Biblical theology : the programme of Hartmut Gese and Peter Stuhlmacher
The dissertation investigates in five chapters, each about a different aspect, the programme of biblical theology of Gese and Stuhlmacher and some weaknesses of it. The canon theory of Gese cannot be maintained because there is no sufficient evidence of a particular NT canon in contrast to a Masoret...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Published: |
University of Aberdeen
1999
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.633259 |
| Summary: | The dissertation investigates in five chapters, each about a different aspect, the programme of biblical theology of Gese and Stuhlmacher and some weaknesses of it. The canon theory of Gese cannot be maintained because there is no sufficient evidence of a particular NT canon in contrast to a Masoretic-Pharisaic one. Gese's overriding concept of a "traditio-historical process" is appreciated but also exposed as being influenced by systematic theories. The search for a development starting from the OT and finishing in the NT is in peril of blurring the exegesis of single texts. The dissertation clarified this on the theme of atonement which is understood as purification in Lev 16. A direct line of atonement from Lev 16 to the ramified concept of atonement in the NT including Rom 3:24-26 cannot be supported despite the extant parallels. The hermeneutical position of Gese is a plea for an identification with the texts but he lacks to explain himself more detailed on this. His hermeneutical principle for texts: "Texts have to be understood as they want to be understood" does not offer a substantial progress. Stuhlmacher is indebted to a lot of thinkers for his hermeneutics. He prefers an eclectic style. Gese works more in an deductive way, whereas Stuhlmacher more in a inductive one. Stuhlmacher's hermeneutics of "Einverstaendnis" leans on Ernst Fuchs, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricceur among others. Stuhlmacher moulders these thinkers to a new eclectic approach of his own. The author takes the stance that this kind of programme has a peril of ascribing historical work too much of dogmatic function. He prefers the differentiation of Hans Hubner's formula Vetus Testamentum in Novo recepto and Vetus Testamentum per se. After all a biblical theology is welcomed and considered as necessary because it has a complementary function to the other biblical and theological disciplines. |
|---|