SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE SEARCH

FOR A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

B revard $Childs

Many will a g re e th a t we have e n te re d into a period in

w hich th e a n a ly tic a l co n cerns of biblical exegesis have largely
rep laced the older and broader sy n th e tic in te re sts w ithin both
th e disciplines of Old and New T esta m e n ts. The m ost im p o rta n t
theologies of th e la st g e n era tio n , those of G. von Rad and R.
B ultm ann, have increasin gly been consigned to th e p ast as th e
foundations on which th e se syntheses w ere c o n stru c te d have slowly
eroded. C o n trib u tin g to th e change in approach has been a con-
scious repudiation of c e rta in h erm en eu tical assum ptions which
have been a ttrib u te d to th e sp ec ific situ atio n of th e post-W orld
War II e ra .

It is hardly surprising th a t th e changing e x e g e tic al m odels

w ithin th e fields of Old and New T e stam e n ts should a f f e c t th e
approach to biblical theology. Since this la tte r e n te rp rise has
alw ays had problem s in defining its scope and m ethodology, th e
increasing loss of an e sta b lish e d d irectio n in exegesis has in te n si-
fied th e d iffic u lty of its ta sk . N ev erth eless, tw o points of a g re e -
m en t have em erg ed in re c e n t discussion which call for fu rth e r
c ritic a l re fle c tio n . F irst, th e re rem ains a large and continuing
expression of support for th e need of som e form of biblical th e -
ology. Secondly, no one m odel am ong the various new proposals
has y et succeed ed in building a solid consensus from which to
m ove in to th e fu tu re .

One does not have to look fa r in th e lite ra tu re to com e

a c ro ss re p e a te d calls pointing out th e need for a new and viable
b ib lical theo lo g y . Its role is envisioned as checking th e grow ing
fra g m e n ta tio n w ithin exegesis and of sketching som e m ajor lines
of th e biblical fa ith . Again, th e concern th a t biblical theology
seek to develop unifying th e m es betw een both te s ta m e n ts is
fre q u e n tly sounded . Finally, th e in te re s t in somehow transcending
a purely h isto ric a l study of th e tw o te sta m e n ts in such a way
as to address tra d itio n a l problem s of sy ste m a tic theology seem s
alw ays p re se n t.^

Y et equally obvious is th a t along w ith th e expression

o f th e need for a b iblical theology com es h ea te d d isag reem en t
reg ard in g its fo rm u latio n . Indeed a c h a ra c te ris tic fe a tu re of
th e p resen t search is th e e x te n t of th e m ethodological co n tro v ersy .
One only has to re c a ll th e d e b a te s betw een G ese and K raus,^
or am ong S tu h lm ach er, S tre c k e r, and G rosser , am ong G unne-
weg. Merk and Z im m erli^ to highlight th e problem .

In ad d itio n , th e re is an o th e r surprising a sp e c t to the

problem which has not been a d e q u a te ly assessed up to now. W ithin
th e la s t decad e th e re has ap p eared a v ariety of d eta iled a rtic le s
and lengthy m onographs which have studied closely th e history
of th e discipline. One thinks esp ecially of H. j . K raus' D ie Bib-
iisch e T heologie, of M erk's B iblische T heologie des N euen
T e sta m e n ts in ih re r A ngangzeit, of A. H. . G unnew eg's U nder-
Standing th e Old T e sta m e n t, and F. S tu h lm ach er's Vom V erstehen
des N euen T e sta m e n ts. Added to th e se a re th e sev eral e x h a u s t i v e
a rtic le s on b iblical theology in th e T beologische R ealenzyklopdie
by Z im m erli and M erk.7 F inally, one recalls th e c are fu l a tte n tio n
paid to som e leading biblical theologians of th e p ast (Smend on
Ew ald,^ R eventlpw on V ischer,^ W agner D e litz s c h ,^ Luck
on S c h la t t e r ,^ e tc .). The $urprising fe a tu re of th is re sea rc h ln
th e history f biblical thelgy is th a t s little insight new
directi ns int th e fu tu re ^as em erg ed . Scholars a re able to dem on-
s tr a te w ith g re a t precision th e w eaknesses f fo rm er approaches
and th e com plexity of th e prblems, but th e suggestions becom e
vague arid unhelpful when sketching a program m e the fu ture-

In th e light f th is situati n, it seem s unwise a t this

tim e t ffer y et anther mdel for biblical theology. R ath e r,
it would appear mre useful a t th is ju n c tu re t an ay lze th e n a tu re
of th e quandary and t re fle c t th e reasns for th e d ifficu lty
in reslving th e c ru cial issues.

The various h isto ries of th e discipline would seem to

show th a t h isto rically concern for biblical theology stem s from
se v e ra l d iffe re n t sources, which are d istin c t and y et which easily
flow to g e th e r. th e one hand, th e developm ent of biblical th e o l-
ogy has been d ependent upon th e stim ulus from th e academ y.
This is to say, th e re has arisen a desire to u n ite the d iversity
w ithin th e p a rts of th e Bible by m eans of som e overarching theolog-
ical or philosophical u nderstanding. Thus, one re c alls th e im pact
of id e a listic philosophy on such im pressive biblical theologians
as Ewald or von H ofm ann. In th e m ost re c e n t period B ultm ann's
use of c a te g o rie s from H eidegger would illu s tra te th e sam e point.
Sim ilarly, th e B iblical Theology M ovem ent in A m erica sought
to work o u t its unifying theology in very d iffe re n t ways, but
under th e g en eral theo lo gical um brella of so -called "neo-orthodoxy".

th e o th e r hand, th e concerns re p re se n te d by biblical

theology in estab lish in g som e unity w ithin th e m u ltip licity of
ideas has also arisen from th e side of th e church. O ut of th e
p ra c tic a l and th eo lo g ical dem ands of worship, preaching, and
teach in g has em erg ed a pow erful fo rce which lends its support
to various form s of biblical theology. C ertain ly th e s ta rtin g place
of both b u th e r and C alvin in working out a h erm en eu tic for in te r-
p retin g the tw o te s ta m e n ts as a w itness to the one Gospel derived
in itially from highly p ra c tic a l concerns of the m in is tr y .^ In m ore
re c e n t tim es a sim ilar c a se could be m ade for Karl B a rth .

H ow ever, th e point should be m ade im m ed iately th a t

th e tw o s e p a ra te sources which have h isto rically engendered in te r-
est in biblical theology have alm o st invariably com e to g e th e r.
Many of the g re a t 19th c en tu ry scholars who stood firm ly w ithin
a philosophical tra d itio n w ere also influenced by p ra c tic a l, e c c le sia s-
tic a l in te re s ts . C onversely, $! of th e churchm en found th e
need to develop th e ir biblical theology with th e philosophical
or theological tools a v a ilab le to them .

One of th e sig n ifican t e ffe c ts of this m utual relatio n sh ip

b etw een the academ y and church in re sp e c t to biblical theology
is th a t som e co n tro ls have em erged which have helped shape
th e contours of th e d iscipline. For exam ple, if a biblical theology
w hich is larg ely church o rie n te d m akes use of an approach to
th e Bible which is stro n g ly re siste d by th e academ y, h isto ric a lly
th e e ffo rt has seldom succeeded, ?w o illu stra tio n s com e to mind
from th e period of th e 1 9 3 0 S. The "pneum atic" exegesis of K.
G irg e n so h n ^ and th e ch risto lo g ical in te rp re ta tio n of th e Old
T e sta m e n t by w. W is c h e r^ both arose as an expression of a strong
d esire to re c o v e r th e full theological dim ensions of th e Bible
w hich had been th re a te n e d by th e dom inant h is to ric a l-c ritic a l
approach of th a t period. Y et both proved unsuccessful in large
p a rt b ecause of th e in ten se and co n sisten t opposition from th e
side of the ac a d e m y . ^ C onversely, th e "New H erm en eu tic" which
was launched in th e 1 9 6 0 S by Fuchs and Ebeling and which receiv ed
supp o rt from such A m erican acad e m ics as j . M. Robinson, was
abie to m ake iittie im p a c t on th e fieid because its turgid language
could not p e n e tra te into th e life of th e church its se m in a rie s ^
It did not re p la c e th e biblical theology which it a tta c k e d , but
quickly vanished from acad em ic discussion as w ell. Sim ilarly,
it rem ains a m oot question w h eth er th e enorm ously learned biblical
theology of H. G e s e ^ will in th e end be successfu l largely because
of th e d iffic u lty of tra n sla tin g it in to th e religious life of the
com m u n ity.

Ill

B ecause it seem s probable th a t any new consensus in

th e field of b iblical theology will again develop from th ese two
sources, it m ight be helpful to view som e of th e problem s of
th e discipline from th e se tw o d iffe re n t angles.

F irst, from th e side of th e academ y one of th e p e rsiste n t

problem s to resolve is th e relatio n b etw een th e d e sc rip tiv e analysis
of th e biblical te x t and th e sy n th e tic presuppositions which the
in te rp re te r brings to th e te x t. O fte n in th e p ast th e im pression
given is th a t a b iblical theology is only viable when it is con tro lled
by purely o b jectiv e exegesis of th e te x t. Indeed th e stre n g th of
much of m odern b iblical theology has been its concern to do ju stice
to th e theology of th e te x t itse lf. It was this c ritic a l ra th o d o lo g y
which did much to b reak th e back of th e older dogm atic use of
S crip tu re.

H ow ever, th e problem of th e in te r p r e te r 's own co n te x t

is fa r m ore com plex than o fte n re a liz ed . It is fa r from obvious
th a t an appeal of o b je c tiv ity will resolve th e h erm e n e u tic al issues.
Nor is it ev id en t th a t th e su b jectiv e presuppositions of th e in te rp re -
t e r can only be reg ard ed as a n e g ativ e fa c to r. Even th e term in o l-
ogy o th e d e b a te is highly m isleading. R a th e r, th e h isto ry of
th e discipline would seem to suggest th a t som e th e m ost
c re a tiv e exam p les of biblical theology d erived much of th e ir
insight from th e sy n th e tic pow ers which w ere brought to bear
th e m a te ria l. R ecall th e nam es of K ohler, Loisy, S c h la tte r,
and Ebeling, w ith o u t even speaking of B ultm ann and von Rad.
It is a fa lse dichotom y which c o n tra sts o b je c tiv e analysis w ith
su b je c tiv e presuppositions. The issue is r a th e r th e q u ality and
th e skill w ith which presuppositions a re brought to bear on th e
biblical m a te ria l. In sum , one of th e m ajor issues develop-
ing a new biblical theology lies in rethinking th e sharp d istin ctio n
w hich G abler firs t in tro d u ced into th e field when he se p a ra te d
d e sc rip tiv e from c o n stru c tiv e theology. The tw o a sp e c ts of
b iblical theology belong to g e th e r, but th e n a tu re of th e ir re la tio n -
ship is a very su b tle one which calls for m uch serious reflectio n ..

A second m ethodological problem , som ew hat akin to

th e firs t, tu rn s on th e re la tio n betw een th e p a rts and th e w hole.
B ecause of th e enorm ous d iv ersity w ithin th e Bible, th e co ncern
fo r th e proper c a te g o rie s by which to re la te th e p arts has ten d ed
to d o m in ate th e discussion. Y et it is also tru e th a t a ho listic
view com prises fa r m ore than m erely th e sum of th e p a rts.
The whole rem ain s to a considerable e x te n t a c re a tiv e p ro jectio n
of th e in te r p r e te r . Of course, its usefulness is sh o rtliv ed if
th e vision of th e whole runs in th e fa ce of each of th e p a rts.
H ow ever, a dim ension of c re a tiv e im agination cannot be denied
to any p ro jectio n which seeks to bring o rd e r within g re a t d iv er-
sity . Again th e relatio n sh ip betw een th e whole and its p a rts
is a su b tle issue. It involves a dynam ic b etw een a m ovem ent
which has a sense th e whole and one w hich seeks to do ju stic e
to th e p a rtic u la rity of each of th e p a rts. Perhaps one way to
d escrib e th e dem ise of th e B ultm ann theology in its "third g e n e ra -
tion" w ithin G erm any is to suggest th a t, although his stu d e n ts
w ere able to m ake som e d e ta ile d c o rre c tio n of th e ir te a c h e r.
th ey w ere unable to m ain tain th e persuasiveness of his vision
of th e whole.

The final question to address from th e side of th e a e a -

dem y re la te s to the long d eb ated question regarding th e n o rm a tiv e
role of biblical te x ts . In som e a cad em ic c irc le s it is still thought
to be ax io m a tic th a t c ritic a l, sc ie n tific exegesis is only possible
when th e in te rp re te r d istan ces him self from all personal co m m it-
m en t and striv e s for d e ta c h m e n t from th e su b jec t m a tte r. Indeed,
th e re is som e tru th in th e claim th a t som e distan ce is needed
le st a fa m ilia rity b reed co n te m p t and block tru e d isc ern m en t.
F o rtu n a te ly , w ithin re c e n t years much progress has been m ade
in th e study of religious language w hich a t le a st points a d irec tio n
out of this im passe. T here are c e rta in ly ways of overcom ing
s te rile confessional roadblocks in th e handling of th e biblical
te x t which do not re so rt to crude reductionism in the nam e of
s c ie n tific exegesis. H ere th e need for th e biblical theologians
to esta b lish c o n ta c t w ith th e ir colleagues in th e fields of English,
c o m p a ra tiv e lite r a tu r e , se m an tics, social scien ces, and philosophy
is a d e s i d e r a t u m .

Wetu rn now to th e o th e r source of biblical theology

and ra ise questions from th e side of th e ch u rch 's involvem ent.
It would seem im p o rta n t for any new form ulation of a biblical
theology to ta k e seriously in its re fle c tio n how th e Bible has
a c tu a lly fu n ctio n ed and is presen tly functioning in th e life of
th e com m unity of fa ith and p ra c tic e . F requently in th e past
p re sc rip tiv e s ta te m e n ts have been m ade w ithout much id ea of
th e a c tu a l role to which th e Bible has been consigned w ithin
th e ch u rch . Y et it would seem sig n ifica n t to observe how new
hym ns and litu rg ie s w hich a re deeply influenced by biblical lan
guage em erg e and shape the new g e n era tio n . What portions of
th e Bible a re used m ost f r e ^ e n t l y and in w hat co n tex ts? How
do th e tw o te s ta m e n ts a c tu ally re la te w ithin th e liturgy? What
is th e e f f e c t o f th e use of a le c tio n a ry th e hearing and under-
stan d in g of th e Bible?*

It would be im p o rta n t to study how biblical te x ts from

both te s ta m e n ts a re heard and r e c e d e d by a congregation. O ften
we assum e th a t th e re is only one le g itim a te m odel for exegesis,
b u t in f a c t a very d iffe re n t hearing of th e biblical te x t resu lts
from c o rp o ra te worship which involves d iffe re n t modes of p e rce p -
tion from th o se usually considered in in te rp re ta tio n . How does
a con g reg atio n acco m m o d ate th e diversity w ithin the pericopes
read and h eard ? What is the n a tu re of th e tra n slatio n process
involved in receiv in g a n o rm ativ e te x t which is o fte n in a stra n g e
idiom , and r e la te d to a d iffe re n t tim e and peculiar situ a tio n ?
F u rth e r, how is it possible h erm e n eu tic ally for th e Black C hurch,
fo r exam ple, o fte n to use g re a t freedom in tra n sla tio n one thinks
o f th e hym ns and serm ons--and y e t to c a p tu re a pristine power
from th e Bible for th e shaping of th e C h ristian life ?

Again, an im p o rta n t se t of issues tu rn s on the possible

c o n tro ls w hich exegesis brings ag ain st th e continuing th re a t of
m isuse and ideology in th e use of th e Bible. One wonders w h eth er
one can still speak of a h o listic view of th e Gospel which parallels
th e Early C h u rch 's analogia fid ei and p ro te c ts th e church ag ain st
h eresy . The u estio n s arising from th e church respecting biblical
theology a re no less d iffic u lt than those arising from the academ y.

We have described th e tw o sources from which biblical

theology ste m s, but th e g re a t hope lies in th e m om ent in which
th e tw o stre a m s flow to g e th e r- The p re se t tension betw een
th e se tw o sources Is one of th e m ain sym ptom s of a deep m alady
w ithin th e field.

H ow ever, th e p roper s tra te g y for rebuilding th e discipline

is c e rta in ly n o t to w ait until th e re develop som e new overarching
co n c e p tu a l c a te g o rie s producing a consensus. Such a possibility
seem s highly unlikely for th e n ear fu tu re . R ath er, it would be
fa r m ore p ro d u ctiv e if biblical theologians of various persuasions
begin to work on som e of th e burning questions of th e day. 1
have in mind such sp e c ific issues as th e re la tio n of m ale and
fe m a le , th e issues of th e oppressed raised in lib eratio n theology,
c re a tio n and ecology, and th e like. Such problem s provide an
ideal te stin g ground to see w h eth er or not new re flectio n s on
b iblical theology can ham m er out c o n c re te theological proposals
c o m m en su rate w ith th e w itness of th e Bible, simply support
th e going slogans of th e day w ith an appeal to a w arran t from
th e S c r ip t u r e s .

1 do not see this challenge as sim ply an acad em ic ex e r-

cise. C e rta in ly th e church is m uch in need of help on such e x isten -
tia l issues as th e s tru c tu re of m arriag e and th e fam ily when
it reth in k s th e in stru c tio n derived from th e Old and th e New
T e sta m e n ts in th e fa c e of our changing c u ltu ral norm s. Only
a f te r biblical theology has begun to provide som e genuine th eologi-
cal d ire c tio n on sp ecific issues which can overcom e th e politicizing
of th e Bible from both th e le f t and th e rig h t can one perhaps
begin to think in m ore com prehensive te rm s. Of course, 1 am
well aw a re th a t this re fle c tio n on sp ecific issues is also much
influ en ced by o n e's h o listic th eo lo g ic al vision. However, for th e
sake of th e discipline and for th e church 1 would think th e em pha-
sis should fall on th e p a rtic u la r, a t le a st for the n ear fu tu re .
10

Finally, 1 think it im p o rta n t to keep in mind th e lesson

o f church h isto ry th a t C h ristian theology m oves along in cy cles
o f decay and ren ew al. The g re a t theological gains of one g e n e r-
atio n a re quickly re la tiv iz e d and lo st by th e n ex t. C onversely
th e ab ility of th e church to be revived, o fte n in stran g e and
u n ex p ected ways and tim es, provides a continuing hope for th e
fu tu re . T here is an im p o rta n t sense in w hich th e church m ust
w a it for th e outpouring of G od's S pirit and no am ount of furious
a c tiv ity will a v a il. C onversely th e re rem ains th e equally sig n ifican t
ta sk of w atching and preparing. Viewed h isto ric a lly , th e serious
a tte m p ts a t bib lical theology o ffe re d by M. K ahler and A. S ch lat-
te r during th e end of th e 19th c en tu ry ap p e ared to have had
li t t le im p a c t on th e larg er field a t a tim e still dom inated by
R itsch l and H arnack, but they helped to lay a foundation for
th e re b irth of serious theology in th e 20's. Again, when view ed
e x te rn a lly Hoskyns was co m p letely overshadow ed in C am bridge
by R aven, but who today e v er reads th e la tte r ? It is hard to
im agine th a t th e pow erful exegesis of Karl B arth which is hidden
in th e sm all p rin t of th e C hurch D ogm atics will alw ays rem ain
d o rm an t. In th e end, a n ticip atio n and p re p a ra tio n rem ain im p era-
tiv e s for th e e n tire C h ristian life and e x te n d fa r beyond the
problem s of fo rm u latin g a new biblical theology.
 11

NOTES

. B. S. W a g n e r , ' " B b l i $ c h e T h e o l o g i e n ' u n d ' B i b l i s c h e

T h e o l o g i e ' " , TLZ 1 03, 1 7 9 8 - 7 8 ,7 5 8 ; K. H a a c k e r , " B i b l i s c h e T h e o -
l ogie", N e u t e s t a m e n t l i c h e Wissenschaft, Wuppertal, 1 9 81, 8 7 - 9 7 .

^ H. S c h l i e r , " B i b l i s c h e u n d d o g m a t i s c h e T h e o l o g i e " ,
Besinnung auf das Neue Testament, Freiburg, Herder, 25-34;
F. Mildenberger, "Systematische-Theologische Randbemerkungen
z u r D i s k u s s i o n u m e i n e B i b l i s c h e T h e o l o g i e " , Z u g a n g z ur T h e o l o g i e ,
F e s t s c h r i f t w . l o e s t , G t t i n g e n , V a n d e n h o e c k R u p r e c h t , 1 9 7 9 ,
11-32-

3. G. Ebel i ng, "The Me a ni ng ' Bibli cal Theol ogy' " ,

Word and Faith, ET P h i l a d e l p h i a , Fortress Pr e s s , 1963, 69- 89.

4. H. Gese, "Erwgungen z ur Einhei t der bi bli schen

T h e o l o g i e " , Si nai z u m Z i o n , Mu n i c h , K a i s e r , 1 9 7 4 , 1 1 - 3 0 ;
H. > K r a u s , " T h e o l o g i e al s T r a d i t i o n s b i l d u n g ? " , B i b l i s c h e T h e o l o g i e
h e u t e , ( B i b l i s c h - T h e o l o g i s c h e S t u d i e n , e d . K. H a a c k e r , N e u -
k i r c h e n - ' / l u y n , N e u k i r c h e n e r Ver l ag, 1977, 61- 73.

5. P. S t u h l m a c h e r , " . . . i n v e r r o s t e t e n A n g e l n " , ZTK 77,

1980, 222- 238; E. Grsser, "Gffene Fragen Umkreis einer
b i b l i s c h e n T h e o l o g i e " , ZTK 77, 1 9 8 0 , 2 0 0 - 2 2 1 G. S t r e c k e r , " ' B i b -
l i s c h e T h e o l o g i e ? " ' , K i r c h e , F e s t s c h r i f t fr G. B o r n k a m m , h e r a u s g .
D. L h r m a n n un d G. S t r e c k e r , T b i n g e n , Mo h r , 1 9 8 0 , 4 2 5 - 4 4 5 ,

6. H. H. > G u n n e w e g , U n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e Ul d T e s t a m e n t ,
ET, P h i l a d e l p h i a , W e s t m i n s t e r P r e s s , 1 9 7 8 ; ' " T h e o l o g i e * d e s A l t e n
Testaments oder 'Biblische Theologie'", Textgem ass, Festschrift
E- w r t h w e i n , G t t i n g e n , V a n d e n h o e c k . R u p r e c h t , 1 9 7 9 , 3 9 - 4 6 ;
G. Me r k , Biblische Theologie d e s N e u e n T e s t a m e n t s in i hr e r
Anfangszeit, Ma r bur g, N. G. E i w e r t , 1977; w. Z i m m e r l i , " Von
d e r G l t i g k e i t d e r ' S c h r i f t ' A l t e n T e s t a m e n t s in d e r c h r i s t l i c h e n
Pr edi gt", T extgem ss, Festschrift w rthwein, Got t i nge n, Vanden-
h o e c k . R u p r e c h t , 1979, 18 4 - 202.

7. W. Z i m m e r l i , " B i b l i s c h e T h e o l o g i e . A l t e s Testament",
TRE 6, 1 9 8 0 , 4 2 6 - 5 4 4 ; 0 . M e r k , " B i b l i s c h e T h e o l o g i e H. N e u e s
T e s t a m e n t " , i bi d. , 4 5 5 - 4 7 7 .

8. R. Smend, "Heinrich Ewa l ds Bi bli sche Theologie.

Hi nwe i s auf ei n v e r g e s s e n e s Buch", T h e o l o g i e und W i r k l i c h k e i t ,
12

Festschrift W- T r i l l h a a s , Gottingen, Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht,

1974, 176-191.

9. H. G r a f R e v e n t l o w , " O e r K o n f l i k t z w i s c h e n E x e g e s e
und D o g m a t i k " . Wi l h e l m Vi schers Ri n g e n um den ' Ch r i s t u s im
A l t e n T e s t a m e n t ' , " T e x t g e m s s , F e s t s c h r i f t E. W u r t h w e i n , G o t t i n g -
e n , a d e h e k R u p r e c h t , 1 9 7 9 , 1 1 0 - 1 2 2 .

S. W a g n e r , F r e n z Delitzsch: Leben und Werk, Mu -

nich; Kai ser Ve r l ag, 197.

11. . Luck, K e r y g m a und T r a d i t i o n in de r Hermeneutik

S c h i a t t e r s , K l n , W e s t d e u t s c h e r V e r l a g , 1 9 5 5 .

12. G. E b e l i n g , E vangelische Evangelienauslegung, Mu -

n i c h , K a i s e r V e r l a g , 1 9 4 2 , 26.

1 C f . e s p e c i a l l y Karl B a r t h in R e - V i e w , ed. H.-Martin

R u m s c h e i d t ; P i t t s b u r g h , P i c k w i c k P r e s s , 1981-

14. K. G i r g e n s o h n , Der Schriftbeweis in der e v a n g e -

l i s c h e n D o g m a t i k e i n s t und j e t z t , L e i p z i g , . D e i c h e r t s c h e V e r l a g s -
buchhandlg, 1 9 1 4 ; Gr u nd r i s s de r D o g m a t i k , L e i p z i g , 1 9 ^ 4 , 6 1 f f .
Cf . W. G r u e h n , D i e T h e o l o g i e K. G i r g e n s o h n s , G t e r s l o h , B e r t e l s -
m a n n , 1927.

. W. V i s c h e r , Das C h r i s t u s z e u g n i s des . ^ Testa-

m e n t s , 2 v o l s . , 1 9 3 4 , 1 9 4 4 , 7 t h Au f l . Z r i c h , Z o l l i k o n , 1 9 4 6 , E T.
vol . I, L o n d o n , 1 9 4 9 .

16. C f . F. B a u m g r t e l , " P n e u m a t i s c h e E x e g e s e " , C h r i s t e n -

t u m und W i s s e n s c h a f t , 2, 1 9 2 6 , 2 3 7 - 2 4 7 ; G. v o n R a d , " D a s C h r i s t u s -
Z e u g n i s de s A l t e n T e s t a m e n t s " , T h e o l . B l t t e r 14, 1 9 3 5 , 2 4 9 - 2 5 4 .

17. C f . the careful assessment by p . . A c h t e m e i e r ,

An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e H e w H e r m e n e u t i c , P h i l a d e l p h i a , W e s t m i n -
s t e r P r e s s , 1969.

18. Hi s e s s a y s a r e c o n t a i n e d in t w o c o l l e c t i o n s : Vom
5 nai z u m Z i o n , M u n i c h , K a i s e r V e r l a g , 1 9 7 4 ; Zur b i b l i s c h e n T h e o -
l o g i e ; Mu n i c h , K a i s e r V e r l a g , 1 9 7 7 .

19. P e r i k o p e n . G e s t a l t und Wa n d e l d e s g o t t e s d i e n s t l i c h e n
B i b e l g e b r a u c h e s , ( e d. ) H. vo n S c h a d e u n d F. S c h u l z ( R e i h e G o t t e s -
d i e n s t ), H a m b u r g , L u t h e r i s c h e s V e r l a g s h a u s , 1 9 7 8 .


Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s) express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia funding from Liiiy Endowment !).

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.