OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY TODAY.

Dr MJ Eilers B.A. Hons. B.D. M.A. D.Litt (Africa Journal For Pentecostal Studies)

1. IntroductoryI would be able to engage the sad history of Old Testament Theologyi since the day JP Gabler on March 30, 1787ii with his Altdorf’s inaugural speech, De justo discrimine theologiae et dogmaticae regundisgue recte utriusgue finibus (About the right distinction between biblical and dogmatic theology and the exact demarcation of their goals) became the father of biblical theology by virtue of the fact that he postulated biblical theology as an inductive, historical and descriptive discipline reflected in the distinction of Dogmatics as a didactic and normative discipline leaning heavily on philosophical grounds. It is not my aim though.The question is: Where should one begin to get to today eventually? I very randomly decided to concentrate on developments around the last ten years, starting with the theology of Claus Westermann (Westermann: 1978).

If Würthwein Ernst (1971:188) sixteen years ago could have said: “... so wird mann sagen müssen, dass wir von einem Einverständnis über die Sache und Methode einer Theologie des Alten Testaments heute eher weiter entfernt sind als vor 50 Jahren”, it is also true of the state of Old Testament Theology today. Even with the so-called "basic issues" there is no consensus (Cf. Hasel 1982: 9 ff; Prinsloo l985: l) iii and things are more complex than ever. The situation in Old Testament Theology is the last ten years, frequently described as a crisis (Terrien 1985: 127), as a stale mate position iv (Brueggemann 1980 (b): 2; Reventlow 1979:1 ff), as a time deep pessimism (Hanson 1984:12) and uncertainty about the true identity of the subject (Tate 1977: 279).

James Barr (1974:269) says that after Gerhard von Rad there was a break what he called "a sort of silence in heaven”. Now it seems that both von Rad's diachronic approach, based on the traditionsgeschichtliche methods and Eichrodt's attempt to organize the Old Testament theology around a theme, is insufficient to correct the cause of the diversity and complexity of the Old Testament (Birch 1984 (b): 1, Brueggemann 1985 (a): 28). Walter Brueggemann (1984 (a): 1) make the connection: "The only two things sure about Old Testament Theology are:

1. The Ways of Eichrodt and von Rad are no longer adequate.2. There is no consensus among us what comes next ".

The question arises involuntarily whether the systematic theologian Emile Brunner might have been correct when he said it: "Es gibt keine `Theologie des Alten Testamentes’". (Brunner 1961: 318).v

1

Yet it is also true that although the situation in Old Testament Theology can be seen as a crisis it can also be typed as a flourishing period. The past decade a number of new Old Testament Theologies appear. Here we can considder the efforts of C. Westermann (1978), RE Clements (1978), WC Kaiser (1978), S Terrien (1978), W. Dyrness (1979) and in the recent past BS Childs (1985). It also has a number of important monographs on specific Old Testament theological themes that appeared. This includes the works of PD Hanson (1978, 1982), NK Gottwald (1979) and W. Brueggemann (1982)vi. It also has a wealth of literature in the form of monographs and journal articles on the history and problems of Old Testament Theology that appeared.vii

It appears that the crisis actually caused a flood of publications for the discipline. Many of the new publications reflect a creativity that the Theology of the Old Testament is an increasingly exciting science to study even if no agreement be and although all the problems are still unresolved.viii

To offer a complete Forschungsgeschichte of the past decade would be an impossible task, so I tried to only indicate the general trends. Finally, I will make some comments about how I personally view the work, method and the future of Old Testament Theology.

2. The Latest Trends in Old Testament Theology

2.1 Dialectical or Polar approaches

One matter on which there is reasonable consensus in the latest research is that previous attempts to organizeix Old Testament theology around a particular theme or focal point proved to be unsuccessful and did not do justice to the diversity of the Old Testament. In the past decade, a trend emerged to the diversities in the Old Testament by way of dialectical or polar approaches. Of these there are a number of variations and examples:

Although Claus Westermann was, ipso facto, strongly influenced in his theology (1978) by von Rad's , his work is now a corrective to the one-sided emphasis on the Heilsgeschichte by von Rad. As evidenced by his theology denies Westermann obviously not the importance of salvation history. It appears also in his theology that he believes that salvation traditions balance should stand with the tradition that God blesses. The fact of the blessing of God is as important as upholding traditions. The blessing

2

traditions, according to him, are especially found in the creation material, the psalms and wisdom literature. The blessing of God is not like the Heilsgeschichte limited to specific acts of Yahweh in salvation, but covers the entire process of Yahweh's concern for His nation and the people (Westermann 1978: 88). One could summarize Westermann's view in these words: " Der rettende Got ist auch der segnende Got " so to combine creation and redemption together. Whether Westermann realized what he had in the preface of his theology in the pipeline, namely to proceed on both historical and systematic basis , is not completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that Westermann's emphasis on creation theology - as Reventlow rightly pointed out - showing a new trend in Old Testament Theology: There is indeed a renewed interestx in creation theology of the Old Testament detected. One could ask if there is a connection between the new interest and the ecological crisis and pollution of nature, especially in Europe.Samuel Terrien is someone who postulates the Old Testament Theology by way of such a polar relationship. Even the title of his book reflects the tension: "The elusive presence”. On the one hand say Terrien that the reality of God's presence is in the heart of biblical faith alone: the other is the presence that is "elusive", (1978: XXVII). Throughout the Old Testament there is a tension between God's presence and his elusiveness. Terrien operate all the time with the dialectic, which he finds in many places in the Old Testament. The main tension elements to it, however, are the ethical and aesthetic. Among the ethical adds he historical and especially the covenant traditions to the account. Under the aesthetic he mentions especially the wisdom literature and the lyrical fabric of the Old Testament. The main thing that Terrien wants to emphasize is that the covenant and historical dimension are over emphasized in the Old Testament Theology, the other dimension, namely the aesthetic to his opinion should also be emphasized. As Westertnann Terrien is therefore in a sense making as a corrective to act against what he sees as an overemphasis on the historical aspects of salvation.

The question is whether the dialectic of Terrien - or any other form of dialectics – can do justice to the rich diversity of the Old Testament. Is any form of dialectics comprehensive enough to include the whole of the Old Testament? Have we not "Elusive presence” yet again as a central theme in another form it? (cf Hasel 1985: 33 -34).xi It seems that the choice of Terrien’s theme makes it imperative to engage with the Old Testament material eclectically. The patriarchal and creative traditions play no role in his theology and the theology of the so called Scripture Prophets just a minimal role (Hasel 1981:73).

3

2.2 Sociological Approaches

It is interesting that the dialectic or polarity is also an essential element of the so called sociological approaches. This approach in the past decade strongly emerged in the Old Testament research. Although the sociological approach did not yield a theology in the narrow sense of the word, the approach of PD Hanson, W. Brueggemann and NK Gottwald main exponents of this method is playing an increasingly important role in the debate on the theology of the Old Testament.

To understand Hanson, it is important to know that he mainly works with the sociological paradigm of Karl Mannheim (Hanson 1983: 72, 213-14, 220, 231-32).xii According to an ideology defined as the selfish justification of the status quo while utopia is defined as the fervent hope of an alternative future. This polarity between the status quo and the desire to change or upset to be playing in Hanson's work an important role. In his The Dawn of Apocalyptic (1983), particularly the post-exilic time trading, it is largely about the tension between the so-called pragmatists and visionaries. The pragmatists can be identified as the group that has the power in the hands, even the priests or hierocracies, the visionaries again are those of Levitical circles that are excluded from power and hope for a new act of God by which they may obtain the power. In his Dynamic of transcendence (1978) are the two polarities, with which he works, called cosmic and teleological. In the cosmic dimension he focuses on the static order and existing structures, the teleological focuses on the belief that God is acting in a creative way, towards a certain destination. Similarly, the emphasis in The Diversity of Scripture (1982) on what Hanson calls "form" and "reform". Hanson expressly says (1982:148) that used the polarities to describe the dynamics and diversity of the Old Testament to without the danger of falling into systematicism.

The contribution of PD Hanson in the debate on the Old Testament Theology in general and in particular apocalyptic just cannot be overemphasized. His careful exegesis and creative approach impressed and opens new perspectives. However, there are also some critical comments to be made. Deist (1984:14) rightly suggests that the form critical and sociological analysis that Hanson tried to combine is not as complementary as Hanson would suggest. Hanson is probably rightly accused of displaying an obsessive use of polarities (Carrol 1979:19). This sometimes results in false antitheses (for example, between myth and history) and oversimplifications.xiii Hanson’s sociological approach runs the risk to degenerate into a circular reasoning (Willi-Plein 1979: 122-123): On the one hand is the study of texts the only way to determine the sociological Sitz im Leben, the other hand, he brings a sociological paradigm beyond the text to

4

correct the text. The main point of criticism, however, comes from Robert Carroll (1979:27-28). His objection is that Hanson uses sociological paradigms of Mannheim, Weber and Troeltzsch too simplistically and without any real critical evaluation. One could also ask whether the attempt by Hanson is not yet again a system which is from outside in which the Old Testament is trapped.

Norman K Gottwald is one of the main exponents of the sociological approach. In his case one would even call it a socio-political approach. The monumental work of Gottwald (916 pages!), The Tribes of Yahweh (1980) has been often compared to works such as Welihausen's analysis of the Pentateuch or Aibright's synthesis of archeology and history (Christensen l980: ll3, Myers 1983:167). That Gottwald removed the foundations and brought a strong influence into the current Old Testament debate, is without doubt. Gottwald rejects what he calls the idealism and choose a functionalist approach that is rooted in the Marxist dialectical materialism (1980: XXV). Gottwald's conclusion about the pre-monarchical time is that Israel is the product of a revolutionary social movement. The so-called "Tribes of Yahweh" originated from different tribes, "peasants" who were oppressed and marginalized people in the former Canaanite city states. They were native-Canaanite farmers who converted to Yahwism and they subsequently withdrew from the Canaanite society. Israel is basically the product of a peasant uprising, leading to a "retribalization. It is clear from the reconstruction of Gottwald that he is directly opposed to the notion that Israel was established by nomadic tribes that captured Canaan and conquered them and settled in the country. From Gottwald's angle of view, the supernatural and independent reality of God is a movement in the direction of idealism, exactly what Gottwald rejected. Yahweh has also been more the product of a sociological process as the cause. This says Gottwald (1980: 708): "... The most important contribution of a Sociological Analysis of early Israel ... is to close the door firmly and irrevocably on the idealist and super naturalist Illusions still permeating and bedeviling our religious outlook. According to Gottwald is the text of the Old Testament not only the result of social conflict, but it is also the literary legitimation of social conflict (see Brueggemann l985 (a) 30). Gottwald was a liberation theologian and he is actually looking (1980: 707) to a social structure of total equality where there is no question of class differences, racism, particularism and war. The dream is very commendable and it could even be Biblical. The impression, however, aroused from Gottwald's book is that his ideas are not primarily from the Old Testament, but is forced from outside, from a Marxist, cultural materialistic ideology of the Old Testament. (Christensen l98O: ll8-ll9).xiv The major contribution of Gottwald cannot be denied and there will more and more be heard. It seems however that he exchanged biblical theology for an ideology.

5

Also Walter Brueggemann the past few years strongly joined the debate on the theology of the Old Testament.xv Brueggemann also has a socio-political approach and dialectic plays a strong role. He said that each text reflects strong socio-economic and political goals. He works tradition-historically and say that there are basically two traditions, namely the Mosaic and Davidic, which throughout the Old Testament and cause conflict and tension to one another. The Mosaic tradition is characterized by political decentralization and social equalization, the Davidic tradition is characterized by urban centralization and concentration of power in the hands of an elite group. The Mosaic tradition is rooted in the Northern Empire and is a protest movement against those with political power in the hands. The Davidic tradition, based in Jerusalem, reflects the voice of those in power and is set to consolidate and preserve the status quo. Brueggernann say that Old Testament Theology should be bi-polar. It must pay attention to both the protest vote as the vote, which would legitimize the structures. He said: "I do not believe one can say there is a development from one to the other, but there is an ongoing tension, unresolved and irresolvable (1985 (b): 414). This tension, this dual focus should be kept alive and should be reflected in a truly biblical theology. Even the God of the Bible backs off from the tension: "The God portrayed here is an ambiguous one, always in the process of deciding" (1985 (b): 415).xvi

From the foregoing it appears that strong sociological approaches emerged in the past ten years. This indicated a gap, namely that previous research may not have given enough attention to the facet. Yet it is also true that it is no new matter. The sociological aspect should in any case be a part of the method to determine the Sitz im Leben of a text. Criticism can be brought against the sociological approaches that in most cases a pre-selected sociological model of the Old Testament is applied. Such a model mostly pre-determines the result of the investigation. It seems some of the contents of the Old Testament are forced into such a sociological paradigm. The question may well be asked whether the theoretical presumptions of the sociological models are examined critically enough and thoroughly evaluated.

2.3 Attempts towards a Biblical Theology

Over the past decade there are, as previously, increasing efforts to put a so-called Biblical Theology in place. Even in recent Old Testament Theology in greater or lesser degree efforts of groundwork done in such a Biblical Theology emerged.xvii As is well known, the term Biblical Theology is a pretty vague term and can refer to different issues (Barr 1974: 265 et seq.). I will, however, ignore the problem or the complex history of biblical theology.xviii For our purposes, I shall define Biblical Theology broadly

6

as the holistic approaches that try to relate the Old and New Testament in one way or another and to give a broad spectrum thereof.xix

One of the most deliberate efforts to to forge such a biblical theology comes from Hartmut Wonders of Tübingen (cf Gese 1970, 1974, 1981) and the New Testament colleague Peter Stühlmacher (cf Stühlmacher 1977). Gese actually builds on the tradition-historical method of von Rad.xx Old Testament Theology, he says, is basically a historical process of development. The New Testament actually forms the conclusion of the tradition-historical process which began in the Old Testament.xxi Biblical Theology, according to him, is based on the unity and continuity of the tradition-historical process. This process of forging a unity between the Old and New Testament is necessary so that there is no need to look for a "Mitte" or center.

Although Gese must be commended for his perceptive studies, there are legitimate criticisms of his approach which should be addressed. It must be said that Gese is of the opinion that the tradition historical process is a simplistic proposal; the process is not just a one-way or unilinear development (HH Schmidt 1977:81) but it is much more complex and more differentiated in both Testaments. In addition, the indictment was also brought that Gese narrowed Biblical Theology to a traditional history (Kraus 1977: 61-73). Gese's attempt to establish a continuous chain between the tradition of Old Testament and New Testament done by proposing the canon formation of the Old Testament as late as possible, appears forced and cannot be maintained (Hasel 1982 (a) :76-77 and 1985:33).

It is Brevard S Childs with his publicationsxxii in recent years, who unleashed one of the hottest debates.xxiii Childs stated in 1970 that the "Biblical Theology Movement," that sought to bridge the gap between the historical-critical method and the fundamentalism, died. This movement’s,xxiv says Childs, basic mistake was that they underestimated the cannon; and in the words of Childs (1970:102): "It accepted uncritically the liberal hermeneutical presupposition that one came to the Biblical text from a vantage point outside the text. Childs accuses them that they try working under the umbrella of the so-called neo-traditionalism (cf also Childs 1982:3).

Against this Childs set a new so-called Biblical Theology to overcome the dichotomy between "what it Meant “and "what it means ". Childs states emphatically that the canon, of the Christian Church, is the most appropriate context from which Biblical theology can be practiced. Both the whole Bible as individual texts should rather be read and understood within the framework of the entire canon as against its historical

7

background. It's not so much growth and development of the canon, but to how the faith community understood the final canon. The final form of the text is by Childs normative for Biblical Theology. The historical context is exchanged for a canonical context. Essentially Childs's canonical approach is a response to, even a rejection of the historical-critical method. He said that although he was introduced in the historical-critical method by people like Baumgartner, von Rad, Wolff and Zimmerli and although he greatly appreciated the method, he has still been disappointed and expectations came to nothing. "The promise was not materialized "(1980:209). Childs says that the historical-critical method cause a fragmentation of the text. Childs is interested in the history of the text. He took careful note of the results of historical-critical method in his Exodus Commentary (1979 (b)); he also pay attention to form critical and tradition-historical analysis. The analysis of the history of the text's only value he says (1979 (b) xv), however, lies only in that it shed light on the final text. So Childs basically upholds a post-critical approach.

Childs has a great contribution to the Old Testament of the past decade and longer. His major contribution lies in that at trial showed the importance of the final form of the text. It is simply true that the history of the text became so important to the historical-critical research that often fragmentation crept in and not enough justice given to the final text. Childs's attempt at a more theological approach and his effort in spite of the diversity of the Bible, yet introduced an attempt to unite, should be welcomed. His observation that exegesis is not an objective, descriptive matter, but that should take place within a religious framework, should be appreciated.

Yet it should seriously be asked whether Childs's approach is not an overreaction on the historical-critical method (Sanders 1980:190). McEvenue (1981: 237) for example, said of Childs's approach: "It is simply not true that the proper context for understanding one text of the Bible is every text of the Bible." The Bible is not just a neat, organic whole and an exaggeration of the cannon could lead to a relativization of the original historical situation and message. This is the basic criticism against Childs can be brought He absolutize cannon as exegetical principle (Barr 1974: 273-275). James Barr (1980: 13) says that although Child’s great emphasis on the canon, he still uses the term vaguely without saying exactly what he understand under the term.xxv Despite Childs's insurance (1976 (a): 71) that a canonical approach is not a historical reading of the Bible, Childs's rigid focus on the canon (Birch 1984 (b) 4) does not let enough room for the dynamic process of the text preceding it. His notion that the canonical or theological context, disannul the original historical context,xxvi makes one wonder whether Hanson’s (1984: 17) remark that Childs let himself be guided by an a-historical and doctrinal principles, is

8

not true all the time. One of the problems is likely that Childs did not really succeed to integrate the historical-critical and more theological approach, which he upholds (Mccarthy 1978:311-312). Childs is sometimes accused that with his post-critical approach he comes very close to fundamentalism (Barr l980, 14l5; Barton 1984:9899). Childs's canonical approach also creates problems regarding the relationship between Old Testament and New Testament. It is exegetically irresponsible to use the New Testament "quotations" from the Old Testament as a criterion to interpret the Old Testament text in question.xxvii It means that the original Old Testament meaning is sacrificed for the sake of the canonical context.

Childs's recent theology (1985) in spite of positive cases and highlights - such as the effort, to incorporate wisdom literature meaningfully in his theology; his good discussion of true and false prophets; emphasizing the creation - yet in a sense a disappointment. It seems strange that Childs of all people in his theology, does not take the structure of the canon seriously. In a recent review CS Rodd (1986:227) remarks rightly as follows: "Yet in the end we still wonder what makes this a 'canonical' theology. Why has the structure of the Canon, either in its Hebrew or Christian form, played such an indecisive part in the presentation? Childs will therefore not hold the ground rules that he himself wrote.Efforts to reach a Biblical Theology came to be welcomed. For a complete overview of the Old and the New Testament offers an ideal to which to aspire to because the Bible is one book for the Christian Church. Whether this ideal can be achieved in practice is another matter. HC Reventlow’s (1983: VII), observation in this regard is significant: "Eine 'Biblische Theology' ist noch nicht geschrieben”.xxviii

3. Some other aspects of the Old Testament Theology

Following the above discussion of general trends I just want to mention some other issues briefly:

3.1 Following the fact that the wisdom literature was the orphan in the biblical economy - probably the emphasis on the salvation historical approach played no small role in this - there emerged since the sixties and seventies a renewed interest and subsequently the wisdom literature became the focal point of today's discussion (Scobie 1984:13) and a spate of articles and monographs published on it (see Reventlow - 1982:183-186 for a detailed bibliography).

Despite the flourishing and despite the fact that the recent Old Testament theology with one exception (Clements 1978) trying to give sufficient attention to the wisdom

9

literature,xxix it yet remains an open question how the wisdom can be integrated in a meaningful way with the rest of the Old Testament theology.xxx This is an unsolved problem and a task that future research must address (Reventlow 1982:201).

3.2 The relationship between history and theology, a problem which was in the focus, especially since the time of Gerhard von Rad, yet was all but cut and dried (to see. Reventlow 1982:65-137 Hasel and 1982 (a): 97-116 where the problem is discussed in detail). However, it is noted that a shift in emphasis away from Heilsgeschichte as the central category of theology (cf Collins 1979:194 vv.) to a more literary approach is taking place. Barr, for example, speaks rather of "story" than "history"(1973:53-74 and 1976:1-17). The new series under the initiative of members of the University of South Africa (UNISA) appear under the general title The Literature of the Old Testament (cf. Deist and Vorster 1986). It focuses mainly on the perspective from which the text was written and the text organization and function. This and other literary approaches open new perspectives and create interesting possibilities for the practice of Old Testament Theology in the future.

3.3 It is increasingly clear that the distinction Stendahl (1962:418-432) made between "what it Meant" and “what it means" is just not feasible (Brueggemann l984a :1-2). Kelsey shows in his important work (1975:202) that the distinction is problematic. A total objective, descriptive attitude towards the text and theology of the Old Testament is just not possible. Despite his best intentions, the theologian cannot separate himself from his presuppositions. Reception criticism (cf Vorster 1986:339 ff.) focused attention even more on the creative, productive role,xxxi the reader or exegete plays in his dealings with the text. This is also true that the theological paradigms and presuppositions of an exegete are to a large extent determined by his situation (Tate 1977:282; Brueggemann 1980b: 13) - his confessional, social and societal context, the juncture where he lives and readers whom he addresses, defines his situation. For this reason a Theology of the Old Testament written by a theologian will always be time-bound, it will always be rewritten and rewritten and we will - at least in this age! - never be finished with the theology.

Objectivity will only be obtained to the extent the theologian admits his own presuppositions (Snuck: 1983:149). This is obviously true that it is always easier to note the constraining influence of someone else's presuppositions first (Goldingay, 1975:37). Scholarship start but where the investigator takes a critical eye of his presuppositions. It is in my opinion one of the most important statements that the Old Testament Theology

10

- particularly within the South African context - should embrace. We should be prepared to look critically at our own thought processes and make an analysis of the process of theory formation.xxxii This will be only benefit the research on the theology of the Old Testament if we are willing to have the basic things with each other in conversation.

4. Old Testament Theology, Whither?

The Old Testament is an embroidered book; actually we should say books - with a long and complex evolutionary history. It is impossible in a Theology of the Old Testament to do justice to the diversity (Murphy 1984:69). The efforts to organize the Old Testament around a theme have proved to be a failure. I would take the matter further by way of an illustrationxxxiii: The writings of the Old Testament could be compared with a set of paintings made of the same landscape. The landscape is painted from different angles, during various times and seasons; some in the manner of a Van Gogh or a Rembrandt or a Cezanne or a Picasso. Some paintings attempt a panoramic image, some give different foci to detail. The correct response to such a collection of paintings would not be to unify them somehow in one painting, but to enjoy each individually.

This I would say that it would be better to speak of Theologies of the Old Testamentxxxiv in which attention is given to the theology of individual books or blocks of similar Old Testament books. Theoretically it would be possible perhaps to create a kind of synthesis of the various theologies. Whether it is feasible or even desirable, is of course another question. Rather than to make a complete synthesis, it would be better to regard even the tensions between different theologies in view of its function. In a time of specialization, it is doubtful whether it is possible for an ordinary mortal being to manage the entire Old Testament. Perhaps the time of great theologies has passed, and the focus may rather move in the direction of monographs on individual Old Testament books. Shouldn’t it be a challenge for our South African Old Testament scholars, by way of a team effort to tackle the Theology of the Old Testament in a coordinated manner? As far as Pentecostal Theology of the Old Testament is concerned, very little has been done here on home soil.

11

NOTES 1. See by Burden (1977); Hasel 1982 (a), Kraus (1970); Reventlow (1982); WH Schmidt (1972); Würthwein (1971) where an overview of the history of Old Testament Theology given. 2. For more information look at this. Gaffin (1975 / 6:283) Hasel (1982 (a): 21, 1984:113 ff), Kraus (1970:52) points out that Gabler was originally not as original as commonly held, as JC Hoffmann already in 1770 a lecture said the same things. 3. Goldingay (1984:153) also notes: "... Old Testament scholars continue to find themselves unable to agree on questions of method Concerning the study of Old Testament theology. See also Reventlow (1979: 2 ff.). 4. Childs (1985:5) makes in this regard the following remark: "In sum, it seems neither unfair nor an exaggeration to conclude that the field has run into a stale mate”. 5. See - Smend (1982:25) that the matter be discussed and came to the following conclusion "Immerhin scheint mir aber die ... Summe der oben aufgez hlten Sachverhalte auszureichen, urn zumindest von einer starken Annherung an Theologie zu sprechen”. 6. See the bibliography for an overview of a number of articles written by Brueggemann. 7. See, inter alia, the following: Achard (1979), Birch 1984 (a) and 1984 (b); Brueggemann 1980 (b) 1984 (a) 1985 (a) and 1985 (b), Childs (1982); Hanson (1984), Harrelson (1984); Hasel (1981), 1982 (a) 1982 (b) 1985; Knierirn 1984 (a) and 1984 (b), Strauss (1985), Terrien (1985); Towner (1984). 8. Birch (1984 (a): iv) states as follows: "There is still no consensus, but there is a remarkable range of creative approach to the ancient texts of our discipline." See also Birch 1984 (b) 6 and Hanson 1984: 14. 9. See Fohrer 1968: 161 ff; Zimmerli 1975: 97-118; Hasel 1982 (b): 117-144 and Reventlow 1982: 138-147 where detailed attention to the problem given. 10. Cf Reventlow 1982:148-150 for a complete bibliography, cf also Kapelrud 1979:159-170 and Steck 1978:201211. 11. Terrien (1981:131) formulates his position as follows: "... the only Motif which is susceptible of explaining the canonical growth of the entire Bible - is that of divine presence. For further criticism of the standpoint of Terrien and reviews of his work, cf.inter alia Brueggemann 1980 (a): 296-299; Hasel 1982 (b): 67-69. 12. Hanson, however, also of Weber and Troeltsch's models, cf Hanson 1983:213-216, 232, 258, 284. See also Brueggemann 1979: 183 in this regard. 13. Ackroyd (1976:416), for example, in a review of The Dawn of apocalyptic said the following: "It is not appropriate to trace the so-called postexilic hierocracy by simply a few pages of general statements, a Sketchy analysis of Ezekiel 40 - 48, and a slightly longer, but still very slender study of Haggal and Zechariah. . 14. See also Brueggemann (1984 (b): 91) in this context to say "... Gottwald was inclined to draw the text into the social operation that it loses its distance, i.e. its own claim to authority over against the social interaction. Cf. also Hauser (1978 (a) :2-l9) which states that the methodological presuppositions that forms the basis of Gottwald and Mendenhall's theory is not critical enough nor evaluated. 15. See especially Brueggemann 1979, 1980 (a), 1980 (b) 1982, 1984 (a), 1984 (b) 1985 (a), 1985 (b). 16. For criticism of Brueggemann's approach, see Smick 1983:145-146.

12

17. Cf Clemerits 1978: 182 ff; Westermann 1978: 203 et seq. This is especially Terrien (1978) with its central theme (The Elusive Presence) an ecumenical or Biblical Theology to reconstruct which contain both Old and New Testament18. Compare in particular Reventlow (1983), Kraus (1970); Haacker Others (1977). 19. Zimmerli (1982:101) gives the following definition: "... A Speech which over-arches the two testaments and points to the one God who is attested will, in bone. Terrien (1981:126) states the matter as follows: "... the Biblical theologian has the duty to throw a bridge between Biblical Exegesis and systematic theology”. 20. WH Schmidt (1972:19) rightly 'amusement fordert gleichsam über v. Rad hinaus auch den Zusammenhang der verschiedenen Uberlieferungskomplexe untereinander zu bedenk. Cf. also Seebass (1982:34 ff). 21. Merry (1981:23) formulates it as follows: "... the New Testament itself claims to be the definitive continuation and conclusion of the movement of revelation initiated and developed in the Old Testament”. 22. Childs's main works, Biblical Theology in crisis (1970), Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (1979a), his commentary on Exodus (1979 (b)) and its theology in 1985 appeared, namely, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical context. 23. Re his ‘Introductrion’ said Smend (1980:45) as: "Child's book is to me the most important new publication of recent years in our discipline." 24. In a severe reaction to Childs denies Smart (1979) the existence of such a movement. He accuses Childs of having a false image created by the development of the "Biblical interpretation" of the twentieth century. 25. See Childs (1984: 66-69) reaction to Barr's criticism. 26. See Childs's comments in the context of Deutero- Isaiah (1979 (a): 325 vv). 27. See Childs 1970:151 ff. In this regard, Venter (1983:127) rightly said, "he attenuates his theology only on the parts of the Old Testament quoted in the New Testament. See also 111vv (1971:210): "The approach involving NT Quotations of the Old is a useful way. . . but it has its limitations.28. Seebass (1982:30) notes "Biblische Religion ist das em Projekt ausdem Projekstadiuin nor ist nicht herausgetreten”.29. See Terrien (1978), Kaiser (1978 a), Westermann (1978), Childs (1985).30. See the next issue extensively discussed:Brueggemann 1970: '393-417, Davidson 1970:41-52; Preuss 1970:393-417, Harvey1971:308-319; Kaiser 1978 (b): 132-146; Fun 1981:23-57; Terrien 1981:125-153; Scobie 1984:43-48, 1985:3-11 Murphy, Terrien 1985:129-130. Zimmerli(1964:146 ff.) earlier this attention and his position can be summarized as follows(1964:148): "Wisdom thinks resolutely within the framework of a theology of creation". Goldingay (1984:6) even says that the failure of the Old Testament Theology to properly account for, inter alia, the wisdom element provides one of the reasons that led to the current impasse in the Old Testament Theology.31. Kelly (1975:215) speaks of the act as "Imaginative construal”.32. The work of Wentzel van Huyssteen (1986) is a step in the right directionand can be used as starting point for such a conversation. -33. I borrowed the image Goldingay (1984:157-158).34. Knierin (1984a:25) rightly: "The Old Testament contains a plurality of theologies. Cf Prinsloo 1980, 1982, 1985. See also Kraus, 1979.

13

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achard, R M 1979. “A propos de la Theologie de 1’ Ancien Testament “Theo1ogische Zeitschrift 35, 63—71.Ackroyd, P R 1976. “Apocalyptic in its social setting”. Interpretation 30, 412—415.Barr, J & Green, W H 1962. “Recent Biblical Theologies — Gerhard vOn Rad’s Theologie des Alten Testaments”. The Expository Times 73, 142—146.Barr, J 1973. The Bible in the modern World. London: SCM.Barr, J 1974. “Trends and prospects in Biblical Theology”. The Journal of Theological Studies 25, 265—282.Barr, J. 1976. “Story and history in Biblical Theology.” The Journal of Religion 56/1, 1—17. Barr, J 1980. “Child’s Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 16, 12—23.Barton, J 1984. Reading the Old Testament. Method in Biblical study.London: Darton, Longman & Todd.Birch, B C 1984(a). “Old Testament Theology. Its task and future.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 6/1, iii—viii.Birch, B C 1984(b). “Biblical Hermeneutics in recent discussion: Old estament.” Religious Studies Review 10/1, 1—7.Blenkinsopp, J 1984. “Old Testament--Theology and the Jewish—Christian connection”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28, 3—15.Bruce, F F 1979. “The Theology and interpretation of the Old Testament,” in:Anderson, G W (Ed) Tradition and interpretation (Essays by members of the Society for Old Testament Studies). Oxford: Clarendon.Brueggemann, W 1970. “Scripture and an ecumenical life—style. A study in Wisdom Theology “. Interpretation 24/1, 3—19.Brueggemann, W 1979. “Trajectories in Old Testament literature and the sociology of ancient Israel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 98/2,161—185.Brueggemann, W 1980(a). “The elusive presence: Towards a new biblical theology “. Journal of Biblical Literature 99, 296—299.Brueggemann, W 1980(b). “A convergence in recent Old Testament Theologies”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 18, 2—18.Brueggemann, W 1982. The creative Word. Canon as a model for Biblical education. Philadelphia: Fortress.

14

Brueggemann, W 1984(a). “Futures in Old Testament Theology “. Horizons in Biblical Theology 6/1, 1—11.Brueggemann, W 1984(b). “Unity and dynamic in the Isaiah tradition”. Jour nal for the Study of the Old Testament 29, 89—107.Brueggemann, W 1985(a). “A shape for Old Testament Theology, I: Structure legitimation”. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47/1, 28—46.Brueggemann, W 1985(b). “A shape for Old Testament Theology, II: Embrace of pain “. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47/3, 395—415.Brunner, E 1961. Offenbarung and Vernunft. Die Lehre von der ChristlichenGlaubenserkenntnis. Zweite, unveränderte Aufl. Darmstadt: WissenshaftlicheBuchgesellschaft.Burden, J J 1977. “Methods of Old Testament Theology: Past, present and future “. Theologia Evangelica 10, 14—33.Carrol, R P 1979. “Trilight of prophecy orL dawn of apocalyptic”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 14, 3—35.Childs, B S 1970. Biblical Theology in crisis. Philadelphia: Westminster.Childs, B S 1979(a). Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture.London: SCM.Childs, B S 1979(b). Exodus (OTL). 3rd impr. London: SCM. Childs, B S 1980. “A response”. Horizons in Biblical Theology 2, 199—211.Childs, B S 1982. “Some reflections on the search for a Biblical Theology”. Horizons in Biblical Theology 4/1, 1—12.Childs, B S 1984. “Childs versus Barr”. Interpretation 38/1, 66—70.Childs, B S 1985. Old Testament Theology in a canonical context. London:SCM.Christensen, D L 1980. “N K Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh. A Sociolo gy of the Religion of liberated Israel”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 18, 113—120.Clements, R E 1978. Old Testament Theology. A fresh approach. London:Marshall, Morgan & Scott.Collins, J J 1979. “The historical character of the Old Testament in re= cent biblical theology”. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41, 185—204.Davidson R, 1970. “Some aspects of the theological significance of doubt in the Old Testament “. Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 7, 4 1—52.Deist F E, 1984. “Prior to the dawn of apocalyptic”, in: Van Wyk, W C (Ed) The exilic period. Aspects of apocalypticism. OTWSA 25 (1982) and OTWSA 26(1983), 13—38.

15

Deist, F E & Vorster, W (Red) 1986. Woorde wat ver kom. Kaapstad: Tafelberg.Dyrness, W 1979. Themes in Old Testament Theology. Exeter: Paternoster.Fohrer, C 1968. “Der Middelpunkt einer Theologie des Alten Testaments..”. Theologische Zeitschrift 24/3, 161—172.Frick, F S & Gottwald, N K 1983. “The social world of ancient Israel”, in: Gottwald, N K (Ed), The Bible and liberation. New York: Orbis, 149—165.Gaffin, R B 1975/6. “Systematic theology and Biblical theology “. West minster Theological Journal 38, 281—299.Gese, H 1970. “ErwEgungen zur Einheit der Biblischen Theologie “. Zeitschrift fUr Theologie und Kirche 67, 417—456Gese, H 1974. Vom Sinai zum Zion. AlCtstamentliche BeitrEge zur Biblischen. Theologie. MUnchen: Kaiser Verlag.Gese, H 1981. “Development of Biblical Theology “ Horizons in Biblical Theology 3, 23—58.Goldingay, J 1975. “The study of Old Testament Theology. Its aims and pur= pose.” Tyndale Bulletin 26, 34—52.Goldingay, J 1984. “Diversity and unity in Old Testament Theology” Vetus Testamentum 3412, 153—168.Gottwald, N K 1980. The tribes of Yahweh. A sociology of the religion of liberated Israel, 1250—1050 B.C.E. British edition. London: SCM.Gottwald, NK (Ed) 1983. The Bible and liberation. Political and social hermeneutics. Rev. ed. New York: Orbis.Haacker, K 1977. “Die Fragestellung der Biblischen Theologie als exegetischeAufgabe”, in: Haacker, K u.a. Biblische Theologie heute. Neukirchener Verlag. Harrelson W J 1984. Tradition and theology in the Old Testament / edited by Douglas A. Knight ; with contributions by Walter Harrelson ... [et al.]. London: SPCKHanson, PD 1989. The Dawn of the Apocaliptic.Philadelphia: Fortress PressKaiser, Walter C. 1978. Towards an Old Testament Theology. Michigan:Zondervan.Kapelrud, Arvid Schou, 1979. God and his friends in the Old Testament. Oslo : Universitetsforlaget,Prinsloo, Willem S, 1985. The theology of the book of Joel. New York : De Gruyter.Reventlow, Henning, Graf 1979. Bibelautorität und Geist der Moderne : d. Bedeutung d. Bibelverständnisses für d. gei Gottingen : Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.Terrien, Samuel L., 1978. The elusive presence : toward a new Biblical theology.San Francisco : Harper & Row.Westermann, Claus 1978. Theologie des Alten Testaments in Grundzugen. Gottingen : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

16

Zimmerli W 1975. Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie : Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag Göttingen : Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

17

i

ii

iii

iv

v vi

vii viii

ix

x

xi

xii

xiii

xiv

xv

xvi xvii

xviii

xix

xx

xxi 

xxii

xxiii

xxiv

xxv xxvi

xxvii

xxviii

xxix

xxx

xxxi

xxxii

xxxiii

xxxiv