Book Review

by Kevin Stilley

Gerhard Hasel . Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate . Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991. 262 Pages.

Reading Hasel is a hastle. However, if the reader is able to avoid being overwhelmed by the information that is presented this book provides excellent insight into the current state of affairs in the realm of Old Testament Theology.

The danger of being overwhelmed by the information that is presented comes in several forms. One such danger is the possibility of drowning in the flood of names. In the introduction to this volume alone the author refers to at least twenty-five separate individuals and their work. Additionally, there is the danger of getting lost in the dense forest of Old Testament theological terminology that is employed by the author. Those who enter this realm of Old Testament Theology without some previous experience in the discipline may find it difficult to follow Hasel as he seeks to lead the reader to greater understanding of OT issues. Hasel, may have overestimated the level of expertise of his fellow trekkers. The pace that he sets may be too rapid for some.

Another danger to the novice would be to assume that because the information is presented in an extremely dogmatic fashion in places it is safe to accept Hasel’s position. In fact, in many of the places where Hasel presents his case most forcefully he does so without presenting his case most rationally. Is it possible that he subscribes to the philosophy that one should speak louder when his case is weak?

Having pointed out several dangers (their are others including such things as acceptance of pluralistic tendencies) to the reader who is receiving his initial orientation to the field of Old Testament Theology let it be said that it is also a very important book; a very fine book. If one can master the material that is presented by Hasel in this monograph one is well on their way to an understanding of Old Testament Theology. The preceeding material was meant only to serve as a warning to the reader that he must read critically, as he should with all material.

The author lays the foundation for the superstructure of his book by introducing it with a discussion of the history of Old Testament Theology. Old Testament theology is traced from the time of the Reformation up through the golden age of Old Testament theology which began in the 1930′s. Hasel uses this as background material to explain why there is not general consensus on the methodology that should be employed in the work of Old Testament theology. He notes that, “The historical survey of this chapter highlights major roots of the basic issues in the current debate on OT theology with which the following chapters (II-V) deal.” The logical progression of this material is obvious. Hasel’s ability to “arrange” material is one of the strong points of this book.

In chapter two, which focuses on methodology for Old Testament theology, Hasel summarizes the approaches that are often taken: the dogmatic-didactic method; the genetic-progressive method; the cross-section method; the topical method; the diachronic method; the formation-of-tradition method; the thematic-dialectical method; recent critical OT theology methods; and the new Biblical theology method. He concludes this lengthy section of the book with seven proposal which he believes to be essential for the development of a “canonical OT theology that follows a multiplex approach.” The author cunningly introduces here ideas which he will further develop later in the book.

Chapter three which is entitled, “The Question of History, History of Tradition, Salvation History, and Story” is a very complex chapter. The material that is being dealt with is by its very nature complex and so is Hasel’s handling of it. Not only does Hasel communicate with the words that he uses in this chapter, there appear to be metamessages behind the words. One such passage that this reviewer found interesting follows:

We are thrown back upon the question of what measuring rod is applied to
establish “facticity.” In view of the Biblical testimony the historical-critical method working without a God-hypothesis of which Scripture testifies brings with it a cirsis of objectivity and facticity. The question arises where we need to develop, in order to overcome the present dilemma, a new set of concepts which is more appropriate to the dynamic nature and full reality of the texts that admittedly emcompass the unity of facta and dicta , fact and interpretation, event and word, happening and meaning.

No doubt, the reader will want to read through this chapter several times and will find many sections that demand focused attention.

While I cannot agree entirely with all of the specifics of Hasels treatment regarding the center of the Old Testament and therefore of an Old Testament theology, I can certainly appreciate his position. This chapter is one of the strongest sections of the book. Hasel has the spiritual eyes to see that everything is relative; that is, everything is relative to God. If anything is allowed to replace God as the center there has been a serious deviation away from Biblical Christianity.

Hasel uses chapter five on the relationship between the Testaments to once again address the multi-plex approach to doing an Old Testament theology. This approach, which he has been building a case for since the early portions of this book, is more fully developed in the conclusion of this work.

In the conclusion of this volume the author has offered several guidelines or “proposals” which he feels are essential to the development of an Old Testament Theology. The proposals that he makes in this section do not seem to be revolutionary until one considers the discussions that have preceded this chapter. Hasel is reacting/responding to some widely divergent methodologies that have been employed in the recent years. He has obviously given a great deal of mental energy in determining the methodology that should be employed in “doing” Old Testament Theology. His cries must be heard and seriously considered by those who will engage in this task in future years.