Contours of Old Testament Theology

4. An Experimental Approach to Old Testament Theology

4. A N EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH TO O L D TESTAMENT THEOLOGY This period oj Uncertainty, if not confusion, in the biblical theology field is a good time to experiment with various approaches. That is what I am offering: an experiment in Old Testament theology. This experiment, however, is based on "laboratory tests" in teaching Old Testament theology, a course I began teaching at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1968. At first I started gingerly with a course on "Motifs of Old Testament Theology" (echoing a course taught by my esteemed teacher, James Muilenburg).1 Over the years 1 gradually became bolder, until even­ tually I actually titled a course "Old Testament Theology" or, as at Boston University School of Theology, "Biblical Theology of the Old Testament." From Analysis to Synthesis Looking back over the past thirty years, it is evident that a revolution has been going on. There has been a shift from attempts to explore the earliest phases of Israelite tradition, whether by isolating putative literary sources or preliterary forms of oral discourse, to an emphasis on the final canonical shape of the biblical "books" or larger scriptural units (e.g., Pentateuch).2 In the former period the important word was "tradition," an English term that encompasses both "that which was handed down" (content or traditum) and "the transmission of what was received" (process or traditio). Gerhard von Rad, who dominated the discussion, subtitled his theological work: "A Theology of Israel's Traditions." He was not really concerned with the final canonical shape of biblical books. Admittedly, in the preface to his commentary on Genesis he quoted approvingly the observation of the distinguished philosopher of Judaism, Franz Rosenzweig, that the sign "R," used to designate "redactor," must not be under­ rated,- the sign should really signify Rabbenu, which in Hebrew means "our master," for we are dependent on the editor who has given us the Scriptures in their final form.3 But von Rad was basically concerned with the process of tradition—the transmission and appropriation of materials handed down—not the final redactional or canonical formulation. Similarly, James Sanders emphasized the "canon­ ical process" in which the received tradition, as appropriated in new situations in the history of the people of God, became "adaptable for life."4 1. See my tribute to Dr. Muilenburg, "A Teacher Like Elijah," BR 14, no. 1 (1998) 16. 2. See Rolf Rendtorff, 'The Importance of the Canon for a Theology of the Old Testament," in Canon and Theology, OBT (Minneapolis-. Fortress Press, 1993), 46-56. 3. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis, trans. John Marks, rev. ed., OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 42. 4. This attractive view, which suggests a hermeneutic for the appropriation of the sacred tra­ dition today, is set forth in such writings as Torah and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), 28 An Experimental Approach to Old Testament Theology 29 My writings reflect this shift in scholarly emphasis—"from analysis to synthe­ sis."5 Under the influence of my teacher, James Muilenburg, I came to appreciate the literary study of the Old Testament, as advocated especially by Hermann Gunkel, the founder of form criticism and the subsequent shift to "rhetorical crit­ icism."6 And having studied under von Rad, I was much influenced by the history of Israelite traditions, beginning with the early oral period. Indeed, I took the time to translate Martin Noth's study of the history of the transmission of pentateuchal traditions.7 Brevard Childs's Approach A decisive turning point was reached in 1970 with the publication of Brevard Childs's Biblical Theology in Crisis.8 Chiids showed the weaknesses of a biblical the­ ology resting on the revelation of Cod in historical events. During the days of the so-called biblical theology movement (just after World War II), this view had been set forth preeminently by George Ernest Wright in his monograph God Who Acts, in which he took a stand against a doctrinal approach and emphasized historical recital, that is, the narrative of God's acting in the world.9 Chiids was critical of any attempt to base biblical theology on objective historical events (the Albright school), and he extended his criticism to history in the sense of "history of tradi­ tions" (Noth, von Rad, and others). He insisted that there must be "a still more excellent way." Canon and Biblical Theology The even better way, in Childs's view, involves taking seriously the final form of the tradition, not just as it is shaped by redactors...