place, sect, school, and other similar factors.11
According to Gabler, the origin of biblical theology lies in the Bible itself, while dogmatic theology stems from individual theologians with prior philosophical and ecclesiological commitments. Biblical theology’s purpose is to set forth what the biblical writers actually believed. Dogmatic theology’s goal is to perpetuate a preestablished point of view. As a rationalist, Gabler particularly wanted to eliminate all precommitted approaches to theology.12
Gabler suggested 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.”13 Second, having gathered this historical material theologians must undertake “a careful and sober comparison of the various parts attributed to each testament.”14 Biblical authors’ ideas should be compared until “it is clearly revealed wherein the separate authors agree in a friendly fashion, or differ among themselves.”15 Third, the agreements and disagreements must be duly noted and analyzed in order to determine what “universal notions” emerge.16 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.17 He simply distinguished between that which applied to the authors’ times alone and that which has more long-term value.18
Underlying Gabler’s approach was a rationalistic view of the inspiration and reliability of Scripture. For him, only eliminating the temporary, human, nonuniversal elements of Scripture’s teachings can produce ideas that are truly inspired and valuable for church dogmatics. Even an appeal to passages on the Bible’s inspiration does not help determine the extent of the Bible’s inspiration, since “these individual passages are very obscure and ambiguous.”19 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.”20 Only through careful exegesis and adherence to what Christ has spoken on inspiration can it finally be determined “whether all the opinions of the Apostles, of every type and sort together, are truly divine, or rather whether some of them, which have no bearing on salvation, were left to their own ingenuity.”21 Only then can the Bible’s pure doctrinal essence emerge ready for dogmatic collation.
Obviously Gabler’s methodology has strengths and weaknesses. Its chief strength is the insistence on the value of biblical theology. Surely systematic theology benefits from careful, accurate analysis of what Scripture itself says. Church doctrine can become infinitely sterile if it decides what the text must say before it says it. Another strength is the call to historical analysis. Scripture speaks to all eras because it first spoke to a specific era. It embeds itself in human experience by having a concrete point of entry. Allegory agrees with the first part of that statement yet errs because it forgets the second part. History does matter in interpretation.
Gabler’s scheme also has serious flaws. First, his insistence on rationalism and its refusal to discuss what lies beyond the human senses eliminates much of Scripture from serious theological consideration. None of the Bible’s miracles, very little of authorial inspiration and only a limited number of the apostles’ statements remain. One wonders how Gabler can speak of a Savior or of salvation22 and stand by his convictions. After all, salvation hardly seems a sense-oriented category. Clearly Gabler had his own governing ideology, just as those he criticized did. Second, despite his program for incorporating biblical and systematic theology, Gabler’s theories open the door for a negative separation of Old and New Testament theology. So little of the Old Testament would presumably have non-time-bound principles that it would be rendered fairly insignificant for biblical theology. This fact leads to the conclusion that Old Testament theology may be worthy of historical study but that it is not overwhelmingly pertinent to the church. As will be discussed later, many scholars adopted this approach after Gabler’s time. Third, a cleavage is created between the academic study of theology and the church’s teaching of doctrine. The idea emerges that “truth” is learned in the library and expounded in the lecture hall but the church teaches its same biases from one generation to the next. This division between church and academy exists in too many instances.
This analysis of Gabler’s oration is longer than the treatment given most other authors because of its seminal nature and long-term impact. Without question Gabler helped chart the course for a new discipline. Also without question this course led in positive and negative directions that are still apparent in Old Testament studies.
Many of the strengths and weaknesses of Gabler’s proposals appear in the first work devoted to Old Testament theology, which was published by Georg Lorenz Bauer in 1796. As the first to separate Old and New Testament theology, Bauer agreed with Gabler’s conviction that biblical theology should precede and inform systematic theology. He also sought to apply a historical methodology in his research and attempted to discover the universal ideas found in the Old Testament, which the volume’s very subtitle (A Biblical Sketch of the Religious Opinions of the Ancient Hebrews) indicates.23
Bauer’s work is also unstintingly rationalistic. R. C. Dentan notes that to Bauer
any idea of supernatural revelations of God through theophanies, miracles, or prophecies is to be rejected, since such things are contrary to sound reason and can easily be paralleled amongst other peoples. Thus Bauer regarded Moses as a brave, intelligent man, well instructed in the wisdom of Egypt, whose high purposes were strengthened when he saw a bush which had been kindled by lightning in a thunderstorm.24
He interprets the Old Testament miracles as myths and indeed authors another volume that discusses both Old and New Testament “myths.”25 This antisupernaturalist commitment affects Bauer’s view of history. For Bauer, history is that which conforms to historical methods in use at the end of the eighteenth century.
Since he was the first author of a distinctly Old Testament theology, it is interesting to note Bauer’s format for presenting his work. Though he determines to break away from dogmatics he still chooses to divide his work into the three traditionally dogmatic categories: theology, anthropology and christology.26 Perhaps he hoped to be able to influence dogmatic theology more readily by adopting common categories. Whatever his reasons, Bauer’s mode of presentation introduces an ongoing dilemma for Old Testament theologians: How does one incorporate all the biblical data into workable categories that fit the author’s purpose in writing? In Bauer’s case these categories are appropriate, because he wants to collect universal ideas that apply to Christians regardless of when they live.
Given the long-term impact of Gabler’s and Bauer’s ideas and the fact that the discipline takes a different turn after 1800, it may be helpful to summarize their contribution to Old Testament theology.
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.
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.”27 This approach questions the general value of the Old Testament and leaves it with little to say that the New Testament does not repeat.
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. These are certainly topics of concern for any theologian, but they fit the whole of the Old Testament only imperfectly, as Bauer himself no doubt knew.
Even though these notions are two centuries old, they continue to be debated to this day.
Following Gabler’s and Bauer’s seminal efforts, Old Testament theologians began to respond to their findings. In his Die biblische Theologie, published in 1813, G. P. C. Kaiser pushed Gabler’s and Bauer’s rationalistic theories still further. Given its similarities with other ancient religions and its tendencies towards mythical writing, Kaiser argued, Old Testament religion is really just one religion among many. As Dentan concludes,
With all their rationalism, previous writers had at least paid lip service to the doctrine of the finality of the Christian religion. With Kaiser the pretense disappears. For him, the idea of particular revelation seemed irrational and impious. The Bible was chiefly of interest as giving concrete instances of the application of universal laws.28
Given his position on the relative value of the Old Testament, it is understandable that Kaiser became the first scholar to view the study of Old Testament theology as essentially a history of religion rather than a history of God’s revelation. This emphasis on Old Testament theology as a strictly historical exploration was to become the dominant methodology in biblical studies later in the century.
Wilhelm M. L. de Wette attempted to chart a path between traditional orthodoxy and committed rationalism in his Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmatik (1813; third edition 1831). Though he shared the rationalists’ conclusion about the Bible’s 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.29 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. Obviously readers who take the miracle stories literally also miss the point, since they, too, focus on the reliability of the account rather than the account’s deeper expression of religious feeling.
Clearly de Wette takes a strongly philosophical approach to theology. Tutored by his friend J. F. Fries, who was strongly influenced by Immanuel Kant,30 de Wette believed that God inspires human reason and religious feeling. It is this divine inspiration that balances reason and feeling and gives both meaning.31 By making this assertion de Wette attempts to avoid Kant’s separation of the two impulses. He also tries to give meaning to historical analysis. Historical research does not exist solely for its own sake but rather to help reproduce the feelings and ideas of Old Testament faith.32 When it reveals these feelings and ideas it serves the church, which needs to feel and think in a similar manner.
De Wette’s approach provided a bridge between the past and immediate future of Old Testament theology. Like his predecessors, he employed a historical methodology based on rationalistic principles. These principles helped him decide what is myth and what is history. He also searched for the universal in the Old Testament, which he thought begins with the notion of a holy God who rules the earth.33 Further, he believed parts of the Old Testament are simply human notions not inspired by God’s holy will.34 Such impure ideas must be separated from those of universal value. Thus he shares the strengths and weaknesses of Gabler and Bauer.
However, de Wette leads the way for future researchers. His emphasis on myth as meaningful religious writing instead of useless fabrication inspired similar analyses. His concept of inspiration as a middle ground between reason and feeling gave many scholars who accepted rationalistic views of history a way to maintain contact with biblical piety. Finally, de Wette’s emphasis on the development within Old Testament religion encouraged movement toward studies of the text as a history of religion, though de Wette himself had no such inclination.
Wilhelm Vatke’s Biblische Theologie, wissenschaftlich dargestellt, Die Religion des Alten Testaments (1835) also nudged Old Testament theology away from pure rationalism through philosophical means. This time it was Vatke’s teacher and colleague Georg W. Hegel, not Kant, who provided the stimulus.35 Vatke agreed with Hegel’s belief that history is a series of developments from lower to higher stages of thought and action. These stages occur when an action or thought (thesis) produces a reaction (antithesis), which afterward finds a higher stage of thought or action (synthesis). History’s continual creation of syntheses creates progress in whatever area of life that produces them. Hegel’s theory applied to Old Testament theology means that Old Testament religion grew progressively more complex as it evolved. This complexity may be good or bad, depending on one’s viewpoint. Since Hegel found meaning in these historical collisions, Vatke rejected the rationalist’s division between the purely historical and the Old Testament’s universally valid principles.36 Rather the two work together to advance Old Testament religion.
Despite this affirmation of history, however, Vatke made some harsh observations about the Old Testament’s historical statements. He asserted that the first four books of the Pentateuch were not products of Moses’ time but were rather documents produced by a nation whose religion had evolved to a quite involved stage.37 Further, Deuteronomy was written during Josiah’s reformation of about 622-621 B.C., not by Moses, a position already forwarded by de Wette.38 Finally, the prophets must therefore be seen as the founders of specifically monotheistic Israelite religion.39 As R. K. Harrison notes, according to Vatke, over the centuries “the religion of the Hebrews evolved from comparatively primitive and unhistorical beginnings into the monotheistic faith that characterized the religion of Judaism.”40 In Israel’s history, then, the final synthesis was the sort of religion found in Ezra’s time (c. 450-425 B.C.) and beyond. Virtually all historical references that predate the prophets are later writings that project then-current ideas into the past.
Vatke’s opinions took historical methodology in Old Testament theology to a new stage. Rationalists had simply declared certain parts of the Old Testament unhistorical. De Wette argued that even if these accounts are unhistorical they still express religious feeling through myth, which was a common ancient form of writing. Vatke believed that many accounts were simply not from the time period or authors stated in the text and that the events Scripture depicts did not occur as the Bible portrays them. Because he was committed to a specific interpretation of Hegel’s theory of history, Vatke found it impossible to accept that Israelite religion began with a monotheistic Mosaic covenant. It must have developed from nature religion to monotheism in an evolutionary manner. Once Old Testament history was reconfigured according to these principles, theologians could then interpret the Old Testament’s theology against this “correct” historical background. Very few readers utilized Vatke’s viewpoints until years after Biblische Theologie was published. One who did, however, was Julius Wellhausen, and that one disciple made Vatke’s ideas more prominent than Vatke ever did himself.
By the time Vatke’s work was published and read, a perceptible dogmaticism had settled into the liberal ranks of Old Testament theology. First, the Old Testament’s 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 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.
Conservative responses to the liberal tendencies in the new discipline started in 1829, when E. W. Hengstenberg began to publish his Christologie des Alten Testaments, which was completed in 1835 as a four-volume work.41 Before this time conservatives resisted Old Testament theology, most likely because of its adherents’ opposition to traditional views of the Bible’s unity and historicity. They also rejected any differences between biblical and systematic theology.
In time conservatives decided that Old Testament theology offered them a means of expounding sound doctrine, disputing views with which they disagreed and explaining ancient truth effectively to contemporary audiences.42
Hengstenberg’s christological studies were not a complete Old Testament theology. Nonetheless, in this work he struck at some of the cardinal opinions of his colleague Vatke and other nontraditional scholars. In the first place, by choosing to expound the Old Testament’s messianic prophecies he disagreed with the notion that the Old Testament’s potential contribution to dogmatic theology was limited in any significant way. Further, if the messianic prophecies are so prevalent and such a part of the Old Testament’s overall structure and method, then the Hebrew Scriptures are distinctly valuable in biblical theology. Too, if the Old and New Testaments both give extensive witness to Jesus Christ, then surely there are grounds for claiming that there is great unity in Scripture.
Second, in his subsequent History of the Kingdom of God in the Old Testament (ET 1871) Hengstenberg critiqued the historical conclusions reached by liberal historians. His chief means of attack was to defend Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.43 He correctly sensed that this topic would be a determining factor in the success or failure of either his views or his opponents’. If Mosaic authorship could be sustained, then Vatke’s historical reconstruction and the theology built upon it could not be accepted.
Hengstenberg’s conclusions have more than apologetic implications. His insistence on the importance of the Old Testament’s messianic prophecies sets up a close relationship between the Testaments based on the Old Testament’s promises and their fulfillment in the New Testament. His adherence to Mosaic authorship maintains a traditional attitude toward the historical claims of Scripture and of biblical inspiration and divine revelation. Emphasizing the accuracy of the Old Testament’s historical descriptions allows his promise-fulfillment scheme to unfold gradually over time, yet in a linear, not evolutionary, manner. Because of his role as first respondent to the new ideas in theological studies, Hengstenberg has influenced heavily the course of conservative Old Testament scholarship.44
Despite his defense of traditional attitudes toward the Old Testament’s historicity, Hengstenberg did not explain clearly the relationship between historical analysis and theological reflection. This task was assumed by a group of scholars who stressed salvation history as a way to connect these two vital aspects of Old Testament theology. In a posthumous volume published in 1848,45 H. A. C. Havernick, a student of Hengstenberg, insisted that the ideas of Scripture could not be separated from the history in which they were born and declared. He also claimed that history slowly unfolded until it reached its ultimate climax in Jesus Christ.46 Thus history serves as God’s vehicle for salvation through the centuries.
Havernick’s vision of history and salvation was shared by J. C. K. von Hofmann. In his Weissagung und Erfüllung (1841-1844),47 where the phrase “salvation history” first appeared,48 Hofmann stated that the Old Testament records God’s efforts to redeem the human race. Within the text are stages of this process. Each succeeding stage describes God’s redemptive methods in that era. Finally, God’s people find salvation in Jesus Christ, God’s perfect means of redemption. Clearly, then, history and theology are not the same thing, but they are inseparable in the sense that one cannot exist without the other.
The most famous and popular proponent of salvation history in this era was Gustav Oehler, whose Prolegomena zur Theologie des Alten Testaments (1845) and Theologie des Alten Testaments (1873-1874) were highly influential. Like Havernick and Hofmann, Oehler believed that history and theology must remain carefully linked. In fact, he defines Old Testament theology in the following manner:
As a historical science, it rests on the results of grammatico-historical exegesis, the business of which is to reproduce the contents of the biblical books according to the rules of the language, with due regard to the historical circumstances under which the books originated, and the individual circumstances of the sacred authors.49
Besides carefully determining a text’s historical-grammatical background, interpreters must also chart the “process of development” in Old Testament faith. How does one discover this process? Oehler says,
Since every such process can be comprehended only from its climax, biblical theology will have to understand the Old Testament in the light of the completed revelation of God in Christ for which it formed the preparation—will have to show how God’s saving purpose, fulfilled in Christ, moved through the preliminary stages of this history of revelation.50
When these two emphases are combined, exactly how and under what circumstances the Old Testament writers produced their messages will become clear, as will the overall progress of the history of salvation. Again history operates as a vehicle of salvation. Salvation unfolds in history. Scripture is God’s revelation of how this process manifests itself in the lives of God’s people.
Oehler used an interesting format to discuss his views. He presents the biblical material in the Hebrew Bible’s three-part scheme of Law, Prophets and Writings, though he called this third section Wisdom.51 In each of the first two sections he offers a historical summary of Mosaism and prophetism and then follows that analysis with systematic comments. His historical findings are conservative, in contrast to those of de Wette and Vatke. The third section has only systematic conclusions. This manner of presentation allows Oehler to demonstrate how the biblical books follow a sequential historical and thematic path. It also gives Oehler the opportunity to show how historical interpretation of Scripture can lead to doctrinal statements. The major problem with this format is that the Writings are not fully incorporated into the salvation-history scheme.
These early conservative Old Testament theologians shared specific strengths and weaknesses. The first strength is their commitment to the inspiration of Scripture. To them, the Bible is God’s Word in its entirety. Not all of them believed the Scriptures inerrant, but each rejected the rationalists’ claims that the Bible is basically a human composition with few truly divine elements. A second strength is their insistence on the Old Testament’s historical accuracy. Part of this emphasis grows out of their position on inspiration, just as the opinions of Gabler, Bauer, de Wette and others grow out of their ideas on the matter. Still, they present serious historical and literary evidence that defends the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and the historical statements in the Old Testament.
A third strength is their belief in the possibility of miracles and supernatural occurrences on earth. This issue is often the dividing point between the liberal and conservative camps. Once scholars conclude that miracles may occur within human history, many of their views on other details of biblical history take their course. The fourth strength is their attempt to link history and theology. By struggling with how theology becomes real in human life they broke away from cold, sterile, unnecessarily transcendent views of how Scripture relates to people. Emphasizing salvation history also helped them relate the Old Testament to the New Testament, thus offering some possibilities for understanding biblical unity. Two testaments still exist, yet not as strangers.
Certain weaknesses also emerge in their writings. First, they overemphasize their views of Hegelian thought as much as their rivals. They correctly see value in how history occurs over time, but they stress historical development to the point of leaving the Old Testament with few distinctly important ideas of its own. The Old Testament’s promises of a coming messiah are of great importance. But what of the Old Testament’s unique contributions to issues not specifically connected to redemption? For instance, what about the Hebrew Scriptures’ teachings on holy living, wisdom or social justice? These are vital matters the New Testament does not cover as extensively as does the Old Testament.
Second, they do not always present their material in an accessible fashion. They do write a great deal about methodology, especially a methodology of uniting historical research and theological reflection. Still, they are unable to find a way to explain the whole range of theological ideas in the Old Testament. Oehler’s Theologie des Alten Testaments comes closest to what is needed, but the following of the Hebrew order of books and historical exposition breaks down in the section on Wisdom. This format may also try to do too much. In a way this weakness of format could be claimed against every Old Testament theology, given the vastness of the task, but it is still important to find effective ways to put methodology into readable form.
By the time Oehler’s work became the first work of Old Testament theology to be translated into English (1875), a stalemate obviously existed. Liberal and conservative scholars agreed that there should be a strong historical component in Old Testament theology. Given their differing views on inspiration, the supernatural and historical theory, though, they seldom concurred on historical details. They agreed that biblical theology should inform systematic theology, but one side sought universal truths, common religious feelings and how the Old Testament served as a stage on the way to the New Testament, while the other made fewer distinctions between the Testaments and focused on salvation history. One group shied away from church authority and leaned toward academic historicism, while the other made close links with the church and struggled to use an appropriate philosophy of history. This stalemate was soon broken in a way that neither side would probably have suspected.
The Dominance of Historicism: 1878-1920
It is rare indeed for a single volume to change and set the course of all studies related to Scripture. In fact, such a feat may no longer be possible. It is not an exaggeration to say, however, that Julius Wellhausen’s Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (1878; ET 1885) did just that.52 No segment of biblical studies, not even those related to the New Testament, was unaffected by its influence. In many ways this volume dictates a large portion of the agenda in Old Testament research to this day.
Wellhausen’s genius lay in his ability to synthesize the findings of earlier scholars into a readable and unified whole. Dentan describes Wellhausen’s style as “lucid, persuasive, and gently humorous,”53 rare qualities in academic writing. Wellhausen accepted de Wette’s conclusion that Deuteronomy was written in the seventh century B.C. instead of by Moses. He agreed with Vatke’s assertion that Israel’s religion evolved over time, which meant to him that complex priestly material like that found in Leviticus was written at the end of Israel’s 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 Vatke’s views about Hegelian historical theories and de Wette’s 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 Israel’s religion in nature cults.
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, 1-2 Kings, Jeremiah), to the detailed, priest-guided religion like that found in Ezra, Leviticus, Ezekiel and 1-2 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.
Simply put, Wellhausen’s views swept the theological field. By the end of the century his ideas were opposed by only a handful of scholars in Germany. After the publication of Prolegomena in English (1885) Wellhausen’s theories quickly came to dominate Old Testament studies in England. Even in the United States, which accepted European theology more slowly, Wellhausen made a large impact by 1900. As early as 1879 C. H. Toy was dismissed from his teaching position at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, for espousing views similar to Wellhausen’s.54
What this development meant for Old Testament theology was that a strictly historical approach to the subject dominated the scene. With sequential coherence gone in the Old Testament text itself, scholars began to reconstruct “coherent” histories of Israelite religion of their own. The Old Testament’s ideas were used to get at the “real” events and progressions of the history of an ancient religion. Concerning this era Walther Eichrodt writes that
there was no longer any unity to be found in the OT, only a collection of detached periods which were simply the reflections of as many different religions. In such circumstances it was only a logical development that the designation “OT Theology,” which had formerly had quite a different connotation, should frequently be abandoned and the title “the History of Israelite Religion” substituted for it. Even where scholars still clung to the old name, they were neither desirous nor capable of offering anything more than an exposition of the historical process.55
Neither the old liberal nor the old conservative camp triumphed. The historical studies both groups emphasized overran the various Old Testament theological principles they deemed valuable. Little if any of the unity of the Testaments remained—not the universal ideas of the rationalists, not the salvation history of the conservatives. Even de Wette and Vatke, whose historical ideas Wellhausen used extensively, could hardly have been pleased at the fate of their theological reflections.
As Eichrodt suggests, several books that were actually studies of the history of Israel’s religion appeared under the title “Old Testament theology” during this era. Though A. B. Davidson’s The Theology of the Old Testament (1904)56 is an exception, Bernhard Stade’s Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments (1905)57 and E. Kautzsch’s Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments (1911),58 to name a few, are examples of such works. Despite retaining this title, however, they actually had more in common with those who chose to use “history of religion” in their titles than with the founders and early developers of Old Testament theology.
Despite the clear dominance of historicism, some writers attempted to continue the tradition of theological reflection grounded in historical analysis. W. L. Alexander did so without grappling with Wellhausen and his followers’ ideas.59 Hermann Schultz and August Dillmann, however, dialogued with the prevailing theories. Schultz’s Alttestamentliche Theologie went through five editions between 1869 and 1896, which means the author worked before and during the period of historicism’s dominance. Though he adopted many of Wellhausen’s conclusions about the composition of the Old Testament, Schultz maintained contact with older traditions. He asserts that the Old Testament is the result of God’s revelation and claims that the one who studies it must be “able to bring himself into a living sympathy with the spirit of that religion.”60
Further, he believed that there is unity between the Old and New Testament and traced this coherence by focusing on the single theme of “the kingdom of God on earth.”61 He argues that “no one can expound New Testament theology without a thorough knowledge of Old Testament theology. But it is no less true that one who does not thoroughly understand New Testament theology cannot have anything but a one-sided view of Old Testament theology.”62 The results of these biblical studies are the data that should inform an accurate biblical theology.63
To demonstrate the validity of this claim, Schultz divides his work into two parts that describe the evolution of Israel’s religious worldview and a concluding section that deals with systematic topics such as God and the world, the human race and sin.64 His emphasis on a single theme that unifies Israel’s history and theology parallels the earlier conservatives’ stressing salvation history as a unifying factor in Scripture. It also set a precedent for the future. Just as many historicists followed Kaiser’s suggestions about Old Testament theology from a history of religions viewpoint, later Old Testament theologians chose to adopt a single-theme approach to unifying the Hebrew Scripture.
Dillmann agreed with Schultz’s conclusions about the revelational nature of the Old Testament, the need for theologians to have a sympathetic approach to their task and the value of Old Testament theology for forming systematic theology.65 He disagreed, though, with Schultz’s acceptance of Wellhausen’s theories of the evolution of Israel’s religion. Dillmann did not believe that the Israelites developed involved religious practices and writings about these practices at the end of Old Testament times. Such views did not, in his opinion, match what occurred in the religions of Israel’s neighbors, who shared Israel’s general cultural environment.66 If Dillmann’s conclusions about the Pentateuchal materials are correct, then most of Wellhausen’s reconstruction of Israel’s history dissolves, and with it many of the theological theories carefully constructed on it fall as well. A few conservative biblical scholars attempted to prove the fallacies of Wellhausen’s hypotheses, most notably J. Orr,67 and German scholars began to alter his findings.68 Still, variations of Wellhausen’s ideas were forwarded, not repudiations of it, and arguments such as Dillmann’s were not accepted by many academicians.
The Reemergence of Old Testament Theology: 1920-1960
By 1920 the atmosphere was much more congenial to Old Testament theology. A number of factors contributed to this reversal. World War I demonstrated the moral depths to which human beings can sink. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers died, and virtually no nation on earth was unaffected by the carnage created by new weapons of destruction and governments that ordered their use. Many individuals realized that it was not enough to study Scripture historically, for the world cried out for meaning that created obedience to a Governor holier than any earthly governor. Pastors wrestled with how to make ancient texts relevant to congregations suffering in the modern world.
The most famous pastor to struggle with these issues was Karl Barth, a Swiss minister serving in Safenwil. Barth was convinced that theology must once again stress God’s revelation in Scripture and turn away from focusing on historicism and notions such as the inevitable progress of the human race. His commentary on Romans, first published in 1919 and subsequently thoroughly revised, helped turn the theological world back to Scripture and the church.69 To write the sort of theology he envisioned, Barth looked not to authors from the previous several decades for models but to Calvin, Luther and Søren Kierkegaard. He also applied his own approach to Hegel’s historical and philosophical theories, focusing on a dialectical approach to theology in his monumental Church Dogmatics.70 Barth did not return to Calvin’s and Luther’s views on Pentateuchal authorship, nor did he champion other conservative viewpoints. But he did help move all theological studies back toward Scripture, which was no small achievement in his era.
Besides these cultural and ecclesiastical influences, Dentan notes two other major factors that also led Old Testament theology to regained prominence. First was the general loss of faith in evolutionary naturalism, which resulted in a steadily increasing dissatisfaction with the religions-geschichtlich attempt to explain Israel’s religion as but one example of a universal law by which humans inevitably progress from animism to ethical monotheism. Second, there was a reaction against the mid-nineteenth-century conviction that historical truth can be attained by pure scientific objectivity or indeed that such objectivity is itself attainable. Stated in positive terms, there was a growing feeling that the inner truth of history, in contrast to mere external facts, is accessible only to those who in some way “feel themselves into” the situation that they are attempting to describe so that they in some sense become participants, not mere observers.71
In other words, the claims of the earlier conservatives and Dillmann that the evolutionary scheme was flawed became more widespread, though these individuals did not necessarily impact this change at this particular point in time. Too, de Wette’s ideas about the truth behind not-necessarily-histori-cally-accurate events gained acceptance. No concerted effort was made to return to prerationalist views of history, then, but the biblical texts were no longer deemed “false” just because they were “not accurate.”
The first Old Testament theology written in this period reflects the struggle to modify existing notions of history and thus balance history and theology. Like several of its predecessors, Eduard König’s Theologie des Alten Testaments (1922) endeavored to show how historical analysis informs theological reflection.72 Despite having distinct reservations about this volume, Eichrodt notes that König’s effort, coming when it did, “was a real act of courage which deserves to be recorded.”73 König’s insistence on the revelatory nature of Scripture and value of Old Testament theology for dogmatic theology was not new. It had just been some time since these ideas had been given a fair hearing.
Though König’s work opened the door for a renewed theological emphasis in Old Testament theology, the history-versus-theology debate continued for some time. Otto Eissfeldt argued in 1926 that historical and theological analyses of Scripture must be kept separate. After all, he says, “the historical or the scientific study of religion, requires that the religion of the Old Testament be investigated by the same means with which historical scholarship otherwise works,” while the theological “discloses itself only to faith, and that is something different from empathetic reliving; it consists, namely, in being overwhelmed and humbled in inner obedience to that which has taken hold of oneself.”74
Eichrodt disagreed with Eissfeldt’s clean break between history and theology in an article that appeared in 1929. He admitted that historical analysis cannot “command assent” to the Bible claims.75 But he also forcefully states that
it is an impermissible restriction of the concept “historical” to relate it, as if self-evidently, only to observation of the growth process, to the genetic method; rather, “historical” may be understood as the opposite of anything normative. Thus, the systematic consideration is to be comprehended completely within the historical.76
So, to be truly historical, interpreters must be willing to describe theological claims made within history and their initial backgrounds. Further, Eichrodt denies that theological studies are less objective than historical analyses. Even in historical research there is subjectivity in the selection of the object of study, the historian’s principles for choosing what data to include and the work’s purposes and guiding conceptions.77 It is untenable, then, to separate history and theology on qualitative grounds. Neither is inherently objective or subjective. Only historians and theologians make them so. Finally, given these theoretical observations, Eichrodt called for cooperation between historians and theologians. He asks that history help “lay a cross section through the developed whole in order to demonstrate the inner structure of a religion in the mutual relation of its various contents.”78 This “inner structure” will then aid in uniting the Old Testament’s various theological contents. Even if history makes this data available, history cannot make the data normative, for each person must make that theological decision themselves.79
