Theology and the Historicity of Faith in the Perspective of the Young Martin Heidegger1

Jeffrey Andrew Barash

In an article originally published in 1953, Rudolf Bultmann expressed the opinion that the theologian might legitimately profit from the analysis of existence (Existenz-Analyse) elaborated by Martin Heidegger insofar as, in his words, it is “through the latter that the same problem that has occupied and motivated theology is grasped, especially since Troeltsch; that is, the problem of history, which became particularly acute after the emergence of historical understanding of the Bible” (Bultmann 1966: 49-50). At a time when Heidegger himself, in the decades following the publication of Sein und Zeit (1927), had ceased to employ the term “Existenzanalyse” (or the related term Daseinsanalyse – analysis of human finitude), Bultmann’s reference to this concept is highly significant. His appeal to Heidegger, in a context in which he mentions Ernst Troeltsch, is still more revelatory since it evokes a lively debate in which both Bultmann and Heidegger were engaged during the 1920s. In this period in particular, Bultmann examined theological themes in light of Heidegger’s contemporary analysis of the “problem of history” which, in its manner of interpretation, called into question the approach to the past proposed by contemporary theorists of history such as Ernst Troelstch.2 In Troeltsch’s writings, and more generally in the contemporary field of the human sciences (whether defined as Geistesgeschichte or Kulturgeschichte, “history of spirit” or “history of culture”), the “problem of history” corresponded to the weighty methodological difficulty of attaining coherent criteria of judgment in view of the radical historicity of truth. And, Heidegger’s analysis of Dasein – as Bultmann also comprehended it – attributed the emergence of this problem to the absence in contemporary theory of a proper foundation for historical understanding. If Heidegger’s approach to the “problem of history” was significant for the reflection of theologians – Bultmann in particular – 94 Barash this was also because it was nourished by Heideggger’s lively interest in theology, which began well before the period of his direct collaboration with Bultmann following Heidegger’s appointment in 1923 to the position of associate professor (Extraordinarius) at the University of Marburg, where Bultmann also taught. Previously, during the period of World War I, Heidegger had distanced himself from the Catholic theological circles in which he had moved as a student at the University of Freiburg im Breisgau (1909-16). During his time teaching as an assistant at Freiburg (1919-23), he began an intensive study of Luther’s works along with critiques of recent forms of Protestantism as they came to expression in university life, emanating from the different perspectives of Sören Kierkegaard and Franz Overbeck. During these years prior to the elaboration of the Daseinsanalyse in Sein und Zeit, the principal aspects of historical interpretation that came to light in this work were adumbrated in the young Martin Heidegger’s investigation of theology. This relationship between the young Heidegger’s theological and historical reflection is particularly evident in a course taught at Freiburg in 1921, entitled ‘Augustinus und der Neuplatonismus’ (‘Augustine and Neo-Platonism’), which was first published in Heidegger’s collected works (or Gesamtausgabe) in 1995. In this course, Heidegger engaged in an open critique of Ernst Troeltsch and of two other authors whose theories of history were particularly influential in Germany: the theologian Adolf von Harnack and the philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey. Taking the young Heidegger’s course lectures on St. Augustine and neo-Platonism as our point of departure, this study will examine the relationship between historical thought and theological interpretation in Heidegger. We will briefly deal with three themes: 1) We will first examine the presuppositions of theologians such as Harnack and Troeltsch concerning the purpose of historical reflection. This will enable us to set in relief the common ground which these presuppositions shared with the broader current of “historical” or “liberal” theology, as it was commonly termed, and to show the relation between these presuppositions and the general theory of history presented in Wilhelm Dilthey’s conception of Geisteswissenschaft, as in theories of the Kulturwissenschaften proposed by Wilhelm Windelband and Heinrich Rickert. 2) We will then focus on the critical reception of the presuppositions concerning history common to liberal theologians and