Questions concerning biblical theology.

Abstract

These questions are based on a research report given at the August, 2000, annual meeting of the Catholic Biblical Association, at Loyola-Marymount University, Los Angeles, California. (1) Are there lessons to be derived from the spate of volumes on biblical theology published in the second half of the 20th century? (2) Is there an inner unity to the Bible? (3) How does the relationship between the Testaments affect a reading of the Old Testament? (4) How does biblical theology differ from history of religion (Religionsgeschichte)? (5) Conclusion: what, then, does "biblical theology" stand for?

**********

An investigation of the many volumes of biblical theology that have appeared in the last fifty years turns up some strange facts.

Recent "Biblical Theology"

First, in contrast to the field of New Testament, a plethora of volumes concerning Old Testament theology have been written. That is so obvious it needs no documentation. Second, confusion reigns, as the differences between these studies illustrate. However brilliant have been the standard works of such scholars as W. Eichrodt and G. von Rad, their studies have ultimately not solved the problem of a biblical theology of the Old Testament. Third, although this is not really unexpected, the approach to Old Testament theology has been influenced greatly by the Christian beliefs of the scholars (Levenson: 1-61). It is also pertinent to observe that the studies on biblical theology have been done mainly by Protestant scholars (at least for the Old Testament), and hardly any by Catholic scholars. From the early pre-Vatican II studies of P. Heinisch and P. van Imschoot up to J. Schreiner works by Catholics are very few. J. L. McKenzie is a notable and worthy exception. Fourth, there is disagreement on what biblical theology is (e.g., Knierim: 1-20; Murphy 1995: 28-32). Thus a recent work (Barr: 117) on the concept of biblical theology admits that there is "no simple definition" of it; it is essentially "contrastive" (contrasted with systematics, etc.). That same work describes itself in a subtitle, "An Old Testament Perspective." In one sense this is a novelty--to write a work on biblical theology which in fact treats of both Testaments from a Old Testament perspective. Does the Old Testament have a perspective that gives a special orientation to biblical theology? It is perhaps inevitable that anyone who more or less specializes in one Testament will bring that perspective to the total picture of what biblical theology should be. Brevard Childs, although he was better known for his Old Testament studies, deliberately and rightly wrote a theology of both Testaments: "The task of Biblical Theology is to reflect theologically on the witness of both testaments of the Christian Bible" (369). This is not the place to take up the question of the Old Testament canon, which is the Tanakh for Childs. But the deuterocanonical or apocrypha should be included. They are not to be eliminated because they allegedly add nothing new to the smaller canon (G. E. Wright: 169). Such a quantitative approach is simply inadequate. Many scholars today have a tendency to blur the limits of canon. But some kind of authoritative and not merely subjective canon should be the starting point. For the purpose of this paper, I give a working definition of biblical theology in as neutral a manner as possible: it is a (theologian's) construal of biblical data according to biblical categories into a complex whole, based on some organizing principle(s) chosen by the interpreter, such as covenant, tradition history, or something similar.

The "Inner Unity" of the Bible?

Can biblical literature, either Testament or both together, yield biblical theology? By definition, biblical theology, for a Christian, would include both Testaments. Any such theology is selective, and also limited by the construal of the interpreter. If proof is needed, a study of the construals that have been offered in the past should suffice. It has been proposed to build a theology around covenant, around tradition history, around presence, faith structure, and so forth. Both the material and presuppositions of the interpreter simply prohibit a comprehensive "theology," whether this be a theology of a given book, or of one Testament, or both. The biblical material is simply too diverse for such unification, and the vision of an interpreter is necessarily limited. That may sound too pessimistic. Rather, it is realistic, and it is also appreciative of the value of the "theologies" written in the past. They provided new avenues, new ways at looking at the familiar material. While not definitive, they have been enlightening. They have succeeded in calling attention to some of the more important theological concepts, even if these cannot bear all the weight that is put on them.

What is at the root of this diversity in "biblical theology?" One significant factor is the problem of the relationship between the Testaments. There is a presupposition that an inner unity can be found in the biblical material. Thus Gerhard Ebeling in a very influential article (1963: 96) defined the theological task in these words:

   In "biblical theology" the theologian who devotes himself specially to
   studying the connexion between the Old and New Testaments has to give an
   account of his understanding of the Bible as a whole, i.e., above all of
   the theological problems that come of inquiring into the inner unity of the
   manifold testimony of the Bible.

Brevard Childs paid tribute to Ebeling's article, and it guided him in his own work (6-9). Thus he describes as the task of biblical theology: "to reflect on the witness of both testaments of the Christian Bible.... [Its] focus remains on the immediate problem of relating the diverse biblical wit. nesses to the unity of the one Word of God" (369). Both theologians emphasize "inner unity," but the term remains vague.

What is meant by the "unity" of the Christian Bible? In a sense the word recalls the vain attempt in the last century to find the "center" of the Old Testament (Reventlow: 125-33). In his discussion of the various "centres," the late O. Hasel (168) came up with God as the centre. From the point of view of literature, this is not an answer, but it is closer to a solution than all the theories put forward. There is no "middle," nor canon within the canon, nor true unity to biblical literature, despite all the efforts. The basic objection to be made against "inner unity" is that it fails to keep distinct the literature (which has no unity) and the historical design or telos (which climaxes in Christ).

By historical design I mean the paschal mystery, the passion, death and resurrection of Christ (Murphy 2000a), which according to Christian belief is the keeping of promises made by the Father of Jesus Christ to the Jewish people. How does one go about learning more about the "Father?" God is substantively revealed in Christ, and the New Testament contains the Christian story. Such is the telos of the historical intervention of God, to which the Bible bears witness. This historical design surely implies something about the Father of Jesus Christ. We learn of him from the pages of the Hebrew Bible.

It is often said or implied that Jesus is in the Old Testament. The ambiguity (and even, error) of such a statement should be clear. Jesus is not there. He is to be found in the New Testament which bears witness to him as the telos of the revelation planned by YHWH. If I am not mistaken, the "finding" of Jesus in the Old Testament is the heirloom of patristic and medieval theology, which has also been made rigid by the Reformation insistence upon the sufficiency of the Scripture. When analysis of the biblical text is accompanied by the relative absence of liturgical act/performance, there is a compulsion and need to interpret the literature, instead of celebrating the event. This mentality can be de. scribed in the words of B. Childs (725):

   It is a basic Christian confession that all scripture bears testimony to
   Jesus Christ. In this sense, there is a single, unified voice in Scripture.
   When the church Fathers and Reformers spoke of the `scope' (scopus) of
   scripture, they were addressing the kerygmatic content of the Bible which
   the interpreter of the Bible was urged always to keep clearly in sight in
   order to comprehend the true nature of the biblical witness.

Childs goes on to say that the

   oneness of scripture's scope is not a rival to the multiple voices within
   the canon, but a constant pointer, much like a ship's compass, fixing on a
   single goal, in spite of the many and various ways of God (Heb 1.1), toward
   which the believer is drawn.... The recognition of the one scope of
   scripture, which is Jesus Christ, does not function to restrict the full
   range of the biblical voices.

Unfortunately it has and still does restrict that range because it confuses historical reality with literature.

It is neither possible nor desirable to find a unity in the literary witness. The proof of that is the fact that no one has succeeded in capturing the alleged unity. The great variety in the literature, which practically everyone admits, prevents any unity worthy of the name. One cannot expect a unity from a literature that was composed of oral and written traditions over a period of a thousand years. From the point of view of literature, the early Christians had only the Old Testament as the word of God with which to interpret the new move made in Christ. This was expressed in terms of the "fulfillment" texts, a style of reading very much in mode at the time (Fitzmyer). Textual fulfillment was the best, practically the only, way for them to express the telos of God's plan. Hence they made many christological connections within their Bible, the Old Testament. This is too obvious to document, but one can be reminded of it by the opening words, and the entire message, of the Letter to the Hebrews. This approach was literary, giving expression to a belief, the historical design, that the Christians were celebrating. Christ was the figure to be explained--and by reference to the only Bible, the Old Testament (especially in its Greek form!). They inherited the theological beliefs of the Old Testament, but transfigured by Christ and Paul.

Recently F. Holmgren has had recourse to what he calls "creative" or "depth" interpretation by which both Jews (e.g., Qumran) and Christians wrested the Old Testament text to fit their current situation. The witness of the Old Testament was needed in order to explain who Christ was (140-42). Holmgren employs this "look-back exegesis" (54) in lieu of the promise/fulfillment motif in order to avoid the appearance of supersessionism (38-55). Surely every effort should be made to eliminate supersessionism, but does that necessitate the abandonment of promise/fulfillment? R. Kendall Soulen has rightly rejected a "standard model" of supersessionism which he has reconstructed from Christian sources. In its stead he proposes a canonical narrative or construal of the Bible that has two foci: the eschatological reign of the God of Israel, the Consummator of creation through promise and blessing, which provides the hermeneutical context for the Christian gospel about God's kingdom and the name of Jesus Christ (18-21; 109-13). His theological argument is well thought out, but it remains simply another construal of biblical literature. Holmgren and Soulen attempt to refute supersessionism on the basis of the biblical text, and both find the old "promise/fulfillment" approach inadequate if not misleading. Both advance "biblical" arguments. Is there another way to meet the problem? Supersessionism is an historical attitude. If it attained theological status for many, too many, Christians, it is not a valid biblical conclusion. The first Christians are clearly identified as Jewish in Acts; only gradually were they separated from their heritage, and Paul reminds the Romans not to "boast against the branches" (Rom l 1:18). There can be no denial that a supersessionist attitude has prevailed in practice, but promise/fulfillment is not to be identified with it.

Supersessionism is the creation of a post-biblical age, an interpretation of history, not of literature or a style of literary interpretation. One can affirm that the historical design has reached a telos in Christ, but the eschaton is not closed. A distinction must be drawn. The Christian believes that Christ is the Messiah, and thus is the "fulfillment" of a divine design, and not of a biblical text. It would be folly to think anyone knows the ultimate telos of God. If supersessionism means the replacement of God's design for the Jewish people, no one can know this, nor may any Christian (see Romans 9-11) dare affirm it. The most prudent statement on this was made by Paul: "the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Rom 11:29).

How is the Old Testament to be Read?

The preceding remarks seem to eliminate the literary fulfillment which is expressed so clearly in the formulas, "as the Scripture says," etc. Not for the New Testament writers. In their contemporary exegetical practice, such formulas expressed fulfillment in the sense of the "look-back exegesis" described by Holmgren (54). But that exegetical approach is not the only way to read the Old Testament, or even the New. For example, it is also possible and profitable to read and interpret Christ by a fuller understanding of the Old Testament roots that are not "fulfillment" types. In recent times a different and fruitful way of approaching the figure of Christ is the recognition of him as a wisdom teacher in the tradition of Old Testament sages. Previously, more emphasis was placed on the character of Christ as incarnate Wisdom in the style of the Johannine Logos, or of the Pauline "Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:24, 30). This also has its roots in the personification of Wisdom in the books of Proverbs, Sirach, and the Wisdom of Solomon (Murphy 1990: 133-49; 227-29). But a different dimension emerges when the practical teaching and wisdom, enshrined in the parables and sayings, are read in the light of the Old Testament wisdom tradition. In short, Jesus is seen in a new light from the viewpoint of his roots in the Hebrew Bible.

The real problem lies in another direction. How can a modern Christian interpret the Old Testament? The style of literary fulfillment, like typological framework, has very limited appeal for at least two reasons. First, the Christian already accepts the messiahship of Jesus, the telos, and normally does not read the Bible from the point of view of the apologetic needs of the ancient Church. Second, the frequent use of typology (not to mention allegory) is an obstacle for many. It is a biblical mindset, and found within the Old Testament itself, where the book of Isaiah (Isaiah 40-55) reads the exodus as a type for the freeing of the exiled people from Babylon. And there is a rich typological tradition, although often unbridled, in patristic and medieval writings. But most modern readers are not at ease with this kind of symbolism. Rather, they seem to prefer an understanding of the Old Testament that is more than a repetition of the New, more than a "prophecy" of what they already know and accept. The question emerges: how does one go about learning more concerning the "Father" of Jesus Christ? What is the revelation of the God to which the Old Testament gives witness? In this regard the "theologies" of the Old Testament of the past century have been very helpful. They have have advanced biblical literacy by synthesizing key ideas that lead readers into a more profound understanding of the text, preventing the Old from being swallowed into the New.

The connection between the Testaments is best seen from the point of view of continuity of ideas, especially those we experience daily. What is "life," "salvation," "trust," "hope," "loving kindness," in the life of Israel and her relationship to the Lord? Christians can and should read these ideas on the level of meaning in the Old Testament before entering the world of the New Testament where they can be invested with more particular impact. If some Old Testament ideas were modified, if they were transmitted and enlarged, they remain keys to human experience, they tell us something about the Father of Jesus Christ. The Johannine "eternal life" is anticipated by the psalmist's concern for the gift of life from the Father (Ps 119:37, 40, 50, 77, 88, 107, 116, 149, 154, 156, 159). This kind of continuity binds both Testaments in a meaningful way. Continuity (Murphy 1999) is of prime importance for it holds up the excitement as well as the depth of Israel's ever increasing discovery of God. The Christian belief in itself can be a help, not a hindrance, in appreciating Israel's faith, provided it is not allowed to overwhelm the world of the Old Testament.

However, the discontinuities are equally important, because they tell us things about the Father that are strikingly different from the monochromatic picture that a Christian may derive from doctrinal formulas. In a postmodern mood W. Brueggemann has recently emphasized the Old Testament underscoring of the mystery of God. This is not new to Christian theology, but the disjunctions and tensions in Israel's thought provide vivid testimony to the fundamental mystery: "In its God-speech Israel does not set out everywhere to give us an attractive or appealing God, the stable god of church catechism or the winsome God of therapeutic culture.... Israel's God. speech seeks to give an account of restless holiness that decisively redefines and resituates everything else about life" (Brueggemann: 79).

The question arises: ultimately is biblical theology better attained by straight exegesis of a biblical text? One cannot divorce theology from exegesis. The subject matter can be, in a given instance, relatively remote from theology, but in some measure the thrust of the biblical text need not be detached from Theos or theology. The Old Testament text inspires a current reader just as it gave corresponding inspiration to the first readers. It is open to exegesis and the immediate insights of an interpreter. This is not yet a synthesis of biblical data, much less "systematic" theology, but this exegesis avoids the danger of abstraction or even distortion that systematization may give rise to. Much depends on the nature of the text and the capability of the reader to analyze a text; the results may be immediate or remote. But there is no reason why exegesis in the concrete should be considered apart from a theological reading.

Closely allied to theological exegesis is the "actualization" of a text. This is a highpoint in the 1993 document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" (Murphy 1996; 1998). The aim is to discover what the text has to say at the present time. Thus, the Old Testament is not locked away as an antiquarian or sociological notice, but interpreted in a such a mannner as to bear on one's present-day existence. Here the Old Testament emphasis on this life turns out to be an advantage for that is where modems live, whatever be the strength of their eschatology. Although the text is distant in time, it can have continuity in thought, enabling it to pulsate in the present

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

Biblical Theology and History of Religion

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

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

It is generally recognized that the notion of sheol or the nether world is not unique to Israel; it is a matter of historical fact that the idea preceded the existence of the people Israel. The curtain on the afterlife invited no little imagination from those who accepted it. What is theology and what is Religionsgeschichte when one examines the way sheol is used in the Old Testament? It is conceived not only as a place, but as a force.

As a place it is localized below, in the earth, and the departed, or "shades," are there. Some name had to be given to those who are there; what better than the mysterious term "shades"? There is no philosophical speculation about "what" is there, only "who." Only the dead go there, and because of the Hebrew emphasis on life, sheol is not welcome, although inevitable. For the rest, imagination/myth take over, as illustrated by the descent of the tyrant king of Babylon and his reception by the inhabitants of sheol (Isaiah 14), and also by the various postures of Assyria, Elam, Tubal and Meshech, et al., in the description of the placement of Egypt (Pharaoh and his men) in sheol by Ezekiel (32:17-32). Sheol is used here to indicate the fall of Egypt from its high place--to the depths, to a place of non-life, where Israel's enemies have been deposited. From a theological point of view one can appreciate the supple use of this curtain on the next life. On the one hand Job can use the motif as a place of escape from this life with its suffering; the pit (a synonym, along with "abaddon") would be a place of respite (Job 3:11-23). But on the other hand, he can use it as a motif in his prayer/argument with God, reminding him that "the eye that now sees me shall no more behold me; as you look at me, I shall be gone (Job 7:8 cf. v 21, "and should you seek me I shall be gone"). It may be that some viewed sheol as a place where a distinction was made beween its denizens (cf. Ps 49:14-15, a doubtful text), but the view of Qoheleth should be taken as a standard understanding: "there will be no work, nor reason, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in sheol" (Eccl 9:10).

Sheol is also personified as a power, a force which pursues human beings. This metaphorical usage is conveyed by its open gullet/maw ready to devour, and by its "hand" which indicates the grip that sheol exerts upon humans Thus, "what mortal can live and not see death? Who can escape the hand of sheol?" (Ps. 89:49). Hence the psalmist can speak of having been brought up "from sheol" (Ps. 30:4). This is not resuscitation, it is a deliverance from adversity, whether it be sickness, or some other lamentable circumstance. The Song of Songs pays a remarkable compliment to human love when it describes human love: "strong as death," "intense as sheol" (Cant. 8:6). Death/Sheol is the most formidable and implacable force that a human can encounter, but the power of love is comparable.

What does this mythical place/state have to do with biblical theology? One answer lies in the use to which it is put in the examples that have just been proposed. One can only conjecture, and it is vain to follow that line, concerning the reality that the biblical writers attributed to such concepts as sheol. The inconsistencies in the descriptions are obvious, but that is not the point. Rather, what use is made of this mythical world? Perhaps the most significant theological aspect of sheol is the fact that the Israelite considered it as an area in which one was no longer in loving contact with God. "In sheol who can praise you?" is an attitude reflected in many psalms (e.g., 6:6; 30:10). This was not because sheol was beyond the control of the Lord (cf. Amos 9:2; Ps 139:8). Simply, a mere mortal could no longer relate to God. True life, in which "praise" could be offered to God, was in the here and now. The deadest of the dead are in sheol, where there is no praise. So when is one most alive? In praise: "to live is to praise."

The emphasis on history of religion has given new impetus to the study of the social background presupposed in the biblical texts. R. Albertz has described sharply the vitality of this understanding: "The history of Israelite religion is not a bloodless history of ideas but a living process of constant controversy, an ongoing dispute between different groups in Israelite society" (1994: 18). However stimulating this understanding may be, there is no escaping the danger of heaping one hypothesis upon another. Our sources for the reconstruction of contending groups are meager, and the argument is often the weak one, ex silentio.

John Collins proposes a unique model of biblical theology. There is an overlap with the history of religion. Biblical theology is not normative; it is an area of historical theology, focussed on the Bible, that is a source for systematic theology. His view, termed "socio-historical criticism," allows only an historical understanding of God by the Israelites. It is not a confessional religious statement about the nature of God; rather, only the view of the writer/community is presented. On the one hand, the theology of the biblical text seems eliminated, for it makes no more than an historical claim. On the other, the confessional--dogmatic approach exemplified by B. Childs, is avoided. Collins presents his view in an analysis of the book of Daniel. Among other things, he singles out the "the deterministic God of Daniel" as atypical, and concludes that this is not a "revealed truth but is a way of construing the world which led to a particular course of action" (26). It may be doubted, however, that Collins has escaped the history/theology conflict. The deterministic aspect of divine rule in Daniel is of one piece with divine determinism that permeates the Bible--and that appears to be a theological datum. Moreover, it is not clear how this approach provides a service for systematic theology. One can perhaps summarize the tension between history of religion and biblical theology as an overlap, but the theoretical elaboration of the relation between the two is not clear.

A Theological Focus on Biblical Interpretation

What does "biblical theology" stand for, then? I have claimed that a unified "biblical theology" is not possible. But this is not to deny the contributions that the several "theologies" have made. The biblical literacy of those who have consulted such works has surely increased. Yet the very discussion of what is biblical theology has entered a strange cul de sac. Modesty is in order. That means one can still appropriate pertinent "theological" interpretations of the Bible which both support and correct the assumptions brought to interpretation. In modern times the initial impetus for biblical theology came from the need to preserve the independence of biblical exegesis against the encroachment of doctrinal systematics. Since the Bible is neither a bag of prooftexts nor a statement of eternal, unchangeable truths, a different focus is needed now.

Where should the focus of biblical theology be? I maintain that it should proceed along the lines of historical critical methodology (which is not merely the grove of academe, but a useful tool for the believing community), with an enlarged vision. According to Luke T. Johnson, (1998), the Bible has been taken captive by academe, and the result is unhappy: "Biblical Theology fails worst when it succeeds best. When theologians take up its distilled propositions or principles as `the biblical witness,' the living conversation between theology and Scripture is not opened but closed. Biblical Theology remains primarily an academic exercise, a variety of the history of ideas or, perhaps, an ethnography of past cultures" (172). He appeals to the "imaginary world of Scripture" (e.g., the vitality of the biblical symbol of "way") as an approach to both Testaments: "the claim to have experienced the same living God through the Lord Jesus Christ was the most compelling reason for joining two disparate collections of composition into a single anthology called Scripture. And it is the possibility of experiencing that same Living God in the world today that makes the doing of Christian theology anything more than a sterile academic exercise" (177). However, there is a danger in personifying Academe; all depends on the vision of the academic. Perhaps biblical theology, which cannot be defined anyway, as we have seen, should include data such as liturgy (so M. O'Connor 1995: 95). This would go beyond the realia of Temple worship and the specific prescriptions of the Torah to a valuation of corporate worship; in what way Is liturgy a resource for theology? The clearly different liturgies of both Testaments are additional reasons against contriving a spurious unity for biblical theology. But the vision of Exod 19:6, "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation," should not be passed over. At the very least, theological analysis is expected to provide some orientation to the life of the community.

An enlarged vision is being forced upon academic biblical theology by the several side approaches of sociology, liberation, feminism and reader response in general. These are all perspectives, but none of them will succeed without communicating an experience of the text. If the text is laid open to readers, a salutary theology, even if selective, is possible. A. Campbell proposes approaching the Bible as an invitation to thought--"to think, to search, to choose" (17) in its various types of literature; it evokes inspiration and challenge, comfort and aid, or simply reflection. The text can be "an invitation to reflect on how life is best lived before God. As a text that invites, it reveals to its readers a God who does not dominate and determine but invites to faith and reflective living" (21). If the authority of the text is seen in the lively experience it communicates, theology is present. Experiencing the text is the work of the reader who invests it with some kind of authority. D. Bartlett called attention to the way in which different portions of the Bible lay claim to authority: prophetic oracles, wisdom, the authority of story/historical narratives. Of the book of Job he writes, "the authority comes from the story's ability to involve us, to entice us, to question us, and finally to shift the way in which we see ourselves and the world and the way in which we puzzle about God" (71). This literary reading prevents a homogenization of the biblical word, and it differentiates the claims that are made upon the reader. Similarly, W. Vogels emphasizes the literary claim that the text makes. While it is inspired, it is also inspiring if the reader is open to it. The history of interpretation shows that a spiritual authority resides in the Bible for those who choose to read it in that light, who are not satisfied merely to find a doctrinal norm. A dialogue between Bible and reader is not possible if the reader comes to the text parti pris.

What is surprising perhaps is the relative absence of biblical roots in the actual elucidation of the Good News today. One is reminded of Barr's trenchant comment: "Preaching commonly tells us little about the Bible, and more about the theology of the preacher" (213). Systematic theology rests to a great extent on traditional creeds, experience, and philosophical underpinnings. Theologians have formed a view of God and reality only indirectly from the Bible. Catholic theologians have not begun with the Bible and worked out theology from there. Along the way they can be inspired and influenced to a greater (e.g., E. Schillebeeckx) or lesser (e.g., E. Johnson) degree by biblical data as well as by official doctrine. I might instance two theologians whose work I admire, Karl Rahner and Brevard Childs. Rahner's theology is not marked by any biblical foundation on which he has developed his thought. Rather he has been guided by intense study of Christian theologians going back to the patristic period, by credal statements, and by certain strains of philosophy, e.g., Thomism, Heidegger. This host of influences is not without roots in the Bible. But the development of his systematic theology takes relatively little note of the Bible, and it certainly does not appear to have developed directly from it. If one were to take a theologian whose roots are explicitly in the Bible, such as B. Childs, different questions appear. Apart from the arguments over his "canonical" approach (e.g., which canon?), his synthesis is not very different from traditional Christian dogma. His "biblical theology" of 1993 is not characterized by the daring views and tensions intrinsic to the Bible. Although that study is explicit in its treatment of practically every biblical book, it is surprisingly predictable, yielding a blend of Christianity that rests broadly on the "discrete witness" of both Testaments. Perhaps that is as much as Bible can contribute to synthesis. If it is true, as I have claimed, there is no real "unity" to either Testament (unity as literature, not unity of telos), then it is not surprising that theology has evolved to a level that has only distant, even if essential, roots in the Bible. However, characteristic of these two Christian writers, Catholic and Protestant, is the difference in approach; one from a general ecclesial tradition, the other more explicitly working out from the Bible.

If the large synthesis seems unattainable, one must gratefully accept the exegetical insights of individual books and passages, e.g., some of the studies that have appeared in the CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY Monograph Series, or in OVERTURES TO BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. Certainly no individual biblical texts or books are to be absolutized. But they can be the seed of future development. Insights remain partial, allowing

for tensions but also balancing each other in some measure. Theoretically these insights should be found within the context of a believing community that truly hears the Bible and dialogues with its own tradition. That would mean approaching the Bible by way of authority, but not by way of a mere static doctrinal measurement. A doctrinal synthesis may be a negative guide, eliminating erroneous interpretation, but only in a very extenuated sense would it be a positive aid to interpretation.

In some modern theological areas biblical research has created remarkable changes, e.g., the acceptance of a God who is not immutable. This approach can be seen as merely relinquishing the Aristotelian-scholastic categories of act and potency in favor of the common biblical expressions, such as YHWH "repenting" or changing his mind. Or another example, which has also been taken up by systematic theologians, the God who "suffers"; many Old Testament texts can be adduced for this as well (Fretheim). Both of these examples fall into the category of anthropomorphism--a category not easily evaluated from a theological point of view. Are divine mutability and suffering on the same level as the parts of the body assigned to the Lord (face, nose, hands, etc.)? Are some anthropomorphisms more "theological" than others?

These observations may not seem to merit the name of "biblical theology." They may be only recommendations on how to read the text and allow biblical theology to emerge. In effect, they are more methodological than theoretical, aimed at influencing readers to do their own theological mapmaking within their community context, whether Christian or Jewish.

Works Cited

Albertz, R. 1995a. Religionsgeschichte Israels statt Theologie des Alten Testaments! Pladoyer fur eine forschungsgeschichtliche Umorientierung. Pp. 3-24 in JAHRBUCH FUR BIBLISCHE THEOLOGIE, ed. B. Janowski & N. Lohfink. Band 10. Neukirchen, Germany: Neukirchener.

1995b. Hat die Theologie des Alten Testaments doch noch eine Chance? Abschliessende Stellungnahme in Leuven. Pp. 177-87 in JAHRBUCH FUR BIBLISCHE THEOLOGIE. ed. B. Janowski & N. Lohfink. Band 10. Neukirchen, Germany: Neukirchener.

1994. A HISTORY OF ISRAELITE RELIGION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT PERIOD. 2 Vols. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox.

Bart, J. 1999. THE CONCEPT OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY AN OLD TESTAMENT PERSPECTIVE. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

Bartlett, D. 1983. THE SHAPE OF SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress.

Brueggemann, W. 1999. The Role of Old Testament Theology in Old Testament Interpretation. Pp. 70-88 in IN SEARCH OF TRUE WISDOM, ed. E. Ball. JSOTSUP 300; Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

Campbell, A. 1996. The Authority of Scripture: Canon as Invitation. The Institute for Antiquity and Christianity Occasional Papers, n. 37. Claremont, CA.

Childs, B. 1993. BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

Collins, J. J. 1989. Biblical Theology and the History of Israelite Religion. Pp. 16-32 in BACK TO THE SOURCES. BIBLICAL AND NEAR EASTERN STUDIES IN HONOUR OF DERMOT RYAN, ed. K. J. Cathcart & J. F. Healey. Dublin, Ireland: Glendon.

Ebeling, G. 1963. The Meaning of "Biblical Theology." Pp. 79-97 in WORD AND FAITH. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress.

Eissfeldt, O. 1926. Israelitische--judische Religionsgeschichte und alttestamentliche Theologie, ZEITSCHRIFT FUR DIE ALTTESTAMENTLICHE WISSENSCHAFT 44:1-12.

Fitzmyer, J. 1960-1961. The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament, NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES 7: 297-333.

Fretheim, T. 1984. THE SUFFERING OF GOD: AN OLD TESTAMENT PERSPECTIVE. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress.

Holmgren, F. 1999. THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF JESUS. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Johnson, L. T. 1998. Imagining the World Scripture Imagines, MODERN THEOLOGY 14/2: 165-80.

Knierim, R. 1995. THE TASK OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Pp.1-20.

Levenson, J. D. 1993. THE HEBREW BIBLE, THE OLD TESTAMENT, AND HISTORICAL CRITICISM. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox.

W. Lemke. 1993. Theology (Old Testament). Pp. 448-73 in THE ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY VI. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Lohfink, N. 1995. Facherpoker und Theologie. Pp. 207-30 in JAHRBUCH FUR BIBLISCHE THEOLOGIE, ed. B. Janowski & N. Lohfink. Band 10. Neukirchen, Germany: Neukirchener.

McKenzie, J. L. 1974. A THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Miller, P. D. 1985. Israelite Religion. Pp. 201-37 in THE HEBREW BIBLE AND ITS MODERN INTERPRETERS. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress.

Murphy, R. E. 2000a. The Paschal Mystery: The Primary Hermeneutical Principle? THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 60: 139-46.

2000b. Death and Afterlife in the Wisdom Literature. Pp. 101-16 in JUDAISM IN LATE ANTIQUITY, ed. A. J. Avery-Peck & J. Neusner. Part Four, DEATH, LIFE-AFTER-DEATH, RESURRECTION AND THE WORLD-TO-COME IN THE JUDAISMS OF ANTIQUITY. Leiden: Brill.

1999. The Testament(s): Continuities and Discontinuities. BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN 29/3: 112-17.

1998. What is Catholic about Catholic Biblical Scholarship?--Revisited, BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN 28/3: 112-19.

1996. Reflections on "Actualization" of the Bible, BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN 26/2: 79-81.

1995. A Response to "The Task of Old Testament Theology." Pp. 28-32 in R. Knierim (cited above).

1990. THE TREE OF LIFE. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, second (revised) edition.

O'Connor, M. 1995. How the Text is Heard: The Biblical Theology of Brevard Childs. RELIGIOUS STUDIES REVIEW 21/2: 91-96.

Rahner, K. 1978. FOUNDATIONS OF CHRISTIAN FAITH. New York, NY: Seabury Press.

Schreiner, J. 1995. THEOLOGIE DES ALTEN TESTAMENTS. Wurzburg, Germany: Echter.

Soulen, R. K. 1996. THE GOD OF ISRAEL AND CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

Vogels, W. 1998. L'autorite de la Bible. EGLISE ET THEOLOGIE 29: 179-97.

Wright, G. E. 1969. THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THEOLOGY. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Zimmerli, W. 1963. Promise and Fulfillment. Pp. 89-122 in ESSAYS ON OLD TESTAMENT HERMENEUTICS, ed. C. Westermann. Richmond, VA: John Knox.

Roland E. Murphy, S.T.D. (Catholic University of America), a member of the Carmelite Order, is George Washington Ivey Emeritus Professor of Biblical Studies at Duke University, now residing at Whitefriars Hall, Washington, D.C. 20017. His most recent book is THE GIFT OF THE PSALMS (Hendrickson, 2000).