GERHARD HASEL

NEW TESTAMENT
THEOLOGY: BASIC
BooUKS IN THE
CURRENT DEBATE
Pa OF Pa > |
Ne
\y’
*

BS2397 4
Hae ae
NEW TESTAMENT
THEREOLOGY
 Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2023 with funding from
Princeton Theological Seminary Library

https://archive.org/details/newtestamenttheoOOhase
 NEW
TESTAMENT
THROLOGY
Basic Issues
in the Current Debate

by vA
GERHARD F. HASEL

WILLIAM B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY

Grand Rapids, Michigan
Copyright © 1978 by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
255 Jefferson Ave. S.E., Grand Rapids, Mich. 49503
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Hasel, Gerhard F.
New Testament Theology.

Bibliography: p. 221.
Includes indexes.
1. Bible. N.T.-Theology. 2. Theology—Methodology
I. Title.
BS2397.H34 230 78-4830
ISBN 0-8028-1733-5
Contents

ABBREVIATIONS
INTRODUCTION
BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF
NT THEOLOGY 13
From the Reformation to the Enlightenment 14
The Age of Enlightenment 18
From the Enlightenment to Dialectical
Theology 28
From Dialectical Theology to the Present 53
If. METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 72
The Thematic Approach 73
The Existentialist Approach 82
The Historical Approach 102
The Salvation History Approach 111
Concluding Remarks 132
Il. THE CENTER AND UNITY IN NT
THEOLOGY 140
The Issue 140
The Quest for the Center of the NT 144
Anthropology 144
Salvation History 148
Covenant, Love, and Other Proposals 153
Christology 155
The Center of the NT and the Canon
within the Canon 164
6 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

IV. NT THEOLOGY AND THE OT 171

Patterns of Disunity and Discontinuity 173
Overemphasis of NT — Underemphasis
of OT 173
Underemphasis of OT — Overemphasis
of NT
Patterns of Unity and Continuity
Historical Connection
Scriptural Dependence
Vocabulary
Themes
Typology
Promise-Fulfillment
Salvation History
Unity of Perspective
V. BASIC PROPOSALS TOWARD A NT
THEOLOGY: A MULTIPLEX APPROACH
NT Theology as a Historical-Theological
Discipline
NT Theology Based on NT Writings
NT Theology Presented on Basis of Books
and Blocks of Material
NT Theology Presented on Basis of
Longitudinal Themes
NT Theology Reveals Unity
NT Theology and Biblical Theology

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX OF NAMES
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Abbreviations

AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies

BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

EOTH Essays on Old Testament H ermeneutics, ed.
Claus Westermann (Richmond, Va., 1963)

ET Expository Times

EvTh Evangelische Theologie

IDB Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols.

(Nashville, 1962)
IDB Sup. Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Supple-
mentary Volume (Nashville, 1976)

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JBR Journal of Bible and Religion
NNTT R. Morgan, The Nature of New Testament
Theology (SBT II/25; London, 1973)

NTS New Testament Studies

OTCF The Old Testament and Christian Faith, ed.

B. W. Anderson (New York, 1963)
 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Das Problem der Theologie des Neuen Testa-

ments, ed. G. Strecker (Darmstadt, 1975)
Studies in Biblical Theology
Theologische Quartalschrift
Theologische Literaturzeitung
Zeitschrift fiir alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
Zeitschrift fiir neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche
Introduction

in crisis.
New Testament theology today is undeniably
st in the aca-
This does not mean that there is no intere
or that there is
demic study of the theology of the NT
title Theology of
a lack of monographs that carry the
or the like. As a matter or fact,
the New Testament
years of the
although in the roughly two hundred
NT theol ogy there has
existence of the discipline of
more than ten different
never been a decade in which did
shed, this unlik ely event
NT theologies were publi fact
ising
occur between 1967 and 1976." It is a surpr
was published by H. Conzel-
1The first NT theology of this decade
gie des Neuen Testaments (Munich, 1967),
mann, Grundriss der Theolo
Theolo gy of the New Testament (New
Eng. trans. An Outline of the
gie des Neuen Testaments, 4
York, 1969); K. H. Schelkle, Theolo
Theology of the New Testa-
vols. (Diisseldorf, 1968-74), Eag. trans.
vols. (Colleg eville, Minn., 1971-7 7); W. G. Kimmel, Die
ment, 4
Neuen Testam ents nach seinen Hauptzeugen: Jesus-
Theologie des Theology of the
ngen, 1969), Eng. trans. The
Paulus-Johannes (Gétti
to Its Major Witnes ses: Jesus-Paul-John
New Testament According
tamentliche Theologie. Erster
(Nashville, 1973); J. Jeremias, Neutes
sloh, 1971), Eng. trans. New
Teil: Die Verkiindigung Jesu (Giiter
Theolo gy: The Procla mation of Jesus (New York, To? L):
Testament
Teolog ia de la Biblia II et III: Nuevo Testamento,
M. G. Cordero,
G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Tes-
9 vols. (Madrid, 1972);
1974); C. R. Lehmann, Biblical The-
tament (Grand Rapids, Mich.,
Pa., 1974) ; E. Lohse, Grundriss
ology, 2: New Testament (Scottdale,
der. neutestamentlichen Theologie (Stuttgart, 1974); L. Goppelt,
gie des Neuen Testam ents, 9 vols. (Gottingen, 1975-76); S.
Theolo
Throu gh Many Eyes. Introd uction to the Theology of
Neill, Jesus
(Nashv ille, 1976); A. T. Nikolainen, Uuden Tes-
the New Testament
tutkim us (Porvo o-Hels inki, 1971).
tamentin Tulkintin ja

S
 10 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

that no two scholars who produced works agree on the

nature, function, method, and scope of NT theology.
Norman Perrin of the University of Chicago began a re-
cent position paper on NT theology with the categorical
statement, “The academic study of the theology of the
New Testament is today in a state of disarray.” The
German post-Bultmannian scholar E. Kasemann_ has
come back time and again to essential aspects of NT
theology. In a recent essay on the subject he reflects
on William Wrede’s programmatic essay written in 1897?
and concludes that in this “unrivalled penetration, rad-
ical reflection and brilliantly concise concentration on
essentials, the author [Wrede] revealed the cul-de-sac
in which we still are today—or to which we have once
again returned.* This assessment is not unrelated to
the views of James A. Robinson.® R. Morgan of the
University of Lancaster is certainly correct in stating
that “New Testament theology is a nodal point in con-
temporary theological debate.”® This debate goes on at
full force and is at times heated.
Many basic issues in the contemporary debate on NT
theology are not unrelated to those in OT theology.” In
both instances the debate is concerned with fundamen-
tal problems and not with peripheral aspects. This may
be illustrated by means of the question of the place of
Jesus in NT theology. R. Bultmann begins his famous
NT theology with this sentence: “The message of Jesus
2N. Perrin, “Jesus and the Theology of the New Testament,” read
at the Catholic Biblical Association, Denver, Colo., Aug. 18-21, 1975.
3W. Wrede, “Uber Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten Neu-
testamentlichen Theologie,’ Das Problem der Theologie des Neuen
Testaments, ed. G. Strecker (Darmstadt, 1975), pp. 81-154, Eng.
trans. “The Task and Methods of ‘New Testament Theology,’ ” by
R. Morgan, The Nature of New Testament Theology (SBT 2/25;
London, 1973), pp. 68-116.
4E. Kasemann, “The Problem of a New Testament Theology,” New
Testament Studies 19 (1973), 237.
5J. A. Robinson, “The Future of New Testament Theology,” Reli-
gious Study Review 2 (1976), 17-23.
6R. Morgan, The Nature of New Testament Theology, p. 1.
7See Gerhard F. Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in
the Current Debate (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich., 1975).
INTRODUCTION 11

is a presupposition for the theology of the NT rather

than a part of that theology itself.”* He believes that
NT theology proper begins with the theology of Paul.
After long reflection Perrin has come to accept Bult-
mann’s dictum. Perrin now believes that the proclama-
tion of Jesus is “the presupposition of the New Testa-
ment.” As such it is not a proper part of NT theology.
While Bultmann includes the “message of Jesus” as a
part of his history-of-religion introduction to NT theol-
ogy,!? E. Kasemann and G., Strecker begin their lectures
on NT theology with the theology of Paul." H. Conzel-
mann has omitted a section on the message of Jesus
in his NT theology. W. G. Kiimmel’ and E. Lohse
are on the other side of the spectrum. Both start with
the proclamation of Jesus. J. Jeremias is a senior mem-
ber of this debate and treats the message of Jesus in
a whole first volume on NT theology.'* The British
scholar S$. Neill states unhesitatingly in his latest work
on NT theology, “Every theology of the New Testament
must be a theology of Jesus—or it is nothing at all.”
Deep historical, theological, philosophical, and meth-
odological problems are hidden behind these disparate
positions. The issues underlying these positions can be
best appreciated and understood on the basis of the
historical development of NT studies in general and
NT theology in particular. This is the reason for begin-
ning our discussion of the basic issues in the contem-
porary debate on NT theology with a historical survey
of the beginnings and development of NT theology
8R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (London, 1965),
I #3:
9N. Perrin, The New Testament: An Introduction (New York,
1974). See the title of the twelfth and last chapter.
10Bultmann, Theology of the NT, I, 3-32.
11G. Strecker, “Das Problem der Theologie des Neuen Testaments,”
Das Problem der Theologie des NT, pp. 1-31, esp. 30; Kasemann,
“The Problem of a NT Theology,” p. 243.
12Kiimmel, The Theology of the NT, pp. 22-135.
13Lohse, Grundriss der ntl. Theologie, pp. 18-50.
14Jeremias, NT Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus (1971).
15Neill, Jesus Through Many Eyes, p. 10.
12 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

(Chapter I). It is a truism that the present has its roots

in the past and cannot be adequately understood without
a knowledge of it. The selection of issues in the current
debate in terms of the question of methodology (Chap-
ter II), the various problems associated with the center
of the NT (Chapter III), and a variety of aspects re- .
lated to NT theology and the OT, i.e., the relationship
between the Testaments (Chapter IV), do not aim to be
exhaustive or complete. They seek to touch on those
factors and issues that seem to exercise contemporary
scholars of various schools of thought and are major
unresolved problems. On the basis of our discussion we
attempt to provide some preliminary suggestions for
doing NT theology (Chapter V). A fairly comprehensive
bibliography seeks to serve as a resource tool for further
study and personal research. It is hoped that the reader
will be stimulated to engage in informed and creative
thinking as he acquaints himself with basic issues in
the current debate on NT theology.
I. Beginnings and Development
of NT Theology

This chapter provides a historical survey of major

trends from the beginnings of Biblical theology. Special
emphasis is placed upon the development of NT the-
ology! from the early part of the nineteenth century”
to the beginning decades of this century. The current
debate about the scope, purpose, nature, and function
of NT theology, and even the fundamental question
whether NT theology is possible,* have their roots in
the past, and often the distant past. New Testament
theology is an offshoot from Biblical theology, and thus
they must be studied together.
1Among leading histories of NT theology are the following: R.
Schnackenburg, Neutestamentliche Theologie. Stand der Forschung
(2nd ed.; Munich, 1965), Eng. trans. made from Ist ed. of 1963:
New Testament Theology Today (London, 1963); H.-J. Kraus, Die
Biblische Theologie. Ihre Geschichte und Problematik (Neukirchen-
Vluyn, 1970); O. Merk, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments
in ihrer Anfangszeit (Marburg, 1972); W. Harrington, The Path
of Biblical Theology (Dublin, 1973) ;L. Goppelt, Theologie des Neuen
Testaments (Gottingen, 1975), pp. 19-51; G. Strecker, “Das Problem
der Theologie des Neuen Testaments,” in Das Problem der Theologie
des Neuen Testaments (Darmstadt, 1975), pp. 1-31.
2The first NT theology of the century was published by G. L.
Bauer, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Leipzig, 1800-1802).
3This has been again radically questioned by J. M. Robinson, “Die
Zukunft der neutestamentlichen Theologie,’ Neues. Testament und
christliche Existenz. Festschrift fiir H. Braun zum 70. Geburtstag am
4. Mai 1973, ed. H. D. Betz (Tiibingen, 1973), pp. 387-400; Eng.
trans. “The Future of New Testament Theology,” Religious Studies
Review 2 (1976), 17-23.

13
14 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

A. From the Reformation to the Enlightenment

The post-NT church of the early Christian centuries
developed neither a Biblical theology nor a NT the-
ology. The reason was the dictum that the content of
the canonical writings, if rightly understood, was iden-
tical with the dogma of the church, which was believed —
to be of universal validity. During the Middle Ages
the Roman Catholic Church regarded the NT, like the
OT, as a part of the ecclesiastical tradition.© The NT
was not read apart from or over against that tradition,
but more or less interpreted by that tradition or brought
into harmony with it.
The Reformation freed itself fig ecclesiastical tra-
dition and scholastic theology® and employed as her
battle cry the Protestant principle of “sola scriptura.””
With this principle Scripture was no longer interpreted
by tradition. An authority superior to tradition was
recognized in Scripture, which resulted in the self-
interpretation of Scripture (sui ipsius interpres),° and
became the sources for the subsequent development
of Biblical theology.
Among the Reformers Martin Luther’s contribution
was particularly significant.? He ultimately rejected the
40. Kuss, “Zur Hermeneutik Tertullians,” Schriftauslegung, Bei-
trage zur Hermeneutik des NT und im NT, ed. J. Ernst (Munich,
1972). Gp. (99-87%
5W. G. Kiimmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investi-
gation of Its Problems (Nashville, 1972), pp. 13-19.
6Decisive impulses toward this are found in humanism, particularly
through Erasmus (cf. E. W. Kohls, Die Theologie des Erasmus (Basel,
1966], I, 126ff.; H. Schlingensiepen, “Erasmus als Exeget,’ Zeitschrift
fiir Kirchengeschichte II [1929], 16-57), Laurentius Valla (cf. E.
Miihlenberg, “Laurentius Valla als Renaissancetheologe,’ ZThK 66
[1969], 466-480), and Cajetan (G. Hennig, Cajetan und Luther [Stutt-
gart, 1967]). These humanists considered that Scripture and tradition
stood next to each other but ecclesiastical authority remained supreme.
7The function of “sola scriptura” in the pre-Reformation period is
summarized by H. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology
(2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich., 1967), pp. 201. 361-363, 377, 380-390.
8G. Ebeling, “The Meaning of ‘Biblical Theology,” Word and
Faith (London, 1963), pp. 81-86.
9See K. Holl, ‘“Luthers Bedeutung fiir den Fortschritt der Ausle-
gungskunst,” Gesammelte Aufsadtze zur Kirchengeschichte (6th ed.;
BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 15

fourfold sense of Scripture’? and developed his “new”

hermeneutic between 1516 and 1519. The emphasis on
the contrast between “letter and spirit” (littera et
spiritus), the determining distinction of “law and
gospel” (lex et evangelium),” and the christological
principle “what manifests Christ” (“was Christum trei-
bet”)!® mark the essence of Luther’s “new” hermeneu-
tic of “sola scriptura.” The principle of “sola scriptura”
functions for Luther in a twofold sense: (1) the dis-
tinction between Christ and Scripture, iie., true Scrip-
ture is “what manifests Christ,’ and (2) the resulting
distinction between law and gospel.# With these dis-
tinctions Luther has cast a long shadow reaching into
our own time in the form of the questions concerning
the unity of the Bible (and the NT)” as well as the
issue of “the canon within the canon.””°
Tiibingen, 1932), I, 544-582; F. Hahn, “Tuthers Auslegungsgrund-
sitze und ihre theologischen Voraussetzungen,” Zeitschrift fir system.
Theologie 12 (1934), 165-218; G. Ebeling, “Die Anfange von Luthers
Hermeneutik,” ZThK 48 (1951), 172-230.
10See his lectures on Galatians (WA 57, pp. 95f.) and Romans
(WA 56, pp. 175-439) and also WA 2, pp. 249ff.; WA 5, pp. 644 ff.
11See, for example, WA 3, pp. 11-17, 254-257, 456f.
12For example, WA 4, pp. 45-49, 97, 135, 174-176. P. Schempp,
Luthers Stellung zur Heiligen Schrift (Munich, 1929), pp. 70-78.
13See WA, DB 7, p. 384; WA 3, p. 492; WA 4, p. 379; WA 39_T,
p. 47: Theses 41, 49, 51; cf. Ebeling, Word and Faith, pp. 82f.
14Merk, Biblische Theologie des NT, pp. 1I1f.
15See A. Stock, Einheit des Neuen Testaments (Zurich/Einsiedeln,
Kéln, 1969); A. Kiimmel, “Mitte des Neuen Testaments,” L’Evangile
hier et aujourd’hui. Melanges offerts au F.-J. Leenhardt (Geneva,
1968), pp. 71-85; F. Courth, “Der historische Jesus als Auslegungs-
norm des Glaubens,” Miinchener Theologische Zeitschrift 25 (1974),
301-316; W. Schrage, “Die Frage nach der Mitte und dem Kanon im
Kanon des Neuen Testaments in der neueren Diskussion,” Rechtfertt-
gung. Festschrift fiir E. Kasemann zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. J. Friedrich,
W. Péhlman, and P. Stuhlmacher (Tibingen, 1976), pp. 415-442.
16See E. Kasemann, ed., Das Neue Testament als Kanon. Doku-
mentation und kritische Analyse zur Gegenwartigen Diskussion (G6t-
tingen, 1970). J. Barr (The Bible in the Modérn World [New York,
1973], pp. 30-40) claims the Bible is “soteriologically functional.”
Inge Lénning, Kanon im Kanon. Zum dogmatischen Grundlagen-
problem des neutestamentlichen Kanons (“Forschungen zur Geschichte
und Lehre des Protestantismus” (10/XLIII) (Munich, 1972); F.
Mildenberger, “The Unity, Truth, and Validity of the Bible,” Inter-
pretation 29 (1977), 391-405, esp. 399-404.
16 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Luther and the other Reformers did not apply the

hermeneutical consequences of the “sola scriptura”
principle to the total realm of theology and thus they
did not develop what became known to be the dis-
cipline of Biblical theology. The designation “Biblical
theology” is in itself ambiguous, because it can be used ~
in a twofold sense: (1) It can designate a theology
which has its roots in the teaching of Scripture and
bases its foundation on Scripture,” or (2) it can desig-
nate the theology which the Bible itself contains.’* In
the latter sense it is a specific theological discipline
which became bifurcated along the lines of OT the-
ology’ and NT theology at the turn of the eighteenth
to the nineteenth century.”
Precursors of those who developed the term “Biblical
theology” belonged to the Radical Reformation, i.e.,
the Anabaptist movement,”* notably Oswald Glait and
Andreas Fischer in the early 1530s.** But it was not
17JIn this sense F. C. Baur (Vorlesungen tiber neutestamentliche
Theologie, ed. F. F. Baur [Leipzig, 1864], p. 2) and before him D.
Schenkel (“Die Aufgabe der Biblischen Theologie in dem gegenwar-
tigen Entwicklungsstadium der theologischen Wissenschaft,” Theolo-
gische Studien und Kritiken 25 [1852], 40-66, esp. 42-44) suggested
that the Reformers engaged in “Biblical theology.”
18W. Wrede, Uber Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten Neu-
testamentlicher Theologie (G6ttingen, 1897), p. 79, reprinted in
Das Problem der Theologie des Neuen Testament, ed. G. Strecker
(Darmstadt, 1975), pp. 81-154, esp. p. 153; Eng. trans. “The Task
and Methods of ‘New Testament Theology,’” by R. Morgan, The
Nature of New Testament Theology (SBT 2/25; London, 1973),
pp. 68-116, esp. p. 115; Ebeling, Word and Faith, pp. 79-81; K. Sten-
dahl, “Method in the Study of Biblical Theology,” The Bible in Mod-
ern Scholarship, ed. J. P. Hyatt (Nashville, 1965), pp. 202-205; Merk,
Biblische Theologie des NT, pp. 7f.
19The development and current issues of OT theology are described
in the companion volume of the present book, G. F. Hasel, Old Testa-
ment Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (2nd ed.; Grand
Rapids, Mich., 1975).
20G. L. Bauer was the first to treat the theology of the two Testa-
ments separately. See above, n. 2.
21See W. Klassen, “Anabaptist Hermeneutics,’ Mennonite Quarterly
Review 40 (1966), 83-111; idem, Covenant and Community (Grand
Rapids, Mich., 1967).
22G. F. Hasel, “Capito, Schwenckfeld and Crautwald on Sabba-
tarian Anabaptist Theology,’ Mennonite Quarterly Review 46 (1972),
41-57.
 AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 17
BEGINNINGS

until one hundred years later that the expression “Bib-

lical theology” actually appears for the first time in
Wolfgang Jacob Christmann’'s Teutsche Biblische The-
ologie (Kempten, 1629). His work is presently not ex-
tant? But the work of Henricus A. Diest entitled
Theologia biblica (Daventri, 1643) is available and
permits the earliest insight into the nature of an emerg-
ing discipline. “Biblical theology” is understood to con-
sist of “proof-texts” from Scripture, taken indiscrim-
inately from both Testaments in order to support the
traditional “systems of doctrine” of early Protestant
Orthodoxy. The subsidiary role of “Biblical theology”
over against dogmatics was firmly established by Abra-
ham Calovius, one of the most significant representa-
tives of Protestant Orthodoxy, when he applied “Biblical
theology” as a designation of what was before called
theologica exegetica.”* In his work Biblical “proof-texts,”
which were called dicta probantia and later designated
collegia biblica, had the role of supporting dogmatics.
Calovius’ lasting contribution was to assign to Biblical
theology the role of a subsidiary discipline that sup-
ported Protestant orthodox doctrines. Biblical theology
as a subsidiary discipline of orthodox dogmatics is evi-
dent in the Biblical theologies of Sebastian Schmidt
(1671), Johann Hiilsemann (1679), Johann Heinrich
Maius (1689), Johann Wilhelm Baier (1716-19), and
Christian Eberhard Weismann (1739).
The back-to-the-Bible emphasis of German Pietism
brought about a changing direction for Biblical the-
ology.2° In Pietism Biblical theology became a tool
23Quoted in M. Lipenius, Bibliotheca realis theologica omnium mar-
teriarum (Frankfurt, 1685), tom. I, col. 1709, and first referred to
by Ebeling, Word and Faith, p. 84 n. 3.
24Calovius, Systema locorum theologicorum I (Wittenbergae, 1655).
25Schmidt, Collegium Biblicum in quo dicta et Novi Testamenti
iuxta seriem locorum comunium theologicorum explinatur (Strassburg,
1671); Hiilsemann, Vindiciae Sanctae Scripturae per loca classica sys-
tematis theologici (Lipsiae, 1679); Maius, Synopsis theologiae judicae
veteris et nova (Giessen, 1698) ; Baier, Analysis et vindicatio illustrium
scripturae (Altdorf, 1716-19); Weismann, Institutiones theologiae
exegetico-dogmaticae (Tuebingen, 1739).
26Q,. Betz, “History of Biblical Theology,” IDB, I, 432.
18 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

of the reaction against arid Protestant Orthodoxy.?"

Philipp Jacob Spener (1635-1705), a founding father
of Pietism, opposed Protestant scholasticism with “Bib-
lical theology.”** The influence of Pietism is reflected
in the works of Carl Haymann (1708), J. Deutschmann
(1710), and J. C. Weidner (1722), which oppose or- -
thodox systems of doctrine with “Biblical theology.”
As early as 1745 “Biblical theology” is clearly sepa-
rated from dogmatic (systematic) theology, and the
former is conceived of as being the foundation of the
latter.*° This means that Biblical theology is emanci-
pated from a role merely subsidiary to dogmatics. In-
herent 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 were realized under the
influence of rationalism in the age of Enlightenment.

B. The Age of Enlightenment

In the age of Enlightenment (Aufkldrung) a totally
new approach for the study of the Bible was developed
under several influences. First and foremost was ration-
alism’s reaction against any form of supernaturalism.*’
27R. C. Dentan, Preface to OT Theology (2nd ed.; New York,
1963), p. 17; Merk, Biblische Theologie des NT, pp. 18-20; Kraus,
Biblische Theologie, pp. 24-30.
28P. J. Spener, Pia Desideria (Frankfurt, 1675), trans. and ed. by
T. G. Tappert (Philadelphia, 1964), pp. 54f.
“"9Haymann, Biblische Theologie (Leipzig, 1708); Deutschmann,
Theologia Biblica (1710); Weidner, Deutsche Theologie Biblica (Leip-
meidh22
30So in an unsigned article published in J. H. Zeller, ed., Grosses
vollstandiges Universallexikon (Leipzig und Halle, 1754; reprinted
Graz, 1962), Vol. 43, cols. 849, 866f., 920f. Cf. Merk, Bzblische
Theologie des NT, p. 20.
31English deism as represented by John Locke (1632-1704), John
Toland (1670-1722), Matthew Tindal (1657-1733), and Thomas
Chubb (1679-1747) with its emphasis on reason’s supremacy over
revelation was paralleled on the Continent with the “rational ortho-
doxy” of Jean A. Turretini (1671-1737), and such figures as S. J.
Baumgarten, J. S. Semler (1725-1791), J. D. Michaelis (1717-1791).
See W. G. Kiimmel, The NT: The History of the Investigation of
BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 19

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 departure of
the period of the Enlightenment was the development
of a new hermeneutic, the historical-critical method*
which holds sway to the present day in liberal scholar-
ship and beyond,* even though it should not be over-
looked that a new stage of criticism is levelled against
it? and that it is caught up in a methodological crisis.*

Its Problem (Nashville, 1972), pp. 51-72; H.-J. Kraus, Geschichte

der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des AT (2nd ed.; Neukirchen-
Vluyn, 1969), pp. 7Off.
32G. Ebeling, “The Significance of the Critical Historical Method
for Church and Theology in Protestantism,” Word and Faith, pp. 17-
61; U. Wilckens, “Uber die Bedeutung historischer Kritik in der
Bibelexegese,” Was heisst Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift?, eds. W.
Joest et al. (Regensburg, 1966), pp. 85ff.; J. E. Benson, “The His-
tory of the Historical-Critical Method in the Church,” Dialog 12
(1973), 94-103; K. Scholder, Urspriinge und Probleme der Bibel-
kritik in 17. Jahrhundert. Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung des historisch-
kritischen Theologie (Munich, 1966); E. Krentz, The Historical-Crit-
ical Method (Philadelphia, 1975); G. Maier, Das Ende der histortsch-
kritischen Methode (2nd ed.; Wuppertal, 1975), Eng. trans. The End
of the Historical-Critical Method (St. Louis, 1977).
38Krentz (The Historical-Critical Method, p. 76) speaks of “the
uneasy truce of conservatism” with the historical-critical method. He
refers to G. E. Ladd (The New Testament and Criticism [Grand
Rapids, Mich., 1967]) who changes certain rationalist presuppositions.
34See especially H. Frey, “Um den Ansatz theologischer Arbeit,”
Abraham unser Vater. Festschrift fiir O. Michel (Stuttgart, 1963),
pp. 153-180; A. Nitschke, “Historische Wissenschaft und Bibelkritik,”
EvTh 27 (1967), 225-236; W. Marxsen, Der Streit um die Bibel
(Gladbeck, 1965); R. M. Frye, “‘A Literary Perspective for the Criti-
cism of the Gospels,” Jesus and: Man’s Hope (Pittsburgh, 1971), II,
193-221: idem, “On the Historical-Critical Method in New Testa-
ment Studies: A Reply to Professor Achtemeier,” Perspective 14
(1973), 28-33; G. Maier, Das Ende der historisch-kritischen Methode.
35The following provide an introduction to the crisis: W. Pannen-
berg, Grundfragen systematischer Theologie (G6ttingen, 1967), pp.
44-78, Eng. trans. Basic Questions in Theology (Philadelphia, 1971),
pp. 38-80; F. Hahn, “Probleme historischer Kritik,’ ZNW 63 (1972),
1-17; K. Lehmann, “Der hermeneutische Horizont der historisch-
kritischen Exegese,” Einfiihrung in die Methoden der biblischen Exe-
gese, ed. J. Schreiner (Tyrolia, 1971), pp. 40-80; M. Hengel, “His-
torische Methoden und theologische Auslegung des Neuen Testa-
ments,” Kerygma und Dogma 19 (1973), 85-90; F. Beisser, “Irrwege
20 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

The third is the application of radical literary criticism

of the Bible as developed by J. B. Witter (1711) and
J. Astruc (1753) for the OT, and J. J. Griesbach (1776),
G. E. Lessing (1776), and J. G. Eichhorn (1794) for
the NT. 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.*°
Under the partial impetus of Pietism and with a
strong dose of rationalism Anton Friedrich Biisching’s
publications (1756-58) reveal for the first time that
“Biblical theology” becomes the rival of dogmatics.*"
Protestant dogmatics, also called “scholastic theology,”
is criticized for its empty speculations and_ lifeless
theories. G. Ebeling has aptly summarized that “from
being merely a subsidiary discipline of dogmatics ‘bib-
lical theology’ now became a rival of the prevailing
dogmatics.”**
A chief catalyst in the “revolution of hermeneutics’
was the rationalist Johann Solomo Semler (1725-1791),
whose four-volume Treatise on the Free Investigation
of the Canon (1771-75) claimed that the Word of God

und Wege der historisch-kritischen Bibelwissenschaft: Auch ein Vor-

schlag zur Reform des Theologiestudiums,”’ Neue Zeitschrift fir
system. Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 15 (1973), 192-214; R.
Surburg, “Implications of the Historical-Critical Method in Inter-
preting the OT,” Crisis in Lutheran Theology, ed. J. W. Montgomery
(Minneapolis, Minn., 1973), II, 48-80; Hasel, OT Theology, pp. 59-
61, 72-75, 132-137; P. Stuhlmacher, Schriftauslegung auf dem Wege
zur biblischen Theologie (G6ttingen, 1975), pp. 59-127.
36The key figure is J. S. Semler, whose four-volume Abhandlung
von der freien Untersuchung des Kanons (1771-75) fought the ortho-
dox doctrine of inspiration. H.-J. Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-
kritischen Erforschung des AT, pp. 103-113.
387A. F. Biisching, Dissertatio inauguralis exhibens epitomen theo-
logiae e solis literis sacris concinnatae (Goettingen, 1756); idem,
Epitome Theologiae (Lemgo, 1757); idem, Gedanken von der Beschaf-
fenheit und dem Vorzug der biblisch-dogmatischen Theologie vor
der scholastischen (Lemgo, 1758).
38Ebeling, Word and Faith, p. 87.
39Dentan, Preface, p. 19.
 BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 21

and Holy Scripture are not at all identical.*° This im-

plied 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.**
A highly significant step toward a separation of
Biblical theology from dogmatics came in the four-
volume work of Biblical theology (1771-75) by Gotthilf
Traugott Zacharia (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 Scrip-
ture has its own time, place, and intention. But Zach-
aria held to the inspiration of the Bible,* as did J. A.
Ernesti (1707-1781 )**® whose Biblical-exegetical method
he followed.*? Historical exegesis and canonical under-
standing 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 basi-
cally Zacharia’s interest was still in the dogmatic system,
which he wished to cleanse from impurities.
40Kiimmel, The NT: The History, p. 63.
41G. Hornig, Die Anfange der historisch-kritischen Theologie (Gd6t-
tingen, 1961), pp. 56ff.
42Merk, Biblische Theologie des NT, p. 22.
43Hornig, Die Anfdnge, pp. 57f.; Merk, Biblische Theologie des NT,
pp. 23f.
44G. T. Zacharia, Biblische Theologie oder Untersuchung des bibli-
schen Grundes der vornehmsten theologischen Lehren (G6ttingen and
Kiel, 1771-75); Dentan, Preface, p. 21; Kraus, Biblische Theologie,
pp. 31-39; Merk, Biblische Theologie, pp. 23-26.
45Zacharia, Biblische Theologie, I, vi.
46]. A. Ernesti, Institutio interpres Novi Testamenti (Leipzig,
1761); Kimmel, The NT: The History, pp. 608.
47Kraus, Biblische Theologie, p. 35.
48Zacharia, Biblische Theologie, I, Ixvi.
ate NEW TESTAMENT ‘THEOLOGY

The works of W. F. Hufnagel (1785-89)*? and the

rationalist C. F. von Ammon (1792)°° hardly distinguish
themselves in structure and design from that of Zacharia.
Hufnagel’s Biblical theology consists of a “historical-
critical collection. of Biblical proof-texts supporting dog-
matics.”*! Von Ammon took up ideas of Semler and.
the philosophers Lessing and Kant and presented ac-
tually more a “philosophical theology.” Significant in
his treatment is the higher evaluation of the NT than
the OT,” which is a first step toward an independent
treatment of OT theology®? which was realized four
years later by G. L. Bauer.
The late Neologist and rationalist Johann Philipp
Gabler (1753-1826), who never wrote or even intended
to write a Biblical theology, made a most decisive and
far-reaching contribution to the development of the
new discipline in his inaugural lecture at the University
of Altdorf on March 31, 1787.°4 This year marks the
beginning of Biblical theology’s role as a purely histor-
ical discipline, completely independent from dogmatics.
Gabler’s famous definition reads: “Biblical theology
possesses a historical character, transmitting what the
sacred writers thought about divine matters; dogmatic
theology, on the contrary, possesses a didactic character,
teaching what a particular theologian philosophizes
about divine matters in accordance to his ability, time,
49W. F. Hufnagel, Handbuch der biblischen Theologie (Erlangen,
VolE (1785>) Vol. cll 41789).
50C, F. von Ammon, Entwurf einer reinen biblischen Theologie,
3 vols. (Erlangen, 1792). Cf. Kraus, Biblische Theologie, pp. 40-51.
51D. G. C. von Célln, Biblische Theologie (Leipzig, 1836), I, 22.
52Kraus, Biblische Theologie, p. 51.
53Dentan, Preface, p. 26.
54]. P. Gabler, “Oratio de iusto discrimine theologicae biblicae! et
dogmaticae regundisque recte utriusque finibus” [‘‘About the Correct
Distinction of Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Right Defini-
tion of their Goals’] in Kleine theologische Schriften, eds. Th. A.
Gabler and J. G. Gabler (Ulm, 1831), II, 179-198. A complete
German translation is provided by Merk, Biblische Theologie des NT,
pp. 273-284, and reprinted in Das Problem der Theologie des NT,
ed..G. Strecker (Darmstadt, 1975), pp. 32-44; a partial English
translation is found in Kiimmel, The NT: The History, pp. 98-100.
BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 23

age, place, sect or school, and other similar things.”

Gabler’s inductive, historical, and descriptive approach
to Biblical theology is based on three essential method-
ological considerations: (1) Inspiration is to be left out
of consideration, because “the Spirit of God most em-
phatically did not destroy in every holy man his own
ability to understand and the measure of natural insight
into things.”** What counts is not “divine authority”
but “only what they [Biblical writers] thought.”*’
(2) Biblical theology has the task of gathering carefully
the concepts and ideas of the individual Bible writers,
because the Bible does not contain the ideas of just
a single man. Therefore the opinions of Bible writers
need to be “carefully assembled from Holy Writ, suit-
ably arranged, properly related to general concepts, and
carefully compared with one another. . . .°°° This task
can be accomplished by means of a consistent applica-
tion of the historical-critical method with the aid of
literary criticism, historical criticism, and philosophical
criticism.’ (3) Biblical theology as a historical disci-
pline is by definition obliged to “distinguish between
the several periods of the old and new religion.”® The
main task is to investigate which ideas are of impor-
tance for Christian doctrine, namely which ones “apply
today” and which ones have no “validity for our
time.”®! These programmatic declarations gave direction
to the future of Biblical(OT and NT) theology dispite
the fact that Gabler’s program for Biblical theology

55“Oratio” in Kleine theologische Schriften, II, 183-184. Cf. R.

Smend, “J. P. Gablers Begriindung der biblischen Theologie,” EvTh
22 (1962), 345-367; Kraus, Biblische Theologie, pp. 52-59; Merk,
Biblische Theologie des NT, pp. 29-140.
56Kleine theologische Schriften, II, 186.
57P, 186; Kimmel, History, p. 99.
58P. 187; Kiimmel, History, p. 100.
59Merk, Biblische Theologie, pp. 68-81.
60Gabler, “Oratio,” in Kleine theologische Schriften, II, 186; Kim-
mel, History, p. 99.
61P, 191; Kimmel, History, p. 100.
24 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

was conditioned by his time and contains significant

limitations.”
The goal of a “purely historical” Biblical theology
is for the first time realized by Georg Lorenz Bauer
(1755-1806), like J. P. Gabler a student of J. G. Eich-
horn, and with Gabler a professor at Altdorf. Bauer
is to be credited as the first scholar to publish a NT
theology.** Although he is influenced by Gabler, Bauer's
understanding of Biblical theology advances signifi-
cantly beyond that of the former because he goes be-
yond the historical-critical interpretation advocated by
Gabler to the issues of philosophical questions.” For
Bauer “Biblical theology is to be a development—
pure and purged of all extraneous concepts —of the
religious theory of the Jews prior to Christ and of Jesus
and his apostles, a development traced from the writ-
ings of the sacred authors and presented in terms of
the varidus periods and the various viewpoints and
levels of understanding they reflect.”** Accordingly he
treats separately and in sequence (1) the theory of
religion of the synoptics, (2) the theory of religion of
the gospel of John and the letters of John, (3) the
concept of religion of the Apocalypse and (4) of
Peter, (5) the epistles of 2 Peter and Jude, and (6)
the doctrine of Paul.
As a “historical-critical rationalist’®* Bauer's deter-
mining position in the development of Biblical (OT
and NT) theology was his consistent application of
the historical-critical method supported with rational-

62Merk, Biblische Theologie, pp. 87-90, 111-113.

63See especially Kraus, Biblische Theologie, pp. 87-91, and Merk,
Biblische Theologie, pp. 141-203.
64Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1800-
1802). Shortly earlier he published a Biblische Theologie des Alten
Testaments (Leipzig, 1796). Cf. Hasel, OT Theology, pp. 22f.; Merk,
Biblische Theologie, pp. 157-167.
65Merk, Biblische Theologie, pp. 172f.
66Bauer, Biblische Theologie des NT (Leipzig, 1800), I, 6. The
translation is that in Kiimmel, The NT: The History, p. 105.
687Merk, Biblische Theologie, p. 202.
 BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 25

ism’s emphasis on_ historical reason.* His _historical-

critical reconstruction of the manifoldness of the Bib-
lical witnesses raised, among other problems, the matter
of the relationship between the Testaments, a problem
under vigorous debate today. Furthermore, the whole
issue of Biblical theology’s nature as a purely historical
discipline as vigorously maintained by Gabler and con-
sequently by Bauer and others is again questioned in
the recent debate, as is the question of the nature of
the descriptive task. Nevertheless, Gabler and Bauer
are the founders of the independent discipline of Bib-
lical and NT theology.
It was in the period of the Enlightenment that the
historical-critical method was developed and applied to
the study of the Bible.” The influence of the scientific
revolution as pioneered by N. Copernicus (1473-1543)
and advanced by J. Kepler (1571-1630)7° and Galileo
Galilei (1564-1642) brought about a new under-
standing of Scripture.” The suggestions of the two
latter scholar-scientists related to the independence of
the study of nature. Science is no longer informed by
Scripture, but Scripture is to be interpreted by means

68P, 199.
69The history of these developments is described by A. Richardson
(The Bible in the Age of Science [London, 1961], pp. 9-31), Scholder
(Urspriinge und Probleme der Bibelkritik im 17. Jahrhundert, pp. 60ff.)
who is summarized by Krentz (The Historical-Crittcal Method, pp.
10-22), and Stuhlmacher (Schriftauslegung, pp. 75-99).
TJ. Hubner, Die Theologie Johannes Keplers zwischen Orthodoxie
und Naturwissenschaft (Tiibingen, 1975); A. Deissmann, Johann
Kepler und die Bibel (Giessen, 1910).
71J. J. Langford, Galileo, Science and the Church (New York,
1966); O. Loretz, Galilei und der Irrtum der Inquisition (Miinster,
1966).
72See especially C. F. von Weizsacker, “Kopernikus, Kepler, Gali-
lei,” Einsichten, Gerhard Kriiger zum 60. Geburtstag (Frankfurt,
1962), pp. 376-394; H. Karpp, “Die Beitrage Keplers und Galileis
zum neuzeitlichen Schriftverstandnis,’ ZThK 67 (1970), 40-55; R.
Hooykaas, Religion and the Rise of Modern Science (Grand Rapids,
Mich., 1972), pp. 35-39; G. F. Hasel, ‘‘Founders of the Modern
Understanding of the Relation Between Science and Religion” (un-
published paper read at the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and
Letters, April 6, 1973).
26 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

of the conclusions of science.” Thus “the Bible’s author-

ity was diminished.”™ It pertained to matters of faith
and morals® but not to matters of science. A similar
development with regard to history is seen in the
writings of the French political philosopher Jean Bodin
(1530-1596) who argued for the use of reason in the’
writing of history’® and in Joachim Vadian’s insistence
on observance in regard to the science of geography.”
The following Pre-Adamite controversy” was triggered
by Isaac de la Peyrére in 1655 who applied literary
criticism to the Pentateuch. These events were joined
with developments in the field of philosophy. René
Descartes made reason the sole criterion of truth and
elevated doubt to range unchecked through the whole
fabric of customary convictions.*° Shortly later Bene-
dict de Spinoza*! published his famous Tractatus
Theologico-Politicus (1670) in which he dealt with the
question of the relation of theology to philosophy. He
argued that both needed to be carefully separated and
suggested that reason is men’s guide to truth. All of
these influences were powerful catalysts toward the
formation of the full-fledged historical-critical method.
In 1728 the Geneva theologian of “rational ortho-
73Galileo writes, “Having arrived at any certainties in physics, we
ought to utilize these as the most appropriate aids in the true ex-
position of the Bible’ (Opere as translated by S. Drake, ed., Discov-
eries and Opinions of Galileo [Garden City, N.Y., 1957], p. 183).
Kepler states that the inspired writers “had nowhere the intention
to teach men in the things of nature, except in the first chapter of
Genesis where it deals with the supernatural origin of the world”
(Opera omnia, ed. Chr. Frisch [1858ff.], II, 86).
74Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method, p. 13.
75Hasel, “Founders of the Modern Understanding of the Relation
Between Science and Religion,” pp. 9f.
76Scholder, Urspriinge und Probleme der Bibelkritik im 17. Jahr-
hundert, p. 91.
TP, 96.
78Pp. 98-104.
Kraus, Geschichte, pp. 59-61.
80Scholder, Urspriinge und Probleme der Bibelkrittk im 17. Jahr-
hundert, pp. 132-158.
81R. M. Grant, A Short History of the Interpretation of Scripture
(2nd ed.; New York, 1966), pp. 146-150.
BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 27

doxy” Jean A. Turretini is said to have claimed that

“the [Holy] Scriptures are to be explained in no other
way than other books.”*? He stated:
Since God, as we have already often noted, is quite cer-
tainly the author of both reason and of revelation, it is
therefore impossible that these should contradict each
other. . . . Consequently, if a meaning seems to be
passed on in certain passages [of Scripture], which
openly contradicts all conceptions, then everything must
be attempted or imputed, rather than that this dogma
should be accepted. Therefore those passages are to be
explained otherwise, or, if that be impossible, as not
genuine, or the book is to be reckoned not to be divine.**
The priority of reason over Scriptural revelation is
here fully realized at the expense of the authority of
the Bible. Of course, Turretini “did not yet know that
the general principles of natural reason which he at-
tempted to raise as criteria for interpretation were
themselves a completely historically determined ‘under-
standing’ that is brought to the text.”
The ideas of Turretini were of little influence in his
own day. The epoch-making work on the canon and
inspiration by J. J. Semler, as briefly referred to above,
which appeared about five decades after Turretini’s
Bipartite Tractatus Concerning the Method by Which
the Sacred Scriptures Are to Be Interpreted, proved to
be of permanent significance for the foundation of the
historical-critical method in the study of Scripture.
The separation of the Word of God and Scripture®
82Turretini’s lectures were published by others under the title De
Sacrae Scripturae interpretandae methodo tractatus bipartitus (Tra-
jectt Thuviorum, 1728), p. 196.
83P. 312. Cf. Kimmel, History, pp. 58-61.
84U. Wilckens, ‘Uber die Bedeutung der historischen Kritik in
der modernen Bibelexegese,’ Was heisst Auslegung der Heiligen
Schrift?, p. 94.
85Semler declares, ‘“Holy Scripture and Word of God are clearly
to be distinguished, for we know the difference. . . . To Holy Scrip-
ture belong Ruth, Esther, Song of Songs, etc., but not all these books
that are called holy belong to the Word of God... .’ D. Joh. Salomo
Semlers Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canons, 4 vols.
(Halle) 1771-1775), Le/5.
 28 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
and the consistent application of the basic rules of the
critica profana to the Bible** together with the sharp
distinction between the divine content and human form
of Scripture*’ put the Biblical text deliberately into the
ancient setting and explain it as a witness to its own
time without intending to speak to the modern reader.®® '
These conceptions remain fundamental for historical
criticism and have earned Semler the designation of
father of historical-critical theology.®® Semler’s distinc-
tion between theology and religion, a distinction which
separated the “locally” and “temporally” determined the-
ologoumena from the lasting religion, was realized by
F. C. Baur in the nineteenth century and reached its
classic formulation by E. Troeltsch in the beginning
of the twentieth century.

C. From the Enlightenment to Dialectical Theology

The age of the Enlightenment brought about changes
in theology of lasting influence. Biblical theology freed
itself from a subsidiary role to dogmatics to become its
rival. Biblical theology turned into a descriptive dis-
cipline and became a historical science describing what
Biblical writers thought, i.e, “what it meant.”®° The
interpretation (“what it means”) is by its very nature
dependent upon the prevailing philosophy of the time.
Aside from the “purely historical” approaches there
developed also “positive historical” approaches, the
“history-of-religions” approach, and the “history of
salvation” approach. The years 1813-1821 witness the
appearance of Gottlob Philipp Christian Kaiser’s Die
biblische Theologie in three volumes. He constructs
his work with what he calls “the grammatico-historical
86Kraus, Geschichte, p. 113.
87Semler as quoted by Kiimmel, History, p. 64.
88]. S. Semler, Vorbereitung zur theologischen Hermeneutik (Halle,
1760), pp. 6-8, 149f., 160-162.
89Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method, p. 19.
The terminology of K. Stendahl, “Biblical Theology, Contem-
porary,” IDB, I, 418-432.
BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 29

method of interpretation” combined with “the point

of view of a philosophical universal history of reli-
gion.”®! This means a total rejection of any kind of
supernaturalism. He is the first to apply a “history-of-
religions” approach and to subordinate all Biblical and
nonbiblical aspects under the principle of universal
religion.”
Wilhelm Martin Leberechte de Wette published his
Biblische Dogmatik des Alten und Neuen Testaments
in 1813.9 He was a student of Gabler. His work
marks a move away from rationalism by adopting
Kantian philosophy as mediated by J. F. Fries,”
combining Biblical theology with a system of phi-
losophy. His higher synthesis of faith and feeling
moved in a “genetic development” of religion from
Hebraism via Judaism to Christianity. This means a
shattering of the material unity of OT and NT,°* and
NT theology comes to be understood as a phenomenon
of the history-of-religions. Everything local and tem-
poral, everything individual and particular, must be
peeled off in order to arrive at that which is timeless,
general, and lasting. Nevertheless, de Wette’s attempt
indicates that there is an unresolved methodological
problem, because he attempted to combine Biblical
theology with dogmatic interests.
The approach of de Wette received a radical rebuttal
from K. W. Stein, who argued that it is a departure
from Gabler’s program and Bauer's NT theology. The
insistence that “only a historical-critical approach can
lead to a pure and complete Biblical theology”®” and
Kaiser, Die biblische Theologie (Erlangen, 1813), I, iii.
92See Dentan, Preface, pp. 28f.; Kraus, Biblische Theologie, pp.
57f.; Merk, Biblische Theologie, pp. 214.
98R. Smend, W. M. L. de Wettes Arbeit am Alten und am Neuen
Testament (Basel, 1958).
94Kraus, Biblische Theologie, p. 72.
Merk, Biblische Theologie, pp. 210-214.
96Strecker, Das Problem der Theologie des NT, p. 5. f
97K. W. Stein, “Uber den Begriff und die Behandlungsart der
Biblischen Theologie des NT,’ Analecten fiir das Studium der exe-
getischen und systematischen Theologie, eds. C. A. G. Keil and H. G.
Tzschirner (1816), III, 151-204, esp. p. 180.
 30 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
that the thoughts of the different NT writers cannot
be brought together in a system points to the problem
that the NT is made up of various theologies but that
there is no NT theology.*® He seeks to make the
teaching of Jesus, namely that on which the NT writers
agree, the center of the NT. Here the whole issue’
of the center and unity of the NT comes to the fore:
this remains a key issue to the present day.
To the tradition of Gabler and Bauer as regards the
“purely
purely historical”! nature of Biblical (NT) theolo SY
belongs Die biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments
(Leipzig, 1836) by Daniel G. C. von Célln. He is
said to be the last one to present a Biblical theology
built upon rationalism.'°? Von Célln delineated a de-
velopmentalism of Hebraism-Judaism-Christianity and
presented a history of spiritualization, ethical cleansing,
and universal enlargement of the idea of theocracy.!"
O. Merk points out that von Célln’s end result was a
modified dogmatic theology because he did not sharply
separate the task of a historical-critical (purely his-
torical descriptive) Biblical theology from the task of
interpretation (dogmatics ).1°4
The apex of the Gabler and Bauer approach of a
“purely historical” NT theology is reached by Ferdi-
nand Christian Baur’s (1792-1860) work.’ Baur is
%8Merk, Biblische Theologie, p. 214.
9Stein, “Uber den Begriffe,” pp. 189-204.
100The distinction of the development of a “purely historical”
method is justified on the basis of the designation as employed by E.
Troeltsch, “Uber historische und dogmatische Methode,” Gesammelte
Studien II (Tubingen, 1913), pp. 729-753, reprinted in Theologie
als Wissenschaft, ed. G. Sauter (Mumeh, 1971).! pp. 105-127.
101His OT theology appeared as vol. I of which his NT theology
is vol. II under the general title Biblische Theologie. (Leipzig, 1836).
Cf. Kraus, Biblische Theologie. pp. 60-69.
102Merk, Biblische Theologie, p. 222.
103Kraus, Biblische Theologie, p. 67.
104Merk, Biblische Theologie, pp. 225f.
105P. C. Hodgson, The Formation of Historical Theology. A Study
of Ferdinand Christian Baur (New York, 1966); W. Geiger, Speku-
lation und Kritik. Die Geschichtstheologie F. C. Baurs (Munich,
1964) ; E. Barnikol, F. C. Baur als rationalistisch-kirchlicher Theologe
(Berlin, 1970).
BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 31

the founder and uncontested head of the Tibingen

School. In the year 1835 his student David Friedrich
Strauss (1808-1874) published his Life of Jesus,’°° a
radical reinterpretation of the NT accounts of Jesus.
Strauss provided neither a supernatural nor a rational-
istic but a mythical interpretation of the Gospel records
which give a basis of historical fact transformed and
enlarged by the faith of the early Christian community.
The Hegelian philosophical method of the thesis of
a supernaturalistic interpretation which was countered
by the antithesis of the rationalistic interpretation
brings Strauss to the synthesis of mythological inter-
pretation. “This Hegelian dialectic determines the
method of the work’ of Strauss.
F. C. Baur’s Lectures on New Testament Theology
were posthumously published in the year 1864" and
represent the conclusion of his scholarly efforts.
Baur’s Hegelian dialectic led him to view the history
of Christianity as a struggle between the thesis of
Jewish Christianity (Petrine materials, Matt., Rev.)
and the antithesis of Gentile Christianity (Gal., 1-2 Cor.,
Rom., Luke) which resulted in the synthesis of early
catholicism (Mark, John, Acts) of the second cen-
tury.1!° This has a bearing on NT theology, which
is “a purely historical science” but is restricted to the
writings of the NT."? In harmony with his earlier
studies he distinguishes three periods: The first is
characterized through the “concepts-of-doctrine” (Lehr-

106Das Leben Jesu, 2 vols. (Tiibingen, 1835-36), Eng. trans. by G.

Eliot, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (from 4th German ed.;
London, 1846). Cf. A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus
(New York, 1964), pp. 78-120.
107Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, p. 80.
108F. C. Baur, Vorlesungen iiber Neutestamentliche Theologie, ed.
F. F. Baur (Leipzig, 1864).
109Merk, Biblische Theologie, p. 227.
110B. Rigaux, Paulus und seine Briefe (Munich, 1964), pp. 14¢f.;
R. C. Briggs, Interpreting the New Testament Today (Nashville,
1973), pp. 145-148.
111Baur, Vorlesungen, p. 1.
112P, 38.
 32 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
begriffe) of the four genuine Pauline letters (Gal.,
1-2 Cor., Rom.); the second period includes Hebrews,
the lesser Pauline letters, 1-2 Peter, James, the Synoptics,
and Acts; and the third period encompasses the
Pastoral epistles and the Johannine letters. The “teach-
ing of Jesus’ has no room in this strictly historical
sequence, but Baur puts it before the three periods and
reduces it to a “purely moral element.”"* Thus Baur’s
emphasis is on reconstruction of the historical concepts
and the progress of development of the several doc-
trines. In contrast to G. L. Bauer’s NT theology, to
which Baur is more indebted than to J. P. Gabler,
Baur considers the “teachings of Jesus” as a prehistory
of NT theology and not a basic part of a theology of
the NT itself. R. Bultmann appears to stand in the
tradition of Baur when he declares, “The message of
Jesus is a presupposition for the theology of the New
Testament rather than a part of that theology itself.”“4
This question remains a pressing issue today. The well-
known major defects of Bauer’s approach are the appli-
cation of the Hegelian dialectic and an overemphasis
on the influence of Judaism in early Christianity.
In contrast to the “purely historical” approaches to
NT theology, there were scholars in the early decades
of the nineteenth century who may be classified as
belonging to the “positive historical” direction of
NT scholarship. Among the initiators of this direction
are M. F. A, Lossius!?® and D. L. Cramer,” both of
whom have essentially the same conception. Their
works have had an important influence in the last
century. Lassius combines the dogmatic approach of
113Kiimmel, History, p. 142.
114R, Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (London, 1965),
j Pe
115See particularly Goppelt, Theologie des NT, I, 41-45.
116Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments oder die Lehren des
Christenthums aus den einzelnen Schriften des N.T. entwickelt (Leip-
zig, 1825).
7Vorlesungen tiber die biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments,
ed. F. A. A. Nabe (Leipzig, 1830).
BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 33

the “concept-of-doctrines” with the historical one.

He suggests that there are but three possibilities of
writing a NT theology. Either one treats each NT
writer separately or one uses a systematic approach of
“concepts-of-doctrine” or one combines both methods.***
From the perspective of the Gabler-Bauer-Baur ap-
proach of a “purely historical” NT theology, the
Lossius-Cramer approach of a “positive historical” NT
theology may be considered a methodological rever-
sal,!° but from another perspective this may be viewed
as a necessary antithesis to the radical criticism of the
NT traditions.'”°
A unique place is to be accorded to the outrightly
conservative Outline of Biblical Theology (1828) of
Ludwig F. O. Baumgarten-Crusius.**! His highly valued
work reflects only to a limited degree Gabler’s influ-
ence. The two Testaments are considered to belong
together. Baumgarten-Crusius seeks “to present a sys-
tem of purely biblical concepts which is to serve as
the foundation and norm for doctrine and. as the start-
ing-point for the history of dogma.” He recognizes
the validity of grammatical-historical interpretation,’*
feels indebted to Kaiser, de Wette, and Lossius,’** but
argues soberly against the excesses of deism’s critique
of religion with a view to ward off foreign influences
on Biblical theology. He suggests that the unity of
the Bible is recognized on the basis of the common
theme of the kingdom of God which unites both
Testaments. This center of the Bible has supporters
today that belong to a non-conservative line of scholar-
ship.
118Lossius, Biblische Theologie des NT, pp. 11f. Cf. Merk, Bib-
lische Theologie, p. 217.
119So9 Merk, Biblische Theologie, p. 218.
120So Goppelt, Theologie des NT, I, 41.
121Grundziige der Biblischen Theologie (Jena, 1828). Cf. Kraus,
Biblische Theologie, p. 218.
122Baumgarten-Crusius, Grundziige der Biblischen Theologie, p. 3.
123P, 6,
124P, 10.
 34 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
The problem of unity and diversity within the NT
becomes an important issue in the approach of August
Neander whose two tomes were published in 1832-
33.! After tracing the history of the apostolic period
(Vol. I) he distinguishes between the different apostles,
namely the strands of Paul, James, Peter, and John
(Vol. II). The diversity of presentation of the message
of these apostles serves to emphasize “the living
unity’'’® of the teaching of Christ within its manifold-
ness. This understanding made it possible for him to
develop in his last section the themes of the NT.127
The influence of Neander upon Christian Friedrich
Schmid is freely acknowledged by the latter,!28 who
considers the method of his Biblical Theology of the
NT, 2 vols. (1853)'* to consist of a “historical-genetic”
presentation of the canonical writings of the NT.
Schmid believes that there is an essential unity under-
lying the NT which is reflected in the different doc-
trines of the NT writers.’*° A similar view is maintained
in 1854 by George Ludwig Hahn"! and in 1856 by
Hermann Messner.'*? These scholars agree that there
is unity in diversity, that NT theology is concerned
only with the canonical writings, that the proper
method is the “historical-critical” one, and that it is
proper to present the teaching of the NT under more
or less traditional headings from dogmatics,
The so-called “modern positive” direction of NT
theology has been pioneered by an opponent of the
125Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche
durch die Apostel, als selbstandiger Nachtrag zu der allgemeinen
Geschichte der christlichen Religion und Kirche, 2 vols. (Hamburg,
1832-1833).
126]T, 501.
127]J, 501-711,
128C. F. Schmid, “Uber das Interesse und den Stand der biblischen
Theologie des Neuen Testaments in unserer Zeit,” Tiibinger Zeit-
schrift fiir Theologie 4 (1838), 125-160, esp. 159.
129Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, ed. C. von Weiz-
sacker, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1853).
130Merk, Biblische Theologie, pp. 219f.
131Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Leipzig, 1854).
132Die Lehre der Apostel (Leipzig, 1856).
BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 35

Tiibingen School. Bernhard Weiss’s Textbook of the

Biblical Theology of the New Testament (1868)'* en-
joyed a great popularity with seven editions over a
period of almost four decades."** In contrast to the
radical views of F. C. Baur, the approach of Weiss
was conservative,'® because he considered most NT
writings as genuine; in contrast to A. Neander, C. F.
Schmid, G. L. Hahn, and F. Messner, the approach
of Weiss is less conservative, though still positive, be-
cause he does not address himself fully to the rela-
tionship of the OT to the NT and the Gospel of John
is totally excluded from serving as a source for the
teachings of Jesus.’°°
Weiss suggests that “the Biblical theology of the
NT has to describe the manifoldness of the forms
of teaching of the different NT writings.”*’ Extra-
canonical documents have no place in a Biblical theol-
ogy of the NT.' “The most important aid for Bib-
lical theology is one of method, i.e., an exegesis that
follows the rules of grammatical-historical interpreta-
tion.”!*° This means for Weiss that the hermeneutical
foundation is rooted in the position which “interprets
each writer from within himself’*° and neither from
dogmatic nor philosophical systems nor from so-called
parallel texts from Scripture. On the other hand, the
particular words of the individual authors have to be
provided by Biblical theology.
On the whole the method of Weiss is characterized
through a theological “concept-of-doctrine” (Lehrbe-
<

133. ehrbuch der Biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Ber-

lin, 1868). Eng. trans. from 3rd ed. The Theology of the New Testa-
ment (London, 1892).
1347th ed.; Stuttgart/Berlin, 1903. The first sixteen pages of the
first edition of 1868 are republished in Das Problem der Theologie
des NT, pp. 45-66.
135Kraus, Biblische Theologie, p. 151.
136Kiimmel, History, p. 173.
137Das Problem der Theologie des NT, p. 52.
138P, 60.
139P, 61. ee
140P, 62.
 36 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
griff) approach, even though he recognizes an “inner
development” of “the two main strands,” namely “the
primitive apostolic one” and “the Pauline one.”!4! The
“concept-of-doctrine” approach in NT theology has
been passed on to all scholars who may be considered
to be representatives of the “modern positive” direc:
tion of NT theology. A programmatic sentence of Weiss
is typical of the “modern positive” direction: “Biblical
theology cannot concern itself with the critical and
specialized investigations regarding the origin of NT
writings, because it is only a_historical-descriptive
science and not a_historical-critical , one.”42 This
definition is more or less in the background of the NT
theologies of W. Beyschlag,'? P. Feine,44 F. Biich-
sel,’ and in the English language in the works of
F. Weidner,® E. P. Gould,'*7 G. B. Stevens,'® and
others.
Another “conservative” reaction to the “purely his-
torical” approach to NT theology came to expression
in the “salvation-history school” which was connected
with Gottfried Menken (1768-1831), Johann T.
Beck (1804-1878) ,’°° and its dominating figure J, Ch.
Konrad von Hofmann (1810-1877). The “salvation-
141P, 56.
142Weiss, Lehrbuch, p. 8. Cf. Das Problem der Theologie des NT,
Dr aor
143Willibald Beyschlag, Neutestamentliche Theologie oder geschicht-
liche Darstellung der Lehren Jesu und des Urchristenthums nach den
neutestamentliche Quellen, 2 vols. (Halle, 1891-1892). Cf. Merk,
Biblische Theologie, pp. 240f.
144Paul Feine, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Leipzig, 1910).
The 8th ed. was published in 1951.
145F, Biichsel, Theologies des Neuen Testaments. Geschichte des
Wortes Gottes im Neuen Testament (Giitersloh, 1935).
146F. Weidner, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols.
(Chicago/London, 1891).
147F. P. Gould, The Biblical Theology of the New Testament (New
York, 1900).
148G. B. Stevens, The Theology of the New Testament (Edinburgh,
1901; 2nd. ed., 1906).
49Kraus, Biblische Theologie, pp. 240-244.
150Pp. 244-247.
151J. Ch. K. von Hofmann, Weissagung und Erfillung im Alten
BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 37

history school” of the nineteenth century is based upon

(1) the history of the people of God as “expressed in
the Word”; (2) the idea of the inspiration of the Bible;
and (3) the (preliminary) result of the history between
God and man in Jesus Christ. Von Hofmann found in
the Bible a record of linear saving history in which the
active Lord of history is the trimme God whose purpose
and goal it is to redeem mankind. Since Jesus Christ
is the primordial goal of the world to which salvation
history aims and from which it receives its meaning,’
the OT and NT contain salvation-historical proclama-
tion. This a Biblical theology has to expound. Each
book of the Bible is assigned its logical place in the
scheme of salvation history. The Bible is not to be
regarded primarily as a collection of proof-texts or a
repository of doctrine, but a witness to God’s activity
in history which will not be fully completed until the
eschatological consummation.*”*
The “salvation-historical” approach of von Hofmann
has been hailed by P. Feine as “the most fruitful theo-
logical development of the 19th century.”* L. Goppelt
also accords him a significant place,’ whereas others
seem to underestimate his real importance by treating
him as a part of “the religion of biblicism”’’® or not
mentioning him at all.” Von Hofmann’s influence has
been significant in many ways. The reasons for this
are several. In contrast to his contemporary F. C. Baur,
von Hofmann did not integrate the NT in the general

und Neuen Testamente (Nérdlingen, 1841-44); idem, Der Schriftbe-

weis (Nérdlingen, 1852-56); idem, Biblische Hermeneutik, eds. J.
Hofmeister and Volck (Nérdlingen, 1880), Eng. trans. Interpreting
the Bible (Minneapolis, 1959). -
152Weissagung und Erfillung, I, 40.
153K. G. Steck, Die Idee der Heilsgeschichte. Hofmann-Schlatter-
Cullmann (Zollikon, 1959).
154Feine, Theologie des NT, p. 4.
155Goppelt, Theologie des NT, 1, 45f. So also G. E. Ladd, A The-
ology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1974), p. 16.-
156Betz, IDB, I, 434.
157Bultmann, “The History of NT Theology as a Science,” Theology
of the NT (London, 1955), II, 241-251.
 38 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
history of thought but brought it into a_ historical
relation with the OT, i.e., into salvation history. It is
pointed out that in doing this he combines the Refor-
mation principle to let Scripture interpret Scripture
with a modern understanding of history.* On the
other hand, it is to be recognized that von Hofmann
holds that the history of God’s people is one that is
“presented in the Word.”® Thus it cannot be rejected
out of hand as a philosophy of history of human
origin.’”’ It must be emphasized once again that for
von Hofmann “the activity of the Holy Spirit has
produced the Biblical books, the activity of the Holy
Spirit has also brought them together.”!*! Since the
Holy Spirit is responsible for the origin of the Biblical
writings and the formation of the canon, a salvation-
history theology has the task to investigate the histor-
ical place of the products of the Holy Spirit, This is
best achieved through an organic cross-section of the
whole Bible along salvation-history lines and not
through a proof-text method that is irresponsible to
the context.'
The influence of von Hofmann is evident in the
learned Theodor Zahn,}* the man whose criticism
Adolf von Harnack feared.'** Zahn does not conceive
of NT theology as a scientific system of religion but
as a presentation of the theology contained in the
Bible," which must be presented in its “historical
development” and “ordered according to the steps of
salvation history.”'° His NT theology starts with John
158Goppelt, Theologie des NT, I, 46.
159Von Hofmann, Weissagung und Erfillung, I, 49.
160Kraus, Biblische Theologie, p. 250.
161Von Hofmann, Weissagung und Erfillung, I, 49.
162Von Hofmann, Der Schriftbeweis (N6rdlingen, 1852-56); cf.
Goppelt, Theologie des NT, I, 46.
163T. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, 2 vols. (Er-
langen/Leipzig, 1888-92); idem, Einleittung in das Neue Testament,
2 vols. (Leipzig, 1906-07); idem, Grundriss der neutestamentlichen
Theologie (Leipzig, 1928). Cf. Kraus, Biblische Theologie, pp.
181f.
164Kiimmel, History, p. 197.
165Zahn, Grundriss der ntl. Theologie, p. 1.
166Tbid.
BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 39

the Baptist, who is the embodiment of prophetic pre-

diction and at the same time the “fulfillment of the
promise that points to the final divine revelation and
the opener of the final epoch of salvation history.”
Zahn followed in his presentation the “concept-of-
doctrine” (Lehrbegriff) approach,’ but only rarely
goes back to the OT.
The place of Adolf Schlatter’ in the spectrum
of the development of NT theology is debated by
some.!” Schlatter “is perhaps the only ‘conservative’
New Testament scholar since Bengel who can be rated
in the same class but not school as Baur, Wrede,
Bousset and Bultmann.”!7! We include Schlatter in the
group of scholars associated with the general rubric
of salvation history (Heilsgeschichte) because he is
to be associated with that movement. In his provoca-
tive essay “Atheistic Methods in Theology” (1905)*”
Schlatter rejects the atheism inherent in the modern his-
167P. 5.
168Merk (Biblische Theologie, p. 251 n. 137) claims that Zahn
is the last one to use this approach.
169A. Schlatter, Der Glaube im Neuen Testament (Darmstadt, 1885;
5th ed., 1963), which is called a “NT theology in nuce” (Bultmann,
Theology of the NT, II, 248); idem, Die Theologie des Neuen Testa-
ments, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1909-10), which appeared under the titles
Geschichte des Christus (Stuttgart, 1923) and Die Theologie der
Apostel (Stuttgart, 1922) respectively. Schlatter’s important program-
matic essay “Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments und die Dogmatik,”
Beitrage zur Férderung christlicher Theologie 13 (1909), 7-82, is re-
printed in A. Schlatter, Kleine Schriften, ed. U. Luck (Munich, 1969),
pp. 203-255, and in Das Problem der Theologie des NT (hereafter
cited as PTNT), pp. 155-214, Eng. trans. “The Theology of the
New Testament and Dogmatics,’ by R. Morgan, The Nature of
New Testament Theology, pp. 117-166 (hereafter cited as NNTT).
170Bultmann (Theology of the NT, II, 248) states that Schlatter
takes ‘“‘a place by itself in the whole development” of NT theology. O.
Betz claims that “Schlatter struck out on a line by himself” (IDB I,
436), but Goppelt puts him squarely within the line of the “salvation-
history” emphasis of NT scholarship (Theologie des NT, I, 47) where-
as Harrington (Path of Biblical Theology, p. 116) says surprisingly
that Schlatter produced “a less satisfactory alternative to the heils-
geschtchtliche position.”
17INNTT, p. 27.
172A. Schlatter, “Atheistische Methoden in der Theologie’ (1905),
reprinted in Kleine Schriften, pp. 134-150.
 40 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
torical-critical method and maintains that neither
culture with its world-view (Weltanschauung) nor
modern historical method is adequate for NT the-
ology. The methods which attempt to study the devel-
opment of Christianity on a purely historical basis
without the employment of the activity of God are
“atheistic.""* Thus Schlatter’s understanding of total
reality, including the divine, makes his “solution to the
problem of a New Testament theology unacceptable
to anyone who wishes to see it as a purely historical
discipline to be undertaken by the methods shared by
all historians.”'* This raises the fundamental question
of the goal of historical research.
First of all, Schlatter conceives of “the object of
New Testament theology which wants to remain a
science to be the New Testament word.”!*®> NT. the-
ology as such is restricted to the canonical writings of
the NT and does not include the entire literature of
early Christianity (contra Wrede and followers). The
Church was the result of NT proclamation and not
vice versa.'’* “The fact that New Testament history
and the word which witnesses to it is the ground of
Christianity’s existence is expressed by the fact that
the New Testament is its canon.”!”? Schlatter supports
a canonical NT theology because he considers all NT
documents as authentic (except 2 Peter).17
Schlatter is highly sensitive to the matter of histor-
ical objectivity. He strikes sensitive nerves in claiming
that “historical objectivity is illusory,” if NT theology
joins in all the debates evoked by philosophical
(rationalist, Hegelian, Kantian) questions as had been
173P, 139,
174Morgan, NNTT, p. 33.
175NNTT, p. 164.
W6NNTT, p. 120: “Since Christianity is based upon the New
Testament, the interpretation of the New Testament is an act which
touches its foundation.”
LUINNTT xp. 1120.
178Pp. 146-148.
179P, 123.
BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 41

the case. The position that the NT theologian works

as a historian who “explains” and “observes the New
Testament neutrally” means “to begin at once with a
determined struggle against it.”*° Why is this so?
Schlatter answers, “The word with which the New
Testament confronts us intends to be believed, and so
rules out once and for all any sort of neutral treatment.
As soon as the historian sets aside or brackets the ques-
tion of faith, he is making his concern with the New
Testament and his presentation of it into a radical and
total polemic against it.”!*! In rejecting the claim of
objectivity on the part of those using a “purely his-
torical” approach, Schlatter anticipated the debate
between the OT scholars O. Eissfeldt and W. Eichrodt
in the 1920s.**
The strictures advanced by Schlatter against a
“purely historical” approach to NT theology do not in
the least imply that he is insensitive to historical in-
vestigation. He defended NT theology as a historical
discipline against those who claim that an undertaking
that explains the NT historically “is fundamentally
irreligious.”'** “If history is excluded from God's in-
fluence on the grounds that it is merely transitory and
human, there exists no conscious relationship to God
granted us in our personal life.”’** Schlatter criticizes
on the one front liberalism’s understanding of history
as a closed continuum of causes and, effects which
leaves no room for transcendence,'*® and on the other
180P, 122.
181] bid.
1820, Eissfeldt, “Israelitisch-jiidische Religionsgeschichte und _ alt-
testamentliche Theologie,’ ZAW 44 (1926), 1-12; W. Eichrodt, “Hat
die alttestamentliche Theologie noch selbstandige Bedeutung innerhalb
der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft?” ZAW 47 (1929), 83-91; cf.
Hasel, OT. Theology, p. 32.
183NNTT, p. 151.
184P, 152.
185See the recent statement relating to the historian by R. W.
Funk, “The Hermeneutical Problem and Historical Criticism,” -The
New Hermeneutic, eds. J. M. Robinson and J. B. Cobb, Jr. (New
York, 1964), p. 185: “The historian cannot presuppose supernatural
intervention in the causal nexus as the basis for his work.”
 42 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
front a narrow orthodoxy that claims that God acts
beyond history and not in and through it. “So the
New Testament utterly repudiates the thesis that rev-
elation and history cannot be united, and this at the
same time destroys the view that historical research
is a denial of revelation.”'8* This statement can be:
read aright only if one keeps in mind that his under-
standing of reality has God acting in history. It is
quite to the point when R. Morgan'®’ observes that
Schlatter’s position has much in common with some
aspects of W. Pannenberg’s theological position'’® and
the latter's critique of the subsequent “theology of the
Word.”
Schlatter maintains that one must not go behind the
sources of the NT. “Historical thinking is not to
encompass beyond that which the sources reveal:
otherwise historical research turns into a novel.”18°
He takes his departure from the conviction that the
NT testimony is unified, in spite of all diversity, and
that faith is a presupposition for proper understanding
of the NT writings. The unity of the NT testimony
has a historical foundation in “the environment of
Jesus and his followers [which] was Palestinian Juda-
ism."°' With regard to the whole Bible Schlatter
declares the following:
The unity, which Scripture needs and has, consists in
that all her instructions join themselves to a united
whole. I cannot push aside one point without moving
the whole; I cannot cast way one point without losing
the whole; I cannot unite myself with one point without
taking the whole and being guided by the whole. . . .
ASEN NET Dov 152.
17NNTT, p. 32.
188W. Pannenberg, Basic Questions in Theology, 2 vols. (Philadel-
phia, 1970-71). Cf. Hasel, OT Theology, pp. 68-75.
189Schlatter, Theologie des NT, I, 11.
190See especially G. Egg, Adolf Schlatters kritische Position, gezeigt
an seiner Matthausinterpretation (Stuttgart, 1968), pp. 55, 64-66,
107f.
TOLPDp. Sob, iese1 25.
BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 43

And Paul who emphasizes the uniqueness of the NT

word in a most pronounced way takes up with utmost
vigor the apparently most distant member of the OT,
the law. In that he experiences with new power what
the law wants and brings about he arises in the full-
ness and freedom of faith.1%

L. Goppelt and H. J. Kraus are quite correct in seeing

in Schlatter’s approach a salvation-history concep-
tion.’ Schlatter stands before us as a giant who has
carefully considered the nature of the whole enterprise
of NT theology but whose views have not received the
attention they deserve. He is no narrow Biblicist.’*
He believes that apostolic authorship does not militate
against the possibility of a development of thought in
the NT. R. Morgan observes correctly, “Since Chris-
tian theology, as contemporary interpretation of the
Christian tradition, consists always in this ongoing
argument between conservatives and liberals or modern-
ists, the study of liberal Protestantism can usefully be
balanced by some consideration of Schlatter.” Schlat-
ter is a precursor of those for whom the “theological”
concern dominates.
An approach to NT theology which could hardly be
more different than that of Schlatter is the one out-
lined by William Wrede (1859-1906) in his program-
matic essay Concerning the Task and Method of So-
Called New Testament Theology first published in
1897.19 This essay makes Wrede the pioneer of the
192A. Schlatter, Einleitung in die Bibel (4th ed., 1923), pp. 481f.
as cited by Kraus, Biblische Theologie, pp. 177f.
193Goppelt, Theologie des NT, I, 47f.; Kraus, Biblische Theologie,
pias:
194Kraus (Biblische Theologie, p. 177) states that the kind of the-
ology of Schlatter is no ‘“‘Biblicism’’ because he does not separate the
act of thought from the act of life and is concerned constantly with
a present reception of what is historical.
193NNTT, p. 32.
196W. Wrede, Uber Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten Neu-
testamentlichen Theologie (G6ttingen, 1897), reprinted in PTNT,
pp. 81-154, Eng. trans. by R. Morgan in NNTT, pp. 68-116, under
the title ““The Task and Methods of ‘New Testament Theology’.”
 44 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
“religio-historical” phase!’ of NT theology which came
eleven years after the first OT theologies containing
the “history-of-religion” approach were published by
August Kayser (1886) and C. Piepenbring (1886) .1°8
Before we consider the major points of ‘Wrede’s
arguments, we should briefly consider the work of:
H. J. Holtzmann which had just appeared and was the
main object of Wrede’s attack.
The monumental two-volume Textbook of New
Testament Theology by Heinrich Julius Holtzmann
(1832-1910) appeared in 1897.1 R. Bultmann calls it
“a model of critical conscientiousness”2 and R. Mor-
gan “a classic of historical-critical scholarship [which]
rejected Weiss’s conservative views about authorship,
his isolation of the New Testament from the surround-
ing world of thought, and especially his view that
revelation could be presupposed by the discipline.”?*
Holtzmann follows the methodology of F. C. Baur but
leaves out the roughest of Hegelianism. He does not
wish to isolate the NT from its cultural environment,
but falls back to the “concept-of-doctrine” ( Lehr-
begriff) method and places the NT writers side by
side, more or less disconnectedly.*"? Holtzmann_re-
tained the traditional name of NT theology and
restricted himself for pragmatic and not for methodo-
logical reasons to the canonical writings of the NT,
but claimed that the “separation of the central and the
peripheral will be the unavoidable consequence _ of
every treatment of the biblical-theological problems
from the historical point of view.”2°? This procedure
leads to an atomistic method which is partially tradi-
197Harrington, The Path of Biblical Theology, p. 115, is totally
off the mark in his statement that “Wrede’s essay is the programm
e
of the heilsgeschichtlich school.”
198Hasel, OT Theology, pp. 29-31.
199H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Theologie,
2 vols. (Freiburg/Leipzig, 1897).
200Bultmann, Theology of the NT, II, 245.
201NNTT, p. 7.
202Merk, Biblische Theologie, p. 242; Kiimmel, History, p. 191.
203Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Theologie, I, 25.
BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 45

tional and partially critical. The doctrines of man, law,

sin, corruption, and revolution (conversion) are fol-
lowed by christology, redemption, and divine right-
eousness. The concluding chapters discuss ethics, mys-
ticism, and finally eschatology. “At every step it is
evident how unnatural is an arrangement of the ma-
terial which leaves out of account the connexions
inherent in the system.””°! In general Holtzmann holds
on to the notion that historical research in the field of
Biblical theology is a theological undertaking.
Holtzmann’s NT theology and his method of justi-
fying the theological task in the laying bare of that
which has lasting value make it evident that by the
end of the nineteenth century NT theology had de-
parted from the foundation of J. P. Gabler and G. L.
Bauer. Surprisingly Adolf Deissmann concludes in his
essay “Concerning the Method of the Biblical Theology
of the New Testament” (1893)°° that 100 years after
Gabler “there is no longer any doubt about the purely
historical character of NT theology.”*°* Deissmann, how-
ever, maintains that. one must not superimpose “con-
cepts-of-doctrine” (Lehrbegriffe) on the NT.’ The
historical nature of NT theology demands “in principle”
that it go beyond the canonical writings so that “the
appearance of a predetermined route is removed.”?°
The goal of NT theology is “to reproduce the religio-
ethical thoughts of early Christianity” which include
the following three major tasks: “First, to determine
the religio-ethical thought content of the age in which
Christendom arose and to which its Gospel is di-
rected”;?°® second, to determine “the unique single
formations of early Christian consciousness”;?° and
204A. Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters. A Critical History
(Schocken ed.; New York, 1964), p. 102.
205A. Deissmann, “Zur Methode der biblischen Theologie des Neuen
Testaments,’ ZTAK 3 (1893), 126-139, reprinted in PT NT, pp. 67-80.
206Deissmann, PT NT, p. 67 (italics his).
207Pp, 74-76,
208P. 67.
209P. 68.
210P, 73.
 46 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
third, to provide “the presentation of the total con-
sciousness of early Christianity.”2" The emphasis lies
on the latter, which means on the one hand that it is
unavoidable for the historian to strive for a systematic
presentation and on the other that there is “historical
justification for the attempt to demonstrate unity in’
the diversity of the classical witness of early Christian-
ity. Certainly there is no uniformity!”*!" The system
a-
tization of NT thought is the crown of the enterprise
as such. It is a “cross-section” under the headings
of
“God, man, sin, Christ, salvation.”2"3 °
William Wrede also combatted the “concept-of-
doctrine” (Lehrbegriff) approach in his epoch-making
essay written in 1897.°1* He is much less confid
ent
than Deissmann that Gabler’s program of Biblical
theology as a “purely historical” discipline has come
about. Wrede states emphatically, “Biblical theology
today iC AS noe vet’ inthe) trueand atrickbends a
historical discipline at all.”2"> Wrede “proclaims clearly
and consistently the autonomy of the _historical’21
°
approach. He rejects Deissmann’s third task of a
“cross-section” because it “would only be an abstrac-
tion of real history” and “we are not accustomed to
making similar demands for other areas in the history
of religion.”*"7 He attacks historical NT research of
the nineteenth century, particularly the Tibingen
School of F. C. Baur but also the theology of A.
Ritschl (1822-1889). The latter is said to build upon
211P_ 78.
212P_ 79,
213] bid.
214See above, n. 196. For assessments of Wrede’s
essay, see M. Dibe-
lius, “Biblische Theologie und biblische Religionsgeschic
hte II. des
NT,” Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart
(2nd ed.; Tiibingen,
1927), I, 1191-1194, esp. 1192f.; G. Strecker. “Willia
hundertsten Wiederkehr seines Geburtstages,” ZThK m Wrede. Zur
57 (1960), 67-
91; Kiimmel, History, pp. 304f.; Kraus, Biblische
Theologie, pp. 163-
166; R. Morgan, NNTT, pp. 8-26.
*18PTNAE, piesa NNT. per t'16:
“16K raus, Biblische Theologie, p. 164.
HEIN Tp, dae maces NNTT, p. 193 n. 96.
BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 47

historical foundations but abandoned these arbitrarily

when they conflicted with doctrine or the canon.
Wrede argued for a consistent application of the his-
torical-critical method, i.e., the NT writings must be
understood and interpreted solely on the basis of the
culture of their own times.?!® This means both that
the Reformation principle of the self-interpretation of
Scripture is completely rejected and that there is no
such thing as inspiration,® but that the historical
picture of early Christianity can be derived from the
three principles enumerated by “the dogmatician of
the history-of-religions school”*?? Ernst Troeltsch (1865-
1923), namely, historical criticism, analogy, and the
correlation between historical processes.”’ This affir-
mation leads Wrede to the declaration that the dom-
inating method of NT theology as manifested in the
works of F. C. Baur, B. Weiss, and H. J. Holtzmann,
ie., the method of “concepts-of-doctrine” (Lehrbe-
griffe), is to be rejected.” “So long as New Testament
theology retains a direct link with dogmatics as its
goal, and expects from it material for dogmatics to
work on—and that is a common view—it will be
natural for biblical theological work to have an eye
on (hinschielen) dogmatics. Biblical theology will be
pressed for an answer to questions from dogmatics
which the Biblical documents do not really give and
will be tempted to eliminate results which are trouble-
some for dogmatics.”?? Wrede gives the impression
218PTNT, pp. 108-123; NNTT, pp. 84-95. .
219PT NT, p. 83: “The old doctrine of inspiration is recognized by
academic theology, including very largely also those standing at the
‘right,’ to be untenable. For logical thinking there can be no middle
position between inspired writings and historical documents, although
there is in fact no lack of one quarter and three quarter doctrines
of inspiration.” The resultant corollary is the following: “Where the
doctrine of inspiration has been discarded, one can no longer main-
tain the dogmatic conception of the canon” (PTNT, p. 85). Cf.
NNTT. pp. 69f., with an inexact translation.
220Morgan, NNTT, p. 10.
221Troeltsch in Theologie als Wissenschaft, ed. G. Sauter, p. 107.
222PTNT, pp. 91-108; NNTT, pp. 73-84.
223PTNT, p. 82 (my trans.); NNTT, p. 69.
 48 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
that NT theology is an enterprise that has “an eye on”
dogmatics and receives its questions from it. Whether
or not this is so is quite debatable. In any case, Wrede
maintains that the scholar who works consistently with
the historical-critical method does not study the the-
ology or doctrine of a movement (early Christianity) -
but investigates and presents its “religion.”
Wrede’s “history-of-religions” method”*4 brought about
also a new assessment of the title of the discipline’ of
NT theology. Wrede points out as others had before
him that “the name ‘Biblical theology’ originally meant
not a theology which the Bible contained, but a the-
ology which has Biblical character, and got it from the
Bible. That can be set aside as irrelevant to us.”225
Kraus finds this irrelevance surprising, “for Wrede
projects nevertheless his own conceptions without
further reflection—as he thinks—into the ‘original
meaning of ‘Biblical theology’.”*26 Indeed the matter
is not quite as irrelevant as it is claimed. Wrede
proposes a new title for the discipline under the in-
fluence of G. Kriiger,?*’ because the name is controlled
by the subject matter. “The name New Testament
theology is wrong in both its terms. The New Testa-
ment is not concerned merely with theology, but is
in truth far more concerned with religion. . . . The
appropriate name for the subject matter is: early
Christian history of religion, or the history of early
Christian religion and theology.”228 This means that
NT theology in the widely practiced sense is dead.
In harmony with the renaming and transformation
of the discipline, the incisive task is defined by Wrede
*24Good discussions of the “history-of-religion” method and school
are found in S. Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-
1961 (London, 1964), pp. 157-190; Kiimmel, History, pp. 206-324;
Kraus, Biblische Theologie, pp. 160-169.
SPIN pe tos NNNG pels
226Kraus, Biblische Theologie, p. 165.
*27Gustav Kriiger, Das Dogma vom Neuen Testament, Programm
der Universitat Giessen (Giessen, 1896), p. 34. Cf. Merk, Biblische
Theologie, p. 245.
228PTNT, pp. 153f. (my trans.); NNTT, p. 116.
 BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 49

in answer to his own question: “What are we really

looking for? In the last resort, we at least want to
know what was believed, thought, taught, hoped, re-
quired, and striven for in the earliest period of Chris-
tianity; not what certain writings say about faith, doc-
trine, hope, etc.””*? The subject matter determines the
task.
On the whole it is not within the historical researcher’s
power to serve the church through his work. The theo-
logian who obeys the historical object as his master
is not in a position to serve the church through his
properly scientific-historical work even if he were per-
sonally interested in doing so. One would then have
to consider the investigation of historical truth as such
as serving the church. That is where the chief difficulty
of our whole theological situation lies, and it is not
created by individual wills: the church rests on history,
but history cannot escape investigation, and the investi-
gation of history possesses its own laws within itself.??°
History is thus autonomous. The theologian has as
“his master” none but “the historical object.” Kraus
emphasizes rightly, “Wrede announces an exchange of
masters. Until now the ‘concepts-of-doctrine’ were
masters; from now on history is the master.”?*! But
Wrede himself admits that “concepts must no doubt
play a leading role in NT theology. They are the
easiest part of early Christian religion for us to grasp,
and most of the results of the religious development
are summed up in them. Our discipline, however, is
not concerned with every single concept, but only
with the normative and dominant, and hence the
characteristic and indicative ones.”**? Wrede expects
from a NT theology that it “must show us the special
character of early Christian ideas and perceptions,
sharply profiled, and help us to understand them his-
229PTNT, p. 109; NNTT, pp. 84f. (italics his).
UPI NT .p., 90 atmy trans.) NN Ed. p.73:
*31Kraus, Biblische Theologie, p. 164.
232PTNT, pp. 95f.; NNTT, pp. 76f.
50 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

torically.”***? The new program of Wrede is thus (1)

29)

totally freed from church interests and from questions

raised by dogmatics, (2) supposedly disinterested in
theology as such, (3) fully committed to a consistent
historical methodology, (4) seeking to present the
religion of earliest Christianity, (5) bound to study:
the sources without regard to the canon, (6) attempt-
ing to show the special character of early Christian
ideas and perceptions, (7) describing “concepts” of
early Christian religion with a view to indicate devel-
opment, and (8) built upon the history-of-religions
approach.
How would Wrede structure his proposed “early
Christian history of religion’? “The first main theme
of NT theology is Jesus’ preaching,’*4 even though
“we do not possess the ipsissima verba [very words] of
Jesus.”**? This is to be followed by a description of
the faith and doctrine of the Jewish and Gentile
Christian communities. “Next comes a special chapter
on Paul.’* A section on “Johannine theology” will
form the concluding chapter.”
Wrede’s religio-historical program did not find its
realization in a publication of his own. He died in 1906.
But his influence was permanent. Heinrich Weinel
was the first to take up the new program in a work
which he surprisingly entitled Biblical Theology of the
New Testament (1911).°° The subtitle, “The Religion
of Jesus and Early Christianity,” reveals clearly its
religio-historical intention. He announces that “in place
of a Biblical theology of the NT there must be put a
history of the religion of earliest Christianity.”?*
Weinel puts greatest emphasis on the “religion of
233PTNT, p. 104; NNTT, p. 83.
224P EN ID. 1350 NNT Tp. 03k
235PTNT, p. 136; NNTT, p. 104.
236PTNT, p. 139; NNTT, p. 106:
237PTNT, pp. 147-150; NNTT, pp. 112-114.
238H. Weinel, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tubingen,
1911; 4th ed., 1928).
239P, 3.
 BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 51

Jesus” as an “ethical religion of redemption” in con-

trast to the “mythical religion of redemption,’?*° both
of which united in the “religion” of earliest Christian-
ity. The influence of Hegelian dialectics is apparent.
Weinel has also emphasized again the “special theo-
logical character” which was denied by Wrede.**! The
reason for this movement from description (recon-
struction) to interpretation (theology) was ultimately
caused by the “fact that a clear concept of faith and
religion was missing”’*? in the history-of-religions
school.?#?
Two years after the publication of Weinel’s tome,
Wilhelm Bousset’s (1865-1920) significant Kyrios
Christos (1913)*4* appeared, Bousset overcomes the
clearly delineated epoch of F. C. Baur through a
subtle history of the origin and development of the
religion of Christianity. The application of radical
tradition criticism reduces to a bare minimum the
picture of Jesus. Bousset claims that in many cases
Christians were mystery-worshippers before they were
converted. All that happened was the transference of
the concepts of the mystery-gods to Jesus of Nazareth.
The Kyrios of the early Hellenistic chuches is a power
which is present in cult and worship where the be-
lievers have sacramental communion with him. Thus
Paul or his successors transformed earliest Christianity
into a mystery cult. “Such processes take place in
unconsciousness, in the uncontrollable depth of the
total psyche of the community.”?*%
Karl Holl and L. Goppelt raise the question whether
240Pp. 130ff.
241Merk, Biblische Theologie, p. 247.
*42Bultmann, Theology of the NT, II, 246.
2433. Kaftan (Neutestamentliche Theologie im Abriss dargestellt
[Berlin, 1927]) also belongs to the history-of-religions school. He con-
ceives the religion of the NT as an “ethical religion of redemption.”
244W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos. Geschichte des Christusglaubens
von den Anfangen des Christentums bis Irenaeus (G6ttingen, 1913;
6th ed.; Darmstadt, 1967), Eng. trans. Kyrios Christos (Nashville,
1970).
245Bousset, Kyrios Christos, p. 99.
a2 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

the origin of the early catholic church has been really

explained by Bousset and the history-of-religion ap-
proach.**° “Why were Judaism and Hellenism rejected
as foreign elements, if, as has been declared here, the
early church has grown from them in historical con-
tinuity? The purely historical presentation is unable to’
explain this hiatus and thus the total picture, because
it makes historical continuity the presupposition.
Likewise the picture of early Christology is presup-
posed in the historical principle of correlation: The
redeemer myths of the surroundings are ‘transferred’
to Jesus!"**" It is evident that a “purely historical”
approach is not exactly identical with “pure objec-
tivity’ or objective science. E. Troeltsch had indeed
declared that the historical-critical method itself has
as its mental presupposition “a whole world view.”?*
This implies that historical research is always condi-
tioned by the current philosophy of the time.
Let us summarize. At the turn of the twentieth
century Protestant theology is represented in a rich
panorama, First, there is Franz Overbeck who leaves
voluntarily his professional chair for NT exegesis and
ancient church history at the University of Basel in
1897 because of the pure historical methodology which
led to his “basic unbelief.”*4® His radical unbelief
denies the theological task in a purely historical study
of the NT. Second, there is the history-of-religions
school with its program of a religio-historical theology
based upon a_ consistent historical-critical method
(Wrede, Troeltsch, Weinel, Bousset, etc.). And finally,
there is the incisive theological critique of the “purely
historical” method by Schlatter, an exiremely erudite
scholar with a solid interest in the approach of salva-
246K. Holl, “Urchristentum und Religionsgeschichte,’ Gesammelte
Aufsatze zur Kirchengeschichte (Tubingen, 1928), II, 1-32; Goppelt,
Theologie des NT, I, 31.
247Goppelt, Theologie des NT, I, 31.
248As cited by Goppelt, ibid.
249Kiimmel, History, p. 203.
 BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 53

tion history (Heilsgeschichte). Thus is reached the

time of the rise of dialectical theology.

D. From Dialectical Theology to the Present

In the period following World War I several factors,
including a changing Zeitgeist, brought about a new
situation in the theological world. R. C. Dentan points
to the following factors: (1) A general loss of faith
in evolutionary naturalism; (2) a reaction against the
conviction that historical truth can be attained by pure
scientific “objectivity” or that such objectivity is in-
deed attainable; (3) the trend of a return to the idea
of revelation in dialectical (neo-orthodox) theology;?°°
and to this may be added (4) the renewed interest
in theology as such. The historicism of liberalism?5
was found to be inadequate and new developments
were at the horizon.
The famous Karl Barth signaled a radical change
in both hermeneutics?” and theology. World War I
taught him the inadequacy of liberal theology. His
disenchantment was expressed in provocative words
in the Preface of his powerful commentary on Romans
published in German in 1918:
The historical-critical method of Biblical investigation
has its validity. It points to the preparation for under-
standing that is never superfluous. But if I had to choose
between it and the old doctrine of inspiration, I would
decidedly lay hold of the latter. It has the greater,
deeper, more important validity, because it points to
250Dentan, Preface, p. 61.
251See especially C. T. Craig, “Biblical Theology and the Rise of
Historicism,” JBL 62 (1943), 281-294; M. Kahler, “Biblical The-
ology,” The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge
(reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1952), II, 183ff.; C. R. North, “OT
Theology and the History of Hebrew Religion,” Scottish Journal of
Theology 2 (1949), 113-126.
*52F1.-G. Gadamer, “Hermeneutik und Historismus,” Philosophischer
Revue 9 (1962), 246ff.; J. M. Robinson, “Hermeneutic Since Barth,”
The New Hermeneutic. New Frontiers in Theology, eds. J. M. Rob-
inson and J. B. Cobb, Jr. (New York, 1964), pp. 1-77, esp. 22-29.
 54 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

the work of understanding, without which all prepara-

tion is worthless. I am happy not to choose between
the two, But my whole attention was directed to look-
ing through the historical into the Spirit of the Bible,
which is the Eternal Spirit.?5%
These bold strokes of Barth’s pen were part of what
gave birth to dialectical (neo-orthodox) theology
which raised the question of interpretation and _the-
ology in a new way. Barth emphasized the divine side
of the God-man relationship, i.e., God as the source of
revelation, and demands and practices a “postcritical
interpretation of Scripture.”** This means an interpre-
tation of the Bible which is not stuck with historical-
critical problems but penetrates to the witness of
revelation contained in the Bible.
A most dominating figure of NT studies in the
twentieth century emerges with and departs from
dialectical theology. Rudolf Bultmann’s scholarly career
lasted over six decades. He pioneered in both form
criticism’ and the program of demythologization,?*
253K. Barth, Der Romerbrief (Bern, 1918), p. v. (italics his). There
is an Eng. trans. by E. C. Hoskyns, The Epistle to Romans (London,
19353)8
254R. Smend, “‘Nachkritische Schriftauslegung,’ PARRHESIA. Fest-
schrift fiir K. Barth zum 80. Geburtstag (Zurich, 1966), pp. 215-237.
255R. Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (Gdt-
tingen, 1921; 2nd ed., 1931), Eng. trans. The History of the Synoptic
Tradition (New York, 1963); R. Bultmann and K. Kundsin, Form
Criticism. Two Essays on NT Research (New York, 1962). Bultmann
was preceded in the form-critical method by M. Dibelius, Die Form-
geschichte des Evangeliums (Tiibingen, 1919; 3rd ed., 1959), Eng.
trans. From Tradition to Gospel (New York, 1934) and by K. L.
Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Berlin, 1919). Impor-
tant assessments of this method of research are provided by G. Iber,
“Zur Formgeschichte der Evangelien,’ Theologische Rundschau 24
(1957/58), 282-338; W. E. Barnes, Gospel Criticism and Form Criticism
(Edinburgh, 1936); E. B. Redlich, Form Criticism, Its Value and
Limitation (2nd ed., Edinburgh, 1948); E. Giittgemanns, Offene Fra-
gen zur Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Munich, 1970) ; H. Koester,
“One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels,’’ Trajectories through Early
Christianity, eds. J. M. Robinson and H. Koester (New York, 1970),
pp. 158-204; D. Liihrmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle (Neukir-
chen-Vluyn, 1969); C. E. Carlston, The Parables of the Triple Tradi-
tion (Philadelphia, 1975).
 BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 55

and contributed to the debate about the new quest

of the historical Jesus,’ among many other things.
His work has brought about a flood of literature both
for and against his views.
Bultmann appears to have absorbed and combined
several major influences. First, he comes from the
“purely historical” direction of research, i.e., from the
history-of-religions school.** He remains within the
strand of “consistent eschatology.” He stands with
both feet planted in the historical-critical tradition.2®
Second, Bultmann adopts as his mental presupposition
the prevailing philosophy of his time in the form of

256R. Bultmann’s talk “Neues Testament und Mythologie” was orig-

inally presented in 1941 and is published in Eng. trans. “New Testa-
ment and Mythology,” in Kerygma and Myth, ed. H.-W. Bartsch (Lon-
don, 1954), I, 1-44. The early debate roused by this issue is collected
in the volumes Kerygma und Mythos, ed. H.-W. Bartsch of which an
Eng. trans. appeared in the two volumes of Kerygma and Myth (Lon-
don, 1954, 1962). See also the essays by E. Kinder, W. Kiinneth, R.
Prenter, G. Bornkamm in Kerygma and Myth, eds. C. E. Braaten and
R. A. Harrisville (Nashville, 1962), pp. 55-85, 86-119, 120-137, 172-
196. See also R. H. Fuller, The New Testament in Current Study
(New York, 1962), pp. 1-24.
257R. Bultmann opposed it in Das Verhdltnis der urchristlichen
Christusbotschaft zum historischen Jesus (Heidelberg, 1960; 4th ed.,
1965), trans. in The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ, eds.
C. E. Braaten and R. A. Harrisville (Nashville, 1964), pp. 15-42. The
latter volume also contains essays on the subject by E. Stauffer, H.
Conzelmann, H. Braun, C. E. Braaten, H.-W. Bartsch, H. Ot RA?
Harrisville, Wan A. Harvey, and S. M. Ogden. See also J. M.
Robinson, A .New Quest of the Historical Jesus (SBT, 25; London,
1959) ; K. Schubert, ed., Der historische Jesus und der Christus un-
seres Glaubens (Vienna, 1962); E. Fuchs, Studies on the Historical
Jesus (SBT, 42; London, 1964); Fuller, NT in Current Study, pp.
25-53; L. E. Keck, A Future for the Historical Jesus: The Place of
Jesus in Preaching and Theology (Nashville, 1971); G. Aulén, Jesus
in Contemporary Historical Research (Nashville, 1976).
2>8Bultmann, Theology of the NT, II, 250.
259See Johannes Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reich Gottes (G6t-
tingen, 1892; 2nd ed., 1900) and especially Bousset’s views which
Bultmann states were essentially correct (Glauben und Verstehen, I
[Gottingen, 1933], pp. 256f.). Cf. Kiimmel, History, pp. 226-244; G. E.
Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom. The Eschatology of Biblical Realism
(2nd ed.; Waco, Texas, 1970), pp. 3-38.
“60Bultmann, Theology of the NT, II, 250.
56 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

the existentialism of M. Heidegger,**' his colleague at

the University of Marburg from 1923 to 1928. His
attempt is to reinterpret the NT message (kerygma)
into the thought world of modern man, He seeks to
prevent modern man from making an_ existential
decision on the basis of the mythological language of
the NT. This means for Bultmann “to interpret the
theological thoughts of the New Testament in their
connection with the ‘act of living’—i.e. as explication
of believing self-understanding.”*” Bultmann, for ex-
ample, believes it possible to detect with historical
research that Jesus proclaimed “the eschatological
message of the irruption of God’s Reign” with the
certainty of the imminent end. This apocalyptic myth
must be demythologized, i.e., decoded and reinter-
preted. It means in existentialist terms “to direct him
[man] into his NOW as the hour of decision for
God.”?® Third, Bultmann seeks to combine the _his-
torical question with the theological one. He does
not wish to separate “reconstruction” from “interpreta-
tion” as O. Merk puts it,?** or to keep apart the “what
it meant” from the “what it means” in the terms of
K. Stendahl.?* Bultmann seeks to avoid the mistake
“of the tearing apart of the act of thinking from the
act of living and hence of a failure to recognize the
intent of theological utterance.”*®* This is where Bult-
mann departs from Wrede and the aims of a “purely
historical” direction of research. The goal of the latter
261Particularly as expressed in Heidegger’s Being and Time (New
York, 1962). First German edition 1927. An incisive discussion of the
influence of Heideggerian existentialism on Bultmann is by J. Mac-
quarrie, An Existentialist Theology: Comparison of Heidegger and
Bultmann (New York, 1955). See also J. M. Robinson and J. B. Cobb,
Jr., eds., The Later Heidegger and Theology, “New Frontiers in The-
ology I” (New York, 1963).
262Bultmann, Theology of the NT, II, 251.
263Vol. I, 21; cf. Kerygma and Myth, I, pp. 42f.: “Through the
word of Preaching the cross and resurrection are made present: the
eschatological ‘now’ is here. . . .”
264Merk, Biblische Theologie, pp. 257f.
265K. Stendahl, “Biblical Theology, Contemporary,’ IDB, I, 419.
266Bultmann, Theology of the NT, II, 250f.
 BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 57

direction of research is enlarged so that it may en-

compass the theological question. This is analyzed
at greater depth in the following chapter.
The so-called Bultmann School is presented with
variations and changes in some basic questions par-
ticularly by Hans Conzelmann, who is the only one
of the so-called Bultmannians to have written An Out-
line of the Theology of the New Testament (1967) ,?*
P. Vielhauer and his students Giinther Klein,?* Georg
Strecker,?® and Walter Schmithals.?”
The most significant reaction against Bultmann came
in the 1950s from his own disciples who are customar-
ily called the post-Bultmannians.?" The most impor-
tant of them are Ernst Kasemann, who formally
launched the new quest of the historical Jesus in
1953,°" Ernst Fuchs, J. M. Robinson,’ and Giinther
Bornkamm.*™ It is well to keep in mind that Martin
Kahler (1835-1912) was a forerunner of the new quest-
ers.°° The post-Bultmannians objected to Bultmann’s
claim that the Jesus of history was irrelevant for faith.
For some of the post-Bultmannians the historical Jesus
is the ground of the kerygma (Kasemann, Bornkamm,
etc.), while for others he is the ground of faith (Fuchs,
“67H. Conzelmann, Grundriss der Theologie des Neuen Testaments
(Munich, 1967), Eng. trans. (New York, 1969).
268G. Klein, “Das Argernis des Kreuzes,” Streit um Jesus, ed. F. Lor-
enz (Munich, 1969), pp. 61-71.
269G. Strecker, ‘Die historische und theologische Problematik der
Jesus-frage,’ EvTh 29 (1969), 453-476; idem, “Das Problem der
Theologie des Neuen Testaments,” PTNT, pp. 1-31.
270W. Schmithals, “Kein Streit um Kaisers Bart,” Evangelische Kom-
mentare 3 (1970), 76-85.
271W. G. Doty, Contemporary New Testament Interpretation (Engle-
wood Cliffs, N.J., 1972), pp. 28-51.
*72Published under the title “Das Problem des historischen Jesus,”
ZThK 51 (1954), 125-153; Eng. trans. E. Kasemann, Essays on New
Testament Themes (SBT, 41; London, 1964), pp. 15-47.
273See above, n. 257, for literature.
274See his Jesus of Macareeh (New York, 1960).
275In 1896 he published his book Der sogenannte historische jer
und der geschichtliche, biblische Christus (Leipzig, 1896); Eng. trans.
The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ (Phila-
delphia, 1964).
 58 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Ebeling," etc.). It has recently been stated that “the

failure to achieve clear results in the so-called new
quest of the historical Jesus has resulted in a scaling
down of critical expectations.”?77
In the early 1960s several post-Bultmannians,
notably E. Fuchs, G. Ebeling, J. M. Robinson, and
also R. W. Funk, 218 went beyond Bultmann’s feane
neutic,””” particularly his adoption of the existentialism
of the earlier Heidegger,”*° criticizing Bultmann’s
understanding of the way language functions. In
traditional hermeneutics the text is to be interpreted.
The new hermeneutic reverses this process. Man is
to be interpreted or addressed through the medium
of the text. An adequate discussion of the complexity
of the new hermeneutic would lead us too far afield.
Enough has been said to indicate that critical scholar-
ship has moved far beyond Bultmann and has seen
decisive weaknesses in his approach.?*!
The essay published in English in 1976 by a post-
Bultmannian who is a known member of both the
movement of the new quest and the movement of the
new hermeneutic is symptomatic of NT theology among
one of them. J. M. Robinson has given it the provoca-
tive title “The Future of New Testament Theology.”?*
He states that with Wrede “New Testament Theology

276Gerhard Ebeling, Word and Faith (London, 1963); idem, The

Nature of Faith (London, 1961); idem, Theology and Proclamation:
Dialogue with Bultmann (Philadelphia, 1966).
277H. C. Kee, “Biblical Criticism, NT,” IDB Suppl. (1976), pp. 103f.
278R, W. Funk, Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God (New
York, 1966). See above, nn. 261-276.
279A concise summary is provided by Doty, Contemporary NT In-
terpretation, pp. 28-51; P. J. Achtemeier, An Introduction to the New
Hermeneutic (Philadelphia, 1969) ; G. Stachel, Die neue Hermeneutik.
Ein Uberblick (Munich, 1968).
280Robinson and Cobb, eds., The Later Heidegger and Theology.
*81See the summary by N. Perrin, ‘““The Challenge of New Testa-
ment Theology Today,” New Testament Issues, ed. R. Batey (New
York, 1970), pp. 15-34, and the points of criticism mentioned by Doty,
Contemporary NT Interpretation, pp. 43f.
282See above, n. 5.
 BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 59
was brought to its end... .”°** “After many detours
and evasions we should simply concede Wrede to have
been right and hence deny any future to New Testa-
ment theology; we should . . . channel New Testa-
ment Theology into the less problematical discipline
of the history-of-religions. . . . Yet an exclusive con-
centration on the historical task, as the form of New
Testament theology suited to the twentieth century,
should admittedly be named ‘History of Primitive
Christian Religion, not ‘New Testament Theology’,.”2*
But Robinson feels that Bultmann opened up another
possible expanding front toward a future of NT. the-
ology. “This procedure, which actually points to the
new hermeneutic and its presuppositions in the philos-
ophy of language, . . . achieve [sic] important results
for New Testament theology.”®> On the basis of a
“cosmological” path, not an “anthropological” one as
in the case of Bultmann, NT theology can be carried
through “in terms of the otherworldly fanaticism of
the primitive congregation moving toward the Pauline
and Johannine unworldliness, but also to the Lucan
and Constantinian worldliness, a trend that was con-
stantly accompanied by a left wing of increasingly
gnostic flight from the world.”?8* Thus Robinson calls
for a “move beyond New Testament doctrinal con-
structs . . . into the movements of language that can
be interpreted in terms of alternatives in the modern
world, by extending them ‘theologically,’ ‘ontologically,’
‘cosmologically,’ ‘politically,’ etc.”28? Does this intended
renewal of the old program with an understanding of
history which is oriented on the totality of society and
the current philosophy of language not integrate the
NT into history in such a way that its significance
is removed through an a priori world view?2%®
83“The Future of NT Theology,” p. 17.
284P_ 20.
285] bid.
286P. 21.
287P, 22.
288See Goppelt, Theologie des NT, I, 40f.
60 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

The opposite direction from the one just summarized

is followed by Peter Stuhlmacher of the University of
Tiibingen, one of whose teachers was the post-Bult-
mannian EK, Kasemann. Stuhlmacher’s book Interpreta-
tion of Scripture on the Way to Biblical Theology
(1975 )**° contains his basic reflections and suggestions.
He deals extensively with the Bultmannian heritage
but concludes that “the integrating power of Bult-
mann’s hermeneutical scheme is largely exhausted,”
and points out in addition that “we do not yet have
the new hermeneutic which we are in need of.”?*!
This implies a No to the Bultmannians and _post-
Bultmannians. In contrast to them Stuhlmacher speaks
of a “hermeneutic of approval” (Hermeneutik des Ein-
verstindnisses )**” which is to contain ample room for
(1) the “inherent power of the word of Scripture’;
(2) the “horizon of faith and experience of the church”;
(3) an “openness for a meeting with the truth of God
which comes to us from transcendence”; and (4) an
“openness for the possibility of faith.”* He sees him-
self as holding a middle position as “one on the border-
line between kerygmatic theology, Pietism, and a
biblically oriented Lutheranism.”?"
It may be startling for some to note that Stuhlmacher
puts forth proposals toward a “Biblical theology of the
New Testament.” He follows the lead of OT schol-
ars (G, von Rad, W. Zimmerli, and esp. H. Gese) and
raises the question whether a NT theology “should
not again be projected as a Biblical theology, i.e. as
a New Testament theology which is open towards
the Old Testament and which seeks to rework the
connection of tradition and interpretation of the OT
289P. Stuhlmacher, Schriftauslegung auf dem Wege zur biblischen
Theologie (G6ttingen, 1975).
290P, 99.
291P, 48.
292Pp, 120-125.
293Pp. 125f.
294P, 61.
295Pp. 127, 138, 163.
 BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 61
and NT traditions.”*°> The center of such a Biblical
theology of the NT is the proclamation of reconcilia-
tion rooted in the message of Jesus Christ,2°7 because
“the message of reconciliation ( Vers6hnungsbotschaft )
lis] the determining center of Holy Scripture as a
wholes 27778
The positions of J. M. Robinson and P. Stuhlmacher
reflect in their conceptions of NT theology the radical
divergence of those coming out of the Bultmann
School. The program of the former seems to lead back
to the “purely historical” direction, whereas the pro-
gram of the latter leads closer to the so-called “sal-
vation-history’ movement of scholarship. Before we
return to the heilsgeschichtliche (salvation-historical )
approaches to NT theology, we must note also devel-
opments in Roman Catholic scholarship and_ those
approaches that are classified as representing the
“modern positive” tendency of NT scholarship.
Roman Catholic scholarship produced its first NT
theology in 1928. The French scholar A. Lemonnyer
presented in his The Theology of the New Testament?”
a thematic approach, This is also the method of the
popularly written The Theology of the New Testament
(1936) by O. Kuss.°° Much more significant works
appeared in the early 1950s. M. Meinertz published
in 1950 a two-volume NT theology*! which he had
finished already eight years earlier. Although he
discusses the relationship of NT theology to dogmatics,
296P, 138.
PtP D427 5 APD.
298P, 178.
299A. Lemonnyer, O. P., La Théologie du Nouveau Testament
(Paris, 1928), Eng. trans. The Theology of the New Testament (Lon-
don, 1930). A revised edition and enlarged by L. Cerfaux was pub-
lished in Paris, 1963. Cf. Harrington, Path, pp. 117f.
3000. Kuss, Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Eine Einfiihrung
(Regensburg, 1936). ?
301M. Meinertz, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 2 vols. (Bonn,
1950); idem, “Randglossen zu meiner Theologie des NTS? TRO 182
(1952), 411-432; idem, “Sinn und Bedeutung der neutestamentlichen
Theologie,’ Miinchener theologische Zeitschrift 5 (1954), 159-170.
62 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

he does not discuss the origin and development of the

discipline of NT theology. Jesus Christ has a unifying
role in the variegated theologies of the individual NT
writers. The record of divine revelation exhibits in
the different books of the NT a richness which finds
different forms of expression, but which is united in
the person Jesus Christ.°°
Meinertz has divided his volumes into four parts.
The first deals with “Jesus” in which John the Baptist
also figures as Jesus’ precursor.*°? The second part dis-
cusses the early Christian community (with Acts,
James, Jude).*** The third part with the teaching of
Paul is the longest,*”? and it is followed by the last
part on Johannine thought.*°° His concluding sentence
sums up the emphasis of his two tomes: “The living
Christ unites ultimately all the rays of the New Testa-
ments)?
J. Bonsirven presented his Theology of the New
Testament in 1951°°* and is also interested in a unified
presentation of NT theology. The task of NT theology
“is to bring together the revealed truths contained in
the New Testament, to define their meaning as the
authors understood it, and to attempt to classify these
truths in order of importance, so as to provide a basis
for Christian dogma.” This reveals an_ essentially
historical-descriptive approach which “follows the
chronology of history, not of the documents we are
drawing on.”3"°
Bonsirven also divides his NT theology into four

302Meinertz, Theologie des NT, I, 3f.

303T, 8-211.
304Pp, 212-247.
305JT, 1-254.
306Pp. 267-338.
307P, 346.
308J. Bonsirven, S. J. Théologie du Nouveau Testament (Paris,
1951), Eng. trans. Theology of the New Testament (Westminister,
Md., 1963).
309T heology of the NT, p. xiii.
310P_ xvi.
 BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 63

parts. The first treats Jesus Christ.*‘' The short second

one is on “primitive Christianity.”*’ The third discusses
the teachings of Paul,?* and finally comes a section
on the other apostolic witnesses under the headings of
theology, Christian life, and eschatology.*4
The modern Catholic Biblical movement was inaugu-
rated by the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943)
of Pius XII which instructed Roman Catholic scholars
to use modern methods in the study of Scripture. In
the mid-1950s faculty trained in the methods of Bib-
lical criticism moved in large numbers into college,
seminary, and university teaching positions. The Pon-
tifical Biblical Commission’s secretary stated in 1955
that now Roman Catholic scholars had “complete free-
dom” (plena libertate) concerning the decrees of 1905-
1915, except where they touched on faith and
morals.*” In the mid-1970s one can hardly speak of
any differences in the application of the methods of
Biblical criticism between non-Roman Catholic scholars
and Roman Catholic scholars. Two of the Roman
Catholic NT theologies written since the reorientation
of Roman Catholic scholarship use the thematic ap-
proach. There is the four-volume work of the German
Karl H. Schelkle (1968-1974) and the two-volume work
of the Spaniard M. Garcia Cordero (1972).3!° Aside
from these there have been studies on the nature and
method of NT theology by Rudolf Schnackenburg
(1961),*"* and Biblical (OT and NT) theology by
311Pp, 3-152.
312Pp. 153-189.
313Pp, 191-368.
314Pp, 369-405.
315R. E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises Facing the Church
(New) Yorke 1975); p.sdi11)
316K. H. Schelkle, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 4 vols. (Diis-
seldorf, 1968-74), Eng. trans. Theology of the New Testament (Col-
legeville, Minn., 1971ff.); M. G. Cordero, Teologta de la Biblia II et
III: Nuevo Testamento, 2 vols. (Madrid, 1972).
317R. Schnackenburg, La Théologie du Nouveau Testament (Bruges,
1961), Germ. trans. Neutestamentliche Theologie. Der Stand der For-
schung (Munich, 1963; 2nd ed., 1965), Eng. trans. New Testament
Theology Today (London, 1963).
 64 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Wilfrid Harrington (1973).*'* There are many highly

significant essays touching on all the major issues of
NT theology,*® but there is still no NT theology
written by a Roman Catholic which builds on modern
methods of Biblical criticism.”
There are several NT theologies which may be
loosely classified as belonging to the “modern posi-
tive” direction of NT theology. In its earlier stages
this direction was represented by B. Weiss, W. Bey-
schlag, P. Feine, F. Biichsel, F. Weidner, E. P. Gould,
and G. B. Stevens. E. Stauffer published his New
Testament Theology in 1941*? and explicitly points
to B. Weiss as the point of departure for his work.?”
318See above, n. 1.
319The essays by the following seem to be among’ the most impor-
tant: W. Hillman, ‘“‘Wege zur neutestamentlichen Theologie,” Wissen-
schaft und Weisheit 14 (1951), 56-67, 200-211; 15 (1952), 15-32,
122-136; C. Spicq, “L’avenement de la théologie biblique,” RSPT
35 (1951), 561-574; idem, “Nouvelles réflexions sur la théologie bib-
lique,’ RSPT 42 (1958), 209-219; F.-M. Braun, “La théologie bib-
lique,’ Revue Thomiste 61 (1953), 221-253; H. Schlier, “Uber Sinn
und Aufgabe einer Theologie des Neuen Testaments,” Biblische Zeit-
schrift 1 (1957), 5-23, Eng. trans. ““The Meaning and Function of a
Theology of the New Testament,’ Dogmatic vs. Biblical Theology, ed.
H. Vorgrimler (Baltimore/Dublin, 1964), pp. 87-113; A. Descamps,
“Réflexions sur la méthode en théologie biblique,’ Sacra Pagina I
(Gembloux, 1959), pp. 132-157; A. Vodgtle, “Progress and Problems in
NT Exegesis,” Dogmatic vs. Biblical Theology, pp. 31-65; D. M. Stan-
ley, “Towards a Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Modern
Trends in Catholic Biblical Scholarship,” Contemporary Developments
in Theology (West Hartford, 1959), pp. 267-281; A. Vogtle, “New
Testament Theology,’ Sacramentum Mundi (London, 1969), IV, 216-
220; K. H. Schelkle, “Was bedeutet “Theologie des Neuen ‘Testa-
ments’? Evangelienforschung, ed. J. Bauer (Wirzburg, 1968), pp.
299-312; P. Grech, ‘“‘Contemporary Methodological Problems in New
Testament Theology,” BTB 2 (1972), 262-280.
320 There are three short but significant essays on aspects of NT
theology in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, eds. R. E. Brown,
J. A. Fitzmyer, and R. E. Murphy (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1968):
D. M. Stanley, S. J., and R. E. Brown, S. S., “Aspects of New Testa-
ment Thought” (II, 768-799); J. A. Fitzmyer, S. J., “Pauline The-
ology” (II, 800-827); and B. Vawter, C.M., “Johannine Theology”
(II, 828-839).
321E. Stauffer, Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Gitersloh,
1941; 5th ed., 1948), Eng. trans. from 5th ed. New Testament The-
ology (London, 1955).
322Stauffer, NT Theology, p. 49.
 BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 65

Stauffer does not organize his work along the lines

of the chronological order of the NT writings or blocks
of writings, but chooses a systematic approach orga-
nized along theological themes. His material order
follows the line of “the Christocentric theology of
history in the New Testament.” This approach has
a basic “salvation-historical” outlook*”? and the method
is “strictly descriptive.”*’* Stauffer’s “theology of his-
tory’ leaves no room for the theology of the Synop-
tics,*"> or of Jesus, Paul, John, Hebrews, etc. His
method precludes a presentation of any historical
development. This is so much more surprising since
Stauffer does away with the canon as normative for
NT theology.**® He is thus the first to follow Wrede’s
demand, but not for the same reason. Stauffer seeks
to demonstrate that the “Christocentric theology of
history” is built upon “the old biblical tradition’”*?’
and moves on in a straight line to the theology of
post-NT Christianity.*** One looks in vain for a
justification of this procedure.*?® The beauty of the
unified picture of the NT with prior Judaism and
the later theology of Christianity appears at the ex-
pense of allowing the NT witness to stand by itself
over against earlier or later developments.
The American scholar F. C. Grant wrote in his
Introduction to New Testament Thought (1950) that
this study does not pretend to be a NT theology,3*
although he affirms that “there is a New Testament
theology, or perhaps several theologies, contiguous,
partly overlapping—like the spheres or monads in cer-
323S0 praised by O. Cullmann, Christ and Time (London, 1962),
p. 26 n. 9, as having ‘“‘a lasting merit.”
324Stendahl, IDB, I, 421.
325Schlier in Dogmatic vs. Biblical Theology, p. 98.
326Stauffer, NT Theology, pp. 44f., 73-79.
327P, 51.
328Pp,. 235-257.
329Merk, Biblische Theologie, p. 253; W. G. Kiimmel, ‘Review of E.
Stauffer, Die Theologie des NT,” TLZ 75 (1950), 421-426, esp. 425.
330F. C. Grant, An Introduction to New Testament Thought (Nash-
ville, 1950), pp. 43-46.
 66 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

tain pluralistic philosophies.”*?! “New Testament the-

ology was the theology of the growing Christian
Church, as reflected in the New Testament, not a fin-
ished product, but a theology in process.’**? He argues
that “a genetic organization of the theological data”
of the NT is out of the question. The arrangement that
is more serviceable is an arrangement of “areas of
thought.”**? Accordingly, the task is “not so much
of description as of interpretation.”*** In harmony with
these methodological considerations Grant proceeds to
develop the following “areas of thought”: “Revelation
and Scripture” (pp. 63-98), “The Doctrine of God”
(pp. 99-143), “Miracles” (pp. 144-159), “The Doctrine
of Man” (pp. 160-186), “The Doctrine of Christ” (pp.
187-245), “The Doctrine of Salvation” (pp. 246-267),
“The Doctrine of the Church” (pp. 268-299), and “New
Testament Ethics” (pp. 300-324). The basis for this pre-
sentation is that “there is a real unity in the New
Testament—we must never lose sight of that,” while
it is clearly recognized that “diversity involves some
of the basic ideas of New Testament theology.”
Whether Grant is responsible for the “breaking apart
of reconstruction and interpretation’**® because he is
said to identify the “descriptive method” with “inter-
pretation”**” remains an open issue.
The brief and popular study entitled Introducing
New Testament Theology by A. M. Hunter of Scot-
land is designed to be a guide to NT theology for
ministers and interested laymen. It reveals a more or
less historical approach to NT theology based upon
331Pp, 26f.
332P. 60.
333P, 24.
334P. 27. Merk (Biblische Theologie, p. 265) misinterprets Grant in
his claim that “interpretation” is to be defined as the ‘‘descriptive
method.”
335P_ 30.
336P. 51.
337This is claimed by Merk, Biblische Theologie, p. 265.
 BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 67

“the fact of Christ’*** which includes sections on “the

kingdom of God and the ministry of Jesus,” “the gos-
pel of the kingdom,” and “the resurrection,” followed
by “the first preachers of the fact,”3?° and concludes
with “the interpreters of the fact” in the form of Paul,
Peter, the author of Hebrews, and John.**° This “bril-
liantly clear book”**! is interested particularly in the
unity of the NT theologians without overlooking their
diversity,**” an attempt not surprising for a scholar
who wrote a book on The Unity of the New Testament
(1944 ) 348
The NT theologies of Alan Richardson (1958), F.
Stagg (1962), and R. E, Knudsen (1964)?4* were fol-
lowed on the Continent by a more rigorous “modem
historical” approach in NT theology by W. G. Kiimmel
(1969), J. Jeremias (1971, 1975), and E. Lohse
(1974). Stephen C. Neill’s Jesus Through Many
Eyes. Introduction to the Theology of the New
Testament (1976) is the most recent work in the
“modern historical” direction of NT theology. Most
of these NT theologies will receive more detailed
attention in the following chapter.
In a class by itself is the four-volume work of Mar-
tin Albertz under the title Message of the New Testa-
338A. M. Hunter, Introducing New Testament Theology (London,
1957; 2nd ed., 1963), pp. 13-61.
339Pp. 63-85.
340Pp. 87-151.
341Harrington, Path, p. 128.
342Hunter, Introducing NT Theology, p. 7.
343A. M. Hunter, The Unity of the New Testament (London, 1943),
Germ. trans. Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments (Munich, 1959).
3444. Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the New
Testament (London, 1958); F. Stage, New Testament Theology
(Nashville, 1962); R. E. Knudsen, Theology in the New Testament.
A Basis for Christian Faith (Chicago, 1964).
345W. G. Kiimmel, Die Theologie des Neuen Testament nach seinen
Hauptzeugen: Jesus, Paulus, Johannes (Gottingen, 1969; 2nd ed.
1972), Eng. trans. The Theology of the New Testament According to
Its Major Witnesses: Jesus-Paul-John (Nashville, 1973); J. Jeremias,
Neutestamentliche Theologie, 1. Teil (Gitersloh, 1971), Eng. trans.
New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus (New York,
1971); E. Lohse, Grundriss der neutestamentlichen Theologie (Stutt-
gart, 1974).
68 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
ment (1946-57.*4° ) In 1230 pages the former student
of T. Zahn and A. von Harnack strikes out on his
own path. He suggests that the traditional critical
introduction to the NT and the traditional historical-
critical theology of the New Testament need to be
recast in radically new ways.**7 The first two volumes
attempt to rework the field of NT introduction along
the lines of form criticism and carry the subtitle
“Origin of the Message.” The remaining two volumes
grow organically out of the first two and contain the
“Unfolding of the Message.” Albertz was stimulated
by W. Michaelis “to bring to a fundamental criticism
the entire traditional (critical) theology from the time
that it placed man, even the pious one, in the center
of thinking.”*** He argues against R. Bultmann’s pro-
gram of demythologization by stating that Bultmann
“does not derive the concept of myth from the NT”
but from “the scholarship of the 19th century” and
notes that “the Pastoral Letters would have taught him
that there are no myths in the church, and Paul would
tell him that Christ is no myth for him.”*4° That this
argument misses Bultmann’s usage of myth does not
need to be stated.
Albertz claims that “NT theology is a child of the
time of Enlightenment.” He criticizes the philo-
sophical approach of F. C. Baur, the method of “con-
cepts-of-doctrine” (Lehrbegriffe) as used by B. Weiss,
the religio-psychological approaches of A. von Hamack
and A. Deissmann, the religio-historical method of W.
Bousset and others, and the attempt to interpret the
346M. Albertz, Botschaft des Neuen Testamentes, 1. Band: Die
Entstehung der Botschaft, 1. Halbband: Die Entstehung des Evan-
geliums (Zollikon-Zurich, 1946); 2. Halbband: Die Entstehung des
apostolischen Schriftkanons (Zollikon-Zurich, 1952); 2. Band: Die
Entfaltung der Botschaft, 1. Halbband: Die Voraussetzungen der Bot-
schaft. Der Inhalt der Botschaft (Zollikon-Zurich, 1954) ;2. Halbband:
Der Inhalt der Botschaft (Zollikon-Zurich, 1957).
3477/2, 306.
348]T/2, 15.
3497/1, 10f.
35011/1, 15.
 BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 69
NT on the basis of a modern world view as is the
case in E. Stauffer and R. Bultmann.**! Thus the place
of a NT theology riust be taken by an “unfolding of
the NT message.” The schema for this unfolding is
provided in 2 Corinthians 13:13, which is the source
for the headings of the key sections: (1) “The Grace
of the Lord Jesus Christ”; (2) “The Love of God”:
and (3) “The Fellowship of the Holy Spirit.”
In view of the fact that Albertz comes from the
form critical school, it is not at all clear why he
can hold on to form criticism which is also influenced
by the Zeitgeist**? and disclaim the validity of other
branches of research which also reflect the Zeitgeist.
Another inconsistency is revealed in his condemnation
of the religio-historical approach and the fact that he
does not wish to do without the religio-historical
“Framework of the Message.” It is evident that
Albertz uses a highly individualistic approach. But
we agree with E. Fascher that “all this should not
hinder us to admit that this work is filled with sug-
gestions for future research, and the young genera-
tion can only be asked to come to grips with it.”?*4
Now we need to return to the salvation-history ap-
proach to NT theology. We had seen that the earlier
phase of the approach of Heilsgeschichte (salvation-
history) was associated with J. Ch. K. von Hofmann,
T. Zahn, and A. Schlatter. This line of approach is
most vigorously pursued through two major studies by
O. Cullmann.** The most recent Continental European
$51]T/1, 15-21. See also M. Albertz, “Die Krisis der sogenannten
neutestamentlichen Theologie,” Zeichen der Zeit 10 (1954),
370-376.
352See E. V. McKnight, What is Form Criticism? (Philadel
phia,
1969); J. H. Hayes, ed., Old Testament Form Criticism
(San An-
tonio, Tex., 1974).
353Albertz, Die Entfaltung der Botschaft, II/1, 22-64.
354E. Fascher, “Eine Neuordnung der neutestamentlich
en Fachdis-
ziplin?” TLZ 83 (1958), 618. See also Schnackenburg,
NT Theology
Today, pp. 38f.; Kraus, Biblische Theologie, p. 188
n. 87; Merk,
Biblische Theologie, pp. 262f.; Harrington, Path, p.
117. ;
3550, Cullmann, Christus und die Zeit (Zollikon-Zurich,
1946), Eng.
trans. Christ and Time (London, 1951); idem, Heil als
Geschichte:
Heilsgeschichtliche Existenz im Neuen Testament
(Tiibingen, 1965),
Eng. trans. Salvation in History (New York, 1967).
70 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
NT theology by L. Goppelt, posthumously published
in two volumes, also follows the salvation-history ap-
proach.*°* The well-known American evangelical schol-
ar George E. Ladd had his magnum opus published
in 1974 under the title A Theology of the New Tes-
tament, and C. K. Lehman, another evangelical scholar,
published in the same year his Biblical Theology, 2:
New Testament.** The works by Cullmann, Ladd,
and Goppelt will be discussed in the next chapter on
methodology.
An excellent description of the “Biblical Theology
Movement” in America from the 1940s onward is pro-
vided by B. S. Childs.*** His unique emphasis that
it was distinctly American has been challenged by
J. Barr who points out that “in Great Britain and on
the Continent the same broad _ tendencies existed, al-
though the setting was different.”*® The “Biblical
Theology Movement” included such features as (1)
opposition to philosophical systems, (2) contrast be-
tween Hebrew and Greek thought, (3) emphasis on
the unity of the Testaments, (4) uniqueness of the
Bible as against its environment, (5) reaction against
the older “liberal” theology, and (6) revelation of
God in history. Childs believes that “the end of the
Biblical Theology Movement as a dominant force in
American theology” came in 1963.?® Thus there is a
need for a new Biblical Theology. It must be clearly
recognized that in the thinking of Childs “the enter-
prise of Biblical Theology is a different discipline

356L. Goppelt, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 2 vols. ed. J.

Roloff (G6ttingen, 1975-76).
357G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids,
Mich., 1974); C. K. Lehman, Biblical Theology, 2: New Testament
(Scottdale, Pa., 1974).
358B. S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia, 1970),
. 13-87.
PP S597 Barr, “Biblical Theology,” IDB Sup. (Nashville, 1976), p. 105.
See also J. Barr, Old and New in Interpretation (New York, 1966) ;
idem, The Bible in the Modern World (New York, 1973).
360Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis, p. 85.
BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NT THEOLOGY 71

from either OT or NT Theology.”%*! This means that

in his understanding there are legitimate fields of OT
theology and NT theology. NT theology would be
“chiefly a descriptive enterprise” which is different
from Biblical theology. Childs maintains “that the
canon of the Christian church is the most appropriate
context from which to do Biblical Theology.”” This
writer has dealt elsewhere with Childs’ approach.*®
Since Childs is not directly dealing with NT theology,
it seems unnecessary to describe his proposals for
Biblical Theology here.
This historical survey has highlighted the origin and
checkered history of NT theology. Fundamental
issues remain unresolved and are the subject of a
continuing debate among scholars of various back-
grounds and schools of thought. We have attempted
to highlight the major roots in the present debate on
the nature, function, purpose, and limitations of NT
theology.

361A private communication cited in Hasel, OT Theology, p. 50

nw57%
362Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis, p. 99.
363Hasel, OT Theology, pp. 49-55.
Il. Methodology in NT Theology

The question of methodology is fundamental. It

was raised in a unique way by J. P. Gabler in 1787;*
his views were a powerful catalyst for future thought
and remain so today. The cluster of issues connected
with and surrounding NT theology (and Biblical the-
ology) have been debated in the past and are being
debated with unrelenting vigor in the present. The
complexity of the issues is compounded by the fact
that even those scholars who follow the same meth-
odological, approach to NT theology do not always
agree, sometimes even on basic questions. Then there
is a merging of methods. This fact makes it not only
difficult but also precarious to assign a particular theo-
logian to a given method. We shall proceed in letting
the issues of methodology arise by surveying four
1Johann Phillip Gabler’s inaugural lecture ‘‘Oratio de iusto dis-
crimine theologiae biblicae et dogmaticae, regundisque recte utriusque
finibus,” delivered at the University. of Altdorf, March 30, 1787,
marked the beginning of a new phase in the study of Biblical theology
through its claim that Biblical theology is historical in character [e
genere historico] in that it sets forth what sacred writers thought about
divine matters . . .” (in Gableri Opuscula Academica II [1831], pp.
183f.). Cf. R. Smend, “J. Ph. Gablers Begriindung der biblischen The-
ologie,” EvTh 22 (1962), 345ff. William Wrede’s programmatic essay
Uber Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten Neutestamentlichen The-
ologie (Géttingen, 1897), p. 8, Eng. trans. by R. Morgan, The Nature
of New Testament Theology (SBT 2/25; London, 1973), p. 69, em-
phasizes again the “purely historical” character of NT (Biblical)
theology.

72
METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 73

major, current approaches to NT theology, each repre-

sented by more than one scholar’s work.

A. The Thematic Approach

1. Alan Richardson. The presentation of NT the-
ology by Alan Richardson under the title An Introduc-
tion to New Testament Theology (1958) has been
hailed as “the greatest New Testament theology we
have.”
Richardson grants us a glimpse into his understand-
ing of NT theology in the Preface. He claims that
the only way to know whether “the apostolic Church
possessed a common theology and that it can be re-
constructed from the New ‘Testament literature” is
“to frame an hypothesis concerning the underlying
theology of the New Testament documents and then
to test the hypothesis by reference to the text of -
those documents in the light of all available critical
and historical knowledge.”? This is understood to in-
clude “historical, critical, literary, philological, ar-
chaeological,” and other methods. V. Taylor points
directly to the issue at stake in this methodology,
namely that Richardson’s hypothesis “is nothing less
than the claim that the events of the life, ‘signs’,
passion and resurrection of Jesus, as attested” by
the apostolic witness, can account for the “data’
of the New “Testament ‘better than any other hypoth-
esis current today.’ The hypothesis which Richard-
son defends is “that Jesus Himself is the author of
the brilliant re-interpretation of the Old Testament
scheme of salvation (‘Old Testament Theology’) which
is found in the New Testament, .. .° Thus one
2W. J. Harrington, The Path of Biblical Theology (Dublin, 1973),

s LC bithiipiat An Introduction to the Theology of the New ale

ment (London, 1958), pay.
4Vincent Taylor, ‘““The Theology of the New Testament,’ ET 70
(1958/59), 168.
5Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the NT, p. 12.
 14 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
expects a thoroughgoing historical study of the NT
data regarding the totality of NT faith in the historical
Jesus® of the kind known from the work of J. Jeremias.
This expectation is warranted from the approval of the
methods enumerated by him. This expectation, how-
ever, is frustrated. .
Richardson chooses to structure his book in sixteen
chapters. Here we touch upon the matter of the
nature of NT theology and thus the methodological
issue.- Although Richardson has informed us that “New
Testament theology, when written by Christians, will
necessarily begin with apostolic faith’? and claims in
the opening sentence of Chapter I, entitled “Faith and
Hearing, that “it is fitting to begin a consideration
of the theology of the New Testament with a study
of the fundamental concept of faith,”® he has not
explained why the subject of faith is more fitting for
beginning a NT theology than, let’s say, “the proclama-
tion of Jesus” or “the kerygma of the primitive com-
munity and the Hellenistic community,”!? without even
wishing to mention Bultmann’s “the message of
Jesus.""' One can hardly conceive that Richardson
wished to imply that a NT theology, written with a
different first chapter, is not “Christian.” Is Richardson
attempting to present a “Christian” NT theology rather
than a non-Christian one? This is to raise the meth-
odological issue of whether a NT theology in the
genuine sense can be written only by a believer. K.
Stendahl is known as a firm supporter of the descrip-
6Richardson (pp. 13f., 41-43, 135, 199, 362) engages in a running
polemic against R. Bultmann. See L. E. Keck, “Problems of New
Testament Theology,’ Novum Testamentum 7 (1964/65), 225f.
‘Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the NT, p. 11.
8P. 19.
9E. Lohse, Grundriss der neutestamentlichen Theologie (Stuttgart,
1974), pp. 18ff.
10So H. Conzelmann, An Outline of the Theology of the New Testa-
ment (London, 1969), pp. 29ff.
11R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (London, 1965),
IBee i
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 75

tive approach to OT and NT theology.” He affirms

that the
descriptive task can be carried out by believer and
agnostic alike. The believer has the advantage of auto-
matic empathy with the believers in the text—but his
faith threatens to have him modernize the material,
if he does not exercise the canons of descriptive schol-
arship rigorously. The agnostic has the advantage of
feeling no such temptation, but his power of empathy
must be considerable, if he is to identify himself suffi-
ciently with the believer of the first century.
Richardson wholeheartedly disagrees with Stendahl’s
position: “. . . apart from faith the inward meaning
of the NT is unintelligible.”* “Aproper understanding
of Christian origins or of New Testament history is
possible only |through | the insight" ‘of Christian faith.”
Thus Richardson opts for a presupposition of faith
for the“writing of a NT theology. This means for him
that “no pretense is made of remaining within the
limits of purely descriptive science. . . .”1° In view of
this position it is hardly acceptable to describe
Richardson’s method with O. Merk as a descriptive
method.’ We believe we are close to the truth in
suggesting that Richardson’s method is the “confession-
al method” which is also” “eniployed™ ‘in OT theology.**
~-A critical unresolved question regarding Richardson’s
confessional method relates to the issue of whether
12K. Stendahl, “Biblical Theology, Contemporary,” IDB, I, 418-432;
idem, ‘Method in the Study of Biblical Theology,” The Bible in Mod-
ern Scholarship, ed. J. P. Hyatt (Nashville, 1965), pp. 196-208.
13Stendahl, IDB, I, 422.
14Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testa-
ment, p. 19.
15P, 13.
16P, 12.
170. Merk, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments in ihrer An-
fangszeit (Marburg, 1972), p. 266.
18See Th. C. Vriezen, An Outline of OT Theology (2nd ed.; New-
ton, Mass., 1970); G. A. F. Knight, A Christian Theology of the Old
Testament (2nd ed.; London, 1964). See also R. de Vaux, “Peut-on
écrire une ‘théologie de ?AT’?” Bible et Orient (Paris, 1967), pp.
59-71.
 76 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

a NT theology should be written from the framework

of “Christian faith” or NT faith or my faith.1® Since
Richardson speaks of “Christian faith’ in an unde-
fined way, one is tempted to think of “Christian faith”
as understood by an Anglican.*° What claim to objec-
tivity does such a confessional theology of the NT
have? Does not an Anglican write a NT theology
valid for fellow Anglicans with the same understand-
ing of “Christian faith” and a Lutheran for Lutherans,

its independence over against_confessional_or_creedal,

domination. This does not mean that the descriptive
methodis the long looked for panacea for NT theology.
More on the issues relating to the descriptive method
below.
Let us return to the issue of the structure of Rich-
ardson’s NT theology. It is recognized by all that
every historian or theologian is subjective in the selec-
tion of his material.” But we are wondering about the
methodological structure of the following 16 chapters:
Faith and Hearing; Knowledge and Revelation; The
Power of God Unto Salvation; The Kingdom of God;
The Holy Spirit; The Reinterpreted Messiahship; The
Christology of the Apostolic Church; The Life of
Christ; The Resurrection, Ascension and Victory of
Christ; The Atonement Wrought By Christ; The Whole
Christ; The Israel of God; The Apostolic and Priestly
Ministry; Ministries Within the Church; The Theology
of Baptism; and The Eucharistic Theology of the New
Testament. This is a thematic structure. Are the order,
number, and sequence of these chapters determined
by “Christian faith” or the “Apostolic faith’? If “Jesus
Himself is the real author of the theology of the New
19Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current De-
bate (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich., 1975), pp. 39-42.
“0Keck, “Problems of NT Theology,” p. 237, speaks of Richardson’s
picture of Jesus as follows: “The Jesus who teaches everything Rich-
ardson attributes to him ... is a Christian theologian, probably an
Anglican.”
21$tendahl, IDB, I, 422.
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 77

Testament,“? does the thematic structure derive from

Him? Richardson’s thematic structure as such is not
the basic issue here, but rather (1) the lack of the
relationship of the chapters to each other, (2) the
omission of such important major NT themes as crea-
tion, man, law, ethics,** and (3) particularly the meth-
odological justification for the thematic approach.
Richardson speaks of the “underlying theology of the
New Testament documents” and “the content and
character of the faith of the Apostolic Church” which
should lead him to a presentation of the theology of
these documents and the faith of the Apostolic Church.
But this is not what the book presents. A NT the-
ology written with a thematic structure should find the
themes and motifs and their relationship to each other
in_the NT itself. Richardson did not seem to come
to his subject from “within” but superimposed _struc-
tures from without, even though he wisely refrained
from the “"Theology--Anthropology-Soteriology (God-
Man-Salvation) approach of dogmatic (systematic)
theology used by earlier NT theologians.
2. Karl H. Schelkle. The Roman Catholic Neutes-
tamentler Karl H. Schelkle from the University of
Tubingen, Germany, began to publish in 1968 a four-
volume Theology of the New Testament.” This am-
bitious project seeks to present “a unified New Testa-
#2A. Richardson, The Bible in the Age of Science (London, 1961),
p. 144.
*3This is particularly noted by W. G. Kiimmel, “Review of A. Rich-
ardson,’ TLZ 85 (1960), 922; Merk, Biblische Theologie, p. 266 n.
180.
24See esp. Keck, “Problems of NT Theology,” pp. 221-225.
25K. H. Schelkle, Theologie des Neuen Testaments I: Schépfung:
Welt-Zeit-Mensch (Diisseldorf. 1968), Eng. trans. Theology of the
New Testament I: Creation: World-Time-Man (Collegeville, Minn.,
1971); Theologie des Neuen Testaments II: Gott war in Christus
(Diisseldorf, 1973), Eng. trans. Theology of the New Testament II:
Salvation History-Revelation (to be published); Theology of the New
Testament III: Morality (Collegeville, Minn., 1973); Theologie des
Neuen Testaments IV: Reich-Kirche- Vollendung (Diisseldorf, 1974),
Eng. trans. Theology of the New Testament IV: The Rule of God-
Church-Eschatology (to be published).
 78 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
ment theology.’ Schelkle’s methodology does not
“follow the historical development of the Kergyma and
reflection as found within the structure of the New
Testament itself.” Instead, he pursues “more weighty
words, concepts, and themes through the New Tes-
tament, and to describe in systematic summarization
what is to be thought of their actual formation and
meaning in the individual writings and groups of
writings which comprise the New Testament.”2? Thus
he follows a path which was already considered by
J. P. Gabler,” suggested by A. Deissmann?® and not
ruled out even by W. Wrede who did not think, how-
ever, that this was a part of- NT theology proper.
Surprisingly, Schelkle waits until the opening section
of his third volume to discuss his understanding of
the methodology, nature, and purpose of NT the-
ology.*' “The theology of the New Testament
can be defined as ‘word about God’ on the basis of
the word in which God reveals himself in the new
covenant—which, indeed, assimilates to itself the old
covenant—and which word is set down in the book
6Theology of the NT, III, p. v.
27T, p. v.
*8Gabler in Gableri Opuscula Academica II (1831), 185i. 1898.
Cf. Merk, Biblische Theologie, pp. 277, 279f.
“9A. Deissmann, ‘Zur Methode der biblischen Theologie des Neuen
Testaments,’ ZThAK 3 (1893), 137-139; reprinted in Das Problem der
Theologie des Neuen Testaments, ed. G. Strecker (Darmstadt, 1975),
pp. 78f. (Hereafter cited as PT NT.)
30W. Wrede, Uber Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten Neutesta-
mentlichen Theologie (Gottingen, 1897), reprinted in PTNT, p. 95
n. 18, Eng. trans. “The Task and Method of ‘New Testament The-
ology’,” in R. Morgan, The Nature of New Testament Theology (SBT
2/25; London, 1973), p. 186 n. 19: “Alongside ‘New Testament the-
ology’, a special ‘history of New Testament or early Christian con-
cepts’ would be a valuable and desirable supplement. This would
investigate the historical origin or the most important concepts of the
New Testament; it would discover the changes they have undergone
and the historical reasons for them, and also illuminate their influ-
ence. The task has many points of contact with New Testament the-
ology, but is quite different from it.”
%1This is a slightly modified version of his essay “Was bedeutet
‘Theologie des Neuen Testaments’?”’ Evangelienforschung, ed. J. Bauer
(Graz/Wien/Kéln, 1968), pp. 299-312.
METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 79

of the New Testament as attestation to this revela-

tion.” On the basis of this definition one would
expect that NT theology is per definition restricted
to the canon of the NT writings. Indeed, Schelkle
affirms that the “source of the New Testament theology
is contained in the canon of the New Testament,” but
he is quick to add, “the writings of the Fathers of the
Church, especially the earlier Fathers, are to be con-
sidered along with them.”*? Schelkle has not justified
this procedure. On the one hand he holds on to the
NT canon as the “source” for NT theology, thereby
separating himself from a purely or thoroughgoing
historical presentation along the lines of Wrede and
his followers, and on the other hand he wishes to
consider the early Fathers of the Church along with
the authors of the NT. This methodological procedure
raises the question to what degree the NT can stand
on its own feet and to what degree it is read through
the eyes of the early Fathers of the Church. Or to
put it differently, to what degree is Schelkle’s method
permitting him to present “the more weighty words,
concepts, and themes’** as those of the NT itself?
Is his method not asking for a religionsgeschichtliche
(history-of-religions )approach of presenting “the more
weighty words, concepts, and themes” of early Chris-
tian literature as a whole?
Does Schelkle conceive of his NT theology as fol-
lowing the descriptive approach? His answer is ex-
plicit: “New Testament theology will not only de-
scribe the New Testament report but will interpret
it."*> Here is a dual approach: description and inter-
pretation. In this respect Schelkle differs from the
descriptive approach to NT theology as advocated by
K. Stendahl*® who follows the tradition of Gabler-
32Theology of the NT, III, 3.
33P, 9.
34Pp. 10f.
SUP 17:
36Stendahl, IDB, I, 422.
80 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Bauer-Wrede. Schelkle speaks of the descriptive

aspect in terms of an attempt to “inquire after its
content and the purposes of the forms of its declara-
tions, which forms are perhaps unfamiliar to us.”** The
aspect of interpretation seeks to “relate the New Tes-
tament declarations to our modern questions and _ to
our time.”** It would be entirely wrong to read
Schelkle’s aspect of “interpretation” in terms of Bult-
mannian existentialist interpretation. Schelkle views NT
theology as a preparation for dogmatic theology. Inter-
pretation is that facet of NT theology which “makes
clearly intelligible what is contained therein [NT] and
continues and correlates what was begun therein.”*
Interpretation, then, involves a correlation of NT
thoughts that need to be related to modern questions
and to modern times.
Schelkle is highly sensitive to the issue of the unity
of the NT and the unity of the Bible. “An exposition
of the New Testament theology, though it cannot erase
the differences in the separate writings, will neverthe-
less have the duty, and pursue the goal, of recognizing
and displaying the unity of the New Testament within
its very diversity.“ Even though there are “distinct
theologies of the Synoptics, of Paul, and of John, still
it is one theology, the New Testament theology. .. .
The New Testament writings asa group are bound
together in unity by two very real facts: they all
revolve about Jesus Christ, and they all have their
origin in the Church.”*' Regarding the former fact
Schelkle declares; “If Christ is really the Word of
God (John 1:1), then he is not only part, but the
very center of New Testament theology.”*? At this
point we need to remind ourselves that Schelkle seeks
37Schelkle, Theology of the NT, III, 17.
38T bid.
39Tbid.
40Pp. 10f.
41P, 8.
42P. 17,
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 81

to present “a unified New ‘Testament theology.”*%

Schelkle’s understanding of the unity of the NT is
the key to the thematic approach he adopts.
It is Schelkle’s conviction that
basically there are two possibilities which present
themselves in the drafting of a New Testament theology.
One possibility is to treat the epochs of the New Tes-
tament proclamation according to their leading figures,
each in a separate section; Synoptics, Primitive Congre-
gation, Paul, John, Late Apostolic Writings. . . . The
other possibility is to pursue ideas and themes of the
New Testament proclamation through to the end of
the New Testament, and to treat the areas of faith and
life comprehensively.**
Schelkle opts for the second one, (One may question
whether there are really only two possibilities.) The
thematic approach leads him to organize his NT
theology along four major themes, each of which is
treated in a separate volume: I. Creation (World,
Time, Man); II. Revelation in History and in Salva-
tion History (Jesus Christ and the Redemption; God,
Spirit, Trinity); III. Christian Life (NT Morality);
IV. God’s Dominion, Church, Consummation. It has
been observed that this organization follows “the tra-
ditional dogmatic loci.”* It is difficult to escape that
conclusion entirely. Schelkle leaves himself open to the
charge that he superimposes upon the NT a schema
from the outside. Although he seems to anticipate
this criticism, he has not cleared himself entirely.‘
The thematic approach has the advantage of letting
the unity of the NT appear.” It may be that very
48P. v.
44P, 21.
45P. Stuhlmacher, Schriftauslegung auf dem Wege zur biblischen
Theologie (Gottingen, 1975), p. 130.
46Schelkle, Theology of the NT, III, 15: “An arrangement and
systematization of New Testament theology cannot be imposed upon
the New Testament from without but must be extracted from the New
Testament itself. To apply modern systematic schemata to the New
Testament is to do violence to the latter.”
ATP. 21,
82 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

interest in the unity of the NT that has caused

Schelkle to opt for this approach.** However that
may be, one of the most novel aspects of the thematic
approach as practiced by Schelkle is the longitudinal
investigation of NT ideas and themes in their chro-
nological development in the NT witnesses. He is also
to be praised for the tracing of these ideas and themes
back to the OT.*° To highlight these connections be-
tween the Testaments” is to contribute to Biblical
theology which is rent apart since the separate treat-
ments of G. L. Bauer at the end of the eighteenth
century.

B. The Existentialist Approach

1. Rudolf Bultmann. It has been indicated previously
that Bultmann’s heritage lies in the “purely historical”
direction of research and that he is deeply rooted in
the history-of-religions school.°! This means first of
all that his historical roots are deeply grounded in the
historical-critical method of research.®? The second his-
torical root is found in Bultmann’s association with
dialectical theology in the 1920s, particularly K. Barth
and F. Gogarten. Out of this arose a powerful catalyst
in his raising the theological question. Bultmann was not
48Tt is no surprise that Schelkle is charged with a lack of apprecia-
tion for the NT’s diversity. See G. Haufe, “Review of ‘K. H. Schelkle,
Theologie des NT TI,” ThLZ 94 (1969), 9O9F.
49So rightly Merk, Biblische Theologie, p. 269; Harrington, Path,
p. 139; Stuhlmacher, Schriftauslegung, p. 137.
50From a different perspective the continuity between the Testa-
ments is also emphasized by F. F. Bruce, New Testament Develop-
ment of Old Testament Themes (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.,
1973); M. Burrows, An Outline of Biblical Theology (Philadelphia,
1946) ; and J. Blenkinsopp, A Sketchbook of Biblical Theology (Lon-
don, 1968).
51Here Bultmann’s well-known book Das Urchristentum im Rah-
men der antiken Religionen (Zurich, 1949), Eng. trans. Primitive
Christianity in Its Contemporary Setting (Edinburgh, 1956) has its
place.
52Rightly emphasized by his student G. Bornkamm, ‘Die Theologic
Rudolf Bultmanns,” Geschichte und Glaube I (Munich, 1968), pp.
157f.
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 83

satisfied with the historical issue, i.e., “the act of think-

ing.’ He and others before him (e.g., A. Schlatter)
believed that the NT writings “have something to
say to the present.”** This presupposition is rooted
in his understanding of history which is in broad con-
tours already spelled out in the Introduction of his
concise book, entitled Jesus, written in 1926,°°> which
builds on his famous History of the Synoptic Tradition
(1921).°° Bultmann “aimed to avoid everything be-
yond history and to find a position for myself within
history. ... For the essential of history is in reality
nothing superhistorical, but is event in time.”*’ Bult-
mann’s understanding of history and of human exis-
tence has led him to incorporate into his system
Heideggerian existentialism®* on the basis of which he
is the most adamant proponent of an “existentialist
interpretation.” Bultmann combines “historical recon-
struction” with “existentialist interpretation.”
“Existentialist interpretation” is closely bound up
and interrelated with his program of demythologiza-
tion.” The literature and scope of Bultmann’s program
of demythologizing the NT are so complex and
‘3Bultmann, Theology of the NT, II, 250f.
4 Pod 1.
5°R. Bultmann, Jesus (Berlin, 1926), pp. 7-18, Eng. trans. Jesus and
the Word (London, 1934; 2nd ed., 1958), pp. 11-19.
56R. Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (G6t-
tingen, 1921), Eng. trans. The History of the Synoptic Tradition (New
York, 1963; 2nd ed. 1976).
57Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, p. 14.
58The importance of Heidegger’s analysis of existence and Bult-
mann’s own philosophy of history comes to expression in Bultmann’s
Gifford Lectures of 1955 published under the title History and Es-
chatology: The Presence of Eternity (New York, 1957; 2nd ed., 1962).
59R. Bultmann, “Foreword,” in J. Macquarrie, An Existentialist
Theology (Harper Torchbook ed.; New York, 1965), p. vii, states,
“,. . the hermeneutic principle which underlies my interpretation of
the New Testament arises out of the existential analysis of man’s
being, given by Martin Heidegger in his work, Being and Time.” ©
60See Chap. I, footnotes 256f., 261. See on this subject also J. Mac-
quarrie, The Scope of Demythologizing. Bultmann and His Critics (New
York, 1960); R. Marle, Introduction to Hermeneutics (New York,
1967), pp. 32-66.
84 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

voluminous* that we limit ourselves, at the risk of a

one-sided presentation, to but a few representative
remarks taken from Bultmann’s original essay of 1941
entitled “New Testament and Mythology” and _ his
more recent Jesus Christ and Mythology (1958). Bult-
mann defines: “Demythologizing is an hermeneutic
method, that is, a method of interpretation, of exege-
sis.’** Demythologizing as a method of interpretation
is needed because “the cosmology of the New Testa-
ment is essentially mythical in character. The world
is viewed as a three-storied structure, with the earth
in the center, the heaven above, and the underworld
beneath.”® This view of the world, as assumed to be
correct, “is incredible to modern man, for he is con-
vinced that the mythical view of the world is obso-
lete.”"** Thus there are only two directions to follow
in Bultmann’s understanding, namely either one ex-
pects modern man to accept the Gospel message and
with it the “mythical view of the world” or “theology
must undertake the task of stripping the Kerygma from
its mythical framework, of ‘demythologizing’ it.”® This
does not mean for Bultmann that one should subtract
from the kerygma or eliminate from it. “Our task
to-day is to use criticism to interpret it,’ namely
“existentially.”**
Bultmann’s concept of “reconstruction” and “inter-
pretation” is basic for an understanding of his Theology
of the New Testament. He declares:
61An excellent review of ca. 500 publications on Bultmann’s herme-
neutic and theology is provided by the post-Bultmannian G. Born-
kamm, “Die Theologie Bultmanns in der neueren Diskussion,” The-
ologische Rundschau 29 (1963), 33-141, reprinted in Bornkamm,
Geschichte und Glaube I, pp. 173-275.
62R. Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology (London, 1960; New
York; 1958)3 p.*45.
63R. Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythology,” Kerygma and
Myth, ed. H. W. Bartsch (New York, 1961), p. 1.
64P, 3.
65] bid.
66P, 9,
67P..12.
68P. 10.
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 85
The presentation of New Testament theology offered
in this book stands, on the one hand, within the tradi-
tion of the historical-critical and the history-of-religions
schools and seeks, on the other hand, to avoid their *
mistake which consists of the tearing apart of the act <
of thinking from the act of living and hence a failure )
to recognize the intent of theological utterances.®
“Reconstruction” of the writings of the NT thus fol-
lows the canons of the historical-critical method and
the history-of-religions school but not to reconstruct
a picture of early Christianity as a phenomenon of the
historical past. “Reconstruction stands in the service
of the interpretation of the New Testament writings
under the presupposition that they have something to
say to us." “Interpretation” means to explicate “the
theological thoughts of the New Testament in their
connection with the ‘act of living’—i.e. as explication
of believing self-understanding.” In Bultmann’s view
this means that “the task of a presentation of New
Testament theology” is “to make clear this believing
self-understanding in its reference to the kerygma.””
Bultmann explains here that the coordination of
“reconstruction” and “interpretation” is the key for the
understanding of his NT theology. We have chosen
to deal with Bultmann’s NT theology under the head-
ing of “Existentialist Approach” because his presenta-
tion, as we hope to have indicated, belongs to those
NT theologies which are conditioned by a particular
philosophical system,” namely the existentialism of
the early Heidegger.”
On the basis of this background one can gain an
appreciation of the structure of Bultmann’s Theology
of the New Testament. Part I is entitled “Presupposi-
6°Bultmann, Theology of the NT, II, 250f.
HOR TZ 1
1 bid.
72N. A. Dahl, “Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments,” Theologische
Rundschau 22 (1954), 25.
73See J. M. Robinson and John B. Cobb, Jr., The Later Heidegger
and Theology, “New Frontiers in Theology I” (New York, 1963).
86 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

tions and Motifs of New Testament Theology” and

contains chapters on “The Message of Jesus,’* “The
Kerygma of the Earliest Church,’” and “The Kerygma
of the Hellenistic Church Aside from Paul.”’® Part II
takes us to the center of Bultmann’s presentation with
“The Theology of Paul’ with chapters on “Man Prior
to the Revelation of Faith’™* in which he treats anthro-
pological. concepts, including body, life, mind, con-
science, heart, flesh, sin, world; and on “Man Under
Faith’ which is divided into sections on the righ-
teousness of God, grace, faith, and freedom. Indepen-
dent of Pauline theology is Part III with “The The-
ology of the Gospel of John and the Johannine
Epistles’*’ with chapters on “Orientation,” “Johannine
Dualism,” “The ‘Krisis’ of the World,” and “Faith.”
The concluding Part IV is entitled “The Development
toward the Ancient Church,”*! which is divided into
church order, doctrine, development, and Christian
living.
This methodological procedure of presenting NT
theology reveals immediately its debt to the program
of W. Wrede*? and more directly of W. Bousset’s
Kyrios Christos*® whose division he follows with the
headings “The Kerygma of the Earliest Church,” “The
Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church,” “The Theology of
Paul,” and “The Theology of John” as exponents of
the kerygma of the Hellenistic church.
Bultmann opens his NT theology with the following
provocative sentence: “The message of Jesus is a pre-
74Bultmann, Theology of the NT, I, 3-32.
Pp. 33-62.
76Pp. 63-183.
T7Pp. 185-352.
78Pp. 190-269.
79Pp. 270-352.
80Vol. II, 3-92. In the German original this still is Part III.
81Pp. 95-236.
82See above, n. 1.
83W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos. Geschichte des Christusglaubens von
den Anfangen des Christentums bis Irenaeus (G6ttingen, 1913; 6th
ed.; Darmstadt, 1967), Eng. trans. Kyrios Christos (Nashville, 1970).
-_ METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 87
supposition for the theology of the New Testament
rather than a part of that theology itself.”** Probably
no one has stated the opposite to this sentence and its
implications more emphatically than Stephen Neill in
his recent NT theology: “Every theology of the New
Testament must be a theology of Jesus—or it is nothin
at all.”*° It has been noted quite correctly*® that Bult-
manns key sentence corresponds to the demand of
F. C. Baur as well as Baur’s concept of the presentation
_ of the message of Jesus.*? Bultmann’s form critical studies
of the Synoptics** and his book on Jesus from 1926 form
the basis of the presentation of Jesus’ message. In
other words the message of Jesus is reconstructed with
critical methodologies from the kerygma about Jesus
Christ, the crucified and risen One.
The critical reaction to Bultmann’s theology of which
his NT theology is an epoch-making climax has come
from many quarters. Bultmann’s views on the historical
Jesus and the kerygmatic Christ are the basis of the
current debate on this aspect of NT theology. In the
previous chapter we described the dissatisfaction with
Bultmann’s views among his own students such as E.
Kasemann, G. Bornkamm, H. Braun, J. M. Robinson,
E. Fuchs, and G. Ebeling,®® who are customarily called
“post-Bultmannians.” They may be considered to belong
to the center of Bultmann’s critics, These engaged in
the “new quest” of the historical Jesus to explore the
question of continuity between the historical Jesus and
the kerygmatic Christ.°
84Bultmann, Theology of the NT, I, 3 (italics his).
85S. Neill, Jesus Through Many Eyes. Introduction to
the Theology
of the New Testament (Philadelphia, 1976), p.
10.
860. Merk, Biblische Theologie, p. 254.
87See F.C. Baur, Vorlesungen iiber Neutestamentlich
e Theologie,
ed. F. F. Baur (Leipzig, 1864), pp. 45-127.
88See above, n. 56.
89Representative literature is cited in footnotes
257, 272-276 in
Chapter I above.
9°See the critique by N. Perrin, Rediscovering the
Teaching of Jesus
(2nd. ed.; New York, 1976), pp. 2336.
88 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

There are also “right wing critics”! such as K.

Barth, J. Schniewind, J. Jeremias, E. Ellwein, E. Kin-
der, W. Kiinneth, H. Diem, H. Thielicke, and P.
Althaus.*? The critics of Lutheran orthodoxy accuse
Bultmann of denying the objective factualness of such
redemptive events as the incarnation, atonement, resur-
rection, ascension, and second coming. Norman Perrin,
who distinguishes between “historical knowledge,”
“historic knowledge,” and “faith-knowledge,” points out
that
the attack upon Bultmann’s position from the right
seeks to establish closer links than Bultmann will allow
between historical knowledge and faith-knowledge. . . .
On the right we have the presupposition that the
Incamation or the Biblical concept of God active in
history, or the traditional view of Christianity as related
to certain revelational events in history, or the like—
that this demands a real and close relationship be-
tween historical knowledge and faith-knowledge, and
that justice must be done to this in our discussion of
the question of the historical Jesus.”

It is evident that here is a parting of the ways between

Bultmann’s existentialist hermeneutic of the correlation
91R. H. Fuller, The New Testament in Current Study (New York,
1962)... pel 6,
92K. Barth, “Rudolf Bultmann—An Attempt to Understand Him,”
Kerygma and Myth II, ed. H. W. Bartsch (London, 1962), pp. 83-
132; J. Schniewind, “A Reply to Bultmann,” Kerygma and Myth I,
ed. H. W. Bartsch (New York, 1961), pp. 45-101; J. Jeremias, The
Problem of the Historical Jesus (Philadelphia, 1964); E. Ellwein, “R.
Bultmann’s Interpretation of the Kerygma,” Kerygma and History,
eds. C. E. Braaten and R. A. Harrisville (New York, 1962), pp. 25-
54; E. Kinder, ‘Historical Criticism and Demythologizing,” :bid., pp.
55-85; W. Kiinneth, “Bultmann’s Philosophy and the Reality of Salva-
tion,” ibid., pp. 86-119; H. Diem, “The Earthly Jesus and the Christ
of Faith,” ibzd., pp. 197-211; H. Thielicke, ““The Restatement of New
Testament Mythology,” Kerygma and Myth I, pp. 138-174; P. Althaus,
Faith and Fact in the Kerygma Today (Philadelphia, 1959). It
should be noted that F. Gogarten, Demythologizing and History (Lon-
don, 1955) has come to the defense of Bultmann against the “right
wing critics.”
93Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, p. 239.
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 89
of reconstruction and interpretation and that of the
“right wing critics.”
Among Bultmann’s “left wing critics” are the Swiss
“liberal” theologian Fritz Buri, the German existen-
tialist philosopher Karl Jaspers, and the American
theologian Schubert M. Ogden.** Buri suggests that
Bultmann has not gone far enough in his program of
demythologizing. He has left the act of. God as a
remnant of mythology. The act of God in Jesus Christ
needs to be “dekerygmatized.” There is an inconsis-
tency in Bultmann’s proposal in that he properly
understands Christian faith as a transition from
inauthentic to authentic existence, but then maintains
inconsistently with the former a necessary link with
the historical Jesus in this process. Jaspers faults Bult-
mann for introducing an objective factor into an
existential movement where it has no place in main-
taining a link with the historical Jesus. Ogden faults
Bultmann, because “he completely nullifies his own
constructive proposal for a solution to the contem-
porary theological problem” in that he distinguishes
inconsistently between “possibility in principle” and
“possibility in fact.”°* Ogden maintains that a possi-
bility in principle is always a possibility in fact which
means the abandonment of the particularity of Chris-
tian faith.°’ Bultmann replied by questioning whether
the charge of “inconsistency” is not “the legitimate and
necessary character of what the New Testament calls
the stumbling block.””* The point the “left wing critics”
°4F. Buri, “Entmythologisierung oder Entkerygmatizierung?” Keryg-
ma und Mythos II, ed. H. W. Bartsch (Hamburg, 1954), pp. 85ff.;
idem, “Theologie der Existenz,” Kerygma und Mythos III, ed. H. W.
Bartsch (Hamburg, 1955), pp. 81ff.; K. Jaspers, R. Bultmann. Die
Frage der Entmythologisierung (Munich, 1954); idem, Philosophical
Faith and Revelation (New York, 1967), pp. 287, 324f.; idem and
R. Bultmann, Myth and Christianity (New York, 1958) ;S. M. Ogden,
Christ without Myth (New York, 1961).
Ogden, Christ without Myth, p. 215.
96Pp. 111 ff.
97Pp. 143, 151, 156, 160.
98R. Bultmann, “Review of S. M. Ogden, Christ Without Myth,”
Journal of Religion 42 (1962), 226.
90 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

attempted to drive home consists of the conviction that,

even if we may speak of God or the transcendent in a
meaningful way, “the essential relativity of all historical
events means that we cannot think in terms of a knowl-
edge of Jesus that is different in kind from knowledge
we may have of other historical persons.”®® This means
that Jesus is but a supreme example capable of being
imitated (Buri, Jaspers) or the “decisive manifestation”
of what is known also elsewhere (Ogden).
Bultmann’s presentation of Pauline theology is
rightly understood as the center of his NT theology.
He considers Paul to be “the founder of Christian
theology.""°° This means that “in relation to the
preaching of Jesus, the theology of Paul is a new
structure, and that indicates nothing else than that
Paul has his place within Hellenistic Christianity.”!
This distinction seems to reflect why Bultmann’s NT
theology employs largely the descriptive method in
dealing with the topics of Part I of his work while in
Parts II and III with the presentation of Pauline and
Johannine theology the anthropological interpretation
is used.’ Concerning Paul, Bultmann summarizes:
“Paul’s theology can best be treated as his doctrine of
man: first, of man prior to the revelation of faith, and
second, of man under faith, for in this way the anthro-
pological and soteriological orientation of Paul’s the-
ology is brought out.”!° Paul’s own conversion is in-
terpreted in existentialist categories of the early Hei-
degger as a surrender of “his previous understanding
of himself; i.e. he surrendered what had till then been
the norm and meaning of his life. . . . His was not
a conversion of repentance; .. . it was obedient sub-
mission to the judgment of God, made known in the
cross of Christ, upon all human accomplishment and
Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, p. 239 (italics his).
100Bultmann, Theology of the NT, I, 191
101P, 189.
102Stendahl, IDB, I, 420f.; C. E. Cox, “R. Bultmann: Theology of
the New Testament,” Restoration Quarterly 17 (1974), 157.
103Bultmann, Theology of the NT, I, 191.
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 9]
boasting. It is as such that his conversion is reflected
in his theology.”"* Bultmann considers “Paul’s theology
to be at the same time anthropology.” The method
employed to explicate this predetermined point of view
is a terminological analysis of such Pauline terms as
body, soul, spirit, world, law, death, righteousness,
grace, faith, and freedom.
Reactions to this approach of an anthropological
or existentialist interpretation of Paul vary. M. Barth
describes the end result of Bultmann’s methods in
presenting Pauline theology as follows: “Bultmann
describes Paul as the apostle of true self-understanding
and existence, in short, as an apostle of true existence.
Paul is made into an existentialist among the apostles.
But Paul calls himself without tiring an apostle of Jesus
Christ.”"°* Barth believes that even if the same letters
considered by Bultmann as inauthentic (Eph., Col.,
2 Thess., 1-2 Tim., Titus) were included in the Corpus
Paulinum, then there would still not come about a
revision of the presentation of Pauline theology by
Bultmann because he engages in “content-criticism”
(Sachkritik)*"" on the basis of which Pauline state-
ments on the Holy Spirit, resurrection, second Adam,

104P, 188.
105Bultmann, Theologie des NT, p. 187. The Eng. trans. ‘“Paul’s
theology can best be treated as his doctrine of man”
in Theology of
the NT, I, 191, is imprecise.
.
106M. Barth, “Die Methode von Bultmanns ‘Theolog
ie des Neuen
Testaments’, Theologische Zettschrift 11 (1955), 15,
107See R. Bultmann, Glauben und Verstehen I (4th ed.;
Géttingen,
1961), pp. 38-64; idem, “The Problem of a Theologic
al Exegesis,”
The Beginnings of Dialectical Theology, ed. J. M.
Robinson (Rich-
mond, Va., 1968), I, 236-256; idem, “Is Exegesis without
Presupposi-
tions Possible?” Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings
of Rudolf
Bulimann, ed. S. M. Ogden (New York, 1960), pp.
289-296. Bult-
mann’s notion of “content-criticism” is discussed by J. M. Robinson,
“Hermeneutic Since Barth,” The New Hermeneutic, “New.
Frontiers
in Theology II,” eds. J. M. Robinson and J. B. Cobb, Jr.
(New York,
1964), pp. 31-34; W. Schmithals, Die Theologie Rudolf Bultmann
s:
Eine Einfiithrung (2nd ed.; Tubingen, 1967), p. 251;
W. G. Doty,
Contemporary New Testament Interpretation (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.,
19/2). pp.. 21f:
 92 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
original sin, and knowledge are eliminated. This
procedure goes hand in hand with Bultmann’s concept
of pre-understanding’”® and interpretation: “There is
no bare interpretation of ‘what is there,’ but in some way
. . the interpretation of the text always goes hand in
hand with the exegete’s interpretation of himself.”1
The hermeneutical circle seems to imply more sub-
jectivity than should be granted.1"! Barth concludes:
“It is likely that only a method of research and presen-
tation is adequate for Paul if the witness of the apostle
concerning Christ (and not his philosophy of life) is
placed in the center of the questioning and descrip-
tion.”"'’ Barth wishes to put the Christological stand-
point into the center of the stage which is occupied
ee

by anthropology in Bultmann’s system.

This is not unrelated to the attempt of the Catholic
student of Bultmann H. Schlier, who has perhaps
moved furthest from his teacher.'? Schlier says, “To
my mind, the theology of the New Testament, when
dealing with St. Paul, will develop his theology as a
function of the Event, in whose basic traits he sees
comprehended the history and existence of mankind.
This is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the crucified
Lord, who has been exalted in view of his coming, so
that his being raised up was an eschatological or
final act.”"* In contrast to Bultmann, Schlier argues
for a presentation of the theology of the Synoptics
side by side with the theologies of Paul and John.2%
Instead of making Pauline theology the basis of NT
108Barth, ‘Die Methode,” p. 15.
109Bultmann, Existence and Faith, pp. 289-296.
110Bultmann, The Beginnings of Dialectical Theology, 1, 242.
111See the critique by E. Betti, Die Hermeneutik als Allgemeine
Methodtk der Geisteswissenschaften (Tiibingen, 1967).
112Barth, “Die Methode,” pp. 15f.
13H. Schlier, “Uber Sinn und Aufgabe einer Theologie des Neuen
Testaments,” Biblische Zeitschrift 1 (1957), 6-23, reprinted in PTNT,
pp. 323-344, Eng. trans. in Dogmatic vs. Biblical Theology, ed. H.
Vorgrimler (Baltimore, 1964), pp. 87-113.
4Schlier, Dogmatic vs. Biblical Theology, p. 90.
115P, 99,
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 93
theology (so Bultmann), Schlier proposes to make the
early Christian confessional formulae the basis of NT
theology, because “they are the primary utterance of
the revelation of Jesus Christ as it voiced itself.”116
Schlier, says E, Kaisemann, “turned his [Bultmann’s]
ideas down side up—or, as it is usually put, upside
down.”1!7
Bultmann’s former student H. Braun"® raised the
question of the possibility of a NT theology, because
the NT is no more than a series of disparate statements
about central theological subjects. He explicates his
view by discussing such subjects as Christology, sote-
riology, law, eschatology, and the doctrine of the
sac-
raments. Braun's thesis is as follows: “The authors
of the New Testament make statements dealing with
man’s salvation and with his relation to God which
cannot be brought into harmony with one another, and
which prove by their disparateness that their subject
matter is not what they state, expressis verbis, in mutual
contradiction.”"° The solution to these problems is a
more radical anthropological interpretation of God.
“At any rate, God would not be understood as the one
existing for himself, as a species which would only be
comprehensible under this word. God then means
much rather the whence of my being agitated.”12°
Braun has brought to a consistent conclusion his anthro-
pological interpretation of the appearance of Jesus and
the NT in his book Jesus.12" L, Goppelt assesses Braun’s
116] bid,
117E. Kasemann, “The Problem of a New Testament Theology,”
NTS 19 (1973), 240.
118H. Braun, “Die Problematik einer Theologie des Neuen Testa-
ments,’ ZThK Beiheft 2 (1961), 3-18, reprinted in H. Braun,
Gesammelte Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt
(Tubingen, 1962), pp. 325-341, and in PTNT,
pp. 405-424, Eng. trans.
“The Problem of a New Testament Theology,”
The Bultmann School
of Biblical Interpretation: New Directions?, ed. R. W. Funk (New
York, 1965), pp. 169-183.
119Braun, “The Problem of a NT Theology,” p. 169. 3
120Pp, 182ff.
121Ff. Braun, Jesus. Der Mann aus Nazareth und seine Zeit (Stutt-
gart/Berlin, 1969).
94 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

anthropocentricity in his essay and book as “a following

through to the end the path of historicism in which
NT theology is given up; .. . in terms of the history
of research it signals the end of an epoch.”!?? Even in
the eyes of the post-Bultmannian Kasemann “this
[Braun’s] kind of mysticism means bankruptcy and a
protest should be raised in the name of intellectual
honesty, when humanism is in this fashion taken over
by Christianity.”!”
No scholar belonging to the post-Bultmannian school
has as yet produced a NT theology. This does not mean
that interest in this is dead. J. M. Robinson has turned
to the subject in a provoking essay’** which was dis-
cussed in the previous chapter. Robinson seeks to
build on the “new hermeneutic” and its presuppositions
in linguistic philosophy and to exchange Bultmann’s
anthropological interpretation for a move “into the
language that can be interpreted in terms of alterna-
tives in the modern world, extending them ‘theologi-
cally, ‘ontologically,’ ‘cosmologically,’ ‘politically,’ etc.
... 1° Robinson wants to stay with the correlation of
“reconstruction” and “interpretation” or, as he calls it,
the “historical and the normative.” Over against
Robinson are some theses of E. Kasemann, who does
not speak of the twofold aspect of “reconstruction” and
“interpretation” in the Bultmann tradition. He explains
that “New Testament theology is . . . of necessity a
historical discipline. . . .”*°7 “In regard to method,
the different aspects and perspectives of eschatology
provide guidelines for New Testament theology. In
regard to content, they provide the backcloth for its

1221, Goppelt, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, ed. J. Roloff

(Gottingen, 1975), I, 38. See also his review of Braun’s book Jesus
in ThLZ 95 (1970), 744-747.
123Kasemann, ‘The Problem of a New ‘Testament Theology,”
pr 241:
124See Chapter I, footnote 3.
125Robinson, ““The Future of NT Theology,” p. 22.
126P, 20.
127K4semann, “The Problem of a NT Theology,” p. 242.
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 95

main themes in their successive stages of develop-

ment.”"** Kasemann does not go into detail regarding
the actual working out of a New Testament theology.
Norman Perrin has shifted more and more into the
camp of the post-Bultmannians and away from his teach-
er J. Jeremias.’*” Perrin criticizes Bultmann for not

away from their achievements.”"*° Perrin, however, has

finally come to agree with Bultmann (and with
Conzelmann) that Jesus is “the presupposition
of the
New Testament.”'*"
“The concern of a NT theologyis
thus not the historical Jesus, i.e., the “memory-image
of Jesus,” but. the _post-resurrection. “faith-image...of
Jesus," i.e., the historic Christ. This means that
Perrin cannot follow Jeremias, Kiitiimel, Goppelt, Neill,
and others who begin their presentation of NT theol-
ogy with the historical Jesus. Nor does he follow
Bultmann’s “crude hermeneutical method”!2* of de-
mythologizing. What Bultmann designated as Jewish
apocalyptic mythology is Jewish apocalyptic symbolism.
Perrin follows here particularly Paul Ricoeur’s!* and
128P, 244.
129This is evident in his recent publications; note especially his
Rediscovering the Teachings of Jesus (2nd ed.; New. Vork. 1976):
N. Perrin, The New Testament, An Introduction (New York, 1974);
idem, A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology (New
York, 1974); idem, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom (New
York, 1976).
130N. Perrin, “Jesus and the Theology of the New Testament,”
unpublished paper read at the Catholic Biblical Association (Denver,
Coles) Augiel$:2.1)51975)eip. 06.
131Perrin, The NT: An Introduction, pp. 5, 277-302.
132Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, pp. 243-248. Inde-
pendent of Perrin the American Van A. Harvey developed in his
book The Historian and the Believer (New York, 1966), pp. 265-
281, the designation “perspective image,” which is equal to Perrin’s
“faith image,’ a designation for the historic Christ.
133Perrin, “Jesus and the Theology of the NT,” p. 14.
134P. Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil (Boston, 1960); see now
“Paul Ricoeur on Biblical Hermeneutics,” Semeia 4 (1975), 1-148.
96 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
P. Wheelwright’s'* theories of symbol.° A genuinely
post-Bultmannian NT theology is based in Perrin’s
view on the philosophical work on the nature and func-
tion of signs and symbols. Perrin has already indicated
that he understands “Kingdom of God” on the lips
of Jesus as a symbol which functions by evoking a
myth, the myth of God active within the history of
his people on their behalf.'*? Perrin’s thesis is that
“the theology of the New Testament may be dis-
cerned as we follow the function of the Jesus figure,
the Jesus material, the Jesus story, within the different
theological systems represented by early Christian
apocalyptic writings and by the synoptic Gospels and
Acts."** Perrin feels that “a similar approach to the
theological systems represented by Paul, John, and the
literature of emergent Catholicism” can be_ taken.
The unifying factor “is the symbolic figure of Jesus,
who is the constant in all the different theological
systems developed in the New Testament.”!*° Would
Perrin reach a radically different “interpretation” than
that of Bultmann? His own prediction was that he too
would probably reach a position close to Bultmann’s
as far as the interpretation of the message of Jesus
into the twentieth century was concerned but “on the
basis of an understanding and interpretation of Jesus’
use of symbolic language, not on the basis of a her-
meneutics of demythologizing. . . .”4! If Bultmann
built his hermeneutic on demythologizing myth, then
Perrin built his hermeneutic on deciphering symbol.
If Bultmann’s NT theology is to be characterized by

135P. Wheelwright, Metaphor and Reality (Bloomington, 1962).

136N. Perrin, “Eschatology and Hermeneutics: Reflections on
Method in the Interpretation of the New Testament,’ JBL 93
(1974), 3-14.
137This is elucidated in detail in Perrin’s recent work Jesus and
the Language of the Kingdom.
138Perrin, “Jesus and the Theology of the NT,” p. 26.
139P, 26.
140P, 15.
141p, 14.
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 97
demythologizing myth, then Perrin’s proposed post-
Bultmannian NT theology could be expected to engage
in deciphering symbol. Whether or not the usage of
linguistic philosophy in NT theology will become as
much a battlefield as existentialist philosophy remains
to be seen.
2. Hans Conzelmann. Conzelmann is the only dis-
ciple of Bultmann to have published a NT theolo
gy;
his work is entitled An Outline of the Theology of the
New Testament and was published in 1967. In fact,
this is the first Protestant NT theology to appear in
Germany since the publication of Bultmann’s own NT
theology. Although it is generally agreed that in con-
tent he makes no significant advance on Bultmann,!
“
in methodology there are some distinct changes which
become already apparent, at least to some degree,
in
the structure of his work. An “Introduction”!4 deals
with the problem of a theology of the New Testament,
the Hellenistic and Judaistic environment, This
is fol-
lowed by Part I titled “The Kerygma of the Primit
ive
Community and the Hellenistic Community”
and
Part IH, “The Synoptic Kerygma.”"4° Conzelmann
deals
1421, Conzelmann, Grundriss der Theologie des
Neuen Testaments
(Munich, 1967), Eng. trans. from 2nd ed.
of 1963 An Outline of
the Theology of the New Testament (New
York, 1969).
143See the reactions by W. G. Kimmel, “Die
exegetische Erfor-
schung des NT in diesem Jahrhundert,” Das Neue Testame
nt im AUP
Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, T3270). Dp. lost
(GF Hasel, “Review of
H. Conzelmann, Grundriss der Theologie des
NT,” AUSS 8 (1970),
86-89; P. Stuhlmacher, “Neues vom Neuen
Testament,” Pastoral-
theologie 58 (1969), 4246 nae King, Mensch
werdung Gottes (Frei-
burg, 1970), p. 588; E. Giittgemanns, “Litera
tur zur Neutestament-
lichen Theologie,” Verkiindigung und Forschu
ng 15 (1970), 47-50;
M. Bouttier, “Théologie et Philosophie du NT,”
Etudes Théologiques
et Religieuses 45 (1970), 188-194, esp.
189f.; W. J. Harrington,
“New Testament Theology. Two Recent Approac
hes,” BTB 1 (1970),
173-184; Merk, Biblische Theologie, pp.
258f.; Kasemann, ‘The
Problem of a NT Theology,” p. 241; Robinso
n, “The Future of
NT Theology,” pp. 19f.
144Conzelmann, An Outline of NT Theolog
y, pp. 1-25.
145Pp, 29-93,
146Pp, 97-152.
98 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

with the “Theology of Paul” in Part III,"** but contrary

to Bultmann Part IV treats “The Development After
Paul,*** and then comes the theology of John."
The structure of Conzelmann’s NT theology as com-
pared with that of Bultmann, of which he says that
it “will remain basic for a long time yet, and the out-
line presented here betrays its indebtedness to him in
a number of places,’’® reveals three major changes
which have a distinct methodological significance:
(1) “The message of Jesus,” which is for Bultmann
“a presupposition for the theology of the New Testa-
ment rather than a part of that theology itself,”!*' is
totally omitted by Conzelmann. He insists “that the
‘historical Jesus’ is not a theme of New Testament
theology” in which he agrees with Bultmann but dis-
agrees with him in not considering it even as a pre-
supposition of NT theology. He does so on the basis
of “methodological consistency and as a result of the
exegetical basis to my approach.” “The basic problem
of New Testament theology is not, how did the
proclaimer, Jesus of Nazareth, become the proclaimed
Messiah, Son of God, Lord? It is rather, why did
faith maintain the identity of the Exalted One with
Jesus of Nazareth after the resurrection appear-
ancesP’!®3 (2) Conzelmann reverses the sequence of
the last two parts as compared with Bultmann’s work.
Several reasons are advanced for this: (a) To avoid
a value judgment that the movement towards the
“early church” was a retrogression; (b) the special
association of the Pauline literature with the post-
Pauline literature and the existence of a school of
Paul; and (c) the fact that the “apostolic” and “post-
apostolic” ages “are not so much a presupposition as
147Pp. 155-286.
148Pp, 289-317.
149Pp, 321-358.
150P, xv.
151Bultmann, Theology of the NT, I, 3.
152Conzelmann, An Outline of NT Theology, p. xvii.
153P, xviii.
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 99
an ingredient of New Testament theology.”"** This
means that Conzelmann seeks to be consistent in his
presentation of NT theology by elimination or reclas-
sifying presuppositions of NT theology. If he strives
for consistency, then what rationale has his first part
which reconstructs the kerygma of the Jewish and
Hellenistic communities? (3) Conzelmann advances
most markedly beyond Bultmann in his inclusion of
the content of the Synoptic gospels as being part of
the concept of NT theology. This is the direct result
of redaction critical studies done in Gospel research!®®
of which Conzelmann was a pioneer himself.* Un-
fortunately “his historical scepticism almost negates
the result.”!°7
Aside from these changes as reflected by the
structure or plan of Conzelmann’s NT theology there
are additional key issues that bear directly on method-
ology in NT theology. Conzelmann does to a degree
what Schlier said needed to be done,!** that is, he
seeks on the basis of the method of Traditionsge-
schichte (tradition history) to reconstruct “the original
texts of the faith, the oldest formulations of the
creed.” In contrast to Schlier’s approach Conzelmann
assumes an early Christian creed and refuses to make
any connection between it and the Synoptics. This
makes it possible for him to return to the Bultmannian
position, “that is, to regard the confessional formulae as
the objectification of the Christian self-understanding,
which in the subsequent process of interpretation is
154P_ xvi.
155See especially J. Rohde, Die redaktionsgeschichtliche Methode
(Hamburg, 1966), Eng. trans. Rediscovering the Teaching of the
Evangelists (Philadelphia, 1969): N., Perrin, What is Redaction
Criticism? (London, 1970).
156See H. Conzelmann, Die Mitte der Zeit (Tubingen, 1953),
Eng.
trans. The Theology of St. Luke (London, 1960).
157Harrington, “New Testament Theology,” p. 183.
158Schlier, “A Theology of the NT,” pp. 99-101.
159Conzelmann, An Outline of NT Theology, p. xv. See also
H.
Conzelmann, Theologie als Schriftauslegung. Aufsétze
zum NT (Mu-
nich, 1974), pp. 106-119, 131-151.
100 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

partly elucidated, partly made more uniform, and partly

distorted.”"®’ Objections to the reconstruction of an
early Christian creed come from several quarters. E.
Giittgemanns speaks of the reconstruction of the creed
as “a hazardous enterprise that is too risky in view of
the fragmentary nature of early Christian literature and
the poorly documented early Christian history which is
hidden in primitive historical darkness (F. Overbeck),
especially when this reconstruction is made into ‘the
foundation of the unity of the kerygmata.” A similar
reservation is voiced by Kasemann: “In my view an early
Christian creed is already excluded by the variety of
the existing formulae. It is not until the post-Pauline
period, and even there rather seldom, that we can truly
say that the New Testament authors see their task as
the explication of the confession.” The issue at stake
is whether the confessional formulae are considered as
objectifications of the self-understanding of faith or
whether Christology replaces the self-understanding of
faith as the focal point. Schlier seeks a broader basis
by including the Synoptics in the definitive tradition
and thinks in so doing primarily of the proclamation of
the incarnation, passion, and resurrection.’
In the previous lines we have observed how Conzel-
mann is able to return to Bultmann’s position despite
his different starting point. On the whole, it remains true
also for Conzelmann that theology does not ‘speak ob-
jectively about God and world; theology is anthropology.
Faith brings about a new self-understanding. Harrington
states, “All this is Heidegger, through the medium of
Bultmann; it is hot Paul, or John — or Jesus.”’* In any
case, Conzelmann shares Bultmann’s existentialist inter-

160Kasemann, ‘““The Problem of a NT Theology,” p. 241.

161Giittgemanns, ‘‘Literatur zur Neutestamentlichen Theologie,”
p. 49.
162Kasemann, “The Problem of a NT Theology,” p. 241.
163Schlier, “A Theology of the NT,” pp. 101f.
164Harrington, The Path of Biblical Theology, p. 197; idem, “New
Testament Theology,” p. 184.
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 101
pretation, But is he as heavily oriented to interpretation
as was Bultmann?
Conzelmann reverls a shift in the correlation of re-
construction and interpretation, This shift is one towards
reconstruction, i.e., the historical rather than the nor-
mative. Over against Bultmann’s time, in which there
was a need for strong emphasis on “interpretation of the
meaning of what was said and the message of the texts,”
Conzelmann feels that the “perspectives have shifted.”!®
Today there is “a new tendency towards historical posi-
tivism and relativism, The upward trend in which bibli-
cal scholarship delighted for decades itself proved to be
a piece of escapism —into the historical.”!°* Conzel-
mann seeks to counter this tendency towards historical
positivism and relativism by a tactic opposed to Bult-
mann, who emphasized “interpretation,” i.e., what the
reconstruction means for modern man as _ translated
through the philosophical medium of existentialism.
Conzelmann lays stress “on historical reconstruction, i.e.,
the presentation of the thought-world of the New Testa-
ment as conditioned by its time.”!®* This shift toward
the historical is a significant one for Conzelmann, who
remains fully committed to the Bultmannian correlation
of “reconstruction” and “interpretation.”!*° Conzelmann
seems to have the support of Kaisemann, who considers
NT theology to be “a historical discipline.” These
shifts in the Bultmannian camp reveal that NT theology
is in a state of flux even among those known to favor
the existentialist approach.
It should not be overlooked that the existentialist ap-
proaches of both Bultmann and Conzelmann fail to
represent the views of the NT as a whole. The existen-
Ualist approach ean only deal with such sections
“ofthe
_as are amenableto existentia
PRY eR OE RE interpret
list
EMAILS Ett Mm ation
165Conzelmann, An Outline of NT Theology, p. xiii (italics his).
166] bid.
.
167P, xiv.
168Robinson, ‘““The Future of NT Theology,” p. 19.
169Kasemann, “The Problem of a NT Theology,” p. 242.
 102 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Those sections of the NT which do not lend themselves

to this approach are undergoing “content-criticism” or
are left out of consideration altogether. The existential-
ist approaches of Bultmann and Conzelmann appear
to consider such NT documents as Hebrews, 1-2 Peter,
James, Jude, and Revelation as stepchildren unworthy
of attention. This raises other questions regarding the
adequacy of the existentialist approach.

C. The Historical Approach

1, Werner G. Kiimmel. There could be no sharper
contrast to Conzelmann’s thesis that “the basic problem
of New Testament theology is not, how did the pro-
claimer, Jesus of Nazareth, become the proclaimed Mes-
siah, Son of God, Lord”!” than the NT theology of Kiim-
mel published two years later (1969).‘"! Kiimmel does
not belong to the Bultmann School; instead, he repre-
sents the “modern historical” direction of research and
seeks to do precisely what Conzelmann believed is not
the basic problem of NT theology.
Kiimmel sets forth his task in concise words: “I shall
attempt to set forth the preaching of Jesus, the theology
of Paul against the background of the primitive com-
munity, and the message of Christ in the gospel of John,
in their essential features, and, on the basis of this pre-
sentation, to inquire about the unity which is exhibited
in these forms of proclamation.”!” The structure of his
tome reflects this task.'* Chapter I treats “The Procla-
170Conzelmann, An Outline of NT Theology, p. xviii.
171W. G. Kimmel, Die Theologie des Newen Testaments nach seinen
Hauptzeugen: Jesus-Paulus-Johannes (G6ttingen, 1969; 2nd ed., 1972),
Eng. trans. The Theology of the New Testament According to its
Major Witnesses: Jesus-Paul-John (Nashville, 1973).
172Kiimmel, Theology of the NT, p. 18.
173See the reactions by M. Hengel, ‘“‘Theorie und Praxis im Neuen
Testament?” Evangelische Kommentare 3 (1970), 744-745, esp. 744;
Giittgemanns, “Literatur zur Neutestamentlichen Theologie,”’ pp. 44-
46; King, Menschwerdung Gottes, pp. 588, 591; Merk, Biblische The-
ologie, pp. 259-261; Lohse, Grundriss der neutestamentliche Theologie,
Dt,
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 103

mation of Jesus According to the First Three Gospels”!

in which Jesus’ message is consciously placed at the be-
ginning of NT theology in order to show how the Pro-
claimer became the proclaimed One. Chapter II turns
to “The Faith of the Primitive Christian Community”!”
which sees things in a new light on account of the resur-
rection event. “The Theology of Paul” in Chapter III*"®
stands at the transition from the Palestinian apostolic
community to the later Gentile Christian community.
Paul is “the first theologian of Gentile Christianity” but
between him and the person and preaching of the
earthly Jesus there is not only a historical but also a
substantive relationship.1™
Kimmel differs radically in his answer to the question
of “Paul and Jesus” in which Bultmann!” (and Con- ~ -
zelmann) see a hiatus along the line of W. Wrede.®
Kiimmel maintains that Paul is a sound witness and
interpreter of Jesus. This does not, of course, mean
that there are no differences between them, but they
are not, at the core, only peripheral. It is concluded that
“Jesus and Paul are witnesses to the same historical 4
truth, but Paul only points backward and forward to “
the salvation brought by Jesus and expected from
Jesus.""** The theology of the Johannine writings is
treated in Chapter IV entitled “The Johannine Message
of Christ in the Fourth Gospel and in the Epistles.”}®
174Kiimmel, Theology of the NT, pp. 22-95.
175Pp, 96-136.
176Pp, 137-254.
17W7Pp. 244-254.
178See H. Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1957);
E. E. Ellis, Paul and His Recent Interpreters (Grand Rapids, Mich.,
1961), pp. 26-34; H. Ridderbos, Paul. An Outline of His Theology
(Grand Rapids, Mich., 1975), pp. 13-43. Also A. Schweitzer, Paul
and His Interpreters (New York, 1964), pp. 244f.
M79R, Bultmann, “Jesus and Paul,” Existence and Faith, pp. 183-
201.
180W. Wrede, Paulus (Tiibingen, 1904) (reprinted in K. H. Reng-
storf and U. Luck, Das Paulusbild in der neueren deutschen For-
schung [Tiibingen, 1964], pp. 1ff.), Eng. trans. Paul (London, 1908).
181Kiimmel, Theology of the NT, p. 254.
182Pp, 255-321.
 104 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
The Johannine writings present the activity and the
preaching of Jesus Christ “deliberately and consistently
from the perspective of the belief of the community of
the late period of primitive Christianity.”1* John “strictly
joins not only the person of Jesus but also the salvation
wrought by Jesus to God’s historical saving action in
Jesus Christ, and thereby proclaims Jesus and this salva-
tion as the eschatological salvation event.”!* In the final
chapter Kiimmel asks about the unity of the message
of Jesus, Paul and John with the title “Jesus-Paul-John:
The Heart of the New Testament.”!* Kiimmel affirms
that there is development of thought and that there is
not a straight-line continuation in every aspect of
thought, but the major witnesses of the NT sound forth
from them

one message in common, that in Jesus God, the Lord

of the world, has come to us. But this coming of God
can become a_ personal reality for us only if we so
allow ourselves to be grasped by God’s love that has
come to us in Jesus Christ that we become new persons,
who let our “light so shine before men that they may
see your good works and glorify your Father who is
in heaven” (Matt. 5:16).186

Kiimmel gives us the first NT theology in this cen-

tury in which the demand of A. Deissmann'** — and in
a somewhat different way of G. L. Bauer'®’ — comes to
the forefront, namely the matter of the unity of the
NT. Although Kiimmel is unable to answer the question
of the unity of the whole NT because his NT theology
is limited to the major witness of Jesus, Paul, and John,
he is followed in his procedure by E. Lohse, who con-
cludes his Outline of New Testament Theology (1974)
183P, 321.
184] bid.
185Pp, 322-333.
186P, 333.
187A. Deissmann, “Zur Methode der _ biblischen Theologie des
Neuen Testaments,’ PTNT, p. 79.
188Merk, Biblische Theologie, p. 260.
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 105

also with a chapter on “The Unity of the New Testa-

ment, 7°?
Is Kimmel committed to the correlation of “recon-
struction” and “interpretation” as we have met it in the
existential approach to NT theology? Kiimmel responds:
“The scientific concer with the understanding of the
New Testament must, precisely when it is pursued in
the context of the church and from the presupposition
of faith, take account of the fact that we also can come
to a believing hearing of the message of the New Tes-
tament only in one way: namely, by seeking to make
the utterances of the ancient authors of the New Testa-
ment understandable, just as their contempovary read-
ers and/or hearers could and had to understand them,”?2°
While for Bultmann and Conzelmann “interpretation” 4

is separate from reconstruction and to be achieved by

means of existentialism, Kiimmel unites reconstruction
and interpretation so that the latter is allied to the for-
mer, because “a great deal depends on whether one
pursues such research as one uninvolved and in con-
scious detachment, or as one inwardly involved and
hence as one who hears with ultimate openness.”! It
appears to be evident that Kiimmel is primarily inter-
ested in providing a moderate critical reconstruction
which often comes close to the positions of O. Cullmann
and largely relinquishes interpretation.’
2. Joachim Jeremias. The foremost representative of
the “positive-historical” direction of research is the in-
ternationally known scholar of the University of Got-
tingen, J. Jeremias. He became one of the foremost
critics of Bultmann’s approach of making NT theology
a “kerygmatic theology” and developed an “intensive
189Lohse, Grundriss der neutestamentlichen Theologie, pp. 161-164.
190Kiimmel, Theology of the NT, p. 16.
191Ibid. See also Merk, Biblische Theologie, pp. 260f.
192Goppelt, Theologie des NT, I, 44.
193A critical assessment is provided by J. S. Stewart, “The Christ
of Faith,” The New Testament in Historical and Contemporary Per-
spective. Essays in Memory of G. H. C. Macgregor (Oxford, 1965),
pp. 261-280.
 106 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
historical anticriticism”'* of which E, Kisemann noted
that the formerly “pietistic” direction has become his-
torically oriented and the formerly “purely historical”
direction is engaged in theology.'* The research of
Jeremias seeks to serve historical truth and to protect
the Word from docetic evaporation.!** He had already
gained international recognition for his work on the
parables and his studies on the eucharistic words of Jesus
_ and the Aramaic background of the logia of Jesus.1®7 In
all of this he was interested in the ipsissima vox Jesu
(very voice of Jesus),!°* in order to allow the man of
our time to hear the voice of Jesus as the contemporaries
of Jesus heard that voice.*® An understanding of this
setting in the contemporary scholarly scene is vital for
an appreciation and evaluation of the magnum opus of
Jeremias.
In 1971 Jeremias published simultaneously in German
and English the first volume of his New Testament The-
ology: The Proclamation of Jesus, of which it has been
194Goppelt, Theologie des NT, I, 43.
195E. Kasemann, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen (GOttingen,
1964), II, 32-41.
196], Jeremias, “The Present Position in the Controversy Concern-
ing the Problem of the Historical Jesus,’ ET 59 (1958), 333ff.; idem,
The Problem of the Historical Jesus (Philadelphia, 1964).
197J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (3rd ed.; London, 1972);
idem, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (2nd ed.; London, 1966);
idem, Abba. Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeit-
geschichte (Gottingen, 1966); idem, The Central Message of the
New Testament (New York, 1965).
198Jeremias writes in The Parables of Jesus, p. 9, the following: “It
is to be hoped that the reader will perceive that the aim of the
critical analysis contained in the second part of this book is nothing
less than a return, as well grounded as possible, to the very words of
Jesus himself. Only the Son of Man and his word can invest our
message with full authority.”
199Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, p. 114: “Our faith is to return
to the actual living voice of Jesus. How great the gain if we succeed
in rediscovering here and there behind the veil the features of the
Son of Man! To meet with him can alone give power to our preach-
ing.”
200J. Jeremias, Neutestamentliche Theologie I. Teil: Die Verkiin-
digung Jesu (Giitersloh, 1971; 2nd ed. 1973), Eng. trans. New Testa-
ment Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus (New York, 1971).
METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 107

said already that it “may prove to be the most important >

book written about the New Testament in the last fifty —
years.”*"' It may be said without hesitation that in this
work of Jeremias there is no correlation between “recon-
struction” and “interpretation” of the kind known from
Bultmann and his school. “Interpretation” is at best the
systematizing of the proclamation of Jesus as gained
through reconstruction of his words by means of a crit-
ical methodology.” This means that in all essentials
we have here an approach close to the “descriptive NT
theology” in the Stendahl tradition.*”
Chapter I carries the title “How Reliable Is the Tradi-
tion of the Sayings of Jesus?’?* It is concerned with the
problem of the historical Jesus, the very subject con-
sidered by Bultmann to be a presupposition of NT the-
ology and declared to be no part of NT theology at all
by Conzelmann. Jeremias is interested in investigating
“whether our sources are sufficient to enable us to bring
out the basic ideas of the preaching of Jesus with some
degree of probability,”°°’ which means the historical
reconstruction of “the pre-Easter tradition.”*°° This is
to be achieved by means of (1) the “comparative meth-
od” (“religionsvergleichende Methode”)”" which em-
ploys primarily the “criterion of dissimilarity” on the
basis of which “a sayingor a theme” can~be~ tested to
derive “either from Judaism or from the early church”;°®
and (2) the “examination of language.and_ style
2?

(“sprachlich-stilistische—Tatbestainde” ).2° These two

2018. Neill, Jesus Through Many Eyes. Introduction to the Theol-
ogy of the New Testament (Philadelphia, 1976), p. 169.
202Harrington, Path, p. 201, misses the real intent of the method-
ology of Jeremias’ NT Theology in his evaluation that it “is a badly
needed corrective to the scepticism of the existentialist view.”
203Stendahl, IDB, I, 422.
204Jeremias, NT Theology, pp. 1-41. It should be noted that this
title is not framed in the form of a question in the German original.
205P, 1.
206P. 3.
207P, 2.
208Tbid.
209P, 3.
 108 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
methods produce fairly certain results and permit a re-
construction of the ipsissima vox Jesu.2!° With regard to
the Synoptics “it is the inauthenticity, and not the au-
_thenticity, of the sayings of Jesus that must be demon-
| strated,”?11
Chapter II treats “The Mission of Jesus”22 with the
subheadings of “Jesus and John the Baptist,” “The
Call of Jesus,” “Handing on the Revelation,” “Abba
as
an Address to God,” and “Yes to the Mission.” In each
case he follows the method of inquiring for the sources,
the content, and the significance or meaning of the
re-
spective item, This pattern is not followed in Chapters
HI and IV which deal with the proclamation of Jesus
under the headings “The Dawn of the Time of Salva-
tion" and “The Period of Grace”2"4 respectively. Jere-
mias concludes, “The central theme of the public procla-
mation of Jesus was the kingly reign of God.”2%5 Chapter
V describes the personal appeal of Jesus’ message which
leads to the formation of “The New People of God”?26
as a remnant community of faith which worships God
without end. Jeremias demonstrates his methodology
in Chapter VI, “Jesus” Testimony to His Mission,”?"*
the
German title of which is more precise with “Das Ho-
heitsbewusstsein Jesu,” in which Jesus is shown to have
understood himself to be “the bringer of salvation.”228
Jeremias argues that the emphatic use of ego is without
parallel in the world of Jesus and thus supports an im-
plicit christology.?” “Son of man is the only title
used
by Jesus of himself whose authenticity is to be taken

210Pp, 29-37. See also J. Jeremias, The Prayers of

Jesus (SBT 2/6;
London, 1967), pp. 108-115.
211Jeremias, NT Theology, p. 137;
212Pp, 42-75.
2138Pp, 76-121.
214Pp. 122-158.
215P, 96.
216Pp. 159-249,
217Pp, 250-299.
218Pp. 250-257.
219Pp. 254f.
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 109
seriously.*°° It goes back to Daniel 7:13. He argues
against his own student’s conclusion that this title has
its background in Canaanite mythology by pouting out
that “in view of the enormous time lapse between the
texts of Ras Shamra and the book of Daniel this is hardly
conceivable.” Jesus’ understanding of his passion is
reconstructed. “Jesus saw his imminent suffering clearly
and announced it beforehand. . . . Jesus had considered
the question of the necessity of his death and had found
the answer to this question in scripture, primarily in
Isaiah 53, the chapter about the suffering servant, but
also in other passages such as Zechariah 13:7.”222 The
most important allusions to Jesus’ suffering are the eu-
charistic words.”
In the final chapter, “The Earliest Tradition and the
Earliest Interpretation,”*** Jeremias moves beyond the
proclamation of Jesus in his attempt to relate the procla-
mation of Jesus with Easter, namely the resurrection.
The second German edition contains a brief but signifi-
cant concluding addition in which Jeremias reveals his
understanding of the relationship of Jesus’ proclamation
to the church’s witness:

Both entities, the proclamation of Jesus and the witness.

of the faith of the church, the pre-Easter and _post-
Easter message, belong insolubly together. . . . They
relate to each other as call to response. The gracious
offer of salvation in the form of the words and deeds
of Jesus, his death on the cross and his exaltation, is
the call of God to the world; the witness of the church
in its formal as well as material manifoldedness, the
choir of countless tongues which sing praises to his
name and which confess him before the world, is the
response which is wrought by the Spirit to the call.225

220P, 258.
221P, 268 n. 1.
222P, 286.
223Pp, 288-292.
224Pp. 300-311.
225Jeremias, Neutestamentliche Theologie, P0205:
 110 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
The last sentences sum up in superb language the con-
cern of Jeremias: “The call stands above the response,
because Jesus is the Kyrios and the Kyrios stands above
his messengers. The Kyrios above is the beginning and
end, the center and measure of all Christian theology.”*?°
This first part of the NT Theology of Jeremias brings:
together in a masterly way everything Jeremias has
been known for. A recent reviewer summed it up by
saying, “Few other NT scholars could have written: the
book.”**? Jeremias appears again as a conservative critic...
who insists that there is a connection between all major
NT themes and the proclamation of Jesus. The post-
Easter church responded to the call of Jesus but did
not engage in the kind of creativity ascribed to it by
those who see no, or virtually no, connection between
the kerygma of the church and the historical Jesus. O.
Merk points out that in the work of Jeremias the dif-
ferentiation between the individual evangelists recedes
into the background in favor of the reconstruction of
the form and message of Jesus, In this respect Jeremias
is said to be close to G. L. Bauer.28 It remains to be
seen to what extent the expected second volume of
Jeremias’ NT theology deals with the theology of the
evangelists. In terms of the comparative method em-
ployed by Jeremias it is lamented by L. Goppelt, who
himself attempts to demonstrate links between the his-
torical Jesus and the proclamation of the church, that
the principle of analogy as regards the Jewish surround-
ings makes Jesus into a purely Jewish phenomenon.2”
The “criterion of dissimilarity” which Jeremias adopts
from N. Perrin for the demonstration of authenticity has
its own problems.” A more basic methodological issue
226T bid.
227C. E. Carlston, “Review of J. Jeremias, New Testament Theol-
ogy: The Proclamation of Jesus,’ JBL 91 (1972), 260-262, esp.
261.
228Merk, Biblische Theologie, p. 262.
229Goppelt, Theologie des NT, I, 44.
230H. Koester, ‘The Historical Jesus: Some Comments and
Thoughts on Norman Perrin’s Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus,”
Christology and a Modern Pilgrimage, ed. H. D. Betz (Philadelp
hia,
1971), pp. 123-136.
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 111

relates to the tantalizing silence on the part of Jeremias

as regards the justification for presenting the procla-
mation of Jesus as a part of NT theology. In view of the
situation of the debate on this methodological issue
(e.g. Bultmann, Conzelmann, Perrin) one wonders why
Jeremias has not in even one word intimated a justifica-
tion for his methodological procedure or indicated that
he will do so in a subsequent volume, Is it entirely self-
evident that the proclamation of Jesus constitutes the
foundation and basis for NT theology?

D. The Salvation History (Heilsgeschichte) Approach

1. Oscar Cullmann. The well-known professor emer-
itus at the University of Basel and the Sorbonne in
Paris, O. Cullmann, has not written a book with the
title NT Theology.**! He needs to be included in a dis-
cussion of methodology in the discipline of NT theology
because he is the foremost representative of the salva-
tion history*” approach to the NT in this century. Cull-
mann’ basic prolegomenon of NT “salvation history”
appeared first in 1946 under the title Christ and Time?
which was followed by his in-depth study Salvation in
History, published first in 1965.22 These works have
created a lively debate.**
231K. Frdhlich, “Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments. Oscar Cullmanns
Beitrag zur Theologie*der Gegenwart,” Oikonomia: Heilsgeschichte
als Thema der Theologie. Festschrift fiir O. Cullmann (Stuttgart,
1967), pp. 203-219, esp. 213, has pointed out that other scholars
give the title “Theology of the New Testament” to the kind of book:
which Cullmann published under the title Die Christology des Neuen
Testaments (Tiibingen, 1957), Eng. trans. The Christology of the
Testament (2nd ed.; Philadelphia, 1967).
°32This writer prefers the translation “salvation history” for Heils-
geschichte and “salvation historical” for ‘“heilsgeschichtlich” instead
of “redemptive history” in order to avoid the impression that history
itself has redemptive power.
2330. Cullmann, Christus und die Zeit. Die urchristliche Zeit und
Geschichtsauffassung (Zurich, 1946; 3rd ed., 1962), Eng. trans.
Christ and Time (London, 1951; 2nd ed., 1962).
234Q. Cullmann, Heil als Geschichte: Heilsgeschichtliche Existenz
im Neuen Testament (Tiibingen, 1965; 2nd ed., 1967), Eng. trans.
Salvation tn History (New York, 1967).
?35See especially Cullmann’s own reaction to such critics as R. Bult-
 112 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

In his earlier study Cullmann attempted to give a

basic outline of NT salvation history through a recon-
struction of the early Christian understanding of time
and its interpretation as a filled time within the tension
of “already” and “not yet.” Christ is “the center of time”
or the “mid-point” of time,”*° which is to be understood
as a linear conception of time. It is, however, not “a
straight line, but a fluctuating line which can show wide
variation.”**’ It must be clearly understood that Cull-
mann’ salvation history approach is not to be equated
either with earlier approaches under this name by
scholars in the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries
or those who use the term “in the bad sense of ‘positive’,
‘pious, ‘churchy’ or ‘uncritical’.””** For Cullmann the
salvation history approach means a “striving for nothing
less than an answer to the old question ‘What is
Christianity?’ ”°
It shall be our purpose to provide a brief survey of
the content of Cullmann’s magnum opus, Salvation in
History, before we ask how he understands salvation

mann, E. Fuchs, F. Buri, J. Kérner, H. Conzelmann, K. G. Steck,

and J. Barr in Christ and Time (2nd ed.), pp. xv-xxxi. Among the
more important recent treatments of Cullmann’s views are: Stendahl,
IDB, I, 420f.; Frohlich, “Die Mitte des NT,” pp. 203-219; D. Braun,
“Heil als Geschichte,” EvTh 27 (1967), 57-76; Kraus, Biblische
Theologie, pp. 185-188; Bouttier, “Théologie et Philosophie du NT,”
pp. 188f.; E. Giittgemanns, “Literatur zur Neutestamentlichen The-
ologie. Randglossen zu ausgewahlten Neuerscheinungen,” Verkiin-
digung und Forschung 12 (1967), 38-87, esp. 44-49; Harrington,
“New Testament Theology,” pp. 184-189; idem, Path, pp. 197-201;
G. Klein, “Bibel und Heilsgeschichte. Die Fragwiirdigkeit einer Idee,”
ZNW 62 (1971), 1-47; J. T. Clemons, “Critics and Criticism of
Salvation History,” Religion in Life 41 (1972), 89-100; G. E. Ladd,
“The Search for Perspective,’ Interpretation 25 (197.1) ,441-62» K.
Schubert, “Geschichte und Heilsgeschichte,’ Kairos 15 (1973), 89-
101; I. G. Nicol, “Event and Interpretation. O. Cullmann’s Concep-
tion of Salvation History,” Theology 77 (1974), 14-21.
236Cullmann, Christ and Time, pp. 121-174.
237Cullmann, Salvation in History, p. 15 (italics his).
238P. 11.
239P, 19,
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 113

history to function. Part I contains the “Prolegomena.”2%°

It surveys research on second-century gnosticism, es-
chatology in the twentieth century, hermeneutics as it
relates to salvation history, and it provides a definition
of salvation history. Part II carries the title “The Genesis
of the Salvation Historical Approach.”**! Its content
treats event and interpretation, the faith of the biblical
witnesses, the constant and contingency, and the con-
solidation of salvation-historical excerpts in the NT.
“Phenomenological Characteristics”’’*? are treated in
Part III with emphases on history and myth, salvation
history and history, and the tension of the “already”
and the “not yet.” With Part IV we reach the heart of |
the book in its treatment of “The Main New Testament
Types ’*** of salvation history, namely the beginnings of
salvation history with Jesus,*** the intermediate period ©
of salvation history,“° and the Gospel of John*** and
salvation history.**’ Finally, Part V provides “A Survey
of Systematic Theology and the History of Dogma: Sal-
vation History and the Post-Biblical Period.”248 This
survey reveals at once that Cullmann seeks to vindicate
salvation history as the essential framework of the NT
witnesses and offers a challenge to the existentialist
approach to NT theology as manifested by R. Bultmann
and his followers.
Within the confines of our purpose it will be impos-
sible to deal adequately with the rich and fruitful stim-
uli provided by Cullmann. We attempt to highlight
briefly the nature of salvation history as understood by
Cullmann before we address methodological issues.
Cullmann does not understand salvation history “as a

240Pp. 19-83.
241Pp, 84-135.
242Pp. 136-185.
243Pp. 186-291.
244Pp. 187-236.
245Pp. 236-248.
246Pp, 248-268.
247Pp, 268-291.
248Pp, 292-338.
 114 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
history alongside history . . .; it unfolds in history, and
in this sense belongs to it.”*4° An integral aspect of Bib-
lical salvation history is that certain “historically con-
trollable” events are “open to historical investigation . . .
events belonging to secular history which are placed
in a definite connection not disclosed by history it-
self.”°°° “Events belonging to secular history” receive a
salvation-historical interpretation. Cullmann’s depen-
dence on G. von Rad’s views are freely acknowledged,”*'
a view which has distinct problems.”? With regard to
the movement of event and interpretation Cullmann
writes, “Salvation history does not arise by a simple
adding up of events recognized in faith as saving events.
It is rather the case that corrections of the interpreta-
tions of past saving events are undertaken in the light
of new events.”*** The process of event and interpreta-
tion is a complex one. “The act of interpretation . . . is
regarded as belonging to salvation history itself.”?°
Cullmann sums up his view of these complex issues by
emphasizing three distinct aspects: “. . . first, the naked
event [nackte Ereignis] to which the prophet must be
an eye-witness and which is conceived by non-believers
as well, who are unable to see any revelation in it; sec-
ond, the revelation of a divine plan being disclosed in
the event to the prophet with which he aligns himself in
faith; third, the creation of an association with earlier
salvation-historical revelations imparted to other proph-
ets in the reinterpretation of these revelations.”?** Jesus
“includes himself in the event happening at the place
in which he stands. But the new revelation was consis-
tent in his proclaiming this as the decisive locus of all
salvation history.”**°
299
It may be stated with all fairness
249P_ 153.
250Pp. 139f.
251Pp. 54, 88.
*52Hasel, OT Theology, pp. 57-75.
253Cullmann, Salvation in History, p. 88 (italics his).
254P, 89,
255P, 90,
256P, 117.
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 115

that Cullmann’s view of revelation as given in both

event and interpretation contains ambiguities.?>
It has been noted that Cullmann adopts von Rad’s
position, which is understood to go “along the lines of
salvation history,°* namely, “the progressive reinter-
pretation of Israel’s old traditions is continually awak-
ened by new events in the present.””°? While Cullmann —
speaks of the “naked event” (nackte Ereignis),?®° von ’
Rad denies its existence: “There are no bruta facta at
all; we have history only in the form of interpretation,
only in reflection.”°® It is crucial to von Rad’s argumen-
tation that in the historical-critical picture of Israel’s
history no premises of faith or revelation are taken into
account since the historical-critical method works with-
out a God-hypothesis.*” Israel, however, “could only
understand her history as a road along which she trav-
elled under Yahweh's guidance, For Israel, history ex-
isted only where Yahweh has revealed himself through
act and word.”*® Von Rad rejects the either-or choice of
considering the kerygmatic picture as unhistorical and
the historical-critical picture as historical. He contends
that “the kerygmatic picture too . . . is founded in actual
history and has not been invented.” Nevertheless, he
speaks of the early “historical experiences” of primeval
history in terms of “historical poetry,” “legend,” “saga,”
and “poetic stories”?** containing “anachronisms.”2® The
257See esp. Nicol, ‘Event and Interpretation,” pp. 18-21.
258Cullmann, Salvation in History, p. 54. 7
259] bid.
260P, 90.
*61This point is made by G. von Rad, “Antwort auf Conzelmann’s
Fragen,” EvTh 24 (1964), 393, in a dispute with H. Conzelmann,
“Fragen an Gerhard von Rad,’ EvTh 24 (1964), 113-125.
762G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (Edinburgh, 1965), II,
417.
263G. von Rad, ‘‘Offene Fragen im Umkreis einer Theologie des
AT,” ThLZ 88 (1963), 409. The problem of the relationship of word
and event, word and acts, etc., is the subject of an essay by G. F.
Hasel, “The Problem of History in OT Theology,” AUSS 8 (1970),
32-46.
264Von Rad, OT Theology, I, 108f.
265Vol. II, 421f.
 116 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
important thing for von Rad is not that the historical
kernel is overlaid with “fiction” but that the experience
of the horizon of the later narrator’s own faith as read
into the saga is “historical’**’ and results in a great en-
richment of the saga’s theological content. All of this is
part and parcel of the method of the history-of-tradi- .
tions. He states, “The process by which the salvation-
historical perspective originated is no longer completely
comprehensible everywhere in the Old Testament. In
the first place, the historical occasions for the origins
and further development of the oldest traditions cannot
always be told with certainty, especially when oral tra-
ditions or oral kerygmata are often involved, which were
then set down in liturgical confessional formulas. . . .
It is only in the great historical conceptions . . . that
we are able to become better acquainted with the ori-
gin of the salvation-historical interpretations and rein-
terpretations.”** Cullmann’s indebtedness to von Rad’s
traditio-historical method which he reworks into his
salvation-historical approach with the constant inter-
pretation of the so-called “naked event” and later re-
interpretation of the “salvation-historical tradition”2?®
raises the question whether or not Cullmann’s approach
is really able to overcome the problems related to the
whole issues of history and history of tradition with its
two pictures of history, namely that established by the
historical-critical method and that presented by the
kerygma of the Biblical witnesses.2* Cullmann ex-
pressed his opinion regarding the criticism of von Rad
by W. Eichrodt and F. Hesse that the kerygma is put
in place of the “real history” by suggesting that “in
reality, a greater agreement exists between these three
scholars than perhaps they themselves think.”2”
It has become clear in the meantime that this is not
266P, 421.
267Cullmann, Salvation in History, p. 89.
268P, 90.
269See Hasel, OT Theology, pp. 57-75.
270Cullmann, Salvation in History, p. 54.
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 117
the case.*”’ Cullmann points out emphatically that “the
thing that distinguishes history from salvation history
is the role played by revelation in salvation history, both
in the experiencing of events and facts, and in the ap-
propriation of the accounts and their interpretation
(‘kerygma’) through faith. Here events are experienced
as divine revelation, and likewise the accounts and in-
terpretations are ascribed to divine revelation.”2” Rey-
elation is the distinguishing criterion, so that “the histor-
ical saving process is the centre of all history, including
primeval and eschatological history.”2"? Revelation is
active in sorting out of the total historical process
“the selection of events” included in salvation histo
which “is determined in the plan of God.”2" In all of
this salvation history is the overarching category into
which are incorporated several Biblical schema. Typol-
ogy “presupposes a salvation-historical point of view.”2”
The schema of “promise and fulfillment” is related to <
\

salvation history in that “fulfillment within the biblical

framework is never complete. Salvation history contin-
ues to develop. Although God remains true to his prom-
ise, it is fulfilled in a way hard to survey in detail and
in a manner not at the disposal of human knowledge
once for all.”°** It is to Cullmann’s credit to have pre-
sented a carefully thought out view of “salvation history
as representing the essence of the New Testament mes-
sage... . *"’ He does so in conversation with the leading
minds in the theological scene and addresses himself to
the leading critics of salvation history.2”8
271F. Hesse, Abschied von der Heilsgeschichte (Zurich, 1971). Note
also J. Barr, “Story and History in Biblical Theology,” Journal of
Religion 56 (1976), 1ff.
*72Cullmann, Salvation in History, pp. 151f.
273P, 148.
274P, 154,
275P. 133.
276P, 124.
277P. 150.
278For example, K. G. Steck, Die Idee der Heilsgeschichte. Hof-
mann-Schlatter-Cullmann (Zurich, 1959); G. Klein, “Offenbarung
als Geschichte? Marginalien zu einem theologischen Programm,”
Monatsschrift fiir Pastoraltheologie (1962), 65ff.; G. Fohrer, ‘“Pro-
phetie und Geschichte,” TALZ 24 (1964), 481ff., etc.
118 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

In the year 1962 K. Stendahl suggested that in Christ

and Time Cullmann “recaptured the mood of thought
of the NT writers and stays within it long enough to
work out its implications for different aspects of NT
thought.”’” Stendahl has a positive stance toward the
methodological issue for NT theology as raised by
Cullmann. He suggests that Cullmann’s approach
remains “descriptive.” O, Merk notes that it is a
“reconstruction” of the early Christian understand-
ing of time.**° Cullmann does not engage in “inter-
pretation, i.e., the transforming or translating of
the NT religious understanding of salvation history into
a framework suitable for modern man.”*! Does Cullmann
consider such an “interpretation” or “what it means”
today to be arbitrary or dehistoricizing? Cullmann pro-
vides now a partial answer. He is convinced along with
Bultmann that a decision is being called for by the NT:
“The divine event, together with its interpretation re-
vealed to the prophets and apostles . . . extends a claim
to me about which I must make a decision . . . to align
my existence with that concrete history revealed to me,
with that sequence of events.’**? “If the decision of faith
intended in the New Testament asks us to align our-
selves with that sequence of events, then the sequence
may not be demythologized, de-historicized, or deobjec-
tified.” In contrast to Bultmann’s demythologizing in
which eschatology is reinterpreted existentially by di-
vesting it of its temporality, i.e., by collapsing the rich-
ness of the NT kerygma to a “punctual eschatology” in
the here and now, we have the alternative of Cullmann
who argues that the salvation-historical tension between
the “already” and the “not yet” is the key to the under-
standing of the NT. “The whole theology of the New
Testament, including Jesus’ preaching, is qualified by
279Stendahl, IDB, I, 421.
280Merk, Biblische Theologie, p. 253.
281Robinson, “The Future of NT Theology,” p. 19.
282Cullmann, Salvation in History, p. 69.
283P. 70 (italics his).
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 119
this tension.”*** Man today lives in the extension of the
“intermediate period of salvation-history,” an “interme-
diate stage between two poles, the poles of the biblical
period and the end time.”*’ Cullmann reminds us,
“What is crucial for salvation-historical theology is the
relationship to the present.”?8* It appears that the de-
scriptive task is for Cullmann the crucial one. He refuses
to have the NT salvation history translated into the
present by existentialism, Platonism,?8’ or any other
system.
2. George E. Ladd. Professor G. E. Ladd is one of the
best-known evangelical scholars on the North American
continent*** whose scholarship has been recognized by
peers of other theological schools of thought. He is one
of two Americans to have provided a full-scale NT the-
ology after a silence of American scholars on the subject
for about seven decades.”*? Ladd’s magnum Opus is en-
titled A Theology of the New Testament (1974) and
belongs squarely to the salvation-history approach in
NT theology.
284P, 172.
285P, 293.
286P, 308 n. 2.
287P, 204.
*88The following works and studies are particularly important:
G.
E. Ladd, Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God (Grand
Rap-
ids, Mich., 1952); idem, The Blessed Hope (7th ed.; Grand
Rapids,
Mich., 1973); idem, Jesus and the Kingdom. The Eschatolo
gy of
Biblical Realism (2nd ed.; Waco, Tex., 1970); idem, The New Tes-
tament and Criticism (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1967); idem, ‘Why
Not
Prophetic-Apocalyptic?” JBL 81 (1962), 230-238; idem, “History
and Theology in Biblical Exegesis,’ Interpretation 20 (1966), 54-64;
idem, “The Problem of History in Contemporary NT Interpreta
tion,”
Studia Evangelica 5 (1968), 88-100; idem, “The Search for
Perspec-
tive,” Interpretation 25 (1971), 41-62.
*89In 1906 G. B. Stevens of Yale University published the second
edition of his The Theology of the New Testament (1st ed.;
Edin-
burgh, 1901). The books by F. Stagg, New Testament Theology
(Nashville, 1962) and R. E. Knudsen, Theology in the New Testa-
ment. A Basis for Christian Faith (Chicago/Los Angeles, Calif.,
1964)
are written for laypersons and do not pretend to be mature
NT the-
ologies. The other full-scale work was written by another scholar
of
the evangelical-conservative tradition, namely C. K. Lehman, Biblical
Theology 2: New Testament (Scottdale, Pa., 1974).
120 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

The intention of Ladd’s tome is “to introduce sem-

inary students to the discipline of New Testament
theology.” Ladd does not make a distinction between
Biblical theology and NT theology as advanced by
B. S. Childs,” because Ladd defines history and histor-
ical method on the basis of different presuppositions.
“Any man’s presuppositions distinctly influence his ap-
proach.**? The truthfulness of the Biblical story is the
issue at stake. “Presuppositions about the nature of
history have continued to interject themselves into the
reconstruction of the biblical message. . . . For scholars
who feel bound by secularistic historical method, history
has no room for divine men. Therefore, back of the
Jesus of the Gospels must be hidden an historical
Jesus.”*** The presupposition of history as a closed
continuum of horizontal causes and effects is unable
to deal with the reality expressed in Scripture. There-
fore, any approach adequate to the content of the Bible
must be in harmony with presuppositions taken from
it and be in harmony with the total reality expressed
in the Bible. “Since biblical theology is concerned with
the self-revelation of God and with the redemption of
men, the very idéa of revelation and redemption in-
volves. certain presuppositions that are everywhere im-
plicit_and_ often explicit in the Bible. These presupposi-
tions are God, man, and sin.”** These presuppositions
imply that “Biblical history” is not to be reconstructed
in the same way in which historians reconstruct “his-
tory.” Although the Bible represents God as acting
through “ordinary” historical events, “God has been
redemptively active in one stream of history in a way
in which he is not active in general history; it [the
Bible] also is conscious that at given points God has

290G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids,

Mich., 1974), p. 5.
291See above, pp. 70f.
292Tadd, Theology of the NT, p. 5.
293P, 26.
294Tbid.
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 12]
acted in history in ways that transcend ordinary his-
torical experience.”*®* The most vivid illustration of the
divine act in history is the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
“From the point of view of scientific historical criticism,
the resurrection cannot be ‘historical,’ for it is an event
uncaused by any other historical event and it is without
analogy. God, and God alone, is the cause of the resur-
rection. . . . Indeed, its very offense to scientific his-
torical criticism is a kind of negative support for its
supernatural character.”*°* The real issue here is a the-
ological one. “Revelatory events are not produced by
history but through the Lord of history, who stands
above history, acts within history for the redemption of
historical creatures.”**’ The activity of God in unique
events of history is a part of salvation history.
Ladd’s view of salvation history is unlike that of
Cullmann in that he does not. link it to tradition history. -
Salvation history, which Ladd designates imprecisely as
“redemptive history” or “holy history,”°* is made up
of a series of events in which God revealed himself as
nowhere else. Here he follows C. F. H. Henry. In his
description of salvation history as a “stream of revela-
tory history”? Ladd does not follow Cullmann’s con-
cepts of “reinterpretation” of earlier interpretations or
“corrections” of earlier salvation-historical interpreta-
tions, but employs the language of G. E, Wright? in
stating that the NT stands in this stream of salvation
history and that “New Testament theology . . . consists
primarily of the recital of what God has done in Jesus
of Nazareth.”' The substance of Christian proclama-
tion is likewise “the recital of God’s acts in history.”
295P, 29.
296P. 30. See also G. E. Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of
Jesus (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1975).
297Ladd, Theology of the NT, p. 30. -
298P. 28.
id hia a Be
800G. E. Wright, God Who Acts. Biblical Theology as Recital (SBT
8; 8th ed.; London, 1966).
301Ladd, Theology of the NT, p. 28.
302Tbid.
122 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Is the method of New Testament theology a “retell-

ing” or “reciting” of what is reported in the documents
of the NT? Is “recital” the most legitimate form of the-
ological discourse on the New Testament? Does it mean
that the theologian or preacher just “recites” what the
NT has told without “translating” or “decoding” or “in-
terpreting” it theologically for modern man? Ladd ex-
plains as follows: “Biblical theology has the task of
expounding the theology in the Bible in its own histor-
ical setting, and its own forms, categories, and thought
forms.*°? He goes on to be more specific: “New Testa-
ment theology must be primarily a descriptive disci-
pline.”*°* Here he follows K, Stendahl but qualifies
Stendahl’s definition by the adverb “primarily,” which
seems to mean “not exclusively.” There seems to be a
kind of tension in Ladd’s description of methodology
for NT theology because of the qualifier “primarily”-and
other statements that remain unexplained such as the
following: “It [Biblical theology] is basically a descrip-
tion and interpretation of the divine activity within the
scene of human history that seeks man’s redemption.”3”
Does Ladd really mean that aside from engaging in
“description,” i.e., the descriptive task, the NT (or
Biblical) theologian also needs to engage in “interpre-
tation,” ie., the theological task of making the message
of the NT meaningful? Just as the adverb “primarily” is
tantalizing in its intent, so another adverb is tantalizing
as Ladd contines to define more closely. Biblical the-
ology “is not initially concerned with the final meaning
of the teachings of the Bible or their relevance for to-
day. This is the task of systematic theology.”°°° If Bib-
lical and thus NT theology is not “primarily” and not
“initially” involved in interpreting the Bible’s meaning
for today, then it is so “secondarily” and “ultimately.”
303P, 25.
304P. 5. “Biblical theology is primarily a descriptive discipline”
(per2d).,
305P, 26.
306P, 25.
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 123

What does this mean with regard to the notion of “re-

cital”? How is it to be accomplished? These crucial
methodological issues beg for further attention. On the
other hand, it appears that the “descriptive” task in-
volves for Ladd at the same time interpretation.2
Ladd has structured his NT theology into six major
parts, each of which is subdivided into chapters. Each of
these chapters plus many subsections contain valuable
bibliographies of the most recent literature in the Eng-
lish language. Part I treats “The Synoptic Gospels.”3°
It opens with the instructive chapter on the history and
nature of NT theology. (This general introduction to
the discipline of NT theology should actually be placed
as a separate introductory section before the first part.)
Unfortunately Ladd does not provide us with the the-
ology of Matthew, Mark, and Luke as one should ex-
pect but provides a thematic cross-section of which
eight chapters deal with aspects of the kingdom as
preached by Jesus, and five with aspects of christolog-
ical concepts. This whole first part is somewhat abruptly
introduced by a chapter on John the Baptist. It is sur-
prising that there is no equivalent chapter on Jesus
himself.
Part II treats “The Fourth Gospel.” It opens with
a chavter on critical problems which states Ladd’s aim:
“To discover to what degree it is similar or dissimilar
to... the Synoptics.”*° This is admirably achieved in
chapters on Johannine dualism, Christology, eternal life,
the Christian life, the Holy Spirit, and eschatology. It
is not at all clear why Ladd can claim that “the Gospels
record the works and words of Jesus”?! and treat in
Part I the Synoptics as historically reliable sources of
307For example, the meaning of imminence (p. 210), the meaning
of the resurrection of Jesus (p. 318), the meaning of the ascension
of Jesus (p. 334), the meaning of Paul’s conversion (p. 361), the
meaning of Paul’s view of revelation (p. 391), etc.
308Pp, 13-210.
309Pp. 213-308.
310P, 222.
311P_ 28.
 124 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
the life of Jesus* only to maintain later that “it is ob-
viously not the intent of the Synoptic Gospels to give
a report of the ipsissima verba [very words] of
Jesus....°*"* Should the Synoptics, if the latter judg-
ment of Ladd is correct, not also be treated theologically
as the Gospel of John? On what basis should the
Synoptics be treated differently?
Part III is concerned with the theology of the book
of Acts under the title “The Primitive Church.”?"* The
first chapter defends the essential historical reliability
of the book of Acts in which he is now supported with
greater erudition by W. W. Gasque.*® Chapters on the
resurrection, eschatological kerygma, and the church
summarize the theology of Acts.
The theology of Paul as gained from Part IV?"* forms
next to the theology of the Gospel of John one of the
high points in Ladd’s NT theology. Paul was a man of
the Jewish, Hellenistic, and Christian worlds.3!”7 “Paul
was prepared as a Jewish theologian to think through,
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the implications
of the fact that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth was in-
deed the Messiah, the resurrected and ascended Son of
God. This led him to many conclusions radically differ-
ent from those that he had held. . . .”848 This meant “a
radical modification of Paul’s view of Heilsgeschichte,
which is a radical departure from Judaism.”*!® Since
salvation history involves a unifying concept, Ladd con-
siders the center of Pauline theology along with W. D.
Davies as “the realization of the coming new age of
redemption by the work of Christ. . . . The unifying
312P, 177: “Other evidences strengthen the view that the gospel
tradition is historically sound . . . [and] that the church possessed
a sound memory in reporting the words and deeds of Jesus.’
313P, 221.
314Pp, 311-356.
315W. W. Gasque, A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the
Apostles (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1976).
316Ladd, Theology of the NT, pp. 359-568.
317P, 360.
318P, 361.
319P, 369.
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 125
center is . . . the redemptive work of Christ as
the center of redemptive history [Heilsgeschichte].”3”°
This is not unlike the view of H. N. Ridderbos
as expounded in his monumental Paul: An Outline
of His Theology.**' Ladd uses all thirteen canonical
letters of Paul (as does Ridderbos) in his eluci-
dation of Pauline theology.*? He makes the point
that we can speak of Pauline theology. “Is ‘theology’
only a descriptive discipline of what early Christians
believed, or has God been pleased to use Paul as the
outstanding individual instrument in the early church
to communicate to men authoritative, redemptive
truth?” What Paul says is theologically normative:
“There can be little doubt about how Paul would an-
swer this question, for his letters reflect a sense of au-
thority in the light of which Paul’s entire thought must
be read.”**? This leaves the distinct impression that
Ladd understands the descriptive tasks to be on the
whole normative for modern man.?”! Interpretation of
the “final meaning of the teachings of the Bible or

320P, 374.
321]. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand
Rap-
ids, Mich., 1975), p. 39: “The governing motif of Paul’s preaching
is the saving activity of God in the advent and the work, particular
ly
in the death and the resurrection of Christ. This activity is
on the
one hand the fulfillment of the work of God in the history
of the
nation Israel, the fulfillment therefore also of the Scriptures;
on the
other hand it reaches to the ultimate consummation of the parousia
of Christ and the coming of the kingdom of God. It is
this great
redemptive-historical [heilsgeschichtlich] framework within which
. . .
all of its subordinate parts receive their place and organicall
y co-
here.”
322Ladd, Theology of the NT, pp. 376-379.
323P, 379.
824Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom, p. xiii: “Biblical Realism desig-
nates the effort to understand the New Testament writings from
within the mind’ of their authors, to stand where the biblical writers
stand, rather than to force the biblical message into modern thought
forms. . . . However, this interpretative effort [to interpret the Bible
in terms which are meaningful to the modern man] must not result
in structuring the biblical message in a modern framework that is alien
to the Bible and which therefore distorts the biblical perspective.”
 126 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

their relevance for today . . . is the task of systematic

theology.”3”°
Part V carries the heading “The General Epistles”®?°
and summarizes the theology of Hebrews, James,
1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude and the Johannine Epistles. It is
not clear why the Johannine Epistles and the Gospel
of John are not treated together under the theology of
John, since they are considered to derive from the same
author. Likewise 1-2 Peter and the so-called Petrine
speech(es) in Acts could have been organized into a
theology of Peter. Or in a manner similar to G. B.
Stevens the general epistles aside from those of John
could have been incorporated into Part III, “The Primi-
tive Church.” Unfortunately Ladd provides no rationale
for his structure. This applies again for his last section,
Part VI, “The Apocalypse.”??"
Ladd’s salvation history approach has certain meth-
odological weaknesses which have been pointed out
repeatedly and need not be rehearsed again. His ap-
_ proach lends itself to a conceptual unity which is, how-
ever, not realized. His NT theology, on the other hand,
treats every NT document, even the theologies of the
stepchildren of the discipline of NT theology, viz., He-
brews, James, Jude, 1-2 Peter, etc. The salvation history
approach has also led him to explicate the links of the
NT and its theology with that of the OT. Ladd is best
in his description of the constituent concepts of Johan-
nine and Pauline theology by means of tracing key
words, titles, expressions, phrases, and the like with
great perception. He does so in a way not unlike a
mini-dictionary. In this respect he has provided some-
thing like a “Biblical concept theology,”** that is, a
treatment of distinct Biblical concepts as expressed by

325Ladd, Theology of the NT’, p. 25.

326Pp. 571-616.
327Pp. 619-632.
328To my knowledge this designation was coined by D. H. Kelsey,
The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology (Philadelphia, 1975), pp.
24, 208 AST;
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 127
extensive word studies, which are incorporated into
and are expressive of salvation history.
3, Leonhard Goppelt. Professor Goppelt, before his
sudden death in 1973, taught at the University of Mu-
nich (and before that at Hamburg). For a whole decade
he had worked incessantly on a NT theology which was
published posthumously in two volumes in 1975 and
1976 respectively by his student J. Roloff. Goppelt was
already widely known from several studies,?? but his
Theology of the New Testament deserves also to be
translated into the English language.
Goppelt provides in his NT theology the most de-
tailed and informative section on “History and Problems
of the Discipline” of all NT theologies written to the
present day.*° In it he outlines the various positions,
particularly since about 1900, and sees himself follow-|
ing the broad salvation-history approaches of G. von.
Rad and O. Cullmann, He points out, however, against |\,
Cullmann that the NT does not know “salvation history
as the plan of a universal history, but only the correla-
tion of promise and fulfillment. For example, the salva-
tion-historical views of Romans 4 and 5 cannot be
united into one total picture; they designate each one
for itself that faith or Christ is (respectively ) fulfilled
promise.”**' Goppelt limits his definition of salvation
history primarily to the schema of promise and fulfill-
ment. Salvation history is not a history that is separated
from regular history “neither through its miracle-like
nature nor through demonstrable continuity. Salvation
history is much more a sequence of historical processes
which are ultimately characterized and connected with
3291. Goppelt, Typos. Die typologische Deutung des Alten Testa-
ments im Neuen (Giitersloh, 1939; 3rd ed.; Darmstadt, 1969) ;
idem,
Die apostolische und nachapostolische Zeit (2nd ed.; Géttingen,
1966), Eng. trans. The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times (Philadel-
phia, 1962).
3301. Goppelt, Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Erster Teil: Jesu
Wirken in seiner theologischen Bedeutung (Géttingen, 1975),
pp.
19-51.
331P. 49. See also L. Goppelt, “Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte,”
Christologie und Ethik (G6ttingen, 1968), pp. 202ff.
128 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

each other and that through it the final self-demonstra-

tion of God in Jesus is prepared and that Jesus takes
his stand with them.”**? Goppelt does not place unique
emphasis on salvation history at the exclusion of the
historical-critical method, He seeks “to bring into a
critical dialogue the principles of the historical-critical
method of biblical research, i.e., criticism, analogy, and
correlation, with the self-understanding of the NT.”3%
In terms of methodology the “critical dialogue” takes
both the historical, namely the traditio-historical and
the religio-historical, connections and the salvation-his-
torical ones seriously, In terms of the relationship be-
tween Jesus and John the Baptist this means that one is
“relative” and the other is “exclusive.” “The traditio-
historical and_ religio-historical connection between
Jesus and John the Baptist is relative, the salvation-
historical one exclusive.”*** This dialogue of a confronta-
tion of the NT testimonies concerning John the Baptist
with the historical situation attempts to clarify the im-
mediate background of Jesus and in conjunction with
religio-historical investigation leads to a presentation of
the self-understanding of Jesus,
Goppelt defines the goal of NT theology as an attempt
“to derive from the single writing or groups of writings
[of the NT] materially ordered and connected pictures
of the work of Jesus or the proclamation and teaching
of the early church.”*** Beyond it NT theology “mirrors
more distinctly the positions of modern theologians with
their respective total understanding and their presup-
positions than is possible in interpretations of particular
pericopes.’**® Goppelt does not limit himself to recon-
struction or the descriptive task. Moder man and
modern society are not to be confronted merely with
the “letter” of the NT witness. “Both parties, the NT

332Goppelt, Theologie des NT, I, 82.

333P_ 50.
334P_ 82.
335P_ 17,
336Tbid.
METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 129

and the man of today, have to be brought into a critical

dialogue with each other.”***7 Even though such a “criti-
cal dialogue” is primarily the task of systematic the-
ology, a presentation of the manifold scholarly attempts
at interpretation and their presuppositions “enable the
reader to participate in the dialogue of research and
make it possible to form his own opinion.”3**
Each of Goppelt’s two volumes is devoted to one
main part. Vol. I carries the subtitle “The Theological
Meanings of Jesus’ Activity” and is totally devoted to
the content as indicated in the title. The first chapter
discusses the historical and theological issues related
to the question of the starting-point of NT theology.
Exegetical study has shown that “the starting-point of
NT theology is the Easter-kerygma which according to
early Christian tradition was responsible for the for-
mation of Christian churches and the continued influ-
ence of Jesus.’**? The foundation of NT theology was
nevertheless the reporting of the earthly activity of
Jesus, so that NT theology on the basis of its own
structure has to ask for the earthly Jesus. In contrast to
the “old quest” the “historical Jesus” is not to be had;
“NT theology, however, asks for Jesus as he has shown
himself in his earthly days to his followers, and this is
also the Jesus who has had a historic*° influence.”**
Aside from the NT’s own structure the lack of analogies
from contemporary personalities for the continued in-
fluence of Jesus “provide historical reasons that make it
proper to begin a presentation of NT theology with the
activity and path of Jesus.”**” In order to do this Gop-
pelt develops his “own tradition-critical analysis” on
the basis of which the Synoptic Gospels provide mate-
rial for “the presentation of Jesus, the theology of the
337P, 18,
338P, 17.
339P_ 56.
340The adjectives geschichtlich and historisch are translated “‘his-
toric” and “‘historical’’ respectively.
341P_ 58.
342P_ 62.
130 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

early Christian Church, and finally the theology of the

Evangelists.**? Contrary to critical opinion the Gospel
of John also “provides tradition-critical information for
the earthly activity of Jesus.”**4 After a brief discussion
of “the historical framework” of Jesus’ activity*’ and
“the salvation-historical starting-point of John the Bap-
tist’**® Goppelt devotes eight chapters to the proclama-
tion of Jesus.
Chapter II begins with “The Coming of the Ruler-
ship of God”*** because the center of Jesus’ preaching
is the kingdom of God.*4* Goppelt’s normal procedure
is to describe briefly the terminology concept and its
correlates in the gospels. Then he provides a succinct
survey of its background in the OT, Judaism, and Hel-
lenism, and also discusses the history of research, Fi-
nally he elucidates his own understanding of the NT
data in contrast or agreement with other opinions. This
is not only extremely informative but also highly stim-
ulating and calls for constant interaction of thought.
The subject of “conversion” as a demand of Jesus and
a gift of the divine rulership is treated in Chapters III
and IV.**” Chapter V, “Jesus’ Saving Activity as Ex-
pression of Eschatological Renewal,” is concerned with
miracles as part of Jesus’ activity.*”° The Messianic self-
consciousness is the subject of Chapter VI. “The Self-
Understanding of Jesus’**' demonstrates that Jesus
used of himself at least the designation “Son of Man.”
The goal of Jesus’ activity is dealt with in Chapter VI,
“Jesus and the Church.”*” The last chapter is concerned

343P. 65.
344P_ 67,
345Pp, 70-83.
346Pp, 83-93.
347Pp, 94-127.
348Pp, 94, 101.
349Pp, 128-188.
350Pp, 189-206.
851Pp, 207-253.
352Pp, 254-270.
METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 13]

with “Jesus’ End” which includes passion, death, resur-

rection, and ascension.®**
The second volume of Goppelt’s NT theology was
published in 1976 and carries the subtitle “Manifold-
ness and Unity of the Apostolic Witnesses to Christ.”
It contains the post-Pentecost development as the earli-
est church understood it in three major parts: Part II,
“The Early Church (The Church Among Israel),” con-
tains chapters on “Jesus’ Discipleship as Church” and
“The Beginnings of Christology.”** The theological
principle at work is “the dialogical correlation between
the formulation of the Jesus-tradition and the explica-
tion of the Easter-kerygma . . . in the proclamation and
teaching of the early church. . . .”3° This dialogical
correlation principle is the answer to the development
of the earliest Christology (contra H. Koester ).*°* Part
III, “Paul and Hellenistic Christianity,”** begins with
an introduction on the problem of Hellenistic Christian-
ity and a chapter on the presuppositions of Pauline
theology. It centers on Pauline theology, particularly
on Christology, the event of proclamation, righteous-
ness, and the church. The center of Pauline theology
is the concept of righteousness which is neither a Christ
mysticism (W. Wrede, A. Schweitzer), nor a purely
forensic concept (R. Bultmann, H. Conzelmann), nor
primarily the subjective aspect of the nature of God
(A. Schlatter, E. Kasemann, P. Stuhlmacher): Goppelt
combines a forensic emphasis, namely “God puts man
in the right relationship with himself” with a subjective
one whereby “man lives in this relationship.”
Part IV, “The Theology of the Post-Pauline Writ-
353Pp, 271-299.
3541, Goppelt, Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Zweiter Teil: Viel-
falt und Einheit des apostolischen Christuszeugnisses (GOttingen,
1976), pp. 325-355.
355P, 353.
356P, 354. See H. Koester and J. M. Robinson, Trajectories through
Early Christianity (Philadelphia, 1971).
357Goppelt, Theologie des NT, pp. 356-479.
132 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

ings,*°* is structurally inchoate. The first chapter treats

both the theology of 1 Peter under the title “The
Responsibility of Christians in Society according to
1 Peter” and the theology of Revelation under the head-
ing “Christians in the Post-Christian Society of the
Endtime According to John’s Revelation.” The second
chapter pairs the theology of James, i.e., a theology of
the empire, with the theology of Matthew under the
title “The Meaning of the Appearance of Jesus in Mat-
thew.” Chapter III is devoted to the theology of He-
brews followed by Luke, the theologian of salvation
history. The separation of the treatments of the the-
ology of the gospel of Luke from that of Acts is unique.
The concluding chapter is on Johannine theology and is
not fully developed. The editor informs us that Part IV
of Goppelt’s theology was put together from a manu-
script used for lectures and a tape-recording from his
lectures in the summer of 1973. This may account for
some of its unusual structural design. One misses treat-
ments of the theology of Mark, the so-called Deutero-
Pauline letters, including Ephesians, the Pastoral Epis-
tles, and 2 Peter and Jude. Did they not fit into the
salvation history approach as understood by Goppelt
or did other matters cause him not to include them in
his work?

Concluding Remarks
i
Our survey of four major approaches to NT theology
has highlighted the fact that there is no agreement
among the leading practitioners of NT theology as re-
gards the issue of methodology, The complexity of the
issues relates to the most basic aspects of methodology.
Let us point to some of these in concluding this chapter.
1.) The thematic approach goes hand in hand with
the cross-section method in which one or more major
themes are treated longitudinally. Students of the NT
358Pp, 480-643.
 METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 105

have come to take seriously that there is inevitably a

subjective element in all historical research. The _par- |
ticular subjectivity of the thematic approach isthe
gta ofSelectivity. The NT Seeet engaged in

many ainple: themes has to be sified by a steHeape

of selection. Closely aligned to the former is a principle
of congeniality. The principle of selection leads a NT
theologian to choose a key theme of the NT or both
the NT and the OT such as the covenant or the king-
dom of God, the Christological principle, etc. The prin-
ciple of congeniality relates all the other themes, motifs,
or concepts congenial to the major theme. But it is here
already that distinct limitations of this approach make
themselves felt.( First, on what objective basis does the
principle of selection function? Is it functioning as in the
case of Schelkle on the basis of the traditional God-Man-
Salvation arrangements of dogmatics? If so, then issues
may be introduced to which the NT may give only the
most incidental answer or answers elicited to questions
in which the NT has no interest. Second, the principle
of congeniality can only function in relation” to the
major theme or themés chosen. This implies that other
themes, motifs, or concepts which are important in the
NT are neglected or forced into a mold not of their
own. Third; if the principle of selection is used in a way
not related to a major theme, on what basis other than
a subjective one (the problem of Richardson) can some
themes be included and others omitted? Can the world
of NT thought or belief be systematized in this way?
Is any theme sufficiently comprehensive to include with-
in it all varieties of NT (or Biblical) thought? The
tichness of the diversified nature of the Biblical mate-
rials requires an approach that is commensurate to the
materials with which it deals.
2.)We have seen that one of the major methodological
gis of NT theology is the question of the place
of Jesus in NT theology. Is “the message of Jesus . . . a
presupposition for the theology of the New Testament
134 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

rather than a part of that theology itself,” to use the

famous words of Bultmann? This judgment has been
supported as we noted by Conzelmann in Germany and
most recently by Perrin in the United States. On the
other hand it is most strongly opposed by Jeremias,
Kiimmel, Goppelt, and Neill among others. They seek
to demonstrate historically that the Proclaimer (Jesus)
became the Proclaimed (Christ). This whole issue is
among other things primarily a problem of the
modern understanding of history and its method.
By definition the historical-critical method functions
on the basis of the principles of correlation, analogy,
and criticism (E. Troeltsch) within a closed continuum
of natural causes and effects in which there is no room
for a God-hypothesis or supernatural causes. Thus his-
tory and faith are considered as opposites and one is
not to support the other, The historical-critical method
of Gospel research is severely restricted. O. A. Piper
states, “There is no satisfactory method by which the
Gospel records can be brought into agreement with
the modern idealistic or positivistic views of history.”*°°
Long ago M. Kahler wrote an important essay in which
he addressed himself to the difference between the
“historical Jesus” and the “historic Christ” of the Bi-
ble.2® It is said that “the historische Jesus is the crea-
tion of the historical-critical method—a Holzweg, a
road that leads nowhere. . . . The rejection of the biblical
portrait of Jesus in favor of a hypothetical historical
Jesus, and the effort to trace the stages between the
two, is not the result of open-minded inductive study
of our sources, but of philosophical presuppositions
about the nature of history.”**' Although this may be
true, it does not settle the question for those who ac-
cept such presuppositions as valid. It remains one of the
359O. A. Piper, “Christology and History,” Theology Today 19
(1962) 1333:
360M. Kahler, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Bib-
lical Christ, trans. by O. E. Braaten (Philadelphia, 1964).
861Ladd, Theology of the NT, p. 179.
METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 135

key methodological issues of critical Biblical scholar-

ship. Does Christian faith really go back to Jesus him-
self or is ita construct of the early Church? This ques-
tion will exercise NT theologians for some time to come.
(3) The methodological issue concerns the question
whether there is such a thing as NT theology or whether
the historical study of the NT and its world is not rather
to be called, as W. Wrede suggested iin 1897, “A. History
of Primitive Christian Religion.” This problem. is with
us with full force. H. Koester and J. M. Robinson are
the strongest supporters of a return to the history--of-
religions approach.?” Just as dialectical theology in the
post-World War I period brought with itself a revival
of theology over against religion, so the 1970s are
marked by an attempt to shift back to religion from
theology. A key aspect in this issue is the question of
a NT theology being limited to the canonical writings.
From the historical point of view the writings of the
New Testament are but a part of the total literature
produced by early Christians and the question is what
validity and significance is there in the.canonical NT.
writings. The issue is on the one hand whether the NT +
isthe production of the church or whether the church ~
isthe production of the NT, and on the other whether

particular authority to these documents € the church =

or whether the church included particular documents
in the canon because of her recognition of ‘authority : J

inherent iin these documents. Even if B. S. Childs’ call for

a new Biblical theology within the context of the Chris-
tian canon*® is not heeded*™ for a variety of reasons,
then one can easily agree with N. Perrin that “the fact
remains that the New Testament is an entity, which
as an entity, has played and does play an enormous
362See above, n. 356.
363B. S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia, 1970),
pp. 91-148.
364], Barr, “Biblical Theology,” JDB Sup. (Nashville, 1976), pp.
110f.
 136 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

role in Christian history, and I am not prepared to dis-

solve it into something else without much stronger
grounds than the historical ambiguities of the process
of the formation of the canon. . . . A history of the re-
ligion of early Christianity el ‘ most welcome, but:
from the standpoint of the Christian communities a
theology of the New Testament is an urgent need.”3®
Is_a NT theology..a_descriptive discipline or a theolog-.
ical one? This brings us to the final issue of central
methodological concern.
4,One of the most fundamental methodological prob-
lems for NT theology is the issue of historical recon-
struction and_ theological interpretation. Bultmann’s
program of demythologization is part and parcel of the
process of stripping the kernel from its shell and trans-
lating the kerygma with the aid of existentialist philos-
ophy for modern man. The main weight is placed in
Bultmann’s case upon existentialist interpretation. J, M.
Robinson is ready to point out that “of course a Jesus,
Paul, or John could never have understood the termi-
nology of demythologizing or existentialism.”*% Bult-
mann’s most faithful follower H. Conzelmann expresses
the recent trend and the weight of his own direction,
namely “historical reconstruction, i.e. the presentation
of the thought-world of the New Testament as condi-
tioned by its time.”** The matter of historical recon-
struction is closely bound up with what K. Stendahl
calls the “descriptive method” with its rigorous dis-
tinction between “what it meant” and “what it means.”
There are several ways®*® in which the historical and
descriptive approach of “what it meant”— that this is
365Perrin, “Jesus and the Theology of the NT,” p. 3.
366Robinson, “The Future of New Testament Theology,” p. 20.
367Conzelmann, An Outline of NT Theology, Pp. xiv.
368Stendahl, JDB, I, 418-432; idem, ‘‘Method in the ane of Bib-
lical Theolesy The Bible in Mader Scholarship, ed. J. P. Hyatt
(Nashville, 1965), pp. 196-209.
369These are succinctly stated by D. H. Kelsey, The Uses of Scrip-
ture in Recent Theology, pp. 202f. n. 18, but formulated in a slightly
different way.
METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 137

also interpretation should always be remembered — is

related to the theological and interpretative approach
of “what it means.” First, it may be decided that the »
descriptive approach that seeks to determine “what it
meant” by whatever methods of inquiry this is estab-
lished is considered to be identical with “what it means.”
Second, it may be decided that “what it meant” con-
tains propositions, ideas, etc. that are to be decoded ,
and translated systematically and explicated and that
this is “what it means,” even though those explications _,
may never have occurred to the original authors and .
might have been rejected by them. Third, it may be
decided that “what it meant” is an archaic way of
speaking, dependent upon its own culture and time,
which needs to be redescribed in contemporary ways
of speaking of the same phenomena and that this rede-
scription is “what it means.” “This assumes that the
theologian has access to the phenomena independent
of scripture and ‘what it meant,’ so that he can check
the archaic description and have a basis for his own.”*”
Fourth, it may be decided that “what it meant” refers
to the way in which early Christians used Biblical texts
and that “what it means” is simply the way these are
used by modern Christians. In this case there is a ge-
netic relationship, D. H. Kelsey notes, “None of these
decisions can itself be either validated or invalidated by
exegetical study of the text, for what is at issue is pre-
cisely how exegetical study is related to doing theol-
ogy.*7" If this is the case, then one must ask on what
grounds one makes a theological judgment in favor
of one over the other of these or other ways of relating
“what it meant” to “what it means.”
Criticisms of the distinction between “what it meant”
and “what it means,” i.e., between reconstruction and
interpretation or what is historical and objective and
what is theological and normative have been advanced
s19P.© 203.
371] bid.
 138 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
by several people. For example, B. S. Childs®”? objects
against the descriptive method on account of its limit-
ing nature. The descriptive task cannot be seen as a
neutral stage leading to later genuine theological inter-
pretation, The text, says Childs, is “a witness beyond.
itself to the divine purpose of God.” There must be
“the movement from the level of the witness to the
reality itself.”’" Stendahl concedes that the descriptive
task is “able to describe scriptural texts as aiming be-
yond themselves, . . . in their intention and their func-
tion through the ages. . . . ”37* But Stendahl denies that
the explication of this reality is a part of the task of the
Biblical theologian. Childs, however, insists that “what
the text ‘meant’ is determined in large measure by its
relation to the one to whom it is directed.” He argues
that “when seen from the context of the canon both the
question of what the text meant and what it means are
inseparably linked and both belong to the task of the
interpretation of the Bible as Scripture.”3* A. Dulles
makes a similar point when he speaks of the “uneasiness
at the radical separation . . . between what the Bible
meant and what it means.” Whereas Stendahl gives
normative value to the task of what the Bible means,
Dulles maintains that that normative value must be
given also to what the Bible meant. If this is the case,
then Stendahl’s dichotomy is seriously impaired be-
cause “the possibilityof an ‘objective’ or non-committed
descriptive approach, and thus . . . one of the most
attractive features of Stendahl’s position” is done away
with.*”* Similar points are made by R. A. F. MacKenzie,

372“Tnterpretation in Faith: The Theological Responsibility of an

OT Commentary,” Interpretation 18 (1964), 432-449.
373Pp. 437, 440, 444.
374The Bible in Modern Scholarship, Di 203); nots.
375 Biblical Theology in Crisis, p. 141.
376“Response to Krister Stendahl’s Method in the Study of Biblical
Theology,” The Bible in Modern Scholarship, pp. 210f. Stendahl, of
course, maintains that there is no “absolute objectivity” to be had
(IDB, I, 422: The Bible in Modern Scholarship, p. 202). He is com-
pletely right in emphasizing that the relativity of human objectivity
METHODOLOGY IN NT THEOLOGY 139

C. Spicq, and R. de Vaux.*"” How can the non-normative

descriptive method with its limiting historical emphasis
lead us to the totality of the theological reality contained
in the text? By definition and presupposition the descrip-
tive historical method is limited to such an extent that
the total theological reality of the text does not come
fully to expression. Does NT theology need to be re-
stricted to be nothing more than a “first chapter” of his-
torical theology? Can NT theology also have normative
value on the basis of the recognition that what the Bible
meant is normative in itself? Can NT theology draw its
very principles of presentation and organization from
the documents that make up the NT rather than from
the ecclesiastic creeds, or scholastic tradition or modern
philosophy? Would it not be one of the tasks of NT
(and OT) theology to come to grips with the nature of
the Biblical texts as aiming beyond themselves, as_theo-
logical and ontological in their intention and _function
through the ages, without defining in advance the_na-
ture of Biblical reality?

does not give us an excuse to “excel in bias,” but neither, we insist,

does it give us the possibility of doing purely descriptive work.
377R, A. F. MacKenzie, “The Concept of Biblical Theology,” The-
ology Today, 4 (1956), 131-135, esp. 134: ‘“‘Coldly scientific — in
the sense of rationalistic — objectivity is quite incapable of even per-
ceiving, let alone exploiting, the religious values of Scripture. There
must be first the commitment, the recognition by faith of the divine
origin and authority of the book; the the believer can properly and
profitably apply all the most conscientious techniques of the sub-
ordinate sciences, without in the least infringing on their due auton-
omy or being disloyal to the scientific ideal.’ C. Spicq as quoted in
J. Harvey, “The New Diachronic Theology of the OT (1960-1970),”
BTB 1 (1971), 18f.; R. de Vaux, “Method in the Study of Early
Hebrew History,” in The Bible in Modern Scholarship, pp. 15-17;
“Peut-on écrire une ‘théologie de VAT’?” Bible et Ortent (Paris,
1967), pp. 59-71.
Ill. The Center and Unity
in NT Theology

A. The Issue
One of the most hotly debated issues in NT studies
is the question of the center and unity of the NT.! This
1The following studies are particularly significant: A. M. Hunter,
The Unity of the New Testament (London, 1943) ; idem, Die Einheit
des Neuen Testaments (Munich, 1952); E. Kasemann, “Begriindet
der neutestamentliche Kanon die Einheit der Kirche?” EvTh 11
(1951/52), 13-21; reprinted in Das Neue Testament als Kanon, ed.
E. Kasemann (G6ttingen, 1970), pp. 124-133; B. Reicke, ‘Einheit-
lichkeit oder verschiedene ‘Lehrbegriffe’ in der neutestamentlichen
Theologie,’ Theologische Zeitschrift 9 (1953), 401-415; H. H. Rowley,
The Unity of the Bible (4th ed.; London, 1968); G. E. Ladd, “Escha-
tology and the Unity of New Testament Theology,” Expository
Times 68 (1956/57), 268-273; W. Kiinneth, “Zur Frage nach der
Mitte der Schrift,’ Dank an P. Althaus, eds. W. Kiinneth and W.
Joest (Giitersloh, 1957), pp. 121-140; H. Braun, “Die Problematik
einer Theologie des Neuen Testaments,’ ZThK Beiheft 2 (Sept.,
1961), 3-18, Eng. trans. “The Problem of a New Testament Theology,”
Journal for Theology and Church 1 (1965), 169-185; F. Mussner,
“Die Mitte des Evangeliums in neutestamentlicher Sicht,? Catholica
15 (1961), 271-292; R. Schnackenburg, New Testament Theology
Today (London, 1963), pp. 22f.; K. Fréhlich, “Die Mitte des Neuen
Testaments: O. Cullmanns Beitrag zur Theologie der Gegenwart,”
Otkonomia. Heilsgeschichte als Thema der Theologie. Festschrift fiir
O. Cullmann (Hamburg-Bergstedt, 1967), pp. 203-219; K. Haacker,
“Einheit und Vielfalt in der Theologie des Neuen Testaments,” The-
melios 4 (1968), 27-44; A. Kiimmel, “Mitte des Neuen Testaments,”-
L’Evangile, Hier et Aujourd’hut. Melanges offerts au F.-]. Leenhardt
(Geneva, 1968), pp. 71-85; A. Stock, Einheit des Neuen Testaments
(Zurich, 1969); R. Smend, Die Mitte des Alten Testaments (Zurich,
1970); I. Loénning, “Kanon im Kanon.” Zum dogmatischen Grund-
lagenproblem des neutestamentlichen Kanons (Oslo/Munich, 1972);

140
THE CENTER AND UNITY IN NT THEOLOGY 141

question is in many respects at the very heart of the

current debate on the nature of NT theology. The prob-
lem of the center of the NT relates to the question of
presenting a NT theology on the basis of a single or
multiple center, no matter how it is defined. The prob-
lem of the unity of the NT cannot be divorced from
that of the center because the latter is customarily con-
ceived of as the key to the unity of the NT itself, It is
ultimately the question whether one can find one the- ~
ology of the NT or whether the NT yields such a
manifold diversity of theologies that no unity can be
discerned, $156 ;
~Tt is not necessary to survey the development of this
issue during the last two centuries, in which rather di-
vergent presentations of Biblical theology were brought
forth.” The problem of the center of the OT in the cur-
rent debate on OT theology is not unrelated to the
issues in NT theology.* The question that is raised in a
unique way since the 1950s is to what degree the NT is
homogeneous, if at all We should remind ourselves,
however, that J. P. Gabler already in 1787 had called
for the task of distinguishing, on the basis of his own
criteria, between “the different authors and the partic-
ular forms of speech which were used by each in ac-

A. T. Nikolainen, “Om planlaggningens problem i en_ totalfram-

stallning av Nya testamentets teologi,’ Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 37/38
(1972/73), 310-319; H. Riesenfeld, ‘‘Reflections on the Unity of the
New Testament,” Religion 3 (1973), 35-51; U. Luz, ‘“Theologia
crucis als Mitte der Theologie im Neuen Testament,” EvTh 34 (1974),
116-141; E. Lohse, “Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments als theologi-
sches Problem. Uberlegungen zur Aufgabe einer Theologie des Neuen
Testaments,’ EvTh 35 (1975), 139-154; W. Schrage, “Die Frage
nach der Mitte und dem Kanon im Kanon des Neuen Testament in
der neueren Diskussion,” Rechtfertigung. Festschrift fiir E. Kasemann,
eds. J. Friedrich, W. Pohlmann, and P. Stuhlmacher (Tibingen/
G6ttingen, 1976), pp. 415-442.
2See above, Chapter I, and particularly Smend, Die Mitte des AT,
pp. 7, 27-46.
3G. F. Hasel, “The Problem of the Center in the OT Theology
Debate,’ ZAW 86 (1974), 65-82; idem, OT Theology, pp. 77-103.
4P. Grech, “Contemporary Methodological Problems in New Testa-
ment Theology,” BTB 2 (1972), 264f.
 142 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

cordance with his time and place. .. . One has to collect

carefully the conceptions of the individual authors and
to order them each according to their place... . From
the time of the new forms of doctrine [of the NT] one
must collect the conceptions of Jesus, Paul, Peter, John
and James.” The collection of these “conceptions” of
the different NT authors is to go behind the conceptions
in the minds of the NT writers to find a uniformity on
the basis of which that which is central can be distin-
guished from that which is peripheral. This approach
calls for “content criticism” (Sachkritik) which is at the
forefront of the current issue, K. Haacker notes that this
involves two presuppositions in the method proposed
by Gabler: (1) The possibility to distinguish by means
of human reason between the divine and the human,
the transcendent and the historical and relative. The
authority of Scripture for interpretation has been re-
placed by reason as the actual source of revelation be-
cause it decides what revelation is. (2) It is proper to
ask for the “conceptions” of the individual authors,
which leads to an eclectic synthesis without any dog-
matic authority.® The aftermath of these and associated
presuppositions appear to be among the root causes for
the contemporary emphases on diversity and disparity
in the NT. E, Lohse has put it in the following terms:
“Historical-critical exegesis of the NT writings forces
us to conclude that they . .. do not develop a unified
teaching but offer different theological presentations.”
fk. Kasemann has repeatedly emphasized that the NT
contains “a manifoldedness of divergent conceptions”®
and that in the NT “by and large there is no internal
coherence. The tensions everywhere evident amount at
5J. P. Gabler, “Oratio de iusto discrimine theologiae biblicae et
dogmaticae,” Gableri Opuscula Academica II (Ulm, 1831), p. 187.
German trans. in O. Merk, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments
in threr Anfangszeit (Marburg, 1972), pp. 285f.
6Haacker, “Einheit und Vielfalt in der Theologie des NT,” pp. 30f.
‘Lohse, “Die Einheit des NT theologisches Problem,” p. 148.
8E. Kasemann, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen II (Gé6t-
tingen, 1964), pp. 27, 205.
THE CENTER AND UNITY IN NT THEOLOGY 143

times to contradictions,” namely “irreconcilable the-

ological contradictions.” A. Stock reminds us that the
emphasis on contradictions and diversity in the NT is
the result of the methodological tendency of historical
criticism.'! “The problem [of divergences] becomes par-
ticularly acute through the resistance of Scripture to
this criticism on the basis of its own claim for canonical
authority. This authority implies a unity no matter how
it is understood.” Different scholars have maintained
that there is a unity in diversity, but such unity is con-
ceived of along different lines and gained with contra-
dictory approaches,
It is imperative to make a twofold distinction with
regard to the center of the NT.ime ) The- question: LOE
thé’center and unity of the NT itself, ie., the issue as
to whether there is something that appears as the un-
dergirding aspect on the basis of which unity can. be
discerned in spite of all diversity, and (2) the question
of the center as an organizing principle for NT theology |
PN

on. the one hand and as a criterion for‘‘content crit-

icism” which affirms in one form or another a “canon
within the canon,” The latter implies such antitheses as
“authority /disintegration,” “totality/selection,” and “ob-
jectivity /subjectivity.”™
Is it necessary to have a center for the presentation
of the NT? This question is not easily answered. J. Barr |
speaks of a “plurality of ‘centres’” which make many
>>

different organizations possible.* For the organization

and structure of a NT theology no one of the centers
does “necessarily have to claim exclusive rights as
%E. Kasemann, “The Problem of a New Testament Theology,’ NTS
19 (1973), 242; idem, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen I (2nd
ed.; Gottingen, 1960), p. 218: the manifoldness “is in the NT so
large that we have not only significant tensions but that we have to
recognize irreconcilable theological contradictions.”
10Kasemann, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen I, p. 218.
Stock, Einheit des NT, pp. 9f.
12P, 10.
13L6nning, “Kanon im Kanon,” pp. 214-272.
4]. Barr, ‘““Trends and Prospects in Biblical Theology,’ Journal
of Theological Studies 25 (1974), 272.
 144 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
against any other possibility. . . To me, biblical theol-
ogy, at least at some levels, partakes of the nature of
an art, rather than that of a science.”! This is an im-
plicit admission that the “objectivity /subjectivity” prob-
lem shifts heavily to the side of subjectivity in both the.
selection of a proposed center among various possible
centers and in the fact that the discipline of NT the-
ology is conceived as an “art.” Ultimately the question
concerning the most adequate center of the NT remains
as well as the question whether a center is needed for
the presentation of a NT theology.

B. The Quest for the Center of the NT

I, Anthropology. R. Bultmann and his student H.
Braun have both opted for anthropology as. the center
of the NT.*° Bultmann’s critical reconstruction of the
NT serves existential interpretation.” He is guided by
the “presupposition that they [NT writings] have some-
thing to say to the present.”!8 Accordingly, the task of
a presentation of NT theology means for Bultmann “to
make clear this believing self-understanding in its refer-
ence to the kerygma. . . . This clarification takes place
directly in the analysis of the theology of Paul and
John.” Bultmann asserts, “Every assertion about God
“ is simultaneously an assertion about man and vice versa.
For this reason and in this sense Paul’s theology is, at
the same time, anthropology. . . . Therefore, Paul’s
theology can best be treated as his doctrine of man.”2°
Likewise Johannine theology is best treated anthropo-
logically.
Is the anthropological center of the theologies of Paul
15] bid.
16See above, Chapter II, pp. 82-94.
17R, Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (London, 1965),
II, 251: “The reconstruction stands in the service of the interpreta-
tion of the New Testament writings. . . .”
18Tbid.
19Tbid.
20Bultmann, Theology of the NT, I, 191.
THE CENTER AND UNITY IN NT THEOLOGY 145

and John adequate for the structuring of a NT theology?

Bultmann thinks so. But we must be reminded that he
resorted to “content criticism” as M. Barth indicated?! ~

when it came to such Pauline statements as the Holy

Spirit, resurrection, second Adam, original sin, and
knowledge. They did not fit the anthropological center.
Bultmann’s center made him unable to deal with Ro-
mans 9-11.** KE. Lohse notes that the center of kerygmatic
anthropology forced Bultmann to push into the back-
ground such NT writings as the Synoptics, Acts, Cath-
olic Epistles, and Revelation.** Is kerygmatic anthro-
pology as a center of the NT proving too restrictive and
too narrow? Is it not a category determined by existen- |
tial interpretation, a predetermined means that leads in
its Own way to “a canon within the canon”?
H. Braun, one of Bultmann’s students, has addressed
himself several times to the question of the unity of the
NT. Historical-critical exegesis divides the NT into a
manifoldness of aspects and layers so that “the New
Testament .. . has in its most central pieces neither a
unity of expression (Aussage-Einheit) with reference to
factual events nor a unity of doctrine (Lehreinheit) with
reference to the articles of faith.”** He discusses such
NT concepts as law, eschatology, church and _ office,
christology, soteriology, and sacraments” and concludes
that they are “disparate teachings.”** He summarizes:
The New Testament conceals within itself disparate
ideas; we have made them clear for ourselves in terms
of christology, soteriology, attitude towards Torah,
eschatology, and doctrine of the sacraments. These
21M. Barth, “Die Methode von Bultmann’s ‘Theologie des Neuen
Testaments’,” Theologische Zeitschrift 11 (1955), 15.
22H.-J. Kraus, Die Biblische Theologie (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1970),
pS191.
23Lohse, “Die Einheit des NT als theologisches Problem,” p. 150.
24H. Braun, “Hebt die neutestamentlich-exegetische Forschung den
Kanon auf?” Gesammelte Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner
Umwelt (Tiibingen, 1962), p. 314.
25Pp. 314-319.
26P, 320.
 146 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
diversities refer, for their part, to a still deeper problem
within the New Testaments statements, God as palpable
and given and God as not palpable and not given.”7
Braun appears as one scholar who has pushed the di-
versity of the NT to the extremes of total disparity.
Nevertheless, he himself raises the question whether
these disparate teachings and diverse layers negate an
“inner center from which essential parts even if not the
whole [of the NT] can be grasped.”’* Braun answers
in the affirmative: “Unity is found in the three large
blocks of the proclamation of Jesus, Paul, and in the
Fourth Gospel . . . in the way in which man is seen in
his position before God.””® The “mutual contradiction”?
of the authors of the NT is in Braun’s view overcome
through a theological anthropology. “Anthropology is
-... the constant; christology is the variable.”*! “I can
speak of God only where I speak of man, and hence
anthropologically. I can speak of God only where my
‘I ought’ is counterpointed by ‘I may,’ and hence soteri-
ologically. . . . God would then be a definite type of
relation with one’s fellow man (Mitmenschlichkeit).”*?
Braun's “inner center” of the NT is theological an-
thropology. That this “inner center” is not able to in-
clude all writings or blocks of writings from the NT
is recognized by Braun himself, who therefore affirms
the principle of “a canon within the canon.”** A. Stock
points out that “the unity of the NT encompasses for
Braun as much as the message of the ‘I may’ and ‘you
ought’ can be heard by him in a pure form.”*4 He notes
that here too subjectivity is the key in Braun’s center
of theological anthropology.
R. Bultmann affirmed that his intention has been most
27Braun, ‘““The Problem of a NT Theology,” p. 182.
28Braun, Gesammelte Studien, p. 320.
29Tbid.
30Braun, “The Problem of a NT Theology,” p. 169.
31Braun, Gesammelte Studien, p. 272.
32Braun, “The Problem of a NT Theology,” p. 183.
33Braun, Gesammelte Studien, pp. 227, 229-232.
34Stock, Einheit des NT, p. 32.
THE CENTER AND UNITY IN NT THEOLOGY 14]

consistently carried on by Braun, whose concept of unity

with the constant of the self-understanding of the be-
liever is explicitly accepted by him.* In contrast to
Bultmann’s acceptance several post-Bultmannians have
indicated their opposition. E. Kasemann speaks bluntly
of Braun’s “inner center” of theological anthropology as
a “kind of mysticism [which] means bankruptcy, and a x ih
protest should be raised in the name of intellectual hon-
esty when humanism is in this fashion taken over by
Christianity.”"*° E. Lohse charges Braun with “radical
reductionism.”*’ Whereas Bultmann’s NT theology “pre-
sents anthropology,’ by Braun theology “is dissolved
into anthropology.’** Lohse points that if the NT lacks
a unified Christology, then it should be noted that it
also lacks a unified anthropology.® G. Ebeling objects
to Braun’s principle of unity because it even lacks any-
thing Christian. Indeed Braun’s theological anthropol-<
ogy is the attempt to define the nature of Christianity
without speaking about God and Jesus Christ. Ebeling
counters that God is not “an unintelligible cipher’*? and
“Christology is indeed variable in the way it is expressed
(in its How) but not in the fact that it is expressed
(in its That). There is no choice— and this is for the
sake of the self-understanding of faith— between. . .
christological and non-christological kerygma.”*! “The
constant of the self-understanding of faith,” affirms
Ebeling, is not anthropology, but “that the faith is
faith in Jesus Christ, that is, faith which is directed
and which accepts this he
to the christological kerygma,
35R. Bultmann, “The Primitive Christian Kerygma and the His-
torical Jesus,” The Historical Jesus and the Kergymatic Christ, eds.
C. E. Braaten and R. A. Harrisville (Nashville, 1964), pp. 35f.
36K 4semann, ‘“The Problem of a NT Theology,” p. 241.
37E. Lohse, Grundriss der neutestamentlichen Theologie (Stuttgart,
1974), p. 13.
38Lohse, “Die Einheit des NT als theologisches Problem,” p. 152;
idem, Grundriss der ntl. Theologie, p. 13. ,
39Lohse, Grundriss der ntl. Theologie, pp. 13f., 163.
40G. Ebeling, Theology and Proclamation (Philadelphia, 1966), p.
76.
41P, 48.
 148 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
kerygma in its own confession.”*2 These critical con-
tributions to the issue of a center of the NT as main-
tained by Braun and supported by Bultmann reveal
the fundamental issues. Both “kerygmatic anthropology”.
(Bultmann) and “theological anthropology” (Braun)
are found wanting when it comes to the question of
the center of the NT.
( 2) Salvation History. Our discussion of the salvation
history approach as represented by O. Cullmann, G. E.
Ladd, and L. Goppelt has indicated that under the same
name a variety of presentations of different theological
roots and aims can come to expression.*® The scholar
-who has engaged himself most comprehensively with
salvation history (Heilsgeschichte) in this century is O.
Cullmann. He objects vehemently against those who
find a “sadistic joy in emphasizing disparity and who
show anger against those who attempt to demonstrate
a line of connection at a given point.”** Cullmann seems
to be seconded in his attempt to highlight salvation
history by F, C. Grant, who states that the NT’s “history
is ‘history of salvation’ (Heilsgeschichte).”’* Grant also
objects to today’s “danger . . . that we may overem-
phasize the diversity by ignoring the unity.”4* “There
is a real unity in the New Testament presentation of
the Christian religion under all its diversity, in its view
of God, of his revelation, of salvation, of the finality
and absoluteness of Christ.”*7 While Grant recognizes
unity in diversity and affirms salvation history, he dif-
fers from Cullmann as do others*® in refraining from
42Tbid.
43See above, Chapter II, pp. 111-132.
440. Cullmann, Christologie des Neues Testaments, p. 67.
45F. C. Grant, An Introduction to New Testament Thought (Nash-
ville, 1950), p. 41.
46P, 42.
47P, 29.
48G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids,
Mich., 1974); L. Goppelt, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 2 vols.
(Gottingen, 1975-76); A. M. Hunter, Introducing New Testament
Theology (2nd ed.; London, 1963).
 THE CENTER AND UNITY IN NT THEOLOGY 149
employing salvation history as a unifying center of
the NT.
In his book Christ and. Time Cullmann outlined his
understanding of Christ as the center of time as de-
picted by Jesus, Paul, and John.*’ For Cullmann Christ » >
is the center of time but not of the NT. Already in the
1950s Cullmann confesses that “from different angles
I always come up again to the same conclusions, namely,
that the real center of early Christian faith and thought
is redemptive [salvation] history (Heilsgeschichte).”*°
What this means is explicated in his Christology of the
New Testament (2nd ed., 1967) in which he suggests
that the NT is disinterested in the questions of nature
and being but only in “functional Christology.”® Cull-
mann’s magnum opus under the title Salvation in His-
tory (1967) attempts “to rescue the term ‘salvation
history’ from being abused.”*? It seeks to provide the
evidence that the main NT types of salvation history
rest in Jesus, Primitive Christianity, Paul, and the
Fourth Gospel.** This means that the “salvation-histor-
ical perspective” applies for “all areas of early Christian
faith, thought, and activity.”
It should be noted that “salvation history” is in Cull-
mann’s thought the basis on which the canon of Scrip-
ture, both OT and NT, depends.® “It seems to be im-
possible to justify the canon apart from salvation his-
tory and it is not by accident that its justification is
inevitably questioned whenever salvation history is re-
jected.”°® The “inmost essence of the Bible itself” is
“salvation history” so that “both the idea of a canon
49Q, Cullmann, Christ and Time (3rd ed.; London, 1962), p. xx.
500. Cullmann, The Early Church (Philadelphia, 1956), p. xxi.
510. Cullmann, Christology of the NT (Philadelphia, 1959), pp.
326f.
52Cullmann, Christ and Time, p. xxiv.
53830. Cullmann, Salvation in History (New York, 1967), pp. 186-
291.
BS Packs):
55P, 55.
56P, 294.
 150 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

and the manner of its realization are a crucial part of

the salvation history of the Bible.”*”
Cullmann comes to speak of the problem of “the
canon within the canon,” ie., the problem of a norm
or criterion within the Bible with which a material
selection can be undertaken. His objection to the Lu-
y theran problem of a “canon within the canon” is explicit.
“Any selection of a criterion is bound to be subjective
and arbitrary.If we take seriously at all the thoughtof
a canon comprising both Testaments, then we must say
that it can only be salvation history which constitutes
_ the unity of Scripture ... , because it can include all
these books.’””**
Cullmann must be given credit for taking derioely
the total canon of the Bible. He refuses, at least in
principle, to give in to the temptation of a selective
principle. He seeks to avoid “a canon within the canon”
as a concentration on a particular part of the whole by
which the whole is to be judged. Cullmann’s concern
not only for the whole NT but even for the whole of
Scripture appears second to none among continental NT
scholars.
Reactions to Cullmann’s “center” or “essence” of the
Bible come from various quarters. C. F, Evans feels that
the defect of “salvation history” in Cullmann’s thought
“is that it presupposes a kind of canal of sacred event
or divine action flowing within the bounds of the world’s
history, with the consequent doubtful definitions and
demarkations which go with determining where the
canal is to be found.” R. Bultmann’s early reaction to
Cullmann’s concept of Heilsgeschichte was that “he
turns the theology of the New Testament into a Chris-
tian philosophy of history.”®° This can indeed be said
57T bid. (italics his).
58P, 298.
59C. F. Evans, Is ‘Holy Scripture’ Christian? (London, 1971), p. 59.
60R. Bultmann, “History of Salvation and History,” Existence and
Faith (Cleveland/New York, 1960), p. 233; idem, “Heilsgeschichte
und Geschichte. Zu O. Cullmann, Christus und die Zeit,’ PTNT, p.
SUI
THE CENTER AND UNITY IN NT THEOLOGY 15)

of E. Stauffer's New Testament Theology, which takes as

its principle of arrangement the motif of salvation his-
tory.’ Other scholars® followed Bultmann’s charge
that Cullmann turned “salvation history” into a “Chris-
tian philosophy of history.” To this Bultmann added
that neither Jesus, Paul, nor John thought about an on-~
going process of salvation but that Christ was for the
latter the end of time and not its center.* In this Bult-
mann has been seconded by E. Fuchs and. W. Kreck,”
who see Christ as the end of history. Cullmann has re-
sponded that “salvation history” is not a “Christian
philosophy of history” superimposed from the outside
upon the NT.“ He is inadvertently supported by E.
Kasemann on the point that Christ is not the end of-
history in the theology of Paul: “Paul cannot and will
not speak of an end of history that has already taken
place, but he does regard the time of the end as having
dawned.”** Thus Cullmann’s basic thesis that “salvation |
history” is the principle of the unity of the NT, even’
of the Bible, seems to remain unshaken.
It was Bultmann’s student H. Conzelmann who pro-
duced his redaction critical study of the Gospel of Luke
under the title Die Mitte der Zeit (The Center of Time),
which was borrowed from Cullmann. He attempted to
show that Luke is the theologian of salvation history.
Conzelmann supported what Bultmann had stated ear-
lier, namely that “it is a gross overstatement to say that _
the entire New Testament presupposes a unified con-—
61See above, Chapter I, p. 41.
62For example, K. G. Steck, Die Idee der Heilsgeschichte: Hof-
mann-Schlatter-Cullmann (Zurich, 1959).
688Bultmann, “History of Salvation and History,” p. 237; PTNT,
p. 306.
64—. Fuchs, “Christus das Ende der Geschichte,” Zur Frage nach
dem historischen Jesus (Tubingen, 1960), pp. 79ff.; W. Kreck, Die
Zukunft des Gekommenen (1961),
65Cullmann, Christ and Time, pp. xviii-xxi; idem, Salvation in His-
tory, pp. 44-47, 56f., 62f.
66E. Kasemann, “On the Topic of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic,”
Journal for Theology and Church 6 (1969), 129.
87H. Conzelmann, Die Mitte der Zeit (Tiibingen, 1953), Eng. trans.
The Theology of St. Luke (London, 1961).
152 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

ception of the history of salvation.” In Cullmann’s

view Conzelmann “wished to make clear that the whole
construction is not the view of the New Testament but
that of Luke— or better said, that it is a Lucan distor-
tion. With his salvation history Luke abandoned the
essence of Jesus’ eschatology. . . . This he accomplished
with his salvation-historical scheme of ‘periods’. . . .”®
Research into the Lucan theology continues. At present
the contrast between Luke and Jesus and Luke and Paul
is no longer seen along the lines depicted by Conzel-
mann. Recent assessments indicated that Luke has not
““de-eschatologized’ the gospel tradition without quali-
fication”’? and Luke’s salvation history “includes within
it the hope for an imminent end.” While Conzelmann
emphasizes salvation history as the basic theme of Luke-
Acts, others emphasize for Luke-Acts either salvation
(I. H. Marshall), or ecclesiology (J. Jervell), or ortho-
doxy (C. H. Talbert ).” In this instance, the attack upon
Cullmann’s thesis has not been as successful as Bult-
mannians thought at first. H.-J. Kraus defends Cull-
mann’s view of Heilsgeschichte against the issues raised
by K. G. Steck.”

68Bultmann, ‘History of Salvation and History,” p. 235; PTNT,

p.303:
69Cullmann, Salvation in History, p. 46. Conzelmann (An Outline
of the Theology of the NT, pp. 149-152) has lately affirmed that
Luke’s theology is no departure from primitive Christianity.
770A. J. Hultgren, “Interpreting the Gospel of Luke,” Interpretation
30 (1976), 364; cf. S. Brown, Apostasy and Perseverance in the
Theology of Luke (Rome, 1969); I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and
Theologian (London, 1970); J. Jervell, Luke and the People of God
(Minneapolis, 1972); C. H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological
Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts (Missoula, 1974); E. Franklin,
Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts
(London, 1975); S. G. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission
in Luke-Acts (Cambridge, 1973); H. Flender, St. Luke, Theologian
of Redemptive History (London, 1967); W. G. Kiimmel, “Current
Theological Accusations against Luke,’ Andover Newton Quarterly
16 (1975), 131-145; C. H. Talbert, “Shifting Sands: The Recent
Study of the Gospel of Luke,” Interpretation 30 (1976), 381-395.
71Talbert, “Shifting Sands,” p. 387.
72See above, n. 70.
73Kraus, Die biblische Theologie, pp. 352-355.
THE CENTER AND UNITY IN NT THEOLOGY 153

It has already been noted that Cullmann is a rare

continental NT scholar who attempted to find a unifying
theme for the entire Bible of both Testaments. He dem-
onstrated that salvation history, aside from the question
of how it is conceived, is an important Biblical concept.
The question, however, remains whether it is indeed _
the unifying theme. Cullmann still needs to prove that
all the documents of the OT testify to and have as their
basic theme salvation history. The same applies for the
NT documents. Even though salvation history itself
is subject to a variety of definitions, it is to be con-
ceded that it is a basic NT concept. The question re-
mains, should it serve as an organizing principle for a
NT theology? E. Stauffer attempted it and ended up ,
with a philosophy of history. This does not necessarily
mean that every such attempt will end in the same
way. It is indeed possible to affirm that the perspective
of salvation history is a basic concept in the Bible”
without transforming it into the unifying center and
employing it as the organizing principle for a NT
theology:
3) Covenant, Love, and Other Proposals. The cove-
hafit concept of the Bible has come into the forefront
of Biblical studies in recent years.” One of this century’s
giants of OT theology employed the covenant concept
as the systematic principle of the organization of the
OT. W. Eichrodt opted for a systematic cross-section
treatment of the OT on the basis of the covenant con-
cept.”®> Several scholars have suggested that the cove-
nant can also serve as the unifying principle for the

74E. Kasemann, Perspectives on Paul (Philadelphia, 1971), p. 63:

“T would even say it is impossible to understand the Bible in general
or Paul in particular without the perspective of salvation history.”
This judgment does not lead Kasemann to make it into a unifying
center which he sees in the Pauline message of justification.
75See especially D. J. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant, A Survey
of Current Opinions (Richmond, 1972); E. Kutsch, Verheissung und
Gesetz (Berlin/New York, 1973).
76W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Philadel-
phia, 1965-67).
 154 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

NT. O. Loretz has favored it and F. C. Fensham has

outlined a covenant-based theology in a programmatic
essay."* The fact is that not all parts of the NT are
directly or even indirectly related to the covenant.
Therefore, the covenant concept can at best lead to a
cross-section method” of NT theology, because it is not
sufficiently comprehensive to include within it the full
richness and all the variety of NT thought.*® It seems
that it is impossible to do justice to the (Biblical and)
NT testimonies by a unilinear approach, whether it be
through such themes, concepts, or motifs as ruler-
ship of God,*! kingdom of God,®2 rule of God and com-
munion between God and Man, or promise.8* We
may venture to add that even as central a concept
as the resurrection® will not do justice to the richness
™O. Loretz, Die Wahrheit der Bibel (Freiburg, 1964).
78F. C. Fensham, “Covenant, Promise and Expectation in the Bible,”
Theologische Zeitschrift 23 (1967), 305-322. The covenant theme
in the NT has also been stressed by D. R. Hillers, Covenant: The
History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore, 1969), pp. 178-188.
7See Hasel, OT Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, pp.
43-46.
80So V. Warnach, Agape. Die Liebe als Grundmotif der neutesta-
mentlichen Theologie (Diisseldorf, 1951); C. Spicq, ‘Nouvelles ré-
flexions sur la théologie biblique,” Revue des Sciences Philosophiques
et Theologiques 42 (1958), 212f.
81H. Seebass, ‘Der Beitrag des AT zum Entwurf einer biblischen
Theologie,”’ Wort und Dienst 8 (1965), 20-49, esp. 30ff.
8°G. Klein, “ ‘Reich Gottes’ als biblischer Zentralbegriff,’ EvTh
30 (1970), 642-670, suggests this as the center for both Testaments.
83G. Fohrer, “Der Mittelpunkt einer Theologie des Alten Testa-
ments,’ Theologische Zeitschrift 24 (1968), 161ff., argues that his dual
concept does justice to both OT and NT.
84W. C. Kaiser, “The Centre of Old Testament Theology: The
Promise,” Themelios 10 (1974), 1-10, considers “promise” as ‘‘a uni-
versal key to the Scriptures which is sufficient to encompass the great
variety of Biblical books, themes and concepts” (p. 9).
85W. Kiinneth, Ostergedanken (Lahr, 1963), p. 18; idem, “Zur
Frage nach der Mitte der Schrift,” p. 130, suggests that the center
and unity of the NT (and the OT as well) is the resurrection of
Jesus Christ. For an exposition of Kiinneth’s resurrection center, see
M. Kwiran, The Resurrection of the Dead. Exegésis of 1 Cor 15 in
German Protestant Theology from F. C. Baur to W. Kiinneth (Basel,
1972), pp. 335-357. Among other scholars holding to the resurrection
as the center of the NT are R. Baumann, Mitte und Norm des
Christlichen. Eine Auslegung von I Kor 1, 1-3, 4 (Minster, 1968);
 THE CENTER AND UNITY IN NT THEOLOGY 155

of NT thought when it comes to the writing of a NT

theology. In touching upon the resurrection theme in
the NT we are already in the realm of Christology to
which we must give attention now.
4: Christology. Under the heading “Christology” we
may discuss a variety of proposals regarding the center
of the NT which are in some way or another related
to Jesus Christ. B. Reicke’s suggestion takes us into the /.
early part of the 1950s and may be a suitable starting
point for the proposals of a christological center. He sug-
gests that “in the Christ-event ... [there is] the ma-
terial unity of the New Testament.”*® All NT writings
refer to the same Jesus Christ and point to the same
event connected with him, even though one can recog-
nize that “in the Synoptics, John, and Paul and in part
among other writers of NT books Jesus is presented in
differing christological aspects.”*" F. C. Grant expresses
his view similarly by affirming that the NT “is genuinely
Christocentric.”** P, Robertson sees in the “Christolog-
ical theme” the factor which can “unify the whole of
New Testament theology. . . .”*° Many Protestant and
Catholic scholars recognize in Jesus Christ the center of
the NT. A. L. Moore is a strong supporter of salvation

J. Guillet, “Die Mitte der Botschaft: Jesus Tod und Auferstehung,”

Internationale Katholische Zettschrift 2 (1973), 225-238; and F.
Courth, “Die historische Jesus als Auslegungsnorm des Glaubens?”
Miinchener theologische Zeitschrift 25 (1974), 301-316, esp. 306f.
86Reicke, ‘“Einheitlichkeit oder verschriedene ‘Lehrbegriffe’ in der
ntl. Theologie?”’ p. 405.
87P, 406.
88Grant, Introduction to NT Thought, p. 56.
89P. Robertson, “The Outlook for Biblical Theology,” Toward a
Theology of the Future, eds. D. P. Wells and C. H. Pinnock (Carol
Stream, IIl., 1971), pp. 65-91, esp. 80.
90For example, H. Schlier, Besinnung auf des Neue Testament (Frei-
burg, 1964), p. 69; H. U. von Balthasar, “Einigung in Christus,”
Freiburger Zeitschrift fiir Philosophie und Theologie 15 (1968), 171-
189, esp. 187; A. Vogtle, “Kirche und Schriftprinzip nach dem Neuen
Testament,” Bibel und Leben 12 (1971), 153-162, esp. 157; K. H.
Schelkle, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, III, 17; H. von Campen-
hausen, Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibel (Tubingen, 1968), p.
378; W. Marxsen, Der “Friihkatholizismus’ im Neuen Testament
(Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1958), p. 67; Ladd, A Theology of the NT, p.
 156 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
history as the basic conception of the NT, but empha-
sizes that “from the centre, Jesus Christ, the line of
salvation-history runs backward through the covenant
to creation and beyond, and forwards through the
church and its mission to the Parousia and beyond.”
Without denying the salvation-historical concept of the
NT, the “Christological unity” is the key to the NT.”
It can be said that G. E. Ladd is committed to salvation
history as much as is Cullmann, but in opposition to
the latter Ladd refuses against his earlier opinion to let
the salvation-historical or eschatological structure”? pro-
vide the synthesis for an organization of NT theology.
He believes that a NT theology written from the point
of view of a single organizing principle can be done so
only on the basis of “great loss.” “There is great richness
in the variety of New Testament theology which must
not be sacrificed.”
W. Schrage does not object to the center of the NT
in Jesus Christ. To the contrary, he argues that those
who stop by saying that Jesus Christ is the center of
the NT have stopped too early.” In a similar vein M.
Hengel affirms a “christological center,” but suggests
that there are a variety of formulae such as “‘solus
Christus’, ‘sola gratia’, ‘iustificatio impii’ with which it
can be described.”** At least two of these formulae have
had strong supporters. Before we turn to these it seems
advisable to mention several other suggestions in which
the “christological center” is more broadly defined.

33; Lohse, “Die Einheit des NT als theologisches Problem,” pp. 152-
154; Haacker, “Einheit und Vielfalt in der Theologie des NT,” pp.
40f.; Kiimmel, The Theology of the NT, p. 332; and others.
91A. L. Moore, The Parousia in the New Testament (Leiden, 1966),
pp. 89f.
92P, 172.
%3Ladd, “Eschatology and the Unity of NT Theology,” p. 273.
94Ladd, A Theology of the NT, p. 33.
%5Schrage, “Die Frage nach der Mitte und dem: Kanon im Kanon
des NT,” p. 438.
96M. Hengel, “Historische Methoden und theologische Auslegung
des Neuen Testaments,’ Kerygma und Dogma 19 (1973), 85-90,
esp. 90.
THE CENTER AND UNITY IN NT THEOLOGY 157
H. Riesenfeld of the University of Uppsala raises the
question of how it could have happened that the “dis-
parate elements of belief [in the NT], the only common
denominator of which was that they in some way re-
ferred to a man named Jesus, who was supposed to have
arisen from the dead, had been collected, integrated
and considered homogenous in such an amazingly short

considered to be heavenly Lord, will not be sufficient

to explain why there was a diversity of christological
titles and theological formulas, but only one Christian
Church. . . .”°8 Ultimately the self-consciousness of
Jesus alone can answer the question. “In the last re-
sort the sense and the structural consistency of the
kerygma proclaimed by the early Church depend upon
the fact that Jesus during the time of his public min-
istry attributed to his person, his works and acts —
and not least to his suffering and death — decisive im-
portance for the coming and realization of the reign of
God.”*® This is made clear in Jesus’ usage of the title
Son of Man which is typical of the pattern of thought
of NT Christology.’ Riesenfeld seems to argue that
the Jesus kerygma contained an “explicit” and not ~
merely an “implicit” Christology.
W. Beilner suggests that it is the task of NT theology
to show how the historical Jesus became the proclaimed =
exalted Christ." He believes that “NT theology is to
be understood as a unity only from two basic aspects,
namely from the proclaimed Jesus as the Christ and
the “locus” of that proclamation, the existence of the
church. These two elements form the bracket of all dif-
ferent NT theologies or layers of expression.” This
97Riesenfeld, “Reflections on the Unity of the NT,” p. 41.
98P, 49,
99Tbid.
100Pp. 50f.
101W. Beilner, ‘“Neutestamentliche Theologie. Methodische Besin-
nung,” Dienst und Lehre (Wien, 1965), pp. 145-165, esp. 159.
102P, 158.
 158 NEW ‘VYESTAMENT THEOLOGY

means for Beilner and his fellow Catholic Schelkle “that

the unity of the NT has its ground in the one church.”?
The unity of the NT is conceived of differently by F.
Mussner whose thesis it is that “ ‘the center of the gospel’
is according to the NT the gospel of the dawn of the:
eschatological saving time in Jesus Christ.”!°! This mes-
sage “forms in a certain sense the unifying bracket in
the NT canon and does not allow a canon within the
canon. He warns, however, that one must not raise
“a particular single kerygma . . . to a central place of
the gospel or even make it into a unique gospel,” be-
cause it “functions too easily as an explosive charge
within the NT canon as is evident from history.”!%
Theologians such as W. Beilner, K. H. Schelkle, and
F’, Mussner are representative Catholic examples argu-
ing for the unity of the NT’* without necessarily mak-
ing the proposed centers into an organizing principle
on the basis of which a NT theology should be con-
structed. On the Protestant side we may mention par-
ticularly W. G. Kimmel and E, Lohse, both of whom
have provided NT theologies. W. G. Kiimmel notes that
“the concern about a theology of the New Testament
found itself from the outset confronted with the prob-
lem of diversity and unity in the New Testament.”
With great perception he suggests “that the presenta-
tion and arrangement of a ‘theology of the New Testa-
ment can come about only as a result of work with the
diverse forms of the New Testament proclamation.”!®
In other words, no predetermined center can ever func-
tion as an organizing principle (pace Bultmann, Braun,
Cullmann, etc.) for the presentation of a NT theology.
In the “Conclusion” of his NT theology Kiimmel returns
103Schelkle, Theologie des NT, III, 16; Beilner, Neutestament-
liche Theologie,” p. 160.
104Mussner, “Die Mitte des Evangeliums in ntl. Sicht,” pp. 27155290;
105F. Mussner, Praesentia Salutis (Munich, 1967), pp. 174 ff.
106Other Catholic voices are reviewed by A. Kiimmel, “Mitte des
Neuen Testaments,” pp. 79f.
107W. G. Kiimmel, The Theology of the New Testament According
to its Major Witnesses: Jesus-Paul-John (Nashville, 1973), p. 15.
108P, 17.
 THE CENTER AND UNITY IN NT THEOLOGY 159

to the question of the “center of the New Testament.”?”

His assumption is that the center of the NT found ex-
pression “in its purest version” in “(1) the message and
figure of Jesus as these became perceptible to us in the
earliest tradition of the synoptic gospels; then (2) the
proclamation of the primitive community ...; and (3)
the first theological reflection on this proclamation by
Paul.”!"° On the basis of these three blocks Kimmel sug-
gests that the following twofold aspect about Jesus
Christ constitutes the center of the NT: “. . . God has
caused his salvation promised for the end of the world
to begin in Jesus Christ, and that in this Christ event
God has encountered us and intends to encounter us
as the Father who seeks to rescue us from imprisonment
in the world and to make us free for active love.”!™
Inasmuch as Kiimmel believes that this “common mes-
sage .. . can be labeled as foundational and by which
the message of the rest of the New Testament can be
measured,’"’” we must react by raising a question. What
objective criteria can Kiimmel cite for his choice of the
earliest synoptic traditions about Jesus, the kerygma of
the primitive community, and the proclamation of Paul
as the NT blocks of materials that yield the center of
the NT with which the remainder of the NT is to be
measured? As a Lutheran theologian Kiimmel is com-
mitted to the material principle of a “canon within the
canon,'* but in spite of this he has failed to justify the
selection of the criteria chosen. E. Lohse is likewise
committed to the principle of a “canon within the
canon, which functions both as a principle of selection
and a principle of judgment within the NT, He is not
setting up his own criteria for a center of the NT in
the form of certain blocks of writings at the exclusion
109Unfortunately the German term Mitte is translated with “heart”
instead of the customary “center” in Kiimmel’s Theology of the NT,
ppsi322-339:
110P, 324.
111P, 332.
112P_ 324.
113W. G. Kiimmel, ‘Notwendigkeit und Grenze des neutestament-
lichen Kanons,” ZThK 47 (1950), 277-313.
160 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

of others. He follows Luther’s principle “what man-

ifests Christ” (“was Christum treibet”)'* and affirms
that “the theology of the witnesses of the NT can
only be unlocked from Christology.” This includes
the fact that anthropology can only be defined through:
Christology. Lohse insists, correctly in our estimation,
that the manifoldness of theological conceptions of the
NT cannot be brought together through a single uni-
fying concept such as salvation history (pace Cullmann)
or anthropology (pace Braun )."° The center and unity
of the manifoldness of the NT expressions are found
in the once-for-all Christ event on the cross in which
God’s love for the world was manifested."7 Is not
the center of the NT Jesus Christ?1®
In harmony with the emphasis of the major Re-
formers, some NT scholars posit the Pauline idea of the
“justification of the godless” (iustificatio impii) as the
center of the NT. E, Kasemann not only wishes to
see the message of justification of the godless as the
center of Pauline theology,’ but supporting the
principle of “a canon within the canon,” he suggests
that it is the center of the whole NT.'*! Here Kasemann
separates himself from his teacher Bultmann whose
kerygmatic anthropology served as the center.'*? Kase-
mann maintains that “the New Testament actually

114] _ohse, “Die Einheit des NT als theologisches Problem,” p. 153.

115Lohse, Grundriss der neutestamentlichen Theologie, p. 14.
116Pp, 162f.
117P, 164.
118See also E. Schweizer, Jesus Christus im vielfaltigen Zeugnis des
Neuen Testaments (Stuttgart, 1968). P. Stuhlmacher, Schriftauslegung
auf dem Wege zur biblischen Theologie (Gottingen, 1975), p. 178,
speaks of ‘“‘the message of reconciliation as the decisive center of
Holy Scripture.”
119F. Kasemann, ‘“Gottes Gerechtigkeit bei Paulus,” Exegetische
Versuche und Besinnungen, II, 181-193.
120F. Kasemann, ‘“Kritische Analyse,’ Das Neue Testament als
Kanon, ed. E. Kasemann (G6ttingen, 1970), p. 369.
121See for a detailed exposition of Kasemann’s unity concept within
his theology, Stock, Einheit des NT, pp. 13-24.
122A summary of the objections of Kasemann against Bultmann
is provided by Stock, Einheit des NT, pp. 62-65.
 THE CENTER AND UNITY IN NT THEOLOGY 161

wants to be understood as a whole as witness to

Christ.”’*? The different NT Christologies are “adequate,
in order to emphasize clearly what manifests Christ.
Because this is the way it is, the justification of the god-
less is the center of all Christian proclamation and
therefore also of Scripture, . . .”"°* He explains em-
phatically that “for me the message of justification and
sola scriptura are identical, the theological formula of
the justification of the godless encompasses in my un-
derstanding all Scripture, including the Old Testament
insofar as it has to do truly with Jesus Christ.” Al-
though this “theological formula” is to be seen in “cor-
relation with Christology,” it is prior to Christology
because any real Christology “is to be oriented . . . on
justification of the godless,”* which “as canon within
the canon . . . is the criterion for the testing of the
spirits even with reference to Christian preaching in
past and present.”'*’ W, Joest agrees: “The Pauline-
reformation proclamation of justification [serves] indeed
as the central interpretation of the Word of God. . . .”!28
Kasemann’s student W. Schrage also puts the accent
where Kasemann has it. For Schrage “iustificatio
impii (Rom. 4:5) is the center and key theme of Paul-
ine proclamation and theology.”!”’ He finds its echo also
in other parts of the NT such as in the so-called Deu-
teropauline letters, 1 Peter, 1 John, and in Revelation.12°
An indirect reaction to the “theological formula” of
justification of the godless as the center of the NT, even

123Kasemann, Das NT als Kanon, p. 404.

124P, 405.
A25P, 370.
126P, 405.
127Tbid.
128W. Joest, “Die Frage des Kanons in der heutigen evangelischen
Theologie,” Was heisst Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift? eds. W. Joest,
F. Mussner, et al. (Regensburg, 1966), p. 198; idem, “Erwagungen
zur kanonischen Bedeutung des Neuen Testaments,” Das Neue Testa-
ments als Kanon, pp. 258-281, esp. 276.
129Schrage, “Die Frange nach der Mitte und dem Kanon im Kanon
des NT,” p. 440.
130P, 441,
162 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

the whole Bible, comes from U. Luz. He argues for the

“theology of the cross (theologia crucis) as the center of
the New Testament.”!*! Luz believes that the NT the-
ologians of the “theology of the cross” par excellence
are Mark and Paul'** but that such other documents as
the Fourth Gospel, Revelation, Hebrews,’ 1 Peter,***
and possibly others contain it. The following summarizes
the proposal of Luz:

The theology of the cross (1) understands the cross

as the ground of salvation in an exclusive sense to
which all other events of salvation (i.e. resurrection,
parousia) are related and understood .. . (2) considers
the cross of Christ as starting-point for theology in the
sense that there is no doctrine of God which is inde-
pendent of a theology of the cross . . . and (3) the cross
is to be understood as the point of orientation for the-
ology from which theological points of departure for an-
thropology, philosophy of history, ecclesiology, ethics,
etc. are provided.1*°

Luz begins his quest for the center of the NT with Paul
but arrives at a christological aspect different from Kase-
mann and his followers.
The NT is christocentric. This christocentricity has a
variety of interrelated aspects. The exclusive emphasis
on one or another aspect runs the risk of minimizing
or maximizing one at the expense of another. The vari-
ous aspects need to be carefully investigated, ex-
pounded, and seen in relation to each other. F. Mussner
notes that “the Pauline doctrine of justification reveals
immediately that the iustificatio impii by grace alone
is based on the substitutionary atoning death of Jesus
on the cross in which the saving righteousness of God ‘is
revealed’ in the ‘now.’ The justification of man is in the
131U, Luz, “Theologia crucis als Mitte der Theologie des Neuen
Testaments,’ EvTh 34 (1974), 116-141.
132Pp, 121-131 on Paul and pp. 131-139 on Mark.
133P, 118.
134P, 128.
135P, 116.
 THE CENTER AND UNITY IN NT THEOLOGY 163

apostle’s view grounded in a factum historicum.”!** As

a Lutheran theologian E. Lohse is not less interested in
the concept of justification than Kasemann and_ his
followers. He calls upon Luther himself to support his
conclusion that “the teaching about justification has to
be grounded alone in Christology.”'** H. Diem objects
on other grounds. Justification is but a partial aspect
of the Bible through which other aspects are unjustly
criticized.1°°
No consensus has emerged regarding the question
of the center of the New Testament. The reasons for
this are manifold as the discussion of the debate has
indicated. We must pause for some basic considerations.
It has been noted repeatedly that one of the purposes
of the quest for a center of the NT is to provide a basis
for its unity on the one hand and for the systematic
presentation or structure of a NT theology on the other.
It appears that NT scholarship is at this point in the grip
of a philosophical and theological speculative presup-
position which claims that the multiform and multiplex
NT materials in all their rich manifoldness will fit
into and can be systematically ordered and arranged
by means of a center. Here one of the most basic her-
meneutical questions for the task of NT _ theology.
emerges. Can any center of the NT be sufficiently broad
f
/
ah
wv

and thus adequate to bring about a systematization of

the NT materials into aconceived structural unity? The
fact of the proliferation of proposed centers for the NT
indicates that this does not seem to be possible. It has
become evident that even the most carefully worked
out center whether in the form of a scheme, formula,
concept, motif, or idea proves itself finally as one-sided,
inadequate, and insufficient and thus inevitably leads to
misconceptions as regards the variety, manifoldness,
and richness of the NT. The phenomenon of constantly
increasing numbers of new suggestions at what consti-
136Mussner, “Die Mitte des Evangeliums in ntl. Sicht,”’ p. 282.
187Lohse, Grundriss der neutestamentlichen Theologie, p. 14.
138H. Diem, “Die Einheit der Schrift,’ EvTh 13 (1953), 391f., 397,
400.
164 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

tutes the center of the NT and how they contribute to

the writing of a NT theology is in itself a telling witness
to the evident inefficiency of the respective schemes,
formulas, concepts, motifs, or ideas for the task at hand.
On the basis of these undeniable limitations of the
various centers some have presented centers which are
longer in definition and/or larger in scope. It can be
said that even “salvation history” is stretched beyond
its proper limits as regards its capability of serving
as an umbrella under which the richness of the whole
NT can be brought.
We are not denying the legitimacy of the quest for
a center of the NT (and the OT). But as we are deny-
ing that any external structure based on categories of
thought alien to the NT (or the Bible) can be allowed to
be superimposed upon Biblical thought, viz., the God-
Man-Salvation (Theology- Anthropology- Soteriology)
scheme borrowed from dogmatics, so we are convinced
that any center of the NT (or the Bible) is not broad,
deep, and wide enough to do justice to the whole
canonical NT as regards its capability to serve as an
organizing principle. The quest for the center of theNT
(and the OT) as based on the inner Biblical witnesses
ee ‘isfully justified. It seems undeniable ‘that

Christ is the dynamic, Gaihane center at the NT. God’s

gracious saving activity comes to expression in the life
and activity, the suffering, death, and resurrection, as
well as in the exaltation and heavenly ministry of Jesus
Christ. Jesus. Christ_is the beginning, center, and end
of the NT. The NT’s christocentricity must not. be trans-
formed into a structure on the basis of which a NT.
theology is to be written.

C. The Center of the NT and the Canon Within the

Canon

The current debate concerning the center of the NT

is closely related to the problem of canon criticism.
 THE CENTER AND UNITY IN NT THEOLOGY 165

The previous discussion has revealed that the question

of the center of the NT is interwoven with the question
of “the canon withir. the canon.” It is not our purpose
here to review the rich literature on the subject.'®? We
have noted time and again that the center of the NT is
frequently used as a measuring rod whereby one can
discern what the true gospel is and what it is not. The
problem is in no way new, because Luther’s principle
“was Christum treibet” (“what manifests Christ”) im-
plies the criterion of “a canon within the canon”? and
is a key among the roots of the “canon crisis in modern
Protestantism. "4!
It is amazing to observe that modern scholars of one
(Lutheran ) confession, all of whom are equally strongly
committed in their usage of the historical-critical meth-
139Tn addition to the various essays already referred to in n. 1 of
this chapter the following studies since 1965 are particularly relevant:
R. M. Grant, The Formation of the New Testament (New York,
1965); R. L. Morgan, ‘“‘Let’s Be Honest about the Canon: A Plea to
Reconsider a Question the Reformers Failed to Answer,’ Christian
Century 84 (1967), 717-719; A. C. Sundberg, “Toward a Revised
History of the New Testament Canon,” Studia Evangelica 4 (1968),
452-461; idem, “Canon of the NT,” IDB Sup. (1976), 136-140;
C. S. C. Williams, “The History of the Text and Canon of the New
Testament to Jerome,’ Cambridge History of the Bible, ed. G. W. H.
Lampe (New York, 1969), II, 27-53; E. Kasemann, ed., Das Neue
Testament als Kanon (Gottingen, 1970); K.-H. Ohlig, Woher nimmt
die Bibel ihre Autoritat? Zum Verhdltnis von Schriftkanon, Kirche
und Jesus (Diisseldorf, 1970); I. Frank, Der Sinn der Kanonbildung
(Freiburg, 1971); E. Kalin, “The Inspired Community: A Glance at
Canon History,’ Concordia Theological Monthly 42 (1971), 541-
549; H. F. von Campenhausen, Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibel
(Tubingen, 1968); Eng. trans. The Formation of the Christian Bible
(Philadelphia, 1972); H. Burkhardt, “Grenzen des Kanons — Motive
und Masstabe,” Theologische Beitrége 1 (1970), 153-160; G. Maier,
“Kanon im Kanon —oder die ganze Schrift?’ Theologische Beitrage
3 (1972), 21-31; D. E. Groh, “H. von Campenhausen on Canon.
Positions and Problems,” Interpretation 28 (1974), 331-343; J. Barr,
The Bible in The Modern World (New York, 1973); D. L. Dungan,
“The New Testament Canon in Recent Study,” Interpretation 29
(1975), 339-351.
140See K. Barth, “Das Schriftprinzip der reformierten Kirche,”
Zewchen der Zeit 3 (1925), 223; H. Strathmann, “Die Krise des
Kanons der Kirche,” Das NT als Kanon, p. 41, claims that Luther
discovered in Rom. 1:17 “a canon within the canon.” Cullmann,
Salvation in History, pp. 297f.
141Lénning, “Kanon im Kanon,” pp. 39-49.
166 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

od and all of whom are committed to the principle of

“a canon within the canon,” are unable to agree on what
this center of the NT is which is to function as “a canon
within the canon.” We have seen that some of them,
for example, argue for the “justification of the godless”
(Kasemann, Joest, Schrage),"? or for the “theology of
the cross” (Luz),'* and others extract their critical
criteria from the message of the historical Jesus (Jere-
mias), or a combination of the message of Jesus and
the oldest kerygma (Kiimmel, Marxsen),'** or from
particular blocks of writings (H. Braun).'*° This evident
fact leads to only one conclusion: “Any selection of a
criterion [of unity] is bound to be subjective and ar-
bitrary.”"* It is of course admitted that the quest for
a center and a criterion for unity is not to be confused
with an absolutizing of single aspects or with pet the-
ological ideas.‘*7 But it will have to be admitted also
that the subjectivity with which a selection is made
from the whole and on the basis of which the whole
is subjectedto content criticism calls into question the
objectivity of the method itself and the whole procedure.
I. Lénning’s comprehensive study of the whole issue of
“a canon within the canon” from the time of the
Reformation to the present, which comes at major points
to conclusions similar to his teacher Kasemann, adds the
striking admonition that “we cannot make the ‘canon
within the canon’ into the canon.”'*®
The well-known Catholic systematician H. Kiing,

142See above, nn. 123, 128f.

143See above, n. 131.
144W. G. Kiimmel, ‘“Notwendigkeit und Grenze des neutestament-
lichen Kanons,” Das NT als Kanon, pp. 62-97, esp. 94; and above, nn.
107-112; W. Marxsen, “Das Problem des neutestamentlichen Kanons
aus der Sicht des Exegeten,” Das NT als Kanon, pp. 233-246, esp. 246.
145]. Braun, “Hebt die heutige neutestamentlich-exegetische For-
schung den Kanon auf?” Das NT als Kanon, pp. 228f.; cf. above, nn.
28f.
146Cullmann, Salvation in History, p. 298.
147§0 correctly Schrage, ‘““Die Frage nach der Mitte und dem Kanon
im Kanon des NT,” p. 418.
148Lonning, “Kanon im Kanon,” p. 271.
 THE CENTER AND UNITY IN NT THEOLOGY 167

whose theological position is in many ways akin to that

of Kasemann, objects to the program of “a canon within
the_canon, because it “asks for nothing else but to be
more biblical than the Bible, more NT-like than the NT, “
more gospel- like than the Gospel and.even.more Pauline
than Paul.’ 49 He objects to a given preunderstanding
on the basis of which one is to test the spirits. Paul
never applied the principle of the testing of the spirits
to the OT canon. Thus we have no right to use this
principle for the NT canon.’”° He notes that such a pre-
understanding is not grounded in the NT but rather in |
the Lutheran tradition. He asks therefore, “Is this not ~
a position for which one cannot provide any reasons
which would prevent another scholar to make another
choice on the basis of another traditional preunder-
standing for another center and thus to find exegetical
support for another gospel?’! Ultimately any formula,
principle, idea, etc., that is made into the center of the
NT on the basis of which one engages in canon criti-
cism with the selective principle of “a canon within the
canon’ is “subjective arbitrariness,’? because “a given
preunderstanding about the nature of Christian faith is
projected back into the NT as a critical canon within
the canon.”
Another stricture made with regard to a center that
serves as “a canon within the canon” which is employed
for the purpose of content criticism or canon criticism
is its inevitable reductionism.'** The NT considered as
a whole contains “truth in its fullness.” The principle
of “a canon within the canon” cannot do justice to the
totality of the NT. Any center designed for that pur-
149H, King, “Der Frihkatholizismus im NT als kontroverstheolo-
gisches Problem,” Das NT als Kanon, pp. 175-204, esp. 192.
150P, 190.
151P, 191 (italics his).
152Tbid.; also H. exe Theologie als kirchliche Wissenschaft (2nd
ed:; Munich! 1957), p. 206.
1588 tock, Einheit ne NT 3pi70; .
1547], King, Die Kirche (Freiburg. 1967); prilol,
155K. H. Schelkle, Die Petrusbriefe. Der Judasbrief (2nd ed.; Frei-
burg, 1964), p. 245.
168 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

pose tends toward a concentration on a single aspect.

“What does this concentration consist of? It consists of
reductionism.”!* This is the case because it is derived
on the basis of a process of selection. Kiing argues that
selection from the totality of the NT canon leads to a
multiplicity of denominations and to heresy. Only when
one takes the canon of the NT seriously..in_its. totality
can one expect one church. 187 The Catholic scholar H.
Schlier, a former student of Bultmann, also has reserva-
tions concerning the reduction of the full NT gospel
by means of “a canon within the canon.” “If one wishes
to save the position of the faith of Luther . . . then one
is forced to do away with the canon of Scripture. Scrip-
ture is Scripture. Any major or abstract Paulinism . .
finally declares almost all contents of Scripture as not
binding.”1°8
Various Protestant theologians have also raised seri-
ous questions concerning the principle of selection as
it comes to expression in the concept of “a canon within
the canon.” E. Schweizer notes that Scripture is always
“Scripture in function.” Therefore, he rejects “a canon
within the canon.””® The views of the Lutheran sys-
tematician H. Diem and his categorical “No” to “a
canon within the canon”’!® has exercised several NT
scholars.'*! Likewise G. Ebeling refuses to affirm “a
canon within the canon.” For him such a principle runs
the danger of being arbitrary. He speaks of a “legal view
of the canon... which regards the unity of Scripture
156H. Kiing, Strukturen der Kirche (Freiburg, 1962), p. 151; idem,
Die Kirche, p. 27.
157Kiing, “Der Friihkatholizismus im NT als kontroverstheologisches
Problem,” pp. 188f.
158H. Schlier, Die Zeit der Kirche (2nd ed.; Freiburg, 1958), p. 311.
159E. Schweizer, “Kanon?” EvTh 31 (1971), 339-357, esp. 354f.
160See particularly his “Die Einheit der Schrift,’ pp. 385-405, and
his essay ‘Das Problem des Schriftkanons,’ Das NT als Kanon, pp.
159-174.
161See for example the reactions of Kasemann, Das NT als Kanon,
pp. 359-371; and Schrage, “Die Frage nach der Mitte und dem Kanon
im Kanon des NT,” pp. 421-424. A good summary of Diem’s position
is provided by Stock, Einheit des NT, pp. 36-38, 100-112, including
reactions from Protestants and Catholics.
 THE CENTER AND UNITY IN NT THEOLOGY 169

as the unity of a dogmatic doctrinal system. Such a

view can only be carried through to its logical conclu-
sion either by doing what the Catholic Church does,
namely, falling back on the hermeneutical function of
tradition, or, in an apparently arbitrary fashion, estab-
lishing a canon within the canon in the form of a
specific body of writings or a specific doctrine as a
standard of criticism.”*” Ebeling suggests that because
of the diversity and variety of the NT no single tradition
“can be marked out as the traditum tradendum [tradi-
tion to be passed on]; but it is this that points to the
decisive fact that the content of the traditum tradendum
is ... the very Person of Jesus himself as the incarnate
Word of God, giving its authority to the Gospel... .""*
G. Maier is among the severest critics of the principle
of “a canon within the canon.” His point is the failure
of the quest for “a canon within the canon.” It has gone
on for two hundred years but failed, because it is based
on uncontrolled subjectivity. No scholar has been able
to convince all others what such “a canon within the
“canon” should be. huaplece Teeiie |
“The variety of problems to which scholars have
pointed in their discussions of the center of the NT,
one that functions as “a canon within the canon” and
serves as material principle of canon criticism, are
apparently insurmountable. An approach to NT theol-
ogy that seeks to be adequate to the totality of the NT
cannot afford the arbitrariness (King, Ebeling, Diem),
subjectivity (Cullmann, Maier), and reductionism
(Kiing) inherent in the choice of a selective principle
in the form of a center either from without Scripture
(tradition) or from within Scripture on the basis of
162G. Ebeling, The Word of God and Tradition (Philadelphia,
1968), p. 144.
163P. 146. The question is to be raised, however, whether the con-
tent of the NT remains open on account of the emphasis on the
“Person Jesus.”’ See also Stock, Einheit des NT, pp. 24-28, 82-88.
164G, Maier, “Kanon im Kanon—oder die ganze Schrift?” pp. 21-31;
idem, Das Ende der historisch-kritischen Methode (2nd ed.; Wup-
pertal, 1975), pp. 10f., 44; Eng. trans. The End of the Historical-
Critical Method (St. Louis, 1977), pp. 12ff.
170 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

which value judgments are made with regard to the

content of Scripture as a whole or in its parts. Can the
self-authenticating nature of the NT and the Bible as
a whole’® give way to an external or selective prin-
ciple as its norm?

165See F. Mildenberger, ““The Unity, Truth, and Validity of the

Bible,” Interpretation 29 (1975), 391-405, esp. 399.
IV. NT Theology and the OT

NT theology was separated from OT theology since

the year 1800 when the first of four volumes of Georg
Lorenz Bauer’s Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testa-
ments was published. Even though few books have
been published in recent years that treat both the OT
and NT with the title “Biblical theology,” there is no
lack of interest in the subject of the relationship be-
tween the Testaments.” We are reminded anew by G.
1See M. Burrows, An Outline of Biblical Theology (Philadelphia,
1946); G. Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1948); J.
Blenkinsopp, A Sketchbook of Biblical Theology (London, 1968).
2See the following studies in addition to those in nn. 70 and 80
below: A. A. van Ruler, The Christian Church and the OT, trans.
G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, 1971); S. Amsler, L’AT dans l’église
(Neuchatel, 1960); J. D. Smart, The Interpretation of Scripture
(Philadelphia, 1961); P. Grelot, Sens chrétien de VAT (Tournai,
1962); B. W. Anderson, ed., The OT and Christian Faith (New York,
1963; hereafter cited as OTCF); C. Westermann, The OT and Jesus
Christ (Minneapolis, 1970); R. E. Murphy, “The Relationship Be-
tween the Testaments,’ CBQ 26 (1964), 349-359; “Christian Under-
standing of the OT,’ Theology Digest 18 (1970), 321f.; F. Hesse,
Das AT als Buch der Kirche (Gitersloh, 1966); K. Schwarzwaller,
Das AT in Christus (Zurich, 1966); “Das Verhaltnis AT-NT im
Lichte der gegenwartigen Bestimmungen,” EvTh 29 (1969), 281-307;
P. Benoit ‘and R. E. Murphy, eds., How Does the Christian Confront
the OT? (New York, 1967); A. H. J. Gunneweg, “Uber die Pradik-
abilitat alttestamentlicher Texte,” ZThK 65(1968), 389-413; N.
Lohfink, The Christian Meaning of the OT (Milwaukee, 1968);
H. D. Preuss, “Das AT in der Verkiindigung der Kirche,” Deutsches
Pfarrerblatt 63 (1968), 73-79; Kraus, Die Biblische Theologie, pp.
193-305; E. O’Doherty, “The Unity of the Bible,” The Bible Today
1 (1962), 53-57; C. Larcher, L’ Actualité chrétienne de l Ancien Tes-

Wal
172 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Ebeling that one has to study the interconnection be-

tween the Testaments and “has to give an account of
his understanding of the Bible as a whole, i.e. above all
of the theological problems that come of inquiring into
the inner unity of the manifold testimony of the Bible.”*.
The fundamental theological reflections of the Tubingen
NT scholar P. Stuhlmacher lead him to affirm that a
Biblical theology of the NT “can and must be open
toward the Old Testament as the decisive foundation
of the formation of the tradition of the New Testa-
ment.”* These remarks raise the questions of continuity
and discontinuity, or whether one reads uniquely from
the OT and NT or from the NT back into the OT, or
reciprocally from the OT to the NT and the NT to the
OT. Basic to the whole question is not merely an artic-
ulation of the theological problem of the interrelated-
ness between both Testaments but also an inquiry into
the nature of this unity and disunity, whether it is one
language, thought-form, or content. In order to facili-
tate our attempt to survey the issues involved, we may
limit ourselves to discuss what are considered significant
recent attempts to come to grips with the issues in-

tament d’aprés le Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1962); W. Neil, “The

Unity of the Bible,’ The New Testament in Historical and Contem-
porary Perspective. Essays in Memory of G. H. C. Macgregor, eds. H.
Anderson and W. Barclay (Oxford, 1965), pp. 237-259; Stock, Einheit
des NT, pp. 160-170; P. A. Verhoef, “The Relationship Between the
Old and New Testament,” New Perspectives on the Old Testament,
ed. J. B. Payne (Waco/London, 1970), pp. 280-303; F. Hahn, ‘Das
Problem ‘Schrift und Tradition’ im Urchristentum,” EvTh 30 (1970),
449-468: F. Lang, “Christuszeugnis und Biblische Theologie,’ EvTh
29 (1969), 523-534; H. Gese, ‘“Erwagungen zur Einheit der biblischen
Theologie,’ Vom Sinai zum Zion (Munich, 1974), pp. 11-30; H.
Gross and F. Mussner, “Die Einheit von Altem und Neuem Testa-
ment,” Internationale Katholische Zeitschrift 3 (1974), 544-555; F. C.
Fensham, “The Covenant as Giving Expression to the Relationship
between Old and New Testament,” J’yndale Bulletin 22 (1971), 82-94;
J. Sanders, Torah and Canon (2nd ed.; Philadelphia, 1974); idem,
“Torah and Christ,” Interpretation 29 (1975), 372-390.
3G. Ebeling, Word and Faith (Philadelphia, 1963), p. 96.
4P. Stuhlmacher, Schriftauslegung auf dem Wege zur biblischen
Theologie (Géttingen, 1975), p. 127.
NT THEOLOGY AND THE OT 173

volved and which mirror the major positions in this

century.

A. Patterns of Disunity and Discontinuity

The second century produced Marcion,? who under
the impact of Gnosticism® stressed the total disunity
between the OT and the NT, between Israel and the
Church, and between the god of the OT and the Father
of Jesus. The god of the OT was the Demiurge-Creator,
an inferior, vindictive god of the law who has nothing
to do whatever with the NT god who is the Father of
Jesus, a god of love, grace, and mercy. Thus Marcion
rejected the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) outrightly and
also anything in the NT which came close to the He-
brew Scriptures or their thoughts as understood by him.
This compelled Christianity to deal with the question
of what is Christian truth and to decide upon the ques-
tion of the canon,
1. Overemphasis of NT — Underemphasis of OT. A
Marcionite strain with the superiority of the whole or
key parts of the NT has existed in Christianity for a
long time and is reflected in A. von Harnack (1851-
1930) whose famous theme is summarized in this widely
quoted sentence: “To have cast aside the Old Testament
in the second century was an error which the Church
rightly rejected; to have retained it in the sixteenth
century was the fact which the Reformation was not
yet able to avoid; but still to keep it after the nineteenth
century as a canonical document within Protestantism
results from a religious and ecclesiastical paralysis.””
The same Marcionite strain is evident in Friedrich Del-
itzsch (1850-1922) who was a key figure in the Babel-
5A. von Harnack, Marcion, Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott (2nd
ed.; Leipzig, 1924); J. Knox, Marcion and the New Testament (Chi-
cago, 1942); E. C. Blackman, Marcion and His Influence (London,
1948).
6R. M. Grant, A Short History of the Interpretation of the Buble
(2nd ed.;: New York, 1966), pp. 60-65.
7Von Harnack, Marcion, pp. 221f.
174 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Bible controversy at the beginning of this century.* “Sel-

dom has the Old Testament been subjected to more
vicious abuse than in this book [The Great Deception].”
The leading NT scholar Emanuel Hirsch published a
study on The OT and the Preaching of the NT in 1936
in which he emphasizes a foundational distinction be-
tween the OT and NT in which both Testaments are
seen in a permanent “antithetical tension.”!? Although
Hirsch does not dismiss the OT from the Christian
canon, his stress falls distinctly upon a radical discon-
tinuity. H.-J. Kraus remarks that “one has to note with
surprise that Rudolf Bultmann in his essays on the Old
Testament seeks a solution of the biblical problem along
the same lines.”
It is not so important whether or not R. Bultmann’s
negative stance with regard to the OT is due to the
claim of a Marcionite strain’? within him. What is im-
portant is that he seeks the connection between the
Testaments in the factual course of history.’* But Bult-
mann determines this connection in such a way that
OT history is a history of failure. The application of
the Lutheran law/gospel distinction and a modern type
of Christomonism' leads him to view the OT as a
“miscarriage [Scheitern] of history” which only through
8F. Delitzsch, Die Grosse Tauschung, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1920-21).
9J. Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament (Nashville, 1967),
pis.
10E. Hirsch, Das Alte Testament und die Predigt des Evangeliums
(Tibingen, 1936), pp. 27, 59, 83.
1H{-J. Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des
Alten Testaments (2nd ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969), pp. 431f.
12§9 Bright, The Authority of the OT, pp. 69-72; E. Voegelin,
“History and Gnosis,’ OTCF, pp. 64-89, who calls Bultmann a gnostic
thinker. C. Michalson, “Is the Old Testament the Propaedeutic to
Christian Faith?” OTCF, pp. 64-89, warmly defends Bultmann against
such a charge.
13Bultmann, “Prophecy and Fulfillment,’ Essays on OT Herme-
neutics, ed. Claus Westermann (Richmond, Va., 1963), p. 73 (here-
after cited as EOTH). Cf. J. Barr, “The Old Testament and the
New Crisis of Biblical Authority,’ Interpretation 25 (1971), 30-32.
144Bultmann in EOTH, pp. 50-75; and OTCF, pp. 8-35. See
G. E. Wright’s critique in The OT and Theology (New York, 1969),
pp. 30-38.
NT) THEOLOGY AND¢THE;OT a

this failure turns into a kind of promise.’ “To the Chris-

tian faith the Old Testament is no longer revelation as
it has been, and still is, for the Jews.” To the Christian
“the history of Israel is not history of revelation.”’®
“Thus the Old Testament is the presupposition of the
New'™ and nothing more nor anything less. Bultmann
argues for the complete theological discontinuity be-
tween the OT and NT. The relationship between both
Testaments “is not theologically relevant at all.”!* None-
theless this history has according to him a promissory
character precisely because in the failure of the hopes
centered in the covenant concept, in the failure of the
rule of God and his people, it becomes clear that “the
situation of the justified man arises only on the basis
of this miscarriage [Scheitern].”!° In answer to this posi-
tion, Walther Zimmerli has rightly asked whether for
the NT “the hopes and history of Israel are really only
shattered.” “Is there not fulfillment here, even in the
midst of the shattering?” He recognizes clearly that the
concept of failure or shattering becomes the means by
which Bultmann is able “to elevate the Christ-message
purely out of history in existential interpretation. . . .”
Zimmerli suggests not without reason that the concept
of a pure brokenness of Israel’s history must of neces-
sity lead to an unhistorical conception of the Christ-
event, namely a “new Christ-myth.”” He points out
that an aspect of shattering is present even in the OT,
where the prophets themselves bear witness to the free-
dom of Yahweh to “legitimately interpret his promise
through his fulfillment, and the interpretation [by
Yahweh] can be full of surprises even for the prophet

1Bultmann, EOTH, p. 73: “. .. the miscarriage of history actually

amounts to a promise.” See on this Barr, Old and New in Interpreta-
tion, pp. 162f.
16Bultmann, EOTH, p. 31.
17OTCF, p. 14.
18P. 13. Cf. Westermann’s critique in EOTH, pp. 124-128.
19Bultmann, EOTH, p. 75.
20“Promise and Fulfillment,” EOTH, pp. 118-120.
176 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

himself.”2! W, Pannenberg notes that the reason Bult-

mann finds no continuity between the Testaments “is
certainly connected with the fact that he does not begin
with the promises and their structure which for Israel
were the foundation of history, . . . promises which
thus endure precisely in change.”
The conviction of Friedrich Baumgirtel shares with
Bultmann the emphasis on the discontinuity between the
Testaments.2? But Baumgiartel is not able to follow
Bultmann’s thesis of a total failure. He assumes an en-
during “basic-promise [Grundverheissung].°** All the OT
promises (promissiones) “really have no relevance for
us’?® except the timeless basic-promise (promissum) “I
am the Lord your God.”?* He completely abandons the
proof from prophecy as unacceptable to our _his-
torical consciousness. Beyond this Baumgirtel sees the
meaning of the OT only in that its frustrated “salvation-
disaster history” exemplifies the way of man under law.
As such the OT contains a “witness of a religion out-
side the Gospel.”?? “Viewed historically it has another
place than the Christian religion.”’* Here Baumgiartel
comes close to the position of Bultmann in relating the
Testaments to each other in terms of the Lutheran law/
gospel dichotomy.” Baumgiartel, therefore, maintains
that the historicity of Jesus Christ is not grounded in
the OT but solely in the Incarnation.*” One comes to
recognize how in such an approach “the historicity of
Jesus Christ falls when the history of Israel falls.”** C.

21P, 107.
22Pannenberg, ‘““Redemptive Event and History,” EOTH, pp. 325f.
23F. Baumegartel, Verheissung. Zur Frage des evangelischen Ver-
standnisses des Alten Testaments (Giitersloh, 1952), p. 92.
24F Baumgartel, “The Hermeneutical Problem of the OT,’ EOTH,
p.fhsl:
25P, 132.
AOR TOL.
27P, 156.
28P, 135; cf. TALZ, 86 (1961), 806.
29FOTH, p. 145.
30P, 156.
31Pannenberg, EOTH, p. 326.
NT THEOLOGY AND THE OT 177

Westermann points out that Baumgartel ultimately ad-

mits “that the church could also live without the Old
Testament.”®? Von Rad attacks the unhistorical concept
of “basic promise” by characterizing the separation of
such a single promise from particular historically real-
ized promises and prophecies as a “presumptuous en-
croachment.”** L. Schmidt has recently taken pains to
unravel the issues in the relationship between OT and
NT in the lengthy debate between von Rad and Baum-
gairtel®* and concludes that Baumgartel’s concept of
“basic-promise’ is inadequate.*°
Baumgiartel’s former student Franz Hesse makes the
same basic reduction of the manifold promises to the
single basic-promise.*® In the OT the promises failed.
This is due to the chastening hand of God that made
Israel harden their hearts. By turning God’s word into
its opposite, it is a warning and a dialectical witness
to God’s activity in Israel which culminates in Christ’s
cross.*’ Hesse pronounces the sharpest theological stric-
tures on the OT on the ground that certain historical
data supposedly do not fit the facts.** Therefore the OT
can have meaning for the Christian only in pointing him
toward the salvation which is found in the NT.®® The
criticisms against Baumgartel apply also to Hesse. It
will not do, as happened again and again in the case
of F. D. E. Schleiermacher*’ and still happens with

32“Remarks on the Theses of Bultmann and Baumgartel,’ EOTH,

Dek oo.
33“Verheissung,” EvTh, 13 (1953), 410. See also the incisive crit-
icism by Gunneweg, ZThK 65 (1968), 398-400.
341,, Schmidt, “Die Einheit zwischen Alten und Neuen Testament
im Streit zwischen Friedrich Baumgartel und Gerhard von Rad,”
EoTh’35) (1975); 119-138.
35Esp. pp. 135f.
36Das AT als Buch der Kirche, p. 82.
37™°The Evaluation and Authority of the OT Texts,’ EOTH, pp.
308-313.
38Pp. 293-299.
“Sdsabehe
490The Christian Faith (2 vols.; New York, 1963).
178 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Baumgiartel*? and Hesse,” to discuss the NT arguments

of fulfillment of prophecy as nothing but an anti-Jewish
apologetic, relevant only to the NT period.* It is a
mistake to believe, as Bultmann does, that the meaning
of the “proof from Scripture” has as its purpose to.
“prove” what can only be grasped by faith, or to ap-
proach and criticize the NT’s method of quotation from
the point of view of modern literary criticism.** Over
against this limited position one must maintain that
the NT quotations presuppose the unity of tradition and
indicate keywords and major motifs and concepts in
order to recall a larger context within the OT.
2. Underemphasis of NT — Overemphasis of OT. At
the opposite end of the spectrum are attempts that posit
a disunity or discontinuity between the Testaments by
overemphasizing the OT at the expense of the NT. Some
scholars make the OT all-important theologically and
historically. The late Dutch dogmatician A. A. van Ruler
attempted to put the OT on a superior level to the NT
as regards Christian thought and teaching. Van Ruler’s
thesis is summed up in these sentences: “The Old Testa-
ment is and remains the true Bible.” The NT is but
“its explanatory glossary [W6rterverzeichnis].°** In strict
dialectic “the New Testament interprets the Old Testa-
ment as well as the Old the New.”*’ The central con-
cern in the whole Bible is not reconciliation and
redemption but the kingdom of God. For this the OT
is of special importance; it brings legitimization, foun-
dation, interpretation, illustration, historicization, and
eschatologization.** Van Ruler thereby reduces the re-
lationship between the Testaments to the single spiritual

41Verheissung, pp. 75ff.

42Das AT als Buch der Kirche, pp. 82ff.
43Pannenberg, EOTH, p. 324.
44Bultmann, EOTH, pp. 50-55, 72-75.
45Van Ruler, The Christian Church and the OT, p. 72.
46P, 74 n. 45.
47P_ 82.
48Pp. 75-98.
NT THEOLOGY AND THE OT 179

denominator of the kingdom of God,*” reading the NT

very one-sidedly without recognizing the distinction be-
tween theocracy and eschatology.*°
In view of the superiority given to the OT by van
Ruler, it is in place to consider a chief point in van
Ruler’s argument. In the second chapter the following
question is treated: Does the OT itself already see
Christ? In dealing with this question van Ruler is es-
sentially critical in nature. Prominence is given to that
which emphasizes discontinuity between the Testa-
ments, One of the main points is that in the OT the
Messiah is a man, in the NT, God Himself; hence the
deity of Christ cannot be derived from the former.™
One of the key notions of the whole book is summed
up in the following statement: “If I may put it briefly
and sharply, Jesus Christ is an emergency measure that
God postponed as long as possible (cf. Mt. 21:33-46).
Hence we must not try to find him fully in the Old
Testament, even though as Christian theologians we
investigate the Old Testament in orientation to God.””
J. J. Stamm has pointed out that van Ruler relates the
OT facts inaccurately and inappropriately for the sake
of contrast.** It is correct that van Ruler takes account
only of the nature of the Israelite king and not at the
same time of the authoritative position connected with
his office. If one also takes the authoritative nature of the
office into consideration, “then one can certainly only
say that in the OT and NT the Messiah is divine, there,
per adoptionem, here, ex origine.”** Van Ruler has not
found any followers in calling Jesus merely “an emer-
gency measure of God.”
Another Dutch systematic theologian who has the

49Pp. 95-98.
50See Th. C. Vriezen, ‘“Theocracy and Soteriology,’ EOTH, pp.
2216223:
*1Van Ruler, The Christian Church and the OT, pp. 51f.
52P, 69.
53J. J. Stamm, “Jesus Christ in the Old Testament,” EOTH, pp.
200-210.
54P_ 208.
180 NEW TESTAMENT ‘THEOLOGY

tendency to make the OT all-important is K. H. Mis-

kotte.*? Although he contrasts the OT with the NT by
such schemata as Law/Gospel, shadow/reality, and
promise/fulfillment, he maintains that the OT contains
a “surplus” over against the NT. The “surplus” of the
OT comes to expression in four points on which the NT
is practically silent: skepticism, revolt, erotics, and
politics. Although OT piety and ethics contain elements
of joy of living, of appreciation of earthly goods, which
seem most attractive to modern man, Christian ethics
that would simply set up the various aspects of the-
ocracy or marriage customs of the OT as the standard
to which the modern world or the church would have
to conform without first confronting them with the cross
of Christ would fail signally in its duty. We can agree
with the statement by Th. C. Vriezen that “the Cross
is not merely an element of the Biblical message, but
a source of light in the centre which casts its grace
over all the other elements. . . .”°°
The Reformed biblical scholar W. Vischer stands out
among biblical theologians for his adoption of a thor-
oughgoing Christological approach to the OT.” He
claims that the Bible, including the OT, must be inter-
preted in the light of its true intention, its true theme.
That true theme is Christ: “The Bible is the Holy Scrip-
ture only insofar as it speaks of Christ Jesus.”** Vischer,
therefore, reads the OT for its witness to Christ. He
finds that it testifies everywhere of Christ — not in the
sense, to be sure, that He is directly to be found in the
OT, but in the sense that the OT in all its parts points
to Him and His crucifixion. He explains that the OT
tells us what Christ is and the NT who He is.” If we
do not understand what the Christ of the OT is, we
55K. H. Miskotte, When the Gods are Silent (New York, 1967).
56Th. C. Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology (2nd ed.;
Newton, Mass., 1970), p. 98.
57W. Vischer, The Witness of the OT to Christ, 2 vols. (Philadel-
phia, 1949).
58Vol. I, p. 14.
a Pe7,
 NT THEOLOGY AND THE OT 18]
shall never recognize and confess Jesus as the Christ.°
On the basis of these principles Vischer provides
interpretations of the OT that are fully Christological.
He claims that the OT as a whole not only points to
Christ and testifies of Christ, but in each smallest detail
the Christian eye may recognize Christ. “We do not
understand a single word in the whole Bible if we do
not find Jesus Christ in this word.”*! The words “Let
there be light” (Gen. 1:3) refer to the “glory of God
in the face of Christ.”” The sign of Cain in Genesis
4:15 is the cross. The patriarch Enoch and his ascen-
sion point to Jesus’ ascension and prior resurrection.“
The prophecy that Japheth would “dwell in the tents
of Shem” is fulfilled in the church of both Gentiles and
Jews.® Speaking of the midnight Presence with whom
Jacob wrestled at the Jabbok (Gen. 32), Vischer asks
who this person was and answers that it was Jesus
Christ.®*
Vischer has been the target of a great deal of criticism,
even unjust and scornful criticism. He feels that a purely
historical exegesis of the OT is not enough, for that
would leave the OT a document of an ancient religion
of little apparent relevance for the Christian. Vischer
is known as an extremely competent scholar who insists
upon a historical and philological approach to the
Bible.” There is much in Vischer’s approach that is of
great value and should not be rejected too easily. Ag’ the t/
same time Vischer gives the impression that he has
overstepped some limitations of his approach. He writes,
“The life-story of all these men [of the OT] are part of
His [Jesus’] life-story. Therefore, they are written with
SO Pp. 1121426.
61Vischer as cited by W. Hertzberg, ThLZ 4 (1949), 221.
62Vischer, The Witness of the OT to Christ, I, 44.
63Pp. 75f.
64Pp. 87f.
65Pp. 104f.
SeP i153:
67Vischer’s exegetical methodology is recently set forth very clearly
in his “La methode de l’exegese biblique,” Revue de theologie et
de philosophie 10 (1960), 109-123.
182 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

so little biographical interest for the individual persons.

What is written about them is actually written as a part
of the biography of the One through whom and toward
whom they live.”* It seems that Vischer would feel in
a position to reconstruct a biography of Jesus from the.
OT. If this were possible, it would be difficult to per-
ceive why the OT speaks in the first place about Abra-
ham, Moses, etc. Why does it not speak right away
about Jesus? Would it speak of Him only in such mys-
terious form? Vischer read the OT consistently from
the side of the NT. Does he deprive thereby the OT's
own distinctive witness? Is there not also a current of
life flowing from the OT to the NT? Nevertheless, we
can agree with John Bright that “Vischer certainly de-
serves thanks for being among the first to remind us
that we cannot rest content with a purely historical
understanding of the OT but must press on to see it
in its Christian significance.”
The tendency toward Marcionism with its emphasis
on discontinuity and disunity between the Testaments
is present in full-fledged form in A. Harnack who called
for this dismissal of the OT, and in Friedrich Delitzsch
for whom the OT was an unchristian book. An atten-
uated Marcionist strain is manifested by E. Hirsch for
whom the Testaments stand in “antithetical tension” to
each other, and to a lesser extent by Bultmann, Baum-
girtel, and Hesse.” The opposite extreme makes the
OT all-important historically and theologically for the
Christian. It appears in a variety of forms in van Ruler,
Miskotte, and Vischer. In other words, on one side of
68W. Vischer, Die Bedeutung des AT fiir das christliche Leben
(Zurich, 1947), p..5.
69Bright, The Authority of the OT, p. 88.
70The following studies criticize this position from rather different
perspectives: U. Mauser, Gottesbild und Menschwerdung. Eine Unter-
suchung zur Einheit des Alten und Neuen Testaments (Tubingen,
1971); G. Siegwalt, Le Loi, chemin du Salut. Etude sur la signification
de la loi de TAT (Neuchatel, 1971); W. Zimmerli, Die Weltlichkeit
des AT (Gottingen, 1971); J. D. Smart, The Strange Silence of the
Bible in the Church (London, 1970); J. Bright, The Authority of
the OT (Nashville, 1967), pp. 58-79.
 NT THEOLOGY AND THE OT 183

the spectrum are those who stress diversity between the

Testaments to such a degree that there is total disunity
and complete discontinuity between OT.and NT, while
on the other side are those that overemphasize the OT
and relegate the NT to a less important position, The
Christological-theocratic emphases of van Ruler and
Vischer, for example, pose special difficulties because
they telescope and virtually eliminate the varieties of
the Biblical testimonies. They suffer from a reduction-
ism of the multiplicity of OT thought, which merely
becomes a pale reflection of the Messiah to come. Here
the somewhat shrill cry of “Christomonism”™ has a
point. G. E. Wright, J. Barr, and R. E. Murphy” em-
phasize a Trinitarian approach that meets the needs of
delineating the relationship between the Testaments
better. This approach preserves the sensus litteralis of
the OT testimony and avoids the development of a
hermeneutical method based merely on the NT usage
of OT texts. Once the true meaning of Christ is grasped
within the context of the Trinity, then one can say that
Christ is the destination and at the same time the guide
to the true understanding of the OT. W. Vischer once
posed the question that remains crucial: “Is the inter-
pretation which reads the whole OT as a witness for
the Messiah Jesus correct or does it violate the OT
writings?’”® L. Goppelt has put his finger on the crucial
Wright, The OT and Theology, pp. 13-38. He protests against
resolving the tension between the OT and NT in terms of a “new
kind of monotheism based on Christ” (‘Historical Knowledge and
Revelation,” Understanding and Translating the OT, p.1302) .
“Wright, Understanding and Translating the OT, pp. 301-303;
Barr, Old and New in Interpretation, pp. 151-154; Murphy, Theology
Digest (1970), p. 327.
BChristuszeugnis, p. 32. Of course, Vischer gives an affirmative
answer to the question. He designates Jesus as the “hidden meaning
of the OT writings” (p. 33). In his book Die Bedeutung des AT fiir
das christliche Leben (Ziirich, 1947), p. 5, he writes: ‘All move-
ments of life of which the OT reports move from him [Jesus] and
towards him. The life-stories of all these men are part of his life-story.
Therefore they are written with so little biographical interest for the
individual persons. What is written about them is actually written
as a part of the biography of the One through whom and towards
184 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

spot in pointing out that “the theme of Christ and the

Old Testament . . . is a key question for theology as a
whole.””* No Christian theologian can avoid that ques-
tion.

B. Patterns of Unity and Continuity

At the beginning of our discussion we raised the
question of whether we ought to read uniquely from
the OT to the NT or from the NT back to the OT, or
reciprocally from the OT to the NT and from the NT
to the OT. A number of well-known theologians have
addressed themselves to this question. As examples we
may refer to H. H. Rowley who reminds us that “the
Old Testament continually looks forward to something
beyond itself; the New Testament continually looks
back to the Old.” Two of the most famous Old Testa-
ment theologians of this century have maintained that
both Testaments shed light upon each other in their
mutual relations. W. Eichrodt declares, “In addition to
this historical movement from the Old Testament to
the New there is a current of life flowing in reverse
direction from the New Testament to the Old. This re-
verse relationship also elucidates the full significance
of the realm of Old Testament thought.””* In similar
vein G. von Rad emphasizes that the larger context of
the OT is the NT and vice versa.” H. W. Wolff sug-

whom they live.’ This would mean that we can reconstruct a biog-
raphy of Jesus from the OT. If Vischer’s position were correct, it is
difficult to perceive why the OT speaks in the first place about
Abraham and Moses. Why does it not speak right away about Jesus,
and why does it speak of him only in such “hidden” form?
741, Goppelt, Theologie des NT (Gottingen, 1976), II, 388.
75H. H. Rowley, The Unity of the Bible, p. 95.
76W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia,
LOGT) } ide 26:
771G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (Edinburgh, 1965); 11,
369 (hereafter cited as OTT): “The larger context into which we
have to set the Old Testament phenomena if they are to be mean-
ingfully appreciated is not, however, a general system of religious
and ideal values, but the compass of a specific history, which was
 NT THEOLOGY AND THE OT 185

gests that “the total meaning of the Old Testament” is

“revealed in the New Testament.”* These scholars point
to a reciprocal relationship between the Testaments.
H. H. Rowley reminds us that “there is a fundamental
unity so that with all their diversity they [the Testa-
ments] belong so intimately together that the New Tes-
tament cannot be understood without the Old and neither
can the Old Testament be fully understood without the
New.” It is clear that the emphasis of these theologians
is placed upon the internal keys which unlock both
Testaments. The OT gives a torso-like appearance with-
out the NT and the NT has no foundation without
the, OT;
It is not our purpose to provide a comprehensive
sketch of the various lines of connection to which Bib-

set in motion by God’s words and deeds and which, as the New Tes-
tament sees it, finds its goal in the coming of Christ. Only in this
event is there any point in looking for what is analogous and com-
parable. And it is only in this way of looking at the OT and the
New ‘Testaments that the correspondences and analogies between
the two appear in, their proper light.”
78H. W. Wolff, “The Hermeneutics of the Old Testament,” EOTH,
prs:
Rowley, The Unity of the Bible, p. 94 (italics his).
80Among the studies relating to the subject of the unity of the
Testaments the following make a special contribution in addition to
the ones cited in footnotes 2 and 70 of this chapter: A. J. B. Higgins,
The Christian Significance of the OT (London, 1949); P. Auvray
et al., L’AT et les chrétiens (Paris, 1951); F. V. Filson, ‘““The Unity
of the OT and the NT: A Bibliographical Survey,” Interpretation
5 (1951), 134-152; H. H. Rowley, The Unity of the Bible (London,
1953); D. E. Nineham, ed., The Church’s Use of the Bible (London,
1963) ; H. Seebass, ‘““Der Beitrag des AT zum Entwurf einer biblischen
Theologie,” Wort und Dienst 8 (1965), 20-49; H. Cazelles, “The
Unity of the Bible and the People of God,” Scripture 18 (1966),
1-10; F. N. Jasper, ‘“The Relation of the OT to the New,” Expository
Times 78 (1967/68), 228-232, 267-270; F. Lang, ‘“Christuszeugnis
und Biblische Theologie,” EvTh 29 (1969), 523-534; A. H. van Zyl,
“The Relation between OT and NT,’ Hermeneutica (1970), 9-22;
M. Kuske, Das AT als Buch von Christus (Gottingen, 1971); S. Sidel,
‘Das Alte und das NT, Ihre Verschiedenheit und Einheit,’ Ti-
binger Praktische Quartalschrift, 119 (1971), 314-324; J. Wenham,
Christ and the Bible (Chicago, 1972); F. F. Bruce, The NT Develop-
ment of OT Themes (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1973); Harrington, The
Path of Biblical Theology (Dublin, 1974), pp. 260-336.
 186 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

lical scholars have pointed in recent discussions. We

will limit ourselves to patterns of unity within diversity
which in our opinion are the most outstanding and most
promising in recent scholarly discussions. All of these
reflect an essential reciprocity between the Testaments..
1. Historical Connection. As they attempt to come to
grips with the question of the unity between both Tes-
taments, scholars customarily emphasize the historical
nature of the essential story of the Bible. The common
mark of both the OT and the NT is the continuous
history of God’s people. The OT is viewed as the his-
torical preparation of the NT. History is prominent in
the Bible. The primary interest in the Bible is God's
action on behalf of the redemption of His people and
the nations, Thus the unity between the OT and the
NT results from the fact that the Bible is concerned
“throughout with God and with His dealings with man-
kind”*! by one and the same triune God who is present
and active in the history of ancient Israel, in Jesus
Christ, and in the Spirit-led life and witness of the
NT church.
For ancient Israel this history is the encounter with
her God. “The very idea that history is a process with
beginning, middle, and end is original with Israel.”*
It is the purpose and will of God that unifies the his-
torical process. The historical career of Israel is directed
by the will of God to fulfill His designs. These designs
are ever more clearly unfolded during OT and NT times.
Spiritual Israel stands in a direct line of continuity with
literal Israel in that the former is connected with the
latter and shares in the same aims and goals.
2. Scriptural Dependence. One of the theological con-
nections between the OT and the NT is the quotations
in the NT from OT passages. Various theologians refer
81F. V. Filson, ‘““The Unity Between the Testaments,” The Inter-
preter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible (Nashville, 1971),
1997:
: of L. McKenzie, “Aspects of Old Testament Thought,” The
Jerome Biblical Commentary, eds. R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer, and
R. E. Murphy (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1968), p. 755.
NT THEOLOGY AND THE OT 187

to this connection as “Scriptural proof.”** It has been

recently emphasized that “the idea of proof is of im-
portance because the quotations are placed in the con-
text of an argument and referred to as part of the pro-
mulgation of the Gospel.”** The fact and number of
these quotations can easily be assessed by turning to
the pages of Nestle-Aland’s Greek NT which marks
257 passages as being explicit citations.®
From the modern historical-critical point of view some
of these quotations are not in accordance with a seem-
ingly recovered meaning of the OT texts. This has been
raised as a serious objection against seeing a legitimate
line of connection between the Testaments in their
references to each other. Certainly the NT quotations
of the OT call for thorough investigation. It is difficult
to accept the idea of an arbitrary Scriptural reference
just for the sake of obtaining material for illustrations.**
We cannot agree with Bultmann that the use of the OT
can be best explained as a projection of the convictions
of the NT writers.*’ The solution according to which
the NT’s use of the OT can be explained in terms of
the accommodation to the technique and method of
contemporary, rabbinical methods of exegesis is helpful
only to a limited degree.** This point of view does not
distinguish between the aim and scope of the rabbinical

880n the whole, see R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament
(London, 1971).
84Verhoef, “The Relationship Between the Old and the New
Testaments,” p. 282.
85R. Nicole, ‘New Testament Views of the Old Testament,” Rev-
elation and the Bible, ed. C. F. H. Henry (1958), p. 137, counts at
least 295 separate references of which 224 are direct citations intro-
duced by a certain definite formula. K. Grobel, “Quotations,” IDB
(Nashville, 1962), III, 977, writes that the OT “is explicitly quoted
some 150 times and tacitly quoted some 1,100 additional! times.”
86Hesse, Das Alte Testament als Buch der Kirche, p. 38.
87R. Bultmann, “Prophecy and Fulfillment,” EOTH, pp. 50-75,
which has been criticized by C.-Westermann, EOTH, pp. 124-128.
88E. E. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids,
Mich., 1957), p. 143; see the detailed study of R. Longenecker,
Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1975).
188 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

and Qumran exegesis on the one hand,” and the unique

perspective of the NT usage of the OT on the other
hand. P, A. Verhoef has pointed out that “over and
against critical views we maintain that the New Testa-
ment in citing the Old Testament nowhere presupposes
a fundamental breach between the Testaments.”*? This
is in full correspondence with the acceptance of the
canon of both Testaments in the Christian church. It
is true that the references to the OT were not made in
a systematic manner, but this does not diminish the
significance of an extensive procedure of quotation.
3. Vocabulary. Another line of connection between
the Testaments is found in the relation of the vocabu-
lary or words of the Bible.*’ Jesus and the apostles used
familiar terms. To put it differently, the theological
language that Jesus and the apostles used was the lan-
guage known to them and to their listeners. This theo-
logically impregnated language was the product of a
long tradition. “Without a background of the OT and
Israelite faith, the message of Jesus would have been
unintelligible.” It is widely recognized that “almost
every key theological word of the New Testament is
derived from some Hebrew word that had a long history
of use and development in the Old Testament.”®?
Scholarship has given much attention to the investi-
gation of the background of the words of the NT and
their roots in the OT.” There are various ways in which
89F. F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (Grand Rap-
ids, Mich., 1959), pp. 66-77; R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old
Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel (Leiden, 1967); J. A. Fitzmyer,
“The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran and in
the New Testament,’ NTS 7 (1960-61), 297-333.
90Verhoef, “The Relationship Between the Old and New Testa-
ment,” p. 284.
91This is particularly stressed by J. L. McKenzie, “Aspects of OT
Thought,” The Jerome Biblical Commentary, eds. R. E. Brown, et al.
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1968), p. 767.
®2Tbid.
93G. R. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament (1962-1975), 8 vols.; L. Coenen et al., eds., The-
ologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament (3rd ed.; Wuppertal,
1972), 3 vols.; X. Leon-Dufour, Dictionary of Biblical Theology (New
 NT THEOLOGY AND THE OT 189

words appear. Ultimately each individual context de-

termines the meaning in this context. Nevertheless the
variety of usages of single words sheds much light upon
the semantic ranges of meaning. There is scarcely any
key word of the OT that has not been enriched in the
NT. While we are aware that different meanings are
expressed by the same word, there is not one word for
each distinct idea or theme. We will have to apprehend
the connecting line between the “Greek words and their
Hebrew meanings,” i.e., between the OT and the NT.
4. Themes. J. Bright has assessed the unity of basic
theological themes of the OT and the NT in the follow-
ing way: “Each of the major themes of the Old has its
correspondent in the New, and is in some way resumed
and answered there.” By virtue of this fact a herme-
neutical bridge is built between the Testaments which
gives us access to each of the OT’s texts and defines
for us the procedure that we must follow in attempting
to interpret them in their Christian significance.
It is impossible to provide a list of the many themes
that connect the two Testaments.®* One thinks imme-
diately of creation, promise, faith, election, righteous-
ness, love, sin, forgiveness, judgment, salvation, eschatol-
ogy, messianism, people of God, remnant, and many
others. One of the themes that has recently been stressed
as giving expression to the relationship between the Tes-
taments is the covenant.*” But even the covenant theme
as a single theme cannot hold the golden key which

York, 1968) ; C. Brown, ed., The New International Dictionary of New

Testament Theology (1975-78), 3 vols.
°4D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the
Semantics of Soteriological Terms (London, 1967); J. Barr, The Se-
mantics of Biblical Language (London, 1961); idem, Biblical Words
for Time (London, 1962).
Bright, The Authority of the OT, p. 211.
96J. Guillet, Themes of the Bible (South Bend, Ind., 1960); F. F.
Bruce, New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes (Grand
Rapids, Mich., 1969).
°7Fensham, “The Covenant as Giving Expression to the Relationship
between Old and New Testament,” pp. 86-94.
190 NEW TESTAMENT ‘THEOLOGY

unlocks all the mysteries of the relation between the

Testaments.
5. Typology. A prominent way of relating the two
Testaments to each other is to study persons, institu-
tions, or events in the OT in their typological relation-
ship to the NT.°* In such a perspective the types de-
scribed in the OT are regarded as models or prefigura-
tions of persons, institutions, or events in the NT. Ty-
pology develops along horizontal and vertical lines.*®
The discussion on typology received new inpetus
by W. Ejichrodt’® and G. von Rad.’ Eichrodt uses
typology “as the designation for a peculiar way of look-
ing at history.” The types “are persons, institutions, and
events of the Old Testament which are regarded as
divinely established models or prerepresentations of cor-
responding realities in the New Testament salvation
history.”’°? His exposition appears to agree with the tra-
ditional views of earlier Christianity. But he differs from
the views of von Rad, whose basic premise is that “the
98Among the key literature on the subject of typology are the follow-
ing: L. Goppelt, Typos: Die typologische Deutung des Alten Testa-
ments (2nd ed.; Darmstadt, 1966); idem, “Typos,” Theological Dic-
tionary of the New Testament 8 (1972), 246-259; A. Schulz, Nach-
folgen und Nachahmen (Munich, 1962), pp. 309-331; Ellis, Paul’s
Use of the OT, pp. 126-139; Larcher, L’actualité chret. de TAT, pp.
489-513; G. W. H. Lampe and J. J. Woolcombe, Essays on Typology
(London, 1957); P. Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture (Grand
Rapids, Mich., n.d.); W. Eichrodt, “Is Typological Exegesis an Ap-
propriate Method?’ EOTH, pp. 224-245; G. von Rad “Typological
Interpretation of the Old Testament,’ EOTH, pp. 17-39; idem, Old
Testament Theology, II, 364-374; P. A. Verhoef, “Some Notes on
Typological Exegesis,’ New Light on Some OT Problems (Praetoria,
1962), pp. 58-63; H. D. Hummel, “The OT Basis of Typological
Interpretation,” Biblical Research 9 (1964), 38-50; J. H. Stek, “Bib-
lical Typology Yesterday and Today,” Calvin Theological Journal 5
(1970), 133-162; N. H. Ridderbos, ‘“Typologie,’ Vox Theologica
31 (1960/61), 149-159.
9Hummel, “The OT Basis of Typological Interpretation,’ pp.
40-50.
100“Ts Typological Exegesis an Appropriate Method?” EOTH, pp.
224-245.
101‘‘Typological Interpretation of the NT,” EOTH, pp. 17-39; OTT,
II, 364-374.
102FOTH, p. 225.
NT THEOLOGY AND THE OT 19]

Old Testament is a history book.”!°* It is the history

of God's people, and the institutions and prophecies
within it, that provide prototypes to the antitypes of
the NT within the whole realm of history and eschatol-
ogy.’ Von Rad is very broadly based, as can be gath-
ered from his relating Joseph to Christ as type to anti-
type.?

Some scholars reject the typological approach com-

pletely.’ However, the importance of the typological
approach is not to be denied, if it is not developed into
a hermeneutic method which is applied to all texts like
a divining-rod. Typological correspondence must be
rigidly controlled on the basis of direct relationship be-
tween various OT elements and their NT counterparts
in order that arbitrary and fortuitous personal views
may not creep into exegesis.'°’ One should be cautious
enough not to be trapped into applying typology as the
single definite theological ground-plan whereby the
unity of the Testaments is established. The advocacy
of typological unity between the Testaments is not pri-
marily concerned to find a unity of historical facts be-
tween the OT prefiguration and its NT counterpart,!%
though this is not to be denied altogether; it is more
Demi, Dost eOl) hl 5o1,
104OTT, II, 365.
LOS OPT. 1133723
106F. Baumgartel, ThLZ 86 (1961), 809-897, 901-906. R. Lucas,
“Considerations of Method in OT Hermeneutics,” The Dunwoodie
Review 6 (1966), 35: “Typology lacks that criterion which would
establish both its limitation and validity. . . . It is a theology of
biblical texts. It leaves the Old Testament behind, in the last analysis,
and discovers its significance outside and beyond its historical testi-
mony.” Murphy, Theology Digest 18 (1970), 324, believes that typol-
ogy is not creative enough for the possibilities of theology and in
comparison to the early Church “it is simply less appealing to the
modern temper.” See also Barr, Old and New in Interpretation, pp.
103-148, who is not willing to separate typology from allegory.
107See also, with regard to a proper use of typology, the remarks
by H. W. Wolff, “The Hermeneutics of the OT,” EOTH, pp. 181-186;
and Vriezen, An Outline of OT Theology, pp. 97, 136f.
108Von Rad, EOTH, pp. 17-19, advocates that the typological ap-
proach seeks to “regain reference to the facts attested in the New
Testament,” i.e., to discover the connection in the historical process.
192 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

concerned to recognize the connection in terms of a

structural similarity between type and antitype. It is
undeniable that the typological analogy begins with a
relationship which takes place in history. For example,
the typological analogy between Moses and Christ in
2, Corinthians 3:7ff. and Hebrews 3:1-6 begins with a
relationship that takes place in history; but the concern
is not with all the details of the life and service of
Moses, but primarily with his “ministry” and “glory” in
the former passage and with his “faithfulness” as leader
and mediator in the divine dispensation in the second
passage. It is equally true that the NT antitype goes
beyond the OT type.’” Even if it is correct, at least to
some degree, that the course of history which unites
type and antitype emphasizes the distinction between
them, while the connection is primarily discovered in
its structural analogy and correspondence, this should
not be used as an argument against typology unless
typology is seen only in terms of a historical process."
The conceptual means of the typological correspondence
has its distinct place in its expression of the qualification
of the Christ-event, but it is in itself not able to express
fully the Christ-event in terms of OT history. Therefore
additional approaches will need to complement the ty-
pological one. The Bible is too rich in relations between

109Richrodt, EOTH, pp. 225f.

110This is where Pannenberg, EOTH, p. 327, goes astray. For him
the only analogy that has any value is the historical one. Pannenberg
adopts the “promise and fulfillment” schema without realizing that
this “structure” (p. 325), as he repeatedly calls it, functions in his
own presentation as another instance of a timeless principle being
employed to replace history. Pannenberg emphasizes that freeness,
creativeness, and unpredictability are central in history, but he finds
this central aspect of history preserved only in that the fulfillment
often involves the “‘breaking down” of the prophecy as a “legitimate
interpretation,” a “transformation of the content of prophecy,” which
is “fulfilled otherwise’ than the original recipients of the prophetic
word expected (p. 326). Here Pannenberg has unconsciously conceded
the incompatibility between history and its structure. Thus even in
Pannenberg’s position, structure and construction tend to replace his-
tory and render his use of the promise-fulfillment structure unhis-
torical.
 NT THEOLOGY AND THE OT 193
God and man for it to be confined to one special con-
nection. Whereas we must hesitate to accept typological
references in definite cases, every attempt to view the
whole from a single point of view must beware of wish-
ing to explain every detail in terms of this one aspect
and to impose an overall picture upon the variety of
possible relations. While the OT context must be pre-
served in its prefiguration so that NT meanings are not
read into the OT texts, it seems that a clear NT indica-
tion is necessary so that subjective imaginative fancies
and arbitrary typological analogies can be avoided. That
is to say that the question of the a posteriori character
of the typological approach should not be suppressed.
6. Promise-Fulfillment. An extremely significant pat-
tern of continuity between the Testaments is the prom-
ise-fulfillment schema. This schema has received special
attention by C. Westermann, W. Zimmerli, G. von
Rad,
and others.""' In this way the fulfillment has an open
end, looking on to the future."2 This eschatologic
al
aspect is present in both Testaments, Westermann
te-
marks: “Promise and fulfillment constitute an integr
al
event which is reported in both the Old and New
Tes-
taments of the Bible.” In view of the multiplex
char-
acter of the relationship between the Testaments,
West-
ermann admits that under the single idea of
promise-
fulfillment “it is not possible to sum up everyt
hing in
the relation of the Old Testament to Christ.”"*
On a
more comprehensive scale, we must admit
that the
promise-fulfillment schema does not sum up
everything
1G. Westermann, “The Way of Promise through
the OT OTC:
pp. 200-224; The OT and Jesus Christ
(Minneapolis, 1970); W.
Zimmerli, “Promise and Fulfillment,” EOTH,
pp. 89-122; G. von
Rad, ‘“‘Verheissung,” EvTh 13 (1953), 406-413
; R. E. Murphy, ‘‘The
Relationship Between the Testaments,”
CBQ 26 (1964), 349-359;
idem, “Christian Understanding of the
OT,” Theology Digest 18
(1970), 321-332.
112This tension between promise and fulfillment
is a dynamic char- -
acteristic of the OT. Since this is a basic
kind of interpreted history
which the OT and NT themselves present
to us, J. M. Robinson’s
attempt (OTCF, p. 129) to dismiss the categor
y of promise-fulfillment
as a structure imposed on Biblical history from
without is abortive.
U8The OT and Jesus Christ, p. 78.
194 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

in the relation between the Testaments. As fundamental

and fruitful as the promise-fulfillment approach is, it is
not by itself able to describe the multiplex nature of the
relationship between the Testaments.
If we raise the question how the OT can be related
adequately and properly to the NT, we have admittedly
decided on an a priori basis that both are related to each
other in some way. We must be conscious of this de-
cision, which always has a bearing on our questioning
of the OT materials. This prior decision does not come
easy. This is true especially when the OT is viewed in
the way in which von Rad looks at it, namely that “the
Old Testament can only be read as a book of ever in-
creasing anticipation.”'* This claim presupposes a par-
ticular understanding of the OT history of tradition,
that is, one which is from the beginning focusing upon
the transition to the NT. Von Rad’s view finds its justi-
fication only in terms of a direct line of connection that
moves from the testimony of the initial action of God
toward judgment and on to the expectation of God's
renewed action in which God yet proves his divine
character. It is amazing to see how Israel never allowed
a promise to come to nothing, how she thus swelled
Yahweh’s promise to an infinity, and how, placing ab-
solutely no limit on God’s power yet to fulfill, she trans-
mitted the promises still unfulfilled to generations to
come. Thus we must ask with von Rad, “does not the
way in which comparative religion takes hold of the
Old Testament in abstraction, as an object which can be
adequately interpreted without reference to the New
Testament, turn out to be fictitious from the Christian
point of view?”!” On the other hand, there is nothing
mysterious about coming to grips with the question of
the relationship between the Testaments. Initially, there-
fore, we do not begin from the NT and its manifold
references to the OT. This method has often been
140TT, II, 319.
1150TT, II, 321.
 NT THEOLOGY AND THE OT 195
adopted, most recently again by B. S. Childs as we
have noted above. It has also led all too often to con-
trasting the Testaments with a sharpness that does not
do justice to the great hermeneutical flexibility of the
relationship between them. A proper method will then
initially be an attempt to show characteristic ways in
which the OT leads forward to the NT. The NT can
then on the basis of this initial approach also enlighten
the content of the OT,
7. Salvation History. Several of the unifying patterns
between the Testaments cannot be separated from the
pattern of salvation history''® of which we have spoken
frequently in previous chapters, We have had occasion
to indicate that even salvation history is not the one
golden key which unlocks all the mysteries in the re-
lationship of the Testaments. Salvation history is not to
be dismissed out of hand,""7 because “the NT affirma-
tion that Jesus is the Messiah implies the unity of his-
tory under a single divine plan of salvation.”!!8 Salva-
tion history points to a unity of perspective."
8. Unity of Perspective. Many eminent scholars agree
that there is a perspective pointing to the future that
unites the OT and NT. Th. C. Vriezen puts it this way:
“The true heart of both Old Testament and New Tes-
tament is, therefore, the. eschatological perspective.”!°
H. H. Rowley writes as follows: “The full consummation
of the hopes of the Old Testament lie still in the distant
future, . . . nor does the New Testament fail to per-
ceive this. . . . It still places the final glory in the fu-
ture.”**' Just as did the OT believer, so the believer in

116See the NT theologies referred to under the heading “Salvation

History Approaches” in Chapter 2 pps 106-125:
117S0 D. Braun, “Heil als Geschichte,” EvTh 27 (1967), 57-76.
For an appreciative evaluation of salvation history, see Kraus,
Biblische
Theologie, pp. 185-187.
118McKenzie, ‘“‘Aspects of OT Thought,” p. 766.
119See esp. Verhoef, ‘Relationship Between Old and New Testa-
ment,” pp. 292f.
120Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology, p. 123.
121Rowley, The Unity of the Bible, pp. 109f.
196 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Christ “comes to stand in a new way under an arc of

tension between promise and fulfillment... .” All
supplication for fulfillment in the congregation of the
New Covenant merges in the single plea, “Come, Lord
Jesus!” (Rev. 22:20; 1 Cor. 16:22). Thus within the are
of promise and fulfillment God’s redemptive purpose,
His salvation history, unfolds itself from the OT to the
NT and beyond to the end of time.
The OT does relate a history of salvation. But in
many respects it is an unusual history of salvation, be-
cause it is a truncated history of salvation. The expected
Messiah did not come in OT times. In this sense the
OT is a book that is incomplete, pointing beyond itself,
ending in a posture of waiting. Down to its very last
page it speaks of a fulfillment of the promise in the
future tense. The God who acted in creation, in the
Exodus, and Conquest, guiding His people, will act
again one day. The completion of this incomplete his-
tory of salvation is a primary concern of the NT. The
turning point of all history has taken place in Jesus
Christ. The God who acted in Israel’s history has acted
decisively in human history through Jesus Christ. This
is the center of the NT’s message. The NT completes
the OT’s incompleteness and yet moves beyond to the
final eschaton. From the OT to the NT and beyond
there is one continuous movement in the direction of
the eschaton, the coming of the Day of the Lord. In-
deed the entire history of revelation is one pilgrimage,
looking forward to the City whose builder and maker
is God (Heb. 11:10). On this pilgrimage there are many
stops, many initial fulfillments, but each one of them
becomes a point of departure again until all promises
will finally be fulfilled at the end of time. It has been
pointed out rightly that the NT contains also a futuristic
eschatology. The predictions concerning the last days

122Zimmerli, EOTH, p. 114.

NT THEOLOGY AND THE OT 197

in the synoptic Gospels and the other writings of the

NT continue the expectation of the OT."
The unity between the OT and NT is then also a
unity of its common perspective, plan, and purpose for
men and of God’s ongoing action to realize these.’** The
OT tells of the history of Israel in terms of salvation
history and prepares for and leads up to the coming of
Jesus as the Christ of Israel and the Saviour of all men.
It is certainly to be admitted that not everything in the
OT can be subsumed under the rubric of salvation his-
tory,’ because it was a history that led on to Christ
and equally to the rejection of Christ. For the sake of
clarification it needs to be pointed out that we have in
the Bible not only the revelation of God, but also the
reaction of men. We must recognize that the reaction
of men is not normative and does not figure in the
whole scheme of the relationship between the Testa-
ments. The “history” of the reaction of Israel and Juda-
ism which led to the rejection of Christ could not have
been a part of the history of salvation.’*® Despite the
repeated frustrations of God’s plan and purpose for men,
God still saw to it that the outstanding promises would
yet be realized through Him inthe future. The whole
Bible then drives forward to the consummation of all
things in heaven and on earth. “This is the pervasive
theme of both Old and New Testaments.”!*7 The work
of Christ is continued in the work of the Holy Spirit and
will be completed in the consummation of all things.
In view of these considerations, it would seem that
the only adequate way to come to grips with the multi-
plex nature of the relationship between the Testaments
is to opt for a multiplex approach. Such a multiplex
approach leaves room for indicating the variety of con-
nections between the Testaments and avoids, at the
5yeteeenen “Relationship Between Old and New Testament,’ p.

124Filson, The Interpreters One-Volume Commentary, p. 992.

125Bright, The Authority of the OT, p. 196.
126M. Meinertz, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (1950), I, 54.
127Verhoef, “Relationship Between Old and New Testament,” p. 293.
198 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

same time, the temptation to explain the manifold

testimonies in every detail by one single point of view
or approach and so to impose a single structure upon
testimonies that witness to something else. A multiplex
approach will lead to a recognition of similarity and
dissimilarity, old and new, continuity and discontinuity,
etc., without in the least distorting the original historical
witness and literal sense nor falling short in the larger
kerygmatic intention and context to which the OT itself
testifies and which the NT assumes.
It is not surprising that in the recent debate about the
complex nature of the relationship between the Testa-
ments the question of the proper context has become
crucial. Von Rad himself speaks of “the larger context
to which a specific Old Testament phenomenon belongs.
_ 7128 He reflects the concern of H. W. Wolff, who
maintains that “in the New Testament is found the con-
text of the Old, which, as its historical goal, reveals the
total meaning of the Old Testament. . . .””? The system-
atic theologian Hermann Diem expresses himself to the
extent that “for the modern interpretation of Scripture
it can be no question needing judgment whether the
interpretation will follow the apostolic witness and read
the OT with their eyes or whether it will read presup-
positionless, which would mean to read it as a phenom-
enon of general history of religion. . . .””%° In a similar
vein Kurt Frér maintains that “the canon forms the
given and compulsory context for all single texts and
single books of both Testaments.”'*! The idea of “context”
should not be limited to the nearest relationship of a
pericope, not even to the connection within a book or
historical work. With regard to the larger connections
the canon as a given fact receives hermeneutic relevance.
“The first step on the path of the continuation of the

1280TT, II, 369.

129FOTH, p. 181.
130H. Diem, Theologie als kirchliche Wissenschaft (Giitersloh, 1951),
I, 75; cf. his Was heisst schriftgemass? (Gitersloh, 1958), pp. 38f.
131Biblische Hermeneutik (3rd ed.; Miinchen, 1967), p. 65.
NT THEOLOGY AND THE OT 199

self-interpretation of the text is to give ear to the re-

maining Scriptural witnesses.” Hans-Joachim Kraus
has sensed what Eichrodt meant when the latter em-
phasized that “only where this two-way relationship
between the Old and New Testaments is understood do
we find a correct definition of the problems of OT the-
ology and of the method by which it is possible to solve
it.”133 As regards Kraus his assessment of the matter of
the context shows that “the question of the context is
decisive for the connection of texts and themes. This
means for the OT undertaking of Biblical-theological
exegesis: How do the Old and New Testaments refer to
certain kerygmatic intentions apparent in a text?”**
In this connection it is of great importance to explicate
what it means that NT theology—and also OT theology—
is bound to the given connections of the texts in the
canon. Alfred Jepsen writes that “the interpretation of
the Old Testament, being the interpretation of the
church’s canon, is determined by its connection with the
New Testament and by the questions that follow from
this.” We need to emphasize strongly that Biblical
events and meanings must not be looked for behind,
beneath, or above the texts,'** but in the texts, because
the divine deeds and words have received form and
found expression in them. Biblical-theological interpre-
tation attempts to study a passage within its own original
historical context, the Sitz im Leben into which a word
was spoken or an action took place, and also the life
settings and contextual relations and connections in the
later materials as well as the Sitz im Leben in the given
context of the book in which it is preserved and the
larger kerygmatic intention. In all of this the given
132Diem, Was heisst schriftgemdss? p. 38.
133Eichrodt, Theology of the OT, I, 26.
134K raus, Die Biblische Theologie, p. 381 (italics his).
135“The Scientific Study of the OT,” EOTH, p. 265.
186This is the way in which Hesse, Kerygma und Dogma, IV
(1958), 13, seeks to secure a reality that he feels is not there. F.
Mildenberger, Gottes Tat im Wort (Giitersloh, 1964), pp. 93ff., ar-
gues for unity of the canon as a rule of understanding but revives
a new kind of pneumatic exegesis.
200 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

context of both Testaments has a bearing on interpre-

tation.’*” Thus the matter of the given context in the
nearest and more removed relationships within both
Testaments will always have a decisive bearing for
Biblical-theological interpretation and for the Biblical
theologian’s task of doing NT theology.1**
One of the great turning-points in today’s interest in
NT theology is the reflection on the interrelationship
between the Testaments. Fruitful beginnings may be
seen in various attempts that point in forceful ways to
the fact that the Testaments witness to multiple inter-
relationships. W. Eichrodt has pointed out that there is
a reciprocal relationship between the Testaments, name-
ly “in addition to this historical movement from the Old
Testament to the New there is a current of life flowing
in reverse direction from the New Testament to the Old.
This reverse relationship also elucidates the full signifi-
cance of the realm of OT thought.” Then follows the
striking claim that “only where this two-fold relationship
between the Old and New Testaments is understood
do we find a correct definition of the problem of OT
theology and of the method by which it is possible to

137Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis, pp. 99ff., has developed the

relevance of the “larger canonical context” as the appropriate horizon
for Biblical theology and applied it to his own methodological ap-
proach.
138Despite von Rad’s emphasis on a charismatic-kerygmatic inter-
pretation, his approach goes along the lines of Heilsgeschichte. Von
Rad’s emphasis on typology (OTT, II, 323ff.) presupposes a wider
salvation-historical framework and connects two points on this back-
ground, as is true of the current revival of typological interpretation.
On the relationship between typology and salvation history, see Cull-
mann, Salvation in History, pp. 132-135. G. Fohrer’s negative reaction
against the notion of salvation history (‘‘Prophetie und Geschichte,”
ThLZ 89 [1964], 481ff.) comes on the basis that both salvation and
doom are part of salvation history. To a great extent the history of
salvation is a history of disaster. Yet even here the continuity is pre-
served in that later the proclamation of salvation is taken up without
the preaching of the message of judgment disappearing. Fohrer’s
thesis, that the aim of God’s action is the rule of God over the world
and nature, is not opposed to salvation history but a characteristic
part of it.
NT THEOLOGY AND THE OT 201

solve it.”!*° G. von Rad’s emphasis on the larger Biblical

context of the OT’ is seconded by H. W. Wolff,'**
Hi-Jee Kaas,42 BoyS...Childs3i*,and, othersy whoxstrive
toward a Biblical theology.’
The complex nature of the interrelationship between
the Testaments requires a multiplex approach. No single
category, concept, or scheme can be expected to exhaust
the varieties of a ee it* Among the patterns

both Testaments isthe Sea Seee of God’s peo- serve RRONRTRFeS! SPT ITE RTT A!

ple and the picture of. God’s dealings with mankind."

(2).-New emphasis has been put upon the connection
between the Testaments on the basis ofScriptural quota-
tions." (3). /Among the interrelationships between the
Testaments appears the common use of theological key
139Fichrodt, Theology of the OT, I, 26.
140Von Rad, OTT, II, 320-325.
141Wolff, EOTH, p. 181: ‘In the New Testament is found the con-
text of the Old, which, as its historical goal, reveals the total meaning
of the Old Testament.”
142K raus, Die biblische Theologie, pp. 33-36, 279- 281, 344-347, 380-
387.
143Childs, Biblical Theology in Cris¢s, pp. 99-107.
144Tn both Protestant and Catholic scholarship there is a marked
increase in the number of voices asking for a Biblical theology: F. V.
Filson, “‘Biblische Theologie in Amerika,’ ThLZ 75 (1950), 71-80;
M. Burrows, An Outline of Biblical Theology (Philadelphia, 1946);
G. Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1948); C. Spica,
“T”avénement de la Théologie Biblique,’ Revue biblique 35 (1951),
561-574: F. M. Braun, “La Theologie Biblique,” Revue Thomiste 61
(1953), 221-253; R. de Vaux, “A propos de la Theologie Biblique,”
ZAW 68 (1956), 225-227; P. Robertson, “The Outlook for Biblical
Theology,” pp. 65-91; Harrington, The Path of Biblical Theology, pp.
260-335, 371-377.
145In this respect we agree: with W. H. Schmidt, “ “Theologie des
Alten Testaments’ vor und nach Gerhard von Rad,” Verkiindigung
und Forschung (Beiheft zur EvTh 17; Munich, 1972), p. 24.
146 F, V. Filson, ““The Unity Bereen the Testaments’ The In-
terpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, p. 992.
147Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis, pp. 114-118; Verhoef, ‘““The
Relauouship Between the Old and New Testaments,” p. 282; R. H.
Gundry, The Use of the OT in St. Matthew’s Gospel (Leiden, 1967);
R. T. France, Jesus and the OT (London, 1971).
 202 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

terms.'** “Almost every key theological word of the New

Testament is derived from some Hebrew word that had
a long history of use and development in the Old Testa-
ment." As among the other connecting links, unity
does not mean uniformity, even when one speal
“Greek words and their Hebrew meanings.” (4) The
interrelationship between the Testaments comeés~also to
expression through the essential unity of major themes.
“Each of the major themes of the Old [Testament] has
its correspondent in the New, and is in some way re-
sumed and answered there.”!*' Such themes as rulership
of God, people of God, exodus experience, election and
covenant, judgment and salvation, bondage and redemp-
tion, life and death, creation and new creation, etc.,
present themselves for immediate consideration.((5)) A
guarded and circumspect use of typology is indispens-
able for an adequate methodology that attempts to come
to grips with the historical context of the OT and its
relationship to the NT. Typology must be sharply
separated from allegory,’* because it is essentially a
historical and theological category between OT and NT
events. Allegory has little concern with the historical
character of the OT. (6)) The category_of promise/pre-
diction and fulfillment elucidates another aspect of the
interrelatedness of the Testaments. This interrelation-
ship is fundamental and decisive not only for inner OT
unity and the understanding of the relationship of the
OT to Jesus Christ but also for the interrelationship
148So H. Haag in Mysterium Salutis. Grundriss heilsgeschichtlicher
Dogmatik, eds. J. Feiner and M. Lohr (1965), I, 440-457.
149J. L. McKenzie, “Aspects of OT Thought,” The Jerome Biblical
Commentary, p. 767.
150D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the
Semantics of Soteriological Terms; cf. J. Barr, The Semantics of Bib-
lical Language.
151J. Bright, The Authority of the OT spel CL st., Fo iBruce,
The NT Development of OT Themes.
152See above, footnote 98.
153This basic separation has been attacked by Barr, Old and
New in Interpretation, pp. 103-111, but rightly defended by Eichrodt,
EOTH, pp. 227£; Lampe, Essays on Typology, pp. 30-35; and France,
Jesus and the OT, pp. 40f.
NT THEOLOGY AND THE OT 203

between the Testaments. As important as this category

is, it is not exhaustive of the total relationship of OT
to NT, (7)) The concept of salvation history links both
Testaments together. Secular history and salvation his-
tory are not to be conceived as two separate realities.
Particular historical events have a deeper significance,
perceived through divine revelation; such events are di-
vine acts in human history. ((8) Finally we have the
unity ofperspective, that future orientation inherent in
both Testaments. The NT fulfills the OT’s incomplete-
ness and yet moves beyond to the final eschaton.
“If properly conceived, these multiple interrelation-
ships between the Testaments may be considered to be
key elements in the elucidation of the unity of the Tes-
taments without forcing uniformity upon the diverse
Biblical witnesses. Neither Testament is in itself mono-
chromatic nor is the relationship between both to be
viewed in a monochromatic way. Any attempt toward
a NT theology is expected to reflect the polychromatic
nature of the NT; a true theology of the NT will also
reveal a polychromatic relationship to the OT. The full
spectrum of colors is expected to reveal a compatible
blend and not a painful clash.
V. Basic Proposals Toward
A NT Theology:
A Multiplex Approach

Our attempt to focus on major unresolved issues which

are at the center of the current problems in NT theol-
ogy has revealed that there is a basic crisis‘ in current
methodologies and approaches. The inevitable question
that has arisen is, Where do we go from here? Our
criticism of the paths already taken has indicated that
a more adequate approach must be worked out. A pro-
ductive way to proceed from here appears to have to
rest upon the following basic proposals towards a NT
theology.
‘1. Biblical theology must be understood..to..be_a
theological-historical discipline. This is to say that the
Biblical theologian engaged in either Old or New Testa-
ment theology must claim as his task both to discover and
describe what the text meant and also to explicate what
it means for today. The Biblical theologian attempts to
“get back there,” ie., he wants to do away with the
temporal gap by bridging the time span between his
day and that of the Biblical witnesses through the his-
1J. M. Robinson, ‘“‘Kerygma and History in the New Testament,”
The Bible in Modern Scholarship, ed. J. P. Hyatt (Nashville, 1965),
pp. 114-150, esp. 117, speaks of a Grundlagenkrise.
“This phrase comes from G. E. Wright, “The Theological Study of
the Bible,” The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible
(Nashville, 1971), p. 983.

204
 TOWARD A NT THEOLOGY 205
BASIC PROPOSALS

torical study of the Biblical documents. The nature of

the Biblical documents, however, inasmuch as they are
themselves witnesses of the eternal purpose of God as
manifested through divine acts and words of judgment
and salvation in history, requires a movement from the
level of the historical investigation of the Bible to the
theological one.? The Biblical witnesses are themselves
not only historical witnesses in the sense that they orig-
inated ‘at particular times and particular places; they
are at the same time theological witnesses in the sense
that they testify as the word of God to the divine reality
and activity as it impinges on the history of man, Thus
the task of the Biblical theologian is to interpret the
Scriptures meaningfully, with the careful use of proper
tools of historical and philological research, attempting
to understand and describe in “getting back there” what
the Biblical testimony meant; and to explicate what the
Biblical testimony means for modern man in his own
particular historical situation.”
The New Testament theologian is to draw his cate-
gories, themes, motifs, and concepts from the Biblical
texts themselves. In the past he has drawn too often
on the “concepts-of-doctrine” (Lehrbegriffe)’ or the
scheme of God-Man-Salvation (Theology-Anthropology-
Soteriology )in dependence on dogmatics, or both. The
recent situation of NT theology has revealed that the

3H. G. Wood, “The Present Position of New Testament Theology:

Retrospect and Prospect,’ New Testament Studies 4 (1957/58), 169%
“New Testament theology must be the subject of an objective histor-
ical inquiry, but if we are Christians, our interest in the subject is
neither exclusively nor predominantly historical.”
4F. Beisser, “Irrwege und Wege der historisch-kritischen Bibelwissen-
schaft. Auch ein Vorschlag zur Reform des Theologiestudiums,” Neue
Zeitschrift fiir systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 15
(1973), 192-214, reminds us of the following: “It is known to every-
one that the Biblical writings do not merely wish to be historical re-
ports, but in the first instance witnesses of faith... . With this pre-
supposition [of faith] exegesis can never be satisfied with the aim of
describing how it was in the past. In every exegetical investigation the
question therefore moves to the foreground: What does that which
was found mean for faith?” (p. 214).
5See Chapter I, pp. 35-36.
206 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

introduction of contemporary philosophy in one form or

another into this discipline has replaced the older prob-
lem. The apparent substitution of modern philosophical
a prioris for the older dogmatic a prioris for the sake of:
interpretation does not seem to have solved the problem.
A. Dulles points to one of the modern perils of Biblical
theology. “Any number of supposedly biblical theologies
in our day are so heavily infected with contemporary
personalist, existential, or historical thinking as to render
their biblical basis highly suspect.”* In our investigation
of the various NT theologies of leading writers we have
seen the results to which this has led. In the discipline
of NT theology the NT authors are frequently cross-
examined “on the basis of a modern philosophy or a
modern dogmatics. In many cases it is possible to get
answers from the interrogated authors, but it is not clear
if they really have ever thought of the subjects which
we want them to talk about.”” J. Munck goes on to
suggest quite correctly that “it would be a healthy
change if we tried to find and express the thoughts of
the NT authors without the help of a modern dog-
matics or a popular philosophy.”* NT theology must not
be dominated by external norms whether they come
from dogmatics or a given philosophy, In this way NT
theology is able to say something to both and raise its
own questions. NT theology is to use NT categories,
motifs, themes, and concepts. Often these Biblical cate-
gories, motifs, etc. are most suggestive and dynamic
for expressing the rich revelation of the deep mysteries
of God in the NT.
The proper method for NT (and OT) theology must
be both theological and historical from the starting-point.
This is the necessary correlate of conceiving NT (and
6A. Dulles, “Response to Krister Stendahl’s ‘Method in the Study of
Er coe Hie ” The Bible in Modern Scholarship, pp. 210-216,

Ty. Munck, “Pauline Research Since Schweitzer,’ The Bible in

Modern Scholarship, pp. 166-177, esp. 175.
8P. 176.
BASIC PROPOSALS TOWARD A NT THEOLOGY 207

OT) theology as a theological-historical discipline. A

theology of the NT presupposes careful exegetical work
based upon sound principles and procedures. Exegesis
in turn is in need of NT theology. Neither one can
exist without the other. Without NT theology the work
of exegetical interpretation may easily become endan-
gered by isolating individual texts or units from the
whole. The various NT writings are larger wholes made
up of a series of units. These units in turn are made up
of a series of sentences or clauses which consist of words
joined to each other to express a particular thought, or
parts of a larger thought, or a whole chain of thoughts.
Each of these parts contributes to an understanding of
the total end product—the NT as preserved for us. At
the same time an understanding of the end product con-
tributes to the understanding of the single parts. Care-
ful, clear-sighted, and sound exegesis will always be able
critically to check NT theology and NT theology will
always be able to inform the exegetical procedures. It
is a truism that NT theology remains the crown of NT
studies. |
At this point we must pause to note H.-J. Kraus’
reminder that “one of the most difficult questions con-
fronting Biblical theology today is that of the starting-
point, the meaning and function of historical-critical
research.”® The recent debate on the nature and _func-
tion of the historical-critical method,'® which had re-
%Kraus, Die Biblische Theologie, p. 363; cf. p. 377. On this point
Childs (Biblical Theology in Crisis, pp. 141f.) writes: “The historico-
critical method is an inadequate method for studying the Bible as the
Scriptures of the church because it does not work from the needed
context. ... When seen from the context of the canon both the ques-
tion of what the text meant and what it means are inseparably linked
and both belong to the task of interpretation of the Bible as Scripture.
To the extent that the use of the critical method sets up an iron cur-
tain between the past and present, it is an inadequate method for
studying the Bible as the church’s Scripture.’ For the inadequacy of
the historical-critical method with regard to the new quest of the his-
torical Jesus, see G. E. Ladd, ‘““The Search for Perspective,” Interpre-
tation 26 (1971), 41-62.
10The pertinent literature is cited in Chapter I, footnotes 32-35.
208 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

ceived its classical formulation by E. Troeltsch™ at the

turn of the century, reveals that there is much discon-
tent regarding its adequacy. The method is so differ-
ently practiced that it is difficult even to speak of the’
historical-critical method.”
A leading OT theologian, G. von Rad, keenly sensed
one of the problems and suggested that the OT theo-
logian, and we may add the NT theologian, cannot move
on the pathway of a “critically assured minimum,” if he
actually attempts to grasp “the layers of depth of his-
torical experience, which historical-critical research is
unable to fathom.”? The reason for the inability of the
historical-critical method to grasp all layers of depth of
historical experience, i.e., the inner unity of happening
and meaning based upon the inbreaking of transcen-
dence into history as the final reality to which the Bibli-
cal text testifies, rests upon its limitation to study history
on the basis of its own presuppositions. The NT scholar
W, Wink has recently spoken on the bankruptcy of the
historical-critical method.* G. Maier’s recent book an-
nounces the end of the _historical-critical method.
Broadsides against the historical-critical method come
from various quarters but are the severest from scholars
schooled in the method.'® Some point to the inadequacy
of the principle of analogy,” one of the three pillars of

11E, Troeltsch, “Uber historische und dogmatische Methode in der

Theologie’ (1898), reprinted in Theologie als Wissenschaft, ed. G.
Sauter (Munich, 1971), pp. 105-127.
12Beisser, “Irrwege und Wege der historisch-kritischen Bibelwissen-
schattyy pin 92.
18G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I, 108.
14W. Wink, The Bible in Human Transformation: Toward a New
Paradigm for Biblical Study (Philadelphia, 1973), pp. 1-18. He sug-
gests a dialectical paradigm with strong emphasis on sociology and
psychoanalysis.
15G. Maier, The End of the Historical-Critical Method (St. Louis,
1977). He speaks of a “‘historical-biblical method” that is to replace
the ‘‘historical-critical method.”
16—. Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia, 1975),
elt
‘ 17T. Peters, ““The Use of Analogy in Historical Method,’ CBQ 35
(1973), 473-482.
BASIC PROPOSALS TOWARD A NT THEOLOGY 209

the method, while others have attacked its anthropo-

centricity,'® its lack of a future dimension,!” and other
inherent problems.’ It is pointed out that the historical-
critical method is limited by its own concept of under-
standing and that it is therefore bound by its own limita-
tions of argumentation.*! “Historical criticism brings a
concept of truth to the Bible that is not able to give full
access to reality in history.”* The reason for these limita-
tions and for its inability to grasp all layers of depth of
historical experience and reality in its totality rests in the
method’s self-imposed understanding of history.
The historical-critical method comes out of the En-
lightenment.”* It has a particular view of historical
understanding” illustrated in Troeltsch’s principle of
correlation. History is viewed as a closed continuum, an
unbroken series of causes and effects in which there is
no room for transcendence.” This means “(1) that no
critical historian could make use of supernatural inter-
vention as a principle of historical explanation because
this shattered the continuity of the causal nexus, and
18See esp. Pannenberg, Basic Questions in Theology (1970), 1239-00;
19F, Hahn, “Probleme historischer Kritik,’ ZNW 63 (1972), 1-17,
esp. 15-17.
20See P. Stuhlmacher, ‘“Kritischer miissten mir die Historisch-
Kritischen Sein,’ Theologische Quartalschrift 153 (1973), 244-251;
Schriftauslegung, pp. 23f., 33, 98, 120-126. J. H. Leith, “The Bible and
Theology,” Interpretation 30 (1976), 227-241, writes: “The influence
of the presuppositions of the critic and the precariousness of the
methods have resulted in a history of conflicting conclusions and re-
sults’ wipiy238):.
21Stuhlmacher, Schriftauslegung, p. 19.
22K rentz, The Historical-Critical Method, p. 86.
23Ebeling, Word and Faith, pp. 42f. Krentz, The Historical-Critical
Method, p. 85, calls the historical-critical method or historical criti-
cism “the child of the Enlightenment and historicism; it is still dom-
inated by Troeltsch’s principles (systematic criticism, analogy, and uni-
versal correlation).”
24Stuhlmacher, Schriftauslegung, pp. 14f., 18.
25Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, Il, 418: “For Israel, history
on
consisted only of Jahweh’s self-revelation by word and action. And
this point conflict with the modern view of history was sooner or later
inevitable, for the latter finds it perfectly possible to construct a pic-
ture of history without God. It finds it very hard to assume that there
is divine action in history. God has no natural place in its schema.”
 210 . NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

(2) that no event could be regarded as a final revela-

tion of the absolute since every manifestation of truth
and value was relative and historically conditioned.”?°
If “the historian cannot presuppose supernatural inter-
vention in the causal nexus as the basis for his work,”2"
can he ever deal adequately with the Biblical text which
communicates just such intervention? A negative an-
swer is forthcoming, because the historical-critical meth-
od is unable to deal with full reality in history. P. Stuhl-
macher, for example, states that the _historical-critical
method will either lead to “a conflict between theological
intention and the tendentiousness of the method or in-
troduce historical criticism into theological thought as
a disturbing or destructive element.””8 This is due to the
presuppositions and philosophical premises about the
nature of history. This problem is incisively referred to
by C. E. Braaten: “The historian often begins by claim-
ing that he conducts his research purely objectively,
without presuppositions, and ends by surreptitiously in-
troducing a set of presuppositions whose roots lie deeply
embedded in an anti-Christian Weltanschauung.”™ A
NT theology which rests upon a view of history that is
based on an unbroken continuum of causes and effects
cannot do justice to the Biblical view of history and
revelation nor to the Scripture’s claim to truth.2° Von
Rad has come to recognize that “a consistently applied
historico-critical method could [not] really do justice
?6Van A. Harvey, The Historian and the Believer (2nd ed.; New
York, 1969), pp. 31f.
27R. W. Funk, “The Hermeneutical Problem and Historical Criti-
cism,” The New Hermeneutic, ed. J. M. Robinson and J. B.oGobb} Jr.
(New York, 1964), p. 185. Cf. R. Bultmann, Existence and Faith
(Cleveland, 1960), p. 291.
28P. Stuhlmacher, “Zur Methoden- und Sachproblematik einer in-
terkonfessionellen Auslegung des Neuen Testaments,” Evangelisch-
Katholischer Kommentar zum NT. Vorarbeiten Heft 4 (Neukirchen-
Vluyn, 1973), pp. 11-55, esp. p. 46.
*9C. E. Braaten, “Revelation, History, and Faith in Martin Kahler,”
in M. Kahler, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical
Christ (Philadelphia, 1964), p. 22.
30D. Wallace, “Biblical Theology: Past and Future,” Theologische
Zeitschrift 19 (1963), 90; cf. Barr, ‘Revelation through History,” pp.
201f.
BASIC PROPOSALS TOWARD A NT THEOLOGY 211

to the Old Testament scripture’s claim to truth.”*! What

von Rad has stated of the OT applies likewise to the
NT. What needs to be emphatically stressed is that
there is a transcendent or divine dimension in Biblical
history which the historical-critical method is unable to
deal with. “If all historical events must by definition be
explained by sufficient historical causes, then there is
no room for the acts of God in history, for God is not a
historical character.”®? If one’s view of history is such
that one cannot acknowledge divine intervention in his-
tory through deed and word, then one is unable to deal
adequately and properly with the testimony of Scripture.
We are, therefore, led to conclude that the crisis respect-
ing history in OT and NT theology does not result from
the scientific study of the evidences, but stems from the
historical-critical method’s own crisis*® and its inade-
quacy to deal with the role of transcendence in history
due to philosophical premises about the nature of his-
tory. If the reality of the Biblical text testifies to a supra-
historical dimension which transcends the self-imposed
limitations of the historical-critical method, then one
must employ a method that can account for this dimen-
sion and can probe into all the layers of depth of his-
torical experience and deal adequately and properly
with the Scripture’s claim to truth.**
We have stated that the proper method for Biblical
theology is to be both theological and historical from
the beginning. Too often it is assumed that exegesis has
the historical-critical function to work out the meaning
of single texts, and NT (or OT) theology the task to
31Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, II, 417.
32Ladd, “The Search for Perspective,” p. 50.
33Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method, p. 84, speaks of historical
criticism as being in a “methodological crisis.” :
34Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I, 108. E. Osswald, “Gesche-
hene und geglaubte Geschichte,” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der
Universitat Jena 14 (1965), 711: “With the aid of critical science one
can certainly make no statement about God, because there is no path
that leads from the objectifying science of history to a rea] theological
expression. The rational process of knowing history remains limited to
the spatial-temporal dimension. .. .”
 212 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
join reconstruction to interpretation into a theological
whole, namely a sequential procedure. H.-J. Kraus has
rightly called for a “Biblical-theological process of in-
terpretation” in which exegesis is from its starting point -
Biblical-theological in orientation.** If we add to this
aspect that a proper and adequate method of research
dealing with the Biblical text needs to take into account
the reality of God and his inbreaking into history,?* be-
cause the Biblical text testifies to the transcendent
dimension in historical reality,?7 then we have a basis
upon which historical and theological interpretation can
go hand in hand from the start without needing to be
artificially separated into sequential processes.?® On this
basis one is able to “get back there” into the world of
the Biblical writer by bridging the temporal and cultural
gap, and can attempt to understand historically and theo-
logically what the text meant. It is then possible to

35Die Biblische Theologie, p. 377.

36This point is also made by Floyd V. Filson, “How I Interpret the
Bible,’ Interpretation 4 (1950), 186: “I work with the conviction
that the only really objective method of study takes the reality of God
and his working’ into account, and that any other point of view is
loaded with presuppositions which actually, even if subtly, contain an
implicit denial of the full Christian faith.”
37Troeltsch writes, “The means by which criticism becomes in the
first possible is the application of analogy. . . . This omnipotence of
analogy implies the identity in principle of all historical happening”
(“Ober historische und dogmatische Methode in der Theologie,” p.
108). Von Rad offers here an incisive observation. with regard to the
course of history as presented by the _historical-critical method, in
Theologie des Alten Testaments (Munich, 1960), II, 9: “It is inter-
preted history on the basis of historical-philosophical presuppositions,
which do not allow any possible recognition of God’s action in history,
because only man is notoriously considered to be the creator of his-
tory.” Mildenberger, Gottes Tat im Wort, p. 31 n. 37, agrees with von
Rad and adds that historical criticism “presupposes a closed relation
of reality which cannot grant ‘supernatural’ causes.”
38On this point von Rad, Theologie des AT, II, 12, has made the
following observation: ‘“‘The theological interpretation of OT texts
does not actually begin when the exegete, trained in literary criticism
and history (either this or that!), has done his job, as if we had two
exegetical processes, first a historical-critical one and then a ‘theological
one.’ A theological interpretation that seeks to grasp a statement
about God in the text is active from the very beginning of the process
of understanding.”
BASIC PROPOSALS TOWARD A NT THEOLOGY 213

express more adequately and comprehensively what the

text means for man in the modern world and historical
situation.
This methodological procedure does not seek to skip
history in favor of theology. The Biblical theologian
working with the method that is both historical and theo-
logical recognizes fully the relativity of human objec-
tivity.*? Accordingly he is aware that he must never let
his faith cause him to modernize his materials on the
basis of the tradition and community of faith in which he
stands. He must ask questions of the Biblical text on its
own terms; he makes room that his tradition and the con-
tent of his faith may be challenged, guided, enlivened,
and enriched by his finds. He recognizes also that a
purely philological, linguistic, and historical approach is
never enough to disclose the full and complete meaning
of a historical text. One can apply all the exegetical in-
struments available from historical, linguistic, and philo-
logical research and never reach the heart of the matter
unless one yields to the basic experience out of which
the Biblical writers speak, namely faith, Without so
yielding, one will hardly come to a recognition of the
full reality that finds expression in the Biblical testi-
mony. We do not wish to tum faith into a method, nor
do we intend to disregard thé demand of the Biblical
books, as documents from the past, to translate them
as objectively as possible by careful employment of the
respective and proper methods of interpretation. But
we mean that the interpretation of Scripture is to
become part of our own real experience. The theological-
historical interpretation is to be at the service of faith,
if it is to fathom all layers of historical experience and
to penetrate into the full meaning of the text and
the reality expressed in it. We must, therefore, affirm
that when interpretation seeks to grasp statements and
testimonies witnessing to God’s self-disclosure as the
Lord of time and event, who has chosen to reveal him-
self in actual datable happenings of human history
39So also Stendahl, IDB, I, 422.
A NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

through acts and words of judgment and salvation, then

the process of understanding such statements and testi-
monies must be from the start both historical and theo-
logical in nature in order to comprehend fully the.
coyaplete reality that has come to expression.

to him throwgh the Christian church’ as part of the in-

spired Scriptures. Introduction to the NT seeks to throw
light on the pre-literary and literary stages and forms
of the NT books by tracing their history and formation
as well as the text-forms and the canonization of the
NT. The history of early Christianity is studied in the
context of the history of antiquity with special emphasis
on the surrounding cultures from which we have many
texts and where archaeology has been invaluable in pro-
viding the historical, cultural, and social setting for the
Bible.
New Testament theology questions the various books
or blocks of writings of the NT as to their theology.‘
For the NT is composed of writings whose origin, con-
tent, forms, intentions, and meaning are very diverse.
The nature of these matters makes it imperative to look
at the material at hand in light of the context which is
primary to us, namely, the form in which we meet it
first, as a verbal structure of an integral part of a literary
whole.** Viewed in this way a NT theology will not be a
40This has been stressed for NT theology especially by Heinrich
Schlier (“The Meaning and Function of a Theology of the NT,”
Dogmatic vs. Biblical Theology, ed. H. Vorgrimler [Baltimore, 1964],
pp. 88-90); for OT theology by Kraus (Die Biblische Theologie, p.
364), by D. J. McCarthy (“The Theology of Leadership in Joshua
1-9,” Biblica 52 [1971], 166), and with his own emphasis by Childs
(Biblical Theology in Crisis, pp. 99-107).
41Contemporary (non-Biblical) literary critics place special emphasis
upon the “new criticism,’ which the Germans call Werkinterpretation.
Cf. W. Kayser, Das sprachliche Kunstwerk (10th ed.; Bern-Miinchen,
1964); Emil Staiger, Die Kunst der Interpretation (4th ed.; Zirich,
1963) ; Horst Enders, ed., Die Werkinterpretation (Darmstadt, 1967).
BASIC PROPOSALS TOWARD A NT THEOLOGY 215

“history of religion” or a “history of the transmission of

tradition”*? or something else.** A theology of the NT
provides primarily a summary interpretation and ex-
planation of each NT document or the NT blocks of
writing with a view to let their various concepts, themes,
and motifs emerge and to reveal their relatedness to each
other. The primary procedure of explicating the theol-
ogy of the NT books or blocks of writings in the final
form as verbal structures of literary wholes has the
advantage of recognizing the similarities and differences
between the various books or blocks of writings. This
means, for example, that the theologies of the individual
gospels will be able to stand independently next to each
other. Each voice can be heard in its testimony to the

The primary concern according to the practitioners of the “new criti-

cism” is to occupy oneself with the study of a finished piece of litera-
ture. The “new criticism” insists on the formal integrity of the literary
piece as a work of art, the Kunstwerk. Such a work must be appre-
ciated in its totality; to look behind it in an attempt at discovering
its history of origin is irrelevant. The emphasis is on the finished lit-
erary product qua work of art. An increasing number of OT scholars
have taken up the emphasis of the ‘‘new criticism.” Among them are:
Z. Adar, The Biblical Narrative (Jerusalem, 1959); S. Talmon, “ ‘Wis-
dom’ in the Book of Esther,” Vetus Testamentum 13 (1963), 419-
455: M. Weiss, ‘““Wege der neueren Dichtungswissenschaft in ihrer
Anwendung auf die Psalmenforschung,” Biblica 42 (1961), 225-302;
“Kiniges tiber die Bauformen des Erzahlens in der Bibel,’ Vetus Testa-
mentum 13 (1963), 455-475; “Weiteres tiber die Bauformen des
Erzahlens in der Bibel,” Biblica 46 (1965), 181-206. NT scholars
have as yet not followed this procedure. Certain aspects of the structur-
alist approach seem to lead into the direction of greater emphasis upon
the final form of NT documents.
42One will recall the redirection and renaming of the discipline of
NT theology by William Wrede. See Chapter I, pp. 26-31.
43For OT theology the diachronic method adopted by G. von Rad is
a typical example; see Hasel, OT Theology, pp. 46-49. A history of
the transmission of tradition method is equally applied to OT and
NT by H. Gese, Vom Sinai zum Zion (Munich, 1974), pp. 11-30.
44K raus, Die Biblische Theologie, p. 365: “ ‘Biblical theology’ should
be biblical theology in that it accepts the canon in the given textual
connections as the historical truth which is in need of explanation,
whose final form is in need of being presented by interpretation and
summary. This should be the actual task of Biblical theology. Every
attempt at a different procedure would not be Biblical theology, but
‘history of revelation,’ ‘history of religion,’ or even ‘history of tradi-
tion’”’ (italics his).
 216 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

activity of God and the divine self-disclosure. Another

advantage of this approach, one that is crucial for the
whole enterprise of NT theology, is that no systematic
scheme, pattern of thought, or extrapolated abstraction’
is superimposed upon the NT materials. Since no single
theme, scheme, or motif is sufficiently comprehensive to
include within it all varieties of NT viewpoints, one
must refrain from using a particular concept, formula,
basic idea, etc., as the center of the NT whereby a
systematization of the manifold and variegated NT tes-
timonies is achieved. On the other hand, we must affirm
that as God is the center of the OT* so Jesus Christ is
the center of the NT.*° We seek to refrain from system-
atizing on the basis of a single theme, scheme, motif,
_ etc,,.the reasons for which have been stated earlier.
.3./A presentation of NT theology may begin best with
the message of Jesus as it is available from the various
_ NT documents. This assumes that it is possible to glean
the message of Jesus from the respective gospels and
_ the few sayings quoted in other NT documents and that
there is a basic historical reliability in what has been
preserved in the NT documents, This may be followed
by the theologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke-Acts.
In such a consideration it will be recognized that the
various Gospels have their own distinctive purpose both
in the selection and presentation of the material pre-
served.
The Pauline theology may be gained by depicting the
theology of the different Pauline letters and their com-
mon as well as differing themes and motifs. The key
to Pauline theology is not easy to come by, as various
recent attempts indicate.*7
Some may choose to present Petrine theology perhaps
45G. F. Hasel, “The Problem of the Center in the OT Theology
Debate,” ZAW 86 (1974), 65-82.
46See Chapter ITI.
47See J. Jeremias, Der Schliissel zur Theologie des Apostels Paulus
(Giitersloh, 1971); G. Eichholz, Die Theologie des Paulus im Umriss
(Gottingen, 1972); H. Ridderbos, Paul. An Outline of His Theology
(Grand Rapids, Mich., 1975).
 TOWARD A NT THEOLOGY 217
BASIC PROPOSALS

before that of Paul as well as the theology of other NT

documents testifying to the preaching and teaching of
early Christianity. Here the dating of the respective NT
writings will become a factor in the sequence of the
presentation of NT theology.
The Johannine theology as provided both in the Fourth
Gospel and the Johannine epistles appears to come last
with the exception of the theology of Revelation which
gives the impression of standing in a category by itself
among the theologies of the NT and may be presented
last»,
(A)A NT theology not only seeks to know the theology
ofthe various books or groups of writings; it also at-
tempts to draw together and present the major themes
of the NT. To live up to its name, NT theology must
allow its themes, motifs, and concepts to be formed for
it by the NT itself. The range of NT themes, motifs, and
concepts will always impose itself on the theologian inso-
far as they silence his own, once the theological per-
spectives of the NT are really grasped. On principle, a
theology of the NT must tend toward themes, motifs,
and concepts and must be presented with all the variety
and all the limitations imposed on them by the NT itself.
The presentation of these longitudinal perspectives of
the NT testimonies can be achieved only on the basis
of a multitrack treatment. The richness of the NT testi-
monies can be grasped by such a multiplex approach
as is commensurate with the nature of the NT. This
multiplex approach with the multitrack treatment of
longitudinal themes frees the Biblical theologian from
the notion of an artificial and forced unilinear approach
determined by a single structuring concept, whether it
is covenant, communion, kingdom of God, or something
else, to which all NT testimonies, thoughts, and con-
cepts are made to refer or are forced to fit. .
5. As the NT is interrogated for its theology, it an-
swers first of all by yielding various theologies, namely
those of the individual books and groups of writings,
and then by yielding the theologies of the various lon-
 218 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
gitudinal themes. But the name of our discipline as
theology of the NT is not only concerned to present and
explicate the variety of theologies. The concept fore-.
shadowed by the name of the discipline has one theology
in view, namely the theology of the NT.
The final aim of NT theology is to demonstrate
the unity that binds together the various theologies and
longitudinal themes, concepts, and motifs. This is an
extremely difficult undertaking which contains many
dangers. If there is behind the experience of those who
left us the NT Scriptures a unique divine reality, then
it would seem that behind all variegation and diversity
of theological reflection there is a unity within the NT
writings. The ultimate object of a theology is then to
draw the unity out of its concealment as much as possi-
ble and to make it transparent.
The task of achieving this objective must not be per-
formed too hastily. The constant temptation to find
unity in a single structuring theme or concept must be
avoided. Here misgivings should arise not only because
NT theology would be reduced to a cross-sectional or
some other development of a single theme or concept,
but the real task would be lost sight of, which is pre-
cisely not to overlook or pass by the variegated and
diverse theologies while at the same time to present
and articulate the unity which seemingly binds together
in a concealed way the divergent and manifold NT tes-
timonies. One can indeed speak of such a unity in which
ultimately the divergent theological utterances and
testimonies are intrinsically related to each other from
the theological viewpoint on the basis of a presupposi-
tion that derives from the inspiration and canonicity of
the NT as Scripture,
A seemingly successful way to come to grips with the
question of unity is to take the various major longitu-
dinal themes and concepts and explicate where and
how the variegated theologies are intrinsically related
 PROPOSALS TOWARD A NT THEOLOGY 219
BASIC

to each other.** In this way the underlying bond of the

one theology of the NT may be illuminated. In the
quest to find and explicate the unity one must refrain
from making the theology of one book or group of
books the norm of what is NT theology. We have seen
that this has happened too frequently. Some scholars
have made the theology of Paul or a particular aspect
of it into the norm or “canon within the canon” of early
Christian faith on the basis of which other parts are crit-
icized. The procedure proposed here seeks to avoid this
method. It also allows the too often neglected theol-
ogies of certain NT. writings such as Hebrews, James,
Jude, and others to stand side by side with other the-
ologies, They make their own special contributions to
NT theology on equal basis with those more recognized
ones, because they too are expressions of NT realities.
The question of unity implies tension, but tension does
not of necessity mean contradiction. It would appear
that where conceptual unity seems impossible the cre-
ative tension thereby produced will turn out to be a
most fruitful one for NT theology.
/6.) The Biblical theologian understands NT theology
xs being part of a larger whole. The name “theology of
the New Testament” implies the larger context of the
Bible made up of both Testaments. An integral NT the-
ology stands in a basic relationship to the OT and to
OT theology, For the Christian theologian the NT has
the character of Scripture and he will constantly reflect
on what this means particularly in relation to the other
Testament.
These proposals indicate a multiplex and multiform
approach to NT theology. This approach seeks to do
justice to the various NT writings and attempts to avoid
an explication of the manifold witnesses through a sin-
gle structure, unilinear points of view, or even a com-
pound approach of a limited nature. The approach
48A. Deissmann, “Zur Methode der Biblischen Theologie des NT,”
PTNT, pp. 78-80, had already called for a presentation of the total
early Christian theology as a main task of NT theology.
220 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
briefly outlined has the advantage of remaining faith-
ful to the rich variety of NT thought, to both similarity -
and dissimilarity as well as old and new, without in the
least distorting the original historical witness of the text
in its literal sense and in the larger Scriptural context
to which the NT belongs. It allows unity to emerge
within all diversity and manifoldness without forcing
it into the mold of uniformity. It will not be an easy
task to present a NT theology along the lines outlined
here, but it is hoped that this challenge is of the kind
that will gain victory over any temptation that seeks
an easier path.
Selected Bibliography

(Note: The following list includes primarily a selection of works

written in the last 100 years. Preference has been given, where
possible, to works which represent various points of view and /or
have in some fashion or another contributed in the current de-
bate.)

Adeney, W. F. The Theology of the New Testament. London,

1894.
Albertz, M. Die Botschaft des Neuen Testaments. Bd. I, 1, Berlin,
1946; Bd. I, 2, Zollikon-Zurich, 1952; Bd. II, 1, Zollikon-Zurich,
1954; Bd. II, 2, Zollikon-Zurich, 1957.
———. “Die Krisis der sogenannten neutestamentlichen ‘The-
ologie,” Zeichen der Zeit 8 (1954), 370-376.
———. “Kerygma und Theologie im Neuen Testament,” ZNW
46 (1955), 267 f. and ThLZ 81 (1956), 341-344.
Albright, W. F. “Return to Biblical Theology,” Christian Century
75 (1958), 1328-1331.
Alexander, N. “The United Character of the New ‘Testament
Witness of the Christ-Event,” The New Testament in Historical
and Contemporary Perspective. Essays in Memory of G. H. C.
Macgregor, ed. Hugh Anderson (Oxford, 1965), 1-33.
Allen, E. L. “The Limits of Biblical Theology,” JBR 25 (1956),
13-18.
Althaus, P. Faith and Fact in the Kerygma Today. Philadelphia,
1959.
Aulén, G. Jesus in Contemporary Historical Research. Nashville,
1976.
Bachmann, Ph. “Zur Methode der biblischen Theologie des Neuen
Testaments,” Festgabe, der philos. Fakultdét der Friedrich-Alex-
ander-Universitat Erlangen (Erlangen, 1925), 7-26.
Balthasar, H. U. v. “Die Vielheit der biblischen Theologien und

221
 Moe NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
der Geist der Einheit im Neuen Testament,” Schweizer
Rund.-
schau 67 (1968), 159-169.
=>, Einigung in. Christus,” Freiburger Zeitschrift fiir Phi-
losophie und Theologie 15 (1968), 171-189.
Barr, James. Old and New in Interpretation: A Study of the Two
Testaments. New York, 1968.
———. The Bible in the Modern World. New York, 1973.
———. “Story and History in Biblical Theology,” Journal of
Religion 56 (1976), 1-17.
———. “Biblical Theology,” IDB Sup. (Nashville, 1976), 104-111.
———. “Trends and Prospects in Biblical Theology,” JTS 25
(1974), 265-282.
Barth, Karl. Der Romerbrief. Bern, 1918.
———. “Rudolf Bultmann—An Attempt to Understand Him,”
Kerygma and Myth II, ed. H. W. Bartsch (London, 1962).
Barth, M. “Die Methode von Bultmanns “Theologie des Neuen
Testaments’,” Theologische Zeitschrift 11 (1955) ize?:
———. “Whither Biblical Theology,” Interpretation 25 (1971),
350-354.
Batey, R. New Testament Issues. New York, 1970.
Bauer, G. L. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 4 vols.
Leipzig, 1800-1802.
Baumgartel, F. Verheissung. Zur Frage des evangelischen Ver-
standnisses des Alten Testaments. Giitersloh, 92.
Baur, F. C. Vorlesungen tiber neutestamentliche Theologie, ed.
F. F. Baur. Leipzig, 1864.
Beilner, W. ‘“Neutestamentliche Theologie,” Dienst an der
Lehre. Studien zur heutigen Philosophie und Theologie (Wiener
Beitrage zur Theologie X; Wien, 1965), 145-165.
Beisser, F. “Irrwege und Wege der historisch-kritischen Bibel-
wissenschaft: Auch ein Vorschlag zur Reform des Theologie-
studiums,” Neue Zeitschrift fiir system. Theologie und Religions-
philosophie 15 (1973), 192-214.
Beker, J. C. “Reflections on Biblical Theology,” Interpretation
24 (1970), 303-320.
Benoit, P. “Exégése et thedlogie Biblique,” Exégése et théologie
11) (Parts, 1968), 1-13.
Bertram, G. “Neutestamentliche Religionsgeschichte und The-
ologie,” Deutsche evangelische Erziehung 46 (1935), 355-362.
Betti, E. Die Hermeneutik als allgemeine Methodik der Geistes-
wissenschaften. Tiibingen, 1967.
Betz, O. “History of Biblical Theology,” IBD, I, 432-437.
Blenkinsopp, J. “Biblical and Dogmatic Theology: The Present
Situation,” CBQ 26 (1964), 70-85.
———. A Sketchbook of Biblical Theology. New York, 1968.
Bonsirven, J. Théologie du Nouveau Testament. Paris, 1951.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 223

Trans. Theology of the New Testament. Westminster, Md.,

1963.
Bourke, J. “A Survey of Biblical Theology,” Life of the Spirit
18 (1963), 51-68.
Bousset, W. Kyrios Christos. Geschichte des Christusglaubens von
den Anfdngen des Christentums bis Irenaeus. Gottingen, 1913;
6th ed. Darmstadt, 1967. Trans. Kyrios Christos. Nashville,
1970.
Bouttier, M. “Théologie et Philosophie du NT,” Etudes Theolo-
giques et Religieuses 45 (1970), 188-194.
Bowman, J. W. “From Schweitzer to Bultmann,” Theology Today
11 (1954), 160-178.
———. Prophetic Realism and the Gospel. A Preface to Biblical
Theology. Philadelphia, 1955.
Brandon, S. G. F. “Is there a New Testament Theology?” Modern
Churchman 3 (1960), 124-130.
Branton, J. “Our Present Situation in Biblical Theology,” Relt-
gion in Life 26 (1956/57), 5-18.
Braun, D. “Heil als Geschichte. Zu Oscar Cullmanns neuem
Buch,” EvTh 27 |(1967), 57-76.
Braun, F.-M. “La théologie biblique,” Revue Thomiste 53 (1953),
221-253.
Braun, H. ‘‘The Problem of a New Testament Theology,” Journal
for Theology and Church 1 (1965), 169-185.
———. Jesus. Der Mann aus Nazareth und seine Zeit. Stuttgart/
Berlin, 1969.
Briggs, R. C. Interpreting the New Testament Today. Nashville,
1973.
Bright, J. The Authority of the OT. Nashville, 1967.
Brown, C. “Bultmann Revisited,” Churchman 88 (1974), 167-187.
Brown, S. Apostasy and Perseverance in the Theology of Luke.
Rome, 1969.
Bruce, F. F. New Testament Development of Old Testament
Themes. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich., 1973.
Briickner, M. “Die neuen Darstellungen der neutestamentlichen
Theologie,” Theologische Rundschau 16 (1913), 363-386, 415-
436.
Biichsel, F. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Geschichte des
Wortes Gottes im Neuen Testament. Gitersloh, 1935.
Bultmann, R. ‘“‘Heilsgeschichte und Geschichte. Zu O. Cullmann,
Christus und die Zeit,’ ThLZ 73 (1948), 659-666.
———. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Tubingen, 1948-1953.
Trans. Theology of the NT. 2 vols. London, 1965.
__. “Das Problem des Verhialtnisses von Theologie und Ver-
kiindigung im Neuen Testament,” Aux sources de la tradition
225 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
chrétienne. Festschrift fiir M. Goguel (Neuchatel/Paris, 1950),
32-42.
———. Das Urchristentum im Rahmen der antiken Religionen.
Zurich, 1959. Trans. Primitive Christianity in Its Contemporary
Setting. Edinburgh, 1956.
———. Jesus. Berlin, 1926. Trans. Jesus and the Word. 2nd ed.
London, 1958.
———. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. Gottingen,
1921. 2nd. ed., 1931. Trans. The History of the Synoptic Tradi-
tion. New York, 1963.
Burkhardt, H. “Grenzen des Kanons—Motive und Masstabe,”’
Theologische Beitrige 1 (1970), 153-160.
Burrows, M. An Outline of Biblical Theology. Philadelphia, 1946.
———. “The Task of Biblical Theology,” JBR 14 (1946), 13-15.
Campenhausen, H. von. The Formation of the Christian Bible.
Trans. by J. A. Baker. Philadelphia, 1972.
Carlston, C. E. The Parables of the Triple Tradition. Philadel-
phia, '1975.
———. “Review of J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology. The
Proclamation of Jesus,’ JBL 91 (1972), 260-262.
Cazelles, H. ‘The Unity of the Bible and the People of God,”
Scripture, 18 (1966), 1-10.
Charlot, John. New Testament Disunity. New York, 1970.
Childs, B. S. Biblical Theology in Crisis. Philadelphia, 1970.
Clavier, H. “Remarques sur la méthode en theologie biblique,”
Novum Testamentum 14 (1972), 161-190.
Clemons, J. T. “Critics and Criticisms of Salvation History,”
Religion in Life 41 (1972), 89-100.
Coenen, L., et al., eds. Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen
Testament. 3 vols. 3rd ed. Wuppertal, 1972.
Conzelmann, H. “Die Frage der Einheit der Neutestamentlichen
Schriften,’ Moderne Exegese und_ historische Wissenschaft.
Dokumentation der Tagung des Deutschen Instituts fiir Bildung
und in Niederaltaich vom 6. bis 11. Okt. 1969, eds. J. M. Hol-
lenbach und H. Staudinger (Trier, 1972), 67-76.
———. “Fragen an Gerhard von Rad,” Evangelische Theologie
24 (S04). TAAL,
———. Grundriss der Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Miinchen,
1967. Trans. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament.
New York, 1969.
———. |Die,, Mitte'der Zeit) Tibingen, 1953. Trans. DhevThe-
ology of St. Luke. London, 1961.
Cordero, M. Garcia. Teologia de la Biblia II and III: Nuevo
Testamento. Madrid, 1972.
Courth, Franz. “Der historische Jesus als Auslegungsnorm des
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 225

Glaubens?” Miinchener Theologische Zeitschrift 25 (1974),

301-316.
Cox, Claude E. “R. Bultmann: Theology of the New ‘Testa-
ment,” Restoration Quarterly 17 (1974), 144-161.
Craig, C. T. “Biblical Theology and the Rise of Historicism,”
JBL 62 (1943), 281-294.
Cullmann, O. Christus und die Zeit. Die urchristliche Zeit- und
Geschichtsauffassung. Zollikon-Ziirich, 1946. Trans. Christ and
Time. London, 1962.
———. The Christology of the NT. rev. ed. New York, 1964.
——~—. The Early Church, Philadelphia, 1956.
———. Heil als Geschichte. Heilsgeschichtliche Existenz 1m Neuen
Testament. Tiibingen, 1965. Trans. Salvation in History. New
York, 1967.
——_—. “La Nécessité et la fonction de l’exégésis philogique et
historique de la Bible,” Verbum Caro 3 (1949), 2-13.
Dahl, N. A. “Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments,” T heologische
Rundschau 22 (1954), 21-49.
Davies, W. D. “Scene in New Testament Theology,” JBR 20
(1952), 231-258.
Deissmann, A. “Zur Methode der biblischen Theologie des Neuen
Testamentes,” ZThK 3 (1893), 126-139.
Demke, Ch. “Die Frage nach der Méglichkeit einer Theologie
des Neuen Testaments,” Theologische Versuche2, eds. J. Rogge
und G. Schille (Berlin, 1970), 129-139.
Dentan, R. C. Preface to OT Theology. 2nd ed. New York, 1963.
Dequeker, L. “Old and New in the Bible. Guidelines for a Better
Understanding of the Relationship between the Old and New
Testaments,” Louvain Studies 3 (1971), 189-205.
Descamps, A. “Reflexions sur la methode en théologie biblique,”
Sacra Pagina 1, Miscellanea Biblica Congressus Internationalis
Catholici de Re biblica (Gembloux, 1959), 132-157.
De Vaux, R. “A propos de la théologie biblique,” Zetischrift fur
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 68 (1956), 225-227.
Dibelius, M. “Aus der Werkstatt der neutestamentlichen The-
ologie,” Christliche Welt 27 (1913), 938-941, 964-967.
———. “Biblische Theologie und biblische Religionsgeschichte
II des NT,” Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (2nd ed.,
Tiibingen, 1927), I, 1091-1094.
Diem, H. “Die Einheit der Schrift,” EvTh 13 (1953), 385-405.
——~—. Theologie als kirchliche Wissenschaft. 2nd ed. Munich,
1957.
——~—. Was heisst schriftgemdss? Gitersloh, 1958.
Dodd, C. H. The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments.
London, 1936.
226 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
———. According to the Scriptures. The Substructure of New
Testament Theology. London, 1952.
———. The Authority of the Bible. New York, 1929.
———. “The Foundation of Christian Theology,” Theology Today
7 (1950-51), 308-320.
———. “A Problem of Interpretation,” Studiorum Novi Testa-
menti Societas, Bull. II (195t),. 1418:
Doty, W. G. Contemporary New Testament Interpretation. Engle-
wood Cliffs, N.J., 1972.
Dulles, A. “Response to Krister Stendahl’s ‘A Method in the
Study of Biblical Theology’,” The Bible in Modern Scholar-
ship, ed. J. Ph. Hyatt (Nashville, 1965), 210-216.
Ebeling, G. The Word and-Faith. London, 1963.
———. Theology and Proclamation: Dialogue with Bultmann.
Philadelphia, 1966.
———. The Word of God and Tradition. Philadelphia, 1968.
———. “The Meaning of ‘Biblical Theology’,” Word and Faith
(London, 1963), 81-86.
Egg, G. Adolf Schlatters kritische Position, gezeigt an seiner
Matthdusinterpretation. Stuttgart, 1968.
Eichholz, G. Die Theologie des Paulus im Umriss. Gottingen,
Ifa, |
Ellis, E. E. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.,
fou,
———. Paul and His Recent Interpreters. Grand Rapids, Mich.,
TG).
Estes, D. F. An Outline of New Testament Theology. New York,
1900.
Evans, C. F. Is ‘Holy Scripture’ Christian? London, 1971.
Fallon, J. E. “Towards a Biblical Theology,” Dominicana 49
(1964), 221-228.
Fascher, E. “Eine Neuordnung der neutestamentlichen Fachdis-
ziplin? Bemerkungen zum Werk von M. Albertz: Die Botschaft
des Neuen Testaments,’ ThLZ 83 (1958), 609-618.
———. “Christologie oder Theologie? Bemerkungen zu O. Cull-
manns Christologie des Neuen Testamentes,’ ThLZ 87 (1962),
881-910.
Feine, Paul. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Leipzig, 1910.
Feiner, J. and Lohr, M., eds. Mysterium Salutis. Grundriss heils-
geschichtlicher Dogmatik. Freiburg, 1965.
Fensham, F. C. “Covenant, Promise and Expectation in the
Bible,” Theologische Zeitschrift 23 (1967), 305-322.
———. “The Covenant as Giving Expression to the Relationship
between Old and New Testament,” Tyndale Bulletin 22 (1971),
82-94.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ved

Ferrero-Blanco, J. J. Iniciacién a la teologta biblica. Barcelona,

1967.
Festorazzi, F. “Il problema del metodo nella teologia biblica,”’
Scuola Cattolica 91 (1963), 253-276.
Filson, F. V. “Biblische Theologie in Amerika,’ ThLZ 75 (1950),
71-80.
—__—, “A New Testament Student’s Approach to Biblical The-
ology,” JBR 14 (1946), 22-28.
__—. “New Testament Theology in the Last Decade,” JBR 19
(1951), 191-196.
——-4) “The Unity Between the Testaments,’ The Interpreter’s
One-Volume Commentary on the Bible (Nashville, 1971), 989-
993.
——~—. “The Unity of the OT and the NT: A Bibliographical
Survey,” Interpretation 5 (1951), 134-152.
Fitzmyer, J. A. “Pauline Theology,” The Jerome Biblical Com-
mentary, eds. R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer, R. E. Murphy
(Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1968), 800-827.
Flender, H. St. Luke, Theologian of Redemptive History. London,
1967.
Fohrer, G. “Der Mittelpunkt einer Theologie des Alten ‘Testa-
ments,” Theologische Zeitschrift 24 (1968), 161-172.
Fontaine, J. Formation progressive de la théologie neo-testamen-
taire. Arras, 1905.
——~—. Théologie du Nouveau Testament. Arras, 1905.
———. Théologie du Nouveau Testament et Vévolution§ des
dogmes. Paris, 1907.
——~—. La Théologie néo-testamentaire sa structure interne: les
faits, les dogmes et la foi. Arras, 1905. |
France, R. T. Jesus and the Old Testament. London, 1971.
Frank, I. Der Sinn der Kanonbildung. Freiburg, 1971.
Franklin, E. Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and The-
ology of Luke-Acts. London, 1975.
Friedrich, J., ed. Rechtfertigung. Festschrift fiir E. Kasemann zum
70. Geburtstag, eds. J. Friedrich, W. Pohlmann, and P. Stuhl-
macher. Tiibingen, 1976.
Frohlich, K. “Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments: Oscar Cullmanns
Beitrag zur Theologie der Gegenwart,’ Oikonomia. Heilsge-
schichte als Thema der Theologie (Hamburg-Bergstedt, 1967),
203-219.
Frye, R. M. “On the Historical-Critical Method in New Testa-
ment Studies: A Reply to Professor Achtemeier,” Perspective
14. (1973) 228-33.
Fuchs, E. Zur Frage nach dem historischen Jesus. Tubingen, 1960.
Trans. Studies on the Historical Jesus. SBT 42; London, 1964.
———. ‘Probleme der neutestamentlichen Theologie. Rez. von
228 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
E. Stauffer, Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments,” Verkiindi-
gung und Forschung (1942/46), 168-182.
———. “Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments und der historische’
Jesus,” Zur Frage nach dem _ historischen Jesus (Tiibingen,
1960), 377-404.
———.° Zum hermeneutischen Problem in der Theologie. Tiibin-
gen, 1959.
———. Hermeneutik, 2nd ed. Cannstadt, 1958.
Funk, R. W. “The Hermeneutical Problem and Historical Criti-
cism,’” The New Hermeneutic, eds. J. M. Robinson and J. B.
Cobb, Jr. (New York, 1964), 164-197.
———. Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God. New York,
1966.
Furnish, V. ‘““New Directions in New Testament Theology,” Per-
kins School of Theology Journal 19 (1965/66), 5-11.
Gamble, Connolly, Jr. ‘““The Nature of Biblical Theology,” Inter-
pretation 5 (1951), 462-467.
Gast, F. A. “Biblical Theology,’ The Reformed Church Review
2 (1898), 236-251.
Geiger, W. Spekulation und Kritik. Die Geschichtstheologie F.
C. Baurs. Munich, 1964.
Gese, H. “Erwagungen zur Einheit der biblischen Theologie,”
Vom Sinai zum Zion (Munich, 1974), 11-30.
Geyer, Hans-Georg. “Geschichte als theologisches Problem,” EvTh
22 (1962), 92-104.
Giblet, J. “Unité et diversité dans les écrits du Nouveau Testa-
mene.) Isigna 20) (1975) 1\23-54,
Gilbert, G. H. “Biblical Theology; its History and its Mission,”
Biblical World 6 (1895), 6-14, 358-366.
Gogarten, F. Demythologizing and History. London, 1955.
Goppelt, L. Die apostolische und nachapostolische Zeit. 2nd ed.
Gottingen, 1966. Trans. The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times.
Philadelphia, 1962.
———. “Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte,’’ Christologie und Ethik
(Gottingen, 1968), 220-233.
———. “Die Pluralitat der Theologien im Neuen Testament und
die Einheit des Evangeliums als 6kumenisches Problem,”
Evangelium und Einheit. Bilanz und Perspektiven der Gkumeni-
schen Bemiihungen, ed. V. Vajta (Géttingen, 1971), 103-125.
———. “Der Ertrag einer Epoche. Vier Darstellungen der The-
ologie des Neuen Testaments,” Lutherische Monatshafte 11
(1972), 96-98.
———. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 2 vols. G6ttingen, 1975-
76.
———. Typos. Die typologische Deutung des Alten Testaments
im Neuen. Darmstadt, 1966.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 229

———. “Review of Herbert Braun, Jesus. Der Mann aus Naz-

areth und seine Zeit,” ThLZ 95 (1970), 744-748.
Gould, E. P. The Biblical Theology of the New Testament. New
York, 1900.
Grant, F. C. An Introduction to New Testament Thought. Nash-
ville, 1950.
Grant, R. M. The Formation of the New Testament. New York,
1965.
———. A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible, 2nd
ed. New York, 1966.
Grisser, E. Wort Gottes in der Krise? Gitersloh, 1969.
——_—. “Review of W. G. Kiimmel, Die Theologie des NT,’
Deutsches Pfarrerblatt 70 (1970), 254-255.
Grech, P. “Background Studies in New Testament Theology,”
Dublin Review 240 (1966), 247-260.
———. “Contemporary Methodological Problems in New Testa-
ment Theology,” BTB 2 (1972), 262-280.
Grelot, P. Sens chrétien de AT. Tournai, 1962.
Gross, H. and F. Mussner. “Die Einheit von Altem und Neuem
Testament,” Internationale Katholische Zeitschrift 3 (1974),
544-555.
Guillet, J. “Die Mitte der Botschaft: Jesu Tod und Auferste-
hung,” Internationale Katholische Zeitschrift 2 (1973), 225-238.
——~—. Themes of the Bible. South Bend, Ind., 1960.
Gundry, R. H. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s
Gospel. Leiden, 1967.
Giittgemanns, E. “Literatur zur Neutestamentlichen Theologie.
Randglossen zu ausgewahlten Neuerscheinungen,” Verkiindigung
und Forschung 12 (1967), 38-87.
_——. “Literatur zur Neutestamentlichen Theologie. Uberblick
iiber Fortgang und Ziele der Forschung,” Verkiindigung und For-
schung V5 (1970), 41-75.
——~—. “Linguistisch-literaturwissenschaftliche Grundlegung einer
neutestamentlichen Theologie,” Linguistica Biblica 13/14
(1972), 2-18.
———. Offene Fragen zur Formgeschichte des Evangeliums.
Munich, 1970.
Haacker, K. “Einheit und Vielfalt in der Theologie des Neuen
Testaments. Ein methodenkritischer Beitrag,’ Beitrage zur
hermeneutischen Diskussion, ed. W. Béld (Wuppertal, 1968),
78-102.
Haenchen, E. “Das alte ‘Neue Testament’ und das neue ‘Alte
Testament’,’ Die Bibel und wir. Gesammelte Aufsdize, II
(Tubingen, 1968), 13-27.
Hahn, F. “Das Problem ‘Schrift und Tradition’ im Urchristentum,”
EvTh 30 (1970), 449-468.
230 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
———. ‘Probleme historischer Kzitik,’ ZNW 63 (1972), 1-17:
Haroutunian, J. “The Bible and the Word of God. The Impor-
tance of Biblical Theology,” Interpretation 1 (1947), 291-308.
Harrington, W. J. “New Testament Theology, Two Recent
Approaches,” BTB 1 (1971), 171-189.
———. “The Method and Scope of Biblical Theology,” Doctrine
and Life 22 (1972), 71-90.
———. The Path of Biblical Theology. Dublin, 1973.
Harvey, J. “Symbolique et théologie biblique,” Sciences Eccle-
stastiques 9 (1957), 147-157.
Harvey, Van A. The Historian and the Believer. New York, 1966.
Hasel, G. F. “The Problem of History in OT Theology,” AUSS
8 (1970), 32-46.
———. “Review of H. Conzelmann, Grundriss der Theologie des
NT,” AUSS 8 (1970), 86-89.
———. “Capito, Schwenckfeld and Crautwald on Sabbatarian Ana-
baptist Theology,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 46 (1972),
41-57.
———. “The Problem of the Center in the OT Theology De-
bate,” ZAW 86 (1974), 65-82.
———. Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current
Debate. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich., 1975.
Hasenhuttl, G. “Dialogue between the Dogmatic Theologian and
the Exegete,” Concilium 10 (1971), 39-46.
Haufe, G. “Auf dem Wege zu einer theologischen Hermeneutik
des Neuen Testaments,” Bericht von der Theologie. Resultate.
Probleme. Konzepte, ed. G. Kulicke, et al. (Berlin, 1971), 56-79.
=, “Review of K. H. Schelkle,, Tikeol: dy. NT, Bd, Ey?) TRLZ
94 (1969), 909-910. .
———. “Review of W. G. Kiimmel, Die Theologie des Neuen
Testaments,” ThLZ 96 (1971), 108-111.
Hefner, P. ““Theology’s Task in a Time of Change: The Limi-
tations of Biblical Theology,” Una Sancta 24 (1967), 39-51.
Hengel, M. “Theorie und Praxis im Neuen Testament?” Evan-
gelische Kommentare 3 (1970), 744-745.
———. “Historische Methoden und theologische Auslegung des
Neuen Testaments,’ Kerygma und Dogma 19 (1973), 85-90.
Hesse, F. Das AT als Buch der Kirche. Gitersloh, 1966.
———. Abschied von der Heilsgeschichte. Zurich, 1971.
Hessen, J. Griechische oder biblische Theologie? Das Problem der
Hellenisierung des Christentums in neuer Beleuchtung. Leipzig,
1956. 2nd ed. Miinchen/Basel, 1962.
Hicks, R. L. “Present-Day Trends in Biblical Theology,” Anglican
Theological Review 32 (1950), 137-153.
Higgins, A. J. B. The Christian Significance of the OT. London,
1949:
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Zou

——~—. “The Growth of New Testament Theology,” Scottish

Journal of Theology 6 (1953), 275-286.
Hill, D. ‘What is ‘Biblical Theology’?” Biblical Theology 15
(1965), 17-23.
Hillman, W. “Wege zur neutestamentlichen Theologie,” Wissen-
schaft und Weisheit 14 (1951), 56-67, 82, 200-211; 15 (1952),
15-32, 122-136.
——~—. “Grundziige der urchristlichen Glaubensverkiindigung,”
Wissenschaft und Weisheit 20 (1957), 163-180.
Hirsch, E. Das Alte Testament und die Predigt des Evangeliums.
Tubingen, 1936.
Hodgson, L. Biblical Theology and the Sovereignty of God. Cam-
bridge,wo47:
Hodgson, P. C. The Formation of Historical Theology. A Study
of Ferdinand Christian Baur. New York, 1966.
Hofmann, J. C. K. Biblische Theologie des neuen Testaments,
ed. W. Volk (Die heilige Schrift neuen Testaments zusammen-
haingend untersucht, 11. Theil). Nordlingen, 1886.
Holtzmann, H. J. Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie.
2 vols. Freiburg/Leipzig, 1897.
Hornig, G. Die Anfdnge der historisch-kritischen Pieoioe te
Gottingen, 1961.
Hiibner, J. Die Theologie Johannes Keplers zwischen Orthodoxie
und Naturwissenschaft. Tiibingen, 1975.
Hughes, H. D. “Salvation-History as Hermeneutic,” Evangelical
Quarterly 48 (1976), 79-89.
Hummel, H. D. “The OT Basis of Typological Interpretation,”
Biblical Research 9 (1964), 38-50.
Hunter, A. M. The Unity of the New Testament. London, 1943.
———. The Message of the New Testament. Philadelphia, 1944.
———. Interpreting the New Testament 1900-1950. London, 1951.
———. “Contemporary Religious Trends: New Testament The-
ology — Where and Whither?” Expository Times 66 (1954/55),
269-272.
———. Introducing New Testament Theology. London/Philadel-
phia, 1958.
———. “Modern Trends in New Testament Theology,” The New
Testament in Historical and Contemporary Perspective. Essays
in Memory of G. H. C. Macgregor (Oxford, 1965), 133-148.
Jacob, E. ‘“‘Possibilités et limites d’une Théologie biblique,”
Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 46 (1966), 116-
130.
Jansen, John F. “The Biblical Theology of Gerhardus Vos,”
Princeton Seminary Bulletin 66 (1974), 23-34.
Jasper, F. N. “The Relation of the Old Testament to the New,”
Expository Times 78 (1967/68), 228-232, 267-270.
252 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Jaspers, K. R. Bultmann. Die Frage der Entmythologisierung.
Munich, 1954.
———. Philosophical Faith and Revelation. New York, 1967.
———, and R. Bultmann. Myth and Christianity. New York, 1958.
Jeremias, J. The Problem of the Historical Jesus. Philadelphia,
1964.
———. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. 2nd ed. London, 1966.
———. Neutestamentliche Theologie. Erster Teil. Die Verkiindi-
gung Jesu. Gitersloh, 1971. Trans. New Testament Theology:
The Proclamation of Jesus. New York, 1971.
———. Der Schliissel zur Theologie des Apostels Paulus. Giiters-
loh, 1971.
Jervell, J. Luke and the People of God. Minneapolis, 1972.
Kaftan, J. Neutestamentliche Theologie, Im Abriss dargestellt.
Berlin, 1927.
Kahler, M. “Biblische Theologie,” Realencyklopddie fiir protes-
tantische Theologie und Kirche, 3. Aufl. (Leipzig, 1897), 192-200.
———. The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historical Biblical
Christ. Philadelphia, 1964.
Kaiser, W. C. “The Centre of Old Testament Theology: The
Promise,” Themelios 10 (1974), 1-10.
Kalin, E. “The Inspired Community: A Glance at Canon His-
tory,’ Concordia Theological Monthly 42 (1971), 541-549.
Kasemann, E. “The Canon of the NT and the Unity of the
Church,” Essays on NT Themes (London, 1964), 95-107.
———. NT Questions of Today. London, 1969.
——~—, ed. Das Neuen Testament als Kanon. Gottingen, 1970.
———. “The Problem of a New Testament Theology,’ NTS 19
(1973),w235-245;
———. Perspectives on Paul. Philadelphia, 1971.
Keck, L. E. ‘Problems of New Testament Theology. A Critique
of Alan Richardson’s An Introduction to New Testament The-
ology,’ Novum Testamentum 7 (1964), 217-241.
Kelsey, D. H. The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology. Phila-
delphia, 1975.
Kistemaker, S. J. “Current Problems and Projects in NT Re-
search,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 18
(1975), 17-28.
Klein, G. Rekonstruktion und Interpretation. Gesammelte Auf-
satze zum Neuen Testament. Gottingen, 1969.
———. “‘Reich Gottes’ als biblischer Zentralbegriff,’” EvTh 30
(1970), 642-670.
———. “Bibel und Heilsgeschichte. Die Fragwiirdigkeit einer Idee,”
ZNW 62 (1971), 1-47.
Knudsen, R. H. Theology in the New Testament. A Basis for
Christian Faith. Los Angeles, 1964.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 233

Koester, H. “The Historical Jesus: Some Comments and Thoughts

on Norman Perrin’s Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus,”
Christology and a Modern Pilgrimage, ed. H. D. Betz (Phila-
delphia, 1971), 123-136.
Kraeling, E. G. “Toward a Biblical Theology,” The OT Since
the Reformation (New York, 1955), 210-225.
Kraus, H.-J. Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des
AT. 2nd ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969.
———. Die Biblische Theologie. Ihre Geschichte und Proble-
matik. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1970.
Krentz, E. The Historical-Critical. Method. Philadelphia, 1975.
Kriiger, Gustav. Das Dogma vom Neuen Testament. Programm
der Universitit Giessen. Giessen, 1896.
Kiimmel, A. “Mitte des Neuen Testaments,” Mélanges offerts au
Franz Leenhardt L’Evangile Hier et Aujourd’hui (Geneva,
1968), 71-85.
Kiimmel, W. G. Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments nach seinen
Hauptzeugen Jesus, Paulus, Johannes. Gottingen, 1969. Trans.
The Theology of the New Testament According to Its Major
Witnesses: Jesus-Paul-John. Nashville, 1973.
———, Das Neue Testament im 20. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart, 1970.
———. The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of
its Problems. Nashville, 1972.
——~—. “Heilsgeschichte im Neuen Testament?” Neues Testament
und Kirche: Fiir Rudolf Schnackenburg, ed. J. Gnilka (Frei-
burg, 1974), 434-457.
———. “Current Theological Accusations Against Luke,” Andover
Newton Quarterly 16 (1975), 131-145.
Kiinneth, W. “Zur Frage nach der Mitte der Schrift,” Dank an
Paul Althaus (Giitersloh, 1958), 121-140.
———. Ostergedanken. Lah, 1963.
Kuske, M. Das AT als Buch von Christus. Gottingen, 1971.
Kuss, O. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 2nd ed. Regensburg,
1963.
———. “Exegese und Theologie des Neuen Testaments als Basis
und Argernis jeder nachneutestamentlichen Theologie,’ Mtin-
ster Zeitschrift 21 (1970), 181-215.
Theologische
Ladd, G. E. “Biblical Theology, History, and Revelation,’ Review
and Expository 54 (1957), 195-204.
———. “Eschatology und the Unity of New Testament Theology,”
Expository Times 68 (1956/57), 268-273.
———. “Unity and Variety in New Testament Faith,” Christianity
Today 10 (1965), 21-24, 197-200.
—_——, “The Search for Perspective,” Interpretation 25 (1971),
41-62.
 mot NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
———. The New Testament and Criticism. Grand Rapids, Mich.,
1967.
———. Jesus and the Kingdom. The Eschatology of Biblical Real-
ism. 2nd ed. Waco, Texas, 1970.
———. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.,
ISAd.”
Lampe, G. W. H. and J. J. Woolcombe. Essays on Typology.
London, 1957.
Landes, G. M. “Biblical Exegesis in Crisis: What is the Exegetical
Task in a Theological Context?” Union Seminary Quarterly
Review 26 (1971), 273-298.
Lang, F. “Christuszeugnis und _ Biblische Theologie Alten und
Neuen Testaments in der Sicht heutiger Exegese,” EvTh 29
(1969), 523-534.
Larcher, C. L’Actualite chretienne de Vv
Ancien Testament d’apres
le Nouveau Testament. Paris, 1962.
Leary, A. P. “Biblical Theology and History,” Church Quarterly
Review 157 (1956), 402-414.
Lehman, C. R. Biblical Theology, Vol. 2: New Testament. Scotts-
dale, Pa., 1974.
Leith, John H. “The Bible and Theology,” Interpretation 30
(1976), 227-241:
Lemonnyer, R. P. Théologie du Nouveau Testament. Paris, 1928.
Trans. The Theology of the New Testament. London, 1930.
Lindsey, J. ‘Biblical Theology,” International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia (1943), I, 469-472.
Lohfink. N. The Christian Meaning of the OT. Milwaukee, 1968.
Lohse, E. Grundriss der neutestamentlichen Theologie. Stuttgart,
1974.
———. “Die Einheit des Neuen ‘Testaments als theologisches
Problem. Uberlegungen zur Aufgabe einer Theologie des Neuen
Testaments,’ EvTh 35 (1975), 139-154.
Longenecker, R. N. “NT Theology,” Zondervan Pictorial Ency-
clopedia of the Bible IV (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1975), 428-434.
Lonning, Inge. “Kanon im Kanon.’ Zum dogmatischen Grund-
lagenproblem des neutestamentlichen Kanons. Munich, 1972.
Lorenz, F. Streit um Jesus. Munich, 1969.
Luz, Ulrich. “Theologia crucis als Mitte der Theologie im Neuen
Testament,” EvTh 34 (1974), 116-141.
Lymann, M. E. “The Unity of the Bible,” JBR 14 (1946), 5-12.
Lyonnet, S. “De notione et momento Theologiae Biblicae,” Ver-
bum Domini 34 (1956), 142-153.
MacKenzie, R. A. F. “The Concept of Biblical Theology,” Pro-
ceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America 10
(1955), 48-66.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 235

McMorrow, L. “Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology,” Irish Theo-

logical Quarterly 38 (1971), 168-174.
MacRae, G. “New Testament Theology. Some Problems and
Principles,” Scripture 16 (1964), 97-106.
Maier, G. “Kanon im Kanon—oder die ganze Schrift?’ Theolo-
gische Beitrége 3 (1972), 21-31.
———, Das Ende der historisch-kritischen Methode. ‘2nd ed.
Wuppertal, 1975. Trans. The End of the Historical-Critical
Method. St. Louis, 1977.
Marrow, S. B. “Biblical Theology,” New Catholic Encounter 2
(1967)72 940-500:
Marsh, J. ‘““The Theology of the New Testament,” Peake’s Com-
mentary of the Bible (2nd ed., London, 1962).
Mathers, D. “Biblical and Systematic Theology,” Canadian Journal
of *Eneology. 5” (1969), 715-24,
Mauser, U. Gottesbild und Menschwerdung. Eine Untersuchung
zur Einheit des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Tiibingen, 1971.
Meinertz, M. Theologie des Neuen Testamentes. 2 vols. Bonn,
1950.
———. “Randglossen zu meiner Theologie des Neuen ‘Testa-
mentes,” Theologische Quartalschrift 132 (1952), 411-431.
———. “Sinn und Bedeutung der neutestamentlichen Theologie,”
Miinchener Theologische Zeitschrift. 5 1954) 4159-170:
Merk, O. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testament in threr
Anfangszeit. Marburg, 1972.
Mildenberger, F. “Die Gegenlaufigkeit von historischer Methode
und kirchlicher Anwendung als Problem der Bibelauslegung,”
Theologische Beitrage 3 (1972), 57-64.
Cer Unity; Truth, and Validity of the Bible,” Interpretation
29°(1975), 391-405.
Minear, P. S. “Wanted: a Biblical Theology,” Theology Today
Ir 044 41-08.
Morgan, R. “Let’s Be Honest about the Canon: A Plea to Re-
consider a Question the Reformers Failed to Answer,” Christian
Century 84 (1967), 717-719.
———. The Nature of New Testament Theology. The Contribu-
tion of William Wrede and Adolf Schlatter. London, 1973.
Munck, J. “Pauline Research Since Schweitzer,’ The Bible in
Modern Scholarship, pp. 166-177.
Murphy, R. E. “The Relationship Between the Testaments,”
CBQ 26 (1964), 349-359.
———, How Does the Christian Confront the OT? New York,
1967.
———, “Christian Understanding of the Old Testament,” The-
ology Digest 18 (1970), §$21-332.
Mussner, F. “Die Mitte des Evangeliums in neutestamentlicher
236 NEW ‘TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Sicht,’” Catholica 15 (1961), 271-292.
———. “ ‘Evangelium’ und ‘Mitte des Evangeliums’. Ein Beitrag
zur Kontroverstheologie,’” Gott in Welt. Festschrift fiir K. -
Rahner (Freiburg, 1964), I, 492-514.
———. “NT Theology: III Johannine Theology,” Sacramentum
Mundi 4 (1968), 227-231.
———. .“Die Einheit von Altem und Neuem Testament,” Inter-
nationale Katholische Zeitschrift 3 (1974), 544-555.
Neil, W. “The Unity of the Bible,” The New Testament in
Fistorical and Contemporary Perspective. Essays in Memory of
G. H. C. Macgregor (Oxford, 1965), 237-259.
Neill, S. The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1961.
London, 1964.
———. Jesus Through Many Eyes. Introduction to the Theology
of the New Testament. Nashville, 1976.
Newport, J. “New Developments in New Testament Theology,”
Review and Expositor 49 (1952), 41-56.
Nicol, I. G. “Event and Interpretation. Oscar Cullmann’s Con-
ception of Salvation History,” Theology 77 (1974), 14-21.
Nikolainen, A. T. “Om planlaggningens problem i en titalfram-
stallning av Nya testaments teologi’” [On the problem of
Devising the Plan for a Total Presentation of the Theology
of the New Testament], Svensk Exeg Arsbok 37-38 (1972-73),
310-319.
———. Uuden testamentin tulkinta ja tutkimus. Porvoo-Helsinki,
et
Nineham, D. E., ed. The Church’s Use of the Bible. London,
1963.
Nuland, J. v. “Sémantique et théologie biblique Bijdragen,”
Tijdschrift voor Filosofie en Theologie 30 (1969), 140-153.
O’Doherty, E. “The Unity of the Bible,” The Bible Today 1
(1962), 53-57.
Ohlig, K.-H. Woher nimmt die Bibel ihre Autoritdt? Zum Verhdlt-
nis von Schriftkanon, Kirche und Jesus. Diisseldorf, 1970.
Pannenberg, W. Basic Questions in Theology. 2 vols. Philadelphia,
1970-71.
——-/t Biblische: Theologie,’’ Theologie als Wissenschaft (1973),
384-392.
Perrin, N. ‘The Challenge of New Testament Theology Today,”
New Testament Issues, ed. R. A. Batey (New York/London,
1970, 15-34.
———. The New Testament: An Introduction. New York, 1974.
———. A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology.
New York, 1974.
———. Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom. New York, 1976.
———. “Jesus and the Theology of the New Testament,” read
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 237
at the Catholic Biblical Association, Denver, Colo., Aug. 18-21,
1975.
Peters, James. ‘Salvation History as a Model for Theologica]
Thought,” Scottish Journal of Theology 23 (1970), 1-12.
Peters, IT. ‘““The Use of Analogy in Historical Method,” CBQ 35
(1973),473-482.
Phythian-Adams, W. J. T. “The Foundation of Biblical The-
ology,” Church Quarterly Review 135 (1942/43), 1-24.
——~—. “Biblical Theology in the Life of the Church,” Church
Quarterly Review 135 (1942/43), 141-174; 136 (1943/44), 1-35.
Piper, O. A. “Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology,”
Journal of Bible and Religion 25 (1957), 106-111.
———. “Christology and History,” Theology Today 19 (1962), 333.
Prat, F. The Theology of St. Paul, I-IJ. Westminster, Md., 1952.
Prenter, R. “Die systematische Theologie und das Problem der
Bibelauslegung,” ThLZ 81 (1956), 577-586.
Quesnell, Q. This Good News. An Introduction to the Catholic
Theology of the New Testament. London, 1963.
Rad, G. v. “Antwort auf Conzelmanns Fragen,” EvTh 24 (1964),
388-394.
———. “Offene Fragen im Umkreis einer Theologie des AT,”
ThLZ 88 (1963), 409.
Rahner, K. “Biblische Theologie und Dogmatik in ihrem wech-
selseitigen Verhaltnis,’ Lexikon ftir Theologie und Kirche
(Freiburg, 1958), II, 449-451.
——~. “Theology in the NT,” Theological Investigations V (1966),
23-41.
——~—. “Bible, Biblical Theology,’ Sacramentum Mundi, I (Lon-
don, 1968), 171-176.
Ramlot, M.-L. “Une décade de théologie biblique,” Revue
Thomiste 64 (1964), 65-96.
Reicke, B. “Einheitlichkeit oder verschiedene ‘Lehrbegriffe’ in
der neutestamentlichen Theologie,” Theologische Zettschrift 9
(19535),"401-4 10;
Richardson, A. “The Nature of Biblical Theology,” Theology 39
(1939), 166-176.
———. “Historical Theology and Biblical Theology,” Canadian
Journal of Theology 1 (1955), 156-157.
———. An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament.
London, 1958. |
———. “Second Thoughts: Present Issues in New ‘Testament
Theology,” Expository Times 75 (1963/64), 109-113.
———. “What is New Testament Theology?” Studia Evangelica
VI (1973), 455-465.
Ridderbos, N. H. Paul and Jesus. Grand Rapids, Mich., 1957.
———. “Typologie,’” Vox Theologica 31 (1960/61), 149-159.
238 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
+4) Pauli Any Owblineof His Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.,
1975.
Riesenfeld, H. “‘Reflections on the Unity of the New Testament,”
Religion 3 (1973), 35-51.
Robertson, Palmer. ‘The Outlook for Biblical Theology,”
Toward a Theology for the Future, eds. D. F. Wells and C.
H. Pinnock (Carol Stream, IIl., 1971), 65-91.
Robinson, J. M. A New Quest a the Historical Jesus. SBT 25;
London, 1959.
re (dang TB. Gobbejrii chet Later Heidegger and Theology.
New York, 1963.
———, and J. B. Cobb, Jr. Theology in History. New York, 1967.
———. World in Modern Theology and in New Testament The-
ology, Soli Deo Gloria (Festschrift fiir W. C. Robinson, Sr.).
Richmond, Va., 1968.
———, and H. Koester. Trajectories Through Early Christianity.
New York, 1970.
———. “Die Zukunft der Neutestamentlichen Theologie,”’ Newes
Testament und christliche Existenz: Festschrift fiir Herbert
Braun zum 70. Geburtstag am 4. Mai 1973, ed. Hans Dieter
Betz and Luise Schottroff (Tiibingen, 1973), 387-400. Trans.
“The Future of New Testament Theology,” Religious Study
Review 2 solic 17-23.
Rowley, H. H. The Unity of the Bible. London, 1953.
Rust, Eric a Salvation History. Richmond, 1962.
Ryrie, C. C. Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Chicago,
1959.
Sabourin, L. “Notion and Function of Biblical Theology,’ Sin d

Redemption, and Sacrifice (Rome, 1970), xiii-xvi.

Sanders, J. N. Torah and Canon. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, 1974.
———. “Torah and Christ,” Interpretation 29 (1975), 372-390.
Sauter, Gerhard. Vor einem neuen Methodenstreit in der The-
ologie? (Theologische Existenz heute 164). Munich, 1970.
——, ed. Theologie als Wissenschaft. Munich, 1971.
Scheffczyk, L. “Biblische und dogmatische Theologie,” Trierer
Theologische Zeitschrift 67 (1958), 193-209.
Schelkle, K. H. “Was bedeutet ‘“Theologie des Neuen Testa-
ments?’,” ed. J. B. Bauer, Evangelienforschung. Ausgew. Auf-
satze deutscher Exegeten (Graz/Wien/K6ln, 1968), 299-312.
———. “NT Theology: II. Pauline Theology,’ Sacramentum
Mundi 4 (1968), 220-227.
———. Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 4 vols. Diisseldorf, 1968-74.
Trans. Theology of the New Testament, 4 vols. Collegeville,
Minn., 1971-77.
Schlatter, A. Der Glaube im Neuen Testament. Eine Untersuchung
zur neutestamentliche Theologie. Darmstadt, 1885.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Zoo
——~—. “Atheistische Methoden in der Theologie,” Zur Theologie
des Neuen Testaments und zur Dogmatik (Munich, 1969), 134-
150.
———. Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments und die Dogmatik
(Beitrage zur Férderung christlicher Theologie 13, 2). Giiter-
sloh, 1909.
——~—. Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Bd. 1: Das Wort
Jesu, Bd. 2: Die Lehre der Apostel. Calw-Stuttgart, 1909-1910.
Schlier, Heinrich. “The Meaning and Function of the New
Testament,” Dogmatic vs. Biblical Theology, ed. H. Vorgrimler
(Baltimore, 1964), 26-90.
———. Besinnung auf das Neue Testament. Freiburg, 1964.
———. Die Zeit der Kirche. 2nd ed. Freiburg, 1958.
Schmid, H. H. “Schépfung, Gerechtigkeit und Heil, ‘Schépfungs-
theologie’ als Gesamthorizont biblischer Theologie,’ ZThK 70
97S PTY,
Schmidt, L. ‘“‘Die Einheit zwischen Altem und Neuem Testament
im Streit zwischen Friedrich Baumgartel und Gerhard von
Nate hE oO (1975) perl oer a9,
Schnackenburg, R. Neutestamentliche Theologie. Der Stand der
Forschung. Munich, 1963. 2nd ed. Munich, 1965. Trans. New
Testament Theology Today. London, 1963.
———. “Der Stand der neutestamentlichen Theologie,” Diskus-
ston tiber die Bibel, ed. L. Klein (Mainz, 1963), 30-46. Trans.
“The Position of the Theology of the New Testament,” The
Bible in a New Age, ed. L. Klein (London, 1965), 35-49.
Scholder, K. Urspriinge und Probleme der Bibelkritik in 17. Jahr-
hundert. Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung der historisch-kritischen
Theologie. Munich, 1966.
Schrage, Wolfgang. “Die Frage nach der Mitte und dem Kanon
im Kanon des Neuen Testaments in der neueren Diskussion,”
Rechtfertigung. Festschrift fiir E. Kadsemann zum 70. Geburts-
tag, eds. J. Friedrich, W. Pohlmann and P. Stuhlmacher (Tiubin-
gen, 1976), 415-442.
Schubert, K. “Geschichte und Heilsgeschichte,” Kairos 15 (1973),
89-101.
Schulz, S. Die Stunde der Botschaft: Einfiihrung in die Theologie
der vier Evangelisten. Hamburg, 1967.
Schwarzwaller, K. Das AT in Christus. Ziirich, 1966.
——-—. “Das Verhdltnis Altes Testament — Neues Testament im
Lichte der gegenwartigen Bestimmungen,” EvTh 29 (1969), 281-
307.
Schweizer, E. Jesus Christus im vielfdltigen Zeugnis des Neuen
Testaments. Siebenstern/Taschenbuch, 1968.
++—. “Kanon?” EvTh 31 (1971), 339-357.
240 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Scott, E. F. “The Present Position of New Testament Theology,”
Harvard Theological Review 6 (1913), 60-75.
Seebass, H. “Der Beitrag des Alten Testaments zum Entwurf -
einer biblischen Theologie,’” Word und Dienst 8 (1965), 20-41.
———. Biblische Hermeneutik. Stuttgart, 1974.
Sevenster, J. N. De boodschap van het Nieuwe Testament. Assen,
1939.
Sidel, S. “Das Alte und das NT, Ihre Verschiedenheit und Ein-
heit,” Ttibinger Praktische Quartalschrift 119 (1970), 314-324.
Smart, J. D. The Interpretation of Scripture. Philadelphia, 1961.
———. The Strange Silence of the Bible in the Church. London,
1970.
Smend, R. “Johann Philipp Gablers Begriindung der biblischen
Theologie,”) HuTi hy:22) |:(1962);):345-357.
———. Die Mitte des Alten Testaments. Zurich, 1970.
Sontag, F. “Philosophy and Biblical Theology: A Prologue,”
Reheion ian, Life, 33) (1964),..224-237,
Spicg, C. “‘L’avenement de la théologie biblique,” Revue de
Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 35 (1951), 561-574.
———. “Nouvelles réflexions sur la théologie biblique,”’ Revue
des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 42 (1958), 209-219.
———. “Bulletin de théologie biblique du Nouveau Testament,”
Freiburger Zeitschrift fiir Philosophie und Theologie 6 (1959),
50-61.
———. “The Work of Biblical Theology,’ Theology Digest 7
CLO aU 20-54.
Stachel, G. Die neue Hermeneutik. Ein Uberblick. Munich, 1968.
Stagg, F. New Testament Theology. Nashville, 1962.
Stanley, D. M. “Towards a Biblical Theology of the New Testa-
ment. Modern Trends in Catholic Scriptural Scholarship,”
Contemporary Developments in Theology (West Hartford,
1959), 267-281.
——~—, and R. E. Brown. “Aspects of New Testament Thought,”
The Jerome Biblical Commentary, eds. R. E. Brown, J. A.
Fitzmyer, R. E. Murphy (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1968), 768-
Tou.
Stauffer, E. Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Stuttgart/Ber-
lin, 1941. Trans. New Testament Theology. London, 1955.
——~—. “Prinzipienfragen der neutestamentlichen ‘Theologie,”
Evangelische-lutherische Kirchenzeitung 4 (1950), 327-329.
Stek, J. H. “Biblical Typology Yesterday and Today,” Calvin
Theological Journal 5 (1970), 133-162.
Stendahl, K. “Biblical Theology, Contemporary,’ JDB, I, 418-432.
———. ‘Method in the Study of Biblical Theology,” The Bible
in Modern Scholarship. Papers read at the 100th Meeting of
the Society of Biblical Literature, ed. J. P. Hyatt (Nashville,
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 241

1965), 196-209.
Stephenson, A. A. “Biblical Theology and Scholastic Theology,”
Scripture and Ecumenism. Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, ed.
L. Swindler (Pittsburgh, 1965), 151-186.
Stevens, G. B. The Theology of the New Testament. Edinburgh,
1901. 2nd ed. 1906.
Stewart, J. S. “On a Neglected Emphasis in New ‘Testament
Theology,” Scottish Journal of Theology 4 (1951), 292-301.
Stock, A. Einheit des Neuen Testaments. Eroterung hermeneu-
tischer Grundpositionen der heutigen Theologie. Zurich/Einsie-
deln/KO6ln, 1969.
Strecker, G. “Das Problem der Theologie des Neuen Testaments,”
PINT? 1-31¢
———, ed. Das Problem der Theologie des Neuen Testaments.
Darmstadt, 1975.
Stuhlmacher, Peter. Schriftauslegung auf dem Wege zur biblischen
Theologie. Gottingen, 1975.
Talbert, C. H. Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the
Genre of Luke-Acts. Missoula, 1974.
———. “Shifting Sands: The Recent Study of the Gospel of
Luke,” Interpretation 30 (1976), 381-395.
Taylor, V. “Review of A. Richardson, An Introduction to the
Theology of the New Testament,’ Expository Times 70 (1958/
59), 168.
Taylor, W. “Biblical Theology,” Zondervan Pictorial Encyclo-
pedia of the Bible (1975), 593-600.
Thornhill, J. “Towards an Integral Theology,’ Theological
Studies 24 (1963), 264-277. |
Trilling, W. Vielfalt und Einheit im Neuen Testament. Zur
Exegese und Verkiindigung des Neuen Testaments. Einsiedeln/
Koln, 1968.
Troeltsch, E. ‘Uber historische und dogmatische Methode,”
Gesammelte Studien II (Tiibingen, 1913), reprinted in The-
ologie als Wissenschaft, ed. G. Sauter (Munich, 1971), 105-127.
Van Ruler, A. A. The Christian Church and the OT, trans G.
W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, Mich., 1971.
Vawter, B. “Johannine Theology,” The Jerome Biblical Com-
mentary, eds. R. Eo Brown, ))) aA.) Ritzmyer, Ra. K. ined
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1968), 825-839.
Verhoef, P. A. “Some Notes on Typological Exegesis,” New
Light on Some OT Problems (Praetoria, 1962), 58-63.
———. “Some Thoughts on the Present-Day Situation in Biblical
Theology,” Westminster Theological Journal 33 (1970), 1-19.
———. “The Relationship Between the Old and New Testa-
ments,’ New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. J. B.
Payne (Waco/London, 1970), 280-303.
242 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Viard, A. “Bulletin de théologie biblique,” Revue des Sciences
Philosophiques et Théologiques 42 (1958), 324-348; 43 (1959),
301-324.
Vicary, D. R. “Liberalism, Biblical Criticism, and Biblical The-
ology,” Anglican Theological Review 34 (1950), 414-121,
Vischer, W. Das Christuszeugnis des AT. Zurich, 1934. Trans.
The Witness of the OT to Christ. London, 1949.
———. Die Bedeutung des AT ftir das christliche Leben. Zurich,
1947.
———. “La methode de l’exegese biblique,” Revue de theologie
et de philosophie 10 (1960), 109-123.
Vogtle, A. “New Testament Theology: I. Data and Methods,”
Sacramentum Mundi, ed. K. Rahner (London, 1969), IV, 216-
220.
———. “Progress and Problems in New Testament Exegesis,”
Dogmatic versus Biblical Theology (London, 1964), 67-86.
———. “Kirche und Schriftprinzip nach dem Neuen Testament,”
Bibel und Leben 12 (1971), 153-162.
Von Harnack, A. Marcion, Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott.
2nd,ed. Leipzig, 1924.
Vorgrimler, H., ed. Dogmatic versus Biblical Theology. London,
1964.
Vos, G. Biblical Theology. Old and New Testament. Grand
Rapids, Mich., 1948.
Wallace, D. H. “Biblical Theology: Past and Future,” The-
ologische Zeitschrift 19 (1963), 88-105.
———. “Historicism and Biblical Theology,” Studia Evangelica 3
(L964), (225-227,
Walther, J. A. “The Significance of Methodology for Biblical
Theology,” Perspective 10 (1969), 217-233.
Warnach, V. ‘“Gedanken zur _ neutestamentlichen Theologie,”
Gloria Dei 7 (1952/53), 65-75.
———. Agape. Die Liebe als Grundmotif der neutestamentlichen
Theologie. Diisseldorf, 1951.
Watson, P. S. “The Nature and Function of Biblical Theology,”
Expository Times 73 (1961/62), 195-200.
Weidner, F. Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 2 vols.
Chicago/London, 1891.
Weinel, H. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Tiibingen,
1911; 4th ed., 1928.
Weiss, B. Lehrbuch der Biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testa-
ments. Berlin, 1868; 7th ed. Stuttgart/Berlin, 1903.
Weiss, J. Die Predigt Jesu vom Reich Gottes. Géttingen, 1892;
2nd ed., 1900.
Wenham, J. Christ and the Bible. Chicago, 1972.
Westermann, C. The OT and Jesus Christ. Minneapolis, 1970.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 245

———. “The Way of Promise through the OT,” OTCF, 200-224.

Wilckens, U. “Uber die Bedeutung historischer Kritik in der
Bibelexegese,” Was heisst Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift?
(Regensburg, 1966), 85ff.
Wildberger, H. “Auf dem Wege zu einer biblischen Theologie,”
Eg ih 19 41959), 70-90.
Wilder, A. N. “New Testament Theology in Transition,” The
Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow, ed. H. R. Willoughby
(Chicago, 1947), 419-436.
Wink, W. The Bible in Human Transformation: Toward a New
Paradigm for Biblical Study. Philadelphia, 1973.
Wolff, Hans Walter, ed. Probleme biblischer Theologie. Gerhard
von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag. Munich, 1971.
Wood, H. “The Present Position of New Testament Theology:
Retrospect and Prospect,” NTS 4 (1957/58), 169-182.
Wrede, W. “Uber Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten Neu-
testamentlichen Theologie” (1897), PTNT, 81-154. Trans.
“The Task and Methods of New Testament Theology,” by
R. Morgan, The Nature of New Testament Theology (SBT
II/25; London, 1973), 68-116.
“———. Paulus. Tiibingen, 1904. Trans. Paul. London, 1908.
Wright, G. E. “Interpreting the New Testament,’ Theology
Today 3 (1947), 176-191.
Zahn, T. Grundriss der Neutestamentlichen Theologie. Leipzig,
1928.
Zyl, A. H. van. “The Relation Between Old Testament and New
Testament,” Hermeneutica (1970), 9-22.
 iyion tae
Me
min iam oi meeesicrin nf4
es A a eg roy

Ty
o) emootiaoeeMw
Pa tie INH
cut: Setter A AM
nT a oha sett"H cst'

i nt eee ae ;
eeHe sa estima |

ny9 te oygah ve
ni aiaey)
hiines ‘eg iBPd aeae
tenHia) pee ln ct a ae ss a
oh, Phi Ad, Thue Newel ae . Mile:en mee pry neds
ae samba Saat nthMsn. ey tae: Haiti apitlics
My Marae iyi; “tlah a ee Ay AeBi, yh fiAR iyneHi vo Mas wang Peet a \ysAe Me
ai + leat taeda aes isi db wll naeaba, a Aes
| a Mei ‘ib i ih vale iy silence:ryibe niayee
RNA iP 1h. SHANE RCA ie Abii i
fea yan it % ale ha o)oaNiel
f aeat, | Rie.
ii a LABReoey ta an A eblaet ,i‘
i Ps ae idml hog

ies teifonith
ncaeicen
Index of Names
Achtemeier, P. J. 58 Bodin, J. 26
Adar, Z. 215 Bonsirven, J. 62-63, 222-293
Adeney, W. F. 221 Bornkamm, G. 55, 57, 84, 87
Albertz, M. 67-70, 222 Bourke, J. 223
Albright, W. F. 221 Bousset, W. 39, 51-53, 55, 68, 86,
Alexander, N. 221 223
Allen, Be Et 221 Bouttier, M. 112, 223
Althaus, P. 88 Braaten, C. E. 55, 210
Ammon, C. F. von 22 Braun, D. 195
Amsler, S. 171 Braun, F.-M. 64, 201
Anderson, B. W. 7, 171 Braun, H. 55, 87, 93-94, 112, 140,
Astruc, J...20 145-148, 158, 160, 166
Aulén, G. 55, 221 Briggs, .R. Cin3l, 225
Auvray, P. 185 Bright, J. 176, 182, 189, 197, 202,
223
Bachmann, Ph. 221 Brown, C. 189, 223
Balthasar, H. U. von 155, 221-222 Brown, R. E. 63
Baier}, W.., 17 Brown, S. 152, 223
Barnes, W. E. 54 Bruce, F. F. 82, 185, 188, 189, 202,
Barnikol, E. 30 223
Barr J-0) 15) 70,112, 117; 1357748. Briickner, M. 223
165, 176, 177, 183, 189, 191, 202, Buchsel, F. 36, 64, 223
ALO 222 Bultmann, R. 10, 11, 32, 37, 39,
Barth, K. 53-54, 88, 165, 2292 44, 51, 54-57, 59, 68, 74, 82-97,
Barth, M. 91, 92, 145, 292 98, 101, 103, 105, 111, 112, 118,
Bartsch, H.-W. 55, 84, 88 131, 134, 144-147, 150, 151, 158,
Bauer GAL 33;)46) 20094295908 160, 174-176, 177, 178, 182, 187,
29,30, (32, 45; 80) S2.J04w4 10; 210, 223-224
M7222 Buri, F. 89-90, 112
Baumann, R. 154 Burkhardt, H. 165, 224
Baumgartel, F. 176-178, 182, 191, Burrows, M. 82, 171, 201, 224
222, Busching, A. F. 20
Baumgarten-Crusius, L. F. O. oo
Baumgartner, S. J. 18 Cajetan 14
Baur, F.C. 16, 28, 30-33, 35, 37, Calovius, A. 17
39, 44, 46, 47, 51, 68, 87, 222 Campenhausen, H. von 155, 165,
Beck, J. T. 36 224
Beilner, W. 157-158, 222 Carlston, C. E. 54, 224
Beisser, F. 19, 205, 208 Cazelles, H. 185, 224
Bekers, J 4.6) } 222 Cerfaux; \L.i 161
Bengel, E. 39 Charlot, J. 224
Benoit; Pol 71) 222 Childs, B. S. 70-71, 135, 138, 195,
Benson, E. J. 19 200, 201, 214, 224
Bertram, G. 222 Christmann, W. J. 17
Betts, Bi.92,4222 Chubb, T. 18
Betz, H. D. 13, 110 Clavier, H. 224
Betz.O: 017,374789,1222 Clemons, J. T. 112, 224
Beyschlag, W. 36, 64 Cobb, JB. 56558 ;385,°91
Blackman, E. C. 173 Coenen, L. 224
Blenkinsopp, J. 82, 171, 222 Colln, D. G. C. von 22, 30

245:
246 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Conzelmann, H. 9, 11, 55, 57-59, Feine, P. 36, 37, 64, 226

74, 97-102, 103, 105, Il oll2. Fensham, F.C. 154, 172, 189, 226
131, 134, 136, 151-153, 224 Ferrero-Blanco, J. J. 227 .
Copernicus, N. 25 Festorazzi, F. 227
Cordero, M. G. 9, 63, 224 Filson, F. V. 185, 186, 197, 201,
Courth, F. 15, 155, 224-225 2125: 227
Cox, C. E. 90, 225 Fischer, A. 16
Craig, CG, Tiwk53,4225 Fitzmyer, J. A. 64, 188, 227
Cramer, D. L. 32-33 Flinder, H. 152, 227
Cullmann, O. 65, 69, 105, I11- Fohrer, G. 117, 154, 200, 227
119, 121, 127, 148-153, 158, 160, Fontaine, J. 227
165, 169, 200, 225 France, R 2a, 218777201, 202.207
Frank, I. 165, 227
Dahl, N. A. 85, 225 Franklin, E. 152, 227
Davies, W. D. 124, 225 Brey, Hive19
Deissmann, A. 25, 45-46, 68, 78, Friedrich, J. 227
104, 219, 225 Fries,.J. F. -29
Delitzsch, F. 173-174, 182 Frohlich, K. 111, 140, 227
Demke, Ch. 225 Fror, K. 198
Dentan, R. C. 18, 20, 21, 22, 29, Frye, RM. 19,227
Do, 220 Fuchs, E. 55, 57, 58, 87, 151, 227-
Dequecker, L. 225 228
Descamps, A. 64 Fuller, R. H. 55, 88
Descartes, R. 26 Funk, R. W. 41, 58, 93, 210, 228
Deutschmann, J. 18 Furnish, V. 228
Dibelius, M. 46, 54, 225
Diem, H. 88, 163, 167, 168, 169, Gabler, J2 Pi 22-25, '29,°30;'32; 45%
198, 225 46, 72, 78, 79, 141, 142
Diest, H. A. 17 Gadamer, H.-G. 53
Dodd, C. H. 225-226 Galilei, Galileo 25-26
Doty, W. Gio, 57,158, (91,1226 Gamble, C. 228
Dulles, A. 138, 206, 226 Gasque, W. W. 124
Dungan, D. L. 165 Gast, F. A. 228
Geiger, W. 30, 228
Ebeling, G. 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, Gese, H. 60, 172, 215, 228
58, 87, 147, 168, 169, 172, 209, Geyer, H.-G. 228
226 Glait, O. 16
Egg, A. 42, 226 Gogarten, F. 88, 228
Eichholz, G. 216, 226 Goppelt, Ey D)sES,- 32> Fo. a7) aos
Eichhorn, J. G. 20, 24 39, 43, 51, 52, 59, 69-70, 93, 94,
Eichrodt, W. 41, 116, 153, 184, 95, 105, 106, 110, 127-132, 148,
190, 192, 201 183-184, 190, 228-229
Fissfeldt, O. 41 Gould, E. P. 36, 64, 229
Ellis, E. E. 103, 187, 190, 226 Grant, F. C. 65-66, 148, 155, 229
Ellwein, E. 88 Grant, R. M. 26, 165, 229
Ernesti; J. A, 21 Grasser, E. 229
Estes, D. F. 226 Grech, P. 64, 141, 229
Evans, C. F. 150, 226 Grelot, P. 171, 229
Griesbach, J. J. 20
Fairbairn, P. 190 Grobel, K. 187
Fallon, J. E. 226 Groh, D. E. 165
Fascher, E. 69, 226 Gross, H. 172, 229
 INDEX OF NAMES 247
Guillet, J. 155, 189, 229 Hummel, H. D. 190, 231
Gundry, R. H. 188, 201, 229 Hunter, A. M. 66-67, 1405251
Gunneweg, H. H. 171, 177 Hyatt, J. P. 75
Giittgemanns, E. 54, 97, 100, 102,
M2, 229 Iber, G. 54

Haacker, K. 140, 142, 156, 229 vacoba Ec ¢231

Haag, H. 202 Janson, J. F. 231
Hahn, F. 15, 19, 172, 209, 229-230 Jasper, F. N. 185, 231
Hahn, G.L. 34, 35 Jaspers, K. 89-90, 232
Harnack, A. von 38, 68, 173, 182, Jepsen, As 199
242 Jeremias, J. 9, 11, 67, 88, 95, 105-
Haroutunian, J. 230 IVIL, 166,216,232
Harrington, Ws. 15,005 See Ol: Jervell, J.” 152) 232
64, 67, 69, 73, 82, 97, 99, 100,: Joest, W. 161, 166
107, 112, 185, 201, 230
Harrisville, R. A. 55 Kaftan, J. 51,252
Harvey, J. 139, 230 Kahler, M. 53, 57, 134, 210, 232
Harvey, V. A. 55, 95, 210 Kaiser, G. P. C. 28-29, 33
Hasel, G. F. 10, 16, 20, 25, 26, 41, Kaiser, W. C. 154, 232 —
44, 70, 76, 97, 114, 115, 116, 141, Kalin, E. 165, 232
154, 215, 216, 230 Kant, I. 22, 29, 40
Hasenhiittl, G. 230 Karpp, H. 25
Haufe, G. 82, 230 Kasemann, E. 10, 11, 15, 57, 60,
Hayes, J. A. 69 87, 93, 94, 97, 100, 101, 106, 131,
Haymann,C. 18 140, 142, 143, 151, 153, 160-161,
Hefner, P. |230 165, 166, 168, 232
Heidegger, M. 56, 58, 83, 100 Kayser, A. 44
Hengel, M. 19, 102, 156, 230 Keck Le Bobi 46, 77, 232
Hennig, G. 14 Kee, H.C. 58
Henry, C. F.H. 121 Kelsey, D. H. 126, 136, 137, 232
Hesse, Fe 116. 447, 171.1772. 182, Kepler, J. 25
187, 199, 230 Kinder, E. 55, 88
Hessen, J. 230 Kistemaker, S. J. 232
Hicks, R. L. 230 Klassen, W. 16
Higgins, A. J. B. 185, 230-231 Klein, Go. (57, 192. 117, 154.939
Hill, D. 189, 202, 230 Knox, J. 173
Hillers, D. R. 154 Knudsen, R. E. 67, 119, 232
Hillman, W. 64, 231 Kohls, E. W. 14
Hirsch, E. 174, 182, 231 Komery]. 5,b12
Hodgson, L. 231 Koster, H. 54, 110, 131, 135, 233
Hodgson, P. C. 30 Kraeling, E.G. 233
Hofmann, J. C. K. von 36-39, 69, Kraus, HJ isa 18, 19; 21, 22723,
231 24, 26, 28, 29, 33, 35, 36, 38, 43,
Hall, K. 14, 51, 52 46, 48, 49, 69, 112, 145, 152, 171,
Holtzmann, H. J. 44-46, 47, 231 174, 176, 195, 199, 201, 207, 212,
Hooykaas, R. 25 214, 215, 233
Hornig, G. 21, 23] Kreck, W. 151
Hubner, J.) ‘25,231 Krentz, E. 19, 25, 26, 28, 208, 209,
Hufnagel, W. F. 22 211,233
Hiilsemann, J. 17 Kriiger, G.. 489233
Hultgren, A. J. 152 Kiimmel, A. 15, 140, 156, 233
248 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Kiimmel, W. G. 9, 11, 14, 18, 21, Marshall, I. H. 152

FP POAT DAN DFM IS S200, OO 40, Marxsen, W. 19, 155, 166
48, 52, 55, 65, 67, 77, 95, 97, 102- Mathers, D. 235
105, 152, 156, 158-160, 166, 233. Mauser, U. 182, 235
Kiing, H. 97, 102, 166-168, 169 McCarthy, D. J. 152, 214
Kiinneth, W. 55, 140, 154, 233 McKenzie, J. L. 186, 188, 195, 202
Kuske, M. 185, 233 McKnight, E. V. 69
Kuss, O. 14, 61, 233 Meinertz, M. 61-62, 197, 235
Kutsch, E. 153 Menken, G. 36
Kwiran, M. 154 Merk, O. 13,15, 18, 21, 22, 23,.24,
29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 39, 44, 48,
51, 56, 65, 66, 69, 75, 77, 78, 82,
Ladd, GLE.) 9.19137, So. /Op utT2,
87, 97, 104, 105, 110, 118, 142,
119-127, 134, 140, 148, 155, 156,
235
207, 211, 233-234
Messner, H. 34, 35
Lampe, G. W. H. 190, 202, 254
Michaelis, J. D. 18
Lang, F. 172, 185, 234
Michaelis, W. 68
Langford, J. J. 25 Michalson, C. 176
Larcher ©. iyi 234
Mildenberger, F. 15, 170, 199,
Leary, Ay Pur 24
212; 235
Lehmann, C. R. 9, 70, 234
Minear, P. S. 235
Lehmann, K. 19, 119
Miskotte, K. H. 179-180
Leith, .3) iy) 208, co%
Moore, A. L. 155-156
Lemonnyer, A. 61, 234
Morgan, R. 7, 10, 16, 39, 40, 42,
Lessing, G. E. 20, 22 43, 44, 46, 47, 72, 78, 165, 235
Lindsey, J. 234
Munck, J. 206, 235
Lipensius, M. 17 Murphy, R. E. 171, 183, 191, 193,
Locke, J. 18
235
Lohfink, N. 171, 234
Mussner, F. 140, 158, 161, 163,
Lohse, E. 9, 11, 67, 74, 102, 104,
172, 235-236
105, 141, 142, 145, 147, 156, 158,
160, 163, 234
Longenecker, R. 187, 234 Neander, A. 34, 35
Lénning, I. 15, 140, 143, 165, 166, Neil, W. 172, 236
234 Neill, S. 9, 11, 48, 67, 87, 95, 107,
Lorentz, F. 234 236
Loretz, O. 25,154 Newport, J. 236
Lossius, M. F. A. 32-33 Nicol) I; G. “112,115, 236
Lucas, R. 191 Nicole, R. 187
Lihrmann, D. 54 Nikolainen, A. T. 9, 141, 236
Luther, M. 14, 15, 16, 165 Nineham, D. E. 236
Luz, U. 141, 162, 165, 234 Nitschke, A. 19
Lymann, M.E. 234 North, C.R. 53
Lyonnet, S. 234 Nuland, J. V. 236

MacKenzie, R. A. F. 138, 234 Oberman, H. 14

Macquarrie, J. 56, 83 O’Doherty,E. 171, 236
MacRae, G. 235 Ogden, S. M. 55, 89-90, 91
Maier, G. 19, 165, 169, 208, 235 Ohlig, K.-H. 165, 236
Marle, R. 83 Osswald, E. 211
Marrow, S. B. 235 Ott) He “55
Marsh, J. 235 Overbeck, F. 52, 100
INDEX OF NAMES 249
Pannenberg, W. 19, 42, 176, 178, Schlier, H. 64, 65, 92-93, 99, 100,
192, 209, 236 155, 168, 214, 239
Perrm; N. 5.10,.11,458, -87, 883.90; Schlingensiepen, H. 14
95-97, 99, 110, 135, 136, 236-237 Schmid, C. F. 34, 35
Peters, 50237 Schmid, H. H. 239
Peters,°T: 208, 237 Schmidt, K. L. 54
Piepenbring, C. 44 Schmidt, L. 177, 239
Phythian-Adams, W. J. T. 327 Schmidt, S. 17
‘Piper, O. A. 134, 237 Schmithals, W. 57, 91
Pohlmann, W. 15 Schnackenburg, R. 13, 63, 69,
Prats} 237 140, 239
Prenter, R. 55, 237 Schniewind, J. 88
Preuss, H. D. 171 Scholder, K. 19, 25, 26, 239
Schrage, W. 15, 141, 156, 161-
Quesnell, Q. 237 162, 166, 168, 239
Schreiner, J. 19
Rad, G. von 60, 114, 115, 116, Schubert, K. 55, 112, 239
127, 177, 184, 190, 191, 193, 194, Schulz, S. 190, 239
Schwarzwaller, K. 171, 239
200, 201, 208, 210-211, 212, 215,
237 Schweitzer, A. 31, 45, 103, 131
Rahner, K. 237 Schweitzer, E. 160, 168, 239
Ramlot, M.-L. 237 Seebass, H. 154, 185, 240
Redlich, E. B. 54 Semler, J. S. ‘18, 20-21) '22,,27-28
Reicke, B. 140, 155, 237° Sidel, S. 185, 240
Rhode, J. 99 Siegwalt, G. 182
Smart, J. D. 171, 182, 240
Ricoeur, P. 95
Smend, R. 23, 29, 54, 72, 140, 240
Richardson, A. 25, 67, 73-77, 237
Spener, P. J. 18
Ridderbos, H. N. 103, 125, 190,
Spicq, C. 64, 139, 154, 201, 240
216, 237-238
Spinoza, B.de 26
Riesenfeld, H. 141, 157, 238 Stachel, G. 58, 240
Rigaux, B. 31 Stagg, F. 67, 119, 240
Ritschl, A. 46 Stamm, J. J. 179
Robertson, P. 155, 201, 238 Stanley, D. M. 64, 240
Robinson, J. A. 10, 13, 53, 54, 55, Stauffer, E. 55, 64-65, 151, 153,
57, 58-59, 61, 85, 87, 91, 94-95, 240
97, 101, 118, 131, 135, 136, 193, Steck, .G..K, @i37 12, 17,15 ),u152
204, 238 Stein, K. W. 29, 30
Roloff, J. 94, 127 Stek, J. A. 190, 240
Rowley, H. H. 140, 184, 185, 195, Stendahl, K. 28, 56, 65, 74, 75,
238 76, 79, 90, 107, 112, 118, 122, 136,
Ruler, A. A. van 171, 178-179 138, 213, 240-241
Rust, E. C. .238 Stevens, G. B. 36, 64, 119, 126,
Ryrie, C. C. 238 241
Stevenson, A. A. 241
Scheffczyk, L. 238 Stewart, J.S. 105, 241 .
Schelkle, K. H. 9, 63, 64, 77-82, Stock, A. 15, 140, 143, 146, 160,
155, 158, 167, 238 167, 168, 172, 241
Schempp, P. 15 Strathmann, H. 165
Schenkel, D. 16 Strauss, D. F. 31
Schlatter, A. 39-43, 69, 131, 238- Strecker. Go 10.11, 130 6; 22.
239 29, 46, 57, 78, 241
250 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Stuhlmacher, P. 15, 20, 25, 60-62, Watson, P.S. 242

Sb, 82, 131,. 160, 172, :209, a210, Weidner, J. C. 18, 64, 242
241 Weinel, H. 50, 52, 242
Sundberg, A. C. 165 Weismann, E. 17
Surburg, R. 20 Weiss, B. 35-36, 47, 64, 68, 242
Weiss, H. 55
Talbert, C. H: 152, 241 Weiss, J. 242
Talmon, S. 215 Weiss, M. 215
Taylor, V. 73, 241 Weizsacker, C. F. von 25
Taylor, W. 241 Wenham, J. 185, 242
Thielicke, H. 88 Westermann, G: 7, 1777 175,4177%
Thornhill, J. 241 242-243
Tindal, M. 18 Wette, W. M. L. de 29, 33
Toland, J. 18 Wheelwright, P. 96
Trilling, W. 241 Wilckens, U. 19, 27, 243
Troeltsch, E. 28, 30, 47, 52, 134, Wildberger, H. 243
208, 212, 241 Wilder, A. N. 243
Turretini, J. A. 18, 27 Williams, C. S.C. 165
Wilson, S. G. 152
Vadian, J. 26 Wink, W. 208, 243
Valla, L. 14 Witter, J. B. 20
Vawter, B. 64, 241 Wolff, H. W. 185, 191, 198, 201,
Vaux, R. de 75, 139, 201, 225 243
Verhoef, P. A. 172, 187, 188, 190, Wood, H. G. 205, 243
195, 197, 241 Woolcombe, J. J. 190
Viard, A. 242 Wrede, W. 10, 16, 39, 40, 43-51,
Vicary, D. R. 242 52, 56, 59, 72, 78, 80, 86, 103,
Vielhauer, P. 57 131, 135, 215, 243
Vischer, W. 180-182, 242 Wright, G. E. 121, 176, 183, 204,
Vogelin, E. 176 243
Vogtle, A. 64, 155, 242
Vos, G. 171, 201, 242 Zachatiay Gols (21 22
Vriezen, T. C. 75, 179, 182, 195 Zahn, T. 38-39, 68-69, 243
Zellers (lin ae
Wallace, D. 210, 242 Zimmerli, W. 60, 177, 182, 193,
Walther, J. A. 242 196
Warnach, V. 154, 242 Zyl, A. H. van 185, 243
Index of Subjects
act(s) 121 Hellenistic 51, 74, 86, 90, 97,
Adam, second 91 131
Anabaptists 16 Christocentric 65, 80-81, 155, 162,
anachronism 115 164
analogy, principle of 47, 110, 134 Christology 45, 52, 93, 108, 123,
anthropocentricity 94, 209 131, 145, 146, 155-161
anthropology 77, 90-92, 100, 144- Christomonism 174, 183
148, 160, 164, 205 concepts 50
apocalyptic 95 concepts-of-doctrine rd Pietele
archaeology 214 36, 44, 45, 49, 68
art 144 consciousness 45-46
ascension 88, 131 conservatism 19, 35, 44
atheism 39-40 content 28
atonement 88 content criticism 91, 102, daz,
authority 23, 26-27, 135, 142, 143, 143, 145, 167
169 continuity °83,/°8/, 127) 172, 176,
authorship 43, 44 184-203
continuum 41, 134, 209
“biblical concept theology” 126 contradiction 27, 93, 143, 219
biblical criticism 63, 64; see also conversion 90, 130
historical-critical method correlation 47, 52, 80, 88, 128,
biblical-exegetical method 21 134
Biblical Realism 125. cosmology 84
Biblical theology 13, 14, 16, 20- covenant 78, 153-154, 189, 217
24, 34-36, 48, 60-61, 70-71, 82, creed 99-100, 139
219-220 criticism 47, 63, 84, 91, 128, 134
of the NT 60 cross 162-163
“purely historical” 24, 29-30, cult 51

Biblical Theology Movement 70- day of the Lord 196

v1 deism 33
Biblicism 43 dekerygmatization 89
bruta facta 115
demythologization 54, 56. 68, 83-
Bultmann School 57-61, 82-102
85, 89, 95, 118, 136
descriptive method 23, 28, 36, 74-
canon 14, 21, 35, 38, 40, 44, 45,
75, 79, 122
47, 50, 65, 79, 135, 138, 149-150,
158, 164-169, 173, 198, 218 dialectical theology 53-59, 82
canon criticism 164, 167, 169 discontinuity 172, 175, 178, 179,
“canon within the canon’ 15, 182, 198
143, 146, 150, 158, 159, 160, 164- disparity 142, 146, 148
169 dissimilarity 110, 198, 220
catholicism 31, 219 diversity 34, 42, 46, 66, 67, 142,
center, 12, 30, 61590; F1Oy12750125, 143, 146, 148, 158, 183, 220
140-169, 216 doctrine 23, 33, 37, 47, 50, 59, 86,
Christ 24, 46, 62, 87, 95 90
Christendom 45, 49 dogma 14, 27, 33, 62
Christianity dogmatics 17, 20-22, 28, 29-30, 34,
eatly 50,52, 62; 63, 66, 7436, 35, 47-48, 50, 61, 133, 164, 204
98 dogmatic theology 17, 29

251
Paki NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

effect 41 ZEN 25, 20, ot, 4), 40, 0UrDd, OO,

election 189 68-69, 82,85, 115, 128,134, 142,
Enlightenment 18, 25, 68 145, 207-211
eschatology 37, 45, 56, 63, 92, 93, historical-critical theology 28
94, 113, 118, 123, 145, 152, 178- history 37, 38, 42, 49, 83, 88, 92,
179, 189, 191, 195-197 OF, FES, 116;120, 134,, 208, 209
consistent 53, 55 philosophy of 38, 83, 150-151,
futuristic 196 153
ethic (s) 45, 51 history-of-religions method 11,
event(s) 90, 92, 114, 116, 118, 120 28-29, 44, 47, 48, 50-51, 52, 68,
exaltation 92, 109 79, Sor 28, boo) ZL
exegesis’ |2.) 55) 142, 138 history of salvation 28, 37-40, 52-
existence 83, 89, 91, 92 53, 61; see also salvation history
existentialism 56, 58, 83, 97, 101, history of tradition, see tradition
105, 118 history
existentialist approach 82, 88, Holy Spirit 38, 54, 91, 124, 145
107, 113 hope 49, 152, 175
existentialist interpretation 83- humanism 94, 147
85, 88, 90, 97, 102, 136, 145, 175
incarnation 88, 100, 176
factualness 88 inspiration 20-21, 23, 27-29, 37,
faith 26, 29, 41, 42, 49, 50, 51, 47, 53-54, 218
57, 60, 63, 74, 81, 86, 89, 90, 99, interpretation 27, 35, 40, 43, 51,
115, 116, 118, 133, 134, 145, 147, 54, 56, 60, 66, 79, 83-86, 89, 90,
157, 189, 213 92, 93, 105, 114, 118, 123, 136,
feeling 29 197-199, 212
form 28 post-critical 54-55
form criticism 54, 68-69, 87 Biblical-theological 199-200
freedom 91 ipsissima verba 50, 124
fulfillment 39, 117, 127, 175, 178, ipsissima vox Jesu 107-108
180, 193-195, 196, 202
Jesus 24, 51-52, 62, 73, 104,°123;,
Gnosticism 113, 173 129,134, 157
Cod) 46.5) Se. OU, LO Eh teas historical 55, 57-58, 87-89, 95,
138, 154 98, 103, 107, 110, 129, 157
God-hypothesis 115, 134 kerygma of 87
Gospel 45, 84, 152, 167, 176, 180, message of 11, 32, 61, 74, 86-
187 87; 98) 110) 133, 159,216
grace 69 of faith 57
grammatical-historical method person of 62,159
29-29. 38.39 preaching of 50, 90, 102, 107,
118
Hebraism 29-30 proclamation of 11, 74, 102-
Hegelianism 31, 32, 44, 51 103, 110, 146
Heideggerianism 83 religion of 50
Hellenism 52, 130 self-understanding of 130
hermeneutic (s) 15, 21, 58, 60, 96 teaching of 30, 32, 34, 35, 104
historical criticism 47, 50, 53, 68, theology of 87
209-210; see also historical-crit- John the Baptist 39, 62, 108, 123,
ical method 128, 130
historicism 53-94 Judaism 29-30, 32, 42, 52, 65, 107,
historical-critical method 19, 20, 124, 130
INDEX OF SUBJECTS auo
judgment 90 norm, nomative 137-138
justification 160-163 NT theology approaches
concepts-of-doctrine 44, 45, 46
kerygma 57, 74, 78, 84-85, 97, 99, confessional 75-76
110, 116, 129, 144, 147, 157, 158 canonical 40, 45, 79, 215
kerygmata 100, 116 positive historical 33, 45, 66,
Kingdom of God 130 105-106
knowledge 88, 90, 92, 145 purely historical 30-31, 32, 40,
4)),)464525,96,79; 82,94
law 45, 93, 145, 176, 180 modern historical 67, 102
legend 115 modern positive 34, 36, 61, 64,
liberalism 41, 43, 53, 70 106-107
liberal theology 53, 70, 89 name of 48
life 81 conservative 36
literary criticism 20, 178 history-of-religions 44, 48, 50,
logia 106 be yh
Lutheranism 60 theological-historical 204-220

man 45, 46, 205 object 49

manifoldness 131 objectification 99-100
Marcionism 182 objectivity 40-41, 52, 76, 138,
Messianism 130, 178 139 4043,1213
method, methodology 11-12, 21, orthodoxy 42, 88
34, 72-74, 78, 132 rational 26-27
atheistic 39-40
atomistic 44 parousia 88, 156
cross-section 38, 46, 123, 132, Paul, see theology of Paul
153, 218 Pentateuch 26
comparative 107 philosophical theology 22, 59
concepts-of-doctrine 46 philosophy 24, 26, 29, 52, 55, 59,
confessional 75 85,192, 975.1 39). 206
genetic 66 Pietism 17-18, 20, 60
proof-text 38 Platonism 119
history-of-religions 48, 50-52, politics 180
55-56 positivism 10]
historical 50, 52, 55 post-Bultmannian (s) 57-60, 84,
historical-descriptive 62. 66, 87-102, 147
71, 74-75, 90, 107, 118, 122, prediction 39; see also promise
136 presupposition 11, 42, 52, 55, 59,
thematic 61, 63, 73-82, 132, 75, 83, 85, 86-87, 88, 95, 98-99,
218 1057\120, 128,133,154, 142.165,
modernism, modernist 43 175, 208, 210
morals 26, 63 pre-understanding 92, 167
motif(s) 77, 133 proclamation 11, 121
mystery-god 51 promise 117, 127, 154,175 417/6-
mystery-worship 51 178, 180, 193-195
mysticism 45, 94, 131, 147 proof-texts 22, 37, 38
myth 51, 56, 68, 84, 96, 113, 175 Protestantism 43
mythology 54, 56, 68, 84, 109 Protestant orthodoxy 17, 18
psyche 51
neo-orthodoxy 53
neutral, neutrality 41 quest of historical Jesus 57-58,
new hermeneutic 58-59, 94 86-88
a2 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Rationalism 18, 20, 24, 29-30, 40 theme (s) 77-78, 82, 133
reality 40, 42, 83, 104, 138-139, theocracy 30, 179
209, 212 theology 50, 63
reason 19, 25, 27, 142 of Jesus’ 'Fy 50,’ 62, 65067 "102-
recital 122-123 103, 129-130, 216
reconstruction 51, 56, 66, 73, 80, of OT 10) 12,16, 82, 219
83-86, 89, 94, 100-101, 105, 110, of John 50, 62, 65, 67, 80, 86,
128, 136, 212 90, 92, 95, 98, 103, 123, 126,
redaction criticism 99, 151 130, 132, 144-149, 216-217
redemption 45, 51, 178 of Luke-Acts 132, 216
Reformation 14 of Paul 11, 50, 62-63, 65, 67, 80,
reinterpretation 56, 73, 115, 121 86, 90-93, 95, 98, 103, 124, 144-
relativity 90, 101, 142 149
religion 28-29, 48, 50 of Peter 67, 126, 132, 216-217
remnant 108, 189 of primitive (early) Christianity
repentance 90 62-63, 130
resurrection 73, 91, 92, 98, 109, of Synoptics 65, 80, 92, 123-124,
121) 124/131) 145,:157 130, 216
revelation 19, 27, 39, 42, 44, 54, time 112
62, 79, 86, 90, 93, 115-117, 120, torah 145
142, 148, 175, 206 totality 143
righteousness 45, 131, 189 tradition 14, 33, 43, 60, 116, 194,
213
Sachkritik 91 tradition criticism 51, 60-61
sacrament (s) 51, 93, 145 tradition history 99, 116, 128
saga 115-116 transcendence 41, 60, 90, 211
salvation 46, 93, 148 translation, translating 118, 122,
salvation history 36-40, 52-53, 60- 137
61, 65, 69-70, 111-132, 148-153, Trinity 183
195 truth 26, 49, 62
scepticism 180 Tiibingen School 31, 35, 46
scholastic theology 20 typology 190-193, 202
science 25-27, 86, 144
self-interpretation 38, 47, 199 unconsciousness 5l
self-understanding 56, 85, 91, 99, understanding 27, 83-86, 90, 209,
128, 144, 147 214
sin 46, 86, 92 uniformity 46, 142, 203, 220
sola Scriptura 14-15, 16 unity 15, 30, 34, 42, 44, 46, 62, 65,
Son of Man 130, 157 66-67, 70, 77-78, 80, 96, 104-105,
soteriology 77, 90, 93, 145, 146, 124, 126, 130, 140-169, 218
164
subjectivity 76, 133, 143, 146, 166, Weltanschauung 40, 84, 210
169 what it means 56, 118, 136-139,
supernatural (ism) 18, 31, 134, 204
209-210 what it meant 56, 118, 136-139,
symbolism 95-96 204
synoptics 24, \32,;-8/, 92; 99, 108, world 86, 100
123, 145, 216 world-view 40, 52, 59, 69, 84
systematic theology 18, 122, 126, worship 51
129; see also dogmatics
systems of doctrine 17-18 Zeitgeist 53, 69
ah aD,
i pe
 Re

is
is! "if sn)

NT y a
a
eo ee)

mat me
ascr ne
ae ) ennyl a: Eat
BS Cay
Ban aie a lt wieaa
mt)
A AY Ge aN
sini -,

UO UR gS 4
“thre aalecn’ SAN
NW OURre

A eematiiboks Sasser: PR RAB. 1)

cy A ee
rane neni bom bah nl
haa RAL
ene i ORWERIA
ify
 atte
=
eee
_ ms "v3 te

a is
Weal.
ee kl
o |>

ay " |
-

ata Pale
4 Py ‘
i Zz hh iy Hie a

tp: bi a ee a : :
» 12 er
- i : ay) oO
+ ¥ 7
ets ical . a
:
| : am | oa . h

it ~
 “As a prolegomena to New Testament theology, this book has no peers.” |
George Eldon Ladd
Fuller Theological Seminary

Gerhard F. Hasel
NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY:
Basic Issues in the Current Debate

Recent years have witnessed the publication of a vast amount of material

on New Testament theology. Many theologians, unable to agree on the
nature, function, method, and scope of this discipline, have offered their
own interpretations of the subject. Unfortunately, this increasing variety
of approaches has resulted in a tension and confusion among scholars
and students.
Gerhard Hasel addresses the situation with an in-depth discussion of the
basic issues of the debate. He begins with a comprehensive survey of the
emergence and development of New Testament theology over the last
two centuries. From this overview he discerns various issues which have
led to the present state of crisis in this area of study. Professor Hasel
examines the issues related to methodology, to the unity of the New
Testament, and to the relationship between the New and the Old Testa-
ments. He concludes with some basic proposals for doing theology with
an historical and theological method which seeks to be faithful to the
biblical materia!.

GERHARD F. HASEL is Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Theol-

ogy at Andrews University. This book is a companion to his earlier
-volume, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate.

CO.

| $5.95
GENERAL BOOKBINDING

a 10 P 7027

255 JE
QUALITY CONTROL MARK
- ISBN 0-8028-1733-5