” Sources fm Biblical and

I I neocogzcat xuayGeneral Editor:David W. Baker

Ashland Theological Seminary

1. The Flower&g of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-CenturyOld Testament Theology, 1930- 1990edited by Ben C. Ollenburger, Elmer A. Martens, and Gerhard F.Hasel

2. RPyond Form Criticism: Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticismedited by Paul R. House

3. A Song of Power and the Powm of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomyedited by Duane I,. Christensen

The Flowering of OldTestament Theology

A Reader in Twentieth-CenturyOld Testament Theology, 1930-1990

edited byBen C. Ollenburger

Elmer A. MartensGerhard F. Hasel

EisenbraunsWinona Lake, Indiana

1992

0 1992 by Eisenbrauns.All rights reserved.Printed in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The Flowering of Old Testament theology : a reader in twentieth-century OldTestament theology, 1930-1990 / edited by Ben C. Ollenburger, Elmer A.Martens, Gerhard F. Hasel.

P* cm.-(Sources for biblical and theological study ; 1)Includes bibliographical references and indexes.ISBN O-931 464-62-51. Bible. O.T.-Thcolo~~-History-‘LOth century. 2. Bible. O.T.-

Theology. 1. Ollenburgcr, Ben (:. II. Martens, E. A. III. Hasel,

Contents

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

vi

Walther Zimmerli . . . . . . . . . .Life before God

Ronald E. Clements . . . . . . . .Law and Promise

Walter C. Kaiser Jr. . . . . . . . . .Promise

. .

. .

. .

Samuel Lucien Terrien. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254Presence in Absence

Claus Westermann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276God’s Judgment and God’s Mercy

Elmer A. Martens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298Land and Lifestyle

Brevard S. Childs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321Canon

P a u l D . H a n s o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 6The Community of Faith

Part 3: The Way Forward:Old Testament Theology in the Twenty-first Century

Gerhard F. Hasel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373The Future of Old Testament Theology: Prospects and Trends

HartmutGese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384Tradition History

Walter Brueggemann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406A Shape for Old Testament Theology

Jon D. Levenson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427Creation and Covenant

Phyllis Trible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445Overture for a Feminist Biblical Theology

Rolf Knierim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465Systematic Old Testament Theology

Appendix

Johmr~ 1’. (iabler- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489An Oration on the Proper Distinction between Biblical andDogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each

so11 V(‘l’.\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503

IIIIIOX o/“l’ol,ic~., . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521

111tl,~x I)//\ rrtlror-ilicl.\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525

~II~KX o/ .%ri/,i II w / ~+wv~ CP.\ . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532

SERIES PREFACE

Old Testament scholarship is well served by several recent works which de-tail, to a greater or lesser extent, the progress made in the study of the Old‘l‘estament. Some survey the range of interpretation over long stretches ofrime, while others concern themselves with a smaller chronological or geo-graphical segment of the field. There are also brief entris into the varioussrlbdisciplines of Old Testament study included in the standard introduc-tions as well as in several useful series. All of these provide secondary syn-theses of various aspects of Old Testament research. All refer to, and basetllcir discussions upon, various seminal works by Old Testament scholarskvhich have proven pivotal in the development and flourishing of the vari-011s aspects of the discipline.

The main avenue into the various areas of Old Testament inquiry, es-pc,cially for the beginner, has been until now mainly through the filter of(hcse interpreters. Even on a pedagogical level, however, it is beneficialI’oI- a student to be able to interact with foundational works firsthand. This(‘ontact will not only provide insight into the content of an area, but hope-f’111ly will also lead to the sharpening of critical abilities through interac-tion with various viewpoints. This series seeks to address this need byincluding not only key, ground-breaking works, but also significant re-sl)onses to these. This allows the student to appreciate the process ofsc~llolarly development through interaction.

‘I’he series is also directed toward scholars. In a period of burgeoningkllowlcdge and significant publication in many places and languages:trotlnd the world, this series will endeavor to make easily accessiblesigtlificant, but at times hard to find, contributions. Each volume will con-l;lilj essays, articles, extracts, and the like, presenting in a manageablev 01~ the growth and development of one of a number of different as-[)c’c’ls of‘ Old Testament studies. Most volumes will contain previously pub-Ii\llc*ci material, with synthetic essays by the editor(s) of the individual\‘(lI11111(~. Some volumes, however, are expected to contain significant,

vii

. . .Vlll Series Preface

previously unpublished works. To facilitate access to students and schol-ars, all entries will appear in English and will be newly typeset. If studentsare excited by the study of Scripture and scholars are encouraged in ami-cable dialogue, this series would have fulfilled its purpose.

DAVID W. BAKER, series editorAshland Theological Seminary

EDITORS’ FOREWORD

Old Testament Theology as a scholarly discipline has had a lively history inthe twentieth century. Magisterial volumes appeared prior to mid-century;debate on methodology and the publication of scores of Old Testamenttheologies followed. At intervals the entire enterprise of setting out a the-ology of the Old Testament was lamented and described as being in crisis.Still, after some six decades the scholarly deposit is extensive.

This volume is especially an attempt to orient the student. By sam-pling the writing, the reader will better understand not only the issues butthe progress and the achievements. The book attempts something of agrand sweep through the century. An introductory essay in part 1 surveysrhe developments in former centuries that led to the issues addressed inthe classic essays by Otto Eissfeldt and Walther Eichrodt in the 1920s.These essays, now for the first time made available in English, set the stagefor further developments. In part 2 excerpts from selected authors shouldgive readers a feel, not only for variations in style, but, more important,fi)r varieties of perspectives. Some most insightful syntheses have been putfijrward. There is not, it must be said, unanimity on either method orstructure of the discipline. In part 3 a glimpse into fresh proposals isgiven. These, in one way or another, will shape the discussion for thetwenty-first century. So beyond an orientation for the student, this vol-l11ne, so the editors hope, will foster scholarly discussion.

For each of the fourteen authors in part 2, there are two types of ex-ccrpts. The first focuses on the author’s programmatic statement; the sec-ond offers a sample of the content of an Old Testament theology fromthat author’s point of view. Granted that Old Testament theology is occu-1)ic.d to see the “whole” Old Testament, excerpts will not do justice to an:lllthor’s larger conceptualization. But the justification for an excerpt is inI);lrl to whet the student’s appetite to consult the primary source. An in-Ic~q)retive overview by one of the editors introduces the author, presentsthe. setting, and highlights the nature of his contribution.

The editors attempted a balance in their choices of excerpts accordingt( ) u-i teria such as geographical balance (European/North American),l(~mporal balance (early/late in the century), and theological orientation.

ix

X Editor’s Foreword

Different editors would have made different selections; the subjective ele-ment is ever present. To keep the volume affordable for students, the ed-itors and publisher agreed to a selection of approximately twenty pagesper author, despite the greater influence of some scholars compared toothers. Representations from Asia or other continents, or from liberationor feminist perspectives, were seriously considered, but could not be in-cluded because of space limitations and other factors. At the outset largenumbers of periodical articles were reviewed as candidates for inclusion. Itwas then thought preferable in part 2 to provide excerpts only from com-plete monographs. Even so the project, stretching over four years, wasmore demanding than at first envisioned.

The excerpts have not been edited for gender-inclusive language, norhave the editors changed “Old Testament” to “Hebrew Scripture,” a desig-nation now current in academic circles. Clarifications or additions sup-plied by the editors are enclosed in double square brackets, as are originalpage numbers. A long omission is indicated by a line of spaced dots.

Aside from the general use of this reader to supplement class texts,the following are specific suggestions for its use in teaching. Studentsmight read selectively on methodology from the “approach” excerpts,write an initial summary, and follow that with a “supplement” from read-ings (say in Hasel 1991, Reventlow 1985, or Hogenhaven 1988). Studentsmight choose a “content” excerpt and develop or critique the relevanttopic. Or, as various themes are broached in class lectures, appropriatereadings by content might be assigned. Experience shows that studentshighly value the orientation essays.

Grateful acknowledgement is given to the publishers who gave per-mission to excerpt. David Baker, series editor, and Jim Eisenbraun fromthe publishing firm have been helpful coaches and allies. David Aiken, ed-itor at Eisenbrauns, has been meticulous with detail, creative in design,and helpful in numerous ways. Hans Kasdorf and Gordon Zerbe assistedwith the translation of the essays by Eissfeldt and Eichrodt. In her work atthe word-processor, Donna Sullivan was patient and cheerful, as well asefficient. Douglas Heidebrecht, a teaching assistant, made the task easierand the product better.

April 1990 BEN C. OLLENBURGERAssociated Mennonite Biblical Seminaties

ELMER A. MARTENS

Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary

GERl IARD F. HASEL

Theologkal Seminary, Andrews University

ABBREVL~TI~N~c

‘LT.EET

.I1,xXRITNF

NYNTOTf’fewR.V.

:\nBib:INEPANET

I’ASORf3K1stIv,( :frQ

( 1.1( :,JTI)f

xii Abbreviations

Ev. QuarterlyEv. Th./EvThFRLANT

Evangelical QuarterlyEvangelische TheologieForschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Altenund Neuen Testaments

HSMHSSIDBIDB, Suppl. Vol.

Harvard Semitic MonographsHarvard Semitic StudiesInterlpreer’s Dictionary of the BibleInte$rreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: SupPknenta~VolwrU?

In./Int/InterpJAOSJBLJJS

InterpretationJournal of the American oriental SocietyJournal of Biblical LiteratureJournal of Jewish Studies

JQR Jewish Quark+ Rev&wJSOTJWOS

Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentJournal of Theological Studies

MSL Materials for the Sumerian LexiconOTS Oudtestamtische Studi@nRHPR Revue d ‘histoire et de philosophic religieusesRTP Revue de thkologie et de philosophic

SJT Scottish Journal of Theoi$yStBib Studia Bib&a et Theologka (Pasadena)ThB Theologischx BiichxzreiTheol. Lit. Zt./ThLZ Th.eologisc~ Literaturza’tungThR Theologische RundschauThSt T~ologkche StudienTS Theological StudiesTWNT Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.) ,

Theologisches Wtierbuch zum Neuen TestamentTZIVTZATWiss/ZAWZT(h)K

Theologische ZkitschniftVetus TestamentumZeitschnfi fiir die Alttestam-entliche WissenschaftZeitschnift fiir Theologie und Kirche

Part 1Setting the Stage

From Timeless Ideas to theEssence of Religion

Method in Old Testament Theology before 1930

BEN C. OLLENBURGER-

In the Beginning

Biblical theology, including Old Testament theology, is marked by diver-sity and debate. That should not surprise us. In the course of two centu-ries disagreements are bound to emerge regarding the nature and task ofany academic discipline, as they have in our case. In our case, as withother disciplines, the reasons for disagreement are not only academic.One biblical theologian has suggested that it is because of “the currentcrisis in church and theology” that biblical theology commands a specialinterest. In such a situation, he says, “many different attempts at biblicaltheology will have their place.” In fact, he reports that scholars use theterm biblical theology to mean six quite different things, and he tries tochart his own course through this diversity.

One might expect that an account of Old Testament theology’s earlierhistory, such as I will offer in this chapter, would show how its current

RF \ C. OLLENBURGER was ban in Kansas in 1948 and graduated from California State University(I.ong Beach) and Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary (Fresno, California). He taught atTahor College (Hillsboro, Kansas) before studying for his doctorate in Old Testament atPrinceton Theological SeminaIy. Upon graduation in 1982 he continued as assistant professorat Princeton until 1987, teaching, among other courses, several on Old Testament Theology.Since 1987 he has been associate professor of Old Testament at Associated Mennonite BiblicalSeminaries in Elkhart, Indiana. His dissertation was published under the title Zion, th CiQ oftllp Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult (1987). His translations of articles by(Iaus Westermann and Walther Zimmerli appeared in Understanding the Wurd: Essays in Honoro/ Rernhard W. Anderson, of which he was also coeditor.

3

4 Ben C. 01knburger

diversity emerged over time. It seems, however, that the diversity was al-ready there at the beginning. The challenge to come to terms with that di-versity is a continuing one. Even though the quotations in the previousparagraph seem quite up to date, they are from the preface of a book byLudwig Friedrich Otto Baumgarten-Crusius, late professor of dogmatictheology in the University of Jena. His book, on “The Basic Characteristicsof Biblical Theology,” was published in 1828. It is somewhat dishearteningto realize that by the time biblical theology had come to be acknowl’edgedas a distinct area of study, about the time of Baumgarten-Crusius, its diver-sity was already confusing. It also means that we cannot look back to a timewhen everyone agreed what biblical theology was and what it should do.

In alluding to “the current crisis in church and theology,” Baumgarten-Crusius already gave some hint why there was so much disagreement aboutbiblical and Old Testament theology. From the beginning, biblical theolo-gians saw themselves addressing significant theological issues on behalf ofthe church. While they may have agreed that the church was in crisis, theydiffered about what the crisis was or how it should be resolved. And whilethey may have agreed that theology was in crisis, they differed about howtheology should use the Bible in resolving its crises. Those disagreementsmade it inevitable, right from the start, that biblical theology would be con-ceived in different ways. But despite these disagreements and the variousapproaches to biblical theology resulting from them, Baumgarten-Crusiuswas able to cite one unifying factor: biblical theology emerged togetherwith historical interpretation of the Bible. “The idea and the execution ofbiblical theology,” he says, “are joined essentially with historical interpre-tation, and each of them has developed in recent times in relation to theother” (1828: 4).

One of the eighteenth century’s most important intellectual contribu-tions was its emphasis on historical understanding. That emphasis had asignificant impact on arts and letters generally, and it was crucial for the-ology (Shaffer 1975). By the end of the eighteenth century it had becomeclear that historical interpretation - m o r e precisely, historical-c&c& in-terpretation-offered a fresh and different understanding of the Bible.More specifically, some Protestant theologians were convinced that his-torical interpretation of the Bible provided new and much more adequatefoundations for dogmatic (or systematic) theology. However, it remaineda matter of controversy exactly how those two, historical interpretationand dogmatic theology, should be related to each other. Biblical theologyemerged as a consequence of this controversy. In fact, it would not be toostrong to say that, at its beginning, biblical theology was this controversy; itwas an inquiry into the question how historical study of the Bible shouldrelate itself to dogmatic theology. Historical interpretation made biblical

From Timeless Ideas to the Essence of Religion 5

theology possible, and it posed at the same time the particular problemsthat biblical theology had to confront.

Baumgarten-Crusius was right: historical interpretation and biblicaltheology developed in relation to each other. Scholars often locate the be-ginning of that development in 1787, when Johann Philipp Gabler gavehis inaugural address as professor of theology in the University of Altdorf,Germany. In his address (reprinted below, pp. 489-502), and in laterpublications, Gabler proposed that biblical and dogmatic theology aredifferent tasks requiring different procedures. Biblical theology, he said,must come first. It consists of historical exposition of the Bible, whichtreats each biblical statement in terms of its author’s historical setting, fol-lowed by a philosophically informed explanation of those biblical state-ments; this explanation seeks to determine which of the biblical ideas orconcepts are abidingly true. The biblical ideas that pass the test of reason,those that are not merely historical or local, then provide the foundationfix- dogmatic theology (Ollenburger 1985).

This brief outline of Gabler’s proposal is sufficient to show that, forGabler, biblical theology’s problem consisted in determining what in theKible was of abiding validity, and how to present it in a way appropriate tothe Bible’s historical character. Gabler’s own solution was to combine the“grammatical-historical” interpretation of scripture with a theory of his-torical “development by stages” (Hartlich and Sachs 1952: 46). Accordingto this theory, which Gabler borrowed from the classical and biblicalscholars Heyne and Eichhorn, people in more primitive stages of develop-rnent expressed themselves in ways suited to their limited rational powers,namely, in mythical images. Interpretation has the task, then, of separat-ing the unchanging truth from the changing mythical imagery thatshrouds it. In the Bible’s case, it is important to determine where the au-thors of its various texts stand on the ladder of rational development.Once we see that its authors were using various mythical images, ratherthan writing like philosophers, we can extract the timeless truths from theimages and elaborate them in dogmatic theology. And then, according to(;abler, we will have a sure foundation on which to resolve the crises ofchurch and theology.

One possible implication of Gabler’s proposal is that the Old Testa-ment occupies a lower rung on the ladder of reason than does the New;:llier all, it is from an earlier era. Georg Lorenz Bauer was the first to drawthis implication, in the first published Old Testament theology, in 1796.I lis book carried the subtitle, “A Summary of the Religious Concepts ofthe Hebrews.” Bauer, who was for a time Gabler’s colleague in Altdorf, ar-gIled that the differences between the two testaments are decisive; a sepa-rate theology would have to be written for each of them. In his decision to

6 Ben C. Ollenburger

make Old Testament theology an undertaking of its own, Bauer antici-pated later nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholars. He anticipatedmany of them in at least three other respects as well. (1) For Bauer, OldTestament theology focused primarily on religious ideas or concepts.(2) He claimed that historical interpretation must trace the developmentof those ideas and interpret them in independence from dogmatic the-ology’s definitions. Only in that way would Old Testament (and then NewTestament) theology be able to reform dogmatics. (3) In the course oftheir development, in the Old Testament as in history generally, ideasmove from particular to universal, and it is these universal religious ideasthat are most important for the present. Bauer says that in the Old Testa-ment these universal ideas are to be found principally in Proverbs andJob, because their authors are the least concerned with particulars-withtheir own time, their own people, their own situation. (The same view ap-pears later, in Ludwig Noack 1853: 89-90.) Still, the Old Testament iseverywhere inferior to the New.

Bauer anticipated his nineteenth-century successors in still another re-spect: despite his insistence on the historical character of Old Testamenttheology, he arranges the ideas in strictly doctrinal categories. His two ma-jor categories are “theology, or the doctrine of God and his relation to hu-mankind,” and “anthropology, or the doctrine of humankind and itsrelation to God,” with an appendix on “Christology, or the doctrine of theancient Hebrews concerning the Messiah” (Bauer 1796). To deal with thisinconsistency between method and presentation, later editions of his bookincluded Bauer’s BeiZugen (“supplements”), which trace the Old Testa-ment’s religious ideas historically through the canonical books.

Philosophy and History

While Bauer set the tone for what followed, his successors tended to agreethat one of two problems afflicted Bauer’s Old Testament theology: eitherit was insufficiently historical, or it was theologically inadequate; someeven said it was both. They disagreed, however, about how to resolve theseproblems. His immediate successors tried to deal with Bauer’s theologicalinadequacy by placing Old Testament (or more often, biblical) theologywithin a comprehensive philosophical framework. The purpose of such aframework was hermeneutical: it served as a theory for the interpretationof the Bible.

Christoph Friedrich von Ammon set his Biblische Theologie (publishedin 1801-2, as the revised version of an earlier attempt in 1792) within theframework of lmmanuel Kant’s moral philosophy, and specifically of“Kantian hermeneutics” ( 180 1: xii). He did so cautiously, however, admit-

From Timeless Ideas to the Essence of Reli@‘on 7

ting that Kantian interpretation, on the basis of “pure practical reason,”was a “philosophical midrash” and a version of allegorical interpretation,;1s Gabler also argued. It tended to confer equal value, he said, on a the-ology of the Qur’nn, the Mishnah, and the I Ching, and “my hermeneuti-cal principles do not permit me to share in this multiplication oftheological profit” (1801: xii-xiii). Ammon’s goal was to provide a moreiidequate account of the biblical foundations of dogmatic theologythrough a critical study of the Bible. This would free it, he says, from the“nimbus of illusory ideas” with which previous dogmatic interpretationhad surrounded it (1801: 8). Ammon also recognized that there is a his-tory of development within the Old Testament, and thus a history of reve-lation, but he took almost no account of it. Instead, he treated individualdoctrines, citing the traditional proof texts and testing them against thecriterion of rationality. That criterion, understood in a Kantian moralsense, was crucial for Ammon, because only what is rational can be judgedrevelation and carried over into dogmatics.

Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette was much more self-conscious;lbout method than were either Bauer or Ammon. He opens his BiblischeI@matik (1813; third edition, 1831) with a lengthy discussion of the na-t ure of religion and the requirements for understanding its historical ex-pression in the Old Testament. He borrowed the terms of this discussionI’rorn the philosophical anthropology of Jakob F. Fries, another Kantian.I)e Wette was no less adamant than was Bauer that the Bible is a historicaldocument, but he argued that it is necessary to lay out a careful strategy, aIIlethod, in order to grasp correctly the Bible’s religious ideas in their pu-rity. Anthropology, in a strictly philosophical sense, provided such amethod. The subject matter of dogmatics is religion, said de Wette, andrcbligion is a part of human spiritual life. This anthropological startingpoint is grounded in the immediate “fact” of self-consciousness, which in-cludes a religious component. Self-consciousness itself thus yields “thel)ure idea of religion.” A theology, or a dogmatics, of the Old Testamentrrlust begin, then, with the “internal organization of the human spirit assllch” (de Wette 1831: 1). However, it must also include an investigation01‘ the laws and conditions under which the inner manifestation of reli-gion is expressed externally. These religious expressions stem from thec.onvictions, feelings, and faith of the Old Testament authors themselves.‘I‘his anthropological foundation then provided de Wette with a criticaltool f‘or recognizing the Old Testament’s pure religious ideas, and for dis-t illguishing them from the mixed historical forms in which they are( lot hed (1831: 30). This two-pronged strategy, which de Wette called bib-~I(xI theology’s anthropological and critical operations, uses “inner revela-lioll” -the pure idea of religion given in self-consciousness-as a critical

8 Ben C. Ollenburger

principle in the study of “external revelation.” Historical interpretation isthen an active effort to correct, by the criteria of internal revelation, thehistorical revelation of the Old Testament’s authors. De Wette’s goal wasexactly the same as Gabler’s, pursued according to a different strategy.

In pursuing Old Testament theology itself, de Wette begins by identi-fying the “fundamental idea on which everything depends,” and aroundwhich everything must be ordered (1831: 38). It is, he says, “the moralidea, free of myth, of one God as a holy will” (1831: 63). This decision de-termines the way de Wette presents the theology of the Old Testament.He first differentiates Hebraism from Judaism, which represents a reli-gious decline, and then distinguishes within Hebraism between its “idealuniversalism” and its “symbolic particularism.” Universal are the doctrinesof God and humankind, while particularism is identified with the theoc-racy: God’s particular relation to Israel. De Wette claimed that Israelshowed its tendency to misunderstand this particularism by reducing theuniversal character of God’s rule to nationalism, thus preparing the wayfor Judaism. In his discussion of the philosophical or hermeneuticalframework that guides his biblical theology, and in the execution of hisinterpretive strategy on the Old Testament, de Wette reflects idealism’scharacteristic interest in the abstract and universal, rather than the con-crete and particular. Idealism provided him a way to merge historical andtheological interpretation on behalf of dogmatics. It was also-and notonly in de Wette’s hands, lamentably-a weapon to wield against Judaism.

Gottlieb Philipp Christian Kaiser published the first volume of his BibZische TheoZogie in the same year as de Wette’s first edition, 1813. It is athoroughly eccentric book- Ludwig Diestel called it a “frightening carica-ture” (1869: 713; Hayes and Prussner 1985: 92) -but it casts in bold reliefthe effort of these early Old Testament theologians to find behind orabove the Old Testament, or within its authors, something more universaland thus, they thought, more purely religious. Kaiser did not borrow aphilosophy with which to devise a hermeneutical framework for interpret-ing the Old Testament; instead, he used religion itself. He subsumed theOld Testament under “the universal history of religion,” and then ulti-mately under “the universal religion.” The particularity of Old Testamentreligion, which Kaiser refers to as Judaism, can only be understood in re-lation to religion in general. It is then taken up, together with Christianityand all other particular religions, into what Kaiser calls a genuine “catholi-cism” (1813: 12). Like de Wette, Kaiser’s method relies on a relation anda distinction between internal and external. Revelation, he says, isgrounded in external facts, though not those of any one religion; butrevelation is grounded preeminently in internal facts, and thus in human-ity itself (1813: vii). By describing the “principal moments” of religion,

From Timeless Iakas to the Essence of Religion 9

putting particular religions in a critical, dialectical relation to each other,;lnd drawing random insights from philosophy, Kaiser goes on to parefrom the Old Testament the temporal ideas that must be left behind inthe universal religion of humanity.

Kaiser was the first to make comparative religion an essential part ofbiblical theology’s method. He drew on the features of various religionsto arrive at a description of religion itself, and he set the Old Testamentwithin that universal religion. To do so, Kaiser required new categories,:ind he invented his own. Thus, he speaks of geofetishology, anthropo-theology, cosmocraty, demonophany, and so on. He used this grotesquevocabulary, much as Ammon and de Wette used the vocabulary of phi-losophy and dogmatics, to get beyond the Old Testament’s particularityto what is universal, and thus valid in the present. Kaiser moved furtherthan either of the other two, however, into a vacant universalism thateven he could not abide. In the preface to the third part of his work,published eight years later, he abandoned his earlier views and an-nounced his commitment to “the word revealed in the Bible” (1821: iv).

It was a common complaint of Old Testament theologians in the nine-teenth century, and even later, that previous Old Testament and biblicaltheologies were insufficiently historical in character. The idealism ofKauer, Ammon, de Wette, and Kaiser, and the dogmatic interests of Am-man and de Wette, did tend to deny history any real importance. Towardthe end of his career, de Wette wrote a popular book whose title is, in En-glish, “Biblical History as the History of God’s Revelation” (1846). But bib-lical theologians continued to search for a genuinely historical approach tothe Old Testament, by which they usually meant one that was not decisivelyinfluenced by dogmatics. Baumgarten-Crusius, whom we already encoun-tered, made the first attempt in 1828, followed immediately by Carl PeterWilhelm Gramberg (1829-30). These two were overshadowed, however, inboth methodological clarity and influence, by Daniel George Conrad von(Xilln; his Biblische Theologie was published posthumously in 1836. Ciillnmodeled his presentation on de Wette, but he claimed that neither deWette nor anyone else had yet fulfilled the strictly historical requirements(11‘ Old Testament theology, requirements he believed had been laid downI)y Gabler. From Ciilln’s own work it is clear, however, that what he really()pposed was the use of philosophical categories. His understanding of Old‘1 ‘c%ament theology’s task- to differentiate the universal from the particu-IX, or the “inexact forms of representation” from the “pure concepts” hid-(1c.n in them (1836: 11)-otherwise hardly differed from de Wette’s. AsI~:l~ler had done, Ciilln argued that these judgments can and must be madet)v historical criticism itself, and not by means of philosophical or dogmatic(‘;ilcgories, or on the basis of their criteria. Historical criticism, Ciilln says,

10 Ben C. Ollenburger

follows the Old Testament’s religious concepts, through the process oftheir formation and development, into the New Testament. It is only in theNew Testament, however, that these religious concepts are deepened andbroadened to form the basis of a “universal religion” (1836: 4).

Old Testament theology was for Clilln, as also for de Wette andBaumgarten-Crusius, the first chapter of historical theology (Dentan1963: 33) and part of the foundation of dogmatics-or, as Cijlln pre-ferred to say- of systematic theology. As part of historical theology, orthe history of dogma (C611n 1836: 4)) biblical theology determines whichof the Old Testament’s religious concepts actually belonged, originally, toChristianity, and how they developed historically (1836: 7). As the foun-dation of systematic theology, biblical theology tries to derive the OldTestament’s concept of religion from the textual sources in which it lieshidden. Since the biblical sources clothe their religious concepts in im-ages, it is crucial to “illumine these inexact forms of representation (sym-bol, myth, accommodation) according to their essence,” and thus todetermine their meaning (1836: 11). But biblical theology stops there.“Any attempt to further develop the meaning determined in this way, toapply it, to confirm the notion itself according to its inner truth, to estab-lish its harmony with other kinds of philosophical or dogmatic-ecclesiastical concepts, lies outside the sphere of genuine interpretationand cannot be designated as such” (1836: 11).

It would seem that by 1836, biblical theology had made little progressbeyond Gabler’s programmatic description of its task in 1787. In particu-lar, it had failed to resolve the issue of its relation to history on the oneside, and philosophy or theology on the other. The result was a method-ological tension between historical approaches, such as those of Bauerand C611n, and more philosophical or theological approaches, such asthose of Ammon and de Wette. This tension was resolved or sublated in ahigher unity- aufgehoben, as he put it -by Johann Karl Wilhelm Vatke inReli@on des Alten Testamentes, the only volume of a proposed six-part bibli-cal theology he was able to publish. It was published in 1835, the year be-fore Cijlln’s. If Baumgarten-Crusius thought the crisis in church andtheology made biblical theology especially interesting, Vatke proved thatthe church may not be at all interested in what biblical theologians pro-duce. Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Vatke’s conservative Old Testamentcolleague at the University of Berlin and an influential church leader, sawto it that Vatke would retain his teaching post only on condition that hepublish nothing more on biblical theology (Br6mse 1984). Hengstenberghimself had come to Berlin after de Wette was dismissed for expressingsympathy to the mother of a political assassin (Pliimacher 1987). Old Tes-tament theology has not always been just a staid academic discipline.

From Timeless Ideas to the b&nce of Religion 11

A close friend of Vatke wrote concerning the “standpoint” of FriedrichSchleiermacher, another Berlin faculty member, that “nowadays one hearseven ecclesiastical authorities speak from this perspective-certainly thesurest proof that it has been superseded.” Vatke believed that his Old Tes-tament theology genuinely superseded its predecessors, and he was right.Ilnfortunately for Vatke, this supersession depended on a radical historicalc,riticism and a philosophy inspired by Hegel. On both counts, Vatke andtlis friend-David Friedrich Strauss- earned the wrath of ecclesiastical au-thorities (Strauss 1977: 4). Old Testament theology must be historical,\‘atke argued, because it pursues the idea of Old Testament religionthrough the “principal moments” of its historical development, and be-cause this development occurs in and through historical, religious repre-sentations. But historical criticism by itself is subjective; it is not concernedwith truth, because it is not properly scientific (1835: 156). Only relativeobjectivity is possible, Vatke argued, sounding a decidedly modern note,\irice objectivity is “restricted by the period’s stage of consciousness” (1835:i 4). We can only attain relative objectivity, because our objectivity is limitedI)v our situation in history. Even at that, historical criticism can only achievesc’ientific status (and relative objectivity) if it is taken up into a philosoph-ically grounded conceptual analysis. Hegel provides the tools for such an,malysis, which is scientific because it comprehends the most universal ho-rizon possible, which is to say, history as a completed whole. Conceptualanalysis will necessarily be historical, because the concept of a religion isrlnfolded in a historical dialectic: the subjectivity of the concept itself andI he objectivity of its manifestations are aufgeehoben-sublated-in the idea(1 he unity of subject and object) of Israel’s religion. Since the same dialec-I ic occurs in the “knowing subject”- the biblical theologian, in this case-the subjectivism of historical criticism is overcome. And since the pursuit ofthis dialectic simply is the scientific form of understanding, the formalclifl’erences among biblical, historical, and systematic theology are them-halves overcome. In this way, Hegelian philosophy provided Vatke’s herme-ncutical framework for understanding the history of Old Testamentrc,ligion theologically.

While Vatke’s Old Testament theology has the longest philosophicalI)reface in the history of the discipline, it was also the first to have a thor-orcghly historical character. He thus achieved a greater harmony betweenIn

12 Ben C. Olbnburger

within a comprehensive framework, without losing sight of the theologicalwork he was doing. In arguing that Israel’s religion reached its zenith inthe postexilic period, Vatke disagreed with those-including Hegel andmost everyone else-who characterized this period as one of religious de-cline (into Judaism). And, in emphasizing the need to understand Israel’sreligion from the perspective of its completed history, he paved the wayfor many who came later. His Hegelian language is dense and in many re-spects as forbidding as Kaiser’s, as this summary will have demonstrated,but Vatke’s brilliance and the synthesis he achieved between philosophy(or hermeneutics) and historical criticism have not been exceeded in thediscipline from which he was banned.

Salvation History and History of Religion

Vatke’s synthesis did not survive him-Bruno Bauer’s similarly Hegelianwork took no account of historical criticism-but his view of history’s theo-logical importance reappeared, without an explicitly Hegelian framework,among a series of conservative scholars oriented to “salvation history”:Steudel, Havernick, Oehler, Hofmann, and Schultz (in the first edition,1869). This group was influenced, to varying degrees, by a mixture of mys-tical pietism and historical speculation drawn from Cocceius, Bohme, Oet-inger, and Bengel (Diestel 1869: 698-708). Since this influence was rootedin Wiirttemberg and Tubingen, it is not entirely surprising that Hegel andSchelling absorbed it as well (Toews 1980: 13-26; Benz 1983)) or that Steu-del, Oehler, and especially Hofmann sound very much like Hegel andSchelling even while opposing them (or without having read them).

Central to these “salvation historians”-the term salvation history ap-pears for the first time in Hofmann’s Weissupng und E$iZZung (1841-44:1:8)-are the origin of the history of Israel and of the world in the activityand decree of God; the importance of the “facts” of God’s activity in Is-rael’s history, which forms an organic whole; the consequent conceptionof Old Testament theology as historical in nature; the actual or virtualcorrespondence between the Old Testament narrative and history; and,finally, participation in the spirit of revelation-or God’s spirit ratherthan the human spirit, as in de Wett.e (Steudel 1840: 2)-as the conditionfor understanding the history of revelation (Oehler 1845: 32-34; Schultz1869: 72). Despite their emphasis on history, and even on the narrativeand canonical form of the Old Testament (Steudel 1840: 11-19)) Steudel,Havernick, and Oehler were unable to achieve consistency between thatmethodological emphasis and their actual presentation of Old Testamenttheology. As we have seen, that inconsistency afflicted Old Testament the-oloby since G. L,. Bauer, with the exception of Vdtke.

From Timdess I&as to the Essence of Religion 13

Hofmann was another exception. Johann Christian Konrad von Hof-mann wrote no separate Old Testament theology. He regarded all of the-ology, like history, to be one organic whole. Its starting point is the one“fact” of which every Christian- but only every Protestant Christian!-isimmediately and thus indubitably certain: reconciliation with God, medi-ated in Christ. Theology, then, has a threefold task. Systematic theologyconsists in an exposition of the one fact of which a Christian is certain.Biblical interpretation is the scientific proof of systematic theology’s expo-sition, and it provides a critical norm for judging the history of thechurch. In the mutual agreement among these three-systematic the-ology, biblical interpretation, and church history-Christian self-certaintybecomes scientific certainty (Hofmann 1879: 33).

According to Hofmann, the necessary presupposition of Christianself-certainty (communion with God mediated in Christ) is a relationwithin the Trinity, among the Father, Son, and Spirit, that involves bothunity and differentiation-or objectification. All of history, from theworld’s creation to its consummation, is a historical manifestation of thedivine self-differentiation (1852-56: 1:36, 234). Within universal historythere occurs salvation history, a set of events that achieves the Son’s rec-onciliation with the Father and humankind’s reconciliation with God. Sal-vation history is the meaning of universal history, and each of its discreteevents, narrated in the Bible, occupies its own necessary place. Thus, thewhole of salvation history is the essential framework for understandingany particular text. Hofmann was not a fundamentalist; he acknowledgedthat the Bible contains errors, and that what it says about some historicalevent may not be literally true. What is and must be true, at a symboliclevel, is what the Bible says about the relation of certain events to salvationhistory. Faith is able to determine the truth of what the Bible says, becausefaith knows what it is certain of (Hofmann 1959). Faith’s certainty is im-mediate, and thus absolute.

In Hofmann’s theology, then, there is a perfect symmetry among(a) that of which Christians are certain, (6) the presuppositions of thatcertainty spelled out by systematic theology, and (c) the salvation historyrrarrated in the Bible. The historical form of the Bible is not accidental; itis necessarily analogous to God’s trinitarian history, which expands andunfi>lds itself into the world’s history and then Israel’s. For Hofmann, bib-lical theology is thinking in our relation to God, not about it; hence, its re-liltion to systematic theology is organic, not something to be consideredsc*parately. No one before or after Hofmann achieved such a thorough in-rcagration of historical interpretation of the Bible and systematic theology.Whether he brought Gabler’s programmatic distinctions to fruition, or\imply betrayed them, is a matter ofjudgment.

14 Ben C. Olhburger

Hofmann and the salvation historians were soon overshadowed by thehistorians of religion-in the first place, by Julius Wellhausen. The careerof Hermann Schultz illustrates this development. In 1863, Schultz editedHavernick’s work, which was firmly within the salvation-history school, andthe first edition of his own Old Testament theology (1869) reflectsSchultz’s relation to the salvation historians. In the second edition (1878),however, he accepted Wellhausen’s (and Vatke’s) late dating of the law,and in subsequent editions he moved still further toward history of reli-gion (which is the name of a method or approach, Religionsgeschichte, andnot just of a field of study). The first to conceive Old Testament theologypurely as the history of Israel’s religion was August Kayser, in 1886; the sec-ond and subsequent editions of his work were written by Karl Marti, whochanged the title of the third edition from “The Theology of the Old Tes-tament” (Kayser 1886) to “The History of Israelite Religion” (Marti 1897).

After the turn of the century, the term history of religion was associatedwith a group of younger scholars whose chief Old Testament representa-tive was Hermann Gunkel. The history-of-religion school, which was asso-ciated with the University of Giittingen, raised fundamental questionsabout Old Testament theology. Gunkel was not opposed to theology; infact, he said explicitly that “biblical exegesis is theological exegesis” (1913:24). But theology, according to Gunkel, is concerned with religion andnot with doctrine or dogmatics. Since Gabler the task of Old Testamenttheology had been defined in some kind of relation to dogmatics. If dog-matics is no longer a proper concern of theology, then Old Testamenttheology has lost much of its rationale. For Gunkel, a genuinely theologi-

~ cal interpretation of the Old Testament will avoid dogmatics in favor ofreligion, and religion is fundamentally piety. Interpretation of the OldTestament will thus seek to penetrate to the “inner life” of its authors(1913: 25).

This marks a radical departure in the history of Old Testament the-ology. Beginning with Gabler and G. L. Bauer, Old Testament theologyhad been concerned above all with ideas. Even for Vatke, the most radi-cally historical of Old Testament theologians, historical study is concq!hmZanalysis. And Hofmann, the preeminent salvation historian, acknowl-edged that in the Bible history becomes doctrine. Historical interpreta-tion and biblical theology belong together, in Baumgarten-Crusius’sterms, because historical interpretation makes it possible to understandthe Bible’s concepts. Gunkel reverses all of this. The goal of interpretationis not just to understand the ideas of a text, he says, but to understandthem as the “expressions of a living, vital soul. , . . It is thus the living per-son, in its willing and thinking, in the variety of its whole spiritual being,which is the real object of all exegesis” (1913: 12-13). With respect to the

From Timdess Ideas to the Essence of Religion 15

religion of the Bible, says Gunkel, the task is “to understand this religionin its depth and breadth, to trace it through its winding course, to bepresent at the birth of its deepest thoughts” (1926-27: 533). Thosethoughts mattered less to Gunkel than did the “inner life,” the piety, thatproduced them.

The Renewal of Old Testament Theology

Wellhausen and Gunkel helped bring Old Testament theology to a stale-mate. Bernhard Stade, a friend and follower of Wellhausen, wrote an OldTestament theology as late as 1905, but it served more to illustrate than toresolve the problems Old Testament theology faced. According to Stade,Old Testament theology is nothing more nor less than “the history of reli-gion under the Old Covenant” (1905: 1). Its task is to determine the ori-gin and content, as well as the conceptual structure, of the faith ofJudaism, which is “the historical presupposition of Christianity” (1905: 2).He also wanted to distinguish those dimensions of Israel’s faith whose de-velopment can be traced into Judaism but were not taken up by Jesus andthe apostles. On either account, “the New Testament is the best source forthe theology of the Old Testament” (1893: 93). In his emphasis on faithand religion over against doctrine, and in his insistence that Old Testa-ment theology is identical with the particular history of the religion thatprecedes Christianity, Stade reflected the influence of Wellhausen and, toa lesser degree, Gunkel.

At the same time, other scholars were asking whether Old Testamenttheology, pursued along lines laid down by Wellhausen and Gunkel, wasadequate to its task. Once more, this was not only an academic issue.Stade himself felt it necessary to insist on the importance, to Christianity,of affirming that the Old Testament “contains revelation” (1905: 15).Other Christians were denying just that. A few years later, Adolf von Har-nack urged that the Old Testament be removed from the Christian canon(Hayes and Prussner 1985: 153). In such an environment it was unclearhow, or whether, Old Testament theology as the history of Israelite reli-gion could respond to “the current crisis in church and theology.” The re-slllt was a renewed debate about how to proceed.

Justus Kijberle (1906) argued that the presuppositions of the history-of.-religion school were at odds with Christian faith. Old Testament the-olo~~, he said, must deal with the Old Testament as the revelation of God,:~nd not just as a series of preliminary steps to the New Testament. Thus,lrcs advocated a turn from history of religion to a revised form of salvationllistory, one that takes modern historical scholarship seriously withoutIll:tking it the measure of Christian faith. Rudolf Kittel (1921) complained

16 Bf?n c. ouaburger

that the history-of-religion scholars, with their emphasis on comparativematerial, made it seem as if extra babylonem nulla salus (outside of Babylonthere is no salvation; 1921: 96). What is needed, he said, is a systematicOld Testament theology that employs a philosophy or dogmatics of reli-gion to penetrate to the essence of religion and its truth. “It must finallyseek to fathom the secret of its divine power” (Kittel 1921: 96). Kiiberle isas reminiscent of Hofmann as Kittel is of de Wette.

Willy Staerk (1923) saw the flaw in history of religion’s approach toOld Testament theology as consisting in its concentration on factual mat-ters, and its failure to arrive at the essentials of Old Testament religion. Itcould only achieve this if it were to relate “the religious object, graspedphenomenologically, to the totality of the religious idea” (1923: 290). Thereligious object has to be “thought through” philosophically, which canonly happen if Old Testament theology is a component of systematic the-ology, “which it was from the beginning and which it must remain” (1923:290). While Staerk urges a combination of historical and philosophicalstudy, philosophy has precedence: inquiry begins with the phenomenonof religion and then follows the unfolding of its rational structure in his-tory. What this means, concretely, is that Old Testament theology graspsthe basic religious experience of Moses and follows its unfolding in Is-rael’s history. By “unfolding” Staerk means a combination of historical de-velopment and revelation: God’s self-mediation through the instrumentof (usually prophetic) personality. Israel’s religious history thus developedintrinsically, and not by force of external causes, to higher degrees of pu-rity from the founding religious idea. As Staerk inelegantly put it, “Reli-

gion is the transcendental unity of apperception in the experience of theunconditioned-personal as a synthetic a /n-iori n (1923: 292).

Staerk’s convoluted language obscures a very simple notion: Moseswas the founder of Israel’s religion because he had a uniquely immediateexperience of God, and Israel’s religion is the progressive unfolding of itsfounder’s experience. That simple notion later became the basis ofWalther Eichrodt’s theology. Perhaps having read Staerk, Carl Steuerna-gel (1925) suggested that, while Old Testament theology should offer asystematic presentation of Israelite religion, it should do so strictly in cate-gories drawn from historical analysis of the Old Testament. Neither OldTestament theology’s categories nor its methods should be borrowedfrom philosophy, or from dogmatics.

In the early years of this century, Old Testament theology’s problemswere often credited to the history-of-religion approach that dominatedbiblical studies. Steuernagel says, with reference to Gabler, that “If it wasthen necessary to free biblical theology from the shackles of dogmatics, soit is time now . . . to free Old Testament theology from the shackles of Old

From Timeless Ideas to the Essence of Religion 17

Testament history-of-religion” (1925: 266). Whether or not Steuernagelwas right in this judgment, he reflects a common point of view. WhatSteuernagel and his peers did not entirely recognize was the degree towhich assumptions about Old Testament theology’s very task had changedsince Gabler’s programmatic essay. For Gabler, and for many who fol-lowed him, the task of biblical theology consisted in determining which ofthe Bible’s ideas were universal and had abiding validity, and in distin-guishing them from those ideas that were merely particular or historical.By the time of Steuernagel, the task of Old Testament theology wasthought to consist much more in penetrating to, or grasping, the essenceof Israel’s religion. Rather than causing this change in definition, historyof religion was a reflection of it. This change in assumptions about OldTestament theology’s task was a product of the coordination between bib-lical theology and historical interpretation that Baumgarten-Crusiusnoted in 1828. However, it was not until Old Testament theologians at-tended to the subjective dimension of history that the change occurred.The most liberal (Vatke 1835) and the most conservative or confessional(Hgvernick 1848; Hofmann 1852-56) theologians agreed on this subjec-tive dimension, but they construed it differently. For Vatke, it involves thelocation of both the interpreted object (the texts) and the interpretingsubject (the theologian) within the dialectical history of the Spirit (Geist).For Hofmann, it involves the certainty of the interpreting subject (thetheologian) regarding her or his participation in the trinitarian history ofreconciliation. For both liberals and conservatives, an emphasis on historyserved to divert attention from timeless or abiding concepts to the web ofhistory, and thus to historical subjects. For a conservative like Hgvernick, itbecame important to emphasize the “acts of God” and not just doctrines,and specifically to emphasize the subjective effects of these acts, whichreflect different stages of “religious consciousness” (1848: 17). For an-other conservative, Steudel, the “facts” of revelation in the Old Testamenta-e more important than its religious concepts, or the religious conscious-ncss that lies behind them, because the facts of revelation are the sourceof’ both concepts and consciousness (1840: 18-19; cf. Riehm 1889: 8-10).

Whether working from the most liberal or the most conservative%mdpoint, Old Testament theologians gradually undermined Gabler’sI)rogram and made history of religion both possible and sensible. Evenwhen Walther Eichrodt casts his Theo@y of the Old Testament explicitly as arcbpudiation of history of religion, he proceeds on assumptions that squarec%xactly with those of his opponents. Ernst Troeltsch, in his essay of 1913011 the dogmatics of the history-of-religion school, says that this school re-~~~1s “the entire territory of Christian life and thought as a gradual un-li)lding of an immanent impelling power or fundamental ideal, realizing

18 Ben C. Ollenburger

itself in historical Christianity. This ideal, or this ‘essence’ persisting in allspecific manifestations, might then be taken as the subject-matter and thenormative principle of dogmatics” (1913: 11-12). Eichrodt would latertalk in virtually the same terms about Old Testament theology (see below,pp. 71-78). There were disagreements of course, but these turned on howthe interpreter or theologian could get in a position to grasp the religiousessence, not whether religious essence was the proper goal of theology.More specifically, the parties disagreed about whether grasping the reli-gious essence of the Old Testament’s historical content is itself a matter ofhistorical interpretation, or whether it requires a separate, theological op-eration apart from historical interpretation. Without the philosophicalhermeneutics of someone like Vatke, or the theological hermeneutics ofsomeone like Hofmann, it seemed impossible that historical interpreta-tion or inquiry could itself grasp the sought-for essence. If that is the case,and if Old Testament theology does seek the religious essence of Israelitereligion, then Old Testament theology cannot be a historical discipline.

This, then, was the state of the question by 1930. It is the questionthat Walther Eichrodt debated with Otto Eissfeldt. (See the translations oftheir ZAW articles below, pp. 20-39.) Eissfeldt, the historian, urged asharp distinction between the history of Israelite (and Jewish) religionand Old Testament theology (1926). They employ two different ap-proaches, he says, which correspond to different functions of the humanspirit: active knowing and passive believing. History of religion is objective,although it depends on an “empathetic reliving” of its object (p. 27 be-low), and it makes no judgments about validity or truth. Old Testamenttheology, on the other hand, cannot be a historical inquiry, because it isconcerned with what is timelessly or abidingly true, as determined by aparticular (Christian) confession. Eissfeldt bases this argument on the as-sumption that historical-critical research cannot penetrate to the “properessence” of Old Testament religion, and is thus unable to answer thequestions of faith assigned to Old Testament theology.

Eichrodt, the theologian, answered that Eissfeldt’s view, while preserv-ing the integrity of history of religion, compromises that of Old Testa-ment theology by removing it from the framework of Old Testament andhistorical inquiry generally (1929). In opposition to Eissfeldt, Eichrodtclaimed that historical investigation can get to the essence of Old Testa-ment religion. But Eichrodt redefined the “essence” of the Old Testamentas the “deepest meaning of its religious thought world that historical in-vestigation can recover” through an analysis that cuts across the varioushistorical levels in the Old Testament (see p. 33 below). In other words,since “essence” is whatever historical inquiry can recover, historical in-quiry, as a matter of definition, can recover the essence of Old Testament

From Timeless Ideas to the Essence of Religion 19

religion. Much of what Eissfeldt included within Old Testament the-ology-questions of truth and faith -Eichrodt assigned to dogmatics. Onthe other hand, however, he ascribed to historical investigation a distinctlytheological character: all historical research presupposes a subjective mo-Inent, he claims, and the interpreter’s Christian confession provides thecontent of that moment in Old Testament theology-thus, it must beconsidered a legitimate part of historical scholarship.

The debate between Eissfeldt and Eichrodt shows the extent to whichrhe historical and subjective emphases of previous theologians, the mostconservative and the most radical, came together by 1930. It may be thatEichrodt is responsible for keeping Old Testament theology within thesphere of historical scholarship. On the other hand, we may wonderwhether he has done so by infusing history with too heavy a dose of the-ology. However we decide those questions, it should help us in readingthese essays to recall that the debate took place amid great theologicalc.ontroversy - s o m e of which Eissfeldt discusses in his very lengthy first!i)otnote -and in the troubled years of the Weimar Republic, just prior tothe most strenuous and murderous efforts to eliminate the Jews, and withthem the “Old Testament.” The debate was not only academic.

OTTO EISSFELDT

The History of Israelite- JewishReligion and Old Testament

Theology

[l] The tension between absolute and relative, between transcendenceand immanence, is the current problem of theology. For biblical scholar-ship, this general problem is reduced to a particular one: history and reve-lation. It is with this problem that the study of both Testaments, of the Newjust as of the Old, has to grapple, and a new solution must be foun’d thatapplies fundamentally to both. However, particular matters in the Old Tes-tament differ from those in the New, so that a treatment restricted to theOld Testament is legitimate. The question, then, is whether the religion ofthe Old Testament is to be understood and presented as a historical entitylike other religions of antiquity, and thus in terms of the history of Israelite-

’ Jewls- h 1-g’re 1 ion, or as a religion which is, even if in some limited way, thetrue religion, the revelation of God, and thus-so the term will be under-stood here-as “Old Testament theology.”

In the last three decades, the question has been debated repeatedly.Even if that has taken place most often in a way that has gone beyond theOld Testament and put the Bible as a whole or Christianity at the center,from the general answers given here those that apply particularly to the OldTestament can be immediately derived. Two conceptions stand over againsteach other. The one, the historical or the scientijk study of religion, requiresthat the religion of the Old Testament be investigated by the same meanswith which historical scholarship otherwise works: linguistic and historical-critical mastery of the sources, and analysis of their content on the basis of

Translated and reprinted with permission from Otto Eissfeldt, “Israelitisch-jiidische Reli-gionsgeschichte und Alttestamentliche Theologie,” Zeitschrijl fiit. die Alttitamentticb Wissen-schaft 44 ( 1926) 1-12. Translated by Ben C. Ollenburger.

20

The Histq of Israelite-Jewish Religion and Old Testament Theology 21

;m empathetic personal reliving. However, this conception understands thevaluation of Old Testament religion, and the question of its truth alto-gether, as matters [2] of personal conviction; science does not proceed thatfar. The other conception, the theological (in the narrow sense of the term)or churchly, claims on the other hand that perception of the true essence ofOld Testament religion merely by application of the otherwise typical meth-ods of historical investigation is impossible. Rather, it discloses itself only tofiiith, and that is something different from empathetic reliving; it consists,namely, in being overwhelmed and humbled in inner obedience to thatwhich has taken hold of oneself. Accordingly, in Christian theology the de-cisive contents of the Old Testament will be determined on the basis of(:hristianity, while the Old Testament will be joined to the New, and theISible will be interpreted from a foundational experience, naturally of a(lhristian sort, whether this be called religious-moral renewal or justifica-rion by faith or the revelation of God in Jesus or something else. WhateverIMS gone into belief in the Old Testament as the revelation of God is pre-c.isely what has to be treated by Old Testament theology.

Prior to the [First] World War these two conceptions, the historical;tnd the theological, somewhat counterbalanced each other, but in such away that the historical appeared to be “modern.” But after the war, thesituation has changed completely. Among those who have since expressedI hemselves on these matters, the overwhelming majority have declared thehistorical study of the Bible, and thus also of the Old Testament, to be an-t iquated and outmoded, and they enlist on the side of the theological con-c,cption, to which the present and the future belong. Weary of theIlistoricism, the psychologism, and the relativism of the scientific-study-of-r-c>ligion method, one yearns for revelation and demands a scientific treat-tncnt of the Bible that does justice to its claim to be revelation of absoluteivorth -namely, the theological. Especially the representatives of dialecti-(~1 theology have expressed this demand. But they have not yet gone muchl)cLyond criticism of the old and the basic demand for something new.ILlore precise expositions of how the scientific presentation of the religion( )I‘ the Bible or of the Old Testament should now be done have not yet ap-IKX~~.’ Alongside the representatives of dialectical theology it has been

I. Worth noting are the statements in Eduard Thurneysen’s article on “Schrift und( )I Ic.11 barung” (Ztixk da Z&en 2 [ 19241 l-30)) and in Karl Barth’s article on “Das Schrift-~~litl/ip der reform&ten Kirche” (Ztich da Z&m 3 [1925] 215-45). I can agree with a\\11(& series of Thurneysen’s propositions, since they are congruent in their intention withIIll N’ I will set out. Propositions such as these:

II is characteristic of the so-called historical-critical school of the past decade that itIras at least made a point of putting into practice the method of historical-psychological interpretation, which during the course of the past century has

22 Otto Eissfeldt

[r30 theologians of a conservative bent like Girgensohn and Procksch whohave recently taken up the struggle against the scientific-study-of-religiontreatment of the Bible. In its place they propose treating it pneumatically,wherein the concept pneumatic is nearly identical with what has beenidentified previously as theological in the narrower sense. One of the two,Procksch, has also shown how this proposal is to be worked out when ap-

universally prevailed in the treatment of historical problems. . . . None of us canany longer retreat behind this historical-psychological view. . . . What has to be as-serted against liberal theology is this: that it has never taken up. . . the questionposed to it in the biblical claim of revelation. And yet, precisely this theologywould have been in a unique position to approach the problem of revelation,based on the only correct assumption; namely, that revelation as such can neverbe established in the domain of historical events. . . . A revelation that must be de-fended on rational grounds-that, indeed, can really only ever be so defended-is no revelation. This attempted defense has always been made, however, and al-ways will be made. It is the essential characteristic of that which is called ortho-doxy. Orthodoxy is precisely the attempt. . . to confirm revelation. The under-standing of revelation marks a transcendence of liberalism and orthodoxy; it is thecrisis of them both.

And very similar expressions are found in Barth’s article. But since revelation is thenequated with the canon, and thus with a historical entity, and the correlative relation of thetwin concepts, revelation and faith, is thereby sundered, the promising beginning is nippedin the bud. This can already be seen in Thurneysen, when he says:

The same claim of revelation is also the secret of the New Testament, the meaningof the prophets and that of the Psalms, of Job, and of the historical books. Andeven if often so dimmed as to be unrecognizable, it extends to the farthest mar-gins of the Bible. . . . This claim has found its unequivocal and powerful expres-sion in the fact of the canon.

But this is much clearer in Barth:

Even if the individual reader is able, in light of his own understanding, to distin-guish between the center and the periphery of the Bible, between what he “expe-riences” and something else that he has not “experienced,” between what in hisjudgment “promotes Christ,” as Luther put it, and something else where he judgessuch to be missing, the distinctions that result from such considerations may in noway have the character of distinctions in principle. With Cod it is not a matter ofmore or less, but of either-or. The Reformed Church has long since laid specialemphasis on this determination. It has fundamentally disapproved Luther’s impe-rious way of arranging, on the basis of a most individually conditioned dogmatics,a kind of selected Bible. And we believe that in so doing, it has done well.

Here the bond between faith and revelation is completely sundered, because whatBarth calls Luther’s most individually conditioned dogmatics is, in truth, faith. Thus, alsoamong the representatives of dialectical theology the two different modes of consideration,that from the outside (the historical) and that from within (from faith), are not held strictlyapart. Moreover, it is significant that in Barth the Reformed confession is played off againstLuther. But here, if anywhere, evangelical theology must follow the path indicated byLuther, and not that of the Reformed confession.

The History of Israelite-Jkwish Religion and Old Testament Theology 23

Illied to [4] the study of the Old Testament, so that his exposition must beinvestigated somewhat more thoroughly as the more important contribu-tion to our question.2

Procksch proposes as the ultimate task of biblical exegesis that it mustcbxpound divine revelation, whose validity is eternal, in human forms. ToEllis end it must apply with complete thoroughness those means at the dis-1)osal of the historian in the interpretation of other literary works: phil-c )Iq_gy, historical criticism, empathy. However, investigation that works only$Gth these tools is unable to fathom precisely the decisive elements of the( >Id Testaments-words, historical events, the notion of God. Words likeihe first sentence of the Bible, events like the crossing of the Red Sea andthe Sinai covenant, and most especially the notion of the transcendent,i)crsonal God, are irrational, paradoxical, and contradict any merely his-ror-ical understanding. Here it is a matter of pneumatic entities that canonly be understood from within, from faith.

Faith is the organ of perception for the pneumatic world. Exegesis, histori-cal understanding, and esthetic empathy continually come up against theworld of the Bible, which discloses itself to faith as God’s miracle, andwhich contains at the same time God’s revelation.

Nonetheless, it is not the case that the pneumatic subjects pointed toi II the Old Testament are by themselves able to awaken the faith whicht an now penetrate to their mystery. Rather, they become clear only fromrhc perspective of faith in Christ.

Christ is the central figure of the Bible from whom all effects of the NewTestament proceed, in whom all effects of the Old Testament are compre-hended. . . . In Christ E5] the Bible becomes a seamless whole. One cansever no member from this organism without wounding the entire organ-ism. . . . As the Father of Jesus Christ, the God of the Old Testament is ourGod. Whoever denies this proposition puts himself outside the fundamen-tal certainty of biblical religion.

It is clear from all this that Procksch is talking about a presentation of( )I(! Testament religion drawn on the basis of faith, and even from a dis-1 i tlctly Christian faith. The otherwise typical methods of historical investi-::llion are not thereby scorned, but they are nonetheless-despite everyillsistence on their importance -finally valued only as ancillue theologiae..lII decisive statements about the essence of Old Testament religion are

L’. “uber pneumatische Exegese,” chri~tatum und Wissemchuft 1 (1925) 145-58; “Die( rt’~c tlichte als Gtaubensinhalt,” Neue fir&&he zeitschrift 36 (1925) 485-99; ‘Ziele und Gren-/~‘II ttvr E:xegese,” Neue ~ir~!z~iche Z&chrift 36 (1925) 715-30. This last essay concludes with a1’11(,1 debate with Barth.

24 Otto Eissfeldt

made from faith, and it is emphatically determined that faith remains theorgan of historical reflection for the Christian.

If the historical approach to the Old Testament and its religion is hererobbed of its independence and made subservient to the theological, asalone able to grasp the essence of the subject completely, there is on theother hand no lack of attempts to treat the theological as an appendix tothe historical, and to see the former as a direct continuation of the latter.The efforts of Schleiermacher and Hegel, by means of a historical-philosophical comparison of religions to show Christianity and thereby, atleast indirectly, Old Testament religion to be the highest and absolute re-ligion, have continued to find followers in the present.3 And there is nolack of those who- l i k e Hermann Schultz-are of the opinion that OldTestament religion “discloses itself in all its truth,” as does any other spiri-tual development, “only to one who has an intrinsic appreciation of its es-sence, who has a love for it, and who takes delight in its specific character, 4but reject a particular theological method for comprehending it. Thus,they suppose that they can treat the claims of faith satisfactorily by meansof a historical presentation. Over against this very IT6J widespread inclina-tion to tie these two approaches in one way or another, it must be empha-sized that such a blending can only be harmful. Historical understandingof the Old Testament may never go beyond the relative and the immanent,while on the other hand, faith grasped by the absolute and transcendent isnot the instrument that could comprehend the Old Testament as a histori-cal entity. The theological approach reduces the diversity of historical phe-nomena, since it seeks to interpret them on the basis of the decisiveexperience of faith, and the historical approach flattens the depth of reve-lation that faith experiences in the Old Testament, since it arranges italongside these other phenomena.

The historical approach on the one hand and the theological on theother belong on two different planes. They correspond to two differentlyconstituted functions of our spirit, to knowing and to believing. Knowingconsists in intensely engaged activity; as historical knowing, it is a tirelesseffort to inquire after what has taken place. The manner of religious be-lieving is passivity, which allows itself to be grasped by something higherand purer, in order to surrender itself freely to it. Knowledge is aware that

3. Willy Staerk, “Religionsgeschichte und Religionsphilosophie in ihrer Bedeutung fiirdie hiblische Theologie des Alten Testaments,” Zeitschrift fiir l’heologie und Kirche 21 (1923)289-300; C. Stange, “Die Absolutheit des Christentums,” 7m’tschtift fiir systematische Theologie 1(1923/24) 44-68; “Die Aufgabe der Religionsgeschichte,” 7m’tschriJ fiir systematische Theologie 1( 1923/24) 301- 13; “Stimmungsreligion, Stifterreligion und Christentum,” Zeitschtij fiir sys-tmtische 7’heologie 1 (1923/24) 427-37; and etc.

4. Altte.stammtliche Thrologir (5th ed.; Giittingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896), 1%

The Histmy of Israelite-Jtish Religion and Old Testament Theology 25

,l(,sl’ite all its efforts it cannot get beyond the world limited to space and, 111~, while faith knows that it has been laid hold of by the eternal. Knowl-, (igc strives for certain, clear evidence that will convince others even+linst their will, while faith always remains a completely personal venturet 9 he undertaken anew by each individual, which is at its greatest when it8!4~lifies a not-seeing but yet believing. With this twofold intellectual func-l !II we approach Old Testament religion. Knowledge subordinates this

! rlity to itself, since it masters it; yet, at the same time, it is stronger than

26 Otto Eissfeldt

they remained unknown and without effect. It was nineteenth-century his-torical research that taught us to understand the grand prophetic charac-ters, since it had empathetically relived their proclamation. And who woulddeny that these valuable discoveries of knowledge have not also enrichedthe life of faith? The other side of it is that the historical consideration ofthe Old Testament is able to prove of [SD service to faith in relieving it ofthe burden of such elements in the Old Testament that appear to us, andmust appear, as sub-Christian and immoral. Thus, it shows that the narra-tives of Jacob’s cunning and deceitful behavior toward Esau and Laban,and the passages that attribute the ruthless and horrible extermination ofthe Canaanites to Yahweh’s command, are emanations from a nationallyrestricted religiosity, which is also to be found elsewhere in history and inthe present. With naive and subjective sincerity, God and nation areequated- a kind of piety that can be shared, however, only by those whofeel themselves to be part of the nation concerned. Already for that reasonthose elements of the Old Testament are meaningless for the faith of Chris-tians. But historical consideration shows, further, that this nationally re-stricted piety represents a form of religion that is overcome in the courseof the history of Israelite religion itself. Prophecy severs the bond thatunites God and the nation, and thereby creates space for a piety that leaveseverything earthly behind and can say to God: “If I have only you, then Icare nothing of heaven and earth”- a word that corresponds completely tothe loftiness of Christianity. In this way, historical knowledge frees faithfrom sub-Christian religious forms of the Old Testament and does justiceto them at the same time, since it teaches us to consider them as historically‘conditioned.

How dangerous it is to combine the two approaches can be shown withparticular clarity from the Old Testament. It is here especially clear thatProcksch’s statement-that faith remains the organ even of historical re-flection for the Christian -is to be questioned. We have examples in theOld Testament of historical reflection and of historical description inwhich faith was the decisive factor. It is what has been called religious ortheological pragmatism in Judges and in the books of Kings and theChronicler: the depiction of the period of the judges according to whichYahweh’s punishment (oppression by enemies) follows on the apostasy ofthe nation, and then Yahweh’s help (the sending of a savior or a judge) fol-lows on the nation’s conversion; and in the books of Kings and the Chron-icler, the schema of the kings’ success and failure, fortune and misfortune,which depends on their religious-cultic actions. IT91 That this religious-pragmatic understanding of history has distorted and falsified reality willbe universally admitted; however, it not only hinders historical knowledgebut also endangers the purity of faith. The view underlying this under-

The History of Israelite-Jewish Religion and Old Testament Theoloa 27

standing of history, that the way of the world can be evenly calculated insuch a way that piety and fortune, conduct pleasing to God and success-or the reverse, sin and suffering -always go together, corresponds in noway at all to what can be recognized at the high points of Old TestamentI-cligion as the nature of faith. There, faith always entails struggle and dar-illg, and precisely where an incongruity between piety and fortune is dis-(,overed and must be overcome, faith displays itself in its full power:*‘Nevertheless, I abide with you.” What is clear from this example applies,l-enerally: on behalf of knowledge, just as on behalf of faith, one must,?Iguard against confusing the historical treatment of the Old Testament withthe theological.

On this basis it becomes clear that the development traversed by ourtliscipline -now usually, and significantly, designated by the double nameI )f‘ “history of Israelite-Jewish religion (Old Testament theology)“-fromI he dicta $.rrobuntia of orthodoxy and the Bible doctrines of pietism on the011e hand, to the history of religion of the nineteenth century on theOI her, was not accidental but necessary. In each of the two phases twomodes of consideration came into view: that of faith and that of historicall,nowledge. To the first, the Old Testament means God’s revelation, whileIO the second it offers itself as a historical entity. Orthodoxy and pietism.~llowed history to be submerged into revelation, while the historical un-tl(brstanding of the nineteenth century threatened to dissolve revelationi1110 history. It is important to avoid the errors of both phases, and to carryltlrther the appropriate starting points of each; that is, to acknowledge.UI~ to practice both approaches: history of Israelite-Jewish religion and( )Id Testament theology.

The first is, as the name implies, a historical discipline. It presents OldI‘tbstament religion as an entity having undergone historical development,

‘tt~d treats it with the [lOI usual philological-historical tools, as has alreadyt)c>cn mentioned. To it belongs the instrument of empathy with the sub-j(.ct, which is especially important in this particular field. But this is then\tllticient for accomplishing the historical task; it requires no other means.l‘tlc historian does not answer the question of absolute value, of the“it-11th” of the subject. He must remain satisfied with establishing that heII:IS to do with an entity that makes the claim to be revelation and the word’ ~1 (;od; he does not decide whether this claim is justified. It is his respon-\il)ility to show that here men appear who assert that they have been called

28 Otto Eissfeeldt

world of space and time. Insofar as value judgments are made in the pre-sentation of the history of Israelite-Jewish religion, in speaking of its riseand fall or its flowering and withering, they are of a relative kind, and thecriterion of judgment must be derived from the history of Jewish-Israelitereligion itself. It is therewith assumed that the historian must omit any for-ward reference to the New Testament. He may and must look beyond thehistorical development he has to treat only insofar as it makes its own ref-erence beyond itself, but he leaves undecided whether the New Testamentand Christianity represent its fulfillment. It goes together with this kind ofhistory of Jewish-Israelite religion that its treatment is fundamentally inde-pendent of the scholar’s form of religion, and that in this field those whobelong to diverse Christian confessions, and even those of non-Christianreligions, can work hand in hand, as indeed actually happens.

Quite different the theological consideration of the Old Testament!Here it is a matter of presenting that which, with respect to the Old Testa-ment, has become revelation, God’s word, for the interpreter and his reli-gious community- because he will always be in some way the organ of hisreligious community. It will thus bear the character of witness, eventhough of a thoroughly scientific IE 1111 kind, and its validity will be re-stricted to the circle of those whose piety is the same as, or similar to, thatof the interpreter; in other words, it is relative to church and confession.There is, therefore, no possibility here of cooperation among members ofdifferent religious communities who could further their knowledgethrough cooperative investigation and argument; rather, here one com-

.munity can convince the other only by the more powerful demonstration“of spirit and of power.”

In Old Testament theology it is a question of describing the revelationof God as it has occurred and occurs ever anew for faith in relation to theOld Testament. For that reason, it can never take the form of a historicalpresentation, because faith has not to do with things past but with thetimeless present; revelation is exalted above the category of time. Thus, asystematic form of presentation is appropriate for Old Testament the-ology-if systematic is understood to mean not the methodological devel-opment of everything from a first principle but, rather, the sequentialarrangement of propositions in the manner of loci. The “attributes” ofYahweh, which have come to be, for the interpreter, revelations concern-ing the essence and will of his God (God the Lord, God the Holy, etc.);the estimation of the world and of humankind, which is truth for the in-terpreter (the world of God’s creation, and the God who abides with hu-mankind despite its insignificance in comparison with this vast creation[Psalm 81, etc.); these and others must be so treated.

T~J? History of Israelite-Jewish Religion and Old Testament Theology 29

Of course, this kind of Old Testament theology, structured on the ba-sis of faith, is influenced throughout by the central faith experience of its;iuthor and his religious community, but it is not required that every asser-tion must be expressly related to this. In other words, Old Testament the-ology does not always require “fulfillment” in New Testament theology.‘lhere are elements in the Old Testament-for example, the psalms thatpraise God’s majesty as it is unfolded in creation-that can also be directrevelation to the Christian, all the more since such are almost wanting inthe New Testament. In this case, the otherwise self-evident schema ofPlacing the religion El20 of the New Testament above that of the Old5luust be replaced by a schema that sets them alongside each other. Herethe Old Testament serves to complement the New.

Despite every distinction between the two approaches, the historical;tnd the theological, it is nonetheless finally the case that, seen from ahigher vantage point, they form a unity-and they do so not just to thechxtent that its importance to us as the source of revelation, rather thanonly or even primarily as the object of historical knowledge, accounts forthe extraordinarily urgent historical investigation of Old Testament reli-gion. Rather, beyond all this, we are confident that it is the one identicaltruth for which knowledge strives and by which faith is grasped. Knowing;tnd believing belong, as we have seen, to two parallel planes, and theyluust meet each other in infinity- but only in infinity. Within the finiterealm the two approaches form a unity only to the extent that one personc an master them.

5. This applies above all, as Karl Ho11 has justifiably stressed (“Urchristentum und Reli-gionsgeschichte,” ZeitschriJ fiir systematische Theologie 2 [ 1924/25] 387-430). to conceptionsI c.garding the relation of God to sin and the sinner. The New Testament idea of a God whooll’ers himself to the sinner is actually foreign to the Old Testament. But it is equally correct~1x1 worth noting when Ho11 adds this conclusion: “Indeed, in the question of evil, Judaism( ~IIIW to a similar recognition never attained elsewhere among humankind. Recalling onlyI~tiah 53 and the anawim in the Psalms-Judaism broke through the conventional wisdom\\ hich held that the best person must also be the most fortunate. Just the reverse: precisely

1 II(* most pious can suffer the harshest troubles. The unfortunate one does not necessarily de-\t)isc* (iod; he may stand closer to God than the one who gains everything.” With respect to1 )\,c,rcoming evil, the Old Testament must here be placed alongside the New. In addition, com-1).1rc Itoll’s statements with what was said above concerning the religious pragmatism of the’ )Itl Test