Old Testament Exegesis

SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE Resources for Biblical Study

Edited by

Marvin A. Sweeney

N u m b e r 39

O L D T E S T A M E N T E X E G E S I S A Guide to the Methodology

by Odil Hannes Steck

t r ans la ted b y

James D. Nogalski

OLD TESTAMENT EXEGESIS

A Guide to the Methodology

by

Odil Hannes Steck

translated by

James D. Nogalski

S C H O L A R S P R E S S Adanta, Georgia

OLD TESTAMENT EXEGESIS A Guide to the Methodology

Second Edition

Copyright 1998 by the Society of Biblical Literature

All rights reserved. No part of this work may bo reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by means of any Information storage or retrieval System, except as may be expressly permitted by the 1976 Copyright Act or i n wr i t ing from the publisher. Requests for permission should be addressed i n wr i t ing to the Rights and Permissions Office, Scholars Press, P.O. Box 15399, Atlanta, GA 30333-0399, USA.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Steck, Odil Hannes. [Exegesis des Alten Testaments. English] Old Testament exegesis : a guide to the methodology / by Odil

Hannes Steck ; translated by James D. Nogalski. 2nd ed. p. cm. (Resources for biblical study ; ao. 39)

Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-7885-0465-7 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T.Oiticism, Interpretation, etc.Methodology.

I . Title. I I . Series. BS1174.2.B3713 1998 221.61dc21 98-2095S

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

1 he growing precision of cur understanding should enhance, and not diminish our sense of wonder.

Alfred Brendel, pianist

Contents

Prefaie ta the English Edition xiii Preface xv Eoravord to the 12th Edition xix Translators Preface xxiii

PART O N E : I N T R O D U C T T O N 1

1 Foundation and Overview 3 A. The Task of Old Testament Exegesis 3 13. Imagination and Methodological Direcfion during Exegetical Work 5

I . The Value and Limits of Methodological Direction 5 I I . The Employment of Fantasy and Imagination 6 . Results 14

C. Overview of die Methods of Old Testament Exegesis 14 .1. The Stock of Methods 14 TL Grouping the Methods 15 I I I . lnterdcpendenee of the Methods 17 TVT Characterizing the Individua! Methods 18 V Coneerning the Question of the Expansion of the Stock

of Methods 20

2 General Bibliograph)7 for Exegetical Work 24

PART TVYO: T H E M E T H O D S 37

3 Text Criticism 39 A. The Task 39

vii Contents

. Commentary on the Approach and the Method 40 I . Relationship to Literary Criticism 40 . The Procedural Steps 41 I. Prineiples for the Text Critieal Decision 42 VT Summary of the Text Crnica) Procedure 44

C. Results 44 . Literature 45

4 Literary Criticism 47 A. The Task 47

I . The Overarching Question of the Development of an Oki 'lstamcnt 'lest 47

I L Determining the Task of Literary Criticism 51 I I I . Terminolog)- 53

B. Commentary on the Approach and Method 53 I . The Question of a Text's Literary Tnregrity 53 I I . Methodological Prineiples for the Question of a Text's

Literary lntcgrity 54 I I I . The Question of Larger Literary Contexts 57 I V Summary of the Literary Critical Procedure 58

C. Results 59 D. Literature 60

5 The Transmission 1 lstorical Approach 63 A. The Task 63

I . Determination 63 I I . Terminolog) 64

B. Commentary on the Approach and the Method 65 I . Rclationsliip to Literary Criticism 65 I I . Transmission TIistoric.il Processes 66 . Methodological Questions for the Analytieal Process 68 I V The Synthetic Process 69 V Applications for the Transmission Historical Approach 69 V I . Summary of the Procedure of Transmission History 70

C. Results 71 I . Jnsigln into the Origin and Changes of a Transmission Uni t

within Oral Tradition 71 I I . Transmission I listory as AcruaJizing Procedure 71 I I I . Transmission History as the History of the Religion and Faith

of fsrael 71 TV Access to Historical and Religio-Historical Data 72

D. Literature 72

Contents ix

6 Redaction Historical Approach 75 A. The Task 79 B. Commentary on the Approach and .Method 80

I . Relationship to Literary Criticism 80 I I . Redaction Historical Processen 81 I I I . Summary of the Redaction Historical Procedure 89

C. Results 92 I . Insight into the Changes of a Text in Written Tradition 92 I I . Redaction History as Actualizing Procedure 92 I I I . Redaction History as the History of Israel's Faith 92

D. Literature 92

7 Form Critical Approach 95 A. The Task 95

I . The Overarching Question of the Presuppositions of a Text or Its Stages 95

I I . Starting Point 96 I I I . Determination 100 TV. Terminolog}' 101

. Commentary on the Approach and Method 102 I . Constituent Questions 102 I I . Concerning the Question of the Linguistic Shape 103

Summary of the Procedural Steps 105 I I I . Determining the Gerne 106 I V The Question of the Genre l l i s tory 109

Summary of the Steps 109 V Regarding the Question of the Life Setting 110

Summary of the Steps 114 V I . Area of Usage 11 5

C. Results 115 I . Result of the Question of ihe Linguistic Shaping and

the Determination of Genre 115 I I . Results of the Question of the Genre History 116 I I I . Results of the Question of the Life Setting 116

D. Literature 117

8 Tradition Historical Approach 121 A. The Task 121

I . Starting Point 121 I I . Determination 123 I I I . Terminolog)' 124

. Commentary on the Approach and Method 125 I . Differentiation from the Transmission Historical Approach 125 I I . Areas of Tradition Historical Inquiry 125 I I I . Recognizing Ftxed Contents 128

IV. The Concept History Approach 129 V. The Tradition Historical Approach as Historical Process 133 V I . The Tradition Historical Approach and the History of Motifs 134 V I I . Steps of the Tradition Historical lnvestigation of a Text 135

C. Results 140 I . Comprehending the Text's Profile 140 . Tnsight into Connections 140

D. Literature 141

9 Determining the Historical Setting 143 A. The Task " 143 B. Commentary on the Approach and Method 143

I . Daring a Text 143 I I . The Contemporary History and Social Environment

of a 'lxt 144 I I I . Identifying the Externa! Reaties Mentioned in the Text 145 TV Determining Author and Addressee 146 V Concerning Materialistic Historical Interpretation

of Old Testament Texts 147 V I . Overview of the Approach to the I listorical Setting 148

C. Results 149 D. Literature 149

PART T I TREF: PURPOSE 151

10 Interpretation as Determination of the Text's Historical Meaning 153 A. The Task 153 B. Relationship to the Methodological Approaches 156 C. Commentary on the Exemtion 158

I . Interpreting die Text in Its Own Formative Arena 158 I I . Interpreting the Text in Its Old Testament Development 163

D. Considering the Text's Historical Meaning in Light of the Present 166

E. Suggestion for Proceeding with the Acquisitum and Presentetion 167

Translation of the Text 168 G. Literature 169

Contents x

PART FOUR: I L L U S T R A T I O N 171

11 The Exegetical Process Using Gen 28; 10-22 as Example 173 A. First Provisional Translation of the llebrew Text 173 B. Observations 174

I . Concept of the Text as Component of Today's World 174 I I . Concept of the Text as a Component of Its Historical World 175

C. Methodologically Directed Procedurcs 182 I . Text Criticism 183 I I . The Question of die Text's Development 183 I I I . The Question of the Presuppositions of the Stages

of Gen 28:10-22 193 D. Interpreting the Historically Deteraiined Meaning of Gen 28:10-22

in Its Various Stages of Growth 199 I . The Individua! Transmission Stages 199 I I . The Old Testament Development 201 TIT. Considering the Text's Movement of Meaning in Light

of Our Presem Time 201

Appendix: Literat/m Ulustrating the Exegetical Treatment of a Text 202

Preface to the English Edition

T h i s guide to the methodology o f O l d Testament exegesis has been used i n the German speaking w o r l d for 25 years. I n 1989 (for the 12th edi t ion) , i t was thoroughly revised and expanded. T h e 13th edi t ion f rom 1993 is now pre-sented i n Engl ish translation. T h i s book is not an in t rodue t ion to self-study, bn t presumes an academic setting (advanced seminar, etc.) i n wh ich the pr ine i ples o f this methodology can be i lhistrated to the student. Examples i l lus -t ra t ing the various points o f the methodology ean he found in the footnotes o f this workbook.

Changes have been undertaken for the benefit o f English readers regard-ing the bibliographic references in the German edi t ion. W h e r e translations o f G e r m a n works exist i n Engl ish , these are ment ioned (even i f they are not translations o f the most recent edi t ion o f that work) . I n addition, more recent publieations t reat ing eertain subjeets have been added to the Engl ish version o f this guide.

VVith the aid o f scientific exegesis, this manual shows one how to approach the historical meaning o f O l d Testament texts dur ing the period o f their produetive format ion . T h i s meaning is the original meaning o f an O l d Testament text w i t h i n the transmission realm o f the O l d Testament. T h i s meani n g must be proeessed because i t is the foundational meaning. T h i s meani n g is consti tutive i o r the to rmula t ion and the context o f an O l d Testament text. For this reason, this w o r k b o o k places particular emphasis upon two as-peets: (1) His tor ica l exegesis must proceed from the existing text and the final context rather than from diachronic hypotheses. (2) T h e complex i ly o f the O l d Testament, i n its existing fo rm, however, forces one to diachronic exegesis. I t does so because the o r ig in o f the fo rmula t ion (!) can on ly be understood as arising i n a particular t ime i n Aneient Israel. T h e procedures o f 6 and 10

xiv Preface to the Engl ish E d i t i o n

demonstrate that exegetically historical w o r k must u l t imate ly arrive at the shape o f the text and the context as i t exists in the O l d Testament.

T h e subject o f this guide is no t the applieation o f O l d Testament texts or alternative, methods for understanding the O l d Testament. These alternative methods include reader response cr i t ic ism, deconstruction, feininist, mater ial-ist, and psychological approaches (seeJ.Ch. E x u m and D.J.A. Clines, eds. T h e N e w L i t e r a ry Cr i t i c i sm and the Hebrew Bible , JSOT.S 143, Sheffield, 1993; and below, p. - ) . T h i s guide concentrates on historical exegetical methods.

I wish to thank die translator, Prof. Dr . James Nogalski , and ali those who have helped h i m for their concerted efforts in maMng this guide accessible to the Engl ish speaking w o r l d . Special men t ion should be made for the help o f Prof. Drs . Pamela J. Scalise and M a r k . Seifrid, as wel l as R u t h Funk, Peter Schwagmeier, and Konrad Schmid, who compared drafts o f this manuscript w i t h the German. Finally, the O l d Testament C o l l o q u i u m o f T h e Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Prof. D r . Steven Tuel l read the Engl i sh translation and offered helpfu] correetions and insights at kcy juncturcs.

I n addit ion, I wish to thank the .Society o f Bibl ical L i te ra ture , Scholars Press, and Neukirchener Verlag for helping to make this translation possible. Finally, 1 wish to ment ion Prof. Dr . M a r v i n Sweeney for his careful reading as editor o f the series Reources for Bibl ical Study.

Z r i c h , M a y 1995 Odil Hannes Steck

Preface

Dcar Reader, You should work w i t h this book. Perhaps you have already thumbcd

througl) i t , and glanced th rough port ions. The first I m p r e s s i o n was probably: it's all so complicated, so diff icul t . D o n ' t worry . T l i i s book w i l l not confuse \ r ou, but w i l l help to clarify your thoughts.

I can picture the S i tuat ion. A short text lies before y o u f ron i the O l d Testamentin Hebrew. You must exegete i t . You desire to comprehend this text, but how should you proceed? I n the grasp o f this text, do we say what we want to hear, or does it teil us what we should hear? One must ask the quest ion self-criticaUy, because an a n d e r n text cannot defend itself. Tt has l ong outl ived its author who could protect i t . I t needs your help. T h i s book can ac-company you as you become an attorney, mediator, and defender o f the text, i n order that i t can speak it? message, and come to life for us. W h a t is necessary for t l i is task?

Understanding the words presumes knowledge. T h i s is certainly the case among l i v i n g people, but even more so for an a n d e r n text. T h i s book wou ld like to showyou how one acquires such knowledge. T h e historical too l , devel-oped over generations, w i l l be delivered to you as precisely and exactly as we use i t today. Its service to you , and to die text, is to find the knowledge necessary for understanding, by means o f the clarification o f very simple questions.

Your text has been variously transmitted in the ancient manuscripts. H o w did i t read originallv? 3 o f this book w i l l help you w i t h this question.

Copyr ights did not yet exist in antiquity. Even in a short text, Statements from various times can stand next to one another. T h a t is no deficiency. I t is the richness of an ancient text. To take die text seriously means to distinguish the Statements in the text, to separate that wh ich was once separated, and also to l isten separately to each o f the voices in the text f rom various times as port ions o f various l i te rary works o f the O l d Testament to w h i c h they once belonged. But one may not forget die re tu rn t r ip , tfie t r i p f rom the Separation

xvi Preface

back again to the uni ty, to the harmony o f the voices in the text as i t Stands before us. T h a t is the path by wh ich G o d has been manifested in the course o f the text's development. 4 - 6 w i l l teach you how to distinguish various b i b l i cal witnesses in your text; to hear them separately; and then to hear them again together.

Bu t now on to the goal o f understanding, what is i t that these voices want to sav?

W h o c v e r speaks prudently, formulates precisely. Therefore, understandi n g p r imar i ly means to listen to the language; to pereeive how something is saidand how i t is not said. I f your text is fo rmcd according to a c o m m o n pattern, then i t provides insight in to what i t wants to say, l ike b i r t h announce-ments and menus i n our t ime. 7 seeks to prepare the way tor the question o f the l inguist ic shape o f your text.

A text intends much more than just what is there. W h e n contempo-raries wilh the same level o f knowledge interchange l inguist ically, they can also understand one anodicr th rough allusions, associations, and connotations. W e are not contemporaries w i t h ancient Israel. W e must inqui re in to those things connected w i t h a text which are left unspoken. 8 formulates the quest i on o f the text's intel lectual connotations. 9 treats the question o f the expressed, his tor icalh r concrete associations from the t ime o f fo rmula t ion , i n -c luding the date, author, and the addressee o f your text.

These are simple, necessary questions. T h e y help partially clarify how one can experience what the text has to sav, and how i t l ived du r ing the t ime when i t was formulated and transmitted i n Anc ien t Israel. T h e goal and culminat ion o f ali exegesis is to determine and to t rae the contents o f the text's Statements in order to become its attorney, as far as diose o f us from a later t ime are able to do. 10 w i l l make i t easier for you to reach this goal.

T h e questions are simple, even though the path to elucidation in this book is not quite as simple hecausc o f the great ant iqui ty o f the texts, the manncr o f thc i r transmission, and the foreign, unfamil iar w o r l d wh ich one encounters dierein. T h i s diff iculty is also related to die current status o f die tool wh ich we must lay before you in all its refinement and precision. Anyone standing at the beginning o f one's study does not master i t in the in i t i a l encounter. However, when using this book, one can concentrate on that wh ich is most impor tan t in every section. Teaching sessions, par t icular ly i n t r o d u c t o r y exegesis courses, w i l l help you concentrate on that w h i c h is most impor tant . T h e y w i l l also help you to g row w i t h this book. I t is so w r i t t e n that even at the end o f one's study (in exams, master's work, or even doctoral work ) , i t can sti l l servc as an o r i en -ta t ion and as Stimulation in the methodological questions o f O l d Testament exegesis. Last but not least, please remember that this book has all types o f O l d Testament texts in view, but no t every text asks all o f the questions expl i -cated i n this book.

Even the p r i n t type o f this workbook w i l l mee tyou half-way, i n order that you can find your way through the whole th ing . As von w i l l see, one must dif-

Preface xvii

ferentiate between the larger (serif) and the smaller (sans ser i f ) p r in t . As y o u know, even the "small p r i n t " is important , bu t i n our case secondary, namely to be used for closer scrutiny, for exphcation and different iat ion. T h e shaded sidebars are a second help. They einphasige i n p r i n t the concrete procedural directions for the individual methods.

I n exegetical w o r k w i t h t l i is book I wish y o u joy, courage, concentrat ion, and th rough i t all , the discovery o f how rieh a bibl ical text is, and how rieh i t can st i l l make us.

Foreword to the i2th Edition

decade lies between the 8di edi t ion o f this book, which Hermann Barth and I undertook, and the current ly revised 12th edi t ion . A revision has thus become necessary in l i gh t o f the l i terature references alone. A t the same t ime one must consider numerous changes in the specific development o f the dis-cussion, at least br ief ly and selectively. Greater engagement and expansions have been undertaken in 1 , i n order to facilitate cn t ry and or ienta t ion, and in 6 , i n order to proper ly convey the blossoming o f the redaction-historical questions in recent years. Kurther, there is an in t roduct ion to the inter-related methodological steps o f 4 - 6 and 7 - 9 respeetively. Finally, the f o r m u -lat ion o f conerete procedural direetions for the individual methods should faciJitate the practical u t i l iza t ion o f the workbook . A number o f places have been shortened in order to keep the sie and cost o f a student book man-ageable. Above al i , extensive dialogue w i d i other methodological positions has been reduced. I t is sufficient i f our posit ion f rom the 8th ed i t ion is docu-mented.

T h e overall strueture and, to a large extent, even the t o rmu la t i on ot the workbook , have not been ehanged for the 12th edi t ion. Feedback f rom assis-tants and students indicates these elements have proven effective in practical terms to those who use the book. Reesons o f con t inu i ty i n the essential out-look enable this, and reasons o f cost require i t .

Dr . Hermann Barth asked me to undertake and to be responsible for the revision by myself. For some t ime, he has not been involved in academic edu-cation, bu t i n the pastorate. H e is now employed by the Evangelical Church o f Germany i n Hanover. W i t h a heavy heart now fol low his request to take his name o f f o f the t i t le page o f the workbook. I n con t inu ing thankfulness and af l iat ion 1 emphasize the extensive con t r ibu t ion which he provided in

XX Foreword to the 12th E d i t i o n

the preparation and f o r m a o n o f this book du r ing an extraordinari ly f ru i t fu l and pleasant collaboration. H i s cont r ibu t ion remains preserved directJy or i n -direct ly even in this new edi t ion.

T h e purpose of this workbook remains unehanged. I n this regard, what we said in the foreword o f the 8th edi t ion can only be repeated. The workbook, "now as before, proceeds f rom the supposition that the goal o f the discipline o f O l d Testament studies no t on ly ineludes the acquisition o f certain factual knowledge, but also ineludes the adopt ion o f exegetical methods for determ i n i n g the original meaning o f O l d Testament transmissions. O n l y thus can one achieve discemment w i t h the results o f research and Ins truc t ion in procedure which transcends nierc reception.

Therefore , as b e t r e , the workbook is conceived p r imar i lv for use by teacher and student as a Synopsis o f the individual methods: their denn i t ion , their procedural steps, and their significanec for the total his torical understanding o f an O l d Testament text. T h i s is done wi thou t de t r iment to die books claim ot cont r ibu t ing to the preselit discussion o f method in O l d Testament research. W i t h this decision about the purpose, the book docs not wish to be, indeed cannot be, an int roduet ion to sclf-study. Rather, i t is designed for use i n academic I n s t r u c t i o n . I t is related to , indeed dependent upon, the processes o f the demonstrat ion and u t i l i za t ion o f the methods wh ich take place there. I t w o u l d like to provide a w r i t t e n basis for this posi t ion.

For the moment , i f we disregard the workbook's approach and the adopt i o n o f its perspectives concerning the purpose o f O l d Testament research, the f o l l o w i n g reasons present themselves for using the book d u r i n g one's coursc o f study and oceupational practice:

1. As a workbook, its p r imary funet ion lies in classroom sessions and the processes o f exegetical education. Specifically, i t is used to aecompany die Student in several areas: beginning exegesis courses and papers; demon-stra t ing and pract icing a transparent process i n exegetical lectures and Seminars; advanced seminar papers and exegesis papers in the discipline o f O l d Testament.

2. As for the purpose, we envision that using this book d u r i n g one's education w i l l aid the user in acquir ing basic exegetical capabilities. A m o n g diese capabilities, we inelude die m s t e n " o f die approaches and the padis toward Solutions wh ich are essential for exegetically de t e rmin ing meaning . Relatedly, the capabilities inelude the competency to detennine which results the specific methodological approach to the p rob lem produces when de te rmin ing exegetical meaning. Lea rn ing and pract ic ing these capabilities aids discemment when preparing O l d Testament texts exegetically and when sif t ing th rough commentaries, etc.

3. I n the exegetical practice o f pastors and teachers o f re l ig ion , i t is i m p o r tant that onc master the basic capabilities acquired in one's study. T h i s

Foreword to the 12th E d i t i o n xxi

mastery protects one from undiscerning surrender to available secondary l i terature, and aids one in the critical use o f this l i terature. I t also enables one to pursue exegetical questions reasonably as they arie in p r a c c e . Because o f the preparation t ime available, the workbook i tself no longer serves, in its entiretv, as a guide in many theological vocations. Therefore, the basic capabilities acquired w i t h its help du r ing one's study become even more impor tan t . Natural ly , one can freely consult the workbook for Informat ion and as a reminder, even i n one's practice."

M y heartfelt thanks go to the Z r i c h assistants, D r . R . G . Kra tz and E. Bosshard, who bave allowed mc to learn f rom their teaching experiences w i t h the workbook, and who have aided me w i t h advice and deed in the revision. Heartfelt thanks also go to Dr . H . Barth, who provided me w i t h critical insights for the revision, and to Br ig i t ta Rotach, who helped me w i t h the edi-tor ia l work , and who , together w i t h students N i c o l e C h a r m i l l o t and M a r t i n Riwar, very conscientiously helped ine correet the galleys. I am no less grateful to M r s . R. Ftuik for all her care in t y p i n g the manuscript, and to Ne/t-kirehener Vertagter their detennined effort to produec a elcar and econotnical teaching book for students.

1 hope this book, even in its revised f o r m , aids the understanding and the awe o f the O l d testament. 1

Z r i c h , November 1988 Odil Hannes Steck

i The mono of the book is taken from A. Brendel. Musical Tbtmgbts miti Afttrtbmghts (Princeton Univcrsity Press. 1976), 37.

Translator s Preface to the English Version, second printing

Comments from students and colleagues who have ut i l ized this work in Engl ish underscore its usefulness and usability w i t h i n classroom settings. These comments have been overwhelmingly positive, attesting to the val idi ty o f a historical exegetical in t roduc t ion wh ich bo th defines the methodological components and teaches students how to ut i l ize them for themselves. M o r e -over, Steck's presentation illustrates how these components relate to one another, and many have expressed appreciation for this Integrat ion.

T h e feedback has also indicated that the scope o f this w o r k must be given due consideration w i t h i n the didactic process, as Professor Steck states. A d vanced students who have used this w o r k have commented that i t has helped them to put the pieces together. Rather than seeing die exegetical components as an eclectic assortment which only "specialists" o f the various components can "do," Steck's i n t roduc t ion illustrates for them how the perspective p ro -vided by each methodological lens adds dept i i to the whole.

T h e workbook, whi le concise in its format, contains more I n f o r m a t i o n than a beginning student can possibly absorb w i t h i n the confincs o f a typical course in t roduc ing the exegetical process. L e l t to i emse lve s , beginning students w i l l struggle to comprehend this work . Cer ta in measures can, however, help insure that beginning students benefit from the book at a level appro-priate to their present ski l l . Beg inn ing students should concentrate upon die larger (ser i f ) type and especially the summaries beside the shaded sidebars. Those teaching beginning students can help by in tegrat ing the book's presentat ion in to the class itself. Two approaches have worked wel l in t l i i s regard.

XXIV Translators Preface

T h e class can process Gen 28.10-22 since chapter 11 uses this text to i l lus -trate the method. Or, one can lead the class th rough the various methodological observations in class as they relate to another text. Both approaches help beginning students comprehend the methods by i l lus t ra t ing them on a famil ir text.

T h i s second p r i n t i n g has corrected several typographical errors, and i n response to feedback, the entire book has been reformatted w i t h larger type to make i t more reader ffiendly.

Lombard , I L , 1998 James D. Nogalski

Part One

Introduction

Anyone s tudying theology because o f the desire to address the people and the questions o f our t ime may be puzzled when look ing at the syllabus o f an in t iOduc tory course on O l d Testament exegesis at the beginning o f die course and when considering the table o f Contents o f t l i is guide to die methodology. T h e direct ion o f the work on biblical texts runs backwards. T h e biblical texts are not brought ever nearcr to our present t ime i n their authoritative s ignif i -cance for a Christian's fai th, doctrine, and life. Instead, they are distanced further and further f rom today, and placed i n the Situation o f their o r ig in , wh ich lies well i n die past. D o diese two movements not cancel themselves out? N o a necessary cormection exists between the two.

T h e goal o f all theological work is to b r ing the biblical w o r d o f G o d to life, and to give i t dynamic and relevant expression for humani ty today. T h e task o f all theological w o r k is to make sure, i n this process o f conveying tbe material, that the w o r d o f the bibl ical G o d remains that wh ich confronts and which speaks what humans by themselves do not always know or desire. W i t h i n the framework o f Chris t ian theology, Old Testament exegesis also has a conceni for de te rmin ing the goal and task in t roduced i n diis workbook.

Exegesis has a subservient, but at tbe same t ime an undeniable role. W r hy? T h e bibl ical w o r d o f G o d in d i e O l d Testament reeeived its fo rmula t ion i n a certain t ime and th rough human witnesses w i t h l inguis t ic and experiential horizons w h i c h are more than two thousand years older than ours. I i the for-mulations o f these ancient texts are to become understandable, then one must ask about their meanings when these formulations arose and when they ci rcu-lated inside the O l d Testament. Therefore, O l d Testament exegesis necessarily inquires in to the past for the original meaning o f the text. T h e inqu i ry o f O l d Testament exegesis in to the or iginal historical meaning has fundamental sig-nificance i f these ancient texts are to be protected f rom the caprice to w h i c h we o f today honorably, dishonorably, or unknowing ly subject them i n order to hear what we want to hear f rom them. I t also has fundamental signiheance i f

I N T R O D U C T I O N

the texts are to be allowed to speak their o w n message, i n contrast to ali later recipients. These Statements are true even though, for us today, the i nqu i ry is on ly a first step on the path o f conveying the w o r d o f G o d toward wh ich ali theological disciplines must work togedier responsibly. O u r workbook Stands w i t h i n this framework. I t sccks to introduce one consti tuent task o f die b i b l i cal speaking about G o d i n the present, but i t is a fundamental and indispensable approach. T h i s approach asks about the or ig inal meaning which maintains the oudook, character. and richness o f an O l d Testament text against any pat ron-iz ing treatment o f the biblical message d i rough a later message. A l i use o f the O l d Testament today, lo r theolog) and the ehureh, must be measured against diis approach. N o less so, die frequendymisused and painful reception his tory o f die O l d Testament dur ing two mi l lennia must be measured against i t .

One could object, especially i n the case o f the Bible, d ia t i t is p r i m a r i l y the reader who actively contributes to the meaning o f the text. T h e objeetion contains something valid, but at the satne t ime something dangerous. I t is undisputable that a reader produetively cooperates in the perception o f the text's dimensions o f meaning w h i c h cxceed the original author's i n t en t i on . Nevertheless, the meaning or ig inal ly given, par t icular ly w i t h bibl ical texts, must be proteeted over against reader associations about the text. i n order that a hermeneutically responsible reception remains on the text's path o f meaning, and does not allow the recipient to cont ro l the text. Should the historical association disappear, then so w o u l d the ou t look o f the biblical text for today, and i t would be fatally replaced by the subjeetive, a rbi t rary refleetions o f "the text i n me." Therefore, the principal task o f exegesis is to protect the text's oudook.

Foundation and Overview

A . T H E T A S K O F O L D T E S T A M E N T E X E G E S I S

O l d Testament exegesis is the endeavor to determine the historieal, scientific, and documentable meaning o f texts w h i c h have been t ransmit ted in the O l d Testament. Exegesis, therefore, confronts the task o f de te rmin ing the meaning and the in t en t ion o f Statements i n the encountered text. I t does so w i t h i n the text's historical sphere o f o r ig in , and in the differcnt phases o f its O l d Testament development, so that today the text manifests its historical eharacter.

Exegesis is a scientific procedure to the degree that its understanding o f a text is grounded exclusively upon knowledge and arguments whose appropri-ateness to die subject can be evaluated (approvingly or disapprovingly) by others, and whose rationale can be substantiated. Exegesis certainly does not maintain its scientific eharacter by o r ien t ing i tself to die experimental and em-pir ica l sciences, and by b inding itself to their ideal o f an ever more precise oh-jeetive knowledge. Exegesis wou ld then have to l i m i t i tself to the analysis and descript ion o f die l inguis t ic surface o f the texts. However, texts are a f ormal o u t g r o w t h o f life events yet they supersede that life l inguisrically. Therefore , by means o f a dynamic process, exegesis must understand texts as an event i n w h i c h die fo l lowing Clements lead to the cxisting l inguist ic expression, i n c l u d -i n g their "unspoken hor izon o f meaning," ( J I . - G . Gadamer 1 ) . T h i s process ineludes the historieal and social condit ions, intel lectual conccptions, experi-enees, irnpulses, the author's coneeptual purpose, and the eharacter of the

1 Qnoted literature will ojily be cited with an abbreviated title i f the complete bibliographi-cal reference can be taken trom the Literature section (D) of the current ehapter. or relatedly, in the case of literature on methodology, the introduction to the Old Testament, und thcology of the Old Testament (scetions H,G, and in ehapter iwo).

1 F O U N D A T I O N A N D O V E R V I E W

addressee. Exegesis can be evaluated against its subject matter on ly i f i t can provide an intersubjectivcly groundcd account o f the historical life which terminates l inguist ically i n the text. Scientific exegesis does not , therefore, consider the text as a defenseless object wh ich submits itself to the superior grasp o f the scholar. Rather, i t considers die text as a l i v i n g ent i ty w l i i c h ap-pears in relationship to life. T h e fundamental attitudes o f scientific exegesis are therefore at tent ion, the rcadiness to learn, the capacity to encounter, and the recogni t ion o f l imi t s in relationship to the text as something other, or something foreign. 2

To the extent that scientific exegesis relates to the historical determinat ion o f the text's meaning, in the p e r i o d o f its produetive forma t i on , i t is l i m i t e d to de te rmin ing the or ig inal meaning inside the transmission realm o f the O l d Testament. As noted above, its direet ion of understanding is thereby dif-ferentiated f rom the event o f a modern bible reader's personally encountered understanding. T h e individual i ty and depth o f a bible readers understanding has been determined esscntially by expericnces o f the present. Scientific exegesis brings the text i tself i n to dircet relationship w i t h those expericnces. Scientific historical exegesis does not depreciate this direct ly applied understanding, but is able to clarify and to enr ich i t th rough the manifestation o f the or iginal meaning o f the text: (1) by correct ing arbitrary, subjeetive ex-plo i ta t ion o f tbe text; (2) by indicat ing the central subject matter o f the text; and (3) by exposing the text's particular impulses wh ich the present needs. Scientific historical exegesis is thereby an attorney for the or iginal meaning o f the text, p rov id ing the fundamental con t r ibu t ion io r the clarification and enr ichment o l applied understanding. Natura l ly , applied understanding re-quires st i l l more extensive theological help. Clarifications o f meaning beyond O l d Testament exegesis are necessary to the extent that an O l d Testament text receives aspeets o f meaning which are expanded or modif ied th rough the witness o f the N e w Testament and th rough f 'ar-reachitig ehanges i n the ex-perience o f reality, These clarifications takc place in the theological realrns o f the New Testament, Church His tory , the history o f dogma, and the history o f theology. Also , they take place through dogmatic dieology, ethics, and practical theology, in relationship to the fo rm , validity, and Obl igat ion o f the expanded or modif ied meaning o f die text in the face o f the present experi-

In addition. Kaiser, Exegtthvl MelhvtL 40f. says eorreelly: "Scholarsliip requires diat we give reasons lor our judgments and avoid uniounded assertions; diat we inake clear our depen-dence on the work oi olhers; that we specitv tiie degrce ol probability of our results; that we present unsettleil or presently iusoluble or ncwly arsun problems tor what thuv are and, it circuin-stances perniit, gire the reasons why we have not gone into thein or given answers/' In. light of exegesis performed both orally and in wrirten tomi, one should einphasige that in addition to the supporting argiimcnts ot an opinion, one should undeniably inelude a reasoned deliberarion that exehides possiblc alternatives, in ones srienrifie inter-siibjeetively interpreted rationale (the prin-eiple of the exclusion of the oppositc).

Imaginat ion and Mediodologica l D i r e c t u m D u r i n g Exegetical W o r k 5

ence o f reality. O n l y after these clarifications, i n wh ich theolog)' has its unde-niable task, can and should one t u r n back again to a higher plane. Specifically, one should be led by the content, d i rough theological responsibility. to an applied understanding o f the text for today as the goal ot the total i ly. T h e n , no l imi ts are placed before the vision of b r ing ing the message o f the biblical text productively in to play for humani ty in the present rime, whether in the f o r m o f the tradit ional sermon, role plays, or bible dramas.

Also , scientific historical exegesis is always critical exegesis. Its execution necessarily ineludes crit ically recognizing one's owt i , or alien, presuppositions concerning the understanding o l the text (above all as they eome to l i gh t in 11 1). I t also ineludes the necessity o f recognizing any preconeeptions i m -posed by exegetical t radi t ion or by constellations f rom the history o f research, by wh ich everyone admit tedly remains influenced. Once recognized, cri t ical exegesis must cont ro l the preconeeptions by re ly ing upon the original meani n g o f die text. A t the same t ime, the crit ique is directed at the text itself. T h i s Statement does not mean arrogant cri t icism o f the text, rather i t means an a t t i -tude o f methodological doubt, which leads to a distinetive historical format ion of judgment on various pereeptions, approaches, and conclusions in the face o f a text 's eharacter. I t also interrogates the text's c la im o f t r u t h in its h i s to r i cal S i tuat ion.

B. I M A G I N A T I O N A N D M E T H O D O L O G I C A L D I R E C T I O N D U R I N G E X E G E T I C A L W O R K

I . T h e Value and L i m i t s o f Methodologica l D i r ec t i on

Scientifically established exegetical work is methodological ly transparent work . Nevcrtbeless, it is not exhausted by the correct application and evalu-ation o f the methodological Steps for a given text. T h e process o f de termining the historical meaning of the text in its life Situation is much more complex. Therefore , the value and l imi t s o f the methodological Steps must be more closely determined.

Anyone u t i l i z i n g methodological introduet ions must be conscious o f the factt lrat the individual methods derive f rom an arsenal ot elementary questions about the historical understanding o f a text. These questions were already mentioned i n the preface and inelude the fo l lowing : T h e transmission o f the text in the ancient manuscripts is not consistent; what is the original w o r d i n g (see 3)?; T h e O l d Testament wr i t ings have frequently g rown by means o f a protracted transniission process; how far do the oldest parameters reach, and what are later expansions and contexts (see 4 - 6 ) ? ; Every l inguis t ic ut ter-ance partieipates in the imellectual wor ld o f its audior; what patterns o f speech and coneepts does the text presuppose (see 7 - 8 ) ? ; In the same manner,

6 1 F O U N D A T I O N . A N D O V E R V I E W

every text participates in the historical and socio-historical realities o f its rime; how can one determine the texts historical realm, inc lud ing that o f its author and addressees (see 9)? T h e methods wh ich are correspondingly elaborated (text c r i t ic i sm. l i terary cr i t ic i sm, the transmission-historical and redaction-historical approaches; the fo rm crit ical and t radi t ion historical approaches; and the determinat ion o f the historical setting) then constitute the development o f an intellectual path where these questions w i l l find answers. By its questions and by weigh ing observations and arguments, tbe description o f mediods pays at tent ion to insights and possibilities w h i c h have proven effective on many individual texts. I n its prehminary sketch, the description o f methods presup-poses images o f expectation and the anticipation o f results as suggested by the current State o f exegetical science. Bu t thcrein lies the problem o f methodological exegetical work . U t i l i z i n g methods which depend upon the State o f research and which antieipate results must neither patronize the texts, nor allow the texts to provide answers only aecording to the manner o f the questions. The text does not have to subjugate i tself to the current State o f the descrip

t ion o f methods. Rather, the ut i l iza t ion of the methods must remain steadfast to die data o f die text.

But what access does historical exegesis have to the data o f the text except die access o f questions, observations, and argumentat ion guided by the m e t h ods? Here , the exegete's imaginat ion plays a decisive role i n look ing at the se-lected text, by emplo\dng fantasy i n the desire to understand a text historically. T h i s fantasy is not obstrueted and not vet r i g id ly control led by methodolog i cal Instructions. O n the basis o f the original hermeneutical u n i t y berween the text and today's reader, one's fantasy and imagination must thereby move in two directions dur ing constant reading and reflection.

(One should first read and reflect upon the text in Engl ish . One should also read the Hebrew text, wh ich should be pre l iminar i ly processed and translated at die beginning of the exegetical work , w i d i the help o f a grainmar, dictionary, and i f need be, a concordance.)

O n (he one hand, the exegete envisions how die text offers itself as a component of today

Imaginat ion and Methodologica l D i r ec t i on D u r i n g Exegetical W o r k

versation partners, even for a sermon or lecture). These impressions and ef-fects influence any historical understanding today, p r imar i ly subconsciously, and they represent a hermeneutical un i ty bctween text and reader, which must certainly be regained in an applied understanding after the exegetical h i s to r i cal interpretat ion. E m p l o y i n g fantasv and imagination hclps to make one cog-nizant o f these impressions and effects. I t also helps to keep their influence active, but at the same t ime under cont ro l ,

A series o f simple questions can stimulate the power o f conceptualiza-t ion . T h e exegete poscs these questions to himsclf/herself and to others when specifically considering the text. These inelude:

W h a t fcelings, reactions, and associations does the text call for th in me? (For example: innate/foreign; my t ex t /no t my text; i n v i t i n g / repulsive; happy/sad; i lhumnating/vague)

W T hat does the text say to me that is new, and in w h i c h life Situation does i t address me?

W h a t is impor tan t to me thematically, and i n view o f the Statements o f the text, to what do I not relate?

W h a t do I recognize as familir? W h a t Stands out to me? W T hat do I miss? W h a t do I not understand? W h a t disturbs me, or stimulates disagrecment? (For example, as a

"learned" Chris t ian , as a woman, as a man, as a democratic person to w h o m absolute royal power is a t h i n g o f the past, as a person who wants to find himself/herself, as an engaged ci t izen who intercedes o n behalf o f universal human rights, and who takes offence at tbe "eruelty" o f die O l d Testament.)

W h a t dawns on me regarding specific Statements? W h a t do 1 t h i n k about when reading? Given the desire to under

stand, what do J draw upon tor comparison? T o which people, i n wh ich life Situation, could I show the text as an

enr iching, i l l umina t ing w o r d o f God?

The answers to these questions will turn out very differenty for various exegetes because, when fantasizing. these questions largely employ active and knowledgeable aware-ness of the present, life experience, knowledge of people. self-awareness, and ecucalion. Yet the goal of this line o i questioning is by no means uniformrty. Rather the goal is to make one conscious of a realistic fe-like situating of the text in one's own time which shall again take effect after one's exegetical-theological investigation has been clarifted.

The deveiopment of text dimensions that present themselves alongside the histori-cal-exegetical investigat

S 1 F O U N D A T I O N A N D O V E R V I E W

of multiple endeavoi's, which are themselves also systematized. An overview is given m the periodical mstallment entitled. "Zugnge zur Bibel," EvTn 45 (1985): 469-56C; English readers consutt j .C. Exum and D.J.A. Clines (eds.), The New Literary Ctitkism cnd the Hebrew Bible, JSOTS 143, Sheffield, 1993. An example in conne.ction with historical exegesis isthe essay by H. Utzschneider. 'Das hermeneutische Problem der Uneindeutigkert biblischer Textedargestellt an Text und Rezeption de r Erzhlung von jakob am jabbok (Gen 32,23-33), EvTh 48 (1988): 182-198 Compare the recent work U.H.J. Krtnet; Der inspirierte Leser. Zentrale Aspekte biblischer Hermeneutik, Gttingen, 1994.

2. Conceiving the Text as a Component o f Its O w n His tor ical W o r l d For this linc o f questioning, which cannot be overestimated, die goal is to

achieve a comprehensive historical conception o f the historical arena, o r i g i n , In tent ion , meaning and effect ot die text i n its t ime, through the employment o f fantasy and imaginat ion p r io r to and alongside the methodological work . T h e preceding endeavor o f por t raying the text as a component o f the present w o r l d now sharpens the vision for the portrayal o f the text in its historical eharacter. Moreover , at this po in t i n die w o r k i n g procedure, one is certainly not concerned w i t h exaet, unchangeable insights. Rather, one is concerned w i t h observations and impressions that present themselves when one looks at length in to the Hebrew text (which has been pre l iminar i ly translated and w i t h w h i c h one has become familir) w i t h t ranqui l i ty and w i t h the greatest possible precision.

Even the power o f historical conceptualization can be aroused by a series o f elementary questions. T h e y march in eontinuous oscil lat ion between observations upon the text concerning the effort o f acliieving an understandi n g of the factors o f o r ig in , and the imaginat ion o f a total pic ture o f historical understanding. T h i s larger picture encompasses an image o f the i n t en t ion , meaning, and effect o f the text, and i t sees die text as a life-event o f its time.

/. Imagination from Text Obset~catimis Text observations are the alpha and omega o f this stage o f the work ,

when they are directed toward the formal as well as the material flow o f die text. T h e observations serve to aequaint one well wi i die text to be treated in its o r ig ina l language, and to draw a t tent ion to its distinetiveness. They T also provide the first possibil i ty for creative exegetical discoveries p r io r to the w o r k wh ich w i l l be guided by the methods and the secondary l i terature , where these discoveries can then be substantiated, examined, and explained.

1. Freely Roamirig Observations on the Text T h e fo l lowing w o r k i n g procedure is recommended as the start ing point :

Firs t , one should translate one's text over and over again u n t i l one is u t t e r ly famil ir w i t h i t . T h e n , using freely roamir ig observations, one should note everything in the text which strikes one as a historical phe-nonienon.

Imaginat ion and Methodological D i r ec t i on D u r i n g Exegetical W o r k 9

2. Observations on tbe Linguistic Sbape of tbe Text O n l y then does a phase o f directed Observation fol low. F.ssentially, these

observations constitute pure text observations regarding tbe linguistic sbape, which even the beginner should be able to list w i t h the knowledge o f Hebrew already acquired.

a. Obseroations from Sentence to Sentence First , one proceeds th rough the text, not verse by verse, but sentence by

sentence (compare also . Schweizer, Biblische Texte verstehen, see 2 H , p. 3 7ff; B . Wi l lmes , Bibelauskgung, see 2).

T h e l inguis t ic observations are especially directed toward die type o f sentence f rom which the text is composed, toward the manner o f p romien t connectors between die sentences, and toward die eharacter o f die succession of sentences i n the text (aspects w h i c h are the result o f the cont inu i ty or the change in the types o f sentences and the tense).

I n detail, die approach is elucidated thus:

H o w far does die first sentence extend (in terms o f content and grammar)? H o w is the sentence construeted (sentence parts and their posi t ion; die

type o f sentence such as: nominal sentence, verbal sentence, inverted verbal sentence, main clause, or dependent clause; and the tense)? W h a t does this type o f sentence construet ion express for the content? (subject/object, accent, act ion/condit ion, temporal condi t ion) W l i i c h o f the exegete's expectations o f content does this l inguist ic shape correct?

D o the same for sentences two, three, etc., un t i l the end o f the text. A l o n g w i d i t l i is procedure, one should pay at tent ion to the manner i n

w h i c h the new sentence is related to the previous sentence or sentences. Is the sentence attached to the previous sentence(s) or not? (Are all l i n guistic and material referenecs inissing?) A n d what type o f possible eon-nection exists? Does a dependeney exist upon the previous sentence or not, i n the sense o f a parallel or subsidiary order ing (the relat ionship o f the main clause and dependent clauses, relative sentences, inf ini t ive construetions), and i f so what funetion does the dependeney express? Is diere a cont inuat ion or change o f subject, object, type o f sentence, tense, or temporal condition? H o w far do the series o f connected sentences extend, and when does an In te r rup t ion take place? ( I n certain situations this is an impor tan t clue to die strueture!) D o the individua] sentences offer any relationships w h i c h po in t beyond the text under investigation and show that i t belongs i n a larger l i terary context?

IO 1 F O U N D A T I O N A N D O V E R V I E W

I n the succession o f sentences, do repeated principal words, catchwords, or word pairs manifest themselves in explainable positions? W h a t do these observations inside the succession o f sentences signify for the content?

b. Observations on the Text as a Whole

T h e observations acquired regarding die succession o f sentences leads to the next step o f the work , namely observations on the entirety of the treatcd Text. F low is the text struetured, according to agreement between formal and content observations? One must observe the l inguis t ical ly reeorded macro-organizat ion in the main paragraphs and the m i c r o -organization in the subsidiary paragraphs, as well as their inner syn-tactical Organization i n the construct ion o f the individua! sentences and in the relationships/correspondences between the sentences and the sentence parts,

I n detail, the fo l lowing quest ions can provide directum:

A r e diere Hebrew organizational markers ( lo r example, lken, hinnh, we'atth, independent personal pronouns, interrogative pronouns)? A r e there additional t u r n i n g points in the flow (changes o f scene, action, Jocation, persons, speech formulas)? Is diere one loundational stylistic pattern w h i c h conveys tbe entire Organization (for example, seven imperat ives i n Ps 100, some w i t h ki; the "we" and the "non-we" in Ps 46)? D o re la t ionsh ips between the beginning and end determine the total Organization o f the text (framing inclusio)? Are there symmetries in the sequence o f the organizational components (for example, according to the pattern A B A or ABBA)? W h a t do the succession o f the sentence type or tense i n the text provide for its Organization? W h i c h essential perspectives are thereby recorded (principal Statements, subordinate Statements, conditions, die progression o f movement/act ion, and the relative and absolute aspects o f time)?

To what extent are the individua! sections under Observat ion essential parts o r non-essential parts o f the whole? I n its present l inguist ic shape, is there a perspective in wh ich the text ap-pears as a harmonized succession o f Statements? Can one find a dominant Substantive Statement that fashions the flow o f the text and determines die Organization? D o in t roduc t ion , climax, change, or Statement o f purpose play a role in the Organization o f the text?

H o w are the individual sections under Observation i n the text s truetured by themselves? Even w i t h i n this smaller framework, do correspondences, w o r d re la t ionships, or subject relationships manifest diemselves (such as inclusios, or

Imaginat ion and MediodologicaJ D i r e c t i o n D u r i n g Exegetical W o r k 11

parallel formulat iot is i n sentences, in words, or in cont radic tory Statements)?

W h i c h elements o f the Statement i n an individual section stand i n relat ionship, formally and materially, to that which precedes and follows?

I t is recommended that one virite the Hebrew text one time according to the observations gained concerning the macrostructure and the micros t ruc-ture in order that its construction also becomes graphically visible.

By way o f example, in Ps 100, the seven imperative Statements, wh ich i n elude verses lb5, then stand under one another i n seven rows. I n Ps 46, one can wr i t e the five ehains o f Statements (46:2-4,5-7,8,9-11,12) so diat their nominal Statements, as wel l as the developmental Statements and further dc-velopmental Statements dependent upon them, likewise stand under one another. Observable agreements i n syntax and use o f tense then play an i m por tant role. Also , one should graphically accentuate the symmetrica! cons t ruc t ion o f Isa 1:21-26 in its two segments (1 :21-23,24-26) by drawing in the brackets o f inelusion: 1:21a (A); 1:21b (B); 1:22 (C) ; 1:23 ( D ) ; 1:24 ( D ' ) ; l : 2 5 a b (C ' ) ; 1:26a (B') ; 1:26b (A'). A t the same t ime, d ie special posi t ion o f 1:25aa Stands out.

3. Further Text Observations

Finally, i t is impor tan t d ia t every exegetical worker gives careful con-sideration to two points:

First: I n its own t ime, did the text appear as an understandable, i n -herently completed Statement, or must the context be taken w i t h i t (relationship o f the text to the immediate/wider context)?

Second; W h a t remains unelear concerning ali these text observations, or relatedly, w i t h the translation, w h i c h must be clarified via additional Information?

A t this point , i t is profitable for the experienced exegetebut not for the beginner who wou ld here be overburdenedto elucidate the text further w i t h various specific observations.

To what extent does the immediate context help to delineate the lexical breadth of meaning for die words?

W r h a t tvpes o f words fashion the text (for example, action verbs or verbs ol circunistance, abstraet or conerete substantives)?

W h a t stylistic devices appear in the text? W h a t could be their ma-terial Intention?

W h a t means does the text employ in order to offer its material Statements (for example, conerete or abstraet substantives, images, comparisons, metaphors)?

W h a t conceptions are awakened by real, conerete sequences or by l inguist ic images (metaphors) in the text? W h a t should the listeiier/

1 F O U N D A T I O N A N D O V E R V I E W

reader see before one 's o w n inner eye because i t is expressed or i n -

tended? A n d what should one not sce because the formula t ion points

i n another d i rec t i on and excludes certain associat ions? M o s t o f the

severely neg lected observat ions w h i c h chal lenge the exegete's his

torical (!) fantasy, are to be made here r egard ing die des ired c lar i ty o f

the text.

W i t h i n the thematic f r a m e w o r k o f the text. what w o u l d also be c o n -

ceivable or expected, but is no t spoken? A r e Statements m i s s i n g be

cause they were c o n s i d e r e d se l l - ev ident at diat t ime , or were they

del iberately omit ted?

II. Imagination of the Realities of the Origin of the Text

'SS I n w h i c h Situation d id the text or ig inate (time, locality, ins t i tut ional framework, and ins trumenta l events; tbe person w h o speaks the text; the persons w h o hear it)?

W h i c h exper icnces c o u l d s tand in the b a c k g r o u n d of the Speaker and hearer/reader? W h i c h exper ient ia l ly gu ided des ignat ions w e r e prov ided? W h i c h experiences were addressed in the text d irect ly or ind irec t ly?

III. Imagination of the Intention, Meaning, and Effect ofthe Text

W h a t precisely compe l l ed the Speaker to formulate this text in l ight

o f the realities o f or ig in?

W h a t does the Speaker w a n r to effect in that historical locali ty w h e n

the text is heard (for example , ins ight , act ion)?

H o w do the mater ia l Statements, i n the ir par t i cu lar f o r m and r e l a -

t ion in the text, h a n g together w i t h the realit ies o f or ig in?

W nat do the mater ia l Statements o f the text, and the ir f o r m and re-

spect, have i n c o m m o n w i t h o ther Statements i n the O l d Testament?

W h a t attracts attent ion as a s u r p r i s i n g new aecent?

W h i c h experience o f real i ty o f its t ime does die text desire to c l a i -

ify and influence? W h i c h unmistakable experiences , in trus ions , and

perspect ives o f real i ty are b o u n d wi th the Statements o f G o d i n the

text?

W n i c h view o f humani ty or Israel in its t ime and w o r l d does the

text open?

h i l ight o f the mater ia l Statements, w h a t c o n t r a s t i n g Statements or

Supplements does the O l d Testament f t e r e l sewhere?

W h a t effect d id die text actual ly have in the r e a l m o f anc ient Israel

for die s h o r t - t e r m (with the brst hear ing) or for the l o n g - t e r m (with

its w i d e r t ransmiss ion)? Does the actual effect dev ia le f r om the i n -

tent ion o f the Speaker, and what c o u l d be the exper ient ia l reasons

for such?

Imagina t ion and .Methodological D i rec t ion D u r i n g Exegetical W o r k 13

Even w i t h questions like these, the answers o f different exegetes w i l l deviate from one another bo th p r io r to and after the methodologically guided, scientific investigation o f the text. T h i s deviation is connected w i t h the fact that, at anv given time, two essential factors come into plav in varying degrees: the ex-egete's p r io r knowledge and the abil i ty for historical I n t u i t i o n .

(1) Prior knowledge heips to decrease a text's historical strangeness and resistance on tne levei of material cognizance. Sirriuttaneously, it essentialiy determines the number of possibilities available for comparison and association.

This Statement is certainly true for the extremely important area of general knowledge, hence ot education in the broadest sense. On a large scale, it mamtains the perspectives of understanding, analogies, comparisons. and contrasts for ascertaining the text's historical eharacter For example: A. von Menzels presentation of the court of Frederick the Great enables one to see the scene in i Sam 20:24f as Saul's "round table" (G. von Rad), and to recognize the modest royal household; knowledge of the constitu-tional entity and the democratic formation of intention within the constiiutionai organs of our time sharpens the view of the king's funetion in the royal psalms; one may com pare the night visions ofZechariah with the night poems of N. Lenau, or psalms of lam-entation with the protest songs of B. Dylan. and the lament poems of N. Sachs, etc.

It is naturaily self-evident that speciaiized prior knowledge in the area of the Old Testament prepares historical and textual materials for substantiation, deepening, and shaping through historical observations and imagination. In the process of imagination, this speciaiized prior knowledge can be expanded, where necessary, by examination of reference works.

(2) The ability to conceive hisloncaiiy is an indispensable presupposition if the text is to sep forth from the medium of letters and paper, and oecome visible as a life-event n its time. To present the realities of ihe Lext's origin ciearly by means of the controlled employment of historical fantasy is just as important as the attemptto situate the material Statements, animately and tangibly, in their original historical field of relationship, and to reproduce the realities and events named in the text itself by means of the power of conceptualization.

One must note einphatically that this imaginative progression through the text, relat ing to the realities o f o r ig in , in tent ion , meaning, and the effect on its historical w o r l d , is not completed just once prior to the methodological ly d i rected exegetical work . Radier, this progression condnuously and productively accompanies and l imi t s these elements as a part o f the exegetical work.

I t is recommended that exegetically advanced students w i t h corre-sponding p r io r knowledge o f the discipline and the methodology ( b u t not necessarily the beginner) deepen the phase of intensive observations. T h e y can do so by fundamentally clarifying and prof i l ing the text Statements by means o f Hebrew concordances [and electronic search p r o -grams for the O l d Testament], w i d i o u t secondary l i terature or current hyporhescs about the text.

14 1 F O U N D A T I O N A N D O V E R V I E W

Several things will bring the exegete further clarification and, above ali. will bring directed questions for the further exeget:cal processing of the text in every methodological field. These inelude: parallel and deviating examples regarding the use of words and the. syntactical form; ferrcting oui contrasting concepts. lecurring semantic fields, and corresponding formulations, whether these appear in the immediate context. in the same book, or in speciaiized languages such as wisdom, cult. law, and prophecy. Instead of these elements, the beginner can pursue the important words in the corresponding articles of theological dictionaries. The beginner should not however, be distracted by the abundance of material offered in the dictionaries, nor by the opinions presented there. From the outset, the beginner should not avoid the a cl of clarifying and diseover-ing the text to be treaied,

. Results

Very diverse impressions and elements w i l l come to l ight i n the imaginative, holist ic act o f understanding a text w h e n one employs fantasy, i n t u i t i o n , Observation, and the capacity o f association. Some o f these m u s t even be aban-doned as incorrect based upon methodological ly guided examination. S t i l l , this imaginative act provides three opportunities wh ich are indispensable for an adequate historical meaning. First , i t l imi t s the methodological constric-tion w h i c h results f rom a dependeney upon the current State o f research by the text's imaginative and discernible characteristics. Second, the imaginative act provides a holistic view o f the text as a historical life-event, a perspective w h i c h is all too easily lost under the partial aspeets ot the individua! m e t h ods. I t is, however, precisely that perspective w h i c h must dien be taken up and administered in the interpreta ti on as a substantiated his tor ical ly de ter -mined meaning, by u t i l i z i n g the results o f the methodical Operat ion . T h i r d , the imaginative act provides the articulated relat ionship between text and I n terpreter that attains its goal i n a theologically substantiated applied understanding o f the text.

Thus , exegetical w o r k is completed by reciprocally l i m i t i n g and enr iching historical imaginat ion and methodically directed questions. T h i s rec iproci ty m u s t bc kept in v iew, even though the task o f more closcly eharacterizing the methodological Steps dominates in that w h i c h foUows.

C. O V E R V T E W O F T H E M E T H O D S O F O E D T E S T A M E N T E X E G E S I S

I . T h e Stock o f Methods

T h e stock and description o f the exegetical methods, as already mentioned, are dependent upon the current state o f exegetical science and its insights in to the fo rma t ion o f O l d Testament texts. I t is thus necessary that the existing

Overview o f the Methods o f O l d Testament Exegesis 15

methods constantly be further developed. Also , new methodological quesdons arie f rom new attendon to tbe text. A t present, new approaches have appeared in several areas: in the field o f l inguistic structural analysis; i n die investigation o f effective l i is tory as the harvesting o f a text's power o f meaning which is no longer familir; or i n the part icularly debated psycho-analytical text in t txp re -ta t ion. I n addit ion, approaches arise today in wh ich the bewilderment o f the exegete is brought emphatically in to play. One may ment ion so-called " femi -nist" and "socio-historical" exegesis. W e w i l l come back to these at the end o f diis section.

T h e manual h i n g before you concentrates on the fundamental, proven, and methodological ly elaborated approaches: text-cr i t ic ism, l i terary cr i t ic ism, the transmission-historical and redaction-historical approaches, the f o r m -cri t ical and t radi t ion-his tor ical approaches, and, o f course, de tern i in ing the historical setting. These various methodological Steps are consti tuent questions o f historical understanding, and they each aim at particular aspects o f the text. T h e y are thus n o t h i n g more than preparatory w o r k for die central exegetical task: interpreting the text's historically determined meaning. T h i s act o f in terpre ta t ion, wh ich is freqiiently called detailed or contextual exegesis, does not exist as a sequence o f procedures which are guided by the constituent methodological questions. W^ith its historical focus, wh ich the text i tself con-veys, the in terpreta t ion aims more toward a coneeption o f the entire text as a l inguist ic utterance o f life i n its t ime. I t uses all individual insights syndiesized f rom die methodological ly fragmentary procedures. Ehe results o f this historical ly determined meaning o f the text are finalh/ brought in to Operation by a t tempt inga precise English translation o f the text.

I I . G r o u p i n g the Methods

Each o f die methodological approaches takes its reference f rom certain O l d Testament text markers. A historical perspective on these realities o f the text should also be at tempted w i d n n the framework o f the descriptions o f the individual mediods. A n in i t ia l or ienta t ion can already be provided . to the extent that the mediodological questions allow themselves to be divided in to two groups relative to the di rect ion o f questioning and die reference po in t i n the texts.

1. One group o f methods is governed by the question o f die evolution o f the text: text -cr i t ic ism, l i t e ra ry-cr i t i c i sm, transmission-historical approach and the redaction-historical approach relate to the fact that, as a ru le , the text at hand has no t arisen i n a single stroke. Rather, in its text history, the text has undergone a multi-stage development f r o m its or iginal oral fo rm up to and inc lud ing its manuscript transmission, an evolut ion which the methodological approaches ascertain and clarify.

16 1 F O U N D A T I O N A N D O V E R V I E W

2. T h e second group o f methods is governed by the question o f the presup-positions o f a text, or relatedly, its ascertained textual stages. T h e f o r m -cri t ical and t radi t ion-his tor ical approaches, as well as the question o f the historical setting, relate to the faet that. the fo rm o f the text, at every stage o f its devclopment, has been determined by stipulations and components wh ich are presupposed by the author: the peculiar i ty o f the language spoken by the author, the preset genres o f human speech in the author's cul tural w o r l d , the conceptions and thought struetures o f the author's i n -tellectual w o r l d , the contemporary historical realities, social realities, and the historical setting o f the addressee o f author's utterance.

Bo th groups of methods likewise allow themselves to be depicted in a graphic display as follows.

1. T h e Question o f the Evo lu t ion o f a Text

Original O T Text

BUS

Oldest Writ ten Stage

Oldest Oral Stage

TC; TC;

R H

LC;

i

111

Syntheric Process

Analytical Proeess

B U S = Bibiti Hebraica Stuttgartensia; T C = 'lxt Crteisin; L C = Literary Critieism; T H = Transmission History; U H = Redaetiun Historv

T h e evolution o f an O l d Testament text allows itself to be portrayed as a g r o w t h process wh ich falls in to three larger phases: (1) delivery and evolution in oral transmission up to its first wr i t t en record; (2) delivery and evolution in Witten transmission up to the comple t ion o f the produetive format ion o f O l d Testament t radi t ion , at least i m t i l the attainment o f the canonical va l id i ty o f the text; and related to this approach, (3) the delivery and development o f the text h is tory i n the manuscripts, up to its presentation in Biblia Hebraica. Exegesis attempts, first o f ali , to peel away the various layers in an analytical process, by w o r k i n g backwards, i n order to t r ae the development o f the text in its historical course syntbetically, and thereby to t rae the influencing powers and the governing markers.

Overview o f the Methods o f O l d Testament Exegesis 17

2. T h e Quest ion o f the Presuppositions o f a Text and Its Stages

T.inguistie Arena

Tntelleetual World

Contemporary I Iisrory, Social Realities, and

Addressee

Form Criticism

Historical Setting

y Text

Ehe diagram illustrates s imply how language, cul tural ly preexisting gen-res, the intel lectual wor ld , as wel l as contemporary historical and social real ities, are embodied i n one part icular text (or relatedly, i n each stage o f its development) . I n the. t l iree areas, inqu i ry (containing and encompassing many individual texts) can and must also be made in to the h i s to ry o f l inguis t ic-s tructural characteristics the h is tory o f a concept or an entire conceptual arena, and in to the his tory o f the poli t ical and social realities i n the larger historical context.

. Interdependence o f the Methods

T h e g roup ing o f tbe methods undertaken i n the previous section repre-sents a reflection o f die relationship o f dieir content to one another, and in this regard, i t has led to a division in to two areas o f questioning. T h a t does not mean, however, that the executioi? o f exegetical w o r k should be determined by a corresponding par t i t ion . Radier, the i n t e r m i n g l i n g o f the methodological steps, oscil lat ing between expansion and correct ion, is indispensable. S imul -taneously, this i n t e r m i n g l i n g means that the question about the text's presuppositions should be asked for each stage o f its development. T h e changes o f a text, or text complex d u r i n g their oral or w r i t t e n transmission, do not make themselves k n o w n wi thou t de termining each different historical setting or the l inguist ic patterns and theological strearns affecting the text. T h e interdependence o f the methods rcaches even iur ther , and connects all of the methodological Steps to an over-arching System o f correlat ion, as w i l l be explained at length in the detailed presentation o f the methods."

> One hears repeatcdly of the experience that time is not sufficient in a two-hour introduc-tory exegesis course to offer initial text observations, prese.ntaous, and praetice which are equally

18 1 F O U N D A T I O N A N D O V E R V I E W

I V Characterizing the Individual Me thods 4

1. Text Cr i t i c i sm

T h e task of text cri t icism is to conf i rm the "or iginal text o f the O l d Testa

ment" ("Orig ina l Text", "or ig ina l word ing" ) by cri t ical ly sor t ing the Hebrew

text transmission as well as die ancient translations. "Or ig ina l text" means that

text form wh ich exists in the O l d Testament at the conelusion o f the process o f

produetive, wr i t t en format ion.

2. L i t e ra ry Cr i t i c i sm

L i t e r a ry cr i t ic ism investigates individual texts and larger text complexes

at the stage o f the wr i t t en , fixed fo rmula t ion o f the word ing . I t therefore asks

about:

a. the l i terary integr i ty o f a text;

b. its larger l i terary context (in cases where the text is l i t e ra r i ly integrated)

or its larger l i terary contexts ( in cases where the text exists f r o m t w o or

more l i te rary layers or where i t has been ineorporated as an integrated

text in to a larger context, a context which also conrinued to develop).

weighted for every step of Old Testament exegesis. If die ume frame of the course camiot be expanded, die following Suggestion could be considcred.

The progressiva of the introduetory course, and then related]}- the wriung of die exegesis paper are coiicentrated upon die following sieps, subsequent to an initial translation of die text (1151):

1. an Observation phase aecording to 1 II; 2. deeiphering die lext-critical apparatus of BUS (3 1 1 a): ?. an analytical (4) and a synthetic literary-critical st3ge limited to a given text and its immediate con

text (from 6 Redaction History, p. 78); 4. form criticism (FormgcsMcbtc) related to the linguistic shape, strueturc, and, if necessary. the form

{Gattung) of a rext {7 li 1UIT); 5. traJiu'on hisiory relative tu the intellectual baeliground ol eoneepts, word cnsemblcs, and images in

the text formulauons (8); 6. an interpretation (10) with the incorporation of the clarification of the historical settins; of the text

(9): 7. definitive translation of the text (10 F).

In the introduetory phase, the more difficult and overtaxing questions and decisions regarding text criticism (}), transmission history (5), and redaction history (6), can bc brieflv presented and explamed in die progression of the introduetory course. A more precise presentarion and praetiee, demanded by text complexes, must follow- in other places of study, namely within the frame of exegetical Icctorcs and scminars (for which this workbook is also coneeived).

4 This workbook will follow tbe "Journal of Biblical Literature Instructions for Contribmors" in: AAR/SBl 199? Membmhip Directory and HanJbitok, Atlanta, 1993, p.385 400, for die abbrevi-arions for biblical books, Hebrew transcriprion. and significant resources. Abbreviations used for some German works may not be present in this resource. In that case, abbreviations will follow the abbreviations in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. K. Galling, ed. 6 vols., plus index. Tbingen, 31957-1965.

Overview o f the Methods o f O l d ' l s t a m e n t Exegesis 19

3. T h e Transmission-historical Approach Transmission history concerns die oral transmission o f an individual pas-

sage, or relatedly a larger complex. Concentra t ing upon die oral transmission distinguishes transmission h is tory f rom l i te rary cr i t ic i sm. Proceeding ana-lytically, transmission his tory inquircs behind the oldest w r i t t e n sett ing o f a text, back to its oral o r ig in .

A synthetic process then reverses the direet ion o f questioning, and at-tempts to depict the historical process and the context o f the text's development f rom its first recognizable oral f orm t o the oldest wr i t t en setting. Transmission his tory accentuatcs the operative historical factors and intent ions o f the Statements.

4. T h e Redaction-historical Approach Redaction his tory continues the synthetic aspect o f transmission history,

except in the arena o f w r i t t e n transmission. I t thereby traces the h is tory o f a text f rom its first w r i t t e n form through its expansion (or commentary) by ad-di t ions, and through its ineorporat ion in to larger complexes, up to its final setting in the present l i terary context. I t determines the historical factors and intentions of the Statements operative in this history.

5. T h e Form-historical Approach F o r m cr i t ic ism works out the l inguist ic genre o f a particular text (no

maner what sie) for each o f its ascertained stages o f g r o w t h . I n its course, fo rm cr i t ic ism investigates the l inguist ic format ion o f the text. I t also determines the genres wh ich the text ineorporates and utilizes, as wel l as their bfe setting. Fo rm cr i t ic ism aims at a methodologically appropriatc understanding o f the construetion and the in ten t ion o f die Statement i n the encountered text. I t performs this task to the degree that one can recognize the distinetive eharacter o f the l inguist ic shape, inc lud ing the ehoice of genre. T h i s shape p r o vides die perspective f rom w h i c h the content is vicwed and the in ten t ion for wh ich i t is formulated.

b i this context, f o r m cr i t ic ism necessarily inquires beyond the individua! texts to the construet ion eleinents and the formative models o f the language used by the O l d Testament authors. Further, i t ascertains the his tory o f the genres and pursues their formulations in various texts.

6. T h e Tradi t ion-his tor ical Approach For each developmental step, t rad i t ion his tory seeks a text's particular

characteristic based upon intel lectual , theological, or re l igio-his tor ical con-texts. I n addit ion, t rad i t ion h is tory determines die thought struetures, material, concepts, or conceptual complexes, as well as their deviations, which are presupposed by the text, taken up i n t o the text, or assimilated by its author. Parallel to the inqu i ry in to individual texts, yet superseding i t , t radi t ion history

20 1 F O U N D A T I O N A N D O V E R V I E W

also considers the intellectual , theological, and rel igio-his tor ical contexts themselves. I n particular i t considers the h is tory o f the various conccpts and their coexistence w i t h i n the framework o f a larger profi led conception.

7. D e t e r m i n i n g the His tor ica l Situation T h e goal ot this approach is to iden t i fy the rime o f compos i t ion and, i f

possible, the author and addressees o f the text (or its individual layers). T h e n this approach seeks to h igh l igh t more precisely the contemporary historical and social realities in the environment o t the text's o r ig in .

I n the fo l lowing , all o f these consti tuent mediodological questions w i l l necessarily be presented ideally, one after another. I n the practice o f exegetical work , however, they achieve application through continuous in terre la t ion and mutual expansion.

V Concern ing the Q u e s o n o f die Expansion o f the Stock o f Methods

The pr imary stock o f methodological approaches described above, wh ich this w o r k b o o k wants to introduce, has been designed for tbe principal exegetical question concerning the or ig inal meaning o f the texts at the t ime of their o r i g i n . These approaches were no t decreed by exegetes, but were ocea-sioned by the bibl ical subject matter itself, and they are directed very s imply toward that wh ich one must clarify if one wisbes to see a text i n its or ig inal setting: toward the formative relationships o f a text, and toward the intended substance o f its Statements when i t was formulated. Even for the current re vision o f the workbook, there is essentially n o t h i n g to change regarding the stock o f methods.

Despite all the differences in execution, unarumi ty exists between this methodological book and those by G . Fohrer and H . Schweizer (cf. 211) , i n that the O l d Testament text should speak in its o w n words and ou t look , w i t h the help o f rcasoned and in t e r sub jecve ly control lable explanations. Lideed, O l d Testament exegesis is a consti tuent task o f understanding. By keeping one's own presuppositions in check, one should come as close as possible to the original historical meaning i n which die text should be understood w i t h i n the sphere o f the O l d Testament itself. N o w as before, this workbook is more cau-tious when i t comes to the question o l the reception o f linguistic investigations for the sequence, resources, and execution of a methodology concerned w i t h O h l Testament exegesis. M o r e thorough discussion is required to uf i l ize ap-parently chronological ly neutral l i n g u i s c start ing points for describing the distinetive charecter o f very remote l i is torical texts, such as O l d Testament texts. Thus , the present manual does not begin its mediodological ly guided Steps w i t h a l i ngu i sc analysis or a descriprion o f the text's strueture. Rather, i t

Overview of the Methods o f O l d Testament Exegesis 21

allocates this indispensable (!) task to an in i t ia l Observation phase (see 1) and to a mediodological analysis o f the l i ngu i sc shape of the particular g r o w t h el-ements o f a text i n die framework o f fo rm his tory (see 7) . S t i l l , even in this Situation, the signilicance o f l inguis t ic analysis and a structural descript ion is asserted for each (!) o f the mediodological steps, by means o f the constantly required intr insic examination o f the interact ion o f the individual exegetical procedures.

A i n o n g the approaches cur rendy brought in to play, "feminist" and "socio-historiar questions (see 9) in particular are not to be viewed over against die classical stock o f mediods as competing, alternative methods. T h e i r legitimate concerns, which are not always properly considered in exegetical practice, concerning inqu i ry in to a text's options regarding the posi t ion o f woman and socially vulnerable persons, can find their place entirely w i t h i n the frame o f the existing methodological perspectives. Addit ionallv, they can also find their place in the procedural steps p r io r to the explicit execution o f the exegetical work (see above 1 I I 1), and in the fo l lowing: the reception his tory in die time fo l lowing the O l d Testament text, as i t is encountered in die diseiplines o f N e w Testament and Church H i s t o r y ; and a dicological ly responsible de-te rmina t ion o f the O l d Testament text's meaning for the present (see below, 10 D ) , as i t w o u l d be acquired i n die diseiplines o f Systematic and Practical Theology.

T h e fact that one has agreed upon the goal o f O l d Testament exegesis is o f essential significance for the incorporat ion o f such approaches in the process o f exegesis itself. For the exegete, the goal is to act as an attorney for the w i l l of the text. T h e exegete should reasonably advance that which die text i tself or iginal ly wanted to witness f rom G o d , over against the w o r l d and hu -manity. T h e goal o f exegesis cannot be to subdue the text under a domina t ing measure of current socio-poli t ical wishful d i i n k i n g or an individual model o f experience. Relatedly, the goal is not pr imar i ly to determine how the text func-t ioned or how i t funetions for ine. Accordingly, the goal is also not to determine how the text should or should not contmue to funet ion. T h e most deeisive t h i n g paving the way for exegesis is not the " I " i n the face o f the text, but in aecordance w i t h the self-understanding o f the bibl ical w o r d , the text in its l iberat ing, critical and reorient ing out look towards humani ty and the Irving w o r l d .

Also the concerns o f "structuralexegesis'" do not have their place alongside but inside the stock of methods. Structural signals i n die formula t ion provide impor t an t insights in to the or ig inal desire o f the Statements w h i c h f o r m the text, bu t must be correlated w i d i die Contents and formative relationships o f the text (see 7) .

By contrast, caution and principal objection are offered over against a so-called "psycho-analytical exegesis" o f O l d Testament texts. Especially the w r i t -

1 F O U N D A H O N A N D O V E R V I E W

ings by E . Drewermann current ly come to m i n d i n this arena. 5 Exegetical methodology, in the sense o f this workbook , is the methodology for a his-tor ica l ly related subject matter in v iew o f its or iginal meaning. I t considers the t ime restr ict ion of the development and formulat ion o f the texts. Cor -respondingly, i t should be said that a so-called "serriiotic exegesis" should be disregarded, i f i t abandons the fundamental quesdon o f the or iginal meani n g o f biblical texts i n their fo rmula t ion and inner-bibl ical transmission; or i f i t abandons the task o f understanding the historical things o f the past as such."

Finally, one should object to de te rmin ing meaning for bibl ical texts de-rived f rom l i te rary studies or New L i t e r a ry Cr i t i c i sm i f one believes one is able to arrive at sound conclusions w i thou t the qualification that these texts are historical entities w i t h historical, l inguis t ic , and structural characteristics.' T h e historical o r ig in o f biblical texts cannot, under any circumstances, be disregarded in the process o f understanding. Recently, R. K n i e r i m has correct ly reaccented this when d e l i m i t i n g various false paths o f an ahistorical understanding.

T h e comments i n diis s e c o n hopetul ly serve students as an ini t ia l o r ien-ta t ion in to current movements i n the methodology. Hopeful ly , they fix the ou t look upon the essentials o f O l d Testament exegesis. Nat t i ra l ly , w i t h o u t already having acquired solid g rounding , the brevi ty in wh ich they are of-fered here, cannot do justice to the current divergence o f exegetical me thodology toward new entryways and start in