161
THE SANCTUARY . . .
and stratifi cations of Israelite history; (3) “central theme,” which arranges
OT theology around a single integrating theme; (4) “canonical,” in which
a study of the canonical Hebrew canon is used rather than a history-of-
religions approach; and (5) “pluralistic,” in which the OT contains a plurality
of theologies, and OT theology is a series of competing theologies that are
defi ned in large part by their sociopolitical settings.
9
In this article, a canonical and central-theme approach to OT theology
is adopted, which not only assumes the canonical disposition of the Hebrew
canon as a basis for interpretation, but adopts the biblical texts in the canonical
form in which they appear; as I will explain below, the Hebrew canon has a
tripartite, hierarchical division of Torah, Prophets, and Writings. This canon
is treated as a united and divinely inspired collection of texts that claim and
are accepted as having authoritative status for both the Jewish and Christian
9
See, e.g., J. H. Hayes and F. C. Prussner, Old Testament Theology: Its History and
Development (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985); G. F. Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues
in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991); W. Brueggemann, Theology of
the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997); J. Barr,
The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1999); B. C. Ollenburger, ed., Old Testament Theology: Flowering and Future (Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004); W. C. Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 9-10; J. H. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology:
A Canonical Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 19-21; House, 54-57, 553-
559. The types of methodology listed in the text are not exhaustive. Hasel, e.g., has
summarized most of the approaches taken by recent OT theologians in the history
of OT theology and has sorted them into at last ten different methodologies: (1) the
dogmatic-didactic method, which organizes OT theology along the lines of systematic
theology (Bauer, Köhler, Jacob); (2) the genetic-progressive method, which traces the
growth of Israel’s faith in history (Clements); (3) the cross-section method, which
utilizes a single theme to explain the OT’s contents (Eichrodt, Vriezen, Kaiser); (4) the
topical method, which focuses on major ideas regardless of their historical emergence
or ability to unify the OT (McKenzie, Fohrer, Zimmerli); (5) the diachronic method,
which charts the use of basic traditions in the OT (von Rad); (6) the formation-of-
tradition method, which goes beyond von Rad’s arguments to claim that a series of
traditions unify both testaments (Gese); (7) the thematic-dialectic method, which
arranges its studies around “opposing” ideas such as a presence/absence (Terrien),
deliverance/blessing (Westermann), and structure legitimation/embracing of pain
(Brueggemann); (8) recent critical methods, which is Hasel’s category for scholars who
question whether OT theology can be done at all (Barr, Collins); (9) the new biblical-
theology method, which attempts to relate the testaments to one another; the chief
proponent of which is Childs, who utilizes a canonical approach to biblical theology
(Hasel also places Vriezen and Clements in this group); (10) the multiplex, canonical
OT theology method, which is Hasel’s own program for the discipline, consisting
of four main points: a study of the canonical Scriptures, a summary of the canon’s
concepts and themes, a utilization of more than one methodological scheme, and an
analysis of blocks of material without following the specifi c order of Hebrew canon)
(Hasel, Old Testament Theology, 28-114).