An investigation into the use of Israel’s “historical traditions” in Joel 1:2-20

Gerhard von Rad – one hundred yearsIn 2001 Old Testament scholars celebrated the birth of Gerhard von Rad’s birth one hundred years ago. As a contribution to these celebrations, this article focuses on Von Rad and his views on history. Von Rad emphasized the importance of historical criticism and he valued the views of Wellhausen and Gunkel. His own approach can be termed “tradition history”. Von Rad used these critical tools to determine the “theological maximum” of the Old Testament. He was interested in Israel’s own presentation of Yahweh’s history with them. In a particular way, Von Rad brought history and theology, critical scholarship en theological reflection together. This extremely important intellectual contribution is elaborated in the ensuing article..

Old Testament Theology, Vol. 1, The Theology of Israel's Historical Traditions, by Gerhard von Rad, Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. 483 pp. New York, Harper and Brothers, 1962. $8.00

Earth is the major participant in the events depicted in Joel 1-2 [Eng. 1:1-2:27], calling for a geocentric interpretation of this material. A locust plague (and drought) is wreaking havoc on the Earth. God and Earth are mourning the affliction of the soil, animals, and plants brought on by human sin and a concomitant divine judgment. As members of the Earth Community, humans are expected to join with, comfort, and mourn with the rest of Creation. While the nonhuman members of Earth Community are quick to mourn the crisis, the human members are the last to respond. This is troublesome, since human sin and God's judgment have brought about the demise of creation, and human repentance is expected to effect a restoration. Once humans begin to respond to the calls to mourn with creation, however, God repents of the divine judgment and intervenes to restore Earth Community.

HE scope of this paper is strictly confined to recent form-critical study of the early traditions of Israel as found in four books, two by Professor Gerhard von Rad of the University of G6ttingen, recently appointed to the University of Heidelberg, and two by Professor Martin Noth of the University of Bonn. These are: von Rad, Das erste Buch Mose: Genesis Kapitel 1-12, 9 (G6ttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1949); and Deuteronomium-Studien (G6ttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1947); Noth, (berlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer, 1948), which is actually the second part of his (Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, of which Part I is Die Sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testamnent (Halle, Max Niemeyer, 1943). These books are among the most significant of those published recently which attempt to take seriously the whole question of form criticism and the history of tradition in the early portions of Old Testament. father of this approach to the early Israelite materials was, of course, Hermann Gunkel. His commentary on Genesis opened up as many new avenues of study as did his subsequent revolutionary work on the Psalms.1 Indeed one might say that these two commentaries are among the most significant of modern times. principles which Gunkel enunciated in his Genesis were soon applied to New Testament research with very significant results; but for some reason they have been slow to influence the study of the Old Testament. In George A. Barton's survey of The Present State of Old Testament Studies, published in 1938,2 Gunkel is not even mentioned in connection with Pentateuchal studies. A similar survey by Raymond A. Bowman in 19473 does indeed mention him, but that is about all. Except for occasional monographs in Europe between the wars, the significance of which is only now beginning to become apparent, there was little for these scholars to describe, for the major works were still largely confined to the area of literary criticism, the Introductions of Eissfeldt and Pfeiffer being significant examples.4 Introduction by Aage Bentzen, published in 1948, is perhaps the first such work to give form criticism a central place in the treatment, except for two Swedish works by Gunnar Hylmo and Ivan Engnell which have not been available to many scholars outside that land.6 In the books before us the orthodox literary analysis of the Pentateuchal material into its component strata is accepted; in fact, Noth spends considerable time in showing the impossibility of the views of Volz and Rudolph, who would eliminate the Elohist document.

Gerhard von Rad. Old Testament Theology. Volume II, The Theology of Israel's Prophetic Traditions. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. Pp. xiv + 470. (Edinburgh and London. Oliver and Boyd, 1965.) 45s. - Gerhard von Rad. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Translated by E. W. Trueman Dicken. Pp. xiv + 340. (Edinburgh and London. Oliver and Boyd, 1966.) 47s. 6d. - Volume 3 Issue 1

The study of the Joseph narrative has been dominated by the work of Martin Noth and Gerhard von Rad. Their work has led to a cul-desac . Noth has been interested only in the great themes of the Pentateuch and paid little attention to this narrative. Von Rad, with his wisdom hypothesis, has also disregarded this narrative in his study of the Hexateuch, and has treated the internal character of the narrative in something of a vacuum. This chapter considers Genesis L 15-21 as a piece of carefully wrought theology. The theological statement is drawn upon those theological motifs that Israel found most useful in contexts of fear and hopelessness. The Joseph story is shaped for the primary purpose of staging speech which is carefully placed at the seam between Exodus and Genesis. The chapter functions typologically for a religious seam or crisis in Israel's life. Keywords: Exodus; Genesis L 15-21; Gerhard von Rad; Martin Noth; theological exploration

Theology, through its history, has always been related to Philology, because its source is the Holy Scriptures. This reason has stimulated my further consideration of the exegeta Gerhard von Rad “Wisdom in Israel” a “symbol” of modern interest for the Wisdom books. Inserted in the philologic German trend of the history of tradition and history of editing and forms, it is opposed to positivists interpretation and installs a new comprehension of the OT traditions. Its hermeneutica, without deteriorating the historical criticism, gives first hand priority to the message that the scriptural brands patentize as a twist of an organization in constant growth. However, the love of live words, which is considered by the philologist, make him capable to have a wide effect of the methodological tools, and in this way; unravel the secrets of the world of wisdom. Now in the threshold of Christianism, Wisdom books prepare the adequate opening to receive the “new Wine” in “new containers”. Also, today, philology and wisdom summon us to go along with this moment of the History of Salvation with the necessary instruments and ancient breeding by old and modern wisemen.

History-Writing as Protest: Kingship and the Beginning of Historical Narrative James G. Williams Syracuse University I. Introduction This paper is an attempt to apply René Girard's mimetic theory to the origins of historical writing, specifically the composing ofIsrael's story, vis- à-vis the origin of kingship. What I do not intend to deal with is the exact chronological beginning of historical narrative in ancient Israel. Whether or not this sort of writing began immediately, it is quite clear that kingship is a problem in a way that no other office or role was in the scriptural texts. In the study of Israelite historiography and Israel's understanding of history there are many issues that have been discussed and debated. Among English speaking scholars the works of John Van Seters have been, in recent years, the most widely read on this topic.l Van Seters himself argues that the "Court History" or "Succession Narrative" in 2 Samuel and the Yahwist (J) narrative ofthe Pentateuch, or Torah, which scholars have commonly thought to be the oldest ancient Israelite history works, were composed in the exilic period (after c. 586 B.C.E.) subsequent to the completion of the "Deuteronomic work" (Josh., Judg., Books of Sam., Books of Kings). A Greek model of history writing was by then known and used by the authors of these histories previously and wrongly understood to be so old. However, prior to these historical works influenced by a Greek model was the work ofthe Deuteronomist , i.e., the books ofJoshua through Samuel, which integrated various earlier sources and traditions into a view of Israel's past that was informed by a definite theology ofhistory. This history is that of "the first known historian 1 In his approach to the texts Van Seters does not deal with any of the questions raised in the recent readings and hermeneutic approaches informed by literary theory. 92James G. Williams in Western civilization truly to deserve that designation" (Van Seters, "Search" 362). My purpose is not to argue with most of Van Seters's conclusions. In my judgment he is right to question the thesis of Hermann Gunkel and Gerhard von Rad that history writing evolved from earlier legend (Saga). I likewise agree that although there are many parallels among Israelite, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Hittite texts (including divine intervention in history, as shown by Bertil Albrektson), one still does not find among these other peoples a genre that could be called historiography. Van Seters borrows Johan Huizinga 's definition of history as "the intellectual form in which a civilization renders account to itself of its past" ("Search" 1). I think the definition is helpful but it lacks both a generative center and a delimitation of literary form. I propose that it be changed by extending it in two respects: (1) The intellectual form of self-understanding is rooted in the sacred as its primary problematic. In this essay I will try to show that the beginning of history writing in ancient Israel both starts from and attempts to break from the ancient sacred order as mediated through the sacral institution ofkingship. (2) Concerning literary form, history in the sense intended here requires a narrative about a nation and specific individuals (even if the divine and miracles are part of this world) that is long and continuous enough to form a coherent picture ofthe significant past. There was clearly no writing like that prior to Israelite historiography. I think the main problem in Van Seters's approach is that he misses the impulse ofhistory writing. That impulse is kingship. I don't mean this simply in the older sense, going back to L. Rost and Gerhard von Rad, that history writing begins with the cultural efflorescence that emerged in the reign of Solomon (c. 960-922 B.CE.) and used even earlier sources stemming from the period of David's rule (c. 1000-960 B.CE.).2 Kingship was, rather, an office created by the fundamental dynamic of culture, namely the sacred and its mechanisms. What made Israel different, I will argue, is that it established this office, thus becoming "like all the nations," and yet many of its distinctive witnesses...

“[T]he fable, according to its proper character, does not pursue moral goals but tries simply to present a truth, a reality, something as typical and which is as it is. Frequently, the discourse of the truth drives it into the realm of cruelty.”–Gerhard von Rad, Wisdom in Israel

In this wide-ranging overview of biblical literature, Israel Knohl argues that the Hebrew Bible does not present a consistent or monolithic viewpoint concerning ancient Israel's or Judaism's understanding of God, itself, and the world in which it lived. Rather, Knohl contends that the Bible presents a pluralism of viewpoints that to a great degree anticipates the pluralistic outlook of Rabbinic Judaism. This will hardly come as a surprising thesis to anyone familiar with modern biblical and theological scholarship. Indeed, it takes up the classic question of unity and diversity within the Hebrew Bible that might be illustrated by Gerhard von Rad's well-known Old Testament Theology. Von Rad recognized the diversity of traditions that informed the various writings and viewpoints now gathered in the Bible while simultaneously trying to systematize them into a general concept of Heilsgeschichte, that is, “salvation history” or “sacred history.” Such Heilsgeschichte moved inexorably to what von Rad believed would be the ultimate culmination of human history. Knohl's contribution comes not in relation to the model of pluralism in the Bible per se, but in relation to his argument that so much of the priestly literature that engages in pluralistic debate with other biblical works is rooted in the monarchic period of ancient Israel's (or Judah's) history. In this respect, Knohl's own work—although original in its own right—owes much to an earlier model advocated by Yehezkel Kaufmann, one of the founding fathers of modern Israeli biblical scholarship.

Kritiker und Exegeten: Porträtskizzen zu vier Jahrhunderten alttestamentlicher Wissenschaft.

From the vantage point of Constantinople in AD 440, under the rule of the orthodox Theodosian dynasty, Nicene Christianity may have appeared unassailable. Many of the most challenging of the heresies that had emerged in the century since Constantine’s conversion seemed to be receding. Even the devastating Christological controversies that had erupted in the early 430s may (understandably, if wrongly) have looked, with Nestorius’s deposition and the Formula of Reunion (433), to be under control. And yet Constantinople retained its confessional diversity, with members of numerous Christian sects – penalized by law theoretically, but often still visible and vocal in practice – living alongside members of the mainstream Nicene church.The reimposition of a Nicene hierarchy over the major churches of Constantinople had happened only from the 380s onwards. It had been a process fraught with difficulties – not least the survival in large numbers of groups polemically labelled as Arian, and the persistence of their intellectual, theological and historical traditions, even as their hopes of political or theological hegemony faded. From this milieu had come the Eunomian Philostorgius (c.368–439), and his highly sectarian – and anti-Nicene –Church Historyof the fourth and fifth centuries.

Gerhard von Rad's concept of preaching is based on a biblical and homiletical hermeneutic that draws on some key insights of Karl Barth's dialectical theology. Von Rad's sermons were deeply informed by the older, liberal tradition and its concern for a distinctly “modern” way of preaching. This essay sketches the development of his concept of preaching as it relates to his work as an Old Testament scholar and university preacher.

Gerhard von Rad's thesis that Joseph is a Wisdom Tale energized the study of the Joseph Story. This story, von Rad argued, was written to provide an exemplar of wisdom virtues to young men aspiring to a career in the Solomonic court. In his view, The narrative of Gen. XXXIX reads as if it had been devised expressly to illustrate the warnings of the wisdom writers; and further: We can only say that the Joseph Story, with its strong didactic motive, belongs to the category of early wisdom writing. This chapter begins by surveying the meaning of the terms for wisdom. It then undertakes a more nuanced assessment of the relation of the role of wisdom in the Joseph Story. Next the chapter examines the relation of the story to Wisdom Literature. Finally it situates the story with respect to another wisdom-related genre, The Disgrace and a Minister. Keywords:disgrace; Joseph Story; Minister; wisdom

Thus far we have offered an exegesis and interpretation of Genesis 22 as a first step in working out a specific example of the kind of biblical interpretation which might exemplify the more general hermeneutical stance for which we are arguing. The next step will be to consider some of the significant work already existing in this area, so that the articulation of our own thesis may be properly contextualized as a contribution to an ancient and continuing debate. The prime focus will be Christian approaches to Genesis 22, though the chaper will conclude with some brief comments on Jewish approaches.