74 - An Anniversary for Biblical Theology

An Anniversary for Biblical Theology
By Ulrich Mauser

THE Phoenix Rises

The term Biblical Theology has a wide spectrum of different meanings. It is often understood in analogy to the disciplines of Old Testament Theology and New Testament Theology, which have gained widespread, although by no means uncontested, recognition in academic biblical studies and in the production of books dedicated to biblical interpretation. Theologies of the Old and New Testaments seek to present systematic summations of the most important statements that express the faith of the communities in which and for which the Old and New Testaments were written. Biblical theology can be understood, analogously, as the attempt to correlate Old and New Testament theologies with each other in recognition of the fact that the Christian church has developed its body of normative Scripture in the form of the canon that includes Old and New Testament. ¹ In the most general form, therefore, biblical theology can be defined as the theology of the Christian canon of Scripture.

Defined in this sense, the project of a biblical theology has come under heavy fire from various quarters and for many different reasons. The judgment of John J. Collins summarizes the attitude of many biblical researchers today: "Biblical theology is a subject in decline. The evidence of this decline is not so much the permanent state of crisis in which it seems to have settled.... Rather the decline is evident in the fact that an increasing number of scholars no longer regard theology as the ultimate form of biblical studies or even as a necessary dimension of those studies at

Ulrich Mauser is the Otto A. Piper Professor of Biblical Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary and a consultant to the editors of the Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie. His most recent book is The Gospel of Peace: A Scriptural Message for Today's World (1992).

¹ In this context, I disregard the fact that the manner of correlation between the Testaments , and the precise content of the canon remain controversial issues among advocates of a modern biblical theology.

75 - An Anniversary for Biblical Theology

all." ² Others are persuaded that rumors about the demise of biblical theology are greatly exaggerated. In a judicious survey of the condition and the prospects of biblical theology at the present time, John Reumann states: "Each time the death certificate for biblical theology has been displayed, signs of new life have appeared. Like the ancient, legendary phoenix or like a Transylvanian vampire-depending on one's perspective-biblical theology rises again." Toward the end of his survey, Reumann maintains: "Biblical theology is alive," and concerning "the question of the 'possibility' of a biblical theology, indeed, even in the face of those who dismiss the whole effort, there is a new and considerable affirmation that it is both important and needful to call for it." ³

Biblical theology remains a contested issue in biblical scholarship in the United States today. It is, perhaps, not without significance that the year 1995 marked the tenth anniversary of an annual devoted to biblical theology, the Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie (JBTh). The whole series may give opponents of a biblical theology pause to reassess their position, and provide its advocates with rich materials to rethink and reshape their own ideas.

The Jahrbuch has benefited from the fact that in Germany academic biblical studies, were considered to culminate in theologies of the Old and New Testaments. Until recently, Old Testament theologies and New Testament theologies were accepted in post-World War II Germany as the queens of Old Testament and New Testament studies. The masterworks of Rudolf Bultmann and Gerhard von Rad were not only seen as the crowning achievements of their authors' many contributions to biblical studies but also as guideposts providing direction to the many diverse branches of research in their respective disciplines.

Even so, the founding in 1986 of an annual devoted to issues of a biblical theology remained a risky venture, even in Germany. The common presupposition of the editors of the Jahrbuch was the conviction that the God of the Old and New Testaments is one and the same God, a presupposition that contains within itself a host of complex historical and doctrinal problems.

The Jahrbuch was guided from its beginning by a group of editors representing various denominations and disciplines. The planning of the first two volumes of 1986 and 1987 was a joint effort of eleven scholars from the Lutheran, Reformed, and Roman Catholic traditions, including three specialists each in Old and New Testament studies, an expert in Jewish studies, two church historians, a systematic theologian, and a practical theologian. In addition, three overseas consultants were drawn into the group of editors. Since 1986, the original German editors and

² John J. Collins, "Is a Critical Biblical Theology Possible?" in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters, edited by W. H. Propp, B. Halpern, and D. N. Freedman (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, I990), p. I. Collins' summation of the situation in the above quote, however, does not coincide: with his own view.

³ John Reumarm, editor, The Promise and Practice of Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), pp. 1, 185.

76 - An Anniversary for Biblical Theology

overseas consultants have continued their responsibilities, and additional appointments have increased their number to the present total of fourteen German editors and six overseas consultants.

Each volume of the annual is topically organized. The editors gather each year in planning sessions in which the themes of future volumes and contributions to them are decided. Two of the editors share responsibility for the content of each issue. Each volume is a substantial contribution to a specific theme crucial in the formation of a biblical theology. The ten issues '~ of the Jahrbuch that have appeared deal with the following topics: "Unity and Diversity in Biblical Theology" (1986), "The One God of the Two Testaments" (1987), "The Problem of the Biblical Canon" (1988), "Law as Theme of Biblical Theology" (1989), "Creation and New Creation" (1990), ~"Old Testament and Christian Faith" (1991), "People of God, Community, and Society" (1992), "The Messiah" (1993), "Sin and Judgment" (1994), and "History of the Religion of Israel or Theology of the Old Testament" (1995). The 1996 issue will explore the theme of "Faith and the Public."

All issues of the Jahrbuch present the reader with a variety of viewpoints and sometimes quite controversial approaches. It is not the aim of the annual to suggest a firm consolidation of definitive answers to any of the topics discussed in its various issues. Firm, however, is the intention to pursue, through common study and dialogue, a movement toward the clarification of issues that arise if a synthesis of Old and New Testament theologies is to be achieved.

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY

It is impossible, in this brief space, to give the reader even a cursory description of the contents of the first ten volumes of the Jahrbuch. But it may be Helpful to introduce some facets of the most recent issue, which was published at the end of 1995.

At first glance, the tenth volume of the Jahrbuch may seem the least likely to provide a characteristic picture of the aims of the annual as a whole. Volume ten is entirely dedicated to the discussion of the relationship between a "history of the religion of Israel" and a "theology of the Old Testament." The volume is determined by questions arising from Old Testament studies, and the writers contributing to it are, with two exceptions, professors of Old Testament. That is quite unusual. The Jahrbuch is designed, in part, to overcome the traditional split between Old and New Testament research, and the contributions, ordinarily, are drawn from a much wider field of expertise, including specialists in areas other than biblical interpretation. But volume ten only appears to step out of line. The issues of a biblical theology are kept in view by most of the writers, and it is evident that the difference between a history of religion and a theology of the Old Testament can be considered paradigmatic for the New Testament as well. IT is not by chance that the lead article, by Rainer Albertz, makes mention twice of the efforts of Heikki Räisänen, who has attempted to

77 - An Anniversary for Biblical Theology

revive interest 'J~n the history of religious thought in early Christianity, in place of New Testament theologies.⁴

The first article in JBTh 10 states the problem of the volume by a programmatic proposal for the reorganization of Old Testament studies. Albertz advocates a paradigm shift through which Old Testament theology would be removed from its position as the crown of Old Testament studies in the German scheme of things and be replaced by the history of Israel's religion. The shift proposed by Albertz aims at a curriculum reconstruction and at a reorientation in the value consciousness of academic teachers of the Old Testament. Albertz sees some serious weaknesses in the current state of the discipline of Old Testament theology: The approximately twenty theologies published since 1933 display a confusing diversity in methodology and content due to the assumptions of their authors; the distinction between historical description and normative statement is blurred (in fact, Albertz holds that any attempt to conceive of content in an Old Testament. theology normative for the church of today falls in the province of systematic theology, not of Old Testament studies); the Old Testament has no organizing center and remains resistant to efforts of systematization; Old Testament theologies shortchange the great and constantly fluctuating varieties of religious experience and language in Israel's history, reducing its cultic, social, and institutional elements to an abstract history of ideas; and Old Testament theologies produce an isolation of the Old Testament from its religious surroundings in the ancient Near East, with the result that the Old Testament becomes victim of a Christian appropriation that imposes false limitations on the texts.

This delineation of weaknesses of Old Testament theologies will sound neither novel nor surprising to an American reader. It must be emphasized at once, however, that Albertz does not advocate an elimination of theological imerests from Old Testament studies. Both in his lead essay and, with greater explicitness, in his response to his critics, he insists that his concept of the history of Israel's religion is theologically more productive than the accustomed Old Testament theologies. He proposes to reconstruct the living dialogue of Israelite individuals and groups, which is frozen in the Old Testament texts, so that the controversies, tensions, and evolving concerns may become intelligible to us as elements of a religious experience in which the process moves toward the cognition of God's will. In this way, Albertz' vision of the history of the religion of Israel reconciles history and theology and can, therefore, become the truly integrating and culminating discipline in Old Testament works. ⁵ But Old Testament theology is not thereby abolished; it can do its work in an even more

⁴ Heikki Räisänen, Beyond New Testament Theology: A Story and a Programme (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, I990).

⁵ Of course, Albertz' vision is by no means only a project for the future. He has previously published his large Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit, 2 vols. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, I992), which is already available in the English translation by John Bowden, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, 2 vols. (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994).

78 - An Anniversary for Biblical Theology

comprehensive form than before. This future Old Testament theology ought to be conceived, from its start, as a biblical theology, oriented toward the entire Bible of Old and New Testaments. The guiding context of interpretation, in this effort, ought to be the concrete and contemporary situation; of the church today with its most pressing problems that require answers now, and this project would have to be undertaken jointly, as a conjoined exegetical, historical, and systematic-theological endeavor, not by biblical specialists alone but in cooperation and dialogue with colleagues in systematic and practical theology (pp. 182-184).

Apart from Albertz' two contributions, JBTh 10 contains critical responses to his proposal and a concluding summation and evaluation by Norbert Lohfink of the entire discussion in this volume. With the exception of Lohfink's highly perceptive reading of the issues, all commentators on Albertz' position remain critical of his proposal and make an argument in defense of the abiding validity of Old Testament theology.

A relatively close affinity to Albertz' high regard for the contributions of studies of Israel's religious history is found in the essays by John Barton, Marie-Theres Wacker, and Theo Sundermeier. With the help of the example of the idea of divine omnipotence, Barton points out that the Old Testament contains no explicit teaching of God's almighty rule but contains seeds of thought that encourage, and indeed require, the systematic proposition of God's omnipotence. Old Testament theology is located at the midpoint between the texts themselves and their doctrinal distillation, and in this location, it remains a necessary discipline of Old Testament studies. Wacker shares many hermeneutical assumptions with Albertz, but she advocates-on the basis of some intriguing work on the "mirror of the women" in Exodus 38:8 and the "women serving at the sanctuary" in 1 Samuel 222-a reorientation of Old Testament theology in light of much more careful attention to feminist concerns than has hitherto been evident in biblical interpretation. Theo Sundermeier argues the case for a retention of Old Testament theology from the standpoint of a historian of religions. He champions the work of Old Testament theology and the history of Israel's religion as interdependent disciplines that are related to each other like two ellipses with a common focus.

Unique in the volume is the contribution by Isaac Kalimi who points out, from a Jewish point of view, that, contrary to widespread opinions, there exists a genuine Jewish interest in biblical theology, which is for him a Jewish theology of the Hebrew Bible that explores the religious messages and moral' values inherent in it. Highly original is the paper by Christof Hardmeie who, on the basis of his interpretation of Psalm 30, pleads for the adoption of a type of discourse with and about God found in psalms of praise, a discourse that the author considers to be the genuine origin and the model of all language about God in the Old Testament. He offers a new paradigm for Old Testament theology that dispenses with the attempt to erect structures of ideas in favor of constructing Old Testament theology on the basis of a literary history modeled on the praise of God.

79 - An Anniversary for Biblical Theology

Other contributors reject Albertz' proposals more directly. Rolf Rendtorff, in a position similar to the one long sponsored in this country by Brevard Childs, takes the final form of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament as the dominant document requiring theological interpretation. The method becomes largely synchronic, although diachronic glances are not forbidden as long as they can help to elucidate the final form of the biblical text. Rendtorff insists that the canonical documents make statements that the history of the religion of Israel is liable to devalue or to forget altogether. He points out that Albertz' treatment of the history of Old Testament religion pays next to no attention to the creation account in Genesis 1 and that creation as a topic in its own right plays no role in Albertz' description. A similar observation is made by Frank Crüsemann, who notes that the supreme valuation of the most ancient period of Israel, which is normative in many Old Testament documents, cannot be explained by the generic methodology employed in histories of religion. Crüsemann considers the opposition between Old Testament theology and the history of Israel's religion to be a false alternative and opts for the reconstruction of a theology of the Old Testament that takes its cue from the time of the authors who shaped the texts into their canonical form-a time that is for Crüsemann largely postexilic.

Hans-Peter Miller subjects the antithesis of Old Testament theology and history of the religion of Israel to general epistemological analysis with the result that the difference between the two disciplines lies at the surface and must be transcended by more attention in Old Testament scholarship to fundamental epistemological and ontological problems.

JBTh 10 also contains two articles that question the validity of the alternative between theology and history of religion in the interpretation of the Old Testament from a position of an extremely late dating of the Old Testament as a whole. They argue that the Old Testament is a product of Judaism during; its Hellenistic-Roman period, which pulls the rug from under the historical presuppositions governing both the history of Israel's religion and Old Testament theology. The advocates of this view are Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas L. Thompson, who both teach in Copenhagen. The consequences of this starting point are, interestingly enough, the advocacy of a biblical theology anchored in a radical historical skepticism.

Norbert Lohfink's review of the discussion in JBTh 10 is much more than an observer's report about the views of others. It contains comments and analyses that make his presentation a genuine and highly instructive contribution to the debate. Lohfink's analysis culminates in a suggestion of how the study of the Old Testament in Germany could be profitably reorganized. He would order the basic course in Old Testament into three divisions. Division one would be a history of Israel that would absorb the subject of Israel's religious history and jettison the predominant organizing categories of "state" and the "makers of the state." The work in this division would be conducted diachronically. Division two would take over the task traditionally assigned to an introduction to the Old Testament. Here the individual books and groups of books are to be treated predomi-

80 - An Anniversary for Biblical Theology

nantly, but not exclusively, with a synchronic method. The theology of each book, of larger compilations of books, and even of the Old Testament canon is allocated to this division. Hence, the traditional disciplines of introduction and theology would be integrated into a single discipline. Division three would deal with themes of great contemporary significance, oriented on the Christian Bible in its coordination of Old and New Testament into one canon, to be carried out in dialogue with other disciplines of the theological curriculum.

Sounds too German? Maybe it is. But it may also be of some interest and significance that the proposal by Albertz was first presented at the Interna- tional Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Munster, Germany in 1993, and that Albertz' concluding statement and the replies to his proposal by his critics, also collected in JBTh 10, were originally delivered at the 1994 Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Leuven, Belgium. News travels fast these days, even over oceans, and the differences in academic procedures and aims on either side of the Atlantic not withstanding, some fundamental problems of biblical theology, as well as the answers given to them, demand international efforts. We can yet learn from each other. It is, therefore, appropriate for us in the U.S.A. to join in the celebration of the tenth anniversary of the Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie.⁶

⁶ It must not pass unnoticed that JBTh 10 includes, alongside the essays discussed above, a review by Traugott Holtz of Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie der Neuen Testaments, vol. 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992).