Review: Old Testament Theology-Flowering and Future.docx.pdf

Old Testament Theology: Flowering and Future. Edited by Ben C. Ollenburger. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001. 544 pages. Hardcover, $44.95. The first article is written by the volumes editor, Ben C. Ollenburger. Ollenburger seeks to simply describe the nature of OT theology before 1933, but since every article is written from a perspective, Ollenburger’s perspective on OT theology is seen throughout the article. Ludwig Bagumgarten-Crusius’s work (The Basic Characteristics of Biblical Theology, 1828) lays the foundation for Ollenburger’s perspective that “biblical and Old Testament theology are marked by disagreement and debate” (3). Though the field of OT theology was initially united around the historical study of the Bible, even this did not last long. Background From the beginning, the inaugural address of Johann Philipp Gabler in 1787, biblical theology was seen as the bridge between historical interpretation and dogmatic (systematic) theology. Ultimately, the historical study of the OT was seen as subjugated to the historical study of the NT. This caused “Old Testament and New Testament theology” to be “distinguished from each other and carried out in independence from dogmatics” (5). Thus, different variations of biblical theology were done through different methodologies: philosophy, salvation history, and the history of religion. In light of the disagreement within the field of OT theology before 1933, the next two articles contained within this volume are by two scholars who participated in the debate. The first article is by Otto Eissfeldt. Eissfeldt is concerned with “whether the religion of the Old Testament is to be understood and presented…in terms of the history of Israelite Jewish religion, or as…the true religion, the revelation of God” (12). Eissfeldt argues that ultimately treating the OT as historical versus theological should be seen as belonging on “two different planes” (16). The following table compares Eissfeldt’s thoughts on the different planes: The Historical Plane Treats the OT as “having undergone historical development.” As such, this plane belongs to the historian who handles texts containing God’s revelation but does not “decide whether this claim is justified.” The faith of the historian must be independent of his study of the text. This allows those “who belong to different Christian confessions, and even those of non-Christian religions” to work “hand and hand.” The Theological Plane Treats the OT primarily as a revelation from God in regards to “the interpreter and his religious community.” As such, the OT’s “validity” is “restricted to the circle of those whose piety is the same as, or similar to, those of the interpreter.” The faith of the interpreter creates a distance between “different religious communities.” Eissfeldt sees these two planes as being united in infinity even if they cannot be united in the finite realm. The second article, written by Walther Eichrodt, challenges Eissfeldt division of OT theology into two planes suggesting that two should remain as one. As Eichrodt states, “for someone who is internally convinced of the reality of revelation, it is certainly essential whether historical matters of fact attested in the records of revelation stand in a demonstrable outer and inner connection to the center of revelation, for only if they do can one appropriate their intellectual content” (28). Thus, for Eichrodt if one’s theology is based on a record of revelation, then this record of revelation must be historical or one’s theology really does not matter. In light of this reality, Eichrodt sees no issue with scholars crossing over the boundaries of their individual disciples. Instead, such a cross section is essential to the nature of all scholarship since scholars always complete their work from subjective perspectives (24–25). In all, Eichrodt would seek to do OT theology according to the “historical basis of revelation in Christ” (26). These two articles, written by Eissfeldt and Eichrodt respectively, were and still are, as noted by Ollenburger, “pertinent to contemporary issues and debates about the Old Testament theology” (11). Is there to be a division between the study of the religion of Israel and the study of the OT text, or should these two disciplines be seen as one? The rest of Flowering and Future provides the reader scholarly works that will seek to provide and answer to this question. Old Testament Theology’s Renaissance: Walter Eichrodt through Gerhard von Rad The second section of Flowering and Future is concerned with how four scholars sought to revitalize OT theology. For these scholars, such a renaissance was not simply an academic discussion but was a necessity for the “theological character and witness of the Old Testament” (33). Thus, these four scholars were concerned with answering three main questions: 1) what was the role of history in the theological interpretation, 2) does the OT have a theological center, and 3) what is the nature of the relationship between the two testaments of Scripture? The first scholar seeking to revitalize OT theology was Eichrodt. As noted above, Eichrodt is intent on identifying OT theology within its historical setting and thus argues that it “exhibits a double aspect” (italics original, 41). In one sense, Eichrodt saw OT theology as similar to a comparison of religions. In his words, “No presentation of OT theology can properly be made without constant reference to its connections with the whole world of Near Eastern religion” (italics original, 41). In another sense, Eichrodt viewed the manifestation of Christ as the fulfillment of the OT. In seeking to identify the “double aspect” of OT theology, Eichrodt was defending the OT against both past attempts of orthodoxy to find coherence between the two testaments and rationalism. According to Eichrodt, rationalism had successfully defeated the idea that typology and a proof-texting system could actually describe how the NT related to the OT; but, even so, rationalism was “unable to offer any substitute” (43). Thus, Eichrodt concluded that the following “three principal categories” provide an alternative derived from the “OT’s own dialect” (47): God and his people, God and the world, and God and man. These three principal categories were, according to Eichrodt, summed up in the idea of God’s covenant. As Eichrodt states, when God established his covenant “the idea of him as Father was extended to cover the whole of Creation; the concept of love was not applied to God’s relations with each individual member of the nation; and consequently men came to a new vision of how far-reaching might be the scope of their covenant God in his operations” (49) As demonstrated in this statement, all three of Eichrodt’s categories lead to an understanding of the “covenant God” as represented within the OT texts. Theodorus C. Vriezen is the next scholar under discussion. Vriezen is primarily concerned with clarifying that “Old Testament theology is and must be a Christian theological science” (italics original, 58). In making this statement, Vriezen does not intend to argue that the utilization of any other methodology is useless. Instead, these methodologies might be unhelpful in understanding other things but not in understanding the OT. Stated simply, “Old Testament theology is concerned with the Old Testament” (59). The Old Testament is the first part of the Christian canon. Thus, for Vriezen, the OT “must be submitted to the judgment of the preaching of Jesus Christ” (59). Vriezen goes on to argue that the center of Biblical theology is the idea of communion with God. In his words, “the immediate communion between the Holy God and weak, sinful man may be called the underlying idea of the whole of the Biblical testimony, for in its essence this basic idea is also found in the New Testament” (64). For Vriezen this communion put man in contact with God, but still allowed God to be in control of when and how He would communicate with man (contra Buber, Kampf um Israel). George Ernest Wright is concerned with many who have devalued the nature of God by their disuse of the theology contained within Old Testament. For example, Wright mentions a Mr. X, who argues that God is both the “Lord and Suzerian” but that God also is purposed with assuring “the ultimate success of the nonviolent imperative” (90). Wright notes that such an understanding of God is faulty because God’s love for justice will cause Him to do some things through means other than nonviolence. Mr. X’s view of God leads one to the false conclusion that “Jesus and the New Testament portray love and the God of love, while the God of the Old Testament…is another deity altogether” (83). Instead, Wright offers three elements by which one should formulate a theology of the entire Bible. First, God has primarily revealed himself in history, not inner revelation. This means that history is the locus of divine revelation. Second, God has elected a special people to accomplish his purpose through history. Third, the verification that Israel is God’s elected people is found in the establishment of the Sinai covenant. Wright then concludes that these three elements are not concerned with “propositional theology” but with history and that this history has found in climax in the coming of Christ; biblical theology is then “fundamentally an interpretation of history, a confessional recital of historical events as the acts of God, events which leads backward to the beginning of history and forward to its end” (79). Von Rod clearly notes that there are two versions of Israel’s history. The first version is the one found within the text of the Old Testament. In von Rad’s day, this version had been “bit by bit destroyed” by the second version created by means of “historical scholarship,” which “regards it as impossible that the whole of Israel was present at Sinai, or that Israel crossed the Red Sea” and it argues that “the picture of Moses and his leadership drawn in the traditions of the book of Exodus to be unhistorical” (95). Even so, von Rad did not see the first version to be completely unhistorical or unreliable for the purpose of theology. Instead, von Rad saw the nature of ancient poetry to be the means of understanding why two version of Israel has arisen in the first place. According to van Rod, the Israelites wanted to explain the history of God’s works in the world but did so through the means of poetry, or “explicit artistic intention” (97). Poetry was not “just there along with prose as something one might elect to use…but poetry alone enabled a people to express experiences met with in the course of their history in such a way as to make the past become absolutely present” (97). In other words, poetry became the means by which Israel preserved their scriptures for later generations. Such a method of preservation did not negate the history behind the text but instead allowed the text to “contain an implicit eschatological element” (99). Thus, every generation was able to update their confession of faith even if these updates were not always corresponding. Von Rad uses the nature of Israelite prophecy as an example the phenomenon being described here. While von Rad views the prophets as having different agendas, he does find one common thread within them; “the eighth-century prophets put Israel’s life on completely new basis” (112). They sought to utilize the old traditions in order to argue that God was no longer going to operate as He had in the past. Instead, God was going to do something new in the future. The old traditions had not become law, while the prophets sought to call Israel to faith. But as Wright notes, von Rad is only able to interpret the prophets this way by carrying “the Lutheran separation of law and gospel back into his Old Testament scholarship” (80). As a last note, Ollenburger notes that “in 1933, Eichrodt found Old Testament theology at an impasse. Three decades later, von Rad found it in the same condition” (38). Thus, the work of von Rad moves the conversation forward into the next generation. Expansion and Variety: Between Gerhard von Rad and Brevard Childs Ollenburger describes the next generation of biblical theology as having no consensus. Instead, this generation “comprised a variety of approaches, assumptions, and conclusions” (118). No one work dominated the field of biblical theology until the arrival of Brevard Childs. That said, there were many works that appeared to have paved the way for Childs reception within this generation of dissonance. Walther Zimmerli’s Old Testament Theology in Outline (1978) argued that even though the Old Testament displays some “historical movement” within the faith of Israel, the text of the Old Testament claimed to have a “coherent whole” (122). Zimmerli found God himself, as identified as Yahweh, to be the center or coherent whole of the entire Old Testament. Thus, “Old Testament faith derives from Yahweh’s ‘statements’ about himself in history” (133). As such, this insert from Zimmerli’s book concludes with Zimmerli explaining how the whole of the Old Testament explains that obedience is the proper response to God’s display of love throughout history. In A Theology of the Old Testament (1974), John L. McKenzie also argues that the “Old Testament is not a rational system but a basic personal reality, Yahweh” (141). Though Yahweh might be identified as an important element of Old Testament theology, McKenzie argues that a theology is built by a theologian seeking to write for a contemporary audience. Since one ought not to make a systematic theology of the Old Testament, one must instead present a theology of topics that are ordered and arranged by the theologian’s whim. As McKenzie states, “the order in which they [the topics] are presented is not determined by the Old Testament, but by his [the theologian] own judgment of the most logical and coherent arrangement of the material” (142). As such, McKenzie places the idea of “cult” as his main point of interest though he finds a disagreement between the tradition of the prophets and the second temple period. Ronald E. Clements argues for a canonical theology that seeks to identify the “way in which the structure of the canon affects” how one interprets the Old Testament (159). As Clements explains, the Old Testament canon contains three main sections: Law, Prophets, and the Writings. While the material contained within these sections are typically identified with the titles attached to them, Clements explains that all three sections of the Old Testament contain elements of prophecy and law. Thus, Clements finds the Christian idea of promise to “reflect an understanding which exists within the Old Testament canon itself” (173). Walter C. Kaiser Jr. finds the center of the Old Testament, through observing its canonical form, in the idea of promise (the New Testament idea of epangelia) as expressed in numerous forms: blessing, oath, declaration, pledge and so forth. As such, Kaiser identifies Isaiah as the “promise theologian” because of his “use of the antecedent theology of the Abrahamic-Mosaic-Davidic promise” and “his new contributions and development of that doctrine” (181). Sameual L. Terrien’s concerned for a canonical theology is found in his statement that the “inwardness of scriptural canonicity and of its growth in the course of several centuries suggest that a certain homogeneity of theological depth binds the biblical books together beneath the heterogeneity of their respective dates… and contents” (193). Terrien for a biblical theology centered around God’s presence by which the “Hebraic theology of presence leads to the Christian theology of eucharistic presence” (197). His study finds Psalm 22 to be somewhat of an anomaly to how God’s presence normally functioned; by clinging to the righteous and being veiled from the wicked. In answering the question related to what the Old Testament says about God, Claus Westermann responses by stating that” the answer to this question must be given by the entire Old Testament” (205). Thus, Westermann is concerned with analyzing the Old Testament canon. He argues against placing an arbitrary center upon the Old Testament as one finds in the New. Instead, Westermann argues that the canon provides the reader/theologian with the means of “an objective starting point for an Old Testament theology which is independent of any preconceptions about what the most important thing in the Old Testament is and independent of any other prior theological decisions” (206). Elmer A. Martens argues that God’s design should be the center of Old Testament theology. His argument is founded primarily upon an exegesis of Exod 5:22–6:8. Though Martens identifies Yahweh as the central subject of the Old Testament, he argues that Yahweh is to be elaborated by text such as Exod 5:22–6:8. That “Yahweh is a God with a purpose” (232), is fundamental to Martens’s understanding of God’s design. God’s design, according to Martens, is concerned with at least the following four subjects: deliverance, covenant and community, knowledge of God, and land. From Brevard Childs to a New Pluralism The motivation behind so many scholars desiring to engage in a sort of canonical theology is the work of Brevard Childs. As Ollenburger states, “Childs ranks in importance with Eichrodt and von Rad” (246). While von Rad allowed the two separate histories of Israel to coexist side by side, Childs argued that a canonical view allowed both histories to be somewhat dependent upon one another. In his words, “these two aspects [histories] of Israel’s experience are held together in a subtle balance within the shape of the canon” (255). In making this statement, Childs did not want to dismiss the “tradition-historical critics” but instead wanted to understand the different traditions in light of their placement within the final form of the canon. Even so, Childs still finds some tensions within the traditions contained within the Old Testament. Rolf Knierim argued for an Old Testament theology guided by strict exegesis, which would result in the Old Testament being able to speak for itself. Knierim also suggested that though the Old Testament is one [canonical?], this does not negate its diversity. In other words, Knierim viewed the “collection of many literary works” contained within the Old Testament to also signify a “collection of diverse theologies” (273). Thus, even in Knierim’s The Task of Old Testament Theology, he explains that “not all the Old Testament texts” contain the same message about Yahweh’s plan for the world order (280). Though many have doubted that the Old Testament actually contains a “center,” Horst Dietrich Preuss builds his systematic analysis of its contents around the following center: “YHWH’s historical activity of electing Israel for communion with his world and the obedient activity required of his people (and the nations)” (Italic original, 294). Preuss makes this claim based on the following assumptions. First, a systematic theology helps one to connect the two testaments. Second, hermeneutics and fundamental theology help to bridge this systematic theology to a contemporary audience. Third, Preuss states that the final part of a systematic theology “probably does have a center” (288). Fourth, such an analysis allows the theologian to keep the whole of the Old Testament in mind. Fifthly, the faith of contained in the Old Testament is distinct from other ancient near eastern religions. Thus, Preuss argues that there is not a central “idea” contained within the Old Testament but a central event: the electing of Israel. This election goes hand and hand with Israel’s experience of the exodus. Walter Brueggemann argues that the center of the Old Testament is “of course God” (305). As such, instead of seeking to identify how the different elements contained within the Old Testament might relate to each other, Brueggemann concludes, in reference to Terrien, that these “hints, traces, fragments, and vignettes” explain that God is himself elusive and “cannot be comprehended in any preconceived categories” (italics original, 305). Brueggemann goes on to argue that since of the Old Testament contains “speech about God” (305), a theology of its contents should concern itself with its “testimony.” In other words, the texts of the Old Testament bear witness to a process by which “human testimony is taken as revelation that discloses the true reality of God” (308). Ultimately, Brueggemann is concerned with demonstrating that God is the subject of the “full sentences” (310) of Israel’s testimony. Expanding in a slightly new direction from the work of Childs and Clements, Paul R. House argues that one ought to build a canonical theology. Interestingly, House does not argue for a center by which this theology should be written but instead points towards a “main focal point” (327). Whereas a center subjugates all other themes into a secondary position, a focal point is just a theologian’s place of emphasis, whether this point is dominant or not. House allows three main ideas to drive his theology: 1) the confines of the canon, 2) every book’s theology is included and synthesized, and 3) intertextual connections. Bernhard W. Anderson seeks to build an Old Testament biblical theology in light of a reading of Rom 9:4–5. According to Anderson, Rom 9:4–5 provides seven or eight “major subjects of the Old Testament” (344). Though Anderson seems to suggest that each one of these topics could have been taken up one by one, he instead identified the subject of covenant one of most importance. Its importance is found in the way biblical covenants symbolize “God’s relation to the people and the world” (346). The work of the last scholar mentioned in this section is comparatively an anomaly when read in light of the other scholars. Erhard S. Gerstenberger argues against the use of the canon as a means building a unified biblical theology of the Old Testament. Gerstenberger based this argument on the assumption that there is “no one uniform coherent canon,” which also infers that there is no “coherent theological doctrinal structure” to the texts within the canon (360). Thus, instead of seeking to build a theology of the text, Gerstenberger argues for building theologies of Israelite religions driven by the text. Contexts, Perspectives and Proposals The last section of the book, Ollenburger notes three main reasons for the “rich dissensus” (377) among methodologies for building an Old Testament theology. First, there are numerous options and perspective from which one might study the Old Testament. Second, modern Old Testament scholarship seeks to utilize philosophical works in a way that was unheard of in the past. Third, many new participants have involved themselves in the field of Old Testament theology. These reasons lead Ollenburger to the conclusion that no one methodology seems likely to “lead the way forward” (380). Instead, Ollenburger provides this last section of the book so that the reader might view the diversity of the field and come to their one conclusion. In line with the methodology of von Rad, Hartmut Gese makes an argument for the tradition-historical perspective. According to Gese, this perspective helps to connect the two testaments, both of which are built on traditions. Also, this perspective allows one to keep the historical circumstance of the events and canonization of the numerous texts into one. As Gese states, “tradition history renders a biblical theology possible because it can describe revelation as history…. Biblical theology is the comprehending presentation of this revelation history, which leads through all stages of human existence in the historical process” (397–398). Phyllis Trible notes that a feminist biblical theology had not yet be written in her day. While Trible states that it is “not yet the season to write one” she does want to provide some “overtures” for how one might be done (403). Though not all feminist biblical theologies would take this approach, Trible provides the following steps for feminist who love the bible. Exegesis must be the first step, while the second step should be concerned with the contours and content of the “phenomenon of gender and sex in the articulation of faith” (406). Overall, Trible notes some interesting texts (such as Hosea 11:2–3 and Exod 1) by which such an analysis would be helpful. Jon D. Levenson’s work is concerned with the relationship between Jewish tradition and the texts of the Old Testament. As such, Levenson compares the theology of the traditions of the Hebrew Bible with the “mature Rabbinic thought of the Talmud” (416). Since the volume has noted in numerous places that Jewish scholars have been unconcerned with a Jewish biblical theology (see 378), Levenson’s interest in the subject is very unique. In the end, Levenson’s concern for God as king and suzerain is very much similar to the work of Wright (see 81). The work of John Sailhamer expands the canonical approach to biblical theology to the very structure of the final form of the Hebrew canon. Though there may have been multiple canonical forms of the Old Testament (as Gerstenberger notes), this reality does not negate searching for a correct or preferred canonical form. As Sailhamer notes, there were different communities who arranged the texts of the Old Testament into different forms for the sake of their theological presuppositions. By utilizing the book of Daniel’s relationship to the books of Jeremiah and Chronicles, Sailhamer builds a case for a canonical form of the Old Testament that correlates to the theology found in the New Testament. Gunther Hermann Wittenberg adds the voice of a black theologian to the volume. Wittenberg finds much agreement with the work of von Rad and Brueggemann and argues against many of Gabler’s points. For Wittenberg, most of Old Testament theology has been written for the academy and not for the poor and the oppressed. As such, “Old Testament theology seems in accessible to black students” (437). Thus, Wittenberg seeks to provide an alternative framework by which to build a theology that includes the poor and oppressed. Such a “resistance theology” would be “relevant for our own situation” and help to speak to the struggles of the oppressed (446). That there is no one superior methodology for building an Old Testament theology is the bases of James Barr’s The Concept of Biblical Theology (1999). The conclusion also leads Barr to be in opposition to the canonical approach (at least Child’s version), which suggests the opposite. Also, Barr’s conclusion suggests that after one does “good exegesis” not driven by theology one can develop almost any theology he or she desires. R. W. L. Moberly offers four presuppositions for building a biblical theology concerned with “the appropriate technical skills (linguistic, historical) and the engagement of the appropriate existential issues (ideological, moral, theological) which directs them to a particular goal—using the biblical text to engage with the question of God, with a view to transformation of human life” through this engagement (469). First, biblical interpretation is directly related to how people should live. Second, because the bible only speaks of God through metaphors it is difficult to speak directly or God. Third, the biblical data contains a mystery but not in the sense of “a puzzle which ceases to be a puzzle as soon as enough information becomes available…but rather that of something whose intrinsic depth cannot be exhausted” (467). Fourthly, there should be an element of the “rule of faith” involved theological formulation. The last article within this volume is written by Mark G. Brett. In this article Brett surveys and response to numerous works involved in Old Testament theology. Brett’s conclusion that “Old Testament theology is likely to be as pluralistic as any of its disciplinary neighbors” (489) has been noted by others (especially Barr) and it verified as true by the volume of works in the field. The volume is concluded with a full translation of Gabler’s article within its appendix. In this article, Gabler’s begins with arguing that scholar should seek to provide the biblical texts with proper exegesis. Though numerous issues might account for a lack of proper exegesis Gabler identifies three main issues which prevent scholars from performing proper exegetical work: 1) obscurities within Scripture, 2) a lack of distinction between religion and theology, and 3) to many combine the “simplicity and ease of biblical theology with the subtlety and difficulty of dogmatic theology. Gabler holds that “it is self-evident that the obscurity of the Holy Scriptures… must give rise to a great variety of opinion” (500). Gabler moves through this point fairly quickly but notes that an interpreter should not take this obscurity as a reason for adding their own interpretation to the texts of scripture as if their thoughts are divine. As much as Gabler calls for his readers to avoid this error, he views though who forget to distinguish between religion and theology as committing a more serious offense. Gabler understands religion to be something of everyday life derived only from Scripture, while theology is something learned and derives from Scripture as well as philosophy and history. Because of this error of understanding, scholars have also not distinguished between biblical and dogmatic theology. As such, Gabler makes it his main objective to argue for creating such a distinction. Gabler notes that biblical theology is rooted in history and is concerned with how the writers of Scripture felt about God’s activities. Dogmatic theology is instead rooted in how the theologian should teach his present generation about divine things. One example of Gabler’s defense of this distinction is found in how the theologians of the middle ages relied on scholastic theology, which differs from the theology of the early church fathers. In all, Gabler views the texts of Scripture to contain multiple theologies that might not all apply to contemporary audiences all in the same way. After a careful analysis is made the theologian will be able to “investigate with great diligence which opinions have to do with the unchanging testament of Christian doctrine… and which are said only to men of some particular era or testament” (505). Gables goes one to state that one should build their dogmatic theology upon a biblical theology but should not include all of the biblical theology within their dogmatics; instead, only the universal truths should be included. In conclusion, Gabler argues that while a dogmatic theology “should be varied… according to the variety of both philosophy and of every human point of view” biblical theology should remain the same because it is concerned with religion as perceived by the holy writers and “is not made to accommodate our point of view” (506). This volume allows the novice or experienced scholar to have access to numerous works of concerned with biblical/Old Testament theology all in one place. Thus, its value is seemly undisputable. Though more works could be added to this volume (such as various perspectives one black liberation theology), one volume cannot include everything.