Adolf Schlatter’s “The Significance of Method for Theological Work”: Translation and Commentary Robert Yarbrough

Robert Yarbrough is Professor of Like most disciplines, biblical research has both the flavor and some of the substance at Trinity Evangelical Di- its classic statements. A generation ago of what makes his approach so timelessly vinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. Samuel Sandmel produced one on the distinct.8 My translation appears below. Yarbrough has written extensively on the abuse of biblical parallels.1 A decade later Italicized section subheadings have been Gospels, and translated Werner Neuer’s F. F. Bruce commented authoritatively on added to clarify the half-dozen issues Adolf Schlatter: A Biography of the subject of the New Testament and clas- Schlatter succinctly addresses. Germany’s Premier Biblical Theologian. sical sources.2 Though hailing from quite Following the translation are remarks recent times, Leander E. Keck’s 1996 presi- corresponding to the introduction and to dential address to the Society of Biblical each individual part of Schlatter’s presen- Literature may likewise prove to be of tation. Since Schlatter’s significance lies perennial importance.3 not least in his critical realist approach New Testament theology’s classic state- during an age dominated by idealisms of ment is undoubtedly that of J. P. Gabler various descriptions, such a pithy presen- in 1787.4 But it is by no means the only tation of what amounts to his hermeneu- seminal treatise on the subject. As Robert tical method in nuce cannot fail to benefit Morgan’s The Nature of New Testament The- anyone seeking to learn from his counsel ology implies, essays by William Wrede and example. Hopefully it will encourage and Adolf Schlatter furnish examples of additional study of Schatter at a time ground-breaking methodological reflec- when American publishers are making tion of no less importance.5 It is not sur- works by and about him available on an prising that Morgan found Schlatter’s unprecedented scale.9 work of such value if he is in fact anything like Germany’s “premier biblical theolo- Translation gian,” to quote the subtitle of a recent Introduction. Many a well-meaning popular-level biography.6 theological effort fails because it raises the Although Schlatter’s essay first ap- suspicion that its method is deficient. Our peared in 1909, it is readily accessible to- spiritual leaders have good reason to take day, in English, in both the Morgan and this to heart because it is important for the Neuer volumes.7 But its length, profundity, church, not only that its leaders be recep- and wide-ranging scope makes it of more tive to scholarship, but also that they con- value to seasoned researchers in the field tribute effectively to it. But this is where than to readers whose grasp of New Testa- the suspicion becomes a serious hin- ment theology’s methodological complexi- drance: clergy tend to despise method, or ties has not yet reached terminal levels. fail to master it in such a way that their A shorter, generally overlooked article attempted scholarly work could make a by Schlatter called “The Significance of real contribution to learning. Method for Theological Work” furnishes Those confronted with this charge 64 sometimes respond that their critics’ zeal found suspicion that the work, whatever for method is only a pretense to hide their its merit otherwise, will go unheeded. aversion to taking ideas seriously that are Theological oracles, esoteric presentations foreign to them and run counter to their that rely solely on the assent of the initi- own views. Now in many cases the nar- ated and like-minded, have only damag- row-mindedness of a reader’s thought ing effect on theological thought in our process does account for his complaint present situation. about deficient method. But this fact must 2. The Mechanics of Thinking. The act of not obscure the serious importance of the thinking takes place in two stages: obser- methodological question. The greater the vation and judgment. After something is difficulties which we must surmount to implanted in our consciousness, whether arrive at even mutual understanding, let from without or within, in the course of alone agreement, the more true it becomes living, we subsequently exercise judg- that careful attention to our methods is an ment to determine the relation between essential condition for the success of our that something and the rest of our store work. The question whether the coming of knowledge. It is a weighty method- decades will bring defeat or progress for ological mistake when we, through our theology in Germany depends to a con- formation of ideas, hide from ourselves siderable degree on the skill with which or others the fact that the entire worth of we master the methods of scientific labor. our thinking depends on the execution of Below I compile a view major points the first stage—how we apprehend the regarding method. facts. The suspicion is still widespread, 1. Method of thinking. There is no special and not without substantial justification, method for theological thinking, as if its that the theologian utters only opinions, form were to be distinguished from our only combinations of concepts. These are other intellectual work. The object, not the perhaps intellectually suggestive, but the form, of our work makes it theology. Our theologian proceeds in such a way as to work is theological when it concerns itself give several impressions: that he did not with those incidents and processes through gain his concepts through observation; which bears us witness to himself in that he sought to exercise judgment with- such a way that our assurance of God re- out seeing; that he did not make clear to ceives its grounding and content. For the himself the seriousness of the task that apprehension and assessment of religious genuine observation places on him; and incidents and processes, however, we need that as a result he was merely concocting not utilize some mode of thinking that is a system and nothing more. Works which different from the one given to us all and generate this objection against them are through which we arrive at knowledge in dead in the water. This is true not only for all other connections. It is a weighty meth- the dogmatician but also for the historian. odological mistake when a work, whether For it is not only dogmatic work that be- historical or dogmatic, makes the claim to comes worthless when it is wrenched possess a special method in which its theo- away from the presence of facts and logical character consists, and this because dabbles only in abstractions: the historian it is valid for application only in the reli- likewise succumbs easily to a despicable gious realm. This is sure to raise such pro- system-building mentality in which the 65 apprehension of what he is actually look- view so that we are no longer able to ar- ing at is repressed by the judgments he rive at independent observation of them. has previously formed. We will continue to see exegetical works 3. The Tension between Parts and Whole. appear that show how the author pored The task of observation lies in the simul- over commentaries about the text but left taneous attempt both to sharpen and to the text unread. We will see dogmatic trea- broaden the field of vision. Every phe- tises which reveal that the writer knows nomenon we observe demands from us a his dogmaticians, especially from his own particular adjustment of our capacity to school of thought, but that he has never see. This introduces flexibility into seriously observed the religious matters method. It means that intellectual force that actually come to pass. Whether the must be brought to bear in the discovery self-gratifying originality of our intellec- and formation of those methods that are tual hermits, or the scholastic mode that helpful for the apprehension of the facts distills one new book out of seven old of the matter before us. Hindrances here ones—both are seriously weakening to will of course include the intensity of the our theological pursuits. observation-and-judgment process and 4. Individual Versus Corporate Certainty. the breadth of the field of vision possessed In the formation of judgment, a way of by the observer. In this connection every thinking proves itself to be correct in person has certain limits in intellectual method first of all in that the certainties capacity. The desired goal, however, re- through which we attain our judgment are mains for both historical and dogmatic clear to us with respect to their existence activity that we work our way up out of and their soundness. The fitness of intel- the two extremes of either specialization, lectual work rests essentially on the sharp- with its immersion in amassing of tiny ness of the control with which we oversee details, or the abstract trafficking in ac- the relations in which the matters we have cepted ideas that characterize our “disci- to observe place us vis-à-vis the store of plines.” Here we should also mention the knowledge we already possess. In the working out of healthy levels of interac- function of making judgments our own tion with older literature. It is a mistake productive power works far more po- in method when the observer depends tently than in observation; in judgments only on his own eyes and lightly esteems our entire intellectual repertoire con- the confirmation and correction of his field stantly makes its presence felt. For that of vision through the works of others. reason we must continually subject the Often theological publications give the judging function to attentive discipline impression of originating in a monastic that is alert to which components of our cell practically sealed off from the world; consciousness we combine with what we the author heeds only his own thoughts observe and assess, on the one hand, and and has not clarified to himself that the which ones we separate our consciousness intellectual task we face is a common en- from, on the other. In other words, we terprise. But the opposite mistake, scho- must be clear regarding the basis for our lasticism, also calls for our vigilant affirmations and disavowals. When a opposition. This occurs when secondary work is charged with having no method, literature buries phenomena from our that often means its judgments amount to 66 random links provided by the author’s ceptions into the unity of an entire struc- flow of ideas. At the same time the criti- ture. In historical work, however, we give cized work likely fails to make visible the the concept of truth a relative position, for certainties through which it receives its we leave undecided, for us personally, the justification. The concern, in itself justi- significance of the matters we observe. We fied, to stamp even the course of our think- consciously separate off our own connec- ing with our intellectual peculiarity has tion to them from the investigation. The done serious damage to our scientific dogmatic question is different. It does not work. Out of this arises the preference to only strive for what was true for others base the formation of judgment on those and gave them their religion. It takes a certainties which the thinker values as his further step, granting an absolute position own individual property, that which dis- to the idea of truth, so that we ascertain tinguishes him from all others. And so the what is true for us ourselves and how for course of thinking succumbs to an intel- us, and so for everyone, that truth be- lectual egoism that makes it worthless for comes God’s revelation by which we at- others. A mutation of this may be ob- tain relationship with him. Now it must served when the formation of judgment be conceded that the distinction between is derived solely from the certainties that historical and dogmatic judgment can are regarded as established for one’s own never be perfected to an absolute separa- group. Here intellectual work falls prey tion, because the historian in his histori- to a corporate egoism that thinks of noth- cal work can never deny himself in such ing but its own sect. The oscillations be- a way, can never annihilate his convic- tween the rationalistic ideal, which placed tions—and also should not—in a such a the act of thinking totally under the sov- way that they do not determine his his- ereignty of ideas regarded as generally torical observations and judgments. At- valid and thereby endorsed the sover- tempts to make of oneself a lifeless mirror, eignty of the majority, and the modern which only picks up and passes on life that impulse toward an individualist structur- is foreign to itself, are fruitless and both ing of our life including our deepest logically and ethically wrong. Just as little certainties, will continue to cause distur- can the dogmatician withdraw from his- bances in our theological work. The next torical work, since he can judge his con- goal, the attainment of which the meth- nection to the relevant facts only when he odological worth of our work depends, is has clarified them, first of all indepen- that we become able to reveal, not con- dently of his own goals, according to their ceal, both to ourselves and to others, the reality as given to us. An essential aid to certainties that are at work in forming the methodological aptness of thought our judgments. lies, however, in the fact that we set our- 5. Historical and Dogmatic Work. Another selves against the promiscuous intermin- aspect of the discipline that we owe to the gling of the two forms of judgment, the forming of our judgments is the distinc- historical and the dogmatic. We make tion between our historical and our dog- clear to ourselves what is now driving us. matic judgments. It is self-evident that Is it the conception of what has happened even in historical work we can never in the past on its own terms? Or is it the merely observe; we rather bind our per- grounding of the convictions and forms 67 of volition that lead us, which can find the same time binding them together in their content not only in our inner life but such a way that they move and fertilize also draw their content, in all of us, from each other reciprocally. the great events and processes that give 6. Etiology. Etiological judgments, at- shape to the world? A methodologically tempts to explain origins and causes of disturbing intermingling of historical and observed phenomena, occupy a place of dogmatic intellectual work is presently secondary importance in the domains of encountered especially in works that in both historical and dogmatic work. It is the guise of historical presentations for that reason a mistake in method when polemicize against the New Testament they immediately assume dominance and Christianity. Naturally, anyone is free over the formation of thoughts. The first to assume the role of polemicist against task, in which we have to confirm both the Christian sequence of thought. We are the sharpness of our capacity to see and dealing, however, with a corruption in the wealth of our judgment formation, idea formation, from both the historical consists in this: that we through the struc- and the dogmatic point of view, when the turing of our thoughts reproduce reality polemicist leaves his convictions, which with the fullness of its connections. It is ground within him his opposition to the true that this includes the task of gauging past, unnamed and untested, lying qui- the significance of causal processes for the etly in the dark. At the same time he no things that they brought about. But from doubt believes the illusion that he con- rationalism our science is still plagued cerns himself solely with the fathoming with the mania for explaining everything, of what happened in the past. This and explaining it right now—before the muddled hodge-podge of Dogmatik and relevant phenomena have even approxi- Historik is a perennial weakness of stud- mately been assimilated. This error ren- ies that employ the atheistic method—i.e. ders many scientific works so much chaff. studies that consciously and completely Commentary hold the idea of God far removed from Introduction. By “spiritual leaders” the observation of what has happened in Schlatter likely has in mind especially the past.10 The tension that is thereby in- pastors. In an age when many New Tes- troduced between what is being observed tament scholars in the German university and the observer unavoidably results in saw their work as having little or no di- the deformation of religious phenomena rect positive value for gospel preaching,11 from that which it once was into that Schlatter sought to produce work of value which, in the judgment of the observer, it to both academe and pulpit. But for the “must” have been. Our theologians have pulpit to benefit from the thoughtful la- a pair of great tasks before them; they bor of gifted specialists like Schlatter, must elucidate a “then” and a “now.” preachers must think and toil themselves They must understand what God once if they are to engage in “theological work” meant for others and what he now means worthy of the name. In Schlatter’s day as for us. For this reason our task so far as in ours, this did not always take place. For method is concerned consists in placing this reason Schlatter urges not only aware- these two branches of labor on their re- ness of and openness to scholarship but spective own independent bases, while at also an ongoing pursuit of it. This may 68 refer in part to academic publishing as bal conflagrations, interspersed with (in such, not impossible for some pastors. But Germany) three utter social breakdowns it refers most directly to the ongoing min- and the Holocaust and followed by a bitter istry of preaching, as week by week spiri- harvest of German theologies like those of tual leaders seek to take Scripture’s e.g. Tillich, Bultmann, Rahner, and (in my timeless words of yesterday and set them opinion) Moltmann.13 Schlatter’s words free to produce new life today in thirsty were eerily prophetic. It can safely be said listeners. This happens best when atten- that “the methods of scientific labor” as ap- tion is given not only to past verities but plied to Scripture resulted in far more de- also to currently emerging ones. Biblical feat than progress for coming generations. and theological scholarship is seldom the In our own time, with Dow Jones and total wasteland or barren “ivory tower” other cultural indicators repeatedly flirt- of populist mythology, and effective pas- ing with all time highs, yet moral, spiri- tors do their work cognizant of its debates tual, and geopolitical indicators at and findings. alarmingly low ebb, we cannot be sure But Schlatter foresees defensiveness on that we are not standing at a similar cross- the part of the spiritual leaders he wishes roads ourselves. There is need today, as to address. He knows that some will decry well, for renewed attention to the way we “method” because of the bad name given approach interpretation and ultimately to it by those who misuse it. One thinks in proclamation of Scripture. For the church our own time of the “methods” of the stands or falls, humanly speaking, by Seminar.12 How many flabby sermons on what it proclaims. And what it proclaims some gospel text, one wonders, have been has everything to do with how its leaders propped up by thunderous denunciations think, which it turn affects what they see of the Seminar’s notorious voting system when they gaze on Scripture—issues to and other controversial practices? Abusus which Schlatter now turns. non tollit usum, Schlatter responds—the 1. Method of thinking. Schlatter’s re- abuse of method does not nullify its right- marks in this section would answer well ful use. If pastors wish to communicate to a situation in which church leaders with listeners who have already been put were substituting raw intuition for solid off or misled by bad methods, or perhaps reflection. Sometimes “the Holy Spirit told by preaching or writing employing no dis- me” or “our church has traditionally cernible methods at all, the need of the hour taught” replaces the result of measured is for discipline in approach that will yield study of Scripture, persistent prayer, and better founded and more convincing fruit, reasoned inference. But these are probably not the abandonment of method itself. not the abuses Schlatter addresses. While One of Schlatter’s lines bears repeating: his statement challenges any form of spiri- “The question whether the coming decades tualizing special pleading, it relates most will bring defeat or progress for theology in directly to the widespread tendency of his Germany depends to a considerable degree time for academic theologians and ex- on the skill with which we master the meth- egetes to pursue “Christian” thinking ods of scientific labor.” Schlatter wrote in under the aegis of philosophical idealisms the heyday of Europe’s celebrated pre-war that amounted to flights from history in- cultural optimism. Thereafter came two glo- stead of solid attention to it.14 69 “Valid for application only in the reli- bling N. T. Wright’s more recent sugges- gious realm” are key words in this section. tions, Schlatter calls for a “critical realist Schlatter was well aware of modes of think- reading of history, paying due attention ing that in the name of new forms or meth- to the worldviews, mindsets, aims, inten- ods sought to understand, say, Jesus in a tions and motivations of the human be- totally different light. When Schlatter ings and societies involved.”16 “Esoteric published his essay in 1908, Albert presentations that rely solely on the assent Schweitzer’s now legendary account of a of the initiated and like-minded” century of pseudo-historical, ideologically (Schlatter’s words), not sober historical driven “Life of Jesus” research had been observation and analysis, were the basis out for barely two years.15 Justification for of much that claimed “historical” author- these various and generally disparate ity in Schlatter’s setting. One is reminded “new” interpretations will invariably be of current treatments of the New Testa- found in the author’s (sometimes covert) ment that rely on maverick understand- dependence on some philosophical or ethi- ings of Q and the Gospel of Thomas (Jesus cal “absolute” foreign to the ancient gos- Seminar), or on commitment to post- pel texts themselves. Examples would Bultmannian hermeneutics (Helmut include Reimarus’ commitment to rational- Koester), for their persuasive force. Or one ism, F. C. Baur’s belief in Kant’s categori- could also think of popular conservative cal imperative and utilization of Hegelian interpretation enamored of various right- dialectic, or Harnack’s indebtedness to wing political or eschatological visions. Ritschlian liberalism. Approaches like Such eccentric approaches may be exceed- these read the New Testament in the light ingly popular, but as Schlatter points out of patently modern hermeneutical con- they are sure to have “damaging effect on structs, not with the help of categories and theological thought.”17 assumptions drawn from the New Testa- 2. The Mechanics of Thinking. Schlatter’s ment documents themselves. This is where point here is basic but weighty. The value Schlatter’s words “mode of thinking … of intellectual judgment can never exceed different from the one given to us all and the soundness of the observations on through which we arrive at knowledge in which that judgment is based. Schlatter all other connections” come into play. What elaborates on this in another context: if we took other ancient texts and read them strictly in the light of today’s reigning cul- Where judgment cuts loose from the perception which is indispensable to tural norms? Wouldn’t this inevitably re- it, where the intellect’s productive sult in our finding there no more than what power tries to be in command and play we went to them assuming they would the creator so that what we produce is no longer connected with a prior re- contain? In biblical interpretation various ceiving, where thought circles around rationales have been used to justify pre- one’s own self, as though this could cisely such a “special method” (Schlatter’s create from itself the material from which knowledge comes and the rules words) in interpreting Scripture. by which it is to be judged, there we Schlatter demurs. Despite his utter in- have rationalism. It stands in irrecon- cilable hostility to the very basis of the dependence from anything resembling New Testament, because acknowledg- common sense realism, he lays down ing God is the direct opposite of ratio- common-sensical counsel. In ways resem- nalism. But this rationalism is at the 70 same time the road to dreamland and for the particular point he wished to make the death of intellectual integrity.18 but also and even more so in the preced- ing two verses: “I know that there is noth- It may sound curious to warn enthusi- ing better for men than to be happy and astic preachers about rationalism, but do good while they live. That everyone Schlatter’s point ought to be well taken. may eat and drink, and find satisfaction Biblical proclamation (as well as biblical in all his toil—this is the gift of God.” In scholarship) that does not proceed from other words, the choice is not a stark ei- sufficiently sound observation inevitably ther/or, the things of this world or God. runs the risk of the proclaimer proclaim- The biblical writer rather says that with ing self rather than Scripture. God’s help a spiritual fullness can be par- Observation (Beobachtung) must pro- alleled by a rich enjoyment of created ceed judgment (Urteil). Schlatter knows things—a point made by various other very well that the two acts are invariably biblical writers, as it turns out. intertwined in the knowing and willing Where did the preacher go astray? He of each individual interpreter. Still, failed to let observation sufficiently condi- through training, determination, and hu- tion his judgment. As a result, he ran afoul mility it is possible to see something be- of Schlatter’s strictures, proceeding “in sides our prior convictions in the text such a way as to give several impressions: before us. that he did not gain his concepts through Failure here results not only in aca- observation; that he sought to exercise demic fiascoes but, in the life of the judgment without seeing; that he did not church, in that all-too-familiar phenom- make clear to himself the seriousness of the enon: the sermon that says the opposite task that genuine observation places on of the text on which it is based. A recent him; and that as a result he was merely sermon from Ecclesiastes illustrates this. concocting a system and nothing more.” The preacher was determined to make the Nothing is more important than seeing point that pursuit of anything in life but what we are looking at (observation) before God will result in frustration. The point deciding what it says (judgment). But on this is largely true (though in a fallen world matter Schlatter has still more to say. pursuit of God results in frustration, too— 3. The Tension between Parts and Whole. but the preacher was too young or to en- In terms of sheer word count, Schlatter amored of his main point to mention this. devotes most of this section to the danger And it should also not be forgotten that of either over- or under-utilization of sec- in various Psalms, the wicked prosper and ondary literature, i.e. the published opin- experience great relative happiness quite ions of others. Over-utilization can crowd in opposition to God.). But the text he out observation and skew judgment be- sought to make his point from (3:14) was cause the interpreter falls prey to “scho- singularly ill-chosen: “…everything God lasticism,” the view that knowledge lies does will endure forever; nothing can be in what one’s intellectual forebears have added to it and nothing taken from it.” passed down. Under-utilization results in Therefore pursuit of anything but God a stunted vision, one that is idiosyncratic will lead to disillusionment. The trouble or ignorant of insights widely known and was not only in the weakness of this verse readily available from others. “Theologi- 71 cal work” as Schlatter understands it calls mation of those methods that are helpful for a balanced appropriation of the fruit for the apprehension of the facts of the of others’ labors. matter before us.” “Method” is not, then, His central burden here, however, lies a crude (or even sophisticated) meat in his plea that as interpreters we “work grinder through which data are passed— our way up out of the two extremes of ei- the way that, say, form critical or struc- ther specialization, with its immersion in tural “method” has sometimes seemed to amassing of tiny details, or the abstract function, or the way that the Jesus trafficking in accepted ideas that charac- Seminar’s “seven pillars of knowledge” terize our ‘disciplines.’” Words from N. operate.20 In Wright’s words, “the T. Wright once again illustrate Schlatter’s ‘knower’ must be open to the possibility point here. The interpretive task, insofar of the ‘known’ being other than had been as it is (as it must be, if it is Christian inter- expected or even desired, and must be pretation) historically conceived, “is not prepared to respond accordingly, not simply to assemble little clumps of ‘facts’ merely to observe from a distance.”21 and hope that somebody else will inte- In other words, “method” involves grate them.” The task is rather “to show constant adjustment, not wooden appli- their interconnectedness, that is, how one cation, and the presence of that rarest of things follows another, precisely by exam- all interpretive virtues: humility. Humil- ining the ‘inside’ of the events.”19 The ity is justified, as Schlatter next shows, challenge, then, is to move from mastery because the interpreter finds himself of particulars to an imaginative construal caught in a squeeze between his own con- of the whole—without the “imaginative” victions, on the one hand, and those of the component doing violence to the particu- group he identifies with, on the other. lars, and without the mass of particulars 4. Individual versus corporate certainty. To failing to inform the imaginative construal start this section Schlatter sketches the es- in a full and forceful way. sence of sound judgment formation: “the The difficulty here is not just the daunt- certainties,” the crystallized methods we ing vastness and complexity of the myriad employ to arrive at judgments, must have relevant details. Nor is it simply the chal- clear justification “with respect to their ex- lenge of arriving at overarching theories istence and their soundness.” By “existence that will free the data to reveal the truth and soundness” Schlatter surely means not inherent in them. It is that the interpreter that we declare a methodological premise must be constantly deepening and broad- justified and thereby give it “existence,” but ening the understanding that he or she that we do so on ample grounds. As we do brings to interpretation, along with in- this with adequate control (presumably creasing in mastery of the relevant details. growing out of valid “observation”; see Flexibility toward the emergent “new” above), careful not to let prior certainties becomes as important as consistency in exercise undue pressure on new data we light of the “previously established.” It is incorporate, we are on the way to the precisely here that “method” in the dy- proper use of method. Random or arbitrary namic sense Schlatter uses the term comes judgments raise suspicion of faulty to the fore: “Intellectual force must be method, absence of method, or perhaps brought to bear in the discovery and for- poor execution of method. 72 At this point Schlatter segues into the important dimension of our subject mat- hazards of two different but related dan- ter and will inevitably distort it by our gers. The one arises from myopia with interpretation. To be an “historian” with- respect to personal convictions. “Intellec- out an awareness of the dogmatician lurk- tual egoism” can result, from which no ing in each of us—for we all hold certain amount of rigor in method can rescue. But convictions, all uphold “dogmatics” in there is also “corporate egoism,” the herd that sense, and these convictions color our mentality of the academy. Examples observation—will lead to war against the would be the Ritschlian school and the sources to the extent that they contain history of religions school (both exerting claims which we find impossible (or in- great influence in Schlatter’s lifetime) and convenient) to affirm. Thus Schlatter -isms of various descriptions, whether speaks of “historical” works on New Tes- formal (existentialism, neo-Kantianism, tament topics that are actually polemical deconstructionism) or simply components essays against the New Testament. Why? (possibly held unconsciously) of the reign- The historian’s (hidden) dogmatics drives ing Zeitgeist (materialism, naturalism, him to disavow the existence of biblical practical atheism). phenomena or the meaning attached to Schlatter concludes by setting forth the them by biblical writers (e.g., that Jesus goal of becoming “able to reveal, not con- died on the cross, and this atoned for sin). ceal, both to ourselves and to others, the The (second century) Gospel of Thomas certainties that are at work in forming our becomes a more reliable index to early judgments.” While today there is the dan- Christian faith than the four gospels (ex- ger that fixation with method (currently cept for the Q portions of Matthew and taking the form of books on hermeneu- Luke). The New Testament’s Jesus, and tics) is overshadowing the actual practice the entire Gospel of John, becomes anti- of interpretation, the goal Schlatter called Semitic. The resurrection becomes a de- for, one never really taken up by scholar- lusion of wishful, guilt-generated ship in his time,22 is closer to being thinking on the part of a few visionaries achieved than in previous generations of (Paul foremost among them), which was biblical scholarship.23 picked up and furthered by subsequent 5. Historical and Dogmatic Work. Both are generations of befuddled “believers.” So needed, since Christian theology is an common are such “scholarly” reconstruc- admixture of the two. But Schlatter clari- tions that an “historical” understanding fies an important distinction between today commonly implies “skeptical and them. Historical method focuses on what disbelieving toward pre-Enlightenment was once true for others. Dogmatic Christian understanding of the Scripture method focuses on what we ought to af- in question.” firm as true ourselves. The ability to dis- But we can also be a “dogmatician” tinguish between the two, and to develop without adequate historical control. It is sophistication in the exercise of observa- likely that many within evangelicalism are tion in both spheres, is vitally important exposed to this danger in their interpretive for fruitful scholarship whether for aca- method. Reduction of requirements for demic or homiletical purposes. knowledge of biblical languages, history, Otherwise we will be blinded to an and background studies in seminary cur- 73 ricula has left many pastors without the investigation from the dogmatic tra- dition, but to get them from the New tools needed to observe in Scripture any- Testament material itself.24 thing much more profound than surface answers to today’s “practical” questions Other applications of Schlatter’s call for about how to be “saved,” family life, per- division between, yet interrelation be- sonal finances, spiritual growth, psycho- tween, the historical and dogmatic task logical well being, and the like. verses would not be hard to imagine. But it are quoted copiously, but often with no should be clear by now what Schlatter sense of the historical milieu within which seeks to encourage, and how timely his their original meaning took shape—and in counsel remains in our own time. which contemporary application must re- 6. Etiology. For every incident and con- main rooted. But to remain rooted there it viction the New Testament records, any must be recognizable as having existed number of questions could be tendered, there. Sadly, for many interpreters “dog- and answers suggested, regarding the ori- matic” interests (or even sheer and crass gin, nature, duration, effect, and causal “practical” ones) predetermine the answers processes lying behind a given New Tes- that the Bible will give, because they pre- tament event or idea. Elsewhere Schlatter determine the questions put to it and the devotes many pages to the question of range of answers imaginable. Abstinence, how important the “how” question is for even celibacy, were categories of biblical New Testament interpretation.25 Here, teaching concerning sexual expression in however, he opts for making a simple New Testament times; without that histori- point. What the New Testament says is far cal insight will an interpreter living in the more important than our ability to probe sex-saturated West asking how to be ful- behind it and ferret out answers to “how” filled sexually be able to draw anything like questions. This does not mean “how” is a full-orbed answer from Scripture? Will unimportant. It is to say that understand- someone guilty of sin in God’s eyes be ca- ing of what is clearly visible must take pable of drawing convicting truths from precedence over speculation regarding Scripture if they are as dogmatically com- questions whose answers may always mitted to high self-esteem, to “feeling good elude us. “The glory of academic work is about myself,” and as reluctant to grieve not that it knows everything, but that it over transgressions as many seem to be? sees what the witnesses make visible and There is yet another danger of “dog- is silent when they are silent.”26 The same matic” interests truncating observation of holds true for theological work more what Scripture says in its fullest histori- broadly that proceeds from the bases cal sense. Schlatter writes: Schlatter sets forth here.

When one considers that the pur- ENDNOTES pose of dogmatic work is to gain 1 “Parallelomania,” Journal of Biblical Lit- knowledge, whereas the purpose of the New Testament word is beyond erature 81 (1962) 1-13. this to call men through God to God, 2 “The New Testament and Classical Stud- and when one recognizes that dog- matic work has been and must be in- ies,” New Testament Studies 22 (1976) 229- fluenced by later situations and 242. knowledge, it becomes advisable not 3 “Rethinking ‘New Testament Ethics,’” to take the questions that guide the 74 Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996) Below I will cite the Neuer edition. 12 See most recently Robert Funk, Hon- 3-16. 8 “Die Bedeutung der Methode für die est to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium 4 For the text in English see J. Sandys- theologische Arbeit,” Theologischer (San Francisco: Harper Collins, Wunsch and L. Eldredge, “J. P. Literaturbericht 31 (1908) 5-8. The 1996). For just one of numerous Gabler and the Distinction between new and definitive Schlatter biog- available provocative responses see Biblical and Dogmatic Theology: raphy by Werner Neuer sees fit to Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Translation, Commentary, and Dis- omit mention of it; see his Adolf Jesus (San Francisco: Harper Collins, cussion of His Originality,” Scottish Schlatter. Ein Leben für Theologie und 1996). Journal of Theology 33 (1980) 133-158. Kirche (: Calwer, 1996) 836. 13 This is not to say that none of these Gabler’s importance, though not ut- Stephen F. Dintaman draws on it in theologies have value. All are of ob- ter uniqueness, is pointed out at a limited way in Creative Grace: Faith vious theological and social impor- least as far back as J. C. K. von and History in the Theology of Adolf tance. It is, however, to say that all Hofmann, Die heilige Schrift neuen Schlatter (New York et al: Peter must be carefully sifted in order to Testaments zusammenhängend Lang, 1993) 21, 29, 119-121, 125. be of any use in furthering truly untersucht, vol. 11, Biblische Theologie 9 In addition to the biography already Christian thought and practice. I des neuen Testaments, W. Volck ed. mentioned, which contains newly think each is more reflective of mod- (Nördlingen: Verlag der C. H. translated primary sources in sev- ern intellectual conventions and cul- Beck’schen Buchhandlung, 1886) eral appendices, Schlatter’s Romans tural convictions than of the truth 4ff. Hofmann’s work was posthu- commentary is now available of Christ, the gospel, and the Scrip- mously compiled and reflects views (Hendrickson Publishers; Siegfried tures. Faulty methods are part of from some decades earlier in his life. Schatzmann trans.). His two-vol- why they lead astray; better meth- For the larger story surrounding ume New Testament theology is ods can enable constructive use of Gabler see e.g. Otto Merk, Biblische due out shortly (Baker Book House, their insights and interaction with Theologie des Neuen Testaments in Andreas Köstenberger trans.). forces they have set in motion. ihrer Anfangszeit, Marburger 10 See Schlatter’s important essay 14 For e.g. “The Attempt to Separate Theologische Studien 9 (Marburg: “Atheistic Methods in Theology,” in Faith and History” in Gerhard N. G. Elwert, 1972). Neuer, Adolf Schlatter, 211-225. Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics, Robert 5 Studies in Biblical Theology (second 11 Willam Wrede, one of Schlatter’s W. Yarbrough trans. (Wheaton: series) 25 (London: SCM, 1973). More leading contempories wrote con- Crossway, 1994) 215ff. broadly see the collection of classic cerning New Testament theology 15 Von Reimarus zu Wrede, published statements collected in G. Strecker, ed., that “like every other real science,” in English as The Quest of the His- Das Problem der Theologie der Neuen Tes- it has “its goal simply in itself, and torical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its taments, Wege der Forschung 367 is totally indifferent to all dogma Progress from Reimarus to Wrede. (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche and systematic theology” (“The 16 Wright, Christian Origins and the Buchgesellschaft, 1975). Tasks and Methods of ‘New Testa- Question of God, vol. 1: The New Tes- 6 Werner Neuer, Adolf Schlatter: A Bi- ment Theology,’” in R. Morgan, The tament and the People of God (Minne- ography of Germany’s Premier Biblical Nature of New Testament Theology, 69. apolis: Fortress, 1992) 118. Schlatter’s Theologian, Robert W. Yarbrough If critical New Testament realism contrasts with Wright’s in trans. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995). interpretion has nothing to say to various ways. But they also have 7 Adolf Schlatter, “The Theology of the the construction of doctrine, how much in common. New Testment and Dogmatics.” In much less concerned is it with prac- 17 For additional discussion see the Morgan (see note 5 above) it is found tical theology and homiletics—the subsections “Objections to the Ex- on pp. 117-166. In Neuer (see note 6 most pressing daily concerns for planatory Nature of Historical above) it is found on pp. 169-210. ministers? Work” and “New Testament Theol- 75 ogy and New Testament History” in [Wahrnemung] in close contact with Schlatter’s “The Theology of the reality” (Die philosophische Arbeit seit New Testament and Dogmatics” Cartesius nach ihrem ethischen und (Neuer, Adolf Schlatter, 196-210). religiösen Ertrag, Beiträge zur 18 Ibid., 196f. Förderung christlicher Theologie 10 19 Wright, The New Testament and the [Gütersloh 1906] 204). In the second People of God, 113. edition (Gütersloh 1910) the quota- 20 Robert Funk, Roy Hoover, and The tion appears on 213). Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The 24 Schlatter, “The Theology of the New Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus Testament and Dogmatics” (Neuer, (New York: Macmillan, 1993). For Adolf Schlatter, 206). an examination of the merit and 25 Ibid., 185ff. function of these pillars see my “The 26 Ibid., 191. Gospel according to the Jesus Semi- nar,” Presbyterion 20/1 (Spring 1994) 8-20. 21 Ibid., 45. 22 The number of books on hermeneu- tics published in Schlatter’s lifetime (1852-1938) in Germany could be counted on one hand with fingers to spare—none appeared between 1880 and 1928, for instance (L. Goppelt, Typos, Donald H. Madvig trans. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982] 15). With the help of obliga- tory neo-Kantian and reigning systems of academic ap- pointments, methods were often simply facilely assumed and then universally enforced within aca- demic schools. 23 In his own time Schlatter warned theologians of too much fussing with the formal appearances and results of thinking and not enough rigorous observation of reality: “We still squander too much energy on the logical training [Dressur; Schlatter uses a word that calls forth the image of teaching a dog to obey a command or perform a trick] of our thought processes in contradis- tinction to clear apprehension 76