236 / 298
Horst Steinke
236
sophical reason. Spinoza’s opposite philosophical stance can be made to stand
out by comparing it with the hermeneutics of later interpreters, out of which
the following may be seen merely as illustrative cases-in-point:
(1) F. C. Baur (1792-1860): According to Reventlow, Baur «had come un-
der the influence of the philosophy of history developed by Hegel, from
which he appropriated “the idea of process, through which God as the abso-
lute Spirit mediates with himself and is revealed to himself”» (Id.,
History of
Biblical Interpretation,
Vol. 4,
cit., p. 277);
(2) J. Wellhausen (1844-1918): Wellhausen subscribed to an evolutionary
framework of the development of religion and culture (R. G. Kratz,
Eyes and
Spectacles: Wellhausen’s Method of Higher Criticism,
in «Journal of Theological
Studies», NS, 60, Part 2, October 2009, pp. 381-402, p. 383). J. S. Baden ob-
served: «This evolutionary framework is highly conditioned by the period in
which it arose, and it assumes a theory of religious development that is largely
unattested in societies ancient or modern» (Id.,
The Composition of the Pentateuch:
Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis
, New Haven-London, Yale University
Press, 2012, p. 218);
(3) R. Bultmann (1884-1976): According to R. E. Palmer, while «[t]he in-
fluence of Heidegger on Bultmann […] is sometimes vastly overstated […], it
is nevertheless fair to say that Heidegger was a decisive force in Bultmann’s
thinking on the hermeneutical problem. This reflects itself in demythologiz-
ing, which is essentially a hermeneutical project in existential interpretation»
(Id.,
Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gad-
amer
, Evanston, Northwestern University Press, 1969, p. 49; see also B. H.
McLean,
Biblical Interpretation and Philosophical Hermeneutics
, Cambridge-New
York, Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp. 143-156). Another aspect of
Bultmann’s hermeneutics seems to be a form of scientism, succinctly summa-
rized by A. J. Grant: For Bultmann, «[u]nlike science and technology, myth
presents a subjective view of the world, a view unacceptable to modern sensi-
bility» (Id.,
Vico and Bultmann on Myth: The Problem with Demythologizing
, in
«Rhetoric Society Quarterly», 30, 2001, 4, pp. 49-82, p. 61);
(4) I. Finkelstein (b. 1949): Finkelstein is a proponent of the so-called
“minimalist” interpretation of biblical history. In A. Berlin’s assessment,
«[l]urking behind their [minimalists’] scholarship is a political agenda. It is, as
has already been recognized, an anti-Israel and anti-Zionist agenda. […] the
minimalists appear to think, if they undermine the Bible’s ideology of the ex-
ile, they will undermine the modern Zionist cause» (Id.,
The Exile: Biblical Ideol-
ogy and Its Postmodern Ideological Interpretation
, in
Literary Construction of Identity in
the Ancient World. Proceedings of the Conference “Literary Fiction and the Construction of
Identity in Ancient Literatures: Options and Limits of Modern Literary Approaches in the