Geschichte and heilsgeschichte in Old Testament interpretation with particular reference to the work of Gerhard von Rad

Abstract

In concentrating on Geschichte and Heilsgeschichte in Old Testament interpretation with particular reference to the work of Gerhard von Rad, the dissertation begins by tracing in Chapter One the development of Old Testament theology from its emergence out of the interaction between rationalism, especially as it influenced historical criticism and German idealism, and Protestant Orthodoxy to its present situation. We first investigate the development of Heilsgeschichte, concluding that it takes its form from an attempt to preserve the spiritual content of theology, an attempt to escape into a sphere where historical criticism had no authority, and from the manner in which its proponents adopted the presuppositions of German idealism for its presentation. Thus it seems to have arisen to meet the apologetic needs of the nineteenth century. The chapter continues with a description of the manner in which historico-critical principles gradually gained ascendency over Heilsgeschichte, giving rise to the discipline of the history of Israel's religion, until there was a revival of the theological discipline as a systematic presentation of Israel's religious ideas in the early twentieth century. The theology of Gerhard von Rad represents a revolt against the religio-historical and systematic methods of theological presentation, and a line of development is traced through von Rad's works which explains his concern for the resurgence of the Heilsgeschichte.An exposition of von Rad's understanding of history is given in the second chapter, and the conclusion is reached that his idea of history is similar to the Deuteronomistic theology of history, which was the first to clearly formulate the phenomenon of Heilsgeschichte, i.e., of a course of history shaped and led to a fulfillment by the continual injection of a word of judgment and salvation into it. In his presentation of the Old Testament Heilsgeschichte, however, we point out that von Rad is almost exclusively concerned with the historicity of the Heilsgeschichte. Chapter Three is a lengthy treatment of the major critics of von Rad's methodology and his idea of history. It concludes with his reply to them.Chapter Four is a discussion of the contemporary approaches and methodologies and includes specific criticisms of von Rad's approach. It attempts to show that he does not actually accomplish his purpose of separating the Heilsgeschichte from the history of Israel's religion, but that in attempting to do so he has caused considerable difficulty for theological understanding. We conclude the discussion on methodology with some suggestions for developing an Old Testament theology, attempting to avoid the pitfalls of theologies based on historical and systematic methodologies that have rationalistic presuppositions behind them, yet realizing the importance of the historical perspective and the necessity of some kind of systematic treatment of the Old Testament materials.The fifth chapter presents a critique of the ideas of history in Old Testament theology and specifically investigates the formative factors behind the presuppositions that bring von Rad to sharply separate the two versions of the history. These factors are: (a) Karl Barth's fear of bringing revelatory events into history where they would become relative and passing; (b) Bultmann's loss of history for the kerygma theology, and von Rad's attempt to regain it while still acknowledging the idea of history that prevents such a union; (c) Ernst Troeltsch's principles of analogy, correlation and criticism; (d) von Rad's allegiance to the historically skeptical Alt and Noth school of historical criticism; (e) the philosophy of Wilhelm Dilthey and his idea that poetry is the highest form of understanding; and (f) the type of thought evident in the works of Rudolf Otto, where there is a corresponding elevation of the secondary interpretations to the decline of the original elements and a promotion of the charismatic over the religio-historical in theology.On the basis of our analysis of von Rad's work, the following conclusions are reached: (a) Troeltsch's principle of analogy need not be binding on historical criticism forever; (b) we need not adopt a methodology which excludes supranatural and suprahuman occurrences from the status of history; (c) one has other choices for a scientific presentation of Israel's history than that offered by Alt and Noth who are notoriously skeptical; (d) where means of crosschecking a historical report's accuracy are lacking, Israel's picture of the history is to be preferred over one that threatens to separate fact and meaning; and (e) von Rad's emphasis on Israel's early history as poetry, this being the way faith perceives things, seems to stem from the defeat of nineteenth-century ideas by twentiethcentury historical reality.When we consider the consequences of von Rad's separation of the two versions of the history we conclude: (a) the kerygmatic version appears to be built in the air; (b) von Rad's theology is not an adequate solution to positivism, but in a certain sense represents a capitulation to it; (c) it constitues a threat to biblical religion, because if event can be completely dissolved biblical religion cannot survive; (d) we lose the sense of importance for actual history, resulting in the possibility that myth or fable could function equally well; (e) secondary experiences and interpretation are given predominance over fact and event; (f) there is a threat of separating fact and meaning, and this raises the problems associated with neoKantianism and the existential interpretation; and (g) the Christ-event in the New Testament presents special problems for von Rad's position, because Jesus Christ as a saving event subjecting himself to time and space in human history corresponds to the belief that God revealed himself in Israel's history in concrete events which are subject to historico-critical investigation.The primary question raised by von Rad's work concerns the locus and content of revelation. It would seem that if an event is to be revelational, the revelatory nature of that event would have to be recognized when it occurred. This is made possible in the Old Testament by the prophetic word. Von Rad, in giving event priority over word, makes it appear as if the events in the Heilsgeschichte function as revelation without word. But the revelatory character of these events is given in the cult, not by the prophetic word in combination with the event in its originality. Thus it seems that recognition of the revelatory character of the event takes place only in the worshipping community, not in the event when it occurred.As a final effort, the question of faith and history is discussed in Chapter Six. It begins with a critique of the historico-critical method. We conclude that the method cannot exclude the possibility of miracles or transcendent activity in history. Allowing for the possibility of transcendent causes is the only way of maintaining the integrity of the historico-critical method. A discussion of the relationship between Geschichte and Heilsgeschichte follows based on the idea that relating all parts of historical experience is a necessary metaphysical task. In view of von Rad's decision to allow the critical picture and the Heilsgeschichte to remain separate, we offer a description of the relation of history to Heilsgeschichte as understood by C. H. Dodd. After identifying what he means by history, we offer a sketch of his understanding of Heilsgeschichte. We follow the development of his views of history as he explains how the word of God, whether by prophet, Jesus Christ or the Church, is an actual factor in shaping history in the direction of God's purpose when a response is made to this word. Dodd demonstrates how the biblical view of history is the meaning of all history. Thus in the final analysis, all history is Heilsgeschichte, with no situation incapable of being lifted into the order of the Heilsgeschichte.