Theology Today - Vol 21, No. 2 - July 1964 - BOOK REVIEW - The Old Testament and Christian Faith; A Theological Discussion

225 - The Old Testament and Christian Faith; A Theological Discussion

The Old Testament and Christian Faith;
A Theological Discussion
Edited by Bernhard W. Anderson
271 pp. New York, Harper & Row, 1963. $5.00.

The purpose of this collection of essays is summarized by the editor in an Introduction appropriately entitled, "The Old Testament as a Christian Problem": "No problem more urgently needs to be brought to a focus than the . . . relation of the Old Testament to the New" (p. 1). Anderson reviews the history of the problem, stressing the radical views of jarcion, revived in somewhat different form by Harnack: namely, to reject the Old Testament outright. None of the contributors to the present volume proposes so drastic a solution, though the range of opinion is extensive, nor is it always easy to distinguish defender from detractor.

As might have been expected, Rudolf Bultmann is in the eye of the storm. His article on "The Significance of the Old Testament for the Christian Faith" (pp. 8-35) provides the target for some, and the point of departure for others in the collection. In spite of his radical New Testament criticism, and single-minded existentialist theology, Bultmann struggles to retain the Old Testament as theologically meaningful for the Christian Church. His presentation shows an impressive grasp of the currents of Old Testament thought, though as his critics point out he is chronically guilty of over-generalizing and over-simplifying. But who can escape these pitfalls in a short programmatic article? In addition, Bultmann has a gift for vivid expression, and a positive genius for provocative affirmation or denial, which is a constant irritant to his scholarly colleagues. And in the course of his long career, he has acquired ardent disciples and dedicated opponents in great profusion. The selection of his article to start things off thus guaranteed a stimulating discussion.

After explaining the role of the Old Testament in preparing a man to hear the Gospel in the New Testament (i.e., as Vorverständnis, cf. Michalson's elaboration of this viewpoint in his article, pp. 49-63), Bultmann hurls the gauntlet down with statements such as these: "To the Christian faith the Old Testament is no longer revelation" (italics are the authors, p. 31); and "Thus, Luther has already rightly perceived that Jesus, in so far as he engaged in teaching, is not different from the Old Testament prohphets; rather, like them, he proclaimed the Law, and consequently belongs within the Old Testament" (p. 12).

226 - The Old Testament and Christian Faith; A Theological Discussion

At this point the battle is joined, and carried first on one side, then another, through the remainder of the book. Space barely permits us to mention some of the contributions, much less to describe, evaluate, or comment on them. We apologize in advance for the inexcusable omission of some, and the compression of other already condensed presentations, and the attendant distortion and disfigurement of the arguments. Violently contrasting reactions to Bultmann's "program" are offered by the contributions of A. Richardson and C. Michalson. The former flatly labels Bultmann a Marcionite (pp. 43-44), while the latter flatly disagrees, entitling his article, "Bultmann against Marcion." Perhaps the epithet should be abandoned temporarily as engendering heat rather than shedding light. In spite of their obvious opposition, there are curious resemblances between Richardson's explanation of the way in which the Church believes and verifies its "history," and Michalson's description of man's appreciation and appropriation of "history" from within.

Other articles of special interest to the reviewer were those by Voegelin, Robinson, Dillenberger, and Westermarm. The rest are not lacking in importance, but for the most part reflect views already well-known, or with which the authors have been securely identified in previous writings. Voegelin's is perhaps the most effective critique of Bultmann's use of terminology, as well as his philosophical presuppositions and methods.

Robinson undertakes an ambitious program: a synthesis of Old and New Testaments through a form-critical analysis of an important literary type, the "blessing" and/or "thanksgiving," which is characteristic of both Testaments. The author's faith that by this method he can go beyond the classification of data and produce valid "historical" results may be questioned, but further efforts along this line would seem to be fully warranted.

Dillenberger's "revelational discernment" represents another effort at a combinatory approach: that is, acknowledging a correlation and continuity between the Testaments, as well as contrast and discontinuity. It adds a significant element to Bultmann's position, in that it recognizes the "failure" of the Old Testament as a constitutive element in the New Testament Gospel. Thus there is a significant correspondence between at the hands of his fellow-men.

In his article on "The Way of Promise Through the Old Testament," Westermann handles the theme of "promise and fulfilment" with delicate balance and considerable sophistication. It is an excellent demonstration of the modern possibilities inherent in the use of the traditional language of the Church to describe the relationship between the Testaments. But it requires exact control of the materials, and complete scientific integrity.

227 - The Old Testament and Christian Faith; A Theological Discussion

In surveying the whole group of essays, several points may be noted:

1)There is a serious problem of communication, due to the variety of philosophical assumptions and approaches, aggravated by the highly individualized use of special terms, or the attachment of special meanings to conventional terms. Thus the word "history" and its congeners (some of which are newly coined) is used with so many conflicting meanings in the book as to ensure the reader's confusion. Robinson painstakingly inducts the reader into the mysteries of German usage, and divides the term into three distinct categories of meaning in order accurately to reflect the German originals which lie behind and beyond the imprecise English term. The result is a kind of parody of precision, which effectively represents the original terms, but bends the English language out of shape. Thus the words "history," "historic-ness," "historicity," and "historicality," pursue each other through widening circles of meaning until they finally blend into a single amorphous whole. It would be better to transcribe the terms, rather than to translate in so labored a fashion.

2) In the welter of argument and confusion of terms, the scholars nevertheless agree that the historico- critical method is indispensable in dealing with the Scriptures. It is the necessary adjunct of any theological approach though at the same time it is insufficient to produce or sustain theological affirmations. There is a tendency to depreciate the theological value of the scientific factor, but its significance should not be underestimated. The bewildering variety of theological approaches and reconstructions can only be tolerated (or even encouraged), when there is a substantial unifying element. By providing a common body of verifiable data, an array of technical equipment, and an arena for communication, scientific Biblical criticism makes an invaluable contribution to the theological debate.

3) The contributors also agree in acknowledging the New Testament, or more particularly Jesus Christ, as the norm by which the Old is to be measured and interpreted. In view of the circumstances under which the book was compiled, such a pattern was inevitable. Nonetheless, it is curious, chiefly because the viewpoint of the earliest Church was exactly the reverse: the Old Testament was the canonical Scripture, the unquestioned authority by which New Testament persons and events were to be assessed. It would be worthwhile to re-examine, and perhaps recover the position of the first disciples, and look through their eyes at the unfolding drama of the New Testament. It may even be that we should take up Bultmann's discarded alternative and recognize in the proclamation of Jesus the necessary link between the Old and New Testaments. Surely this was the point of departure for those who followed Jesus, and

228 - The Old Testament and Christian Faith; A Theological Discussion

stood, like him, within the Old Testament (cf. p. 12). Here also is the point of contact with the Jewish view of the Old Testament as divine revelation. While for Bultmann the absolute division between Jewish and Christian views of the Old Testament is axiomatic, and either explicit or implicit in the rest of the articles, the gap may be more apparent than real. After all, the debates between Church and Synagogue in the earliest period were conducted within the framework of a common Scripture, to which appeal was made by both parties.

In spite of the title and intention of the volume, one or more Jewish contributions would have been in order. Surprising as it may appear, the Jewish view of the Old Testament is entirely relevant for Christian faith, if for no other reason than the fact that at one time it was the Christian view. To recapture it, at least in discussion, would help to restore a needed balance.

The following misprints were noted: p. 20, "directed" should be "directed"; p. 158, "obscuring" should be "obscuring."

David Noel Freedman
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania