{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02583423035522067, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001076426264800861, 'mean_word_length': 5.241610738255034, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
History and Tradition in the Prophet Amos

The historical nature of revelation has very often been emphasized in biblical theology in this century. All shades of scholarly opinion, from German existentialists to American archaeologists, have agreed that the biblical material is marked by a ’historical’ character. This unanimity has, however, been bought at the price of considerable ambiguity, as various scholars have understood the term ’history’ in widely different ways.’ The ambiguities have been most clearly exposed in New Testament scholarship in the contrast between Rudolph Bultmann and Oscar Cullmann .2 For Bultmann the important thing is ‘historicity’--existence in time within the limitations of humanity. For Cullmann, by contrast, the important aspect of history is the recollection of the mighty deeds of Yahweh as a history of salvation. In Old Testament scholarship the role of the ’history of salvation’ has