The Old Testament as a Witness to Jesus Christ: Historical Criticism and Theological Exegesis of the Bible according to Karl Barth

2010 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 475-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul E. Capetz
Author(s):  
Richard S. Hess

Emerging from the academic study of the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures during the Enlightenment and Reformation, Israelite religion became a topic of study in terms of the presentation in the Bible of Israel’s worship of its God. Gradually this separated into a synthesis of biblical teachings on worship and its prescribed practices, on the one hand, and a study of the history of biblical Israel in terms of beliefs and practices toward one or more deities, on the other. The former branch evolved into biblical theology, while the latter developed into the topic of Israelite religion. Beginning in the nineteenth century, archaeological excavations and the interpretation of ancient Near Eastern texts preceding and contemporaneous with the period of the Bible broadened the picture. Comparing and contrasting archaeological and textual sources with the application of anthropological models derived from comparative religious studies led to modern syntheses of the subject. Initially these were heavily based upon the biblical text, often with the application of theories of literary and historical criticism. Since the 1980s, however, a focus on texts from the same time and region, as well as interpretation of artifacts with religious significance, has challenged older models of Israelite religion. Influences and the interactions of believers and their deities appear increasingly complex. No longer is there an understanding of a mere one or two religions in Israel (e.g., worshippers of Yahweh and worshippers of Baal). It now seems clear that various religious practices and texts attest to the presence of multiple religions followed by people in the region of ancient Israel, sometimes reflecting differences in gender, culture, ethnicity, and other factors. While a form of worship as described in biblical accounts may have been followed, there were other forms which, in various ways, syncretized Yahweh with other goddesses and gods. This has led scholars to question the factors that led to, and the time of emergence of, belief in a single deity in Israel, as well as to question the nature of that deity. Answers and models remain in a state of flux; evidence remains to be reviewed and interpretations demand critical interpretation.


Author(s):  
Paul M. Blowers

Early Christian interpretation of Scripture on the theme of creation not surprisingly gave considerable attention to the Genesis account of the origins of the world, in part to counter the claims of Graeco-Roman cosmology, but more importantly to expound the latent theological meaning of the many details of the biblical cosmogony. But patristic exegetes were also keen on the fact that ‘creation’ in the Bible implied far more than beginnings; indeed, it designated the whole economy (oikonomia) of the Creator’s ongoing relation to the creation as set forth in sacred history and as requiring the further interpretative lenses of Christology, soteriology, and eschatology. Early Christian interpreters plumbed a wide variety of Old Testament texts beyond Genesis (especially the Psalms, Deutero-Isaiah, and the Wisdom literature). In their New Testament commentary they focused on such motifs as the subjection of creation to ‘vanity’, the work of Jesus Christ in recapitulating God’s creative purposes, and the eschatological renewal and transformation of the created universe in its relation to human salvation.


2009 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-92
Author(s):  
Paul D. Molnar

AbstractFollowing the thinking of Karl Barth, this article demonstrates how and why reading the Bible in faith is necessary in order to understand the truth which is and remains identical with God himself speaking to us in his Word and Spirit. After developing how faith, grace, revelation and truth are connected in Barth's theology by being determined by who God is in Jesus Christ, this article explains why Barth was essentially correct in claiming that we cannot know God truly through a study of religious experience but only through Christ himself and thus through the Spirit. I illustrate that for Barth the truth of religion simply cannot be found in the study of religion itself but only through revelation. That is why he applied the doctrine of justification by faith both to knowledge of God and to reading scripture. In light of what is then established, I conclude by briefly exploring exactly why the thinking of Paul Tillich, and three theologians who follow the general trend of Tillich's thinking (John Haught, John A. T. Robinson and S. Mark Heim), exemplify the correctness of Barth's analysis of the relation between religion and revelation, since each theologian is led to an understanding of who God is, how we reach God and how the doctrine of the Trinity should be understood that actually undermines Barth's emphasis on the fact that all knowledge of God and all doctrine should be dictated solely by who God is in Jesus Christ.


2019 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 105-121
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Gotchold

The paper discusses the issue of the desire for truth in Plato’s Republic, Book VII, and the Old and New Testaments with regard to Girard’s theory of mimetic desire, the scapegoat mechanism and the founding murder. Both Plato and the Bible describe outstanding individuals – Anax, Moses and Jesus – who attain truth. This causes communal envy, leading to the outbreaks of mimetic violence. However, neither Plato nor the Old Testament allow the founding murder to happen. Consequently, they depict communities which deal with strict laws and suppressed violence. It is only in the New Testament that mimetic violence fi nds its outlet in the sacrifi cial killing of Jesus Christ.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Stanley Kalalo ◽  
Antoni Bastian ◽  
David Ming

Liberal theology was a characteristic that stood out in Bultmann's day. Several questions arise: Who is Rudolf Karl Bultmann? How did Bultmann and his thinking demotologi? What are Bultmann's works? How Demithologization and Its Impact on 21st Century Era Christianity? The solution is: (1) Bultman is a New Testament figure based on his form criticism. (2) The demotology says that the entire New Testament is a myth. Especially the stories about the Lord Jesus. He argued that the experiences of the Lord Jesus' ministry, his miracles, death, and resurrection, were stories fabricated by the early church. Biblical evangelicals believe in the invalidity of the Bible and all supernatural events that are recorded in the Bible, both the Old Testament, as well as the events of the preaching of the Word carried out by the Lord Jesus Christ and the Rulers, accompanied by a statement of power, is a truth that also makes sense. Christian faith, cannot accept unreasonable things.Bultmann'sdemitologization should not be taken as a theology, but as a discourse of seeking the truth with no clear origin, a thought for those who do not know God, namely vain thoughts, dark understanding.


1989 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-60
Author(s):  
Henri Cazelles

The Old Testament reflects the historical, cultural and social experiences of the thousand year period during which it took shape. Ancient Israel borrowed much from the surrounding world and its cultures. These borrowings, however, are consistently subjected to the radical critique enabled by the Bible's peculiar faith in the one God. The Bible is not tied to any particular culture, but it uses cultures both to give expression to the unique religious experience perfected in Jesus Christ and to unite people of all cultures into the one body.


1950 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 278-287
Author(s):  
Thomas Hannay

For some time past there has been a great need that theology should become more biblical, and that biblical studies should become more theological. To-day there are welcome signs that this is coming about, which is in effect a reviving sense of the authority of the Bible. There is a feeling that if criticism has not finished its task—which can hardly be the case—it is time that it was supplemented by something else; that it has too long dominated biblical studies as though it were the very building, whereas it is in fact a means of securing the foundations on which the main structure can be raised; that its necessary method of analysis, increasingly elaborated, has tended to destroy the recognition of the majestic structure of the biblical revelation and its unity. Thus Dr Vincent Taylor in the introduction to his Jesus and His Sacrifice confessed that after twenty-five years devoted to the minutiae of synoptic criticism, he had a great desire to consider what the Gospels really have to say for themselves. In the realm of Old Testament studies there has emerged a sense that, Israel's history being so remarkable, it is useless to brush aside all the later developments of, let us say, the Priestly Code as regrettable and retrograde; it is wiser and more helpful to ask what their significance really is, and whether they do not rather witness to the rich fulness of religion under the old covenant. The point to be driven home is just this: when the sources have been analysed and dated as far as may be, then begins the real task of considering what is the significance of the contents. That can and will only be found in our Lord Jesus Christ. But that in effect means allowing the Bible to be its own interpreter, explaining one part by another. Especially when seeking for the significance of the Old Testament must the search be carried over into the New Testament. It seems worth while to try and work this method out on the theme of the temple.


1994 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles J. Scalise

‘The Bible is not concerned with transmitting general truths about God, but is the Word of God calling forth a response.’ This declaration, which sounds as if it might be found in the first volume of theChurch Dogmaticsin one of the other early writings of Karl Barth, is actually a quotation from an early article by Brevard Childs entitled, ‘Jonah: A Study in Old Testament Hermeneutics’.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
HL Bosman

Although the theological exegesis of Karl Barth cannot be depicted as “naïve”, his cumulative style of interpretation presupposes that the Bible entails a “new world” that has a threefold character and that requires a “second naivety” as suggested by Paul Ricoeur (i.e. an interpretive position beyond criticism) as its hermeneutical point of departure: (i) an inner core of divine revelation in Jesus Christ; (ii) the prophetic and apostolic witness in the Bible that makes the divine core accessible for interpretation; (iii) the proclamation or preaching of the biblical witness that is rooted in this “second naivety”. Critical scholarship in general and historical-criticism in particular are not rejected outright, but theological exegesis must move beyond criticism. In the early part of his career Barth, when appointed as a lecturer in New Testament, Barth took serious note of critical biblical scholarship. However, the jury is still out whether critical biblical exegesis remained an important point of reference in Barth’s later publications and whether his reluctance to engage in hermeneutical and methodological reflection caused a lack of the self-criticism presupposed by a “second naivety”.


2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan Macpherson

Michael Prior raised the issue of Bible texts apparently morally unacceptable and at odds with the “core Gospel message” of the liberating love of God revealed in Jesus Christ. He pointed to Old Testament texts invoked to justify colonialism and, in particular, the colonial oppression of the Palestinians. Others have underlined texts in the New Testament used to justify anti-Semitism. Opinion divides between blaming the interpreters and blaming the texts themselves, usually by questioning their historicity. Both issues impact upon the Israeli-Palestinian confl ict and raise mirror-image questions concerning biblical inspiration demanding the liberationist hermeneutic implicit in Prior's work.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document