Theologie des Neuen Testaments

Abstract

Theologie des Neuen Testaments, by Georg Strecker, revised and completed by Friedrich Wilhelm Horn. De Gruyter Lehrbuch. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1996. Pp. xiv + 741. DM 118,00 (paper). At his death in June 1994 Georg Strecker left incomplete two major writing projects, a theology of the and an ethics of the NT. Friedrich Wilhelm Horn did a masterful job of completing the from manuscripts, recorded tapes, and note files that had been collected over the years. Horn takes full responsibility for only three minor parts: 2 Thessalonians, 1 Peter, and combined Jude and 2 Peter. Work on the Ethics of the had not progressed to a point where completion was possible within a reasonable period of time. For that aspect of Strecker's work we remain dependent on his Handlungsorientierter Glaube: Vorstudien zu einer des Neuen Testaments (Stuttgart/Berlin: Kreuz Verlag, 1972) and Strukturen einer neutestamentlichen Ethik (ZTK 74 [1978] 11746). In an address at the SNTS general meeting in Madrid in 1992, Strecker outlined the principles he used in his Theology. He argued that a of the NT should value the distinctive theological views of the individual writings, in that way allowing the complexity of the theologies of the to emerge. value of Strecker's book is not as a theology of the NT, but as the theologies of the NT. His attention to the diversity of the writings is what distinguishes his from most others. In contrast, Rudolf Bultmann's Theology of the New Testament, still the most important in the field, is strictly speaking not a theology of the New Testament, but a theology abstracted from the New Testament. On a methodological spectrum, Strecker's and Bultmann's theologies would appear at almost opposite ends. Strecker understands his methodology as a redaction-critical approach that takes into account the relationship between synchrony and diachrony. Synchrony in this case means taking note of the writings in a cross-section as they appear in the NT, without consideration of historical relationships between them; diachrony refers to the investigation of each of them individually against the historical background of the traditions that contributed to their composition. There are limitations to a synchronic approach as proposed by Strecker. So, for example, in his he has one major section that is purely diachronic, The Primitive Christian Tradition up to the Composition of the Gospels. A purely synchronic approach to the would not bring into view the material that he discusses in this section: (I) The Announcement of the One to Come-John the Baptist; (II) The Kingdom of God-Jesus; (III) The Palestinian and Hellenistic Church Communities; and (IV) Instructions of the Son of Man-the Source Q. Still, the placement of Q after the Hellenistic church communities is diachronically odd. Its placement is nevertheless probably not synchronically determined-synchronically it does not exist in the NTbut diachronically, leading up to the discussion of the Synoptics in the next major section. placement of Paul in the first main section of this is also not purely synchronic, but diachronic, not in the sense of a history of Christianity, but of a literary history of the books. Something similar determines the sequence in the discussion of the Johannine literature, which begins with the presbyter letters, 2 and 3 John, then 1 John, the Gospel, and finally Revelation, reflecting the literary history of these writings as Strecker understands it. Strecker's work is not without abstract theological preconceptions, but they are not built in methodologically and can be dealt with through critical engagement. prime example is the role played by the Reformation understanding of works and faith in his interpretation of Paul. …