Defining Biblical Theology
Hafemann and House adopt a definition of Biblical Theology as held by Elmer Martens. The Biblical Theology described by Martens takes the view that different themes in the Bible are a communicative whole.[1] These themes are viewed to present the individual messages of the Bible as a “coherence of the whole despite the great diversity of the parts.”[2] Hafemann and House approach Biblical Theology to trace its themes throughout all of Scripture. In Biblical Theology, how these themes relate to each other is studied for the purpose of arriving at a central theme in Scripture. Biblical Theology is the study of the theology of the Bible itself. This includes methods of interpretation and background information such as culture and practice of the times, which are necessary to properly discern the reasoning behind Scripture. OK
Describing Biblical Theology
Theology is a human enterprise that attempts to organize and understand biblical revelation. Theology itself is not divine revelation, but rather an organization of the divine themes of Scripture. Good point “All the theological disciplines involve human intellectual participation.”[3] Thus, wherever the human intellect is found there is opportunity for fallibility. Our attempt to organize and understand biblical themes and doctrines is a work in progress, and must work to take into account the great scholarship of others in the field. Systematic Theology and Biblical theology take different approaches in their organization of the revelations of Scripture. Systematic Theology works to collect and to understand biblical passages that address any modern question or issue.[4] Biblical Theology studies and describes doctrines taught by Scripture to understand the overall themes of biblical revelation and, to the extent possible, the central theme of Scripture. OK—BT themes and content is derived inductively with focus on the historical development of ideas and themes in the text. Could be more precise here.
The History of Biblical Theology
The way in which the term BT is used today is a relatively recent idea. The term seems to have been first used in a book by W.J. Christmann in AD 1629. According to Hafemann, the term became widely used and known by the eighteenth century. Erickson stated that the BT movement didn’t get underway as a major movement until the twentieth century.[5] However, the unity between the Old and New Testaments and the coherence that BT seeks in Scripture was addressed at various times in the early Church.
About AD 140 to 160, Marcion saw two different representations of God in the Old and New Testaments. Marcion observed that the Old Testament shows a God of Justice while the New Testament shows a God of love.[6] Subsequently, Marcion abandoned the Old Testament in his theology. The Church rightly rejected the teaching Marcion and accepted the rich heritage of the Hebrew Bible. As the gospels be consistent, either capitalize Gospels (as below) when referring to the books or leave it lower case gained acceptance into the Scriptural canon, unification of the Old and New Testaments proved to be a challenge.
the New and Old Testaments include diverse content, . In addition, the four Gospel accounts, and the synoptic Gospels for that matter, show diversity in their content. To deal with this challenge, Marcion suggested accepting only one Gospel account. Tatian suggested combining the Gospels into one harmonized account.[7] The early Church sided with the view of Irenaeus who believed the diversity in the text represents different forms of the gospel, but all to have been given by the same Spirit to describe God’s revelation.
A way this challenge of diversity was met in early church theologians was through the interpretive method of allegory. Since allegory was used to describe the meaning behind biblical events or people, such as Augustine’s use of allegory in his interpretation of the Good Samaritan parable, some questions could be answered by ignoring historical background and identifying a hidden meaning: a meaning supposedly intended by the original authors.[8] The theologian Origen championed an allegorical method defended also by the School of Alexandria. Thomas Aquinas favored a historical approach defended also by the School of Antioch. At the outset of this period, the West used rules of a four-fold sense of Scripture that included the letter, allegory, moral meaning, and anagogy.
The next major attempt to bring unity to the whole Bible was found through the reformers. Luther brought unity by his “justification by faith” approach. Calvin brought unity through his systematic approach that he intended to communicate an appreciation of the majesty of Scripture, and to ground the Christian faith in a comprehensive account of Scripture. The work of Lutheran and Calvin was largely dogmatic but their work continues to demonstrate that before BT was conceptualized, a unity of Scripture was being sought.
The middle ages interpreted Scripture based on tradition. Scobie identifies this as the Protestant Orthodoxy period.[9] The turning from the teachings of the Catholic Church led to a strict Biblicism. The Scriptural foundations of Luther and Calvin were neglected in lieu of a new tradition of an “external authority legalistically conceived.”[10] Cocceius introduced the concept of covenant which gave unity again to Scripture. This also gave a foundation for the development of covenantal theology.
The seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries provided elements that gave rise to what I have described as BT: seeking unity in the theology presented by the Scriptural authors individually and then collectively. Lutheran Orthodoxy compiled doctrines in a title called theologia biblia, or biblical theology, to defend Protestant doctrines biblically. Though lacking in significant use of the Bible, this did bring attention back to Biblical roots. The Pietism movement led by Spener and Francke reacted to this rigid system by turning attention to personal holiness. By the 1630s, Simon and Spinoza introduced the historical critical method, which analyzed Scripture against historical data instead of assuming concepts from tradition or dogmatics.
The main introduction?? to the field of BT came from an address by J. P. Gabler at the University of Altdorf in 1787. Gabler made a distinction between systematic and biblical theology. He said that the Scriptures were a unified voice from which all Christian knowledge derives. He viewed BT as that which gives a foundation for dogmatic theology. This approach put biblical theology into the hermeneutical process since addressing modern questions would begin with the historical-critical approach. Logic is hard to follow in the previous sentence. Gabler’s theology soon lost favor as it tended to limit the nature of God’s revelation, reducing the Bible to universal truths. How did it do that? Perhaps we can talk about this in class this week? I am not following you here. This approach was furthered by rationalist scholars as conservative scholars had not initially embraced it. Schleiermacher, a liberal scholar, rejected dogmatic traditions and sought to bring the biblical text in line with modern thought. Bauer, a rationalist scholar, developed Old and New Testament theologies. His approach became the norm among critical and conservative scholars.
New material was not written for a long while after Bauer. ?? Yes, material was written, but it was from the rational/critical perspective primarily. The focus on BT was largely secular. Scripture was subjected to critical analysis as any other ancient source would have been. Schlatter sought to study Scripture separate from the positions of liberalism or conservatism. This gave a foundation for the historical Jesus movement by his emphasis on the historical approach and the unity he presented of the NT. The BT field became absorbed by the study of the history of religions. The Bible was viewed as merely a book of religious experiences and practices. When did this begin? This approach dominated up to World War I.
After the First World War, there was a turn back to theology. Barth led a revival in dogmatic theology, but later to?? criticism because the infallibility of Scripture seemed to take a lower stand in his theology. However, this gave rise again to research in OT theology and its unity. After the Second World War, the rise in scholarship of the NT sought to unify its theology in spite of its diversity. However, the stand ?? that “God is revealed in historical events did not stand up well under critical analysis.”[11] Criticism came in the word studies as they were being defined etymologically instead of contextually, which is more reliable. By the 1960s, the BT focus lost to more pressing issues. Scholarship did, however, continue but more as OT and NT theologies instead of a unified BT. The modern view is that a BT remains impossible. This is the mountain against which new scholarship must climb. You have the basic ideas of a good history, but it is hard to follow and not clear. I think you spent too much time on the early years, and you tried to go into too much detail for the space you have. It seems you do not understand all the things you are trying to explain.
New Directions
Scobie addresses several topics of consideration for the future of BT. Recently, the historical-critical method has come under scrutiny for lack of humility in its approach. The method has had a history of looking through the text at the history behind it and not a close look at the immediate text. This area of scholarship should remain open with its theories for future critique and revision.
For example, if the author of Ephesians does not turn out to be the apostle Paul, it would not discount the fact that the book has been a part of the NT canon as adopted by the early church fathers. Yet because Paul’s authorship is questioned, the historical-critical method tends not to attribute proper authority to the text. Another example is that when John’s Gospel is seen to be written from a fully realized eschatology, any material within the gospel contradictory to that assumption is discarded as a later addition or modification by another person. There is no solid evidence for such a theory. It is based on an assumption. Scobie views this as reading extra diversity into Scripture.
Approaching the text canonically takes a literary emphasis on the text itself. As in any literature, the Bible can be analyzed independently of its history. As a unified whole, Scobie recommends approaching the text as it stands now, canonically. There should be a literary approach to its “final form.”[12]
Scobie believes there is a welcomed key role played by the reader that can contribute to the interpretation of the text. This is the Church as an interpretive community. This responds to the critique against BT that says it is too disconnected from current issues concerning the Church and individual believers. The Scripture writers were also members of this believing community.
Method
Scobie believes that a BT is possible given an intermediate approach. That is to say that BT would act as a bridge to lead to a developed systematic theology. His proposed order would be from a historical study, to a BT, to the faith and life of the Church. OK Then, from the Church, adjusting BT, and reviewing again history. This intermediate approach would accept the finding of the historical-critical method, but then move into synthesizing the information with the Church to identify the interrelationship of Scripture. A canonical approach should be used that includes the full, closed canon. A BT must include both the OT and NT theologies because both are a part of a Christian’s canonized text. A proper BT should be limited by the canon, but may include relevant extrabiblical sources as long as the idea has full support in the canon. Scobie also identifies a cooperative BT that bridges the gap between the OT and NT, that cooperates with biblical studies scholarship, and accounts for an ecumenical inclusion of other denominational backgrounds.
Structure
Structure is integral to a BT and should utilize the structure of the text rather than imposing one upon it. Yes The structure should follow natural biblical categories as much as is humanly possible. The historical approach organizes the categories into a historical development. The thematic approach organizes the categories based on the themes or topics that “arise from the biblical material itself.”[14] The systematic approach organizes the categories from questions arising from life, but derived from the text.
A Framework
Scobie believes that what flows naturally from the biblical text is the thematic order of proclamation/promise to fulfillment/consummation. He suggests a multithematic approach. This would address God’s order, God’s servant, God’s people, and God’s way. God’s order takes into account the natural history of God’s revelation and the themes produced from the ordered themes that arise out of the canon. Addressing God’s servant takes into account the variety in the character of God’s servants, but also builds to the final perfect servant, Christ. The theme of God’s people accounts for a personal relationship with God. That relationship is initially given to Israel and later given to all mankind through Christ. God’s way takes into account the terminology finally used in the NT to describe the way in which we must follow the way to God. In the OT it was called the way of wisdom. The thematic order builds to the final culmination revealed in the NT and brings a unity to the biblical text.
Bibliography
Clark, David K. To Know and Love God: Method for Theology. Wheaton: Crossway Books. 2003.
Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. (2nd ed.) Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. 2009.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1994.
Hafemann, Scott J. and House, Paul R. Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping unity in diversity. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. 2007.
Scobie, Charles H. H. The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2003.
[1] Scott J. Hafemann and Paul R. House, Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping unity in diversity, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007, 16.
[2] Ibid.
[3] David K. Clark, To Know and Love God: Method for Theology, Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2003, xiii.
[4] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
[5] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 25.
[6] Scobie, The Ways of Our God, 2003, 9.
[7] Ibid, 10.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid, 13.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid, 24-25.
[12] Ibid, 38.
[13] Ibid, 40.
[14] Ibid, 85.