History of Biblical Theology Old Testament Anchor Bible

The following article gives an overview of more than two centuries of research in the fields of
biblical theology. It begins in the period before historical criticism became dominant in the
understanding of the Bible in the wake of the Enlightenment. Before Gabler, who ―discovered‖
the field, the dogmatic approach was dominant. It saw the whole Bible on one level and tried to
found dogmatic sentences on the evidence of verses taken from all parts of Scripture without any
regard for historical developments. Every word was taken as inspired and equally God‘s own
word. Gabler reserved this task for ―dogmatic theology,‖ while assigning the historical task of
describing what the biblical writers said to ―biblical theology.‖ Subsequently, the ―history of
religions‖ approach fixed its attention exclusively on the development of Israel‘s religion. The
different writings, sources, and layers in the Bible were seen as products of time-bound
circumstances, correlated to one another by a development leading from the earliest and most
primitive to the most recent periods. Dialectical theology brought an end to this approach,
stressing again that the Bible is God‘s word speaking to the Christian believer today through the
voices of the biblical witnesses. The most recent ―biblical theology movement‖ was the
concerted effort of Anglo-American scholars to carry through this approach in a scholarly world
still dominated by liberal views. Many ways of tracing a biblical theology have been explored
since then. The result is that neither an overarching structure, nor a single term (as ―center‖ of
the Bible or one of the Testaments), nor a historical development as such can suffice as a
unifying principle for the whole Bible. Therefore the ongoing task of biblical theology must be a
careful listening to the different voices of the biblical witnesses living in different times and
circumstances, and the quest for the inner unity that comprises the Bible as proclaiming the same
God, the God of Israel and the father of Jesus Christ.

Developments before Gabler

Although the principle of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) had accorded the Bible a central
position for faith and theology in the Reformation, the Reformers themselves failed to develop a
critically considered biblical theology. Luther straightforwardly understood Scripture to be the
preached Word of God. His yardstick for assigning a work to the center or periphery of
Scripture—an undertaking he took so seriously as to exclude whole books from consideration—
was dogmatic (―was Christum treibet‖: ―[that] which urges to Christ‖). The dogmatic approach
of the medieval period continued to dominate in the period of Protestant Orthodoxy (17th
century). Indeed, the doctrine of the Holy Scripture considered as the Word of God led
to such a thoroughgoing identification of the two that every single word in the Bible was
reckoned to be inspired (so, e.g., by Johann Gerhard), as was the very Masoretic vocalization of
the Hebrew text (so Johann Buxtorf). The need to support dogmatic positions with corresponding
statements from Scripture led, under Orthodoxy, to the formation of a concept of ―biblical
theology,‖ which was above all defined by Abraham Calov as an ancillary discipline of
dogmatics. The task of this ―exegetical theology‖ was held to be the coordination of biblical

1|Page
passages (dicta probantia or collegia biblica) with the various appropriate doctrines (loci). In the
best known work of this sort (Schmidt 1671), the supportive passages from the OT and NT were
listed separately, although no differentiated evaluation of either part of the Bible was intended by
this. At this point—as in modern-day fundamentalism—all of Scripture was regarded to be on
one and the same plane, regardless of the times when the various texts themselves originated.

Even Pietism, which had criticized the scholastic system of Orthodoxy and had sought to
replace it with a biblically founded theology (as in the works of Heymann [1708] and
Wiedner[1722]), did not transcend the understanding biblical theology as an ancillary discipline
of dogmatics. Pietistic works, too, merely organized supportive passages for dogmatic purposes.
However, Pietism did manage to call renewed attention to the biblical basis of theology and the
role of the Bible for evangelical piety.

This fundamentally historical view of the Bible was not even surpassed by the early theologians
of the English Enlightenment (the so-called Deists), in spite of their opposition to the orthodox
ecclesiastical position. This is most clearly the case in the work of Matthew Tindal (Christianity
as Old as the Creation [1730]), which was probably the most representative of Enlightenment
efforts. Here, too, the Bible was evaluated according to an absolute and imposed system;
although this system was not the teaching of the Church, but a ―natural religion‖ (or, more
precisely, a rational and self-evident morality for all men). The only biblical statements regarded
as valid were those that could satisfy the demands of this morality (provided, however, that those
statements derived from morally unobjectionable biblical authors). Most of the recipients of
revelation in the Bible failed to satisfy the latter criterion. Tindal thought it possible to discern
his ―religion of nature‖ in the gospels. Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768) was far more
consistent. On the basis of similar views about a purely morally conceived religion (determined
by the rational supernaturalism of his teacher, Wolff), Reimarus perspicaciously recognized the
time-bound features in the Bible, penetrating all the way to the heart of Jesus‘ message. From
this point of departure he developed what was surely the most radical criticism of Scripture of his
day (see Reimarus 1972).
The decisive fundamentals of a historical criticism of the Bible had already been
formulated by B. Spinoza (1670). However, as Spinoza was regarded as something of a
maverick, his views were only acknowledged a century later. Spinoza noted that the biblical
writings derive from different epochs and thus could not be held to lie on the same plane. There
was furthermore the question of the original intentions of the author of a given biblical work.
Finally, he maintained that one‘s knowledge of the contents of the biblical works ought to be
won from the Bible itself, and should not be based on dogmatic premises imposed from without.
Spinoza developed his own pantheistic philosophical system entirely apart from the Bible; he
assigned reason to the realm of truth, and theology to the realm of piety and obedience.

2|Page
Among the theologians of the Enlightenment, A. F. Busching was the first who possessed
sufficient independence to develop a theology based on the Bible alone, in contrast to the
scholastic teaching methods; he presented this theology in his lectures at Göttingen, as well as in
numerous works. He also attempted provisionally to organize the OT and NT statements with
respect to their appropriate historical periods. But it was J. S. Semler who first developed the
theoretical fundamentals of a historical-critical biblical exegesis which opened a pathway for a
new understanding of biblical theology (Semler 1771–75; and other works) Semler emphasized
the importance of distinguishing between the ―Word‖ and ―Scripture,‖ and held that the latter
should be seen as a product of human effort to be understood purely historically according to the
dates its various sections were composed, a position that undermined the traditional teaching
about verbal inspiration. Although Semler himself published two volumes of biblical dicta
probantia for dogmatics (1764–68), he had nonetheless prepared the methodological ground for
a new understanding of the task of a biblical theology.
One perhaps ought to mention the work of G. T. Zachariä, which was influential in its
own time (1771– 75). Zachariä sought to develop a new arrangement of the theological doctrines
corresponding to a systematization which follows the order of the material in the writings of the
OT and NT. However, since Zachariä held to the notion of verbal inspiration, and since he
considered a writing‘s date of composition to be unrelated to its theological value, the dogmatic
doctrinal system was merely replaced by Zachariä‘s own biblicistic one.
From Gabler through World War I
1. The Program of J. P. Gabler. A fundamentally new understanding of the goal of a biblical
theology was presented by Gabler in his now famous accessionary lecture delivered to the
faculty of theology in Altdorf in 1787 (see Sandys-Wunsch and Eldredge 1980 for translation
and discussion of this address). Basic to Gabler‘s thought was the distinction between ―Biblical
Theology,‖ which is of a historical nature (genere historico), and Dogmatic Theology, the nature
of which is didactic (genero didactico). According to Gabler, biblical theology, ―passes on to us
what the holy authors thought about divine things.‖ In contrast, dogmatic theology presents us
with conclusions about divine things arrived at by a theologian whose thought will have been
conditioned by the particularities of his time, his origins, and the school to which he belonged.
Since dogmatic theology is subject to the continuous transformations of history, it is
crucial that those ―pure concepts‖ which are valid for all times should be derived from the Bible
and analyzed so as to distinguish divine from human wisdom. To this end a precise historical
organization of the biblical works according to their respective times of origin is necessary,
enabling us to recognize the time-bound concepts (the true theology), as well as to collect the
sacred ideas (notiones sacrae) through comparative study, thus gaining the ―pure theology.‖
Since the ―sacred ideas‖ are ―constant,‖ dogmatic theology at any time-determined stage may
appeal to them to support its statements.
Gabler‘s emphasis on the historical character of biblical theology deserves special stress.
The consequence of this idea is that the biblical writings are to be studied with the same methods
as apply to secular works. A further consequence of the chronological distinction of writings (in

3|Page
connection with which the apocryphal writings proved to be important) is that the OT recedes in
importance with respect to the NT, the distinctions between various canons become clearer, and
the dogmatic unity of Scripture breaks down. However, Gabler‘s assumption that it is possible to
extract from the Bible dicta classica (that is, timeless universal truths agreeing with reason; i.e.,
a ―biblical theology, narrowly construed‖), which might form a solid foundation for the didactic
mission of (more subjective and time-bound) dogmatic theology, was itself a product of
Enlightenment thought. Gabler did not see that historical knowledge itself is based on various
time-bound presuppositions, and that it, too, therefore remains subjective.
The Partition into OT and NT Theologies. Gabler himself never attempted to realize his
program. The work of C. F. von Ammon (1792) once again interpreted the whole of Scripture on
a single plane, albeit a plane based on Kant‘s moral teachings. Wherever Gabler‘s work was
taken seriously, his historical program speedily led to a partition into OT and NT theologies, as
first occurred in the work of his colleague at Altdorf, G. L. Bauer. Bauer accepted only Gabler‘s
first methodological step, namely the historical investigation of the sources. In the process, Bauer
emphasized powerfully the pre-Christian and sub-Christian elements (except for monotheism) in
the OT. His basic idea was that religious ideas evolved progressively, and in keeping with that
idea he studied the development of the concepts. He also sought rationalistic explanations for
biblical myths and miracles, and considered the decisive climax to be theadvent of Jesus, whom
he designated ―the greatest teacher in the world.‖

Also in the subsequent period we find an unequal balance between historical

interpretation of the sources and the desire to derive universal truths from them, so that the
reconstruction (comparatio) alternated between these extremes. Additionally, the historical
approach created an abyss separating the Testaments. F. C. Baur objected that the works of W.
M. L. de Wette (1813) and G. P. Kaiser (1813–21; see below) were not sufficiently historical. De
Wette described ―the moral idea of a god, liberated from all myth, as a holy will‖ as the
objective principle of Hebrew religion. This ―ideal universalism‖ (conceived as the idea actually
intended by Moses) was symbolized by theocratic particularism. De Wette summarized Hebrew
religion and Judaism as ―the religion of the Old Testament,‖ Judaism being for him ―the
unfortunate reconstruction of Hebrew religion.‖ ―The teachings of Jesus‖ and ―the teachings of
the apostles‖ were the ―religion of the New Testament and of Christianity.‖ For De Wette,
―only that which according to philosophical principles belongs to religion‖ should be part of the
presentation, which is systematically constructed according to the doctrines of God, man, and the
Messiah (soteriology). After the second edition, de Wette prefaced each subsequent section with
a ―doctrine of revelation,‖ which showed Hebrew religion to be a history of revelation from the
Creation until the latest period.
D. G. C. von Cölln attempted to carry out Gabler‘s program in a work published
posthumously (1836). The OT and NT were treated separately, and the various epochs (such as
―Hebrew religion‖ and ―Judaism‖) were distinguished according to ―historical principles.‖
The rationalizing and systematic tendency was, however, dominant in the work: Von Cölln‘s

4|Page
goal was to make manifest the ―universal religious concepts or religious universalism‖ which he
distinguished from the concrete temporal features (expressed either mythic-symbolically or
mythic-nonsymbolically), which he labeled ―theocratic concepts of religion or religious
particularism.‖ It is noteworthy that historical development was scarcely discernible in this work.
A new approach more explicitly concerned with the historical development of Israelite
religion came with the work of W. Vatke (1835). Influenced by Hegelian philosophy, Vatke
understood the chain of events in history as the self-manifestation of the ―absolute Spirit‖ in
revelation. In this view, ―the various evolutionary stages of religion were equivalent to just as
many stages in the development of consciousness‖ (p. 100). The goal of this evolutionary
development of consciousness is absolute religion, in which ―the concept of religion becomes
completely realized as idea‖ (p. 101), which Vatke saw as occurring in Christianity. Hegel‘s
historical dialectic led to a periodization of the religious history of Israel, according to which the
Law followed the prophets, the Chronicler‘s History was dated very late, and the Psalms and
Wisdom materials, too, were dated later than the prophets. Hegel‘s student B. Bauer also
published a similar type of history-of-religions investigation (1838–39).

In his review of volume 1 of G. P. Kaiser‘s biblical theology, F. C. Baur earlier (1818) had
already demanded such a thoroughgoing, historically conceived, and independent scholarly
investigation of biblical theology which would bring Jewish and Christian religion into
comprehensive historical perspective. Step by step, the historical-critical investigation of the NT
sources permitted the reconstruction of the history of early Christianity (by distinguishing
between authentic and deutero- Pauline epistles, the Synoptics and the gospel of John, etc.), a
reconstruction that was later summarized by Baur himself (1853). From this effort, Baur‘s
(posthumously published) lectures emerged (1864). At the outset he formulated the following
principle: ―Unlike dogmatics … biblical theology ought to be a purely historical discipline.‖
Due to the historical difference between the two Testaments, he insisted that this discipline
should yield separate theologies of the OT and NT (1864: 1, 10). On the basis of Hegel‘s
dialectic and the understanding of history as the self-manifestation of the human spirit (which
over time participates more and more in the absolute spirit), three NT periods arose out of the
conflict and conjunction of doctrinal concepts: (1) the period of the four Pillar Epistles of Paul
and the antithesis provided by Revelation; (2) the period of Hebrews, the deutero-Pauline
epistles, 1–2 Peter, James, the Synoptics, and Acts; and (3) the period of the Pastoral Epistles and
the Johannine writings, since, according to Baur (p. 351) ―New Testament theology achieves its
highest stage and most complete form‖ in the Johannine didactic concept. In addition to this, the
teaching of Jesus constituted the ―primeval period,‖ which, however, ―escapes precise
historical observation‖ (p. 122), since it has been transmitted by tradition. (Against this, G. L.
Bauer held that the teachings of Jesus themselves belonged constitutively to NT theology. The
disagreement on this point is still noticeable even in the most recent studies, and is, indeed, one
of the abiding problems of NT theology.)

5|Page
 Among the other notable publications of the 19th century was the Christologie (1829–35)
of E. W. Hengstenberg, a conservative attempt to demonstrate the unity of the two testaments as
revelation utilizing Messianism as a unifying theme. But despite Hengstenberg‘s ecclesiological
influence, the future belonged to the historical approach. The Vorlesungen (―Lectures‖) of J. C.
Steudel (1840) presuppose an understanding of the step-by-step, continuous developmental path
of OT religion from the very simplest forms, even though these lectures were structured
systematically. According to Steudel, Christianity is, ―in virtue of its historical connection with
Judaism, both the continuation and the perfection of Judaism (or, more rightly put, of the OT
revelation)‖ (1840: 542). Steudel‘s student, G. F. Oehler (1873–74), also wanted to derive the
step-by-step, progressive revelation of NT faith historically and genetically from the OT
witnesses. His subdivisions were Mosaism, prophetism, and OT Wisdom. We should note that
Oehler assigned the whole of the Law, including Deuteronomy, to Mosaism, and did not accept
Vatke‘s assignment of it to the period following the prophets. The post-positioning of Wisdom
had no chronological intent; rather, it points to the the special role played by this literature,
which Oehler understood as satisfying man‘s drive for knowledge.
H. Ewald‘s theology (1888), presupposing his Geschichte Israels, stresses in a similar way the
historical ―stages of revelation.‖ These, however, he found to correspond to one another in the
main and to have their common reference point in Christ. Thus the two Testaments were once
more understood from the same point of view. This work was, however, scarcely noted in the
following period.
From Biblical Theology to History of Religion. a. From OT Theology to the History of
Israelite Religion.
In the last quarter of the 19th century, the discussion raged even within the field of OT theology
for and against the Graf-Kuenen-Wellhausen hypothesis, according to which prophecy was held
to have preceded the Law. While the history-of-ideas oriented account of F. Hitzig (1880),
student of H. Ewald, and the conservatively minded A. Dillmann (1895) either did not refer to
the debate (thus Hitzig) or rejected the Wellhausen hypothesis (thus Dillmann), the popular
Theologie of Hermann Schultz (1892), which ran to five editions, represented a transition to a
mixed position. Here the history of Israelite-Jewish religion enjoyed the place of honor, while the
systematic-theological treatments of the ―Congregational Consciousness of Salvation in the
Second Temple‖ and the ―Religious Understanding of the World‖ were presented at the end of
the work. Thus, Hitzig, Dillmann, and also E. Riehm, in a posthumously published work (1889),
present introductory sections on ―The Nature of Israelite Religion,‖ followed by sectionsm
devoted to historical matters. work (1889), present introductory sections on ―The Nature of
Israelite Religion,‖ followed by sections devoted to historical matters.
The future was to belong to the purely historical studies, such as those of A. Kuenen (1869–70),
J.Wellhausen (WGI), and K. Budde (1912). The change also manifested itself in A. Kayser‘s
Theologie (1886), the title of which was changed to Geschichte der israelitischen Religion in the
edition revised by K. Marti in 1897. When B. Stade, a comrade-in-arms of Wellhausen, named
the first volume of his 1905 work ―The Religion of Israel and the Origins of Judaism,‖ and yet

6|Page
retained as series title the misleading Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments (1905), the latter
was plainly an anachronism. Matters were similar in the posthumously published work of E.
Kautzsch (1911), since his was a purely history-ofreligions approach. In a well-known speech
(1893), Stade described the task of the discipline as a purely historical one and rejected all
connection to dogmatics. The elder Rudolf Smend (1851–1913) wrote a Lehrbuch der
alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte (―Textbook of the History of Old Testament
Religion,‖ 1893) from the point of view of the Wellhausen School, and so brought this
development to a climax. Other works of this type were published by G. Hölscher (1922), and by
W. Oesterley and T. H. Robinson (1930).
An interesting note was brought into the discussion by the so-called history-of-religions
school, the main representative of which in OT study was H. Gunkel. The members of this
school shared with their contemporaries the rejection of the old style of biblical theology; their
twin battle cries were ―religion‖ and ―history‖ (Gunkel 1914: 386–87; cf. also W. Klatt 1969:
25–26). The intention, ―to grasp the religion itself in all its depth and breadth,‖ that is, the
―history of biblical religion‖ (Gunkel 1922: 66; cf. Klatt 1969: 27), entailed the separation of
OT study from dogma and canon, but also from constrictive literary criticism. Additionally, and
this is especially noteworthy, Gunkel held that OT and NT religion ought to be understood in all
their ―historically conditioned connections with other religions‖ (1922: 66).

From NT Theology to the History of the Early Church.

Similar developments characterized the field of NT theology. Already E. Reuss declared:
―Biblical theology is essentially a historical discipline. It does not demonstrate; rather, it relates.
It is the first chapter of a history of Christian doctrine‖ (1852: 11). The beginning of this history
of Christian doctrine was the appearance of the person and message of Jesus, both of which had
to be included in any investigation.
Even a work which proceeded on the basis of a fundamentally conservative attitude, such as B.
Weiss‘ popular Lehrbuch (1868) could not escape the results of the historical-critical study of the
NT writings. Weiss‘ work presupposed the results of this research with respect to authors and
dates of composition, so that after arranging the writings historically it would be possible ―to
regard them as sources for a particular concept of doctrine‖ (1868: 8). Weiss defined the real task
of biblical theology as ―historical descriptive.‖ He also distinguished between biblical theology
and ―biblical dogmatics,‖ the latter attempting to derive a unified system of doctrine from
scripture‘s manifold teachings. He held that the presence of such a unified doctrine guarantees
the authenticity of the NT writings as documents of the perfect revelation which took place in
Christ. Since this position did not really take the various historical contexts seriously, it
ultimately proved to be unsatisfactory. The Theologie (1891) of W. Beyschlag was a thorough
presentation of the teachings of Jesus (one after the other, but harmonically) according to the
Synoptics and John, interpreted along the lines of liberal theology; in other respects it followed
B. Weiss. Beyschlag found the concept of a biblical theology actually inappropriate, since the

7|Page
Bible does not contain anything like a scholarly theology, but rather religion, or even religio-
moral teachings (1891: 1.1–2).
A further step in the direction of a consistent religio-historical study was soon taken. A.
Deissmann
demanded an ―account of the collective consciousness of early Christianity‖ which went beyond
the borders of the canon (1893: 137–38). G. Krüger (1896) demanded that the biblical theology
of the NT be replaced by a history of the religion and literature of early Christianity. In the
program of the history-ofreligions school W. Wrede supported the following approach: the study
of early Christian literature would be liberated from the rule of dogmatics only if one abandoned
the ―method of doctrinal concepts‖ and looked beyond the borders of the Canon (1975: 85–135
passim). The task was then to depict the living early Christian religion in its development and
self-manifestation (Wrede 1975: 115, 123–32).
However, Wrede‘s program was never consistently followed in any later comprehensive
study. H. Weinel attempted to develop, with Wrede, a ―history of the religion of the earliest
Christianity‖ instead of a NT theology (1911: 3). However, in so doing Weinel proposed a
―religion of Jesus and of early Christianity‖ as a ―moral religion of redemption‖ (p. 130) in an
absolutely liberal-theological sense. Similar to this was J. Kaftan‘s work (1927). The religio
historical approach was more consistently carried out in 1913 by W. Bousset (1967), who
depicted the religion of early Christianity as ―the history of faith in Christ from the beginning of
Christianity until Irenaeus.‖ P. Feine‘s Theologie (1910; cf. also 1921) is an ambiguous work in
that it broadly adopts the results of historical-critical research, but then presents— in the
traditional sequence—the teachings of Jesus according to the Synoptics, of early Christianity, of
Paul, and of the rest of the NT writings, each separately listed; in the process Feine inserted
numerous subjective and confessional evaluations of faith. Decidedly conservative was T.
Zahn‘s Grundriss (―Outline‖) (1928). A. Schlatter went entirely his own way (1909–10);
according to him, the historical ―awareness‖ postulates a theological interpretation which
defends the ecclesiastical tradition materially as well as harmonizes contradictions.

New Beginnings at the End of World War I

1. The Understanding of Scripture according to Dialectical Theology.
According to the principles of historical inquiry (which formed the hermeneutical basis of the
religio-historical approach), the twin bases of historical knowledge are objectivity and relativism.
In this connection, the yardstick for evaluating events as really having happened is inner-
historical analogy, which presupposes the ―similarity in principle of all historical occurrences‖
(Troeltsch 1898). However, this presupposition also reduces the events of salvation history
(themselves derived from the Bible by historical-critical methods) to the level of mundane
historical events. K. Barth was merely one of many young pastors who discerned a painful
discrepancy between the results of this historical-critical exegesis and the Bible-based piety of
the congregation, and who thus found themselves left alone by the exegetes with the duty of
preaching from biblical texts. Thus the appearance of Barth‘s 1919 commentary on the epistle to

8|Page
the Romans (1933) had the effect of a call to arms. The new hermeneutical approach which
Barth had only hinted at in the preface he explained in the preface to the second edition in more
detail: Barth emphasized that while he acknowledged historical criticism, he could not consider
himself satisfied with the text ―as it stands.‖ Rather, he felt compelled to press on to actual
Verstehen (―understanding‖) and Erklären (―explanation‖). As he said, ―Kritischer mussten
mir die Historisch-Kritischen sein!‖ (―The critical historian needs to be more critical‖ [1933: 8,
although the authorized translation does not quite do justice to the original German!]). Following
the model of the Reformers, Barth held that it was essential that one should strive
for a dialogue between the inner dialectic of the matter behind the text and the reader. Barth
subsequently developed this position (esp. 1925). His point of departure for understanding
Scripture was, however, the dogmatic contention that ―the Bible is the Word of God‖ (1925:
217), and, while men may have spoken in it, it was, ―[though] refracted through the prism of
their words, God himself‖ who spoke (p. 220). The self-evidence of this truth is the work of the
Holy Spirit (p. 243). However, he insisted on ―the historical conditionality of the Biblical
witness‖ (pp. 226–27) if only in the Reformers‘ sense of the ―in, with, and under‖ of God‘s word
in human words. In response to those who sought historical information beyond the canon, Barth
insisted that the canon was an ―absolute datum‖ (p. 221), and, although differences were
admitted between its various parts, as between the OT and NT, these were merely relative with
respect to the unity of revelation behind both (pp. 222–23). Thus the theme of ―biblical
theology‖ was posed anew, understood now as a question about the unity of the testaments.

In addition to this, Barth‘s Christological approach must be considered. His remarks

about ―history and primeval history‖ (1927: 230–54) were especially influential. According to
Barth, only the revelation which took place in Jesus Christ was a ―primeval history‖ (p. 230).
Normal history, as such, is not revelation; revelation, however, is discoverable in history, but
only when it is heard as God‘s personal address to people who look for him (p. 234). Thus, it is
only in the light of the ―primeval history‖ (i.e., the revelation in Christ) that history becomes
revelation—i.e., a context interpreted through the Word of God. The demand levied by
dialectical theology that the hearer (reader) immediately encounter the Word of God provoked a
lively discussion. Taken together with the simultaneous Luther renaissance, the result
was a harkening back to the Reformation understanding of Scripture, together with the claim of
complete integration with the knowledge and methods of historical-critical research. However,
dialectical theology was also in danger of repeating the hermeneutical weaknesses of the
Reformation by insufficiently considering the relationship between exegesis and dogmatics.
A strongly Christocentric exegesis of the OT as the Word of God which also
acknowledged the historical character of the Word was propounded by W. Vischer (1934–42).
First he examined the Pentateuch (―the Law‖), then the historical books (―the Former
Prophets‖) with the aim of disclosing their hidden Christological significance, though in the
process he frequently resorted to allegory.

9|Page
 2. New Efforts in OT Theology.
Renewed interest in the theological aims of the study of the OT was not stimulated by dialectical
theology, but rather by exegetes more closely aligned with the religiohistorical school. R. Kittel,
the old master of the historical research on the OT, proclaimed that the decipherment of the
specifically religious content of OT religion had been neglected (1921: 95). He further
emphasized that it was important to press on from the merely religio-historical and psychological
characterization to describe the nature and nucleus of the religion, and its truth in terms of
systematics, that is, the philosophy of religion, or dogmatics. Because of the purity of the OT
conception of God and of personality, and because of its universalism, OT religion was viewed
as the ―summit of all ancient religions‖ (1921: 96; similarly also Porter 1921). C. Steuernagel
(1925) also espoused the history-of religions position, although he suggested that it was
important to include a systematic and thematically ordered characterization alongside the genetic
account of the general development of Israelite religion. However, as he stated, ―Both
disciplines have the same object: Israelite religion …; the same sources … and the same method:
historical‖ (1925: 272). The descriptive-dogmatic method of OT theology was thereby
established. In this task (as Steuernagel saw it) of providing a ―philosophy of religion‖
perspective on OT materials, a pre-Gabler form of the old task of ―biblical theology‖ was
revived. Steuernagel objected only to its lack of evolutionary perspective and its overarching
dogmatic scheme (p. 267).
Indeed, we find in numerous works of this period a return to the 19th-century
ambivalence mentioned above. A historical and evolutionary account of the history of Israelite-
Jewish religion was now accompanied by a systematic account. This was the case, for example,
in E. Sellin‘s two-volume Theologie (1933). In this book, the traditional tripartite division recurs:
(1) God and his relationship to the world; (2) man and man‘s sin; and (3) divine justice and
salvation. This systematic account was, however, intended to reproduce the faith and doctrine in
the OT, ―only insofar as they have acknowledged Jesus Christ and his apostles as the
presupposition and foundation of their Gospel, as the revelation of the God they had proclaimed‖
(1933: 1). It was this ―prophetic-moral-universalistic-eschatological religion‖ that continually
wrestled with the ―national cult-religion‖ throughout the OT period, the latter being preserved
within the various currents in Judaism.

O. Procksch‘s posthumous Theologie contains, in addition to the insistence that the history of
religion should be subordinated to OT theology (since the self-sacrifice of God is encompassed
by history; 1950: 17), an extensive section on ―the historical world‖ before the systematic main
section on ―the world of thought.‖ L. Koehler‘s Theology (1958; original German 1936) is
programmatic and descriptive: ―One may give a book the title Old Testament Theology if it
manages to bring together and relate those ideas, thoughts and concepts of the Old Testament
which are or can be theologically significant, justified by their content and in their right context‖
(1958: 7). The total organization of this work is traditionally dogmatic: (1) the doctrine of God;
(2) the doctrine of man; and (3) the doctrine of divine judgment and salvation (eschatology).

10 | P a g e
Here, too, we find Protestant cultural premises: a section entitled ―The self redemption of man:
the cult‖ can only be assigned to (2) (as a mere human enterprise)! But Procksch was the first
scholar to develop new ideas about organizing the material in better accord with the contents of
the OT. In the systematic main section of his work, he used for the first time such relational
concepts as ―God and world,‖ ―God and nation,‖ and ―God and man,‖ concepts which were
later adopted by W. Eichrodt (on the basis of Procksch‘s lectures). However, a gap separated the
descriptive form of Procksch‘s account of the contents of the OT from his theological aims
(―All theology is Christology‖ [p. 1]; the OT points to Christ; in his historicity he may only be
apprehended through the OT [pp. 7–12]).
W. Eichrodt‘s 3-volume work published in the 1930s (cf. the 2-volume English
translation, 1961–67) expressed in classical form the presentation of OT theology in terms
derived from the OT itself. In the preface to the edition, Eichrodt defined the goal of his work as
―to present the religion of which the records are to be found in the Old Testament as a self-
contained entity, exhibiting … a constant basic tendency and character‖ (1961–67: 1.17). By the
same token, Eichrodt also intended ―to understand the realm of OT belief … and … by
examining on the one hand its religious environment and on the other its essential coherence
with the NT, to illuminate its profoundest meaning‖ (p. 1.31). The overall structural
arrangement—(1) God and people; (2) God and world; and (3) God and man—apparently
follows Procksch (with conscious emphasis on ―God and people‖ as the relationship which was
most central to OT thought), although the historical development is thematically integrated in the
work.
Eichrodt chose the idea of the covenant as his organizing principle, around which he
grouped the entire theological content of the OT. In the first part (vol. 1) the headings are
accordingly grouped under the key word ―covenant,‖ even though not all of the material fits
well in this context. In parts II and III (vol. 2) the word has been dropped from the headings, and
the connections are also much looser. In the 5th German edition of vol. 1, Eichrodt noted that
from a historical perspective, the movement from the OT to the NT reveals itself as the
breakthrough and triumph of the royal reign of God. Conversely, he noted a reverse ―movement
of life‖ (Lebensbewegung) passing from the NT to the OT, by means of which the world of OT
thought will finally be completed (p. 2).
However, against the objections of Baumgärtel (1951), Eichrodt insisted on the strictly
historical, non normative task of OT theology (1961–67: 1.13). After Eichrodt, the dogmatic
scheme established itself more often in most of the thematically ordered studies. This applies to
some Roman Catholic works, such as that by P. Heinisch (1950), which was divided into five
main sections (God, Creation, Way of Life, the Hereafter, and Redemption), and that by P. van
Imschoot, of whose originally planned three volumes only two appeared (1965), focusing
respectively on God and Man. But an organization based on dogmatic topoi was also exemplified
in the works of Baab (1949), Vriezen (see below), and Garcia Cordero (1970).

11 | P a g e
The Situation in NT Theology. Unlike the creative theological efforts in the field of OT
theology, the situation of NT theology between the world wars was characterized by comparative
stagnation. The new theological impetus which had been initiated by dialectical theology did not
lead to the appearance of new general presentations. Instead, the old standard works of Feine,
Weinel, and Schlatter were repeatedly reprinted. Of course, theological work was conducted in
several individual areas of NT study. This applies particularly to Pauline studies, which not only
discussed the questions of the Hellenistic or Jewish origins of the apostle‘s thought (following
the lead of the religio-historical school), but also inquired as to the contents of his proclamation.
The theological understanding of the gospel of John was summarized in Bultmann‘s commentary
(1941). Form criticism offered the study of the Synoptics new possibilities to work out the
theology of the (early Hellenistic) congregation which was reflected in the short units in those
works.
It is remarkable that R. Bultmann, who belonged originally to the religio-historical
school, had conceived his sharply existential approach by 1925, immediately after his encounter
with Martin Heidegger. For Bultmann it was essential that ―the text makes its claim on the
reader, i.e., it does not let itself be observed, but instead attempts to determine the reader in his
existence‖ (1975: 252). However, since the text is a historical witness, ―the decisive question is:
whether we approach the narrative in such a way that we acknowledge its claim upon us, that it
has something new to say. If we surrender our neutrality with respect to the text, this means that
the question of truth dominates our exegesis‖ (p. 253). Instead of the contemporary-historical
question ―What does it say?‖ the important thing is the question ―What does it mean?‖ (p.
254); it is in such a way ―that we then inquire as to the possibilities for our existence which
emerge from our encounter with the narrative‖ (p. 265). However, since Bultmann held
that the only correct questioning of the NT ―is that of belief,‖ that is, ―[an approach] which is
founded in obedience to the authority of the Scriptures‖ (p. 271), such questioning in effect
becomes fundamentally impossible, as does theology in general. Interpretation of self and of text
are inseparable and ―since … the self-interpretation of the individual as historical individual
can only be carried out in the interpretation of history, theology and exegesis or systematic and
historical theology fundamentally coincide‖ (p. 272). In biblical theology, ―the existential
encounter with the reality of this history is carried out‖ (p. 273).
In practice, however, systematic and historical theology are separable, since systematics
has the task of ―conceptual explication of man‘s existence as determined by God,‖ while the
aim of historical theology is ―to describe the interpretation of the individual which is given in
the text‖ (p. 273). In its capacity as conceptual-scientific thought, exegetical theology
understands the NT as the Word of God only indirectly; the revelation is veiled in human words.
The duty to elevate its intelligibility into the intelligibility of the present (Bultmann‘s later
famous key word for this was ―demythologizing‖ [ Entmythologisierung]) reveals the necessity
for expert criticism (p. 274). Bultmann‘s entire program was thereby already implied. At this
time, F. Büchsel completed a work (1937) which was, however, both inadequate and

12 | P a g e
conservative-apologetical. The work by E. Stauffer (1941) was likewise unsatisfactory, since in
its major section (which focuses on ―Salvation History‖) it avoids making an adequate
differentiation of the NT writings; indeed, the section ranges beyond the limits of the canon. The
work also promulgates a unifying ―Christocentric NT theology of history.

Developments since World War II

1. The “Biblical Theology Movement.” There soon emerged in Great Britain and America a
renewed religious interest in the Bible. A movement which began in Great Britain shortly before
(and which continued during) World War II strove to bring about an obligatory approach of faith
to the Bible, including the OT, so that the questions of its theological meaning and its relation to
the NT attained wider significance. First popular revivalistic writings, and subsequently also
critical scholars, demanded a return to the authority of Holy Scripture (including the OT) as
essential to Christian faith. Above all in America (and Scotland), the consequences of dialectical
theology now showed themselves, while England to a large degree went its own way. A number
of scholarly journals (Theology Today, 1944; Interpretation, 1947; Scottish Journal of Theology,
1948) were founded to provide a forum for the new movement. The views which appeared
differed in points of detail, although much of it derived from the prior developments in the
German-language sphere. Thus, for example, Hebert (1941; cf. also 1947a; 1947b; 1950)
interpreted the OT on the basis of its fulfillment in Christ, a Christological interpretation
reminiscent of W. Vischer. For Pythian-Adams (esp. 1942; cf. also 1944), the ―presence‖ of
God was the central concept in the OT; he held that the relationship of this presence to the
fulfillment in Christ was th efoundation of the unity of the salvation history. The NT scholar P.
Minear demanded an immediate relation of faith to the Bible: ―The Bible calls for witnesses,
not for teachers. It is written from faith to faith‖ (1949: 3).
Against views which were not infrequently fundamentalistic, H. H. Rowley expressly
emphasized the necessity of the historical-critical method for the understanding of the OT.
Rowley further held that the use of this method offered no obstacles to the spiritual
understanding of the word (1944). For Rowley, the Bible was not revelation itself, but merely the
account of the revelation; consequently it must be read with the aid of critical reason (1963: 3–
34). Rowley remained convinced of the importance of the OT for Christian faith (cf. also 1946),
and saw the relationship of both testaments as one of promise and fulfillment (1953). However,
diversity is visible within this unity (1953: 1–29); as Rowley said, ―Each Testament is to be
read first and foremost in terms of itself … before they are related to one another‖ (p. 20).
After World War II, a lively discussion broke out in America (in short form already in
JBR 8 [1940]) concerning the need for a biblical theology. On one hand were proponents of the
view that a purely historical understanding of the Bible must accommodate the more immediate
demands of faith. Thus already in 1946 G. Ernest Wright advocated a view which distanced itself
from the compulsion for ―objectivity,‖ insisting instead that Bible readers adopt for themselves
the confessional viewpoint of the biblical narrator (1946; similarly also Ferre 1952; 1959). B.
Childs objected to a merely ―objective‖ description of the religious contents of the Bible,

13 | P a g e
advocating a reformatory understanding of the Bible, on the assumption that the Reformers read
the OT in order to hear the Word of God (1964: 437). For this, Childs maintained, faith is
necessary. Against the objection that this would be an unscientific form of
biblical interpretation, Childs (like other advocates of the ―confessionalistic‖ method) stressed
that the task of description was implicitly part of the theological task. All critical methods are to
be employed, since the OT is the witness of a historical people, a fact that the exegesis of the
Reformers did not sufficiently respect.
On the other side there were, above all, the proponents of the old liberal exegesis, who, if
they did not simply insist on a purely religio-historical interpretation, demanded for biblical
theology in objective descriptive manner of presentation. The spokesman for the latter position
was K. Stendahl (cf. above all 1962; 1965). According to Stendahl, it is easy to distinguish
between ―what it meant‖ and ―what it means.‖ Adherents of this position emphasized
repeatedly that biblical theology is a historical undertaking and so must be accomplished
descriptively. They thus insisted on pursuing the course which Gabler had begun. From a
methodological viewpoint they adhered to historicism, fearing that the ―biblical theology
movement‖ led to undue enthusiasm, arbitrariness, and loss of scientific objectivity.
It is important that we see the international background behind this ―movement‖ and consider
the interconnections with the theological ground-breaking which had taken place in European
biblical study since World War I. Also the ―crisis‖ of the movement, which was diagnosed by
Childs at the beginning of the 1960s (1970; on the discussion, see Smart 1979: 18–30), had to do
with changes in the general spiritual and theological climate in the Western world at this time.
Insights and points of view from sociology and the humanities commanded more and more of the
Church‘s attention, often at the expense of the Bible. However, the preponderant disregard of the
Bible in the Church beginning in the 1960s (which Smart [1970] so very much regretted at the
height of this ―crisis‖) has more recently given way to a renewed interest in biblical theology
(see below).

2. Main Problems in OT Theology.

The much-discussed question whether an OT theology ought to proceed purely
descriptively, or whether it ought in some way to make statements of faith, has been variously
answered in the European debate as well. Whereas W. Eichrodt had stressed the descriptive
historical approach (1929: 89–91), O. Eissfeldt (1926: 1–12) placed historical and theological
interpretation on two different planes, namely the plane of knowledge and the plane of faith.
Although in this form Eissfeldt‘s suggestion remained a unique contribution, this dichotomy
would in the future prove to be a fundamental problem of OT theology.
In the work of F. Baumgärtel an experiential piety in the tradition of the Erlangen
Lutheran pietism revealed itself. For Baumgärtel, the question is whether the OT
individual―being touched‖ by the ―basic promise‖ (―I am the Lord, your God‖) is also our
―being touched‖ by the Gospel (thus, in a subjective sense, ―salvation history‖), even though
the concrete realization under the old covenant has been done away with, and in the OT only the

14 | P a g e
lack of prospects, that is, the failure, becomes visible (see Baumgärtel‘s major work: 1952; and
esp. 1953; 1954).

a. Systematically Structured Works.

In contrast to Eichrodt, T. C. Vriezen in 1949 saw the task of an OT theology as ―a Christian
theological science‖ (1970: 147). ―As a theological branch of scholarship the theology of the
Old Testament seeks particularly the element of revelation in the message of the Old
Testament; it must work, therefore, with theological standards and must give its own evaluation
of the Old Testament message on the ground of its Christian theological starting-point‖ (p. 148).
Therefore Vriezen treats in the first main section of his Introduction above all ―The Christian
Church and the Old Testament‖ (pp. 11–21), and devotes a separate chapter (pp. 91–142) to the
theme ―The Old Testament as the Word of God, and Its Use in the Church.‖ The concept of
revelation is central to Vriezen‘s thought, for it is here that we also find the connection to the
NT. Vriezen says, ―At the heart of the Old Testament message lies the expectation of the
Kingdom of God, and it is the initial fulfilment of this expectation in Jesus of Nazareth … that
underlies the message of the New Testament. The true heart of both Old and New Testaments is,
therefore, the eschatological perspective‖ (p. 123). A second main section (pp. 153– 461) then
presents ―The Content of Old Testament Theology.‖ Here Vriezen makes the fundamental
determination that in the OT the knowledge of God is the ―intimate relationship between the
Holy God and man‖ (p. 153). He treats revelation and the cult in a section entitled ―The
Intercourse between God and Man‖ (pp. 176–289); and has other sections devoted to ―The
Community of God‖ (where God as the God of community, the interpersonal community with its
ethical standards, and the understanding of man all belong); and ―The Prospect of the
Community of God‖ (pp. 430–63) (covering the present rule of God and future hope).
Against this, E. Jacob (1958) argued for retaining the historical-descriptive character of
OT theology. It is nevertheless not a question of bruta facta; in Jacob‘s view, interpretation is
decisive for history, and for the Israelites this took place in their faith. Jacob‘s OT theology has
unlimited scope: ―faithful to its name, it deals solely with God and with his relations to man and
the world.‖ Thus Jacob‘s first main section deals with ―Characteristic Aspects of the God of the
Old Testament‖ (1958: 37–120); here he sees ―the living God‖ as ―the center of revelation and
of faith,‖ and as forming the point of departure. He subsequently goes on to describe God‘s
names, manifestations, holiness, righteousness, faithfulness, love, wrath, and wisdom. In the
second main part of the work we find ―The Action of God according to the Old Testament‖ (pp.
121–275). First the spirit and the word are characterized as ―means‖ of divine action; then
descriptions follow of God as creator of the world, of nature and the destiny of man, of God as
the lord of history, and of God in the various institutions (offices and places). The third main
section is entitled ―Opposition to and Final Triumph of God‘s Work‖ (pp. 281–342); here the
traditional topos of eschatology has apparently provided the pattern. The subjects here are sin
and redemption, death and future life, final struggle and messianic kingdom. One might ask

15 | P a g e
whether the theme of ―God‖ pure and simple is suitable to serve as the formal supraordinate
category of OT theology as a whole.
However, the theme ―God‖ does in fact serve in this capacity in the work of G. A. F.
Knight (1959), the main sections of which are entitled ―God,‖ ―God and Creation,‖ ―God and
Israel,‖ and ―The Zeal of the Lord‖ (which is more in the nature of a rubric under which all sorts
of different themes can be treated). In a certain sense, Knight seems intent on describing a
theology of the entire Bible. Like Vriezen, he emphasizes ―that the Church believes the Old
Testament to be the Word of God‖; thus his intention is to write a theology of the OT from an
ecclesiastical perspective (1959: 7). In the various OT metaphors of the ―divine family‖; of
God‘s name, face, and spirit; of Israel as the ―sons of God‖; and also in those
metaphors expressing Israel‘s manifold hopes (―son of David,‖ ―branch,‖ etc.), we find
reflected some of the conceptual patterns which were adopted in the NT, and a somewhat loose
collection of such metaphors assembles itself before the reader‘s eyes.
An independent (though for its author, characteristic) effort was chosen by G. Fohrer.
Proceeding on the assumption that revelation is ―personal experience‖ (1972: 49), Fohrer saw in
the (antimagical and antilegalistic) existential attitude of the (individual) prophets the real high
point of the OT (pp. 71–86). The interwovenness of the lordship of God with the community
with God forms a second focus in this connection (pp. 98–109; see further below).
J. L. McKenzie saw matters quite differently. He, too, understood the OT writings as
―records of this people (Israel) with Yahweh‖ (1974: 31). However, he found the most normal
and frequent site of this experience to be the cult. Revelation took place in the cult (in the laws of
the Covenant and the prophets); history, nature, and wisdom were collected there, and (as not
subsumable) political and social institutions and ―the future of Israel‖ were generated there. One
cannot help noting that McKenzie is a Roman Catholic scholar, and that consequently the
varying organizations of the OT theologies described here apparently derive from quite different
worldviews.
W. Zimmerli‘s account (1978) is relatively brief, but is nevertheless the result of many
years of theological preoccupation with the OT. Zimmerli also adheres to a systematic
presentation, one which proceeds from the revelation of the name of God (see below, D.2.b).
This implicitly leads to a bipartite presentation, first on God (chaps. 1–3), then on Man (Chap.
4). A fifth chapter, ―Crisis and Hope‖ (dealing with judgment and salvation), reveals the old
locus de novissimis.
The work of C. Westermann (1982) is structurally intelligible only on the basis of the
systematic developed by the author in numerous preparatory studies. Using a peculiar form of
existential approach, the work is characterized by numerous interwoven polarities: (1) through
the opposition between the saving and blessing activity of God (historical acts and acts of
creation, respectively); (2) between God‘s justice and his mercy (prophecies of judgment and
salvation; the apocalyptic); and (3) between the act (and word) of God and man‘s response.
However, it is also necessary to evaluate Westermann‘s work in relation to the questions posed

16 | P a g e
by G. von Rad (see below). Similar dialectics are the one of Terrien (1978) between―aesthetics‖
and ―ethics‖ and the ―cosmic-theological‖ one of Hanson (1978).
Judging by its framework chapters (chaps. 1–2 and 7–8), the work by R. E. Clements
(1978) is a sort of prolegomena to an OT theology which contains discussions of the
fundamental problems of the subject. The middle section (chaps. 3–6) contains a mixture of
material topoi (God [Chap. 3]; the people [Chap. 4]) and dogmatic themes (the Law [Chap. 4];
the Promise [Chap. 5]). Some isolated authors still
conducted historical-genetic studies. An example of this is the work of C. K. Lehman (1971).
The subdivisions of Lehman‘s work correspond to those of the Masoretic canon itself
(Pentateuch, Prophets, the Writings), and his assumption of a seamless and reliable historical
tradition stretching from Adam to the postexilic period allow both event and interpretation to
coincide. However, one should note that also a fundamentalist approach, such as the work of J.
B. Payne (1971), may take the form of a dogmatically ordered presentation: God, man, faith,
commitment (repentance, faith, ethics, cult), reconciliation.

b. The Problem of History. Working on the basis of the traditio-historical approach, G. von Rad
produced his own account of OT theology. Already in 1952 von Rad had demanded ―that the
plan of an Old Testament theology be historical and not systematic‖ (p. 31). In so saying, von
Rad had already laid the foundation for the bipartite division of his major work, which would be
published within the decade (Theology of the OT [ROTT], ET 1962–65). As Sellin and Procksch
had done previously, von Rad placed at the beginning of his study ―A History of Jahwism and
of the Sacral Institutions in Israel in Outline.‖ In the following ―Methodological
Presuppositions‖ he insisted that the object of any theology of the OT be ―simply Israel‘s own
explicit assertions about Jahweh.‖ It was essential to ―deal directly with the evidence‖; in the
process the theologian must ―in many cases … go back to school again and learn to interrogate
each document, much more closely than has been done hitherto, as to its specific kerygmatic
intention‖ (ROTT 1: 105–6).
The use of the key word ―kerygmatic‖ here illustrates von Rad‘s reliance
upon dialectical theology. At the same time, however, he limited his field of study, since, as he
said, the OT witnesses likewise ―confine themselves to representing Jahweh‘s relationship to
Israel and the world in one aspect only, namely as a continuing divine activity in history.‖ He
went on to affirm that ―Israel‘s faith is grounded in a theology of history.‖ However, the
manifold nature of the OT witnesses means that there is no single appropriate systematic-
theological approach to the theology of the OT; thus von Rad concluded that ―re-telling remains
the most legitimate form of theological discourse on the Old Testament‖ (ROTT 1: 121).
Accordingly, the main body of vol. 1 presents the theology of the Hexateuch according to
the periods of saving history which are recounted there (ROTT 1: 129–305). The following
section, ―Israel‘s Anointed‖ (pp. 306–54), unites thematic organization with an exposition of the
sources (the Deuteronomistic and Chronistic histories, and also the royal psalms). Extensive
materials which von Rad found impossible to subsume under the heading of ―historical

17 | P a g e
traditions‖ (such as prayers, psalms, the Law, and, above all, Wisdom) are gathered under the
heading ―Israel before Jahweh (Israel‘s Response).‖
Von Rad observed that prejudicial earlier scholarship had maintained that there was a
―definite break between the message of the prophets and the ideas held by earlier Yahwism‖
(ROTT 2: 3). This led the author to divide his work into two volumes, of which the second is
entitled ―Theology of Israel‘s Prophetic Traditions.‖ Here von Rad emphasized that at the heart
of their message the prophets, too, had been dependent on ancient traditions (ROTT 2: 4).
However, they also saw a new thing, namely an entirely new type of historical action by God,
which was to replace what had gone before. Their new understanding signified an
―eschatologizing of historical thought‖ (ROTT 2: 112–25).
The subsequent discussion was above all determined by the dilemma which von Rad
himself had brought about when he spoke of the gap separating Israel‘s actual history from the
understanding of history which Israel had conceived in relation to Yahweh and his actions. They
are to a large extent irreconcilable (ROTT 1: 106). Nevertheless, according to von Rad it remains
the task of an OT theology to reproduce Israel‘s picture of her history, as this self-understanding
was itself a historical fact, and therefore theologically significant: ―In the Old Testament it is
thus this world made up of testimonies that is above all the subject of a theology of the Old
Testament‖ (p. 111).
One of the first objections voiced against this was that von Rad‘s procedure loses the
immediacy of faith; the presentation remains descriptive and avoids posing the question of truth
(Keller 1958). Yet another criticism (affirmed by, above all, F. Hesse [1958; 1960]) maintains
that it was not Israel‘s conceptions about her history but the actual course of that history, as
revealed by historical-critical research, that is theologically important, since, if Yahweh really
did act in history, only the facts could be of interest.
Von Rad responded to these criticisms in the preface to vol. 2 (ROTT 2: viff.) by referring
to the presuppositions of modern historical research. Research, too, interprets history, but it does
so on the basis of presuppositions which acknowledge only the material cause-and-effect actions
of men, and not the actions of God. To consider the latter reality, we must perforce study the
witness of ancient Israel.
A number of scholars took up an intermediate position with respect to this discussion;
they held that it suffices if Israel‘s interpretation of history is only broadly correct, and that it is
not a matter of the accurate reproduction of matters of detail.
By way of contrast, the fundamentalistic position rejects the above-characterized dualism,
and severs the Gordian knot (and in doing so incidentally prevents satisfactory reflection about
the hermeneutical difficulties) by claiming that the Word of God opens the objective reality of
history.
More or less simultaneously with von Rad‘s preparatory thoughts about the possibility of
an OT theology, G. Ernest Wright published his work God Who Acts (1952). The subtitle of the
work, ―Biblical Theology as Recital,‖ prefigures its central hypothesis, which is that history is
the actual plane on which God‘s revelation takes place. The external acts of God, which he

18 | P a g e
effected through the mediation of the election of Israel (the confirmation of which was the
making of the covenant on Sinai, while Christ was its goal), are decisive; theology, then, is
practically nothing but the confessional recital of the acts of God in history. For von Rad, too,
these confessions were themselves facts, but they came in the distinctively different form of
tradition, that is, of a message about an event. Later, he was to distinguish (ROTT 2:
358) between the revelation by the word (ranging from oracles to God‘s direct address to the
prophets) and that occurring in the acts of God, whereby only the latter are susceptible to
contemporary new interpretation (p. 301). He held that the elements of ―promise‖ and
―fulfillment‖ describe a tension internal to the OT in the ―periodization of history‖ (pp. 133–
35; 168–75; 304) which progresses from promise to fulfillment.
The students of von Rad developed his understanding of history in two directions. One of
these directions, promulgated in 1961 by the systematic theologian W. Pannenberg, has been
characterized by The key word ―revelation as history‖ (1968). According to Pannenberg, God‘s
self-revelation did not take place directly, as, for example, in theophanies, but indirectly, in the
historical acts of God. This revelation is visible to all and universal, but it will only first be fully
apparent at the end of all history.
The second direction has been advocated by R. Rendtorff, who proposes to build a bridge
over vonRad‘s ―gap‖ between facts and the history which was affirmed by Israel‘s faith.
Rendtorff maintains that history and tradition are namely one and the same (1960). In this view,
―the tradition about the historical acts of God is itself history. It encompasses the facts, but is
inseparable from them‖ (1960: 39). The historical effect of events often resides in the experiences
and interpretations of them made by those implicated in them. External and internal history
belong together.
Rendtorff additionally claimed, in his contribution to Pannenberg‘s volume (1968), that
―the prophetic word may not itself be understood as revelation,‖ since it is based on the self-
demonstration of Yahweh in historical events made only previously or retrospectively. This was
explicitly contested by W. Zimmerli (1962). For Zimmerli, the proclamation of the word was the
central revelational event. This was already his position in his early work (1956), as well as in
the preliminary works leading up to his commentary on Ezekiel (Hermeneia; 1979–83).
Particularly, Zimmerli‘s contribution on the ―word of (self- )manifestation‖ (German
Erweiswort) links the announcement of the name of Yahweh as ―means of revelation‖ to his
demonstration of reality in the historical event itself (1982). Today many exegetes share
this view that the interpreting and proclaiming Word of God as medium of revelation must be
viewed along with the historical events themselves.
In this connection one should particularly take note of the position of H. W. Robinson as
unfolded in his posthumously published work (1946). Robinson‘s main hypothesis was that the
form of revelation in the faith of Israel was determined by two factors: by the means whereby
God acted, and by the interpreting response of whoever received the revelation. ―The divine
revelation in Nature, Man and History is through acts, which need to be interpreted through
human agency to make them words in our ordinary sense.‖ A related view is P. D. Hanson‘s

19 | P a g e
model of ―dynamic transcendence‖ (1978). In Hanson‘s view, a multilayered socio-political-
historical event can only be understood as divine activity through the tradition-forming
perspective of the faith of a community in the reception of its confessional inheritance.
In the meantime, the traditio-historical approach had established itself as an important
perspective of OT theology (Knight 1973; 1977). However, there were also certain caveats to be
observed with respect to any identification of tradition with revelation. Thus, in his collection W.
Zimmerli stressed the prophetic ―no‖ which was pronounced upon the fossilized tradition of the
people. (On H. Gese, see section d. below.) The importance of history for OT faith has been
much discussed. G. von Rad had once sweepingly declared, ―The Old Testament is a history
book‖ (1961: 181); later, however, even he found this view too one-sided (1966: 144). Massive
criticism was voiced by James Barr against the use of the concept of
history in OT theology. Barr pointed out that there are too many areas in the OT where the
concept is inapplicable, for example, in connection with wisdom and creation, but above all also
in conjunction with the verbal communication between God and man. Furthermore, the idea of
an extensive historical continuity is foreign to the OT (thus 1966; also 1963). The younger R.
Smend has since then also emphasized that history is only one aspect of the OT, albeit a very
important one (1968: 4).
However, the view that the OT understandings of history differed significantly from
those of all other ANE religions and cultures (as had been stressed by G. E. Wright [1968]) has
at last expired. B. Albrektson (1967) particularly concluded that other ancient oriental religions
were familiar with the notion of gods who act in history (see further H. Cancik 1976; Gese
1958a; Saggs 1978).

c. The “Center” of the OT. The attempt to find a concept which might serve as the basic idea,
central concept, or ―center‖ of the entire theological content of the OT is peculiar to the
systematic-theological approach to OT theology. Among the many candidates have been the
following: ―the holiness of God‖ (Hanel 1931); ―that God is the Lord who commands‖
(Koehler 1958: 30, 35); ―the Kingdom of God‖ (Klein 1970); ―election‖ (Wildberger 1959:
77–78); ―the Promise‖ (Kaiser 1978: 32–40); and ―the community between God and man‖
(Vriezen 1970: 8, 15–16). For Eichrodt, who rejected all dogmatic schemes, the concept of
―covenant‖ was nevertheless the self-inherent ―center‖ of the OT (1961–67, 1:13; also Wright
1969: 62; Clements 1978: esp. 119).
The subsequent discussion as to how ancient the idea of ―covenant‖ was in the OT (see
COVENANT), or as to whether one might not more fittingly translate Hebrew bĕr t as
―obligation‖ (Kutsch 1973), did not really touch upon the essential question: namely, whether it
is at all possible to designate any concept as the ―center‖ of the OT. There were also suggestions
in favor of a bipolar definition of the ―center,‖ as, for example, that of G. Fohrer: ―lordship of
God and community with God‖ (1968; 1972), or the so-called ―Covenantal formula‖ (R. Smend
1963), or ―Yahweh, the God of Israel; Israel the people of Yahweh‖ (R. Smend 1970).

20 | P a g e
 G. von Rad spoke out against the attempts to find a ―center‖ of the OT. Speaking from a
tradition-historical viewpoint, he stated that ―the revelation of Jahweh in the Old Testament is
divided up over a long series of separate acts of revelation which are different in content. It
seems to be without a centre …‖ (ROTT 1: 115). Thus the OT offers ever new interpretations and
actualizations of Israel‘s salvation historical traditions. However, he admitted, all individual
traditions do ultimately refer to a single greater ―Israel‖; but this Israel is an object of faith (p.
118), for which reason it cannot be chosen as the ―center.‖
Von Rad‘s objection did not end the search for a ―center‖ of the OT. Among recent
suggestions, there are two which regard the ―center‖ to be a literary quantity. W. H. Schmidt has
held the first commandment of the Decalogue to be a vade mecum which leads us through the
whole of the OT understanding of God (1970: 11). Similarly, W. Zimmerli first held the ―I
Yahweh‖ of Exod 20:2 to be a constant of the faith of Israel (1971 and later), and subsequently
found Yahweh‘s name, at once both veiled and revealed in Exod 3:14, to be the ―center‖ (TRE
6: 445ff.). On the other hand, S. Herrmann has proposed that we regard the Book of
Deuteronomy to be the ―center,‖ since ―the basic questions of Old Testament theology are
concentrated there‖ (1971: 156). There also remains considerable skepticism as to whether the
OT can be said to have a ―center‖ at all (thus, among others, A. H. J. Gunneweg 1978: 140;
M. Oeming 1987: 182–83). This skepticism then also applies to the suggestion which has won
the most supporters in recent years, namely to regard the sovereignly acting, free God as the real
―center‖ of the OT. However, the principle of the ―center‖ should not be misunderstood. The
self-same God is also important for any theology of the entire Bible (see below).

d. The OT Perspective on the World. (1) Creation Theology. In G. von Rad‘s salvation-
historical theology, the theme of ―creation‖ played only a subordinate role. In a 1936 essay, von
Rad had advocated the hypothesis that in the OT a faith rooted in creation is subordinated to a
faith rooted in salvation (1966: 131–43). According to his famous 1938 essay on the Hexateuch
(1966: 1–78), the Yahwist‘s Primeval History is only a sort of prestructure to his salvation-
historical account (p. 63). His intent, then, was to show that the ultimate goal of saving history
with respect to Israel was the salvation of all people. To substantiate this subordination of
creation-faith to salvation-faith, von Rad chose the example of Deutero- Isaiah. He points out
that by hearkening back to the creation of Israel, the concept of creation is thereby incorporated
into the concept of redemption (in a corresponding way, R. Rendtorff [1954] saw creation
and redemption as closely connected in the writings of this prophet). In his theology, von Rad
also regarded the position of creation to be marginal, particularly as a theme of later Wisdom
Literature.
A considerable number of OT scholars and systematic theologians followed this view
until the Bristol Faith and Order Conference in 1967 (the official position paper was God in
Nature and History). Since then, however, the general opinion on the theme of creation has
changed significantly. The saving action of God in history (the blessing), viewed as continual
activity, was paired with creation by C. Westermann (1978; also 1982). He stressed the

21 | P a g e
independence of the primeval event as a biblical category (1967; also Genesis BKAT, 1: 1–103;
also Crüsemann 1981). Also of importance was Westermann‘s distinction between the topoi of
world creation and human creation (Genesis 1: 31–34 et passim; cf. further Albertz
1974).
In terms of the history of religions, Canaanite religion has gained considerably in
importance, particularly since the discoveries at Ras Shamra-Ugarit. Jerusalem seems to have
played a major role in the adoption of Canaanite traditions, such as the idea of the kingship of
God (cf. W. H. Schmidt 1966; Schreiner 1963), the motif of the chaos battle (O. Kaiser 1958;
Stolz 1970: 12–71), and the notion of the mountain of God, which in Jerusalem was identified
with Zion (Clifford 1972; O. Steck 1972). The concept of the mount of God as a dam holding
back the primeval waters belongs, like the chaos battle, to the themes of creation, with the
admixture of ideas originally associated with El and Baal.
Albertz (1974: 91–99) shows that the topic of the creation of the world has its place in
hymns as a description of the majesty of God or of the creatio continua, that is, the preservation
of the creation (esp. Ps 104:10–23). In Deutero-Isaiah the theme serves in the ―disputation‖ to
demonstrate Yahweh‘s superiority (Albertz 1974: 7–13).

(2) Wisdom. For a long time, Wisdom played virtually no role whatsoever in OT theology. It
was repeatedly held to be a purely secular and utilitarian phenomenon (Zimmerli 1976; McKane
1965), or else only secondarily ―Yahweh-ized‖ in late times (Fichtner 1933). The almost
exclusive orientation among scholars toward the historical and prophetic traditions threatened to
marginalize Wisdom. Von Rad supported the hypothesis of a ―Solomonic enlightenment,‖ that
is, the theory that the early monarchic period, when Wisdom was cultivated at court, was a time
of secularization as a result of enlightened intellectuality (1972: 59–61; also Brueggemann 1972;
criticisms were voiced by Crenshaw 1976: 16–20). However, according to von Rad, even these
enlightened wise men had recognized that the ―limits of wisdom‖ (1972: 97ff.) were in the
omnipotence of God. They, too, knew experiences of God (1972: 61ff.). In this late work, von
Rad definitely emphasized the theological quality of Wisdom: ―This wisdom is … at all events
to be regarded as a form of Yahwism‖ (1972: 307). Also W. Zimmerli later (1978 para. 18; TRE
6: 450–51) admitted that the ―fear of Yahweh‖ was of central importance for the old sententious
Wisdom; in Job and Ecclesiastes he saw a clear orientation toward the ―I am who I am.‖ He was
strongly attentive to the personification of Wisdom in such didactic poems as Proverbs 8, Job 28,
and Sirach 28, understanding it in the sense of a self-revelation of the creation, which, alongside
of the saving history, possessed its own quality as a sort of ―primeval revelation‖ (1978: 175).
He thus saw these to be genuinely Israelite conceptions. However, one might, with Crenshaw, be
tempted to ask whether such a small section of Israel‘s artistic poetry (the dating of which is
quite uncertain) can support such widereaching hypotheses.
Von Rad had pushed to one side the international character of OT Wisdom. Ultimately he
saw the peculiarity of Israel to reside in the fact that she never pressed on to the understanding of
a world entity governed by world order (1972: 71–72). Gese, however, who, in the course of a

22 | P a g e
previous investigation of Egyptian Wisdom, had rejected its ―eudaemonistic misinterpretation‖
(1958b: 7–11), as he emphasized the divine character of ma at (world order) (pp. 11–21), had
already shown that ancient Israelite Wisdom participated broadly in the ancient oriental concepts
of order (pp. 33–45). For Gese, nevertheless, ideas in ancient Israelite Wisdom relating to the
issue of act and consequence (cf. esp. Koch 1983) were limited by the emphasis on the sovereign
freedom of Yahweh (1958b: 45–50). In the Job poem, in which the Comforters are adherents of
this act-consequence doctrine, the freedom of the personal God, who is exalted above this order,
is demonstrated to the righteous sufferer (in precise reversal of the Sumero- Akkadian paradigm
where the deity is expected to listen to a complaint, the paradigm on which the actconsequence
doctrine is based).
H. H. Schmid (1968) presented evidence that the Israelite concept of righteousness (Heb
ṣdq/ṣĕdaqâ) has an extremely comprehensive semantic field (law; wisdom; nature; fertility;
war/victory) which corresponds, like Egyptian ma at, to the concept of world order (also parallel
is alom, ―peace‖). Later (1974), Schmid attempted to draw some consequences of this insight
for OT theology. For Schmid, creation theology comprises the ―total horizon of Biblical
theology‖ (1974: 9–30). Not only wisdom but also state and law, prophecy, and even the
historical traditions stand in a certain relation to this order. Schmid relaxed his picture of an
inflexible order by depicting a hypothetical development in Israel‘s concepts of order (1974: 31–
63). He held this development to have led to the formation of a theocentric
cast of thought which separated God and the world. Crenshaw (1976: 26) seized on Schmid‘s
position and, with reference to H. Gunkel, maintained that the threat to world order posed by
chaos was the background of the theology of creation. There remain some unsolved problems
concerning the relationship between Wisdom and OT historical thought, and also concerning the
assignment of a place for Wisdom within OT theology.

3. Attempts at a NT Theology. a. Modern German Studies. (1) Protestant Studies. After

World War II new developments in NT theology began in 1948 with the publication of R.
Bultmann‘s Theologie (BTNT, 1951–55). Structurally, the book begins by focusing on what
Jesus himself proclaimed (BTNT 1: 3–32); it ―belongs among the presuppositions of a theology
of the NT and is not part of it itself‖ (p. 3).
According to Bultmann, ―theology‖ proper begins with Paul, who belonged completely
to Hellenistic Christianity (pp. 187–89). This is so because the ―kerygma of the primitive
congregation‖ and above all the kerygma of the Hellenistic congregation lay between Jesus and
Paul, since ―already his [i.e., Paul‘s] theology presupposes a certain amount of development in
primitive Christianity‖ (p. 63), namely the development of Hellenistic Christianity out of earlier
Jewish and pagan forms. The theology of the gospel of John and the Johannine Epistles (which
are quite independent of Paul) reflect even further development after Paul (BTNT 2: 3–92).
Church order, doctrine, and ethics (pp. 119–54; 203–36) belong still later, attesting to the
development of the ancient Church.

23 | P a g e
 In Bultmann‘s view, the goal of a NT theology is that ―the Christian faith makes sure of
its object, its reasons, and its conclusions. But first there was a Christian faith; later on there was
a Christian kerygma … which proclaimed Jesus Christ as God‘s eschatological saving act,
namely that very Jesus Christ, the crucified and resurrected one‖ (BTNT 1: 3). Bultmann held that
this development began with the kerygma of the primitive congregation, and that it is essential
that we reconstruct this kerygma (pp. 33–62). According to Bultmann‘s ―Epilegomena‖ (BTNT
2: 237–51), theological ideas are explications of the believing self-understanding, that is,
―ideas, in which the believing understanding of God, the world, and man unfolds‖ (p. 237). But
since faith is ―faith in the kerygma‖ (p. 239), the NT theology has to describe
(or even reproduce) the kerygma. However, this is only possible in the form it is interpreted by
the respective theological statements. Thus, alongside of reconstruction, we find interpretation to
be the second pole of Bultmann‘s efforts. And this also accounts for the form of Bultmann‘s
presentation: it unfolds the theological ideas of the individual works or groups of works in all
their differences.
The following statement is decisive for Bultmann‘s account of the Pauline theology (one
of the two foci of Bultmann‘s work): ―Pauline theology (is) at the same time anthropology,‖
since for Paul ―Every statement about God is also a statement about man, and vice versa‖
(BTNT 1: 191). This entire section is determined by Bultmann‘s anthropological and theological
concepts, which also influence its structure. In the section dealing with Johannine theology (the
second focus), the discussion alternates between concepts whose main categories are dualism,
judgment, and faith. By contrast, the sections which frame the two focal ones are more strongly
influenced by the (historical-critical and history of religion) reconstruction. Reconstruction and
interpretation are both necessary and interconnected, according to Bultmann; but interpretation
takes place ―on the presupposition that both have something to say to the present‖ (BTNT 2:
251). That means whenever ―self-understanding,‖ which has been ―awakened‖ by the kerygma,
―is understood as a possibility of human self-understanding, the hearer is called to decision‖ (p.
241).
As far as the respective descriptive and ―theological‖ tasks of biblical theology are
concerned, Bultmann saw both in a single perspective. It is obvious how much his
anthropological approach narrowed the hermeneutical horizon. But even today Bultmann‘s
theology has retained its exceptional position as a classic. H. Braun radicalized Bultmann‘s
anthropological approach in single-minded fashion, pushing the anthropological approach to the
extreme (1961). For Braun, theology is nearly identical with anthropology, because God can be
encountered nowhere other than in interhuman relations. God, as one ―existent by himself,‖ is
no longer intelligible; thus Braun defines God only as the ―whereness of my being driven
about‖ (Ger: ―Woher meines Umgetriebenseins‖), in the ―I may‖ and ―I must‖: ―man in all
his fellowman-ness implies God.‖ ―God would then be a certain kind of fellowman-ness‖ (1961:
341). H. Conzelmann, however, developed Bultmann‘s approach further. The structure of his
1967 work is similar to Bultmann‘s: after a religio-historical survey, Conzelmann proceeds to
investigate the kerygma of the primitive congregation and the Hellenistic congregation, then the

24 | P a g e
Synoptic kerygma (in which the traditions about Jesus have been reworked), together with the
theology of the Synoptic authors. Then follow the theology of Paul, the post-Pauline
developments, the Johannine corpus. Whereas Conzelmann stubbornly maintained that ―the
‗historical Jesus‘ is not a theme of New Testament theology‖ (1967: 16),
E. Käsemann represented the problem of the historical Jesus (1954) as so far unsolved. The
identity of the risen and the earthly Lord is important, according to Käsemann, so that we cannot
dismiss the question of historicity.
Unlike Bultmann and Conzelmann, W. G. Kümmel devoted the first chapter of his work
(1969) to reconstructing the proclamation of Jesus. For Kümmel, ―The Faith of the Primitive
Congregation‖ (Chap. 2) was constituted by the Easter faith. In Chap. 3 (―The Theology of
Paul‖, the final section, entitled ―Paul and Jesus,‖is noteworthy; here Kümel on the one hand
describes the historical connection between both figures, and the differences in their historical
and salvation-historical situation on the other. The final section deals with the gospel of John and
the Johannine Epistles. This, however, does not bring the entire canon into review.
J. Jeremias offered a lengthy reconstruction of the proclamation of Jesus (1971). He felt
that it was possible to derive criteria which would enable a relatively certain reconstruction of
the ipsissima vox of the historical Jesus within the ―pre-Easter tradition.‖ The effort had many
gainsayers; further volumes did not appear.
E. Lohse incorporated the preaching of Jesus completely into the discussion of NT
theology (―Since the Christian sermon relates to the beginning of the Gospel, the theology of
the New Testament must illustrate the indissoluble dependence of the kerygma on the [with
respect to itself] pre-existent history of Jesus [1974: 18]). Lohse‘s ―postulate of nonderivability‖
(Unableitbarkeitsthese: Jesus‘ ipsissima verba being those which cannot be attributed to the
early Church) permitted such a reconstruction (1974: 21, although this is now questioned). There
then follow ―The Kerygma of Earliest Christianity,‖ the theology
of Paul, the Synoptic Gospels, and the Johannine corpus (all arranged chronologically according
to their times of origin as determined by modern criticism). A concluding chapter on ―The
Apostolic Teaching of the Church‖ reflects the situation as it was at the close of the 1st century
A.D. The final section, entitled ―The Unity of the New Testament,‖ understands the NT canon to
contain a variety of theological efforts, which, however, were all founded on the same kerygma
of the crucified and risen Christ.
Goppelt‘s posthumously published Theologie understands itself to be breaking new
ground, insisting that Bultmann‘s approach ―has lost its historical and theological relevance in
research‖ (1975–76: 38–39). The first volume (the programmatic superscription of which is ―the
theological significance of Jesus‘
activity‖) is based on the conviction that the tradition about the activity of the earthly Jesus in the
gospels was drawn as a ―substructure‖ into the kerygma (whereas the epistolary literature of the
NT reflects the development of the kerygma within the situation of the congregation [pp. 57–
58]). Thus the message of Jesus (about the arrival of the kingdom of God, the challenge to repent
[Jesus‘ ethical instructions], and the idea that Repentance is a gift of the Kingdom of God [the

25 | P a g e
new order of salvation]), his saving actions (the miracles), and his self-understanding (which,
according to Goppelt, already entailed both messianic promise and the expectation of the Son of
Man, if in veiled form), taken together with the Easter event and the Easter kerygma, are all
components of the theology of the NT itself. A. Lindemann particularly protested against this,
insisting that ―Theology is the interpretation of the Easter confession, not interpretation or
repetition of the teachings (and, as far as they are known, the actions) of Jesus‖ (1975:
56). This fundamental disagreement still obtains today. In his second volume, entitled ―The
Multiplicity and Unity of the Apostolic Witness to Christ,‖ Goppelt dealt with the primitive
congregation, and Paul and the post-Pauline writings, in the course of which he also includes
other modern questions (the relationship to ―society‖; para. 43–44).

b. Roman Catholic Studies. With a few exceptions the special task of articulating NT theology
was only acknowledged at a relatively late date by Roman Catholic scholars. The first sizable
work, by M. Meinertz (1950), thus dealt with the NT writings separately, and failed to take into
consideration the impact of the development of primitive Christianity on the NT writings.
Bonsirven likewise mainly took the task to be a dogmatic one: ―to recover the revealed matters
as understood by the authors, to attempt a hierarchical classification of these matters, so as to
furnish a basis for Christian dogmatics‖ (1951: 9). Bonsirven nevertheless undertook to discuss
historical development; in doing so, he dealt separately with Jesus (whose teachings, however, he
reconstructed from the Synoptics and John), primitive Christianity, and Paul and the post-Pauline
writings (the latter entitled ―Works of Christian Maturity,‖ reflecting the author‘s high
estimation of these materials).
In his study of the history of NT criticism, Schnackenburg (1963) developed a new idea,
namely that a chronological and theological account based on the history of primitive
Christianity should be supplemented and deepened by thematically oriented diachronic sections.
Schnackenburg proposed to deal first with the kerygma and theology of the primitive Church,
then the ―message and teachings of Jesus‖ according to the Synoptics, followed by a theology of
the individual Synoptic Gospels, of Paul, John, and the rest of the writings, and finally some
central problems in thematic sequence.
This diachronic system dominates the presentation by Schelkle (1968–76), who pursues,
from the OT and Judaism through the NT writings (in continuous discussion with dogmatics),
such main themes as ―Creation, World-Time-History‖ (vol. 1), ―Revelation‖ (vol. 2),
―Redemption and Salvation‖ (in Christ, vol. 2), ―Ethos‖ (vol. 3), ―Completion‖ (vol. 4/1),
―Disciple, Congregation and Church‖ (vol. 4/2). All Roman Catholic presentations approximate
this one closely. Related to Goppelt‘s approach is the methodology employed by Thusing (1981),
which attempts to follow an outline of a theology of the NT. The basic idea is that the theological
unity of the NT is held to reside in two categories of criteria: (1) the ―structures of the message,
activity, and life of Jesus of Nazareth‖ and (2) the ―structures of christology and soteriology‖
based on the resurrection of Jesus (in the sense of a ―post-Easter transformation of the

26 | P a g e
Jesuanic‖). The author‘s intention is to provide a total perspective which encompasses ―the
affirmation of God and the affirmation of man‖ as a field of tension.

c. Recent English Studies. With the exception of translations of German-language works, the
first English-language work to appear in the postwar period dealing with the question of an
appropriate methodology for NT theology was F. Grant‘s An Introduction to NT Thought (1950).
Grant strongly emphasized the distinctions historical-critical research had observed between the
various ―theologies‖ contained in the NT, which may itself be characterized as a ―theology in
process‖ (1950: 60). As Grant saw it, the task is to discern the inherent unity within all this
diversity. Since, however, the many differences make any reconstruction possible only to a
limited extent, a historical interpretation is necessary which employs Christology as the ―central
tendency of the New Testament‖ (p. 61) as its general background. Certain themes (―Doctrine
of God, Miracles, Doctrine of Man, Doctrine of Christ,‖ etc.) are then synchronically treated
throughout the NT.
The problems inherent in this effort became clearer in the influential work by A.
Richardson (1958). The basic presupposition of this work was ―that the apostolic Church
possessed a common theology and that it can be reconstructed from the New Testament
literature‖ (1958: 9). Richardson‘s goal was ―the framing of an hypothesis concerning the
content and character of the faith of the apostolic Church‖ (ibid.). This hypothesis maintained
―that Jesus himself is the author of the brilliant re-interpretation of the Old Testament scheme
of salvation … which is found in the New Testament, and that the events of the life, ‗signs,‘
passion and resurrection of Jesus, as attested by the apostolic witness, can account for the ‗data‘
of the New Testament better than any other hypothesis current today‖ (p. 12). Richardson
consciously intended that his account not remain ―within the limits of purely descriptive
science‖ (ibid.), since ―the principle of interpretation here employed is that of historic Christian
faith‖ (p. 13). In matters of detail, then, the work offers a conservatively colored, systematic-
theologically arranged account of such themes as ―Faith and Hearing‖; ―Knowledge and
Revelation‖; ―The Power of God unto Salvation‖; ―The Kingdom of God‖; ―The Holy Spirit‖;
etc. The disadvantage to this approach is the same as that which manifests itself in similarly
constructed accounts of OT theology, namely that the individual biblical writers and their views
do not come to expression. Furthermore, such important themes as creation, anthropology, and
the Law are lacking. Richardson nevertheless rightly points out that ―there can be no history …
which does not depend on a principle of interpretation, which the historian must necessarily
bring to his study‖ (p. 9). However, the presupposition of the dogmatic unity of the New
Testament (―historic Christian faith‖) allows a procedure which sees the goal of a NT theology
to be already fulfilledin the systematic organization of the biblical statements.
Methodologically similar efforts have been offered by Stagg (1962) and Knudsen (1964). Also
for Stagg the ―unity in diversity‖ of the NT was the methodological point of departure of the
work (1962: ixff.). Correspondingly, the subtitle of Knudsen‘s work, ―A Basis for Christian
Faith,‖ shows that the author‘s intention was to provide an ―interpretation‖ which in systematic-

27 | P a g e
theological fashion opened the way for the NT witness for faith. Once again the views of the
individual biblical authors were not satisfactorily differentiated. Lehman (1974) provided a
conservative presentation. Unlike him, however, G. E. Ladd (1975) offered a presentation which
was ordered according to the NT works: the Synoptic Gospels, John, the primitive Church, Paul,
the General Epistles, the Apocalypse. Ladd understood the goal of a NT theology to be
descriptive, although the concept of God‘s actions in history (1975: 25) serves in the work as a
vade mecum to the contents. The triad of God-man-sin is the presupposition of the ideas of
revelation and redemption as fundamental biblical statements (p. 26). On the other hand, for S.
Neill, ―Every theology of the New Testament must be a theology of Jesus—or it is nothing at
all‖ (1976: 10).
The work by Guthrie (1981) advances a conservative position. He insisted that the entire
teaching of Christ is authentic in all of the gospels (including John [1981: 70f.]). The
organization of the work is systematic (―God‖; ―Man and His World‖; ―Christology‖; ―The
Mission of Christ‖; ―The Holy Spirit‖; ―The Christian Life‖; ―The Church‖; ―The Future‖); a
final section entitled ―Scripture‖ deals with the use of the OT in the NT. The author‘s
fundamentalistic approach allows him to integrate ―the teaching of Christ‖ into all of the
sections.
Among Roman Catholic works, it would be appropriate to mention that of J. L. McKenzie
(1965). In spite of his acknowledgment of the plurality of biblical ―theologies,‖ McKenzie, too,
sees the task as the production of a systematic-theological presentation (pp. 275–76), for which
reason his work is thematically arranged.

4. The Theology of Both Testaments. After World War II, inspired by dialectical theology, a
new desire arose for regaining a Christian theological significance also for the OT. Scholars tried
to find a positive answer for the question concerning the relationship between both testaments.
Thus the development which had taken place since Gabler, and which had led to a broad
separation between OT and NT theologies, was reversed for the first time. In the process, earlier
models were once more drawn into the discussion to describe the relationship in question.

a. The Salvation-Historical Model. The concept of salvation history (Heilsgeschichte) had been
introduced into theology during the 19th century through the so-called Erlangen School. The
main representative of the concept was J. C. K. von Hofmann (1841–44). Hofmann defined
―salvation history‖ in terms of its ultimate goal: ―Jesus is the end, and also the middle, of
history; his appearance in the flesh is the beginning of the end‖ (1841–44: 1.58). All history
which had taken place prior to the Christ-event was history and prediction at once—―history‖
insofar as it witnessed to ever progressing forms of the community between God and man; and
―prediction,‖ insofar as ever more definite references to the final form of the community of God
and man began to appear (p. 1.40). For Hofmann, salvation history was a peculiar history, the
understanding of whose witness took place subjectively, according to the testimonium spiritus
sancti internum (―inner testimony of the Holy Spirit‖). Thus its facticity was, to this extent, not

28 | P a g e
subject to historical criticism; it unified at one and the same time individual pious experiences
with the historical perspective.
This understanding of salvation history had two facets: (1) as the history of God‘s
dealings with certain people throughout history, a history in which Christ was both the origin and
the center; and (2) as the personal saving history of all people. These views recur in the work of
K. Barth (1957), whereas F. Baumgärtel existentializes the concept as an exclusively internal
happening (it is ―the being-touched-byGod of men in the Old Testament,‖ which ―is our own
being-touched … under the Gospel‖ (1953: 14). Normally, however, ―salvation history‖ was
understood as a total context of external events which began in the history of Israel and which
came together as simultaneous conclusion and pinnacle in the Christ event. It was so understood
by Dodd (1928), Pythian-Adams (1938), Löwith (1949), and others.
In connection with the NT, it was above all O. Cullmann (1951, 1967) who developed the
concept of salvation history. Cullmann insists on the ―linear understanding of time in the
biblical history of revelation‖ (1951: 51), in contradistinction to the cyclical one which
characterized Hellenism; within the saving history consisting of selected moments (kairoi) in the
course of time (p. 131ff.), the Christ-event
forms the center. Both the salvation-historical past and the future refer to it (pp. 131ff.; 139ff.).
But it is salvation history ―with respect to the carrying out of God‘s plans for salvation‖ (p. 39).
―Because of sin and judgement it can also be a history of disaster‖ (1967: 21). Cullmann
additionally stressed that he understood the concept not as a seamless context of demonstrable
historical events, but rather as salvation-historical faith, that is, as ―faith in a connection
revealed only by God, resting upon a completely uncalculable selection of individual events‖ (p.
55). Therefore the concept of ―history‖ should be placed in quotation marks, although there is
an analogy between history and salvation history (p. 91).
Criticism of the concept of ―salvation history‖ was above all launched by R. Bultmann
and his school (esp. Bultmann 1956). According to Bultmann, ―history‖ had come to an end
with Christ; therefore the Church and its message are not ―historical‖ but ―eschatological‖
quantities (Bultmann 1957). For Bultmann, ―historicity‖ (which has individual reference and is
inaccessible) and ―history‖ (objective and accessible) are opposites of one another. Similar
criticisms were offered by G. Klein (1970), K. G. Steck (1959), and F. Hesse (1971, with a
rejoinder by Schmitt 1982). According to Hesse, Christ‘s resurrection and its significance for
salvation are not verifiable within history (1971: 62–63). In reality, the saving event is merely a
single point which the adherents of salvation history try to represent as a line (called
―astigmatism‖ by Hesse 1971: 66).
In the work of G. von Rad, a peculiar understanding of ―salvation history‖ played a role
as a referent to a theology of the entire Bible. Von Rad carried his traditio-historical
understanding of ―Israel‘s historical traditions‖ through the OT and beyond. He also held
salvation history to be the always new, always actualizing interpretation of history (ROTT 2:
320). Also in the NT this continual process of new interpretation is repristinated yet again,

29 | P a g e
―starting from a completely new event‖ (ROTT 2: 340). Nothing violent occurs; rather, the NT
fulfillment is already anticipated in the internal movement of the salvation historical
dialectic of the OT, in its progress from promise to fulfillment. However, von Rad also
acknowledged that there was a strong impression of the ―discontinuity of the divine revelation
which Israel experienced‖ (this phrase did not appear in the 1975–82 Eng translation). Thus he
found it impossible simply to accord with Hofmann‘s view of the divine plan for salvation which
was supposed to embrace both Testaments, and instead attempted to connect the two parts of the
Bible through the use of typology (see below).
A great number of other exegetes have also seen some form of salvation-historical
connection between both Testaments. Thus, for example, S. Amsler (1960), following O.
Cullmann, saw in the historical event of the person and work of Jesus Christ (in which God
himself acted according to the NT understanding) the central event of a history which spanned
from creation to the eschaton (1960: 105). All the historical and revelatory acts of God belong to
this history (p. 106), and its goal is achieved in Christ (p. 107). Amsler further maintained that
the goal of this history is already repeatedly attested in the OT, in which
connection what is important is our view of a still open future which is prestructured by the
saving events of the past (pp. 107–11; 114–16). In the NT, all the events of the OT are
interpreted in the light of the fulfillment which has taken place in the breakthrough of the end in
Jesus Christ (p. 119). From this perspective, vistas emerge of promise, fulfillment, and typology
(see below). See also Wright (1952: 56– 58).
We also find the model of a history of salvation culminating in Christ, often including the
Church, in earlier Roman Catholic and Protestant publications. Against this, Pokorny (1981: 3–
4) cautioned that ―the Christ-event of the New Testament is not a direct continuation or further
development of the events of the Old Testament.‖ It was the eyes of faith inspired by the
experience of Christ which first saw the historical dimension of God‘s address in the OT
witnesses.

b. Typology. Already in the 19th century, P. Fairbairn had written a major work on the subject
of typology (1845–47). Fairbairn identified various ―types‖ and saw in them the facts, persons,
or events of which the biblical stories speak. These types were to be brought about by God
within the framework of the divine economy of salvation. ―Spiritual and divine truths,‖ in order
to be recognized when they would eventually occur incorporated into the person and work of
Jesus, had to be prefigured in the earlier biblical stories.
Typology was brought to the attention of students of modern hermeneutics through the
exegesis of the NT itself and through the study of the biblical exegesis of the early Church. In
this connection the seminal work was Typos, by L. Goppelt (1982), which originally appeared in
German in 1939. According to Goppelt, the typological interpretation of the OT in the NT is
―the method of interpreting Scripture that is predominant in the NT and characteristic of it‖
(1982: 198). He holds that this form of interpretation is not exegetically passé; rather, it
incorporates one of the most fundamental aims in the NT: ―It is an excellent

30 | P a g e
witness to the NT‘s consciousness of its own place in redemptive history. The NT knows itself to
be in some way the fulfillment of the types found in the redemptive history of the OT and to be a
prophecy in type concerning the future consummation‖ (1982: 205). Since Goppelt, however,
intensive study of the exegetical methods of the NT has shown that the methodologies are in fact
quite various, and that typology is more seldom employed than Goppelt supposed. Nevertheless,
Goppelt‘s basic understanding of the theological function of the NT use of Scripture as a whole
has been confirmed.
In the programmatic number of the journal Evangelische Theologie, which appeared
under the auspices of the BKAT series, the editorial group presented their aims of connecting the
historical-critical method with kerygmatic goals, in the hope of producing an interpretation of the
OT which would be useful for the purposes of preaching. In this connection, typology received a
major position, thanks to a contribution by von Rad, published in Interpretation 15 (1961). Von
Rad dealt with the question of how God‘s saving acts on behalf of Israel (as witnessed in the OT)
applied to the Church and to the individual Christian, concluding that the only possible reply
must be in terms of typology: ―Rather we see everywhere in this history brought to pass by
God‘s word, in acts of judgment and in acts of redemption alike, the prefiguration of the Christ-
event of the New Testament‖ (1961: 192). In von Rad‘s view, typology is based on the belief that
it was the same God who had revealed himself in Christ who had already acted in OT history and
had spoken to the fathers through the prophets. Typology allows the working out of salvation-
historical structural analogies in both Testaments.
In his Theologie, von Rad once again showed that he understood typology as a linear
series of saving acts which encompassed both Testaments, and which was characterized by the
tension between promise and fulfillment (ROTT 2: 364ff.). Thus typology was able to reveal an
observable structure also in the case of the OT. H. W. Wolff (1961; 1956) had a similar working
hypothesis for the historical understanding of the (given) correspondences between both
Testaments. The views of Lampe and Woolcombe (1957) and Foulkes (1958) were similar as
well.
Roman Catholic circles especially accepted typology as an appropriate method of
spiritual scriptural interpretation. Here, of course, patristic exegesis played an important part
(Origen and Thomas Aquinas). See especially Jean Daniélou (1950), which deals with both
Scripture and patristic exegesis in connection with a number of themes (e.g., Adam-Christ).
Criticism of the typological method was above all offered by F. Baumgärtel (1952: 124–27, 138–
43, plus numerous articles), who felt that typology provides a purely theoretical construction
which cannot affect faith (contra Eichrodt 1963). See also J. Barr (1966, Chap. 4).

c. Promise and Fulfillment. The scheme of ―promise and fulfillment‖ can also be traced to the
NT exegesis of the OT. However, the conceptual model of traditional theology with respect to
the OT ―messianic promises,‖ which saw these as fulfilled in the NT in Jesus Christ, was no
longer adhered to by critical exegetes (the last proponents were König 1923; Edelkoort 1941).
However, after World War II, especially von Rad (ROTT) and W. Zimmerli (1961) attempted to

31 | P a g e
show that the relationship of both Testments at least in part consisted in the correspondence of
―promise‖ to ―fulfillment.‖ For both scholars, this correspondence was an aspect of the OT
salvation history itself, which they described variously as an ―area of tension constituted by
promise and fulfilment‖ (von Rad ROTT 2: 371) or as a ―movement from promise toward
fulfilment‖ (Zimmerli 1961: 329). Since, however, all the fulfillments in the OT are only
provisional, the final fulfillment is no sooner attested than by the NT—insofar as believers are
still awaiting its completion. See further Oxtoby 1966; Bruce 1978; Achtemeyer 1973: 77–115,
165–67, 172– 81.
Baumgärtel criticized this model on the basis of his own particular understanding of the
concept of promise (1952: 95–101, 106–27). He distinguishes between ―promise‖ considered as
God‘s assurance, and ―prediction,‖ that is, human predictions of future events. However,
Baumgärtel‘s understanding of ―promise‖ in the sense of a timelessly valid basic promise of
God is untenable with respect to the OT. J. Barr (1966: 113) regards the concept of ―promise‖
as non derivable from the NT‘s conceptual realm, which he, incidentally, also regards as no
longer useful.

d. The Traditio-Historical Approach. Tradition history, as a specific approach to a new

biblical theology, is associated with H. Gese (1970; 1981a; 1981b). Gese proceeds on the basis
of von Rad‘s understanding of tradition history, but nevertheless reckons with a continuous
context of tradition from the OT to the NT, where it finds its conclusion: ―The Old Testament
originates in the New Testament; the New Testament is the completion of a process of tradition,
which is essentially a unity, that is, a continuum‖ (1970: 420). Gese does not attempt to specify
the contents of this process of tradition, but he does acknowledge a traditio-historical ―nucleus‖
of the OT. It consists of the revelation on Sinai (1970: 427; 1981a: 25), plus the self-revelation of
the ―I am YHWH‖ (1981a: 25; 1981b: 65). Through the ―Wisdomization and
―eschatologization‖ of the Torah in the late period, a second center was formed, namely Zion;
therefore Gese distinguishes between a ―Sinai Torah‖ and a ―Zion Torah‖ (1981b: 80–81).
For Gese, the tradition itself is the kerygma: ―The traditio-historical process corresponds to a
process in the history of revelation‖ (1981a: 18). Gese‘s position has been supported by, above
all, P. Stuhlmacher, who defines biblical theology as ―a New Testament theology which is open
to the Old Testament, and which attempts to discover the traditional and interpretative context of
both Old and New Testament traditions‖ (1973: 375).
In addition to criticisms of Gese‘s ―ontological‖ terminology, scholars have suggested
that he presupposes a (undemonstrable) linearity in the development of the OT traditions.
Moreover, his approach has been labeled a kind of phenomenology (since Gese simply describes
the religious-historical
phenomena without evaluating them). Finally, Gese insisted that it is only possible to assume an
unbroken context of tradition between the testaments if one abandons the decision of the
Reformers to limit the OT canon to the borders of the Masoretic Bible (1977: 324, an illegitimate
―reduction of the canon‖). Gese himself sees the connection precisely in the so-called

32 | P a g e
―apocryphal writings‖ (apocalyptic and late Wisdom); however, the Masoretic canon would
presumably have been fully established by the middle of the first pre-Christian century.

e. Basic Connective Concepts. Confronted with the difficulties inherent in trying to combine the
two Testaments with the aid of some single encompassing scheme, scholars recently have
attempted to demonstrate a connection between them on the basis of some common fundamental
concepts. For P. Stuhlmacher (1973), one such concept is the confession of the resurrection of
Jesus with respect to the OT confession of the hope of resurrection. But Stuhlmacher also
mentions as fundamental concepts such features as ―reconciliation,‖ (e.g., 1979a: para. 15;
1979b) and ―law‖ (1978; cf. also Siegwalt 1971). Others have suggested ―the covenant‖ (e.g.,
Campbell 1954), ―election,‖ ―lordship of God‖ (Gray 1979), ―promise‖ (W. C. Kaiser 1974;
1978), and the ―people of God.‖
Others have attempted to discern the connection in question in a number of key concepts
(Haag 1965). Thus Abbing (1983) has traced the triad of features consisting of revelation,
history, and human responsibility throughout the entire Bible. Some exegetes conclude that it
was Yahweh himself who raised Jesus from the dead. For S. Terrien (1978), the deus
absconditus atque praesens forms the real middle of the Bible. Seebass (1982) recognizes as the
middle of the Bible the new understanding of God which came about in Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:19,
―God was in Christ‖). Alongside of this insight he offers such factual themes as the resurrection,
messianism, people of God and kingdom of God, creation, and trust in God. Wagner (1978: 794)
insists on the ―functional identity‖ of God in spite of all the differences
in the tradition and redactional history of the Bible.
A special variant is the creation-theological approach of H. H. Schmid, which he attempts
to make applicable to the entire Bible. He holds this concept to have been the conceptual
presupposition also for fundamental theologoumena of the NT, such as Paul‘s doctrine of
justification, the redemptive death of Jesus, and his mediative role in the creation (1973: 12–14).
Using the same basic approach, U. Luck emphasizes more strongly the features of experience of
the world and apprehension of reality (1976: 7–9, 13).
f. The Canonical Approach. B. Childs (1970: 99–107) initiated a discussion concerning a
―canonical‖ biblical theology which has been especially lively in the United States. See
CANONICAL CRITICISM. According to Childs, the crisis of biblical theology was to be
ameliorated by a new approach based on the OT and NT as normative bases of the Church
because of their divine authority. To this, J. A. Sanders (1972) added the demand for a
―canonical criticism‖ which would have as its aim the derivation of a new perspective of critical
exegesis by studying the origin and function of the canon (Sanders 1984; 1987). So saying,
however, Sanders saw the real center of the OT canon to be the Torah (against this, Blenkinsopp
[1977] emphasized the prophetic character of the canon); this reflects the earlier view in the U.S.,
promulgated above all by Wright (1969: 166–85), according to which there is unquestionably a
―canon within the canon‖ or a ―center‖ of the corpus (see above). In methodological terms, the
choice of the canon of the Old (and New) Testament(s) as the referential framework of a biblical

33 | P a g e
theology is dependent on the recent redaction-historical approach. Where scholars were
previously interested in the respective earliest literary strata and traditions, now they had begun
to concern themselves more with the ―posthistory‖ and the ―final form‖ of the biblical text.
Thus scholars are increasingly tending to read the texts ―holistically,‖ that is, by taking the
entire context of a given text into consideration and relating it to the perspective of the entire
Bible (on these three indissoluble aspects of the ―canonical‖ concept— earliest literary strata,
―posthistory,‖ ―final form‖ of the text—see, critically, Barr 1983: 75–82). Childs has himself
exercised his exegetical approach on a biblical book (Exodus OTL); furthermore he also used
his ―canonical principle‖ as the basis for introductions to both the OT and the NT (respectively
1979 and 1984). In his Theology (which follows the traditional organization), Childs describes
the purpose of the canonical approach as ―to describe the theology of the Old Testament
according to the intertextuality of its canonical shaping and so seek to understand how this
corpus of material was ordered and rendered within the context of scripture‖ (1985: 53). Childs
also holds the theological understanding of the NT as the result of a ―canonical process‖ to be of
decisive importance (1984: 22–33).
Childs‘ ―canonical program‖ has proved to be controversial (see JSOT 16 [1980], and
HBT [1980]: 113–211). It has been argued that instead of attending to the unity of a writing
within the context of both testaments, we should also observe the differences between individual
writings (on the OT, see Hanson 1982; Goldingay 1987; on the NT, see Käsemann 1964; Dunn
1977). The demand to search for the ―center‖ has also been levied in connection with the NT
(Schrage 1976) and corresponds, as a definition of the ―canon within the canon,‖ to the tradition
of the Reformers.
These are presumably not real contradictions, but rather different aspects of the total goal
of a biblical theology, which encompasses both the exegetical and systematic horizons. A
solution to the difficulties can only be expected through the cooperation of both theological
disciplines, which would transcend the estrangement of exegesis and dogmatics that has obtained
since Gabler.

5. Skeptical Voices. Skepticism about the theological value of the OT is as old as Marcion. In
addition to the historical factors behind such skepticism (sometimes including anti-Semitism),
there were often also theological factors. E. Hirsch considered the OT to be ―a document of a
religion of law which was superseded by Christian faith‖ (1936: 26); to it he opposed the NT
(―the Christian religion‖) as the witness of the Gospel (pp. 11, 76). Hirsch therefore held that
the OT is only of interest for Christians since there we encounter the deus absconditus in the
masks of sin, death, and turmoils of faith (pp. 27– 30), features which were, however, subdued
forever through the God of love, the father of Jesus Christ. A similar rejection, based, however,
on depth psychology, has been presented by Hannah Wolff (1983). According to Wolff, were we
to acknowledge the OT as part of the Christian canon, the Christian selfidentity, which is to be
determined through the historical Jesus, would be subordinated to Jewishpatriarchal
and counter-Christian foreign influence.

34 | P a g e
 The judgment of R. Bultmann was more subtle. For him the scheme of ―law and
Gospel‖ means a legitimately ―historical‖ existential question of ―what basic possibility it
presents for an understanding of human existence‖ (1963: 13). The OT is ―being under the law,‖
and since this is the necessary prerequisite for ―being under grace,‖ man must be subject to the
OT if he hopes to understand the NT. Similar views were also espoused by F. Baumgärtel and F.
Hesse (see above). Bultmann‘s attitude toward the OT is still effective among his students and
other NT scholars today.
Such skepticism as does appear often clothes itself partially in the guise of criticism of a
given program (so, for example, in Grässer‘s 1980 criticism of Stuhlmacher; incidentally,
Grässer [1980: 219–20] agrees with R. Smend that a biblical theology which begins with the NT
and looks back to the OT remains possible; Strecker 1980). However, skepticism is sometimes
explicit; thus, for example, Merk (1972: 270–71; see also TRE 6: 455–77) regards the separate
treatment of the OT and NT to be the necessary consequence of Gabler‘s methodological
approach. For Merk, the demand for a ―biblical theology‖ which embraces both Testaments is a
―retrograde tendency, which abandons the insights of Gabler and G. L. Bauer‖ (1972: 271, n.
193).

6. Conclusion. What might we expect in the near future from the ongoing work on a biblical
theology? The theological task of biblical scholarship unavoidably includes the problem of the
relation between the testaments. Every Christian preacher has to expound biblical texts taken
from both parts of the Bible. So the discussion about their unity and diversity will continue. But
the expectations of discovering a comprehensive model—a basic idea or ongoing development
that would allow us to understand the Bible as an organic unity—remain unfulfilled. Thus, the
next steps to be taken will be more modest: to detect
common topics where the NT is related to the OT, where it expressly cites the OT or builds upon
conceptions which have been taken over from it. All these endeavors have one basic
presupposition: that the God who revealed himself in the OT is the same as the father of Jesus
Christ. Insofar as the enterprise of a biblical theology of both testaments is rooted in faith, it
needs dogmatic reflection for results that transcend the realm of simple exegetical observations
on a concrete scriptural text.

35 | P a g e