Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 August 2011
The title of this paper calls for qualification and explanation. A distinguished Swedish theologian once remarked that the rise of a school in any department of theological study can be inimical to the best interests of scholarship, since the members of a school tend to be concerned rather with the defence of positions already assumed than with impartial inquiry into truth. Diversity of opinion on certain problems among the Uppsala group of Old Testament scholars would in itself acquit them of this charge; and it may therefore be questioned whether the term ‘school’ can be accurately applied to them. If we do so use it, we must take it to indicate a common approach to Old Testament problems rather than detailed agreement in the solution of these problems. Again, the use of the term ‘Uppsala’ is open to criticism. The common approach just mentioned confessedly owes much to work done outside Scandinavia and in other parts of Scandinavia. Neither form criticism nor tradition history originated in Sweden; and the importance of the cult in Old Testament religion and of the place of the king in the cult was first maintained elsewhere than in Uppsala.
2 The term is used for want of a better, though Professor Engnell and other members of the school tend to use it as a term of abuse to describe views of which they disapprove.
3 Engnell, I., Gamla Testamentet. En traditionshistorisk inledning, I, Uppsala and Stockholm, 1945Google Scholar.
4 Engnell, I. and Fridrichsen, A., Svenskt Bibliskt Uppslagsverk, I (A–K), Gävle, 1948Google Scholar.
5 Nyberg, H. S., Studien zum Hoseabuche, Uppsala, 1935Google Scholar. Cf. his article in ZAW, lii. (1934), pp. 241–254.
6 Op. cit., p. 8.
7 Op. cit., p. 9.
8 Birkeland, H., Zum hebräischen Traditionswesen, Oslo, 1938Google Scholar.
9 Op. cit., p. 30.
10 Mowinckel, S., Jesaja-disiplene, Oslo, 1926Google Scholar.
11 Op. cit., p. 128.
12 ‘Oppkomsten av profetlitteraturen,’ Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift, 1942, pp. 65–111.
13 Michelet, S., Mowinckel, S., Messel, N., Det Gamle Testamente, III, De senere profeter, Oslo, 1944, pp. 33 ffGoogle Scholar.
14 Mowinckel, S., Prophecy and Tradition, Oslo, 1946Google Scholar.
15 E.g. Is. viii. 1 f., 16; xxx. 8; Hab. ii. 2; Jer. xxxvi.
16 Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift, 1942, p. 103.
17 Cf. Bentzen, A., Introduction to the Old Testament, E.T., I, Copenhagen, 1948, p. 102Google Scholar.
18 Prophecy and Tradition, p. 18; cf. pp. 36f., 86, 88.
19 Op. cit., p. 26.
20 ‘Profetia och tradition’ in Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok, XII, 1947, pp. 110–139.
21 Prophecy and Tradition, p. 18.
22 Gamla Testamentet, I, pp. 29, 40f.
23 Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok, XII, pp. 128f.; cf. The Call of Isaiah, Uppsala and Leipzig, 1949, p. 60.
24 Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok, XII, p. 129.
25 Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok, XII, p. 127, n. 38.
26 Svenskt Bibliskt Uppslagsverk, I, col. 659.
27 The Call of Isaiah, Uppsala and Leipzig, 1949.
28 Widengren, G., Literary and Psychological Aspects of the Hebrew Prophets, Uppsala and Leipzig, 1948Google Scholar.
29 Quoted op. cit. p. 24.
30 Op. cit., p. 48. In support Widengren cites the tradition that when 'Umar and Hisham ibn al-Hakim were disputing which of them recited Sūrah 25 correctly the prophet told them that both versions were correct.
31 Widengren also refers to liii. 23, 26–33; lxxxiii. 29–34; lxxxv. 8–11.
32 Op. cit. p. 81.
33 ‘Le rôle de la tradition orale dans la transmission du texte de l'Ancien Testament.’ Revue Biblique, 1947, pp. 5–41.
34 Op. cit. pp. 55ff.
35 Op. cit.p. 57.
36 The recognition of the importance of oral tradition in the formation of the Old Testament is, of course, nothing new. It is interesting to recall that more than a quarter of a century ago A. Lods could write, ‘Des Allemands notamment ont érigé la méthode qu'ils appellent traditionsgeschichtlich en rivale et en ennemi de la Literarkritik, de la critique philologique et historique.’ See his article, ‘Le rôle de la tradition orale dans la formation des récits de l'Ancien Testament.’ Revue de l'Histoire des Religions, lxxxviii, 1923, pp. 51–64. Widengren (op. cit. p. 68, n. 4) rightly draws attention to the important work on the character and origin of the prophetic literature by the Swedish scholar Lindblom, J. (Die literarische Gattung der prophetischen Literatur, Uppsala, 1924)Google Scholar.
37 Prophecy and Tradition, pp. 42ff.
38 Revue Biblique, 1947, pp. 38f. But cf. Mowinckel in Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift, 1942, p. 82.
39 Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, Uppsala, 1943.
40 Haldar, A., Associations of Cult Prophets among the Ancient Semites, Uppsala, 1945Google Scholar; and Studies in the Book of Nahum, Uppsala and Leipzig, 1946.
41 Kapelrud, A. S., Joel Studies, Uppsala, 1948Google Scholar.
42 Östborn, G.Tōrā in the Old Testament, Lund, 1945Google Scholar. A less typical study.
43 Nyberg, H. S., Irans forntida religioner. Stockholm, 1937Google Scholar. Widengren, G., Hochgottglaube im alten Iran. Uppsala and Leipzig, 1938Google Scholar. I have not had access to either of these works. Of great interest and importance also is Widengren's, G.Religionens värld. Uppsala and Stockholm, 1945Google Scholar.
44 Cf. James, E. O., The Old Testament in the Light of Anthropology, London, 1935, pp. 83ffGoogle Scholar.
45 Gamla Testamentet, I, p. 136.
46 Gamla Testamentet, I, pp. 140f. Svenskt Bibliskt Uppslagsverk, I, s.v. David. Engnell holds that David continued a process begun by Saul. His estimate of Saul's influence was briefly indicated in an article in the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, January 30, 1944, to which I have not had access. The article on Saul in the Swedish Bible Dictionary will be contained in volume II, which has not appeared at the time of writing.
47 Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, Uppsala, 1943Google Scholar.
48 Svenskt Bibliskt Uppslagsverk, I, cols. 678, 1221ff.
49 The sacral functions of the divine king are described by Engnell as messianic, in opposition to Mowinckel, who holds that the terms ‘messiah’ and ‘messianic’ are correctly used only in the eschatological sense. There is an excellent discussion of the debate in A. Bentzen's contribution to the Lindblom Festskrift (‘Kan ordet “Messiansk” anvendes om Salmernes kongeforestillinger?’ Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok, XII, pp. 36–50). Bentzen also discusses the question on pages 113ff. of his Det sakrale kongedømme, Copenhagen, 1945, a work which provides an admirable survey of Scandinavian literature on the whole subject.
50 Gamla Testamentet, I, p. 152, n.
51 Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift, 1944, pp. 70ff. I owe my knowledge of Mowinckel's observations to A. Bentzen, Det sakrale kongedømme, pp. 32ff.
52 Gamla Testamentet, I, p. 185.
53 ‘Passahfest und Passahlegende’, ZAW, lii. (1934), pp. 161–175Google Scholar. Israel, I–II. Second Danish edition, Copenhagen, 1934; E.T., Copenhagen and London, 1926. III–IV. Danish edition, Copenhagen, 1934; E.T., Copenhagen and London, 1940.
54 Cf., e.g., Pedersen's discussion of Genesis xxxiv in Israel, I–II, E.T., pp. 521ff. Second Danish edition, pp. 410f.
55 Cf. Pedersen, Israel, III–IV, E.T., p. 727. Danish edition, p. 544.
56 Gamla Testamentet, I, p. 203. Engnell admits that there is a distinctive Deuteronomic theological emphasis.
57 Engnell quotes from an article by Pedersen in Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift, 1931, pp. 156f. ‘The narratives here referred to originated in circles which sought the true Israelite life outside the large cities, in the manner of life of the shepherds and seminomads; and they had no occasion to set specially high store by the claims of the Jerusalem priests.’ (Quoted in Gamla Testamentet, I, p. 204, n. 1.)
58 Noth, M., Ueberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, I, Halle, 1943Google Scholar. I wish to express my indebtedness to Professor H. H. Rowley, who kindly allowed me to consult his copy of this work and also of the issue of Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift mentioned in n. 12.
59 Gamla Testamentet, I, pp. 212f.
