NTT Journal for Theology and the Study of Religion - Volume 46, Issue 2, 1992

This article places Van der Leeuw’s scholarly work within the context of the discipline in the first half of this century. It pays special attention to his aims of verstehen (understanding) and of developing an experiential ‘phenomenology’ of religion. For Van der Leeuw, as for Eliade, science of religion was part of the attempt to discover spiritual meaning in a situation of religious crisis. His contribution to the progress of science of religion has been largely indirect and symbolic.

The revision of the standard New Testament dictionary of W. Bauer by Kurt and Barbara Aland has resulted in a number of improvements: more apocryphal writings have been included in the corpus of texts, newer editions have been used, the typography is remarkably clear, but there are also serious drawbacks, the most important of which is the curtailing of bibliographical references.

Daniël Chantepie de la Saussaye (1818-1874) was the founder of the so-called ‘ethische theologie’, an important branch of the Dutch protestant theology between 1850 and 1950. La Saussaye’s theology is characterized by a broad openness for nature, experience, history and culture within a consistent christocentric perspective. His central idea is the fundamental correspondence between man’s nature and his natural desires on the one hand and God’s revelation in Christ on the other. La Saussaye’s answer to the challenge of the Enlightenment can be interpreted as a modern translation of the classic augustinian view on God and man.

The author argues that in new homiletical handbooks there are various shifts to be seen: the fundamental shift from the attention only for the Bibletext and its meaning and history to a deep concern with the hearers who want to understand the Word (Lange, Craddock). The second shift is the step from pure explanation of the text (exegesis) to reception (Iser, Jauβ, Ricoeur). The third step is from searching for a scope in pericopes to finding out the working of the text (Buttrick). The fourth step is the shift from ‘facts of salvation’ (Heilsdata) to ‘communication of faith’ (Hirschler). Finally homileticians are looking for a new kind of communication theory - with special attention for Newcomb, Stewart, Hahn.

Instead of interpreting 1 Cor. 1.18-31 against its reconstructed historical background, it is possible to read it theologically in actualization of its canonical function. The examples of Clement and Tertullian and of Barth and Tillich illustrate the traditional role of this passage within the debate about the relation of revelation and reason. But the connection between ‘wisdom’ and ‘power’ suggests the possibility of another reading, in which the wisdom attacked is that of the powerful; that is, it has an idelological role. The various ontologies of the powerful are overturned by the word of the cross which creates a community in which hierarchical differences are set aside, a community grounded in a particular narrative above God as disclosed in Jesus Christ. It is, however, impossible to evade the gulf between this theological vision and the realities of church and society.