Über die Autorin bzw. den Autor

James D. G. Dunn is Emeritus Professor of Divinity, Durham University.

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

New Testament Theology

Abingdon Press

Chapter One

1. INTRODUCTION

Biblical theology as a distinct discipline is usually traced back to the essay of J. P. Gabler published in 1787. The Bible, of course, had been a source and resource for the crafting of theology from the earliest centuries of Christianity. Indeed, Irenaeus can be regarded as a credible candidate for the title, "the first biblical theologian." But prior to Gabler it was more a matter of the Bible in the service of systematic or dogmatic theology than of a biblical theology as now understood. It was Gabler who initiated the distinction and separation of biblical theology from dogmatic theology and promoted the understanding of biblical theology as a historical exercise to determine what were the theologies (not just theology) of the biblical writers. Since then the discipline of biblical theology has had an up and down history, but interest in it has recently re-emerged in some strength, which makes the present series timely.

The role of NT theology within or as part of or in relation to biblical theology has also re-emerged as an important aspect of the larger discussion—as indicated by the sequence of volumes in the 1990s on the theology of the NT that revived the nineteenth century title "Biblical Theology in the New Testament." Robert Morgan can even say that "a theological NTT [NT Theology] is defensible only as part of a biblical theology."

So the principle and task of writing a New Testament theology within the framework of biblical theology is easy to state. But when we begin to unpack what is involved, questions and problems quickly emerge and soon multiply. When, for example, R. H. Fuller wrote his piece on New Testament Theology for the Society of Biblical Literature 1980 Centennial volume on the New Testament, the influence of Rudolf Bultmann still loomed large, and it was the questions that the latter's Theology continued to pose that were important for Fuller: "(1) the place and role of the historical Jesus in a NT theology; (2) the adequacy of the anthropological interpretation of Paul and of 'deworldification' as a hermeneutical key for John; (3) the problem of variety and unity in the NT; (4) whether the NT contains a stratum to be designated 'early Catholicism,' and if this is admitted, how that stratum is to be assessed." It will be apparent from the first two chapters of this volume both that some of these issues are still alive, and that the debate has moved on during the past quarter of a century.

In what follows I will attempt to give a fresh perspective on some of these problems by moving away from traditional formulations and expressing the problems in my own terms.

2. WHICH "BIBLE"? WHOSE BIBLE?

The initial problem is posed by the very title, "Biblical Theology of the New Testament." The problem lies with the term biblical itself. (1) The title assumes a Christian perspective, in which there is already an entity called the New Testament, and, explicitly or implicitly, another entity called the Old Testament. From this perspective the Bible is the Christian Bible made up of these two testaments. (2) At the same time, a biblical theology of the NT is inevitably an attempt to expound the NT writings from within the NT, using as a major explanatory key the NT writers' use of the OT. But since for the NT writers there was as yet no New Testament as such, Bible here, that is, from the perspective of the NT writers, can denote only the (Jewish) scriptures.

Thus the very concept of biblical theology immediately presses upon us the recognition that the biblical writings referred to are described as Bible/scripture because they function as Bible/scripture for two different religious communities—the Jewish and the Christian. The point would have been difficult to avoid anyway, since the interdependence of a text, particularly a religious text, with its interpretative community, the community for which it is scripture, is more or less self-evident (scripture for whom?) and has rightly been an emphasis in recent broader hermeneutical discussion. It is this fact, however, that causes tension between the two usages of biblical theology. For, on the one hand, Christianity is unique among world religions in the fact that it has absorbed the scriptures of what is universally understood to be a quite distinct religion and has claimed them as its own. But is the Old Testament only Bible as Old Testament, that is, as interpreted by and in the light of the New Testament? If on the other hand, the Jewish scriptures are Bible independently of the Christian writings, should they not be allowed(!) to have their own voice independently of the NT? Is a Jewish theological interpretation of their own scriptures not equally biblical theology? One of the strengths of Brevard Childs's Biblical Theology is that he sees the issue and poses it a number of times, but clearly understands biblical theology as a Christian enterprise through and through. My point, however, is that biblical theology (however defined) cannot be carried forward without close regard for the fundamental issues of self-identity and mutual recognition at the heart of Jewish/Christian dialogue.

This problem cannot be ignored. It is in fact constitutive of biblical theology properly so called. Of course Christians could ignore the fact that their OT is also the Jewish Bible and affirm that their biblical theology is concerned only with their Bible. But that would immediately run counter to central concerns of the NT writers themselves, for whom the Jewish scriptures were the only Bible. Consequently such a New Testament biblical theology could be regarded as an oxymoron since it runs counter to the historical character of biblical theology, as formulating the subject matter in the terms and from the perspective of the NT writers themselves. As we shall note further in chapter 2, it was crucial to earliest Christian self-understanding and to NT apologetic generally that the gospel they were proclaiming was in direct continuity with and validated by those writings that were already recognized as scripture by Jews generally and not just by Christians. Not only so, but if the Bible in biblical theology is concerned with the Jewish scriptures only as Old Testament, Jews in turn, insofar as they might be interested in a subject called biblical theology, could all the more readily ignore the writings added to their scriptures by the Christians and confine their interests to their Bible alone. But that would too easily sideline the question whether Jesus ought to be counted as one of their own prophets (or rabbis, or messiah?). And once Jesus the prophet from Nazareth is brought into play, dialogue with Christians becomes virtually unavoidable and cannot easily be excluded from the proper concerns of a Jewish biblical theology. Here the issues of continuity/discontinuity are at the heart of any biblical theology of the NT. As I noted elsewhere, "At the heart of biblical theology is the interface between a Jewish biblical theology and a Christian biblical theology—the interface that is the New Testament itself."

In short, the...