64 Adolf Schlatter's “The Significance of Method for Theological Work”

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 New Testament 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 God 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.

Load more