NTT Journal for Theology and the Study of Religion - Volume 38, Issue 2, 1984

A considerable number of the contributors to the first four volumes of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Kittel between 1933 and 1942, was influenced by antisemitic ideas. Some of them were even active in antisemitic institutions. Apart from this there was the impact of a long tradition of theological anti-judaism.

In this article, the author tries to answer the question how far the historical exegesis in these volumes was influenced by political or theological prejudices.

The article deals with Grotius’ involvement in the Remonstrant-Contra-Remonstrant struggles in the Netherlands. It is pointed out that Grotius’ involvement is to be considered mainly as due to his political responsibilities and his fervent search for peace and tolerance both in church and state. Although theologically on the side of the Remonstrants, he cannot be regarded as a Remonstrant in a full sense of the word. His interests lay elsewhere, especially since he was increasingly preoccupied with the unity of Christianity as a whole. In this light, the article traces some Remonstrant appreciations of Grotius. Special reference is made to the relationship between Grotius and Episcopius and the difference in their views on Christian unity.

Barth never studied Hegel intensively, but especially in the period 1926-1932, partially due to a number of Hegelian theologians such as Marheineke, Domer and Biedermann, he came under the influence of his thought. But already in the first volumes of the C.D., this fascination waned. In the discussion on the relation between Barth and Hegel, it was especially Jüngel, Pannenberg and Küng who have emphasized that modem theology is endebted in an essential way to Hegel. They assert that perspectives to which Barth has given a uniquely theological content are inconceivable without Hegel.

The ultimate end of the separation between theology and philosophy is the libertas philosophandi, which is guaranteed if one can demonstrate that Scripture has nothing to do with philosophy. Philosophy and theology both have their own domain, because the philosopher cannot understand that the believer can reach salvation by obedience alone. The equivocal use of the concept of salvation in theology and philosophy confronts us with the problem of the coherence of Spinoza’s thought. Spinoza can maintain this coherence only by emphasizing the limits of our knowledge.