¹ This was first claimed by von Cölln, Daniel Georg Conrad, in Biblische Theologie (2 vols.; Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth, 1836), vol. 1, pp. 23–24Google Scholar. Sandys-Wunsch, John and Eldredge, Laurence, ‘J.P. Gabler and the Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology: Translation, Commentary, and Discussion of His Originality’, SJT 33 (1980), p. 149CrossRefGoogle Scholar, have emphasized that the novelity of Gabler's ideas were not recognised by his contemporaries. This, in part, may be due to the fact that (1) Gabler never actually carried out his own programme by writing a ‘biblical theology’ and (2) his programmatic address on the subject—the focus of this article—did not gain a wider circulation until its posthumous publication by his sons in 1831 (see bibl. in n. 8 below).

² For example, as done variously during the last 15 years by Hasel, Gerhard F., ‘The Relationship between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology’, Trinity Journal 5 n.s. (1984), pp. 113–127Google Scholar; Ollenburger, Ben C., ‘Biblical Theology: Situating the Discipline’, in eds. Butler, James T., Conrad, Edgar W., and Ollenburger, Ben C., Understanding the Word: Essays in Honor of Bernhard W. Anderson (JSOTSS, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), pp. 38–40 and 46–55Google Scholar; Morgan, Robert, ‘Gabler's Bicentenary’, ExpT 98 (1987), pp. 164–168Google Scholar; and Saebø, Magne, ‘Johann Philipp Gablers Bedeutung für die Biblische Theologie’, ZAW 99 (1987), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar

³ Hence, for example, Philipp Melancthon could refer to Paul's letter to the Romans as a compendium doctrinae.

⁴ On this development see conveniently Hayes, John H. and Prussner, Frederick, Old Testament Theology: Its history and development (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985), pp. 12–15.Google Scholar

⁵ See ibid., pp. 55–57.

⁶ On this see Hayes and Prussner, Old Testament Theology, p. 60 and esp. Hans-Joachim-Kraus, , Die Biblische Theologie: Ihre Geschichte und Problematik (Neukirchen- Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970), pp. 33–39.Google Scholar

⁷ Gabler's inaugural address took this aspect of Zachariä's work into account and thus proposed ‘to emend, define more correctly, and amplify’ his method; so Sandys-Wunsch and Eldredge, ‘J.P. Gabler’, p. 138. Concerning Zachariä's contribution to the development of biblical theology, cf. the respective early and recent assessments of Baur, Ferdinand Christian, Vorlesungen über neutestamentliche Theologie (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973; repr. from 1864), p. 5Google Scholar and Sandys-Wunsch, and Eldredge, , ‘G.T. Zachariae's Contributions to Biblical Theology’, ZAW 92 (1980), pp. 15–16.Google Scholar

⁸ ‘Oratio de justo discrimine Theologiae biblicae et dogmaticae regundisque recte utriusque finibus’; the citations below of Gabler's address are, as in Sandys-Wunsch, and Eldredge, (‘J.P. Gabler’), taken from the page numbers in eds. Gabler, Theodor August and Gabler, Johann Gottfried, D. Johann Philipp Gablers Kleinere theologische Schriften (2 vols.; Ulm: Stettin, 1831), vol. 2, pp. 179–198.Google Scholar

⁹ Some scholars, whether or not they have followed through on the implications of this translation of the phrase, have taken over this rendering; see, in particular, Kümmel, Werner Georg, TheNew Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems, translated by Gilmour, S. McLean and Kee, Howard Clark, (Nashville/New York: Abingdon Press, 1973), p. 98Google Scholar and Merk, Otto, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments in ihrer Anfangszeit (Marburger Theologische Studien, 9; Marburg: N.G. Elwert, 1972), pp. 34 and 39Google Scholar, whose translations have continued to be influential. Drawing on Kümmel's translation and taking his cue from Wrede's own claim, Robert Morgan has underlined the essential continuity between Gabler and Wrede as far as their historical orientation is concerned; see Morgan, , in The Nature of New Testament Theology: The Contribution of William Wrede and Adolf Schlatter (Studies in Biblical Theology, II/25; London: SCM, 1973), pp. 2–3 and 68Google Scholar. The reconstrual of Gabler's programme as a call for historical analysis betrays the subsequent conviction that timeless truths cannot be derived from time-conditioned ideas.

Boers, Hendrikus, What Is New Testament Theology? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), p. 33Google Scholar, has recognised the difficulty with characterising Gabler's programme for biblical theology as simply ‘historical’. He has therefore suggested that, as opposed to ‘dogmatic’, the term was meant to highlight the fixed nature of the subject matter, not the historical contingency of the biblical writings. It is, however, precisely the fixed character of the biblical texts which, at the same time, ties them to the specific conditions and particular settings within which they emerged.

¹⁰ Similarly, Ollenburger, ‘Biblical Theology’, p. 48 and Adam, A.K.M., ‘Biblical Theology and the Problem of Modernity: Von Wredestrasse zu Sackgasse’, Horizons in Biblical Theology 12 (1990), pp. 7–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gabler's views risk being oversimplified when they are rehearsed in a way which stresses the historical dimension of his programme either without qualification or without including his other, more hermeneutical procedures. Wrede's appropriation of Gabler's biblical theology within a thoroughly historical framework has thus continued to shape recent discussion concerning Gabler. See, e.g., Frei, Hans W., The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1974), pp. 165–166Google Scholar. On the one hand, Frei states that for Gabler biblical theology was ‘a completely historical investigation’ and ‘a purely historical undertaking’ (p. 165); on the other hand, however, he later admits that it involves for Gabler ‘a mixture of historical criticism and general hermeneutical procedure …’ (p. 166). It is undisputed that Gabler's ideas were an attempt to free historical-critical investigation from the constrictions of church teaching. At the same time, this perception of his legacy should not be confused with his understanding of what biblical theology, as a whole, involves. See the discussion immediately below.

¹¹ J.P. Gabler', p. 137: the rendering and its implications are, e.g., recognised by Räisänen, Heikki in Beyond New Testament Theology (London/Philadelphia: SCM and Trinity Press International, 1990), pp. 3–5.Google Scholar

¹² Morgan (‘Gabler's Bicentenary’, p. 165) rightly observes that this second step, which acts as a crucial link between the two conceptions of Gabler's biblical theology, often goes ignored. Given the limits of what Gabler could have said within the framework of a lecture, one may be tempted to read his Antrittsrede through his later publications which only divide the process into two steps (which Gabler identified, respectively, as Auslegen and Erklärung, cf. n. 20 below).

¹³ Sandys-Wunsch and Eldredge's translation of the summary (‘J.P. Gabler’, p. 142) reads: ‘When these opinions of the holy men have been carefully collected from Holy Scripture and suitably digested, carefully referred to the universal notions, and cautiously compared among themselves, …’. The last two components of the list invert the basic sequence proposed by Gabler earlier in the lecture.

¹⁴ So also Gabler's later statement in his introduction to the 2nd edition (1792) of Johann Gottfried Eichhorn's Urgeschichte (p. xv), cited by Merk (Biblische Theologie, p. 58): ‘Dogmatik muß von Exegese, und nich umgekehrt Exegese von Dogmatik abhängen’.

¹⁵ Here Gabler simply appears to have assumed the given existence of recognisable ‘universal’ ideas from Morus, Samuel Friedrich Nathanael, Disputatio de notionibus universis in theologia (Leipzig: Klaubarthia, 1782)Google Scholar. Morus argued that universal notions are inherently more real and pure than the particulars from which they have been derived; see further, Sandys-Wunsch and Eldredge, ‘J.P. Gabler’, p. 156.

¹⁶ This interpretation depends ultimately on how one reads Gabler's second stage for biblical theology (p. 190). Given its significance, a longer citation of the passage is merited here (translation from Sandys-Wunsch and Eldredge, ‘J.P. Gabler’, pp. 141–42): ‘… each single opinion must be examined for its universal ideas, especially for those which are expressly read in this or that place in the Holy Scriptures, but according to this rule: that each of the ideas is consistent with its own era, its own testament, its own place or origin, and its own genuis. … Each one of these categories which is distinct in cause from the others should be kept separate. And if this cautionary note is disregarded, it may happen that the benefit from the universal ideas will give way to the worst sort of damage to the truth, and it will render useless and destroy all the work which had been brought together in diligently isolating the opinions of each author. If, however, this comparison with the help of universal notions is established in such a way that for each author his own work remains unimpaired, then it is clearly revealed wherein the separate authors agree …’ (italics mine).

This passage does not advocate that universal ideas should be checked against a historical consistency. Instead, the historical contingencies of the opinions of the biblical authors, which are to be checked for universal ideas, must be firmly established. Gabler is cautioning against the transformation of what is historically contingent into an invariable, fixed principle to be used for purposes of dogma. On the following page (p. 191), Gabler finds examples for historical contingency in both Mosaic rituals and Paul's advice about women wearing veils, whose time-bound character renders them irrelevant for a ‘pure’ biblical theology.

Consequently, though Gabler's own formulations are not entirely unambiguous, it is difficult to see how the passage could warrant an interpretation which stresses his ‘biblical theology’ as merely ‘historical’ in character.

¹⁷ So Hayes, and Prussner, , Old Testament Theology, p. 57Google Scholar and Sandys-Wunsch, , ‘J.P. Gabler’, p. 145Google Scholar. Gabler's Antrittsrede displays throughout a hope that theological complexities resulting from the application of unscrutinising methodologies can be overcome.

¹⁸ See Merk, , Biblische Theologie, pp. 75–80.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Frei, , The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, pp. 246–253.Google Scholar

²⁰ It is not entirely apparent whether in Gabler's later thought the following associations correspond directly to one another: (1) text and Sache, (2) Auslegen and Erklärung, and (3) ‘true’ and ‘pure’ biblical theology. Although his criticisms of Ernesti's ‘philologically’ oriented quest for meaning led him to associate the categories in (1) with the methods represented in (2), one senses that the step between ‘pure’ biblical theology and dogmatics (both goals of exegesis) is not as distinguishable as that between the ‘true’ and the ‘pure’. Thus ‘pure’ biblical theology, which in the Antrittsrede is suggested as a separate category from dogmatic theology, actually tends to collapse with dogmatics (so the articles written in 1811 and cited by Merk in Biblische Theologie, pp. 77 and 81). What remains, then, is at least a clear distinction between Gabler's ‘true’ biblical theology at the one end and dogmatics at the other. Because of its conspicuousness, the former was prone to be singled out as Gabler's legacy.

²¹ He apparently thought that the difficulties posed by the obscurity of the biblical text and eisegesis for Christian unity (mentioned at the beginning of his lecture; see the beginning of section II) are not insurmountable.

²² Boers (What Is New Testament Theology?, p. 31) remaks insightfully that this kind of contingent history ‘may be considered similar to dogmatic theology, which had the specific task of relating the unchanging, divine concepts to particular human situations’.

²³ See Sandys-Wunsch, and Eldredge, , ‘J.P. Gabler’, p. 148.Google Scholar

²⁴ Gabler's Antrittsrede was given e.g. only a few years before the start of the French Revolution, itself the culmination of a long process of increasing social unrest.

²⁵ Hayes, and Prussner, , Old Testament Theology, pp. 37–38.Google Scholar

²⁶ See Sandys-Wunsch and Eldredge, ‘J.P. Gabler’, p. 147 n. 1 and Rogerson, John, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century England and Germany (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), pp. 16–18Google Scholar. Leder, Klaus, Universität Altdorf (Nürnberg: Lorenz Spindler, 1965), pp. 157–161Google Scholar, argues that the ‘neology’ movement may be described in terms of three phases (early, reforming, and late), and identifies Gabler as a ‘late neologian’ whose criticism of ecclesiastical confessions, unlike Semler and Döderlein, was modified by a genuine concern for the theology and life of the church.

It must be remembered that Gabler himself never actually embraced ‘neology’ as a satisfactory classification of his own theological activity. Instead, he preferred to designate himself a ‘Christian rationalist’, in order to emphasize his concern to synthesize reason and revelation in a way that retains God as both object and given; see the sources cited in Merk, , Biblische Theologie, p. 105 n.'s 311–314 and 316.Google Scholar

²⁷ See Leder, , Universität Altdorf, p. 301.Google Scholar

²⁸ So Merk, , Biblische Theologie, pp. 54–58Google Scholar and Leder, , Universität Altdorf, pp. 293–295.Google Scholar

²⁹ See Smend, Rudolf, ‘Johann Philipp Gablers Begründung der biblischen Theologie’, EvTheol 22 (1962), pp. 345–357, esp. p. 357.Google Scholar

³⁰ According to Wolff, the notion of revelation is acceptable as long as it does not contradict reason; see Hayes, and Prussner, , Old Testament Theology, p. 48.Google Scholar

³¹ See the discussion on ‘myth’ above and, further, Sandys-Wunsch, and Eldredge, , ‘J.P. Gabler’, p. 154.Google Scholar

³² Cf. Merk, , Biblische Theologie, pp. 58–69Google Scholar and Ollenburger, , ‘Biblical Theology’, p. 45.Google Scholar

³³ Kraeling, Emil, The Old Testament Since the Reformation (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1955), p. 55.Google Scholar

³⁴ Kant used the term ‘pure biblical theology’ in a very different way from Gabler: biblical theology for him is pure to the extent that there is no male mixta between theology, on the one hand, and reason and philosophy, on the other. Cf. Ollenburger, ‘Biblical Theology’, p. 44. What Kant assigned to different social contexts Gabler regarded as related disciplines which are to be sequentially applied.

³⁵ The hermeneutical differences between Kant and Gabler may be illustrated as follows: Both would have agreed that the divine command that Saul kill the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:1–3) does not provide the warrant for us to do the same with our enemies. But their reasons for this would have been different; for Kant this commend does not apply because it is morally wrong, while for Gabler it may have been right in that particular moment, but understood in relation to the rest of the Bible, reflects a time-conditioned way of thinking.

³⁶ Merk, , Biblische Theologie, p. 62.Google Scholar

³⁷ Contra the impression of Gabler left by the discussion of Hasel, , ‘The Relationship between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology’, p. 115.Google Scholar

³⁸ So esp. Wrede's 1897 essay ‘Concerning the Task and Method of So-Called New Testament Theology’, translated by Morgan in The Nature of New Testament Theology, pp. 68–116, esp. p. 116 (cf. n. 7 above).

³⁹ See esp. his articles entitled ‘Biblical Theology, Contemporary’, in ed. Buttrick, George A., Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (4 vols.; Nashville/New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), pp. 418–432Google Scholar and a lecture presented at the Society of Biblical Literature in 1965 and reprinted under the title, ‘Biblical Theology: A Program’, in Stendahl, , Meanings: The Bible as Document and as Guide (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), pp. 11–44.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See further n. 20 above.

⁴¹ In this sense, the title of Gabler's Antrittsrede, if considered on its own, can be misleading.

⁴² I draw here on Ollenburger's helpful critique of Stendahl's contrast between biblical the systematic theology in terms which calls into question the dichotomies of descriptive/normative and meant/means; see ‘What Krister Stendahl “Meant”-A Normative Critique of “Descriptive Biblical Theology”’, Horizons in Biblical Theology 8 (1986), pp. 61–98, esp. pp. 76–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see further Adam, , ‘Biblical Theology and the Problem of Modernity’, pp. 7–11Google Scholar. While Ollenburger shows how descriptions can function as normative and that systematicians do in fact concern themselves with describing, his discussion does not go much beyond the initial spade-work of semantics. One may wish to push a step further and explore how the normativising presuppositions (as articulated in systematic-theological discourse) can function within the framework of one's historical analysis of what once was.

⁴³ As Gabler later distinguished Auslegen and Erklären more clearly, his formulations began—in 1801 and subsequent discussions in 1807 and 1810—to assume ‘ganz verschiedene Operationen des historischen Auslegers und des philosophierenden Theologen: jeder hat sein eigenes Gebiet’; the sources are discussed in Merk, , Biblische Theologie, pp. 94–97.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ I wish to thank Prof. Patrick Miller and my colleague Dr. Walter Moberly for commenting on previous drafts of this article.