Apocalypse, Enlightenment, and the Beginnings of Salvation History: the Ce Umenical Friendship of J
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Theology Faculty Research and Publications Theology, Department of 4-1-2014 Apocalypse, Enlightenment, and the Beginnings of Salvation History: The cE umenical Friendship of J. J. Hess and A. Sandbichler Ulrich Lehner Marquette University, [email protected] Pro Ecclesia, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Spring 2014): 219-239. Publisher Link. APOCALYPSE, ENLIGHTENMENT, AND THE BEGINNINGS OE SALVATION HISTORY Hess and .[ .١ The Ecumenical Friendship of A. Sandbichler Ulrich L. Lehner Reading and interpreting tile book of Revelation has been one of the most controversial tasks in Catholic exegesis since the Council of Trent, while most followed the preterist interpretation of Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (1627-1704) and saw in the biblical book predominantly a history of an- cient tim es-in particular of the persecution and the final victory of the church-som e remained convinced that it contained mostly information about fhe future state of the church.1 This future could, argued the futur- ists, be deduced from the text and a timetable of events constructed.* In the eighteenth century, interpretations changed dramatically. Futur- ism receded almost entirely and only made a comeback after the reign of terror during the French Revolution. Freterist interpretations were now preferred, and many exegetes attempted to build on the insights of Bossuet and improve his historical commentary. Yet some Catholic thinkers, who due to the increased quality of biblical scholarship during the eighteenth century became wary of simplistic preterist or futurist readings of Revela- tion, began to wonder whether a sound middle way between futurism and preterism existed, one that did justice to the theology of the book. In Dr. Ulrich L. Lehner, Associate Professor ofHistorical Theology, Marquette University, P.O. Box 1881, Milwaukee W I53201-1881. E-mail: ulrich.lehner@ marquette.edu 1. Ja^ues-Bénigne BGssuet, L'apocalypse avec une explication (Faris, 1689). For an introduc- tion see Jean-Robert Armogathe, "Interpretations of the Revelation of John: 1500-1800," ,(York: Continuum, 1998 ١٧€^) .Collins et al .١ Apocalypticism, ed. John /٠ in Encyclopedia 2:185-203. For Catholic futurists see Ulrich L. Lehner, "Apocalypse 2014: Post-Tridentine Catholic Exegesis of Revelation. The Futurist Commentary of Alphonsus Frey (1762),"Jour- nal ofBaroque Studies 1 (2014), forthcoming. 2. See, for example, Francisco Ribeira,In sacram beatijoannis Apostoli & Evangelistae Apoca- lypsin Commentarii (Lyon, 1593). F ro E cclesia V o l. XXIII, N o . 2 219 220 Ulrich L. Lehner the G e^n-speaking lands, the most prominent theologian of such a new approach that led to the introduction of "salvation history" into Catholic theology was the Salzburg Augustinian Alois Sandbichler (1751-1820). In ،his article 1 want to discuss how Sandbichler developed this new view through the mediation of his Reformed friend Johann Jakob Hess (1741-1828). Compared to other enlightened Catholics, many of whom have garnered fame for their exegesis (like Hug, Feilmoser, and so on), Sandbichler emerges as foe only theologian who developed a systematic salvation history in order to prevent a rationalist flattening of foe book of Revelation. CATHOLIC ENLIGHTENERS AND THE BOOK OE REVELATION During foe eighteenth century. Catholic theologians all over Europe be- gan a constructive dialogue with the Enlightenment process and devel- oped new paradigms for theological reflection. Their attempts to make Catholic doctrine intelligible to their culture and defend it against radi- cal attacks can be described as "Catholic Enlightenment." The spectrum of Catholic Enlighteners was considerable. One could indeed find think- ers who argued against marriage as a sacrament or for foe abolition of foe hierarchy, yet most intended a reform of foe theological disciplines with, rather than against, foe church. In foe last quarter of foe eighteenth century, Catholics in biblical studies especially began to find intellectual orientation in foe historical criticism of their Protestant peers. In order to understand Sandbichler's middle way, it is necessary to look at the main proponents of such an enlightened Catholic exegetical approach. They all attempt to historicize foe biblical accounts and reject any mil- lenarianism. Three main tendencies changed foe Catholic understanding of Rev- elation in and during foe Enlightenment. Eirst, following Protestant interpreters. Catholics slowly reversed "the traditional Danielic vision of world-historical descent through four monarchies" and replaced it with foe gradual ascent of reason or a more progressive hope, as outlined by foe Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1784) in his Sketchfor a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Wind (1795).3 Second, with this new, more optimistic yet historical interpretation, chiliast and futurist interpreta- 3. Robin Barnes, "Images of Hope and Despair: Western Apocalypticism, 1500-1800," in The Continuum History of Apocalypticism, ed. Bernard McGinn, ]ohnj. Collins, and Stephen I. York: Continuum, 2003), 323. See, for example, Claude Fauchet, He la religion ١٧^) Stein ,ch. 4; R. Hermon-Belot, "God's Will in History: The Abbé Grégoire ,( وnationale (Faris, 178 the Revolution and the lews," in Millenarianism and Messianism in Early Modern Europe, vol. 2: Catholic Millenarianism, ed. Karl A Kottman (Dortrecht: springer, 2011), 91-100. P ro Ecclesia V ol. XXIII, No. 2 221 tions fell under suspicion.* Third, fhe developments of historical-critical exegesis and foe rise of comparative religious studies enabled Catholic exegetes to reassess Revelation as a book written for a specific historical context. Catholic exegetes such as }ohann Jahn (1750-1816) followed in the footsteps of Protestants such as Johann August Ernesti (1707-1781), who rejected any mystical reading of the text in his influential Institutio interpretis Novi Testamenti (1761). Ernesti argued that an exegete's sole job was to find the sensus grammaticus or sensus literalis, through a thorough historical and philological understanding of foe text.^ Jahn, arguably foe most famous Catholic exegete of foe early eighteenth century, stated that Revelation contained images of the devil, which, although meaningful, were mere images of evil and not of a demonic reality.^ Johann Babor (1762-1846), a celebrated professor of biblical herme- neutics in Olmütz, Bohemia, whose works were endorsed by his Protes- tant peers, states in foe commentary to his translation of foe New Testa- ment that dogmatic decisions are "irrelevant" for foe historical-critical evaluation of a text: "If one wants toj u d g e foe aim and content of a book, one has to use the principles which are available for poetic and symbolic books. One must not disregard foe imagination and mode of description of foe Hebrew prophets of old."^ If one uses foe Hebrew prophets and prophecies as a key to understanding Revelation, then an important dif- ferentiation has to be made, Babor argued. One group of such accounts conveys a message to the prophet in clearly understandable words, foe other through symbols and mysteries. Prophets who were told future events in the latter mode must therefore have had supernatural help to explain foe otherwise obscure clues. Revelation falls into foe same cat- egory. It is the symbolic story of how Christianity will be victorious over paganism and Judaism. Nothing in it is about the future.® highly وHeinrich Corrndi (1752-1798), a reformed minister from Zurich, provided .4 critical account of chiliasm, on which many Catholic theologians relied. Heinrich Corrodi, Kritische Geschichte des Chiliasmus, 3 vols. (Frankfurt, 1781). 5. Johann August Ernesti, Institutio Interpretis Novi Testamenti (Leipzig, 1761), ch. 1, nr. 14-15, 10-11: "Eius porro observatio propria est Grammaticorum, quorum artis maxima et praecipua pars in eo versatur, ut quid verbum quodque tempore quoque, apud scriptorem quemque, in forma denique loquendi quaque, sonuerit, diligenter exquirant. Unde sensus literalis idem grammaticus dicitur, immo verbum literalis est latina interpretatio grammatici: nec minus recte historicus vocatur, quod, ut cetera facta, testimoniis et auctoritatibus conti- ".nisi grammaticus, eumque Grammatici tradunt [ أ] Itaque nullus alius sensus est ٠ ...netur 6. Johann Jahn,Nachträge zu seinen theologischen Werken, ed. Ernst Gottlieb Bengel (Tübin- gen, 1821), 97: "In der Offenbarung Johannis ist zwar der Teufel mit seinen Dienern sehr geschäftig, und spielet eine grosse Rolle; allein es ist hier alles bloss in Bildern dargestellt, die zwar etwas bedeuten, aber in sich selbst eben so, wie die gedichteten Farabeln, keine Wahrheiten enthalten, nichts Reelles haben." 7. Johann Babor, Uebersetzung des Neuen Testaments mit erklärenden Anmerkungen, vol. 3 (Wien, 1805), 65. 8. Babor, Uebersetzung, 3:115, also with references to Vergil's Aenid and Flato's Timaeus. Ulrich L. Lehner Johann Leonhard Hug (1765-1846), professor of exegesis in Freiburg, Breisgau, states in his important introduction to the New Testament (1808), which was also translated into English, his dissatisfaction with most In fact, he says, for no other book ؟.Catholic interpretations of Revelation of the Bible have exegetes produced such distorted interpretations. This he explains by the fact that, since the perdition of the ancient Jewish state, the Jewish way of thinking and writing has been forgotten so that Christians became unable to properly understand the images of the text.^ Only the recovery of ancient