What Did William Wrede Argue About Replacing New Testament Theology?
The discipline of New Testament theology has long sought to describe the theological message of the New Testament in its historical and literary context. However, in the early 20th century, German scholar William Wrede launched a direct challenge to its very existence. He argued that New Testament theology, as it was practiced, was an unstable mixture of historical research and doctrinal commitment. For Wrede, these two approaches could not be reconciled, and he proposed that the historical study of early Christianity should replace New Testament theology altogether.
Exploring Wrede’s argument is crucial for biblical theology today, especially when considering how the unity of Scripture and the bigger Gospel can be preserved in the face of methodological skepticism.
1. Historical Context of Wrede’s Proposal
William Wrede’s work came during a period of intense debate over the relationship between faith and history. The rise of historical-critical scholarship in the 19th century had already begun to challenge traditional views of Scripture’s unity and authority. Scholars increasingly applied the same methods used in studying ancient literature to the Bible, often with results that undermined traditional theological claims.
In this climate, Wrede viewed New Testament theology as an unscientific compromise—trying to serve both the church’s doctrinal needs and the historian’s critical analysis. He believed that separating these aims was necessary to maintain intellectual honesty.
2. Wrede’s Critique of New Testament Theology
Wrede’s criticism centered on three main points:
Confusion of Aims – New Testament theology claimed to be both descriptive and normative, presenting what the New Testament authors believed while also endorsing those beliefs as binding truth.
Lack of Objectivity – The theologian’s commitment to the church’s doctrine often skewed the historical description.
Historical Diversity – Wrede argued that the New Testament contains multiple, sometimes competing, theologies (Pauline, Johannine, Petrine), making it impossible to present a single unified theology without forcing artificial harmony.
In his view, honest scholarship required historians to focus solely on reconstructing early Christian thought without attempting to create a binding theological synthesis.
3. Wrede’s Proposed Replacement: History of Early Christianity
Wrede called for replacing New Testament theology with a History of Early Christianity—a purely historical discipline with no theological agenda. This approach would:
Examine Christian origins in the same way as any other ancient movement.
Treat the writings of the New Testament alongside other early Christian literature, canonical or not.
Avoid privileging certain writings simply because they were later canonized.
For Wrede, this was the only way to achieve genuine academic neutrality and avoid the confessional bias he believed was inherent in New Testament theology.
4. Theological Implications of Wrede’s Approach
Wrede’s proposal had far-reaching consequences:
Erosion of Canonical Authority – By placing canonical and non-canonical writings on equal footing, the special role of Scripture in defining Christian belief was diminished.
Fragmentation of the Gospel – If all theological strands are treated as equally valid expressions of early Christianity, the unified storyline of redemption is lost.
Shift in Purpose – Biblical study becomes an exercise in historical reconstruction rather than an act of listening to God’s authoritative Word.
This directly challenges the foundation of the bigger Gospel, which depends on reading Scripture as the unified, Spirit-inspired account of God’s kingdom fulfilled in Christ.
5. Biblical Theology’s Response to Wrede
Biblical theologians who affirm the authority of Scripture have responded to Wrede by:
Affirming Historical Study – Careful historical research is essential for understanding the context of biblical writings (Luke 1:1–4; Acts 1:1–3).
Maintaining Canonical Priority – The canon is not arbitrary; it is the Spirit-guided recognition of the apostolic witness (Ephesians 2:20).
Integrating Unity and Diversity – The varied voices of Scripture contribute to a richer, not contradictory, understanding of the Gospel (Hebrews 1:1–2).
This perspective allows historical insights to inform theology without surrendering the theological claims of the New Testament to relativism.
6. Implications for the Bigger Gospel
The bigger Gospel—the proclamation that God’s kingdom has come in Jesus Christ, fulfilling His promises to Israel and bringing redemption to the nations—requires both historical grounding and theological unity. Wrede’s approach risks severing this connection by reducing the New Testament to a set of disparate religious opinions from antiquity.
Without recognizing the canonical unity of the apostles’ testimony, the church loses the cohesive narrative that runs from creation, through the covenants, to the cross, resurrection, and the coming new creation.
Conclusion
William Wrede’s argument for replacing New Testament theology with a purely historical study of early Christianity was a radical challenge to the discipline. While his emphasis on rigorous historical work remains valuable, his rejection of theological synthesis undermines the unity and authority of Scripture.
Biblical theology must acknowledge the diversity of the New Testament while affirming its unified witness to Christ. Only by doing so can the church faithfully proclaim the bigger Gospel, rooted in God’s authoritative Word and illuminated by historical understanding.
