bernard levinson_ reading the bible in nazi germany

Reading the Bible in Nazi Germany:Gerhard von Rad’s Attempt to Reclaimthe Old Testament for the Church*

BERNARD M. LEVINSONBerman Family Chair of Jewish Studies and Hebrew Bible University of Minnesota

This essay investigates Gerhard von Rad’s interpretation of the book of Deuteronomyand how his social location as a professor at the University of Jena from 1934–1945in Nazi Germany influenced his exegesis. It explores a particularly poignant and

instructive example of the complex relationship between hermeneutics and history. In orderto tell that story, it is necessary to tell about the history of Germany during 1933–1945, aboutthe famous church conflict (Kirchenkampf ) that left the Protestant Church in Germany horriblydivided, and in particular, about the extraordinary transformation of Friederich SchillerUniversity of Jena—along with its prestigious Faculty of Theology—into a bastion of NationalSocialism (Hochburg der Nationalsozialismus). One sign of the close ties to National Socialismwas the appointment of Karl Astel as Rector of the University. Astel, a leading medical scientistspecializing in eugenics and a ranking officer in Hitler’s SS, served as Rector from 1939 untilhis suicide in April, 1945. The photograph (opposite page) shows him in full SS uniformcongratulating a student athlete.

Jena is in the state of Thuringia, in the former East Germany. Its historic university wasthe home not only of Hegel and Schelling, but also of W. M. L. DeWette, whose 1805 doctoraldissertation arguing that Josiah’s reform must have been motivated by Deuteronomy representsthe foundation of modern work on the Pentateuch.1 Von Rad’s first academic appointment

From 1933 until 1945, the Hebrew Bible and the connectionbetween Christianity and Judaism came under attack in NaziGermany. Gerhard von Rad defended the importance of the OldTestament in a courageous struggle that profoundly influencedhis interpretation of the book of Deuteronomy.

* This article, based upon a lecture at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the SBL in Washington, D. C., draws upon andupdates Bernard M. Levinson and Douglas Dance, “The Metamorphosis of Law into Gospel: Gerhard von Rad’sAttempt to Reclaim the Old Testament for the Church,” in Recht und Ethik im Alten Testament (ed. Bernard M.Levinson and Eckart Otto; with assistance from W. Dietrich; Munster: LIT Verlag, 2004), 83–110. The reader isreferred there for a fuller discussion. A more comprehensive treatment will follow either in a planned volume ofmy essays on the reception history of the HB from Qumran into the modern world, or in an edited volume on thetransformation of theology and related disciplines under National Socialism. I wish to thank the editors ofInterpretation for their assistance with preparing this article for publication. I am especially grateful to Prof. Dr.Uwe Becker, who holds the Chair in Old Testament at Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, for his encouragementand support; and to Paul Keim, Professor of Bible and Religion at Goshen College, for valuable comments.

1 W. M. L. de Wette, “Dissertatio critica qua Deuteronomium diversum a prioribus Pentateuchi libris, aliuscuiusdam recentiori auctoris opus esse demonstrator,” (Th.D. diss.; Faculty of Theology, University of Jena, 1805);published, idem, Opuscula Theologica (Berlin: Berolini, 1830), 149–68. See further: John W. Rogerson, W. M. L. de Wette,

J U L Y 2 0 0 8 Interpretation 239

after completing his Habilitation (asecond dissertation, which is the normalrequirement in Germany for appoint-ment as Ordinarius, or tenured fullprofessor) was to the University ofJena, a position that he held from1934–1945.

Von Rad kept returning to Deuter-onomy throughout his career, beginningwith his doctoral dissertation in 1929,Das Gottesvolk im Deuteronomium, andcontinuing through Das formgeschicht-liche Problem des Hexateuchs (1938),Deuteronomium Studien (1947), andhis commentary on Deuteronomy for theprestigious series Altes Testament Deutsch(1964).2 Perhaps more striking than hispreoccupation with this pivotal text,however, is the way von Rad characterizedits textual content, its priorities, and itstheology. His rhetoric frequently took theform of a series of antithetical formula-

Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism: An Intellectual Biography (JSOTSup 126; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992).2 On von Rad’s preoccupation with Deuteronomy throughout his career, see Eckart Otto’s Foreword to Recht und

Ethik im Alten Testament, v. For the works in question, see Gerhard von Rad, Das Gottesvolk im Deuteronomium(BWANT 47; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer,, 1929); posthumously published in idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten

University of Jena Rector Dr. Karl Astel congratulating a student athlete. Photo courtesy ofthe Archive of the Ernst-Haeckel-House, Institute for the History of Medicine, Jena.

The Provincial Churches of the Evangelical Church inGermany (Thuringia shaded at center). Source: FredericSpotts, The Churches and Politics in Germany (Middle-town, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press), 14.

240 Interpretation J U L Y 2 0 0 8

tions: Deuteronomy is not X but is Y.3 At times it seemed that von Rad was concerned just asmuch to establish what Deuteronomy is as to show what it is not. As is well known, von Radargued that Deuteronomy is not law but rather a series of sermons by traveling Levites preach-ing a renewed message of redemption. He maintained that Deuteronomy’s law code is not adead text but live instruction, not demands for obedience to incomprehensible requirements,but spiritual exhortations to remember God’s grace.

In his hands, Deuteronomy became not a law book demanding obedience, but rather acollection of sermons pervaded with a spiritual, even a “‘protestantische’ Atmosphäre.”4 Writtenlaws became homiletic sermons meant to encourage and inspire. Israel’s obligation underYHWH’s covenant treaty for obedience to his statutes and ordinances became Israel’s uncondi-tional election to salvation. On that basis, any sections of Deuteronomy that seem to make sal-vation dependent on works, i.e., obedience to the law, were deftly and systematically explainedaway. Either their significance was deemphasized, or they were relegated to later exilic orpost-exilic expansions of the text, like the blessings and the curses of Deut 28.5 The support forthese claims is often absent, so that von Rad’s analysis of Deuteronomy, particularly the legalcorpus of Deut 12–26, comes closer to eisegesis than to exegesis.

My question is simple: why is that the case? My hypothesis is that these points where vonRad’s claims seem inconsistent with the text of Deuteronomy reflect instead the historical situ-ation in which he wrote during the formative part of his career—Germany, under the NationalSocialist dictatorship from 1933–1945. Just as he was appointed, Jena transformed itself into oneof the leading German universities to promote National Socialist ideology. The Faculty ofTheology moved eagerly in the same direction. It took a leadership role in transforming thediscipline into an organ for National Socialist and German Christian ideology. A tract writtenby Walter Grundmann, one of von Rad’s more powerful colleagues, includes a powerful Nazineologism—The “De-Jewing” (Entjudung) of Religious Life as the Mission of German Theology andChurch (Die Entjudung des religiösen Lebens als Aufgabe deutscher Theologie und Kirche).6 Thisspecific historical and institutional context must have contributed to the way von Rad presentedDeuteronomy and its laws. Walter Brueggemann and Jean-Louis Ska have correctly noted thatvon Rad’s concept of salvation history represents a polemic against National Socialist ideology.7

Testament 2 (ed. Rudolf Smend; ThB 48; Munich: C. Kaiser, 1973), 9–108. See also idem, Das formgeschichtliche Problemdes Hexateuchs (BWANT 78; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1938), 1. Reprinted in idem, Gesammelte Studien zum AltenTestament 1 (ThB 8; Munich: C. Kaiser, 1958/41971), 9–86. ET: idem, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays(trans. E.W. Trueman Dicken; London: Oliver & Boyd, 1966), 1–78. See also idem, Das fünfte Buch Mose (4th ed.; ATD 8;Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983). ET: Deuteronomy: A Commentary (trans. Dorothea Barton; OTL 5;Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966).

3 Jean Louis Ska connects von Rad’s distinction between law and grace to the dialectical theology of Karl Barth.He also hints that von Rad’s reconstruction of Israelite religion, whereby it has the structure of salvation history fromthe very beginnings, was an implicit rejection of “natural religion,” as favored by National Socialism. See idem, Intro-duction to Reading the Pentateuch (trans. Sr. Pascale Dominique; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 116–23.

4 “‘Protestant’ atmosphere,” see von Rad, Deuteronomium-Studien, 47. E.T. : idem, Studies in Deuteronomy (trans.David Stalker; 2d ed.; London: SCM, 1956), 68.

5 Ibid., 50.6 Walter Grundmann, Die Entjudung des religiösen Lebens als Aufgabe deutscher Theologie und Kirche (Weimar:

Verlag Deutsche Christen, 1939). For the most extensive study of his career, see Roland Deines, Volker Leppin, andKarl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, eds., Walter Grundmann: Ein Neutestamentler im Dritten Reich (Arbeiten zur Kirchen- undTheologiegeschichte 21; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007); and Susannah Heschel, The Aryan Jesus: ChristianTheologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008).

7 See Walter Brueggemann, “The ABC’s of Old Testament Theology in the US,” ZAW 114 (2002): 413. See alsoSka, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch.

G E R H A R D V O N R A D Interpretation 241

However, they overlook the significanceof the situation in Jena and von Rad’spassion—I use the word deliberately—to retain the importance of the OT aspart of the church’s canon. Conversely,Susannah Heschel’s rich histories of theJena faculty focus elsewhere than on OTtheology and exegesis.8

KIRCHENKAMPF: THESTRUGGLE FOR CONTROLOF THE CHURCH

In 1933, Hitler and his National-sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei(NSDAP) gained control of the Germangovernment. During its first months inpower, the government initiated a seriesof legal measures to eliminate all formsof influence other than the NationalSocialist party. Under NationalSocialism’s umbrella, a rising faction

within the church, calling themselves the “German Christians” (Deutsche Christen), sought admin-istrative control of the various state churches (Landeskirchen). The German Christians presentedthe nation’s resurgence as an awakening of Germany’s Lutheran heritage after the moral corrup-tion and secularization of the Weimar Republic.9 They denied the Jewish ancestry of Jesus anderased Hebrew words like “hosanna” and “hallelujah” from church creeds and hymns.10 TheGerman Christians also launched virulent attacks against the OT. In November, 1933, Dr. ReinholdKrause, a German Christian leader in Berlin, demanded that the church make itself more appeal-ing to all National Socialists by ridding itself of everything “Un-German in worship and confes-sion; liberation from the Old Testament with its Jewish morality of profit and its stories of cattletraders and pimps” (Undeutschen im Gottesdienst und im Bekenntnismäßigen; Befreiung vom AltenTestament mit seiner jüdischen Lohnmoral, von diesen Viehhändler- und Zuhältergeschichten).11

8 Susannah Heschel, “The Theological Faculty at the University of Jena as ‘a Stronghold of National Socialism’”in “Kämpferische Wissenschaft”: Studien zur Universität Jena im Nationalsozialismus (ed. Uwe Hoßfeld et al.; Cologne:Böhlau, 2003), 452–71. The same article appears in two additional versions: idem, “The Theological Faculty at theUniversity of Jena as a Stronghold of National Socialism,” History of Universities 18.1 (2003): 143–69; and idem, “For‘Volk, Blood, and God’: The Theological Faculty at the University of Jena during the Third Reich,” in Nazi Germanyand the Humanities (ed. Wolfgang Bialas and Anson Rabinbach; Oxford: Oneworld, 2007), 365–98. Unless otherwiseindicated, all citations here to the triune article will be to the version published in “Kämpferische Wissenschaft,” whichseems the most comprehensive.

9 Shelley Baranowski, “The Confessing Church and Anti-Semitism: Protestant Identity, German Nationhood,and the Exclusion of Jews,” in Robert P. Ericksen and Susannah Heschel, eds., Betrayal: German Churches and theHolocaust (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 94–95.

10 Doris L. Bergen, “Storm Troopers of Christ: The German Christian Movement and the Ecclesiastical FinalSolution,” in Ericksen and Heschel, Betrayal: German Churches and the Holocaust, 41.

11 Hans Buchheim, Glaubenskrise im Dritten Reich: Drei Kapitel nationalsozialistischer Religionspolitik (Stuttgart:Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1953), 129. See also Reinhold Krause, Rede des Gauobmannes der Glaubensbewegung “Deutsche

Walter Grundmann (1906–1976). Photo courtesy ofLandeskirchenarchiv der Evangelischen Kirche inMitteldeutschland, Eisenach.


Opposition to the German Christian power grab organized itself under the banner of the“Confessing Church” (Bekennende Kirche). In the Barmen Declaration of 1934, in which KarlBarth played a major role, the Confessing Church strongly resisted the German Christian adop-tion of the National Socialist agenda.12 Indeed, as Shelley Baranowski notes, “The muted protestsof the Evangelical opposition to the persecution of the Jews and other ‘undesirables’ contrastsmarkedly to its spirited defense of ecclesiastical autonomy.”13 However, the Barmen Declarationdid not speak to the contested role of the OT in the church. The biblical passages referenced inthe Declaration were taken exclusively from the NT. The German Church remained seriouslydivided throughout the war.

THE UNIVERSITY OF JENAIN THE VORTEX

The University of Jena stood atthe forefront of the attempt to cre-ate the ideal National SocialistUniversity.14 This extended to the uni-versity’s most prestigious depart-ments, including Law, Medicine, andTheology. For example, the Faculty ofMedicine established a close workingrelationship with Buchenwald, theconcentration camp twenty miles dis-tant, where some medical studentstrained in pathology.15 Two universitymedical clinics were involved in theforced sterilization of approximately14,000 people between July 14, 1933and the end of 1943, under a programdirected by Rector Karl Astel.

Von Rad arrived at Jena in 1934just as this process of the university’s

Christen” im Groß-Berlin: Dr. Krause. Gehalten im Sportpalast am 13. November 1933 (pamphlet in LandeskirchenarchivBielefeld 5, 1/289), 2. Cited in the ET by Bergen, “Storm Troopers of Christ,” 53.

12 Baranowski, “The Confessing Church and Anti-Semitism,” 90–91.13 Ibid., 99.14 Much of the difficult history of Friedrich Schiller University of Jena (the name it acquired in 1934) during the Third

Reich has become available only since 1989, once the reunification of Germany permitted access to important archivalsources that were previously unavailable under East German rule. The University administration should be commended forthe way it has encouraged and supported critical evaluation and public exposition of its past. This support is particularlyevident in two significant edited volumes: Herbert Gottwald and Matthias Steinbach, eds., Zwischen Wissenschaft undPolitik: Studien zur Jenaer Universität im 20. Jahrhundert (Jena: Bussert & Stadeler, 2000); and especially Hoßfeld et al.,eds., “Kämpferische Wissenschaft”: Studien zur Universität Jena im Nationalsozialismus. Equally striking is the commit-ment even of the official university website to document this history openly in both English and German (see, forexample, www.uni-jena.de/ History-lang-en.html).

15 See Mike Bruhn and Heike Böttner, “Studieren in Jena 1933 bis 1945: Eine Fallstudie,” in Gottwald andSteinbach, Zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik, 116.

Gerhard von Rad (1901–1971) in Jena. Photo courtesy ofEstate of Gerhard von Rad; made available by ProfessorManfred Oeming (Heidelberg).


transformation into a National Socialist stronghold began.16 The Chronology of von Rad’s Kampfum das Alte Testament, immediately following this essay on p. 249, illustrates that an even moreextreme branch of the German Christian movement had gained control in the state of Thuringiain 1930, the German Christian Church Movement (KDC). By 1933, they were able to plant one oftheir own in the State Ministry of Education, Siegfried Leffler.17 He in turn worked to install in theFaculty of Theology professors whose primary qualification was party membership or ideologicalconformity. All standard Germancivil service and academic proce-dures, including academic quali-fications, were subverted.18

Wolfgang Meyer, appointedto the Chair of PracticalTheology, had neither his doc-torate nor his Habilitation, buthe was a radio preacher inBavaria and an avowed memberof the KDC.19 His one fear wasthat he might be thought to be aJew because of his last name,which he promptly changed toMeyer-Erlach, lest his advance-ment be hindered.20 In less thana year, he became Dean of theFaculty of Theology. Withinanother year, on April 1, 1935, hewas appointed Rector of theUniversity, despite having gainedonly eight of 129 faculty votes.

16 The two most helpful sources on von Rad’s battle to maintain the integrity of OT scholarship in a Faculty ofTheology that step by step devoted itself to National Socialist ideology are Rudolf Smend, Deutsche Alttestamentler indrei Jahrhunderten: mit 18 Abbildungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989); ET: From Astruc to Zimmerli: OldTestament Scholarship in Three Centuries (trans. M. Kohl; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); and Heschel, “The TheologicalFaculty at the University of Jena as ‘a Stronghold of National Socialism.’” Additional sources that largely summarize exist-ing publications are Eberhard H. Pältz, “Art. Jena,” TRE 16: 559–563; and Rudolf Smend, “Art. Rad, Gerhard von,” TRE 28:889–91.

A valuable source cited by Heschel on von Rad’s experiences at the University of Jena during the Nazi period isSusanne Böhm, “Gerhard von Rad und der Streit um das Alte Testament unter besonderer Berücksichtigung seiner Zeitin Jena,” (Diploma thesis, Faculty of Theology, Fredrick Schiller University of Jena, 1996). One part of this thesis has beenpublished: Susanne Böhm,“Gerhard von Rad in Jena,” in Das Alte Testament—ein Geschichtsbuch?! FS für Joachim Conrad(ed. Uwe Becker and Jürgen van Oorschot; Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 17; Leipzig: EvangelischeVerlagsanstalt, 2005), 203–40.

17 Anja Rinnen, Kirchenmann und Nationalsozialist: Siegfried Lefflers ideelle Verschmelzung von Kirche und Drittem Reich(Forum zur Pädagogik und Didaktik der Religion 9; Weinheim: Deutscher Studien 1995), 67. Cited in Heschel,“Theological Faculty,” 453.

18 Smend, From Astruc to Zimmerli, 235; and Heschel, “Theological Faculty,” 453.19 Rudiger Stutz,“Wissenschaft als Dienst an Volk und Vaterland: Die Rektoren der Universität Jena und das ‘Dritte

Reich,’” in Gottwald and Steinbach, Zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik,138. See also Klaus Raschzok, “Wolf Meyer-Erlach und Hans Asmusen,” in Zwischen Volk und Bekenntnis: Praktische Theologie im Dritten Reich (ed. Klaus Raschzok;Leipzig, 2000), 174. Cited in Heschel, “Theological Faculty,” 466, n. 15.

20 Archive of the University of Jena, Bestand J, Nr. 92, Promotionsakten der Theologischen Fakultät, 1941–1947.Cited in Heschel, “Theological Faculty,” 454.

Wolfgang Meyer-Erlach (1891–1982). Photo courtesy of Landes-kirchenarchiv der Evangelischen Kirche in Mitteldeutschland,Eisenach. [Notice the lapel pin.]


Although von Rad had completed his Habilitation (at Leipzig under Albrecht Alt), it seemslikely that his appointment to Jena had little to do with academics, but rather was based on anassumption that he was a member of the Nazi party and that he sympathized with GermanChristian ideology.21 Several factors contributed to this impression. One was almost certainly hisearly association with Gerhard Kittel, the Protestant theologian whose devotion to NationalSocialism has long been recognized.22 Von Rad served as OT editor of the influential TheologicalDictionary of the New Testament (Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament).23 Perhaps themost important factor was von Rad’s early membership in the Sturmabteilung (SA),24 the so-called brown shirts, which had a quite high middle-class membership, including theology pro-fessors. I am not particularly troubled by this membership, which may have been motivatedmore by professional necessity than by personal allegiance. He resigned from the SA in1937. In any case, even before he went to Jena, von Rad was giving public lectures stressingthat there is no access to Christ except through the OT. Had this material been read, it ishard to imagine that he would have been appointed.

The use of ideology as the primary qualification for academic office continued with the nextappointment, Heinz Eisenhuth, in 1937 as Professor of Systematic Theology. Walter Grundmann,the author of Die Entjudung, was appointed to the NT Chair without his Habilitation, and beforethe publication lists of two much more qualified candidates had even arrived, let alone beendiscussed. Von Rad fought a losing battle in resisting faculty appointments of this kind, fruitlesslycomplaining to the State Ministry, who of course supported the process. In this way, by 1937, theradical German Christian Church movement controlled three of the six academic chairs in Jena’sFaculty of Theology. They were often able to force a majority that effectively controlled the direc-tion of the Faculty of Theology, leaving von Rad and Waldemar Macholz, Chair of EcumenicalStudies, as minority dissenters.

The majority within the Faculty of Theology began systematically to reshape—and subvert—the historically rich German theology curriculum. Hebrew was the first target. Jena became thefirst theological faculty in Germany to eliminate the requirement for theology students to studyHebrew. In announcing this resolution, the faculty explained that in the study of Jesus Christ,the study of the OT could be set aside.25 Von Rad and Macholz opposed this move, arguingthat the OT was critical to understanding Jesus,26 but once Macholz retired in 1938, the resolu-

tion easily passed. That retirement left von Rad completely isolated in his passionate com-mitment to the OT as Christian Scripture.

21 Heschel, “Theological Faculty,” 455.22 On Gerhard Kittel’s support of National Socialism, see Robert P. Ericksen, “Assessing the Heritage: German

Protestant Theologians, Nazis, and the ‘Jewish Question,’” in Ericksen and Heschel, Betrayal: German Churches and theHolocaust, 33–37. See also Wayne A. Meeks, “A Nazi New Testament Professor Reads His Bible: The Strange Case ofGerhard Kittel,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (ed. Hindy Najman and Judith H.Newman; Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 83; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 513–44.

23 Gerhard Kittel et al., eds., Theologishes Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1932).24 As a member of the Confessing Church who answered the call to come to Jena to study with von Rad, Konrad von

Rabenau refers to von Rad’s membership in the SA as having helped establish his credentials for appointment tothe faculty. See his fascinating brief memoir in idem, “Als Student bei Gerhard von Rad in Jena 1943–1945,” in DasAlte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne (ed. Manfred Oeming, Konrad Schmid, and Michael Welker; ATM 8;Munster: LIT Verlag, 2004), 10. For additional documentation of von Rad’s SA membership, see S. Heschel, TheAryan Jesus.

25 Archive of the University of Jena, C 358. Cited in Böhm, “Gerhard von Rad,” 32.26 Heschel, “Theological Faculty,” 458.


His other colleagues introduced newcourses to bring the traditional theologycurriculum into conformity with NationalSocialist priorities, such as eugenics, “racialscience,” and the “Jewish question.” As the“Chronology” makes clear on p. 252, thenew courses included “Jesus and the Jews,”“Luther and the Jews,”“Fundamentals ofAryan Anthropology and Religion,” and mypersonal favorite, “The Concept of the Reichas the Fundamental Question for GermanTheology” (Die Idee des Reiches alsGrundfrage deutscher Theologie).27 Von Radmade his own counterstatement by holdinglectures and seminars on Exodus, Psalms,Jeremiah, and OT Theology.28

Graduate student research was held to alitmus test of ideological conformity. Onestudent’s dissertation argued that the ideas ofJesus must be understood in an OT context.This dissertation was rejected even after arevision because, as Meyer-Erlach explained,“This theologian lacks the important insight of National Socialism that the question of race isthe fundamental question for everything else” (Es fehlt dem Theologen die Erkenntnis desNationalsozialismus, daß die Rassenfrage die Grundfrage für alles ist).29

The creation of the Institute for the Investigation and Eradication of Jewish Influenceon German Religious Life (Institut zur Erforschung und Beseitigung des jüdischen Einflussesauf das deutsche kirchliche Leben), which was housed at the Thuringian state church’s train-ing seminary in nearby Eisenach, advanced the cause of National Socialist ideology. Severalmembers of the Jena theology faculty published under that Institute’s name. At its openingceremonies, Grundmann argued that the Jewish OT was a roadblock to German Christianity.To eliminate this obstruction, von Rad’s colleagues edited the NT, the hymnal, and the cate-chism so as to eliminate Hebrew words, OT references, and all links between Jesus and Judaism.Widely sold throughout Germany, these various publications by “academic” authors addeda patina of scholarship to the Institute’s positions.30 They transformed “their anti-Semiticideas into respectable teachings of Christian theology.”31

27 Ibid.28 Böhm, “Gerhard von Rad,” Appendix 2.29 See Heschel, “Theological Faculty,” 460, citing Archive of the University of Jena, Bestand J, Nr. 90,

Promotionsakten der Theologischen Fakultät, 1939–1941.30 Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, 73.31 Ibid., 80.

Waldemar Karl Ludwig Macholz (1876–1950).Photo courtesy of Thüringisches HauptstaatsarchivWeimar, Personalakten aus dem Bereich der Volks-bildungsministeriums, Nr. 19517, Bl. 36.


While hundreds of North American and European scholars during the 1960s turned the lec-ture hall at Heidelberg where Gerhard von Rad later taught Bible into an international pilgrimagedestination, I cannot stress enough how different the situation was during the critical formativeperiod of von Rad’s career. From his arrival at the University of Jena, he failed to gain anysignificant student support. In Winter Semester 1935–1936, the first academic year aftervon Rad’s appointment for which full data is available, there were 155 students registered in theFaculty of Theology.32 Von Rad’s Psalms course enrolled just four students that semester,while his Jeremiah course and Deutero-Isaiah seminar enrolled two each.33 By Winter Semester1941–1942, enrollment for the Faculty as a whole declined to just ten students.34 Von Rad’senrollments remained static every semester from his appointment through Summer 1944.35 TheConfessing Church resorted to sending between two and four students to Jena “in order to makecertain that von Rad had an audience at his lectures.”36 Most indicative of his academic isola-tion is the fact that not a single one of the forty-five doctoral dissertations submitted to theFaculty of Theology during his tenure at Jena was directed by von Rad.37

VON RAD’S RESPONSE IN HIS WRITINGS

At this point, I need to move from narrating the context to reflecting on the impact of thiscontext upon von Rad’s work. In a previous article (see note below the title of this essay), DouglasDance and I have chronicled how von Rad took over the idea of the sermon Gattung fromLudwig Koehler. He applied it first to Chronicles and next to the narrative frame of Deut 1–11.Then, belatedly, in Deuteronomium Studien (1947), after von Rad went to Göttingen, he extendedthe idea of the sermon to the legal corpus of Deuteronomy, despite thereby creating a substan-tial inconsistency with his own earlier analysis of the legal corpus as a public reading of the lawin the context of the cultus, which he had outlined in The Form Critical Problem of theHexateuch (1938). This tells me that the law was a major problem for von Rad, one that heto a large extent avoided, and had a hard time explaining, even as he remained fascinated by thepower of the oral sermon, and actively sought textual evidence for this form. There is evidencethat his recourse to the sermon form as a model to explain the composition of Deuteronomywas arbitrary. Moshe Weinfeld points out that the account of the Sitz im Leben for the Leviticalactivity that gave rise to the sermon was contradictory, dated in some contexts to the exilic

32 Böhm, “Gerhard von Rad,” Appendix 1. The statistical analysis in this section drives home the importance offurther checking the available data against the archival sources in order to provide a clearer reconstruction of this his-torically fraught period. At a number of points, the data provided by Böhm and Heschel is mutually inconsistent. Inher analysis of the decline of overall student enrollment in the Faculty of Theology, Heschel notes an enrollment ofthirty students for 1938–1939, without specifying which semester (“Theological Faculty,” 461). For Winter Semesterthat same year, Böhm notes fifty students; and for Summer Semester (closer to Spring Semester in North America),thirty-one (“Gerhard von Rad,” Appendix 1).

33 Böhm, “Gerhard von Rad,” Appendix 2.34 Böhm, “Gerhard von Rad,” Appendix 1. Contrast Heschel’s “only four students” (“Theological Faculty,” 461).35 Böhm, “Gerhard von Rad,” Appendix 2.36 Heschel, “Theological Faculty,” 461 (mentioning two students sent in 1941–1942). The fascinating memoir by one

such student speaks of being called to Jena as one of four students in Fall 1943, primarily in response to von Rad’s fearsthat without sufficient numbers the Faculty would be altogether closed by the university Rector, Karl Astel (Rabenau,“Als Student bei Gerhard von Rad,” 7).

37 Böhm, “Gerhard von Rad,” 31; note that the calculation of the total number of dissertations actually begins ayear prior to von Rad’s appointment. Heschel provides a breakdown of the dissertation supervisors and a fascinatingreport of the debates to enforce or circumvent academic standards (“Theological Faculty,” 459–61).


period when the Levites are displaced after centralization, while in other contexts, it is datedprior to centralization when the Levites remained rooted in their local sanctuaries.38

So let us back up. What is at stake? Why did von Rad focus on the sermon and whymust Deuteronomy be a sermon? A number of possible answers may be suggested.

• The OT is important as a Christian Scripture. Von Rad spoke out courageously, frequently,and publicly on this issue, in Leipzig and in Jena, as well as in his publications. Thisstatus of the OT was completely rejected by the neo-Marcionite attacks of the GermanChristians and his own colleagues in the faculty. The opposition argued that the OTwas Jewish and, moreover, that Jewish elements of the NT, the liturgy, and the hymnal,must be excised in order to create a proper Aryan Christianity based upon a purifiedcanon. The tract Die Entjudung des religiösen Lebens is a prime example of this.

• The importance of the OT is that it is a witness to Christ; properly understood, it is aChristian Scripture. Von Rad had therefore to argue that the OT is not Jewish but Christian.It is not law but grace. It does not demand works as the condition of covenantal election,which would be a Jewish position of legalism. Instead, it offers salvation and election inand through the speaking voice of the text.

• The antinomian and antithetical categories that von Rad inherited as a trained pastor andas a theologian forced his hand. If Jewish law is a dead letter, the antithesis of law is, inthe words of Köhler, from whom von Rad acquired the concept, “the sermon, the greatestand best form of human instruction. . . .” (Die Predigt, die größte und beste Form derMenschenbelehrung. . . .).39 Understood as a sermon, Deuteronomy becomes a familiarform of Christian spiritual pedagogy akin to kerygma.

• Deuteronomy could not be law lest it be Jewish. Nor could Deuteronomy be text withoutbecoming tainted as a dead letter, associated with legalism and with fossilization of thespirit. Deuteronomy had to be oral in order for it not to mark the beginning of Judaism.Once again, the sermon, as a form of oral proclamation, came readily to hand. The familiarsermon form provided an excellent means to rehabilitate Deuteronomy—one mightsay, to circumcise Deuteronomy, or perhaps, to de-circumcise Deuteronomy.

• It is important to stress the extent to which this was an intra-Christian debate. Thedefense of the OT was not a defense of Judaism. Von Rad was constrained by the theo-logical categories he inherited. He took for granted the stereotypes about Judaism andnever challenged them. “The entire difficult question about whether the Old Testamentbelongs to the Jews or to the Church can only be decided by Jesus Christ alone” (1934).40

I seriously doubt that von Rad ever imagined his work might find a Jewish reader.

• It is possible to demonstrate that the need to understand Deuteronomy as non-lawforced von Rad to explain away anything that did look like law or sound like law. Such

38 Moshe Weinfeld, “Deuteronomy: The Present State of Inquiry,” JBL 86 (1987): 252–53; essay repr. in A Song ofPower and the Power of Song (ed. Duane L. Christensen; Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 3; WinonaLake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 21–35.

39 Ibid., 113. Von Rad quotes Ludwig Köhler, Die hebräische Rechtsgemeinde, Jahresbericht der Universität Zürich1930–1931, 17.

40 Gerhard von Rad, “Das Ergebnis,” in Führung zum Christentum durch das Alte Testament (Leipzig: Dörffling& Franke, 1934), 70.


material is either diminished in importance, relegated to other literary layers that areeither pre-Deuteronomic or post-Deuteronomic, or simply overlooked.

Only through such procedures was Deuteronomy redeemed from being law and transformedinto a homily by von Rad. The two remain mutually exclusive categories. In von Rad’s view,it was only through secondary additions that Deuteronomy began to show “a certain prepon-derance of Law over Gospel” (eine gewisse Präponderanz des Gesetzes gegenüber demEvangelium).41

41 Ibid., 50.


1N

atio

nals

ozia

listi

sche

Deu

tsch

e A

rber

iter

part

ei(N

SDA

P),p

opul

arly

kno

wn

as “

Naz

is”

2K

irch

enbe

weg

ung

Deu

tsch

e C

hris

ten

(“G

erm

an C

hris

tian

Chu

rch

Mov

emen

t”):

A m

ore

extr

eme

form

of

the

Deu

tsch

e C

hris

ten

in t

he S

tate

of

Thu

ring

ia

Year

Ger

man

yT

he K

irch

enka

mpf

Stat

e of

Thu

ring

ia a

ndU

niv.

ofJe

naFa

cult

y of

The

olog

yG

erha

rd v

on R

ad

1929

•Pub

licat

ion

ofEr

lang

en d

isse

rtat

ion:

Das

Got

tesv

olk

inD

eute

rono

miu

m•L

eipz

ig H

abili

tati

onw

ith

Alb

rech

t Alt:

Das

Ges

chic

htsb

ild d

es

chro

nist

isch

en W

erke

s(p

ublis

hed

1930

)

1932

July

:Naz

is1 be

com

ela

rges

t pa

rty

in R

eich

stag

(win

ning

37.

8% o

fvo

te

Nov

embe

r:G

erm

anC

hris

tian

s w

in 3

3% o

fse

ats

in P

russ

ian

chur

chel

ecti

ons

Ris

e of

KD

C2

1933

Hitl

er a

nd th

e N

SDA

P ga

inco

ntro

l of

Ger

man

go

vern

men

t

Deu

tsch

e C

hrist

ense

ekad

min

istr

ativ

e co

ntro

l of

vari

ous “

stat

e ch

urch

es”

•Jul

y:w

in m

ajor

ity

inna

tion

al c

hurc

h el

ectio

ns in

all b

ut t

hree

•c

reat

e th

e “R

eich

Chu

rch”

Sieg

frie

d Le

ffle

r •e

arly

Ger

man

Chr

isti

an a

nd K

DC

supp

orte

r•e

vent

ually

app

oint

edto

Thu

ring

ian

Min

istr

yof

Educ

atio

n (1

936)

Leffl

er w

orks

to m

ake

Facu

lty

ofT

heol

ogy

conf

orm

to K

DC

ideo

logy

Nov

embe

r:W

olfg

ang

Mey

er,a

rad

io p

reac

her,

appo

inte

d to

the

Cha

ir o

fPr

acti

cal T

heol

ogy

Ger

hard

von

Rad

:The

Chr

onol

ogy

ofhi

s K

ampf

um d

as A

lte

Test

amen

t


3St

urm

abte

ilung

,par

amili

tary

org

aniz

atio

n al

so k

now

n as

the

Bro

wn

Shir

ts

Year

Ger

man

yT

he K

irch

enka

mpf

Stat

e of

Thu

ring

ia a

ndU

niv.

ofJe

naFa

cult

y of

The

olog

yG

erha

rd v

on R

ad

1933

co

nt’d

.A

ryan

Par

agra

ph o

fthe

Civ

il Se

rvic

e La

w in

voke

d,re

stri

ctin

g “n

on-A

ryan

s”fr

om p

artic

ipat

ing

in

polit

ical

par

ties

,soc

ial

orga

niza

tion

s,an

d ot

her

like

inst

itut

ions

Deu

tsch

e C

hrist

en•i

nten

t is

to r

esha

pe t

heC

hurc

h in

Ger

man

y an

d-br

ing

it in

to c

onfo

rmit

yw

ith

Nat

iona

list

Soci

alis

tid

eolo

gy

Bek

enne

nde

Kirc

he(C

onfe

ssin

g C

hurc

h)

orga

nize

s in

opp

osit

ion

toG

erm

an C

hris

tian

s

Mey

er•l

acks

Diss

erta

tion

and

Hab

ilita

tion

•few

pub

licat

ions

(p

oliti

cal p

amph

lets

)

Wal

dem

ar M

acho

lzab

rupt

ly r

emov

ed to

mak

e ro

om fo

r M

eyer

1934

May

:Bar

men

Dec

lara

tion

publ

ishe

d by

Bar

men

Syno

d of

the

Con

fess

ing

Chu

rch

•def

ines

resi

stan

ce to

Ger

man

Chr

isti

ans

•att

empt

s to

rea

sser

tC

hurc

h au

tono

my

•res

ists

Gle

ichs

chal

tung

(for

ced

coor

dina

tion

)

Year

end

:chu

rch

vers

ion

of“A

ryan

Par

agra

ph”

is a

dopt

-ed

by

Rei

ch C

hurc

h

Jena

bec

omin

g on

e of

the

lead

ing

“bro

wn”

(Nat

iona

l Soc

ialis

t)un

iver

siti

es in

Ger

man

y

Wol

fgan

g M

eyer

rap

idly

adva

nces

at t

he U

nive

rsit

y•b

ecom

es D

ean

ofFa

cult

y of

The

olog

y•m

akes

con

cert

ed e

ffor

tto

ens

ure

that

Ger

man

Chr

isti

an a

nd N

atio

nal

Soci

alis

t su

ppor

ters

appo

inte

d to

Fac

ulty

of

The

olog

y•e

vent

ually

chan

ges

surn

ame

to M

eyer

-Erl

ach

(193

5)

Del

iver

s pu

blic

lect

ure

“Das

Erg

ebni

s”(T

heC

oncl

usio

n) F

eb.1

5 in

Leip

zig

•arg

ues

OT

is v

ital

wit

-ne

ss o

fChr

ist f

or c

hurc

h

App

oint

ed O

rdin

ariu

sat

Jena

•mem

ber

ofSA

3

•ass

umed

to b

e m

em-

ber

ofN

SDA

P

“The

Lev

itic

al S

erm

onin

1 a

nd 2

Chr

onic

les”

Year

Ger

man

yT

he K

irch

enka

mpf

Stat

e of

Thu

ring

ia a

ndU

niv.

ofJe

naFa

cult

y of

The

olog

yG

erha

rd v

on R

ad

1935

Nat

iona

l Soc

ialis

t re

gim

ew

ithdr

aws i

ts e

ndor

sem

ent

ofce

ntra

lized

Rei

chC

hurc

h

Popu

lar

oppo

siti

on to

Ger

man

Chr

isti

ans

grow

s Ex

trem

ist

KD

C c

ontr

ols

stat

e ch

urch

•ext

ends

its

influ

ence

into

the

pol

itic

al,

acad

emic

,and

theo

logi

cal

sphe

res

Apr

il 1:

Mey

er-E

rlac

hbe

com

es R

ecto

r of

the

Uni

vers

ity

•rec

eive

s on

ly e

ight

of

129

facu

lty

vote

s

1937

Hei

nz E

isen

huth

app

oint

-ed

Pro

fess

or o

fSy

stem

atic

The

olog

y •a

cade

mic

qua

lific

atio

nsno

t as

impo

rtan

t as

:•N

SDA

P m

embe

rshi

p•l

oyal

ty to

Hit

ler

and

Nat

iona

l Soc

ialis

m

Wal

ter

Gru

ndm

ann

appo

inte

d to

Cha

ir o

fNT

•no

Hab

ilita

tion

•onl

y m

inor

art

icle

s(i

nclu

ding

man

y po

liti-

cal p

amph

lets

)•N

SDA

P m

embe

rshi

p•a

ctiv

e w

ith

Ger

man

Chr

isti

ans

•res

igns

from

SA

•par

tici

pate

s in

ille

gal

cour

ses

held

by

Con

fess

ing

Chu

rch

•giv

es fr

eque

nt le

ctur

esto

stu

dent

and

chu

rch

grou

ps o

n im

port

ance

ofO

T fo

r C

hurc

h

•lod

ges

form

al (

but

futi

le)

com

plai

nt w

ith

Thu

ring

ian

Min

istr

yof

Educ

atio

n ab

out

brea

ch o

fG

erm

anac

adem

ic p

roce

dure

sth

at p

erm

itted

Gru

ndm

ann’

sap

poin

tmen

t



Year

Ger

man

yT

he K

irch

enka

mpf

Stat

e of

Thu

ring

ia a

ndU

niv.

ofJe

naFa

cult

y of

The

olog

yG

erha

rd v

on R

ad

1938

Nov

embe

r:St

ate

chur

chgo

vern

ing

coun

cil

abol

ishe

s th

e H

ebre

wre

quir

emen

t fo

r th

eolo

gyst

uden

ts

Mac

holz

ret

ires

;von

Rad

left

ess

enti

ally

alo

new

ithi

n th

e Fa

cult

y in

oppo

siti

on to

the

KD

C

Dec

.12:

Facu

lty r

esol

utio

nto

mak

e in

stru

ctio

n in

Heb

rew

opt

iona

l

1939

Kar

l Ast

el,R

ecto

r (1

939-

1945

)an

d SS

Hau

pt-

stur

mfü

hrer

•Pre

side

nt o

fLan

desa

mt

für

Ras

sew

esen

,Wei

mar

(act

ive

ster

iliza

tion

pr

ogra

m)

May

:Gru

ndm

ann

orga

nize

s “In

stitu

te fo

r th

eIn

vest

igat

ion

and

Erad

icat

ion

ofJe

wis

hIn

fluen

ce o

n G

erm

anR

elig

ious

Lif

e”•u

nder

the

dir

ecti

on o

fT

huri

ngia

n st

ate

chur

ch•t

he I

nsti

tute

’s ti

es to

the

Uni

vers

ity

rem

ain

prom

inen

t

Apr

il:El

imin

atio

n of

any

Heb

rew

requ

irem

ent

anno

unce

d an

d im

plem

ente

d

Aca

dem

ic y

ear 1

939-

1940

:N

ew c

ours

es a

dded

tom

ake

the

curr

icul

umm

ore

com

patib

le w

ith

Nat

iona

l Soc

ialis

m:

“Lut

her

and

the

Jew

s,”“J

esus

and

Juda

ism

,”an

d“T

he id

ea o

fthe

Rei

chas

afu

ndam

enta

l que

stio

n fo

rG

erm

an th

eolo

gy”

Das

form

gesc

hich

tlich

ePr

oble

m d

esH

exat

euch

s


1941

Con

fess

ing

Chu

rch

send

sst

uden

ts to

Jena

in su

ppor

tof

von

Rad

1944

Aug

ust:

Dra

fted

into

civi

l mili

tary

ser

vice

Year

Ger

man

yT

he K

irch

enka

mpf

Stat

e of

Thu

ring

ia a

ndU

niv.

ofJe

naFa

cult

y of

The

olog

yG

erha

rd v

on R

ad

1947

Deu

tero

nom

ium

-Stu

dien

(wri

tten

1945

–194

6)

1945

•Mar

ch-J

une:

Am

eric

an P

OW

(th

ree

mon

ths)

•upo

n re

leas

e,sp

ends

time

in s

umm

er h

ome

onC

hiem

see

•Fal

l:re

ceiv

es R

uf(o

ffici

al o

ffer

ofap

poin

tmen

t) fr

omG

öttin

gen

•no

wor

d fr

om H

euss

i•D

ecem

ber:

acce

pts

Göt

tinge

n Ru

f

Den

azifi

catio

n:•H

euss

i reb

uild

s Fac

ulty

•def

ends

Naz

i col

leag

ues

(Mey

er-E

rlac

h,G

rund

man

n,an

dEi

senh

uth)

•ign

ores

von

Rad

Gru

ndm

ann:

4

•los

es C

hair

•Eis

enhu

th a

nd M

eyer

-Er

lach

def

end

him

as

pers

ecut

ed b

y N

azi

anti-

Chr

istia

ns•a

ppoi

nted

Rec

tor

ofC

atec

hetic

al In

stitu

te(1

954-

1975

)

Eise

nhut

hac

quir

es h

igh

chur

ch o

ffice

•199

0:St

asi d

ocum

ents

conf

irm

gov

ernm

ent

knew

his

Naz

i m

embe

rshi

p

4 T.

A.S

eide

l,“D

ie ‘E

ntna

zifi

erun

gs-A

kte

Gru

ndm

ann’

:Anm

erku

ngen

zur

Kar

rier

e ei

nes

vorm

als

führ

ende

n D

C-T

heol

ogen

,”in

Wal

ter

Gru

ndm

ann:

Ein

Neu

test

amen

tler

inD

ritt

en R

eich

(ed

.R.D

eine

s et

al.;

Arb

eite

n zu

r K

irch

en-

und

The

olog

iege

schi

chte

21;

Leip

zig:

Evan

gelis

che

Verl

agsa

nsta

lt,2

007)

,349

–69.


Year

Ger

man

yT

he K

irch

enka

mpf

Stat

e of

Thu

ring

ia a

ndU

niv.

ofJe

naFa

cult

y of

The

olog

yG

erha

rd v

on R

ad

1948

1949

–19

71

2000

+20

05:E

xhib

it on

Fac

ulty

’sN

azi h

isto

ry —

“The

olog

ieZ

wis

chen

Hei

l und

Unh

eil”

Heb

rew

rei

ntro

duce

din

to c

urri

culu

m

Oct

.18–

21,2

001

Hei

delb

erg

Sym

posi

umin

his

hon

orN

ine

volu

mes

pu

blis

hed

(Alte

s Te

stam

ent

und

Mod

erne

ser

ies)

Hei

delb

erg

appo

intm

ent

1949

–195

3 G

enes

is,AT

D

1957

–196

0 T

heol

ogie

des

Alte

s Tes

tam

ent

1970

W

eish

eit i

n Is

rael

1971

D

eath

Deu

tero

nom

ium

,2d

edi

tion

bernard levinson_ reading the bible in nazi germany

Documents