The Tension Between Systematic & Historical Concerns in OT Theology
THE TENSION BETWEEN SYSTEMATIC & HISTORICAL CONCERNS IN OT THEOLOGY
AN EXAMINATION OF EICHRODT, VON RAD, AND MCKENZIE
by slaveofone, March 8, 20091
—————————————
The modern discipline of Old Testament theology was a consequence of several historical factors. One was the Reformation and rise of Protestantism. Due to a suspicion of tradition arising from perceived ecclesiastic, dogmatic, and even moral corruptions within the church, many Christians began turning to the scriptures alone
to find the more authentic and authoritative expression of their faith. Because of Luther, the printing press, and other influences, these scriptures came to be defined—in conjunction with the NT writings—as those found presently in the Protestant OT. This canon was not, however, identical with the Hebrew Bible since it had a very different form.
Another factor leading to the modern discipline of OT theology was the epistemological shift provided by the Enlightenment. Empiricism and rationalism became the means and method of discovering and deciphering the world and one’s relation to it. It was believed that this allowed for objective understanding, unencumbered by personal subjectivity or bias. Protestants began to view their theological task as involving this historical, supposedly objective (and therefore more authoritative) analysis of the OT. Over time, however, it became clear that the historical enterprise was being undermined in favor of systematics and that the voices of the OT were being silenced and hijacked by the voices of the NT. The objective, therefore, to separate systematic theology (or what a text means
in Christian faith) from biblical theology (or what a text meant
as revealed through historical criticism) came to its definitive expression in Johann Gabler’s 1787 inaugural address. Systematic theology was still valid for Christian interpretation, but was no longer part of the discipline of Old or New Testament theology. Three scholars who would try to follow this path were Walther Eichrodt, Gerhard Von Rad, and John McKenzie.
One of the advantages of systematic theology was its ability to unite disparate material and to tie the OT and NT together. However, as the historical discipline took over from systematics, Walther Eichrodt noticed that unity between the Testaments
was disappearing and that Religionsgeschichte and other descriptive methods were not providing a normative or authoritative relevance for Christianity. In order to reclaim these, he attempted to locate a structural unity natural to the OT that could then be shown to have continuance into and throughout the NT. Vital to this endeavor was a concern to maintain the historical integrity of the OT by not imposing outside categories upon it. The result was an approach that would be known as the Cross-section Method and an emphasis on the character or personal aspects of YHWH. Because there is a variety of different and even conflicting theological positions within and between biblical texts, his method depended upon a universal theme, center, or Mitte that would tie texts or major portions together and make sense of the rest in synchronic relation. The center was covenant
and the relation fell under three categories: God and the People, God and Man, and God and the World.
The tension between dogmatic concerns and what historical criticism tells us about the texts of the OT is obvious in Eichrodt’s theology. From a historical analysis, the OT itself is a variegated and arbitrary entity that has never known a final form, only competing traditions. Some texts do not necessarily have anything theological to say. Others have no relation to covenant. A unifying center is, therefore, not only anachronistic, but reduces theology to an imposed structure. Also, texts like Esther or Song of Songs (which Rabbi Akiva said was the holy of holies among sacred scripture and worth more than all the ages of creation2) were forgotten. Further, his triune categories were a virtual imitation of the classical, dogmatic system, God-Man-Salvation
(or Theology-Anthropology-Soteriology). Despite Eichrodt’s desire to deal with the OT texts on their own terms, his Cross-section Method with its theological center is a system and concern drawn from dogmatic theology and foreign to the texts themselves.
Gerhard Von Rad likewise wished to define his OT theology as historical over against dogmatics. It was important to allow the OT to speak for itself and to treat the NT separately. He emphasized that the OT was a history book.
Unlike Eichrodt, who tended to smooth out the texts into a common expression through a synchronic approach and unifying center, Von Rad emphasized the pluriform nature of the OT and its theologies through the diachronic approach of Traditionsgeschichte and the rejection of a center. He saw that the OT contained a kerygmatic history that differed from that reconstructed by historical criticism and believed this theological history, no less historical than the other, could provide unity within the OT, between Testaments,
and remain relevant and authoritative in each generation. This kerygmatic history, or Heilsgeschichte, was a proclamation of the acts of YHWH in history as the people of YHWH understood them. The first major kerygmatic proclamation began with the credo
of Deuteronomy 26:5-9 and progressed forward in history, expanding and adjusting to make sense of the new circumstances in which the people of YHWH found themselves. This history came to a breaking-point with the Prophets, which described an end to YHWH’s former dealing with Israel. The people of YHWH had chosen judgment and death instead of salvation and life and so this outcome was mediated through the destruction and desolation of Israel and Judah and through the exile and enslavement of the people. Prophecy then served as a way for Heilsgeschichte to begin anew and move forward, pointing to a future action of God in history that Von Rad identified with Christ in the NT.
Ultimately, like Eichrodt, Von Rad’s method was another unified, dogmatic system which alienated texts that couldn’t be organized within it, such as Wisdom literature. Von Rad also depended upon linear time for his theology. But what about the cyclical time that appears in places like Leviticus? Another indication that Von Rad’s OT theology was shaped by dogmatic theology was the fact that it depended on his Protestant canon in order for the Prophets to look forward to a future fulfillment of promise in the NT. Had he used the Jewish canon instead, he would have ended with the fulfillment of the promises in the Writings. That theology should be defined by the form of one canon over the other is a dogmatic concern, not a historical one.
John McKenzie was the first Catholic scholar to write an OT theology. He recognized that because scholars were intent on doing theology in relation to the NT, the NT continued to subvert or redefine the message of OT texts. He therefore attempted an OT theology without any acknowledgment of the NT or concern for the relation between Testaments.
This meant he sought to avoid topics originating in the NT, such as messianism. He also realized that dogmatic systems continued to plague the theologies of OT scholars, causing texts to be subjugated to reductionism or silence. Placing his theological unity in the person of YHWH instead of the texts or their historical setting, McKenzie rejected a literary center or theological system and presented his OT theology topically based on the totality of the record
of Israel’s experiences of YHWH. Cult became his preeminent topic since this was the most frequent manner of Israel’s experience (although one wonders whether this was due to McKenzie’s experience of YHWH in traditional ritual, and, therefore, whether it is, in fact, a sort of Catholic dogmatic).
McKenzie believed, however, that theology should really only deal with God-talk
—what Israel said about the person of YHWH based on her experiences. He had no interest in humanity. He also rejected the political sphere as a medium of divine action. This selectivity meant not only that other valid theological concerns were abandoned, but that certain OT texts were privileged, once again, to the neglect of others. And although he claimed to work in a vacuum of NT awareness, he still treated messianism in his OT theology. The question remains as to whether it was really historical or dogmatic reasons that defined the textual limits of his theology. If NT texts were ignored because they had a different context, social location, or put forward different theological viewpoints, wouldn’t these same criteria invalidate portions of the OT as well?
In conclusion, we see that it was a challenge for Christians to make sense of the contents of the OT apart from dogmatics, without altering textual meaning, or without limiting the OT’s message to something qualitatively less than itself. This was partly because Christian scholars did not fully understand and take responsibility for the role that they played in the formation of meaning. Instead, they either attempted to bypass their own subjective involvement, like children running from their shadows, or claimed for their personal motivations and perceptions an objectivity that could not be maintained.
1 This essay was originally written as part of a class on OT Theology. It has been altered slightly in form and content.
2 Mishnah Yadaim 3:5