The critic of biblical theologians: a review of James Barr's The Concept of Biblical Theology: an Old Testament Perspective - Book Review

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Summer, 2001 by Robert Gnuse

Biblical Theology as Source for Doctrinal Theology

This leads to another significant point made by Barr. A first Testament or biblical theology provides the raw materials for a doctrinal theology. In my opinion, volumes by von Rad and Albertz epitomize this. Their works are a first-level activity (perhaps a "volume one"), which leads to a second stage of reflection, which in turn organizes the religious ideas in a synthetic unity (perhaps a "volume two"), as Eichrodt did. The debate over whether von Rad or Eichrodt had the correct method is, I believe, misplaced, for both methodologies might be combined in a two-step process of outlining the development and then articulating the overarching themes in the biblical text.

Barr suggests not only that biblical theology is not theology in the doctrinal sense, but that a serious unification of both Testaments can be accomplished only with doctrinal, not biblical theology. Again, I would agree. This perhaps would be the third level of reflection, wherein the theologian uses the reigning theological assumptions of his or her age to craft a theological exposition that addresses the needs of the modern faith community (perhaps a "volume three"--this is becoming a large work!). At this third level of reflection Childs would synthesize biblical images with Barthian theology; I would prefer process theology. (I would characterize my own work--2000--as something that hovers between levels two and three.) At this third level we would use intellectual and religious paradigms that speak to the modern era, and not all the "raw materials" of the First Testament would be used. One theologian might use First Testament images of God to articulate a theology of a suffering God, as process theology would do, whereas another theologian could draw upon prophetic themes for a theology of social mission.

It may be impossible for one theologian to create such an implied three-volume theology. But First Testament theologians would profit by keeping such distinctions in their minds as they articulate their works, so that they can acknowledge at what level or levels they may be functioning. If Barr's critique of Childs is correct, Childs, and also Vriezen, have really done level three reflection and called it level two reflection. With this paradigm we could accept the theologies of von Rad, Terrien, and Gese as functioning at level one, whereas Eichrodt and Brueggemann are at level two, and Mildenberger and Raisanen may be at level three--and they all serve admirably at the levels at which they operate. (I feel that Barr's criticism of Brueggemann may be a little harsher than is deserved.) These categories would enable us to clarify what biblical theologians are doing and to affirm a wide range of biblical theologies as actually compatible with one another in the greater scheme of general theology.

Doubts about "Canonical Criticism"

I concur with Barr's criticism of "canonical criticism." When it first arose and was touted as the replacement for the Historical Critical Method, it seemed to me that it was merely the final, but important, step of a form-critical or traditio-historical evaluation. That is exactly what it appears to be in Childs' commentary on Exodus (1974) (toward which I am more favorably inclined than Barr). I am bothered by rhetoric that declares any method to be the panacea for all woes in biblical interpretation. Childs' claims were too grandiose. Barr is most correct in seeing different ways in which "canonical criticism" can be understood, and this is why he discusses the other canonical critical approaches of James Sanders and Rolf Rendtorff (chapter 25).