Upload
buster301168
View
223
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/27/2019 1979 - Graham Stanton - Review of ‘Jesus and the Word’ by Rudolf Bultmann
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1979-graham-stanton-review-of-jesus-and-the-word-by-rudolf-bultmann 1/6
http://ext.sagepub.com/ The Expository Times
http://ext.sagepub.com/content/90/11/324.citationThe online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/001452467909001102
1979 90: 324The Expository Times Graham Stanton
Biblical Classics : XII. Rudolf Bultmann: Jesus and the Word
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:The Expository Times Additional services and information for
http://ext.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://ext.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
What is This?
- Jan 1, 1979Version of Record>>
by guest on January 28, 2013ext.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 1979 - Graham Stanton - Review of ‘Jesus and the Word’ by Rudolf Bultmann
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1979-graham-stanton-review-of-jesus-and-the-word-by-rudolf-bultmann 2/6
324
indeed the only possible interpretation of the incar-
nation. There have been a variety of interpretationsof the atonement, each influenced by thecontempor-
ary culture. Should there be a variety of interpreta-tions of incarnation rather than the total rejection of
the concept? Certainly it seems impossible to return
to the thought-world of the first century and relive the
experience of Jesus of Nazareth. Don Cupitt’s short
cut, therefore, seems to lead us to an unattainable
goal.Finally, is our treatment of the doctrine of priest-
hood to differ from our understanding of who Jesus
is? At what stage is there to be the cut-off point in
both quests? - the words of Jesus? the completedNT? the second century? or not at all? Do we have to
accept the comment of T. S. Eliot, made famous byDennis Nineham, that ’Christianity is always adapt-ing itself into something which can be believed’? But
then we have to ask, how much of the past must be
retained if Christianity is still to be recognizablyitself?The series has got off to an excellent start. Here are
two books that will keep us talking for a very longtime. We look forward to the promised volumes on
the Trinity and the Apostles’ Creed.
Biblical Classics:
XII. Rudolf Bultmann: Jesus and the Word
BY PROFESSOR GRAHAM STANTON, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON, KING’S COLLEGE
I
MANY who have a nodding acquaintance with
twentieth-century theology associate Bultmann with
radical scepticism concerning the historicity of the
gospels, with lack of interest in the historical Jesus,with ’demythologizing’ and with use of existentialism
in interpretation of the NT. On each of these
questions Bultmann has frequently been misunder-stood. But whether or not one accepts his conclu-
sions, his writings are of the utmost importance for
contemporary theology. The issues they raise will be
on the theologian’s agenda for a long time to come.
There is probably no better way to approach the
work of Bultmann for the first time than by a careful
reading of Jesus and the Word, for the main lines of
his later thought can nearly all be discerned here. The
importance of this book, which was first published in
German in 1926 with the simple title Jesus, is out of
all proportion to its size.
Jesus and the Word has had a rather curious historyin the English-speaking world. An English transla-
tion by L. P. Smith and E. Huntress was published in
New York in 1934 and in London in 1935. Over the
next fifteen years several influential British scholars
did discuss Bultmann’s use of form criticism in The
History of the Synoptic Tradition, the first edition of
which had appeared in 1921, but the publication of
Jesus and the Word seems largely to have been
ignored.22
My own first introduction to-study of the gospelswas A. M. Hunter’s The Work and Words of Jesus.This book was widely used in the English-speakingworld in the 1950s, but it is difficult to detect in it any
use of Bultmann’s writings on the gospels. In his
survey of scholarship, Interpreting theNew Testament
1900-1950, however, A. M. Hunter did include three
paragraphs on Jesus and the Word. ’When we learn
that Bultmann, the most sceptical critic since Strauss,is also one of the &dquo;dialectical&dquo; theologians, we are
tempted to murmur, &dquo;Is Saul also among the
prophets?&dquo; For, in Bultmann’s view, there is notmuch in the Gospels we can trust. Most of it is to be
ascribed to the creation of the early Christian
communities. In spite of this, Bultmann feels that he
is in a position to reconstruct the message of Jesus.’
These comments on Bultmann’s scepticism are typi-cal : most English-speaking scholars were usually too
busy attacking his form critical work to take his book
on Jesus seriously. Hunter’§-final point is rather more
perceptive. ’The charge which Windisch and others
have brought against him is that he confuses critical
scholarship with theological exegesis. The charge has
point. Years ago Tyrell complained that Harnack’sJesus was but the reflection of a liberal Protestant
face. Bultmann’s Jesus might be said to be the
reflection of a Barthian face. C’est dialectique, mais
ce n’est pas histoire’ (p. 54). To what extent has
Bultmann’s reconstruction of the historical Jesus
been influenced by his own theological position? Weshall return to this important question below.
In 1958 Bultmann’s Jesus and the Word was
reprinted as a Fontana paperback. This edition was
widely available until recently, but even though for
many years its price was just 2/6, it does not seem to
have been particularly influential. Why was such an
important book overlooked so frequently? By 1958
interest in Bultmann’s work in the English-speaking
by guest on January 28, 2013ext.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 1979 - Graham Stanton - Review of ‘Jesus and the Word’ by Rudolf Bultmann
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1979-graham-stanton-review-of-jesus-and-the-word-by-rudolf-bultmann 3/6
325
world was centred on his famous ’demythologizing’essay which had sparked off a lively theologicaldebate. In the following year James Robinson’s A
New Quest of the Historical Jesus turned scholarlyeyes towards the so-called ‘post-Bultmannian’ quest.When Gunther Bornkamm’s Jesus of Nazareth first
appearedin
Englishin 1960
manyreviewers wel-
comed it as a less sceptical ’popular’ account of Jesus
than Bultmann’s book and it probably replaced Jesus
and the Word in students’ reading lists. In the wake of
the ’new quest’ the reviewers had tended to stress the
diffeiences and to miss the many similarities betweenthe master and his disciple.When I first read Jesus and the Word in 1965 I
shared the widespread Anglo-Saxon prejudiceagainst Bultmann’s work. I quickly found Bult-
mann’s exposition of the teaching of Jesus to be
immensely powerful and very readable. Again and
againfamiliar verses
madea
fresh impact. Onre-reading it, my admiration has grown still further. I
am convinced that at some points it is open to serious
criticism, but it is one of the most importanttheological books of this century. Of its continuingimportance there is no doubt, for it raises issues
which are (or should be) central in contemporary
theological discussion.
II
In the opening eight pages of Jesus and the Word
Bultmann sets out his basic method and his under-
standing of the historian’s task. He insists that historycannot be observed objectively as can natural
phenomena. In every word which the historian saysabout history he is saying at the same time somethingabout himself. ’History does not speak when a man
stops his ears, that is, when he assumes neutrality,but speaks only when he comes seeking answers to
the questions which agitate him’ (I If.).Bultmann concedes that there is an approach to
history which seeks by its method to achieve objectiv-ity. It is extremely successful in dealing with that partof history which can be grasped by objective method,
for example in determining the correctchronologicalsequence of events. ’But an approach so limited
misses the true significance of history’ (12). Bult-
mann then stresses that he does not wish to lead the
reader to any ’view’ of history, but to a highlypersonal encounter with history.
In a few deftly worded opening paragraphs Bult-
mann has parted company with a long tradition of
historiography. His own approach was so bold and so
new that perhaps it was not surprising that the
translators of Jesus and the Word misunderstood its
significance. The opening sentence of their preface to
the 1958 edition runs as follows: ’Professor Rudolf
Bultmann’s Jesus, here translated, is a strictly histori-
cal presentation of the teaching of Jesus in the setting
of the thought of his own time’ (5). Bultmann, on the
other hand, takes pains to emphasize that he is not
primarily concerned to provide a ’strictly historical
presentation’, but a ’continuous dialogue with his-
tory’. For Bultmann the actual encounter with historytakes place only in the dialogue. ’This dialogue is no
clever exercise of
subjectivityon the observer’s
part,but a real interrogating of history, in the course of
which the historian puts this subjectivity of his in
question, and is ready to listen to history as an
authority’ (I lf.).Bultmann insists that the historian cannot ’ob-
serve’ history from a neutral detached standpoint. In
his later important essay, ’Is Exegesis without Pre-
suppositions Possible?’ this point is expounded more
fully: the exegete always has his own specific perspec-tive, his own ’pre-understanding’, his own definite
way of asking questions of the text. This is surelycorrect. But it
raises immediatelythe further
ques-tion of the appropriate starting point in interpretingthe NT.
For Bultmann, reconstruction of the earliest stageof the Palestinian tradition is carried out with the
conscious conviction that the words of Jesus do have
something to say to the present. ’They meet us with
the question of how we are to interpret our own
existence. That we be ourselves deeply disturbed bythe problem of our own life is therefore the indispens-able condition of our inquiry’ (16).Whether or not one accepts his conclusions,
Bultmann’s preferenceon
theological grounds forsome parts of the synoptic traditions can be ap-
preciated, as can his use of the language of existen-
tialism to draw out the significance of the teaching of
Jesus for modern man. But already in Jesus and the
Word, and even more clearly in later writings, he
takes a further step which is much more question-able.
Bultmann does not merely allow his own theologi-cal convictions to guide him in his exposition of the
teaching of Jesus, he also allows his own vantage
point to determine which parts of the tradition are
relevant. In short, he deliberately unites historicaland theological interpretation.5
5
The criteria which are used for accepting or
rejecting parts of the synoptic tradition are not simplystrictly historical. Bultmann is interested only in
those parts of the synoptic traditions which confront
us with the question of how we are to interpret our
own existence. He is even prepared to utilize
passages which he believes (on historical grounds) to
belong to a later stratum of the tradition. With
reference to Lk 1 ¡27-2H and Mk 331-35 , Bultmann states
that the early Church has shown vividly how the
decisive Either-Or (the call to decide for the kingdomof God) dominates the preaching of Jesus, how everyother interest disappears before the exclusiveness of
by guest on January 28, 2013ext.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 1979 - Graham Stanton - Review of ‘Jesus and the Word’ by Rudolf Bultmann
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1979-graham-stanton-review-of-jesus-and-the-word-by-rudolf-bultmann 4/6
326
the demand of God (32f.). With reference to Mt 6’4,he suggests that perhaps it is an old oriental proverbthat Jesus or the Church has appropriated and used to
make clear to the hearer the Either-Or (75).Sayings which stem from the early Church or from
first century Judaism rather than from the historical
Jesus can be accepted if they are judged to beconsistent with those parts of the tradition which
Bultmann wishes to utilize. Bultmann states quiteexplicitly that in Jesus and the Word he is concerned
with the content, meaning and validity for us ofwhat
is taught in the gospels. The corollary is hardlysurprising: the question of how much the historical
Jesus and how much other people have contributed
to that content is of secondary importance (91).Bultmann tells his readers that he presupposes the
critical conclusions he reached in his The History ofthe Synoptic Tradition. In that book his rigorous study
of the development of the synoptic traditions sug-
gests that the historicity of many parts of the synopticgospels is in doubt and that there are immense
ditFculties to be overcome if the teaching of the
historical Jesus is to be reconstructed. Yet in Jesus
and the Word he was able to devote 150 pages to an
exposition of that teaching! Are we to conclude that Bultmann changed his
mind between 1921 and 1926? It is no accident that
between the publication of the History and Jesus and
the Word. Bultmann reviewed with a considerable
degree of agreement Karl Barth’s Römerbrief and
published an essay on the problem of a theologicalexegesis of the NT. A. M. Hunter’s quip that
Bultmann’s Jesus might be said to be the reflection of
a Barthian face is not completely wide of the mark. In
the History Bultmann is concerned with thoroughanalysis of the development of the synoptic tradi-
tions. Five years later in Jesus and the Word he does
not ignore his earlier historical conclusions, but he is
engaged on a fundamentally different task, an
interpretation of the contemporary significance of
what he takes to be the ’central core’ of the tradition
about Jesus. It is for this reason that he is able to
write: ’By the tradition Jesus is named as the bearer
of the message: according tooverwhelming probabil-ity he really was. Should it prove otherwise, that does
not change in any way what is said in the record. I see
then no objection to naming Jesus throughout as the
speaker. Whoever prefers to put the name of &dquo;Jesus&dquo;
always in quotation marks and let it stand as an
abbreviation for the historical phenomenon with
which we are concerned is free to do so’ (18).Bultmann was able to publish his impressive
exposition of the teaching of Jesus and yet maintain
firmly throughouthis career that the
kerygmawas not
concerned with more than the Dass (the mere fact) ofthe existence of Jesus of Nazareth. How was he able
to do this? In his later writings Bultmann emphasized
the gulf between Jesus the proclaimer and the earlyChurch’s proclamation of him in the kerygma: the
proclaimer became the proclaimed. But at the same
time for Bultmann there is continuity between the
teaching of the historical Jesus and the proclamationof him in the first post-Easter communities .6 Bult-
mann’s interpretation of the preachingof
Jesus isremarkably similar to his interpretation (elsewhere)of Pauline and Johannine theology
7
This becomes particularly clear in the closingsentences of Jesus and the Word. Jesus is the one sent
by God as bearer of the word, and in the word he
assures man of the forgiveness of God. ’Man is
constrained to decision by the word which brings a
new element into his situation, and the word there-
fore becomes to him an event; for it to become an
event, the hearer is essential.... Whether his word is
truth, whether he is sent from God - that is the
decision to which the hearer is constrained, and theword of Jesus remains: &dquo;Blessed is he who finds no
cause of offence in me&dquo;’ (153f.). The decision to
which the hearer of the words of Jesus is called is a
decision for or against Jesus as the one sent from
God. In concluding his book thus, Bultmann scarcelyconceals that he is interpreting the teaching of Jesus
in the light of his understanding of the kerygma of the
early Church.
III
Bultmann’s fusion of historical reconstruction and
theological interpretation is both the strength and the
weakness of Jesus and the Word. Bultmann’s primaryconcern, like Barth’s in his R6merbrief, was to allow
first century texts to ’speak’ anew to modern man. Byadopting a particular theological vantage point Bult-
mann was able to develop an exposition of the
teaching of Jesus which is often very moving. The
reader can hardly doubt the appropriateness of his
use of existentialist categories for interpreting partsof that teaching. By using theological rather than
strictly historical criteria Bultmann is also able to
present an account of the teaching of Jesus which
stresses its coherence.
A brief sketch of the historical background of the
ministry is followed by three chapters which make upthe main part of the book; they are described as three
concentric circles in each of which we are concerned
with the same question (18). The first chapterexpounds Jesus’ teaching of the coming of the
kingdom of God: its coming confronts men with a
decision to live their lives in accordance with the will
of God. The second chapter discusses the ethical
teachingof Jesus and leads to the conclusion that the
eschatological message and the preaching of the will
of God are to be comprehended as a unity (95). In the
final chapter we reach the smallest of the concentric
by guest on January 28, 2013ext.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 1979 - Graham Stanton - Review of ‘Jesus and the Word’ by Rudolf Bultmann
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1979-graham-stanton-review-of-jesus-and-the-word-by-rudolf-bultmann 5/6
327
. circles, the ’common centre’ which is expoundedunder the title ’God the Remote and the Near’.
But at what price coherence, clarity and a calling in
question of modern man’s habitual ways of self-
understanding ? By concentrating on a theologicalinterpretation of the teaching of Jesus which will
confront twentieth-centuryman
witha
call fordecision, Bultmann fails to carry through sufficientlyrigorously the task of historical reconstruction: there
is more than a grain of truth in the criticism that
Bultmann’s Jesus looks very much like a twentieth-
century German Lutheran preacher! Bultmann does
not set Jesus sufficiently firmly in the context of
first-century Judaism. Jesus is referred to frequentlyas ’a prophet and a rabbi’. But his use of ’rabbi’ with
reference to the first century is almost certainly an
anachronism and there is no doubt that Jesus differed
very considerably both from ’prophets’ and from
,rabbis’.8The disciples of Jesus are conspicuous by their
absence, yet Jesus’ relationship with his circle of
disciples is a particularly distinctive and importanttrait. Bultmann’s account of the message of Jesus
opens with a reference to Lk 1()23f- in which the
actions as well as the words of Jesus are seen as
marking the beginping of the kingdom of God, but
the actions of Jesus are rarely referred to in the pageswhich follow. Yet the traditions repeatedly point to
the close link between the actions and the teaching ofJesus. Ernst Fuchs’ contention that Jesus’ conduct
was the framework of his proclamation is no
exaggeration.~9
Bultmann believes that Jesus was finally crucified
as a messianic prophet, but not as Messiah (27).There are, however, good grounds for accepting the
historicity of the inscription of the charge, ’The Kingof the Jews’ (Mk !5~). When Jesus was confronted
with the charge that he thought himself to be the
Messiah, he accepted theaccurac~
of the charge byhis silence, if not in any other way. Since neither the
resurrection faith of the earliest Christians nor their
study of scripture can explain satisfactorily the
application of the title Messiah to Jesus, we are
driven to the conclusion that the actions and teachingof Jesus led at least some to accept that Jesus saw
himself as Messiah.
Taken as an exposition of some of the central
emphases of the teaching of Jesus, Jesus and the
Word is quite superb and has few if any rivals fiftyyears later. No less clearly than Barth’s R6merbrief,this book marks a watershed in modern theology.There will surely be attempts from time to time to see
the essence of Christianity in a particular reconstruc-
tion of the historical Jesus or in the example of Jesus,at the expense of the kerygma of the Cross and
Resurrection. Whenever that happens, Bultmann’s
denunciation of those who make Jesus into an
appealing religious hero will need to be heard again.My main criticism of Jesus and the Word is not that
Bultmann reaches excessively sceptical conclusions.
That complaint has been heard often enough before,but all too rarely on the basis of sustained critical
interaction with Bultmann’s form critical work.&dquo; Torevive that criticism of Jesus and the Word would be
to overlook Bultmann’s insistence that he is not
concerned to set out for ’observation’ all that critical
scholarship can say about the historical Jesus.
Rather, I believe that in his attempt to expose the
contemporary significance of Jesus Bultmann has cut
historical corners. By isolating those parts of the
tradition which can most easily be used to bridge the
gap between the first and twentieth centuries, Bult-
mann has failed to to justice to the richness of thesynoptic traditions of the teaching and actions of
Jesus. Some parts of those traditions may well not
cohere very easily with other parts. And some partsmay not seem to make any kind of sense in the
modern world, but they may need to be heard
nonetheless. Whenever the distinction between his-
torical reconstruction and theological interpretationis blurred, there is always the danger that the text will
be allowed to say precisely what the modern exegeteor theologian wishes. In this respect, Bultmann’s
Jesus and Barth’s R6merbrief are twins.
1For British reactions to The History of the SynopticTradition, see V. Taylor, The Formation of the GospelTradition [1933] and W. Manson, Jesus the Messiah [1943].
2T. W. Manson’s The Teaching of Jesus [1931] contains
many references to scholarly German literature, but neither
of Bultmann’s books on the gospels is referred to. In the
brief additional notes to the second edition published in
1935 there is one (positive) reference to each book (330). In
later years Manson was very critical of Bultmann: ’Professor
Bultmann’s History of the Synoptic Tradition is an account,
not ofhow the life of Jesus produced the tradition, but ofhow the tradition produced the life of Jesus. And when the
work of the tradition has been undone, there is very little of
Jesus left’ (Studies in the Gospels and Epistles [1962], 6f.).
3Page references to Jesus and the Word are to the 1958
Fontana edition.
4For a fuller discussion, see my essay ’Presuppositions in
New Testament Criticism’ in ed. I. H. Marshall, New
Testament Interpretation (Exeter [1977]), 60-74.
5For a full discussion (to whichI am deeply indebted) see
R. Morgan, The Nature of New Testament Theology,(London [1973]), 37ff. See also N. A. Dahl’s comments in
The Crucified Messiah and Other Essays (Minneapolis[1974]), 90ff.
6Most scholars have failed to observe that in this respectand in many other ways Bultmann anticipated many of the
emphases of the so-called ’new quest’.
by guest on January 28, 2013ext.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 1979 - Graham Stanton - Review of ‘Jesus and the Word’ by Rudolf Bultmann
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1979-graham-stanton-review-of-jesus-and-the-word-by-rudolf-bultmann 6/6
328
7So also W. Schmithals, An Introduction to the Theology
of Rudolf Bultmann (Eng. tr. London [1968]), 208f.
8See M. Hengel, Nachfolge und Charisma (Berlin[1968]).
9Studies of the Historical Jesus (Eng. tr. London [1964]),
21.
10N. A. Dahl, The Crucified Messiah and Other Essays,
10ff.11
For a modest attempt to do this, see my essay ’Form
Criticism Revisited’, in M. D. Hooker and C. J. A. Hickling(ed.), What About the New Testament? (London [1975]),13-27.
The Problem of Isaiah 24-27*
BY THE REVEREND RICHARD J. COGGINS, M.A.. B.D., KING’S COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
MUCH of what has been written in the past on Isaiah
has tended to stress the differences between the
various parts of the book, whereas an emphasis in
more recent study has been on the ways in which the
whole book of Isaiah should be regarded as a unity1
The earlier emphasis was entirely proper when itneeded to be shown that the whole could not be
regarded as the product of one individual; but it
seems that even in strongly conservative circles the
existence of ’Deutero-Isaiah’ is now widely accepted,and so it is the inner relation of the different parts of
the Isaiah tradition which now needs closer investiga-tion.
In this respect Isa 24-27, sometimes called ’the
Isaiah apocalypse’ and commonly regarded as the
latest part of the book, demands special attention.
Various recent studies have conspicuously failed to
show any scholarly consensus relating to these
chapters, and it may be appropriate to look at four
distinct but related questions which illustrate the
peculiar problems here involved. These questionsare, first, the unity of Isa 24-27; secondly, the relation
of these chapters to the rest of the Isaiah tradition;
thirdly, their date; and finally, their relation to
apocalyptic. In all of these issues, the over-ridingproblem is soon seen to be that of the appropriatecriteria to be applied.
1. The Unity of Isa 24-27. Sharply differing views
have been put forward concerning the unity, or
otherwise, of these chapters; but many of the
differences have arisen less from disagreement about
the actual structure of the material than from the use
of different criteria as to what might be required to
speak of a ’unity’. This is made very clear by G. N. M.
Habets’- who sets on one side three or four scholars
who have regarded the section as a unity, and on the
other a larger number who have, apparently, taken
the opposite view. But when one examines the works
under consideration in greater detail, or even when
one notes more carefully Habets’ own quotations andsummaries, it soon becomes clear that the difference
is largely one of terminology. No one disputes that
there is a variety of literary genres and themes to be
discerned here; the question at issue is largely the
extent to which this variety has been drawn togetherin some over-arching principle. This general consid-
eration continues to hold good whichever criterionfor unity is applied: theme, prosodic considerations
of various kinds, alleged historical background, and
so on.
Despite this variety and uncertainty, there appearsto be almost unanimous agreement in treating these
chapters as in some sense unified. I know of no
commentator who wishes to see any kind of radical
break as coming within these chapters, though there
is a good deal of dispute whether the closest links
within Isaiah are with what follows or with what
precedes. There ig, that is to say, a unity imposedupon these chapters by the recurrence of the theme ofthe city (2410-1., 251-5, 26’-B by the picture of death
and sheol (2417-2B 2S6.K, 2(~&dquo;-’‘’); and by the recurrent
structure of threat-war-victory-peace which appearsto run through these chapters. W. R. Miller providesa detailed structural analysis, which appears to be
soundly based, though it is noteworthy that of his six
examples within these chapters, only two are com-
plete. It may be that he is a little dismissive in
explaining the prevalence of the incomplete pattern. All of this would appear to lend weight to the
suggestion that the book of Isaiah is finally made upof a substantial number of small units, many of them
three or four chapters long, each containing a certain
basic unity, though the internal detail will be very
varied, and each contributing to the complex whole
which makes up Isa 1-fi6. 24-27 will be such a unity;one might compare it with, for example, the ’Im-
manuel’ section, 61-<)6 (EVV. 9~) where again we see
considerable internal variety, but also a unity of
theme which holds the material together, and at the
same time clear indications that the total complex has
a particular place within the build-up of the Isaiah
tradition.
2. Isaiah 24-27 and the Book of Isaiah. Here the
problems are greater. The (sometimes necessarily)over-simplified introductions to the book of Isaiah
*The substance of what follows is a paper read at the
King’s College, London, Old Testament Seminar in Feb-
ruary, 1978. ’
by guest on January 28, 2013ext.sagepub.comDownloaded from