Aims: The Old Testament Theology unit seeks to:

1. Old Testament TheologyWhat is it?How do we study it?What are the issues?What are the prospects?What is our objective?

2. Aims: • The Old Testament Theology unit seeks to: • Provide students with systematic understanding of the methodological issues associated with Old Testament theology • Enable students to reflect theologically on Old Testament texts and to synthesise their teaching • Review and consolidate prominent themes within the Old Testament

3. Learning Outcomes: • On completion of this unit successful students will be able to: • Demonstrate a coherent and detailed knowledge of Old Testament Theology, including the historical development of the discipline • Evaluate critically the difference between synchronic and diachronic approaches • Appreciate the limitation and ambiguity of interpretative approaches to Biblical texts • Analyse and describe selected themes in the Old Testament • Communicate these themes to specialist and non-specialist audiences

4. Content: • Wk 1: The Development of Method in Old Testament Theology • Wk 2: Methodological issues in Old Testament Theology • Wk 3: The Knowledge and Character of God • Wk 4: God and the World • Wk 5: Election and Covenant • Wk 6: Worship and Sacrifice • Wk 7: God Relates to his People • Wk 8: Ethics • Wk 9: Eschatology and the Nations • Wk 10: Recapitulation Main text: • Routledge, Robin, Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach (Apollos 2008).

5. Major Periods • Reformers & Protestant Orthodoxy (1550-1650) • Emancipation from Dogmatics (1650-1800) • Influence of Rationalism (1750-1875) • History of Israelite Religion (1875-1930) • Rebirth of OT Theology (1930-1960) • Walter Eichrodt • Gerhard van Rad

6. Major Periods • Reformers & Protestant Orthodoxy (1550-1650) • Protestant Reformers emphasising scripture against the Roman Catholic dogma and traditions. • Protestant Orthodoxy and Proof-text method to counter the dogma.

7. Reformers • "While the Bible has been read theologically since its formation, biblical theology as a discipline has its roots in the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers' emphasis on Scripture as the sole source and norm for all matters of faith provided the soil from which biblical theology sprang. While the term itself was not used by the Reformers to designate a distinct discipline, it is clear that for them biblical theology meant a systematic theology which was biblical in character, that is, for which the Bible was the primary, if not the sole, source and norm. Insofar as the Reformers self-consciously sought to differentiate their theology from Roman Catholic dogma, in which tradition played a major role, one may note a polemic

8. Reformers • dimension in the birth of biblical theology. One could go on to observe that while the target of the polemic changed periodically, the polemic dimension has been a constant feature of biblical theology throughout its history, in the sense that it had to fight repeatedly for an unbiased hearing of the theological witness of Scripture." [Lemke, Werner E., "Theology (Old Testament)," The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Freedman, David Noel, ed., (New York: Doubleday) 1997, 1992]

9. Reformers • "The Protestant principle of "sola scriptura," which became the battle cry of the Reformation against scholastic theology and ecclesiastical tradition, provides with its call for the self-interpretation of Scripture (sui ipsiusinterpres) the source for the subsequent development of Biblical theology. The Reformers did not create the phrase "Biblical theology" nor did they engage in Biblical theology as a discipline as subsequently understood. . . .

10. Protestant Orthodoxy “While the Reformers in their use of Scripture introduced a creative tension between the Bible and dogmatic theology, the opposite was true of the proponents of Protestant orthodoxy who followed them. In their hands the Bible became subservient to Protestant dogmatics, which determined the selection, order, and treatment of biblical passages. The Bible came to be viewed as a uniform sourcebook of quotations whose primary task was to support the dogmas of Protestant orthodoxy against the dogmas of Roman Catholicism. No distinctions were made in regard to time, authorship, historical context, compositional purpose, or distinctive theological perspectives of the biblical documents. The system of arranging biblical data was the traditional loci method known from medieval scholasticism. That is, various Scripture texts would be listed and briefly

11. Protestant Orthodoxy commented upon under the topical rubrics drawn from dogmatic theology. The understanding of biblical theology reflected in Protestant orthodoxy may be characterized as "dogmatic biblicism" or proof-texting (dicta probantia). Early in the 17th century, the actual words "biblical theology" began to appear in the title of works of this kind. As far as we know, the first work to use such a title was W. J. Christmann's Teutsche Biblische Theologie published in 1629. While many other works of this nature were published subsequently, a significant shift in the understanding of biblical theology began to take place during the second half of the 17th century, thus ushering in a new era in the history of the discipline." [Lemke, "Theology (Old Testament)," ABD]

12. Protestant Orthodoxy "Proof-texts" - dicta probantia - collegiabiblica • "Emerging, as it did, as a child of Protestant Scholasticism, its basic presuppositions reflected the peculiarities of the parent system of thought. It began with the belief that the church dogmas contained the correct interpretation of the Christian religion. These, in turn, were deemed to be sacrosanct, true for all time, and unchangeable. Their authority lay especially in the fact that the Scripture, constituting the literal Word of God, was considered to give them a supernatural approval."

13. "Proof-texts" • ". . . the Bible was regarded as uniformly authoritative and that any notions of the dissimilarity between the Old and New Testaments were completely nonexistent." • "Old Testament theology thus described may be taken to mean the use of Israel’s canonical writings for the purpose of demonstrating the soundness of Protestant doctrine on the basis of certain passages selected for their suitability as proof-texts. Since all of Scripture was deemed to be of equal value, such passages could and were chosen from all sections of the Old Testament, the only requirement being that the texts could be interpreted to agree with whatever doctrine was being considered."

14. "Proof-texts" • "Under these circumstances, the method of discussion was an extremely simple one, involving only three steps. It began with the authoritative definition and elucidation of an individual doctrine. It then moved on to choose passages from the Old Testament which might be thought to support that formulation. Finally, it entailed the detailed exposition of those texts in order to show how they actually did provide such support."

15. "Proof-texts" • "The order of the subject matter came bodily from the doctrinal systems themselves. In this respect Schmidt was only following the practice current among the Protestant theologians of his day." [Hayes & Prussner, Old Testament Theology: it history & development ]

16. Major Periods 2. Emancipation from Dogmatics (1650-1800) PietismEnlightenment

17. Introduction "The more attentively Scripture was read and studied during the course of the 17th century, the more it became apparent that the biblical documents did not really contain a theological system of doctrines at all. Rather, Scripture was cast into the form of a historical narrative. It told the story of God's unfolding relationship with humanity through a sequence of temporal events (oeconomiatemporum)." [Lemke, "Theology (Old Testament)," ABD]

18. Pietism & Enlightenment Pietism • "The shift from a dogmatic to a more historically oriented approach to biblical theology accelerated during the course of the 18th century. Of particular importance in this development were two cultural movements of the 18th century: German Pietism and the Enlightenment. Pietism was a revolt within the German Church against Protestant scholasticism, which it considered to be excessively preoccupied with dogmatic speculations and arid abstractions. Whereas Protestant orthodoxy tended to equate the Christian faith with intellectual assent to sound doctrine, Pietism stressed personal experience and awareness of the presence of God, as

19. Pietism nourished through a life of prayer, personal devotion, Bible reading, and moral living. Pietism's emphasis on the reading and study of Scripture by all brought about a greater familiarity with the contents of the Bible. It also brought about an increasing awareness of the differences between biblical and dogmatic theology." [Lemke, "Theology (Old Testament)," ABD]

20. Pietism • "The back-to-the-Bible emphasis of German Pietism brought about a changing direction for Biblical theology. In Pietism Biblical theology became a tool in the reaction against arid Protestant Orthodoxy. Philipp Jacob Spener (1635-1705), a founding father of Pietism, opposed Protestant scholasticism with “Biblical theology.“ The influence of Pietism is reflected in the works of Carl Haymann (1708), J. Deutschmann (1710), and J. C. Weidner (1722), which oppose orthodox systems of doctrine with "Biblical theology."

21. Pietism • "As early as 1745 “Biblical theology” is clearly separated from dogmatic (systematic) theology and the former is conceived of as being the foundation of the latter. This means that Biblical theology is emancipated from a role merely subsidiary to dogmatics. Inherent in this new development is the possibility that Biblical theology can become the rival of dogmatics and turn into a completely separate and independent discipline. These possibilities realized themselves under the influence of rationalism in the age of Enlightenment." [Hasel, Old Testament Theology]

22. Enlightenment “Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, Let Newton be! and all was light!” Alexander Pope

23. Enlightenment • "The increasing differentiation of biblical theology from dogmatic theology was also greatly aided by the Enlightenment which swept across Europe during the 18th century. Rationalism's aversion to dogmatic religion, its belief in the powers of the human intellect to ascertain truth through observation and inductive reasoning, as well as its belief in the existence of universal natural religion which was in conformity with the demands of reason, exerted a powerful influence on biblical studies and widened the gulf between biblical and dogmatic theology. Increasingly the Bible came to be subjected to the same kind of critical and rational study as any other human document of antiquity." [Lemke, "Theology (Old Testament)," ABD]

24. Enlightenment • "In theage of Enlightenment (Aufklärung) a totally new approach for the study of the Bible was developed under several influences. First and foremost was rationalism’s reaction against any form of supernaturalism. Human reason was set up as the final criterion and chief source of knowledge, which meant that the authority of the Bible as the infallible record of divine revelation was rejected. The second major contribution of the period of the Enlightenment was the development of a new hermeneutic, the historical-critical method’s which holds sway to the present day in liberalism and beyond. Third, there is the application of radical literary criticism to the Bible by J. B. Witter, J. Astruc, and others. Finally, rationalism by its very nature was led to abandon the orthodox view of the inspiration of the Bible so that ultimately the Bible became simply one of the ancient documents, to be studied as any other ancient document." [Hasel, Old Testament Theology]

25. Scholars • Johann SolomoSemler (1725-1791) • ". . . claimed that the Word of God and Holy Scripture are not at all identical. This implied that not all parts of the Bible were inspired and that the Bible is a purely historical document which as any other such document is to be investigated with a purely historical and thus critical methodology. As a result Biblical theology can be nothing else but a historical discipline which stands in antithesis to traditional dogmatics."[Hasel, Old Testament Theology]

26. Scholars • GotthilfTraugottZachariä (1729-1777) • Under the influence of the new orientation in dogmatics and hermeneutics he attempted to build a system of theological teachings based upon careful exegetical work. Each book of Scripture has its own time, place, and intention. But Zacharia held to the inspiration of the Bible, as did J. A. Ernesti (1707-l781) whose Biblical-exegetical method he followed. Historical exegesis and canonical understanding of Scripture do not collide in Zacharia’s thought because “the historical aspect is a matter of secondary importance in theology.“ On this basis there is no need to distinguish between the Testaments; they stand in reciprocal relationship to each other. Most basically Zacharia’s interest was still in the dogmatic system, which he wished to cleanse from impurities."[Hasel, Old Testament Theology]

27. Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826) • Biblical Theology: Biblical theology is historical in character; that is, it sets forth what the sacred writers thought about divine matters. • Dogmatic Theology: Dogmatic theology is didactic in character, teaching what a given theologian thinks about divine matters in accordance with his ability, his particular circumstances, age, locale, religious and intellectual tradition, and similar conditioning factors.

28. Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826) • Two phases or distinct tasks of biblical theology: • True: "The first task of biblical theology was to ascertain simply what the various biblical authors thought and asserted about divine matters in their various contexts. This was to be accomplished by means of a purely grammatical and historical exegesis. All allegorizing or spiritualizing was to be shunned. Care was to be exercised in differentiating the various ideas of biblical writers, not to blur differences but to arrange and compare these ideas in some suitable manner." [Lemke, "Theology (Old Testament)," ABD]

29. Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826) • Pure: "The second task of biblical theology was to sift these various biblical concepts and assertions in terms of their universal and abiding value and to deduce some general concepts and ideas from these which could serve as a basis for the construction of a dogmatic theology." [Lemke, "Theology (Old Testament)," ABD]

30. Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826) • "One possible implication of Gabler's proposal is that the Old Testament occupies a lower rung on the ladder of reason than does the New; after all, it is from an earlier ear. Georg Lorenz Bauer was the first to draw this implication . . . ." [Ollenburger, "From Timeless Ideas to the Essence of Religion," in The Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century Old Testament Theology, 1930-1990]

31. Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826) • A three-stage approach to examining biblical theology: • First, interpreters must gather data on "each of the periods in the Old and New Testaments, each of the authors, and each of the manners of speaking which each used as a reflection of time and place." • Second, having gathered this historical material theologians must undertake "a careful and sober comparison of the various parts attributed to each testament." Biblical authors’ ideas should be compared until "it is clearly revealed wherein the separate authors agree in a friendly fashion, or differ among themselves."

32. Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826) • "Third, the agreements and disagreements must be duly noted and analyzed in order to determine what “universal notions” emerge. Gabler offers no specific criteria for determining what constitutes universal notions except to cite "Mosaic law" as one example of what no longer applies to Christians.” He simply distinguished between that which applied to the authors’ times alone and that which has more long-term value." [House, Old Testament Theology]

33. Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826) • Strength: "Its chief strength is the insistence on the value of biblical theology." • Weaknesses: • "First, his insistence on rationalism and its refusal to discuss what lies beyond the human senses eliminates much of Scripture from serious theological consideration." • "Second, despite his program for incorporating biblical and systematic theology, Gabler’s theories open the door for a negative separation of Old and New Testament theology."

34. Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826) • "Third, a cleavage is created between the academic study of theology and the church’s teaching of doctrine." [House, Old Testament Theology]

35. Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826) Hayes, John H. and Frederick Prussner, Old Testament Theology: its history & development, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985), 62-66. Knierim, Rolf P., "On Gabler," in The Task of Old Testament Theology: Method and Cases (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 495-556. Ollenburger, Ben C., "Biblical Theology: Situating the Discipline," in Understanding the Word: Essays in Honor of Bernhard W. Anderson, eds. James T. Butler, Edger W. Conrad and Ben C. Ollenburger, (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 37-62. _____, "From Timeless Ideas to the Essence of Religion," in The Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century Old Testament Theology, 1930-1990, (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1992) Sandys-Wunsch, John and Laurence Elbredge, "J. P. Gabler and the Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology: Translation, Commentary, and Discussion of his Originality," Scottish Journal of Theology 33 (1980), 133-158.

36. Major Periods3. Influence of Rationalism (1750-1875)

37. Initial effects of Rationalism • "Initially rationalism, along with Pietism, had been a constructive force in emancipating biblical theology from the stranglehold of dogmatic theology and in establishing it as a distinct theological discipline in its own right. Many 18th-century biblical theologians combined both currents in their life and their scholarship. That is, they were both devout believers as well as rationalists, and this was reflected in their scholarly work on the Bible. But toward the latter part of the 18th and especially during the first half of the 19th century, these two currents more often than not stood in opposition to each other, as rationalism became the more powerful of the two. Increasingly, rationalist philosophy penetrated biblical theology and for a time forced it into a philosophical straitjacket which threatened to become as rigid as the older religious dogmatism had been. The Bible was now understood in terms of an evolutionary religious process leading from

38. Initial effects of Rationalism lower forms of religion to the absolute or universal religion. The latter was usually defined as a religion of reason (deism) or morality (Kant). Representative of this kind of 19th-century biblical theology were the works of G. L. Bauer, C. F. von Ammon, and G. P. C. Kaiser. Only those teachings of Scripture which were in accord with reason, or the universal religion as established by reason, were of abiding value. Everything else was to be discarded as the outgrown ideas and practices of a particular culture or period in history. Concomitant with such a rationalistic approach to biblical theology was an increasing devaluation of the OT as the record of an inferior stage in the religious development of the human race, and hence less suitable than the NT for the construction of a biblical theology." [Lemke, "Theology (Old Testament)," ABD]

39. Rationalist Scholars • Bauer & the Division of OT and NT Theology: • "Another important development during this period was the division of biblical theology into the separate disciplines of OT and NT theology, a practice which has become customary down to the present day. Several reasons may be cited for this development. One was undoubtedly the increasing recognition of the diversity of Scripture, especially the distinct differences in content, historical context, and outlook between the testaments, which made it more difficult to treat them as homogenous documents. Another reason was the sheer increase in data and new discoveries pertaining to the Bible, which made it more difficult for anyone to master the entire field of biblical studies. Thus specialization became a necessity. But thirdly, it must also be said that the rationalistic

40. Rationalist Scholars devaluation of the OT in favor of the NT undoubtedly contributed to this bifurcation in biblical theology. At any rate, the work that marked the beginning of this division of the discipline, and thus the beginning of OT theology proper, was G. L. Bauer's OT theology published in 1797. " [Lemke, "Theology (Old Testament)," ABD] • ". . . the task of OT theology was to trace the religious ideas of the Hebrews in their historical development and against the background of other ANE religions with whom the Hebrews came into contact. Already the influence of comparative religion was beginning to make itself felt here in this first OT theology. Bauer's rationalistic orientation manifested itself in the manner in which he judged the religious content of the OT. Miraculous and mythological elements in the Bible were dismissed by him as superstitions of a primitive race."

41. Rationalist Scholars • "(1) For Bauer, Old Testament theology focused primarily on religious ideas or concepts. (2) He claimed that historical interpretation must trace the development of those ideas and interpret them in independence from dogmatic theology's definitions. Only in that way would Old Testament (and then New Testament) theology be able to reform dogmatics. (3) In the course of their development, in the Old Testament as in history generally, ideas move from particular to universal, and it is these universal religious ideas that are most important for the present. Bauer says that in the Old Testament these universal ideas are to be found principally in Proverbs and Job, because their authors are the least concerned with particulars – with their own time, their own people, their own situation." [Ollenburger, "From Timeless Ideas to the Essence of Religion"]

42. Summary of Gabler & Bauer's Influence 1. Gabler and Bauer basically create the discipline of Old Testament theology. They argue that the Old and New Testaments deserve to be heard on their own terms before their ideas are incorporated into dogmatic theology. 2. Both Gabler and Bauer believe Old Testament theology must have a strongly historical component. Unfortunately this historical component is based on a rationalism that leaves little room for the supernatural. It also questions a great deal of material that is suspect only to keen rationalists.

43. Summary of Gabler & Bauer's Influence 3. Gabler and Bauer argue that the Old Testament teaches some universal truths applicable to Christians in all eras. To find these concepts, however, both men eliminate much of the Old Testament as being due to the authors’ "own ingenuity." This approach questions the general value of the Old Testament and leaves it with little to say that the New Testament does not repeat.

44. Summary of Gabler & Bauer's Influence 4. Gabler never writes an Old Testament theology, but in his work Bauer divides the biblical material into the study of God, humankind and Christ.

45. Continued Rationalism • Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette • "Though he shared the rationalists’ conclusion about the Bible’s depictions of miracles, prophecies and so forth, he thought the rationalists’ dismissal of such accounts wrongheaded. Rather, de Wette argues, myths are poetic means of expressing feelings about God and all sacred things. Many ancient peoples thought and wrote in such terms, so it is not unusual that Israel did so as well. Thus Old Testament theologians must seek to understand the feelings and universal truths behind the myths, not simply discard them as fantasies penned by irrational or primitive people." [House, Old Testament Theology]

46. Continued Rationalism • Wilhelm Vatke • "Wilhelm Vatke (1806-1882) regarded the “rationalistic period of Biblical theology as a necessary but now superseded development. He was the first to adopt the Hegelian philosophy of thesis (nature religion), antithesis (spiritual religion = Hebrew religion), and synthesis (absolute or universal religion = Christianity), in his Die biblischeTheologie. Die Religion des AT (Berlin, 1835). He claimed that the system for the arrangement of the OT material must not be set forth on the basis of categories derived from the Bible but must be imposed from the outside, and formulated the dogma of the “history-of-religion” approachconcerning the “independent totality” of the OT. Three years after the publication of Vatke’s

47. Continued Rationalism work, which later had great influence on J. Wellhausen, a second “history-of-religions” OT theology based on Hegelianism was published by Bruno Bauer (1809-1882), who arrived at opposite conclusions from his teacher Vatke." [Hasel, Old Testament Theology] • "By the time Vatke’s work was published and read, a perceptible dogmaticism had settled into the liberal ranks of Old Testament theology. First, the Old Testament’s historical statements were clearly suspect. Stated authorship of books, accounts of the miraculous and description of historical events were all challenged and often denied. Second, the Old Testament was at worst a slight contributor to legitimate biblical theology and was at best a legitimate source of universal ideas and inspired religious feelings. Third, it was unlikely, then, that the

48. Continued Rationalism unity of the Bible could be maintained. Evolutionary views of history made it much more likely that the Old Testament was a lower religious state that had to be completed for the New Testament to emerge. Challenges to these assertions were soon to come, but they were not to have the lasting force their authors desired." [House, Old Testament Theology]

49. Reactions Against Rationalism • "However, in response to the excesses of vulgar rationalism, a conservative reaction took place around the middle of the 18th century, leading to the writing of OT theologies along more orthodox lines. Representative of this development were scholars like E. W. Hengstenberg and F. Delitzsch. Other OT theologians of this period, like H. Ewald, G. F. Oehler, and E. Schultz, took a more moderate or mediating position somewhere between the rationalists and the orthodox Lutherans. Of these, the OT theology by Oehler, published posthumously in two volumes (1873-74) and written from a heilsgeschichtlicheperspective, was a particularly influential work. It was also the first of the major German OT theologies to be translated into English shortly after its original publication." [Lemke]

50. Reactions Against Rationalism • Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1802-69) • Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions • History of the Kingdom of God in the Old Testament • G. F. Oehler • Oehler reacted both against the Marcionite strain introduced by F. Schleiermacher with the depreciation of the OT and the total uniformity of OT and NT as maintained by Hengstenberg. But he himself does not give up the unity of the Testaments. There is unity in diversity. Oehler accepts the division of OT and NT theology, but OT theology can function properly only within the larger