E. Otto, “Hermeneutics of Biblical Theology, History of Religion, and the Theological Substance of Two Testaments: The Reception of Psalms in Hebrews,” in D. J. Human and Gert Jacobus Steyn (eds.), Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception (LHBOTS, 527; London: T. & T. Clark, 2010), 16, 26. Online accessed 28th of June 2016 at: https://www.academia.edu/9780071/Hermeneutics_of_Biblical_Theology_History_of_Religion_and_the_Theological_Substance_of_Two_Testaments_LHBOTS_527_.  This approach of Otto claims that A in the original is A in Hebrews since it was the embedded intention of the author extrapolated by the author of Hebrews. When Otto talks about Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2, he thinks it was a democratization of ancient Near Eastern [especially Egyptian for him] royal motifs in Psalm 8 (Otto 2010: 13). He has taken scholars like Othmar Keel and his iconographical hermeneutics too far in his exegesis. “Hebrews 2 is in accordance with the theological intentions of Ps 8, and the reception is legitimate” (Otto 2010: 15). Otto suggests that the better alternative to postmodernism is a self-reflexive modernism which is aware of the traps of ethnocentrism, colonialism and paternalism. Basically Otto and other scholars like W. Brueggemann and J. Gericke et al he discussed, S. D. Moore and F. F. Segovia (2005) for postcolonial interpretation models for the Old Testament; J. E. Mckinley for Feminism in postcolonial models of interpretation (2005) are trying to work their way from LBGT back into the Old Testament instead of from the text to the praxis. Liberation theology in all its forms has the same problem: instead of from the text to the praxis it is from the praxis superimposed on the text (S. D. Moore and F. F. Segovia, (eds.) Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: Interdisciplinary Intersections [London: T&T Clark International, 2005]). Feminism as example of paternalism (J. E. Mckinley, Reframing Her: Biblical Women in Postcolonial Focus The Bible in the Modern World 1 [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2004]).

Otto’s main understanding is that there is that there is no contradiction between the history of religion and biblical theology since the history of religion reveals the theological substance which binds the Old and New Testament together (Otto 2010: 26). He described the theologies of Otto Eissfeldt, Walter Eichrodt that Christ is God’s revelation to humanity but not interpreted within a scheme of Christian dogmatics (Otto 2010: 5). Gotthold Ephraim Lessings had the idea of a contingent historical truth that opens up the way for the plurality of theologies within the canon (Otto 2010: 9). Gerhard von Rad as retelling kerygmatic intentions in Old Testament traditions. About diversity or unity in Old Testament Theologies, E. S. Gerstenberger, Theologien im Alten Testament. Pluralität und Synkretismus alttestamentlichen Gottesglaubens (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001) opts for the plurality of theologies in the Old Testament (Otto 2010: 9). A. H. J. Gunneweg suggested that Old Testament religious concepts should be judged by Christian standards (Otto 2010: 10). Otto Kaiser wishes to see in the Old Testament a “history of failure” as opposed to the existential reality of the New Testament as the gospel (Otto 2010: 10). Walter Brueggemann gave a postmodern twist to the dilemma between the choice of diversity or unity and was also followed by J. Gericke (2003 and 2005) with his agnostic approach to the Old Testament. For Brueggemann God is created or generated by the rhetoric of texts telling about God, thus the creation of God by man (Otto 2010: 11). For him there is no “truth” at all in biblical texts (Otto 2010: 12). “Yet Brueggemann is much closer to the conceptions of Biblical Theology of such figures as Brevard S. Childs, James Sanders and others than he would like to admit” (Otto 2010: 12). For Childs the New Testament is an expression of the ontological substance which has its center in Jesus Christ. For Brueggemann on the other hand, the New Testament is a productive misinterpretation of the Old Testament (Otto 2010: 12). The axiom that Otto feels is necessary is that one has to accept that “there exists no single truth, but only different claims of truth” (Otto 2010: 12). The issue of Christian or Jewish view of the Old Testament was considered by H. Cohen, Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums. Nach dem Manuskript des Verfassers neu durchgearbeitet und mit einem Nachwort verehen von Bruo Strauss (repro. Darmstadt: Joseph Metzler, 1966). E. Otto, “Die hebräische Prophetie bei Max Weber, Ernst Troeltsch und Hermann Cohen. Ein Diskurs im Weltkrieg zur christlich-jüdischen Kultursynthese,” in Asketischer Protestantismus und der “Geist” des modernen Kapitalismus (ed. Wolfgang Schluchter and Friedrich Wilhelm Graf; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2005, 201-205).

Old Testament Theology is trying to be tendentious by running after political, economic, socialistic and philosophical liberties and streams of our time trying to please the reader. The endresult of Otto is this: the Old Testament does not contain truth. There are only theologies of the Old Testament. Therefore the Old Testament can mean legitimately to one person this and to another that. Therefore, almost every diversity or plurality is legitimate and correct. Elijah and Baal are equally correct in their view.