Ladd, George
Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1974.
Contents
Abbreviations
PART
1: THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
Introduction
John the Baptist
The Need of the Kingdom
The Kingdom of God
The New Age of Salvation
The God of the Kingdom
The Mystery of the Kingdom
The Kingdom and the Church
The Ethics of the Kingdom
The Messiah
The Son of Man
The Son of God
The Messianic Problem
The Messianic Mission
Eschatology
PART
II: THE FOURTH GOSPEL
The Critical Problem
The Johannine Dualism
Christology
Eternal Life
The Christian Life
The Holy Spirit
Eschatology
PART
III: THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH
The Critical Problem
The Resurrection
The Eschatological Kerygma
The Church
PART
IV: PAUL
Introduction
Sources of Paul’s Thought
Man Outside of Christ
The Person of Christ
The Work of Christ: Atonement
The Work of Christ: Justification
The Pauline Psychology
The New Life in Christ
The Law
The Christian Life
The Church
Eschatology
PART
V: THE GENERAL EPISTLES
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter and Jude
Johannine Epistles
PART
VI: THE APOCALYPSE
The
Apocalypse
Indexes
The first chapter entails the collection of numerous
volumes for review and the construction of a solid-annotated NT
bibliography. We have many here already,
but others will need to be purchased for review.
Middle
Ages: Prof. Ladd summarily
dismisses the entire period wherein “biblical study was completely dominated by
ecclesiastical dogma” (13). That was
quick.
Reformation
Period: Prof.
Ladd tells us that the Reformers insisted on the literal over the allegorical
method. To their credit, they attempted
to establish theology based on the Bible. He then proceeds to criticize Calvin
as handling the OT as if the Jews understood the NT doctrine of Christ. That was quick too!
Orthodox
Scholastic Reaction: Prof. Ladd tells us that the Reformation gains
were lost and history become mired—again—in dogma. That was quick too!
Rationalist
Reaction: Prof. Ladd informs one that efforts were
undertaken to get the Bible “free from ecclesiastical and theological control”
(15). We’ll begin building the bibliography here and throughout. J.P Gabler’s
name frequently arises, but we cannot find anything in print. He was widely considered to be the father of
modern liberal theology. His 1787 inaugural address at the
University of Altdorf argued: “On the Correct Distinction Between Dogmatic and
Biblical Theology and the Right Definition of Their Goals.” Gabler sharply distinguished between biblical
and dogmatic theology. His views held for about 50 years with these followers:
Kaiser (1813), De Wette (1813) and Baumgarten-Crusius (1828).
Rise of the
Philosophy of Religion School: Hegel was the father and F.C. Baur the mother
of this idealistic school infamous for the assertion of
thesis-antithesis-resolution triad. Paul
favored freedom from the law (thesis) while Peter advocated for the abiding
validity of the law (antithesis) resulting in a new sythesis—the early 2nd
century church. This was called the “Tubingen School.”
Two works, one
primary and the other secondary:
Two reviews of this primary work
are:
"One
hundred and sixty years ago F. C. Baur posed, in inescapably sharp form, a
question which has haunted Christianity throughout its history: is Christianity
simply a form of Judaism, a development from Judaism, or was it, as Baur
argued, from the beginning something quite distinct, a religious spirit or
consciousness which could not be or become itself until it broke through the
limits and restrictions of its historical origins? Baur’s radical answer set
the agenda for the rest of the nineteenth century, and though neglected for most
of the twentieth century, the question has reemerged with renewed force in a
post-Holocaust world. Baur’s continues to be an important voice in the
resulting debate." —James D. G. Dunn, Lightfoot Professor of Divinity,
University of Durham
"It will be extremely helpful to New Testament
critics to have F. C. Baur’s influential work on Paul—long out of print and
often no longer even available on most theological library shelves—conveniently
at hand. Baur’s application of Hegel’s dialectical theories to the writings of
Paul profoundly shaped the discourse of his mid-nineteenth century German
contemporaries, including that of those who sought to challenge certain aspects
of his interpretation. They did not escape the powerful force of his conceptualization
of the world, including a deeply negative evaluation of the Oriental spirit
(i.e., Judaism and Jewishness), which was central to his project. The legacy of
these developments—the so-called Tübingen school—has deeply influenced NT
studies (and arguably world history) ever since, and continues to assert its
influence on the interpretation of Paul’s voice to this day, although often now
in unrecognized ways. With the availability of this edition, that is about to
change. Thank you, Hendrickson Publishers!" —Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D., The Galatians Debate, The Irony of
Galatians, The Mystery of Romans
Conservative Reaction: several names are offered by the
Professor. E.W Hengstenberg, J.C.K Hoffman, J.A. Bengel,
J.T. Beck and the wider “Erlangen School,” Tholuck, our ever-revered
Theodor Zahn (influential with old Reformed Episcopalians) and P. Feine.
Hengstenberg
was one of the "heavy hitters" in 19th century Old Testament
scholarship. Although Mr. (Dr. Prof.) Hengstenberg read and understood Mr.
Schleiermacher’s Glaubenslehre, Mr.
Hengstengberg said, "I shall never betake myself to him." This rebuff of Mr. Schleiermacher by Mr.
Hengstenberg, reminds me of Mr. Karl Barth’s rebuff as well. Mr. Barth
purchased each semester a bust of Mr. Schleiermacher. At the end of the
semester full of attacks on Mr. Schleiermacher by Mr. Barth, he would wave his
hand, hit the bust, and dash the bust into small pieces on the floor. Hengstenberg’s OT volume is under current
review. Solid.
But Prof. Ladd, being the rather-dispensational chap
that he is, CLAIMS that Hengstenberg “saw little progress in revelation” and
“little distinction between the two Testaments” (15). We would remind Prof. Ladd of Prof.
Hengstenberg’s citation: before doing NT work, one must be an OT scholar first.
A view more volumes.
Liberal Historicism in New
Testament Theology: several names emerge. One can hardly bring oneself to say or
read—again—Rudolph Bultmann. I don’t
think that possible again. Yes, have
read everything he wrote multiple times.
Victory
of “Religion over Theology:” this brings us to the religiongeschicte Schule, or the “History of Religions
School.” His Nature of New Testament Theology attacked “doctrinal systems” in
favor of “living experiences.” Sound
familiar? S.J. Case, H. Wienel, and E.
W. Parsons are within this ambit.
Contemporary
Return to Biblical Theology: Prof. Ladd attributes this to (1) a loss of
faith in evolutionary naturalism, (2) a reaction against purely historicist
studies, and (3) a recovery of the idea of revelation—we interpret Ladd’s use
of the term “revelation” in the Barthian sense of “witnesses” to the truth.
A few names here:
Bultmannian School:
having rather specialized in this old chap years back, I shall not list one
thing he’s written. Save your money
(unless a NT investigator and scholar). Jesus was not the Son of Man and
Messiah; that picture, on Buck’s view, was the creation of the 2nd century
church. The incarnation, virgin birth, miracles and resurrection were all myths
needing debunking and awaiting the modern recreation by scholarly inventiveness
that he called the “kerygma.”
John A.T. Robertson might be placed in the post-Buch
period with his New Quest for the
Historical Jesus.
The American Scene: Prof. Ladd informs us, somewhat unsurprisingly
if perhaps presumptuously also, that American scholarship has not been noted
for its creative contribution to New Testament theology (28). He offers us George Stevens, W.D. Davis (isn’t
he British? Oh, that’s W.D. Davies), Brevard Childs, Gerhard Hasel, and
Geerhardus Vos.
No comments:
Post a Comment