-
2 [23–35] Reflections on the Relationship between Historiography and Hermeneutics in New Testament Science
- Baylor University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
2 [23–35] Reflections on the Relationship between Historiography and Hermeneutics in New Testament Science The reflections set forth in the previous chapter on the question of the epistemological presuppositions of the construction of history will be continued in what follows. In the appropriation of the past as history it is also a matter of a community ’s identity foundations and ethical convictions of value, which Jürgen Habermas characterized as “postsecular” in his acceptance speech on the occasion of the awarding of the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade.1 An important aspect of this speech given shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Center was that Habermas did not define the relationship between faith and knowledge—one could also say: between religion and postsecular society—as an antithesis. Rather, the enlightened society— thus Habermas—needs to translate religious contents rather than eliminate them if it does not wish to produce a loss of meaning and orientation. The hermeneutical question of the construction of history as a framework comprising past, present, and future directly touches upon this topic, for it concerns an aspect of our culture that decisively shapes the understanding of our past as well as our future orientation. It is a fundamental task of theology to contribute to this discussion about the value conceptions and the orienting frameworks of the societies in which we live. I will begin with a few general observations on the foundations of modern historical consciousness. In the second part I will then relate these to New Testament science—specifically to the interpretation of the Gospels . Finally, I will formulate a few conclusions. [24] 1 Habermas 2001. 22 From Jesus to the New Testament 1. Construction of history under the conditions of the historical-critical consciousness The understanding of history decisively changed with the emergence of the historical-critical consciousness. This can initially be made clear with two observations. (1) In the eighteenth century the collective singular “history” was developed, which summarized the individual “histories” or “narratives” as an overarching category. The concept combined the past event (res gestae) with its representation within an interpretive connection set forth from a later perspective. Finally, along with the event and its presentation, “history ” referred thirdly to the scientific investigation of these events.2 The connectedness of what has happened, which is established between the individual events and accounted for rationally, is therefore a fundamental characteristic of modern historical consciousness, which is thus based on the premise that the individual occurrences can be ordered into a meaningful whole. The production of this overall plan that connects the individual facts and events and simultaneously interprets them by the investigation of the particulars as well as the meaning connections inherent in them— called “ideas” by Wilhelm von Humboldt and “moral powers” by Johann Gustav Droysen—was now regarded as the task of the historian, since recourse to God as the meaning-providing instance had become obsolete for the modern-enlightened consciousness. Droysen summarized this modern relation to the past, which led to the establishment of history as an independent scientific discipline, in the well-known sentence: “over the (hi)stories is history.”3 (2) If “history” presupposes an interpreting subject who establishes connections, then this means that what has happened cannot be thought of as identical with its presentation within a retrospectively constructed context of meaning. Rather, it is characteristic of modern historical consciousness to differentiate between the event and its later representation.4 At hand for the first time in Johann Martin Chladenius’ teaching of SehePunckt (viewpoint), the conviction arose that there cannot be a turning to history without a standpoint from which one views the past and which determines its perception. Recently [25] this idea has appeared again in Arthur Danto’s analysis of narrative sentences within presentations of history.5 Danto emphasizes that in the subsequent description of events, information always enters in about what consequences these produced, 2 Koselleck 1992, 657. 3 Droysen 1977, 354. 4 Koselleck 1997, 85–91. 5 Danto 1965, 143–82. [34.204.52.16] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 22:22 GMT) 2: Reflections on the Relationship between Historiography and Hermeneutics 23 how they relate to other events that could not have been known to the people involved at the time or in the place of their occurrence, and so forth. Hayden White developed this view of a later, interpretative access to the past into the thesis that it is first the fable (or plot) set forth...