A 1064-page volume with 36-pages of bibliography. (IVP really must do a better job with the bindings. Both my volumes broke and pages are loose. Just horrible on the bindings.) One is reminded of Mr. Guthrie’s 1000-page Introduction to the New Testament with the all-comprehensive, stellar and scholarly 100-page bibliography. We may just buy another Intro since mine is palpably broken and unmanageable. Both volumes, his Intro and Theology, are warranted by serious students of the New Testament; no, rather, they are mandatory and not optional; the bibliographies themselves are tours de force and are magisterial.
Available at: http://www.amazon.com/
Introduction
Survey of New Testament theology
Mr. Guthrie advises that before the Reformation, there was “little to no interest in biblical theology.” This is a bit much and may reflect the need for a New Testament specialist to be a historian and systematician, but we will be cautious here. The NT itself disproves his claim, notably, the early sermons, Paul’s theology and Hebrews, volumes acutely interested in “biblical theology.” He further claims that there was little interest in “exegesis.” Rather unbelievable. The Reformers replaced the authority of the text for the authority of the church. It is true that a renaissance of Biblical studies and revived hermeneutical work began afresh and anew with the Reformation on a wider scale. Trent put the “unwritten traditions” on par with the “written traditions.” Mr. Guthrie further advises that there was “no distinction between Old Testament and New Testament theology.” This is a head-scratcher. There was “no provision for progressive revelation.” Allegedly, the view of “unity precluded the view of the NT as a distinct entity. Unfortunately, Mr. Guthrie has passed, but we should like to cross-examine him. He notes that Mr. J.P. Gabler, 1787, tried to distinguish between “dogmatic theology” and “biblical theology.” In further developments to satisfy the historical presuppositions of Hegelianism, Mr. F. C. Bauer canonized (by his presupposed faith) the Peter v. Paul fracas, elevated this fiction to canonical authority and asserted that the NT was an eirenicon, or, effort at the two smoking the peace pipe. Mr. Bauer was discredited in time, but he left a legacy that flowered with the “historical questers” for the life of Jesus with later chapters flowering in Bultmann’s grand existentialist reductionisms and his certifiable Gnosticism. Holtzmann was the classic expression of “liberal thinking;” he rejected revelation and dogmatics in general. Conservative in the holy, catholic and apostolic church arose as defenders: Hofman, Tholuck, Bernard Weiss, Theodor Zahn, Fesne and, notably, A. Schlatter. On the American side, G.B. Steven’s confronted liberal thought with his TNT (Theology of the New Testament).
Our friend, W. Wrede in his NTT and Messianic Secrets continued the liberal hammer on “history v. dogmatics” and “religion v. faith.” These presuppositions need clarification but they do get work-outs. Religiongeschicte with some correctives to formegeshicte continues the work of atomism and over-reach with the presupposition of non-canonical authority for a New Testament theology.
Mr. Rudolph Bultmann brought his Heideggerian existentialism to bear which denied the connection between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith. Yawn, including his dreary disciple Norm Perrin (Un. of Chicago, later of SMU, Dallas). We can hardly bring ourselves to read Bultmann after burying him years back, but, in a survey of sorts, it’s worth a moment of remembrance. Conzelman and Kaseman sought some corrections to Mr. Bultmann’s Gnosticized and Marcionized reduction of Jesus’ statements to about 40. Of note, Bultmann with his dismissed Jesus gets a mere few pages of comment in his TNT. (We just can’t bring ourselves to read it again—yes, have done several times amidst other reviews of this dead theologian, Rudolph; Rudolph has gone to meet Jesus years back for disposition and deposition.)
Mr. George Eldon Ladd, whom we shall review, accepts the historicity and authority of the canonical NT. He believes the NT expresses a unity of thought while revealing a rich diversity within that framework. The NT exegete and theologian lays the foundation for the systematician; we would strenuously argue that one must be an OT theologian, NT theologian, historian and systematician. How can one be a NT theologian without being an OT theologian? Many of our problems are because we lack clerks with strong concentrations in all the disciplines: OT, NT, systematic and history. One must specialize in all four of those disciplines.
Nature and method of New Testament theology
Mr. Guthrie advises that few have thought out the implications of this topic. He draws attention to A. Schlatter who has done good work in this area.
Distinction between theology and religion
Again, Mr. Wrede made his effort to postulate dogmatics v. biblical theology and theology v. religion, believing the disseverance should be further developed. The result: the abandonment of NT theology. Religion, to him, was Christian experience from a historical view; ergo, doctrine does not matter (sound like Penties?), dogma must be rejected, inspiration and authority must be rejected and there is no reason to be confined by the canonical Scriptures. We call it the “religion-instead-of-theology”
Schlatter addressed the Wrede-meltdown. He brought or restored the close proximity of theology and dogmatics. Kaseman said that Schlatter was “Bultmann’s one and only peer.”
Limitations of literary approach
The over-emphasis here has resulted in the continued determination to toss God with the presuppositions causing the text to bow to the exegete’s will and preferences. (We’ll stick with 1 Clement’s view of divine and apostolic authority, so dissed and so abhorrent to these Germans and progeny.) There was a tendency (again) to over-emphasize differences with multiplications of strands, differences within certain authors, and resulting inconsistencies.
Weakness of a wholly analytical approach
Place of personality in New Testament theology
Paul, with his habit of writing letters, can, without correction, be assessed as a major force. Some (modern) Gnostics and Marcionite scholars, view Paul as corrupting Jesus’ teaching with his own dogmas.
Place of canon in New Testament theology
Alas, those of us in the holy, catholic and apostolic church are viewed as submitting to bishops in the 2nd-4th centuries with an “inherited” canon…we, the naïve and unscholarly, in the benighted class that have not been enlightened by the Germans. We’ll develop these matters more fully elsewhere.
Relation of history and theology
The governing skepticism regarding the historical Jesus has taken theology down to its own grave. We are reminded of the forlorn sermon heard at a TEC outfit in Fredericksburg, VA back in the 1990s. Just awful. Ascensiontide service without the ascension as he assured us there was no ascension. But, they have lovely stained glass windows and, again, those irksome things like the old hymns and…oh no…that Nicene Creed again that so rudely castigates the Westernized unbelief. We’ll spare the details of my chastisement of the Rector in the narthex…he was so apologetic too, but he had little to offer than his polite effort at unctuousness. We tire of liberals once again, having been through volumes and volumes years back.
The modern views make it impossible “to have an objective approach to history.”
We’ve noted our existentialist friend, Bultmann, for whom theology was an “encounter with the text.” It was entirely subjective, elastic, and suspended upon emo-driven “dialogue” (with one’s self, but he’d postulate some encounter with the denatured and demythologized Christ). Yawn, with Bultmann’s complaint about the 3-tiered universe as indicative of those apostolic backwoodsmen bereft of Heideggerian insights to reality. Bultmann is a modern Gnostic and Marcionite—or, a variation on a theme. With him, there is no theology, or, an obscured theology, imposed on the text by Bultmann’s worldview. It’s the ancient effort of Gnosticism to fuse Christian ideas with contemporary ones, an expression of the age-old impulse to syncretism.
Three views are evident in the connection of Paul to Jesus:
• Paul obscured Jesus; he corrupted the Gospel
• Paul corrected the way to understand Jesus
• Paul’s teaching unfolded the teaching of Jesus
A related question arises: what did Jesus know of the historical Jesus and why so few allusions in his epistles?
• Paul’s epistles were pastoral and often situational, e.g. Corinthians, Philemon
• Paul assumes recipients know more and have more than he addresses. The death, resurrection, ascension and second coming are central to Paul. Also, Jesus is poor (2 Cor. 8.9), full of affection (Phil. 1., meek and gentle (2 Cor. 10.1) and commands His people (1 Cor. 7.10, 25). Paul speaks of the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15.1ff.). Also, the burial, resurrection and baptism (Rom. 6). Christ “died for our sins.” The Lord’s Supper is explicitly mentioned to the Corinthians. More examples could be garnered. What must be stressed: both Jesus and Paul were rooted in the OT.
• Modern NT scholarly and some establishmentarian circles have a taboo: no harmonization of Paul with Jesus.
Background studies and New Testament theology
Varied studies: Palestinian studies, Qumran studies, Gnosticism studies, Philo-studies, the school of history of religions, and rabbinic studies. Qumran studies have illustrated OT exegesis as well as expressions of engagement with Hellenism; however, Mr. Guthrie states that Qumran studies have provided little to the NT theologian; it has revealed more divergences than similarities to NT thought. Mr. Guthrie notes that Gnosticism-studies have added “nothing” to NT exegesis or theology (whoa!). Rabbinic studies have highlighted some help in Paul studies: collection of OT quotes (Rom. 3) and exegetical details for an argument (Gal. 3). Mr. Guthrie advises that Paul will assert justification by faith alone in contrast to Rabbis who believed in justification by the efficacious law (Tom Wright would disagree, we believe). Notwithstanding Tom’s assurances, Paul is clear in Romans about prevalent views of seeking to establish a wrong-headed righteousness by Jews themselves (we need to track down Gerald Bray’s summary dismissal of Tom Wright).
Questions of authenticity
Structure of New Testament Theology
Two approaches:
• By groups, e.g. Synoptics, Johannine literature, Paul, Hebrews, and other epistles
• By themes: God, man, sin, Christ, church and final things
No comments:
Post a Comment