History Of Biblical Theology Scobie, Charles H. H. History Of Biblical .

History of biblical theologyHistory of biblical theologyof rejecting the OT altogether, and also setaside proposals to recognize only one Gospel( Marcion) or combine all four in a harmony(Tatian). Instead it opted for the fullness ofscriptural witness with the attendant problems of diversity.Irenaeus (late 2nd century) defended thefourfold Gospel as inspired by the one Spirit,and could well be regarded as the first biblicaltheologian. In countering the gnostic challenge he sought to develop a Christian understanding of the OT integrated with aconsistent interpretation of the Gospels andepistles, an understanding that was in turnintegrated with the rule of faith' preserved inthose churches that claimed direct successionfrom the apostles.Following the lead of Origen (c. 185-254),the church made extensive use of allegorization as a method of biblical interpretation.This enabled interpreters to find a uniformtheology throughout Scripture, but it frequently bypassed the historical meaning andencouraged the reading of later doctrinesback into the text. By medieval times Scripture was supposed to have four senses: literal(or historical); allegorical; moral (or tropological); and anagogical (or spiritual). Theallegorizing School of Alexandria' wasopposed, however, by the School of Antioch'which took a more historical approach, anticipating some of the findings of modernscholarship. Despite the popularity of allegory, the historical sense was championed by,for example, the 12th-century Victorines, andits primacy was asserted by Thomas Aquinas(c. 1225-74). For all its faults, medieval interpretation recognized the existence of differentlevels of meaning in Scripture which could beused to nourish the faith and life of thechurch.The ReformationThe Reformers appealed to the teaching ofScripture alone (sola Scriptura) against centuries of church tradition, and consequentlypractised a form of biblical theology. MartinLuther (1483-1546) scrutinized the church'sbeliefs and practices in the light of Scripture.In general he rejected allegorization and emphasized the grammatical and literal sense,and he addressed the diversity of the Bible bytaking justification by faith' as his key hermeneutical concept. He focused on thosebooks that show Christ', and questioned the12canonicity of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.John Calvin (1509-64) regarded Scriptureas the supreme authority for Christian belief.Both in his Institutes of the Christian Religionand in his biblical commentaries he sought toground the faith of the church in the Biblemore comprehensively and systematicallythan Luther did, attempting to do justice tothe full range of biblical material. While thesupreme revelation is found in the NT, Christis revealed in the OT also. Faith is essentialfor the interpretation of Scripture and itstruth is conveyed to believers by the 'internaltestimony of the Holy Spirit'. Thus while Calvin was, by modern definition, a dogmatictheologian, in many ways he can be seen asthe initiator of a truly biblical theology.The emergence . of biblical theology as aseparate disciplineThe fresh insights and bold discussions of theReformers were followed by the period of Protestant Orthodoxy', which produced rigiddogmatic systems. A notable exception isfound in the work of the Reformed theologian Johannes Cocceius (1603-69) who inhis major work Summa Doctrina de Foedereet Testamento Dei (1648) sought to interpretthe Bible as an organic whole by giving a central place to the concept of covenant'.Cocceius laid the basis for the influential 'federal' or covenant' theology; he also anticipated later developments in biblical theologythrough his emphasis on covenant and onGod's dealings with his people in the 'historyof salvation'.In the 17th and 18th centuries three majortrends led to the emergence of biblical theology as a more separate discipline.First, the practice developed, especiallywithin Lutheran orthodoxy, of compiling collections of proof texts (dicta probantia) todemonstrate the biblical basis of Protestantdoctrine. These collections, sometimes referred to as collegia biblica (collegiumcollection) were usually arranged in accordance with the standard topics (locicommunes) of dogmatic theology. Beginningaround 1560, these collegia flourished forabout two centuries, and the earliest worksbearing the title Biblical Theology' were ofthis nature. While the shortcomings of a proof-texting' approach are obvious, nevertheless these collections did turn attentionback to the teaching of the Bible itself.A second major trend was Pietism which,under the leadership of such figures as P. J.Spener (1635-1705) and A. H. Franke (16631727), reacted against dry and rigid orthodoxy and emphasized personal religious experience. Pietists turned to the Bible not forproof texts to support orthodox doctrine(though they did not intend to depart fromorthodoxy), but for spiritual and devotionalnourishment. Spener contrasted biblical theology' (theologia biblica) with the prevailingProtestant scholastic theology' (theologiascholastica), and in the 18th century severalPietists published works with the term biblical theology' in their titles.A third trend was the development in the17th and 18th centuries of new criticalmethods of literary and historical research,and of what came to be known as the historical-critical' or grammatico-historical'approach. Pioneers of the new approach included Richard Simon (1638-1712), BenedictSpinoza (1632-77), and J. S. Semler (172591) who argued that the books of the Biblemust be studied in their original historicalcontext as one would study any ancient book,and that this study must be separated fromthe use of the Bible by dogmatic theologians.Eithteenth-century rationalism saw in thisnew approach an objective method by whichto free the church from centuries of dogmaand identify the true Christian faith. Therationalists sought to extract from the Bibleuniversal and timeless truths, in accordancewith reason, distinguishing them from whatwas merely historically conditioned and timebound. This approach is seen in the work ofK. F. Bahrdt, and especially in G. T.Zacharia's five volume Biblische Theologie(1771-75). W. F. Hufnagel in his Handbuchder biblischen Theologie (1785-89) arguedthat biblical texts must be used to correcttheological systems, not vice versa.Gabler's definitionIt was at this point that J. P. Gabler deliveredhis 1787 inaugural address at the Universityof Altdorf on The Proper Distinction Between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology andthe Specific Objectives of Each', an addresswhich most historians see as a significantmilestone in the development of biblical theology. Gabler was a professing Christianthough strongly influenced by the rationalismof his day, and saw biblical theology' as ahistorical discipline, separate from dogmatictheology' which applies the eternal truths ofChristianity to the theologian's own time.Later, however, Gabler drew a distinctionwithin biblical theology'. True ( wahre) biblical theology' is the historical study of the OTand the NT, their authors and the contexts inwhich they were written. This is then to befollowed by pure (reine) biblical theology',which consists of a comparative study of thebiblical material with a view to distinguishingwhat is merely time-conditioned and what iseternal Christian truth; it is the latter thatbecomes the subject-matter of dogmatic theology. On this view, biblical theology is notmerely descriptive but is also part of the hermeneutical process.Gabler's views were not so much originalas typical of his day. As the 19th century progressed, however, the title of his addressbecame more influential than its content. Biblical theology came to be seen as a purelyhistorical, descriptive and objective discipline,separate from the concerns of biblical interpreters. Hence it could increasingly be pursued in an academic setting, in effect divorcedfrom the life and faith of the church.The rise and fall of biblical theologyIn the late 18th and early 19th centuries rationalist scholars made increasing use of thedeveloping historical-critical method to produce biblical theologies'. Generally theseworks were used to criticize orthodox theology. Typical of this approach were the biblical theologies of C. F. von Ammon (Entwurfeiner reinen biblischen Theologie, 1792) andG. P. C. Kaiser ( Die biblische Theologie,1813-21). More significant was the work ofW. M. L. de Wette (Biblische Dogmatik desAlten rind Neuen Testaments, 1813), a moreindependent scholar who distinguished Hebraism' from (post-exilic) Judaism', regarding the latter as an inferior form ofreligion. A more moderate rationalism characterized the Biblische Theologie (1836) of D.G. C von C011n.Most of these scholars demanded thatrevelation he subordinated to reason, as theyunderstood it, the result being that the supernatural was largely eliminated from theirtheology. Diversity within Scripture was addressed by the removal of temporallyconditioned ideas (Zeitideen), which repre13

History of biblical theologyHistory of biblical theologysented an 'accommodation' to the thought of new awareness of the historical nature of thepeople in biblical times; what was left was the biblical documents and of historical developessence of biblical religion, the timeless ra- ment in biblical theology.tional truths of religion and morality.The application of historical-critical methodsNot surprisingly, orthodox and conserva- altered the consensus on the authorship andtive scholars stood aloof from this new dating of the biblical books. Thus, for exammovement, though in time they realized that ple, the belief in Mosaic authorship of thebiblical theology could also be written from Pentateuch was abandoned in favour ofa more conservative viewpoint. The earliest source criticism which assigned every verse tosuch work by a conservative scholar was L. F. J, E, D or P. Mark was deemed to be the ear0. Baumgarten-Crusius' Grundzuge der Bib- liest Gospel, while the Pastorals were assignedlischen Theologie (1828), which adopted a to the 2nd century. As a result new chronohistorical approach but emphasized the logical schemes emerged for tracing theessential unity of Scripture. The more conser- theology of both OT and NT; the emphasisvative J. C. K. von Hofman, in reaction to was on diversity and development.those who sought within Scripture a system ofLiberal Protestantism tended in this perioddoctrine, stressed that the Bible is rather the to downgrade and neglect the OT, so that OTrecord of 'salvation history' ( Heilsgeschichte), theologies came from conservative scholarsan insight that was to prove influential. J. L. such as J. C. F. Steudel (1840), H. A. C.S. Lutz's Biblische Dogmatik (1847) and the Fldvernick (1848) and G. F. Oehler (1873massive and influential work of H. Ewald 74). H. Schultz continued to regard religion( Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott oder Theologie as divine revelation while being open to moredes Alten and Neuen Bundes, 1871-76) critical views in the later editions of his Altrepresent a moderate conservatism.testamentliche Theologie (1869-96). TheBy the middle of the century, however, German monopoly was broken by C. Piepenhistorical study of the Bible was revealing bring's Theologie de l'Ancien Testamentever more clearly the diversity of the biblical (1886) and A. B. Davidson's The Theology ofmaterial, and above all the difference between the Old Testament (1904).the OT and the NT in relation to their oriDespite the shock waves caused by D. F.ginal historical settings. The very possibility Strauss' Life of Jesus (1835, 1836), liberalof a 'biblical' theology was called in question. scholars generally were confident of redisAhead of his time in a number of respects, the covering 'Jesus as he actually was' by meansrationalist scholar G. L. Bauer had written a of historical methodology. Harnack foundBiblische Theologie des Alten Testaments the essence of Christianity' in Jesus' teaching(1796), followed by a separate Biblische on the Fatherhood of God, the brotherhoodTheologie des Neuen Testaments (1800-2). In of humanity and the infinite value of the hudue course Bauer's procedure came to be man soul.accepted as the norm not only by criticalThe most influential liberal NT theologyscholars but even by conservatives, and a was that of H. J. Holtzmann (Lehrbuch derseries of 'Theologies of the Old Testament' Neutestamentlichen Theologie, 1896), while aand 'Theologies of the New Testament' was moderate conservatism, influenced by liberalproduced. For approximately a century from scholarship, is seen in the NT theologies of B.around 1870 'biblical theology', in the sense Weiss (1868-1903) and W. Beyschlag (1891of works on the theology of the OT and NT 92). English-speaking scholarship is repretogether, virtually ceased to exist.sented by E. P. Gould (The Biblical Theologyof the New Testament, 1900) and G. B. StevOT and NT theologyens (The Theology of the New Testament,For the second half of the 19th century and 1901). Of major importance was the work ofthe first half of the 20th, OT and NT the- A. Schlatter (1852-1938) who sought toology pursued separate though generally par- work out a position independent of rationallel paths frequently reflecting the prevailing alism and liberalism on the one hand andtheological climate. Thus Hegelian influence conservatism on the other; while adopting awas strong in NT theology, especially in the historical approach, he emphasized the basicwork of F. C. Baur (1792-1860) and the unity of the NT and grounded NT theology in Tilbingen School'. This approach brought a the historical Jesus. Evidence of his stature as14a biblical theologian may be seen in the 1973publication in English of a key methodological essay (in R. Morgan, The Nature ofNew Testament Theology, pp. 117-166), thepublication of a biography by Werner Neuer(1996), and the belated translation into English of his Theologie des Neuen Testaments(1909-10, '1921-22) in two volumes, TheHistory of the Christ: The Foundation ofNew Testament Theology (1997) and TheTheology of the Apostles: The Developmentof New Testament Theology (1999).From theology to religionIn the late 19th and early 20th centuries archaeological discoveries (which continue tothis day) began to provide information aboutthe ancient Near East and the Greco-Romanworld. For many, these discoveries appearedto call in question the uniqueness of biblicalfaith. Babylonian creation myths and lawcodes, Jewish apocalypticism, Hellenistic mystery religions and pre-Christian Gnosticism allprovided striking parallels to the biblical material, which could no longer be studied inisolation. A comparative approach to biblicalreligion was strongly favoured. Reactingagainst both liberals and conservatives whospoke of biblical 'doctrines', the history ofreligions (Religionsgeschichte) approach emphasized that the true subject matter of biblical studies is religion. The Bible is not a bookof doctrine but the record of the life and religious experience of the communities ofIsrael and the early church. According to W.Wrede, the true subject matter of 'so-calledNew Testament Theology' is not in fact theology but early Christian religion, which mustbe investigated objectively and completelydivorced from any system of dogma or systematic theology. The boundaries of thecanon should be ignored: the inter-testamental literature and the Apostolic Fathersare just as important for the historian of religion as the canonical books.An early example of this approach (despiteits title) is A. Kaiser's Die Theologie des AltenTestaments (1886), while R. Smend's Lehrbook der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte (1893) inaugurated a series ofworks which usually bore the title 'History ofReligion' (Religionsgeschichte). Representative works from the field of NT studies are H.Weinel's Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments (1911) and W. Bousset's KyriosChristos (1913). The influence of this approach in the English-speaking world can beseen in two works with significant titles, S. J.Case's The Evolution of Early Christianity(1914) and E. F. Scott's The Varieties of NewTestament Religion (1943).The history of religions approach remaineddominant until the First World War, and itcontinues to be a major force in biblicalstudies, particularly in university 'departments of religious studies'. However legitimate it may be as an academic discipline,from the point of view of the community offaith it raises serious questions. Can an approach which totally ignores the canon reallybe considered 'biblical', and can an approachthat fails to recognize the biblical material astheologically normative be appropriatelydesignated 'theology'? It might appear thatthe post-Gablerian separation of biblical anddogmatic theology had led not just to the division of biblical theology (into OT and NTtheologies) but eventually to its demise.The revival of theologyThe period following the First World Warsaw a major reaction against liberalism in thetheology of Karl Barth. In biblical studiesthere was a renewed emphasis on biblical theology', though still in the form of separatetreatments of the OT and NT.Many see the 1930s as having inauguratedthe golden age of OT theology. Particularlyinfluential was W. Eichrodt's Theologie desAlten Testaments (1933-39), though theEnglish translation, Theology of the Old Testament, did not appear until 1961-67. Othermid-century contributions included OT theologies in German by E. Sellin (1933), L.Kohler (1935) and 0. Procksch (1949), inDutch by T. C. Vriezen (1949) and in Frenchby E. Jacob (1955). The most influential postSecond World War OT theology was that ofG. von Rad (1957-60). A notable feature ofthis period was the entry of Roman Catholicscholars into the field following a 1943 papalencyclical which approved a more modernhistorical approach to Scripture; a transitionalwork was the Theologie des Alten Testaments(1940) of the Dutch scholar P. Heinisch, anda major contribution was the Theologie del'Ancien Testament (1954-56) of P. van Imschoot. The tradition of writing OT theologies has been continued by such scholarsas W. Zimmerli (1972), J. L. McKenzie15

History of biblical theology(1974), C. Westermann (1978), H. D. Preuss(1991-92) and W. Brueggemann (1997). Another trend has been the entry of conservative-evangelical scholars into the fieldwith contributions by W. C. Kaiser (1978)and W. Dyrness (1979).The revival of NT theology came somewhat later and was dominated by the brilliantbut controversial two-volume work by R.Bultmann ( Theologie des Neuen Testaments,1948-53). A sceptical form critic, Bultmannregarded the historical Jesus as a presupposition of NT theology rather than a part ofit, and focused largely on Paul and Johnwhere he found themes congenial to his existentialist 'demythologizing' of the Christianmessage. In the Bultmann tradition is H.Conzelmann's Grundriss der Theologie desNeuen Testaments (1967), though he adds asection on the Synoptics.At the opposite pole stand scholars forwhom the historical Jesus is the starting pointof NT theology. These include A. Richardson(An Introduction to the Theology of the NewTestament, 1958), and J. Jeremias ( Neutestamentliche Theologie, I: Die Verkiindigung Jesu, 1971: no further volumes werepublished). Jesus is also the starting point forW. G. Kiimmel's Die Theologie des NeuenTestaments (1969). Other important worksinclude those by F. C. Grant (1950) and G. B.Caird, whose New Testament Theology waspublished posthumously in 1994. RomanCatholic contributions include NT theologiesby M. Meinertz (1950), J. Bonsirven (1951)and the four-volume Theologie des NeuenTestaments (1971-78) of K. H. Schelkle.Contributions by conservative-evangelicalscholars include New Testament theologies byG. E. Ladd (1974, revised 1993), D. Guthrie(1981) and L. Morris (1986).Every author who writes a biblical theology of this type has to adopt a structure. Theearliest practice was to employ the standardtopics of systematic theology ( God', 'Humanity', 'Sin', 'Law', 'Salvation', etc.) especially asthese had been developed in the dictaprobantia of Protestant Orthodoxy. Schemeslike this were adopted by Pietist and rationalist scholars alike, and they were revived,with some variations, in OT theologies suchas those by Kohler (1935), Baab (1949) andvan Imschoot (1954). Jacob (1955) attemptedto break new ground, but in fact still largelyfollowed a traditional scheme. Twentieth16History of biblical theologycentury NT theologies that have more or lessfollowed traditional theological categoriesinclude those of Grant (1950), Richardson(1958) and Schelkle (1968-1976). Thoughmany have adopted this approach it has beenwidely criticized as imposing an alien schemeon the biblical material, omitting importantbiblical themes (e.g. wisdom, the land), andimposing an artificial unity on the diversity ofthe biblical books.With the development of the historicalcritical approach in the late 18th and early19th centuries the Bible began to look lesslike a textbook of systematic theology andmore like a history book. Theologies of bothOT and NT generally adopted a chronological structure, tracing the development ofreligion through the history of Israel and thehistory of the early church, a common practice to this day. Such schemes generally depend on modern critical reconstructions ofthe dating of the various books. Some haveadopted a hybrid scheme combining the systematic and historical approaches. Forexample, D. Guthrie's New Testament Theology (1981) has a basically systematic structure, but each topic is then traced through theSynoptics, John, Acts, Paul, Hebrews, otherepistles and Revelation. Von Rad (1957-60)rejected systematic categories and

Biblical theology History of biblical theology Christ. Though the victory has been decisively achieved, its final celebration and realization . In NEW DICTIONARY OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, 11-20. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000. History of biblical theology of rejecting the OT altogether .