THE HEILSGESCHICHTLICHE PERSPECTIVE

IN MODERN NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Robert W . Yarbrough

B.A. Southwest Baptist College, 1979

M.A. Wheaton College Graduate School, 1982

A thesis presented for the degree of

Ph.D

at the

University of Aberdeen

1985
 UMI Number: U602250

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

Dissertation Publishing

UMI U602250
Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
 DECLARATION

This thesis has been composed by the author alone. It has never
been either accepted or submitted for any previous degree. The
work of which this thesis is a record has been done solely by
the author. All direct quotations have been distinguished by
quotation marks and the sources duly acknowledged.

March 1985
 TO THE FAMILIES
EDDLEMAN AND SCHNABEL
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Abbreviations . . . . . ............................... . . . . . xiii
INTRODUCTION................... .................................... 1

CHAPTER ONE: THE HEILSGESCHICHTLICHE PERSPECTIVE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

THEOLOGIES OF HOFMANN AND SCHLATTER IN THEIR HISTORICAL
CONTEXTS
1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. F. C. Baur and J. C. K. von Hofmann as NT theologians . . . . . 8
2.1 Baur and NT theology............ 8
2.11 Baur's conception of NT theology . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.111 Methodological significance and distinctiveness. 8
2.112 An application of the method . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.113 NT theology as a purely historical science . . . 13
2.1131 Priority of modern understanding. . . . . 13
2.1132 Development, reconstruction, and the
definition of NT t h e o l o g y ............... 15
2.12 Demonstration of some effects of Baur's epistemology . 17
2.121 The problem and Baur's Cartesian solution. . . . 18
2.122 The solution's inherent risk . . 19
2.1221 Conforming text's message to problematic
'historical' findings . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.1222 Use of religious a priori as interpreta
tive grid ..................... 24
2.123 Summary: pure history, pure reason, and NT
theology's non-NT starting point.. .............. 27
2.13 Aspects of Baur's conception of history............... 28
2.131 The basic conception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.132 Entrance of historicism. . . . . . . ........... 30
2.133 Baur's idealized Hg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.134 Summary: the measure of (NT) history (theology). 32
2.2 Hofmann and NT theology . ................................ 33
2.21 Preliminary considerations . . . . . . 33
2.211 Perceptions of Hofmann . 34
2.2111 Weissagung und ErfUllung. . ............ 38
2.2112 Per Schriftbeweis . . . . . .............. 40
2.212 Hofmann: overlooked NT interpreter . . ......... 41
2.22 Hofmann's conception of NT theology vis-a-vis Baur . . 43
2.221 Baur's conception of NT theology summarized. . . 43
2.222 Hofmann's limited agreement withBaur. .......... 44
2.223 Hofmann's fundamental difference. . . . . . . . 45
2.224 The difference further exemplified: architec
tonics compared. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.2241 Baur. . . . . . .......................... 46
2.2242 H o f m a n n ..................... ............ 48
2.225 Summary. ................... 50
 V

2.23 Effects of Hofmann's epistemological orientation . . . 51

2.231 Hofmann as n o n - Cartesian....................... 51
2.232 Hofmann and scripture.......... 52
2.233 Hofmann and Baur contrasted. . 53
2.2331 Baur: desire to do justice to modern
thinking. ....................... 53
2.2332 Hofmann: desire to do justice to texts'
claims on modern thinking ............... 54
2.234 Hofmann's modified critical posture. . . . . . . 56
2.24 Hofmann's approach to history.......................... 58
2.241 The contemporary dilemma: Strauss, Bauer, and
Baur . ................................ 58
2.242 Hofmann's starting point . . . . . . . 60
2.2421 Admission of presuppositions. . . . . . . 61
2.2422 The role of faith in apprehension . . . . 63
2.2423 The burden of proof question. . . . . . . 65
2.2424 The nature of H g ................. 68

3. W. Wrede andA. Schlatter as NT theologians . . . . . . . . . . 73

3.1 Wrede and NT theology . . . . . ............... . . . . . . 73
3.11 Wrede's conception of NT theology: Baur's approach
furthered................. 74
3.111 The truth behind the texts ................... 75
3.1111 Wrede's position.......................... 75
3.1112 Radical relativization of NT data . . . . 77
3.1113 Conclusion................................ 78
3.112 Methodological exclusivity ..................... 79
3.113 From historicism to p o s i t i v i s m ................. 81
3.12 Ramifications of Wrede's epistemology............ 82
3.121 Background . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.1211 Troeltschian immanent criticism ......... 83
3.1212 Neo-Kantianism's appeal ................. 86
3.122 Wrede's resultant outlook............... 87
3.1221 Absolutizing of modern viewpoint......... 87
3.1222 Texts' message potentially repressed. . . 88
3.123 Summary: attaining of historical goals endan
gered. ............ 90
3.13 Wrede's approach to history............................ 91
3.2 Schlatter and NT theology ................... 95
3.21 Preliminary remarks. . ..................... . . . . . 95
3.22 Method and architectonic of a NT theology............. 97
3.221 Method: integration of NT thought-world into
concrete h i s t o r y . 97
3.222 Structure. . . . . . . . . ..................... 101
3.223 Summary: Schlatter, Hofmann, and Baur............. 102
3.23 Schlatter's critique of Wredian methodology. . . . . . 104
3.231 The focus of NT theology: the texts............... 105
3.2311 Wrede's position............................ 105
3.2312 Schlatter's response..................... 106
3.23121 Historical base re-examined . . . 106
3.23122 Various counter-proposals . . . . . 106
3.23123 Summary .......................... 108
3.232 Schlatter's own methodological rationale . . . . 109
3.2321 No final NT theology possible ........... 109
3.2322 Need for critical self-awareness........... Ill
3.2323 Summary .................................. 112
 vi

3.233 Subject matter and world-view............. 113

3.2331 Danger of world-view to scientific
observation . . . . . . . . . . 113
3.2332 Need to counteract stultifying
'rationalism' ............................ 116
3.24 Schlatter's functional epistemology and its.
hermeneutical result . . . . . 119
3.241 Schlatter and Wrede. . . . . . . . . . 119
3.242 Schlatter's approach to the problem . 120
3.243 Resistance to a priori conditions to knowing . . 122
3.244 Epistemology and hermeneutical result..............123
3.25 Schlatter's view of history............. .... 125
3.251 Revelation and history notantithetical. . . . . 126
3.252 The christocentric 'Geschichtslauf': Christ
the key to history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.253 Integration of immanent and transcendent
aspects of history . . . . . . 130
3.2531 The immanent dimension. . . . . . . . . . 131
3.2532 The transcendent dimension. . . . . . . . 132
3.254 Schlatter and H g ........... 134
4. Conclusion .......................... 137
CHAPTER TWO: HEILSGESCHICHTE AND HEILSGESCHICHTLICHE OUTLOOKS IN OLD
AND NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 1918-1946

1. Introduction....................... 141
2. Hg. vs. Religionsgeschichte: OT theology.1918-1946 ........... 145
2.1 Background. . . . . . . ........... . ........... . . . . . 145
2.11 Previous h g l . approaches to OT theology............ . 145
2.12 Dominance of non-hgl. approaches . . . . . . . . . . . 146
2.13 Search for a hgl. perspective. . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
2.14 Summary. . . . . . .................................... 152
2.2 History and OT theology after... WW I .............. 152
2.21 R. Kittel (1921) . . . . . . . . . ................... 153
2.22 H. Gressmann (1924). .......... 154
2.23 W. StMrk and C. Steuernagel (1925) . . . . . . . . . . 155
2.24 0. Eissfeldt (1926). ........................... 157
2.25 W. Eichrodt ( 1 9 2 9 ) ......................... 159
2.26 A. Weiser (1935) .................................... 163
2.27 J. Lindblom ( 1 9 3 5 ) ..................... 165
2.28 0. Procksch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
2.29 Britain and North A m e r i c a . ............... 173
2.3 Conclusion..............;....................................... 176
3. Hg. and hgl. emphases in NT theology 1918-1946................. 178
3.1 Background.............. 179
3.2 The dissolution of Hg./hgl.outlooks in NT theology . . . . 181
3.3 The re-entry ofHg. in NTtheology.............................. 184
3.31 Non-NT s t u d i e s .......... 185
3.32 0. Piper ( 1 9 3 4 f f . ) ....................................... 188
3.33 C. H. Dodd ( 1 9 3 5 f f . ) .................................. 189
3.34 H.-D. Wendland (1938). . ............................ 191
3.35 E. Stauffer (1938) ....................... . . . . . . 193
3.36 L. Goppelt (1939).............................. 196
3.37 G. Delling (1940).......................... 198
3.38 A. M. Hunter (1943)..................... 199
 vii

4. Conclusion........................................... .. 200
CHAPTER THREE: HEILSGESCHICHTE AND HEILSGESCHICHTLICHE OUTLOOKS IN OLD
AND NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY AFTER WORLD WAR II
1. Introduction................... 204
2. Biblical theology in crisis?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
2.1 Childs' thesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
2.2 The problem of revelation in history. . . . . . . . . . . . 207
2.3 Problems in Childs' criticism of revelation in history. . . 208
2.4 The issue at stake. . ....................................... 211
2.41 R. Pfeiffer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
2.42 F. Filson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
2.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
3. OT theology since WW II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
3.1 W. Eichrodt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
3.11 Hg. in Eichrodt's Theology of the O T ............ .. . 220
3.12 Conception of Hg. informing Eichrodt's Theology. . . . 221
3.13 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
3.2 G. von Rad. . 227
3.21 Von Rad's conception of H g . .............. 228
3.22 Von Rad's method and the meaning of Hg. . . . . . . . 231
3.3 E. Jacob............................................... 233
3.31 Theology of the Old Testament........ . . . . . . . . 233
3.32 Grundfragen Alttestamentlicher Theologie ............. 235
3.33 Summary................. 237
3.4 Concluding o b s e r vations ............ 238
4. Hg. and hgl. emphases in NT theology (and related disciplines)
after WW II . . . ............... 241
4.1 The general s i t u a t i o n .............. 241
4.2 Systematic rejections of hgl. approaches. . . . . . . . . . 243
4.21 Bultmann . . . . . .......................... . . . . . 243
4.22 Bultmannian positions. . 243
4.23 Non-Bultmannian non-hgl. positions ................. . 247
4.24 Summary...................................... 250
4.3 Positive responses to Hg. or hgl. approaches.............. 251
4.31 Ancillary disciplines....................... 252
4.32 NT theology....................... 254
4.321 A. Wilder (1947) .............................. 255
4.322 B. Reicke (1953) ....................... 256
4.323 L. Goppelt (1954)....................... 258
4.324 G. Ladd (1957) ........... . . . . . . . . . . . 260
4.325 H. Ridderbos (1963)..................... 262
5. Conclusion ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
CHAPTER FOUR: OSCAR CULLMANN'S HEILSGESCHICHTLICHE PERSPECTIVE
1. Background and content of Cullmann's hgl. reading of the NT . . 271
1.1 Emergence of Cullmann's awareness of the NT's hgl. sub
structure ............................................. 272
1.11 Early theological training and position..................272
1.12 The substructure e m e r g e s ............ 273
1.121 Focus on e s c h a t o l o g y .............................. 273
1.122 Focus on c h r i s t o l o g y ..................... 277
 vi i i

1.13 Cullmann's position in historical context.............. 278

1.131 A. Schweitzer. . . . . . . . 279
1.132 Karl Barth . .......... . 280
1.133 R . B u l t m a n n ..................... 283
1.2 Cullmann's major works........................................ 286
1.21 Christ and Time (1946) . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 286
1.22 Christology of the NT (1957) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
1.23 Salvation in History (1965). . . . . . . . ........... 291
2. Criticisms of Cullmann. . ....................................... 293
2.1 Minor criticisms............................. 293
2.2 Major criticisms. ......................... 295
2.21 Bultmann's objections to Christ and Time . . . . . . . 295
2.211 The influence of the critique. . . . . . . . . . 296
2.212 The content of the critique. . . . . . . . . . . 297
2.213 The cogency and significance of the critique . . 302
2.22 R. Eslinger. . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
3. Cullmann as participant in the Hofmann-Schlatter heritage . . . 316
3.1 Non-inerrantist view of s c r i p t u r e ................... 317
3.2 Starting point for interpretation ............... . . . . . 319
3.3 Positive relation between revelation and history. . . . . . 321
3.4 Maintenance of coherent sense of NT's content within the
discipline of NT theology: criticism of criticism. . . . . 323
4. Conclusion. . ................................ . . . . . . . . . 330
CHAPTER FIVE: THE HEILSGESCHICHTLICHE PERSPECTIVE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
THEOLOGIES OF ALBERTZ, LADD, AND GOPPELT
VIS-A-VIS BULTMANN
1. Introduction. . ........... 332
2. Bultmann and NT theology. ........... 333
2.1 Bultmann's conception of NT theology. . . . . . . . . . . . 334
2.11 Features of Bultmann's method reminiscent of Baur. . . 336
2.111 Quasi-historical approach............ 336
2.112 Inadequate handling of historical data ........ 341
2.113 NT message and modern understanding............... 344
2.12 Features of Bultmann's method reminiscent of Wrede . . 347
2.121 The truth behind the texts . . . . . . . . . . . 348
2.122 Methodological exclusivity . . . . . . . . . . . 351
2.13 Summary.......... 354
2.2 Bultmann's epistemology .......... 355
2.21 Neo-Kantian roots........................ 355
2.22 Programme for considering issues involved.......... . 356
2.23 Epistemology and method in NT theology . . . . . . . . 359
2.3 Bultmann's handling of history.............. 361
3. Albertz and NT theology . 366
3.1 Albertz's conception of NT theology . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
3.11 Critique of the discipline ................ . . . . . 368
3.12 Attempt to chart a new beginning . . . . . . . . . . . 372
3.121 Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
3.122 Key presuppositions..................... 373
3.123 Explicating the NT Botschaft . . . . . . . . . . 377
3.124 Summary......................... 380
3.2 Albertz's epistemology. . 382
3.21 What is known the object of knowing . . . . . . . . . 383
3.22 How it is known the process of knowing............... 385
 ix

3.23 Conclusion .................... .............. 387

3.3 Albertz's approach to history .......................388
3.31 Hgl. outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
3.32 Conception of H g .......................................... 390
3.33 S u m m a r y . ............................................... 392
4. Ladd and NT theology.......... .. ................................394
4.1 Ladd's conception of NT theology. . . . . . . . 394
4.11 Response to Bultmann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394
4.111 Positive . ....................................... 394
4.112 Critical . . . . . . . . . . . ................. 395
4.12 Structure and method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
4.121 Structure. . ............ 397
4.122 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... 398
4.1221 Ladd'scritical position.......... 399
4.1222 Deinition of NT theology. ............... 403
4.13 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ . . . 407
4.2 Ladd's epistemology . ............ 409
4.21 Human rationality. . . . . . . . . . . . 409
4.22 Revelation .......... 411
4.23 Synthesis? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. 412
4.3 Ladd's view of history.......... 414
4.31 The Bible as Hg. ......................... 415
4.32 Hg. and present meaning. ............ 417
4.33 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... 418
5. Goppelt and NT theology ............. 419
5.1 Goppelt's conception of NT theology ....................... 419
5.11 Goppelt's analysis of the history of NT theology . . . 420
5.111 Beginnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . 420
5.112 Development and outcome of the pure historical
approach . . . . . . . . . . . 422
5.113 Theological adaptation of pure historical
approach . . 423
5.114 Historical-positive line of inquiry............... 425
5.115 The hgl. p e r s p e c t i v e .............................. 427
5.12 What is NT theology? ................. 429
5.121 'Historically' grounded. . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
5.122 Tri-polar hermeneutical base and result. . . . . 430
5.13 Summary............ 432
5.2 Goppelt's epistemology............ 435
5.21 Integrating 'historisches Forschen' and 'theologisches
Verstehen' . . . . . ....................... . . . . . 437
5.22 Faith and knowledge split? . .......... 438
5.221 Goppelt................... 438
5.222 Schlatter........................... 441
5.23 C o n c l u s i o n ............ 445
5.3 Goppelt's understanding of history............ 446
5.31 Typological approach to history.......................... 447
5.32 Hg. in Goppelt's Theologie ............................ 451
5.33 Conclusion .......... 453
6. Conclusion. .............. 455
 X

CONCLUSION
1. Aim and result. ............................................458
2. For further s t u d y ............................ .................... 462
3. Possible contributions of the hgl. perspective.................... 463
3.1 Recognition of the OT-NT connection ............... 463
3.2 Correction of Baur's (Bauer's) fatefulstep . ............... 464
3.3 Balance between claims of sources and claims of
c r i t i c i s m ............ 466
3.4 Return to a realistic historical model for NT theoldgy. . . 469
3.5 Facing up to the truth question............ . . . . . . . . 471
3.6 Return to a relevant role for NT theology (exegesis). . . . 473
4. An Orwellian postscript: the insanity of the hgl. perspective. 475
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 479
SUMMARY 519
 PREFACE

I wish to express appreciation to my supervisor Professor Robin

Barbour for his patience, encouragement, and challenging insights

throughout the course of research. It is fitting that I recognize, as

one of his last post-graduate students, his service not only to me but

to many others over the years as well. Professor Howard Marshall took

time to read earlier versions of the manuscript, discuss issues, and

sign stacks of inter-library requests; I am grateful to him also.

Without a Tyndale House research grant and a tuition concession by

means of the Overseas Research Students scheme, this thesis could hardly

have seen completion. I sun grateful for both awards.

In the early stages of labor my former colleagues, now D r s ., E.

Schnabel and H. Bayer were of inestimable aid. Without their friendship

and tutelage in at least the rudimentary obscurities of their native

language as certain Neutestamentler wrote it a century and more ago,

it is unlikely that I could have sustained the nerve to wade through

Baur, Hofmann, and Schlatter. Thanks to them, what was once onerous

toil is now a personal vice.

Miss Teresa Clark, Divinity Secretary, has tirelessly and ever

cheerfully expedited my work in many ways. The Bibliothek des Landes-

kirchenamtes, Hannover, located and supplied obscure sources at no

charge. Union Grove Baptist Church kindly furnished a suitable place

to work when the University would not.

My colleagues Messrs. J. Schwarz, M. Nola, C. Arnold, and G. Shogren

graciously consented to proofread portions of the manuscript. I record

my thanks to them all, esp. to Mr. Nola for his promptness despite his

own commitments, and to Mr. Schwarz for his Teutonic thoroughness and
 xii

considerable expenditure of time.

Remaining deficiencies, whether in content or form, are to be

attributed solely to the author.

It is above all to my wife Bernie that I express gratitude. She

has remained constant over the many years of my fitful academic pro

gress, if progress it be, and has believed in me when I doubted myself.

She clearly merits whatever honor it might be to have this thesis dedi

cated to her. It is however a tribute to her selflessness that I am

able on behalf of us both to dedicate it rather to the families of Dr.

Lee and Mrs. Jo Eddlemann, Oregon, USA, and Herr Paul and Frau Elsbeth

Schnabel, Baden-WUrttemburg, W. Germany. They symbolize both the spirit

and reality of Christian brotherhood from which we have benefited during

our sojourn in Aberdeen (and not only here), and they themselves best

know what they have given in order to see, possibly, someone else's

dream come to pass.

King's College, Aberdeen

March, 1985 RWY

 xiii

ABBREVIATIONS

Journals, major published series, biblical sources, etc, follow the

specifications in 'Instructions for Contributors,' Journal of Biblical
Literature 95 (1976) 331-346. Works are cited the first time in full
and thereafter generally in shortened form. Place of publication of
books is listed only in the bibliography.
Other abbreviations are:
Abhandlungen. . . Riga Abhandlungen der Herder-Gesellschaft und des
Herder-Instituts zu Riga
AEK Allgemeine Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirchen-
zeitung
BBK Beitrdge zur bayerischen Kirchengeschichte
BETS Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society
BN Biblische Notizen
BSQ Bethel Seminary Quarterly
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
ConQ Constructive Quarterly
CS The Christian Scholar
DDSR Duke Divinity School Review
DEE Deutsche Evangelische Erziehung
DT Deutsche Theologie
ELKZ Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirchenzeitung
Enc Encounter
EP The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. by P. Ed
wards. London/New York 1972.
ERT Evangelical Review of Theology
FAB FUr Arbeit und Besinnung
FT Faith and Thought
HZ Historische Zeitschrift
IHANE Dentan, R. C . , ed. The Idea of History in the
Ancient Near East. London 1955.
IR The Iliff Review
JTSns Journal of Theological Studies new series
KA Kirche im Angriff
LB Linguistics Biblica
LM Lutherische Monatshefte
LQHR The London Quarterly and Holburn Review
NNTT Morgan, Robert. The Nature of New Testament
Theology. Naperville, 111. 1973.
NZsT Neue Zeitschrift fdr systematische Theologie
PSB Princeton Seminary Bulletin
PTNT Strecker, G. , ed. Das Problem der Theologie
des Neuen Testaments. Darmstadt 1975.
PTR Princeton Theological Review
Schol Scholastik
STZ Schweizerische Theologische Zeitschrift
TB Theologische Beitrdge
TBr Theologische Berichte
TEd The Theological Educator
Th Theology
Them Themelios
TRE Theologische Realencyclopddie
TynB Tyndale Bulletin
 xi v

TZT TUbinger Zeitschrift fUr Theologie

UTB Uni-TaschenbUcher
VA: Frdhlich, K. Oscar Cullmann: Vortr&ge und Auf-
sdtze 1925-1962. TUbingen/ZUrich 1962.
WW Wort und Wahrheit
ZeichZ Zeichen der Zeit
Other non-standard abbreviations are:
BTM Biblical Theology Movement
BWB Baur-Wrede-Bultmann
Hg. Heilsgeschichte
hgl. heilsgeschichtlich, -e, er, en, es, etc.
n .d . no date
o.c. opus citatum
 INTRODUCTION

H. G. Reventlow observes that a major problem affecting biblical

interpretation today consists 'in einer ungenilgenden Selbstreflexion

der Exegese Uber ihre eigenen weltanschaulichen und methodischen

Voraussetzungen. ' He concedes that figures such as G. Ebeling have

at least addressed the issue. Yet he maintains that the historical-

critical method as generally implemented 'nicht losgeldst von einem be-

2
stimmten Welt- und WirklichkeitsverstMndnis zu sehen ist.' In broadest

terms, this thesis examines a facet of the problem Reventlow identifies.

Impetus for this study arose, first, from a curiosity about the con

tribution of J. C. K. von Hofmann and A. Schlatter to NT theology.

Reading their own works, and then comments about them, indicated that

generally their names are better known than their ideas are understood.

Coupled with this finding and providing a context for its development

was, second, an even deeper initial concern. This was to explore some

relevant aspect of methodology in NT theology (i.e. the post-Gablerian

discipline out of which have come numerous NT theologies as such), esp.

that aspect pertaining to the use of the Heilsgeschichte (Hg.) concept.

In time a study emerged which brings these two interests together.

Our primary aim below is accordingly (1) to explore the historical back

ground of heilsgeschichtliche (hgl.) approaches to NT theology, and (2)

against this background to identify, with reference esp. to specific

hgl. NT interpreters and theologies, characteristic features of what

^Bibelauthoritat und Geist der Moderne, 1980, 9.

2Ibid. 10.
 -2-

we have come to term the hgl. perspective. Main proponents of this per

spective, i.e. those who have written hgl. NT theologies, are Hofmann,

Schlatter, M. Albertz, G.Ladd, and L.Goppelt. Also decisive for our

purposes is 0. Cullmann.

The need for such a study is implicit in the fact that none like

it presently exists. Hofmann, Schlatter, and Albertz (esp. as NT theo

logians) are little known, to the detriment of NT criticism we believe.

Moreover, while Hg. (or 'revelation in history1) has received consider

able attention as a theological construct dear to the so-called Biblical

Theology Movement (BTM), its identity and function as a hermeneutical

posture as actually reflected in NT theologies per se has been somewhat

neglected. We seek to redress that neglect.

Specifically, this study traces the vicissitudes of the hgl. per

spective (so-called; it is a multiform entity) since Hofmann, as it

pertains to NT theology, in two phases. First, chs. 1 and 5 frame the

entire investigation by setting forth distinctives of the' hgl. outlook

in contrast to what we term critical orthodoxy. That is, we recognize

that mainline NT theology today is deeply indebted to a line of inquiry

pioneered by F. C. Baur, W. Wrede, and R. Bultmann. Significantly, Hof

mann conceives his NT theology as a corrective to Baur; Schlatter writes

in the face of a discipline heavily indebted to Wrede; and Albertz-Ladd-

Goppelt-Cullmann all must reckon with Bultmann. Thus in ch. 1 we set

forth aspects of Baur's views as a foil which in fact they were his

torically to those of Hofmann. Likewise Wrede, who demonstrably in

important respects furthers Baur's basic approach, serves to point up

Schlatter's distinctives. In ch. 5 Bultmann, whose fundamental methodo

logical affinity to the basic outlooks of Baur and Wrede is easily

demonstrated, serves as the critical constant against which to assess

 -3-

Albertz, Ladd, and Goppelt. To sum up, c hs. 1 and 5 acknowledge that

historically speaking the Baur-Wrede-Bultmann (BWB) heritage represents

the ascendant line, the winning combination as it were, in NT criticism

and theology as it has developed and exists today. It is prudent and

helpful to size up hgl. thinkers in light of this state of affairs.

Now chs. 1 and 5 could together, or even separately, have been ex

tended to thesis-length studies of their own. Perhaps they should have

been. But fixing attention solely on hgl. (or BWB) NT theological

methodologies seemed too restricted, considering that the wider and

closely related problem of Hg. in NT (and OT) theology at large in this

century remains an unchronicled story. It remains so largely still;

but chs. 2 and 3 do at least attempt to sketch where Hg. or hgl. per

spectives are in evidence in OT and NT theology between the World Wars

(ch. 2), and then after WW II (ch. 3). Without this background it is

hard to appreciate the true nature of hgl. opposition to 'critical

orthodoxy.' Also, this background makes it possible to see Cullmann

in a different light than is often the case.

Cullmann wrote no NT theology, but he is of obvious import for hgl.

thought in recent decades. His views are accordingly given attention

in ch. 4. Again, the subject of Cullmann alone could have served as

basis for a thesis. But space limitations dictated that we deal with

him comparatively succinctly. While treating him so briefly is regret

table, leaving him out totally would have been culpable. It becomes

clear in ch. 4, with the help of chs. 2 and 3, (1) that Cullmann is

wrongly or superficially understood when seen merely as imposing a

philosophy of history on the NT texts, and (2) that in basic respects

he carries on in the tradition of Hofmann and Schlatter. Clarification

 -4-

of Cullmann's contribution then facilitates (in ch. 5) a comparison of

Bultmann with Albertz-Ladd-Goppelt, who are not nearly so indebted to

Cullmann in their conception of Hg. as might be expected.

We have had to skirt some issues of importance, and should indicate

what some of these are and why we have not taken them u p . We have not

(with some minor exceptions) included Roman Catholic hgl. studies,

either Schelkle's NT theology or the multi-volume dogmatic Mysterium

Salutis. It was thought that the complexities of post-Vatican II his

toriographical fluctuations in R.C. NT criticism could not be given the

space they would need for fair treatment. At this point R.C, hgl. NT

theology is surely a topic demanding a study all its own.

We have likewise not discussed at length the questions raised by

e.g. James Barr regarding 'revelation in history' as a theological con

struct in the BTM.3 Some of the problems he cites 'ambiguity about

the nature of the revelatory events'; 'ambiguity about the sense of

"history"'; 'ambiguity about the relation between revelation and

history'; and 'difficulties in the relation between revelation and the

biblical text itself' are indeed touched on from time to time. They

are certainly worthwhile questions: an earlier draft of this thesis

devoted some 60pp. to them as they related to Cullmann. But once again

space limitations made their necessary demands. In addition, in our

opinion many of Barr's problems arise precisely because he writes as

if the 'revelation in history' impasse of the BTM begins with and is

largely brought on by Cullmann. We argue below however that this is

an oversimplified and unfruitful way of approaching the problem. We

3
See Barr, 'Revelation in History,' IDBSup 746-749.
 -5-

thus do not so much neglect Barr's questions as we lay the groundwork

for their proper consideration, at least as they would impinge on the

discipline of NT theology.

We touch on several other areas which merit fuller scrutiny than

we are able to devote to them. Many of these are listed in the thesis'

conclusion, sec. 2.

Our study suggests that Reventlow's observation (above) may well

be justified. NT theology inthe BWB heritage will be seen to have been

heavily and (arguably) uncritically dependent on philosophical,theolo

gical, or historiographical considerations. At the same time, there

has been since Hofmann a consistent, if today little remarked, response

to BWB in the form of hgl. methods. These are varied in their charac

teristic features; they are also fraught with their own philosophical,

theological, and historiographical distinctives. But the story of the

hgl. perspective is the story of an outlook committed, not only to doing

justice to the demands of modern thought in constructing a NT theology

(cf. BWB), but also to claims and dimensions of the NT texts of which

BWB criticism has never succeeded in giving a cogent account. NT

theology (along with OT theology and other disciplines) is an enterprise

torn between apparent certainties of modernity on the one hand and com

peting NT assertions on the other. The hgl. perspective attempts to

do justice to both. Just how it does this, and in what respects it

champions a critical stance toward BWB critical orthodoxy, takes shape

as we proceed.
 CHAPTER ONE

THE HEILSGESCHICHTLICHE PERSPECTIVE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGIES

OF HOFMANN AND SCHLATTER IN THEIR HISTORICAL CONTEXTS

1. Introduction

Rightly to assess the characteristic features of NT theologies

evincing a hgl. perspective requires studying them within the contexts

in which they appear. In the preceding 'Introduction' we alluded

to the basic Baur-Wrede-Bultmann (BWB) 'winning combination' which

is a substantial factor in the heritage of NT theology today. Recog

nizing this heritage already implies the shape the present chapter

must take. We will compare Hofmann's NT theology, or salient methodo

logical concerns relevant to it, to the position advocated by Baur.

In like fashion we will compare Schlatter to Wrede.

It does no violence historically to assess Hofmann in connection

with Baur. The former (1810-1877) was admittedly a bit younger than

the latter (1792-1860). Yet in many regards Hofmann's and Baur's

work breathes the spirit of the selfsame age. This may be due to
1
the fact that both found themselves pondering NT theology in a milieu

which had been dramatically influenced by I. Kant (1724-1803), F.

Schleiermacher (1768-1834), G.Hegel (1770-1831), and D. F. Strauss

(the last of whose lifespan, 1808-1874, corresponds very nearly to

1
Assessing the state of NT theology at the time when Baur was
in his prime and Hofmann was beginning his career is C.F.Schmid,
'Ueber das Interesse und den Stand der biblischen Theologie des Neuen
Testaments in unserer Zeit,' TZT (1838) 125-160.
 _7_

that of Hofmann). In any case their works grapple with many of the

same contemporary critical questions.

Schlatter (1852-1938) is likewise roughly contemporary with Wrede

(b. 1858), although the latter's work was cut short by his untimely

death in 1906. Since Schlatter's methodological treatise on NT theology

first appeared in 1909 (Wrede's came out in 1897), and his two-volume

NT theology shortly thereafter, it is fair to consider the works

of both men on this subject as originating in the same general context.

This is all the more true given the fact that not a little of Schlat

ter's work represents direct rebuttal of the history-of-religions

school (so-called) to which Wrede subscribed.

Our goal in this chapter is to isolate characteristic features

of the hgl. outlook, seen over against the characteristic features

of Baur's and Wrede's non-hgl. approaches, as embodied in the NT

theological work of Hofmann and Schlatter. (Where appropriate, other

writings that illuminate their NT theologies or their methods will

be drawn upon). To this end we proceed in two phases.

We first take up Baur and Hofmann. We consider Baur's conception

of NT theology, certain ramifications of his epistemology, and pertinent

aspects of his conception of history. Next Hofmann comes under scru

tiny. Following a preliminary survey of his writings and influence,

we look at those same areas already covered with reference to Baur.

This is appropriate not least since, as we will see, Hofmann to

a considerable extent conceived his work on the NT as a corrective

to the Baurian approach.

Second, we compare Wrede and Schlatter along the lines already

established in considering Baur and Hofmann: conception of NT theology,

epistemology, and view of history.

 2. F. C. Baur and J. C. K. von Hofmann as NT theologians

2.1 Baur and NT theology

We restrict ourselves here to eliciting chiefly from Baur's

2
Vorlesungen Uber neutestamentliche Theologie such information as

will make the hgl. perspective of Hofmann intelligible and relevant

in the context of the history of NT theology. We rely on other

3
studies to guide us in interpreting accurately Baur's NT theological

programme, esp. in its relation to Baur's other writings. Specifics

of this relation must for the most part remain undiscussed. Three

areas merit attention: Baur's overall conception of NT theology,

his epistemology and its ramifications, and his view of history.

2.11 Baur's conception of NT theology

2.111 Methodological significance and distinctiveness

Baur is esp. significant because he is the first in the discipline

of NT theology formally to make the central focus and task of NT

theology 'die gedankliche Explikation des glaubenden SelbstverstSlnd-

2
1864 (ed. posthumously by his son Ferdinand Friedrich).
3
Cf. esp. B.Weiss, Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des Neuen
Testaments, 1873, 24-26; C.Senft, Wahrhaftigkeit und Wahrheit, 1956,
47-86; H.Liebing, 'Historisch-kritische Theologie. . . ,' ZTK 57
(1960) 302-317; P.O.Hodgson, ed. and trans., Ferdinand Christian
Baur on the Writing of Church History, 1968; H.-J.Kraus, Die Biblische
Theologie, 1970, 144-150; O.Merk, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testa
ments in ihrer Anfangszeit, 1972, 226-236; W.G.KUmmel, The New Testa
ment: The History of the Investigation of its Problems, 1972, 120-
184; H.Harris, David Friedrich Strauss and his Theology, 1973, esp.
85-116, 274-284; idem, The Ttlbingen School, 1975; KUmmel, 'EinfUhrung
zum Neudruck von Vorlesungen Uber neutestamentliche Theologie von
Ferdinand Christian Baur,' in Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte,
vol. 2, ed. by E.Grosser and O.Merk, 1978, 101-116; R.Bultmann, Theolo
gie des Neuen Testaments, 1980, 591ff.; K.Scholder, 'Baur, Ferdinand
Christian (1792-1860),' TRE 5, 352-359; C.K.Barrett, 'Quomodo historia
conscribenda sit,' NTS 28 (1982) 303-320.
 -9
4
nisses.' NT theology for Baur is not greatly concerned with what

happened in the NT, that which the NT texts record regardingwhat

Jesus, the apostles, and others did and when or in what historical
5
context they did it. NT theology is concerned only with ideas,

concepts , 'worin ihre |the NT authors '~1 Lehre bestand . '8

Now this is in itself not a very controversial assertion. It

has been a feature of many NT theologies that they present the teaching

which they derive from the NT texts. But precisely here we see the

innovation which Baur introduces. The NT texts themselves are not

sources through which we gain direct access to the actual thought-

word complexes which the NT texts appear to refer to or relate.

The gospel writings e.g. do not preserve in any considerable measure

particular features of Jesus' life; they reflect only 'der Reflex

7
der Subjectivitclt der Schriftsteller.' Thus generally speaking

die Lehre Jesu steht. . . in einer geschichtlichen Ferne vor

u ns, in welcher sie sich der Sch&rfe der geschichtlichen Betrachtung
entzieht, und mehr nur das Ganze als das Einzelne in's Auge gefasst
werden kann.8

If one turns to regard critically the NT apart from the gospel adumbra

tions of Jesus' teaching i.e. to the apostolic writings one must

carefully and critically distinguish 'Ursache,' i.e. 'das objectiv

Thatsdchliche, wie es an sich ist,' on the one hand, from the 'sub-

jectiven Bedeutung, welche es [das objectiv Thats&chliche an sich|

erst im Bewusstsein der Apostel und in der ihnen eigenthUmlichen

9
Anschauungsweise erhalten hat.' We may observe already that Baur

4
Bultmann, Theologie, 592.
5
At least part of the reason for this is given in sec. 2.12 below.

Baur, Vorlesungen, 30. ^Ibid. 24.

8 Ibid. 122. 9Ibid. 125.

 -10-

methodologically distinguishes between what the texts say and what

Baur thinks they arereally indicating or what forces they really

10
reflect. Baur shifts the focus of NT theology from anintegrated

interpretation of the texts' own message to an extrapolation from

the texts back to the subjective consciousness of the NT writers.

What the texts recount is secondary to the light they shed on the

beliefs of their composers. The 'historical' context in the normal

sense is lost, or at least radically reconstructed so as to explain

the processes by which a writer comes to express a particular subjective

awareness.

2.112 An application of the method

It will beillustrative to give an example of Baur's application

of this method to a well-known NT figure: Paul. Jesus was dead

and in the grave. (Accounts of his resurrection are due only to

thoughts which took the form of visions to his shattered devotees,

who counted the visions 'als Erscheinungen des Auferstandenen)

Paul became aware ofJesus' death. Then with dramatic suddenness

the question hit him:

w i e , wenn es doch die Bestimmung des Messias w&re, zu sterben,

und sein Tod als eine von Gott getroffene Veranstaltung auch eine
ganz besondere religidse Bedeutung h&tte! Welche andere Bedeut-
ung konnte er aber haben, als diese, ein Opfertod ftir die SUnden
der Menschen zu sein? Sobald aber der Tod Jesu aus dem Gesichts-
punkt eines Opfertodes betrachtet wurde, so schloss diess die
Voraussetzung in sich, dass durch ihn erst bewirkt werden sollte,
was die ganze alttestamentliche Religionsanstalt nicht bewirkt
hatte, und nicht bewirken konnte. Je mehr so die ganze Bedeutung
der Messianitclt Jesu nur in seinen Tod gelegt werden konnte,
urn so mehr musste dieser neuen Veranstaltung Gottes gegendber
die ganze alttestamentliche Religionsanstalt in ihrer Unvollkommen-
heit und UnzulSnglichkeit zur Sdndenvergebung, zur Rechtfertigung
und Beseligung des Menschen erscheinen, und es kam nun darauf
an, dieses Verhdltniss des Todes Jesu zum alten Testament oder
zum Gesetz, als dem wesentlichen Charakter des alten Testaments,

"^For a defence of Baur here see Senft, Wahrhaftigkeit, 68ff.

''Baur, Vorlesungen, 127.
 -11-

in dem Zusammenhang seiner Momente dialektisch so zu entwickeln,

dass es sich als ein auf der innern Nothwendigkeit der Sache selbst
beruhendes darstellte.12

This was in general 'der innere geistige Process. . . , in welchem dem

Apostel seine eigenthtlmliche Ansicht sich bildete und der principielle

Gegensatz zura Gesetz der Mittelpunkt seines religiOsen Bewusstseins

13
wurde.' In this way Paul grasped Jesus, not as a Jewish national

saviour, but as one who had been thrust 'in eine freie, universelle,
14
rein geistige Sph&re.' We see here in brief how Baur seeks to explain

a rather central feature of the NT Paul's belief in Jesus' resurrection

by showing how concepts developed themselves inexorably within him and

eventually came forcefully to expression. In the end the historical

context of the resurrection event is lost, in that Paul's thoughts, or

those developing themselves in his consciousness, give rise to Jesus'

resurrection, and not a historical event to Paul's thought, as the NT

texts might be taken on the surface to suggest.

Through this new and original-to-Paul apprehension of the dead

Jesus' transcendent import, 'alles Particuldre des Judenthums verschwand

_ 25
ihm |to Paul] im Universalismus des Christenthums.' Above all the

law's importance is shattered. Paul realizes that man achieves true

ethical integrity only through doing that, 'wovon man das Bewusstsein

hat, dass man es thun soil.'"*"3 One notes that this is strikingly simi-

12Ibid. 130. 13Ibid.

i^Ibid. 1 3 1 .Similarly, for the writer of Hebrews 'Christus ist als

rein gOttliches Wesen in die llbersinnliche Region entrtickt' (ibid. 236) .
By the end of the 2nd century, John's gospel conceives of the Christian
religion as pure idealism, for which historical reality is only the
outer shell of the truly real (406f.).

15Ibid. 131. 16Ibid. 136.^

 -12-
17
lar to Kant's categorical imperative. Only with Paul's insights into

the deadness of Judaism has, in the whole history of mankind,'*' 'erst

ein wahrhaft geistiges Verhdltnis zwischen Gott und dem Menschen ent-
19
standen.' Vestiges of temporal connections are of course still

visible in the view of Christianity set forth by Paul, for whom the

faith was 'nur etwas UebernatUrliches,' inasmuch as he 'bestrebt. . .

20
sich doch recht sichtbar, es geschichtlich zu begreifen.' But Chris

tianity as Paul conceives it is in the final analysis

nicht bios etwas dusserlich in die Menschheit Hereingekommenes, son-

dern eine Stufe der religittsen Entwicklung, welche aus einem innern,
der Menschheit immanenten Princip hervorgegangen ist, der Fort-
schritt des Geistes zur Freiheit des Selbstbewusstseins, in deren
Periode er erst, wenn er die Unfreiheit und Knechtschaft llberwunden
hat, eintreten kann.21

Or in other words:

Das Christenthum ist selbst nichtsanderes, als die Aufhebung altes Parti-
cularistischen, damit die reine absolute Gottes-Idee in der Mensch
heit sich verwirkliche, oder in ihr zum Bewusstsein komme. In die
allgemeine Verbreitung der wahren Erkenntniss Gottes setzt daher der
Apostel die Aufgabe des Christenthums selbst.22

This profile of the origin and content of Paul's faith exemplifies

Baur's shift of NT theology's focus from the information Paul sets forth

in his letters to the subjective consciousness through which the message

comes. Significantly, this consciousness is in fundamental harmony with

the religio-philosophical idealism of Baur's 19th century Germany.

17
Jesus' own ethical 'Grundsatz des Handels' to a great extent also
corresponds 'mit dem Kant'schen Imperativ' (ibid. 62).

18Ibid. 172. 19Ibid. 173.

21 22
Ibid, Ibid, 205,
 -13-

2.113 NT theology as a purely historical science

2.1131 Priority of modern understanding

With the above Baurian profile of Paul or the meaning of Paul's

thought in mind, we are in a position to consider Baur's characteriza

tion of biblical (and hence NT) theology as 'eine rein geschichtliche

23
Wissenschaft. ' It is concerned, 'das Geschichtliche, das ihr | NT

theology's] wesentliches Element ist, so rein als mdglich darzustellen.^

At the heart of NT theology is 'die wahrhaft geschichtliche Betrachtung*

which wants simply 'das Leben der Geschichte in seiner concreten Wirk-

lichkeit so erscheinen zu lassen, wie es objectiv ist mit alien seinen

25
Unterschieden und Gegensatzen.' NT theology seen as 'ein lebendiger

Organismus'28 is thus 'auch schon Dogmengeschichte, die christliche

27
Dogmengeschichte in ihrem Verlauf innerhalb des neuen Testaments.'

Baur's description of NT theology thus pre-dates by about 100 years

and materially prefigures G. Ebeling's distinction between two views of

NT theology.28 On the one hand, Ebeling says, it may be seen as an

29
attempt to reproduce the content of the NT. But critical study of

the Bible has so jeopardized the Bible's (and the NT's) theological

unity, the concept of canon, and the Bible's status as 'theology' in

itself 30-that we must today think of NT theology as 'the scientific

pp OA pc
Ibid. 1. Ibid. Ibid. 27.

26Ibid. 28. 27Ibid. 33.

28 G.Ebeling, 'The Meaning of "Biblical Theology",' in Word and Faith,

1963, 79-97. This important essay (dating from 1955) may well mark the
inception of NT theology's most recent rethinking of the roots of
Gablerian NT theology. Cf. e.g. Merk, Anfangszeit; J .Sandys-Wunsch and
L.Eldredge, 'J.P.Gabler and the Distinction between Biblical and Dogma
tic Theology,' SJT 33 (1980) 133-158.
29 30
Ebeling, o.c., 93f. ^Ibid. 91-93.
 -14-

31
explication of the content' of the NT.

Baur paved the way for Ebeling's insight. Baur advocated a scien

tific explication which would take the form of interpreting the NT texts

within the grid of contemporary understanding which makes no pretence,

when it comes to conceptual analysis, of taking up the texts' own self-

understanding and giving a comprehensive account of it in terms of the

32
context inherent to them. For reasons which come clearer below, there

is simply no unity inherent in the NT texts to begin with, at least none

acceptable to a discipline which Baur believes has extricated and pro

gressively emancipated 'die reine Lehre der Schrift aus den Fesseln des Ab-

h&ngigkeits-Verhglltnisses, in das sie zum dogmatischen System der Kirche

33
gekommen w ar.' The upshot of this methodological positioning is that

the text's own statements and theological (dogmatic) content cannot,

by definition of NT theology's task, any longer be interpreted in the

theological (dogmatic) context historically associated with those texts.

Baur finds nothing but radical disunity on the surface of the NT texts

anyway, so it is pointless to speak of a theological context; at best

one could speak of many such contexts. But this only proves Baur's

implicit methodological contention, that NT theology does not take a

synthetic theological understanding inherent to the NT texts as the

lodestar (much less object) of its scrutiny but rather the various and

often mutually excluding expressions of religious consciousness which

filter something to us. The composite of this consciousness, what we

might call an absolute, which comes to us in severely refracted form

through the utterances comprising the NT texts, is what NT theology

31 32
Ibid.94. See sec. 2.12.
33
Baur, Vorlesungen, 1.
 -15-

ultimately presses to explicate. The NT is thus read as witness

to the ancient non-theological religious consciousness which matches

the modern non-theological religious consciousness of the NT theologian.

The absolute giving rise to ancient consciousness is explicated so as

to commend it to modern (scientific) religious consciousness. The task

of NT theology is thereby given with modern understanding, according

to whose non-theological absolute the NT's conceptual content is

measured, assessed, and ordered.^4

2.1132 Development, reconstruction, and the definition of NT theology

One must be quite clear, therefore, as to what Baur envisions as

the means to gaining what Ktlmmel terms 'eine begrUndete Einsicht in den

zeitlichen Zusammenhang und die innere Entwicklung des neutestament-

35
lichen Denkens.' This does not appear on the face of it to be any

thing but a reasonable, non-controversial description of a major intent

of any credible NT theology. But what, for Baur, constitutes the 'zeit

licher Zusammenhang und die innere Entwicklung'? It is not the context,

and perhaps even less the development, implied in the texts read as

historical documents i.e. documents setting forth an actual past state

The question of what comprises this absolute for Baur need not
detain us long. It is unquestionably closely linked with 'der oberste
Grundsatz der Lehre Jesu in ihrem Unterschied vom Mosaismus. . . , dass
allein die Sittlichkeit der Gesinnung es ist, was dem Menschen seinen
absoluten sittlichen Werth vor Gott gibt' (ibid. 48). This insight is
'das wesentliche Princip des Christenthums' (ibid. 51). Jesus in this
view is 'selbst die concrete Anschauung der in alle Ewigkeit sich er-
streckenden Bedeutung der absoluten Wahrheit seiner Lehre' (ibid. 110).
God is 'die sittliche Idee an sich, oder das sittliche Ideal,' and we
therefore apprehend Jesus 'als die sich realisierende Idee' (ibid. 117)
It seems fair to conclude that the absolute which Baur thinks informs
the consciousness reflected in the NT writings is at least in large part
the self-actualization of the Hegelian 'Geist.' This absolute manifests
itself in moral terms as the categorical imperative inherent in and ex
pressing itself through human understanding.
35
Kllmmel, 'EinfUhrung, ' Heilsgeschehen, 112.
 -16-

of affairs for they are only tangentially historical, if at all, as

far as NT theology is concerned.38 From the standpoint of NT theology,

the texts are the direct means of recovering, not the original witnesses

of something that happened, but many things that were thought (or

thought up) about matters which (as in the case of the resurrection)

indeed never happened at all, or at least about matters whose occurrence

or non-occurrence is not of vital relevance to the concepts which come

to expression in the texts. For it was not historical occurrences, at

least not the ones related in the NT, which gave rise to the concepts

in the NT, but to a great extent concepts which led to the relating of

occurrences.

So then, when Merk stresses that Baur placed emphasis on 'recon-

37
struction,' not 'interpretation,' one must qualify this by the reali

zation that Baur's reconstruction in itself is very much an interpre

tative procedure. Baur is aware e.g. that he (in Strauss' wake) is

among the first to understand the gospels 'mit dem historisch kritischen,

oder dem rein geschichtlichen Sinn. . . , welcher allein den Schltlssel

ihres |the gospel history's"] richtigen Verstdndnisses geben kann.'38 The

historical-critical or 'rein geschichtlicher Sinn' is an approach in

39
which the integrating dynamic or absolute of the NT texts is supplied

from the outside by the modern interpreter of those texts. The inter

m i t may be objected here that Baur did in fact structure his

theology based on a rigorously historical ordering of the documents.
We however agree with R.Morgan, NNTT, 14: 'Baur's structure is based
formally on the succession of documents, but materially upon the history
which these were thought to reflect.'

37Merk, Anfangszeit, 235. 38Baur, Vorlesungen, 20. 39 Cf. n.34.

 -17-

preter gives a scientific (i.e. consistent with modern perceptions of

reality, truth, and ethical values) explication of the texts. The

explicative categories are not those derived from the texts but those

inhering in the scientific or critical outlook of the interpreter. We

can now see clearly why Baur's approach to NT theology as 'die gedank-

liche Explikation des glaubenden Selbstverst&ndnissess' is revolutionary

NT theology does not presume to set forth 'NT theology' derived directly

from the NT. The texts are not 'theology,' are not somehow normative

(or even factually reliable) accounts, descriptions, or interpretations,

which we in turn analyze, reflect upon, and synthesize on the way to

assembling a holistic picture of 'NT theology' consistent with them.

The texts are rather already 'theologizing,' and as such strictly sub-
40
jective formulations of conceptualizations of how unknown ancients

developed and expressed convictions to which they came only after the

course of many decades of seeking. NT theology built on this premise

thus understandably in sin important sense comprises a somewhat philo

sophical explication of human religious consciousness. Specifically

for Baur, NT theology is an extrapolation from a comprehensive concep

tual framework in which religious consciousness is intelligible to the

NT theologian to various believing consciousnesses of some disparate

(or even directly opposed) ancient Christian writers. The determinative

starting point is the present, not the past. This leads us to Baur's

epistemology.

2.12 Demonstration of some effects of Baur's epistemology

Integral to Baur's methodological approach to NT theology is his

40
The phrase is awkward but captures Baur's intent.
 -18-

approach to knowing generally If NT theology is a purely historical

discipline, concerned foremost to present the historical, which is its

41
essential element, 'so rein als mdglich in sich,' we must try to grasp

how Baur viewed the conditions under which history or the past as such

is knowable. Rather than embark on a lengthy theoretical analysis, we

will try to understand Baur through examining specific examples of his

procedure.

2.121 The problem and Baur's Cartesian solution

H. Liebing correctly observes that history for Baur was

problematisch geworden. Einmal deshalb, weil sie nur auf Fakten

und Daten fUhrte, die zuf&llig, zusammenhanglos, ohne Sinn und Be-
deutung erschienen. Sodann- aber auch methodologisch, weil zwischen
den GegenstSLnden der Historie und dem Historiker ein Abstand lag,
eine Kluft, auf die Kants Erkenntnistheorie lSngst aufmerksam
gemacht hatte.42

Baur's own words illustrate this point:

Nur der rohste Empirismus kann meinen, dass man den Dingen sich
schlechthin hingeben, die Objekte der geschichtlichen Betrachtung
nur gerade so nehmen kdnne, wie sie vor uns liegen. Seitdem es auch
eine Kritik des Erkennens, eine kritische Erkenntnistheorie gibt
(eine solche gibt es bekanntlich in jedem Falle, wenigstens seit
Kant), muss auch jeder, der nicht ohne alle philosophische Bildung
zur Geschichte herankommt, wissen, dass man zwischen den Dingen,
wie sie an sich sind, und wie sie uns erscheinen, zu unterscheiden
hat, und dass sie zu Erscheinungen ftlr uns eben dadurch werden, dass
wir nur durch das Medium unseres Bewusstseins zu ihnen gelangen
ktinnen. Hierin liegt der grosse Unterschied zwischen der rein
empirischen und der kritischen Betrachtungsweise. . . .43
44
Baur adopts, in H. Thielicke's terminology, a Cartesian under

standing of his discipline. This approach accepts the limits on its

41 42
Baur, Vorlesungen, 1. Liebing, ZTK 57 (1960) 313f.
43
Ibid. 314. Liebing quotes Baur's Lehrbuch der christlichen Dog
mengeschichte , 1847, IXf. Cf. Hodgson, Baur on Church History, 364ff.
n.45.

44By 'Cartesian' Thielicke (n.46 below) seems not to have in mind

the (ontologically significant) '"real distinction" between mind and
body' but rather Descartes (epistemologically significant) 'egocentric
 -19-

perception which were set forth by Kant and thereby essentially endorses
45
a Kantian epistemology, or a modified version of it. It is Cartesian

in that it makes 'the relevance of the knowing self the center of

thought.'46 It is distinctly modern Thielicke points out that such

47
modernity existed at least as far back as Semler in that it wants

'to bring theological statements into harmony with the sense of truth
48
as this has been transformed by historical and scientific study.' The

Cartesian approach does not, at least not intentionally, set out 'to

give the modern self-consciousness a dominant position and then to

49
accommodate Christian truth to it as a function.' Its concern is

rather 'to work out the possibilities of understanding Christian

50
truth.' It is thus chiefly concerned with 'the possible appropriation
51
of the kerygma rather than its content.'

2.122 The solution's inherent risk

Now Thielicke mentions the danger that this approach risks: it

approach which is one of the most characteristic features of his philo

sophy and which, with its related insistence on epistemology as the
starting point of philosophy, serves to distinguish it and much that
followed it from most philosophy that preceded it' (B.Williams, 'Des
cartes, Rene,' in EP, vol. 2, 348, 346). Cf. Thielicke himself, 34f. ;
also more recently R.Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism, 1983,
16ff., 115ff. A.Thiselton, The Two Horizons, 1980, 292, possibly fails
to note this; cf. below ch. 5, n.24.
45
We will have occasion to come back to this at various points be
low, but what is meant by 'Kantian epistemology' with reference to
theological-historical understanding is partially outlined by e.g. D.
McKenzie, 'Kant and Protestant Theology,' Enc 43 (1982) 157-167.
46
Thielicke, The Evangelical Faith, vol. 1, 1974, 34.
47 48 49
Ibid. 33. Ibid. 32. Ibid. 33.
51
Ibid. 41.
 -20-

might 'do what was not intended and invest the subject of understanding
52
with a normative rank for what is understood.' And from a different

point of view Baur himself voices the same concern: historical work

is not possible, 'wenn man nur das finden will, was man zu glauben hat,
53
und der Geschichte voraus vorschreibt, was sie enthalten soli.' But

it may well be that the effects of Baur's epistemological starting point

force him to bring the substance of the NT under the control of a modern

understanding which is foreign, even inimical, to the NT texts. We men

tion just two aspects of Baur's Vorlesungen which raise fears that he

has fallen prey to this danger.

2.1221 Conforming text's message to problematic 'historical' findings

First, the steady adducing of the latest (post-Straussian) studies

54
and viewpoints in order to overturn time-tested assessments of NT

material calls in question whether Baur was critically balanced or

whether for him 'critical' was primarily that which agreed with his own
55
clearly anti-theological anti-authoritarian Kantian outlook. One

52 53
Ibid. 33. Baur, Vorlesungen, 33.
54
A distinctive feature of Vorlesungen is a heavy reliance on 'den
neuesten Untersuchungen' (e.g. 23, 41f.), 'dem jetztigen Standpunkt der
neutestamentlichen Kritik' ( 24; cf. 108, 349), 'die Grunds&tze der
neuesten Kritik' (28, cf. 85, 99, 104, 312), over against that which
'bisher die gewdhnliche Meinung war' (25 here Baur refers to the
authorship of the NT epistles). Of coursei it is desirable that NT
theology be informed by recent historical findings, but prudence dic
tates that radically new findingsrequire sifting and testing before
they be permittted full influence. At times Baur resembles those of
a few years back who, in the fresh light of Qumran, immediately wanted
to dissolve Jesus into the Essene Teacher of Righteousness.
55
Even in Baur's lifetime, 'his views and conclusions were almost
everywhere rejected by the overwhelming majority of theologians both
orthodox and liberal' (Harris, Strauss, 278).
 -21-

could argue that, inadvertently or not, he makes a modern, somewhat

iconoclastic understanding the normative arbiter for deciding the con

tents of the NT texts.

We cite three typical cases. (1) Regarding the NT accounts about

Jesus, Baur says that 'jeder, der dem Gang der neuern kritischen Untersuch-

ungen ohne dogmatische Vorurtheile und Voraussetzungen gefolgt ist, '

must confess that they are far removed temporally from the events they
56
describe. Baur placed the synoptics in the first decades of the 2nd
57
century and John much later. Thus one must separate the gospels

von der Zeit, die sie beschreiben, durch einen Zwischenraum. . .

in welchem so Vieles dazwischen liegen kann, wodurch der ursprting-
liche Thatbestand mehr oder minder verdndert worden ist.58

It is therefore 'schlechthin unmtJglich' to view the gospel writers as

59
'blosse Referenten der Lehre und Geschichte Jesu,' and the synoptics

(to say nothing of John) are thus not authentic sources of the teaching

or life of J e s u s . ^ (2) Baur holds that those who view the NT as a unity

(as opposed to a materially disparate collection of perceptions) in a

traditional sense i.e. as theologically somewhat harmonious necessar

ily do so 'weil man sonst den Inhalt der Schriften des neuen Testaments

nicht als eine UbernatUrlich geoffenbarte Lehre behandeln ktinnte, zu

welcher man sich nur glaubig zu verhalten h a t . ' ^ (3) Any aspects of

divinity attributed to Jesus, or any reports of his miraculous works,

can be explained (away) if we trace the gospel material, 'nach den

Grunds&tzen der Kritik, nach welchen tlberhaupt die evangelische Ge-

56 57
Baur, Vorlesungen, 21. Ibid. 41.
58 59.
Ibid. 21 Ibid.
60. 61
Ibid. 24 Ibid. 32
 -22-

schichte zu beurtheilen ist,' back 'auf ihren wahren und ursprUnglichen

Gehalt.'62 Similarly, reports of Jesus' resurrection can only be

naturalistically (or psychologically) construed for 'Alle, welche an

kein wirkliches materielles Wunder glauben.'33 Plainly Baur belongs

to this group.

In each of these three typical instances, we see that Baur is a lit

tle hasty to outflank, as it were, the general impression which one

might obtain, and which many for centuries had obtained, from reading

the NT. Granted that each gospel writer has his own viewpoint, as Baur

rightly insists; it is nevertheless something of an overreaction for

Baur to adopt such a negative stance toward the temporal proximity of

the NT texts to the events they relate. (And Baur himself is inconsis

tent at this point, for he apparantly does regard those parts of the

gDspel as reliable which preserve what Baur thinks is the true essence

absolute ethical religion of the NT.) Again, while there is doubtless

more diversity in the NT than some of Baur's contemporaries allowed,

Baur probably goes too far in attributing unified views of the NT solely
64
to dogmatic prejudice. What would this charge imply for Baur's own

somewhat one-dimensional reconstruction of NT thought? Finally, Baur's

aversion to all miracles, as well as to Jesus' divinity, is clearly

65
rationalistic. Now rationalism is admittedly a viable intellectual

33Ibid. 99; cf. 298: 'Es muss also erst das Geschichtliche vom
Nichtgeschichtlichen kritisch geschieden und die Frage untersucht wer-
den, wie wir uns die Entstehung des Letztern zu erkl&ren haben. ' Cf.
also 302ff., where Baur ascribes the so-called miracles of the gospels
to the 'Tendenz einer traditionellen Idealisierung' of Jesus' person.

63Ibid. 126.
64
So already B.Weiss, Lehrbuch des N T , 26.
65
Barrett, NTS 28 (1982) 316, seems to want to deny that Baur worked
with rationalist presuppositions. Thus he discounts Harris' claim
(TUbingen School, 259) that Baur was among those who 'made the first
 -23-

option for some, but the question would be whether as a basic standpoint

it is a suitable conceptual basis for rightly interpreting and synthe

sizing NT history and thought.

It seems justified to suggest that Baur did indeed tend to elevate

his particular modern outlook to the status of judge of the NT.6 Now

of course to an extent this is always an inevitable feature of the

interpretative process. Kant's basic insight that what is known is

coloured by the subjectivity of the knower cannot be denied. But if

we read Baur with the question in mind, to what extent his understanding

was, in Thielicke's formulation, 'prepared to let itself be revalued

and relativized' in view of the data, or on the other hand to what ex

tent his own understanding seems to have been 'determined to assert

itself as the normative criterion of the truth addressed to it,'6^ we

comprehensive and consequent attempt to interpret the New Testament and

the history of the early Church from a non-supernatural standpoint.'
Barrett cites Hodgson (Baur on Church History) to support an interpre
tation of Baur as 'equally opposed to supernatural and rationalist
interpretations of history' (ibid., 12-17). This is true in the limited
sense Hodgson means it, but it is also true to say: 'Dass Baur das
rationalistische Erbe nie ganz aufgegeben hat, wird sich nicht bestrei-
ten lassen' (KUmmel, 'Einftihrung,' Heilsgeschehen, 110). Hodgson him
self points to Baur's conviction that God 'does not impinge upon history
as an extrinsic, alien force or personal agency. . . ; he is rather the
ground of the process of history itself. . . ' (Baur on Church History,
14). Baur expressly rejected miracle conceived as that which occurs
when 'the hand of God intervenes directly in the affairs of history'
(ibid.). It is true, then, that Baur has moved beyond pure rationalism
and devised a 'speculative hermeneutic' with which to view history (ibid
17-36 );cf. recently Hodgson, 'Hegels Approach to Religion: The Dialec
tic of Speculation and Phenomenology,' JR 64 (1984) 158-172. But it
is also true that strong elements of rationalism persist in his work,
and this is esp. noticeable in his NT theology.

66Cf. Senft, Wahrhaftigkeit, 77, who notes that Baur failed to allow
the text freedom to call his own understanding into question.

67Thielicke, Evangelical Faith, 109. Cf. Morgan, NNTT, 13.

 -24-
must conclude that Baur laid cardinal stress on his modern understanding

as unerring arbiter. His epistemological starting point seriously

reduces his capacity to see those aspects or dimensions of the NT which

do not conform to what Baur on epistemological grounds is prepared to

accept.

2.1222 Use of religious a priori as interpretative grid

Baur seems to hand the substance of the NT over to modern under

standing to an undue degree in still a second way: commensurate with

Thielicke's Cartesian model generally, 'general criteria of thought are

sought that are present in the pre-Christian and secular conscious

ness . '68 In the same vein Thielicke shows that in the Cartesian

approach the message which scripture conveys 'is given a location in

69
our consciousness.' This general outlook is typified in Lessing, for

whom 'certainty is possible only if the truth that claims me is analo

gous to what my structure of consciousness contains within it as con-

70
sciousness of truth.' Thus, 'I have my own access to truth.' We would

suggest that in Baur's concept of NT theology, largely as a result of

his epistemological approach, a conceptual a priori is predicated of

universal human religious self-consciousness, and this self-consciousness,

in which Baur obviously shares, functions as a grid for interpreting

the NT texts at the religio-theological level.

This feature of Baur's method is clear first in his assertion that the

teaching of Jesus is 'das liber alle zeitliche Entwicklung Hinausliegende,

71
ihr Vorangehende, Unmittelbare und Ursprtingliche.' We must in re

garding the NT 'zurUckgehen' 'auf dieses Ursprtingliche und Unmittel-

68Ibid. 42. 69Ibid. 47.

70 71
Ibid. 42. Baur, Vorlesungen, 45.
 -25-.

72
bare.' It is at first mystifying as to how we may do this; Baur has

already argued thusly against protests that his method is too preoccu

pied with abstract concepts rather than full-orbed 'Leben' itself:

such protests suppose that Christianity 'sei nichts durch Begriffe Ver-

mitteltes, sondern Gegenstand der unmittelbaren Lebenserfahrung, that-

73
sSchliche Wirklichkeit.' But this can 'wenigstens nicht vom Urchris-

tenthum gelten, dessen Kenntniss fllr uns durch so Vieles, das dazwischen
74
liegt, vermittelt wird. 1 So Baur has both urged us to recover the

'Ursprtingliche und Unmittelbar' and then argued that is is inaccessible,

at least historicallyo We find the solution to this ambiguity in Baur's

usage of the 'Lehre Jesu' as synonomous with the 'christliche Bewusst-

75
sein. ' This follows from the observation that Jesus locates 'alles,

was dem Menschen seinen sittlich-religidsen Werth gibt, einzig in die

Gesinnung.' And this 'Gesinnung' is 'das unmittelbare in seiner imma-

nenten Wahrheit sich aussprechende Bewusstsein des Menschen.' It is

in fact that, 'worauf im ganzen Inhalt der Bergrede alles zurllckgeftihrt

wird.'7^ And for Baur the Sermon on the Mount is the highest order of NT
77
expression.

This shows how Baur has definitely assumed a given ethical human

religious consciousness and elevated it (and its classic supporting

text) to the status of adjudicator of the place, value, and meaning of

72 73
Ibid. 46. Ibid. 31. Cf. 122ff.
74 75
Ibid. Ibid., 62.

76Ibid. 60.
77
Ibid. 6 4f. : The 'sittliche Element' of the Sermon on the Mount
is 'der eigentlich substanzielle Kern des Christenthums, zu welchem
alles Andere. . . in einem mehr oder minder secund&ren und zuf&lligen
Verhclltniss steht.'
 -26-
78
all other NT texts. This is not just a 'canon within the canon' ap

proach or a hypothetical centre for the NT adopted for pragmatic reasons

in constructing a NT theology. It is a serious and problematic eleva

tion of a rationalistic philosophical postulate (Kant's categorical

imperative) to normative rank in evaluating the NT texts 'historically.'

We glimpse this same feature of Baur's procedure when he (somewhat

ponderously) defines the 'ursprtingliche Grundanschauung des christlichen

Bewusstseins' seen in the NT as

das den Gegensatz von Stinde und Gnade an sich schon in sich ent-
haltende, aber von dem Bewusstsein desselben noch vttllig unberlihrt
gebliebene reine Geftlhl der ErlttsungsbedUrftigkeit, das als solches auch
schon alle Realit&t der Erltfsung in sich hat. 79

Again it seems that Baur is reading the NT through patently modern

lenses, lenses this time still of somewhat Kantian making (here ex

plained with the aid of Hegelian dialectic), but mounted in Schleiermach-

80
erian frames. He is locating redemption in categories immanent to

the religious self-consciousness,^ and it is not at all clear that this

is either derived from or appropriate to the texts he is handling.

Owing at least in part to the effects of his view of knowing, Baur risks

obscuring an understanding of the texts by, in the end, championing a

modern understanding of understanding.

78
Cf. ibid. 46; also 103, where Baur assesses the authenticity of
t he'Verstthnungstod' concept in the Last Supper passages by beginning
with the question: 'Allein, wie stimmt diess zu der Bergrede?'
79
Ibid. 64.
80
Baur's own debt to Schleiermacher is noted by Scholder, THE 5,
353; cf. Sanft, Wahrhaftigkeit, 48-53.
81
Jesus' own relationship to the Father is explained in similar
terms: 'In der Erweckung dieses rein sittlichen Bewusstseins besteht
die gdttliche Sendung, in welcher er als Sohn mit dem Vater sich eins
weiss' (Vorlesungen, 115).
 -27-

2.123 Summary: pure history, pure reason, and

NT theology's non-NT starting point

We have seen that Baur's NT theology labors willfully under at least

some of the epistemological demands made by Kant. It could perhaps be

shown that the 'rein geschichtliche' aspect of Baur's NT theological

method is conceived, whether intentionally or not, in direct parallel

to Kant's 'reine Vernunft,' which means 'reason in so far as it supplies

out of itself, independently of experience, a priori elements that as

82
such are characterized by universality and necessity.' That is, in

many ways Baur treats NT history, and that means our understanding of

NT history, as history 'in so far as it supplies out of itself, indepen

dently of experience, a priori elements that as such are characterized

by universality and necesssity.' The essence of history for Baur is

the concept or idea, and 'zum Wesen der Idee. . . gehttrt es, dass sie
83
das, was sie an sich ist, auch in der Wirklichkeit ist.' It seems

then that the a priori aspect of history, which as a priori is also

universal and necessary, reveals itself in a sort of 'from a priori to

a priori' process, i.e. from the unconditioned essence which once dyna

mically constituted historical reality to the unconditioned essence

which now constitutes historical reality as we rethink (or are rethought

by) it. What is important here is that Baur finally locates within the

knower a prior-to-all-experience knowledge which determines the content

of what comprised and comprises historical reality, and thus of what

82
2 N.K.Smith, A Commentary to Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason',
1923, rpt. 1979, 2. It is perhaps also worth noting that, as Kant
seems to have been the first to use the term 'Kritik' in German (ibid.
1), Baur first gave the term 'historisch-kritisch' wide currency in NT
studies (Scholder, TRE 5, 355). But cf. Merk, Anfangszeit, 199n.l45.

^ B a u r , Vorlesungen, 260.
 -28-
84
the knower perceives it to be. And this greatly influences how Baur

handles the NT, for if in such a fashion 'we impose conditions for re

ceiving messages and Baur most certainly does 'we put them under our
85
control, and openly or secretly we are thus editing them.' But all

of this perhaps goes beyond what we have mainly tried to do above, which

is merely to demonstrate certain significant effects of Baur's episte

mology, not delve into its mechanics. In sum, Baur seems not to avoid

the trap of overhastily subordinating the understanding(s) latent in

the NT texts to a particular modern understanding of understanding.

Scholder characterizes Baur's 'historical' method, and thus his NT

theology, well in stating: 'Weit entfernt, sich aus der mtlhsamen Gegen-

wart in die Geschichte zurtlckzuziehen, war es vielmehr die Gegenwart,

von der aus und fUr die Baur die ganze Geschichte zu begreifen suchte.'88

2.13 Aspects of Baur's conception of history

2.131 The basic conception

The view of history which informs the construction of Baur's NT

theology is as follows. Baur in a well-known passage describes history

in general as

the eternally clear mirror in which the Spirit perceives itself,

views its own image, in order to be what it is in itself for itself
as well, for its own consciousness, and to know itself as the moving
power of historical becoming.87

Given this philosophical (Hegelian) conception of history, only the

88
'speculative view of history' is workable. This view Baur's own

84
Cf. Hodgson, Baur on Church History, 17ff.
85
Thielicke, Evangelical Faith, 54.

86Scholder, TRE 5, 357.

87
Hodgson, Baur on Church History, 365.

88Ibid. 362ff.
 -29-

presupposes 'that an Absolute truth exists. . . and therefore also a

consciousness of the Absolute.' Baur elaborates: 'The Absolute itself

must also be the knowledge of the Absolute, for it would not be the Ab

solute were it not the Absolute for subjective consciousness as well.'

Thus from Baur's speculative standpoint 'the history of dogma,' which

includes NT history, 'can be considered only as the movement of Absolute

Truth, which in that history discloses itself to subjective conscious-

,89
n ess. '

It is evident that the 'subjective consciousness' to which the ab

solute is revealing itself is one of which Baur feels he partakes. This

is clear in his rhetorical question as to whether it is not

the nature of history itself that, from every standpoint from which
we look anew into the past, there is presented a new image, through
which we obtain a truer, more vital and more significant perception
of what has happened, even if only in a particular respect.90

Baur evidently sees modern critical thought in Germany (and himself

along with it) occupying the loftiest peak yet scaled with reference

to the reality and meaning of past events. Baur's work in general, in

cluding his NT theology, thus understandably deals with periods

in whose course the Spirit working in the depths and struggling to

ward the solution of its task has raised itself, at first gradually,
to the level on which it stands in the present mode of perception.

This is not just a philosophical theory on Baur's part but a consti

tutive factor in his evaluation of historical evidence. It assumes that

the current state-of-the-art level of enlightened thought (in which Baur

shares) has possession of keys, heretofore unknown, which can unlock

both the specific features and the ultimate meaning of history, inclu

ding NT history, very probably for the first time ever.

89
Ibid. 364. Baur seems not to allow for the possibility that sub
jective consciousness might be mistaken.

90Ibid. 47. 9xIbid. 49.

 -30-

2,132 Entrance of historicism

With Baur we see, then, a profound commitment to a very definite

conceptualization of history. Harris points out that Baur, like

Strauss, wanted a 'presuppositionless history,1 one which did not pre-

92
suppose 'the existence of a transcendent personal God.1 This is 'the
93
base-mark criterion1 in assessing Baur's whole critical approach. From

Baurfe methodological standpoint there was (in a sense) no God and hence

no miracles; conversely, the (assumed) fact that miracles are impossible

is best accounted for on the supposition that there is no God, or at

least none who discloses knowledge of himself through observable pheno

mena. Now this is seemingly already a fairly problematic base from

which to approach NT theology, but Baur (again like Strauss) took a fur

ther step and identified this

philosophical principle with the possibility of scientific, critical

and historical research. From this time on historical research was
to be a presuppositionless investigation whose only allowable pre
supposition was the exclusion of every miraculous and supernatural
event. All historical criticism not sharing this view was hence
forth to be labelled unscientific. . . . 94

In a word, with Baur's conception of history we see historicism enter

95
the workshop of NT theology.

The possible deleterious effect of this on Baur's interpretation

92
Harris, Strauss, 89.
93
Ibid. Barrett, NTS 28 (1982) 316 disputes this, but offers little
evidence.
94
Harris, Strauss, 89.
95
Cf. H.Schnddelbach, Philosophy in Germany 1831-1933, 1984, 36,
who mentions the leading role of TUbingen in the advent of historicistic
thinking. With M. Mandelbaum, 'Historicism,' EP, vol. 4, 24, we take
historicism to be 'the belief that an adequate understanding of the na
ture of anything and an adequate assessment of its value are to be
gained by considering it in terms of the place it occupied and the role
it played within a process of development. . . . Histori CkSvn involves
a genetic model of explanation and an attempt to base all evaluation
upon the nature of the historical process itself.1
 -31-

of specific incidents is self-evident, leading e.g. to his strained

96
handling of the resurrection. The broader effects lie in his reduc

tion of all historical phenomena to a strictly immanent, temporal plane,

developing naturalistically on an organic model, hermetically sealed

from any possible material divine influence. This platonic dualism

makes Senft's characterization of Baur's position correct, 'dass alle

Geschichte, weil nur als Etappe zur Gegenwart verstanden, zur blossen

Vergang^Ae-it* wird.'^7 Whatever NT theology's historical findings, they

are irrevocably moored to a past forever vanished.

2.133 Baur's idealized Hg.

Now it would be wrong to suppose that Baur's historicism leads him

to a fragmented, atomistic conception of NT history. He terms the king

dom of God 'die erst mit dem neuen Testament beginnende Religions-

Okonomie,' or again speaks of 'das messianische Reich' as 'die Periode

der theokratischen Weltentwicklung, in welcher der gOttliche Weltplan

zu seiner vollkommenen Realisierung gelangt und das Ziel erreicht, auf

98
das er von Anfang an angelegt ist.' Baur speaks of 'die gbttliche
99 100
Weltordnung' which Paul perceived and 'die ganze Weltentwicklung.'

In a sense Baur does not do away with the Hg. of which Hofmann speaks

in his own NT theology; he rather develops a Hegelian version of it.

As Kraus notes, these remarks by Baur on the course of history

sind insofern interessant und lehrreich, als sie den traditionellen

Begriff der HeilsOkonomie ideengeschichtlich universalisieren und
ihn fUr einen Entwicklungsprozess in Anspruch nehmen. . . . 101

96 97
See above, sec. 2.112. Wahrhaftigkeit, 77.
98
Baur, Vorlesungen, 69; cf. Kraus, Biblische Theologle, 149.

%aur, Vorlesungen, 195. ^^Ibid. 205.

101
Kraus, Biblische Theologie, 149.
 -32-

To say that Baur denied that the NT is part of some traditionally con

ceived Hg. is thus not to say that there is no legitimate historically

integrated view of the whole NT to be had at all. He is only saying that

such a view is not forthcoming from the NT itself but must be elicited

from contemporary critical understanding, in which the constantly un

folding definitive assessment of the past reveals itself.

2.134 Summary: the measure of (NT) history (theology)

Of course B a urs conception of history is a large subject, and we

have hardly begun to cover it here. Yet, as we have seen, one can in

all fairness characterize the interpretative grid through which Baur

draws the NT evidence for constructing his NT theology as historicistic.

Further, he idealizes and universalizes the NT history in accordance

with a picture of the NT 'Entwicklungsprocess' which is probably harmo

nious with the NT only on Hegelian assumptions. Remembering here also

Baur's epistemological basis it seems accurate to draw the following

conclusion. In Baur's 'historical' approach to NT theology the measure

of what the NT documents contain conceptually e.g. NT theology must

finally be our critical (in the formal Kantian sense) consciousness and

explication of the truth which at all times progressively manifests it

self in historical development (immanently understood). For under

standing Baur's view of NT theology it is thus crucial to observe that

his view of history presupposes that rigorous critical thinking can suc

ceed to a definitive explanation andunderstanding of the historical

process, including that of the NT. It can do this without recourse to

transcendent causation miracles, propositional revelation, an incarnate

(in the traditional sense) God, etc. Or in other words critical

thinking must explain the NT texts in terms alien to the texts them

selves, which arguably see transcendent involvement in history as both

 -33-

important and real indeed. In Baur's view the ultimate meaning of all

reality is latent in and manifests itself only immanently through his

tory. As moderns on the cutting edge of the absolute's current stage

of self-unfolding, we are capable of discerning that ultimate meaning,

and we are bound to move from our contemporary discernment of it to an

102
assessment of all prior history based upon it. This includes, of

course, the NT.

To avoid repetition we defer further exposition and final summariza

tion of Baur until we examine Hofmann along similar lines. For it is

in the relationship of the respective methods of these two that our

ultimate interest lies.

2.2 Hofmann and NT theology

In turning now to Hofmann, we wish chiefly to compare and contrast

salient aspects of his approach to NT theology with the approach of

Baur. We will look at Hofmann's conception of NT theology, at certain

aspects of his epistemology, and at his basic approach to history, at

least as it comes to light in his investigation of the NT. This will

make comparison with Baur possible and be a useful step in analyzing

a trajectory of modern NT theology whose specific relationship to the

currently ascendant BWB line has probably not been adequately con-

a ^
sxdered.103

2.21 Preliminary considerations

Before delving into Hofmann's NT theology, however, we must make

102
Thus Baur speaks of immersing oneself in historical detail but
always returning to 'the universal, to those Ideas that must be the
guiding points of view and illuminating stars on the long journey
through the centuries' (Hodgson, Baur on Church History, 44).
103
Of- only tangential relevance to our study is the Catholic Tubin
gen school's hgl. perspective, which arose roughly at the same time as
Hofmann's views developed. See P.HUnermann, Der Durchbruch geschicht-
lichen Denkens im 19. Jahrhundert, 1967, 21-48.
 -34-

mention of (1) past and contemporary perceptions of Hofmann (both

largely negative), and (2) the contents of the major systematic works

on which these negative judgments for the most part seem to be based.

This will lead to the observation that Hofmann's NT theology itself is

virtually unknown today. This underscores the need for investigation

of it, both for the sake of the history of the discipline and for an

understanding of the hgl. perspective within it.

2.211 Perceptions of Hofmann

104
Hofmann (1810-1877) is recognized in recent NT theology as the
105
father of the hgl. line of inquiry. It seems, however, that his

work in NT theology has so far been inadequately assessed. Cullmann

surprisingly states that in developing his hgl. outlook he was unaware

of any debt to Hofmann; he appears to feel the need to distance himself

from such views as Hofmann's which are alleged to be based, not on

exegesis and historical analysis, but on philosophy of history.10^ Ladd

104
Helpful overviews of Hofmann include Senft, Wahrhaftigkeit, 87-
123; F.Kantzenbach, Die Erlanger Theologie, 1960, 179-208; idem, Pro
gramme der Theologie, 1978, 90-103; G.Merz, Das bayerische Luthertum,
1955, 29-42; K.Barth, Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century,
1972, esp. 607f. For bibliog. see H.Jordan, 'Zur Hofmann Bibliographie,'
BBK 29 (1922) 129ff.; E.Wendebourg, Die heilsgeschichtliche Theologie
Joh. Chr. K. von Hofmanns. . ., diss. Gdttingen 1953, 195-201.
105
G.Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 1974, 16; L.Goppelt,
Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 1981, 45; 0.Cullmann, Christ and Time,
rev. ed., 1964, 56; idem, Salvation in History, 1967, 28.

''^Cullmann, Christ and Time. 8; Salvation in History, 55. In both

cases Cullmann is trying to evade K.G.Steck's efforts (Die Idee der
Heilsgeschichte, 1959) to discredit him by linking him to Hofmann and
Schlatter. Without appearing to have delved into Hofmann or Schlatter
himself, Cullmann simply claims that his 'basic conception of Hg. is
essentially different from theirs'(Salvation in History, 55). Doubtless
Cullmann's position is more nuanced than Steck seems to realize (cf.
c hs. 3 and 4 below), but the question remains whether it was really pos
sible, or even necessary, for Cullmann to dissociate himself from these
earlier figures.
 -35-

mentions Hofmann once and speaks of the 'great influence' of the Erlan

gen school of which Hofmann was part, but then never cites him in his
107
NT theology again. Thus it is surprising when Kantzenbach notes

that Hofmann 'hat in erstaunlichem Masse die Theologen des 19. Jahrhun-
108
derts beeinflusst'and in general pays very high tributeto him, and

when M. K&hler affirms that Hofmann in his NT interpretation and

theology 'employed all the tools of modern scholarship; in no way does

his work breathe the spirit of a narrow literalism. ' He goes on to

claim: Hofmann 'has contributed greatly to the advancement of New

109
Testament research.' Even K. Barth writes that Hofmann's 'exegesis
110
is well worth studying, even now.' Cullmann and Ladd, who are in

one sense Hofmann's heirs, seem in their evaluation of him to be much

closer to Bultmann, who omits any refevwic-a. to him in his sketch of the

history of NT theology, and to 0. Merk, who likewise and inexplicably

111
ignores him in his otherwise comprehensive work.

Now Hofmann has never been very highly regarded as a critical

thinker by many, perhaps due in part to the initial negative press his

work received in liberal late 19th century Germany. H. J. Holtzmann

wrote bitingly of Hofmann:

Die Einbildung, dass er berufen sei, der kritischen Richtung Halt

zu gebieten, liess den scharfsinnigen Mann selten zu einem gesunden

107
See n.105.
108
Kantzenbach, Erlanger Theologie, 179ff.; cf. J.Wach, 'Die Ge-
schichtsphilosophie des 19. Jahrhunderts und die Theologie der Ge
schichte,' HZ 142 (1930) 4.
109
The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ,
1964, 116.
110
Barth, Protestant Theology, 615.
Ill
Bultmann, Theologie, 585-599; Merk, Anfangszeit.
 -36-

Urtheil in Fragen gelangen, zu deren Ldsung Sinn fUr geschichtliches

Werden, tlberhaupt fllr den wirklichen Gang der Dinge gehtirt.H2

Troeltsch's influential evaluation of 19th century theological thought

113
also left no room for Hofmann. As early as 1910 J. Haussleiter la

mented that a historicism enchanted 'mit dem Zauberworte der Entwick-

114
lung' was unjustly treading Hofmann underfoot. Perhaps no one cham

pioned the concept of development as the key to understanding history

more than Troeltsch, who relegated all hgl. thinking to the status of

outmoded orthodoxy. He even chided Ritschl and W. Herrmann for being

too closely tied to history which was, in Troeltsch's estimation, radi

cally relative.1111

To the extent that Troeltsch's view of history has affected theology

and biblical studies in this century and this is to a great extent in

deed'1'1 it has been convenient to regard Hofmann's or similar views

112
Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Theologie, vol. 1,1897,
18.
113
Troeltsch recognizes only two legitimate theological positions
in the 19th century. One is the Herder-EichWn-Vatke-De Wette-Strauss-
TUbingen line, the other the Ritschlian, which Troeltsch characterizes
as 'the agnostic theology of mediation, strengthened by renewed recourse
to Schleiermacher.' Thinkers of Hofmann's ilk would appear to be rele
gated to either 'pietistic biblicism' or 'the creedal orthodoxy of con-
fessionalism,' both untenable according to Troeltsch, although regret-
ably they 'continue to flourish.' See Troeltsch, 'Half a Century of
Theology: A Review,' Ernst Troeltsch: Writings on Theology and Religion,
trans. and ed. by R.Morgan and M.Pye, 1977, 53-81, esp. 66f.
114
Haussleiter, Grundlinien der Theologie. . . Hofmanns in seiner
eigenen Darstellung, 1910, V.
115
T.Ogletree, Christian Faith and History: A Critical Comparison
of E. Troeltsch and K. Barth, 1965, 32-37. Ritschl andHerrmann (fol
lowing Schleiermacher) brought 'an absolute into history insofar as'
they linked ' man's redemption indissolubly to the historical person
of Jesus Christ' (ibid. 36). Troeltsch viewed this as a grave error.

1:1Esp. recently; Morgan writes in 1977 that 'notheologian from

before the First World War has featured so prominently in the footnotes
of l'earned journals in recent years. .(Troeltsch, ed. by Morgan and
Pye, 208). Cf. P.Stuhlmacher, Historical Criticism and Theological
Interpretation of Scripture, 1977, 44f.
 -37-

of history as antiquated and unscientific. That is, since Troeltsch's

day Hofmann-type historical-theological outlooks have consistently run

afoul of powerful streams of thinking impinging on the discipline of

NT theology, some Barthian, others existentialist, which like Troeltsch,

though on somewhat different specific grounds, disparage the idea of

revelation in history (in a traditional sense) and of past history pos

sibly having a normative significance.

Thus F. Baumg&rtel rejects Hofmann for allegedly having a philo

sophically determined concept of history largely on the grounds of Bult-

117
mann's superior existential conception of history. Steck is deter

mined to condemn Hofmann along with Schlatter and Cullmann, to the vin

dication of Barthian thinking with a guilt by association argument

linking Hofmann with Schelling, Hegel, and other discredited idealists.1''*'^

He does this having admitted at the outset that Hofmann in his own wri-
119
tings expressly minimized, even denied these connections. A not dis

similar anti-Hg. bias animates Wendebourg, who wants to chain Hofmann

to defunct aspects of the systems of Ranke, Hegel, the late Schelling,

120
and Schleiermacher. Wendebourg devotes a large part of his presen

tation to admitting that there is little or no demonstrable and culpable

direct dependence by Hofmann on these figures. Nevertheless he con

cludes by rejecting him because 1geistesgeschichtlich gesehen' he was

117
Baumgdrtel, Verheissung, 1952, 86-91.
118
Steck, Idee, passim, esp. 19-36.
119
Ibid. 18.
120
Wendebourg, 'Die Heilsgeschichte Theologie. . . Hofmanns in ihrem
Verh&ltnis zur romantischen Weltanschauung,' ZTK 52 (1955) 64-104. Cf.
Wendebourg's dissertation, n.104 above. At times Wendebourg seems to
equate conceptual and even rhetorical similarity with direct ideological
dependence.
 -38-
121
'ein Kind der Romantik und der idealistischen Geschichtsspekulation.'
122
One notes that these negative assessments of Hofmann uniformly

stress his two major systematic works. It seems well-advised here to

make brief mention of these.

123
2.2111 Weissagung und Erftlllung

This represents Hofmann's earliest major theological effort. He

gives his own summation of this work in a self-review published shortly

before the second part appeared: 'Das Verh&ltnis von Weissagung und

Erftlllung auf dem biblischen Gebiete zu bestimmen, und diese Bestimmung

124
durch eine Geschichte zu rechtfertigen, dies war meine Aufgabe.' The

first half of this study is a painstaking and competent (for its day)

121
Wendebourg, ZTK 52 (1955) 104. At the same time however R.C.Den-
tan calls Hofmann a biblicist who 'protested against speculative and
philosophical tendencies' (Preface to Old Testament Theology, 2 1963,
48). A more accurate reading of Hofmann and the milieu of his work is
G.Weth, Die Heilsgeschichte. Ihr universeller und individueller Sinn
in der offenbarungsgeschichtlichen Theologie des 19. Jahrhunderts, 1931;
cf. G.Flechsenhaar, Das Geschichtsproblem in der Theologie Johannes von
Hofmanns, 1935. We cannot here enter into the much-debated question
of whether Hofmann is to be disregarded totally due to points of sim
ilarity to outmoded (by some modern reckoning anyway) thinking of his
day. It is certainly true e.g. that he was, like virtually all other
German historians of the time, influenced by Hegel. Flechsenhaar how
ever convincingly demonstrates how Hofmann's approach to history, in
contrast to that of Hegel, represents 'die schMrfste Ablehnung aller
Geschichtsphilosophie' (Geschichtsproblem, 103; cf. 16, 19, 27). We
agree with O.Procksch, 'Hofmanns Geschichtsauffassung,' ELKZ 43 (1910)
1035, that 'Hofmann ist geschichtlicher Realist,' whatever tinges of
idealism may colour his writings. Cf. n.139 below. Suspician of Hof
mann's Hegelianism must be checked to the extent that he opposed F.C.
Baur a considerable extent indeed.
122
A brief, slightly dated, but still helpful survey of other modern
Hofmann research is E.HUbner, Schrift und Theologie: Eine Untersuchung
zur Theologie. . . Hofmanns, 1956, 9-12.
123
Weissagung und ErfU1lung, 2 vols., 1841, 1844. His earlier wri
tings are covered in the Hofmann biography: P.Wapler, Johannes v. Hof
mann, 1914.
124
Hofmann, 'Das Buch Weissagung und ErfUllung im Alten und im Neuen
Testamente, in Grundlinien, ed. by Haussleiter, 1.
 -39-

examination of the OT Hebrew and Aramaic texts with view toward descri

bing the forward-looking aspects of the OT, e.g. those which prefigure,

but in no sense allegorically or otherwise non-historically correspond

125
to, the NT. The second half presents the NT fulfilment of the OT

promise, and concludes with a section on the NT's own intimations regar

ding redemption in the future, e.g. 'die neutestamentliche Weissagung.'

In a manner anticipating W. Pannenberg, for Hofmann 'nicht der An-

fang, sondern das Ende der Geschichte erkldrt den Sinn der Geschich-

te.'126 Hofmann also wished to maintain, against Hengstenberg, that

OT types are not in the first place to be construed as allegorical pre

cursors to their NT antitypes. That is, e.g. Moses or David have their

own hgl. significance in entirely different historical contexts than

Jesus, who from the NT point of view comes in fulfilment of the offices

of both. True, what Moses or David in their fullest sense are is shown

in their hgl. connection to Jesus. Yet Hofmann insists on historical

exegesis of the OT without overhastily reading NT meaning into the OT.

Being open to the NT is one thing, and Hofmann demands this. But under

standing of OT types, and their hgl. import in themselves, is hampered,

not enhanced, by gratuitous (historically irresponsible) reading-in of

NT outlooks. Weissagung is a creditable attempt to show historically,

not merely dogmatically, how the OT and NT relate. In Hofmann's view

dogma must keep its feet firmly planted in history; in a sense the two

entities can hardly be separated. This combining is evident when one

notes the exegetical-historical nature of Hofmann's study, and yet

realizes that it at the same time 'zeigt anschaulich auf, was nach Hof

125
Contra e.g. Hengstenberg, with whom Hofmann was in perennial dis
agreement; cf. Weissagung, vol. 1, 3-5, 9.

126Procksch, ELKZ 43 (1910) 1034.

 -40-

manns Auffassung Offenbarung sei; es dient also der Erkenntnis dieses

127
Grundzuges am Christentum.'

2.2112 Per Schriftbeweis128

Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, Barth says that parts of this work 'may

perhaps be counted among the most remarkable documents in the whole his-
129
tory of theology.1 He refers mainly to the relatively short section

in which Hofmann sets forth what in his view the Christian faith,
130
authentically experienced, mediates directly to the believer. Fol

lowing these twenty-two pages are some 1800 more; the 1800 purportedly

verify from the Bible the essential content of the twenty-two page
131
'Lehrganze' which constitutes the core of the faith's experiential

content. Although the massive Schriftbeweis is 'one of the most widely

cited of mid-19th century German works' from the standpoint of German

132
church history, it seems abstruse and prolix in today's radically
133
altered theological climate.

127
M.KShler, Geschichte der protestantischen Dogmatik im 19. Jahr-
hundert, 1962, 214. Hofmann's conception of history as the self
presentation of Christ in the world, or Hg. (in one sense), is summed
up in Weissagung, 40. Interestingly, for all the fuss that is made about
Hofmann originating the idea of Hg. , he claims that his 'Anschauung von
der heiligen Geschichte ist nichts neues,' but that no one prior to him
had set about exegetically to make a thorough and systematic presenta
tion of it ('Das Buch,' Grundlinien, ed. by Haussleiter, 4f.).
128
Per Schriftbeweis, 2 vols, 2 1857 and 1860; first eds. 1852, 1856.
129
Protestant Theology, 612f.
130
Schriftbeweis, vol. 1, 35-57.
131
This core comprises the 'Thatbestand, ' the 'matter of fact' of
the Christian's 'indisputable and self-sufficient datum' of his personal
knowledge of God through Christ (C.Welch, Protestant Thought in the Nine
teenth Century, 1972, 223). Cf. Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, vol. 1, 23;
also Wapler, Hofmann, e.g. 90, 102, 384.
132
Welch, Protestant Thought, 221n.59.
133
Useful reliable summaries of Schriftbeweis include KMhler,
Geschichte der Dogmatik, 212ff.; Kantzenbach, Erlanger Theologie, 192f.,
199ff.
 41

Yet this work makes a solid contribution in attempting to show that

the traditional, unhistorical proof-text method for validating dogmatic

statements was misguided. Hofmann argued that 'fUr jede wesentliche

systematische Aussage muss vielmehr ein organischer heilsgeschichtlicher

134
Querschnitt durch das Ganze der Schrift gezogen werden.' This amounts

to a rebuff of both Baur's more philosophical interpretation and the

biblicistic approaches of Hofmann's more conservative contemporaries,

135
with many of whom he did not enjoy great favor.

2.212 Hofmann: overlooked NT interpreter

Now the above two works, generally termed systematic in nature, are

the basis of most criticism of Hofmann. They are important for under

standing the whole of his achievement. But what one usually seeks in

vain in negative assessments of Hofmann, even those made by NT theolo

gians, is any cognizance of his sizable contribution to NT interpreta

tion, history, hermeneutics,1^ and theology. Even the positive

134
Goppelt, Theologie, 46.
135
Kantzenbach, Erlanger Theologie, 183; F.Kattenbusch, Die deutsche
evangelische Theologie seit Schleiermacher, 51926, 52. Hofmann caused
a furor among conservatives by his view of the atonement in the NT.
See Hofmann, 'Die wissenschaftliche Lehre von Christi Verstthnungswerk,'
Grundlinien, ed. by Haussleiter, 31-60. This view and its reception
are treated in F.Lichtenberger, History of German Theology in the Nine
teenth Century, 1889, 446-448; Kantzenbach, Programme, 99f. Welch main
tains that 'Hofmann's defence of orthodoxy' in this controversy 'by ap
pealing to Luther against the "orthodox"' marks the 'real beginning of
modern Luther research. . . . To drive a wedge between Luther and
Lutheranism at this crucial point was to necessitate a reconsideration
of Luther's Lutheranism, and thus to open the way to Albert Ritschl'
(Protestant Thought, 225).
136
An exception here: O.TiililM, 'Ueber die heilsgeschichtliche
Schriftauslegung, ' in Gedenkschrift ftlr D. Werner Elert, ed. by F.Htlb-
ner, E.Kinder, and W.Maurer, 1955, 283-287.
137
Thus e.g. G.Hasel, New Testament Theology, 1978, merely lists
Hofmann's Biblische Theologie neuen Testaments in his bibliography but
never cites it, centering rather on his earlier 'systematic' works.
 -42-

judgments'1''^ of those reading Hofmann more fairly have not been able

to remove the stigma of '19th century idealist philosopher of history*

from one who in reality was above all not a systematician, certainly
139
not a philosopher, but an exegete with a theological awareness, i.e.

a biblical theologian.

Hofmann could rightly be called a forgotten son of NT criticism

whose work merits attention. He devoted some eleven volumes (approx.

140
5500 pages) to analysis and synthesis of the NT. The first eight

of these volumes are detailed exegesis of the thirteen traditional Paul-

141
ine writings, Hebrews, the Petrine letters, Jude, James, and Luke. Vol

ume nine is a NT introduction which contains a section on the develop

ment of the canon. Volume ten is a history of the NT period. Volume

eleven is Hofmann's NT theology itself. Hofmann also produced the last

comprehensive treatment of biblical hermeneutics to appear from 1880

142
until 1928.

Obviously this body of somewhat neglected material, not his so-

called systematic works, should form the basis of assessment of Hofmann

as a NT theologian. It will thus be as prudent as it is unprecedented

''^Besides Procksch, Kantzenbach, Weth, Flechsenhaar, Htlbner, and

TiililM, see also M.Keller-Htlschmenger, 'Das Problem der Gewissheit bei
J.Chr.K. von Hofmann im Rahmen der "Erlanger Schule",' in Gedenkschrift
fUr Elert, e d . by HUbner, Kinder, and Maurer, 288-295.
139
At least not a Hegelian one; in a letter to F.Delitzsch Hofmann
divulges that hearing Hegel's lectures on his 'Philosophie der Geschich
te verdarb mir alien Geschmack an seiner Philosophie' (Flechsenhaar,
Geschichtsproblem Hofmann, 19).
140
Hofmann, Die heilige Schrift neuen Testaments zusammenhangend
untersucht, 2;L8gg_iggg.
141
Hofmann died unexpectedly just as he neared completion of Luke.
Vols. 9-11 and his hermeneutics were edited and published posthumously
by W.Volck.
142
According to Goppelt, Typos, 1969 (=1939), 16. Cf. Hofmann,
Biblische Hermeneutik, 1880. We have used C.Preus' trans.: Inter
preting the Bible, 1959. This was originally lectures given by Hofmann
in Erlangen in 1860.
 -43-

to bring Hofmann's overlooked work on the NT into dialogue with Baur

and to consider, but not be controlled by, the two systematic works and

the more standard interpretations of Hofmann alluded to above.

2.22 Hofmann's conception of NT theology vis-a-vis Baur

2.221 Baur's conception of NT theology summarized

We noted already that Baur's NT theology is concerned to set forth

'die gedankliche Explikation des glaubenden Selbstverstdndnisses.' This

means foremost that a context for interpreting the texts is not sought

primarily within the texts but rather within the categories of under

standing acceptable to current scientific thought. NT theology as an

academic discipline frees the NT from a theological context and places

it within an objective, moral-ethical or religious one. NT theology

becomes somewhat a-historical conceptual analysis of the theologizing

of the NT writers, which means a critique of the presumed process of

conceptual construction based on our own direct superior a priori know

ledge of the tran- or supra-historical absolute which animates it. The

NT books themselves reflect a striving after an explanation or theolo

gical rationale for the burgeoning Christian self-consciousness. We

saw above how Paul managed to articulate a theory, apparently developing

inexorably out of itself according to supra-historical necessity, where

by Jesus, despite being a dead man entombed in Jerusalem, was exalted

to cosmic lordship.The synoptics likewise reflect an idealizing tendency

in which various Jesus-glorifying incidents and dramatizations were put

forth to support the beliefs and perceptions of the church's various

143
thinkers or wings. Whereas the NT on the surface might appear to

grow out of the personal exposure of numerous individuals to Jesus' per-

143
Baur, Vorlesungen, 304.
 -44-

son, work, teaching, or personal followers, whether before or after the

resurrection, Baur sees in the NT dogmatizing degeneration away from

the pure religion of Jesus and his acute ethical self-awareness. The

NT is largely the product of imaginative, if earnest, literary and

religio-philosophical activity, in conjunction with the inexorable self-

realization of the absolute in human thinking.

2.222 Hofmann's limited agreement with Baur

Now Hofmann concurs with Baur that NT theology is extremely con

cerned with the historical development through which the NT books, and

hence NT theology, came into being. It is a historical discipline; 'al

so ist dem Werden und der fortschreitenden Gestaltung der Lehre, welche
144
an den h. Schriften ihr urkundliches Denkmal hat, nachzugehen. NT

theology must take on a genetic form which shows the interrelated rise

and development of the 'biblische Lehre' or 'Erkenntniss' as Hofmann

often styles it as a complement to the NT history in a more general

sense. This is why Hofmann's NT theology is preceded by Die biblische

145
Geschichte neuen Testaments. Hofmann specifies the history-theology

relationship formally in this way:

In der Geschichte kommt der Fortgang jener Erkenntniss, mit der es

die biblische Theologie zu thun hat, nur in Betracht, soferne er
ein Bestandtheil dessen ist, was sich begeben hat. In der bib-
lischen Theologie wird der Gang jener Erkenntnis dargestellt in
seiner Abzielung auf den Erkenntnissstand, welcher die Kirche zum
Verst&ndniss ihrer selbst bef&higt.146

What needs to be pointed out here is that Hofmann, like Baur, is con

cerned to set forth NT theology in its organic development, and he sees

it as inextricably linked with history itself. History, not 'ein sys-

'^ H o f m a n n , Bib. Theol. N T , 1.

145
This is vol. 10 of Hofmann's 11 vol. investigation of the NT.
146
Hofmann, Bib. Theol. NT, 7.
 -45-

tematisches Schema. . .fworunter das Einzelne rubricirt wUrde aus ver-

147
schiedenen Zeiten,' provides the framework for presenting NT theology.

2.223 Hofmann's fundamental difference

But Hofmann and Baur part company decisively on the question: what

then precisely is NT theology? Hofmann seems to have Baur's approach,

or one like it, in mind when he laments:

Es geschieht noch zu oft, dass man bei einzelnen biblischen Lehren

die Darlegung ihrer Geschichte so anstellt, als ob sie ihren Ur-
sprung den Schriftstellern verdankten, in deren Schriften wir sie
bekundet sehen.-*-^

Hofmann denies that NT theology should take the form of 'die Geschichte
149
einer Forschung, ' or that its content should be seen primarily as'Er-

gebniss schriftstellerischer Th&tigkeit.' I.e. Hofmann does not agree

with an approach like Baur's, insofar as it sees the NT writings as lit

tle more than reflections of a striving toward and searching after a

theological rationale for a religion (or philosophy of religion) which

gradually came to full expression over the course of more than a cen

tury. That would be to make the Chriuc:y\ religion a totally immanent

human belief-system which almost gratuitously used Jesus as its founder

and primal mover. Hofmann turns away from what in Baur's view NT the

ology becomes, which is a history 'eines Forschens nach Thats&chlichem,'

or in more modern parlance a phenomenology, worked out in keeping with

historicistic assumptions.

Instead, the core of Hofmann's NT theology will be the 'Thatsdch-

liches,' which in the NT texts 'kund geworden und zum VerstMndnis gekom-
150
men ist.' For Baur NT theology reflects a variegated, internally

147 148
Ibid. 1; cf. 6f. Ibid. 2.
149
By this Hofmann apprears to mean 'a history of (unknown writers'
creative) Forschung' to develop a dogmatic system out of Jesus' simple
teaching.

^ ^ H o f m a n n , Bib. Theol. N T , 2.
 -46-

contradictory immanent intellectual process, whereby a simple pure reli

gion was creatively (dialectically) transformed into the basis for a

somewhat baroque dogmatic superstructure. NT theology is in that sense

a history 'eines Forschens nach ThatsMchlichem.' Hofmann reverses the

process. 1Thats&chliches' stands at the historical starting point, not

the end, of NT theology. It is this actuality its effects, its gradual

apprehension, its being experienced and appropriated within the early

church upon which Hofmann places emphasis.

So conceived, Hofmann's NT theology falls under Ebeling's definition

151
of a discipline which attempts to set forth the content of the NT.

Hofmann, unlike Baur (and Ebeling), can approach the NT in this way be

cause, by his exhaustive reckoning, there is a theological (and his

torical) unity to the NT (and to the whole Bible); the canonical books

are rightfully deemed apostolic in content if not in actual authorship;

we can still today read the NT as theology in itself, and not merely
152
as 'der Reflex der SubjectivitMt der Schriftsteller' which then must

be radically reinterpreted by the modern analyst. Hofmann is not

153
arguing that 'der Lehrinhalt der Schrift ein System bildet' but he

is contending that NT theology's task is to set forth in terms compa

tible with the NT the 'Erkenntniss' which the NT contains.

2.224 The difference further exemplified: architectonics compared

2.2241 Baur

We can see more clearly the difference between Hofmann's and Baur's

procedures by looking briefly at the architectonic of their NT theolo-

151 152
See n.28 above. Baur, Vorlesungen, 24.
153
Hofmann denies this is so: Bib. Theol. N T , 7.
 -47-

gies. Baur's can be split into two major divisions. After comments
154
on the history of the discipline, he first deals with the 'Lehre Je-
155
su. ' Baur does his best with a topic about which little can be

known:

Man hat hier noch nichts Unmittelbares vor sich, alles ist durch
eine Darstellung vermittelt, von welcher man nicht weiss, welchen
Einfluss sie auf die Sache selbst gehabt hat, wie Vieles durch sie
hinzu oder hinweggekommen ist.156

'Die Lehre Jesu' for Baur is much more a somewhat speculative 'teaching

about Jesus' than 'than that which Jesus taught,' about which very lit

tle can be known. His second major division is 'Die Lehre der Apos-
157
tel.' Whereas Jesus' teaching in its original form 'doch von einem

dogmatisch entwickelten Lehrbegriff noch sehr verschieden war,' to

the apostolic era belongs 'der ganze geschichtliche Entwicklungsgang,'

or 'Entwicklungsprocess,' through which 'erst gewann die Person Jesu

158
die hohe Bedeutung, die sie fUr das christliche Bewusstsein hat.'

Baur divides this epoch into three periods. In the first he traces the
159
formation of the 'Lehrbegriffe' of Paul and the author of Revelation.

The latter is the only NT book whose writer might actually reflect the

viewpoint of one of Jesus' followers. In the second, which takes us

well into the 2nd century, he deals with the 'Lehrbegriffe1 of Hebrews,

the shorter (non-) Pauline letters (save the Pastorals), James, the Pe-

trine letters, the synoptics, and A c t s . ^ ^ The third period covers the

dogmatic formulating reflected in the Pastorals and Johannine writings.^'''

154 ] 55 156
Baur, Vorlesungen, 1-44. Ibid. 45-121. Ibid. 122.
157 158 159
Ibid. 122-407. Ibid. 122f. Ibid. 122-230.

16Ibid. 230-338. 161Ibid. 338-407.

 -48-

2.2242 Hofmann

Hofmann's whole treatment, on the other hand, stands under the head

ing of 'Der Lehrinhalt' of the NT writings. This already bespeaks the

fundamental unity he thinks the NT comprises, with no radical rupture

to be found between Jesus and subsequent apostolic teaching.

Wie die Thatsache des in Christo vermittelten Verh&ltnisses Gottes

und der Menschheit als Lehre |or Erkenntniss"] in der Schrift sich
darstellt; wie sich dasselbe je nach dem Fortgang der h. Geschichte
verschieden und doch einheitlich darstellt, darnach ist zu fragen.-*-^

Hofmann, like Baur, begins with comments on the task and history of the

discipline"*- but adds to this a section on 'die alttestamentlichen

Voraussetzungen,' without which both the NT history and NT theology are

164
unintelligible. He sets considerably greater store by the OT than

Baur, who sees the OT as something of an embarrassment to the Christian

canon. Hofmann then outlines his plan:

Wir sehen zuerst zu, welch neue Erkenntniss durch Jesu Vorherverktin-
digung, dann durch seine Selbstbezeugung dargereicht ist, endlich
durch seine Zeugen, die wiederum zuerst innerhalb ihres Volks von
ihm zeugten, und dann Uber die Grenzen ihres Volkes hinaus in der
VOlkerwelt.!65

We can perhaps sum up the whole of Hofmann's approach by terming it

Jesus-Christocentric; i.e. it takes up the NT's own surface preoccupa

tion with Jesus who came to be called Christ and relates all the NT

material (undergirded by the OT background) to the Jesus-Christ word-

event complex.

Hofmann begins by covering 'die Vorherverkdndigung der neutestament-

lichen Heilsverwirklichung.'1 This deals chiefly with the material

in Luke 1-2 and its OT background. While in stylistic form this material

'*^Hofmann, Bib. Theol. N T , 2. ^Ibid. 1-8.

164 165
Ibid. 8-22. Ibid. 22.

166Ibid. 23-30.
 -49-

is highly coloured by its author or transmitters, the content is fac-

16*7 168
tual. Next comes 'Das Zeugnis des TMufers.' Following is a leng

thy section on 'Das Zeugnis Jesu in der Zeit seines Lebens im

169
Fleische.' This is not just gospel material but also draws on Acts

and the epistles. Hofmann, here much exercised to oppose Baurian ap

proaches, wishes to demonstrate that NT theology is a confirmation of

and organic outgrowth from (albeit not purely immanent in a rationalis

tic or Hegelian sense) Jesus' teaching and influence, not an imaginative

after-the-fact (or non-fact) theological meditation. Hofmann's concern

is illustrated here:

So wenig von den Aposteln Neues gelehrt ist, wenn sie von Jesu Got-
tessohnschaft zeugen, ebenso wenig in dem, was sie von seinem Tode
sagen; und es ist immer dasselbe, was sie von ihm sagen, nur je nach
dem gegebenen Anlass verschieden gewendet. Weder hier noch dort
finden wir eine Idee, die sich in verschiedenen Lehrbegriffen ver
schieden gestaltet, sondern eine Thatsache, welche Inhalt des Ge
meinglaubens ist und je nach der Seite in Betracht kommt, die der
Anlass, ihrer zu gedenken, hervorkehren h e i s s t . 1 7 0

In the same vein he concludes, following lengthy investigation, that

in Matthew, James, and Hebrews, we see that 'die apostolische Predigt

keine wesentlich neue Erkenntniss aufbringt, sondern nur die in Jesu

VerkUndigung und die im alten Testament gegebenen Thatsachen eigenthllm-

171
lich verwendet.' Hofmann is convinced that 'die apostolischen Aussa-
172
gen' are 'in Jesu Selbstbezeugnis begrtlndet.' This does not however

minimize the fact that Jesus' full import only gradually came to be ful

ly appreciated among his followers; e.g. 'die Thatsache, dass Jesus gtit-

liches Ich ist, erst nach seinem Hingang, als sein auf Erden zu voll-

bringendes Werk vollendet vorlag, deutlich und voll erkannt worden

167Ibid. 23. 168Ibid. 30-37.

169Ibid. 37-130. 17Ibid. 65.

171 172
i/XIbid. 180. Ibid. 43.
 -50-
173
ist.' The resurrection gives impetus to insight into Jesus' past

and present, and even future, significance. Next Hofmann comments

174
briefly on 'Die Belehrung der Jtlnger durch den auferstandenen Jesus.'

Here, to say the least, his openness to the transcendent is evident,

as well as his desire to integrate the biblical reports into a history

which happened, not merely was thought. The remaining portion of Hof

mann's work is divided into nine parts under the heading 'Die Lehre der
175
Zeugen Jesu.'

2.225 Summary

This brief survey permits us to conclude our general look at Hof

mann's and Baur's conceptions of NT theology by reiterating the funda

mental contrast between their respective NT theologies. The latter sees

NT theology first of all as the theologizing comprising the NT writings,

e.g. as the dogmatizing activity which gave rise to them. Accordingly,

NT theology as a discipline gives a scientific ('speculative,' yet his

torical-critical) analysis and synthesis of this activity. It attains

to the real explanation for the coming-into-existence of the NT wri

tings, an explanation which the NT writings themselves largely conceal.

Hofmann on the other hand is content to remain by the (for him) suffi

ciently formidable task of understanding the NT texts in their stated

context, e.g. as witnesses to the redemptive ministry of the promised

OT deliverer-NT church ,founder, his teaching, and his work, and then

to his historically actual (not merely conceptually possible, by modern

standards) after-effects. As we shall see, he sees this method as

giving a more creditable explanation for these texts, both theologically

173 174
Ibid. 79. Ibid. 130-136.
175
Ibid. 136-328.
 -51-

and historically, than Baur's method (or similar ones) can.

2.23 Effects of Hofmann's epistemological orientation

2.231 Hofmann as non-Cartesian

We showed above that Baur is strongly influenced by an epistemology

which contributes to a subordinating of the understanding(s) latent

in the NT texts to Baur's own Kantian understanding. We characterized

Baur's approach as a Cartesian one.

Hofmann has no clear commitment, so far as I can see, to one parti

cular formal theory of knowledge. In anticipation of esp. discussion

in ch. 5 below, we might nevertheless call attention to Hofmann's re

peated use of 'Erkenntniss' as a term denoting the content of the

NT. We are dealing here, Hofmann implies, not simply with things be

lieved, subjective impressions, but assured facts. We should note that

this itself bespeaks a distinct departure from a Kantian epistemology

for which no 'Erkenntnis' of things divine or transcendental is acces

sible to man. Hofmann then breaks decisively with Baur's pronounced

dualism. This will prove to be a distinctive of the hgl. perspective

in NT theology generally.

For now however it suffices to understand Hofmann, with reference

to the term already applied to Baur, as a non-Cartesian. Thielicke sets

forth as a basic tenet of this approach

that while the present situation and its questions have to be con
sidered, they must not become a normative principle nor must they
be allowed to prejudice the answer; they must be constantly recast
and transcended in the light of the text.177

This view 'seeks to preserve or reclaim what has come into being his-

176Cf. HUbner, Schrift und Theologie, 46ff., for some insight into
this question.
177
Thielicke, Evangelical Faith, 127.
 -52-

torically, not because it is subservient to the law of sloth, but be-

178
cause what has come into being has proved itself.' If Cartesian

thought risks accommodation making 'me' the norm of truth non-Cartesian

method strives for actualization, which 'always consists in a new inter-

179
pretation of truth, in its readdressing, as it were.' The non-
180
Cartesian approach runs risks of its own, but in it there is hope

that 'truth remains intact' and that 'the hearer is summoned and called
181
"under the truth" in his own name and situation.' While the two

views can be seen as closely related both are concerned to bring theo

logical insight, or at least religious experience, of ancient times into

the contemporary world in fact 'they are as opposite as two anti-

182
thetical ethical attitudes, namely, loyalty and disloyalty.'

2.232 Hofmann and scripture

If we are to understand Hofmann as a non-Cartesian, we must at the

outset be clear what this does not mean. It does not in Hofmann's case

mean that he believed in an inerrant scripture, so that an attempted

reproduction of its contents demands unthinking, passive acceptance,

an allegiance precluding the need for intellectual wrestling with scrip

ture's contents.188 Hofmann states clearly that 'the history recorded

178Ibid. 36. 179Ibid. 27. 18Cf. ibid. 53f., 115ff.

181Ibid. 27. 182Ibid.

188Pace the tone of Stuhlmacher's handling of Hofmann in Vom Ver-

stehen des Neuen Testaments, 1979,145-148. This is not to deny that
Hofmann hoped his multi-vol. work on the NT would finally justify the
viewpoint that the NT writings are in a real sense inspired (Die h.
Schrift n .T ., vol.l, 56). Does Stuhlmacher realize the similarity of
his own views to Hofmann's at at least one crucial point? Cf. Verstehen,
246, where Stuhlmacher asserts that his investigation has made it pos
sible, 'das VerhSltnis von Altem und Neuem Testament aufzuhellen und
schliesslich zu begreifen, dass die Alte Kirche mit vollem Recht beide
Testamente gemeinsam zur christlichen Bibel gemacht hat.' Hofmann,
Die h. Schrift n . T., vol. 1, 56, speaks it .seems of an (uncompleted)
12th vol. to his 11 vol. study of the NT ; in words similar to those
of Stuhlmacher he states: 'Den Schluss der ganzen Arbeit bildet endlich
 -53-

in the Bible is not to be understood as an errorless segment of world

184
history.' Or again: what the Bible 'teaches concerning the history

of the origin of mankind rests upon a tradition which may not agree with
185
actual facts.' Thus he says that 'the Biblical records have this

in common with the historiography of antiquity, that they are closer

186
to epics than modern historiography is.' With reference to John's

gospel it would be false to assume that 'Jesus mtlsse das Berichtete im-

mer wirklich an der Stelle, wo es vorkommt, und in der Form, in welcher

187
es vorkommt, gesprochen haben.' Hofmann was no inerrantist, at least

not in a strict sense, and it would thus not be fair to attribute his

non-Cartesian point of view to an unconscionable commitment to a dogma-

188
tic theory of the inerrancy of scripture.

2.233 Hofmann and Baur contrasted

2.2331 Baur: desire to do justice to modern thinking

We may rather understand Hofmann's point of view by contrasting it

to Baur's. Baur, working consciously within the limits set by Kant with

regard to knowledge and by rationalism with regard to the biblical

material which (according to rationalism) flies in the face of reason,

was controlled by inferences necessarily following from these limits.

He assumes that the NT is a monument, not to the rise and spread of the

die Untersuchung, in welchemVerhdltnisse dieses Schriftganze zum alt-

testamentli.chen steht, indem sich hieraus ergeben wird, mit welchem Rechte
die Kirche in beiden ,zusammen ihre heilige Schrift erkennt. 1
184 185
Hofmann, Interpreting, 64. Ibid. 72.

1^^Ibid. 205. ^ 7Hofmann, Bib. Theol. N T , 45.

^ ^ T h i s is almost certainly the charge Baur would level against Hof

mann: see Vorlesungen, 32ff. Baur inveighs against approaches which
see a basic unity within the NT, attributing them to uncritical accep
tance of (or a desire to prove) a theory of biblical inspiration. Any
approach which finds conceptual unity in the NT wrongly neglects, 'was
ftir die neutestamentliche Theologie ihrem Begriff nach gerade die Haupt-
sache sein muss, die reale Verschiedenheit der Lehrbegriffe' (ibid. 32).
 -54-

one true Christian gospel and faith, but to a plethora of partisan

religious spokespersons seeking ascendancy for their own points of view.

Baur's fundamental hypothesis is that the surface picture offered by

the NT Jesus was sent from God in fulfilment of OT promises; he taught

followers and worked miracles; he died for the salvation of all persons

who would accept him in faith; he rose from thedead; his followers pro

claimed the gospel of Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth is substan

tially misleading, indeed materially impossible. Assuming this Baur

attempts, fully justifiably given his assumption, to construct an alter

nate scenario in which the NT writings can be placed and understood.

Inasmuch as Baur starts with a patently modern world-view and proceeds

to give a total picture of the NT in accordancewith it, his entire pro

gramme may be seen as a typically Cartesian methodology.

2.2332 Hofmann: desire to do justice to

texts1 claims on modern thinking

When we say, on the other hand, that Hofmann is non-Cartesian, we

mean this: he turns Baur's program around. Hofmann says in effect,

let us grant that the NT writings could be substantially trustworthy.

This is also a critical approach, or can be (although not in the for

mally Kantian sense), because Hofmann remains open to the possibility

that portions (and subsequently the whole) of the NT could be misguided

or misleading. Yet he is at the same time critical in regard to a

modern world-view which would too facilely dismiss the NT witnesses

without a fair hearing. Hofmann seeks to determine whether it is per

haps possible to give a conceptually coherent, historically plausible

account of the rise and inter-relatedness (or lack of) of the NT's ideo

logical or theological content in accordance with the 'surface' context

 -55-

which the documents share. This is Hofmann's main purpose.

Does he have any substantial grounds for declaring Baur's method

unsatisfactory? Hofmann thinks so. He notes that in NT theology and

NT history generally

die Verneinung des Wunders und die durch sie bestimmte Kritik des
geschichtlichen Inhalts der neutestamentlichen Schrift J hatte| zur
Folge, dass die Auffassung und Darstellung desselben, zu der man
kam, an innerem Widerspruche litt und vor unlOsbaren RUthseln stehen
blieb, welche ihn unbegreiflich machten.189

So then, the non-Cartesian Hofmann observes that Cartesian attempts to

give an account of the NT data are not convincing which work systema

tically from the assumption of 'die Verneinung des Wunders und die durch

sie bestimmte Kritik.' And he specifically questions Baur closely at

this point. Hofmann notes that Baur concedes that 'das Christenthum

in seiner geschichtlichen Erscheinung sei eine UnmOglichkeit und eine

190
Undenkbarkeit ohne den Glauben an die Auferstehung Jesu.' Yet, Baur

does not seriously consider the possibility that Jesus really rose; he

evades the problem which, by his own admission, the chorus of ancient

witnesses raises by asserting that, for critical purposes, 'das

Faktische der Auferstehungsgeschichte' is not at issue, 'sondern nur, dass

191
sie von seinen JUngern geglaubt wird.' Against such a methodological

outlook Hofmann protests:

Wie nun aber seine JUnger dazu gekommen sein sollten, sie zu glau
ben, darauf ist er [BaurJ die Antwort schuldig geblieben, und so
kommt er zuletzt bei einem Fragezeichen an, Uber das er nicht hin-
auskann. Er muss entweder ein psychologisches Wunder annehmen oder
den eigentlichen und letzten Ursprung des Christenthums als eine
unbegreifliche Thatsache stehen lassen. Entweder also beruht das
Dasein des Christenthums doch auf einem Wunder, dass die JUnger Jesu
einmUthig solcher Zuversicht des Glaubens wurden, der Gekreuzigte
sei auferstanden, oder die Wissenschaft muss den Ursprung des

189
Hofmann, Bib. Gesch. N T , 11.
190
Ibid. 15. (Baur makes claims to this effect in Vorlesungen, 127.)
 -56-

Christenthums ftir tlberhaupt unbekannt und ihr schlechthin frerad er-

kl&ren, womit sie also gesteht, dass ihr das Christenthum selbst
etwas UnverstMndliches ist.192

Hofmann notes that Baur's assumptions do not explain or even allow expla

nation for that which permeates the NT: the assertion that Jesus rose

from the dead. This seems to be the ground on which Hofmann justifies

an alternative methodological posture toward the NT texts in construc

ting a NT theology.

2.234 Summary: Hofmann's modified critical posture

We may summarize with two observations.(1) Hofmann strikes only

a modified 'critical' pose, since he refuses to declare on a priori

grounds what can or cannot, must or must not, have been true about the

matters to which the NT documents testify. This modified critical out

look, which is willing at least theoretically to let its own inherited

modern perceptions be challenged by the sources it examines, may be un

derstood in terms of a non-Cartesian approach.

(2) Recalling that our examination of Baur would seem to justify

the conclusion that Baur's epistemological starting point too often ef

fectively determines the significance and historical form of the NT

material he explicates, we can say that at the methodological level he

grants normative rank to his specialized theoretical understanding of

history and reality generally as arbiter of the meaning, authenticity,

and veracity of the NT material. In this sense he grants epistemolo

gical priority to a particular modern scientific outlook in interpreting

the NT. Going back to a quote from Thielicke above, Baur seems willing

to grant that to have intellectual integrity in the modern world one

must be 'disloyal' to what the NT texts claim to be (or have been) true.

192
Ibid. Hofmann makes a similar point in direct opposition to Baur
in Die h. Schrift n.T., vol. 1, 117. Arguing along the same line at
 -57-

Conversely, Hofmann's formal epistemology is comparatively unde

fined, He is obviously aware of and to an extent shares in the modern

critical debate. He is no biblical inerrantist. But in the last anal

ysis he seems to want to make his hypothetical starting point for deci

ding what dynamic(s) gave rise to the NT history and theology the NT

texts themselves, not modern assumptions which determine (quite

literally) a priori what can have been the case with reference to the

NT without a sufficiently thorough consideration of what actually was

the case. We can say, then, that Hofmann grants epistemological priority

to the NT, or to put it differently, to a modern understanding of the

NT which sees its first task as trying to reformulate the contents of

the NT within a context presupposed by the NT, not within the context

demanded by a world-view inimical to a good deal of the NT's apparent

claims. Hofmann would seem to claim that no interpretation of the NT

has full intellectual integrity which uncritically even if paradoxi

cally in the name of criticism and prematurely elevates a particular

a priori modern understanding to the status of authority over what can

be true about or could have given rise to the NT subject matter. In

terms of Thielicke's disloyalty-loyalty antithesis set forth above, Hof

mann thinks a certain loyalty to the NT evidence is the only way to come
193
to a satisfactory apprehension of it.

that time was C.A.Auberlen, The Divine Revelation, 1867, some years la
ter E.C.Hoskyns und F.N.Davey, The Riddle of the New Testament, 2 1936.
193
Cf. Senft, Wahrhaftigkeit, 109. Baur himself realizes that his
own approach and one like Hofmann's are not simply slightly divergent
but fundamentally antithetical. He speaks (regarding the possible unity
of the NT) of 'der Punkt, auf welchem zwei vdllig divergierende Ansich-
ten sich trennen' (Vorlesungen, 124). Views which see a unified or uni-
fiable continuum between Jesus and the NT's dogma are automatically
illicit. Hofmann is of course of this view.
 -58-

2.24 Hofmann's approach to history

It is not at all simple to characterize succinctly Hofmann's

view of history as it informs his NT theology. But the task must

be undertaken. We begin at the point where Hofmann himself saw a

problem in the reigning methodologies of his day, esp. those of Strauss,

B. Bauer, and Baur.

2.241 The contemporary dilemma: Strauss, Bauer, and Baur

Hofmann praises Strauss for having helped bring clarity to the de-
194
bate regarding the NT's historicity in general. Prior to Strauss,

says Hofmann, critics like COlln and de Wette had applied the term

'myth' arbitrarily to those parts of scripture telling of God appearing

(or speaking) to persons and of miracles. They used myth in the sense

common to classicists of the day. Strauss was more consistent and pre

cise in declaring the whole history contained in the four gospels as

mythical in the sense of being 'absichtlose Dichtung.' In this way

Strauss, following 0. Mtlller, defined myth as 'eine auf Jesus mittelbar

oder unmittelbar sich beziehende Erzdhlung, welche und so weit sie nicht

Abdruck einer Thatsache, sondern Niederschlag einer Idee seiner frllh-

195
esten AnhMnger sei.' Strauss knows the NT to be myth because he has,

he thinks, shown it to be unhistorical. Hofmann questions the methods

196
Strauss uses to demonstrate this unhistoricity and finally rejects (as

did most of Strauss' day) his approach:

So machte seine Erstreckung des Mythischen Uber den gesammten ge

schichtlichen Inhalt der Evangelien diese selbst unbegreiflich.
Und ebenso unbegreiflich wurde der Ursprung des Christenthums, nach-
dem von der Geschichte, in welcher es seinen Ursprung hatte, nichts
Ubrig blieb, als der am Kreuz gestorbene Rabbi Jesus von Nazareth.
Man fragte vergeblich, woher die Ideen gekommen, deren Niederschlag
die evangelische Geschichte sein sollte.1^
194 195
Hofmann, Bib. Gesch. N T , 6. Ibid. 6f.
196 . 197T, ., Q
Ibid. 7f. Ibid. 8.
 -59-

Bruno Bauer forms a bridge from Strauss to Baur. Bauer argues that

there was indeed a well-developed messianic expectation in Jesus' time.

He thinks he can thus explain the apparently historical content of the

gospels, not as unintentional fiction, but as 'absichtsvolle Dich-

tung. . . , in welcher sich mit Bewusstheit und Absicht die Ideen der
198
ersten Christenheit verkbrpert haben.' In a sense this is a more

intellectually consistent theory than Strauss', says Hofmann, but the

question remains, 'woher stammt dieses Christenthum, welches seine Ideen

also verkbrpert hat, und woher sind diese christlichen Ideen gekommen?'

This is the question, says Hofmann, which Baur rightly took up.

In a perceptive summary of Baur's position Hofmann notes: 'Aus den

Erzeugnissen und Zustbnden des zweiten christlichen Jahrhunderts rllck

schliessend construirt Baur eine Entstehungsgeschichte des Christen-

199
thums.' Hofmann then accurately outlines Baur's celebrated reshuf

fling, chronologically and conceptually, of the NT writings, history,

and t h o u g h t . H e says that Baur's work marks progress over that of

Strauss and Bauer 'auf dem Wege zur Anerkennung der Wirklichkeit einer
201
neutestamentlichen Geschichte.' I.e. Baur singles out of the NT cer

tain 'feste Thatsachen. . . , von welchen aus das Uebrige zu prlifen

202
wMre.' This is in fact the same procedure Hofmann adopts in his in-

198-, . , n
Ibid. 9.
199
Ibid. It is worth noting that this remains basically the most
critically accepted approach to NT history today, largely through the
influence of W.Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity,
1971, German orig. 1934; cf. D.Harrington, 'The Reception of Walter
Bauer's Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, HTR (1980) 289-
298.
200Bib.
., .
Gesch. N T , 9.

201 t , . 202 ,
Ibid. 9-11. Ibid. 11.
 -60-
203
vestigation of the NT. Yet the 'Entwicklungsgeschichte' which Baur

describes turns out to be inadequate:

Denn seine ganze Geschichtsconstruktion, welche aus der Geschichte

des Christenthums eine Geschichte literarisch vertretener Partei-
richtungen macht, scheitert an des Paulus eigener Aussage, nament-
lich in dem von Baur fUr <2,cht erkannten Galaterbrief, Uber sein
Verh&ltniss zu denen, die vor ihm Apostel gewesen.204

This ambiguity in Baur's case opens up the possibility, indeed the

necessity, of another approach.

2.242 Hofmann's starting point

In laying the foundation for his NT theology, which Hofmann does

by writing a NT history, he concedes that someone like Baur (or

Strauss), who 'dasjenige von vorneherein und grunds&tzlich fUr unmttglich

erklSrt, was nicht nach den gewtthnlichen Gesetzen des sonstigen Ge-

schehens geschehen sein soil,' will take issue with Hofmann's whole

basic perspective, despite the fact that his NT history grows out of

his nine-volume 'Untersuchung der neutestamentlichen Schriften hinsicht-

205
lich ihrer Herkunft und geschichtlichen GlaubwUrdigkeit.' But, as

pointed out above, Baur at least can not very well deny Hofmann a work

ing starting point, 'von welchem aus nun auch dem geschichtlichen Inhalt

der neutestamentlichen Schriften seine geschichtliche Wirklichkeit vin-

dicirt w i r d . ' ^ ^ For on Baur's own premises his form of 'Kritik' 'ent-

203
Cf. Die h. Schrift n.T., vol. 1, 59f. ('Der Ausgangspunkt'). Thus
Hofmann's entire study of the NT begins 'mit einer Untersuchung desjeni-
gen Theils des Briefs an die Galater, welcher uns jene geschichtliche
Kunde gibt, und mit einer Vergleichung der Apostelgeschichte, so weit
sie von eben denselben Dingen handelt.'
204
Bib. Gesch. N T , 11. Hofmann disagrees with Baur on the strength
of his own exegetical study of Galatians (vol. 2 of Die h. Schrift n.T.),
in which he concludes: 'Die selbststdndische Berechtigung seines
[Paul's^ Apostelthums behauptet er, nicht die alleinige, und die voll-
kommene Wahrheit des Heidenchristenthums, nicht die ausschliessliche'
(235). Thus Hofmann seestension but not primarily controversy between
Pauline and early Palestinian Jewish Christianity.
205, 206.
Bib. Gesch. N T , 14. Ibid. 15.
 -61-

weder an einem dunkeln Punkt ankommt, liber den sie nicht hinauskann,
207
oder bei einer Frage, welche sie nicht zu beantworten weiss.'

We thus arrive at Hofmann's methodological declaration:

Angesichts dieser Lage der Dinge ist es jedenfalls berechtigter,

wenn wir uns der dogmatischen Voraussetzung, dass unwirklich sei,
was nicht nach den gewdhnlichen Gesetzen des Geschehens ist, entschla-
gen und also ohne dieselbe, in diesem Sinn voraussetzungslos, an
die uns vorliegende Geschichte in ihrer Bezeugung gehen, aber frei
lich nicht voraussetzungslos in dem Sinne, als st&nden wir ausser-
halb des Glaubens, dessen wir uns llberall nicht ent&ussern kttnnen.
Nur bringen wir vermOge dieses Glaubens nichts Anderes mit an die
LOsung unserer Aufgabe, als die Erwartung, es werde sich die Ge
schichte, deren einheitlicher Gesammtinhalt unserem in sich selbst
gewissen Glauben gleichartig ist, als eine Wirklichkeit erzeigen.
Mit dieser Erwartung gehen wir an die Ldsung unserer Aufgabe. Wir
nehmen von vorneherein an, dass hier in diesen geschichtlichen
Schriften des neuen Testaments geschichtliche Wirklichkeit erz&hlt
sein wolle und auch erzShlt sein wird. In dem Sinn also, in welchem
uns der geschichtliche Inhalt derselben von ihnen geboten wird, neh
men wir ihn auf. Dann ist er uns aber nicht bloss Wirklichkeit
schlechthin, sondern heilsgeschichtliche W i r k l i c h k e i t .208

This statement permits a glimpse into Hofmann's approach vis-a-vis Baur

at four points: (1) admission of presuppositions, (2) the role of faith

in apprehension, (3) the burden of proof question, and (4) the nature

of Hg.

2.2421 Admission of presuppositions

Baur denied at the methodological level the veracity of reported

historical events which defied a basically rationalistic world-view.

I am not aware that he actually terms his work presuppositionless, but

he certainly gives the impression that his method alone, over against
209
all others, constitutes 'die wahrhaft geschichtliche Betrachtung.' He

does not appear to consider his assumptions e.g. that the NT writings

are disparate and only negatively (or even polemically) related, with

^7 Ibid. 16. Cf. 56f. above. 2<^Ibid.

209
Baur, Vorlesungen, 27.
 -62-

most originating in the second century as assumptions, but as proven

scientific verities.

Hofmann on the other hand, while remarking tongue-in-cheek that he

is presuppositionless (as far as dogmatic rationalistic assumptions are

concerned), does not think presuppositionless work is even possible.

In fact 1a complete lack of presuppositions1 on the part of the in

terpreter would be unthinkable. It is impossible for the interpre
ter to be neither Christian nor non-Christian, neither religious
nor non-religious, but merely interpreter. He approaches Scripture
as a person with a definite character and nature and experience,
not as a 'blank sheet' upon which Scripture inscribes i t s e l f . 2 1 0

Hofmann here in essence denies the historicistic base which Baur builds

upon. For he calls in question Baur's (for Baur) unassailable premise

that a 'rein geschichtliche method is both possible and necessary, a

method whose parameters for historical analysis are already established

according to a priori principles. Objectivity is not reached, Hofmann

believes, by the scientific sophistication of those, 'die zum Inhalt

der Bibel kein Verhdltnis haben. . . . Die Frage ist vielmehr, welches

die rechte, der Sache angemessene Voraussetzung ist: man muss zur Bibel

und zu ihrem Inhalt ein inneres Verhhltnis haben, wenn man sie verstehen
211
und auslegen w i l l .' Hofmann does not however claim absolute su

premacy for his own approach; he simply terms it 'berechtigter' in light

of the insoluble problems confronting Baur. In the end we see Hofmann

rather freely admitting his own presuppositions, while Baur leaves us

with the impression that work not following his basic line is simply

unscientific, if not willfully dishonest.

210
Hofmann, Interpreting, 14.
211
Senft, Wahrhaftigkeit, 109.
 -63-

22422 The role of faith in apprehension

Hofmann has alleged that every interpreter has assumptions which

will color his interpretation. Thus a presuppositionless method is im

possible. Now he concedes what his own context in interpreting the sub

ject matter is: that of faith. One cannot at every point evade the

effects of such a stance, just as one cannot evade the consequences of

a rationalistic or naturalistic (or even Baur's 'rein geschichtliche')

method. But what is needed, Hofmann implies,is not attempts at evasion

but owning up to assumptions and then rigorous, open-minded and self-

aware research consistent with them, along with a willingness to have

assumptions corrected in light of the data.

Hofmann then specifies what he brings to his task with this faith

within which he stands. It is not 'eine durch das Dogma dusserlich

regierte' interpretative scheme; Hofmann does not understand faith 'als

blosse Akzeptierung des kirklichen Dogmas,' but rather as 'eine lebens-

mdssige, erlebnishafte Gegenwdrtigkeit und Ausgelegtheit der Heilswirk-

212
lichkeit. ' Faith is qualified expectation that what one as a Chris

tian believer is assured of in faith the fundamental reality of the

NT h i s t o r y ^ ^ will prove itself to correspond to reality in fact.^ ^

Elsewhere he puts this a bit more clearly. His whole eleven-voume in

vestigation of the NT was conceived in the hope that the NT might 'sich

als die heilige Schrift, welche sie meinem Glauben ist, auch wissen-

212
Ibid. 103, Senft's stress.
213
Hofmann speaks of the committed believer who trusts 'die Schrift'
'ohne schon die Erkenntniss zu haben, dass und wie alle ihre Bestand-
theile an der Beschaffenheit ihres Ganzen betheiligt sind, deren er im
Allgemeinen gewiss geworden ist' (Die h. Schrift n.T., vol. 1, 54).

There are clear echoes from Schriftbeweis in this statement.

 -64-

i 215
schaftlich |erwe.isen.| " What Hofmann wants to do, then, is con

duct a historical investigation without blindly endorsing the criti

cal assumptions of historicism. If we agree with Hofmann that his-

toricism (just like the faith of which Hofmann speaks) involves certain

unproven and perhaps unprovable assumptions, then Hofmann says that

he prefers to interpret the NT from the standpoint of the content

of a faith (NT Christianity) which can fairly make some considerable

claim to derive from the NT rather than to interpret it based on

a faith (historicism) which cannot do this so easily.

One could object that Hofmann's expectation (preceding paragraph)

amounts to an a priori affirmation of what he wants to prove. He

is arguing in a circle. To a degree this seems to be the case. But

it is hard to see how Baur, either, could avoid this charge. Any syn

thetic handling of the NT involves a mutually complementary relationship

of those things which the historian-theologian generally expects (as

serts, hypothesizes) he will find there and those things which he spe

cifically does find there. We see Hofmann essentially viewing his ap

proach to NT theology as a model which will best explain all the facts,

or at least the most of them, facts (like the resurrection) which he

sees no place for in Baur's approach. Of course, from Baur's standpoint

Hofmann's model is invalid from the start because it leaves room for

transcendent cause to explain, whether wholly or in part, contingent

event. It is troubled by unexplained facts which are, in our modern

view, not facts at all but myth or some other kind of ex post (non-)

facto construction. Yet while one can easily understand philosophi

215
Die h. Schrift, vol. 1, 1.

^'*"6This seems to be the ground on which Senft, Wahrhaftigkeit, 87-

123, disparages Hofmann's handling of the miraculous in the biblical
narratives.
 -65-

cally what Baur's objection is, one is less clear on the cogency of his

argument from the standpoint of the NT data. For it seems that Baur,

who wishes methodologically to invalidate all non-historicistic out

looks, must engage in special pleading ('my presuppositons are not pre

suppositions but scientific fact') with regard to the historical evi

dence. Is he however convincing in explaining the phenomena within his

presuppositionless system? Not, at least, to Hofmann, and probably not

to many today, even among those who are not persuaded by Hofmann, either

(which is not to deny that Baur's NT theology contains insights of las

ting merit).

The point would seem to be that Hofmann's approach to the NT, while

it involved something he terms faith, did not in itself necessarily corn-

217
promise his capacity to do valid exegesis and synthesis of material

to any greater extent than Baur's approach compromised his unless of

course we accept Baur's historicistic starting point as our own, or

agree with B. Bauer at the outset that the NT is substantially 'ab-

sichtsvolle Dichtung.'

2.2423 The burden of proof question

Hofmann undertakes to do NT history/theology under the assumption

that those portions of the NT which purport to relate historical reality

intentionally do so and will do so, presumably as their content is

weighed and presented. Inasmuch as these historical portions claim to

set forth historical material, Hofmann is prepared tentatively to accept

it as such. It should be noted here once more that Hofmann is not an

inerrantist; we must take care not to read too much into his 'accep-

217
Keller-HUschmenger, 'Gewissheit bei Hofmann,' in Gedenkschrift
fUr Elert, ed. by HUbner, Kinder, and Maurer, 294, argues that Hofmann
was in fact far ahead of his time hermeneutically: 'Der Ansatz zu einer
LOsung der Subjekt-Objekt-Relation l&sst sich bereits bei Hofmann nach-
weisen.'
 -66-

tance1 of what the NT witnesses say.^18 He is not opting, say, for

wholesale harmonizing of the gospels as his chosen historical method.

He seems rather to mean that it is unduly skeptical to place all the

NT material in doubt and then to accept back only that part which com

mends itself to skeptical thinking. It makes more sense to adopt a more

open stance to the witnesses generally,indeed even when e.g. they appear

to be contradictory and so ostensibly mutually excluding. For as Hof

mann points out relative to Strauss' reading of the NT:

Wenn nMmlich ein geschichtlicher Bericht liber etwas in Widerspruch

steht mit sich selbst oder mit anderen dahin bezliglichen Berichten,
so wird Niemand sagen, das von diesem Bericht Gebotene sei in sich
selbst unhistorisch, sondern ein solches Vorkommniss fordert nun
auf, den Bericht zu sichten; aber das Berichtete kann immerhin his-
torische Wirklichkeit sein.^19

So then, Hofmann wants to assume that the NT's historical references

and contexts are largely trustworthy and authentic, but at the same time

he in a sense resembles Baur in holding that it is required, 'den Be

richt zu sichten, ' to engage in some manner of critical comparison and

reflection, to get to a true-as-possible understanding of the thing re

ported. This is part of Hofmann's concession to the problem created

by the subject-object relation in perception, a problem for which Baur

finds an answer largely in Kant.

There are three considerations that could have led Hofmann to this

basically positive assessment regarding the NT. He could have had a

so-called Protestant scholastic view of biblical inerrancy; but this

was not the case. Or it might have been that he as a historian was com

pelled through extensive research to confer high historical trustworthi-

^ 8Cf. Hofmann, Interpreting, 64-76, where Hofmann lists many bibli

cal ambiguities and some errors.
219
Hofmann, Bib. Gesch. N T , 7.
 -67-

ness to the NT texts. This was undoubtedly true to a point, but what

Hofmann actually cites as a reason is something else. He proposes to

investigate the NT writings as 'Christenheit' itself sees them, in order

to see if they are historically in line which what 'Christenheit' itself

220
claims they are. This requires explanation, Hofmann notes that

'Christenheit' distinguishes a particular time period the NT era as

that of its primary historical origin. Here lie its roots. The liter

ary monument to this age is, it is argued, above all the NT corpus (a-

long with its 0T substructure). This group of writings is regarded as

a standard for later church writings and thought. Hofmann poses the

question, is the church 'im Rechte1 in its assessment and use of these

writings? An answer is the goal of his massive investigation of the

NT. But it would be a dubious undertaking to give an adamant 'no' at

the outset and then proceed with an investigation which only amassed

information to prove the point already decided. Hofmann knows that this

is already the approach of a good deal of NT criticism. Fair enough;

but Hofmann takes a different tack. He gives a tentative 'yes' to his

question and declares programatically:

Was die in der Christenheit den Namen der h. Schrift neuen Testa
ments tragende Gesammtheit von SchriftstUcken und Schriftwerken
Geschichtliches darbietet, das will zusammengestellt sein, und zwar
nicht bloss irgendwie zusammengestellt, sondern, da es sonst doch
wieder nicht biblische Geschichte sein wlirde, unter eben demselben
Gesichtspunkt zusammengestellt, unter dem es sich in der neutesta-
mentlichen Schrift darbietet. Die Antwort auf die Frage, wie man
dazu komme, eine solche Aufgabe sich zu stellen, anstatt nach der
Weise sonstiger Geschichtsforschung und Geschichtsschreibung diese
hier vorliegenden Schriften eben nur als Quellen neben anderen fllr
einen anderweitig sich an die Hand gebenden geschichtlichen Zusam-
menhang zu benlltzen und also den Werth dieser Quellen immer erst
durch Vergleichung derselben mit anderen zu ermitteln und festzu-
stellen, ergibt sich aus dem eigenthlimlichen Verh&ltnisse, in

220
Hofmann accepted the possibility of doctrinal diversity. 'Chris
tenheit' is conceived of 'in such a general manner that no one who is
truly a Christian is thereby excluded, and also in such an exhaustive
way that everything by which Christians differ from non-Christians is
included therein' (Interpreting, 26).
 -68-

Op "
I
welchem die Christenheit zu dieser Schriftensammlung steht.

(It is important to remember that Hofmann says this assuming the results

of eight volumes of exegesis and one of introduction.) Thus Hofmann

takes as a working hypothesis, against other contemporary critical

treatments of the NT, the outlook that 1Christenheit'1s 1eigenthtlmliches

Verh&ltniss' to the NT is demonstrably historically plausible. Strictly

speaking he does not know this; it is only the hypothesis under which

he sets about answering his question. This then is the ground for his

refusal to adopt the position of Baur (or Strauss) with regard to the

basically historical nature of the NT writings. Hofmann seems to want

to show that a cogent picture of the NT's historical origins is only

possible if what the texts say is regarded (cautiously) as factual.

The burden of proof, if Hofmann is successful in giving a defensible

picture of the whole NT, will then be on critics to prove that the NT

in general is mythical or otherwise only quasi-historical, and not on

believers (or less skeptical critics) who accept the NT's own surface
222
claim to be referring predominantly to actual states of affairs.

2.2424 The nature of Hg.

Hofmann states that his qualified acceptance of the NT's historical

trustworthiness will have a definite effect: 'Dann ist er [the NT's

historical content] nicht bloss Wirklichkeit schlechthin, sondern heils-

geschichtliche Wirklichkeit.' This raises the question of just what

'hgl. Wirklichkeit1 and Hg. itself are for Hofmann with reference to

his NT theology.

221
Bib. Gesch. N T , 1.
222
Cf. recently, though on different grounds, S.Goetz and C.Blom-
berg, 'The Burden of Proof,' JSNT 11 (1981) 39-63; R.Riesner, 'Der Ur-
sprung der Josus-Ueberlieferung,' TZ 38 (1982) 493-513.
 -69-

On the one hand in Hofmann's NT theology we see him view human his

tory in somewhat immanentist terms. Thus he speaks of the 'aus dem sich
223
selbst fortpflanzenden Menschengeschlecht.' He refers to 'die Ge-
224
schichte des adamitischen Geschlechts.' He mentions 'dieser gegen-

w&rtige Weltlauf. . . , wo die Welt des Menschen eine Stdtte der SUnde
225
und des Todes ist.'

Yet there is also a transcendent dimension to history, as one can

see by scrutinizing the NT. Referring to John the Baptist's proclama

tion of the kingdom of God, Hofmann writes:

Der Gott Israels ist der Gott des Himmels, der Uberweltliche und
als solcher die Menschheit Uberwaltende Gott. Da ist denn das
Reich, das er auf Erden aufrichtet, ein Reich des Himmels, weil es
im Gegensatz zu irdischen Reichen vom Himmel her geoffenbart wird
als diejenige Ordnung der Dinge, wo Gott allein bestimmend wirksam
ist und alles seine Beschaffenheit vom ihm her hat und seines Wil-
lens Verwirklichung ist.226

In the same vein Hofmann notes that Jesus seemed to have viewed his mi

nistry in connection with 'die alttestamentliche, auf das Ende des ge-

genwdrtigen Weltzustandes zielende Weissagung,' as well as in connec-

227
tion with the ministry of John the Baptist. He states that both the

OT and the NT speak of an 'Unterscheidung zwischen dem Ausgang der Ge-

schichte der Gemeinde und dem Ausgang der Geschichte des Menschenge-

schlechts,'228 a difference that becomes clear on judgment day. In

general, then, the NT history is 'Geschichte der Erfdllung der auf der

alttestamentlichen Weissagung beruhenden, auf den Ausgang der Weltzeit

223 224
Bib. Theol. N T , 39, 41. Ibid. 47.
225
Ibid. 88. The 'gegenwdrtige Weltlauf' is fairly common in Hof
mann as denoting history understood in large measure as immanent process.
OQp. O O rl
Ibid. 30. Ibid. 111.

228Ibid. 129.
 -70-

229
gerichteten Hoffnung Israels.' 0T and NT history taken together com

prise Hg.

Hofmann appears to be trying to hold in focus both an immanentist

229a
and transcendent perspective transcendent taken in the Kantian

sense as that which is thought to be beyond the limits of all possible

experience and knowledge (within the limits of pure reason). On the

one hand he works as a normal historian, comparing sources and trying

to explain phenomena by normal means. This is clear in his handling

230
of the intertestamental period. Here we do n0t see God brought in

at every turn to explain historical events; Hofmann evaluates the

sources critically. On the other hand, Hofmann does not take up an a

priori position against the NT writings' ubiquitous claims that God's

hand was evident or his power present in the lives of persons or the

course of certain events, not only in an immanent sense, but also in

the sense of sovereign direct participation of God in the sphere of

everyday events.

We may thus surmise that when Hofmann refers to 'bloss Wirklichkeit

schlechthin,' he means an immanentist view of the NT's historical con

tent. This view cannot allow for the Kantian transcendent as part of

historical reality, so it explains the NT without recourse to it. But

this results in a rather impoverished portrait of the NT, or at least

a highly conjectural one, because the NT writings themselves leave no

doubt that their authors, at least, viewed the so-called transcendent

as an integral active component in the events and even some of the words

they relate. To strip the NT of this element one must introduce some

229a
Cf. C.Preus, 'The Contemporary Relevance of Von Hofmann's Her
meneutical Principles,' Int 4 (1950) 311-321, esp. 319.
230
Bib. Theol. N T , 17-48.
 -71-

other dynamic, an immanently explicable and formally conceivable one,

and then interpret the NT on the basis of this new dynamic or absolute.

But can such an explanation ever give a satisfactory accounting for that

which gave rise to the NT texts and presumably also to the church? Hof

mann, we have seen, thinks not.

He wants rather to leave room for what in his outlook is the only

thing which can make sense of the data of the NT historical process

as we have them. This permits us to move from a picture of 'bloss Wirk

lichkeit schlechthin' to 'heilsgeschichtliche Wirklichkeit.' This is

reality, not as post-Kantians constrain us to construe it, but as a non-

Cartesian may claim it well must have been, based on observation of the

historical evidence and the continuing experience of many Christians

of the reality to which the evidence testifies.

As for Hg. itself, the term does not appear very often in Hofmann's

work on the NT. This is significant, for it suggests that it may be

misguided to ignore his NT theology (as has been done) simply because

of suspicion created by his earlier systematic works which center on

Hg. It is true that these earlier works inform Hofmann's later ones,

so that Wapler is right in saying that none of his writings bears inter-
231
preting outside the context of all of them. Yet it is too seldom

noted that even Hofmann's 'dogmatic' works betray a very strong histori

cal concern and grounding. One could argue that Weissagung und Erftll-

lung is a biblical theology, with all that implies for historical

thoroughness (allowing for the time in which it was written) in its own

right.

It seems then that Hg. in Hofmann's NT theology would be best under

231
Wapler, Hofmann, V.
 -72-

stood simply as the affected-by-the-transcendent historical process of

which the NT (and OT) speak. A decisive point in this process is marked
232
by Jesus who came to be proclaimed the Christ, whose influence was

constitutive of the NT history and continues to this day. Since Jesus'

lifetime history has, with reference to him, comprised a 'Zwischenzeit,'

233
'eine Zeit der Bekehrung fUr die Heidenwelt und der Busse fUr Israel,'

the consummation of which has not yet taken place. In this interim

period, which includes the present, persons do not merely look back to

a collection of past events having no real present relevance, because

God is still present or accessible to mankind through the exalted Je-

234 235
sus and through the Spirit. There remains the abiding, if as yet

unfulfilled, expectation of the consummation. Thus Hg. is not merely

past but also bears real present and future significance.

Yet in a particular sense, for Hofmann Hg. is first of all that

which gave rise to and is reflected by scripture:

We differentiate between past history, which forms the basis for

the present existence of the Church, on the one hand, and the actual
life of the Church for which Holy Scripture is the standard, on the
other; that is, between Holy History and 'saving p r e s e n c e . ' 236
237
Hofmann thus takes scripture as 'the document of Holy History,' and

pursues NT theology using this assertion as a hypothetical starting

point. Whether or how well the assertion corresponds to exegetical and

historical observation is a question that only research can answer.

And it is clear that Hofmann thinks that Hg. which we might now call

simply history in its historico-theological reality will be best per

ceived and understood as it relates to the NT, not by the researcher

232 233
Cf. Hofmann, Bib. Theol. N T , 174, 206. Ibid. 121.
234 235
Ibid. 171. Ibid. 218.
236 237
Hofmann, Interpreting, 28. Ibid.
 -73-

who methodologically denies history's possible transcendent dimension,

but by the one who is open to seeing not 'bloss Wirklichkeit schlecht-

hin,1 but 'heilsgeschichtliche Wirklichkeit.' What Hofmann says about

coming to terms with Jesus' person seems to apply as well to his

thinking regarding an adequate understanding of history: in relation

to that which 'in so armer Gestalt als die Herrlichkeit Israels er-

schienen ist, wird sich zeigen, wer das Heil Gottes in Wahrheit will

und wer es nicht will.'2^

3. W. Wrede and A. Schlatter as NT theologians

239
3.1 Wrede and NT theology

When we move from Baur and Hofmann to Wrede we are conscious that

a significant shift has taken place in the basic milieu in which NT

240
theology is being done. Baur's grandiose 'edifice,' says Wrede, 'was
241
an untenable construction.' Holtzmann's NT theology marks an im-
242
provement, but an unsatisfactory one. Wrede, who speaks from within

the history-of-religions school (see n. 281 below), is not nearly so

clear as Baur as to what specific integral dynamic drives history for

ward, or in what the absolute within history consists. Baur gives the

impression that NT theology stands as a monument rightly dominating

QOO
Bib. Theol. N T , 29.
239
For biographical information see the remarks made by Wrede's bro
ther, Adolf, in W.Wrede, Vortrdge und Studien, 1907, Illf.
240
Cf. Wrede's own observation in 1898: 'Die Bibelexegese ist etwas
ganz anderes als sie noch vor 150 Jahren, ja fast kdnnte man sagen, als
sie noch vor 50 Jahren war' ('Die biblische Kritik innerhalb des theo-
logischen Studiums,' Vortrdge, 42).
241
'The Tasks and Methods of "New Testament Theology",' NNTT, 92;
'Ueber Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten Neutestamentlichen Theo-
logie,' PTNT, 119.
242
NNTT, 93f.; PTNT, 120ff.
 -74-

man's entire religious landscape; Wrede asserts tersely that NT theology

has no other task than to grasp the religio-intellectual reality behind

early Christian documents 'objectively, correctly, and sharply as pos-

243
sible. That is all.' Baur reflects the boldness of the heyday

of Hegelian hegemony, Wrede the more discreet (but no less self-assured)

standpoint of Troeltschian anti-metaphysics metaphysics.

We can nonetheless approach Wrede with the same questions with which

we examined Baur. How does he conceive of NT theology? What is his

epistemological starting point? How does he conceive of history? The

answers will be somewhat different from those of Baur. Yet a continuity

will be evident as well. In all events a grasp of Wrede is the neces

sary first step toward an informed appraisal of the hgl. perspective

of Schlatter.

3.11 Wrede's conception of NT theology: Baur's approach furthered

The continuing importance of Wrede's remarks on NT theology is re

flected, not only in his enduring influence through e.g. Bultmann (see

ch. 5), but also in J . M. Robinson's fairly recent statement that 'we

should simply concede Wrede to have been right and hence deny any future
244
to NT theology.' Robinson wants to follow Wrede's belief that NT

theology can rightly be no more than the 'early Christian history of

religion' or perhaps 'the history of early Christian religion and

245
theology. ' States Robinson from his Wreddan perspective: 'We

243
NNTT, 69; PTNT, 83.
244
'The Future of New Testament Theology,1 RelSRev 2 (1976) 20.
On Wrede see also Hasel, NT Theology, 43ff.; Merk, Anfangszeit, 245-
248; Kraus, Biblisc.he Theologie, 163-166; G.Strecker, 'William Wrede,'
ZTK 57 (1960) 67-91; H.Boers, What Is New Testc^ent Theology?, 1979,
39-66.
245
NNTT, 116; PTNT, 153f.
 -75-

should surrender any pretense to be presenting fin NT 'theology'"! any-

246
thing that can lay a claim on modern times.' It is evident that

Wrede's influential ideas merit attention.

Morgan has already provided a valuable discussion of Wrede's

247
method. It is unnecessary either to repeat or to contravene his

assessment here. We rather limit ourselves to drawing three lines of

comparison between Wrede and Baur. This is not to overlook the signi

ficant differences in their respective outlooks e.g. the 'Lehrbegriffe'

emphasis which Baur popularized (and which B. Weiss later made the basis

of his important NT theology) comes in for scathing criticism from

Wrede but is to recognize that certain of Baur's emphases, questioned

by Hofmann, are built upon by Wrede, and will be called in question by

Schlatter. This is part of a continuing bifurcation in NT studies be

tween two approaches to NT theology.

3.111 The truth behind the texts

3.1111 Wrede's position

Wrede, like Baur, focuses not on the NT texts but on that which gave

rise to them. Wrede wants 'to know what was believed, thought, taught,

hoped, required, and striven for in the earliest period of Christianity;

248
not what certain writings say about faith, doctrine, hope, etc.' In

NT theology, 'with a few exceptions, the writers' p e a n d the

249
writings as such are not important, but very subsidiary matters.' Ta

ken on their own, e.g., the following writings are of only preliminary

interest to NT theology: Mark and Matthew ('so far as they do

246RelSRev 2 (1976) 20. 24?Morgan, NNTT, e sp. 1-26.

248
NNTT, 84f.; PTNT, 109. Wrede's emphasis throughout.
249
NNTT, 85;PTNT 109.
 -76-

not merely codify the tradition'), Luke-Acts, 1-2 Peter, Jude, James,
250
the Pastorals, Ephesians, Revelation, and Hebrews.' I.e. at most

'they provide the material with the help of which it is possible to con

ceive the physiognomy and clarify the historical development of the ear-
251
liest Christianity which lies behind them.' This means that 'the

norms governing the presentation |of a NT theology| are. . . not the

writings but the decisive ideas, problems and spiritual or intellectual

252
phenomena.' This leaves Jesus' preaching, Paul's beliefs, and the
253
Johannine material as the 'solid entities' from which to work. And

Ignatius is 'more deserving' than any of these of separate treatment,

since he 'typifies, and for us in many ways especially clearly embodies,

254
personal Christianity at the beginning of the second century.' (Wrede's

point seems to be that Ignatius' distance from problematic early Chris

tian doctrinal formulation makes his testimony more credible than those

writings traditionally linked more directly with Christianity's begin

ning stages.)

Morgan speaks of Wrede's 'sharp distinction between the literary

255
sources and the historical subject-matter.' Wrede's 'chief emphasis'

is that the historian of early Christianity 'is concerned with what lies
256
behind the sources' in terms of the history of religion, not what

the texts say on particulars. Traditionally the NT texts have lent

themselves to being understood in a theological or historical-theologi-

250 251
NNTT, 85-89; PTNT, 109-115. NNTT, 89; PTNT, 115.
252 253
NNTT, 90; PTNT, 115. NNTT, 87; PTNT, 112.
254 255
NNTT, 89; PTNT, 114f. NNTT, 12; cf. Wrede, NNTT, 84f;
PTNT, 108f.

256Morgan, NNTT, 12.

 77

cal context, e.g. one in which their contents are related to God, Jesus

Christ, soteriology, etc., and not just to what was thought about these

matters. Theology or theologically significant history is read off the

texts. The writers are supposed to be referring to realities which,

according to their perception, really did exist and function as por

trayed. Wrede, like Baur, anticipates Ebeling and rejects such a pro

cedure. There are unquestionably gaps in our knowledge about NT theo-

257
logy, but we do know this: the texts are distinctly secondary to

that which gave rise to them.

Wrede's reasoning here has ostensible grounding in historical fact:

'The New Testament writings can by no means be temporally located in

258
the apostolic age.' This means that an explanation for the NT texts

must be sought which goes beyond that given on the surface of the texts,

which might give the appearance indeed to the unwary reader that apos

tolic-age phenomena are being referred to. We must supply the rational

explanation for the NT which it, taken as it stands, conceals.

3.1112 Radical relativization of NT data

The NT is thus to be read, not in some Christian theological con

text, but in the openly anti-metaphysical context of history-of-religions

259
thinking. This entails as a methodological first step the radical

257
NNTT, 97; PTNT, 126.
258
NNTT, 71; PTNT, 86: '. . . zeitlich ldsst sich das Neue Testament
keineswegs im apostolischen Zeitalter unterbringen.' While Wrede re
jects many specifics of Baur's reconstruction, he clings to the basic
chronological assumption that the writings are totally out of touch
with, i.e. temporally remote from, that which they report. Cf. more
fully Wrede's Die Entstehung der Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 1907.
Part of the rationale for this assumption, still common enough today,
is questioned by e.g. E.Ellis, 'Dating the New Testament,' NTS 26 (1980)
487-502.

We cannot take up the question of the metaphysical dimensions

of history-of-religions thinking itself.
 78

relativizing of all NT data. Thus Wrede speaks of the 'proper context'

for interpreting a NT writing as being 'the whole world of related

ideas,' in which 'it is easy to estimate its value and show where it

belongs.'233 He terms his approach to NT theology as 'always both gene

tic and comparative. . . . Every historical datum is only made compre

hensible so far as we are able to set it in the context out of which

it has g r o w n . A n d for Wrede, there is absolutely nothing distinc

tive or unique about the context (or the content) of the early Christian

writings, which he understands in terms of 'a living plant out of reli

gious history' which 'has grown according to the same inner laws which

today and always govern the emergence of ideas, concepts, and concep-
262
tions.' Specifically, this means that 'the main presuppositions of

all early Christian intellectual construction. . . are all the result

of development on Jewish soil immediately prior to Christianity.'233

Wrede somewhat playfully underscores his point by likening the NT to

a hypothetical collection of documents discovered in the year 3897 (2000

years from Wrede's time) relating to the nineteenth century social demo

cratic movement and consisting of

two popular biographies of Lasalle, an academic treatise of Marx,

a few letters of Lasalle, Engels and one or two unknown workers ac
tive as agitators; then a few pamphlets two or three pages long and
finally a socialist inflammatory writing describing the socialist
picture of heaven upon earth.264

3.1113 Conclusion

Wrede posits, it is clear, a naturalistic, closed-system nexus and

26NNTT, 91; PTNT, 124. 261NNTT, 96; PTNT, 124.

262NNTT, 9 6f.; PTNT, 125. 263NNTT, 114; PTNT, 151.

264NNTT, 82; PTNT, 103f.

 -79-

then assays to explain the life behind the NT texts in those terms.

This presupposes, as Morgan points out, the Enlightenment juxtaposition

265
of religion and theology. It also assumes that NT theology is right

fully conceived as history of religion on the basis that Wrede's 'own

liberal Protestant systematic position involved the substitution of the

20Q
history of religion for the traditional orthodox theology.' Without

passing judgment here on the tenability of these bases, we would simply

reiterate that Wrede sees NT theology's task as eliciting from what are,

in a way, stubborn and even deceptive sources, the underlying strictly

naturalistic religio-historical factors which brought them into being.

He is not, in this respect, far from the methodological starting point

of Baur, the chief difference lying in Baur's stress on the Idea itself,

over against Wrede's focus on the phenomena through which the ideal or

typical comes into view.

3.112 Methodological exclusivity

Wrede, like Baur, claims exclusivity for his approach to NT theo

logy. This seems to follow from his relativizing of the NT documents,

which has the effect of making the testimony of the sources of little

more weight than our own if not indeed of somewhat less. The reduction

of the NT documents in themselves both historical and theological by

any reckoning to the raw material for an a- or anti-theological 'his

torical' reconstruction enthrones Wrede's critical method and implies

dogmatic certainty for its results. Kraus notes that according to

Wrede, 'Der Theologe hat dem historischen Objekt "als Herrn" zu gehor-

chen. . . . Bisher "herrschten" die Lehrbegriffe; fortan soil und muss

die Historie der Herr sein.'2^

265NNTT, 24. 266Ibid. 22.

2^Kr a u s , Biblische Theologie, 164; cf. NNTT, 73; PTNT, 90.

 -80-

Now self-evidently one's conception of the subject matter of a

discipline will in large measure determine the shape of the discipline.

It is therefore understandable, given the flattened-out radically con

tingent nexus in which Wrede places the NT, that he finds no theology

at all in it and proscribes all theological interest from NT theology

as a discipline. Theology in any traditional sense implies some form

of revelation, i.e. personal self-disclosure of the transcendent, and

personal divine revelation in any traditional sense has no place in a

critically rigorous, closed cause-and-effect system.2^

No one would deny, of course, that it is fully allowable methodo

logically to delimit one's scope of analysis and assess data from this

given hypothetical perspective. But Wrede does not set forth his as

just one possible starting point. He claims exclusivity for his ap

proach. He recognizes that some will take issue with his conception

of NT theology as having absolutely no theological interest; yet he is

firm that whatever practical store some might set by scripture, the 'in-
269
vestigation of historical reality has its own laws.' He castigates

methods which are, unlike his own, 'unable to recognize. . . the dif-
270
ference between what is historically important and what is not.' What

ever arguments one might advance for ameliorating the apparent inflexi

bility of Wrede's method, 'it does not follow. . . that our view of the

task is incorrect, or that there are several equally possible and equal-
271
ly necessary methods of doing it.' Wrede adopts, in a sense, a

methodological posture to end all methodological posturing. This too

268
Wrede excludes all possible divine connection with the NT his
torical phenomena in Entstehung, 2.

269NNTT, 73; PTNT, 90. 27NNTT, 81; PTNT, 102.

. 271
NNTT, 94; PTNT, 122.
 -81-

is reminiscent of Baur. ,
[
3.113 From historicism to positivism

Wrede, like Baur, accepts relatively uncritically a given modern

world-view as the criterion by which the NT data are to be conceived

both in their particulars and in their totality. We showed above how

Baur subordinated, not necessarily on cogent documentary grounds, the

testimony of ancient views to his own Kantian, Hegelian, and at times

rationalistic ones. His method is fairly termed historicistic. Wrede,

some forty years down the line in a Germany which has rejected Baur's
272
metaphysician (Hegel) and developed a new taste for Kant, is clearly

positivistic. We understand positivism generally in the following

terms:

The characteristic theses of positivism are that science is the only

valid knowledge and facts the only possible objects of knowledge;
that philosophy |or NT theologyJ does not possess a method different
from science; and that the task- of philosophy [or NT theology"! is
to find the general principles common to all the sciences and to
use these principles. . . . Positivism, consequently, denies the
existence or intelligibility of forces or substances that go beyond
facts and the laws ascertained by science. It opposes any kind of
metaphysics and,in general, any procedure that is not reducible to
scientific method.273

Some of Wrede's statements cited already, dealing with the task of

NT theology and the rationally explicable laws which presumably control

historical (and thus all) reality at all times, make the positivistic

thrust of his program clear. His commitment to this position is further

demonstrated when he states, 'Biblical theology investigates the New

Testament writings first of all without presuppositions, to find out

274
the content of the biblical religion.' It, 'like every other real

272
Cf. T.Willey, Back to Kant: The Revival of Kantianism in German
Social and Historical Thought, 1860-1914, 1978.
273
N.Abbagnano, 'Positivism,' EP, vol. 6, 414.

274NNTT, 183n.4; PTNT, 83n.3.

 -82-

science. . . , has its goal simply in itself, and is totally indifferent

275
to all dogma and systematic theology.' Its task is 'to lay out the
276
history of early Christian religion and theology,' and it is evident

that by 'history' Wrede is speaking of 'critically reconstructed his

tory,' with the 'critical' in turn harking back to Kant, just as it did

for Baur. The point is that Wrede, like Baur, though on different spe

cific grounds, runs the risk of failing to do justiceto the data he

interprets, because his positivistic viewpoint by definition methodo

logically rejects the possibility that the texts are to be read in the

theological context which is, it can be argued, inherent to them.

It is true that in modern times 'most New Testament scholars have

allowed their world-view and historical method to be given them by their

277
culture,' and in this Wrede is neither unusual nor necessarily cul

pable. It is significant, however, that he so fully identifies with

a world-view so fundamentally antithetical to the surface testimony of

the texts whose 'life' he earnestly seeks to grasp. The question a-

rises, in what sense Wrede's scientific standpoint is adefensible po

sition from which to attempt a historical assessment of the NT. But

this is a topic which we must wait for Schlatter to broach below; for

now we turn to pertinent aspects of Wrede's epistemology. This will

help explain something of the cause and effect of Wrede's willingness

to go along fairly uncritically with the Zeitgeist in which he wrote.

3.12 Ramifications of Wrede's epistemology

Like Baur Wrede operates very much within the limits of a Kantian,

275NNTT, 69; PTNT, 83. 276NNTT, 84; PTNT, 108.

277Morgan, NNTT, 27.

 -83-

or more properly neo-Kantian o u t l o o k . W r e d e does not himself spe

cify his philosophical leanings in any great detail, but they are impli

cit in his adherence to the history-of-religions school, whose systema-

279
tician was E. Troeltsch (1865-1923). Troeltsch 'was sure that the

criteria of historical interpretation were, owing to the Kantian limits

280
of empirical knowledge, necessarily immanent ones.' We wish to show

here how Wrede's approach to NT theology, in part upholding Baur's pre

cedent, subordinates on philosophical grounds the content of the NT

texts to his particular implicit theory of knowledge.

3.121 Background

3.1211 Troeltschian immanent criticism

We must first glance more closely at Troeltsch, for his thought con

tains the rationale which undergirds Wrede's program.^1 Troeltsch ad

vocated an 'immanent criticism.' This means that 'historical forma

tions,' e.g. the NT, are assessed or criticized 'in terms of the ideal

which lies within their main driving force.' In other words: 'the his

torical is measured by the historical, the individual formation is mea

^78For a definition of neo-Kantianism see e.g. Willey, Back to Kant,

esp. 37, 180. In historical terms we understand it here basically as
the 'revolt of scientists against discredited idealism and naive positi
vism' (ibid. 74) which characterized much German thought in the late
19th and early 20th centuries. Cf. Schn&delbach, Philosophy, 105f.
R.A.Johnson rightly laments: 'With few exceptions, modern theology and
philosophy have ignored the legacy of Neo-Kantianism. The dearth of
philosophical discussion of this tradition represents a great loss for
theology. For the philosophical roots of mid-twentieth century theology
are firmly embedded in Marburg Neo-Kantianism' (The Origins of Demytho-
logizing, 1974, 40f .).
279
On Troeltsch generally see H.-G.Drescher, 'Ernst Troeltsch's in
tellectual development,' in Ernst Troeltsch and the Future of Theology,
ed. by J.P.Clayton, 1976, 3-32.
280
Willey, Back to Kant, 159. This remains true despite Drescher's
attempt to show that Troeltsch left room for 'divine impulses to mani
fest themselves in human activity (o.c. 11). Troeltsch's actual open
ness to the transcendent in history must be adjudged very limited.

Wrede underscores his adherence to the viewpoint of Troeltsch

 -84-

sured against the spirit of the whole conceived intuitively and imagina-
.. -i .282
tively.'

Troeltsch conceives 'of a theology based upon the history of reli

gion' in the heritage of the Deists, Lessing, Kant, Herder, Schleier-

macher, de Wette, Hegel, and Baur. Yet he wants to transcend mere ra-
283
tionalism and dispense with 'the Hegelian dialectic of the Absolute.'

In relation to the NT texts (or a history or theology derived from them)

this means that, to say the least, 'the quasi-history of supernatural

interventions must be abandoned in favour of real history, based as this

is upon critical evaluation of the sources and reconstruction with the

284
help of the principle of analogy.'

Troeltsch effected a 'massive reduction' of a traditional understan-

285
ding of the biblical texts. For Troeltsch 'the historical method

has eliminated any distinction between a higher and lower order of

reality,' or 'between what is eternal and permanent, and what is chan-

286
ging and conventional.' Here Troeltsch defies not only traditional
237
theology but also much of the classic philosophical tradition.

and to the history-of-religions school generally in 'Das theologische

Studium und die Religionsgeschichte,' VortrSge, 64-83, esp. 66.
282
Troeltsch, 'What Does "Essence of Christianity" Mean?' in
Troeltsch, ed. by Morgan and Pye, 142.

^^Troeltsch, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 2, 738, cited in Morgan,

'Introduction,' Troeltsch, ed. by Morgan and Pye, 10.
284
Morgan, ibid. 15, citing Troeltsch, Das Historische in Kants
Religionsphilosophie, 1904, 134.

M.Quigley, 'Ernst Troeltsch and the Historical Absolute,' HeyJ

24 (1983) 23. As Schnddelbach, Philosophy, 35f. comments: 'If evalua
tive and normative viewpoints can no longer be justified as scientific,
then equally no normative force can any longer be derived from the ob
jects of such a science.'

2^7Quigley, o.c. 23.

 -85-

In addition, Troeltsch based understanding of the past on a reli

gious a priori of Kantian derivation^^ which

is responsible for all findings and conclusions. In the absence

of traditional metaphysical distinctions, the divine is found in
the human; there is assumed a presence of the divine in the con
scientious search of the individual for meaning. Assuming the pre
sence of the spirit of God in the world, religious intuition, rather
than what is found objectively in the past, becomes the center of
focus.289

Morgan states this a bit differently in remarking that 'Troeltsch hoped

to show that the formation of religious ideas was grounded in the struc-
290
ture of human reason itself.' Troeltsch himself describes this reli

gious absolute, 'the philosophical substitute for the dogmatic super

naturalism of the church,' as 'the perfect self-comprehension of the

idea that strives for complete clarity, the self-realization of God in

291
the human consciousness.'

This is by no means an adequate summary of Troeltsch, but it does

yield insight into some basic features of his outlook which Wrede also

embraces. Troeltsch evinces an epistemology which is both formally and

292
materially Kantian. Wrede follows Troeltsch's lead at significant

points with the result that, for Wrede as for Troeltsch, 'the modern
293
secular world. . . determines the way theology should be done,' in

288
Baden neo-Kantianism, the basis of Troeltsch's thought (see be
low), was 'an attempt to find a basis for historical knowledge in a
strictly transcendental philosophy in the Kantian sense' (Schn&delbach,
Philosophy, 56f.).
289
Quigley, o.c. 23; cf. Drescher, 'Troeltsch's development,' in
Troeltsch and Future, ed. by Clayton, 21.
290
Morgan, 'Intro,' Troeltsch, ed. by Morgan and Pye, 20.
291
Troeltsch, The Absoluteness of Christianity and the History of
Religions, 1971, 55.
292
Cf. Morgan, 'Intro,' Troeltsch, ed. by Morgan and Pye, 20, 2,
12f.; Willey, Back to Kant, 156-161. Willey delineates Troeltsch's ties
to Baden neo-Kantianism after his earlier commitment to the neo-Kantian
Lotze, on whom cf. ibid. 40-57; Schnddelbach, Philosophy, 169-180.
293
Morgan, ibid. 7; cf. Quigley, o.c. 23.
 -86-

this case even NT theology.

3.1212 Neo-Kantianism's appeal

Before examining Wrede in this regard, we should in all fairness

note historical factors in Germany which render his (and Troeltsch's)

allegiance to Kantian or neo-Kantian ideology at least partially under

standable. In mid-19th century Germany the philosophical scene was corn-

294
parable to 'a battlefield strewn with corpses and debris.1 Hegelianism

had broken down, yielding in part to a radically empiricist materialism

295
which by the 1850's and -60's 'became virtually a metaphysical cult.'

Many thinkers who were not content with this new crass scientism turned

back to Kant, who, it was thought, had succeeded in harmonizing science

296 297
and philosophy. This had been, to be sure, Kant's contention. From
298
the middle of the 19th century onwards Kant's basic dualism served as

an epistemological starting point attractive to religious thinkers, be

cause

it preserved an 'unknowable' noumenal domain for the regulative

ideas of God, freedom, and immortality transcending natural laws.
Men of scientific disposition could have at the same time both their
faith and their science, because Kant's theory of knowledge gave
full justice to the phenomenal domain governed by the mechanical
principle of causality. Kant's dualism was, to many German thin
kers, an appealing compromise in an age of transition from Chris
tian belief to a wholly naturalistic view of the universe. To the
extent that Kant had demolished the claims of metaphysics without
denying the ultimate truths of religion, he also appealed to the
skeptical temper of a generation disenchanted with speculative

294
Willey, Back to Kant, 24; SchncLdelbach, Philosophy, 51.
295
Willey, o.c. 25.
296
The path of other thinkers (Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Marx) is
sketched by C.Sutton, 'The Aftermath of German Idealism,' The German
Tradition in Philosophy, 1974, 77-110.
297
See e.g. Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, trans. by N.K.
Smith, 1950, 21f., 25f.
298
Well summarized in the celebrated statment, 'I have therefore
found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith'
(ibid. 29, his emphasis).
 -87-

philosophy and enamored of physical science but not yet ready to

jettison its transcendental beliefs altogether.^99

The resulting neo-Kantian option became the major viable alternative

for critical thinkers unwilling totally to dispense with at least a sem

blance of the Christian faith. Troeltsch himself was heavily indebted

to Kant as well as to the early neo-Kantian Lotze, eventually turning

to the Baden neo-Kantians Windelband and Rickert. Wrede may be seen

as explicitly assenting to agreement with the same general trend in

thought.

3.122 Wrede's resultant outlook

3.1221 Absolutizing of modern viewpoint

Wrede's own 'immanent criticism' is readily discernible. Historical

significance can be assigned to data only from within a history-of-

religions perspective.300 Interrelationships between NT material which

'are unimportant for the history of ideas and that means most of the

ones which can be traced |within the NT-) are irrelevant' for NT theo-
301
logy. E.g. Wrede states that demonstrating

that Pauline conceptions are echoed in the Gospel of Luke is really

of little more interest to a history of early Christian belief than
evidence of Schleiermacher's influence upon some third-rate theo
logian would be in a history of nineteenth-century t h e o l o g y . ^02

This is apparently because much of the NT from our absolutized modern

vantage point is deemed unimportant or invalid based on our critical

perception of religion, which is in turn the standard by which we evalu

ate the NT texts, indeed religious phenomena of any description.

Troeltsch stresses how specific historical data are to be 'measured a-

gainst the spirit of the whole conceived intuitively and imagina

299 300
Willey, Back to Kant, 26. NNTT, 80f.; PTNT, 101.

301NNTT, 81; PTNT, 101. 302NNTT, 187n.l31; PTNT, 107n.30.

tively'; Wrede speaks of 'the quintessence of historical understanding'
303
as 'being able to take control of jbemdchtigen"| the phenomena.' In

Wrede we see clearly that at the methodological level he risks reading

a foreign meaning into the NT texts by assuming that no meaning can in

here in them except for that validated by a history-of-religions or

Troeltschian (neo-Kantian) outlook.The NT theologian is in effect

tempted so to 'take control' of the data that they yield the picture

which his absolutized a priori most readily corresponds to. We recall

Kant's dictum that 'objects must be viewed as conforming to human

304
thought, not human thought to the independently real. ' This princi

ple, not historical observation in a less overtly Kantian sense, may

go far toward explaining the picture of the NT which Wrede envisions.

3.1222 Texts' message potentially repressed

Troeltschian overtones sound in Wrede also when he speaks of 'the

historically normative views' on a NT concept which NT theology (history

305
of religion) ought to produce. Take the concept of sin. Wrede dif

ferentiates between how sin is spoken of in various NT texts on the one

hand and what role the concept had 'in the early Christian understanding

of salvation and of Christian life1 on the other.3^ It seems hard to

understand how Wrede can be so optimistic about finding a 'normative'

view by which to evaluate the texts when he at the outset sets aside

the literary evidence as being the arbiters, or least main witnesses,

in establishing the normative. But then Wrede sets forth his 'presup

position ' that

303
N NTT, 110; PTNT, 144f.
304
Smith, Commentary to Kant's 'Critique', 18 (his emphasis); cf.
Kants Critique of Pure Reason, 22.

305NNTT, 90; PTNT, 117. 306Ibid.

 -89-

the type is far more important than the variant and that the indivi
dual conceptions and interpretations are at most points quite insigni
ficant in comparison with the general, widespread views that influ
ence the individual cases.307

In another context he speaks of seeing 'the frame which supports an en

tire development, and that is more important than the individual facts
308
within the framework.' Wrede feels capable, it seems, of determining,

not on the basis of the NT evidence but on the basis of modern thought,

the typical or general which he can then in turn use to sift and assess

the individual and specific.

A very similar procedure is outlined by Troeltsch, who speaks of

'comparing the most important elements and values of the main religious

orientations, ranking them in accordance with a criterion of value, and

309
subsuming them under the idea of a common goal.' Troeltsch concedes

that the criterion being used here is 'a matter of personal conviction
310
and is in the last analysis admittedly subjective.' But he is confi

dent that such subjectivity in historical thinking will not lead to

skepticism and nihilism 'as long, at least, as the continuity of our

culture e n d u r e s . ' ^ 1

Bearing this in mind, and returning to Wrede, the conclusion is

inescapable that his approach to NT theology makes only a limited at

tempt to let the NT texts speak on their own terms. I.e. it is prede

termined at the methodological level that the texts' subject matter will

conform, to a considerable extent anyway, to the modern understanding

307
Ibid.; cf. NNTT, 77 (PTNT, 9 6f.): 'There can be no question here
in the New Testament of marking off the meaning of a concept according
to every possible individual passage.'
qno Of\Q
NNTT, 100; PTNT, 129. Troeltsch, Absoluteness, 94f.
310 311
Ibid. 96. Ibid. 94. This culture-optimism
was, of course, for most short-lived
due to WW I .
 -90-

from which Wrede starts out. Wrede's approach subjects the texts to
312
a historical-relativist outlook, which to a large extent freely em

ploys its modern cultural and ideological understanding as the norm

of what the NT texts present.

3.123 Summary: attaining of historical goals endangered

Now we are not arguing that Wrede set forth his program for NT theo

logy with tomes from Kant and Troeltsch open before him. We wish merely

to point out that the implications of Kantian or neo-Kantian thought,

demonstrably mediated to the history-of-religions school by Troeltsch

(whom Wrede explicitly follows) are basic to Wrede's presentation. It

is fair to say that his utterances on NT theology are informed, if not

determined, by a theory of knowledge whose suitability for application

to the NT texts he does not question.

We must also emphasize that our argument is not that Wrede inten

tionally set out to subjugate the NT to his own whims by neo-Kantian

artifices. He simply believed, in keeping with many of that time (and

now), that any theological, e.g. traditional Christian, concerns, are

from the critical standpoint foreign to the NT writers, and that they
313
must not be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with this fact. This

means that historical integrity in Wrede's sense of historical, of

course must prevail:

Von jedem, der sich mit neutestamentlicher Theologie wissenschaft-

lich befassen will, muss bei dieser Sachlage zuerst verlangt werden,
dass er des Interesses an historischer Forschung fHhig s ei. Ein
reines, uninteressiertes Erkenntnisinteresse, das jedes sich wirk-
lich aufdrSngende Ergebnis annimmt, muss ihn leiten. Er muss im-

312
Troeltsch, ibid. 85, openly concedes that 'the historical and
the relative are identical.' This fact can be 'evaded only by one who
has deliberately or instinctively thrown up a bulwark to defend Chris
tianity from the modern study of history.'
313
NNTT, 69; PTNT, 81f.
 -91-

stande sein, eigenes Denken vom fremden, moderne Gedanken von sol-
chen der Vergangenheit zu unterscheiden, er muss vom Objekt der For-
schung die eigene, ihm noch so teure Anschauung gMnzlich fernzuhal-
ten, sie gewissermassen zu suspendieren vermdgen. Denn er will ja
nur erkennen, was wirklich gewesen ist.^l^

This is surely, for Wrede as for Ranke, a commendable goal, although

one which suffers by not taking into account 'the relationship of the
315
historian himself to his sources and subject-matter.' But our pur

pose here is not to explore this fact, but rather to suggest that

Wrede's involvement in a particular philosophical tradition very much

affects his ability to carry out his admirable historical goals.

3.13 Wrede's approach to history

It would be possible to try to extrapolate from Wrede's remarks on

NT theology to Troeltsch's systematic statements regarding history.

This could yield some formal conception of Wrede's view of history.

But it would also risk overreading Wrede, who does not appear to have

self-consciously taken up and implemented a view of history, at least

not formally, as e.g. Baur could be suspected of doing.

It will be more fruitful to limit ourselves to considering three

assumptions Wrede makes, each of which contributes to an understanding

of his view of history as it relates to NT theology.

First, there is no 'view of history' intrinsic to the NT texts them

selves . The NT is concerned far more with religion than with theo-
317 .
logy. This means that the statements of the NT texts are primarily

314
PTNT, 84; NNTT, 70. Morgan's excellent translation inevitably
falls short of capturing the full effect of Wrede's rhetoric.
315
Morgan, NNTT, 21.

^ ^ B o e r s rightly calls Wrede's conception of history 'very ill de

fined' (Theology, 57) but fails to probe the ideological background.

^ ^ aContra e.g. I .H.Marshall, 'Some Aspects of the Biblical View

of History,' Faith and Thought 110 (1983) 54-68.
317 . '
NNTT, 116; PTNT, 153.
 -92-

reflections of occasional religious outlook, seldom if ever normative

dogmatic pronouncements. It follows that from the NT one could never

deduce a unified view of history, far less some 'theology of history.'

From W rede's basic conception of the NT subject matter, a hgl. reading

of the texts would do violence to them, imputing to documents a theo

logical self-awareness, purpose, and inner consistency which are, in

Wrede's view, quite foreign to them. In any event the documents' tem

poral and ideological disparity is too great to elicit much unity of

any kind from them even if Wrede's focus as a NT theologian were the

texts themselves, which it is not.

Second, Wrede posits the most minimal of connections between the

OT and the NT. He rejects the OT as the major background source for
318 '
interpreting the NT. Thus e.g. he crit^izes B. Weiss for his hand-
319
ling of James' conception of election. Wrede implies that Weiss has

read far more into James' statement regarding God's election of the poor

than the text of James will bear in its history-of-religions context.

One notes that Weiss sees much OT influence in James, and this is the
320
basis for his interpretation of James' understanding of election. To

Wrede this is simply ridiculous. Weiss' whole exposition of three pages

can be 'dismissed' and his use of eklegesthai in relation to the poor

explained, not with the aid of the OT, but by the history-of-religions

observation that 'at that time, if not every Christian, then, at least

all those who could speak like this of election, were angry about the
321
pride and luxury of richness.' Owing to Wrede's desire to read the

0*1 O 91 Q
NNTT, 114; PTNT, 151. NNTT, 78; PTNT, 98.
320
Cf. Weiss, Lehrbuch, 120ff., 184ff. Wrede's criticisms apply
to the second passage.
321
NNTT, 78; PTNT, 98.
 -93-

NT without any dogmatic or theological considerations, he systematical

ly cuts off its apparent direct links to the OT, even in a writer such

as James who might seem to reflect many OT prophetic and Palestinian

Jewish characteristics. The prospects for a fair handling of Jesus un-

322
der this assumption, one might observe, are. hardly encouraging.

Wrede wishes to explain the NT statements in terms of first/second cen

tury religion, apart from the OT writings (except in a sense determined

by his understanding of first century Judaism). This accounts for the

almost unbelievable fact that in Wrede's renowned study of the messianic

323
motif in the gospels, he cites all of seven OT references. By way of

comparison, he cites Justin Martyr some fifteen times.

Wrede asserts that 'in a living tradition, almost every significant

change of outlook is conditioned by processes in the history of religion

324
and only very slightly by what is read.' We must leave undiscussed

the question of how accurate this assertion is in relation to first-

century Palestianian Judaism (esp. the synagogue) and early Christianity;

it could be argued e.g. that the OT played a formative and normative

influence in both. Certainly there are indications that the OT, in many

ways over against much first-century Judaism, conditioned Jesus' life

325
and teachings. Our point is that a hgl. perspective is excluded

322
Bultmann's brief handling of Jesus in hisTheologie is consistent
with Wrede's view that Paul, not Jesus, 'is the epoch-making figure in
the history of primitive Christianity.' Paul is the creator of Chris
tian theology and the figure 'who stands before us more clearly than
Jesus himself' (NNTT, 106; PTNT, 138), Or again: 'Nobody can write
a New Testament theology as the development and continuation of Jesus'
teaching (NNTT, 108; PTNT, 141). But see Schlatter below.
323
Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien, 1901.

324NNTT, 81; PTNT, 102.

325
Would Wrede's statement hold true even as a history-of-religions
principle in view of the influence of the Koran in modern Islam?
 -94-

for Wrede by his methodological exclusion of the OT as a primary direct

moving force for the development of NT belief. If no divine economy

is visible in the OT-NT connection, obviously none will be visible in

early Christian writings themselves.

Third, Wrede assumes (here Troeltschian or history-of-religions in

fluence is esp. in evidence) that the NT represents the fragmentary re

mains of an organic development rigidly analogous to 'the same inner

laws which today and always govern the emergence of ideas, concepts,

and conceptions. '32^ That is to say that the inner dynamic of the NT

is not unique or even intrinsic to the NT. It is rather plainly recog

nizable to, because it is intrinsic to, the modern understanding which

perceives (and thereby establishes) the 'inner laws' that determine his

torical development. This again spells the end for any hgl. understan

ding of the NT, for it posits an immanent developmental reality whose

identity, power, and value are located in the modern critical mind and

not in the historical given exterior to, i.e. existing somehow indepen

dently of and prior to, the modern critical mind. For Wrede true scien

tific historical work by definition requires expunging the supernatural

and even for the most part the theological from a NT theology, explai

ning the NT texts in terms of reality as seen by moderns for whom the

supernatural is impossible and the theological far inferior to the reli

gious .

We may now summarize. Wrede's view of history is that common to

the history-of-religions school. More will be said in the next chapter

regarding the disrepute into which the concept of Hg. was falling at

the time Wrede wrote due to the influence of this school of thought.

326NNTT, 97; PTNT, 125.

 -95-

W. Herrmann once wrote that Troeltsch was too much swayed by 'nicht das

Anwachsen gef&hrlicher Ergebnisse' relative to biblical data, but by

327
'die Methode der Wissenschaft.' Similarly it seems to be Wrede's

method that plays a decisive role in excluding any hgl. reconstruction

of the NT data, such as e.g. Hofmann sets forth. Wrede's methodological

remarks also stand in direct, contradiction to the proposals of Schlat

ter. We may now turn to this figure in order to probe deeper into the

characteristics of a hgl. approach to NT theology, seen over against

the views of Wrede which have come to enjoy such wide favour within NT
328
theology, esp. through the work of Bultmann (and more recently

through the resurgence of interest in Troeltsch).

3.2 Schlatter and NT theology

3.21 Preliminary remarks

By all appearances Schlatter is a historian and theologian whose

contribution has been inadequately noted, even in Germany where the

Swiss scholar spent most of his academic life. A bibliography of his

329
published works lists some 403 entries and his impact on generations
330
of German pastors and theologians has been considerable. H. Stroh

thinks that even now Schlatter's work could prove to be not merely a

327
Rev. of Troeltsch, Die Bedeutung der Geschichtlichkeit Jesu filr
den Glauben, rpt. in ZTK 57 (1960) 237.

C.G.Grieg's statement still holds true, that 'Wrede's methodo

logy. . . has remained determinative for New Testament work right up
to the present' ('Translator's Preface,' in Wrede, The Messianic Secret,
1971, ix).
329
R.Brezger, Das Schrifttum von Professor D .A.Schlatter, n.d. The
updated version of this book (1980) was not available to me.
330
Cf. I.Kindt, Per Gedanke der Einheit: Adolf Schlatter's Theologie
and ihre historischen Voraussetzungen, 1978, 11, 155n.c; A.Kdberle,
'Evangelium und Natur. Zur Theologie von. . . Schlatter,' EvK 10 (1977)
541.
 -96-
331
'Wort von einst' but also 1ein Wort fUr morgen.' Although Schlatter

held to Matthean priority and wrote his NT theology accordingly, M. Hen-

gel defends Schlatter's Matthew commentary as 'den bedeutsamsten und

originellsten Matthduskommentar. . . , der in unserem Jahrhundert ge-

332 333
schrieben wurde.' Stuhlmacher has helped revive interest in him,
334
but esp. in the Anglo-Saxon world he remains relatively unknown. This

state of affairs may well persist, given that most modern NT critics

count Schlatter's opponents and he had many as their ideological an-

335
cestors rather than Schlatter himself.

The best introduction to Schlatter is any of four of his autobio-

336
graphical works, for he is 'ohne seine Biographie nicht zu ver-
337
stehen.' H. Rengstorf provides a thumbnail sketch which is fair in

331
H.Stroh, 'Das Erbe Schlatters ftlr unsere Zeit,' FAB 32 (1978)
470; cf. Morgan, NNTT, 28.
332
Cited in Stroh, o.c. 469.
333
Schlatter is the most cited author in Stuhlmacher's Verstehen.
See also his 'Adolf Schlatter als Bibelausleger,' ZTK Supp. 4 (1978) 81-
111, a shorter version of which appears as 'Adolf Schlatters Interpre
tation of Scripture,' NTS 24 (1978) 433-446.
334
Notable exceptions include W.Strunk, 'The Theology of Adolf
Schlatter,' LCQ 11 (1938); H.Dymale, The Theology of Adolf Schlatter
with Special Reference to his Understanding of History, 1966; Morgan,
NNTT; W.Gasque, 'The Promise of Adolf Schlatter,' ERT 4 (1980) 20-30.
335
Stuhlmacher notes the 'zum Teil bis heute andauernden Aversion
gegen Schlatter' (Verstehen, 160). For sample negative responses from
contemporaries see Holtzmann, rev. of Schlatter's Die Theologie des Neu-
en Testaments, TLZ 35 (1910) 299-303; H.Windisch, "Zwei neue Dar-
stellungen der neutestamentlichen Theologie (zu Schlatter und Feine),'
ZWT 52 (1910) 193-231. A comprehensive list of reviews is found in A.
Bailer, Das systematische Prinzip in der Theologie Adolf Schlatters,
1968, 202.

3^I.e. Die Entstehung der 'Beitrdge zur Fdrderung christlicher

Theologie' und ihr Zusammenhang mit meiner theologischen Arbeit. ,
1920; Erlebtes^ ^1929; 'Adolf Schlatter,' Die Religionswissenschaft der
Gegenwart in Selbstdarstellungen, ed. by E.Stange, vol. 1, 1925, 145-
171; RUckblick auf meine Lebensarbeit, 1977.
337
Stroh, FAB 32 (1978) 467f.; cf. Luck (n.339 below), 17.
 -97-
338 339
its treatment, while U. Luck gives a somewhat fuller survey. We

limit ourselves below to examining Schlatter at four major points, in

corporating insights from further secondary literature as we proceed.

We must first, before bringing Wrede and Schlatter into dialogue, make

some attempt to describe the latter's two volume NT theology and some

of its chief features.

3.22 Method and architectonic of a NT theology

3.221 Method: integration of NT thought-world

into concrete history

Schlatter approaches NT theology with the conviction that the ideas

and concepts of the NT are components in a history. They receive their

significance and their true meaning when they are seen in the context

of the lives of the men who recorded them. The thoughts, ideas, or con

cepts of the NT must be seen in close connection with the will and ac

tions which give the concepts substance. What is generally termed the

'teaching1 (cf. 'Lehrbegriffe') of the NT is not the sufficient-in-

itself pinnacle of NT self-expression. For the 'teaching' is not set

forth as a deposit of lore abstracted out of and cut off from the resolve

and activity of the individuals through whom the teaching comes, or iso-
340
lated from the concrete situations in which the teaching islaid-out.

J. H. Schmid gives invaluable advice here as at many points in under

standing Schlatter: one must never forget that 'fUr Schlatter Geschich-

^^'Adolf Schlatter,' Tendenzen der Theologie im 20. Jahrhundert,

ed. by H.Schulz, 1966, 56-61.
339
U.Luck, 'Einftihrung, ' in Schlatter, Zur Theologie des Neuen
Testaments und zur Dogmatik, 1969, 7-30.
340 3
Schlatter, Die Geschichte des Christus, 1977, 5. This is vol.
1 of a two vol. NT theology. Its first ed. (1909) carried the subtitle
'Das Wort Jesu.' The second ed. (1923, =1977) was considerably altered.
 341
te nicht Denkgeschichte ist.' As Schlatter explains, 'Freilich gibt

es keine Geschichte ohne Gedanken'; yet the NT 'zeigt u n s , was geschehen

ist, nicht n u r , was gedacht worden ist und von uns gedacht werden

n '
soil. .342

Esp. in the case of Jesus is it impossible to distill a timeless

conceptual system from sayings attributed to him or statements made

about him. His sayings require interpretation in the context of his

acts. Jesus' work and word, his personal self-assurance and his inner

will, are 'eine fest verbundene Einheit.' It is entirely possible to

succeed to an adequate, though never fully exhaustive, comprehension

of this unity if what the gospels record as Jesus' words and deeds are

set forth as the dynamically 'auseinander entstehenden Handlungen Jesu.'

We see here that Schlatter inverts the traditional person-work sequence

in regarding the christological question, and this reflects Schlatter's

consistent desire to understand who Jesus was in light of what he did,

and not just vice versa. Three major historically secure deeds of Jesus

form the nodal points of one variegated sequence of events: his buil

ding on and furthering the proclamation of John the Baptist, his summons

of his people to repentance in view of the at-hand kingdom of God, and

his taking up of the cross. A proper grasp of the NT gospel reports

in the context of these relatively certain pillars of our knowledge of

Jesus' life can make clearly visible to us 'der herrliche Reichtum

343
seines Worts zusammen mit dem es einigenden Grunde.1

Schlatter regards the gospels as 'Erinnerungen an Jesus' constructed

341
Schmid, Erkenntnis des geschichtlichen Christus bei Martin K&hler
und bei Adolf Schlatter, 1978, 243.
342
Schlatter, Selbstdarstellungen, 161.
343
Schlatter, Geschichte des Christus, 6.
 -99-

largely in keeping with the 'Methode der palMstinischen Schule, die die

Erinnerung an die VUter dadurch bei sich erhielt, dass sie "SprUche"

und "Worte" von ihnen Uberlieferte.1 He thus places the gospels in a

Palestinian rabbinic or synagogue context (cf. the context advocated

by Wrede, the world of related ideas), consistent with his well-grounded

344
conviction that first-century Judaism and particularly the Palesti

nian synagogue, both with their OT basis, hold the main key for accurate

interpretation of the gospel accounts. These accounts comprise 'Senten-

zen und Anekdoten' which 'uns jedesmal vor einen einzelnen, konkreten

Vorgang aus dem Leben Jesu stellen.' The 'Sentenz' a pithy saying

evincing a profound knowledge expresses how Jesus 'seine JUnger in

einem bestimmten Fall an seinen Willen band,' while the 'Anekdote'

shows how for Jesus 'eine besondere Lage den Anlass zum Handeln gab.'

The divergencies in the gospel accounts indicate that, as was customary

in the relevant literary milieu, chronological order was not the main

goal. Schlatter, ever at pains to use methods amenable to the data,

accordingly writes:

Am vergeblichen Versuch, eine chronologische Reihe der Worte und

Handlungen Jesu herzustellen, beteilige ich mich nicht, weil wir
uns mit der ErUrterung der Frage, ob ein Spruch Jesu der frUheren
oder der spUteren Zeit angehtire, sofort von den Quellen entfernen,
damit aber Uber die Grenze der Geschichte hinausfahren und nur Dich-
tungen schaffen. Denn die Quellen teilen uns die SprUche Jesu des-
halb mit, weil sie in ihnen seinen bleibenden, ihn best&ndig bestim-
menden Willen erkannten. Dadurch aber, dass sie uns vor eine FUlle
einzelner deutlich erfassbarer VorgUnge stellen, berufen sie uns

344
Cf. such studies as Zur Topographie und Geschichte PalUstinas,
1893; Der Chronograph aus dem 10. Jahre Antonins, 1894; 'Die Tage Tra-
jans und Hadrians,' BFCT 1/3 (1897) 1-100; 'Der Glossator des griechischen
Sirach und seine Stellung in der Geschichte der jUdischen Theologie,'
BFCT 1/5-6 (1897) 103-191; 'Jochanan ben Zakkai, der Zeitgenosse der
Apostel,' BFCT 3/4 (1899) 1-75; Geschichte Israels von Alexander dem
Grossen bis Hadrian, 1901; Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht
des Josefus, 1932 (recently rpt.). Other works could be added.
 -100-

zu einer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit, die Frucht bringen kann, nMmlich

dazu, dass wir die vielen einzelnen SprUche und Handlungen Jesu so
durchdenken, dass der sie erzeugende Grund uns sichtbar wird.345

In this fashion Schlatter undertakes to focus attention 'auf die inwen-

dige Wurzel, nicht auf die schaubare Seite der Ereignisse. ' He sees

NT history in the context, not of a 'Schema immanenter Entwicklung,

nicht in geschichtsimmanenter KausalitUt und Korrelation, die es ermdg-

lichen wUrde, eines aus dem anderen zu erklMren und zu verstehen,'

but in the context of that which makes Jesus visible, to some extent

at least, as the Christ to a NT reader as he was to his earliest fol

lowers. Still, the scholar sufficiently conversant with first-century

Palestine can reconstruct also the 'Ereignisse, ' if not to a complete

reliable picture, still to something more than an arbitrary hypothetical

construct, so that the historically visible events inform and give the
348
framework for an 'Erfassung der inwendigen VorgUnge.' Schlatter a-

gain states, in slightly different terms, his goal: it lies 'nicht in

der Herstellung farbig ausgemalter Bilder, die die Phantasie beleben,

but rather 'im Einblick in das, worin das Werk Jesu seinen Grund und
349
sein Ziel besass. '

Schlatter argues (contra e.g. Wrede) that interpreting the history

of Jesus primarily against first-century Palestinian Judaism has great

scientific merit, because numerous related events during which Jesus'

life took place Schlatter cites 'das Eindrungen des Hellenismus, das

Entstehen des Rabbinats und Pharis&ismus, die Herrschaft der Herodier,

350
die Weise, wie die Judenschaft in das Kaiserreich hineingesetzt wurde'

'^"Geschichte des Christus, 7. ^^Ibid.

347 348
Schmid, Erkenntnis, 242. Geschichte des Christus, 8.
349r,., 350T,
Ibid. Ibid.
 -101-

are constituent parts of his history, Schlatter stops far short, never

theless, of a total dissolution of the gospel statements into a purely

ideological background. Historical data are used in the framework of

a Religionsgeschichte which Schlatter claims to find in the first cen

tury, not one which Troeltsch and others claim first to have discerned

in the 20th.

3.222 Structure

Schlatter holds that 'die Kenntnis Jesu ist das erste, unentbehr-
351
liche HauptstUck' of NT theology. He takes the four gospels as his

primary sources, addressing an issue still problematic today:

In der Beurteilung der Quellen stimme ich dem Urteil der Manner zu,
die im Uebergang vom ersten zum zweiten Jahrhundert den Kanon der
vier Evangelien herstellten. Die in der gegenwMrtigen Literatur
verbreiteten entgegengesetzten Urteile stammen aus religionsge-
schichtlichen ErwMgungen, nicht aus Beobachtungen, die an der
Sprache, Topographie, Zeitgeschichte und Bezeugung der Dokumente
gewonnen sind, und haben dann ihre Widerlegung gefunden, wenn es
gelingt, aus den evangelischen Berichten ein einheitliches und ver-
st&ndliches Bild der Geschichte Jesu zu entnehmen.352
353
He sets forth his lengthy Geschichte des Christus under four main
354
headings: (1) 'Die Vorbereitung fhr das Werk Jesu,' (2) 'Die Wendung
355 356
im Leben Jesu,' (3) 'Die Anbietung der gttttlichen Gnade an Israel,'
357
and (4) 'Der Gang Jesu zum Kreuz.' A brief fifth section treats 'Die

351
These are the pregnant first words of his NT theology (5), which to
day call Bultmann's opposite statement to mind.
352
Ibid. 8. Schlatter argues that those who obscure the unique
character of the NT documents over against non-canonical ones 'come into
serious conflict not with a dogma but with history' ('The Theology of
the New Testament and Dogmatics,' NNTT, 117-166; 'Die Theologie des
Neuen Testaments und die Dogmatik,1 PTNT, 155-214).
353
Fully half of Schmid, Erkenntnis (n.341 above) is an extended
exposition of this book.
354
Schlatter, Geschichte des Christus, 9-76.
355 35R 357
Ibid. 77-134. Ibid. 135-353. Ibid. 354-516.
 -102-
358
Ostergeschichte' and sifts through prevailing theories of how the

Easter narratives arose. His conclusion, in contrast to both Baur and

Wrede, is: 'Uebrigens ist die Vermutung, die Worte der Ostergeschichte
359
kdnnten oder mUssten erst aus einer sp&teren Zeit stammen, wertlos.1

He asserts likewise in volume two of this NT theology that those

theories which attempt to explain how the disciples (1) gradually came

to confer divinity on Jesus and (2) reached an inner awareness, through

purely immanent natural processes or mystical musing, that they lived

somehow 'in' him who was at the same time known to be a dead man, foun

der on the reality of what 'das jtldische Gottesbewusstsein war' in the

historical milieu from which the sources originate.

Volume two begins with 'Der Standort der Jlinger beim Beginn ihrer

Arbeit.'3*^ A long section follows: 'Die von den GefShrten Jesu ver-

tretenen Ueberzeugungen.'332 Major sources are Matthew, James, Jude,

and John. Next comes 'Die Berufung der Vtilker durch Paulus.'333 Then

Schlatter treats 'Der Anteil der Mitarbeiter der Apostel am Aufbau der

Lehre, '334 which draws on Mark, Luke, Hebrews, and 2 Peter (the last

of which Schlatter attributed to an unknown author). Finally Schlatter

365
deals with 'Die Erkenntnis der ersten Kirche.'

3.223 Summary: Schlatter, Hofmann, and Baur

Schlatter does not consciously align his NT theology with Hofmann's

358 359
Ibid. 517-537. Ibid. 534n.l.

33Schlatter, Die Theologie der Apostel, 2 1922, 13n.3.

361Ibid. 11-43. 362Ibid. 44-238.

363Ibid. 239-432. 364Ibid.433-484.

865
Ibid. 485-562.
 -103-

work, though there are noticeable similarities. Schlatter far out

distances Hofmann in NT background (first-century Judaism) expertise

368
and to a lesser degree exceeds him in critical self-awareness. It

could be argued that no major NT scholar was ever any more cognizant

of the effects of philosophy and contemporary thought on NT interpre-

369
tation than Schlatter; at this point Hofmann does not quite come

up to his level. Schlatter distances himself from Baur, aside from out

stripping him decisively in knowledge of first-century Palestine and

biblical history generally, in that he reads the NT documents as sources

of a religious history intrinsic to the concrete historical contexts

of the documents, as opposed to arraying them along a developmental con-

370
tinuum furnished largely by dialectical absolute idealism. Some major

To this extent, if no further, E.GUting's contention is justi

fied, that the description of Schlatter 'als eines Theologen der Heils-
geschichte am Schriftum Schlatters keinen ausreichenden Anhalt findet'
('Zu den Voraussetzungen des systematischen Denkens Adolf Schlatters,'
NZsT 15 [1973], 147n. 180). Gtiting is also correct in questioning Steck's
(Idee der Hg. ) misrepresentation of Schlatter; here see also G.Egg,
Adolf Schlatters kritische Position, 1968, 46-50. GUting seems, how
ever, to define Hg. in a manner so narrow as to preclude its usage as
one often finds it in NT theology. If Schlatter was not a direct ideo
logical descendent of Hofmann, he still leaves no doubt as to his an
swer to the question: 'Kann es denn unter uns eine Streitfrage werden,
ob sich der Glaube auf die heilige Geschichte beziehe als auf seinen
Gegenstand?' ('Heilige Geschichte und der Glaube,' in Heilige Anliegen
der Kirche, 1896,22).

3f^7Dymale, Theology of Schlatter, 298f. ; W.LUtgert, Adolf Schlatter

als Theologe innerhalb des geistigen Lebens seiner Zeit,1932,11;Goppelt,
Theologie, 47; J.Behm, Heilsgeschichtliche und religionsgeschichtliche
Betrachtung des Neuen Testaments, 1922, 9.
368
Dymale's remark (Theology of Schlatter, 48) that 'Schlatter at
no point discussed his methods' is far from accurate.
369
Cf. esp. his Die philosophische Arbeit seit Cartesius nach ihrem
ethischen und religidsen Ertrag, 1906. Rengstorf ('Schlatter,' in Ten-
denzen, ed. by Schulz, 61) and Thielicke (Evangelical Faith, 276n.25)
cite the unjustified neglect of this book.

37Cf. Schlatter, NNTT, 141; PTNT, 183f. He alo dismantles Baur's

vision theory of the resurrection, a pivotal point in Baur's reconstruc
tion of the NT, in Geschichte des Christus, 519-525.
 -104-

points at which he diverges from Wrede are to be taken up now.

3.23 Schlatter's critique of Wredian methodology

Schlatter notoriously did not usually involve himself in extensive

371
open interaction with his opponents in his writings, although it is
372
a mistake to think him out of touch with contemporary scholarship.

Often Schlatter's interaction with foes, e.g. Troeltsch, is between the

373
lines. The reader of Schlatter must take the advice to heart, that,

just as Schlatter himself 'alles durch eine solide, langj&hrige Arbeit

sich erworben hat,' his listeners or readers must likewise toil to gain
374
the benefit of his insights.

It is nonetheless not difficult to detect interaction with Wrede

in Schlatter. He responds e.g. directly, incisively, and at length

375
to Wrede's Messiasgeheimnis. And Schlatter's programmatic statement

on NT theology is a perfect foil for that of Wrede, as Morgan's NNTT

implies. Schlatter did not, however, indulge in ad hominem anti-Wredian

polemic, but rather assessed Wrede's approach in the wider context of

what Schlatter saw as post-Kantian, positivistic, atheistic37 histori-

371
Schlatter explains this fact variously in Rtlckblick (e.g. 93ff.,
117f., 136, 171), most pungently where he says(95) he followed the ad
vice of a fellow pastor (E.Frdlich): 'Plage dich nicht mit Polemik, lass
sie in ihrem eigenen Mist verfaulen.'
372
Luck, 'Einfllhrung, ' in Schlatter, Zur Theologie, 8n.4, lOf., 22.
373
As noted by K.Holl in a personal letter to Schlatter, commenting
on vol. 1 of Schlatter's NT theology, see R.Stupperich, ed., 'Briefe
Karl Holls an Adolf Schlatter,' ZTK (1967) 230.
374
According to a one-time student of Schlatter, one Prdlat Schrenk;
see G.Kittel et al, Ein Lehrer der Kirche, 1938, 34.
375
'Der Zweifel an der Messianitht Jesu,' in Schlatter, Zur Theo
logie, 151-202.

376Cf. the vigorous but fair essay 'Atheistische Methoden in der

Theologie,' in Schlatter, Zur Theologie, 134-150.
 -105-

ical methodology. Thus much of his criticism which touches Wrede does
377
so indirectly and by implication. Yet by going to the roots of the

thought-stream in which Wrede operated, Schlatter certainly made his

objections more effective than they would have been had he made the mis

take of accepting Wrede's basic premises and then attempting to correct

him at individual points. . Schlatter rightly recognized that Wrede's

position implied a whole thought and belief system which was virtually

unfalsifiable from within its own fundamental assumptions.

It will be instructive to note Schlatter's response to the three

basic features of Wrede's approach to NT theology which we have already

explored above.

3.231 The focus of NT theology: the texts

3.2311 Wrede's position

We saw earlier that Wrede's method makes the NT writings secondary

378
to that which gave rise to them. Ideas and phenomena unfold accor

ding to unvarying inner laws, to which modern thought since Kant is

privy, which always determine their rise and development. The great

temporal distance between the NT writings and that which they report,

as well as their disparate and random nature, render them for the most

part only indirectly suitable as historical sources for Christianity's

rise. An alternate critical reltgio-historical continuum is posited in

keeping with values derived from history-of-religions principles. The

NT writings fade into the background, radically relativized by the abso

lute claims of the modern perspective which essentially determines their

content in the context of 'the whole world of related ideas.'

377
Here see esp. Schlatter's Philosophische Arbeit and its many
allusions to thought affecting biblical criticism.

^ ^ S e e above, sec. 3.111.

 -106-

3.2312 Schlatter's response

3.23121 Historical base re-examined

To this Schlatter has several responses. First, his exhaustive his

torical work and NT exegesis serve to show that it is possible to con

ceive of the NT documents as being in close contact with that which gave

them rise and their primary impetus, i.e. Jesus, who came to be called

Christ, seen in the concrete religious world within which he and his

followers lived. Stuhlmacher notes that Schlatter's basic approach to

the thorny christological problem with which the NT interpreter is confront

ed was 'the proper way' and foreshadows the solutions advanced by Kllm-
379
mel, Jeremias, and Goppelt. Or again:

Vielleicht hat Schlatters nur scheinbar naive Verwertung der Evan-

gelien in seiner auf die geschichtliche Einheit bedachten Zusammen-
schau aller Evangelientexte mehr von der Glaube weckenden Wirklich-
keit Jesu festgehalten als unsere moderne, durch hermeneutisch recht
einseitige Reflexion bedingte Auszehrung des biblischen Bildes
Jesu.380

Schmid sets forth Schlatter's efforts herein detail.381 Our point is

that Schlatter meets Wrede's challenge first of allwith historical

work, instructive still today, which shows that Wrede's fundamental hy

potheses do not necessarily follow from the data to which they are

applied. He undercuts Wrede's historical base.

3.23122 Various counter-proposals

Second, Schlatter responds on a wide front to Wrede's program with

counter-proposals reflecting a more discriminating use of history-of-

relgions method and more integrity in owning up to critical predilec

tions. Schlatter by no means renounced insights from Religionsgeschichte,

379
Stuhlmacher, NTS 24 (1978) 445.

38<3Stroh and Stuhlmacher, intro, to Schlatter, Geschichte des

Christus (3 1977), third (unnumbered) page.

381Schmid, Erkenntnis, 239-456.

 -107-

but rather pleaded for a disciplined and controlled use of it.382

Schlatter 'wollte "religionsgeschichtlich" erklMren, aber besser als

die anderen, die sich zu der Schule dieses Namens hielten.'383 His life's

work is a monument to the conviction, not shared by many of the history-

of-religions persuasion: 'Uns steht nicht das Urteil Uber die Geschich-
384
te zu, sondern die klare Erfassung dessen, was geschehen ist.' This

sounds like a rather naive assertion until one perceives Schlatter's

drift. He recognizes that many critics (like Wrede) lay claim to a pre-

suppositionless historiography. Their historical reconstruction in

volves no 'Urteil,' just objective regarding and dispassionate descrip

tion of data. Counters Schlatter: this is the strongest sort of pre

judgment of the data, for it is blind to the effects of the historian's

own assumptions or preunderstanding. But we can 'get free of and rise

above our presuppositions' only as we pay 'conscious and rigorous atten-

385
tion to them.' Without a continual resolute attempt 'to lay aside

all personal concerns and the opinions of one's school or party, and

seriously to see, academic work degenerates into hypocrisy. 388 It is

in a certain sense true that 'an observer sees with his own eyes only
387
what the certainties which internally determine him allow him to see.'

382Schlatter's basic affinity for history-of-religions method is

evident from a reading of his programme for NT theology (NNTT, PTNT).
His objections to certain of its biases are clear in Philosophische Ar
b eit; cf. 'Atheistische Methoden,' Zur Theologie. He defends the history-
of-religions bent to his research in Selbstdarstellungen, 161. Boers'
claim (Theology, 72) that Schlatter 'considered the New Testament his
tory as a development that had been closed off in itself' seems unfair.
383
P.Althaus, 'Adolf Schlatters Wort an die heutige Theologie,' ZST
21 (1950) 96; cf. LUtgert, Schlatter als Theologe, 9f.

38^Schlatter, Der Aufstieg der evangelischen Kirche von der Refor

mation zur Gegenwart, 1931, 18.

385NNTT, 127; PTNT, 166. 386NNTT, 122; PTNT, 161. 38?NNTT, 123;
PTNT, 161.
 -108-

He demanded therefore that the NT and 'the content of our consciousness

should enter into a discussion and mutually come to t e r m s T h e inter

preter unquestionably brings something, and something potentially of

389
value at that, to the NT, but he must be capable of letting his prior

convictions be adjusted if he is to succeed in historical work, which

'demands wide-open eyes and the sort of whole-hearted surrender which

390
perceives that with which it is presented.' Wredian methodology,

in elevating history-of-religions historiographical and developmental

postulates, or a certain religious ideal (that of liberal German Protes

tantism's cultural optimism), to axiomatic status in NT interpretation,

may well have failed to heed the caveat:

If we turn our attention straight away to the connections which

exist between our object and our own ideas and will, then there is
always the danger that we will break off our observation at the
point where our own interest in the object ends. Our perception
might be directed exclusively towards what we can at once make our
o wn.391

3.23123 Summary

All this points toward Schlatter's refusal to endorse a historical

method which considered the NT documents as merely secondary sources

of a religious history whose laws of development were already clear to

us on a priori theological or philosophical grounds. Contemporary his

tory, if nothing else, shows that history does not develop according

to some immanent purely logical sequence in keeping with (any yet dis

covered) human logic or philosophy: the chaotic history of Kantian

thought after Kant demonstrates to Schlatter that 'unsere Gedankenbil-

dung nicht einzig durch die logischen Kategorie.n der reinen Vernunft
392
bestimmt ist.' The vast temporal distance between the NT documents

OOQ OOQ
NNTT,131; PTNT, 171. NNTT, 132; PTNT, 172.
390 391
NNTT, 121; PTNT, 159. NNTT, 127; PTNT, 167.
392
Philosophische Arbeit, 138.
 -109-

and that which they relate has disputable historical justification.

Not a modern value-schema which makes bold to subsume NT 'ideas1 under

the heading of 'the whole world of related ideas,' but the history of

which the NT documents are by far the most tangible evidence is the

methodological starting point of NT theology.

3.232 Schlatter's own methodological rationale

3.2321 No final NT theology possible

393
We saw above that Wrede claimed exclusivity for his approach.

Not of course that he declared himself or his school omniscient; but

he did see in his methodological proposals the end of NT theology as

generally conceived and the beginning of a discipline which would once

for all bring the NT within the purview of modern religious science and

out of the dogmatizing grasp of theological or ecclesiastical interpre

tation in which it had languished so long.

Schlatter by contrast says at the outset that by now it should be

clear that no one can or will write 'the' definitive NT theology. The

discipline has not been well served by rationales here Wrede would be

implicated which present a scholar's own aims and imply that 'that is

the whole of the intellectual task with which the subject matter con

fronts us.' This attitude is a holdover from the 19th century and its
394
penchant for all-encompassing speculative undertakings.

Now Schlatter is not opposing method as such. The sine qua non of

scientific work is 'die sorgf&ltige Achtsamkeit auf unsre Methoden.'

393
See above, sec. 3.112.
394
NNTT, 117; PTNT, 155. Support for Schlatter here comes indirect
ly from M.Pye, 'Troeltsch and the Science of Religion,' in Troeltsch,
ed. by Morgan and P y e , 243, who notes Troeltsch's Hegelian proclivities
(Pye calls him 'post-Hegelian'). Hegel is of course the systematizer
par excellence. Wrede, it can be maintained, also reflected this lean
ing, albeit like Troeltsch he eschewed an explicitly Hegelian metaphysic
 -110-

Schlatter states almost prophetically:

Die Frage, ob uns die ndchsten Jahrzehnte in Deutschland einen Nie-

dergang oder einen Fortschritt fdr unsre Theologie bringen, hdngt
nicht unwesentlich davon a b , mit welchem Geschick wir die Methoden
der wissenschaftlichen Arbeit b e h e r r s c h e n . 395

While Wrede speaks of mastering the historical data, then, Schlatter

speaks of mastering or controlling the methods by which the data are

analyzed. In any case one's method is not to be conceived as a pro

scriptive formulation which de facto renders all other approaches

396
illicit, and threatens to straitjacket evidence.

It is interesting to note that Schlatter, billed by Merk as the

forerunner of pure theological interpretation of the NT who sacrificed

397
historical reconstruction in the interest of theological understanding,

should grant hypothetical legitimacy to any number of approaches to the

NT. One should have expected the 'dogmatic' (theological) Schlatter

to be exclusivistic, with Wrede, the pure dispassionate historian, ever

seeking new truth, being open to the full range of interpretative possi

bilities. But whereas Wrede in his approach is committed to the axioms

of contemporary history-of-religions research, methodologically exclu

ding explanations or assumptions which do not match his own, Schlatter

somewhat surprisingly states that every theory about the NT has the

right to try to vindicate itself from and overcome opposing views

based upon the NT historical data. Schlatter recognizes and concedes

'the close connections between historical work and the convictions by

395
'Die Bedeutung der Methode flir die theologische Arbeit, ' TL 31
(1908) 5.
396
Cf. also E.Reuss, Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften neuen
Testaments, 1887, 14, who argues 'dass, so lange es sich urn Begriff
und Form der Wissenschaft handelt, die besonderen Ansichten eines ein-
zelnen Kritikers in den einschldgigen Specialfragen nicht den absoluten
Massstab ftlr denselben geben kdnnen.' Reuss speaks here contra Baur.
397
Merk, Anfangszeit, 250.
 -111-

which we live.1 A historian, following his personal tendencies as his

torians, being opinionated mortals, must, may certainly on methodologi

cal grounds reject e.g. any discernible role for God in history, in

cluding NT history. 'One cannot deny from the outset the legitimacy

of this account of New Testament theology' any more than one could a

priori reject an account attributing Jesus' messianic sayings to a profound

psychological imbalance, imbalance which nevertheless found a large fol

lowing because the time was right for one of those 'vacuous concepts

[the messianic idea] in the history of religion which for a time exer

cise great power but then burst.' Every conception of what the NT con

tains 'has the right to test its account by the reality we are given, '

i.e. the historical evidence, in order to try to verify itself as a

basic conception, or a 'dogmatischer Satz,' which accurately depicts

the data. It rightly attempts to show that this particular 'dogma

tischer Satz' has 'das Merkmal der Wahrheit' and thus 'als das den

Geschichtslauf gestaltende Gesetz erwiesen wird.' Thus Schlatter con

cedes the right for e.g. Wrede to see 'the world as a closed system con-
398
taining within itself all the conditions for its unfolding processes.'

NT theology as a discipline must be open to the possibility that such

a basis might facilitate a cogent synthetic understanding of the data.

3.2322 Need for critical self-awareness

But Schlatter insists that the historian working from a noGod

basis, who insists on a totally from-below reading of the NT, must come

clean and meet the fundamental demand of science, that he or she 'be

clear about what factors are influencing him. ' Otherwise he will not

'distinguish between the part of his judgment which comes from observa

tion of past events, and that which rests on his own immanent certain-

398
N N T T ,153f.; PTNT, 199f.
 -112-

ties [der dem Forscher selbst immanenten Gewissheit].' Unless he is

careful here, he will not see that his reading of the NT from the start

'annuls its central statment, ' that there i_s a God and that he is

instrumental in affecting historical reality, and lives within it, in

more than a purely immanent way. It will escape his notice that in the

NT, whatever modern systematicians or philosophers of religion say, God

is not just a human conceptual construct or religious chimera. At every

step his description of NT development will, quite understandably, con

travene those causal, but at times non-contingent, connections attested

in the NT texts themselves. His presentation of the NT will and must

become polemic against it. The 'historian' here is likely to fall prey

to 'the danger of totally reshaping what happened according to the de-

399
mands of' his own standpoint.

3.2323 Summary

For Wrede NT theology is a somewhat one-dimensional undertaking

which consists of a rigorous assessment of early Christian and related

evidence, constructing it through scientific description into a history

of religious thought. No other procedure, nor any proceeding along

similar lines but with fundamentally antithetical or even competing pre

suppositions, is defensible or warranted. Here perhaps Schlatter's re

mark could be applied: 'Deutschland hat noch nie einen wirklich liber-

alen Liberalismus gehabt.'4^ Schlatter is more open, at least theore

tically. He refuses to absolutize a given world-view and then explain

the NT so as to conform with it. It could be argued that Wrede's propo

sal contains the seeds of its own death in itself, since it so strin

gently delimits the scope of reality with which history of early Chris

tian religion (NT theology) has to deal. If there is no more to the

399 . 400 ^ ,
Ibid. Philosophische Arbeit,80.
 -113-

NT writings than Wrede's positivism suggests, why go on expending so

much research on it? Robinson's call for the end of NT theology and

a switch to, if anything, NT history of religions, would make far more

401
sense. Schlatter's open-ended, in a sense more inductive perspec

tive leads him to assert that 'there is no question of an end being

reached even of- the first and most simple function of New Testament
402
study; namely, seeing what is there.' Here, at least, there can be

little doubt as to whose approach would be more salubrious for the on

going research of NT data.

We can here only call attention to, not delineate, Schlatter's tra

cing of the roots of the Greek-rationalistic-Enlightenment roots of

403
'Wissenschaft' as that which 'verlangt Anerkennung von alien.' Seeing

Wrede within this tradition, as Schlatter does, does not necessarily

impugn the quality of the former's proposals, but it does suggest that

they are not as historically unconditioned and thus unquestionable as

he seemed to have supposed. It is from the basis of this critique that

Schlatter sets out in a different direction.

3.233 Subject matter and world-view

3.2331 Danger of world-view to scientific observation

404
Wrede, as suggested above, accepts the modern scientific world

view familiar to him as the general point of departure for assessing

401
See n.244 above.
402
NNTT, 136; PTNT, 177; cf. 'Atheistische Methoden, in Zur
Theologie, 142.
403
This consistent underlying aspect of Schlatter's outlook surfaces
e.g. in Philosophische Arbeit, 44, 80; cf. Geschichte des Christus, 6,
where he speaks of the intellectual posture common in liberal idealist
religiosity which dates at least 'von der griechischen Zeit' and which
regards 'einzig sich selbst als "die Wissenschaft".' Cf. also
'Atheistische Methoden,' Zur Theologie, 143f.

^ ^ S e e sec. 3.113.
 -114-

the contents of the NT. Consequently he falls in step with the religious

studies wing of the dominant contemporary German scientific community,

the so-called history-of-religions school. Although Wrede obviously in

some sense wished to remain a churchman his programmatic treatise on

NT theology originated as lectures to a pastors' conference he felt

the interests of dogma and truth were mutually exclusive, or ought to

be so regarded, for the sake of real science.

To such a viewpoint Schlatter rejoins: '"Die Zeit hat sie; darum

muss ich sie auch haben"; das ist freilich eine nagelneue theologische
405
Methode; so sprach man bisher in der Kirche nicht.' He would thus

question the legitimacy of Wrede's outlook in the ecclesiastical sphere

within which Wrede seeks to operate.

But it is not in the name of the church but of science that Schlat

ter finally objects to Wrede's and Wredian approaches. The systematic

separation of the NT history from the effects worked by the personal

God to which the texts testify, and from the reported deeds, impres

sions, words, and other effects of Jesus (Christ), is not necessitated

by the subject matter itself, at least not primarily. This separation

is spawned rather by acquiescence to the atheistic presuppositions gain

ing sway in other disciplines. But 'der atheistische Weltbegriff ist

keine den Erkenntnisvorgang konstituiernde Kategorie'; it is logically

fallacious to assume that it is necessary to adopt an atheistic or even

agnostic position to be scientific. Schlatter argues that sudden and

major shifts in the history of reigning German philosophies should by

now have broken biblical critics of taking their bearings too closely

from philosophical theories originating outside their subject matter:

till Kant's death he and contemporaries considered the 'Gottesgedanke'

405
'Atheistische Methoden,' Zur Theologie, 142.
 -115-

to be 1ein der Vernunft wesentliches Besitztum.' Yet in the very next

generation 'war das Selbstbewusstsein der Vernunft mit dem Gottesbe-

wusstsein eins.' Thus for the 'Wir,' the critically avant-garde,

'Blindheit fllr Gott' becomes 'das wesentliche Merkmal aller Wissen

schaft. ' Schlatter seems to be arguing that thinkers have abundantly

shown, by their own shifts in formulating the nature of human knowledge

of God, that this knowledge is not demonstrably innate to pure reason:

Kant assumed that everybody had it, and thought following on in his own

name assumed that it was actually only the mind's self-awareness; one

could be critically up-to-date only by denying that man had any real

knowledge of God.

Concludes Schlatter: too much is at stake that theology, and by

implication biblical criticism, should 'solche Schwankungen in serviler

Beugung vor den momentanen Stimmungen mitmachen.'4 To suppose that

the meaning of the NT is necessarily subject to the caprice of academic

philosophy's (or any other discipline's) theory of God is absurd. There

is no such thing as general methodological laws which affect the inter

pretation of specific data and which must be carried over from one dis

cipline to another. Any such laws must be shown to conform to the data

of each discipline in turn. It is thus a scientific as well as theo

logical mistake to construe the NT along lines dictated by Kantian

philosophy's, or positivism's, academic imperialism, however shrill the

cry of its claims. The most general and 'unverbrdchliche wissenschaft-

liche Regel,' to be observed by 'Mitglieder der universitas litterarum

als unzerreissbare Pflicht,' is that 'vor allem Urteil das Wahrnehmen,

vor aller eignen Produktion der empfangende Akt stehen muss, ohne den

jene [Produktion, Urteil] in Wind und Illusion zerfdhrt.'4^7 Schlatter

406Ibid. 143f. 407Ibid. 142f.

 -116-

cannot see that there are compelling historical reasons for casting sys

tematic doubt on the NT writings and effecting a wholesale reduction

of them into a history of religions phenomenology. Such a project is

not necessitated by the subject matter but arises from assumptions cur

rent in other disciplines which are being applied without sufficient

historical warrant in NT interpretation.4^8 (One recalls that this is

409
similar to the argument used by Herrmann against Troeltsch. )

Schlatter also points to a danger, no less real today, attending

historical work on the NT as a result of insufficiently critical acquie

scence at the methodological level to the Zeitgeist. In trying to ex

plain the data, i.e. give a comprehensive explanation of it, historians

can be guilty of bringing 'in a pile of conjectures which not only con

ceal the facts, but directly attack them and brush them aside for the

sake of the explanation.' The NTis rendered incomprehensible by

literature about it, as once Talmud and Midrash obscured the 0T in the
410
synagogue.

3.2332 Need to counteract stultifying 'rationalism'

The excesses of the procedure just outlined are no reason to aban

don the explicative task, says Schlatter; the challenge is to do a

better job. But the existence of such wrong-headed historiography is

warning against 'rationalism,' 'a pride of judgment which expects to

408Cf. recently R.Schmitt, Abschied von der Heilsgeschichte?, 1982,

43: 'Wissenschaftlichkeit urn jeden Preis im Sinn einer Abh&ngigkeit
von den Bedingungen einer anderen Wissenschaft kann darum nicht Aufgabe
und Ziel der Theologie sein, solange sie sachlich und sachgerecht blei-
ben will. Sie wtirde unweigerlich ihr Thema und damit ihre SelbstMndig-
keit und kritische Funktion verlieren, wenn sie nach solcher Art Wissen
schaftlichkeit strebte.' Cf. also H.-J. Kraus, Geschichte der
historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments, 3 1982, 525.
409
See above, n.327. 410NNTT, 149; PTNT, 193.
 -117-

get the whole of reality into its own intellectual grasp and so reduces

it to its own field of vision.' Schlatter elaborates:

Where judgment cuts loose from the perception which is indispensable

to it, where the intellect's productive power tries to be in command
and play the creator so that what we produce is no longer connected
with a prior receiving, where thought circles around one's own self,
as though this could create from itself the material from which
knowledge comes and the rules by which it is to be judged, there
we have rationalism. It stands in irreconcilable hostility to the
very basis of the New Testament, because acknowledging God is the
direct opposite of rationalism. But this rationalism is at the same
time the road to dreamland and the death of intellectual integrity.

This tendency, as we have implied already, is unfortunately to some ex

tent operative in Wrede's methodological proposals. Schlatter repeats:

historical work taking its bearings at the methodological level, not

from observation of its subject matter but from the modern world-view

alone, 'is the enemy not only of the New Testament, but also of the aims

and rules of academic work.' The critic must never forget that

rationalism as just defined 'conflicts with science as well as with the

New Testament; it is irrational as well as impious.1 When the object

of historical study is subjected to theories which even potentially deny

its ostensible given reality on non- or quasi-historical a priori

grounds, 'we oppose not only the past, but at the same time the ground

and law of our thinking activity, and so our existence. In opposing

412
the object we are also opposing the subject.'

Does Schlatter have any constructive alternative? This question

will find an (admittedly limited) answer in the next section; the full

answer would be forthcoming only from a lengthy analysis. We may here

simply note Schlatter's conviction that

the most important factor making a New Testament theology scienti

fically respectable or worthless is whether a scholar possesses the
veracity of the genuine observer in concrete cases, or whether in
his work he makes bold to determine the course of history to suit
himself. He must protect himself against this in the course of his

411 412
NNTT, 150; PTNT, 194. NNTT, 149f., PTNT, 193f.
 -118-

work by not proceeding to make a judgment before carefully and

modestly perceiving, surrendering himself to the data, and never
once allowing himself to judge, but first making himself feel the
whole range of the conditions which produce the knowledge.413
414
Whether one speaks of fact-ignoring conservative dogmatism or atheis

tic dogmatism, no historical account of the NT is worthwhile which does

not strive ceaselessly and honestly to perceive the given first of all

as much as possible apart from points of view, religious or irreligious,

foreign to it.

It can be objected that no one, Schlatter included, can get free

of his presuppositions. But this would miss the point that Schlatter

not only acknowledged this insight: it is a major factor in his overall

hermeneutical understanding. What Schlatter insists is that through

awareness of and thus allowance for presuppositions, it is possible to

make historical interpretation into something more than an assessing

and employing of data within a pre-determined schema foreign to the

data, a procedure to which Wrede's method seems to open wide the door.

Whether or to what extent Schlatter himself avoids an 'Ueberordung der

415
Theorie Uber die Wirklichkeit' in his own work cannot be explored

in depth here; at least he made methodological allowance creating room

for the possibility of such an avoidance and holds it forth as a non-

negotiable scientific and theological ideal. This suggests at once both

an intellectual independence and a critical humility, each checking the

other, which do not always characterize NT theologians. Certainly from

Schlatter's point of view it did not characterize the program for NT

418
NNTT, 150; PTNT, 195.
414 It is too often forgotten that Schlatter antagonized not
only liberals but also conservatives of his day. This is partly what
makes the charge of biblicism against him lack force. Schlatter, 'like
most good theologians, was having to fight on two fronts'; against many
conservatives he defended NT theology as a historical discipline (Mor
gan, NNTT, 31f.).
415
Schlatter, 'Zweifel an der Messianitdt, Zur Theologie, 183.
 -119-

theology set forth by Wrede.

416
3.24 Schlatter's functional epistemology

and its hermeneutical result

3.241 Schlatter and Wrede

We saw above that Wrede adopts a Troeltschian theoretical posture

417
and thus 'immanent criticism.1 The epistemological base for this

lies in the realm of neo-Kantianism. Stuhlmacher rightly describes what

Schlatter saw as problematic here:

Mit bewundernswertem Scharfblick hat Schlatter die rationalistische

Tendenz erkannt, die der historischen Kritik im Sinne von Troeltsch
innewohnt. Nach dieser Tendenz will sich das erkennende Subjekt
der Geschichte bem&chtigen und sie sich selbst kritisch anverwan-
deln, anstatt sich der Tradition zu stellen und sich von ihr in
Frage stellen zu l a s s e n . 4 1 8

Schlatter himself spells out what he finds objectionable in Troeltsch's

a priori:

Diese Formel ist. . . vom Kantianismus her mit der Vorstellung be-
lastet, dass das, was a priori sei, nicht nur in der Vernunft, son-
dern von der Vernunft und ihr eigenes Gebilde sei, das sie nicht
empfangen habe. Bis die vom Rationalismus verbreitete Vorstellung
von einer Vernunft, die nichts vernimmt, wieder verschwunden ist,
wird die Formel a priori zur Verhlltung phantastischer Konstruktionen
besser vermieden.^19

Schlatter thinks that a heavy reliance on an a priori of this descrip

tion can only spell trouble for fruitful historical observation.

It is not feasible here to delve into Schlatter's formidable

critique of Kantianism; an assessment of Schlatter's contribution in

416
On Schlatter's epistemology see also ch. 5, 5.222 below.
417
See above, sec. 3.122.

418
Stuhlmacher, Verstehen, 157.
419
Schlatter, Das christliche Dogma, 3 1977, 558n.l8.
 -120-

this respect would be a large study, and a worthwhile one, of its own.

It is not even possible in any detail to try to summarize Schlatter's

epistemology; as we will see below he has a functional and not a formal

one, and there as yet seems to exist no reliable formal treatment of

Schlatter's 'Erkenntnistheorie' for us to draw on. It is impossible

to undertake such a study here.

In contrasting Schlatter with Wrede, we wish simply to outline the

basic difference between their respective starting points. This is

vital to appreciating their differing approaches to NT theology.

3.242 Schlatter's approach to the problem

The problem of epistemology arises inevitably from the problems

encountered in historical work. Schlatter's conception of the histori

cal is characterized neither by a certain iron-clad method in the usual

sense nor by pre-determined standards of what is and is not historically

possible. Schlatter wished to see in and as history, 'das, was

420
historisch tats&chlich war. '

Der Massstab des Historischen ist also fUr Schlatter nicht das mehr
oder weniger rationalistisch eingeengte historisch Mdgliche, sondern
allein das historisch Tats&chliche und Gegebene. Entsprechend ent-
scheidet sich ftir ihn die Wissenschaftlichkeit einer historischen
Betrachtung letzlich nicht an den Massstdben und Kategorien, die
man mitbringt, sondern allein daran, ob man die Geschehnisse und
Begebenheiten wirklich in den Blick b e k o m m t . 4 ^ !

This raises the question of how one can be sure that one the historical

data 'wirklich in den Blick bekommt,' which in turn points to the need

for an epistemological rationale.

Schmid indicates here that Schlatter's approach may do a certain

justice to the object of study, the Bible, which 'vermittelt viele Er-

kenntnisse, jedoch keine Theorie des Erkennens': i.e. Schlatter is not

420 421
Schmid, Erkenntnis, 421f. Ibid. 417.
 -121-

422
an 'Erkenntnistheoretiker' but an 'Erkenntnispraktiker.' And Schlat

ter's own words are illustrative on this score:

What has happened in the past demands of u s , by the very fact that
it has happened, that we grasp it in its givenness. The question
here is whether we are all wrapped up in ourselves, or whether we
are able to be genuinely open to the past so as to be able to see
things other than ourselves. I believe that we are given a capa
city for seeing. But [jfreilich] this cannot be proved to someone
who denies it. The rule 'Do it and you will know' applies here.
As is the case with all our fundamental convictions, action is the
potency which shapes our consciousness.423

For Schlatter, one might say, an epistemology is as an epistemology

does. He does not appear to preface historical observation (science)

with the formal determination of whether knowledge is possible or under

what conditions, nor does he set forth a proscriptive definition of pre

cisely what, relative to the subject matter, scientifically defensible

conclusions would comprise. He opposes the Kant-derived touchstone of

virtually all of his contemporaries, that 'sich die Wirklichkeit nach

unseren Begriffen richten und ihnen gehorchen soli.' Schlatter 'will

ein Erkennen Uben, bei dem die Begriffe der Sache dienen' and not vice
424
versa.

Yet it is not true that Schlatter simply ignored the problemof the

subject's involvement in its apprehending of the object. Rather,

his critique of the interpreter's (his own) perception or reason

'geschieht je und je in der Praxis, wo es sich darum handelt, Phantasie

425
und Wirklichkeit zu unterscheiden.' Likewise, Schlatter is not sim

ply a philosophical realist, for in that case he would have operated

422
Ibid. 423. Cf. Joest's observation relative to Schlatter's
dogmatics: 'Zur Neuausgabe 1977,' forward to Schlatter, Dogma, third
(unnumbered) page.
423
NNTT, 127; PTNT, 167.
424
Schmid, Erkenntnis, 423.
425
Ibid. 424.
 -122-

426
under defined or readily definable epistemological guidelines. This

he did not do, as we shall now see.

3.243 Resistance to a priori conditions to knowing

It turns out, concludes Schmid, that Schlatter declines to attempt

427
to formulate a distinctive epistemology, as such, of his own. He seems

to suspect that this would inevitably impair the observer's potential

to be open to the given which confronts him: 'Wir verschwenden immer

noch zu viel Arbeit an die logische Dressur unsrer Gedanken im Unter-

schied von der klaren Wahrnehmung im festen Kontakt mit der Wirklich-
428
keit.' This is explained partially by recalling how Schlatter sees
429
no necessary radical break between Jesus and the Christ. His thinking,

i.e. his theological and historical reconstruction, moves

innerhalb der existentiellen Relation persOnlichen Engagiertseins,

und innerhalb dieser Relation gibt es ein letztes Gewicht des Objek-
tiven, das sich schliesslich nur bezeugen lMsst. Man muss bezwei-
feln, ob dieses Gewicht erreicht und gesehen wird, wenn und solange
man innerhalb rein gedanklich theoretischer Definitionen bleibt.
Erkenntnistheoretische Ueberlegungen und wissenschaftliches Bestim-
men von ObjektivitMt scheinen da nicht mehr hinzureichen.430

Thus it is not possible, nor is it desirable to try, to reduce by means

426
Ibid. Cf. Schlatter, Selbstdarstellungen, 153, where Schlatter
denies a tendency 'zum gedankenlosen Empirismus, zur Einigung unseres
Bewusstseins nur auf die Wahrnehmung, vollends. . . nur auf die sinn-
lichen Prozesse.'
427 428
Schmid, Erkenntnis, 429. Schlatter, Philosophische Arbeit,204.
429
This does not mean that Schlatter is oblivious to the array of
modern theories marshalling against this position;. And Schlatter knows
that 'the work of Jesus is clearly distinct from that of his community,'
the latter being 'the most important causal factor leading to doctrinal
formulation in the New Testament. ' But he sees the issue in all its
sharpness when he calls it 'a dominant question in New Testament theo
logy today whether the religious history of the community can be under
stood as a development of what was created through Jesus, or whether
we have here to draw upon outside forces [fremde Kr&fteJ to make the
movement of history comprehensible' (NNTT, 141f.; PTNT, 184). Religions-
geschichte stressed the latter alternative, often to the exclusion of
the former; Schlatter stressed the former, attempting nevertheless to
remain sensitive to valid insights from the second method of inquiry.

^^Sc h m i d , Erkenntnis, 427.

 -123-

of a priori deduction the knowledge transmitted by the NT to the mere

formal-conceptual level which a consistent prescriptive (as opposed to

a descriptive) epistemology demands. Life, history, and truth, perhaps

not as some Kantian thinkers conceptualize them, but certainly as per

sons experience them in their lives, consist of more than pure logic

and abstract thought. Schlatter doesnot minimize the need or place

for rigorous thinking, but he does resist any thought system which

threatens to ground the assured results of knowledge of reality in, and

thereby finally generate reality from, the result's of thought's own

self-contemplation. For this reason a formal epistemology is not a fea

ture of his work; what is given to be known (the NT and related data)

must be somehow granted the opportunity to have precedence over self-

imposed, possibly inappropriate (in view of the evidence) conditions

for knowing. We are reminded here of the Cartesian/non-Cartesian cate

gories applied to Baur and Hofmann above and recall the danger of

imposing a priori conditions on what we can know, thereby effectively

censoring what data can convey to us. Schlatter addresses this same

problem, and his response is not dissimilar to Hofmann's.

3.244 Epistemology and hermeneutical result

431
Now Schlatter is rightly seen as a forerunner of Barth, i.e. as

a theologically sensitive exegete. Schlatter's thought and praxis is

432
moreover central to Stuhlmacher's 'Hermeneutik des Einverst&ndnisses. '

Herein lies a clue to characterizing him over against Wrede. The latter

has implicit trust in a philosophical outlook which to a large degree

includes a built-in hermeneutic. As far as the NT's content is con-

431
Stuhlmacher, ZTK Supp. 4 (1978) 104n.37. But cf. Kraus,
Biblische Theologie, for an important qualification (283).

^"^Stuhlmacher, Verstehen, 205-225.

 -124-

cerned, Wrede's (Troeltsch's ) a priori (along with Troeltsch's celebra

ted criticism-analogy-correlation procedure) predetermines to a consid

erable degree what the texts can and cannot signify as having once been

historical reality. As far as the NT's applicability to the modern

world is concerned, the radical relativizing of all history inherent

in Wrede's (Troeltschian) epistemology settles most questions handily:

none of it need be applicable which does not conform to the modern reli

gious consciousness of cultural Protestantism.

Schlatter has no such faith in a priori reflection. He wants to

ground his conception of what once was in what the sources, apart from

what he feels are strained a priori constructs, testify to. This is

433
not necessarily naive but 'Kritik der Kritik.' As far as the NT's

content is concerned, itopens Schlatter up to the possibility of seeing

that which might not accord with modern critical assumptions regarding

what can and cannot have transpired to give rise to the NT texts. As

far as applicability is concerned, Schlatter's refusal to absolutize

any given modern a priori understanding including his own, which

altered throughout his life and never presumed to have reduced the NT

to fully explained or purely rationally explicable dimensions leaves

the possibility open for knowledge of normative status to inhere in the

NT texts. Biblical authority takes on more than a metaphorical meaning.

434
Bultmann praises Schlatter's hermeneutical insight and tries,

though by far different means, to emulate him by avoiding the 'Zerreis-

435
sung von Denk- und Lebensakt.' It is well known that Bultmann (along

with Barth) was the chief impetus behind the raging hermeneutical de

bates of recent decades. Schlatter must be given some credit for this

433
Schlatter, Selbstdarstellungen, 9.
434 435
Bultmann, Theologie, 597ff. Ibid. 599.
 -125-
436
development. His consistent pursuit of a working hermeneutic, over

against the consistent application of a priori principles, is a major

differentiating feature of his work compared to Wrede's. It recalls

Hofmann's practical hermeneutical concern over against the philosophical

orientation of Baur.

We have concentrated above on contrasting Schlatter and Wrede at

various junctures. It should be noted additionally that Schlatter's

break with neoKantian thinking, reminiscent of Hofmann's differences

with Baur (2.231 above), will be developed a step further in chapter 5

(5.222), a section which complements the above observations on Schlatter

and Wrede.

3.25 Schlatter's view of history

We referred above to Wrede's view of history in connection with (1)

his devaluation of theology in favor of religion, (2) his rejection of

any direct OT-NT historical-theological ties (first-century Judaism

mediates primarily only religion), and (3) his endorsement of a

Troeltschian/history-of-religions position which posits a historical

dynamic, discernible for the first time to modern eyes, which explains
437
NT development along strictly immanent lines. Our handling of

Schlatter to this point already indicates his grounds for disagreement

with such a scheme. We wish now to move on to state Schlatter's view

of history in positive terms, so far as this is. possible within brief

438
compass. We will also try to clarify what Hg. is in Schlatter's outlook

^"^Schlatter's relationship to Barth needs to be researched more

fully; cf. Stuhlmacher, ZTK Supp. 4 (1978) 104n.37. Barth biographies
indicate several direct or indirect contacts between them: e.g. E.
Busch, Karl Barth, 1975, 9, 37, 43; J.Hemer, Karl Barth, 1962, 217f.
437
See above, sec. 3.13.
438
On Schlatter's view of history cf. also Dymale, Theology of
Schlatter; Egg, Schlatters Position, 42ff.; GUting, NZsT 15 (1973) 143ff
 -126-

3.251 Revelation and history not antithetical

Schlatter's work as a whole represents a repudiation of a 'pessimis-

439
tische Beurteilung und Abwertung der Geschichte,' whether from the

old Protestant orthodox (or like-minded Pietist) side, which wished to

read biblical statements in an a-temporal doctrinal context, or from

the modern critical side, which ranks NT statements in a pantheon of

ideas or religious concepts to which the modern mind already holds the

essential key. Both of these viewpoints basically concur that 'divine

440
origin and historical mediation are mutually exclusive.' Schlatter's

NT theology is written with the conviction that this antithesis is

false.

Taken seriously, it tears apart the relation of our own life to God;
our own consciousness is cut loose from God as radically as the New
Testament is. For we have in our consciousness nothing which is
not conditioned by history. . . . If history is excluded from God's
influence on the grounds that it is merely transitory and human,
there exists no conscious relationship to God granted to us in our
personal life.441

Schlatter points out here that a fundamental tenet of those who

methodologically separate God from history is violated by their own

claim to have a consciousness of God. But how so, if God cannot inter

penetrate history as persons experience it, since no human experience

not even knowing (about) God, is totally a-historical?^^

But the NT, too, contravenes the well-known God-history dichotomi-

zation. The NT speaks of God's saving activity through Jesus which be

came human saving experience; persons received something from God God

acted which shaped not only their thought but their lives. In the NT

439 440
Gtlting, NZsT 15 (1973) 143. NNTT, 151; PTNT, 196.
441
Ibid. (Morgan's translation modified slightly)
442
Cf. Schlatter, Dogma, 11.
 -127-

one observes that

God's creating and giving penetrate man's existence and conscious

ness in their concrete, historically determined form. It estab
lishes him and becomes visible in and through him. God does his
work of grace and judgment not outside man and so, too, not beyond
history but in and through it. ^ 3

Thus Schlatter holds that revelation and history are not antithetical,

which in turn also speaks against those (esp. traditionalists) who see

historical inquiry as a denial of revelation. This is not to say that

444
Schlatter advocates a natural theology in the formal sense. He asks

rather whether any historical phenomena at all have comprised or can

comprise a history in which we may participate, 'die zwar nicht eine

heilige ^GeschichteJ, wohl aber eine geheiligte zu werden vermag. '

His answer is clearly in the affirmative.

3.252 The christocentric 'Geschichtslauf': Christ the key to history

Schlatter claims that his NT theology itself arose from a desire

to make plain to others the historical unity he discerned in the NT

texts. This unity was not 'ein Kunststtlck meiner Harmonistik' ; Schlat

ter's vision came about 'als die Folge der mOglichst konkreten Auffas-
446
sung ' of the historical evidence relating to the NT. The NT appeared

to him finally as 'eine fest verbundene Geschichte, die Uberall von den-
447
selben Kr&ften geschaffen war.' Schlatter, like Hofmann, was no
448
biblical inerrantist, but he did see a common formative origin and

resolve permeating the NT books.

We stand here near the centre of Schlatter's 'Geschichtsauffassung.'

There is demonstrably assuming any considerable degree ofaccuracy in

443 444
NNTT,152; PTNT, 197. GUting, NZsT 15 (1973) 145.
445
Schlatter, 'Geschichte und Glaube,' Heilige Anliegen, 25.
446 447
Schlatter, RUckblick, 233. Ibid.
448
Cf. Schlatter, Dogma, 364ff.; 'Der Glaube an der Bibel,' Heilige
Anliegen, 34-46.
 -128-

the NT accounts 'a divine dispensation [Geschichtslauf] which sancti-

449
fies humanity.' NT persons testify that they came into contact with

God, and vice versa, through Jesus (Christ) and the community of faith.

The NT documents do not spread a conception of Christ, or a concept of

some inner awareness of the divine, 'equally over the whole course of

history'; what is said is largely localized. . at a particular

4- , 4 5 0
point.

Further, neither the NT itself nor the ongoing experience of (at

least some) Christians warrants making an absolute contrast. . . be

tween the present as utterly deserted by God and untouched by his rule,

and a past which was filled with the revelation of God.1 The NT does

not suggest that Jesus' saving work is to be 'followed by the night of

total abandonment by God.1 The NT bequeathes a three-fold legacy with

which future generations must come to terms: (1) 'an indestructible

reconciliation which summons the world to God,' (2) 'Christ's rule which

spans the aeons,' and (3) 'the presence of the Spirit which leads the
451
believer's knowing and willing from God to God.'

We draw close, then, to Schlatter's view of history if we concede

for the sake of understanding him that the reading of the NT reflected

in the preceding paragraph has something to commend it. In this case

Schlatter tries to explicate, appropriate, and work out the implications

of this forward-looking, particularly-based fact complex (the NT and

the history to which it testifies). Is this not, however, just theologi

zing on the basis of faith? Perhaps not, if Schlatter's reading of the

449
NNTT, 153; PTNT, 198f.
450
NNTT, 147; PTNT, 190; cf. Geschichte des Christus, 518.
451
NNTT, 132; PTNT, 173.
 -129-

NT should turn out to be accurate in any considerable measure. For that

would imply that the NT gives invaluable insight into the enigma of his

tory. It sets forth history, to be sure not as an inexorable religio-

452
cultural ascent, but as the God-given and God-sustained medium within

which relationship to God may be gained; within which one's personal

worth, security, and purpose in life is realized; and within which par

ticipation in the community of the redeemed is made possible. Man

would, or at least through knowledge, decision in faith, and God's grace

could, have contact with God, made possible through the ephapax and

enduringly efficacious mediation of Jesus who came to be and still is

hailed Christ.

This is not a claim, impossible for the NT critic to accept today,

that Jesus brings 'einen absoluten Neuanfang, ' that he is not in any

fundamental way connected with prior contingent reality. Rather,

affirms Schlatter, what Jesus purposed and did bound him securely with
453
a particular history preceding (and following) him. In this sense

he is indeed totally part of the first-century historical nexus. Again,

it is hard for the NT critic today to set so much store by 'Jesus, '

given the solid wedge driven between him and 'Christ' in NT criticism

and theology this century. Schlatter responds (resembling Hofmann

here): if Jesus and the high christology of the apostolic writings are

largely severed, if Jesus' 'Christuswille' is deemed a retrospective

projection of later religious thought with only nominal historical

grounding, then 'ein historisches R&tsel' is created, which neither

Philo, Mithras, nor Babylonian myths all put forth seriously in Schlat

452
Cf. Schlatter, Dogma, 85: 'Der Begriff Rtlckschritt ist ebenso
real begrdndet wie der des Fortschritt.'
453
Cf. Schmid, Erkenntnis, 241f.
 -130-

ter's day as the actual precursors or sources of Christianity can

account for. On the other hand, the historian who methodologically

recognizes Jesus as the Christ has that which 'er als Historiker

braucht, eine Ursache, die ihre Wirkungen schuf, einen Geber, der sich

seine Empf&nger bildete, einen Willen, der Willen erweckte, Geschichte,

454
die Geschichte erzeugt.'

3.253 Integration of immanent and transcendent aspects of history

Numerous objections to Schlatter's position come to mind here; his

apparent historical and theological naivete may seem breathtaking. But

an enumeration of objections would require an even longer clarification

of Schlatter's position, and this is not possible here. We must remain

hard by the explicative task.

Late in life Schlatter wrote that early on he had come to hold

'weder eine Theologie, die die Welt vergass, noch eine Geschichtsbe-
455
trachtung, die Gott vergass.' A historical conception does not

necessarily have to assume a hidden or unknowable God; a theological

perspective must not presume to grow out of itself with only nominal
456
attachment to history. Schlatter's conception of history is perhaps

best explained along these lines: he seeks to combine a history of

religions and an open-to-the-transcendent historiography. This is ana

logous to the NT itself, which, it could be argued, sees both natural

cause-and-effect forces at work in history but also the divine. Schlat

ter wants to try to grasp past reality and its links to the present (as

well as present reality and its links to the past) by an integration

of the truths inherent in two positions often considered methodologically

454
Schlatter, 'Zweifel an der MessianitMt,' Zur Theologie, 201f.
455 456
Rdckblick, 32. Ibid. 33; cf. Philosophische Arbeit, 307.
 -131-

irreconcilable.
i m 457
3.2531 The immanent dimension

Schlatter realized that 'geschichtlicher Sinn' was a feature of

modern thought which had arrived to stay. This 'Sinn' Schlatter sees

as the recognition, 'dass das menschliche Handeln seine Bedingungen in

den vorangehenden Ereignisreihen hat und mit diesen durch einen festen,
458
kausalen Zusammenhang verbunden ist.' There can be no escape, esp.
459
for those taking the Bible seriously, from this insight. One of

Schlatter's earlier major programmatic essays is an expose of sorts

questioning the old Protestant-Pietist legacy at key points.4^ Schlat

ter poses the question whether the Christian faith is rightly understood

when God, his grace, and salvation are magnified distortedly to the

point of excluding any significant regard for and by persons in their

historicality. Is the Christian life just passive acceptance, quietism,

acquiescence to timeless spiritual reality, thus an inner experience

with no necessary interface, or only a negative one, with the immanent

461
historical process? Is it not rather the case, Schlatter queries,

that God not only once worked 'flir u n s ' but also is able to keep working
462
'durch uns'? Not just as a concession to the Zeitgeist but as a

deep personal conviction, Schlatter held it illicit to conceive of

457
Cf. Dymale, Theology of Schlatter, 307.
458
Philosophische Arbeit, 96.
459
C f . Luck, 'Einftihrung, ' Zur Theologie, 23.

4^ ' D e r Dienst des Christen in der dlteren Dogmatik,' Zur Theologie,

31-105.
461
Cf. Schlatter, Aufstieg, 16: 'Wird der Christenstand auf das be-
schrdnkt, was inwendig in unserem Herzen geschieht, so wird die Kirche
unsichtbar.'
462
'Dienst in der dlteren Dogmatik,' Zur Theologie, 35.
 -132-

theology (or history) as an enterprise which could be undertaken totally

'from above.' 'Das Christentum ist Menschheitssache. Es war dies von

seinem ersten Anfang. . .an, und es kann dieses Merkmal nicht von sich
463
abstreifen, ohne das es stirbt.' Given the tone of much NT criticism

in and since Schlatter's time, it is unnecessary to belabor his own cri

ticisms of some orthodox or conservative theology. The point is to

underscore his overt commitment to historical thinking. Schlatter

states that he possessed a 'hungriger Forschungstrieb , der es mir ver-

464
bot, bloss konservativ zu sein.1 This drive expresses itself in his

desire, not for theological and thus timeless spiritual insight, but

for theological understanding through historical clarification and

explanation of contingent events.4^"*

3.2532 The transcendent dimension

Yet there is something of a dialectic here. For in affirming the

value of historical observation, Schlatter also affirms its limits. 'The

glory of academic work is not that it knows everything, but that it sees

what the witnesses make visible and is silent when they are silent.'4*^

This spells the end to a history-of-religions method which feels that

in giving a methodologically flawless, 'pure' historical description,

it has exhaustively explained a given text. True, there can be (and

too often is) uncritical dogmatic use of the NT by the orthodox side.

But there is also the spectre of uncritical in the sense of being ob

livious or only covertly committed to positivistic-dogmatic use of the

NT from the side of those who want to construe reality apart from or

4^ S c h l a t t e r , Wohin? Eine Frage an unsere Schule und unsere Kirche,

1929, 2 9 f .
464
RUckblick, 93.

465Cf. esp. NNTT, 136ff, ; PTNT, 176ff. 46NNTT, 143; PTNT, 186.
 -133-

in opposition to Christian theology in a traditional sense. But from

Schlatter's point of view the transcendent can be expunged from the NT

history only at the expense of both its historical and its conceptual

coherence, to say nothing of its theological meaning. Schlatter does

not dispute that a- (or anti-) theological or 'pure' historical methods

have their place; what he does ask is that the inevitable academic bat-
467
ties fought over NT issues be waged 'with honorable and clean weapons.'

This cannot come about, and progress in a wider, grounded understanding

and proclamation of the NT message cannot take place, until the a-

theological proponent owns up to his own viewpoint's effect on his anal

ysis of the NT historical data. When the avowed history-of-religions

practitioner, working (perhaps unreflectingly) with a priori laws or

a hypothetical religious essence which is believed to have given rise

to human spiritual development in all ages including the NT one, under

takes ostensibly historical description, 'history' may unavoidably be

come 'a useless war between an inflated self and what happened' instead

of comprising 'judgments that grasp the real course of events.>

Undoubtedly Schlatter is justified in claiming: 'Das einzige, was

ich als wissenschaftlicher Arbeiter tat, war Betrachtung der Religions-

469
geschichte.' He is not an enemy of history-of-religions as such, for in

an important sense we have no other approach to religion than the his-

470
torical. But he feels it speculative to affirm, as certain history-

of-religions method regularly did, that the 'Wesen' or constituent dyna

467NNTT, 156; PTNT, 202. 468NNTT, 156; PTNT, 202.

469
Selbstdarstellungen, 17; cf. Dymale, Theology of Schlatter, 138.
470
This should not obscure the fact that Christian knowledge of God
is not only a horizontal, contingent process. The 'Vermittelung' of
Christ's presence is based upon and operative through a historical nexus
(cf. Philosophische Arbeit, 156, 146), but Schlatter does not carry this
to a point of total historicizd:ion of God, so that he becomes active
or known only immanently. God both is active in and transcends the
historical process.
 -134-

mic in all religion, and thus the NT, is something other than history,

something timeless and supposedly free from any historical contingency,

an idea or feeling inhering in (esp. modern) mankind's 'libergeschicht-

471
liches Wesen.' The history of theology since Schleiermacher proves

that this line of reasoning can give rise to imaginative theological

and historical reconstructions. Yet Schlatter insists that 'abstrac

tions cut loose from [observed historical] realities are just

472
as useless in practice as they are vacuous in theory.' The historian-

theologian must not, e.g., work with 'an image of Christ which merely

gives expression to our own wishes, but [with] a knowledge of what the
473
Christ was like.' The problems involved in grounding theological

thinking in historical reality do not absolve theologians of a perennial

responsibility to make the attempt.

3.254 Schlatter and Hg.

If we ask now, in what sense Schlatter's outlook constitues a h gl.

perspective, we must affirm first that he does not see Hg. as some grand
474
system of divine acts. He does not separate out of history as a
475
whole a certain special segment, styling it alone 'Hg.' True, he does

stress firmly the biblical and NT history. But this is out of deference

to the N T 's own apparent proximity to those events which were said to

have brought salvation to mankind. The NT history does thus become a

focal point for history as a whole, for it was apparently in this era,

as in no other, that a major portion of God's chosen means of effecting

redemption transpired. For Schlatter this is not a dogmatic postulate

so much as an observable historical verity.

471
Selbstdarstellungen, 19.
472 473
NNTT, 134; PTNT, 175. Ibid.
474 475
GUting, NZsT (1973) 147n.80. Ibid.
 -135-

Yet in an important sense the NT is meant to be 'a blueprint for

476
the future instead of a history of the past.' Hg. is not something

that happened once and whose effect is now temporally distant and cut

off from the present. The NT (and O T ) history is the central testimony,

because it relates the Christ's long-promised advent and his eschatolo-

gical community's establishment, of the potential of all mankind in his

tory where God is faithfully responded to. Schlatter writes that in

a sense it is fully justified to hold that 'nichts vergangenes, sondern

477
nur was gegenwdrtig ist, zum Gegenstand unseres Glaubens werden kann.1

But this does not minimize the import of the NT; it establishes it.

For 'die heilige Geschichte, deren Wirker der ewige Gott ist, ist nicht

vergangen, bildet vielmehr mit ewiger Kraft den Grund, aus dem die neue
478
Gottesthat entsteht, die uns jetzt regiert, beugt, erquickt, erltist.'

Hg. is not just a collection of examples of great past truths and

thoughts. The NT history is not an ideological construct,a self-con

scious theological enterprise, whose efficacy lay solely in the creative

power of the ideas it advanced. Rather the theology implied therein

arose out of the creative power of God through the OT-Jesus-NT history.
479
'Die heilige Geschichte ist. . . die Leben schaffende Macht.' The

life (history) of the NT plays tribute to this Hg.; we do the same today

in glimpsing that 'zwischen dem, was Gott that und heute thut, und einst

thun wird, waltet ein ursSchlicher Zusammenhang der strengsten und krdf-

tigsten A r t . ' ^ Hg. is the totality of reality seen as history which

integrates ostensibly immanent phenomena with the historically visible

476
Schlatter, The Church in the New Testament Period, 1961, 324.
477
'Geschichte und Glaube,' Heilige Anliegen, 32.
478T, 479T, . ,
Ibid. Ibid.

^^I b i d . 32f. ; cf. Philosophische Arbeit, 245.

 -136-
481 ^ ,,
expression of God's oersonal sovereign purpose.

Schlatter is thus neither Cartesian in the sense of absolutizing

a modern view, nor purely non-Cartesian in the negative sense of jet

tisoning modernity for the sake of allegiance to a cherished view of

the past. He is also not simply a mediating theologian, shrewdly

seeking a golden mean by which to reconcile opposing factions arti

ficially. He wants rather to view history in its totality under the

assumption (which much of his research sought to establish or to ground)

that the NT relates a basically reliable account, not of all things,

even theological ones, but of those things of which it speaks. Granted

that 'alle Beobachtung , 1 even (esp.) of the NT, 'bleibt ein Minimum

neben der ihr zum Objekt dienenden Unendlichkeit und Unergrllndlichkeit

482
des Geschehens.' Nevertheless, as Schlatter never grew tired of re

peating, 'Das Ungewisse macht nie das Gewisse, das Unsichtbare nie das
483
Sichtbareunsicher.' 'We must not, because of what is withdrawn from
484
our view, underestimate what we can perceive clearly.' Schlatter's

perspective is echoed in these more recent words:

We do not have to have complete comprehension of every aspect of

the being and nature of God in order to make some true affirmations
about Him. In fact, human beings do not have complete comprehension
of every aspect of any reality with which they have to do, but this
does not prevent them from making some true statements about many
things.485

So then, Hg. is not reducible to an a priori philosophical or quasi-

historical construct but in Schlatter's case must be understood in terms

481
Cf. Dymale, Theology of Schlatter, 133: 'Since causes become
visible in their effects, the processes' by which God has worked (and
works) in history 'are not always hidden.'
482 483
Philosophische Arbeit, 12. Ibid. 123.
484
Schlatter, Church m the NT Period, 3.
485
B.Hebblewaite, '"True" and "False" in Christology,' The Philo
sophical Frontiers of Theology, ed. by Hebblewaite and S .Sutherland,
1982, 234.
 -137-

of a basic integrated hermeneutical, theological, and historical per

spective which at once both informs and is informed by the history of

which worship of God through Jesus the Christ has come into existence.

It is history seen, not strictly 'from below,' nor again presumptuously

'from above,' but from an amalgamated vantage point which places high

value on man's capacity to perceive and considerable faith in God's con

tinuing involvement in human lives and thus history, in accordance with

the NT precedent.

4. Conclusion

The goal of this chapter has been to isolate characteristic features

of the hgl. outlook as seen in the NT theological work of Hofmann and

Schlatter. We agree with R.Herrmann that these two bear inclusion under

a similar rubric, even if one 'im Blick auf beide kaum von einer eigent-

lichen Gefolgschaft, geschweige denn von einer Schule reden kann.'

Their respective methods have been assessed in connection with the

methods adopted by Baur and Wrede.

Without at great length needlessly repeating our conclusions in the

above sections, we can say generally that we have uncovered, not merely

two contrasting but reconcilable perspectives within a common academic

discipline, but two fairly radically opposite conceptions of what NT

theology is and how it is to be undertaken. One side essentially con

ceives of NT theology as phenomenology. Historicism and positivism are

welcomed as essential tools for the task of setting forth a scientific

explication of, not so much the NT texts as what is behind them.

Thoughts and concepts by virtue of their own inexorable power and desti

ny gave impetus to what the NT documents relate. NT theology is a

486
R.Herrmann, 'Offenbarung, Worte, und Texte,' in Bibel und Her-
meneutik, ed. by H.Beintker et a l , 1971, 201.
 -138-

delineation of the unfolding of the conceptual processes by which the

(to a large degree) only apparently concrete historical events of the

NT came to be related and eventually believed. The other side sees the

NT texts themselves as very likely evincing substantial theological unity

and historical veracity, as reflecting temporal proximity to the events

(words) they describe (relate), and as comprising in an important sense

'theology' in themselves. NT theology is thus a discriminating recon

struction and contemporary reexpression of the content of the NT in its

own context, as opposed to the context of modern agnostic or atheistic

outlooks which a priori deny the reality of much of what the NT deals

with.

Epistemologically, one side is religiously faithful to Kant, or more

broadly to Descartes. There is evidently not a great deal of thought

for the danger that interpretations could thereby 'mold the texts in
487
accordance with a preconceived philosophical mindset.' The other

side fears that a priori reason or reasons might not be able in all

cases to discern rightly the actuality and full import of historical

reality generally and of biblical data in its theological dimensions

in particular. A broader and deeper concept of truth and God in history

is sought. A merging of openness to the transcendent and careful obser

vation of the phenomenological is attempted. A functional, somewhat

flexible epistemology emerges, in which not only the text but also the

interpreter is called into question. Schlatter in particular, but also

Hofmann to a considerable degree, is thus formally open to seeing that

which might not accord with rationalistic assumptions regarding what

can and cannot have transpired to give rise to the NT texts. Similarly,

487
E.Ellis, 'Foreword, 1 in Goppelt, Typos, 1982, xix (referring to
Baur).
 -139-

the refusal to absolutize modern a priori understanding leaves the

possibility for scripture itself, not just modern thoughts about scrip

ture, to possess a certain authoritative weight.

As far as views of history, one side brings into NT theology a con

ception of history currently popular in philosophical thought at large.

Baur used Hegel's insights, Wrede Troeltsch's. In either case NT inter

pretation becomes a process of debunking the NT's own surface rationale

for its origin and development. NT theologizing is construed along a

developmental continuum deemed absolutely valid by the dominant

philosophy-of-religion authority. The other side works from the assump

tion that history is not a totally immanent, closed-system process.

God has worked and (esp. for Schlatter) is working in the historical

nexus. He transcends it, but history generally and esp. the data of

biblical history are finally inexplicable without recourse to a personal

and active God such as the NT (and OT) testifies to and such as Baur

and Wrede rule out. 'Hg. ' in the NT theologies of both Hofmann and

Schlatter is hardly an a priori biblicistic, pietistic, or Romantic

idealist schema forced onto the biblical data. It is rather a framework

whose chief supports are, it is argued, given with the historical facts

of the data. Rather than to assay to interpret the NT as a development

strictly discrete from any material non-immanent involvement by God,

Hofmann and Schlatter want to attempt an explanation of the NT based

on the measured assumption that the NT writers might know more about

that which they tell, and understand what they know more accurately,

than formally secular thinkers of two millenia hence. Perhaps a sympa

thetic (but not naive) rendering of the NT's religious and theological

content in its ostensible concrete historical setting can better account

for the data at hand than the critically unimpeachable alternate

 -140-

scenarios demanded by formal Hegelian or Troeltschian historiography.

The chief characteristics, then, of the hgl. perspective as seen

in Hofmann's and Schlatter's NT theologies may be found in its self-

distancing from the trajectory in NT theology which takes in Baur and

Wrede. This distance is esp. noticeable with reference to three ques

tions: what is NT theology, what constitutes a proper epistemological

stance with regard to the NT data, and what view of history does one

utilize in explicating the NT? The hgl. perspective seems not, however,

merely to be reactionary or negatively defensive or apologetic; it both

attempts to critique that part of modernity it cannot endorse and seeks

to set forth more viable ways to explain the data. But this departure

from the critically dominant (at least in retrospect) school is bought

at the price of seemirg to be no more than a throwback to pre-critical

thinking. In reality it seems to arise from critical thinking's own

inadequacy fully and satisfactorily to account for the historical

data, esp. in its theological dimensions, with which a Hofmann and a

488
Schlatter wrestled as earnestly as a Baur and Wrede.

Boers' categorical claim (Theology, 75) that Schlatter 'allowed

present-day dogmatic concerns to predetermine the outcome of the his
torical inquiry' (l) is somewhat simplistic and too sweeping, on the
basis of our study, and (2) begs the question which Schlatter insists
must be addressed: what are the nature and (often hidden) ground-rules
of 'historical inquiry'?
 CHAPTER TWO

HEILSGESCHICHTE AND HEILSGESCHICHTLICHE OUTLOOKS

IN OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 1918-1946

1. Introduction

In order to continue a study of the hgl. perspective in NT theology,

theoretically at this point one could move immediately into analysis

of the next major hgl. NT theologians beginning with Cullmann. After

all, Schlatter lived until 1938 and thus almost until the appearance

of Cullmann's Christus und die Zeit (1946). In raw chronological terms,

very little separates Schlatter from the post-WW II era during which

the term 'Hg.' began to enjoy considerable currency. Further, if in

some sense Hofmann is a methodological brother, or at least first

cousin, of Schlatter, one could attempt now to go on and assess Cullmann

and others as merely conceptual near-kinsmen of their hgl. predecessors.

Yet this approach is inadvisable for two reasons. Both have to do

with commonly accepted views of the history of OT and NT theology this

century and both the role and nature of hgl. perspectives within them.

(1) Hg. is often regarded chiefly as an innovation of recent bibli

cal theology. J. Clemons e.g. sees Hg. as 'a hermeneutical method which

has dominated biblical studies. . . for more than three decades . ' 1 R.

Gnuse speaks of 'Salvation History' as a popular category 'among bibli-

2
cal theologians in recent years.' Of course there is a measure of

1
J.Clemons, 'Critics and Criticism of Salvation History,' RelL 41
(1972) 89.
2
R.Gnuse, 'Authority of the Scriptures: Quest for a Norm,' BTB 13
(1983) 6 1f.
 -142-

truth here, but how accurate is the impression given that Hg. is pri

marily a phenomenon of the post-WW II era? True, Cullmann 'more than

anyone. . . familiar*-* ^ the English-speaking world with the concept

3
of Heilsgeschichte, 1 but it is probably unwise for NT criticism to

take an oversimplified view of the matter and fail to reflect on factors

preceding Cullmann which could shed considerable light on his contribu

tion and thus on the hgl. perspective in NT theology generally. It is

perhaps fair enough when J. Barr criticizes 'revelation through history'

as a highly suspect, artificial 'unifying factor in modern theology,' 4

but how did revelation in history, and in some sense therefore Hg., come

to be such a predominant theme? No satisfactory treatment exists which

attempts to document the rise to popularity of hgl. approaches this cen-

5
tury in theology generally, much less in NT theology specifically. This

fact is undoubtedly behind G. O'Collins' remark that with regard to hgl.

outlooks this century 'we need a study comparable to G. Weth's Die

Heilsgeschichte . ' 6 The present study must undertake to furnish a more

adequate account than now exists of the presence, development, and use

of the hgl. perspective in both OT and NT theology if it is to succeed

in giving a sufficiently informed assessment of both Cullmann and the

most recent hgl. NT theologies.

(2) Along the same line, it is still possible today to follow Steck

in relegating Hg. to the dustbin of outmoded philosophical constructs

by associating e.g. Cullmann with various 19th century philosophical

3
R.Fuller, Some Further Reflections on Heilsgeschichte,' USQR 22
(1967) 93.
4
J.Barr, 'Revelation Through History in the Old Testament and in
Modern Theology,' Int 17 (1963) 193.
5
KUmmel, 'Hg. im NT?' in Heilsgeschehen only makes a start.

G.0'Collins, Foundations of Theology, 1971, 200n.8 (cf. above, n.121).

 -143-

systems . Primarily to Steck one may trace the common but mistaken be

lief that Cullmann 'is responsible for elaborating upon the studies of

Hofmann and Schlatter so as to elevate and fix this [Hg.] as a ruling

7
principle of interpretation of the New Testament.' On this basis, if

not on some other, ^ Hg. is often disparged. Now Kraus is not alone in
g
having raised objections to Steck. But it still remains to clarify

Cullmann's relationship, if any, to Hofmann and Schlatter, as well as

to the development of OT and NT theology against which Cullmann's work

must be appraised. Only in this way can Cullmann accurately be evalu

ated, and only in this way can proper limits be established in linking

Schlatter and Hofmann with Cullmann and then with later hgl. NT theo

logians. It is in any event hardly possible to understand the latter

group (or their relationship to the earlier two) without an adequate

appreciation of the times in which and against which they developed

their outlooks.

We turn now therefore to the epoch inaugurated by Barth's Romans

commentary, which by common consent marks a decisive point for NT theo

logy (and theology generally) this century. We will begin by tracing

OT theology's move toward a hgl. emphasis, as opposed to a strict

historyof-religions one, in the time span in view. Discussion here

will have at times only tangential formal contact with NT theology since

OT theology, unlike its NT counterpart, developed independently of the

7
D.H.Wallace, 'Oscar Cullmann,' Creative Minds in Contemporary
Theology, ed. by P.Hughes, 1966, 167.
g
Cf. recently E.Grdsser's repeated perjorative use of the adjective
'hgl.' in 'Offene Fragen im Umkreis einer Biblischen Theologie,' ZTK
77 (1980) 202, 212, 214. He clearly associates it with an antiquated
'dogmatic' outlook.
9
Kraus, Biblische Theologie, 352f.; cf. H.-G.Hermesmann, Zeit und
Heil, 1979, esp. 161n.7; T.Dorman, The Hermeneutics of Oscar Cullmann,
1983, 159ff. See also remarks on Steck and Cullmann in ch. 4 below.
 -144-
10
influence of dialectical theology, at least for a good number of years.

OT theology saw considerable progress in synthetic understanding of the

OT during this time and shaped parameters which NT theology later worked

within. Awareness of the call for a hgl. stress in OT theology is

requisite for evaluating its eventual use, or rejection, in NT theology.

Put slightly differently, the scenario which unfolds in OT theology be

tween the wars comprises a useful series of test cases of various con

ceptions of how the Bible's historical and theological content is to

be integrated within OT theology. Hg. or a hgl. outlook is an unmis

takable, if in recent years little remarked, feature of OT theology's

conceptual landscape during the period in question. We will show that

the issues Hofmann and Schlatter raised vis-a-vis Baur and Wrede are

debated fiercely, though hardly resolved, by a series of OT theologians.

We will also be concerned to determine the fate, or even the pre

sence, of any hgl. thinking in NT theology. Did e.g. talk of Hg. sud

denly surface unannounced, a recessive Hofmannian gene afflicting a

theological child untimely born, in Cullmann's Christus und die Zeit?

Or were other NT critics too pointing toward elements of an outlook for

which Cullmann's study would become something of a milestone? In short,

we will examine a series of published anticipations of Christus und die

Zeit.

The present task is then to show how Hg. or hgl. perspectives Eire

utilized in both OT and NT theology. In concluding we will relate our

findings both to the issues raised in chapter one above and to the sub

sequent course of our study.

10
W.H.Schmidt, '"Theologie des Alten Testaments" vor und nach Ger
hard von Rad,' VF 17 (1972) 4.
 -145-

2. Hg. vs. Religionsgeschichte: OT theology 19181946

Several studies exist which survey various aspects of OT studies/

11 12
theology during this time. We must go beyond these, however, and

show more specifically how Hg. came in for discussion. Not seldom the

debate, so novel if seen merely from the standpoint of OT studies,

merely echoes issues already broached in chapter one above. We will

suggest that OT theology in some quarters wished to move away from a

pure history-of-religions approach, but that on the whole it failed to

break decisively with a Baur-Wrede model of inquiry.

2.1 Background

Three features of OT studies prior to 1918 are pertinent to asses

sing the situation following WW I.

2.11 Previous hgl. approaches to OT theology

There is first the simple fact that OT theology had previously hard

ly attempted to take up and develop Hg. as an integrating centre or her

meneutical tool. True, F. Delitzsch (1813-1890) and G. Oehler (1812-

13
1878) were sympathetic to a hgl. outlook. In their work, as well as

11
Cf. e.g. Kraus, Geschichte der. . . Erforschung des Alten Testa
ments , 1956, 358-394; Dentan, Preface, 61-71; E.WUrthwein, 'Zur Theolo
gie des A T , 1 TRu 36 (1971) 185-208; Schmidt, VF 17 (1972) 1-25, esp.
4-9; E.Kraeling, The Old Testament Since the Reformation, 1955, 164-218;
R . E .Clements, A Century of Old Testament Study, 1976, 126-134; H.G.
Reventlow, Hauptprobleme der alttestamentlichen Theologie im 20. Jahr-
hundert, 1982. Cf. also A.J.Greig, Geschichte and Heilsgeschichte in
Old Testament Interpretation, 1974, 40-48 (heavily dependent on Kraus
and Dentan); Hasel, Old Testament Theology, 2 1979, 31f. (brief sketch).
12
E.g. Kraus, o.c., concerns himself with the broad sweep of the
various main fields of OT criticism, while Dentan focuses on OT theo
logies per s e .
13
On Delitzsch cf. Kraus, o.c. 214; Kantzenbach, Erlanger Theologie,
213-214; S.Wagner, Franz Delitzsch: Leben und Werk. On Oehler cf. e.g.
Kraus, Biblische Theologie, 99-106.
 -146-

in that of some other (esp. conservative) interpreters of last century,

one may detect basic characteristics of a hgl. approach. True as well

that some of the positive fruits of Hegelianism in 19th century OT theo

logy mirror those of thinkers who spoke of Hg. : like the latter, some

Hegelian OT specialists rightly concluded (1) that OT theology requires

'a certain philosophical mood 1 without which its interests are likely

to appear merely trivial and antiquarian , 1 and (2) that 'Hebrew religion

cannot be understood apart from the concept of historical development,'

such development comprising not merely 'chronological successiveness'

14
but more importantly 'organic growth.' But of course full-scale

Hegelianism typically includes features that are incompatible with most

forms of Hg. In the end the 19th century failed to produce a hgl. syn

thesis of the OT. As a result it might be fair to say that early 20th

century OT specialists had the opportunity to approach the idea of Hg.

with somewhat more openness than their NT counterparts; OT theology had

had no Hofmann fatally to stigmatize Hg. for use in a synthetic treat-

15
ment of the OT.

2.12 Dominance of non-hgl. approaches

But the preceding section points to a second noteworthy feature of

OT studies prior to 1918: new approaches to the study of the OT had

made it easy, even fashionable, to ignore or denigrate the sort of hgl.

synthesis which Hofmann had projected for the entire Bible and which

Delitzsch and Oehler had in a sense foreshadowed. These new trends were

surfacing even before Hofmann himself passed from the scene: 'Es war

14
Dentan, Preface, 39.
15
This is not to deny that Hofmann influenced OT theology. See J.
Rogerson, 'Geschichte und Altes Testament im 19. Jahrhundert , 1 BN 22
(1983) 126-138. Wagner, Delitzsch, also shows how Hofmann's effect
worked itself out in at least one OT theologian's case.
 -147-

tragisch, dass gerade im Zeitalter Hofmanns die Geschichtsforschung Al-

ten und Neuen Testaments. . . sich den Glaubensproblemen gern entzog.

Now it would be unjust to suppose that OT research (to limit our atten

tion here to this field) consciously and arbitrarily 'sich den Glaubens-
17
problemen gern entzog . 1 Rather the combined weight of new discoveries
18
and new methods effectively preempted what would later be called the
19
theological task in OT theology.

It is worth noting that these new discoveries and methods did not

work only against ahgl. approach. Hasel comments rightly that 'for

over four decades OT theology' in general 'was eclipsed by Religions-

20
geschichte. ' He has in mind the period ca. 1880-1920. During this

time there were numerous efforts to give a synthetic picture of OT reli

gion. Wellhausen and Gunkel largely set the tone for OT synthetic

analysis. There was a renewed call for OT 'theology' to be rigorously

historical this often meant historicistic and positivistic and to

sever radically any lingering traces of interest in 'dogmatics,' in

21
theology in the classic sense.

1 6 O.Procksch, 'Die Geschichte als Glaubensinhalt,' NKZ 36 (1925)

485. In Procksch's parlance the 'Glaubensprobleme' and the problems
attending a hgl. approach would be very nearly synonymous.
17
Cf. 'Die Entdeckungen der Arch&ologie im Orient,' Kraus, Geschich
te, 265-283; R.Kittel, 'Die Zukunft der AlttestamentlicheWissenschaft,'
ZAW 39 (1921) 8 5 f f .

^Prima r i l y a new stress on 'religion' as opposed to dogmatics.

Such religion must be analyzed with all possible utilization of insights
from scientific historiography, psychology, and sociology. When this
quest after OT religion, esp. in its purely phenomenological aspects,
was wedded with an 'entwicklungsgeschichtliche' approach, the so-called
history-of-religions school was born; cf. Kraus, o.c. 289-308; Revent-
low, Hauptprobleme, lOff.
19
Cf. also Kraeling, OT Since Reformation, 89-97.

^^Hasel, OT Theology, 30.

21
Cf. B.Stade, 'Ueber die Aufgaben der biblischen Theologie des Al-
ten Testaments, ' ZTK 3 (1893) 31-51, who sets forth a denunciation of
orthodox Christian notions still plaguing 0T theology and suggest mea
sures finally to eradicate them. Cf. n.51 below.
 -148-

W. Eichrodt noted in 1933:

Es ist bezeichnend, dass in den 25 Jahren seit dem letzten Er-

scheinen von Schultz Theologie 1896 niemand mehr den Versuch gewagt
hat eine dhnliche Darstellung der alttestamentlichen Glaubenswelt,^
zu geben. Die geschichtliche Betrachtung hatte restlos gesiegt.

In the years prior to WW I, OT theology had in important respects

23
totally collapsed.

2.13 Search for a hgl. perspective

A third feature of OT theology, or what serves as its substitute

for many years, now bears mention, however. There came to be a growing

awareness of the need for a hgl. approach to OT theology. As early as

the 1890's, 'die Frage nach dem VerhMltnis von Geschichte und Heilsge-
24
schichtle bricht nun. . . neu auf.' On the one hand in synthetic

studies of the OT published around the turn of the century, 'das Thema
25
"Heilsgeschichte" ist bewusst eliminiert.' On the other hand several

recognized that 'die Zukunft der alttn. Wissenschaft' depended on the

proper weight being accorded to dimensions of the OT which hgl. ap

proaches seemed best suited to bring to the f o r e . ^

^Eichrodt, Theologie des Alten Testaments, vol. 1, ^1957 (-*-1933), 4.

23
Dentan, Preface, 50, remarks: 'The year 1878, in which J.Wellhau-
sen published his Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, marks the begin
ning of the period which saw the apparent death of OT theology. ' W.
Zimmerli speaks of 'die Aufltisung der Darstellung von Israels Glauben. .
. in eine "Israelitische Religionsgeschichte"' (TRE 6 , 438). Clements,
Century of O T , 122f., argues that 'the aim of presenting an Old Testa
ment theology was not lost sight of. . . in the last quarter of the
nineteenth century,' yet must concede that 'the prevailing historicism
threatened to engulf even the more religious and theological aspects
of Old Testament study.'
24
Kraus, Geschichte, 336.
25
Ibid. 344. Cf. the presentations of OT religion by W.Robertson
Smith (1899), R.Smend (^1899), F .Giesebrecht (1904), J.Lagrange (^1905),
and K.Marti (^1907).

^^Kraus, o.c. 345.

 -149-
27
J. KOberle (1871-1908) realized this relatively early and clearly.
28
His specific contribution to OT theology is noted elsewhere, but not
29
always quite accurately. He writes:

Die religionsgeschichtliche Betrachtungsweise, wie sie jetzt Ublich

ist, ist nicht rein historisch, sondern geschichtsphilosophisch,
in einer besonderen Art dogmatisch. Das Dogma ist die Entwicklung
vom Niedrigeren zum HOheren. Wenn die gegenwMrtig herrschende An-
shauung die Oltere heilsgeschichtliche vornehm oder ver&chtlich ab-
weist als 'dogmatisch,' so kann man billig sagen, dass, wer in Glas-
hause sitzt, nicht mit Steinen werfen soll.^O

In these and similar terms KOberle vents a blistering but not groundless

criticism at an excessive history-of-religion stress, and its under-

31
lying, unreflected rationale, in OT theology. Yet he admits, citing

Hofmann's Weissagung und ErfUllung, that the Hg. concept 'so wie sie
32
bisher zumeist gehandhabt worden ist' is no longer tenable. Neverthe

less he calls for renewed attention to the potential of Hg. He wants

both history-of-religions and hgl. method to be integrated in such a

fashion that

27
KOberle, 'Heilsgeschichtliche und rel:gionsgeschichtliche Betrach
tungsweise des Alten Testaments,' NKZ 17 (1906) 200-222. KOberle's in
sights are anticipated at points by M.Reichle's fair but penetrating
analysis of Troeltsch: 'Historische und dogmatische Methode der Theo
logie,' TRu 4 (1901) 261-275, 305-324.

^ E . g . Kraus, Geschichte, 344-347.

29
Greig, Geschichte and Hg . , 37f. follows Kraus too closely in
failing to stress KOberle's call for attention to (1) an openness to
the OT's own belief in revelation as basic to 0T theology, and (2)
modern criticism's inherent antipathy to many traditional Christian be
liefs. Hasel, 0T Theology, 59n.l2, is hardly; correct in claiming that
KOberle 'wants to give theological validity only to the real history
of Israel as reached by modern methodology.' In fact this seems to be
denied by KOberle; cf. NKZ 17 (1906) 218f.
30
KOberle, o.c. 209; cf. Reichle, TRu 4 (1901) 322. The tenor of
KOberle's remarks here and elsewhere is much in line with the criticisms
of and suggested alternatives to history-of-religions excesses which
Schlatter also set forth.
31
Cf. KOberle, o.c. 210f.: 'Seit Wellhausens Prolegomena 1878 ist
Neues, wirklich Neues eigentlich nicht mehr erschienen in seiner ganzen
Schule. Sollte Uber Wellhausen hinaus gar kein Fortschritt mehr mOglich
sein?'
32
Ibid. 217.
 -150-

es handelt sich nicht urn eine doppelte Methode, eine wissenschaft-

liche und eine kirkliche, sondern um einen doppelten Weg der Ver-
gewisserung und verschiedene Art der religiOsen Beurteilung.33

In the end KOberle wants an OT theology which realizes critical his-

34
toriography's biases and limitations. This is not to repristinate
35
the 'tlblichen heilsgeschichtlichen B e t r a c h t u n g s w e i s e w h i c h at times

in KOberle's estimation simply overlooked pressing critical questions

or presented the OT in a contrived fashion so as to fit in as desired

with the NT. Rather it is to let the apparent critical certainties of

phenomenological research 'die religionsgeschichtliche Betrachtungs

weise' come into dialogue with apparent theological verities derived

through reflection on the fundamental given of all OT and NT study:

the text of the Bible itself, understood from a perspective not in the

first place inimical to its own purpose(s) and basic framework.^ The

ensuing discussion could then result in a more balanced and accurate

37
synthetic understanding of the OT. It bears mention here that KOber

le's insights closely resemble the proposals of both Hofmann and Schlat-
. 38
ter.

W. Lotz in a thorough study virtually forgotten today pursues a

39
similar linewith somewhat greater sophistication. He stresses the

33
Ibid. 219. Also addressing this issue is C.Bernoulli, Die wissen-
schaftliche und die kirkliche Methode in der Theologie, 1897.
34
Cf. J.Goldingay, Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation,1981,73f.

^KOberle, o.c. 221. ^ Cf. Reischle, TRu 4 (1901) 323.

37
KOberle, o.c. 221f.

^This extends also to his specific proposals for a revamped OT

theology.
39
Das Alte Testament und die Wissenschaft, 1905, praised by Kraeling,
OT Since Reformation, 297n.l.
 -151-

positive gains of criticism but insists that modern naturalistic world

views, not demonstrable facts, are the main barriers to a hgl. under

standing of the OT. Lotz defines the OT H g . as

die Geschichte der durch die geschichtlichen Fllhrungen Gottes und

den offenbarungsm&ssigen Verkehr deselben mit Israel bedingten und
bewirkten Entwicklung des Gottesbewusstseins des auserw&hlten Volkes,
als deren Ergebnis am Ende der fllr das ErlOsungswerk Christi notwen-
dige Bestand religids-sittlicher Wahrheit teils im geistigen Besitz
der Volksgenossen, teils in den heiligen Schriften des Alten Testa-
mentes aufgesammelt gewesen ist.^P

On this basis he concludes:

Als theologische Disziplin ist die alttestamentliche Heilsgeschichte

die Bearbeitung der israelitischen Geschichte, welche nachweist,
wie im Verlauf derselben die Voraussetzungen fUr die Offenbarung
der ganzen Flllle der gdttlichen Heilswahrheit in Jesu Christo all-
m&hlich in geschichtlichem Fortschritt beschafft worden sind. Die
haupts&chliche Aufgabe dabei aber ist, den Fortschritt in der Ge
schichte Israels als einen wahrhaft geschichtlichen zu begreifen,
die Geschichte Israels als eine Geschichte im vollen Sinne des
Wortes zu erfassen.4-1-

While exposition of these passages is not possible here, we would ob

serve that, clearly, Lotz is doing solid thinking along Hofmannian or

42
post-Hofmannian lines. Study of his proposals evinces an unusual

grasp of both historical criticism's rightful claims and the implica-

43
tions of the O T 's revealed historical-theological truth. Both P.Volz
44
and 0. Procksch also deserve mention as preserving, or pioneering,

insights aiding hgl. understanding of the OT, but neither in Lotz's time

exhibits his mastery of fact and argument.

40 41
Lotz, o.c. 50. Ibid.
42
With the important difference that Hofmann is clearly not a
Kantian, either epistemologically or morally/ethically, while Lotz re
flects the influence of the neo-Kantian Lotze (cf. Kraeling, o.c. 297n.l)
On Lotze see SchnMdelbach, Philosophy, 169-80; and the still valuable
work of L.St&hlin, Kant, Lotze, and Ritschl, 1889.

43
Cf. Kraus, Geschichte, 347-350.
44
On Pro-cksch see 2.28 below.
 -152-

2.14 Summary

In the years prior to 1918 Hg. was seldom if ever the integrating

centre of an OT theology. Yet calls for openness to a hgl. perspective

of some descript'\<mkeep theological hope alive at a time when OT studies

was seeking to blot out the memory of 'dogma 1 in favor of history-of-

45
religions' redeeming value. A number of critics, including Kdberle

and Lotz, take a Hofmannian-Schlatterian tack. They insist that not

only modern but also ancient apparent certainties be given leave to

shape contemporary understanding of the OT texts.

2.2 History and OT theology after WW I

Detailed studies of OT criticism in this period are available else-

46
where. It is not possible here to discuss even every OT theology ap-
47
pearing between 1918-1946, much less every OT scholar who dealt with

the OT and history, theology, or Hg. in his work. Anything less than

a definitive history of research must be selective; we will focus atten

tion on eight German theologians whose work is fundamental to understan

ding OT theology and Hg. within it. The Anglo-Saxon contribution will

also be acknowledged. The purpose here is to sketch chronologically

45
Kraus, Geschichte (3 1982), 379385, elaborates on the develop
ments we have sketched above.
46
Besides Kraus, Geschichte, and Dentan, Preface, where ample
bibliog. may be found, and articles in standard reference works, see
also from the British perspective N.Porteous, 'Old Testament Theology,'
The Old Testament and Modern Study, ed. by H.H.Rowley, 1951, 311-345.
From an American point of view see R.A.Bowman, 'Old Testament Research
between the Great Wars,' The Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow, ed.
by H.R.Willoughby, 1947, 3-31. For useful background see also E.KOnig,
Theologie des Alten Testaments, 1922, 1-18.
47
I.e. those by Ktinig (1922), E.Sellin (1933), L.Kdhler (1936), W.
and H.MOller (1938), and P.Heinisch (1940); cf. Dentan, Preface, 62ff.;
Zimmerli, TRE 6 , 438f.
 -153-

some main features of the critical discussion regarding the task of OT

theology and the role of (esp. hgl.) approaches to history within that

task, seen in the context of a debate also much concerned with Religions-

geschichte.

2.21 R.Kittel (1921)

Kittel, in a 'Vortrag auf dem Ersten Deutschen Orientalistentag in

48
Leipzig,' acknowledges that 'die Forderung einer religionsgeschicht-
49
lichen Richtung' in OT theology has grown 'zu einer Art Streitruf.' He

does not disparage this history-of-religions emphasis as such but bit-

50
terly decries the tendency of Harnack and others to devalue or deny
51
the OT's 'Wahrheitsgehalt' and its 'bleibenden Wert.' Because of the

OT's relationship to Christianity, a non-negotiable assumption for

Kittel is that

die alttestamentliche Religionsgeschichte wird ganz von selbst zu

einer theologischen Disziplin, stehe sie innerhalb oder ausserhalb
einer bestimmten Fakultdt und heisse sie dem Namen nach alttesta
mentliche Theologie oder anders.^2
53
Kittel rejects outright the likes of Friedrich Delitzsch (1850-1922),
54
for whom the OT was (to put it mildly) dispensable, but he stops far

short of proposing any sort of hgl. programme. Kittel hopes somehow

to overcome the prevailing conviction that God is to be regarded as

48
Kittel, 'Die Zukunft der Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft,' ZAW 39
(1921) 84-99.
49 50
Ibid. 85. Ibid. 95-98.
51
Ibid. 97. Ironically, a generation earlier B.Stade had speculated
that OT theology valuing 'nur das historische Verst&ndnis' something
Stade himself nevertheless called for could so distort the picture of
OT faith that there would be a risk of the OT being seen as unnecessary
for Christianity. See ZTK 3 (1893) 51; cf. n.21 above.
52
Kittel, o.c. 97.
53
Ibid. 95, 98. Kittel says he will not deign to speak 'von dem
Beifall, den Delitzschs Dilettantismus bei Halbkundigen findet.'
54
Cf. F.Delitzsch, Die grosse Tduschung, 1921.
 -154-
55
'Idee und Ph&nomen' by insisting he is 'lebendige Grdsse.' Kittel

argues that there exists 'nicht nur subjektiv ein NahefUhlen des Gottes,

sondern objektiv und in voller Wahrheit ein Walten und Wirken Gottes
56
in Menschen which should form a constituent part of OT research. But

how this is to be expressed in critical OT study is not really ad-

57
dresded. The conflicting demands of rigorous historicism and theologi

cal interpretation are only stirred up, not satisfied, by Kittel's

58
Troeltschian characterization of the abiding worth and relevance of

OT piety. There is hardly a place here for H g . , at least in the sense

called for by e.g. Kttberle above.

2.22 H. Gressmann (1924)

Gressmann sets forth his assessment of OT research in an important

59
article inaugurating the new ZAW series. He wants to follow Kittel's

lead but actually shows somewhat less concern for developing some sort

of a hgl. o u t l o o k . ^ He acknowledges both overly skeptical or specula

tive tendencies in some OT specialists as well as, in some circles, a

burgeoning 'Hyperkonservatismus'; 'der Glaube an die Zuverl&ssigkeit

und Unversehrtheit des tlberlieferten Textes gegenwMrtig wieder im

Wachsen begriffen i s t . ' ^ Yet the closest he comes to calling for re

55 56
Kittel, o.c. 98. Ibid.
57
Cf. W.F. Albright, 'The ancient Near East and the Religion of
Israel,' JBL 59 (1940) 95f., who touches on related weaknesses in Kit
tel 's proposals.
58
Cf. Kittel, o.c. 97-99 and Troeltsch, 'The Dogmatics of the "Reli-
gionsgeschichtliche Schule",' AJT 17 (1913) lOf.
59
Gressmann, 'Die Aufgaben der alttestamentlichen Forschung,' ZAW
1 (1924) 1-33.

^ I b i d . 2. Kittel at least speaks, even if somewhat awkwardly, of

the need for God 'to be granted a real place in OT study (Kittel, o.c.
95ff.), a notion hardly to be found in Gressmanns article.
61
One often hears bitter remonstrances from theologically conserva
tive quarters against the purely rationalistic bent of German theology
 -155-

search that transcends recital of history-of-religions data is when he

remarks with irony:

Das Ziel des Religionshistorikers ist erst dann erreicht, wenn er

uns die innersten Triebkr&fte der aufeinander prallenden Religionen
anschaulich macht, uns mitten in den Kampf der Geister hineinfUhrt
und ihn uns so miterleben ldsst, wie ihn die Zeitgenossen damals
erlebt haben. Dazu bedarf es weniger der Gelehrsamkeit als des rei-
fen Verstclndnisses und der tiefsten Liebe, auch fllr die Offen-
barungen Gottes im sogennanten 'Heidentum'; mir scheint, dies darf
man auch von einem Theologen verlangen.^

Elsewhere however he speaks of Israel as the Fangball' whose place in

the ancient world 'durch seinen Wohnsitz vom Schicksal bestimmt w a r . 1

At a time when controversy was flaring up over Barth's proposed new

theological exegesis, OT studies, at least as represented by Gressmann,

had little desire to move beyond atomistic observation and compilation

of history-of-religion detail. Here as with Kittel there is little sym

pathy or vision for a hgl. reading of the NT.

64
2.23 W. StLrk and C .Steuernagel (1925)

OT theology as envisioned by Kittel and Gressmann is rejected by

both Stark and Steuernagel, not so much as being wrong but as being only

half the task.

Stark affirms the need for history-of-religions emphasis but denies

that this approach in itself does full justice to the OT. Arguing with

now and in past generations. It is interesting to note that Stade (n.21

above), Troeltsch (n.58 above) and Gressmann all fume over the tenacious
presence of what Troeltsch calls 'pietistic-biblical supernaturalism'
(7) and 'simple biblicism' (11). Cf. from a different perspective one
of Schlatter's few works in English: 'The Attitude of German Protestant
Theology to the Bible,' ConQ 2 (1914) 99-110. One wonders how much the
work of biblical criticism might comprise a crusading against this
perennial 'conservative' presence.
62 63
Gressmann, o.c. 30f. Ibid. 25.
64
StMrk, 'Religionsgeschichte und Religionsphilosophie in ihrer Be-
deutung fdr die Theologie des Alten Testaments,' ZTK 31 (1923-24) 289-
300; Steuernagel, 'Alttestamentliche Theologie und alttestamentliche
Religionsgeschichte,' ZAW Beiheft 41 (1925) 266-273.
 -156-

awareness of issues not only in OT studies but also in systematics,

philosophy of religion, and (esp. Kantian) philosophy, he declares that

history-of-religions research itself points to the acuteness and sophis

tication of the OT religious consciousness in its historical milieu.84a

One must therefore think in terms of the OT's own claims that theolo

gical understanding had been revealed, esp. to Israel's prophets:

Nicht 'natllrliche, ' mechanische Entwicklung ist das Prinzip der

Geschichte, sondern Entfaltung einer Innerlichkeit, einer Synthesis
a priori im Seelengrunde. Und diese Entwickung ist nicht mdglich
ohne Offenbarung.'

When one inquires after 'den Bedingungen der MOglichkeit' of the OT's

awareness of God, one is forced to go beyond the 'reine historische

Frage . ' 8 6 Here is where OT theology's task lies. It must set forth

a 'systematische und geschichtliche N&herbestimmung' of the OT's 'Got-

tesidee' als 'Ausdruck der revelatio specialis im ganzen der revelatio

generalis . 8 7 History-of-religions analysis itself establishes the

'Transzendenzerlebnis' of OT figures, in which God revealed himself

( 'offerbart sich') as Yahweh, as 'SchOpfer der Welt und Herr alles ge

schichtlichen und natlirlichen Lebens, ' and 'biblisch gesprochen: als

der Herr, der Gott der Heilsgeschichte, der mit und durch Israel zum
G8
Gott aller Welt werden soli.' Somehow therefore OT critical studies

must overcome 'ein falsch orientierter theologisch-antiquarischer His-

69
t o n s m u s '; it must like the OT itself reflect the 'Uebergang von Gott-
70
suchen zum Gotthaben.'

6 4 aStMrk, o.c. 296. 6 5 Ibid. 291. 6 6 Ibid.

6 7 Ibid. 299. 6 8 Ibid. 6 9 Ibid. 300.

70
Ibid. 299. Cf. St&rk's observations concerning OT theology in
Die Religionswissenschaft der Gegenwart in Selbtdarstellungen, vol. 5,
ed. by E.Stang, 1929, 195-203. E.g. Stark writes that 'der Ausweg aus
der aufgezeigten Schwierigkeit Qin contemporary 0T studies] nur durch
Besinnung auf den im christlichen Glauben gesetzten Offenbarungscharak-
tcr der Schriften des Alten Testaments gefunden werden kann. . . . Die
Darstellung [of 0T theology] hat also den spezifischen Offenbarungs-
charakter der alttestamentlichen Religion und ihre darin gegrtindete
heilsgeschichtliche Glaubenshaltung zum Mittelpunkt zu machen' (196f.).
 -157-

Steuernagel grants that pre-religionsgeschichtliche OT theology with

its 1Lokalmethode' is now and forever outdated when used (as it nor

mally was) in a way that made it impossible to show the 'Gesamtentwick-

71
lung der alttestamentlichen Religion.' But as it once was necessary

for Gabler to rescue biblical theology from dogmatics, it is now time

'die alttestamentliche Theologie von den Fesseln der alttestamentlichen

72
Religionsgeschichte zu befreien.' Both disciplines share a common ob

ject ('die israelitische Religion'), common sources (the OT and all re

lated literary or other ancient remains), and a common method ('die his-
73 74
torische'). Each discipline informs the other. But OT theology has

its own explicit and legitimate questions whose answershistory-of-

religions method too often obscures or ignores. Steuernagel does not

actually call for a new look at H g . , but he does demand that OT scholars

reintroduce a theological (in the classic sense) dimension in OT

studies. Like St&rk he sees the absurdity of interpreters of the OT

holding themselves 'scientifically' aloof from the theology which ani

mates the sources they are handling. On this point Sthrk and Steuer-
75
nagel are in fundamental harmony. OT theology and OT Religionsge

schichte must be integrated, and this can only come about through a

modifying of the prevailing one-sided approach.

2.24 0. Eissfeldt (1926)

Eissfeldt is cognizant of the current debate in both OT and NT

studies regarding 'Geschichte und Offenbarung. ' Is OT religion to

"^Steuernagel, o.c. (n.64) 266f. ^Ibid. 266.

73 74
Ibid. 272. Ibid. 272f.
75
Thus it is not, as Greig, Geschichte and Heilsgeschichte, 43, re
ports, 0 .Eissfeldt who first gives definite 'guidelines' for regarding
OT history and OT theology respectively as each discipline individually
warrants.

"^Eissfeldt, 'Israelitsch-jfldische Religionsgeschichte und alttesta

mentliche Theologie,' ZAW 3 (1926) 1.
 -158-

be conceived and presented

as israelitisch-jUdische Religionsgeschichte, oder als eine Reli

gion, die, wenn auch irgendwie bedingt, die wahre Religion, Gottes
Offenbarung ist, also so will hier die Benennung verstanden sein
als 'alttestamentliche Theologie?77

Eissfeldt answers, 'Both.' But the two manners of presenting the OT

are fundamentally different, although equally justified. Therefore

(contra St&rk and Steuernagel) they are to be kept separate as much as

possible. Criticizing StMrk and Procksch, Eissfeldt insists:

Die theologische Betrachtungsweise verkUrzt die Mannigfaltigkeit

geschichtlichen Erscheinung, indem sie sie vom der entscheidenden
Glaubenserfahrung aus zu deuten sucht, und die historische verflacht
die Tiefe der vom Glauben am AT erlaubten Offenbarung, indem sie
diese anderen Erscheinungen nebenordnet. Die historische Betrach
tungsweise einerseits und die theologische andererseits gehtiren zwei
verschiedenen Ebenen an.78

Therefore there is to be both 'eine historische Wissenschaft' and 'die

79
theologische Betrachtung der Religion des A T.' They form a unity,
80
'von einer htiheren Warte aus gesehen.' It is one and the same truth

which history-of-religions work seeks to explicate and by which faith

knows itself to have been apprehended . ^ 1 But for practical purposes

here Eissfeldt defends pure historical work against the encroachments

of Thurneysen, Barth, and Procksch OT Religionsgeschichte and OT theo

logy are not indiscriminately to be mixed, and theoretically not

to be mixed at all. Eissfeldt thus would grant the validity of a hgl.

approach to the OT as a theological approach, but this could not be con

fused with scientific historical inquiry. Eissfeldt's proposal has the

potential effect of relegating not only a hgl. but every theological

77 78 79
Ibid. Ibid. 6 . Ibid. lOf.
80
Ibid. 12. It is thus perhaps not certain that Eissfeldt is as
guilty of the extreme dichotomization of faith and knowledge as he is
sometimes charged; cf. Hasel, OT Theology, 32, 38ff.

^Eissfeldt, o.c. 12.

 -159-

approach to the OT to a twilight realm of dogmatic musings. To the ex

tent that Eissfeldt demands both theoretical and practical separation

of the historical and theological tasks, OT theology threatens to be

come a critically suspect enterprise, and any hgl. method would seem
82
to be regarded as bereft of sure historical mooring.

2.25 W. Eichrodt (1929)

Eichrodt's celebrated essay on OT theology is perhaps the high point

of deliberations on the theory of OT theology during the period 1918-

83
1946. He endorses Steuernagel1s warning that preoccupation with

history-of-religions analysis of the OT is threatening OT theology in

any meaningful sense. Yet like Eissfeldt he sees danger in 'die pneu-

matische oder die in der Kategorie des existentiellen Urteils sich be-
84
wegende oder wie man es sonst nennen mag' manners of regarding the OT,

though he acknowledges that the new movements rightfully call attention

to theology's 'Fundament und zugleich ihr zentrales Problem, die Offen-

85
barungswirklichkeit.' Eichrodt also sees himself as carrying on the

task envisioned by R. Kittel above, though differences exist between

their respective proposals.

Assuming that the ultimate goal of OT science is 'ein tieferes Ver-

stdndnis des vom AT bezeugten religittsen Lebens zu gewinnen,' Eichrodt

notes that Steuernagel's proposals are in the end being ignored in the

theological interpretations rife in the 1920's. 'Pneumatic' exegesis

and theologizing carries one 'aus der Linie der empirisch-historischen

82
Eissfeldt's stance is not only of historical interest: see J.Bar
ton's statement in 'Old Testament Theology, Beginning Old Testament
Study, ed. by J.Rogerson, 1983, 109, that between OT history of religion
and OT theology 'there is no direct line.' In general Barton's (unwit
ting ?) agreement with Eissfeldt is striking.
83
Eichrodt, 'Hat die alttestamentliche Theologie noch selbststSlndige
Bedeutung innerhalb der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft)' ZAW 6 (1924)
83-91.

84Ibid. 83. 85Ibid. 84.

 -160-

Wissenschaft in den Kreis der normativen Wissenschaft hintiber. ' 6 This

Eichrodt wants to avoid. But Eissfeldt's solution a clear methodolo

gical separation of OT history and OT theology raises the difficult

question of how OT theology (in Eissfeldt's sense) can be very different

from dogmatics of the OT. Eichrodt is correct:

So tut sich hier eine methodologische Frage vor uns auf, deren Trag-
weite nicht nur fUr die ATliche Wissenschaft, sondern fllr die theo
logische Forschung Uberhaupt ernsteste Beachtung und grundsdtzliche
Besinnung verlangt.^

Eichrodt is wrestling here with issues salient for NT theology, too,

issues that NT theology of that time seems seldom to have addressed with
88
Eichrodt's (cf. Schlatter's) penetrating clarity of vision.

It is true, Eichrodt concedes, that a historicistic analysis of the

OT shuts out regard for 'das Wesen der ATlichen Religion,' such essence

being thought of in a sense congenial to orthodox dogmatics. But what

if this essence were defined as 'was das AT eigentlich meint, worin das

Wesentliche seiner Geschichte eigentlich besteht, was den tiefsten Sinn

89
seiner religidsen Gedankenwelt ausmacht.' Then it becomes possible

to be (1 ) rigorously historical-, yet (2 ) systematic, i.e. methodologi

cally thorough as well as theologically oriented (as opposed to giving

simply a 'genetische Analyze' in the history-of-religions tradition),

so that one may give a 'Querschnitt durch das Gewordene' of the OT, a

a sympathetic yet critical presentation of 'die innere Struktur einer

86 87
Ibid. Ibid. 85.

^ 0 r to c o n s i d e r the field of systematics: as late as 1935 H.Thie-

licke (Geschichte und Existenz, 2 1964, 1935, could bemoan the short
comings of his own work and attribute them to the fact that 'die theo
logische Aufgabe, das Problem der Geschichte mit dem steten Blick auf
den Anspruch der natllrlichen erkennbaren Geschichtswirklichkeit zu
durchdenken, ist so gross und in ihrem prinzipiellen Aufweis so neu-
artig' (VIII). But this problem had been receiving scrutiny in OT cri
ticism for some time.
89
Eichrodt, o.c. 85.
 -161-
90
Religion im Verh&ltnis ihrer verschiedenen Inhalte zueinander.'
91
Arguing very much like Schlatter, Eichrodt concedes that the 0T

historian-theologian is limited by his own embeddedness in the histori

cal process. But it is fallacious to arrogate for oneself the posture

of absolute objectivity by appeal to a presumed imparital method of

analysis which gives unimpeachable results by granting omniscience

92
through critical distance. No such method in fact exists. On the

other hand it would be needlessly skeptical to infer that all interpre

tations are finally hopelessly subjective, radically relative, because

of every interpreter's historicality. Eichrodt rather argues that

eine innere Verwandtnis [Kongenialit&tJ zwischen dem Forscher und

seinem Objekt bestehen muss, urn die Distanz zu der fremden Er-
scheinung [i.e. the 0T] zu Uberwinden und ihr Wesen richtig zu er-
fassen .9 3

Clearly Eichrodt here moves away from 'einer von jeder Wertung chemisch
94
reinen, objektiven israelitisch-jlldischen Religionsgeschichte.' He

even sees his programme as being capable of fulfilling the more dogmati-
95
cally-conceived task of 0T theology being called for in his time. In

sum, he 'will das historische mit dem systematischen Prinzip verbin-

den. ,
'96

Hasel summarizes the problems of Eichrodt's approach as it came to

97
expression later in his 0T theology. These centre chiefly around his
90
Ibid. 85f.
91
Cf. ibid. 87f. and Schlatter, NNTT, 125.
92
Cf. Schlatter, TLbericht, 1 (1908) 7f.
93
Eichrodt, o.c. 87; cf. Schlatter, NNTT, 125-129.
94 95
Ibid. 88 . Ibid. 89.
96
Kraus, Biblische Theologie, 127f.
97
Hasel, 0T Theology; cf. N.Gottwald, 'W.Eichrodt, Theology of the
Old Testament,' Contemporary Old Testament Theologians, ed. by R.Laurin,
1970, 53ff., 57ff.
 -162-
98
conception of covenant as the unifying theme of the OT. What is signi

ficant for our purposes are the following: (1) Eichrodt does not call

unambiguously for a h g l . approach to the O T , yet (2 ) his proposals are

amicable to such an approach if they do not in fact constitue one. This

is borne out by our study of Eichrodt in the following chapter. For

now we may remark that Hg. of some description is implicit in the con

cept of an overarching covenant, particularly in view of how Eichrodt

sees OT theology as finding its 'Ziel' in the 'NTlichen Gedankenwelt 1

and the guide for its 'Auswahl des Einzelmaterials' in the answer to

the question: what place does a given item have in making 'die Be-

reitung des geschichtlichen Bodens ftlr die als hdchster Wert erkannte
99
Offenbarung in Christus klar und verstdndlich'? It could be argued

as well that a certain hgl. predilection is latent in Eichrodt's assump

tion that 'Kongenialitdt' can to a satisfactory degree overcome the dis

tance between the OT data and current critical observation. His lan

guage at least calls to mind the similar positions of Hofmann and

Schlatter, who sought (like Eichrodt, though by different means) to

bridge the chasm which Kantian epistemology had opened up.

Eichrodt's summons 'zu einer radikalen Neuorientierung' has at its

heart at least a resemblance to a hgl. outlook, though in light of

(Eichrodt's teacher) Procksch's use of this concept and its association

with the idealism so disparaged in Germany in the 1920's and beyond,

it is little wonder that only the idea, not the term itself, comes into

play in Eichrodt's ground-breaking essay. To what extent Hg. plays a

part in Eichrodt's OT theology itself is not of primary concern here.

In any event if Eichrodt's ponderings mark a high point in the con

98 99
But cf. Gottwald, o.c. 29f. Eichrodt, o.c. 88 .
100
Kraus, Biblische Theologie, 127.
 -163-

sideration of OT theology's theoretical basis, then a hgl. Betrachtungs-

weise, as we will show more clearly below, should be seen as part of

the key to the solution he proposes.

2.26 A. Weiser (1935)

Weiser represents an important wing of OT studies in the second half

of the period 1918-1946 which, perhaps to an even greater extent than

101
Eichrodt, strove for a patently theological interpretation of the OT.
102
On the Barthian side (loosely speaking) of Weiser stands W. Vischer;
103
further in the direction of Bultmann is F. Baumg&rtel. Weiser's ap

proach to OT theology, neither allegorical (the charge against

Vischer'1'0 4 ) nor radically kerygmatic (BaumgSrtel) , is a mildly existen

tialist one which includes rigorous application of the historical-

critical method.

Weiser explicitly takes issue with Eichrodt, for the OT will not

in the end lend itself to what his conception of OT theology would seek

to do, which is to construct a systematic 'Klassifizierung des alttesta-

101
A.Weiser, 'Die theologische Aufgabe der alttestamentlichen Wis-
senschaft' [address to the 1935 Deutschen Orientalistentag in GbttingenJ,
Glauben und Geschichte im Alten Testament, 1961 (this essay 1935), 182-
200. In the same vol. see 'Glaube und Geschichte im Alten Testament'
(1931), 'Das theologische Gesamtverst&ndnis des Alten Testaments' (1943),
and 'Vom Verstehen des Alten Testaments' (1948).

^^Vischer, The Witness of the Old Testament to Christ, 1949 ( '1"1934) .

103
F.Baumgdrtel, 1Zur Frage der theologischen Deutung des Alten
Testaments , 1 ZST 15 (1938) 136-162; cf. idem, Die eigenart der alttesta
mentlichen Frbmmigkeit, 1932; idem, Verheissung, 1952.
104
But cf. the favorable assessment by R.Abramowski, who takes the
ideological climate of Vischer's Germany into account: 'Vom Streit urn
das Alte Testament,' TRu 9 (1937) 90ff. Cf. also D.Baker, Two Testa
ments, One Bible, 1976, 209ff.
 -164-
105
mentlichen Sachverhalts.' What is needed is an overtly theological

method, one which is relentlessly historical-critical, yet which recog

nizes that OT science has as its object 'die Beziehung der Wirklichkeit

des Lebens zum Gott . 1''"9 8 Thus Eissfeldt's bi-level approach is hardly

suitable, not least because it splits into two tasks that which can

legitimately only be a unified enterprise. There is only one workable

synthetic approach to the OT, the theological behind which as noted

107
stands extensive historical-analytical work and this theological

task must move 'in der Richtung eines dynamischen, d.h. uns selber tref-

fenden Verstdndnisses von Gott her . ' ^ 8 8

Theological understanding as Bultmann has delineated it in relation

to the NT is 'das einzig sachgemdsse und damit auch das eigentliche

wissenschaftliche Verstdndnis in der alttestamentlichen Forschung der

109
Theologie.' The interpreter must also be interpreted:

1st nicht meine eigene Existenz mit eingesetzt, wird nicht zugleich
mit dem Erkennen Uber mich selbst entschieden, dann bleibt mir der
eigentliche Sachverhalt in seinen letzten Grtlnden verschlossen.

In the end history is important for Weiser because it is the medium

in which both the OT in its potential existential relevance and the

researcher are suspended. But there is no Hg. in any but a specialized

111
existentialist sense, in which the historical link between the OT

and later times, including now, consists of 'jene letzten Beziehungen

des Menschen zur Gotteswirklichkeit , die dort und hier, damals

105
Weiser, 'Die Theologische Aufgabe,' 197.

1 0 6 Ibid. 198. 1 0 7 Ibid. 184, 198ff. 1 0 8 Ibid. 191.

1 0 9 Ibid. 195 1 1 0 Ibid.

Ill
Cf. Baumgdrtel, ZST 15 (1938) 150: 'Heilsgeschichtliches Be-
greifen der alttestamentlichen Aussage ist nur dort mdglich, wo diese
Aussage zugleich als auf mich persttnlich bezogen begriffen wird, auf
mich, d.h. auf meine Not, auf meine Verlorenheit vor Gott, auf mein
Zuruhekommen in Erbarmen Gottes.'
 -165-
112
und heute die gleichen sind.' Weiser thus represents a step back
113
from even Eichrodt's incipiently-open-to-a-hgl. approach viewpoint.

He typifies the increasing drift toward an existentialist analysis of

history which first begins to be characteristic of continental OT theo

logy in the 1930's, and which e.g. Bultmann so effectively championed

in NT interpretation from an even earlier date. Evident here too is

a certain systematic separation of the relational and cognitive aspects

of OT theology/religion, i.e. the ubiquitous epistemological rift com

mon to non-hgl. approaches examined thus far.

2.27 J. Lindblom (1935)

The Swedish scholar J. Lindblom, addressing the same international

114
gathering as Weiser, represents the considerable group of OT theo

logians in the second half of the period 1918-1946 who were not so
\ 115
enamored of an existentvcM approach, as such, to history. He is in

essential agreement with both Eichrodt and Steuernagel (above). He

notes that since R. Kittels call (above) there has been considerable

advance in theological understanding of the OT,'^'*'^ though when Kittel

asks for inquiry into the 'bleibender Wert' of OT religion and its

'Stellung in der Gesamtheit der gdttlichen Ordnung,' he asks the impos

sible: 'Solche Dingen kOnnen nicht mit historischen Methoden. ermit-

117
telt werden,' in Lindblom's opinion.
112
Weiser, 'Die Theologische Aufgabe,' 196.
113
Weiser's internalized and subjectivized kerygmatic conception
of Hg. receives clearer explication in his later work; cf. e.g. 'Ge
schichte und H g . ' in Glaube und Geschichte (n.101 above), 295-298.
114
See n.101 above.
115
Lindblom, 'Zur Frage der Eigenart der alttestamentlichen Reli
gion,' ZAW Beiheft 6 6 (1936) 128-137.

116Ibid. 129. 117Ibid. 132 .

 -166-

Nevertheless OT criticism does have a responsibility to fulfill

X18
not only an analytic but also a synthetic role. This must centre

on what is most distinctive or unique about OT religion. And for Lind

blom, 'die Eigenart der alttestamentlichen Religion liegt in der

119
Eigenart ihrer Gottesanschauung.' To bring this truth to the fore,

Hg. must be reckoned with:

Wer die Frage der Eigenart tie fer nachgehen will, muss genau hei
ausarbeiten, was das fllr die Gottesanschauung bedeutet hat, dass
Jahwe der Gott Israels durch einen geschichtlichen Akt geworden
ist und dass sein Handeln die Geschichte als Bereich h a t . 120

Lindblom continues:

Gott ist ein Gott der Geschichte, da ist eine Schutzwehr gegen alle
Formen von falscher Mystik, Spekulation, Gnosis. . . .Gott leitet
den Lauf der Geschichte dem eschatologischen aufgefassten Endziel
der messianischen Vollendung entgegen, da ist eine Schutzwehr gegen
jede statische Auffassung der Geschichte, sowie auch gegen jede
Auffassung, die nicht damit Ernst macht, dass auch auf dem Gebiet
der Geschichte es Geltung hat: 'Der Vater wirket bisher' ja, wie
wir zufUgen k6nnen, bis zum Ende der Geschichte, bis zum Ende der
Welt.121

Lindblom's disagreement with both the existentialist and the older pure

history-of-religions approaches is clear. If OT theology is to execute

its tasks successfully, openness to a hgl. outlook in some form must

be part of its methodological stock-in-trade. At the same time however

we note that Lindblom reflects a familiar epistemological dualism:

he seems to deny that the findings of historical methods could mediate

central aspects of ultimate theological reality, and he wants to speak

of OT religion's 'Gottesanschauung' without however going on to affirm

and therefore in a sense denying the hgl. reality of. that to which

the OT witnesses refer.

11ft X1Q
Ibid. 132ff. Ibid. 133.
120 121
Ibid. 134. Ibid. 137.
 -167-

2.28 0. Procksch

Procksch's work represents the high point of expressly hgl. con

sideration of the OT 1918-1946. His geschichtsth eologische concern

122
has already been noted. He was 'in the front rank of exegetes,

exact in his philology' ; at the same time 'he went far to bring the
123
Old Testament back within theology from which it had been estranged.'

His writings on various aspects of OT theology and the need for an ap

propriate view of history span and even extend beyond the era under
124
consideration, at the end of which his posthumously published OT
125
theology appeared. This tome stands alone beside von Rad's two vol

umes as the only other full-scale attempt to build an OT theology ex

pressly focusing on Hg. (although von Rad's view of Hg. is considerably

different from Procksch's). In critical circles his theology has been

widely influential, esp. among his students,126 as illustrated on the

one hand by Eichrodt (who uses Procksch's 'Gott und die Welt-Gott und

Volk-Gott und Mensch' outline) and on the other by von Rad and his own

122
See sec. 2.13 above.
123
J.N.Schofield, 'Otto Procksch, Theology of the Old Testament, '
OT Theologians, ed. by Laurin, 116f.; cf. Eissfeldt, 10.Procksch,' in
Kleine Schriften, vol. 3, ed. by R.Sellheim and F.Maass, 1966, 131.
124
Cf. Die Geschichtsbetrachtung bei Amos, Hosea und Jesaia, 1901;
Geschichtsbetrachtung und geschichtliche Ueberlieferung bei den vor-
exilischen Propheten, 1902; 'Hofmann's Geschichtsauffassung,' AEK 43
(1910); 'Theologie der Geschichte,' AEK 48 (1915); 'Die Geschichte als
Glaubensinhalt,' NKZ 36 (1925) 485-499.
125
Theologie des A T , 1950. In the Vorwort (VI) von Rad mentions
that the book was largely completed and checked by Procksch himself
before his death in 1947. Von Rad and A.Alt, among others, edited the
work.
126
According to Schofield (n.123), 117; cf. 93. Yet WUrthwein
claims that Procksch remained an unknown figure after WW II, because
'die Studentengeneration, die ihr Geschichtsbild aus Noths Geschichte
Israel gewann, konnte nicht gleichzeitig die Theologie von Procksch
in sich aufnehmen' (TRu 36 [l97lj 203. The truth seems to be that
Procksch was well known by and influential among older 0T specialists,
some of who studied under him, but not at a popular or student level.
 -168-

innovative (if controversial) hgl. approach. Kraus brands Procksch

as a christocentric thinker whose OT theology fails to bring out the

127
christological substance which, Procksch alleges, the OT contains.

Yet in beginning his OT theology with the words,'Alle Theologie ist

Christologie,1 Procksch does not intend to stake himself to a hope

less Hengstenbergian task; he wants rather to clear the ground for his

own theological approach to the OT over against the purely historical

one of devout history-of-religions advocates. A proper and reasonable

regard for history's theological aspect demands 'die Anerkennung der

Offenbarung in Christo und die Anteilnahme des Glaubens am geschicht-

129
lichen Urteil.' Procksch's point is merely to justify a theologi-
130
cally sensitive reading of the OT, something which as we have seen

he was not alone in doing. Procksch's theology may not deserve the
131
curt dismissal Kraus gives it, at least for the reasons he adduces.

127
Kraus, Biblische Theologie, 128-130; idem, Geschichte, 441f.

^ ^ Theologie des A T , 1.
129
Ibid. 13. As Schofield points out, this is not to say (as Den-
tan, Preface, 73f., alleges) that Procksch holds 'faith1 to be 'a
separate organ of perception.' But it is also not clear that Schofield
goes deep enough in stating simply that Procksch 'believes rather, that
for the Christian the only approach to any problem must be from the
standpoint of faith' ('Procksch,' OT Theologians, ed. by Laurin, 95).
130
Cf. Procksch's self-analysis in Religionswissenschaft in Selbst-
darstellungen, vol. 2, 29f., in which he defends the place of faith
in OT criticism: 'Man kann diese Funktion des Glaubens in der Schrift-
auslegung nicht unwissenschaftlich nennen, da erst durch sie die voile
Wirklichkeit der Schrift als Wahrheit erkannt wird.
131
Kraus' criticism that Procksch does not really show how Christ
and OT theology actually relate is called into question further if
one (1) notes the use of NT citations in his Theologie, and (2) con
siders how he addresses certain issues through Christian eyes (cf. the
index to Theologie, 757-786, and the entries under e.g. Christ, Chris-
tentum, Christus, Paulus, etc.). Perhaps Procksch is at times misguided;
nevertheless he does make instructive attempts to relate the OT to the
NT. Cf. WUrthwein, TRu 36 (1971) 205, who also takes issue with Kraus,
though on different grounds.
 -169-

In fact, in light of the attention 'whole Bible' biblical theology is

receiving today, Procksch should rather be commended: most in his time

were agreed in strictly separating OT and NT theology. Procksch how

ever insisted:

DemgegenUber ist zu fordern, dass vom Alten Testament aus stets das
Neue im Auge behalten wird und umgekehrt; denn mit diesem Zusammen-
hang the separation of OT and NT theology} wdrde die Kraft der bib-
lischen Theologie zerreissen.132
133
One finds in Procksch an unabashed appreciation for Hofmann. He

recognizes that in some ways Hofmann's systematic works are deficient:

in his handling of the biblical texts

das entstehungsgeschichtliche Element zu kurz gekommen war. Die

Schrift erschien ihm als unmittelbarer Abdruck der Geschichte, die
Mannigfaltigkeit der Zwischenglieder, die zwischen der geschicht-
lichen Grundform und ihrem Niederschlag in der Gestalt des Kanons
lag, war ihm unbewusst; es fehlt ihm die Kritik an der geschicht-
lichen Ueberlieferung.134

Nevertheless, in Hofmann's basic understanding of scripture,history,

135
and personal faith, 'die GrundzUge hat er richtig gesehen.' Above

all Hofmann's merit lies in his realization that any theology, systema

tic or 'biblical,' inherently assumes some posture relative to history,

automatically constructs some procedure or rationale by which to bring

faith and history together, or perhaps force them decisively apart.

Like it or not, every theologian has a theology or philosophy of his

tory. With this insight Procksch feels that Hofmann, despite his limi

tations, points a way to deal constructively with the problem (the rela

tion of history and theology) which so exercises OT criticism; Hofmann

thereby establishes a solid and cogent starting point for subsequent

132
Procksch, Selbstdarsteliungen, vol. 2, 27.
133
Ibid. 9, 12f., 21, 31ff.; Theologie des A T , 20, 44ff.; cf. NKZ
36 (1925) 485-499; AEK 43 (1910) 1034-1038.

134Procksch, Selbstdarsteliungen, vol. 2, 32. ^35Ibid.

 -170-

0T and NT theology.

Mag das alttestamentliche Geschichtsbild, das er [HofmannJ gibt,

wegen seines Verzichts auf die Quellenforschung und die Analyze des
einzelnen prophetischen Lebenswerks veraltet erscheinen, mOgen die
Folgerungen aus dem Inhalt des christlichen Bewusstseins auf den
Gang der ge&<ykWl5'efe<u\ Ereignisse-1-36 libertrieben sein, so ist doch
klar, dass' Hier endlich eine Theologie der Geschichte geschaffen
ist auf deren Grundlage die fernere theologische Forschung sich zu
erheben hat.^'^

How do features of a hgl. approach find expression in Procksch's

OT theology? First, he insists that talk of theology is warranted

as part of OT historical study. This is a position not held by all in

Procksch's time and one which grows out of his modified Hofmannianism.

Second, at the same time, and also reminiscent of Hofmann, a historical

stress does not fall out of view, despite theological concern. A hgl.

outlook demands all the more careful a regard for history, since 'die

in Christo aufgegangene Offenbarung empfMngt der Mensch. . . stets durch

138
die Vermittelung der Geschichte.' Third, and as a result, Procksch's

views lead him, as they did to some extent Hofmann and to an even

greater extent Schlatter, to a combined history-of-religions and theolo

gical approach. Pure history-of-religions method alone cannot lead to

139
or substitute for a credible OT theology. Procksch asks Eissfeldt's

question,

ob angesichts der Bibel Geschichtstheologie und Religionsgeschichte

als zwei selbststdndige Wissenschaften nebeneinander bestehen kdn-
nen, so dass das theologische und das religionsgeschichtliche Ge
schichtsbild gleiches ,Recht haben.'*'4

He then gives Eichrodt's answer: Religionsgeschichte must in OT theo

logy, not apart from it, 'voiles Recht wiederfahren; sie igt das Form,

136,
Procksch refers here to Hofmann's Schriftbeweis.
137, 138,
Procksch, Theologie des A T , 45. Ibid. 14.
139 140,
Ibid. 15f.; cf. 45-47. Ibid. 17.
 -171-

in der der Glaubensinhalt fassbar wird.'

So much for Prockschs theoretical or methodological outlook. Prac

tically, one can take account of history-of-religions data in OT theo

logy only as one seeks to formulate 1ein eigenes Geschichtsbild des

Alten Testaments, in dem der in Christo begrtlndete Zusammenhang zwischen

142
Altem und Neuem Testament nicht verlorengeht.' He tries to accom-
143
plish this first by explicating the the OT's 'Geschichtswelt.' This is

the horizontal dimension of OT thelogy.

Auf der einen Seite gilt es, die Gottesoffenbarung von ihrem An-
fangspunkte aus in den geschichtlichen Formen der alttestamentlichen
Entwicklung zu erfassen, zu gliedern und darzustellen, so dass wir
uns die Geschichtswelt des alttestamentlichen Glaubens in ihrer ge
schichtlichen Abfolge vor Augen tritt.

No theological synthesis of the OT is possible, 'wenn man nicht das ge-

samte Geschichtsbild mit seinen Figuren und Ereignissen im LMngschnitt

145
aufrollt.'
146
Procksch's second step xs to present the OT 1Gedankenwelt.' This

builds upon and grows out of the 'Ldngschnitt' but is itself a 'Quer-
147
schnitt.' It is a historically painstaking presentation whose struc

ture 'setzt. . . die Kenntnis der Geschichtswelt voraus und muss nach
148
ihr bestimmt werden.' He wishes here to develop a theological pro
141
Ibid. 18.
142
Ibid. 47.
143
Ibid. 48-419. Earlier P.Heinisch, Theologie des Alten Testa
ments , 1940, had envisioned a similar procedure, planning as the first
part of his Theologie 'einen Ueberblick Uber die Geschichte der alt-
testamentliche Religion' (Vorwort). Space limitations precluded this
step.
144 145
Procksch, Theologie des A T , 18. Ibid. 420.
146 147
Ibid. 420-713. Ibid. 19.
148
Ibid. Cf. Schofield, 'Procksch,' OT Theologians, ed. by Laurin,
93f.: 'Procksch's twofold arrangement of his material religious and
theological causes much repetition but in effect this is a good fault,
because theological ideas are seen in different lights. Both sections
are really complementary.'
 -172-

file of the OT:

Auf der anderen Seite muss seine fthe Old Ttestament'sj Gedankenwelt
untersucht werden, ihr Mittelpunkt und Horizont, der sich im Laufe
der Geschichte erweitert und vertieft hat. Denn in diesem Horizont
liegen die Begriffe, die fUr die gesamte Theologie von grundlegender
Bedeutung geworden sind, aus denen ihre Sprache erwachsen ist.^49

Procksch's OT theology resembles Hofmann's NT history and NT theo-

150
logy, taken as a unified whole, although Procksch gives no clear in

dication of being familiar with Hofmann's NT theology as such. Both

authors try to lay a historical-critical (yet theologically open) foun

dation and then erect a theological (yet historically responsible) su

perstructure upon it. Schlatter in a sense does this as well, basing

151
Das christliche Dogma on his work on Jesus and the early church,

though this work is more dogmatic and didactic than any of Procksch's
152
critical writings. At any rate Procksch's is a bold and trenchant

synthetic presentation of the OT, one which attempts to respond to the

/
call of many who saw OT criticism's poverty and insisted on an openness

to some form of a hgl. approach. Among major OT theologians of this

153
period, Procksch perhaps comes closest to emulating Hofmann and

Schlatter in the face of an OT criticism which arguably was tending to

regard and handle its subject matter too one-sidedly, much as Baur and

Wrede had advanced comparable methods previously.

149 150
Procksch, Theologie des AT, 18. See ch. 1 above.
151
Cf. Schlatter, Dogma, 5: 'Aus Jesu Botschaft entsteht das Wort
der Christenheit und aus der Theologie des Neuen Testaments wird ihre
eigene Theologie.'
152
Thus Procksch does not produce anything comparable to Schlatter's
Dogma, but contents himself instead with allowing the hgl. dimension
he sees in the biblical text to inform his presentation of the OT faith/
history complex.
153
Among not-so-major figures one should mention Kdnig's Theologie,
which seeks both to critique reigning approaches to the OT and to rein
state a hgl. method: see e.g. Vorwort, also 259ff.
 -173-

2.29 Britain and North America

Commenting on the small number and (in the main) poor quality of

works on OT theology published in English before 1920, Dentan suggests:

'Perhaps there is something in the Anglo-Saxon temper averse to the kind

of large-scale philosophic thinking required for the construction of

154
a complete theology of the Old Testament.1 For whatever reason, the

British and North American contribution to OT theology 1918-1946 is not

^ 155
great.

J. Smart in 1943 notes that up till then the English-language effort

directed toward 'the re-writing of Old Testament theology' is negli-

156
gible. A Society for Old Testament Study symposium published in 1938

shows a striking lack of interaction with or even awareness of the prob

lems concerning OT theology which had been receiving attention in Ger-

157
many for two decades. H. W. Robinson speaks of Israel's philosophy
158
of history, but his purpose is not really directed toward furthering

OT theology; he simply wishes to trace 'lines along which Israel's in

stinct moved in regard to the nature and meaning, not of religion, but
159
of history.' In a later book he works from the postulate that history

154
Dentan, Preface, 60.
155
Cf. O.Baab, 'Old Testament Theology: Its Possibility and Metho
dology, ' The Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow, ed. by H.R.Willough
by, 1947, 404: 'It is impossible to find a single book written in Eng
lish since World War I which can be called a survey of Old Testament
theology.' :
156
Smart, 'The Death and Rebirth of Old Testament Theology,' JR
(1943) 132.
157
H.W.Robinson, ed., Record and Revelation, 1938.

15^The History of Israel, 2 1964, 169-184.

159
Ibid. 172.
 -174-

is 'a vast redemptive and therefore revealing p r o c e s s U n f o r t u

nately Robinson's insights are again not put into a format readily ap

plicable to OT theology, and his presentation seems to lie largely out

side the conceptual world of the OT theological discussions going on

in Germany in the 1920's and - 3 0 s . T h i s is not to minimize Robin

son's achievement as an OT researcher but is to recognize that he ap

parently did not greatly contribute to the synthetic task of OT theo

logy. Among the earlier treatises exhibiting a sympathy for and mastery

of the salient issues in German NT theology 1918-1946 is that of N. Por-

teous of Edinburgh (not written however until 1952)."*"^

The polarization of Protestantism in North America between the World

Wars through the Modernist-Fundamentalist controversies undoubtedly dis

couraged OT studies there from moving in a theological direction.1^ C.

McCown typifies much liberal OT criticism of the day when he suggests

that ancient Israel's view of God and history was very much due simply
164
to the weather. Also symptomatic of the state of OT theology are

C. T. Craig's comments on NT theology in 1938. He argues like Wrede

^^Robinson, Redemption and Revelation in the Actuality of History,

1942, xlviii. This 'process' however in Robinson's view seems to be
far more reminiscent of classic liberalism than of incipient hgl. theo
logy; cf. his statement that the OT 'is a history progressively creative
of the great ideas which are the foundation of the Christian faith' (Re-
ligious Ideas of the Old Testament, 1956, 1913, 24. Robinson does not
seem to have materially altered this basic orientation in later years.

11In much the same vein is C.R.North, The Old Testament Intepreta-
tion of History, 1946.
162
Porteous, 'Old Testament Theology,' OT and Modern Study, ed. by
Rowley, 311-345.
163
Cf. on this point R.Funk, 'The Watershed of the American Biblical
Tradition,' JBL 95 (1976) 21.
164
McCown, 'Climate and Religion in Palestine,' JR 7 (1927) 536.
 -175-
165
some 40 years earlier that the term 'NT theology' 'should be discarded,'

since a synthetic presentation of the NT is hardly feasible when 'a

major result of biblical research may be that there is no reason for

a wide dissemination of its findings. ' Doubtless rather more

skepticism invested much OT criticism of the day. Ironically it is also

Craig who in 1943 confesses that historicism has 'run into bank

ru p t c y ' ^ ^ though he warns against 'a retreat to dogma' thus calling

attention to a major potential shift in American OT research.

Smart trumpets this potential change most clearly. He insists that

OT criticism must comprise 'a theological, as well as historical,

169
science.' It is evident that he has drunk deeply from German fonts.

After considering R. Kittel, Steuernagel, Hempel, Eissfeldt, Eichrodt,

Sellin, and Vischer, Smart concludes:

A development has been taking place in Old Testament science which

is of the greatest moment. . . . The question is raised whether a
science which is not consciously theological can ever get at the
heart of the Old Testament.

Yet even before the changes Smart heralds can take hold in the North

American context, impatient calls arise for strict limits to be placed

171
on the encroachment of theology into OT studies. In R. Bowman's

lengthy essay 'Old Testament Research Between the Wars,' OT theology

receives one scant paragraph of notice, in which he warns of the dan-

165
C.T. Craig, 'Current Trends in New Testament Study,' JBL 57
(1938) 370f.

"*""lbid. (Craig's emphasis)

187Craig, 'Biblical Theology and the Rise of Historicism,' JBL 62

(1943) 294.

168Ibid. 169JR 23 (1943) 125. 17Ibid. 136.

171
E.g. W.A.Irwin, 'The Reviving Theology of the Old Testament,'
JR 25 (1945) 235-246.
 -176-
172
gers attending theological interest in the OT.

In the period 1918-1946 British and North American OT studies excel

in analysis and history-of-religions work. There is however scarcely

a notable awareness of the task of OT theology; in critical circles

there is virtually no contribution to a hgl. synthesis of the OT's con-

173
tents.' The American conservative G. Vos stands nearly alone in doing

OT-NT theology from some semblance of a hgl. standpoint during this

174
period.

2.3 Conclusion

From the preceding we may make two observations.

First, OT theology is grappling with questions fundamentally simi

lar to those exercising Baur-Hofmann and Wrede-Schlatter in chapter one.

At the most basic level there is a marked (and familiar) divergence of

opinion regarding just what OT theology should be: phenomenology (Kit-

tel, Gressmann, Eissfeldt at the historical level, Britain and North

America to a considerable extent), perhaps with an existentialist twist

(Weiser, cf. BaumgSrtel); or theology, in some semblance of the classic

sense (Stdrk, Steuernagel, Eissfeldt at the supra-historical level,

Eichrodt, Lindblom P?], Procksch), with Hg. consequently coming in for

renewed attention. Again, just as in chapter one there is an epistemo-

172
Study of Bible, ed. by Willoughby, 30f.
173
This remains true despite Porteous' mention of H.W. Robinson's
'emphasis on the interpretation of history as being absolutely central
to a theology of the Old Testament' ( 'OT Theology,' in OT and Modern
Study, 337). As noted above Robinson's interest in history is of a dif
ferent order from that of other (mainly German) OT theologians.
174
G.Vos, Biblical Theology, 1948. Ladd, Theology, 25, marks Vos'
'comprehensive work' but notes that it 'is more a long essay on revela
tion in the Old Testament' a burning issue in American evangelicalism
at the time 'than a biblical theology.' Vos receives higher marks from
M.Karlberg, 'Justification in Redemptive History,' WJT 43 (1981) 213-
246.
 -177-

logical question, often hidden, at stake, so above we can detect at

least a tension between those who evidently feel that post-Kantian

thought is to be regarded as the starting point and arbiter in assessing

all reality, including OT religion/theology, and those who speak of hgl.

methods as a means of freeing the OT from a perceived, modernizing

history-of-religions subjugation. Yet again, it is possible to consider

OT theology's debate above as an echo of chapter one's discussion with

regard to views of history generally. For self-evidently the champions

of Religionsgeschichte would identify with an immanent closed-nexus

evolutionary model of historical progression, while those speaking

seriously of Hg. are opening up to the possibility of real divine in

volvement (incursion) in the historical process.

This leads to a second observation. While OT theology in one sense

is far ahead of NT theology of the day in its perception of the history-

theology problem dialectical theology, which arguably dominated NT in

terpretation, could be accused of avoiding it in another sense OT theo

logy has not yet come as far as Schlatter or even Hofmann. This is

Procksch's point. J. Barr drives Procksch's contention home when,

speaking of many of the theories of OT theology which we have treated

above, he says: 'The synthetic work [of OT theology] accepts without

any reservation the priority to itself of philological, literary, and

175
historical research.' Such theologies 'do not form a radical break

with the historical-critical discipline.' OT theology does not, like

Hofmann and Schlatter, concluded that as the malady, so must be the

cure, and therefore propose decisive alterations or adjustments to its

175 '
Barr, 'The Problem of Old Testament Theology and the History of
Religion,' CJT 3 (1957) 141.
 -178-

critical presuppositions."*"77

Here then are the major findings of the above: not only that OT

theology was openly and probably profitably discussing Hg. and seeing

merit in various conceptualizations of its possibilities when Cullmann

had hardly finished his schooling, but also that the break which many

above call for with then-current OT theology (=Religionsgeschichte)

never really takesplace. The calls for change, for whatever reasons,

met limited implementation. To the extent that Baur and Wrede respec

tively foreshadow and embrace history-of-religions method, OT theology,

despite various efforts to reflect a hgl. openness, remains tied to a

Baurian- Wredian (Cartesian) model. To the extent that Hofmann

and Schlatter, adducing (to them) stubborn historical facts as well as

theological understanding, in some sense break with Cartesian criticism

as we have defined it above (ch. 1), OT theology hardly approaches their

level of insight, though Procksch perhaps comes close.

OT theology continues to wrestle with questions concerning possible

hgl. methods, as the next chapter will go on to show.

3. Hg. and hgl. emphases in NT theology 1918-1946

We turn now to consideration of Hg. in NT theology between the wars.

Esp. in Germany during this period the literature produced dealing with

biblical criticism, faith, and history is vast. We cannot attempt to

cover very much of it here. Our aim will be simply (1) to sketch the

background for this crucial period in NT theology, (2) to call attention

to the temporary but almost total demise of any hgl. perspective in NT

theology, and (3) to highlight the gradual return to favor of hgl. out

looks, at least in certain quarters. In broader terms the goal will

177
There is talk of radical change in a different direction: see
R .Gyllenberg, Die Unmbglichkeit einer Theologie des AT,' Abhand-
lungen. . . Riga 6 (1938) 64-68.
 -179-

be, first, to characterize the state of NT theology in general during

this time-span as further preparation for analyzing recent NT theolo

gies, and second, to document that Cullmann was by no means the first

to call for NT theology which would take its bearings from what he took

to be a biblical hgl. perspective.

3.1 Background

Remarks in the previous chapter concerning Wrede and Schlatter al

ready give a foundation for grasping the background of NT theology 1918-

1946. This foundation is considerably bolstered by J. Behm's trenchant

178
analysis of the state of affairs obtaining in NT theology in 1922.

He notes the recent synthetic presentations of NT theology by Holtzmann,

179
Wernle, Schlatter, Feine, and Weinel. Scholarship seems agreed that

a thoroughly historical approach to the NT is called for. But there

is no consensus as to what constitutes a proper 'geschichtliche Betrach-

tungsweise.1 Scholars 'schlagen. . . verschiedene Wege ein. Die einen

fordern "heilsgeschichtliche," die anderen "religionsgeschichtliche"

Betrachtung.' Behm recognizes that NT theology is faced not merely with

a 'gelehrte Fragen der Methodologie,' but rather with 1Grundfragen der

christlichen Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. ' 88

181
Behm acknowledges the virtues of Hofmann's insights. But over

against the hgl. 'Betrachtung' in general 'ist nun aber in der reli-
182
gionsgesch.ichtlichen ein Rivale erstanden. ' Schlatter is able to

some degree to hold the two together, 188 but in general a disparity of

outlooks has arisen. This is all the more problematic since the

178
Behm, Heilsgeschichtliche und religionsgeschichtliche Betrachtung
des Neuen Testaments, 1922.

'^^Ibid. 4. ^88Ibid. 5 (cf. Eichrodt's remark, 160 above).

181Ibid. 5 f ., 8 f ., 23. 182Ibid. 6. 183Ibid. 9.

 -180-

history-ofreligions approach with its 'naturwissenschaftlicher Evolu-

tionsgedanke' has become 'ein Dogma von nicht minder bestimmendem Ein-
184
fluss als bei der heilsgeschichtlichen Betrachtung.' It is worth

noting that even at this early stage of his career Bultmann draws fire
185
on this very score. Like other NT critics he has adopted such a one

sided methodology, 'dass von einer geschichtlichen Arbeitsweise, die

sich ihrer Grenzen bewusst bleibt, nicht mehr die Rede sein kann.''*'^

In weighing the strengths and weaknesses of the two orientations,

Behm argues that in a sense 'keine hat Recht' while nevertheless 'beide

haben Recht.' To combine the two is 'die grosse Aufgabe, vor der

die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft der Gegenwart ste h t . ' ^ ^ While 'der

direkte Weg zurlick zu Hofmanns Weise ist. . . ein ftlr alle Mai abge-
189
schnitten,' yet it is imperative that in considering the NT, 'eine

Betrachtung von oben her grob gesagt tritt neben die Betrachtung von
190
unten her.' For the older hgl. model, despite its limitations, can

be employed in full harmony 'mit der neueren Erkenntnis von der Ergdn-

zungsbedllrftigkeit der exakten Historie durch eine intuitiv nachschaf-

191
fende Geschichtsbetrachtung.' Behm names KOberle, Sellin, Reinhold

and Alfred Seeberg, Feine, Jordan, Girgensohn, Hunziger, and Emil Weber

as scholars who recognize the poverty of the prevailing method and the
192 193
need for change. In NT theology 'das Ziel bleibt Synthese,' and at
184 , . 185
Ibid. 15 (cf. Kdberle's remarks above). Ibid.
186t, . 187 . 188t, . ,
Ibid. 16. Ibid. Ibid. 17.
189 190
Ibid. 23. Ibid. 22.
191
Ibid. 23. It would appear that Behm has in mind here the his
torical approach pioneered by Dilthey; cf. e.g. E.Gritsch, 'William Dil-
they and the Interpretation of History,' LQ 15 (1963) 58-69. Behm's
statement is misquoted and misconstrued in Ktimmel, 'Hg. im NT?' in Heils-
geschehen, 158n.6, so that Behm's whole study is unfortunately excluded
from KUmmel's consideration.
192 193
Behm, o.c. 24. Ibid. 25.
 -181-

the heart of this aim is a hgl. emphasis: 'Diese heilsgeschichtliche

Betrachtungsweise weiterzuftihren und zu vertiefen, erscheint mir als

eine besonders wichtige und lohnende Aufgabe der Theologie der Gegen-

, 194
wart.'

Behm thus sketches for NT theology a programme not unlike that we

have seen sketched by various OT theologians in the previous section.

Yet a 'hgl. Betrachtungsweise' fades from view in NT theology, not

totally but to a large degree, in the years following Behm's essay.

Behm himself unconsciously alludes to a primary reason for this fact

when he mentions the new and 'interessante Forderung einer "pneuma-

195
tischer Exegese".' This allusion leads us to consider directly the

breakdown of hgl. consideration of the NT indeed the breakdown of NT

196
theology generally in the post-WW I era.

3.2 The dissolution of Hg./hgl. outlooks in NT theology

Subsequent to Behm's summons to a hgl. sensitivity in NT theology,

Hg. as a central integrating principle for a unified of the NT drops

197
widely into disfavor (of course for many it had never been a viable

option to begin with). Some of the major reasons for this are to be

found in the theological upheavals transpiring in Germany beginning

194
Ibid. 24.
195
Ibid. 28n.34.
196
Merk, Anfangszeit, 252, notes the 1verwunderliche' fact, 'dass
das theologische Verstehen seit dem Beginn der dialektischen Theologie
nicht zur Bearbeitung einer Neutestamentlichen Theologie flihrte, ' at
least not until Bultmann's NT theology appeared. Merk evidently con
siders the NT theologies of F.BUchsel (1935) and E.Stauffer (1941) to
be unworthy of serious consideration. He has also ignored (except for
a passing reference,251n.137) T.Zahn's Grundriss der Neutestamentlichen
Theologie, 1928; cf. n.215 below.
197
KUmmel, 'Hg. im NT? in Heilsgeschehen, 158ff. gives several iso
lated references to Hg. which are to be found in NT exegesis between
the wars.
 -182-
198
in the 1920's. It is not possible here to trace the collapse of

classic liberalism and then the dramatic rise of dialectical and then

existenialist theology, to say nothing of further offshoots from these.

It is a well-known fact that a major whipping boy of post-WW I thinking

in Germany was not only liberalism but also its attendant ideological
199
basis in philosophical idealism. In 1931 Weth cites Barth and Brun

ner as sources of a 'radikale Kritik' which marshalls itself 'gegen

die altUberkommene Form des heilsgeschichtlichen Gedankens. ' Althaus

remarks ironically that perhaps the anti-idealism which then pervaded

theological thinking was in itself 'gerade noch kein Beweis' for the
201
veracity of ideas based upon it; he protests that too many current

theological outlooks find it fashionable and feasible, given the pre

vailing intellectual climate, uncritically to ignore 'die Wahrheit in

202
dem idealistischen Verstdndnis der Geschichte.' Along with idealism

198
Cf. e.g. J.Moltmann, 'Exegese und Eschatologie der Geschichte,'
EvT 22 (1962) 38ff.
199
And with good reason: E.Kdsemann reminisces that 'protestan-
tisches BUrgertum wurzelte in einem romantischen Idealismus, der seiner-
seits in Deutschland sich mit einem reaktiondren Nationalismus verband.
Dartlber istkirchlich viel zu selten reflektiert worden' ('Was ich als
deutscher Theologie in ftlnfzig Jahren verlernte, 'K irchliche Konflikte,
vol. 1, 1982, 234). Yet this also makes clear that an intellectual pos
ture hostile to Hg. gains support, not because of the hgl. outlook it
self, but because of dangerous imbalances in certain aspects of the Ger
man national outlook. This fact is also touched on in Busch, Barth;
cf. H. von Balthasar, The Theology of Karl Barth, 1971, 174.

^ ^ Die Heilsgeschichte, 2 f . ; cf. 232: 'Heute wendet sich scharfe

Kritik gegen jede geschichtliche Bethtigung Uberhaupt.'
201
Althaus, 'Die Gestalt dieser Welt und die SUnde: Ein Beitrag zur
Theologie der Geschichte,' ZST 9 (1932) 325.
202
Ibid. 335. Althaus is aware on the other hand that pure philo
sophical idealism 'unversdhnlich widerspricht. . . der Geschichts
betrachtung des Glaubens' (ibid. 324).
 -183-

in general, Hg. in particular drops from all but polemical considera

tion .

Brunner's complex view of revelation as 'anti-rationalistic,

203
non-supernatural, a-historical, non-docetic, and anti-mystical' pre

cludes any close affinity to a hgl. outlook in his theology; the

most one could say is that revelation, though 'essentially non-historical,'

somehow remains 'definitely related to history in the event of Jesus

204
Christ.' Bultmann's rejection of any traditional hgl. approach be-
205
comes clear in his review of Christus und die Zeit; it was latent

in his work already in the 1920's. Barth's concern with history and

theology is evident from early in his career;2^ his Romans commentary

207
condemns a traditional hgl. perspective by redefining Hg. to signify

that experiential realm in which God's revelatory word effects human

203
R.Eslinger, Historicity and H i s t o n c a l i t y , 1970, 50.
204
Ibid. 49; cf. J .Macquarrie, Twentieth Century Religious Thought,
rev. ed., 1971, 326.
205
'Heilsgeschichte und Geschichte,' PTNT, 294-308. Bultmann's own
view of history has been under scrutiny at least since H.Ott, Geschichte
und Heilsgeschichte in der Theologie Rudolf Bultmanns, 1955. It is com
monly accepted that Bultmann's radically distinctive ontology is the
key to his systematic rejection of any view of time and history preda
ting Heidegger; cf. e.g. Ott, e sp. 194-203;cf. D.Cairns, 'A Reappraisal
of Bultmann's Theology,' RelS 17 (1981) 469-485. But the question could
as well be one of epistemology: see secs, on Bultmann in chs. 3-5 below.
In any case K&semann indicates the ambiguity in Bultmann's outlook when
he observes: 'In gewisser Weise war seine Entmythologisierung. . . eine
Enthistorisierung und als solche Zeugnis seines idealistischen Erbes'
('Was ich verlernte,' Kirkliche Konf1ikte, vol. 1, 239). ,

2(*Cf. Barth, 'Der christliche Glaube und die Geschichte,' STZ

(1912) 1-18, 49-72, written at a time when 'it was still permissible
to be' an idealist (Busch, Barth, 26).
207
After the first ed., that is; in the first ed. Barth still
'viewed revelation as occurring within the bounds of history as a separ
ate Heilsgeschichte' (Eslinger, Historicity, 40). It is likely too that
Barth's views in later life would be less hostile to the older concept
of Hg.; cf. Kraus, Biblische Theologie, 282-296; see also n.211 below.
 -184-
208
redemption. Israel's history is thus Hg. in the sense that it is

'bloss die geschichtliche Begrenzung eines ungeschichtlichen Vorgangs,

hdrbares menschliches Antworten auf die unhdrbare Stimme

209
des gdttlichen Rufers.' History is necessarily '"schwach" im absolu-

ten Sinn'; it is fatally flawed 'kraft des unendlichen qualitativen Un-

210
terschieds von Gott und Mensch. ' History is 'als menschliche, ganz

und gar menschliche Geschichte Fleisch. Sie ist Fleisch, auch wenn sie

sich selbst drapiert als "Heilsgeschichte".'^''''1

To the extent that Barth, Bultmann, and Brunner typify and even de

cisively influence critical thinking in Germany between the wars and

their great effect on NT studies is beyond question the eclipse or even

212
demise of any hgl. perspective in NT theology is understandable. Yet

dialectical theology and its ideological offspring were not to have the

last word.

3.3 The re-entry of Hg. in NT theology

Had Cullmann's Christus und die Zeit suddenly appeared, without

warning and without exegetical precedent, in the milieu just described,

then Bultmann's charge that Cullmann had burst onto the scene with 'eine
213
christliche Geschichtsphilosophie' would be highly plausible. A

208
Cf. Barth, Der ROmerbrief, 2 1922, 32: 'Es gibt keine besondere
Gottesgeschichte als Partikel, als Quantitdt in der allgemeinen Ge
schichte. Alle Religions- und Kirchengeschichte spielt sich ganz und
gar in der Welt ab. Sie sog. "Heilsgeschichte" aber ist nur die fort-
laufende Krisis aller Geschichte, nicht einer Geschichte in oder neben
der Geschichte. Es gibt keine Heiligen unter Unheiligen.'
209 210
Ibid. 110. Ibid. 259.
211
Ibid. Barth's views at this point may have mellowed in later
years; cf. K.Bockmiihl, 'Die Wende im Sp&twerk Karl Barths,' TB 14 (1983)
180-188.
212
For a Barthian statement on the task of NT theology see E.Thur-
neysen, 'Schrift und Offenbarung,' PTNT, 215-248. Insight into Bult
mann's programme is available in 'Das Problem einer theologischen Exege
sis des Neuen Testaments,' PTNT, 249-277.
213
Bultmann, 'Heilsgeschichte und Geschichte,' PTNT, 301.
 -185-

glance at NT research prior to Christus und die Zeit however and we

have already noted the intensive discussion surrounding Hg. in OT theo

logy calls Bultmann's accusation into question.

One might first note the steady if unsensational historical re-

214
search on questions relating to the relationship of NT background,
215
NT theology, eschatology, history, and theology. These studies draw

attention to a consistent and growing critical awareness that, in the

midst of theological currents which said 'yes' to radical historical

criticism but (problematically) 'no' to the relevance of history itself,

new direction toward a schriftgemdss view of the NT and history in NT

theology must come first from the sources themselves. (This awareness

may be taken to reflect or parallel the similar concern we have already

delineated among OT researchers.) A variety of such studies from both

German and British quarters deserve special mention in this regard.

3.31 Non-NT studies: Schrenk, Weth, and Sauer

First, the works of three non-NT specialists deserve mention in that

they comprise something of a historical bridge between the Hofmann-

214
A survey of literature is given by G.Bertram, 'Neutestamentliche
Religionsgeschichte und Theologie,' DEE 46 (1935) 355-362.
215
To give only the merest sampling: E. von Dobschutz, 'Zeit und
Raum im Denken des Urchristentums,' JBL 41 (1922) 212-223; G.HOlscher,
Die UrsprUnge der jUdischen Eschatologie, 1925; T.Hoppe, Die Idee der
Heilsgeschichte bei Paulus, 1926; R.Paulus, 'Zum Problem "Glaube und
Geschichte",' ZTK 7 (1926) 378-399; G.Schrenk, 'Die Geschichtsanschauung
des Paulus auf dem Hintergrund seines Zeitalters,' Jahrbuch der Theol.
Schule Bethel 3 (1932) 59-86; P.Volz, Die Eschatologie der jtldischen
Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, 1934; G.Stdhlin, 'Das Problem
der johannischen Eschatolgie,' ZNW 33 (1934) 225-259; K .Bornh&user,
Zeiten und Stunden im Neuen Testament, 1937; W.G.Kilmmel, Kirchenbegriff
und Geschichtsbewusstsein in der Urgemeinde und bei Jesus, 1943. Zahn's
NT theology (1928; see n.196 above) proceeds from the assumption: 'Dar-
um ist auch nur eine solche Darstellung der biblischen Theologie sach-
gemOss und wissenschaftlich, welche die in der Bibel vorliegende reli
giose Lehre und Erkenntnis in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung be-
schreibt und ihren Stoff nach dem Stufengang der Heilsgeschichte ord-
net' (1). Cf. the bibliog. collected in P.Feine, Theologie des Neuen
Testaments, 1953, 269.
 -186-

Schlatter heritage, seen in a theological light, and the resurgence of

interest in Hg. which begins to characterize NT theology from the 1930's

onward. They function in NT research somewhat as Procksch did in O T .

Already in 1923 G. Schrenk produces a monograph which in explicating

the history of a conceptual complex also defends it. He lays bare the

characteristics and esp. virtues of an eschatologically-oriented concep

tion of history as it comes to expression in e.g. Cocceius, Bengel, Col-

lenbusch, Hasenkamp, Mencken, and selected Erlangen theologians, in

cluding Hofmann. He does not advocate a repristination of old hgl.

systems, but wants to give encouragement 'mit den Mitteln unserer Zeit

und unserer neuen geschichtlichen Erkenntnisse auch wieder mehr zu stre-

ben nach der Zusammenschau, urn etwas Ganzes vom Evangelien und vom Reich
217
zu gewinnen.' Significantly, the BFCT monograph series in which this

study appears is coedited by Schlatter.

Weth's investigation, to the present day still not superseded,

covers what he terms the 'offenbarungsgeschichtlich [^e3 Theologie des

19. Jahrhunderts. ' He sketches what he sees as various hgl. outlooks

since the Reformation, then focuses on Beck, Hofmann, and Auberlen.

He is by no means uncritical of the (hgl.) perspective which, he

stresses, contemporary thought in Germany marshalls against. At the

same time, his study is studded with jabs at dialectical theology. Weth

maintains:

Will man aber die Geschichtsgegenwart Gottes, die allerdings zuerst

und zunMchst Gegenwart seines Verheissungswortes ist, auch in ihrer
Tathaftigkeit und in ihrem persttnlichen Handlungscharakter wirklich
anerkennen und zum Ausdruck bringen, so lMsst sich doch weder der

^^G.Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund im dlteren Protestantismus vor-

nehmlich bei Johannes Coccejus, 1923.
217
Ibid. ix.
218
Weth, Die Heilsgeschichte,subtitle
 -187-

Begriff der Heilsgeschichte noch der der Vollendungs- Oder Endge-

schichte der Offenbarung ausschliessen.

Weth's work had little apparent effect on NT studies, but it is a monu

ment to the preservation of insights which, as we have seen, OT theology

was also struggling to articulate but which NT theology as a whole was

generally rejecting.

Recent publications in Germany call renewed attention to the work

220
of E. Sauer. His writings are to be sure pitched at a somewhat popu

lar level. He is said to have embraced a 'bewusste Ablehnung aller

221
Bibelkritik, auch in ihren allerersten AnfMngen.' This seems indeed

to be the case, even though Sauer defends the constructive role and
222
legitimate demands of reason for faith. Significantly however he
223
speaks of 'Verstand,' not 'Vernunft.'

In 1931 Sauer maintains that 'die Weltgeschichte ist eben das Bau-
224
gerilst der Heilsgeschichte.1 His tone here is distinctly 'geschichts-
225
philosophisch,' and this marks him off from Hofmann-Schlatter. In

1937 Sauer argues that the Bible does not, 'philosophisch, das System

einer Welt- oder Ewigkeitsanschauung geben.'22^ It rather 'will, als

die Urkunde des Heils, dem Menschen, prophetisch-geschichtlich, den Weg

227
zur Erldsung zeigen.' Also in 1937 he produces a study which tries
219
Ibid. 240.
220
Dedicated to Sauer is H.Stadelmann, ed., Epochen der Heilsge
schichte , 1984. Cf. E.Schrupp, 'Die Heilsgeschichte wieder entdecken,'
idea-spektrum 7/7 (1984) 16f.
221
Schrupp, o .c . 16.
222
Sauer, Zweck und Ziel der Menschenschdpfung, 1931, lOf. Cf. idem,
Das Morganrot der WelterlOsung, 1937, 37, for a statement of reason's
limitations.
223 224
Sauer, Zweck, 10. Ibid. 16; cf. Morgenrot, 106.
225
Cf. also Vom Adel des Menschen, 1940.
226 227
Morgenrot, 34. Ibid.
 -188-

to set forth 'keine "Neutestamentliche Theologie", sondern einfache Be-

schreibung der neutestamentlichen Heilsentfaltung.1

Sauer's work may well have contributed to a preservation of an evan

gelical understanding of the NT in Germany during difficult years and

on that basis may merit commemoration by evangelicals there today.

Still, it is burdened by a tragic myopia over against the political

229
realities of the time and due to its intended popular audience and

its sweeping themes hardly qualifies as serious NT exegesis. Neverthe

less, Sauer is a third figure who from a contemporary standpoint can

be recognized as utilizing, albeit not always satisfactorily, basic in

sights of a hgl. outlook at a time when NT theology had largely turned

r .i 230
away from them.

3.32 0. Piper (1934ff.)

The writings of 0. Piper lie on the border of NT theology with sys-

231
tematic or perhaps historical theology. Yet they merit brief mention

here because of Piper's 'clear and unambiguously Biblical view' of the

232
problems attending NT criticism's views of history between the wars.

Der Triumph des Gekreuzigten, which bears the subtitle: 'Ein Gang
durch die neutestamentliche Offenbarungsgeschichte.'
229
Cf. Morgenrot, 135n.8, where Sauer speaks of Jewish persecutions
through the centuries but then insists this is in 1937 : 'Wenn eine
gewisse ausl&nd Presse aber immer wieder in unseren Tagen von Ju-
denpogramen im heutigen Deutschland sprach, so gehttrt die mit zu den
Greulmdrcher einer moralisch tiefstehenden LUgenpropaganda, deren Beweg-
grllnde nur allzu durchsichtig sind. '
230
One could also mention here P.Dessauer, Der Anfang und das Ende:
Eine theologische und religibse Betrachtung zur Heilsgeschichte, 1939,
or 'on the Anglo-Saxon side W .J.Phythian-Adams, 'The Foundations of Bib
lical Theology,1 CQR 269 (Oct.-Dec. 1942) 1-24, who stresses 'Sacred
History' (21). Elements of a hgl. position are present in 1935 in R.
Herrmann, 'Zur Frage: "Schrift und Offenbarung",' Bibel und Hermeneutik,
31-37. This is also true of G.Bertram, 'Die Aufgabe einer Biblischer
Theologie beider Testamente,' KA 12 (1936) 416-427.
231
Piper, Recent Developments in German Protestantism, 1934; God
in History, 1939; cf. in later years 'Biblical Theology and Systematic
Theology,' JBR 25 (1957) 106-111; 'Christology and History,' TToday 19
(1962) 324-340.
232
God in History, viii.
 -189-

In 1934 he notes the return of Erlangen-type (cf. Hofmann) views of his-

233
tory into OT theology in the thinking of men like StMrk. This is part

of what he calls a 'New Eealism' which emphasizes the biblical faith's

234
historical nature contra the outlook of dialectical theology, for
235
which history often appeared to be relatively secondary. Piper seeks

to reformulate for his time the basic approach of Bengel, Hofmann, and

Auberlen.2^6 He does not produce a NT theology but rather (in God and

History) a hgl. analysis of both biblical and world history. One might

say that what Cullmann in Christus und die Zeit tries to set forth in

the way of an exegetical basis for a hgl. NT theology, Piper in his ear

ly works sets forth in the way of an overview which justifies, indeed

demands, that modern exegesis and theology take notice of and utilize

the Bible's own hgl. stress.

237
3.33 C. H. Dodd (1935ff. )

F. F. Bruce notes Dodd's 'solid contribution' in NT studies resul

ting from his 'realised eschatology,' which stresses Jesus' ministry,

'not apart from but crowned by the saving event of his accomplished pas-
238
sion and triumph, as the climax of salvation-history.' He goes on
239
to speak of Dodd's similarity to Cullmann on this point. It is indeed
233 ~
Developments, 67; cf. sec. 2.33 above.
234
Developments, 143ff., c f . God in History, 164.
235
Developments, 61-64; cf. D.M.Baillie's later analysis of this
phenomenon in God was in Christ, 2 1955, 9-58; also V.Harvey, The His-
torian and the Believer, 1967, e.g. 131.
236 .
God m History, xxx.
237
An approach to history with implicit hgl. elements is articu
lated by Dodd as early as 1935; see 'Eschatology and History,' dating
from that year, in The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, 2 1944,
L1936, 79-96.
238
Bruce, 'The History of New Testament Study,' New Testament Inter
pretation , ed. by I.H.Marshall, 1977, 48.
 -190-

possible to see Dodd as something of a forerunner of Cullmann, although

one would not want to push the comparison very far.

One may likewise note Dodd's similarity to aspects of the Hofmann-

Schlatter heritage. Dodd makes it clear that the facticity of the NT

240
is crucial to its spiritual import, a stance which Baur and Wrede

in their philosophical idealism could hardly endorse. Again, Dodd as

serts that Christianity

takes the series of events recorded or reflected in the Bible, from

the call of Abraham to the emergence of the Church, and declares
that in this series the ultimate reality of all history, which is
the purpose of God, is finally revealed, because the series is it
self controlled by the supreme event of all the life, death, and
resurrection of Jesus Christ. This valuation of the series is not
imposed upon it from without, but is an integral part of the history
itself.241

This statement implies that, were Dodd asked what NT theology is, he

would reply in something of a Schlatterian fashion; certainly for both

cognitively apprehensible historical facts are of a piece with God's

242
definitive self-manifestation.

Problematic nonetheless is Dodd's platonic, dualistic conception

243
of history/eternity. The early Church believed itself to have 'tran-
244
scended' the temporal order. The (a-temporal) eschaton is, since

the advent of Christ, impinging on the temporal, but the two are quali-
245
tatively distinct. In the end one is left wondering whether it is

really God somehow in and through history, or merely bold human faith,

which bridges the history-eternity chasm.

240
Dodd, History and the Gospels, 1938, 38.
241 242
Ibid. 30. Ibid. 37.
243
Cf. e.g. T.Roberts, History and Christian Apologetic, 1960, 6,
Ilf., 16ff. , cf. 86ff., 162f.; Harvey, Historian and Believer, 101n.l48.
244
Dodd, History and the Gospels, 151.
245
Cf. Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 79-96.
 -191-

Perhaps one can liken Dodd's approach to Hg. to that of H.W.Robinson

above?4 Dodd certainly reacts (even more so than Robinson) against

old-line liberal historicism, and he sees flaws in the dialectical-

theological historical outlooks common in NT research in Germany in the

247
1930's. He does foreshadow Cullmann in stressing history's salvific

concrete aspects as the NT portrays them. If his hgl. approach falls

short of becoming the hermeneutic characteristic of Hofmann-Schlatter,

Dodd's stress on at least some form of Hg. probably prepares the Anglo-

Saxon ground (cf. 3.38 on Hunter below) for Cullmann's Christus und die

Zeit several years later. For Dodd clearly maintains that 'the whole
248
of history is in the last resort sacred history, or Heilsgeschichte.'

3.34 H.-D. Wendland (1938)

Wendland presents an exegetical analysis of the NT in the hope that

'die neutestamentlich-theologischen Grundlagen' will protect current

reflections on history 'vor Spekulation und Schw&rmerei auf der einen

249
und vor falscher Apokalyptik auf der anderen Seite.' In the NT he

finds distinctive views of the present, past, and future respec-

250
tively. These views are rooted above all in the 0T 'prophetische
251
Erkenntnis Gottes als des Herrn der Geschichte,' but also in the con

viction that, in accordance with the 0T, the NT too bases itself on an
252
outlooks which regards history (1) as the dimension in which God and
246 247
Sec. 2.29. Dodd, History and the Gospels, llff.
248
Ibid. 168.
249
Wendland, Geschichtsanschauung und Geschichtsbewusstsein im Neuen
Testament, 1938, 3.

25Ibid. 11. 251Ibid. 23.

252
Wendland (ibid. 14) seeks here to dissociate the NT view from
the dualism (to be found e.g. in the early Barth as well as in some
extra-biblical ancient world-views) which sought radically to distin
guish between God and mundane history.
 -192-
253
God's people enjoy fellowship, and (2) as 'Bewegung auf ein Ziel hin. '
254
Wendland stresses the 'einmalige Sendung Jesu Christi' and believes

that in the NT view Jesus' presence lends to history a quality which

255
distinguishes it fundamentally from prior, e.g. OT history, even if

there are links between the two. The NT presents not a philosophy of
256
history, to be sure, but a 'Botschaft von geschichtlichen Gottestaten.'

It thus remains in all events 'mit ungeheuer Klihnheit und Einseitigkeit

257
auf die Heilsgeschichte konzentriert.'

Viewing the NT as a whole Wendland infers from his exegetical re

sults :

Es gibt fUr das Neue Testament keine von der Heilsgeschichte abltts-
bare und von Jesus dem Christus zu trennende Weltgeschichte. Die
Weltgeschichte empfdngt Einheit und Sinn von der Heilsgeschichte
her, doch so, dass sie an der Heilsgeschichte und deren Vollendung
auch ihre Grenze und ihr Ende findet.2

It may be noted that here we find exegetical deliberations prefiguring

those of Christus und die Zeit as well as pointed statements which im

plicitly call the assumptions of e.g. Bultmann and even Barth into

serious question from the standpoint of NT exegesis. Wendland's work

serves notice that also in German NT studies there is renewed interest

in the NT's own approach to history. What he finds there leads him to

stress the historically concrete and teleological aspects of the tem

poral order as they affect, or should affect, NT interpretation and

NT theology.

253 254
Ibid. Ibid. 23.
255
At this point oddly Wendland falls in line with Barth's view,
as Cullmann, Christ and Time, 92n.6, notes, adding: 'In other respects,
however. . . , [Wendland's book] contains perceptions which are of great
value.'
256 257
Wendland, o.c. 82. Ibid. 83.
 -193-

3.35 E. Stauffer (1938)

259
Another precursor of Cullmann is E. Stauffer. Cullmann concurs

with him in holding that a NT theology ought to take 'as its principle

of division the redemptive history,' although he 'would have to oppose

many details' of Stauffer's work.^^ Today Stauffer's Theology is

generally agreed to be marred by 'methodisch schwer M&ngeln. ' Mar

shall on the other hand, while conceding the work's deficiencies, sees

it as 'a work of great power and suggestiveness' which 'brings out the

broad sweep of New Testament teaching and its unity in. . . a compel

ling, compact, and vigorous manner.

For our purposes Stauffer's view and use of Hg. is of primary impor

tance. An extensive review of his Theology is not possible here, but

the following citation encapsulates the core of Stauffer's thrust:

The theology of the primitive Church was a process of ordering.

What went on was not the making of metaphysical concepts, nor yet
the construction of a system,but an ordering of thought, that sought
to discover the actual relationships between the different elements
of the world of human experience. The answer that was found as a
result of the search was like this: God ordered all reality in his
tory. . . . In this sense the theology of history is the primary
and canonical form of Christian thinking. . . .But what is the
actual place of the Christ-event in the theology of history? It
259
Stauffer, New Testament Theology, 1955. The ms. of this work
was completed in 1938; its first German publication was in 1941.
260
Christ and Time, 26 with n.9. Cullmann's carefully qualified
endorsement of Stauffer's hgl. 'principle of division' is thushardly
sufficient ground for tarring the former with the brush Stauffer alone
deserves. For this reason the criticisms levelled against Cullmann by
Bultmann and Merk, who exaggeratedly bracket the two, are considerably
weakened; cf. Bultmann, 'Hg. und Geschichte,' PTNT, 301; Merk, Anfangs-
zeit, 253. Cf. also ch. 4 below.
261
Merk, Anfangszeit, 252 with n.141; cf. Bultmann, Theologie, 596;
H .Conzelmann, An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament, 1969,
7.
262
Marshall, 'New Testament Theology,' TEd 9 (3 979) 54; cf. Morgan,
NNTT, 58. Also helpful, and not only on S t a u f f e r but also on the state
of NT theology generally at the time, is 0.Michel's review article 'Pro-
bleme der neutestamentlichen Theologie,' DT (1942) 20-30.
 -194-

is the center of history! The whole of history is ordered christo-

centrically. . . . How didthe writers of the NT reach this conclu
sion? Only by taking the fundamental fact of the NT revelation of
God, the Christ-event, and applying it with a ruthless realism, in
spite of all presuppositions of a metaphysical or pseudo-theological
k ind.263

We see here first some semblance of the hgl. emphasis which Cullmann

also finds in the NT and for that reason champions. Modern evaluation

of the NT should concern itself above all with 'the theology of the pri

mitive Church' this is of course the great task of both NT exegesis

and NT theology. But central to the early church's religious outlook

are its convictions about the origin, meaning, and destiny of world

events, esp. those of which its members' lives are part. History thus

comprises a non-negotiable sub-structure of early Christian thought.

At this point at least Stauffer and Cullmann are in agreement. The fact

that Christ has definitively revealed God, that in his work ultimate

redemption is to be found, makes his appearing and ministry the central

fact of history, in relation to which other events take their place and

derive a certain meaning (or perhaps meaninglessness). This view of

history does not constitute a historiographical a priori but rises out

of the 'fundamental fact' of what the NT witnesses observed and ex

perienced. This view of history was in fact and still is a tool to

debunk pseudo- or quasi-Christian historical outlooks, as it is applied

'with a ruthless realism' to overcome 'all presuppositions of a meta

physical or pseudo-theological kind.' Stauffer's views do bear a degree

of similarity, if a slight one, to those put forth by Cullmann a few

years later.

We note secondly the similarity of Stauffer's argument here with

certain aspects of Schlatter's approach. Both want to base a synthetic

263Theology, 173f.
 -195-
264
reconstruction of the NT first of all on the NT's own self-conception,

so far as it is possible accurately to determine. Both see the synthe

tic task of NT study as involving, in Stauffer's words, 'actual rela

tionships between the different elements of the world of human exper

ience.' Both see Christ as history's focal point. Both are optimistic

in assuming that we today are or can be in a favorable position accur

ately to recreate and reconstruct in our theologizing the 'fundamental

fact of the NT revelation of God, the Christ-event.'

The conclusion here is three-fold. First, Cullmann's Christus und

die Zeit is a work of a different nature from Stauffer's Theology and

265
would have to be seen in a different light at many points. Yet as

indicated there is a certain fundamental likeness between the two ap-

proachs. It is therefore fair to say that in a qualified sense Cull

mann was anticipated by Stauffer, though it is not true that Cullmann

borrows from or relies on him.

Second, in important ways there is continuity between Stauffer and

Schlatter. One may therefore even see in Stauffer, not merely a fore

shadowing of Cullmann, but also a continuing of the hgl. line of thought

which Schlatter in the heritage of Hofmann carried on.

Third, Stauffer's Theology is clearly concerned, not merely with

pure historical questions, but also with matters of dogmatic interest.

It is therefore possible to place his work on the continuum of NT theo

logies stretching from Schlatter and Hofmann to Goppelt (see ch. 5)

which have to some degree combined the historical and theological tasks
264
Nevertheless Schlatter is superior to Stauffer on this score,
for he unlike Stauffer strives intensely to let each individual NT wri
ter be heard on his own terms. For Stauffer's serious weakness here
see Goppelt, Theologie, 43; Marshall, TEd 9 (1979) 54. But see n.266
b elow.
265
Thus Goppelt, Theologie, 43, is justified in placing Stauffer,
not in the hgl., but in the 'historical-positive' category in his sur
vey of the history of NT theology.
 -196-

and employed some variation of a hgl. approach as a methodological com

ponent in the attempt. In this sense Stauffer is significant, not only

as a precursor to Cullmann, but as another (albeit like Sauer not very

satisfactory)example of a proponent of hgl. NT theology. This remains

true despite the fact that his Theology, due to its de-emphasis of the

NT's internal variety2^ and its failure to develop the NT world along

longitudinal lines, may be fairly adjudged to comprise a methodologi

cal dead end .2 7

Out of this very failure arises perhaps the most fateful consequence

of Stauffer's work from the point of view of our study: its occasional

'historische und methodische Unhaltbarkeit' has 'zweifellos dazu beige-

tragen, die Angemessenheit des heilsgeschichtlichen Gesichtspunktes fUr

das Verst&ndnis des Neuen Testaments fragwtirdig erscheinen zu lassen.'2

3.36 L. Goppelt (1939)

Goppelt sets out to demonstrate 'die Hauptform der ntl Schriftdeu-

tung und damit zugleich das heilsgeschichtliche Selbstverst&ndnis' of

269
the NT. In ch. 5 below we point out problems in Goppelt's approach
270
which may render some of his arguments and findings invalid. For now

we may merely note that his study claims to open up 'eine weite und

266
In fairness to Stauffer it should be said that at various junc
tures he does at least indicate the disharmony among the NT witnesses.
See e.g. Theology, 6 8 (the demonic), 119 (theology of history), 138 (the
ascension), 168 (faith), 188f. (the synagogue). It would not be justi
fied to accuse him of :wholesale harmonization, at least not at these
points.

2 6 7 Cf. Harrington, The Path of Biblical Theology, 1973, 188; Kraus,

Biblische Theologie, 184 with n.69.
268
Ktlmmel, 'Hg. im NT ? 1 in Heilsgeschehen, 160.
269
Goppelt, Typos, 1939 (=1969), Vorwort.
270
On this point see esp. R.M.Davidson, Typology in Scripture, 1981.
 -197-
271
tiefe heilsgeschichtliche Schau' which develops in the NT as it re

gards the OT. NT study of the day in its fixation 'mit vor allem

parallellaufenden Erscheinungen der Religionsgeschichte' has overlooked

272
the 'heilsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang, in dem das NT sein Wesen hat.'

This statement echoes sentiments not only of Schlatter but also of some

in OT theology at the same time.

Goppelt claims to be seizing on andfurthering Hofmann's basic in

sight regarding the importance of Hg. This can be true only to a point,

for as we suggest in ch. 5, Goppelt works with a certain history-faith

dualism which one can hardly read back into Hofmann. Crudely summar

ized, Goppelt wants to show that NT typology 'fragt nicht: Welchen Sinn

hat jene atl Geschichte oder Einrichtung? sondern sie vergleicht Jesus

und das in ihm erschjenene Heil mit den atl Parallelen und stellt fest,

was sich daraus fllr das Neue und von hier aus unter Umst&nden ftlr das
273
Alte ergibt. ' The OT does not in fact 'predict' or materially pre-
274
figure the NT; NT typology, for which 'Ausgangspunkt und Ziel.
275
ist die Heilsgegenwart, ' rather finds the OT a useful vehicle for

explicating and legitimizing its own self-understanding. In a state

ment fraught with post-Kantian, dialectical-theological, and existen

tialist assumptions, Goppelt explains: 'Die Typologie entnimmt die ntl

Heilsgeschichte der bloss kontingenten FaktizitMt und stellt sie unter

den ewigen Heilsratschluss Gottes, der aber nicht zur Gelassenheit, son-
276
dern zur Gehorsamstat ruft. '

Goppelt's work attempts to reinstate Hg., of a sort anyway, into

NT theological vocabulary. It is significant that first in the 1960's

271 272 273

Goppelt, Typos (1969 ed.), 239. Ibid. 248. Ibid.243.

274Ibid. 241. 275Ibid. 243. 276Ibid.

 -198-

Goppelt's case began to be weighed seriously in NT studies; until then

it affected mainly OT studies, esp. through von Rad. As we saw above,

OT theology on the whole was already far ahead of NT theology in giving

attention to Hg. Goppelt's Typos is still another attempt, well in

advance of Cullmann, to introduce (or reintroduce) a hgl. perspective

into NT theology at a time when in many quarters drastically different

outlooks were holding sway.

3.37 G. Delling (1940)

Delling finds that 'im Neuen Testament sich ein meriwUrdiges Neben-

einander von jlldischen und griechischen Einfllissen im Zeitempfinden und

277
einem vttllig Neuen darin findet.' Thus even more than Wendland he

posits a sharp distinction between the OT and NT concepts of time. Only

in the NT is the unresolved problem in Greek thinking eternity which

in the NT is taken up by persons steeped in Jewish thought patterns,

finally mastered.

Das Christusgeschehen bedeutet fUr das Neue Testament den Einbruch

der Ewigkeit in die Zeit und damit die Ueberwindung des Gegen-
satzes zwischen beiden; so findet auch die Geschichte als Ganzes
einen Sinn von Gott her, und zwar weit Uber das herkbmmliche Ver-
st&ndnis der im Alten Testament beginnenden Heilsgeschichte hinaus.
Das Christusgeschehen ist in einer vOllig neuen Fassung des Be-
griffes Erflillung Gottes, der alles in einer Zielsetzung eint; es
bleibt nicht Historie, sondern wirkt st&ndig neue Entscheidung.

Clearly Delling (compared to Wendland above) has moved in a Bultman-

279
nian direction here. Still, his study as a whole assumes that (l)

277
Delling, Das ZeitverstMndnis des Neuen Testaments, 1940, 74.

2 7 8 Ibid. 160,.
279
Cf. Cullmann's disagreement with Delling (Christ and Time, 38n.2,
4 9n.25, 8 6 n .2, 92n.6). Cf. Bultmann, 'Hg. und Geschichte , 1 PTNT, 308,
who praises Delling over against Cullmann. Bultmann says that Delling,
unlike Cullmann, has insight into the fundamental (for Bultmann) prob
lem for NT thinking, which involves the 'Zeitlichkeit des eschato-
logischen Seins.'
 -199-

the NT considered synthetically must be interpreted from the basis of

its own understanding of time,28^ and that (2) 'die Heils 1dkonomie (Eph

1:10) ist. . . der Sinn der Weltgeschichte . ' 2 8 1 Delling's treatment

in general and this statement in particular mark him, like Wendland,

as a significant and direct precursor to Cullmann, at least in the sense

that Delling contributes to the discussion in which Christus und die

Zeit later participates (but does not, as is sometimes supposed, inau

gurate ).

3.38 A. Fi. Hunter (1943)

The Scottish scholar A. M. Hunter in 1943 feels that 'these are

great days for theology,' since 'all are realizing anew the importance
282
of Biblical theology.' In the past the contents of the NT have been
283
too atomistically conceived. Hunter recognizes the diversity present
284
in the NT but argues for its overarching unity. To capture the

essence of this unity he takes up the term 'Hg.'It is said to be the

285
dominant theme of the NT. To take Hg. seriously as the integrating

theme of NT theology is 'to see the New Testament as the fulfilment of

the Old' and the whole corpus of scripture as

the story of God's saving purpose for his People begun with the de
liverance from Egypt, continued in his later dealings with them re
corded in Old Testament history and prophecy, and consummated in
the sending of his Son the M e s s i a h . ^ 8 6

Hunter in this little book has 'no intention to write a complete

2 8 Delling, o.c. 1. 2 8 1 Ibid. 104.

2 8 2 Hunter, The Unity of the New Testament, 1943, llOf.

2 8 3 Ibid. 11-19.
284
Cf. in British OT research H.H. Rowley, 'The Unity of the Old
Testament,' BJRL 29 (1946) 326-358.
poc PRfi
Hunter, Unity, 9. Ibid. 10.
 -200-

theology of the New Testament from the synthetic point of view . ' 2 8 7 He

seeks merely to elucidate the principle, which he believes critical

scholarship in his day has already established, that the different

strands of the NT witness in the end 'all lead to the one centre, the

Heilsgeschichte . 1 2 8 8 Hunter believes his work shows 'the lines along

which the [NT] unity is to be found,' and he maintains that his 'ap

proach is the right one,' adding: 'We must hope that all future text

books on New Testament theology will be written from this synthetic

. . . ,289
point of view.'

Hunter's study is further indication of the pre-Cullmann theological

awakening in NT theology. Hunter represents yet another who sees how

a hgl. sensitivity could facilitate a synthetic understanding and pre

sentation of the NT. The hgl. centre of the NT calls for a historically

responsible delineation of its content without an irresponsible ignoring

290
or wresting of its own clear theological self-awareness and purpose.

4. Conclusion

It is recognized and conceded that at least some of the above dis

cussion is made up of vignettes that are hardly satisfactory summaries

of the men whose positions they depict. The presentation as a whole

does serve however to ground the following conclusions.

First, it is possible to trace a continuum from the hgl. perspectives

2 8 7 Ibid. 17. 2 8 8 Ibid. 19. 2 8 9 Ibid. 109.

290
Cf. T.W.Manson, 'The Failure of Liberalism to Interpret the Bible
as the Word of God, ' The Interpretation of the Bible, ed. by C.W.Dug-
more , 1944, 104f., who also calls for renewed emphasis on the NT's his
torical outlook, since 'the Christian religion is concerned with a God
who reveals himself above all in history.' Manson here is opposing a
liberalism which 'was predisposed against a God who intervenes in the
world, or in history, whether by deed or word' (ibid. 95). Classic li
beralism (to which Hunter graciously owns a great debt) is also the tar
get of many of Hunter's statements in Unity.
 -201-

of pre-Barthian to at least formally similar perspectives in post-

Barthian times. This can be done in both OT and NT theology. It can

be done, moreover, with absolutely no recourse to Cullmann we show be

low (ch. 4) that he seems not even to use the word 'Hg. ' until 1941.

But Hg. or hgl. views are, if not exactly prominent or popular in criti

cal circles, at least not rare, in both OT and NT theology long before

then.

Second, pre-Barthian hgl. views are not (except perhaps in the case

of Sauer) simply taken up and built upon between the wars. They are

rather adapted, modified, and rearticulated in distinctively different

forms (see next point). Esp. in NT theology, one gets the impression

(e.g. in the cases of Dodd, Wendland, Stauffer, Delling, and Hunter)

that direct contact with the pre-Barthian Hg. heritage is being avoided

if not repudiated. At times perhaps only the name 'Hg. 1 endures; the

term begins in an altered context to take on somewhat new content (cf.

e.g. its somewhat existentialist connotation in Delling). The point

is that, while the earlier hgl. perspectives are connected with related

views which arise in the -20's, - 3 0 's, and -40's, we are not dealing

here with overt repristination or uncritical conservatism. Against

modern views of history or reality generally which rendered scripture's

interface with historical reality problematic, hgl. perspectives are

set forth which claim to derive from the biblical text itself. This

is analogous to the responses of Hofmann and Schlatter to similar his

toriographical threats posed by Baur and Wrede, even if there can be

no talk here of slavish dependence or imitation.

Third, discussion of Hg. between the wars as we have presented it

above points us both backward and forward in the history of OT/NT theo

logy.
 -202-

It points us backward in that the above data make clear in what

sense calls for hgl. approaches are not new outcries but old requests,

echoes of cases argued by Hofmann and Schlatter many decades earlier.

For the echoes pt&serve, at times distinctly, the tones of the earlier

clashes (cf. ch.l). (l) What is NT (OT) theology? We saw that OT theo

logy is divided between history-of-religionists (cf. Baur, Wrede) and

others who want to speak in more traditional or concrete terms of a God

who reveals himself through historical acts or words to which scripture

testifies (cf. Hofmann, Schlatter). On the NT side, dialectical theo

logy threatens to sever theology from history, but as in OT studies

there are protests. Hgl. viewpoints are put forth as textually- or

historically-warranted alternatives. It is fair to say that while one

side insists on construing (OT and NT) history in terms of modern know

ledge and belief (cf. the Cartesian approach outlined earlier), the hgl.

side wants to try to inform modern knowledge and to construe theology,

at least that which claims continuity with the OT-NT tradition, in terms

of (the theologically significant) OT-NT history. (2) What epistemolo-

gical stance is warranted with reference to the biblical data? Here

the echo is more muted. Neither in OT nor in NT theology are the basic

historical-critical ground-rules cf contemporary biblical criticism ques

tioned in any fundamental way. The level of hermeneutical awareness

or methodological ,self-awareness-of Hofmann and esp. Schlatter is often

not even approximated. The problems inherent in encountering the bibli

cal data with post-Kantian (or Cartesian) viewpoints are however notice

able, at least with the advantage of hindsight. Even more noticeable,

however, are the blind spots of OT and NT theology of that time. Hgl.

perspectives are indeed at least in outline put forth, but they under
 -203-

standably stand little chance of broad support when the epistemological

bases of historical criticism are so thoroughly moored in neo-Kantian

or Troeltschian modes of understanding. (3) What view of history

should inform OT and NT theology? In 1918-1946 there is clear accep

tance of, but concurrently in some instances a noticeable dissatisfac

tion with, Baurian-Wredian, closed-nexus, immanentist models of history.

This is clearly in keeping with the assumptions of Baur-Wrede on the

one hand and the contentions of Hofmann and Schlatter on the other.

The bifurcation of NT theology seen in ch. 1 above is carried on right

up through WW II.

The above discussion also points us forward in our study. It raises

the question of just how and when Cullmann came to his views, and what

they consisted in. This will be taken up in ch. 4. It also raises the

question of how hgl. viewpoints fared in the post-WW II years. This

will be our focus in the chapter coming up. All of this forms the back

ground for discussion of the NT criticism dominating, Baur-Wrede descen-

dent Bultmann, seen over against the hgl. challenge represented by

Alberts, Ladd, and Goppelt. This will be our focus in ch. 5.

 CHAPTER THREE

HEILSGESCHICHTE AND HEILSGESCHICHTLICHE OUTLOOKS

IN OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY AFTER WORLD WAR II

1. Introduction

The preceding chapter afforded a backward glance at the hgl. per

spectives of Hofmann and Schlatter in ch. 1. Starting at least with

1
these two there is a bifurcation in NT theology. Over against what

we may term the critical orthodoxy pioneered or epitomized by Baur and

Wrede, the hgl. perspective emerges. It insists on modifying critical

orthodoxy's definition of NT theology, its inherent epistemology, and

its approach to history. Yet it does this not in spite of but because

of historical data which it sees as standing in its favor. Hofmann and

Schlatter, for all their mutual differences, founded a heritage of sorts

which continued into the 2 0 th century.

Ch. 2 showed that and to what extent this heritage continued. There

is a certain amount of direct borrowing from the Hofmann-Schlatter out

look. There is a great deal of unconscious basic agreement with them

in both OT and NT theology. Views today normally associated with Cull

mann are in fact in evidence long before Cullmann1s distinctive ideas

take shape. There is the same basic bifurcation in both OT and NT theo

logy as we saw in ch. 1. Both disciplines raise objections against

reigning methodologies or viewpoints (Religionsgeschichte, dialectical

theology) as these threaten to distort the message of the biblical

1 2
F.Bllchsel, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 1937 writes that out
of the dispute (Kampf1), 'den die Baursche Schule verlor, blieb der
neutestamentlichen Theologie die Spaltung in einen positiven und einen
kritischen Flllgel' (2). While B aur's defeat was perhaps not as total
as BUchsel seems to think, the split is rightly seen.
 -205-

texts . There is however for the most part a striking lack of any

material adjustment to the basic parameters of historical criticism it

self. In this respect OT/NT theology between the wars did not really

claim, far less preserve, the ground which Hofmann-Schlatter felt they

had won. The extensive questioning of method in OT theology however

reflects a sense that fundamental issues merit reconsideration. NT

theology, on the other hand, hardly moves beyond discussion of whether

hgl. perspectives are to hand in the NT sources. There is a dearth of

methodological reflection on NT theology which bespeaks either a satis

faction with the status quo or an obliviousness as to how to move for

ward in a 'historical' discipline when not only the older liberal posi

tivism but also a theological new wave (dialectical theology) seems to

render history itself, the very object of study, highly problematic.

Perhaps it is some of both.

As we move closer to ch. 5 and investigation of recent hgl. NT theo

logies, we must at this point briefly treat the continuing debate about

Hg. or hgl. methods in the decades following WW II. Again we consider

first OT, then NT theology. Preliminary to this, however, we turn to

B. Childs' influential study of the post-war era. To fail to do so

would be culpably to ignore one of the most important interpretations

of theological and historical-critical development during these years.

In taking,up Childs' views we wish to set the stage for suggesting

that the Hofmann-Schlatter heritage, despite a wealth of rhetoric about

revelation in history after WW II, is quite often largely ignored in

both OT and NT theology. There are exceptions in both disciplines, but

we will see that the Baur-Wrede model of inquiry continues to dominate,

and that criticism and NT/OT theology fail to take decisive steps which
 -206-

would, consistent with Hofmann or Schlatter, bring critical assumptions

into serious dialogue with the methodological implications of scrip

ture's possible historico-theological realities.

2. Biblical theology in crisis?

2.1 Childs' thesis

Childs posits that a 'Biblical Theology Movement' (BTM) began in

the United States after WW II. It arose 'largely in response to cer-

2
tain European influences' but had a 'peculiar American stamp.' Ameri

can scholars disillusioned with the polarities caused by the Modernist-

Fundamentalist controversies took up the new German stress on the theo-

3
logical dimension of biblical literature. 'The unity of the whole Bi-
4
ble' became axiomatic. 'The revelation of God in history' grew into
5
an interpretative slogan. A 'distinctive Biblical mentality' was pre

sumed to be a vital part in understanding biblical writings and in in

terpreting them anew today .3 The historical environment of the Bible

7
showed the Bible's utter uniqueness and lent credence to the BTM's

rather imprecise mixing of objective historical data and (in Childs'

estimation) the religious convictions of its adherents.

The BTM died in the early 1960's, according to Childs. He suggests

that there was little exegetical or historical base for its key tenets

and that it was plagued by several fundamental ambiguities. Chief among

these was that BTM participants glibly took up the rhetoric of European

neo-orthodox theologians but did so with classic liberal presuppositions

about the purely non-supernatural nature of the phenomena dealt with

2
Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis, 1970, 13.

3 Ibid. 33-36. 4 Ibid. 36-39. 5 Ibid. 39-44.

6Ibid. 44-47. 7Ibid. 47-50.

 -207-

in scripture.^ The result was a tremendous inner tension and lack of

clarity as to just what bibjical theology was and what its basis was in
9
fact. The BTM as such died when J. A. T. Robinson's Honest to G o d , H.
10 11
Cox's The Secular City, and the criticisms of scholars like J. Barr

had the effect of rendering its theological relevance questionable and

its historical base problematic.

2.2 The problem of revelation of history

Within the general context of Childs' thesis as just outlined, he

recounts the demise of 'revelation in history' emphases. Childs treat

ment here involves not only the North American but also the European

scene.
12
Childs chronicles the breakdown as follows. First, Bultmann's

use of the word 'Hg. obfuscated its meaning and brought it into ques

tion. This confusion was compounded by J. M. Robinson and the 'New

13
Quest' for the historical Jesus in America. Next J. Branton, W.
14 15
King, and L. Gilkey voiced their opposition to the concept as it

was being utilized, esp. by certain American thinkers. Gilkey mentions

G. E. Wright and B. Anderson in particular. He claims that, since for

modern man it is erroneous and impossible to believe literally that 'God

g
Cf. esp. L.Gilkey, 'Cosmology, Ontology, and the Travail of Bibli
cal Language,' JR 41 (1961) 194-205.
9 10
Childs, Crisis, 85f. Ibid. 8 6 f.

X 1 Ibid. 65f., 71f., 77. 1 2 Ibid. 63-66.

13
Cf. J.Branton, 'Our Present Situation in Biblical Theology,' RelL
26 (1956-57) 5-18. For a telling rebuttal of Branton which Child's ne
glects to cite see J.Smart, 'The Need for a Biblical Theology,' idem
22-30.
14
Cf. W.King, 'Some Ambiguities in Biblical Theology,' RelL 28
(1957-58) 95-104.

15Gilkey, JR 41 (1961) 194-205.

 -208-

acted' or 'God spoke,' biblical theology which uses such phrases is void

of meaning. 'Revelation in history' means nothing to us today, since

'we are sure' that 'most of the acts |of God] recorded in Scripture. .

. like the miracles of the Buddha, did not really happen at all.'1^

Therefore it is misleading if not preposterous to go on talking serious

ly about 'God acting in history.' Finally, Childs adduces J. Barr as

the one who dealt 'the final blow' to the Hg. category. Barr incor

porates 'the full weight of the whole European debate' in his alleged
17
drastically successful debunking of a revelation in history emphasis.

Childs has captured well the critical impatience which some felt

about the revelation in history category, as well as about other themes

with which (esp., but not only, American) biblical interpreters occupied

themselves in the late 1940's, -50's , and beyond. He is to be commended

for his vision and insight. Yet it can be argued that his criticisms

of revelation in history itself are superficial and in any case have

a limited bearing on hgl. approaches in the heritage of Hofmann and

Schlatter.

2.3 Problems in Childs' criticism of revelation in history

Childs' general thesis has received criticism from e.g. J. Smart

18
which need not be rehearsed here. If Smart is substantially correct,
16
Ibid. 200. In fairness to Childs it should be noted that Gilkey
is somewhat more radical at this point than Childs appears to be. Yet
Childs in this case cannot very well build upon the rubble which Gil
key's attack produced without to some extent endorsing his critique.
17
Childs, Crisis, 67f. Cf. 71: 'The Semantics of Biblical Language
. . . struck with such incisive and devastating criticism that the de
fences appeared like a Maginot line facing a new form of blitzkrieg.'
Childs is perhaps overstating both Barr's representative stature and
the success of his attack; cf. B.Vawter, rev. of Crisis, Bib 52 (1971)
568.

^Smart, The Past, Present, and Future of Biblical Theology, 1979,

22-32. Cf. reviews of Crisis by B.Anderson, RelL 39 (1970) 608f.; Vaw-
ter, Bib 52 (1971) 567-570. Cf. also W.Ward, 'Towards a Biblical Theo
logy,' RevExp 7 (1977) 371-387, esp. 371-375. J .B arr, Holy Scripture,
1983, 133, finds Childs' analysis 'very good,' yet marred by 'certain
flaws.'
 -209-

and at points he may well be, then Childs' analysis retains somewhat

limited validity. But here we must limit ourselves to pointing out why

Childs' criticisms of revelation in history deserve some rethinking.

I.e. they can hardly be allowed to serve as grounds for impugning the

hgl. perspective in NT theology as this is carried on in the Hofmann-

Schlatter heritage.

First, Childs' criticisms seem to be based at least in part on a

logical miscue. He associates the whole revelation in history idea too

closely with a selection of its representatives during a two-decade time

span in the 20th century, mainly in North America. Setting aside the

fact that he really does not succeed in demonstrating specifically why

those he criticizes are mistaken we grant that his goal is to give an

overview, not detailed critical analysis he seems to suppose that the

failure of Wright, Anderson, Cullmann, Piper, H. R. Niebuhr, Bultmann,

and P. Minear to come to an agreement on the meaning of Hg. means that

the whole concept is unworkable. But surely from the ambiguous use of

a slippery technical term among this multi-national collection of aca

demics one may not deduce that the referent of the word itself is in

valid or meaningless, only that the academics' various conceptualiza

tions of it may be contradictory or untenable and Childs is not very

convincing in demonstrating even that point except in a general way.

This is not to mention that from the disparate members of Childs' group

of Hg. advocates one could reasonably expect to find agreement on al

most no crucial issues to begin with.

Second, Childs' criticisms of revelation in history are vitiated

when he himself is forced to admit the concept's validity. 'The stress

on the continuity of redemptive history that binds together the two

 -210-
19
covenants contains an important insight. Furthermore Childs' pro

posed canonical approach to biblical theology, at least as outlined in

Crisis, at two points simply shifts verities which once were props for

hgl. approaches to a point underneath his own canonical platform. Thus

when he asserts that

the concept of canon as it developed was a testimony to the belief

that faith in Jesus Christ was grounded upon the witness of both
prophets and apostles. God had revealed his will. . . in concrete
manifestations of himself, restricted in time and space, and testi
fied to by particular witnesses'^

it is not easy to see how Childs can sidestep his own strictures against

a hgl. foundation in biblical theology. And when he asserts that 'the

concept of canon was an attempt to acknowledge the divine authority of

21
its writings,' one may well ask, which then is the more biblical or

at least the more fundamentally appropriate 'context' for biblical theo

logy: the canon which acknowledges divinely given writings, or the Hg.

which comprises the process out of which the canon developed and of

which the canonical books claim to be witnesses? Without revelation

in history Childs does not have his canon, and when he exposes revela

tion in history to general criticism he attacks not only some types of

biblical theology but his own canonical program as well.

Third, Childs fails to do justice to the profound issues involved

in holding 'revelation' and 'history' in the creative tension one ob

serves in e.g. many of the biblical writings. His criticism of revela

tion in history seems to base itself on a concession to a modern outlook

which simply denies the possibility of the former taking place in the

latter, if 'revelation' be taken as a literal, authoritative, in some

sense historically unconditioned self-manifestation of God, whether in

19
Childs, Crisis, 239n.4. Childs goes on to criticize Hg. as often
used in the BTM, but his objection would have limited application to
Hofmann, Schlatter, and even Cullmann.
20 21
Ibid. 105. Ibid.
 -211-

act or word. But a view which poses the 'reality of God' as 'the funda

mental theological question of the age' and then asserts that 'this

question must be solved apart from and prior to reference to the

22
Bible' seems to be begging the very question which the hgl. position

of Hofmann-Schlatter raises. Should OT and NT theology, in Baur's and

Wrede's train, come to the biblical texts with 'the fundamental theo

logical questions of the a g e ' already decided apart from the Bible?

Or should the texts, and the historico-theological reality to which they

presumably point, be important or even determinative arbiters in an

swering the fundamental philosophic or systematic questions which, as

we have seen, have so often steered the course of 'historical' research?

Before turning to OT theology, let us examine the real core of the

impasse which Childs chronicles.

2.4 The issue at stake

An exchange between R. Pfeiffer and F. Filson epitomizes, perhaps

more clearly that Childs' entire study, at least one vital feature of

the debate between non-hgl. and hgl. modes of approaching biblical data

after WW II.

2.41 R. Pfeiffer

Pfeiffer sets forth an updated version of a Baur-Wrede methodology

23
in handling biblical texts, esp. with respect to the question of Hg.

This is in direct response to Filson, whom we also treat below.

22
Childs, ibid. 87, paraphrases Gilkey here. It should be noted
that Childs himself holds that there is still a need for biblical theo
logy, 'a discipline that will attempt to retain and develop a picture
of the whole [of scripture] , that will have the responsibility to syn
thesize as well as analyze' (ibid. 92). On the one hand he seems more
open to scripture's claims than Gilkey. Yet he leaves himself open to
the charge of double-talking when he sides with Gilkey's critique but
seems to have other views when he constructs.
23
Pfeiffer, 'Facts and Faith in Biblical History,' JBL 70 (1951)
1-14.
 -212-

Pfeiffer cites the OT belief in the divine election of Israel. He

admits that if it is regarded as a 'historical fact,' then 'the history

of Israel is sacred history.' But if it is not a historical fact i.e.

if it is just 'an article of faith' to assert that 'the sole universal

God actually selected Israel as his own people1 then 'the history of

Israel is purely secular and is to be told without regarding divine in

terventions. . . as actual facts but merely as expressions of faith.'

Pfeiffer then immediately deduces that 'the points of view of science

Qi.e. Pfeiffer's positivistic view of Israel's election] and faith [i.e.

views which accept the veracity of the Bible's surface claim that God

really did choose Israel, and made this choice known]] should be kept

distinct' in interpreting biblical history (cf. e.g. Eissfeldt in the

preceding chapter). He backs his assertion with his own conviction that

Israel's view of election is of a purely naturalistic origin and with

a quote from 'a historian who is a Roman Catholic priest, G. Ric-

24
ciotti.'

Pfeiffer next at some length tries to show that the OT is a hope

lessly tangled, unsuccessful attempt at combining fact and faith, as

when e.g. this feat is attempted by the Deuteronomist and then by the

later editor of the Deuteronomistic document. He claims that in much

ancient Israelite historiography 'the deity is not particularly promi-

25
nent' and suggests that OT allusions to God's working are in the main

but crude admixtures of religios sentiment. What about the references

to God's earthly activity in the unquestionably ancient J and E docu

ments?

Divine interventions in human events are characteristic of all

ancient epics, and in this respect the J and E documents do not dif
fer from the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Ugaritic Poem of Aqhat son of

24 25
Ibid. 4. Ibid. 6 .
 -213-

Daniel, the Niebelungenlied, the Mahabharata, and others. Similar

ly, some Greek, Roman, and later tragedies (including Goethe's
Faust) place gods, or lesser divine beings, on the stage with men.
But no thinking man, ancient or modern, took seriously the histori
city of such intercourse between gods and men, such as we have in
J and the rest of this literature.^-

Pfeiffer then argues that the first OT writings evincing a hgl. perspec

tive, 'in which God is said to control the course of events for the ful
27
filment of his purposes , 1 are of post-exilic provenance. The book

of Joshua is an example. This 'dogmatic history' is a revisionist pro

jection of the thinking of Jews under Persian domination onto an imagi

nary Israelite past. Regarding the events of which the book of Joshua

speaks, 'the question of historicity is irrelevant: the whole had to

be accepted by faith, and having thus been accepted it became the char-
28
ter of Judaism. ' The writings of the Chronicler some two hundred

years later are a second example. However, 'this sort of sacred his

tory, setting forth Go d s activity in human affairs, is utterly imper

tinent for man cannot know God's mind and work unless it rests on a
29
divine revelation.' Pfeiffer entertains no illusions that this might

have been the case.

From this reading of the OT Pfeiffer condemns Filson's call to take

scripture's theological claims (which Filson sees as having historio

graphical implications, see below) seriously in historical work. Corn-

30
mitted as doggedly to a neo-Kantian model of understanding as Baur

or Wrede to Kantian/neo-Kantian models, Pfeiffer argues from the assump

tion that any historical data which deals with subject matter related

to religious belief by definition 'deals not with actual facts, but with

PR P7 PR PQ
Ibid. 7. Ibid. 8 . Ibid. Ibid. 9.
30
For clarification of some distinctive features of a Kantian (or
neo-Kantian) mode of relating facts to faith, see J.Luick, 'The Ambi
guity of Kantian Faith,' SJT 36 (1983) 339-346.
 -214-

articles of faith, taught as if they were historical events.' Matters

in the Bible pertaining to whatever a believer of the Bible might hold

to be true with regard to theological or religious concerns 'belong to

31
the realm of faith, and not to the realm of actual knowledge.' He goes

on to attack biblical theologies generally for their combining of 'doc

trinal or philosophical speculation with. . . strictly historical re-

32
search . 1 This enterprise is illicit.

The unhappy marriage of history and theology. . . was never a true

union and only divorce will result in the fruitful development of
each of the two disciplines. Long ago it was recognized that his
torical writing and speculation in the fields of theology and philo
sophy were utterly different in methods and results. Aristotle con
trasts history and poetry as follows. . . . ^3

Thus Pfeiffer imples on a rather sweeping scale that scripture's theo

logical data is categorically speculative and may be likened to poetry

as regards factual content. 'Faith and facts do not m i x , ' whatever com

bination of the two might seem to be served up in scripture. Pfeiffer

endorses M. Dibelius' view that 'what is asserted by faith cannot be

proven historically. . . . The viewpoints of history and faith cannot

34
be simply combined.' It is not clear whether for Pfeiffer there could

ever be a biblical theology at all, but in any case there is no room

for a hgl. approach to the data, since from the OT idea of election on

down to all other theological matters, with which of course scripture

is replete, we are dealing not with historical reality, or reality at

all, but with religious imagination. And this is irrelevant to the

purely historical (cf. Baur, Wrede) discipline of biblical criticism.

2.42 F. Filson

A year previous to Pfeiffer's comments Filson had set forth the

35
position which would become the object of Pfeiffer's scorn. He argues,

3 1 Pfeiffer, o.c. 11, 3 2 Ibid.l2. 3 3 Ibid. 13. 3 4 Ibid. 14.

35
Filson, 'Method in Studying Biblical History,' JBL 69 (1950) 1-18.
 -215-

in a mode distinctly reminiscent of Hofmann-Schlatter, for the validity

of a hgl. approach to the biblical data.

He begins his presentation with a summary of the OT and NT from a

hgl. perspective. He asserts that the biblical writers are not con

cerned with 'pure history' in the modern non- or anti-supernaturalist

sense; indeed, 'if the idea had been made clear to them they would have

denounced i t . ' 3 8 On the contrary, the biblical writers assume that 'no

understanding of history is possible' except on the basis of the assump

tion that 'God the righteous redeemer of men is working out his gra-
37
cious, just, and wise purpose on this earth.'

Filson is not advocating a 'spiritual' exegesis nor is he somehow

setting aside at least some form of historical criticism. He describes

in detail why a historical method which allows for Hg. must be exceed-
38
ingly rigorous. And he denies the right of ecclesiastical or doctri

nal authority (e.g. the theory of biblical inerrancy) to dictate what

39
results 'free study' may arrive at. But like Hofmann, Schlatter,

Kbberle, Lotz, and others, Filson notes that thought-restricting dogma

comes not only from the side of Christian orthodoxy. He calls into

question the 'various allegedly objective and scientific standpoints

which in reality are world views or interpreting platforms' in their

40
own right and comprise de facto attacks on the Bible's own premises,

which in turn are after all supported by historical evidence difficult

to explain away. Such approaches posit that history must be analyzed

through a 'rigorous elimination of that divine action which for the

41
Biblical mind is the only factor which makes sense of the process.'

3 6 Ibid. 4. 3 7 Ibid. 5. 3 8 Ibid. 5-8.

39 40 41
Ibid. 8 f. Ibid, 9, Ibid. 10.
 -216-

They reconstruct history with a radical rejection of 'the Biblical idea

of divine action in fulfilment of divine purpose.' 'The continual re

currence of' this sort of 'an organizing point of view or interpreting

42
platform raises the question of objective method.'

In the modern era biblical research typically operates within a

rationalism which recognizes only 'the working of human and natural fac

tors.' 'The divine will and action can be taken into account as an idea

of man, but not as a functioning and determining factor in the things

43
which occur.' In Filson's outlook,

this raises a basic question of truth. If God does so act [as the
biblical writers claim], a method which studies and writes history
without putting him at the center is not simply faulty from a theo
logical point of view. It is equally unsatisfactory as a historical
method, for it is not telling the story as it really was brought
about, as it really happened. I know that it will be said that his
tory can be written as the life story of mankind in the natural
world, and then faith will be free to supplement or complete that
story if it so chooses. My answer to this is that if man is in fact
dealing with God in a responsible way, there can be no accurate and
complete way of writing history which does not take this into ac
count. For him who thinks of God not in terms of the sum total of
human and natural processes but in terms of independent personal
will and action, history which ignores the divine action is as in
complete as an automobile without an engine .4 4

Therefore, in biblical theology and in historical work which undergirds

or accompanies it, 'to be objective' can legitimately be taken to mean

'dealing with life as it really is, and. . . this involves taking into

account not merely the existence, but far more, the reign and work of
45
God.' Through recognizing and affirming the 'Biblical view of his

tory' Filson wishes to recover for both critical and non-critical stu

dents of scripture 'the fundamental unity which a false standard of ob-

46
jectivity has tended to destroy.'

42. 43 44.
Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13
45. 46.
Ibid. 15 Ibid. 18
 -217-

2.5 Conclusion

While Childs' analysis is in many ways useful and continues to wield

47
influence, we suggest that a hgl. approach to biblical data, in the

sense pioneered by Hofmann-Schlatter and rearticulated by Filson, is

hardly touched by his critique, esp. of revelation in history. This

is true not least because he fails to highlight the most fundamental

question: does modern thought on a priori bases establish parameters

to which all data, including biblical, must be made to conform? That

was basically the Baur-Wrede line, and that is also Pfeiffer's argu

ment. Childs esteems too lightly that, for all the talk of Hg. in the

post-WW II years, in most cases it is Pfeiffer's outlook, not Filson's,

48
which is far and away the more influential. If biblical theology ran

aground, a criticism operating on Filson's premises, and a related open

ness to H g . , cannot be expected to bear the blame, since this type of

49
criticism was not ascendent during the years in question.

Our point then is two-fold. First, Filson's presentation, amounting

in broad terms to a restatement of at least some of the principles com

mon to hgl. perspectives seen earlier in this study, is decidedly a

minority report. There are those who share his views, but as we will

see below, OT and NT theology after WW II generally works within the

47
Cf. e.g. G.Hasel, 'Biblical Theology: Then, Now, and Tomorrow,'
HBT 4 (1982) 69; R.Gnuse, BTB 13 (1983) 63.
48
Smart, P ast, Present, Future, 15, notes that an American 'liberal
optimism' has discouraged 'the raising of theological issues' in aca
demic biblical studies in that country down to the present day. His
book is devoted in large measure to addressing this very problem.
49
It should be recalled here that Childs' 'crisis' refers to the
wedding of neo-orthodox theological rhetoric with liberal, rationalistic
assumptions about the nature of reality. But Filson is hardly guilty
of this confusion, for he is revolting against the very modernist mind
set which helped bring the BTM (in Childs' view) crashing down.
 -218-

familiar confines of the tenets propounded by Baur, Wrede, and eventual

ly Pfeiffer (cf. the basic critical posture of Bultmann, esp. as seen

in ch. 5 below). Second, the crisis which Childs with basic justifica

tion diagnoses is arguably due not, in fact, to use of a 'revelation

in history' category as such, but rather to criticism's widespread

failure to criticize its own historicistic and positivistic assumptions.

Pfeiffer's cool exclusivistic claims to scientific accuracy (cf. Baur-

Wrede) are astounding when one considers his unreflected, systematic

endorsement of a classic Kantian faith-fact dualism, or again his re

course to Dibelius' patently neo-orthodox (and neo-Kantian) views. This

is historical objectivity? Clearly Pfeiffer is convinced that such is

the case, and he is little short of evangelistic in propounding his

claim. But if Filson's arguments have any weight, we could be dealing

here in fact with a flight from history, history at least as the con

crete historico-theological dimension of experienced reality of which

at least parts of scripture speak.

These observations set the stage for a closer look at OT and NT

theology.

3. OT theology since WW II

Here as in ch. 2, sec. 2, we want to characterize how Hg. or hgl.

perspectives are taken up in OT theology. To what extent does either

a Hofmann-Schlatter or a Baur-Wrede model play a dominant role? This

is our primary question.

50
We center on Eichrodt, von Rad, and E. Jacob. Most would agree
50
We must omit T.Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology, 1958.
He does deal with Hg. (see e.g. 30, 125, 136, 169, 174, 228). But his
stress is on the OT religious consciousness in terms of 'the reality
of an immediate spiritual communion between God, the Holy One, and man
and the w o r l d ' (131, his emphasis). This is a relational rather than
hgl. stress; cf. R.E.Clements, 'Theodorus C. Vriezen, An Outline of Old
Testament Theology,' in OT Theologians, ed. by Laurin, 137.
 -219-

that synthetic analysis of the OT has not yet moved beyond the first
51
two; we are in an analytic phase of both NT and OT theology following

two comprehensive interpretations of the OT which seem to have reached,

52
at least for a time, the limits of OT theology's current possibilities.
53
Of course progress has been made since von Rad. But if there is in

OT theology today 1a remarkable range of creative approach to the

ancient texts,' it is also true that 'there is still no clear emerging

54
consensus.' And esp. of late, hgl. approaches to the OT have been
55 56
reassessed, defended (with careful qualifications), and persuasively
57
rearticulated in opposition to currently prevailing non-hgl. views. But

it is too early to determine how far all this may presage development

of a new hgl. trend in OT theology, and the question need not concern

us at the moment. Whatever is happening in OT theology today, it still

lies to some extent in the shadow of Eichrodt and von Rad if one's back

ward glance extends as far as WW II.

We take up Jacob because he seems, unlike his more influential

51
Cf. B.Childs, 'Some Reflections *on the Search for a Biblical Theo
logy,' HBT 4 (1982) 1; Kraus, 'Die Neuorientierung der Exegese und Ein-
leitungswissenschaft,' Geschichte (3 1982), 532-553.
52
J.Barton, 'OT Theology,' OT Study, ed. by Rogerson, 100. W.
Brueggemann, 'A Convergence in Recent Old Testament Theologies,' JSOT
18 (1980) 2, says that OT criticism has long been agreed about the flaws
of Eichrodt and von Rad, even though 'until now' little progress has
beenmade beyond them. Whether there is even now substantial progress
on which many agree is an open question.
53
Brueggemann, o.c., sees agreement between Westermann, Terrien,
and Hanson.
54
B.Birch, 'Old Testament Theology: Its Task and Future,' HBT 6
(1984) iv.
55
Reventlow, Hauptprobleme, ch. 3.
56
Kraus, Geschichte (3 1982), 567ff.; Goldingay, Approaches, 66-96.
57
Schmitt, Abschied?
 -220-

colleagues, to leave some room for a hgl. method in the Hofmann-

Schlatter sense. For this reason he contributes to the discussion

of Hg. which Eichrodt and von Rad involve themselves in and which we

take up now.

3.1 W. Eichrodt

3.11 Hg. in Eichrodt's Theology of the OT

It has been pointed out that Hg. is in more than one sense implicit
59
in Eichrodt's conception of the task and method of OT theology. Eich-

rodt's OT theology itself,^ consistent with his programmatic essay,

does make use of a sort of hgl. outlook.^ Israel's 'faith in the

covenant God assumes the existence of a remarkably interior attitude

to history. ' I.e. just asIsrael's 'faith was founded in the first

place on a fact of history, from which it is continually rekindled,'

so also 'history provides the field in which' this faith 'is worked out
62
in practice.' For Israel 'history acquires a value which it does not

possess in the religions of the ancient civilizations.'^ Isaiah esp.

taught Israel 'to regard history as a process governed by a divine plan,

which had prepared it in the long distant past and was new guiding it

toward its goal.' In fact the concept of covenant, the central unifying

58
This is also true, though to a lesser degree, of J.B.Payne, The
Theology of the Older Testament, 1962. But this work has not affected
critical discussion.

59See ch. 2, 2.25.

^ Theology of the Old Testament, 2 vols., 1961, 1967.

^ A l t h o u g h Eichrodt's Theology was first completed in 1939, its in

fluence on the international level was greatest after WW II. It is thus
fitting to deal with Eichrodt in a discussion of post-war OT theology.

^^Eichrodt, Theology, vol. 1, 41.

^I b i d . One might wish to correct Eichrodt's words to 'other reli

gions, ' but his neo-orthodox denigration of 'religion' and his belief
in the superiority of Judeo-Christian 'revelation' would probably make
this inappropriate.
 -221-

motif of Eichrodt's theology, is itself a legitimate and appropriate

expression of 'the systematic and beneficfcvvt character of God's acti-

64
vity'in history. This Hg. is primarily 'aimed at the creation of a
65
consecrated people of God,' or again may be termed 'the presence of

the transcendent God in the destinies of his people . ' 8 6

3.12 Conception of Hg. informing Eichrodt's Theology

One could discuss other passages in Eichrodt's Theology which per

tain directly to H g .6 7 His scathing remarks on von Rad reveal further

that at many points Eichrodt's conception of OT theology presupposes

a view of Hg. basically similar to that called for by various spokesmen

68
treated in the previous chapter. More pertinent here however are
69
remarks by Eichrodt which deal directly with Hg. They date to be sure

from slightly before the period under consideration (post-WW II) , but

they illuminate his views on the subject at the time he was completing

the first ed. of his Theology, and he does not seem to have later
70
altered these views. They apparently remain basic to Eichrodt's out

look throughout the post-war era and may be taken to inform his whole

theology, which exercised great influence during these years.

In this article Eichrodt rebuts the hermeneutic of Vischer and others

who in Eichrodt's view overlook the historical character of the OT.

A pastor called H. Hellbardt is Eichrodt's special target; he has taken

6 4 Ibid. 53. 6 5 Ibid. vol. 2, 50. 6 6 Ibid. 78.

6 7 E.g. ibid. 50-57, 167-185.

6 8 Ibid. vol. 1, 512-520, esp. 516ff.

69
'Zur Frage der theologischen Exegese des Alten Testaments, ' TB1
17 (1938) 73-87.
70
E.g. Eichrodt cites approvingly the article in the preceding note
(as well as his programmatic essay of 1929) ten years after it appeared:
see Eichrodt, 'Offenbarung und Geschichte im Alten Testament,' TZ 4
(1948) 330n.13.
 -222-

Vischer's premises and followed them over-zealously; Hellbardt 'kommt

damit zu der entschiedenen Ablehnung der heilsgeschichtlichen Anschau-

71
u ng . 1 To be sure, Hellbardt wants to avoid a docetic Christianity;

nevertheless he substitutes for a historical revelation one 'die nichts

zu tun hat mit dem kausalen Ablauf von Ursache und Wirkung hier auf Er-
72
den.' This results in 'eine punktuelle Offenbarung,' and here Hg. in

classic dialectical-theological formulation becomes a history

die sich zwischen Himmelund Erde vollzieht und im irdischen Ge-

schehen ihre Spur nur in der Form von einzelnen EinschlSgen hinter-
lMsst, die in keiner Weise zu einem historischen continuum verbunden
werden ktinnen und eigentlich nur semeia, Zeichen ftlr etwas in der
Himmelswelt Vollzogenes darstellen, dessen VerstSndnis allein das
Wort der Schrift ermdglicht.73

Eichrodt (here and in his Theology generally) concedes a great deal to

74
this neo-orthodox perspective but feels that in Hellbardt'shands it

dangerously disregards scripture's intrinsic and non-negotiable histori

cal substance. At this point Eichrodt takes up the subject of Hg.

itself, beginning by clarifying just what he understands by the term.

Wherever revelation is viewed as God somehow entering history, says

Eichrodt, this represents a challenge to an intellectualized, basically

timeless conception of revelation as 'Lehre,' which dominated 'die

geschichtsloseDogmatik der Orthodoxie genau so wie den rationalen Moral-

75
ismus der Aufkl&rung. ' And Hellbardt is risking just this sort of

de-historicization. He is sacrificing the historical aspects of God's

71
Eichrodt, TB1 17 (1938) 76. Cf. H.Hellbardt, 'Die Auslegung des
AT als theologische Disziplin,' TB1 16 (1937) 129-143.
72 73
Eichrodt, TB1 17 (1938) 76. Ibid.
74
Cf. N.Gottwald, 'W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament,' OT
Theologians, ed. by Laurin, 55, 57ff.
75
Eichrodt, TB1 17 (1938) 78f.
 -223-

self-revelation and with them in an important sense the reality of God's

purpose in history, along with man's role and possibilities under God

in that history. This is to dispense of Hg . , since such an intellec-

tualized, de-historicized Hg. is a contradiction in terms. In a bibli

cal hgl. formulation, in contrast,

kommt es zu fortschreitender HeilsoffenbarUng, Heilsverktlndigung und

Heilserkenntnis, kurz zu einer Kontinuit&t der Offenbarung, einem
geschossenen Zusammenhang einmaliger gbttlicher Heilstaten, der auf
ein grosses Endziel. . . hinstrebt. Wer Heilsgeschichte sagt, sagt
darum auch Endvollendung, Eschatologie als neue endgeschichtliche
Tat Gottes an der Menschheit, durch die er sein ErlOsungwerk zum
Ziele bringt.^7

Eichrodt is making the point that revelation, crucial to any theological

consideration of scripture at all, must not be conceived of in strictly

a-historical terms, for biblically speaking it is based upon and somehow

related, at least (for Eichrodt) in punctiliar fashion, to the seemingly

contingent causal nexus to the point that one is justified in speaking

77
of 'Offenbarung als Heilsgeschichte.'

Eichrodt anticipates the charge that Hg. as he is defining it is

just the 'Uebertragung' of a modern thought scheme onto biblical data.

The charge 'wdre vdllig verkehrt. ' Hg. is not an offshoot of an out

moded philosophy of inevitable human development, nor an adapted secular

philosophy of some other description. On the contrary:

Noch ehe die Geschichtsphilosophen die Idee des organischen Wachs-

tums fUr die Universalgeschichte verwenden, wird sie ganz selbst-
st&ndig von einigen,Geschichtstheologen auf die heilige Geschichte
angewandt. Denn die Pfahlwurzel der heilsgeschichtlichen Betrach-
tung geht in das biblische Geschichtsdenken zurtlck, das gerade im
Alten Testament seine reiche Ausgestaltung gefunden hat. Und die
Anwendung des Gedankens der teleologischen Entwicklung auf die Be-
trachtung der Universalgeschichte durch die idealistische Philoso-
phie ist im Grunde nur eine Sdkularisierung eines genuin biblischen
Gedankens, der durch die zweifelhaften Resultate seiner Uebertragung
auf ein anderes Gebiet nicht diskrediert werden darf .7 8

77 . 78.,.,
76Ibid. 79. Ibid. Ibid.
 -224-

Hg. is thus rooted in scripture itself, not merely in modern reconstruc

tions or philosophies of history. One may not therefore reject it as

a mere modern historiographical or theological construct. Even its se

cular counterfeits have been derived from.the biblical outlook indirect-

79
ly. Eichrodt thus argues that Hg, is not a 19th century idealistic

innovation rather it is idealism that is taking its cue at this point

from biblical Hg. He goes on to assert that Hg. is not only central

to the OT but 'ist im Neuen Testament von Jesus und den Aposteln aufge-
80
nommen.' It is thus a defensible category for biblical theology

today.

Nevertheless it is justified, continues Eichrodt, to critique and

move beyond the likes of Hofmann (although not because Hofmann was in

debted to Hegelian or some other philosophy for his conception of Hg.).

Two things separate modern historical-theological work from that of Hof

mann and his day. The first is 'die ganze historische Kritik, ' the

second

die prinzipielle Erkenntnis von der Relativit&t alles geschicht-

lichen Geschehens, die uns das Vertrauen zu der Konstruktion eines
llickenlosen Lehr- und Lebenssystems, im dem der vollkommene Ge-
schichtsorganismus angeschaut werden kdnnte, rettungslos zerstdrt
hat.

Eichrodt does not elaborate on the first objection to Hofmann's ap

79
This is the point of debate however in W.Jaesche, Die Suche nach
dem eschatologischen Wurzeln der Geschichtsphilosophie, 1976.

8 Eichrodt, TB1 17 (1938) 79.

^ I b i d . 80. It needs to be asked to what extent Eichrodt (along

with many others) is justified in implying that Hofmann constructed such
a system and then carried this over into his NT interpretation and NT
history-theology. Ch. 1 above touched on this issue. To the extent
that Eichrodt overstates the dependence of Hofmann's NT theology on the
sort of rigid, data-bending system alluded to above, a major objec
tion to a hgl. outlook similar to that which informs Hofmann's NT
theology is called into question.
 -225-

proach; presumably he means that Hofmann was uncritical, or perhaps that

criticism since Hofmann has rendered his relatively open stance to the

data indefensible. As to the second objection, Eichrodt is suggesting

that our awareness of historical relativity requires, not that we reject

Hg., but that it take on a different meaning theologically (and by im

plication also historically). Hg. must be viewed as

ein nur durch Glauben zu verstehendes Offenbarungsgeschehen, das

zwar stets mit greifbarer Geschichte verkntlpft, aber niemals einfach
mit ihr identisch ist. In diesem Sinne ist die Forderung durchaus
berechtigt, dass man Heilsgeschichte nicht mit israelitischer Reli-
gionsgeschichte verwechseln solle. Es handelt sich. . . urn ein
gOttliches Handeln in der Geschichte, dessen fortschreitende Kon-
tinuitat nur dem Glauben erfassbar und von der Erfahrung der
Christusoffenbarung her deutbar ist.^

3.13 Summary

Eichrodt's remarks are important in three respects. (1) They suc

cinctly advance the argument that it may be wrong to dismiss Hg. as a

product of Romanticism or idealistic philosophy. This has considerable

weight coming from one not known as a supporter of a hgl. perspective.

(2) They document the surprisingly favorable response of one of the two

most influential OT theologians this century to the call for a hgl. ap

proach in OT theology. (3) They indicate the direction which Eichrodt

took in answering the call: a direction very much influenced by neo

orthodox theology and belief .8 8 This is significant in turn for two

reasons.

First, what if neo-orthodox theology as Eichrodt's work reflects

it does not always enable a sufficiently convincing historical under

standing of the OT data (and many would argue today that it does not)?

Then Eichrodt's own conception of Hg. could be as suspect as the one

op oo
Ibid. 81. Cf. n.74 above.
 -226-

which he for various reasons rejects.

Second, what about Eichrodt's pessimism regarding the devastating

effect of historical criticism on the old view of Hg.? Eichrodt's argu

ment here is weakened by his failure to recognize that Hofmann's views,

at least on the NT, were themselves formulated in a milieu of criticism.

A man who wrote so many volumes in interaction with, or at least aware

ness of, F. C. Baur, is hardly oblivious to 'die ganze historische Kri-

tik.' Moreover, it is not necessarily true that historical criticism

84
must totally destroy the Bible's picture of history and thus Hg.

extreme skepticism of the OT's historical veracity, while prevalent to-

85
day, may be as unfounded as uncritical fundamentalism. Then there

is the problem of 'how critical is critical?'; as Wright notes, many

charged Eichrodt with being uncritical in his belief that the OT has
86
a unifying substructure. Eichrodt's objection to a hgl. approach to

OT theology on this ground has limited cogency.

Further, what about Eichrodt's pessimism, even skepticism, derived

from the realization that we must live with 'die Erkenntnis von der

Relativitdt alles geschichtlichen Geschehens'? Here it seems likely

84
Cf. e.g. S.Herrmann, Time and History, 1981, 53: In the OT 'we
are at all times in the presence of true historical remembrance, and
nowhere is the historically concrete dissolved into abstract thought
forms.' Some years ago B.W.Anderson, LQHR 190 (1965) 10, predicted that
the G.E.Wright-W.F.Albright and the von Rad-Noth schools could well con
verge, so that the 'discrepancy' between Hg. and critical history would
'be accepted as a tension, not a hiatus.' Schmitt writes recently that
there 'besteht kein Anlass fUr die Skepsis, das im Alten Testament gebo-
tene Bild von der Geschichte Israels sei eine totale Fiktion' (Ab-
schied?, 28f.).

^ P recisely this point is made by A.Malamut, 'Die Frllhgeschichte

Israels eine methodologische Studie,' TZ 39 (1983) 1-16. N.P.Lemche's
rebuttal seems grossly overstated: see 'On the Problem of Studying Is
raelite History Apropos Abraham Malamut's View of Historical Research,'
BN 24 (1984) 94-124.
86
Wright, 'Reflections Concerning Old Testament Theology,' Studia
Biblica et Semetica, Fs. Vriezen, 1966, 376f.
 -227-
87
that Eichrodt is conceding much to the sort of neo-Kantian epistemology

against which, as we have seen, Schlatter (as well as Filson and others)

remonstrated, and because of which in a sense the call originally arose

for a hgl. perspective to be given place in OT theology. It might be

argued, then, that Eichrodt does not break with Hellbardt's somewhat

quasi-historical approach quite as decisively as he seems to have wished

to. One could say that Eichrodt definitely does shift position relative

e.g. to a pure history-of-religions approach, and that he also wants

to retain more historical mooring than he sees in Hellbardt (Vischer),

but that he is finally unable to escape the implications of his own neo

orthodox orientation. He has dealt with the symptoms but not the cause

of the chronic malaise of OT theology, esp. in Eichrodt's time: the

unresolved dilemma arising from the uncertain relationship of God, or

human knowledge of God, and history. Eichrodt's approach to Hg. is bur

dened or at least strongly influenced from the start by his theological

views and the epistemology in which they are rooted.

Before making final observations about Eichrodt, it is necessary

to turn to von Rad and Jacob.

3.2 G . von Rad

Von Rad's early work dates from well before WW 1 1 , ^ but it is in

the post-war years that his influence as an OT theologian really begins.

During this era it is safe to say that von Rad comes to dominate OT ,

^ T h e formal problem of historical relativity as Eichrodt articu

lates it here is perhaps more directly associated with Troeltsch than
with neo-Kantianism specifically. But then Troeltsch's own view of his
tory is heavily influenced by Kant or neo-Kantian thought. Cf. Willey,
Back to Kant, 156-161; Schnddelbach, Philosophy, 56ff.
88
For von Rad's early writings see his Gesammelte Studien zum Alten
Testament, 1958. Probably his most important work from this period is
Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch, 1938. For a chronological
bibliographical survey of most or all of von Rad's works, see Greig
(n.90 below), 313n.l.
 -228-
89
theology. We wish to survey some features of his hgl. approach and

to point to its problematic nature. Despite von Rad's use of the apel-

lation 'Hg.,' we shall see that his hgl. approach is in fact more remote

from that of Hofmann-Schlatter than Eichrodt's.

3.21 Von Rad's conception of Hg.

Spriggs reports that von Rad 'never defined exactly what he meant'
90
by Hg. Whether this is correct depends on how strictly one takes

'exactly.' Undeniably tensions and ambiguities plague von Rad's view

91
of Hg. Yet he does define what he means, at least to his own satis

faction.

In one of his earlier methodological statements he characterizes

Hg. as 'ein Geschichtslauf, der von Gottes Wort in Bewegung gesetzt und

durch immer neues Gotteswort gestaltet und seinem Ziele zugefllhrt

92
wird.' This gives OT theology one of its chief tasks: to trace the

'heilsgeschichtliche dialektische Spiel von Verheissung und ErfUllung'

93
which is the principle dynamic of OT self-understanding. A decade

89
Cf. W.H.Schmidt, '"Theologie des Alten Testaments" vor und nach
Gerhard von Rad,' VF 17 (1972) 1-25. Eichrodt's theology remains impor
tant but as von Rad notes is far too naive, from the standpoint of
Nothian OT criticism at any rate, about the unity of the OT documents.
See von Rad, 'Offene Fragen im Umkreis einer Theologie des Alten Testa
ments,' TLZ 8 8 (1963) 403ff.
90
D.Spriggs, Two Old Testament Theologies, 1974, 34. Taking issue
with this claim is A.J.Greig, Some Formative Aspects in the Develop
ment of von Rad's Idea of History,' AUSS 16 (1978) 320n.l6.
91
Cf. Spriggs, o.c. 34-38; Greig, Geschichte and Heilsgeschichte,
passim; F.Hesse, Abschied von der Heilsgeschichte, 1971; Goldingay, Ap
proaches, 72. See also e.g. Hasel, OT Theology, 57-75; G.H.Davies,
'Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology,' in OT Theologians, ed. by
Laurin, 63-89; J.Crenshaw, Gerhard von Rad, 1978, esp. 166-172; Schmid,
VF 17 (1972) 1-25.
92
Von Rad, 'Grundprobleme einer biblischen Theologie des Alten
Testaments,' TLZ 6 8 (1943) 227.
93
Ibid. 229.
 -229-

later von Rad notes: 'Immer wider hat Israel zu neuen Geschichtsent-

wUrfen angesetzt, um sich das RUtsel seiner Existenz vor Gott zu deu-

ten. ' But the 'Geschichtslauf' which the OT pictures 'ist nicht der

goldene Faden in der Weltgeschichte, vielmehr manifestiert sich hier

94
zunehmend die Verborgenheit des gtittlichen Heilshandelns.' Again, von

Rad speaks of 'ein eigentUmlich dialektisches Spiel von Verheissung und

95
ErfUllung' and sees in this interplay the main subject of OT theology,

which is Hg. itself. In von R a d s theology Hg. seems to be the 'ever

reaching-out to and avowal of God's acts which in the end made the old
96
creedal statements grown into. . . enormous masses of tradition.' The

OT 'way of looking at history. . . which may be called salvatio-

historical. . . understands each period' of its remembered and trans

mitted past 'as a realm of tension between a promise revealed and its
97
realisation, between a prophecy and its fulfillment.' Von Rad notes:

Practically the entire. . . Old Testament is attached, in the form

of larger or small accumulations of tradition, to a few saving in
stitutions ordained by God; and this means that Israel was inces
santly at work upon making her God's saving acts and institutions
actual.98

Hg. is thus the unfolding self-awareness of Israel in the OT that God,

who acted redemptively in the (only dimly recollected) past so as still

to be influencing the present, would again one day manifest himself de

cisively in the future. A hgl.outlook is accordingly one which

die jeweils ips Auge gefasste Geschichtsstrecke in einem ganz spe-

cifischen Sinne als ein Spannungsfeld versteht zwischen einem offen-
bar gewordenen Versprechen einerseits und der EinlUsung dieses Ver-
sprechens andererseits, zwischen einer Verheissung und einer
ErfUllung.99

94
Von Rad, 'Kritische Vorarbeiten zu einer Theologie des Alten Testa
ments,' Theologie und Liturgie, ed. by L. Henning, 1952, 30.
95 96
Ibid. 33. OT Theology, vol. 1, vi.
97 98 99
Ibid. vol. 2, 426. Ibid. 368. TLZ 88 (1963) 415.
 -230-

In weighing von Rad's conception of Hg. , it will be instructive, to

see, as in Eichrodt's case, how he assesses Hofmann. He adopts the com

mon but even by Eichrodt disputed position that Hofmann's use of Hg.

derives from 'the philosophic climate of the times. ' Hofmann be

lieved that the objective nature of the OT events was important to the
101
writers of the OT, while von Rad considers it established that the

picture of OT history as we have it in the OT is an increasingly ima

ginative revisionist construct of a host of authors and redactors scat-

102
tered across many centuries. Von Rad opposes Hofmann's assessment

of the basic historicity, and therefore unity, of the OT documents with

the contention that Israel had its peculiar 'rational understanding,'

which was 'a critical way of thinking. . . which learned how to select,
103
combine, and even reject, data from the wealth of tradition.' Through
104
'arduous work' done 'on the traditions,' the unknown compilers of

the OT developed 'the theory that Jahweh accompanied Israel along her
105
road through history. ' It would seem that von Rad and Hofmann both

use the term Hg. but their idea of it is vastly different. This is

attributable mainly to Hofmann's assumption of the OT's basic relia

bility and unity over against von Rad's stress on the unreliability and

'extreme discontinuity' inhering in the OT documents .1 0 3 For Hofmann

Hg. expresses the OT's link with past historical reality, its inner con-

1 0 0T Theology, vol. 2, 362. 1 0 1 Ibid. vi. !

102
Ibid. 99-125. Cf. 413: 'Israel constantly fell back on the old
traditions connected with the great saving appointments' and then 'ac-
tualised them in a very arbitrary, often novel, way.' If we enquire
after the accuracy of Israel's apprehension and re-expression of the
tradition, von Rad answers: we cannot know in the end whether Israel's
interpretation of its remembered past was in any way faithful to the
facts or not; see TLZ 8 8 (1963) 414.

1030T Theology, vol. 2, 108f. 104Ibid. 412. 105Ibid. 112.

106Ibid. 362.
 -231-

sistency, and its close ties to the NT, so that Hg. comprises a histori

cally concrete (as well as theologically relevant) coherent whole. For

von Rad the unity of the OT (cf. F. C.Baur's view of the NT) is largely

'ein spekulativ-philosophisches Prinzip, das als unbewusste Prdmisse

wirksam wird'; it is scarcely a legitimate 'Anliegen der historischen

107
oder theologischen Erkenntnis.' And since the OT for von Rad lacks

inherent internal unity, it follows that the 'history' on which von

Rad's Hg. is based takes on a distinctively shadowy quality.

3.22 Von Rad's method and the meaning of Hg.

We may already note von Rad's fundamental similarity to the Baur-

Wrede heritage. Like Baur with reference to the NT, he rejects any uni

fied conception of the OT as necessarily dogmatically or philosophically

motivated. Like both Baur and Wrede, he claims methodological exclu

sivity for his approach .1 0 8 He criticizes Hofmann because of the lat

ter 's belief that the OT reports are substantially congruent with actual

past historical phenomena; for von Rad in a major sense it was the reli

gious imagination of ancient Israel that took up, fleshed out, and

passed on random disparate traditions which eventually werereified in

Israel's religious consciousness. This conception of how the OT reports

came into existence human thinking gave rise to stories about histori

cal occurrences, rather than the latter to the former is of course mu-

tatis mutandis identical to that of Baur and similar to that of Wrede.

109
Greig reports that the source of von Rad's view of history is Dilthey.
110
Goldingay sees the influence of Barth. In all events it can hardly
107
TLZ 88 (1963) 405n.3a.
108
Cf. J.Barr, 'Recent Biblical Theologies VI. Gerhard von Rad's
Theologie des Alten Testaments,' ExpT 73 (1961-62) 142.
109
Greig, AUSS 16 (1978) 324-331.
110
Goldingay, Approaches, 70n.l9; cf. Reventlow, Hauptprobleme, 156.
 -232-

be questioned that for von Rad, in marked contrast to Hofmann and

Schlatter, 'the importance of the historical basis of Israel's faith

* 111
fades out, and the kerygma becomes all important.' But the histori

cal grounding for this kerygma, for von Rad as for Bultmann (ch. 5 be-
112
low), remains a largely unanswered, or negatively answered, question.

Kraus claims that in von Rad's OT theology 'alle Kategorien und Sys-

teme, die bislang massgebend waren, gesprengt werden [sind] . ' It is cer-

tianiy true that von Rad's approach to Hg. is incongruous with that of
114
Hofmann and Schlatter. For unlike these hgl. forerunners, von Rad

in no way develops 'a critique of the historical method, nor has he at-
115
tempted to come to grips with its basic philosophical assumptions.'

Barr speaks for many in concluding that von Rad's approach by trying

'to make Heilsgeschichte control everything. . . may only prove the

impossibility of letting Heilsgeschichte control anything.'11^

It is not incumbent on us to mediate in the dispute over the meaning

of Hg. in von Rad. Whatever it turns out to be, it has extremely limi

ted resemblance in fact to Hg. as envisioned in the methodologies of

117
Hofmann and Schlatter.
111
Greig, AUSS 16 (1978) 322.
112
According to Pannenberg, 'Glaube und Wirklichkeit im Denken Ger
hard von Rads,' Gerhard von Rad: Seine Bedeutung ftir die Theologie,
1973, 40, von Rad's position is somewhat more radical than Bultmann's.
Bultmann assumed that we today can rediscover and share at least the
believing self-iunderstanding of the biblical writers. For von Rad how
ever 'werden die biblischen Texte in ihrer vollen historischen Anders-
artigkeit zur Frage an die Gegenwart, weil dieselbe Wirklichkeit die
des Menschen, der Welt und der Geschichte von ihren Verfassern ganz
anders erfahren wurde als in der Moderne.'
113 114
Biblische Theologie, 138. Cf. ibid. 137n.50.
116 116
" Greig, AUSS 16 (1978) 323. Barr, ExpT 73 (1961-62) 145.
117
Von Rad's citation of Schlatter in TLZ 6 8 (1943) 231 really only
underscores the contrast between the two men's outlooks, at least in
the light of von Rad's subsequent writings.
 -233-

3.3 E . J acob

3.31 Theology of the Old Testament

Jacob is not usually thought of as basing his Theology on a hgl.

outlook. Yet scrutiny of his writings bears out that this is to a large

extent the case and establishes him as the major post-war OT theologian

who has utilized a hgl. approach consistent (more or less) with the re

quests sounded earlier in OT studies from Ktiberlie and Lotz to Procksch.

Jacob holds that the OT writers or compilers from the Yahwist down

to the Chronicler evince a hgl. perspective. OT theology does well to

'draw inspiration from them so as not to fit the Old Testament into a

modern scheme or explain it according to a dialectic that is fundamen-

118
tally foreign to it. ' Jacob sees the OT as a unity, without which
119
there could be no OT theology. These remarks betray Jacob's sympa

thies with others who have stressed Hg. in OT theology, as well as with

Hofmann and Schlatter.

Jacob goes on to commend Irenaeus, the Antiochene school, and Augus-

120
tine for their insight into the hgl. presence and work of God. This

praise extends as well to both Luther and Calvin, who manifest keen his-
121
torical (Luther) and typological (Calvin) insight. Jacob also lauds
122
Cocceius and Bengel. As Jacob sketches the background for his own

method it is clear that he is identifying to a considerable extent with

advocates of a fairly traditional understanding of Hg.

Rationalism was integral to Gabler's program for biblical theology,

Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, 1958, Ilf.

11Q -I Of)
Ibid. 12f. Ibid.13ff.
121 122
Ibid. 16ff. Ibid. 18ff.
 -234-

and the rationalistic world-view snuffed out vital features of the OT's
123
self-perception. Faced with new challenges from philosophy and cri

tical historiography, theology had somehow to 'make fresh contact with

the Scriptures as a normative authority' in order to preserve validity

124
and 'autonomy.' Here Hofmann is noted. 'Despite some eccentri

cities,' his overlooked contributions are (1 ) that he provides an

enduring

solid basis for the construction of a theology of the Old Testament

which could take account of history and of salvation and [_2] the
highly important discovery that salvation is carried out through
the course of history .1 2 5

Jacob (here calling Procksch to mind) takes up Hofmann's insights and

thereby takes another step in the direction of a hgl. approach.^2^

Central to Jacob's method is his rejection of any epistemology that

would limit valid cognitive knowledge to the purely phenomenological

(in a rationalistic sense) realm. Further, he denies the viewpoint of

those who regard OT theology as a branch of study 'depending on pneuma

tic or existential knowledge,' in contrast to other scientific disci-

127
plines within OT study which derive rather from 'historical knowledge.'

He calls for critical historical study but like Schlatter rejects the

position that 'the terms "history" and "history of salvation" are.

128
. mutually exclusive.' This is because 'theology does not work
129
[merely] with ideas, but with historical facts'; Jacob here asserts

that it is fully as licit to link 'objective' with what is historically

1 2 3 Ibid. 20f. 1 2 4 Ibid. 21 . 1 2 5 Ibid. 22 .

"*23It is to be noted also that Jacob, along with Hofmann, sees a

whole-Bible biblical theology as 'die logische Folgerung einer heils-
geschichtlichen Theologie' (Jacob, Grundfragen [n.134 below], 51. And
Jacob follows C.Westermann in endorsing a view of the OT-NT relationship
which is basically a restatement of Hofmann's own systematic outlook
(ibid. 47n. 8 ).
1 97 1 PA 1PQ
Jacob, Theology, 27. Ibid. 27f. Ibid. 28.
 -235-

conditioned but theological as with what is 'objective' from a concep

tual standpoint taking its bearings from some a-historical transcendent

absolute. For Jacob 'history gives faith objective reality, while faith
130
makes history understandable.' History is the stage for theology's

unfolding, and theology's verities play leading roles in history's

drama. History and Hg. are not mutually exclusive since they have a

reciprocal, equally objective status; both are aspects of past reality

as it was once experienced and as it now presents itself to us when we

regard and attempt to reconstruct it with the aid of the available

ancient data. Jacob concludes that 'there is no history without theo-

131
logy and no theology without history.' A hgl. approach in very much

the sense advocated by Hofmann and Schlatter ought to give OT theology

its basic direction, according to Jacob.

3.32 Grundfragen Alttestamentlicher Theologie

Jacob's insight within his Theology into the topic of 'God the
132 133
Lord of History' has won high praise, but we cannot delineate his

contribution here. It is more to the point to consider his synthesizing

134
methodological deliberations on OT theology. He considers J. Barr's
135
objections to OT theology of only limited validity. Even J. Albrekt-

son's History and the Gods, a vigorous attempt to debunk the notion that

the OT view of history constitutes something unprecedented in its

130 !
> E.Laurin, 'Edmond Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament,' OT
Theologians, ed. by Laurin, 147.

133 3 32
Jacob, Theology, 30. Ibid. 183-232.

133
Cf. Laurin, 'Jacob,' in OT Theologians, ed. by Laurin, 147;
Wright, JReflections,' in Studia Biblica, 378n.2.
134
Jacob, Grundfragen Alttestamentlicher Theologie, 1970.
135
Ibid. 9 f ., 42ff.
 -236-

Ancient Near Eastern milieu, 'nur die Intensitht der geschichtlichen

Offenbarung in Israel in ein helleres Licht rtAckt. ''*3 3 OT theology is

in a dangerous situation, with the two major trains of thought having

inadvertantly jumped the OT theological tracks: von Rad has fallen prey

to an exaggerated stress on tradition history, Eichrodt to a chronic

and inordinate obeisance to often problematic Religionsgeschichte

137
findings. Jacob seeks to find a way out of this impasse.

Fundamental to the reassessment of OT theology Jacob calls for is

a reappraisal of Hg. It is, to be sure, not sufficient merely to assert

that God is to be found esp. in 'seinem Handeln in der Geschichte , ' '3 8

because this fails to do justice to the personal or relational dimension

of knowledge of a God not characterized only by a theoretical sovereign

ty over history: the God of the OT is characterized as well by 'sein

139
Wille, zu den Menschen zu kommen.' This divine 'coming, 1 which Jacob

prefers to the more static 'presence,' is reflected esp. in the

prophets. The prophet is a person in history, but 'als Mann Gottes

deutet er diese Geschichte.' The encounter of such men under the influ

ence of the 'coming' God 'mit den geschichtlichen Tatsachen macht die
140
Geschichte zur Heilsgeschichte.'

Jacob does not wish to force the OT into a predetermined scheme for

the sake of constructing an OT theology. Yet,

die Alttestamentliche Theologie bleibt trotz aller Einschrhnk;ungen,

die man bei dieser Behauptung machen muss, eine Theologie der Ge
schichte, 1 4 1 in der die Offenbarung durch ein Handeln und nicht

1 3 6 Ibid. 10n.4. 1 3 7 Ibid. 15. 1 3 8 Ibid. 26.

139
Ibid. 20; cf. 22: 'Im Namen Jahwe ist ausgedrtlckt, dass Gott
Mensch wird und dass er doch Gott bleibt.'

1 4 Ibid. 31.
141
But cf. ibid. 36f., where Jacob, citing G.E.Wright, says that
instead of 'Theologie der Geschichte,' 'es wSre angebrachter, von einer
Theologie vom Wirken Gottes zu reden.'
 -237-

durch Ideen geschieht, und zwar durch ein Handeln, das, wenn nicht
nach einem festgelegten Plan, so doch durch ein sicheres Ziel be-
stimmt wird.142

Jacob also has no intention of founding an uncritical school of thought

whose members hew close to the lines established by the OT narratives

accepted indiscriminately. He is aware of the problems posed by OT saga

and tradition. Yet 1Geschichtsschreibung und Sage grdnden beide auf

143
Tatsachen,' while tradition as found in the OT 'steht so wenig im
144
Gegensatz zur Geschichte, dass sie selber zur Geschichte wird.' The

designation 'Hg. 1 is in the end 'nicht ganz unsachgemdss' as a descrip

tion of biblical history, since it bespeaks God's presence and witnesses

145
to his activity in both a horizontal and a vertical sense.

3.33 Summary

Jacob carries the pre-WW II demand for a hgl. approach into post

war OT theology. His position is that biblical theology worthy of the

146
name cannot without jeopardizing its own existence cave in to modern

world-views which in themselves constitute attacks on the testimony of

the OT witnesses. Only a historiography open to the theological data

in the OT, working reciprocally with a theological outlook rooted

in OT history, is capable of perceiving, describing, and eventually

142 143 144
Ibid. 41. Ibid. 34. Ibid. 39.
145
Jacob elaborates: 'Vielleicht ist es mdglich, die verschiedenen
Arten des gdttlichen Wirkens auf zwei Linien zu reduzieren. Der hori-
zontalen Linie entspricht die Theologie der Geschichte im engeren Sinn,
wie wir sie hauptsdchlich bei 'den Propheten und beim Deuteronomisten
finden: Gott fllhrt sein Volk bis zur Erfllllung der Verheissungen unter
der uneingeschr&nkten Herrschaft. Die senkrechte Linie bezeichnen wir
als diejenige des Kommens Gottes. Ihre Wurzeln reichen bis in die An-
fangszeit Israels; aber sie hat ihren Hauptniederschlag in der priester-
lichen Theologie gefunden, als Jerusalem zum Ziel der Wege Gottes gewor-
den war. Meistens aber ist es so, dass die beiden Linien sich kreuzen'
(ibid. 37).
146
Cf. ibid. 49: 'Gott erkennen und das heisst immer auch: mit ihm
in eine Lebensgemeinschaft treten bleibt das stetige Anliegen einer
Theologie, die sich ihres Namens bewusst und seiner wllrdig bleiben will.'
 -238-

interpreting for today the historical-theological significance of its

contents. It should not be forgotten that in one sense questions of

method in OT theology are 1schliesslich von geringerer Wichtigkeit als

147
der Inhalt selbst.' But inappropriate method can easily damage the

fragile substance of the OT's spiritual insight into what it sees as

the divine revelation which is the basic fibre of Israel's historical

existence. Historiographically speaking this requires that OT theology

take its methodological bearings from the hgl. nature of the documents

which comprise its primary basis, and that it also attempt to insure

that modern 'scientific' approaches which reject Hg. be made aware of

the problematic suppositions inhering in their own presumably superior

non-hgl. modes of ordering or explaining the OT data.

3.4 Concluding observations

Since Jacob's Grundfragen much discussion has gone into the problem

of Hg. in OT theology. Reventlow however if anything understates when

he says that it is 'bis heute nicht abschliessend beantwortet,' how his-

148 149
tory relates to OT theology, or vice versa. Hesse's claim that it
150
is time to take leave of the whole idea of Hg. is endorsed by G.Fohrer
151 152
but rejected by Kraus and Goldingay. Schmitt's monograph comprises
153
a painstaking and exhaustive rebuttal of Hesse's thesis. One may
147 148 149
Ibid. 50. Hauptprobleme, 30. Hesse, Abschied
150
Fohrer, rev. of Kraus, Geschichte, 2 1969, TLZ 99 (1974) 503.
To Kraus' question (see inset quote on next page) Fohrer retorts: 'Nein,
einen solchen Ausgleich kann es nicht geben, weil die heilsgeschicht-
liche Theologie eine Verf&lschung des Alten Testaments einschliesst.'
1 SI
Kraus, Geschichte (3 1982), 567-573.
152
Goldingay, Approaches, 67.
15?
Schmitt, Abschied?
 -239-

well agree with Kraus' tacit answer to the question he poses:

Ist das traditionelle GegenUber von historischer Kritik und heils-

geschichtlicher Theologie nun auch in einem Zeitpunkt nicht zur Ruhe
und zum Ausgleich gelangt, in dem ein gegenseitiges Verstehen doch
durchaus mdglich sein sollte ?-*-^4

Yet OT theology and theologies since von Rad have hardly succeeded in

reflecting such a methodological reconciliation. Having noted once more,

then, the transitional nature of OT theology at the moment, we may

summarize our look at Eichrodt, von Rad, and Jacob.

In general it is fair to say that Hg. does indeed play a prominent

role in OT theology after WW II. Yet it must immediately be added:

this is largely an understanding of Hg. which breaks decisively with

a Hofmann-Schlatter model.

Eichrodt seeks to preserve the theological advantages of a hgl. ap

proach but his neo-orthodox orientation raises questions about the na

ture of the concrete historical side of the data he seeks to base his

theology upon. I.e. he arguably places so much weight on the revelatory

nature of Hg. as 'ein nur durch Glauben zu verstehendes Offenbarungs-

geschehen' (cf. Barth) that the status of the historical aspect of the

revelation apart from believing apprehension is called into question.

His break with Hofmann-Schlatter comes precisely at this point. Eich

rodt labors 'in der Gewissheit, dass nur in, mit und unter dem

historisch-bedingten Menschenwort das aktuelle Gotteswort, das an alle

Zeiten und Orte der Gottesgemeinde ergeht, wirklich vernommen werden

155
kann.' This signals an acceptance of a distance between the his

torical side of the revelation (necessarily reflected quite imperfectly,

1 5 4 Kraus, Geschichte, (3 1982), 567f., 502.

1 RR
Eichrodt, TB1 17 (1938) 82.
 -240-
156
so far as the historical facts are concerned ) and the revelatory con

tent (that which through faith 'vernommen werden kann') which would be

unacceptable to both Hofmann and Schlatter. Admittedly Eichrodt's pro

posals are not without their attraction, and anyone who can appreciate

Barth can appreciate Eichrodt. But the fact remains that Eichrodt seems

to introduce and maintain a gap between the biblical history (or the

biblical testimony to it) and its revelatory content. One would be hard

pressed to document such a gap in either Hofmann or Schlatter.

We need not add a great deal to what we have already said concerning

von Rad. We showed above that his approach to Hg. is remote indeed from

that of Hofmann-Schlatter. The OT theologian for whom 'Hg. ' is most

important has perhaps done the most to bring the term under suspicion

in recent decades. But his use of the term, and more importantly how

he arrives at that usage, clearly separates him (as he wished to be

separated) from any but a nominal connection to Hofmann and Schlatter.

Jacob is he who in recent years carries the torch passed from the

19th century into 20th century OT theology by Kbberle, Lotz, Procksch,

and others whether the torch signifies a brave and useful heritage or

a by now almost burnt-out relic of the past can here be left undecided.

He praises Hofmann, despite his limitations. He sees the OT as a con

ceptually unifiable, because historically unified, entity. He chal

lenges neo-Kantian epistemology's sufficiency to deal with the OT

message's full implications. He accordingly denies the assumption,

which crops up in Eichrodt and much more so in von Rad, that history

and revelation can and must somehow be fairly radically distinguished.

156
Cf. ibid. 81ff. Eichrodt's assumption that the historical, i.e.
the scriptures or what they relate, is inherently and categorically in
ferior to its divine referent so that cognitive knowledge of God is
ruled out is one of the most noticeable neo-orthodox features of his
work.
 -241-

Hg. is a not inappropriate rubric under which the OT witness can be

arrayed and comprehended, notwithstanding its limitations and the

perennial criticisms directed against it. Jacob would concur with the

more recent words of W. Lemke: 'The concept of revelation through his

tory is not simply a passing theological fad or aberration, but belongs

156a
to the core of biblical religion . 1

Before relating these findings more specifically to the major ques

tions of this chapter, we need to consider parallel developments in NT

theology.

4. Hg. and hgl. emphases in NT theology (and

related disciplines) after WW II

4.1 The general situation

Studies on history and its meaning, many of which discuss Hg. in

157
some form or another, abound during the post-war years. This wide-

ranging discussion, in which NT theology participates and by which it

is affected, cannot be examined in detail here. Despite a proliferation

of attempts to set forth a synthetic picture or understanding of his

tory's nature or direction, it comes to be viewed by many, not as a fer

tile field for creative and fruitful investigation, but as a vexing and

insoluble problem. From philosophy comes the verdict: 'Das Problem

158
der Geschichte ist zum unumgMnglich Problem der Philosophie geworden.'

The methodological crisis still gripping biblical criticism and theology

156a.
w.Lemke, 'Revelation through History in Recent Biblical Theo
logy,' Int 36 (1982) 34.
157
For a selection of some of these publications see e.g. R.North,
'Bibliography of Works in Theology and History,' History and Theory 12
(1972) 57-140; cf. some of the entries in B.Gelderblom, 'Bibliographie,'
PTNT, 439-464.
158
W.MUller-Lauter, 'Konsequenzen des Historismus in der Philo
sophie der Gegenwart,' ZTK 59 (1962) 226.
 -242-
159
today comes to full bloom in this period. Paradoxically, many NT

scholars of the time 'do not seem to be greatly troubled by questions

160
of historical methodology.' Yet it gradually comes to be recognized

that 'what above all is needed to clarify the nature of New Testament

theology as a theological discipline is critical reflection upon the

procedures of historiography as such.

Reventlow observes that discussion of Hg. in recent decades has been

carried on largely among systematicians and then

vor allem von Neutestamentlern. . . , wMhrend der Anteil der Alt-

testamentler an ihr [die Diskussion] quantitiv geringer ist. Auch
stehen die Alttestamentler hMufiger positiv zu dem Konzept als sol-
chem, wMhrend die Kritik, vor allem in Gefolge R. BULTMANNS, am
stMrksten von neutestamentlicher Seite erfolgt ist.1^

This statement holds true as we look at discussion of Hg. or hgl. out

looks since WW II in NT theology (and related fields where relevant).

We will see an extensive rejection of any hgl. approach at work. This

is in many cases a result of Bultmann's influence. 'Many New Testament

theologians,' and not only these, regard Hg. 'with disfavor, if not with
163
angry disgust' in the post-war era. Yet at the same time we will

see that a variety of writers, along with but by no means dependent on

Cullmann (see next ch.), argue for the validity of a hgl. outlook in

some form.

Throughout this section, not exhaustiveness but an accurate overview

is our goal. We are also not concerned to survey discuss,ion on Hg.

right up to the present hour; our purpose is to furnish historical back-

159
Cf. e.g. A.Nations, 'Historical Criticism and the Current
Methodological Crisis,' SJT 36 (1983) 59-71.

^ ^ T . A. Roberts, 'Some Presuppositions of Gospel Criticism,' TU 73

(SE 1, 1959) 6 6 .

1 ^ 1 A.Richardson, 'What Is New Testament Theology?' TU 112 (SE 6 ,

1969) 465.

^^^Hauptprob1erne, 108. ^*^0'Collins, Foundations, 83.

 -243-

ground for considering Cullmann and others in the next two chapters.

4.2 Systematic rejections of hgl. approaches

4.21 Bultmann

Of course if by Hg. one understands an individualistic 'Geschicht-

164
lichkeit,' then Bultmann1s approach is hgl. But Hg. in the sense

pioneered by Hofmann-Schlatter does not and cannot carry this existen

tialist connotation.

Bultmann's systematic rejection of Hg., which can be traced esp.

to epistemological considerations, will be treated in both ch. 4 and

ch. 5 below. An imaginative rearticulation of his basic position is

165
set forth more recently by G. Klein, whose opinion is already clear

from his article1s title. Both KUmmel and Schmitt have rebutted Klein

in d e t a i l . A t this point we simply call attention to Bultmann's

position as a preliminary to showing some characteristic after-effects.

4.22 Bultmannian positions

Bultmannian thinking makes its way into OT theology, and not only

through the work of von R a d . ^ ^ W. Herberg, admittedly no slavish Bult

mannian, nevertheless relates Hg. to human existence in thoroughly

1G8
existentialist terms. Bultmann's basic position, combined with in-
164
See e.g. G.Kaufman , 'The Imago Dei as Man's Historicity,' JR 36
(1956) 157-168. Here insights from Barth and Collingwood lead to the
conclusion that man's divine image consists in his historicity, in which
he creates himself anew from a remembered past.
165
'Bibel und Heilsgeschichte: die FragwUrdigkeit einer Idee,' ZNW
62 (1971) 1-47.

^ ^ K U m m e l , 'Hg. im NT?' in Heilsgeschehen, 157-176; Schmitt,

Abschied?, passim. Cf. Goldingay, Approaches, 92n.l04.

^ ^ S e e e.g. G.Fohrer, 'Die zeitliche und Uberzeitliche Bedeutung

des Alten Testaments,' EvT 9 (1949) 447-460; F .BaumgMrtel, ch.2 n.103
above. Von Rad's and Weiser's ties to Bultmann have already been noted.
16R
Herberg, 'Biblical Faith as Heilsgeschichte,' CS 39 (1956) 25-
31.
 -244-

sights esp. from the later Heidegger and Bonhoeffer, becomes > the core

of a 'new hermeneutic' in which any possibility of adopting a hgl. per-

169
spective is implicitly excluded. For the new hermeneutic the Bible's

history is largely the object of a historical criticism whose goal in

170
turn is to reach 'nichts anderes. . . als die Entsicherung' of faith.
171
Then paradoxically true faith becomes a possibility. It can be ques

tioned here in what sense, if any, the NT is being legitimately hand-

171
led, not merely from a hgl. but from a rational standpoint.
172
F. FlUckinger terms Bultmann's a hgl. theology. Approvingly he

notes:

Heilsgeschichte geht bei Bultmann im Grunde auf in diesem 'hier und

jetzt' der Begegnung, sie wird zur Heils-Geschichtlichkeit, d.h.
zu der je und je in der Existenz sich ereigenden Begegnung mit Gott
in seinem Wort. Gott begegnet mir nie gegenst&ndlich. . . , es kann
darum auch keiri historisches Faktum mehr geben, das Offenbarung
wSLre.
175
E. Dinkier stresses the same aspects of Bultmann's theology and de

fends Bultmann's analysis of history over against Cullmann's . Cull-

mann's conception of Hg. does indeed rearticulate a viewpoint arising

169
Cf. the approach to history evinced in Ebeling, 'The World as
History,' Word and Faith, 363-373.
170
E.Reisner, 'Hermeneutik und historische Vernunft,' ZTK 49 (1952)
233. Reisner terms Ebeling's approach 'hyperparadox.'
171
Cf. Ebeling, 'Jesus and Faith,' Word and Faith, 240, where 'the
certainty of faith' signifies 'taking sure steps although no road is
visible, hoping although there is nothing to look for, refusing to de
spair althqugh things are desparate, having ground under us although
we step into the bottomless abyss.'
172
A.Thiselton, 'The New Hermeneutic,' NT Interpretation, ed. by
Marshall, 323ff.
173
FlUckinger, 'Heilsgeschichte und Weltgeschichte,' EvT 18 (1958) 41.
174
Ibid. 43.
175
Dinkier, 'Existentialist Interpretation of the New Testament,'
JR 32 (1952) 87-96.

1 7 Dinkler, 'Earliest Christianity,' in IHANE, 169-214.

 -245-
177
in NT times, but it is one 'made up of syncretistic components.' For
178
NT believers 'the history of our human world remains a riddle.' Sal

vation then is only a matter related to Hg. in the sense 'that the

Christian is set free with regard to his own past, that he is able to

transcend history as a nexus, that he can therefore decide within his-

179
tory for history and actualize his history;' Bultmann has led us

to see the NT's real message about history: that it is to be viewed

'not in cosmological or metaphysical terms but in terms of the histori

city of man.' Augustine and Kierkegaard had glimpsed this insight, but

since NT times it was otherwise 'not taken up explicitly until our 20th
,18
century.'

NT theologies as such also reflect Bultmann's influence. This is

181
perhaps most true in the work of H. Conzelmann. Heclearly wants

to refine and go beyond Bultmann's insights, yet his basic position is

that 'salvation does not develop out of the world, say as the meaning

and goal of world history . '*8 2 'Redemption is not a situation in the

world, but a determination of the being of the world itself .''*"8 8 These

statements are incongruous with a hgl. approach.

J. Jeremias' impressive handling of Jesus' ministry is so anti-

184
Bultmannian as to fail to move from without his adversary's shadow.

Jeremias speaks of 'Der Anbruch der Heilszeit''*'8 8 and even of H g .,'*'8 8

and he sees that 'unkritische Skepsis kann ungewollt zur Gesch,ichtsver-

177 178 179 180
Ibid. 207. Ibid. 210. Ibid. 213. Ibid. 214.

18*~An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament, 1969.

1 8 2 Ibid. 201. 1 8 3 Ibid. 200.

184
Neutestamentliche Theologie, Erster Teil, Die Verktlndigung Jesu,
1971.

185Ibid. 81-123. 186Ibid. 86f., 266f.

 -246-
187
fMlschung fUhren, but a hg l . outlook in the Hofmann-Schlatter sense

is not a feature of his presentation. Jeremias' preoccupation with the

linguistic dimension of the historical data by no means lamentable in

itself prevents him from integrating extensive consistent theological

interpretation or reflection in his work. This is perhaps the price

that had to be paid if a concentrated effort to undermine Bultmann's

critical fortress were to succeed.

188
Ebeling's influential essay on biblical theology implicitly rules

out Hg. in several ways. First, he denies that either the OT or the
189
NT comprise a theological unity to begin with. In addition, the idea

of the canon itself is ruled out by 'application of the historical

190
method.' Therefore a unified hgl. NT theology drawn primarily from

the canonical scriptures would be unscientific. Second, the relatively

orthodox (theologically) picture of biblical history, revelation, and

faith common to most proponents of a hgl. perspective is excluded by

biblical theology's own 'dogmatic element,' which necessarily 'adopts

a more or less critical attitude to that dogmatic tradition' which corn-

191
prises or circumscribes Christian belief. Third, Hg. is excluded

by definition from biblical theology when Ebeling defines it as 'the

scientific explication of the content of the Old and New Testament' as

192
opposed to an exposition of 'the content of the Old or New Testament.'

Here Ebeling builds a rejection of Hg. into his definition of biblical

theology by elevating at the outset the understanding of history (or

187
Ibid. 272.

'The Meaning of "Biblical Theology",' Word and Faith, 79-97.

189 190.
Ibid. 91f. Ibid. 92f.
191 192
Ibid. 90f. Ibid. 94.
 -247-

even of reality) which informs a given modern 'scientific explication'

over that historical outlook which might be found in the OT or NT them

selves. Ebeling's formulation is consistent with Bultmann's view of

NT theology as a presentation of certain NT writers' believing self-

understanding with reference to a kerygma with is conceptually ineffable

193
and indescribable. A hgl. perspective is methodologically ruled out

by this approach, whatever the historical data might say.

Other systematic rejections of Hg. could be mentioned that reflect

194
direct Bultmannian influence. But rather to discuss these, which

would contribute little to the scenario already sketched of a discipline

which is avoiding hgl. readings of the NT due in large measure to Bult

mann's dominating stature, we move on to viewpoints which reject or make

little use of Hg. for somewhat different reasons.

4.23 Non-Bultmannian non-hgl. positions

S. Neill praises Jeremias' Theologie as perhaps 'the most important

195
book written about the New Testament in the last fifty years,' and his

popularly written NT theology, like Jeremias', also does not comprise

a hgl. approach. He makes relatively little use of Cullmann's insights

and, despite many excellent theological observations, hardly succeeds

in presenting a clear theological synthesis of the NT material. This

is true in spite of the fact that Neill wished to try to hold history
193
I.,e. its content is not accessible by cognitive means and does
not admit to being either expressed in or apprehended by means of pro-
positional statements. The kerygmatic proclamation does not convey in
formation but opens up relational possibility. See esp. ch. 5 below.
194
E.g. W.R.Baird, Jr., 'Current Trends in New Testament Study,'
JR 39 (1959) 137-153; S.Ogden, 'What Sense Does It Make to Say "God Acts
in History"?' JR 43 (1963) 1-19.
195
Jesus Through Many Eyes, 1976, 169.
 -248-
196
and theology together, which he often succeeds in doing at individual

points.
197
E. Lohse's NT theology stresses the diversity of the NT witnesses.

The NT cannot be understood by means of one 1libergreifende Idee1; on

this ground Lohse rejects the attempt to speak of a 'heilsgeschichtliche

198
Schau' in the NT. That he oversimplifies and thus distorts what a

hgl. perspective entails need hardly be mentioned. His presentation

implies that a hgl. understanding in the NT is generally limited to

Luke, who faced questions of the delayed parousia at a late stage of

199
church development. Embarrassing circumstances in Lukes day re

quired that 'die Frage nach dem Sinn der Geschichte muss. . . gestellt

und beantwortet werden.'29 Lohse's treatment not only fails to reflect

a hgl. understanding of the NT: his marshalling of the evidence so

heightens NT disunity that it is doubtful whether any but the slenderest

material commonality inheres in the NT witness. This is hardly changed

by his compensatory closing remark that precisely 'hinter und in der

Vielfalt der Worte' one is enabled to a personal discernment of the one

201
crucified Christ. Perhaps Lohse is more indebted to Bultmann that

he is aware.

Hg. plays no important role in A. Richardson's NT theology, which

202
comprises a thematic and even confessional approach. 0. Betz's history

1 9 6 Ibid. 9. ,
197
Grundriss der neutestamentlichen Theologie, 1974, e.g. esp. 162,
164.

1 9 8 Ibid. 162. 1 9 9 Ibid. 122-125.

2 Ibid. 123. 2 0 1 Ibid. 164.

202
An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, 1958, cri
ticized severely by L.Keck, 'Problems of New Testament Theology,' NovT
7 (1964) 217-241.
 -249-

of biblical theology (1962) treats and dismisses Hg. in four terse

203
lines. D. Guthrie's NT theology is not averse to Hg. many of his

convictions, methods, and conclusions agree with those of Hofmann and

Schlatter but his systematic organization tends to obscure the NT's

204
development and possible hgl. continuity.

Some continue to reject Hg. for reasons akin to those of Pfeiffer

(2.41 above). Hg. is assumed to entail a regularity and goal in history

which is alien to the modern world-view. We may assume today that there

is rational 'order in the universe,' but otherwise 'critical historical

research can brook no theoretical presuppositions' of the sort implied

205
in a hgl. outlook. McCown adds, obviously not considering these as

his own theoretical presuppositions:

The nature of divine activity, as seen by the ancient world, was

arbitrary, deterministic, and miraculous. . . . Modern science and
philosophy have no place for miracles and special providences. His
tory is the result of the complex interaction of natural and social
forces and the actions and reactions of men. . . . God acts only
through men. Neither the liberal nor the conservative, neither the
historian nor the theologian can afford to neglect this total dif
ference of w o r l d - v i e w . ^06

McCown thus excludes the possibility of Hg. on the grounds that it re

flects an unacceptable pre-scientific world-view. W. Irwin speaks in

similar, if slightly more optimistic, terms:

The only true Heilsgeschichte is Weltgeschichte, the entire process

of the numberless ages through which 'the redemptive forces of the
universe' have slowly, and as yet very imperfectly, won man away
from his beastly impulses towards the path that leads upward to the
perfect d a y . ^ ^
203
'History of Biblical Theology,' IDB, vol. 1, 432-437.
204
New Testament Theology, 1981.
205
C.McCown, 'The Current Plight of Biblical Scholarship,' JBL 75
(1956) 17.

207
W.Irwin, 'A Still Small Voice. . . Said, What Are You Doing
Here?' JBL 78 (1959) 6 .
 -250-

In the same vein H. Wieman rejects a hgl. outlook, because it makes his-
208
tory itself subordinate to a non- or supra - historical reality. 'The

whole of history has no. . . overall direction or pattern,' contrary

to the assumption of Hg., and 'the greatest danger' faced by man today

is religious outlooks on life and history which prevent an appropriately

contemporary and purely secular synthesis of man's basic religious drive

209
with the sovereign findings of science and technology.

4.24 Summary

Without here going further into rejections or discussion of Hg. and

210
related questions, we draw attention based on the above remarks to

the widespread rejection of any hgl. approach to NT theology and related

disciplines during the years under consideration. In this respect there

is a proliferation of hostility toward Hg. in contrast to the often more

measured deliberation which went on between the wars (ch. 2 above).

Bultmann leads the way, but he has many followers and several fellow-

leaders. One needs to note this prevalent anti-Hg. climate when one

seeks to trace the fate of the hgl. approach, or calls for openness to

it, from pre-WW II times forward. In many, if not most, spheres of

203
H.Wieman, 'Divine Creativity in History,' RelL 33 (1964) 57.
209 . __
Ibid. 65.
210
Cf. e.g. W.Trillhaas, 'Vom geschichtlichem Denken in der Theo
logie,' TLZ 80 (1955) 513-522, esp. 514n.l; J.Blank, 'Geschichte und
Heilsgeschichte,' WW 23 (1968) 116127; G.Kaufman, 'On the Meaning of
"Act of God",' HTR 61 (1968) 175201; D.R.Griffin, 'Relativism, Divine
Causation, and Biblical Theology,' Enc 36 (1975) 342-360; D.R.Mason,
'Can We Speculate on How God Acts?' JR 57 (1977) 16-32 (response to
Kaufman above), M.Wiles, 'In what sense is Christianity a "historical"
religion?' Th 81 (1978) 4-14; F.E.Sontag, 'Is God Really in History?'
RelS 15 (1979) 379-390; T.Tracy, 'Enacting History: Ogden and Kaufman
on God's Mighty Acts,' JR 64 (1984) 20-36.
 -251-

critical thought neither the approach nor the earlier calls are given

serious consideration. As we have already suggested, it is clear that

despite a surfeit of verbiage after WW II about revelation in history,

there is a real possibility that the merits of. the hgl. position are

hardly weighed in many quarters. This is possibly due most commonly

to the popularity of Bultmann's position but also due to related out

looks, as well as handlings of the NT itself, which agree with him that

any approach to Hg. resembling that of Hofmann-Schlatter merits only

scorn. This attitude will be further evidenced when we look at

Cullmann in the next chapter.

Paradoxically, while from today's point of view Hg. in the post-WW

II years was primarily a pet theme of the valiant but eventually van-
211
quished Cullmann, there is in fact at the same time a strong under

current of support for a hgl. reading of scripture, and esp. the NT.

This cannot be shown to be solely or even primarily the direct result

of Cullmann, at least not in many cases; it is rather the continuing

insistence of critics in a heritage stretching back to Hofmann that any

historical reading of the Bible (or historical method for reading the

Bible; cf. Filson above) which gives short shrift to hgl. considerations

fails to do justice to the data. We examine now examples of these today

often forgotten or ignored protests against a cavalier dismissal of Hg.

and a hgl. approach.

4.3 Positive responses to Hg. or hgl. approaches

We now survey sample writings of those who affirm Hg. or some form

of a hgl. understanding of the NT history or even history generally.

By no means all of the post-war rhetoric about revelation in history

211
E.g. H.Teeple, The Historical Approach to the Bible, 1982, 142,
in the midst of a confused analysis, states that Cullmann 'introduced
the theory of Heilsgeschichte 1 into NT research.
 -252-

was liberal-critical theologizing utilizing neo-orthodox terminology

(Childs). Many argued for hgl. outlooks in a sense more consistent with

the Hofmann-Schlatter precedent.

4.31 Ancillary disciplines

A series of investigations representing the various fields of his

toriography, philosophy, NT criticism, theology, historical theology,

and apologetics argues, whether implicitly or explicitly, in support

of acceptance of a hgl. outlook. These studies illustrate a general

renewed, or perhaps just continuing, interest in a modified historical-

critical approach commensurate with both historical and theological evi

dence of God's overarching purpose and personal involvement in history.

N. Sykes points out that in formal historiography the concept of

212
history as a pure science is outmoded. It is rather the case that

historiography is rapidly making room for a reunion of theology and his

tory by rejecting the positivistic conception of history as 'a science,

213
no less, no more.' Responsible history-writing requires, at least

for the Christian, the crossing of the 'ditch dividing history and
214
philosophy.' He chides NT criticism's historicistic and atomistic
215
tendencies in the extreme application of form-critical methods. E.

Rust argues that God is 'the Lord of history' and exercises guidance,

not only over some part of human history, but over all of history.
212
N.Sykes, 'Some Recent Conceptions of Historiography and their
Significance for Christian Apologetics,' JTS 50 (1949) 24-37.

2 1 3 Ibid. 27.
214
Ibid. 30ff. Making a similar point is C.F.D.Moule, 'The Border
lands of Ontology in the New Testament,' The Philosophical Frontiers
of Theology, ed. by B.Hebblewaite and S.Sutherland, 1982, 9f.
215
Sykes, o.c. 37. For an exposition and updated expansion of
Sykes' views see I.Ramsey, 'History and the Gospels: Some Philosophical
Reflections,' TU 8 8 (SE 3, 1964) 201-217.
216
E.Rust, The Christian Understanding of History, 1947, 273.
 -253-

1God's revelation through the history of His chosen people and through

the Person and work of His Son is the key to the enigma of historical
217
meaning.' J. S. Marshall draws on Aristotle to help validate a

biblical view of history that 'combines purpose in history with free

218
will.' K. Wennemer is among the first to note Cullmann's acceptance
219 220
in some Roman Catholic critical circles and praises J. Geiselmann

for calling Catholic theology's attention to 'die Notwendigkeit einer

221
folgerecht heilsgeschichtlich ausgerichteten Christologie.' J. W. Bow-
222
man refers to a burgeoning hgl. or 'Prophetic Realism' school of

thought in NT theology. This view is said to be 'essentially one of

main-line Evangelicalism,' but 'Evangelicalism brought up-to-date' by

wedding recent historical-critical findings with traditional Christian

223
beliefs. 0. Tiililh attempts to reformulate elements of Hofmann's
224
and Beck's hgl. approaches. It is a task of considerable importance,

and one which TiililM takes up, 'aufs neue das bleibend Wertvolle der

heilsgeschichtlichen Eschatologie sowie der heilsgeschichtlichen

225
Schriftauflegung Uberhaupt festzustellen und fruchtbar zu machen.'
217
Ibid. 5. Also by Rust is Towards a Theological Understanding
of History, 1963.

S. Marshall, 'History in the Aristotelian Vein,' ATR 32 (1950)

245-256.
219
K.Wennemer, 'Zur Frage einer heilsgeschichtlichen Theologie,'
Scholastik 29 (1954) 73-79.
! 220
Cf. Geiselmann, Jesus der Christus, 1951.
221
Wennemer, o.c. 79.
222
Bowman, 'From Schweitzer to Bultmann,' TToday .11 (1954) 160-178;
cf. Bowman's Prophetic Realism and the Gospel, 1955.
223
Bowman, TToday 11 (1954) 170.
224
O.Tiiliia, 'Ueber die heilsgeschichtliche Schriftauslegung,'
Gedenkschrift fdr D. Werner Elert, ed. by HUbner, Kinder, and Maurer,
283-287.
225
Ibid. 283.
 -254-

A. Bengsch tries to show the relevance and usefulness of Irenaeus 1 hgl.

outlook for modern NT t h e o l o g y . J . W. Montgomery adopts a hgl. per

spective in advocating the plausibility, even cogency of what he takes

22 '
to be a Christian view of reality generally and history in particular.

From this summary of statements representing a wide range of disci

plines and viewpoints we can see something of the 'widespread post-war

preoccupation with questions about history's purpose and God's role

within it. C. T. Mclntire may be correct in diagnosing a post-WW II

renaissance 'of a predominately Augustinian Christian view of history'

228
in some intellectual and literary circles. Whatever the validity

of a hgl. approach to NT theology, it certainly cannot be dismissed,

even in the post-war years, as an idiosyncratic innovation introduced

by a radical (or reactionary) few within that discipline. (Chs. 1 and

2 show even more fully how this would be a gross misunderstanding of

how Hg. came to be an issue in the Bultmann and post-Bultmann era. )

This raises the question of just how NT theologians took up and

articulated hgl. modes of historical-theological interpretation during

these years.

4.32 NT theology

The previous section showed a few typical post-war endorsements of

Hg. or hgl. outlooks. In this larger milieu, NT theology itself has

its own movements of thought. Yet, contrary to Bowman's suggestion

above, NT theology does not crassly undertake to superimpose orthodoxy

on historical-critical findings. Nor does the discipline with

^2 6 A.Bengsch, Heilsgeschichte und Heilswissen, 1957.

227
J.W.Montgomery, 'Where is History Going?' RelL 33 (1963-64) 238-
255.

2 ^McIntire, 'Introduction,' in Herbert Butterfield: Writings on

Christianity and History, ed. by Mclntire, 1979, xix.
 -255-

Montgomery adopt a presumed Christian philosophy of history and then

approach the sources. Rather we find that, much in keeping with the

Hofmann-Schlatter precedent, historical-critically serious NT theolo

gians argue for the hermeneutical necessity of a hgl. approach to the

NT data if it is to be heard aright.

We limit ourselves below to a mere five examples of this trend.

We want chiefly to depict its main features and to show how in many ways

it is not directly dependent on Cullmann, when it is related to him at

all. We leave out such figures as Stauffer, J. Danielou, and 0. Piper,

229
who would have borne inclusion had space permitted.

4.321 A. Wilder (1947)

230
Wilder calls H g . ' a datum. . . found in Scripture . 1 NT theology
231
must be scientific and synthetic, but it can also incorporate a

Christian confessional standpoint without sacrificing critical inte

grity. This is true presumably because the data furnish critical ground

for the confession. 'The most promising contemporary approach' to NT

theology'lies along the lines denoted by Heilsgeschichte and Geschichts-

theologie.' Wilder, who shows only nominal familiarity with Cullmann's

work understandably, since Christus und die Zeit had just been pub

lished continues with a precise delineation of the parameters and ad

vantages of a hgl. approach to NT theolgy; Hg. embodies 'the fundamental

conception' of NT theology and points toward 'the proper manner of pre-

232
sentation.' NT theology, rightly conceived, accordingly
229
Stauffer, 'Der Stand der neutestamentlichen Forschung,' in Theo
logie und Liturgie, ed. by Henning, 35-105, esp. 97ff.; Danielou, 'The
New Testament and the Theology of History,' TU 73 (SE 1, 1959) 25-34;
Piper, 'Christology and History,' TToday 19 (1962) 324-340.
230
Wilder, 'New Testament Theology in Transition,' Study of Bible,
ed. by Willoughby, 422.
poi pop
Ibid. 434. Ibid. 435.
 -256-

presents the divine plan and the course of divine action from a
point before time, through history, to a point beyond time in a his
tory of salvation which is also a history of the totality of exis
tence . The writings of the New Testament taken together present
this world picture, some documenting certain aspects of the whole
process, others documenting others, but all the writings in their con
ceptions belonging within the common world view. This historical
realism of the Bible, this sense of the creative and redemptive pro
cess, in which providence, history, community, conflict with evil
powers, and eschatology have so large a place, forbids a presenta
tion in terms of static or conceptual doctrines or phases of reli
gious experience or piecemeal documents. And this view corrects
the approach of the dialectical theology; for here revelation is
embodied in a thoroughgoing and inextricable way in the process of
history indeed, it is hidden, for the superficial observer, in the
context of the relative and not imposed upon it or abstracted from
it. This approach also corrects the method of historicism, which
fails to give full recognition to the dramatic and organic unity
of the canon and which, in its concern for the morphology of reli
gion and the morphology of the religion of the separate writings
and figures, loses sight of the over-all picture of the world pro
cess. Such an approach renews the insights of the premodern period,
while benefiting by the contributions of modern scholarship, and
has the further merit of reading the New Testament more fully in
the l i g h t of its own p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s . 233

Wilder, like Hofmann-Schlatter and others, is arguing that the NT data

will not well admit of reduction to the size or shape typically demanded

by given popular critical methods. The realities of which the NT speaks

spring the constraints of historicism and a-historical theology. A

satisfactory full-orbed understanding of the NT is not forthcoming as

long as modern assumptions about reality are used to stifle the claims

of the NT text itself. With virtually no reliance on Cullmann, Wilder

carries into the post-war years the same general convictions about the

necessity of a hgl. approach (and the deficiencies, despite their con

tribution, of non-hgl. methods) that we traced earlier in the pre-war

era.

4.322 B. Reicke (1953)

Reicke addresses the problem of the unity of the NT as it surfaces

233
Ibid. 4 3 5 f.
 -257-
234
in the theologies of Stauffer, M. Burrows, M. Meinertz, and Bult

mann. He notes that these four approach the question markedly dif

ferently. Reicke suggests that what Bultmann and Meinertz have wrongly

rejected, and what Stauffer and Burrows have failed adequately to

stress, is that alle neutestamentlichen Schriften sich auf denselben

Jesus Christus und auf dasselbe mit ihm verbundene Geschehen beziehen.

Hier eben, in dem Christusgeschehen, ist die inhaltliche Einheit des

235
Neuen Testaments zu suchen.1 More specifically, Reicke cites appro

vingly Hunter's thesis (see previous ch., 3.38) that the unity of the
236
NT lies 'in der dort verktlndeten Heilsgeschichte.' This is exege-

tically justified, since 'alles, was die ersten Christen in ihren

Schriften verktlnden, Offenbarung von Gottes Handeln in Christus, also

237
ein fortlaufendes Christus-Geschehen ist.' NT theology must not al

low itself to be dominated by a naturalistic 'religionswissenschaftliche

Entwicklungstheorie,' for NT theology 'an sich' is properly concerned

with an 'als vorliegende Offenbarung zu behandelnde VerkUndigung' which

must be dealt with 'ohne weltlich-kausale Hypotheses. ' As regards

the synoptics, e.g., one may not legitimately explicate their contents

according to a positivistic developmental theory; NT theology 'soli nach

bestem VermOgen die Anschauung des Evangelisten so wiedergeben, wie sie

tats&chlich vorliegt.' As to the problem of dogmatic elements which

may.vsurface in a NT theology written in harmony with, its own presuppo

sitions, Reicke states simply: 'Ob man seine Darstellung perstinlich

234
I.e. Burrows, An Outline of Biblical Theology, 1946; Meinertz,
Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 2 vols., 1950.
235
Reicke, 'Einheitlichkeit oder verschiedene "Lehrbegriffe" in der
neutestamentlichen Theologie?' TZ 9 (1953) 405.

^ ^Ibid. 405n.l0.
237 . 238
Ibid. Ibid. 407.
 -258-
239
annimmt oder nicht, ist eine Sache des Glaubens.'

While it is true that the NT's broadest divisions (synoptics, Paul,

John) evince somewhat different perspectives, 'es handelt sich Uberall

urn eine und dieselbe Erldsergestalt, um eine und dieselbe Heilsge

schichte.' The different emphases and modes of expressions of the NT

writers do not express mutually exclusive assessments of Jesus but are

rather a basically unified expression 'der ftlr den evangelischen Glauben

grundlegenden Einheit zwischen dem fleischgewordenen Worte, dem aufer-

240
standenen Christus und dem Herrn der christlichen Kirche. '

These statements, made with very little reference to Cullmann, again

are reminiscent of Hofmann-Schlatter, Hunter, and others. Modern world

views, implies Feicke, must be open to modification from the NT evi

dence. Diversity of viewpoint and expression must not be construed as

necessarily conscious disparity of conviction. Reicke's hgl. delibera

tions seek to do justice to both the relational and the empirical-

factual dimensions of the NT witness; it is a false dichotomy, he im

plies, when the two are wrenched apart. Here too, even if unbeknown

to Reicke, Schlatterian echoes are discernible.

4.323 L. Goppelt (1954)

Goppelt's earliest extended articulation of a hgl. approach to NT

241
theology comes before a bold speech before a synodal meeting in Han

nover. Historical criticism of the Bible can be done 'von aussen her'
242
or 'von innen her.' In the former case criticism is used to serve
7B9 24 0
Ibid. 412. Ibid. 415.
241
Goppelt, 'Die Authoritdt der Heiligen Schrift und die Bibelkri-
tik,' Wort Gottes und Bekenntnis, 1954, 9-17. Re boldness see ibid.
12, where Goppelt declares that Bultmann's interpretation of the NT com
prises 'eine derartige VerkUrzung seines Inhalts, dass meines Erachtens
ein Kandidat, der sich Bultmanns Ergebnisse uneingeschrfinkt zu eigen
macht, in einer lutherischen Kirche nicht mit gutem Gewissen das Ordina-
tionsgellibde ablegen kann. '
242
Ibid. 10.
the interests of the prevailing 'Weltanschauung,' while in the latter

case criticism 'arbeitet mit den modernen exakten philologischen und

historischen Hilfsmitteln' but seeks to apply these to scripture 'vom

Glauben der Gemeinde aus.' Goppelt calls this the 'heilsgeschichtlich-

kirklich' line of research, and he names Hofmann, Beck, Zahn, Schlatter,

and Schniewind as its main representatives. He continues:

Diese jTigl.J Forschung begegnet den Ergebnissen der historischen

Kritik nicht nur das gehdrt auch dazu mit historischer Anti-
Kritik, sondern vor allem mit einem heilsgeschichtlichen VerstMndnis
der Berichte, das die Argumente der Kritik einfach als sachliches
Missverstehen widerlegt.

Goppelt then gives three principles for proper interpretation of scrip

ture from this hgl. perspective. First, interpretation must be

243
'historisch-theologisch.' Second, this 'historisch-theologisch1

interpretation must comprise a unified procedure; 'beides kann nicht

in zwei Stufen auseinandergelegt werden.' Goppelt explains: 'Ein bib-

lischer Text wird sinnvoll nicht zuletzt mit der natdrlichen Vernunft

und dann im Glauben gelesen, sondern immer nur mit der von Glauben er-

leuchteten Vernunft.' Third, the sort of faith which will enable an

interpreter to push through to the true meaning of the NT texts is one

which respects the fact that 'die Schrift ist nach ihrem Anspruch ein-

zige Quelle prim&rer Offenbarung.' This implies that a proper

historical-theological handling of the Bible is one in which 'die

244
Schrift ist formal aus der Schrift selber auszulegen.' 'Wer die

Schrift nicht als das nimmt, was sie sein will, der versteht die Schrift

nicht.'
U4- -2 4 5

Chapter 5 below takes up the question of a possible epistemological

break between Goppelt and Schlatter. In broad terms, however, it may

 -260-

be said that Goppelt, independent of Cullmann, argues for a hgl. ap

proach in much the same vein as Hofmann-Schlatter, others in the pre

vious chapter, Wilder, and Reicke. Due apparently not to a philosophy

of history as such but rather out of deference to the NT texts (as well

as out of impatience with the spread of Bultmann's views), Goppelt calls

for rethinking NT theology's sometimes unwise commitment to critical

methods which too facilely move from this decade's assumptions about

reality to interpretations of the NT evidence. The claims of the NT

data deserve to be allowed to shape the methods applied to them.

4.324 G. Ladd (1957) 246

Ladd defines biblical theology as 'exegetical theology' which com

prises 'the description and interpretation of the divine activity which

247
seeks man's redemption.' It is thus 'the description and interpre-
248
tation of redemptive history.' Because the Bible consists of docu

ments with a historical context and historically-conditioned message,

biblical theology 'must be fundamentally historical in character' and

'must therefore squarely face the question of the relatedness of theo-

249
logy and history. ' 'History' is not to be naturalistically defined,

notwithstanding the fact that much of the Bible is offensive to a secu

lar historiography which insists that 'all "historical" events must be

250
capable of explanation in terms of known and demonstrable causes.'

If the NT is to be taken seriously in the discipline seeking to give

a synthetic presentation of it, it must be noted that for many biblical

events 'there is no natural |~i.e. naturalistic^ explanation,' even

246
Ladd, 'Biblical Theology, History, and Revelation,' RevExp 54
(1957) 195-204; cf. 'The Modern Problem of Biblical Scholarship,' BSQ
5 (1957) 10-20.
247 248
Ladd, RevExp 54 (1957) 195. Ibid.
249 250
Ibid. 197. Ibid. 198.
 -261-

though from the Bible's standpoint 'these events actually happened on

251
the scene of human history. ' God himself at times 'intervenes' in

history, which is not 'unnatural,' nor a 'violation of the laws of na

ture,' but is a 'manifestation of the divine power which is also evident

in the natural order. . . . Both the natural and the supernatural are
252
evidences of the divine activity.' Ladd asserts finally that 'his

torical facts and their theological meanings must reinforce each

253
other.' Ladd holds that 'this question of theology and history is
254
the central problem of modern critical Biblical study.'

Ladd denies that 'redemptive history is. . . the only mode of

revelation,' nor does he accept that revelation in history is 'by itself

255
an adequate vehicle of revelation.' Here Ladd faults e.g. G. E.

Wright, who stresses 'act-revelation' to the exclusion of 'word-

256
revelation.' Ladd rather claims that 'revelation in Israel includes

the historical events plus the inspired prophetic interpretation; and

the revelation in Christ includes the historical event plus the apos-
257
tolic interpretation. ' Both the historical occurrence and the

authoritative interpretation are requisite for a genuine hgl. outlook.

Ladd, whom we treat more fully in ch. 5, advances his position with

out reference to Cullmann. His basic agreement with others already men

tioned above is evident, although Ladd differs from them in affirming

the infallibility of scripture. Thus he wants to avoid the danger of

stressing hgl. events but not the reports from which we learn of the

events. His overall concern to avoid an exaggerated faith-fact or

theology-history split and to let critical methods be adapted to the

251 252 763
Ibid. 199. Ibid. 198. Ladd, BSQ 5 (1957) 18.
254 255
Ibid. Ladd, RevExp 54 (1957) 202.
256 257
Ibid. 203n.4. Ibid. 203.
 -262-

subject matter, as well as his overt advocacy of a hgl. reading of the

NT, locate him squarely in the Hofmann-Schlatter heritage.

4.325 H. Ridderbos (1963)

Ridderbos, perhaps more carefully than any of the four just above,

seeks to establish the historical-exegetical grounds on which the NT

texts can be spoken of in connection with Hg. He notes that many agree
258
that the scripture itself has no authority, but only its content.

There is a relationally apprehended entity which transcends scripture,

for most to such an extent that scripture itself is no longer revelation

but only functions as revelatory means. It mediates but does not com

prise revelation. In broad terms this would be the position of neo

orthodoxy. In terms of our study, this position would be somewhat less

radical than that held by Baur and Wrede, in regard to whom it is ques

tionable how or even whether one could speak of revelation at all.

But 'wenn die Schrift selbst nicht zur gOttlichen Offenbarung ge-

hdrt, sondern nur ihr menschlich gebrechliches Medium ist, nach welchem
259
Massstab whre dann die Authoritclt ihres Inhalts festzustellen?1 Most

NT theologians, if they are open to a theological reading of the NT at

all, would reply, Jesus Christ is the standard. The historical problem

that arises here is however: 'Wir kttnnen Jesus auf keine andere Weise

erkennen, als wir ihm im Kanon des Neuen Testaments begegnen.1

Ridderbos argues accordingly from NT evidence that die Mitteilung

261
des Heils ist von dem Heilsgeschehen nicht zu trennen.' This general

line of argument is to be found also in Hofmann, Schlatter, and Cull-

mann, though Ridderbos seems to be relying mainly on his own exegesis.

A result of his conclusions is, over against prevalent views in NT

258
Ridderbos, BegrUndung des Glaubens: Heilsgeschichte und Heilige
Schrift, 1963, 5.
259 . 260 . 261 .
Ibid. Ibid. 66. Ibid. 26; cf. 41.
 -263-

criticism which separate NT faith from its historical moorings, to bring

faith and cognitively apprehensible data back into mutual proximity.

Just because the NT message is theologically appraised, this does not

mean that its temporal or historical dress is superfluous or even detri

mental to understanding it aright. The message of the NT books is bound

up inextricably in their time-conditioned mode of transmission. Their

theological content is of a piece with the historically conditioned ex

pression of it.

This observation gives rise to what for Ridderbos is finally largely

a historical and not merely a dogmatic question. What gave rise to the

NT writings? What unifies the canon's parts? Here the 'a priori des

Glaubens' is introduced, i.e. that which was and is prior to and forms

the basis for faith, and thus also for a sympathetic grasp of the NT

message in its entirety. Ridderbos in effect confronts NT theology in

the Baur-Wrede (cf. Bultmann below) heritage, which seems to generate

theological confession or knowledge out of human reflection while

leaving the cognitive ground for such reflection unclarified, bracketed,

or perhaps even destroyed. But neither out of human faith nor as a re

sult of rationally groundless mystical (or existential) experience or

awareness did the canonical writings emerge; the ground for their recog

nition lies rather

einzig und allein im a priori des Kanons, ;d.h. in der heilsge-

schichtlichen Wirklichkeit, die dem Kanon zugrundeliegt und aus der
heraus er entstand. Diese Wirklichkeit geht dem Glauben, der Kirche
und der Geschichte des Kanons voraus. . . . Der Grund fllr die Aner-
kennung des Kanons ist prinzipiell heilsgeschichtlicher, das ist
christologischer Art.^^

Jesus Christ thus indeed, for Ridderbos as for many others, in a real

sense established and upholds (or is the content of) the NT writings,
262~ . , ^
Ibid. 58.
 -264-

but he did and does this

nicht nur als geistliche Realitdt, als Kanon im Kanon, nicht nur
als sein aktuelles gttttliches Sprechen in dem menschlichen und
irrenden Wort des Schrift und der Kirche, sondern in der anweisbaren
apostolischen Rede und in der lesbaren apostolischen Schrift, in
der Bewahrung des Zeugnisses und der Lehre der Apostel.^^a

And to that which Jesus established and upholds, there corresond the

historical states of affairs related in the NT pertaining to Jesus and

his followers, on which the NT witnesses and teaching are based and out

of which they grew.

Now the outlines of portions of Ridderbos' argument are ancient,

and modern criticism would claim to have destroyed much of them. But

that is the point of Ridderbos' treatise: it is primarily by reading

the NT in a non-, or rather anti-canonical context, a context (even his

torically speaking) foreign to it, that such disparate, often negative

theories and conclusions about it and its contents have arisen. A myo

pic (in some respects) critical historiography has so arbitrarily pitted

book against book, statement against s'tatement, that the NT's inherent

internal theological coherence, which is not finally at all irreconcil

able with known historical facts of the first-century context, is shat

tered. But this demolition is really unnecessary. If one recognizes

the 'hgl. Wirklichkeit' which undergirds and is the prime mover in the

formation of the NT even BWB see some homogeneous unified substructure

to or religious absolute behind the NT data; else they had not striven

so seriously to speak of a theology (or religious history) of it and

if one does not a priori rule out a substantial agreement between this

reality in its historical-theological manifestation and the written

testimony to it, then it is both possible and necessary to speak of a

hgl. reading of the NT. Such a reading is historically responsible

 -265-

but at the same time wary or critical also of over-hastily applied

modern assumptions which are too often unwarrantedly (with reference

to the NT message) brought to bear on the NT evidence.

We have not begun to do justice to Ridderbos1 whole case, but we

can see in this brief glimpse once again how in the context of post-

WW II NT theology a hgl. outlook is set forth and defended. As else

where above, this is done without reference to Christus und die Zeit,

although at least two of Cullmann's other exegetical works are cited.

Clearly Ridderbos would side with a Hofmann-Schlatter approach to NT

theology, and his understanding of how Hg. relates to both the NT and

to modern apprehension of it serves further to ground many of the con

victions held by Wilder et al above. Ridderbos' essay is primarily an

extended exegetical paper with a theological point, and it is perhaps

symptomatic of the ease with which these sorts (i.e. supporting an

orthodox or traditional understanding of the NT) of arguments could

be swept aside in the post-war era, and perhaps still today, that my

awareness of its existence is uncorroborated by any scholarly citation

or notice known to me in the literature of NT theology.

5. Conclusion

The post-war era witnesses a great deal of activity in both OT and

NT theology. The former discipline is dominated first by Eichrodt and

then even more decisively by von Rad. The latter discipline receives

decisive impetus throughout, and still today, from Bultmann. In the

past four decades many changes have come in both disciplines, but funda

mental methodological questions remain unresolved. This observation

is borne out by the lack of consensus which presently obtains in both

am indebted to Dr Eckhard Schnabel for calling my attention

to the book.
 -266-
264
fields, as well as in biblical theology generally.

Childs rightly calls attention to a groundswell of support for a

revelation in history emphasis in biblical theology. He just as rightly

dignoses itsproblematic feature or even fallacy: it stressed the bare

fact of such revelation or acts of God in history, but declined to af

firm the nature, significance, and concrete reality of the revelation.

Barton writes that 'the critical method. . . shows us not what God is
265
like, but what people thought he was like.' Post-war biblical theo

logy spoke of what God was thought to have done. It is too seldom

remembered however that this innocent-sounding statement often conceals

a weighty assumption: namely, that what the biblical writers say about

God basically cannot have been and therefore is not the case; they only

expressed what they thought.266 What we think has as much or far more

warrant to be trustworthy. It is then very easy for criticism to read

its own thoughts about God into the biblical texts.

Eichrodt, von Rad, Bultmann, and a host of others work to varying

degrees within this framework of understanding. For them, as for Baur

and Wrede, there are gains to such an approach. But there are also

liabilities, chief among which might be Feuerbach's nagging question:

is God then just a projection of human religious aspirations, be they

ancient or modern, on an imagined cosmic screen? As J. Fenton writes:

264
In a public lecture at Cambridge Univ. pn 28th November 1984,
B.Childs gave a largely negative answer, at least for the present, to
the question, 'Is biblical theology still possible?' In a slightly dif
ferent context H.HUbner speaks of the almost total 'Uneinigkeit der
Exegeten Uber Anliegen und Sache der B.Th.' in reviewing H.Seebass,
Der Gott der ganzen Bibel,TLZ 109 (1984) 538.
265
Barton, '0T Theology,' in 0T Study, ed. by Rogerson, 94.

266Cf. Wrede's remark concerning the gospel sources: '. . . das,

was uns wirklich vorliegt, nur die Auffassung eines spdteren Erz&hlers
vom Leben Jesu ist, und . . . diese Auffassung [[ist^ nicht identisch.
. . mit der Sache selbst' (Messiasgeheimnis, 2).
 -267-

If God does not act, and cannot be known in his action, then
faith is merely an aspect of man's attempt to make the world
secure for himself, a compensation technique, an undergirder
of social cohesion, and a theory about the meaning of life.^^

If this is not the case, why would it not have been possible for OT/NT

theology to move beyond the constraints of historicistic or positivistic

descriptive method informed by fervent endorsement of the prevailing

modern philosophical-theological movements of thought (e.g. dialectical

theology, existentialism)? It could be maintained that OT and NT theo

logy since WW II have failed to answer, or even squarely to face, this

question, which is basically a restatement of the question raised in

ch. 2 by many who were seeing the need for a hgl. approach. The sur

prising fact is that in the post-war era talk of Hg. eventually comes

to be condemned outright, as if it were in every case a reactionary

throwback to 19th century philosophy of history. As we have seen, talk

of Hg., which even Hofmann claimed not to have originated but only arti

culated comprehensively, has never abated since Hofmann's time. And

it was hardly even for Hofmann merely a philosophy of history.

While the post-war era is dominated by non-hgl. outlooks, the Pfeif-

ferian affirmation of modernity's sovereignty over all reality scru

tinized by it an affirmation mirrored in von Rad and Bultmann is off

set by now almost forgotten Filsonian argumentation. These insistences

echo the calls of Hofmann, Schlatter, and many since. Figures like

Jacob, Wilder, Goppelt, Ladd, and Ridderbos argue for critical methods

to admit of adjustment in the light of the data to which they are ap

plied. I.e. God's discerning, sifting, informing word which worked

mightily in former times not just because is was blindly concocted and

believed out of nowhere but because recognizable grounds for it to be

267
Fenton, 'The Post-Liberal Theology of Christ without Myth,' JR.
43 (1963) 103.
 -268-

trusted were apparently discernible must be free to do so today; and

this freedom must extend not only to the confessional but also to the

cognitive realm. As K. Buchheim states with reference to the NT:

Die Botschaft des Christentums konnte nicht auftreten wie aus

der leeren Luft gegriffen. Ihre Zeugen mllssen sich auf Tatsachen
berufen haben. Sie haben nicht, wie uns heute oft zugemutet
wird, ihren Glauben bloss 'gewagt' wie einen Luftsprung ins
Bodenlose.

If God really has acted as the biblical writers claim, then a histori

cal method which implicitly but categorically debars the divine from

the historical in any but an immanent sense is begging vital questions.

Can either von Rador Bultmann (as representatives of their respec

tive disciplines) allow for sufficient historical cause to account for

the observable effects present in the believing OT and NT communities?

From Jacob to Ridderbos, some at least think not. Consistent with the

Baur-Wrede tradition, von Rad and Bultmann (see next two chs.) in

claiming exhaustively to have grasped and articulated the substance of

the scriptural kerygma are open to the suspicion that on their premises

the kerygma had little or no factual justification for its proclamation.

And were this so, a theology of it would become an idle and irrelevant

exercise. The questions raised and insights provided by Hofmann-

Schlatter for NT theology are not widely taken seriously in the post

war era, during which time as Childs shows biblical theology in a sense

runs aground on the reef of revelation in history, but there are those

who carry on in the older heritage, if in updated garb. In any case

the bifurcation in OT and NT theology which dates back several genera

tions persists in the post-war era, and a central, by most evaded or

negatively .answered, question is whether a hgl. approach in the Hofmann-

Schlatter sense is not a defensible option.

Buchheim, Der historische Christus, 1974, 19f.

 -269-

Consideration of the post-war era however remains incomplete until

we have factored in Cullmann's presence and contribution. We now take

up examination of his views, their reception, and their significance

for our study.

 CHAPTER FOUR

OSCAR CULLMANN'S HEILSGESCHICHTLICHE PERSPECTIVE

0. Cullmann (b. 1902) has produced no NT theology as such, although

1
each of his three major monographs comes close to qualifying as one. In

any event there can be little doubt that the mention of Hg. in NT criti

cal circles brings Cullmann's name to mind first of all. It is both

fitting and necessary to devote attention to him in a study of the hgl.

perspective in NT theology.

We begin below with a chronological survey of those works by Cull

mann which are most relevant to his own hgl. outlook. We will also com

pare him, albeit briefly, to A. Schweitzer, Barth, and Bultmann as a

means of characterizing his position, esp. before the appearance of

2
Christus und die Zeit. In the light of this basic overview we will

next weigh several significant critiques of his outlook. In a third

section we will summarize Cullmann's relationship to the approach

pioneered by Hofmann-Schlatter and touch on how his views relate to

those of Bultmann, which will have already been mentioned in the first

two sections below and which will receive further attention in ch. 5.

It will be our contention that Cullmann is wrongly or at least su

perficially understood when seen merely as imposing a philosophy of his

tory on the NT texts. Further, we will argue, against Cullmann himself,

that in significant respects he is best understood as a NT theologian

who carries on in the tradition of Hofmann and Schlatter.

1
C f . J.Barr, 'Trends and Prospects in Biblical Theology,' JTSns 25
(1974) 269; K.Frdhlich, 'Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments: Oscar Cull
mann's Beitrag zur Theologie der Gegenwart,' Cikonomia, ed. by F.Christ,
1967, 213.
2
We cite the English trans., Christ and Time, rev. ed. 1964.
 -271-

1. Background and content of Cullmann's hgl. reading of the NT

It is advisable to ground our discussion of Cullmann in a survey

of the development and content of his synthetic understanding of the

NT, for to date NT theology seems largely misinformed as to the back

ground and nature of his interpretative procedure. Bultmann's categori

cal rejection of Cullmann (see below) is perhaps a major contributing

factor to this, but another is the dearth, until quite recently, of

thorough and relatively non-partisan analyses of Cullmann's work as a

3
whole. As recently as 1979 H.-G.Hermesmann observes that his study

'hat weithin Neuland zu beschreiten, da es bislang keine umfassende Dar-

4
stellung der heilsgeschichtlichen Konzeption Cullmanns gibt.' This

is perhaps surprising when one reflects (1) that Cullmann is closely

associated with Hg. or a hgl. understanding of the NT in recent times,

and (2) that at the same time one commonly encounters a fairly well de

fined, usually negative or at best neutral attitude toward him in NT

5
theological literature. One might wonder how informed this skepticism

toward Cullmann is when still in 1983 T. Dorman can comment on the lack

of adequate studies and study of Cullmann's work.^ Thus we now outline

the development and summarize the content of Cullmann's understanding

3
A third contributing factor would be of course that Cullmann's
work, like that of anyone who attempts to synthesize the whole corpus
of NT literature, is exegetically deficient at individual points. Our
suggestion below that Cullmann's hgl. outlook might have more to com
mend it than is sometimes acknowledged should not be seen as a blanket
defense of Cullmann at every interpretative or exegetical juncture.
4
Hermesmann, Zeit und Heil: Oscar Cullmanns Theologie der Heils-
geschichte, 1979, 14.
5
Cf. e.g. Stuhlmacher, Verstehen. In some ways Stuhlmacher's own
position seems as 'conservative' as Cullmann's did a generation back.
Yet he makes only one (fleeting) reference to Cullmann, while e.g. Bult
mann, Ebeling, Fuchs, Heidegger, and KMsemann are accorded considerable
attention. There is no question that this group represents the major
direction in modern NT study and theology, esp. compared to the direc
tion generally associated with Cullmann.

^Dorman, The Hermeneutics of Oscar Cullmann, 1983, 4.

 -272-

of the NT, touching on his relationship to Schweitzer, Barth, and Bult

mann along the way.

In view of other studies which at least touch on Cullmann's forma-

7
tive years, a comprehensive exposition of his numerous early works is

not required here. We will focus only on the salient aspects of his

thought with a view toward gaining an understanding of precisely what

factors figure most prominently in the development of his hgl. approach

to the NT.

1.1 Emergence of Cullmann's awareness of the NT's hgl. substructure

1.11 Early theological position and training

Cullmann entered the biblical scholar's historical-critical work

shop in the early 1920's not through religious interest as such but

through an intellectual curiosity for the subject-matter of theology.

We showed earlier that discussion of Hg. or hgl. perspectives were al

ready at this time common in both NT and esp. OT theology. Where would

Cullmann properly be located with reference to this discussion? His

early views, he claims, were thoroughly those of classic liberalism;

through his earliest experiences and training he was 'strengthened' in

0
'his aversion to all orthodoxy.' At first he studied classical philo

logy as well as (chiefly historical) theology. Through reading

Schweitzer's Quest he began to realize the extent to which liberalism

was imbued with and even controlled by ideas not derived from scripture

but from modern philosophy or philosophy of religion. He saw Formge-

schichte as a means of biblical interpretation which, because of its

7
Cf. esp. Cullmann, 'An Autobiographical Sketch,' SJT 14 (1961) 228-
233; Frtihlich, 'Mitte der Zeit,' Oikonomia, 203-219; Hermesmann, Zeit
und H e i l , 17-29; Dorman, Hermeneutics, passim; Wallace, 'Cullmann,'
Creative Minds, ed. by Hughes, 163-202. Suffering from lack of
grounding in the formation of Cullmann's thought are Steck, Idee, 43-
51; Eslinger, Historicity.

8Cullmann, SJT 14 (1961) 229.

 -273-

rigorous historical demands, could protect critical research from what

Cullmann says he strove to counter: 'the [excessive] mingling of modern

tendencies of thought' with what purports to be purely historical exe-

. 9
gesis.

Cullmann studied in Paris with M. Goguel, G. Guignebert, and A.

Loisy."^ His doctoral thesis was a historical. critical investigation

of the Pseudo-Clementines. As he began to lecture he consciously strove

to separate those inherited liberal 'modern apprehensions of Christian

ity which had become dear' to him from his exegesis. Herein apparently

lies the germ of the perception of the NT characteristic of Cullmann,

if we can rely on his own assessment: 'It was initially through this

purely scientific effort that I gradually attained to a deeper theologi

cal understanding of things of which the New Testament speaks but which
11
were then strange to me.'

1.12 The substructure emerges

Frbhlich remarks that Cullmann's early literary output follows no

discernible plan. In general it seems that those topics Cullmann chose

to write about were determined 'von der aktuel.len wissenschaftlichen

12
Diskussion und den Anregungen seiner Lehrer.' Two chief areas of

interest for contemporary biblical research, and therefore for Cullmann,

were eschatology and christology.

1.121 Focus on eschatology

In Cullmann's first published study on this subject (1936) he in-

9
Ibid. 232; cf. FrOhlich, 'Mitte des NT,' 206; Hermesmann, Zeit und
Heil, 20, 30, 166.
10
Cullmann, SJT 14 (1961) 230.

11Ibid. 231.

^Frdhlich, 'Mitte des NT,' 206f.

 -274-
13
vestigates the problem of to katechon in 2 Thess 2:6f. This entails

consideration of the wider sphere of NT eschatology as well. He deduces

from Matt 28:20 that the mission of the early Church was essentially

eschatological in nature, for this verse 'spricht von der Zeitspanne,

die dem Ende unmittelbar voraufgeht und wdhrend der das Evangelium den
14
Heiden gepredigt werden muss.1 The preaching of the gospel signified,
15
indeed was a necessary condition of, the coming of the messianic age.

Paul himself, at least early in his ministry, suspected that Christ

would return soon, since the heathen were being evangelized. 'Die Zeit

ist k u r z 1'^ becomes one of Paul's guiding convictions and hints at the

importance of the early Church's conception of time and history.

Further light is shed on Cullmann's understanding of NT eschatology

by his review (1938) of F. Holmstrbm's analysis of 20th century Pro

testant theology, which HolmstrOm organizes around the three chief con

cepts of eschatology he finds vying for recognition since the turn of

17
the century. There is first the 'zeitgeschichtliche' stage of regar

ding eschatology; J. Weiss and A. Schweitzer are the key proponents and

the salient years 1892-1913.^ Second comes the 'Ubergeschichtliche'

or even 'ungeschichtliche' outlook; HolmstrOm here centres on Barth and

P. Althaus and marks 1922-1927 as the period of the view's dominance.

Third is the 'offenbarungsgeschichtliche' perspective (1926-1928), which

in Cullmann's words
13
Cullmann, 'Der eschatologische Charakter des Missionauftrages und
des apostolischen Selbstbewusstseins bei Paulus,' Vortrhge und Aufshtze
1925-1962, ed. by K.Frtthlich, 1966, 305-336 (hereafter cited as VA).
14 15 16
Ibid. 326. Ibid. 331. Ibid. 336; cf. 1 Cor 7:29.
17
Cullmann, 'Das eschatologische Denken der Gegenwart,' VA 337-347;
cf. F.Holmstrdm, Das eschatologische Denken der Gegenwart. Drei Etappen
der theologischen Entwicklung des 20. Jhs., 1936.
18
Cullmann, 'Denken der Gegenwart,' VA 338.
 -275-

die christliche Offenbarung und die Geschichte in vollem Umfang gel-

ten lassen will und sich, ohne in den Fehler des Historismus wie
des A-historismus zu verfalien oder sich in einen unfruchtbaren
Biblizismus zu verlieren, nicht von heterogenen, einem beliebigen
philosophischen System entliehenen Kategorien inspiriert, sondern
ganz vom biblischen Christentum.

Cullmann commends HolmstrOm for his endorsement of this third view and

for his high regard for M. KShler, whom Cullmann sees as 'seiner Zeit
20
weit voraus.1 He notes that Holmstrdm is understandably incapable

of discerning the final outcome of the still-unfolding debate on escha

tology, and wishes for him now a much-needed

auf einen christlichen Geschichtsbegriff gegrdndete eschatologische

Theologie zu entwickeln, in der das 'ewige Leben' eine zugleich
gegenw&rtige Und zukllnftige GrOsse ist gegenwdrtig auf Grund ihres
qualitativen Charakters, der den zukUnftigen von gegenw&rtigen
unterschiedet; zukllnftig auf Grund ihres eminent zeitlichen Charak
ters .

In any event Cullmann pleads for a return to the NT sources in formula

ting views of time and toward this end calls for close cooperation be

tween exegesis and NT theology: 1Ausgangspunkt muss also eine objektive

Sachexegese und eine streng auf ihr aufbauende und sich jeder philo

sophischen Parteinahme enthaltende Theologie des Neuen Testaments

22
sein,1 If it is not by now plain that Cullmann has already conceived

the need for and basic thrust of Christus und die Zeit, it becomes

transparent when he speaks of 'a later publication' in which the prob

lems with which Holmstrdm grapples will be treated on the basis of NT

. 23
exegesis.

Cullmann furthers these deliberations in three other articles. In

24
1941 he reiterates much of what he had already worked out earlier. In
19 20
Ibid. 339. Ibid. 340.
21 22 23
Ibid. 344. Ibid. 346. Ibid.
24
'Eschatologie und Mission im Neuen Testament,' VA 348-360.
 -276-

the same year, apparently, the actual word 'Hg.' first appears in his
25
work. This is significant in that it suggests that Cullmann cannot,

barring good evidence to the contrary, be charged with a gratuitous

taking up and reading in of hgl. views into the NT due to overt

involvement in a dogmatic heritage where 'Hg.1 was common coin. One

must take seriously his claim that he was led to his stress on Hg. by

historical work, not dogmatic or philosophical presuppositions as such.

None of this however, precludes the possibility that Cullmann's work

is comparable to that of Hofmann-Schlatter in certain respects, even

if any direct dependence is firmly denied by Hofmann as well as absent

in his early works.

By 1944 Cullmann is able to give an actual outline of what he takes

to be the NT's hgl. perspective^^ and to write in terms anticipating

Christus und die Zeit: 'Der Grieche kennt nur einen zyklischen Zeitbe-

griff,' while the NT presupposes 'das lineare Zeitgeschehen,' which 'als

solches ist bestimmt durch das Gottesgeschehen, das sich in ihm voll-
27
zieht. ' It is time for NT interpreters to take courage and their

'Gegenwart in die heilsgeschichtliche Zeitlinie wirklich hineinzustel-

28
len. ' In terms somewhat reminiscent of Schlatter, if slightly over

stated, Cullmann concludes:

Hellenismus und Christentum mUssen aufeinander prallen, weil im

Christentum die heilsgeschichtliche Auffassung der linearen Zeit
in konsequenter Weise zu Ende gedacht worden ist und Vergangenheit,
Gegenwart und Zukunft umspannt und verbindet, so dass hier nun tat-
s&chlich ein unaufldslicher Gegensatz zu allem alten und modernen
Hellenismus v o r l i e g t . 2 9
25
'Das Wort der Kirche f(ir die Welt,' VA 479.

^'Die Hoffnung der Kirche auf die Wiederkunft Christi nach dem
Neuen Testament,' VA 378-402, cf. esp. 381, 400.
?7 PR
Ibid. 381. Ibid. 402.
29
Ibid. 401f. Cullmann's at times simplistic distinction between
biblical and Greek views is a point where he was often justly criti
cized, esp. in his earlier work.
 -277-

Thus behind Christus und die Zeit stands at least some ten years

of research into the nature and significance of NT eschatology. Charac

teristics of Cullmann's method include (l) a marked historical-

exegetical emphasis, and (2) a critical attitude which he does not hesi

tate to apply, not only to the ancient sources, but also to modern

thought when its assumptions or conclusions seem to be belied by his

torical evidence.

Along with this inquiry into eschatology Cullmann's views are also

informed by his christological interests.

1.122 Focus on christology

Cullmann calls attention to the nature and inter-relationship of

Christ's spatial and temporal reign within the kingdom of God 'in einer
30
der wichtigsten Studien seiner frllheren Basler Zeit.' Even more clearly

he sets forth the core of Christus und die Zeit in a study of the ear

liest Christian confessions, in which he sought to find out 'what was

31
the essence of the faith of the earliest Christians.' At the center

of this faith stands Christ, 'who by virtue of His divine mission is

near to man'; i.e. 'Christ, who already exercises His divine reign
32
now.' When the early Christians framed their confessions, Cullmann

concludes, they did so with a vivid awareness 'of the time when it

pleased God to reveal His plan of salvation, the precise time when it
33
was propitious for the once-for-all work of the Saviour to take place.

Having established the centrality of Jesus Christ for the NT believers

and the view of reality in relation to time which Jesus' ministry

30
FrOhlich, 'Mitte der Zeit,' VA 209; cf. Cullmann, 'The Kingship
of Christ and the Church in the New Testament,' The Early Church, 1956
first published 1941), 101-137.
31
Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, 1949 (first pub
lished 1943), 62.
3? 33
Ibid. 63. Ibid. 64.
 -278-

imparted or suggested to them, Cullmann remarks on the overall plan at

whose centre Jesus stood and stands:

The divine plan of salvation embraces the present, but a present

bound to the past and the future. . . . Christian faith does not
reduce to an affirmation about the past alone; this would lead
straight to a 'historism' which impaired the Biblical conception
of linear time. Neither does it reduce to an affirmation about the
future alone; this would lead straight to an apocalyptic which, in
contrast to the Biblical eschatology, tended to separate hope and
faith. Christianity is true to its origins in ascribing first-rank
importance in its strictly Christological plan of salvation to the
present as a time of g r a c e . ^ The danger of isolating past or future
is then excluded. The course of the Christian revelation becomes
clear: past and future are connected by the present, which is the
time intervening between the resurrection and the second coming of
Christ, the time in which already Christ invisibly exercises His
Lordship.35

It is clear here once again that Cullmann is anticipating Christus und

die Zeit. Noteworthy too is that Cullmann's procedure does not neces

sarily comprise an inferring of a particular christology from a pre

determined philosophy of history. The case appears to be rather that

he is seeking to educe from the NT texts an underlying common early Chris

tian perception of the bearing of Jesus' (Christ's) past, present, and

future reality on the present time. NT christology is so intertwined

with this underlying, at times even clearly visible common perception

that to minimize either would be to distort and ultimately destroy both.

1.13 Cullmann's position in historical context

The significance of Cullmann's approach takes further shape in the

light of his early and enduring concern to handle the NT in a more his

torically responsible as well as theologically sensitive fashion than

some of the more well-known movers and shakers of contemporary theology

34
The concept of a 'Gnadenzeit, ' if not the word itself, may well
hark back to Cullmann's reading of HolmstrOm (n.17 above). There he
notes with approval HolmstrOm's use of this word, as it expresses what
Cullmann's exegetical studies also show, i.e. 'die eschatologische Be-
deutung der Zeit zwischen dem Kommen des historischen Jesus und der
Parusie ' (Cullmann, 'Denken der Gegenwart, VA 347).
35
Earliest Confessions, 64.
 -279-

and NT criticism.

1.131 A. Schweitzer

Cullmann at once both admires and suspects Schweitzer's (1875-1965)

historical method and its results. He recogized that Schweitzer's NT

work embodied 'eine an sich erw&genswerte Hypothese, die auch dann, wenn
36
sie sich als unrichtig erweist, fruchtbar sein kann.1 Yet the hypo

thetical nature of Schweitzer's position 'keinen Augenblick zu vergessen

37
ist.' His great service was to have stressed the importance of escha-
38
tology for a proper understanding of the NT. But after showing how

eschatology was central to the NT's and Jesus' own thinking, a truth

which liberalism had suppressed, Schweitzer then reaffirmed the liberal

position that modern Christianity must to a large degree dispense with

the eschatological core of the NT, 'obwohl historisch gerade darin die
39
Grundlage des Christentums gesehen werden mtlsse.' At the heart of

Schweitzer's position then is the error that he 'die von ihm als zentral
40
erkannte Eschatologie aus dem Evangelium eliminiert.' This covert

return to the very liberalism which Schweitzer in Quest had criticized

is seen by Cullmann as a selective and unfounded wresting of the NT.

A recent study of Schweitzer strikingly confirms Cullmann in his

suspicion that Schweitzer's historical method is defective, or at least

41
inconsistent. Thompson speaks of Schweitzer's 'Historiography of

^ ' D a s wahre, durch die ausgebliebene Parusie gestellte Problem,'VA 419f.

37
Ibid. 420.
38
Cf. 'Notwendigkeit und Aufgabe der philologisch-historischen
Bibelauslegung,' VA 113.
39
'Denken der Gegenwart,' VA 339. Cf. E.Grosser, Albert Schweitzer
als Theologe, 1979, 243-253 ('Die Parodoxie Schweitzers: Durch die Ge-
schichte von der Geschichte frei werden').
40
Cullmann, 'Hoffnung auf Wiederkunft, ' VA 383n.; cf. Christ and
Time, 30.
41
J .L.Thompson, 'History and Reason in Albert Schweitzer's World-
View,1 DDSR 45 (1980) 3-30.
 -280-
42
Ethical Mysticism,' in which, in the liberal hermeneutical tradition,
43
Jesus' religion is made to conform to Schweitzer's ethical philosophy.

He amply documents Schweitzer's arbitrary antisupernatural positiv-

44
ism. He shows how history for Schweitzer 'is only a vehicle. . . for
45
a more timeless truth which transcends it,' a truth which while basi

cally a-historical is nevertheless latent in human ethical or volitional

46
consciousness. 'Schweitzer finally dissolves Jesus' historical parti-
47
cularity into mere symbolism.' Cullmann is then probably justified

in his critique of Schweitzer, and we should not fail to notice that

this Cullmann/Schweitzer, or we could say non-Cartesian/Cartesian, dis

agreement has obvious parallels to the objections of Hofmann and Schlat

ter to Baur and Wrede.

It was thus Schweitzer who first opened Cullmann's eyes to the

threat of dogmatic liberalism to a fair historical understanding of the

48
NT. In this sense Schweitzer figures as a vital starting point and

impetus for much of Cullmann's research, particularly on eschatology,

which in turn iscentral in theconception ofChristus und dieZeit.

1.132 Karl Barth

It is also helpful to understand Cullmann's earlier work in relation

49
to Barth. He states that his own early development 'was not directly
50
influenced by Barth.' Yet in important respects they occupied the

same ground relative to Bultmann and his followers, sinceCullmann and

42 43 44
Ibid. 13ff. Ibid. 15. Ibid. 6.
45 46 47
Ibid. 20. Ibid. 19. Ibid. 22.

4^Cf. Cullmann, SJT 14 (1961) 229. Space precludes examination of

Cullmann's ties to M.Werner, also an important figure; cf.e.g. Cull
mann, VA 361-377; Christ and Time, xii.
49
Unfortunately the microfilm of R.J.Newton, Jr., The Method of Bib
lical Theology in Cullmann, Barth, and Bultmann with which I was sup
plied was largely illegible.
50
Cullmann, SJT 14 (1961) 232.
 -281-

Bar th alike 'do not suppose the occurrence which is the object of the

biblical revelation to be one with the experience of faith, but take

51
this experience seriously for what it is,' unlike Bultmann.

In addition, as Schweitzer prompted Cullmann to reflect on NT escha

tology, Barth provides the backdrop against which Cullmann develops his
52
hermeneutical outlook. Cullmann insists on the need for both a his

torically and theologically appraised exegesis. Concerned for histori

cal accuracy, yet believing it possible to transcend liberalism without

going the way of dialectical theology, Cullmann in the heyday of 'pneu

matic' and 'theological' exegesis seeks to establish 'die positiven Be-

ziehungen' between historical criticism, or its findings, and theologi-

53
cal understanding. In pursuing this goal he anticipates more recent

hermeneutical debate by elucidating as a corrective to Barth the inter

pretative process in terms of a 'Zirkel' in which historical data and

54
theological insight mutually inform each other. Similarly, cognizant

of the danger of a historicistic approach on the one hand and a purely

theological on the other, Cullmann in contrast to Barth holds that 'die

Zusammenarbeit zwischen dem Historiker und dem Theologen _kann] nicht

55
wirklich fruchtbar werden, wenn sie nicht in Personalunion geschieht.'

Thus he does not object to Barth's theological concern as such but feels

that it lacks historical grounding because Barth's theological interests

at times disregard, or regard top cursorily, significant historical

51
Ibid. 232f. That Cullmann has rightly understood Bultmann is
clear from the latter's just-published 'Theologie als Wissenschaft,'
ZTK 81 (1984) 455.
52
Cullmann, 'Die Problematik der exegetischen Methode Karl Barths,'
VA 90-109 (first published 1928).
53 54
Ibid. 91; cf. 99f. Ibid. 104f.
55
Ibid. 105. It is also worth noting that along this line Cullmann
criticizes the OT scholar Gressmann (ch. 2 above, 2.22) for his naivete
about his historicistic presuppositions.
 -282-

features affecting the texts he is explicating.

In the end Cullmann finds points of agreement with Barth, praising

56
him e.g. for focusing on the object (die Sache) of the NT texts, not

on what his own subjective impressions of the text tell him about self-
57
understanding (his objection to Bultmann ). Barth's method however

is defective most of all, in Cullmann's estimation, by virtue of its

underlying 'Erkenntnistheorie, ' which is heavily committed 'dem kant-

ischen und neukantischen Dualismus.' I.e. Barth and his followers to

an excessive degree 'an der absoluten Trennung von Glauben und Erkennen

festhalten. '^ If somehow the way were made clear for Barth's outlook

to be more open to corroboration, i.e. control, by historical observa

tion and facts, it could 'der historischen Wissenschaft und der Theolo-
59
gie ausgezeichnete Dienste leisten.' It is clearly Cullmann's own

intention to point the way toward the achieving of this goal.

In attempting to wed historical observation with theological under

standing in trying to stress the positive aspects of the interface be

tween history and theology Cullmann is already in implicit agreement

with Hofmann-Schlatter. This agreement is underscored by Cullmann's

criticisms of Barth's epistemological leanings. Dorman has recently

called attention to Cullmann's analysis of the problem. While Barth

has a concern for historical exegesis as a preliminary task, so that

'there is some degree of relationship between faith and history,' Cull

mann senses nonetheless the 'inherent contradiction between Barth's

epistemology and concept of revelation on the one hand, and his exegeti

cal method on the other.' ^ Now it is possible to turn the tables and
56
Cullmann, 'Barths Methode,' VA 92f.
57 58 SQ
Ibid. 94n.13; 98f.n.l6. Ibid. 101. Ibid. 109.

^Dor m a n , Hermeneutics, 52.

 -283-

defend Barth, ^ a even over against Cullmann,^ and it would be rash

to suppose that Barth's theology is necessarily bereft of all historical

mooring.^ But it is significant that Cullmann, with however much ulti

mate justification, objects on epistemological grounds to Barth's pro

gramme, as this is reminiscent of a key move by Hofmann and Schlatter

in response to Baur and Wrede.

1.133 R. Bultmann

The extensive debate between Cullmann and Bultmann (or Bultmannian

thinkers it is arguable that Bultmann hardly felt the need to deign

to work through this opponents arguments very carefully himself) which

began in earnest 'mit einerausftihrlichen, aber Musserst kritischen Be-

sprechung'*^ of Christus und die Zeit by Bultmann will receive treatment

in the next section. Long previous to this, however, Bultmann had

64
greeted Cullmann 'as an ally' since- they both championed form-
65
criticism. Cullmann for his part shows an extensive familiarity with

the nature of Bultmann's work in the two decades preceding Christus und

^ aSee e.g. H.Zwanger,'Kritischer mtlssten mir die Historisch-

Kritischen sein!' EvT 43 (1983) 370-379.

^ C f . Steck, Idee, 43ff.; more specifically and dealing more fairly

with Cullmann: J.Fangmeier, Heilsgeschichte? Einige Marginalien, be-
sonders zum Gesprdch zwischen Karl Barth und Oscar Cullmann,' Geschichte
und Zukunft, Fangmeier and M.Geiger, 1967, 5-27.
62
See e.g. C.Bdumler, Der Begriff der Geschichte in der Theologie
Karl Barths, 1959 (not available to m e ) ; B.Ramm, 'History,' After Funda
mentalism, 1983. But see also e.g. A.Brandenburg, 'Der Zeit- und Ge-
schichtsbegriff bei Karl Barth,' TGI 45 (1955) 337-378. H.Lazenby,
Revelation in History in the Theology of Charles Hodge and Karl Barth,
1982, 339, concludes that for Barth 'revelation becomes history' but
in such a way that 'history does not become revelation.'

^ FrOhlich, 'Mitte des NT,' 209; this remark cited also (without
acknowledgement) in Hermesmann, Zeit und Heil, 23.
64
Cullmann, SJT 14 (1961) 230.
65
Cf. Cullmann, 'Geschichte der Evangelientradition,' VA 51f., who
states that 'gerade die Formgeschichte dazu berufen sein kOnnte, die
Theologie aus einer Sackgasse herauszuftihren, in die sie durch den His-
torismus des letzten Jahrhunderts hineingeraten ist.'
 -284-

die Z eit. He basically approves of Bultmann and certainly of form

criticism from early on, although he acknowledges Bultmann's radical

a 66
tendencies.

At first, then, he stoutly defends Bultmann as being one who 'ganz

67
als H i s t o n k e r arbeitet,' and whose historical method is 'basiert aus-
68
schliesslich auf historischen Intuitionen.' This would be at a time

when Cullmann was still relatively young, still sympathetic to liberal

ism, yet seeking means to reintroduce theological relevance into criti

cal NT interpretation. However, he comes fairly quickly to challenge,

even reject, Bultmann at two crucial points. (1) In his eschatology

69
Bultmann replaces NT eschatology with the concept of 'Entscheidung.1

But this for Cullmann is unacceptable from a historical standpoint, for

in the NT

Eschatologie ist. . . tats&chlich ein ganz und gar temporaler Be-

griff, und es geht nicht an, sie etwa als ein 1Immer-in-der-
Entscheidung-Stehen' aufzufassen, wie dies bei R. Bultmann ge-
schieht. Das hiesse, die Eschatologie philosophisch umdeuten und
in Metaphysik aufldsen.^

(2) Cullmann heartily agrees with Bultmann that presuppositionless exe-

71
gesis is impossible, yet finds Bultmann's application of this princi

ple in forging a hermeneutic dangerous. Bultmann regards 'das Problem

72
der individuellen Existenz als Gegenstand der biblischen Auslegung.'

This in turn leads to an overly subjective historiography, for Bultmann

66
Ibid. 64.

^Cullmann, 'Barths Methode,' VA 90.

88Cullmann, 'Geschichte der Evangelientradition,' VA 81n.97.

69
Cullmann, 'Denken der Gegenwart,' VA 342.
70
Cullmann, 'Hoffnung auf Wiederkunft,' VA 382.
71
Cullmann, 'Barths Methode,' VA 93.

72Ibid. 94n.13.
 -285-

ends up emphasizing

die Notwendigkeit der persbnlicher 'Begegnung' des Historikers

mit der von ihm untersuchten Geschichte, als sei die durch diese
Geschichte offenbar werdende Wahrheit von der Person des sie
begreifenden Forschers nicht zu trennen."^

These two objections touch on central Bultmannian emphases and form

the core of the sometimes sharp polemic which .later arises, and still

exists today, between Bultmann and his followers and those who follow

Cullmann in basic respects.

Like Schweitzer and Barth, Bultmann forms part of thecontext in

which Cullmann's earlier ideas take shape. He could easily have fol

lowed Bultmann, or the other two, since his own early views were

decidedly anything but 'conservative.' But once again, while recognizing

Bultmann's contribution, Cullmann stops far short of attaching himself

to his school, as so many others in that era did, just as he maintained

a well-reasoned distance from Schweitzer and Barth. Bultmann's defini

tion of eschatology, Cullmann decides, robs it of historical reference,

and thus to a degree of its objective reality, while his hermeneutic

so stresses the role of the subject in the formation of the understand

ing of the object that the object threatens to lose its independent sta

tus and with it the potential of informing the subject of that which

may be foreign or unacceptable to his pre-understanding. So then, like

Hofmann-Schlatter, Cullmann is aware of contemporary innovations, such

as Bultmann's, in approaching the NT. He endorses their primary intent

to make the NT understandable today and some of their results. Yet,

also like Hofmann-Schlatter, he seeks to keep theological interpretation

of the NT grounded in the biblical history in a fashion which guards

against the encroachment of a modernizing Cartesian (in Thielicke's

73Ibid. 98f.n.16.
 -286-

sense) tendency on a sympathetic, yet evidentially warranted under

standing of the NT. It is surely Cullmann's non-Cartesian hermeneutical

leanings, not a pre-determined philosophy of history, which led him gra

dually to the views, eventually formulated, if only provisionally, at

length in Christus und die Zeit, that would bring him into sharp con

flict with Bultmann.

1.2 Cullmann's major works

We turn now more directly to the content of Cullmann's most impor

tant writings. This will fill in the picture we have already sketched

of the development of Cullmann's views, enable informed consideration

of his critics in the next section, and facilitate appreciation of the

sense in which Cullmann can be said to continue the Hofmann-Schlatter

heritage.

1.21 Christ and Time (1946)

Here Cullmann sets out primarily to 'determine what is central in

74
the Christian proclamation.' His chief finding overall is that 'ein

zeitlich bestimmtes Heilsgeschehen' belongs 'zum Wesen der neutestament-

75
lichen Botschaft.' As Dorman puts it, Cullmann argues that central

to the NT proclamation as a whole is the realization 'that the resur

rection of Christ has brought a new division into the Jewish view of

history. '^ Judaism, or prominent parts of it, looked ahead to a deci

sive temporal break or mid-point which would mark the passing of the

present age into the coming age. Primitive Christianity did not abandon

this conviction. Yet the Christ-event is seen as a decisive proleptic

74
Christ and Time, x i .
75
A.VOgtle, 'Oscar Cullmann,' Tendenzen der Theologie im 20. Jahr-
hundert, ed. by H.J.Schultz, 1966, 490.

^ H e r m e n e u t i c s , 142.
 -287-

incursion of the future age into the present one. The eschatological

invades time and, by virtue of its origin in the true God, assumes a

certain, if partially hidden or paradoxical, lordship not only in, but

also over, t i m e . ^

More specifically, Cullmann maintains that in the NT one finds

recognition of 'at least three ages': (1 ) the age preceding creation,

during which 'the revelatory process is already being prepared'; (2 )

the present age, lying between creation and consummation; and (3) the

coming age, which is not somehow a reversion to or repetition of a for

mer aeon, but rather a period 'in which the eschatological drama
78
falls.' Basic to Cullmann's understanding is that in the NT this time

sequence embraces divinely influenced or superintended events which in

God's economy reveal himself and his will in chronological succession

within and as part of human history. Time is not conceived of as

being a mere category of human perception. Events in time do not derive

form and content solely or even chiefly by virtue of human philosophical

deduction or ascription of religious meaning. The temporality of the

NT an integral feature of which is its wedding of 'noumenal' theo

logical claims with 'phenomenal' historical data is intrinsic to its

message and does not admit of being minimized, rejected, or radically

79
reinterpreted.

In the above tripartite .time scheme the NT generally can best be

80
understood as seeing the Christ event as focal- or mid-point. All

three ages are to be assessed with reference to their relationship to

this central event. The NT sees the resurrection as conferring a

77 78
Christ and Time, 82f. Ibid. 67.
79
Cf. Cullmann, 'Notwendigkeit der Schriftauslegung,' VA 115.

^ C h r i s t and Time, 68 .
 -288-

decisive significance to all time by virtue of the claims affecting his

tory made in the course of history by the one who died and rose again,

or by his appointed followers or spokesmen. The resurrection is the

hgl. event par excellence as an event in time affecting time; it is not

primarily, if at all, a symbol or cipher for a supra-temporal reality

e.g. an eschatological' realization of a new self-understanding for

which imaginative early believers found 'resurrection' to be a handy

and effective catchword.

Ol
Contrary to the assumptions or charges of some readers, Cullmann's con

cern is not with a philosophy of history, nor even with systematic theo

logy; he has also not written 'out of interest in the speculative ques-
82
tion concerning time.' Rather, building on his work of the preceding

ten years^^ (some of which we have touched on above), hewants to set

forth 'an exegetical-historical examination of some specific questions

84
of New Testament theology.' Time as such is not his main concern,

because it is not the main concern of the N T ;8 8 he wants rather to ex

plicate the underlying temporal 'framework' uniting the various NT

books, even though this framework 'as such never was an object of
86
serious reflection on the part of early Christians.' He is aware of

the inner tensions and divergencies or competing strands within various

NT books but considers it 'highly unscientific' to rule out any possi

bility generally of seeking to discern whatever unifying elements may

inhere in the NT simply because of the existence of apparent differences

87
within the various writings.

^ C f . Cullmann, 'Mythos und "Entmythologisierung" imNeuen Testa

ment, ' VA 134n.l8; 'Parusieverztigerung und Urchristentum,' VA 430.
82 83 84
Christ and Time, x i . Ibid. xiii. Ibid. 3.

85Ibid. 9. 86Ibid. 15. 87Ibid. 4.

 -289-

It is unnecessary to set forth a summary of Cullmann's entire book.

Its significance, however, warrants reflection. It lies not only in

the matters already broached but also in the methodological considera

tions in which Christ and Time is rooted, considerations which do not

first crop up in this particular book but which are rather present in

Cullmann's writings from the start. He argues that NT theolgy can and

should draw its basic categories from the NT itself, not from thought
88
systems outside the NT. This is why he is concerned with the NT atti

tude toward historical reality as it was apparently perceived in rela

tion to the NT's theological message. This historical reality included

above all the Christ event, with which arguably at least some of the

NT writers had first-hand familiarity but which e.g. Bultmann insisted

on understanding eschatologically, i.e. a-temporally. Cullmann argues

that de-temporalization of the Christ event can only risk misrepresent

ing it. The available sources best justify the conclusion that the his

torical reality which the early church experienced with reference to

Christ was of a piece with the theological reality that they confessed.

NT theology as a historical discipline can and should first of all work

within the framework of NT understanding, if a clear and accurate under

standing of the NT message in its own context is really its goal.

Accordingly, Cullmann sees 'all Christian theology in its innermost es

sence' as 'biblical history,' so that NT theology which does not adopt

the major biblical model of relating history to theology is inadequate

89
from a methodological standpoint.

These methodological convictions, not a philosophy of history as

such, are the key underlying features of Christ and Time. In them we

detect the roots of the hermeneutical distance between Cullmann and

OO QQ
Ibid. xif. Ibid. 23; cf. 26.
 -290-

Bultmann which we explore below. Here too we see continuity between

Cullmann and the approaches of Hofmann and Schlatter, just as Cullmann's

historical-theological concern basically mirrors that of Filson et al

in the preceding chapter. Although Cullmann, along with many others,

saw Christ and Time as a somewhat original work and in certain respects

it surely was two things should be remembered. First, the book's roots

lie in prior specific exegetical investigations. Second, whether con

sciously or unconsciously, in a way he is only following in the train

of others before and contemporary with him.

1.22 Christology of the NT (1957)90

The next major book of direct relevance to Cullmann's hgl. outlook

is his study of NT christology. This work serves to ground the observa

tion that in the NT 'ist nSmlich fast nie von der Person Christi die
91
Rede, ohne dass gleichzeitig von seinem Werk gesprochen wird.' Cull

mann was taken by many to be arguing for a 'functional christology'

which would challenge or invalidate the later christological formula-

92
tions of church councils, but Cullmann denies this. Rather, without

recourse to post-NT data, Cullmann wants to attain to 'a total picture

93
of the Christological conceptions of the New Testament.' He attempts

this by focusing on the NT titles applied to Jesus: those referring

94 95
to his first-century activity, those dealing with his future work,
96
those treating of his present ministry, and those speaking of his
90
Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, 1959, first pub
lished 1957.
91
Cullmann, 'Zur Frage der Erforschung der neutestamentlichen Chris-
tologie,' KD 1 (1955) 135. Cf. Christology, 3.
92 v
Cullmann, 'Antwort an Pere Bavaud,' VA 591-599.
93 94
Cullmann, Christology, 6 . Ibid. 11-107.
95 96
Ibid. 109-192. Ibid. 193-245.
 -291-
97
pre-existence. The synthetic picture which emerges comprises a

'Christological structure which received its character not from syncre

tism, not from Hellenism, not from mythology, but from the Heilsge-
98
schichte 1 of which the Bible speaks. Cullmann sees the distinctive

trait of this structure as its conviction 'that from the beginning it

99
centres in a real history,' as opposed to a mythological one, or one

constructed according to arbitrary articles of a modern philosophy whose

premises may by intrinsically incompatible with the perspective of the

bibical writers. Since the NT 'neither is able nor intends to give in

formation about how we are to conceive the being of God beyond the his-
100
tory of revelation,' it is only in terms of and on the basis of the

biblical word-event complex that thought claiming to be rooted in the

NT can think and speak legitimately of e.g. God and the son of God.

For Cullmann this means that this biblical word-event complex Hg.
101
is intimately related to Christology. Conversely, NT christology

finds its fundamental unity in the Hg. which is the basic element in

the NT (and 0T) witness.

102
1.23 Salvation in History (1965;

This study restates much the same position as Christ and Time does,

although it also goes considerably beyond it exegetically, 'but uses

103
a rather different set of arguments.' Cullmann stresses Salvation
104
in History's independence from the early chapters of Christ and Time

97 98 99
Ibid. 247-314. Ibid. 322. Ibid.

1 0 Ibid. 327. 1 0 1 Ibid. 326.

102
Cullmann, Salvation in History, 1967, first published 1965.
103
J.Barr, 'Revelation in History,' IDBSup, 747.
104
Cullmann, Heil als Geschichte, 1965, IX. The English version
seems to mistranslate here.
 -292-

which with their simplistic stress on a linear (biblical)-cyclical (Hel

lenistic) distinction between ancient views of time drew considerable

fire. Cullmann tries to show exegetically and in depth what Christ and

Time by comparison only sketched in outline, namely 'the origin of the

salvation-historical perspective, its development in the New Testament

books, and its importance for all areas of early Christian faith,
105
thought, and activity . 1 After a lengthy analysis of contemporary

discussion related to H g .,'1'9 8 he attempts to account for its presence

107
in the biblical writings. He goes on to discuss the 'phenomenologi

cal characteristics' of H g., i.e. the relationship between history and

myth, between NT Hg. and history generally, and between the NT sense
108
of 'present' as contrasted to 'future.' Next he discusses Hg. as
109
it comes to expression in the individual NT books. 'Only portions

of salvation history are discernible' in most NT passages where Hg. is

in evidence at all, but the presence of these numerous and basically

unified (in this regard) texts is best accounted for by the hypothesis

that the NT writiers on the whole 'presuppose an overall salvation-

110
historical view.' Cullmann attempts in this section to document

specifically where this hgl. perspective becomes visible in the NT wri

tings. The book concludes with a section on the relationship of Hg.

Ill
to post-NT times, including the present day.

Other elements of Cullmann's position will be developed in the next

two sections. This will supplement the above admittedly, but neces

sarily, abbreviated summaries.

^ " salvation in History, 15. ^"ibid. 19-83.

1 0 7 Ibid. 84-135. 1 0 8 Ibid. 136-185. 1 0 9 Ibid. 186-291.

110Ibid. 187. 111Ibid. 292-338.

 -293-

2. Criticisms of Cullmann

The essence of Cullmann's position takes on further clarity when

it is exposed to the glare of his critics' searchlights. Not every

112
criticism, nor even every important one, can be weighed. But this

is not a problem; for it is not our intention to defend or incontro-

vertibly to vindicate Cullmann but rather to grasp his thought more

sharply.

Specifically, we want to show that several typical past criticisms

of Cullmann are in fact relatively minor ones, while the major criti

cisms are at least sometimes primarily systematic or philosophical in

nature, as opposed to historical. I.e. they are rooted in a world-view

or view of reality which rules out Hg., as Cullmann conceives of it,

from the start. While Cullmann is charged e.g. by Eslinger and Bultmann

(see below) with imposing a philosophy of history on the NT, it is even

more evident that philosophical commitments, not primarily historical

data as such, make Cullmann's hgl. reading of the NT unacceptable to

these two.The significance of this fact will be highlighted as we

proceed.

2.1 Minor criticisms

It is only fair at the outset to note three criticisms which have

been important in tlqe past but whose ultimate force should today be

recognized as not very great. These would include first that of J.

113
Marsh, who attacks Cullmann from a standpoint similar to that of
112
E.g. we pass over I.G.Nicol, 'Event and Interpretation. 0.Cull
mann 's Conception of Salvation History,' Th 77 (1974) 14-21; E.L.Miller,
'Salvation History: Pannenberg's Critique of Cullmann,' IR 37 (1980)
21-25; K.Koch, 'Die heilsgeschichtliche Dimension der Theologie,' TBr
8 (1979) 146ff. As we intimated earlier, we also cannot take up in any
extended way how 'Hg.' in its various forms, so often automatically as
sociated with Cullmann, may have been misused in various wings of the BTM
113
The Fulness of Time, 1952, 174-181.
 -294-

C. H. Dodd. Marsh's own misuse of linguistic evidence however drew

heavy fire from J. Barr which greatly undermined Marsh's own posi-
114
tion. His arguments also seem weak today to the extent that (1) they

do not take into account Salvation in History, and (2) they are based

largely on Dodd's now somewhat discredited eschatological outlook.

115
K. G. Steck's remarks are too brief to be taken seriously as a

sufficient answer to Cullmann's entire approach, although they continue

to be c i t e d . L i k e Marsh's arguments, Steck's come too early- to have

taken account of Salvation in History, which Cullmann insists is his

major work, and Marsh's restricting ties to Dodd are matched, perhaps

exceeded, by Steck's loyalty to Barth. In retrospect Hermesmann is cor

rect in concluding that 'gerade K. G. Steck die heilsgeschichtliche

117
These Cullmanns nicht verstanden hat.' Dorman has recently once
118
again shown the limitations of Steck's objections.

J. Barr criticizes Christ and T i m e 's reliance on certain linguistic

119
and lexicographical misapprehensions. We have already noted that

Barr concedes that Salvation in History is based on a different set of

120
arguments; and Barr has never really disproved or even challenged

these. In addition, as we showed above, Cullmann's main findings in

Christ and Time are based primarily, not on the linguistic or lexical
114 ,
Barr, Biblical Words for Time, 1969, passim and esp. ch. 2.
115
See Steck, Idee, 43-51.

'''^See e.g. E.Lessing, 'Die Bedeutung der Heilsgeschichte in der

Okumenischen Diskussion,' EvT 44 (1984) 227n.l.
117
Hermesmann, Zeit und Heil, 161n.7.
118
Hermeneutics, 159ff. Cf. L.Gaston, 'The Theology of the Temple,'
in Oikonomia, ed. by Christ, 33n.l0; Cullmann, Christ and Time, 8 ; Sal
vation in History, 12, 14, 21, 55f., 75n.2, 77n.2, 116.
119
Barr, Biblical Words for Time, esp. ch. 3.
120
Barr, 'Revelation in History,' IDBSup, 747.
 -295-

arguments he advances in that book's opening chapters, but on prior

historical-exegetical studies dealing with eschatology and christology.

As Dorman notes, when Cullmann in Salvation in History declines to base

a 'time-concept' on lexicography, this is 'not so much a retreat from

Barr's criticisms as it is a return to Cullmann's own fpre-Christ and

121
Time~l approach.' A full-scale comparison of Barr's more general cri

ticisms of revelation in history with Cullmann's views would be a help-

122
ful study, but it is not one we can undertake here. We conclude that

Barr's arguments rightly question Cullmann's faulty use of linguistic

evidence, but that Cullmann's hgl. reading of the NT is not primarily

123
based on such evidence. This tends to minimize theforce of Barr's

arguments in Biblical Words for Time as the ground for an all-embracing

critique of Cullmann.

2.2 Major criticisms

The really influential criticism of Cullmann from the standpoint

of NT theology is that of Bultmann. This attack continues to wield in

fluence, as we will show, and its tone and substance underlie two much

more recent studies of Cullmann, those by Eslinger (see below) and

124
Mtlller-Fahrenholz, only the former of which however we can examine

V,
here. 125
2.21 Bultmann's objections to Christ and Time

Bultmann's interaction with Cullmann is largely an open-and-shut

121
Hermeneutics, 181.
122
Helpful here at points would be P.Wells, James Barr and the
Bible, 1980.
123
Cf. Cullmann's own response to Barr in Christ and Time, 14-16.
124
G. Mllller-Fahrenholz, Heilsgeschichte zwischen Ideologie und Pro-
phetie, 1974, esp. 137-169.
125
MUller-F.'s vituperative charges against Cullmann are helpfully
rebutted in Hermesmann, Zeit und Heil, 176-180. They often fall to the
ground anyway of their own one-sided weight.
 -296-

affair: he subjected Christ and Time to withering fire, and it is fair

to say that thereafter he hardly takes Cullmann's arguments seriously.

He was certainly not swayed by them. We wish now to comment on this

critique with regard to its influence, its content, and its cogency and

significance.

2.211 The influence of the critique

126
It is remarkable that Bultmann's brief review of Christ and Time

has met the endorsement and exerted the influence it has. Complaints

that Cullmann's work is too preoccupied with addressing Bultmann fail

to realize the extent to which this review (not to mention Bultmann's

later writings) came to be seen to represent a self-authenticating re

buttal of Cullmann, one which precluded the need of stepping outside

of Bultmannian hermeneutics even hypothetically to ask whether Cull-

127
mann's outlook had more merit that Bultmann at first accorded to it.

The enduring authoritative status of Bultmann's essay is presupposed

to a surprising degree in the studies of Eslinger and MUller-Fahrenholz

just mentioned. It is accorded authoritative stature in Merk's handling

of Cullmann, as well.12^ Now we may grant that Cullmann did not write

a formal NT theology of the sort with which Merk is primarily concerned.

One may still question whether it is justified for Merk to follow Bult

mann 's lead so closely in discrediting Cullmann simply by associating

129
him with Stauffer. The incriminating evidence which Merk (Bultmann)

1 2 6 'Hg. und Geschichte,' PTNT, 294-308; cf. TLZ 73 (1948) 659-666.

127
One might also ask what would have been the reaction had Cull
mann not at every turn located himself relative to Bultmann (or Buri,
or Werner, or Barth, etc.). When e.g. Schlatter wrote without constant
reference to his colleagues, he was bitterly criticized or just ignored.
This was also the case with Albertz (ch. 5 below).
128
Merk, Anfangszeit, 253. Cf. Cullmann's observation that 'in the
opinion of his devotees, Bultmann's review constituted the sentence of
death for my book, and they simply repeated his arguments again and
again' (Christ and Time, 5).
129
Merk, Anfangszeit, 253 with n.143.
 -297-

can adduce to substantiate this association is one footnote from Christ

130
and Time. Here Cullmann opines that Stauffer's 'principle of

arrangement' in his NT theology has lasting value, because it attempts

to draw organizing categories from the NT Hg. and not from, say, Barth's

trinitarian organizational scheme. I.e. Stauffer's attempts to be a

historical and not a dogmatic system of organization. At the same time

however Cullmann says he must 'oppose many details' of Stauffer's work.

Is this really so damning an admission that a quarter-century later Merk

can discount Cullmann merely by recalling his 'unglUcklich' favorable

allusion to Stauffer, an allusion which once for all 'belastet' Cull

mann's entire hgl. perspective? We may grant Bultmann full stature as

a leading authority without following Merk's acceptance of his opinion

here. This raises the question, what precisely were Bultmann's objec

tions to Christ and Time, and what cogency do they retain today? The

question is pressing, because Bultmann's review, rightly or wrongly,

131
apparently continues to cast a shadow over Cullmann's general outlook.
132
2.212 The content of the critique

Bultmann first gives a synopsis of Christ and Time which, Cullmann

133
agrees, is accurate. Bultmann raises some specific exegetical points
134
which are of no major consequence. He then proceeds to outline four

great objections.
135
(1) Cullmann is guilty of gratuitous harmonizing. Even if some
130
Christ and Time, 26n.9.
1 31
Cf. e.g. Lessing, EvT 44 (1984) 227nl.
132
Cf. Hermesmann, Zeit und Heil, 161ff. for more on this point.
133
Bultmann, 'Hg. und Geschichte,' 294-299; cf. Christ and T i m e , 4.
134
Bultmann, 'Hg. und Geschichte,' 302f.
1 35
Ibid. 303f.
 -298-

NT books evince a hgl. perspective Bultmann allows that this is the

case in Paul's writings, Hebrews, Matthew, and Luke-Acts they are not

uniform in this respect. Cullmann tries to press the 'body of Christ'

into a hgl. term, when this phrase and 'the people of God' are in fact

mutually exclusive, the former being the product of Gnostic thought.

Bultmann concedes that it is possible to write a unified NT theology,

in which an integrating, 'alien Gedankenbildungen zugrundliegendes Motiv

des gl&ubigen Denkens' is highlighted. But Bultmann sees the NT con

sisting of 'in Wahrheit sehr differenten Gedankengebilde.' Cullmann

does not contribute to NT theology as a historical phenomenon but rather

gives 'eine biblische Dogmatik alten Stils.'

(2) Cullmann ignores history-of-religions questions .'*'3 3 He does not

realize that NT Hg. is nothing other than adapted Jewish apocalypticism.

Features of Cullmann's Hg. which are not from apocalypticism are trace

able to Gnosticism. In rapid succession Bultmann raises a welter of

questions and makes sweeping assertions about docetism, the Hellenistic

church, mystery religions, and myth. Cullmann has failed to see how

many Pauline passages which seem to refer to hgl. matters are actually

of Gnostic origin and not hgl. (in Cullmann's sense) at all.

(3) Cullmann has failed to see that Christ is the end of history,
137
not somehow the middle. Jesus' appearance comprises 'das eschato-

logische Ereignis, das dem alten Aeon ein Ende setzt. Hinfort kann es

keine Geschichte mehr geben.' Cullmann does not realize that Schweit

zer, Werner, and Buri are right in their assessment of the tremendous

problems which the delay of the parousia caused for the early church.

Cullmann's illustration that Christians in the NT, and therefore now,

saw (should see ) themselves as standing between D-Day and V-Day is

1 3 6 Ibid. 304ff. 1 3 7 Ibid. 306ff.

 -299-

unconvincing when 'die von Paulus zu seinen Lebzeiten erwartete Parousie

sich nun schon um etwa 1900 Jahre verzdgert hat.' It is only the latter

parts of the NT (esp. Acts) which really support a hgl. interpretation,

and this only proves that the NT generally knows no 'konsequente Aus-

bildung des heilsgeschichtlichen Denkens, sondern vielmehr sein Nach-

lassen . 1

(4) Since Cullmann minimizes the problem of the delay of the

parousia, failing to recognize the real NT solution which John sets

forth for whom 'sich Parousie, Totenauferstehung und Gericht schon

ereignet haben,' and for whom 'der weitere Zeitlauf nur der Weitervoll-

zug solchen eschatologischen Geschehens, aber keine "Heilsgeschichte"

mehr sein kann' is actually the correct one, it is understandable that

Cullmann does not perceive the problem 'der Zeitlichkeit des christ-
138
lichen Seins.' But precisely herein lies NT theology's major object

of scrutiny. The early believers did not see themselves in a temporal,

hgl. continuum; they were rather 'entweltlicht und als die<*po<_ in die

eschatologische Seinsweise versetzt.' Our task then is to delineate

their 'eschatologisches Sein.' If this were just a hgl. self-conscious

ness in something of the fashion implied by Cullmann's understanding,

it could only mean that their 'eschatologisches Sein' were 'ein inner-

zeitliches.' But 'ein Dasein innerhalb der Zeit ist etwas anderes als

die Zeitlichkeit des Seins selbst.' Hence the question arises: how

can this eschatological existence in itself, independent of its surface

basis in temporality, be discerned and explicated? Bultmann answers:

not through understanding the NT view of history as (Cullmannian) Hg.,

but by working through the NT in the light of the fact that early church

'zeitliche Existenz bedeutet. . . Existieren in jeweils neuen

1 3ft
Ibid. 3 0 7 f .
 -300-

Entscheidungen, in jeweils neuen Begegnungen, sei es von Menschen, sei

es von Schicksal ! 1 The internal, self-actualizing faith affirmations

of NT believers are thus the heart of NT theology, not external, contin

gent events or experiences in which this faith is (wrongly) supposed

139
to have been placed, or some combination of the two,

(5) Bultmann sums up his objections by charging that Cullmann is

unaware 'in welchem Sinn von Geschehen und Geschichte theologisch

140
legitim geredet werden kann.' He seems to align himself with the

'urchristliche Auffassung' of history which naively assumed (or pre

sented) that biblical events actually happened, and that they in some

sense serve as a basis for Christian faith. But, as we will show below,

for Bultmann real faith can have no necessary factual (historical) ba

sis. And still more importantly, whether or how things happen is not

a question of what the biblical records say but what our reconstructions

establish. This leaves Cullmann with the biblical history, which he

calls Hg., and the (to us) real history, the critically reconstructed

one. Hg. then is not based on events at all. This is because 'his

tory, ' what we reconstruct, and 'prophetisch gedeutete Geschichte,' what

the Bible contains, are in fact two radically different things. Cull

mann's uncritical confusion at this point renders his statements about

God's acts and revelation in history meaningless for Bultmann.

Bultmann cannot accept that anything which is established histori-

141
cally can be an integral component in NT faith (then or now).
139
J .Schniewind, 'A Reply to Bultmann,' Kerygma and Myth, ed. by
H.W.Bartsch 1961, 76, points out how for Bultmann, '"Historic" exis
tence is contrasted with "nature." Nature is the sphere of the demon
strable and calculable, the realm of causality. "Historic" being, on
the other hand, is realized in decision and resolve.'
140
Bultmann, 'Hg. und Geschichte,' 300ff.
141
Ibid. 301ff. Cf. Bultmann, ZTK 81 (1984) 456: 'Denn der Glaube
ist nicht Kenntnisnahme von dem durch historische Ueberlieferung ver-
mittelten Ereignis der Vergangenheit. . . .'
 -301-

'Theologisches Denken' is 'die Entfaltung des im Glauben als solchem

gegebenen Erkennens.' Such cognition is for Bultmann, to use classical

terms, noumenal and not phenomenal. As such it must be apprehended by

us in itself and not confused with or by its own or other temporal mani

festations. Thus a 'Heilsgeschehen 1 or 'Hg. 1 can only be regarded as

'ein im Glauben erfahrenes und erfasstes Geschehen , 1 having no necessary

dependence on any contingent event or data. But this means that true

Hg. here Bultmann redefines Cullmann's term is not concerned with bib

lical events at all, but with an analysis of the 'Geschichtlichkeit'

of early believers, or their 'Glaubensbegriff,' whose referent must be,

by Bultmann's definition, non-cognitive and a-historical. Cullmann has

taken us into philosophy of history, not into NT theology, Bultmann

charges, by interpreting history and faith's (or knowledge's) relation

ship to it far outside the bounds of the epistemologically acceptable

parameters just outlined.

Just as the 'Glaubensbegriff' of the NT must be established by radi

cal reinterpretation of the NT records as accounts of historical pheno

mena when it comes to 'theologisches Denken' preserved therein, so must

'die Begriffe von Heil und von Welt bestimmt werden' according to pro

per (even rigid) epistemological principles if Hg. and 'Weltgeschichte'

142
are to be dealt with critically. All other major biblical concepts

must be delimited as to their meaning for NT theology in similar

fashion, as well. This is of course Bultmann's demythologizing pro

gramme. Cullmann's criticisms of Bultmann's 'entmythologisiernde Exe-

gese' are, Bultmann admits, 'vdllig recht' from Cullmann's critical

position (if it can be called critical), but Cullmann's position is pre

cisely the problem. As Bultmann insightfully demands, what is meant

142
Bultmann, 'Hg. und Geschichte,' 302.
 -302-

by 'Geschichte' in 'Hg.'? In what sense, if any, can 'Geschichte' be

an integral part of 'Heil'?

2.213 The cogency and sigificance of the critique

We may now assess Bultmann's objections. We touch only briefly on

the first four, which do not in fact admit of being proven or disproven

in the space available to us, if indeed they can be decided completely

at all. Bultmann's major problem with Christ and Time, and with Cull

mann generally, comes out in (5) above, and it is here that we must cen

tre our attention.

(1) Bultmann's charge that Cullmann is harmonizing seems fair.

Whether this is gratuitous or not many however be questioned. Both

agree that a NT theology is possible; the real issue seems to be whether

the NT comprises 'sehr differenten Gedankengebilde,' as Bultmann thinks,

or whether it can be conceived of as a unity, albeit with various and

varied facets. This is the perennial question of NT unity and diver

sity, which stretches back at least through Wrede-Schlatter to Baur-

Hofmann. This fundamental issue is a watershed between the hgl. per

spective generally and the BWB line of analysis, it would seem. In all

events we may agree with Bultmann's assessment of which side of the

question Cullmann stands, but it is perhaps hazardous to condemn him

outright for it (just as one can hardly automatically discredit Bult

mann for stressing diversity). This criticism of Cullmann is well

taken, then, but not particularly damaging, unless it could be shown

that Cullmann's position is bereft of exegetical support. Bultmann

could only show this, however on the basis of his own fairly problematic

exegetical premises. Unless these premises were shown to have good NT

grounding, which seems unlikely (and admittedly unnecessary in Bult

mann 's approach, since he does not pretend to be assuming the NT's own
 -303-

outlook), Bultmann's exegesis by itself (far less the counter-arguments of

his brief review) does not seem capable of overturning Cullmann here,

even if it can be a continual reminder of the conviction of many still

today that the NT is not so much harmonious as 'a record of strife and
,143
controversy.'

(2) Certainly Bultmann's stress on history-of-religions data is

superior to Cullmann's, assuming that, if one can find a parallel to

or earlier adumbration of a NT concept, he has explained the concept.

But it may be questioned whether Bultmann distinguishes sufficiently

between genealogical and analogical relationships in comparing canonical

and non-canonical data. And it seems risky at best to disparage the

NT's hgl. outlook (even if it is not a feature of every NT book, as

Bultmann maintains) because it reflects Jewish apocalyptic features.

It is not very clear what these features are, nor why they are bad.

And the claim that it was actually Gnosticism that some NT writers added
144
to Jewish apocalypticism to get a full hgl. picture seems somewhat

speculative. Perhaps Cullmann has taken too little note of certain Hel

lenistic NT backgrounds, but perhaps Bultmann has too easily dissolved

the NT texts into a history-of-religions environment that is in impor

tant respects foreign to them. This objection, then, has some general

justification for that matter any synthetic presentation of the NT will

likely draw fire because of insufficient or inappropriate use of

history-of-religions data but does not acknowledge its own Troeltschian

143
C.K.Barrett, 'What Is New Testament Theology?' HBT 3 (1981) 12.
144
Cf. Bultmann, 'Hg. und Geschichte,' 304f.: 'Die christliche
Geschichtsphilosophie, die der Verf. [Cullmann] entwirft, ist nichts
anderes als die jUdisch-apokalyptische Spekulation. . . . Das Bild ist
freilich durch einige neue ZUge bereichert worden. . . . Diese Ztlge
stammen nicht aus der Tradition des heilsgeschichtlichen Denkens und
sind auch keineswegs spezifisch christlich; sie entstammen vielmehr dem
gnostischen Denken.'
 -304-

(in this instance) basis. I.e. Bultmann, like Wrede, is reading the NT

strictly within a history-of-religions context. More recently Cullmann

himself has commented on the problem of how NT faith relates to other

ancient religions:

Wohl hat die 1religionsgeschichtliche Schule 1 die anderen Religion-

en einbezogen; aber sie ist dabei nicht von der Heilsoffenbarung
in Christus ausgegangen, sondern hat alle Religionen auf der
gleichen Ebene aufgetragen, um das alien Gemeinsame aufzuzeigen und
im Christentum nachtr&glich an gewissen Punkten ein Plus festzu-
stellen. Das ist nicht eine christliche, sondern synkretistische
BewMltigung des Problems.

It is clear that on this point Bultmann meets the same objection from

Cullmann that Wrede met from Schlatter. Quite possibly Bultmann's an

swer, then,to the history-of-religions question he puts to Cullmann is

no less problem-fraught than Cullmann's.

(3) There is probably as much to be saidagainst Bultmann's inter

pretation of Rom 10:4 Christ is the end of history as there is to be

said for it. If one studies Cullmann's responses to Werner and Buri,
146
who largely share Bultmann's views here, it becomes evident that

Cullmann may well have at least as much NT data on his side as his
147
opponents have. When Bultmann sees Hg. only in Acts and other 'late'

NT books or traditions, he may be accused of assuming the reconstruction

of the sequence of tradition which he is in fact trying to establish.

(Of course in some respects a similar charge could be made against Cull

mann.) Perhaps Bultmann's major problem with Cullmann's approach to

eschatology is the fact that over 1900 years have elapsed since Chris

tians, some of them anyway, began to await the parousia. Bultmann

145
'Gottes Heilsplan in der Weltgeschichte,' EvK 12 (1974) 730.
146
Cf. Cullmann, VA 361-377, 414-455; Hermesmann, Zeit und Heil, 165ff.
147
E.GrSsser, who continues to champion a Schweitzer-Buri-Werner
eschatological outlook, brings the complex modern discussion of NT
eschatology somewhat up to date in Das Problem der Parusieverzbgerung,
3 1977, IX-XXXII.
 -305-

thinks that continuing such an expectation today is ridiculous in light

148
of the time lapse. But this is a matter of modern assessment of the

viability of a promise which Jesus is reported to have made, not of NT

exegesis. While NT eschatology is an extremely complex subject, and

not even Cullmann claimed to have got it all right, Bultmann's criti

cisms, while important, are not decisive.

(4) Bultmann's own elevation of the alleged true Johannine eschato

logy, in which time's unfolding is the ongoing realization of self-

actualizing eschatological experience in the enlightened consciousness

of 'entweltlicht' believers, must be seen as a questionable alternative

to Cullmann's assessment of what living in the light of the eschaton,

in some sense, really means. Cullmann's 'already-not yet' stress seems

in retrospect to have been on the right track. It does not seem, on

the other hand, either practical or possible to conceive of the ultimate

ground of NT Christian experience to have been just, or even mainly,

self-authenticating new decisions and new encounters, such decisions

and encounters being bereft of any necessary mooring in historical

events and devoid of any normative propositional or even ethical con

tent. What Bultmann is really driving at is an insistence that early

Christian consciousness be analyzed, not in connection with its temporal

manifestation, but in terms of its grounding in eschatological (as Bult-

149
mann defines it, i.e. a-temporal or noumenal) reality. Bultmann

seeks to explicate pure early Christian eschatological consciousness

itself under the assumption that 'ein Dasein innerhalb der Zeit [where

Cullmann allegedly centers his attention} ist etwas anderes als die
148
For Cullmann's reply to Bultmann here see VA 454f.
149
Thus Bultmann writes, 'The authentic life. . . would be a life
based on unseen, intangible realities. . . . This is what the New Testa
ment means by . . . "life in faith"' ('New Testament and Mythology,'
Kerygma and M y t h , ed. by Bartsch, 19).
 I

-306-

Zeitlichkeit des Seins selbst fwhere Bultmann feels his method is able

to take him ] .1

This brings us to the heart of Bultmann's disagreement with Cull

mann .

(5) Bultmann and Cullmann ultimately part company on the question,

'in welchem Sinn von Geschehen und Geschichte theologisch legitim

geredet werden kann,' as Bultman puts it.

Bultmann assumes a radical discontinuity between history and 'pro-

phetisch gedeutete Geschichte.' It is pointless to try to recover and

emulate the 'urchristliche Auffassung' of history, because it is auto

matically incongruent with modern knowledge of that history. Further,

150
temporal events cannot be the stuff of pure theological knowledge. An

event in the NT comes to us as 'ein im Glauben erfahrenes und erfasstes

Geschehen,' and the noumenal dimension of such an event, not its time-

conditioned referent or correlate, must be the object of our scrutiny.

Normative for Bultmann, therefore, is the modern understanding of his

tory (and of reality generally), not the understanding of history (or

reality) which Cullmann takes over from the NT writings, or parts of

them.

From Cullman's perspective however it seems strange indeed that

Bultmann should accuse him of having a philosophy of history. To Cull

mann it is clear that Bultmann's own neo-Kantian epistemology (see fur

ther below) is itself a serious limitation in trying to understand the

NT writers. Cullmann would agree that scripture is not inerrant and

flawless, but he would deny the legitimacy of throwing out all so-called

'prophetisch gedeutete Geschichte' and accepting back only that which

150
Making historical events the object of or even ground for faith
is 'sin' (ibid.). Or again: 'We cannot buttress our faith. . . by that
of the first disciples' (ibid. 42).
 -307-

could squeeze through Bultmann's epistemological (and ultimately his-

151
toriographical) categories.

If for Bultmann accidental temporal phenomena can never be the basis

of necessary redemptive truths, Cullmann finds that for the NT believers

temporal phenomena, in close connection of course with the reality and

152
will of God, played a rather important role. This is a major finding

of each of Cullmann's major works examined above. He would for this

reason consider it curious that Bultmann on the one hand claims to be

doing historical-critical exegesis and then on the other hand e.g. ex-
153
plains away the Pauline stress on the historicity of the resurrection.

It may well be hazardous to embark on a 'Sachkritik' of the NT writings

from the standpoint of an epistemology so decidedly foreign to those

writings themselves. Granted that we all have 20th century frames of

reference and thus time-conditioned perception, the question is whether

154
we choose to make a virtue out of this fact, in which case one must,

in the name of critical consistency, adopt and maintain a given current

philosophical vantage point. But this is to run the risk of failing

to hear what the NT has to say in its totality due to a prior commitment

to what we already think we understand. Cullmann thinks this is

Bultmann's basic error. Cullmann's position (cf. Hofmann-Schlatter)

is that no reliable means are at our disposal to isolate the theological

elements in the NT in contradistinction to the historical ones which

151
E.g. relative to form critical methodology Cullmann assumes that
'den Tendenzen der tradierenden, gldubigen Gemeinde kdnnen im Prinzip
ebensowohl historische Taten und Worte Jesu als Umbildungen und Neu-
schOpfungen entsprechen' (VA 149, italicized in original). Adopting
a similar line more recently is R.Riesner, 'Der Ursprung der Jesus-
Ueberlieferung,' TZ 38 (1982) 493-513.
152 153
Cf. e.g. Cullmann, VA 133, 136. Bultmann, Theologie, 292ff.
154
Cullmann argues against this strenuously in Salvation in His
tory , 65-74.
 -308-

convey them. The two things are not, as Bultmann supposes, inimical to

begin with. The historical and theological elements must be accepted

first in their given unity, which the NT gives every historical warrant

to do. What they already comprise in their givenness, not their

155
noumenal reality abstracted out of their phenomenal shell, is our

focus of interest. The totality of this given is never exhausted or

completely fathomed. Yet as it is comprehensively researched, regarded,

and progressively in some sense known, it can and does shape our under

standing, fill the categories of our understanding with a content which

once was not there, so that increasingly what we see is what was (is)

really there, not just what we, thanks to our 'Vorverst&ndnis,' can con

firm about our 'VorverstMndnis.'

It will be useful at this point to draw insight from a third party

in this dispute to help identify the crux of the Cullmann-Bultmann dis

agreement. C. H. Duncan in an overlooked 1959 Cambridge dissertation

tellingly traces the roots of Bultmann's thought. While Bultmann ac

cuses Cullmann of being naive in the way he speaks of history, Duncan

confirms what Cullmann at least implicitly recognizes, that Bultmann's

whole system is governed by a rigid epistemology, 'a presupposition

which determines his conclusions about anthropology, history, hermeneu-

156
tics, and New Testament criticism.'

If ,Cullmann is trying to sidestep certain axioms of some modern his

toriographies, esp. that of Bultmann, Bultmann seems to be chained to

157
an epistemology, to which he accords 'high, if unconfessed status,'
155
H.Jonas, 'Is Faith Still Possible? Memories of Bultmann
and Reflections on the Philosophical Aspects of His Work,' HTR 75 (1982)
13f. calls attention to the similarity between Bultmann and Kant regard
ing the phenomenon-noumenon distinction.
156
Duncan, Dr Rudolf Bultmann's Epistemology: An Examination of the
Epistemological Presuppositions in his Theology, 1959, 1.
 -309-
158
rooted in Marburg neo-Kantianism, so that even as a historian 'his
. , 159
mind runs according to certain ingrained principles . 1 One recalls

Behm's comments already in 1922.*'89 Duncan speaks of Bultmann's

'flight, or apparent flight, from the evidential' with regard to the

historical bases for NT belief, objecting: 'If we are not to be allowed

the basis of evidence1 and it is well known that for Bultmann authentic

NT faith flourishes in spite of, not based on, historical facts, so that

e.g. Jesus never did rise from the dead at all, yet the apostolic faith

in his resurrection is still somehow to be regarded as liberating and

ennobling decision 'then we are left to wonder how Christian statements

arise in the first place, and what they refer t o . ' 1 8 1

If Cullmann according to Bultmann is unscientific in his methodo

logy, so that he violates critical rules in his openness to speaking

of history and theology in close connection, Duncan charges Bultmann

with a 'complete absence of systematic doubt in his epistemology.'

Bultmann has so much faith in his method that he need not in its appli

cation to the NT systematically call it into doubt, soto speak, by con

sistently seeking to ground it in the NT evidence. He need only

rigorously apply it as a tool already complete in itself with reference

to the subject matter. Jonas remarks that 'Bultmann shared with Kant

an exaggerated conception of the tightness and rigidity of worldly cau

sality. Thus Bultmann's style of presentation 'is assertive rather

than argumentative ,''*'8 3 a fact to which anyone who has worked through

his Theologie with an eye to how carefully and fairly he deals with op

posing views can testify. Bultmann thereby opens himself to the

1 5 8 Ibid. 22 ff. 1 8 9 Ibid. 26.

*'8 9 Behm, Betrachtung, 17; see 180 above. '*'8 '*'Duncan, o.c. 296.

1 6 9 Jonas, HTR 75 (1982) 14. 1 6 3 Duncan, o.c. 312.

 -310-

accusation, leveled by Schlatter so colorfully against Wrede and again

by e.g. Filson against positivism generally, that his own approach is

at least as closed to the evidence as that of Cullmann whom he criti

cizes. Duncan's study warrants the conclusion that, with respect to

Bultmann's all-determining epistemology, since his approach 'leaves

knowledge in a ragged state' because 'any knowledge outside "my" know-

164
ledge is tacitly ignored,' Bultmann's method of interpreting the NT

could be fairly termed solipsistic.

Now these are all weighty charges against Bultmann, but they are

nonetheless seemingly well-founded ones. Works by R. Johnson, A. This-

elton, and C. Garrett cited in the next chapter corroborate Duncan's

pioneering (if generally unremarked) observations, so that the burden

of proof could well be on others now to vindicate Bultmann if it is

desired to rescue his NT interpretation from the serious suspicion under

which Duncan et al have placed it.

Here however we wish only to mediate between Bultmann and Cullmann.

Wherein lies the fundamental key to their disagreement? Duncan's study,

whatever its ultimate merits, at least points toward an answer, one

which we can relate to our previous discussion. Bultmann in elevating

the literally a priori demands of modern thought (as he reifies it) to

the arbiter of the meaning of the NT texts is taking up a Cartesian ap

proach it is in relation most of all to Bultmann, of course, that

Thielicke defines and employs the term. Cullmann, on the other hand,

while taking cognizance of modernity and conceding the obvious fact that

interpretation need not and cannot be hermetically sealed off from it,

wishes to ask the NT first of all, not Marburg neo-Kantianism, 'In wel-

chem Sinn von Geschehen und Geschichte theologisch legitim geredet wer-
 -311-

den kann.1 Cullmann, like Hofmann and Schlatter, makes use of a non-

Cartesian method.

Thus without minimizing the complexity of the differences between

Cullmann and Bultmann, and without denying that countless exegetical

studies must be (and have been) undertaken to test the merits of their

respective proposals exhaustively at the evidential level, we suggest

that Bultmann's rejection of Cullmann to a considerable degree stands

on the same footing as Wrede's and Baurs rejection of the sorts of

methods (and results )taken up by Schlatter and Hofmann. The division seen

so often previously in NT theology between a hgl. approach and a non-

h g l . approach in the BWB tradition continues, and for much the same

familiar reason.

2.22 R. Eslinger

Eslinger, in a study apparently overlooked by both Hermesmann and

Dorman, directs a sharp attack against Cullmann in his 1970 Boston Univ.
165
dissertation. He repeats the charge that Cullmann relies on a pre

determined philosophy of history and takes offense at the concept of

self implied 'in a view which understands revelation interms of an ab

solute and temporally endless schematization of the divine plan.1'*'88

Cullmann's work is analyzed as one of 'two dominant theological re

sponses to the crisis of revelation created by the advent of histori-

cism.''*87 Eslinger is concerned with Cullmann's 'theological construe-

108
tions' and not his 'exegetical findings.'

It is already difficult to reconcile the criticisms of this disser

tation, which is, apart from Dorman's thesis, perhaps the most thorough
165
Eslinger, Historicity and Historicality: A Comparison of Carl
Michalson and Oscar Cullmann.

166Ibid. v-vi. 167Ibid. 9. 168Ibid. 11.

 -312-

analysis of Cullmann in English, with Cullmann's viewpoint itself. It

seems unfounded, or at least simplistic, as already suggested repeated

ly, to dismiss Cullmann for having a philosophy of history, and Es

linger 's indignation at Cullmann's view of the self seems to attribute

a mistaken a-personal determinism to history as Cullmann thinks the

NT sees it. And it must be adjudged as unhelpfully arbitrary to read

NT theology, not as the exegetically-based deliberations it purports

to be, but as modern theologizing in its own right (unless it should

claim to be precisely that) . Would it not have been methodologically

more sound to heed 'Cullmann's request to be judged first of all on this

basis,' that his concern is first of all with historical reconstruction

169
and not with constructive theology?

Yet Eslinger1s treatment descends to still more debatable levels.

He suggests that for Cullmann, 'the Troeltschian model of analogy and

170
relativity is relevant everywhere.' But Cullmann's disagreement with

an unqualified commitment to Troeltschian historiography is clear

171
implicitly in his work generally. He even makes specific negative
172
reference to Troeltsch. Cullmann uses analogy as a tool but, unlike

Troeltsch, does not elevate this tool (or the metaphysic behind it) to

an absolute standard, as Troeltsch seems to do. Similarly, Cullmann

does try to see all history in terms of inter-relatedness, but he predi

cates true understanding of history on the fact t h a t ,history in its

relativity is subordinate to God who superintends and even visibly

reveals himself intelligibly within that history. One might say that
1 69
J.P.Martin, rev. of Heil als Geschichte, Int 20 (1966) 341.
170
Eslinger, o.c. 98.

171Cf. VA 99-106, 110-124.

172
Christ and Time, 22n.
 -313-

history for Cullmann is only relatively relative. It is hard to see

how this resembles Troeltsch's approach. And when Eslinger goes on to

deduce that interpretation for Cullmann is 'the subjective contribution

of significance in the encounter with the events of objective reali-

173
t y,' it must be replied that Cullmann simply has not been understood.
r 174
The 'vagueness of j_Cull'mann'sj epistemological dualism' is in fact

Eslinger's reading of Kantian categories of perception into Cullmann's

remarks, strange indeed given Cullmann's steady resistance to precisely

this epistemological tradition. It seems that Eslinger has not noticed

the normative value which Cullmann accords the biblical writings because

they convey, not perfectly but with substantial historical accuracy and

complete soteriological sufficiency, divine revelation. This point of

view is highly questionable but is not vague, hardly dualistic in Es

linger 's sense (at least not from Cullmann's standpoint), and by no

means reduces interpretation to mere 'subjective contribution of signi

ficance . '

Eslinger's direct criticisms of Cullmann are as follows. (1) He

thinks Barr's Biblical Words for Time destroys Cullmann's exegetical

175
base. (2) He is persuaded by Bultmann's critical review of Christ

and Time and accuses Cullmann of 'historical positivism.'176 For Esling-

erer it is wrong to hold, with Cullmann, 'that the proper object of

faith is a structure of reality already completed in its meaning and

177
divinely given.' This miscue on Cullmann's part is aggravated by

his 'absence of concern for the existential relevance or even personal

178
relevance of the plan of salvation.' (3) Cullmann reduces faith to
179
rationalistic knowing. (4) Cullmann associates saving faith with

173Eslinger, o.c. 98f. 174Ibid. 99n.l. 175Ibid. 176ff.

176Ibid. 178ff. 177Ibid. 180. 178Ibid. 180f.

179
Ibid. 182ff.
 -314-
180
historical events which are problematic, seemingly relegating such
181
events as the resurrection to a 'transcendent meta-history.' (5) Cull

mann 's view of the biblical interpretations as basically reliable and

in some sense to be believed today is 'unthinkable for the contemporary

secularist who cannot accept. . . a world view foreign to his ovm.

We may regard these objections briefly and in order. (1) Barr's

Biblical Words for Time as it relates to Cullmann has already been

alluded to. While Barr's criticisms are noteworthy, they are limited

to parts of the argumentation of Christ and Time and do not necessarily

apply to the rest of Cullmann's work, esp. Salvation in History. If

they do somehow apply, Eslinger has not shown how. (2) Bultmann's re

view of Christ and Time has also already been considered. We should

add that even if it were 'historical positivism' to place one's faith

in 'a structure of reality already completed in its meaning and divinely

given, ' Cullmann has only adopted this position on the basis of what

NT believers seemed to hold. Unless Eslinger could show either that

Cullmann in his exegesis or the NT believers in their belief were mis

taken, this accusation is not serious from the standpoint of NT theo

logy. And it is probably exaggerated to accuse Cullmann of having no

183
conception of the relevance of Hg. to personal faith. (3) Cullmann

does indeed stress that NT faith had definite propositional content,

and ^n some circles this is automatically a 'rationalistic distortion

184
of faith.' But in order truly to be rationalistic, the object of

faith would have to be of purely rational creation, discovery, or vali

dation. Theologically, Cullmann holds that, based on the NT, the

starting point of all theological thought ought to be the 'Ueberzeugung,

dass wir aus eigener Kraft nichts Uber Gott in Erfahrung bringen kdnnen,

180Ibid. 181Ibid. 188. 182Ibid. 191; cf. 188.

183 184
Cf. e.g. Salvation in History, 292-338. Eslinger, o.c. 182.
 -315-

wenn Gott sich uns nicht selbst offenbart. Die menschliche Vernunft
185
als solche kann Gott nicht fassen.' This would seem to clear Cull

mann of Eslinger's theological objection. If he objects on the

historical level, it remains again for him to demonstrate that either

Cullmann's exegesis is inaccurate or NT faith wrongly assumed that

Christian faith is closely linked with words and events which are appro

priated as objects of faith finally inseparable from the God to whom

they relate and from whom they are attributed as originating.

(4) and (5) may be taken together. Here Eslinger quotes modern
186
authorities such as V. Harvey and charges, in essence, that Cull

mann' s concepts of 'event' and 'interpretation' are today intellectually

unacceptable. He asks modern understanding to subject itself to under

standings of biblical phenomena, e.g. the resurrection, or to interpre

tations of that event (if it was an event), which are irreconcilable

with modern understanding and not demonstrable by modern historiographi

cal methods. If Cullmann insists on asserting that NT faith springs

from a historical resurrection, or from Jesus' historical person

generally, vouchsafed by apostolic interpretation, none of which (say)

Harvey-ian historiography can validate or even affirm, then Cullmann

clearly 'begs the historian's questions and creates a crisis within the

epistemology of faith' by placing the resurrection or the life of Jesus

18*7
'in a transcendent meta-history.' Now this may be true, from Esling

er 's own epistemological or historiographical standpoint, but again we

return to the question of whether Cullmann's position is consistent with

the NT texts which he claims to be explicating. Essentially Cullmann

is under attack here precisely for one of the primary characteristics

185 186
Cullmann, VA 23. Cf. Harvey, Historian and Believer.

187Eslinger, 188.
 -316-

of the hgl. perspective as we have already portrayed it generally: de

clining to let itself be dictated to by what it sees as modernistic dog

ma about what could or could not have been the case with reference to

the content of the NT. Certainly Eslinger is free to be a 'contemporary

secularist who cannot accept. . . a world-view foreign to his own*; but

this standpoint, if ardently adhered to, must surely result in an in

ability, stemming from its confessed unwillingness, to grant validity

to any claim about reality, present or past, 'historical' or 'theologi

cal,' which contravenes its own understanding or belief. This is once

again the essence of the Cartesian/non-Cartesian disagreement.

Eslinger's study is an informative indicator as to how perhaps a

good deal of modern criticismassesses Cullmann and the hgl. perspective,

when it thinks of them at all. It is helpful in this respect. But far

from showing the decisive weaknesses of Cullmann's approach, it serves

rather merely to underscore the gap already repeatedly alluded to be

tween two ways of regarding the NT data in a historico-theological way.

3. Cullmann as participant in the Hofmann-Schlatter heritage

As Cullmann's work drew increasing attention following WW II, some

of his critics sought to discredit it by linking Cullmann to Hofmann

and Schlatter. The latter two, as we suggested in ch. 1, were stigma

tized as Hegelian (Hofmann), uncritical, conservative, or biblicistic,

so that if Cullmann could be seen as their ideological descendent, then

his arguments could already be neatly rejected or ignored guilt by

association.

If there is little evidence that Cullmann borrowed directly from

Hofmann and Schlatter, there is even less to suggest that he delved into

their work to see just how warranted was the contemporary dislike for

these two. He seems simply to have assumed that they deserved the
 -317-

general rejection they received. Cullmann accordingly chose to separate

himself from them and seems to have assumed that his use of 'Hg. '

represented something of a distinct departure from its earlier usage.

Hg., he explains, is a term which theology had long since adopted to de

note the unfolding of the divine 'Oikonomia 1 or 'Mysterion' within and

as part of history, and

es hat im letzten Jahrhundert in der protestantischen Dogmatik eine

Schule gegeben, die sich mit diesem Name ['Hg.'] bezeichnet, ihn
damit freilich auch belastet hat. Obwohl ich ihr in vielem zustim-
men kann, mtichte ich ausdrticklich bemerken, dass ich meine Position
nicht mit derjenigen dieser Schule verwechselt haben will. Jene
Schule ist an Hegel orientiert, und sie scheint mir den Gegensatz
von Geschichte und Heilsgeschichte nicht korrekt definiert zu haben.
Meine Sicht will die biblische Theologie wiedergeben.

We do not wish to suggest that Cullmann is in fact merely a repris-

tinator, even an unconscious one, of certain ideas also held by Hofmann

and Schlatter. We can also not veer off into a lengthy comparative

study of the meaning of Hg. in each of these three and their inter

relationships. We wish rather now to show briefly four senses in which

Cullmann (or the hgl. perspective he represents), despite his dis

claimers, fills a role in the milieu of NT theology in his day com

parable to that played by Hofmann and Schlatter in theirs.

3.1 Non-inerrantist view of scripture

Cullmann remarks: 'Auf viele "moderne" Theologen wirkt das, was

ich mit Heilsgeschichte meine, wie ein rotes Tuch. Sie sehen darin
189
schWMrzesten Konservatismus.' Doubtless Cullmann is correct here,

and correspondingly one recalls the bad press Hofmann and Schlatter

have often been subject to, in no small measure because their work has

been seen as biblicistic and hence unscientific.

188Ev K 12 (1974) 731. 189Ibid. 732.

 -318-

It should not be overlooked, however, either by fundamentalist or

evangelical Biblical inerrantists today who wish to align themselves

with Cullmann in some respects, or by NT critics for whom Cullmann is

far too 'conservative,' that in Cullmann's view the Bible reflects 'dis

torting influences' which detract from its scientific precision, which

is in turn inevitable if 'the revelation in salvation history belongs

to the incarnation within the human situation,' which it does in Cull-

190
mann's view. Admittedly this distortion is relatively minor and can
191
be effectively minimized through careful historical-critical labor.

Nevertheless, the revelation which is transmitted via the NT texts can

be termed a 'remembering of revelation, darkened by misunderstanding,'

192
though 'made alive by the Holy Spirit.' Dorman can thus speak of

Cullmann's apparently neo-orthodox assumption that the historical must

in some sense be sinful and flawed, because qualitatively inferior to

that divine reality which may seek somehow to reveal it- or himself by
, . . . - 193
historical means.

The point is that Cullmann, like Hofmann and Schlatter, stands under

the suspicion of uncritical conservatism, while in his writings he none

theless denies that scripture is an inerrant deposit of true informa

tion. He rejects, by likening to Gnosticism, 'die Theorien von der Ver-

194
balinspiration der Bibel im strengen Sinne.' All three hgl. thinkers

achieve their synthetic presentations of the NT withopt recourse to a

strict view of scriptural inerrancy. Yet their work is widely criti

cized for its conservative leanings. Perhaps this is due in part to

our next point:

190 191
Salvation in History, 97. Cf. e.g. Cullmann, VA 118.
192 193
Salvation in History, 110. Hermeneutics, 302ff.
194
Cullmann, VA 118.
 -319-

3.2 Starting point for interpretation

In ch. 1 we suggested that both Baur and Wrede overhastily subor

dinate viewpoints latent in the NT texts to modern, esp. epistemologi

cal, considerations which often effectively rule out on a priori grounds

the possibility that many central NT claims are true or even relevant

today from a scientific standpoint. Their starting point in interpreta

tion is modern thought, or a particular reification of it. Hofmann and

Schlatter take issue with this stance by seeking to allow scripture at

least an equal voice, together with current scientific understanding,

in determining the nature of its own content and message.

As we will show in ch. 5, and as Duncan's thesis (see 2.213 above)

suggests, Bultmann follows in the Baur-Wrede train by elevating a

patently modern understanding, or amalgamation of understandings, one-

sidedly over the competing claims of scripture. For Cullmann by con

trast, to some extent at least, not modern thought as such but 'der Text

nimmt die absolute Prioritdt. . . ein und nicht die philosophische oder

auch theologische Theorie, mit der ein Text zum heutigen Verstehen ge-
195
bracht werden kbnnte.' He points out that Jesus reportedly 'hat die

Schriftgelehrten gerade deshalb angegriffen, weil sie die Theologie von

ihrem Quellgrund, der von Gott selbst geschenkten Offenbarung, losge-

196
lttst und zur menschlichen Weisheit erniedrigt haben.' Such a caveat

represents Cullmann's response to critical approaches which elevate the

conceptual contexts of current modes of understanding too quickly over

what he sees as the context implied by the empirical (as opposed to

speculative or philosophical) given which ought itself to be the

195
Hermesmann, Zeit und Heil, 31n.6.
196
Cullmann, VA 102.
 -320-

starting point for the shaping of NT interpretation's conceptual cate

gories: the historical-theological data comprising and relating to the

NT texts.

Cullmann insists that the critic can and 'muss vom Text dazu gefUhrt

werden, in seinem eigenen Bewusstsein eine objektive, unabh&ngig von

197
seinem Bewusstsein existierenden Wahrheit zu erfassen.' Or again:

'Jedes BemUhen urn Texte des Altertums muss von der Mtiglichkeit ausgehen,
198
dass sie objektive Wahrheiten enthalten, die uns neu sind.' He con

cedes of course that any interpretation of texts will be affected by

the pre-understanding of the interpreter. What he denies is the legiti

macy of giving up the struggle, which alone makes criticism truly criti

cal i.e. the critic too is criticized of submitting even one's own

preconceptions to the understanding afforded by texts and historical

data related to them. The interpreter's own views are thus allowed to

be an inevitable factor in interpretation, but it is still not true that

one can perceive in a text only what he expected or wished to find

199
there, as e.g. Cullmann's opponent Steck suggests.

Criteria for understanding biblical texts can and must therefore

200
'aus dem Text selbst gewonnen sein. ' Cullmann agrees that non-

theological disciplines are indispensable for biblical-theological

studies: 'Gott will, dass wir uns aller uns verftlgbaren Kenntnisse be-
201
;dienen, urn sein Wort zu erforschen.' But it is 'eine Profanwissen-

schaft, die urn ihre Grenzen weiss,' which can best be of service to the
197
Ibid. 94n.13.

1 9 8 Ibid. 94.
199
Cf. Steck, Idee, 57: 'Denn auch der Heilsgeschichtler erfasst
nur das, wessen Wirklichkeit er schon vorweg glaubend erkannt hat, mit
seinen Prddikaten.'

" ^ C u l l m a n n , VA 101.
201
Ibid. 34. Cullmann specifies (32): 'Philologie, Archdologie,
 -321-
202
biblical critic. Thus a Wredian or Bultmannian placing of the Bi

ble's theological meaning (and historical veracity) strictly under the

control of non-theological disciplines (e.g. neo-Kantian or existential

philosophy) is foreign to Cullmann. He recognized long ago that with

such an approach the question arises: 'Warum kttnnten die Theologen

diese Disziplinen [i.e. the various areas within and tangent to biblical

studies] nicht den Professoren der Philosophischen Fakult&t tlberlassen

und sich selbst ausschliesslich auf die "praktische Exegese " beschrdn-
203
ken?' It will be recalled that Schlatter, too, saw the danger of

NT interpretation being distorted through methods or insights unwar-

rantedly applied to it. Like Schlatter, Cullmann objects. The hgl.

perspective since Hofmann and including Cullmann insists that the

starting point for the meaning of the NT texts is what the texts them

selves say, seen in a context amenable to their message. Elementary

as this point sounds, it is not a viewed shared by BWB, who to the pre

sent hour have clearly dominated the development of NT theology as a

technical discipline.

3.3 Positive relation between revelation and history

Dorman has argued convincingly that Cullmann is best understood

as one who 'sought to define the relationship between revelation and

history in a way which avoids the extreme historicism of Liberalism's

"historical Jesus" on the one hand, and Dialectical Theology's renuncia-

204
tion of a historically-based revelation on the other.' I.e. Cull

mann tries to 'articulate a hermeneutics which accurately reflects the

Papyruskunde, Textgeschichte, Literatur- und Quellenkritik, profane Ge-
schichte, allgemeine Religionsgeschichte namentlich der heidnischen
Religionen, Philosophie, Psychologie sie haben alle ihre Bedeutung.'
202 t, . , 203 tl .j
Ibid. 37. Ibid. 100.

Dorman, abstract of Hermeneutics.

 -322-
205
positive relationship he sees between revelation and history.'

We recall that Hofmann opposed Baur's incipient historicism by re

fusing to relinquish the past and abiding significance, not only of

scripture's ideological or theological, but also its historical content.

Hofmann did not, like Baur, think the two could be separated, at least

not in the fashion Baur separated them. Similarly Schlatter objected

to Wrede's Troeltschian attempts to ground the meaning of the NT message

in an a-historical religious a priori conveniently compatible with Ger

man cultural Protestantism.

Cullmann follows Hofmann and Schlatter here. In contrast to e.g.

Bultmann's assumption that the NT's historical elements as such can

(must) often be dissociated from their theological meaning (cf. demytho-

logizing), Cullmann warns of the danger which lurks when 'man nur das

als fUr Jesus und die Urgemeinde wesentlich bezeichnet, woran man selbst

meint glauben zu kbnnen.'^0^ It is Cullmann's conviction that the mo

dern theologian here Bultmann is surely implicated

ist allzu oft versucht, diejenigen Elemente eines Textes als "zeit-
bedingt" zu betrachten, die nicht mit seinen eignen religiOsen und
sittlichen Vorstellungen Ubereinstimmen, mbgen sie fllr^g^n Verfasser
des Textes auch von hbchster Wichtigkeit gewesen sein.

Now Cullmann does not overlook the fact that 'zur biblischen Offen-

barung gehbrt nun einmal der zeitbedingte Rahmen der Sprache und des

Gedankengutsjener Verfasser, deren persdnliche Eigenart deutliche

208
Spuren in den biblischen Schriften hinterlassen hat.' But like his

hgl. predecessors he wants to understand the NT evidence in the

historical-theological (hgl.) context which is arguably indigenous to

it. Itisafterall possible to see scripture'stime-conditionedness

209
more as unavoidable cultural accommodation than as material error. If
205 2Dfi 207
Ibid. Cullman, VA 447. Ibid. 102.
POfi onn
Ibid. 120. Dorman, Hermeneutics, 302ff.
 -323-

'most nineteenth century hermeneutics imposed then-current world-views

210
on Scripture, rather than allowing the Bible to speak for itself,'

and if Hofmann and Schlatter each rebelled against this tendency, Cull

mann likewise believes that it is imperative to strive for, and possible

to attain to, a basically accurate understanding of the phenomena and

ideas of which the NT speaks, from the standpoint from which the writers

viewed them. One must seek in the chiefly historical discipline of NT

211
theology to achieve an understanding first of all of the biblical

writers' own outlooks. If this is attempted seriously, a fairly clear

understanding of the nature of hgl. events, as scripture portrays them,

is possible. And in this way the modern interpreter can see the same

positive relation between the historical and the revelatory that the

biblical witnesses themselves are said to have discerned.

3.4 Maintenance of coherent sense of NT's content

within the discipline of NT theology: criticism of criticism

212
Significantly, many reviewers of Heil als Geschichte as well as

critics such as Steck and Bultmann concede that Cullmann's reading of

the NT to a considerable degree squares with a good deal of the NT it

self. I. H. Marshall remarks that, seen over against the interpretative

framework of Bultmann, 'there can be little doubt that' Cullmann's 'is

213
the correct framework for the interpretation of the Bible.' This

points to a fourth feature of Cullmann's work which, in its relation

to critical orthodoxy of the day (cf. Bultmann), bears comparison to

Hofmann and Schlatter seen in the context of a discipline greatly

210 211
Ibid. 13f. Cullmann, VA 417.
212
E.g. D.Braun, EvT 27 (1967) 68 ; L.Goppelt, TZ 22 (1966) 51-56;
J.P.Martin, Int 20 (1966) 340-346.
213
From a soon-to-be-published ms. I am grateful for the preview.
 -324-

inf luenced by Baur and Wrede: Cullmann contributes to the maintenance

of a coherent sense of the NT's surface content within the critical

discipline of NT theology, in which an understanding of the NT texts

themselves as an integrated whole often, as today, has seemed to be im

possible to maintain.

At a time when Baur's reading of the NT saw largely strife and frag

mentation at the phenomenological level, Hofmann affirmed the historical-

theological unity of the NT documents. While Wrede saw the NT as com

prising random and disparate occasional writings, with no more claim

to import, and perhaps less to unity, than some non-canonical writings,

Schlatter in a sense viewed the NT 'from within in a positive response

to the appeal of the Christian proclamation,' an approach which is today

'considered essential in the case of the study of other world reli-

214
gions' (though a curious hostility seems to obtain in some quarters

to its use when it is Christianity that is being researched). The point

is that Hofmann and Schlatter function as contemporary re-articulators

of the NT message seen from a standpoint not necessarily hostile to its

fundamental surface assumptions which include e.g. such 'non-historical'

elements as virgin birth, incarnation, miracles, vicarious atonement,

resurrection, exaltation, and future coming. By comparison BWB repre

sent a critical position that seemingly rejects the possibility of these

and other fundamental NT surface claims functioning or existing as the

texts claim, or that somewhat radically reinterprets such claims to an

extent which many would find unacceptable, at least as a representation

of the intent of the texts themselves.

Now it is possible to suppose that Hofmann, Schlatter, and Cullmann

are to NT theology what some organisms are said to be to the evolutionary

^^Boers, Theology, 75.

 -325-

scale: vestiges of a long-past aeon whose existence is an anomaly and

whose primary contribution is to afford contemporary observation of an

otherwise extinct biological genre. However A. N. Wilder has recently

and perhaps wisely pointed out that 'if, indeed, there are impediments

or obliquities here or there in the search for the truth 1 within NT re-
215
search, 'these are not confined to the households of faith.' Wilder

asks whether scholarship would long endure without 'these ancient pie

ties,' pieties which the nonCartesian approaches of the hgl. group tend

to preserve, in interaction with, albeit at points in contradistinction

to, contemporary Cartesian methods.

Wilder makes a valid point, and in conjunction with it we reiterate

that Cullmann, like Hofmann, and Schlatter, contributes to the preserva

tion and contemporary restatement of the NT's message in a fashion open

to the NT's own surface claims and open also to the potential unity

which many for centuries have found in the NT documents. And going a

step further, one may argue that this is not merely an interesting,

sentimental, but hopelessly outdated feature of NT theology's landscape:

Cullmann's hgl. position like others before it can be seen as truly

critical by virtue of the fact that qua critic Cullmann from his early

liberal years was critical not only of the historical sources but of

his own inherited critical methods and the contemporary conceptions and

convictions which conferred validity on them.

All this is to observe that Cullmann's historical method, which both

led to and over many years was modified by his researches into what he

saw as the OT-NT-in a sense continuing Hg. , reflects Ebeling's dictum

215
Wilder, 'New Testament Studies, 1920-1950. . . ,' JR 64 (1984)
445. Cf. Stuhlmacher, ZTK 77 (1980) 224, who asserts that in disputes
between evangelicals and non-evangelicals in the Landeskirche today,
'halte ich es fllr misslich, . . . das Recht immer nur auf seiten der
modernen Theologie zu suchen.'
 -326-

that 'it is right for theology to be critical of i t s e l f . ' C u l l m a n n

thus refuses arbitrarily to endorse contemporary views on such difficult

questions as God, history, the Bible, knowledge, and their inter

relationships. Instead he makes the effort, however inadequate and in

complete, not somehow to climb out of this 2 0 th century-ness, but never

theless to subject this 2 0 th century-ness itself to subject matter

which, after all, may well one day prove to have had more to commend

it than many 2 0 th century critics who oppose it or wish radically to

reinterpret it. Cullmann seeks to inform (first of all his own) 20th

century understanding by observing, perceiving, and recounting that

which the NT, according to his own somewhat sympathetic reading at any

rate, contains. His attitude in this respect is summed up well in words

from Schlatter:

Je mehr wir nicht nur beobachten, sondern erkldren wollen, jehr mehr
das Objekt in unser fertiges Schema hineingezwungen werden soil,
urn so starker wird die wissenschaftliche Karikatur; urn so sicherer
verwandelt sich die angebliche Wissenschaft in Polemik gegen ihr
Objekt, und es entsteht der nicht das Geschehene, sondern den His-
21 7
toriker bekundende Roman.

Now this is a controversial statement, and one could perhaps try

to turn it around and apply it to C u l l m a n n . I n light of the above

discussions, however, one may argue that, on the particular issue of

Hg. and the hgl. perspective, critics like BWB, not Cullmann, have lost

critical nerve. They have capitulated to the pressure of contemporary

cultural historico-religio-theological understanding and made insuffi

cient methodological allowance for the possibility that the theories

of some post-Enlightenment German Protestant critics could perhaps stand

fundamental modification from insights or facts preserved in documents

^^Ebeling, Word and Faith, 191.

217
Schlatter, 'Atheistische Methoden,' in Luck, Zur Theologie, 149.

^ ^ S o already not only Bultmann in 1948 but also e.g. W.A.Irwin,

'The Interpretation of the Old Testament,' ZAW 21 (1950) 8 : Cullmann
'has departed from sound method and is merely cramping the facts of his
tory into his preconceived theories.'
 -327-

greatly predating them. Cullmann's 'old dogmatic style' (Bultmann's

expression) is thus inveighed against by various new ones. Yet, as men

tioned above, even critics of Cullmann admit that a good deal of the

NT fits in with what he says about it.

We will not elaborate, however, on what, from a philosophy of

science viewpoint, might seem to be a peculiar obduracy in the face of

pertinent data. Let us consider only a Christian theological implica

tion, since BWB no less than Hofmann, Schlatter, and Cullmann emphati

cally considered or consider themselves churchmen, in some sense at

least. Cullmann refers to

die Gefahr, dass man nur darauf achtet, zeitgem&ss zu sprechen, und
sich dabei nicht anstrengt, bei jeder Transposition in die heutige
Ausdrucksform die Botschaft selbst unverdndert zu lassen. Wo man
sich darum nicht stdndig bemtiht, geschieht e s , dass Christen, an-
statt der Welt die ihr fremde Botschaft zu verkUnden, ihr nur das
sagen, was sie auch schon und zum Teil besser sagt. Unser Zeugnis
vom Heil in Christus soil der Welt verst&ndlich sein, aber es soil
wirklich Zeugnis bleiben. So wird auch die Welt eher aufhorchen,
als wenn wir ihr sagen, was sie schon ohne uns weiss.

This is the same danger to which V. Harvey alludes when he points out

that 'if the liberal [cf. Cartesian} theologian too drastically revises

the faith in the direction of modernity, the question arises as to the

220
degree to which his views can legitimately be called Christian.' (One

might also recall here the debate between Bultmann and K. Jaspers.)

Aside from and in addition to this, Harvey concludes:

The pathos of the liberal is that, by ,adopting modernity and

accommodating Christianity to it, he is confronted by a solution
of his own making in which Christianity has lost its 'transcendence'
over common experience and is simply a representation of its own
self-understanding .^ 2 1

It might be hard to deny that this pathos is, or ought to be, felt in
219
EvK 12 (1974) 731.
220
Harvey, 'The Pathos of Liberal Theology,' JR 56 (1976) 389.
221
Ibid. 390.
 -328-

many of those above who so confidently oppose Cullmann and the hgl. ap

proach. Certainly one gains the impression that objections to Cull

mann 's hgl. outlook are at least sometimes rather horrified recoilings

against his methodological openness to accepting as binding (or even

merely valid) ideas different from those acceptable to and verifiable

by modern academics academics who in important respects openly admit

to being (in Eslinger's words) contemporary secularists who cannot (or

at least will not) accept what they term a world-view foreign to their

own.

But here a question arises. What has authentic relationship to the

Judeo-Christian God the real possibility of which even BWB are uni

formly anxious, at least ostensibly, to maintain always entailed? Has

it ever in either OT or NT terms ever meant anything other than accep

tance of that which is in some respects foreign which is not to say

totally inconceivable or absolutely irrational to non-OT/NT thinking,

esp. thinking which (as Harvey intimates) predicates salvation on that

which man, apart from God and God's word, already knows or can know,

does or can do? Both the OT prophetic message and the NT gospel of the

resurrection seem to have demanded a considerable change in basic intel

lectual posture and concession in volitional attitude from their

hearers. Cullmann in researching the OT/NT corpus is aware of this fact

and allows for it. Many of his critics demonstrably deny or simply ig

nore this state of affairs. But on what grounds then can the latter

position deny validity to Cullmann's hgl. method? Unless they are

calling for the renunciation of the Bible as somehow the fountainhead

of Christian faith, or a total recasting of the biblical image of God,

and therefore of what constitutes relationship to that God, it is surely

fair to surmise that their own platform is a shaky one, from a

 -329-

historical standpoint anyway, from which to attack Cullmann. As Cull

mann puts it, the Bultmannian (Cartesian) critique leveled against him

'fasst n&mlich die MOglichkeit gar nicht ins Auge, dass gerade das,

was uns im Zeugnis des Neuen Testaments nicht anspricht, doch fUr die
222
TrMger dieses Zeugnisses das Wesentliche sein kdnnte . 1

Our point is certainly not, then, that Cullmann is necessarily right

in all he affirms. It is only to observe that he (cf. Hofmann, Schlat

ter) sets forth a creditable synthetic understanding of the NT consis

tent with, even according to some of his critics, at least one major

plausible conceptualization of the NT's own self-understanding, so to

speak. In doing so he essentially if only intuitively respects the in

sight voiced by Thiselton: 'The two poles of the past "givenness" of

the Bible and its present interpretation do not (or at least should not)
223
stand in opposition to each other.' In adopting this stance Cullmann

perhaps does not neglect but rather enhances the critical function of

his discipline; for his approach engages the NT subject matter in a dia-

logical fashion in which the possibility of the sources being heard in

their own terms is likely somewhat greater than approaches which totally

(e.g. Baur, Wrede) or partially (Bultmann) fail to take into account,

or take into account inadequately, that a valid interpretative apprehen

sion of the NT texts must ply a two-way street.

Is it then possible that without Cullmann's and similar contribu

tions, NT theology in Bultmann's wake would be in even greater disarray

than it already is? Perhaps; and if so, Cullmann's openness to the im

plications of Hg. and his adaptation of critical methodology to account

for it could be less deserving of rejection than NT theology in many

222
Heil als Geschichte, 4.
223
'Knowledge, Myth and Corporate Memory,' Belief in the Church,
1981, 73.
 -330-

quarters has yet to recognize. In any event his efforts in their his

torical context bear comparison to those of Hofmann and Schlatter in

theirs.

4. Conclusion

We have shown the starting point and development of Cullmann's out

look, assessed major aspects of his views in relation to his critics,

and detailed how he may (and by implication may not) be seen as a con-

tinuator of the Hofmann-Schlatter trajectory in NT theology. In the

light of this investigation Cullmann is largely cleared of the charge

of imposing a philosophy of history as such on the NT, and it is clear

that while he resembles Hofmann and Schlatter in major procedural re

spects, he did not come to his views in conscious allegiance to them

or to schools of thought indebted to them.

Cullmann's relative independence as a NT interpreter and creative

thinker confirms what c h s . 2 and 3 above already imply: that hgl. ap

proaches to NT (or OT) theology this century are not necessarily, or

even usually, reliant on a hermeneutical innovation which he introduced.

To a considerable degree it is possible to write a history of hgl. in

terpretation this century without reference to Cullmann, although he

would be a definite major figure in the final picture.

Thus a hgl. approach to NT theology can hardly be thought to stand

or fall simply by virtue of Cullmann's success or failure in winning

a wider following than Bultmann was (or is) able to claim. As a matter

of fact it is not abundantly clear, judging the above criticisms of

Cullmann by their actual merits,that Cullmann's approach is as proble

matic as many have charged. But whatever the issue of that question:

in view of the history of the hgl. approach (or approaches) prior to

 -331-

and concurrent with (but for the most part by no means dependent on)

Cullmann, a complete treatment of the approach must extend well beyond

Cullmann. Others who have regarded the NT as a whole from a hgl. van

tage point must also be analyzed, and this analysis must guard against

unwarranted participation in the prevailing critical aversion to Cull

mann. In our final chapter we will take up the NT theologies of Al-

bertz, Ladd, and Goppelt, seen over against Bultmann, as a final step

in determining the major characteristics of a hgl. approach to NT

theology.
 CHAPTER FIVE

THE HEILSGESCHICHTLICHE PERSPECTIVE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGIES

OF ALBERTZ, LADD, AND GOPPELT VIS-A-VIS BULTMANN

In ch. 1 we isolated characteristic features of the hgl. approach

to NT theology as seen in the work of Hofmann and Schlatter. We com

pared each of these two NT interpreters to Baur and Wrede respectively,

who are not only important figures as seen in their own temporal

contexts, but also ideological forerunners for the dominant theory

lying behind NT theology today: Bultmann confessedly owes much to each

of them.

While it was tempting to leap from 'Wrede vs. Schlatter' into 'Bult

mann vs. contemporary advocates of various hgl. positions,' we instead

have traversed a long but unavoidable byway. This was necessary in or

der to gain a grounded understanding of the dynamics of the discussion

relating to Hg. leading up to the years when Bultmann's NT theology came

to exercise decisive influence.

The present chapter builds on the background of c h s . 2-4 above but

relates rather more directly to the discussion in ch. 1. We thus in

a sense resume the inquiry which we as it were interrupted at the end

of our opening chapter.

Following ch. l's mode of inquiry, we wish to compare what might

be called critical orthodoxy's premier theoretician (as well as practi

tioner) of NT theology to modern advocates of a hgl. approach. This

will entail bringing Bultmann's insights into dialogue with those of

three figures whose NT theologies evince hgl. perspectives of varying

descriptions: M. Albertz, G. Ladd, and L. Goppelt. Our goal here as

 -333-

in ch. 1 is to isolate characteristic features of the hgl. approach to

NT theology, seen against the backdrop of a discipline whose dominant

stream leaves little if any room for this approach. We will probe the

four NT theologies under consideration in the three areas already ex

plored with reference to Baur-Hofmann and Wrede-Schlatter: (1) the ba

sic concept of what NT theology is, (2) the epistemology employed or

implied, and (3) the view of history, or in certain cases H g . , which

informs the NT theology as a whole. This will both afford continuity

with our earlier analysis and permit sufficiently thorough examination

of each of the interpreters under study.

A conclusion will present and discuss findings.

2. Bultmann and NT theology

Although Hasel insists that 'critical scholarship has moved far be-
1
yond Bultmann and has seen decisive weaknesses in his approach,' no NT

theology has yet emerged even from Bultmann's students or followers

which can claim to have moved the methodological discussion on funda-

2
mental issues very far beyond Bultmann. It is still the case that

Bultmann's overall program is the most widely influential, lucidly arti

culated, and expertly executed complete NT theology of modern times.

GrMsser states: 'Im Jahre seines hundertsten Geburtstages [.1984] ist

die Zeit der fruchtbaren Wirkung Rudolf Bultmanns auf Theologie und
3
Kirche noch ldngst nicht abgelaufen.' If his approach's goal 'heute
4
mehr und mehr als unrealisierbar erscheint, ' the discipline of NT

theology as a whole has not yet formulated an alternative which has

'Hasel, NT Theology, 58.

2
Cf. Merk, Anfangszeit, 258.
3
Gr&sser, 'Rudolf Bultmann zum GedMchtnis,' ZNW 75 (1984) 1.
4
Stuhlmacher, Verstehen, 188.
 -334-

commended comparable recognition. Over thirty years after its first

appearance, Bultmann's definition and presentation of NT theology re

mains a landmark which no serious discussion of the discipline's prob

lems or prospects can afford to take lightly. We are justified there

fore in giving it full consideration here.

We have already dealt with Bultmann in various connections in pre

ceding chapters, but we wish now to press forward to a specific under

standing of (l) his programme for NT theology, (2) the epistemology

utilized therein, and (3) the view of history which informs his presen

tation of the NT material. This will furnish the requisite backdrop

for assessing the NT theologies of Albertz, Ladd, and Goppelt, seen over

against Bultmann's pioneering and enduringly important achievement.

2.1 Bultmann's conception of NT theology

5
To the newest edition of Bultmann's Theologie is appended a list

of some 75 reviews^ of this work. By now articles, theses, and books

handling various elements or the whole of Bultmann's work surely number

7
in the thousands. We may still, however, hope to shed a ray of fresh

light on his NT theology by evaluating its method in relation to that

of Baur and Wrede and thereby pointing out some of its most prominent

features. This should refine our grasp of the historical development

leading up to contemporary NT theology generally and facilitate our un

derstanding of the hgl. perspective within it.

Obviously Bultmann is not just an extension of Baur and Wrede. He

5 8
Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 1980, 622ff. We cite
this ed. below.

^Ibid. 622ff. Missing is the important analysis by N.Dahl, 'Die

Theologie des Neuen Testaments,' TRu 22 (1954) 21-49, rightly praised
in Morgan, NNTT, 174n.92; cf. R.C.Roberts, Rudolf Bultmann's Theology,
1976, 16n.l2.
7
Major bibliographical tools are accessible in W.Schmithals, 'Bult
mann, Rudolf (1884-1976),' TRE 7, 396.
 -335-

sees himself, e.g., as avoiding and even transcending Baur's histori-

cism.^ Merk speaks of this 'Abwendung von F. C. Baur 1 as a methodologi

cal intention to reverse Baur's reading of 'die urchristliche Geschichte

9
als Phdnomen der Vergangenheit'; Bultmann prefers rather to press his

torical data into serving his contemporary theological reconstruction.

He likewise rejects Baur'sidealistic understanding of Pauline righteous

ness.^ He accuses Wrede of sundering the 'Zusammenhang zwischen

Lebens- und Denkakt,' i.e. of rightly understanding the NT theological

material 'als Ausdruck und nicht als Gegenstand des Glaubens,' but of

wrongly construing such 'Ausdruck' as 'nachtr&gliche denkende Reflexion

tiber die Objekte des Glaubens' rather than as 'die Entfaltung des glau-
11
benden Selbstverstdndnisses.' Dahl notes that Bultmann stresses 'die

Rechtfertigungslehre' to a greater extent than would be acceptable to

12
Wrede (or Bousset). And Bultmann's allegiance to the history-of-

religions school implies a break 'von der alten Baurschen Geschichtskon-

13
struktionas adopted e.g. by Goguel. In several ways, then, Bultmann

is to be distinguished from these earlier figures.

Nevertheless, the similarities between Baur, Wrede, and Bultmann

must be noted along with the differences. We believe that a grasp of

Bultmann's approach to NT theology is enhanced by a reading of it which

takes our analysis of Baur and Wrede in ch. 1 as a starting point.

Bultmann's presentation of NT theology 'has been the most influen

tial of all modern studies' in this field, 'whether it is seen posi

tively as a stimulus to new insights or negatively as a goad to provoke

8 9
Bultmann, Theologie, 592f. Merk, Anfangszeit, 257.
10 11
Bultmann, Theologie, 278. Ibid. 594.
12 13
Dahl, TRu 22 (1954) 39. Ibid. 30.
 -336-
14
creative reations.' We do not undertake below somehow to bury Bult-
15
mann, but neither do we have space merely to praise him. Nothing we

say should be construed as being uttered unaware or unappreciative of

Bultmann's undeniable contribution to numerous areas of NT study.

2.11 Features of Bultmann's method reminiscent of Baur

Reviews or studies of Bultmann1s NT theology allude to numerous

points of contact with B a u r . ^ We need not repeat these here. We are

concerned only to show similarity at three junctures: the quasi-

historical nature of NT theology as Bultmann understands it, his subse

quent failure to come to grips with significant historical phenomena

of the NT, and his functional handing-over of the NT message to a parti

cular modern (mode of self-) understanding.

2.111 Quasi-historical approach

We noted earlier that Baur's NT theology is not primarily concerned

with NT history in the usual sense (i.e. what happened). He rather

presses the NT texts into the service of his theological-philosophical

reconstruction of the ultimate conceptual reality to which the NT, or

17
some parts of it, point.

Now it has long been argued by many that Bultmann's work is rigor-
18
ously historical. Cullmann maintained this in the 1920's, and assess-

1 4 Marshall, TEd 9 (Spr. 1979) 55. Cf. Schmithals, TRE 7, 395: 'Im
Bereich der neutestamentlichen Forschung bestimmen Bultmanns Arbeiten
bzw. die Auseinandersetzung mit ihnen s'eit langem und bis auf weiteres
in fast alien wichtigen Problembereichen die Wege der Forschung. . . . 1
15
For a recent positive assessment of Bultmann see Schmithals, o.c.
387-396.

1 SE.g. Dahl, TRu 22 (1954) 26f .; Hasel, NT Theology, 87; Morgan,

NNTT, 37; Stuhlmacher, Verstehen, 173; Albertz, Die Botschaft des Neuen
Testaments, Il/l, 1954, 18.

"^See ch. 1 , secs. 2.1 and 2 .2 2 1 .

18Cullmann, VA 90.
 -337-

ments similar to his have echoed ever since. Classic here are F. C.

Grant's words: Bultmann's NT theology reflects a 'thoroughly historical

point of view. . . . The reader can trust him, for he does not have some

ulterior motive. . . , and he writes with stark, scientific accuracy

20
and precision.' In a slightly broader vein Grosser writes recently

of 'die unbestechliche Sachlichkeit, die alle seine [Bultmann's^ Ar-

beiten auszeichnet,' while Merk asserts that Bultmann held himself aloof
21
from 'ephemere Fragestellungen und theologische ModestrOmungen.'

It is nevertheless increasingly recognized that Bultmann's NT

theology's historical basis is very tenuous. Stuhlmacher speaks of 'des

denkbar schwachen biblischen Fundamentes, auf dem die Sache aufgebaut

22
ist.' Morgan has argued convincingly that Bultmann's NT theology ser-
23
iously and consistently departs from sound historical method. Thie-

licke states: 'Consciousness, not history, is what takes place in Bult-

,24
mann.'
19
Cf. G.Harbsmeier, 'Die Theologie Rudolf Bultmanns und die Philo
sophic, ' Zeit und Geschichte, ed. by Dinkier, 1964, 472: 'BULTMANN ist
unter seiner Arbeit am NT auf die Existenzphilosophie gestossen. Er
ist nicht durch die Philosophie zur Bibel gekommen.' C f . Kantzenbach,
Programme, 209.
20
Grant, rev. of Bultmann, Theologie, JBL 69 (1950) 69.
21
GrMsser, ZNW 75 (1984) 1; Merk, 'Vorwort zur 8 . Auflage' of Bult
mann , Theologie.
22
Stuhlmacher, Verstehen, 188.
23
Morgan, NNTT, 33-67; he suggests that Bultmann's legitimate theo
logical interest is allowed to override and thus seriously compromise
his historical observation. This was however already noted in 1922;
see Behm, Betrachtung, 15f.
24
Thielicke, Evangelical Faith, 58. Thiselton, Two Horizons, 292,
questions the aptness of this charge but may give inadequate attention
to the meaning of Thielicke's term 'Cartesian.' See above, ch. 1, n.44.
Thielicke's statement must be read in its whole context (Evangelical
Faith, 54-65), and when it is, one sees that Thielicke's point is not
so very different from that made by Thiselton himself that Bultmann's
hermeneutic often distorts the most likely meaning of the NT texts.
Thielicke means that Bultmann's 'historical' descriptions of NT data
tend to become descriptions of what commends itself to Bultmann's highly
selective, neoKantian historical consciousness. When we read Bultmann's
 -338-

The problem here is that Bultmann approaches the history, i.e. the

first-century context, which gave rise to the NT texts, from a peculiar,

if creative, angle. In a major sense he systematically devalues it,

at least as history in the usual sense. This is perhaps in part due

to his existentialist understanding (see next paragraph) of authentic

existence: historical criticism can serve fruitfully . to rob faith of

25
all external security and thereby (in Bultmann's view) strengthehf.it.

It may also be in part related to his 'Kantian-Ritschlian exclusion of

the world from serious concern by theology.'2^

Most of all, however, we see Bultmann handling NT history in this

way. What is vital to it is, in fact, what is vital to all history,

27
namely the self-understanding of the persons who experienced it. Now

we know today, thanks to contemporary modes of understanding, wherein

28
this self-understanding consists, or at least ought to consist. This

means that NT statements say, words attributed to Jesus are understood

to reflect (or fail to) not primarily temporal, contingent past reality;

they present rather clues to reality's enduring nature as we have

finally come to apprehend and articulate it with the aid of contemporary

categories of understanding and expression. In the NT, accordingly,

'die Gedanken' which Jesus' words express

sind als das verstanden, was sie in der konkreten Situation eines
in der Zeit lebenden Menschen sind: als die Auslegung der eigenen,
in der Bewegung, in der Unsicherheit, in der Entscheidung befind-
lichen Existenz; als der Ausdruck fUr eine MOglichkeit, diese
NT interpretation, we are often not reading a historical-exegetical ac
count as such but an account of the data as they pass through a 'sieve'
which will bring them into connection with Bultmann's existing self-
understanding, or 'consciousness' (ibid. 58).

2 5 Dahl, TRu 22 (1954) 31. 2 6 Morgan, NNTT, 54.

27
The NT documents can make a claim to have contemporary signifi
cance only when seen 'als der Ausdruck eines VerstMndnisses menschlicher
Existenz, das auch fUr den gegenw&rtigen Menschen eine Mttglichkeit
seines Selbstverst&ndnisses ist' (Bultmann, Theologie, 599).
28
Bultmann, 'NT and Mythology,' Kerygma and Myth, 24f.
 -339-

Existenz zu erfassen; als der Versuch, tlber die^jMOglichkeiten und

Notwendigkeit des eigenen Daseins klar zu werden.

Thus, while the Bible clearly speaks 'about revelatory events in the
30
public world of power structures and politics,' as well as admittedly

about individual spiritual or existential encounter, Bultmann virtually

exclusively 'die Theologie des NT als Aussagen tlber die glaubende Exis-
31
tenz ins Auge fasst. ' As Dahl goes on to note: 'Aber den Quellen
32
gegentlber ist das eine Einseitigkeit.' It becomes problematic 'when

Bultmann assumes that human existence remains constant throughout chan

ging views of the world, so that provided the interpreter asks about
33
this, he will get at the real meaning of the text.' Bultmann is not

able, nor is he often even concerned, to demonstrate this postulate with

reference to a wide selection of NT evidence. Kraus can even charge

that in Bultmann 'die geschichtliche Dimension aus dem Blickfeld ge-

r *! 34
schwunden J_istJ . '
29
Bultmann, Jesus, 1929, 14f. For a recent reconsideration of this
important book see G.Stanton, 'Biblical Classics: XII. Rudolf Bultmann:
Jesus and the Word, ' ExpT 90 (1978-79) 324-328. It is fair to cite
Bultmann's earlier works in connection with his Theologie, since all
his work from the 1920's on feeds directly into it; see Dahl, TRu 22
(1954) 22. Roberts, Bultmann's Theology, and Johnson, Origins, 124,
also stress the consistency of Bultmann's thought over the decades.
Cf. Thiselton, Two Horizons, 205. Bultmann's Theologie itself refers
often enough to his earlier writings, just as Jesus (17) presupposes
his earlier Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. Still, one must
also see in Bultmann 'an intermingling of continuity and discontinuity,'
because while it is true that 'Bultmann made up his mind on some essen
tial issues at the beginning of his career. , on other issues he
appears to have changed his mind more than once before he finally set
tled into his classic position from' 1926-1930. . . ' (C.Garrett, The
Development of Rudolf Bultmann's Views of Christology and Revelation:
1903-1930, 1979, 347). This same point is made by P.-G.MUller, 'Altes
Testament, Israel und das Judentum in der Theologie Rudolf Bultmanns,'
KontinuitMt und Einheit, ed. by Mllller and W.Stenger, 1981, 442.
30
D.Kelsey, The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology, 1975, 84.

3 1 Dahl, TRu 22 (1954) 84. 3 2 Ibid. 3 3 Morgan, NNTT, 41.

34
Kraus, Biblische Theologie, 191.
 -340-

In a word, 'history' for Bultmann in the conceptual analysis compri

sing NT theology is fundamentally distinct from the ancient 'history'

which gave rise to the NT texts. Bultmann's NT theology is not inter

ested in ancient events as such but in ancient 'eschatologische Vor-

gMnge im strengen Sinne' (which in the end correspond to contemporary

experience of authentic existence): these are 'Vorgclnge, mit denen der

35
alte Weltlauf und die Geschichte Uberhaupt aufhdren.' But a problem

arises precisely here, since it is arguably doubtful 'ob das Christentum

die eschatologischen Ereignisse in demselben Sinne wie B. als Ende der

Geschichte verstanden h a t . ' 3 3 For Bultmann it seems fair to conclude

that 'the revelatory and saving event is located in the subjectivity

37
of the man of faith' and is not a matter of history in a more normal

sense at all. But this approach both to salvation and to history is

surely somewhat foreign to a good deal of the NT itself. What warrant

is there, other than a pre-determined dogmatic or philosophical one,

for declaring this particular self-understanding the measure of the to

tal message and underlying historical background of the NT texts? M.

Barth is seemingly justified in claiming about Bultmann's Theologie that

'mehr eine Art von Religionsphilosophie oder Glaubenslehre als ein exe-
38
getisches Werk herausgesprungen ist.'

We conclude that Bultmann's Theologie, in this respect like Baur's,

squares with its ostensible literary-historical basis only in a very

qualified sense. And this feature seems to have been built into his

approach at the methodological level. Now no NT theology can ever hope

35
Bultmann, Theologie, 25.

3 6 Dahl, TRu 22 (1954) 35.

3 ^Kelsey, Uses, 84.

38
M.Barth, 'Die Methode von Bultmanns Theologie des Neuen Testa
ments ,' TZ 11 (1955) 26.
 -341-
39
to satisfy everyone in its handling of historical data; we are not

questioning Bultmann for failing to achieve the impossible. We are only

observing that his NT theology, which continues to hold the status of

40
methodological pacesetter in the discipline, is nevertheless fraught

with the same methodological ambiguity, or perhaps even liability, as

Baur's at this point.

2.112 Inadequate handling of historical data

We noted earlier that Baur's method contributed to an artificial

handling of data which did not fit in with his predetermined scheme.

No miracles generally and certainly not the resurrection could be taken

41
seriously. As Hofmann and many since have argued, this may be a prob

lematic and finally unsatisfactory solution to the problem posed by the

NT's presentation of phenomena inexplicable to positivistic or ration

alistic historiography. In Baur's case, it undoubtedly led e.g. to an

unconvincing explanation for the resurrection reports. Moreover, NT

studies since Baur have long since severely qualified the dialectical
42
dynamic of strife which Baur saw as the key to unlock the mystery of

NT history. True, his basic insight into what he perceived as early

church internecine feuding contains an element of truth but hardly as

vital as Baur alleged. And his extreme, and for his reconstruction

39
This was seen already by Schlatter, NNTT, 155. See also Morgan,
NNTT, 45; Guthrie, NT Theology, 27.
40
Stuhlmacher, Verstehen, 184, notes: 'Bis heute sind eine ganze
Reihe von Exegeten der Meinung, dass es kein klareres und wegweisenderes
System fllr eine wissenschaftlich konsequente, methodisch verstMndliche
und theologisch orientierte Schriftauslegung geben kann, als das von
Bultmann vorgelegte Programm der existentialen Interpretation.' Grosser
bears this out in calling Bultmann 'noch immer ein unentbehrlicher Ge-
spr&chspartner' in all areas of NT research; cf. ZNW 75 (1984) 1.
41
See ch. 1, secs. 2.112 and 2.1221. Cf. similarly Bultmann, 'Zur
Frage des Wunders,' Glauben und Verstehen, vol. 1, 1933, 214-228.
42
Bultmann largely follows Baur here; see Theologie, 59f.
 -342-

extremely important, late-dating of most NT books has in many cases

proven to be largely unfounded.

Again, without criticizing Bultmann for failing to execute an impos

sible task, it seems reasonable to assert that his somewhat one

dimensional handling of the NT results in a distortion of historical

evidence at more than a few points. Now of course we cannot exhaus

tively interact with Bultmann in detail here; a good deal of NT criti

cism's labors in recent decades has been devoted to grappling with this

very problem in its myriad particular facets. We may however cite some

of the major areas of controversy which would support the argument that

Bultmann's method has contributed to a sytematic mishandling of data.

These areas include: (1) the celebrated and contested 'heLlenistische

43
Gemeinde vor und neben Paulus , ' very probably indeed for the most
44
part 'Hellenistic castles in the a ir,' at least as Bultmann envisioned

it; (2 ) the surely gratuitous attributing of those Johannine texts con-

45
futing Bultmann's idea of Johannine eschatology to a later redactor,

as well as explaining away of other (for him) awkward NT texts; ^ (3)

47
Bultmann's considerable skepticism regarding our knowledge of Jesus, yet
43
Ibid. 66-186.
44
T.W.Manson, rev. of Bultmann, Theologie, pt. 1, JTS 50 (1949) 203.
It should be remembered however that Manson also says: Bultmann's theo
logy is 'a book to be read and reread. There is hardly a page on which
one will not find original-and fruitful suggestions'(ibid. 202). Manson
reviewed the second Lieferung in JTSns 3 (1952) 246-250.
45
Bultmann, Theologie, 181n.l;:cf. 391n.l, 393n.l, 401n.l, 403n.l,
407n.l, also Bultmann's commentary on John. Cf. also D.Nineham, rev.
of Bultmann, Theology of N T , ExpT 67 (1955-56) 98.
46
We refer to Bultmann's similar (if slightly more plausible) hand
ling of the text in Paul (Theologie, 206n.l), as well as to the assump
tion that words attributed to Jesus can hardly ever have been his own
but rather are 'von der Gemeinde. . .ihm in den Mund gelegt' (ibid.
47; cf. 16, 19, 51, 58, 85). Bultmann fails to establish the corporate
amnesia (or connivance) which could explain such a total lack of memory
of Jesus' words (or the deliberate systematic distortion, as opposed
to interpretative application, of them). He disposes of much of the
synoptic material through such labels as 'sekund&r, ' 'Legende,' 1 zurllck-
projiziert , ' and 'vaticinia ex eventu.'
47
Cf. Bultmann, Jesus, 12: 'Denn freilich bin ich der Meinung, dass
 -343-

his confidence in reconstructing the personal intent of Jesus' preaching

insofar as it expresses a certain proto-existentialism, so we do know

e.g. that 'Jesu Gottesgedanke' is 'entgeschichtlicht, und der unter

48
diesem Gottesgedanken gesehene Mensch ist entgeschichtlicht'; (4) Bult-
49
mann's 'ignoring of the Gospels as theological documents,' and there

by a serious interpretative miscue with wide-ranging implications for

his handling of the history which gave rise to them; and (5) Bultmann's

over-reliance on a fully developed, well-defined pre-Christian Gnosti-

50
cism which provided the basic conceptual framework for whatever in

the NT actually does reflect a true-to-existentialism grasp of authen

tic existence.^
52
Other areas might be mentioned, but the above suffices to indicate

that Bultmann's handling of historical data raises serious questions.

Now we are not arguing (1) that Bultmann had nothing whatsoever to sub

stantiate his ostensible historical reconstructions, nor (2 ) that theo

logically or philosophically Bultmann is necessarily

unjustified in
53
shaping ancient data to suit the needs of his own reconstruction. We
wir vom Leben und von der PersOnlichkeit Jesu so gut wie nichts mehr
wissen kttnnen, da die christlichen Quellen sich dafUr nicht interessiert
haben, ausserdem sehr fragmentarisch und von der Legende tlberwuchert
sind. . . .' Cf. Theologie, 38: 'Jeder Versuch' to attain 'ein Bild'
of Jesus' 'PersOnlichkeit. . . bleibt ein Spiel sujektiver Phantasie.'
48
Bultmann, Theologie, 25.
49
Marshall, TEd 9 (Spr. 1979) 55; cf. already Dahl, TRu 22 (1954) 29.
50
Cf. M.Barth, TZ 11 (1955) 6 f . ; K.Prllmm, Gnosis an der Wurzel des
Christentums?, 1972 (to be used with caution). Defending Bultmann's ap
proach to Gnosticism over against that of Cullmann is P.Winter, rev.
of Bultmann, Theologie, 3 1958, NTS 6 (1959-60) 176.
51
Bultmann, Theologie, 166-186, 479; cf. 365: 'So ist denn Uberhaupt
die Jesusgestalt bei Johannes in den Formen gezeichnet, die der gnos-
tische Erldsermythos darbot. . . , der schon vor Paulus und dann bei
ihm das christologische Denken des hellenistischen Christentums beein-
flusst hatte.'
52
See e.g. Thiselton, Two Horizons, 263-275.
53
Cf. Morgan, NNTT, 61.
 -344-

are only pointing out that Bultmann's methodology an approach in which

he could e.g. continue 'to hold to the theory of the pre-Christian ori

gins of the Heavenly Redeemer myth even after the textual evidence had
54
been thoroughly disproven' is suspect in a discipline which at least

affects to place a high value on historical accuracy and integrity.

The cogency of Bultmann's NT theology, like Baur's, is vitiated by a

systematic tendency to mishandle data in the interest of the particular

reconstruction being striven for. Early on 0. Michel queried: 'Kommt

in seiner Bultmann's] Theologie die Wahrheit der neutestamentlichen

Botschaft zu einem gUltigen Ausdruck Oder wird sie aufs neue an eine

Konstruktion gebunden, die durch die Exegese selbst immer wieder Uber-
55
wunden werden muss?' On the whole, unfortunately, one could probably
56
make a stronger case for Michel's latter option.

2.113 NT message and modern understanding

In a sense it is true that Bultmann 'will gewiss nicht das Daseins-

verst&ndnis des modernen Interpreten zur zensierenden Norm der Geschich

te e r h e b e n . ' ^ Bultmann says that he, unlike 'the older liberals [who]

used criticism to eliminate the mythology' of the NT, wants 'to use
58
criticism to interpret it.' So then, the basis for assessing the NT
59
cannot be taken 'from modern thought.' The problem here is that
54
Johnson, Origins, 56n.4; 114ff.; cf. V.Taylor, rev. of Bultmann,
Theology, vol. 1, SJT 6 (1953) 198, who noted that Bultmann is unmoved
by 'the many criticisms by which his assertions and denials have been
riddled.'
55
Michel, rev. of Bultmann, Theologie, vol. 1, TLZ 75 (1950) 31f.
56
Thiselton, Two Horizons, speaks of the need for correcting Bult
mann 'at the level of painstaking exegesis' (283).
57
Kantzenbach, Programme, 205; cf. Thiselton, Two Horizons, 223.
58
Bultmann, 'NT and Mythology,' Kerygma and Myth, 12. Cf. Schmith
als, TRE 7, 393: 'Die existentiale Interpretation des Neuen Testaments
will das Mythologische. . . nicht eliminieren, sondern existential ver
stehen. '
59
Bultmann, ibid.
 -345-

Bultmann goes on to state that this basis is to be derived 'from the

understanding of human existence which the New Testament itself en

shrines.'6*^ Many have suspected that Bultmann ultimately, wittingly

or not, hands over the historical data of the NT to a modern understand

ing which necessarily misinterprets much of the data it treats. For

in the end it has proven much easier to see this 'understanding of

existence which the New Testament itself enshrines' as a product of

Bultmann's own particular explication of the NT in terms of its self-

understanding rather than as the result of a more balanced exegetical

inquiry into the first-centur.y thought-world.6*'

We have seen that this was one of the effects of Baur's method.62

Baur can be understood, using Thielicke's rubric, as a Cartesian, in

that he is concerned with the 'possible appropriation of the kerygma

rather than its content.'62 Quite possibly this is a further point of

similarity between Baur and Bultmann. 'Die hervorragende Problematik

der Theologie Bultmanns ist. . . die Verifikation der christlichen Ver-

64
kUndigung.' Both Baur and Bultmann essentially absolutize a patently

modern understanding of reality and then draw the NT data systematically

through this interpretative grid. This effects a 'Verifikation,' in

deed, of many NT passages (along with an invalidation of many others) ,

in that it explicates them in a given ready-to-hand contemporary con

ceptual framework. Naturally what the NT says, inasmuch as it rein

forces what scientific or contemporary religious man (at least as

61Raising similar objections to the proposition that Bultmann does

not seek to explain away, but merely to reinterpret existentially, is
Stuhlmacher, ZTK 77 (1980) 225f.

62Ch.l, secs. 2.121, 2.122. 62Thielicke, Evangelical Faith, 41.

64Schmithals, TRE 7, 388.

 -346-

defined by Baur or Bultmann) currently already accepts, is rendered con

ceptually coherent and in that sense believable or acceptable. But is

this the real point of historical interpretation? It would be, if we

could be certain that Baur's or Bultmann's 'DaseinsverstMndnis' had ab

solute a priori validity. And that is in fact what Bultmann repeatedly

65
argued: he avails himself, not of a time-conditioned 'Weltanschauung,'

but of an altering and unalterably valid perception of authentic human

existence which explicitly aims at 'nothing more or less than the con

ceptual clarification of the structure of human existence and its his

torical c h a r a c t e r ^ In this sense the NT text is 'nicht Quelle f(ir

Vergangenes, sondern er [der Text] redet von mir.'6^ Bultmann seems

to have found a way to render the (pre-critical) NT intelligible in the

(post-critical) modern world, and moreover to havemade it intelligible

personally 'to me.' In what sense does this constitute an unacceptable

subordination of the NT to modernity?

Not in the sense, certainly, that existential interpretation com

prises modernization. For 'Modernisieren tun wir alle, jedenfalls wenn

68
wir predigen oder Dogmatik treiben.' But we can go further and note
69
that history itself 'is not value-free,' that 'historical criticism
65
But see Dahl, TRu 22 (1954) 25. Bultmann'sargument is highly
open to question.

.Gogarten, Demythologizing and History, 1955, 61. This small

volume is an eloquent defense of Bultmann's 'Entmythologisierung' pro
gramme. Bultmann, following Herrmann, clearly derives his own under
standing of natural reality according to 'der Gedanke der GesetzmMss-
igkeit, ' which is not a matter of 'Weltanschauung' at all but 'mit
unserem Dasein in der Welt gegeben.' All our earthly dealings presup
pose 'diesen Gedanken des gesetzmMssig verlaufenden Geschehens. . . .'
Thus, 'wir erkennen nur als wirklich in der Welt an, was sich in diesem
gesetzmMssigen Zusammenhang nachweisen l&sst, und halten Behauptungen,
die sich nicht durch diesen Gedanken kontrollieren lassen, fiir Phanta-
sien' ('Zur Frage des Wunders,' Glauben und Verstehen, vol. 1, 215).
Bultmann t h e r e b y clearly claims to be free of a 'Weltanschauung.'

^Kantzenbach, Programme, 206. ^Dahl, TRu 22 (1954) 49.

69
Morgan, NNTT, 60.
 -347-

is never based on historical fact alone but always has roots in the cri-
70
tic's dogma, too.' Modernization is to some degree inherent in all

interpretation. Nevertheless, if we understand NT theology as a his

torical discipline, it must not only have a firm grasp of modern human

believing self-understanding, but must also be able, to justify its re

constructions over against the historical data comprising the NT on

which it claims to be at least partially based. Since Bultmann's 'hypo

theses and the constructions based on them have been severely criti-
71
cized by his fellow historians,' we may suggest that Bultmann's form

of modernization is quite probably inappropriate in the context of NT

theology understood as having a profound concern to understand the NT

documents first of all in their first-century (or thereabouts) contexts.

In this, too, his approach bears comparison to that of Baur.

2.12 Features of Bultmann's method reminiscent of Wrede

We now turn to consider Bultmann's links with Wrede. This will give

rise to a discussion which should take our understanding of Bultmann's

concept of NT theology yet one step further. We are not primarily in

terested in the surface inter-relationships, e.g. that his Theologie

both explicitly and implicitly takes up many Wredian critical posi-

72 73
tions; that his method generally resembles Wrede's; that he assumes
7a
the veracity of Wrede's messianic secret analysis; thatlike Wrede

7 Schlatter, NNTT, 155.

"^Morgan, NNTT, 52.

72
Bultmann, Theologie, Iff., 27ff., 29n.l, 33f., lllff., 167, 188,
190, 296, 469f . , 477f., 507, 547f., 563.
73
Hasel, NT Theology, 8 6 ; Barth, TZ 11 (1955) 5;Dahl, TRu 22 (1954)
22, 28f. Dahl (39) also points out a difference in that Bultmann
stresses the Pauline 'Rechtfertigungslehre' beyond what Wrede did.
74
Dahl, o.c. 31; cf. Nineham's comment on Bultmann in ExpT 64 (1952-
53) 97: 'The shade of Wrede still haunts German criticism.'
 -348-
75
he systematically devalues the OT in an important sense; that like

Wrede and perhaps for similar reasons he has high regard for Ignatius.

Rather we want to show how Bultmann's method, like Wrede's, makes bold

to penetrate deep beneath the textual superficiality of the NT message

to its underlying truth, by means of a critical approach which, again

like Wrede's, claims priority over any and all others.

2.121 The truth behind the texts

Much of what we said about Wrede's intention to get behind the texts
77
to what we might call 'die Sache' applies mutatis mutandis to Bultmann.

Of course in many respects Bultmann's approach to NT interpretation

and theology goes well beyond Wrede and the history-ofreligions

78
school. But at this one important point (among others which could

be explored) there is profound similarity. We saw that Wrede differen

tiates sharply between the literary sources and the historical subject

matter. The NT text gives clues as to what 'NT theology' comprises but

is not itself the major source for interpretation of the data. More

significant is contemporary insight into the nature of the phenomena

of religion in its 'historical' manifestation and development. Postu

lates from facts established by the history of religions (cf. Troeltsch)

supply both the framework and much of the actual content of NT theology

understood as early Christian history of religion.

7 ^Barth, TZ 11 (1955) 4, 7; cf. Kraus, Biblische Theologie, 192, 317.

This is borne out by the exceedingly small role played by the OT in
Bultmann's Theologie; cf. his 'Die Bedeutung des Alten Testaments fUr
den christlichen Glauben,' Glauben und Verstehen, vol. 1, 313-336. In
defense of Bultmann see however MUller, 'Altes Testament in Theologie
Bultmanns,' KontinuitUt und Einheit, ed. by MUller and Stenger, 430-472.

7<
^Barth, TZ 11 (1955) 25. 77See above, ch. 1, sec. 3.111.
78
Bultmann points this out in Theologie, 594f.; cf. 'Autobiographi
cal Reflections of Rudolf Bultmann,' The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann,
ed. by C.W.Kegley, 1966, xxiv. He is critical of the school in ZTK 81
(1984) 452f. But cf. e.g. Johnson, Origins, 87-126, also Bultmann,
Theologie, 598f.; Thiselton, Two Horizons, 218ff.
 -349-

Early on Bultmann makes it clear that the NT text is secondary to

NT theology's ultimate subject matter. In 1925 he maintains that exege

sis is concerned with the text in its historical setting only in a cer

tain sense:

Der Exeget ist also letztlich nicht an der Frage interessiert: was
bedeutet das Gesagte (als blosses Gesagtes)an seiner zeitgeschicht-
lichen Stelle, in seinem zeitgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang? sondern
er fragt letztlich: von was fllr Sachen ist die Rede, zu welchen
Realit&ten fUhrt das Gesagte?^

Bultmann goes on to advocate a 'Sachexegese' which conceives of a given

historical area say the NT world as reflected in the NT and other

sources as 'gleichsam transparent und [which] mOchte das hindurch-

leuchtende Licht erfassen, das jenseits der FIMche der Zeitgesohichte

80
steht, und glaubt, erst so erfassen zu ktinnen, was gemeint ist . 1 This

'Sachexegese' in turn implies a 'Sachkritik,' which 'zwischen Gesagtem

und Gemeintem unterscheidet und das Gesagte am Gemeinten m i s s t . ' ^

The 'Gesagte' for Bultmann is what the texts say. The 'Gemeinte'

is the enduringly' valid perception of or response to reality, the

authentic self-understanding, which portions of the NT, mainly in some

of Paul and portions of the Johannine writings, preserve. The whole

NT is interpreted by means of applying this standard to the various

texts. Thus it is ultimately not the texts which dictate the parameters

and content of NT theology but the perception of or response to reality,

the believing self-understanding, to which parts of some of the texts

are believed by Bultmann to testify. It may be asked, however, whether

this self-understanding is not first of all a component of a certain

strain of modern thought, not necessarily an intrinsic feature of the

texts, since it is such a small portion of the texts that lends itself
79
Bultmann, 'Das Problem einer theologischen Exegese des Neuen
Testaments,' PTNT, 253.
80 81
Ibid. 254. Ibid. 256. Cf. Bultmann, Theologie, 586f.
 -350-

to Bultmann's interpretation (on which more below).

Now much of the NT, even those parts preserving testimony of authen

tic self-understanding, is written in mythological language. NT lan

guage for Bultmann 'only appears to describe objective events, and inso-
82
far as it does so, this obscures and impedes its intention.' To suc

ceed to a true apprehension of these texts they must bS. 'entmythologi-

siert. ' What they mean to say must be extricated from the timebound

mode of expression which obscures their true message, a message hot

about objective or actual states of affairs related in the texts but,

insofar as the texts speak theologically, about human existence as it

83
understands itself in its relationship to God. This is not, Bultmann

thinks,explaining the texts away, but is rather interpreting them in view

84
of their own actual intent.

Whether that be so or not, and without here embarking on an investi

gation ofdemythologizing and (more importantly) its epistemological

roots, we may simply observe that Bultmann, like Wrede, sees the NT

texts and a great deal of their surface message as secondary to the real

subject matter of NT theology. The NT texts must be transcended and

in an important respect radically reinterpreted if they are to be under-

85
stood aright. When M. Barth, then, speaking of Bultmann's handling

of Paul in his Theologie, writes:

sofern Bultmanns Gesichtspunkte. . . massgebend und sachgem&ss sind,

muss die kirkliche Verklindigung und die neutestamentliche Forschung

82
Thiselton, Two Horizons, 262.
83
Cf. Bultmann, 'Problem,' PTNT, 272.
84
Cf. J.Dunn, 'Demythologizing The Problem of Myth in the New
Testament,' NT Interpretation, ed. by Marshall, 298f.: Bultmann 'wishes
to affirm the gospel and to "defend" faith by setting it free from.
. first century conceptualizations.'
85
Cf. Bultmann, ZTK 81 (1984) 462: NT 'Forschung. . . ist ein die
Zeugen gebunden und doch zugleich frei von ihnen; sie wird durch sie
selbst von ihnen befreit.'
 351

von vielen hundert Jahren ohne Umschweife sofort und total

Busse tun

he is not overdramatizing; he is merely indicating the extent to

87
which Bultmann's modus operandi diverges from previous explications

of the NT texts. Now novelty is not necessarily folly; yet Bultmann's

'Sachexegese' und '-kritik,' i.e. his methodological departure from the

NT or related documentary evidence in constructing his NT theology, must

be adjudged to be not only significant for his conception of NT theology

but also problematic in the context of that discipline, much as a simi

lar tendency was problematic in the case of Wrede.

2.122 Methodological exclusivity

W r e d e 's total relativization of the NT data gives rise to the con

viction that his method is the only defensible one for understanding
88
the NT. Bultmann has often been understood to be methodologically

open 'Es mag bessere Weisen der Interpretation geben. BULTMANN hMlt
89
sich ausdrUcklich offen fUr sie.' but this is probably an exaggera-
90
tion, at least as far as his NT theology itself is concerned. Like

Wrede, Bultmann relativizes the NT data, though in a different fashion,

esp. at the theological level. For Wrede there is practically no theo

logical level; he dissolves the data into an 'Entwicklungsgeschichte'

8 6 Barth, TZ 11 (1955) 13.

87
One is at a loss as to how to term Bultmann's procedure since he
states emphatically ('Problem,' PTNT, 267f.): 'Es handelt sich nicht
urn die Proklamierung einer neuen Methode.'
88
Critical of Bultmann, who at this point resembles Wrede, is J.Run-
zo, 'Relativism and Absolutism in Bultmann's Demythologizing Hermeneu
tic,' SJT 32 (1979) 401-419.
89
Harbsmeier, 'Theologie Bultmanns,' Zeit und Geschichte, ed. by
Dinkier, 473; cf. Bultmann, 'Reply to John Macquarrie,' Theology of
Bultmann, ed. by Kegley, 275.
90
Cf. M.Barth's comment regarding Bultmann's Theologie: although
it is 'das wichtigste Produkt neutestamentlicher theologischer Arbeit
seit vielen Jahren,' in it 'nur die eigentlichen VorgSnger, die Lehr-
meister und die treuen Schliler Bultmanns erscheinen auf der Bildfl&che.
Das Interesse Bultmanns ist nicht der Diskussion zugewandt' (TZ 11
19553 li cf- 6 ). Cf. Thiselton, Two Horizons, 265; B.Vawter, rev.
 -352-

in which they are assigned their respective a-theological values by the

sovereign positivistic researcher, regardless of the claims the data

themselves might make. Bultmann for his part sees the NT material, at
91
the theological level, in the light of the overarching fact that in

it no decisive word from or about God is revealed. God's word is 'ein

zu den Menschen gesprochenes verhdlltes Wort. . . , dass die in der

92
Schrift vorliegende Offenbarung verhllllte Offenbarung ist.' The NT is

not information about God or theological truth but about human experi

ence:'Wenn gefragt wird, wie ein Reden von Gott mdglich sein kann,
93
so muss geantwortet werden: nur als ein Reden von u ns.' Now arguably

much of scripture can be seen as at least claiming to be revelation

from, or true statements about, God, or about what God has said or
94
done. If we grant this argument any validity at all, wesee that

Bultmann chooses to discount or relativize scripture's own claims, in

view, apparently, of his decision strictly to interpret the NT 'in light

95
of contemporary experience,' experience in which naturally much of

what the NT says is rejected, whether outright or via radical reinter

pretation .

From this follows Bultmann's methodological exclusivity. Dahl feels

96
this to be a major weakness of Bultmann's Theologie Since the NT's
of Bultmann's Theologie, 3 1958, CBQ 21 (1959) 399f.
91
At the phenomenological level Bultmann in fact operates very much
like Wrede; cf. Johnson, Origins, 96.
92
Bultmann, 'Problem,' PTNT, 274. Cf. ZTK 81 (1984) 461.
93
Bultmann, 'Welchen Sinn hat e s , von Gott zu reden?' Glauben und
Verstehen, vol. 1, 33. Cf. ZTK 81 (1984) 452, 455ff.
94
Argued at length recently by W.Grudem, 'Scripture's Self-Attesta
tion and the Problem of Formulating a Doctrine of Scripture,' Scripture
and T ruth, ed. by D.Carson and J.Woodbridge, 1983, 15-59, 359-368.
95 96
Morgan, NNTT, 42; cf. 54. Dahl, TRu 22 (1954) 49.
 -353-

own surface statements are misleading and often flatly erroneous in con

temporary opinion, Bultmann demythologizies to get at the real meaning.

The considerable problem here is that 'in demythologizing, it is the

discipline of philosophy, rather than that of history, which provides

97
both the presuppositions and context for its usage . 1 The effect of

Bultmann's procedure is thus not surprisingly to set forth a radically

new programme for understanding the NT, one which as Bultmann rightly

prophesied 'will tax the time and strength of a whole theological gener-
98
ation.' Bultmann's approach constitutes 'the only solution' to a
99
suitable understanding of the NT in the modern world. Notoriously, how

ever, the picture which one gets of the NT when one views it through

Bultmann's interpretative lens is a picture at not a few crucial points

foreign to the NT itself, at least as many read it. For Bultmann, this

is a point in his own favor, for it allows the central parts of the NT,

those Pauline or Johannine passages reflecting authentic self-

understanding, to shine all the more brightly. Many however question

an interpretative scheme for which literally most of the NT reflects

an inferior, indeed false, theological (i.e. self-) understanding. One

may raise the question whether Bultmann's approach really interprets

NT imagery with the validity, cogency, and comprehensiveness which it

claims, i.e. interprets it 'exhaustively and without r e m a i n d e r For

'when insights which have been articulated through a conceptuality drawn

from a particular philosophy are regarded as a comprehensive interpre-

101
tation of the theology of the New Testament,' problems arise. This

is a weakness, arguably, of Bultmann's method, and one he shares with

97
Johnson, Origins, 126.
98
Bultmann, 'NT and Mythology,' Kerygma and Myth, 15.
99 100
Ibid. Thiselton, Two Horizons, 271.

101Ibid. 291.
 -354-

Wrede.

2.13 Summary

In general terms Bultmann resembles Baur in that the respective ap

proaches of both (1 ) may be termed quasi-historical, (2 ) contribute at

numerous points to inadequate handling of data, and (3) tend to subor

dinate the NT message to modern understanding in a problematic fashion.

Bultmann is comparable to Wrede in that both interpret the NT texts by

means of a truth found primarily not in the texts but in the mind of

the modern interpreter. This might not present a difficulty, except

that what they say the NT texts testify to is often rather radically

removed from much of that which, on the surface at least, the NT texts

claim. NT theology for Bultmann has the task of presenting the bona

fide conceptual understanding present in portions of some of the texts,

and conversely of showing how much of the NT fails to meet the high

standards attained in the thought of the loftier passages. Both Bult

mann and Wrede claim a methodological exclusivity which Schlatter pro-

leptically well described and criticized as being damaging to NT theo

logy: they both 'have simply described the aim of their work and sug

gested that this is the whole of the intellectual task with which the

subject-matter confronts us . '

Our discussion of Bultmann's method to this point has served three

purposes. First, it hap helped round out significant aspects of the

overall picture, begun in ch. 1, of the dominant BWB trajectory in NT

theology. It is against this trajectory that the h g l . understanding

of NT theology must be understood. Second, it has sketched highlights

of Bultmann's approach, against which the methods of Albertz, Ladd, and

Goppelt may be compared below. But third, it raises a problem. We have

1 0 2 Schlatter, NNTT, 117.

 -355-

described certain features of Bultmann's method, but we have hardly

moved beyond hints at and allusions to a satisfactory explanation for

his procedure. We have dealt with what he does, but not really why.

Before moving further it is vital to try to intimate a solution to this

question.

2.2 Bultmann's epistemology

2.21 Neo-Kantian roots

Historical distance is, generally speaking, requisite for accurate

appraisal of influential ideas and movements in thought, and the more

influential the idea or the more sweeping the movement, the greater the

distance required. It may still be too early for final assessment of

T 103
Bultmann's thought and its wide-ranging effects. This is esp. true

on such a fundamental question as his epistemology, in which, where his

torical interpretation is concerned, it is often difficult to separate

the theoretical rationale underlying a given reconstruction from the

amassed data which seem to justify the theoretical rationale.

104
Nevertheless, in light of Johnson's informative presentation, in

which he demonstrates Bultmann's heavy indebtedness to Marburg

neo-Kantianism, it is now possible to understand Bultmann's NT interpre

tation in relation to its epistemological roots with more precision and

clarity than was previously the case. The antinomies of existence as

understood (or merely asserted) by Heidegger, seen in the light of a

Barthian theological concern, can no longer provide the primary back

ground against which Bultmann is read, in the wake of Johnson's contri

103
So e.g. also Garrett, Development, 1.
104
I.e. The Origins of Demythologizing: Philosophy and Historio
graphy in the Theology of Rudolf Bultmann, 1974. Garrett, Development,
shows that Johnson has a 'defective understanding of Wilheim Herrmann'
(6 ) which results in 'confusion' (44) at points in his explication of
Bultmann's thought. Garrett's criticisms, however, while important,
do not seem materially to affect Johnson's central argument.
 -356-
105
bution and at a time when even Kierkegaard (who influenced not only

Barth but also Bultmann) is being interpreted, not merely as the proto-

existentialist, but as a respondent to K a n t . ^ ^ True, Johnson, may un-

107
derestimate Bultmann's Lutheran roots, or he may not distinguish suf

ficiently between formally neo-Kantian themes in Bultmann as opposed

108
to the direct influence of W. Herrmann. His statement that P. Na-

torp's relationship to Husserl lacks systematic exploration is belied

109
by Kern's study, among others. Still, Johnson may well have produced
110
'the definitive work on the subject' and 'in broad terms. . . is ut

terly right in his insistence on the extent of the influence of neo-

111
Kantian thought on Bultmann.' To the findings of Johnson, Garrett,

and Thiselton, moreover, one may add the much earlier if overlooked work

of Duncan cited above in ch. 4, sec. 2.213. A considerable body of

scholarship now exists which requires NT theology to reflect on its ba

sic aims and method, given that this 'historical' discipline has long,

and seemingly often oblivious to the fact, been strongly influenced by

a decidedly arbitrary, insensitive-to-apparent-historical-fact, philo

sophically suspect historiography.

2.22 Programme for considering issues involved

It is, however, hardly possible for us systematically to develop

105
Here Garrett, Development, is in full agreement with Johnson.

^^Cf. R.Friedman, 'Kierkegaard: First Existentialist or Last

Kantian?' RelS 18 (1982) 159-170. Friedman argues that Kierkegaard's
celebrated leap of faith is his 'response to a problem which is essen
tially Kantian in origin and structure' (159).
107
R.Morgan, rev. of Johnson, Origins, Th 78 (1975) 488.
108
Thiselton, T.wo Horizons, 208; cf. Garrett, Development.
109
Cf. Johnson, Origins, 38n.2, and I. Kern, Husserl und K ant, 1964,
esp. 321-373.
110 111
Morgan, Th 78 (1975) 488. Thiselton, Two Horizons, 208.
 -357-

answers to such an admittedly fruitful question as: how does Bultmann's

neo-Kantianism or acceptance of Herrmann effectively predetermine the

picture of NT theology he produces? Lengthy studied consideration leads

to the conclusion that this question could not be tackled in the depth

and at the length it requires unless a thesis-length study were devoted

to it. There are several reasons for this.

First, Johnson's important study probes the philosophical origins

of Bultmann's demythologizing programme. In order to determine neo-

Kantianism's influence on Bultmann's NT theology in particular, the

first problem to solve would be, in what ways and to what extent does

Bultmann's Theologie constitute a demythologizing of the NT data? Only

when the Theologie, or significant parts of it, were laid bare as to

its (their) indebtedness to demythologizing could one begin to deal spe

cifically with this demythologizing's epistemological weaknesses or

strengths as Johnson has begun to elucidate them. Such a task would

undoubtedly be worthwhile, but it would take us much too far afield.

Second, to speak with any assurance on neo-Kantianism's effects on

Bultmann's Theologie would require no little amount of discussion and

explication of neo-Kantianism itself. This raises its own difficulties.

As a philosophical outlook it 'assumed pretty well as many shapes as

112
it had representatives. ' Even if we deal only with Marburg neo-

Kantianism, we are faqed with writings 'difficult and stratospherically

113
abstract.' When Ernst Cassirer, 'whose work was a summa of Marburg

scholarship,' studied Kant in Berlin under Georg Simmel in 1894, Simmel,

no mean thinker himself, advised: 'Undoubtedly the best books on Kant

are written by Hermann Cohen, but I must confess that I do not understand
112
F.Copleston, A History of Philosophy, vol. 7, pt. II, 1965, 134f.
113
Willey, Back to Kant, 104.
 -358-
114
them . 1 Cohen (1842-1918), of course, is the thinker who, along with
115
Paul Natorp (1854-1924), exerted considerable influence on Bultmann.

Now obviously conceptual complexity or even opacity is no excuse for

ignoring important writings; it is if anything a challenge to redouble

efforts to understand them. Yet for our purposes it is hardly neces

sary, if it were even possible in space available, to undertake the task

of setting forth our own understanding of the labyrinthine doctrines

of Cohen and Natorp. And we would still then have to draw connecting

lines to Bultmann and, more specifically, to his Theologie.

Third, to pass final judgment on links between the methodology of

Bultmann's Theologie and Marburg neo-Kantianism, one would need to go

considerably beyond not only Duncan and Johnson, but also the more re

cent broader discussions available to date, among them Thiselton's hun

dred pages or more in Two Horizons and Garrett's thesis .1 1 6 It would

be important to develop Thiselton's insights into Bultmann's ties to

neo-Kantianism vis-a-vis other influences discernible in his work, among

them: liberalism, late 19th century Lutheranism (cf. e.g. Herrmann,

Kdhler, and Bultmann's father, who was a Landeskirche pastor), history-

of-religions thought (cf. Bousset, Troeltsch), dialectical theology,

Heidegger, Dilthey, Collingwood, Hans Jonas, and other forces, findings,

117
or figures affectings NT studies in Bultmann's day. This task, too,
114
Ibid. 171f.
115
Johnson, Origins , shows this via circumstantial evidence. It
is proven beyond doubt by Bultmann's letter to Duncan, reproduced in
the latter's Epistemology, Appendix A: "Wer waren meine philosophischen
Lehrer? Als ich 1903 in TUbingen mein Studium begann, habe ich die
Schriften von Kant gelesen, und als ich mein Studium 1906 in Marburg
fortsetzte, kam ich unter den Einfluss von Cohen u. Natorp, also unter
den Einfluss des Neu-Kantianismus. Sp&ter lernte ich dann die Pbtkiomen-
ologie kennen, und als ich in Marburg (etwa 1924) Martin Heidegger ken-
nen lernte, wurde ich von ihm entscheidend beeinflusst.'

116See n.29 above.

117
Cf. Thiselton, Two Horizons, 284. Duncan, Epistemology, makes
a good start in several of these areas.
 -359-

would take us far beyond the allowable parameters of our present study.

2.23 Epistemology and method in NT theology

Without embarking, then, on an exhaustive comparison between Marburg

neo-Kantianism, its epistemological implications, demythologizing, and

Bultmann's methodology in his Theologie, we content ourselves with the

following observations. Based on Duncan's, Thiselton's, and Garrett's

(as well as our own) work on Bultmann, it is no longer seriously debat

able whether Bultmann in the end seeks primarily to interpret the his

torical sources in their own contexts, or whether he rather absolutizes

a given modern world-view, philosophy of religion, and value system and

then strains the NT material through this absolutized interpretative

grid. It is, of course, possible that Bultmann's interpretative grid

is the paragon of truth which he evidently felt it was; that we do not

question. What must be questioned, however, is the cogency of Bult

mann's interpretation of the NT within this framework. Or, to turn it

around, will the data actually lend themselves to the treatment to which

Bultmann's ostensibly historical method systematically subjects them?

True, it could be argued that Bultmann never sought to lead his readers

'zu einer Geschichts-"Betrachtung",' but rather 'zu einer hdchst persbn-

lichen Begegnung mit der Geschichte . ' 1 1 8 But due largely to Marburg

neo-Kantianism's (as well as other factors') decisive influence on Bult

mann, we are never quite sure that it is history which he is leading

us to have an encounter with. His epistemological starting point, in

keeping with his philosophical leanings, is radically rooted in contem

porary understanding, and he does not sufficiently guard against 'the

danger that the text will be allowed to say precisely what the modern

118
Bultmann, Jesus, 10.
 -360-
119
exegete or theologian wishes . 1 In the end there may be a consider

able similarity between Bultmann's Theologie and Cohen's Die Religion

der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums, in which Cohen clearly sets

out systematically to explicate, one might almost say to exploit, the

ancient literary sources in the light of the prior understanding he

brings to them.1^

It is justified to say, then, that at the epistemological level the

methodology of Bultmann's Theologie, thanks esp. to its indebtedness

121
to neo-Kantianism, stands squarely in the heritage of Baur and Wrede.

For all three, an epistemological starting point seriously restricts

the capacity to take seriously those aspects of the NT which do not con

form to what their philosophical commitments allow them to accept. All

three risk obscuring an understanding of the NT texts essentially by

championing their own particular modern understanding of understanding.

In Bultmann's case particularly an amalgam of currently accepted (in

some circles at any rate) insights from various disciplines, esp. Mar

burg neo-Kantian philosophy, is to a large extent systematically read

back into those NT statements or sections which can, with some coaxing,

bear the weight of such heavy demands. Most of the NT, of course, falls

short, or must be radically reinterpreted.

119
Stanton, ExpT 90 (1978-79) 327.
120
Cohen, Die Religion. . . , 1919, see esp. 1-12.
121
As history would have it there is actually a direct causal link
of sorts between the Kantian thought of the TUbingen school (cf. Baur)
and that of the Marburg school which in time influenced Bultmann. The
philosopher (also theologian) E.Zeller (1814-1908), Baur's pupil and
later son-in-law, came to teach at Marburg in 1849, remaining there for
some thirteen years. This was time enough for him 'to spread the new
Kantian gospel and prepare the way for [F.A.Q Lange and Cohen' (Willey,
Back to Kant, 107). It was Lange (1828-1875), along with Zeller one
of the early neo-Kantians, who was instrumental in Cohen's being offered
the chair of philosophy at Marburg in 1872. Baur and Zeller thereby
play some small part in the fact that the young Bultmann would at Mar
burg come under the influence of Cohen (and Natorp).
 -361-

Our argument is not, then, that Bultmann is wrong. We only wish

to suggest for the sake of comparison with Albertz, Ladd, and Goppelt,

that Bultmann, on epistemological grounds, favors the second of the fol

lowing options: (1 ) making the starting point and ultimately arbiter

for NT theology what the texts say, read as much as possible in their

historical setting, inevitably and admittedly as seen by a given modern

interpretative eye; and (2 ) making the starting point and ultimately

arbiter for NT theology modern thought, so that the NT texts are read

only after, and strictly in the light of, a priori philosophical deter

mination of what their statements may be taken to signify. It will be

seen that modern hgl. proponents tend to favor the first option; and

this is to a large extent what separates them from Bultmann.

2.3 Bultmann's handling of history

We wish now to characterize some of the salient features of Bult-

mann's attitude toward history, e s p . as their problematic qualities ul

timately furnish the backdrop for understanding other approaches to NT

theology, esp. the hgl. one.

Previous related remarks in this chapter and in earlier ones already

inform our discussion here. In ch. 2 we saw that Bultmann's approach

constitutes a radical rejection of Hg. in any traditional sense. In

preceding sections just above we have intimated some problems in Bult

mann' s historical method, a liability akin to that found in Baur and'

Wrede. It has been argued that Bultmann's concept of history, including

122
the celebrated 'Historie-Geschichte' distinction, comes from the Bi-
123
ble itself, but this must be seen as a questionable possibility.
122~
Cf. Kantzenbach, Programme, 220ff.
123
E.g. A.Malet, The Thought of Rudolf Bultmann, 1969, 61-80.
 -362-

It more likely involves above all 'a systematic theological' (or philo

sophical) 'rejection of salvation-historical frameworks as a basis for

124
contemporary theology.'

Bultmann in his Theologie asks the pertinent question: 'Wie wird

sich der eschatologisch-transzendente Charakter der Gemeinde gegenliber

der Bindung an das jtldische Volk durchsetzen, ohne dass die Bindung an
125
die Heilsgeschichte zerrissen wird?' He speaks in reply of a dialec

tical relationship between the two:

Die eschatologische Gemeinde ist also nicht einfach die historische

Nachfolgerin und Erbin des empirisch-historischen Israels, sondern
Erbin des gleichsam idealen Israels, des Gottesvolkes, das zu sein,
das historische Israel zwar berufen war, das es aber faktisch nie
wirklich gewesen ist.126

Bultmann goes on then to concede, 'Aber dieser Gegensatz zum historischen

Israel, der eschatologische Bruch der Geschichte, bedeutet ja nicht

127
Diskontinuitclt, sondern gerade ihre Kontinuitdt. ' Surprisingly, the

implications of this concession are not developed and for his Theologie
128
as a whole have 'keine Konsequenzen.' Rom 9-11 as the most plau

sible, historically likely solution to Bultmann's original question (at

129
least from a NT point of view) is not seriously considered, or is

radically reinterpreted along lines consistent with Bultmann's broader

130
understanding of Paul. The 0T, Bultmann admits, has a hgl. under

standing of God, God's acts, and man's ability to perceive and receive

God's hgl. self-disclosure, but the NT people of God are totally 'eine
131
Geschichte transzendierende, eschatologische Gemeinde.'
124
Morgan, NNTT, 56. Morgan refers specifically to Kdsemann, but
KMsemann's position here is one of Bultmannian derivation.
1 T T 0*7
Bultmann, Theologie, 66. Ibid. 99. Ibid.

Kraus, Biblische Theologie, 191.

129
For major lit. on this problem, see ibid. n.106.
130 131
Cf. e.g. Bultmann, Theologie, 229. Ibid. 120; cf. 474.
 -363-

In Bultmann's method, in keeping with Marburg neo-Kantian thought

132
generally, time in the sense of chronological sequence is not the

determinant factor in truly scientific observation. It is to be sure

highly important in grasping the objectifiable phenomena, the surface

picture, of the NT world. But what can be objectified is if anything

of negative value for explicating authentic NT religious experience.

There cannot be, and can never have been, knowledge of God in any cogni-
133
tive sense. Authentic believing self-understanding can thus have

no truck with objectifications.This is presumably why Bultmann repeated

ly so studiously guides Paul away from any sure knowledge of or interest

in the historical Jesus. Bultmanns inherited, primarily epistemologi-

cal dualism has definite

ontological |j=formal] implications for the understanding of any

given ontic factual] phenomenon: man, world, or God. It is a
dualism which may be extended into historiography: history requires
objectifying reason which necessarily demythologizes the past as
it integrates all objectifications into a unified causal nexus; his
tory requires existentialist interpretation which inquires into the
meaning of a given text for the individual subject .1

Behind Bultmann's NT theology, it seems, stands a nuanced and sophisti

cated two-stage historiographical rationale. Decisive for our purposes

is the consideration that, while Bultmann claims to be letting the his

torical sources speak freely at least with regard to the religious ex

perience or self-realization they enshrine, 'the concrete possibilities

of this self-realization are themselves determined by the a priori

135
limits of reason itself. '

132
Cf. W .Werkmeister, 'Cassirer's Advance Beyond Neo-Kantianism,'
The Philosophy of Ernst Cassirer, ed. by P.Schlipp, 1949, 762.
133
Cf. Bultmann, ZTK 81 (1984) 451n.4: 'Es gibt Gotteserkenntnis
nur als existentielles Erkennen. Theoretische Erkenntnis erfasst nicht
Gott, sondern die Idee Gottes.'
134
Johnson, Origins, 75.
 -364-

In the tradition of critical philosophy, the object of thought and

the nature of thought itself are determined first; the interpreta
tion of individuality and of religion accounts for the 'left-overs'
which could not find expression within the limits of reason. Natorp
and Bultmann are clear and consistent in respecting the critical
determination of the laws of consciousness as decisive for the
limits and possibilities of religion and man's being as indivi
duality.

This two-stage rationale helps clarify certain otherwise puzzling

features of Bultmann's Theologie. It probably goes far toward explain

ing formally why a historical fact can never be used to prove or support
137
an article of authentic faith. This is fine as a modern theological

assertion, but how far can it be substantiated from the NT sources?

Further, if the decisive interpretative criterion for Bultmann is a pre-

(and rationally, i.e. rationalistically) determined mode of religious

self-understanding, and not the witness of the texts in their historical

milieux, one might expect to find a tendency to mix later data indis

criminately with earlier. For in this case it would not be a histori

cally visible movement which is being discerned but rather an atemporal

internal dynamic for which chronology may be a mere formality. This

possibility does in fact seem to materialize, as seen e.g. in Bultmann's

special pleading at the start of his crucial section on the Hellenistic

church 'vor und neben Paulus':

Hier soil n u n ein Bild von dem vor- und nebenpaulinischen Christen-
tum in mOglichster Breite gegeben werden. Dabei wird aber auch die
nachpaulinische Zeit berdcksichtigt werden, wenn es sich darum han-
delt, theologische Motive aufzuzeigen, die zwar erst in spSterer
Zeit in den Quellen bezeugt sind (das ktfnnte rein zufdllig seih),
ja, die vielleicht sogar erst spMter wirksam wurden, die aber von
vornherein mit der Situation mit dem Eintritt des Christentums
in die hellenigjjische Welt und der daraus erwachsenden Problematik
gegeben waren.

We can appreciate the similar approach to the problem of the early

church's (i.e. in Paul's time and earlier) relationship to Judaism and

1 Q R 1 0 7
Ibid. 78. Bultmann, Theologie, 27; cf. 301f., 420.
138t,
Ibid. 67.
 -365-
139
its attitude toward the OT in the same historiographical context.

Bultmann adduces an array of very late first-century (Barnabas, Clement)

and even second-century (Ptolemy, Justin) evidence, claiming that a view

of the possible correct solutions to the problem

greift weit liber die paulinische Zeit hinaus und muss es tun. Denn
es ist klar, dass alle diese MOglichkeiten von vorneherein in der
geschichtlichen Situation gegeben waren; wo und wie bald sie reali-
siert wurden, lUsst sich bei der DUrftigkeit der Quellen nicht
sagen; und es ist nicht nur mOglich, sondern auch wahrscheinlich,
dass spMter bezeugte Gedanken schon vor Paulus und gleichzeitig mit
ihm vorgetragen wurden.140

One should have thought that the dearth of sources might have led to

a commensurately higher valuation of what even Bultmann claims to be

early and original, i.e. Paul's writings, but this is not the case.

Rather here one finds, as repeatedly occurs in the Theologie, a dubious,

confusing, and, in the u s u 4 . sense of the term, historically inexpli

cable transposition of documentary evidence over the normally definitive

boundaries of decades and even centuries.

Cullmann points to this very problem in another form. He notes how

Bultmann treats negatively large portions of the NT (e.g. Luke-Acts)

because they fail adequately to measure up to the 'Kern' of the authen

tic early church kerygma. Cullmann objects on historical grounds to

this negative treatment or even exclusion:

Aber die BULTMANN-SCHULE kann diese Ausscheidung nicht mit der

Chronologie der Abfassung der verschiedenen BUcher rechtfertigen
und tatsUchlich versucht sie dies auch nicht. Denn gerade diejenige
Schrift, die sozusagen als Kronzeuge fUr das wahre Wesen des
Kerygmas angesehen wird, das Johannesevangelium, wird ja auch in
der BULTMANN-SCHULE spdt, und auf jeden Fall kaum frUher als das
Lukasevangelium angesetzt. Dann muss aber zumindest gefragt werden,
ob es auch abgesehen von der Anerkennung des Kanons nicht bedenk-
lich ist, wenn eine Wesensbestimmung der neutestamentlichen Bot-
schaft so beschaffen ist, dass ganze BUcher aus urchristlicher Zeit
in ihrem vollen Umfang nicht oder hUchstens negativ einbezogen
werden k U n n e n . ^ ^
1 1A O
Ibid. 109-123. Ibid. 111.
141
Cullmann, Heil als Geschichte, 5.
 -366-

Of course if for admitted systematic or philosophical reasons Bultmann

adopts his position, there may be no necessary objections. But the

problematic of an approach to history within a NT theology which essen

tially dismisses, or at least radically reinterprets, large portions

of the available documentary evidence is considerable. Merk's conclu

sion is if anything understated: Bultmann's reconstruction is 'nur

zweitrangig an der Verankerung der Theologie in der Geschichte des Ur-

142
christentums interessiert.' It is against the backdrop of such

characteristic perplexities in Bultmann's Theologie that the most recent

hgl. approaches to NT theology may best be understood. It is to these

that we now turn.

3. Albertz and NT theology

Martin Albertz's (1882-1956) two-volume, four-part, 1475 page treat-

143
ment of the NT seems to date to have enjoyed little if any extended
144
analysis. M. Strege probed Albertz's eschatology and E.Fascher con-
145
tributed a perceptive critical review. He criticized Albertz at

points, but his final words run: 'Das alles darf nicht hindern zu be-

zeugen, dass dieses Werk eine Ftllle von Anregungen fUr die weitere For-

schung enth&lt, und man kann die junge Generation nur auffordern, sich
146
mit ihm grUndlich auseinanderzusetzen.'
142
Merk, Anfangszeit, 256.
143 ;
Albertz, Die Botschaft des Neuen Testaments. Vol. 1 treats 'Die
Entstehung der Botschaft' and covers two book-length halves: 1/1 (1947)
'Die Entstehung des Evangeliums'; 1/2 (1952) 'Die Entstehung des aposto-
lischen Schriftenkanons.' Vol. 2 deals with 'die Entfaltung der Bot
schaft,' again in two books: II/l (1954); II/2 (1957). Vol. 2 is
actually Albertz's NT theology as such, while vol. 1 is his version of
a NT introduction, but each vol.presupposes and informs the other.
144
Strege, Das Eschatologische als gestaltende Kraft in der Theo
logie: A.Schweizter und M.Albertz, 1955 (not available to me).
145
'Eine Neuordnung der neutestamentlichen Fachdisziplin?' TLZ 8 8
(1958) 610-618. Also worthwhile is B.Brinkmann, Schol 33 (1958) 267-272.

*'4^Fascher, o.c. 618.

 -367-

Students of NT theology did not take up Fascher's suggestion, pro

bably because Albertz's contemporaries were visibly piqued by his pro

phetic proclamation that NT theology as the classic Gabler-initiated

147 148
discipline had run aground. Albertz was apparently the first to

call attention to 'the crisis of NT theology' which by the 1970's was

a commonplace. His perceptiveness may have cost his magnum opus the

attention which Fascher said it deserved. What Albertz's fellow scho

lars either faintly praised or criticized has understandably not been

taken seriously by the next generation, or even generations. If twenty-

five years later the opening words of an important study could confirm

Albertz's allegation that NT theology was and had long been in crisis
149
stage, in 1954 German Neutestamentler were in no mood to suffer Al

bertz 's measured but unambiguous impugning of both Bultmann and NT theo

logy in its historical development. This is seen e.g. in W. Eltester's

150 151
biting and somewhat petty comments as well as in KUmmel's review.

See esp. here Albertz, 'Die Krisis der sogenannten neutestament-

lichen Theologie,' ZeichZ 8 (1954) 370-376; 'Kerygma und Theologie im
Neuen Testament,' ZNW 46 (1955) 267f.
148
One should also mention Albertz's early use of form-criticism
which perhaps ought to merit his addition to the usually-cited trium
virate of Dibelius-Schmidt-Bultmann. See Botschaft, 1/1, 10-12. Al
bertz, too, who studied under Gunkel, placed the question from early
on: 'Was bedeutet die formgeschichtliche Fragestellung [being developed
for 0T research] fUr die Erforschung des Neuen Testaments?'(ibid.).
Cf. Albertz's earliest answer: Die synoptischen StreitgesprUche, 1921;
cf. E.Fascher, Die formgeschichtliche Methode, 1924 (neither available
to m e ).
149
Hasel, NT Theology, 9, begins: 'New Testament theology today is
undeniably in crisis.'
150
Eltester, 'Notizen,' ZNW 45 (1953-54) 276f.
153
KUmmel, rev. of Albertz, Botschaft, 1/1 and 1/2, TZ 10 (1954)
55-60. As a review of only one of two vols., these comments have limi
ted validity as a judgment on Albertz's whole treatment. KUmmel com
plains that Albertz's handling of the NT ought not be placed in the
hands of students, because a student through reading Albertz 'die einem
Theologen unerlUssliche Einsicht in die Unsicherheit unserer notwendigen
geschichtlichen BemUhungen urn die Entstehung und das VerstUndnis des
apostolischen Zeugnisses nicht gewinnen kann' (KUmmel, ibid. 60). This
 -368-

The effects of this disparagement in subsequent years are seen in (1)

Kraus' disposal of Albertz on the strength of a line borrowed from Bult-

152
mann; (2) Merk's impatient dismissal of Albertz relying loyally on
153
Fascher, KUmmel, Bultmann, and Kraus on unsubstantiated grounds; and

(3) Hasel's simplistic characterization of Albertz's entire two volumes

which leaves one doubting that he has actually read them. One may well

be mystified how then R. McL. Wilson could ever have approvingly con

cluded, with reference to vol. II/2 of Albertz's work: 'The book may

be "unorthodox" in some ways; but it may also herald the beginning of

a new era in which the message of the New Testament will be restored
155
to its rightful place.'

Our task here, then, is to take a fresh look at Albertz, aware of

but not subservient to the received opinion about him. We will charac

terize his admittedly controversial approach to NT theology generally,

comment on his epistemology, and note the view of history which informs

his work. Although it seems that no one has yet called attention to

Albertz's handling of the NT as a hgl. one, it will become evident as

we proceed that he belongs squarely within this tradition of NT theo

logians .

3.1 Albertz's conception of NT theology

3.11 Critique of the discipline

Like Bultmann, Albertz is at pains to plot his position in relation

only points up the contrast between Albertz and most of his col
leagues: he believes that the 'Botschaft' is primary, accessible, and
not to be subordinated prematurely to critical considerations; KUmmel
et al (in Albertz's view) equate knowledge of the 'Botschaft' with ex
pertise in NT criticism. It could hardly be denied however that certain
of KUmmel's criticisms are by any standard justified.
152
Kraus, Biblische Theologie, 188n.87.
163 154
Merk, Anfangszeit, 2; 262n.l67. Hasel, NT Theology, 67-69.
156
R.McL. Wilson, SJT 11 (1958) 209.
 -369-

to the history of the discipline. Now Albertz expressly declines to

engage in 'Polemik' and 'bissige Ironie,' asking if it were not better,

'wenn diese Unarten akademischen Betriebes unsere wissenschaftlichen

156
Blicher nicht verschandeln?' Fascher testifies: 'Ritterlichkeit in

der Beurteilung wissenschaftlicher Gegner war (lberhaupt ein Charakter-

157
zug 1 of Albertz. We may thus hardly dismiss Albertz's critical re

flections on the discipline as unwarranted carping, unfounded exaggera

tion, or unthinking rejection, however we assess their accuracy.

Albertz's starting point is the observation that NT theology from

Gabler on can be shown to have subordinated its subject matter 'dem

Denkschema der theologischen Schulmeinungen, die im 19. und 20. Jahr-

158
hundert wechseln wie die Moden der Frauenzimmer.' That is, he says,
159
the logical outcome of NT theology's roots in rationalism. An inte

grated understanding of the NT might well imply, from the NT's own point

of view, that in NT theology, 'man hdtte von dem lebendigen Christus

ausgehen mdssen, dessen Bezeugung die Bibel ist.' But because of Gab

ler 's (and others') rationalistic response to both orthodoxy and pietism

of his day, 'verfdllt man in der Grundlegung unserer Disziplin im Ge-

folge einer autonomen Philosophie einer autonomen T h e o l o g i e I n

other words, not only did Gabler's programme rightly invite evaluation

of the historical remains of the Christian tradition from a modern

standpoint; ,it implicitly facilitated an a priori sacrifice of the con

tent of that tradition in favor of the critic's views who assesses the

content.
156 157
Albertz, Botschaft, II/2, 13. Fascher, TLZ 88 (1958) 611.
1 58
Albertz, ZeichZ 8 (1954) 371; cf. Botschaft, II/l, 15.
159
Apparently unwittingly, Albertz's argument is strikingly similar
to the line taken by Schlatter in the forward to vol. two of his NT
theology; cf. Theologie der Apostel, 3.

160Albertz, ZeichZ 8 (1954) 371.

 -370-

Accordingly, Albertz claims to see five different trends which NT

theology 'hat Uber sich ergehen lassen . '1 ^ 1

First is the Hegel-Baur line of thought .1 3 2 Second is the 'lehr-

begriffliche' method . 1 3 3 Third is the approach of 'Religionspsycholo-

gie,' which Albertz sees much in evidence in his former teacher A. Har-
164 165
nack. Fourth is the history-of-religions direction of research.

Fifth is the trend which surprisingly includes both Stauffer and Bult

mann. 133 Here Albertz advances the novel interpretation of both men's

NT theologies seen against significant social factors. In both Weimar

and Nazi Germany, 'Weltanschauung' was all-important. (Thanks to the

Third Reich's total 'Vergdtzung der "nationalsozialistischen Weltan-

167
schauung",' Albertz's activity in 'der Bekennenden Kirche fUr re-

formatorische Theologie' earned him some two and one-half years impri

sonment.1^ ) Albertz sees Stauffer's NT theology as a courageous rebut

tal of Nazi pseudo-Christian revisionism, i.e. as a not-too-thinly

veiled attack on the national socialist world-view itself, or at least

a defence of what Stauffer took to be a Christian one. For this Albertz

accords Stauffer due credit. Nevertheless, the 'Botschaft' of the NT

'ist nicht die Darstellung einer Weltanschauung, auch nicht einer

169
christlichen.' This criticism of Stauffer applies to Bultmann, too,

as we will shortly see.

1 6 1 Ibid. 1 6 2 Ibid. 371 f .; Botschaft;, II/l,15f.

1 6 3 Botschaft, II/l, 16f.; ZeichZ 8 (1954) 372.

1 6 4 Botschaft, II/l, 17; ZeichZ 8 (1954) 372.

1 6 5 Ibid. 1 6 6 Ibid. 18; 374. 167ZeichZ 8 (1954) 374.

16ft
Botschaft, 1/1, 12.
1 69
ZeichZ 8 (1954) 374; Botschaft, II/l, 18.
 -371-

Bultmann, says Albertz, takes up and follows to their logical con

clusions the vital characteristics of all five now-in-themselves defunct

170
research trajectories. Following Baur he reduces NT theology to an

evaluation of Paul and John, deducing 'das System jener beiden' on the

basis of a predetermined theological position which, when necessary,

reads Paul even against himself when his thought does not hew to the

lines of the dictates of Bultmann's overarching interpretation (cf.

Sachkritik). Following the 'Lehrbegriffsmethode,' Bultmann's chief con

cern is the thought or 'Theologie,' namely of Paul and John, while the

'Botschaft' of the NT itself remains for Bultmann 'nur die Vorausset-

zungen dieser Theologie.' Following Schleiermacher and ultimately 'Reli-

gionspsychologie' Bultmann's NT theology comprises the 'Abbau der Theo

logie zugensten der Anthropologie.' Following the history-of-religions

school Bultmann understands 'das Urchristentum' essentially as 'synkre-

tistische Religion.' Following social pressure (if unconsciously) as

well as Stauffer's precedent, Bultmann's NT theology is 'weltanschaulich

bedingt.' Albertz concludes, penetratingly and perhaps not totally

without justification:

Wie alle seine grossen liberalen Vorg&nger huldigt er [BultmannJ

dem Absolutheitsanspruch der von ihm bezogenen philosophischen Sys-
tematik und tut dasselbe, was einst die theologischen HegelschUler
getan haben: er vergewaltigt die Botschaft durch die Kategorien
einer modernen Philosophie. 1

Bultmann's NT theology thus precisely in its 'systematische Geschlossen-

heit' epitomizes the 'Fehlentwicklung, die die ganze neutestamentlich-

172
theologische Forschung kennzeichnet.' From Gabler to Bultmann one

travels full circle: now as then NT theology does not faithfully expli

cate the message of its sources but rather systematically subjects them
170 171.
Ibid. 374; 18ff. Ibid. 374; 20.
172
Ibid.
 -372-

to reigning and fleeting modes of philosophical thought. NT theology

has consistently let 'die Massst&be ihrer Kritik 1 be dictated to it 'von

173
der umgebenden Kultur' with the result that 'NT theology' is largely

a learned revisionist enterprise which in the end loses sight of its

subject matter's living reality and message.

Concern arises immediately that Albertz has in mind 'tOricht. . .

eine Absage an die historisch-kritische Arbeit der letzten eineinhalb

174
Jahrhunderte.' Yet his remarks, coming from a seasoned veteran of

lectern, pulpit, and prison are hardly the one-sided charges of a novice

or outsider. Albertz's concern and position are rather echoed in more

recent remarks by Stuhlmacher as he has attempted, 'die historische

175
Methode als solche kritisch zu reflektieren.' Albertz's attempt,

like Stuhlmacher's , met energetic c r i t i c i s m , b u t perhaps not so much

because of its irrelevance as its timeliness. In any event Albertz's

critique led him to strike out in something of a new direction.

3.12 Attempt to chart a new beginning

3.121 Foundation

Albertz's intention above all seems to be to call NT theology, seen

in its historical development in Germany, back to the historical moor

ings or reality of its subject matter. Accordingly, both parts of his

own NT theology restrict themselves 'grundsdtzlich auf eine Darstellung

177
des gesqhichtlichen Tatbestands und seine Begrllndung aus den Quellen.'
173 174
Ibid. 375. Merk's charge in Anfangszeit, 2.
1 7S
Stuhlmacher, '. . . in verrosteten Angeln,' ZTK 77 (1980) 223.
This is a response to Gr&sser's lively criticism of Stuhlmacher and
others (see next note).

1 7 6 GrMsser, 'Offene Fragen im Umkreis einer Biblischen Theologie,'

ZTK 77 (1980) 200-221.
177
Botschaft, 11/2,11. Cf. the similarity with Schlatter, Theologie
der Apostel, 3.
 -373-

NT theology will not recover from its crisis, so long as it 'von aussen

her von einer autonomen Theologie a us, die sich auf eine autonome Welt

anschauung zurUckbezieht, zugensten der jeweiligen kulturell herrsch-

178
enden Gesamtanschauung ausgenutzt wird . 1 NT theology like the

Christian faith itself has to do ultimately with Jesus, and the disci

pline has not done justice to its subject, inasmuch as Jesus (as far

as Albertz's reading of the sources indicates), in contrast to much NT

theology,

richtet unsere Aufmerksamkeit nicht auf die etwaigen philosophischen

Fragmente, von denen die Bildung seiner Zeit gelebt hat, nicht auf
die Differenzierung zwischen denen, die sein Evangelium bezeugt
haben, nicht auf das religionsgeschichtliche und religionspsycholo-
gische Drum und Dran, sondern auf das Evangelium, dessen Gegenstand
er selbst i s t . ^

'Das Evangelium' comes to us in the NT as 'die Botschaft' which centres

on Jesus. It is this multi-textured but unified message in its temporal

setting, as it relates to be sure to modern understanding (or misunder

standing) of it, which Albertz seeks to explicate.

3.122 Key presuppositions

Four presuppositions are axiomatic in Albertz's presentation of this

message.

The first concerns what he calls 'der geschichtliche Rahmen der Bot-
180
schaft.' He sees the challenge of a proper grasp of the NT in this

way: 'Es musste in einer Zusammenschau aller religiOsen, politischen

und geistigen Strbmungen urn die Zeitenwende das Evangelium erfasst und

dargestellt werden in seinem Kampf mit der gesamten Umv/elt. ' Albertz

accordingly gives a creditable presentation of the inter-relationships

between 'die Botschaft' and 'die Weltgeschichte,' 'die allgemeine

178 17Q
ZeichZ 8 (1954) 374f. Ibid. 375.
180 18T
Botschaft, II/l, 22-64. Ibid. 11.
 -374-

Religionsgeschichte, ' and 'das Spdtjudentum,' respectively. He feels

that this historical milieu is crucial to our understanding of the NT

message, but that we must realize that the NT writings convey a message

which challenges and stands in a certain contradistinction to its his

torical environs. I.e. the NT claims to mediate a call to or even judg

ment of the world around it much more than it admits of reduction to

a naturalistically explicable product of its environment. So then, the

purely-immanently-understood historical background provides the obvious

and indispensable preparation for the message but is not itself the mes

sage's primary content. This conviction of Albertz clearly sets him

3.32
off not only from Bultmann but also from Stauffer. For better or

for worse it has the effect of anchoring his analysis of the NT squarely

in NT history, even if it is a history somewhat more in sympathy with

Eusebius than with Baur, Wrede, or even Stauffer.

3.83
The second presupposition concerns 'die Trdger der Botschaft.' The

NT message-bearers, like their OT counterparts, execute their task as

184
and 'weil Gott ihnen die Botschaft anvertraut hat.' 'Die Trdger'

are John the Baptist (who virtually drops out of Bultmann's Theologie),

Jesus of Nazareth, and the church. In each of these three cases Albertz

discusses the 'Auftrag' of the message-bearers, the distinctive features

of their message, and finally their 'Schicksal.' Esp. in this last

category, one finds observations (at times reminiscent of Bonhoeffer)

of noteworthy quality, insight, and power which are not common in a

modern NT theology.

The third presupposition concerns 'die die Botschaft begrllndende

Tat G o t t e s . ' ^ ^ This is not as for Bultmann an act to be understood

182. 183
Ibid. 62 Ibid. 64-96
184. 185
Ibid. 64 Ibid. 96-133.
 -375-

solely in terms of individual decision and believing self-understanding.

It involves that, but it is more than that. 'Es ist also etwas ge-
186
schehen, Gott hat etwas getan, und diese Botschaft wird nun verkdndet.'

The message of the NT is 'nichts als ein mtiglichst zuverl&ssiger Bericht

Uber das, was geschehen ist, (Iber die grossen Taten Gottes . ' 1 8 7 Albertz

is no biblical inerrantist in the narrow sense, but he is a supernatur

alist in the sense that he accepts the veracity of the NT resurrection

reports, if he does at the same time concede that 'resurrection' is

188
'pneumatische, eschatologische Wirklichkeit.' The point is that,

over against Bultmann, Albertz's view of the NT word-event complex in

cludes acceptance of (1) Jesus' bodily resurrection; (2) the identity

189
of Jesus 'mit dem Kyrios' ('Der Auferweckte ist der Geschichtliche';
190
'Der Geschichtliche ist der Pr&existente' ); and (3) the identity of
191
Jesus 'mit dem biblischen Christus.' In connection with (3) Albertz

delineates his own hgl. understanding of the NT, on which we will

elaborate below. Important for now generally is that Albertz's NT theo

logy roots in the assumption that the NT witness and historical remains

are inexplicable without openness to transcendent presence and involve

ment in a literal, if to us not totally explicable, sense. The NT wit

nesses, too, lived in a world which for many reasons rejected their

testimony about Jesus, but his witnesses, Albertz maintains, could not

but proclaim that which they had actually seen and heard, as well as
186t, .J _
Ibid. 96.
'1'8 7 Ibid. Is Albertz then somehow a rationalist himself, reducing
the 'Botschaft' to sheer factual data? Hardly: cf. 1/1, 31: 'Es geht
aber hier nicht einfach urn einen geschichtlichen Bericht, der lediglich
treu weiterzugeben wdre. . . , sondern urn das von der Auferstehung her
gewonnene Verstdndnis des biblischen Zeugnisses, dass Jesus der Christus
ist Ag. 17,11, urn die Enthtlllung des Christusgeheimnisses Kol. 1,25-29.'

1 8 8 Ibid. II/l, 99. 1 8 9 Ibid. 117ff.

1QO 1 91
Ibid. 121ff. Ibid. 124ff.
 -376-

Jesus (the Christ's) continuing powerful reality among them. A NT

theology must be faithful to this conviction of the NT writers. 'Wenn

192
die Zeugen nichts zu bezeugen haben, sind sie keine Zeugen.'

The fourth presupposition concerns 'Einheit und Verschiedenheit der

193
Botschaft.' As might be expected, Albertz finds substantial unity

and feels that most of the diversity of the NT can be explained at

least partially by the different languages in which the message came

to expression, the varying perceptions of the hearers, and the different

'Auftrag' and gift of each respective NT messenger/author. In general,

if one is to attain a proper overall grasp of the variegated NT witness,

'der entscheidende Gesichtspunkt' is not that 'der neutestamentlichen

194
Theologie des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts.' We are not dealing with
195
personalities vying for recognition nor with 'die individuelle Aus
196
prdgung des Evangeliums' by a Paul or Peter. 'Es geht urn einen ob-

jektiven Tatbestand, nicht urn subjektive individualistische Deutungsver-

197
suche.' The 'Botschaft' may admittedly be proclaimed as gospel

in the sense of 'die kirchengrllndende, missionarische Predigt'; it may

take the form of apocalypse, 'insbesondere die Offenbarung der escha-

198
tologischen Geheimnisse Gottes'; it may take the form of teaching.

Albertz does not then see monolithic uniformity in the NT's presentation

of the message. Yet he does feel that all 27 NT books can be subsumed

under the general heading of the authentic message about Jesus Christ:

'Christus bleibt auch in bezug auf die schriftlich niedergelegte Bot-

199
schaft Quelle, Inhalt und Ziel des Evangeliums.'
19? 195 194
Ibid. 96. Ibid. 133-154. Ibid. 147.
195
I.e. in the sense implicit in the 'Lehrbegriffe' method.
196
I.e. in the sense implicit in the 'Religionspsychologie' method.
197 198 199
Botschaft, II/l, 147. Ibid. 148. Ibid. 1/1, 298.
 -377-

3.123 Explicating the NT Botschaft

For Bultmann NT theology 'besteht in der Entfaltung der Gedanken,

in denen der christliche Glaube sich seines Gegenstandes, seines Grundes

und seiner Konsequenzen versichert.1 But there was no 'christlicher

Glaube 1 until the advent of the proclamation that set forth Jesus Christ

as God's 'eschatologische Heilstat.' This proclamation however is

201
grounded in early Christian self-understanding, not in Jesus' teach

ing or preaching and certainly not in any 'act of God' in a traditional

sense. So then, NT theology is understood as early Christian theologi

cal thinking, and the origin of this ideology, from the point of view

of modern NT theology, is the kerygma as it shapes and is shaped by on

going early church believing self-understanding and eschatological de

cision. The historical basis (and even the content) of the kerygma

remains however largely irrelevant, since according to Bultmann those

parts of the NT (portions of Paul and John) which have truly grasped

authentic existence are indifferent to historical grounding, while those

parts of the NT which do not really grasp authentic existence have fal

len prey to an illegitimate striving for security. In an important

sense, therefore, NT theology tends to become predominantly a descrip

tive analysis of the 'Das' of the ideas of largely unknown (save for

Paul) first- and second-century religionists. The content or 'Was'

what Albertz terms the 'historischer Tatbestand' which, on a different

understanding of the NT texts, lies at the base and permeates the whole

of the 'Das,' becomes notoriously vague or even falls out of consideration

200
Bultmann, Theologie, If.
201
Cf. ibid. 27, where Bultmann clearly implies that the gospel wri
ters imposed their faith on the Jesus-tradition to result in the picture
of a messianic Jesus. Faith in Jesus as Messiah is not grounded in Je
sus' own person or historical claims/actions nor can it be (ibid.).
 -378-

For Albertz, however, 'das Kerygma, das bei Bultmann nur die Voraus-

setzung der Theologie des Paulus und des Johannes ist. . . , ist die
202
eigentliche Sache, urn die es in der neuen Disziplin geht. ' In other

words, if Bultmann gives a sophisticated explication of authentic be

lieving self-understanding in neo-Kantian/existentialist terms, Albertz

gives a lengthy and complexly organized explication of the same Chris

tian thought, but on a different premise namely, that the ostensible

historical grounding (for Bultmann largely mythical or simply 'zurdck-

projiziert1) of the theological or religious statements of the NT is

integral to the integrity of those statements. This does not mean e.g.

a renewed quest for the historical Jesus, but it does mean trying to

set forth the NT data in a manner consistent with what (according to

Albertz) the NT writers themselves were convinced of: that God was some

how incarnate in Jesus; that Jesus as Christ is the saviour of which

203
the 0T testifies; and that the NT writings somehow preserve and con

tinue a reflected, authentic recollection of Jesus who came to be called

Christ, whose presence is still believed to be real and effectual. Al

bertz is concerned, then, that the discipline of NT theology set forth

the NT message understood, not as cognitively groundless (or merely

grounded in its own existence and resolve), albeit self-assured believ

ing self-understanding, but understood rather as convinced, believing

. _204 205
ongoing existential response to the acts and words of God whose
202
Albertz, ZeichZ 8 (1954) 375. By 'new discipline' Albertz refers
to the post-Bultmannian NT theology which he hoped to see emerge.
203
Cf. Albertz, Botschaft, II/l, 124ff.; II/2, 266.
204
Cf. esp. ibid. II/l, 237-244; also 77.
205
Albertz takes up to some extent the apparent conviction of an
cient Jews and Christians that what their scripture says, God says a
position clearly unacceptable in NT criticism at least since Semler.
Cf. ibid. 16-44; on Semler see Stuhlmacher, Verstehen, 54; Merk,
Anfangszeit, 22f.
 -379-
206
focal point is Jesus Christ. That is what the NT writings are con

cerned with. That is what gave rise to them, the assurance which under

girds and motivates them. That is their underlying if not overt motif.

If the writings which are the object of NT theology's scrutiny are thus

content-centered, concerned so to speak also with matters of fact or

cognitive knowledge and not merely of faith or relational apprehension,

how can modern NT theology rightly explicate the thought or ideas (Bult

mann: 'Gedanken') of the writings while systematically stripping them

of their own fundamental concern? Must this not result in a distorted

presentation of their thought? Albertz thinks so, and his work may be

seen as an attempt to redress what he sees as an imbalance in Bultmann's

approach. The NT Botschaft in its fact-faith fulness, not mere ideas

or even eschatologically-appraised resolve stripped of all inauthentic

(from Bultmann's standpoint) accretions, forms the core of modern NT

theology as Albertz wants to see it rebuilt.

Yet Albertz's programme is not merely anti-Bultmannian. It is some

what original in its specific positive thrust. Albertz argues that 'die

Botschaft' of the NT writers is the primary impetus and accordingly the

primary content of their work; their 'Theologie' admittedly is the com

municative vehicle of the message but is secondary to it, in this sense:

Diese Theologie entsteht unmittelbar mit der Verkllndigung |=Bot-

schaftj , weil die Taten Gottes, die der Verkllndigung zugrunde lie-
gen, von Anfang an den Zweifel des vernllnftigen Menschen hervorrufen,
den Anstoss des frommen Menschen, ja, die besondere Versuchung fllr
den Christus und seine Gemeinde bilden und schliesslich erst im 3.
Jh., nach Entstehung des NT's, den Totalangriff der philolgg^schen
und philosophischen Wissenschaft des Porphyrios hervorrufen.

Albertz's suggestion is that the NT itself should be viewed as NT

2 0 6 Cf. Botschaft, 1/1, 15: 'Inhaltlich ist die Botschaft von Anfang
an eindeutig Christuszeugnis. Jesus Christus ist der Urheber, der In
halt und das Ziel dieser Botschaft.'
207
Albertz, ZNW 46 (1955) 268.
 -380-

theology, not merely the raw material of something patently modern, much

different, but going by the same name. I.e. the NT as it stands already

consists largely 'in der Antikritik gegen die Kritik . 1 After all, it

is replete with 1Zeugenbeweis, Schriftbeweis, Beweis des Geistes und

der Kraft, [and2 geschichtlichem Beweis , 1 even at points attempting to

208
prove its claims by appeal to human reason. The NT therefore com

prises a sort of critical conceptualization and presentation of the NT

message viewed over against myriad factors and forces which would and
209
did militate against the message in the first century. It does not

readily admit of further reduction or of radical reinterpretation, as

e.g. NT theology has historically consistently attempted. What Albertz

calls 'die urchristliche Theologie' began and remained, in the face of

various pressures, firmly rooted in its 'Fundament in der Botschaft,'

in its conviction of 'die Zuverl&ssigkeit des Wortes Gottes, ' in the

apprehension of 'Jesus Christus als die Wahrheit.' This 'urchristliche

Theologie' 'sieht ihr Recht zur Kritik in der radikalen Kritik, die Je

sus Christus und sein Geist ausllbt, und ihre Freiheit zum neuen Denken
210
in der wexterftihrenden Erkenntnis des heiligen Geistes.' Albertz's

is indeed a move to return the testimony of the texts to the centre of

211
NT theology, as R. McL. Wilson noted.

3.124 Summary

Our discussion of Albertz's approach to NT theology unfortunately

cannot delve into his also somewhat radical approach to NT introduc-

^"^Cf. esp. Botschaft, II/2, 252-272 ('Kritik und Antikritik der

Botschaft').
209
Cf. ibid. 1/2, 304: 'Der Apostelkanon, so wie er uns nun dargebo-
ten wird, ist in der Tat ein Schutz der Kirche' from the falsification
'der echten Botschaft Jesu und des Paulus.'
210
Albertz, ZNW 46 (1955) 268.

^ ^ S e e n.155 above.
 -381-
212
tion. We cannot delineate Albertz's important positive stance toward

what one gains from the various emphases of NT theology which he never-
213
theless thinks have been carried too far. We also cannot pass judg

ment on his discussion of 'der Inhalt der Botschaft' under the headings
214 215
of 'Die Gnade unseres Herrn Jesus Christus,' 'Die Liebe Gottes,'

und 'Die Gemeinschaft des Heiligen Geistes' (cf. 2 Cor 13:13), an

organizational scheme which Albertz defends in Botschaft II/l, 144f.

and elsewhere. These are areas which would doubtless repay investiga

tion but which would take us too far afield.

It suffices here to note that Albertz, seen over against Bultmann,

advocates a distinctly different approach to NT theology. Bultmann's

general method and its Baurian/Wredian affinities have already been sum-
217
marized. In the following ways Albertz's and Bultmann's aims,

findings, or both clash: the former wants to keep theological presenta

tion in closer contact with historical or concrete (as opposed to ideal

istic or purely conceptual) reality; he advocates an openness to the

transcendent which makes his NT interpretation look much different from

Bultmann's; he tries to let the words and events preserved in the NT

speak in today's often somewhat hostile environment with the pungent

incisiveness which which they were evidently set forth in their original

somewhat hostile environment. It is not a philosophical truth behind

the texts but the christocentric message reflected and essentially

212
I.e. Botschaft, 1/1 and 1/2; cf. II/2, 306. The significance
of Albertz here is reflected in the fact that his intro, (as it were)
is cited over forty times in KUmmel, Introduction to the New Testament,
1975. (Contra KUmmel, 479n.49, Albertz did not hold the apostle John
to be the author of the Johannine corpus; cf. Botschaft, 1/1, 243.)
21 3
Cf. Botschaft, II/l, 21; ZeichZ 8 (1954) 375f.
p -1 /| n't r
Botschaft, II/l, 155-315. Ibid. II/2, 19-203.
pi C p 1 r7
Ibid. 104-251. See above, 2.1.
 i -382-

preserved in the NT texts themselves which NT theology today, like NT

theology (=the NT texts) of old, seeks to expound. Finally, Albertz

does not give the impression that his presentation of the NT, or a

rationale behind it, is the definitive one. Unlike Bultmann his ap

proach does not imply a methodological exclusiveness.

These are all distinctive features of Albertz over against Bultmann.

In important respects they link him already with Hofmann and Schlatter

seen over against Baur and Wrede. It remains now to touch on Albertz's

epistemology before exploring more specifically the sense in which his

work evinces a hgl. outlook.

3.2 Albertz's epistemology

We suggested above that Bultmann, iargely for epistemological rea

sons, makes modern thought the formal and definitive starting point for
218
NT theology. In certain respects the NT texts' contents are prede

termined by a priori philosophical (or religio-philosophical) considera

tions which are closely related to Bultmann's epistemological concerns.

Albertz has much to say about NT attitudes regarding 'Erkenntnis.'

A ground-level assertion is that 'die Gedankenarbeit, die im Neuen

Testament vorgelegt wird, kann Uberhaupt nicht begriffen werden als ein
219
philosophischer Denkprozess.' The NT (and the Bible as a whole)

stands 'unverstihnlich gegen alle Bildung, die auf sich selbst stolz ist.

Weil diese auf eigenem Nachdenken steht, str&ubt sie sich gegen die
220
Weisheit Gottes.' For Albertz there is clearly a qualitative dis

tinction between the knowledge which man himself devises on the one hand

and that which comes from God on the other (a distinction which seems

not to be explicable simply by calling Barth's similar emphais to mind).

218 219
See above, 2.23. Botschaft, II/l, 16; cf. II/2, 277.
220
Ibid. 1/2, 500; cf. 140ff.
 -383-

Albertz's handling of the NT is much different from Bultmann's, not

least due to the former's view of (1) that which the NT sets forth, and

(2 ) how it is apprehended.

3.21 What is known the object of knowing

The NT conveys a message which 'sich zurtlckftlhrt auf den Gott, der

Wunder tut und seine Boten Wunder erleben und verktlnden l&sst. 1 Accor

dingly, 'das Mass des Menschenmdglichen und des Wahrscheinlichen wird

221
hier also immer wieder Uberboten, ja zerbrochen.' The bases of Al

bertz 's entire handling of the NT are the historical-theological pre

suppositions 'von der Schrift a us' which emphasize that God can and has

in various times and by various means imparted (or revealed) accurate

222
knowledge of himself to man.The NT(and the OT) is a sort of

definitive compendium of this knowledge and of the historical phenomena

which serve to establish, convey, or explain it.

Albertz sees implicit in the NT message a consistent theme, namely

223
that 'die Gottesweisheit zerschlMgt die Weisheit des Menschen.' The

parables, e.g., 'am weitesten entfernen sich von der vernllnftigen ErwM-

gung'; again and again Jesus' message is, 'dass Gott doch eben ganz an-
224
ders ist, als die Menschen in ihrer Klugheit es vermuten.' Jesus'

teaching and proclamation comprise 'die Umkehrung der [merely folk, hu

man, or conventionalj Weisheit.'22^ Albertz concludes: 'Wesentlich

ist, dass alle WeisheitssprUche Jesu Offenbarung und Rede der gdt-t-

lichen Weisheit sein wollen, die die menschliche Weisheit Ubertrifft

und umkehrt . ' 2 2 6 Paul in Rom 1 sees that an 'Evangelium der Selbstbe-

hauptung' exists 'gegen das Evangelium der Selbstverleugnung,' resulting

in 'die Vernunft ohne Gott.' Man 'wird preisgegeben an seine entartete

221 222 223
Ibib. 13. Ibid. 16-44. Ibid. 8 6 ; cf. II/l, 115.

224Ibid. 1/1, 94. 225Ibid. 82-102. 226Ibid. 102.

 -384-
227
Vernunft.' Now perhaps Bultmann could say similar things exegeti-

cally, but Albertz takes such observations from (as he supposes) Jesus

and Paul as being relevant to reason in the modern age. The result is

that, while Bultmann (with his high view of modern knowledge) tends to

interpret material in such a way as to run the risk of accomodating it

to a set modern viewpoint, Albertz (with his high view of the NT mes

sage, right down to its surface critique of certain forms of reason)

thinks that modern reason (or its self-confidence), like its ancient

forerunner, must in important respects be shattered before the NT mes

sage can really be apprehended. Thereason for this is clearly to be

found in Albertz 1s view of just what sort of knowledge the NT message

imparts, a knowledge which at various points transcends or conflicts

228
with much human thought. For Albertz as for the writer of Hebrews,
229
'die Selbstherrlichkeit der Vernunft' is definitively checked by Je-
230
sus Christ and the NT message. God in his glory 'vertrdgt keine
231
moderne Rationalisierung, Ethisierung und Humanisierung.' This God is

poo
Cf. ibid. 1/2, 99: 'Gott hat es gefallen, einen freilich sehr
seltsamen Heilsweg zu fUhren.' Cf. 124; II/l, 112ff.
229
Ibid. 1/2, 418. Albertz speaks here of the general tone of He
brews seen over against the tone of 4 Macc, in which the question is
treated, 'ob die fromme Vernunft Selbstherrscherin der Triebe sei.' 4
Macc's answer is positive. Hebrews in contrast indicates that 'die
Selbstherrlichkeit der Vernunft ist gefangen unter die Anbetung des
himmlischen Christus,' who is identified with Jesus. True knowledge,
this implies, is not necessarily that which commends itself to quasi-
Stoic (or any other) philosophy as such, but that which is also informed
by and conforms to truth as taught and exemplified by the life and
teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the NT writings.
230
Cf. Albertz's remarks on John (ibid. II/l, 187), whose presenta
tion makes clear, 'dass dieser Christus Gott ist, dass er allein im ab-
soluten Sinn alles Heil und alle Erkenntnis an sich hat, all dieses Heil
und diese Erkenntnis an ihn gebunden ist und nun durch ihn vermittelt
wird. Er ist also immer mehr als das, was von ihm ausgesagt werden kann.'
231
Ibid. II/2, 245.
 -385-

most clearly seen, not by means of human reason's constructs alone, but

by means of God's own self-disclosure through the OT-NT message and its
232
epitomizer-fulfiller Jesus Christ.

3.22 How it is known the process of knowing

From a Bultmannian perspective Albertz's approach is invalid, for

it implies that man somehow and in some sense can have knowledge

of God which is at least partially cognitive. For most modern theology

233
since Kant this is assumed to be impossible. Albertz (and apparently

much of the NT) has erroneously made bold to conceptualize God in such

a way that God is at man's disposal. I.e. Albertz would have salvation

come in close conjunction with accurate cognitive (in addition to rela

tional) knowledge, which for Bultmann is tantamount to salvation by

works.

Albertz however, citing 1 Cor 15, notes that 'es war nicht die Sache

der Jtlnger und ihrer Phantasie, dass sie den Herrn sahen, sondern die

Tat Gottes.' I.e., 'Gott hat Jesus nach Tod und Begr&bnis als den Auf-

erweckten von den ersten Zeugen sehen lassen.' Both 1 Cor 15 and the

broader NT testimony on this point exclude 'die Initiative des Menschen';

'der, der gezeigt wird oder sich selber zeigt, steht nicht in der Ver-
234
fUgung der Menschen.' For Bultmann, who excludes acts of God in a

literal sense, faith in such is illicit objectification. It is fabri

cation of grounds for belief which true faith does not need and must

not cling to. True faith is authentic decision in the face of the un

known, unknowable, and even untrue (e.g. believing affirmation that Je

sus Christ is risen, when Jesus, at least, remains quite dead). Albertz
23?
Ibid. II/l, 75.
233
Pointed out again recently by R.Nash, The Word of God and the
Mind of M an, 1982. Cf. n.133 above.
234
Albertz, Botschaft, II/l, 101.
 -386-

however, here resembling Hofmann and Schlatter, finds the historical

235
data of the NT quite inexplicable apart from literal acts of God.

Thus from his perspective he is not fabricating a conceptual apparatus

by which persons may somehow save themselves through generating redemp

tive truth. He is rather availing himself of the (only) means by which

knowledge of/devotion to God through Jesus Christ is possible on a NT

model: affirmation (including cognitive) of and personal commitment

to the Jesus whom God by literal acts has shown to be the divine Son

and the Saviour. If such a model were in fact a priori invalid, then

of course the Bultmannian charge would be sustainable.

Albertz sees the NT message as presenting knowledge of God (which

Albertz would see as including both (1) cognition, and (2) existential

response, or obedience to what, or who, is cognized) in a three-fold

light. God himself initiates it and is the ground for it; such know-
236
ledge 'kommt von Gott her.' God's spirit, too, is active in reveal-
237
ing God's human reason-defying wisdom: 'Diese Weisheit ist eschato-

logisch, heilsgeschichtlich, von dem Kreuz her, deshalb nicht dialek-

tisch. Deshalb ist sie nicht erreichbar mit dem Fleisch, sondern nur
238
mit dem Geist. ' Finally, Jesus Christ 'ist das Licht der Welt und
239
der einzige Erkenntnisgrund fUr die Gotteserkenntnis.' Thus God con

ceived as functioning in a somewhat orthodox trinitarian sense can and

does reveal himself to those wishing to receive him albeit on his terms

It should be noted here additionally that in Albertz's under

standing the subject-object distance is being overcome by virtue

2 3 5 E.g. ibid. 88 ; 1/2, 484. 2 3 6 Ibid. 1/2, 126.

237
Cf. ibid. II/2, 52, 282f.; cf. 96: 'Die Spruchweisheit des Alten
Testamentes ist Lebensweisheit. Die Klage Hiobs ist Leidensweisheit.
Die Weisheit des Neuen Testaments ist Todesweisheit. Diese Todesweis-
heit hat ihren tiefsten Grund in der Torheit des Kreuzes. . . .'
poo p3Q
Ibid. 1/2, 127; cf. 1/1, 301. Ibid. 1/2, 397.
 -387-

of the fact that knowledge of God is not seen as man's grasp of an as

it were inanimate object: the knowing subject (man) is simultaneously

apprehended by him who is being known (God) . ^ 4 0

From the human point of view, the NT message is known in an impor

tant sense by means of 'ein vollkommenes Umdenken . 1 Central to the mes

sage is the cross but the cross means (1) 'Verwerfung anstelle der Er-

w&hlung,' (2) 'Schande anstelle des Ruhms vor Gott und den Menschen,'

and (3) 'Gottverlassenheit und damit verbunden die Preisgabe an das

Zorngericht Gottes selber.' It is nevertheless this cross through which

comes the call to discipleship, which 'ruft zur Entscheidung, dass man

auch das Kreuz tragen lerne.' The NT message is apprehended only in

conjunction with 'ein totales Umdenken in dem Sinn, dass bis dahin das

ganze Leben egozentrisch ausgerichtet war und dass nun das ganze Leben
241
theozentrisch, christozentrisch, ausgerichtet sein muss.' For Al

bertz as for Bultmann existential involvement or decision plays a deci

sive role. The difference is that cognitive knowledge or objectifica

tion for Bultmann has a negative function in relation to faith. What

is known can be no part of what is believed. For Albertz the two are

combined; a certain (if never complete) apprehension of facts or truth

relating to God and his acts attends personal relationship to him.

3.23 Conclusion

Epistemologically speaking Albertz's formal starting point is not

modern thought as such but the NT witness. He holds that God can and

has acted and spoken in such a way that persons have perceived it. He

argues this on historical grounds, opposed to formal philosophical or

theological grounds, though he is aware that all three areas are

240
Ibid. I I/2, 55, 87, 144, 151, 270. Cf. ch. 1, n.217 on Hofmann.
241
Ibid. II/l, 277.
 -388-

connected where NT interpretation is concerned. The NT is not an infal

lible chronicle from heaven; nevertheless, 'Gottes Wort wird auf dem
242
Wege der Sprache dem Menschen zugMnglich.' And still more important

ly: 'Gottes Wort wird niedergeschrieben, und die Schrift dient dazu,
243
Gottes Wort zu vergegenw&rtigen.' The upshot is that Albertz's (im

plicit) theory of both the possible content of knowledge and the mode

of knowing is to a large extent based on what is to him the historically

plausible witness of the NT texts. Whereas Bultmann's epistemology en

courages a presentation of the NT material which will bring it into line

with modern knowledge and a certain theory of that knowledge, Albertz's

epistemology contributes to a presentation by which the NT challenges

or even rejects modern human knowledge as such (though it would be false

to see only a negative relationship between the NT message and human

knowledge). This, he claims, is how the NT message encountered its an

cient conceptual milieu, and this is how it must be set forth now. Al-

bertz's epistemology, unsatisfactory though it be from a contemporary

perspective, makes such a presentation of the NT witness possible.

3.3 Albertz's approach to history

3.31 Hgl. outlook

In a sense Albertz's handling of the NT from the start 'geht. . . im

Sinne von Leopold Ranke urn ein Stllck Weltgeschichte, urn eine Aufhellung
244
des folgenreichsten Ereignisses der rdmischen Kaiserzeit.' Yet the

NT material, which was not actually 'created' by the church but rather
245
collected (often under eyewitness control) and faithfully passed on,
242
Ibid. 1/1, 33.
243
Ibid. 38. Albertz refers here to the OT but the same holds true
of his understanding of the NT (cf. ibid. 44), though he well under
stands 'die Schriftlosigkeit des Urevangeliums' (ibid. 4 0f.).
244 245
Ibid. 14; cf. II/l, 11, 127. Ibid. 1/1, 297f.
 -389-

contained much which was inherently offensive to persons of its day.

Had the proclamation come as myth in the sense of being only ostensibly

historical, it would have been much more tolerable, as other religions

246
of that syncretistic and pluralistic religious world were. But the NT

message comprises 'eine grunds&tzliche Absage gegen den Mythos und ein
247
klares antignostisches Bekenntnis zur Geschichte.' Thus 'anstdssig'

is an apt epithet for this message and its vehicle, 'eine durchaus der
248
menschlichen Vernunft anstdssige Geschichte.' We see here something

of Albertz's epistemology being reflected in his assessment of NT his

tory. This history is played out as part of general history, yet in

it God achieves his particular aims, often quite visibly. E.g., while

'die Hinrichtung Christi ist ein Akt der allgemeinen Religionsgeschich-

t e , ' it nevertheless in this same context 'bedeutet. . . die eigentlicie

249
heilsgeschichtliche Wende.'

This statement alerts us to Albertz's basic hgl. perspective. NT

history 'ist mehr als blosse Geschichte' in the historicistic or positi-

250
vxstic sense of the term. Albertz holds, not merely as an article

of faith but as a matter of fact, that all history stands in a subor

dinate relation to the reality which gives rise to the NT Botschaft:

Das Evangelium setzt ein vor der Erschaffung der Welt. Es ist von
Gott gesetzt und bestimmt und hat Ziel und Ende nur in der Ewigkeit.
Es geht in ihm nicht nur urn gewesene Geschichte, sondern in der
Kraft der Auferstehung Jesu Christi urn gegenwdrtige Geschichte. . . .
Das Evangelienzeugnis IMuft aus in das majest&tische, Vergangenheit,
Gegenwart und Zukunft umschliessende 'ICH BIN' der Christus-
theophanie.^51

It is clear from this statement as well as from other features of

his work already noted that Albertz's approach to history resembles that

2 4 6 Cf. ibid. II/l, 22-45. 2 4 ?Ibid. 1/1, 298. 2 4 8 Ibid.

PzlQ PSO
Ibid. II/2, 53. Ibid. 1/1, 299.
251
Ibid. 299f.; cf. II/l, 190.
 -390-

of Hofmann and Schlatter (neither of whom however Albertz ever cites).

While Albertz's approach to NT theology seems until now not to have been

recognized as a hgl. one, it is surely within this heritage of NT theo

logy that he is most accurately identified. We must now try to describe

some ways in which Albertz's work admits of such identification.

3.32 Conception of Hg.

Neither the noun 'Hg. 1 nor the adjective 'hgl.' are overly common

in Albertz's four volumes on the NT. In the locus classicus on Hg. in

the entire 1475 page treatment, he explains why. Referring to 'Christus

und das Offenbarungsgeschehen,' Albertz states:

Ich vermeide den Ausdruck 'Heilsgeschichte'. Die Heilsgeschichte

ist gewiss ein Heilsgeschehen, aber nicht in dem Sinn, dass die
Heilsgeschichte nun irgendwie in den Rahmen der Geschichte, wie sie
das 19. Jahrhundert versteht, eingespannt werden kdnnte. Wir kdnnen
von Heilsgeschichte also nur dann reden, wenn wir wissen, dass dies
ein uneigentlicher und ungenauer Ausdruck ist, der die Vorgeschichte
und die Nachgeschichte zugleich umfasst, der also mit der Pr&exis-
tenz Christi anfMngt und mit der Postexistenz Christi nicht auf-
hdrt, und der damit rechnet, dass auch innerhalb der sozusagen von
der geschichtlichen Kritik erreichbaren Zeiten es sich nicht bloss
urn Geschichte handelt. Es begleitet doch auch dasEvangelium im
ganzen Neuen Testament das Wunder, das sich der Geschichtsauffassung
des 19. Jahrhunderts nicht ftlgt. Wenn wir es also in der Sprache
des 19. Jahrhunderts ausdrlicken: Die Heilsgeschichte umfasst immer
auch Mythos. Der Mythos ist Anfang, Mitte und Ende der Heilsge
schichte, aber indem ich dies sage, sage ich etwas Falsches, denn
die Botschaft und der Mythos sind einander ausschliessende Gegen-
s&tze. . . . Betrachten wir den Mythos mit Hermann Gunkel als eine
GOttergeschichte, dann kdnnen wir nur sagen, die ganze sog. Heils
geschichte ist Mythos, denn es handelt sich hier immer urn Gott, zwar
nicht urn GOtter, aber urn Gott und urn Gottes Handeln mit den GOttern
und mit den Menschen. Vom Neuen Testament aus handelt es sich wirk-
lich urn einen Sieg des Christus liber die widergdttlichen MMchte.
Das ist der eigentliche Inhalt dieser merkwlirdigen 'Heilsgeschich
te' . Und insofern ist es also gut, wenn wir diesen Ausdruck ganz
vermeiden und ein Wort nehmen, das die Dinge einigermassen deutlich
macht, 'Offenbarungsgeschehen'. Es ist also deutlich, dass dieses
Geschehen in die Geschichte eingeht, die Ranke in seiner Weltge-
schichte beschreibt, aber ebenso, dass es sich hier von Anfang bis
zu Ende urn Offenbarung handelt, also urn ein der kritischen Ge-
schichtsforschung nicht erreichbares Moment.

Three observations are in order based on this statement and related

25?
Ibid. II/l, 127f.
 -391-

discussion above.

(1) The NT does in fact point to a Hg., Albertz implies, but not

one which 19th century historiographical techniques can cope with or

allow for. Albertz is close to Schlatter in arguing that within history

there are features inexplicable by means of classic historical criti

cism. This is esp. the case in biblical history. Part and parcel of

the gospel is the so-called miraculous, and the potential for coming

to grips successfully with the former exists only where the latter is

not a priori rejected, as for instance in Bultmann or in 'der Ge-

schichtsauffassung des 19. Jahrhunderts' in general.

(2) Albertz's remarks foreshadow more recent ones by Kraus: both

see the limitations of the term Hg., both avoid or qualify their use

of it yet both would answer no (though for different reasons) to Kraus'

rhetorical question: Do the terminological problems related to the word

Hg. mean, 'dass die mit dem Begriff der 'Heilsgeschichte' bezeichnete

Sache hinf&llig geworden ist?' Albertz suggests the term 'Offenbarungs

geschehen' as a replacement.

(3) Albertz's statement above fits in with a related one in which,

speaking of election, he terms history 'nur die Realisierung' of the

eternal intention, 'das Sichtbarwerden seiner j^God'sJ bis dahin unsicht-

254
baren Offenbarung.' This compares closely with Hofmann's characteri-
255
zation of the kingdom of God already cited. It seems fair to suggest

that Albertz resembles Hofmann in that both understand Hg., as it re

lates to NT theology, as the affected-by-the-transcendent historical

256
course of events of which the NT (and OT) speak. Or again, it seems

justified to compare Albertz with Schlatter, as both are much exercised

253 254
See Kraus, Biblische Theologie, 353. Albertz, Botschaft,II/1,259.
233 256
See ch. 1, 2.2434. Cf. ibid.
 -392-

to combine the insights of formal criticism with the (in their judg

ments) inescapable fact of transcendent involvement in history. Neither

Albertz nor Schlatter are biblical inerrantists, and neither excommuni

cated himself from the scholarly communities of their respective days.

(Whether their communities tended to excommunicate them is another ques

tion.) Yet both felt that critical techniques ought to be the servants

of the reality of the NT message, not its sovereign lord. To Albertz

it is clear that the NT message shattered human paradigms of (purely

rationalistic) understanding from the start; why should it now since

the Enlightenment be thought possible or necessary to reduce the NT to

rationalistically conceivable or verifiable dimensions? The point here

is that Albertz1s conception of Hg. at various points marks him as a

descendent, if an unwitting one, of Hofmann and Schlatter. The NT theo

logies of all three show marked similarities in their approaches to his

tory and their understanding of Hg.

3.33 Summary

Albertz's approach to NT theology, not least due to his approach

to history, essentially turns Bultmann's on its head. The latter in

many ways threatens to read history as required to make it of service

to his theological aims. This results partially from the way hesets

up the problematic of history vs. theology in his NT theology:

Entweder kdnnen die Schriften des NT als die 'Quellen1 befragt wer-
den, die der Historiker interpretiert, urn aus ihnen das Bild des
Urchristentums als eines Phdnomens geschichtlicher Vergangenheit
zu rekonstruieren; oder die Rekonstruktion steht im Dienste der In
terpretation der Schriften des NTs unter der Voraussetzung, dass
diese der Gegenwart etwas zu sagen haben.^^^

Albertz's approach to history makes it clear that this, from his stand

point is a false alternative. Albertz does indeed want to interrogate

the sources closely to gain a picture of what he calls the 'historische

257
Bultmann, Theologie, 599.
 -393-

Tatbestand' of the NT. But, not sharing Bultmann's somewhat Lessing-

ian (or perhaps also existentialist) assumption that the past can in

no way be binding on the present, Albertz holds open the possibility

that the living reality giving rise to the NT message for which also,

after all, the Christ-event was in part a thing of the past can also

be experienced in the present. This may violate positivism, or 19th

century or Bultmannian historiography, but Albertz thinks it enables

a more defensible explication of the data. Again, and as a result, Al

bertz shares Bultmann's conviction that the NT writings have something

to say to the present. What they have to say, howsver, must be in

regard to primary content in large measure circumscribed by the NT

sources themselves, taken as a broadly unified (not strictly uniform)

whole.

Albertz's understanding of Hg. involves then strictly speaking an

overarching view of reality, supported by the dynamic reality of the

NT message and its living center (Christ). Within this overarching

reality, whose pillars include the historicaltheological verities of

the NT (and OT) , whose opposite ends run into time unimaginable, bibli

cal and all history is unfolding. Just as Kant admitted that if pure

reason could not solve 'all the questions to which it itself gave
258
birth,' it would have to be rejected as he conceived it, Albertz

holds that the (in his view) extremely well-attested 'Offentyarungsge-

schehen' giving rise to the NT explodes all formal a priori ap

proaches to the data. Bultmann undeniably explicates the NT data with

firm (pre-) convictions of what can and cannot have happened; Albertz,

rightly or wrongly, approaches the data asking what did happen, what

was its significance then, and what are the implications now? His is
258
Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 10.
 -394-

a studied if problematic attempt to let modern thought be informed dia-

logically by its historical-theological subject matter instead of, as

he would see it, brutally forcing itself upon it.

259
4. Ladd and NT theology

4.1 Ladd's conception of NT theology

Ladd's answer to the question, 'What is NT theology?' takes shape

when considered from two angles. First, how does he relate to Bult

mann's proposals? Second, what structure and method typify his own NT

theology?

4.11 Response to Bultmann

4.111 Positive

Even though Ladd confesses that his standpoint is that of an Ameri

can2^ evangelical 'whose background is fundamentalism,'21 his assess

ment of Bultmann is neither narrowly condemnatory nor purely negative.

Ladd interacted extensively with Bultmann throughout a two-decade time

span.22 He claims to have 'gained many valuable insights from Bult

mann, ' who like Ladd is grappling with 'the same problem of history and

revelation, if from another point of view.'2 Bultmann receives Ladd's

praise for his striving to combine historical work with recognition of

the reality of revelation and redemption, even if in a problematic

259 For an extensive though not exhaustive bibliography of
Ladd's works see the Ladd Fs. : R.Guelich, ed., Unity and Diversity in
New Testament Theology, 1978, 214-217. For biographical data see ibid.
xi-xv.

2Ladd was actually born in Alberta, Canada, but moved to the U.S.
at an early age.
261
Ladd, 'The Search for Perspective,' Int 25 (1971) 47.

22I.e. from his rev. of vol. 2 of Bultmann's NT theology, WJT 18

(1956) 210-215, to his own A Theology of the New Testament, 1974. The
attribution of an earlier rev. of Bultmann to Ladd by Merk in 'Nach-
trdge (1965-1979/80),' Bultmann, Theologie, 623, is erroneous. In fact
this rev. was penned by N.Stonehouse; see WJT 15 (1953) 147-156.

2Ladd, 'History and Theology in Biblical Exegesis,' Int 20 (1966)

63n.24.
 264
sense. His contribution is that 'he revived talk about God and reve-
265
lation' at a time when positivism threatened to ban meaningful con

sideration of these from biblical interpretation. Ladd's NT theology

cites Bultmann more than any other modern author, including e.g. Dodd

and Cullmann, with whom Ladd is quite often in fundamental agreement.

If Ladd speaks truly in saying that he 'has often learned most from

those with whom he disagrees,'^67 Bultmann has taught him a great deal.,

4.112 Critical

Ladd is however not vague as to why he feels Bultmann at numerous

junctures has missed the mark, despite his contributions. First, Ladd

takes issue with Bultmann's 'divorce between history and theology.

He refers to Bultmann's stress on the existential aspect of the gospel's

meaning over against its historical origin and facticity as the NT pre-
269
sents it. Ladd declares unreasonable and insupportable Bultmann's

desire somehow to maintain theological ('eschatological') significance

for the gospel while concurrently denying the demonstrable historicity

of the events upon which the NT writers (in Ladd's view) predicated

their own redemptive experience; i.e. on the earthly Jesus who was also
270
the kerygmatic Christ.

Second, he disagrees with Bultmann's Enlightenment understanding

of 'history' as 'an unbroken nexus of historical causes and effects'

264
:Ibid. 63; cf. Ladd, 'The Modern Problem of Biblical Scholarship,'
BSQ 5 (1957) 19.
265
Ladd, Int 25 (1971) 44.

2^According to the index Bultmann is cited some 71 times, Dodd 64,

Cullmann 53.

^ 7Ladd, Theology, 5.
Pfia 269
Ladd, BSQ 5 (1957) 19. Ibid. 18ff.
 -396-
271
in which 'acts of God or miracles are by definition ruled out.' Ladd

finds himself rather in substantial agreement with Cullmann in the lat-

272
t er's questioning of Bultmann's historiography. Ladd cannot agree

with Bultmann that the NT writers at the deepest level sought 'to speak

only of man and his experience'; the NT is in fact also concerned to

273
testify about God, history, and human destiny.

Third, Ladd feels that Bultmann is unduly pessimistic in his view

that the real Jesus is virtually buried beneath the church's theologi-
274
zing. Ladd argues vigorously, adducing KMhler as witness over a-
275
gainst Bultmann's misrepresentation of same, that the so-called his-

torische Jesus is a product of critical speculation; the Jesus who real

ly existed is portrayed substantially accurately in the NT's presenta

tion of the geschichtliche Christ.

Fourth, Ladd questions Bultmann's methodological rejection of the

possibility that 'God could act in history in the terms' common to the

NT. For Bultmann Hg. in any traditional sense is excluded in favor of

God being able to act 'only in the sense that He acts with me here and

now.' But this rejection of Hg. is a 'sacrifice of the gospel itself,

which proclaims a redemptive history of which Christ is the end term.'

Bultmann in stripping the NT of its own sense of historical reality or

concreteness is calling into question not just 'the nature of history

271
Ladd, Int 20 (1966) 56; cf. Ladd, 'The Problem of History in Con
temporary New Testament Interpretation,' TU 103 (SE 5, 1968) 89;
Theology, 22.
272
Int 20 (1966) 59ff.
273
Ibid. 60; Theology, 25f.; WT 18 (1956) 215.

274Theology, 22, cf. 173-180.

275
On Ladd's reading of KMhler, in which he tries to show that Bult
mann's Geschichte-Historie dichotomy as applied to Jesus could only very
qualifiedly fairly be read back into KMhler, see Int 20 (1966) 60f. ;
TU 103 (SE 5, 1968) 91f.; Int 25 (1971) 51-55; Theology, 19.
 -397-

but the nature of God.'2^8

This suffices as a general characterization of Ladd's response to

Bultmann. Ladd raises questions which NT scholarship in general has

raised. He did not merely write off Bultmann without giving him a hear

ing, nor again denounce him with no appreciation of the problems Bult-
277
mann set himself to solve. Ladd is a careful if critical interpreter
278
of the Marburg Nestor. Moreover, Ladd sought to set forth a more

cogent synthesis of the NT than Bultmann had achieved, not merely to

content himself with negative criticism of Bultmann's deviations from

279
sound historical and theological reasoning. Ladd's positive thrust

is summed up and thereby furthered in his NT theology itself, to which

we now turn.

4.12 Structure and method

4.121 Structure

Ladd is criticized by some reviewers for not synthesizing the con

tents of the NT?8<~* But he is convinced that a synthetic approach as

such, e.g. the approaches seen in Stauffer's or Richardson's NT theo

logies, 'ignores the important fact of historical development within

the New Testament.' Ladd wishes to avoid 'a monochromatic treatment

of the several redemptive themes' implied in the NT, laboring rather

'to set forth the development, progress, and diversity of meanings that

^ ^ Theology, 29; cf. 318.

277
Here see also Ladd, 'What Does Bultmann Understand by the Acts
of God?' BETS 5 (1962) 91-97; 'The Role of Jesus in Bultmann's Theo
logy,' SJT 18 (1965) 57-68.
278
So styled in Merk's 'Vorwort zur 7. Auflage' of Bultmann's Theo-
logie.
279
It was the need to transcend fundamentalistic negativism and move
on to stating creative positive alternatives which led Ladd to write
Theology; cf. ibid. 25.

28D.Catchpole, Th 79 (1976) 126f.; D.Aune, Int 29 (1975) 424ff.;

Marshall, TEd 9 (Spr. 1979) 61.
 -398-
281
are embodied in the redemptive events of' NT theology.
282
To this end Ladd proceeds in six stages. He treats in turn the
283 284
synoptics, the fourth gospel, the primitve church (main source:
. . . 285 286 , 287 288
Acts), Paul, the general epistles, and the Apocalypse.

Actually there is a certain synthetic quality to this seemingly disjunct

organization. For, as Cavert points out, Ladd finds in the synoptics

the preaching of the Kingdom of God, 'which is to be established by the

act of God at the end of the age and which has already broken into hu-
289
man history in Jesus.' This eschatological awareness the knowledge

that the eschatological future is already esp. since Jesus a component

290
of the present is fundamental to all the NT. Ladd's NT theology

develops the differing emphases of the NT divisions just noted from the

premise of this underlying, integrating eschatological consciousness.

Put another way, the synthetic aspect of the NT is seen by Ladd, not

as a construct to be educed from the NT but as a demonstrable shared

intrinsic quality of the NT documents, which are unified by being 'con-

291
scious of participating in redemptive history.'
292
4.122 Method

Some of the distinctive features of Ladd's NT theological method

281Ladd, Theology, 33.

282
Ladd also gives a long introduction, in which he discusses the
history of the discipline and his own methodology (ibid. 13-33).

283Ibid. 34-210. 284Ibid. 211-308. 285Ibid. 309-356.

286Ibid. 357-568. 28?Ibid. 569-616. 288Ibid. 617-632.

289
S.Cavert, rev. of Ladd, Theology, RelL 44 (1975) 249f.
290
Here see Ladd's monograph The Presence of the Future: The Escha-
tology of Biblical Realism, 1974.
291
Ladd, Theology, 32.
292
Besides Ladd's Theology, see here also esp. 'Biblical Theology,
History, and Revelation,' RevExp 54 (1957) 195-204; Hasel, NT Theology,
119-127.
 -399-

are seen most clearly in relation to his view of history (see below,

4.3). Here we take up two of the more basic aspects of Ladd's method

which are fundamental to his NT theology: his critical position, and

his understanding of NT theology itself.

4.1221 Ladd's critical position

Ryan accuses Ladd of proof-texting in his Theology. He is con

strained 'to scream foul' because Ladd uses the 'research of other

scholars employing the very historical critical method L. add^. es-

293
chews.' Another reviewer of Ladd speaks of 'the poverty of a bibli

cal theology which ignores or rejects so much that is relevant and en-
294
riching among the fruits of modern critical scholarship.' Mitton

assures us that Ladd is an enlightened fundamentalist, since 'the auth

orized version of the Bible is not treated as sacrosanct; some of its

295
translations are challenged.' Marshall suggests that Ladd is open to

the charge of not defending 'his view of the historical Jesus over
296
against historical criticism.'

Such comments call for brief clarification of Ladd's overall criti

cal position, as they imply that Ladd is uncritical, conservative in

a negative sense, or historically naive.

It should first be acknowledged that Ladd holds to a relatively high

view of scripture. 'The Bible is the Word of God given in the words
297
of m e n .' The NT writers held the OT to be the word (i.e. the words)

293
Ryan, rev. of Ladd, Theology, CBQ 38 (1976) 114f.
294
A.J.B.Higgins, rev. of Ladd, Theology, SJT 30 (1977) 389ff.
295
C.L.Mitton, rev. of Ladd, Theology, ExpT 87 (1975) 66f.
296
Marshall, TEd 9 (Spr. 1979) 60; cf. Catchpole, Th 79 (1976) 126f.
297
Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism, 1967, 12.
 -400-
298 299
of God, and the NT's participation in the OT-NT Hg. justifies

recognizing 'the Bible as the word of God.'3

Yet Ladd's position is tempered by his affirmation that 'no single

approach' to scripture, not even his own, 'can insist that it has all
301
the truth. ' Ladd is an evangelical who is 'willing to recognize
302
truth wherever it is found.' He decries a fundamentalism which is
303
merely 'negativistic, separatistic, TandT apologetic.' Ladd prefers

to work 'in critical interaction with the entire theological scene

rather than in isolation.'304 'Critical study' of all persuasions 'has

305
shed a flood of light upon our understanding of the New Testament.'

'The exercise of criticism is absolutely indispensable.'300 Evangeli-

307
cals owe a great debt to the labors of non-evangelical critics.

Contra Ryan's remarks on the previous page, then, Ladd is hardly

a pre-critical303 proof-texter300 and does not 'eschew' criticism.3'*'0

Mitton's comment that Ladd at times even dares to depart from the auth

orized version is incomprehensible considering that the sacro-

311
sanctness of this translation is never at issue for Ladd, whose PhD
298 299
Ladd, Theology, 31. Ibid. 28.

300Ibid. 31. Cf. NT and Criticism, 19-33 ('How Is the Bible the
Word of God?'); cf. also 78.
301
Ladd, Int 20 (1966) 55; cf. Theology,5.

Ladd, NT andCriticism, 11. Ibid. 12n.3.

304Ibid. 305Ibid. 218. 306Ibid. 80.

307
Ibid. 10; cf. Int 20 (1966) 63.

308Cf. Int 20 (1966) 55, where Ladd treats the 'precritical method'
and says that in it 'history is quite swallowed up by theology.' This
is hardly the case in Ladd's work.
309
Ladd explicitly rejects proof-texting in Theology, 379.
310 311
Cf. Ladd, NT and Criticism, 109. Cf. e.g. ibid. 52, 60, 80,89.
 -401-

(Harvard) was in Classics. (Perhaps Mitton thinks it might be at issue

for readers of his review of Ladd.) Marshalls suggestion that Ladd's

historical Jesus may not be defensible over against historical criticism

312
has merit, yet neglects (1) the limited scope of Ladd's NT theology

Marshall well knows that a whole book could be devoted merely to the
313
problems attending life of Jesus research and (2) the fact that no

one's historical Jesus has yet satisfied 'historical criticism's' (as

314
if there were one such monolithic entity in fact there is not ) infin

ite array of questions.

Clearly we need to take a further step here, attempting to clarify

Ladd's stance toward criticism. This is obviously central to how he

undertakes to do NT theology.

First, what is criticism? It is something which the historical

315
character of the Bible demands. Yet caution toward criticism is war

ranted. Here echoing Albertz (whom Ladd apparently never read), Ladd

points out that

underlying the ebb and flow of successive schools of criticism is

to be found the continuing theological assumption that the nature
of God and history is such that a proper critical method can make
no room for the immediate acting of God ^ jg history, that is, that
the supernatural must be dispensed with.

Ladd laments that there are so many whose own 'rationalistic' approach

to criticism and to history keeps them from appreciating any other ap

proach to the biblical data: 'A fundamentalist mentality can be found

in unexpected places.'
312
Ladd, Theology, 5.
313
Cf. his own I Believe in the Historical Jesus, 1977.
314
With M.Hengel, Zur urchristlichen Geschichtsschreibung, 1979,
107f f .

~^^NT and Criticism, 36. ^^Ibid. 49. ^^Ibid. 53.

 -402-
318
Ladd proposes a 'reverent criticism' which he terms 'historical-
319
theological.' This criticism, unlike many of its post-Enlightenment

counterparts, does not systematically equate 'objectivity' with 'freedom

from the traditional supernaturalistic understanding of biblical his-

320
tory.' For Ladd accordingly

criticism means making intelligent judgments about historical,

literary, textual, and philological questions which one must face
in dealing with the Bible, in the light of all the available evi
dence, when one recognizes that the Word of God has come to men
through the words of men in given historical situations.321

Ladd feels that both historical evidence and subsequently the nature

of the gospel itself compel to 'insist that there is a dimension of the

actual, past, objective events which occurred in history which goes be-
322
yond the presuppositions of modern critical historiography.' For

Ladd then 'the role of biblical criticism is not to criticize the Word
323
of God but to understand it.' It should be. emphasized here that Ladd

is not necessarily capitulating to pre-critical dogmatism. Rather he

may in effect b^. emulating Bultmann by trying to preserve a theological

element within the discipline of NT criticism which has at times threat

ened to expunge this element from consideration.

This leads to a second question. What does Ladd's definition of

criticism contribute to his understanding of the task of NT theology?

It has the effect of distancing him immediately from much NT criticism

(and hence theology), for which the cardinal tenet is that the words
324
of the biblical text and 'word of God' are largely separate entities.

^^I b i d . 36; cf. 33: 'A methodology which recognizes both the his
torical and revelatory aspects of the Bible is what we mean by an evan
gelical criticism.'
319_, . ^ 320 .. 321 , .J
Ibid. 40. Ibid. 45. Ibid. 37.
oop
Ibid. 190. Ibid. 81.
324
Cf. E.Dinkier, 'Bibelkritik II. NT,' RGG, vol. 1, 3 1957, 1188:
'Dass Bibel und Wort Gottes oder HI. Schrift und Kerygma nicht
 -403-

Yet at the same time his approach to criticism, hopeless though it ap

pear to some, functions positively. It enables his tJT theology to take

seriously the theological proposition, which is defended in a sense by

e.g. Barth, as well as others not associated with Ladd's brand of evan

gelicalism, that the Bible must indeed in important respects be seen

325
as God's Word, at least under certain conditions. As we turn now

to characterize Ladd's definition of NT theology, we do so alerted to

his evangelical proclivities, to something of his rationale for adopting

such a stance, and to two of his outlook's major implications: its dis

continuity and continuity with strands of current thought obtaining in

modern interpretation.

4.1222 Definition of NT theology

We can understand Ladd's conception of NT theology in terms of the

discontinuity-continuity tension just touched upon.

(1) Ladd's method is discontinuous with NT theology, esp. of the

BWB heritage, in several ways. First, it does not presuppose such a

wide gap between the NT texts' testimony and the actual first-century

(or thereabouts) states of affairs which they reflect. Whereas NT theo

logy in the BWB tradition tends, we have suggested, systematically to

devalue the surface historical testimony of the NT sources in favor of

their hypothesized real internal dynamic or concern, Ladd wishes to deal

primarily with the texts themselves. His theory, contra BWB, is that
identisch sind, ist Voraussetzung der B. [ibelkritik]. ! ! ~ C f . e.g.
Wrede, Messiasgeheimnis, 2, who with regard to gospel sources speaks
of 'ein selbstverstMndlicher Satz fUr die gesamte historische Kritik,
dass das, was uns wirklich vorliegt, nur die Auffassung eines spMteren
Erzdhlers vom Leben Jesu ist, und dass diese Auffassung nicht identisch
ist mit der Sache selbst.'
325
Cf. e.g. R.S.Barbour, 'The Bible Word of God?' Biblical Studies,
ed. by J.R.McKay, 1976, 28-42, 199f.; T.Gorringe, 'In Defense of the
Identification: Scripture as Word of God,' SJT 32 (1979) 303-318; K.
Stendahl, 'The Bible as Classic and the Bible as Holy Scripture,' JBL
103 (1984) 3-10.
 -404-

the texts, ambiguous and inadequate though they be at many points for

a full historical reconstruction, come closer accurately to depicting

facts in context than an approach to NT theology which effectively has

presupposed the fundamental unreliability and conceptual disparity

of the texts.

Second, while BWB have manifestly taken particular strands of modern

thought as their starting points and arbiters, Ladd's goal, however im

perfectly attained, is 'to arrive at well-considered conclusions as to

what the writers of the New Testament believed and taught.'323 Or more

precisely, in Ladd's words, biblical (or NT) theology should set forth

'the message of the books of the Bible in their historical setting' (cf.

Albertz). Its task is to expound 'the theology found in the Bible in

its own historical setting, and its own terms, categories, and thought
327
forms.' Ladd wants to make the ancient witnesses, not modern criti

cism, the final arbiter of the content of the NT message. Whether cri

tics believe the message is of course for Ladd their business; he only

asks that modern dogmatism, whether philosophical or religious, take

care lest it do violence to the NT's testimony.

So we see, third, the decisive break that Ladd makes with the BWB

heritage. He reads, so much as is possible, NT theology off the surface

of the texts not implying here of course that Ladd's exegesis is shal

low or that his understanding is somehow only attuned to superficial

questions. This is illicit from the BWB standpoint, as we have shown,

for theological significance is determined by contemporary religious

experience, and it is in this normative light that NT theology must be

undertaken. Ladd disagrees, though he does not seem to be aware of the

326Cavert, RelL 44 (1975) 249f.

327
Ladd, Theology, 25.
 -405-

nature or extent of his own disagreement he tends somewhat reduction-

istically to regard his differences with Bultmann as primarily stemming

from opposing views of history. In fact their major difference is also

clearly visible in their respective answers to the perhaps more funda

mental question, what is NT theology? For Bultmann it is explication

of NT believing self-understanding in terms of religion or theology as

Bultmann (Marburg neo-Kantianism informed by Hermann, along with Heideg

ger) experiences it. For Ladd it is expounding the NT word-event com

plex as the NT writings report it from their own point of view, so far

as this is possible. This does not historicistically reduce the NT to

a lifeless ancient relic, as we shall see, but it does constitute a de

parture from a criticism whose cardinal tenet has often been its own

religio-theological superiority to the largely outmoded, distorted or

myth (in Bultmann's sense)- encrusted testimony of the NT.

Fourth and finally, Ladd's method is discontinuous with BWB in that

it does not assume a position of methodological exclusivity. Of course

Ladd thinks that this method is more appropriate to the data than, say,

Bultmann's. But one need only peruse Ladd's Theology to see that he

has, formally at least, consistently weighed, worked through, interacted

with, and been informed by approaches to the data differing, often

radically, from his own. This can hardly 'be said of either Baur or

Bultmann and would not seem to be a necessary part of the NT theology

(history of early Christianity) which Wrede envisioned. Naturally,

Ladd's consistently evangelical conclusions expose him to the charge

that he is in fact excluding all critical findings except those which

support his conservatism. This 'chicken or the egg' issue cannot be

taken up here. It suffices to recall Ladd's critical position already

outlined above and to call attention to the fact that his reading of
 -406-

the NT is indeed open to insight derived by means of different methodo

logies. Anyone familiar with North America's truly extreme forms

of conservatism will immediately discern how surprisingly open Ladd is

to arguments from any camp which will facilitate understanding of NT

329
or related data.

(2) On the other hand Ladd's definition of NT theology is continuous

with that of others. His first maxim is that 'biblical theology must
330
rest on exegesis,' a position which few would dispute. He agrees

with Bultmann and others who underline 'the "existential" character of

331
the gospel.' He emphasizes that biblical theology is a 'descriptive'
332
undertaking. He does not suppose that the resurrection can be his-
333
torically 'proven' and faith in it thereby compelled. He gives due
334
attention to the eschatological dimension in the NT proclamation. His

method assumes that the 'interpreter must familiarize himself with the

various methods of interpretation that he may criticize and purify his

The apparatus in Ladd's Theology is further evidence of this.

It seems unlikely that Ladd has gone such lengths to give 'a very full,
even encyclopedic presentation of the. . . contents of the New Testa
ment. .. and of the main ways of interpreting those contents' (Mitton,
ExpT 87 [1975-76] 6 6f.), but was nevertheless methodologically closed
to all rival arguments from the start.
329
E.g. many conservatives, and not only American but also German and
British, would excommunicate Ladd for his acceptance of 'the basic val
idity of the prevailing scientific historical method,' with which Ladd
differs only in wanting 'to insist on its limitations at the point of
redemptive history where God has entered history in self-revelation and
redemption' (NT and Criticism, 191). Cf. Theology, 15.
330
Ladd, 'Revelation 20 and the Millennium,' RevExp 57 (1960) 167;
cf. Ladd, RevExp 54 (1957) 195.
331
Ladd, Theology, 387.
332
Ibid. 25, 52, 179; cf. RevExp 54 (1957) 195, 200; cf. also K.
Stendahl, 'Biblical Theology, Contemporary,' IDB, vol. 1, 418-432.
333
Ladd, Theology, 319; cf. Int 25 (1971) 59f.
334
Ladd, Theology, 630; cf. esp. Presence of the Future.
 -407-
335
own view.' In all these cases Ladd stands within the mainstream of

contemporary NT criticism, if often on the right-hand side of the flow

in his conclusions.

Ladd's approach to NT theology is however esp. continuous with that

of the hgl. heritage. Close study of Ladd reveals a striking conflu

ence of conviction with Albertz that, essential historical-critical con

siderations notwithstanding, 'it is the message [cf. Botschaft] of the

Bible that is important.' 330 Ladd resembles his ideological predeces

sors more generally in refusing 'to place primary emphasis upon events

[either] as past history, or as present proclamation; the two are in-

337
separably bound together.' Like Hofmann, Schlatter, and Albertz,

he tries to combine historical-critical methodology with an openness

338
to the transcendent. Like his forebears Ladd tries to keep modern

thought from snuffing out theancient message: 'A proper historical

methodology must try to understand ancient thought patterns in terms

of themselves, rather than forcing them into modern analytical categor-

339
ies.' His approach has the effect of bringing together, admittedly

in a way hard to specify;340 historical description and theological sig

nificance: 'We cannot be indifferent to the relevance of New Testament

341
theology for our own age.' In several ways, then, Ladd is to be

identified with and understood within the hgl. tradition of NT theology.

4.13 Conclusion

Reviews of Ladd are replete with criticisms which 'conservative'

335
Ladd, Theology, 619.

33Ladd, NT and Criticism, 79; cf. Theology, 25.

337 338
Ladd, Theology, 388. Cf. ibid. 'Resurrection,' 315-327.
339 340
Ibid. 210. Cf. Hasel, NT Theology, 122f.

34'1'Ladd, Theology, 52.

 -408-

works usually receive and often deserve, but it may be a mistake to make
342
too much of his theological position. In fact he does reflect famil

iarity with and appreciation of opposing viewpoints. His divergencies

from much modern critical thought must be seen first of all in the

light, not of dogmatic rejection of modernity, but of a desire to

achieve a more plausible understanding of the NT data in their concrete

first-century setting. His similarity in approach to Hofmann-Schlatter-

Albertz is obvious and will become still more so as we proceed.

For Ladd NT theology is a description of the history which the NT

reflects and even comprises. This description is undertaken without

methodological endorsement of anti-supernaturalistic historiography.

The goal is to set forth the experiences and beliefs of the NT figures,

so much as possible, in their first-century context. Inasmuch as his

torical reality gave rise to NT experience, in Ladd's view, and not un

grounded experience to unfounded reports, the referent of the reports,

even when this referent partakes of the 'eschatological,' is taken to

have once been a factor on the stage of world history. E.g. the resur

rection was a real event, from Ladd's point of view, and must be fac

tored into NT history as such if the latter is adequately to be grasped.

Ladd feels that such a presentation of the NT data comes closer to giv

ing a plausible account for the data than the approach of Bultmann,

though Ladd is quick to concede that on a plethqra of issues critical

certainty will never be reached and has not been attained by him.

Against Ladd, apart from the obvious objections which Bultmannian

NT theological method would raise, one must note that, compared e.g.

342
It is of note that J.Barr, Fundamentalism, 1981, 222, includes
Ladd among a limited number of 'conservatives' whose 'self-critical at
titude. . . is a breath of fresh air.' Cf. 231: 'For all its conserva
tism, the tone of Ladd's work is markedly different from that of most
conservative evangelical writing.'
 -409-

to Schlatter and Albertz, he reflects only a minimal grasp of the philo

sophical issues which have plagued NT theology since its Gablerian in

ception, His rejection of modern positions sometimes by no means

always seems to be a matter of Ladd's just believin' the Bible rather

than a result of measured critical response to opponent's demonstrably

fallacious views. Still, it is far easier to criticize Ladd than to

better his attempt, as is implied by the dearth of non-evangelical NT

theologies issuing from the Anglo-Saxon world in the present century.

Further insight into Ladd's hgl. approach is gained by trying to

characterize his epistemology.

4.2 Ladd's epistemology

Ladd does not give the impression of being a particularly philosoph

ically acute thinker, and he nowhere reflects on the problem of know

ledge as such. Nevertheless we can characterize his implicit theory

of knowledge and its major implications after discussing, first, the

nature of human rationality, and second, the nature of revelation.

4.21 Human rationality

Ladd approaches the NT cognizant of the problem of the interpreter's

involvement in interpretation.

The fact is that Biblical interpretation has its movements of

thought. Theology is the work of fallible men. The Scriptures are
infallibly inspired, but our interpretations share neither the ele
ments of divine inspiration or [sic} infallibility. Human study
and interpretation of the Scriptures inevitably is conditioned by
our interests and particular point of v i e w . 343

But this does not cause him to forsake rational as opposed to rational

istic inquiry in favor of blind recourse to church doctrine, tradition,

or personal pietism. A text-critical problem is not solved somehow 'by

prayer or by the inner illumination of the Holy Spirit, but only by an

344
extensive knowledge and skill in the science of textual criticism.'
343 344
Ladd, BSQ 5 (1957) 11. Ladd, NT and Criticism, 81.
 -410-

Again, philological questions 'are not answered by the depth of a stu

dent's religious devotion nor by his theological convictions'; the ar-

345
biter must rather be 'scientific philology.' What Ladd calls 'the

abiding message of God's Word' cannot adequately be grasped 'until we

have interpreted its particular immediate message in terms of the his-

346
torical situation.1

It is already evident, whatever Ladd's view of Scripture, that rea

son must play a considerable role in his system, given (1) that man's

fallibility and other limitations introduce a real problematic into the

appropriation of the message of the 'infallibly inspired' Bible, and

(2) that preliminary to (or concurrent with) theological interpretation

must come historical-critical labor.

This does not mean that Ladd hands over theology to a legion of sub

sidiary 'critical' disciplines and then as a theologian passively awaits

their sovereign verdicts. He does to be sure assert that the historian-

theologian must 'accept the basic validity of the modern secular under-
347
standing of history.' But the historian-theologian must be willing

to let compelling data inform and modify this understanding where it

seems incapable of devising a suitable 'natural' cause, as in the case

348
of the resurrection. Ladd insists that 'the truth of the Bible is

not dependent upon our ability to answer critical questions,' even

though 'our understanding of the truth of the Bible is enlarged and

rendered more precise by such study.'343

Ladd's approach to rational inquiry seems to be that is is both in

dispensable and potentially detrimental to a proper apprehension of the

345Ibid. 104. 346Ibid. 113. 34?lbid. 191.

348Cf. Ladd, Theology, 30; Int 25 (1971) 54f.

349
Ladd, NT and Criticism, 217.
 -411-

NT message. Without it the message cannot be received, but rationality-

misapplied can distort the message which historical evidence may at

least partially mediate. It is clear in any case that Ladd is not, de

spite his view of scripture, anti-intellectual. Rationality clearly has

its place, and that not a trivial one. At this point it will be help

ful to consider his view of revelation.

4.22 Revelation

'Ultimately revelation is a supernatural act of God,' not to be

identified with 'human reflection and speculation, which can be univer

sally experienced.' True, revelation 'employs the media of human

thought, reflection, and experience'; these are not simply overridden

350 '
or suspended. In the final analysis nevertheless revelation

only occurred when God was acting among and speaking to men in a
distinctive way to disclose His redemptive purpose. Revelation is
not a human attainment nor a product of human knowledge and wisdom;
it is God's Word spoken to men, and then expressed in the words of
m e n .353
It should be pointed out that Ladd's position here is one which he feels
352
the Bible's own testimony justifies.

Ladd concedes that 'human reason, speculation, philosophy have pro

duced. . . true insights about G o d ; they have produced 'many false

ideas,' too. Ideas alone as such, however, true or false, cannot bring

persons who are alienated from God 'into a saving relationship with

God' ; this can come about only through the proclamation (and personal

reception) of what God has done in Christ to effect salvation. This

word of salvation, however great a part reason might play in understand

ing it, is 'not a human discovery' or 'a product of human wisdom.' The

word of salvation in fact defies human wisdom in an important sense,

inasmuch as 'the highest point of revelation occurred in the deepest

350 351 352
Ibid. 83f. Ibid. 84. Cf. Ladd, Theology, 25ff.
 -412-
353
pit of human tragedy a crucifixion.' In the Cross the incarnate

God 'was both sharing and bearing the tragedy, the sin, the death of

men; and in this divine act of history, He was bringing men to salva-
,354
txon. '

Ladd has, it seems, a two-fold understanding of revelation. It in

volves God speaking to persons, but it is not merely the communication

of information. Ladd does 'not deny that revelation includes a disclo-

355
sure of truth,' but he wants to conceive of revelation more broadly

and more personally. 'What God reveals is not only information about
356
himself; he reveals himself.' And how does God reveal himself? He

does so above all 'in the historical event of the person, works, and

words of Jesus of Nazareth who continues to speak to me through the pro-

357
phetic word of the Bible. '
358
For Ladd then revelation involves 'a deed-word complex.' God

speaks, but he does not only speak; God acts, but does not only act.

God has revealed himself in the particular word-event complex to which

359
the Bible points and of which the Bible is part. What God has said

and done leading up to, including, and immediately following the coming

of Jesus constitutes his definitive self-disclosure to man, a self

disclosure whose climax is the cross and resurrection, on which the sal

vation of persons is predicated. The Bible is a record, or testimony,

not exhaustive but adequate, of God's definitive self-disclosure.

4.23 Synthesis?

For Ladd reason is important and in many respects indispensable.

553 354 355
NT and Criticism, 84. Ibid. 84f. Ladd, Int 25 (1971) 62.
356 t , . , 357T, . ,
Ibid. Ibid. 57.
358
Ibid. 62; NT and Criticism, 85; cf. Theology, 31, where Ladd
speaks of 'deed-word revelation.'
359
Ladd, Theology, 31f.
 -413-

It is even indispensable for understanding scripture but reason alone

cannot in itself effect a reconciliation between the reasoner and God.

It took and takes God's act in Christ to do that, and it takes human

reason's perception and acceptance of God's word-deed activity, his

higher reason as it were, to respond personally to God's saving act.

What God has done he has done in a historically discernible manner, at

least in important respects, so that 'history is the vehicle of the di-

360
vine revelation.' This means that history, which modern thought

often conceives of in strictly non-supernaturalist (naturalistic; posi-

tivistic) terms and which even Ladd concedes is largely open to rational

inquiry, and God, whose reality and activity even in mundane history

are presupposed in the Bible, are brought into concurrent proximity in

Ladd's approach. Reason is integral to understanding history gener

ally, even biblical history; but if God has spoken and acted in ways

similar to the Bible's claims, reason must remain open to revelation

(what God has in fact said and done) to gain a full apprehension of

biblical history, as well as of the biblical message.

Ladd's is a not very subtle epistemology w h i c h ;is awkward to try to

conceptualize. It is not as theologically based as Albertz's and does

not reflect even a fraction of Schlatter's grasp of pertinent philosophi

cal or even hermeneutical issues. It is something of a deductive ap

proach to knowing, with the Cross and the Bible serving as dual pillars

of knowledge's platform, at least knowledge in the sense of a saving

relationship to God. To be sure, Ladd's Theology gives a creditable

analytic presentation of the NT data so that one cannot just write him

off as a dogmatizing interpreter. What Ladd does in the end is concede

that rational man as such can and does accurately know a great deal

^^Ladd, NT and Criticism, 26.

 -414-

but that God's OT-NT revelation has enough supporting evidence to be

credible despite its incredibility judged by some rational criteria.

It is reasonable for reason to adjust its sometimes myopic vision in

order to take in the sometimes larger truth of historical-theological

reality as God through the Bible makes it accessible.

For our purposes we should point out that Ladd's approach, ambiguous

or unwieldy though it be, clearly sets him apart from Bultmann. Ladd

is able to make the starting point for his NT theology the texts them

selves , interpreted as he admits by moderns whose understanding is not

infallible. Central here however is that at the methodological level

Ladd demands openness to the biblical phenomena (and interpretations

of them) as the texts present them, even when they seem in isolation

to defy the canons of reason as some define them. For Ladd, such defi

ance might well be expected if God has truly been personally and sover

eignly at work, as the biblical witnesses insist (and as Ladd is con

strained to believe) he has. All this means that Ladd may not, at least

at some points, run so great a risk as Bultmann of misconstruing the

NT texts, relative i.e. to their own intentions, as he does not come

to them with such a rigid a priori understanding of understanding and

of what, therefore, the texts's statements must in any case be taken

to signify. And he seems to be open enough to reason as normally de

fined that he is guarded, usually anyway, from grossly distorted theo

logical interpretations of the NT's historical-theological word-deed

complex.

4.3 Ladd's view of history

We have already indicated that Ladd accepts the basic validity of

critical historiography (-ies). 'Critical methods must be used because

of the obvious fact that the Bible is not a magical book, but a product
 -415-

of history written in the words of m e n . Y e t criticism can and does

at times exceed advisable limits. E.g. 'many critical scholars have

been so enamored of the discovery that the Bible is in fact the words of

men written within the historical process that they have often neglected
362
altogether the significance of the Bible as the Word of God.1 Ladd's

view of history may be seen as a measure designed to offset criticism's

historiographical excesses and thereby to hear the biblical message in

fuller dimension.

4.31 The Bible as Hg.

Ladd's Theology is decisively influenced by his conclusion that 'the

Bible is first of all a book of history.' por Ladd the Bible is the

word of God but this word is spoken 'in the contingencies and relativi

ties of history' and comprises from one viewpoint 'the words of men

written within specific historical situations, and therefore subject

to the theories and hypotheses of historical and critical investi-

,364
gation.'

Nevertheless, 'while the historical method possesses general valid

ity, there is one stream of history which transcends the competence of

365
this method.' This is not to say that criticism has nothing at all

to say about what has transpired within this 'stream.' But Ladd notes

that the historian has to admit, in the light of two centuries of criti

cism, that the NT documents serve up a 'riddle' in that Jesus finally

'bears a transcendent significance which "history" cannot account

for.'333 This opens up the question of whether indeed 'a personal,

living God who has acted in history' might be a necessary factor in

361Ibid. 22. 362Ibid. 21. 363Ibid. 24.

364Ibid. 218. 365Ibid. 186; cf. Theology, 27ff.

366NT and Criticism, 158; cf. Theology, 170.

 -416-

explicating accurately the NT word-event complex. For God's acts and

words, if they are truly of God in some direct sense, might well tran

scend '"historical," natural human explanation.' This means that in

study of the NT a too-naturalistic method could have 'limitations

imposed upon it by its own presuppositions about the nature of history

which render it incompetent to make anything but negative conclusions

about the great events recorded in the B i b l e . L a d d ' s wish is to

utilitize a broader definition of history, one in which God is free tru

ly to do something which actually affects the course of human lives.

The NT testifies that this has indeed taken place, and Ladd does NT

theology on the hypothesis that the NT just might be right.

This then is how Hg. functions for Ladd. It is primarily an ap

proach to historical data which tries to leave room for God's acting

and speaking. It has documentary warrant in that it can adduce biblical

witnesses in its favor. It has critical warrant of sorts because cri

ticism which expunges the supernatural from descriptions of the biblical

history in the end is presented with its own inability to give a satis

factory 'natural' explanation for all the data.Obviously Ladd does

not claim to be able to account fully for all the data, either, but his

point is that the NT is more comprehensible, both historically and theo

logically, if the possibility is left open that God has truly acted and

spoken as related, than if all which the NT relates is systematically

reduced to natural causation or mere psychological occurrence. Ladd's

method is also critical, in his view, in that '"critical" means that

I acknowledge my presuppositions and check them against historical

368
evidences.' A notable feature of Ladd's Theology is that he at least

tries to consider the reconstructions of the NT which are put forth

ocr'y qco
NT and Criticism, 186. Ladd, Irrt 25 (1971) 57.
 -417-
369
from a non-hgl. point of view.

Ladd concedes that 'there is no explicit "philosophy of history"

370
in the New Testament.1 His concept of Hg. does not really function

like a philosophy of history. It functions rather as an adjustment of

classic historical-critical method in order to yield, at times at least,

a satisfactory account for persistent evidence which this method has

not been able to do sufficient justice to, whatever its many unquestion

able achievements. That much NT material has often lent itself so well

to naturalistic explanation by criticism does not mean that criticism

is to be slavishly followed when it has gone on essentially to an ex-

plaining-away of the NT's theological dimension. Such explaining-away

may satisfy rationalistic historiography, but it leaves stubbornly unex

plained facts which, Ladd thinks, justify a historiography based on

somewhat different premises.

4.32 Hg. and present meaning

From a Bultmannian standpoint, one must ask what Ladd has achieved.

What good is it that God acted and spoke as Ladd insists? That was cen

turies ago; a responsible approach to the NT must deal with the NT's

import now.

Ladd's answer is that what Hg. involves is not just information,

371
even right information, about God. Whatever God has done, it re

quires a personal human response, not mepely intellectual recognition.

And such human response is indeed possible today. True, the Bible's

revelatory words and events are relics of the past but they are not
369
At least he reflects interaction with contemporary exegetical
debate. One could fault Ladd, however, for not taking very seriously
the history of NT theology itself, i.e. for not reflecting a deep famil
iarity with the specific technical problems which a NT theology poses,
seen in the light of how NT theologies in the past have tried to deal
with them. These are most likely problems which no amount of exegetical
mastery in itself is equipped to tackle.
370 371
Ladd, Int 25 (1971) 61. Cf. Ladd, Theology, 82.
 -418-

just that. For Ladd the Holy Spirit is able to 'make the events of the

past revelatory and redeeming history contemporary with every age, to

make the prophetic words written long ago living words to the modern
372
reader.' God did indeed reveal himself in past events and words,
373
but both 'may become contemporary living words and events today.'

Ladd points here to NT passages which look back to Jesus' death or

resurrection and speak of them as having very real existential meaning

for the believer decades after the historical events. Ladd's point is

that Hg. is not merely an affirmation of the nature of NT history; it

has implications still today, for the NT model of relating to past acts

and words of God remains a valid model of relating to thosesame words

and acts in the present. If what was done or said by means of God's

agency in NT times was instrumental in bringing about reconciliation

between God and man in the decades following the death of Jesus, why

should it not be able to do so now?

Thus, to a large degree, Ladd makes it clear that his approach to

history does not exclude the dimension of history's relevance to the

present. The past is not merely left behind for objective scrutiny but
374
functions as a paradigm, if a normative one, for how and on what

basis God and persons may be reconciled and enjoy fellowship today.

4.33 Summary

We need hardly rehearse Ladd's differences with Bultmann in detail

as regards view of history, nor again dwell on their similarities (e.g.

their stress on the existential or personal significance of the NT) .

We need merely point out that Ladd to a greater degree than Albertz lets

modern historiographical thought furnish the parameters ofhis work.

Only when these parameters threaten to cordon off the NT data and
372 373 374
NT and Criticism, 32. Ibid. Ladd, Theology, 32.
 -419-

message in its historical-theological reality from meaningful consider

ation does Ladd object. Thus even though the roots of biblical theology
375
lie in rationalism, Ladd does not like Albertz call for a drastic

revamping of the discipline. He prefers to remain within the discipline

as it stands, albeit with qualifications.

Hg. for Ladd seems to have a more narrowly theological application

than it did for Albertz, for whom the concept appears to imply something

more of an all-encompassing world-view, in addition to a hermeneutic.

Could this reflect Albertz's Reformed perspective over against Ladd's

more limited American fundamentalist heritage? One thinks here too of

Ladd's less comprehensive, more restricted epistemology. In any event

Ladd's work serves notice that hgl. approaches in NT theology are by

no means uniform in outlook, although they do together represent a de

finite departure from, even a solid front against, Bultmann. This will

become still clearer as we turn now to the work of a third proponent

of a hgl. point of view.

5. Goppelt^7^ and NT theology

5.1 Goppelt's conception of NT theology

The German ed. of L. Goppelt's (1911-1973) Theologie begins with

377
a lengthy 'Geschichte und Problemfeld der Disziplin.' Clearly Gop-

pelt feels that his analysis of the history of the discipline comprises
375
NT and Criticism, 42.

376For biographical information, as well as an assessment of Gop

pelt's contribution to NT studies, see E.Lohse, 'Das Neue Testament als
apostolische Urkunde,' KD 21 (1975) 85-98.
377
Goppelt, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 3 1981, 19-57. This ed.
is cited below. See here also, as illustrative of Goppelt's method,
the 'Einleitung' to his Christentum und Judentum im ersten und zweiten
Jahrhundert, 1954, 1-15; also Goppelt, 'Authorit&t der Schrift,' Wort,
9-17. More helpful discussions of Goppelt's Theologie include reviews
by T.Holtz, TLZ 101 (1976) 424-430 and TLZ 105 (1980) 599-602; C.Maurer,
TZ 32 (1976) 107f. and TZ 33 (1977) 47f. ; D.Guthrie, JETS 26 (1983)
238ff. (on vol. 1). See also W.G.KUmmel, 'Ein Jahrzehnt Jesusforschung
(1965-1975),' TRu 41 (1976) 313ff. (on vol. 1).
 -420-

the point of departure for his own treatment of the NT. Accordingly

we will first summarize Goppelt's important remarks on this topic

as the initial step in characterizing his approach to NT theology.

We will then move on briefly to sketch a response to the question, what

is NT theology?, on the basis of pertinent remarks Goppelt makes. We

will finally summarize by drawing lines of comparison between Goppelt

on the one hand and Bultmann, Albertz, and Ladd (as well as Hofmann and

Schlatter) on the other.

5.11 Goppelt's analysis of the history of NT theology

5.111 Beginnings 3^8

Goppelt notes that the rise and development of NT theology is today

'zu dem erregendsten Stllck der Theologiegeschichte geworden.' NT theo

logy reflects 'die unmittelbarste Begegnung des Christentums mit dem

379
Geist der Neuzelt.' As a historical discipline it was obviously not

part of the 'frUhkatholische Kirche,' but it is becoming an important

380
part of modern Catholic research. The Reformation, however, marks

a most important step toward the birth of NT theology, because Reformers

like Luther appealed to the Bible over against church teaching. This

opened the way for independent (of the church) inquiry of scripture.38^

NT theology as such finally arises after the advent of 'geschichtliches

Denken.'382 Such thought 'bedeutet mehr als historisch-philologische

Arbeit,' which e.g. Origen and Jerome hpd already diligently undertaken.

The Enlightenment 'distanzierte die Gegenwart von der Vergangenheit,

383
urn sie von der Macht der Tradition zu befreien. ' Now historical-

critical work in the modern sense begins.384 The Bible is read, like
378 379 3RD
Theologie, 20-23. Ibid. 20. Ibid. 20-22.

381Ibid. 22. 382Ibid. 24; cf. 516. 383Ibid. 24.

384Cf. Goppelt, Christentum, 4.

 -421-

any other ancient document, as speaking only to another day. Its mean

ing for today, if any, is only that which commends itself to 'autonome

Vernunft.' Interpretation accordingly proceeds 'von der jeweiligen

Philosophie der Zeit aus, insbesondere von ihrem Geschichtsverst&nd-

385
nis.' This insight echoes observations found e sp. in Schlatter and

Albertz. Goppelt names Semler, F. C. Baur, and Troeltsch as the key

figures in NT theology's beginning phase.

It is characteristic of Goppelt that he does not focus on Gabler

but goes to the heart of the issue at hand. While Gabler is unques

tionably significant, it is the outlook (with its attendant assumptions)

epitomized in Semler-Baur-Troeltsch which has turned out to be no less

decisive for NT theology.

It is also characteristic that Goppelt finds and stresses the posi

tive aspects, or at least does not stress the negative, of this out-
386
look. First, the pure historical approach is the most important fac

tor to influence biblical interpretation since the Reformation itself.

It was hoped that, by seeing scripture at a proper historical distance,

new meaning would emerge from it for the present. Second, continues

Goppelt's analysis, this new approach was unavoidable. The Bible did

not and could not avoid the implications of scientific thought obtain

ing in other areas of inquiry. By means of historical-critical research

'der Geist der Neuzeit' came most directly and inevitably into contact

with the biblical 'Botschaft.' Third, to a large e-xtent such inquiry

is demanded by scripture itself, which 'will nicht allgemein Anrede von

Gott her vermitteln, ' but which rather 'tut dies je in bestimmter
307
geschichtlicher Situation.'

The rise hov/ever of '"rein historische" Schriftforschung, ' which

385Theologie, 24. 386Ibid. 24f. 387Ibid. 25.

 -422-

Goppelt as we have just seen to a great extent endorses, contains within

it a serious problematic.

5.112 Development and outcome of the pure historical approach388

Here Goppelt speaks not merely of '"historisch-kritische Schrift-

forschung"; denn historisch-kritisch ist heute jede wissenschaftliche

389
Arbeit an der Schrift.' He wishes rather to follow the line of ques

tioning, 'im wesentlichen in der deutschsprachigen Theologie durchge-

390
fdhrt,' which Troeltsch so clearly epitomizes. This predominant line

of analysis is fraught with difficulties and limitations which e.g.

KUmmel in his history of NT research does not own up to.

First, the pure historical approach ran up against the 'Aporie' of

392
the historical Jesus. If Reimarus inaugurated pure historical ques

tioning about Jesus, Wrede (cf. Schweitzer's Von Reimarus zu Wrede) in

a sense brought it to a close . He showed ( c f Messlasgsheimnis) that

Jesus' earthly dealings do not admit of reduction to and presentation

by means of a scientifically reliable biography.

So versagen sich hier die Quellen der 'rein historischen Fragestel-

lung'. Sie wollen grundsStzlich anderes sagen, als das, wonach sie
gefragt werden. Die Quellen geben in der Tat an rein historischen
Taten nur Fragmente an die Hand: einzelne Worte und Heilungen, wenig
Erfolge, am Ende die Hinrichtung; ihr Sinn und Zusammenhang ist his-
torisch nicht erkldrbar.

Second, the pure historical approach, despite many contributions-,

could not on its own premises arrive at a consistent historical picture

of the rise and growth of the early church. Typically, reconstructions

393
only succeeded with the overt aid 'philosophischer Hypothesen.' 'The

picture of primitive Christianity is just as impossible to ascertain

388Ibid. 25-31.
389
Ibid. 25. Thielicke makes a similar point in Evangelical
Faith, 36.
390 391 392
Theologie, 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid. 26f.; cf. 58ff.
 -423-
394
"purely historically" as is the picture of Jesus.'

Third, as various schools tried to answer the most vital question:

'Was ist der die Gegenwart angehende inhaltliche Skopus des gesamten
395
historisch ermittelten Urchristentums?1, it became clear over the de

cades that.this question was being answered simply by reading contem

porary convictions and values into the words of certain portions of the

NT reports. Rationalism, Baur, Ritschl, Harnack, Wrede, Troeltsch,

Bousset this distinguished list of authorities and study of the results

of their inquiries suggest that '"rein historisch" bedeutet gerade nicht

objektive Wissenschaftlichkeit, sondern, wie ERNST TROELTSCH selbst er-

kl&rte, "eine ganze Weltanschauung als Denkvoraussetzung".' Goppelt

raises the pertinent question:

War durch das historisch-kritische Prinzip die Schriftforschung

letztlich nur dazu von der kirklichen Tradition bzw., wie oft gesagt
wird, von der Metaphysik befreit worden, urn sie desto mehr von der
jeweiligen Zeitphilosophie abhdngig zu machen? Gibt es einen Ausweg
aus diesem Dilemma? Teileh wir nicht unausweichlich die Denkvor-
aussetzungen unserer Z e i t ? 3 9 6

Having sketched with graphic clarity the problematic of the pure

historical line of analysis, Goppelt turns to two who most notably

attempted to transcend it constructively.

397
5.113 Theological adaptation of pure historical approach

It was Barth, in a sense, who broke the impasse. True, he only ad

vocated, says Goppelt, something which Schlatter had already long been

doing, but Barth was the right young spokesman with the right message

at an unusually propitious time. Barth rediscovered the theological

dimension of NT interpretation in a way which captured the theological

imagination of many of his generation. From Goppelt's standpoint how

ever Barth's stress on scripture's contemporaneity too facilely erased

394
Goppelt, Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times, 1980, 3; cf.
Christentum, 9ff.
395 7Q7
Theologie, 27. Ibid. 31. Ibid. 31-41.
 -424-

the very real historical distance between biblical times and the
398
present.

Bultmann tried to do justice to both the theological and the histor

ical sides of interpretation. And it was Bultmann rather than Barth

399
who in the end set the tone for NT theology itself, esp. after WW II.

Bultmann follows Barth in denying that the NT is simply 'Ausdruck

menschlicher Religion.1 He holds moreover that the content of the

NT is

nicht wie ftlr Baur eine religibse Idee, erst recht nicht wie fUr
den liberalen Positivismus die religidse PersOnlichkeit, die Reli
gion entztlndet, oder wie ftlr die Religionsgeschichtliche Schule
die Urreligion des Menschen, sondern das Kerygma. Das will sagen,
das NT vermittelt Anrede von Gott her, die Glaubensentscheidung ver-
langt.401
402
Goppelt discusses the background of Bultmann's approach at some length
403
and then asks, how is his method to be assessed?

Certainly Bultmann has grasped the hermeneutical issues involved

in NT interpretation quite sharply. True, too, that it is necessary

'historische Analjs e und theologisches Verstehen miteinander zu verbin-

den. ' But precisely at this point Goppelt wants to improve on even

Bultmann's sharp focus. Goppelt in bringing the historical and theo

logical together speaks of three 'einander widerstreitende Komponenten'

which must be pulled into a workable, mutually complementary (as opposed

to antithetical) relationship: '1. Neuzeitliche Denkvoraussetzungen,

2. Prinzipien historischer Analyse und 3. der eigene Anspruch der Ur-

kunde.' Goppelt concludes that Bultmann 'macht. . . die beiden ersten

Faktoren zu sehr zu statischen Voraussetzungen ftlr den dritten. Sie

398 399 400
Ibid. 3 2 f . Ibid. 33. Ibid. 34.
401 402
Ibid. 34f. Cf. also Goppelt, Christenturn, 9ff.

^ ^ T h e o l o g i e , 35.
 -425-

werden gleichsam als Filter vorgeschaltet.' With this electronic meta

phor Goppelt implies that Bultmann connects these three steps in sequen

tial fashion; by the time 3. is reached, 1. and 2. have already deci

sively determined the text's message.

Goppelt maintains in contrast that factors 1. and 2. must be brought

into an open-ended, critical dialogue with the third, 'nSmlich mit dem

Offenbarungsanspruch der Urkunde.1 For if God himself is not in some

definite sense the active integrating feature of the NT message, 'der

Inhalt des Kerygmas droht ein "inhaltsleeres Paradox" zu werden und der

Ruf zur Glaubensentscheidung Gesetz.'4^^3

Goppelt traces 'die Aufspaltung' of the Bultmann school (K&semann,

Fuchs, Ebeling, Braun, Kttster, J. M. Robinson).^4 He notes that Stuhl-

macher moves away from Bultmann and K&semann in the direction of a hgl.
405
position. It is here that Goppelt, too, takes his stand. But he

first mentions 'die historisch-positive Richtung.'

406
5.114 Historical-positive line of inquiry

Goppelt mentions this approach primarily to show that it, not the

hgl. line of questioning, is the logical antithesis to the 'pure his

torical' one. This will in turn set the stage for presentation of Gop

pelt's own hgl. perspective.

While the pure historical approach historically has attacked the

historicity of the NT tradition by scientific means, the historical-

positive method has sought by similar means to defend it.

Sie versuchte, die Ueberlieferungen 'positiv' zu sehen ('in dubio

pro tradito') und durch historische Apologetik die Grundlagen einer
vor allem an dem biblischen Bild Jesu orientierten, vielfach
'pietistischen' Theologie zu sichern.'4^

This school of thought goes back to Neander (1789-1850) and Tholuck

403a. 404 405.
'Ibid Ibid. 36-41. Ibid. 41
406 407
Ibid. 41-45. Ibid. 41.
 -426-

(1799-1877) and is continued in updated form by B. Weiss and P.

Feine.4^8 Stauffer's NT theology, despite its surface affinity to a

hgl. outlook, partakes of this method to give a unified picture of the

409
NT and its teaching seen against its ostensible historical background.

Jeremias too follows this trend in developing 'eine intensive histor-

410
ische Antikritik1 against Bultmann. KUmmel's NT theology is to be

seen in a similar light; he attempts 'auf Grund einer gemUssigt kri-

tischen Exegese das Berichtete nachzuzeichnen, und verzichtet weitgehend

auf Interpretation. '

Goppelt's distance from this approach is seen most clearly in his

412
assessment of Jeremias. The latter wishes, out of deference to corn-
413
mitment to the 'Fleischwerdung des Wortes,' to reconstruct Jesus'

words or at least message as the historically-established ground of

faith. Goppelt protests:

. . . aber er sieht zu wenig, dass Fleischwerdung des Wortes nicht

nur PrUsenz Gottes in der Geschichte, sondern auch Verborgenheit
bedeutet: Wer Jesus eigentlich ist, kann nicht konstatierend an histor
ischen PhUnomenen festgestellt werden; es kann nur durch Verstehen
dessen erfasst werden, was er c^ve^Nachfolge bzw. durch Glauben ver-
mittelt .43-4

It should be stressed that Goppelt is by no means out of sympathy with

409
Ibid. 43. Herein lies the answer to Marshall's query as to why
Goppelt does not assign Stauffer to the hgl. school of thought; see
TEd 9 (Spr. 1979) 63n.l3.
410
Goppelt, Theologie, 43.
411
Ibid. 44. See also Goppelt's comments on KUmmel's NT theology
in 'Der Ertrag einer Epoche,' LM 11 (1972) 97f. Holtz questions wheth
er KUmmel really belongs in this category: TLZ 101 (1976) 424.
412
On Jeremias see also Goppelt, LM 11 (1972) 96f. KUmmel, TRu 41
(1976) 315 speaks of 'die Polemik gegen J. Jeremias' which in Goppelt's
Theologie im Vordergrund steht.'
413
Cf. Hasel, NT Theology, 106: 'The research of Jeremias seeks to
serve historical truth and to protect the Word from docetic evaporation.'
414
Goppelt, Theologie, 44.
 -427-

Jeremias' overall concern; Goppelt himself in stark contrast to Bultmann

devotes a whole volume of his NT theology to Jesus but it is 'Jesu Wir-

415
ken in seiner theologischen Bedeutung' which Goppelt sets forth. Just

what this signifies takes shape as we come now to Goppelt's own

position.
416
5.115 The hgl. perspective

Like a discriminating gleaner Goppelt picks through past harvest-

fields of research, isolating a developing germ of thought which he

identifies as the kernal of his own work.

He notes that Hofmann tried, with considerable success,

die Synthese zwischen neuzeitlichem Denken, historischem Forschen

und theologischem Verstehen gleichsam in umgekehrter Reihenfolge
zu verwirklichen wie Bultmann. Er bezieht in das hermeneutische
Prinzip der Reformation das historische Denken der Neuzeit
ein. . . .417

T. Zahn, with less theological but massive historical-philological ex

pertise, stands in the same tradition, although his work reflects a more
418
ossified 'historisierender Konservatismus.'

Schlatter, G. Kittel, and J. Schniewind are in the same heritage.

Schlatter seeks to grasp the biblical reports 'als Zeugnisse einer die

Wirklichkeit bewMltigenden Selbstbekundung Gottes,' in this respect pur

suing a Hofmannian theme. Also like Hofmann, Schlatter refuses to re

gard the NT as a 'Minimaldogmatik,' maintaining a clear separation be

tween dogmatics (i.e. contemporary systematic theology) and biblical

419
theology, thus avoiding biblicistic pietism. Accordingly Schlatter's
415
The partially uncompleted vol. 2 (vol. 1 deals with Jesus) bears
the title 'Vielfalt und Einheit des apostolischen Christuszeugnisses.'
The similarity to the organization of Schlatter's two vols. (Die Ge-
schichte des Christus Die Theologie der Apostel) is hardly accidental.
416 ' 417
Goppelt, Theologie, 45-51. Ibid. 45.
418
Ibid. 46. Questioning Goppelt's assessment of Zahn's perspective
is however Holtz, TLZ 101 (1976) 424.
419
Goppelt, Theologie, 47.
 -428-

NT theology does not lay out 'Lehrbegriffe' but develops 'situations-

420
bezogene kerygmatisch-theologische EntwUrfe.' Kittel and Schniewind

steer a similar course. Their basic argument (cf. Hoskyns and Davey,

Riddle of the N T ) is that neither a pure historically-based (cf. Bult

mann) nor an anti-pure historical (historical-positive) reading of the

NT can finally do it justice. The NT is understood only by means of

a certain existential involvement with/commitment to the reality of the

message by the hearer; there is a dimension of understanding which tran

scends and really first fructifies both critical and anti-critical re-
421
search. It is this dimension which Goppelt hopes the hgl. perspec

tive can maintain sensitivity to and be informed by. Lohse sums up

GoppeIt's outlook:

Zwar bestreitet er der hlteren historisch-kritischen Forschung ihr

methodisches Recht nicht, aber er stellt die Frage, ob ihre Be-
trachtungsweise imstande sei, die urchristliche Botschaft wirklich
zu b e g r e i f e n . ^ 2

Goppelt notes the contribution of both Cullmann and von Rad to the

hgl. perspective. While there is a surface congruity between Goppelt

and Cullmann, Goppelt thinks Cullmann's outlook smacks of Irenaeus'

423
'Heilsgeschichte als Plan einer Universalgeschichte.' Goppelt wants

to understand Hg. in terms of 'die Aufeinanderbezogenheit von Verheis-

424
sung und ErfUllung.' This points to Goppelt's commitment to a typo

logical understanding of the OT-NT relationship and to his agreement

with von Rad. The latter's point of departure is however at least ini

tially in some measure taken over from Goppelt's own typological

420 421
Ibid. 47f. Ibid. 48.
422
Lohse, KD 21 (1975) 85.
423
Goppelt, Theologie, 49; cf. 86; see also Goppelt, rev. of Cull
mann, Heil als Geschichte, TZ 22 (1966) 51-56.
424
Goppelt, Theologie, 49.
 -429-
425
conception.

Goppelt's assessment of the history of the hgl. line of questioning

leads to programmatic statements which are basic to his NT theology.

We will attempt now to summarize these in conjunction with related

statements which Goppelt makes elsewhere.

5.12 What is NT theology?

5.121 'Historically' grounded

It should first be clearly understood that a NT theology in Gop

pelt's view must grow out of a rigorous and comprehensive understanding

of NT history. Thus KUmmel can write, with only a few qualifications,

that volume one of Goppelt's Theologie 'zur Zeit die beste und zuver-

lMssigste wissenschaftliche Darstellung der VerkUndigung und Wirksam-

426 427
keit Jesu ist.' Two of Goppelt's critically acclaimed monographs

on NT (or related) history show that he does indeed adopt a historically

responsible approach toward all available ancient data, biblical or

extra-biblical.428

At the same time it is worthwhile to note the contrast between Gop

pelt's approach to history and that of many of his colleagues. His

torical criticism as often practiced implies a distinct world-view, to

which the NT data must be made to conform. We have seen this tendency

in BWB. Goppelt however states: 'Die heilsgeschichtliche Forschung

will bei der Uebernahme moderner Forschungsmethoden deren geistesge-

425
Ibid. 49f .; cf. Typos, 2 1969, V.

426KUmmel, TRu 41 (1976) 315.

427
I.e. Christentum and Apostolic Times.
428
Offering caveats on Goppelt's historical method in Apostolic
Times however is KUmmel, 'Das Urchristentum,' TRu 48 (1983) 104-106.
Criticizing Goppelt's handling of Jesus in Theologie is A.Lindemann,
'Jesus in der Theologie des Neuen Testaments,' Jesus Christus in His-
torie und Theologie, ed. by G.Strecker, 1975, 48f.
 -430-
429
schichtliche HintergrUnde so weit als mOglich ausschalten.' I.e.

Goppelt, like Ladd here, recognizes (to say the least) the usefulness

and validity of 'moderne Forschungsmittel. ' But he insists that the

data themselves must have some say in the tools which are applied to

them if the goal is to attain to the message that the texts them

selves wish to proclaim, and not merely to subordinate the texts to pre

viously crystallized modern ideology. Goppelt's Theologie is histori

cally grounded in the sense of being built upon a defensible historical

reconstruction of the first and second century world. From the point

of view of Troeltschian/Bultmannian historical criticism however we must

term Goppelt's method 'historically' grounded, inasmuch as he refuses

to endorse the presuppositions and corollaries of the 'geistesgeschicht-

liche HintergrUnde' of modern criticism (in the Troeltschian sense) as

normative criteria for interpreting the NT. This is, at least, Gop

pelt's claim.

His intention is however certainly not merely to critique but also

to construct. His alternative is set forth as he describes the 'hermen-

eutischer Ansatz' of his Theologie.

5.122 Tri-polar hermeneutical base and result

Goppelt's Theologie emerges from a reading of the NT which incor-

431
porates three distinct entities. There is (1) 'das Prinzip der his-

torisch-kritischen Schriftforschung,' the familiar, itself triadic

procedure comprised of 'Kritik, Analogie und Korrelation.' But Goppelt

refuses to elevate this to the unrivalled arbiter of the meaning of the

429
Goppelt, Christentum, 12. Goppelt's lengthy analysis of the his
tory of NT theology and his constant playing-off-against-each-other of
rival positions in his Theologie are both means by which the 'geistes-
geschichtliche' backgrounds and bias of various schools of criticism
may be recognized and corrected.

^^Goppelt, Christentum, 12.

431
Goppelt, Theologie, 50.
 -431-

NT. For equal to this in importance for Goppelt is (2) the 'Selbstver-

stdndnis des N T , ' which Goppelt wishes to bring into a critical dia

logue with (1). Emerging from this dialogue is what we may call (3)

NT theology. (3) is not categorically distinct from (2) in fact Gop

pelt's hope is that (3) will represent an accurate, relevant articula

tion of (2) which will with greater or lesser accuracy set forth (2)

in a context which does justice to both (2) itself and to (1). Goppelt

explains:

Wir dllrfen das Verst&ndnis des NT ebensowenig statischen Denkvor-

aussetzungen der Moderne unterwerfen wie umgekehrt den Menschen und
die Gesellschaft von heute lediglich mit dem 'Buchstaben' ntl. Aus-
sagen konfrontieren. Beide Seiten, das NT und die Menschen von
heute, mtlssen vielmehr miteinander in einen kritischen Dialog ge-
432
bracht werden.

Out of this dialogue, and only when reciprocal openness between the NT

and modern thought obtains, 'kann es zu einem Verstehen der ntl. Aus-

sagen kommen, so dass sie als letzter Anspruch und letzte Zusage' this,

Goppelt feels, is how the NT wants to be understood 'vernehmbar

,433
werden.'

We detect in Goppelt what we may term a tri-polar hermeneutical

base. Goppelt makes it clear that this base cannot somehow be set out
434
prescriptively in all its specifics prior to handling the NT itself;

this would be to fall into the BWB error. These are rather the gener

ally necessary parameters of open inquiry without which NT theology

loses either its critical character or its actual, true-to-the-text

contemporary relevance. And in Goppelt's view NT theology which loses

sight of either of these has lost sight of its true raison d'etre, for

it is presenting the NT in a context which is foreign to its own con

tent, intent, or both.

The dialogue just noted eventually reaches, in the case of a

432 433 434
Ibid. 17f. Ibid. 18. Ibid. 50.
 -432-

particular NT theologian, a tentative conclusion which must suffice

given the present state of research and thought. This is when talk of

a NT theology (3^ above) becomes possible.

Als Ergebnis des intendierten kritischen Dialogs suchen wir ein his-
torisch-kritisch reflektiertes und zugleich sachlich verstehbares
Bild der Ntl. Theologie in ihrer Variationsbreite zu gewinnen,
das sich selbst legitimieren k a n n . 435

Or again:

Aus den einzelnen Schriften oder Schriftgruppen sachlich geordnete

zusammenhdngende Bilder des Wirkens Jesu oder der Verkllndigung
und Lehre in der ersten Kirche _zu gewinnen, ist das Ziel einer
'Theologie des Neuen Testaments. ,436

We thus see the nature and result of Goppelt's tri-polar approach.

Historical-critical methods and their underlying rationale, theological

apprehension of the text's message consonant with the text's own claims,

and a resulting overall portrait of the NT are three interlocking com

ponents. Each is informed by and in some ways limited by the other two.

A NT theology is a presentation of the NT data in this light.

We conclude this necessarily abbreviated handling of Goppelt's con

ception of NT theology by summarizing it in relation to other figures

already dealt with in this chapter.

5.13 Summary

If we compare Goppelt and Bultmann, we see that their approaches

to NT theology differ rather markedly. This would be esp. evident if

we could compare their actual, respective exegetical procedure and re

sults at specific juncture. Space precludes this. Nevertheless, we

can see at the methodological level that Goppelt wishes to remain at

all points in touch with NT history; we suggested above that this is

of secondary concern for Bultmann. Goppelt wishes to avoid inadequate

handling of the data (the data being seen also in their NT context, not
435 . 436
Ibid. Ibid. 17,
 -433-

merely in the light of predetermined modern thought and values) and

therefore carries on his discussion in overt openness both to the text

and to appraisals of the same data by other schools. By comparison

Bultmann tends to elevate (a given) modern understanding of the NT mes

sage over that message (and over non-Bultmannian understandings of it)

with the help of a methodologically exclusive procedure. Goppelt's goal

is to produce a plausible overall picture of the NT which will'do justice

to both the historical-critically and theologically relevant aspects

of the texts. Bultmann finds rather disunity to be integral to the NT

documents as a whole; his overemphasis on the Troeltschian historical-

critical runs the risk of rendering his theological interpretation

problematic, or of making it appear unfounded, in the light of the mes

sage the texts themselves seek to convey. Both Goppelt and Bultmann

take pains to orient themselves with reference to the history of NT

theology as they see it, but they see the discipline through signifi

cantly different eyes.

Goppelt's conception of NT theology compares favorably with that

437
of Albertz in some general respects. Both call their approach hgl.;

both seek concrete historical grounding; both are open to the transcen

dent and to the possibility that God can effect 'historically' inexpli-
438
cable works or occurrences; both lay no claim to methodological ex-
439
clusivity or to scientific finality, though they do feel that their
437
Specifically, as Albertz himself notes, Goppelt (in Christentum)
cites Albertz's Botschaft, vol. 1, but does not really interact with
it (see Botschaft, II/2, 12). I find no reference to Albertz in
Goppelt's Theologie.
438
See here e.g. Theologie, 194f., where Goppelt discusses 'Sach-
kritik' of the 'WundererzMhlungen'; cf. 277ff.; Apostolic Times, 10-20.
See also the remarks in Goppelt, Christologie und Ethik, 1968, lOOf.
439
Goppelt's comment in 'Vorwort' to Christentum is characteristic
of his approach to research and presentation of findings: 'Die Arbeit
. . . will letztlich nicht historische Ergebnisse vorfllhren, sondern
das GesprMch liber die Grundfragen der Urgeschichte der Kirche weiter-
flihren, das sachgemMss immer nur in der Freudigkeit zu weiterem Fragen
und Forschen enden kann.'
 -434-

respective NT theologies are more cogent than that of Bultmann against

which they protest. At these points Goppelt is also in basic harmony

440
with Ladd. By implication and also by his own admission, Goppelt

identifies, again like Albertz and Ladd, with the fundamental concerns
441 442
and at times even solutions of Hofmann and Schlatter.

At the same time it should be pointed out that Goppelt's relation

ship to prior advocates of hgl. perspectives is not unambiguous. His

obscure but for our purposes important review of Albertz's Botschaft

443
calls attention to this ambiguity. Goppelt, perhaps somewhat irrele

vantly, stresses that Albertz 'kommt her aus dem K. Barth nahestehenden
444
Kreis der Bekennenden Kirche.' Goppelt grants that Albertz correctly

counteracts Bultmann (and Dibelius) and that he does not lose sight of

the NT's place in the church. 'Und doch kann man Albertz nicht zustim-

men.' Goppelt charges that Albertz neglects the historical context of

445
the NT Botschaft and tries to present the NT as a 'System.' Goppelt
446
criticizes him too for not interacting openly with NT criticism, even

though, Goppelt concedes, Albertz's knowledge of it is clearly reflected

in his presentation.

If, as Goppelt concludes, Albertz's Botschaft 'sollte nicht in dem

440
The sole overt reference to Ladd in Goppelt's Theologie seems
to be a bibliographical allusion (94) to Ladd's Jesus and the Kingdom.
441
Goppelt's ties to Hofmann are seen most clearly in Typos and
again in Theologie, 45f., cf. 376n.l8.
442
Aside from remarks on Schlatter in Theologie, 47ff. , see also
thefollowing citations of Schlatter's works or views: 52, 71, 78, 83,
180n. 7, 189, 195, 198, 199n.8, 369,376n.l8, 423n.21, 454, 465, 470,
529, 531f., 545f., 602. Cf. Goppelt, Christologie, 14 with n.6.
443
Goppelt, rev. of Albertz, Botschaft, vols. 1 and 2, ELKZ 13
(1959) 222f.
444 445
Ibid. 222. Ibid. 223.

446C f . Eltester, ZNW 45 (1953-54) 276.

 -435-
447
Masse, wie es weithin geschieht, llbersehen werden,' why does Goppelt

ignore it in his own subsequent work? Does Albertz really strive to

educe a system from the NT by down-playing the historical milieu? Our

reading of Albertz indicates that Goppelt is off the mark here in his
448
critique. Also questionable or at least inconsistent is the criti

cism of Albertz for not citing pertinent critical literature it will

be recalled that Schlatter was denounced for the same reason although

his familiarity with the state of criticism and exegetical debate is

now known to have been extensive. How wide a spectrum of NT criticism

does one find e.g. Bultmann interacting with, and why does Goppelt not

take him to task for this as he does Albertz? Goppelt's break with Al

bertz and the questions it raises about the nature of Goppelt's own hgl.

perspective should by borne in mind as we proceed to consider Goppelt's

epistemology.

By turning now to his epistemology, his approach to NT theology

itself will be further clarified. His relationship to Bultmann will

become still more clear. Perhaps most significantly, his only partial

agreement with the hgl. perspective as articulated by others before him

will come more distinctly into view.

5.2 Goppelt's epistemology

In ch. 1 we spoke of Hofmann granting epistemological priority to

the NT, i.e. of his striving for a modern understanding of the NT which

aims at trying to reformulate in the contemporary context the message

of the NT in a way consistent with the NT's own self-understanding, not

with a rationalistic world-view inimical to a large portion of the NT's

447Goppelt, ELKZ 13 (1959) 223.

448
A fairer appraisal of Albertz, one which defends him at some of
the points which Goppelt attacks, is Brinkmann, Schol 33 (1958) 267-272.
 -436-

contents.449 In this chapter we have noted that Bultmann's work re

flects a commitment to the second of the following options: (1) making

the starting point and arbiter for NT theology what the texts claim and

proclaim, understood as much as possible in their historical-theological

setting, admittedly as seen by a given modern interpretative eye; and

(2) making the starting point and arbiter for NT theology modern

thought in this sense: that the NT texts are interpreted only after,

and strictly in the light of, a priori philosophical determination of

what their statements may be taken to signify.

Epistemologically, Goppelt identifies, broadly speaking, both with

Hofmann and with option (1) above. It is unnecessary to belabor this

rather elementary albeit significant point. It will be more helpful

to note this fact, then proceed to characterize Goppelt1s approach to

knowledge. We will compare him to Schlatter. This will augment the

sketch of Schlatter's epistemology in ch. 1 above, help clarify Gop

pelt' s own epistemology as seen in the heritage of Schlatter (to which

Goppelt claims to belong), and facilitate comparison between Goppelt

and Bultmann, as well as between Goppelt, Albertz, and Ladd. All of

this will in turn expedite a clearer grasp of Goppelt's hgl. perspec

tive .

It will be our contention that Goppelt emulates Schlatter's hermen

eutical method but introduces an epistemological dualism unacceptable

to Schlatter. Inasmuch as Albertz and Ladd tend to share Schlatter's

position at this point, Goppelt's epistemology marks him as something

of an anomaly within the hgl. context within which he places himself.

5.21 Integrating 'historisches Forschen' and 'theologisches Verstehen'

From our discussion of Schlatter in ch. 1 it is clear that for

449
Ch. 1, 2.234.
 -437-

Schlatter historical knowledge gained by critical means must be appre

hended in a theologically sympathetic manner. Bare facts wrenched out

of their theological context are not necessarily facts at all. History

and revelation (or theology) are not mutually exclusive. Schlatter was

an early advocate of a hermeneutic which sought to do justice not only

to the claims of modern historical thinking but also to those of the

text.

Here Goppelt is in full harmony with Schlatter. He states progra-

matically e.g. that one can 'die Erscheinung Jesu nur in der Weise er-

fassen, dass sich historisches Forschen und theologisches Verstehen

450
miteinander verbi.nden.1 Goppelt elaborates: 'Das Fragen nach Jesu

Erscheinung bleibt stets ein StUck weit von historischer Forschung ab-

hdngig, aber es ist in seinem Gesamtergebnis entscheidend von theolo-

451
gischem Verstehen bedingt.' These statements reflect what we have

already shown above, that for Goppelt NT theology cannot do its task

adequately solely by means of positivistic or historicistic methodo-

452
logy. The message of the NT comes to the fore only if the NT texts'

own claims are at least provisionally shielded from the sometimes devas-
453
tating and arbitrary inroads of 'neuzeitliches Denken.' A Troeltsch-

ian or Bultmannian world-view can effectively preclude a sachgemdsses

understanding of the NT's claims.

So far, then, Goppelt and Schlatter stand on common ground.

450
Goppelt, Christologie, 16. 'Erscheinung' here denotes post-
resurrection appearances.
451
Ibid. 17.
452
Cf. also e.g. Goppelt, Theologie, 272: Re the 'Passionsgeschich-
te' it is clear, 'dass hier historische Fragen immer wieder von theo-
logischem Verstehen abhdngen. '
453
Cf. Goppelt, Christologie , 79f.
 -438-

5.22 Faith and knowledge split?

5.221 Goppelt

It appears, however, that Goppelt works with a post-Kantian concep

tion of faith and knowledge, in this sense: what is known is distinct

from what is believed; conversely, what is believed is not knowledge.

He appears in his reading of the NT systematically to separate that

which the NT writers knew and that which they believed. Let us examine

some examples.

Goppelt writes: 'Das Ziel der fpost-resurrectionj Erscheinungen

ist nach den Ostererzdhlungen wie nach dem Kerygma nicht anders als bei
454
der Selbstdarbietung in den Erdentagen nicht Wissen, sondern Glauben.'

Now few would deny that from the NT's point of view Jesus' post- as well

as pre-resurrection ministry had as a goal the creating of faith. But

was this faith separate from knowledge? Goppelt seems to indicate that

this is the case; he does not say 'nicht nur Wissen, sondern auch Glau

ben,' but 'nicht . . . sondern.' Thus in another context, but dealing

with the same matter of what Jesus conveyed to his followers after the

resurrection, Goppelt claims: 'The disciples did not receive informa-

455
tion about him, but actually encountered him personally.'

Now Goppelt states, surely correctly, that Jesus encountered his

disciples in the resurrection appearances 'als Person im Vollsinn, d.h.

456
in der Sprache des Neuen Testaments leibhaft. ' Again, this is not

a particularly controversial assertion. However Goppelt goeson some

what curiously to state that for Paul 'Leib' is 'seinem Wesen nach das

was wir Person nennen,' while at the same time'in den lukanischen und

johanneischen OstererzMhlungen sind Elemente des substanzhaften

454 455
Ibid. 94. Goppelt, Apostolic Times, 19.
456
Goppelt, Christologie, 94. Cf. Theologie, 284.
 -439-
457
griechischen Leibbegriffes eingedrungen.' Goppelt's position here

seems to go rather far toward separating the historical, material real

ity of Jesus' appearances which Luke and John are at pains to stress,

and which it could be argued Paul himself did not deny- from their theo

logical or relational import. Thus elsewhere Goppelt states: 'The

materializing of the bodily aspect which occurs later in levels of the

tradition and which makes a recognition through sense perception possi-

458
ble. . . contradicts the essence of the appearances.' Clearly we

see here a separation of what is known cognitively (in this case

nothing) from that which is believed in (in this case a 'person' whom

certain ones identified with Jesus). Faith and knowledge are split.

The distinction Goppelt introduces here is significant, for it involves

the very essence of the Easter message, and 'das Osterkerygma' in turn
459
'ist der Ansatz der Neutestamentlichen Theologie. '

This same distinction seems to be operative in Goppelt's program

matic assertion:

Jesus steht fiir Paulus nicht wie ftlr das AT die Propheten oder fUr
das Judentum die MMrtyrer und die Rabbinen als ein Zeuge Gottes in
der Geschichte, sondern als personales Heilsereignis: In seinem
Sterben und Auferstehen hat Gott eschatologisch in die Geschichte
eingegriffen. 4*50

Once again we may accept the basic soundness of Goppelt's observation

but still question whether Paul would have countenanced a 'nicht-

sondern' conceptualization of Jesus as 'Zeuge Gottes in der Geschichte'

and as 'personales Heilsereignis,' respectively. What is the substance

457
Christologie, 94f.; cf. 95n.37.
458
Goppelt, Apostolic Times, 19n.21.
459
Goppelt, Theologie, 56. Cf. Christologie, 100: 'Vielleicht muss
heute extrem formuliert gesagt werden: Gott kommt abschliessend von 0s-
tern her auf uns zu oder er entschwindet uns mit Ostern.'

Goppelt, Theologie, 435.

 -440-

of Paul's personal experience of Jesus, or of God through Jesus? Is

Paul's experience ultimately bereft of any necessary factual content?

Goppelt says that the content of Pauline faith is 'Christus bzw. Gott
461
selbst,' that the gospel is never portrayed in terms of its content
462
but rather its personal subject. Verses like Rom 10:9 or 1 Thess

4:14 must not deter one from realizing that

die Heilsereignisse, die mehrfach bei einer Umschreibung des Glaubens-

inhalts mit hoti (dass) genannt werden, sind nicht als Tatsachen
gemeint, die fUr wahr zu halten wdren, sie sollen vielmehr Gott
bzw. Christus ndher bestimmen.4^

Surely this comprises something of a de-factualizing of NT faith in fa

vor of a relational emphasis. The question here is whether Goppelt's

position rightly represents the (here Pauline) texts which he wishes

accurately to explicate. Goppelt seems actually to be somewhat in line

with Bultmann's conception of faith-knowledge; the difference between

the two is arguably that Goppelt's 'faith' affirms a far larger amount

of the NT which Bultmann's more caustic criticism and more iconoclastic

'faith' dispense with.

464
Finally, Goppelt says, faith 'bringt. . . Erkenntnis mit sich.'

But it is obviously not 'knowledge' in the cognitive sense of which Gop

pelt speaks; it is the sort of 'Erkenntnis Gottes' to which 'der Geist

465
Gottes' leads. One thinks here of M. Hengel's statement: 'There

461Ibid. 456.

462Ibid. 457. When Holtz, TLZ 101 (1976) 428, states that for Gop
pelt, 'Heil vermittelt nicht das Aufnehmen seiner [Jesus'] Lehre, son
dern erst der Anschluss an seine Person,' he understates by his inclu
sion of 'erst.' D.R.de Lacey rightly observes: Goppelt 'tends at times
to present the issues in the form of misleading antitheses, when the
issue might well be both-and' (rev. of Goppelt, Theology, vols. 1 and
2, Them 9 [1984] 30) .

4^2Goppelt, Theologie, 457. 4^4Ibid. 464.

465
Ibid. 451. This is to be sure Goppelt's interpretation of Paul's
remarks in 1 Cor, but in general it seems fair to say that for Goppelt,
here as elsewhere, 'die Grundzllge' at least of Paul's views are 'auch
fUr uns verbindlich (Christologie, 186). Lohse remarks, KD 21 (1975)
 -441-

is no historical proof for the truth of faith. The certainty of faith

466
has a different quality from historical knowledge.' Is this Gop

pelt's view, too? It does in fact seem to be. This is not necessarily

criticism of Goppelt, for this is a common view today. The question

is, how does Goppelt's stance relate to the hgl. perspective as others

have articulated it? And how does it relate to the NT? Goppelt seems

consistently to be concerned with the question: Wie kann diese Tradi

tion, die historisch und kerygmatisch zugleich ist, im Glauben aufge-

nommen werden, ohne dass der Glaube zum Ftlrwahrhalten historischer An-
467
gaben wird?' Does the NT (or even Paul) as seen by others of the

hgl. persuasion really reflect an aversion to affirming facts as part

of confessing faith?

5.222 Schlatter^^

Clearly Schlatter holds that Paul's 'knowledge' was not other than

but concurrent (acting in conjunction) with his 'faith.' The two are

in fact merely different aspects of Paul's (and the Christian's) entire

consciousness of reality and therefore of God.

True, according to Schlatter Paul rejects 'ein selbstisches Bestreben,

mit dem sich der Mensch bemllht, selbst sein Denken zu Gott zu er-
469 r , 470
heben. ' He rejects a 'von unten nach oben emporstrebende j_sj Denken.'
97, that'in alien seinen Studien sucht Goppelt. . . die Orientierung
vornehmlich aus der paulinischen Theologie zu gewinnen.*

^^Hengel, The Atonement, 1981, 48.

467
Goppelt, Christologie, 96. Cf. Theologie, 183: Re the synoptic
traditions, 'Glauben bedeutet. . . nicht Zutrauen zu einem WundertSter,
sondern Zutrauen zu Gottes Selbstbekundung durch Jesus.' Do the synop
tics imply that this 'Zutrauen' through Jesus was freely available to
those who refused to acknowledge who he was in terms of a 'WundertMter'?

^ ^ T h e following discussion draws on works whose conclusions are

in turn latent in Schlatter's first monograph, Der Glaube im Neuen
Testament, 1885. Cf. the recent rpt. of this work (1982), e.g. 141f.,
216, 388ff., 493f.
469 470
Schlatter, Theologie der Apostel, 259. Ibid.
 -442-

He 'beseitigt das Verlangen nach einem Wissen, das bloss der Steigerung
471
des eigenen Lebens dienen soil.' In all this Schlatter and Goppelt

represent comparable understandings of Paul.

They would also at first glance seem to agree that, both for Paul

and for the believers he nurtured, 'ihr Anschluss an den Christus nicht

durch eine Denkleistung, sondern durch Glauben entsteht und dass alle
472
Erkenntnis, die ihnen hiezu nOtig ist, Gottes Gabe ist.1 But note

Schlatter's hint that 'Erkenntnis,' like faith, can be and is imparted

by God. So then, while the Spirit seems for Goppelt's Paul to enable

a knowledge which is relational but not cognitive, Schlatter sees know

ledge of God in Paul as being both-and:

Da der Geist seinem Wesen nach der Wissende ist, der alles in Gott
erforscht, wird er auch in uns i.e. Paul and others who follow Je
sus J als der Erzeuger des Wissens wirksam, so dass dadurch, dass
uns der Geist gegeben wird, ein Wissen in uns entstehen kann, das
nun wirklich mit Gottes Gedanken zusammenstimmt bis hinaus zum
473
letzten, eschatologischen Ziel.

Clearly Schlatter is thinking along what could be called orthodox Chris

tian lines here, and for some this might in itself indicate that he is

overstepping the rightful province of a NT critic. Yet the fact remains

that knowledge (Wissen) of or about God and faith in (relationship with)

God are not perceived as standing in the sort of antithetical relation

ship in which Goppelt appears to cast them, at least at times.

Elsewhere Schlatter states that two sentences describe the relation

ship which obtains between faith and knowing ('Erkennen'). These are:

'Wir haben [(1)J zu erkennen, urn zu glauben,' and (2) 'zu glauben, urn
474 475
zu erkennen.' Goppelt, in line with Anselm and Schleiermacher,

would seem to have no quarrel with the second. But with his consistent

deemphasis of the content of faith, of the factual data which early

471 472 473
Ibid. 260. Ibid. 259. Ibid. 258.
474 475
Schlatter, Dogma, 112. Ibid. 569n.77.
 -443-

church affirmation of Jesus Christ and God (in Schlatter's view) com

prised, Goppelt would seem to bracket or even to reject (1) above. At

least he seems to sever necessary connecting lines between them. Per

haps this explains why e.g. Guthrie observes that 'it is not precisely

clear what historical significance Goppelt attaches to the Easter

476
event.' Similarly, de Lacey notes that 'sometimes Goppelt is not
477
clear as to what he considers to be authentic or w hy.' Maurer com

ments that for Goppelt the empty tomb itself is 'nur ein vieldeutiges
478
Zeichen.' KUmmel criticizes Goppelt for trying to use the NT birth
479
narratives without taking a stand on whether they are factual or not.

Now it is true that also for Schlatter (as for Goppelt) 'wir als

Glaubende unseren Anteil an Gott nicht auf die ErtrMge unserer Erkennt

nis grUnden, ' and thus in a sense 'macht uns der Glaube gegentlber dem

Zustand unserer Erkenntnis frei.'488 Not only Hengel and Goppelt but
481
also Ladd can say the same thing. In the same vein Schlatter states:
482
'Nie ersetzt das Wissen den Glauben.' 'Wer sich nur mit dem Intel-

lekt Gott naht, bleibt selbst von ihm f e r n . S c h l a t t e r by no means

rationalizes faith.

At the same time, Christianity in Schlatter's view was from earliest

484
times based on 'gemeinsame Gewissheiten.' The NT knows of a God who

'sich. . . zum Inhalt unseres Wissens macht,' so that we 'kennen.

485
den, der uns gemacht hat und in dessen Gewalt wir stehen.' Faith seems
A *"7^ A r7r7
Guthrie, JETS 26 (1983) 240. De Lacey, Them 9 (1984) 30.

478Maurer, TZ 32 (1976) 108; cf. Holtz, TLZ 101 (1976) 429.

478KUmmel, TRu 41 (1976) 315. 488Schlatter, Dogma, 569n.78;

481 482
Cf. above, 4.2. Schlatter, Dogma, 108.

483Ibid. 103. 484PTNT, 158; NNTT, 206. 485Schlatter, Dogma, 102.

 -444-

for Schlatter to denote that highest level of 'Erkennen': 'nun denken

wir selber, was Gott uns zeigt, und wissen selber, was Gott uns sagt.'488

Nowhere does Schlatter imply that such 'knowledge' of God implies 'eine
487
unbegrenzte Erkenntnis Gottes'; nowhere does he lose sight of the

fact that human knowledge alone is not yet saving faith. He also

realizes that it is finally impossible to describe (because even scrip

ture does not divulge) extensive particulars regarding the . 'Vorgang'

488
in which 'in den Menschen das Gottesbewusstsein hineintritt.' Never

theless, for Schlatter this 'Vorgang' 'besitzt die Positivit&t der Tat-

Finally one can only conclude that a considerable gap exists between

Goppelt's knowledge-faith dichotomy and Schlatter's position that 'fllr

unser mit Gott besch&ftigtes Denken gelten dieselben Gesetze, die unsere
490
ganze Denkarbeit gestalten.' Morgan correctly states that Schlatter

'considered dogma to be no less 'knowledge' than the results of his-

491
torical investigation.' Leaving aside here the fact that Morgan's

use of 'dogma' begs the very question which Schlatter's epistemological

492
monism raises, we may simply observe that Goppelt's implicit (cf.

486Ibid. 94. 48?Ibid. 101. 488Ibid. 100.

489 490 491
Ibid. Ibid. 99. Morgan, NNTT, 31.
492
Not an absolute monism, to be sure: Schlatter does distinguish
between faith and knowledge. But his distinction does not in the Kant
ian tradition tend to deny qne in order to make room for the other.
The Kantian move defines faith negatively, in terms of what is lacking
to it, i.e. cognitive support. Faith becomes the 'unfertige Vorstufe
der Erkenntnis' (Schlatter, Die Furcht vor dem Denken, l 1 9 1 7 , 56f. )
Schlatter (cf. his Glaube im N T ) thinks that faith is to be seen as posi
tively to be distinguished from knowledge: this distinction lies 'darin,
dass die geglaubte Vorstellung vollst&ndig in unseren Lebensakt hinein
tritt, sich uns als unser Eigentum einpflanzt und dadurch zum Motiv
unseres Willens wird' (Furcht, 56f.). Schlatter's approach can be
termed monistic, then, not absolutely, but in the sense that he dis
penses with the classic Platonic-Kantian ontological and therefore epis
temological dualism. For Schlatter things known and things 'believed'
stand in a harmonious mutually conditioning unity and not in an anti
thetical tension.
 -445-
493
Morgan's explicit ) disagreement with Schlatter's position places

Goppelt in a somewhat more distant relationship to him than Goppelt

seems to realize.

5.23 Conclusion

The above discussion gives rise to the observation that Goppelt's

NT theology reflects an epistemological dualism at points which, it will

be remembered, is far more common in the BWB heritage than in the ear

lier representatives of the hgl. perspective. He basically accepts,

at least in some cases, the Kantian tenet that faith (theological

assertions) and facts (cognitive knowledge) lie in two different realms.

One of the distinctives of the hgl. perspective in Hofmann, Schlat

ter, Albertz, and Ladd is that they each, in various ways, interpret

the NT as if this tenet were not binding. At least, they maintain, it

is belied by the biblical testimony. The hgl. perspective has affirmed

repeatedly that God has acted in history, that persons have not only

by faith but in fact known and been known by this God, and that God's

acts include his self-revelation to man, a revelation which is theologi

cally effectual in large measure because it has been, not only rela-

tionally, but also cognitively, apprehended and affirmed. If Goppelt

can bracket the question of what early Christians 'knew' by asserting

simply that and what they believed, Schlatter can insist: 'Ein Bewusst-
494
sein, das keine Gewissheiten mehr besitzt, ist blind.

Now it must be conceded that Goppelt leaves no doubt that NT history

'is definitely to be understood as the response to that which was and

had been ordained by God, and only secondly as a product of the faith

493 See n .491.

494
Schlatter, Dogma, 119; cf. Zur Theologie, 265: 'Mancherlei Wissen
ohne Gewissheit, das wMre ein Misserfolg, zersplitterte Vielheit ohne
Einheit. . . . Eine krhftig wdrmende Gewissheit ohne Wissen, das whre
ein in sich selbst hinabgesunkener Mensch.'
 -446-
495
and thought of the disciples under the influence of their environment.'

This statement distances him from the BWB heritage. Was this 'response'

however merely theologically imperative and relationally effectual, or

must it also be regarded as historically justified because what was

affirmed in faith had a cogent basis in fact? If it is true on the one

hand that the NT's often 1schematischen und bruchsttickhaften' descrip-

496
tions and accounts 'entsprechen weitgehend den historischen Vorgclngen,'

it is also true on the other hand that Goppelt tends to drive a wedge
497
between 'konstatierendes Wissen' and 'Glauben.'

Does Goppelt's hgl. perspective then comprise a departure, not just

epistemologically but also materially, from earlier NT theologies writ

ten from this viewpoint? Examination of his view of history will be

necessary to answer this question with certainty.

5.3 Goppelt's understanding of history

Goppelt's Theologie offers above all a running dialogue with and

alternative to Bultmann's. Goppelt's disagreement with Bultmann is no-

4
where more concisely formulated than when he defines 'die wundeste

Stelle im hermeneutischen Ansatz Bultmanns' as 'das gebrochene Verh&lt-

nis zum Alten Testaments, die Eliminierung des heilsgeschichtlichen

Selbstverstdndnisses des Neuen Testaments und ein entsprechendes Denken

,498
liber Offenbarung und Geschichte. . . . Over against Bultmann's view

of the OT-NT link (or lack of one) and his handling of history, Goppelt

sets his hgl. approach. This approach however is for Goppelt linked

directly to his understanding of (esp. Pauline) typology. Our first

495
Goppelt, Apostolic Times, 15.
496
Goppelt, Theologie, 329. This citation applies specifically to
the passages in Acts which recount the missionary expansion of the early
church, but they are typical of similar remarks Goppelt makes regularly
in his Theologie.
497 498
Ibid. 287. Goppelt, Typos, 262.
 -447-

step in defining Goppelt's hgl. outlook as it pertains to his under

standing of history is to examine his explanation of typology and how

it relates to history. After this we will point out how this approach

to history is reflected in his Theologie. Lastly we will compare and

contrast Goppelt's approach to history with that of both BWB and other

proponents of the hgl. perspective.

5.31 Typological approach to history

M. Karlberg writes that 'the cogency of Goppelt's redemptive his

torical construction of Biblical typology founders on his uncritical

499
adoption of a neo-orthodox conception of history and theology.' With

out here passing judgment on this 'neo-orthodox conception' or on

whether Goppelt's construction 'founders, W e may affirm that Karl

berg has rightly discerned a nodal point of Goppelt's approach to NT

history (and to OT history as well).

This nodal point is that Hg. for Goppelt is only very loosely con

nected with real historical events. This position is related to his

epistemology but from Goppelt's point of view follows more directly per

haps from his conception of typology. Goppelt has in mind typology as

501
set forth by Paul (and also by Jesus ); 'die typologische Betrach-

tungsweise Ijprdgt^ das gesamte Schriftverst&ndnis des Apostels' and

502
thus 'ausgerichtet' his whole theology. This remains true despite

the small number of passages in which typology as Goppelt defines it

499
Karlberg, rev. of Goppelt, Typos, JETS 26 (1983) 493.
500
Endorsing Goppelt's Typos with few reservations is E.Ellis in
the preface to the Eng. trans., 1982, ix-xx. On the other hand, R.
Davidson's Typology in Scripture, 1981, appears successfully to have
challenged most of Goppelt's substantive conclusions regarding typo
logy; cf. esp. 53ff., 421f.
501
Goppelt, Typos, 286f. The German ed., 2 1969, is cited here and
below.
502 .
Ibid. 281.
 503
comes into view.

According to Goppelt, types 'sind keine geschichtliche Analogien.'504

Pauline typology is to be sure 'ein StUck weit von der Historizit&t

505
ihres Ansatzes abh&ngig.' Goppelt's ambivalence at this point is

however pointed up by his contrasting more recent assertion that Pauline

typology is 'von der Historizit&t der atl. Geschichtsdarstellung ein

erhebliches StUck weit unabh&ngig.'898 Types' relationship to history

(the course of past events) is that they comprise 'eine Selbstbekundung,

die sich in geschichtlichen VorgMngen Mussert, die von Wortoffenbarung

507
getragen und vom Glaubenzeugnis festgehalten werden.' It appears

that for Goppelt (Paul) God's self-manifestation is only incidentally

tied to history; there is ultimately something of a mutual exclusion

of the revelatory from the mere historical and vice versa.

This observation is confirmed by Goppelt's statement that a type

is 'ein Handeln Gottes in Gnadenerweisen und in Gerichten auf das end-

gUltige Heil hin, nicht das generelle Geschehen in SchOpfung und Ge

schichte. > This undoubtedly bespeaks a faith-history dichotomy.

In the same vein, for Paul Hg. is 'nicht durch geschichtliche Kontinu-

it&t gegeben, sondern durch den Heilsplan Gottes, den er im Glauben

erfasst.' Paul's knowledge of this continuity is accordingly styled

509
'Glaubenserkenntnis.' When Paul explicates a type,

will er nicht geschichtliche Beispiele bieten, oder einen Schrift-

beweis aus einer heiligen Urkunde ftlhren oder eine geschichtstheo-
logische Konstruktion entwickeln, er will vielmehr einen Zusammen-
hang aufdecken, den Gott in der Geschichte setzte .und fUr die Ge-
meinde in der Schrift aufzeichnen liess. . . . Dieser Zusammenhang

503Ibid. 280.
504
Ibid. 276. But see Davidson, Typology, 421: 'The historical
reality of the 0T types does not appear to be optional (pace Goppelt). . .
505 506 507
Typos, 289. Goppelt, Theologie, 384. Typos, 290f.

508Ibid. 273. 59Ibid. 275.

 -449-
510
soil die Gemeinde im Glauben ihre Situation verstehen lassen.

The only sense in which Goppelt permits talk of a hgl. perspective is

in terms of this manner of typological understanding of 0T and NT his-

511
tory, and by implication of history generally.

Is Karlberg correct then in terming Goppelt's typological under-

512
standing 'relational and anthropocentric'? There is at least a ker

nel of truth in the statement. If for Paul 'im Grunde nicht der Ablauf

des Gesamtgeschehens' is of interest, 'sondern Gottes Heilsplan, nicht

513
die Kontinuitdt der Geschichte, sondern die TreueGottes,' it is evi

dent that by 'history' in NT theology (typology) we are dealing with

something which functions strictly 'ohne sich an geschichtliche Ab-

514
l&ufe und Entwicklungen zu binden.' Attention is necessarily focused

on and even limited to a relational human perception of and response

to God's grace over against not in dependence on any historically con

crete means by which the grace is ostensibly mediated, or on which it

is based.

Goppelt concludes:

Heilsgeschichte kdnnte man jenen allein von Gottes Heilsplan und

Erwdhlen gesetzten Geschehenszusammenhang innerhalb der Geschichte
nennen, der durch Wortoffenbarung angezeigt und fUr den Apostel im
Glauben von seinem Ziel, d.h. von Christus her sichtbar w i r d . ^ ^

In a sense this definition of Hg. conforms generally to that of many

others who have used the term. However it is clear that Goppelt by

'Geschehenszusammenhang' is not referring in any definitive sense to

historical events. He refers rather to the relational transaction which

obtains in some fundamentally undefined relationship to events, to 'ein

510 511
Ibid. 276. Ibid.280f.; cf. 297f.
512 513
JETS 23 (1983) 492. Typos, 297f.
514 515
Ibid. 290. Ibid. 298.
 -450-
516
Geschehen zwischen Gott und Mensch.' Such a 'Geschehen' relates to

'das in Christus erschienene Heil. .. , das von der Schrift bezeugt

517
wird und ein entsprechendes Geschehen in der Endzeit vorausdarstellt.'

Far from Goppelt's hgl. perspective looking back, then, on concrete his

torical events (or word-event complexes) which were in God's purpose

instrumental in mediating salvation to biblical figures, Goppelt's ap

proach largely cuts necessary ties between biblical events and the bib

lical interpretations of them. Only the latter is in any case consti

tutive for theological thought. The really vital 'event' for Goppelt

becomes if anything not a past one, on which e.g. the NT looks back and

from which it makes application, but a future or eschatological one

which is naturally out of the range of critical fire. This leaves it

however also out of the range of confirmation. Accordingly Goppelt's

types and their eschatological referents lose a large degree of demon

strable contact with the real world of the past and present about which

biblical typology, on the surface anyway, is concerned to speak. The

question which Goppelt begs is, how revelatory are events which did not

happen, be the faith ever so sincere which a Paul or Jesus placed in

God who caused (i.e. did not cause) them? And is it really so self-

evident that e.g. Paul considered the historicity of types to be a

separate issue (and for him a fairly irrelevant one) from their theolo

gical meaning?

The point here however is neither to critique nor to affirm Gop-

518
pelt's typological understanding; our goal is merely to highlight

516Ibid. 273. 517Ibid.

518
It is only fair however to point out Davidson's conclusion that
Goppelt 'attempts to uncover the main features of NT typology, but these
are largely pre-determined by the a priori definition of typology which
he brings to the NT text' (Typology, 55).
 -451-

what for our purposes is one of its major features. There is a real

history-theology dialectic which at times approaches the point of being

an antithesis. As we look now to his Theologie, we will try to estab

lish to what extent a similar tendency is at work.

5.32 Hg. in Goppelt's Theologie

Undoubtedly Goppelt wishes to maintain contact with history to a

greater extent than Bultmann. E.g. he holds that

wir verfehlen von vornherein den Sinn des Wirkens Jesu, wenn wir
es von dem Dialog mit Israel Ibsen und zu einer abstrakten Botschaft
an den Menschen machen, wie dies z.B. bei Bultmann weithin geschehen
ist.519

Goppelt shows concern for the historically concrete when he states, here

defying an ethical assumption found at times in the BWB heritage, that

'Jesu Heilswirken will nicht nur die Erneuerung der inneren Einstellung

und des sittlich-religidsen Verhdltnisses, sondern auch die des leiblich-

520
geschichtlichen Lebens.' Holtz praises Goppelt's handling of Jesus

because 'hier wird. . . mit der Geschichtlichkeit von Gottes Handeln

521
in der Geschichte Jesu ganz Ernst gemacht.' It would be false to

see Goppelt's Theologie as having a willfully cavalier attitude toward

history. The NT sources in their development of the Jesus traditions

522
are 'grundsdtzlich gerecht' in their faithfulness to the NT history

(history, to be sure, in Goppelt's sense of the term), and Goppelt must

be given credit for taking those sources in their historical contexts

seriously.

At the same time it is clear that the history-theology tension al

ready noted persists in Goppelt's Theologie.

For Goppelt the OT-NT link, which he understands primarily in terms

of what he sees as Pauline typology, is fundamental for NT theology.

519 520
Goppelt, Theologie, 76. Ibid. 188.
521 522
Holtz, TLZ 101 (1976) 429. Goppelt, Theologie, 327.
 -452-

But what is the nature of this link? Against Cullmann, Pannenberg, and

Bultmann, respectively, Goppelt protests:

Paulus hat jedoch, wenn er das Christusgeschehen mit dem AT zusam-

menbringt, m.E. weder eine heilsgeschichtliche oder universalge-
schichtliche Gesamtschau noch lediglich einen mythisch umschriebenen
Entscheidungsruf im Blick, sondern die Korrespondenz zwischen Ver-
heissungs- und Erfdllungsgeschehen.523

So then, for all Goppelt's talk of H g . , it is not a historical process

524
(in terms of concrete empirical past reality) which he has in mind.

As Holtz points out, the 'Geschichtlichkeit von Gottes Handeln in der

Geschichte' is central for Goppelt but this leaves undefined the link

between 'Geschichtlichkeit' and the concrete historical reality presum

ably attendant upon it.

Goppelt leaves no doubt that Hg. is

gerade nicht ein Geschichtszusammenhang, der sich historisch von

der Ubrigen Geschichte abhebt, sei es durch seinen wunderhaften
Charakter, sei es durch aufweisbare Kontinuitdt. Heilsgeschichte
ist denn vielmehr eine Abfolge von geschichtlichen Vorg&ngen, die
letztlich einzig und allein dadurch gekennzeichnet und untereinan-
der verbunden sind, dass durch sie die endgtlltige Selbstbekundung
Gottes in Jesus vorbereitet wird und dass Jesus sich in diesem Sinn
grundsdtzlich zu ihnen s t e l l t . 5 2 5

It cannot be overstressed, then, that for Goppelt (as for Goppelt's

Paul) Hg. is 'eine KontinuitMt der Bindung zwischen Gott und Mensch in der
526
Geschichte.' It does not involve a concrete historical correspon

dence between OT and NT events or phenomena. Even Luke's presentation

of NT history assumes a 'Kontinuitdt' which is 'die sachliche Verwirk-

lichung des Heilsplanes, nicht eine historisch zusammenhdngende Entwick-

527
lung.' Whereas previous advocates of a hgl. perspective would indeed

want to hold such 'Verwirklichung' in close proximity to 'eine

B23-
Ibid. 387f.
524
Cf. ibid. 388: 'So kennt Paulus "Heilsgeschichte" nicht als ge
schichtlichen Prozess. . . .'
525 526 527
Ibid. 82. Ibid. 444. Ibid. 612.
 -453-

historisch zusammenhdngende Entwicklung,1 Goppelt consistently drives

a solid wedge between the two.

5.33 Conclusion

We may accordingly note that Goppelt's hgl. approach at a funda

mental level departs, not only epistemologically, but also materially,

from the hgl. perspective of Hofmann, Schlatter, Ladd, and Albertz.

A major basic epistemological disagreement with Schlatter has already

been outlined. In a sense Goppelt is on firmer ground in adducing

Hofmann as an ideological forerunner, but it is not at all clear that

Hofmann's NT theology (or hermeneutic) is reconcilable with the basic

features of Goppelt's. Granted that Hofmann is no inerrantist or even

biblicist and that he does not defend the 'historical' basis of every

biblical utterance. It is still fair to surmise that Hofmann would

take a dim view of Goppelt's studied refusal to link NT 'Heil' with

knowledge of certain facts related to concrete 'Geschichte.' From Hof

mann's NT theological point of view, we might say that Goppelt's Hg.

amounts to 'Heilsgeschichtlichkeitsgeschichte' (!). I.e. Goppelt is

willing to speak of Hg. only in terms of 'Geschichtlichkeit,' in terms

of 'historicity' in a somewhat existentialist sense of man's authentic

faith response in history. His Theologie treats Hg. as the history of the

relationship between God and man. This is in itself certainly a Hof-

mannian aspiration. Yet Goppelt's faith-fact dualism hardly squares

with Hofmann's more Schlatterian epistemological underpinnings.

The same holds true for Ladd. Ladd is adamant that the NT gives

a reliable historical-theological profile. For Ladd the two are cer

tainly not epistemologically distinct, nor is Hg. a history which can

be abstracted from its concrete historical moorings to the extent which

Goppelt's approach seems to do. Ladd would agree with Goppelt's

 -454-

relational stress and his insistence that mere historical knowledge in

itself cannot be equated with full-orbed faith. Yet Ladd maintains that

the content of NT faith is not 'either-or1 as regards relation-

cognition: it is both-and. Historical facts were, can be, and are in

tegral to NT faith.

While Albertz and Ladd have their dissimilarities, they stand on

common ground in relation to Goppelt. It is ironic that Goppelt criti

cizes Albertz for unfolding the NT Botschaft, 'als das Wort, das von oben
528
her an die Welt ergeht.' True, Albertz, in essence defends the NT

from some of the more caustic critical modes of analysis and in this

sense might be seen as setting forth 'senkrecht von oben' theological

constructs. Goppelt exaggerates however in his charge that Albertz dis

regards history. Are Albertz's repeated self-identifications with von

Ranke total self-deception? Albertz would inquire of Goppelt: what

is the essence of your Theologie if the Hg. which is at the heart of

NT theology has only a relational-confessional, not also an objective-

propositional content? Is the NT Botschaft then not really rather for

Goppelt, not for Albertz, 'von oben her,' since the ties between fact

and faith are stretched at times to the breaking point, and since Gop

pelt obviously wants to present NT theology as having its ultimate ori

gin in God?

One need only peruse Goppelt's Theologie to see that he distances

himself repeatedly from BWB. His exegesis often takes its point of de

parture from a conclusion which Bultmann has reached. Formally, and

exegetically at many junctures, Goppelt is a skillful and instructive

rebuttal of and corrective to the BWB line of questioning. Neverthe

less, from the hgl. perspective as Hofmann et al have articulated it,

528
Goppelt, ELKZ 13 (1959) 223.
 -455-

Goppelt's Theologie may be regarded materially as a Trojan horse in the

hgl. camp. The history of NT theology, esp. as we have seen it in ch.

1 and the present ch., suggests that theological reconstructions of the

NT which either (1) minimize the relevance of, or (2) bracket the ques

tion of the historical (i.e. factual, propositionally effable as well

as relationally actual) justification for the NT's theological asser

tions run a serious risk. If plausible cognitive grounds cannot be ad

duced which ground, complement, and thus to some extent justify the NT's

faith assertions, those assertions understandably will not long stand

the inroads of criticism. Goppelt's Theologie loses much of its sting

as an antiseptic for Bultmann-inflicted wounds, for Goppelt tries to

treat lesions brought about by an (with reference to the NT's own self-

understanding) arbitrary epistemological dualism by means of measures

whose essence is, if formally hostile to Bultmann, still materially epi

stemologically dualistic . But vaccines are of no avail if the patient

has already contracted the disease. The hgl. perspective has maintained

its identity, such as it is, prior to Goppelt not least by its refusal

to abide by what it sees as an unsuitable prescriptive epistemology,

or in Thielicke's terms a Cartesian methodology. Goppelt's Theologie

plays into the hands of BWB, possibly, and certainly distances itself

from the hgl. perspective to the extent that a faith-knowledge dicho

tomy, and a corresponding approch to typology, Hg., and ultimately NT

theology, hold sway.

6. Conclusion

We have already at various points above shown how aspects of the

approaches of Bultmann, Albertz, Ladd and Goppelt do or do not inter

connect. In closing we will make some preliminary statements about the

significance of this ch.'s findings, as well as how they interrelate

 -456-

with previous chs.

It may seem surprising that Cullmann's name is hardly prominent in

explicating Albertz-LaddGoppelt. Of course comparisons could be made;

but it is significant that recent NT theologies evincing a hgl. outlook

529
can hardly be said to rely on Cullmann's work. To refute or circum

vent Cullmann is not necessarily to have disproved the workability of

the presentations of Albertz-Ladd-Goppelt.

Related to this is a striking lack of collaboration between, or even

mutual self-awareness among, Albertz, Ladd, and Goppelt. It is fair

to say that the NT theology of each is constructed independently of the

others. There is not even much of a conscious positive connection with

Hofmann and Schlatter except in Goppelt's case, and he seems ultimately

to depart from their position as much as he continues in or furthers

it.

While we may speak loosely, then, of a hgl. approach, it must be

made clear that advocates of it have arrived at comparable positions

from distinctly different backgrounds and convictions, and with no in

terdependence which we could consider characteristic of a formal school.

This convergence of outlook may bespeak a certain integrity of method

(or implementation of method), the results of an extended NT theological

529
This is true even for Ladd, who admittedly cites Cullmann
in his Theology dozens of times. About one-fourth of these citations
however are merely bibliographical references. Six times Ladd registers
disagreement with Cullmann (Theology, 21, 96, 144, 209, 390, 560).
Most often he cites Cullmann's Christology to support exegetical points.
While Ladd does indeed use insights resembling those of Cullmann's hgl.
perspective, a similar perspective was already intrinsic to the American
evangelical tradition of which Ladd was part: see e.g. J.G.Machen, 'His
tory and Faith,' PTR 13 (1915) 337: 'The centre and core of the Bible
is history. Everything else that the Bible contains is fitted into an
historical framework and leads up to an historical climax. The Bible
is primarily a record of events.' It is thus neither necessary nor ac
curate to see Ladd as dependent solely on Cullmann for his hgl. outlook.
 -457-

experiment being verified by independent means.

This ch. confirms the continuing presence of the same bifurcation

within NT theology which we established in ch. 1 starting with Baur-

Hofmann. The split is identifiable when the conflicting answers to

three key questions are weighed: (1) What is NT theology? (2) What

epistemological stance is most appropriate to it? (3) What view of or

attitude toward history is employed or implied? In broad terms Bultmann

definitely locates himself in the same 'critical orthodox' tradition

as Baur and Wrede. In a looser sense, mainly in the way they relate

to critical orthodoxy and not in the way they emulate one another, Al

bertz, Ladd, and Goppelt follow in a heritage stretching back through

Schlatter to Hofmann.

It will be expedient to defer further reflection on this ch.'s im

plications until our study's ultimate conclusions are set forth, a task

taken up just below.

 CONCLUSION

1. Aim and result

Our primary aim has been two-fold. (1) We have sought to explore

the historical background of modern hgl. approaches to NT theology.

(2) Against this background, and looking at the work of specific figures

such as Hofmann, Schlatter, Cullmann, Albertz, Ladd, and Goppelt, in

comparison to BWB as well as to one another, we have tried to identify

some characteristic features of the hgl. perspective (if we may refer

to such a multiform entity in the singular) in NT theology.

Emerging from (1) is above all a portrait of a discipline, NT theo

logy (but cf. also OT theology and related disciplines), rent by a fun

damental unresolved tension. This tension, contrary to persistent mis

conception in some quarters, is hardly explained by berating such fa

vorite whipping boys as Cullmann, the BTM, and an unreflected, incon

sistent, and indefensible 'revelation in history' emphasis arising

suddenly after WW II. It is hardly to be seen as resulting from the

introduction of some (e.g. Hofmann or Cullmann) of a philosophy of his

tory as such, a hermeneutical artifice to facilitate a synthetic under

standing of the NT that is in fact foreign to it. It is not due merely

to a continuing uncritical intrusion of 'conservative' or 'orthodox'

theological tendencies as such into NT interpretation. The tension re

sults rather from longstanding ambiguities about basic philosophical

and methodological issues affecting NT theology. We have shown that

Hg. is becoming a problem in NT theology some 100 years before Christus

und die Zeit sees the light of day. OT theology since well into last

century grapples with the same issue. If anything would lend clarity
 -459-

to contemporary discussion of Hg. in NT theology, it is recognition

that the history of the problem extends back further than the memories

of today's senior biblical critics and theologians, for whom Cullmann's

first major book, or an opinion of it, typically marks something of a

terminus a quo. And the questions surrounding Hg. cannot be very

fruitfully dealt with by a continued association of 'hgl.' with 'uncri

tical' or 'conservative' interpretation, while non-hgl. or BWB ap

proaches are somehow automatically 'critical' and 'scientific.'

Emerging from (2) above is the insight that h g l ./non-hgl. approaches

to the NT as we have delineated them can be helpfully distinguished

using Thielicke's non-Cartesian/Cartesian models. More specifically,

one can understand hgl. NT theologies, seen in their relationship to

the approaches of BWB or 'critical orthodoxy,' by means of three ques

tions: What is NT theology? What is an appropriate epistemological

position with regard to the data? What view of or attitude toward

history is implied or employed in constructing a NT theology? Narrowing

the focus of issues, whose breadth and depth is admittedly enormous,

to these three questions has enabled an integrated picture of some major

problems facing NT theology to emerge.

It is in fact possible to detectwithin NT theology since at least

F. C. Baur a continuous attempt to come to grips with the obvious,

albeit sometimes little-considered, difficulty of somehow holding Heil

and Geschichte together in a discipline whose leading lights at this

point reflect Kant's luminance rather more than they unveil the NT's

own brilliance. We are not of course advocating a reductionistic inter

pretation of the history of NT theology, o r a wing of it. It has never

theless been instructive to survey NT theology since Baur in two of its

prominent, parallel, and often mutually disagreeing forms.

 -460-

What we have termed the BWB heritage demonstrably approaches the

NT sources with well-defined Kantian or neo-Kantian notions which ef

fectively predetermine much of the outcome of its 'historical' investi

gation. NT theology tends at times to become a phenomenological de

scription in which the NT texts, or portions of them, foreshadow dynamic

religious experience which, after NT times, is virtually lost to human

ity until its redeeming rediscovery by post-Enlightenment German Pro

testantism, or at least by an elite sect within it. The NT reports are

interpreted as purely confessional formulations whose cognitive grounds,

if there ever were any, are largely unknown and in any case incompre

hensible to us, at least as the NT states them. And of course what we

cannot verify, we must expunge, going on to explain the apparent NT de

pendence on various data by alternate means. These means are in turn

supplied or verified by whatever philosophico-religious dynamic is ad

hered to by a Baur, Wrede, or Bultmann, each of whom, one may argue,

systematically subjects the NT statements to modes of understanding

derived directly from such figures as Kant, Hegel, Cohen, Natorp, and

others.

Now we have not argued that the BWB heritage has not made a meaning

ful contribution or has nothing to commend its approach. We have only

shown that BWB's handling of the NT, from the point of view of Hofmann-

Schlatter et a l , is fraught with grave problems, not only theologically,

but also from a historical or empirical viewpoint. A theoretical chem

ist of a Canadian university notes recently: 'Science will become

perverted, and its ideals and traditions twisted, if a religious syn

thesis consciously inimical to biblical thought becomes a controlling

influence.'"'' This danger was seen in NT science beginning over a

1W.Thorson, 'Thinking about Thinking, Crux 20/1 (1984) 24.

 -461-

century ago by members of the hgl. tradition. Not so much in the name

of theology, perhaps, as in the name of historical integrity (or truth)

this tradition has consistently uttered an outcry, at times systemati

cally suppressed by an ascendant scientism, against a (to it) gratuitous

mishandling of the NT sources.

The hgl. heritage on its part is by no means averse to historical

observation. It depends on it for its historical-theological recon

structions. It arrives however at a method similar at points to one

set forth recently by G. Hasel, a 'theological-historical approach,' a-

mong whose intentions is

to remain fully sensitive to the transcendent-supratemporal dimen

sion of Biblical reality and likewise. . . to show sensitivity to
the spatial-temporal dimension of reality. It does not seek to
skip one in favor of the other but seeks to be theological and his
torical from the beginning without moving from a purely historical
first stage to a fully theological second stage in two steps that
cannot be related to each other.2

Again, the hgl. perspective as we have presented it would agree with

H. Staudinger's point that explanations of e.g. the NT resurrection

which deny their substantial veracity (cf. BWB) raise more problems
3
than they solve. And it would object to the BWB reading of scripture

which, in a manner not uncommonly encountered today, due to 'die philo-

sophische Voraussetzung der Geschlossenheit des Zusammenhangs von Ur-

sachen und Wirkungen das biblische Zeugnis von der SouverMnit&t und

Einzigartigkeit der Offenbarung in der Geschichte nicht mehr zu Geltung

4
kommen lMsst.'

2Hasel, HBT 4 (1982) 76.

3
Staudinger, 'The Resurrection of Jesus Christ as Saving Event and
as "Object" of Historical Reseach,' SJT 36 (1983) 326. Cf. C.Hemer's
remark in his rev. of Staudinger, The Trustworthiness of the Gospels,
1981, Them 9 (1983) 29: 'There is no necessary objection to the propo
sition that God's activity in his world may involve capabilities larger
than those seen in normal events.'
4
H.Frik, 'Was bewegt der Fundamentalismus? Zu J.Barr, Funda-
mentalismus,' EvT 43 (1983) 485f.
 -462-

Despite the arguments of hgl. thinkers over many decades, however,

the bifurcation in NT theology persists. E.g. H. Koester's handling

of the resurrection is summed up in the laconic remark that, 'though

the resurrection revealed nothing new, it nonetheless made everything

5
new for the first Christian believers.' Interpretation of this state

ment is probably facilitated far less by consideration of the NT's

claims than by Koester's ringing declaration that Bultmann's

unwavering insistence upon the consistent application of the

historical-critical method and his emphasis upon the investigation
of early Christian literature in the context of the history of
religions must remain basic commitments of New Testament scholar
ship. 6

The schizophrenia of modern NT theology bids fair to continue unabated,

7
it would appear. Our study has brought to light objections to the BWB

heritage, i.e. convictions of those favoring a hgl. approach, in the

past. Some of these could in some small way point the way toward a

more productive, or least more informed, NT theological future.

2. For further study

Our investigation has touched on several problems whose solutions

we have not been able to pursue. Before going on to discuss possible

contributions of the hgl. perspective, we set forth some areas where

further research could prove fruitful.

At present it might well be justified to take up or pursue further

such questions as: the hgl. perspective in modern Roman Catholic NT

5
Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, 1982, 86.

^Ibid. v o l s . 1 and 2, xix.

7
Cf. G.Parson's claims in 'Reforming the Tradition: A Forgotten
Dimension of Liberal Protestantism,' Rel 13 (1983) 257-271, who argues
that Liberal Protestantism (cf. Troeltsch) 'set up the proper post
orthodox model for theological reflection' (257). Theology should
thus return to (had it ever departed from?) what we have termed a Car
tesian method of biblical interpretation. Parsons is hardly alone in
his wish.
 -463-

theology; the extent to which Hofmann's systematic position governs his

NT interpretation; Hofmann's hermeneutic, esp. as seen in his NT inter

pretation; Schlatter's epistemology; Schlatter's view of history (still

inadequately clarified despite Dymale's thesis); Albertz's NT theology,

esp. seen in the context of his life and imprisonment; the possible

deleterious effects of Ladd's inerrantist position on his NT interpre

tation; Goppelt's relationship to Bultmann does the former's episte-

mological tendency permit the clean break from Bultmann which he ob

viously sought? This is only a selection of subjects which could pro

fitably be pursued. Obviously there is also a wide range of compara

tive questions dealing with the internal connections of advocates of

the hgl. perspective which could be taken up: Schlatter's relationship

to Hofmann, Cullmann's similarity/dissimilarity to Schlatter, etc. We

observed too that a study of Cullmann in the light of J. Barr's criti

cisms of revelation in history could be worthwhile. There would, in

sum, be much work to do, were Neutestamentler to take up some of the

positive fruits of a hgl. line of analysis, and at the same time take

note of Barth's dictum: 'If correct knowledge is to remain correct,

it must put out not only new leaves and blossoms, but also new roots.

3. Possible contributions of the hgl. perspective

3.1 Recognition of the OT-NT connection

For BWB, the role of the OT for NT theology becomes notoriously

problematic. For the hgl. perspective, the OT can be and is seen as

the primary historico-theological background against which the NT is

9
to be understood. This does not necessarily entail a devaluation of
Q
Busch, B arth, 319.
g
Stuhlmacher's words, ZTK 77 (1980) 229, would meet assent from Hof
mann and Schlatter right down to Goppelt: 'Jesus Christus und das Evan-
gelium wollen ursprlinglich und biblisch aus dem Kontext der alttesta-
mentlich-jUdischen Ueberlieferungsgeschichte verstanden werden. Lttsen wir
 -464-

first-century Religionsgeschichte as such (cf. esp. Schlatter and Gop-

pelt); it only signifies a recognition (l) that aspects of OT lore re

tained decisive influence for NT understanding, and (2) that conversely

it is above all the NT which makes the OT intelligible, at least for

Christians, in both its historical and theological dimensions.

A considerable body of (mainly OT) scholarship has called for the

establishment of 'Biblische Theologie ' ^ a s a discipline which overcomes

the classic post-Gabler (or post-G. L. Bauer) divorce between OT and

NT theology. This involves a close inter-relationship between OT and

NT scholars. The ultimate success of this enterprise remains to be

seen. But if it does constitute a critically-warranted forward step

(and few perhaps would quarrel with at least the group's aims), aspects

of the hgl. perspective, with its attention to OT-NT and NT-OT relation

ships, have foreshadowed its achievement. BWB will have made a contri

bution too, but primarily in a negative sense at this particular point.

3.2 Correction of Baur's (Bauer's) fateful step

Esp. in c h s . 1 and 5 it became clear that NT theology from at least

F. C. Baur onward was letting philosophical commitments determine the

outcome of 'historical' inquiry, at least at some key points. K.

Haacker, citing Merk's Anfangszeit, draws attention to G. L. Bauer's

(1755-1806) work, through which a 'sachkritische Differenzierung inner-

halb der Bibel nach philosophischen Grundsdtzen' first becomes a major

11
factor in NT theology. Haacker goes on, contra Merk, to call this
sie aus dieser Geschichte heraus und betrachten wir das apostolische
Ursprungszeugnis des Evangeliums als nur zufdllig in ein israelitisches
Sprachgewand gekleidet, wird unser Christusverstdndnis doketisch, d.h.
es verliert seine geschichtliche Erfahrungsdimension.'
10
See e.g. Kraus, Geschichte (3 1982), 553-578, esp. 573ff.; Revent-
low, 'Aus der Arbeit der Projektgruppe "Biblische Theologie" der wissen-
schaftlichen Gesellschaft fdr Theologie,' TZ 39 (1983) 65-67.
11
Haacker, 'Biblische Theologie und historische Kritik,' TBei 8
(1977) 225.
 -465-

'einen Rdckschritt in der Wissenschaftlichkeit des Umgangs mit der Bi-

bel.' Now the hgl. perspective, as we have repeatedly intimated, does

not denigrate philosophical concerns as such; it recognizes that any

interpretation is influenced, by the interpreter. Yet it does in essence

seek to take a 'progressive backward' step from the position adopted

by Bauer, which we have followed from Baur onward.

The hgl. heritage, whether expressly or intuitively, is alert to

the danger pointed out in the context of philosophy itself by J.

Hirschberger:

Wer nur in seiner Gegenwart lebt, verf&llt leicht der Zeitmode,

die es auch in der Philosophie gibt. Er ist geistig unerfahren
und erliegt dem nur Aktuellen, das zwar bestricken kann, aber
12
ohne Dauer ist.

Hofmann-Schlatter et al have tended to reject a premature systematic

'Vermischung von historisch-philologischer Wahrnehmung und philosoph-

13
ischer Beurteiling.' They place methodological restrictions on a BWB

style of criticism, 'und zwar nicht wegen der Bedenklichkeit ihrer [the

method's] Ergebnisse fdr die Kirche, sondern wegen ihrer Anf&lligkeit

14
flir Verschleierungen der Textaussage und der Interessen des Auslegers.'

Or to put the matter differently: the hgl. perspective in successive

past generations could see how, due to a BWB approach, at crucial points

' [wird] der Glaube immer sprachloser, weil ihm seine biblischen Artiku-

lationsweisaivon einer bestimmten Art von historischer Kritik mehr und

: 15
mehr zerfressen werden!' The hgl. perspective wants to maintain that

in a historically responsible understanding of the NT texts, the 'Sachver-

halt' is decisively delimited by the 'Sprachgestalt.'^ Certainly from

12 18
Hirschberger, Kleine Philosophiegeschichte, 1983, 12.

13Haacker, TBei 8 (1977) 226. 14Ibid.

18
Stuhlmacher, ZTK 77 (1980) 226f.

16Cf. ibid. 228.

 -466-

a historical point of view there must be limits to any reshaping of the

latter because of one's (Kantian, or neo-Kantian, or existential, etc)

conception of the former. At issue here is not primarily whether a

modern might deem an interpretation of BWB or of hgl. advocates to be

more relevant, i.e., whether one feels more comfortable opting for

Baur's or Hofmann's Jesus. The question is rather, whose approach is

more conducive to a relatively loyal-to-the-sources articulation of the

full weight of the NT's claims about the historical-theological verities

of which it speaks and their application? The hgl. perspective suggests

that successive moves (cf. BWB) to construe the NT in light of patently

modern (and demonstrably fleeting) conceptual constructs comprises a

series of (not absolutely, but substantially) false steps. They do not

deny that they, too, have a modern understanding which colors their

assessment of data, but they attempt to strike up a dialogical relation

ship with the data, in which their interpretation is at least in theory

open to ongoing modification in the light of what is being interpreted.

This brings us to a closely related but slightly broader point.

3.3 Balance between claims of sources and claims of criticism

The hgl. perspective has consistently called for a critical evalu

ation of an ascendant positivistic scientism, a demythologizing of the

demythologizers one might say, in the light of pertinent data. In doing

so they have long anticipated the insights of those who are currently

realizing that 'the historical-critical way of writing history,' unless

great care is exercised, is quite simply 'itself a moulding of the past

17
in the light of present beliefs.' Or as Schmitt has stated:

Wo unser Begriff von Geschichte gleichsam kanonisiert wird, wird

aus den biblischen Texten nur herauskommen, was zuvor in sie
_
Goldingay, Approaches, 72.
 -467-

hineingelesen wurde; das ist nichts anderes als eine pseudohis-

torische und pseudotheologische Bestdtigung unserer Begriffe Uber
den (unnOtigen) Umweg der biblischen Texte.

It is important to note however that advocates of a hgl. outlook are not

anti-critical in the sense of anti-intellectual or anti-scientific.

They would agree with Thorson's statement that, 'though its scope and

authority are certainly limited, the epistemological structure of sci

ence as a truth-seeking enterprise is in some basic respects congruent

J.9
with the structure of Christian knowledge. The hgl. perspective,

then, does not disparage 'modern' knowledge as such its knowledge is

'modern' too! but refuses to abide by the implications of what seems

to it to be a facile phenomena-noumena (cf. Historie-Geschichte) dis

tinction. Such a distinction has, it seems, been integral to post-

Kantian, or at least BWB, criticism, and all the more so perhaps to the

extent that it overlooks the fact. Such a distinction has tended to

result in the relegation of a great deal of biblical subject matter to

the realm of speculation, qualitatively inferior and therefore subject

to the dictates of what we 'know. ' The cumulative experience of Hof-

mann-Schlatter et al with the BWB heritage teaches that what is 'known'

by BWB sometimes appears to consist primarily in that central tenets

of Christian orthodoxy (i.e. what the NT states or implies 'on the sur

face' ) are to be categorically denied, or at least radically reinter

preted. It is thus often primarily the ground of doubt that is deemed

certain. There is at the same time a discomfiting and suspicious lack

of consistent substantive agreement on what _is 'known' positively about

the fundamental nature and meaning of the NT message: this largely

changes with passing decades, with the rise and fall of (German)

^Schmitt, Abschied?, 29f. ^ T h o r s o n , Crux 20/1 (1984) 28.

 -468-

philosophical citadels, with the onslaughts of wars, social upheavals,

and intellectual paradigm shifts. The tail of successive methods of

historico-philosophical description, grasped tenaciously in the name

of science by BWB, comes to wag the dog of what is being described (the

NT).

The hgl. heritage in contrast could be seen as affirming a limited

20
'natural theology,' whereby there is a certain fundamental congruity

between (to use classic terms) ultimate physical or historical truth

on the one hand and ultimate metaphysical or theological truth on the

other. Heil and Geschichte, not only confessionally but also factually,

can and must be regarded as potentially standing in close proximity if

justice is to be done to the experience of reality amply attested to

in scripture and reportedly shared in some form by many to this day.

Hgl. interpretation achieves this dynamic synthesis in essence by ob

serving, in Kraus' words, the (in the BWB heritage often violated)

'Grundregel, dass Methoden durch den zu bearbeitenden Gegenstand

evoziert und nicht durch sachfremde methodische Grunds&tze festgelegt

21
werden.' The hgl. perspective offers a model (or models) for how re

sponsible discrimination, not only of historical sources, but also of

the possibly inappropriate modernistic constraints into which these may

be forced, may be exercised.

All of this relates to opening remarks, many a page ago, in our

introduction. There we alluded to the problem of an 'ungenUgenden

Selbstreflexion der Exegese Uber ihre eigenen weltanschaulichen und

22
methodischen Voraussetzungen.' Reventlow rightly diagnoses a very
20
In the wake of Barth's denigration of it, natural theology is now
being spoken of positively by some once more: see H.Fischer, 'NatUr-
liche Theologie im Wandel,' ZTK 80 (1983) 85-102.
21 22
Kraus, Geschichte (3 1982), 525. Reventlow, BibelauthoritUt, 9.
 -469-

real problem, but we would now point out that the hgl. heritage has al

ready wrestled long and earnestly in response to it. Of course modern

thought of some description is intrinsic to all modern interpretation.

Of course it is impossible just to interpret ancient texts with no aid

from contemporary descriptive categories. But whereas BWB (and NT

criticism at large) have at times tended to lack an appropriate discern

ment with regard to 1weltanschauliche und methodische Voraussetzungen,'

the hgl. heritage shows an awareness of the threat and has mounted

a consistent and at times even creative counterattack against it.

(Schlatter esp. did not only counterattack but pushed ahead to frontiers

possibly still not acknowledged even today. Hofmann was probably little

less progressive for his own time.) Scrutiny of the hgl. perspective

in its relationship to BWB thus contributes to a better grasp of the

problem with which Reventlow is concerned.

3.4 Return to a realistic historical model for NT theology

While NT theology, esp. in the BWB tradition, would claim emphati

cally to be a historical discipine, this is true only in a sense.

Stuhlmacher points out the systematic considerations which inevitably

23
affect any NT (or OT) theology. R. Barbour calls attention to the
24
'crypto-idealism of much modern biblical scholarship' which somewhat

belies its expressed empirical aims. Even more pointedly C. Westermann,

who cannot be accused of wishing to inject traditional Christian dogma

into NT studies, asks NT theology

ob es nicht mttglich ist, von einer gedanklich-begrifflichen

Struktur der neutestamentlichen Theologie zurtickzukehren zu einer
verbalen oder geschichtlichen Struktur, die darstellt, was im
Neuen Testament zwischen Gott und Menschep1/ g e s c h i e h t ^
_
Stuhlmacher, ZTK 77 (1980) 234.
24
Barbour, Traditio-Historical Criticism of the Gospels, 1972, 45.
25
Westermann, Theologie des Alten Testaments in Grundzllgen, 1978, 204.
 -470-

This plea underscores the consistent claim of the hgl. perspective, that

not concrete, realistically grounded history, but theoretical, ideal

istically conceived 'knowledge' thinking about thinking has too long

served as starting point and arbiter for understanding the NT texts.

The hgl. perspective with Schlatter recognizes that real 'Geschichte

nicht Denkgeschichte ist,1^ that a 'gedanklich-begriffliche1 model of

NT theology likely too severely limits or filters the claims made by

the NT texts pertaining not only to abstract conceptual entities but

also (or more so) to concrete data, which delimit and give content to

the conceptual entities.

Westermann asserts that to overcome NT theology's methodological

deficiency, 'der erste Schritt dazu w&re die Erkenntnis, dass das, was

geschehen ist, wichtiger ist, als das, was dardber gedacht worden
27
ist.' This echoes the hgl. approach's claim that salient NT occur

rences, e.g. the resurrection, or the striking apparent early ascrip

tion of divine qualties to Jesus in the context of militantly mono

theistic Judaism, must be factored into the development and application

of critical methodologies. 'Was geschehen ist,' what has good claim

to be or have been actual in history, and the gospel associated with

it, must not be prematurely swept away or suppressed due to 'das, was

dartlber gedacht worden ist. ' If NT theology is in fact in any meaning

ful sense somehow theology not merely phenomeno- or anthropology

there is no alternative but to heed the implications of Schmidt's

Schlatterian conclusion: 'Wer er [GottJ ist, was er will und tat, kann

heute und fdr morgen nur im Kontext dessen gesagt und verstanden werden,
28
was er gestern gesagt und getan hat.' Past facts not 'bare' facts,

^Schmid, Erkenntnis, 243. ^ W e s t e r m a n n , o.c. 204.

^Schmitt, Abschied?, 123.

 -471-

but cognizable verities of earlier times all the same must be permitted

to inform, challenge, and at times even confute strands of modern

thought, if the NT message is to be heard and not merely attenuated by

perhaps well-meaning but nevertheless historically suspect conceptual

dicta.

The basis for the hgl. perspective's insight here is at least par

tially seen in the next point.

3.5 Facing up to the truth question

The literary critic and author E. Heller speaks of the 'trust' and
29
'heroism' of the post-medieval West's quest for 'objectivity.' Its

trust is 'the conviction that the argument Qof critical inquiry} will

lead to something that is not only of use, but of true value.' Its

heroism is 'the readiness not to flinch if it does not.' But Heller

goes on to diagnose its fallacy:

The assumption that values, banned from the method of inquiry, will
yet make their way into the answers; that means, indifferent to
values, can yield an end justified not merely by its 'correctness'
or its usefulness, but by its intrinsic value. . . . [[This is falla
cious, fori things lose their value for man if he is set on with-
holding it from them. u

Our study makes clear, first, that BWB are indeed committed to a quest

for a critically responsible understanding of the NT. But it is just

as evident, second, that in order to make room for their systematic re

interpretations of the NT, they must clear the ground by evacuating the

NT of the 'surface' claims of much of the text (cf. the 'Sachverhalt-

Sprachgestalt' problem alluded to above). There is then a trust and

herosim to their work, but also quite possibly a fallacy. For what they

have banned at the outset as the possible primary message of the

texts which could, after all, often be just what the texts say, de-
pq
E.Heller, 'The Hazard of Modern Poetry,' The Disinherited Mind,
1975, 261-300. I am indebted to Ulrich Wippermann, Tyndale House, Cam
bridge, for calling my attention to this essay.
30
Ibid. 273.
 -472-

spite our inability at many points to reduce that message totally to

rationally explicable dimensions can then, as Heller points out, hardly

make it back into the results at some later stage.

What BWB do, in a nutshell, is bracket the truth question. H. Weder

notes how NT criticism in general this century has deftly skirted the

1Tatsachenfragen1 related to the NT data (e.g. miracles) which the

modern critic cannot accept. The position is taken that miracle stories

are not true (or false) in themselves, but rather point beyond them

selves to a theological message. This is, of course, precisely the

rationale of BWB (shared to an extent by Goppelt). Weder concludes that

this approach nicely relieves the NT critic of his responsibility to

rule on the facticity or non-facticity of such stories. But he goes

on to observe:

Der dafdr bezahlte Preis jedoch ist hoch. Auf dieser Grundlage
kann erstens nicht mehr einsichtig gemacht werden, wieso die Jesus-
Uberlieferung, die angeblich den gegenwdrtig handelnden Herrn ver-
kllndigen will, so viele Wundergeschichten erzMhlt, es sei denn sie
wdren 'zufMllige' Einkleidungen des urchristlichen Kerygmas. Vor
allem aber kann zweitens nicht erkldrt werden, aus welchem Grunde
die Ueberlieferung an den Wundern als vergangenen Taten des
irdischen Jesus festhdlt.^

On grounds of historical inadequacy, then, Weder objects to this parti

cular critical tendency. We need only recall Hofmann's (also Schlat

ter's) criticism of Baur's handling of the resurrection,or Filson's views

on historical method and God's involvement, to be reminded that Weder's

basic insights are hardly new.

It is perhaps above all Schlatter who knows that to bracket the

question of the veracity of the NT claims is already to enter into a

determined struggle against them. Now he does not deny that they might

be. mistaken. What he insists is that the relationship of the observing

31
Weder, 'Wunder Jesu und Wundergeschichten,' VF 29 (1984) 26.
 -473-

historian and the interpreting dogmatician 'is there right from the

beginning of historical work, and it is a matter of inter-reaction.

It does not come in at the end, but permeates the whole course of his-
32
torical work.' This means that the critic is bound to be clear that

his 'historical' judgments inevitably reflect dogmatic (or philosophical

commitments); and the way to respond to this is not to flee into an in

any case non-existant pure objectivity, but to be cognizant from the

start of how one is evaluating data and precisely why. This leaves the

critic free, in that sense liberates him, at once both to weigh the data

and to allow for his own (in the light of the data) now warranted, now

unwarranted personal convictions, expectations, or prior understanding,

which inevitably condition his historical observation. A major effect

of this necessary balancing act is that the ultimate ethical, spiritual,

or theological verities (or their historical grounds) testified to by

the NT are at least potentially protected from a premature ejection from

the historical scene in the name of objectivity. Facing squarely,

rather than bracketing, the truth question lends clarity to the

historian-theologians work, and relevance to that work's results. This

leads to a final point.

3.6 Return to a relevant role for NT theology (exegesis)

Childs, and by no means only he, has called attention to the problem

that a lamentable gap obtains today between critical biblical interpre-

33
tation and communitKS of faith. Stuhlmacher pointedly lays the blame

at criticism's own doorstep,

dass sich nicht wenige Systematiker (aber z.B. auch praktische

Theologen und sehr viele Pfarrer) von der stMndig nur noch mit sich
selbst beschMftigten kritischen Exegese kaum mehr etwas oder

NNTT, 126; PTNT, 165.

33
Public lecture in Cambridge Univ., 28th November 1984.
 -474-

auch gar nichts mehr erwarten.^

H. Frei, looking back in time, observes that the Bible's authority, in

any meaningful sense, 'was bound to be gravely weakened if the Bible

35
was neither reliable nor unitary.' In a real sense the disunity and

unreliability of the NT, at least as read without the aid of a BWB

critical eye, is a primary assumption of BWB, who in turn have been

enormously influential in biblical criticism. It is no wonder then that

NT theology, or its supporting exegesis, and thus increasingly the NT

itself for does NT criticism not agressively claim to know best what

the NT says? has come to lack practical relevance for modern life.

The hgl. perspective does not attack the unity and reliability of

the Bible, at least not as a matter of course. And it retains a faith-

knowledge union which keeps theological verities moored to the pheno

menal realm and thus relevant to it. Hofmann-Schlatter et al have cer

tainly not solved all the problems associated with applying the NT in

modern times, nor did they claim to. What they do claim, uniformly,

is that despite critical uncertainty at numerous points, the broad lines

and a great many specific features of the NT message are clear to the
36
observer's eye. And their existential relevance as seen is of utmost

moment for the observer's life. Surely it is not improper to ask, nor

impossible to answer, how I might order my affairs in concrete situa

tions according to the teachings of, say, the first-century Stoics.

Why then should NT theology (exegesis) not be able to represent various

aspects of the NT 'teaching' (admittedly an unpopular word in a disci-

34
ZTK 77 (1980) 236.
35
Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, 1974, 8.

^ I n contrast, and perhaps illustrative of much NT criticism, A.N.

Wilder reports that E.J.Goodspeed once said of Henry Cadbury: 'The con
sciousness of even a single certainty would be an insupportable weight
upon his mind' (Wilder, JR 64 |jL984] 444).
 -475-

pline where only 'traditions,' 'confessions,' and 'description,'

37
nothing normative now!, are recognized )? In general this is one of

the results, for good or ill, of the hgl. approach. The NT's relevance,

not only to a post-Kantian world conceived as noumenal construct, but

also to concrete life then, and by implication also now, comes quite

naturally to the fore.

Of course the results of critical inquiry must be shielded to a de

gree from utilitarian questions about their effect or usefulness but

to what degree? Schlatter once observed:

In an age when Nietzsche1s Antichrist and Harnack's What is Christian

ity? are widely read books, it is a singular archaism to speak of
historical work on the New Testament, work which is only concerned
to perceive what has happened. This archaism can only be explained
as a result of the isolation of academics, which is comparable to
that of a painter who is decorating the walls of a house with fres
coes while flames burst out of the roof.^

In an age when the Bible is adduced to validate (or altered to fit)

extreme fundamentalism, liberation theology, ideological feminism, and

even a reductionistic biblical criticism itself, can NT theology con

tinue to evade some responsiblity to see the results of its labors, and

even the labor (with its methods) itself, in the light of social,

political, and ultimately theological realities?

4. An Orwellian postscript: the insanity of the hgl. perspective

We close with a literary image from Nineteen Eighty-Four which will,

from the standpoint of the hgl. perspective at any rate, dramatize a

portion of the controversy with which this study has dealt. The points

at which the image breaks down as an analogy will be obvious, but it

may give rise to worthwhile concluding reflection.

37
See e.g. L.Gilkey, 'The Roles of the "Descriptive" or "Historical"
and of the "Normative" in Our Work,' Criterion 20 (1981) 10-17.

38NNTT, 124f., PTNT, 164.

 -476-

Let the Party (below) represent the 'critical orthodox' whom BWB

epitomize. Winston represents the hgl. interpreter. O'Brien, the

inculcator of Party teaching, addresses Winston. The former's hand is

poised near the control dial of an electronic rack, the latter's body

stretched on the rack itself.

O'Brien smiled faintly. 'You are no metaphysician, Winston,'

he said. 'Until this moment you had never considered what is meant
by existence. I will put it more precisely. Does the past exist
concretely, in space? Is there somewhere or other a place, a world
of solid objects, where the past is still happening?'
'No. '
'Then where does the past exist, if at all?'
'In records. It is written down.'
'In records. And ?'
'In the mind. In human memories.'
'In memory. Very well, then. We, the Party, control all
records, and we control all memories. Then we control the past,
do we n ot?'
'But how can you stop people remembering things?' cried Winston
again momentarily forgetting the dial. 'It is involuntary. It is
outside oneself. How can you control memory? You have not con
trolled m i n e ? '
O'Brien's manner grew stern again. He laid his hand on the
dial.
'On the contrary, ' he said, 'you have not controlled it. That
is what has brought you here. You are here because you have failed
in humility, in self-discipline. You would not make the act of sub
mission which is the price of sanity. You preferred to be a luna
tic, a minority of one. Only the disciplined mind can see reality,
Winston. You believe that reality is something objective, external,
existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of
reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking
that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same
thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not exter
nal. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in
the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon
perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and
immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It
is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of
the Party. That is the fact you have got to relearn, Winston. It
needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must
humble yourself before you can become s a n e . '39

The rationale of the Party, by which it can so confidently and even

brutally negate opposing views, lies in its basis: a sovereign and ex

clusive control over the reality and meaning (if any) of past events.
39
G.Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Harmondsworth 1983, 214.
 -477-

The mutability of the past is the central tenet of Ingsoc. Past

events, it is argued, have no objective existence, but survive only
in written records and in human memories. The past is whatever the
records and the memories agree upon. And since the Party is in full
control of all records and in equally full control of the minds of
its members, it follows that the past is whatever the Party chooses
to make it. It also follows that though the past is alterable,
it never has been altered in any specific instance. For when it
has been recreated in whatever shape is needed at the moment, then
this new version ^s the past, and no different past can ever have
existed. This holds good even when, as often happens, the same
event has to be altered out of recognition several times in the
course of a year. At all times the Party is in possession of absol
ute truth, and clearly the absolute can never have been different
from what it is now.

In sum, as the Party slogan runs, '"Who controls the past. . . controls
42
the future: who controls the present controls the past".1

The hgl. perspective realizes that human interpretation of the past,

including its own, is fallible. It recognizes the past abuses of osten

sibly Christian dogma by Church and State. It is open to the insights

of modernity, sometimes to a surprising degree. But it is at least as

open to insights other than those of modernity.

Modern ideology (e.g. certain forms of biblical criticism) may de-

43
ride such openness as intellectually immoral, or, as in some Communist

lands (and not only there), lead to the persecution of many who will

not renounce unacceptable-to-a-reigning consensus portions of biblical

teaching. Yet, inquires the hgl. perspective, what is to be done then

with the evidence which neither Western academic nor MarxistLeninist

political belief (or intrigue) has yet accounted for, at least not to

the satisfaction of hgl. thinkers?

40
Without hereby accusing anyone of Party membership, it is to the
point to make mention of representative similar-sounding words from
recent historical-critical literature: 'History means only what we mean
by our use of the word "history". . . . We do not apply the term "his
tory" to a form of investigation which resorts to divine agency as a
mode of explanation' (J.Barr, The Scope and Authority of the Bible, 8 f .)
41 42
Orwell, o.c. 182f. Ibid. 34.
43
Cf. e.g. Harvey, Historian and Believer, 102-126.
 -478-

If there is a God who has, as evidence supports, directed, acted

and spoken in history even to inhabiting history in human form then

in an important sense the past is not mutable. At least, the signifi

cance of the past is not always subject to our conceptual dictates,

tastes, or constraints, but rather to the will of God who in some sense

brought the history about and gives us today the opportunity to regard

it and, with the aid of insight from that history, to submit our will

to his. For the hgl. perspective not a Party in the guise of the BWB

critical tradition determines how we are to understand and explicate

NT faith, but rather the one in whom faith rests on the basis of what

he has done/made known concretely, and does/makes known experientially,

to enable and sustain faith. And if we know anything about him, and

about the nature of valid faith in him, on the basis of his historical

self-disclosure, we know it first of all from NT (and OT) scripture.

What confronts us there, insist Hofmann-Schlatter et a l , possesses an

enduring priority to and supremacy over what our thinking may devise,

in however brilliant a willful self-imposed autonomy from it, to ex

plain it. This has, or ought to have, implications for how NT theology

is to be undertaken. The hgl. perspective attempts to carry these

implications through.
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following bibliography cites only those works most central to

the thesis in its final form. Additional references relating to Hg.
in OT studies may be found in Schmitt, Abschied? (see below).

Abbagnano, N. 'Positivism.1 EP. Vol. 6. 414-419.

Abramowski, R. 'Vom Streit urn das Alte Testament.' TRu 9 (1937) 65-93.

Ackroyd, P. 'History and Theology in the Writings of the Chronicler.'

CTM 38 (1967) 501-515.

Albertz, M. Die Botschaft des Neuen Testaments. 2 vols. in 4 pt s .

Zollikon-ZUrich 1947-1957.

-. 'Kerygma und Theologie im Neuen Testament.' TLZ 81 (1956) 341-344

(=ZNW 46 [1955] 267f. ).

-. 'Die Krisis der sogenannten neutestamentlichen Theologie.' ZeichZ

8 (1954) 370-376.

-. Rev. of new ed. of J. Calvin, Auslegung des Propheten Jesaja. TLZ

76 (1953) 472f.

Albrektson, B. History and the G ods. Lund 1967.

Albright, W. F. 'The ancient Near East and the Religion of Israel.'

JBL 59 (1940) 85-112.

-. 'Bultmann's History and Eschatology.' JBL 77 (1958) 244-248.

-. 'Return to Biblical Theology.' Christian Century 75 (1958) 1328-

1331.

Allen, E. L. 'The Limits of Biblical Theology.' JBR 25 (1957) 13-18.

Althaus, P. 'Adolf Schlatters Wort an die heutige Theologie.' ZST 21

(1950) 95-109.

-. 'Die Gestalt dieser Welt und die SUnde. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie
der Geschichte.' ZST 9 (1932) 319-338.

Anderson, B. W. 'Myth and the Biblical Tradition.' TToday 27 (1970-

71) 44-62.

-. 'The New Heilsgeschichte.' Int 19 (1965) 337-341.

-, ed. The Old Testament and Christian Faith. New York 1963.

-. 'The Problem of Old Testament History.' LQHR 190 (1965) 5-11.

 -480-

Rev. of Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis. RelL 39 (1970) 608f.

Auberlen, C. A. The Divine Revelation. Trans, by A. B. Paton. Edin

burgh 1867.

Aulen, G. Christus Victor. Trans, by A. Herbert. London 1970.

Aune, D. E. 'The Words of God Interpreting the Deeds of God.' Int 29

(1975) 424-427.

Avis, P. 'Karl Barth: The Reluctant Virtuoso.' Th 85 (1983) 164-171.

Baab, 0. 'Old Testament Theology: Its Possibility and Methodology.'

The Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow. Ed. by H. R. Willoughby.
Chicago 1947. 401-418.

Bailer, A. Das systematische Prinzip in der Theologie Adolf Schlatters.

Arbeiten zur Theologie. II.. Reihe. Band 12. Stuttgart 1968.

Baillie, D. M. God was in Christ. London 2 1955.

Bainton, R. 'Patristic Christianity.' IHANE. Ed. by R. C. Dentan.

London 1955. 215-236.

Baird, W. R. , Jr. 'Current Trends in New Testament Study.' JR 39

(1959) 137-153.

Baker, D. L. Two Testaments, One B i b l e . Leicester 1976.

Balthasar, Hans von. The Theology of Karl Barth. Trans, by J. Drury.

New York/Chicago/San Francisco 1971.

Barbour, R. 'The Bible Word of God?' Biblical Studies. Ed. by J.

R. McKay. London 1976. 28-42, 199f.
/
Traditio-Historical Criticism of the Gospels. London 1972.

Barr, J. The Bible in the Modern World. London 1973.

-. Biblical Words for Time. London 2 1969.

-. Fundamentalism. London 2 1981.

Holy Scripture. Oxford 1983.

-. Old and New in Interpretation. London 2 1982.

'The Problem of Old Testament Theology and the History of Religion.'

CJT 3 (1957) 141-149.

-. 'Recent Biblical Theologies VI. Gerhard von Rad's Theologie des

Alten Testaments.' ExpT 73 (1961-1962) 142-146.

-. 'Revelation in History.' IDBSup. 746-749.

 -481-

'Revelation through History in the Old Testament and in Modern Theo

logy. ' Int 17 (1963) 193-205.

-. The Scope and Authority of the Bible. London 1980.

-. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London 1961.

-. 'Story and History in Biblical Theology.' JR 56 (1976) 1-17.

-. 'Trends and Prospects in Biblical Theology.1 JTSns 25 (1974) 265-

282.

Barrett, C. K. 'Quomodo historia conscribenda s it.' NTS 28 (1982) 303-

320.

-. Rev. of Bultmann, Theologie des NT, 3. Lieferung. JTSns 5 (1954)

260-262.

-. 'What Is New Testament Theology?' HBT 3 (1981) 1-22.

Barth, C. 1Grundprobleme einer Theologie des Alten Testaments.' EvT

23 (1963) 342-372.

Barth, K. 'Der christliche Glaube und die Geschichte.' STZ (1912) 1-

18, 49-72.

Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century. Trans, by B. Cozens,

J. Bowen, et a l . London 1972.

-. Der ROmerbrief. Munich 2 1922.

Barth, M. 'Die Methode von Bultmanns Theologie des Neuen Testaments.'

TZ 11 (1955) 1-27.

-. Rev. of Bultmann, Theology of N T , vol. 2. JR 37 (1957) 46-48.

-. 'Whither Biblical Theology.' Int 25 (1971) 350-354.

Barton, J. 'Gerhard von Rad on the World-View of Israel.' JTSns 35

(1984) 301-323.

-. 'Old Testament Theology.' Beginning Old Testament Study. Ed. by

J. Rogerson. London 1983. 90-112.

Bartsch, H. W. 'Anmerkungen zu 0. Cullmann: Christus und die Zeit. '

Kerygma und Mythos. Vol. 2. Ed. by Bartsch. Hamburg-Volksdorf
1952. 36-38.

Bauer, W. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Philadelphia

1971 (G ermarr~^193TK

Baur, F. C. (See under Hodgson.)

-. Vorlesungen tlber neutestamentliche Theologie. Ed. by F. F. Baur.

Leipzig 1864.
 -482-

Baumgdrtel, F. 'Zur Frage der theologischen Deutung des Alten Testa

ments.1 ZST 15 (1938) 136-162.

-. Verheissung. Zur Frage des evangelischen Verstdndnisses des Alten

Testaments. Gtltersloh 1952.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. Jesus and the Future. London 1954.

Bebbington, D. Patterns in History. Leicester 1979.

Behm, J . Heilsgeschichtliche und religionsgeschichtliche Betrachtung

des Neuen Testaments. Zeit- und Streitfragen des Glaubens, der
Weltanschauung und Bibelforschung 15. Berlin 1922.

Beisser, F. 'Luthers Urteil Uber die "Vernunft".' TB 15 (1984) 150

162.

Beker, J. 'Biblical Theology in a Time of Confusion.' TToday 25 (1968-

1969) 185-194.

-. 'Reflections on Biblical Theology.' Int 24 (1970) 303-320.

Bengsch, A. Heilsgeschichte und Heilswissen. Eine Untersuchung zur

Struktur und Entfaltung des theologischen Denkens im Werk 'Adversus
Haereses' des HI. Irendus von Lyon. Leipzig 1957.

Bernoulli, C. A. Die wissenschaftliche und die kirchliche Methode in

der Theologie. Freiburg/ Leipzig/TUbingen 1897.

Bernstein, R. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneu

tics, and Praxis. Oxford 1983.

Bertram, G. 'Die Aufgabe einer Theologie beider Testamente.' Kirche

im Angriff 12 (1936) 416-427.

-. 'Neutestamentliche Religionsgeschichte und Theologie.' DEE 46

(1935) 355-362.

Bettenson, H . , ed. The Early Christian Fathers. London 1956.

Betz, 0. 'History of Biblical Theology.' IDB. Vol. 1. 432-437.

-. 'The Problem of Variety and Unity in the New Testament.' HBT 2

(L980) 3-14.

Bickert, R. 'Die Geschichte und das Handeln Jahwes.' Textgemdss. Ed.

by E. Gunneweg and 0. Kaiser. Fs. E. WUrthwein. Gtittingen 1979.
9-27.

Bierberg, R. Rev. of Bultmann, Theologie des N T . CBQ 15 (1953) 382-

386.

Birch, B. 'Old Testament Theology: Its Task and Future.' HBT 6 (1984)
iii-viii.
 -483-

Black, M. A Survey of Christological Thought 1872-1972. Croall Cen

tenary Lecture. Edinburgh n.d.

Bland, K. 'Interpretation, History of: early rabbinic.' IDBSup 446-

448.

Blank, J. 'Geschichte und Heilsgeschichte.' WW 23 (1968) 116-127.

Bockmlihl, K. The Challenge of Marxism. Leicester 1980.

-. 'Die Wende im Sp&twerk Karl Barths.' TB 14 (1983) 180-188.

Boers, H. What Is New Testament Theology? Philadelphia 1979.

Boman, T. Das hebrdische Denken im Vergleich mit dem griechischen.

GOttingen ^1968.

Borsch, F. H. Rev. of Goppelt, Theology of N T , vol. 1. Int 37 (1983)

80-82.

Bourke, J. 'A Survey of Biblical Theology.' Life of the Spirit 18

(1963) 51-68.

Bowman, J. W. 'From Schweitzer to Bultmann.' TToday 11 (1954) 160-178.

Bowman, R. A. 'Old Testament Research between the Great Wars.' The

Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow. Ed. by H. R. Willoughby.
Chicago 1947. 3-31.

Braaten, C. History and Hermeneutics. London 1966.

Brandenburg, A. 'Der Zeit- und Geschichtsbegriff bei Karl Barth.' Theo-

logie und Glaube 45 (1955) 337-378.

Branton, J. 'Our Present Situation in Biblical Theology.' RelL 26

(1956-57) 5-18.

Braun, D. 'Heil als Geschichte: Zu Oscar Cullmanns neuem Buch.' EvT

27 (1967) 57-76.

Braun, H. 'Die Problematik einer Theologie des Neuen Testaments.' ZTK

Beiheft 2 (1961) 3-18 (=PTNT, 405-424).

Brezger, R. Das Schrifttum von Professor D. A. Schlatter. BFCT 40/2.

Gtltersloh n.d.

Bright, J. The Authority of the Old Testament. London 1967.

Brinkmann, B. Rev. of Albertz, Botschaft des NT. Schol 33 (1958) 267-

272.

Bromiley, G. Historical Theology. Edinburgh 1978.

Brown, C. 'History and the Believer.' History, Criticism and Faith.

Ed. by Brown. Leicester 1976. 147-216.
 -484-

Brown, R. M. 'Is There a "Biblical Theology"?' RelL 26 (1956-57) 31-

39.

Brox, N. 'Worttheologie und Biblische Theologie.' Bibel und Liturgie

38 (1964-65) 12-16.

Bruce, F. F. 'The History of New Testament Study.' New Testament In

terpretation. Ed. by I. H. Marshall. Grand Rapids 1978. 21-59.

-. 'Salvation History in the New Testament.' Man and His Salvation.

Fs. S. G. F. Brandon. Ed. by E. J. Sharpe and J. R. Hinnells. Man
chester 1973. 75-90.

BrUckner, M. 'Die neuen Darstellungen der neutestamentlichen Theolo

gie.' TRu 16 (1913) 363-386, 415-436.

Brueggemann, W. 'A Convergence in Recent Old Testament Theologies.'

JSOT 18 (1980) 2-18.

Buchheim, K. Der historische Christus: Geschichtswissenschaftliche

Ueberlegungen zum Neuen Testament. Munich 1974.

BUchsel, F. Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Geschichte des Wortes

Gottes im Neuen Testament^ GUtersloh 2 1937. ~

Bultmann, R. 'Autobiographical Reflections of Rudolf Bultmann.' The

Theology of Rudolf Bultmann. Ed. by C. W. Kegley. London 1966.
xix-xxv.

-. Glauben und Verstehen. Vol. 1. Tilbingen 1933.

-. 'Heilsgeschichte und Geschichte. Zu 0. Cullmann, Christus und die

Zeit.' PTNT, 296-308 (=TLZ 73 [1948] 659-666).

-. 'History and Eschatology in the New Testament.' NTS 1 (1954) 5-16.

-. Jesus. 6. bis 8. Tausend. Berlin 1929.

-, et al. Kerygma and Myth. Ed. by H. W. Bartsch. Trans, by R. H.

Fuller. New York 1961.

-. 'Das Problem einer theologischen Exegese des Neuen Testaments.'

PTNT, 249-277.

-. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. UTB 630. Ttlbingen 81980.

Burrows, M. 'The Task of Biblical Theology.' JBR 14 (1946) 13-15.

Busch, E. Karl Barth. London 1965.

Cairns, D. 'A Reappraisal of Bultmann's Theology.' RelS 17 (1981) 469-

485.

Callahan, J. F. Four Views of Time in Ancient Philosophy. Cambridge,

Mass. 1948.
 -485-

Campenhausen, H. von. 'Die Entstehung der Heilsgeschichte. Der Aufbau

des christlichen Geschichtsbildes in der Theologie des ersten und
zweiten Jahrhunderts.1 Saeculum 21 (1970) 189-212.

'Irendus und das Neue Testament.' TLZ 90 (1965) 2-8.

Carson, D. 'Redaction Criticism: On the Legitimacy and Illegitimacy

of a Literary Tool.' Scripture and Truth. Ed. by Carson and J.
Woodbridge. Grand Rapids 1983. 119-142, 376-381.

Catchpole, D. Rev. of Ladd, Theology of N T . Th 79 (1976) 126f.

Cavert, S. Rev. of Ladd, Theology of N T . RelL 44 (1975) 249f.

Chadwick, H. 'The Bible and Historical Study.' The Churchman 67 (1946)

179-186.

Chariot, J. New Testament Disunity. New York 1970.

Childs, B. Biblical Theology in Crisis. Philadelphia 1970.

-. 'Is Biblical Theology Still Possible?' Public lecture. Cambridge

Univ. 28th Nov. 1984.

-. 'Some Reflections on the Search for aBiblical Theology.' HBT 4

(1982) 1-12.

Christ, F., ed. Oikonomia: Heilsgeschichte als Thema der Theologie.

Hamburg 1967.

Clayton, J. P., ed. Ernst Troeltsch and the Future of Theology. Cam
bridge 1976.

Clements, R. A Century of Old Testament Study. Guildford/London 1976.

-. 'Messianic Prophecy or Messianic History.' HBT 1 (1979) 87-104.

-. 'The Problem of Old Testament Theology.' LQHR 190 (1965) 11-17.

-. 'Theodorus C. Vriezen. An Outline of Old Testament Theology.'

Contemporary Old Testament Theologians. Ed. by R. Laurin. Valley
Vorge, Penn. 1970. 121-140.

Clemons, J. T. 'Critics and Criticism of Salvation History.' RelL 41

(1972) 89-100.

Coggins, R. J. 'History and Story in Old Testament Study.' JS0T 11

(1979) 36-46.

Cohen, H. Die Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums.
Leipzig 1919.

Collins, J. J. 'The "Historical" Character of the Old Testament in Re

cent Old Testament Theology.' CBQ 41 (1979) 185-204.
 -486-

Conzelmann, H. 'Fragen an Gerhard von Rad.' EvT 24 (1964) 113-125.

-. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. Trans.by J . Bow

den . London 1969.

Copleston, F. A History of Philosophy. Vol. 7. Pt. 2. New York 1965.

Craig, C. T. 'Biblical Theology and the Rise of Historicism. ' JBL 62

(1943) 281-294.

-. 'Current Trends in New Testament Study.' JBL 57 (1938) 359-375.

Craigie, P. 'The Role and Relevance of Biblical Research.' JSOT 18

(1980) 19-31.

Cremer, H. Glaube, Schrift und heilige Geschichte. Gtltersloh 1896.

Crenshaw, J. Gerhard von R a d . Makers of the Modern Theological Mind.

Waco 1978.

Cross, F. L. The Early Christian Fathers. London 1960.

Cullmann, 0. 'An Autobiographical Sketch.' Trans, by T. Tyce. SJT

14 (1961) 228-233.

-. Christ and Time. Trans, by F. Filson. Rev. ed. Philadelphia 1964.

-. The Christology of the New Testament. Trans, by S. Guthrie and C.

Hall. London 1959.

-. 'The Connection of Primal Events and End Events with the New Testa
ment Redemptive History.' The Old Testament and Christian Faith.
Ed. by B. Anderson. Trans, by L. Gaston and Anderson. New York
1963. 115-123.

-. The Earliest Christian Confessions. Trans, by J. Reid. London

1949 (first pub. 1943).

-. The Early Church. London 1956.

-. 'Gottes Heilsplan in der Weltgeschichte: Heil in Christus als Prob

lem ftlr die Gegenwart.' EvK 12 (1974) 730-733.

-. Heil als Geschichte. Tllbingen 1965 (Salvation in History. London

1967).

-. The New Testament. Trans, by D. Pardee. London 1968.

-. 'The Relevance of Redemptive History.' Soli Deo Gloria. Fs. W. C.

Robinson. Ed. by J. M. Richards. Trans, by J . A. Hare. Richmond
1968. 9-22.

-. Vortrdge und Aufs&tze 1925-1962. Ed. by K. Frtthlich. Tllbingen/

Zlirich 1966.
 -487-

-. 'Zur Frage der Erforschung der neutestamentlichen Christologie.'

KD 1 (1955) 133-141.

Cwiekowski, F. 'Biblical Theology as Historical Theology.' CBQ 24

(1962) 404-411.

Dahl, N. 'Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments.' TRu 22 (1954) 21-49.

Danielou, J. 'The New Testament and the Theology of History.' TU 73

(SE 1959). 25-34.

D'Arcy, M. C. The Sense of History. London 1959.

Davidson, R. 'Faith and History in the Old Testament.' ExpT 77 (1965-

66) 100-104.

Davidson, R. M. Typology in Scripture. Andrews Univ. Seminary Doctoral

Dissertation Series. Vol. II. Berien Springs, Mich. 1981.

Davies, R. H. 'Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology.' Contemporary

Old Testament Theologians. Ed. by R. Laurin. Valley Forge, Penn.
1970. 63-89.

Delling, G. Das Zeitverstdndnis des Neuen Testaments. GUtersloh 1940.

Dentan, R. C . , ed. The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East. Lon
don 1955.

-. Preface to Old Testament Theology. New York 2 1963.

Despland, M. Kant on History and Religion. Montreal/London 1973.

Dessauer, P. Der Anfang und das Ende: Eine theologische und religidse
Betrachtung zur Heilsgeschichte. Leipzig 1939.

DeVries, S. Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Time and History in the

Old Testament. Grand Rapids 1975.

Dibelius, M. Geschichtliche und tlbergeschichtliche Religion im Chris-

tentum. Gdttingen 1925.

Dillistone, F. W. C. H. Dodd: Interpreter of the New Testament. Grand

Rapids 1977.

Dinkier, E. 'Bibelkritik II. NT.' RGG. Vol. 1. 3 1957. 1188ff.

. 'Earliest Christianity.' IHANE. Ed. by R. C. Dentan. London 1955.

169-214.

-. 'Existentialist Interpretation of the New Testament.' JR 32 (1952)

87-96.

Dodd, C. H. The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments. London 1970

(11936).
 -488-

The Bible Today. London 1946.

-. History and the Gospel. London 1938.

-. 'Thirty Years of New Testament Study.' RelL 19 (1950) 323-333.

DobschUtz, E. von. 'Der Historiker und das Neue Testament.' ZNW 32

(1933) 42-52.

-. 'Zeit und Raum im Denken des Urchristentums. ' JBL 41 (1922) 212-
223.

Dorman, T. M. The Hermeneutics of Oscar Cullmann. Diss. Fuller Theo

logical Seminary 1983.

Drescher, H. G. 'Das Problem der Geschichte bei E. Troeltsch.' ZTK

57 (1960) 186-230.

Duncan, C. H. Dr Rudolf Bultmann's Epistemology: An Examination of

the Epistemological Presuppositions in his Theology. Diss. Cam
bridge Univ. 1959.

Dunn, J. 'Demythologizing The Problem of Myth in the New Testament.'

New Testament Interpretation. Ed. by I. H. Marshall. Grand Rapids
1977. 285-307.

-. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. London 1977.

Dymale, H. R. The Theology of Adolf Schlatter with Special Reference

to his Understanding of History. Diss. Univ. of Iowa 1966.

Ebeling, G. The Problem of Historicity. Philadelphia 1967.

-. Word and Faith. London 1963.

Egg, G . Adolf Schlatters Position, gezeigt an seiner Matthdusinterpre

tation. Arbeiten zur Theologie. III. Reihe. Band 14. Stuttgart
1968.

Eichrodt, W. 'Hat die alttestamentliche Theologie noch selbst&ndige

Bedeutung innerhalb der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft?' ZAW 6
(1929) 83-91.

-. 'Offenbarung und Geschichte im Alten Testament.' TZ 4 (1948) 321-

331.
5
-. Theologie des Alten Testaments. Vol. 1. Stuttgart 1957.

-. Theology of the Old Testament. Trans, by J. Baker. 2 vols. London

1961, 1967.

-. 'Zur Frage der theologischen Exegese des Alten Testaments.' TB1

17 (1938) 73-87.
Eissfeldt, 0. 'Israelitisch-jlldische Religionsgeschichte und alttesta
mentliche Theologie. ZAW 3 (1926) 1-12.
 -489-

'Otto Procksch.1 Kleine Schriften. Vol. 3. Ed. by R. Sellheim

and F. Maass. TUbingen 1966. 131.

Ellis, E. 'Dating the New Testament.' NTS 26 (1980) 487-502.

Eltester, W. 'Notizen.' ZNW 45 (1953-54) 276f.

-. Rev. of Bultmann, Theologie des N T , vol. 1. ZNW 43 (1950-51) 275-

277.

Ernst, J. Herr der Geschichte. Stuttgart 1978.

Eslinger, R. L. Historicity and Historicalit.y: A Comparison of Carl

Michalson and Oscar Cullmann. Diss. Boston Univ. 1970.

Fangmeier, J. 'Heilsgeschichte? Einige Marginalien, besonders zum Ge-

spr&ch zwischen Karl Barth und Oscar Cullmann.' Geschichte und Zu-
kunft. Fangmeier and M. Geiger. Zlirich 1967. 5-27.

Fascher, E. 'Eine Neuordnung der neutestamentlichen Fachdisziplin?'

TLZ 83 (1958) 609-618.

Feine, P. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Berlin 81953.

Fenton, J. 'The Post-Liberal Theology of Christ without Myth.' JR 43

(1963) 93-104.

-. 'Recent Biblical Theologies. II. Rudolf Bultmanns Theology of the

New Testament.' ExpT 73 (1961-62) 8-11.

Filson, F. 'Method in Studying Biblical History.' JBL 69 (1950) 1-18.

Fisch, H. 'Ruth and the Structure of Covenant History.' VT 32 (1982)

425-437.

Fischer, D. H. Historians' Fallacies. New York 1970.

Fischer, H. 'NatUrliche Theologie im Wandel.' ZTK 80 (1983) 85-102.

Flechsenhaar, G. Das Geschichtsproblem in der Theologie Johannes von

Hofmanns. Giessen 1935.

FlUckiger, F. 'Heilsgeschichte und Weltgeschichte.' EvT 18 (1958) 37-

47.

Fohrer, G. 'Remarks on Modern Interpretations of the Prophets.' JBL

80 (1961) 309-319.

-. Rev. of H.-J. Kraus, Geschichte, 2 1969. TLZ 99 (1974) 502f.

-. Theologische Grundstrukturen des Alten Testaments. Berlin 1972.

-. 'Die zeitliche und liberzeitliche Bedeutung des Alten Testaments.'

EvT 9 (1949) 447-460.
 -490-

Forsyth, P. T. 'The Faith of Jesus.' ExpT 21 (1909-10) 8f.

Fosdick, H. E. The Living of These Days. New York 1956.

Freedman, D. N. 'The Biblical Idea of History.' Int 21 (1967) 32-49.

Frei, H. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative. New Haven/London 1974.

Fresenius, W. 'Geschichte und Historie.' EvT 27 (1967) 624-627.

Friedman, R. 'Kierkegaard: First Existentialist or Last Kantian?'

RelS 18 (1982) 159-170.

Friedrich, G. '"Begriffsgeschichtliche" Untersuchungen im Theologischen

WOrterbuch zum Neuen Testament. ' Auf das Wort kommt es a n . Ed.
by J. Friedrich. GOttingen 1978. 524-550.

-. 'Die Problematik eines Theologischen W6rterbuchs zum Neuen Testa

ment. ' TU 73 (SE 1959) 481-486.

Frik, H. 'Was bewegt der Fundamentalismus?' Zu J. Barr, Fundamentar-

lismus. EvT 43 (1983) 484-486.

Frdhlich, K. 'Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments: Oscar Cullmanns Beitrag

zur Theologie der Gegenwart.' Oikonomia. Ed. by F. Christ. Ham
burg 1967. 203-219.

Fuller, R. H. 'Some Further Reflections on Heilsgeschichte.' USQR 22

(1967) 93-103. ~

Funk, R 'The Watershed of the American Biblical Tradition: The Chi

cago School, First Phase, 1892-1920.' JBL 95 (1976) 4-22.

Galloway, A. Wolfhart Pannenberg. London 1973.

Garrett, C. R. The Development of Rudolf Bultmann's Views of Christo-

logy and Revelation: 1903-1930. Diss. Sheffield Univ. 1979.

Gasque, W. 'The Promise of Adolf Schlatter.' ERT 4 (1980) 20-30.

Geisser, M. 'Mysterium Salutis. TZ 32 (1976) 159-166.

Gese, H. 'ErwMgungen zur Einheit der biblischen Theologie.' ZTK 67

(1970) 417-436. '

-. 'Geschichtliches Denken im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament.'

ZTK 55 (1958) 127-145.

-. Zur biblischen Theologie. TUbingen 1983.

Gilkey, L. 'Cosmology, Ontology, and the Travail of Biblical Language.'

JR 41 (1961) 194-205.

-. 'The Roles of the "Descriptive" or "Historical" and of the "Norma

tive" in Our Work.' Criterion 20 (1981) 10-17.
 -491-

Glover , W . B . Evangelical Nonconformists and Higher Criticism in the

Nineteenth Century. London 1954.

Gnuse, R. 'Authority of the Scriptures: Quest for a Norm.' BTB 13

(1983) 59-66.

Goetz, S., and Blomberg, C. 'The Burden of Proof.' JSNT 11 (1981) 39-
63.

Gogarten, F. Demythologizing and History. London 1955.

Goldingay, J. Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation. Leicester

1981.

-.'Diversity and Unity in Old Testament Theology. ' VT 34 (1984) 153

168.

-. "'That you may know that Jahweh is God": A Study in the Relation
ship between Theology and Historical Truth in the Old Testament.'
TynB 23 (1972) 58-93.

Goppelt, L. Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times. Trans, by R. Guelich.

Grand Rapids 1980.

'Die Authoritat der Heiligen Schrift und die Bibelkritik.' Wort

Gottes und Bekenntnis. Sonderdruck zur Rllstzeit der 15. ordent-
lichen Landessynode inLoccum. Pattensen 1954. 9-17.

-. Christentum und Judentum im ersten und zweiten Jahrhundert. GUter-

sloh 1954.

-. Christologie und Ethik. GOttingen 1968.

-. 'Der Ertrag einer Epoche. Vier Darstellungen der Theologie des

Neuen Testaments.1 LM 11 (1972) 96-98.

-. 'The Existence of the Early Church in History according to Apos

tolic and Early Catholic Thought.' Current Issues in New Testament
Interpretation. Ed. by W. Klassen and G. Snyder. London 1962.
193-209.

-. 1Heilsoffenbarung und Geschichte nach der Offenbarung des Johannes.'

TLZ 77 (1952) 513-522.

-. 'Das hermeneutische Problem in der gegenwMrtigen neutestamentlichen

Wissenschaft.' Amtsblatt der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche in
ThUringen 9 (1956) 103-105.

-. Rev. of Albertz, Botschaft des N T . ELKZ 13 (1959) 222f.

-. Rev. of Cullmann, Heil als Geschichte. TZ 22 (1966) 51-56.

-. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 2 vols. GOttingen 3 1981.

-. Typos. Darmstadt 2 1969.

 -492-

Typos. Trans, by D. Madvig. Grand Rapids 1982.

Gorman, J. The Expression of Historical Knowledge. Edinburgh 1982.

Gorringe, T. 'In Defence of the Identification: Scripture as Word of

God.1 SJT 32 (1979) 303-318.

Gottwald, N. 'W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament.' Contem

porary Old Testament Theologians. Ed. by R. Laurin. Valley Forge,
Penn. 1970. 23-62.

GrMsser, E. Albert Schweitzer als Theologe. BHT 60. Ed. by J. Wall-

mann. Ttlbingen 1979.

-. 'Offene Fragen im Umkreis einer biblischen Theologie.' ZTK 77

(1980) 200-221.

-. Das Problem der ParusieverzOgerung. Berlin/New York 3 1977.

-. 'Rudolf Bultmann zum Ged&chtnis.' ZNW 75 (1984) 1.

Grant, F. C. Rev. of Bultmann, Theologie des N T .JBL 69 (1950) 69-73;

71 (1952) 52f.; 73 (1954) 51-53.

Grant, M. Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. New York 1977.

Grant, R. M. '"Development" in Early Christian Doctrine.' JR 39 (1959)

120-128.

Greig, A. J. Geschichte and Heilsgeschichte in Old Testament Interpre

tation with particular reference to the work of Gerhard von R a d .
Diss. Edinburgh Univ. 1974.

-. 'Some formative aspects in the development of Gerhard von Rad's

idea of history.' AUSS 16 (1978) 313-331.

Gressmann, H. 'Die Aufgaben der alttestamentlichen Forschung.' ZAW

1 (1924) 1-33.

Griffen, D. R. 'Relativism, Divine Causation, and Biblical Theology.'

Enc 36 (1975) 342-360.

Gritsch, E. W. 'William Dilthey and the Interpretation of History.'

Lutheran Quarterly 15 (1963) 58-69.

Grudem, W. 'Scripture's Self-Attestation and the Problem of Formulating

a Doctrine of Scripture.' Scripture and Truth. Ed. by D. Carson
and J. Woodbridge. Grand Rapids 1983. 15-59, 359-368.

Guelich, R. , ed. Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology. Fs.

G. E. Ladd. Grand Rapids 1978.

Gtlting, E. 'Zu den Voraussetzungen des systematischen Denkens Adolf

Schlatters.' NZsT 15 (1973) 132-147.
 -493-

Gllttgemanns, E. 'Linguistisch-literaturwissenschaftliche Grundlegung

einer neutestamentlichen Theologie.' LB 13/14 (1972) 2-18.

-. 'Literatur zur Neutestamentlichen Theologie.' VF 12 (1967) 38-87.

Guthrie, D. New Testament Theology. Downers Grove, 111. 1981.

Rev. of Goppelt, Theology of N T , vol. 1. JETS 26 (1983) 238ff.

Gyllenberg. R. 'Die Unmdglichkeit einer Theologie des Alten Testa

ments.' Abhandlungen. . . Riga 6 (1938) 64-68.

Haacker, K. 'Biblische Theologie und historische Kritik.' TB 8 (1977)

223-226.

-. Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. Wuppertal 1981.

-, et a l . Biblische Theologie heute. Biblisch-theologische Studien

1. Neukirchen-Vluyn 1977.

Hagenbach, K. R. History of the Church in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth

Centuries. Vol. 2. Trans, by J. F. Hurst. London 1870.

Harbsmeier, G. 'Die Theologie Rudolf Bultmanns und die Philosophie.'

Zeit und Geschichte: Denkausgabe zu Rudolf Bultmann zum 80. Ge-
burtstag. Ed. by E. Dinkier. TUbingen 1964. 467-475.

Haroutonian, J. 'The Bible and the Word of God: TheImportance of

Biblical Theology.' Int 1 (1947) 291-308.

Harrington, D. 'The Reception of Walter Bauer'sOrthodoxy and Heresy

in Earliest Christianity During the Last Decade.' HTR 73 (1980)
289-298.

Harrington, W. J. The Path of Biblical Theology. Dublin 1973.

Harris, H. David Friedrich Strauss ana his Theology. Cambridge 1973.

-. The TUbingen School. Oxford 1975.

Harvey, A. E. Jesus and the Constraints of History. 1980 Bampton Lec

tures . London 1982.

Harvey, V. The Historian and the Believer. London 1967.

'The Pathos of Liberal Theology.' JR 56 (1976) 382-391.

Hasel, G. 'Biblical Theology: Then, Now, and Tomorrow.' HBT 4 (1982)

61-93.

-. 'A Decade of Old Testament Theology: Retrospect and Prospect.'

ZAW 93 (1981) 165-183.

-. New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate. Grand

Rapids 1978.
 -494-

Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate. Rev.

ed. Grand Rapids 1975.

-. 'The Problem of History in Old Testament Theology.' AUSS 8 (1970)

32-46.

Haussleiter, J., ed. Grundlinien der Theologie Joh. Christ. K. v. Hof

manns in seiner eigenen Darstellung. Leipzig 1910.

Hebblethwaite, B. '"True" and "False" in Christology.' The Philoso

phical Frontiers of Theology. Ed. by Hebblethwaite and S. Suther
land. Cambridge 1982. 227238.

Heick, 0. 'Recent German New Testament Studies, 1933-37.' Lutheran

Church Quarterly 11 (1938) 159-176.

Heinisch, P. Theologie des Alten Testaments. Die heilige Schrift des

Alten Testaments (ibersetzt und erklMrt. ErgMnzungsband I. Bonn
1940.

Heller, E. 'The Hazard of Modern Poetry.' The Disinherited Mind. Lon

don 41975. 261-300.

Helm, P. 'Faith, Evidence, and the Scriptures.' Scripture and Truth.

Ed. by D. Carson and J. Woodbridge. Grand Rapids 1983. 299-320,
411.

Hemer, 0. Rev. of H. Staudinger, The Trustworthiness of the Gospels.

Them 9 (1983) 29.

Hemer, J. Karl Barth. Westminster, Md. 1962.

Hengel, M. The Atonement. Trans, by J. Bowden. Philadelphia 1981.

-. 'Kerygma oder Geschichte?' TQ 151 (1971) 323-336.

-. 'Neutestamentliche Wege und Holzwege.' EvK 3 (1970) 112-114.

-. Zur urchristlichen Geschichtsschreibung. Stuttgart 1979.

Herberg., W. 'Faith as Heilsgeschichte: The Meaning of Redemptive His

tory in Human Existence.' CS 39 (3 956) 25-31.

-. Faith Enacted as History. Ed. by B. Anderson. Philadelphia 1976.

Herion, G. 'The Role of Historical Narrative in Biblical Thought: The

Tendencies Underlying Old Testament Historiography.' JSOT 21 (1981)
25-57.

Hermesmann, H.-G. Zeit und Heil. Oscar Cullmanns Theologie der Heils
geschichte . Paderborn 1979.

Herrmann, R. Bibel und Hermeneutik. Gesammelte und nachgelassene

W erke. Vol. 3. Ed. by H. Beintker, et al. GOttingen 1971.
 -495-

Herrmann, S. Time and History. Trans, by J. Blevins. Biblical En

counters Series. Nashville 1981.

Herrmann, W. Rev. of E. Troeltsch, Die Bedeutung der Geschichtlichkeit

Jesu ftlr den Glauben. Rpt. in ZTK 57 (1960) 231-237.

Hesse, Franz. Abschied von der Heilsgeschichte. Theologische Studien

108. Zllrich 1971.

Hessen, J. Griechische oder biblische Theologie? Das Problem der Hel-

lenisierung des Christentums in neuer Beleuchtung. Munich/Basle
2 1962.

Higgins, A. J. B. 'The Growth of New Testament Theology.' SJT 6 (1953)

275-286.

-. Rev. of Ladd, Theology of NT. SJT 30 (1977) 389ff.

Hill, D. Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings. SNTSMS 5. Cambridge 1967.

Hirschberger, J. Kleine Philosophiegeschichte. Freiburg/Basel/Wien

1983.

Hodgson, P. C., ed. and trans. Ferdinand Christian Baur on the Writing
of Church History. New York 1968.

-. 'Hegel's Approach to Religion: The Dialectic of Speculation and

Phenomenology.' JR 64 (1984) 158-172.

Hofmann, J. C. K. von. Die heilige Schrift neuen Testaments zusammen-

hMngend untersucht. 11 vols. NOrdlingen 1869-1886.

-. Interpreting the Bible. Trans, by C. Preus. Minneapolis 1959.

-. Der Schriftbeweis. 2 vols. in 3 p ts. NOrdlingen 2 1857, 2 1859,

2 1860.

Weissagung und ErfUllung im alten und im neuen Testamente. 2 vols.

NOrdlingen 1841, 1844.

HolsmstrOm, F. Das eschatologische Denken der Gegenwart. Drei Etappen

der theologischen Entwicklung des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts. Trans,
by H. Kruska. GUtersloh 1936.

Holtz, T. Rev. of L. Goppelt, Theologie des N T , vols. 1 and 2. TLZ

101 (1976) 424-430; TLZ 105 (1980) 599-602.

Holtzmann, H. J. Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Theologie. 2 vols.

Freiburg/ Leipzig 1897.

-. Rev. of A. Schlatter, Theologie des N T . TLZ 35 (1910) 299-303.

Hoskyns, E. and Davey, N. The Riddle of the New Testament. London

2 1936.
 -496-

Htlbner, H . Schrift und Theologie: Eine Untersuchung zur Theologie Joh.

Chr. K. von Hofmanns. Munich 1956.

Htlbner, Hans. Rev. of H. Seebass, Der Gott der ganzen Bibel. TLZ 109
(1984) 538ff.

HUnermann, P . Der Durchbruch geschichtlichen Denkens im 19. Jahrhun-

dert. Freiburg/Basel/Wien 1967.

Hughes, H. D. 'Salvation-History as Hermeneutic.' EvQ 48 (1976) 79-

89.

Huizinga, J. Im Bann der Geschichte. Basel 1943.

Hummel, H. 'Biblical or Dogmatic Theology?'Concordia Journal 7 (1981)

191-200.

Hunter, A. M. Interpreting the New Testament 1900-1950. London 1951.

-. Introducing New Testament Theology. London/Philadelphia 1958.

-. The Unity of the New Testament. London 1943.

Irenaeus, St. Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. Trans, andannotated

by J. P.Smith. ACW 16. London 1952.

Irwin, W. A. 'The Interpretation of the Old Testament.' ZAW 21 (1950)

1- 1 0 .

-. 'The Reviving Theology of the Old Testament.' JR 25 (1945) 235-246.

-. 'A Still Small Voice. . . Said, What Are You Doing Here?' JBL 78
(1959) 1-12.

Jacob, E. Grundfragen Alttestamentlicher Theologie. Franz Delitzsch

Vorlesungen 1965. Stuttgart 1970.

-. Theology of the Old Testament. Trans, by A. Heathcote and P. All

cock. London 1958.

Jaesche, Walter. DieSuchenach den eschatologischen Wurzeln der Ge-

schichtsphilosophie. BEvT 76. Munich 1976.

Jeremias, J. Neutestamentliche Theologie. Erster Teil. Die Verktln-

digung Jesu. Gtltersloh 1971.

Johnson, R. A. The Origins of Demythologizing: Philosophy and Histori

ography in the Theology of Rudolf Bultmann. Studies in the History
of Religions (supplements to Numen) XXVIII. Leiden 1974.

Jonas, J. 'Is Faith Still Possible? Memories of Rudolf Bultmann and

Reflections on the Philosophical Aspects of His Work.' HTR 75
(1982) 1-23.

Jones, D. R. 'History and Tradition in Old Testament Studies.' SJT

17 (1964) 211-225.
 -497-

Jordan, H. 'Zur Hofmann Bibliographie.' BBK 29 (1922) 129ff.

Kdhler, M. Geschichte der protestantischen Dogmatik im 19. Jahrhundert.

TBtl 16. Munich 1962.

The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ.

Trans, and ed. by C. E. Braaten. Philadelphia 1970.

K&semann, E. 'The Problem of a New Testament Theology.' NTS 19 (1973)

235-245.

-. 'Was ich als deutscher Theologe in fdnfzig Jahren verlernte.' Kirch-

liche Konflikte. Vol. 1. Gtittingen 1982. 233-244.

Kaiser, W. Toward an Old Testament -Theology. Grand Rapids 1978.

Kant, I. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Ethics. Trans,

by T. K. Abbott. London tC,1946.

-. Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Trans, by N. K. Smith.

London 1950.

On History. Trans, by L. Beck, R. Anchor, and E. Fackenheim. In

dianapolis 1980.

Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone. Trans, by T. H. Greene

and H. Hudson. New York 1960.

Kantzenbach, F. W. Die Erlanger Theologie. Grundlinien ihrer Entwick-

lung im Rahmen der Geschichte der theologischen Fakultdt, 1743-1877.
Munich 1960.

-. Programme der Theologie. Munich 2 1978.

Karlberg, M. 'Justification in Redemptive History.' WTJ 43 (1981) 213-

246.

-. Rev. of Goppelt, Typos. JETS 26 (1983) 490-493.

Kattenbusch, F. Die deutsche evangelische Theologie seit Schleier-

macher. Giessen ^1926.

Kaufman, G. 'The Imago Dei as Man's Historicity.' JR 36 (1956) 157-

168.

-. 'On the Meaning of "Act of God".' HTR 61 (1968) 175-201.

Keck, L. 'Problems of a New Testament Theology: A Critique of Alan

Richardson's An Introduction to New Testament Theology.' NovT 7
(1964) 217-241.

Keller-HUschmenger, M. 'Das Problem der Gewissheit bei J. Chr. K. von

Hofmann im Rahmen der "Erlanger Schule".' Gedenkschrift fdr D. Wer-
ner Elert. Beitr&ge zur historischen und systematischen Theologie.
Berlin 1955. 288-295.
 -498-

Kelsey, D. The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology.Philadelphia

1975.

Kern, I. Husserl und Kant. Eine Untersuchung Uber Husserls VerhMltnis

zu Kant und zum Neukantianismus. The Hague 1964.

Kindt, Irmgard. Der Gedanke der Einheit. Adolf Schlatters Theologie

und ihre historischen Voraussetzungen. Stuttgart 1978.

King, W. L. 'Some Ambiguities in Biblical Theology.' RelL 28 (1957-

58) 95-104.

Kittel, G. , et a l . Ein Lehrer der Kirche. Worte des Gedenkens an D.

Adolf Schlatter- Stuttgart 1938.

Kittel, R. 'Die Zukunft der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft.' ZAW 39

(1921) 84-99.

Klein, G. 'Bibel und Heilsgeschichte. Die FragwUrdigkeit einer Idee.'

ZNW 62 (1971) 1-47.

Koch, K. The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic. London 1972.

-. 'Die heilsgeschichtliche Dimension der Theologie.' TBr 8 (1979)

135-188.

KUberle, A. 'Evangelium und Natur. Zur Theologie von A. Schlatter.'

EvK 10 (1977) 539-541.

Kttberle, J. 'Heilsgeschichtliche und Religionsgeschichtliche Betrach-

tungsweise des Alten Testaments.' NKZ 17 (1906) 200-222.

KOnig, E. Theologie des Alten Testaments. Stuttgart 1922.

Ktippel, Ur s. Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk und seine Quellen.

Europ&ische Hochschulschriften. Vol. 122. Bern 1979.

Koester, H. Introduction to the New Testament. 2 vols. Philadelphia

1982.

Kraeling, E. The Old Testament Since the Reformation. London 1955.

Kraus, H.-J. Die Biblische Theologie. Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970.

Geschichte der .historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testa

ments . Neukirchen-Vluyn 1956, 3 1982.

KUhlewein, J. Geschichte in den Psalmen. Stuttgart 1973.

KUmmel. W.G. 'EinfUhrung zum Neudruck von Vorlesungen Uber neutesta-

mentliche Theologie.' Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte. Vol. 2. Ed.
by E. GrUsser and 0. Merk. Marburg 1978. 101-116.

-. 'Ein Jahrzehnt Jesusforschung (1965-1975).' TRu 41 (1976) 295-363.

 -499-

'Heilsgeschichte im Neuen Testament?' Heilsgeschehen und Geschich

te . Ed. by E. GrMsser and 0. Merk. Marburg 1978. 157-176.

-. Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville 1975.

-. 'Jesusforschung seit 1965: Nachtrhge 1975-1980.' TRu 47 (1982)

350-383.

-. Das Neue Testament im 20. Jahrhundert: Ein Forschungsbericht.

Stuttgart 1970.

-. The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Prob

lems . Nashville 1972.

-. Rev. of Albertz, Die Botschaft des N T . TZ 10 (1954) 55-60.

-. The Theology of the New Testament According to its Major Witnesses.

Nashville 1973.

-. 'Das Urchristentum.1 TRu 48 (1983) 101-128.

Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago 2 1970.

Ladd, G. E. 'Biblical Theology, History, and Revelation.' RevExp 54

(1957) 195-204.

'History and Theology in Biblical Exegesis.' Int 20 (1966) 54-64.

-. 'The Modern Problem of Biblical Scholarship.' BSQ 5 (1957) 10-20.

-. The New Testament and Criticism. Grand Rapids 1967.

-. The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism.

London 1974.

-. 'The Problem of History in Contemporary New Testament Interpreta

tion. ' TU 103 (SE 5, 1968) 88-100.

-. 'Revelation 20 and the Millennium.' RevExp 57 (1960) 167-175.

-. Rev. of Bultmann, Theologie, vol. 2. WTJ 18 (1956) 210-215.

-. 'The Role of Jesus in Bultmann's Theology.' SJT 18 (1965) 57-68.

-. 'The Search for Perspective.' Int 25 (1971) 41-62.

-. A Theology of the New Testament.Grand Rapids 1974.

'What Does Bultmann Understand by the Acts of God?' BETS 5 (1962)

91-97.

Lambert, W. G. 'Destiny and Divine Intervention in Bablylon and Is

rael.' Oudtestamentische Studidn 17 (1972) 65-72.

-. 'History and the Gods: A Review Article.' Orientalia 39 (1970)

170-177.
 -500-

Laurin, R. B. Contemporary Old Testament Theologians. Valley Forge,

Penn. 1970.

-. 1Edmund Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament.' Contemporary Old

Testament Theologians. Ed. by Laurin. Valley Forge, Penn. 1970.
141-169.

Lawson, J. The Biblical Theology of St. Irenaeus. London 1948.

Lazenby, H. Revelation in History in the Theologies of Charles Hodge

and Karl Barth. Diss. Univ. of Aberdeen 1982.

Leary, A. P. 'Biblical Theology and History.' CQR 157 (1956) 402-414.

Leipoldt, J. Rev. of A. Schlatter, Theologie des N T ,vols. 1 and 2.

TLB 30 (1909) 363-366; TBL 31 (1910) 27-30.

Lemche, N. P. 'On the Problem of Studying Israelite History Apropos

Abraham Malamat's View of Historical Research.' BN 24 (1984J 94-
124.

Lemke, W. E. 'Revelation through History in Recent Biblical Theology:

A Critical Appraisal.' Int 36 (1982) 34-46.

Lessing, E.'Die Bedeutung der Heilsgeschichte in der Okumenischen

Diskussion.' EvT 44 (1984) 227-240.

Lichtenberger, F. History of German Theology in the Nineteenth Century.

Trans, by W. Hastie. Edinburgh 1889.

Liebing, H. 'Historisch-kritische Theologie. Zum 100. Todestag

Ferndinand Christian Baurs am 2. Dezember 1960.' ZTK 57 (1960) 302-
317.

Lightfoot, J. B. The Apostolic Fathers. Ed. by J. R. Harmer. London

1891.

Lindblom, J. 'Zur Frage der Eigenart der alttestamentlichen Religion.'

Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments. Ed. by P. Volz, F. Stummer,
and J. Hempel. ZAW Beiheft 66. Berlin 1936. 128-137.

Lindemann, A. 'Jesus in der Theologie des Neuen Testaments.' Jesus

Christus in Historie und Theologie. Ed. by G. Strecker. Tllbingen
1975. 27-57.

LOwith, K. Meaning in History. Chicago 1949.

Lohse, E. Grundriss der neutestamentlichen Theologie. Stuttgart/Ber-

1in/KOln/Mainz 1974.

-. 'Das Neue Testament als apostolische Urkunde.' KD 21 (1975) 85-98.

Lotz, W. Das Alte Testament und die Wissenschaft Leipzig 1905.

 -501-

Lowe,M. and Flusser, D. 'Evidence Corroborating a Modified Proto-

Matthean Synoptic Theory.' NTS 29 (1983) 25-47.

Lowe, J. 'The Recovery of the Theological Interpretation of the Bible.'

The Interpretation of the Bible. Ed. by C. W. Dugmore. London
1944. 108-122.

Llltgert, W. Adolf Schlatter als Theologe innerhalb des geistigen

Lebens seiner Zeit. BFCT 37. Gdtersloh 1932.

Luick, J. 'The Ambiguity of Kantian Faith.' SJT 36 (1983) 339-346.

Luz, U. 'Geschichte/Geschichtsschreibung/Geschichtsphilosophie. IV.

Neues Testament.' TRE 12. 595-604.

-. Das Geschichtsverstdndnis des Paulus. BEvT 49. Munich 1968.

Lyman, M. 'The Unity of the Bible.' JBR 14 (1946) 5-12.

Machen, J. G. 'History and Faith.' PTR 13 (1915) 337-351.

Macquarrie, J. Twentieth Century Religious Thought. Rev. ed. London

1971.

Malamat, A. 'Die Frdhgeschichte Israels eine methodologische Studie.'

TZ 39 (1983) 1-16.

Malet, A. The Thought of Rudolf Bultmann. Shannon, Ireland 1969.

Mandelbaum, M. 'Historicism.' EP. Vol. 4. 22-25.

Manson, T. W. 'The Failure of Liberalism to Interpret the Bible as the

Word of G o d . ' The Interpretation of the Bible. Ed. by C. W. Dug-
more. London 1944. 92-107.

-. Rev. of Bultmann, Theologie des N T , p t s . 1 and 2. JTS 50 (1949)

202-206; JTSns 3 (1952) 246-250.

Manson, W. Jesus and the Christian. London 1967.

Markus, R. 'Pleroma and Fulfillment: The significance of history in

St. Irenaeus1 opposition to the Gnostics.1 VC 8 (1954) 193-224.

Marsh, John. The Fulness of Time. London 1952.

Marshall, I. H. I Believe in the Historical Jesus.Grand Rapids 1977.

-. 'New Testament Theology.' TEd 9 (Spring 1979) 47-64.

-. 'Salvation History.' Unpublished ms. 1984.

-. 'Some Aspects of the Biblical View of History.' FT 110 (1983) 54-

68 .

Marshall, J. S. 'History in the Aristotelian Vein.' ATR 32 (1950) 245-

256.
 -502-

Martin, J. P. 'A Hermeutical Gem.' Rev. of 0. Cullmann, Heil als

Geschichte. Int 20 (1966) 340-346.

Mason, D. R. 'Can We Speculate on How God Acts?' JR 57 (1977) 16-32.

Maurer, C. Rev. of Goppelt, Theologie des N T . TZ 32 (1976) 107f.; TZ

33 (1977) 47f.

McCown, C. C. 'Climate and Religion in Palestine.' JR 7 (1927) 520-

539.

-. 'The Current Plight of Biblical Scholarship.' JBL 75 (1956) 12-18.

'In History or Beyond History?' HTR 38 (1945) 151-175.

Mclntire, C. T., ed. Herbert Butterfield: Writings on Christianity

and History. New York 1979.

McIntyre, John. The Christian Doctrine of History. Grand Rapids 1957.

McKenzie, D. 'Kant and Protestant Theology.' Enc 43 (1982) 157-167.

McKenzie, J. L. Rev. of Bultmann, Theologie des N T . CBQ 16 (1954) 250-

253.

-. 'Problems of Hermeneutics in Roman Catholic Exegesis.' JBL 77

(1958) 197-204.

Meinhold, P. 'Geschehen und Deutung im Ersten Clemensbrief.' ZKG 58

(1939) 82-129.

Merk, 0. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments in ihrer Anfangszeit.

Marburger Theologische Studien 9. Marburg 1972.

-. 'Gabler, Johann Philipp (1753-1826).' TRE 12. Iff.

Merz, G. Das bayerische Luthertum. Munich 1955.

Meyer-Wieck, Karl. Das Wirklichkeitsverstandnis Adolf Schlatters.

Diss. MUnster 1970.

Michalson, G. E. 'Bultmann's Metaphysical Dualism.' RelL 44 (1975)

454-461.

Michel, 0. 'Probleme der neutestamentlichen Theologie.' DT (1942) 20-

30.

-. Rev. of Bultmann, Theologie des N T . TLZ 75 (1950) 29-32; TLZ 79

(1954) 146-149.

Milburn, R. L. P. Early Christian Interpretations of History. 1952

Bampton Lectures. London 1954.

Miller, E. L. 'Salvation History: Pannenberg's Critique of Cullmann.'

IR 37 (1980) 21-25.
 -503-

Miller, J. M. The Old Testament and the Historian. London 1976.

Miller, M. B. 'Restoring the Story.1 Word and World 3 (1983) 284-293.

Minear, P. Rev. of Cullmann, Christ and Time. JBL 70 (1951) 51-53.

-. 'Wanted: A Biblical Theology.' TToday 1 (1944) 47-58.

Mitton, C. L. Rev. of Ladd, Theology of N T . ExpT 87 (1975-76) 66f.

Mttller, G. 'Fttderalismus und Geschichtsbetrachtung im 17. und 18. Jahr-

hundert.' ZKG 50 (1931) 393-440.

Moltmann, J. 'Exegese und Eschatologie der Geschichte.' EvT 22 (1962)

31-66.

Momliagno, A. D. Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography. Oxford

1977.

Mommsen, T. E. 'Petrarch's Conception of the "Dark Ages".' Medieval

and Renaissance Studies. Ed. by E. F. Rice. Ithaca, N.Y. 1959.
106-129.

Montgomery, J. W. 'Where Is History Going?' RelL 33 (1963-64) 238-255.

Morgan, R. 'Ernst Troeltsch and the dialectical theology.' Ernst

Troeltsch and the Future of Theology. Ed. by J. P. Clayton. Cam
bridge 1976. 33-77.

-. The Nature of New Testament Theology. SBT (2nd series) 25. Naper
ville, 111. 1973.

-. Rev. of R. Johnson, Origins of Demythologizing. Th 78 (1975) 487f.

-, and Pye, Michael, eds. Ernst Troeltsch: Writings on Theology and

Religion. London 1977.

Moule, C. F. D. 'The Borderlands of Ontology in the New Testament.'

The Philosophical Frontiers of Theology. Ed. by B. Hebblethwaite
and S. Sutherland. Cambridge 1982. 1-11.

-. 'The Christ of Experience and the Christ of History.' Th 81 (1978)

164-172.

-. Rev. of A. Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the New

Testament. JTSns 10 (1959) 373-376.

MUller, K. 'Geschichte, Heilsgeschichte und Gesetz.' Literatur und

Religion des FrUh judentums. WUrzburg 1973. 73-105.

MUller, P.-G. 'Altes Testament, Israel und das Judentum in der Theolo
gie Rudolf Bultmanns.' KontinuitUt und Einheit. Ed. by MUller and
W. Stenger. Freiburg/Basel/Wien 1981. 439-472.
 -504-

Der Traditionsprozess im Neuen Testament. Kommunikationsanalytische

Studien zur Versprachlichung des Jesus-phanomens. Freiburg/Basel/
Wien 1982.

Mtlller-Fahrenholz, G. Heilsgeschichte zwischen Ideologie und Prophetie.

Profile und Kritik heilsgeschichtlicher Theorien in der dkumenischen
Bewegung zwischen 1948 und 1968. Freiburg/Basel/Wien 1974.

MUller-Lauter, W. 'Konsequenzen des Historismus in der Philosophie der

Gegenwart.' ZTK 59 (1962) 226-255.

Murdock, W. A. 'History and Revelation in Jewish Apocalypticism.' Int

21 (1971) 167-187.

Nash, R. H. The Word of God and the Mind of M an. Grand Rapids 1982.

Nations, A. 'Historical Criticism and the Current Methodological Cri

sis.' SJT 36 (1983) 59-71.

Neill, S. The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1961. Oxford

1978.

-. Jesus Through Many E yes. Philadelphia 1976.

Newton, R. J., Jr. The Method of Biblical Theology in Cullmann, Barth,

and Bultmann. Diss. Columbia Univ. 1959.

Nicol, I. G. 'Event and Interpretation. 0. Cullmann's Conception of

Salvation History.' Th 77 (1974) 14-21.

Niebuhr, R. Faith and History: A Comparison of Christian and Modern

Views of History. London 1949.

Nineham, D. Rev. of Bultmann, Theology of NT, vol. 1. ExpT 64 (19SP

SS) 97f.; 66 (1954-55) 15-19; 67 (1955-56) 97f.

Nissen, A. 'Tora und Geschichte im Sp&tjudentum.' NTS 9 (1967) 274-

277.

Noack, B. SpMtjudentum und Heilsgeschichte. Franz Delitzsch-Vorlesungen

1968. Stuttgart 1971.

North, Christopher. The Old Testament Interpretation of History. Lon

don 1946.

-. 'Old Testament Theology and the History of Hebrew Religion.1 SJT

2 (1949) 113-126.

North, C. 'Bibliography of Works in Theology and History: Studies in

the Philosophy of History.' History and Theory 12 (1973) 57-140.

Noth, M. 'Das Geschichtsverstandnis der alttestamentlichen Apokalyp-

tik.' Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Munich 1957. 248-
273.
 -505-

-. 'Die Historisierung des Mythos im Alten Testament.' Christentum

und Wissenschaft 4 (1928) 265-272, 301-309 (not available to me).

O'Collins, G. Foundations of Theology. Chicago 1971.

Oestborn, G. Yahweh's Words and Deeds. A Preleminary Study into the

Old Testament Presentation of History. Uppsala/Wiesbaden 1951.

Ogden, S. 'What Sense Does It Make to Say "God Acts in History"?' JR

43 (1963) 1-19.

Ogletree, T. W. Christian Faith and History. A Critical Comparison

of Ernst Troeltsch and Karl Barth. New York 1965.

Oosterzee, J. van. The Theology of the New Testament. Trans, by M.

J. Evans. London 1882.

Orwell, G. Nineteen Eighty-Four. Harmondsworth 1983.

Osborn, E. The Beginning of Christian Philosophy. Cambridge 1981.

Ott, H. Geschichte und Heilsgeschichte in d er'Theologie Rudolf Bult-

manns. BHT 19. TUbingen 1955.

'Glaube und Vernunft.' TLZ 92 (1967) 401-414.

Palmer, H. The Logic of Gospel Criticism. London 1968.

Palmer, M. F. 'Can the Historian Invalidate Gospel Statements? Some

Notes on Dialectical Theology.' Downside Review 95 (1977) 11-18.

Pannenberg, W. 'Glaube und Wirklichkeit im Denken Gerhard von Rads.'

Gerhard von Rad: Seine Bedeutung fUr die Theologie. Munich 1973.
37-54, 57f.

-, ed. Revelation as History. Trans, by D. Granskou. New York 1968.

-. 'The Significance of Christianity in the Philosophy of Hegel.' The

Idea of God and Human Freedom. Trans, by R. A. Wilson. Philadel
phia 1973.

-. Theology and the Kingdom of G od. Ed. by R. J. Neuhaus. Philadel

phia 1969.

-. Theology and the Philosophy of Science. Trans, by F. McDonagh.

London 1976.

Parsons, G. 'Reforming the Tradition: A Forgotten Dimension of Liberal

Protestantism.' Rel 13 (1983) 257-271.

Paulsen, H. 'Traditionsgeschichtliche Methode und religionsgeschicht-

liche Schule.' ZTK 75 (1978) 20-55.

Paulus, R. 'Zum Problem "Glaube und Geschichte".' ZTK 7 (1926) 378-

399.
 -506-

Payne, J. B. The Theology of the Older Testament. Grand Rapids 1962.

Perrin, N. 'Jesus and the Theology of the New Testament.' JR 64 (1984)

413-431.

Peter, James. 'Salvation History as a Model for Theological Thought.'

SJT 23 (1970) 1-12.

Pfeiffer, R. H. 'Facts and Faith in Biblical History.' JBL 70 (1951)

1-14.

Phythian-Adams, W. 'The Foundations of Biblical Theology.' CQR 269

(Oct.-Dec. 1942) 1-24.

-. 'Shadow and Substance: The Meaning Of Salvation History.' Int 1

(1947) 419-435.

Piper, 0. 'Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology.' JBR 25 (1957)

106-111.

-. 'Christology and History.' TToday 19 (1962) 324-340.

-. God in History. New York 1939.

-. 'The Nature of the Gospels according to Justin Martyr. 'JR 41

(1961) 155-168.

-. Recent Developments in German Protestantism. London 1934.

Pittenger, W. N. 'Biblical Religion and Biblical Theology.' JBR 13

(1945) 179-183.

Pokorny, P. 'Probleme biblischer Theologie.' TLZ 106 (1981) 1-9.

Porteous, N. W. 'Old Testament Theology.' The Old Testament and Modern

Study. Ed. by H. H. Rowley. Oxford 1951. 311-345.

-. 'A Question of Perspective.' Wort Gebot Glaube. Ed. by H.-J.

Stoebe, et a l . Fs. W. Eichrodt. ZlArich 1970. 117-131.

-. 'The Theology of the Old Testament.' Peake1s Commentary on the

Bible. Ed.by M. Black and H. H. Rowley. 2nd rev. ed. London
1962.

Porter, F. C. 'Crucial Problems in Biblical Theology.' JR 1 (1921)

78-81.

Press, G. A. 'History and the Development of the Idea of History in

Antiquity.' History and Theory 16 (1977) 280-296.

Preston, R. H., ed. Theology and Change. Fs. A. Richardson. London

1975.

Preus, C. 'The Contemporary Relevance of Von Hofmann's Hermeneutical

Principles.' Int 4 (1950) 311-321.
 -507-

Procksch, 0. 'Die Geschichte als Glaubensinhalt.' NKZ 36 (1925) 485-

499.

'Hofmanns Geschichtsauffassung.' ELKZ 43 (1910) 1034-1038.

-. 'Otto Procksch.1 Die Religionswissenschaft der Gegenwart in Selbst-

darstellungen. Vol 2. Ed. by E. Stange, Leipzig 1926. 161-194.

-. Theologie des Alten Testaments. GUtersloh 1950.

-. 'Ziele und Grenzen der Exegese.' , NKZ 36 (1925) 715-730.

PrUmm, K. Gnosis an der Wurzel des Christentums? Salzburg 1972.

Quigley, M. A. 'Ernst Troeltsch and the Historical Absolute.' HeyJ

24 (1983) 19-37.

Rad, G. von. Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Munich 1958.

-. 'G. von Rad Uber G. von Rad.' Probleme biblischer Theologie. Ed.
by H. W. Wolff. Fs. G. von Rad. Munich 1971. 659-661.

-. 'Grundprobleme einer biblischen Theologie des Alten Testaments.'

TLZ 68 (1943) 225-234.

-. 'Kritische Vorarbeiten zu einer Theologie des Alten Testaments.'

Theologie und Liturgie. Ed. by L. Henning. Munich 1952. 11-34.

-. 'Offene Fragen im Umkreis einer Theologie des Alten Testaments.'

TLZ 88 (1963) 401-416.

-. Old Testament Theology. 2 vols. Trans, by D. Stalker. Edinburgh

1962, 1965.

Ramm, Bernard. After Fundamentalism. San Francisco 1983.

Ramsey, G. W. The Quest for the Historical Israel. Atlanta 1981.

Ramsey, I. T. 'History and the Gospels: Some Philosophical Reflec

tions.' TU 88 (SE 3, 1964) 201-217.

Redeker, M. Schleiermacher: Life and Thought. Trans, by J. Wall-

hauser. Philadelphia 1973.

Reicke, B. 'Einheitlichkeit oder verschiedene "Lehrbegriffe" in der

neutestamentlichen Theologie?' TZ 9 (1953) 401-415.

Reischle, M. 'Historische und dogmatische Methode der Theologie.' TRu

4 (1901) 261-275, 305-324.

Reisner, E. 'Hermeneutik und historische Vernunft.' ZTK 49 (1952) 223-

238.

Rengstorf, K. H. 'Adolf Schlatter.' Tendenzen der Theologie im 20.

Jahrhundert. Ed. by H. J. Schultz. Stuttgart 1967. 56-61.
 -508-

Rese, M. Rev. of P. Wells, James Barr and the Bible. TZ 38 (1982)

116f.

Reuss, E. Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Neuen Testaments.

Braunschweig 1887.

Reventlow, H. G. 'Aus der Arbeit der Projektgruppe "Biblische Theolo

gie" der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft fdr Theologie.' TZ 39
(1983) 65-67.

-. Bibelauthoritdt und Geist der Moderne. Gdttingen 1980.

-. Hauptprobleme der alttestamentlichen Theologie im 20. Jahrhundert.

ErtrMge der Forschung. Band 173. Darmstadt 1982.

Richardson, A. An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament.

London 1958.

-. History, Sacred and Profane. Philadephia 1964.

-. 'What Is New Testament Theology?' TU 112 (SE 6, 1969) 455-465.

Ridderbos, H. Begrhndung des Glaubens: Heilsgeschichte und Heilige

Schrift. Wuppertal 1963 (- Heilsgeschiedenis en Heilige Schrift.
Kampen 1955).

Riesner, R. 'Der Ursprung der Jesus-Ueberlieferung.' TZ 38 (1982) 493-

513.

Roberts, R. C. Rudolf Bultmann's Theology: A Critical Interpretation.

Grand Rapids 1976.

Roberts, R. H. Eternity and Time in the Theology of Karl Barth. Diss.

Edinburgh 1975.

Roberts, T. A. History and Christian Apologetic. London 1960.

-. 'Some Presuppositions of Gospel Criticism.' TU 73 (SE 1, 1959) 66-

78.

Robertson, P. 'The Outlook for Biblical Theology.' Toward a Theology

for the Future. Ed. by D. Wells and C. Pinnock. Carol Stream, 111.
1971. 65-91.

Robinson, H. W. The History of Israel. London 2 1964.

-, ed. Record and Revelation. Oxford 1938.

-. Redemption and Revelation in the Actuality of History. London 1942.

-. Religious Ideas of the Old Testament. London 1956.

Robinson, J. A. T. Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia 1976.

Robinson, J. M. 'The Future of New Testament Theology.' RelSRev 2

(1976) 17-23.
 -509-

Robinson, N. H. G. 'Barth or Bultmann?' RelS 14 (1978) 275-290.

Rev. of Bultmann, Theology of N T , vols. 1 and 2. NTS 4 (1958) 339-

343.

Rodd, C. S. Rev. of Goppelt, Theology of N T , vol. 1. ExpT 94 (1983)

163.

Rogerson, J. 'Geschichte und Altes Testament im 19. Jahrhundert.' BN

22 (1983) 126-138.

Rowley, H. H. The Relevance of Apocalyptic. London 2 1952.

-. 'The Unity of the Old Testament.' BJRL 29 (1946) 326-358.

Runzo, J. 'Relativism and Absolutism in Bultmann's Demythologizing

Hermeneutic.' SJT (1979) 401-419.

Russell, D. S. Apocalyptic: Ancient and Modern. London 1978.

Rust, E. The Christian Understanding of History. Lutterworth Library

XXX. London 1947.

-. Towards a Theological Understanding of History. New York 1963.

Rust, H. Kant und das Erbe des Protestantismus. Gotha 1928.

Sandys-Wunsch, J. 'G. T. Zachariae's Contribution to Biblical Theo

logy.' ZAW 92 (1980) 1-23.

-. 'On the Theory and Practice of Biblical Interpretation.' JSOT 3

(1977) 66-74.

-, and Eldredge, L. 'J. P. Gabler and the Distinction between Biblical

and Dogmatic Theology: Translation, Commentary, and Discussion of
of His Originality.' SJT 33 (1980) 133-158.

Sasson, J. 'On Choosing Models for Recreating Israelite Pre-Monarchic

History.' JSOT 21 (1981) 3-24.

Sauer, E. Das Morgenrot der Welterldsung. Wuppertal-Barmen 1937.

-. Der Triumph des Gekreuzigten. Wuppertal-Barmen 1937.

-. Vom Adel des Menschen. GUtersloh 1940.

-. Zweck und Ziel der Menschenschbpfung. Berlin-Steglitz 1931.

Schhfer, P. 'Zur Geschichtsauffassung des rabbinischen Judentums.'

Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums.
Leiden 1978. 23-44.

Schaff, P. Germany; Its Universities, Theology, and Religion. Edin

burgh 1857.
 -510-

Scheffczyk, L. 'Biblische und dogmatische Theologie.' TTZ 67 (1958)

193-209.

Schelkle, K. H. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Vol. 3: Ethos. DUs-

seldorf 1970.

Schlatter, A. 'Adolf Schlatter.' Die Religionswissenschaft der Gegen-

wart in Selbstdarstellungen. Vol. 1. Ed. by E. Stange. Leipzig
1925. 145-169.

-. 'The Attitude of German Protestant Theology to the Bible.' ConQ

2 (1914) 99-110.

-. Der Aufstieg der evangelischen Kirche von der Reformation zur Gegen-
wart. Bethel bei Bielefeld 1931.

-. 'Die Bedeutung der Methode fUr die theologische Arbeit.' TLbericht

31 (1908) 5-8.

-. Das christliche Dogma. Stuttgart 2 1923.

-. The Church in the New Testament Period. Trans, by P. Levertoff.

London 1961.

-. Erlebtes. Berlin ^1929.

-. Der Evangelist Johannes. Stuttgart 1948.

-. Der Evangelist Matthaus. Stuttgart 1948.

-. Die Furcht vor dem Denken. GUtersloh 2 1917.

-. Die Geschichte des Christus. Stuttgart 3 1977.

-. 'Der Glaube an die Bibel.' Heilige Anliegen der Kirche. Stuttgart

1896. 34-46.
6 4
-. Der Glaube im Neuen Testament. TUbingen 1982 (= 1927).

-. 'Die heilige Geschichte und der Glaube.' Heilige Anliegen der

Kirche. Stuttgart 1896. 22-33.

-. Die philosophische Arbeit seit Cartesius nach ihrem ethischen und

religiUsen Ertrag. BFCT 10. GUtersloh 1906.

-. RUckblick auf meine Lebensarbeit. Stuttgart 2 1977.

-. Die Theologie der Apostel. Stuttgart 2 1922.

-. Wohin? Eine Frage an unsere Schule und unsere Kirche. Bethel bei
Bielefeld 1929.

Zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments und zur Dogmatik: Kleine

Schriften. TBU 41. Munich 1969.
 -511-

Schmid, C. Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Trans, by G. H.

Venables. Edinburgh 1870.

-. 'Ueber das Interesse und den Stand der biblischen Theologie des
Neuen Testaments in unserer Zeit.' TZT 4 (1838) 125-160.

Schmid, J. Rev. of Merk, Biblische Theologie. . . in ihrer Anfangszeit.

BZ 19 (1975) 266-268.

Schmid, J. H. Erkenntnis des geschichtlichen Christus bei Martin Kdhler

und bei Adolf Schlatter. TZ Sonderband V. Basel 1978.

Schmidt, H. H. Altorientalische Welt in alttestamentlicher Theologie.

ZUrich 1974.

Schmidt, W. H. '"Theologie des Alten Testaments" vor und nach Gerhard

von Rad.' VF 17 (1972) 1-25.

Schmithals, W. 'Bultmann, Rudolf (1884-1976). TRE 7. 387-396.

-. Die Apokalyptik. GOttingen 1973.

Schmitt, R. Abschied von der Heilsgeschichte? Europ&ische Hochschul-

schriften. Reihe XXIII, Band 195. Frankfurt am Main/Bern 1982.

Schnackenburg, R. 'Darstellungen der Neutestamentlichen Theologie.'

BZ 19 (1975) 268-276.

Schn&delbach, H. Philosophy in Germany 1831-1933. Trans, by E. Mat

thews. Cambridge 1984.

Schofield, J. 'Otto Procksch, Theology of the Old Testament.' Contem-

porary Old Testament Theologians. Ed. by R. Laurin. Valley Forge,
Penn. 1970. 91-120.

Scholder, K. 'Baur, Ferdinand Christian (1792-1860).' TRE 5. 352-359.

Schrenk, G. Gottesreich und Bund im aiteren Protestantismus vornehmlich

bei Johannes Coccejus. Gtitersloh 1923.

Schrodt, P. 'Can One Speak of "Dogma" in the New Testament?' TU 112

(SE 6, 1969) 473-477.

Schrupp, E. 'Die Heilsgeschichte wieder entdecken.' idea-spektrum 7/7

(1984) 16f.

Schubert, K. 'Geschichte und Heilsgeschichte.' Kairos 15 (1973) 89-

1 0 1.

Schweitzer, A. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. Trans, by F. C. Bur-

kitt and W. Montgomery. London 1956.

-. Out of My Life and Thought. Trans, by C. T. Campion. New York 1933.

- The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Trans, by W. Montgomery. Lon-

don 2 1948.
 -512-

Schweizer, E. Rev. of Cullmann, Heil als Geschichte. TLZ 92 (1967)

904-909.

Scruton, R. Kant. Oxford 1982.

Seebass, H. 'Der Beitrag des Alten Testaments zum Entwurf einer bib-
lischen Theologie.1 Wort und Dienst 8 (1965) 20-41.

'Biblische Theologie.' VF 27 (1982) 28-45.

Sekine, M. 'Vom Verstehen der Heilsgeschichte. Das Grundproblem der

alttestamentlichen Theologie.' ZAW 75 (1963) 145-154.

Senft, C. Wahrhaftigkeit und Wahrheit: Die Theologie des 19. Jahr-

hunderts zwischen Orthodoxie und AufklSrung. Ttlbingen 1956.

Shiner, L. The Secularization of History: An Introduction to the Theo

logy of Friedrich Gogarten. Nashville 1966.

Sierszyn, A. Die Bibel im Griff? Historisch-kritische Denkweise und

biblische Theologie. Wuppertal 1978.

Smart, J. D. 'The Death and Rebirth of Old Testament Theology.' JR

23 (1943) 1-11, 124-136.

-. 'The Need for a Biblical Theology.' RelL 26 (1956-57) 22-30.

-. The Past, Present, and Future of Biblical Theology. Philadelphia

1979.

-. The Strange Silence of the Bible in the Church. London 1970.

Smend, R. 'Johann Philipp Gablers Begrllndung der biblischen Theologie.'

EvT 22 (1962) 345-357.

-. 'Ueberlieferung und Geschichte.' Zu Tradition und Theologie im

Alten Testament. Ed. by 0. Steck. Biblisch-Theologische Studien
2 . 1978 . '.9-26.

Smith, N. K. A Commentary to Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason1. London

1979 (=2 1923).

Soggin, J. A. 'Alttestamentliche Glaubenzeugnisse und geschichtliche

Wirklichkeit.' TZ 17 (1961) 385-398.

-. 'Geschichte, Historic und Heilsgeschichte.' TLZ 89 (1964) 721ff.

-. 'God and History in Biblical Thought.' Old Testament and Oriental

Studies. Rome 1975. 59-66.

Sontag, F. E. 'Is God Really in History?' RelL 15 (1979) 379-390.

'Philosophy and Biblical Theology: A Prologue.' RelL. 33 (1963-64)

224-237.

Spener, P. J. Pia Desideria. Trans, by T. Tappert. Philadelphia 1964.

 -513-

Spriggs, D. Two Old Testament Theologies. SBT (2nd series) 30. Lon
don 1974.

Stade, B. 'Ueber die Aufgaben der biblischen Theologie des Alten Testa
ments.' ZTK 3 (1893) 31-51.

Stadelmann, H., ed. Epochen der Heilsgeschichte. Wuppertal 1984.

StMhlin, L. Kant, Lotze, and Ritschl. Trans, by D. W. Simon. Edin

burgh 1889.

StSrk, W. 'Willy Stark.' Die Religionswissenschaft der Gegenwart in

Selbstdarstellungen. Vol. 5. Ed. by E. Stange. Leipzig 1929.
159-206.

-. 'Religionsgeschichte und Religionsphilosophie in ihrer Bedeutung

fUr die biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments.' ZTK 31 (1923-
24) 289-300.

Stanton, G. 'Biblical Classics: XII. Rudolf Bultmann: Jesus and the

Word. ' ExpT 90 (1978-79) 324-328.

Staudinger, H. 'The Resurrection of Jesus Christ as Saving Event and

as "Object" of Historical Research.' SJT 36 (1983) 309-326.

Stauffer, E. New Testament Theology. Trans, by J. Marsh. London 1955.

-. 'Der Stand der neutestamentlichen Forschung.' Theologie und Litur-

g i e . Ed. by L. Henning. Munich 1952. 35-105.

Steck, K. G. Die Idee der Heilsgeschichte. Theologische Studien 56.

Zollikon 1959.

Stendahl, K. 'The Bible as a Classic and the Bible as Holy Scripture.'

JBL 103 (1984) 3-10.

-. 'Biblical Theology, Contemporary.' IDB. Vol. 1. 418-432.

Steuernagel, C. 'Alttestamentliche Theologie und alttestamentliche

Religionsgeschichte.' ZAW Beiheft 41 (1925) 266-273.

Stonehouse, N. Rev. of Bultmann, Theologie des N T , pt. 1. WTJ 15

(1953) 147-156.

Strecker, G. '"Biblische Theologie"? Kritische Bemerkungen zu den

Entwtirfen von H. Gese und P. Stuhlmacher. ' Kirche. Ed. by Strecker
and D. LUhrmann. Fs. G. Bornkamm. Ttlbingen 1980. 425-445.

Strecker, G., ed. Das Problem der Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Wege
der Forschung 367. Darmstadt 1975.

-. 'Das Problem der Theologie des Neuen Testaments.' PTNT. 1-31.

'William Wrede.' ZTK 57 (1960) 67-91.

 -514-

Stroh, H. 'Das Erbe Schlatters fUr unsere Zeit.' FUr Arbeit und Besin-
nung 32 (1978) 466-474.

Strunk, W. 'The Theology of Adolf Schlatter.' The Lutheran Church

Quarterly 11 (1938) 395-402.

Stuhlmacher, P. 'Adolf Schlatter als Bibelausleger.' ZTK Supp. 4

(1978) 81-111.

-. 'Adolf Schlatter's Interpretation of Scripture.' NTS 24 (1978) 433-

446.

-, ed. Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. TUbingen 1983.

-. Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture.

Philadelphia 1977.

-. '... in verrosteten Angeln.' ZTK 77 (1980) 222-238.

-. Vom Verstehen des Neuen Testaments. Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament

6 . GUttingen 1979.

Stupperich, R. 'Adolf Schlatters Berufungen.' ZTK 76 (1979) 100-117.

-, ed. 'Briefe Karl Holls an Adolf Schlatter.' ZTK 64 (1967) 169-240.

Sutton, C. The German Tradition in Philosophy. London 1974.

Sykes, N. 'Some Recent Conceptions of Historiography and their Signifi

cance for Christian Apologetic.' JTS 50 (1949) 24-37.

Sykes, S. W. 'Theological Study: The Nineteenth Century and After.'

The Philosophical Frontiers of Theology. Ed. by B. Hebblethwaite
and S. Sutherland. Cambridge 1982. 95-118.

-, and Clayton, J. P. Christ, Faith and History. Cambridge 1972.

Tluigberg, K. 'Linguistics and Theology: An attempt to analyze and

evaluate James Barr's argumentation. . . .' Biblical Translator
24 (1973) 301-310.

Taylor, V. Rev. of Bultmann, Theology of N T , vol. 1. SJT 6 (1953) 197-

199.

Teeple, H. The Historical Approach to the Bible. Evanston 1982.

Thielicke, H. The Evangelical Faith. Vol. 1: Prolegomena. The Rela

tion of Theology to Modern Thought Forms. Grand Rapids 1974.

-. Geschichte und Existenz. GUtersloh 2 1964.

'Wahrheit und Verstehen. ZTK 62 (1965) 114-135.

Thiselton, A. C. 'Knowledge, Myth and Corporate Memory.' Belief in

the Church: The Corporate Nature of Faith. London 1981. 45-78.
 -515-

'The New Hermeneutic.' New Testament Interpretation. Ed. by I.

H. Marshall. Grand Rapids 1977. 308-333.

-. The Two Horizons. Grand Rapids 1980.

Thorson, W. 'Thinking about Thinking.' Crux 20/1 (1984) 22-32.

Thurneysen, E. 'Schrift und Offenbarung.' PTNT. 214-248.

Tiilild, 0. 'Ueber die heilsgeschichtliche Schriftauslegung.' Gedenk-

schrift fdr D. Werner Elert. Ed. by F. HUbner, E. Kinder, and W.
Maurer. Beitrdge zur historischen und systematischen Theologie.
Berlin 1955. 283-287.

TOdt, H. E. 'Ernst Troeltsch.' Tendenzen der Theologie im 20. Jahrhun-

dert. Ed. by H. J. Schultz. Stuttgart 1967. 93-98.

Torrance, T. F. Reality and Evangelical Theology. Philadelphia 1982.

Tracy, T. 'Enacting God: Ogden and Kaufman on God's Mighty Acts.'

JR 64 (1984) 20-36.

Trillhaas, W. 'Vom geschichtlichen Denken in der Theologie.' TLZ 80

(1955) 513-522.

Troeltsch, E. The Absoluteness of Christianity and the History of Reli

g i o n . Trans, by D. Reid. Richmond 1971.

-. 'The Dogmatics of the "Religionsgeschichtliche Schule".' AJT 17

(1913) 1-21.

Trompf, G. W. 'The Future of Macro-Historical Ideas.' Soundings 62

(1979) 70-89.

-. The Idea of Historical Recurrence in Western Thought. Berkeley

1979.

-. 'Notions of Historical Recurrence in Classical Hebrew Historio

graphy. ' VT Supp. XXX. Leiden 1979. 213-229.

Turner, H. E. W. History and the Gospels. London 1962.

Unnik, W. C. van. 'Der Ausdruck "in den letzten Zeiten" bei Irenaeus.'
NovT Supp. VI. Leiden 1962. 293-304.

Vawter, B. Rev. of Bultmann, Theologie des N T , 3 1958. CBQ 21 (1959)

399f.

-. Rev. of Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis. Bib 52 (1971) 567-570.

Vercruysse, 0. 'History in the New Testament and in Hinduism.' TU 112

(SE 6, 1969) 571-574.

Vischer, W. The Witness of the Old Testament to Christ. London 1949.

Vdgtle, A. 'Oscar Cullmann.' Tendenzen der Theologie im 20. Jahrhun-

dert. Ed. by H. J. Schultz. Stuttgart 1966. 488-493.
 -516-

Vorl&nder, H. Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerk.

Frankfurt am Main 1978.

Vos, G. Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids 1948.

Vriezen, T. An Outline of Old Testament Theology. London 1958.

Wach, J. 'Die Geschichtsphilosophie des 19. Jahrhunderts und die Theo

logie der Geschichte. HZ 142 (1930) 1-15.

Wagner, B. S. '"Biblische Theologien" und "Biblische Theologie".' TLZ

103 (1978) 785-798.

Wagner, S. Franz Delitzsch: Leben und Werk. BEvT 80. Munich 1978.

Walker, R. Die Heilsgeschichte im ersten Evangelium. FRLANT 91. GOt-

tingen 1967.

Wallace, D. H. 'Historicism and Biblical Theology.' TU 88 (SE 3, 1964)

223-227.

-. 'Oscar Cullmann.' Creative Minds in Contemporary Theology. Ed.

by P. H. Hughes. Grand Rapids 1966. 163-202.

Wallis, G. 'Geschichte, Ueberlieferung, Ueberlieferungsgeschichte.'

Geschichte und Ueberlieferung. Stuttgart 1968. 109-128.

Walsh, W. H. Philosophy of History. Rev. ed. New York 1967.

Wapler, P. Johannes v. Hofmann. Leipzig 1914.

Ward, Benedicta. Miracles and the Medieval M i n d . London 1982.

Ward, W. 'New Testament Theology: Retrospect and Prospect.' RevExp

78 (1981) 153-168.

-. 'Towards a Biblical Theology.' RevExp 74 (1977) 371-387.

Weder, H. 'Wunder Jesu und Wundergeschichten.' VF 29 (1984) 25-49.

Weinel, H. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. TUbingen 3 1921.

Weippert, M. 'Fragen des israelitischen Geschichtsbewusstseins. ' VT

23 (1973) 415-442.

Weiss, B. Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Ber

lin 2 1873.

Weiss, Roberto. The Renaissance Discovery of Classical Antiquity. Ox

ford 1969.

Welch, C. Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century. Vol. 1: 1799-

1870. New Haven/London 1972.

Wells, P. James Barr and the Bible: Critique of a New Liberalism.

Edinburgh 1980.
 -517-

Wendebourg, E. W. Die heilsgeschichtliche Theologie. . . v. Hofmanns

in ihrem VerhMltnis zur romantischen Weltanschauung.' ZTK 52 (1955)
64-104.

-. Die heilsgeschichtliche Theologie Joh. Chr. K. von Hofmanns kritisch

untersucht als Beitrag zur KIMrung des Problems der 'Heilsgeschich
te 1. Diss. GOttingen 1953.

Wendland, H.-D. Geschichtsanschauung und Geschichtsbewusstsein im Neuen

Testament. GOttingen 1938.

Wennemer, K. 'Zur Frage einer heilsgeschichtlichen Theologie.' Schol

29 (1954) 73-79.

Werkmeister, W. 'Cassirer's Advance Beyond Neo-Kantianism.' The Philo

sophy of Ernst Cassirer. Ed. by P. Schilpp. Evanston 1949. 757-
798.

Werner, M. The Formation of Christian Dogma. Trans, by S. G. F. Bran

don. London 1957.

Westermann, C. Theologie des Alten Testaments in GrundzOgen. Grund-

risse zum Alten Testament 6. GOttingen 1978.

-. What Does the Old Testament Say About God? Ed. by F. Golka. Atlan
ta 1979.

Weth, G. Die Heilsgeschichte. Ihr universeller und individueller Sinn

in der offenbarungsgeschichtlichen Theologie des 19. Jahrhunderts.
Munich 1931.

Wieman, H. 'Divine Creativity in History.' RelL 33 (1964) 52-65.

Wilch, J. Time and Event. Leiden 1969.

Wilder, A. N. 'New Testament Studies, 1920-1950: Reminiscences of a

Changing Discipline.' JR 64 (1984) 432-451.

-. 'New Testament Theology in Transition.' The Study of the Bible To

day and Tomorrow. Ed. by H. Willoughby. Chicago 1947. 419-436.

-. Rev. of Bultmann, Theology of N T . vol. 1. JT* 32 (1952) 128-130.

Wiles, M. 'In what sense is Christianity a "historical" religion?'

Th 81 (1978) 4-14.

Willey, T. Back to Kant: The Revival of Kantianism in German Social

and Historical Thought, 1860-1914. Detroit 1914.

Williams, B. 'Descartes, Rene.' EP. Vol. 2. 344-354.

Wilson, R. McL. Rev. of Albertz, Botschaft. SJT 11 (1958) 208f.

Windisch, H. 'Zwei neue Darstellungen der neutestamentlichen Theologie

(zu Schlatter und Feine).' ZWT 52 (1910) 193-231.
 -518-

Wink, W. The Bible in Human Transformation. Philadelphia 1973.

Winter, P. Rev. of Bultmann, Theologie des N T , 3 1958. NTS 6 (1959-

GO ) 174-177.

Wolff, H. W. 'The Understandig of History in the Old Testament

Prophets.' Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics. Richmond 1963.
336-355.

-, Rendtorff, R . , and Pannenberg, W. Gerhard von Rad: Seine Bedeutung

fUr die Theologie. Munich 1973.

Wood, F. F. 'The Contribution of the Bible to the History of Religion.'

JBL 47 (1928) 1-19.

Wood, G. H. 'The Present Position of New Testament Theology: Retro

spect and Prospect.' NTS 4 (1957-58) 169-182.

Wrede, W. Die Entstehung der Schriften des Neuen Testaments. TUbingen

1907.

-. Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien. GOttingen 1901 (=The Mes

sianic Secret. Trans, by J. C. G. Greig. Cambridge/London 1971).

-. 'The Tasks and Methods of "New Testament Theology".' NNTT. 68-116;

182-193.

-. VortrUge und Studien. TUbingen 1907.

Wright, G. E. God Who Acts. London 1952.

-. 'Reflections Concerning Old Testament Theology.' Studia Biblica

et Semitica. Fs. T. Vriezen. Wageningen 1966. 376-388.

WUrthwein, E. 'Zur Theologie des Alten Testaments.' TRu 36 (1971) 185-

208.

Young, E. J. The Study of Old Testament Theology Today. London 1958.

Zahn, T. Grundriss der Neutestamentlichen Theologie. Leipzig 1928.

Zimmerli, W. 'Biblische Theologie. I.' TRE 6. 426-455.

-. Grundriss der alttestamentlichen Theologie. Stuttgart 1972.

Zwanger, H. 'Kritischer mUssten mir die Historisch-Kritischen sein!'

EvT 43 (1983) 370-389.
 -519-

SUMMARY

In Chapter One we compare significant features of the NT theology

of F. C. Baur to that of J. C. K. von Hofmann. The key questions are:

What is NT theology? What epistemological position is assumed in NT

theological work? What view of history informs the composition of a

NT theology? Then we compare W. Wrede and A. Schlatter along the same

lines. A fundamental divergence emerges regarding how NT theology is

to be undertaken, with Baur-Wrede comprising the basis for a 'critical

orthodox' heritage on the one hand and Hofmann-Schlatter representing

a contrasting h g l . perspective on the other.

In Chapter Two we examine the tension between hgl. and non-hgl. ap

proaches in both OT and NT theology between the World Wars. There is

a continuing fundamental divergence in approach in both disciplines

which is reflected in the respective oft-heard terms Religionsgeschichte

and Hg. While many today see 0. Cullmann as the initiator of modern

discussion about Hg., we see that Hg. is a focus of attention in both

OT and NT theology well before Cullmann's influence begins to be felt.

This is hardly due merely to the intrusion of 19th century philosophy

of history into biblical studies.

In Chapter Three we continue to document the bifurcation in bibli

cal studies between two basic approaches to NT (and OT) theology. We

propose that B. Childs' criticisms of revelation of history fall short

of successfully countering the contentions of hgl. proponents in NT (OT)

theology. G. von Rad and W. Eichrodt champion problematic approaches

to Hg. , while E. Jacob represents a position more in keeping with the

parameters established by Hofmann-Schlatter. In NT theology, despite

 -520-

R. Bultmann's profound influence, a number of figures strive for a hgl.

synthesis. This is largely independent of the work of Cullmann.

In Chapter Four we investigate Cullmann's proposals. We argue that

he is inadequately understood when seen as merely imposing a philosophy

of history on the NT texts, as has been charged. We compare his con

tentions to representative major criticisms. Although Cullmann is

materially indebted to Hofmann-Schlatter to a negligible degree, it is

possible to see formal similarities in their approaches as they contrast

to 'critical orthodox' methods.

In Chapter Five we steer a course similar to that followed in chap

ter one. This time however critical orthodoxy's spokesman is R. Bult

mann, while hgl. positions are variously represented by M. Albertz, G.

Ladd, and L. Goppelt. Bultmann largely carries on in the steps of Baur

and Wrede, while Albertz-Ladd-Goppelt, despite mutual differences, carry

on a hgl. approach to the NT data. This hgl. approach does not seem
I
to owe a great deal to Cullmann. That various scholars stemming from

somewhat discrete traditions come to comparable conclusions in proposing

hgl. alternatives to Bultmann, may speak in favor of the validity of

the hgl. outlook, at least as a viable critical option.

In the Conclusion we summarize our aims and results. Both OT and

NT theology have long been rent by fundamental unresolved methodological

questions. Hg. in NT theology needs to be understood more broadly than

as a historiographical or theological aberration introduced by Cullmann.

The critical orthodox approach, despite its contributions, risks failing

to meet its ostensible historical aims out of deference to contemporary

philosophical belief. The hgl. perspective seeks a balance between con

temporary convictions and the claims of the NT. We suggest areas for

further study and list possible specific contributions of the hgl.

perspective when seen in contrast to critical orthodoxy.