History of biblical theologyBiblical theology

Christ. Though the victory has been decisivelyachieved, its final celebration and realizationawaits the day of the Lord which is yet tocome.

The Bible is about "glory, radiant and inef-fable, lost and regained. God's gloriouspresence, whether for salvation or destruc-tion, is prominent in the key moments andcentral institutions of Israel's history and isdecisively revealed in Jesus Christ. Throughtheir sinful rebellion, human beings have for-feited the privilege, as image-bearers of God,of reflecting his glory. Yet through Christ be-lievers are restored to glory.

The Bible is about "clothes, used not onlyto denote community identity, signal socialstatus and enact legal agreements, but alsoand more significantly to illustrate God's re-demptive activity. From the first act of mercyextended to fallen humanity, the covering ofAdam and Eve with clothes, to the end of theage, when the community of the redeemedwill be clothed with an imperishable, immor-tal, heavenly dwelling, the exchange andprovision of garments portray God's graciousand redemptive provision.

The Bible is about "cities, in particularJerusalem and Babylon and their fates andassociations. Jerusalem as the religious centreof the holy land, both originally and in itsfinal restoration, represents the people ofGod. The word of God issues forth from Jeru-salem, peoples gather in Jerusalem to honourGod, and the messianic king will appear therevictoriously. Conversely, Babylon serves as asymbol of wickedness. Babylon is the proudand wicked city that will be left uninhabitedand in ruins, whose name will he cut off forall time. Christians are citizens of the Jeru-salem above. The clash between the city ofGod and the city of Satan will come to a headin the eschaton, with the fall of Babylon andthe arrival of the new Jerusalem.

Thus biblical theology explores the Bible'srich and many-sided presentation of its uni-fied message. It is committed to declaring 'thewhole counsel of God ... [in order] to feed thechurch of God' (Acts 20:27-28).

A Christ-centred structure

Finally, biblical theology maintains a con-scious focus on Jesus Christ, not in some na-ive and implausible sense, where Christ isfound in the most unlikely places, but in not-ing God's faithfulness, wisdom and purpose

10

in the progress of salvation history. It readsnot only the NT, but also the OT, as a bookabout Jesus. Even if in the OT religion wasfocused on present relationship with God,based on his dealings with and for his peoplein the past, there is a firm and growing beliefin the future coming of God on the day of theLord for judgment and salvation. Christiansbelieve that this hope culminates in Jesus andread the OT as a book which prepares forand prophesies his coming and the people ofGod he would renew and call into existence.The books of the NT connect Jesus with theOT in a variety of ways, seeing Jesus as thefulfilment of prophecy, the ideal to whichindividuals and institutions aspired, or theclimax of God's dealings revealed in varioustypes.

Virtually every theme in biblical theology,as may be seen from the examples noted inthe previous two sections, leads to Christ asthe final and definitive instalment. Not onlydo we see Christ and his work in a differentlight by considering themes such as victory,peace and glory; the momentous nature of hisappearance means that the reverse is alsotrue. A host of topics, such as *death and res-urrection and "sacrifice, and less obviously,but no less profoundly, "humanity, "Israeland "obedience, are seen differently in light ofthe advent of Christ. The article on *JesusChrist could be cross-referenced to every arti-cle in Part Three, for all the subjects arerelevant to him as God's final word and de-cisive act, and he to them. Even the articles onbiblical people, such as *Abraham, "Moses,*David, "Elisha and "Jonah, refer to Christ,in a typological sense and/or as the fulfilmentof the promises made to these people. Indeed,the Messiah is the theme which unites the Oldand New Testaments (T. D. Alexander, TheServant King). If biblical theology seeks toconnect text and truth (to use Watson'sphrase), it never forgets that Jesus is the truth.

ConclusionWhat is biblical theology? To sum up, biblicaltheology may be defined as theological inter-pretation of Scripture in and for the church. Itproceeds with historical and literary sensitiv-ity and seeks to analyse and synthesize theBible's teaching about God and his relationsto the world on its own terms, maintainingsight of the Bible's overarching narrative andChristocentric focus.

Further clarification of the nature andpromise of biblical theology is presented inthe other articles in Part One. However, inthe end, like civil engineering, biblical the-ology is best judged and understood by ex-amining what it produces. The purists willalways want more exact definition. Ultimatelythe proof that civil engineering and biblicaltheology are well conceived is in the qualityof the things they build. For the latter, thiscan be inspected in Parts Two and Three.

BibliographyT. D Alexander, The Servant King (Leices-

ter, 1998); J. Barr, The Concept of BiblicalTheology (London, 1999); M. Bockmuehl,"`To be or not to be": The possible futures ofNew Testament scholarship', SJT 51, 1998,pp. 271-306; G. B. Caird, New TestamentTheology, compiled and edited by L. D. Hurst( Oxford, 1994); D. A. Carson, 'New Testa-ment theology', in DLNTD, pp. 796-814; B.

IntroductionWhile some trace the origin of biblical theo-logy to the Protestant Reformation, and oth-ers to J. P. Gabler's 1797 address, 'AnOration on the Proper Distinction BetweenBiblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Spe-cific Objectives of Each', the fact is that theChristian church was concerned from a veryearly date to articulate a 'biblical theology' insome form. As far as is known, the actualterm (theologia biblica, biblische Theologie)was first used in the early 1600s, but the at-tempt to discern a unified and consistenttheology in the scriptures of the OT and NTis much older.

It might be argued that biblical theologyhas its origin within the Bible itself. Sum-maries of 'salvation-history' found in the OT(e.g. Deut. 26:5-9; Neh. 9:7-37; Pss. 78, 105,106) and also in the NT (Acts 7; Heb. 11)

Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and NewTestaments: Theological Reflection on theChristian Bible ( Minneapolis, 1992); S. Fowland L. G. Jones, Reading in Communion:Scripture and Ethics in Christian Life (GrandRapids, 1991); R. J. Gibson (ed.), InterpretingGod's Plan: Biblical Theology and the Pastor(Carlisle, 1998); G. L. Goldsworthy, Accord-ing to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of Godin the Bible (Leicester, 1991); J. B. Green andM. Turner, Between Two Horizons: SpanningNew Testament Studies and Systematic The-ology ( Grand Rapids, 1999); H. Rdisanen,Beyond New Testament Theology (London,1990); P. Stuhlmacher, How To Do BiblicalTheology (Allison Park, 1995); W. VanGe-meren, The Progress of Redemption: FromCreation to the New Jerusalem (Carlisle,2 1995); F. Watson, Text and Truth: Redefin-ing Biblical Theology (Edinburgh, 1997).

B. S. ROSNER

trace the continuity of God's dealings with hispeople. The NT Gospels and epistles interpretthe Christ event in the light of the OT, butalso reinterpret the OT in the light of theChrist event. Paul, it has been suggested, wasthe first 'Old Testament theologian', and thesame claim could well be made for the writerto the Hebrews.

The early and medieval periodsAs soon as the Gospels, the letters of Paul andother Christian writings began to be usedalongside the Hebrew Scriptures, and wellbefore the finalizing of what came to be rec-ognized as the NT, these scriptures wereemployed by the church in formulating itsbeliefs and in countering what it believed tobe false teaching. From the outset it faced theproblem of "unity and diversity (a majorproblem in biblical theology to this day). Thechurch refused to follow Marcion's solution

11

History of Biblical Theology

History of biblical theology

of rejecting the OT altogether, and also setaside proposals to recognize only one Gospel( Marcion) or combine all four in a harmony(Tatian). Instead it opted for the fullness ofscriptural witness with the attendant prob-lems of diversity.

Irenaeus (late 2nd century) defended thefourfold Gospel as inspired by the one Spirit,and could well be regarded as the first biblicaltheologian. In countering the gnostic chal-lenge he sought to develop a Christian under-standing of the OT integrated with aconsistent interpretation of the Gospels andepistles, an understanding that was in turnintegrated with `the rule of faith' preserved inthose churches that claimed direct successionfrom the apostles.

Following the lead of Origen (c. 185-254),the church made extensive use of allegor-ization as a method of biblical interpretation.This enabled interpreters to find a uniformtheology throughout Scripture, but it fre-quently bypassed the historical meaning andencouraged the reading of later doctrinesback into the text. By medieval times Scrip-ture was supposed to have four senses: literal(or historical); allegorical; moral (or tropo-logical); and anagogical (or spiritual). Theallegorizing `School of Alexandria' wasopposed, however, by the `School of Antioch'which took a more historical approach, anti-cipating some of the findings of modernscholarship. Despite the popularity of alle-gory, the historical sense was championed by,for example, the 12th-century Victorines, andits primacy was asserted by Thomas Aquinas(c. 1225-74). For all its faults, medieval inter-pretation recognized the existence of differentlevels of meaning in Scripture which could beused to nourish the faith and life of thechurch.

The Reformation

The Reformers appealed to the teaching ofScripture alone (sola Scriptura) against cen-turies of church tradition, and consequentlypractised a form of biblical theology. MartinLuther (1483-1546) scrutinized the church'sbeliefs and practices in the light of Scripture.In general he rejected allegorization and em-phasized the grammatical and literal sense,and he addressed the diversity of the Bible bytaking `justification by faith' as his key her-meneutical concept. He focused on thosebooks that `show Christ', and questioned the

12

canonicity of Hebrews, James, Jude and Reve-lation.

John Calvin (1509-64) regarded Scriptureas the supreme authority for Christian belief.Both in his Institutes of the Christian Religionand in his biblical commentaries he sought toground the faith of the church in the Biblemore comprehensively and systematicallythan Luther did, attempting to do justice tothe full range of biblical material. While thesupreme revelation is found in the NT, Christis revealed in the OT also. Faith is essentialfor the interpretation of Scripture and itstruth is conveyed to believers by the 'internaltestimony of the Holy Spirit'. Thus while Cal-vin was, by modern definition, a dogmatictheologian, in many ways he can be seen asthe initiator of a truly biblical theology.

The emergence .of biblical theology as aseparate discipline

The fresh insights and bold discussions of theReformers were followed by the period of`Protestant Orthodoxy', which produced rigiddogmatic systems. A notable exception isfound in the work of the Reformed theo-logian Johannes Cocceius (1603-69) who inhis major work Summa Doctrina de Foedereet Testamento Dei (1648) sought to interpretthe Bible as an organic whole by giving a cen-tral place to the concept of `covenant'.Cocceius laid the basis for the influential 'fed-eral' or `covenant' theology; he also antici-pated later developments in biblical theologythrough his emphasis on covenant and onGod's dealings with his people in the 'historyof salvation'.

In the 17th and 18th centuries three majortrends led to the emergence of biblical theo-logy as a more separate discipline.

First, the practice developed, especiallywithin Lutheran orthodoxy, of compiling col-lections of proof texts (dicta probantia) todemonstrate the biblical basis of Protestantdoctrine. These collections, sometimes re-ferred to as collegia biblica (collegiumcollection) were usually arranged in ac-cordance with the standard topics (locicommunes) of dogmatic theology. Beginningaround 1560, these collegia flourished forabout two centuries, and the earliest worksbearing the title `Biblical Theology' were ofthis nature. While the shortcomings of a`proof-texting' approach are obvious, never-theless these collections did turn attention

back to the teaching of the Bible itself.A second major trend was Pietism which,

under the leadership of such figures as P. J.Spener (1635-1705) and A. H. Franke (1663-1727), reacted against dry and rigid ortho-doxy and emphasized personal religious expe-rience. Pietists turned to the Bible not forproof texts to support orthodox doctrine(though they did not intend to depart fromorthodoxy), but for spiritual and devotionalnourishment. Spener contrasted `biblical the-ology' (theologia biblica) with the prevailingProtestant `scholastic theology' (theologiascholastica), and in the 18th century severalPietists published works with the term `bibli-cal theology' in their titles.

A third trend was the development in the17th and 18th centuries of new criticalmethods of literary and historical research,and of what came to be known as the`historical-critical' or `grammatico-historical'approach. Pioneers of the new approach in-cluded Richard Simon (1638-1712), BenedictSpinoza (1632-77), and J. S. Semler (1725-91) who argued that the books of the Biblemust be studied in their original historicalcontext as one would study any ancient book,and that this study must be separated fromthe use of the Bible by dogmatic theologians.Eithteenth-century rationalism saw in thisnew approach an objective method by whichto free the church from centuries of dogmaand identify the true Christian faith. Therationalists sought to extract from the Bibleuniversal and timeless truths, in accordancewith reason, distinguishing them from whatwas merely historically conditioned and time-bound. This approach is seen in the work ofK. F. Bahrdt, and especially in G. T.Zacharia's five volume Biblische Theologie(1771-75). W. F. Hufnagel in his Handbuchder biblischen Theologie (1785-89) arguedthat biblical texts must be used to correcttheological systems, not vice versa.

Gabler's definitionIt was at this point that J. P. Gabler deliveredhis 1787 inaugural address at the Universityof Altdorf on `The Proper Distinction Be-tween Biblical and Dogmatic Theology andthe Specific Objectives of Each', an addresswhich most historians see as a significantmilestone in the development of biblical the-ology. Gabler was a professing Christianthough strongly influenced by the rationalism

History of biblical theology

of his day, and saw `biblical theology' as ahistorical discipline, separate from `dogmatictheology' which applies the eternal truths ofChristianity to the theologian's own time.Later, however, Gabler drew a distinctionwithin `biblical theology'. `True ( wahre) bibli-cal theology' is the historical study of the OTand the NT, their authors and the contexts inwhich they were written. This is then to befollowed by `pure (reine) biblical theology',which consists of a comparative study of thebiblical material with a view to distinguishingwhat is merely time-conditioned and what iseternal Christian truth; it is the latter thatbecomes the subject-matter of dogmatic the-ology. On this view, biblical theology is notmerely descriptive but is also part of the her-meneutical process.

Gabler's views were not so much originalas typical of his day. As the 19th century pro-gressed, however, the title of his addressbecame more influential than its content. Bib-lical theology came to be seen as a purelyhistorical, descriptive and objective discipline,separate from the concerns of biblical inter-preters. Hence it could increasingly be pur-sued in an academic setting, in effect divorcedfrom the life and faith of the church.

The rise and fall of biblical theology

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries ra-tionalist scholars made increasing use of thedeveloping historical-critical method to pro-duce `biblical theologies'. Generally theseworks were used to criticize orthodox theo-logy. Typical of this approach were the bibli-cal theologies of C. F. von Ammon (Entwurfeiner reinen biblischen Theologie, 1792) andG. P. C. Kaiser ( Die biblische Theologie,1813-21). More significant was the work ofW. M. L. de Wette (Biblische Dogmatik desAlten rind Neuen Testaments, 1813), a moreindependent scholar who distinguished`Hebraism' from (post-exilic) `Judaism', re-garding the latter as an inferior form ofreligion. A more moderate rationalism char-acterized the Biblische Theologie (1836) of D.G. C von C011n.

Most of these scholars demanded thatrevelation he subordinated to reason, as theyunderstood it, the result being that the super-natural was largely eliminated from theirtheology. Diversity within Scripture was ad-dressed by the removal of temporallyconditioned ideas (Zeitideen), which repre-

13

History of biblical theology History of biblical theology

sented an 'accommodation' to the thought ofpeople in biblical times; what was left was theessence of biblical religion, the timeless ra-tional truths of religion and morality.

Not surprisingly, orthodox and conserva-tive scholars stood aloof from this newmovement, though in time they realized thatbiblical theology could also be written froma more conservative viewpoint. The earliestsuch work by a conservative scholar was L. F.0. Baumgarten-Crusius' Grundzuge der Bib-lischen Theologie (1828), which adopted ahistorical approach but emphasized theessential unity of Scripture. The more conser-vative J. C. K. von Hofman, in reaction tothose who sought within Scripture a system ofdoctrine, stressed that the Bible is rather therecord of 'salvation history' ( Heilsgeschichte),an insight that was to prove influential. J. L.S. Lutz's Biblische Dogmatik (1847) and themassive and influential work of H. Ewald( Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott oder Theologiedes Alten and Neuen Bundes, 1871-76)represent a moderate conservatism.

By the middle of the century, however,historical study of the Bible was revealingever more clearly the diversity of the biblicalmaterial, and above all the difference betweenthe OT and the NT in relation to their ori-ginal historical settings. The very possibilityof a 'biblical' theology was called in question.Ahead of his time in a number of respects, therationalist scholar G. L. Bauer had written aBiblische Theologie des Alten Testaments(1796), followed by a separate BiblischeTheologie des Neuen Testaments (1800-2). Indue course Bauer's procedure came to beaccepted as the norm not only by criticalscholars but even by conservatives, and aseries of 'Theologies of the Old Testament'and 'Theologies of the New Testament' wasproduced. For approximately a century fromaround 1870 'biblical theology', in the senseof works on the theology of the OT and NTtogether, virtually ceased to exist.

OT and NT theologyFor the second half of the 19th century andthe first half of the 20th, OT and NT the-ology pursued separate though generally par-allel paths frequently reflecting the prevailingtheological climate. Thus Hegelian influencewas strong in NT theology, especially in thework of F. C. Baur (1792-1860) and the`Tilbingen School'. This approach brought a

14

new awareness of the historical nature of thebiblical documents and of historical develop-ment in biblical theology.

The application of historical-critical methodsaltered the consensus on the authorship anddating of the biblical books. Thus, for exam-ple, the belief in Mosaic authorship of thePentateuch was abandoned in favour ofsource criticism which assigned every verse toJ, E, D or P. Mark was deemed to be the ear-liest Gospel, while the Pastorals were assignedto the 2nd century. As a result new chrono-logical schemes emerged for tracing thetheology of both OT and NT; the emphasiswas on diversity and development.

Liberal Protestantism tended in this periodto downgrade and neglect the OT, so that OTtheologies came from conservative scholarssuch as J. C. F. Steudel (1840), H. A. C.Fldvernick (1848) and G. F. Oehler (1873-74). H. Schultz continued to regard religionas divine revelation while being open to morecritical views in the later editions of his Alt-testamentliche Theologie (1869-96). TheGerman monopoly was broken by C. Piepen-bring's Theologie de l'Ancien Testament(1886) and A. B. Davidson's The Theology ofthe Old Testament (1904).

Despite the shock waves caused by D. F.Strauss' Life of Jesus (1835, 1836), liberalscholars generally were confident of redis-covering 'Jesus as he actually was' by meansof historical methodology. Harnack found`the essence of Christianity' in Jesus' teachingon the Fatherhood of God, the brotherhoodof humanity and the infinite value of the hu-man soul.

The most influential liberal NT theologywas that of H. J. Holtzmann (Lehrbuch derNeutestamentlichen Theologie, 1896), while amoderate conservatism, influenced by liberalscholarship, is seen in the NT theologies of B.Weiss (1868-1903) and W. Beyschlag (1891-92). English-speaking scholarship is repre-sented by E. P. Gould (The Biblical Theologyof the New Testament, 1900) and G. B. Stev-ens (The Theology of the New Testament,1901). Of major importance was the work ofA. Schlatter (1852-1938) who sought towork out a position independent of ration-alism and liberalism on the one hand andconservatism on the other; while adopting ahistorical approach, he emphasized the basicunity of the NT and grounded NT theology inthe historical Jesus. Evidence of his stature as

a biblical theologian may be seen in the 1973publication in English of a key method-ological essay (in R. Morgan, The Nature ofNew Testament Theology, pp. 117-166), thepublication of a biography by Werner Neuer(1996), and the belated translation into Eng-lish of his Theologie des Neuen Testaments(1909-10, '1921-22) in two volumes, TheHistory of the Christ: The Foundation ofNew Testament Theology (1997) and TheTheology of the Apostles: The Developmentof New Testament Theology (1999).

From theology to religionIn the late 19th and early 20th centuries ar-chaeological discoveries (which continue tothis day) began to provide information aboutthe ancient Near East and the Greco-Romanworld. For many, these discoveries appearedto call in question the uniqueness of biblicalfaith. Babylonian creation myths and lawcodes, Jewish apocalypticism, Hellenistic mys-tery religions and pre-Christian Gnosticism allprovided striking parallels to the biblical ma-terial, which could no longer be studied inisolation. A comparative approach to biblicalreligion was strongly favoured. Reactingagainst both liberals and conservatives whospoke of biblical 'doctrines', the history ofreligions (Religionsgeschichte) approach em-phasized that the true subject matter of bibli-cal studies is religion. The Bible is not a bookof doctrine but the record of the life and re-ligious experience of the communities ofIsrael and the early church. According to W.Wrede, the true subject matter of 'so-calledNew Testament Theology' is not in fact the-ology but early Christian religion, which mustbe investigated objectively and completelydivorced from any system of dogma or sys-tematic theology. The boundaries of thecanon should be ignored: the inter-testa-mental literature and the Apostolic Fathersare just as important for the historian of re-ligion as the canonical books.

An early example of this approach (despiteits title) is A. Kaiser's Die Theologie des AltenTestaments (1886), while R. Smend's Lehr-book der alttestamentlichen Religions-geschichte (1893) inaugurated a series ofworks which usually bore the title 'History ofReligion' (Religionsgeschichte). Representa-tive works from the field of NT studies are H.Weinel's Biblische Theologie des Neuen Tes-taments (1911) and W. Bousset's Kyrios

Christos (1913). The influence of this ap-proach in the English-speaking world can beseen in two works with significant titles, S. J.Case's The Evolution of Early Christianity(1914) and E. F. Scott's The Varieties of NewTestament Religion (1943).

The history of religions approach remaineddominant until the First World War, and itcontinues to be a major force in biblicalstudies, particularly in university 'depart-ments of religious studies'. However legit-imate it may be as an academic discipline,from the point of view of the community offaith it raises serious questions. Can an ap-proach which totally ignores the canon reallybe considered 'biblical', and can an approachthat fails to recognize the biblical material astheologically normative be appropriatelydesignated 'theology'? It might appear thatthe post-Gablerian separation of biblical anddogmatic theology had led not just to the di-vision of biblical theology (into OT and NTtheologies) but eventually to its demise.

The revival of theologyThe period following the First World Warsaw a major reaction against liberalism in thetheology of Karl Barth. In biblical studiesthere was a renewed emphasis on biblical`theology', though still in the form of separatetreatments of the OT and NT.

Many see the 1930s as having inauguratedthe golden age of OT theology. Particularlyinfluential was W. Eichrodt's Theologie desAlten Testaments (1933-39), though theEnglish translation, Theology of the Old Tes-tament, did not appear until 1961-67. Othermid-century contributions included OT the-ologies in German by E. Sellin (1933), L.Kohler (1935) and 0. Procksch (1949), inDutch by T. C. Vriezen (1949) and in Frenchby E. Jacob (1955). The most influential post-Second World War OT theology was that ofG. von Rad (1957-60). A notable feature ofthis period was the entry of Roman Catholicscholars into the field following a 1943 papalencyclical which approved a more modernhistorical approach to Scripture; a transitionalwork was the Theologie des Alten Testaments(1940) of the Dutch scholar P. Heinisch, anda major contribution was the Theologie del'Ancien Testament (1954-56) of P. van Im-schoot. The tradition of writing OT the-ologies has been continued by such scholarsas W. Zimmerli (1972), J. L. McKenzie

15

History of biblical theology

(1974), C. Westermann (1978), H. D. Preuss(1991-92) and W. Brueggemann (1997). An-other trend has been the entry of con-servative-evangelical scholars into the fieldwith contributions by W. C. Kaiser (1978)and W. Dyrness (1979).

The revival of NT theology came some-what later and was dominated by the brilliantbut controversial two-volume work by R.Bultmann ( Theologie des Neuen Testaments,1948-53). A sceptical form critic, Bultmannregarded the historical Jesus as a presup-position of NT theology rather than a part ofit, and focused largely on Paul and Johnwhere he found themes congenial to his exist-entialist 'demythologizing' of the Christianmessage. In the Bultmann tradition is H.Conzelmann's Grundriss der Theologie desNeuen Testaments (1967), though he adds asection on the Synoptics.

At the opposite pole stand scholars forwhom the historical Jesus is the starting pointof NT theology. These include A. Richardson(An Introduction to the Theology of the NewTestament, 1958), and J. Jeremias ( Neu-testamentliche Theologie, I: Die Verkiind-igung Jesu, 1971: no further volumes werepublished). Jesus is also the starting point forW. G. Kiimmel's Die Theologie des NeuenTestaments (1969). Other important worksinclude those by F. C. Grant (1950) and G. B.Caird, whose New Testament Theology waspublished posthumously in 1994. RomanCatholic contributions include NT theologiesby M. Meinertz (1950), J. Bonsirven (1951)and the four-volume Theologie des NeuenTestaments (1971-78) of K. H. Schelkle.Contributions by conservative-evangelicalscholars include New Testament theologies byG. E. Ladd (1974, revised 1993), D. Guthrie(1981) and L. Morris (1986).

Every author who writes a biblical theolo-gy of this type has to adopt a structure. Theearliest practice was to employ the standardtopics of systematic theology (`God', 'Human-ity', 'Sin', 'Law', 'Salvation', etc.) especially asthese had been developed in the dictaprobantia of Protestant Orthodoxy. Schemeslike this were adopted by Pietist and ration-alist scholars alike, and they were revived,with some variations, in OT theologies suchas those by Kohler (1935), Baab (1949) andvan Imschoot (1954). Jacob (1955) attemptedto break new ground, but in fact still largelyfollowed a traditional scheme. Twentieth-

16

century NT theologies that have more or lessfollowed traditional theological categoriesinclude those of Grant (1950), Richardson(1958) and Schelkle (1968-1976). Thoughmany have adopted this approach it has beenwidely criticized as imposing an alien schemeon the biblical material, omitting importantbiblical themes (e.g. wisdom, the land), andimposing an artificial unity on the diversity ofthe biblical books.

With the development of the historical-critical approach in the late 18th and early19th centuries the Bible began to look lesslike a textbook of systematic theology andmore like a history book. Theologies of bothOT and NT generally adopted a chrono-logical structure, tracing the development ofreligion through the history of Israel and thehistory of the early church, a common prac-tice to this day. Such schemes generally de-pend on modern critical reconstructions ofthe dating of the various books. Some haveadopted a hybrid scheme combining the sys-tematic and historical approaches. Forexample, D. Guthrie's New Testament Theol-ogy (1981) has a basically systematic struc-ture, but each topic is then traced through theSynoptics, John, Acts, Paul, Hebrews, otherepistles and Revelation. Von Rad (1957-60)rejected systematic categories and focused onthe biblical testimony to God's continuingactivity in the history of Israel (which he sawas something quite different from the historyof Israel as reconstructed by modern criticalscholarship). A somewhat different approachis adopted by those who follow more or lessthe canonical order: an OT example is Oehler(1873), and a New Testament one is Ladd(1974).

Dissatisfaction with both systematic andhistorical approaches has led some scholars tostructure their works around themes or topicswhich they see as arising from the biblicalmaterial rather than being imposed upon it.The classic example is Eichrodt, who took theconcept of 'covenant' as the organizing prin-ciple for his Theology of the Old Testament.This stimulated a debate regarding the appro-priate 'centre' or 'focal point', initially for OTtheology, then for NT theology also. The dif-ficulty of finding any one theme compre-hensive enough to embrace all the diversebiblical material led others to adopt a multi-thematic approach. E. A. Martens, for ex-ample, in his Plot and Purpose in the Old

Testament (1981) identifies four key themes:salvation/deliverance, the covenant commu-nity, knowledge/experience of God, and land.W. J. Dumbrell, in a study of Revelation 21and 22 (1985), traces five basic biblicalthemes: the new Jerusalem; the new temple;the new covenant; the new Israel; and the newcreation. A more recent trend is to emphasizethe dialectical nature of biblical theology:Westermann, for example, balances 'TheSaving God and History' with a discussion of`The Blessing God and Creation', whileBrueggemann utilizes categories of 'testimony'and 'counter-testimony' in structuring hisTheology of the Old Testament (1997).

Some have spoken of a 'biblical theologymovement' that flourished, especially in theEnglish-speaking world, from around 1945 to1960. 'Movement' may be too strong a word,but certain trends did characterize this period,including a renewed interest in 'theology'(without the abandonment of the historical-critical approach), and an emphasis on 'theGod who acts', on the 'uniqueness' of biblicalfaith and on the unity of the Bible. 0. Cull-mann's work on 'salvation-history' was seenby some as a key to understanding the basicunity of the biblical material. Typical alsowas the 'word-study' approach to biblicaltheology, evidenced in the production of bib-lical 'wordbooks'. The 'movement' isgenerally believed to have collapsed by theearly 1960s, partly due to damaging method-ological criticisms, and partly due to changingpriorities among scholars.

From theology to theologiesOne of the dominant trends in the latter partof the 20th century has been a renewed em-phasis on diversity and development withinthe Bible, to the point where not only theconcept of 'biblical theology' but even thoseof OT and NT theology have been radicallycalled in question. This reflects the growingcomplexity of biblical studies resulting fromnew discoveries, the proliferation of method-ologies and the seemingly endless output ofsecondary literature. In consequence many nolonger consider themselves even OT or NTscholars, but specialize in a narrower area.

Many scholars prefer to speak of OT 'the-ologies' (Yahwist, Deuteronomic, Priestly,and so on). Similarly, many NT scholars fo-cus on the disparate 'theologies' of Paul,John, Luke, and even of the hypothetical 'Q'

History of biblical theology

document. Biblical theology appears to havereached an impasse. The post-Gablerian sep-aration of biblical theology from the life andfaith of the church, as a discipline to be pur-sued in an objective, historical, descriptiveway, has arrived at the point where manydeclare that a 'biblical theology' is in fact animpossibility.

New approachesThere has been a wide diversity of approachesto biblical theology in recent decades. Onestriking feature has been the questioning ofthe dominance of the historical-criticalmethod. Few would reject it altogether, butmany suggest a more thorough questioning ofits (often rationalistic) presuppositions, and awillingness to see it as only one among severallegitimate approaches to Scripture. Modernhermeneutical theory calls into questionwhether any approach to an ancient text canbe neutral and objective, and scholars such asP. Stuhlmacher have called for 'a hermen-eutics of consent to the biblical texts'.

The last third of the 20th century saw anexplosion of interest in the literary approachto the Bible. Using diverse methodologies,literary critics focus on the final form of thebiblical text. For example, the literary criticN. Frye in his The Great Code: The Bible andLiterature (1981) sought to understand theBible as a literary whole, a task for whichsource analysis and modern theories ofauthorship are irrelevant. The Bible is un-doubtedly the end product of a long andcomplicated literary process, but it needs tobe studied in its own right. Frye sees a se-quence or dialectical progression in the Bible,consisting of seven main phases which form achain of types and antitypes.

One feature of the literary approach hasbeen a renewed interest in biblical narrativeor story, which has led to the development of`narrative theology'. Some see this as part of`the collapse of history' in recent biblicalstudies. A popular slogan is that the Bible isnot 'history' but 'story' and some scholarsdeny any referential function to biblical nar-rative. Many scholars engaged in the literarystudy of the Bible are either indifferent oreven opposed to a religious understanding ofthe text. A literary approach need not, how-ever, be based on secular presuppositions anda number of scholars, such as L. Ryken andT. Longman, have shown that it is quite coin-

17

History of biblical theology

patible with more conservative presup-positions, including a high view of the his-toricity of the text. By looking at biblicalstories and poems as literary wholes as well aslocating them in their wider, literary, canoni-cal context, biblical literary criticism has thepotential to make an important contributionto biblical theology.

The latter part of the 20th century also sawa surprising interest in the "canon of Scrip-ture, a subject that has not usually been re-garded as of first importance in biblicalstudies. J. A. Sanders' form of 'canonicalcriticism' can be seen as a reaction against ahistorical-criticism that frequently treatedonly the (reconstructed) original form of abiblical text as 'authentic'. In his studies ofthe nature and function of canon Sandersstresses the importance of the whole processof transmitting, editing and shaping the ma-terial up to and including its final canonicalform. In his view the canonical process wasmarked by both stability and adaptability.

Significantly different from this is the 'ca-nonical approach' of B. S Childs firstenunciated in his Biblical Theology in Crisis(1970) and worked out in canonical intro-ductions to both OT and NT. Childs does notreject historical criticism but is acutely con-scious of the gap between such criticism andthe use of the Bible as authoritative Scriptureby the Christian community. Thus he arguesthat biblical theology must be based primarilyon the final form of the canonical text. Hisapproach is like that advocated in the meth-odology of G. F. Hasel, who sees biblicaltheology not as merely historical in its ap-proach but rather as 'theological-historical',and as based on the canonical form of thebiblical texts.

Another recent trend is the sociological ap-proach to Scripture. This can be seen as anextension of the historical-critical approach,and it shares some of that approach's limita-tions, as it tends to be based on hypotheticalreconstructions of the social situations out ofwhich the biblical texts emerged. Moreover, asociological approach is no more free frompresuppositions than any other. Sociologiststransfer models from other societies, and thisprocedure may not be valid in relation to bib-lical societies of two or three millennia ago.Nevertheless a sociological approach can pro-vide a different perspective and can com-plement other methodologies.

18

Related to this approach has been a newinterest not just in the context of the originalwriter but also in that of the modern inter-preter. One criticism of the so-called 'biblicaltheology movement' was its irrelevance to theemerging social, economic and political issuesof the 1960s. Since then various types of 'lib-eration theology' (Latin American, ThirdWorld, black, feminist) have sought a bibli-cal-theological basis. Some of these focus onthe Exodus as a key event which demon-strates that God is on the side of the op-pressed and downtrodden; others, on the OTprophets' calls for social justice. A strikingexample is the work of N. Gottwald (TheTribes of Yahweh, 1979), who draws onMarxist analysis to present the early historyof Israel not in terms of the traditional 'con-quest' but rather primarily as a peasant revoltwithin Canaanite society. Feminist biblicaltheologians stress the thoroughly patriarchalnature of biblical society which in contempo-rary hermeneutics needs to be radicallyreinterpreted if not totally rejected. Others,however, see a basically egalitarian approachwithin Scripture, in the teaching and exampleof Jesus and possibly in Paul (but not in thePastorals), an approach that was smotheredby re-emerging patriarchalism even within theNT period. All forms of liberation theologycombine biblical interpretation with a call toradical action in terms of contemporary so-cial, political and economic structures. Such`contextual theologies' need not be seen asreading contemporary concerns back intoScripture; rather, they can serve the very use-ful purpose of bringing out neglected aspectsof biblical theology. Nevertheless the obviousfocus on a 'canon within the canon' raisesserious concerns as to how adequately theseapproaches can serve as the basis for a truly`all-biblical' theology.

The rebirth of biblical theologyIn the midst of a wide variety of new ap-proaches in biblical studies there are signs thatrumours of the death of biblical theology mayhave been exaggerated. In recent years a num-ber of attempts have been made to bridge therigid division between OT and NT studies andto return to some form of 'biblical' theology.

One such attempt can be seen in the 'his-tory of traditions' approach associatedespecially with the German scholars H. Geseand P. Stuhlmacher. This is based on the as-

sumption that in the time of Jesus the OTcanon was not yet closed, and that biblicaltheology is concerned with a continuous his-tory of tradition. Divine revelation is not tobe located only in the earliest forms of thetradition but in the entire process, which waslong and complex as traditions were contin-ually selected, edited and reinterpreted. Thisapproach has been demonstrated in studies ofsuch themes as 'wisdom', 'law' and 'right-eousness'. Critics, however, point out thatthis type of tradition-history depends on aparticular view of the canon (a subject that iscurrently very much under debate), that itsuse of non-canonical material is open to ques-tion, and that locating revelation in theprocess of tradition history fails to identifythe norm of Christian faith.

Further evidence of a renewed interest inbiblical theology in the 1980s and 1990s maybe seen in the Fortress Press series Overturesto Biblical Theology, Abingdon's Biblical En-counters series and the New Studies in Bib-lical Theology series published by Eerdmansand Inter-Varsity Press. Many of these studiesdo biblical theology by tracing biblical themesthrough both OT and NT, not ignoring diver-sity, but also seeking unity or at leastcontinuity, in the biblical material.

The 1980s and 1990s also saw vigorousscholarly debate on topics such as 'Paul andthe law' (J. D. G. Dunn, L. Gaston, H. Hub-ner, H. Raisanen, E. P. Sanders, P. Stuhl-macher), a theme that demands considerationof the place of the law in the OT as well as inother NT writings.

One unresolved tension in biblical theologyis that between the academy and the believingcommunity. The increasing use of the ecu-menical lectionary in worship, for example,highlights the fact that for the church biblicaltheology is not an academic discipline but anintegral part of its faith and life. F. Watsonhas argued cogently that a true biblical theol-ogy must bridge the gaps that presently existnot only between OT and NT specialists butalso between biblical scholars and theo-logians. Such a biblical theology must empha-size 'both the ultimate coherence of the twoTestaments and the theological dimension ofthe interpretative task' (Text and Truth: Re-defining Biblical Theology, p. 8). Some seebiblical theology as an activity to be practisedin the exegesis of biblical passages or in stud-ies of individual books, authors or themes.

History of biblical theology

Whether it is possible to go beyond this andproduce an 'all-biblical theology' (gesamtbib-lische Theologie) is a matter of debate. Some(e.g. H. Hubner) have argued that the presentstate of scholarship rules out such an enter-prise, which in any case would be beyond thecompetence of any one individual. Despitethis, however, the late 20th century saw arevival of interest in the possibility of writinga 'biblical theology' encompassing both OTand NT. Two early 20th-century examplescome from opposite ends of the theologicalspectrum. M. Burrows' An Outline of BiblicalTheology (1946) is written from a liberalProtestant viewpoint, but is more akin to adictionary of biblical themes than a full-fledged 'theology'. The Biblical Theology:Old and New Testaments (1948) of G. Vos iswritten from a strongly conservative perspec-tive, though it acknowledges a progressiverevelation; it is worth reading, though unfor-tunately it is incomplete. Of majorimportance is S. Terrien's The Elusive Pres-ence: The Heart of Biblical Theology (1978),which uses the theme of divine presence as ahermeneutical key in a study of each of themain units of the biblical canon, and whichseeks to uncover what the author calls 'a cer-tain homogeneity of theological depth' whichbinds the biblical books together. Other bibli-cal theologies include Horst Seebas' Der Gottder ganzen Bibel (1982) which presents asketch rather than a full biblical theology; H.-R. Weber's Power: Focus for a Biblical The-ology (1989), another example of the one-theme approach, and the more conservativeand popular volume by G. Goldsworthy, Ac-cording to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation ofGod in the Bible (1991). The most significant20th-century biblical theology is B. S. Childs'Biblical Theology of the Old and New Tes-taments (1992), which is the culmination ofthe author's 'canonical approach'. This vol-ume first presents the 'discrete witness' of theOT and the NT, tracing the development oftraditions in each of the main units of thecanon; then it proceeds to theological reflec-tion on the Christian Bible, discussing thebiblical material under ten major topicalheadings, and concluding by relating these tocontemporary theological discussion.

Despite the criticism levelled at these worksfrom various quarters they demonstrate thatit is possible once again to attempt the writingof a truly 'biblical theology', and they suggest

LYND A .: ; LIBRARY 19AZDEHS

913A

Challenges to biblical theology

both some of the pitfalls to avoid and some ofthe approaches that are worth pursuing.

See also: CHALLENGES TO BIBLICAL THEO-LOGY; RELATIONSHIP OF OLD TESTAMENTAND NEW TESTAMENT.

BibliographyG. Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past and

Present (Leicester and Downers Grove, 1996);B. S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis(Philadelphia, 1970); W. Harrington, ThePath of Biblical Theology (Dublin, 1973); G.F. Hasel, New Testament Theology: BasicIssues in the Current Debate ( Grand Rapids,1978); idem, Old Testament Theology: BasicIssues in the Current Debate ( Grand Rapids,4 1991); R. Morgan, The Nature of New Tes-

IntroductionThe discipline of biblical theology has facedchallenges of various kinds since the end ofthe 19th century. In 1897, William Wredepublished an essay entitled fiber Aufgabe andMethode der sogenannten Neutestament-lichen Theologie in which he argued that thediscipline of NT theology should be replacedby study of 'the history of early Christian re-ligion and theology' (ET; in The Nature ofNew Testament Theology, p. 116). HeikkiRaisanen's programmatic study, Beyond NewTestament Theology (1990), and his numer-ous subsequent articles have revived Wrede'sproposal. Although these works focus pri-marily on NT theology, their effect is to un-dermine biblical theology as a whole.

Biblical theology is also challenged impli-citly by those who do not want to move 'be-yond' the discipline but rather to modify it tosuch an extent that its traditional name canhardly be justified. For example, there is awidespread view that the diversity of the Bi-ble's theological ideas rules out any unified

tament Theology (London, 1973); J.Reumann (ed.), The Promise and Practice ofBiblical Theology ( Minneapolis, 1991); H. G.Reventlow, Problems of Biblical Theology inthe Twentieth Century (Philadelphia, 1986);J. Sandys-Wunsch and L. Eldredge, 'J. P. Ga-bler and the distinction between biblical anddogmatic theology: Translation, commentaryand discussion of his originality', SIT 33,1980, pp. 133-158; J. D. Smart, The Past,Present and Future of Biblical Theology(Philadelphia, 1979); P. Stuhlmacher, HowTo Do Biblical Theology (Allison Park,1995); F. Watson, Text and Truth: Redefin-ing Biblical Theology ( Grand Rapids andEdinburgh, 1997).

C. H. H. SCOBIE

biblical theology (see e.g. P. Pokorny, 'TheProblem of Biblical Theology', HBT 15,1993, pp. 83-94, esp. 87).

Thus, there are two main challenges tobiblical theology: first, the argument againstconfining study to the 'Bible' as defined in thecanon; and secondly, the argument againstthe basic theological unity of the biblicalauthors and books.

There are also challenges which do notquestion the discipline of biblical theology assuch, but which criticize some of the ways ithas been practised. For example, in his article`Revelation through history in the Old Testa-ment and in modern theology', James Barrargues that the idea of revelation through his-tory should not be overemphasized againstother forms of revelation in the Bible, for ex-ample, the 'verbal self-declaration of Yahweh'(Int 17, 1963, pp. 193-205, quote from p.197). He does not deny that salvation-history,Heilsgeschichte, is a central theme of the Bi-ble, but stresses 'that there are other axesthrough the biblical material which areequally pervasive and important' (p. 201).

Similarly, Barr repeatedly criticizes the bib-lical theology movement that lay behind Kit-tel's Theological Dictionary of the NewTestament, for grounding the unity and dis-tinctiveness of the Bible in the alleged theo-logical distinction between Hebrew andGreek thought and in the supposed rejectionby the biblical writers of natural theology.However, even in his major work, The Se-mantics of Biblical Language ( Oxford, 1961),Barr affirms that his purpose 'is not to criti-cize biblical theology or any other kind oftheology as such, but to criticize certainmethods in the handling of linguistic evidencein theological discussion' (p. 6). His maincriticism is that Kittel's Dictionary places toomuch emphasis on single words at the ex-pense of combinations of words or sentences.Barr has put forward his thesis as follows (p.263): 'It is the sentence (and of course the stilllarger literary complex such as the completespeech or poem) which is the linguistic bearerof the usual theological statement, and notthe word (the lexical unit) or the morpho-logical and syntactical connection.'

Scholars engaging in biblical theologyought to learn from such criticism in order toimprove their methods; rather than aban-doning the enterprise altogether they shouldattempt to write better biblical theologicalworks.

In the present article we survey and at-tempt to answer some of the challenges tobiblical theology. Many of these are related tohypotheses which, by virtue of their havingbecome a majority view, are often presentedas assured results of biblical scholarship. Ourfocus will be on NT theology. We shall brieflystate the major challenges relating to the de-velopment of the NT canon and to the unityof its basic theology, and marshal some argu-ments in favour of studying biblical theologyat the level of historical, descriptive inquiry.

Religious experience instead of doctrine?The history-of-religion approach presents achallenge to biblical theology in its emphasison experience over doctrine. Wrede arguedagainst the dominant approach to NT theo-logy in his day, i.e. the attempt to isolate doc-trinal concepts, Lehrbegriffe (in The Natureof New Testament Theology, p. 73).

Raisanen has taken up this argument,claiming that 'religious thought is only one,relatively small, part of religion' (Beyond, p.

105). Although he suggests that for pragmaticreasons a 'comprehensive history of earlyChristian religion' should begin with thestudy of religious thought, he qualifies hisstatement (p. 106): 'A history of early Chris-tian thought as I see it ought to make abun-dantly clear the connections of the thoughtsand ideas with the experiences of individualsand groups. The development of thought is tobe analysed precisely in the light of the inter-action between experiences and interpret-ations.'

In response, it should be said that the theo-logy of the Bible and its doctrinal conceptsare not identical. Theology should be definedmore widely as affirmations and actions in-volved in relationships between God and hu-mans.

Furthermore, there is no need to excludefrom the field of 'theology' what Raisanencalls 'aspects' or 'branches' of religion: 'cult,rite, myth, communality' including 'historical,psychological and social realities' (Beyond, p.105). Inasmuch as these were part of the earlychurch's beliefs about God they belong to abiblical theology. In other words, such a theo-logy can include a wide range of religiousphenomena; it is not limited to doctrine.

Thus it seems that the study of experiencedoes not pose a challenge to biblical theologyif we accept a wider definition of that theo-logy, one which includes experiences relatingto religious beliefs. Biblical theology shoulddescribe the experiences of God recorded inthe Bible as well as the doctrine containedtherein.

No distinction between canonical andnon-canonical early Christian literature?The claim that there is no historical justifica-tion for distinguishing a 'canon' of Scripturefrom other early Christian writings is a ser-ious challenge to biblical theology.

According to Wrede and Raisanen, oneparticularly problematic issue is the relation-ship between early Christianity and Christian-ity as reflected in the canonical NT. They ar-gue that NT theology should not be confinedto the canonical writings. We shall focus onthe problem of distinguishing between earlyChristian literature in general and the NTcanon in particular; for discussion of the OTcanon, see "The canon of Scripture.

Challenges to Biblical Theology

Challenges to biblical theology

20 21