Foto de l'autor
21 obres 804 Membres 4 Ressenyes

Sobre l'autor

Gerhard F. Hasel is Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Theology at Andrews University.

Obres de Gerhard F. Hasel

Etiquetat

Coneixement comú

Membres

Ressenyes

Revised, updated, and enlarged, this edition of a standard survey clearly sets forth and analyzes the major trends in contemporary Old Testament scholarship, concluding with seven basic proposals for doing Old Testament theology. In this revision Hasel has incorporated significant scholarship since 1982; his bibliography of Old Testament theology, with nearly 950 entries, is the most comprehensive published to date.
 
Marcat
Jonatas.Bakas | Hi ha 1 ressenya més | Jun 24, 2022 |
What are Biblical covenants? What do they mean? Who initiates them? Are they conditional? In The Promise, the supplement book for the Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide (2nd Quarter, 2021) originally by Dr. Gerhard F. Hasel—originally titled Covenant in Blood—though revised and updated by his son Dr. Michael G. Hasel, it’s discovered that “the Covenant” began all the way back in Eden through the ages been refined by God in fuller and greater detail beginning with Abraham and going through Sinai and leading towards Christ after the fall of Judah. All the while the Covenant is reflected in the Sanctuary, the Law, and the Sabbath as well as being reflected upon. Over the course of 127 pages, the reader learns the sure foundation of on which they stand as a child of God.… (més)
 
Marcat
mattries37315 | Jul 25, 2021 |
Professor Gerhard F. Hasel has produced New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate; of course, being written and published in 1978, the idea of “current” may not apply without further considerations of the debated topics of 2018. Even with that consideration, Hasel has given us an overview of the issues in New Testament (NT) theology that is both instructive and germane to the contemporary theologian. The work is divided into five major sections: beginnings and development of NT theology, methodology, center and unity, NT theology and the Old Testament (OT), and the presentation of a “multiplex approach” to NT theology. The work has a sizable bibliography and an index of names and subjects included at the end. Total word count is approximately 47,500.

Hasel begins with a review of the historical trends in NT theology, which is an offshoot of the larger field of Biblical Theology. It is noted that the early Christians did not develop a Biblical theology per se since the essential dogma of the Church was established by the canon of scripture rather than individual interpretation and tradition. It was during the Reformation that distance was created from “ecclesiastical tradition and scholastic theology,” and the principle of sola scriptura became the basis of scriptural interpretation (14). During the age of Enlightenment, the field of biblical theology began to separate from “dogmatics,” and Hasel identifies Georg Lorenz Bauer (1755-1806) as the “first scholar to publish a NT theology” which went beyond a historical-critical interpretation and considered philosophical questions (24).

After the Enlightenment came a period identified as Dialectical Theology. The movement from Dialectical Theology to the present is seen as beginning after World War I and attributed to such factors as: a decrease in faith in evolutionary naturalism, a rejection that truth may be obtained by purely scientific objectivity, a return to the idea of revelation in neo-orthodox theology, and a renewal of interest in theology as such (53). Hasel observes that his review of the development of NT theology has sought to highlight “the major roots in the present debate on the nature, function, and limitations of NT theology” (71), and one agrees with that observation.

The next section tackles the various methodology used in NT theology. The first method Hasel identifies is the Thematic Approach used by Alan Richardson. This approach views the Christian faith as a necessary preunderstanding for NT theology, and Hasel observes that this is a “confessional method” also used in OT theology (75). Second, Hasel identifies an Existential Approach to NT theology and uses Rudolf Bultmann and Hans Conzelmann in his examination. Although Hasel goes into an extended examination of Bultmann’s theological approach, the existentialism is noted to dismiss the supernatural events of history, a process known as demythologizing (82), and “explicate the theological thoughts of the NT in their connection with the ‘act of living’” (83).

The third method identified is the “modern historical” approach of Werner G. Kümmel and the “positive-historical” approach of Joachim Jeremias. This method seeks to set the teachings of Jesus and the theology of Paul against the background of the “primitive community” and “inquire about the unity which is exhibited” in the various forms of proclamation (102). Lastly, Hasel recognizes the Salvation History (Heilsgeschichte) approach to methodology used by Oscar Cullmann and George E. Ladd. As opposed to the existential approach, the salvation historical approach purposefully identifies the work of God in the history of humanity and the key to understanding the NT is between the “already” and the “not yet” (118). Hasel makes some interesting observations in the conclusion of this section, but the most important is likely that this section “highlighted the fact that there is no agreement among the leading practitioners of NT theology” regarding methodology (132).

Regarding the center and unity of NT theology, Hasel rightly observes that an overarching and unifying theme in the NT has been a hotly debated topic. Ultimately, as noted, the question of an adequate center of NT theology remains as well as the question of the need for a center of NT theology for that theology to occur (144). Hasel presents a discussion of four premises that have been identified as possible centers for NT theology: anthropology; salvation history; covenant, love, and other proposals (i.e., rulership of God, kingdom of God, communion between God and man, or promise); and Christology. Also noted by Hasel is the current debate of canon criticism, and the interwoven question of “the canon within canon” (165). Three difficulties are described as hindrances that might lead to a canon within the canon: preunderstanding, reductionism, and the process of selection. Alone or together, these difficulties must be guarded against so that NT theology is derived from the whole of the Scriptures. By doing so, the integrity of the Church is maintained on one hand, and crass denominationalism is avoided on the other.

The separation of NT theology from OT theology has existed since 1800 when Georg Lorenz Bauer published the four-volume set Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Hasel notes that since that time few works have been produced that treat both NT and OT theology under the one heading of Biblical theology, but there remains an interest in the “subject of the relationship between the Testaments” (171). The second century produced Marcion who stressed the total disunity of the Testaments, Israel and the Church, and between the God of the OT and the Father of Jesus. Thus, Marcion rejected the Hebrew scriptures outrightly (173). Beyond this Hasel breaks the treatment of the Testaments into two groups, either an overemphasis of the NT and an underemphasis of the OT, or the converse – and overemphasis of the OT and an underemphasis of the NT. This question is related to the relation of “the theme of Christ and the OT,” and is a key consideration for theology as a whole (184).

Hasel quotes H. H. Rowley and reminds us that “there is a fundamental unity so that with all their diversity they [the Testaments] belong so intimately together that the NT cannot be understood without the Old and neither can the OT be fully understood with the New” (emp. Hasel, 185). To this end eight areas are presented that reflect the essential reciprocity between the Testaments: historical connection, scriptural dependence, vocabulary, themes, typology, promise fulfillment, salvation history, and unity of perspective. There is a complex nature to the interrelatedness of the Testaments which, according to Hasel, demands a “multiplex approach” to theology since no single category, scheme, or concept can be expected to exhaust the varieties of interrelationships (201). This leads directly into the final chapter of the work – “Basic Proposals Toward A NT Theology; A Multiplex Approach.”

A skeleton of Hasel’s Multiplex Approach is as follows:

• Biblical theology must be understood to be a theological-historical discipline. This is to say that the theologian’s task, in NT, OT, or Biblical theology, is to discover and describe what the text meant and also to explicate what it means for today (204).
• The Biblical theologian engaged in NT theology has his subject outlined prior to beginning since it must be founded on material taken from the NT. The NT comes through the Christian church as part of the inspired Scriptures; and as such, understanding culture and archaeology helps to provide the historical, cultural, and social setting for the Bible (214).
• A presentation of NT theology will best begin with the message of Jesus as it is available from the NT documents. This also applies to Pauline theology, Petrine theology, and Johannine theology (216-217).
• NT theology not only seeks to know the theology presented in the various documents of the NT, but also seeks to draw together and present the major themes of the NT. These themes must be allowed to present themselves from the scripture and frees the theologian from a unilateral approach determined by a single structuring concept (217).
• The final aim of NT theology is to present the unity that binds together the various theologies and themes. The constant temptation to impose a single theme or concept must be avoided (218).
• The Biblical theologian should understand that NT theology is part of a larger whole, a context composed of both Testaments. The Christian theologian should recognize the character of the Scripture and will constantly reflect on what this means in relationship to the other Testament (219).

“This approach seeks to do justice to the various NT writings and attempts to avoid an explication of the manifold witnesses through a single structure, unilinear points of view, or even a compound approach of a limited nature.” (219)

Professor Hasel is to be commended for his efforts with this work. The presentation is well researched and documented. His conclusions present a rational and workable method which, if employed, will serve the Christian theologian well in dealing with the manifold variety inherent in the Scriptures.

Quotes from the work:

“Gabler’s famous definition reads: ‘Biblical theology possesses a historical character, transmitting what the sacred writers thought about divine matters; dogmatic theology, on the contrary, possesses a didactic character, teaching what a particular theologian philosophizes about divine matters in accordance to his ability, time, age, place, sect or school, and other similar things.’” (22-23)

“It appears that a NT theology needs to maintain its independence over against confessional or creedal domination.” (76)

“The presupposition of history as a closed continuum of horizontal causes and effects is unable to deal with the reality expressed in Scripture. Therefore, any approach adequate to the content of the Bible must be in harmony with presuppositions taken from it and be in harmony with the total reality expressed in the Bible.” (120)

“The quest for the center of the NT (and the OT) as based on the inner Biblical witnesses themselves is fully justified. It seems undeniable that the NT is from beginning to end christocentric. Jesus Christ is the dynamic, unifying center of the NT.” (164)

“We need to emphasize strongly that Biblical events and meanings must not be looked for behind, beneath, or above the texts, but in the texts, because the divine deeds and words have received form and found expression in them.” (199)

“If one’s view of history is such that one cannot acknowledge divine intervention in history through deed and word, then one is unable to deal adequately and properly with the testimony of Scripture.” (211)
… (més)
 
Marcat
SDCrawford | Nov 26, 2018 |
Revised and Expanded Fourth Edition. An excellent survey of a majority of the players and their arguments throughout what Hasel calls the “Golden Age” of OT Theology, primarily 1930-1980, while also tracing these lines of thought all the way back to their beginnings in the modern era. You really get a sense, as you work through this book, how scholars were all trying to answer many of the same questions and how many of their answers remained the same no matter what particulars and insights they provided. So it will not be long before you also find yourself entering the various tug-of-wars between issues like the purpose and place of history and faith in the discipline of Old Testament theology. If discussing the thoughts and perspectives of such a huge mass of scholars during this Golden Age within no more than 200 pages were not, itself, a marvelous and enlightening feat, the bibliography alone for this period and subject-matter may very well be the most thorough of any other in print. The footnotes themselves are magnificently comprehensive. The book's overwhelming interest in German scholarship has the advantage of sharing with us the author's own familiarity with German scholars and their work, which we might not otherwise receive, as well as his own English translations, directly from sources being discussed, to bring those scholars' thoughts and arguments to life.

This is, however, no survey of the drastically different present of OT Theology. As exhaustive as the book may seem, and as willing as it may appear to deal with the different perspectives that have come along, this is really an exploration of a previous age. Hasel has only begun to appreciate some of the newer (from his time frame) literary methods like New Criticism and Structuralism, which were among the first great cracks in the structure of the past age before it collapsed. Hasel's thoughts and arguments are situated firmly within and defined by that past age. In a very real sense, therefore, this book is behind the times and out of date. As an example, we see that Hasel is still mired by the Romanticism and Positivism of that Golden Age when he believes we may indeed come to a theology “without in the least distorting the text” because we “avoid a superimposition of external points of view or presuppositions” (p. 114) by doing OT Theology “without in the least distorting the original historical witness” (p. 207).

The book is further faulted by Hasel's own narrow perspective, which is, unfortunately, part and parcel of that Golden Age, and which also directly contradicts his own Positivistic claims and assumptions (also part and parcel of that age). Though the analysis gives an illusion of inclusiveness, Hasel's view of Old Testament theology is strictly conservative, Christian, and Protestant (perhaps even Neo-Orthodox). And thus what we end up with is a book and an OT Theology that is really only for conservative, Protestant Christians.

As examples, we may note that even though Hasel admits that systematic theology is reductionistic and not a part of biblical theology, he still believes it is necessary and complimentary (p.195-196) although no reason is given why this should be so. And though Hasel believes we can have a presupposition-less theology, he nevertheless says that OT Theology requires the presupposition of various Christian doctrines like a belief in the Christian canon of scripture and its inspiration (“The presentation of the individual theologies of the OT books, or blocks or writings, will preferably not follow the sequence of the Hebrew canon or the Septuagint” - p. 113, “It is founded exclusively on materials taken from the OT. The OT comes to him through the Christian church as part of the inspired Scriptures” - p. 201, “One can indeed speak of such a unity in which ultimately the divergent theological utterances and testimonies are intrinsically related to each other from the theological viewpoint on the basis of a presupposition that derives from the inspiration and canonicity of the OT as Scripture” - p. 206). Unfortunately, this only leaves us with the same problems we were left with when the Golden Age gave us the same answer: if OT theology is only properly done by those of faith to serve their faith on the basis of their faith, why couldn't any other religion or faith say the exact same thing about their perspective and what is it that makes Christian faith “normative” other than its own claim to do so? This perspective in the Golden Age was unable to provide us with any reasonable answer to those questions and Hasel is similarly unable to do so. And although a hundred and more years may have passed since biblical theology was widely considered the handmaiden of faith instead of the other way round, this is still its goal according to Hasel (“the historical-theological interpretation is to be at the service of faith” - p.201). It becomes evident that OT Theology is, for Hasel, only a Christian discipline when he begins speaking of and towards the “Christian theologian” (see, for instance, p. 114 and 172) instead of the mere “Biblical theologian” who could be from any background or religious persuasion.

The greatest contribution Hasel makes in this book is by arguing that OT Theology should not be an either/or, but a both/and enterprise. Instead of limiting it to the historical or to the theological, it should be both: a “historical-theological” discipline.
… (més)
 
Marcat
slaveofOne | Hi ha 1 ressenya més | Aug 22, 2009 |

Potser també t'agrada

Estadístiques

Obres
21
Membres
804
Popularitat
#31,726
Valoració
½ 3.3
Ressenyes
4
ISBN
17
Llengües
1

Gràfics i taules