In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

1 [9–22] New Testament Science beyond Historicism Recent Developments in the Theory of History and Their Significance for the Exegesis of Early Christian Writings2 One of the central tasks of New Testament science is to mediate to the respective present a picture of the beginnings of Christianity that is based on the early Christian witnesses. In this way it makes a fundamental contribution to Christian theology as a historically grounded science. The intellectual-historical presuppositions upon which it is based have taken form—at least for the European and North American cultural sphere— since the late eighteenth century, thus in a period that was decisively shaped by enlightenment, idealism, and historicism. The historical-critical consciousness , which emerged as part of these developments, was then—at the latest since Max Weber—itself subjected to critical reflection.3 Above all there was a calling into question of the assumption that historical events— and accordingly also “history” itself—carry their meaning in themselves, which was therefore to be drawn out from them by historians, as well as the assumption that the historian has direct access to the objects investigated by him. The meaning of past events does not lie hidden in the witnesses of the past themselves but opens itself to the view of the interpreter, who places these in a broader [10] context.4 From this follows the epistemological question of the relationship between past happening and historical imagination in the writing of history. 2 The wording of the title follows Mommsen 1972. Mommsen’s remarks are based on his inaugural lecture at the University of Düsseldorf on February 3, 1970, which had the goal of “determining more precisely the present-day position of the historical sciences both looking back to its great traditions and also with a view to its tasks in today’s society” (5–6). The determination of the position of the historical sciences undertaken by Mommsen still points the way ahead for today’s reflections on the foundations and relevance of historical work. 3 Cf. Mommsen 1972, 18–24. 4 This was already classically formulated—admittedly from an idealistic perspective —by von Humboldt 1969, 585: “But what has happened is only partly visible in the world of senses; the rest must be felt, inferred, guessed.” 10 From Jesus to the New Testament In light of these fundamental objections, which have led to a fundamental rethinking of the premises of historical work,5 the question also arises of how we can arrive at a history based on the witnesses of early Christianity that can be brought in as a contribution to the theological conversation .6 If New Testament science wants to perform its task in a methodologically considered manner, then it is referred thereby to the conversation with the science of history.7 In light of this, the following presuppositions can be stated: the early Christian texts do not convey direct access to the reality to which they refer but relate to that reality in a selective and interpretive manner. They do this, as all other texts also do, in the medium of language, which structures our access to reality and mediates between present and past.8 Through interpretation of these texts—thus as it were in a double refraction—a picture of the beginnings of Christianity is set forth. In what follows I will take up several aspects from the most recent theoryof -history discussion against this background, which then will be made fruitful for New Testament science. [11] 1. Methodological foundations of the modern concept of history Recent theory-of-history discussion in the European sphere started in the 1970s9 and has led since then to a wide-ranging discourse on the epistemological foundations of the access to the past under the conditions of the historical-critical consciousness.10 Parallel to this development the works of 5 See further chap. 2 in this volume. 6 The theory-of-history considerations given in what follows would therefore have to be combined with theological-hermeneutical consequences. On this cf. recently Reinmuth 2002, 11–38. 7 That the science of history, if it wants to do justice to its object, requires a consideration of the character of historical knowing was already recognized early and led to the formation of historics (Historik), which deals with the methodological, epistemological, and hermeneutical foundations of the science of history. The discipline was founded by J. G. Droysen, who shaped the concept and in whose tradition the most recent theory-of-history approaches...

Share