Autor: Voegelin, Eric

Buch: Israel and Revelation

Titel: Israel and Revelation

Stichwort: Berechtigung der Deutung der Symbole Israels unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Geschichte

Kurzinhalt: kein Begriff "Geschichte" in Israel aufgrund der Kompaktheit; ...because the idea of history has its origin in the Covenant ...

Textausschnitt: 29/6 Throughout this part we have spoken of history as the Israelite form of existence, of a historical present created by the Covenant, and of an Israelite historiography, while ignoring the fact that the Hebrew language has no word that could be translated as "history." This is a serious matter, for apparently we have violated the first principle of hermeneutics-that the meaning of a text must be established through interpretation of the linguistic corpus. It is impermissible to "put an interpretation on" a literary work through anachronistic use of modern vocabulary without equivalents in the text itself. Hence, two questions will demand an answer: (1) How can the use of the term "history" be justified in an analysis of Israelite symbols? and (2) what did the Israelite authors do, expressed in their own language, when they wrote what we call "history"? (162f; Fs)
30/6 The justification demanded by the first question will rely on the principle of compactness and differentiation. The Israelite thinkers did not indeed differentiate the idea of history to the point of developing a theoretical vocabulary. Nevertheless, with due precautions, the modern vocabulary may be used without destroying the meaning of Israelite symbols, because the idea of history has its origin in the Covenant. The compact Mosaic symbolism of communal existence under the will of God as revealed through his instructions has in continuity, through the course of Israelite, Jewish, and Christian history, undergone a process of articulation from which resulted, among others, the idea of history. After three millenniums of defections and returns, of reforms, renaissances, and revisions, of Christian gains and modern losses of substance, we are still living in the historical present of the Covenant. Moreover, the work of the Israelite historiographers is still going on, although, due to theoretical differentiation, the techniques have changed. For Israel has become mankind; and the accretion of the Instructions has become the revision of principles. (163; Fs) (notabene)
()
1/6 The use of such terms as "history," "historical present," and "historiography," however, is more than justified in an analysis of Israelite symbols-it is a matter of theoretical necessity. For if the differentiated vocabulary were rejected, there would be no instruments for critical analysis and interpretation. Confined to the use of the Hebrew symbols, our understanding would be locked up in the very compactness which, in Israelite history, has led into the disastrous impasses previously discussed. Nevertheless, while we cannot dispense with modern theoretical vocabulary, extreme caution is necessary in its use,