[...here Schmidt critiques the limitations of von Rad's emphasis on "history"...]
Update: I was asked in the comments to briefly summarize this in English. Here it is:
In short, von Rad tries to hold 4 things together that historical-criticism threatens to separate.:
1) The confessional witness of the text and the historically particular intentionality of the text. The Bible, in its particularity, is kerygmatic.
2) The interelation between the facts of history and their interpretation (I'm not too sure what Schmidt was saying here).
3) God himself as the living object of the Bible's witness and the human witness to this.
4) God's deeds and his word.
Because Israel, in its historical witnesses, did not refer to its own faith but rather to Jahwe himself, in other words, because faith was not the "object," rather the "bearer, mouth" of its witness, the revelation of Jahwe in history in words and deeds becomes the object of a theology of the Old Testament.