In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

16 [355–377] The Meaning of the Canon for a Theology of the New Testament Conceptual Reflections in Light of Current Discussion The last chapter of this book deals with the question of how a theology of the New Testament would have to be conceived under the presuppositions of the historical-critical science of the Bible.1 Here the concern will be less with individual aspects—such as the relationship between the history of early Christian religion and theology of the New Testament,2 the placement of the activity of Jesus in a theology of the New Testament,3 or the discussion concerning a whole-Bible theology4 —and more with the methodological basic problem of a theology of the New Testament. This can be formulated in such a way that what must be clarified is how the texts gathered in the New Testament are to be interpreted as constituent parts of a corpus of canonical writings. As we shall see, there exists at this point a fundamental problem that has accompanied the discussion about a “theology of the New Testament” from its beginnings. The reason for this is to be sought in the fact that the discipline has developed in precisely the opposite direction, namely toward the negation of the canon as a fundamental institution for the theology of the New Testament. The deficiency resulting from this can be observed up to the newest approaches. I will first elucidate this in somewhat greater detail. [356] 1. Historical criticism and New Testament theology The explosive nature of current discussion concerning a theology of the New Testament resides in the fact that historical criticism first brought forth the idea that the New Testament has a theology of its own, but then again strongly called this idea into question: if the idea of a theology of the 1 Cf. for the discussion von Bendemann 2003. 2 Cf. esp. Räisänen 2000b; 2000a. 3 Cf. Weiser 1996; Tuckett 2006. 4 Cf. Merk 1995; Janowski 1998; 2007; 2005. 330 From Jesus to the New Testament New Testament first developed in a double process of differentiation—the demarcation of the biblical from the dogmatic5 as well as the distinction between Old Testament and New Testament theology6 —then the historicalcritical research, going further, worked out the diversity of early Christian theologies, which is not limited to the writings gathered in the New Testament. From this perspective the “New Testament” appeared to be an imposition from a later time that reflects the dogmatic interests of the early church, which play no role for a historical analysis of these writings. This led to the judgment that the historical-critical interpretation of the New Testament texts and the idea of a theology common to these are ultimately incompatible with each other. This consequence was first drawn by William Wrede, who only continued to speak of the “so-called New Testament theology,” because he saw in this the inconsistency of a standpoint that had not yet freed itself completely from the doctrine of inspiration and still always “has an eye to dogmatics when doing biblical-theological work.”7 As alternatives to a theology of the New Testament, proposals were therefore made involving either its replacement by a history of early Christian religion—and with this the dismissal of the New Testament canon as a decisive entity for historical-critical interpretation—or alternatively a return to the doctrine of inspiration as [357] the authority that justified the special status of the New Testament writings.8 In what follows, by contrast, the view is advanced that historical-critical interpretation of the New Testament texts and a theology of the New Testament do not exclude each other—and neither should they be dissolved into each other—but stand in a tension-filled dynamic in relation to each other, which is substantial and indispensible for the contribution of New Testament science to the overall theological discourse. Here the question of the New Testament canon plays a fundamental role, which is, however, mostly given too little weight. That is to say, what is insufficiently taken 5 Thus, as is well known, in the Altdorf inaugural lecture of Gabler in 1787 under the title Oratio de justo discrimine theologiae biblicae et dogmaticae regundisque recte utriusque finibus (On the proper distinction between biblical and dogmatic theology and the proper determination of the goal of each). Otto Merk has provided a German translation of this work in Strecker 1975, 32–44. Cf. also Merk 1980. 6 This consequence...

Share