Copyright holder: Tyndale University, 3377 Bayview Ave., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2M 3S4 Att.: Library Director, J. William Horsey Library Copyright: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. Copyright license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License Citation: Idestrom, Rebecca G. S. “Old Testament Scholarship at Uppsala University, 1866-1922.” PhD., Sheffield University, 1995. ***** Begin Content ****** TYNDALE UNIVERSITY 3377 Bayview Avenue Toronto, ON M2M 3S4 TEL: 416.226.6620 www.tyndale.ca Note: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. Idestrom, Rebecca G. S. “Old Testament Scholarship at Uppsala University, 1866- 1922.” PhD., Sheffield University, 1995. [ Citation Page ] OLD TESTAMENT SCHOLARSHIP AT UPPSALA UNIVERSITY, 1866-1922 By REBECCA G. S. IDESTROM A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Biblical Studies University of Sheffield June 1995 [ Title Page ] Abstract Old Testament Scholarship at Uppsala University, 1866-1922 Rebecca G. S. Idestrom This doctoral thesis looks at five biblical scholars at Uppsala University who were important figures in Swedish Old Testament Scholarship from 1866 to 1922: O. F. Myrberg, W. Rudin, J. A. Ekman, F. A. Johansson and E. Stave. The purpose is to describe and analyze these theologians’ interpretation of and approach to the Old Testament and to determine the influential factors which shaped their scholarship. In this analysis, I try to identify the historical, cultural, political, geographical, social, philosophical and personal factors which played a role in influencing each scholar and his approach to Old Testament studies. Since towards the end of the nineteenth century, the historical-critical method began to be seriously debated and accepted in certain theological circles in Sweden, the scholars’ response to historical criticism is considered in particular. The importance which the Bible Commission played in their work, affecting their own translations and biblical exegesis is also examined. Myrberg and Rudin advocated a biblical theology which emphasized a Bible-centred approach to interpreting the biblical text, stressing its organic unity. For Rudin the incarnational model became important for articulating his view of the Bible as both human and divine and helped him accommodate certain aspects of biblical criticism. Although Ekman remained fairly conservative theologically, he defended the critical view of a Second Isaiah in 1877. Johansson accepted the historical-critical method and applied it to his study of Daniel. In fact, none of the scholars rejected historical criticism completely. Rudin and Ekman became more open to historical-critical methodology in principle, even though they could not embrace it fully. Although Myrberg made certain concessions to historical criticism, he spent the latter part of his life fighting against its full acceptance. Stave, however, embraced the historical-critical method completely and played an important role in promoting and popularizing the approach in Sweden. [ Abstract Page ] In loving Memory Dedicated to my Mother Gunvor Idestrom (1936-1992) [ Dedication Page ] Contents Preface .... i Abbreviations .... iv Chapter One INTRODUCTION .... 1 Chapter Two OTTO MYRBERG .... 13 Education and Academic Experience .... 14 Biblical Exegesis and Interpretation .... 30 The Historical-Critical Method .... 53 Conclusion .... 67 Chapter Three WALDEMAR RUDIN .... 70 Education and Academic Experience .... 72 Old Testament Exegesis and Interpretation .... 83 Prophecy and the Prophetic Writings .... 94 Influential People .... 105 The Speech of 1893 .... 110 Biblical Criticism .... 121 The Swedish Translation of the Bible .... 135 Conclusion .... 140 Chanter Four J. A. EKMAN and F. A. JOHANSSON .... 142 J. A. Ekman: Education and Academic Experience .... 143 The Thesis of 1877 .... 150 Historical Criticism .... 161 F. A. Johansson: Education and Academic Experience .... 166 Biblical Criticism or Biblical Research .... 170 Conclusion .... 176 Chapter Five ERIK STAVE .... 178 Education and Academic Experience .... 178 Theological Crisis .... 194 Theological Development .... 196 Promoting the New Method .... 203 Messianism in the Old Testament .... 217 The Swedish Translation of the Bible .... 220 Conclusion .... 223 [ Table of Contents Page a ] Chapter Six CONCLUSION .... 225 Photographs .... 233 Charts: .... 239 Old Testament Scholarship at Uppsala University .... 239 1866-1922 The Faculty of Theology at Uppsala University .... 240 (Exegesis 1850-1927) Bibliography .... 242 [ Table of Contents Page b ] [ Page i ] Preface This doctoral thesis focuses on the history of Swedish Old Testament scholarship at Uppsala University from 1866 to 1922. I believe that the history of biblical interpretation is very important for doing biblical exegesis in general. No biblical interpretation is ever done in isolation but is influenced by many factors. Consequently, a history of biblical exegesis gives biblical studies an historical perspective and context which can be important and useful for interpreting the Bible. I first became interested in the history of Old Testament interpretation while I was a postgraduate student at Wycliffe College in Toronto through my teachers in Old Testament, Professors Marion Taylor and Glen Taylor. Consequently I wrote my Master’s thesis on the Old Testament scholarship of the Canadian Peter C. Craigie. I owe a lot to Glen and Marion Taylor for their encouragement and support during both my Master’s and Doctoral studies. My particular interest in Swedish Old Testament scholarship arose partly from personal reasons. Since I was born in Sweden but emigrated to Canada at the age of ten, I found that this topic gave me an opportunity to explore my Swedish roots. My time in Sweden doing research on the topic was invaluable and has been very important in this respect. Just as biblical interpretation is never done in isolation but is shaped by many factors, neither have I written this doctoral thesis in isolation. Throughout the whole process of researching and working on my doctoral studies, I have been influenced and supported by many people, to whom I would like to acknowledge my debt. Without their encouragement as well as helpful feedback, this project probably would never have been undertaken. I wrote this thesis during very difficult personal, emotional and physical circumstances which made its [ Page ] ii completion a great challenge. I am very grateful for all the support of friends and loved ones during this time. I want to thank the Department of Biblical Studies in Sheffield for all I have learned from the staff and students. The exchange of ideas and feedback from the postgraduate seminar and from my fellow postgraduate students have been invaluable. I also want to thank my supervisor Professor John W. Rogerson whose scholarship, direction and personal life have challenged me immensely. His wisdom, insights and penetrating questions as well as great interest in my topic have both inspired me and helped shape my work. I also want to thank his wife Rosalind for her kindness and hospitality. I need to thank Professor Magnus Ottosson and the Department of Theology at Uppsala University for allowing me to come as a visiting scholar to do research there for one and a half years. Professor Ottosson made me very welcome and invited me to participate in their Old Testament postgraduate seminars. I appreciated the helpful feedback I received from the staff and students of the postgraduate seminar as well as the interest shown and help given by Professors Bertil Albrektson, Helmer Ringgren and Magnus Ottosson. Being in Uppsala and living in the same environment as ‘my Swedish theologians’ was invaluable for my research. Having access to the primary sources was also extremely important. Consequently, I am indebted to the staff at the Uppsala University Library and Lund University Library for all the help they gave me in finding the primary material for my research. I am also indebted to the inter-library loan service at Sheffield University as well as to the University Library in Cambridge. Without financial help from several organizations and people this doctoral program could not have been undertaken. Consequently, I am indebted to the following organizations and institutions for helping to [ Page ] iii fund my doctoral studies: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Doctoral Fellowship, Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom Overseas Research Students (ORS) Award, The Swedish Institute and the Canadian-Scandinavian Foundation, Biblical Studies Department Scholarship in Sheffield, and the BFWG Charitable Foundation Emergency Grant. I also want to thank Halifax Hall of Residence for the opportunity to live and work there as a tutor. My two years of tutoring there gave me wonderful experiences and many new friendships. Finally, I want to thank my family for all their prayers, emotional and financial support: my father Manne, my grandmother Clarita, my brothers Niclas and Henric and their wives Tina and Robin, and all my other relatives who supported me particularly during my time in Sweden. But most of all I want especially to acknowledge my debt of gratitude to my mother Gunvor who never lived to see the completion of my doctoral studies but who encouraged me to keep going and not give them up, even when it meant being separated from her for most of the time during her illness. It is to her that I dedicate this thesis. [ Page ] iv Abbreviations AB Aftonbladet ABS A. F. Beckmans brevsamling Akad Akademiska AKS A. Kolmodins samling Aug August BCE Before Common Era BF Bibelforskaren ch chapter CJLS C. J. Lindbloms samling Cor Corinthians CRS C. E. J. Rogbergs samling CWSS C. W. Skarstedts samling DBL Dansk Biografisk Lexsikon Dec December Dt Deuteronomy EBS E. Billings samling EJKS E. J. Keijsers samling ELS Emanuel Linderholms samling EMRS E. M. Rodhes samling EncPh The Encyclopedia of Philosophy EpR Epworth Review ESS E. Staves samling ET Ecklesiastik-Tidning etc et cetera ETS Elof Tegnérs samling Ex Exodus Fak Fakulteten FAS F. Arvedsons samling FAWS F. A. Wulffs samling Feb February ftn footnote GAS G. Auléns samling GBS A. G. L. Billings samling GES G. Ekströms samling GT Gamla Testamentet [ Page ] v HFA Harald Falks arkiv HHS H. Hjärnes brevsamling HLS A. H. Lundströms samling ht höst termin (autumn semester) HTR Harvard Theological Review Is Isaiah Jan January Jer Jeremiah JFLS J. F. Liedholms samling JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTS Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series KÅ Kyrkohistorisk Årsskrift KL Kirkelig Literaturtidende KMP Allmänna Kyrkomötets Protokoll KS Kyrka och Skola KT Kyrklig Tidskrift KVT Kristendomen och Vår Tid LBS L. Bergströms samling Lev Leviticus Lk Luke LQ The Lutheran Quarterly LQHR London Quarterly and Holborn Review LUÅ Lunds Universitets Årsskrift LUB Lund Universitetsbibliotek MPS M. Pfannenstills samling MT Masoretic Text NDA Nya Dagligt Allehanda NF Nordisk Familjebok NKT Ny Kyrklig Tidskrift Nov November NSS N. Söderbloms samling NT New Testament NUT Nordisk universitetstidskrift Oct October OFMS 0. F. Myrbergs samling OHS 0. Holmströms samling OT Old Testament Pg page [ Page ] vi PGES P. G. Eklunds samling Prot Protocols Ps Psalms Rel Religion RelS Religious Studies RHS R. Helgessons samling SAFS S. A. Fries samling SAS S. G. L. R. Alrutz brevsamling SBL Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon SEÅ Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok Sept September SJT Scottish Journal of Theology SK Svensk Kyrkotidning SLBL Stifts- och landsbibliotek i Linköping SLBS S. L. Brings samling SM Svenska Morgonbladet SMK Svenska Män och Kvinnor STK Svensk Teologisk Kvartalskrift SU Svensk Uppslagsbok Teol Teologiska TKTB Tidskrift för Kristlig Tro och Bildning TMS T. A. Mazers samling TQ Theologisk Quartalskrift TT Theologisk Tidskrift TZ Theologische Zeitschrift UUA Uppsala Universitets Arkiv UUÅ Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift UUB Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek UUK Uppsala Universitets Katalog UUM Uppsala Universitets Matrikel vol volume vt vår termin (spring semester) WRS W. Rudins samling [ Page ] 1 Chapter One Introduction In his book, A History of Uppsala University 1477-1977, Sten Lindroth made the claim that in the nineteenth century the Faculty of Theology in Uppsala “long presented a rather shabby appearance. It had no outstanding or leading personalities in the sphere of scholarship or in the Church of Sweden.”1 This statement, however, is not a very fair and accurate description of the Faculty at the time. It presents a too negative picture of the situation.2 In fact, as this study will reveal, there were individuals who engaged in careful and thoughtful scholarly research and who also played influential roles in the Church.3 At the end of the nineteenth century Swedish biblical scholarship was going through a transition period. Biblical research was being challenged and re-evaluated as it was attempting to respond to the waves of new theories and ideas from the continent. Sweden was not isolated from the theological controversies and debates which plagued continental Europe and Great Britain in the nineteenth century. The emergence of the historical-critical method led to a theological crisis for many ___________________________ 1 Sten Lindroth, A History of Uppsala University 1477-1977 (trans. by Neil Tomkinson with the assistance of Jean Gray; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1976) 196. In the Swedish version of the book, it reads: . . erbjuder Uppsalateologien under lång tid en ganska torftig anblick. Den ägde inga inom vetenskapen eller den svenska kyrkan verkligt framstående och ledande personligheter.” Idem, Uppsala Universitet 1477-1977 (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1976) 187. For the most recent history and introduction to the Faculty of Theology in Uppsala see: Helmer Ringgren, ed., Faculty of Theology at Uppsala University (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis; Uppsala University 500 years 1; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1976). 2 Eric J. Sharpe, Nathan Söderblom and the Study of Religion (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1990) 13-14. 3 All of the professors in the Faculty of Theology were ordained priests in the Swedish Lutheran Church and were very influential in the Church. Many of them became bishops and even archbishops in the Church. [ Page ] 2 individuals at the University as well as in the Church community. Consequently, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, the theologians were by and large preoccupied with the usefulness and implications of the new methods. Their response to these questions in turn shaped and molded their own approach to biblical research. The impetus to reconsider one’s methods and stance towards the Bible came partly from outside Sweden. Among these foreign influences, the greatest influence came from Germany.4 There was a great interest in German theology, demonstrated in the number of German writings reviewed, translated and debated in Swedish theological circles.5 Most of the theologians in Sweden made study trips to Germany some time during their career.6 However, this re-examination was also influenced by internal factors. The official Church of Sweden, the Lutheran Church, was struggling with many issues in the nineteenth century. It did not respond well to the secularization of this time period. At the same time, the seeming barrenness and spiritual dryness of the Church of Sweden caused dissatisfied members to break away from the institutional and established Church. As a result, in the nineteenth ____________________________ 4 In fact, Germany was influential in many areas of Swedish life and culture. “In the stream of influence from the continent, it was Germany who dominated in nordic cultural life ever since the beginning of the nineteenth century.” (“I strömmen av inflytande från kontinenten var det Tyskland som dominerade i nordiskt kulturliv allt sedan 1800-talets början.” Lars Österlin, “Över gränserna,” in Nordisk Lutherdom över gränserna: de nordiska kyrkorna i 1900-talets konfessionella samarbete [edited by Lars Österlin; Lund: Gleerups, 1972] 16.) See also K. G. Hammar, “Under inflytande från Tyskland. Tysk teologi i svenska teologiska tidskrifter vid 1900-talets början,” in Nordisk Lutherdom över gränserna: de nordiska kyrkorna i 1900-talets konfessionella samarbete (edited by Lars Österlin; Lund: Gleerups, 1972). It will become evident that this German influence was very important for the Swedish scholars under consideration in this study. 5 In the Theological Society in Uppsala, the minutes reveal that there were regular reports and lectures on the current state of affairs in theology and biblical scholarship in Germany. Many German books were reviewed. 16 Feb 1876 § 2, 2 March 1877 § 1, 26 Feb 1879, 26 Nov 1879 Teol Föreningens Prot 1863-1879 U 2325 a UUB; 23 Nov 1881 § 3, 8 Feb 1882 § 7 Teol Föreningens Prot 1880-1884 U 2325 b UUB; 22 Feb 1888 § 2 Teol Föreningens Prot 1884-1889 U 2325 c UUB. 6 A11 of the biblical scholars in this study went to Germany to study at some time in their lives. [ Page ] 3 century a number of evangelical revival movements occurred, which were rooted in pietism, and several free Church groups were founded.7 These pietistic revival movements had certain influence on several of the theologians at Uppsala University. The new generation of scholars at both Uppsala and Lund Universities at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries were greatly concerned with the state of the Church of Sweden and desired to change things. Their effort to revise biblical scholarship and adopt new methods was intended to be one attempt to renew and revitalize the Church.8 Although there are instances and examples of Swedish theologians who were beginning to adopt historical criticism in their biblical exegesis or at least were very aware of German critical scholarship in the first half of the nineteenth century,9 the new period of transition within biblical __________________________ 7 H. M. Waddams, The Swedish Church (London: William Clowes & Sons, 1946) 28- 31; Sten Hidal, Bibeltro och bibelkritik: Studier kring den historisk-kritiska bibelsynens genombrott i Sverige 1877-1910 med särskild hänsyn till Gamla testamentet (Lund: Skeab Verbum, 1979) 54. 8 At the beginning of the twentieth century, Nathan Söderblom and Einar Billing who were teaching in the Faculty of Theology in Uppsala were some of the key individuals who had a vision to revive the Lutheran Church of Sweden. One consequence of this was the founding of The Young Church Movement (“Ungkyrkorörelsen”) in 1909. For more information on this movement, see: Alf Tergel, Ungkyrkomännen, arbetarfrågan och nationalismen 1901-1911 (Stockholm: Verbum, 1969); idem, Från konfrontation till institution: Ungkyrkorörelsen 1912-1917 (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis; Studia Historico-Ecclesiastica Upsaliensia; Karlskrona: Thesis/Verbum, 1974). 9 Lindeskog mentions Samuel Ödmann, Henrik Reuterdahl, Gustaf Knös, J. Thorsander in particular in his survey of exegetical theses in Sweden in the nineteenth century (Gösta Lindeskog, “Svenska Exegetiska Disputationer under 1800-talet,” UUÅ 2, 17 [1941] 3-19). Reuterdahl often reviewed critical scholarship from Germany in the periodical Theologisk Quartalskrift (see TQ 1-3 [1828-1831]). Writing in 1837, he claimed that Sweden was afraid of German exegesis: “For the newer German exegesis there is still great fear.” (“För den nyare tyska exegetiken har man ännu stor farhåga.” Henrik Reuterdahl, Inledning till Theologien [Lund: Gleerups Förlag, 1837] 270.) Thorsander showed knowledge of several German scholars including de Wette, Michaelis, Eichhorn, von Herder in his work: Joh. Thorsander, Revelationis Divinae Progredientis Adumbratio Biblica Dissertatio (Upsaliae: Excudebant Regiae Academiae Typographi, 1819). G. Knös argued against the unity of Isaiah, following Gesenius in his position (G. Knös, Scholia selecta in Esai I-XII and Scholia selecta in Esai XIII-XXXIX [Upsaliae: Excudebant Regiae Academiae Typographi, 1823, 1826]). A. E. Knös discussed the works of Eichhorn, Bertholdt, de Wette, Bleek but described them as having a more sceptical direction (A. E. Knös, “Grunddragen till den bibliska isagogiken,” in Skrifter af Anders Erik Knös [vol 1/1; [ Page ] 4 scholarship in Sweden began in the 1870s and 1880s. It was then the process of change from the so-called ‘pre-critical’ period to the ‘critical’ approach to biblical research began.10 During this time, the theological discussions and debates centred around the nature, inspiration and authority of the Bible.11 These questions became especially relevant and _________________________________________________________________________________ Upsala: Esaias Edquist, 1863] 1-2). M. G. Rosenius discussed the JEDP documentary hypothesis in his Introduction to the Holy Scriptures in 1872 (revised 1878) but he did not accept the theory. (M. G. Rosenius, Inledningsvetenskapen till den Heliga Skrift [Lund: Berlinska Boktryckeriet, på Fr. Berlings Förlag, 1872] 56-65.) Nathan Söderblom’s unpublished lecture notes from 1903-04 on Swedish theology in the nineteenth century discussed several Swedish theologians’ contributions to scholarship, especially at Lund University. (Söderblom’s wife Anna had hoped to publish these lecture notes after his death but unfortunately never did.) Nathan Söderblom, Svensk teologi i det nittonde århundradet, vol 1-2 Föreläsningar ht 1903- vt 1904, NSS UUB. 10 The words critical and pre-critical are difficult terms because they seem to imply that before this period there was no critical biblical scholarship in Sweden. In reality, there were a number of theologians who analyzed the Bible critically. For example, in the seventeenth century, J. Terserus (d.1678) was working on a commentary on the Old Testament dealing with critical issues. (Lars Hartman, “New Testament Exegesis,” in Faculty of Theology at Uppsala University [edited by Helmer Ringgren; Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis; Uppsala 500 years 1; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1976] 51-52; Hidal, Bibeltro, 56.) It is disappointing that Helmer Ringgren begins his history of Old Testament exegesis at Uppsala University with Erik Stave, a biblical scholar at the turn of the twentieth century, as if there were no critical Old Testament scholars at Uppsala before this period. In fact, we learn nothing at all of Old Testament research in Uppsala before the twentieth century in his article. (Helmer Ringgren, “Old Testament Exegesis,” in Faculty of Theology at Uppsala University [edited by Helmer Ringgren; Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis; Uppsala University 500 years 1; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1976] 41.) Unfortunately, the historical-critical method has too often been seen as the beginning of critical biblical scholarship. Perhaps it is better to use the term modern critical scholarship to describe this change of approach. 11 At the Uppsala Theological Society, they debated such topics as the nature of biblical inspiration, the relationship between the divine and human elements of divine revelation, biblical authority, etc. (16 April 1868, 4 March 1874 § 1 Teol Föreningens Prot 1863-1879 U 2325 a UUB; 3 Oct 1883 § 5 Teol Föreningens Prot 1880-1884 U 2325 b UUB; 10 Nov 1886 § 2 Teol Föreningens Prot 1884-1889 U 2325 c UUB; 19 March 1890 § 3, 3 Feb 1892 § 7, 17 Feb 1892 § 4 Teol Föreningens Prot 1890-1906 U 2325 d UUB.) There were lectures given and articles published on the subject as well. See John Personne’s speech to the Swedish Bible Society (“Svenska Bibelsällskapet”) in 1886 where he spoke on biblical inspiration (J. W. Personne, Tal vid Svenska bibelsällskapets allmänna årssammankomst den 21 April 1886 [no publisher given]). Because some people took offence by his speech since he denied the old theory of verbal inspiration, Personne wrote a defence of his position where he further elaborated on his views (John Personne “Om bibelns gudomliga auktoritet,” TT 27 [1887] 161-79). In a letter, Personne expressed his frustration over the fact that some people had taken offence, stating that no educated theologian today can still hold to the old mechanical notion of inspiration. (10 Aug 1886 Letter to C. E. J. Rogberg from J. Personne, CRS X 290 bb 3 UUB.) [ Page ] 5 acute in light of the emergence of historical criticism. They began to grapple with the implications of the historical-critical method when applied to the Bible and to the Old Testament in particular.12 The relationship between faith and criticism became an important topic for consideration. By the 1890s, the modern critical approach was making serious inroads in certain theological circles and was debated at great length in the Faculty of Theology in Uppsala.13 However, the full acceptance of the modern historical-critical method did not come until the early twentieth century. To write a history of the development of Swedish Old Testament scholarship at the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the ___________________________ 12 In 1884 and 1887, Lars Landgren published a negative critique of Pentateuchal criticism (L. Landgren, “Betänkligheter vid den nyare kritiken af Moseböckerna,” TT 24 [1884] 1-12, 89-100, 169-78; TT 27 [1887] 1-28). In 1886, C. E. Johansson did the same (Claes Elis Johansson, Den heliga skrift och den negativa kritiken: ett apologetiskt bidrag [Upsala: Akademiska Bokhandeln, 1886]). In 1887, Ludvig Bergström made a study trip to Germany where he was introduced to historical criticism. (See Bergström’s diaries from the trip: Dagböcker, brev och predikningar, LBS 420A UUB.) When he returned to Sweden, he brought back a copy of Wellhausen and Dillmann and reported on his findings in the Uppsala Theological Society. Consequently, from 1888 onwards the historical-critical method and Pentateuchal criticism were continuously debated in both the Theological Society and the Society for Semitic Languages in Uppsala. (22 Feb 1888 § 2, 27 March 1889 § 3, 10 April 1889 § 3, 13 Nov 1889 § 2 Teol Föreningens Prot 1884-1889 U 2325 c UUB; 3 Feb 1892, 2 March 1892 § 5, 24 Oct 1894 § 3 Teol Föreningens Prot 1890- 1906 U 2325 d UUB. 4 April 1889 § 3, 24 Oct 1889 § 3, 24 April 1890 § 4, 9 Dec 1892 § 3, 11 Dec 1895 § 4, 13 May 1898 § 2, 12 Nov 1898 § 4 Protokollsbok för Föreningen för Semitiska Språk 1888-1907 U 2090 a UUB.) According to Nathan Söderblom, it was Bergström who was really the first to introduce the subject in such a way that it began to be seriously considered and debated from then on. In a letter to Bergström where Söderblom described the debate over the historical-critical method in the Society, Söderblom wrote: “As you hear, things are moving forward, and you deserve a ‘thank you’ for giving the first push.” (“Du hör att det går framåt, och tack ska’ du ha, som gav första knuffen.” 11 April 1889 Letter to L. Bergström from N. Söderblom, NSS UUB.) 13 For some examples, see: Oskar Levan, Studier öfver Gamla testamentets värde ur frälsningshistorisk synpunkt (Lund: Gleerupska Universitets-Bokhandeln, 1891); L. Bergström, Om Moseböckernas uppkomst (Svenska spörmål 5; Uppsala: Bibliografiska Institutet, 1892); idem, Moseböckernas värde (Svenska spörmål 8; Stockholm: Lars Hökerbergs Förlag, 1893); J. Personne, “Bibelkritikens nyaste hypoteser om gamla testamentet,” TKTB 5 (1887) 19-46; idem, Bibelkritiken (I Vår Tids Lifsfrågor Skriftserie no 14; Upsala: Upsala N. T:s Boktryckeri-aktiebolag, 1900). The works of S. A. Fries, E. Stave and F. A. Johansson are very important in this respect but will be considered in the following chapters. [ Page ] 6 twentieth century is a difficult task. Since research can never be done in isolation, in an ivory tower so to speak, there are many factors which contribute to and shape the work of scholars and these must be taken into account. Historical, cultural, political, geographical, social, philosophical and personal factors all play a part in influencing a person and his or her scholarship. Research and methods of interpretation are also affected by the kind of questions which are important and relevant at the time. As these questions and their relevancy change, the perspectives, priorities, interests and methods of scholarship alter as well. Consequently, all these factors must be considered when one is writing a history of interpretation. Scholarship must be understood in light of its context.14 The difficulty and challenge of such an approach is that one must read widely to get a right perspective and to see the bigger picture in order to understand the topic in its proper historical context.15 Because of the vast range of the topic and unlimited possibilities, I have limited myself to five biblical scholars at Uppsala University who were important figures in Swedish Old Testament Scholarship from 1866 to 1922. The purpose of this study is to describe and analyze these theologians’ interpretation of and approach to the Old Testament and to try to determine the influential factors which shaped their scholarship. I ___________________________ 14 John Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany (London: SPCK, 1984) 3-6; Gustaf Wingren, “Swedish Theology since 1900.” SJT 9 (1956) 113. 15 For my research, I did not only read the scholars’ writings on the Old Testament, their published or unpublished materials, but I also read their letters, diaries, obituaries and biographical material. I read the protocols and diaries from the Faculty of Theology in Uppsala, the University catalogues, the Course requirements, the results of the competitions for professorial chairs, the minutes from the General Church Assemblies, the Uppsala Theological Society, the Society for Semitic Languages and the Uppsala Christian Students Association. I read histories of the Faculty of Theology, of Uppsala University and of the Swedish Church. I also went through the main theological journals, reading book reviews and articles, trying to determine what the main burning issues were at the time. Finally, I had to know something of the history of Old Testament research in general in the rest of western Europe in the nineteenth century in order to understand Swedish biblical scholarship within this wider context. [ Page ] 7 have limited my study to the individuals who actually held a professorial chair in exegesis or lectured in the subject as docent in exegesis in the Faculty of Theology.16 Although there were students and other theologians in Uppsala who were engaged in Old Testament research, this study focuses on those who actually were on the staff, teaching biblical _____________________________ 16 I have retained the Swedish word docent throughout the thesis because there is no exact equivalent in English. It could be translated as reader or (senior) lecturer in British English. In American English today, a docent is referred to as an Assistant Professor although in Sweden a docent does not have professorial status. In the Swedish University system there were four different teaching positions at the end of the nineteenth century: docent, adjunkt, extraordinarie and ordinarie professor. (From now on, I will refer to these positions in English as adjunct, extraordinary and ordinary professorships.) In 1593, there were three theological professors, two who taught biblical exegesis (the first taught OT and the second NT) and one who taught dogmatics. In 1621, a third professor in exegesis was added. In 1626 a fourth professorial chair was created which taught dogmatics. As a result, from 1626 to 1863, there existed four theological professors in the Faculty who were ranked from one to four. In 1655, the first theology professor taught NT whereas the second and third theology professors were assigned to the OT. However, in 1778 the third theological professor in exegesis was withdrawn and in 1790 the second one was also withdrawn. In 1795, the first theology professor was changed into professor in church history and moral theology and a second theology professor was given exegesis as his subject. Consequently, from 1795 onwards there was only one professor teaching exegesis, and in 1806 this responsibility was assigned to the first theology professor. In 1863, the number system of ranking the four professorships was abolished and the first theology professor became the ordinary professor in exegesis. There were also adjuncts who assisted with the teaching in the Faculty, one of whom was assigned to exegesis. In 1877, the three adjuncts in theology were changed to extraordinary professorships, one of which became responsible for teaching biblical exegesis. In Lund, the extraordinary professor in exegesis would primarily teach OT and the ordinary professor was assigned the NT, but in Uppsala, the two professorial chairs were given responsibility over both subjects. Yet, in practice, the extraordinary professor tended to teach more OT exegesis than the ordinary professor, although there was some overlap in the division of labour. The docent was the lowest ranking lecturer who was paid a minimal stipend for his teaching. The adjunct was an assistant lecturer, the extraordinary professor was an assistant (or associate) professor, and the ordinary professor was the person who held a permanently established full professorial chair in the subject. For a history of the professorial chairs and lectureships at Uppsala University, see: J. A. Ekman, “Teologiska Fakulteten,” in Upsala Universitet 1872-1897: Festskrift med anledning af konung Oscar 11:s tjugofemårs regerings jubileum (edited by Reinhold Geijer; Upsala: Akademiska Boktryckeriet, 1897); Åke Ström, “Series professorum Exegeseos Biblicae ordinariorum Upsaliensium a reformatione,” SEÅ 1 (1936) 87-109; C. A. Cornelius, Några bidrag till Upsala Theologiska Fakultets historia (vol I-III; Upsala: Akademiska Boktryckeriet, Ed. Berling, 1874, 1875). For Lund University, see: Erik Sjöberg, “Series professorum exegeseos biblicae Lundensium,” SEÅ 2 (1937) 230- 48; Elof Tegnér, Lunds universitet 1872-1897 (Lund: CWK Gleerups Förlag, 1897); Krister Gierow, Lunds Universitets Historia. III. 1790-1867 (utgiven av universitetet till dess 300-Ärsjubileum; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1971); Jörgen Weibull, Lunds Universitets Historia. IV. 1868-1968 (utgiven av universitetet till dess 300- Årsjubileum; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1968). [ Page ] 8 exegesis in the Faculty of Theology.17 Consequently, this study concentrates on the five scholars who taught biblical exegesis in Uppsala at the end of the nineteenth century, each considered in chronological order: O. F. Myrberg, W. Rudin, J. A. Ekman, F. A. Johansson and E. Stave. The time parameters of this endeavour are set by the period during which these theologians taught at the University. The study begins with Otto Myrberg who became ordinary professor in exegesis at Uppsala University in 1866 and it ends with Erik Stave who retired as professor in exegesis in 1922.18 The time frame of this thesis is also limited by the issues which were important during this period. It was during Myrberg’s time and following that the historical-critical method began to make serious inroads in Swedish biblical scholarship. Although this study will look at these scholars’ approach to the Old Testament in general, their response to historical criticism in particular will be considered. By the time Erik Stave retired, the modern critical approach had been completely accepted and embraced in Sweden. From the 1920s onwards, there were new changes in methodology emerging which eventually led to the creation of the so-called ‘Uppsala School’ of the 1940s and 1950s.19 This earlier _____________________________ 17 Some of these theologians who are excluded from the main focus of this study, do however, enter into the discussion at times when their work becomes important and relevant. The Old Testament scholarship of Samuel Fries is a good example of this. He was a student in Uppsala who was unable to gain a professorial chair in exegesis even after three attempts. 18 Although I am committed to using inclusive language, since there were no women who taught in the Faculty of Theology in Uppsala at the time, I will use the masculine pronoun thoughout. When these men wrote, they assumed that the biblical interpreter would be a man since they only trained men for the priesthood at the time. 19 Knight asserts that a more accurate and better term for this Swedish School is the ‘Uppsala Circle.’ See his dissertation on the subject: Douglas A. Knight, The Traditions of Israel. The Development of the Traditio-Historical Research of the Old Testament, with Special Consideration of Scandinavian Contributions (Society of Biblical Literature for the Form Criticism Seminar Dissertation Series 9; Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973); see also G. W. Anderson, “Some Aspects of the Uppsala School of Old Testament Study,” HTR 43 /4 (1950) 239-56. [ Page ] 9 period before the ‘Uppsala School’ was created forms the foundation from which this new school of thought emerged. Although there were two Faculties of Theology in Sweden where priests trained for the ministry of the Lutheran Church of Sweden at the time, in Uppsala and Lund,20 this study concentrates on the biblical research done at Uppsala University.21 This does not mean that there was no significant Old Testament scholarship at Lund University in this time period. On the contrary, the opposite is true.22 Neither does it mean that there was no contact between the two Faculties. There definitely was some exchange of ideas between them (even though this was somewhat minimal at times) and some of these exchanges even caused tension between them. There were also some scholars who moved from one Faculty to the other.23 However, the theological traditions of each Faculty differed from each other. These traditions developed differently because the theological climate and influences varied in each geographical region. For example, Uppsala was low Church in its orientation whereas Lund was more high Church.24 There were different individuals, events and philosophical issues which shaped each Faculty of Theology and affected each in their response to the newer methodologies. Consequently, there were certain differences in the history of the reception of historical criticism between the two Faculties.25 This study ______________________________ 20 In Sweden, the ministers are called priests in the Lutheran Church. 21 The main reason for not including Lund University in my study is the vastness of the subject matter as well as the time restraints placed on the completion of this thesis. 22 The biblical scholars who were at Lund University during this time period were H. M. Melin, C. W. Skarstedt, M. G. Rosenius, S. Hemer, M. Lundborg and F. A. Johansson. 23 For example, F. A. Johansson. G. Aulén and J. Lindblom. 24 G. Aulén, Hundra års Svensk kyrkodebatt: Drama i tre akter (Stockholm: Svenska Kyrkans Diakonistyrelses Bokförlag, 1953)15-55. 25 The two Faculties had different theological traditions and emphases at the time. See Hidal, Bibeltro, 184-85; Wingren, “Swedish Theology,” 113-119; K. G. Hammar, Liberalteologi och kyrkopolitik: kretsen kring Kristendomen och Vår Tid 1906 - omkr. 1920 (Bibliotheca Historico-Ecclesiastica Lundensis I; Lund: CWK Gleerup [ Page ] 10 tries to identify the factors which influenced the biblical scholars at Uppsala University. The focus on Old Testament scholarship in particular is due to the fact that the debates and theological controversies over the authority and inspiration of the Bible first centred around the Old Testament.26 In turn the changes in method and approach to the Old Testament affected its practical use within the Church community. Although I am mainly focusing on the Old Testament, it is important to recognize, however, that the Swedish theologians in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries concentrated their studies on both the Old and New Testaments. In fact, the chair in the Faculty of Theology was called a chair in exegesis, which encompassed both Testaments. The separation of the subject matter into two professorial chairs, one in Old Testament exegesis and one in New Testament exegesis, did not occur until later, in 1909.27 Consequently, the biblical scholars considered in this study did not devote their studies exclusively to the Old Testament. This reality, in fact, affected their approach to the biblical text: they viewed the two Testaments as a whole and as a unity. They were shaped by a Christian perspective of the Scriptures. Consequently, their views on the Old ________________________________________________________________________________ Bokförlag, 1972) 17-26; Thor Hall, A Framework for Faith: Lundensian Theological Methodology in the Thought of Ragnar Bring (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970) 27-34. 26 The crisis over the historical-critical method began with its application to the Old Testament. The controversy did not involve the New Testament until the early twentieth century. Gustaf Wingren, An Exodus Theology: Einar Billing and the Development of Modern Swedish Theology (trans. by Eric Wahlström; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969) 1-2; Hartman, “New Testament Exegesis,” 52-54. 27 In 1909, the extraordinary chair in exegesis in Uppsala became an ordinary professorial chair when Kolmodin became ordinary professor in exegesis. From then on this chair was devoted exclusively to NT exegesis. In practice however, ever since Stave became ordinary professor in exegesis in 1900, he devoted himself to OT exegesis and Kolmodin focused on the NT as extraordinary professor in exegesis since 1903. Ever since the extraordinary chair in exegesis was created in 1877, until 1900 both the extraordinary and the ordinary professorial chairs in Uppsala were devoted to teaching both OT and NT exegesis, whereas in Lund, the two subjects were divided between them, the extraordinary professor teaching OT and the ordinary professor the NT. Ekman, “Teologiska Fakulteten,” 154; Sjöberg, “Professorum exegeseos biblicae Lundensium,” 235. [ Page ] 11 Testament must also be considered in the light of their stance and approach to the Bible as a whole. It was a factor which influenced their work and thus is significant. I have focused on the period at the end of the nineteenth century because very little has been published on this subject from this time period. We know a lot about Old Testament scholarship in the nineteenth century in the rest of western Europe, Great Britain and North America, but we do not know much about Scandinavian scholarship at the time. Very little is known of Swedish Old Testament scholarship in general outside Scandinavia since very little has been published in or translated into other languages besides Swedish. Much more has been published in German or English about the so-called Uppsala School whereas virtually nothing has been published on this earlier period of Swedish history outside Scandinavia. In fact, very little at all has been published in Swedish on Old Testament research in Sweden in the nineteenth century. Sten Hidal’s book Bibeltro och Bibelkritik (from 1979) is the only main work published on the subject.28 There are, however, a number of articles, chapters of books and some publications which give a general picture of biblical scholarship and the relevant and burning theological issues in Sweden at the time. Besides Hidal’s work, some of the more important secondary sources of information come from Rodhe, Lindeskog, Linder, Åberg, Fries among others.29 Since the ongoing work of the Swedish _____________________________ 28 Sten Hidal who teaches at Lund University prepared this study as a priestly thesis (“prästavhandling”) for the 1979 ministerial Church Synod (“prästmöte”). Hidal has done a good and thorough job in analyzing the responses of many individuals, professors, bishops, priests, and lay people to the adoption of the historical-critical method in Sweden in this work. For a more detailed description of this controversy and its broader consequences, see Hidal’s book. 29 Edvard Rodhe, Svenska kyrkan omkring sekelskiftet (Stockholm: Svenska Kyrkans Diakonistyrelses Bokförlag, 1930); idem, “En blick på de trenne sista decenniernas svenska teologi,” STK 3 (1927) 207-29; idem, Den religiösa liberalismen (Stockholm: Svenska Kyrkans Diakonistyrelses Bokförlag, 1935); Lindeskog, [ Page ] 12 Bible Commission’s new translation of the Bible dominated theological discussions in the nineteenth century and the biblical scholars in Uppsala made several responses to these new trial translations or worked on the translation, Olsson’s and Albrektson’s work on this subject is very important.30 However, my study is mainly based on primary research on the published and unpublished works and letters of the scholars themselves under consideration.31 Contrary to Sten Lindroth’s view, it will become apparent that there were some outstanding individuals who did make an important contribution to Swedish biblical scholarship and who also played significant roles within the Church of Sweden.32 _________________________________________________________________________________ “Svenska Exegetiska Disputationer,” 3-43; Sven Linder, “Domprosten Erik Stave: En minnesteckning,” SEÅ 5 (1940) 224-69; Bengt Åberg, Individualitet och univeralitet hos Waldemar Rudin (Lund: Verbum, 1968); S. A. Fries, Vår kärleks historia. Ett bidrag till teologiens historia (edited by Martin Fries; Stockholm: Bokförlaget Natur och Kultur, 1945). For a more general overview of Swedish Church history of the time see: Hjalmar Holmquist, Handbok i svensk kyrkohistoria (vol 3; Från Romantiken till Världskriget jämte Grunddragen av det övriga Nordens Kyrkohistoria; Stockholm: Svenska Kyrkans Diakonistyrelses Bokförlag, 1941); Gustaf Aulén, Dogmahistoria: Den kristna lärobildning ens utvecklingsgång från den efter-apostoliska tiden till våra dagar (vol 4; Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner, 1946); Waddams, The Swedish Church. 30 Birger Olsson, “Svenskt bibelöversättningsarbete. En översikt främst med tanke på Nya testamentet,” in Nyöversättning av Nya testamentet. Behov och principer (Betänkande avgivet av 1963 års bibelkommitté; Statens offentliga utredningar 1968:65; Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksells, 1968); Bertil Albrektson, “Tidigare svenska översättningar,” in Att översätta Gamla testamentet. Texter, kommentarer, riktlinjer (Betänkande av 1971 års bibelkommitté för Gamla testamentet; Statens offentliga utredningar 1974:33; Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell, 1974); idem, “Grundtext och urtext: om underlaget för svenska översättningar av Gamla testamentet,” in Understanding the Poets and Prophets. Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson (edited by A. Graeme Auld; JSOTS 152; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993). 31 If I am not mistaken, I believe that some of the unpublished papers and letters that I read in the archives of the Uppsala University Library have not been studied by anyone else since the library acquired them. This certainly seemed to be the case with the two boxes of Myrberg’s papers and notes I looked at. 32 I have done my own translations from the Swedish into English. In the footnotes I have given the original Swedish quotations and have retained the old Swedish spelling. I have put the Swedish citations within quotation marks in the footnotes rather than in italics in order to make them easier to read. But whenever I have retained a Swedish word in the main body of the text, I have put it into italics as is the usual practice with foreign languages. In the bibliography and in the list of abbreviations, I have placed the Swedish vowels å, ä and ö under a and o respectively, following the order of an English dictionary even though in the Swedish dictionary they come at the end as individual entries. [ Page ] 13 Chapter Two Otto Myrberg In the second half of the nineteenth century, biblical scholarship at Uppsala University was dominated by the personality and work of Otto Ferdinand Myrberg. This somewhat controversial and colourful person devoted his whole life to biblical exegesis and to making his own translation of the Bible into Swedish. In the appropriate words of Sten Hidal: “He held a real passion for the Bible.”1 Myrberg took a pietistic Bible-centred approach to interpreting the Bible, emphasizing the organic unity of the Bible as a whole. He believed in the primacy of the Bible over any ecclesiastical doctrine or creed which meant that he often came into conflict with Lutheran orthodoxy. Although Myrberg was particularly influenced by the writings of J. C. K. von Hofmann, J. T. Beck and S. Kierkegaard for his general theological outlook, he held original and independent views and often went his own way on different issues. In his approach to Old Testament interpretation, the scholarship of Franz Delitzsch was especially important for Myrberg; he admired Delitzsch’s work even if he did not always agree with his scholarship. Generally, Myrberg took a moderately conservative stance in his interpretation of Scripture which eventually led him to oppose strongly the rise of modern historical criticism towards the end of his life. Although as professor of exegesis Myrberg did more work on the New Testament, he did focus on the Old Testament as well in his teaching, ______________________________ 1 "Han hyste en verklig passion för Bibeln.” (Hidal, Bibeltro, 73.) According to Hidal, Myrberg was perhaps the first theologian at Uppsala University to devote himself exclusively to exegesis. His predecessors in the chair of exegesis tended to devote their energies to other theological subjects as well. See Ström, “Professorum Exegeseos Biblicae ordinariorum Upsaliensium,” 87-109. [ Page ] 14 translating, writing and research.2 Although his general approach to biblical interpretation will be considered, it is his work on the Old Testament in particular which will be the primary focus of this study.3 Education and Academic Experience Myrberg was born in Göteborg on the 26th or 27th of April 1824 into a theologically and academically oriented family.4 His father, professor Erik Myrberg, was a lecturer in theology in Göteborg.5 In the autumn of 1841, Myrberg enrolled at Uppsala University where initially he had hoped to study music. However, because of a sickness of the nerves which affected his hands, feet and his general health for the rest of his life, he instead first began to study philosophy and then theology, ____________________________ 2 Birger Olsson considers Myrberg to be the first professor of New Testament exegesis in Uppsala’s history, although he concedes that Myrberg dedicated a lot of his work to the Old Testament. Olsson, “Svenskt bibelöversättningsarbete.” 436-37. 3 The following sources are works written about Myrberg: Israel Myrberg, “O. F. Myrbergs levnad och personlighet,” in Predikningar av O. F. Myrberg (compiled by Israel Myrberg; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells Förlag, 1924); O. Larsson, Professor Otto Ferdinand Myrberg. En teckning av hans person och teologi av en lärjunge (Gävle: Arbetarbladet, 1932); J. A. Ekman, “Otto Ferdinand Myrberg,” BF 16 (1899) I-VI; W. Rudin, “Otto Ferdinand Myrberg,” KT 5 (1899) 262-71; G. G. Rosenqvist, “O. F. Myrberg,” (Finsk) TT 4 (1899) 239-42; Erik Stave, “Några livsintryck från professor O. F. Myrberg,” in Hågkomster och livsintryck av svenska män och kvinnor (vol 2; Uppsala: J. A. Lindblads Förlag, 1922); J. von Bahr and Th. Brandberg, “Myrberg, Otto Ferdinand,” in Upsala Universitets Matrikel (Upsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1896); Gösta Lindeskog, “O. F. Myrbergs vetenskapliga gärning,” SEÅ 11 (1946) 94-117; Rurik Holm, “Myrberg, Otto Ferdinand,” SU 20 (1960) 630; Hans Gillingstam, “Myrberg,” SBL 26 (1989) 139-40; Åberg, Individualitet, 100-110. Besides Myrberg’s own published works, there is a collection of his unpublished manuscripts, notes and letters found at the Uppsala University Library. 4 According to the Church records and Myrberg’s father, Myrberg was bom on the 26th but according to his mother he was bom on the 27th. Myrberg celebrated his birthday on the 27th. He was the fourth child of five children. For this biographical section, the information comes from the above sources (listed in ftn 3) unless otherwise indicated. 5 His father Erik Myrberg had also been at Uppsala University where he studied oriental languages and philosophy, particularly that of Kant. He then was docent in oriental languages in Uppsala until he went to Göteborg to teach history, theology and Hebrew and also pastor some churches. Myrberg was taught by his father at home until secondary school (“gymnasium”). His best subjects were history, botany, German, Latin, French, Greek and Hebrew. Since his strict father would not allow Myrberg to play games with his friends, this quiet and introverted boy found comfort in the piano and his Bible. All those hours spent alone reading the Bible in his youth became a foundation for his biblical theology developed later (Larsson, Myrberg, 7-8). [ Page ] 15 preparing for the priesthood in the Church of Sweden.6 He completed the Theoretical Theology examination (dimissionsexamen) in 1847, the Bachelor of Arts degree (filosofie kandidatexamen) in 1849 and the Bachelor of Theology degree (teologie kandidatexamen) in 1851.7 In the same year 1851, he successfully defended a doctoral thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree, having written a Latin commentary on the book of Joel.8 The following year 1852, he began his teaching career by becoming docent in theological prenotions at Uppsala University.9 Although his preference was to stay in Uppsala,10 he decided to apply to the adjunct teaching position in theology at Lund University in 1859 by writing a Latin commentary on the first epistle of John.11 He was placed second on the list of nominees for the position, while C. W. Skarstedt got the position.12 However Myrberg was instead appointed _______________________________ 6 He studied the history of humanity with E. G. Geijer and also the philosophy of Kant. 7 I have tried to find the closest equivalent degrees or examinations in English, but I am well aware of the fact they are not the same. In fact, one should keep in mind that the degrees and the degree requirements in Sweden today are not the same but have changed from what they were in the nineteenth century, even if the degrees are called by the same name. 8 The thesis was entitled: “In librum, qui Joelis nomine inscribitur, Veteris Testamenti brevis commentatio.” 9 During this time as docent (1852-60), he wrote a thesis on the donatist schism published in 1856 entitled: “De schismate donatistarum. Dissertatio historico- dogmatica.” 10 In a letter to professor A. F. Beckman at Uppsala University, Myrberg wrote about his desire to stay in Uppsala: “If it can lead to me being appointed in Uppsala, then I have reason to be quite pleased; for I still prefer to stay in Uppsala.” (“Kan det medföra att jag blifver nämnd i Upsala, har jag skäl att dermed vara ganska belåten; ty i Upsala stadnas jag dock helst.” 25 June 1859 Letter to A. F. Beckman from Myrberg, ABS UUB.) 11 The commentary was entitled: “Commentarius in epistolam Johanneam primam. Dissertatio exegetica.” Myrberg’s work was praised in W. Meyer’s commentary on the New Testament. He also had to give two trial lectures in Lund in competing for the position. 12 Myrberg told Beckman that a rumour in Lund had it that although Myrberg had the advantage in his ability for scholarly clarity, Skarstedt was preferred for his versatility and homiletical strengths. Myrberg assumed that Skarstedt would get the job. 25 June 1859 Letter to A. F. Beckman from Myrberg, ABS UUB. [ Page ] 16 adjunct lecturer in exegesis at Uppsala University in I860.13 With this appointment, Myrberg was given the parish church of Uppsala-Näs for his pastoral care. He also had to take care of the lecture duties of the professor in exegesis for the first year (1860-61). When professor A. E. Knös died in 1862 and thus vacated his chair as first theology professor in Uppsala, whose subject traditionally was exegesis, Myrberg decided to apply for it.14 Consequently in 1865 he defended a thesis as part of his application entitled “Concerning the apostle Peter and the oldest Church’s false gnosis. Also a contribution to the question of the authenticity of Peter’s second letter.”15 Myrberg was successful and was appointed professor in exegesis on the 23rd of March 1866.16 His appointment coincided with the linking of the professorial chair in exegesis with the pastoral charge of the parish church Helga Trefaldighet in Uppsala. Myrberg was thus made its parish priest.17 In 1868, he received an honorary doctorate in theology at Lund University. The following year 1869 he married Maria Sofia ______________________________ 13 M. G. Rosenius, who at the time was docent in Old Testament exegesis in Uppsala (1856-60), had also applied for the position, but in the end he withdrew his application because he apparently did not want to be the only one competing against Myrberg; instead Rosenius became a lecturer in Göteborg in 1860 and then theology adjunct at Lund University in 1867. Initially, Myrberg had been placed second among the nominees but with Rosenius’ withdrawal he got the position. (20 June 1860 Letter to A. F. Beckman from Myrberg, ABS UUB; 15 Sept 1895 § 6 Teol Fak Prot 1865-76 AI: 13 UUB.) 14 Anders Erik Knös (1801-1862) was first theology professor from 1850-62. In 1863 the numbering which ranked the four professors of theology in the Faculty of Theology was officially removed and the first theology professor became the ordinary professor in exegesis, since this was already the subject which belonged to the first theology professorship. Ström, “Professorum Exegeseos Biblicae ordinariorum Upsaliensium,” 87-109. 15 O. F. Myrberg, “Om Apostelen Petrus och den äldsta kyrkans falska gnosis. Äfven ett Bidrag till frågan om äktheten af Petri andra Bref,” UUÅ (1865) 1-100. In his thesis, Myrberg defended the Petrine authorshin of second Peter. 16 Myrberg had competed against C. T. Hjerpe (the second theology adjunct lecturer in Uppsala) for the chair. 17 This was known as a prebend which provided some economic support to the professor for carrying out his priestly duties in the parish. Although Myrberg was in charge of this congregation, he did not preach that often there. He never became a very popular preacher. Rudin, “Myrberg,” 269. [ Page ] 17 Hermansson from Finland.18 For the next 27 years of Myrberg’s academic career, he remained the professor in exegesis in Uppsala until his retirement aged 68 in 1892.19 He would have liked to stay longer as professor but was strongly encouraged to leave, due to his many leave of absences because of his poor health.20 Although he had retired from ___________________________ 18 They had seven children altogether, two sons and five daughters. (I. Myrberg, “Myrbergs levnad,” 25.) 19 The following is a list of the courses which Myrberg taught during his academic career: Dogmatics (1859, 60, 65); Symbolics (1859, 60); The Epistle of James (1860); The Petrine Letters (1861, 80, 81); The Psalms of David (1861, 66); The History of the Life of Jesus (1862); Genesis (1862); OT and NT Exegesis (1863); Zechariah (1864); Daniel (1864); Moral Theology (1865); The Second Book of Psalms (1865); Romans (1866, 67, 77, 78); Minor Prophets (1867, 68, 69, 80, 81); Galatians (1867, 68, 76); Hebrews (1869, 70, 71, 78, 79); Isaiah (1870, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 83); Colossians (1871); Philippians (1872); I & II Corinthians (1872, 73, 74, 79); Proverbs (1873, 74); I & II Timothy (1875, 76, 77); Decalogue (1875); Deutero-Isaiah (1884); The Book of Revelation (1882, 83); The Acts of the Apostles (1884, 85); Ecclesiastes (1884, 87); Gospel of John (1886, 87, 92); The Psalms (1888, 89, 90, 91); The NT with special consideration of the Bible Commission’s translation (1888, 89, 90); I John (1890, 91). UUK (1852-1892). Although Myrberg became docent in 1852, unfortunately the Uppsala University Catalogue does not begin to list the courses he taught until 1859. 20 Although officially Myrberg retired because of poor health, this was only partly the true reason. By the end of his academic career, Myrberg was not that well-liked and was strongly pressured to retire by the members of the Faculty of Theology. They believed that his time was up and they resented that he was taking so much leave of absence due to his poor health and needing time for his translation projects and publications It all came to a head when they refused to grant Myrberg his request for time off from his teaching responsibilities to finish his translation of the Psalms into Swedish. They listed all the times he had requested time off in the past and stated that if he thought that teaching was less important than publishing he should leave his post in the Faculty. Myrberg argued that he did not underrate the value of teaching and that his publications had been valuable to the students. He accused the Faculty members of trying to force him to resign by denying him his request. In the end Myrberg did resign on Sept 1st, 1892. The Faculty protocols reveal the tension. (See 15 Dec 1891 § 6, 8 Jan 1892 § 1, 21 May 1892 § 2, 1 Sept 1892 § 1 Teol Fak Prot 1888-93 AI:16 UUB. See also Myrberg’s letters to the university chancellor; 28 Dec 1891, 18 Jan, 19 Jan 1892 Letters to C. E. J. Rogberg from O. F. Myrberg, CRS X 290 ba 14 UUB.) Unfortunately there was such bad feeling about it all that several members of the Faculty did not attend the farewell and retirement party for Myrberg. In a letter to his fiancée, Samuel Fries explained that professors Berggren, Ekman, Sundelin, Norrby and F. A. Johansson did not come to the party because: “the deepest ill feeling prevails between Myrberg and these men. But it really is only Myrberg’s fault.” (“den djupaste misstämning råder mellan Myrberg och dessa män. Men det är verkligen endast Myrbergs fel.” 23 Oct 1892 Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:25 UUB.) Somewhat pathetically, he had made too many enemies by his polemical style by the end of his life. I wonder what would have happened to the acceptance of historical criticism in Uppsala if Myrberg had stayed longer? Some Faculty appointments may have been hindered and the outcome of events may have been quite different. However, Myrberg had lost his great influence and probably in the long run would not have been able to hinder the inevitable tide of events. [ Page ] 18 his teaching career, he continued his life-long ambitious project of translating the Bible into Swedish and publishing extensively until his sudden death at the age of 74 on the 22nd of March 1899.21 As a student and in the early years of his academic career, at first Myrberg was traditionally orthodox as a Lutheran, holding on to old Lutheran dogmatic views.22 This is demonstrated by the fact that he translated G. Thomasius’ work into Swedish in 1851.23 During this time, the renowned professor Boström had apparently described Myrberg as having “a burning zeal for the old orthodoxy.”24 But his Lutheran orthodoxy was shaped by his pietistic background and interests, particularly influenced by the old pietism of the Würtemberg theologians.25 But soon Myrberg’s views changed and he became very critical of orthodox Lutheran dogmatic formulas and remained a great critic of the old Lutheran orthodoxy and confessionalism for the rest of his life. This change came partly through the influence of the works of S. Kierkegaard and J. T. Beck. In the mid 1850s Myrberg’s views began to be greatly affected by Kierkegaard’s writings. Myrberg was sympathetic with Kierkegaard’s attack on the State Church and with his strongly individualistic Christianity, which also characterized Myrberg’s position.26 About the same time, Myrberg also became acquainted with Beck’s writings (probably through professor Beckman who had met _______________________________ 21 He also continued to edit and publish articles in the periodical Bibelforskaren. 22 Ekman, “Myrberg,” III; I. Myrberg, “Myrbergs levnad,” 8; Larsson, Myrberg, 10. 23 Myrberg translated “Den evangeliskt-lutherska kyrkans bekännelse i öfverensstämmelse med dess princip af d:r G. Thomasius.” 24 “en brinnande ifver för den gamla ortodoxien.” Ekman, “Myrberg,” III. 25 He was influenced by the Würtemberg pietism of Crusius, Oetinger, Bengel, Rieger and Roos and his contact with von Orelli and Zeller in Basel. He probably met them when he was in Basel in 1885. In 1864 Myrberg defended pietism in his periodical Vittnet. (I. Myrberg, “Myrbergs levnad,” 8; Larsson, Myrberg, 10; Åberg, Individualitet, 108.) 26 Rudin, “Myrberg,” 263; Åberg, Individualitet, 104-7. [ Page ] 19 Beck in 1855)27 and in 1866 and 1869-70 he went to Tubingen to meet and study with Beck. During the winter of 1869-70 Myrberg was almost daily in Beck’s company and they became very good friends.28 This influence significantly affected Myrberg’s attitude towards Church dogmatics and his general approach to the Bible. From Beck Myrberg adopted a Bible-centred theology or biblicism in which the Bible’s teaching took precedence over all ecclesiastical dogma. Both Myrberg and Beck argued for the primacy of the Bible over the Church’s confession and were critical of the Lutheran orthodoxy of the day.29 Myrberg came to deplore the ‘mechanical dogmatism’ in Lutheranism at the time and longed for the pure truth and teaching of the Bible to have primacy.30 Myrberg also believed in the individual’s personal freedom of conscience; every person must find the truth and come to his own convictions. These should not be dictated by an authoritarian system of beliefs.31 Even as early as 1845 Myrberg’s hand-written notes show his belief that one must become personally convinced that the Bible is the Word of God, not just because one is told this by orthodoxy or even by the Bible itself. ___________________________ 27 Rudin, “Myrberg,” 263-64. It seems that Myrberg did not meet Beck for the first time until 1866, since in a letter from professor Ingman in Finland, Ingman encouraged him to visit Beck saying that it would be very beneficial for him. 8 May 1866 Letter to Myrberg from A. W. Ingman, OFMS UUB. 28 I. Myrberg, “Myrbergs levnad,” 26. This friendship is also demonstrated in the correspondence which took place between Myrberg and Beck and the several times that Beck sent messages and greetings to Myrberg via mutual acquaintances (for example, through Waldemar Rudin, Gustaf Johansson and Martin Johansson). 29 Hidal, Bibeltro, 73. 30 In a letter Anders Ingman expressed his sympathy for Myrberg’s view: “Just like you I too feel great suffering within me from our time’s mechanical dogmatism.” (“Liksom Du, känner äfven jag inom mig ett stort lidande af vår tids meckaniska dogmatism.” 17 Jan 1865 Letter to Mvrbera from A. W. Ingman. OFMS UUB.) 31 Åberg, Individualitet, 100. [ Page ] 20 The Bible does not demand to be believed because it presents itself as God’s word, but rather because each one who loves the truth and wants to obey God’s will must become convinced of this, that what it contains really is God’s word.32 Each person must come to his own conviction and follow his conscience even if it may differ from orthodox dogma. This highly individualistic view of Christianity was shaped partly through the influence of Kierkegaard, as noted above. Later Myrberg would engage in the Lutheran church debates about changing the creed or confession, the catechism, and the question of confirmation and holy communion; he supported the side advocating change. Myrberg advocated that a Christian was not bound to believe everything in the creed, if he was convinced that the Scriptures taught otherwise. The creed had to give way to biblical truth.33 He also advocated freedom of choice when it came to confirmation; no one should be forced to be confirmed.34 Myrberg had actually been hesitant about being ordained as priest in the Swedish Lutheran Church because of his views on the Church institution; he felt hindered by the fact that he had different views from the Church on certain issues. However, in the end he did get ordained in June 1859, because he believed that the preaching of the Word was still the most important task of the minister, although he still felt that it would be difficult for him to serve as a parish priest full-time.35 But ________________________________ 32 “Bibeln fodras icke att blifva trodd, derföre, att den utgifver sig för att vara Guds ord, utan derföre, att hvar och en som älskar sanningen och vill lyda Guds vilja, måste blifva öfvertygad derom, att hvad den innehåller verkligen är Guds ord.” (Philosophiske Approvismer. Ströda uppsatser nedskrifven år 1845, Prof O. F. Myrbergs efterlämnade papper, OFMS 441g: 1 UUB.) 33 I. Myrberg, “Myrbergs levnad,” 14. 34 Larsson, Myrberg, 27-29. Myrberg understood the communion as simply symbolic. And the new catechism was too abstract and needed to be closer in content to the Bible. 35 In a letter to Beckman, Myrberg explained one of the reasons why he had hesitated to be ordained. It had not been his views on the differences between clergy and laity which had hindered him from taking this step, “but rather there is a great deal in our church institutions which has made me scruple and even today I would find it quite difficult to serve as a priest in a congregation. But this does not hinder me from being a [ Page ] 21 ordination was also important for teaching in the Faculty of Theology; in this capacity he could also serve the Church. Myrberg became the first person in Sweden to make a concerted effort to introduce Beck and his biblical theology to Sweden.36 He translated several of Beck’s writings into Swedish, published a biographical article on him based on Bernhard Riggenbach’s biography of Beck,37 and constantly made reference to Beck’s views in his own writings. Although there were other Swedish theologians who were also greatly influenced by Beck’s theological perspective (Rudin, Ekman, Mazer, Glasell are a few examples)38, Myrberg became the main representative of the ‘Beckian school’ in Sweden.39 The influence of Beck was even more strongly felt in Finland, particularly through A. W. Ingman and G. Johansson, and thus it is not surprising that Myrberg had a close friendship with these two Finnish theologians.40 However, _______________________________________________________________________________________ preacher in a prebend, and the preaching of the word of God is still the most important thing . . .” (“men det är åtskilligt i våra kyrkliga institutioner som gjort mig skrupler och ännu idag skulle jag finna det ganska svårt att vara tjenstgörande prest i en församling. Men detta hindrar mig icke från att vara predikant uti ett prebende, och Guds ord förkunnande är dock huvudsaken . . .” 25 June 1859 Letter to A. F. Beckman from Myrberg, ABS UUB.) 36 Åberg, Individualitet, 100, 111. In a letter to Myrberg Ingman wrote: “You are the first one who makes the theological world in Sweden better acquainted with the biblical theologian J. Tobias Beck. For this man I hold the greatest respect and love.” (Du är den förste, som i Sverige gör den theologiska verlden närmare bekant med bibelteologen J. Tob. Beck. För denne man hyller jag den allra största vördnad och kärlek.” 12 Oct 1864 Letter to Myrberg from A. W. Ingman, OFMS UUB.) 37 O. F. Myrberg, “Johan Tobias Beck,” BF 15 (1898) 252-69, 379-400; BF 16 (1899) 77-95. 38 Apparently, approximately twenty Swedish theologians went to Tubingen in the 19th century to meet and hear Beck lecture. Toivo Harjunpaa, “Beckian Biblicism and Finland: A Study in Historical Perspective,” LQ 28 (1976) 301. 39 Hidal has characterized Myrberg as “one of the most consistent representatives of Beckian biblical theology in Sweden.” (“en av den beckska bibelteologins mest konsekventa företrädare i Sverige.” Hidal, Bibeltro, 73.) 40 This close friendship between Myrberg, Ingman and Johansson is demonstrated in the great correspondence which occurred between them. In the letters they extensively discussed the theology of Beck. (See Letters to Myrberg from A. W. Ingman, OFMS UUB; Letters to Myrberg from G. Johansson, OFMS UUB.) A. W. Ingman (1819- 1877) was professor at the University of Helsinki and G. Johansson (1844-1930) was professor and then Archbishop of the Lutheran Church of Finland. They were greatly [ Page ] 22 although Myrberg was undeniably influenced by Beck’s theology and was often accused of being a ‘Beckian,’ it is incorrect to describe him entirely as a disciple of Beck. In fact Myrberg did not want to be a disciple of any person or school of thought and consequently he hated to be labelled as a ‘Beckian’ or as someone belonging to a certain theological camp or party; he “did not want to be counted as a disciple of anyone else except for the only Master Jesus Christ.”41 Myrberg did hold some different views from Beck. For example, although he adopted Beck’s view of justification, he differed with Beck over his understanding of the Atonement in particular. Myrberg had a more subjective view of the Atonement while Beck held a more objective view.42 Here Myrberg’s view was more similar to that of J. C. K. von Hofmann in Erlangen 43 Because of Myrberg’s view of the Atonement and his adoption of Beck’s biblical theology and biblicism and views on justification, Myrberg was not seen as completely orthodox in _______________________________________________________________________________ influenced by Beck’s theology. For more information on the influence of Beckian theology in Finland see: Harjunpaa, “Beckian Biblicism and Finland,”; J. A. Cederberg, “En blick på J. T. Becks riktning i Finland,” (Finsk) TT 14 (1909) 137-53, 212-36, 285-99, 397-415. 41 “icke ville räknas som lärjunge af någon annan än den ende Mästaren Jesus Kristus.” Ekman, “Myrberg,” IV. 42 Myrberg’s differing view of the Atonement is discussed extensively in the letters between Myrberg and Ingman and G. Johansson. This difference in view even put a strain on the friendship between Myrberg and Ingman. Ingman asked Myrberg to behave with utmost respect and not argue with Beck on this subject when he saw Beck in person. (2 Feb 1867, 24 May 1867, 2 Sept 1867, 30 June 1869, 5 March 1871, 30 Aug 1871 Letters to Myrberg from A. W. Ingman, OFMS UUB.) Myrberg thought that Rudin had got Beck against Myrberg over this matter. Although Beck could not agree with Myrberg, Gustaf Johansson assured him that his fears were unfounded. (20 Sept 1869 Letter to Myrberg from G. Johansson, OFMS UUB.) 43 Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism, 104-111, 116-17. Myrberg greatly appreciated von Hofmann’s work, especially his work on Romans. Von Hofmann’s influence on Myrberg is particularly seen in his work on the New Testament. For example, Myrberg’s own translations of the New Testament bear the marks of influence from von Hofmann. (Herman Lundström, Ärkebiskopen Doktor Johan August Ekman: Några Minnesblad [Uppsala: J. A. Lindblads Förlag, 1915] 35; Rudin, “Myrberg,” 264.) Apparently, Myrberg mentioned Von Hofmann quite often in his lectures and his students referred to Von Hofmann as Myrberg’s theologian (Linder, “Domprosten,” 237). [ Page ] 23 theological circles in Sweden. In Lund, the members of the Faculty of Theology began to speak of the “new delusion in Uppsala.”44 This was directed against the theological views and biblical theology of Myrberg, and possibly also against his colleagues Rudin and Ekman who were also influenced by Beck. Because Myrberg’s views were not accepted by many, he felt alone and as a ‘stranger’ in his own land 45 Maybe this is one of the reasons why he wanted both Rudin and Ekman on the staff in the Faculty; he would have some sympathizers. Myrberg’s reputation as somewhat ‘unorthodox’ in his theology was not helped by the fact that he was very polemical and often engaged in heated arguments and debates with anyone he disagreed with. Consequently he became known as “a black sheep among the theological fathers.”46 Myrberg became deeply upset when he saw something he believed to be wrong or heretical and was not afraid to fight for the truth as he saw it even if it meant being controversial or even turning against friends. He would defend truth at the expense of friendship. He became severely critical of his friends Beckman, Hultkrantz, M. Johansson among others.47 Several times he was not on the best of ________________________________ 44 In a letter C. H. Bergman told Myrberg of the experiences of a student in Lund. This student found great differences between the lectures in exegesis in Lund and in Uppsala, and he heard almost “daily polemic against the new delusion in Uppsala.” (“dagliga polemik mot den nya villfarelsen i Upsala.” 30 Nov 1877 Letter to Myrberg from C. H. Bergman, OFMS UUB.) 45 Myrberg had expressed this thought to his Finnish friend Ingman which is evident in the letter Ingman wrote in reply: “You feel that, there in your own country, for the most part you are a stranger, so it is also with me here.” (“Du tyckes der, i ditt eget land, till det mesta vara en främling, så är det ock med mig här.” 27 June 1865 Letter to Myrberg from A. W. Ingman, OFMS UUB; emphasis by Ingman.) 46 “ett svart får bland de teologiska fäderna.” Gillingstam, “Myrberg,” 139. 47 In a letter to Beckman, Myrberg used very strong words of protest because he believed Beckman’s views strove against the truth of the gospel (because he was against the biblical theology of Myrberg and Beck), and Myrberg, who believed himself to have become in recent years the main apologist and defender of the Word in Sweden, believed it was his duty to speak out. Myrberg's arrogance and judgemental attitude comes out in his scathing remarks that Beckman had grown to love this world more than the eternal way and that he had gone backwards in spiritual insight and discernment. “I do not claim to be able to correct everything which is crooked; but [ Page ] 24 terms with his colleagues in the Faculty of Theology in Uppsala.48 He even stopped writing to his close ‘Beckian’ friend professor Ingman in Finland for a while because they disagreed over the doctrine of the Atonement.49 Unfortunately, Myrberg was unable to disagree with others without sounding arrogant and superior in tone which put people’s backs up and put them off what he said even if he was right, as S. L. Bring expressed to Myrberg in a letter: “Please do not be offended, my dear brother, if I ask you to add a little more of love’s fire with the zeal. These two should be united.”50 Sadly this superior tone and polemical stance meant that he made many enemies and lost a number of friends during his lifetime. He was not well liked towards ___________________________________________________________________________________ when falsehood comes near me in life, then I react against it without thinking much upon whether it pleases or not — not even when it is a question of my friends. And so I have done even in this present case.” (“Jag gör icke anspråk på att kunna rätta allt krokigt; men när osanningen träder mig rätt nära in på lifvet, så reagerar jag emot den, utan att mycket tänka på om det behagar eller icke — icke ens i fråga om mina vänner. Och så har jag äfven gjort i närvarande fall.” 8 March 1865 Letter to A. F. Beckman from Myrberg, ABS UUB.) 48 I. Myrberg, “Myrbergs levnad,” 25. For example, this occurred when Myrberg wanted to get Ekman appointed as docent in the Faculty in 1877. See the chapter on Ekman. Just after Rudin became docent in the Faculty, he described Myrberg in his diary in 1873 as having “a certain polemical position within the Faculty, but not against me.” (“en viss polemisk ställning inom Fakulteten, men ej emot mig.” Rudin, Levnadsteckning 1. 1833-1885 WRS Tlgd:18 UUB.) Towards the end of his life, he even came into conflict with his colleagues Rudin and Ekman as well as the rest of the Faculty members. In 1895, Myrberg got upset over an article on Justification by F. A. Johansson and wanted the Faculty members to stop associating with Johansson because of it. This just angered everyone more. O. F. Myrberg, “En fråga till Upsala Teologiska Fakultet!” BF 13 (1896) 191-92; 8 July (no year given) Letter to W. Rudin from O. F. Myrberg, WRS Tlge:l UUB; 23 Oct 1895 Letter to G. Billing from F. A. Johansson, GBS 10 LUB. 49 Ingman wrote to Myrberg warning him that his polemical arguments with certain individuals could hurt his cause because people would interpret his sharp words as simply due to personal bitterness against certain persons and thus not take what he said seriously. He also wished he had spared his friends Beckman and Björk. (2 Aug 1866 Letter to Myrberg from A. W. Ingman, OEMS UUB.) Because of their differences of opinion Ingman felt despair over the fact that he did not hear from Myrberg for two years. (2 Sept 1867, 30 June 1869, 5 March 1871 Letters to Myrberg from A. W. Ingman, OFMS UUB.) 50 “Du tager icke illa upp, käre broder, om jag ber dig inlägga något mer af kärlekseld i nitälskans. Dessa båda kunna förenas.” 17 Oct 1870 Letter to Myrberg from S. L. Bring, OFMS UUB. [ Page ] 25 the end of his career and this contributed to the fact that he was strongly encouraged to leave his chair as professor. He became more and more isolated and in the end did not have such a great influence upon the direction that biblical scholarship was taking in Sweden as he might have had, had he been more congenial and humble in his approach.51 Myrberg’s apologetic and polemical approach was fostered from the beginning of his career. He began his academic career in a time of unrest and upheaval in the theological circles in Sweden, when religious liberalism (as represented by Viktor Rydberg and others) was growing and the philosophy of Boström dominated in Uppsala.52 Because of this, in the early years of his career, Myrberg spent most of his energy fighting these influential forces in Sweden and defending Christianity. In particular, he battled against Boström’s idealistic philosophy of personality, Rénan’s presentation of the life of Jesus, Ignell’s rationalistic Christian perspective and Rydberg’s understanding of the person of Jesus, publishing articles where he criticized and refuted their views.53 Myrberg was against the idealistic, abstract and metaphysical philosophy of Boström but agreed with Boström in his anti-Hegelian stance. Myrberg argued that the principles of theology were not dependent on philosophy but were independent of it. Boström’s emphasis on naturalism did not include a place for revelation and lacked ____________________________ 51 Gillingstam, “Myrberg,” 139. “Myrberg was a distinctive scholarly figure who went his own ways and stood fairly isolated among the Swedish theologians of that period.” (M. var en särpräglad forskarpersonlighet, som gick sina egna vägar och stod ganska isolerad i den svenska teologiska samtiden.” Holm, “Myrberg,” 630.) 52 Lindeskog, “Myrberg,” 96-97. Maybe Myrberg’s approach would not have become so apologetic or polemical if there had not been so many burning theological issues and attacks on Christianity at the time. 53 For more information on the rise of religious liberalism in Sweden, on these men’s theological perspectives and Myrberg’s attack on them, see: Rodhe, Den religiösa liberalismen; Åberg, Individualitet, 101-104; Gert Borgenstierna, Om Krist person och verk: Lärostrider i uppsvenskteologi under 1850-70-talen (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1942). [ Page ] 26 the ethical aspects of holiness and love.54 Nils Ignell, who was a prominent priest in Stockholm, was a great admirer of Schleiermacher and brought Schleiermacher’s views to Sweden. Myrberg attacked Ignell’s view of Christ as the ideal human being.55 Of course Viktor Rydberg’s The Bible’s Teaching about Christ published in 1862 added fuel to the debate.56 As a result in the 1860s Myrberg was kept very busy defending Christianity from the onslaught of religious liberalism. Thus his stance towards the Bible became very apologetic; he was a defender of the faith and biblical Christianity. Myrberg was never able to leave the battlefield and abandon his apologetic and polemical stance. Towards the end of his life, he faced new threats on the horizon. For Myrberg the new enemies in the 1890s were Ritschlianism and the modern historical-critical method. In 1895-96 Myrberg published an important essay on Ritschl’s theology where he pointed out its faults and weaknesses, which contributed to the whole debate in Sweden.57 His battle with the rise of historical criticism will be considered more fully later. Although it is possible to characterize Myrberg’s whole career as one going from battle to battle, he did make an important contribution to Swedish biblical scholarship. Myrberg was a very prolific writer; in fact his writing far surpassed that of his colleagues at both Uppsala and __________________________ 54 Larsson, Myrberg, 11-17; O. F. Myrberg, Omförhållandet mellan Teologi och Filosofi i allmänhet och om den Boströmska Filosofien i synnerhet (Upsala: C. A. Leffler, 1861). 55 See Myrberg’s attack on Ignell: “Om N. Ignells kritik af undren och evangeliitron,” TT 1 (1861) 105-113, 152-173; TT 2 (1862) 1-26. 56 Viktor Rydberg, Bibelns lära om Kristus. 57 Rodhe claims that Myrberg’s essay on the Ritschlian question was the best account from this time period of the theological situation (Rodhe, Svenska kyrkan, 115). See Myrberg’s article: “Den Ritschlska Frågan,” BF 12 (1895) 382-399; BF 13 (1896) 65- 74. For more on the Ritschlian debate in Sweden, see Hammar, Liberal teologi och kyrkopolitik. [ Page ] 27 Lund Universities.58 Besides his articles and books, he published the periodical Vittnet for a short time (1864-66, 1869) and founded and edited the exegetical periodical Bibelforskaren from 1884 until his death in 1899.59 Myrberg also spent a lot of his energy on making his own translation of the Bible into Swedish. When he was not chosen to become a member of the Bible Commission which was working on the new Swedish translation of the Bible, he began to make his own translation. The fact that he, the professor in exegesis, was overlooked and his colleague Rudin was appointed instead, hurt Myrberg and for the rest of his life he was a great critic of the Bible Commission and its translation.60 His own translation was a response to this. However, his own translation was an important contribution to the debates over the new Bible translation and was taken into account by the Bible Commission.61 Myrberg’s translation of the complete New Testament came out in 1890 and he managed to translate parts of the Old Testament before he died.62 Starting the Bibelforskaren must also be considered one of his greatest contributions to Swedish biblical scholarship. It was the only ___________________________ 58 Hidal, Bibeltro, 72; Holmquist, Handbok i svensk kyrkohistoria, vol 3, 87. Myrberg’s publications on the books of Revelation and Romans have been considered his most important works. No complete bibliography of his writings has ever been published. However, the Upsala Universitets Matrikel from 1896 lists most of his publications. 59 Vittnet means “The Witness” and Bibelforskaren translates literally as “The Bible Researcher” or “The Bible Scholar.” Myrberg continued to edit Bibelforskaren even after he retired as professor of exegesis in 1892. Since he founded the periodical, he probably did not want to give it up; it was ‘his’ periodical. 60 Olsson, “Svenskt bibelöversättningsarbete,” 423 ftn 4. He expressed his criticism of the translations in letters to Rudin. 15 Sept 1883, 5 June 1888 Letters to W. Rudin from O. F. Myrberg, WRS Tlge:10 UUB. On 19 July 1887 in his diary, Rudin described having confronted Myrberg about his “unfair accusations” concerning Rudin’s work on the Bible translation. (“orättvisa beskyllningar.” Rudin, Anteckningar ur det inre lifvet 2. 1881-1892 WRS Tlgd:33 UUB.) 61 Olsson, “Svenskt bibelöversättningsarbete.” 424; Lindeskoa. “Myrberg.” 101-103. 62 He had finished translating Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Minor Prophets and the poetical books of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs. Much of Myrberg’s translation of the Old Testament appeared in the periodical Bibelforskaren. [ Page ] 28 journal in Sweden which dealt primarily with biblical and exegetical questions from 1884 to 1923, when it ceased to be published. Although Myrberg wrote a lot of the articles himself in the journal he gave others, particularly students, a chance to publish in it as well. If Myrberg’s relations were not always the best with his colleagues in the Faculty, his relationship with the students was on a better footing. In general, there was mutual respect between them.63 Myrberg even helped poor students out of his own pocket when some of them were struggling financially. He remembered too well his own struggles as a poor student.64 He also helped his students get appointed as docent in the Faculty if he had faith in their ability; Ekman, Rudin and Stave all got appointed because of his help. He also encouraged his students to go on study trips abroad. Myrberg himself had travelled abroad on study trips to Germany and Switzerland in 1866 and 1869-70 and in 1885-86 he went on a major trip and travelled to Italy, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece and France.65 It was the stories and experiences from his trip to Palestine which helped inspire his student Stave to travel there as well.66 As a lecturer Myrberg was very good even though he was soft-spoken; his lectures were well attended. As a student Ekman recalls that Myrberg always gave something original and thought- ____________________________ 63 I. Myrberg, “Myrbergs levnad,” 23-25. 64 Ekman was one of the students who got financial help from Myrberg (Ekman, “Myrberg,” VI; Larsson, Myrberg, 38). Stave’s letters to Myrberg also show that Myrberg helped him get scholarships to finance his studies. Stave thanked Myrberg for taking such an interest in him. 24 March 1891, 31 Dec 1891 Letters to Myrberg from E. Stave, OFMS UUB. 65 I. Myrberg, “Myrbergs levnad,” 28. 66 Myrberg often talked about his experiences from his trip to the Orient and even gave a report on it to the students in the Theological Society. 4 May 1887 § 4 Teol Föreningens Prot 1884-1889 U 2325 c. Stave wrote to Myrberg several times while Stave was on his trip to Palestine in 1891. In one letter he thanks Myrberg for his interest and encouragement in Stave making this trip and makes reference to Myrberg knowing how valuable this trip was to his theological education. 27 May 1891 Letter to Myrberg from E. Stave, OFMS UUB. [ Page ] 29 provoking in his lectures.67 As a teacher he had some significant influence upon his students.68 Myrberg was an original character and theologian who had a great scholarly capacity, even greater than his colleagues in Uppsala.69 However, he never created a ‘school of followers’ since he was very independent and too much of an individualist.70 In reality, he lived a very quiet secluded life preferring to be alone with his books.71 His strength as well as his weakness as a scholar was that he was more of a theoretician than a practitioner and therefore lacking in the more practical aspects of life and theology. He lacked patience with people and did not have the best social skills which contributed to his more polemical approach in his treatment of others.72 Paradoxically, Myrberg was both conservative and broad-minded theologically. On the one hand, he was a champion for the truth against heresy and on the other hand he advocated freedom of conscience over against readily accepting ecclesiastical dogma. Ironically, he was very dogmatic about his own views and had little tolerance for those who disagreed with him.73 Myrberg’s life and work left its mark on Swedish biblical ___________________________ 67 Ekman, “Myrberg,” IV. 68 His student Erik Stave claimed that professor Myrberg meant more than any of the other Faculty members for his own personal development in life. Stave, “Några livsintryck,” 130. 69 Although he had a greater scholarly capacity than his colleague Rudin, Rudin had a much greater influence religiously. Myrberg did not have such a spiritual influence. Rodhe, Svenska kyrkan, 118-120. 70 Rudin, “Myrberg,” 270. 71 Larsson, Myrberg, 38. “Myrberg was above else a learned man who preferred to live alone with his books, a good representative of the classical type of professor who is ignorant of the world . . (Myrberg var framför allt en lärd man, som gärna levde ensam med sina böcker, en god representant för den klassiska världsfrämmande professorstypen . . .” Tor Andrae, Nathan Söderblom [Uppsala: J. A. Lindblads förlag, 1931] 96.) 72 Larsson, Myrberg, 38; Rudin, “Myrberg,” 270. Rudin thought that Myrberg lived too much alone with his thoughts and books which contributed to the problem. Probably his secluded lifestyle suited his quiet and introverted personality better. 73 Larsson, Myrberg, 39; Rudin, “Myrberg,” 269-70. [ Page ] 30 scholarship and on the Faculty of Theology at Uppsala University in particular. We will now focus more specifically on his approach to biblical interpretation and his work on the Old Testament in particular. Biblical Exegesis and Interpretation When he began his academic career in the 1860s, Myrberg published a number of works which presented his programatic agenda for biblical interpretation: a biblical theology or biblicism which took a Bible- centred approach to interpretation. These early writings reveal Myrberg’s basic assumptions about the Bible which affected his biblical exegesis for the rest of his life. In 1863, Myrberg published a work in three volumes entitled Contributions to a Biblical Theology which contained a collection of essays by himself and by two other writers which he had translated from the German into Swedish, one being his mentor J. T. Beck.74 In the foreword to the collection, Myrberg explained why he was advocating a biblical theology approach to biblical interpretation and for formulating Christian beliefs. He began by distinguishing between a biblical theology and a ecclesiastical confessional theology. The former gets its content directly from the biblical source and acts according to the Scriptures first of all before it follows the Church’s teachings, whereas the latter in practice puts the priority on the Church’s system of teaching and confession over the Scriptures. Myrberg was presenting “a biblical protest against this error” since the Church’s theology is not perfect and thus must be measured by and come to agree with biblical teaching.75 _______________________________ 74 O. F. Myrberg, Bidrag till en biblisk theologi. Afhandlingar och skrifter samlade och utgifna (Volumes 1-3; Stockholm: E. T. Bergegren, 1863). The second writer was K. T. Wächter. In 1868, Myrberg published a fourth volume in the series which was his Introduction to the Letter of Romans. 75 “en biblisk protest emot denna villfarelse.” Myrberg, “Förord,” in Bidrag till en biblisk theologi, (volume 1) III. [ Page ] 31 “First of all, there is no human interpretation and description of the content of Scripture’s teaching so perfect that there is no room for any kind of new discoveries . . .”76 It cannot be so ‘biblical’ that there is no room for becoming even more ‘biblical.’ Myrberg believed that the truth of the Bible remains eternal, applicable for all times. However, the application and interpretation of God’s eternal Word changes in different time periods. But although this content of truth remains in itself eternal and unchanged, nevertheless our way of interpreting it is not as unchanging or independent of different time periods and circumstances. Each time period normally has its own spiritual character whereby it distinguishes itself more or less from others.77 It is the exegete’s role to find the correct interpretation and relevant application of the Bible’s eternal and unchanging truth to his own generation and time period. The problem with the Church’s creeds and teachings is that they are rooted in the spiritual state of an older time and do not express or address the spiritual situation of the present, consequently becoming irrelevant.78 The Church must revise its beliefs and dogmatic systems according to the Bible and the needs of the present situation. Myrberg believed the answer lay in a biblical theology which turned to the Bible as its guide and judge; the Bible can address this need. Myrberg’s biblicism and view of biblical theology was particularly influenced by J. T. Beck. He constantly made reference to Beck’s views _____________________________ 76 “För det första är ingen mensklig uppfattning och framställning af Skriftlärans innehåll så fullkomlig, att den icke lemnar rum för några slags nya upptäckter . . .” Ibid., IV. 77 “Men ehuru detta sanningsinnehåll förblifver i sig sjelft evigt och oföränderligt, så är dock vårt sätt att framställa det icke lika oföränderligt eller oberoende af olika tider och omständigheter. Hvarje tid har vanligen sin egen andeliga pregel hvarigenom den skiljer sig mer eller mindre ifrån andra.” Ibid., V; emphasis by Myrberg. 78 Ibid., VI. [ Page ] 32 in his own writings. In the Contributions to a Biblical Theology, Myrberg included two of his own translations of Beck’s works into Swedish in order to present Beck’s views as an example of this approach to biblical theology.79 Since Myrberg included these two works of Beck in this collection of essays, one can safely say that Myrberg appreciated Beck’s ideas and adopted a similar viewpoint to him. As Myrberg, Beck argued that the primacy of the Bible over ecclesiastical dogma was a principle and obligation of Protestantism, to uphold the Scriptures as the judge and touchstone for all Church authorities and beliefs.80 Beck also viewed the Bible in terms of the biological concepts of life, growth, and development. The laws of development in the natural order of creation are mirrored in the Bible; it is a living system which grows and develops organically, creating an organic unity according to a divine plan.81 This is not a linear development, but rather its development is manifold and the divine blueprint of the whole plan until its completion already exists within the seed from the very beginning.82 This gradual progression and growth in the biblical story is also a reflection of God’s pedagogic pattern of educating His people.83 The biblical truths must be seen in light of the organic unity of the Scriptures as a whole and not be isolated from this living context.84 For both Beck and Myrberg this ______________________________ 7 9The two translated works of Beck’s were the following: J. T. Beck, “Antydningar för Religionsundervisning och Skriftförstånd,” in Bidrag till en biblisk theologi. Afhandlingar och skrifter samlade och utgifna (edited by O. F. Myrberg; volume 2; Stockholm: E. T. Bergegren, 1863). This essay was published separately in 1881 and it is this later publication which is referred to in this chapter. Idem, Antydningar för Religionsundervisning och Skriftförstånd (öfversättning af O. F. Myrberg; Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söners Förlag, 1881); idem, “Tankar ur och i öfverensstämmelse med den Heliga Skrift,” in Bidrag till en biblisk theologi. Afhandlingar och skrifter samlade och utgifna (edited by O. F. Myrberg; volume 3; Stockholm: E. T. Bergegren, 1863). 80 Beck, “Tankar,” 72-74. 81 Beck, Antydningar, 4, 10-15. 82 Ibid., 11-12; Myrberg, “Beck,” 253, 382; Åberg, Individualitet, 143-45. 83 Beck, Antydningar, 27. 84 Ibid., 26-27; Myrberg, “Beck,” 383. [ Page ] 33 organic progression and unity in the Scriptures spanned both the Old and New Testaments.85 In another essay in Contributions to a Biblical Theology where Myrberg discussed the divine names of Elohim and Jehovah in the Old Testament,86 he spoke of “the historical organic continuity” between the Old and the New Testaments.87 His belief in the organic unity in Scripture led Myrberg to interpret biblical words and texts by often comparing them with other biblical texts within the canon.88 This intertextual approach or canonical approach to interpretation was influenced by this view. Myrberg argued that a clue to the differences in meaning of the divine names Elohim and Jehovah in Genesis 1-3 is found in the contexts of the stories themselves.89 Elohim was a more general term for God as the God of nature and was not as personal as Jehovah. In chapter 3, Elohim was used because the story dealt with the temptation of sin which tries to hide from the idea of a more personal God. In chapter 2, God comes into personal contact with the humans and reveals himself as a personal God and therefore Jehovah or rather Jehovah-Elohim is used.90 However, these differences seemed to _____________________________ 85 See also S. K. Kang, “The Concept of Heilsgeschichte: Its origins and its use in Old Testament Study since Hofmann,” (PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, 1986) 1, 9-13, 90-91. Myrberg was also influenced by Von Hofmann who shared similar views. Von Hofmann believed in the organic process and progression of salvation history in the Bible which was directed by God. 86 O. F. Myrberg, “Om betydelsen af de Bibliska Gudsnamnen Elohim och Jehovah — Gud och Herren — och det sätt hvarpå de i den Heliga Skrift förekomma,” in Bidrag till en biblisk theologi. Afhandlingar och skrifter samlade och utgifna (edited by O. F. Myrberg; volume 2; Stockholm: E. T. Bergegren, 1863). This essay was published a second time in a book of essays by Myrberg in 1877 and it is this later publication which is referred to in this chapter unless otherwise indicated. Idem, “Om betydelsen af de bibliska gudsnamnen Elohim och Jehovah,” in Röster ur den Heliga Skrift (Upsala: Esaias Edquists Boktryckeri, 1877). 87 “det historiskt organiska sammanhanget.” Myrberg, “Elohim och Jehovah,” (1877) 31. 88 Ibid., 46-47, 50-51. 89 Ibid., 73-74. 90 In a footnote in the essay published in 1863, Myrberg explained that in Genesis 2 the name Jehovah-Elohim is used because here the name stands on the boundary line [ Page ] 34 disappear with time as later both divine names were used interchangeably.91 Myrberg argued that the divine name Jehovah also carried with it the notion of God as a majestic as well as a loving and faithful, covenant-keeping God. He translated the revelation of the divine name in Exodus 3:13-15 as ‘He who is who He is.’ This signified that His divine being or essence does not change and therefore remains faithful.92 Myrberg did not advocate the view of seeing two different sources in the biblical text. Indeed, he made only one reference to the documentary hypothesis in a footnote. But in this note he condemned this method as erroneous and exaggerated.93 Consequently, he did not discuss the possibility of sources any further. In the essay, Myrberg made reference not only to Beck but also to the works of Hengstenberg, Keil, von Hofmann, Oehler, Gesenius, Feuerbach and Ewald.94 This essay demonstrates that Myrberg believed that to interpret the meanings of Hebrew terms and names, one must look at the biblical text itself, and consider its immediate context as well as at the wider context of the biblical corpus as a whole. In 1864-65, Myrberg published a periodical called Vittnet whose purpose was to comment on and respond to the critical needs of Christianity in the present day. This publication also provided another opportunity for him to promote his biblical theology. Myrberg believed that the present spiritual state of the Church was not good; in fact, it was ____________________________________________________________________________________ between the two names and stretches out a hand to them both at the crossing from the former to the latter. Myrberg, “Gudsnamnen Elohim och Jehovah,” (1863) 75. 91 Myrberg, “Elohim och Jehovah,” (1877) 73-75. 92 Ibid., 47-54. 70. 93 Ibid., 75. See the section on Myrberg’s response to the historical-critical method for the discussion on this note. 94 He did not always agree with their positions, especially those of Gesenius, Feuerbach and Ewald. However, Myrberg showed particular appreciation for G. F. Oehler’s work and praised his Theologie des alten Testaments as a very important work on the subject. Ibid., 42. [ Page ] 35 very ill.95 He advocated that the main cause of the demise in the Church was the artificial nature of its theological doctrines and its dry, unfruitful systematic formulas.96 It had become artificial because it had been falsely isolated by having been removed from its “organic context of life.”97 Myrberg then contrasted the artificial nature of Church theology with the Bible’s simplicity. Christianity’s doctrinal teachings would be so much simpler if they followed the simple teachings of the Bible. Unfortunately, this simplicity had been lost.98 “But how much has not this simplicity, which is the hallmark of true biblicism, been lost among us!”99 Biblical simplicity became an important aspect of Myrberg’s biblical theology and approach to biblical exegesis.100 The only solution for the critical situation was for the Church to take more seriously its need to turn to its source of living water, the Word of God, and there find its simple truths.101 When Myrberg became ordinary professor in exegesis in 1866, he gave an inaugural lecture entitled Concerning the Biblical Concept of Truth,102 where he again emphasized his Bible-centred theology and further revealed his views on the nature of Scripture. Here he advocated that biblical theology finds the source of the true knowledge of God “in the divine word of revelation, set free from all human bonds ___________________________ 95 O. F. Myrberg, “Anmälan,” Vittnet 1 (1864) 1-3. Myrberg published a new series of Vittnet in 1866-69. 96 "Myrberg, “Öfverblick,” Vittnet 11-12(1865) 168-69, 181. 97 “organiska lifssammanhang.” Ibid., 181. 98 Ibid.. 168-70. 99 “men huru mycket har icke denna enkelhet, som är den sanna biblicitetens kännemärke ibland oss gått förlorad!” Ibid., 168. 100 Ekman. “Myrberg.” IV. 101 Myrberg, “Öfverblick,” 191. 102 O. F. Myrberg, “Om det Bibliska Sanningsbegreppet. Akademiskt inträdestal,” Vittnet Ny Följd II (1866) 1-22. This lecture was reprinted in 1877 in a volume of collected essays by Myrberg. I refer to both the earlier and later publications in this chapter. Idem, “Om det Bibliska Sanningsbegreppet,” in Röster ur den Heliga Skrift (Upsala: Esaias Edquists Boktryckeri, 1877). [ Page ] 36 . . .”103 The Word of God is not simply a source but rather the source to this knowledge. As this source the Bible is not the same as or equated with the truth but rather serves as a mirror of the truth.104 . . . the truth of the divine word together with the concept of the true God and the true human being, does not correspond to a reality or an existence in the same way as these, but as the reflection and the mirror image of their true reality.105 As such the Bible’s authority rests on nothing else than upon this role of revealing and reflecting the truth.106 Yet as a mirror of the truth, the divine word of revelation is both perfect and imperfect in its character. . . . which lets us perceive not only the perfection of the word of divine revelation, but also its imperfection: its relatively enigmatic or mysteriously shrouded character, certainly not in every possible respect or in the beginning foundations of the faith itself, but rather broadly understood.107 The human language as a deficient medium is a reason for this imperfection. “But its relative imperfection does not eliminate the perfection, which belongs to its essence and nature in itself . . ,”108 In this way the Bible is still truth; the essential essence remains perfect and true.109 Myrberg distinguished between the essentials of the biblical __________________________ 103 “i det gudomliga uppenbarelseordet, frigjordt ifrån alla menskliga band . . .” Myrberg, “Bibliska Sanningsbegreppet,” (1866) 16; idem, “Bibliska Sanningsbegreppet,” (1877) 21. 104 Ibid., (1866) 16-17; (1877) 21-23; emphasis by me. 105 “. . . korresponderar det gudomliga ordets sanning med begreppet af den sanne Guden och den sanna menniskan tillika, icke såsom en realitet eller ett varande i samma mening som dessa, men såsom reflexen och spegelbilden af deras sanna realitet. ” Ibid., (1866) 17; (1877) 22; emphasis by Myrberg. 106 Ibid. 107 “. . . som låter oss förnimma icke blott det gudomliga uppenbarelseordets fullkomlighet, utan äfven dess ofullkomlighet: dess relativt enigmatiska eller gåtlikt inhöljda beskaffenhet, visserligen icke i alla möjliga afseenden eller i sjelfva trons begynnelsegrunder, men i stort fattadt.” Ibid., (1866) 17; (1877) 22-23. 108 “men dess relativa ofullkomlighet utesluter icke den fullkomlighet, som tillhör dess väsende och natur i sig sielva . ..” Ibid., (1866) 18; (1877) 23. 109 Ibid. In support of this, Myrberg quoted Jesus’ words in John 17:17: “Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth.” [ Page ] 37 message which remained perfect and the not so important aspects which may be imperfect. This distinction was an important aspect of Myrberg’s understanding of the nature of the Bible which later made him somewhat open to certain conclusions of modern historical criticism. In 1877 in honour of Uppsala University’s 400 years Jubilee, Myrberg published a collection of essays entitled Voices from the Holy Scriptures.110 Three of the five essays he had published earlier but here they were in a slightly revised and expanded version.111 This collection represents some of Myrberg’s more important works on the Old Testament. In the foreword, Myrberg acknowledged the need to draw upon the results of linguistic, historical and critical research as a necessary key to interpretation. These are important for dealing with the hard shell which protects and covers the good kernel or treasure inside the biblical text. However, even though these tools are helpful and necessary, he had learned most directly from the biblical source itself, from its inner, organic and living unity.112 In the foreword he also mentioned the writers who had been most influential for these studies. Here he mentioned Ewald and Delitzsch in particular. He admired and respected “the learned Ewald’s opinion” even if he could not accept some of his views and hypotheses.113 But Myrberg acknowledged his greatest indebtedness to Franz Delitzsch; he especially appreciated Delitzsch’s commentary on Isaiah and believed it to be one _____________________________ 110 O. F. Myrberg, Röster ur den Heliga Skrift (Upsala: Esaias Edquists Boktryckeri, 1877). 111 We have already considered two of the essays published earlier, “Concerning the Biblical Concept of Truth” and “Concerning the Meaning of the Biblical Names of God Elohim and Jehovah.” 112 Myrberg, Röster, II. 113 “den lärde Ewalds åsigt.” (Ibid., I-II.) Larsson states that Myrberg deeply admired Ewald’s great learning and scholarship; Ewald was an example and role model to him in this respect (Larsson, Myrberg, 32). [ Page ] 38 of the best works on the subject. Myrberg’s appreciation of Delitzsch can be seen as early as 1862 in a review he wrote on Delitzsch among others. In comparing Keil and Delitzsch, Myrberg thought that Keil was very conservative and more faithful to the Church’s teachings whereas Delitzsch was far more adventurous, creative, and spiritually rich in his biblical interpretation; this was both his strength and weakness. Although Myrberg did not always agree with some of Delitzsch’s more imaginative ideas, he admired his creativity more than Keil’s conservatism.114 Throughout his academic career, he continually referred to Delitzsch’s work in his writings and lectures and encouraged his students to read his works as part of the course assignments.115 Therefore it is not surprising that in this collection of essays Myrberg referred to the work of Delitzsch the most; his influence upon Myrberg is quite clear here. Two of the essays “Concerning the Law and the Gospel” and “The Decalogue or the Ten Commandments” reveal some of Myrberg’s views of the Old Testament Law.116 The fifth essay “The Book of Immanuel” dealt with Isaiah 7-12 and will be considered together with his great work on Isaiah. Myrberg advocated that the Church had developed a wrong concept of the law and the gospel by separating them from each other, placing them into two different categories of divine commandments and promises of grace. This false dichotomy had _____________________________ 114 O. F. Myrberg, “Bibliographiska meddelelser,” TT 2 (1862) 319-20. 115 Both Myrberg’s students Samuel Fries and Erik Stave mentioned in their letters of reading Delitzsch as part of their assigned course reading. (6 Feb 1889 Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:24 UUB; 9 Dec 1889 Letter to G. Ekström from Stave, GES UUB.) In the course guidelines of 1886 and 1892 Delitzsch’s commentaries on Genesis and the Psalms were listed as recommended reading. (Anvisningar och råd för studiet af exegetisk teologi i och för Dimmissionsexamen [Upsala: Edv. Berlings boktryckeri, 1886]; Anvisningar och råd för studiet af exegetisk teologi i och för Dimmissions examen [Upsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1892].) 116 “Om Lag och Evangelium” and “Dekalogen eller de Tio Orden.” Myrberg’s work on the Law and the Gospel was first published in 1871 as an appendix to his commentary on Romans. [ Page ] 39 occurred because the multiple and varied nuances of meaning of the law in the Scriptures had been overlooked.117 The gospel must include God’s law and demand for righteousness just as the law must include the promise of the gospel and divine grace for them to be understood correctly.118 The Old Testament law is not made obsolete in Christ but rather it becomes a living spiritual law which ends the old law of the letter: . . . not in such a way that a single letter of its essential content is brought to nothing, but in the sense that the lower always ceases and comes to an end when it merges with and leaves room for the higher.119 Christ as God’s righteousness becomes the law himself in the word’s highest and most perfect sense, since he fulfills the law. Since the gospel is good news about Christ it also becomes the good news about the divine law.120 121 Yet, “the gospel is not the law itself but rather the word concerning this law in its greatest perfection.”121 The gospel continues to retain the divine demand for the righteousness required by the law; thus there is no difference between them except that the gospel is clearer in this respect.122 Consequently, we must understand the revelation of God’s word in Christ as “law through and through” and “gospel through and through.” The two should not be separated; they are united in Christ.123 _______________________________ 117 Myrberg, Röster, 85-86. 118 Ibid., 80. 119 “. . . icke så, att en enda prick af dennas väsentliga innehåll blifvit gjord om intet, men i den mening, i hvilken alltid det lägre upphör och tager en ände, då det uppgår i och lemnar rum för ett högre.” Ibid., 92; emphasis by Myrberg. 120 Ibid., 93, 95. 121 “evangelium, icke är lagen sjelf, men ordet om denna lag i sin högsta fullkomlighet.” Ibid., 96; emphasis by Myrberg. 122 Ibid., 98-99. 123 “alltigenom lag” and “alltigenom evangelium.” Ibid., 103; emphasis by Myrberg. [ Page ] 40 In the essay on the Decalogue, Myrberg made a comparative study of the Ten Commandments found in Exodus 19-20 and Deuteronomy 4- 5.124 Myrberg argued that the differences between the two accounts of the Decalogue are not contradictory but rather present significant clues for interpreting the meaning of the laws. In the Exodus account, the Lord gives the commandments, speaking in the first person, whereas in Deuteronomy they are expanded by Moses as he explains the application of the commandments more fully. The contexts of the passages are also very important for interpreting their meaning.125 Myrberg argued that the Ten Commandments form the very foundation upon which the rest of the Old Testament laws rest.126 The Ten Commandments are written in such a way that they appear to apply universally to every individual for all times, yet when they were first given, they were originally given with an immediate national purpose to the Israelites as a nation. They were not addressed to individuals but to the people of Israel as a whole. They were part of the covenant between Yahweh and his people Israel.127 Yet these commandments are also a gift to all humanity and must be kept by all of us with Christ’s help. They still apply and have relevance for the present.128 Myrberg also believed that the ceremonial laws of worship in the Old Testament were established as pedagogical institutions to serve as patterns and prototypes in preparation for the true worship in spirit and in truth. Not only the law but the whole Old Testament period was a time of preparation for the coming of Christ _____________________________ 124 In 1875 Myrberg offered a course on the Decalogue where he probably worked out his main ideas for this essay (UUK 1875). 125 Myrberg points out that where the Lord’s words are quoted in the first person in Deuteronomy, they agree with the account in Exodus. Ibid., 125-26. 126 Ibid., 114, 117. 127 Ibid., 155-56. 128 Ibid., 165-66. [ Page ] 41 and the emergence of Christianity.129 The law’s fulfillment in Christ does not destroy it but rather the law is explained in a truer and more perfect way. In Christ the Ten Commandments are united in one living personality.130 In conclusion, Myrberg stated that when one expounds on the Decalogue, one should not only present the original historical meaning for national Israel but also its relevance for us today.131 Finding application was an important aspect of Myrberg’s exegesis in general. He believed that the Old Testament still had relevance for today and therefore it was the exegete’s responsibility to find a relevant application of the biblical texts for his present context. In the 1880s, especially from 1884 onwards, Myrberg began concentrating his efforts on making his own translation of the Bible into Swedish. It was in 1884 that new members were appointed to the Bible Commission and Myrberg was not included among them. Instead his colleague Waldemar Rudin got appointed. As noted earlier, the fact that he was overlooked and not appointed hurt and upset Myrberg and from then on he was a staunch critic of the Bible Commission’s translations of the Bible into Swedish.132 Myrberg continually expressed his _____________________________ 129 Ibid., 183, 215-16. 130 Ibid., 167. l31 Ibid., 215. 132 Olsson, “Svenskt bibelöversättningsarbete,” 423 ftn 4. When the new members to the Bible Commission were appointed in 1884, Myrberg wrote an article where he criticized the new members and questioned their abilities and merits for undertaking the task. He also questioned the criteria (or in his opinion the apparent lack of criteria) for choosing the members. Myrberg considered his colleague Rudin to be the most appropriate member appointed for the task. (O. F. Myrberg, “Bibelöfversättningsfrågan,”BF 1 [1884] 235-38.) Myrberg was also very critical of the Archbishop for automatically becoming the chairperson of the Bible Commission, even though he was not the most qualified person for the position. As Archbishop he may exercise his power to get the new translation accepted as quickly as possible, even before it should be accepted. Myrberg was afraid of pressure from the Bible Commission to accept the proposed translation prematurely. He wanted to remind everyone that the Church Assembly does not stand under the authority of the Bible Commission but rather the Bible Commission stands under the Church Assembly and both stand under God’s authority. Idem, Inledning till Föreläsningar öfver Psaltaren med särskildt afseende på Bibelkommissionens öfversättning (Stockholm: Ivar [ Page ] 42 disapproval of their translations and once even claimed that the Bible Commission would never receive God’s blessing.133 The year 1884 was also the year when Myrberg began to publish the periodical Bibelforskaren and in this exegetical journal many of Myrberg’s own translations began to appear. As a result of this ambition to do his own translation of the whole Bible, his major writings on the Old Testament from this time forward tended to be commentaries on his own translation of the biblical books. Myrberg’s lectures to the students also tended to involve translating and commenting on a biblical book.134 Myrberg’s work on the book of Isaiah was such a translation accompanied by explanatory notes on the text. Myrberg began publishing his translation and commentary of the book of Isaiah in 1884 in Bibelforskaren and continued its publication each year until it was completed in 1887.135 That same year he published a separate edition of the whole book.136 However, Myrberg first published a translation and commentary on Isaiah chapters 7-12 in 1877 as the final essay entitled “The Book of Immanuel” in Voices from the Holy Scriptures. During the 1870s, Myrberg had been lecturing on Isaiah in one of his offered courses. These lectures most likely formed the foundation to his translation and commentary.137 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Haeggströms boktryckeri, 1889) 38-40; idem, “Den nya proföfversättningen af Psaltaren,” BF 5 (1888) 250-51. 133 In a letter, Samuel Fries told his fiancée about Myrberg having made this critical remark about the Bible Commission a few days before during one of his lectures. 7 Oct 1888 Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:24 UUB. 134 For example, see Myrberg’s lectures on the Psalms (Myrberg, Föreläsningar öfver Psaltaren). 135 O. F. Myrberg, “Esaias’ bok öfversatt och förklarad,” BF 1 (1884) 29-55, 121-78, 277-303; BF 2 (1885) 13-40, 128-48, 224-58; BF 3 (1886) 118-52, 327-48; BF 4 (1887) 33-55, 113-41, 193-213. 136 O. F. Myrberg, Profeten Esaias öfversatt med förklarande anmärkningar (Stockholm: Z. Haeggströms Förlagsexpedition, 1887). 137 According to the Uppsala University Catalogue, Myrberg offered the course on Isaiah in the years 1870-73, 1876-79, 1883-84 (UUK 1852-1892). [ Page ] 43 In the essay on the “The Book of Immanuel” Isaiah chapters 7-12, Myrberg demonstrated the importance he placed upon history and historical analysis of the biblical texts and their respective contexts. One must first determine the historical background of the text, by means of historical and comparative sources in the Ancient Near East, as well as seeing the text in its biblical and even canonical context, in order to elucidate the meaning of the text.138 To remove the biblical text from its original historical and biblical context is unnatural and is going against the sense of the text. For example, regarding Isaiah 7:14 Myrberg stated: If one is not going to wrench the statement, which follows here, in an unnatural way from its historical context, from what precedes and follows it (compare especially v. 16), it becomes absolutely necessary to understand העלמה, who is mentioned here, as a contemporary of the prophet . . .139 The woman in question is a contemporary of Isaiah the prophet and gives birth to a child at that time.140 This is the meaning of the text in its historical context. Yet the biblical text itself also moves beyond its historical boundaries and therefore can be interpreted in other ways than simply in an historical sense. Thus the name Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14 “encompasses in itself a holy type which stretches itself far beyond its present boundaries . . .”141 In this way, the name becomes a type of Christ and is ultimately fulfilled in him. But Myrberg was against _____________________________ 138 Myrberg, Röster, 219-21, 235-38. 139 “Om man icke på ett onaturligt sätt skall lösrycka den utsago, som här följer, ifrån det historiska sammanhanget med det föregående och efterföljande (jemför serskildt v. 16), så nödgas man ovilkorligt att förstå den העלמה, som här nämnes, om en med profeten samtidig . . Ibid., 241. 140 Myrberg translates העלמה as a married woman not a virgin. Ibid., 242. 141 “innesluter i sig en helig typik, som sträcker sig långt utöfver det närvarandes gränser . . .” Ibid., 241. [ Page 44 ] taking this as the only correct interpretation of the text. The original historical meaning of the text must first be taken into account.142 Yet the living characteristic of ‘holy history’ within the Old Testament tends to tie together the past, the present, the future and the end of time. Consequently this historical text is also a prophetic, Messianic and an eschatological text.143 It becomes a prophecy with a universal message yet it appears in a very “specific Israelite form.”144 The prophetic word which has a universal message which affects all people for all times is rooted in an historical moment of a specific chosen people. Consequently, the study of the history and role of the Israelites as a nation in God’s plan of salvation is very important. In 1887 Myrberg completed his translation and commentary on the whole book of Isaiah. In the preface to the work, he stated that this work was a result of many years of study during trying times. Since the book had brought him such encouragement and strength, he believed that it was his duty to share the results of his study with the academic world as well as the general public. He argued that the university academic has a responsibility to give the general public the fruits of his labour; it should not be reserved simply for academics and students.145 Myrberg believed that the message of Isaiah had relevance for his day. ___________________________ 142 Ibid., 242 143 Ibid., 222-23. 144 “specifikt israelitisk gestalt.״Ibid., 296-97. 145 Myrberg, Profeten Esaias, no page number given. In the preface, Myrberg also mentioned two previous works on Isaiah by the Swedish scholars Tingstadius at the turn of the 19th century and H. G. Lindgren in 1843. He did not mention the work of G. Knös written in the 1820s. Myrberg did not like Lindgren’s work for several reasons but particularly because he emphasized the human side of the prophetic word to the point of denying the aspect of Messianic prediction in prophecy. Myrberg claimed that Gesenius’ work on Isaiah had influenced Lindgren in this respect. Instead, Myrberg preferred the more recent works of Delitzsch, Drechsler, Nägelsbach and Vitringa. [ Page ] 45 The prophetic word “has made a way through the darkness of time even as far as to our people in the far north.”146 Myrberg divided the whole book of Isaiah into five different books or collections.147 He argued that the first four collections (ch 2-39) were written by the eighth century prophet Isaiah except for the two appendixes of ch 13:1-14:23 and ch 36-39.148 The fifth book Is 40-66 was a collection of 14 speeches written by Deutero-Isaiah a prophet from the time of the exile. Myrberg first used the term Deutero-Isaiah as the author of Is 40-66 in 1877 in his essay on “The Book of Immanuel.”149 In that same year 1877, Myrberg’s student J. A. Ekman defended a thesis where he concluded that ch 40-66 of Isaiah must have come from the exilic period. At that time Myrberg had to defend his student and his conclusions vigorously against the attacks of the more conservative members of the Faculty.150 It is possible that it was Ekman’s thesis which convinced Myrberg that Isaiah 40-66 must have come from the exilic period. Whatever way he came to this conviction, by 1877 Myrberg began to refer to Is 40-66 as Deutero-Isaiah.151 Myrberg acknowledged that Is 40-66 is an independent unit or book whose main subject matter concerns Israel’s deliverance from babylonian captivity. There definitely is a clear break between chapters ____________________________ 146 “genom tidernas mörker banat sig väg äfven till vårt folk i den yttersta norden.” Ibid. 147 Chapter one serves as a foreword to the book. The five collections are as follows: (1) Is 2-5 (2) Is 6:1-14:23 (3) Is 14:24-27:13 (4) Is 28-39 (5) Is 40-66. Ibid., 6-7. 148 Myrberg had changed his view of the second collection “The Book of Immanuel” since 1877. Instead of limiting it to ch 7-12, it now encompassed ch 6:1-14:23 and ch 13:1-14:23 was now an appendix to the book of Immanuel. This appendix was written in the exilic period and most likely by the same person who wrote Is 40-66. Ibid., 27- 29. 149 Myrberg, Röster, 277. 150 Ekman’s thesis in 1877 and the events which surrounded the controversy over the thesis will be examined more fully in chapter four on J. A. Ekman and F. A. Johansson. 151 In 1884, Myrberg entitled the course he offered on Isaiah 40-66 as Deutero-Isaiah. UUK (1884). [ Page ] 46 39 and 40. Yet he believed that the great prophet Isaiah was “completely worthy” of having authored this great collection.152 He certainly had the ability and therefore could have been the author from this perspective. There are such similarities and common interests between First and Second Isaiah, that if Isaiah was not the author, the author must have been spiritually very close to Isaiah as a kindred spirit and must have known Isaiah’s prophecies well. However, Myrberg conceded that the reasons against the traditional view of Isaianic authorship of all 66 chapters of the book were very strong.153 Myrberg’s rule of thumb for determining whether a prophecy is predictive of the future or whether it simply reflects the time period in which it was written is a question of discerning the difference between what is supernatural and what is unnatural. The boundary between them “begins where the supernatural in this prediction goes over to the unnatural (realm); and it cannot be denied that such an unnaturalness is associated with the assumption in question.”154 Anyone who tries to date these chapters to the eighth century is forced to find several interpolations in the text in order to make sense of the text.155 The natural context of these chapters is the exilic period. In fact, the writer himself admits that he is living during the exile in Is 48:3, 6, 7, 14, 16. “To disregard this ... is to disregard the demands of the natural context and do violence to it.”156 Myrberg believed in not violating the more natural understanding of the text; there is no need to adopt the more ______________________________ 152 “fullt värdig.” Myrberg, Profeten Esaias, 193. 153 Ibid. 154 “vidtager der, hvarest det öfvematurliga i denna förutsägelse går öfver i det onaturliga; och det kan icke nekas, att en sådan onaturlighet förbinder sig med det ifrågavarande antagandet.” Ibid., 194. 155 Myrberg gives Nägelsbach as an example of someone who is forced to find interpolations in the text. Ibid., 195. 156 “Att förbise detta ... är att förbise det naturliga sammanhangets fordringar och göra våld på detsamma.” Ibid., 196. [ Page ] 47 problematic view if it is not necessary. However, Myrberg did believe in the supernatural aspects of predictive prophecy. It would have been helpful if Myrberg had defined what he meant by ‘unnatural’ and explained further how he determined whether a supernatural event was natural or unnatural. Is not a supernatural event in its very nature always an unnatural phenomenon?! Unfortunately, Myrberg did not clarify this any further than simply to give this rule. In a letter to professor C. W. Skarstedt in Lund in 1882, Myrberg wrote about his work on the translation and commentary on Isaiah. Regarding Is 40-66 he wrote: “I would like to compare the latter to a wonderful art gallery of pictures, made up of seven prophetic pictures consisting of 14 speeches.”157 When he actually published the work, Myrberg simply divided ch 40-66 into fourteen speeches, although he did describe the prophecies as pictures or paintings.158 Myrberg considered the tenth speech, ch 52:13-55:13, as the climax of prophecy in the Old Testament, since nowhere else in the Old Testament is the Messiah and the divine kingdom depicted in their deepest humiliation and in their greatest exaltation and glory as here.159 Myrberg clearly saw these chapters as Messianic. However, he did not equate all the servant passages with the Messiah. He believed that Is 49:1-6 referred to the prophet himself as the representative of the true prophets in Israel and not to the Messiah. One can only see it as Messianic in the sense that the coming of Jesus was the ultimate fulfillment of the final ‘true ______________________________ 157 “Jag skulle vilja likna denna senare vid ett härligt tafvelgalleri, bestående af sju profetiska taflor sammansatta af 14 tal.” Myrberg saw these speeches as a dialogue between the Lord, the true Israel and the prophet. 7 Jan 1882 Letter to C. W. Skarstedt from Myrberg. CWSS ns 9 LUB. 158 The fourteen speeches are as follows: (1) ch 40 (2) ch 41:1-42:17 (3) ch 42:18- 43:20 (4) ch 43:21-44:22 (5) ch 44:23-45:25 (6) ch 46-47 (7) ch 48 (8) ch 49:1-23 (9) ch 49:24-52:12 (10) ch 52:13-55:13 (11) ch 56-57 (12) ch 58-59 (13) ch 60:1-63:6 (14) ch 63:7-66:24. Myrberg, Profeten Esaias, 200-201. 159 Ibid., 201, 271. [ Page ] 48 prophet in Israel.’ This does not mean however that these words in Is 49 are then addressed to the Messiah.160 Similarly, just because Jesus read from Is 61:1-2 in Lk 4:16 and applied them to himself does not mean that it is the Messiah who is addressed here (except in its ultimate sense). Rather it is the prophet himself who is addressed. The prophet is not the saviour but the proclaimer of the message of salvation. “To understand it otherwise is to disregard the context in such a way that it destroys the unity of the speech.”161 Again Myrberg demonstrated his concern for understanding a text in its historical and textual context. He did not want to adopt an interpretation which is “completely alien to the text.”162 Myrberg wanted to build a biblical theology or interpretation which corresponded to the meaning of the biblical text as closely as possible in order to do it justice and not violate its sense. He firmly believed that it was actually possible for the exegete to find the ‘correct meaning’ of the biblical text and that this should be his goal. In his work on Isaiah and other Old Testament books, Myrberg did not hesitate to deviate from the Masoretic Text whenever he felt there was a problem with the pointing or if it distorted the meaning of the text.163 Text critically, he was an eclectic and felt free to follow other readings, like the Septuagint, when they made better sense of the text.164 He was not so conservative that he felt bound to the Masoretic Text.165 _______________________________ 160 Ibid., 243-44. 161 “att förstå det annorlunda är att förbise sammanhanget på ett sätt, som omintetgör hela talets enhet.” Ibid.., 291. 162 “alldeles främmande för texten.” Ibid., 299. 163 Ibid., 204, 251-52; idem, Röster, 268. 164 Birger Olsson describes Myrberg as adopting an eclectic text-critical approach. (Olsson, “Svenskt bibelöversättningsarbete,” 423 ftn 4.) In an article in 1889, Myrberg showed appreciation for and elaborated on professor Cavallin’s three criteria for doing a translation: eclectic, literal and in modern Swedish. O. F. Myrberg, “Om 1883 års öfversättning af Nya Testamentet,” BF 6(18891 161-67. 165 Myrberg advocated that one cannot always trust the Masoretic Text. Myrberg, “Proföfversättningen af Psaltaren,” 235. [ Page ] 49 This was one of his main critiques of the Bible Commission’s translation. They followed the Masoretic Text so slavishly and literally that the meaning of the text was obscured. Myrberg advocated that one must be faithful to the text, but not only faithful to the words but to the Word as a whole.166 But one must do justice to the Swedish language as well. The Bible Commission’s translation of the Swedish was wooden and “un-Swedish.”167 As a translator Myrberg tried to be faithful to both the original language and his mother tongue. In the years that followed, Myrberg focused his work of translation and commentary mainly on the Writings in the Hebrew canon, particularly the Psalms and Wisdom literature.168 In 1888, Myrberg began lecturing on the Psalms again after not having done so for 22 years. Although the Psalms had traditionally been one of the main subjects taught in Old Testament exegesis at Uppsala University, Myrberg had only lectured on the Psalms at the beginning of his academic career in 1861 and 1866.169 The main impetus for Myrberg to lecture on the Psalms at this time was the new trial translation of the Psalms into Swedish by the Bible Commission which came out in 1887. Throughout his lecture notes and publications on the Psalms he _____________________________ 166 Olsson, “Svenskt bibelöversättningsarbete,” 423-24; Myrberg, “Proföfversättningen af Psaltaren,” 236. Myrberg also felt that the Bible Commission had wasted a lot of time on slavishly translating the same Swedish word for the same Hebrew word, time which could have been used in a better way. Idem, Föreläsningar öfver Psaltaren, 8-9. 167 “osvenska.” Ibid., 32-33: idem. “Proföfversättningen af Psaltaren.” 248-49. 168 In 1895, Myrberg published a volume of his own translations of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs. He also published them separately with explanatory notes. O. F. Myrberg, Gamla Testamentet öfversatt. Hjobs bok, Psaltaren, Ordspråksboken, Predikareboken och Höga Visan (Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner, 1895). 169 Although Myrberg admitted that the Psalms had for a long time been the main subject in Old Testament exegesis, he did not give a reason why he had not lectured on this traditional topic for 22 years. Instead he gave the Bible Commission’s translation of the Psalms as the motivation for him doing so now. Myrberg, Föreläsningar öfver Psaltaren, 1. [ Page ] 50 continually commented on and criticized the new translation.170 Myrberg continued to lecture on the Psalms every year until his final year as professor. In his work on the Psalms, Myrberg referred mostly to the work of Delitzsch, Ewald, Hupfeld.171 For the most part Myrberg took a traditional view of the authorship and dating of the Psalms, believing the claims of the superscriptions that many of the Psalms were written by king David or even by Moses as in the case of Ps 90.172 Many of the Psalms were also prophetic and Messianic.173 However, Myrberg did concede that some of the Psalms came from the exilic period. For example, Ps 31 was more likely written by Jeremiah.174 This was one of the concessions he would make to the results of historical criticism: not all the Psalms of David were Davidic (even if the superscription seemed to indicate this) but dated from the exilic period.175 Similarly, Myrberg did not think Ecclesiastes was written by king Solomon. Here Myrberg followed Delitzsch’s view and dated the book to after 338 BCE towards the end of the Persian period.176 Although ______________________________ 170 O. F. Myrberg, “Psaltaren öfversatt och förklarad,” BF 256-359 ,108-81 (1890) 7; BF 8 (1891) 71-100, 113-39, 217-63, 305-39. See also the lecture notes taken by Myrberg’s student Samuel Fries in 1888. S. A. Fries, Föreläsningsanteckningar 1888- 1892 H.T. 1888 Exegetik II, Psaltaren, Föreläsningar av O. F. Myrberg, SAFS T3k:34 UUB. 171 At times he also referred to Von Hofmann. Myrberg claimed that the work of Ewald, Hupfeld and Delitzsch was not insignificant but rather “epoch-making.” (“epokgörande.” Myrberg, Föreläsningar öfver Psaltaren, 3.) 172 Myrberg, “Psaltaren öfversatt,” (1890) 118-19; (1891) 218, 318. 173 Of course, Ps 22 and 110 were prophetic of the coming Messiah. Myrberg considered Ps 110 as the most important Messianic Psalm in the whole Psalter. Ibid., (1890) 118-19; (1891) 317. 174 Fries, Föreläsningsanteckningar, Psaltaren, Föreläsningar av O. F. Myrberg. Myrberg admitted that some Psalms were exilic in 1887 in his commentary on Isaiah. Myrberg, Profeten Esaias, 197-98. 175 In a letter to his fiancée, Samuel Fries wrote that, although Myrberg did not like the results of Pentateuchal criticism, Myrberg had told Fries that he had completely embraced the same views as Fries regarding the age and authorship of the Psalms, news which had pleased Fries. 2 Feb 1890 Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:25 UUB. 176 O. F. Myrberg, “Koheleth eller Salomos Predikare,” BF 5 (1888) 166-69. [ Page ] 51 the book does not stem from Solomon, the work is connected with Solomon in the sense that in it we have “the Solomonic (aspect) of Solomon in a spiritualized form which the author has fashioned . . .”177 In the case of Proverbs, Solomon authored only the sections attributed to him, not the whole book.178 On the Song of Songs, Myrberg asserted that the question of whether Solomon or someone else wrote it is not very important. However, he still believed that it could have been composed by Solomon himself.179 “It is difficult to see why the honour of authorship should not just as well be attributed to him as to or above anyone else.”180 Myrberg advocated that even though not all headings in the Old Testament are trustworthy, this does not mean that one should immediately deny the trustworthiness of the heading in this case.181 Myrberg did not understand the Song of Songs as a love song between God and his people Israel or the Church but instead simply as a love poem about natural human love. Since the Old Testament is not simply a textbook about religion but also gives us information about Israelite life and customs, Myrberg did not think that it was strange for it to include one poem about human love. When this is a common subject matter in the literature of other nations, is it so unusual for the Israelites to have “one single poem — should this be too much? I do not think so; neither is there any need for the Song of Songs to feel ashamed about it from this perspective.”182 The love song can only apply to God ___________________________ 177 “det Salomoniska hos Salomo i en förandligad gestalt, såsom förf, danat. ..” Ibid. 168. 178 O. F. Myrberg, En nyckel till Ordspråksboken. Två föredrag (Stockholm: Z. Haeggströms Förlags-Expedition, 1895) 5-7. 179 O. F. Myrberg, “Höga Visan,” BF 14 (1897) 55-56. 180 “är det svårt att inse, hvarföre äran af detta författarskap icke skulle få tillskrifvas honom så väl som eller framför någon annan.” Ibid., 56. 181 Ibid. 182 “en enda dikt — skulle detta vara för mycket? Jag kan icke finna det; icke heller behöfver Η. V. blygas för sig sjelf ur denna synpunkt.” Ibid., 45; emphasis by Myrberg. [ Page ] 52 and his people if one takes it as a holy type or a reflection of the love relationship between them.183 For Myrberg it was important to be faithful to the genre and the original historical meaning of the biblical text when interpreting it; he did not automatically spiritualize its meaning and apply the Old Testament text to the Church. After he retired as professor at Uppsala University in 1892, Myrberg spent the final few years of his life working on the Old Testament prophets, translating and writing on Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets, publishing his work in the periodical Bibelforskaren.184 Unfortunately, he was unable to finish his translation of the whole Old Testament before he died. Although Myrberg considered the book of Jonah to be a prophetic work, he classified Jonah as a “prophetic didactic poem” just like the book of Job.185 But as a prophetic didactic poem it had an historical basis at its foundation. Even so, the question of how much of the story is historical was insignificant in comparison to the essential message of the book: God is not only the God of the Jews but also the God of the gentiles.186 Even for Myrberg, the question of historicity was not as important as the actual content or message of the Old Testament book. The primary concern of the interpreter should be to determine and communicate the essential message of the biblical text. He must not let himself get bogged down with questions of historicity, authorship and dating at the expense of this __________________________ 183 Ibid., 58-59. 184 Myrberg’s unpublished notes reveal his work on the prophetic books of Ezekiel, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Hosea, Haggai, Nahum, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Malachi. (Prof O. F. Myrbergs efterlämnade papper, OFMS 441g:1 UUB.) In the periodical Bibelforskaren he managed to publish his work on Jeremiah and all of the Minor Prophets. Professor Ekman published Myrberg’s work on Ezekiel the year after he died. 185 “profetisk lärodikt.” O. F. Myrberg, “Profeten Jona,” BF 15 (1898) 16-18; see also Myrberg’s unpublished notes on Jonah in: Prof O. F. Myrbergs efterlämnade papper, OFMS 441g:1 UUB. 186 Ibid. [ Page ] 53 primary goal; the message of the Scriptures must remain his main focus. The Historical-Critical Method In the final years of his life (besides his commitment to the translation project), Myrberg concentrated much of his energy fighting the emergence of the modern historical-critical method which came to the forefront and dominated the discussion in theological circles in Sweden in the 1890s. Myrberg’s response to modern historical criticism was largely negative although he did not completely reject all its findings. At times he even made certain concessions to historical criticism. In fact, his response was mixed and seemed to change, depending on which biblical text was under discussion. He was more conservative in his views on the Pentateuch than on the prophetic literature. This can be demonstrated by comparing his response to Pentateuchal criticism with his views on Deutero-Isaiah and the book of Daniel. In the case of Daniel, he neither adopted the traditional nor the modern understanding of the date and authorship of the book. He was not so conservative that he could not make certain allowances or changes in his position, which he did, for example, on the authorship of the Psalms. However, towards the end of his life he seemed to become more conservative in his position and reacted quite negatively towards the modern critical approach. He took a polemical, apologetic stance against biblical criticism in defence of the integrity of the Bible. He dubbed the modern historical-critical method as “newer hypercriticism” because for the most part he saw it as an extreme, leftist method which fragmented the biblical text and undermined its authority.187 The periodical _____________________________ 187 “nyare hyperkritiken.” Myrberg used this term as early as 1865 in his article on Second Peter, where he named F. C. Baur and his followers as the main representatives [ Page 54 ] Bibelforskaren became the main vehicle for Myrberg’s attack on this new onslaught on the Bible.188 Myrberg was not as naive and uninformed on this question as some have supposed.189 He was already aware of Pentateuchal criticism at least as early as 1863. In his essay on the divine names of Elohim and Jehovah, Myrberg mentioned the “bold conclusions” of the documentary hypothesis in a long footnote.190 Although Myrberg did not deny that there are traces of different sources in the Pentateuch which the author incorporated into the narrative, he did not believe that the different divine names represented different authors or sources nor that the Pentateuch was simply made up of several different fragments glued together.191 Rather the different divine names were used intentionally for a theological purpose by the author, where the meaning of the divine name corresponded to the message and context of the biblical story.192 When Myrberg published the essay again in 1877, Myrberg described the “so-called fragment hypothesis” regarding the Pentateuch as “an exaggeration” and therefore it was only worth being mentioned in passing. Consequently, the footnote was much shorter than the one in ____________________________________________________________________________________ of this approach (Myrberg, “Om Aposteln Petrus,” 1-2). See also O. F. Myrberg, “Ett yttrande i Pentateukfrågan,” BF 6 (1889) 113; idem, “En ny lärobok i Israels Historia,” BF 12(1895) 157. 188 A number of articles appeared on the subject in the periodical from 1889 onwards, written by Myrberg and others. As they become relevant in evaluating Myrberg’s response to the historical-critical method, they will be considered in this section. 189 His students Nathan Söderblom and Samuel Fries claimed that Myrberg was very ignorant and naive. 190 “djerfva slutsatser.” Myrberg, “Gudsnamnen Elohim och Jehovah,” (1863) 73-75. Since in the same footnote, Myrberg discussed Hengstenberg’s interpretation of the divine names, it is possible to surmise that he was influenced by Hengstenberg’s negative evaluation of the documentary hypothesis. 191 Myrberg gave the genealogical lists as an example of one of these sources. He even admitted that it was possible that another hand besides the author’s could have put the final touches on the work and that this person may have had access to these sources. Ibid., 75. 192 Ibid., 74-75. [ Page ] 55 1863; since the subject was not worth discussing and he disagreed with its conclusions, he dismissed it quickly.193 In 1865 in another footnote, Myrberg mentioned that J. W. Colenso’s “well-known work on the Pentateuch” was being translated into Swedish; it was an example of the “literature of unbelief’ which was presently attacking Christianity.194 However, Myrberg did not launch his main, full-scale attack against the approach until after it first began to be debated in 1888 at the Student Theological Society in Uppsala.195 This is the time when Myrberg first demonstrates acquaintance with Wellhausen and his work. On the 10th of April 1889, Myrberg gave an introductory lecture at the Theological Society entitled “The present position of Pentateuchal criticism”196 which was later published in Bibelforskaren under the title “A word concerning the question of the Pentateuch.”197 Myrberg’s lecture was followed by a student Carl Silwer who was concluding his address on the topic which he had begun at the previous meeting, namely “A contribution towards shedding light on the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch,” a paper which Myrberg also published in Bibelforskaren that same year.198 The discussion which followed both meetings was very lively as revealed in the minutes as well as from _____________________________ 193 “s. k. fragmenthypotesen," “en öfverdrift.” Myrberg, Röster, 75; emphasis by Myrberg. 194 “bekanta verk öfver Pentateuchen,” “otroslitteratur.” Myrberg, “Öfverblick,” Vittnet No 11-12 (1865) 189. Myrberg was referring to Bishop Colenso’s seven part work The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua critically examined begun in 1862. See chapter 16 on Colenso in Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism 195 See the minutes from the Theological Society: 22 Feb 1888 § 2, 27 March 1889 § 3, 10 April 1889 § 3 Teol Föreningens Prot 1884-89 U 2325 c UUB. 196 “Pentateuchkritikens närvarande ställning.” 10 April 1889 § 3 Teol Föreningens Prot 1884-89 U 2325 c UUB. 197 “Ett yttrande i Pentateukfrågan,” in BF 6 (1889). 198 Carl Silwer, “Några bidrag till belysande af Pentateuchens mosaiska ursprung,” BF 6 (1889) 117-60. 27 March 1889 § 3, 10 April 1889 § 4 Teol Föreningens Prot 1884- 89 U 2325 c UUB. [ Page ] 56 accounts of the meetings described in letters by the students Samuel Fries and Nathan Söderblom who had been present at both meetings.199 In the lecture on Pentateuchal criticism, Myrberg attempted to defend the essential Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Myrberg began by making a distinction between the literary question of the Pentateuch as a literary work and the historical content of this document. For him the historical question was more important than the literary one. If the historical value of its content is accepted then the question of whether Moses or someone else actually wrote the collection of books is not so important.200 Myrberg claimed that Delitzsch made this same distinction, following Wellhausen only when it came to the literary sources and not with the historical questions. Although Myrberg believed that Delitzsch had made greater concessions to literary source criticism than necessary, he still appreciated Delitzsch’s more moderate form of historical criticism and cited him a number of times in the paper.201 Nevertheless, Myrberg personally believed that most of the Pentateuch was written by Moses. The differences in language and style within the Pentateuch are probably due to Moses having written down the material in different time periods and circumstances over a long life time. Moses must have used older ____________________________ 199 According to Söderholm, unfortunately Myrberg had to leave after giving his lecture and consequently missed Silwer’s paper and the lively discussion. (11 April 1889 Letter to L. Bergström from N. Söderblom, NSS UUB.) Fries claimed that Myrberg showed a “most serious ignorance of the subject matter.” (“grövsta okunnighet i den sak.” 11 April 1889 Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:24 UUB; Fries, Vår kärleks historia, 104-106. 200 Myrberg, “Ett yttrande i Pentateukfrågan,” 108-109 201 Ibid., 111-113, 116. Right at the beginning of the paper, Myrberg described the different camps and their response to historical criticism: the far right was represented by Ranke and Keil among others whereas the far left was represented by Wellhausen; the middle or mediating position was adopted by Delitzsch (Ibid., 108). It becomes obvious that Myrberg preferred Delitzsch’s more moderate position rather than the more conservative views of Keil. In fact, in Söderblom’s account of Myrberg’s lecture, he claimed that Myrberg had stated that he did not really agree with Keil. 11 April 1889 Letter to L. Bergström from N. Söderblom, NSS UUB. [ Page ] 57 sources as well, both oral and written traditions, in order to write the biblical history of the period before his own time. However, Myrberg did concede that the Pentateuch in its entirety could not come from the one and same author and parts of it were written after Moses. A later hand edited and reworked the Mosaic material but this fact does not negate Mosaic authorship in essence; the material originated with Moses himself and is historically trustworthy.202 Although he admitted that there is some truth in certain hypotheses of the historical critics, Myrberg believed that in their eagerness and zeal they had gone too far. His contention with “negative Pentateuchal criticism” was that it “portrays the Pentateuch little more than an historical novel.”203 Why doubt the plausibility of the historical authenticity of Mosaic authorship when there is a possibility that the sources could date back to the Mosaic period? “At least it is possible; and if it is possible, why should it not then also be true?”204 This statement demonstrates one of Myrberg’s exegetical rules: do not adopt a more difficult interpretation and explanation than necessary. There is no reason to doubt the witness of the text and complicate matters. He believed in the simplicity of the Bible.205 In the years that followed, Myrberg continued to fight the historical-critical method through publications in Bibelforskaren.206 _______________________________ 202 Myrberg, “Ett yttrande i Pentateukfrågan,” 109-112. 203 “negativa pentateukkritiken.” “gör Pentateuken till föga annat och mera än en historisk roman. ” Ibid. ,111. 204 “Det är åtminstone möjligt; och är det möjligt, hvarföre skulle det icke då äfven vara verkligt?” Ibid., 109. 205 Hidal, Bibeltro, 74; Ekman, “Myrberg,” IV. 206 Besides the artides already mentioned, Myrberg published several critical evaluations of the historical-critical approach, including other conservative theologians’ response to the method. For example: O. F. Myrberg, “Gladstone i fråga om den nyare Pentateukkritiken,” BF 8 (1891) 201-207; idem, “Bibelkritiken gentemot de nyaste upptäckterna på fornforskningens område,” BF 13 (1896) 91-93; idem, “Evolutionsprincipen och den gammaltestamentliga kritiken,” BF 13 (1896) 160-67; J. J. (Johannes Johansson), “Wellhausen och den Heliga Skrift,” BF 12 (1895) 79-89. [ Page ] 58 When the Danish Old Testament scholar Frants Buhl’s History of the Israelite People came out in 1893,207 he was aghast because Buhl had accepted historical criticism. “Myrberg was shocked when he heard that Buhl made such concessions.”208 From the point of view of one of his students, Samuel Fries who also embraced the new approach, Myrberg seemed very naive and ignorant of the whole subject.209 In his letters to his fiancée, Fries described his oral examination on Old Testament exegesis with Myrberg as an occasion when Myrberg’s lack of knowledge of historical criticism became very apparent. “He was certainly ignorant in Pentateuchal criticism.”210 In another letter, Fries claimed that basically Myrberg was a “complete stranger to its results.”211 Fries’ critical judgement of Myrberg is not completely fair _______________________________ 207 Frants Buhl, Det israelitiske folks historie (Kjøbenhavn: Gyldendalske boghandels forlag [F. Hegel & søn], 1893). Buhl adopted a moderate form of biblical criticism. 208 “Myrberg blef förskräckt när han fick höra att Buhl gjort sådana medgifvande.” 25 March 1893 Letter to F. Fehr from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:121 UUB. 209 Fries himself began to grapple with the issues related with the historical-critical method in 1888 as revealed in his letters to his fiancée. Although he may have already been exposed to the burning topic when Ludvig Bergström first introduced it at the Theological Society in Uppsala on the 22nd of February 1888 (I do not know whether he was present but the likelihood of this is very high, since Fries usually attended most of the meetings), but by the 30th of September 1888 he was definitely researching the subject. At this time he mentions Wellhausen and also C. E. Johansson’s work on The Holy Scriptures and the negative criticism (which came out in 1886) and states that he has long been interested in the questions relating to the Jehovah cult in Israel in pre- exilic times. But Fries had not yet fully embraced the method as a letter dated 14th Oct 1888 reveals. At that time he was studying the Dutch scholar Abraham Kuenen’s Volksreligion und Weltreligion: “He belongs to the negative criticism and is not at all to my taste.” (“Han tillhör den negativa kritiken och faller alldeles icke i min smak.” 14 Oct 1888 Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:24 UUB.) In the same letter, Fries mentions that he really wants to read Wellhausen’s Geschichte des Volkes Israel (sic) but has not been able to find it at the Uppsala University library. But by March 1889 Fries seems to have fully embraced the historical-critical method and disdains the paranoia of Wellhausen and historical criticism among his fellow students and teachers in the Faculty. (30 Sept 1888, 12 March 1889, 1 April 1889, 8 April 1889 Letters to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:24 UUB.) 210 “Han var verkligen okunnig i Pentateukkritik.” 25 May 1890 Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:25 UUB; Fries, Vår kärleks historia, 143. 211 “alldeles främmande för dess resultaten.” 2 Feb 1890 Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:25 UUB. See the following letters for similar statements about Myrberg’s ignorance: 3 May 1890 Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:25 UUB; Fries, Vår kärleks historia, 106, 138. [ Page ] 59 and must be taken with a grain of salt; it should be seen in the light of Fries’ own frustration with the Faculty members’ response in general to the critical approach. “Wellhausen’s name has a terrible sound among the theologians up here thanks to their ignorance. They think he is some kind of antichrist. As for me, I am of the conviction that he is one of the greatest geniuses of our century . . .”212 In fact, Myrberg was not as naive as Fries described him. Rather, he simply rejected the methodology as false and therefore did not have any time or patience for it. This is what upset Fries. To be fair to Myrberg, at the oral examination he had been very friendly and kind to Fries and had confessed that although he did not share Fries’ viewpoint, he had found Fries’ work to be interesting and demonstrating conscientious research.213 However, when Fries began to promote the modern historical- critical approach within the Faculty of Theology through giving papers, debating the question with fellow students,214 and finally publishing his own controversial textbook on the subject in 1894, a new History of ___________________________ 212 “Wellhausens namn har bland theologerna här uppe tack vare deras okunnighet en gräslig klang. Han är en sorts antikrist tycka de. Sjelf är jag deremot af den öfvertygelsen att han är ett bland de största snillena i vårt århundrade ..27 Oct 1889 Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:24 UUB; Fries, Vår kärleks historia, 115; here the editor has dated the letter instead to 29 October 1889. In another letter, Fries described the Faculty members’ fear of the approach: “They are as it were afraid of everything connected with critical studies.” (“De äro liksom rädda för allt hvad kritiska studier heter.” 12 March 1889 Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:24 UUB; Fries, Vår kärleks historia, 103; here the editor has dated the letter the 13th of March 1889.) 213 25 May 1890 Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:25 UUB; Fries, Vår kärleks historia, 143. 214 Samuel Fries gave two papers on Wellhausen and Pentateuchal Criticism at the Society for Semitic Languages in Uppsala (24 Oct 1889 § 3, 24 April 1890 § 4 Protokollsbok för Föreningen för Semitiska Språk 1888-1907 U 2090 a UUB). The minutes also reveal that he always joined into the lively debates on the subject at the Theological Society and at the Society for Semitic Languages and even reviewed books on historical criticism for both the Societies. His letters show that he also discussed the topic informally with his fellow students, for example, with Stave, Söderblom and Göransson. 16 Feb 1890 Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:25 UUB. [ Page 60 Israel, Myrberg again felt compelled to respond.215 Fries’ book fueled Myrberg’s tendency to adopt an apologetic stance in defending the Bible and thus he strongly opposed Fries’ promotion of the modern critical view of Israel’s history. Fries’ work pushed him into taking a firm conservative position on the question. As a consequence, Myrberg reviewed the book in Bibelforskaren and his evaluation of the book was very negative.216 In his forty page review article, Myrberg could only find three positive aspects of Fries’ book: it is easy to read and understand, at times it shows certain astuteness and finally it contains a helpful summary of the new methods and results of the most recent critical Old Testament scholarship, making it readily accessible to those interested in the subject matter.217 However, that is where the positive aspects end. But now we have also said everything we can say about the book’s advantages. What we on the other hand find lacking in it, unfortunately is the most important of all: reliability in judgement and information; dealing with the fundamental basis which underlies the questions which exist in such a way ______________________________ 215 S. A. Fries, Israels Historia (Upsala: W. Schultz, 1894). Fries had been very nervous and worried about writing this book because he expected the conservative Faculty members to take offence and it could create a scandal. He fluctuated between despair and hope in his feelings and was not at all certain that he should publish it. Yet at the same time he was so convinced of its rightness and importance that he felt compelled to do it. When professor Almkvist, the professor of Semitic languages in Uppsala, first suggested the idea to him, Fries believed that it must be God’s will and leading: “I have as it were a feeling: Now or never! The book must be written, it is needed, and, as Almkvist said, it is not always one has the opportunity to do something useful in this world.” (“Jag liksom känner på mig: Nu eller aldrig! Boken måste skrifvas, den behöfs, och som Almkvist sade, det är ej alltid man har tillfälle att göra något nyttigt här i verlden.” Nov [?] [no exact date given] 1892 Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:25 UUB; emphasis by Fries.) See also 2 Dec 1892, 9 Dec 1892 Letters to F. Fehr from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:121 UUB. But some of his friends like Nils Göransson also tried to discourage him from writing it for fear of the effect it could have. And in the end, these warnings came true and the work was not at all well received (29 Nov 1892 Letter to S. A. Fries from N. J. Göransson, SAFS T3k:7 UUB). 216 Myrberg, “En ny lärobok i Israels Historia,” BF 12 (1895) 157-196. 217 Ibid., 157-58, 196. [ Page ] 61 that instills confidence; freedom from preconceived ideas and a capacity to listen to reason . . .218 For Myrberg, Fries represented the modern hypercritics who cut the Bible into little pieces and then reassembled the fragments into a new and different picture of the biblical story after their own whim and fancy. He prayed that God would preserve them from the rewriting of history based on such scholarship. Fries was blindly and uncritically following his German mentors in his theories.219 In his response, Myrberg’s conservatism is revealed: he believed in the historicity of the patriarchal stories and the Israelite exodus from Egypt. The Mosaic law did not follow the prophets but preceded them, since the prophets presupposed the existence of the law and the order of worship prescribed in it. Prophecy is simply a continuation of true Mosaism.220 Contrary to Fries’ apparent assertion that none of the Psalms come from David, Myrberg claimed that if one does not understand or speak of David’s Psalms then one cannot understand David himself and one has overlooked one of the most important aspects of his significance for Israel.221 Myrberg’s very critical review was not completely fair to Fries’ work although there is some truth in the accusation that Fries’ seemed to accept different theories uncritically and that he was often very daring and highly imaginative in his views. Fries was very creative and _____________________________ 218 “Men härmed hafva vi också sagt allt hvad vi kunna säga till bokens fördel. Hvad vi å andra sidan sakna hos densamma, det är tyvärr det vigtigaste af allt: pålitlighet i omdömen och uppgifter; ett gående till grunden med de frågor, hvilka föreligga, på ett sätt, som ingifver företroende; frihet från förutfattade meningar och förmåga att lyssna till skäl...” Ibid., 158. 219 Ibid., 157-61. 220 Ibid., 165-67, 180-86. 221 Ibid., 174-75. In his section on David, Fries only made one reference to David as a great poet and songwriter as a view created by later generations (Fries, Israels Historia, 56-62). Although Myrberg had also come to the conclusion that not every Psalm ascribed to David was written by him, here he was so upset with Fries that he emphasized the authorship of David of many of the Psalms. [ Page ] 62 innovative, which served to be both his strength and his weakness. In fact, he was much more creative and original than most of his colleagues at the time. But to his own misfortune, he was ahead of his time, promoting his views at a time when people felt very threatened by the modern approach and many were not ready to accept his more radical and bold ideas. Even so, Fries’ struggles played a role in promoting the historical-critical method in Sweden, even though Myrberg and others tried to hinder and minimize its effect.222 Myrberg continued his attack on the new approach in another article entitled “The Old Testament and modern criticism.”223 Here Myrberg outlined the attitude one should have towards historical criticism and to biblical exegesis in general. Quoting from an article by Cordes, Myrberg listed three rules for biblical scholars to follow.224 225 First, “Bear in mind that the space on which you stand is a holy space! ” 225 The interpreter treads on holy ground when he exegetes a biblical text because the Bible is not like any other book: it is Holy Scripture and _________________________ 222 When Fries asked Myrberg whether he would publish his Th. D. thesis on “The Centralization of the Israelite Cult” in Bibelforskaren, Myrberg did not do it. Even though this thesis actually argued against Wellhausen’s theory on this specific question, it still reflected the modern critical approach and this is probably why Myrberg did not publish it. He did not want to promote this method in his periodical. Although their differences in opinion remained until the very end of Myrberg's life (see Myrberg’s last letter to Fries in 1898), it did not in the end, however, hinder Fries from inviting Myrberg nor Myrberg from accepting Fries’ invitation to participate in the History of Religions Congress in Stockholm in 1897, which was organized by Fries. Myrberg did not let their different views hinder him from attending and speaking at the Congress. Maybe he was realizing that maintaining friendly relations was more important than losing all one’s friends in the battle. Maybe by this time he also realized that it was a losing battle and the modern critical method was winning. Or maybe he had no more energy to fight it and was reluctantly accepting the inevitable. 13 Jan 1897, 23 June 1897, 4 Oct 1898 Letters to S. A. Fries from O. F. Myrberg, SAFS T3k:12 UUB; 7 Aug 1894, 31 Dec 1896 Letters to O. F. Myrberg from S. A. Fries, OFMS UUB. 223 O. F. Myrberg, “Gamla Testamentet och den modema kritiken,” BF 11 (1894) 366■ 79. 224 Cordes’ article was entitled “Das alte Testament und der christliche Religionsunterricht” and was published in Die Christliche Welt 32 (1894). 225 “Betänk, att det rum, på hvilket du står, är ett heligt rum!” Myrberg, “Gamla Testamentet och den modema kritiken,” 366; emphasis by Myrberg. [ Page ] 63 must be respected as such. Secondly, “Do not make light of the offence which many serious Christians have all too quickly taken from this criticism!” 226 It is the theologian’s responsibility to handle theological problems as carefully and sensitively as possible in order to restore faith rather than destroy it. Instead, modern critics have managed to devastate faith because of their incompetence and one-sidedness in solving theological difficulties. Thirdly, “Do not give hypotheses as established results!” 227 Myrberg’s quarrel with the modern critics was with the way that they seemed to present their theories as proven, established facts. Myrberg concluded the article by stating that he was not against criticism in itself. It would be wrong to get rid of it completely, which would be like throwing out the baby with the bath water.228 Rather, it needs to be criticized and evaluated: “Even biblical criticism needs its criticism, for it not to become a danger . . .”229 The exegete must therefore “test everything and keep what is good.”230 In these concluding thoughts, Myrberg did not completely reject the use of the modern critical method. Instead, it was acceptable in the balanced and moderate form adopted by Delitzsch which he gave as an example. Although in certain cases Delitzsch had gone further than Myrberg wished, Delitzsch set one of the best examples of a scholar who was able to find the good in biblical criticism without adopting the negative and false aspects.231 Yet, in the final analysis Myrberg did not believe that Old Testament criticism carried in itself any “more promise of life” _____________________________ 226 “Tag det icke lätt med den anstöt, som många allvarliga kristna blott alltför hastigt taga af denna kritik!” Ibid., 367; emphasis by Myrberg. 222 “Utgif icke hypoteser såsom fasta resultat!” Ibid; emphasis by Myrberg. 228 Ibid., 378. 229 “Äfven den bibliska kritiken behöfver sin kritik, om den icke skall blifva till en fara . .." Ibid. 230 “pröva allting och behålla det godt är. ” Ibid., 378; emphasis by Myrberg. 231 Ibid., 379. [ Page ] 64 than the Tubingen School of Strauss and Baur did for the New Testament.232 Here Myrberg was very wrong! The fact that Myrberg could accommodate a kind of moderate form of historical criticism is related to his view of the Bible and inspiration.233 He did not hold to a mechanical view of inspiration, which he believed to be wrong and unnatural. Instead, Myrberg believed that the inspiration of Scripture occurred in a definite relation to the religious perspective of the inspired author as well as in relation to the religious and historical development of humanity in general. Consequently, the Bible is not completely free of mistakes and faults because its inspiration was inevitably affected by human weakness and limited understanding.234 As early as 1866 in his inaugural lecture, Myrberg had admitted that there are contradictions and imperfections in the Bible. But these faults are concerned with secondary and insignificant matters. Myrberg was able to make this distinction because he believed that there are both divine and human elements in the Bible, even if it is not easy to distinguish between them.235 The divine word is a treasure in a human vessel of clay.236 Neither is the Bible a science textbook about natural history, astronomy or science. It is a religious book and therefore it is not trying to be scientifically accurate in its _____________________________ 232 “mera löfte om lif.” Ibid. 233 Lindeskog, “Myrberg,” 107. Myrberg’s unpublished notes reveal that his view of inspiration was influenced by J. T. Beck. Prof O. F. Myrbergs efterlämnade papper, OFMS 4412:1 UUB. 234 O. F. Myrberg, “Om Inspirationen med särskildt afseende på den H. Skrift,” BF 8 (1891) 283, 285, 197-98. In this article, Myrberg reviews two books on divine inspiration by N. A. Dahl and J. Temstedt. Throughout Myrberg expresses his own views on the subject. He particularly liked Dahl’s work. 235 In Dahl’s view it is hard to distinguish between the perfect picture and the imperfect frame. The light of the picture spreads to the frame and the shadows of the frame only dampen or soften the divine light. Myrberg liked this analogy and quoted E. G. Geijer as having described the Bible as “a book full of dampened divine beams.” (“en bok full af dämpade 2udomsstrålar.” Mvrber2, “Om inspirationen.” 294.) 236 Ibid., 293; idem, “Biblen och Naturvetenskapen,” BF 15 (1898) 294-96. [ Page ] 65 message; it has a different purpose. Consequently, from a scientific perspective there may be a lot of problems and mistakes in the Bible.237 The story of creation is not meant to be an accurate geological description of how the world came into being. Therefore Myrberg does not take the length of the days of creation literally as 24 hours days but rather figuratively or symbolically representing an undetermined length of time.238 Its purpose is religious not scientific. For Myrberg, historical criticism was limited to the external, historical, human aspects of the biblical text rather than focusing on its religious message. Myrberg’s openness to certain results of modern historical criticism is demonstrated in his position on Deutero-Isaiah. As we have already noted, Myrberg came to accept the dating of Isaiah 40-66 to the exilic period and this acceptance is seen as early as 1877 in his defence of his student Ekman’s thesis on the topic. Myrberg could also accept that not every biblical book was written by the person apparently claimed in headings or superscriptions to be the author. For example, Ecclesiastes was not written by Solomon and not every Psalm ascribed to David was written by him. Finally, in Myrberg’s work on Daniel he took neither a traditional nor a modern view of the dating and authorship of the book. Myrberg found a middle compromised position. Myrberg felt compelled to write his own work on the book of Daniel in response to the two commentaries on Daniel written by F. A. Johansson and E. Stave as part of their competition for the chair of extraordinary professor in exegesis at Uppsala University in 1894.239 ___________________________ 237 Myrberg, “Biblen och Naturvetenskapen,” 294-95. 238 Myrberg, “Studier på området af Genesis,” TT 2 (1862) 291-93, 297. 239 In a letter Myrberg explained that he had pondered the question at length ever since Johansson and Stave published their works on Daniel. 10 Nov 1895 Letter to T. A. Mazer from O. F. Myrberg, TMS G360 UUB. In his work on Daniel, Myrberg also mentioned being motivated to write a response by these publications (O. F. Myrberg, Äro Daniels Profetior ett verk af den Makkabeiska tiden. Ett bidrag till Danielsfrågan [ Page ] 66 Both of them adopted the modern critical perspective on the book. Myrberg took a different position. Our view of the book of Daniel differs itself from both the traditional and the modern interpretations of Daniel. A mistake which they both share with each other is (the claim) that all of the content is the work of the same author.240 The modern critics date it to an author in the second century BCE whereas the traditional perspective claims that Daniel wrote it all in the sixth century.241 Instead Myrberg asserted that there are at least two authors of the book. Chapters 1-7, 9 and 12 originates from Daniel whereas chapters 10-11 were composed in the Maccabean period. Chapter 8 serves as a transition chapter between the two sections. Chapters 10-11 are historically bound to the time of the religious persecutions of the Israelites by Antiochus Epiphanes in the second century. Therefore this section is not real prophecy but rather “a commentary on Daniel’s prophecy interwoven with some historical facts . . .”242 Chapter 12 is by Daniel but contains two interpolations, 12:5-7 and 12:11-12 added later. The final shaping of the book took place in the Maccabean period.243 Myrberg’s perspective on Daniel was a compromised mediating position in which he managed to retain certain elements from both the traditional and modern views on the book. He tended to vacillate between maintaining a conservative, traditional position at the same time ________________________________________________________________________________ [Stockholm: Z. Haeggströms Förlagsexpedition, 1896] 30. It was also published in Bibelforskaren in 1895). 240 “vår uppfattning af Daniels bok skiljer sig både från den traditionella och den moderna Danielsutläggningen. Ett misstag, som de båda dela med hvarandra, är att hela innehållet är ett verk af samma författare.” Ibid., 27. 241 Here Myrberg disagreed with Delitzsch for adopting a traditional view. Ibid., 27-29. 242 “en kommentar till Daniels profetia med inflätande af en del historisk fakta . . .” Ibid., 21. 243 Ibid., 24-26, 30-31. [ Page ] 67 as he tried to find a moderate mediating perspective. He did not want to reject the critical approach completely. This was part of his response to the historical-critical method in general. Myrberg refused to go all the way, but wanted to take the ‘good bits’ from the modern approach and adopt a moderate mediating position. In a sense, he was trying to get the best of both worlds. To a certain extent, he wanted to emulate Delitzsch’s example, although he did not go as far as Delitzsch on certain questions. Consequently, his response to the historical-critical approach was not completely straightforward but was mixed and even ambiguous at times. It depended on what biblical book or question was under consideration. On certain issues, Myrberg was more open and did adopt a modern critical perspective. For example, he was less conservative in his treatment of prophetic literature than with the Pentateuch.244 But for the most part, Myrberg’s response was largely negative and he took an apologetic approach, attacking the modern critical method in defence of conservative scholarship. In fact, his apologetic approach to the scholarship of some people like Fries pushed him into taking a more conservative position. In the final analysis, Myrberg fought very hard to stop the advancement and acceptance of the modern critical method in Sweden. He made a valiant attempt but in the end he was unable to stem the inevitable tide. Conclusion Otto Myrberg was an original and eccentric biblical scholar whose life and work dominated the Faculty of Theology in Uppsala for nearly half ______________________________ 244 Hidal is wrong in asserting that after Myrberg’s defence of Ekman’s thesis on the question of Deutero-Isaiah in 1877, Myrberg did not evidence any more openness to the critical approach but that he became more conservative and narrow. It has been demonstrated that on certain questions Myrberg did adopt a modern critical perspective. Myrberg’s response was mixed. Hidal, Bibeltro, 62-64, 73-74. [ Page ] 68 a century. He was a complex and somewhat controversial figure who paradoxically was both conservative and broad-minded at the same time. On the one hand, Myrberg was a great defender of the truth against heresy and on the other hand, he did not always toe the line of orthodoxy. He was very much an individualist who often went his own way. In his passion for the Bible, Myrberg spent his whole life promoting and defending the Bible from any attack on its ultimate authority. Consequently, he tried to hinder and hold back the waves of modern historical criticism from impacting on biblical scholarship in Sweden. Although these efforts as well as his very presence in the Faculty of Theology in Uppsala may have delayed its impact somewhat, ultimately his efforts were unsuccessful. His last generation of students were much more openminded to the changes of methodology in biblical exegesis. Yet, Myrberg did leave his mark of influence on a few students and colleagues; they will be considered in the following chapters. Although it had been his desire and intention to write an autobiography as a ‘confession,’ tracing his journey and development as an academic teacher and biblical scholar, unfortunately he left this task unfinished.245 Instead, he left behind him a legacy of publications and scholarly writings which were an important contribution to Swedish biblical exegesis in the nineteenth century. In his honour, the street where he lived his final years in Uppsala has been named after him.246 Myrberg was an important figure in his day and deserves to be ____________________________ 245 Elof Tegnér had asked Myrberg to write an autobiography in 1874, but Myrberg thought that it was too early for him to write it then. He wanted to do it at the end of his academic career in order to trace the inner development in his biblical scholarship. He said that it would be like a “confession.” (“sjelfbekännelse.” 16 March 1874 Letter to E. Tegnér from O. F. Myrberg, ETS LUB.) It would have been interesting to see how Myrberg had perceived himself, whether he would have thought of himself as a prophetic voice in his time! 246 Otto Myrbergs väg. [ Page ] 69 remembered on the pages of the history of Swedish biblical scholarship in the nineteenth century. 70 Chapter Three Waldemar Rudin Erik Georg Waldemar Rudin has been characterized as “one of the most original personalities in Swedish Church history.”1 As a scholar and clergyman, he had a great influence upon the Church community as a whole through his teaching, preaching, writing, leadership in the General Church Assemblies and through his work on the new Swedish translation of the Bible. He had an influence upon many through his spiritual leadership and godly example. In fact, Rudin has been described as a “prophetic figure” and “the most remarkable and the most important figure among the Uppsala theologians during the last three decades of the nineteenth century.”2 As lecturer and then professor in the Faculty of Theology at Uppsala University for almost thirty years, he made an impact on many priests in training for the Church of Sweden.3 His main contribution, however, was more in the area of spirituality rather than critical scholarship. As a biblical scholar, he emphasized a devotional, pneumatic, Bible-centred approach to Scriptural interpretation, seeing the Bible as an organic unity. Although Rudin was not at all naive or unaware of the results of critical scholarship (as some have supposed)4 he was mainly concerned with ______________________________ 1 “en av de originellaste personligheterna i Svensk kyrkohistoria.” Gösta Wrede, Review of Bibeltro och bibelkritik, by Sten Hidal, STK 56/4 (1980) 178. 2 “profetgestalt,” “den märkligaste och mest betydande gestalten bland uppsalateologerna under 1800-talets tre sista decennier.” Gustaf Aulén, Från mina nittiosex år. Hänt och tänkt (Stockholm: Verbum, 1975) 40. 3 Martin Lindström, “Rudin, Erik Georg Waldemar Napoleon,” SU 24 (1957) 652; Clemens Åhfeldt, “Några ord om W. Rudins homiletiska författerskap,” BF 34 (1917) 1-2. 4 In his frustration, Fries described Rudin as being naive, shallow and incompetent when it came to understanding historical-critical scholarship (Fries, Vår kärleks historia, 190-91, 211; Linder, “Domprosten,” 230). [ Page ] 71 expounding the biblical text devotionally with the goal of spiritual edification and application. Yet Rudin was a scholar in transition; he lived in a period of transition and was not completely unaffected by the new winds of change. Consequently, he was not completely opposed to the newer historical-critical method. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, Rudin gradually became more open to historical criticism although he never fully embraced it. In his study of the reception of the historical- critical method in Swedish Old Testament scholarship, Sten Hidal considers Rudin as a central and key figure in the whole debate over the adoption of the newer method. In fact, Hidal credits Rudin’s inaugural speech as professor in 1893 as the “actual turning point when it concerns the reception of this biblical perspective in Sweden.”5 In this address, Rudin used the concept of the incarnation as a way to understand the nature of God’s word contained within the human shell of the biblical text. According to Hidal, this understanding prepared the way for the adoption of the historical-critical approach to interpretation. Although Waldemar Rudin’s main contribution and significance was through his pietistic, devotional, homiletical approach to the Bible, his approach to biblical interpretation and his understanding of the nature of the Bible did play a role in the transition period and change in methodology within Swedish Old Testament scholarship.6 _____________________________ 5 “den egentliga vändpunkten när det gäller denna bibelsyns reception i Sverige.” Hidal, Bibeltro, 77. 6 There is a lot of material written on Rudin. Bengt Åberg’s thesis on Rudin’s theological perspective is a very important source. However, Åberg admits that his analysis does not focus on Rudin’s work as an exegete and Bible translator (Åberg, Individualitet, 8). Other important sources are: D. Rudin, Waldemar Rudin. Levnadsteckning (Uppsala: J. A. Lindblads Förlag, 1921); Nathan Söderblom, “Minne av Waldemar Rudin. Inträdestal i Svenska Akademien den 20 december 1921,” in Svenska Akademiens Handlingar från 1886, 33 (1921) [Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner, 1923]; idem, Waldemar Rudins inre liv (Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt, 1923); Edv. Leufvén, W. Rudin som predikant. En homiletisk studie (Uppsala: J. A. Lindblads Förlag, 1919); Ernst Älthin, Från Rudin Inledning till profetian i Gamla [ Page ] 72 Education and Academic Experience Waldemar Rudin was born in Östra Ryd, Östergötland on July 20, 1833. Although Rudin was ‘religious’ as a youth, his real conversion to Christianity did not occur until sometime between the summer of 1851 and autumn of 1852, while he was a student in Uppsala. During this time, he came in contact with pious Christians who were involved with conventicles and the new evangelical revival movement in Sweden which eventually led to the formation of Evangeliska Fosterlandsstiftelsen (EFS) in 1856.7 Rudin described his own theological position at the time as “half pietistic-Rosenian, half ecclesiastical.”8 Having begun his studies at Uppsala University in 1851, Rudin completed a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1857 and a Doctor of Philosophy degree in the same year.9 Although Rudin did not begin his _________________________________________________________________________________ testamentet 1884 till Lindblom Profetismen i Israel 1934 (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerups Förlag, 1936); Bengt Åberg, “Waldemar Rudin. En mystiker och hans referensram. Ett kapitel om mystik i Svenska kyrkan,” Gnosis (1/90-1/91) 285-94. Nanna Boman has published parts of Rudin’s letters and diaries. W. Rudin, Brev och brevutdrag (compiled by N. Boman; Uppsala: J. A. Lindblads Förlag, 1921); W. Rudin, Tankar ur det inre livet (compiled by Nanna Boman; 3 vols; Stockholm: Svenska Kyrkans Diakonistyrelses Bokförlag, 1923-25). Besides Rudin’s own published writings, his unpublished manuscripts, notes, diaries and letters found at the Uppsala University Library are invaluable sources of information. 7 Through J. C. Berger, Rudin was introduced to the Bible study house meetings (conventicles) in Uppsala held in judge Henschen’s home. In this circle, Rudin met H. J. Lundborg who helped found the Institution for an Evangelical Native Land (EFS). Lundborg as well as Z. Göransson were the ones who first introduced Rudin to the writings of Kierkegaard. (D. Rudin, Waldemar Rudin, 33-35, 39-49; Åberg, “Rudin. En mystiker,” 285.) 8 “halvt pietistisk-Rosenianisk, halvt kyrklig.” (D. Rudin, Waldemar Rudin, 49.) C. O. Rosenius became the spiritual leader of EFS from its foundation. 9 I have translated the “filosofie kandidat” degree as a B.A. degree although the Swedish literally means “candidate of philosophy.” As part of this degree, Rudin studied philosophy with S. Ribbing and C. J. Boström. In his PhD thesis Rudin investigated the question of which had the greater influence on later writings, the language or the content of Roman literature. 29 Jan 1857, 30 Jan 1857 Letters to Louise Maule from Rudin, WRS Tlge:22 UUB; Bahr, J. von and Th. Brandberg, “Rudin, Erik Georg Waldemar Napoleon,” in Upsala Universitets Matrikel (Upsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1896) 140. [ Page ] 73 theological studies until 1857, he was already studying the Psalms as early as 1854, making notes on them according to Hengstenberg’s commentary on the Psalms.10 He also began studying Hebrew and Arabic and developed a great love for these languages. In a letter to his fiancée, he described Hebrew as a simple, peaceful, deeply religious and natural language while Arabic was wild, independent, poetic, the language of the free nomads. “Both are rich sources for reflection; Arabic caresses the ear — the holy language satisfies the spirit’s deepest need.”11 Rudin began to see the Hebrew language as something spiritual and religious whose inherent character could meet the human spirit’s spiritual needs. As part of his theological studies, Rudin made a study trip to Scotland in 1857-58. There he was exposed to the Scottish Free Church and attended lectures on dogmatics and New Testament exegesis in Aberdeen and Edinburgh.12 This trip gave him a wider perspective on the Church in general. Back in Uppsala, Rudin continued his theological studies and completed the Theoretical Theology examination (dimissionsexamen) in January 1859. During this time he studied dogmatics with professor A. F. Beckman, a subject which he found very interesting and important but at the same time he saw its danger: “one can lose oneself in speculations and disputes over wording and lose the __________________________ 10 Rudin, Glosor och Anteckningar öfver Davids Psalmer efter Hengstenbergs Commentar WRS Tlga:38 UUB. These handwritten notes are dated from the 6th of February 1854. 11 “Båda äro ett rikt fält för reflexionen; arabiskan smeker örat — det heliga språket tillfredställer andens djupaste behof.” 22 March 1857 Letter to Louise Maule from Rudin, WRS Tlge:22 UUB. 12 In Aberdeen, Rudin heard professor J. Lumsden in dogmatics and professor Brown in New Testament exegesis and he befriended professor Marcus Sachs, professor in Hebrew. In Edinburgh, he heard professor Smeaton in New Testament exegesis. He also spent a month in London where he heard C. H. Spurgeon and James Hamilton preach. (Rudin, Levnadsteckning 1. 1833-1885 WRS Tlgd:18 UUB; D. Rudin, Waldemar Rudin, 64-68.) [ Page ] 74 spirit.”13 For Rudin, the spirit was more important than the letter of the law and therefore he would never be so dogmatic that he could not change his position. Later Rudin would emphasize biblical teaching over against dogmatic formulas and abstract teachings, which made certain orthodox circles question his complete orthodoxy. Rudin was also reading more works by Kierkegaard at this time which made him more critical of the Church. Looking back to this time period, Rudin recalled that “a certain distrust of the Church rooted itself in me through Kierkegaard exposing her faults.”14 This was one factor which contributed to his hesitation of being ordained in the Church of Sweden.15 It was not until November 5, 1865 that he was ordained as priest in the Swedish Lutheran Church. Although his appreciation for the established Church grew with time, “he always remained more a man of religion than a man of the Church.”16 The influence of the new evangelical movement led him to become the Director of the office for the Evangeliska Fosterlandsstiftelse from 1859-62 and then its Director of Missions from 1862-69.17 Although he continuously battled with poor health, he also continued his practical training in Uppsala and finished the practical theological examination in ______________________________ 13 “man kan förlora sig i speculationer och ordstrider och taga bort anden.” 20 Aug 1857 Letter to Louise Maule from Rudin, WRS Tlge:22 UUB. In his early years as a student (1853-55), Rudin had lived in professor Beckman’s house and had been positively influenced by this man. It was Beckman who first introduced Rudin to the writings of J. T. Beck. In a letter, Rudin thanked Beckman for the blessing he had been to him at that time in his life. 26 July 1855 Letter to A. F. Beckman from Rudin, AFBS UUB: Rudin. Levnadsteckning 1. 1833-1885 WRS T1gd: 18 UUB. 14 ““En viss misstro till kyrkan fick ett fäste i mig genom Kierkegaards blottande av hennes brister.” Rudin, Levnadsteckning 1. 1833-1885 WRS Tlgd:18 UUB; 20 Aug 1857 Letter to Louise Maule from Rudin, WRS Tlge:22 UUB. 15 Rudin’s involvement with the new evangelical revival movement was another factor which made him hesitate. (Söderblom, Waldemar Rudins inre liv. 35-36.) 16 “han förblev alltid mer en religionens man än en kyrkans man.” Ibid., 35. 17 In the same year as he began to work for EFS, Rudin married Louise Maule (1828- 1899) on 7 October 1859. [ Page ] 75 1864.18 As Director of Missions Rudin made a number of trips abroad on behalf of EFS,19 and it was during his trip to Tubingen in 1865 that he met J. T. Beck for the first time. Although he had already heard about Beck through professor Beckman about ten years earlier, he had not become personally acquainted with Beck and his writings until now. At this point in his life, Rudin did not yet understand the significance that Beck would soon have for his own theological perspective, but this introduction became important in retrospect.20 In 1867 Rudin began to read a collection of lectures by Beck translated into Swedish by the Finnish theologian and disciple of Beck, professor A. W. Ingman.21 Rudin recalls the profound effect which Beck’s words had on him at that time: “Beck’s words had the effect of rigorously trying and examining my whole inner state. Yes, I can say that a new theological perspective began to dawn within me.”22 This new theological perspective led to Rudin’s so-called ‘second conversion’ where he adopted a position which was no longer compatible with the views of EFS and which eventually led to the break between Rudin and the organization in 1869.23 _____________________________ 18 “praktiska teologiska examen.” Rudin did this practical training with professor C. A. Hultkrantz. 19 During 1861-62, 1865-66 and 1868-69, Rudin travelled to Germany, Switzerland, France and England. 20 While in Tubingen, Rudin heard Beck both preach and lecture and he found the lectures very interesting. Beck also gave Rudin a copy of his book Psychologie. Rudin met Beck again in Tubingen on his last trip with EFS in 1869. (Rudin, Levnadsteckning 1. 1833-1885 WRS Tlgd: 18 UUB.) 21 J. T. Beck, Sjutton kristliga tal (öfversättning från tyskan af A. W Ingman; Helsingfors: G. W. Edlunds förlag, 1866). This book was given to him by his friend C. H. Bergman. 22 “Becks ord verkade strängt pröfande och rannsakande på hela min inre ställning. Ja, jag kan säga, att en ny teologisk åskådning började gry inom mig.” (Rudin, Levnadsteckning 1. 1833-1885 WRS Tlgd: 18 UUB.) 23 Åberg uses the term ‘second conversion’ to describe the change in Rudin’s theological position (Åberg, Individualitet, 13,16-17). Rudin himself says that by the spring of 1869 his inner development had settled into a position which remained essentially the same for the rest of his life. (Rudin, Levnadsteckning 1. 1833-1885 WRS Tlgd: 118 UUB.) The change in his views caused a reaction in EFS circles which eventually led to Rudin being asked to leave his position in EFS in the spring of [ Page ] 76 Rudin’s new position is best described in his own words: I received a sharp eye especially for the danger of pharisaism (specifically through Beck). The concept of truth had become a greater power within me. The difference between the ‘world’ and the kingdom of God was clear to me; but I had received a much wider view of God’s preparatory work among all people, which I would like to call the ‘forecourts’ of the kingdom of God. And with that I had received the feeling that the ‘boundary’ around the circle of ‘believers’ was drawn too tightly . . .24 Rudin was accused of universalism but also of adopting Beck’s teaching on justification which was considered more Roman Catholic than Lutheran. However, this latter accusation was not fair since Rudin never fully accepted Beck’s view of justification. In his own defence, he wrote: For me Beck had a completely different significance. It was his biblical-realistic perspective in everything and his serious prophetic pronouncements against the spiritual misdirections of the time (especially pharisaism) which were so crucial and meaningful for me.25 Beck’s view of biblical realism and his approach to the Bible played an important role in shaping Rudin’s approach to biblical exegesis. The __________________________________________________________________________________ 1869. For details of the crisis, see D. Rudin, Waldemar Rudin, 104-118; Söderblom, Waldemar Rudins inre liv, 38-67; Åberg, Individualitet, 46-54. 24 “En skarp blick hade jag fått, särskilt på fariseismens fara (spec, genom Beck). Sanningsbegreppet hade blivit en större makt inom mig. Skillnaden mellan ‘världen’ och Guds rike stod mig klar; men jag hade fått en mycket vidgare blick på Guds förberedande verk bland alla människor, på vad jag vill kalla Guds rikes ‘förgårdar.’ Och därmed hade jag fått en känsla av att ‘gränsen’ omkring de ‘troendes’ krets drogs alltför trång . . .” (Rudin, Levnadsteckning 1.1833-1885 WRS Tlgd:18 UUB; emphasis by Rudin.) 25 “För mig hade Beck en helt annan betydelse. Det var hans biblisk-realistiska åskådning i det hela och hans profetiska allvarliga uttalanden mot tidens andliga missriktningar (särskilt fariseism), som var för mig så avgörande och betydelsefulla.” Ibid. [ Page ] 77 significance of Beck on Rudin’s approach to biblical interpretation will be considered more fully.26 After his break from EFS, Rudin took the pastoral examination27 in 1869 and in the autumn of that same year began serving as assistant priest in the Klara parish in Stockholm where he remained for three years (1869-72). During these years at Klara his reputation as a great preacher was established; he attracted great crowds whenever he preached.28 He began publishing his sermons in a series called Evighetsvinkar (The beckonings of eternity) which became well known and loved.29 At the same time, he completed his theology degree (teologie kandidat) and took his examination on 28 October 1871. His success in this examination was such that on the same day, professor Myrberg called him to become docent in exegesis at Uppsala University, a position which Rudin accepted and took up in the autumn of 1872. He began his long teaching career with lecturing on Augustine’s Confessions and held a seminar on Biblical History.30 In the following _____________________________ 26 The change in Rudin’s theology is not only due to Beck but is also attributed to the influence of Kierkegaard and C. H. Bergman among others. Bergman, himself a mystic, introduced Rudin to the importance of mysticism in Christian faith. See Söderblom’s and Åberg’s work on Rudin and mysticism: Söderblom, Waldemar Rudins inre liv and Åberg. “Rudin. En mystiker.” 27 “pastoralexamen.” 28 S. Almquist, “Från Rudins Klara-tid. Ett 50-års minne,” in Hågkomster och livsintryck av svenska män och kvinnor (vol 3; Uppsala: J. A. Lindblads Förlag, 1923) 40-45; Gustaf Montan, “Några minnen av Waldemar Rudin,” in Hågkomster och livsintryck av 50 svenska män och kvinnor (vol 1; Uppsala: J. A. Lindblads Förlag, 1921) 84-89; J. Personne, “Rudin, Erik Georg Valdemar Napoleon,” NF 23 (1916) 1116. 29 W. Rudin, Evighetsvinkar. Predikningar öfver kyrkoårets texter (1872-75; new edition 1878; new series 1883, 1887, 1889; new series over new texts of the church year 1895-97, 1899). 30 Although the course was entitled Biblical History, it only covered Old Testament history. (Rudin, Biblisk Historia 1. WRS Tlga:81; Biblisk Historia 2. WRS Tlga:82 UUB; D. Rudin, Waldemar Rudin, 136.) Years later, John Personne wrote Rudin a letter, thanking him for the seminar on Biblical History which he attended in 1872-73; it still had value for him in 1913: “it was foundational for my theological studies.” (“det var av grundläggande art för mina teologiska studier.” 17 July 1913 Letter to Rudin from J. Personne, WRS Tlge:U UUB.) [ Page ] 78 year 1873 he was appointed as extraordinary chaplain for the royal court in which capacity he served until 1892. When Rudin first became a member of staff in the Faculty of Theology, not everyone readily accepted him. Certain Faculty members were suspicious of Rudin’s orthodoxy, particularly Martin Johansson, professor of dogmatics. “On the surface everything was friendly. My personal friend Torén spoke of the fear among some concerning my lack of ‘orthodoxy’. . . Johansson in particular gave words of warning to me . . .”31 Rudin did find genuine support from professors Torén and Myrberg. Of course, Myrberg and Rudin had both Kierkegaard and Beck in common.32 In the second year as docent, Rudin won a travel scholarship and went on a study trip to Germany, Switzerland and Italy for one year (1873-74).33 During this time he spent most of the winter months in Tubingen and got better acquainted with Beck. That year Beck was lecturing on Dogmatics, Ephesians, Timothy and most probably on the Minor Prophets since Rudin had notes on them.34 These notes became the basis for Rudin’s own lectures on the Minor Prophets when he was back in Uppsala.35 In a letter, Rudin encouraged his friends in Uppsala to come to Tubingen and hear Beck: “in both scholarly and practical _________________________________ 31 “I det yttre var allt vänligt. Jag hade Torén min personlige vän, tala om fruktan hos somliga angående min bristande ‘renlärighet’ . . . Särskilt hade nog Johansson sina varningsord till mig . . (Rudin, Levnadsteckning 1. 1833-1885 WRS Tlgd:18 UUB.) 32 It was actually Kierkegaard and not Beck who first united Myrberg and Rudin, when they both tried to defend Kierkegaard against the criticism made against him in 1864 at a meeting of priests in Lund. (Åberg, Individualitet, 109.) 33 Rudin won the scholarship called “Guthermutsk stipendiat.” 34 Beck wrote to Rudin before he came telling him that his lectures on Dogmatics, Ephesians and Timothy would begin in October. 1 Sept 1873 Letter to Rudin from J. T. Beck, WRST lge:1 UUB. 35 Rudin, Erklärung der beiden Profeten Micha und Joel von Prof Beck WRS Tlge:53 UUB; idem, Profet Micha efter prof Beck WRS Tlga:54 UUB; idem, Föreläsningar öfver de mindre profeterna WRS Tlga:49 UUB. [ Page ] 79 respects one gets full value from one’s visit here from his lectures.”36 37 This year abroad became important for Rudin’s biblical scholarship since the influence of Beck would soon be evident in Rudin’s exegetical work. While he was in Tubingen, Rudin decided to apply for the position of adjunct lecturer in theology in Uppsala, by writing a thesis on The fundamental feature in the teaching about the human soul according to the Holy Scriptures.37 He successfully defended the thesis on 29 January 1875 and was appointed adjunct lecturer.38 With this appointment he also became priest in Uppsala-Näs where he remained until 1892. In 1877 at the 400 years jubilee celebrations for the University Rudin was given a Doctor of Theology degree. He was promoted to the extraordinary professorship in exegesis in the same year 1877. In 1884, Rudin was appointed to the Bible Commission for the new Swedish translation of the Bible in which capacity he served until 1915. This event was significant because of its effect upon Rudin’s biblical scholarship. The time spent on the new translation took away time from his academic pursuits yet it also contributed to his exegetical work. Upon Myrberg’s retirement in 1892, Rudin was called to the chair of ordinary professor in exegesis without having applied for the position, which was considered a great honour.39 With the appointment he _____________________________ 36 “man både i vetenskapligt och praktiskt afseende har full valuta för sin vistelse här af hans föreläsningar.” 26 Jan 1874 Letter to F. Arvedson from Rudin, FAS G7:bc UUB. 37 W. Rudin, Grunddragen till läran om menniskosjälen enligt den Heliga Skrift (Upsala: Esaias Edquists Boktryckeri, 1875). It was under Beck’s guidance that he prepared this thesis on biblical psychology. Rudin used Roos, Beck and Delitzsch as his main sources for this work. His friend Arvedson submitted Rudin’s application for him while Rudin was in Germany. 28 April 1874 Letter to F. Arvedson from Rudin, FAS G7:bc UUB. 38 On the day of his defence, Rudin wrote in his diary: “Vanity of vanities!” (“Fåfängligheters fåfänglighet!” Rudin, Tankar ur det inre livet, [vol 2], 38.) 39 When the Faculty members voted to appoint Rudin for the chair, the protocols state that, although Rudin had not written anything significant on the historical-critical problem in exegesis, his work showed “scholarly insight and maturity” and his lectures [ Page ] 80 automatically became the priest of the parish of Helga Trefaldighet in Uppsala. In 1896 he was elected to become a member of the Swedish Academy, after the death of Viktor Rydberg.40 He remained ordinary professor until his retirement in 1900 at age 67. After his retirement he continued to be active with the Bible Commission and in the Church Synods.41 Although his health was frail for most of his life, Rudin lived until the age of 87; he died in Uppsala on January 2, 1921 42 As lecturer and then professor in Old and New Testament exegesis, Rudin was able to do that which was nearest to his heart: biblical exegesis. When he began to lecture on Genesis in 1876, he wrote: This is the first time I can undividedly dedicate myself to that work which through affection and studies lies closest to me: exegesis. For me it is an important beginning; and therefore I have chosen a subject which I consider as a starting-point, foundational for all theological study, namely the Bible’s own history. And I would like to advise every student of theology to begin with this. God himself began with this history and we should walk in his footsteps 43 The Bible must be the primary source for all theology. For Rudin, Genesis and Creation in particular were fundamental and foundational to ___________________________________________________________________________________________ on the biblical books often gave “spiritual insights into the spirit of the holy text.” On this basis, he was appointed. (“vetenskaplig insikt och mogenhet . . . spirituela inblickar i den heliga textens ande.” 4 Oct 1892 § 1 Teol Fak Prot 1888-93 AI: 16 UUB.) 40 Rudin spoke at Viktor Rydberg’s funeral as well as lectured on Rydberg when he became a member of the Swedish Academy. Rudin spoke quite sympathetically of Rydberg, which demonstrates Rudin’s broadmindedness. Rudin claimed that Rydberg was not an enemy of Christ as some thought. This of course concerned some people since Rydberg’s view of Christ in Bibelns lära om Kristus (1862) was considered heretical. “Viktor Rydberg bedömd af Waldemar Rudin,” (Finsk) TT2( 1897) 51-55. 41 Rudin was a member of the Church Svnods in 1883, 1888, 1893, 1898. 1903, 1908. 42 Erik Berggren, “Rudin, Erik Georg Waldemar Napoleon,” SMK 6 (1949) 398-99. 43 “Det är första gången jag odelat får ägna mig åt det arbete som genom böjelse och studier ligger mig närmast: exegetiken. Det är för mig en betydelsefull begynnelse; och därför har jag och valt ett ämne, som jag anser såsom en utgångspunkt, grundläggande för allt teologiskt studium, nämligen bibelns egen historia. Och jag ville råda envar teologie studerande att börja med detta. Gud har själv begynt med denna historia, och vi skola gå i hans fotspår.” (Rudin, Levnadsteckning 1. 1833-1885 WRS Tlgd:18 UUB.) [ Page ] 81 the teachings of the Bible and theology in general. One must start with Creation rather than the Exodus or the New Testament when one did biblical theology.44 In the early years of his teaching career, Rudin tended to use more ‘conservative’ literature in his teaching but later in the 1890s he used more ‘liberal, critical’ works. This is evident when one compares Rudin’s earlier and later lecture notes and his examination notebook as well as the Faculty’s official course requirements. In the 1870s and early 1880s, Rudin examined his students on Keil, Delitzsch, Hupfeld, Kurtz, Melin, M. G. Rosenius, Lindenmeyer and his own writings on Old Testament history, prophecy and the Minor Prophets.45 As early as 1882, Rudin made reference to the historical-critical works of Astruc, de Wette, Vatke, Ewald in his lectures on Genesis where he discussed source criticism.46 In 1887, Rudin first mentioned Wellhausen in a footnote but in 1888-89, he referred to Wellhausen several times in his lectures on the history of Israel.47 From the 1890s the names of Wellhausen, Driver, Buhl, Kittel, Bleek, Strack became more and more frequent in his lectures and in the required readings for the examination. They were also examined on Delitzsch’s new commentary on Genesis and even Stave’s book on Daniel.48 This movement from ___________________________ 44 Rudin, Anteckningar öfver Gamla Testamentet 1 & 2. WRS Tlga:25-26 UUB; Åberg, Individualitet, 164. 45 Rudin, Tentamens-bok 1873-1882 WRS T1ga: 111 UUB; Anteckningar vid föreläsningar öfver Gamla Testamentets bibliska historia hållna af adjunkten W. Rudin 1876-77, av Erik Fredlund, WRS Tlga:83 UUB. 46 Rudin, Föreläsningar öfver Genesis WRS Tlga:28 UUB. 47 W. Rudin, Bibelns enhet (vol 1-2; Uppsatser i teologiska och kyrkliga ämnen 3-4; Upsala: W. Schultz, 1887-88) 43 ftn 1; idem, Föreläsningar öfver Sauls and Davids historia 2 WRS Tlga:34 UUB; S. A. Fries, Föreläsningsanteckningar 1888-92 H.T. 1888 Exegetik III, Israels historia av W. Rudin, SAFS T3k:34 UUB. 48 Rudin, Tentamens-bok 1890-1900 WRS Tlga:113 UUB. If one compares the required literature for the courses in exegesis in the Faculty, one can also note the change from more conservative to liberal texts. In 1886, the following were required: Melin, Kurtz and Rudin on biblical history, Keil, Delitzsch, Gerlach, Auberlen, Myrberg and Rudin for the literature on the Old Testament, Orelli and Oehler for OT [ Page ] 82 more conservative literature to more liberal, critical works will be considered more fully when we examine Rudin’s response to biblical criticism. Although Rudin was professor of both Old and New Testament exegesis, most of his courses and seminars as well as his more exegetical writings were on the Old Testament.49 When he became the ordinary professor in exegesis in 1892, he began teaching more on the New Testament, but he still continued to teach Old Testament courses on Judges, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, OT Exegesis, etc.50 He also worked more with the Old Testament translation of the Swedish Bible than the New Testament while serving on the Bible Commission. Although much of his writing was more devotional and homiletical, focusing on spiritual edification,51 he did publish some more scholarly and exegetical works, ___________________________________________________________________________________ theology and Lindenmeyer for a general overview. By 1893, changes had been made. Besides the above texts, Buhl, Strack-Zöckler, Bleek, König, Driver and Delitzsch’s new commentary on Genesis among others were recommended as well. In 1895, Stave’s work on Daniel was also recommended. In 1898, Wellhausen and Kittel were also added to the list. Anvisningar och råd för studiet af exegetisk teologi i och för Dimmissionsexamen (1886); Anvisningar och råd för studiet af exegetisk teologi i och för Dimmissionsexamen (1892); Kurser i Exegetik för Dimmissionsexamen (Upsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1893); Anvisningar och råd för studiet af exegetisk teologi i och för Dimmissionsexamen (Upsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1895); Kurser i Exegetik för Teologie Kandidatexamen (Upsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1898). 49 The following is a list of the courses Rudin taught during his teaching career: Augustine’s Confessions (1872, 73); Biblical History (1872, 73); The Church Year Texts of the Gospel of Luke (1874, 75); Homiletics (1874, 75); OT Biblical History (1876, 77); OT Exegesis (1876); The Life of Jesus According to Luke (1877, 78, 79); Minor Prophets (1878, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85); Joel (1878); The Life of Jesus (1879, 80, 81, 82, 83); Hosea (1879, 80); Habakkuk (1882); The Resurrection Accounts in the Gospels (1883, 84); Psalms (1885); OT Biblical History from the Prophet Samuel, with Translation of First Samuel (1888); OT Biblical History from King David with Translation of First and Second Samuel (1889, 90); Ephesians (1890, 91, 92, 99, 1900); The History of King David with Translation of Second Samuel (1890, 91); Jeremiah (1891, 92, 93); The History of Israel during the period of the Judges with Translation of the Book of Judges (1893); Judges (1894); Matthew (1894, 95, 96, 97); The Unity of the OT Historical Books (1894); NT Epistles (1895); Pauline Epistles (1897); Ezekiel and OT Prophecy in General (1897, 98); Romans (1898); NT Theology (1899); Survey of NT writings (1900). UUK (1872-1900). 50 Teol Fak Dagböcker No 1-3 1891-93, 1894-96, 1897-98 F:l-3 UUA. 51 Åhfeldt, “Homiletiska författarskap,” 1-9; Åberg, Individualitet, 12; Sharpe, Nathan Söderblom, 27; Hidal, Bibeltro, 79. I disagree with Hidal’s claim that Rudin’s [ Page ] 83 particularly on Old Testament prophecy, inspiration and the Minor Prophets. However, probably the greatest contribution Rudin made during his academic career was the godly example, leadership and inspiration he gave to many generations of students. Every Sunday afternoon, he opened up his home for students for a time of discussion and spiritual edification. He also started the worship services for the academic community in the spring of 1889 which became very important for the spiritual life of Uppsala University.52 Rudin was well loved by the students and made a significant spiritual impact on them53 In his farewell speech to the University upon his retirement as professor, he stated that his main purpose as a teacher had been the following: To awaken the attention of the young to the eternal significance of this life, to ‘entice them’ onto the true ‘path of happiness’, this has been my deepest purpose in my work among you.54 The success of this aim was felt in the lives of many generations of students. Old Testament Exegesis and Interpretation Rudin’s understanding of the Bible in general and his approach to Old Testament interpretation in particular is best seen by looking at his major publications, his lecture notes, sermons and diaries where he ____________________________________________________________________________________ scholarly writings on the Bible were very few. He did publish a number of important scholarly works and even his more devotional and popular publications were based on careful exegetical work. Unfortunately, he never published his lecture notes and writings on Genesis, which only exist in handwritten form. 52 D. Rudin, Waldemar Rudin, 227-29, 142-44. 53 Fries, Vår kärleks historia, 102. 54 “Att väcka de ungas uppmärksamhet på denna lifvets evighetsbetydelse, att ‘locka dem’ in på den sanna ‘lyckovägen’, det har varit mitt djupaste syfte vid mitt arbete bland eder.” W. Rudin, I afskedsstunden. Ett ord till Uppsala universitets ungdom den 24 september 1900 (Uppsala: W. Schultz, 1900) 8. [ Page ] 84 addressed the subject. In one of his earliest publications, an article written on biblical inspiration in 1873, Rudin outlined the main ideas which would form the basis of his understanding and approach to the Old Testament for the rest of his life.55 Although Rudin was shaped by new impulses and insights and matured in his understanding, some of the main ingredients of his view of and approach to biblical exegesis can be found in this early work. A central concept in Rudin’s view of the Bible was the notion of the kingdom of God. He began his article on inspiration by claiming that the history of the Old Testament is “throughout presented from a divine perspective and with divine authority; it does not want to be ordinary world history or a history of the Israelite people but rather a history of the divine kingdom.”56 This was the influence of Beck and Lindenmeyer. Rudin lectured on Lindenmeyer’s The Kingdom of God as a World Kingdom and had it as required reading for his course in exegesis.57 Rudin would develop this concept more in his later writings, but already in 1873 it is present in his understanding. Rudin believed that in the Bible there is a chain of divine revelations beginning with creation, being revealed to humanity at different stages from lower to higher according to human beings’ ability or readiness to receive these revelations. ___________________________ 55 W. Rudin, “Om inspirationen. En skizz ur de teologiska prenotionema,” TT 13 (1873) 241-58. 56 “alltigenom framstäld från gudomlig synpunkt och med gudomlig myndighet; den vill icke vara vanlig verldshistoria eller israelitisk folkhistoria utan gudomlig rikshistoria.” Ibid., 241. 57 Rudin, “Föreläsningar med ledning af Lindenmeyers bok ‘Guds rike ss werldsrike’ WRS T1ga:80 UUB; Julius Lindenmeyer, Guds rike såsom werldsrike enligt den heliga Skrift (översatt av V. Humbla; Lund: CWK Gleerups Förlag, 1876). This book was first published in German in 1869. In this work, Lindenmeyer argued that the concept of the kingdom was the key for interpreting the whole Bible. He was a disciple of Beck as well as being his son-in-law. [ Page ] 85 Therefore the communication of the revelation has only been able to go on gradually on a level with humanity’s cleansing, ceaselessly ascending; according to each stage God has endeavoured to bring humanity one step higher, always with the highest in sight.58 Rudin described this phenomenon of a chain of revelations in stages as the “evolutionary way” or the “law of growth.”59 60 Just as humanity goes through stages of development, divine revelation moves and develops from stage to stage. With this understanding, Rudin worked with a notion of progressive revelation in his interpretation of Scripture. Consequently, each moment of divine revelation should not be seen as the final revelation. . . . inspiration must not be thought of simultaneously as finished or complete, but rather that the corresponding revelation has its fixed grades of development, although certainly each of them being complete in their own sphere.60 Because there were also different grades or levels of the gift of inspiration, the revealed product or biblical text could have different grades of importance, certain texts being more central than others. The importance of a text was evaluated according to its centrality to the divine revelation as a whole. According to these criteria, Rudin considered the book of Esther as less important. But even the less _____________________________ 58 “Derföre har uppenbarelsens meddelande i jembredd med menniskans rening blott kunnat fortgå successivt, i ett oupphörligt stigande, hvarvid Gud således på hvarje stadium sträfvat att föra menskligheten ett steg högre, alltid med det högsta i ögonsigte.” Rudin, “Om inspirationen,” 246. 59 “evolutiv väg” or “växandets lag.” (Ibid., 247.) Rudin’s view was rooted in theosophy’s pre-Darwinian evolutionism of the first half of the nineteenth century. Rudin rejected Darwin’s causal linear evolutionary theory since each stage made the former irrelevant and passé, thus making the Old Testament passé. This is what made Rudin sceptical of a biblical criticism which adopted a Darwinian view. This type of evolutionary law was also removing the miraculous in Israel’s history. (Rudin, 27 March 1895, Anteckningar ur det inre lifvet 3 1893-1900 WRS Tlgd:34 UUB; Åberg, Individualitet, 137-45.) 60 “. . . inspirationen icke får tänkas såsom något på en gång afslutadt och fulländadt, utan att den, motsvarande uppenbarelsen, har sina bestämda utvecklingsgrader, ehuru visserligen hvar och en af dessa fullkomlig i sin sfer” Rudin, “Om inspirationen,” 250; emphasis by Rudin. [ Page ] 86 essential biblical texts were divinely inspired, but simply at a lower level or grade.61 Since the divine revelation was given through human agency and according to human capacity and freedom, the possibility of mistakes and faults in the final product is conceivable. Since human beings are sinful, it is unavoidable for the divine revelation not to be misunderstood or misrepresented. “A broken or unclean mirror will only reflect a broken and unclean picture, even of the purest object. . . This is how it was with the mirror of the human spirit in relation to the revelation of God.”62 This possibility does not mean that the text is no longer inspired. But we must also be careful to remember that the apparent fallacy may instead be due to our own limited, lack of understanding.63 Finally, Rudin described the whole Old Testament as a preparatory stage for the one divine revelation which is of central significance, the revelation of Jesus Christ, God incarnate. The salvation in Jesus Christ is not the end or final revelation but rather the middle of human development and history. Consequently, Rudin considered the time period before this central midpoint of history, the Old Testament period as a preparatory stage, a shadow of the coming reality. In relation to that which is to come, the Old Testament presents itself in types, symbols and pictures.64 _______________________________ 61 Ibid., 253-54. 62 “En bruten eller orenad spegel återgifver blott en bruten och orenad bild, äfven af det renaste föremål... Så var det ock med menniskosjälens spegel i förhållande till Guds uppenbarelse.” Ibid., 245. 63 Ibid., 245, 255-56. 64 Ibid., 250-51. [ Page ] 87 The inspiration of the Old Testament consequently concerns itself entirely with pictures (σχιαι) which do not yet have any reality in themselves but rather are waiting for it.65 Rudin would develop the idea of picture language in the Old Testament further in his writings on prophecy and the prophetic books. In 1875, Rudin published his thesis on The fundamental feature in the teaching about the human soul according to the Holy Scriptures66 which he defended for the adjunct lectureship in theology. This was the first work of its kind on the subject written in Swedish.67 Rudin acknowledged his greatest debt to F. Delitzsch, J. T. Beck and M. F. Roos for their influence upon his work and perspective.68 In this work, Rudin’s Bible-centred approach to theology becomes evident; he believed that all theology must be understood and based upon its main source, the Bible. Every theological idea or dogmatic system must be built on the Bible, even though the Bible does not in fact contain any system, whether of human psychology or dogmatics or ethics. And although the Scriptures do not contain any psychological system, much less any other system, one should not consider it impossible that from the foundational definitions which it gives us concerning our essence, as a basis for what it tells us about the religious-ethical form, to build up such (a system), at least in its most general essential features. In the ____________________________ 65 “Den gammaltestamentliga inspirationen rörer sig alltså helt och hållet omkring bilder (σχίαί), hvilka ännu icke hafva någon realitet i sig sjelfva, utan vänta på en sådan.” Ibid., 251; emphasis by Rudin. 66 Grunddragen till läran om menniskosjälen enligt den Heliga Skrift. 67 Rudin, Grunddragen, 11. In his introduction, Rudin stated that anthropology or teaching about humanity should be one of the foundational sciences and that theology had not given enough attention to this subject. For theology, the question of what it means to be human must be central and foundational. This is one of the reasons why Rudin chose this topic. The fact that Beck had published a book on the subject (which was translated into Swedish in 1873) and that Rudin was studying with Beck that same year in Tubingen while Rudin was working on the thesis is probably another reason. Ibid., 1-2; Harjunpaa, “Beckian Biblicism and Finland,” 302. 68 Rudin referred to Delitzsch’s System der biblischen Psychologie (1855, second edition 1861), Beck’s Umriss der biblischen Seelenlehre (1862) and Roos’ Grundziige der Seelen-Lehre (1857). Rudin, Grunddragen, 1,11. [ Page ] 88 Scriptures neither any dogmatics nor ethics can be found; and yet one believes that one can build both from it... 69 It is also important to remember that the Bible does not describe a scientific picture of the world or of human psychology, yet since it was written for humanity and about her, the Bible does describe human nature in its essential features. Consequently, Rudin tried to present a biblical psychology of the human being based on the biblical picture of her.70 Again Rudin reiterated that one must not approach the text with preconceived or self-invented ideas and try to find support for these concepts. In this context Rudin quotes Roos as having said that one must “treat the Scriptures only as a witness not as a teacher, simply as the touchstone not as the source of truth.”71 Rudin followed this quotation by stating that “accordingly one must avoid one’s own preconceived speculations, not to insert an idea into the Scriptures but rather draw out its own meaning.”72 This was one reason why Rudin sometimes was critical of dogmatic formulations and certain doctrines, since he believed they were not always biblically based. One should not use the Bible as a proof-text but must let the Bible speak for itself and let it influence the shape and form that theology takes. One should let the Bible be its own interpreter.73 ____________________________ 69 “Och ehuru Skriften icke innehåller något psykologiskt system, lika litet som något annat system, så bör det icke anses omöjligt att ur de grundläggande bestämningar hon gifver oss om vårt väsen, såsom grundval för hvad hon säger oss om dess religiöst- sedliga upprättelse, uppbygga ett sådant, åtminstone i dess allmännaste grunddrag. I Skriften finnes ju icke heller hvarken en dogmatik eller etik; och dock tilltror man sig att ur henne kunna uppbygga båda delarne . . .” Ibid., 3. 70 Ibid., 2-3. 71 “behandla Skriften endast såsom ett vittne icke såsom lärarinna, blott såsom pröfvosten icke såsom sanningens källa.” (Ibid., 4.) Rudin does not give a reference for the quotation but most likely it comes from Roos’ Grundzüge der Seelen-Lehre. 72 “Det gäller följaktligen att undvika egna förvetna spekulationer, att icke inlägga en mening i Skriften utan utlägga hennes egen mening.” Ibid.; emphasis by Rudin. 73 Ibid., 4, 7. Rudin’s critique of dogmatics may be quite valid but whether it really is possible to let the Bible speak for itself without letting one’s own preconceptions or ideas influence the interpretation is doubtful. [ Page ] 89 In his attempt to write a biblical view of human psychology, Rudin’s approach to the Bible was to present a whole picture by examining all the texts on the subject rather than just a few texts. Thus he took a canonical or wholistic approach to biblical interpretation, looking at both the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament view of human psychology was not antiquated but was just as important and relevant as the New; the New Testament simply built a clearer picture upon its foundations. By examining the main view given in the whole biblical corpus, Rudin believed that there are no real contradictions in the biblical presentation. In fact, Rudin claimed that there is only one main fundamental outlook or view of life which runs through the whole Bible.74 Finally it is noteworthy that Rudin starts with creation, the beginning of the biblical story in order to present the biblical picture of the human soul. Again this demonstrates the importance that creation and the book of Genesis had in Rudin’s theological outlook.75 Rudin believed that the creation story in the Bible is not a real explanation of how the world came into being. Even though it is a kind of description of creation its purpose is not to explain how it happened. “The main point of it is to understand the creation of the world religiously, that is to say, from the perspective that God is the only source of the world’s origin.”76 Consequently, Rudin did not believe it to be necessary to take the length of the seven days of creation literally but rather to take them symbolically, seeing the number seven as symbolizing the _______________________________ 74 Ibid., 4, 6. Rudin explicated this idea further in his later writings. 75 In Rudin’s lecture notes on Genesis, he introduced the subject by stating that Genesis is of greatest importance because it contains ‘the beginnings’ which are fundamental to both the Old and New Testaments. Rudin, Anteckningar öfver Gamla Testamentet 2. WRS Tlga:26 UUB. 76 “Hufvudsaken för henne är, att verldens skapelse fattas religiöst, d. v. s. från den synpunkten att Gud är verldens enda upphof.” Rudin, Grunddragen, 18; emphasis by Rudin. [ Page ] 90 perfection and completion of creation. He advocated this view in his lectures notes on Genesis from 1876-77. In these notes, he refers to Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8, asserting that in God’s perspective a day can be as 1000 years. He concludes the discussion by stating that the actual length of the days of creation remains an open question and lies outside the task of biblical exegesis.77 In Grunddragen, Rudin also described creation as the beginning point of a chain of creations, starting the chain of development of human history. The whole creation builds according to this story a connected chain, in which the lower precedes the higher and the latter, at the same time presupposes the lower as a condition for its existence . . .”78 The new link in the chain does not simply develop naturally but results from “a new word of creation.”79 This chain of development continues throughout biblical history and describes the history of humanity, which is in reality the history of the kingdom of God.80 Rudin expounded this notion of development further in his lecture at the general conference for the Lutheran priests of Sweden in 1881, “Concerning the organic law within the kingdom of God.”81 In this ______________________________ 77 Rudin, Föreläsningar öfver Genesis 1876-77 l.WRS Tlga:28 UUB. Rudin does not discuss the question of the length of days in Grunddragen. In his diary dating from 11 October 1885, Rudin still held to this position. There he writes that Ps 90 and Ps 104 were commentaries on Genesis 1, and that Moses himself understood the deeper significance of the history of creation rather than the external literal wording of the text. Rudin distinguished between the inner deeper religious meaning and the actual wording of the Bible which he saw as external and less important. Rudin, Anteckningar ur det inre lifvet 2. 1881-1892 WRS Tlgd:33 UUB. 78 “Hela skapelsen bildar enligt denna berättelse en sammanhängande kedja, i hvilken det lägre föregår det högre och det sednare på en gång förutsätter det lägre såsom vilkor för sin existens ...” Rudin, Grunddragen, 19. 79 “ett nytt skapelseord.” Ibid. 80 Ibid. See also Åberg. Individualitet, 142-43. 81 W. Rudin, “Om det organiskas lag inom Guds rike,” in Förhandlingar vid den allmänna svensk-lutherska prestkonferensen i Stockholm den 6, 7 och 8 sept 1881 (Stockholm: A. V. Carlssons Förlag, 1881). [ Page ] 91 lecture, Rudin clearly explained the organizational categories which he used to understand and interpret the Bible. The key idea for Rudin is the concept of life; from this overriding concept stem several pictures and laws which describe the nature of things. The concept of life conjures up important images and ideas like organism, birth, living, movement, growth, development, seed, flowering, education, all of which are key notions in Rudin’s understanding of the Bible and of the kingdom of God. In the lecture Rudin states that there is an organic law in the kingdom of God and that the Bible borrows pictures from organic nature to describe this kingdom. For example, the kingdom of God is described as a seed which is planted and grows.82 Then Rudin defines what he means by an organic law by describing four related laws. The first one Rudin calls the law of evolution or the law of growth which has to do with the process of life, evolving or growing from birth.83 The second law is the law of development, whereby the kingdom of God must go through a process of development.84 This does not mean that this preparatory time is insignificant. On the contrary, every stage in this development is necessary and important and is made holy.85 Thirdly, the kingdom of God functions within the spiritual realm and ___________________________ 82 Ibid., 217. Rudin often preached on the different parables of sowing a seed describing the kingdom of God in this way. For example see: W. Rudin, “Himmelrikets sådd, i dess växt och mognad,” in Evighetsvinkar. Ny följd. Predikningar öfver Kyrkoårets nya evangelietexter (andra årgången 1; Uppsala: W. Schultz, 1899); idem, “Liknelsen om Senapskornet och Surdegen,” in Evighetsvinkar. Ny följd. Predikningar öfver Kyrkoårets nya evangelietexter (andra årgången 2; Uppsala: W. Schultz, 1899). 83 Rudin, “Organiskas lag,” 218. We have already shown that Rudin used this concept in 1873 in describing inspiration. 84 Ibid., 219. I find it hard to see any distinct difference in Rudin’s explanation of this law of development from the law of growth or evolution. When applied to human beings, growth usually means physical and development usually means intellectual, but Rudin uses both these concepts to describe the nature of Scripture with no real distinction. 85 Ibid., 224. [ Page ] 92 within this realm of the Spirit there is a development in freedom.86 Finally, the organic law within the kingdom of God is a law of education or training, like bringing up a child to mature adulthood.87 All these related laws fall under the general umbrella concept of life. This organic model became the basis of Rudin’s approach to biblical interpretation. These concepts and laws repeatedly show up in his lectures and writings. In his lectures on the history of the Old Testament, he described the history of the Israelite people as holy history which grows and develops from birth through adolescence to adulthood.88 The primeval history of Genesis 1-11 is therefore more childish, simple and fragmentary in its religious perspective than later stages in biblical history. Yet, at each stage of development a new unity is created. Consequently, Rudin argues that there is an organic unity in the Bible, even though there are different stages involved in creating this unity.89 In 1887-88, Rudin published a lecture on the unity of the Bible where he developed further this notion of organic unity in the Scriptures. There he argued that there is “only one thought, one law, one plan in and throughout the whole Bible.”90 This unified concept is the kingdom of God and the middle point of this kingdom is Jesus Christ. From this key individual there is a movement from the centre to the general and universal. Just as leaven penetrates the whole, this divine kingdom _______________________ 86 Ibid., 220-21. 87 Ibid., 221. 88 See the notes taken by Rudin’s students from his lectures given in both 1876-77 and 1888. Anteckningar vid föreläsningar öfver Gamla Testamentets bibliska historia, hållna af Adjunkten W. Rudin 1876-77, av Erik Fredlund, WRS Tlga:83 UUB; S. A. Fries, Föreläsningsanteckningar 1888-1892 H.T. 1888 Exegetik III, Israels historia av W. Rudin. SAFS T3k:34 UUB. 89 Ibid. In these lectures, Rudin referred to Kurtz, Lindenmeyer and Hägglund to support his position. 90 “en enda tanke, en lag, en plan i och genom hela bibeln.” Rudin, Bibelns enhet, 9; emphasis by Rudin. See also Åberg, Individualitet, 197-200. [ Page ] 93 whose centre is in Christ penetrates the Bible creating an organic unity.91 But in the Old Testament the middle point of the divine kingdom is Israel. God chooses Abraham and the Israelites to be his people. Yet this particular chosen people will bring universal blessing to the rest of the world.92 God’s organic law is to work from the individual to the general, from a particular history of a people to universal history 93 For Rudin, the fact that there is an organic unity in the teachings of the Bible does not necessary mean uniformity and sameness. Instead of being a static unity, there is development and change. Since there is life and movement and development in the biblical story, it contains life’s contradictions, tensions and battles as depicted in human beings. Seeming contradictions concern peripheral questions and do not destroy the essential unity of the Scriptures.94 It was this organic model for interpreting Scripture which helped Rudin overcome the possibility of contradictions in the Bible and which later helped him deal with historical criticism. Rudin’s organic model did not only affect biblical interpretation. Rather, it shaped his whole understanding of life in general. This comes out clearly when reading Rudin’s diaries. Rudin saw everything in life organically, including prayer, personal development, justification by ______________________________ 91 Rudin, Bibelns enhet, 4, 80; idem, “Organiskas lag,” 222; Anteckningar, av Erik Fredlund, WRS Tlga:83 UUB. See Bengt Åberg’s thesis on Rudin for a thorough treatment of Rudin’s whole theological understanding of movement from individual to universal, from inner to outer, from centre to peripheral (Åberg. Individualitet). 92 Rudin, Bibelns enhet, 98. 93 Fries, Föreläsningsanteckningar 1888-1892 H.T. 1888 Exegetik III, Israels historia av W. Rudin, SAFS T3k:34 UUB. 94 Rudin, Bibelns enhet, 78, 152-53. Åberg points out that for Rudin all biblical texts were in some sense peripheral in relation to their centre which is Christ. Åberg, Individualitet, 142. [ Page ] 94 faith and the incarnation of Christ.95 Here again the influence of Beck can be traced. This organic model of life remained a key notion in his theological understanding for the rest of his life.96 Prophecy and the Prophetic Writings It is possible to argue that Rudin’s main scholarly contribution to Swedish Old Testament exegesis was his writings on the nature of Old Testament prophecy and his exegetical work on the prophetic books published in the mid 1880s.97 After these writings, unfortunately Rudin did not publish many more exegetical works on the Old Testament, even though he had many unpublished notes and lectures on several Old Testament books.98 The lack of publications after this point was mainly ___________________________ 95 25 Oct 1885, Rudin, Anteckningar ur det inre lifvet 2 1881-1892 WRS Tlgd:33 UUB; 12 March 1876, Rudin, Anteckningar ur det inre lifvet la 1872-1881 WRS Tlgd:31c UUB; Rudin, “Organiskas lag,” 222-23. 96 As late as 7 February 1915, Rudin spoke of the law of development and growth and its effect on spiritual life in his diary. Rudin, Tankar för mig själf 1912-1920 WRS Tlgd:36 UUB. 97 In his introduction to his work on the Minor Prophets, Rudin made the claim that there was a lack of more scholarly work on the prophetic writings in the Swedish language and that he was attempting to fill that gap. At the same time, Rudin acknowledged the work of his colleague Myrberg on the subject which Myrberg was also publishing at that time in Bibelforskaren. (W. Rudin, De mindre profeterna öfversatta och utlagda, vol 1 Obadja och Joel [Upsala: W. Schultz, 1884] no page number given.) Ernst Althin does a comparison of Rudin’s Introduction to Prophecy and Johannes Lindblom’s Prophecy in Israel published 50 years later in 1934 and makes the claim that in Rudin’s day (in the 1880s) his writings on Old Testament prophecy were considered very scholarly at the time (Althin, Från Rudin Inledning, 19). 98 Some of Rudin’s unpublished notes and lectures on the prophetic books which exist are on Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah. (For example see: Rudin, Föreläsningar öfver Jeremias WRS Tlga:44-46 UUB; idem, Föreläsningar öfver Hesekiel WRS T1ga:48 UUB; idem, Anteckningar till profeten Jesaja WRS Tlga:41 UUB; idem, Föreläsningar öfver profeterna Mika och Zefanja WRS Tlga:52 UUB; idem, Föreläsningar öfver de mindre profeterna WRS T1ga:49 UUB.) Rudin also commented briefly on the prophetic writings in his overall survey of Old Testament history published in Bibelforskaren as well as separately. (W. Rudin, Gamla Testamentets bibliska historia [Stockholm: Z. Hceggströms Förlagsexpedition, 1886]; idem, “Öfversigt öfver den bibliska historiens eller de historiska bibelböckernas innehåll i gamla testamentet,” BF 1 [1884] 13-28, 109-121, 259-277, BF 2 [1885] 8- 13, 121-128, 209-223, BF 3 [1886] 73-117, 299-326.) [ Page ] 95 due to the demanding task of working on the Swedish translation of the Bible for the Bible Commission which he joined in 1884. In 1884, Rudin published an article on “The Nature of Prophecy” and an Introduction to prophecy in the Old Testament which was a longer version of the article." Then he began publishing volumes on the Minor Prophets between 1884-87 but only completed four of the books, namely Obadiah, Joel, Jonah and Amos.100 However, these writings are sufficient to give a clear picture of Rudin’s understanding and approach to the prophetic books.101 In his Introduction, he referred most frequently to the writings of Beck, Oehler, Orelli, Kurtz and Lindenmeyer.102 On the Minor Prophets, besides the above mentioned works, he also recommended Ewald, Reuss, Lange, Caspari, Keil, Hitzig, Myrberg, Ekman and Luther among others. Even though Ewald, Reuss and Hitzig came from the modern critical school of scholarship, he felt that they also had valuable insights to contribute to our understanding of the prophets.103 Rudin believed that the Israelite people were a prophetic people and that the literature of the Old Testament was prophetic throughout, not in a mechanical way but in an organic way.104 Again his organic model of life was an important key in his understanding of the nature of __________________________ "W. Rudin, “Profetians väsen,” TKTB 2 (1884) 132-143, 183-199, 241-275; idem, Inledning till profetian i det Gamla testamentet (Upsala: W. Schultz, 1884). Rudin’s Inledning is almost identical to the article but with added new material. It also contains footnotes which refer to other scholars’ work on the subject. 100 W. Rudin, De mindre profeterna, vol 1 Obadja och Joel; idem, De mindre profeterna öfversatta och utlagda, vol 2 Jona (Upsala: W. Schultz, 1886); idem, De mindre profeterna öfversatta och utlagda, vol 3 Amos (Upsala: W. Schultz, 1887). 101 Rudin’s unpublished notes on the prophetic books are also considered. 102 Beck’s unpublished lectures on the Minor Prophets, Oehler’s Theologie des alten Testaments, Orelli’s Alttestamentliche Weissagung, Kurtz’s Heliga historia and Lindenmeyer’s Guds rike såsom verldsrike. 103 Rudin, De mindre profeterna, vol 1, 16; idem, De mindre profeterna, vol 3, 28. 104 Rudin, Inledning, 4; idem, “Profetians väsen,” 135; idem, 11 May 1886, Anteckningar ur det inre lifvet 2 1881-1892 WRS Tlgd:33 UUB. [ Page ] 96 prophecy. Prophecy is something living which organically grows and develops historically in the Old Testament. In the utterances of Moses lie the kernel or seed from which all prophecy in the Old Testament stems. From this prophetic root several new shoots appear according to the need of the Israelite people at the time.105 Still naturally so, this reception, as with every message and work of God, always occurs in an organic way, following its own laws. In the chain of creation as well as in the development of the world, the divine activity of life does not make any unnatural leaps. In accordance with this, the Spirit shapes his messages partly after the preceding development as a whole, that is to say, after the stage of revelation which his work in the world finds itself, partly after the individual’s personal character, who is to receive the message. Each prophet has a standpoint within a fixed stage of revelation, and he is also a certain distinct individual. Both these circumstances set a limit and a measure on his participation in the Spirit. Therefore, every prophecy has a temporal and individual character. Moses cannot see what Daniel sees . . . It is on this temporal and individual ground that the Spirit gives out of his fulness to every prophetic personality something new as an organic development of what has already previously been given; he penetrates the most inner being of the prophet and lifts him a little above and beyond the present age’s and his own viewpoint and at the same time lifts the veil which hides the present and the future a little more. In this way, prophecy is like a growing tree in the spiritual world, and each prophet is like a new shoot, a new branch, a new flower on it.106 _____________________________ 105 Rudin, Inledning, 2-4; idem, “Profetians väsen,” 133-35. Rudin maintained the traditional view that the law came before the prophets. The prophets used the law as a standard to judge the conduct and obedience of the Israelite people (idem, Inledning, 13-16). 106 “Dock naturligen så, att detta undfående alltid, såsom hvarje Guds meddelande och verkande, sker på organiskt sätt, följer sina egna lagar. Såväl i skapelsekedjan som i verldsutvecklingen gör den gudomliga lifsverksamheten inga onaturliga språng. I öfverensstämmelse härmed rättar Anden sina meddelelser dels efter den föregående utvecklingen af det hela d. v. s. efter det uppenbarelsestadium, på hvilket hans verk i verlden befinner sig, dels efter den persons enskilda beskaffenhet, som skall mottaga meddelelsen. Hvarje profet har en ståndpunkt inom ett bestämdt uppenbarelsestadium, och han är tillika en viss bestämd individ. Båda dessa förhållanden bestämma en gräns och ett mått för hans delaktighet i Anden. Hvarje profetia har derför en bestämd temporär och individuel karaktär. Moses kan icke få se hvad Daniel ser . . . Det är på en sådan temporär och individuel grund, som Anden åt hvarje profetisk personlighet [ Page ] 97 It is clear from this statement that Rudin’s understanding of the nature of prophecy was based upon his view of inspiration which developed organically in stages.107 Prophecy was given at different levels in this development. He also emphasized the role of the individual prophet whose receptivity and character influenced the shape of the prophecy. In this context, he argued against Hengstenberg and those who viewed the prophet as completely passive and unconscious in the process. With Oehler, Rudin believed that the individual freedom of will and self- consciousness of the prophet played a part in the prophetic process.108 Although the nature of prophecy is predictive and the goal of predictive prophecy is the revelation of Jesus Christ, Rudin argued that prophecy is first and foremost concerned with the present and nearer future.109 The prophets were mainly “men of the present” who spoke to their present age.110 However, when the Israelite people became unfaithful to the covenant, the prophets became prophets of the future _______________________________________________________________________________________ gifver ur sin fullhet något nytt såsom en organisk utveckling af det redan förut gifna; han griper in i profetens innersta och lyfter honom något litet utöfver samtidens och hans egen ståndpunkt, och lyfter med det samma något mera af den slöja, som gömmer nutiden och framtiden. Profetian är på detta sätt lik ett växande träd i andens verld, och hvarje profet är såsom ett nytt skott, en ny gren, en ny blomma på det.” (Rudin, Inledning, 30-31; idem, “Profetians väsen,” 189-90; emphasis by Rudin.) In this context, Rudin refers to J. A. Ekman’s work on miracles and the inspiration of the Spirit, Under och andeingifvelse. 107 In his diary dating from 3 March 1873, Rudin described the development of prophecy as a growing river: “Prophecy in the Bible begins like a little vein of spring water in the first promise, grows gradually, takes up new inflows of streams, and by the time of Isaiah it is a wide mighty river. It flows into Christ, becoming an ocean; but from there a new prophetic river now proceeds, which also grows in strength in the gospels and epistles and in the great book of Revelation, pouring itself out in the ocean of eternity where all prophecy ‘turns back’ (1 Cor 13).” (“Profetian i bibeln begynner såsom en liten källåder i det första löftet, växer småningom, upptagande nya tillflöden, och är på Jesajas tid en bred, mäktig flod. I Kristus utmynnar denna, bildande ett hav; men därifrån utgår nu en ny profetisk flod, åter växande i styrka, i evangelier och epistlar och i den mäktiga Uppenbarelseboken, utgjutande sig i evighetens ocean, där all profetia ‘återvänder’ [Ι Kor. 13].” Rudin, Tankar, vol 2, 19; emphasis by Rudin.) 108 Rudin, Inledning, 32-33; idem, “Profetians väsen,” 191-92. 109R udin, Inledning, 9-10; idem, “Profetians väsen,” 140. 110 “närvarandes män.” Rudin, Inledning, 15. [ Page ] 98 and their prophetic utterances became predictive of a new future. “And this future concerns first of all the development of the people of God and the kingdom of God in general; the messianic picture is simply a special figure in this painting.”111 112 Prophecy is never about normal history but about the kingdom of God presented from the divine perspective in broad brush strokes. The prophet “often sees history before him from more universal points of view.”112 The fundamental features of history are only seen in their broad outlines in prophecy. Consequently, the nature of prophecy is not historical prediction but rather is ethical in character.113 114 “Further, the prophet always preserves his calling to be a teacher in truth and in justice. The foundation of prophecy is pure ethics.114 The problem with modern exegetes is that they often stay with the external historical questions and do not go deeper, to the inner higher truth and ethical character of prophecy.115 Rudin firmly believed that the nature of prophecy is ethical and that its purpose is to teach us something. In fact, he often referred to the history of the Old Testament as religious pragmatic history in his lectures and writings.116 In his commentary on the book of Jonah he defined what he meant by this. Although Jonah is “. . . meant to present real history, yet through and through it is pragmatic history, that is to _____________________________ 111 “Och denna framtid är närmast Guds folks och Guds rikes utveckling i allmänhet; den messianka bilden är blott en särskild gestalt på denna tafla.” Rudin, Inledning, 10; idem, “Profetians väsen,” 140. 112 “ofta ser historien framför sig under mera universela synpunkter." Rudin, Inledning, idem, “Profetians väsen, 268; emphasis by Rudin. 113 Rudin, Inledning, 16-17. 114 “Vidare bevarar profeten alltid sin kallelse att vara en lärare i sanningen och rättfärdigheten. Profetians grund är idel etik." Ibid., 17; emphasis by Rudin. 115 Rudin, Inledning, 73-74; idem, “Profetians väsen,” 267-68. 116 See the following of Rudin’s lecture notes: Domareboken 1 WRS Tlga:31 UUB; Föreläsningar hösten 1894, Första Mosebok och Egypten WRS Tlga:30 UUB. [ Page ] 99 say, teaching in the form of history.”117 The main purpose of religious pragmatic history is to teach ethical truths. Rudin used picture language to describe the nature of prophecy ; he depicted the prophet as a painter and prophecy as a painting. “Each prophet is like a painter placed in a definite place and with a determined view of the future before him, with its definite foreground and background.”118 This artistic motif helped him illustrate the six characteristics of the prophetic style of presentation: “1) its tendency to give big general pictures in unity with 2) occasional individualizations, 3) its restrictiveness in range of vision, 4) its indefiniteness in the indications of time, 5) its character of perspective, 6) its difference in clarity of different stages of development . . .”119 The more general universal characteristic of prophecy makes it possible for it to apply to many historical periods, presenting history more in an eternal perspective. Yet, there is an aspect of individualization, where prophecy may refer to specific historical events as examples of the general pattern of development. However, these examples are not painted in detail.120 Since the prophet is restricted in his vision he usually sees things partially, from his standpoint, and the specific details appear in many different prophetic pictures. “The one time he sees the total picture of the painting, the next time a partial picture or a separate figure. These different paintings naturally have a slight organic _______________________________ 117 “... ämnad att framställa verklig historia, dock alltigenom är pragmatisk historia, d. v. s. lära i historiens form.” Rudin, De mindre profeterna, vol 2, 85; emphasis by Rudin. 118 “Hvarje profet är lik en målare placerad på ett bestämdt ställe och med en bestämd framtidsvy framför sig, med sin bestämda förgrund och bakgrund.” Rudin, Inledning, 53; idem. “Profetians väsen,” 253. 119 “1) dess benägenhet att gifva stora allmänna bilder i förening med 2) enstaka individualiseringar, 3) dess inskränkthet i synvidd, 4) dess obestämdhet i tidsuppgifter, 5) dess perspektiva karaktär, 6) dess olika klarhet på olika utvecklingsstadier . . .” Rudin, Inledning, 69. 120Ibid., 66-67. [ Page ] 100 connection with each other, what follows presupposes what proceeded, etc. But this connection is maybe not always clear to the prophet himself . . .”121 122 Although prophecy may refer to specific time periods in history, it generally does not give definite indications of time, so events may be presented simultaneously or chronologically. In this way, it is like the perspective within a painting. In the painting “the closer foreground is distinctly and clearly outlined; that which lies behind appears more dimly, in different sizes, with undetermined distances . . .”122 The earlier prophetic paintings tended to present the future in complete obscurity whereas the later prophecies, which were closer to that future, presented the picture more clearly.123 The purpose of using picture language is instructive, but not to give abstract teachings or simply describe what has happened or will happen, but rather to “. . . paint ethical truths, divine orderings of the world in concrete pictures of the present or the future. Therefore its language is neither a philosophical discussion nor historical narrative, but rather a tendentious ethical painting.”124 In this context, Rudin referred to the prophets’ use of typology and typological allusions in history as an example of the use of pictorial language. The language of typology is like a transparent veil which uncovers secret truths in historical events; the Scriptures are full of these typological allusions.125 In his lectures, _____________________________ 121 “Den ena gången är den tafla han ser en totalbild, den andra gången en partiel bild eller enstaka gestalt. Dessa olika taflor hafva naturligen något organiskt sammanhang med hvarandra, en efterföljande förutsätter en föregående, o. s. v. Men detta sammanhang är måhända icke alltid klart för profeten sjelf.. .” Ibid., 67. 122 “den närmare förgrunden framstår skarpt och tydligt tecknad, det bakom liggande af tecknar sig mera dunkelt, i olika storlekar, på obestämda afstånd . . .” Ibid., 68. 123 Ibid., 68. 124 “. . . måla etiska sanningar, gudomliga verldsordingar i konkreta bilder af det närvarande eller kommande. Derför är hennes språk hvarken ett filosofiskt resonnerande eller ett historiskt berättande, utan en tendentiöst etisk målning.” Ibid., 69: emphasis by Rudin. 125 Ibid., 69-70. [ Page ] 101 Rudin often used typological interpretation of various Old Testament texts. He would introduce his subject by stating that the history of Israel is a “typological prophetic history” and that its history represents the history of all God’s people within the kingdom of God.126 He believed that every generation goes through the experiences of the Hebrews; the history of the Old Testament becomes our history.127 For example, the preparation period of the Judges for the monarchy may also represent the time of the early church’s development after the apostolic period. The experiences of Joseph become a type for what the righteous may endure.128 The type is always based upon a spiritual law of nature. This is due to the fact that the divine activity in history is trying to realize its goal (the kingdom of God). We can therefore say that typology is an attempt of the divine idea to be realized in the world.129 The exegete must learn to discover these ‘holy types’ within the ethical teachings of the Old Testament prophecies; the New Testament can help the interpreter in this task.130 _________________________________ 126 “typisk profetisk historia.” “Typisk” can also be translated as typical, in the sense of being representative. Rudin, Föreläsningar öfver Samuel och Sauls historia 1 WRS Tlga:33 UUB. 127 Åberg, Individualitet, 199. In a sermon on Jer 30:31-34, Rudin stated that the Old Covenant is “so essentially connected with the whole human family that it always renews itself internally with every human being, even after it is abolished externally.” (“sammanhänger så wäsentligt med hela menniskoslägtet, att det städse på ett inre sätt förnyar sig hos hwarje menniska, äfven sedan det i yttre måtto är afskaffadt.” W. Rudin, “Den Treeniges nådeförbund med menskligheten,” in Ewighetswinkar. Predikningar öfver kyrkoårets texter [Ny öfwersedd upplaga 2; Stockholm: U. L. Normans Förlag-Expedition, 1878] 2.) 128 See the notes taken by Fries and Fredlund of Rudin’s lectures. Fries, Föreläsningsanteckningar, SAFS T3k:34 UUB; Fredlund, Anteckningar, WRS Tlga:83 UUB. 129 “Typen grundar sig på en andlig naturlag. Den beror derpå att den gudomliga verksamheten i historien har att förverkliga sitt mål (Gudsriket). Typen är alltså, kunna vi säga, ett försök af den gudomliga idéen att förverkliga sig i verlden.” Fredlund, Anteckningar, WRS Tlga:83 UUB. 130 Rudin, Inledning, 74; idem, “Profetians väsen,” 268. For an example of this type of interpretation, see Rudin’s article on the spiritual significance of the Mosaic tabernacle where Rudin understood the tabernacle to represent several things like true worship, life in God, Jesus Christ, the church and heaven. This approach can also be [ Page ] 102 The more general or universal aspect of the prophetic painting makes it possible for it to have several, both partial and preparatory, fulfillments of one or of a series of events, but the complete fulfillment does not come until the end, when the process of development is completely finished. Consequently, it is wrong to interpret a prophecy as having only one fulfillment. However, there are times when some prophecies are fulfilled very concretely and specifically and the exegete must interpret them literally; but these occurrences must still be seen as part of the bigger more general prophetic picture.131 However, since the prophet tends to use picture language, as a general rule one should not simply assume a literal fulfillment. ... as a rule history is painted in prophecy only in terms of symbolic pictures, which gives its general character and in one or two a significant detail . . . neither is one allowed to demand a literal fulfillment of an obviously symbolic painting.132 There are also prophecies which have not been fulfilled because the end has not yet come. In fact, almost every prophecy which has been fulfilled also contains something unfulfilled. This is because all prophecies actually point to the end times, when the kingdom of God will finally be established.133 _______________________________________________________________________________________ described as allegorical or spiritual exegesis. W. Rudin, “Om det mosaiska tabernaklet och dess andeliga betydelse,” TKTB 8(1890) 189-204־. 131 Rudin, Inledning, 74-75; idem, “Profetians väsen,” 268-69. The fulfillment of certain Messianic prophecies in Jesus Christ is an obvious example of a concrete, literal fulfillment. Rudin explained that history would help the exegete to know when to find a literal fulfillment of a prophecy, but that the exegete needs tact and sensitivity to aid him in this task. 132 “. . . historien i allmänhet är i profetian afmålad endast i symboliska bilder, som angifva dess allmänna skaplynne, och i en eller annan signifikant enskildhet ... en bokstaflig uppfyllelse af en påtagligen symbolisk målning får man icke heller begära.” Rudin. Inledningen. 76. see also pg 70: idem. “Profetians väsen.” 269 133 Rudin, Inledning, ׳76-77;idem, “Profetians väsen,” 270-71. [ Page ] 103 Finally, Rudin advocated a pneumatic approach to interpreting the prophetic writings and the whole biblical corpus. Here one can clearly see the influence of Beck.134 By pneumatic or spiritual exegesis, Rudin meant that there is a deep inner spiritual meaning in the biblical text which can only be discovered by the aid of the Holy Spirit. Since the Scriptures are divinely inspired by the Spirit, only the Spirit can reveal the true meaning and solely to those persons who are themselves spiritually awakened.135 If prophecy is what it continuously states to be: ‘The word of Jehovah,’ if it has originated only through the influence of the Spirit (2 Peter 1:21), then it is also clear, as also 2 Peter 1:21 indicates, that no real interpretation of the same is possible without the essential leading of the same Spirit. One must stand on the level of the Spirit in order to understand the word of the Spirit. Like only recognizes like. If one does not have this essential standpoint, even if one possesses great theological, historical and philological knowledge, one will make the gravest mistakes when interpreting.136 Thus, only a true believer led by the Spirit can discover the deeper, spiritual meaning behind the biblical text.137 In this context, Rudin _____________________________ 134 Rudin refers to Beck and quotes him a number of times in support of pneumatic exegesis. In particular, Rudin quotes from Beck’s unpublished lectures on the introduction to the prophets. Rudin, Inledning, 87; idem, “Profetians väsen,” 198. 135 In his work on the significant role of the individual in preaching the Word, Rudin also argued that, most importantly, the preacher must have a vital personal relationship with the Truth which he is proclaiming, since only heavenly things can be truly understood by the spiritually alive. W. Rudin, Om det personligas betydelse vid förkunnelsen af Guds ord: Homiletisk-pastorala antydningar (Upsala:W. Schultz, 1886)11-15. 136 “Är profetian hvad den oupphörligt angifver sig vara: ‘Jehovahs ord’, har den framkommit endast genom Andens inverkan (2 Peter 1:21), då är det också klart, såsom äfven 2 Peter 1:21 angifver, att ingen verklig utläggning af densamma är möjlig utan väsentlig ledning af samme Ande. På Andens grund måste man stå för att uppfatta Andens ord. Lika kännes blott af lika. Utan att väsentligen hafva denna ståndpunkt skall man, äfven i besittning af stor teologisk, historisk och filologisk lärdom, vid uttolkningen begå de gröfsta misstag.” Rudin, Inledning, 72; idem, “Profetians väsen,” 275; emphasis by Rudin. 137Ιbid., 79. Von Hofmann also advocated a similar point of view. Only from the experience of new birth in Christ was it possible for him to interpret salvation history. Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism, 106-7; Kang, “Heilsgeschichte,” 1. As we have already seen, however, Von Hofmann was more influential upon Myrberg than Rudin. [ Page ] 104 argued that the modern learned exegete who attempts to interpret the Bible without a vital faith in the living God will never find the real meaning of the text since its inner and true meaning is spiritual and must be discerned spiritually. However, Rudin did not deny the importance of scholarly research and tools to aid in this process. The study of archaeology, philology, history, theology, etc are all important and helpful.138 In fact, the mistake of older orthodox expositions of the prophetic writings was that they ignored the historical allusions in the texts and simply interpreted them spiritually.139 Spiritual exegesis should not be cut off from the historical context. “For the work of the Spirit does not float in space far above the given reality; and therefore an interpretation must enter into this reality, so that itself does not float in the air.”140 The way one learns to do pneumatic exegesis is through practice by doing it and the Spirit of God is the teacher. Pneumatic interpretation cannot be placed under rules or be learned simply as a technique; one must acquire it through practice in the seriousness of life in the school of the Spirit, in the completed word of the Spirit in the New Testament and through one’s own growth in the Spirit.141 Rudin believed that just as the Spirit of God spoke to the prophets, the Spirit could speak to him and be his guide and illuminate the deeper spiritual meaning of the word of God. This belief in a deeper meaning within Scripture was influenced by Rudin’s interest in mysticism.142 He believed that the language of the Bible was mystical, containing a deeper ______________________________ 138 Rudin, Inledning, 72, 87-88, 91; idem, “Profetians väsen,” 198-99. 139 Rudin, Inledning, 88. 140 “Andens verk sväfvar nemligen icke i rymden vidt öfver den gifna verkligheten; och i denna verklighet måste derför en utläggning ingå, som icke sjelf skall sväfva i luften.” Rudin, Inledning, 72. 141 “Den pneumatiska utläggningen kan icke bringas in under reglor eller läras såsom en blott teknik; man måste tillkämpa sig densamma genom öfning i lifvets allvar uti Andens skola, uti det fulländade andeordet i nya testamentet och genom eget växande i Anden.” Rudin, Inledning, 87; idem, “Profetians väsen,” 198. 142 The significant influence of mysticism will be discussed more fully later. [ Page ] 105 hidden meaning. As early as November 1867, Rudin wrote in his diary about the mystical aspect of the Scriptures. “The biblical expressions are always mystical, spiritually deep, contain the concrete life. Therefore they can simply be understood in the concrete. Thus only a mystical language can express the complete truth of the Bible . . .”143 This deeper spiritual meaning contained in the biblical text was called biblical mysticism.144 Pneumatic exegesis was the means by which one could discover the spiritual mysteries of the Scriptures. Influential People Rudin’s approach to biblical exegesis was influenced by a number of factors and people, some of whom and which have already been mentioned briefly. Since Rudin’s whole theological outlook was very complex and eclectic, I refer to Bengt Åberg’s thesis as the best full analysis of all the components in his theology and the influential factors involved.145 However, for Rudin’s general approach to biblical interpretation, it is possible to summarize the most important influences. In 1918, Rudin listed the most important people whose theologies affected his development in order of influence: J. T. Beck, S. Kierkegaard, C. H. Bergman were the first three names in the list which (for our purposes) were the most significant.146 Rudin considered _______________________________ 143 “De bibliska uttrycken äro alltid mystiska, andedjupa, innehålla det konkreta livet. Därför kunna de blott förstås i det konkreta. Så kan ock endast ett mystiskt språk uttrycka bibelns fulla sanning ...” Rudin, Tankar ur det inre livet, (vol 1), 71. 144 Söderblom, Waldemar Rudins inre liv, 54-56. 145 Åberg, Individualitet. Sten Hidal identifies five significant factors which influenced and shaped Rudin’s thinking and affected his approach to biblical interpretation: evangelism, the philosophy of personality, Kierkegaard, Beck and mysticism. However, Hidal does not explain in depth how some of these factors, for example, the philosophy of personality, influenced Rudin’s approach to the Bible. In fact, in his concluding remarks, he minimizes the role of this nineteenth century Swedish philosophy in influencing biblical interpretation in general (Hidal, Bibeltro, 78, 184). 146 Söderblom, Waldemar Rudins inre liv, 30-32, 67-68. At that time he also mentioned M. F. Roos, Harms, J. Bring. As early as 24 March 1886, Rudin also [ Page ] 106 Kierkegaard and Beck to be prophetic voices in the nineteenth century147 and it was their prophetic influences which eventually led Rudin to break with EFS.148 And it was Bergman who introduced Rudin to the world of mysticism and mystics. Rudin has been considered the first Swedish theologian to introduce Kierkegaard to Sweden officially.149 He first began to study the writings of Kierkegaard in the 1850s and in a letter to his fiancée on New Year’s day 1856 he wrote: “It gives me joy to know that Kierkegaard is moving even you. For me nothing has so deeply moved me, not even the New Testament. . .”150 When he first began teaching, he lectured on Kierkegaard and eventually published a book on Kierkegaard’s life and theology.151 Kierkegaard made Rudin more aware of the Church’s faults and critical of the Church’s static, abstract doctrines of orthodoxy.152 This contributed to Rudin’s emphasis on the primacy of Scripture over Church doctrines.153 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ made a list of influential people in his life which was a much longer list, which (besides the above) included among others, his mother, grandmother, his teachers, Luther, Schartau, Guyon and other mystics. Rudin, Biografiska Anteckningar 4 1886-89 WRS Tlgd:22 UUB. 147 Rudin, Tankar ur det inre livet, (vol 2), 176. 148 Rudin published works of Beck and Kierkegaard in the EFS periodical which were criticized. 149 Skogar also mentions Z. Göransson as someone who also introduced Kierkegaard. Björn Skogar, Viva vox och den akademiska religionen. Ett bidrag till tidiga 1900-talets teologihistoria( Stockholm/Stehag: Symposion Graduale 1993) 13637,267־. 150 “Det gläder mig att Kierkegaard griper även Dig. Mig har aldrig något så gripit, ej ens N. Test. ...” Rudin, Brev och brevutdrag, 35. 151 He lectured on Kierkegaard in Uppsala in the spring of 1877 and published the book in 1880 based on these lectures. The lectures were a response to Georg Brandes’ lectures on Kierkegaard in 1876, which Rudin did not think were fair and correct in describing Kierkegaard. W. Rudin, Sören Kierkegaards person and författarskap (Upsala: Edv. Berlings Boktryckeri, 1880). Söderblom believed that Rudin’s work on Kierkegaard was the most congenial work published on the subject as well as Rudin’s own best literarv work. Söderblom. Waldemar Rudins inre liv, 78. 152 Rudin, Levnadsteckning 1 1833-85 WRS Tlgd:18 UUB. 153 Kierkegaard’s name came up continually in Rudin’s diaries, showing his profound influence. In a letter to his fiancée, Rudin stated concerning Kierkegaard: “I am completely certain that all my life I will assimilate his life development as an element of [ Page ] 107 Beck’s influence was important in a number of respects. As already mentioned, Rudin made a number of trips to visit Beck in Tubingen and introduced others to Beck and his writings.154 Beck’s name often came up in Rudin’s lectures.155 He emphasized a Bible- centred theology or biblicism characterized as biblical realism which took precedent over static orthodox teachings.156 Consequently, Rudin rejected the old notion of verbal inspiration as well as literal interpretation since the Bible was not a static system of beliefs. Rather, Rudin adopted Beck’s organic view of Scripture, as an organic unity, best expressed in the concepts of organism, growth and development. As a result he understood the relationship between the Old and New Testaments as a seed growing and developing throughout biblical history, adopting the Augustinian notion of “in the Old Testament, like in a seed, the new lies hidden.”157 Beck also introduced Rudin to the importance of the kingdom of God, understood both individually and _______________________________________________________________________________________ my own.” (“Jag kommer helt visst att hela mitt lif tillegna mig hans lifsutveckling, ss ett moment af min.” 20 Aug 1857 Letter to Louise Maule Rudin from W. Rudin, WRS Tlge:22 UUB.) 154 Rudin visited Beck in 1865, 1869 and 1873-74. While he was in Tubingen, he wrote his friends (Arvedson, Ekman and Mazer in particular) and encouraged them to come there and hear Beck. 26 Jan, 17 Feb 1874 Letter to F. Arvedson from W. Rudin, FAS G7:bc UUB. In a letter Mazer thanked Rudin for introducing him to Beck. 22 Feb 1904 Letter to W. Rudin from T. Mazer, WRS Tlge: 10 UUB. 155 In the student gatherings in his home in Uppsala, Rudin would sometimes read Beck’s writings and discuss them with the students (Fries, Vår kärleks historia, 131). In honour of the 100 years anniversary of Beck’s birthday, Rudin published an article on Beck. W. Rudin, “Johan Tobias Beck,” KT 10 (1904) 549-57. 156 It was Beck’s “biblical-realistic perspective in everything” which was significant for Rudin, (“biblisk-realistiska åskådning i det hela.” Rudin, Levnadsteckning 1. 1833- 1885 WRS Tlgd:18 UUB; emphasis by Rudin.) Althin has pointed out that although Rudin spoke of ‘biblical realism’ he never really clearly defined what he meant by this. Althin believes that for Rudin the term meant several things including the idea that behind biblical symbols and pictures there are spiritual realities. Althin, Från Rudin Inledning. 14. 157 “i det gamla testamentet ligger som i ett frö det nya fördoldt.” Åhfeldt, “Homiletiska författarskap,” 5-6. Åhfelt claims that this was one of Rudin’s favourite thoughts. [ Page ] 108 universally, as the central concept for interpreting Scripture.158 Finally, Rudin adopted Beck’s belief in the need for pneumatic exegesis in interpreting Scripture. The exegete needs the aid of the Holy Spirit to discover the deep spiritual meaning of the biblical text.159 The understanding of a deeper meaning within the Scriptures was also enhanced and strengthened by Rudin’s interest in mysticism.160 C. H. Bergman (who also appreciated Beck’s writings) introduced Rudin to the literature of the classical mystics and mysticism.161 He especially liked the writings of Madame de la Mothe Guyon.162 Consequently, Rudin was critical of Beck for not fully appreciating mysticism.163 He personally desired to be a mystic and in practical reality he was one.164 Following Kierkegaard, Rudin understood one function of mysticism as being existentially corrective, being a witness to the truth rather than _____________________________ 158 A disciple of Beck, Lindenmeyer wrote a work on the kingdom of God which became an important text referred to in Rudin’s lectures. See Åberg’s thesis on a full analysis of the individual and universal aspects of the kingdom of God in Rudin’s thought (Åberg, Individualitet). 159 In a letter to A. F. Beckman, Eklund claimed that Rudin was the only teacher in the Faculty who spoke of the need of the Spirit to teach and interpret Scripture. Eklund felt that some of the other teachers lacked something and definitely needed the inspiration and power of the Spirit in their teaching. 9 Nov 1886 Letter to A. F. Beckman from J. A. Eklund, ABS UUB. 160 See Söderblom and Åberg for more information on the role of mysticism in Rudin’s theological outlook. Åberg lists seven points which characterized Rudin’s mysticism in his article on Rudin as a mystic. Söderblom’s work primarily focuses on Rudin’s interest in mysticism. Söderblom, Waldemar Rudins inre liv, 69-152; Åberg, “Waldemar Rudin. En mvstiker,” 291-94; idem, Individualitet, 55-99. 161 Rudin became a part of the ‘Bergman circle’ which met in Stockholm and discussed the literature of the mystics and translated many of them into Swedish. After his retirement in 1900, Rudin continued to write and publish works on mysticism. Åberg, “Waldemar Rudin. En mvstiker.” 285-87. 162 Rudin listed Madame Guyon as one of the influential people in his life. In 1905 he reviewed a work on Madame Guyon’s life. W. Rudin, Review of Madame de la Mothe Guyons lefnad och religiösa erfarenheter, by Thomas C. Upham, BF 22 (1905) 208- 19, 269-306. 163 In a letter Rudin claimed that Beckianism lacked “mystical fervour” and that in general he found a lack of mysticism in Germany, (“mystisk innerlighet” 16 June 1877 Letter to F. Arvedson from W. Rudin, FAS G7:bc UUB.) 164 On 14 November 1880 Rudin wrote in his diary that a French newspaper had referred to him as a mystic and Rudin’s wish and prayer was that this would be true. Rudin, Anteckningar ur det inre lifvet la 1872-81 WRS Tlgd:31c UUB. [ Page ] 109 formulating abstract teaching systems.165 Mysticism was also a way of life, “the holy art of the inner life.”166 Since Rudin saw all of life as mystical, he also believed in the mystical and spiritual aspects of Scripture and this affected his interpretation of biblical texts. Finally, it is important to mention the influence of his colleague and predecessor O. F. Myrberg. It was Myrberg who got Rudin the position as docent in the Faculty, even at a time when some were suspicious of Rudin’s orthodoxy.167 Both Rudin and Myrberg had been influenced by Kierkegaard and Beck and thus their approaches were similar. Myrberg also emphasized Bible-centred theology over against doctrinal creeds.168 Both also believed in making the Scriptures relevant and applicable to the present context. The goal was to interpret the Bible in such a way as to find practical relevance and meaning for the Christian community today; it must bear fruit. Consequently, they both took a pietistic, devotional, homiletical approach to expounding the biblical text.169 Eventually, a rift began to develop between Rudin and Myrberg because Rudin got appointed to the Swedish Bible Commission, a position which Myrberg had coveted.170 Consequently, it seems that Myrberg was jealous of Rudin and he became very critical of the work of the Bible Commission and proceeded to do his own translation.171 Rudin also ___________________________ 165 Åberg, “Waldemar Rudin. En mystiker.” 292. 166 “. . . det inre livets heliga konst.” Rudin, Tankar ur det inre livet, (vol 2), 51; emphasis by Rudin. 167 Söderblom, Waldemar Rudins inre liv, 77. 168 Åberg, Individualitet, 100-104, 109. 169 Rudin was aware of the students’ difficulty in finding balance and harmony between the theoretical and the practical, making theology relevant to practical living. He wanted to help them with this. Rudin, 2 Dec 1892, Biografiska Anteckningar 5 1889-92 WRS T1gd:23 UUB. 170 D. Rudin, Waldemar Rudin, 217-18, 221; Hidal, Bibeltro, 84. The sharp tone Myrberg used in a letter to Rudin reveals some of the tension and disagreement between them. 8 July (no year given) Letter to W. Rudin from O. F. Myrberg, WRS Tlge:l UUB. 171 19 July 1887, Rudin defended himself against Myrberg’s criticisms of his work on the Swedish Bible translation. “Today I have also been relieved of a burden, in that the [ Page ] 110 differed from Myrberg in that he was more open to the modern historical-critical method in the end than Myrberg was. The Speech of 1893 On the 23rd of February, 1893 Rudin was installed as ordinary professor of exegesis at Uppsala University, and on this occasion he made his famous and most significant inaugural speech entitled The divine revelation’s form of abasement in the Holy Scriptures. Later he repeated the speech on the 27th of April 1893 at the Swedish Bible Society’s annual meeting.172 Although it was not his intention, Rudin’s speech played a significant role in preparing the way for the reception of the historical-critical method in Sweden.173 Ernst Althin, a student at the time, recalls that word had spread via Rudin’s son Daniel that his father would address the burning controversial issue of biblical criticism in his inaugural lecture. Consequently the place was packed with people wanting to hear what this respected man of God would say about it. “The great lecture hall was filled to the last seat and the atmosphere was _____________________________________________________________________________________ whole family Myrberg has been here and through this I have been able to meet and express myself amiably against my colleague Myrberg’s rather unfair accusations concerning my handling of the Bible Commission’s work.” (“Har och i dag blifvit löst från en börda, i det hela familjen Myrberg varit här, och jag derigenom fått i vänlighet träffa och uttala mig gent emot min kollegas Myrbergs temligen orättvisa beskyllningar angående mitt handhafvande af bibelkommissionens arbeten.” Rudin, Anteckningar ur det inre lifvet 2 1881-92 WRS Tlgd:33 UUB.) 172 Rudin published the speech twice, the first one being the actual speech in a shorter and more popular form, the second being a longer version with added sections and more extensive reference notes. In the discussion, all quotations are taken from the first shorter publication of the speech given at the Swedish Bible Society, unless otherwise indicated. Information from the longer version will only be used if it adds further information to the argument. W. Rudin, Den gudomliga uppenbarelsens förnedringsgestalt i den heliga skrift (Tal vid Svenska Bibelsällskapet Allmänna Årssammankomst den 27 april 1893; Upsala: Almqvist & Wilsells, 1893); idem, Den gudomliga uppenbarelsens förnedringsgestalt i den heliga skrift (Uppsatser i teologiska och kyrldiga ämnen 7; Upsala: W. Schultz. 1893). 173 As has already been noted, Sten Hidal considered it the ‘turning point’ in this process, placing Rudin’s speech alongside Stave’s address at Läckö as key influential factors in the whole debate. Hidal, Bibeltro, 77, 79. [ Page ] 1ll charged with expectation. Our revered teacher with the long grey locks went up to the podium and gave his sensational lecture.”174 This address can also be seen as the culmination of Rudin’s previous work, since in it he summarized and built upon those earlier ideas but now they were placed within the new context of trying to respond appropriately to the rise of historical criticism. The newer aspect in the lecture was his emphasis on the concept of incarnation as a helpful framework for understanding the nature of the Bible.175 Rudin began his speech by clarifying his assumptions. His main assumption is the “reality of a divine revelation”176 found in Scripture; consequently the Bible is God’s word to the Church.177 Rudin did not apologize for taking this standpoint because he believed that there was no such thing as objective scientific scholarship completely free from presuppositions.178 He then proceeded to respond to the following relevant questions: (1) “In what way or to which degree can the Holy Scripture be called a Word of God or a word of divine revelation?”179 (2) How perfect and trustworthy are the contents of Scripture in respect to its history and teaching?180 (3) Is Scripture’s religious teaching and ______________________________ 174 “Den stora aulan var fylld till sista plats, och atmosfären var laddad med förväntan. Vår vördade lärare med de långa gråa lockarna trädde upp i katedern och höll sin uppseendeväckande föreläsning.” Althin, Från Rudin Inledning, 29. 175 Hidal points out that this was not the first time in Sweden that the incarnational form of abasement was applied to the Scriptures. Both Ullman (in 1886) and von Schéele (in 1883) described the Scriptures in this way (Hidal, Bibeltro, 82). Rudin himself mentioned the incarnation of the divine revelation into its debased form in 1884 in the preface to his commentary on the Minor Prophets (Rudin, De mindre profeterna, vol 1, no page given). 176 “verkligheten af en gudomlig uppenbarelse.” Rudin, Uppenbarelsens förnedringsgestalt (Tal vid Sv Bibelsällskap), 2. 177 Ibid., 6. 178 Ibid., 3. 179 “på hvad sätt eller till hvilken grad den heliga skrift kan kallas ett Guds Ord eller ett gudomligt uppenbarelseord.” Ibid., 6. 180 Ibid., 10. [ Page ] 112 outlook completely true and divine?181 (4) Is the canon of Scripture in its ideal and complete form or do we still have an imperfect canon?182 Responding to these important questions, Rudin employed the concept of Christ’s incarnation and made a comparison between the humiliation and degradation of Christ in becoming human and the abasement of God’s revelation in Scripture’s human form.183 Rudin described this phenomenon as “the law of abasement”184 and this concept was central to his understanding of the nature of divine revelation as related to the biblical text. And this is the ‘law of abasement.’ By this rule we mean that when the divine appears in the world it loves to appear ‘veiled’ or even in a form of humility which conceals its real essence, so that one can only discover it through the most earnest seeking, scholarship done with both head and heart.185 The inevitable outcome of this ‘law’ was that the divine word was revealed in a debased human form, the written biblical text. Consequently, Rudin acknowledged the real human side of the Bible. “Scripture nevertheless has its completely human side, that it has originated in an ordinary human way.”186 Since the biblical text is human in form and origin, there is a real possibility of finding mistakes and deficiencies in the Bible. In fact, Rudin believed that this is an inevitable reality. __________________________ 181 Ibid., 21. 182 Ibid., 25. 183 Ibid., 4. 184 “förnedringslagen.” Alternative translations are: “law of debasement”, “law of degradation” or “law of humiliation.” 185 “Och detta är ‘förnedringslagen.' Härmed mena vi den ordningen, att det gudomliga, då det framträder i världen, älskar att framträda ‘beslöjadt’ eller t. o. m. i en ringhetsgestalt, som döljer dess egentliga väsen, så att man endast genom ett det allvarligaste sökande, ett forskningsarbete med både hufvud and hjärta kan upptäcka det.” Ibid., 3; emphasis by Rudin. 186 “. . . skriften dock har sin rent mänskliga sida, att hon tillkommit på ett vanligt mänskligt sätt...” Ibid., 6. [ Page ] 113 Could it actually have been otherwise, if the Scriptures were written by a human hand, not by angelic hands? Is this imperfection not a necessary consequence of the divine word’s real entrance in human flesh and blood, hence, this condescension to our weakness being a new form of the fundamental fact of revelation in the New Testament: ‘The Word became flesh’?187 However, Rudin pointed out that the imperfections found in the biblical material concern non-essentials; the difficulties and mistakes are insignificant in comparison to the message.188 Rudin employed another important concept in his speech, namely the organic imagery of kernel and shell, as an alternative way of defining the nature of the relationship between divine revelation and the written text. God’s revealed word is the kernel and the Bible is the shell, the human form in which the revelation is contained. The imperfections of the human shell do not necessarily create a problem for the exegete because it is merely an outer shell, in which the perfect word of God is found. It is the task of the exegete to discover the divine kernel within the biblical corpus.189 ______________________________ 187 “Har det i själfva verket kunnat vara annorlunda, om skriften skulle skrifvas af människohand, icke af änglahänder? Är icke denna ofullkomlighet en nödvändig följd af det gudomliga ordets verkliga inträde i mänskligt kött och blod, således af dess nedlåtande till vår svaghet, en ny form af den nytestamentliga uppenbarelsens grundfaktum: Ordet vardt kött’? Ibid., 10; emphasis by Rudin. 188 Ibid., 6, 10. In the longer version, Rudin added a footnote where he attacked those who try to defend the infallibility of every letter of the biblical text. “But this is an attempt to avoid the form of abasement and easily leads to a real offence against it. . .” (“Men detta är ett försök att undfly fömedringsgestalten och leder lätteligen till en verklig anstöt på densamma ...” Rudin, Uppenbarelsens förnedringsgestalt [Uppsatser 6],49ftn4.) 189 Rudin, Uppenbarelsens förnedringsgestalt (Tal vid Sv Bibelsällskap), 30-32. Rudin also used the concept of kernel and shell in 1884 in his commentary on the Minor Prophets (idem, De mindre profeterna, vol 1, 57). The English scholar S. R. Driver also made a distinction between the form of revelation and its content. For Driver, biblical criticism was concerned only with the outer form rather than the inner content of revelation. (S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament [9th ed; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1913] viii-xiii; Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism, 282.) I do not know whether Driver’s view had any influence or bearing on Rudin’s position but it is interesting to note the parallel ideas. At least, Rudin was aware of Driver’s work by 1894 since he made reference to Driver in his lectures. By 1898, he was examining his students on Driver’s Introduction. (Rudin, Föreläsningar [ Page ] 114 There is another consequence which results from the concept of the incarnation of the divine word in the debased, human form of the biblical material, namely, the divine message undergoes a process of development and change.190 The organic message grows and develops within the biblical story as it is communicated through human agents. It must then be completely natural that in the teaching outlook of the Scriptures, just as in humanity’s understanding in other respects, there is a development from lower to higher; even it (the Scripture) must have its childhood, adolescence and adulthood, exactly as Jesus himself did. And we must never forget — and this is a very crucial and enlightening point of view — that the Scripture itself suggests this process of development.191 As we have already seen earlier, this concept of organic progression of divine revelation in Scripture was central to Rudin’s approach to the Old Testament. The same principle of evolutionary development and growth applies to the creation of the biblical canon; the history of its development is imperfect and very human. But in actuality even this is simply a necessary consequence of the fact that also the holy history and the writing of history have arrived through a truly human development in _____________________________________________________________________________________ hösten 1894. Första Mosebok och Egypten WRS Tlga:30 UUB; idem, Tentamens-bok 1890-1901 WRS T1ga: 113 UUB.) It is noteworthy that this kind of understanding of the nature of the Bible was becoming prevalent in late nineteenth century scholarship and played a role in the reception of the historical-critical method. However, there are certain slight differences between Rudin’s and Driver’s points of view. One distinction lies in the concept which Rudin used to describe the relationship: the kernel and shell are organic images which portray ideas of growth and development. A second difference is that Rudin was not intentionally defending the historical-critical method as Driver was. 190 Rudin, Uppenbarelsens förnedringsgestalt (Tal vid Sv Bibelsällskap), 3. 191 “Det måste då helt naturligt i skriftens läroåskådning, likaså väl som i mänsklighetens uppfattning i öfrigt, blifva en utveckling från lägre till högre, den måste, äfven den, hafva sin barndom-, ynglinga-, och mannaålder, alldeles såsom Jesus själf. Och vi få aldrig glömma — och detta är en mycket afgörande och upplysande synpunkt — att skriften själf antyder denna utvecklingsgång.” Ibid., 24; emphasis by Rudin. [ Page ] 115 this world, having gone through the historical ages: saga and song, tradition, imperfectly and fragmentarily recorded, defective copying, revision and collaboration of source documents from certain established viewpoints, etc., and that this development now shows traces of all this in its results.192 In recognizing these historical stages of development of the biblical corpus, Rudin acknowledged the reality of sources.193 He asserted that certain documents and traditions were part of the evolving growth and creation of the biblical canon. This is simply how the divine word was revealed in this world; the incarnate word went through evolutionary stages of development. It is the reality and natural outcome of the Taw of abasement. ’ Rudin concluded his speech by listing the positive aspects of adopting the incamational concept of abasement of divine revelation as a key to understanding and interpreting Scripture. There are eight positive results: (1) It is a magnificent demonstration of "God's condescending love" in allowing his revelation to be clothed in human, insignificant and imperfect clothing.194 This in itself is "a token of divine regard for the created beings’ freedom and therefore also a demand of the divine truth. In short: This form of debasement is both ______________________________ 192 “Men äfven denna är då i själfva verket blott en nödvändig följd däraf, att också den heliga historien och historieskrifningen ingått i en sant mänsklig utveckling i denna värld, genomgått de historiska åldrarna: saga och sång, tradition, ofullkomligt och fragmentariskt upptecknade, bristfällig afskrifning, bearbetning och samarbetning af källskrifter från vissa bestämnda synpunkter o. s. v., och att denna utveckling nu i sina resultat bär spår af allt detta.” Ibid., 16-17. 193 Ibid., 8, 17. In the longer version of his lecture, Rudin mentioned the work of Wellhausen and discussed the documentary sources of JEDP. Rudin did not discredit the idea of sources, but rather he seemed against reconstructing Israelite history differently from the biblical story. He rejected Wellhausen’s portrayal of the history of Israel because “this presentation seems to us to lack too much the sense for the holy in this history, for its character as revelation ...” (“denna framställning synes oss alltför mycket sakna sinnet för det heliga i denna historia, för dess uppenbarelsekaraktär ...” Rudin, Uppenbarelsens förnedringsgestalt [Uppsatser 6], 14; emphasis by Rudin; see also pages 26, 55-56, footnotes 14-15.) 194 “Guds nedlåtande kärlek.” Rudin, Uppenbarelsens förnedringsgestalt (Tal vid Sv Bibelsällskap) 28; emphasis by Rudin. [ Page ] 116 mercy and truth.”195 (2) Although there are imperfections found in the biblical text, in the most essential aspects it is true and reliable. The fact that the text has been thus preserved is a real miracle in itself.195 196 (3) Despite some of the real historical problems and deficiencies with the Bible, the essential religious and moral message is true. In this context, Rudin conceded that the texts which are beyond human understanding and lie outside the realm of history can only be understood as “symbolically clothed,” conveying a religious and moral lesson.197 (4) Despite the fact that the teachings of the Bible have developed from lower to higher stages, it serves as a guide to truth and practical living. . . . nevertheless we have in the Old Testament the a b c d to the knowledge of the truth, which people needed then and could understand. And in the New Testament we have in the end the fundamental features for an essential true outlook of the world and of life which embraces everything that we humans need to know in this time . . . And the New Testament casts an explanatory light over the Old.198 (5) Although the canonical process was problematic and imperfect, the Bible contains the most important and necessary books which give a true picture of the growth of the divine revelation.199 (6) One must be careful not to make the deficiencies of the Bible bigger than they are. Therefore, one should be critical of every criticism of the text.200 In this statement, Rudin’s attitude towards modern critical scholarship is _______________________________ 195 “en gärd af gudomlig aktning för de skapade varelsernas frihet och därför tillika ett kraf af den gudomliga sanningen. Kortligen: Denna fömedringsgestalt är både nåd och sanning.” Ibid; emphasis by Rudin. 196 Ibid. 197 “symbolisk omklädnad.” (Ibid.) Here Rudin made reference to the stories of Creation and the Fall. 198 “. . . hafva vi dock i det gamla testamentet det a b c d till sanningskunskap, som människorna då behöfde och kunde fatta. Och i det nya testamentet hafva vi till sist grunddragen till en väsentligen sann världs- och lifsåskådning, som omfattar allt det vi människor i denna tid behöfva veta ... Och nya testamentet kastar ock ett förklarande ljus öfver det gamla.” Ibid., 29. 199 Ibid. 200 Ibid. [ Page ] 117 partially revealed. He conceded that this “negative criticism” could be correct at times with its findings.201 However, scholarship must be careful to be fully aware of its own weaknesses and imperfections, and sometimes wait before making hasty judgements and forming conclusions about the biblical text.202 (7) The Scripture contains the divine kernel of revelation, full of riches and truth to feed the soul.203 (8) Finally, it is the responsibility and task of the exegete to break through the outer shell and discover the divine kernel with the help of the Holy Spirit.204 Rudin concluded his speech by giving some practical instructions for the biblical interpreter. First, he warned against never fully penetrating the shell in order to reach the divine kernel. There is a real danger of staying with the outer shell and never moving to a deeper level. The scholar who only works with the shell has nothing to give except the shell; the shell is not the divine word which can feed the soul. Consequently, the exegete has an awesome responsibility to penetrate the shell and discern the kernel, God’s revelation.205 Second, Rudin proceeded to describe the stance and attitude that the interpreter must have in order to discover the divine word within the biblical document. The exegete must simply have “the sense for the kernel, the sense which genuinely seeks God and truth . . . the sense which is not satisfied with less than the kernel, or with meeting their God and Saviour in the Scriptures.”206 However, one does not acquire _______________________________ 201 “negativa kritik.” Ibid., 26. 202 Ibid., 20. 203 Ibid., 30. 204 Ibid. 205 Ibid., 31-34. 206 “sinnet för kärnan, det äkta gudssökande and sanningssökande sinne ... det sinne, som icke nöjer sig med mindre än med kärnan, eller att få möta sin Gud och Frälsare i skriften.” Ibid., 31-32; emphasis by Rudin. [ Page ] 118 this sense without the following qualifications. First, the exegete must be humble and prayerful in approaching the text. Secondly, the person needs to be diligent and faithful. Thirdly, they must be patient and finally, obedient to the truth they discover.207 These characteristics in the disposition of the interpreter are necessary for discovering the divine kernel. Rudin closed his lecture by admonishing the scholar to seek this stance and approach to the Bible. These final instructions and warnings reveal Rudin’s attitude towards biblical interpretation. For him, the critical and historical study of the Old Testament text was important but not as important as trying to discover the deeper religious meaning of the Scriptures; this should be the primary goal of the biblical scholar, to uncover the divine kernel in the Bible. Rudin’s famous inaugural speech of 1893 is important for understanding his position on the nature of the Bible at a time when biblical criticism was becoming a critical question among Swedish theologians. Building upon the foundation of his earlier views, Rudin used the concept of incarnation to tackle the problem. Consequently, Rudin’s lecture was a contribution to the growing debate over critical methodology in biblical scholarship in Sweden. Understanding the nature of the relationship between the divine word and the written text, namely that God’s revelation is found in a debased and imperfect human shell, helped pave the way for the historical-critical method. Since the divine revelation occurred within a particular time period, appeared to an historical people and was recorded in an historical text by human beings, it was possible to interpret it from an historical-critical perspective. Rudin did not ever personally go so far as to adopt the _______________________ 207 Ibid., 32. [ Page ] 119 views of the Wellhausen school but he helped to prepare the way for its reception in Sweden. The response to Rudin’s speech was mixed, both positive and negative.208 For many of the students, it was a real encouragement to hear their revered and godly teacher address questions which were so important and relevant to them. “It cannot be too highly estimated that it was precisely Rudin, this saintly human being, who in this way dared to break through the barriers between faith and reason. It was invaluable help for the young.”209 The fact that Rudin, who was an important religious authority in the Church of Sweden, did not completely reject the rise of historical criticism was very significant and influential in the development that followed.210 But there were also many who were completely astonished by Rudin’s lecture and responded critically. Rudin was accused of having “taken modern biblical criticism under his protection and in a way paved the way for it at the university and among the general public.”211 In a letter to Rudin from C. G. Nyström, Rudin was accused of destroying the Bible and people’s faith in the Bible by his ‘negative speech.’ ______________________________ 208 Hidal, Bibeltro, 79, 84. In a letter to Fredrik Fehr, Samuel Fries described the mixed reactions: “The content of professor Rudin’s inaugural lecture was so remarkable that we ‘critics’ can feel completely content. Whether he will demonstrate the same liberalism in the concrete as in the abstract only the future will tell. As a matter of fact, several of the theologians are angered over Rudin’s openness and honesty and many wives here in the city are seriously distressed over everything ‘radical’ they got to hear.” (“Prof Rudins inträdesföreläsning var af så märkligt innehåll att vi ‘kritici’ känna oss alldeles belåtna. Om han in konkreta skall visa samma liberalitet som in abstrakta, får framtiden visa. Faktiskt är, att flere af teologerna förargat sig öfver Rudins öppenhet och ärlighet och många fruar här i staden äro allvarligt bekymrade för allt det ‘radikala’ de fingo höra.” 1 March 1893 Letter to F. Fehr from Fries, SAFS T3k: 121 UUB.) 209 “Det kan icke skattas nog högt, att det var just Rudin, denna helgade människa, som på detta sätt vågade bryta igenom fördämningarna mellan tro och tanke. Det var till ovärderlig hjälp för de unga.” Althin. Från Rudin Inledning. 29. 210 Rodhe, Svenska kyrkan, 120. 211 “tagit den moderna bibelkritiken under sitt beskydd och på sätt och vis banat väg för densamma vid universitetet och bland allmänheten.” W. Lönnbeck, “Notiser,” Facklan 3/4 (April 1904) 155. [ Page ] 120 The impressions I experienced from your presentation of the Scriptures’ form of degradation was truly ‘degrading’ and unpleasant in the highest degree . . . For you had so much to say about faults and mistakes that they did not receive any life sign of Scripture’s glorious form . . . Unfortunately it was all too clearly noticeable from your lecture that you have been very much immersed in the writings of biblical criticism and therefore you also smell thereof . . .212 Nyström closed his letter by stating that such a topic should not be addressed to the general public but should only be reserved for the learned. P. P. Waldenström was alarmed by the fact that Rudin’s lecture had prepared the way for biblical criticism’s acceptance in Sweden; although his speech “only opened the door slightly” it could now easily be opened more fully.213 Rudin had not anticipated the effect that his speech would have. It is fair to say that he had not clearly thought through the consequences and implications of the stance he took in the lecture. This becomes evident in the following years in his debate with Samuel Fries over Fries’ History of Israel. In this work Fries made the claim that his theological perspective was the same as expounded by Rudin in his inaugural speech. Rudin now wanted to distance himself from those promulgating the historical-critical method. This debate will be discussed further when we consider Rudin’s response to biblical criticism more fully. It had been Rudin’s sincere prayer that his lecture ______________________________ 212 “De intryck jag erfor af din framställning af Skriftens förnedringsgestalt wore i sanning ‘förnedrande’ och obehagliga i hög grad ... Ty du hade så mycket att orda om brister och fel, att de fingo intet till lifs af Skriftens herrlighets gestalt. . . Det märkes tywärr alltför tydligt af ditt föredrag, att du mycket umgåtts med bibelkritikens skrifter och derför luktar du också deraf ...” 13 Feb 1894 Letter to Rudin from C. G. Nvström, WRS Tlge:ll UUB. 213 “dörren var väl endast ställd på glänt.” P. P. Waldenström, Låt oss behålla vår bibel: ett ord om den moderna bibelkritiken (Stockholm: Aktiebolaget Normans Förlag, 1902) 5. [ Page ] 121 would be a contribution to true scholarship, as he wrote in his diary.214 His motivation for addressing this particular topic was most of all shaped by his pastoral concern. It was really his concern for the students’ spiritual struggles which made him grapple with these issues and try to find a helpful framework.215 But unwittingly, his lecture did play an important role in the reception of historical criticism in Sweden. Rudin’s response to this rise of biblical criticism will now be considered more fully. Biblical Criticism During his teaching career it is possible to trace a progression and a change in Rudin’s response to the rise of biblical criticism, as it became more and more an important issue on the theological agenda in Sweden towards the end of the nineteenth century. It has already been observed that there was a change in the type of literature which Rudin used and referred to in his lecture notes, his examination notebook and in his publications. There was a movement from more ‘conservative’ writings to more ‘liberal, critical’ works. It will become apparent that Rudin was not as naive and unaware of critical scholarship as some have supposed. In fact, he was already well acquainted with some of the issues before they became a big debate in the theological discussions which began in 1888 at the Theological Society in Uppsala.216 As early as 1882, Rudin was discussing the critical works of Astruc, de Wette, Vater, Ewald, Graf and explaining the documentary hypothesis in his _____________________________ 214 On the 23rd of February, 1893 Rudin wrote: “May my inaugural lecture about ‘The Scriptures’ form of abasement’ be an example of a true scholarly position.” (“Må min inträdesföreläsning om ‘Det heliga skrifts fömedringsgestalt’ få bliva ett uppslag till en sann vetenskaplig ställning.” Rudin, Tankar ur det inre livet, [vol 2], 183.) 215 Rudin, Uppenbarelsens fömedringsgestalt (Uppsatser 6), i-ii; Söderblom, Waldemar Rudins inre liv, 132. 216 See the minutes from the Theological Society: 22 Feb 1888 § 2, 27 March 1889 § 3, 10 April 1889 § 3 Teol Föreningens Prot 1884-89 U 2325 c UUB. [ Page ] 122 lecture on Genesis. There he conceded the possibility of different sources behind the text of the Pentateuch. He admitted that “it is possible that an Elohist lies at the basis of Genesis.”217 In his writings on the Minor Prophets from 1884-87, Rudin continuously discussed critical questions. He confessed that the reality of two older sources behind the text of Jonah was not unthinkable.218 Many of the Psalms originated during the exile rather than during David’s time. A Psalm did not necessarily have to be by David even if Jesus referred to it as a Psalm of David.219 However, Rudin argued that there still had to be an historical foundation to the events described in the Old Testament. The book of Job is a “didactic poem only in its form of presentation.” This does not negate that it is based on historical reality.220 As early as 1886 he admitted that Isaiah 40-66 most likely originated during the exile and that it is uncertain who wrote it.221 In his notes he began to refer to Isaiah 40-66 as Deutero-Isaiah. Isaiah chapter 40 was “in the first place a comfort for Israel in Babylon, but then for God’s people in all difficult times and generally in the time of __________________________________ 217 “.. . möjligt att an elohist ligger till grund för Genesis.” Rudin, Föreläsningar öfver Genesis 1, WRS T1ga:28 UUB. It is even possible that Rudin was aware of the documentary hypothesis as early as 187677־ when he first began lecturing on Genesis. The possiblity exists because of the ambiguity of dating his handwritten notes on Genesis. In these notes, he also mentions the theory of sources. Idem, Anteckningar 1, WRS Tlga:25 UUB. 218 Rudin, De mindre profeterna, vol 2, 86 ftn 1. 219 Ibid., 91-93. 220 “lärodikt endast hvad framställningens form angår.” (Ibid., 92 ftn 2; emphasis by Rudin.) Concerning the book of Jonah, Rudin said: “. . . it is unthinkable for us that Jesus, provided that in everything he was led by the divine Spirit, would have as a type for the most important events in his life, citing an event from the Old Testament which in reality never occurred." (“. .. är det oss otänkbart, att Jesus, så vidt han i allt leddes af den gudomlige Anden, skulle hafva såsom en typ för de allra viktigaste händelserna i sitt lif anfört ur gamla testamentet en händelse, som i sjelfva verket aldrig egt rum." Ibid.; emphasis by Rudin.) 221 Ibid., 91; idem, Gamla Testamentets bibliska historia, 137. In 1884, Rudin explained that many people believed that Isaiah 4066־ came from the exilic period, but then he did not give his own opinion on the matter. But neither did he refute the idea (Idem, De mindre profeterna, vol 1, 7). [ Page ] 123 the New Testament.”222 In 1887, Rudin mentioned the work of Wellhausen for the first time in a footnote in his work on the unity of the Bible.223 This was before Ludvig Bergström had brought back a copy of Wellhausen from Germany and launched the controversial debates in the Theological Society in 1888.224 From 1888 onwards, Rudin was explaining the theories of Wellhausen thoroughly in his lectures. One of Wellhausen’s works which Rudin specifically mentions is his Prolegomena to the History of Israel.225 Against Wellhausen, Rudin argued that the whole story in the book of 1 Samuel presupposes the existence of the Mosaic Law. However, he admitted that the Mosaic Law and the books of Samuel and Kings had been reworked by a Redactor. But even the process of compilation and redaction of sources can be led by the Holy Spirit.226 The problem for Rudin was not the existence of sources, but rather the claim that there is no historical veracity behind the sources and events described in the Old Testament. Historicity of the biblical story was essential. Consequently, Rudin could not accept Wellhausen’s reconstruction of the history of Israel.227 ________________________________ 222 “närmast tröst för Israel i Babel, men sedan för Guds folk i alla svåra tider och i allmänhet i Nya Testamentets tid.” Rudin, Anteckningar till profeten Jesaja WRS Tlga:41 UUB. 223 Rudin, Bibelns enhet, 43 ftn 1. 224 22 Feb 1888 § 2 Teol Föreningens Prot 1884-89 U 2325 c UUB; Nathan Söderblom, “Minnen från åttio- och nittiotalen,” in Uppsala Kristliga Studentförbund 1901-1926 (Stockholm: Sveriges kristliga studentrörelses förlag, 1926) 16-17. 225 Rudin, Föreläsningar öfver Samuels och Sauls historia 1 WRS Tlga:33 UUB; idem, Föreläsningar öfver Sauls and Davids historia 2-3 WRS Tlga:34-35 UUB; Fries, Föreläsningsanteckningar 1888-92 H.T. 1888 Exegetik III, Israels historia av W. Rudin, SAFS T3k:34 UUB. 226 Fries, Föreläsningsanteckningar, SAFS T3k:34 UUB. “What is true with these critical investigations are that different stories have originated from different hands, but these original documents of the stories therefore certainly possess historical value.” (“Det sanna i denna kritikens undersökningar är det att skilda berättelser hafva uppstått av skilda händer, men dessa urkundsberättelser ega derför visst historiskt värde.” Ibid. ) 227 It has already been noted that in his speech of 1893, Rudin claimed that Wellhausen lacked the sense for the holy in biblical history. In 1897, in his lecture at the Congress on Religion, he described Wellhausen’s position as foolishness and was thankful that not all his adherents now accepted Wellhausen’s doubts about the historicity of the [ Page ] 124 In his lectures on Jeremiah and Judges in 1891-94, Rudin continued to address critical questions. Although he recognized the reworking of sources in the biblical text, he was still cautious and stated that “here we are certainly on very shaky territory.”228 In his lecture notes on “Genesis and Egypt” in 1894, Rudin focused his discussion mostly on the critical writings of Driver, Kittel, Buhl and Delitzsch. There he presented a full history of historical criticism concerning Genesis. He acknowledged the existence of a Deuteronomist. He also accepted that the final redaction of the Pentateuch took place sometime “after the end of Israelite history.”229 Here I believe he meant after the fall of the two kingdoms. He also could see traces of the monarchical period in the book of Genesis. These lecture notes reveal that Rudin was not at all naive about critical scholarship and was even able to accept some of its conclusions. It was the work of more moderate critical scholars like Buhl and Delitzsch which Rudin could appreciate.230 If one also examines the books which Rudin had in his personal library, one will discover many critical works. Thus one can hardly accuse Rudin of not being familiar with modern critical scholarship.231 Rudin’s response to biblical criticism can also be measured by his response to certain events and people in the Faculty of Theology in ______________________________________________________________________________________ patriarchal stories. Religionsvetenskapliga Kongressen i Stockholm 1897 (edited by S. A. Fries; Stockholm: Bohlin & Co., 1898) 320. 228 “vi är visserligen här på ett mycket osäkert område.” Rudin, Domareboken 1 WRS Tlga:31 UUB; idem, Föreläsningar öfver Jeremias WRS Tlga:46 UUB. 229 “efter afslutningen af Israels historia.” In this context Rudin referred to Delitzsch’s work (most likely his new commentary on Genesis). Rudin, “Föreläsningar hösten 1894, Första Mosebok och Egypten WRS Tlga:30 UUB. 230 In a letter to Fries, Rudin described Buhl as an unbiased scholar (6 Dec 1898 Letter to S. A. Fries from W. Rudin, SAFS T3k:13 UUB). Rudin’s friendliness towards Buhl is also demonstrated in his visit to Buhl in his home in Copenhagen in August 1898 (10 Aug 1898 Letter to Louise Rudin from W. Rudin, WRS Tlge:18 UUB). 231 Rudin, Bokkatalog I WRS Tlgc:l UUB; Förteckning över Professor W. Rudins donation (Sv 1921/52) Bibi arkiv K 52 UUB. [ Page ] 125 Uppsala. Rudin’s openness can already be seen as early as 1877 when he defended Myrberg’s student J. A. Ekman and believed that his thesis on Second Isaiah and Jeremiah should be accepted and that he should be appointed docent in exegesis.232 In his thesis, Ekman concluded that Isaiah 40-66 must be dated after Jeremiah during the exilic period. As we shall see when we examine Ekman’s scholarship, his thesis caused a rift among the Faculty members and it almost did not pass, being seen by some as too unorthodox.233 The fact that Ekman came to such a conclusion in his thesis may be one factor which influenced Rudin to accept the dating of Isaiah 40-66 to the exilic period. However, when Myrberg chose Erik Stave to become docent in exegesis in 1889, Rudin preferred the student Adolf Kolmodin as docent who was definitely more conservative than Stave. Rudin tried to get Kolmodin a place in the Faculty and eventually succeeded in convincing the Faculty of the need for two docenter and Kolmodin got the position in 1890.234 When Kolmodin and F. A. Johansson competed for the chair of extraordinary professor in exegesis a few years later in 1895, Rudin again favoured Kolmodin over Johansson.235 Kolmodin’s more conservative scholarship in comparison to the other candidate was one __________________________ 232 D. Rudin, Waldemar Rudin, 257-58; 16 June 1877 Letter to F. Arvedson from W. Rudin, FAS G7:bc UUB. 233 See the chapter on Ekman about this thesis. 234 There had been some debate whether Stave or Kolmodin would become the docent in exegesis. Rudin had given Kolmodin the impression that he would get the position, but Myrberg preferred Stave over Kolmodin. Kolmodin felt that he had been unfairly treated by Myrberg. Eventually with Rudin’s help, Kolmodin also became docent in exegesis (1890-1903) since there was a need for another. 2 Nov 1888, 14 Dec 1889, 6 Feb 1890 Letters to A. Kolmodin from Rudin, AKS T31:10 UUB; 11 Dec 1889, 20 Dec 1889, 14 Feb 1890 Letters to W. Rudin from Kolmodin, WRS Tlge:9 UUB; 5 Dec 1888, 2 Feb 1890 Letters to A. Kolmodin from Myrberg, AKS T31:8 UUB. 235 F. A. Johansson got the position then. Although Kolmodin tried again in 1898, he was not successful in getting the position until 1903. In 1909 he became ordinary professor in exegesis (in New Testament) remaining in this capacity until 1920. See Rudin’s support for Kolmodin in the minutes: 26 Feb 1895 § 1 Teol Fak Prot 1894-98 AI: 17 UUB; Handlingar rörande e. o. professuren i exegetik vid Upsala universitet år 1895 (Upsala: Edv. Berlings boktryckeri, 1895). [ Page ] 126 factor which probably influenced Rudin in this matter.236 When Rudin had to examine Stave’s book on Daniel as Stave’s specimen for his application for the extraordinary chair in exegesis in 1895 (which he later withdrew), Rudin prayed for the Lord’s guidance in the critical questions.237 However, the fact that Rudin eventually recommended Stave to become his replacement as ordinary professor of exegesis in 1900 shows that by that time Rudin was not against someone who fully subscribed to historical-critical Old Testament scholarship to become ordinary professor and to expose theological students to this critical approach to exegesis.238 Rudin’s response to Samuel Fries’ critical scholarship does demonstrate, however, that Rudin had not been quite prepared for the practical implications of the stance he took in his lecture of 1893. He did not want to be associated with more radical critical perspectives which negated the divine revelation and the historicity of the Old Testament. When Fries published his History of Israel in 1894, in the preface he claimed that his theological perspective was principally the ____________________________ 236 Eventually Kolmodin also became more open to historical criticism, although he remained fairly conservative in his scholarship. He eventually had to leave his position as Missions Director with EFS over this issue in 1910. Karl Axel Lundqvist, Organisation och bekännelse: Evangeliska Fosterlands-Stiftelsen och Svenska kyrkan 1890-1911 (Svenska kyrkohistoriska föreningen, II, ny följd; Uppsala: Klippan, 1977) 194-202. 221-39: Hidal. Bibeltro, 169-74. 237 In his diary Rudin wrote: “I especially pray for a correct position and clarity in the scholarly questions which touch my position as a representative of exegesis in our country. I have just studied or am presently dealing with these critical questions concerning the prophet Daniel. As an examiner of Stave. Lord, enlighten me! Not against the truth (2 Cor 13:8).” (“Särskilt beder jag om en rätt ställning och klarhet i de vetenskapliga frågor, som röra min ställning som en exegetikens representant i vårt land. Jag har nyss genomstuderat eller håller på med dessa kritiska frågor angående profeten Daniel. Sakkunig ang. Stave. Herre, upplys mig! Intet mot sanningen [2 Kor 13:8].” Rudin, Tankar ur det inre livet, [vol 2], 187; idem, Biografiska Anteckningar 6, 1893-1896 WRS Tlgd:24 UUB.) 238 30 Aug 1900 § 2 Teol Fak Prot 1898-1902 AI: 18 UUB. Rudin’s prayer for Stave was: “May God lead him to desire to lead the young to his God.” (Må Gud leda honom att vilja föra de unga till sin Gud.” Rudin, 22 March 1899, Anteckningar ur det inre livet 3 1893-1900 WRS Tlgd: 34 UUB.) [ Page ] 127 same as Rudin’s as presented in his 1893 lecture 239 Rudin did not like this at all and published a response to Fries’ statement and book where Rudin showed how his theological perspective differed from Fries.240 Fries had uncritically adopted too much of the Wellhausen position which lacked faith in divine revelation and the historicity of the Old Testament.241 Then Rudin published a second critique, reviewing Fries’ next work The centralization of the Israelite cult which he had written for his licentiate degree 242 In this review, Rudin believed that this second work contained serious flaws and demonstrated the immaturity of the author. Fries was suggesting unproven hypotheses which were profane, disregarding the holiness of Scripture. Rudin again brought up Fries’ History of Israel and emphasized that the Faculty of Theology did not appreciate it, quoting from the minutes of the Faculty protocols. Fries definitely needed to become more self-critical about his own work.243 It had been Fries’ hope that the Faculty would accept his _________________________________ 239 Fries, Israels historia, 1-2. Fries’ correspondence reveals that he had actually been hopeful that Rudin would like his History of Israel and accept it as the standard textbook. This confidence and hope is surprising in light of his usually negative appraisal of Rudin’s scholarship. This may be an indication that Fries believed that Rudin was more open to critical scholarship after his inaugural lecture and that he would judge Fries’ work fairly. In early 1892, Rudin had admitted to Fries that it was possible that the book of Esther may actually simply be a poem, an admission which had surprised many at the time. (no date) Jan/Feb 1892 (?) Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries. SAFS T3k:25 UUB: Fries. Vår kärleks historia. 256-57, 270. 240 W. Rudin, “Uttalande med anledning af yttranden i S. A. Fries’ ‘Israels historia’ (Upsala 1894),” KT 1 (1895) 120-30. Rudin explained that he had deliberated for one year before writing this response because he did not want to enter into an official polemical debate with someone whom he hoped was a personal acquaintance and friend, but he now believed it was his responsibility and obligation to do so. 241 Rudin described Wellhausen as not being objective or impartial but rather anti- theological in his views. He did acknowledge that Fries did not agree with Wellhausen in everything, but he still built his whole view of Israel’s history on Wellhausen’s theories. Ibid., 123-30. 242 S. A. Fries, Den Israelitiska Kultens Centralisation (Upsala: Akademiska Boktryckeriet Evd. Berling, 1895). 243 W. Rudin, Review of Den israelitiska kultens centralisation, by S. A. Fries, KT 1 (1895) 28387־. In March 1895 Rudin wrote about Fries’ licentiate examination in his diary: “But oh you dangerous knowledge, even about divine things, if you are not carried by a deep self-knowledge and humility in the fear of the Lord.” (Men o du farliga vetande, även om gudomliga ting, om du icke bäres av djup självkännedom och [ Page ] 128 History of Israel as the new main textbook in the subject (replacing Kurtz) and that he would get financial help for its publication. But the Faculty rejected it and recommended Buhl’s History of the Israelite People instead as the standard textbook.244 The Faculty members felt that Fries proposed too many daring hypotheses and that his views would soon be out of date because historical criticism was still in a stage of flux and development. At times, his work covered up the divine revelation in Israel’s history and consequently his work was not suitable for students of theology. Consequently, he got no financial backing since this would have been seen as if the Faculty supported Fries’ work.245 But the fact that it was Η. N. Almkvist the professor in Semitic languages at Uppsala who had encouraged Fries to write the book in the first place probably did not help the matter either. There was great dislike and animosity between Almkvist and the members of the Faculty of Theology 246 It was also partly Fries’ own fault that he was not that well accepted within the Faculty of Theology. Fries’ arrogant and ungracious attitude in general and towards Rudin in particular did not help the matter.247 For a number of years, Fries had begun to dislike Rudin’s scholarship describing it as naive and _________________________________________________________________________________ ödmjukhet, i Herrens fruktan.” Idem, Anteckningar ur det inre livet WRS Tlgd:34 UUB.) 244 Buhl. Det israelitiske folks historie. 245 10 Feb 1894 § 5 Teol Fak Prot 1894-98 AI: 17 UUB. Fries was told by the Dean of the Cathedral (“Domprosten”) that word was spreading within the Faculty that he had denied the divine revelation of Scripture. Fries denied that he had. 11 March 1894 Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:26 UUB. 246 In a letter to Fredrik Fehr, Fries stated that Almkvist believed that the Faculty would have accepted Fries’ History of Israel if Almkvist had not been the one who encouraged him in the first place. 4 March 1894 Letter to F. Fehr from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:22 UUB. 247 Fries did not ingratiate himself too well with the members of the Faculty in general. He also disliked Stave intensely. This is seen in his letters. Even Fries’ friends rebuked Fries for his ungracious attitude towards Rudin and for slandering his character. 29 Nov 1892 Letter to S. A. Fries from N. J. Göransson, SAFS T3k:7 UUB. [ Page ] 129 incompetent.248 Consequently, he thought that it was a terrible thing when Rudin was made ordinary professor in exegesis.249 When Rudin wrote his response to Fries’ History of Israel, Fries felt quite hurt by Rudin’s words.250 Consequently, Fries wrote him a letter expressing that Rudin had misunderstood him and misrepresented him unfairly 251 In frustration he ended the letter by asking: “Why should it be precisely me who has become the Faculty’s ‘enfant terrible’?”252 Rudin wrote back stating that it was Fries who had misunderstood him. The fact that Fries had not mentioned the Faculty’s reservations over his book made it look as though the Faculty approved _______________________________ 248 Fries claimed that Rudin would never take a stand for or against a position. In a discussion over the synoptic problem, Fries described Rudin’s response as evasive: “He did not want to decide on either the one or the other viewpoint; this evasiveness is so like Rudin, he loves to stand within the area of indecision.” (“Han ville ej avgöra sig för varken den ena eller den andra ståndpunkten; detta svävande är Rudin likt, han älskar att stanna inom obestämdhetens område.” Fries, Vår kärleks historia, 116.) However, Fries had not always disliked Rudin. When he first arrived in Uppsala, he appreciated Rudin’s lectures and enjoyed going to Rudin’s peaceful home. Rudin even encouraged Fries to come to his home and get the theological discussions going. But the more Fries studied historical criticism, the more his attitude began to change. 29 March 1887, 14 Oct 1888 Letters to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:24 UUB; Fries, Vår kärleks historia, 224. 249 In a letter to his fiancée, Fries stated that Rudin should be fired. “And now he is going to become ordinary professor! How dreadful!” (“Och nu skall han blifva ordinarie professor! Så förskäckligt!” 12 Feb 1893 Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:26 UUB.) 250 In a letter to professor Ekman, Fries said that Rudin had tried to “misrepresent my thoughts and spread some falsehoods . . . which has deeply hurt and offended me.” (“vanställa mina tankar eller utsprida några osanningar . . . hvilka på det djupaste sårat och kränkt mig.” 4 March 1896 Letter to J. A. Ekman from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k: 121 UUB.) Ekman wrote back stating that Fries was wrong in judging Rudin that way and it had not been Rudin’s intention to misrepresent his views. 16 March 1896 Letter to S. A. Fries from J. A. Ekman. SAFS T3k:3 UUB. 251 “When you say that I have not understood you, I must unfortunately say in return that you have not understood me ... You have treated me so unfairly . . . But what I protest against is that you have said that I wanted to assert that the Faculty likes my book. That is & falsehood which attacks my honour ... I do not believe that you can prove that I have ever behaved badly towards you, so why are you treating me in this way?” (“Då Ni säger, att jag ej förstått Er, så måste jag tyvärr säga tillbaka, att Ni ej förstått mig ... Ni har behandlat mig så orättvist. . . Men hvad jag protesterar emot, det är att Ni sagt, att jag velat påstå, att fakulteten gillar min bok. Det är en osanning som angriper min heder . . . Jag tror icke, att Ni kan visa att jag någonsin betett mig illa emot Er, hvarför behandlar Ni mig då på detta sätt?” 13 July 1895 [rewritten on the 15 July] Letter to W. Rudin from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:121 UUB; emphasis by Fries.) 252 “Hvarför skall just jag vara fakultetens ‘enfant terrible’ ?” Ibid. [ Page ] 130 of it. The Faculty did not want the general public to get that impression.253 Besides expecting that his book would become a textbook in the Faculty, Fries had also been hoping to become docent in exegesis; this he did not become.254 In his correspondence, he made the claim that it was Rudin who had stopped him from becoming docent.255 In fact, Fries claimed that Rudin had said he would do everything to stop him from getting it. He had called Fries to his house and asked him not to seek the position of docent in the Faculty, stating that there was no need for a docent in exegesis at that time. But only fourteen days after this interview, Nylander was appointed docent256 The fact that Nylander also adopted the historical-critical method in his work demonstrates that the issue was not simply over critical methodology.257 The fact of the ________________________________ 253 Rudin also said that Fries was not being honest. However, Rudin did not want to enter into an official polemical debate over the matter with him. 10 Sept 1895 Letter to S. A. Fries from W. Rudin. SAFS T3k:13 UUB. 254 Fries was really confident that he would get the position: “To refuse to let me become docent after I have completed the theological licentiate or the doctorate naturally is completely impossible.” His confidence was misplaced. (“Att vägra mig att blifva docent, sedan jag blifvit teol lic. eller doktor är naturligtvis fullkomligt omöjligt.” [no date, prob Feb 1894] Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:26 UUB.) 255 13 July 1895 Letter to W. Rudin from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:121 UUB; 7 Dec 1894 Letter to N. Söderblom from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:23 UUB. 256 A rumour had spread that Fries had gone to Rudin and asked for the position but then had withdrawn his request when he heard that Nylander was favoured instead. Fries denied this rumour emphatically, explaining to Harald Hjärne that it was Rudin who called him to himself and had said that: “every obstacle would be raised in order to hinder me from becoming docent, and if nothing else helped, then the Faculty would be reminded that there was no need for a docent since they already had Stave and Kolmodin. Not a word was mentioned of Nylander. But 14 days after my visit, apparently a ‘need’ has suddenly appeared, since now Nylander has been called.” (“alla hinder skulle uppställas för att hindra mig att bli docent och hjelpte intet annat, så skulle fakulteten erinra om, att ingen docent behöfdes, då man redan hade Stave och Kolmodin. Om Nylander nämdes ej ett ord. Men 14 dagar efter mitt besök synes ‘behof’ plötsligen hafva uppstått, ty nu kallades Nylander.” 4 Sept 1895 Letter to H. Hjärne from S. A. Fries, HHS 1g UUB.) Hjärne said that Nylander’s appointment was a surprise to him and that it looked as though it was simply done in order to hinder Fries from getting it. 19 Dec 1894 Letter to S. A. Fries from H. Hjärne, SAFS T3k:9 UUB. 257 Nylander was docent in Semitic languages before becoming docent in exegesis. However, he only retained this position for one year since he was appointed lecturer in Strängnäs at the same time. Nylander published a work on the Psalms where he [ Page ] 131 matter was that the Faculty members did not want Fries on the staff. He had lost favour and was considered too radical and too self-assured, who thought too much of himself and his own work. The friction between Fries and Rudin reappeared in 1898 when Fries applied for the extraordinary chair in exegesis. Fries was declared incompetent by the appointed judges, Rudin being one of them.258 Fries was considered unsuitable to teach theological students training for the ministry in the Church because he was too uncritical about his own and others theories and he handled the biblical texts with “too little piety.”259 In a letter to Fries, Rudin explained that he had heard rumours that Fries would make a formal complaint about the result. Rudin encouraged him not to do this because this would be “a new proof of your scholarly presumption and self-confidence.”260 You need to enter onto other roads and listen more to other voices, than the ones which have so far set the tone for you, if you want to be a good teacher for the young people who study theology. But for this you need a higher grace.261 ____________________________________________________________________________________ employed modern critical methods. Ironically, Fries considered Nylander’s book to be “truly one of the most radical works one can read.” (“sanneligen är bland det radikalaste man kan läsa.” [no date probably 1895] Letter to H. Danell from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:22 UUB.) 258 Sakkuniges utlåtande angående sökandene till det lediga e. o. professorsembetet i exegetik vid Upsala Universitet jemte vederbörandes meritförteckningar (Upsala: Edv. Berlings Boktryckeri, 1898); Handlingar angående e. o. professuren i exegetik vid Upsala universitet år 1898 (Teologiska Fakultetens utlåtande; Upsala: Edv. Berlings Boktryckeri, 1898). Erik Stave got the position. 259 “alltför liten pietet.” (Sakkunniges utlåtande, 6-12.) They stated that a teacher of theology must be free from prejudice in his scholarship, to have a firm belief in the divine revelation of the whole Bible and to handle carefully and piously the modern critical questions. They did not believe that Fries conformed to these stipulations. (Ibid., 12.) 260 “ett nytt bevis på Edert vetenskapliga öfvermod och själfförtrocnde.” 6 Dec 1898 Letter to S. A. Fries from W. Rudin, SAFS T3k:13 UUB. 261 “Ni behöfver inslå på andra vägar och lyssna mera på andra röster, än dem som hittills varit Eder tongivande, därest Ni vill blifva en duglig lärare för den teologie studerande ungdomen. Men därtill behöver Ni en högre nåd.” Ibid. [ Page ] 132 Rudin believed that one must approach biblical scholarship piously, in humility, willing to learn; otherwise one could not be a good teacher of the Word. Therefore Rudin could not appreciate radical critical scholarship which was arrogant and uncritical of itself. This is the reason why Rudin did not want Fries teaching in the Faculty. Rudin was motivated by a pastoral concern for the students and Fries’ approach would not be good for the students. For the same reason, he tried to hinder Jonas Walles from being appointed docent in exegesis in 1900.262 Walles was also “too daring with the critical handling of the present Masoretic Text” and he focused on the historical and human aspects of the Scriptures without considering “the divine factors” involved. This fault was due to his adoption of the “unhealthy tendency” of contemporary critical scholars who do the same.263 This example again demonstrates Rudin’s rejection of historical-critical scholarship which was impious, too radical and uncritically daring in its theories. Such an approach did not make one fit to teach theological students.264 When Samuel Fries organized the international Congress on Religion in Stockholm in 1897, Rudin was invited to participate. At that time Rudin expressed his hesitancy and doubts about the value of this ____________________________ 262 Fries had heard that Walles’ defence of his thesis had gone well but that Rudin had tried to hinder his appointment as docent. However Stave defended Walles and got him the appointment. 3 June 1900 Letter to N. Söderblom from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:23 UUB. Jonas Walles’ thesis was a study of the origin of the Jewish congregation during the Persian period: J. Walles, Studier öfver den Judiska församlingens uppkomst under den persiska väldsrikets tid (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells Boktryckeri-aktiebolag, 1900). 263 “alltför stor djärvhet vid den kritiska behandlingen af den föreliggande massoretiska texten,” “de gudomliga faktorerna,” “sjuklig benägenhet.” Rudin however did not want to accuse Walles of intentionally being impious. 28 May 1900 Bil A § 4 Teol Fak Prot 1898-1902 AI: 18 UUB. 264 For more information on Jonas Walles’ Old Testament scholarship see: Erik Walles, Jonas Walles. Teologen som gick sin egen väg (Falun: Erik Walles, 1981); Jonas Walles, Resa i nordsyrien och palestina 1904 (Lund: Bokförlaget skarabé och Erik Walles, 1992). [ Page ] 133 conference to Fries in a letter, but he decided to speak at it anyway.265 He ended up speaking on the topic of the Bible as the Word of God.266 He claimed that the Bible was the word of God as a word of the Spirit and life. “Thus it becomes a word of God to us only in so far as we understand and want to understand it as the word of the Spirit and of life . . . Each part becomes a word of God in so far as it is understood as a living link or limb in the whole.”267 The Old Testament depicts Israelite history as salvation-history, and it is the word of God first to the Jews at that time and then it also becomes so for us in a spiritual sense.268 Since biblical scholarship is in a flux and continually changing, Rudin concluded his speech by being thankful that “our faith does not depend on scholarship!”269 It was significant that such a godly, conservative theologian as Rudin participated in such an ecumenical conference (even though he did it hesitatingly) since it was seen as a _____________________________ 265 “Moreover I consider myself obliged to add for the sake of Truth that, since I have felt from the beginning much hesitation about the usefulness of the congress on religion between such different parties as protestants of the most different colour, including Swedenborgians and Jews, etc., I have partly not wanted to sign an invitation to the conference, partly not wanted to participate in it in any other way except possibly through some small contribution to the discussion, something which naturally depends upon the proceedings.” (“Jag anser mig vidare skyldig att tillägga för Sanningens skull, att, då jag från början hyst mycken tvekan om gagneligheten af religionskongressen mellan så olika partier som protestanter af den mest olika färg, däribland Svedenborgare och Judar, m. fl., har jag dels icke velat underteckna någon inbjudning till konferensen, dels icke deltaga på annat sätt i den än möjligen genom något litet inlägg i diskussionen, något som naturligen får bero på förhandlingarna.” 27 May 1897 Letter to S. A. Fries from W. Rudin, SAFS T3k: 13 UUB.) Rudin was not the only theologian who expressed concern over hosting such a conference in Sweden. Fries got a number of replies from people who were sceptical and/or refused to attend the conference. 24 March 1897 Letter to S. A. Fries from H. Danell, SAFS T3k:2 UUB; (no date) Letter to S. A. Fries from F. Arvedson, SAFS T3k:l UUB. 266 Religionsvetenskapliga Kongressen, 313-23. 267 “Den blir alltså för oss ett Guds ord, endast för så vidt vi förstå och vilja fatta den såsom ett andens och lifvets ord . . . Hvarje del blir ett Guds ord, för så vidt den fattas såsom en lefvande länk eller lem i det hela.” Ibid., 313-14; emphasis by Rudin. 268 Ibid., 319, 322. 269 “icke vår tro beror af vetenskapen!” (Ibid., 323.) This speech summarizes some of Rudin’s thoughts on the subject at the time but it also reveals a slight change in his position. The Bible is or only becomes the word of God to those who recognize it as such by faith. [ Page ] 134 controversial endeavour and was not fully accepted in certain circles. But as one of the exegetical representatives in Sweden, Rudin probably felt obliged to attend it and be aware of what was being discussed. This example demonstrates his open-mindedness. Rudin never had a theological crisis over the historical-critical method as so many did at that time.270 His organic model for understanding Scripture helped him in his response to biblical criticism; it was easier to overcome possible ‘contradictions’ in the Bible.271 The main reason for addressing the issue in the first place was due to his pastoral concern for the students’ struggles. Consequently, he was open to learn and change his views.272 The speech of 1893 was the climax of a long development, where he now laid his cards open on the subject. In that same year, his nephew C. F. Lundin expressed in a letter to Rudin that Rudin was the most appropriate person to “lay a firm foundation for a deeply reverent biblical criticism.”273 In a letter to Nathan Söderblom in 1901, Rudin again expressed his attitude: “You know that I do not fear freedom of thought, as long as it is led by the Spirit. . . May we stand before God in the freedom of truth, but not be blinded by _______________________________ 270 Nathan Söderblom recalls that, “Waldemar Rudin never actually felt any theoretical difficulties himself, but he did feel for us young ones ...” (“Waldemar Rudin kände för sin del aldrig egentligen teoretiska svårigheter, men han kände med oss unga ...” Söderblom. “Minnen från åttio-och nittiotalen.” 16.) 271 At the Uppsala conference for the Swedish Lutheran priests in 1900, Rudin admitted that over the past 25 years of teaching he had changed many views, adopting a more organic understanding of Scripture. As a scholar one had to be willing to give up older positions for the sake of the truth. He claimed that as a rule biblical criticism only dealt with external matters, and although the shell might change, the kernel remained the same. G. Torelius, “Upsala prestkonferens,” KS 5(1900) 139. 272 T. Mazer, a friend of Rudin, thought that Rudin was too open to new influences, since he was willing to accommodate new ideas, consequently making his position very eclectic. Th. Mazer, Människogestalter som jag mött på min lefnads väg (Stockholm: P. Palmquists Aktiebolag, 1916) 56-63. 273 “lägga en fast grund till en djupt pietetsfull bibelkritik.” Although no date is given, it was sent to Rudin for his 60th birthday which was July 20, 1893. Letter to W. Rudin from C. F. Lundin, WRS Tlge:10 UUB. [ Page ] 135 uncertain results from today’s research.”274 The fact that Rudin was not totally against the historical-critical method was important in preparing the way for its reception in Sweden. In this way, Rudin was more open to it than his colleague and predecessor Myrberg and consequently he played a more influential role in this process of events. The Swedish Translation of the Bible Finally, we must consider the important contribution Rudin made as a Bible translator, since he dedicated most of his life to this work. Rudin’s life work can be divided in two strands: his academic career as Bible exegete and teacher and his work as Bible translator for the Swedish Bible Commission. He served on the Bible Commission for 31 years from 1884 to 1915, continuing even after his retirement from the university in 1900.275 Consequently, he played a significant role in shaping the new Swedish translation of the Bible officially adopted in 1917. When Rudin was appointed to the Bible Commission on 25 April 1884, a new phase began in the long history of trying to get a new Swedish translation of the Bible. Along with Rudin, Esaias Tegnér and John Personne served on this Commission.276 During this time Rudin ________________________________ 274 “Du vet, att jag icke fruktar den fria tanken, blott den ledes av Anden . . . Må vi stå inför Gud i sanningens frihet, men icke bländas av ovissa resultat från dagens forskning.” 21 June 1901 Letter to N. Söderblom from W. Rudin, WRS Tlge:22 UUB. In 1910, Rudin wrote to Söderblom thanking him for his friendship which was not hindered by the fact that they had theological differences. 20 April 1910 Letter to N. Söderblom from W. Rudin, NSS UUB. 275 Rudin ended his work with the Bible Commission in 1915 because of old age, then being 82 years old. He was replaced by Bishop Lindström. By that time, mainly the apocrypha books were still not completed. Olsson, “Svenskt bibelöversättningsarbete,” 480. 276 E. Tegnér was professor in oriental languages at Lund University and J. Personne was a lecturer in Christianity and Swedish in Stockholm. M. Johansson who was initially appointed to the Bible Commission was replaced by Personne after one year. [ Page ] 136 worked mainly with the revision of the Old Testament translation; not until after 1900 did Rudin concentrate more on the New Testament translation, once the Old Testament revision had been completed for the 1903 Church Assembly.277 At that meeting, Rudin defended the new revised version of the Old Testament, prefacing his defence by stating that it was not a small matter to be asked to give one’s whole life to the meticulous task of translating the Bible, as a service to the Church and scholarship, even though it took him away from spiritual ministry to people in general 278 This is a significant factor which affected Rudin’s scholarly contribution to biblical exegesis. Many times Rudin was forced to ask the university to be relieved of his academic duties because of the heavy work for the Bible Commission.279 As we have already seen, it contributed to the lack of scholarly exegetical publications after the 1880s. At the 1898 and 1903 general Church Assemblies, the members of the Bible Commission had to defend and justify their Old Testament translation. In Rudin’s response to criticisms against the translation, he clarified the principles of textual criticism adopted by the Commission and also revealed some of his views on the relationship between the Old _______________________________________________________________________________________ See Olsson for a history of this new phase: Olsson, “Svenskt bibelöversättningsarbete,” 452ff. 277 Ibid., 467ff. 278 “When one has been placed in a profession where one’s purpose should actually be living contact with young people and people in general, it is not a small matter to be condemned for twenty some years to dedicating oneself to the fairly trivial occupation with letters, even though it is the letter of Scripture, and there examine the literal expressions verse after verse, word after word.” (“Det är icke någon småsak att, när man är ställd i ett värf, där man egentligen skulle hafva till sin uppgift en lefvande beröring med ungdomen och människorna i allmänhet, vara dömd att under ett tjugtal år ägna sig åt den ganska triviala sysselsättningen med bokstafven, låt vara Skriftens bokstaf, att där granska bokstafsuttrycken vers efter vers, ord efter ord.” Allmänna Kyrkomötets Protokoll år 1903 [Stockholm: Centraltryckeriet. 1903] 506.) 279 See the Faculty of Theology protocols for examples of Rudin’s request for release from duties. See also letter to the chancellor’s secretary: 23 June 1887 Letter to C. E. J. Rogberg from W. Rudin, CRS X290 ba 14 UUB: D. Rudin, Waldemar Rudin, 219. [ Page ] 137 and New Testaments. The Commission was slavishly and consistently trying to follow the Masoretic Text in their translation rather than trying to reconstruct the text based on other textual evidence. Although Rudin admitted that at times these reconstructions were most likely correct, they considered it too “daring” to adopt them in a Church Bible, since these conjectures entered upon “uncertain ground.”280 At all times they tried to be faithful and show reverence towards the old Church Bible, keeping words and expressions from it when they could.281 However, Rudin admitted that there were a few times where they had to do textual changes in order to make sense of the text, in particular with Ezekiel. In the Psalms they also had to add small helping words not found in the Hebrew text in order to bring out the nuances in Swedish.282 At both the General Church Assemblies of the Church of Sweden in 1898 and 1903, there was concern raised over the toning down of Messianic references in the proposed Old Testament translation. In 1898 the main criticism focused on the removal of direct references to Christ in the headings to the Psalms.283 In 1903, four hundred priests had signed a petition protesting against the new translation because the Bible Commission had “wanted to take Christ out of the Old __________________________ 280 “vågade,” “osäkra mark.” W. Rudin, Yttrande med anledning af ingångna anmärkningar mot Bibelkommissionens öfversättning af Pentateuken (Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner, 1898) 9-10. 281 On 19 July 1887, Rudin wrote in his diary that he had to try to maintain the reverence for the old Church Bible against his colleague Tegnér’s enthusiasm for consistency. Rudin, Biografiska Anteckningar 4 1886-89 Tlgd:22 UUB. 282 Rudin, Yttrande, 9-10, 18-20. Bertil Albrektson is correct in criticizing the Bible Commission for not presenting any proper motivation for the principles they adopted nor giving any guidelines for when they would deviate from their principles and accept textual changes or add helping words. Albrektson, “Tidigare svenska översättningar,” 40-52; idem. “Grundtext och urtext.” 28-29. 283 These annotations to the Psalms had originally been written by Luther. Allmänna Kyrkomötets Protokoll år 1898 (Stockholm: Central-tryckeriet, 1898) 374-92. [ Page ] 138 Testament.”284 In defence of their decision, Rudin quoted Augustine and stated that “the New Testament lies hidden — that is to say it lies in its swaddling-clothes, in its bud — in the Old, and the Old Testament is spread open in the New.”285 Consequently, the Commission did not wish or dare to give a Psalm a Messianic heading if it was not directly a Messianic Psalm. This would be imposing the New Testament on the Old and the Old Testament would no longer retain its character as hidden, latent, secretive. “Therefore we are not allowed to insert in the Old Testament more than what it says.”286 This does not mean that the Messiah is not present there, nor that the New Testament writers were mistaken in seeing Christ in the Old Testament. Concerning the Hebrews 2 reference to Psalm 8 Rudin explained: The New Testament men have probably not made a mistake when they apply these words to Christ; as I just mentioned, they have let the Old Testament like a petal open up in the New; but from that it does not follow that in the Old Testament we should, that is to say, force open the bud to say already what the opened flower means.287 Since the Old Testament is only the bud while the New is the flower, we should let the Old Testament speak as it does and not impose anything on it from the New.288 Consequently, when the Hebrew is best translated ‘young woman’ instead of ‘virgin’ in Isaiah 7, then the _________________________________ 284 “velat taga bort Kristus ur gamla testamentet.” KMP 1903, 475; see pages 473-521 for the whole debate. 285 “det nya testamentet ligger fördoldt — ligger så att säga i sin linda, sin knopp — i det gamla, det gamla testamentet ligger uppslaget i det nya.” He quoted Augustine: “Novum testamentum in vetere latet; vetus testamentum in novo patet.” KMP 1898, 383. 286 “Vi få derför icke inlägga i det gamla testamentet mera än hvad der står.” Ibid., 384. 287 “Nya testamentets män hafva nog icke misstagit sig, då de tillämpat dessa ord på Kristus; de hafva, såsom jag nyss nämnde, låtit det gamla testamentet liksom uppslå sina blad uti det nya; men deraf följer icke, att vi skola i det gamla testamentet, så att säga, tvinga upp knoppen till att redan säga, hvad den uppslagna blomman betyder.” Ibid., 385. 288 Ibid. [ Page ] 139 translation must state this and nothing more. Instead the ‘virgin’ lies hidden in the ‘young woman’ and is revealed in the New Testament. By this Christ has not been removed from Isaiah 7:14, as some have claimed, but rather he stands beside the young woman in the name Immanuel. Therefore they have nothing to fear from the changes in the new translation.289 Rudin took the work of translation very seriously and believed that they needed the Holy Spirit’s guidance in translating as much as in interpreting a biblical text. His diaries reveal that his prayer was that they would have more of the Spirit in their work and that they would be fed spiritually through it.290 Part of this was his desire that the work would be fruitful and be of practical help to the Church.291 Of course, when he accepted the appointment he never dreamt that he would be working on it for 31 years, for most of the rest of his life. As John Personne expressed in a letter to Rudin on his 80th birthday, God had a special plan for Rudin to live long enough to be part of the work of the Bible translation until its completion,292 which occurred in 1917. In this ____________________________ 289 Ibid., 38586־; KMP 1903, 507-10. 290 On 26 July 1884 Rudin wrote in his diary: “Oh, may I during my daily work with the translation of the Bible feed while working, just like the draft animals do while harvesting. In this Bible translation may there not lack too much of the ‘Holy Spirit and sound understanding.’” (“O, må jag vid mitt dagliga bibelöversättningsarbete få äta under arbetet, såsom dragarna under skördearbetet. Må i denna bibelöversättning ej alltför mycket komma att saknas av ‘helig ande och sunt förstånd.’” Rudin, Tankar ur det inre livet, [vol 2], 119; emphasis by Rudin.) After the struggle they had to finish revising the Psalms, Rudin expressed somewhat sadly that he really wished there was more of the Spirit in their work. Rudin, 19 July 1887, Biografiska Anteckningar 4 1886-89 WRS T1gd:22 UUB. 291 D. Rudin, Waldemar Rudin, 216; Hidal , Bibeltro, 85. 292 “But our God knew more than we believed. He had his special intentions with you. The last one was our Swedish Bible translation, which he wanted you to be a part of all the way to the end.” (“Men vår Gud visste mer än vad vi trodde. Han hade sina särskilda avsikter med Dig. Den sista var vår svensk bibelöversättning, som han ville att Du skulle vara med om ända till slutet.” 17 July 1913 Letter to W. Rudin from J. Personne, WRS T1ge: ll UUB.) [ Page ] 140 Rudin made an important contribution to Swedish biblical scholarship and to the spiritual life of the Church. Conclusion Rudin was an important figure within the history of Swedish Old Testament scholarship at the end of the nineteenth century. He was considered “the Christian above all others,”293 the “Christian par préférence.”294 Rudin’s life’s work was dedicated to biblical exegesis and Bible translation. As a teacher, his main role was pastoral care, to nurture his students spiritually. Consequently, he was often homiletical and devotional in his exegetical expositions in the classroom, seeking practical application and relevance of the biblical text.295 Rudin never fully adopted an historical-critical approach to interpreting Scripture but his attitude and his stance towards the Bible was significant in preparing the way for the acceptance and legitimization of the modern critical method. In this way, Rudin played an important role during this transition period in Swedish Old Testament scholarship. The fact that a portrait of Rudin was placed in the Faculty of Theology in 1910 and is still hanging there today demonstrates how important a theologian Rudin was regarded as in Sweden. He was greatly loved, revered and appreciated.296 _______________________________ 293 “den kristne framför andra.” Söderblom, “Minnen från åttio- och nittiotalen,” 14. 294 “Rudin was considered in many circles as the ‘Christian’ par préférence. He reminded one in his appearance of a Rembrandt portrait of a venerable Jewish rabbi.” (“Rudin ansågs i vida kretsar såsom den ‘kristne’ par préférence. Han påminde i sitt utseende om ett rembrandtsporträtt av en ärevördig judisk rabbin.” Rodhe, Svenska kyrkan. 120.) 295 Söderblom, Waldemar Rudins inre liv, 130-32. 296 When I was doing research at Uppsala University in 1992-94, the famous portrait was hanging in the library of the Faculty of Theology and another in the Old Testament postgraduate seminar room. The portrait seems to have been hung in 1910 at Nathan [ Page ] 141 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Söderblom’s suggestion. 20 April 1910 Letter to N. Söderblom from W. Rudin, NSS UUB. [ Page ] 142 Chapter Four J. A. Ekman and F. A. Johansson During the period of time that Myrberg and Rudin were professors in exegesis at Uppsala University, Johan August Ekman and Frans August Johansson came onto the staff of the Faculty of Theology in Uppsala. Although neither Ekman and Johansson ever occupied an ordinary professorial chair in exegesis at Uppsala University, they taught biblical exegesis, particularly Old Testament interpretation, for a short time at Uppsala. Ekman was docent in exegesis for ten years (1877-87) and Johansson was extraordinary professor of exegesis for two and a half years (1895-1897). Although they did not do very extensive work on the Old Testament during their academic careers, both Ekman and Johansson contributed to the debate over the modern critical method in Old Testament interpretation at the time and had some influence on the direction which it developed in Sweden towards the end of the nineteenth century. In 1877, Ekman defended a thesis on the prophetic books of Jeremiah and Isaiah which has been considered to be quite important within the history of Swedish Old Testament scholarship of this period.1 Johansson adopted the modern critical dating of the book of Daniel in 1893, as well as publishing a number of articles on the historical-critical method which contributed to the debate. Therefore, Ekman’s and Johansson’s contribution to Old Testament studies at Uppsala University needs to be taken into account in this study. _______________________________ 1 Hidal, Bibeltro, 62; Hjalmar Lindroth, “Johan August Ekman,” SBL 13 (1950) 8. [ Page ] 143 J. A. Ekman: Education and Academic Experience Johan August Ekman was born in Hjälstad on November 26, 1845 into a godly, Christian family.2 His father Olof Ekman who was a soldier had been greatly influenced by the religious revivals which swept Skara and had consequently raised his family in the “old-fashioned faith.”3 These early childhood impressions were important in shaping Ekman’s perspective as a theologian and remained with him throughout his life. Ekman enrolled as a student at Uppsala University in the spring of 1867 and studied theology. He took the Theological-Philosophical examination in 1869, the Theoretical Theology examination in 1870, the Candidate in Theology examination in 1876 and finally received his Doctor of Theology degree in June 1893. He was ordained priest in Skara in January 1873.4 Ekman was not sure whether his calling in life was to work in the practical ministry of the Church or to pursue an academic career. However, it was professor Myrberg who convinced him to pursue the latter calling.5 Although he was a good student in general, his best subject was in Old Testament exegesis and received the highest grades in this subject. Consequently, it is not surprising that Myrberg took Ekman under his wing and encouraged him to continue ___________________________ 2 Herman Lundstrom’s biography of Ekman is an important source of information: Lundström, Ärkebiskopen. Other works written about Ekman are: Lindroth, “Ekman,” 6-14; Waldemar Rudin, “Ärkebiskop Ekman såsom teologisk författare,” BF 31 (1914) 1-12, 122-54, 258-75; Gustaf Aulén, Ärkebiskop Johan August Ekman: In memoriam,” in Lundsstifts Julbok 1914 (Malmö: Förlagsaktiebolaget, 1914); Th. Mazer, Människogestalter, 149-52; J. von Bahr and Th. Brandberg, “Ekman, Johan August,” in Uppsala Universitets Matrikel (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1906). Unfortunately, Ekman’s widow Hilma destroyed all his unpublished papers and notes after his death. However, there are some letters by Ekman which still exist and available in the archives of Uppsala University Library. 3 “gammaldags tro.” Lindroth, “Ekman,” 7. 4 Ekman served as chaplain for the Upplands regiment of the Swedish army from 1879 to 1887. His association with the army was probably due to the fact that his father had been a soldier. 5 Lundström, Ärkebiskopen, 69. [ Page ] 144 his theological studies and even candidate for the position of docent in exegesis within the Faculty.6 Myrberg even helped him out financially to make this possible. As a result, Ekman became known as Myrberg’s disciple.7 This association had both positive and negative consequences for Ekman, which will become evident below. In 1877, Ekman submitted a thesis in order to apply for the position of docent in exegesis. The thesis was entitled “Similarities between Isaiah chapters 40-66 and Jeremiah, observed with regard to the question of the origin of the former,”8 and proposed the theory that Second Isaiah was written in the sixth century. At the time, some of the Faculty members considered the thesis too controversial and ‘unorthodox’ and he nearly did not get appointed. However, in the end he was appointed and remained docent in exegesis for ten years. Ekman’s thesis and the controversy surrounding it will be examined fully below.9 During his tenure as docent, Ekman tried to get a promotion by applying for other positions within the Faculty. In 1882 he applied for the newly created position of extraordinary professor in practical theology but was unsuccessful in gaining the position.10 Although _______________________________ 6 Ibid., 28-30. 7 Fries referred to Ekman as Myrberg’s “faithful disciple.” (“trogne lärjunge.” 18 Aug 1888 Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:24 UUB.) 8 “Likheter mellan Esaias kapp. 40-66 och Jeremias, betraktade med hänsyn till frågan om de förras ursprung,” UUÅ (1877) 1-127. 9 While Ekman was a docent in exegesis he also held several temporary appointments while other Faculty members were on sick or study leave: extraordinary professor in exegesis (spring 1880), professor in dogmatics and moral theology (spring 1881), extraordinary professor in exegesis (autumn 1881-spring 1882), extraordinary professor in practical theology (summer 1882), Faculty assistant (autumn 1882), professor in practical theology (spring 1884-spring 1886), extraordinary professor in exegesis (autumn 1886-spring 1887). Lindroth, “Ekman,” 7. 10 According to the Faculty protocols, Ekman had apparently also applied for the extraordinary professorial chair in dogmatics and moral theology in 1880 but withdrew his application. The reason for his withdrawal is not stated, except that he had not strengthened his competence for the position by publishing something in the subject. 4 Feb 1881 § 1 Teol Fak Prot 1876-81 AI:14 UUB. [ Page ] 145 Myrberg and Rudin supported Ekman and placed him first in their evaluation, the majority of the Faculty placed him second after Carl Norrby. In contrast to the Faculty’s recommendation, the University Senate11 placed him first among the candidates. However, in the end the King went against the Senate’s suggestion and followed the Faculty’s recommendation and chose Norrby instead of Ekman.12 When he failed to get the chair, Ekman then applied for the position of Assistant in the Faculty (which became available when Norrby got the professorship), but again was unsuccessful. Ekman took these failures very hard, particularly since he was struggling financially and had just got married.13 As a result, he started looking for work outside the university and applied for a couple of pastoral charges, but he even failed to get these as well.14 These were difficult and disappointing years for Ekman. However, Ekman’s fortunes finally changed when he eventually was successful in gaining an ordinary professorship. Even though his training and experience were primarily in biblical exegesis, he was ____________________________ 11 “Större Akademiska Konsistoriet.” 12 12 April 1882 § 1 Teol Fak Prot 1881-87 AI:15 UUB. Martin Johansson felt that Ekman’s strength lay more in the area of exegesis than in practical theology. He also thought that Ekman was unclear and somewhat uncertain in his conceptual thinking. G. von Schéele thought that Ekman lacked scholarly precision and did not come to clear conclusions. Rudin and Myrberg disagreed with their colleagues’ evaluation of Ekman and instead spoke highly of him. The fact that the University Senate voted against the recommendation of the Faculty was unheard of. And then the King went against the Senate’s proposal which was also very unusual. According to Lundström, part of the reason why Ekman did not get the professorship was because of a misunderstanding over the nature of the chair. A certain letter which would have clarified the matter was kept ‘hidden’ in a drawer by one of Ekman’s opponents during the debate and ‘found’ only when it was all over. (Lundström, Ärkebiskopen, 102-107.) Although it is only speculation, it is possible that Ekman’s supposed ‘unorthodoxy’ was another reason for his failure to attain the position. 13 Ekman married Hilma Ingeborg Petersson on the 20th of April 1882. They never had any children. 14 Lundström, Ärkebiskopen, 106-07. He applied to Fors in the diocese of Göteborg and to Fellingsbro in Strängnäs diocese. In a letter to his friend Fredrik Arvedson, Ekman expressed his feelings of depression and his bitter disappointment in failing yet again. 14 April 1884 Letter to F. Arvedson from Ekman, FAS G7:ba UUB. [ Page ] 146 successful in gaining the ordinary professorial chair in Theological Prenotions (Propaedeutics) and Theological Encyclopaedia in 1887, a position which he held for eleven years until 1898.15 This was a chair which concerned such topics as the general history, philosophy and psychology of religion as well as Christian apologetics, catechism and symbolics.16 In 1896, Ekman became Dean of Uppsala cathedral and priest of Vaksala parish. Then, to Ekman’s surprise, he was elected bishop of Västerås in July 1898 and parish priest in Lundby. Ironically, Ekman had not been elected bishop of his own diocese of Skara because he was not seen as completely ‘orthodox’ but in the diocese of Västerås this factor did not become an issue.17 Actually, Ekman had not really wanted to leave his academic post at the university. He felt that he had not finished his work there; he had wanted to write a textbook on the ____________________________ 15 In fact, Ekman admitted in a letter to Gottfrid Billing that when he got the professorship, the subject matter was almost completely new to him and consequently he had a very heavy work load, starting from scratch and trying to familiarize himself with the subject while he was teaching it. 27 Jan 1893 Letter to G. Billing from Ekman, GBS LUB. 16 Jan Bergman, “The History of Religion,” in Faculty of Theology at Uppsala University (edited by Helmer Ringgren; Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis; Uppsala University 500 years 1; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1976) 3-4, 14. This professorial chair was first established in 1754 by Bishop Kalsenius for the primary apologetic purpose of “defending the Christian faith from errors of atheists, naturalists, deists, antiscripturalists and undifferentists.” (Sharpe, Nathan Söderblom, 37.) In the nineteenth century, it was redefined and eventually became known by the title of Theological Prenotions and Theological Encyclopaedia in 1878. At that time, the position became a full-time professorship and K. H. Gezelius von Schéele occupied the chair in its new form (1878-85). Von Schéele vacated the chair in order to become bishop of Visby in 1885. He was the first of five successive theologians who occupied this chair at Uppsala who all later became bishops in the Church of Sweden. The professorial chair was later redefined and renamed as “The History and the Psychology of Religion” in 1938. Professor Geo Widengren was the first to occupy the chair in its new form (Bergman, “History of Religion,” 14). 17 Lundström, Ärkebiskopen, 116-18. Because of Ekman’s reputation, Ludvig Bergström expressed surprise that he actually became bishop: “Just think that Ekman became bishop! That I hardly imagined. I thought that the priests were afraid of his lack of orthodoxy. For, believe me, he is hardly better than either you or I in this regard. But he is a more careful general.” (“Tänk att Ekman skulle bli biskop! Det trodde jag knappast. Jag tänkte, att prästgubbarna voro rädda för hans bristande ortodoxi. Ty, tro mig, han är knappt bättre i det fallet än vare sig du eller jag. Men han är en försiktigare general.” 12 March 1899 Letter to N. Söderblom from Bergström, NSS UUB.) [ Page ] 147 subject he taught but had not had time.18 He also feared the awesome responsibility which went with being a bishop.19 But in the end, he accepted the call. Although Ekman officially left his professorial chair at that time, he continued to teach one more course in the following academic year 1899.20 When Myrberg died in 1899, Ekman took over the task of editor for Bibelforskaren for one year in 1900.21 In the same year, he received an honorary Doctorate of Philosophy from Uppsala University in May. A month later, Ekman was appointed Archbishop of the Church of Sweden as well as vice-chancellor of Uppsala University and parish priest of Bälinge. The other candidates who had been nominated withdrew their names and Ekman was the only person on the list for the _______________________________ 18 In a letter, Ekman expressed his frustration in not having enough time for writing the textbook which was so desperately needed. (22 Dec 1896 Letter to S. Alrutz from Ekman, SAS UUB.) Part of the reason why he failed in this ambition was his constant battle with illness and poor health throughout his life. 19 Ekman’s letters reveal how hard it was for him to leave his academic position. He preferred to stay at the university. He also thought that being a bishop was a very difficult job and he doubted his own ability to handle it. Yet he did not feel that it was right for him to try to hinder his call. He would rather leave the outcome in God’s hands. 3 June 1898 Letter to F. Arvedson from Ekman, FAS G7:ba UUB; 28 June 1898 Letter to N. Söderblom from Ekman, NSS UUB; 7 July 1898 Letter to G. Billing from Ekman, GBS LUB. Mazer believes that Ekman probably would have been happiest in his life if he could have remained an academic. This had suited him so well (Mazer, Människogestalter, 150). 20 The following is a list of courses which Ekman taught during his academic career: Biblical History (1877, 78); OT History (1878, 79, 80); Lindenmeyers Das göttliche Reich als Weltreich 78); Biblical Theology (1880); Moral Theology (1881); The History of Israel after the Exodus from Egypt (1881); Jeremiah (1882, 86, 87); Israelite History from the Entrance into Canaan (1882); The Biblical Elements of Practical Theology (1884, 85, 86); History of Religion (1887, 88, 92, 93, 97, 98); Theological Encyclopaedia (1889, 90, 94, 96); Concerning Divine Revelation (1890); Athenagora’s supplicatio pro Christianis (1890); Concerning the Certainty of the Truth of Christianity (1891); The Oldest Christian Apologists’ Texts (1893); Augustini De Civitate Dei (1894); Propaedeutic Theology (1894, 95); Theophilos’ IIpòs Ha-alma (1894); Prophetic Religions (1895, 96); The Christian Conviction (1896, 97); The Teaching of Old Testament Religion (1896); The Essence of Religion (1897, 98); Persian and Greek Religions (1898); Greek, Roman and Nordic Religions (1899). UUK (1877-1899). 21 Ekman’s letters to Myrberg reveal that Ekman was very much involved with helping to promote Bibelforskaren and raise funds for its support throughout his career. 9 Aug 1885, 15 Feb 1886, 22 July 1890, 8 Sept 1891 Letters to O. F. Myrberg from Ekman, OFMS UUB. [ Page ] 148 King to appoint. Yet again he felt inadequate for the task and hesitated to accept the appointment, but he also believed that he could not refuse if God was leading these people to elect him. He had to trust God's leading for his life.22 Consequently, Ekman accepted the appointment and he remained the Archbishop of the Church of Sweden until his death in Uppsala on November 30, 1913.23 During his theological training, Ekman was particularly influenced by the theology of J. T. Beck, partly through the influence of Myrberg and Rudin. As a result, Ekman decided to undertake a study trip to Tubingen in 1874 in order to study with Beck.24 This trip became crucial for Ekman’s theological development.25 Like Myrberg and Rudin, Ekman adopted a ‘Beckian’ view of the Scriptures which recognized organic development within them, with the main theme and goal being the Kingdom of God. Ekman also emphasized the primacy of the Scriptures over dogmatic doctrinal statements.26 The interpreter _______________________________ 22 “I feel considerable dread over the new calling. But I did not dare to do something in order to escape it. May God’s help come to me and that I may be faithful!” (“Jag känner öfvervägande bäfvan för det nya kallet. Men jag vågade ej heller göra något för att undgå det. Må Guds hjelp vederfaras mig och jag kunna vara trogen! ” 7 July 1900 Letter to W. Rudin from Ekman, WRS T1ge:24 UUB). In another letter Ekman wrote: “What strange destinies have been sent to me by God’s decree in the last few years. Trembling I stand before the new ... I have become very attached to Västerås and the diocese of Västerås. It will be difficult to leave. ” (“Underliga öden har Guds skickelse gifvit mig de sista åren. Bäfvande står jag inför det nya . . . Jag har mycket fäst mig vid Westerås och Westerås stift. Det blifver svårt att bryta upp.” 6 July 1900 Letter to E. J. Keijser from Ekman. EJKS G 130g:3 UUB.) 23 For a list of most of Ekman’s publications see Lindroth’s article: Lindroth, “Ekman,” 11-14. 24 Rudin was already there at the time and encouraged Ekman to come. In a letter written from Tubingen, Rudin wrote to Arvedson and told him to tell Ekman that he must come there and hear Beck. 17 Feb 1874 Letter to F. Arvedson from Rudin, FAS G7: bc UUB. 25 Lindroth, “Ekman,” 8. Lundström describes Ekman’s trip to Tubingen and his impressions of Beck from Ekman’s diary (Lundström, Ärkebiskopen, 53-61). Ekman’s admiration and respect for Beck is also demonstrated in that he completed the work started by Myrberg of publishing an account of Beck’s life in Bibelforskaren. Ekman wrote the concluding account while he was editor of the periodical. “Johan Tobias Beck.” BF 17 (1900) 49-77. 395-408. 26 Ekman still believed this in 1904 as revealed in a letter he wrote to Ekström. While discussing the priestly vow, Ekman stated that a person must decide whether he [ Page ] 149 must discover the biblical perspective and present the pure teachings of the Bible.27 Ekman also adopted Beck’s view of justification28 and consequently was considered by certain sectors of the Church as not completely orthodox in his doctrinal views. For this very reason he was not appointed bishop in his home diocese of Skara in 1895.29 However, it is incorrect to describe Ekman as a blind and slavish follower of Beck, even though he was influenced by some of his teachings. Beck’s influence can be traced more in Ekman’s earlier years; with time he moved further away from the ‘Beckian’ position. However, this early influence became an important foundation for Ekman’s theological perspective and was a factor which shaped his view of Scripture.30 ________________________________________________________________________________ believes the confession is according to biblical teaching. He spoke of making a distinction between the Church’s teaching and confession and the Word of God. A priest must follow his conscience and his understanding. 19 Feb 1904 Letter to G. Ekström from Ekman, GES UUB. 27 The influence of Beck is particularly seen in the following publications: J. A. Ekman, “Den kristna religionsläran enligt den heliga skrift,” BF 2 (1885) 332-81; BF 3 (1886) 1-72, 213-98; BF 4 (1887) 67-100, 302-66; idem, “Den gammaltestamentliga historiens betydelse,” TKTB 2 (1884) 19-42; idem, “Det gamla testamentets profetia om Guds rike,” TKTB 4 (1886) 22-49, 180-213, 275-312. Myrberg praised Ekman’s work on “Den kristna religionsläran” in the Faculty protocols as an example of allowing the teachings of the Bible to speak for themselves and presenting them in their “biblical unembellished form.” (“bibliskt osminkade gestalt.” 15 Dec 1886 § 5 Teol Fak Prot 1881-87 AI:15.) 28 In 1905, Ekman gave a summer course in Uppsala on justification which he published in the following year; afterwards his views were much criticized. Ekman shared Beck’s concern that orthodox teaching on justification sometimes puts too much emphasis upon ‘being counted righteous’ and not enough on ‘being or remaining righteous.’ Both Beck and Ekman emphasized the subjective, ethical side of salvation where justification occurs in a changed life which continues to grow in following Jesus’ example. Reconciliation with God involves a change in a person’s will and character; a convert must not continue sinning but must try to live a holy and righteous life, following Jesus’ example. Just as Jesus’ death must not be separated from his whole life, justification should not be separated from the life the person lives. J. A. Ekman, “Försoningen,” BF 23 (1906) 6-22, 106-118; Rudin, “Ärkebiskop,” 126-30, 137-39; Lundström, Ärkebiskopen, 46-48, 197, 201. 29 Lundström, Ärkebiskopen, 116-17. 30 Ibid., 190-91, 198-99, 204; Rudin, “Ärkebiskop,” 3. [ Page ] 150 As docent in exegesis, Ekman’s lectured mostly on the Old Testament, (except when he had to cover other subjects while certain professors were on temporary leave). However, when he was appointed professor in Theological Prenotions and Theological Encyclopaedia in 1887, his focus changed and he did not lecture or publish much more on the Old Testament.31 This professorial appointment as well as his subsequent appointments as bishop and Archbishop are factors which affected Ekman’s contribution to Old Testament scholarship in Sweden. His significance as an Old Testament scholar lies mainly in the earlier part of his career and particularly through the thesis he defended in 1877. This thesis is important in the history of critical Old Testament scholarship in Sweden and will be considered next. The Thesis of 1877 Ekman’s reputation as somewhat ‘unorthodox’32 was earned partly through the controversy which arose around the thesis he defended for the position of docent in 1877.33 This thesis has been described as “a boundary stone between the older and a newer direction within biblical research at Uppsala University.”34 Although this is probably a slight _______________________________ 31 A friend noted that it was unfortunate that Ekman did not continue with biblical exegesis because it had been his first love. Lundström, Ärkebiskopen, 110. 32 This reputation was also partly due to his views on justification. 33 Sharpe, Nathan Söderblom, 27; Hidal, Bibeltro, 56, 62-66. Althin claims that the fear of heresy among Old Testament exegetes in the nineteenth century became acute in the Faculty of Theology in Uppsala when Ekman submitted his thesis (Althin, Från Rudin Inledning, 18). Lundström asserts that when Ekman submitted his thesis, “the waves of contention rose high over his name.” (“gingo stridens vågor höga om hans namn.”) Lundström recounts the response of one of the theology professors: “Can you imagine this: Myrberg has got hold of a quiet and good-tempered Västgötian whose name is Ekman, and he has managed to make him almost a worse heretic than he himself is.” (“Kan du tänka dig: denne Myrberg har fått fatt i en stillsam och beskedlig västgöte, som heter Ekman, och den har han lyckats göra till en nästan värre kättare än han själv är.” Lundström, Ärkebiskopen, 73). For a detailed account of the debate which occurred on this occasion see: Lundström. Ärkebiskopen. 70-86. 34 “en gränssten mellan en äldre och en nyare riktning inom bibelforskningen vid Uppsala universitet.” (Lindroth, “Ekman,” 8.) Lundström claims that methodologically [ Page ] 151 exaggeration, Ekman’s thesis does reflect the beginnings of change in methodology in Old Testament exegesis in Sweden towards the end of the nineteenth century. It also marks the beginning of controversy and debate over certain results of the modern historical-critical method.35 Ekman’s thesis was entitled “Similarities between Isaiah ch. 40-66 and Jeremiah, observed with regard to the question of the origin of the former.”36 The question of the unity of Isaiah with its particular focus on authorship and date of the second half of the book, chapters 40-66, was being challenged by modern critical scholarship in the nineteenth century. The traditional view that these chapters were written by the eighth century prophet was rejected by many.37 In his thesis, Ekman decided to address this important question because he believed that the answer to it had significant consequences for one’s understanding of the nature and development of divine revelation in Scripture. It affected how one interpreted prophetic texts in their historical contexts as well.38 Ekman also wanted to focus his study on this issue because the problem ____________________________________________________________________________________ it was a boundary stone. (Lundström, Ärkebiskopen, 70; emphasis by me.) Hidal sees Ekman’s thesis as introducing the first phase of the emergence of the historical-critical method in Old Testament exegesis in Sweden and consequently he begins his study with the year 1877. Hidal limits his study to the period of 1877 to 1910 (Hidal, Bibeltro, 10). 35 Hidal, Bibeltro, 62-4; 225, ftn 2. Linder claims that “the first draft of wind of the new documentary research within exegesis reached Uppsala with the 1877 thesis of the later archbishop J. A. Ekman . . (“Första vindraget av den nya urkundsforskningen inom exegetiken hade nått Uppsala med J. A. Ekmans, sedermera ärkebiskop, avhandling, 1877. . Linder, “Domprosten,” 231.) The debate continued in the following year when Ekman led a discussion over the exilic dating of Isaiah 40-66 at the Theological Society. 23 Oct 1878 § 2 Teol Föreningens Prot 1863-79 U 2325 a UUB. C. Ahfeldt also lectured on Deutero-Isaiah at the Theological Society in 1884. 27 Feb 1884 § 4 Teol Föreningens Prot 1880-84 U 2325 b UUB. 36 “Likheter mellan Esaias kapp. 40-66 och Jeremias, betraktade med hänsyn till frågan om de förras ursprung.” Ekman had been working on this topic for at least two and a half years because he gave a lecture at the Theological Society on the subject in 1874. 28 Oct 1874 Teol Föreningens Prot 1863-79 U 2325 a UUB. 37 Döderlein in 1775 was the first to speak of Deutero-Isaiah and suggest that Isaiah 40- 66 was written during the Babylonian exile. Kobbe, Eichhorn and other scholars quickly adopted this position. Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism, 23. 38 Ekman, “Likheter,” 1-2. [ Page ] 152 of the unity of Isaiah was a hotly debated question in Old Testament scholarship in the nineteenth century. This demonstrates that as a biblical scholar Ekman was not afraid to address critical questions even though they may have been controversial in nature. In his study, Ekman approached the question from a new angle, by doing a comparative study of certain texts from Jeremiah and Isaiah 40- 66.39 Since the book of Jeremiah could be more or less dated to the beginning of the exilic period, sixth century BCE, Ekman used Jeremiah as a measuring stick for determining the date of chapters 40-66, the so- called Second or Deutero-Isaiah.40 Ekman based his method of comparison upon the belief that there are many marked resemblances between a number of texts in these chapters of Isaiah and Jeremiah.41 He began his thesis by listing some of the criteria by which he had chosen certain texts for comparison: there must be a formal likeness in the ordering and stylistic similarities in the way of expression.42 He then proceeded to give fifteen examples of such texts and list their similarities and differences.43 In doing so, he also compared the __________________________ 39 Both Lundström and Rudin emphasize that Ekman dealt with this contemporary question from a new angle and perspective, since he used the book of Jeremiah as his guide. (Lundström, Ärkebiskopen, 72; Rudin, “Ärkebiskop,” 5.) C. C. J. von Bunsen had proposed in 1857-8 that Jeremiah’s secretary Baruch had written chapters 40-66 (Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism, 128), but Ekman did not make this suggestion. He simply compared the chapters with Jeremiah, but did not state who wrote them. 40 Ekman did not hesitate to use the term Deutero-Isaiah in his thesis. Ekman, “Likheter,” 3. 41 The underlying assumption of his method of comparison is that the one prophet knew the other prophet’s work and was somewhat dependent on his writings or at least influenced by them in his own writing (Ekman, “Likheter,” 126-7). Since this basic assumption is foundational to his whole thesis, Ekman’s argument would fall apart if this presupposition proved to be incorrect. 42 Ekman, “Likheter,” 5. 43 Ekman compared the following texts: Jer 2:20-28 and Is 57:3-13; Jer 3:16, 17 and Is 65:17-19, 60:1 ff; Jer 4:13 and Is 66:15; Jer 5:24-26, Lam 4:12-14 and Is 59:1-3; Jer 6:13-17 and Is 56:10-11; Jer 10:1-16 and Is 40:17-22, 41:7, 23, 28, 29, 44:6-20, 24, 45:16-20, 46:1, 6, 7; Jer 11:19 and Is 53:7, 8; Jer 12:7-12 and Is 47:6, 7, 56:9-57:1, 20; Jer 13:18, 22, 26, Lam 1:8, 9, Jer 48:18 and Is 47:1-3; Jer 23:5, 6, 33:15, 16 and Is 52:13, 53:2, 11, 42:1, 3, 4; Jer 25:31-33 and Is 66:16; Jer 30:8-11 and Is 41:8-11, [ Page ] 153 language, content and historical perspective of these texts and drew upon other prophetic texts for further enlightenment upon the question. In applying these criteria in his comparative analysis of the chosen texts, Ekman made some of the following observations. For example, he noted that on a number of occasions, the prophecies of Second Isaiah were shorter than Jeremiah’s. Ekman suggested that it was possible that Second Isaiah was simply summarizing and condensing Jeremiah’s message in his work.44 Besides being shorter and more concise, Ekman claimed that the prophecies of Second Isaiah were clearer in expression than those in Jeremiah; the message of Jeremiah was more complex and lengthy.45 This evidence seemed to demonstrate that Second Isaiah was clarifying the prophetic oracles of Jeremiah to his audience. Ekman stated that “the prophecy of Deutero-Isaiah, in all the material considered, presents this subject with such richness and clarity, that in comparison to it, Jeremiah’s is simply presenting the beginnings and the seeds.”46 Ekman also observed that Second Isaiah was richer in content because it was written with more lofty, poetic language and elevated style.47 Ekman made a further claim that the perspective of Second Isaiah was loftier than that of Jeremiah.48 Deutero-Isaiah takes, in comparison to Jeremiah, a higher point of view both with respect to spiritual knowledge in __________________________________________________________________________________________ 43:3-6, 44:1, 2; Jer 31:7-14, 16, 20, 22 and Is 49:10-13, 40:11, 58:11, 61:2, 3, 55:2, 40:10, 63:15; Jer 31:31-34, 35 and Is 55:3, 61:8, 59:21, 51:7, 54:13, 43:25, 51:15; Jer 33:3 and Is 48:6. 44 Ekman, “Likheter,” 10,41. 45 Ibid., 10, 48, 122. 46 “Deutero-Esaias’ profetia, i hela dess omfång betraktad, framställer detta ämne med sådan rikedom och klarhet, att Jeremias’ i förhållande dertill blott företer begynnelser och frön.” Ibid.,122. 47 Ibid., 39. 48 Ibid., 47, 127. [ Page ] 154 general and in respect to prophetic outlook in particular. This difference in point of view shows itself to be such, that the explanation for this reason can hardly lie solely in being more spiritually equipped and in greater personal sensitiveness to divine inspiration. Rather the explanation must be that Deutero-Isaiah lived after Jeremiah’s time during a new phase of the development of the kingdom of God in Israel.49 In this context, it helps to illuminate Ekman’s understanding of the nature of biblical prophecy in general.50 For him, prophecy is a “living organic reality” which grows and develops in stages from lower to higher perspectives.51 Consequently, divine revelation in Scripture has been disclosed in various stages of development in different periods of Israelite history. The later periods have a higher level of perspective than earlier periods.52 Ekman adopted an evolutionary notion of prophecy and divine revelation as something which was constantly changing and developing; it was a concept of progressive revelation.53 His understanding did allow for the possibility of predictive prophecy, although in the case of Second Isaiah, he believed that the prophet actually experienced the exilic period which he describes.54 _____________________________ 49 “Deutero-Esaias intager i förhållande till Jeremias en högre ståndpunkt både i afseende på andlig kunskap i allmänhet och i afseende på profetiska utsigter i synnerhet. Denna skilnad i ståndpunkt visar sig vara sådan, att hennes förklaringsgrund svårligen kan ligga endast i en högre andlig utrustning och större personlig mottaglighet för gudomlig ingifvelse. Snarare måste densamma förklaras derigenom, att Deutero-Esaias lefvat under ett efter Jeremias’ tid inträdt stadium af det israelitiska gudsrikets utveckling.” Ibid., 127. 50 See also Ekman, “Det gamla testamentets profetia om Guds rike,” 22-49, 180-213, 275-312. 51 “lefvande organisk verklighet.” Ekman, “Likheter,” 47. The prophet did not see the future alone, but rather “the future with its inner connection to the present and the past,” and which grows organically out of what has already happened, (“framtiden i hennes inre sammanhang med det närvarande och förflutna.” Idem, “Det gamla testamentets profetia om Guds rike,” 24; emphasis by Ekman.) 52 Ekman, “Det gamla testamentets profetia om Guds rike,” 23-24, 30-33, 46-48, 311; idem, Under och Andeingifvelse (Stockholm: A. L. Normans-Expedition, 1883) 18- 19, 37, 40; idem, “Guds uppenbarelse,” BF 20 (1903) 247-48, 261-62. 53 Ekman’s view was very similar to von Hofmann, but he did not mention von Hofmann in support of his position. 54 Prophecy of the future “is a prediction concerning the fruit which shall come from a previous and continuous development.” (“är en förutsägelse om den frukt, som skall [ Page ] 155 Ekman pointed out that one difference between the perspectives of the two prophets was that Second Isaiah had a wider and more inclusive outlook on the world than Jeremiah. Whereas Jeremiah was more concerned with the fate of Jerusalem and Israel (sic), Second Isaiah was more concerned with the larger picture, the world in general as he knew it.55 This change in focus may indicate a later development in the prophetic outlook in Israel’s history. In his analysis of the content of the prophetic texts, Ekman made the further observation that Jeremiah employed older concepts and ideas in his writings whereas Second Isaiah used newer ideas.56 He wondered why Jeremiah did not adopt Second Isaiah’s novel ideas and expressions if he knew of the prophet’s writings. But already the factor that Jeremiah, who otherwise fairly often expresses the ideas and words of older holy writers, has not clearly betrayed any reproduction of Deutero-Isaiah’s opinions or ways of expression, even though Deutero-Isaiah presents in the most powerful and clearest way many new, and within Old Testament prophecy, very meaningful ideas, makes it most likely that Deutero-Isaiah is later in time than Jeremiah.57 Ekman based his conclusion upon what he considered to be missing in the content of Jeremiah’s prophetic work. In this way, he was using an argument from silence. He believed that Jeremiah would have adopted ________________________________________________________________________________ komma af en föregående och pågående utveckling.” Ekman, “Guds uppenbarelse,” 262.) The content of the prophecy is clothed by the ideas of the time in which the prophet lives. (Idem, “Det gamla testamentets profetia om Guds rike,” 311.) 55 Ekman, “Likheter,” 52, 55, 103. 56 Ekman did not give any clear criteria by which one could determine which concepts or ideas were older or more recent. 57 Men redan den omständigheten, att Jeremias, som eljest ganska ofta återgifver äldre heliga författares idéer och ord, icke bestämdt förråder någon reproduktion af Deutero- Esaianiska åskådningar och uttrycksätt, ehuru Deutero-Esaias på det kraftigaste och klaraste lägger i dagen flere nya, inom den gammaltestamentliga profetian högt betydningsfulla idéer, gör det mycket sannolikt, att Deutero-Esaias är till tiden senare än Jeremias. Ekman, “Likheter,” 127; emphasis by Ekman. [ Page ] 156 some of the concepts of Second Isaiah if he had known this prophet’s writings. In his study, Ekman also attempted to determine the historical perspective and context of the two respective prophetic writings. Ekman approached this problem in two ways. He drew upon other prophetic texts which could be more or less dated and compared them with these books.58 Secondly, he analyzed the content of the books to see how it fitted with the history of Israel. For example, in his first comparison of texts, Jer 2:20-28 and Is 57:3-13, he sketched the history of the kingdom of Judah and religious character and development until the fall of Jerusalem in order to set the texts in context.59 In this process, he came to the conclusion that the historical perspective of Isaiah 57 could only be that of the period of the babylonian exile in the sixth century BCE.60 Ekman conceded that this reality did not deny the possibility of prophetic prediction of the future; the prophet Isaiah could have seen the babylonian exile “simply in the spirit.61״ But the prophet speaks as if he himself has experienced it. This evidence seems to indicate that Second Isaiah originated in the exilic period.62 _______________________________ 58 Ekman referred to Ezekiel, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah the most. Ibid., 2, 21, 92-95. 59 Ibid., 12-32. Ekman wanted to find “an historical starting point” for these biblical texts. (“en historisk utgångspunkt,” Ibid., 32.) 60 Although Ekman admitted that certain aspects of the content of Isaiah 57, regarding idolatry for example, could fit the eighth century, he argued that there is nothing in the text that specifically refers to that time. Instead, the text seems to come from the babylonian exile. Isaiah 57:11 speaks of God’s silence as something which has occurred in the past (מעלם), and therefore Isaiah could not have said this. Also, Isaiah 57 does not speak, in the first place, of Israel as a people, but rather of the ungodly in contrast to God’s people. These were two of the arguments which Ekman used to date the text to the babylonian exile. Ibid., 11-12, 14, 18-19, 27, 32-36. 61 “blott i anden.” (Ibid., 36; emphasis by Ekman.) 62 In order that he would not be misunderstood as denying the possibility of predictive prophecy, Ekman repeatedly stated throughout his thesis that it is possible that the eighth century prophet Isaiah could have predicted the events of the sixth century. His conclusions did not negate the possibility of predictive prophecy (Ibid., 36, 48, 97, 111; emphasis by me). [ Page ] 157 In his concluding remarks, Ekman reiterated the main argument of the thesis, namely that there are a number of examples where there are marked resemblances between the two prophetic texts in question and that there is enough evidence to warrant a belief that the one prophet knew of and adopted some of the thoughts and expressions of the other prophet’s writings.63 He claimed that the evidence demonstrated that Jeremiah stands independent from Second Isaiah and was not influenced by his writings. Instead, Second Isaiah was dependent on Jeremiah’s prophetic work. Consequently, Isaiah chapters 40-66 must have been written at a later date. Therefore, Ekman concluded that Second Isaiah was composed during the second half of the Israelite captivity in Babylon.64 It is interesting to note that Ekman began his study believing that the results of his analysis would support and validate the traditional view that all sixty-six chapters of the book of Isaiah belong to the eighth century prophet Isaiah. When his study produced different conclusions, Ekman did not hesitate to stand by the results and abandon the traditional view of date and authorship, even though this was a very controversial thing to do. Rudin believed that this demonstrated Ekman’s integrity, honesty and “openness for historical truth, which characterized him,” even though at times this could be a dangerous thing and was at the time. It nearly cost him his academic future.65 This was not the first time that the exilic dating of Second Isaiah had been proposed in Sweden. The Uppsala theologian and philologist Gustaf Knös advocated this theory in the 1820s.66 Professor H. G. ___________________________ 63 Ibid., 126-7. 64 Ibid., 127. 65 “öppenhet för historisk sanning, som utmärkte honom.” Rudin, “Ärkebiskop,” 5. 66 Knös, Scholia selecta in Esai I-XII; idem, Scholia selecta in Esai XIII-XXXIX; Sven Dedering, “Knös, Gustaf,” SBL 21 (1977) 406-08; Hidal, Bibeltro, 56, 62-4. [ Page ] 158 Lindgren also defended this position in 1843.67 However, it was the first time that controversy was raised over this proposal in Sweden.68 The dispute which arose around Ekman’s thesis69 was mainly due to the complexion of the members of the Faculty of Theology in Uppsala at the time.70 They expressed great reservation over the thesis and one professor even thought that the thesis was destructive because it questioned the authenticity of the Scriptures.71 It also did not help that Ekman was a student and disciple of Myrberg, because Myrberg and some of the Faculty members did not get along well together. This worked against Ekman. Unfortunately, these personality clashes and departmental politics played a role in the whole debate.72 As a result, Ekman did not get the best grades for the thesis73 and it was not easy for _______________________________ 67 H. G. Lindgren, Propheten Jesaja (Upsala: Leffler och Sebell, 1843) 202-03. 68 Hidal, Bibeltro, 56. In a letter, Rudin expressed the strife within the Faculty: “In the Faculty there has been much bickering and strife.” Ekman was being appointed “with reservation” from certain members. (“I fakulteten har mycket gnabbats och stridits.” “med reservation.” 16 June 1877 Letter to F. Arvedson from Rudin, FAS G7:bc UUB; emphasis by Rudin.) 69 For Ekman’s own description of his defence of the thesis and the aftermath, see his letter to Arvedson: June (?) 1877 (no date given but written just after the defence) Letter to F. Arvedson from Ekman, FAS G7:ba UUB. Ekman felt quite surprised over the controversy that his thesis had created. Lundström, Ärkebiskopen, 83-85. 70 The four people who examined Ekman’s thesis were C. A. Hultkrantz, C. A. Cornelius, C. A. Torén and O. F. Myrberg. Hultkrantz was professor in dogmatics and moral theology; Cornelius was Kalsenius professor of theological prenotions and church history; Torén was theology professor and the Dean of the Cathedral. Cornelius and Hultkrantz were strong supporters of Lutheran orthodoxy. Hidal, Bibeltro, 59-60, 63-64. 71 Torén could not agree with everything in Ekman’s thesis, but his reservations did not hinder him in voting in favour of appointing Ekman. Hultkrantz felt that the thesis had serious faults but since it had passed the defence and they needed a docent, he was also in favour of Ekman. Cornelius was the most condemning however. He stated that it was “a serious thing to contest the genuineness of any part of the Holy Scriptures.” Since the thesis had a “destructive tendency, I cannot see it as desirable or beneficial that its author becomes a teacher in the Faculty of Theology.” Thus, he voted against Ekman being appointed. (“en mycket allvarsam sak att bestrida äktheten av någon del av den Heliga Skrift.” “destruktiv riktning, att jag icke kan anse det önskvärdt eller nyttigt, att dess författare fästes såsom lärare vid theologiska fakulteten.” 31 May 1877 Teol Fak Prot 1876-81 AI:14 UUB; Lundström, Ärkebiskopen, 74-85.) 72 Hidal, Bibeltro, 63. 73 Although Myrberg recommended Ekman for a higher grade, the result of the vote was that the actual thesis only received a passing grade (“godkänd” or “approbatur”) and [ Page ] 159 Myrberg to get Ekman appointed as docent within the Faculty.74 But in the end however, Ekman did succeed in getting the appointment. Unfortunately, this experience affected his reputation and created obstacles in the future. As we have already seen, he had difficulty in getting a better position within the Faculty. After ten years however, he finally got appointed as professor of Theological Prenotions and Theological Encyclopaedia in 1887. Ekman did not publish many works on the Old Testament during his academic career. His thesis was the main work which dealt specifically and exclusively with the Old Testament and is perhaps his most important work on the Old Testament.75 Besides the thesis, he published a few articles related to the Old Testament in the 1880s. The article which outlines Ekman’s general view and approach to the Old Testament is “The Significance of the History of the Old Testament” published in 1884.76 This article was based on and grew out of a series of lectures which Ekman gave during the spring term of 1879 in Stockholm on the subject.77 These lectures were well attended and got good reviews in the press.78 Ekman argued that the main significance of ____________________________________________________________________________________ Ekman’s defence received the grade “passed with credit” (“icke utan beröm godkänd” or “non sine laude approbatur”). 31 May 1877 Teol Fak Prot 1876-81 AI: 14 UUB. 74 After much discussion, the vote was three against one for recommending Ekman to the chancellor for the appointment of docent. 75 “Den kristna religions läran enligt den heliga skrift” was one of Ekman’s longer and more important publications but its scope went beyond the Old Testament into the New Testament and the early Church. 76 J. A. Ekman, “Den gammaltestamentliga historiens betydelse,” TKTB 2 (1884) 19- 42. Besides the article on Old Testament prophecy mentioned earlier (“Det gamla testamentets profetia om Guds rike” published in 1886), Ekman published two other artides related to the Old Testament: “Om tiden för profeten Joels lefnad,” TT 20 (1880) 169-84, 241-54 and “Offren hos israeliterne,” TKTB 3 (1885) 210-34, 245-53. In his article on Joel, Ekman followed Ewald, Hitzig, Keil and Delitzsch in dating the book to 840 BCE. 77 The lectures were entitled: “The significance of the history of the Israelites.” (“Om betydelsen af israeliternas historia.” Lundström, Ärkebiskopen, 98-99.) 78 “Föreläsning,” AB 14/21 (27 Jan 1879); “Docenten Ekmans föreläsningar,” AB 14/22 (28 Jan 1879). [ Page ] 160 the history of Israel lay in the way it prepared the way for Christianity; “Israel is the soil from which Christianity grew.”79 He then listed several ways in which this preparation occurred. First, Israel’s main purpose as a people was to be “religion’s keeper."80 Second, “as the people of religion, Israel has preserved for humankind faith in the only God.”81 This faith was the greatest gift to humanity. Third, through divine leading and revelation within Israel’s history, God had come all the more closer to humanity with his truth and love.79 * 81 82 Fourth, Israel’s history was a time of instruction which prepared the way for the true human life, with its ultimate fulfillment in Christ.83 Fifth, the kingdom of God was the primary goal and focus, promised and prefigured in the Old Testament. “The idea of the kingdom of God is the idea which always comes to the forefront in Israel’s history and embraces all other ideas.”84 Sixth, the Messianic hope “is the actual kernel in the Israelite kingdom’s advanced stage of development; in her the idea of God’s kingdom within the Old Testament has its centre.”85 Finally, Israel’s history teaches us religious and ethical truths. Through God’s education of Israel, the truth becomes clearer and richer in the Old Testament, as it prepares the way for the revelation of the Truth in Christ.86 Thus, Israel’s purpose was to serve as the actual kernel within the divine plan for the world. Its significance lay in this foundational and preparatory ___________________________ 79 “Israel är den jordmån, ur hvilken kristendomen uppvuxit. ” Ekman, “Den gammaltestamentliga historiens betydelse,” 19; emphasis by Ekman. 80 “religionens vårdare.” Ibid., 23; emphasis by Ekman. 81 “Såsom religionens folk har Israel förvarat åt menskligheten tron på den ende Guden.” Ibid., 24; emphasis by Ekman. 82 Ibid., 26. 83 Ibid., 27, 40. 84 “Idén om Guds rike är den idé, som alltid i Israels historia träder i förgrunden och omsluter alla andra idéer.” Ibid., 31. 85 “är sjelfva kärnan i det israelitiska rikets framskridande utveckling, i henne har Guds rikes idé inom det gamla testamentet sin medelpunkt.” Ibid., 35. 86 Ibid., 38-40. [ Page ] 161 role.87 The fact that Ekman believed that this was the primary purpose and importance of the Old Testament demonstrates that his Christian perspective played an important role in his approach and understanding of the Old Testament Scriptures. He approached the Old Testament as a Christian theologian. Historical Criticism Ekman’s response to the emergence of the historical-critical method was fairly positive; although he had some reservations about it he accepted it cautiously. He believed in taking a moderate, balanced approach, avoiding extremes.88 In fact, the careful, mediating approach of not taking sides but standing in the middle characterized his general approach in life, and is revealed in his roles as teacher and bishop. His pastoral concern led him to mediate between sides but also made it difficult for him to take a definite side or stance.89 However, this cautious approach frustrated some people who wanted take matters further.90 __________________________________ 87 Ibid., 40. 88 In a letter to Gottfrid Billing, Ekman commented on people’s fear of “the smallest concession that the newer biblical criticism may be correct about something . . .” Ekman did not think one should be accused of heresy for making any concession to it, but because so many of the new results were still not definite, established facts, he stressed the need for “great caution” in one’s response to historical criticism, (“det minsta medgifvande, att den nyare bibelkritiken i något har rätt...” “stor varsamhet.” 21 May 1900 Letter to G. Billing from Ekman, GBS LUB.) 89 Aulén, “Ärkebiskop,” 25, 27. Aulén claims that Ekman was not exactly a man who took great initiative. In a letter to Billing, Ekman expressed one of his weaknesses. “What you say: to take a firm line in word and influence - this is difficult for me.” (“Det som Du säger: att klämma till med ord och inflytande - det är svårt för mig.” 21 Mav 1900 Letter to G. Billing from Ekman, GBS LUB.) 90 Stave and Fries both expressed this frustration (Linder, “Domprosten,” 243). In a letter to his fiancée, Fries said that he admired Ekman but it was too bad that “he does not adopt the right scholarly perspective!” (“han icke intager den rätta vetenskapliga ståndpunkten!” 12 April 1890 Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS 1890-92 T3k:25 UUB.) A few years later, Ekman and Fries were corresponding over Fries’ book The History of Israel. Fries explained that he had been deeply hurt by Rudin’s review of his book. But he was very thankful to Ekman that he had shown interest in his book and had not tried to “misrepresent” his thoughts and responded like Rudin. [ Page ] 162 Ekman was not afraid to revise his views if some new discovery proved them wrong. This is revealed in his acceptance of Second Isaiah through working on his thesis. He desired to find the truth and embrace it, even if it meant being cast as ‘unorthodox.’ This openness which characterized him may partly explain why his biographer Lundström claims that Ekman never had a theological or spiritual crisis.91 He was open to changing his position, because he was a seeker of the truth.92 Ekman demonstrated his openness to Pentateuchal criticism during the discussion which followed Myrberg’s and Silwer’s lectures on the subject at the Theological Society in April 1889. In a letter to Ludvig Bergström, Nathan Söderblom described Ekman’s contribution to the debate: “Ekman showed how the negative criticism in actual fact gave a more organic and human picture of the development.”93 Ekman’s openness to historical criticism was partly due to his view of the Bible and biblical inspiration. In 1887 he gave a speech at the Swedish Bible Society entitled The Holy Scriptures as divine and human.94 In this speech, Ekman defended both the divine and human side of Scripture and that these aspects are related to each other through an inner organic connection. He argued that the divine revelation has taken a human ___________________________________________________________________________________ Ekman however rebuked Fries for using such sharp words about Rudin. (“vanställa.” 4 March 1896 1896 Letter to J. A. Ekman from Fries, SAFS T3k:121 UUB; 16 March 1896 Letter to S. A. Fries from Ekman, SAFS T3k:3 UUB.) When Ekman became Archbishop, Fries wrote to Söderblom saying that he was happy about this in spite of Ekman’s tendency to be too careful and afraid to take the plunge and go all the way. 23 July 1900 Letter to N. Söderblom from Fries, SAFS T3k:23 UUB. 91 Lundström, Ärkebiskopen, 49. 92 Linder and Aulén both describe Ekman’s desire or “demand for the truth” as something which characterized him. (“sanningskravet.” Linder, “Domprosten,” 244; Aulén, “Ärkebiskop,” 23.) 93 “Ekman visade hurusom den negativa kritiken i själva verket gav en mer organisk och mänsklig bild av utvecklingen.” 11 April 1889 Letter to L. Bergström from Söderblom, NSS UUB. 94 J. A. Ekman, Den heliga skrift som gudomlig och mensklig. Tal vid Svenska Bibelsällskapets Allmänna Års sammankomst den 6 April 1887 (Stockholm: Otto Ahlströms Boktryckeri, 1887). [ Page ] 163 form and that Scripture is human in the following respects: in its origin, in the presentation of its message, in the way it demonstrates development throughout the Bible, and in that it has been mediated through human agents and shaped by their experiences, abilities and limitations.95 Ekman argued that historical mistakes found in the Bible should not nullify belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture. The eye of faith will be able to discern the divine within the human vessel. It is a treasure within a jar of clay (2 Cor 4:7).96 One has wanted to remove the stumbling blocks in the Scriptures by making everything in it into something divinely perfect, and not allowing anything to be humanly imperfect, and in this way one has created more stumbling blocks for the unbeliever and made them more difficult than they are in actual fact.97 Since there is this human, imperfect element within Scripture, the interpreter will need to distinguish between the essential and non- essential, the kernel and the shell. However, the Bible remains the Word of God.98 Because of Ekman’s pastoral concern and sympathy for people and their struggles in faith, Ekman decided to address the question of biblical criticism in his two pastoral letters to his two dioceses when he became bishop and Archbishop. In the first letter to the diocese of Västerås, he spoke of the positive results of recent theology and biblical scholarship. There is now greater knowledge of the historical background of the Bible which has shed more light on understanding the biblical material itself. “The historical development of divine revelation _____________________________ 95 Ibid., 14-17. 96 Ibid., 13, 19. 97 “Man har velat taga bort stötestenar ur skriften genom att göra allt i henne till någonting gudomligt fullkomligt, och icke låta något vara menskligt ofullkomligt, och man har dervid för de icke troende gjort stötestenarne flere och svårare, än de i sjelfa verket äro.” Ibid., 12. 98 Ibid., 20-21. [ Page ] 164 is placed in a clearer light than before.”99 But there is also a dangerous direction within theology which has “moved theology from heaven to earth.”100 This has been done in a one-sided way so that “heaven seems to be forgotten.”101 Consequently, we must not simply be observers but must test everything and keep what is good.102 In the second letter to the diocese of Uppsala (in his new role as Archbishop), Ekman addressed the question more directly and fully.103 Here he spoke specifically of the historical-critical method and about the anxiety which it had caused many to feel. He emphasized that we must not “underrate the dangers which biblical criticism brings, but neither exaggerate them . . .”104 We must not refuse to acknowledge that historical-critical research has also brought some positive and important results. Since God has revealed himself in history, the historical method examines the historical and human aspects of this revelation. In actual fact, a great deal of what historical criticism deals with does not concern the biblical content itself “but rather something which lies outside the Scriptures themselves, namely the traditional views on the authors of certain books and the time of writing.”105 Although there are imperfections and mistakes in the Bible naturally due to human weakness, this does not negate the fact the Bible is the divinely inspired ___________________________ 99 “Den gudomliga uppenbarelsens historiska utveckling, är ställd i klarare dager än förr.” J. A. Ekman, Herdabref till Presterskapet i Vesterås stift (Vesterås: A. F. Bergh Boktryckeri, 1898) 11. In the letter, Ekman did not use the terms biblical criticism or the historical-critical method, but he referred to them indirectly by speaking of the most recent scholarship or the newer theology of the present day. 100 “flyttat teologien från himmelen till jorden.” Ibid., 12. 101 “himmelen synes vara förgäten.” Ibid. 102 Ibid., 13. 103 Ekman wrote to Herman Lundström and expressed how difficult he found it to write this letter. 8 Oct 1900 Letter to H. Lundström from Ekman, HLS G 154:1 UUB. 104 “underskatta farorna, som bibelkritiken medför, ej heller öfverdriva dem ...” J. A. Ekman, Herdabref till Presterskapet i Upsala Stift (Upsala: Wretmans Tryckeri, 1901) 13. 105 “utan något som ligger utanför skriften sjelf, nemligen de traditionella meningarna om vissa böckers författare och om tiden för författandet.” Ibid., 15. [ Page ] 165 Word of God. Therefore, what is needed is “sensible critical scholarship” which does not deny the divine revelation in Scripture.106 Ekman’s evaluation of the historical-critical method was both fairly positive as well as cautious. His response to the method was partly motivated by his pastoral concern and sensitivity to people’s anxieties and fears.107 He neither overrated or underrated its value.108 But he could not tolerate daring or radical forms of criticism which denied divine revelation. Rather, Ekman believed in taking a cautious and balanced approach which recognized the positive aspects of the method but also saw its limitations. He advocated a ‘sensible’ form of criticism. J. A. Ekman did not become a great and original Old Testament scholar. Certain circumstances in his life affected his career and as a result his contribution to Old Testament studies in Sweden was minimal. This was partly due to his physical struggles with poor health and partly due to the change of direction in his life. First, his teaching position at the university changed, which moved him away from Old Testament studies, and then the calling into the service of the Church sealed his fate. He became a humble and caring shepherd in a critical time for the Church of Sweden.109 Perhaps Ekman’s most important contribution to Old Testament scholarship was his thesis of 1877, because it marked the beginning of the debate and controversy over historical criticism which finally came to a head in Sweden around the turn of the century. In this light, Ekman’s work was significant. ______________________________ 106 “sansad kritisk forskning.” Ibid., 13. 107 When Stave once came to Ekman in order to discuss the historical-critical method, Ekman had told him that one must be careful not to destroy people’s faith with it. Linder. “Domprosten.” 243. 108 Lindroth, “Ekman,” 10. 109 Aulén, “Ärkebiskop,” 25. [ Page ] 166 F. A. Johansson: Education and Academic Experience Frans August Johansson also did not spend many years teaching biblical exegesis at Uppsala University; he was extraordinary professor in exegesis there for only two and half years (1895-97). Instead he returned to Lund University where he became ordinary professor in exegetical theology and from then on focused exclusively on the New Testament. Thus, Johansson’s career as an Old Testament scholar was very short-lived.110 However, his short time in Uppsala was not without significance and should be considered in the history of Old Testament scholarship at Uppsala University. During his time at Uppsala, Johansson made a contribution to the debate over the historical-critical method. F. A. Johansson was born in Elmeboda, in the county of Kronoberg in Småland on the 10th of June, 1850.111 He grew up in a poor home and consequently struggled financially for many years. The lack of proper food and nourishment in his youth contributed to his poor health which plagued him throughout his life and affected his scholarly work. Johansson did not publish extensively during his academic career.112 _________________________________ 110 While he was in Uppsala, Johansson taught three courses on the Old Testament: OT Isagogics, the History of Israel and selected Psalms. Before he came to Uppsala, he taught two courses on the Old Testament at Lund University: OT Isagogics and the History of Israel (LUÅ 1891-92; UUK 1895-97). 111 See the following writings about Johansson’s life and career: J. Personne, “Johansson, Frans August,” NF 13 (1910) 57; Carl af Petersens and Anders Malm, “Johansson, Frans August,” in Lund Universitets Matrikel (Lund: CWK Gleerup Förlag, 1899) 64-66; H. Danell, “Frans August Johansson,” KT 16 (1910) 357-60; H. E. Hallberg, De bortgångnes minne (Föredrag vid Prästmötet i Lund 1912; Lund: Håkan Ohlssons Boktryckeri, 1912) 20-24; Hagbard Isberg, Ännu en gång skulle jag vilja . . . Minnen från mina studentår i Lund vid sekelskiftet (Malmö: Gleerups, 1957) 194-97; G. Billing, Gottfrid Billings Levnadsminnen - Biskopstiden i Lund (edited by Hilding Pleijel; Samlingar och studier till svenska kyrkans historia 41; Lund: Håkan Ohlssons Förlag, 1975). There are also some letters by Johansson which remain and are kept in the archives of Uppsala University Library and Lund University Library. 112 When Johansson was a student in Lund, Billing had expected that Johansson would have a promising career as a scholar, but unfortunately his scholarly contribution was less than one had hoped. Billing attributed this partly to Johansson’s health problems [ Page ] 167 Johansson enrolled as a student at Lund University in September 1875 and completed the Theological-Philosophical examination in 1877 and the Candidate in Theology examination in 1885. He received a Doctorate in Theology from Uppsala University in 1893. He applied for the position of docent in exegetical theology113 in the Faculty of Theology in Lund in May 1886 by defending a thesis entitled “The Teaching of Holy Scripture on the Human Being’s Righteousness before God” and was successful.114 In the same month, he was ordained priest in the Lutheran Church. He remained docent in exegetical theology at Lund University until 1892,115 when he decided to apply for the extraordinary professorial chair in dogmatics and moral theology in Uppsala and was successful in gaining the chair.116 With this ___________________________________________________________________________________ which were caused by having almost starved as a child; his poor health affected his work. Billing, Levnadsminnen, 95-96. 113 At Lund University, biblical exegesis was called exegetical theology rather than simply exegesis. 114 Frans August Johansson, Den heliga skrifts lära om menniskans rättfärdighet inför Gud (Lund: Malmström & Komp:s Boktryckeri, 1886). Johansson had thought that he was not going to pass the defence, especially since Olbers, the professor of church history and symbolics in Lund, did not like him. Johansson told his friend Helgesson that the main reason why he was pursuing this career was because Bishop Billing had encouraged him to do so. 7 Jan 1886 Letter to R. Helgesson from Johansson, RHS LUB. 115 During his tenure as docent, he held several temporary appointments while certain staff were on leave: extraordinary professor in moral theology and symbolics (1888), extraordinary professor in exegetical theology (1888, 1891), professor in oriental languages (1892). In a letter to Liedholm, Johansson expressed that he felt that he was rather an “insignificant appendage to the Faculty of Theology in Lund. More than once I have felt the longing after a place within the Church where I can achieve something.” He also stated that his future prospects in Lund were very low and consequently he would seek a position in Uppsala. (“betydelselöst bihang till teol. fak. i Lund. Mer än en gång känner jag en längtan efter någon plats i kyrkan, der jag kunde uträtta någonting.” 7 Jan 1889 Letter to J. F. Liedholm from Johansson, JFLS LUB.) 116 Johansson had already applied for the ordinary professorship in the same subject in 1890 in Uppsala and had come in third place after J. E. Berggren and C. E. Johansson; Berggren got the professorship at the time. Then Johansson tried for the extraordinary chair in moral theology and symbolics at Lund University and again came in second place. When Johansson applied for the extraordinary chair at Uppsala University in 1892, the other candidate O. Ahnlund withdrew his application so Johansson was the only candidate for the position and got it. 3 Sept 1890 § 4 Teol Fak Prot 1888-93 AI:16 UUB; 28 March 1892 § 1 Teol Fak Prot 1888-93 AI:16 UUB. [ Page ] 168 appointment he was assigned the parishes of Hagby and Ramsta. Thus, Johansson left Lund in 1892 and began his new but brief career at Uppsala University. Almost immediately after he got to Uppsala, Johansson decided that he would seek the extraordinary professorship in exegesis since Rudin had just vacated the chair. In a letter, he revealed to Liedholm that the reason for pursuing this chair was that his ultimate goal was to become qualified in order to take C. W. Skarstedt’s place as ordinary professor in exegesis in Lund one day. Already at this time, Johansson was not planning a long term career in Uppsala but had his sights set on returning to Lund University as soon as he could.117 In order to compete for the extraordinary chair in exegesis, Johansson decided to write a commentary on the book of Daniel in which he adopted the modern critical view of dating the book.118 He competed against Adolf Kolmodin and in the end was successful; he was appointed to the chair in 1895.119 With this appointment he became parish priest of Uppsala-Näs. To his surprise, Johansson was considered for the position of bishop of Växjö in 1894 but came in second place in the election.120 During this time he was also one of the editors of two periodicals Kirkelig Literaturtidende for de Skandinaviske lande (1890-94) and Kyrklig Tidskrift (1895-97).121 _____________________________ 117 20 March 1893 Letter to J. F. Liedholm from Johansson, JFLS LUB. 118 F. A. Johansson, Profeten Daniel (Upsala: Akademiska boktryckeriet Edv. Berling, 1893). 119 26 Feb 1895 § 1 Teol Fak Prot 1894-98 AI:17 UUB. Handlingar rörande e. o. professuren i exegetik vid Upsala universitet år 1895. Erik Stave also applied for the position, but withdrew his application in the end. See the chapter on Stave for the details around the ‘Scandal’ which was created during the competition for the chair. 120 Johansson was surprised and pleased to be honoured with second place in the election. 10 Sept 1894 Letter to J. F. Liedholm from Johansson, JFLS LUB. 121 Danell describes the meeting of the Uppsala Faculty members when they decided to start publishing the new periodical Kyrklig Tidskrift. Johansson was one of its founding members. When he returned to Lund in 1897, Johansson gave up his [ Page ] 169 However, Johansson was not very happy in Uppsala. He never did feel quite at home there.122 Since he was educated in Lund rather than in Uppsala, he felt somewhat like an outsider there.123 Johansson had been influenced by high Church Lutheranism which dominated in Lund, and therefore thought Uppsala was too low Church in orientation. He felt that they needed more of an “ecclesiastical spirit” in Uppsala.124 The differences in liturgical and theological traditions emphasized his feelings of being an ‘outsider’ even more. Johansson also clashed with professor Myrberg, who attacked Johansson for his views on Justification and did not make it very pleasant for him in Uppsala.125 Some of the Faculty members also saw him as a ‘reactionary theologian’ after he wrote his commentary on Daniel.126 Finally, his letters reveal that Johansson really missed Lund and his friends there.127 As a result, it is not surprising that Johansson did not stay long in Uppsala but soon ___________________________________________________________________________________________ position as one of the editors but he published several articles in the periodical. Danell, “Johansson,” 357-60. 122 12 Nov 1892 Letter to F. A. Wulff from Johansson, FAWS LUB. 123 Uppsala University tended to choose their own graduates from Uppsala rather than from Lund when they hired people. Since Johansson was from Lund, he was not ‘one of them.’ Johansson regretted that there was not more cooperation between the two universities. “Lund and Uppsala are very different from each other. But maybe for this reason they compliment each other. It is a pity that there is so little contact between them.” (“Lund och Upsala äro i mycket hvarandra olika. Men just derför kanske komplettera de hvarandra. Det är skada, att förbindelsen mellan dem skall vara så liten.” 12 Nov 1892 Letter to F. A. Wulff from Johansson, FAWS LUB.) 124 “kyrklig anda.” 3 May 1897 Letter to E. J. Keijser from Johansson, EJKS G 130g:5 UUB. Johansson was a staunch Lutheran and very committed to the Church of Sweden and therefore he could not appreciate the Free Church movement either. 8 Oct 1893, 2 Feb 1894, 13 March 1895 Letters to J. F. Liedholm from Johansson, JFLS LUB. 125 Johansson wrote to Gottfrid Billing about Myrberg’s personal and public attack upon him: “I have been completely stripped of all honour and respect.” (“Jag afklädes fullständigt all heder och ära.” 23 Oct 1895 Letter to G. Billing from Johansson, GBS LUB.) 126 In writing about his work on Daniel, he wrote his friend: “Here in Uppsala I am regarded by many as a reactionary theologian.” (“Här i Upsala anses jag af många som reaktionär teolog.” 2 Nov 1893 Letter to J. F. Liedholm from Johansson, JFLS LUB.) 127 5 Oct 1892 Letter to R. Helgesson from Johansson, RHS LUB; 20 March 1893 Letter to J. F. Liedholm from Johansson, JFLS LUB. [ Page ] 170 returned to Lund. In fact, he wrote to Per Eklund in Lund, asking him to suggest his name for the ordinary professorial chair in exegetical theology in Lund.128 Eklund did help him out and the end result was that Johansson was called, without formal application, to become ordinary professor in exegetical theology at Lund University in February 1897.129 He took up his post in January 1898, and from then on he only taught New Testament exegesis. Johansson remained in this professorial chair until his death on the 12th of July, 1910.130 Biblical Criticism or Biblical Research As a biblical scholar, Johansson did not publish very much on the Old Testament. Besides his commentary on Daniel and a work on the canonical value of the Old Testament,131 his main contribution to Old _______________________________ 128 “It would be exceedingly precious for me to be able to return to Lund. After all, I have my life’s roots there.” (“Det skulle vara mig synnerligen kärt att få återkomma till Lund. Där har jag ändå mitt lifs rötter.” 28 Jan 1897 Letter to P. G. Eklund from Johansson, PGES LUB.) “In Lund I still feel the most at home.” (“I Lund känner jag mig ändå mest hemma.” 26 Feb 1897 Letter to J. F. Liedholm from Johansson, JFLS LUB.) 129 Johansson received the call on the 7th of February, 1897 according to a letter Johansson wrote to a friend in order to tell the good news. (7 Feb 1897 Letter to O. Holmström from Johansson, OHS LUB.) Ironically, Johansson missed Uppsala and his friends there a lot after he had moved to Lund, which is revealed in his correspondence with Herman Lundström. 28 Feb 1898 Letter to H. Lundström from Johansson, HLS K 44r UUB. 130 The following is a list of the courses which Johansson taught during his academic career: Lund University: Dogmatics (1886, 87, 88); Homiletics (1886, 87, 88, 89); Isagogics (1888, 90, 92); Hebrew (1889, 90); Church History (1890); OT Isagogics (1891); The History of Israel (1892); Uppsala University: Ethics (1892, 93, 94); Dogmatics (1893); The Ethical Foundations of the Lutheran Confession (1894); The History of Moral Theology (1895); OT Isagogics (1895, 96); The Gospel of John (1895, 96); The History of Israel (1896, 97); Ephesians, Colossians and I Timothy (1897); Selected Psalms (1897); Hebrews (1897); Lund University: Pauline Letters (1898); NT Isagogics (1898, 99, 1900); Romans (1898); Luke (1899); I Peter (1899); The Essential Features of the Teaching of the Pauline Letters (1900, 01); Galatians (1900) The Epistles of Peter (1900); Ephesians (1900); Colossians (1900); The Gospel of John (1901, 02); Hebrews (1901); John’s Apocalypse (1902, 03); NT Interpretation of the Apostolic Fathers and Justinius (1902); Selected NT Texts (1902, 03); I Corinthians (1903); The Most Important Isagogical Questions (1903, 04); Acts of the Apostles (1904). LUÅ (1886-92, 1898-1904); UUK (1892-97). 131 F. A. Johansson, “Under hvilken grundförutsättning kan en gammaltestamentlig skrift anses ega kanoniskt värde?” LUA 24(1887-88) 1-44. [ Page ] 171 Testament scholarship came through the publication of a series of articles which focused on the question of the value of the historical- critical method in Old Testament interpretation. In this way, Johansson played an important role in the debate over the historical-critical approach in Sweden. Johansson first dealt with the modern critical method in 1887-88 in his work on the canonical value of certain Old Testament texts. In this publication, he mentioned the work of Wellhausen, Kuenen and Stade as representing the new critical approach.132 Although he could not agree with some of their theories and results, Johansson did not want to reject the historical-critical method completely. He asserted that we must not consider the new critical approach as “thoroughly irreligious and destructive.”133 In this context, he listed Bleek, Dillmann and Delitzsch as having demonstrated the positive aspects of the method. Its great value lay in showing the human side of Scripture, that it has a real human history.134 He argued that the modern critical approach had demonstrated that “these texts are not the Lord Sabaoth’s temple, floating in the air high above this earth, but rather they are the Lord’s holy habitation in the midst of humanity and mediate his presence in the most concrete and detailed circumstances of their lives.”135 The Bible has come down to earth, so to speak, and become very real and human as a result of this approach.136 ______________________________ 132 Ibid., 1. 133 “alltigenom oreligiös och destructiv.” Ibid., 2. 134 Ibid., 3. 135 “dessa skrifter ej äro ett Herrens Zebaots tempel, som sväfvar i luftregionerna högt öfver denna jord, utan att de äro en Herrens heliga boning midt bland menniskors barn och förmedla hans närvaro i deras lifs mest konkreta och detaljerade förhållanden.” (Ibid.. 4.) Johansson liked this metaphor a lot and used it again in later writings. 136 Following this introduction, Johansson focused mainly on Jesus’ and the gospels’ view of the Old Testament in the remaining part of the essay. [ Page ] 172 In the following year, Johansson wrote a book on inspiration, where he again emphasized the historical and human character of the Bible, which meant that it would contain faults and imperfections.137 Johansson argued against the view of Scripture as something completely faultless, and he also rejected the old mechanical view of divine inspiration. Scripture is not “a mystical phenomenon which floats entirely over people’s whole lives . . .”138 Rather, it has been created organically through the lives of human personalities. Divine revelation is revealed in human history, according to human development.139 Thus, Johansson’s view of inspiration could accommodate the modern historical inquiry of the biblical text. As a result, when Johansson wrote his commentary on the book of Daniel in 1893, he had no difficulty in adopting the historical-critical view of dating the book to the Maccabean period. However, Johansson did believe that a real prophet named Daniel had lived during the exile and that the first half of the book is based upon the traditions about this exilic prophet. The author had reworked older material about Daniel, making it relevant for his second century context.140 The author spoke in the name of this great prophet perhaps because he believed himself to be “walking in his footsteps and inspired by his spirit, so that he was reproducing Daniel-like thoughts.141״ Although, Johansson adopted a __________________________ 137 F. A. Johansson, Om inspirationen (Lund: Gleerupska Universitetsbokhandeln [Hjalmar Möller], 1889) 1-4. 138 “en mystisk företeelse, som fullkomligt sväfvar öfver detta folks hela lif .. .” Ibid., 4. 139 Ibid., 4, 41, 161-2, 177. 140 Johansson, Profeten Daniel, 112-120, 124-25. 141 “gå i hans fotspår och besjälas af hans ande, att det var danielska tankar, som han reproducerade.” Ibid., 124; emphasis by Johansson. [ Page ] 173 modern critical conclusion of the date of the book, he was conservative enough to retain an historical Daniel in his perspective on the book.142 Johansson continued to present the historical-critical method in a fairly positive light in a number of articles published in the late 1890s. He emphasized that there was no need to fear “a true and unbiased scholarly investigation of the Old Testament Scriptures.”143 This type of scholarship is proper and necessary, and we can gain much from it, since the biblical text is an historical human text, tracing the development of a people. The fact that Moses did not write the Pentateuch does not destroy the veracity of the Old Testament.144 It remains divine revelation; its truth and significance are not destroyed by such an historical study.145 However, Johansson could not accept or tolerate radical or ‘rationalistic’ critical scholarship.146 In a series of articles on the topic _______________________________ 142 In a letter to Liedholm, Johansson described his work on Daniel; he wondered why the Maccabean period could not have a prophet of God who brought words of comfort to his own generation? He concluded that it did! 2 Nov 1893 Letter to J. F. Liedholm from Johansson, JFLS LUB. 143 “en sann och opartisk vetenskaplig undersökning af de gammaltestamentliga skrifterna.” F. A. Johansson, “Det gamla testamentets förblifvande betydelse,” in Förhandlingar vid den sjette Allmänna Svensk-Lutherska Prästkonferensen i Stockholm den 1-3 sept. 1896 (Stockholm: Tidningsaktiebolaget Vårt Lands Tryckeri, 1896) 23. 144 Ibid., 24. Although Johansson did not believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, he still believed that Moses had existed; he was not a myth. The Mosaic period was too important in the history of Israel for it to be simply a ‘saga.’ F. A. Johansson, “Mose,” TKTB 12 (1894) 13-18. 145 Johansson. “Det gamla testamentets förblifvande betydelse.” 16-17. 23-25. 146 Johansson was fairly critical of Fries’ History of Israel, believing that Fries was too skeptical and uncertain about certain aspects of Israel’s history. He had made too many concessions to the more radical forms of biblical criticism. (F. A. Johansson, Review of Israels historia, by S. A. Fries, KT 1 [1895] 182-89.) In a letter to Liedholm, Johansson expressed sympathy for those students who would have to read Fries’ book under professor Almkvist. He described Fries as a ‘rationalist’ who had been destroyed by rationalism. (17 Nov 1894 Letter to J. F. Liedholm from Johansson, JFLS LUB.) Samuel Fries, in turn, did not think much of Johansson’s scholarship and thought that he was very intolerant. Fries did not like him. 11 Dec 1892 Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:25 UUB; 5 Sept 1894, 3 May 1896 Letters to N. Söderblom from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:23 UUB. [ Page ] 174 “Concerning the Texts of the Old Testament”147 Johansson emphasized the differences between his own position and that of modern historical critics. Even though he generally was in favour of the historical-critical method, here Johansson seemed to want to distance himself from the critics; he did not want to be classified as a modern critic. Thus, he listed three main differences between them. First, he believed in a real divine revelation in the Old Testament whereas some critics did not. Second, he believed that a lot of things in the Bible are true whereas the critics would explain them as poetry or myths. Third, for the most part, the critics considered the ritual laws to have originated during the exilic and post-exilic periods whereas Johansson believed that these laws essentially had a Mosaic origin.148 He also did not like the way the critics treated the books of Chronicles, depreciating their worth by emphasizing too much the contradictions and exaggerations between them and the books of Kings. In spite of these problems, there is more truth in the book of Chronicles than the critics believe.149 The believing scholar who approaches the text with faith will “have a holy sense of the difference between truth and falsehood.”150 Scholarship which is committed to biblical revelation will not destroy the ‘holy foundation’ of Scripture.151 However, on the whole, Johansson was not against the historical- critical method. He simply rejected the more extreme manifestations of ___________________________ 147 F. A. Johansson, “Om de gammaltestamentliga skrifterna,” KT 3 (1897) 450-60; idem, “Om Gamla Testamentets skrifter,” KT 5 (1899) 297-304, 367-75; KT 6 (1900) 161-70, 240-54. 148 Johansson, “Om de gammaltestamentliga skrifterna,” (1897) 458-59. This, of course, begs the question of what is meant by ‘true.’ In this context, Johansson refers to the history of the patriarchs, Moses, etc, as being ‘true’ in the sense that these events actually occurred in history as they are described in the Bible. 149 Johansson, “Om Gamla Testamentets skrifter,” (1900) 249. 150 “har en helig känsla för skillnaden mellan sant och osant.” Ibid., 253. 151 Ibid. [ Page ] 175 it. He asserted that people’s fear of its dangers, leading some to reject it completely, had come about because they had failed to distinguish between two different issues: Scripture’s origin and the concept of revelation.152 The historical critic is concerned with the origin of biblical texts and not with divine revelation; these are separate issues. One can be an historical critic and still believe in divine revelation. The crucial issue is “whether one believes in revelation or whether one is a rationalist.153״ It is this latter type of scholar who can cause great harm. They handle the biblical texts “unwisely and profanely;” they “lay unholy hands upon the Scriptures.”154 But there are scholars who use this method in a positive way which can build up one’s faith and shed important light upon one’s understanding of the Scriptures.155 "This type of critical scholarship must be allowed and given its rightful place. Johansson believed that part of the problem and confusion is caused by the unfortunate choice of terminology used to describe modern critical methodology, by calling it ‘biblical criticism.’ This term causes fear and misunderstanding, because it can conjure up ideas that biblical critics are “criticizing away the Bible.”156 Johansson’s proposed solution to the problem is to stop referring to this approach as “biblical criticism” and instead call it “biblical research.”157 In this way, the ______________________________ 152 F. A. Johansson, “Bibeln är Guds ord till uppbyggelse och frälsning,” KT 8 (1902) 33. 153 “om man tror på uppenbarelse eller om man är rationalist.” Ibid.׳, emphasis by Johansson. In a review article of Fries’ book on Fredrik Fehr, Johansson criticized Fries for forgetting that “there is a difference between biblical criticism and biblical criticism.” There is a biblical criticism which destroys the concept of revelation and there is a biblical criticism which preserves it. (“det är skillnad på bibelkritik och bibelkritik.” F. A. Johansson, Review of Fredrik Fehr, by S. A. Fries, KT 2 (1896) 285.) 154 “ovist och profant,” “lägga oheliga händer på skriften.” F. A. Johansson, “Bibel och bibelforskning,” KT 7 (1901) 337. 155 Ibid., 378, 382-85. 156 “kritisera bort bibeln.” Ibid., 378. 157 “bibelkritik,” “bibelforskning.” Ibid. [ Page ] 176 stigma and fear of ‘criticism’ is removed. “Biblical research is permissible, it is fruitful, it is necessary . . .”158 From then on, Johansson adopted this new term in his discussions of the method.159 This was his way of promoting the method by helping to overcome the misunderstanding and fear of it. Johansson’s response to the emergence of the historical-critical method in Old Testament interpretation was quite positive. In principle, he accepted the approach and adopted it in his interpretation of the book of Daniel. At the same time, he also distanced himself from the approach and did not want to be classified as a ‘modern critic.’ This reaction was probably prompted by his dislike of radical, ‘rationalistic’ forms of biblical criticism. This is why in the end he advocated a change in terminology and began referring to the critical approach as ‘biblical research.’ In this way, Johansson played an important role in promoting a moderate form of biblical criticism in Sweden. Conclusion Both Ekman and Johansson were open to the historical-critical method and made some concessions to it. They accepted the moderate form of biblical criticism (as represented by Dillmann, Delitzsch, etc). However, they could accept and adopt the approach only up to a certain point. They were able to accept that there were historical mistakes and imperfections in the Bible and that it was a human document, but they still wanted to retain the reliability of the general outline of the history of the Old Testament because they regarded the history as an account of ________________________________ 158 “Bibelforskning är tillåten, den är fruktbärande, den är nödvändig ..." Ibid. 159 See also: Johansson, “Bibeln är Guds ord till uppbyggelse och frälsning,” 33. In his review of Johansson’s article, Heüman appreciated the distinction made, but simply changing the name did not change the actual substance of what this method really entailed. He wished that there was less biblical criticism and more biblical research in the universities. E. D. Heüman, “I Bibelkritiksfrågan,” KS 6 (1901) 352-53. [ Page ] 177 God’s progressive self-revelation, or, as an account of the development of the kingdom of God in Israel. To accept a radical reconstruction of Israel’s history, as represented by Wellhausen, would undermine their particular view of how the Old Testament was God’s revelation. This is where the radical critics posed a danger. Ekman and Johansson believed that these ‘rationalistic’ critics were denying the divine revelation in Scripture. Instead, Ekman and Johansson advocated a moderate, ‘sensible’ form of historical criticism that allowed for a divine revelation. J. A. Ekman and F. A. Johansson did not become great Old Testament scholars in Sweden. Their time as teachers of the Old Testament in Uppsala was relatively short and towards the latter part of their careers, their focus changed. Both became ordinary professors in another subject and then Ekman became bishop and Archbishop. This change in circumstances was a factor which affected their contribution to Old Testament scholarship. However, both Ekman and Johansson played an important role in the process of evaluation and change in methodology towards the end of the nineteenth century. In this way, their contribution to Old Testament interpretation in Sweden is significant. [ Page ] 178 Chapter Five Erik Stave When Erik Eriksson Stave was appointed the ordinary professor in exegesis in 1900 at Uppsala University, this event signified the near end of the forces of resistance against the adoption and the legitimization of the historical-critical method in Old Testament exegesis in Sweden; within a few years the modern critical approach would dominate the Faculty of Theology in Uppsala and be victorious. Erik Stave played a very significant role in this process, not only through his advocation of the methodology and its application to Old Testament scholarship within the university context but also through his attempts to popularize it to a wider audience. Stave tried to accomplish this goal by writing and publishing student handbooks for high school education and by making public speeches and preaching sermons which promoted the newer critical approach. Consequently, the work and contribution of Erik Stave to Old Testament studies is important in understanding and interpreting the development and direction of Swedish Old Testament scholarship at the turn of the twentieth century.1 Education and Academic Experience Erik Stave2 was born on June 10, 1857 in Gustafs, Dalarna. From his early childhood, he was very interested in religion and wanted to _________________________ 1 Elisabeth Strömberg, “Stave, Erik Erikson,” SU 27 (1958) 341-42; Linder, “Domprosten,” 224-69; Ringgren, “Old Testament Exegesis,” 41; Hidal, Bibeltro, 136-48; Johannes Lindblom, “Erik Stave: hans plats inom svensk teologi,” STK 8 (1932) 253-61; T. Fries and E. von Döbeln, “Stave, Erik Erikson,” UUM (1916) 219- 22. 2 Stave was bom with the name Erik Eriksson but changed his surname to Stave in 1884 when he began to study theology. He took his name from his home parish Gustafs in [ Page ] 179 become a priest. When he moved to Linköping in 1872 in order to work at a lumberyard for his brother-in-law Gustaf Nordfors, he came under the influence of the Waldenströmian revival and a low church orientation through the priest Charadotes Meurling.3 Between the autumn of 1875 and spring of 1880, Stave studied at Fjellstedska school in Uppsala (then under the direction of Johannes Kerstedt) in order acquire the schooling necessary to get into university.4 Immediately after his graduation in May 1880, Stave enrolled at Uppsala University and began studying classical languages, concentrating especially on Greek; he completed his Bachelor of Arts degree5 in 1884. During these years, he encountered newer philosophies and humanistic ideologies with the breakthrough of naturalism. Stave did not find these encounters altogether easy as revealed in a letter to a friend. The study of philosophy caused him to struggle with understanding his faith.6 Later he would have a greater crisis of faith when he encountered historical criticism. In 1884, Stave began his theological studies. At first, he focused mainly on dogmatics but when he wrote a paper on Jeremiah for his __________________________________________________________________________________ Dalarna. The name Gustafs probably originally meant “Guds stav” (God’s staff or rod); thus Stave’s name meant staff or rod. Linder, “Domprosten,” 224, 235. 3 Ibid., 225-27. The Waldenströmian movement did not break from the Church of Sweden until 1877-78 when it founded the Swedish Mission Covenant Church (“Svenska Missionsförbundet”). 4 Stave’s association with the Fjellstedtska school continued throughout his life. He continued to live there after graduation and later became its inspektor. In gratitude to Johannes Kerstedt’s leadership and support, Stave wrote a biography of Kerstedt’s life. E. N. Söderberg, “Erik Stave,” SK 28/18 (4/5 1932) 229-31; Linder, “Domprosten,” 226-28, 232-33. 5 “filosofie kandidat.” 6 30 July 1885 Letter to G. Ekström from Stave, GES UUB. In this letter, Stave was very depressed and expressed self-doubt and questions about life and faith. He wished that he could “simply and childishly believe in the word of God without pondering on other things . . .” (“tro enkelt och barnsligt på Guds ord utan att grubbla på något annat . . .”) Stave did have some difficulties with these newer ideas, contrary to Linder’s belief that Stave did not seem to have any struggles in those early years (Linder, “Domprosten,” 228-29, 232-34). [ Page ] 180 examination in exegesis for professor Myrberg, he then turned his efforts to biblical exegesis.7 Although he did study the New Testament, his main interest and particular focus throughout his academic career was the Old Testament Scriptures. It is in this area that he made his major contribution. As a student of Myrberg, naturally Stave was influenced by his approach to Old Testament exegesis; among Stave’s friends he became known as a “faithful Myrbergian.”8 Stave read von Hofmann, Keil and Delitzsch for Myrberg and recommended these writings to his friend Gunnar Ekström.9 In 1889, Stave wrote a thesis for his Candidate in Theology examination entitled About the apostle Paul’s relationship to Jesus’ historical life and teaching.10 This thesis demonstrated Stave’s growing interest in historical questions. He was successful in defending the thesis in December 1889 and immediately afterwards was called as docent in exegesis by Myrberg. He remained a docent at Uppsala University for the next ten years. In 1890, Stave was ordained priest with the Lutheran Church of Sweden and first served at the Helga Trefaldighet parish church in Uppsala. Later he became parish priest of both Vaksala parish and the Uppsala Cathedral. When he became First Theology Professor in 1917 __________________________ 7 Linder, “Domprosten,” 237. This work was later published in Bibelforskaren. “Profeten Jeremias’ lif och verksamhet,” BF 5 (1888) 94-133. 8 "trogen myrbergare.” Linder. “Domprosten.” 237. 9 Stave told Ekström that it was important to read von Hofmann, Keil and Delitzsch in order to gain Myrberg’s favour and merit. Stave also recommended the works of Beck, Wörner, Godet, Zöckler, Neander, Meyer and B. Weiss to his friend. 9 Dec 1889 Letter to G. Ekström from Stave. GES UUB. 10 Erik Stave, Om aposteln Pauli förhållande till Jesu historiska lif och lära (Stockholm: Ivar Haeggströms Boktryckeri, 1889). It was also printed in BF 7 (1890) 1-107. Against the position of the Tubingen school, Stave argued that Paul had a great interest in and knowledge of the historical life and teachings of Jesus. Ibid., 1-5, 105-07. [ Page ] 181 he also became the dean of the Uppsala Cathedral, a position he retained until his retirement in 1922.11 In 1890-91, Stave went on a trip which would have crucial importance and enduring implications for Stave’s approach to Old Testament studies. First, he travelled to Germany and studied Semitic languages with Hermann Strack in Berlin and Frants Buhl in Leipzig.12 Then in the spring Stave travelled to the Orient and spent three months in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor and Greece.13 Afterwards, Stave returned to Leipzig and studied Old Testament exegesis for two months with Buhl and Guthe and New Testament with Caspar Gregory. After this study trip, Stave returned to Uppsala in August 1891.14 Stave’s trip to Palestine was a dream fulfilled; his teacher, professor Myrberg had been there and now Stave was also able to visit that land. The trip to Palestine was important because it helped Stave put his biblical research within a real historical context; the reality of the land of the Israelite people and its history made a significant impression on him.15 As a result, Stave published several works on the subject, including a book called Through Palestine which described his experiences and the reality of life in the Holy Land.16 In the introduction of this big work consisting of over 560 pages, Stave ___________________________ 11 Linder, “Domprosten,” 240; Jonatan Julén, “Stave, Erik,” SMK 7 (1954) 182. 12 In a letter to Myrberg, Stave stated that in Berlin he had also heard lectures by Dillmann, Weiss, Kaftan and Harnack. 16 Jan 1891 Letter to O. F. Myrberg from Stave, OFMS okat. 441g: 1 UUB. 13 Stave left Vienna to begin this trip to the Orient on 25 February, 1891 and returned to Leipzig at the end of May. 14 Linder, “Domprosten,” 240-42; Hidal, Bibeltro, 136-37. 15 For Stave, the significance of having personally visited Palestine cannot be overestimated. This factor influenced Stave’s adoption of historical criticism; his approach to the biblical text was grounded in an awareness of the actual historical context and reality of life in Palestine. 16 E. Stave, Genom Palestina. Minnen från en resa våren 1891 (Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner, 1893); idem, Sjön Gennesaret och dess närmaste omgifningar. Ett bidrag till det heliga landets geografi och topografi (Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner, 1892); idem, Bilder från folkets lif i Palestina (Stockholm: Ljus’ Förlag, 1901). [ Page ] 182 explained that the purpose of this publication was not only to share his experiences from the trip but also to make known the recent results of research into the geography and topography of the land, which he believed to be of great significance in correctly understanding and interpreting many events in biblical history. It was also his intention to describe the various old customs of the people living there which would also help illuminate understanding of the origins of religious traditions.17 This interest in the geography, history and customs of the Holy Land in the present day had an influence upon how Stave approached biblical exegesis; it was important to have this knowledge for proper interpretation. Thus, this trip was very significant in shaping his approach to biblical research. When bishop von Schéele founded the Swedish Jerusalem Association in 1900, it is not surprising that Stave was one of its founding members and its first secretary.18 This interest in the Holy Land remained with him for the rest of his life. The time Stave spent in Germany before and after his travels to Palestine was even more important for Stave’s scholarly development. The significance of it cannot be overestimated; it was a life changing experience for Stave which influenced his outlook and his approach to Old Testament exegesis for the rest of his career. It was during this study trip that Stave became convinced of the validity and importance of ____________________________ 17 Stave, Palestina, iii. 18 “Svenska Jerusalemföreningen.” Linder, “Domprosten,” 241; Hidal, Bibeltro, 137. At the end of the nineteenth century and in the beginning of the twentieth century, there was a growing interest in the Holy Land among Swedish theologians. It is possible to describe it as a ‘Palestine fever.’ For example, O. F. Myrberg travelled there in 1885- 86, Stave in 1891, Bishop von Schéele in 1898 and Jonas Walles in 1904. K. H. Gez. von Schéele was asked to represent Sweden at the dedication of the German evangelical church in Jerusalem by Kaiser Wilhelm II. In 1900, the Swedish Jerusalem Association was founded. Sten Hidal, K. H. Gez. von Schéele: prelat, pilgrim, politiker (Visby: Barry Press Förlag, 1977) 95-101; Tjugofem år i Palestina: Svenska Jerusalemföreningens Minneskrift (Stockholm: Centraltryckeriet, 1925); Robert Murray, Till Jorsala. Svenska färder under tusen år (Stockholm: Verbum, 1969); idem, Resor till heliga mål: Svenskar i Rom och Jerusalem (Stockholm: Verbum, 1974). [ Page ] 183 the historical-critical method in biblical exegesis. Stave came to this conviction especially through studying with the Danish scholar Frants Buhl, who became Stave’s mentor and lifelong friend. Buhl was able to reconcile Christian faith with biblical criticism; he did not see them as necessarily opposed to each other or completely irreconcilable.19 This convinced Stave of the positive aspects and the necessity of the new historical-critical approach to Old Testament exegesis and consequently he tried to implement it in his studies of the Old Testament material on his return to Uppsala University. In the summers of 1897 and 1898, Stave made a second and third study trip to Germany. The primary purpose of the trips was to observe and gain a better knowledge of the more recent issues, perspectives and results within Old and New Testament exegetical scholarship and to study the teaching methods used in theological education in Germany.20 Each trip to Germany was an inspiration to Stave. He was able to get intimate knowledge of the theological situation there and learn from it. This was important for Stave’s own scholarship and theological development.21 ______________________________ 19 Hidal, Bibeltro, 137. Buhl’s influence upon Stave’s thought will be considered later. 20 Stave was successful in gaining a travel scholarship (“Riksstatens Större Utrikesresestipendium”) and from 24 May to 4 September, 1897 he travelled to Greifswald, Halle, Leipzig, Jena and Berlin, and from 6 June to 25 September, 1898 he visited Kiel, Göttingen, Bonn, Heidelberg, Marburg and Strasbourg. Before returning to Sweden, Stave also made a trip to Rome. Although Stave’s original intention had been to focus his study trip primarily on New Testament exegesis, his plans changed and he ended up observing more the trends in German exegetical scholarship in general. Stave published the results of his study trips in a report to the University Senate and in the periodicals Kyrklig Tidskrift and [Finsk] Theologisk Tidskrift. Erik Stave, Till Större Akademiska Konsistoriet, Upsala (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1899) 1-4; idem, “Ur reseberättelsen,” KT 4 (1898) 500-29; idem, “Ur reseberättelsen,” KT 5 (1899) 10-18; idem, “Den exegetiska vetenskapens närvarande ståndpunkt i Tyskland,” TT 4 (1899) 65-83, 150-63; Linder, “Domprosten,” 252. 21 In a letter to Ekström, Stave expressed his appreciation of being able to study the important and debated questions in Germany more closely by being there. 13 May 1897 (?) Letter to G. Ekström from Stave, GES UUB. [ Page ] 184 In 1892,22 Myrberg retired from his professorial chair and Rudin took his place as ordinary professor in exegesis. This left the post of extraordinary professor in exegesis vacant. Stave, F. A. Johansson and J. A. Kolmodin decided to apply for the position23 and in the process both Stave and Johansson submitted a work on the book of Daniel and Kolmodin a commentary on Micah.24 If one compares the two works on Daniel, both Stave and Johansson adopted the historical-critical method in their analysis of the book.25 They both referred to the more recent scholarship on the subject in their bibliographies, including Hitzig, Bleek, Delitzsch, Meinhold, König, Keil, Kamphausen, etc. However, Stave’s bibliography was much more thorough, also making reference to Driver, Bevan, Ewald, Zöckler, de Wette-Schrader, _____________________________ 22 In the same year 30 August 1892, Stave married Alma Kinnman (bom as Hallberg). She was a young wealthy widow with four children (formerly married to G. P. Kinnman). Together, Erik and Alma had one son named Erik F. Stave who also became a theologian. 23 At that time, Frans August Johansson was extraordinary professor in dogmatics and moral theology at Uppsala since 1892 and J. Adolf Kolmodin was docent in exegesis since 1890. Apparently M. Lundborg, docent in exegesis at Lund University, had also applied but had withdrawn his application (3 Feb 1894 § 7 Större och Mindre Akad Konsistoriets Prot 1894 AI:318 UUB). 24 In the process of choosing a suitable person for a professorial chair, all the publications of a candidate were considered and evaluated. However, it was common for the candidate to write something new in order to strengthen his possibilities of gaining a position. These candidates submitted the following: Johansson, Profeten Daniel; Erik Stave, Daniels bok öfversatt och i korthet förklarad (Upsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1894); A. Kolmodin, Profeten Mika (Stockholm: Ev. Fosterlandsstiftelsens Förlagsexpedition, 1894). Stave’s study of Daniel was longer and more detailed, covering 252 pages plus 30 pages of introduction, double in size in comparison to Johansson’s work of 132 pages. 25 In his introduction to the book, Stave defended and defined his understanding of the historical-critical method: “This investigation is critical because it is not satisfied with the opinions of older times concerning the age and significance of the different writings, and it is historical because it seeks a suitable background in the history of Israel for every text or a part of a text.” (“Kritisk är denna undersökning därför, att den icke nöjer sig med äldre tiders åsikter om de olika skrifternas tidsålder och betydelse, och historisk, därför att den för hvarje skrift eller skriftdel söker en passande bakgrund i Israels historia.” Stave, Daniels bok, iii.) In this context, Stave criticized those who described the modern critical approach as ‘the negative criticism’ and argued that no science can in the long run be only negative. Here, Stave probably had Myrberg in mind among others. [ Page ] 185 Kuenen, Buhl among others.26 Although they both argued for a Maccabean date for the book, they differed slightly in their views on the question of authorship. As we have already seen, Johansson believed that behind the book of Daniel a real exilic prophet existed, since there were so many stories circulating around concerning an exilic prophet named Daniel. He advocated that the author of the book of Daniel used the older traditions concerning the exilic prophet Daniel and reworked them into his work. This material served as the foundation to the first half of the book.27 In support of his view, he referred to the position of Strack and Meinhold that there are significant differences in content between the two halves of the book, the first part coming from a time earlier than the Maccabean period.28 Stave, however argued that the book was written in its entirety sometime after 168 and before 165 BCE. He dismissed any theory which wanted to divide the book into parts dating to different time periods, claiming the support of Delitzsch, Kuenen, König and Driver.29 Consequently, Stave denied that there ever existed a Daniel from the sixth century and argued that the work ______________________________ 26 Stave had 80 entries in his bibliography in comparison to Johansson’s 18 entries. Johansson was criticized for leaving out important works by the experts (“sakkunige”) who were appointed to judge the scholarship of the candidates. Even the more conservative professor Rudin commented upon the fact that the most recent English works of S. R. Driver and A. A. Bevan were missing. (Handlingar rörande e. o. professuren i exegetik vid Upsala universitet år 1895, 30.) These weaknesses in the work were most likely due to the time limit which was placed on Johansson. In a letter, he explained that he wrote the commentary on Daniel very quickly in order to make the deadline, but then Stave asked for an extension to the deadline in the end. But then Johansson had already finished it. If he had known of the extension in time, he would not have written it so hastily and would have done a better job on it. 24 Nov 1893 Letter to O. Holmström from Johansson, OHS LUB. 27 Johansson, Profeten Daniel, 119, 124-25. The slight difference between Stave’s and Johansson’s views on Daniel can be seen in how they entitled their work. Johansson still retained the more traditional title The Prophet Daniel whereas Stave called it The Book of Daniel. Stave argued that it was incorrect to refer to the book as the prophet Daniel because it was not written by a prophet. Therefore it was more accurate to speak of the book of Daniel. Stave, Daniels bok, xiv. 28 Johansson, Profeten Daniel, 116-19. 29 Stave, Daniels bok, 222-25. [ Page ] 186 was completely a pseudepigraphic writing.30 Stave claimed that the book lost its integrity and remained a mystery if one held to the traditional exilic dating of Daniel. And one has no right, solely because of an old tradition, whose origin is easily explained, to postulate a revelation, whose purpose no reasonable person can understand. If one does not want to give up the traditional view of the book of Daniel as originating during the exile, then it becomes necessary to deny its integrity.31 In the end however, Stave never competed for the vacant chair in exegesis. He withdrew his application in June 1894.32 Consequently, the competition was solely between Johansson and Kolmodin and Johansson got the position in the end.33 The reasons for Stave’s withdrawal are not entirely clear, but they seem to have something to do with personality conflicts within the Faculty which were partly created by Stave’s behaviour, disposition and health at the time. The fact that Stave wrote a commentary on the same biblical book as Johansson, which he secretly started writing after Johansson had completed his work, was considered unethical and was ______________________________ 30Stave did admit, however, that there must have been stories and traditions circling around during this period of time concerning a legendary exilic prophet named Daniel. Since the writer of the book of Daniel was not a prophet, he needed to write in a prophet’s name in order to be read and be given credibility. Consequently, he took advantage of these stories and used them for his purposes. Stave, Daniels bok, 226- 27. 31 “Och man har ingen rätt att endast på grund af en gammal tradition, hvars uppkomst är lätt förklarlig, postulera en uppenbarelse, hvars ändamålsenlighet ingen förnuftig varelse kan inse. Vill man alltså icke uppgifva den traditionella uppfattingen af Daniels bok såsom tillkommen i exilen, så nödgas man att förneka dess integritet.” Ibid., 221. A number of years later, Stave published an article on the origin of the book of Daniel in which he maintained the same conclusions. E. Stave, “Till frågan om Danielsbokens uppkomst,” BF 24 (1907) 223-28. 32 Stave’s request for withdrawal was made on 9 June but was not received by the University Registrar until the 13 Sept and officially accepted on the 15 Sept 1894 (15 Sept 1894 § 4 Större och Mindre Akad Konsistoriets Prot 1894 AI:318 UUB; 15 Sept 1894 § 3 Teol Fak Prot 1894-98 AI: 17 UUB). 33 Neither Hidal or Linder mention the fact that Stave withdrew his application and that Kolmodin also competed for the position (Hidal, Bibeltro, 137-38; Linder, “Domprosten,” 246-47). [ Page ] 187 described as a ‘scandal.’34 Apparently, Stave had anonymously written some unpleasant letters concerning Johansson and other theologians which also contributed to the unpleasantness. Consequently, Stave got most of the theologians in Uppsala against him. The situation got so tense that rumours circulated that Stave might be expelled from his teaching position in the Faculty.35 Stave was not without fault in the ugly situation created and withdrew his application before it got worse.36 Stave did recognize that his behaviour was partly to blame for what happened and acknowledged this in letters written to Kolmodin and _____________________________ 34 In a number of letters to his fiancée Anna, S. A. Fries described the situation: “Today, I was at Stave’s and visited him. Immediately the conversation turned to the professors. Stave was completely furious over Johansson’s book ‘Profeten Daniel’ and he showed me how that on almost every page Johansson had made each mistake more dreadful than the other. Now Stave himself is writing a work, on Daniel!!!! I was told this under the strictest promise of silence and no one except you can know of it.” (“Jag var idag uppe hos Stave och hälsade på honom. Genast fördes samtalet in på professorerna. Stave var alldeles utan sig af raseri öfver Johanssons bok ‘Profeten Daniel’ och han visade mig hurusom Johansson nästan på hvarje sida begått det ena felet rysligare än det andra. Nu skrifver Stave sjelfett arbete öfver Daniel!!!! Jag fick veta detta under strängaste tysthetslöfte och ingen nån än du får veta det. ” 15 Jan 1894 Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:26 UUB; emphasis by Fries). A month later, Fries wrote: “Now you shall see that there’s a great uproar here concerning Stave’s book against Johansson. Universally, it is called ‘the Scandal.’ The book is really dreadful. Each page contains a veiled polemic against Johansson and his book. Nylander said to me that the vexation was universal. Either Stave wins or his future at the university is forever closed.” (“Nu skall du se, här är ett farligt lif med anledning af Staves bok mot Johansson. Den kallas allmänt ‘Skandalen.’ Boken är verkligen ryslig. Hvarje sida innehåller någon förstucken polemik mot Johansson och hans bok. Nylander sade mig, att förargelsen var allmän. Antingen vinner Stave eller och är hans framtid vid universitetet för alltid stängd.” Undated, but written sometime between 13 and 19 Feb 1894. Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:26 UUB). 35 17 June 1894 Letter to N. J. Göransson from Fries, SAFS T3k:22 UUB; Fries wrote to Nathan Söderblom: “I can also tell you that Stave will most certainly lose in his struggle. This is due to his insolent behaviour around the Faculty. Lately, he has behaved in such a way that it has even become a question of expelling him from the Faculty.” (“Jag kan dessutom meddela dig, att Stave helt visst komma att förlora i sin strid. Detta på grund af hans oförskämda beteende runt fakulteten. Han har på sista tiden uppträdt så, att det till och med varit fråga om att utesluta honom från fakulteten.” 21 June 1894 Letter to N. Söderblom from Fries, SAFS T3k:23 UUB). 36 Apparently, Stave’s wife Alma convinced him to withdraw his application. 6 Aug 1894 Letter to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries, SAFS T3k:26 UUB. [ Page ] 188 Fries.37 Later, Stave claimed that he had been going through a depression and was not physically well during this period, which influenced his actions. During the autumn term, Stave had to take a leave of absence due to health reasons.38 In the end, the storm settled and Stave recovered from this ‘scandal’ and did not lose his teaching position within the Faculty. This incident demonstrates the more polemical, aggressive and human side of Stave’s character which is also evident later on in his career (in his battle against those who opposed biblical criticism). It also shows that personal conflicts and intrigues within the Faculty of Theology also played an important political role in determining who became professor or not. Finally, the fact that Johansson got the position even though his views on historical criticism were similar to those of Stave also demonstrates that by 1895 the members of the Faculty of Theology in Uppsala (although still somewhat cautiously) were becoming more open to the modern critical method of exegesis. In the same year of 1894, Stave came out with a second important work entitled “Concerning the Origin of the Old Testament Canon.” In this work, Stave basically adopted the documentary hypothesis of the Wellhausen school, accepting the JEDP source theory, and then built his _____________________________ 37 Stave wrote to Kolmodin: “I ask you to forgive me as a brother, for what I have done against you. Moreover I feel the need to ask you to do the same with my comments over F. A. J.’s book.” (“ber jag dig broderligen förlåta mig, såsom jag gjort dig. Tillika känner jag behofvet bedja dig göra detsamma med mina yttranden öfver F. A. J.s bok.” 16 Nov 1893 Letter to J. A. Kolmodin from Stave, AKS T31:ll UUB.) Stave wrote to Fries: “My personal position with regard to what happened is that I well realize that I have behaved both unwisely and unfairly ... I will not blame anyone else but myself. ” (“Hvad min personliga ställning till det skedda beträffas, så inser jag väl, att jag handlat både ovist och orätt. . . Någon annan än mig själf vill jag ej anklaga.” 18 July 1894 Letter to S. A. Fries from Stave. SAFS T3k: 14 UUB.) 38 Linder, “Domprosten,” 246. The medical report to the Faculty read: “Docent E. Stave has for some time found himself in such a sickly nervous condition ...” (Docenten E. Stave sedan någon tid befunne sig i ett så sjukligt nervöst tillstånd ...” 13 Nov 1894 § 3 Teol Fak Prot 1894-98 AI:17 UUB.) For this reason, Stave got excused from his duties for the rest of the autumn term. [ Page ] 189 whole understanding of dating the various biblical books and their origin in the canon upon this theory.39 Stave claimed that E originated in the northern kingdom and J in the southern kingdom and that these two sources were put together in prophetic circles sometime during the downfall of the northern kingdom. The discovery of the book of Deuteronomy in Josiah’s day proved the existence of D by that time and this demonstrated that the canon was beginning to be formed in the Old Testament.40 Following Dillmann, Stave believed that Ezra had the whole Pentateuch before him, not just the Priestly Code, when he read the Book of the Law to the people.41 Although the Priestly Code did not exist before the exilic period, it contained older collections of laws, like the so-called holiness code of Lev 17-26.42 The oldest laws certainly were found in the Decalogue (Ex 20:1-17; Dt 5:6-21) which Stave considered Mosaic and which served as the foundation of Israelite religion since the time of Moses. Although Moses did not function primarily as a writer, his significant role in the Pentateuch supported the conclusion that he must have initiated a number of the ordinances regarding social life and the cult, even though many of these laws had been changed since then.43 As time passed, the laws were modified in purpose in order to meet each time period’s special needs. ___________________________ 39 Erik Stave, “Om uppkomsten af Gamla testamentets kanon,” UUÅ (1894) (Teologi) 1-93. 40 Ibid., 44-6, 51. In his Introduction to the Canonical Texts of the Old Testament in 1912, Stave dated the original creation of D to sometime between the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah. (Erik Stave, Inledning till Gamla Testamentets kanoniska skrifter [Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söners Förlag, 1912] 87.) 41 Stave. “GTs kanon.” 55. 42 Ibid., 45-6; compare with Wellhausen who argued for an exilic date of Lev 17-26 and post-exilic date of the Priestly Code. (J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments, 4th ed.[Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co, 1963] 149-72; Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism, 263.) 43 Stave, “GTs kanon,” 46-7. If one compares this work from 1894 with his later writings, Stave did not change his position. Although his later works gave a fuller and more detailed presentation of his position, he still maintained the same views on the origins of the Old Testament canon. (Compare Stave, Inledning till Gamla [ Page ] 190 In this way, until the beginning of the time of Ezra, the law was not a dead letter but rather something living, which could be an instrument for different needs of different times. Yet, the spirit and the purpose remained the same, namely to protect the highest and most important interests of the people. And therefore, the religious and ethical element of the law remained unchanged and unshaken in spite of the more or less extensive changes of the letter of the commandments.44 Although the prophetic period represented the culmination of Israel’s spiritual development after which a time of regress and stagnation began with the emergence of the prominent role of the law during the exile, Stave argued that the law was not a dead letter yet (as it became through Pharisaism in New Testament times) and therefore should not be judged negatively too quickly. There was still a living and precious kernel in the law which found its nourishment in the rich inheritance of the prophets, witnessed in the exilic and post-exilic psalms which praised the law (i.e. Ps 119). This living element within the law even helped to save Israel from losing its highest good, the prophetic spirit. However, the prominence of the law did cause a certain stagnation in the religious development of the Israelites, bringing them to a lower stage in preparation for a newer and more complete phase found in Jesus Christ.45 _____________________________________________________________________________________ Testamentets kanoniska skrifter, 14-25, 83-106; idem, Moseböckernas uppkomst [Religionsvetenskapliga skrifter 1; Stockholm: Sveriges Kristliga Studentrörelses Förlag, 1920] 73-83.) In 1920, Stave still maintained that parts of the Pentateuch were Mosaic but he also claimed that the Pentateuch contained even older material than from Moses. However, he did not attempt to identify which parts were older (idem, Moseböckernas uppkomst, 80). 44 “Lagen var på detta sätt allt intill den med Esra började tiden icke någon död bokstaf utan någonting lefvande, som kunde blifva ett medel för olika tiders olika behof. Dock förblef anden och syftet detsamma, nämligen att värna folkets högsta och viktigaste intressen. Och därför förblefvo lagens religiösa och sedliga moment oförändrade och orubbade, trots de mer eller mindre omfattande förändringar af budens bokstaf.” Stave, “GTs kanon.” 46. 45 Ibid., 80-3. [ Page ] 191 In this work, Stave made reference to the writings of the more recent and important critical scholars like Wellhausen, Kuenen, Kittel, Reuss, Ryle, Strack, Bertholdt, de Wette, Bleek, Stade, Delitzsch, but it was the works of Buhl, Dillmann, Driver and König which he referred to the most. Stave’s position was predominantly influenced by the more moderate critical scholars.46 From these two important writings, Stave’s work on the Old Testament canon and his work on Daniel, it is clear that by the year 1894 Stave had fully accepted the modern historical-critical method as represented by the Wellhausen school and adopted this approach in his Old Testament interpretation.47 In 1898, Stave published a book entitled Über den Einfluss des Parsismus auf das Judentum in which he investigated the debated question of Persian influence upon the religion of the Israelites, in particular, with regard to its view of eschatology, angels, dualism, etc. Stave concluded that these ideas had their source in earlier Israelite religion but their development would not have taken the shape they did without the foreign influence. The encounter with Persian ideas stimulated and nurtured the growth of these ideas within Israelite religion. This work has been described as probably Stave’s greatest and most important scholarly writing; it became known internationally.48 It shows that Stave also had some interest in comparative religion. _______________________________ 46 In the concluding chapter, Stave referred only to Buhl’s work. 47 As we have seen, it was in the same year 1894 that S. A. Fries’ important and controversial work The History of Israel came out, which also advocated the modern critical approach to Old Testament interpretation. Stave’s and Fries’ writings were some of the earliest representations of modern historical criticism in Old Testament exegesis in Sweden. 48 Erik Stave, Über den Einfluss des Parsismus auf das Judentum (Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn, 1898); Hidal, Bibeltro, 138; Linder, “Domprosten,” 252-55; Lindblom, “Stave,” 253-54. Stave’s book was awarded the prize of the Dutch Teylers Godgeleerdheidsgenootschap. (Ringgren, “Old Testament Exegesis,” 41.) One reason why it became one of his more important works and the most well-known one is probably due to the fact that it was published in German and reached a wider audience as a result. Most of Stave’s other publications exist only in Swedish and thus are limited in their sphere of influence. [ Page ] 192 Between 1897 and 1900 three professorial chairs became vacant in the Faculty of Theology in Uppsala. F. A. Johansson left his chair as extraordinary professor in exegesis in 1897 when he was offered the ordinary professorship at Lund University. J. A. Ekman was appointed bishop of Västerås in 1898, making the ordinary professorial chair in theological prenotions and theological encyclopaedia available. Finally, W. Rudin retired as ordinary professor in exegesis in 1900. When Johansson and Ekman departed, Stave decided to apply for both positions. Although Ekman’s chair did not directly relate to Old Testament exegesis, Stave preferred this position since it was an ordinary professorship. However, the process of filling Ekman’s chair dragged on over three years and in the end Nathan Söderblom was given the chair in 1901.49 In the meantime, Stave was successful in gaining the extraordinary professorial chair in exegesis, competing against A. Kolmodin and S. A. Fries. Stave’s academic standing had been strengthened by his most recent publication and this second time he was able to get the position, beginning the appointment in 1899.50 However, when professor Rudin retired in 1900 as ordinary professor in exegesis, the Faculty members decided to call Stave as Rudin’s successor without any formal application for the position.51 To be called to a professorial ______________________________ 49 In letters to Nathan Söderblom, Stave expressed the possibility of withdrawing his application depending on whether Rudin would retire from his chair. Actually, he hoped that Söderblom would get the position as professor in theological prenotions. “Welcome to Uppsala as professor! We need fresher winds . . (“Välkommen till Upsala som professor! Vi behöfver friskare vindar ...” 12 Feb 1899, 20 Feb 1900, 27 Jan 1901, 14 March 1901 Letters to N. Söderblom from Stave, NSS UUB.) Stave did withdraw his application eventually and in the end Söderblom was given this professorial chair. 50 In the competition, Stave was ranked in first place, Kolmodin in second place and Fries was considered incompetent. 19 Dec 1898 § 2 Teol Fak Prot 1898-1902־ AI: 18 UUB; Sakkuniges utlåtande angående sökandene till det lediga e. o. professorsembetet i exegetik vid Upsala universitet 1898. 51 In the time that had passed since the storm in 1894, Stave must have redeemed himself in the eyes of the Faculty members in order to receive such an honoured appointment. Rudin had also received this honour; he had been called to the chair after Myrberg in 1893. It was Rudin who first suggested that Stave should be called and the [ Page ] 193 chair without any application or competition for the post was a rare event and was considered a great honour. In a letter to G. Ekström, Stave expressed that for him to receive this call was an encouragement to continue with his “ambition to make the students familiar with the newer scholarship.”52 Stave accepted the position and for the rest of his teaching career he remained the ordinary professor in exegesis at Uppsala University until his retirement in 1922.53 This appointment was significant in establishing a legitimate and firm place for the modern historical-critical method in the Faculty.54 In 1901, Stave became the editor of the periodical Bibelforskaren after J. A. Ekman and continued as its chief editor until 1923.55 This ______________________________________________________________________________________ other members agreed. (30 Aug 1900 § 2, 8 Sept 1900 § 5, 14 Sept 1900 § 2 Teol Fak Prot 1898-1902 AI:18 UUB.) 52 “sträfvan att göra studenterna förtrogna med den nyare vetenskapen.” 23 Sept 1900 Letter to G. Ekström from Stave, GES UUB. 53 The following is a list of courses which Stave taught during his teaching career at Uppsala University: Palestine’s Geography and Topography (1892, 93); OT Isagogics (1893); The History of Israel after the Exile (1893, 94); Old Christian Literature (1893); Genesis (1894, 95, 1904, 05, 08, 14); Isaiah (1895, 96, 97, 98, 1902, 03, 12, 13, 20, 21); Ethics (1896); Acts of the Apostles (1898); Pauline Letters (1898); Amos (1898, 1905); Hosea (1899); The Messianic Prophecies of the OT (1898, 99); Micah (1899); History of Israel (1899, 1900, 15, 16); Deuteronomy (1900); Psalms (1900, 01, 02, 04, 07, 08, 11, 12, 16); OT Theology (1901, 02, 03, 05, 06, 07); Deutero-Isaiah (1904, 21, 22); OT Anthropology (1904); Covenant Idea of the OT (1904); Age of the Priestly Code (1906); Prophets (1906, 07, 08); Primeval History (1907); Isagogical and Theological Questions (1909, 11, 12); Minor Prophets (1909, 10, 14, 19); OT Introduction (1910, 11); Daniel (1913, 14); Prophets after the Exile (1914, 19); Exodus (1915); Hebrew Archaeology (1916, 17, 18); Historical and Theological Topics (1917); Exegetical Topics (1917); Theology of Isaiah (1918); The Cult of Israel (1918); Selected OT Topics (1919, 20, 21); Jeremiah (1921); The Prophets’ Preaching of the Future (1922). UUK (1890-1922). 54 When Stave retired as professor in exegesis, he gave his final lecture on the 9th of May, 1922 and spoke on Second Isaiah. On this occasion, a scholarship was established in Stave’s name for those who show a special interest in Old Testament studies, entitled “Domprosten Staves Stipendium.” (Linder, “Domprosten,” 264-65.) As a tribute to Stave’s contribution to biblical scholarship, his colleagues and friends also published a Festschrift, a collection of essays in honour of Stave upon his 65th birthday on the 10th of June 1922. Teologiska Studier tillägnade Erik Stave på 65- årsdagen den 10 juni 1922 av kolleger och lärjungar (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 19221. 55 Unfortunately, when Stave retired as editor of Bibelforskaren, no one replaced him and the journal ceased to exist. The Faculty of Theology at Uppsala did not have another periodical devoted exclusively to biblical exegesis for the next twelve years, [ Page ] 194 periodical became an important organ for Stave to express his views on exegetical questions. It was also significant for other young theologians at this time. Johannes Lindblom explains that while Stave was editor, he gave the younger generation of scholars the opportunity to contribute their work to Bibelforskaren. Stave encouraged them to develop in this way and played a significant nurturing role, helping many theologians to develop their skills.56 Stave continued to publish extensively throughout his life, making his main contribution in the field of Old Testament studies. He left a legacy of publications behind him when he died at the age of 74 in Uppsala on April 30, 1932.57 Theological Crisis Throughout most of his academic career, Stave used the modern historical-critical method as his main approach to Old Testament exegesis. He believed that it was the only way to reach the true understanding of the meaning of Scripture. However, Stave did not come to this firm conviction without a theological crisis. When he first encountered the new critical approach, he felt that his faith was being ____________________________________________________________________________________ until the Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok (Swedish Exegetical Yearbook) started to come out in 1936. 56 Lindblom, “Stave,” 259. In letters to the following younger theologians E. Billing, E. Rodhe, J. Lindblom and H. Falk, Stave encouraged them all to write and then to publish their writings. 7 March 1901 Letter to E. Billing from Stave, EBS LUB; 28 Feb 1906, 21 April 1906,7 Nov 1910 Letters to E. Rodhe from Stave, EMRS LUB; 5 July 1906 Letter to J. Lindblom from Stave, CJLS LUB; 28 Jan 1906 Letter to H. Falk from Stave, HHA 1990:1 Falk vol 5 SLBL. 57 For a list of Stave’s publications see: Ernst von Döbeln, “Förteckning över förste teologie professoren och domprosten Erik Staves av trycket utgivna skrifter,” in Teologiska Studier tillägnade Erik Stave på 65-årsdagen den 10 juni 1922 av kolleger och lärjungar, (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1922); Erik F. Stave, “Förteckning över Domprosten Erik Staves av trycket utgivna skrifter under åren 1922-1932,” SEÅ 2 (1937) 227-29; T. Fries and E. von Döbeln, “Stave,” 220-22. [ Page ] 195 threatened. Looking back to those difficult moments, Stave recalled his feelings in a conversation with Emanuel Linderholm many years later. When I got well acquainted with the works of Wellhausen, I felt as if the God of Heaven had been evicted from his throne. But I had to read further.58 It seems that Stave first began reading Wellhausen in September 1890 and that at first it was very hard for him to give up his old convictions.59 But Stave’s contact with various theologians during the eventful trip to Germany and Palestine in 1890-91 was the key factor which finally convinced him of the rightness of the newer method. When he returned to Uppsala from Germany in 1891, he felt quite frustrated with the conservatism and the ignorance of the modern critical approach found among some of the Faculty members. He believed that Sweden was fifty years behind the times in theological education and he was very eager to change that circumstance and introduce the new perspective and methodology. Stave turned to professor Ekman with his frustration and eagerness and found a _______________________________ 58 “Det kändes mig, när jag satte mig in i Wellhausens arbeten, som om himmelens Gud hade vräkts från sin tron. Men jag måste läsa vidare.” (Linder, “Domprosten,” 243.) In this period of transition, it was quite common for the young theologians to have a theological or spiritual crisis when they encountered the modern historical-critical approach. Einar Billing expressed that he had suffered the same ‘earthquake experience’ when he read Wellhausen in his pastoral letter to his diocese. (Einar Billing, Herdabrev till prästerskapet i Västerås stift [Stockholm: Diakonistyrelsens Bokförlag, 1920] 43-49.) Years later when Stave recalled those years of crisis, he described the intense agony which that generation of students experienced as similar to the struggle that Jacob had wrestling with God until he received the blessing. (Erik Stave, “Några minnen från Studentförbundets första tid,” in Uppsala Kristliga Studentförbund 1901-1926 [Stockholm: Sveriges Kristliga Studentrörelses Förlag, 19261 48-51.) 59 In a letter to his fiancée dated 27 Sept 1890, Samuel Fries described Stave’s reaction to Wellhausen’s work: “And it is still instructive to watch Stave and how he now reads. He has now begun to acquaint himself a little bit with the criticism of the Pentateuch. It is funny to hear how he must make one concession after another to Wellhausen and how he still hangs on as a leech to the old, as long as there is still a shred remaining. ” (“Och dock är det lärorikt att se på Stave och hur han läser. Han har nu börjat lite smått sätta sig in i Pentateuk-kritiken. Det är lustigt att höra, hur han får göra den ena koncessionen efter den andra åt Wellhausen, och hur han dock hänger i som en igel i det gamla, så länge det finns en trasa kvar.” Fries, Vår kärleks historia, 155.) [ Page ] 196 sympathetic ear; however, Ekman encouraged him to be patient and to recognize the threat the newer approach presented for the believer. Stave was not satisfied.60 When he became professor in exegesis in 1900, Stave felt more freedom to exercise his influence in a greater way over the Faculty members and students. Even then, there was some opposition from other Faculty members; Adolf Kolmodin and Hjalmar Danell were some of the more conservative theologians at the time.61 With the appointment of like-minded theologians like Nathan Söderblom, who became professor in 1901, things got a little easier. However, it was not until Danell resigned as professor and became bishop of Skara in 1905 that the majority of the Faculty members were in favour of the modern critical approach. Einar Billing became Danell’s successor to the chair in 1908. The year 1905 is thus very significant in the history of Swedish Old Testament scholarship because it marks the end of the conservative stronghold in the Faculty of Theology at Uppsala.62 By that time, Stave had more allies within the Faculty and there was more academic freedom to pursue the historical- critical method to biblical exegesis. Theological Development If one considers Stave’s theological development, it becomes evident that he was greatly influenced by Leipzig theologians in particular. This in itself says a lot since Leipzig had a tradition of representing more conservative theological scholarship. Stave’s approach to biblical exegesis was affected by the three theologians which held the chair in ____________________________ 60 Linder, “Domprosten,” 243-44. 61 Tergel, Ungkyrkomännen, 25-28; Lundqvist, Organisation och bekännelse, 224-25. Danell was professor in dogmatics and Kolmodin became extraordinary professor in exegesis in 1903 and ordinary professor in 1909. Kolmodin specialized in the New Testament. 62 Tergel, Ungkyrkomännen, 38-40. [ Page ] 197 Old Testament exegesis successively in Leipzig, Franz Delitzsch, Frants Buhl and Rudolf Kittel.63 As a student of Myrberg, Stave was introduced to the writings of Delitzsch, who towards the end of his life began to make concessions to the historical-critical method.64 Then when Stave travelled to Germany in 1890-91, he met the Danish scholar Buhl who had succeeded Delitzsch to the chair after his retirement in 1890.65 It was through his contact with Buhl that Stave became convinced of the importance of the historical-critical method and its reconcilability with Christian faith.66 67 Consequently, Stave adopted a moderate version of biblical criticism which had room for a vital Christian faith. The critical method did not destroy faith, rather it strengthened and complemented it; thus it was a great aid to the Christian Church. When Stave returned to Sweden, he began using Buhl’s writings in his teaching; the students were examined on Buhl’s History of the Israelite People and The Messianic Promises in the Old Testament.67 Buhl’s works began to appear in the footnotes of Stave’s _______________________________ 63 Delitzsch was professor in Old Testament exegesis in Leipzig 1867-90, Buhl in 1890- 98 and Kittel in 1898-1929. C. F. Keil, who had been a conservative Old Testament scholar, had also been in Leipzig (1859-1888). 64 Delitzsch’s Neuer Commentar über die Genesis in 1887 was a more critical commentary on Genesis in comparison to his earlier work. See chapter seven on Delitzsch in Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism, 104-120. 65 Buhl’s competence was in both Semitic languages and Old Testament exegesis. He had himself been a student of Delitzsch in 1876-78. He became docent (1880-82) and then professor in Old Testament exegesis in Copenhagen (1882-90) and in Leipzig (1890-98) and professor in Semitic languages in Copenhagen (1898-1921). 66 Frants Buhl (1850-1932) was the first Scandinavian scholar whose work in Old Testament criticism had great influence in promoting the modern critical method in Old Testament exegesis in Scandinavia. Several of his works became standard textbooks in the Nordic universities. Buhl’s acceptance of the historical-critical approach is seen as early as 1884 in a series of articles in Theologisk Tidsskrift. Johs. Pedersen, “Buhl, Frants,” DBL 4 (1934) 340-44; Sven Hemer, “Buhl, Frants,” NF 4 (1925) 201. 67 Stave’s notebook on student examinations from 14 Sept 1892 to 13 Jan 1909, ESS 462G:2 1989/13 UUB; Emanuel Linderholm’s notes from Stave’s lectures on Messianic prophecies in the OT (autumn term 1899) reveal that Stave made references to Buhl’s interpretations. (ELS Linderholm 154 ka 10 UUB.); Buhl, Det israelitiske folks historie; idem, De messianske forjoettelser i det Gamle Testament (Kjøbenhavn: Gyldendalske boghandels forlag [F. Hegel & s0n], 1894). By 1894, the Faculty of Theology in Uppsala had accepted the use of Buhl’s Det israelitiske folks historie as a [ Page ] 198 publications. Stave’s friendship with and admiration of Buhl is also demonstrated in that he invited Buhl to Sweden to give some lectures in the autumn 1900 and spring 1901, and published one of his lectures in Bibelforskaren.68 When Stave published his own introduction to the Old Testament in 1912, he dedicated this work to Buhl.69 Finally, the third connection with Leipzig was Rudolf Kittel. How much contact Stave had with Kittel is not clear, but from a letter to Nathan Söderblom, Stave visited Kittel in 1922.70 Kittel’s works show up in the footnotes of Stave’s publications and when Stave wrote his History of Israel in 1916, he dedicated it to Kittel.71 Stave’s high regard for the theologians in Leipzig is also demonstrated in that he encouraged one of his students Johannes Lindblom to visit Leipzig in particular while he was in Germany and to get a first hand impression of the theologians there.72 When Stave himself was in Leipzig, he sent _____________________________________________________________________________________ standard textbook in the subject. This becomes clear from the Faculty minutes of 10 February when they debated whether to give financial support for the publication of Fries’ History of Israel. In their criticism of Fries’ work, they expressed their preference for Buhl’s book over Fries’. 10 Feb 1894 § 5 Teol Fak Prot 1894-98 AI: 17 UUB. 68 In a letter to Gunnar Ekström, Stave told him of the good news that Buhl would be coming to lecture in November and encouraged Ekström to come and listen to him. If he did, he would get “an invigorating theological bath.” (“ett vederkvickande teologiskt bad.” 8 Oct 1900 Letter to G. Ekström from Stave, GES UUB.) Stave invited Buhl as his guest to the Theological Society one evening in December 1900 (3 Dec 1900 § 2 Teol Föreningens Prot 1890-1906 U 2325 d UUB). Buhl’s lecture on “De aandelige Bevaegelser hos palæstinensiske Jøder den efterexilske Tid” was published in Bibelforskaren. Buhl also spoke at the Nordic Society (“Nordiska föreningen”) on “De gammeltestamentlige Undersøgelsers Maal og Midler” where he defended the historical- critical method of interpreting the Old Testament by pointing out its positive aspects. Apparently his views were well received. See the review of the speech in “De gammaltestamentliga undersökningarnas mål och medel,” KS 6 (1901) 140, 148. 69 “To Professor Dr Frants Buhl with devoted thankfulness.” (“Till Professor D:r Frants Buhl med tillgiven tacksamhet.” Stave, Inledning till Gamla Testamentets kanoniska skrifter.) 70 10 July 1922 Letter to N. Söderblom from Stave, NSS UUB. 71 “To Professor Dr Rud. Kittel in Leipzig, respectfully.” (“Till Professor D:r Rud. Kittel i Leipzig, vördsamt.” Erik Stave, Israels historia [Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söners Förlag, 1916].) 72 30 March 1905 Letter to J. Lindblom from Stave, CJLS LUB. [ Page ] 199 greetings to Söderblom “from this place which still is and will continue to remain one of the seats of honour of German scholarship.”73 Stave’s contact with the Leipzig theologians played an important role in affecting Stave’s attitude towards and use of the modern critical method. There was another theologian whom Stave admired greatly and with whose sufferings Stave could identify with.74 This was the Scottish Old Testament scholar William Robertson Smith, who was removed from his professorial chair in Aberdeen because of his adoption of historical criticism.75 Although Stave never lost his chair, he was misunderstood and criticized by some circles of the Church community. Stave never knew Robertson Smith personally but Stave got some first hand impressions and information about him during his trip to Scotland and England in the summer of 1906. Stave visited the four universities and the three Free Church colleges of Scotland and there met George Adam Smith and other personal friends of Robertson Smith who shared their memories of the scholar.76 When Stave returned to Sweden he decided to speak about the life and work of Robertson Smith to the _____________________________ 73 “från denna ort som ännu är och vill alltfort bliva ett av den tyska vetenskapens högsäten.” 10 July 1922 Letter to N. Söderblom from Stave, NSS UUB. 74 Lindblom states that Wellhausen, Buhl, Kittel and Robertson Smith are the four scholars who were Stave’s great mentors and models for his own work of scholarship. But Robertson Smith’s trials in life spoke most personally to Stave. Lindblom, “Stave,” 260. 75 William Robertson Smith was professor at the Free Church College in Aberdeen (1870-81), Reader in Arabic (188389־), University Librarian from 1886 and professor in Arabic (1889-94), these three positions all at Cambridge University. The earliest reference that I could find of any knowledge of Robertson Smith and his scholarship in Sweden is in an article by G. von Schéele in 1886 where he describes the proceedings which led to Robertson Smith’s dismissal from his chair in 1881. G. von Schéele. “Tillägg.” TKTB 4 (1886) 73-79. 76 Stave was in Great Britain for the months of June and July 1906. In letters and postcards, Stave mentions that he had visited these academic institutions in Scotland as well as Durham, Oxford, Cambridge and London. He also mentions his visit with G. A. Smith in Glasgow. 5 May, 25 June 1906 Letters to J. Lindblom from Stave, CJLS LUB; 12 June, 1 July 1906 Letters to N. Söderblom from Stave, NSS UUB. [ Page ] 200 Uppsala Christian Student Association on 6 October 1906.77 In this lecture, he described Robertson Smith as a martyr for the newer critical approach.78 He was a real martyr, a witness who gave himself for others. He did it, if anyone did. Scotland now possesses an insight into the meaning of the Bible, because priests and Church officials have been able to harvest the fruit of his labour. It was a difficult fight for the man, but such faithfulness unto death is what truth always demands from its advocates and discoverers.79 From the lecture, it is evident that Stave had read some of Robertson Smith’s most important works, including the articles in Encyclopœdia Britannica, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church and The Prophets of Israel and Their Place in History to the Close of the Eighth Century B. C.80 Although it is difficult to know how Robertson Smith’s writings may have influenced Stave, there is some similarity in thought between them. Stave believed in recognizing the difference between the kernel ______________________________ 77 6 Oct 1906 § 2 Protokoll för Uppsala kristliga studentförbund 1906-1908 U 2503 e:2 UUB. In the minutes the secretary wrote that “the lecture made a deep impression. It presented a moving picture of the life of a scholar who worked, struggled and suffered for the truth, who through his martyrdom was able to accomplish more for the correct knowledge and understanding of the Bible than through his nevertheless unusually successful, positive work of scholarship. (“Föredraget gjorde ett djupt intryck. Det framställde och en gripande lifsbild af en för sanningen arbetande, kämpande och lidande vetenskapsman, som genom sitt martyrskap fick uträtta mer för bibelns rätta kännedom och förståelse än genom sitt dock ovanligt framgångsrika positiva forskningsarbete.”) 78 Stave published the speech later that year in his Christmas book: “William Robertson Smith. En förkämpe och martyr för den nyare bibelforskningen,” in I: Julbok (edited by E. Stave; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1906). 79 “Han var en sannskyldig martyr, ett vittne som utgaf sig själf för andra. Han gjorde det, om någon. Skotland besitter nu en insikt i bibelns mening, ty präster och kyrkliga ämbetsmän ha fått skörda frukten af hans arbete. Det var en hård kamp för mannen, men sådan är den trohet intill döden, som sanningen alltid kräfver af sina förkämpar och upptäckare.” Stave, “Robertson Smith,” 71-72. 80 Stave, “Robertson Smith,” 81, 89, 92. Stave must have also been familiar with Robertson Smith’s Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (1889) since he allowed one of his students Erik Aurelius (later docent in exegesis 1907-11) to publish a review of the book in Bibelforskaren for which Stave was the editor. Erik Aurelius, Review of Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, by W. Robertson Smith, BF 20 (1903) 282- 90. [ Page ] 201 and the shell in the Bible while Robertson Smith differentiated between the treasure and the jar of clay.81 Like Robertson Smith, Stave profoundly believed that the historical-critical method of reading the Bible was compatible with Christian faith and was an aid to the Church.82 What is clear is that Stave admired the Scottish professor and could identify with him in his struggle to stand for what he believed to be true. Stave kept a photo of Robertson Smith on the wall in his study for inspiration.83 Of course Stave was also influenced by other Old Testament scholars. When one looks at the list of books which Stave required his students to know for their examinations from 1892 to 1909, he used the following scholars’ works most frequently: Rudin, Buhl, Strack, Wellhausen, Schlatter, Dillmann, Driver, Duhm and his own work on Daniel.84 Gunkel’s writings were also studied in Stave’s classes.85 However, Stave was more critical of Gunkel’s work. This can be seen in Stave’s reviews of Gunkel’s publications in Bibelforskaren. Although Stave acknowledged that Gunkel’s approach was most interesting and refreshing, and especially helpful in studying the Psalms, he felt that Gunkel was treading more on profane ground rather than holy ground ________________________________ 81 In his lecture, Stave made reference to this distinction that Robertson Smith had made in The Old Testament in the Jewish Church (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1881) 3-5; Stave, “Robertson Smith,” 84. 82 Stave, “Robertson Smith,” 81; Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, vii-ix, 9-10, 24; see also Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism, 276-80. 83 Lindblom, “Stave,” 260. 84 Stave’s notebook on student examinations from 14 Sept 1892 to 13 Jan 1909, ESS 462G:2 1989/13 UUB. Stave used W. Rudin’s Inledning till profetian i det Gamla testamentet (1884) during the 1890s while Rudin was still professor in the Faculty. Stave had heard Strack and Dillmann lecture in Berlin 1891 and met Schlatter in Jerusalem. He may also have visited Driver while he was in Oxford in 1906 since he sent a postcard to Lindblom pointing out the college where Driver lived. He also told Lindblom that he personally knew professors Smend and Budde and sent greetings to them via Lindblom. 16 July, 1905, 25 June 1906 Letters to J. Lindblom from Stave, CJLS LUB. 85 Gunkel’s commentary on Genesis was studied. Tergel, Ungkyrkomännen, 30. [ Page ] 202 in his exegesis.86 Stave was even more critical of Gunkel’s work on the New Testament, claiming that Gunkel used “groundless criticism” on the facts, built “castles in the air” and was “tearing down that which is holy.”87 In general, Stave was critical of the History of Religion school. He was not particularly happy over the publication of popularized books of the History of Religion school into the Swedish language. He believed that this school represented an extremist party within scholarship and should not be accepted as giving scholarship’s final word on the subject.88 When it came to this school of thought, Stave showed a more conservative side of his theological position. Stave was more of a theologian and exegete than an historian of religion. This may partly explain his critical reaction towards both the work of S. A. Fries and T. Segerstedt, who were more historians of religion. Each failed in their attempts to get a teaching position within the Faculty of Theology in Uppsala and in each case Stave’s criticism of their work played a role in hindering them.89 Although Stave was a ___________________________ 86 Erik Stave, Review of Genesis übersetzt und erklärt, by Hermann Gunkel, BF 20 (1903) 217-19. In this review, Stave also criticized Gunkel for not dealing more with theological questions. He wished that Gunkel would learn to understand Israel’s salvation history better. Stave was more favourable of Gunkel’s work on the Psalms, even though he still thought that it presented a one-sided perspective. Erik Stave, Review of Ausgewählte Psalmen, übersetzt und erklärt, by H. Gunkel, BF 21 (1904) 294-95. 87 “lösligaste kritik,” “luftslott,” “nedrifvande af det heliga.” Erik Stave, Review of Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des Neuen Testaments, by Hermann Gunkel, BF 21 (1904) 49-52. Stave was especially disturbed by Gunkel’s claim that Jesus’ resurrection was a myth. In general, Stave was conservative theologically when it came to interpreting the New Testament. 88 Erik Stave, “Religionshistoriska folkböcker,” BF 24 (1907) 42-51. In this article, Stave reviewed the writings of G. Hollmann, P. Wernle, W. Bousset, W. Wrede and E. Vischer. See also Hammar, “Under inflytande från Tyskland,” 83-86, 97. 89 S. A. Fries failed three times in his attempt to get a professorial chair in Uppsala (1898, 1902) and in Lund (1901). When he applied for the positions in 1901 and 1902, Stave was one of the appointed judges (“sakkunige”) and was very critical of Fries’ work. (Handlingar rörande tillsättningen af e. o. professuren i exegetisk teologi vid Lunds universitet (Lund: E. Malmströms boktryckeri, 1901); Handlingar angående lediga e. o. professuren i exegetik (Upsala: Edv. Berlings Boktryckeri, 1902.) Torgny Segerstedt (who was Nathan Söderblom’s first student) failed in defending his thesis “Till frågan om polyteismens uppkomst” (“The question of the origin of polytheism”) in [ Page ] 203 strong advocate of the modern critical method, he was still somewhat conservative when it came to theology and matters of faith. Historical criticism must still occur on ‘holy ground’ and by critical scholars of faith. Promoting the New Method During the first few years of being a professor, Stave made a number of speeches and wrote several articles on the positive aspects of the historical-critical method in order to promote it within wider circles. Many of these articles were also written in order to defend his position against the onslaught of criticism which he received, especially after his speech to the students in Läckö in 1901. These speeches and writings reveal Stave’s attitude towards historical criticism and his view of the Old Testament Scriptures in general. In April 1900, Stave spoke at a conference for the clergy of the Lutheran Church in Uppsala on the following subject: “What is there to gain from the critical examination of the Old Testament?” This speech was then published in Bibelforskaren.90 In this article, Stave tried to defend the validity of the historical-critical method by presenting four positive gains of the approach. He began by warning against condemning the new method too quickly, before having studied it thoroughly. He argued that we should not write it off as dangerous or _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1903 and consequently did not become docent in history of religion in Uppsala. The Faculty members did not find his thesis reconcilable with Christian theology; in other words, it was not ‘Christian enough.’ Although Kolmodin and Danell were the most condemning in their judgement, Stave’s criticism added fuel to the arguments. 28 May 1903 § 8, 9 Bil F § 8, G § 8, H § 8,I § 8, K § 8, L § 8 Teol Fak Prot 1903-07 AI:19 UUB; Estrid Ancker, Torgny Segerstedt 1876-1945. Studier i en personlighet (Stockholm: Tidens Förlag, 1962) 460-61; Ingrid Segerstedt Wiberg, Torgny Segerstedt (Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söners Förlag, 1955) 18-25. 90 Hidal, Bibeltro, 138; Erik Stave, “Hvad är att vinna af den kritiska undersökningen af Gamla testamentet?” BF 18 (1901) 154-76. [ Page ] 204 as an inappropriate way of handling the Scriptures simply because some of the advocates of the modern critical method have abandoned their faith and have gone astray. This fact does not necessarily invalidate the approach. Each should evaluate it fairly before accepting or rejecting it as an appropriate method for biblical exegesis.91 In this context, Stave claimed that one reason why some people lose their faith when they use the historical-critical method is that they fail to distinguish between what is of primary importance and what is secondary in the Old Testament. ... the one who suffers the loss, does not understand that he must distinguish between essentials and non-essentials in the Bible, because there exists even with regard to the book of books a difference between small and great, shell and kernel; and it is a matter of not falling in love with that which belongs to the secondary, the periphery, so that one forgets what is the essential, the centre.92 This statement reveals one aspect of Stave’s view of the Old Testament. He acknowledged that there are parts of the Old Testament Scriptures which are not as important as other parts; there is non-essential, secondary material in the biblical text and it is the task of the exegete to distinguish between these texts and the essential, primary ones. Unfortunately, in this context, Stave did not give any clear guidelines or a set of criteria by which to judge and distinguish these different parts of the biblical material. Following these introductory remarks, Stave expounded on the four different positive gains of the historical-critical approach to interpreting ______________________________ 91 Stave, “Hvad är att vinna,” 154-56־. Stave admitted that the approach did have its dangers. Some people had lost their faith in God and his revelation because of it. However, Stave believed that the method itself was only part of the reason for this; other factors were involved as well. 92 “. . . den, som lider förlusten, icke förstår att skilja hufvudsak och bisak åt i bibeln, ty det finnes äfven beträffande böckernas bok en skillnad mellan smått och stort, skal och kärna; och det gäller att icke så förälska sig i det som hör till bisakerna, periferien, att man glömmer hufvudsaken, medelpunkten.” Ibid., 156. [ Page ] 205 the Old Testament. First of all, “through this criticism we have learned to recognize more spiritual powers in the history of Israel than we knew before.”93 Stave argued that if we learn that a book is not by the author it purports to be from, then this circumstance demonstrates that there were other like-minded persons in the history of Israel who followed and continued the work and traditions of their predecessors. Consequently, we have gained a greater picture of the many elements and personalities making up the history of the Israelite people.94 The second gain is that by determining different sources, it is possible to show that there was political, social and religious development within Israel’s history.95 Thirdly, through the critical method “we learn to understand better the significance of the great men of God for their own time and for us than it has been possible before.”96 Finally, we gain a more organic understanding and notion of inspiration. Divine revelation was not dictated mechanically to a person, but rather “someone through suffering and struggle has gained insight concerning God’s guidance with Israel.”97 The speech to the clergy resulted in some critical reaction to Stave’s position. Most of the priests who responded negatively to Stave’s speech expressed the fear that biblical criticism would be harmful for the local congregation. They were afraid that such critical study of the biblical text would lead the priests away from teaching the essential religious message of the Bible and that the Bible would lose its authority in the ____________________________ 93 “Vi hafva genom denna kritik fått lära känna flera andliga krafter i Israels historia, än vi kände förut.” Ibid., 157. 94 Ibid., 157-62. 95 Ibid., 162. 96 “Den lär oss att bättre, än det förut varit möjligt, förstå de stora gudsmännens betydelse för sin egen tid och för oss.” Ibid., 172. 97 “en under lidande och kamp vunnen insikt om Guds ledning med Israel.” Ibid., 172- 73. [ Page ] 206 Church.98 In response to these expressed concerns, Stave stated that he was aware of the dangers but he wanted to emphasize the positive gains. He also emphasized that one does damage to the Bible by extending its authority to peripheral matters, since its authority does not lie in matters of history or science but rather in its religious and ethical content. He concluded his remarks by also stating that the process of development within the Old Testament does not mean that it was simply a natural or evolutionary process but rather God was educating and leading his people to maturity.99 Stave expanded on these same thoughts in an article he published in the same year “Concerning the divine revelation in the Old Testament.”100 Here he advocated that historical criticism does not destroy the notion of a divine revelation in the Old Testament since it does “not touch the fact of revelation but only its form.”101 Against Kuenen, Stave argued that many things in the Old Testament could not be explained simply by natural evolution or human development but rather were caused by divine initiative.102 “Instead of religious development we speak therefore more accurately of a divine upbringing.”103 Consequently, Stave spoke of divine pedagogy within the history of Israel; the Lord was training and bringing up his people to maturity in preparation for the coming of Jesus Christ.104 _______________________________ 98 See the account of the conference described by G. Torelius, “Upsala prestkonferens,” 138-40. It is interesting to note that professor Rudin did not respond negatively to Stave’s speech but actually defended the historical-critical method since he believed that it only dealt with external matters, the shell and not the kernel. 99 Ibid., 139. 100 Erik Stave, “Om den gudomliga uppenbarelsen i Gamla Testamentet,” KT 6 (1900) 1-32, 89-114. 101 “beröra icke uppenbarelsens faktum utan endast dess/orm.” (Ibid., 9; emphasis by Stave.) 102 Ibid., 12-13, 20, 30. 103 “I stället för religiös utveckling tala vi därför riktigare om en gudomlig uppfostran.” Ibid., 30. 104 Ibid., 12, 101. [ Page ] 207 In the following year 1901, Stave made another speech in defence of the historical-critical method which he gave at the Sixth Nordic Student Convention with a Christian Program105 held in Läckö for Christian students of Scandinavia. Sten Hidal considers this speech to be crucial and even “the great turning-point” in the history of the reception of the historical-critical approach in Sweden.106 Consequently, this speech is of importance in the history of the whole debate over the usefulness of the modern critical approach to biblical exegesis and needs to be taken into account. Stave’s speech was entitled The influence of biblical criticism upon the Christian life of faith 107 and it was another attempt to popularize and promote the positive aspects of historical criticism. Stave began by stating that one of the main purposes of the speech is to clarify misunderstandings and to reassure the students that they do not have to fear the results of the modern critical approach.108 Stave argued that the reason why the method should not threaten their faith is that faith is fostered through the soul’s direct relationship with God and does not rely on any other authority. According to evangelical Lutheran understanding, religious faith is an immediate certainty about salvation through Jesus Christ, a certainty which is not dependent upon any human authority, whether it is called pope, church or science . . . ____________________________ 105 “Sjätte nordiska studentmötet med kristligt program.” For a description of the conference, see Edgar Reuterskiöld, “Sjätte nordiska studentmötet med kristligt program,” NUT 2/2 (1901-1902) 108-116. 106 “den stora vändpunkten.” (Hidal, Bibeltro, 139.) Johannes Lindblom describes the speech as “an entrance at the beginning to the new way.” (“en ingångsport vid den nya vägens början.” Lindblom, “Stave,” 256.) 107 Erik Stave, Bibelkritikens inflytande på det kristliga troslifvet (Uppsala: Wretmans Tryckeri, 1901). The speech was published after the conference. 108 Stave, Bibelkritikens, 4. [ Page ] 208 faith itself is an inner immediate experience, a certainty which is not dependent on anything external.109 Since the scientific method does not touch the reality of one’s personal faith experience, but rather focuses only on the external aspects of the biblical text, there is no need to fear the results. Consequently, faith should not be destroyed simply because critical exegesis may question the authorship of certain books in the Bible.110 Neither is the real message of the Scriptures destroyed. The religious and moral content of the books of the Bible remains unaffected by this scholarship; the critical examination simply contributes in many and important cases to (the fact) that this content appears in a clearer and more comprehensible form for us.111 Although our understanding of the Bible may change, it does not change the essential message of salvation. The exegete has nothing to fear; he is simply seeking to know the truth and being faithful to it.112 Stave not only desired that they would be freed from their fear of the modern critical approach but also hoped that they would love and embrace this methodology. The historical-critical investigation of the Bible must not be regarded as an evil, which must be tolerated for the time ______________________________ 109 “Enligt evangelisk luthersk uppfattning är den religiösa tron en omedelbar visshet om frälsningen genom Jesus Kristus, en visshet alltså som icke är beroende af någon mänsklig auktoritet, den må nu heta påfve, kyrka eller vetenskap . . . tron själf är en inre omedelbar upplef velse, en visshet som ej är beroende af någonting yttre.” Ibid., 10. 110 It is interesting to note that Stave already held this same view back in 1894 when he wrote his commentary on Daniel. In the preface to this commentary, Stave expressed the same thoughts about faith not being dependent upon an outer authority but simply upon personal experience and therefore there is no need to fear the results of using the historical-critical method of interpretation. Stave, Daniels bok, iv-vi. 111 “Det religiösa och sedliga innehållet i bibelns böcker förblir oberördt af denna forskning; den kritiska undersökningen bidrager blott i många och viktiga fall till, att detta innehåll framträder i klarare och för oss mera tillgänglig form.” Stave, Bibelkritikens, 19-20. 112 Stave closed his speech with the challenge: “Be faithful to the the truth that you have already understood.” (“Var trogen mot den sanning du redan förstått.” Ibid., 40.) [ Page ] 209 being (but rather) it must be valued and loved, as far as any human striving for truth is worth respect and love.113 It is this desire to find the truth which should characterize the thinking student. If the sincere seeker discovers truth in the results of the newer approach, he must accept it and value it or live with a bad conscience, torn between faith and modern scholarship.114 Stave admonished them to “find a standpoint which reconciles the interests of both faith and truth.”115 Stave then proceeded to emphasize some of the important insights gained by the historical-critical examination of the biblical material. The two key ideas which Stave focused on were ‘realism’ and ‘individuality.’116 The first positive aspect was that this approach presents a realistic picture of the development of divine revelation in the Scriptures. The historical-critical investigation of the Bible teaches us, that not only religion in general but also the mediation of revelation itself in the Old and New Testaments is something extraordinarily realistic. And as such, true realism in contrast to an untrue idealism is something healthy and good . . .117 The reason why it is a realistic portrayal is because the various authors of the Scriptures are allowed to appear in all their realism, as imperfect human beings with limitations, yet persons entrusted to mediate the _______________________________ 113 “Den historiska-kritiska bibelforskningen får ej betraktas såsom ett ondt, som skall tålas tills vidare, den måste värderas och älskas, så långt som något mänskligt sanningssträfvande är värdt akting och kärlek.” Ibid., 10. 114 Ibid., 8-9. 115 “finna en ståndpunkt, som förenar både trons och sanningens intressen.” Ibid., 10. This part of the speech demonstrates Stave’s pastoral concern for the students’ spiritual well-being. He wanted them to be able to live with a good conscience with whatever stance they took. This pastoral concern characterized Stave’s work. 116 Hidal is correct in his assertion that these two concepts summarize the main points of this speech. Hidal, Bibeltro, 140-41. 117 “Den historiska-kritiska bibelforskningen lär oss, att ej blott religionen i allmänhet utan ock själfva uppenbarelsens förmedling i Gamla och Nya testamentet är någonting utomordentligt realistiskt. Och såsom en sann realism i motsats till en osund idealism är någonting hälsosamt och godt. . .” Stave, Bibelkritikens, 26. [ Page ] 210 divine revelation. Furthermore the divine word is revealed through the real struggles and sufferings of individuals who discover the truth through trial and pain.118 This perseverance in suffering has shown itself to be one of the most significant factors in the development of divine revelation. Often God has not given a higher insight before the believing servant of the Lord has found the former truth to be insufficient through experiencing suffering.119 Here Stave gave the books of Job, Ecclesiastes and the Psalms as examples of this change in perspective and understanding of divine truth through suffering. Consequently, the individual in each generation plays a vital role in unfolding the truths of divine revelation. It is evident that Stave believed that there is growth and change in the religious perspective within the Bible (in both the Old and New Testaments), with different phases of development and limitations. Salvation history is constantly developing and moving forward to its culmination in Jesus Christ. The Old Testament prepares the way for the Messianic hope and fulfillment in the New Testament.120 As noted above, this notion of progressive revelation was a common interpretation at this time. Stave revealed a Christian perspective in his interpretation of the relationship between the two Testaments, even though he primarily dealt with the Old Testament in this context. However, the intention of this speech was to present an apology for the use of the historical-critical method in examining the Bible as a whole and to show that this is compatible with Christian faith. ______________________________ 118 Ibid., 5-6, 30-31. 119 “Denna ståndaktighet i lidandet har visat sig vara en den mest betydande faktor i den gudomtiga uppenbarelsens utveckling. Gud har ofta icke gifvit en högre insikt förr, än Herrens troende tjänare under lidande funnit den föregående sanningen otillräcklig.” Ibid., 36. 120 Ibid., 11, 16, 31. [ Page ] 211 With the publication of Stave’s speech, a great debate broke out among theologians and clergy about the value and veracity of Stave’s views. Several people wrote their responses in various periodicals and newspapers and the feedback was largely negative and critical of Stave and his convictions.121 Probably the reason why it became such a lively debate is due to the fact that Stave spoke to a youthful audience of students; Stave was promoting his controversial views among very impressionable listeners. It is possible that if it had been a different audience, there may not have been the same uproar in response.122 One of his colleagues in the Faculty of Theology, Hjalmar Danell reviewed Stave’s speech and was critical of it on two main points. Firstly, contrary to Stave’s claim, Danell advocated that many biblical critics had overstepped their boundary and had not handled the biblical material in a pious and reverent manner; they lacked the “humble ___________________________ 121 E. D. Heüman, “I Bibelkritiksfrågan,” KS 6 (1901) 35253־. W. Lönnbeck, the editor of the theologically conservative journal Facklan, made one of his goals to battle against the advance of biblical criticism in Sweden. Thus, it is not surprising that he was very critical of Stave and for several years wrote a number of articles against Stave and his work. For example see W. Lönnbeck, “Notiser och kommentarier,” Facklan 1/2 (Nov 1901) 51 and “Bibelkritiken, dess vinningar och förluster,” Facklan 1/4 (Jan 1902) 153-57; 1/5 (Feb 1902) 206-12; 1/6 (March 1902) 247-52; 1/10 (July 1902) 441- 47. See also Stave’s critique of Facklan in “Tidskriften ‘Facklans’ förespråkare,” BF 20 (1903) 28-40. In response, Lönnbeck described Stave with strong words: “Among the more prominent theologians in the Nordic countries at present there is no one which does more harm to the Holy Scriptures than precisely professor Stave. In speech and writing he is seeking to destroy faith in its reliability and divine authority ...” (“Bland Nordens mera framstående teologer finnes det för närvarande ingen, som tillfogar den Hel. Skrifts anseende större skada än just prof. Stave. I tal och skrift söker han nedbryta tron på dess vederhäftighet och gudomliga auktoritet . . .” W. Lönnbeck, “Professor Stave och ‘Facklan,” Facklan 2/9 [Sept 1903] 416.) 122 Hidal, Bibeltro, 141. Stave did get support from some people. The reviewer (signature Μ. N.) of Stave’s speech in Kyrka och skola gave positive feedback. (M. N., “Bibelkritiken och tron,” KS 6 [1901] 340-42.) Stave also felt the support of Magnus Pfannenstill in Lund. Pfannenstill and Stave met each other at the Läckö conference. In a letter, Stave asked him to write a review in support of his speech, which Pfannenstill did. (7 Sept 1901, 30 Sept 1901 Letters to M. Pfannenstill from Stave, MPS LUB.) In a letter to his friend Ekström, Stave shared that he had got letters from free church preachers asking for literature on the subject. In this context, Stave writes: “Imagine if P. W. knew this!” (“Tänk om P. W. visste detta!” Stave was referring to P. P. Waldenström who was very critical of Stave. 1 Sept 1901 Letter to G. Ekström from Stave, EGS UUB.) [ Page ] 212 attitude of holiness” when they analyzed the Bible.123 Part of the problem was that biblical interpretation could not be limited simply to the outer frame or peripheral aspects of the Bible but also touched the inner essence of divine revelation and this was the area where there was a need to be sensitive to the holy nature of the text. Secondly, Danell was critical of Stave’s claim that faith is an immediate certainty about salvation through Christ that is not dependent upon an outer religious authority and therefore is not affected by the results of biblical criticism. Stave believed that his view was the same as the evangelical Lutheran understanding of the assurance of faith. In response, Danell argued that it is necessary for faith to have some objective truth as the foundation for its faith.124 Nathan Söderblom and Samuel Fries expressed appreciation for Stave’s speech in their reviews but they both regretted that Stave had not sufficiently addressed the heart of the problem, the affect of biblical criticism upon the New Testament and the person of Jesus Christ. Stave had focused mainly on its effects on the Old Testament. What would happen when modern criticism begins to undermine the very foundation of the Christian faith by questioning the foundational truths upon which it is built? They wished that Stave had addressed this question more thoroughly.125 Another response came from P. P. Waldenström, one of the most influential free Church leaders whose revival meetings had made a deep impression on Stave as a young person.126 In a pamphlet entitled Let us _____________________________ 123 “helighetens ödmjuka sinne.” H. Danell, Review of Bibelkritikens inflytande på det kristliga troslifvet, by Erik Stave, KT 7 (1901) 414-21. 124 Ibid., 418-21. 125 Nathan Söderblom, “Bibelkritiken och det kristliga troslifvet,” NDA (12/12 1901); Samuel Fries, “Bibelkritisk litteratur,” AB (15/10 1901). 126 During the debate around Stave’s Läckö speech, Stave considered his greatest opponent as Waldenström. In letters to Ekström, Stave spoke several times of his battle [ Pagae ] 213 keep our old Bible: a word about modern biblical criticism 127 he tried to refute Stave’s position and to warn the Swedish Christians of its seriousness and danger. Like Danell, Waldenström was very critical of Stave’s view of faith as an inner certainty not dependent on the Bible. Waldenström argued that if one removes the authority of Scripture then the inner experience and assurance of faith has nothing to stand upon. Biblical criticism is undermining the authority of the Bible and therefore destroying the very foundation of the faith. Contrary to Stave’s claim, the evangelical Lutheranism of the Reformation does teach that faith is dependent upon the absolute authority of the Scriptures. Therefore he questioned whether Stave had ever read Luther!128 Waldenström concluded his criticisms by stating his purpose: to open the eyes of people of the impending danger of Stave’s type of biblical exegesis. By speaking about science and research with the guise of a pious love for truth, one is simply attempting to steal from us our old Bible. Wake up, you Christian people in Sweden! Wake up, wake up to resistance and fighting! God, save your people and preserve them in the word and in the faith until the end! Amen.129 Waldenström sincerely believed that Stave was leading Christians astray and this conviction was expressed in these strong, rhetorical words. Stave’s speech in 1901 marked the beginning of much opposition and criticism against his perspective and approach to Old Testament __________________________________________________________________________________ against Waldenström. 1 Sept 1901,23 Sept 1901, 25 May 1902 Letters to G. Ekstrom from Stave, EGS UUB. 127 Waldenström, Låt oss behålla vår gamla bibel: ett ord om den moderna bibelkritiken. See also Waldenström’s critique of Stave’s speech in “Bibelkritik och kulturfientlighet,"SM (4/9 1901). 128 Waldenström, Låt oss behålla vår gamla bibel, 19-23. 129 “Under tal om vetenskap och forskning samt sken af from sanningskärlek håller man helt enkelt på att röfva ifrån oss vår gamla bibel. Vak upp, du kristna folk i Sverige! Vak upp, vak upp till motvärn och strid! Gud, fräls ditt folk och bevara det i ordet och i tron intill änden! Amen.” Ibid., 42. [ Page ] 214 exegesis, an opposition which lasted a number of years. Stave did not have an easy time; he suffered a lot personally through this opposition, mistrust and misunderstanding and this affected his health.130 Consequently, Stave personally felt that he could identify with the Old Testament prophets whose messages had often been misunderstood and rejected. Of all the prophets, maybe I have understood Jeremiah the best. He suffered in his inner person while his outer had to be hard and had to fight, but he could not do anything else than to proclaim what God had shown him to be true.131 Like the prophet Jeremiah, Stave suffered for the message he proclaimed. However, Stave was not one to let set-backs and discouragement keep him from fighting for what he firmly believed to be true. Consequently, he continued to advocate his views with fervour through his teaching, preaching and writing. In the following years, he wrote a number of articles and book reviews in Bibelforskaren which addressed the question of the value of the historical-critical method in Old Testament interpretation.132 In response to all the controversy and ______________________________ 130 During the winter of 1901-02, Stave experienced very poor health. In letters to his friend Ekström, Stave attributed his bad nerves and ill health to all the stress from the ‘battle’ and ‘storm’ which blew up around his speech at Läckö. However, Stave said that he was willing to suffer if it helped the cause of truth. “And if my efforts for a more understandable and more correct conception of our position on the Bible can gain more success through what has happened, then I am glad. Every real step forward is not only gained through diligence but above all through suffering.” (“Och kunde mina sträfvanden för en förståndigare och riktigare uppfattning af vår ställning till bibeln vinna bättre framgång genom det passerande, så är jag glad. Allt verkligt framsteg köpes ej bl. med flit utan och framför allt med lidande.” 10 Dec 1901, 18 Dec 1901, 9 Jan 1902, 25 May 1902, 16 Sept 1902 Letters to G. Ekström from Stave, GES UUB.) 131 “Av alla Israels profeter har jag måhända bäst förstått Jeremia. Han led till sin inre människa, medan han till det yttre måste göra sig hård och strida, men han kunde icke annat än förkunna vad Gud visat honom vara sant.” Stave shared this thought in a conversation with Sven Linder. Linder, “Domprosten,” 263. 132 Erik Stave, “Till frågan om vår ställning till skriften,” BF 19 (1902) 25-52; idem, “Till frågan om Skriftens auktoritet,” BF 19 (1902) 207-21 (Stave’s response to G. Billing, Den Heliga Skrifts auktoritet [Lund: CWK Gleerups Förlag, 1902]); Stave, “Till frågan om skriften och bibelforskningen,” BF 19 (1902) 135-50 (Stave’s response [ Page ] 215 debate over his speech at Läckö, Stave wrote a defence of his position in an article entitled “Concerning the question of our position towards the Scriptures.”133 This article is worth consideration in the attempt to understand Stave’s perspective in this whole matter of methodology in biblical interpretation. Since one of the main criticisms of Stave’s speech at Läckö was his view of faith as something personal which is not dependent on an outer religious authority, Stave’s primary point in this article was to defend this stance. Consequently, he stressed the point that the Bible becomes a religious authority to a person only because God has spoken and has personally revealed his son Jesus through it to that individual.134 The Scriptures can first become a real religious authority for me, when I have learned to know God through Jesus Christ. Before this (knowledge), I can regard it with respect and reverence as a religious document, etc. But only after it has shown me the way to God through Jesus Christ, it has become something more, a religious authority. But by what means does it become such an authority? Not in that it communicates historical facts, not even facts of salvation, which one can know and believe in without being a real believer in the Lutheran sense, but that God still speaks through it to my heart. So far as I have experienced this speaking of God to me through the Scriptures, then it is a religious authority for me, but no further.135 __________________________________________________________________________________ to M. Johansson, Hvarför och i vad mening tro vi på den Heliga Skrift såsom Guds ord? [Uppsala: W. Schultz, 1902]); Stave, “Modem teologi på den gamla trons grund,” BF 24 (1907) 307-12. 133 “Till frågan om vår ställning till skriften.” 134 Stave, “Till frågan om vår ställning,” 26-27, 32. 135 “Skriften kan först då få en verklig religiös auktoritet för mig, när jag genom den lärt känna Gud genom Jesus Kristus. Dessförinnan kan jag betrakta den med aktning och vördnad såsom en religiös urkund o. s. v. Men först sedan den själf visat mig vägen till Gud genom Jesus Kristus, har den blifvit något mera, en religiös auktoritet. Men hvarigenom blir den då en sådan auktoritet? Icke därigenom att den meddelar historiska fakta, icke ens frälsningsfakta, som man kan känna och tro på utan att i luthersk mening vara en verkligt troende, utan därigenom att Gud ännu talar genom den till mitt hjärta. Så långt jag erfarit detta Guds talande till mig genom skriften, är den för mig en religiös auktoritet, men icke längre.” Ibid., 26. [ Page ] 216 Since Stave believed that the Scriptures only became an authority through a personal experience of faith, he advocated that his faith was not affected or dependent on the results of historical criticism. It was not crucial to his faith whether Moses wrote or did not write the Pentateuch. Modern biblical criticism might refute many traditional views of Scripture, but it cannot refute a personal living relationship with God.136 Stave concluded by advocating a place for the modern biblical approach within the Church; it is a positive gain for the Christian community. The Church cannot stay behind its times but must move forward and adopt the findings of modern methodologies; it is a great loss and to its disadvantage not to do so. Stave admitted that “the present biblical scholarship cannot claim to be without faults. But it has an undeniable right to live . . .”137 Stave truly believed that it is in the best interest of the Church to embrace the modern historical approach to the Bible. This was his response to his opponents and critics. As promoter of the modern critical method, Stave truly believed that it was to the Church’s advantage to adopt it; it actually aided Christian faith rather than destroyed it. An interesting question to consider is whether Stave would have embraced the historical-critical _________________________________ 136 Ibid., 26-7. In another article which Stave wrote in the same year 1902 in response to M. Johansson’s critique, it is interesting to note that Stave changed his position somewhat by stating that the certainty of his Christian faith was not solely based upon his own personal experience but also founded upon the experience of the Church. “The congregation has experienced Jesus’ resurrection and I have experienced it; the Lord is truly risen for he lives and guides his congregation and has even intervened in my life . . . At all events, my faith rests upon a foundation which you cannot knock down: the Church’s and my own experience!” (“Församlingen har erfarit Jesu uppståndelse, och jag har erfarit den; Herren är sannerligen uppstånden, ty han lefver och styr sin församling och har äfven gripit in i mitt lif . . . Min tro hvilar i alla fall på en grund, som I icke fårmån omkullkasta: kyrkans och min egen erfarenhet!” Stave, “Till frågan om skriften och bibelforskningen,” 150.) Both Rodhe and Hidal have observed this slight difference in position: Rodhe, Svenska kyrkan, 182; Hidal, Bibeltro, 147. 137 “Den närvarande bibelforskningen kan icke göra anspråk på någon ofelbarhet. Men den har en oafvislig rätt att få lefva ...” Stave, “Till frågan om vår ställning,” 50. [ Page ] 217 approach as true, even if it meant that it hurt or hindered faith. Was Stave’s commitment to the well-being of Christianity greater than his commitment to the historical-critical method? This question is not easy to answer because I believe that Stave did not see a conflict between faith and biblical criticism.138 However, if one would speculate, I do believe that Stave’s personal faith was more important than the modern critical method. If he had been convinced that this approach was hurtful to Christianity, he would have been more hesitant to embrace it so wholeheartedly. In actual fact, Stave was really conservative theologically. This is seen in his critical response to S. A. Fries and T. Segerstedt as well as his reaction to Gunkel. Stave was more conservative when it came to the New Testament.139 However, as the case was, Stave was fully convinced that the historical-critical reading of the Old Testament was true and that it actually aided the Christian faith. Therefore, he felt his calling in life was to promote it. Therein lies Stave’s significance as an Old Testament scholar. Stave never contributed anything new and important to Old Testament scholarship in general. Rather his significant contribution was to defend and promote the modern critical method in Sweden at the turn of the century. Messianism in the Old Testament During the beginning of the twentieth century, the question of how to interpret Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament in light of a more ___________________________ 138 Of course, as we have already seen, Stave’s initial contact with Wellhausen and biblical criticism did cause a crisis, but once he became convinced of its rightness, the conflict was removed. 139 See Stave’s commentary on Matthew. Erik Stave, Matteusevangeliet utlagdt för bibelläsare (Uppsala: K. F. U. M. Förlag, 1900). In his commentary, Stave does not include a critical introduction to the gospel; he does not discuss questions of authorship, origin, sources, etc. See also W. Rudin, Review of Matteusevangeliet, by Erik Stave, KT 6 (1900) 564-67. [ Page ] 218 moderm understanding of the text became relevant. I have already noted earlier that a debate broke out over the handling of Messianic prophecy in the new trial translation of the Old Testament into Swedish at the General Church Assembly of the Church of Sweden in 1903. Four hundred priests had signed a petition against the translation because they had serious reservations about it.140 Since this was a burning and relevant question at the time, it is important to consider Stave’s own views on the subject. Stave’s adoption of the modern critical tools inevitably had an affect upon his interpretation of Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. However, due to his personal Christian convictions and perspective, he was still conservative theologically and recognized Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel’s Messianic hope. But Stave’s understanding of the nature of Messianic prophecy was different from the traditional interpretations since his view was shaped by the historical-critical method. In 1903, Stave published an article entitled “Concerning Messianic Prophecies in the Old Testament” in which his views on the subject was presented.141 One issue which Stave addressed was the question of definition. If one defined Messianic prophecy in a narrow sense, claiming that the Old Testament gives a very clear and accurate picture _________________________ 140 KMP 1903, 478-521; Rodhe, Svenska Kyrkan, 189-90. The Bible Commission was accused of removing references to Christ in the superscriptions over the Psalms and prophetic texts as well as making certain ‘Messianic texts’ more ambigious. An example which was discussed was the word Shilo in Genesis 49:10. The new translation read Shilo as a place name rather than as a personal name (as in the old Swedish translation). Translated as a place name it no longer pointed to the Messiah and this upset several priests. In the officially approved translation of the Bible which came out in 1917, the Bible Commission compromised on this question. In the text, Shilo was translated as a place name but in a footnote an alternate reading was given with the old translation of Shilo as a personal name. 141 Erik Stave, “Om Gamla testamentets messianiska profetior,” in Skrifter i teologiska och kyrkliga ämnen tillägnade Domprosten C. A. Torén på hans nittioårsdag (Uppsala: W. Schultz, 1903). [ Page ] 219 of Jesus as presented in the New Testament, then the Old Testament does not speak of Jesus since its prophecies concern a royal political Messiah. However, if one defined Messianic prophecy in a wider sense, that is, that the Messianic hope concerns perfection and restoration, then Jesus is the fulfillment of this deep longing and hope of Israel.142 Stave rejected an approach which regarded prophecy in an unhistorical, mechanical, almost magical fashion, interpreting it simply on one historical level or plane. Rather, Stave wanted to understand prophecy as rooted in its historical context and thus limited by that context. At the same time, the prophetic word is constantly changing and developing as the history of Israel progresses. Prophecy itself is developing and therefore its predictions do not remain the same but rather are different expressions of its development . . . The goal lies higher than any prophecy is capable of seeing; all prophetic predictions are only weak pictures of it, conditioned even by the historical reality of the different prophets’ time.143 Stave also emphasized that the Old Testament does not present a homogeneous but rather a mosaic picture of the Messiah; the prophet sees different parts or aspects of the Messianic hope. What they saw and proclaimed was not a photographic print of what would come but rather changing aspects, different sides of this coming reality, although broken by the lens, which was determinative for Israel’s understanding of her future as a whole.144 ______________________________ 142 Ibid., 186-67. 143 “Profetian själf är stadd i utveckling, och därför blifva dess förutsägelser icke enahanda utan olika uttryck af dess utveckling ... Målet ligger högre än någon profetia mäktat skåda, alla profetiska förutsägelser äro endast svaga bilder däraf, betingade äfven af den historiska verkligheten på de olika profeternas tid.” Ibid., 193. 144 “Hvad de sågo och förkunnade var icke ett fotografiskt aftryck af hvad komma skulle utan växlande aspekter, olika sidor af denna kommande verklighet, men brutna genom det synglas, som var bestämmande för Israels uppfattning af sin framtid i det hela.” Ibid., 192. [ Page ] 220 The reason for the differences in the portrayal of the Messianic hope is due to the historically conditioned and developing nature of prophecy itself. Stave believed that the Old Testament’s Messianic prophecies are fulfilled in Jesus but that there is a change between the actual prophecy and how it is fulfilled; the prophecy has undergone change and development over a long period of Israel’s history.145 From this article, it is evident that the concepts of history and of development were important aspects in Stave’s approach to understanding prophecies concerning the Messianic hope and to Old Testament interpretation in general. The Swedish Translation of the Bible During his professorship, Stave also showed a great interest in the ongoing work of the Bible Commission’s new translation of the Bible into the Swedish language.146 When the 1904 (standard edition) translation of the Old Testament came out, Stave published a critical response to this translation dealing with text-critical questions in Bibelforskaren (1905-07).147 In this endeavour, Stave pointed out the _______________________________ 145 Ibid., 195. In 1901, Stave wrote an article on the Servant of the Lord in Deutero- Isaiah where he identifies the Lord’s Servant as the ideal that Israel is striving towards. He goes through the various Servant passages and identifies the Servant as Israel or a group within Israel. But when he comes to Isaiah chapter 53, the individual portrayed there cannot be Israel or even an historical human being since the ideal Servant takes on superhuman characteristics. Consequently, Stave agrees with Frants Buhl that no Christian can read this text and not see it as fulfilled in Jesus. The concept of the ideal Servant finds its culmination in this individual and thus forms the bridge between the Old and New Testaments. Erik Stave, “Herrens Tjänare (‘Ebed Jahve) hos Deutero- Jesaja,” BF 18 (1901) 9-30. It is also interesting to note that in his work on Daniel, Stave interprets the ‘son of man’ in a symbolic sense, representing the true kingdom of God and not an individual Messiah. The ‘son of man’ points to Jesus only in the sense that he is the founder of this divine kingdom (Stave, Daniels bok, 239). 146 Linder, “Domprosten,” 260-61. This new translation of the Bible into Swedish came out in 1917. Before this new translation, King Carl XIIs Bible of 1703 was the main Swedish Bible in use in the Church. 147 Erik Stave, “Anmärkningar till Bibelkommissionens öfversättning af Gamla Testamentet enligt Normalupplagan af år 1904,” BF 22 (1905) 89-122, 161-200, 233- 83; BF 23 (1906) 81-106, 253-83; BF 24 (1907) 325-40. Stave did the same thing for the 1907 New Testament translation; idem, “Bibelkommissionens proföfversättning [ Page ] 221 problems and inconsistencies of the new translation by going through the Old Testament text, comparing the new translation with the sources and making his own suggestions for translation.148 Stave’s concern for and criticism of the new translation reveals some aspects of his approach to Old Testament study.149 First of all, he questioned the guiding principle of using the Masoretic Text as the only source for the translation, since this text had many deficiencies.150 Stave advocated a text critical approach which takes into account all the various helpful texts and versions, especially the Septuagint, in translating the Old Testament. Stave then pointed out where the commission had been inconsistent and deviated from the rule of following solely the Masoretic Text. Although Stave was not against this practice, he thought that they should indicate where they have done this in footnotes, or even better, change the guiding principle to allow for the use of other sources which would avoid this inconsistency.151 The importance which Stave placed upon pedagogy is also demonstrated in his critique. He believed that the translation was not clear and understandable at times because they slavishly tried to follow _____________________________________________________________________________________ af Nya Testamentet,” BF 25 (1908) 85-132, 165-228, 245-83. Stave’s interest in Bible translation is revealed as early as 1893 and 1896 when he made an analysis of the sources behind the translation of the 1526 NT and 1541 NT into Swedish. (“Om källorna till 1526 års öfversättning af Nya testamentet” and “Om källorna till 1541 års öfversättning af Nya testamentet.”) 148 Although it was probably Stave’s intention to go through the whole Old Testament (since he ended his analysis with ‘to be continued’), he only completed a third of the Old Testament, ending with I Samuel 30:21. A possible explanation for why he did not complete this project is that the Bible Commission’s translation of the New Testament came out in 1907 and Stave became preoccupied with writing a critical response to it (which came out in 1908). 149 For a more detailed analysis of Stave’s main criticisms of the new OT translation of the Bible Commission, see Albrektson, “Tidigare svenska översättningar,” 41-52. 150 Stave, “Anmärkningar,” (1905) 92. 151 Stave,“Anmärkningar,” (1905) 98-101. Stave did admit that in most places, the Bible Commission’s translation was consistent with the Masoretic Text, but it was an exaggeration to claim that it was always faithful to this source as professor Esaias Tegnér advocated. [ Page ] 222 the Masoretic Text and translated the same Swedish word for the Hebrew word throughout, not allowing for different nuances in meaning.152 Finally, Stave revealed his firm belief that the results of modern biblical scholarship should not be hidden but made known to the general public. He questioned the Commission’s assertion that these results should only be limited to learned circles rather than made available to a wider church audience.153 In Stave’s words: “Why should scholarship’s many undoubtedly good results not come to the knowledge of the people?”154 This concern for making modern critical scholarship known beyond the scholarly circles to the general public influenced and marked Stave’s approach to Old Testament scholarship for most of his career. Stave wrote many popular and lay-oriented handbooks on the Old Testament.155 Stave’s critique of the Bible Commission’s translation did not go unnoticed; his thorough and meticulous work did gain some positive results. In the end, several of Stave’s suggestions were incorporated _________________________ 152 Stave, “Anmärkningar,” (1905) 104-05. Myrberg had criticized the Bible Commission for the same reason. In his historical study of the Swedish translation, Birger Olsson emphasizes how consistently and slavishly they followed this rule when he states that, “the greatest injustice one can do to Tegnér’s Commisson during the nineteenth century is to accuse it of negligence, carelessness and inconsistency.” (“Den största orättvisa man kan göra den tegnérska kommissonen under 1800-talet är att beskylla den för vårdslöshet, slarv och inkonsekvens.” Olsson, “Svenskt bibelöversättningsarbete,” 458.) The Revised Version of the English Bible of 1884 had also followed the same principle of adopting the Masoretic Text and translating the same Hebrew word with the same English word. “Revisers’ Preface to the Old Testament,” in The Holy Bible with the Apocrypha. The Revised Version with the Revised Marginal References (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1884); F. F. Bruce, History of the Bible in English (London: Lutterworth Press, 1979) 143-47. 153 Stave, “Anmärkningar,” (1905) 96-7; idem, “Anmärkningar,” (1906) 83. 154 “Hvarför skulle vetenskapens många otvifvelaktigt goda resultat icke få komma till folkets kännedom?” Stave, “Anmärkningar,” (1905) 96; emphasis by Stave. 155 The following examples are some of the more popular handbooks that Stave published: Israels historia för folkskolan och konfirmandundervisningen (1916); Israels land och dess historia intill Jesu och apostlarnas dagar (1918); Handledning för undervisare i Gamla testamentet. Folkskolans kurs (1921); Israels profeter: populära föredrag, 7 volumes (1917-28). [ Page ] 223 into the final Old Testament translation which came out in 1917.156 This great concern and interest in the new Swedish translation of the Bible during the nineteenth century and in the beginning of the twentieth century preoccupied many theologians and exegetes at the time. It is a factor which had some influence upon the development of biblical scholarship during this period, including Erik Stave. Stave spent much energy and time in the interest of the new translation of the Bible and thus his work in this area is important in considering his contribution to Swedish Old Testament scholarship. Conclusion The life and work of Erik Stave is very significant in the development of Swedish Old Testament scholarship at Uppsala University at the turn of the twentieth century. He played a vital role in promoting and legitimizing the historical-critical method in Old Testament exegesis. Although Stave suffered a lot personally during this process, (since at first his views were often rejected or misunderstood), he persevered and made a significant contribution to Old Testament research. Stave’s Introduction to the Canonical Texts of the Old Testament (1912) and The History of Israel (1916) became the standard textbooks in the subject at Uppsala University for many years.157 Towards the end of his academic career, in the 1920s, the winds of Old Testament scholarship _____________________________ 156 Albrektson, “Tidigare svenska översättningar,” 46. Stave was still very critical of the latest revision of the translation of the Old and New Testaments when it was presented at the General Church Assembly in 1915 and stated his dissatisfaction in very strong terms. Lindblom recalls that Stave did not always show the best side of his character at these Church Assemblies, which was demonstrated particularly at the 1915 conference. Allmänna Kyrkomötets Protokoll år 1915 (Stockholm: Ivar Haeggströms Boktryckeri Aktiebolag, 1915) 2-20,78-84; Lindblom, “Stave,” 261. 157 Inledning till Gamla Testamentets kanoniska skrifter and Israels historia. In 1934, Sven Linder still recommended these and many other works of Stave for the study of the Old Testament (Sven Linder, “För prästens studier. Litteratur i Gamla Testamentets exegetik,” NKT 3 [1934] 21-25). [ Page ] 224 were again changing direction; Scandinavian scholars were beginning to explore new alternative methods to Old Testament interpretation. Stave could not fully appreciate the new perspective and the change in methodology of the time.158 He remained a faithful adherent to the historical-critical method until his death in 1932. Erik Stave is remembered as one of the first main advocates of the modern critical approach in the Faculty of Theology at Uppsala University at the turn of the century. ____________________________ 158 Linder, “Domprosten,” 265-67. [ Page ] 225 Chapter Six Conclusion Old Testament scholarship in Sweden in the latter part of the nineteenth century was shaped by the larger philosophical and intellectual world (particularly that of Germany) but also by the strong personalities who were involved, and by the institutional connection between the universities and the Church in Sweden. The development of Old Testament scholarship at Uppsala University should be seen in the light of these factors. The acceptance of the modern critical approach to biblical exegesis was a gradual and complex process. The method was adopted relatively late in Sweden as compared to Germany. In fact, the main impulse to accept the new critical approach came from Germany. All the Swedish theologians were greatly influenced by German scholarship in general and brought German philosophy and theology to Sweden. The fact that they shared the same theological tradition and heritage in Lutheranism made them feel a strong affinity with Germany in general. As a result, in the nineteenth century Swedish theology was engaged in the process of evaluation and assimilation of new ideas and theories coming from the continent and from Germany in particular. Although biblical scholarship in Germany was much more creative in the nineteenth century than in Sweden or in fact than in the rest of western Europe, it is important to remember that Sweden is a small country (both in size and population)1 and that at the time there were only two universities, in Uppsala and Lund, where theology and biblical ____________________________ 1 In 1850, there were approximately 3, 5 million people living in Sweden. By 1920 there were 6 million and today there are approximately 8, 5 million people. [ Page ] 226 exegesis were taught. In comparison, in the nineteenth century Germany had many universities where the Old Testament was taught and studied, which gave German scholars many more opportunities to be creative and innovative in biblical research.2 It is no wonder that Germany dominated and led the way in promoting modern critical scholarship in western Europe, and this inevitably had an impact on Sweden. However, when the Swedish theologians discussed in this study finally adopted the historical-critical method, most of them accepted a moderate form of biblical criticism and therefore had difficulty accepting more radical conclusions. The Faculty of Theology in Uppsala remained fairly conservative theologically. This circumstance was probably enhanced and affected by the close ties that the Faculty had with the Church of Sweden. Since the Faculties of Theology in Uppsala and Lund functioned as the centres for theological education and training of Lutherans for the priesthood, the Church of Sweden was able to exert influence over the Faculties of Theology and their members. Because the seat of the Archbishop of the Church of Sweden was also in Uppsala, the Church’s shadow of influence was felt even more keenly in the Faculty in Uppsala.3 Consequently, it is not surprising that Church politics often overlapped with and entered into departmental politics in the Faculty. _____________________________ 2 Just like Sweden, England also had very few universities where Bible and theology were taught in the nineteenth century as compared with Germany. Rogerson lists seventeen faculties in the German states where there were one or two Old Testament teachers per faculty which does not include all the chairs in oriental languages where the Old Testament was also taught. Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism, 138-39, 291. 3 In fact, the Archbishop’s home was and still is very near the Faculty of Theology. All the professors in the Faculty of Theology were ordained priests (and often assigned to a parish church) and many became bishops and even Archbishops. Both E. Stave and F. A. Johansson had wanted to become bishops in the Church even though they never did. The first theology professor also served as Dean at the Uppsala Cathedral. The Faculty of Theology always sent members to represent them at the General Church Assemblies. This close relationship between the university and the Church has continued in the twentieth century. Although the Faculty still trains priests and ministers today, in principle it functions more like a non-confessional institution for the scientific study of religion (Hartman, “New Testament Exegesis,” 58-59). [ Page ] 227 In fact, departmental politics played a very important role in shaping the way Swedish biblical scholarship developed. There were political and personal conflicts within the Faculty in Uppsala which affected who got appointed to a lectureship or a professorial chair in the Faculty. The ‘scandal’ which surrounded the competition for the extraordinary chair in exegesis in 1894-95, and which resulted in Stave having to withdraw his application because he had ‘copied’ Johansson’s topic, is one example. It was the personality conflicts and tensions (caused by Myrberg in particular) in the Faculty over certain aspects of Johansson’s theological position which contributed to F. A. Johansson never feeling quite ‘at home’ in the Faculty in Uppsala and which eventually led him to return to Lund. The fact that neither Samuel Fries or Torgny Segerstedt could get a teaching position in the Faculty because their scholarship was considered too liberal or radical demonstrates that the Faculty was still quite conservative theologically. Not only was Fries’ History of Israel too radical in its perspective, its rejection by the Faculty of Theology was also influenced by the animosity and dislike which existed between the Faculty and Herman Almkvist, the professor of Semitic languages in the philosophical Faculty, who had encouraged Fries to write the book in the first place and who insisted that his students study Fries’ book. These cases also demonstrate the power of influence that certain scholars had (like Rudin in the case of Fries and Stave in the case of both Fries and Segerstedt) which could affect who got appointments in the Faculty. A factor which is important and related to the issue of who were able to get teaching positions in the Faculty is the question of timing, not just who were actually appointed but when they were. For example, Myrberg’s presence in the Faculty for so many years was a deterrent to the advances of modern critical scholarship in Uppsala because he was opposed to the method in principle and tried to hinder it from impacting [ Page ] 228 on Swedish biblical exegesis, (even though in practice he made certain concessions to historical criticism in cases such as Deutero-Isaiah and Daniel). Although Myrberg had wanted to remain longer in his professorial chair, he was strongly encouraged to retire and did so in 1892. After his retirement, even though Myrberg’s presence was no longer felt as keenly in the Faculty, he continued to live in Uppsala and to make his voice heard until his death in 1899. Because it was Rudin who followed Myrberg in the chair of exegesis, it was not until the beginning of the twentieth century, when Stave and Söderblom became professors, that the historical-critical method was promoted more fully in the Faculty. When professor Danell left in 1905, the members who were more conservative and cautious in their response to biblical criticism were in the minority in the Faculty and the historical critics had more freedom to promote the modern critical perspective. There were certain ideas and concepts which prepared the way for the acceptance of historical criticism in Sweden. All the scholars in this study distinguished between the essential and the non-essential, the perfect and imperfect, the kernel and shell, the human and divine in the Bible, and this approach to the biblical text made it easier for some of them to accommodate some of the results of historical criticism. The concepts of growth and development, progressive revelation and the organic unity of the Scriptures were also very important ideas which shaped their understanding of the Bible.4 All of them rejected the old traditional mechanical view of inspiration and instead accepted a more _____________________________ 4 One of Sten Hidal’s main arguments in his book is that these concepts played a very significant role in the eventual reception of the historical-critical method in Sweden: “The significance of the idea of organism and the concept of development for 1800s thinking can hardly be overrated. Their significance for Swedish theology is absolutely crucial.” (‘Organismtankens och utvecklingsbegreppets betydelse för 1800-talets tänkande kan knappast överskattas. Deras betydelse för svensk teologi är helt avgörande.” Hidal, Bibeltro, 18; see also page 183.) [ Page ] 229 dynamic view where the human factor played an important role in the process of inspiration. The incarnational model became important for articulating this view of the Bible. These concepts and ideas helped prepare the way for the historical-critical method. In fact, none of the scholars in this study rejected the method completely (not even Myrberg) but made certain concessions to it and accepted in various degrees a moderate form of biblical criticism. Of course, Stave embraced the method completely, believing it to be essential for interpreting the Scriptures correctly. Therefore, these concepts and ideas which were so significant and central for understanding the Bible in the nineteenth century, played an important role in shaping the way biblical interpretation developed in Sweden. Finally, I would like to make some suggestions for further research. A study could be done on Old Testament interpretation at Uppsala University during the centuries prior to the nineteenth century, from the time of the founding of the university in 1477 until the present. Further research could be done on the Old Testament scholarship of people who never became professors of biblical exegesis but worked outside the Faculty of Theology, like Samuel Fries, John Personne, Ludvig Bergström and Jonas Walles for example.5 More work could be done on the role and influence of the department of Semitic languages in the philosophical Faculty upon Swedish Old Testament scholarship. For example, it was Herman Almkvist professor of Semitic languages who promoted S. A. Fries’ History of Israel as a required text in his courses, ___________________________ 5 An entire thesis could be written on Samuel Fries alone. There is a wealth of material available on S. A. Fries, because his wife Anna gave the Uppsala University Library all of his unpublished papers and the letters which he had received and written during his life. Consequently, there are many, numerous volumes of catalogued letters to and from Fries. More could also be done on Jonas Walles about whom very little is known, even though he was docent in Old Testament exegesis (1900-1908) in the Faculty and tried to get a professorship a number of times. His son has published some of Walles’ work. [ Page ] 230 which caused tension between him and the Faculty of Theology. Earlier in the nineteenth century and in the previous centuries, it was the scholars in Semitic languages who were doing significant scholarship on the Hebrew Bible and who often served on the Bible Commission, working on the Swedish translation of the Bible.6 Their influence on Old Testament research in Sweden is an important topic for further consideration. I suggest that further research could be done on Old Testament scholarship at Lund University. Because of the limitations of this study, I have only touched upon the biblical research done by certain scholars from Lund, but there is a wealth of material there. Sven Herner’s contribution to Old Testament research at Lund University in light of his adoption and promotion of the historical-critical method is important in the history of Swedish modern critical scholarship.7 More work could also be done on Old Testament studies in the other Scandinavian countries during the nineteenth century, and a comparison made with Swedish scholarship at the time. History of interpretation is a very important subject because we can learn a lot from the past. There is a need for more awareness among scholars of the history of their own discipline as well as a readiness to learn from it. The questions and issues which shaped Swedish Old Testament scholarship in the nineteenth century are different today in a late twentieth century context. It is important to know where certain ______________________________ 6 Frithiof Rundgren, “Semitic Languages,” in Faculty of Arts at Uppsala University: Linguistics and Philology (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis; Uppsala University 500 years 6; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1976). The antagonism or rivalry between some theologians at the Faculty of Theology and certain scholars of Semitic languages continued into the twentieth century (between H. S. Nyberg, G. Widengren and I. Engnell for example). 7 Sven Hemer was extraordinary professor of exegetical theology (specializing in Old Testament studies) from 1902 and ordinary professor from 1909 until 1930 at Lund University. [ Page ] 231 theological and philosophical assumptions and methods have come from since they still affect our biblical interpretation today. History of interpretation also helps us become more aware of the fact that all interpretation is influenced by one’s context and that this is unavoidable. There is a need for scholars to be more open in stating their theological and philosophical biases and assumptions, which have been shaped by their experiences and contexts. Today, Swedish Old Testament scholarship faces new challenges because Sweden is changing from a fairly homogeneous ‘Christian’ society to a secular, multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society as a result of the influx of foreign immigration and refugees in particular. Consequently, the Church and its theologians face the challenge of ecumenical and inter-faith dialogue in an ever-increasing secular society. No longer is Sweden a ‘Christian’ country where the Church dominates as it did in the nineteenth century. Biblical and theological studies in the universities are taught within a secular ecumenical context. Neither is Sweden isolated from the rest of the world as it was in the last century, now that it is part of a global society. Consequently, the exchange of ideas and the results of biblical research can be shared more readily. Swedish biblical scholarship is now being published more and more in English and German, making it readily accessible to the greater world of academia. Contrary to the situation in the nineteenth century, the greater world of scholarship is finding that Sweden has an important contribution to make to biblical and theological research. The great challenge which biblical scholarship in Sweden faces (just as the greater academic community does) is how to make the Bible meaningful and relevant to the present day context as we approach the twenty-first century. As the Uppsala theologians in the nineteenth century responded to the needs and [ Page ] 232 concerns of their society through their biblical scholarship, we must do the same. Herein lies the future challenge of biblical studies. [ Page ] 233 [ Portrait of O.F. Myrberg ] O. F. Myrberg [ Page 234 ] [ Portrait of W. Rudin ] W. Rudin [ Page 235 ] [Portrait of J.A. Ekman ] J. A. Ekman [ Page ] 236 [ Portrait of F.A. Johansson ] F. A. Johansson [ Page ] 237 [ Portrait of E. Stave ] E. Stave [ Page ] 238 [ Portrait of S.A. Fries ] S. A. Fries [ Page ] 239 Old Testament Scholarship at Uppsala University 1866-1922 O. F. Myrberg (1824-1899) Docent in Theological Prenotions and Theological Encyclopaedia 1852-1860 Adjunct Theology Lecturer 1860-1866 Ordinary Professor in Exegesis 1866-1892 E. G. W. Rudin (1833-1921) Docent in Exegesis 1872-1875 Adjunct Theology Lecturer 1875-1877 Extraordinary Professor in Exegesis 1877-1892 Ordinary Professor in Exegesis 1892-1900 J. A. Ekman (1845-1913) Docent in Exegesis 1877-1887 Ordinary Professor in Theological Prenotions and Theological Encyclopaedia 1887-1898 Bishop in Västerås 1898-1900 Archbishop of the Church of Sweden 1900-1913 F. A. Johansson (1850-1910) Docent in Exegetical Theology 1886-1892 (Lund University) Extraordinary Professor in Dogmatics and Moral Theology 1892-1895 (Uppsala University) Extraordinary Professor in Exegesis 1895-1897 (Uppsala University) Ordinary Professor in Exegetical Theology 1897-1910 (Lund University) E. Stave (1857-1932) Docent in Exegesis 1889-1899 Extraordinary Professor in Exegesis 1899-1900 Ordinary Professor in Exegesis 1900-1922 [ Page ] 240 The Faculty of Theology at Uppsala University Exegesis (1850-1927) Docent, Extraordinary Professor or Ordinary Professor A. E. Knös First Theology Professor* (1850-62) P. Sjöbring Docent in Exegesis (1850-54) M. G. Rosenius Docent in Old Testament Exegesis (1856-60) C. T. Hjerpe Docent in New Testament Exegesis (1859-63) Second Theology Adjunct (1863-66) First Theology Adjunct (1866-75) C. A. Hultkrantz Ordinary Professor (1864-65) M. Johansson Docent in New Testament Exegesis (1866-70) J. E. Berggren Docent (1881-88) 0. F. Myrberg Ordinary Professor (1866-92) J. A. Ekman Docent (1877-87) E. G. W. Rudin Docent (1872-75) Theology Adjunct (1875-77) Extraordinary Professor (1877-92) Ordinary Professor (1892-1900) K. U. Nylander Docent in Old Testament Exegesis (1895) F. A. Johansson Extraordinary Professor (1895-97) E. Stave Docent (1889-99) Extraordinary Professor (1899-1900) Ordinary Professor (1900-22) J. A. Kolmodin Docent (1890-1903) Extraordinary Professor (1903-09) Ordinary Professor (NT) (1909-20) J. Walles Docent in Old Testament Exegesis (1900-08) S. E. Aurelius Docent (1907-11) C. J. Lindblom Docent (1909-24) H. Steen Docent in New Testament Exegesis (1911) J. Lundberg Docent in New Testament Exegesis (1917-24) G. P. Wetter Docent (1914-17) Ordinary Professor (NT) (1923-26) S. Linder Docent (1922-27) Ordinary Professor (1927-47) [ Page ] 241 *In 1863 the numbering which ranked the four different professorships into first, second, third and fourth professor in the Faculty of Theology was removed. The first theology professor became the ordinary professor in exegesis, since this was already the subject which belonged to the first theology professorship.1 ____________________________ 1Åke Ström, “Series professorum Exegeseos Biblicae ordinariorum Upsaliensium a reformatione,” SEÅ 1 (1936) 87-109; UUK (1850-1927). [ Page ] 242 Bibliography I have placed the Swedish vowels å, ä and ö under a and o respectively, following the order of an English dictionary even though in the Swedish dictionary they come at the end as individual entries. Unpublished Material Lund University Library G. Auléns samling Letters to Aulén from E. Stave A. G. L. Billings samling Letters to Billing from J. A. Ekman Letters to Billing from F. A. Johansson E. Billings samling Letters to Billing from E. Stave S. L. Brings samling Letters to Bring from F. A. Johansson P. G. Eklunds samling Letters to Eklund from F. A. Johansson R. Helgessons samling Letters to Helgesson from F. A. Johansson O. Holmströms samling Letters to Holmström from F. A. Johansson Letters to Holmström from E. Stave J. F. Liedholms samling Letters to Liedholm from F. A. Johansson C. J. Lindbloms samling Letters to Lindblom from W. Rudin Letters to Lindblom from E. Stave M. Pfannenstills samling Letters to Pfannenstill from E. Stave E. M. Rodhes samling Letters to Rodhe from E. Stave C. W. Skarstedts samling Letters to Skarstedt from O. F. Myrberg E. Tegnérs samling Letter to Tegnér from O. F. Myrberg F. A. Wulffs samling Letters to Wulff from F. A. Johansson [ Page ] 243 Stifts- och landsbibliotek i Linköping Harald Falks arkiv Letters to Falk from E. Stave 1990:1 Falk vol 5 Uppsala University Library S. G. L. R. Alrutz brevsamling Letter to Alrutz from J. A. Ekman F. Arvedsons samling Letters to Arvedson from J. A. Ekman G7:ba Letters to Arvedson from W. Rudin G7:bc A. F. Beckmans brevsamling Letters to Beckman from J. A. Eklund Letters to Beckman from O. F. Myrberg Letters to Beckman from W. Rudin J. O. Bensows samling Letters to Bensow from J. A. Ekman G18:2 Letter to Bensow from E. Stave G18:8 L. Bergströms samling L. Bergströms efterlämnade papper 420A Dagböcker, brev och predikningar F. N. Beskows samling Letters to Beskow from E. Stave G21 af: 10 J. A. Eklunds brevsamling Letters to Eklund from J. A. Ekman Letters to Eklund from E. Stave G. Ekströms brevsamling Letters to Ekström from J. A. Ekman Letters to Ekström from E. Stave S. A. Fries samling Föreläsningsanteckningar 1888-1892 H.T. 1888 Exegetik II. Psaltaren. Föreläsningar av O. F. Myrberg T3k:34 Föreläsningsanteckningar 1888-1892 H.T. 1888 Exegetik ΙΠ. Israels Historia av W. Rudin T3k:34 Letter to Fries from F. Arvedson T3k: 1 Letters to Fries from H. Danell T3k:2 Letters to Fries from J. A. Ekman T3k:3 Letters to Fries from N. J. Göransson T3k:7 Letters to Fries from H. Hjärne T3k:9 Letters to Fries from F. A. Johansson T3k:9 Letters to Fries from O. F. Myrberg T3k:12 Letters to Fries from W. Rudin T3k:13 Letter to Fries from T. Segerstedt T3k:14 Letters to Fries from N. Söderblom T3k:15, T3k:16 [ Page ] 244 Letter to Fries from E. Stave T3k: 14 Letters to H. Danell from Fries T3k:22 Letters to J. A. Ekman from Fries T3k:22, T3k:121 Letters to F. Fehr from Fries T3k:121 Letters to Anna Fries from S. A. Fries T3k:24, T3k:25, T3k:26 Letters to N. J. Göransson from Fries T3k:22 Letters to W. Rudin from Fries T3k:121 Letters to N. Söderblom from Fries T3k:23 H. Hjärnes brevsamling Letters to Hjärne from S. A. Fries 1g Letters to Hjärne from N. Söderblom 1p E. J. Keijsers samling Letters to Keijser from J. A. Ekman G 130g:3 Letter to Keijser from F. A. Johansson G 130g:5 A. Kolmodins samling Letters to Kolmodin from J. A. Ekman T31:3 Letters to Kolmodin from F. A. Johansson T31:6 Letters to Kolmodin from O. F. Myrberg T31:8 Letters to Kolmodin from W. Rudin T31:10 Letters to Kolmodin from E. Stave T31:l1 E. Linderholms samling Emanuel Linderholms anteckningar från föreläsningar öfver Gamla Testamentets messianska profetior av Erik Stave VT 1899 Linderholm 154 ka 10 Föreläsningar öfver Hosea av Erik Stave VT 1899 Linderholm 154 ka 11 Anteckningar i Gamla Testamentets exegetik Linderholm 154 ka 13 G. Lizells brevsamling Letters to Lizell from E. Stave A. H. Lundströms samling Letters to Lundström from J. A. Ekman G 154:1 Letters to Lundström from F. A. Johansson G154:2, K 44r Letter to Lundström from E. Stave G. 154:3 T. A. Mazers samling Letters to Mazer from O. F. Myrberg G360 O. F. Myrbergs samling Prof O. F. Myrbergs efterlämnade papper 441g: 1 O. F. Myrbergs brevsamling vol 3 Okat.441g:l O. F. Myrbergs brevsamling Letters to Myrberg from C. H. Bergman Letter to Myrberg from S. L. Bring Letters to Myrberg from J. A. Ekman Letters to Myrberg from S. A. Fries Letters to Myrberg from C. A. Hultkrantz Letters to Myrberg from A. W. Ingman Letters to Myrberg from G. Johansson Letter to Myrberg from M. Johansson Letter to Myrberg from A. Kolmodin Letter to Myrberg from C. Norrby [ Page ] 245 Letters to Myrberg from E. Stave Letter to Myrberg from C. A. Torén C. E. J. Rogbergs samling Letters to Rogberg from O. F. Myrberg X 290 ba 14 Letter to Rogberg from J. Personne X 290 bb 3 Letter to Rogberg from W. Rudin X290 ba 14 W. Rudins samling Lectures and notes: Anteckningar öfver Gamla Testamentet 1-3 Tlga:25-27 Anteckningar öfver Gamla Testamentet 6. Psaltaren Tlga:39 Anteckningar till profeten Jesaja Tlga:41 Anteckningar vid föreläsningar öfver Gamla Testamentets bibliska historia av adjunkten W. Rudin 187677־, av Erik Fredlund Tlga:83 Biblisk Historia 1 Tlga:81 Biblisk Historia 2 Tlga:82 Bokkatalog I Tlgc: 1 Domareboken 1 T1ga: 31 Erklärung der beiden Profeten Micha und Joel von Prof Beck Tlga:53 Föreläsningar hösten 1894. Första Mosebok och Egypten Tlga:30 Föreläsningar med ledning af Lindermeyers bok Guds rike ss werldsrike TI ga:80 Föreläsningar öfver de mindre profeterna Tlga:49 Föreläsningar öfver Första Samuels Bok Tlga:36-37 Föreläsningar öfver Genesis 1876-77 1-2 Tlga:28-29 Föreläsningar öfver Hesekiel Tlga:48 Föreläsningar öfver Jeremias Tlga:44-46 Föreläsningar öfver profeterna Mika och Zefanja Tlga:52 Föreläsningar öfver Samuel och Sauls Historia 1 Tlga:33 Föreläsningar öfver Sauls och Davids Historia 2-3 Tlga:34-35 Förteckning över Professor W. Rudins donation. Bibi. arkiv K 52 Förteckning över Rudinska papper I, Brev, anteckn. div. manuskript 459G Glosor och Anteckningar öfver Davids Psalmer efter Hengstenbergs Commentar Tlga:38 Predikoutkast öfver valda texter ur profeterna Esaias och Zakarias Tlgb:36 Profet Micha efter Prof Beck T1 ga:54 Tentamens-bok 1873-1882 TI ga:l 11 Tentamens-bok 1890-1901 Tlga:113 Letters: Letter to Rudin from J. T. Beck Tlge: 1 Letter to Rudin from J. A. Ekman Tlge:24 Letters to Rudin from A. Kolmodin Tlge:9 Letter to Rudin from C. F. Lundin Tlge: 10 Letters to Rudin from T. Mazer T1 ge:3, T1ge :10 Letters to Rudin from O. F. Myrberg T1ge:1, T1ge:10 Letter to Rudin from C. G. Nyström Tlge: 11 Letter to Rudin from J. Personne Tlge: 11 Letters to Louise Maule Rudin from Rudin Tlge: 18, T1ge:22 Letter to N. Söderblom from Rudin Tlge:22 Diaries: Anteckningar ur det inre lifvet la. 1878-1881 Tlgd:31c Anteckningar ur det inre lifvet 2. 1881-1892 Tlgd:33 Anteckningar ur det inre lifvet 3. 1893-1900 Tlgd:34 Biografiska Anteckningar 4. 1886-1889 Tlgd:22 [ Page ] 246 Biografiska Anteckningar 5. 18891892־ Tlgd:23 Biografiska Anteckningar 6. 1893-1896 Tlgd:24 Dagboksanteckningar. Utdrag ur Anteckningar för det inre lifvet 18811892־ Tlgd:7 Dagboksanteckningar. Utdrag ur Anteckningar för det inre lifvet 1893-1912 Tlgd:8 Levnadsteckning 1. 1833-1885 Tlgd:18 Levnadsteckning 2. 1886-1896 Tlgd:18 Tankar för mig själv 1912-1920 Tlgd:36 A. Söderbloms brevsamling Letters to Söderblom from Erik and Alma Stave N. Söderbloms samling Svensk teologi i det nittonde århundradet, vol 1-2 Föreläsningar ht 1903-vt 1904 N. Söderbloms brevsamling Letters to Söderblom from L. Bergström Letters to Söderblom from J. A. Ekman Letters to Söderblom from W. Rudin Letters to Söderblom from E. Stave Letters to L. Bergström from Söderblom Letters to M. Pfannenstill from Söderblom E. Staves samling Erik Staves manuskript, predikningar, kasualtal 462G:2 1989/13 J. Walles samling Letter to Walles from N. Söderblom G360 [Söderblom] Protokollsbok för Föreningen för Semitiska Språk 1888-1907 U 2090 a Teologiska Föreningens samling Teologiska Föreningens i Uppsala protokoll 1863-79 U 2325 a, 1880-84 U 2325 b, 1884-89 U 2325 c, 1890-1906 U 2325 d, 1907-29 U 2325 e Uppsala Kristliga Studentförbunds samling Protokoll för Uppsala Kristliga Studentförbund 1901-1906 U 2503 e:l, 1906-1908 U 2503 e:2, 1908-1914 U 2503 e:3 Uppsala University Archives Books acquired by Uppsala University Library Företeckning över Professor W. Rudins donation (Sv. 1921/52) Bibl arkiv K 52 Företeckning över från Domprosten E. Staves sterbhus inköpta böcker 1932 Bibl arkiv K52g Större och Mindre Akad Konsistoriets Protokoll 1894 AI:318 Teologiska fakultetens dagböcker No 1 1891-1893 F:1 UUA No 2 1894-1896 F:2 UUA No 3 1897-1898 F:3 UUA No 4 1899-1900 F:4 UUA [ Page ] 247 No 5 1901-1903 F:5 UUA No 6 1903-1906 F:6 UUA Teologiska fakultetens protokolls-bok 1865-1876 AI: 13 1876-1881 AI:14 1881-1887 AI:15 1888-1893 AI:16 1894-1898 AI:17 1898-1902 AI: 18 1903-1907 AI: 19 1908-1912 AI:20 1913-1917 AI:21 1918-1922 AI:22 Published Material Åberg, Alf. Vår svenska historia. Stockholm: Natur och kultur, 1978. Åberg, Bengt. Individualitet och univeralitet hos Waldemar Rudin, Lund: Verbum, 1968. _______. “Waldemar Rudin. En mystiker och hans referensram. Ett kapitel om mystik i Svenska kyrkan.” Gnosis (1/90-1/91) 285-94. Åhfeldt, Clemens. “Några ord om W. Rudins homiletiska författarskap.” BF 34 (1917) 1-9. Åkerberg, Hans. Omvändelse och kamp. En empirisk religionspsykologisk undersökning av den unge Nathan Söderbloms religiösa utveckling 1866-1894. Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1975. Albrektson, Bertil. “Tidigare svenska översättningar.” In Att översätta Gamla testamentet. Texter, kommentarer, riktlinjer. Betänkande av 1971 års bibelkommitté för Gamla testamentet. Statens offentliga utredningar 1974:33. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell, 1974. ________. “Lindblom, Christian Johannes.” SBL 23 (1982) 304-8. ________. “Grundtext och urtext: om underlaget för svenska översättningar av Gamla testamentet.” In Understanding the Poets and Prophets. Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson. Edited by A. Graeme Auld. JSOTS 152. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Allmänna Kyrkomötets Protokoll år 1898. Stockholm: Central-tryckeriet, 1898. Allmänna Kyrkomötets Protokoll år 1903. Stockholm: Centraltryckeriet, 1903. Allmänna Kyrkomötets Protokoll år 1915. Stockholm: Ivar Haeggströms Boktryckeri Aktiebolag, 1915. Almquist, S. “Från Rudins Klara-tid. Ett 50-årsminne.” In Hågkomster och livsintryck av svenska män och kvinnor. Vol 3. Uppsala: J. A. Lindblads Förlag, 1923. [ Page ] 248 Althin, Ernst. Från Rudin Inledning till profetian i Gamla testamentet 1884 till Lindblom Profetismen i Israel 1934. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerups Förlag, 1936. Ancker, Estrid. Torgny Segerstedt 1876-1945. Studier i en personlighet. Stockholm: Tidens Förlag, 1962. Anderson, G. W. “Some Aspects of the Uppsala School of Old Testament Study.” HTR 43/4(1950)239-56. Andersson, Aksel. Uppsala Universitets Styremän, lärare,och tjänstemän 1872-1897: schematisk öfversikt och bio-bibliografi. Upsala: Akademiska Boktryckeriet, 1897. Andrae, Tor. Nathan Söderblom. Uppsala: J. A. Lindblads förlag, 1931. ________. “Nathan Söderblom som religionshistoriker.” In Nathan Söderblom in memoriam. Edited by Nils Karlström. Stockhom: Svenska Kyrkans Diakonistyrelses Bokförlag, 1931. Anvisningar och råd för studiet af exegetisk teologi i och för Dimmissions examen. Upsala: Edv. Berlings Boktryckeri, 1886. Anvisningar och råd för studiet af exegetisk teologi i och för Dimmissions examen. Upsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1892. Anvisningar och råd för studiet af exegetisk teologi i och för Dimmissions examen. Upsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1895. Aulén, Gustaf. “Ärkebiskop Johan August Ekman: In memoriam.” In Lundsstifts Julbok 1914. Malmö: Förlagsaktiebolaget, 1914. ________. “Einar Magnus Billing.” SBL 4 (1924) 383-85. _______. Dogmahistoria: Den kristna lärobildningens utvecklingsgång från den efter- apostoliska tiden till våra dagar. Vol 4. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner, 1946. _______. Hundra års Svensk kyrkodebatt: Drama i tre akter. Stockholm: Svenska Kyrkans Diakonistyrelses Bokförlag, 1953. _______. Från mina nittiosex år. Hänt och tänkt. Stockholm: Verbum, 1975. Aurelius, B. “Rudin, Valdemar.” NF 16 (1932) 1175-76. Aurelius, Erik. Review of Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, by W. Robertson Smith. BF 20 (1903) 282-90. _______. “Bibelforskning.” NF 3 (1925) 188-98. Bahr, J. von and Th. Brandberg. “Myrberg, Otto Ferdinand.” In Upsala Universitets Matrikel. Upsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1896. ________. “Rudin, Erik Georg Waldemar Napoleon.” In Upsala Universitets Matrikel. Upsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1896. ________. “Ekman, Johan August.” In Uppsala Universitets Matrikel. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1906. [ Page ] 249 Beck, J. T. “Antydningar för Religionsundervisning och Skriftförstånd.” In Bidrag till en biblisk theologi. Afhandlingar och skrifter samlade och utgifna. Edited by O. F. Myrberg. Volume 2. Stockholm: E. T. Bergegren, 1863. _______. “Tankar ur och i öfverensstämmelse med den Heliga Skrift.” In Bidrag till en biblisk theologi. Afhandlingar och skrifter samlade och utgifna. Edited by O. F. Myrberg. Volume 3. Stockholm: E. T. Bergegren, 1863. _______. Sjutton kristliga tal. Öfversättning från tyskan af A. W Ingman. Helsingfors: G. W. Edlunds förlag, 1866. _______. Antydningar för Religionsundervisning och Skriftförstånd. Öfversättning af O. F. Myrberg. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söners Förlag, 1881. Berggren, Erik. “Fehr, Fredrik August.” SMK 2 (1944) 499-500.” _______. “Rudin, Erik Georg Waldemar Napoleon.” SMK 6 (1949) 389-99. Berglund, Emil. “Hjalmar Danell.” SBL 10 (1931) 178-85. Bergman, Jan. “The History of Religion.” In Faculty of Theology at Uppsala University. Edited by Helmer Ringgren. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala University 500 years 1. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1976. Bergström, L. Om Moseböckernas uppkomst. Svenska spörmål 5. Uppsala: Bibliografiska Institutet, 1892. ______. Moseböckernas värde. Svenska spörmål 8. Stockholm: Lars Hökerbergs Förlag, 1893. Billing, Einar. “Aulén, Gustaf Emanuel Hildebrand.” SBL 2 (1920) 439-42. _____Herdabrev till prästerskapet i Västerås stift. Stockholm: Diakonistyrelsens Bokförlag, 1920. Billing, Gottfrid. Den Heliga Skrifts auktoritet. Lund: CWK Gleerups Förlag, 1902. ______. Gottfrid Billings Levnadsminnen - Biskopstiden i Lund. Edited by Hilding Pleijel. Samlingar och studier till svenska kyrkans historia 41. Lund: Håkan Ohlssons Förlag, 1975. Boethius, B. “Billing, Axel Gottfried Leonard.” SBL 4 (1924) 367-80. Bohlin, Torsten. Den kristna gudsrikestanken under 1800-talet och i nutiden. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerups Förlag, 1928. Borgenstierna, Gert. Om Krist person och verk: Lärostrider i uppsvenskteologi under 1850-70-talen. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1942. Boström, Gustaf. “Buhl, Frants Peder William.” SU 5 (1947) 270. ________. “Hemer, Sven.” SU 13 (1955) 310-11. Bring, Ragnar. “Hemer, Sven.” SBL 18 (1971) 720-22. Bruce, F. F. History of the Bible in English. London: Lutterworth Press, 1979. [ Page ] 250 Buhl, Frants. Det israelitiske folks historie. Kjøbenhavn: Gyldendalske boghandels forlag (F. Hegel & S0n), 1893. ________. De messianske forjœttelser i det Gamle Testament. Kjøbenhavn: Gyldendalske boghandels forlag (F. Hegel & S0n), 1894. Carlsson, Sten. “History.” In Faculty of Arts at Uppsala University: History, Art and Philosophy. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala University 500 years 5. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1976. Cederberg, J. A. “En blick på J. T. Becks riktning i Finland.” (Finsk) TT 14 (1909) 137-53, 212-36, 285-99, 397-415. Cornelius, C. A. Några bidrag till Upsala Theologiska Fakultets historia. Vol Ι-ΙΠ. Upsala: Akademiska Boktryckeriet, Ed. Berling, 1874, 1875. Dahlquist, Thorild. “Theoretical Philosophy, Practical Philosophy: Some Pages from the History of Philosophy in Uppsala.” In Faculty of Arts at Uppsala University: History, Art and Philosophy. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala University 500 years 5. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1976. Danell, H. Review of Bibelkritikens inflytande på det kristliga troslifvet, by Erik Stave. KT 7 (1901) 414-21. _______. “Frans August Johansson.” KT 16 (1910) 357-60. Dedering, Sven. “Knös, Gustaf.” SBL 21 (1977) 406-408. “De gammaltestamentliga undersökningarnas mål och medel.” KS 6 (1901) 140, 148. Döbeln, Ernst von. “Förteckning över förste teologie professoren och domprosten Erik Staves av trycket utgivna skrifter.” In Teologiska Studier tillägnade Erik Stave på 65-årsdagen den 10 juni 1922 av kolleger och lärjungar. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1922. “Docenten Ekmans föreläsningar.” AB 14/22 (28 Jan 1879). Driver, S. R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. 9th ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1913. Elberling, E. “Buhl, Frants Peter William.” NF 4 (1905) 537-8. Edsman, Carl-Martin. “History of Religion.” In Faculty of Arts ay Uppsala University :History, Art and Philosophy. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala University 500 years 5. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1976. Ekman, Johan August. “Likheter mellan Esaias kapp. 40-66 och Jeremias, betraktade med hänsyn till frågan om de förras ursprung.” UUÅ (1877) 1-127. _______. “Om tiden för profeten Joels lefnad.” TT 20 (1880) 169-84, 241-54. _______. Under och Andeingifvelse. Stockholm: A. L. Normans-Expedition, 1883. _______. “Den gammaltestamentliga historiens betydelse.” TKTB 2 (1884) 19-42. ________. “Den kristna religionsläran enligt den heliga skrift.” BF 2 (1885) 332-81. ________. “Offren hos israeliterne.” TKTB 3 (1885) 210-34, 245-53. [ Page ] 251 ________. “Den kristna religionsläran enligt den heliga skrift” BF 3 (1886) 1-72, 213-98. _______. “Det gamla testamentets profetia om Guds rike.” TKTB 4 (1886) 22-49, 180- 213, 275-312. ________. Den heliga skrift som gudomlig och mensklig. Tal vid Svenska Bibelsällskapets Allmänna Årssammankomst den 6 April 1887. Stockholm: Otto Ahlströms Boktryckeri, 1887. ________. “Den kristna religionsläran enligt den heliga skrift.” BF 4 (1887) 67-100, 302-66. ________. “Teologiska Fakulteten.” In Upsala Universitet 1872-1897: Festskrift med anledning af konung Oscar II:s tjugofemårs regerings jubileum. Edited by Reinhold Geijer. Upsala: Akademiska Boktryckeriet, 1897 _______. Herdabref till Presterskapet i Vesterås stift. Vesterås: A. F. Bergh Boktryckeri, 1898. _______. “Otto Ferdinand Myrberg.” BF 16 (1899) I-VI. _______. “Johan Tobias Beck.” BF 17 (1900) 49-77, 395-408. _______. Herdabref till Presterskapet i Upsala Stift. Upsala: Wretmans Tryckeri, 1901. _______. “Guds uppenbarelse.” BF 20 (1903) 241-65. _______. “Försoningen.” BF 23 (1906) 6-22, 106-18. Ferre, Nels F. S. Swedish Contributions to Modern Theology with Special Reference to Lundensian Thought. With new chapter “Development in Swedish Theology, 1936-1966” by William A. Johnson, (orig. pub. 1939). New York: Harper & Row, Pub., 1967. “Föreläsning.” AB 14/21 (27 Jan 1879). Fridrichsen, A. “Stave, Erik.” NF 18 (1933) 397. Fries T., and E. von Döbeln. “Stave, Erik Erikson.” UUM (1916) 219-22. Fries, S. A. Israels Historia: till studerandes tjenst. Upsala: W. Schultz, 1894. ________. Den Israelitiska Kultens Centralisation. Upsala: Akademiska Boktryckeriet Evd. Berling, 1895. ________. “Bibelkritisk litteratur.” AB (15/10 1901). _______. Vår kärleks historia. Ett bidrag till teologiens historia. Edited by Martin Fries. Stockholm: Bokförlaget Natur och Kultur, 1945. Gierow, Krister. Lunds Universitets Historia. III. 1790-1867. Utgiven av universitetet till dess 300-Årsjubileum. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1971. Gillingstam, Hans. “Myrberg.” SBL 26 (1989) 139-40. [ Page ] 252 Göransson, Sven. “Teologie doktorspromotionema vid Uppsala Universitetet 1617- 1967. En historisk översikt.” KA 1:67 (1967) 9-23. ________. “Church History.” In Faculty of Theology at Uppsala University. Edited by Helmer Ringgren. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala University 500 years 1. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1976. Gyllenkrok, Axel, and Anders Jeffner. “Theological and Ideological Studies.” In Faculty of Theology at Uppsala University. Edited by Helmer Ringgren. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala University 500 years 1. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1976. Hagman, Bertil. “Söderblom, Lars Olof Jonathan (Nathan).” SU 28 (1958) 788-91. Hall, Thor. A Framework for Faith: Lundensian Theological Methodology in the Thought of Ragnar Bring. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970. Hallberg, Η. E. De bortgångnes minne. Föredrag vid Prästmötet i Lund 1912. Lund: Håkan Ohlssons Boktryckeri, 1912. Hammar, K. G. Liberalteologi och kyrkopolitik: kretsen kring Kristendomen och Vår Tid 1906 - omkr. 1920. Bibliotheca Historico-Ecclesiastica Lundensis I. Lund: CWK Gleerup Bokförlag, 1972. ________. “Under inflytande från Tyskland. Tysk teologi i svenska teologiska tidskrifter vid 1900-talets början.” In Nordisk Lutherdom över gränserna: de nordiska kyrkorna i 1900-talets konfessionella samarbete. Edited by Lars Österlin. Lund: Gleerups, 1972. Handlingar angående e. o. professuren i exegetik vid Upsala universitet år 1898. Teologiska Fakultetens utlåtande. Upsala: Edv. Berlings Boktryckeri, 1898. Handlingar angående e. o. professuren i exegetik vid Upsala universitet år 1902. Upsala: Edv. Berlings Boktryckeri, 1902. Handlingar rörande e. o. professuren i exegetik vid Upsala universitet år 1895. Upsala: Edv. Berlings Boktryckeri, 1895. Handlingar rörande tillsättningen af e. o. professuren i exegetisk teologi vid Lunds universitet. Lund: E. Malmströms Boktryckeri, 1901. Harjunpaa, Toivo. “Beckian Biblicism and Finland: A Study in Historical Perspective.” LQ 28 (1976) 290-330. Hartman, Lars. “New Testament Exegesis.” In Faculty of Theology at Uppsala University. Edited by Helmer Ringgren. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala University 500 years 1. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1976. Hartnack, Justus. “Scandinavian Philosophy.” EncPh 7 (1967) 294-302. Hemer, Sven. “Buhl, Frants.” NF 4 (1925) 201. ________. “Från kampen mellan gammal och ny teologi vid seklets början.” In Minnen Från Livskallet: 22 Emeriti berätta. Edited by Julius Wellhagen. Uppsala: J. A. Lindblads Förlag, 1945. Heüman, E. D. “I Bibelkritiksfrågan.” KS 6 (1901) 352-53. [ Page ] 253 Hidal, Sten. K. H. Gez. von Schéele: prelat, pilgrim, politiker. Visby: Barry Press Förlag, 1977. ________. Bibeltro och bibelkritik: Studier kring den historisk-kritiska bibelsynens genombrott i Sverige 1877-1910 med särskild hänsyn till Gamla testamentet. Lund: Skeab Verbum, 1979. Hof, Hans. “The Philosophy of Religion.” In Faculty of Theology at Uppsala University. Edited by Helmer Ringgren. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala University 500 years 1. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1976. Holm, Rurik. “Skarstedt, Carl Wilhelm.” SU 26 (1957) 162. _______. “Fries, Samuel Andreas.” SU 10 (1959) 588-89. _______. “Myrberg, Otto Ferdinand.” SU 20 (1960) 630. Holmberg, Olle. “Rydberg, Abraham Viktor.” SU 24 (1957) 816-19. Holmquist, Hjalmar. Handbok i svensk kyrkohistoria. Vol 3. Från Romantiken till Världskriget jämte Grunddragen av det övriga Nordens Kyrkohistoria. Stockholm: Svenska Kyrkans Diakonistyrelses Bokförlag, 1941. Hovde, B. J. The Scandinavian Countries, 1720-1865: The Rise of the Middle Classes. 2 vol. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press,1943 (reissued 1972). Isberg, Hagbard. Ännu en gång skulle jag vilja... Minnen från mina studentår i Lund vid sekelskiftet. Malmö: Gleerups, 1957. Johannesson, Gösta. Lunds Universitets Historia II. 1710-1789. Utgiven av universitetet till dess 300-Årsjubileum. Arlöv: Berlings, 1982. Johansson, Claes Elis. Den heliga skrift och den negativa kritiken: ett apologetiskt bidrag. Upsala: Akademiska Bokhandeln, 1886. Johansson, Frans August. Den heliga skrifts lära om menniskans rättfärdighet inför Gud. Lund: Malmström & Komp:s Boktryckeri, 1886. ________. “Under hvilken grundförutsättning kan en gammaltestamentlig skrift anses ega kanoniskt värde?” LUÅ 24 (1887-88) 1-44. _______. Om inspirationen. Lund: Gleerupska Universitetsbokhandeln (Hjalmar Möller), 1889. ________. Review of Psaltaren, by Frantz Delitzsch. KL 3 (1890) 167-70. _______. Profeten Daniel. Upsala: Akademiska boktryckeriet Edv. Berling, 1893. _______. Review of Den gudomliga uppenbarelsens fömedringsgestalt i den heliga skrift, by W. Rudin. KL 6 (1893) 163-4. ______. “Mose.” TKTB 12 (1894) 13-18. _______. Review of Inledning till Psaltaren, by K. U. Nylander. KT 1 (1895) 130-2. ________. Review of Israels historia, by S. A. Fries. KT 1 (1895) 182-89. [ Page ] 254 _______. “Det gamla testamentets förblifvande betydelse.” In Förhandlingar vid den sjette Allmänna Svensk-Lutherska Prästkonferensen i Stockholm den 1 -3 sept. 1896. Stockholm: Tidningsaktiebolaget Vårt Lands Tryckeri, 1896. _______. Review of Fredrik Fehr, by S. A. Fries. KT 2 (1896) 279-87. ________. “Den religionsvetenskapliga kongressen i Stockholm 1897.” KT 3 (1897) 547-57. _______. “Om de gammaltestamentliga skrifterna.” KT 3 (1897) 450-60. ________. “Om granskningen af Bibelkommissionens proföfversättning.” KT 3 (1897) 407-10. _______. “Religionsvetenskapliga kongressen i Stockholm 1897.” KT 4 (1898) 558- 66. _______. “Om Gamla Testamentets skrifter.” KT 5 (1899) 297-304, 367-75. _______. “Om Gamla Testamentets skrifter.” KT 6(1900) 161-70,240-54. ________. “Bibel och bibelforskning.” KT 7 (1901) 337-94. _______. “Bibeln är Guds ord till uppbyggelse och frälsning.” KT 8 (1902) 33-45. _______. “Guds ord.” KVT 1 (1906) 4-10. Johansson, Johan. “Nordisk bibelvetenskaplig bibliografi för åren 1915-1939.” SEÅ 4 (1939) 177-198. J. J. (Johansson, Johannes). “Wellhausen och den Heliga Skrift.” BF 12 (1895) 79- 89. Johansson, Martin. Hvarför och i vad mening tro vi på den Heliga Skrift såsom Guds ord? Uppsala: W. Schultz, 1902. Julén, Jonatan. “Stave, Erik.” SMK 7 (1954) 182. Källstad, Thorvald. “The Psychology of Religion.” In Faculty of Theology at Uppsala University. Edited by Helmer Ringgren. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala University 500 years 1. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1976. Kang, S. K. “The Concept of Heilsgeschichte: Its origins and its use in Old Testament Study since Hofman.” PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, 1986. Knight, Douglas A. The Traditions of Israel. The Development of the Traditio- Historical Research of the Old Testament, with Special Consideration of Scandinavian Contributions. Society of Biblical Literature for the Form Criticism Seminar Dissertation Series 9. Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973. Knös, A. E. “Grunddragen till den bibliska isagogiken” In Skrifter af Anders Erik Knös. Vol 1/1. Upsala: Esaias Edquist, 1863. Knös, Gustaf. Scholia selecta in Esai I-XII. Upsaliae: Excudebant Regiae Academiae Typographi, 1823. _______. Scholia selecta in Esai XIII-XXXIX. Upsaliae: Excudebant Regiae Academiae Typographi, 1826. [ Page ] 255 Kolmodin, A. Profeten Mika. Stockholm: Ev. Fosterlandsstiftelsens Förlagsexpedition, 1894. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1956/69. Kristoffersen, Arne-Jacob. “Philosophy and Philosophers in Sweden.” LQHR 32 (1963) 229-31. Kurser i Exegetik för Dimmissionsexamen. Upsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1893. Kurser i Exegetik för Teologie Kandidatexamen. Upsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1898. Kurtz, Johann Heinrich. Lärobok uti Den Heliga Historien. Stockholm: F. C. Asterbergs förlag, 1876. Landgren, L. “Betänkligheter vid den nyare kritiken af Moseböckerna.” TT 24 (1884) 1-12, 89-100, 169-78. _______. “Betänkligheter vid den nyare kritiken af Moseböckerna.” TT 27 (1887) 1-28. Larsson, O. Professor Otto Ferdinand Myrberg. En teckning av hans person och teologi av en lärjunge. Gävle: Arbetarbladet, 1932. Leufvén, Edv. W. Rudin som predikant. En homiletisk studie. Uppsala: J. A. Lindblads Förlag, 1919. Levan, Oskar. Studier öfver Gamla testamentets värde ur frälsningshistorisk synpunkt. Lund: Gleerupska Universitets-Bokhandeln, 1891. Levin, H. “Bergström, Karl Ludvig.” SBL 3 (1922) 725-28. Lindau, Justus. “Sjette allmänna svensk-lutherska prestkonferensen.” ET 6 (5 sept 1896) 293-4. Lindblom, Johannes. “Erik Stave: hans plats inom svensk teologi.” STK 8 (1932) 253-61. Lindenmeyer, Julius. Guds rike såsom werldsrike enligt den heliga Skrift. Översatt av V. Humbla. Lund: CWK Gleerups Förlag, 1876. Linder, Sven. “För prästens studier. Litteratur i Gamla Testamentets exegetik.” NKT 3 (1934) 21-25. _______. “Domprosten Erik Stave: En minnesteckning.” SEÅ 5 (1940) 224-69. Lindeskog, Gösta. “Svenska Exegetiska Disputationer under 1800-talet.” UUÅ 2, 17 (1941) 3-43. _______. “O. F. Myrbergs vetenskapliga gärning.” SEÅ 11 (1946) 94-117. _______. “Fehr, Fredrik August.” SBL 15 (1956) 466-78. _______. “Fries, Samuel Andreas.” SBL 16 (1964-66) 539-43. Lindgren, H. G. Propheten Jesaja. Upsala: Leffler och Sebell, 1843. [ Page ] 256 Lindroth, Hjalmar. “Ekman, Johan August.” SBL 13 (1950) 6-14. ________. “Göransson, Nils Johan.” SBL 17 (1967-69) 660-61. ________. “Hultkrantz, Claes Adolf.” SBL 19 (1973) 461-62. Lindroth, Sten. A History of Uppsala University 1477-1977. Trans, by Neil Tomkinson with the assistance of Jean Gray. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1976. ________. Uppsala Universitet 1477-1977. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1976. Lindström, Martin. “Rudin, Erik Georg Waldemar Napoleon.”SU 24 (1957) 652. Lönnbeck, W. “Notiser och kommentarier.” Facklan 1/2 (Nov 1901) 51. ________. “Bibelkritiken, dess vinningar och förluster.” Facklan 1/4 (Jan 1902) 153-57. ________. “Bibelkritiken, dess vinningar och förluster.” Facklan 1/5 (Feb 1902) 206-12. ________. “Bibelkritiken, dess vinningar och förluster.” Facklan 1/6 (March 1902) 247- 52. ________. “Bibelkritiken, dess vinningar och förluster.” Facklan 1/10 (July 1902) 441- 47. _______. “Professor Stave och ‘Facklan.” Facklan 2/9 (Sept 1903) 415-20. ________. “Notiser.” Facklan 3/4 (April 1904) 155. Lundqvist, Karl Axel. Organisation och bekännelse: Evangeliska Fosterlands-Stiftelsen och Svenska kyrkan 1890-1911. Svenska kyrkohistoriska föreningen. II. Ny följd. Uppsala: Klippan, 1977. Lundström, Herman. Ärkebiskopen Doktor Johan August Ekman: Några Minnesblad. Uppsala: J. A. Lindblads Förlag, 1915. Lutteman, Ester, and Signe Nesselmark. “Bibelkritik.” SU 3 (1958) 1014-16. Månsson, Thure. “Myrberg, Otto Ferdinand.” SMK 5 (1949) 365. Mazer, Th. Människogestalter som jag mött på min lefnads väg. Stockholm: P. Palmquists Aktiebolag, 1916. Merrill, Arthur L. and John R. Spencer. “The ‘Uppsala School’ of Biblical Studies.” In In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G. W. Ahlström. Edited by W. Boyd Barrick and John R. Spencer. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Montan, Gustaf. “Några minnen av Waldemar Rudin.” In Hågkomster och livsintryck αν 50 svenska män och kvinnor. Vol 1. Uppsala: J. A. Lindblads Förlag, 1921. Murray, Robert. Till Jorsala. Svenska färder under tusen år. Stockholm: Verbum, 1969. _______. Resor till heliga mål: Svenskar i Rom och Jerusalem. Stockholm: Verbum, 1974. [ Page ] 257 Myrberg, Israel. “O. F. Myrbergs levnad och personlighet.” In Predikningar av O. F. Myrberg. Compiled by Israel Myrberg. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells Förlag, 1924. Myrberg, O. F. Omförhållandet mellan Teologi och Filosofi i allmänhet och om den Boströmska Filosofien i synnerhet. Upsala: C. A. Leffler, 1861. ________. “Om N. Ignells kritik af undren och evangeliitron.” TT 1 (1861) 105-113, 152-173. _______. “Bibliographiska meddelelser.” TT 2 (1862) 319-22. ________. “Om N. Ignells kritik af undren och Evangeliitron.” TT 2 (1862) 1-26. _______. “Studier på området af Genesis.” TT 2 (1862) 291-300. _______. Bidrag till en biblisk theologi. Afhandlingar och skrifter samlade och utgifna. Volumes 1-3. Stockholm: E. T. Bergegren, 1863. _______. “Om betydelsen af de Bibliska Gudsnamnen Elohim och Jehovah — Gud och Herren - och det sätt hvarpå de i den Heliga Skrift förekomma” In Bidrag till en biblisk theologi. Afhandlingar och skrifter samlade och utgifna. Edited by O. F. Myrberg. Volume 2. Stockholm: E. T. Bergegren, 1863. ______. “Anmälan” Vittnet 1 (1864) 1-3. _______. “Öfverblick.” Vittnet 11-12 (1865) 168-69, 181. _______. “Om Apostelen Petrus och den äldsta kyrkans falska gnosis. Äfven ett Bidrag till frågan om äktheten af Petri andra Bref.” UUÅ (1865) 1-100. _______. “Om det Bibliska Sanningsbegreppet. Akademiskt inträdestal.” Vittnet Ny Följd II (1866) 1-22. _______. “Om betydelsen af de bibliska gudsnamnen Elohim och Jehovah.” In Röster ur den Heliga Skrift. Upsala: Esaias Edquists Boktryckeri, 1877. _______. “Om det Bibliska Sanningsbegreppet.” In Röster ur den Heliga Skrift. Upsala: Esaias Edquists Boktryckeri, 1877. _______. Röster ur den Heliga Skrift. Upsala: Esaias Edquists Boktryckeri, 1877. _______. “Bibelöfversättningsfrågan.” BF 1 (1884) 235-38. ________. “Esaias’ bok öfversatt och förklarad.” BF 1 (1884) 29-55, 121-78, 277-303. ________.“Esaias’ bok öfversatt och förklarad.” BF 2 (1885) 13-40, 128-48, 224-58. ________. “Esaias’ bok öfversatt och förklarad.” BF 3 (1886) 118-52, 327-48. ________. “Esaias’ bok öfversatt och förklarad.” BF 4 (1887) 33-55, 113-41, 193-213. _______. Profeten Esaias öfversatt med förklarande anmärkningar. Stockholm: Z. Haeggströms Förlagsexpedition, 1887. _______. “Den nya proföfversättningen af Psaltaren.” BF 5 (1888) 235-51. [ Page ] 258 ________. Johannis Uppenbarelse med ledning af Gamla testamentets profetia och verlds- och kyrkohistorien. Stockholm: Ivar Haeggströms boktryckeri, 1888. _______. “Koheleth eller Salomos Predikare.” BF 5 (1888) 161-93, 257-78. _______. “Ett yttrande i Pentateukfrågan.” BF 6 (1889) 108-16. _______. Inledning till Föreläsningar öfver Psaltaren med särskildt afseende på Bibelkommissionens öfversättning. Stockholm: Ivar Haeggströms boktryckeri, 1889. _______· “Om 1883 års öfversättning af Nya Testamentet.” BF 6 (1889) 161-97. ________. “Psaltaren öfversatt och förklarad.” BF 7 (1890) 108-81, 256-359. _______· “Gladstone i fråga om den nyare Pentateukkritiken.” BF 8 (1891) 201-207. _______. “Om Inspirationen med särskildt afseende på den H. Skrift.” BF 8 (1891) 278-98. ________. “Psaltaren öfversatt och förklarad,” BF 8 (1891) 71-100, 113-39, 217-63 305-39. ________· “Gamla Testament och den moderna kritiken.” BF (1894) 366-79. _______. “Den Ritschlska Frågan.” BF 12 (1895) 382-399. _______. En nyckel till Ordspråksboken. Två föredrag. Stockholm: Z. Haeggströms Förlags-Expedition, 1895. ________. “En ny lärobok i Israels Historia.” BF 12 (1895) 157-96. _______. Gamla Testamentet öfversatt. Hjobs bok, Psaltaren, Ordspråksboken, Predikareboken och Höga Visan. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner, 1895. _______. Åro Daniels Profetior ett verk af den Makkabeiska tiden. Ett bidrag till Danielsfrågan. Stockholm: Z. Haeggströms Förlagsexpedition, 1896. _______. "Bibelkritiken gentemot de nyaste upptäckterna pa fornforskningens område." BF 13 (1896) 91-93. _______. “Den Ritschlska Frågan.” BF 13 (1896) 65-74. _______· “En fråga till Upsala Teologiska Fakultet!” BF 13 (1896) 191-92. _______. “Evolutionsprincipen och den gammaltestamentliga kritiken.” BF 13 (1896) _______. “Höga Visan.” BF 14 (1897) 40-61. _______. “Biblen och Naturvetenskapen.” BF 15 (1898) 294-96. _______· “Johan Tobias Beck.” BF 15 (1898) 252-69, 379-400. ________. “Profeten Jona.” BF 15 (1898) 16-29. ______. “Johann Tobias Beck.” BF 16 (1899) 77-95. [ Page ] 259 N., M. “Bibelkritiken och tron.” KS 6 (1901) 340-42. Olsson, Birger. “Svenskt bibelöversättningsarbete. En översikt främst med tanke på Nya testamentet.” In Nyöversättning av Nya testamentet. Behov och principer. Betänkande avgivet av 1963 års bibelkommitté. Statens offentliga utredningar 1968:65. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksells, 1968. ________. Review of Bibeltro och bibelkritik: Studier kring den historiska-kritiska bibelsynens genombrott i Sverige 1877-1910 med särskild hänsyn till gamla testamentet, by Sten Hidal. KA (1980) 183-86. Österlin, Lars. “Över gränserna.” In Nordisk Lutherdom över gränserna: de nordiska kyrkorna i 1900-talets konfessionella samarbete. Edited by Lars Österlin. Lund: Gleerups, 1972. Ottosen, Knud. A Short History of the Churches of Scandinavia. Århus: 1986. Pedersen, Johs. “Buhl, Frants.” DBL 4 (1934) 340-44. Personne, J. W. Tal vid Svenska bibelsällskapets allmänna årssammankomst den 21 April 1886. (no publisher given). _______. “Bibelkritikens nyaste hypoteser om gamla testamentet.” TKTB 5 (1887) 19- 46. ________. “Om bibelns gudomliga auktoritet.” TT 27 (1887) 161-79. _______. Bibelkritiken. I Vår Tids Lifsfrågor Skriftserie no 14. Upsala: Upsala N. T:s Boktryckeri-aktiebolag, 1900. ________. “Bibelkritik.” NF 3 (1905) 231-40. ________. “Johansson, Frans August.” NF 13 (1910) 57. _______. “Rudin, Erik Georg Valdemar Napoleon.” NF 23 (1916) 1116-18. Petersens, Carl af and Anders Malm. “Johansson, Frans August.” In Lund Universitets Matrikel. Lund: CWK Gleerup Förlag, 1899. Religionsvetenskapliga Kongressen i Stockholm 1897. Edited by S. A. Fries. Stockholm: Bohlin & Co., 1898. Reuterdahl, Henrik. Inledning till Theologien. Lund: Gleerups Förlag, 1837. Reuterskiöld, Edgar. “Sjätte nordiska studentmötet med kristligt program.” NUT 2/2 (1901-1902)108-116. “Revisers’ Preface to the Old Testament.” In The Holy Bible with the Apocrypha. The Revised Version with the Revised Marginal References. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1884. Ringgren, Helmer. “Introduction.” In Faculty of Theology at Uppsala University. Edited by Helmer Ringgren. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala University 500 years 1. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1976. ________. “Old Testament Exegesis.” In Faculty of Theology at Uppsala University. Edited by Helmer Ringgren. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala University 500 years 1. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1976. [ Page ] 260 ______. “Linder, Sven Wilhelm.” SBL 23 (1982) 382-83. Rodhe, Edvard. “En blick på de trenne sista decenniernas svenska teologi.” STK 3 (1927) 207-29. _______. Svenska kyrkan omkring sekelskiftet. Stockholm: Svenska Kyrkans Diakonistyrelses Bokförlag, 1930. _______. Den religiösa liberalismen. Stockholm: Svenska Kyrkans Diakonistyrelses Bokförlag, 1935. Rogerson, John W. “Philosophy and the Rise of Biblical Criticism: England and Germany.” In England and Germany: Studies in Theological Diplomacy. Edited by S. W. Sykes. Studien zur interkulturellen Geschichte des Christentums 25. Frankfurt am Mein: Verlag Peter D. Lang, 1982. ________. “Progressive Revelation: its History and its Value as a key to Old Testament Interpretation.” EpR 9/2 (May 1982) 73-86. _______. Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany. London: SPCK, 1984. ________. W. M. L. de Wette Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism: An Intellectual Biography. JSOTS 126. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Rosenius, M. G. Inledningsvetenskapen till den Heliga Skrift. Lund: Fr. Berlings Boktryckeri och Stilgjuteri, på firmans förlag, 1872. _______. Inledningsvetenskapen till den Heliga Skrift. Lund: Berlinska Boktryckeriet, på Fr. Berlings Förlag, 1878. Rosenqvist, G. G. “O. F. Myrberg.” (Finsk) TT 4 (1899) 239-42. Rudin, D. Waldemar Rudin. Levnadsteckning. Uppsala: J. A. Lindblads Förlag, 1921. Rudin, W. “Om inspirationen. En skizz ur de teologiska prenotionerna.” TT 13 (1873) 241-58. _______. Grunddragen till läran om menniskosjälen enligt den Heliga Skrift. Upsala: Esaias Edquists Boktryckeri, 1875. _______. “Den Treeniges nådeförbund med menskligheten.” In Ewighetswinkar. Predikningar öfver kyrkoårets texter. Ny öfwersedd upplaga. 2. Stockholm: U. L. Normans Förlag-Expedition, 1878. _______. Ewighetswinkar. Predikningar öfwer kyrkoårets texter. Ny öfwersedd upplaga. 1-2. Stockholm: U. L. Normans Förlag-Expedition, 1878. ________. Sören Kierkegaards person and författarskap. Upsala: Edv. Berlings Boktryckeri, 1880. _______. “Om det organiskas lag inom Guds rike.” In Förhandlingar vid den allmänna svensk-lutherska prestkonferensen i Stockholm den 6, 7 och 8 sept 1881. Stockholm: A. V. Carlssons Förlag, 1881. _______. Ewighetswinkar. Ny följd. Predikningar öfwer kyrkoårets texter. 1. Upsala:W. Schultz, 1883, 1887. [ Page ] 261 _______. De mindre profeterna öfversatta och utlagda. Vol 1 Obadja och Joel. Upsala: W. Schultz, 1884. ________. Inledning till profetian i det Gamla testamentet. Upsala: W. Schultz, 1884. _______. “Öfversigt öfver den bibliska historiens eller de historiska bibelböckernas innehåll i gamla testamentet.” BF 1 (1884) 13-28, 109-121, 259-277. _______. “Profetians väsen.” TKTB 2 (1884) 132-143, 183-199, 241-275. ________. År det värdt att undervisa våra barn i Gamla testamentet? Uppsatser i teologiska och kyrkliga ämnen 1. Upsala: W. Schultz, 1885. _______. “Öfversigt öfver den bibliska historiens eller de historiska bibelböckernas innehåll i gamla testamentet.” BF 2 (1885) 8-13,121-128, 209-223. _______. De mindre profeterna öfversatta och utlagda, vol 2 Jona. Upsala: W. Schultz, 1886. _______. Gamla Testamentets bibliska historia. Stockholm: Z. Hoeggströms Förlagsexpedition, 1886. _______. “Öfversigt öfver den bibliska historiens eller de historiska bibelböckernas innehåll i gamla testamentet.” BF 3 (1886) 73-117, 299-326. _______. Om det personligas betydelse vid förkunnelsen af Guds ord: Homiletisk- pastorala antydningar. Upsala:W. Schultz, 1886. _______. Bibelns enhet. Vol 1-2. Uppsatser i teologiska och kyrkliga ämnen 3-4. Upsala: W. Schultz, 1887-88. _______. De mindre profeterna öfversatta och utlagda, vol 3 Amos. Upsala: W. Schultz, 1887. _______. Ewighetswinkar. Ny följd. Predikningar öfwer kyrkoårets texter. 2. Upsala:W. Schultz, 1889. ________. “Om det mosaiska tabernaklet och dess andeliga betydelse.” TKTB 8 (1890) 189-204. _______. Den gudomliga uppenbarelsens förnedringsgestalt i den heliga skrift. Tal vid Svenska Bibelsällskapet Allmänna Ärssammankomst den 27 april 1893. Upsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1893. _______. Den gudomliga uppenbarelsens förnedringsgestalt i den heliga skrift. Uppsatser i teologiska och kyrkliga ämnen 7. Upsala: W. Schultz, 1893. _______. Evighetsvinkar. Ny följd. Predikningar öfver kyrkoårets nya texter. Första årgången. 1-2. Upsala:W. Schultz, 1895-96. ________. Review of Den israelitiska kultens centralisation, by S. A. Fries. KT 1 (1895) 283-87. _______. “Uttalande med anledning af yttranden i S. A. Fries’ ‘Israels historia’ (Upsala 1894).” KT 1 (1895) 120-30. [ Page ] 262 _______. Yttrande med anledning af ingångna anmärkningar mot Bibelkommissionens öfversättning af Pentateuken. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner, 1898. ________. Evighetsvinkar. Ny följd. Predikningar öfver kyrkoårets nya evangelietexter. Andra årgången. 1-2. Upsala:W. Schultz, 1899. ________. “Himmelrikets sådd, i dess växt och mognad.” In Evighetsvinkar. Ny följd. Predikningar öfver Kyrkoårets nya evangelietexter. Andra årgången. 1. Uppsala: W. Schultz, 1899. ________. “Liknelsen om Senapskornet och Surdegen.” In Evighetsvinkar. Ny följd. Predikningar öfver Kyrkoårets nya evangelietexter. Andra årgången. 2. Uppsala: W. Schultz, 1899. _______. “Otto Ferdinand Myrberg.” KT 5 (1899) 262-71. _______. I afskedsstunden. Ett ord till Uppsala universitets ungdom den 24 september 1900. Uppsala: W. Schultz, 1900. _______. Review of Matteusevangeliet, by Erik Stave. KT 6 (1900) 564-67. _______. “Johan Tobias Beck.” KT 10 (1904) 549-57. ________. Review of Madame de la Mothe Guyons lefnad och religiösa erfarenheter, by Thomas C. Upham. BF 22 (1905) 208-19, 269-306. ________. “Ärkebiskop Ekman såsom teologisk författare.” BF 31 (1914) 1-12, 122-54, 258-75. _______. Brev och brevutdrag. Compiled by N. Boman. Uppsala: J. A. Lindblads Förlag, 1921. _______. Tankar ur det inre livet. Compiled by Nanna Boman. Vol 1. Stockholm: Svenska Kyrkans Diakonistyrelses Bokförlag, 1923. _______. Tankar ur det inre livet. Compiled by Nanna Boman. Vol 2. Stockholm: Svenska Kyrkans Diakonistyrelses Bokförlag, 1924. _______. Tankar ur det inre livet. Tankar för mig själv. Compiled by Nanna Boman. Vol 3. Stockholm: Svenska Kyrkans Diakonistyrelses Bokförlag, 1925. Rundgren, Frithiof. “Semitic Languages.” In Faculty of Arts at Uppsala University: Linguistics and Philology. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala University 500 years 6. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1976. Sakkunniges utlåtande angående sökandene till det lediga e. o. professorsembetet i exegetik vid Upsala universitet jemte vederbörandes meritförteckningar. Upsala: Edv. Berlings Boktryckeri, 1898. Schéele, K. H. Gez. von. “Några erinringar från en resa i Tyskland sommaren 1873.” TT 13 (1873) 384-90. ________. “Tillägg.” TKTB 4 (1886) 73-79. Sharpe, Eric J. “Nathan Söderblom and the Study of Religion.” RelS 4 (1969) 259-74. _______. “The History of Religions in Scandinavia, with Particular Reference to Sweden and Finland.” Rel 5 (1975) 18-26. [ Page ] 263 _______. Nathan Söderblom and the Study of Religion. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, 1990. Silwer, Carl. “Några bidrag till belysande af Pentateuchens mosaiska ursprung.” BF 6 (1889)117-60. Sjöberg, Erik. “Series professorum exegeseos biblicae Lundensium.” SEÅ 2 (1937) 230-48. _______. “Erik Eriksson Stave.” SU 27 (1958) 341-2. Skogar, Björn. Viva vox och den akademiska religionen. Ett bidrag till tidiga 1900- talets teologihistoria. Stockholm/Stehag: Symposion Graduale 1993. Smith, W. Robertson. The Old Testament in the Jewish Church. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1881. Söderberg, E. N. “Erik Stave.” SK 28/18 (4/5 1932) 229-31. Söderblom, Nathan. “Bibelkritiken och det kristliga troslifvet.” NDA (12/12 1901). ________. “Minne av Waldemar Rudin. Inträdestal i Svenska Akademien den 20 december 1921.” In Svenska Akademiens Handlingar från 1886. 33. (1921). Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner, 1923. _______.Waldemar Rudins inre liv. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt, 1923. ________. “Minnen från åttio- och nittiotalen.” In Uppsala Kristliga Studentförbund 1901-1926. Stockholm: Sveriges kristliga studentrörelses förlag, 1926. Stave, Erik. “Profeten Jeremias’ lif och verksamhet.” BF 5 (1888) 94-133. _______. Om aposteln Pauli förhållande till Jesu historiska lif och lära. Stockholm: Ivar Haeggströms Boktryckeri, 1889. _______. Sjön Gennesaret och dess närmaste omgifningar. Ett bidrag till det heliga landets geografi och topografi. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner, 1892. ________. Genom Palestina. Minnen från en resa våren 1891. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner, 1893. ________. Daniels bok öfversatt och i korthet förklarad. Upsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1894. _______. “Om uppkomsten af Gamla testamentets kanon.” UUÅ (1894) (Teologi) 1-93. _______. Über den Einfluss des Parsismus auf das Judentum. Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn, 1898. ________. “Ur reseberättelsen.” KT 4 (1898) 500-29. _______. “Den exegetiska vetenskapens närvarande ståndpunkt i Tyskland.” TT 4 (1899) 65-83, 150-63. ________. Till Större Akademiska Konsistoriet, Upsala. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1899. [ Page ] 264 ________. “Ur reseberättelsen.” KT 5 (1899) 10-18. _______. “Om den gudomliga uppenbarelsen i Gamla Testamentet.” KT 6 (1900) 1-32, 89-114. ________. Bibelkritikens inflytande på det kristliga troslifvet. Uppsala: Wretmans Tryckeri, 1901. ________. Bilder från folkets lif i Palestina. Stockholm: Ljus’ Förlag, 1901. _______. “Herrens Tjänare (‘Ebed Jahve) hos Deutero-Jesaja.” BF 18 (1901) 9-30. _______. “Hvad är att vinna af den kritiska undersökningen af Gamla testamentet?” BF 18 (1901) 154-76. _______. “Till frågan om skriften och bibelforskningen.” BF 19 (1902) 135-50. ________. “Till frågan om Skriftens auktoritet.” BF 19 (1902) 207-21. ________. “Till frågan om vår ställning till skriften.” BF 19 (1902) 25-52. ________. “Om Gamla testamentets messianiska profetior.” In Skrifter i teologiska och kyrkliga ämnen tillägnade Domprosten C. A. Torén på hans nittioårsdag. Uppsala: W. Schultz, 1903. _______. Review of Genesis übersetzt und erklärt, by Hermann Gunkel. BF 20 (1903) 217-19. _______. “Tidskriften ‘Facklans’ förespråkare.” BF 20 (1903) 28-40. ______. Review of Ausgewählte Psalmen, übersetzt und erklärt, by H. Gunkel. BF 21 (1904) 294-95. _______. Review of Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des Neuen Testaments, by Hermann Gunkel. BF 21 (1904) 49-52. _______. “Anmärkningar till Bibelkommissionens öfversättning af Gamla Testamentet enligt Normalupplagan af år 1904.” BF 22 (1905) 89-122, 161-200, 233-83. _______. “Anmärkningar till Bibelkommissionens öfversättning af Gamla Testamentet enligt Normalupplagan af år 1904.” BF 23 (1906) 81-106, 253-83. _______. “William Robertson Smith: En förkämpe och martyr för den nyare bibelforskningen.” In I: Julbok. Edited by E. Stave. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1906. _______. “Anmärkningar till Bibelkommissionens öfversättning af Gamla Testamentet enligt Normalupplagan af år 1904.” BF 24 (1907) 325-40. ________. “Modem teologi på den gamla trons grund.” BF 24 (1907) 307-12. _______. “Religionshistoriska folkböcker.” BF 24 (1907) 42-51. _______. “Till frågan om Danielsbokens uppkomst.” BF 24 (1907) 223-28. _______. “Bibelkommissionens proföfversättning af Nya Testamentet.” BF 25 (1908) 85-132, 165-228, 245-83. [ Page ] 265 _______. Inledning till Gamla Testamentets kanoniska skrifter. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söners Förlag, 1912. _______. Israels historia. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söners Förlag, 1916. _______. Moseböckernas uppkomst. Religionsvetenskapliga skrifter 1. Stockholm: Sveriges Kristliga Studentrörelses Förlag, 1920. ________. “Några livsintryck från professor O. F. Myrberg.” In Hågkomster och livsintryck av svenska män och kvinnor. Vol 2. Uppsala: J. A. Lindblads Förlag, 1922. _______. “Några minnen från Studentförbundets första tid.” In Uppsala Kristliga Studentförbund 1901-1926. Stockholm: Sveriges Kristliga Studentrörelses Förlag, 1926. Stave, Erik F. “Förteckning över Domprosten Erik Staves av trycket utgivna skrifter under åren 1922-1932. SEÅ 2 (1937) 22729־. Ström, Åke. “Series professorum Exegeseos Biblicae ordinariorum Upsaliensium a reformatione.” SEÅ 1 (1936) 87-109. Strömberg, Elisabeth. “Stave, Erik Erikson.” SU 27 (1958) 341-42. Studieanvisningar för teologie studerande vid Uppsala Universitet. Uppsala: Akademiska Bokhandeln (C. J. Lundström), 1905. Studieplan rörande studierna inom teologiska fakulteten vid universitetet i Uppsala för teologie kandidatexamen. Uppsala: Akademiska Bokhandeln (C. J. Lundström), 1904. Studieplan rörande studierna inom teologiska fakulteten vid universitetet i Uppsala för teologie kandidatexamen. Uppsala: Akademiska Bokhandeln, 1911. Sundkler, Bengt. Nathan Söderblom: His Life and Work. London: Lutterworth Press, 1968. _______. “Johan Adolf Kolmodin.” SBL 21 (1975-77) 477-79. Elof Tegnér. Lunds universitet 1872-1897. Lund: CWK Gleerups Förlag, 1897. Tegnér, Es. Review of Profeten Daniel, by F. A. Johansson, and Profeten Mika, by A. Kolmodin. KT 1 (1895) 280-83. “Teologiska föreläsningar i Upsala och Lund under höstterminen 1895.” KT 1 (1895) 483-4. “Teologiska föreläsningar i Upsala och Lund under vårterminen 1895.” KT 1 (1895) 146-8. “Teologiska föreläsningar och öfningar i Upsala och Lund under höstterminen 1896.” KT 2 (1896) 482-4. “Teologiska föreläsningar och öfningar i Upsala och Lund under höstterminen 1897.” KT 3 (1897) 478-80. “Teologiska föreläsningar och öfningar i Upsala och Lund under vårterminen 1897.” KT 3 (1897) 190-2. [ Page ] 266 Teologiska Studier tillägnade Erik Stave på 65-årsdagen den 10 juni 1922 av kolleger och lärjungar. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1922. Tergel, Alf. Ungkyrkomännen, arbetarfrågan och nationalismen 1901-1911. Stockholm: Verbum, 1969. _______. Från konfrontation till institution: Ungkyrkorörelsen 1912-1917. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Historico-Ecclesiastica Upsaliensia. Karlskrona: Thesis/Verbum, 1974. Thorsander, Joh. Revelationis Divinae Progredientis Adumbratio Biblica Dissertatio. Upsaliae: Excudebant Regiae Academiae Typographi, 1819. Tjugofem år i Palestina: Svenska Jerusalemföreningens Minneskrift. Stockholm: Centraltryckeriet, 1925. Torelius, G. “Upsala prestkonferens.” KS 5 (1900) 138-40. “Viktor Rydberg bedömd af Waldemar Rudin.” (Finsk) TT 2 (1897) 51-55. Waddams, Η. M. The Swedish Church. London: William Clowes & Sons, Ltd, 1946. Waldenström, P. P. “Bibelkritik och kulturfientlighet.״SM (4/9 1901). _________. Låt oss behålla vår gamla bibel: ett ord om den moderna bibelkritiken. Stockholm: Aktiebolaget Normans Förlag, 1902. Walles, Erik. Jonas Walles. Teologen som gick sin egen väg. Falun: Erik Walles, 1981. Walles, Jonas. Studier öfver den Judiska församlingens uppkomst under den persiska väldsrikets tid. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells Boktryckeri-aktiebolag, 1900. _______. Resa i nordsyrien och palestina 1904. Lund: Bokförlaget skarabé och Erik Walles, 1992. Walli, G. “Cornelius, Carl Alfred.” SBL 8 (1929) 794-800. Wedburg, A. “Boström, Christopher Jacob.” EncPh 1 (1967) 352-53. Weibull, Jörgen. Lunds Universitets Historia. IV. 1868-1968. Utgiven av universitetet till dess 300-Årsjubileum. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1968. Welch, Claude. Protestant Thought in the Nineteenth Century: Volume l, 1799-1870. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972. _______. Protestant Thought in the Nineteenth Century: Volume 2, 1870-1914. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. Wellhausen, J. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. 4th ed.Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co, 1963. Wiberg, Ingrid Segerstedt. Torgny Segerstedt. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söners Förlag, 1955. [ Page ] 267 Wingren, Gustaf. An Exodus Theology: Einar Billing and the Development of Modern Swedish Theology. Trans, by Eric Wahlstrom. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969. ______. “Swedish Theology Since 1900.” SJT 9 (1956) 113-134. Wrede, Gösta. Review of Bibeltro och bibelkritik: Studier kring den historiska-kritiska bibelsynens genombrott i Sverige 1877-1910 med särskild hänsyn till gamla testamentet, by Sten Hidal. STK 56/4 (1980) 177-80. Zetterstéen, K. V. “Herman Almkvist.” NUT 5/1 (1905-06) 1-6. _______. “Herman Napoleon Almkvist.” SBL 1 (1918) 439-41. ***** This is the end of the e-text. This e-text was brought to you by Tyndale University, J. William Horsey Library - Tyndale Digital Collections *****