Old Testament Theology

GERHARD VON RAD OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY VOLUME II THE THEOLOGY OF ISRAEL’S PROPHETIC TRADITIONS Translated by D. M. G. STALKER HARPER & ROW, PUBLISHERS NEW YORK AND EVANSTON Preface A translation of Theologie des Alten Testaments: BD II, Die Theologie der HI S volume, which brings the Old Testament Theology which prophetischen Uberliejkungen Iyaels, published by Chr. Kaiser Verlag, Munich, in 1960. Published in Great Britain by Oliver and Boyd, I began a few years ago to its conclusion, will, I hope, answer Edinburgh 1965. T numerous questions concerning the theological modus progredi- t endi which necessarily still remained open for the reader of VOL. I. The sketch offered here is to be understood in the light of a definite Translation @ Oliver and Boyd 1965 perplexity which has arisen within the history of Old Testament Library of Congress catalog card Number 62-7306 theology up to date. No one who attempts to assess what has already been achieved and what still remains to be accomplished can fail to see that, by and large, the conceptions of a theology of the Old Testament oscillate between two very different possibilities. These are to approach Old Testament Theology either via Israel’s religious ideas or via saving history. Vatke, the publication of whose Rehjjon des Alten Testumentes in I 83 5 marked the first full-scale appearance of this branch of Biblical scholarship, wished to handle Israel’s spiritual and religious develop- ment as a unit, that is to say, as a coherent evolution; and what he wanted to do was to bring out the way in which this material, unique though it is, nevertheless exhibits the universal elements in the religions of mankind. This interest in the common truths of religion continued to play a part long after Vatke, and can still be found to-day. Even where investigation and comparison of the history of religions led to a keener appreciation of the unique elements in the religion of Israel and to a diminution of the influence of philosophic thought, the chief interest of theology was still largely in Israel’s spiritual and religious achievement. This is particularly clearly seen in the Theologies of Schultz, Dillmann, Sellin, and Procksch, with their division of Old Testament theology into two sections, the one dealing with its history and the other with its religious ideas. These Theologies most certainly claim that Israel was granted a special revelation; for them, however, the divine condescension-Vatke himself spoke of a divine synkadmsis --took place wholly in the spiritual sphere, and also, it was this internal religious movement of ancient Israel towards Christianity that was then regarded as the properly eschatological element in the Old Testament. printed in Great Britain for Harper & Row, Publishers, Incorporated, In contrast, Eichrodt’s Theology, with its key-note “the breaking in of 49 East 33d Street, New York, NY., 10016. the kingdom of God,” constituted a decisive turning-point. (Vischer’s warning cries, which were on the whole effective, ought also to be vi PREFACE PREFACE vii remembered.) The only really important question is whether Eichrodt’s course, for a moment mean that such examinations are unnecessary. treatment of the material does justice to the close relationship with They are important both to orient exegesis and as correctives. But history which is characteristic of Old Testament utterances. whether their results-knowledge of the concepts of “faith,” “right- This dominant view which concentrated on the spiritual and inward eousness,” “the covenant,” “the sacrifices,” “zeal, ” “the glory of God,” life of Israel was opposed by a small number of scholars (J. T. Beck, etc.-play a part as constitutive elements in a theology of the Old G. Menken, J. C. K. von Hofmann, F. Delitzsch, and others). For them Testament is another question. Investigation of such concepts might the starting-point is the primacy of the historical saving acts. Very laboriously produce an overall idea within which the greatest possible defmite facts are “what we are presented with as the source of the number of separate occurrences of them could be included. Yet, this religious ideas. The growing-point in the objective demonstration investigation can only arrive at such a complex of ideas by way of of religion is not provided by man’s consciousness. It was not conscious- generalisation and abstraction. If, however, what we wished broadly to ness that created what is set forth as fact, but rather the reverse, the facts demonstrate here is correct, that is, that a statement made in the Old created the consciousness of them.“1 However, definite contemporary Testament is initially to be understood as standing in the space between philosophic ideas which, as we can see to-day, are not drawn at all from a quite particular past in the divine action and a quite particular future, the Old Testament itself, contributed even to this way of regarding the and that this is the only place &om which one can determine what subject, especially so in the case of Hofmann. In particular, what faith, unftith, righteousness, or the covenant are in this realm of tension arouses the greatest misgivings from the theological point of view is between promise and fulfilment- then one will have no illusions about these men’s interest in an “objective saving history,” for that latter does the limits of such necessarily generalised and abstract investigations of not derive from the Old Testament itself, We certainly find there the concepts. greatest possible interest in various historical data, as well as in the If I may ask one thing of the reader, it is that he should not take the historical developments which follow after them. The crucial thing last four sections of this volume in isolation. They stand or fall accord- however is the way in which the saving data are constantly applied to, ing as what preceded them is valid, in particular what is said about the and made relevant for, contemporary situations. There is absolutely history of tradition and its continuous re-interpretation. There is nothing of that objectification to which this “saving history” school to-day no overall interpretation of the Old Testament which does not attached so such weight. In view of all this, it must be apparent that constantly have to justify itself at the bar of a detailed interpretation even to-day the old question concerning a theology of the Old Tcsta- which exactly corresponds to it. Otherwise it is idle chatter. Yet, the ment is still an open one, and that much still remains to be done and theological interpretation of Old Testament texts does not start only elucidated before such a theology can be written as it ought to bc. at the point where the exegete trained (more or less) in literary criti- Here the present writer must once again emphasise that he dots not cism and history has done his work, which would mean that we consider what he offers to be a complete and comprehensive theology of have two processes at work, one concerned with literary criticism and, the Old Testament. For example, much more could have been said after it, another occupied with “theology.” The theological inter- about the way in which the various concepts were developed. On pretation which seeks to understand a statement about God made in this point, however, there is so much excellent material in rcccnt the text is at work from the very beginning of the process of under- special studies, in Theologisches Wtivtevbztch XZUPZ Neuen Testament, edd. standing. Less than ever to-day can anything be effected by means of G. Kittel and G. Fricdrich, and also in the Theologies of Eichrodt and Biblical and theological formulae or slogans. What characterises the Kohlcr, that I could afford to be brief hcrc. On the other hand, my nature of the problem before us now is the great closeness of exegesis own method of developing the theology of the Old Testament might and “introduction” on the one hand and the theology of the Old bc the very thing to help to crcatc recognition of the limits inhcrcnt in Testament on the other. Theology’s interest in exegesis and the methods thcsc examinations of concepts which arc still so popular. I do not, of of understanding used there is a keen one, because it is here that the decisions which are important for itself are taken. It cannot unfold itself I ,,, . vn1 PREFACE without constantly referring to detailed exegesis and its results, and it only becomes trustworthy as it constantly allows the reader to see exegesis, which is its proper basis. For there is still very little agreement Prejace to the English Translation on the matter of what exegesis should understand as the proper statement made by a text and how it should extract this, f?eed as far as can be from have some hesitation in allowing these volumes to appear in a modern prejudice and inapposite blue-prints. However, quite apart foreign dress. Theological writings are like others-their roots are &om this interest in exegesis, of which particular account has to be I often more exclusively bound up than we are aware with the taken to-day in any theology of the Old Testament, in such a concep- country and language in which they were written, for a specific tion of the Old Testament w&h is so based on the history of tradition country and language always imply as well a specific mode of thought. and on eschatology as the one offered here, the essential problems of a These volumes have their origin in a theological situation, a phase in theology of the Old Testament quite automatically moved to the end, theological discussion- I should prefer to call it a certain impasse- that is to say, to the point in the saving history where the question of which has been felt with particular force in Germany.

Load more