Schlatter Reception Now: His Theology Robert Yarbrough

Robert Yarbrough is Professor of Past reception of Schlatter’s two-volume The only English-language monograph New Testament at Trinity Evangelical New Testament theology, now becoming yet to appear on Schlatter tries to depict Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He available in English for the first time ever,1 him as post-modern before such a thing has translated Werner Neuer’s biogra- may be readily mapped out. After all, as “the great ‘proto-narrative’ theologian phy Adolf Schlatter: A Biography of reviews of it have been in print for 70 years of the late 19th and early twentieth-cen- Germany’s Premier Biblical Theologian or more. But current reception would turies” existed.6 The mind boggles at the into English. He has also translated a seem more difficult to characterize, since attempt to enlist Schlatter, a critical real- number of other works written in Ger- the English translation has only recently ist who insisted that the historian could man, and has recently co-authored been completed, and there has been no see with his eyes and not just through self- Encountering the New Testament: A time for reviews to appear. tinted glasses,7 for the post-modernist Historical and Theological Survey (Baker, In any case, to assess current reception cause. Gerald Bray writes that Schlatter 1998). of Schlatter’s New Testament theology, first defended J. T. Beck and was a follower of several misconceptions need to be identi- Hermann Cremer.8 Neither of these fied. Otherwise, present consideration may claims can be sustained.9 be hampered by past misunderstanding. It is important to reconsider Schlatter’s A number of common opinions about place in the history of scholarship, espe- Schlatter are at least slightly skewed. For cially as it relates to recent New Testament example, George Ladd linked Schlatter theology. In some ways this assessment is directly to the Erlangen school. But this already taking place, for as stated below, view has almost nothing to commend it.2 Schlatter’s name and thought have influ- Leonhard Goppelt rightly notes that con- enced an astonishingly diverse set of New nections between Schlatter and Erlangen Testament theologians right up to the are formal and not genetic.3 James Dunn present time in spite of common misrep- and James Mackey seem to imply that resentations of his heritage and views. Schlatter’s main distinction is his use of This fact, combined with the availability the New Testament to “do” conservative of an increasing number of his works in theology.4 This is a distortion, not least English, suggests that Schlatter will because “conservative” is at best a vague remain a significant, though perhaps and crude characterization of Schlatter’s unnoticed, force for some time to come. theological outlook.5 Moreover, it over- In the interest of bringing clarity to this looks the fact that the majority of Schlatter’s rethinking, I will explore how Schlatter major scholarly works were rigorously both figures into and defies Bultmann’s philological and historical, not theological monumental treatment of New Testament as Dunn and Mackey use the term. To theology. Next I will comment on other imply that Schlatter primarily exploited the ways that Schlatter has continued to play New Testament for conservative theologi- a role in the methodological discussion so cal purposes suggests unfamiliarity with foundational to current New Testament the full Schlatter corpus. theology. I will conclude with a few 52 observations on grounds for his future theory of the early church’s syncretism importance. lacking. He also felt that scholarly aver- sion to acknowledging the plausibility of Schlatter and Bultmann ’ messianic claims pointed to an ob- Reginald Fuller notes, “Bultmann had duracy of modern scholars directly analo- a high regard for the theological side of gous to “the teachers of Capernaum and Schlatter’s exegesis, though he was poles the theologians of Jerusalem” in Jesus’ apart from him in matters of historical earthly days.15 Bultmann also lamented criticism and NT introduction.”10 Schlatter’s “peculiar inhibitions” in “all Bultmann agreed with Schlatter’s rejec- questions of historical criticism, especially tion of the “doctrinal concepts” approach where literary-historical investigation of to New Testament theology used by the gospels is concerned.”16 This itself those such as Bernard Weiss and Theo- seems a peculiar sidestepping of the dore Zahn.11 He also agreed with massive and cogent weight of critical Schlatter’s criticism of the history-of- argumentation comprised by Schlatter’s religions reductionism that replaced the linguistically rigorous commentaries on New Testament’s “theology” with “reli- each of the four Gospels, especially when gion.” Bultmann believed in theology— seen in the light of Schlatter’s numerous of a sort. But beyond this he parted historical monographs. Bultmann simply company with Schlatter, who believed refused to see much historically accurate that Jesus was the Messiah promised by reportage in the Gospels, while Schlatter in the Hebrew Scriptures, and that insisted that the historically constrained historical evidence centered in the first exegete was bound to acknowledge a century, primarily consisting of the New great deal of accuracy in them. Testament documents, supported this Where Bultmann followed Schlatter assertion.12 Accordingly, his New Testa- was in his refusal to separate the Denkakt ment theology affirms the conviction that (act of thinking) from the Lebensakt (act of the earthly Jesus actually possessed and living). Schlatter saw, correctly in exhibited what can only be termed divine Bultmann’s view, the New Testament prerogatives—an impossibility for Bult- documents and their message as both mann’s philosophical naturalist commit- products of and appeals to the will, not ments, which inclined him to affirm that just reflections of ancient intellectual Jesus became the Christ only in early processes of possible interest to modern church preaching. And this exaltation- intellectual agendas. The New Testament through-proclamation was the effect of is not just about thinking and ideas; it is Hellenistic influence, according to Bult- about living, about decision. While mann, whereas Schlatter saw the primary Schlatter did not push this in the direc- background of the four gospels’ presen- tion of the existentialist Entscheidung tation as real events and reminiscences (decision) which for Bultmann was the rooted in the Jewish soil of Galilee and act of faith itself, Bultmann saw in Schlat- Palestine.13 In Bultmann’s words, Schlatter ter’s work a nascent legitimization of his was oblivious to “the importance of Hel- program. lenistic syncretism.”14 For Schlatter’s part, Heikki Räisänen correctly notes that he found documentary evidence for the “Bultmann’s Theology of the New Testament 53 still stands as the unrivaled classic in its no clear recovery. In 1973 Robert Morgan field. There is hardly a shadow of a chal- translated and published William Wrede’s lenger in view.” 17 Some New Testament classic essay on New Testament theology theologians, like Jeremias18 and Goppelt from a history-of-religions viewpoint, (see below), reacted against Bultmann, pairing it with an equally formidable trea- while others, like J. M. Robinson19 and tise on method by Schlatter.22 Morgan’s Räisänen,20 have sought to go beyond accompanying 67-page essay rounds out him. But it would be foolhardy as yet to the volume. There Morgan makes his ignore him completely, and he will cer- Wredian sympathies clear. But his respect tainly be of central importance in the his- for Schlatter is apparent, too, for Morgan tory of the discipline as long as it endures says he “can be rated in the same class as in anything like its present form. Since [F. C.] Baur, Wrede, Bousset, and Bult- Bultmann’s importance persists, and mann.”23 Morgan also wisely comments, given that he took his bearings in some “In a state of methodological confusion it respects from Schlatter, Schlatter’s effect is generally wise to look to history to find remains very much with us in the current one’s bearings.”24 Schlatter stands as a discussion. It is with us particularly in the giant in that history, and Morgan shows willingness we see in those such as why Schlatter has continued to inform at Stuhlmacher, Hans Hübner, and Alfons least background debate regarding New Weiser to continue to pursue theology in Testament theology over the years. their historical analysis when Wrede, J. M. Also in the early 1970s there appeared Robinson, and Räisänen have called for Otto Merk’s landmark treatment of bibli- mere religious history instead (see below). cal theology’s rise and early history.25 This theological focus, whose existence Merk grants Schlatter monumental impor- in twentieth-century biblical studies is of- tance as a forerunner to Bultmann and as ten traced to Barth and neo-orthodoxy, continuing the tradition in New Testa- may owe at least as much to Schlatter. His ment theology stretching back to J. P. defense of theological sensitivities precisely Gabler. This trajectory, says Merk, tends on the part of the New Testament histo- to stress “interpretation,” the relevance of rian kept theology alive in his New Testa- theology for today, rather than “recon- ment work, and Scripture at the core of struction,” the analysis of past reality his dogmatics, a full decade before Barth in itself as determined by application published his Romans commentary.21 of modern historiographical tools and canons.26 But for Merk, Schlatter’s impli- Schlatter in cation in this line of analysis marks Schlat- More Recent Discussion ter’s fatal weakness as well. Quoting Kümmel, Merk writes, “The historical Robert Morgan, Otto Merk task, which Schlatter undertook to Schlatter’s current importance for New address, cannot be carried out using this Testament theology extends back to the approach.”27 In the end Merk accuses early 1970s. By that time Bultmann’s Schlatter of arriving at a “purely theologi- hegemony in the discipline had given way cal understanding of New Testament the- to at least a mild form of methodological ology” and of “sacrificing reconstruction chaos from which there has so far been for the sake of interpretation.”28 This 54 harsh verdict reflects the fact that Goppelt likewise followed Schlatter in Schlatter’s historical results, which see as keeping dogmatics per se separate from factual and concretely true the New biblical theology and defended Schlatter Testament’s so-called theological claims against Käsemann’s charge that Schlatter (like Jesus’ divinity and resurrection), are was a “theological pietist.”30 Goppelt anathema to the “historical” approach accorded Schlatter respect not least called for by Merk. What Schlatter thinks because of the way Bultmann acknowl- he has made sense of and given a coher- edged common ground with Schlatter. ent account of historically, Merk dismisses Also Goppelt’s approach is like Schlatter’s as nothing “historical” at all. At issue here in seeking to bring historical-critical con- is Merk’s confidence that Enlightenment sciousness into respectful dialogue with historical criticism has destroyed the New Testament claims rather than wood- notion that New Testament documents enly privileging modern consciousness like the four Gospels are historically cred- over and above those claims, as contem- ible, largely as they stand. Schlatter, in porary scholarship is wont to do. In other contrast, argued that no compelling his- words, whereas most modern New Tes- torical reasons existed for setting aside the tament scholars have let their methods be documents’ prima facie claims as descrip- dictated to them by the current largely tions of space-time phenomena as experi- secular worldview,31 Goppelt did not, at enced and later recalled by direct or least not to the extent that Bultmann did. secondary eyewitnesses. But for Merk, Goppelt’s major precursor and ally in this Schlatter’s approach to New Testament politically incorrect strategy was Schlatter. theology is a line of inquiry without a Peter Stuhlmacher has long champi- future in the modern setting, where the oned a return to Schlatterian insights in New Testament documents must be read New Testament theology. Partially in first in the light of contemporary, ulti- reaction to reactionary German , mately anti-creedal certainties. Merk’s Stuhlmacher has invoked Schlatter’s clearly modernist sympathies show no name to underscore “the rigor and neces- sign of losing strength in the discipline sity of historical criticism in theology.”32 despite the arrival of “post” modernism. Yet his appropriation of Schlatter serves to check, not abet, the theologically caus- Leonhard Goppelt, tic “criticism” championed by Franz Peter Stuhlmacher Overbeck and Ernst Troeltsch.33 Interac- Yet this negative verdict on Schlatter tion with Schlatter heavily informs has not prevented others from assessing Stuhlmacher’s “hermeneutics of consent,” his program positively and even taking which undergirds his approach to New their bearings from it. Leonhard Goppelt Testament theology.34 saw Schlatter as an important forerunner Stuhlmacher’s New Testament theol- of his own New Testament theology, not- ogy makes sparing but strategic mention ing the continuing importance of Schlat- of Schlatter.35 At one point Stuhlmacher ter’s essay “Atheistic Methods in Theo- is openly critical, disagreeing with Schlat- logy” and praising Schlatter’s “immense ter on the meaning of ktisis in Romans and superior history of religion/philologi- 8:19-21.36 But at a dozen other junctures cal investigation of the New Testament.”29 he affirms Schlatter’s interpretive tack. 55 Schlatter has rightly seen that “intellectual retention of the idea of revelation as an and existential understanding must coa- essential factor for a genuine understand- lesce” and has contributed to a proper ing of N[ew] T[estament] theology has not understanding of the method and con- been given the weight it deserves.”45 He struction of a New Testament theology.37 endorses Schlatter’s shrewd insight that Stuhlmacher follows Schlatter’s rejection “historical criticism is never based on fact of an adoptionistic reading of the open- alone, but always has its roots in the critic’s ing verses of Mark’s gospel.38 He affirms own dogma,”46 a truth still dawning on at a number of points Schlatter’s interpre- some who currently underscore this insight tation of “righteousness of God,” an as if they were the first to discover it.47 interpretation picked up by Käsemann Guthrie also follows Schlatter’s reasoning and seconded by Stuhlmacher.39 He also regarding the centrality of the canon for agrees with Schlatter’s insistence that Paul New Testament theology.48 Yet he appears did not view obedience to the law as to distance himself from Schlatter regard- itself sinful; the law in Paul has a positive ing “righteousness of God” in Romans,49 as well as condemnatory function.40 Most confirming that he did not simply become significantly, Stuhlmacher sides with Schlatter’s unthinking disciple. Schlatter’s contentions that “the earthly Hasel, perhaps influenced by Ladd, too Jesus was none other than the Christ of facilely blends Schlatter in with the faith” and that Paul was indeed “the mes- Erlangen school.50 He stands on firmer senger of Jesus” and not the founder of ground when he follows Robert Morgan some new religion that made illicit use of in seeing Schlatter’s similarity to the real Jesus.41 In both its general con- Pannenberg in the latter’s critique of an ception and in numerous specific posi- ahistorical “theology of the Word.”51 He tions adopted, Stuhlmacher’s New sides with Schlatter and against Morgan Testament theology probably reflects on the plausibility of Schlatter’s “conser- Schlatter’s exegetical toughness and vative” conclusions regarding the date hermeneutical sophistication more fully and apostolic authorship of most New than any comparable study written since Testament documents. Hasel concludes, Schlatter’s death. “Schlatter stands before us as a giant who has carefully considered the nature of the Gerhard Hasel, Donald Guthrie whole enterprise of N[ew] T[estament] Understandably, Schlatter has loomed theology but whose views have not re- large, at least in name, behind the scenes ceived the attention they deserve.”52 He of conservative works on New Testament rejects the claim that Schlatter was a theology like those of Gerhard Hasel and biblicist,53 a charge that Schlatter himself Donald Guthrie. Guthrie endorsed pondered and rejected as both inaccurate Schlatter’s theological openness42 and his and peculiar. Schlatter’s professor J. T. critique of over-emphasis on history-of- Beck might be called a biblicist, but religions parallels.43 He likewise called for Schlatter was fundamentally at odds with reconsideration of Schlatter’s conviction Beck’s ahistoricism. that the New Testament is fundamentally a unity, not a monument to disparate Brevard Childs, Hendrikus Boers diversity.44 He states that “Schlatter’s Additional recent “conservative” inter- 56 preters like Ward Gasque and Gerhard ity of history-of-religions research. But, Maier could be cited as explicitly support- unlike Bousset, Schlatter rejected the ive of Schlatter,54 and others like N. T. reductionism into which history-of-reli- Wright and Markus Bockmühl as at least gions analysis of the New Testament too implicitly supportive,55 but it is important often fell. Conceding the ties of New to note that New Testament theologians Testament writers to their religious milieu, of other stripes have wrestled profitably Schlatter never lost sight of their many with Schlatter as well. For example, points of contention, an insight that had Brevard Childs notes Schlatter’s impor- profound impact on the church historian tance in the history of the discipline.56 He Karl Holl.61 Boers seems to agree with observes that Schlatter is an example of Schlatter that “historical” inquiry of the how “much of the most profound and New Testament cannot be “neutral.”62 The critical reflection on the operated view that it can and must be was the claim with various philosophical and theologi- of, for example, William Wrede, an opin- cal categories, often as a vehicle for the ion commonly repeated today in works critical, descriptive task.”57 He praises such as Bart Ehrman’s New Testament Schlatter’s “remarkable study of faith”58 survey.63 Boers appears to agree with Sch- and says that in terms of theological latter that this conviction is mistaken. And reflection on biblical narrative, “Schlat- he agrees with Schlatter that a New Tes- ter’s handling of the life of Jesus in his tament theology undertaken with an eye New Testament Theology (Die Geschichte to the New Testament’s possible congru- des Christus) is another excellent model of ence with historic Christian orthodoxy is Biblical Theology….”59 Much could be not necessarily invalid “historically,” con- written on points of contact between tra Troeltsch and all who have followed Schlatter and Childs, but these quotations his lead at this point. Boers also praises suffice to show that the former has posi- Schlatter’s “sharp but correct” insistence tively influenced Childs’ important work. that “representing the New Testament Hendrikus Boers is another notable writers as if they thought in the abstract scholar who in devoting extensive atten- way of Greek thinkers leads to a distort- tion to Schlatter pays tribute to his impor- ing theology of the New Testament.”64 tance. He notes that the principles Yet Boers faults Schlatter, claming that discussed so insightfully in Schlatter’s he separated New Testament history from treatise on New Testament theology its temporal nexus, a charge that even Paul “remain influential in all subsequent Tillich refutes.65 Further, he complains that attempts at theological interpretation of Schlatter allows “present-day dogmatic the New Testament, even where the in- concerns to predetermine the outcome of fluence of Schlatter himself is not recog- historical inquiry.”66 Here Boers seems to nized.”60 Boers rightly presents Schlatter forget what he earlier praised Schlatter as a pioneer among twentieth-century for: the insight that modern “historical” scholars who have been aware of the nec- inquiry inevitably is informed by its own essary connection between New Testa- de facto dogmatics. That means that all ment faith and other first-century historical inquiry is at least conditioned religious outlooks. In other words, by present-day dogmatic concerns. The Schlatter conceded in principle the valid- question then becomes, whose dogmatic 57 assumptions can make the best claim to criticizes for his affinities with Schlatter account for, evaluate, and, where called and for suggesting that “atonement” is at for, appropriate the affirmations of the the center of biblical theology.72 Räisänen relevant ancient evidence. Boers’ conclu- rejects this because “this notion is rarely sion that Schlatter’s New Testament the- mentioned in, say, the Synoptic Gospels ology is “a dogmatic theology and should or Acts,”73 thereby perhaps tipping his be appreciated as such,”67 while meant as hand regarding the anti-confessional loy- a criticism, is actually just as true of any alties that give rise to his impatience with New Testament theology ever written. It Stuhlmacher and Schlatter. is not grounds for setting Schlatter to the Might Räisänen be correct? As for his side but is rather a testimony to the main- insistence that New Testament theology stream relevance of his modus operandi, must follow Wrede in moving beyond even if many of his critical conclusions New Testament theology, which histori- and doctrinal convictions have been cal criticism allegedly demonstrates is at rejected by the dominant twentieth-cen- best myth and fantasy, it is worth noting tury university theologians. that even non-evangelical New Testament scholars continue to turn out synthetic Heikki Räisänen treatments of the New Testament—New A thinker’s importance can be mea- Testament theologies—that focus on sured not only by those who support him (Christian) beliefs and not just “religion,” but also by those who oppose him. Heikki as Wrede, Räisänen, and others have Räisänen finds plenty to oppose in requested. Alfons Weiser’s treatment of Schlatter. He brackets him with Barth and the four Gospels could be mentioned here, sets both aside disparagingly as “spiritual for it explicitly repudiates Wrede and masters.”68 “Spiritual” is a negative term by implication Räisänen.74 Hans Hübner for Räisänen, as is “theology” if used to passionately rejects Räisänen’s program, refer to the New Testament, which he denying the necessity of hostility towards views as containing none. Räisänen writes the church and towards the kerygmatic dismissively that Schlatter’s New Testa- dimensions of the results of New Testa- ment theology “remains in the fetters of ment theology for the church in order dogmatics.”69 He does not deserve to be to perform historical-critical analysis of ranked with Bultmann, is wrong about the the New Testament.75 Räisänen’s rejection unity of the New Testament, and has little of Schlatter on the grounds that to offer because he is “unmistakeably... a prolegomena to New Testament theology figure from a bygone era.”70 He accuses is essentially meaningless when com- Schlatter of biblicism, disputes his focus pared to the actual results of that on the canon, and concludes, “Schlatter’s discipline’s labors is countered by Robert New Testament theology is, in essence, his Morgan, who notes the irreducibly theo- (systematic) theology, opaque in construc- logical nature of the discipline and states, tion of its argument and often presented “The theological orientation of N[ew] in a rather meditative manner. If the work T[estament] T[heology] as a theological as is understood in this way, it can even be well as biblical discipline means that it is appreciated.”71 Räisänen’s polemic largely concerned with theory.”76 extends to Peter Stuhlmacher, whom he Räisänen’s assurance in attempting to 58 marginalize Schlatter may have less to say irregularity. A milestone was reached in for it than he realizes. 1996 with the appearance of the first criti- cal biography of Schlatter,78 an impressive Schlatter and the Future of New work that quickly precipitated some three Testament Theology dozen reviews in Germany, nearly all of them positive. In North America, Roy Continuing Promise Harrisville has recently honored Schlatter Recent studies reveal deep sympathy with a careful discussion of Schlatter’s for Schlatter on the part of some, but seri- many similarities to Bultmann. Harris- ous aversion to him from others. This ville’s playfulness outruns credibility aversion is largely based upon restate- when, evoking Paul’s ode to agape in 1 ments of objections raised long ago, as is Corinthians 13:13, he concludes, “Now documented in the Köstenberger essay in Schlatter, Barth, and Bultmann abide, but this issue. These criticisms were offset at the greatest of these is...,” but he succeeds the time by positive reviewers and by in demonstrating that if Barth and Bult- Schlatter himself. Despite weighty charges mann remain valid discussion partners, against Schlatter and obvious imperfec- so must Schlatter.79 (We may leave to one tions in aspects of his work, it seems jus- side for now Harrisville’s failure to pay tified to conclude that he has hardly been attention to the profound differences discredited overall—there still remains a between Schlatter and Bultmann, differ- great deal to be learned from his hundreds ences so vast that in private correspon- of publications. And since this corpus is dence Schlatter spoke of Bultmann’s largely terra incognita today, the harvest atheistic tendencies.)80 from rediscovery of his work could be considerable indeed. After all, points at New Translations and Studies which some criticized him, such as his In the United States various transla- coherent vision of the entire New Testa- tions of works by or about Schlatter have ment so disparaged by Holtzmann, are appeared in recent years. Among these are points that others deem his great his Romans commentary81 and a short strengths. Perhaps Schlatter was deluded biography containing several key Schlat- and pulled many conservatively blinded ter essays, among them his renowned readers down with him. On the other “Atheistic Methods in Theology.”82 It hand, few read Holtzmann anymore, seems that in English-speaking circles, at while some thirty books by Schlatter are least, the coming years may see Schlatter still in print in Germany. Significantly, not acquire a significance not previously only his “theological” but also his histori- enjoyed as new translations overcome cal corpus is proving to stand the test of former language barriers. time.77 To be noted recently is the richly ironic Since Schlatter’s death in 1938 there appearance in Germany of a lengthy has never been complete neglect of his article by Fritz Neugebauer, “Wer war writings in German-speaking Europe, as Adolf Schlatter? (Who Was Adolf Schlat- commemorative volumes, doctoral disser- ter?)”.83 It is ironic in that it appeared in tations, monographs, and various critical Theologische Literaturzeitung, the same articles have appeared, albeit with some journal in which Emil Schürer in 1893 59 attempted to wreck Schlatter’s budding tion of Robert Morgan’s The Nature of New academic career with a devastating review Testament Theology.90 It is likely that this of Schlatter’s monograph on Palestinian event would give considerable impetus to geography.84 The irony is rich in that continued discussion of Schlatter’s pro- whereas Schürer was exquisitely dismiss- posals and example, in particular in con- ive, Neugebauer is soberly appreciative, junction with appearance of both volumes not only of Schlatter’s past achievement of his New Testament theology in English. but of his future promise. But Neugebauer focuses on Schlatter’s enduring philo- Conclusion sophical,85 hermeneutical,86 and historio- The intent of this essay thus far has graphical87 importance. What about his been to characterize, not advocate, Schlat- contribution, if any, to New Testament ter’s reception. But in conclusion, three theology and theologies yet to come? distinctives of Schlatter’s approach to A new monograph on New Testament New Testament theology deserve com- theology by Peter Balla in the WUNT mendation for the sake of encouraging series, Challenges to New Testament Theol- future interaction with his writings by ogy,88 vindicates at least some of Schlat- those interested in the study of New Tes- ter’s assumptions about New Testament tament theology. theology and the history within which One is his determined focus on the it arose. These include the relationship original language sources as we have between history and theology, the priority them in their historical setting. Without of orthodoxy to heresy in earliest Christian- resorting to, for instance, Childs’ canoni- ity, the canon, and the unity of the New cal strategy, which while admired has Testament. While Balla chooses not to in- drawn criticism from many sides, Schlat- teract with Schlatter directly, many of his ter’s model encourages painstaking inter- contentions find strong support by articles action with the text—not some and books in the Schlatter corpus. We have hypothetical source behind it, religious here, then, something of a Schlatter absolute allegedly beneath it, or Religions- redivivus in Balla’s arguments taken as a geschichte oblique to it. Robert Morgan whole, which is not surprising in light of grants this as one of the strengths of what the fact that Balla above all seeks to refute he calls biblicism: “it allows the text to the Wrede-Räisänen insistence that New challenge the interpreter.”91 In Schlatter Testament theology is both a misnomer this is not some sentimental loyalty to and an impossibility. A major difference Scripture, much less hermeneutical between Balla and Schlatter is Balla’s naiveté. It is rather a rigorous historical- rejection of revelation as relevant to an his- linguistic mission to make sure that the torical approach to New Testament theol- interpreter sees what is there. Observation ogy. This divergence marks Balla as a must precede judgment. Neuer calls “historical-positive” rather than a “salva- attention to Schlatter’s “‘theology of facts,’ tion-historical” interpreter89 and may not biblicistic but biblical, not confes- explain why Balla omits Schlatter from his sionalistic yet indebted to the Reformation study, an omission lamentable for how con- heritage, the knowledge of which facts is siderably it impoverishes his discussion. not found in ‘pious consciousness’ but in There is also the rumor of a new edi- the reality of salvation history and cre- 60 ation that has independent existence apart biblical theologian’s task. What Neuge- from consciousness.”92 If synthetic expli- bauer said of Schlatter’s biography is also cation of the historical manifestation of true of the Schlatter corpus in general: it earliest Christian belief is a goal of New is not so much a quarry to be mined as a Testament theology, and if painstaking treasure chest to be dipped into.95 observation of the primary sources is the A third strength of Schlatter’s approach perennial order of the day, Schlatter abides is his recovery of Jesus as prima causa for as probably one of the more suggestive the early church’s faith.96 Neugebauer mentors in the recent history of the disci- notes that modern scholarship’s focus on pline. The precedent he sets strengthens the life circumstances of the early church both sides of the task that New Testament and what it allegedly confessed makes it theology presents, the historical as well as the prima causa, Jesus only the causa the theological, by modeling first of all secunda.97 Of course in many approaches rigorous and resourceful exegesis. to New Testament theology, Bultmann A second promising dimension of the being the most typical among them, this Schlatter corpus is its attention to the is not seen as a weakness but a necessary importance of method.93 His masterful corollary to the modern secular impulse. theoretical reflections are at points even What is there besides man? In any case more valuable than his two-volume New Jesus was no more than a man, at least Testament theology proper. These reflec- from the standpoint of post-Christian tions, because of their hypothetical scope, scholarship. provoke and liberate the careful reader to But Schlatter saw things differently. In many a fruitful insight. Morgan comments a memorable dispute involving the Ber- that nowadays “the contexts of both text lin faculty where Schlatter was teaching and interpreter so complicate the question in 1895, university theologians received of the theological meaning of the Bible criticism for their hostility to confessional that biblical scholars can be pardoned for Christian belief in a statement issued by retreating to their own specialist tasks and churchmen at the annual Protestant leaving theology to the theologians.”94 But assembly. Schlatter supported this mea- this is a sorry state of affairs, for at the sured but pointed protest statement. same time many theologians would like When attacked in print by university col- for biblical scholarship to provide them leagues for his stance, the charge being solid guidance regarding the Bible’s mes- that siding with conservative Christians sage. It is no wonder that some theologies against the university endangered the drift farther and farther from organic con- freedom of theological science, Schlatter nection with Christian Scripture, for who replied quickly. At issue, he said, was not is doing historically rigorous work on the science’s freedom but the open unbelief Bible with an eye to the theologians’ ques- of the church’s ostensible teachers. The tions and calling? This is part of today’s question was simple: Who was Jesus? crisis of method in the discipline. Schlat- Schlatter expressed joy to be able to iden- ter’s extensive deliberations on both his- tify with common believers. “If colleagues torical and dogmatic method are a rich force the decision between faith in Christ source for gleaning insights and gaining and their ‘science,’ between the faculty resolve to execute the full gamut of the and the church, the church being those 61 who do not deny Christ, then in my ENDNOTES direct connection between Schlatter view the apostolic word still applies 1Adolf Schlatter, New Testament The- and Hofmann, even if features of today: ‘I regard it all as refuse.’”98 ology, Volume 1: The History of the their work vis-à-vis more secularly Schlatter concluded, “As long as Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997); minded scholars are comparable. God’s grace guides me, I will join the and Schlatter, New Testament Theol- Schlatter evenhandedly criticizes church in kneeling before the slum- ogy, Volume 2: The Theology of the both the (liberal) Ritschlian and bering child in the manger and the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Baker, in (conservative) Erlangen theologies God-forsaken figure on the cross, press). Andreas J. Köstenberger in Rückblick auf meine Lebensarbeit, confessing: My Lord and my God.”99 translates both volumes. 2nd ed. (: Calwer, 1977) 158. To some this may sound like melo- 2George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of 3Leonhard Goppelt, Theology of the drama. But to any who lament the the New Testament, rev. ed., ed. New Testament: Vol. 1, trans. John E. loss of gospel belief in the Western Donald A. Hagner (Grand Rapids: Alsup, ed. Jürgen Roloff (Grand world, whether in the form of the Eerdmans, 1993) 4. Cf. D. A. Carson, Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981) 278-279. desolating effects of scholarly move- “Current Issues in New Testament 4James Dunn and James Mackey, New ments producing the likes of Robert Theology,” Bulletin for Biblical Testament Theology in Dialogue (Lon- Funk’s Honest to Jesus100 or the insipid Research 5 (1995) 21 n. 15. Carson don: SPCK, 1987) 3. nominalism and traditionalism afflict- claims that J. C. K. von Hofmann’s 5As Peter Stuhlmacher, among many ing too many Bible-believing churches, “influence on Schlatter was signifi- others, has recognized; see Histori- Schlatter’s determination to live cant.” Hofmann (1810-1877) may be cal Criticism and Theological Interpre- out Christ’s lordship precisely as an regarded as the founder of the so- tation of Scripture, trans. Roy A. academician and churchman com- called Erlangen school. Carson may Harrisville (Philadelphia: Fortress, bined could serve both to challenge be following a recurrent and ill- 1977). and reform. founded Barthian charge that think- 6Stephen F. Dintaman, Creative Grace: The fact is that like few scholars ers like Cullmann, Schlatter, and Faith and History in the Theology of since the Enlightenment, Schlatter’s Hofmann are tainted by an illicit Adolf Schlatter (New York: Peter work holds promise at multiple lev- philosophical idealism, a charge Lang, 1993) xii-xiii. els and in several areas for the wide epitomized in K. G. Steck, Die Idee 7Note the anecdote recounted by range of concerns that converge when der Heilsgeschichte: Hofmann— one-time Schlatter student Otto the question of New Testament Schlatter—Cullmann, Theologische Michel, Anpassung oder Widerstand theology’s methods, goals, and prac- Studien 56 (Zollikon 1959). For an (Wuppertal/Zürich: R. Brockhaus, tice arise. When Don Carson lists “five example of an article that under- 1989) 25-26. stances essential to biblical theology,” scores the distance between Schlat- 8Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation it is hard to imagine the publications ter and Erlangen-style conceptions (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996) of a single scholar who better fulfills of Heilsgeschichte, see E. Güting, “Zu 331, 339. these desiderata than Schlatter.101 As den Voraussetzungen des systema- 9Schlatter makes his distance from New Testament theologians continue tischen Denkens Adolf Schlatters,” Beck clear in Rückblick auf meine to review the scholarly ideals and Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Lebensarbeit, 44ff. He concedes (ibid., theological promise of their discipline, Theologie 15 (1973) 132-147, esp. 147 46) that he resembled Beck, but only many sense that it could and should n. 80. It is telling that “Hofmann” in that he lived openly as a Chris- yield more constructive fruit in the does not even occur in the index tian in the university setting. See next century than in the somewhat of the new and massive Schlatter also Schlatter, “J. T. Becks theo- muddled previous two. Schlatter biography by Werner Neuer, Adolf logische Arbeit,” Beiträge zur might be of assistance in any reforma- Schlatter (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1996). Förderung christlicher Theologie 8/4 tion that gets underway. This fact underscores the lack of any (1904) 25-46. Schlatter was in no 62 sense a follower of Cremer. As col- Messianität Jesu” in Zur Theologie 26Ibid., 252. leagues at Greifswald (1888-93) they des Neuen Testaments und zur Dog- 27Ibid., 249. made common cause. matik, ed. U. Luck (Munich: Chr. 28Ibid., 250. 10“New Testament Theology,” in The Kaiser, 1969) 158. Stuhlmacher 29Leonhard Goppelt, 1:278. New Testament and Its Modern Inter- expands on this point (Vom Ver- 30Ibid. preters, eds. Eldon Jay Epp and stehen des Neuen Testaments, 2nd 31Cf. Morgan, Nature of New Testament George W. MacRae (Philadelphia/ ed. [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Theology, 27. Atlanta: Fortress/Scholars Press, Ruprecht, 1986] 174): “Schlatter 32Stuhlmacher, Historical Criticism and 1989) 575. insisted that the earthly Jesus was Theological Interpretation of Scripture, 11References in this section are to already the messianic son of God 44. Bultmann’s Theologie des Neuen and charged all opponents of his 33Ibid., 44-48. Testaments, in which he comments outlook with deficient capacity for 34Stuhlmacher, Vom Verstehen des explicitly on Schlatter. I cite the 8th historical perception. Since his Neuen Testaments, passim. While edition (essentially unchanged from opponents counter-charged that Stuhlmacher cites e.g. Luther, the first), ed. Otto Merk (Tübingen: Schlatter lacked powers of critical Schleiermacher, Bultmann, Barth, J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1980). discernment, and since no direct Fuchs, Gadamer, Ricoeur, and oth- The relevant pages are 585-599, scientific discussion ensued, the ers extensively, the index of this especially 597-599. For the English dispute remained unsettled, as it book refers to Schlatter more times translation see Bultmann, Theology remains to this day.” than to anyone else. of the New Testament: Vol 2, trans. 16Bultmann, Theology of the New Tes- 35Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblische Kendrick Grobel (New York: tament, 2:250. Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Vol. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955) 237- 17Heikki Räisänen, Beyond New 1, Grundlegung. Von Jesus zu Paulus 251. Testament Theology (London/Phila- (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup- 12The importance of Schlatter’s con- delphia: SCM/Trinity Press Interna- precht, 1992). viction that Jesus was the Messiah tional, 1990) xi. 36Ibid., 271. is underscored in the opening pages 18Joachim Jeremias, New Testament 37Ibid., 4, 11. of Peter Stuhlmacher, Jesus of Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus 38Ibid., 63. Nazareth—Christ of Faith, trans. (New York: Scribner’s, 1971). 39Ibid., 238, 335. Siegfried S. Schatzmann (Peabody, 19J. M. Robinson, “The Future of New 40Ibid., 341, 379. MA: Hendrickson, 1993). Testament Theology,” Religious 41Ibid., 157, 233. 13Schlatter well understood, and in Studies Review 2 (1976) 17-23. 42Donald Guthrie, New Testament The- fact anticipated, the point under- 20Cf. Räisänen, xi. ology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, scored generations later by Martin 21Cf. Peter Stuhlmacher, “Adolf 1981) 24-25. Hengel that Hellenism impinged on Schlatter als Bibelausleger,” 43Ibid., 24 fn. 11. Judaism in Palestine long before the Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, 44Ibid., 31. New Testament era. This point is Beiheft 4 (1978) 104 fn. 37. 45Ibid. palpable in numerous passages of 22Robert Morgan, The Nature of New 46Ibid., 34. both volumes of Schlatter’s New Testament Theology (London: SCM, 47Cf. e.g. Daniel Patte, Ethics of Bibli- Testament theology. See Hengel, 1973). cal Interpretation: A Reevaluation Judaism and Hellenism, 2 vols. (Phila- 23Ibid., 27. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, delphia: Fortress, 1974). 24Ibid., 28. 1995). 14Bultmann, Theology of the New Tes- 25Otto Merk, Biblische Theologie des 48Guthrie, 41. tament, 2:250. Neuen Testaments in ihrer Anfangszeit 49Ibid., 100 fn. 68. 15Schlatter, “Der Zweifel an der (Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1972). 50Gerhard Hasel, New Testament The- 63 ology: Basic Issues in the Current 63Bart Ehrman, The New Testament Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 262-299. Deines Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, (New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. points to Schlatter’s significant con- 1978) 69. On Schlatter and Erlangen, Press, 1997). tribution to Jewish studies in rela- see n. 2 above. 64Boers, 74. tion to New Testament times. 51Ibid., 42. 65Tillich wrote that his own theology 78Werner Neuer, Adolf Schlatter: Ein 52Ibid., 43. emphasized “that God is related to Leben für Theologie und Kirche 53Ibid. the world and not only to the indi- (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1996). 54Note the works cited in Andreas vidual and his inner life and not 79Roy A. Harrisville, “Translator’s In- Köstenberger, “Translator’s Pref- only to the church as a sociological troduction,” in What Is Theology?, ace,” in Schlatter, The History of the entity. God is related to the universe, eds. Eberhard Jüngel and Klaus W. Christ, 12 fn. 9. and this includes nature, history, Müller, trans. Roy A. Harrisville 55Note references to Schlatter in the and personality. May I add that (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997) 13-17. index of N. T. Wright, The New Tes- Martin Kähler and Adolf Schlatter 80Neuer, Adolf Schlatter: Ein Leben für tament and the People of God (Minne- were also in this line of thought. Theologie und Kirche, 656, 658. apolis: Fortress, 1992). In addition, They stressed the freedom of God 81Adolf Schlatter, Romans: The Righ- Wright’s critical realism, which to act apart from the church in teousness of God, trans. Siegfried informs his work across the board, either its orthodox or pietistic form” Schatzmann (Peabody, MA: Hend- has more affinities with Schlatter’s (A Complete History of Christian rickson, 1995). hermeneutic than Wright seems to Thought: Perspectives on Nineteenth 82Werner Neuer, Adolf Schlatter, trans. realize. See also Markus Bockmühl, and Twentieth-Century Protestant The- Robert W. Yarbrough (Grand Rap- This Jesus (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, ology, ed. Carl E. Braaten [New ids: Baker, 1996). “Atheistic Meth- 1994) 218 fn. 1, who calls Schlatter York/Evanston/London: Harper & ods in Theology,” translated by “brilliant but widely ignored.” Row, 1967] 235). David Bauer, appears in ibid., 211- Bockmühl’s careful attention to 66Boers, 75. 225. Jesus’ and the Gospels’ setting 67Ibid. 83Fritz Neugebauer, “Wer war Adolf within the first-century Jewish 68Räisänen, xiv. Schlatter?” Theologische Literatur- world is an extension of Schlatter’s 69Ibid., 25. zeitung 122/9 (1997) 770-782. historical and hermeneutical focus. 70Ibid. 84The story is told in Neuer, Adolf 56Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology 71Ibid., 25. Schlatter: Ein Leben für Theologie und of the Old and New Testaments (Min- 72Ibid., 80. Kirche, 280-284. neapolis: Fortress, 1993) 3. 73Ibid. 85No study on Schlatter’s impressive 57Ibid., 12. 74Alfons Weiser, Theologie des Neuen philosophical works has ever been 58Ibid., 15. Childs refers to Schlatter’s Testaments II (Stuttgart// published, but a recent Marburg landmark Der Glaube im Neuen Tes- Colgne: Kohlhammer, 1993) 13f. dissertation by Jochen Walldorf on tament (Leiden: 1885). 75Hans Hübner, Biblische Theologie des Schlatter’s is reportedly 59Ibid., 708. Neuen Testaments: Vol. 1, Prolegomena in press. 60Hendrikus Boers, What Is New Tes- (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & 86Schlatter receives considerable at- tament Theology? (Philadelphia: For- Ruprecht, 1990) 27f. fn. 60. tention not only in Stuhlmacher’s tress, 1979) 92. 76Robert Morgan, Anchor Bible Dic- Vom Verstehen des Neuen Testaments 61Schlatter’s impact on Holl is tionary: Volume VI (New York: but also in Gerhard Maier, Biblical brought out in Neuer, Adolf Schlatter Doubleday, 1992) 483. Hermeneutics, trans. by Robert W. (see “Holl” in index). Cf. Goppelt, 77See e.g. Roland Deines, Die Pharisäer, Yarbrough (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 262 fn. 14. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen 1994). 62Boers, 73 zum Neuen Testament 101 (Tübingen: 87See e.g. n. 77 above. 64 88Peter Belle, Challenges to New Tes- necessarily dependent on reading tament Theology, WUNT 2/95 the Bible as an historically develop- (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997). ing collection of documents,” (2) 89See Goppelt, 272ff. “must presuppose a coherent and 90See n. 22 above. agreed canon,” (3) “presupposes 91Robert Morgan, ABD, VI:477. a profound willingness to work 92Neuer, Adolf Schlatter: Ein Leben für inductively from the text—from Theologie und Kirche, 167ff. individual books and from the canon 93Schlatter’s most important reflec- as a whole,” (4) “will not only work tions are his “The Theology of the inductively in each of the biblical New Testament and Dogmatics,” in corpora but will seek to make clear Morgan, The Nature of New Testament the connections among the corpora,” Theology. The same essay is reprinted (5) “will transcend mere description in Neuer, Adolf Schlatter, n. 82 above, and linking of the biblical docu- 169-210). For a briefer but still ments, and call men and women to enlightening statement on exegetical knowledge of the living God.” and theological method see Robert Yarbrough, “Adolf Schlatter’s ‘The Significance of Method for Theologi- cal Work’: Translation and Commen- tary,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 1/2 (1997) 64-76. 94Robert Morgan, ABD, VI:475. 95Neugebauer, 778. 96Although Schlatter is not cited in Richard Bauckham, ed., The Gospels for All Christians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), the proposals of the essays resonate deeply with Schlatter’s views on Jesus’ primacy, and the function of apostolic tradi- tions and eventually writings, in the early Christian communities. 97Neugebauer, 780. 98Neuer, Adolf Schlatter: Ein Leben für Theologie und Kirche, 319. 99Ibid. 100Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996). 101Carson, “Current Issues,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 5 (1995) 27-32. Carson lists these essential features: Biblical theology (1) “is a discipline 65