Questions concerning biblical theology

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Fall, 2000 by Roland E. Murphy

Should "biblical theology" embrace this actualizing? Yes, in some measure, because exegesis cannot stay locked into what the text meant back then. The text inspires the current reader, just as it gave a corresponding inspiration to the first readers, provided there is continuity with the past, and not merely an arbitrary connection. If the actualization of the text is a legitimate extension of the historical critical meaning, it yields immediate insights. They may not be easily synthesized into a "theology." They seem to remain too disparate for that, but here it is the "theology," so to speak, that the intent reader of the Bible can gather from the Word.

Biblical Theology and History of Religion

How does biblical theology, as it is presently manifested in most of the studies of the past century, differ from a history of religions approach? This is not a new question. An examination of the scholarly works, mainly in German, shows a division in titles between "Religion" of Israel and "Theology" of the Old Testament. At times these studies seem to be in broad harmony, and yet in disagreement. There was little methodological clarity on the differences between them, except for W. Eissfeldt, who tried to separate them definitively. The theoretical discussion has not disappeared. P. Miller and R. de Vaux seemed to claim that faith was a necessary ingredient for a biblical theologian. In the last decade Rainer Albertz (1994, 1995) produced the most excitement in the field by his unabashed affirmation, "I regard the history of religion as the more meaningful comprehensive Old Testament discipline" (1994: 16). These and similar claims led to numerous objections published under the captivating tide, History of the Religion of Israel or Theology of the Old Testament? in JAHRBUCH FUR BIBLISCHE THEOLOGIE 10 (1995). Such a title overstates Albertz' position, in view of the replies he has made to friends and foes alike (1995a; 1995b). Much of the discourse deals with the division of labor, and how to combine history of religion with theology (Lohfink). His challenge would lead to a broadening of theology, in that it calls for the cooperation of systematic theologians. Thus far, this is a European phenomenon, a challenge to be taken up and carried further. This is not the place to settle this prickly question.

As far as the Old Testament is concerned, the two areas overlap (Lemke 456, with a summary comparative table), and it is often difficult to separate them out. The most important difference, for my purpose, is that biblical theology involves truth claims and at least implicitly it presupposes that the biblical text has a singular authority. The approach from the point of view of Religionsgeschichte does not necessarily presuppose any particular truth claim, or authority. Yet it has enriched the theological explication of the biblical text. It is no longer possible to read Genesis 1-3 without taking into account its footage in the myths of Israel's neighbors. One need only recall the world of the Enuma Elish, of Gilgamesh, of the Ugaritic epics. There is a vast area of overlap between theology and the history of religions. A relatively easy example can be seen in the biblical ideas concerning the ideas on an afterlife. Here we may confine ourself to one instance, the concept of sheol (Murphy 2000b: 101-16).