James Dunn: NT Theology as "Theologizing"

‘To enter thus into NT theology is to begin to re-experience theology as theologizing, to begin to immerse oneself in the stream of living theology which flowed form Jesus and the reactions to him.’

James D. G. Dunn, ‘Not so much “New Testament Theology” as “New Testament Theologizing”,’ in Aufgabe und Durchführung einer Theologie des Neuen Testaments, eds. Cilliers Breytenback and Jörg Frey (WUNT 205; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2007): 227.

C.K. Barrett on New Testament Theology

‘Some historical element is not only admissible but is in fact essential, without it New Testament Theology will hardly escape degeneration into a collection of texta probantia. And the historian must not scorn the contribution of philosophical questioning to supplement his historical criticism. He who is master of both history and theology will write the greatest New Testament theology’.

C.K. Barrett, ‘Historia Theologiae Genetrix,’ in Aufgabe und Durchführung einer Theologie des Neuen Testaments, eds. C. Breytenbach and J. Frey (WUNT 205; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2007), 205-6.

C.H. Dodd on Unity and Diversity in the NT

In a little classic, but sadly now neglected book, C.H. Dodd in The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, said this about unity and diversity in the NT:

"In this survey of the apostolic Preaching and its developments two facts have come into view: first, that within the New Testament there is an immense range of variety in the interpretation that is given to the kerygma; and, secondly, that in all such interpretation the essential elements of the original kerygma are steadily kept in view. Indeed, the farther we move from the primitive modes of expression, the more decisively is the central purport of it affirmed. With all the diversity of the New Testament writings, they form a unity in their proclamation of the one Gospel. At a former stage of criticism, the study of the New testament was vitalized by the recognition of the individuality of its various writers and their teachings. The result of this analytical stage of criticism are of permanent value. With these results in mind, we can now do fuller justice to the rich many-sidedness of the central Gospel which is expressed in the whole. The present task of New Testament criticism, as it seems to me, is the task of synthesis. Perhaps, however, 'synthesis' is not quite the right word, for it may imply the creation of unity out of originally diverse elements. But in the New Testament the unity is original. We have explore, by a comparative study of the several writings, the common faith which evoked them, and which they aimed at interpreting to an ever-widening public."

D.A. Carson on NT Theology

It's been nearly 15 years since D.A. Carson published his article, "‘Contemporary Issues in Biblical Theology: A New Testament Perspective, BBR 5 (1995): 17-41, which is one of the best intro's to biblical and NT theology around. In a recent review of Udo Schnelle's Theology of the New Testament, Carson concludes his assessment of the work with these remarks:

Any NTT, let alone a NTT that will allow itself, whether on canonical or other grounds, to be part of a broader biblical theology, would be greatly enriched by close exegetical examination of how the different corpora of the NT cite and allude to the OT. The NT writers variously insist that Jesus’ body is the temple of God, that he is the lamb of God, the good shepherd, the true vine, the passover sacrificed for us, that he is the ultimate David, the ultimate (Melchizedekian) priest, that the church is the royal priesthood, that Jesus in some way recapitulates Israel’s history, that the exodus is in some ways paradigmatic, and so on and so on. What were their warrants for making these connections? Of course, one might side with Barnabas Lindars and conclude that this is nothing but irresponsible proof-texting that cannot and should not be replicated in Christian exegesis of the OT today. Yet I have come to the conclusion that many of the warrants taught or presupposed in the pages of the NT are subtle, careful, thoughtful, and in some cases distinguishable from Jewish appropriation techniques (e.g., the middoth of Hillel). One must ask what hermeneutical changes took place in Paul’s mind between the time he went to Damascus and when he returned—not just what theological conclusions changed in his mind (for they are largely obvious), but what hermeneutical approaches shifted in his thinking that enabled him to warrant, in his own biblical exegesis, his newfound Christian convictions, while he appealed to the same (OT) biblical texts he had appealed to before his encounter with Christ on the Damascus Road. For instance, while the pre-conversion Paul would have elevated the Torah to the point of hermeneutical control in his reading of Tanakh, the Christian Paul displays deep interest in what might be called the salvation-historical sequence of events in the Old Testament (see, for instance, his arguments in Rom 4 and Gal 3). That salvation-historical interest is duplicated in Hebrews (Heb 3:7-4:13; 7:1-25) and elsewhere. New Testament writers point out in the strongest terms that these distinctions are there in the OT text. They do not think they are imposing extraneous or anachronistic material onto the text. Out of such observation and reflection springs the possibility of “eine ganz biblische Theologie [‘a truly biblical theology,’ ‘a whole-Bible biblical theology’].” Professor Schnelle’s inability to find Jesus in the OT was not shared by the NT writers whose theology he is trying to write up. Unpacking that line of thought is, of course, beyond the scope of these few reflections. And in any case it is far better to end by expressing my thanks to Professor Schnelle for his extraordinary achievement.

A Theology of the New Covenant

Two years ago I was honoured to give the annual Tyndale Fellowship New Testament lecture at Tyndale House in Cambridge, UK. My subject was "New Testament Theology Re-loaded: Integrating Biblical Theology and Christian Origins". This is about to be published in Tyndale Bulletin and the editors have have granted me permission to post it on my website. It is the manifesto for a larger volume on A Theology of the New Covenant that I hope to complete by late 2013 with IVP (Lord willing!).

Tom Schreiner vs. Australia

Tom Schreiner is a good man and a fine scholar, but I was enraged with post-colonial nationalism when I heard him say in a lecture recorded at Oak Hill College in London that he cannot tell the difference between a British accent and an Australian one. But all is forgiven now and I'm happily reading over his NT Theology and enjoying it very much. However, a few other Australians are reading it as well and have problems with Schreiner's unifying theme of God magnifying himself through Jesus Christ. You can read the critical questions posed by Michael Jensen and comments by Ben Myers.

James Dunn on New Testament Theology

I've just seen that in May 2009 Abingdon Press is releasing New Testament Theology: An Introduction (Library of Biblical Theology) by James D. G. Dunn. The blurb reads:

"In this volume in the Library of Biblical Theology series, James D.G. Dunn ranges widely across the literature of the New Testament to describe the essential elements of the early church’s belief and practice. Eschatology, grace, law and gospel, discipleship, Israel and the church, faith and works, and most especially incarnation, atonement, and resurrection; Dunn places these and other themes in conversation with the contemporary church’s work of understanding its faith and life in relation to God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ."

Bob Gundry on Unity and Diversity in NT Christology

‘New Testament interpretations of Jesus’ person and work exhibit diversity, then, a diversity prompted by varying circumstances – political, social, economic, ethnic, education, religious. To be sure, NT Christologies were not wholly determined by such circumstances, as though the figure of Jesus were made of Silly Putty which the NT authors molded into whatever shape they thought was required by their varying circumstances. Certain brute facts and accepted traditions about him provided both a skeleton with which to work and parameters within which to work …Different parts of the NT give us different Christologies – not completely different from one another but clearly different, sometimes disconcertingly different, and certainly far more different from one another than has usually been though in the church of world at large.’

Robert H. Gundry, “Hermeneutic Liberty, Theological Diversity, and Historical Occasionalism in the Biblical Canon,” in The Old is Better: New Testament Essays in Support of Tradition Interpretations (WUNT 178; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 2005), 13.

Book Notice: A Concise New Testament Theology

I. Howard Marshall
A Concise New Testament Theology
(Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2008).
Available at Amazon.com

This book is an abridgement and simplification of Howard Marshall's larger work New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel (2004) designed for a wider audience. The book is more accessible to lay persons especially by omitting references to scholarly debates and focusing on a description of the biblical texts themselves. It includes a short introduction to NT Theology, then offers a description of the theological contents of every NT document, and concludes with some thoughts on unity and diversity. Whereas Marshall's New Testament Theology is ideal for seminary courses, but this abridged version naturally lends itself to adult Sunday school classes or anyone in general who wants a good theological overview of the contents of each NT book without being lost in a quandry of scholarly argumentation. A particular highlight of this book is how it integrates the themes of "mission" and "salvation" together. Overall, a good little book to give someone about to head off to seminary or college.

Robert Morgan on Conservative NT Theologies

Robert Morgan, probably the foremost expert on the discipline of NT Theology in our time, writes as follows:

‘The tendency of textbook NTTs to become compendia of the biblical material is always present in conservative or Biblicist presentations whose authors assume that saying what the Bible says is sufficient, or is all that biblical scholars can offer. But to repeat in a new historical situation what was said in an old one is inevitably to say something different. The problem of interpretation cannot be evaded, especially when reading religious texts still considered authoritative in a changed intellectual milieu. All NTTs are interpretations, though some modern theologians stand closer to the letter of scripture than others. The main question for them all is how the biblical material is aligned with the interpreter’s own understanding of the subject matter. The older textbooks had answered this by organizing the conceptual material according to the framework supplied by traditional dogmatics. Conservative NTTs retain more of this than more critical ones do. Doctrinal themes can provide a language for historical descriptions After all, these topics emerged in large part from the church’s engagement with scripture. But NTT needs to distinguish the historical descriptions provided by biblical theology from the accounts of modern belief constructed by dogmatics. Conservative NTTs which make extensive use of dogmatic vocabulary have been suspected of minimizing the distinction. They react against NTTs which exaggerate the gap between the New Testament and modern Christianity, but themselves underestimate it. Among these G.E. Ladd (1974) especially, but also D. Guthrie (1981) and L. Morris (1986) have served their evangelical market well, not least by making room in it for a cautious historical criticism, but they have not significantly advanced the discipline’ (pp. 474-75). [1]

I certainly feel the gravity of Morgan's objection. Some NTTs often feel like quasi-systematic theologies merely restricted to the New Testament for their material. Even so, I think one could be a little fairer on the Biblicist/Conservative approach for a number of reasons:

1. A NT Theology should, as a matter of form, include some element of synthesis and applicatio (as I think Morgan is saying), so it is not entirely illegimate to import notions and frameworks from modern theology as long as you recognize that you are using modern theology on the basis of the text rather than finding a modern theology in the text. In fact, my Tyndale House lecture was about "NT Theology Reloaded" which has urged a more socio-historical approach in NT Theology, but without undermining the theological nature of the texts, the theological nature of interpretation, and the necessity of dogmatic inquiry which begins, somewhat, with a biblical theology itself.

2. Notably Morgan does not provide any examples of over use of dogmatic theology in the nominated volumes. Does a stratification of topics like the 'christology' of Hebrews, the 'eschatology' of Revelation, and the 'soteriology' of Romans represent a crass and unhistorical approach even though the categories are drawn from systematic theology? Potentially so, but not necessarily and such an approach is not limited to theological conservatives, e.g. see the NTG series published by CUP.

3. I would not describe the named trio (Ladd, Guthrie, and Morris) as woodenly dogmatic. Ladd had drunk deeply from a well of German scholarship and is more in line with the salvation-historical school. Guthrie is certainly highly thematic and not given over to historical critical discussion, but many German theologies also take a thematic approach. Morris' theology is built on the idea of historical development and he proceeds largely in the chronological order that the NT was written, starting, I believe, with Galatians!

4. In terms of utilitity and homiletical preparation, like for preaching a series of what the NT has to say about Christ, I have to confess that in my experience (though I am of the evangelical camp), Guthrie has been more useful than Bultmann.

[1]. Morgan, Robert. ‘New Testament Theology Since Bultmann,’ ExpT 119.10 (2008): 472-80. I should add that this is a jolly good read for those who want a heads-up of NT Theologies in the last 40 years.

CT on Schreiner

Tom Schreiner is interviewed by CT about his new book on NT Theology. Some good stuff here including Schreiner's justification of his thematic approach and how a NT Theology can edify the church. Importantly, Schreiner also testifies to G.E. Ladd's influence on his understanding of biblical eschatology.

New Testament Theology and Canon

Should a New Testament Theology be restricted to the New Testament canon or should it encompass other literature like the Apostolic Fathers? Should we opt for a 'Theology of Early Christianity' instead of a 'Theology of the New Testament'? F.C. Baur knew of this issue but in his own 'New Testament Theology' he restricted himself to the canon. Even William Wrede was quite conservative and only going beyond the canon by including the epistles of Ignatius as an appendix to a theology of the Johannine Literature.

I concur with many scholars (Weiss, Biblical Theology, 2 n. 1; C.F. Schmid, Biblical Theology of the New Testament [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882]: 8-9; Schlatter, ‘New Testament and Dogmatics’, 145-49; Leon Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament [2 vols.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982]: 2.271-72; Morgan ‘Introduction’, 19, 64-67; Marshall, New Testament Theology, 18-19) that an exclusive focus on the New Testament is reasonable given that it is, generally speaking, our earliest Christian literature and among the most influential too in the history of reception. Wrede contests the priority of these writings and also objects on the grounds that ‘anyone who accepts without question the idea of the canon places himself under the authority of the bishops and theologians of those centuries’ (Wrede, ‘Task and Method’, 71). But there is no problem if the New Testament and second century literature occasionally overlap since disputed areas of overlap, like border disputes in Kashmir, can still retain fixed boundaries (Marshall, New Testament Theology, 19; see also Dunn, ‘New Testament Theologizing’, 243) and Wrede’s own delineation between the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists is not convincing and contains overlaps as well. Also we only receive the New Testament and its history of interpretation from these bishops and theologians and we should do the courtesy of listening to them rather than disregard them as we would a Fed-Ex delivery boy after handing over a package. The bishops did not create or impose the canon, but ratified the emerging consensus and the theological convergences that were happening already. Thus, the ‘subsequent experience’ of the canon might be more illuminating than what Wrede acknowledges. At the same time the bishops and councils did not merely gather up together the ‘inspired’ writings and those that were ratified by the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit as there was a dialogical process underway about what should be the universally recognized register of sacred books. While the documents that formed the canon were thought to be inspired, inspiration was not limited to these writings as several patristic authors could refer to non-canonical writings as inspired or as Scripture as well (see Allert, High View of Scripture, 58-65, 177-88; pace Thielman, Theology, 28-29). Furthermore, as John Poirier (‘The Canonical Approach and the Idea of “Scripture”,’ ExpT 116 [2005]: 367) puts it: ‘Although the apostles were inspired in the performance of their office, it is not as inspired writings per se but as witnesses to the kergymatic narrative that the New Testament writings were considered authoritative for the early Church’. Consider also Jens Schröter: ‘The canonical status of the New Testament scriptures cannot be secured by appealing to their inspiration. This is rather circular, since the special status of these documents is already presupposed, and it is exclusively out of the context of the formation of the canon that it was received. Alternatively, a substantive theology of the New Testament should take it account the development of the historical documents of the early Christian canonical writings of the Christian church’ (‘Die Bedeutung des Kanons für eine Theologie des Neuen Testaments,’ in Aufgabe und Durchführung einer Theologie des Neuen Testaments, eds. Cilliers Breytenback and Jörg Frey [WUNT 205; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2007]: 157 [my own trans.]). In my view, an exclusive focus on the canon derives not from inspiration but from its ontological status as the historical testimony of the believing communities to the apostolic kerygma.

This is drawn from a footnote in a forthcoming lecture that I'm giving in July.

Schreiner on New Testament Theology

Adam Cheung interviews Tom Schreiner about his forthcoming volume New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ. A few things come to mind:

• In light of several things (including influences diverse as Wrede, Ladd, Marshall, Thielman, and Carson), I have recently come out in favour of the corpus-by-corpus approach as opposed to the thematic approach when it comes to doing New Testament Theology. Although I recognize that the thematic approach (e.g. Guthrie, Caird, Schreiner) provides a better synthesizing element than does the corpus-by-corpus approach, I take the latter to be superior in terms of analysis of the actual texts themselves.
• In the interview, Schreiner offers an excellent description of the differentation between systematic and biblical theology.
• This volume looks like it will be a synthesis of Piperesque and Laddian view points when it comes to the framework of a New Testament Theology, which is probably a good combination.

Book Review: New Testament Theology - Frank J. Matera

Frank J. Matera
New Testament Theology: Exploring Diversity and Unity
Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox, 2007.
Available from Alban Books
Available from Amazon.com

Frank Matera is Andrews-Kelly-Ryan Professor of Biblivcal Studies at the Catholic University of America. He is already well known for his work on NT Christology, NT Ethics, Galatians, 2 Corinthians, and his Ph.D thesis on a redactional critical approach to Mark 15.

The book includes the mandatory about introducton and then examines the Synoptic Tradition (dealing with each Gospel individually), the Pauline tradition (grouping the letters together such as Galatians/Romans, Captivity Epistles, Pastoral Epistles), Johannine Tradition (Gospel and Epistles) and other voices (General Epistles and Revelation). He then concludes with a section of the diverse unity of a New Testament Theology based around the headings of: "Humanity in Need of Salvation", "The Bringer of Salvation", "The Community of the Sanctified", "The Moral Life of the Sanctified", and "The Hope of the Sanctified".

Matera's project is to explore the "diverse unities" of the New Testament. He contends that a New Testament Theology should be "bolder" than offering descriptions of the theologies of the various authors/corpora but provide "a theological interpretation of the New Testament that integrates and relates the diverse theologies of the New Testament into a unified whole without harmonizing them" (xxvii). In his view the benefit of a New Testament Theology is that "it can provide readers with an overview of the New Testament; it makes important connections among the writings of the New Testament that one might otherwise overlook; it wrestles with theunity of God's revealtion in Christ; its results can be of assistance to systematic theology (xxxi)."

Out of the plethora of New Testament Theologies around, this remains a helpful for for identifying the variety and unity of the New Testament message about Jesus and God.

If the Apostle Paul met Bultmann

Robert Morgan in his excellent book, The Nature of New Testament Theology (featuring essays by Wrede and Schlatter) includes this hypothetical conversation between the Apostle Paul and Rudolf Bultmann (pp. 49-50):

Bultmann, having critically divested Paul of his futurist eschatology, says to Paul, "You were wrong about the future, of course, but on the whole I agree with what you taught about God and man. Though I am doing Christian theology as I interpret your epistles. I am actually a historian and I claim that my interpretation is historically true even though it is a critical one, removing the egg-shells of traditional futurist eschatology which you did not realize were inessential to your position." Now Paul might reply: " Well, actually, I was wrong about the date of the parousia, and you are right to look for ways of getting around that, so that you can continue to take my witness seriously. I agree, too, that what I taught about God and man remains valid regardless of the date of the parousia; so if your account of my theology ignores my abberation it may still be true to the substance of what I was saying. Unfortunately, however, you have thrown out some of the baby with the bath water. You have misunderstood me in making me say the samething as your hero John, who did not accept any future perspective. I disagree with that heresy and approve of the ecclesiastical redactor who made John acceptable. The truth is that Kasemann, Moltmann and Co. have understood me better than you, though of course they owe more to you than to anyone else since brother Martin!"

Bultmann the Heretic!

I'm currently working my way through some studies in New Testament Theology where (Lord willing) I hope to invest a great amount of time over the next 60 years. I've been glancing at Alan Richardson's much neglected An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament. I found this amazing quote on page fourteen:

The 'conclusions' of the liberal or 'historicizing' critics have been stood upon their head: what the liberals deemed to be mythology has become history and their history has become mythology. No wonder the conservatives are bewildered nowadays - and the conservtives are, of course, the liberals. Time had made ancient good uncouth. It has become apparent that we cannot build a theology of the New Testament - whether an orthodox one, like Gore's, or an heretical one, like Bultmann's - upon an imaginary bed-rock of objective-historical 'fact'.

I love it! I think of Jim West when I read this.

Biblical Theology and Christian Origins

I'm currently working on my Tyndale Lecture which will be about Biblical Theology and Christian Origins. At the moment we are privileged to have three major-massive-macro bigger-than-Ben-Hur New Testament Theology + New Testament History projects currently in production by N.T. Wright (Christian Origins and the Question of God), James. D. G. Dunn (Christianity in the Making), and Martin Hengel (Geschichte des frühen Christentums). To this we might also add the plethora of German Neuen Testament Theologie or Theologie des Urchristentums by H. Hubner, K. Berger, F. Hahn, J. Gnilka, P. Stuhlmacher and others.

The task of placing New Testament Theology in its historical co-ordinates is hardly new and it goes back as far as Anton Lutterbeck in his volume: Die neutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe: oder, Untersuchungen über das Zeitalter der Religionswende, die Vorstufen des Christenthums und die erste Gestaltung desselben: ein Handbuch für älteste Dogmengeschichte und systematische Exegese des neuen Testamentes (Mainz: Florian Kupferberg, 1852). The question of how to integrate the theological message of the New Testament into the religious history of antiquity (or vice-versa) without being purely descriptive or rewriting history to suit a certain theology is perhaps the defining issue in New Testament Theology.

Also, what is the difference between "A Theology of the New Testament" and a "Theology of Early Christianity"? Is it that a "Theology of Early Christianity" is broader than the NT canon, although we should ask exactly what Christian sources do we have from the first century apart from the NT? The Didache and 1 Clement (probably), Gospel of Thomas (probably second century), Q (did it exist and isn't it absorbed into Matthew and Luke anyway)? Big subjects.

19th Century New Testament Theologies

I am keen to pursue study of NT Theology before Wrede and I'm (chasing up) and looking forward to reading over:

Georg Lorenz Bauer, Biblische theologie des neuen testaments. Leipzig: Bengandschen Buchhandlung, 1800-1802.

Chr Fr Schmid and Carl Weizsäcker, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testamentes. Leipzig: Fr. Richter, 1886.

Bernhard Weiss, Biblical theology of the New Testament. Trans. James E Duguid and David Eaton; Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1893.

Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Kanon und tradition. Ein beitrag zur neueren dogmengeschichte und symbolik, Ludwigsburg, F. Riehm, 1859.

Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Ueber den gegenwärtigen Stand der Theologie und ihr Verhältniss zum wissenschaftlichen Bewusstsein der Zeit: ein Vortrag gehalten auf der zweiten Versammlung des badischen Prediger-Vereins - 18. October 1865. Elberfeld : R.L. Friderichs, 1865.

My question is, exactly how dogmatic was biblical theology prior to Wrede?

Luke-Acts in NT Theologies

I am not aware of many (or any) pre-1990 NT Theologies that view Luke-Acts as a distinct corpus in a NT Theology. I find this most amusing since in the early twentieth century we had Dibelius and friends telling us that Acts was mainly theology/kergyma and not history, and yet W.G. Kummel writes a NT Theology according to its "Major witnesses: Jesus - Paul - John" with no mention of Luke as a key player. In NT Theologies, Acts often gets dumped into a general section on the "kerygma" of the early church (e.g. Bultmann and Ladd) and Luke gets thrown in with Matthew and Mark under "synoptics" (e.g. Ladd). In fact, on my shelf only Strecker, Marshall, and Thielman treat Luke-Acts as a theological unity. Does anyone know who was the first to put Luke-Acts as one unit in a NT Theology?

Bockmuehl on New Testament Theology

In Seeing the Word chapter three, Bockmuehl looks at the possibility of a NT Theology given the diversity of voices in the New Testament (indeed a "a cacophony of ireconcilably conflicting interpretations and pleas for power" according to some). Are we left with an entirely phenomenological approach to the theology of individual letters rather than a singular message of the New Testament? In contrast, Bockmuehl argues that: "There is in fact a strong case that the New Testament text itself begs to be read systematically, whether as a canonical whole or in its constituent parts". The various writers, in their diversity and disagreements, claim to be concerned with the same Gospel as their fellow Apostles. An ecclesial reading is possible because the texts imply a Christian readership, what is more, "the New Testament does not create the church but rather presupposes and confirms it at every turn".

In terms of a method for NT Theology, Bockmuehl proposes: (1) To establish the kerygma of the New Testament; (2) to seriously engage in the issue of unity and diversity; and (3) plot the place of the New Testament in historic Christian Theology.