Present Trend In O.T. Theology As Represented In The Albright Influence -- By: Leon J. Wood
Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 01:4 (Fall 1958)
Article: Present Trend In O.T. Theology As Represented In The Albright Influence
Author: Leon J. Wood
BETS 1:4 (Fall 1958) p. 1
Present Trend In O.T. Theology As Represented In The Albright Influence
Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary
Among trends in contemporary Old Testament scholarship, one of the more significant is headed by William Foxwell Albright of Johns Hopkins University. This survey is an attempt to give in brief compass a sketch of the Albright position as it relates particularly to Old Testament history and to point out some of its contrasts with the older Wellhausen type of view. The writer in 1949 wrote his Master’s Thesis on this subject, entitled, “Hebrew Monotheism in Connection with Albright’s Position and That Traditional to the Wellhausen School,” and intends in this survey to use that material freely, even to the extent of direct quotation in several places.
It is well first to give indication that there is what may be called an Albright school of thought coming into existence today. Dr. Frank Cross, former student under Albright and one whom Albright has indicated in personal correspondence with the author is qualified to speak for the position, writes, “there is an Albright school coming into being today: a school far wider than Biblical studies, and one I fully expect to be dominant in another generation.”1 Further Cross states, “The extent of the influence of Albright’s impact upon Wellhausenism cannot yet be measured. In the field of Catholic scholarship, and to some degree in England, and particularly on the Continent, Albright has already become a dominant figure . . . the wider area of Albright’s scholarship is more appreciated outside of America.”2
The reason for the wide acceptance which this recent view is receiving lies in the character of its principal source of information: that source being archaeological discoveries in Bible lands. The reason why this source, which of course has been a principal fountain point also for Wellhausenism for some time, has led Albright to his contrasting position today is that, as he himself tells us, “Though archaeological research goes back over a century in Palestine and Syria, it is only since 1920 that our material has become sufficiently extensive and clearly enough interpreted to be of really decisive value.”3 And also, as he further points out, this material and these interpretations have not been in keeping with the older Wellhausen presentations on many points. And the reason why Albright is today the leader in this school of thought, rather than someone else, is, in the words of Cross, “Because of his dominating leadership in the fields of Palestinian archaeology, Near Eastern history, comparative reli...
Click here to subscribe