These notes provide a basis for class discussion and for quizzes and exams. Use these guidelines as a basis of preparation for class discussion. For details about using the Lecture Notes materials click on . To display the Greek text contained in this page, download and install the free BSTGreek True Type fonts from Bible Study Tools.

Sources to Consult:
Scobie, C. H. H. "History of Biblical Theology."  New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity & Diversity of Scripture. Edited by Alexander, T. Desmond, Rosner, Brian S., Carson, D.A, Goldsworthy, Graeme, 11-20. Downers Grove, Il: Inter-Varsity, Press, 2000.

Via, Dan O., Jr. "New Testament Theology: Extra-textual or Textual?" What is New Testament Theology? Volume in Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament Series, 25-29. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2002.

Via, Dan O., Jr. "New Testament Theology as a Historical Project." What is New Testament Theology? Volume in Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament Series, 31-32. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2002.

1.2 The Origin of New Testament Theology
        One critical starting point is with the nature of NT theology and how we define it. The point of the present subject (topic 1.2) is the explore the modern discipline as it has evolved since the Protestant Reformation. More precisely, the focus is on those pioneering scholars who have set the agenda for the discipline since the late 1800s and who still influence the discussion at the beginning of the twenty-first century.
        To be sure, publications that have a tone of NT theology appeared before the work of Wrede. But the work of William Wrede at the beginning of the twentieth century has defined a foundation and parameters for much of the modern developments.

1.2.0 The History of Biblical Theology
Sources to Consult:
Scobie, C. H. H. "History of Biblical Theology."  New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity & Diversity of Scripture. Edited by Alexander, T. Desmond, Rosner, Brian S., Carson, D.A, Goldsworthy, Graeme, 11-20. Downers Grove, Il: Inter-Varsity, Press, 2000.

        In this we will survey Scobie's article in order to gain some background perspective on the stubject of New Testament Theology as a sub-discipline of Biblical Theology.

1.2.0.1 Possible Antecedents to Biblical Theology
        Prior to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when biblical theology emerged as a distinct scholarly discipline, tendencies that set the stage for biblical theology certainly existed.
        Most crucial in this is a definition of biblical theology that distinguishes it from both 'religion' and 'dogmatics.' As Scobie notes (Introduction, p. 11), biblical theology has been traced back to different starting points, mostly either to the Protestant Reformation or J. P. Gabler's 1787 address at the Universität Altdorf. Scobie suggests a third possible starting point going back possibly as far as the Bible itself. The legitimacy of this is highly questionable, and depends entirely on one's definition of biblical theology. If one take's biblical theology as a structured attempt to describe the Christian faith in detail as rooted in sacred scripture, then the later starting points are the legitimately possible starting points. This is more true, when a distinction between biblical theology and systematic theology (or dogmatics) is drawn. From the study of qeologiva in topic 1.1, the concept of a 'theology' didn't emerge in Christian tradition until several centuries after the beginning of the Christian movement. This is not to say, however, that Jesus and the apostles didn't possess a religious belief-system to some extent. But, carefull analysis of the New Testament clearly demonstrates that no where is such a belief-system concisely articulated in a uniform, single section of scripture.
        Thus, when the later church fathers come into the stream of Christian tradition and begin articulating a structured belief system set forth in a uniform, systematic fashion, what surfaces is more akin to modern dogmatics than to biblical theology in the modern sense of the term. The earlier culmination of this process is to be seen in the adoption of creedal statements by the various church councils up through the beginning of the middle age. Gradually, these official declarations of orthodox belief become incorporated into official church policy, especially in the west in Roman Catholic circles, and define what Christians are required to believe in order to be in good standing in church life.
        To be certain, these early developments and trends lay a foundation which biblical theology builds on in certain ways. But one is really hard pressed to justify calling the early patterns a biblical theology even in primitive form!

1.2.0.2 A Chronological Overview of Biblical Theology
        The work of the Reformers did not produce a biblical theology as such, but did lay important foundations upon which a biblical theology could be developed.
Martin Luther (1483-1546) established Christianity on a new foundation of biblical authority with his principle of sola scriptura (the scripture alone as the authoritative standard for Christian belief and practice). But his massive, Luther Werke, represents exegetical insights regarding the scripture texts and the Christian religion, but Luther never attempted to systematically set forth a uniform theological understanding of the New Testament.
John Calvin (1509-1564) came somewhat closer to this with his Institutes of the Christian Religion, released in the early 1500s, that tackles important issues regarding Christian belief. But one could not legitimately characterize it as a biblical theology.  A quick scan of the table of contents in the above hyperlink to an English translation of the original Latin text that was translated into French and published first in 1539 as a second edition, illustrates this quite clearly. But Calvin in both his Institutes and his substantial commentaries on the books of the New Testament did develop exegetical approaches and interpretative strategies that would later contribute to the biblical theology enterprise.

        The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries mark the emergence of biblical theology as a discipline distinct from biblical exegesis on the one hand and dogmatics on the other hand. The Scholastic Era in Protestantism following the Reformers attempted to define orthodox Christianity in terms of systematic theology or dogmatics, following the prior model of Roman Catholic tradition. But Scobie notes four trends that helped to play a role in the later biblical theology discipline:
        (1) Summa Doctrina de Foedere et Testamento Dei
        Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669) published his views in this volume in 1648 and attempted to interprete the entire biblical materials around the central theme of 'covenant.' His federal theory of salvation etc. has been very influencial in certain circles of Protestant thinking over the following centuries, although this way of viewing the scriptures is largely rejected as inadequate in most Prostestant circles, and by Roman Catholics and the various Eastern Orthodox traditions as well.
        (2) collegia biblica
        As one of the outgrowths of Protestant Scholasticism a pattern emerges from around 1560 of "compiling collections of proof texts (dicta probantia) to demonstrate the biblical basis of the Protestant faith" (Scobie, p. 12). These collections of biblical texts flourished for the next couple of centuries and were sometimes published in the title theologica biblica. Although the term 'biblical theology' was used on occasion, this in no way constitutes a biblical theology in the contemporary sense of the term. The questionable exegetical approach further undermines the legitimacy of this approach. In reality, this approach represented an effort to underpin the older more dogmatic approach with biblical texts in light of the Protestant principle of sola scriptura. Later insights would seriously question the legitimacy of this method.
       (3) European Pietism
       The Radical Reformation reflects the views of many beginning in the late 1500s who believed that Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli correctly reacted to the errors of the Roman Catholic Church in its belief and practice. But they also believed that the steps taken by these Reformers did not go far enough. Especially prevelent throughout the Anabaptists of central Europe was the conviction that the emerging Lutheran and Reformed Churches had not clearly understood scriptural teaching, especially in issues like infant baptism, the relation of the believer to the state, et als. In the Pietistic movement that emerges later on, major leaders continued to develop the understanding of the primacy of an individual personal experience of conversion based on Luther's principle of justification-by-faith over against infant baptism and confirmation. The Christian religion was first and foremost a religious experience to be lived out in passion and fervent feeling, as well as having to do with doctrinal understanding. Faith was personal faith in Jesus, not intellectual acceptance of what the church taught about Jesus. The Bible became a primary point of study in order to nourish one's spiritual life, as well as to learn correct belief. Gradually, the writings of these pietists, such as P. J. Spener (1635-1705), began drawing sharp distinction between a theologica biblica and a theologica scholastica, with the former reflecting serious efforts to understand the teachings of scripture as foundational to Christian belief.
       (4) Historicial-Critical Exegesis
       One of the most influential perspectives to emerge from the Enlightenment was the rediscovery and redefinition of history. The study of the past, especially the ancient past, became a passionate objective all through European and later on North American circles. With the emerging understanding of history as the recounting of verified, factual events in the past and an exploration of cause and effect connections between these major events, history took on a brand new understanding from what it had been understood as in the ancient world. It was ineviable that this would spill over into religious studies, and biblical studies in particular. Scobie correctly lists some of the more significant scholars who pioneered this approach: Richard Simon (1638-1712), Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677), J. S. Semler (1725-1791), although it is important to remember that this critical approach to ancient texts wasn't entirely motivated by Christian exegetical concerns. Gradually, with the emergence of a rigid rationalistic view of the universe and of reality based on Aristotlean philosophy, the marriage of historical criticism and German rationalism produced children with enormous skepticism toward almost everything in the New Testament, even down to the very historical existence of Jesus himself. In this environment, the hermeneutics of suspicion gained acceptance as an integral part of the emerging 'scientific method' and was applied to biblical studies with devastating results. Add to this mixture the social upheavals taking place in Europe in the 1700s and 1800s with the French Revolution, the Napoleanic wars, and the industrial revolution. In theses issues, traditional, conservative orthodox Christianity almost always came down on the side of supporting aristocracy and government authority against the common person. This produced a growing resentment by the masses against Christianity, as symbolized by the established Church in each of the European countries. The emerging 'liberalism' (Remember classic liberalism, especially in European tradition, means standing in support of basic human dignity and worth.) saw in these radical interpretative strategies a way to reclaim the Bible and the Christian religion for the masses. Most were convinced that orthodox Christianity had lost sight of the real Jesus in the gospels and had turned Him into an advocate of aristocratic abuse of the rest of humanity. Thus the quest for the 'historical Jesus' was born, using many of these emerging interpretative strategies. European Pietism offered the only althernative to these options with a mediating position retaining a high view of scripture and a compassion for the masses in the model left by Jesus in the gospels. But, unfortunately, Pietism became increasingly engulfed by medieval mysticism from Roman Catholicism sources in the 1800s and thus found itself stripped of any real ability to offer an appealing choice to the European people. It was increasingly relegated to the fringes of Protestanism with only a very small percentage of Europeans commited to Christ this way. Baptists, the Brethren groups etc. were a part of this.
        One of the positive consequences of radical criticism was, as Scobie notes, the establishment of the principle that perceived biblical truth must stand in judgment over dogmatics and when necessary serve as a corrector to dogmatics gone astray from biblical truth. In orthodoxy for centuries, first in Roman Catholicism and then in the emerging streams of establishment church Protestantism such as the Lutheran Church, the Reformed Church, and the Church of England, dogmatics defined biblical understanding. The Bible couldn't advocate anything not already approved in the offical creeds of these churches. Any such claim simply misunderstood what the Bible was saying! Radical biblical scholarship succeeded in reversing this viewpoint by the beginning of the twentieth century.
        The discipline of Biblical Theology in many ways was an outgrowth of all this beginning with the speech of J. P. Gabler in 1787 laying down the agenda for biblical theology (cf., Scobie, p. 13). For many scholars biblical theology came to be the way to counter the claims of rigid dogmatics about what should constitute the parameters of authentic Christian belief and practice. The unfortunate by-product was the driving of a wedge of suspicion between biblical theology and dogmatics as potential enemies of one another. This tended to leave biblical theology in the hands of radical scholars with deep biases against establishment Christianity, and a blind commitment to rationalism. Scobie (p. 13) correctly lists as representative of this the biblical theologies of C.F. von Ammon (Entwurf einer reinen biblischen Theologie, 1792), G.P.C. Kaiser (Die biblische Theologie, 1813-21), W. M. L. de Wette (Biblische Dogmatik des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 1813), and D.G.C. von Cölln (Biblische Theologie, 1836).
        One important caution here: to write off these radical scholars as against Christianity would be a gross distortion of their position. Most of them were passionate about their commitment to the Christian religion as they understood it and viewed their work as a 'back to Jesus' effort in order to correct the perceived distortions of establishment orthodoxy. Streams of pietistic influence flowed into the lives of several of these radical scholars leading them to profound depths of zealousness for Christianity as they understood it. In the late 1800s especially, the tendency was to see this brand of 'authentic' Christianity as the only possible way to stave off the explosion of athetisitic Marxism that began sweeping over the European continent and through the British Iles. Orthodoxy was in the hip pocket of the governments and of the aristocracy and thus was powerless to make a convincing appeal to the emerging working class of people all across Europe. Pietism had been emaciated by the often bizzare extremes of emotionalism learned from medieval mysticism and buttressed by German romanticism. Thus it wasn't appealing to large audiences of people, and had only limited impact.
        For a long time both orthodoxy and Pietism were very hesitant to explore biblical theology as a tool for sharpening their understandings of Christianity. See Scobie, p. 14, for the isolated attempts to address biblical theology from these conservative perspectives. Since in the American scene during these two centuries, Americans were preoccupied with other matters and the vast majority of the colonists were not professing Christians to begin with, such issues seemed very irrelevant. Christian scholars in the U.S. would not become seriously involved in biblical theology until well into the twentieth century. Even then few biblical theologies have been produced on American soil even to this day that have had the same level of impact on Christianity generally as those coming out of European and British scholarship. The one exception to this early on were many of the founding fathers in the U.S. such as Thomas Jefferson who were deeply influenced by English Deism, which was in many ways the British expression of the European radical scholarship.

        The twentieth century marked several trends in biblical theology. With the historical critical method in variously modified forms becoming widely used all across the theological spectrum, the diversity of viewpoint within the Bible became increasingly apparent. One of the consequences of this was the splitting of biblical theology into Old Testament theology and New Testament theology. Additionally, the issue began to revolve around the theologies inside both the OT and in the NT. Questions began to be raised about whether one could speak of a biblical theology. Rather, one should frame the issue around the exploration of the differing theologies in both sections of the Christian Bible. This would produce more credible results when the scriptures were studied from such a perspective. Culturally, a lot of this was driven by the contemporary scene of modern twentieth-century Christianity framented into hundreds of demoninations and thus the compulsion to find a legitimizing basis for such in similar biblical patterns.
        Another hugely influencial trend emerged during the beginning of the period: comparative study of religions. With the establishment of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule at the university in Göttingen Germany and its counterpart emerging somewhat later at the University of Chicago, a paradigm shift of major proportions began taking place. Exploration, exegetically and otherwise, of primitive Christianity was done in the context of comparing the Christian religion to contemporary religions in both the Greco-Roman and Jewish cultures, as well as with modern world religions. Jesus and Paul could largely be explained in terms of syncretistic borrowing from religions of their day in order to produce the new variety called Christianity in both the Jesus and the Pauline versions. The belief was that in the human experience all religions have certain core elements in common with one another. In context of the utopian concerns for peace etc. in the late 1800s and early 1900s growing out of emerging science and industrialism, the conviction was that the discovery of this common essence of all religions could bring everyone together in a more peaceful existence once this was understood and then highlighted. The impact on biblical theology was a shift from exploring the sacred scriptures, especially the NT, for normative Christian belief to a historical description of the religion of Jesus and the apostles with no prescriptive implications for modern Christianity. As Scobie notes, p. 15, the lingering effect of this movement, especially in the U.S. with its separation of church and state tradition, was to provide a legal basis for departments of religious studies in state universities all across our country.
        In the period following World War I the realization took place of the powerlessness of Christianity, founded on the skepticism produced by these earlier trends, to prevent the disaster of a global war. In Europe theologians and biblical scholars such as Karl Barth in Basel Switzerland reacted vigorously to classical liberalism and began a revitalization of biblical theology that eventually became known as the Biblical Theology Movement, especially in the English language side. Rudolf Bultmann was another major contributor. This reaction gradually came to be labeled neo-orthodoxy on the European side. Scobie, pp. 15 - 16, highlights some of the major contributors in the biblical theology segment for both Old Testament and New Testament theological understanding. Some of these streams returned to the older perspective of a biblical theology, or at least of an Old Testament theology and a New Testament theology, as opposed to a wide diversity of theologies inside the Bible. All were perceived as fundamentally prescriptive for modern Christianity, although the ways of determing the content of this normative truth gleaned from biblical exegesis varied widely. The closing decades of the twentieth century have witnessed a substantial return to focused attention on the diversity of viewpoints within the Christian scriptures. The emergence, especially in the American scene, of literary based interpretative strategies somewhat replacing the older historical oriented methods has provided a vehicle to explore and emphasize this perceived diversity of viewpoint within apostolic Christianity. Again, I'm convinced that modern Christian ecumenical interests have driven this trend as much as anything else, just as they did a century before in the emergence of classical liberalism. It seems the ancient Greeks may have had a legitimate point in viewing life mostly in terms of repetitive cycles! Where theology, biblical exegesis etc. will go at the beginning of the twenty-first century is not clear. But if the cycle holds true, then study the early decades of the twentieth-century for important clues. The work again of the Germans such as Peter Stuhlmacher, Heinrich Gese, Franz Müssner, et. als may pave the way for a new Biblical Theology Movement in our day.

Questions for Discussion in light of the above trends:
1. What social and political events in US history in the past decade have impacted the way you understand your Christian experience? How?
2. What emphases in our American culture are shaping the way most Christians approach the study of the Bible? Why?
3. How has your world shaped your understanding of the Bible? What impact has this had on your understanding of your faith?

        Now we turn our attention to four individuals who were major players in biblical theology, especially in New Testament theology. The prism through which these individuals can be more effectively examined is their relationship to the interpretative agenda proposed by Pro. Gabler in 1787, since his proposal over the ensuing decades did indeed set the agenda for many of the developments in biblical interpretation.
        Thus a more detailed examination of Gabler is necessary as a starting point. The following essential points (as summarized from Boers, pp. 23-38) are important to understand. In his proposal Gabler insisted that:

• Biblical Theology is to be distinguished from religion.
• The Bible contains religion but not theology.
• Theology is to be based on religion.
• Religion is concerned with the unchanging, divine concepts in the Bible.
• Biblical Theology is concerned to determine these divine concepts that transcend the original culture etc. in which they were first given to Primitive Christianity.
• Biblical Theology (biblische Theologie) is to be distinguished from Dogmatics (Dogmatik) as a separate academic discipline
• The university through its scholarly professors is concerned with biblische Theologie, while the church through its clerical leadership is concerned with Dogmatik.
• Biblische Theologie is essentially a historical based and oriented procedure, concerned to describe the nature of the religion of primitive Christianity (Urchristentum).
• Biblische Theologie has two aspects or levels of investigation:
• wahre biblische Theologie (true biblical theology)
• a description of the religion of primitive Christianity based on historical investigation that develops factual understanding of the beginning decades of the Christian movement from the study of the biblical writers and their writings.
• an investigation that is based on the factual results of the historical-critical method of interpretation
• the results of this investigation are not normative or prescriptive for theological conviction in contemporary Christianity; rather, they constitute an historical description of the 'what then' perspective.
• reine biblische Theologie (pure biblical theology)
• the gleaning of the core essentials of the religion of primitive Christianity
• comparative study of other religions of that time is an essential way to get at this Christian religion.
• the goal is to determine what is culturally bound and what is timeless.
• only that determined to be timeless can become the substance for developing a Dogmatik, which is the 'what now' aspect.
• Biblische Theologie is mostly the business of biblical scholars, while Dogmatik is the business of the church.
• Biblical scholars must be allowed to work in an atmosphere of academic freedom where ecclesiastical concerns are strictly prohibited from interfering with objective, scholarly investigation.
• Since the concern of Biblische Theologie is for honest historical investigation into the past, it must not concern itself with the possible results of its investigation on the faith and practices of present-day Christianity either positively or negatively. That's the task of church clerics to implement the results of the work of biblical scholars.

Via, Dan O., Jr. What is New Testament Theology? Volume in Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament Series, 31-32. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2002.
 

1.2.1.1 Biographical Background

Questions for Discussion
1. When and where was he born? When did he die?
2. Where did he teach?
3. What is this scholar most noted for accomplishing?

1.2.1.2 Contributions to New Testament Theology

        The impact of Wrede on the discipline of New Testament theology can be measure in part by how he picked up the agenda set forth by Gabler. The following items summarize the essential points of Wrede's work in New Testament theology, as summarized by Boers, pp. 39-60:

• New Testament theology is to be investigation of the documents of the New Testament in order to understand them "in the sense in which they had been intended by their authors and in the sense of their own time" (Boers, p. 45).
• The essential method for this understanding is historical-critical interpretation of the NT texts.
• The study of the Jewish and non-Jewish environment of the NT is important.
• The NT scholar is to probe these texts, not driven by either dogmatics nor edification concerns for contemporary Christianity. It is to be a purely historical inquiry.
• In this sense, he adopts the historical-critical methodology insisted upon by Gabler.
• For Wrede and for Gabler biblical theology is primarily a historical description of the past.
• In order to do a thorough historical investigation, the NT scholar must not be limited to the NT canon as source material.
• For Wrede the doctrine of divine inspiration of these canonical documents is a much later dogmatics assertion; not something the NT documents or writers claim for themselves. This it is to be rejected in the work of the NT theologican.
• Immediately the cut off point for NT theology becomes crucial. Subsequent Christian tradition moves into dogmatics, rather than theology.
• Wrede saw the apologists in the late second century as the transitional period.
• The task of NT theology is to present with the greatest clarity possible the characteristics of primitive Christian thought and experience and to teach us to understand those historically (Boers, p. 48).
• The task is not to investigate the religious and moral content of the NT writings, but the history of primitive Christian religion and theology.
• By taking the NT in a sense of a history of teachings or of doctrine, an arbitrary evenness was imposed on it, the evenness of a single typ of writing, of teaching, which meant either leaving out of consideration or misrepresenting the largest part of the NT material which was not teaching, but, for example, narratives with religious-ethical implications, or writings of pastoral involvement and concern etc.
• Wrede severely criticized the tendency of scholars taking every detail of the NT and of theology as of equal importance.
• His rejected the presupposition of the above that NT writers worked with similar systematic precision in their concepts and word usage.
• Words have different levels of meanings and NT writers make use of these different levels, as well as different NT writers using the same words with different meanings.
• Wrede also severely criticized the tendency of scholars to assume that everything in the NT took place at the level of literature.
• He highlighted the view that NT writers use of written materials often meant the NT writer gives his own interpretation of these materials that is not the original meaning of the earlier written materials. The synoptic gospels would serve as an illustration of Wrede's point. The NT use of the OT is another case in point.
• The living religion environment of primitive Christianity means the NT writers were not consciously seeking to craft a systematic presentation of their views in correlation to those NT writers whom they used for their own writings.
• Thus contours of belief must be sought, rather than precise, detailed perspective on every minute point of belief.
• The individual contribution of each NT writer must be considered against the backdrop of his own particular situation, rather than squeezing all the NT writers into a unifed perspective.
• An overarching chronological perspective of primitive Christianity is a necessary starting point.
• More important is the attempt to comprehend the growth of ideas found in each of the NT writers and what circumstances prompted this development.
• The contributions of various NT writers need to be weighted toward those perceived to have made greater contributions to the thought of Primitive Christianity
• Thus the thoughts and writings of Jesus, Paul, John and Ignatius were considered to be primary.
• These determined the shape of Wrede's NT theology.
• Revelation, Hiebrews, and Barnabas did not call for separate treatment because they did not contribute distinct, comprehensive religious conception.
• 1 Peter, the Synoptics and Acts (taken individually), 1 Clement, James, the Didache, 2 Peter, Jude, Polycarp, and the Shepherd of Hermas "did not represent a single view with such special clarity or in such a way that one could say that through them an idea became normative or gained recognition or was created by them" (Boers, 52-53).
• The Synoptic evangelists should not be discussed in the beginning of a NT theology, but much later, after Paul.
• His outline for a theology of the New Testament included the following in this order:
• Jesus
• the primitive church
• Paul
• Gentile Christianity
• John
• Ignatius
• Wrede never reconciled the inherent contradiction between his program of historical investigation of the religion of primitive Christianity and the labeling of it as New Testament theology.
• In this he overlooked Gabler's wahre biblische Theologie and reine biblische Theologie distinction.
• Paul posed a special problem for Wrede.
• One cannot call Paul a theologican, especially in the modern sense of the term.
• Yet Paul's religion, especially as set forth in Romans, is organized and is more than just the random religious expression found elsewhere in the New Testament.
• Thus, "Paul's religion was theological; his theology was religion" (Boers, p. 55).
• Paul is therefore the first Christian theologian, the creator of a Christian theology.
• Wrede's treatment of Paul brings us back to the Platonic definition of qeologiva as the telling of a myth, that is, the story of the interaction of the divine with the human in redemptive manner.

Questions for Discussion
1. How does the work of Wrede relate to the developing discipline of New Testament theology?
2. How does Wrede's 'theology' of the New Testament relate to the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule?
3. Describe the contributions and limits of Wrede to the discipline of New Testament theology.

1.2.2.1 Biographical Background
 

Questions for Discussion
1. When and where was he born? When did he die?
2. Where did he teach?
3. What is this scholar most noted for accomplishing?
 

1.2.2.2 Contributions to New Testament Theology

Bousset's contribution to New Testament theology have similarities and sharp differences to those of Wrede. The following summarizes these points as discussed in Boers, pp. 60-66.

• Bousset did not specifically carry out Wrede's program, but his Kyrios Christos did in effect carry out the fundamenal intention of Wrede's program.
• Kyrios Christos is a history of the belief in Christ from the beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus.
• Bousset deviated from Wrede at two essential points
• Bousset did not provide a comprehensive presentation of the development of the primitive Christian religion, but a presentation on the basis of a central theme, namely, of the cult of Jesus as Christ the Lord.
• He did not set the end point of his study just before the apologists but continued on to Irenaeus because he considered the development of the doctrine of Christ relatively complete with Irenaeus.
• Bousset engaged in a vigorous search for what was essential, thus implementing a major concern of Wrede to concentrate on the essentials and not get bogged down with the minutia of details.
• Bousset was convinced that the only access to primitive Christianity is to view it fundamentally as a religion and only secondarily, as a relatively late development, as a theology.
• Both Wrede and Bousset were founders of the religionsgeschichtliche Schule.
• Bousset's comparative studies led him to the position that the primitive Christianity as the cult of Jesus confessing Christ as Lord was a Gentile development of Christianity.
• Thus Jesus and Palestinian Christianity are to be excluded from the study of primitive Christianity.
• It was simply inconceivable to him that Jesus could have been accorded divine worship in a Palestinian Jewish Christian religious community.
• The Achilles' heel of this view was his inability to successfully overcome the cultic formula maranatha in 1 Cor. 16:22 as a Christian confession in Aramaic.
• There had been a fundamentail difference between the religion of Jesus and Palestinian Jewish Christianity, on the one hand, and the religion of Hellenistic Christianity, on the other.
• Although Palestinian Christianity embellished the image of their master, they nevertheless preserved a good part of his life that was genuine.
• With Hellenistic Christianity all this changed as Jesus was reinterpreted in terms of the tendencies of the Roman religious cults, especially the worship of the emperor.

Bibliography:
Boers, Hendrikus. What is New Testament Theology? The Rise of Criticism and the Problem of a Theology of the New Testament. Volume in Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament Series, pp. 67-75. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.
Very important, detailed critique of Schlatter and his methodology.

1.2.3.1 Biographical Background
 

Questions for Discussion
1. When and where was he born? When did he die?
2. Where did he teach?
3. What is this scholar most noted for accomplishing?
 

1.2.3.2 Contributions to New Testament Theology

Schlatter stands as a conservative counter balance to the radical tendencies of Wrede and Bousset. Yet, he was impacted by the agenda established by Gabler. The following is a summary of the essential points made by Boers, pp. 65-76:

• He was aware that the NT did not contain a theology in the strict sense of the term, but he was also convinced that the NT contained more than only religion.
• The NT proclamation did not permit separation of thought from living. Both constitute our full existence.
• The consciousness of God must move beyond thought into one's life -- this was the NT view.
• Thus the NT stands in contradiction to every religious perspective that concerns itself only with thought.
• Schlatter's Theology of the New Testament is not a theology in the strict sense of coherent, logical, necessary systematization of ideas concerning God, but a theology which is integral to the life of faith.
• Schlatter picked up Gabler's position that NT theology is essentially an historical discipline.
• To view history and divine revelation as contraries is pre-Christian and not what one finds in the NT itself.
• The theology of the NT does not present abstact ideas that are ahistorical. Rather it is based on Heilsgeschichte as the redemptive history of God at work in the history of Jesus.
• But history and theology are to be distinguished.
• Since the history in the NT had also a natural side as reflected in the findings of the religionsgeschichtliche Schule.
• The NT theologian must investigate this history, but cannot do it from a completely neutral stance outside a faith commitment.
• New Testament theology must be distinguished from dogmatics, as Gabler insisted, but it cannot be separated from dogmatics. Theology must lead to dogmatics -- this is the model of early Christianity.
• "The task of historical inquiry was to ask what had once been true, without concern for what it might mean in the present. The task of dogmatics was to ask how that which had meaning in the past still determined our thoughts and our will today. But without a sensitivity for the questions of dogmatice, historical inquiry would be lifeless; it would not be able to understand the New Testament because the New Testament was characterized by similar dogmatic questions -- even though, of course of the past. On the other hand, without the relationship to the past provided by the historical inquiry of New Testament theology, dogmatics because exceedingly individualized and arbitrary" (Boers, p. 70).
• Schlatter's method for doing NT theology
• "Schlatter's actual method of interpretation was characterized by what he called statistics and etiology. Statistics was similar to the two stages of Gabler's true biblical theology [reine biblische Theologie], the gathering of all the conceptions present in the New Testament and their systematic ordering according to their internal relationships or differences. But, whereas for Gabler the second step in a biblical theology was the elimination of all contingent aspects of the biblical material, Schlatter's program affirmed precisely certain historically contingent aspects, although not specifically those which Gabler wanted to eliminate. The task of etiology, Schlatter's second step, was to determine who the New Testament concepts and their internal relationships developed. Decisively important was that the sources of the development had to be sought within the framework of the New Testament history itself, not outside of it" (Boers, p. 71).
• The most important causal factor was the history of Jesus.
• He did affirm the solidarity of the canon, although he did consider it useful to pay attention to the contemporary religions as a means to a better understanding of the NT.
• But, it was not correct to interprete the NT in the context of these religions as the religionsgeschichtliche Schule had done.
• With Schlatter NT theology returned full swing to a reaffirmation of those Reformation principles which gave rise to biblical theology and ultimately to NT theology as an individual discipline. Yet he did this at a much deeper level of awareness of what had been involved than had been true in the Reformers.
• The Reformation views and historical inquiry were both affirmed.
• Schlatter considered the work of Calvin's Institutes as more true to the New Testament than the historical investigations of his time.
• Schlatter affirmed Gabler's distinction between biblical theology and dogmatics but insisted the relationship between the two was dialectical rather than one-directional as Gabler had.
• This dialectical exchange between NT theology and dogmatics was necessary since
• dogmatic questions gave life to historical inquiry, and
• historical inquiry prevented dogmatics from becoming individualistic and arbitrary.
• Thus he raised a crucial question: What is a theology of the New Testament?
• Is it a theology of the New Testament in the sense of being understandable only by its own intention without its own framework, that is, by means of a positive response to its appeal as a religion?
• Or, is it a theology in the sense of the teachings of a religion, similar to many others in Hellenistic antiquity, which was only partially reflected in the New Testament and thus understandable only by making use of all available sources and by interpreting it as part of the general religious movement of the period?
• For Schlatter, it is not a theology in the strict sense of a coherent, logical, necessary system of ideas about God but it is theology as an integral part of a life of faith in all its aspects.

Questions for Discussion
1. How does the work of Schlatter relate to the developing discipline of New Testament theology?
2. Describe the contributions and limits of Schlatter to the discipline of New Testament theology.

Boers, Hendrikus. What is New Testament Theology? The Rise of Criticism and the Problem of a Theology of the New Testament. Volume in Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament Series, pp. 75-80. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.
Very important, detailed critique of Bultmann and his methodology.

Via, Dan O., Jr. What is New Testament Theology? Volume in Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament Series, 26-29, 59-71, 73-75, 84-93. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2002.
 

1.2.4.1 Biographical Background
 

Questions for Discussion
1. When and where was he born? When did he die?
2. Where did he teach?
3. What is this scholar most noted for accomplishing?
 

1.2.4.2 Contributions to New Testament Theology

Bultmann stands unquestionably as one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the twentieth century. At the same time, he is one of the most controversial scholars of this century. The following summarizes the discussion of Boers, pp. 75-80, of the contribution of Bultmann:

• Sachkritik and reine biblische Theologie
• With Gabler's concept of a reine biblische Theologie the stance was that theology has to be derived from the New Testament, since the New Testament does not contain a theology.
• This pure biblical theology can be gleaned by eliminating all the contingent, culturally bound elements from the core religious conceptions of primitive Christianity gleaned from the historical investigation of the NT authors and their writings and then systematically ordering them into a reine biblische Theologie.
• For Bultmann, Sachkritik targeted not the continguent form of expression but rather the subject of what was believed.
• Also a healthy tension between means of expression and content of expression was maintained.
• Thus Bultmann, for example, broke with the anti-supernatural bias of earlier scholars who automatically eleminated the supernatural elements from the gospel texts in their quest for the historical Jesus.
• For example, the miracles of Jesus, for him, had to be taken into account along side the sayings material. The critical issue was to probe behind the cultural limitations of the first century Christian perspective to see what the miraculous was trying to say, i.e., die Sache that lay beyond the ancient temporal event and how it was understood in the first Christian century. Beyond this lies a spiritual concept that has relevancy at any subsequent point of time in Christian experience.
• The means of getting to this deeper meaning was his demythologizing of the scripture text. That is, the stripping away of the layers of first century cultural understandings, the husk, so that one can get down to the core, die Sache that expresses timeless truth. The approach of the comparative study of religion from die religionsgeschichliche Schule provided one important means of stripping away the cultural husks.
• This ongoing tension found in the biblical texts provides a continuing challenge to the modern interpreter that prohibites any last word on text meaning and relevance. Every interpreter must repeatedly be engaged by the sacred texts in the process of comprehending the Sache in the text.
• The issue of a theology in the NT texts
• Like Schlatter, Bultmann believed the theological thinking in the NT texts grew out of living, not abstract thinking or reflection.
• For Bultmann, this theological thinking grew out of a new understanding of God, the world, and humanity which had been given in faith.
• Faith as foundational to conscious encounter with God through the resurrected, living Christ lay at the fountain head of the theological thinking that can be found in the New Testament documents.
• Theological thinking in the NT, in Paul especially, is not couched in an objectivized world as Enlightenment thinking had concluded. That is, theoretical thought has to grow out of imperical investigation of the material world and the postulation of cause and effect connections between things.
• At this point Bultmann adopted the view of the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead who defined philosophy as "a coherent, logical, necessary system of general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted."
• At the heart of Bultmann's view is the adoption of the existentialist philosophy of his colleague at Marburg, Martin Heiddeger.
• Some powerful implications emerge
• This conscious encounter with the divine in a given existential moment of existence is an individual matter, much more than a collective or group issue.
• Through this encounter the individual moves toward becoming an authentic person in which he or she regains some of what was lost in human sinfulness and broken relationship with God.
• Since Paul represents the first Christian to begin to think theologically, he became the focal point of study for Bultmann.
• For Bultmann, Paul's reflection on God through his encounter with the living Christ was also a statement about humanity at the same time.
• That is, an encounter with the divine forces a clearer, sharper exposure of one's self to his conscious awareness.
• But one must not describe Paul's religious thinking into a tightly organized system of thought, for Paul's thought is not derived through abstract reflection. Instead, it grew out of his religious experience. Thus variation of thought is to be expected in Paul. Only when one superimposes a systematic, unified thought structure down onto Paul does this variation become problematic.
• John is explored by Bultmann as next in line to Paul as a theological thinker in the New Testament. But John's interaction with Gnosticism sets the stage for Bultmann's discussion. John is reactionary, thus one has to explore the theology behind John in order to understand the theological thinking of John.
• Bultmann represents an advancement of Gabler's pure biblical theology agenda, but he took it in dramatically different directions that what Gabler had envisioned in 1787.

Questions for Discussion
1. How does the work of Bultmann relate to the developing discipline of New Testament theology?
2. Describe the contributions and limits of Bultmann to the discipline of New Testament theology.

1.2.5 Recent Trends
Sources to Consult:
Via, Dan O., Jr. What is New Testament Theology? Volume in Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament Series, 31-132. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2002.

What follows is an outline of Via's discussion illustrating the directions that New Testament theology have taken in the second half of the twentieth century. Via effectively shows how the earlier patterns that we have been studying have shaped the approaches of recent scholars who have attempted to set forth a theological understanding of the New Testament in terms of Gabler's

wahre biblische Theologie (1.2.5.1),
wahre biblische Theologie and reine biblische Theologie (1.2.5.2)
and reine biblische Theologie (1.2.5.3).

Questions for Discussion
1.  Write out a short one or two sentence summation of the essential thrust of each of the scholars listed below.
2.  List each scholar's publication or publications in which their theological understanding of the New Testament is set forth.

1.2.5.1 New Testament theology as a historical project
Sources to Consult:
Via, Dan O., Jr. What is New Testament Theology? Volume in Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament Series, 31-57. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2002.

1.2.5.1.1 The historical pursuit in the interest of objective knowledge
1.2.5.1.1.1 William Wrede
1.2.5.1.1.2 Krister Stendahl
1.2.5.1.1.3 Heikki Räisänen
1.2.5.1.1.4 Burton Mack
1.2.5.1.1.5 Walter Schmithals
1.2.5.1.1.6 Georg Strecker

1.2.5.1.2 The historical pursuit in support of theological claims
1.2.5.1.2.1 Joachim Jeremias
1.2.5.1.2.2 Oscar Cullmann
1.2.5.1.2.3 G.B. Caird
1.2.5.1.2.4 Peter Balla
1.2.5.1.2.5 James Barr

1.2.5.1.3 Eschatology
1.2.5.1.3.1 C.H. Dodd
1.2.5.1.3.2 Ernst Käsemann

1.2.5.1.4 Christology
1.2.5.1.4.1 Willi Marxsen
1.2.5.1.4.2 James D. G. Dunn

1.2.5.2 New Testament theology as historical and hermeneutical
Sources to Consult:
Via, Dan O., Jr. What is New Testament Theology? Volume in Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament Series, 59-93. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2002.

1.2.5.2.1 Rudolf Bultmann
1.2.5.2.2 James M. Robinson
1.2.5.2.3 John R. Donahue
1.2.5.2.4 Robin Schroggs
1.2.5.2.5 Robert W. Funk
1.2.5.2.6 N.T. Wright

1.2.5.3 New Testament theology as hermeneutical: postmodernism
Sources to Consult:
Via, Dan O., Jr. What is New Testament Theology? Volume in Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament Series, 95-107. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2002.

1.2.5.3.1 Postmodern Biblical Theology
1.2.5.3.1.1 Walter Brueggemann
1.2.5.3.1.2 A.K.M Adam
1.2.5.3.1.3 Stanley Hauerwas
1.2.5.3.1.4 John Dominic Crossan

Boers, Hendrikus. What is New Testament Theology? The Rise of Criticism and the Problem of a Theology of the New Testament. Volume in Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament Series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. (2 vols.) Trans. Kendrick Grobel. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951-1955.

Goppelt, Leonhard. "The Discipline: Its History and Range of Problems." Theology of the New Testament: Jesus and the Gospels. Volume 1 of 2 volumes. Translated by John E. Alsup. Edited by Jürgen Roloff, 1:251-281.  Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981.

Grech, Prosper. "Contemporary Methodological Problems in New Testament Theology." Biblical Theology Bulletin 2 (October 1972): 262-80.

Hasel, Gerhard F.  New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate.  Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978.

McDonald, James I. H. Biblical Interpretation and Christian Ethics. Cambridge [England] ; New York, NY, USA : Cambridge University Press, 1993.

McKim, Donald K. Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters.  Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Morgan, Robert, ed. The Nature of New Testament Theology: The contribution of William Wrede and Adolf Schlatter. Studies in  Biblical Theology, Second Series 25. Naperville, IL: ALex R. Allenson, 1973.

Schlatter, Adolf von. Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments und die Dogmatik. Güttersloh: Verlag von C. Bertelsmann, 1909. [Reprint: Schlatter, Adolf von. Zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments und zur Dogmatik: Kleine Schriften, 203-55. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1969. English translation: "The Theology of the New Testament and Dogmatics." Translated by Robert Morgan. The Nature of New Testament Theology: The contribution of William Wrede and Adolf Schlatter. Studies in  Biblical Theology, Second Series 25, 117-66. Naperville, IL: ALex R. Allenson, 1973.

Created by   a division of   All rights reserved©