Old Testament Theology, Volume I: A Commentary

OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

THE OLD TESTAMENT LIBRARY

Editorial Advisory Board

JAMES L. MAYS

CAROL A. NEWSOM

DAVID L. PETERSEN

Horst Dietrich Preuss

OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Volume I

Translated by Leo G. Perdue from Theologie des Alten Testaments, Band 1: JHWHs erwählendes und verpflichtendes Handeln, published 1991 by W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart

© 1991 W. Kohlhammer GmbH

English translation © 1995 Westminster John Knox Press

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Westminster John Knox Press, 100 Witherspoon Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202-1396.

Book design by Drew Stevens

First published 1995

by Westminster John Knox Press

Louisville, Kentucky

This book is printed on acid-free paper that meets the American National Standards Institute Z39.48 standard. ♾

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

95  96  97  98  99  00  01  02  03  04 — 10  9  8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Preuss, Horst Dietrich, 1927–

[Theologie des Alten Testaments. English]

Old Testament Theology / Horst Dietrich Preuss.

        p.       cm. — (Old Testament library)

Includes bibliographical references and indexes.

ISBN 0-664-21844-X (v. 1 : alk. paper)

1. Bible. O.T.—Theology.    I. Title.    II. Series.

BS1192.5.P6913  1995

230—dc2095-19162

CONTENTS

Translator’s Preface

Preface

Chapter 1. Setting the Stage: The History, Methodology, and Structure of a Theology of the Old Testament

1.1   The Posing of the Question

1.2   The History of Scholarship

a.  From Gabler to de Wette

b.  From Vatke to König

c.  The Change since 1920

d.  From Sellin to Vriezen

e.  G. von Rad

f.  After G. von Rad

1.3   Setting the Boundaries for Methodology

1.4   Concerning the Center of the Old Testament

1.5   The Present Inquiry

PART ONE. LAYING THE FOUNDATION

Chapter 2. An Overview of the Old Testament’s Statements about Election

2.1   Yahweh’s Acts of Election

2.2   The Verb to Elect

2.3   Election of the Individual

2.4   Election of the People

2.5   The Semantic Field

2.6   Historical Emphases

2.7   Election and History

2.8   The Theology of Election

2.9   Further Questions

Chapter 3. The Election and Obligation of the People

3.1   The Exodus Event as the Primal Election

3.2   Israel as an Exodus Community

3.3   Israel as a People and as a Community of Faith

a.   = ‘am (people) and = gôy (people)

b.  Israel

c.   = qāhāl (assembly) and = ‘ēdâ (congregation)

d.  Differentiations within Israel

e.  Amphictyony?

f.  Toward the Self-Understanding of Israel

3.4   Community and Individual

3.5   Sinai Tradition and Sinai Covenant

a.  Sinai Tradition

b.  Sinai Covenant

c.  The So-called Covenant Formula

d.  Exodus 32–34

e.  The Murmuring People during the Wilderness Wandering

3.6   Duty and Law: The Theological Basis of the Law of God

a.  Law and Legal Sentences

b.  Law and Covenant

c.  Differentiations

3.7   Moses: His Place and the Problem of the Founding and Revealing of a Religion

3.8   Yahweh’s Will Requires Responsibility

a.  The Decalogue

b.  Yahweh’s Demand for Exclusivity (the First Commandment)

c.  The Prohibition of Idols (the Second Commandment)

d.  The Formation of Monotheism

3.9   Israel’s Land

a.  The Promises of Land

b.  The Land in Israel’s History

c.  Terminology

d.  The Israelite Law of Landownership

e.  Land as a Historical Gift

3.10 Yahweh as Warrior and Yahweh War

a.  YHWH as Warrior

b.  YHWH War

c.  The Situation of Scholarship

d.  The Ban

e.  YHWH War against Israel

f.  War and Peace

PART TWO. YAHWEH AS THE SUBJECT OF THE HISTORICAL ACTS OF ELECTION

Chapter 4. The God Who Elects: His Names and Titles. His Acts and His Powers of Activity. Statements about His Nature

4.1   The Names of God

a.  Yahweh

b.  Yahweh Sebaoth

4.2   The Appellations of God

a.   = ’ĕlōhîm (God)

b.   = ’ēl (God)

c.   = ’ĕlôah (God)

d.  Yahweh’s Accessibility through His Names

4.3   Yahweh as King

4.4   Yahweh’s Powers of Activity

a.  Yahweh’s Spirit

b.  Yahweh’s Countenance

c.  The Angel of Yahweh

d.  The Glory of Yahweh

e.  The Name of Yahweh

f.  Yahweh’s Justice

g.  Yahweh’s Blessing

h.  The Connection between Deed and Consequence

i.  Yahweh’s Wisdom

j.  Yahweh’s Word

4.5   Yahweh Reveals Himself

a.  Terms

b.  Revelation in Israel’s Cultural Environment

c.  The Self-Introduction and Knowledge of Yahweh

d.  Fundamental Structures of the Old Testament Language of Revelation

e.  Yahweh’s Acts in History

f.  Time according to the Witness of the Old Testament

4.6   Yahweh as Creator

a.  Concerning Worldview

b.  Hymnic-sapiential Language about Creation

c.  The Yahwist, Priestly Source, Deutero-Isaiah, Postexilic Psalms

d.  Creation, History, and Salvation

4.7   Old Testament Statements about the Nature of Yahweh

a.  Yahweh as an Eternal God without Origin

b.  The Holy One and the Holy One of Israel

c.  Yahweh’s Jealousy

d.  Exodus 34:6f.

e.  Yahweh as a Living God

f.  Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms

g.  Fundamental Structures of the Old Testament Witness to God

Chapter 5. The World of God and the World Distant from God

5.1   Yahweh’s Places of Dwelling

5.2   The Ark

5.3   The Tent (of Meeting)

5.4   Yahweh’s Court: The Cherubim, Seraphim, and Angels

5.5   Demons

5.6   Satan

5.7   The Kingdom of the Dead

Abbreviations

Notes

Index of Hebrew Words

Volume I

Select Index of Biblical Citations

Index of Subjects

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

When I first agreed to translate the Old Testament theology by Horst Dietrich Preuss, I was looking forward to the opportunity to work with him on this project. I had read many previous works that he had written, and I had long admired the clarity of presentation, extensive research, and careful arguments that characterized his scholarship. I was deeply saddened to receive the news of his death in 1993, just before I began the translation of Volume I.

This two-volume theology by Professor Preuss is a splendid example of classical German Old Testament scholarship and theological reflection that follows in the tradition of Walther Eichrodt and Gerhard von Rad. It has been a pleasure to become intimately acquainted with this last important work of Professor Preuss and to make it more widely available to an English-speaking audience.

In presenting this translation, several remarks may be helpful to the reader. Professor Preuss translated his biblical passages directly from the Hebrew, and the English translation has adhered as closely to the German as possible. He also often left the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin words, phrases, clauses, and sentences untranslated and without transliteration. These have been translated into English, and the Hebrew and Greek have been transliterated.

A list of abbreviations has been added by Westminster John Knox Press, allowing the reader to follow bibliographical references. To assist the reader, the Press has also provided a correlation between the important German bibliographical references cited and quoted by Professor Preuss and the English translations of those works.

I am especially indebted to the following people who have been of great assistance in bringing this translation to its completion. Dr. Jon Berquist, editor at Westminster John Knox Press, has been most helpful throughout the stages of this project. The work of Marian Noecker and Carl Helmich as copyeditors has been invaluable. Jean Burnham, Linda Hillin, and Sharlie Tomlinson, three administrative assistants of the Brite Divinity School staff, and Jennie Huff, a graduate assistant at Brite, have carefully prepared the indexes. I am greatly indebted to these individuals for their assistance, patience, and graciousness in bringing this translation to completion.

PREFACE

Radical change and debate characterize much of the scholarly investigation of the Old Testament at the present time. It is therefore a risky venture to present in the current environment a Theology of the Old Testament. This risk, however, is outweighed, at least in part, by the fact that descriptions of Old Testament theology have a duty to respond to the questions and problems of their own time. In addition, undertaking this risk is also justified by the contemporary study of theology. It has been over thirty years now since the appearance of the significant theological work of Gerhard von Rad, while Walther Zimmerli, in producing his Outline of Old Testament theology, wished eventually to write a more detailed description but did not live to do so. What is needed now is a new, comprehensive overview of the witnesses to Old Testament faith that takes into consideration both the present changes in Old Testament research and the positions of the author in regard to these matters. Therefore, references, citations, and bibliographical information are necessary, even as one would find in an introductory text. To print biblical quotations in full of course would be impossible. They will have to be looked up by the reader. In addition, in this kind of presentation, repetitions not only cannot be avoided, they are even intended.

The present volume is aware of its limitations. This also will be true when the second one, God willing, soon appears. Much of what is currently new in Old Testament study will be mentioned, even if the author does not always agree. Other scholars might well choose to set forth their own modifications, corrections, and different orientations. In addition to the purpose of comprehending as fully as possible the witness of the world of the Old Testament, the present work has two other particular interests. One is the quest to discover the essential structure of the faith of scripture that resides both behind and in the Old Testament. However, Old Testament Israel cannot be properly understood apart from its own historical and social context. Another interest is a brief description of this social and cultural environment that is becoming ever clearer to us. It is hoped, of course, that these side glances at the religious and historical environment of the Bible will not take precedence over the major objective of setting forth its theology. Nevertheless the particularities and unique features of Israel’s faith at times may be brought out more clearly by comparison to the other religions of the surrounding cultures.

The manuscript of the present volume was finished in the fall of 1990. Scholarly literature that either was written or came into my possession after that time could not be included. However, one work that supports, modifies, and expands much of what is said here ought to be mentioned: J. Assmann’s substantial book, Ma‘at: Gerechtigkeit und Unsterblichkeit im Alten Ägypten (Munich, 1990).

I wish to thank the Reverend Dr. J. Hausmann and Mr. I. Schurig, a theology student, for their considerable help. Ms. A. Siebert introduced me to the intricacies of the computer and produced the final form of the published work. I also wish to thank the publisher, W. Kohlhammer, and its editor J. Schneider, who encouraged me to pursue this work. I am grateful both for the care they gave to this book and for its publication.

Horst Dietrich Preuss

Neuendettelsau

March 1991

Chapter 1. Setting the Stage: The History, Methodology, and Structure of a Theology of the Old Testament¹

1.1   The Posing of the Question

A course of lectures, even more a book, on the theology of the Old Testament,² on the one hand, is the most desirable and important undertaking in the study of the Old Testament. On the other hand, it is also the most difficult. In spite of this, the attempt should be made to offer an overview of the world of faith and witness of the Old Testament. The Old Testament is a collection of writings, a library of various texts that originated over the course of eight hundred to a thousand years. Not only does it contain many layers of materials but it also is a wide-ranging book from a distant time with much that conceptually is rather foreign to us. As a result, who can say: I know and understand the Old Testament? In addition, each effort to set forth an overview carries with it some of the personal idiosyncrasies or peculiarities of the author. This means that the present investigation contains my own peculiarities and weaknesses and reflects both the character and the limits of my knowledge.³

When Old Testament scholars propose or, for that matter, write a theology of the Old Testament they provide an account of their own and others’ understanding of the theological problems posed by the multiplicity of the Old Testament witnesses in their context.⁴ At the same time, the Theology of the Old Testament is understood to be that theology which the Old Testament itself contains and presents, and not a theology that has the Old Testament as a subject of study.⁵ This latter understanding belongs more to contemporary hermeneutics or fundamental theology. Finally, an Old Testament theology should be distinguished from a history of ancient Israelite religion. These initial issues, only here lightly touched upon, give rise to important problems that call for a more detailed examination.

1.2   The History of Scholarship

a.  From Gabler to de Wette

Whenever an inquiry is made into the origins of the critical discipline of Old Testament Theology and to discover the most important works within its history,⁶ one points to the inaugural address of the theologian from Altdorf, Johann Philipp Gabler.⁷ This is true also for the fields of New Testament Theology and Biblical Theology. This address, delivered on March 30, 1787, has the theme: Oratio de justo discrimine theologiae biblicae et dogmaticae regundisque recte utriusque finibus (On the Proper Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each).⁸ Gabler frees biblical theology from its single purpose of serving as the dicta probantia for dogmatic theology. While he does not contest the necessity of dogmatic theology, Gabler argues that the primary purpose of biblical theology is to address historical questions, while dogmatic theology seeks to instruct believers in the faith. The language, understanding, uniqueness, and chronological setting of the biblical text are considerations in order to assemble, arrange, compare, and describe true biblical theology. In this way, Gabler also made more distinct the difference between religion and theology. Gabler distinguished between true and pure biblical theology: true biblical theology was more concerned with the time-bound statements of the biblical authors, while pure biblical theology was more interested in discovering eternal truths that are valid for all times. This distinction prepared the way for distinguishing between biblical theology that seeks only to be descriptive and biblical theology that evaluates and renders critical judgments about statements of faith.

While these considerations should be taken seriously, it is also necessary to make a distinction between Old Testament theology and New Testament theology, a distinction that Gabler himself did not make. The first effort in this direction⁹ was undertaken by Georg Lorenz Bauer in 1796.¹⁰ He wanted to read the Old Testament and its religious ideas (e.g., those about God, angels, demons, and the relationship of human beings to God) in the spirit of the era of the ancient scriptures. He divided this era into five periods and used this temporal framework for comparing the Old Testament with the religions of Israel’s environment. He argued that one should read the Old Testament as preparatory for the New Testament, and not as a Christian text or as a reservoir in which to discover only New Testament ideas. However, neither Gabler nor Bauer was able to provide the first actual explanation of how to go about presenting a completely historical interpretation of the Old Testament. Their suggestions, especially those of Gabler, would come to fruition at a later time.

Two scholars, Gottlieb Philipp Christian Kaiser (1813, 1814, 1821)¹¹ and in particular Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1813; 3d ed., 1831),¹² set forth their views on how a historical interpretation of the Old Testament should be carried out. De Wette’s title demonstrates that he not only made a clear and complete separation of the Old and New Testaments but also examined two troubling concerns that had emerged since the time of Gabler: the historical interpretation of biblical results and, at the same time, their presentation in a systematic summary. Stated in another way, the concerns are the presentation of the results, on the one hand, and their evaluation on the other. In connection with this, it is clear, especially for de Wette, that the effort should be made in general to determine the relationship of Old Testament religion to both the history of revelation and the New Testament. This effort is necessary, for example, when one is pursuing such questions as the relationship between preexilic and postexilic religion in Israel (i.e., Hebrew religion and Judaism) and between particularity and universalism.¹³ At the same time, the critical response¹⁴ that de Wette provoked shows that even by then it was not an easy matter to keep out of the descriptions of biblical theology the interpreter’s own problems, prior decisions, philosophical influences (de Wette was especially influenced by J. F. Fries), and valuations. De Wette also sought to locate a kind of center for the Old Testament, since he thought God as holy will was its fundamental idea.

b.  From Vatke to König

The influence of philosophy, particularly the work of Hegel, on Wilhelm Vatke is rather clear. Vatke’s work, Die biblische Theologie wissenschaftlich dargestellt, vol. 1: Die Religion des Alten Testaments, appeared in 1835.¹⁵ Following his introduction and basic foundation, which sets forth his philosophical and terminological understandings, Vatke sought to use the three features of the Hegelian dialectic (thesis, antithesis, and synthesis) to describe the stages of religion as stages of the development of human consciousness and to see history as the self-realization of pure Spirit. Of course, it is not an easy matter to derive from the Old Testament Hegel’s dialectic which, additionally, does not really conform to Vatke’s own historical findings. Anticipating Julius Wellhausen, Vatke placed the law, including its theocratic institutions, and everything else that belongs to this category, in antithesis to the prophets. What he meant by the law is today referred to as the Priestly document. After wisdom literature, seen by Vatke in a positive light, had vanished into that which was specifically Jewish, Christianity offered the crowning synthesis. Old Testament theology would then be presented predominantly as the historical development of Israelite religion from lower to higher forms. His distinction between idea and form of appearance in the matter of religion expresses once again the tension between pure description and the evaluation of what is described.

A series of additional, preponderantly posthumous¹⁶ works in Old Testament theology then began to appear. Written under the influence of the critical studies of both Wellhausen and the history of religions school (Gunkel, Gressmann, et al.), these works could scarcely set forth a systematic presentation of Old Testament theology. Rather, they appeared much more as descriptions of Israelite-Jewish religious history. Indeed, the senior R. Smend expressly emphasized that he wished to set forth his description in a historical, and not a systematic, form.¹⁷ In 1903, K. Marti edited the third and fourth editions of A. Kayser’s Theologie des Alten Testaments (2d ed., 1894) and renamed the work Geschichte der israelitischen Religion. A biblical theology of the Old Testament that is organized following a pattern of historical sequence and development is the exhaustive, fundamental, two-volume work of B. Stade (vol. 1)¹⁸ and A. Bertholet (vol. 2), appearing in 1905 and 1911 respectively. Similar is the Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments by E. Kautzsch that appeared posthumously in 1911. Such works, oriented to the history of Israelite-Jewish religion, continue to have their successors and to retain their legitimacy unto the present as one form of approaching the world of Old Testament faith.¹⁹

Of more interest for the history of research than for their significance for contemporary questions concerning a theology of the Old Testament are the works of G. F. Oehler (1845, 1873, etc., representing a distinctive salvation history and historical-genetic perspective),²⁰ E. Riehm (1889), A. Dillman (1895), and even H. Ewald (1871–1876).²¹

Quite different is the assessment of the Alttestamentliche Theologie of H. Schultz, appearing first in 1869 and bearing the subtitle Die Offenbarungsreligion auf ihrer vorchristlichen Entwicklungsstufe. This book underwent several new editions and frequent revisions by its author (5th ed., 1896) and was a favorite textbook for students of the time. Yet the book also has significance for us. Seeing he was in the position to do so, the author felt compelled to take up in the sequence of his new editions the questions and results that came from the scholarly works of J. Wellhausen and B. Duhm concerning the law and the prophets.²² It should be noted that in the fourth and especially the fifth edition Schultz presented as the first main section (5th ed., pp. 59–309) a history of the religion of Israel under the title Die Entwicklung der Religion und Sitte Israels bis zur Aufrichtung des Hasmonäerstaates. This was followed by the second main section that sought to describe in a purely historical (5th ed., p. 4) manner the themes of God and world, humanity and sin, and the hope of Israel. He entitled this section Das Heilsbewusstsein der Gemeine des zweiten (!) Tempels. Just as much as the two divisions, the subthemes of the second part would also have their consequences. In addition to discussions about the Old Testament, the history of religions, and the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament, it should be noted that Schultz prefaced his presentation with an important chapter dealing with literary forms in the writings of the Old Testament. In this chapter, for example, he not only examined myth and legend but even set forth the programmatic statement that Genesis may be a book of sacred legends (p. 22). This is a point that H. Gunkel later modified somewhat. According to Schultz, it was the kingdom of God that gave unity not only to the Old Testament but also to the Old and New Testaments.²³ From the remaining members of the closely knit circle of students and friends gathered around Wellhausen, there appeared, in addition to the historically oriented descriptions of the history of Israelite religion already mentioned, only the Theologie der Propheten by Duhm (1875). He also asked historical questions in order to provide the theology of the prophets a foundation for the inner development of the history of Israelite religion.

The first person after Schultz to undertake the effort to present not only a historical but also a systematic²⁴ description of the data and ideas that have proven to be vital to Old Testament salvation history was E. König in 1922 (3d and 4th eds., 1923). However, owing to many rather opinionated theses and, particularly in part two, to a strongly dogmatic emphasis in the posing of questions, his work, Theologie des Alten Testaments kritisch und vergleichend dargestellt, has not had much influence.

c.  The Change since 1920

More important for the further development of Old Testament theology were three brief contributions that once more came from the circle of German Old Testament scholars. The year 1921 witnessed the appearance of R. Kittel’s address, Die Zukunft der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft.²⁵ According to Kittel, Old Testament scholarship should be engaged not only in archaeology and, especially up to this point, literary criticism and the history of literature but also in the presentation of the history of Israel’s ideas and specifically religious information such as worship and the ethics that special personalities display. This presentation would describe the heights of Old Testament religion. One can see in Kittel’s Gestalten und Gedanken in Israel (1925) that he was especially interested in personalities and the history of ideas that were associated with them.

In 1926 Otto Eissfeldt distinguished between two different fields of inquiry.²⁶ The history of religion is a field that proceeds along the lines of intellectual understanding or knowing. In this field, the effort is made to comprehend as a historical entity the religion of Israel as one religion among others. A second field, theology, is concerned with faith. Here the religion of Israel is regarded as the true religion that witnesses to God’s revelation, and the effort is made to assess its veracity. Accordingly, the first field proceeds in a more historical fashion, while the second sets forth a more systematic presentation. Both have methods of inquiry that stimulate each other as they carry out their respective tasks and objectives. However, these methods of investigation should not be so blended together that the tensions between them are eliminated. Their unity is found in the person of the scholar who works in both fields. Reflecting on the questions that had emerged since Gabler, Eissfeldt’s argumentation was stimulated by the emerging dialectical theology.²⁷ He sought not only to search vigorously for the Word of God but also to establish the independence of historical investigation.²⁸

By contrast, W. Eichrodt wished to see the two fields mentioned above as a unity.²⁹ One could certainly press toward the nature of Old Testament religion by proceeding only along the pathway of historical inquiry. This would mean that the questions of truth and value would belong to the field of dogmatics but not to biblical theology. However, scholarship may no longer rest content with only a genetic analysis; rather, it must produce a comprehensive systematic work by laying out a cross section through the material that would point out the religion’s inner structure and would establish the relationships between the varieties of its content. This way of proceeding would still represent a historical approach and would not place its results under the scrutiny of normative questions of faith. Nor would this approach function as a testimony to the revelation of God. Eichrodt argued that his approach would free Old Testament theology from the chains of an Old Testament history of religion.

It may only be mentioned at this point that the battle for the Old Testament that had intensified toward the end of the nineteenth century with the Bible-Babel controversy³⁰ and the nationalistic and racist ideas of developing anti-Semitism and emerging national socialism also entered in general into this discussion concerning the Old Testament.³¹

d.  From Sellin to Vriezen

E. Sellin’s two-volume work was one of the first results of this debate. He published in 1933 his Alttestamentliche Theologie auf religionsgeschichtlicher Grundlage in two volumes. Volume 1 (1933), Israelitisch-jüdische Religionsgeschichte, sought to describe the origins and growth of Israelite-Jewish religion, while volume 2 (1933), Theologie des Alten Testaments, set forth systematically the religious teachings and faith that the Jewish community had fashioned on the basis of the writings collected in the Old Testament, but only so far as they have recognized Jesus Christ and his apostles as the presupposition and foundation of the Gospel and as the revelation of the God who has been proclaimed by them (p. 1). When one traces the changing path on which scholarship was embarking, it is little wonder that volume 2 went through a second edition in 1936 but not volume 1. This second volume, somewhat less inclined toward hypotheses than volume 1, is divided into three parts: God and His Relationship to the World, Humanity and Sin, and Judgment and Salvation (cf. later L. Köhler). This volume distinguishes between popular religion and high religion and between national cult religion and prophetic, moral, universal, eschatological religion. For Sellin, the idea of a holy God carries special weight in the Old Testament. Sellin’s principle of selection and evaluation leads to the result that Old Testament wisdom literature plays no role in the second volume of his work. Moreover, while the two volumes stand side by side, the relationship between the history of Israelite religion and Old Testament theology is not given a more ready explanation.

If one looks ahead some years, passing over in the meantime other examples, then one is able to discover in the work of O. Procksch a similar dualistic scheme, which Schultz especially introduced. This scheme allowed Old Testament theologians in many areas of inquiry to move beyond such questions as the historicity of Abraham or Moses.³² Procksch’s Theologie des Alten Testaments was published posthumously in 1950. It contains two main parts, namely, Die Geschichtswelt and Die Gedankenwelt of the Old Testament. The first part, in tracing out the world of history, leads from Abraham to apocalyptic, while the second part, dealing with the thought world of the Old Testament, is divided into three sections: God and the World, God and Nation, and God and Humanity. With all that, the programmatic essay at the beginning of the work, entitled Alle Theologie ist Christologie, could neither be verified nor carried out.

Later on G. Fohrer produced a work following Sellin’s two-volume division, the first dealing with Israelite religion and the second with Old Testament theology. Fohrer’s History of Israelite Religion (1969; ET 1972), in which he wished to treat the development of Israelite religion as a normal history of a typical religion,³³ was followed by his Theologische Grundstrukturen des Alten Testaments (1972, see below) in which he also inserted distinct criteria of evaluation.

If one pauses for a moment, prior to mentioning the great work of Eichrodt, to ask what the main problems of Old Testament theology are that have now been encountered, then one would mention: (1) the relationship of Israelite history of religion to Old Testament theology; and, closely related to this, (2) choosing between a historical and/or a systematic presentation. If one reflects further on the second problem just mentioned, then another question arises: (3) From what source does one draw a system to apply to the Old Testament and how does one determine this system’s division and structure? For example, the system of God and World, God and Nation, and God and Humanity not only appears to be imposed on the Old Testament from the outside but also raises the question of both the legitimacy and the sequence of this tripartite division. In addition, the tripartite division of God, Humanity, and Judgment and Salvation derives more from Christian dogmatics than from the Old Testament.

There are other fundamental questions in addition to the three main methodological and content problems just mentioned. Gabler introduced a fourth question that Eissfeldt and Eichrodt considered in their own way: (4) the relationship of a historical, descriptive presentation to a contemporary evaluation to be carried out either at the same time or by dogmatics. This question, so it seems, was forgotten or pushed aside for a time. But its reappearance in the more recent period has led to a new examination.

Eichrodt had been a student of Procksch’s in Erlangen. In 1933 (!), Eichrodt published the first volume of his Theologie des Alten Testaments which bore the subtitle Gott und Volk. Volume 2 (Gott und Welt) followed in 1935 and volume 3 (Gott und Mensch) in 1939.³⁴ In contrast to Procksch, Eichrodt rearranged the positions of the three major divisions of material and produced a sequence that is more legitimate from an Old Testament perspective. However, above all, Eichrodt wanted to describe the religion of which the records are to be found in the Old Testament as a self-contained entity exhibiting, despite ever-changing historical conditions, a constant basic tendency and character.³⁵ Subsequently, by stressing the systematic character of his work, he wanted not only to break away from the exclusive domination of historicism but also "to understand the realm of Old Testament belief in its structural unity and …, by examining on the one hand its religious environment and on the other hand its essential coherence with the New Testament, to illuminate its profoundest meaning (Theology, 1:31).³⁶ For Eichrodt, there is no question that the Old Testament stands between the ancient Near East and the New Testament. Thus he often takes a look at the religions of Israel’s environment and sets forth the scholarly positions on individual themes.³⁷ The common message of the kingship of God in this world is the theme that connects the Old Testament with the New. In determining the relationship of the Old Testament to the New, the question then arises as to what significance an Old Testament theology has and can have within a Christian theology. It is unfortunate, in this regard, that Eichrodt’s position that covenant thinking dominated the Old Testament often prohibited him from placing more value on its eschatological message. But it is important that Eichrodt wanted to see the characteristic mark of a movement of life, that is, to understand the dominating center of the Old Testament as an actual, characteristic element of Israelite religion. Therefore he resisted seeking only after the appropriate vocabulary without seeing its grounding in actual life.

In spite of this, criticism has been directed primarily and with some legitimacy against Eichrodt for making covenant the center of Old Testament theology and for overemphasizing the importance of covenant thinking.³⁸ This criticism was made at the time Eichrodt’s work began to appear, even though the newer works on berit ( = bĕrît, covenant) had not yet been published.³⁹ Nevertheless, Eichrodt could often describe an Old Testament understanding of a matter without digressing from the topic by endeavoring to say something about covenant thinking and without introducing the topic of covenant thinking in an unexpected and surprising manner. Indeed, it is also remarkable to discover the absence of covenant thinking in places and in situations where it would have been especially helpful to the discussion (e.g., sin, forgiveness). Still, the strong theological engagement of the author, which induces him not infrequently toward overinterpretation, leads to theological excessiveness. However, in spite of all the critical questions raised, Eichrodt’s work continues to be regarded as a great accomplishment that appeared at the appropriate time. From 1933 and even after 1945 this theology of the Old Testament provided a very valuable service, and it continues to do so in certain areas today because of its profundity and wealth of materials.

In the foreword to the newly revised fifth edition of the first section of his work (1957), Eichrodt could still enter into a discussion of critical questions and underline his own position that he continued to support. Old Testament theology continued to be for him a historical enterprise that resisted all enticements to move into the sphere of the normative sciences. Further, he held fast to the covenant as the central idea in order to bring to light the structural unity and persistent fundamental purpose of the message of the Old Testament. It is here that the fundamental conviction of Israel about its special relationship to God is grasped (p. vi). And finally, Old Testament theology is limited neither to the retelling of Old Testament historical narratives nor to the setting forth of the bare facts of this history, since internal events and external facts cannot be separated.

One simply notes at this point that new, additional questions must be raised that are to be appended to the previously mentioned four fundamental problems of an Old Testament theology.⁴⁰ However, before doing that, we need to outline further developments in Old Testament theology.

In 1935 L. Köhler published a concise, yet very precise Theologie des Alten Testaments.⁴¹ It is no wonder that the strengths of this volume lay in the investigations of ideas, statistics of words, and concise, pregnant language, seeing that Köhler was to be the author of a dictionary of the Old Testament that was being planned at the time. Köhler had written previously: If it is already theology, then it must be systematic. He thought he could make historical differentiations within the individual parts. But at the same time he stressed that one could not derive this systematic formulation, including its structure and order, from the theological contents of the Old Testament.⁴² As a result, Köhler derived his systematic formulation from outside the Old Testament, meaning that his three divisions (God, Humanity, and Judgment and Salvation)⁴³ derive from Christian dogmatics. The Old Testament idea of God, God as sovereign Lord, is especially important to Köhler, and the first sentence of his foreword makes it immediately clear how the journey through the Old Testament is to proceed: A book may legitimately be designated an Old Testament theology when its content brings together in proper relationship those views, thoughts, and ideas of the Old Testament which are or can be theologically important (p. v). The cult presents difficulties for Köhler, a reformed theologian, when it comes to the matter of the proper relationship. He can and will not attribute the cult to the acts of God, and he does not think it belongs to the section on Judgment and Salvation. Subsequently, section 52 at the end of his discussion of anthropology is entitled The Self-Redemption of Humanity: The Cult. This view of the cult represents a significant misunderstanding of the Old Testament’s own view.⁴⁴ These matters would not have been so mishandled had Köhler carried out what he had set forth in his foreword.⁴⁵

On the occasion of the Göttingen Old Testament Scholars Day in 1935, A. Weiser sought to speak to the objectives that Old Testament theological work at the time had striven to realize.⁴⁶ According to Weiser, exegesis may be pursued along with the question of the self-understanding of the Old Testament. This self-understanding presents us with a dynamic comprehension of reality (truth takes place here) in which the theological lines of the understanding of humanity and of things proceed from God and lead to God. Accordingly, this understanding of the dynamic of the reality of God is a matter of our concern. It follows then that Old Testament scholarship cannot be only a historical enterprise, remaining in the sphere of the history of religions, for scholarship may not put aside the question of truth. One ought not to separate scholarly from theological investigations of the Old Testament. The fact that an increasing number of scholars writing a theology of the Old Testament saw themselves compelled to set forth a systematic presentation, in spite of the associated difficulties, demonstrates that they saw this issue very clearly and sought to comply with its requirements. The sharp focus on what was normative indeed was avoided to a large extent, although the strong emphasis on the relationships between Old Testament theology and New Testament theology brought the issue into the discussion (see, e.g., Sellin and Eichrodt). Gabler’s distinction between pure and true biblical theology⁴⁷ was to a certain extent correct and, as a result, continued to be influential.

In 1955, E. Jacob’s Théologie de l’Ancien Testament appeared.⁴⁸ God’s nature, his acts (under this category creation and anthropology were brought together), and his triumph at the end of time (sin, salvation, eschatology) were the most important subdivisions of this work. The vitality of God received the special attention and focus of this author whose theology of the Old Testament regrettably never appeared in a German translation. The structure and categories of this work also reveal a clear proximity to dogmatic theology.⁴⁹

After an interlude necessitated by the conditions of the war and the postwar period, the next Old Testament theology in German appeared in 1956.⁵⁰ This was the German translation of Th. C. Vriezen’s Theologie des Alten Testaments in Grundzügen that had been published in 1949 in the Dutch original.⁵¹ Standing on the whole closer to Eichrodt than to Köhler, Vriezen desired to inquire after the leading ideas of the Old Testament, seeking thereby to trace out its message and main features. Closely tied to German and Anglo-Saxon scholarship, Vriezen also kept in view the relationship of the Old Testament to its environment. Especially striking are the one hundred printed pages devoted to a comprehensive prolegomenon that sets forth his reflections about such issues as the Christian Church and the Old Testament and The Old Testament as the Word of God. The Way of Israel’s Faith in History also provides a necessary historical orientation to his systematic presentation. The Christian, theological point of departure, which the resulting evaluation of Old Testament proclamation makes clear, is to distinguish between a theology of the Old Testament and a history of Old Testament religion and to accentuate the line of demarcation between dogmatic and historical theology (pp. 97–101). The second part then introduces the leading ideas that are appropriate for this work, namely, the Old Testament understanding of God (Understanding as Community) as a communal relationship between the holy God and human beings. Vriezen sees this as the center of Old Testament proclamation, arranging about this center such topics as word, history, covenant, and humanity in the image of God. Following that, he treats first the subject of God, then humanity, then the contact between God and humanity (revelation, salvation and judgment, cult), then ethics (the contact between human beings) and finally, God, humanity, and the world in both the present and the future reign of God. In following the features of these programmatic prolegomena, it is little wonder that Vriezen’s description is permeated with evaluations, indeed is even determined by them. The standards for evaluation derive from the New Testament. A. Jepsen is correct when he states: Behind the question about the theology of the Old Testament is concealed the theological question about the Old Testament itself.⁵² The relationship of the two Testaments is not only a historical one; indeed, the relationship cannot simply be a historical one.

In a similar fashion to Vriezen, G. A. F. Knight also brought his work, A Christian Theology of the Old Testament (London and Richmond, 1959), within proximity of the New Testament, a point demonstrated by the title. Within the four main sections (God, God and Creation, God and Israel, and the Zeal of the Lord), he desires to bring into view a gallery of pictures⁵³ that demonstrates the connections between the testaments. Examples include Son of God as a title of both Israel and Jesus Christ, and birth/marriage/death in the life of the Israelites, the people of Israel (e.g., marriage = the Sinai covenant), and Christians. Knight points to these connections in order to make clear the close relationship between the two Testaments. His book is often compared to W. Vischer’s Christuszeugnis des Alten Testaments, vol. 1 (1934); vol. 2 (1942).

When surveying the scholars of the twentieth century who have addressed the problem of a theology of the Old Testament (O. Eissfeldt, W. Eichrodt, E. Sellin, W. and H. Möller, O. Procksch, E. Jacob, Th. C. Vriezen, and the person last mentioned, G. A. F. Knight), one ought to mention at this point that these undertakings are clearly conditioned by the posing of Christian questions and are decidedly oriented to and brought into line with the New Testament. On the basis of such findings, it is clear that these efforts prepared the way for the work of Brevard S. Childs that would follow (see below).

e.  G. von Rad

After his several brief, preliminary works⁵⁴ that broached the issue of the appropriate methodology for doing Old Testament theology and that would portend clearly what was to follow, G. von Rad published in 1957 the first volume of his Theologie der geschichtlichen Überlieferungen. Volume 2 (Theologie der prophetischen Überlieferungen) followed in 1960. Volume 1 underwent a new revision in its fifth edition (1966).⁵⁵ Von Rad’s work found enthusiastic readers, especially among students, and continues to exert even to this day an important influence in many areas.

In volume 1, a brief historical overview precedes the theological analysis: A History of Jahwism and of the Sacral Institutions in Israel in Outline. This introduction intends to set forth the historical contexts and life situations of those topics addressed by the theological section. Von Rad seeks to make clear the historical location of the text and its tradition. In a certain sense, these two major divisions of von Rad’s initial volume have taken up the description of Old Testament theology set forth by Sellin and Procksch, although admittedly significantly modified. Above all, von Rad wishes to comprehend the world of the Old Testament witness and not to offer a systematic, ordered world of faith. Indeed, Israel did not formulate catechetical statements about its God; rather, it primarily told narratives about him. Therefore von Rad considers the Old Testament to be a history book⁵⁶ and thus contends that the most legitimate form of theological discourse for the historical books of the Old Testament is to retell these stories.⁵⁷ It is imperative to grasp the kerygma (proclamation) of the individual works, books, and prophets, that is, what Israel at the time had confessed about God. To accomplish this objective, von Rad argued that it was important to comprehend what Israel itself has said about its own history and not the critically reconstructed history that resided behind these testimonies.⁵⁸ At the same time, it is important to understand Israel’s own interpretations of its traditions of faith. Thus, von Rad sets forth both the kerygma and the historical development of the traditions in which this proclamation was located: the primeval history, the history of the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt, the revelation of God at Sinai, the wilderness wandering, the interpretations of Moses, and the gift of the land of Canaan. Von Rad thought that cultic institutions and festivals played a very influential role in the formulation and transmission of these traditions of faith.

The first volume contains additionally a section that deals with the Anointed of Yahweh (judges, monarchy, royal psalms) that allows von Rad to set forth the theology of the Deuteronomistic History, the Priestly source, and the Chronicler’s History in a historical sequence, while taking only a preliminary look at prophecy. This volume concludes with a section entitled Israel before Jahweh (Israel’s Answer). This section takes into consideration the psalms and wisdom (including Job and Qoheleth). Von Rad’s form-critical work plays an especially significant role in his description of the theology of the Pentateuch/Hexateuch. It is important to note that, on the whole, von Rad’s own thinking comes very close to that of the Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic writings. This observation may be demonstrated by reference to von Rad’s earlier works on Deuteronomy and by the fact that in a very real sense he considered this book to be the central writing for the entire Old Testament (see below).

Volume 2 deals with the prophets. While the first major section is concerned with preclassical prophecy, it also addresses the overarching questions that include the manner in which the prophetic word was transformed into prophetic books, the reception of revelation, the Word of God in the prophets, Israel’s conceptions of time and history, and prophetic eschatology. The second major section handles the individual prophets and describes their messages (from Amos to Malachi and Jonah). In the segment on Daniel and Apocalyptic, von Rad renders the surprising judgment that apocalyptic derived from wisdom, a point he continues to make rather explicitly and with more precision in later editions of this volume and in other publications.⁵⁹ A third section follows that deals with both the content and the methodology of the entire work. However, this section actually is neither expected nor necessary, chiefly because it is fundamentally different from all that has preceded. Since the individual writings or prophets had been already attractively and meticulously interpreted, especially by reference to the frequent articulation of salvation history,⁶⁰ far-reaching questions are now discussed that not only lead in the direction of the New Testament but even incorporate it. Now the issues are the actualization of the Old Testament in the New Testament, Old Testament salvation history in the light of New Testament fulfillment, and the Old Testament understanding of the world, humanity, faith in Christ, and the law. Accordingly, hermeneutical questions are incorporated into Old Testament theology that lead in the direction of further thinking about biblical theology.⁶¹ This would lead neither to a simple listing side by side of the two kerygmata (proclamations) of the Old and the New Testament nor to a pure description of Old Testament materials.

The great strength of this work lies in the individual descriptions of writings and books (cf., e.g., those dealing with Jeremiah and Deutero-Isaiah). It delineates precisely the kerygma as proclaimed at that time, and it seeks to grasp the inner theological coherence and relationships of its various elements. What is said about the developments and abiding connections of these elements as well as word and history, tradition and interpretation, history and kerygma, and the history of tradition is rich in content and valuable reading. However, perhaps even von Rad himself discovered that his Old Testament theology, in describing Old Testament materials, still required those kinds of recapitulations and modifications which are offered in the concluding part of the second volume.

In any case, questions remained, and these were rather quickly, often times too precipitously and too harshly expressed.⁶² The first question involves the relationship between history and kerygma.⁶³ In this matter, von Rad still held the better cards, for he maintained that an Old Testament theology must concern itself with ancient Israel’s own view of history and not with that of modern critical study. Even so, in spite of all of the emphasis on kerygmatic and traditiohistorical concerns in von Rad’s Old Testament theology, the relationship between faith and history⁶⁴ is never specifically discussed.⁶⁵ This is probably why von Rad pays scant attention to the ancient Near Eastern setting of Israel and does not go beyond a retelling of Israel’s own tellings of its story to consider the acts of God themselves.⁶⁶ With the exception of the third section of the second volume, is the rest of von Rad’s theology not, in the final analysis, a theologically enriched Introduction to the Old Testament? Any effort to set forth a synopsis of Old Testament faith is notably absent. Is it not the case, then, that von Rad offers only a history of the faith of Israel? Can and should one omit the effort to articulate a synopsis of faith, what W. Zimmerli calls the quest to discover the Word in words? In what way does the Old Testament have authority when one simply sets in a row the individual messages of the various writings and books?⁶⁷ Closely related to these questions is the problem of a possible center of the Old Testament. Von Rad vigorously disputed the idea that the Old Testament has a center;⁶⁸ indeed, he even denied the legitimacy of searching for one.⁶⁹

In addition to these more comprehensive questions, many specific ones have been addressed to von Rad. These include such considerations as, for example, the value he places on the law; the possibility or, for that matter, impossibility of setting forth the features of the Deuteronomistic History, the Priestly writing (with its idea of sin), and the Chronicler’s History, without a previous look at prophecy; the place of the prophets in general; and the relationship between aesthetic and theological judgments.⁷⁰ In the present survey, one may only mention these questions as matters for discussion.

Because his work is comprehensive, stylistically elegant, and theological, von Rad’s writing has continued to contribute to the main questions⁷¹ that concern Old Testament theology. These questions include (1) the problem of a history of Israelite religion as opposed to a theology of the Old Testament; (2) a historical versus a systematic description; (3) the possibility of a systematic formulation that derives from within the text as opposed to one that comes from the outside; (4) an objective description over against a description that also involves evaluation (and on what basis); (5) the relationship of history and kerygma;⁷² (6) the possibility or impossibility of a center of the Old Testament; and finally (7), the possibility of an overarching biblical theology that would include both Testaments of the Christian Bible. The question of faith and kerygma may be examined only when one does not overlook the fact that the Old Testament uses religious language to speak of experiences interpreted by faith. The Old Testament does not speak another language. To seek only the facts expressed by religious language and to ignore the complexity of its interpretation misrepresents its essential character. The most that one may do here is simply to refer to the voluminous discussion mainly revolving around the fundamental questions of method and content that von Rad’s work has elicited.⁷³ There have been many scholars who expressed their views about how one goes about writing an Old Testament theology or whether one should or even could write one. There have been relatively few, however, who actually have made the effort.

f.  After G. von Rad

In 1972 two additional theologies of the Old Testament appeared in the German-speaking world. Georg Fohrer, in inquiring about the fundamental theological structures of the Old Testament (Theologische Grundstrukturen des Alten Testaments), found them in the expression of different positions concerning human existence. These included magical, cultic, prophetic, and sapiential understandings. He also sought to address the question of unity in diversity and found his answer in the interaction of divine sovereignty and human community. At the same time, he rendered his own judgments about the theological value and veracity of various views and reached the conclusion that the prophetic stance toward existence, as expressed in the preexilic classical prophets, was the most important and enduring understanding in the Old Testament. In his section on hermeneutical applications, Fohrer also asked about the direct connections between the Old Testament’s ways of speaking about God and our contemporary reality. These connections certainly led to his rather direct although inadequate, hermeneutical reflections (e.g., see the discussion of the state and political activities).

Although appearing for the first time after the work of W. Zimmerli (cf. below), C. Westermann’s Elements of Old Testament Theology should be mentioned at this point because of its close methodological similarities to Fohrer’s work. Part 1 seeks to answer the question, What does the Old Testament say about God? because, in Westermann’s view, an Old Testament theology must begin with a summary and an overview of the Old Testament’s speaking about God. In Parts 2 and 3, Westermann then deals with the two fundamental structures that undergird Old Testament theology: the redeeming God’s acts of salvation in history and the blessing God’s acts in creation. In contrast to Fohrer whose fundamental structures are conceptual, Westermann’s fundamental structures are events. This raises the question of whether Westermann is on target when he draws the fundamental distinction between the redeeming and blessing acts of God. In addition, may one not single out or set forth in a preliminary way some feature or idea⁷⁴ of the Old Testament as the center of its theology? May one not at least inquire about this center before embarking on a description? Certainly, Westermann speaks, for example, of the oneness of God as that which makes possible the coherence of the Old Testament witnesses (pp. 25–27)⁷⁵ when he takes into consideration Deut. 6:4. However, he does not mean by this that the oneness of God is the center of Old Testament faith; rather, he is describing the constant, fundamental structure that makes possible the coherence of history. However, does a fundamental structure not have something to do with that which, nevertheless, is typical for the Old Testament and therefore addresses the center of its theology? Two additional parts follow: divine judgment and divine compassion; and Israel’s response-praise, lament, worship, and conception of history. The concluding part (Part 6) has as its theme the relationship between the Old Testament and Christ (largely viewed as an analogy of structure). The sequence of the parts follows approximately the arrangement and the order of the Old Testament canon, although certainly not in its Hebrew form.

W. Zimmerli’s Grundriss der alttestamentlichen Theologie (1972; 6th ed., 1989; ET, Old Testament Theology in Outline, trans. D. E. Green [Atlanta, 1978]) has certainly had greater significance.⁷⁶ In contrast to von Rad, Zimmerli takes the risk of summarizing the collective, theological understandings of the Old Testament. In doing so, he finds the center of the Old Testament in the revelation of the divine name YHWH (Yahweh): I am who I am. This name, in expressing divine self-determination and individuality, indicates that, while incapable of being grasped, God continues to be the one who turns toward Israel. Thus, upon the foundation of this revealed name are placed the confessions of Yahweh, the God of Israel since Egypt; Yahweh as the God of the ancestors; Yahweh as creator, king, and God of Sinai; and the election of Israel. Yahweh’s gifts (e.g., war, land, charismata), Yahweh’s commandments, the life before God (obedience, sacrifice, wisdom), and crisis and hope (judgment and salvation, prophecy, apocalyptic) are the additional main sections of this very compactly written volume. The main question that arises from his text is the one concerning the correct determination of the center of the Old Testament. Around this center all else revolves. The impending discussion will move into this problematic area in a more precise manner.⁷⁷

One may observe that biblical scholarship is attributing increasing significance to the Old Testament as canon. The nature of the Old Testament as canon has led to inquiries concerning Old Testament theology, although matters such as how or when the first Testament developed into a canon have not been addressed. The canon of scripture, which produced distinctive and different histories of influence and interpretation in Judaism and in Christianity, became a normative collection of writings for faith, ethics, and cultic worship. This phenomenon of a collection of normative writings perhaps was unique in the history of the religions of the ancient Near East.⁷⁸ In considering the Old Testament as canon,⁷⁹ attention also is given to the final form of the text and the place of the Old Testament within the Christian Bible,⁸⁰ the relationship of Old Testament theology to the New Testament and its message, integrating the theologies of the two Testaments, and then setting forth the meaning of the Old Testament for Christian theology, Christian faith, and the Christian church. These considerations are important for two more recent works in English. The first is R. E. Clements’s Old Testament Theology: A Fresh Approach (London, 1978; Atlanta, 1979). His introductory chapter mentions and addresses expressly these questions, while his actual description of Old Testament theology intentionally seeks to provide a comprehensive summary that deals with the God of Israel, the people of God, and law and promise. Two concluding sections discuss important issues. The first issue is the relationship of the Old Testament to the other religions of the ancient Near East. The second issue is the place and impact of the Old Testament on contemporary hermeneutics.

Perhaps even more sensational than his introduction to the Old Testament⁸¹ is the provocative theological work by Brevard S. Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (London and Philadelphia, 1985). Indeed, in some twenty chapters appear many of the conventional themes and traditions that are found in an Old Testament theology: for example, How God Is Known, God’s Purpose in Revelation, Law, Decalogue, Ritual and Purity Laws, Reception of Divine Revelation (Israel, the Nations), Moses, Judges, Kings, Prophets, Priests, Cult, Anthropology, and Life under Threat and Promise. However, it is not fully clear how the canonical process is important for Childs within the loci of these themes or how this process is exactly to be understood.⁸² In addition to regarding the editors as the last valid interpreters, a point that certainly a more exact historical understanding can reach, the other major thesis is that the canon is the common ground for understanding the text and is determinative for Old Testament theology. For Childs, the New Testament fulfillment of these interpretations and traditions always must be taken into consideration. The enterprise of Old Testament theology may be carried out in a Christian context and with a Christian design,⁸³ something that already is indicated even by the name Old Testament. Nevertheless, this clearly articulated thesis is, in the final analysis, not quite so new as one might be inclined to think, for earlier scholars also have proceeded from this basis.⁸⁴ For Childs, however, this now means that the theology of the Old Testament has both a descriptive and a constructive dimension and that the statements of the Old Testament may be critically assessed in the light of the New Testament. Description and evaluation go hand in hand and lead to an internal biblical dialogue occurring within the Testaments. The theology of the Old Testament is combined with Old Testament hermeneutics. Whether this is an enhancement for the actual theology of the Old Testament or potentially diminishes the description is a question that remains to be answered. In addition to this, the recurring question now must be addressed to the Old Testament as canon: Does this collection of writings have a ‘center,’ and if so, what or where is it? Jews find the center in the Torah, which usually means both its narrative history and its teaching. Even so, how may one determine the relationship