Content provided in partnership with

Questions concerning biblical theology

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Fall, 2000 by Roland E. Murphy

Abstract

These questions are based on a research report given at the August, 2000, annual meeting of the Catholic Biblical Association, at Loyola-Marymount University, Los Angeles, California. (1) Are there lessons to be derived from the spate of volumes on biblical theology published in the second half of the 20th century? (2) Is there an inner unity to the Bible? (3) How does the relationship between the Testaments affect a reading of the Old Testament? (4) How does biblical theology differ from history of religion (Religionsgeschichte)? (5) Conclusion: what, then, does "biblical theology" stand for?

**********

More Articles of Interest: When is theology "biblical"?—Some reflections; Biblical theology for a secular society - Presenting the Issue; The critic of biblical theologians: a review of James Barr's The Concept of...; one God of the two testaments: Basic questions of a biblical theology, The; The endangered and reaffirmed promises of God: a fruitful framework for...

An investigation of the many volumes of biblical theology that have appeared in the last fifty years turns up some strange facts.

Recent "Biblical Theology"

First, in contrast to the field of New Testament, a plethora of volumes concerning Old Testament theology have been written. That is so obvious it needs no documentation. Second, confusion reigns, as the differences between these studies illustrate. However brilliant have been the standard works of such scholars as W. Eichrodt and G. von Rad, their studies have ultimately not solved the problem of a biblical theology of the Old Testament. Third, although this is not really unexpected, the approach to Old Testament theology has been influenced greatly by the Christian beliefs of the scholars (Levenson: 1-61). It is also pertinent to observe that the studies on biblical theology have been done mainly by Protestant scholars (at least for the Old Testament), and hardly any by Catholic scholars. From the early pre-Vatican II studies of P. Heinisch and P. van Imschoot up to J. Schreiner works by Catholics are very few. J. L. McKenzie is a notable and worthy exception. Fourth, there is disagreement on what biblical theology is (e.g., Knierim: 1-20; Murphy 1995: 28-32). Thus a recent work (Barr: 117) on the concept of biblical theology admits that there is "no simple definition" of it; it is essentially "contrastive" (contrasted with systematics, etc.). That same work describes itself in a subtitle, "An Old Testament Perspective." In one sense this is a novelty--to write a work on biblical theology which in fact treats of both Testaments from a Old Testament perspective. Does the Old Testament have a perspective that gives a special orientation to biblical theology? It is perhaps inevitable that anyone who more or less specializes in one Testament will bring that perspective to the total picture of what biblical theology should be. Brevard Childs, although he was better known for his Old Testament studies, deliberately and rightly wrote a theology of both Testaments: "The task of Biblical Theology is to reflect theologically on the witness of both testaments of the Christian Bible" (369). This is not the place to take up the question of the Old Testament canon, which is the Tanakh for Childs. But the deuterocanonical or apocrypha should be included. They are not to be eliminated because they allegedly add nothing new to the smaller canon (G. E. Wright: 169). Such a quantitative approach is simply inadequate. Many scholars today have a tendency to blur the limits of canon. But some kind of authoritative and not merely subjective canon should be the starting point. For the purpose of this paper, I give a working definition of biblical theology in as neutral a manner as possible: it is a (theologian's) construal of biblical data according to biblical categories into a complex whole, based on some organizing principle(s) chosen by the interpreter, such as covenant, tradition history, or something similar.

The "Inner Unity" of the Bible?

Can biblical literature, either Testament or both together, yield biblical theology? By definition, biblical theology, for a Christian, would include both Testaments. Any such theology is selective, and also limited by the construal of the interpreter. If proof is needed, a study of the construals that have been offered in the past should suffice. It has been proposed to build a theology around covenant, around tradition history, around presence, faith structure, and so forth. Both the material and presuppositions of the interpreter simply prohibit a comprehensive "theology," whether this be a theology of a given book, or of one Testament, or both. The biblical material is simply too diverse for such unification, and the vision of an interpreter is necessarily limited. That may sound too pessimistic. Rather, it is realistic, and it is also appreciative of the value of the "theologies" written in the past. They provided new avenues, new ways at looking at the familiar material. While not definitive, they have been enlightening. They have succeeded in calling attention to some of the more important theological concepts, even if these cannot bear all the weight that is put on them.

What is at the root of this diversity in "biblical theology?" One significant factor is the problem of the relationship between the Testaments. There is a presupposition that an inner unity can be found in the biblical material. Thus Gerhard Ebeling in a very influential article (1963: 96) defined the theological task in these words:

Questions concerning biblical theology

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Fall, 2000 by Roland E. Murphy

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Home & Garden

Most Popular Articles in Reference

Most Popular Publications in Reference