Sigmund Olaf Plytt Mowinckel | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Born | 4 August 1884 |
| Died | 4 June 1965 (aged 80) |
| Education | University of Oslo |
| Title | Reverend Doctor |
Sigmund Olaf Plytt Mowinckel (4 August 1884 – 4 June 1965) was a Norwegian professor, theologian and biblical scholar. He was noted for his research into the practice of religious worship in ancient Israel.[1]
Mowinckel was born at Kjerringøy in 1884[2] and was educated at the University of Oslo (1908; Th.D. 1916).[3] His early research interests was the study of the Old Testament, and Assyriology.[2] In the years 1911-13 he made study trips to Copenhagen, Marburg and Giessen.[2] At Giessen he came into contact with Hermann Gunkel and was inspired by Gunkels understanding of the Old Testament as literature, as well as his traditio-historical method.[2]
In 1916 he published his doctoral thesis on the prophet Nehemiah, and a companion work on the prophet Ezra.[2] In the years 1921-24 he published Psalmenstudien, maybe his most influential work.[2] As an Old Testament scholar he was particularly interested in the Psalms and the ancient cult of Israel. [2]According to Clements,[4] "Mowinckel continually developed and revised his views, notably on Israelite kingship and Psalmody". In 1956 he published "He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism".[5][6] For most of his professional life Mowinckel was connected to the University of Oslo and continued to lecture there as an emeritus in the 1960's.[2] Among his students we find the norwegian biblical scholar Arvid Kapelrud.[2] His last book in english, "Religion and Cult", was published in 1981.[7]
Mowinckels main contribution to biblical scholarship is his work on The Psalms of the Old Testament and his study of Messianic ideas in Judaism.
From the 1920s, Mowinckel headed a school of thought concerning the Book of Psalms which sometimes clashed with the Form criticism conclusions of Hermann Gunkel and those who followed in Gunkel's footsteps. In broad terms, Gunkel strongly advocated a view of the Psalms which focused on the two notable names for God occurring therein: Yahweh (JHWH sometimes called tetragrammaton) and Elohim. The schools of Psalm writing springing therefrom were termed Yahwist and Elohist. Mowinckel's approach to the Psalms differed quite a bit from Gunkel's. Mowinckel explained the Psalms as wholly cultic, both in origin and in intention. He attempted to relate more than 40 psalms to a hypothetical New Year autumn festival,[8][9] the so-called "Enthronement Festival of Yahweh".[10] According to Mowinckel the Psalms had a practical usage in the context of the Temple service.[11] He also suggests that the authors of the Psalms were temple singers.[12] As for the Psalms that have no cultic context, Mowinckel identifies these as the "wisdom psalms".[12]
In addition to his work on Psalms, his major monograph on the Old Testament roots of Messianism is of significance in scholarship until this day.[13] In his study of Messianism in ancient Israel, and the Ancient Near East, Mowinckel identified the concept of divine kingship.[14] He did however deny the title of Messiah to the reigning Hebrew kings, although they reflected the Messianic ideal.[15] The kings were associated with divinity, but Mowinckel does not support the view that they were an incarnation of the deity, or that they represented a suffering, dying and rising god.[15] The Israelites adapted some ideas on kingship from Canaanite sources, fused with traditions of old nomadic chieftainship and Yahwism.[16] According to Mowinckel the concept of Kingship is associated with the present, while the Messiah is a future figure,[16] associated with eschatology.[17] The Hebrew royal line is therefore, in his view, not Messianic,[17] and there is no eschatology prior to the Babylonian exile.[17]
Mowinckel also considers the songs of the Suffering Servant in the Old Testament. He identifies the servant as a historical person from the circle surrounding Isaiah and Second Isaiah.[14] He finds the servant free of kingly traits [15] and concludes that the songs were not originally meant to be Messianic. [16] The suffering servant is therefore, according to Mowinckel, something else than a Messiah, he is a «mediator of salvation»[17] The Son of Man, on the other hand, is an eschatological figure,[17] influenced by Messianic ideas.[15] According to Cheroke[17] «The Son of Man is in Mowinckel’s treatment the culmination of messianism». However, Mowinckel disagreees with other scholars, such as Joachim Jeremias, that the Son Of Man represents an atoning suffering and death.[17]
Mowinckel suggests that Jesus adapted both the concept of the Son of Man and the figure of the Servant, but in a paradoxical way.[16] The concept of the Messiah is modified in order to suit his ministry and his understanding of himself. He merges the redeeming element of the Son of Man with the idea of the suffering Servant. [16][17] According to Muilenburg[14] «Mowinckel believes that Jesus himself was the first to understand the real meaning of Isaiah 53 and to apply it to himself».
NOTE [*]: SNVAO signifies the Norwegian publisher/publications Skrifter utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse
NOTE [**] ANVAO signifies the Norwegian publisher/publications Avhandliger utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. II. Hist. Filos. Klasse.
