Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungenzum Neuen Testament

Herausgeber / EditorJörg Frey (Zürich)

Mitherausgeber / Associate EditorsMarkus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala)

Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) · Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg)J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

392

Heikki Räisänen

The Bible among Scriptures and Other Essays

Mohr Siebeck

Heikki Räisänen (1941–2015), 1969 Dr. Theol., University of Helsinki; 1975–2006 Professor of New Testament Studies at the Faculty of Theology, University of Helsinki; 1984–94 and 2001–06 Academy Professor of the Academy of Finland; honorary doctorates from the University of Edinburgh and the University of Uppsala.

ISBN 978-3-16-153490-4ISSN 0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament)

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbiblio-graphie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2017 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permit-ted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particular-ly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems.

The book was typeset and printed on non-aging paper by Gulde Druck in Tübingen and bound by Buch binderei Spinner in Ottersweier.

Printed in Germany.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-155723-1

Preface

In the articles published herein, the late Professor Heikki Räisänen (1941–2015) addresses a number of issues that were close to his heart throughout his long academic career. He speaks in favor of an inclusive and fair study of Christian origins wherein the views expounded in non-canonical texts and by teachers later condemned as heretics might be regarded as equally important as those surviving in the canonical texts and the writings of church authorities. Heikki was known for his non-apologetic stance towards New Testament studies, both in the study of individual authors like Paul and texts like the synoptic gospels, and worked to expand his own scholarly boundaries from New Testament stud-ies to the study of other sacred scriptures, most prominently the Qur’an. These key points are developed in the studies that were, with two exceptions, pub-lished between 2002 and 2012, those exceptions being the previously unpub-lished studies included herein as chapters 1 and 10.

The book is divided into three parts. The studies in part 1 deal with crucial theological issues in New Testament texts, those in part 2 offer a sample of case studies of various non-scholarly ways of interpreting the scriptures, and those in part 3 provide comparative perspectives to Christian interpretations of the Bible. In this final part, the insights Heikki developed in his early studies on the Qur’an come to fruition. These studies help us better understand what brings together and what divides Christian and Muslim interpretations of sacred texts. It certainly would have been Heikki’s wish that these kinds of studies make us more critical about our own traditions and more willing to appreciate and learn from those of others.

After retiring from his office as professor of New Testament studies at the University of Helsinki in 2006, Heikki devoted himself to academic writing and continued to be a highly prolific writer. On July 2015, Heikki was diag-nosed with a serious malady, to which he succumbed at the end of that year.

Heikki’s untimely passing left his colleagues and close ones with a sense of immense loss. I myself have found solace in re-reading the studies included herein, in the words and thoughts of which Heikki’s voice can still be heard so clearly. I am therefore especially grateful to the editors of the renowned WUNT series for accepting this book for publication.

Heikki was able to finish the manuscript of this book, including the introduc-tion, before his death. My doctoral student, Mr. Kenneth Liljeström, undertook

VI Preface

the technical editing and preparation of the indices, and Heikki’s son-in-law, Dr. Stefan Schröder, performed the final editing of the essays written in Ger-man. The skillful Mohr Siebeck team, led by Dr. Henning Ziebritzki, has taken great care in producing this volume at a level that matches that of Heikki’s eru-dite scholarship.

Ismo Dunderberg

Table of Contents

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Part OneExegesis and Interpretation

Chapter 1: A Religious Studies Alternative to New Testament Theology: Reflections on a Controversial Enterprise . . . . 15

Chapter 2: Eine Kathedrale aus dem Chaos? Ein Gespräch mit Gerd Theißen über Einheit und Vielfalt der urchristlichen Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Chapter 3: Did Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom? . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Chapter 4: Torn Between Two Loyalties: Romans 9–11 and Paul’s

Conflicting Convictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Chapter 5: Begotten by the Holy Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Chapter 6: The Prodigal Son in a Far Country: Finnish Scholars Read

Luke’s Parable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105Chapter 7: Jesus and Hell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Part TwoReception History

Chapter 8: Matthäus und die Hölle: Von Wirkungsgeschichte zur ethischen Kritik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Chapter 9: Matthew in Bibliodrama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165Chapter 10: Are Christians Better People? On the Contrast between

‘Us’ and ‘Them’ in Early Christian Rhetoric . . . . . . . . . 179Chapter 11: Revelation, Violence, and War: Glimpses of a Dark Side . . 193Chapter 12: Marcion as a Reader of Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207Chapter 13: Joseph Smith as a Creative Interpreter of the Bible . . . . . . 223

Part ThreeInterreligious Issues

Chapter 14: A Plea for Pluralism: A Biblical Scholar’s Reflections on Mission Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

VIII Table of Contents

Chapter 15: Doppelte Prädestination im Koran und im Neuen Testament? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

Chapter 16: Das lukanische Jesusbild und der Dialog mit dem Islam. . . 279Chapter 17: How Christianity and Islam Challenge Each Other:

An Exegetical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289Chapter 18: The Bible among Scriptures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319Index of Ancient Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343Index of Modern Authors and Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359

Acknowledgements

Chapter 1: ‘A Religious Studies Alternative to New Testament Theology: Reflections on a Controversial Enterprise.’ An introductory lecture prepared for a conference ‘Facing Early Christianity: Theology and Religious Studies a Century after Georg Heinrici’, held in Leipzig in September 2015.

Chapter 2: ‘Eine Kathedrale aus dem Chaos? Ein Gespräch mit Gerd Theißen über Ein-heit und Vielfalt der urchristlichen Religion’, in P. Lampe & H. Schwier (Hrsg.), Neutes-tamentliche Grenzgänge: Symposium zur kritischen Rezeption der Arbeiten Gerd Theißens. NTOA 75; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010, 51–64.

Chapter 3: ‘Did Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom?’, in A. Christophersen et al. (eds.), Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World. Essays in Honour of A. J. M. Wedderburn. JSNTS 217; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002, 2–20.

Chapter 4: ‘Torn between Two Loyalties: Romans 9–11 and Paul’s Conflicting Convic-tions’, in L. Aejmelaeus & A. Mustakallio (eds.), The Nordic Paul: Finnish Approaches to Pauline Theology, Library of New Testament Studies 374; London: T&T Clark, 2008, 19–39.

Chapter 5: ‘Begotten by the Holy Spirit’, in M. Nissinen & R. Uro (eds.), Sacred Mar-riages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2008, 321–41.

Chapter 6: ‘The Prodigal Son in a Far Country: Finnish Scholars Read Luke’s Parable’, in S.-O. Back & M. Kankaanniemi (eds.), Voces Clamantium in Deserto. FS K. Syreeni. Åbo 2012, 267–80.

Chapter 7: ‘Jesus and Hell’, in T. Holmén (ed.), Jesus in Continuum. WUNT 289; Tübin-gen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 355–83.

Chapter 8: ‘Matthäus und die Hölle: Von Wirkungsgeschichte zur ethischen Kritik’, in M. Mayordomo (Hrsg.), Die prägende Kraft der Texte: Hermeneutik und Wirkungs-geschichte des Neuen Testaments: Ein Symposium zu Ehren von Ulrich Luz. SBS 199; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005, 103–24.

Chapter 9: ‘Matthew in Bibliodrama’, in P. Lampe, M. Mayordomo & M. Sato (Hrsg.), Neutestamentliche Exegese im Dialog: Hermeneutik – Wirkungsgeschichte – Matthäus-evangelium. FS U. Luz. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008, 183–95.

Chapter 10: ‘Are Christians Better People? On the Contrast between “Us” and “Them” in Early Christian Rhetoric.’ A paper read in the symposium ‘Christianity and the Roots of Morality’ in Helsinki 2011.

X Acknowledgements

Chapter 11: ‘Revelation, Violence, and War: Glimpses of a Dark Side’, in W. J. Lyons & J. Okland (eds.), The Way the World Ends? The Apocalypse of John in Culture and Ideology. The Bible in the Modern World 19; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009, 151–65.

Chapter 12: ‘Marcion as a Reader of Paul’, in S. Westerholm (ed.), The Blackwell Com-panion to Paul. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011, 301–15. (Original title: Marcion).

Chapter 13: ‘Joseph Smith as a Creative Interpreter of the Bible’, Dialogue 43:2 (2010): 64–85.

Chapter 14: ‘A Plea for Pluralism: Reflections on Mission Studies by a Biblical Scholar’, Swedish Missiological Themes 99 (2011): 395–417.

Chapter 15: ‘Doppelte Prädestination im Koran und im Neuen Testament?’, in H. Schmid et al. (Hrsg.), Heil in Christentum und Islam. Erlösung oder Rechtleitung? Hohenheimer Protokolle 61; Stuttgart: Akademie der Diözese Rottenburg-Stuttgart, 2004, 139–59.

Chapter 16: ‘Das lukanische Jesusbild und der Dialog mit dem Islam. Eine christologi-sche Skizze zur Theozentrik des Gebets’, in H. Schmid et al. (Hrsg.), “Im Namen Gottes…” Theologie und Praxis des Gebets in Christentum und Islam. Regensburg: F. Pustet, 2006, 227–37.

Chapter 17: ‘How Christianity and Islam Challenge Each Other’, A paper based on H. Räisänen, ‘Critical Exegesis and the Christian-Muslim Encounter’, in H. Juusola et al. (eds.), Verbum et Calamus. FS Professor Tapani Harviainen. Studia Orientalia 99; Helsinki: The Finnish Oriental Society, 2004, 253–67.

Chapter 18: ‘The Bible among Scriptures’, in A. Voitila & J. Jokiranta (eds.), Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo. JSJSup126; Leiden: Brill, 2008, 687–702.

Introduction

On Part One

This volume brings together my articles from the twenty-first century. A few summarize and develop ideas I have presented earlier elsewhere; others explore areas I have not visited before. Increasing attention is given to the reception and effective-history of the Bible and to the encounter of religious traditions. The actual and potential role of the Bible in that encounter is considered from the vantage point of an exegete who comes from a historical-critical back-ground – and is proud of it. Today, the historical critic must be open to other approaches as well – as long as they, too, remain critical in the strict academic sense. I hope that this book, in particular in its Parts Two and Three, may be seen to reflect that widening of horizon that characterizes the recent history of our discipline.

Chapter 1 was written as an introductory lecture for a conference ‘Facing Early Christianity: Theology and Religious Studies a Century after Georg Heinrici’, held in Leipzig in September 2015. Acute health problems prevented me from participating, but the organizer, Professor Marco Frenschkowski, gen-erously decided to read my paper at the opening session. It had been suggested that I might summarize my approach to the ‘often quite difficult dialogue be-tween religious studies and theology’ and discuss relevant issues connected with my recent book, The Rise of Christian Beliefs (2010). Thus, the lecture summarizes the research program I first set out in Beyond New Testament The-ology (1990) and discusses some main features of Rise, as well as some responses to and criticisms of that book.

In the wake of William Wrede, I suggest that ‘New Testament theologies’ would, in the name of consistency, in secular academic contexts best be re-placed with ‘Religious Studies’ (religionswissenschaftlich) accounts of early Christian thought; the production of canon-bound (Old and) New Testament theologies logically belongs to religious communities (churches and church-run institutions). It should be noted that I am not advertising any specific reli-gio-historical method but a particular ethos. A Religious Studies account should not be prescriptive; it should aim at ‘objectivity’ within the limits of our una-voidable subjectivity, even-handedness (fair play), and frankness with regard to

2 Introduction

possible problems and weaknesses in the texts.1 Examples of characteristic dif-ferences between a Religious Studies and a theological approach to these mat-ters are given.

In the footnotes to this chapter I have included a few comments on a curious work by my fellow Finn, Timo Eskola, who wrote a 500-page book on my her-meneutics. In a lengthy chapter on Rise he asserts that my text ‘lacks academic argumentation and presents eccentric views’.2 The book amounts to a savage assault both on my work3 and on historical-critical research in general. Readers do well in not trusting any statement in it without checking with Eskola’s sources.4

My vision of an alternative to ‘New Testament theology’, put to practice in Rise, largely converges with Gerd Theissen’s (far more theory-oriented) pro-gram that he presented in A Theory of Primitive Christian Religion (1999). In a contribution to a symposium honouring Theissen’s work, held in Heidelberg in the summer of 2008, I discussed our slightly different views of unity and diver-sity in early Christian religion. This lecture, called ‘Eine Kathedrale aus dem Chaos?’, is reprinted here as chapter 2. Theissen puts great emphasis on the metaphor of a ‘semiotic cathedral’ which – he maintains – the early Christians were building, in my view in contradiction to his own characterization of their thought world also as a ‘seething chaos’. In his response, Theissen accepted my critical questions, pointing out that his attempt to establish ‘order’ in a more or less chaotic reality had a didactic purpose: only something with a simple struc-ture can sink into our mind and memory.5 In conclusion, he found my Rise a step forward precisely with regard to diversity and plurality – ‘but also in the reduction of this diversity to a few themes’. Rise contains more ‘order’, Theissen

1 Cf. already H. Räisänen, ‘What I Meant and What it Might Mean: An Attempt at Re-sponding’, in T. Penner & C. Vander Stichele (eds.), Moving Beyond New Testament Theolo-gy? Essays in Conversation with Heikki Räisänen (PFES 88; Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Society; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 420–25.

2 T. Eskola, Beyond Biblical Theology: Sacralized Culturalism in Heikki Räisänen’s Her-meneutics (BINS 123; Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2013), 369.

3 In this respect it is very different from the assessment of my work by such authors as P. Balla, Challenges to New Testament Theology: An Attempt to Justify the Enterprise (WUNT 2:95; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), and T. Van Spanje, Inconsistency in Paul: A Critique of the Work of Heikki Räisänen (WUNT 2:110; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999). While often critical of my views, these scholars describe fairly correctly what I have written, without distorting my ideas and intentions at the outset. For Van Spanje, see below, ch. 4 n. 16.

4 Unfortunately, this is often impossible for readers who do not understand Finnish.5 ‘Es ist besser, dass in unseren Köpfen deutlich mehr Ordnung herrscht als in der chao-

tischen Wirklichkeit, als umgekehrt, dass das Chaos in unseren Köpfen größer ist als das Chaos der Wirklichkeit. Es prägt sich nur das ein, was eine einfache Struktur hat. Es wirkt nur das in uns als lebendiges Wissen, was wir intellektuell fassen können. Wenn wir nicht vereinfachen, bleiben uns viele Gebiete unzugänglich und werden nicht existentiell wirksam.’ G. Theissen, Von Jesus zur urchristlichen Zeichenwelt: “Neutestamentliche Grenzgänge” im Dialog (NTOA 78; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 84.

3Introduction

says, than my previous programmatic statements make one expect – just as his own sketch ‘contains more chaos than its clear structure makes one expect’.6

The two crucial pillars of Rise are ‘eschatology’ (better: the hope for a Great Turn) and identity.7 These overarching themes are touched in chapters 3 and 4 in the present collection. Although I have put great effort into painting an overall picture of the ‘last things’, I have seldom discussed eschatological texts and top-ics in detail. The exception is the present chapter 3, ‘Did Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom?’, previously published in the Festschrift for Sandy Wedderburn. I answer the question asked in the title with a qualified ‘not really’. Paul’s letters display what may be seen as vestiges of traditional ‘earthly’ expectation but, despite Romans 8, he no longer seems to fully share this hope. Paul’s eschato-logical ideas cannot be neatly combined into a single picture, not even on the assumption that his thought developed over time. Mutually incompatible ele-ments are a permanent feature, and it depends on the (exhortatory) situation, which of them are utilized by the apostle at which point.8

The chapter in question documents the fact that my tack on ‘eschatology’ differs from that of most colleagues. For me, the key question is not ‘When?’ but ‘Where?’ Where was the kingdom of God preached by Jesus and expected by his followers to be located? I think that much of the early Christian thought world can be analysed in terms of a transformation of an earth-bound expectation of the Great Turn into something more spiritual in the beyond. Chapter 3 is an attempt to define Paul’s place in this development.

In contrast to chapter 3, chapter 4 deals with a topic that I have discussed many times over, when Paul’s attitude to the Torah and Israel used to be in the focus of my research. I analysed the crucial section Romans 9–11 in detail in several articles from 1980’s and 1990’s.9 Since then I have moved to other issues, but have had to return to the subject every now and then. Chapter 4 is based on a paper given at a Finnish symposium on Paul. It summarizes and slightly up-dates my arguments for seeing Paul struggling with a problem that is too diffi-cult to be solved: the wish to harmonize his old Israel-centred conviction with his new experience ‘in Christ’.

6 Ibid., 90.7 The Rise of Christian Beliefs: The Thought World of Early Christians (Minneapolis: For-

tress, 2010), chapters 4–5 and 10–11; cf. ibid., pp. 7–8.8 Cf. for a summary Rise, 120–21, 127–28.9 ‘Römer 9–11: Analyse eines geistigen Ringens’ (ANRW II.25.4; 1987), 2891–939; ‘Paul,

God, and Israel: Romans 9–11 in recent research’, in J. Neusner et al. (eds.), The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism (FS H.C. Kee; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 178–206; ‘Romans 9–11 and the “History of Early Christian Religion”’, in T. Fornberg & D. Hellholm (eds.), Texts and Contexts (FS L. Hartman; Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995), 743–65; cf. also ‘What’s Happening in New Testament Theology?’, in A. Mustakallio (ed.), Lux Humana, Lux Aeterna (FS L. Aejmelaeus; PFES 89; Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Socie-ty; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 439–58, esp. p. 450–56.

4 Introduction

The question of Paul’s (in)consistency – touched in the previous chapter from another angle – has proved a permanent storm-centre in Pauline studies and continues to divide opinions. I had presented the case for inconsistency in Paul and the Law;10 in the present chapter I gather some more recent responses and reactions to that book and briefly comment on them, mostly in the footnotes.11

Chapter 5 goes back to the beginning of my academic career. I wrote my dis-sertation on the figure of the mother of Jesus in the New Testament, a redac-tion-critical exercise focused on how the various authors viewed her.12 The no-tion of virginal conception was only discussed in relation to the particular theology of each author. The present article that summarizes and updates those sections was written in response to an invitation from Martti Nissinen and Ris-to Uro who edited a volume on Sacred Marriages and wished to include a con-tribution on the Virgin Birth. This time I also deal – briefly to be sure – with the tradition history of the notion, emphasizing that its mythological roots should not be explained away. But I have come to appreciate this attempt to interpret Jesus’ significance, especially when compared to the alternative (far more myth-ological) notion of his pre-existence. The notion of Jesus’ virginal conception serves, for its part, to unite the thought world of early Christians with age-old, wide-spread traditions of humanity.

Generally speaking, I have not been an active participant in the ‘quest for the historical Jesus’ – but the few exercises I have made have not been without sur-prises. A case in point is my conclusion that the parable of the Prodigal Son, generally included in the ‘bedrock’ tradition, is unlikely to go back to the teach-ing of Jesus, being instead largely created by the Evangelist, Luke. In chapter 6, I briefly return to the matter, commenting on what seems to be a developing ‘Helsinki tradition’ in the interpretation of the Prodigal. I take issue with the insinuation, presented in a recent Abo dissertation, that my article would have caused other Finns to abandon overnight the authenticity of the parable.13 I demonstrate that this was not the case; ‘follow the leader’ has never been a

10 WUNT 29; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983, 21987.11 A few additional points can be found in H. Räisänen, ‘A Controversial Jew and His

Conflicting Convictions: Paul, the Law and the Jewish People Twenty Years After’, in F. E. Udoh (ed.), Redefining First-Century Jewish and Christian Identities (FS E. P. Sanders; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008), 319–35.

12 Die Mutter Jesu im Neuen Testament (AASF B 158; Helsinki 1969; AASF B 247; 21989). Eskola, Beyond Biblical Theology, 235, tries to make his readers believe that my dissertation ‘startled Finnish scholarship, which had not yet agreed on how to use the new (!) histori-cal-critical methods in Gospel studies’. Nothing could be further from the truth. Critical methods had long been in use even in Finland; the dissertation brought no startling novelties, neither home nor abroad. Even the dean of conservative biblical scholars of the time, F. F. Bruce, called the book ‘a sober exegetical study that makes a valuable contribution to its sub-ject’ (Erasmus 23 [1969]: 672–73).

13 V. Ollilainen, Jesus and the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 2008), 23 n. 91.

5Introduction

methodological principle in Helsinki. Both Kari Syreeni and Jarmo Kiilunen had reached ‘radical’ conclusions before seeing my article; independently of each other, the three of us felt in the early 1990s that the established conviction of the authenticity of the parable was beset with serious difficulties.14 Younger scholars later followed suit and developed the view of Luke’s authorship of the story into interesting directions. At the end of the chapter, I had to refute a sin-ister distortion of my interpretation of the Prodigal Son: I have been absurdly blamed for ‘subtle anti-Semitism’ by Richard Rohrbaugh.

I should add that a recent trend that considers the possibility that Luke is the latest of the canonical gospels (see below in connection with chapter 16) obvi-ously favours the idea that the exclusively Lukan parables, including the Prodi-gal Son, are indeed Luke’s work.

As stated above, I have not done much independent research on the historical Jesus, and even less on Jewish texts from the Second Temple period. An oppor-tunity to close that gap a little turned up when Tom Holmén asked me to join his large ‘Jesus in Continuum’ project at the SBL meeting in Vienna, 2007. I chose to study the topic ‘Jesus and Hell’ in some depth, trying to locate the hell sayings attributed to Jesus in the terrain between early Jewish and early Chris-tian views of post-mortem destinies. The result is chapter 7 in the present col-lection.

Fear of hell was an intrinsic part of the pietistic preaching of sin and grace that cast its shadow on my childhood and youth in the Finnish Lutheran church. The issue has intrigued me ever since. Once more, my attempt to penetrate into the thought-world of the historical Jesus led to a slightly surprising result. But whereas I had earlier come to doubt the authenticity of some items that were generally included in the ‘bedrock’ tradition, I was now led to suggest, con-versely, that the embarrassing notion of hell-fire, widely regarded as unsuitable to Jesus’ message, was probably part of it after all.

A few years earlier I had discussed the prominence of hell in the gospel of Matthew and in its reception history (see below, chapter 8), and noticed how the topic tended to make theologians uncomfortable. My treatment of this issue elucidates the difference between a theological and a ‘Religious Studies’ ap-proach: theological interpreters try to avoid attributing ethically ambiguous ideas to Jesus; a scholar with a Religious Studies approach need not have such inhibitions.

The ‘Jesus in Continuum’ approach as developed by Tom Holmén implies that one should no longer study Jesus simply ‘within Judaism’ but ‘in continu-um’ from early Judaism to early Christianity. Yet the book that includes my contribution demonstrates that very different reconstructions of Jesus’ message can be placed under the ‘continuum’ umbrella, so that the usefulness of the lat-

14 I also take issue with Ollilainen for not giving an adequate account of my reasons.

6 Introduction

ter should not be exaggerated. Tobias Hägerland points out that most of the contributors have written elsewhere on the same topics, coming to similar re-sults as here; adopting ‘the continuum approach’, then, does not seem to change much. So it can be asked: have we really to do with a new theoretical model that has implications for method and results? Or is it simply a question of a pedagog-ic model that helps scholars present their analyses with greater clarity?15

On Part Two

With chapter 8 we move to Part Two of the present collection, entitled Recep-tion History, though there are, of course, no clear boundaries between exegesis, interpretation and reception. As already mentioned, chapter 8 discusses the is-sue of hell from a history-of-influence and an ethical-critical perspective. This happens in dialogue with Ulrich Luz’s ground-breaking work on the gospel of Matthew and its reception history. The impact of Matthew’s threats of hell on ordinary recipients of the gospel message has been disastrous. This is conceded by Luz who, however, wants to defend Matthew by introducing various quali-fications. I engage in a critical discussion with Luz, questioning his principle that interpreters should defend ‘their’ texts as long as possible.16

Chapter 9, another article that celebrates Luz’s work, is likely to come as a surprise to my colleagues. I hope that the surprise is a positive one; it certainly was so to Ulrich Luz who, in an e-mail, expressed enthusiasm. For a couple of decades I was once a year involved in ‘Bibliodrama’ workshops, first as an exe-getical consultant, then also as a co-director with my colleague Aino-Kaarina Mäkisalo, an expert in this new approach to the Bible. In the eyes of many, bibliodrama and critical exegesis may seem strange bedfellows, as the former originally arose in Germany partly out of frustration with the latter. In Finland, however, the pioneers cleverly turned to biblical scholars at the very beginning, and this has resulted in what seems a fruitful way to bring the two perspectives together. Our most notable innovation has been the introduction of the Gospel writers as characters into the drama. Chapter 9 reports on two cases in which episodes from the Gospel of Matthew were dramatized by creating scenes in the ‘congregation of Matthew’. The evangelist himself appears as a central player, surrounded by different groups of members (the conservatives, the Paulines, etc.) whose existence is implied in the Gospel. The confrontation with the issue of hell, familiar from the previous chapters also continues here in a new key.

15 T. Hägerland, ‘Review of T. Holmén (ed.), Jesus in Continuum’, SEÅ 79 (2014): 174–76.16 An English article combines elements both of chapters 7 and 8: H. Räisänen, ‘Resurrec-

tion for Punishment? The Fate of the Unrighteous in Early Christianity and in “New Testa-ment Theology”’, in G. Van Oyen & T. Shepherd (eds.), Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical Traditions in Dialogue (BETL 240; Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 361–81.

7Introduction

I very much hope that colleagues would be encouraged to experiment with this new method of creatively applying exegetical insights outside the class-room. Bibliodrama could be seen as a form of contextual theology that has sim-ilarities, say, with the grass-root discussions familiar from reports by theologi-ans of liberation.

The paper reprinted as chapter 10 was written for an interdisciplinary confer-ence on ‘Christianity and the Roots of Morality’, held in Helsinki in 2011. Key questions in the conference were: ‘Does religion foster moral, pro-social, altru-istic behaviour?’ and ‘Is there a necessary connection between morality and re-ligion?’ My contribution brings together points made in various places in Rise, tentatively connecting them with modern discussions on empathy and altruism – hopefully making exegetical findings accessible to people in other fields. I highlight the ambiguity of early Christian discourse, which has wirkungs-geschichtlich implications, as a black-and-white confrontation between ‘us’ and ‘them’ seems to be inbuilt in the Christian tradition. An excursion that takes up insights of Runar Thorsteinsson17 aims at a fair comparison of Paul and his school with Stoic authors. Contrary to common opinion, it is the (Roman) Sto-ics that teach unqualified universal humanity, while such Christian texts as Ro-mans and 1 Peter actually reserve love for fellow believers.18

Chapter 11 deals with violence, war and the stereotyping of the Other in the Book of Revelation. It continues my effort to lay bare troubling features in ear-ly Christian ideology and their effects, visible in the previous chapter. This pa-per was written for an interdisciplinary colloquium on Revelation and effective history at the University of Bristol in 2006, an event initiated by discussions around the then recently published ground-breaking commentary by Judith Kovacs and Christopher Rowland.19 As Kovacs and Rowland are usually very ‘positive’ in their presentation of the reception history of Revelation, I felt a need to reflect on the darker side. I elaborate on the work on American military history by Robert Jewett and John Shelton Lawrence, who in turn build on the classic work on the idea of ‘America’s millennial role’ by Ernest Lee Tuveson. The Book of Revelation is indeed a difficult heritage to pass on. Rowland’s re-sponse that the effects of the Apocalypse ‘have been no worse than say Paul’s doctrine of election or the anti-Judaism with which the New Testament is re-plete (and in which the Apocalypse is less complicit)’20 is worth pondering but

17 R. Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism: A Comparative Study of Ancient Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).

18 Thorsteinsson, ibid., 209. 19 J. Kovacs & C. Rowland, Revelation: The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ (Blackwell Bible

Commentaries; Oxford: Blackwell, 2004).20 C. Rowland, ‘The Interdisciplinary Colloquium on the Book of Revelation and Effec-

tive History’, in W. J. Lyons & J. Okland (eds.), The Way the World Ends? The Apocalypse of John in Culture and Ideology (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009), 289–304, 300.

8 Introduction

hardly relieves the worries of an interpreter concerned with the Wirkungs-gechichte of the biblical tradition.

The topic of chapter 12 is ‘Marcion as a Reader of Paul’. I have dealt with Marcion in different connections during the last twenty years, especially high-lighting his engagement with Paul as well as his role as a pioneer of ethical crit-icism of the Bible.21 All along it has been important to try to apply the ideal of ‘fair play’ – using similar standards both in assessing the classical heroes of Christian tradition and those who have come to be seen as heretics.

In this article, written for The Blackwell Companion to Paul, the focus is on Marcion’s reception of Paul’s writings. Marcion develops Pauline ideas in a rad-ical direction, but he does find support for this in several of Paul’s own state-ments, as the apostle had left an ambiguous legacy that could be, and was, selec-tively interpreted in very different ways. Not only is Marcion’s doctrine of law and grace, which led to his rejection of the Hebrew Bible, rooted in Paul’s state-ments (especially in Galatians); even Marcion’s docetic Christology may be seen as elaborating Pauline hints that Christ came (only) in ‘likeness’ of human flesh. The boundary between orthodoxy and heresy seems porous indeed.

Marcion is often portrayed as an arch-enemy of the Jews, but he does not seem to have blamed the Jewish people for killing Jesus. In fact, his ‘orthodox’ critics seem more anti-Jewish: Marcion criticized the God and scriptures of Ju-daism; the orthodox (like Tertullian) attacked the Jews themselves.

Chapter 13 continues the attempt to play fair by turning to an area seldom visited by biblical scholars (with the remarkable exception of Krister Stendahl whose article once kindled my interest in the issue): ‘Joseph Smith as a Creative Interpreter of the Bible’. The Mormon prophet, a country lad who grew in a Bible-saturated environment, proves to be a fascinating figure in grassroots re-ception history – or in the age-old enterprise, well-known from antiquity, of ‘rewriting the Bible’. Struggling with the notorious problem of inerrancy, Jo-seph Smith asks good questions and suggests clever (if idiosyncratic) answers.

While Protestant theology on the whole may still regard Mormonism as a marginal phenomenon, there are signs of a serious dialogue, too, especially in America. I have been struck by the overwhelmingly positive Mormon response to the paper at hand. First delivered at a symposium in Turku, Finland, it was published in the Mormon journal Dialogue. Subsequently, this article that una-bashedly applies critical methods to the work of the Mormon prophet, won the prize of the best article of the year in the said journal!

21 Marcion, Muhammad and the Mahatma (London: SCM, 1997), 64–80, 245–53; ‘Mar-cion and the Origins of Christian Anti-Judaism: A. Reappraisal’, in H. Räisänen, Challenges to Biblical Interpretation: Collected Essays, 1991–2001 (BibInt 59; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 191–205; ‘Marcion’, in A. Marjanen & P. Luomanen (eds.), A Companion to Second-Century Christian ‘Heretics’ (VCSup 76; Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2005), 100–124.

9Introduction

In mainstream thought Mormons are often brought together with the (socio-logically quite different) Jehovah’s Witnesses, as both are regarded as sects out-side the pale of Christianity (a demarcation that could be challenged). I wish that someone did to Jehova’s Witnesses what Stendahl and I have done to the Mormons: analyse their reception of the Bible in a non-polemical way, keeping one’s eyes open for potentially good questions behind answers that may well seem fanciful. Similarities to early millenarian eschatology as set forth by Ire-naeus in the Witnesses’ doctrine might provide a starting-point, and some alleg-edly un-Christian features in their ideology – such as low Christology and the rejection of hell – have obvious points of contact with some strands within the New Testament itself. Rigorous application of the ideal of fair play might lead to unexpected ‘ecumenical’ moves, as will be seen in the articles in Part Three of the present volume.

On Part Three

In Part Three of the collection, the focus moves to interreligious issues, dis-cussed from the vantage-point of a biblical scholar. Chapter 14, a keynote paper given at a Nordic Institute for Mission Studies conference in Åkersberg, Swe-den, in May 2011, reflects on the problem of conversion-oriented mission. Like chapter 10, this paper draws on my Rise of Christian Beliefs, exploring some of its theological implications. Christian mission, informed by classic Christian theology, has traditionally offered would-be converts a tight package, in which pessimistic anthropology, atonement soteriology and high Christology hang closely together. In light of present-day scholarship this combination cannot be regarded simply as a summary of New Testament teachings. The question is, should not the original diversity of Christian convictions have consequences for missions (and mission studies)? What is the point of trying to convert non-Christians to a Johannine, let alone to a Nicene or Chalcedonian Jesus, when even Luke-Acts points in a different direction? Why try to convert them to a Pauline conviction of Jesus’ death as atoning, when New Testament au-thors like Luke (he again!) fail to ascribe such significance to it? And what is the point of trying to convince others of the utter hopelessness of the human plight in the world outside Christ, when this is a minority view even in the New Testament, not shared, among others, by – Luke? Personally, I do not see the point, and I side (with modifications) with the pluralistic program of John Hick and Paul Knitter. And I point out that, ‘as long as Luke-Acts is not ex-cised from the New Testament […] I feel that I have even some biblical backing for my heresies’.

10 Introduction

Chapters 15–17 turn to a comparison of the Bible with the Qur’an, drawing on my early work in the 1970s in that area.22 Chapter 15, on predestination, summarizes and partly updates the findings of my Idea of Divine Hardening (1972). While Christian interpreters have often constructed a sharp difference between the two scriptures, contrasting ‘arbitrary Allah’ with the biblical God who wants all people to be saved, a careful analysis in the spirit of fair play brings to light remarkable similarities. Both the New Testament and the Qur’an contain statements that look predestinarian at first glance. On both sides, how-ever, such statements can be plausibly interpreted as reactions to painful social experiences, when the hearers have refused to accept the message. The chapter is based on a paper given at a meeting of the ‘Theologisches Forum Christentum – Islam’ in Stuttgart – Hohenheim 2004.

Chapter 16, based on a paper at the same Forum in 2005, elaborates on the epilogue of my Das koranische Jesusbild (1971) in which I discussed Lukan par-allels to the Qur’anic image of Jesus. While the Christologies of Paul and John, let alone of those of the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds, are indeed very dif-ferent from the ‘Christology’ of the Qur’an, the portrait of Jesus in Luke-Acts shows marked similarities with the latter. It might once have been an option for the churches to follow Luke – instead of John – and develop a Christology from below, in which the Son is clearly subordinated to the Father. On the whole, that road was not taken, but recently a growing number of theologians have chosen a theocentric approach to Christology, often in the context of interreli-gious dialogue.23 This recovery of a chance once lost is all the more intriguing in light of a recent trend that reckons with the possibility that Luke knew the gospel of John (rather than vice versa).24 From this perspective, Kari Syreeni notes that ‘although some of John’s emphases may have seemed quite attractive, already the high Christology in John was alien to Luke, who rather tried to show Jesus as a good Jew […] Luke, then, had ample reasons not to rely too much on John.’

Chapter 17 deals with the mutual intellectual challenge that Christianity and Islam may be taken to present to each other. This is a topic – a side product of my Qur’anic studies – that I have discussed many times over, starting from the

22 But see also my Marcion, Muhammad and Mahatma, 81–136, 254–68.23 The account of Luke’s Christology in this chapter partly overlaps with sections in chap-

ters 14 and 17. The reader may find this tedious, yet the account is a necessary part of each article so that some repetition was not be avoided. In any case, the secondary literature (main-ly German) referred to in chapter 16 is different.

24 See, e.g., M. Müller, ‘Luke – the Fourth Gospel? The “Rewritten Bible” Concept as a Way to Understand the Nature of the Later Gospels’, in S.-O. Back & M. Kankaanniemi (eds.), Voces Clamantium in Deserto (FS K. Syreeni; Abo: Abo Akademi University, Faculty of Theology, 2012), 231–42. Müller takes his cue from a paper by K. Syreeni entitled ‘Luke – A Critical Reader of John’s Gospel?’

11Introduction

obvious analogies and parallels in the intellectual history of each religion.25 Re-lated problems have come up on both sides, though the solutions may have dif-fered. Today, Christians may confront Muslims with the issue of the inerrancy of their Scripture, a question that gains in urgency, as violent passages in the Qur’an seem to incite militant Islamists to brutal deeds. Would it not be a ser-vice both to Islam and to the world, if Muslims could be persuaded to adopt a somewhat more historical attitude to their Book, in analogy to what has hap-pened to the Bible in mainstream Christianity (in a slow process, to be sure)? I argue that seeds of such a change are there in the Islamic tradition.

Jacques Berlinerblau highlights the significance of Christian ‘believing crit-ics’ (such as Julius Wellhausen or William Robertson Smith whose contribu-tions he compares those of a Darwin or a Marx) in bringing about a wide-rang-ing change in Christian attitudes to the Bible, a change that has had a profound impact on the development of Western societies at large. I share his contention that if a similar change is to take place in Muslim attitudes at large, it must come from within the rich Islamic tradition, brought about by believing Muslim crit-ics.26 Christians may try to help Muslims in this process. Yet they can only do this if they are equally prepared to assess critically the main pillars of their own religion: the doctrines of Christ and of the Trinity.

In chapter 18, The Bible among Scriptures, which has given the collection its name, I highlight some distinctive features of the Christian Bible as compared to the holy books of other present-day religions, in particular to the Qur’an. The enterprise is provisional and tentative, as comparative study of ‘scripture’ as a general phenomenon is still in its infancy.27 Perhaps surprisingly, the ‘scriptur-al’ character of the Bible seems today ‘lower’ than that of the Qur’an, the Vedas, and the Torah, to which the religious communities in question give ‘a higher [eternal] metaphysical status’ than mainstream Christians are prepared to give to the Bible.28 But a relatively low profile in view of the Bible corresponds to the view of the Christians in early times, before classical Christianity developed into a ‘book religion’. And the vision of the Bible or of the Torah in the more liberal branches of modern Christianity and Judaism contains a rare self-critical

25 ‘Vad kristendom och islam kunde lära sig av varandra: Ett exegetiskt perspektiv på en mödosam religionsdialog’, SvTK 78 (2002): 154–63; ‘Critical Exegesis and the Christian–Muslim Encounter’, in H. Juusola et al. (eds.), Verbum et Calamus (FS T. Harviainen; Helsin-ki: Finnish Oriental Society, 2004), 253–67; ‘Kristendomen och islam: den ömsesidiga intell-ektuella utmaningen’, in Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien Årsbok (Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhetsakademien, 2007), 105–17; ‘How Christianity and Islam Chal-lenge Each Other’, Fourth R 23:6 (2010): 5–10.

26 J. Berlinerblau, The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005).

27 See now also M. Frenschkowski, Heilige Schriften der Weltreligionen und religiösen Be-wegungen (Wiesbaden: Marix, 2007), esp. p. 13–35.

28 W. C. Smith, What is Scripture? A Comparative Approach (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 210.

12 Introduction

element that could be of help in a threatening global situation, when peaceful or violent applications of scriptures may very concretely bring about either life or death in our world.

Part One

Exegesis and Interpretation

Chapter 1

A Religious Studies Alternative to New Testament Theology: Reflections on a Controversial Enterprise

1. Introduction

Ladies and gentlemen – Meine Damen und Herren!Thank you for the kind invitation. It is an honour to speak at this University,

with its great tradition both in Theology and in Religious Studies. I take pride in the fact that Leipzig has played a role in the history of biblical studies in my country: several Finns studied here in the early twentieth century. Foremost among them was Antti Filemon Puukko who spent several years in Leipzig, studying mostly with Rudolf Kittel but attending Herman Guthe’s lectures as well. Puukko brought home the manuscript of his dissertation – and one of the daughters of his landlord as his wife. The dissertation, Das Deuteronomium (1910), was long regarded as a classic in its field, and Puukko himself ‘contribut-ed decisively to the break-through of historical-critical studies in his home-land’.1 His successor as Professor of Old Testament Exegesis in Helsinki, Aarre Lauha, also spent a term in Leipzig with Albrecht Alt. Lauha was my first aca-demic teacher who impressed on the students an unforgettable maxim: biblical studies cannot get a special dispensation from standard scientific methodology.

Later on I had the privilege to acquaint myself with a branch of the Leipzig tradition, though not through personal contact. In the early seventies I was pre-paring a modest (unpublished) study on the relationship between theology and religious studies, and one of my most helpful guides was Kurt Rudolph’s trea-tise Die Religionsgeschichte in der Leipziger Universität und die Entwicklung der Religionswissenschaft: ‘a contribution to the history of science and to the problem of Religionswissenschaft’ (1962). Engagement with Rudolph’s work was an important stimulus that, for its part, incited me to explore the implica-tions of a decidedly religionswissenschaftlich stance for biblical studies, and eventually to try and write an overall account along those lines. I gratefully take up the suggestion by the organizers of the conference that I might here summa-rize my approach and discuss some issues connected with my book The Rise of

1 T. K. Veijola, ‘Puukko, Antti Filemon (1875–1954)’, DBI 2.

16 Part One: Exegesis and Interpretation

Christian Beliefs,2 the end result of my prolonged journey of discovery into the frontier area between the two disciplines.

2. Religious Studies versus Theology?

2.1. Problematic dichotomies

One reason for my embarking on this trip had been irritation about the rigid dichotomy between objective Religionswissenschaft and confessional theology that was suggested by many. Assertions were heard (mainly by laymen) that the results of theology had been abolished by the science of religion and that theo-logians were people who knew the answers before they had even begun to ask questions.3 As a newcomer who had studied in two faculties, ending up with a theological doctorate in New Testament exegesis, I was annoyed and felt a need to put things right.

During my ‘study trip’ I learned about the internal conflicts within the new discipline of Religionswissenschaft, or comparative religion, or religious studies, or however you wish to call it (the name itself being a source of some controver-sy), a discipline which was hard put to mark itself off from theology. I learned that there had been analogous problems of principle and method on both sides, religious studies and theology – ultimately problems of identity – and analogous disputes between spokesmen for different approaches.

In religious studies, there had been an ongoing battle between ‘transcenden-talists’ (such as Rudolf Otto, Mircea Eliade or Wilfred Cantwell Smith), who held that the study of religion should itself have a religious dimension, on one side and ‘historical empiricists’ (such as Walter Baetke, R. J. Zwi Werblowsky or Kurt Rudolph) on the other.4 I found myself standing firmly on the side of the empiricists with their ‘methodological agnosticism’5 and stress on objectivity – to be sure, ‘within the limits of inescapable relativity’.6 On the theological side there was above all the contrast between the heirs of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule and those indebted to the dialectical theology of Karl Barth.

Today it is more problematic to maintain straightforward dichotomies. Both disciplines display a breath-taking amount of approaches;7 both also contain a

2 H. Räisänen, The Rise of Christian Beliefs: The Thought World of Early Christians (Min-neapolis: Fortress, 2010).

3 Cf. G. Szceszny, Zukunft des Unglaubens (München: List, 1958).4 Cf. E. Sharpe, Comparative Religion: A History (London: Duckworth, 21986), 295; for

the terminology, ibid., 313.5 K. Rudolph, Geschichte und Probleme der Religionswissenschaft (SHR 53; Leiden: Brill,

1992), 90 n. 25a.6 Ibid., 78.7 On religious studies cf. G. Alles, ‘The Study of Religion: The Last Fifty Years’, in J. R.

Hinnels (ed.), The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion (London: Routledge, 22010),

17Chapter 1: A Religious Studies Alternative to New Testament Theology

bewildering variety of positions on questions of principle.8 Rather than setting up sharp contrasts, it might be fair to think of the study of religion (including both religious studies and theology) as a continuous scale where all shades of grey are present. Moreover, people switch roles and do different things in differ-ent contexts.

2.2. Beyond New Testament theology

Anyway, in those early days it soon became clear to me that biblical scholarship at large need not be ashamed if gauged with Rudolph’s empiricist yardstick. I was proud to notice that such biblical scholars as William Wrede or Krister Stendahl did quite well when compared with historians of religion. I suppose it was then that there arose in my mind the wish to see a synthesis of early Chris-tian thought that is compatible with historical-empirical Religionswissenschaft and meets the expectations of a non-confessional academic environment. Yet it was clear that even the adoption of a ‘transcendentalist’ religious studies ap-proach would result in a shift in ‘New Testament theology’. For even the most ‘theological’ comparative religion scholars reject the claims to absoluteness of any one religion, due to the nature of the comparative material and the rivalling claims of different religions.

In the 1970’s and 80’s I was not aware of any book in any language which I could have recommended without reservations as an introduction to the thought world of the New Testament. The current New Testament theologies were the show window of the discipline, but as a theologian in a secular university I would have wished to show something different to those who were interested in our work. So I tried to sketch a program for how the job should ideally be done, in my view – moving ‘beyond New Testament Theology’.9

While the phrase ‘New Testament theology’ can be used to embrace all theo-logically interested research on the New Testament, it can – more commonly –

39–55. Alles notes (p. 51) that ‘scholars of religions seem to be divided between two camps, one camp favouring critical cultural studies, the other favouring more scientific approaches’ (e.g., the cognitive-scientific approach). It should be clear that my sympathies are more on the cultural studies side.

8 See the collections of articles in Hinnels (ed.), Routledge Companion, especially D. Wiebe, ‘Religious studies’, ibid., 125–44; G. Löhr (Hrsg.), Die Identität der Religionswissen-schaft (Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2000); C. Breytenbach (Hrsg.), Religionswissenschaft – Theolo-gie: Erkundungen einer strittigen Zuordnung, BThZ 29 (2012). Cf. also S. Vollenweider, ‘Stre-it zwischen Schwestern? Zum Verhältnis von Exegese und Religionsgeschichte’, ZThK 106 (2009): 20–40; C. M. Tuckett, ‘What is “New Testament Study”? The New Testament and Early Christianity’, NTS (2014): 158–70.

9 H. Räisänen, Beyond New Testament Theology: A Story and a Programme (London: SCM, 1990, 22000).

18 Part One: Exegesis and Interpretation

refer to textbook summaries of its theological content.10 I am using the term in this narrower sense – books named ‘New Testament Theology’ or the like.

There were, of course, great differences between New Testament theologies. What was common was that the historical analysis was combined with offering a religious message (in one way or another) to modern readers. As early as 1897, William Wrede had taken exception to this approach, proposing that the disci-pline of ‘New Testament theology’ be replaced with a non-confessional ‘Histo-ry of early Christian religion and theology’. By and large, his advice had not been taken – New Testament theologies with a confessional flavour continued to be produced – though his approach had been largely followed in what might be called everyday exegesis. My problem was the gap between the two. So I suggested that Wrede’s proposal be taken up and New Testament theologies be, in academic contexts, replaced with somewhat different syntheses. In other words, I simply proposed that we follow the established critical method consist-ently, even when writing syntheses.

2.3. Much ado about nothing?

My point is not that biblical studies should at last turn religionsgeschichtlich. That would be bringing owls to Athens, as such scholarship is being practiced all the time all over the place. My ‘program’ is concerned with a more limited topic: the ideational syntheses. Failing to observe this difference, some col-leagues, notably Wolfgang Stegemann, have claimed that ‘this discussion about a “religious studies alternative” to theology is, in the end, “much ado about nothing!”’11 I insist that it is not.

Stegemann states that ‘[s]cholarly theology, particularly in its historical disci-plines (like church history, the Old and New Testaments), can also be viewed as a form of religious studies that focuses on the history of Christianity’. He notes, quite correctly, that the theological disciplines ‘avail themselves of the scholarly standards that are customary in the other historical disciplines. They do not proclaim the Christian kerygma, but rather describe it, or describe discourses about it.’ Stegemann therefore asks, ‘In what way do the historical-critical dis-ciplines […] differ fundamentally from other forms of religious studies?’ An-swer: ‘solely via the object that they study, not via their methods.’12

10 Cf. R. Morgan, ‘Theology, New Testament’, ABD 6 (1992): 473–83, esp. p. 480.11 W. Stegemann, ‘Much Ado about Nothing? Sceptical Inquiries into the Alternatives

“Theology” or “Religious Studies”’, in T. Penner & C. Vander Stichele (eds.), Moving Beyond New Testament Theology? Essays in Conversation with Heikki Räisänen (PFES 88; Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Society; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 221–42, 242; cf. ibid., 236.

12 Ibid., 242.

19Chapter 1: A Religious Studies Alternative to New Testament Theology

Stegemann can reckon with wide consent from both sides of the divide.13 One religious studies scholar (Peter Antes) can even propose that those disciplines in theological faculties that are not confession-bound would best be transferred to the field of Religionswissenschaft; their rightful place would be in humanistic faculties.14

So far, so good. But this is not the whole story. For the picture of biblical studies changes when we zoom on the genre of New Testament theology. Rob-ert Morgan fittingly characterizes the works with this (or similar) title as

historically informed attempts to present the ideational content of [the New Testament] writings in a coherent way. But the definition of that content as theological has usually led interpreters to relate the biblical witness to contemporary Christian belief and prac-tice. This is because of the belief that the canonical writings communicate the revelation of God implies a self-involvement on the part of the interpreter. This puts an unusual kind of pressure upon the largely historical character of New Testament Theology, and has led to methodological problems.15

Indeed, this pressure has brought about the gap between everyday exegesis and the syntheses. I once stated that when one moves from the world of special stud-ies to the world of New Testament theologies, the atmosphere changes abruptly. ‘We hear a good deal of God revealing himself definitively in Christ and speak-ing to us through the New Testament texts […] Divine revelation is spoken of as if its existence were self-evident. The recourse to theistic God-talk (not just on a descriptive level) is a matter of course.’16

This was written in 1990. A glance at more recent New Testament theologies confirms my point. Despite the different theological persuasions of their au-thors, they agree on the necessity of a faith perspective. An author no less criti-cal than Ferdinand Hahn opens his work by saying that theology (including New Testament theology) is reflection on the truth claim of the Christian mes-sage, acknowledged as valid.17 In a perceptive review, Johan Vos praises Hahn’s work as a masterpiece in its genre, but notes that it is ‘a combination of secular historical-critical exposition and churchly interpretation’ and that ‘a purely sec-

13 Cf. from the side of religious studies K. Hock, ‘Zu diesem Heft’, BThZ 27 (2010): 3–13, esp. p. 13: ‘Weder in der Methode noch im Ergebnis ist der konfessionelle Bezug etwa für die Bibelwissenschaften von Bedeutung’; J. U. Schlieter, ‘Methodologie als Shibboleth? Metho-dische und theoretische Differenzen zwischen theologischer und religionswissenschaftlicher Religionsforschung’, BThZ 29 (2012): 73–96, esp. p. 78.

14 P. Antes, ‘Religionswissenschaft und Theologie: Abgrenzung – aber wie?’, BThZ 29 (2012): 20–31, esp. pp. 27, 31. Cf. also K. Rudolph, ‘Texte als religionswissenschaftliche “Quel-len”’, in H. Zinser (ed.), Religionswissenschaft: Eine Einführung (Berlin: Reimer, 1988), 38–54, esp. p. 39.

15 Morgan, ‘Theology: New Testament’, 480.16 Beyond New Testament Theology, 2.17 F. Hahn, Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 2 vols. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 1:1,

cf. 2:1.