The critic of biblical theologians: a review of James Barr's The Concept of Biblical Theology: an Old Testament Perspective.

Abstract

James Barr offers critical insight on the craft of writing First Testament theologies, as well as the contributions of significant authors in the field. He addresses issues such as these: (1) the relationship of biblical theology to Christian doctrine, evolutionary concepts, the History of Religions, the Historical Critical Method, and other scholarly research; (2) the relationship of First and Second Testaments; (3) the question of objectivity versus faith commitment; (4) the relation of First Testament theologies to Jewish thought; (5) the choice between historical or systematic evaluations of the First Testament; (6) Canonical Criticism; (7) narrative analysis; (8) the question of Apocrypha; and (9) natural theology and biblical thought. He also critically reviews the work of numerous significant biblical theologians, including Brevard Childs and Walter Brueggemann in particular.

**********

FOR YEARS James Barr has been the gadfly or bane of First Testament and biblical theologians. (By biblical I refer to those theologies that encompass both First and Second Testaments.) His first assault upon the craft of biblical theologians was undertaken years ago with his books, THE SEMANTICS OF BIBLICAL LANGUAGE (1961) and BIBLICAL WORDS FOR TIME (1962), in which he undertook a critique of biblical word studies and their use as a foundation for insight into the supposed worldview of biblical authors. In particular, he challenged the assumptions of the articles in THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (and by inference the later THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT). In the years thereafter Barr kept up an unrelenting criticism on what he considered slipshod thought among biblical theologians and scholars. This volume is the culmination of that life-long response to the guild. Some have assumed that Barr is opposed to the doing of First Testament theology altogether. Actually, as he states in this book, he is not opposed to First Testament or biblical theology in general, but rather to the articulation of flawed systems.

This volume is not a First Testament theology; it is an assessment of the task of doing First Testament theology in particular and biblical theology in general. In the author's own words, the book is a "discussion of the whole idea of biblical theology, its possibilities and prospects" (p. xiii). As such, the volume is a collection of essays that variously discuss issues involved in the creation of First Testament theology as well as the review of significant theologies crafted by First Testament theologians in the past thirty years.

There is not always a tight logical progression through the chapters of the volume, although some chapters do follow upon each other in logical sequence. Barr explains that this book was built out of his 1968 Cadbury Lectures at the University of Birmingham and his 1978 Firth Lectures at the University of Nottingham. His overall thesis is a further development of his book, OLD AND NEW IN INTERPRETATION (1966).

I would organize the structure of the book into four parts. Barr begins with introductory observations (chapters 1 through 4). Then he discusses the contrasts or differences among various First Testament theologians (chapters 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12). After this he addresses key issues that must be addressed by First Testament theologians, such as the use of the concept of evolution (chapter 7), the relationship of the First and Second Testaments (chapters 11, 16, 33), the nature of First Testament theology (chapter 13), opposition to the concept of First Testament theology (chapter 14), Jewish biblical theology (chapters 17, 18), the existence of a center in First Testament theology (chapter 20), the study of narrative in the First Testament as theology (chapter 21), natural theology in the Bible (chapter 27), and the use of the Apocrypha (chapter 32). Finally, Barr spends significant effort assessing specific First Testament theologians as thinkers who write in an age after Walther Eichrodt and Gerhard von Rad. Brevard Childs (chapters 23, 24) and Walter Brueggemann (chapter 32) merit special attention. Other individuals also receive briefer evaluations: Walther Zimmerli (chapter 19), Claus Westermann (chapter 19), Georg Fohrer (chapter 19), Samuel Terrien (chapter 19), Hans Heinrich Schmid (chapter 19), Hartmut Gese (chapter 22), Rolf Rendtorff (chapter 23), Otto Kaiser (chapter 26), Antonius Gunneweg (chapter 26), Horst Dietrich Preuss (chapter 26), Manfred Oeming (chapter 28), Friedrich Mildenberger (chapter 29), Heikki Raisanen (chapter 30), and David Brown (chapter 34).

In his critique of the various issues in biblical theology and the various theologians Barr hints at his own ideas and assumptions. He is critical of Neo-Orthodoxy and Karl Barth (especially Barth's rejection of natural theology), the Biblical Theology Movement (which took inspiration from Neo-Orthodoxy), and the more recent "canonical criticism" and post-modernist interpretive techniques. Barr is very positive toward theological systems that use the Historical Critical Method and a History of Religions approach. He also defends the use of evolution as a paradigm and the existence of natural theology. These issues serve as touchstones for evaluating the various biblical theologians.

Principal Features

Barr begins his volume by asking preliminary questions. Biblical theology--and especially First Testament theology--is difficult to define, because its identity is so "contested" by biblical theologians who do different things with it. Biblical theology seeks a holistic view of the Bible. To accomplish this, various practitioners craft theologies in contrast to doctrinal theology, or a History of Religions approach, or philosophical or natural theology, or historical and critical methodological studies of isolated passages (chapter 1). Many different works are theological, but only certain ones are truly First Testament theologies, and these are such because they attempt to encompass the entire First Testament (chapter 4).

Biblical theologies in the first half of this century often attempted to treat First Testament ideas in synthetic fashion, contrast them to the beliefs in the surrounding world, relate them in some way to the Second Testament, avoid critical exegesis and the History of Religions approach, and respond to the dialectical theology of Karl Barth and others. The best examples of this were the theologies of Walther Eichrodt and Theodore Vriezen (chapter 2). Barr then offers his own typology of various First Testament theologies, which he characterizes as (1) a collection of ideas and doctrines (Ludwig Kohler, Robert Dentan), (2) synthetic (Walther Eichrodt), (3) a Christian perspective (Theodore Vriezen), (4) a history of religious development (Gerhard von Rad), and (5) canonical (Brevard Childs) (chapter 3).

A significant aspect of Barr's discussion is his consideration of the six contrasts or differences that may be used to define First Testament theologies as separate from other biblical expositions or to distinguish between the methodologies of various First Testament theologians.

Difference from Doctrinal Theology (Chapters 5, 15)

First Testament theologians often have emphasized how biblical theology differs from dogmatic theology--so much so, that supposedly biblical theology cannot contribute to doctrinal theology. This is an overstatement according to Barr, but there is indeed a difference between biblical and doctrinal theologies. The former is about the Bible and the latter is about God. Biblical theologies provide the raw material for doctrinal theologies. Biblical texts are a pre-Hellenistic and pre-philosophical creation, so that biblical theology, once generated, will not be as sophisticated in its reflection as doctrinal theology.

Difference from Non-theological Study (Chapter 6)

First Testament theologians debate whether the organization of First Testament thought in synthetic form can and should be separate from doctrinal theology. Barr says yes and suggests that even Eichrodt's system was actually separate from Christian theology. He further believes that the Historical Critical Method can be used in both a non-theological and a theological way in response to those who condemn the method as non-theological.

Difference from the History of Religions Approach (Chapter 8)

First Testament scholars after the 1930's maintained that a biblical theologian must not use the History of Religions approach. Barr disagrees. He opines that the older biblical theologians naively equated biblical theology with divine revelation while perceiving that the History of Religions approach merely studied the historical phenomenon of religion. Older biblical theologians thus unconsciously assumed that the study of religion was inferior to the study of revelation. Barr points out that Eichrodt, von Rad, and others who condemned the History of Religions method still used it in subtle fashion. Barr is most sympathetic to the contemporary work of Rainer Albertz (A HISTORY OF ISRAELITE RELIGION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT PERIOD), whom Barr believes has revitalized the History of Religions method. (Barr has reservations about Albertz, however, because of his over-reliance on liberation theological themes and his overconfidence in reconstructing Israel's early history with biblical narratives that Albertz concedes emerged only in the exile.)

Difference in the Size of Complexes (Chapter 9)

Biblical or First Testament theologies may be distinguished from other scholarly attempts to analyze the Bible by virtue of their propensity to analyze and assess together all the diverse texts in the Bible in a coherent religious scheme. Other methods isolate individual texts for consideration or atomize the Bible into many little parts by stressing the differences between texts.

Difference from Philosophy and Natural Theology (Chapters 10, 27)

In the past most biblical theologians decried philosophy and natural theology as alien to the spirit of the Bible and maintained that the avoidance of these assumptions was necessary to biblical theology. They assumed that the biblical worldview was free of the assumptions of natural knowledge, and they put their reconstructed version of the biblical worldview in opposition to philosophy. Barr condemns this view. Those biblical theologians actually were resonating the assumptions of Karl Barth. They actually had a philosophy of their own--it was a "semi-existentialism" (p. 168)--and their own working knowledge of philosophy was minimal. They assumed that the Hebraic worldview undergirded the Second Testament exclusively, but they drastically underestimated the importance of Hellenistic influence and Intertestamental literature. Barr earlier critiqued the assumptions about the so-called Hebraic and Greek worldviews and their supposed opposition to one another in THE SEMANTICS OF BIBLICAL LANGUAGE (1961).

Barr further believes that natural theology or philosophy may be found in the biblical text, especially in the Wisdom literature and Paul. In the First Testament natural philosophy is assumed in stories about creation, the logic behind the laws, prophetic discourse, and wisdom; and natural theology is simply the common sense of that age. (Barr's definition of natural theology may be broader and more generic than the definition given by those who reject its presence in the Bible.)

Commitment versus Objectivity (Chapter 11)

First Testament theologians are divided between those who believe biblical theology should be done from the perspective of faith and those who believe theology must be done with objectivity. Barr believes that both agendas may be accomplished, if we follow the guidelines articulated by Krister Stendahl, who said that we must seek both "what the text meant" in its own age (objectivity) and "what it means" today in the church (faith commitment). Barr defends Stendahl's dictum against his detractors, like Brevard Childs, who embraces a faith-oriented theology. But Barr shows how Childs actually does what Stendahl calls for. Barr furthermore states that "what the Bible meant" is still "what it means today" for the biblical theologian, who then must determine whether the original meaning is authoritative today or whether it must be overturned by the new circumstances of our age. For example, the Second Testament clearly rejects women clergy, but we may decide that the spirit of the Christian tradition requires them today. Bible scholars explain what the text says, and then theologians must interpret it for the life of the church.

Key Issues

Barr discusses a number of separate issues that First Testament and biblical theologians in general must address before crafting their own theologies.

Evolution (Chapter 7)

The concept of evolution used by biblical scholars at the turn of the century was lambasted by William Albright and others in the Biblical Theology Movement as an inappropriate paradigm for biblical studies. Barr believes that was unfair, especially since Albright and George Ernest Wright had their own versions of evolutionary advance. Recent authors, such as Gerd Theissen, Claus Westermann, Mark Smith, and John Barton, have reintroduced the concept of evolution into biblical studies in a more sophisticated way in the past twenty years. Barr feels that biblical theology needs to integrate the insights that evolution and the sciences in general offer.

How Is the Second Testament Related to the First Testament? (Chapters II, 16)

Barr observes that even First Testament theologians who seek to establish a connection with the Second Testament (such as Eichrodt and Vriezen) offer very few links. Barr believes that a synthetic overview of the First Testament cannot be improved upon by connection to the Second Testament, that the First and Second Testaments are radically different because of the Christ event, and that only thematic connections can be made between the two Testaments, not systematic-theological connections. Therefore, we must accept First Testament theologies that are separate from the Second Testament. Christian First Testament theologians always will impose subtle Christian ideas into their exposition, but they must try to avoid treating First Testament theology unfairly.

Opposition to First Testament Theology (Chapter 14)

Barr summarizes and refutes the viewpoints of those who oppose the creation of First Testament theologies. Some believe that First Testament scholarship should be historical, not theological (William Irwin). Others suggest that we can generate theology for individual books or complexes of literature, such as the Deuteronomistic History, but not for the entire canon with all its complex ideas (Norman Whybray). Secularists say that academic scholars should not do biblical theology at all (Philip Davies). Some people, who misinterpret Barr's own observations, declare that our inability to understand the biblical worldview by the analysis of its language should prevent us from theologizing. Sociological and literary critics feel that doing theology utterly misses the real meanings found in the texts.

The View of Post-Exilic Judaism (Chapter 17)

Previously biblical theologians saw post-exilic Judaism as somewhat legalistic and counter to the spirit of the biblical text (Eichrodt and von Rad). Since the 1960's First Testament theologians have avoided saying this. Barr believes we must recognize the positive values of later Judaism and realize that Jesus and the Christian movement arose out of Jewish values and literature.

Jewish Biblical Theology (Chapter 18)

Jon Levenson boldly maintains that Jews do not do First Testament theology, and by implication, neither should Christians. Barr takes Levenson to task by pointing out that Jews, including Levenson himself, actually do create First Testament theologies. Attention is given to the theologies of Matitiahu Tsevat and Moshe Goshen-Gottstein. Barr responds to Levenson's other objections and points out how Levenson fails to understand the method and goals of First Testament theology.

The "Center" of First Testament Theology (Chapter 20)

Barr reviews the old debate of whether there is a central theme in the First Testament for theologians to build upon (like Eichrodt's idea of covenant). There probably is none, but each theologian will find something artificially. Each theology with its particular theme is good in its own way to organize and present the biblical ideas.

Story as Theology (Chapter 21)

The popular contemporary approach to see narrative as theology is criticized by Barr. Stories are not theology; they provide raw materials for theology. Stories must be interpreted to become theology, and sometimes later First Testament texts do precisely that with the earlier narratives.

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Chapter 32)

Barr says that Christian First Testament theologians must take into consideration Jewish literature outside the Jewish canon, for it was part of the tradition that evolved into Christianity (including even the Dead Sea Scrolls). In fact, Christians should include the Apocrypha in their canon for this reason and because of its presence in the Septuagint.

Theological Hermeneutics (Chapter 33)

In crafting a First Testament theology the canonical books are actually not as important as the interpretive principles used by the theologian, especially in a biblical theology that combines both Testaments. Thus the Christian does a biblical theology using the trajectory of the entire Christian tradition, and even First Testament theologians must recognize this.

Major Contributions

What I believe is the most significant contribution of Barr's volume is his summary and assessment of various First Testament biblical theologians in the past thirty years, and his book will serve as a valuable tool for students in this regard. Barr summarizes the work of German theologians who may be inaccessible for most American readers, and this is a special advantage of the text.

Of the theologians considered, Barr provides especially detailed and sharp critique of Brevard Childs and Walter Brueggemann. Other theologians, whose work is summarized more briefly, tend to receive a more positive evaluation. In general, Barr feels that biblical theology since Eichrodt and von Rad has moved in a salutary direction.

* Barr duels most intensely with Brevard Childs (chapters 23 and 24). Previously he had criticized Childs' notion of "canonical criticism" in his book, HOLY SCRIPTURE: CANON, AUTHORITY, CRITICISM (1983). Since Childs' views are well known, Barr does not summarize them, but he does comment directly on Childs' 1985 work, OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY IN A CANONICAL CONTEXT. His critique of Childs includes the following.

* Childs boldly declares that the older First Testament theologians of the Biblical Theology Movement did not use the canon as a whole in their exposition. Barr notes, however, that biblical theologians of that generation frequently contrasted the entire Scriptures with the literature and values of the ancient Near Eastern and Hellenistic ages, and that constituted a canonical approach on their part. (Thus Barr really criticizes Childs for having a particularistic and narrow definition of what constitutes a "canonical" approach.

* Childs rhetorically disavows the Historical Critical Method; yet his commentary on Exodus ironically analyzes biblical passages with this method, especially with the traditio-historical approach.

* According to Barr, Childs addresses his audience as though his personal theological viewpoints are the only correct ones. He offers dogmatic opinions without adequate defense, and the real sources for his theology are Karl Barth, John Calvin, and Martin Luther, in that order. Childs critically attacks the views of other biblical scholars without giving detailed reasons. Like Barth's, his writing style is combative, but unlike Barth he is conservative on social issues. His is a dogmatic theology with biblical texts, says Barr.

* Childs is not interested in "what happened," but only in what the biblical narratives tell us. But how does he understand the resurrection of Jesus with his indifference to history, since the occurrence of this event is the centerpiece in Christian belief?

* In a sense Childs is not really a canonical critic himself, for he does not try to see the relationships among the books in the canon.

* Childs does not seriously respond to the older theologians, like Eichrodt and von Rad; he merely states that they failed without really explaining why. Barr observes that biblical theologians do not fail; they are simply different.

* Childs is ideologically opposed to the values of the Enlightenment without explaining (or perhaps without knowing) what this means. Opponents of his are simply called "Enlightenment people," or "historicistic," or "positivistic." In Barr's opinion Childs views his opponents as motivated by ideology, while considering himself to be ideology-free. Barr considers Childs' affirmations to be simply overly generalized rhetoric.

Walter Brueggemann's recent First Testament theology, THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT (1997), a large tome of 777 pages, also merits Barr's close scrutiny (chapter 31). The recent publication of this work leads Barr to summarize it in his review. Brueggemann speaks of Israel's "speech about God" in four categories: core testimony, counter testimony, unsolicited testimony or narratives, and embodied testimony. His new and creative approach is critiqued by Barr in several ways.

* Brueggemann ignores the Historical Critical Method in his exposition and prefers instead a "poetic and evocative" rhetoric (p. 546), which is inspiring but naive.

* He attacks the "Enlightenment" and its values in the name of post-modernist critique and the philosophy of Hans-Georg Gadamer, which Barr finds intellectually flawed.

* Barr criticizes Brueggemann for naively quoting with approval scholars who actually would not agree with Brueggemann's agenda. (Barr may be peevish with Brueggemann's desire to generously integrate the work of those with whom he disagrees.)

* Brueggemann uses the ideas of Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, neither of whom appeals to Barr.

* Brueggemann appears to be far more socially liberal with his rhetoric than he might care to be in real life.

Other First Testament theologians come under consideration by Barr. Several from the 1970's are considered briefly as examples of authors who attempted to mediate between von Rad's historical religious approach and Eichrodt's systematic approach (chapter 19). These include Walther Zimmerli (OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY IN OUTLINE), Claus Westermann (ELEMENTS OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY), Georg Fohrer (THEOLOGISCHE GRUNDSTRUKTUREN DES ALTEN TESTAMENTS), Samuel Terrien (THE ELUSIVE PRESENCE), and Hans Heinrich Schmid (ALTORIENTALISCHE WELT DER ALTTESTAMENTLICHER THEOLOGIE). What Bart finds of value is that these theologies mediate between the methods of von Rad and Eichrodt; they move away from the categories of revelation in history and the distinctiveness of Israel (hallmarks of the Biblical Theology Movement in America); they place more stress on wisdom literature and creation texts; they accept the use of critical methods and the History of Religions approach; and some (like Westermann) use evolution as an intellectual category.

Barr then pays far more attention to First Testament theologians since 1980. He finds Hartmut Gese's contributions to be useful, especially because Gese uses a History of Religions approach and critical methodologies to stress a unity of the biblical literature and an evolving trajectory that includes Jewish Pseudepigrapha with the two Testaments (chapter 22). But Barr is critical of Gese's view of Rabbinic Judaism as "defective" (p. 376) because it rejected the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Manfred Oeming's GESAMTBIBLISCHEN THEOLOGIEN DER GEGENWART (1985, 1987) is summarized by Barr with special attention paid to Oeming's discussion of the relation of von Rad to Gadamer's thought (chapter 28).

Bart provides a limited summary of Friedrich Mildenberger's large three-volume work, BIBLISCHE DOGMATIK (1991, 1992, 1993), which attempts to combine biblical theology with both historical and practical theology (chapter 29). Barr characterizes his work as a doctrinal theology that fails to dialogue adequately with previous biblical theology. Barr comments upon the work of Heikki Raisanen (BEYOND NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY, 1990), a Second Testament theologian who seeks to provide a positive assessment of Judaism and to free biblical theology from authoritarian church concerns and direct its message to society at large (chapter 30).

Horst Dietrich Preuss' OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY (German 1991/1992; English 1995/1996) improves upon Eichrodt's work, according to Barr, with its themes of witness to Yahweh's actions and Israel's obligations as well as its use of the History of Religions approach (chapter 26). Barr, however, believes Preuss presents raw material for a theology rather than a real theology. David Brown's unpublished TRADITION AND INTERPRETATION receives a very positive response from Barr (chapter 34). Brown evaluates the growth of tradition from the First Testament through Intertestamental Literature, to the Second Testament, and he views all of this as part of an organic tradition process. Other theologians who receive brief consideration by Barr include James Sanders, Rolf Rendtorff, Otto Kaiser, and Antonius Gunneweg.

Barr believes that in the future biblical theology must move in the following directions:

* Jewish theologians must be involved and generate First Testament theologies

* Greater attention must be paid to post-canonical Jewish texts

* "Canonical criticism" must be clarified as to what it really does.

* We must move away from the models of Eichrodt and von Rad.

* We must recognize that the bible is the norm and source for theology, but it is not theology itself.

Valuable Features

Even though Barr has not provided us with a biblical theology, this work will be a valuable tool for many years. Barr does two things with this work: (1) he provides insight into the nature of what First Testament theologies should be, and (2) he offers trenchant commentary on significant biblical theologies. The book, in effect, is a report on the state of the discipline at the dawn of the third millennium. That is a tremendous accomplishment, and readers can forgive Barr for the looseness in the organization and occasional repetition in the volume. Barr does provide us with enough hints that we can envision the method and assumptions he would use, were he actually to write a theology.

I find myself resonating with Barr on numerous issues and applauding his incisive commentary and conclusions.

Use of Evolutionary Concepts

I endorse heartily Barr's affirmation of evolutionary concepts in the discussion of biblical theology. I have used evolutionary paradigms myself (1990, 1997, 2000) and firmly maintain that it is worthwhile to do so. For years scholars have spoken of development in the biblical tradition, but we carefully avoided use of the word evolution, for we feared the old Darwinian models of gradual, unilinear evolution because of their intellectual abuse in the early twentieth century (as in Social Darwinian theory). But contemporary evolutionary theory in biology does not work with these old models; it speaks of punctuated advance or leaps in development (Gnuse 1990), which is more akin to what we speak of in the humanities and the social sciences when we envision ideational, social, and historical change.

Use of evolutionary theories in the past often led people to speak of an advance that implied increased moral superiority. Modern evolutionary theory eschews the notion of moral advance and prefers to speak simply of adaptation to the environment. Thus mammals may be more complex than dinosaurs, but mammals are not superior; they are different by virtue of their adaptation to the environment. (Dinosaurs certainly lasted longer than mammals have heretofore endured, if that be a measure of superiority.) Likewise, in social and religious discourse we should speak of development without implying that people of a later age are superior to those of an earlier age; they are all equal before God.

When Christians speak of Christianity evolving out of Judaism, this raises the image of "supersessionism." With the assumptions of modern evolutionary theory, we could say that the Second Testament "evolved out of" the First Testament, or that trajectories ("latent mutations") of the First Testament came to fruition in the Second Testament (an "evolutionary breakthrough"), but this in no way implies that Christianity is morally superior to or surpasses Judaism. Christianity and Judaism are both adaptations to our religious-social-historical environment, wrought thus by God (if we speak in faith). Christianity is a "new species," evolved and brought forth to offer a covenant possibility to all humanity, while Judaism remains the equally valid and eternal covenant possibility for a specific people. The "new species" does not replace the "old species"; they live side by side. The use of evolutionary assumptions may be helpful in this and other religious discussions of our modern age.

Affirmation of the Historical Critical Method

I applaud Barr on his affirmation of the Historical Critical Method in the biblical theological task. Opponents of the critical method accuse it of attempting to reconstruct a history that cannot be recovered. But critical methods do not really use the biblical text to reconstruct history, either political or social; rather, they merely seek to find the ideational development within a text. (Barr observed this in an earlier (1996) JSOT article.)

Unfortunately, practitioners of the Historical Critical Method have been misled, because we used the word historical together with critical methodology, when perhaps we should have said "ideational development," and because some practitioners of the method (including some liberation theologians) have tried to reconstruct political or social history with the texts. Also, Julius Wellhausen's volume on the Pentateuch unfortunately was titled a "prolegoumena to history," and he also misled us. But remember, he never tried to write the history of Israel. Knowing the ideational development of texts cannot lead to a sufficient amount of data to write a history of any people. Thus criticism of the Historical Critical Method as historicism is incorrect, even though the method has been misused in that way. At any rate, it is good to see Barr, who truly understands the Historical Critical Method, speak out on its behalf in the theological task.

Support for the Use of the History of Religions Approach

Barr also supports the use of the History of Religions approach, and I concur. When a document like the First Testament contains memories and testimonies to the religious beliefs of a people that span a thousand years, it is difficult to avoid using such a historical-developmental approach. In such a length of time there obviously will be development or evolution in the religion. A holistic theology must take this into account when diverse texts in the canon come from those different eras and reflect diverse pieties, despite the winnowing of later biblical redactors. Gerhard von Rad's approach is most foundational when doing a biblical theology, and the contemporary analog would be the work of Rainer Albertz.

Biblical Theology as Source for Doctrinal Theology

This leads to another significant point made by Barr. A first Testament or biblical theology provides the raw materials for a doctrinal theology. In my opinion, volumes by von Rad and Albertz epitomize this. Their works are a first-level activity (perhaps a "volume one"), which leads to a second stage of reflection, which in turn organizes the religious ideas in a synthetic unity (perhaps a "volume two"), as Eichrodt did. The debate over whether von Rad or Eichrodt had the correct method is, I believe, misplaced, for both methodologies might be combined in a two-step process of outlining the development and then articulating the overarching themes in the biblical text.

Barr suggests not only that biblical theology is not theology in the doctrinal sense, but that a serious unification of both Testaments can be accomplished only with doctrinal, not biblical theology. Again, I would agree. This perhaps would be the third level of reflection, wherein the theologian uses the reigning theological assumptions of his or her age to craft a theological exposition that addresses the needs of the modern faith community (perhaps a "volume three"--this is becoming a large work!). At this third level of reflection Childs would synthesize biblical images with Barthian theology; I would prefer process theology. (I would characterize my own work--2000--as something that hovers between levels two and three.) At this third level we would use intellectual and religious paradigms that speak to the modern era, and not all the "raw materials" of the First Testament would be used. One theologian might use First Testament images of God to articulate a theology of a suffering God, as process theology would do, whereas another theologian could draw upon prophetic themes for a theology of social mission.

It may be impossible for one theologian to create such an implied three-volume theology. But First Testament theologians would profit by keeping such distinctions in their minds as they articulate their works, so that they can acknowledge at what level or levels they may be functioning. If Barr's critique of Childs is correct, Childs, and also Vriezen, have really done level three reflection and called it level two reflection. With this paradigm we could accept the theologies of von Rad, Terrien, and Gese as functioning at level one, whereas Eichrodt and Brueggemann are at level two, and Mildenberger and Raisanen may be at level three--and they all serve admirably at the levels at which they operate. (I feel that Barr's criticism of Brueggemann may be a little harsher than is deserved.) These categories would enable us to clarify what biblical theologians are doing and to affirm a wide range of biblical theologies as actually compatible with one another in the greater scheme of general theology.

Doubts about "Canonical Criticism"

I concur with Barr's criticism of "canonical criticism." When it first arose and was touted as the replacement for the Historical Critical Method, it seemed to me that it was merely the final, but important, step of a form-critical or traditio-historical evaluation. That is exactly what it appears to be in Childs' commentary on Exodus (1974) (toward which I am more favorably inclined than Barr). I am bothered by rhetoric that declares any method to be the panacea for all woes in biblical interpretation. Childs' claims were too grandiose. Barr is most correct in seeing different ways in which "canonical criticism" can be understood, and this is why he discusses the other canonical critical approaches of James Sanders and Rolf Rendtorff (chapter 25).

A Separate Theology of the First Testament

In connection with his discussion of canonical criticism, Bart maintains that a separate theology of the First Testament should be done without drawing the Second Testament into the mix. (In my opinion a theology that combines the two Testaments really is a Second Testament theology, which is very fine if you acknowledge what it is.) Barr's observation is concomitant with his opinion that First and Second Testament theologies can be combined only with doctrinal theology. Biblical theologies assess the Testaments separately (my image of levels one and two theology), and then doctrinal theology draws them together (my image of level three theology). Thus Barr seeks a clarity in the biblical theological process, which I heartily endorse.

A Stern Critique of Post-modern Interpretation

Finally, Barr issues a stern critique of post-modern interpretation and literary criticism, maintaining that they do not produce theology. I concur wholeheartedly that these newer interpretive techniques, though they are very interesting and quite valuable, do not produce theology. When their practitioners use these methods and produce theology, the theology emerges more directly from their own prior religious training and insights (which is true also for practitioners of traditional critical methodologies). With Barr (and Stendahl), however, I believe that the methodologies that inquire after the original intent of the text fare better at coming to some serious theological understanding of the text that can be used meaningfully today.

In conclusion, Barr's work is a significant contribution to the field of biblical theology and First Testament studies. Its origin as a series of lectures may make it appear loose and repetitive at times, but then few will read the book from cover to cover. Selected chapters can be read by scholars and students to address their own particular issues of concern. Many of the chapters have an internal unity because of their once separate nature, and this will enhance the book's utility for readers with specific interests.

The volume sums up a lifetime of critique by Barr, efforts which have benefited all of us over the years. The book is his magnum opus of attempts to clarify the task of biblical theology. It will endure as a benchmark study on biblical theology, especially for those interested in the task of First Testament theology.

Works Cited

Albertz, Rainer. 1994. A HISTORY OF ISRAELITE RELIGION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT PERIOD. 2 vols. Translated by John Bowden. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Barr, James. 1999. THE CONCEPT OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY: AN OLD TESTAMENT PERSPECTIVE. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

1996. Allegory and Historicism. JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 69: 105-20.

1983. HOLY SCRIPTURE: CANON, AUTHORITY, CRITICISM. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press.

1966. OLD AND NEW IN INTERPRETATION. London, UK: SCM Press.

1962. Biblical Words for Time. STUDIES IN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY, vol. 33. Naperville, IL: Allenson.

1961. THE SEMANTICS OF BIBLICAL LANGUAGE. London, UK: Oxford University Press.

Botterweck, Johannes et al., eds. 1974-. THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 8 vols. Translated by John Willis & David Green. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Brown, David. (forthcoming). TRADITION AND IMAGINATION. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Brueggemann, Walter. 1997. THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

1992. OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY: ESSAYS ON STRUCTURE, THEMES AND TEXT. Edited by Patrick Miller. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

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

1985a. THE NEW TESTAMENT AS CANON. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

1985b. OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY IN CANONICAL CONTEXT. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

1979. INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT AS SCRIPTURE. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

1974. EXODUS. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press.

1970. BIBLICAL THEOLOGY IN CRISIS. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press.

Eichrodt, Walther. 1961, 1967. THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 2 vols. Translated by John Baker. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press.

Fohrer, Georg. 1972. THEOLOGISCHE GRUNDSTRUKTUREN DES ALTEN TESTAMENTS. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1989. TRUTH AND METHOD. London, UK: Sheed & Ward.

Gese, Hartmut. 1981. ESSAYS IN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Press.

1977. ZUR BIBLISCHEN THEOLOGIE. Munich, Germany: Christian Kaiser.

1974. VOM SINAI ZUM ZION. Munich, Germany: Christian Kaiser.

Gnuse, Robert. 2000. THE OLD TESTAMENT AND PROCESS THEOLOGY. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press.

1997. No OTHER GODS. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 241. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

1990. Contemporary Evolutionary Theory as a New Heuristic Model for the Socio-scientific Method in Biblical Studies. ZYGON 25: 405-31.

Kaiser, Otto. 1993. DER GOTT DES ALTEN TESTAMENTS. THEOLOGIE DES AT, vol. 1: GRUNDLEGUNG. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Kittel, Gerhard, & Gerhard Friedrich, eds. 1964-1976. THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 10 vols. Translated by Geoffrey Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Levenson, Jon. 1987/1993. Why Jews Are Not Interested in Biblical Theology. Pp. 33-61 in THE HEBREW BIBLE, THE OLD TESTAMENT, AND HISTORICAL CRITICISM. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Mildenberger, Friedrich. 1991, 1992, 1993. BIBLISCHE DOGMATIK. Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer..

Oeming, Manfred. 1985, 1987. GESAMTBIBLISCHE THEOLOGIEN DER GEGENWART. Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer.

Preuss, Horst Dietrich. 1995, 1996. OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. 2 vols. Translated by Leo Perdue. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Rad, Gerhard von. 1962, 1965. OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Raisanen, Heikki. 1990. BEYOND NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. London, UK: SCM Press.

Rendtorff, Rolf. 1993. CANON AND THEOLOGY. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Schmid, Hans Heinrich. 1974. ALTORIENTALISCHE WELT IN DER ALTTESTAMENTLICHEN THEOLOGIE. Zurich, Switzerland: Theologische Verlag.

Stendal, Krister. 1962. Biblical Theology, Contemporary. Pp. 418-32 in INTERPRETER'S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, edited by George Arthur Buttrick. Vol. 1 (of 4).

Terrien, Samuel. 1978. THE ELUSIVE PRESENCE. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

Vriezen, Theodore. 1958. AN OUTLINE OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Westermann, Claus. 1982. ELEMENTS OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press.

Zimmerli, Walther. 1978. OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY IN OUTLINE. Translated by David Green. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press.

Robert Gnuse, Ph.D. (Vanderbilt University) is Professor of Old Testament at Loyola University, New Orleans (e-mail [e-mail]). He is author most recently of the following volumes: THE OLD TESTAMENT AND PROCESS THEOLOGY (Chalice, 2000), EMERGENT MONOTHEISM IN ISRAEL (Sheffield, 1997), and DREAMS AND DREAM REPORTS IN THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS (Brill, 1996). He is the author of over thirty articles, including several in the BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN, of which he is an Associate Editor.